The difference between winning and losing a fire loss case might hinge upon the scientific principles applied during the investigation. The more complex the issues, the more difficult it can be to demonstrate that scientific principles were applied in an appropriate (and acceptable) manner.  If it comes down to a difference of opinion between a formally educated scientist or fire protection engineer and a fire investigator without these credentials, who do you think holds the trump card?

In court, an argument of scientific principles would likely fall in favor of the person with the most knowledge and experience. Becoming a fire protection engineer requires years of training in science and engineering, making them a valuable resource that can help lawyers make their case.

Proving Expertise

Finding a qualified expert witness in a fire loss case isn’t like finding expertise in other fields. For example, presumably all licensed medical doctors or certified public accountants have a degree of post-secondary education. This is not the case in fire investigation.  For example, neither of the national certifications for fire investigation (i.e., CFI or CFEI) require any post-secondary education. Thus, many fire loss investigators have not formal or rigorous training in science and engineering. A licensed fire protection engineer will ensure the some level of formal training, but there are other details that need to be discussed during the selection process.

To find a qualified expert witness, vetting is a must. Besides common checks like reviewing a CV and possible disciplinary actions in the past, lawyers should also confirm the fire protection engineering licenses up to date. A more nuanced detail is to check for professional membership with the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE). Many industries have their own trade group, some are more serious than others. Active membership with the SFPE is a good indication as to whether a fire protection engineer is keeping up to date with the latest science and news in the industry.

Have A Fire Protection Engineer In Your Roladex

Fire cases and fire litigation can be complex.  Knowing what questions to ask and what level of expertise is needed can be difficult to ascertain while still sifting through the ashes.  That’s why having a qualified fire protection engineer in your ‘Roladex’ can give you an edge.  If you want to understand the details of any fire scenario, get in touch with a qualified fire protection engineer with experience investigating fire losses, and they will be glad to help.

Richard Folaron

On November 9, 2010 a highly preventable welding explosion occurred at the DuPont chemical plant that employs approximately 600 workers and is located in Tonawanda, NY. The explosion killed 57-year old welder Richard Folaron instantly and injured one other worker. The U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB) recently released its draft findings report during a news conference in Buffalo. The CSB investigators found that overlooked safety hazards significantly contributed to the accident and have developed recommendations to help ensure that similar events are prevented.

Rafael Moure-Erason, Chairperson of the CSB stated:

I find it tragic that we continue to see lives lost from hot work accidents, which occur all too frequently despite long-known procedures that can prevent them. Facility managers have an obligation to assure the absence of a flammable atmosphere in areas where hot work is to take place.

The CSB investigation found that during welding on top of a storage tank, sparks and/or heat most likely ignited flammable vapor, which blew the top of the tank off. The report found that although DuPont monitored the space outside of the tank for flammable vapors before the welding began, they failed to monitor inside the tank. They also found a crack in a pipe that allowed the gas to seep into the tanks. The CSB issued several recommendations to DuPont to prevent future events, which included, “enforcing safety procedures for hot work permits and ensuring explosion hazards associated with hot work activity are recognized and mitigated; revising corporate procedures to require all process piping and vent piping be positively isolated before authorizing any hot work, and to require air monitoring for flammable vapor inside tanks and other containers where hot work is to be performed.” The CSB’s recommendations and findings were passed by DuPont’s Board at a public meeting on April 19, 2012.

If you are interested in learning more about this fatal accident, the CSB produced a detailed animation that depicts the events that led up to the explosion, “Hotwork: Hidden Hazards”.

The purpose of the research was to assess the impacts of communities in relation to water consumption. According to the National Fire Protection Association:

Water authorities have introduced strategies over the past three decades to recover costs for water consumed in sprinklered buildings. These fees are typically not related to the actual sprinkler flow, but address the fact that these flows are not metered and therefore not accounted for in conventional cost recovery systems. Fires that occur in unsprinklered properties that utilize water from hydrants, which are not metered, are typically not subject to fees. As a result, the study found that an owner of an unsprinklered building received the full benefit of unlimited water through the public water system during a fire without an increased cost, while the owner of a sprinklered building pays for the water used for commissioning, inspection, testing and maintenance (CITM) of the sprinkler system.

The study analyzed the total fire protection water consumption during a fire incident within various building types with and without sprinklers. Facility types included residential, business, assembly, institutional, mercantile, and storage buildings. In addition to analyzing standard estimates of expected water use in buildings with and without sprinklers, the Foundation also included estimates of water used during commissioning, inspection, testing, and maintenance of those buildings with sprinkler systems.

Through detailed analysis, the report demonstrated that in all scenarios that were studied, the water consumed during a fire in a facility with a sprinkler system was less than a building that did not have a sprinkler system. To read the full report of this interesting study, click here.

One of our existing clients was engaged in the design-build process for a new apparel distribution center in Alabama when they ran into issues complying with the prescriptive code requirement for egress travel distance. The code required a maximum 250 feet for egress travel, but in order to maintain operational efficiency, the facility needed an egress travel distance of 400 feet. Not only would complying with the 250 exit access travel distance interfere with operations, it would also mean added construction costs of at least $200,000 to create exit passageways, tunnels, or fire separation walls. Instead of trying to justify the code modification on their own, the client engaged our fire protection code consultants right away to help gain approval for a modification from the local AHJ.

After a thorough review of the applicable codes and building design, as well as a review of smoke and egress modeling we have conducted for similar facilities, our code consultants determined the life safety objectives of the codes would be satisfied, even if the exit travel distance was increased from 250 to 400 feet.

After reviewing our fire risk analysis and supporting justifications, the AHJ granted the code modification to increase the exit travel distance to 400 feet. Harrington Group’s fire protection code consultants delivered substantial value to the client by saving an estimated $200,000 in construction costs without compromising the safety objectives in the codes.

The favorable results of this project also further solidified the trust we have built over the years with the developer’s Project Manager, as evidenced in his quote below:

I have worked with Harrington Group for nearly 20 years and their commitment to delivering the most cost effective solution to meet both owner and code requirements continues to be unbeaten.  When I have a special life safety  issue HGI is the first group I consider for the job.

So what does this potentially mean for you if you have these types of liquids at your sites?  The simple answer is that based on the container type and capacity, a reduced level of protection, compared to previous requirements, is acceptable.

As an example, portable metal containers of 40 or more gallon capacity can be stored by themselves in any manufacturing or storage area of a facility, provided the sprinkler protection for the occupancy in the surrounding area is adequate and meets a minimum sprinkler design that is usually found in most manufacturing or storage areas.  Additionally, containment and/or drainage to control the fire exposure is not needed.  The important fact in this example is that the sprinkler protection is NOT based on the high flashpoint liquids, but rather the surrounding occupancy.  This means greater flexibility in your material handling of these products and possible cost savings due to the reduced level of protection needed.

Harrington Group can assist in a fire risk assessment to help evaluate your particular situation involving high flashpoint ignitable liquids for other container types and sizes and in offering the most economical solutions for adequate protection.

We are reminded once again of the dangers of faulty equipment, as recently in Appleton, Wisconsin, one person was admitted to the hospital with serious injuries after an industrial oven exploded at a commercial bakery. The facility manufactures fully baked frozen bread products and services food distributors and restaurants in five states.

The explosion occurred on April 4th, 2012 at 10:00 am. A news article indicated that a safety valve reportedly malfunctioned, which allowed for natural gas to build up inside the oven. The employee then attempted to light the oven, which ignited the gas and caused the door to blow off and strike the employee. Fortunately, there was no fire following the explosion. The employee was admitted into the hospital with serious injuries. There are no updates indicating the status of his condition at this time.

This incident is just another example of why it’s important to maintain, inspect, and test gas fired industrial oven and dryer equipment in your facility. This type of equipment is designed with several controls to help make certain your employees and your facility are protected. Periodic attention is critical in order to maintain the overall reliability of your systems. Harrington Group will soon post  a blog that will discuss five key elements to ensuring proper burner control function throughout the life of your equipment.  Check our blog site periodically to be sure not to miss this.

Today, fire safety solutions in warehouses have become a growing concern as warehouses have become massive. They are taller and filled with more commodities, including a variety of hazardous materials. These days, it is not uncommon for industrial warehouses to exceed the length of 10 or more football fields and include high-piled rack storage reaching heights of 100 feet or more above the floor.  In a recent article in the NFPA Journal, A Harder Look at Detection, Amanda Kimball states that, “…as the size of warehouses increases, so does the size of the required site. This has resulted in large warehouses built in more rural locations where land is more available. However, these areas often present problems in terms of water availability for firefighting, and the facilities constructed in these areas can be difficult, if not impossible, for small, rural fire departments to protect, depending on the fire.”

It is the Fire Protection Research Foundations goal, through this study, to provide information to develop guidelines and standards for pairing fire protection technology with today’s changing warehouses and their environments.

A recent study aimed to improve the standards of personal protection equipment was conducted by the National Institute of Standard and Technology (NIST) and sponsored by the U.S. Fire Administration. The study utilized realistic fire scenarios to further explore the correlation between equipment criteria and firefighting conditions. While manufacturers must submit their products for certification testing, according to NIST, the certification testing does not effectively capture actual conditions a firefighter might experience, such as temperature, heat flux, or duration.

Through their recent research, NIST is working to change that. Five types of SCBA facepieces from different manufacturers were tested using various real-life scenarios. NIST found that temperature and heat-flow conditions were shown to damage the lenses of the equipment. In two of the tests, the lenses bubbled, were severely deformed, and in one case, a hole developed. Respiratory protection, such as SCBA equipment, is an essential component of a firefighter’s personal protective equipment. When a firefighter’s lens fails, he or she can be exposed to toxic gases that could result in respiratory tract burns and asphyxiation.

While much was learned through the study, NIST indicated in that “more experiments are needed to understand the thermal degradation and more definitely predict the conditions that are likely to cause a facepiece lens failure”. If you would like to read the full report, please click here.

The results of not listening to your clients can be disastrous. Recently, a client of ours, who owns manufacturing facilities around the world, endured a property loss control insurance inspection at one of their key facilities that was a complete failure. I was there to witness it. The root cause of this failure was the insurance company representative who did not possess the ability to listen, nor the desire to even try.

A Favor Gone Wrong

This particular inspection was unique because a senior engineer was assigned to perform a “second set of eyes” inspection accompanied by the regular “junior” engineer assigned to the site.  A second set of eyes can validate the regular inspector’s observations and provide a fresh point of view. Normally, it’s a healthy business practice that benefits both the insurance company and the insured, but not in this case.

My role was to observe the inspection and assist by answering any questions the senior insurance engineer had about the various fire protection systems at the site or my client’s policies and procedures regarding property loss control.

This senior engineer spent an inordinate amount of time in the electrical yard.  This is where the main power lines from the power company come onto the plant property and connect to the main transformers and related equipment.  He remained in this electrical yard for several hours while he did a risk assessment and provided training to the junior insurance engineer.  During this time, I stood by and waited along with several plant employees.

Looking and Listening Longer

When the senior insurance engineer was finally finished, I questioned his intentions.  He explained that he had concerns about the electrical equipment and whether or not it met the insurance company’s loss control standards.  I then explained to him that the insurance company he worked for did not even insure the electrical equipment or anything related to failure of this equipment.  He proceeded to argue with me in front of our mutual client’s employees.  I suggested that he place a call to his company’s management and ask them.  We walked to the office and he made the call.  He turned red even before hanging up the phone.  He confirmed that his employer did not have any liability for damages arising out of the electrical equipment failure, and that essentially he had wasted several hours of our time needlessly.  This senior engineer had not even bothered to review the file prior to this visit and familiarize himself with the scope of services he was expected to perform.

This “second set of eyes” property loss control inspection was promoted by the insurance company as a value-added service.  Instead, it provided no value at all, and wasted the valuable time of several key plant employees who certainly could have used this time to better benefit.  This incident did severe damage to the insurance company’s reputation in the eyes of their client.  This occurred because the senior insurance engineer was the type of person who did not have the interest nor ability to listen and learn from others.

Before someone will care about what you know, they need to know that you care. It’s obvious when people jump to conclusions and make a judgment call before they’ve gathered the full story. If you aren’t listening to your employees or clients, you are destroying their trust.

Making mistakes simply means you are learning faster.  ~Weston H. Agor

An expert’s vision can naturally narrow, and most of the time, it’s an effective tendency. Tunnel vision is great for performance sports like golf, but most work related activities are more complex. When we begin to make assumptions about future events, we stop gathering information. Past success can lead experts to believe they can’t make simple mistakes.

Making Listening Routine

Since there is a natural tendency to jump to conclusions and focus on the information we think is most important, experts develop standard processes to solve the most common mistakes, like premature focus. These processes are developed from looking at the areas where most mistakes are made but can be easily prevented. Standardized assessment processes, like when you walk into a doctors office, keep experts gathering information despite their natural bias.

In the medical field, these routine processes are crucial since jumping to a conclusion too early can mean the difference between life and death. One of the most basic, universal medical assessments is called a SOAP note which includes a SAMPLE history. It’s standardized, easy to remember, and routine.

Routines can seem unnecessary, but they exist for a reason. Everyone makes mistakes sometimes, but in a professional environment, the stakes are high. Thousands of dollars could be on the line. A recent insurance inspection we observed at a client’s manufacturing facility showed us a classic case of what can happen when you don’t listen – Undermining Your Expertise.