Development of an Approach for the Investigation of Fire in Facilities - Research Proposal Example

Development of an Approach for the Investigation of Fire in Facilities Introduction Sometimes referred to as origin and cause investigation, fire investigation is the examination of fire related cases principally determining whether they involve arson or not, identifying hazardous practices, dangerous materials and products and establishing the effectiveness of building and fire code provisions. It involves the study and analysis of evidence at the fire scene and in the laboratory, consideration of witness statements and documentary proofs to determine the location of fire’s origin and its cause (Custer, 2004, pp. 328). Per se, as in all other forms of investigation, that which is relative to fire (investigation) is more than a set of technical activities as it is also an acquisition and rendition process. That is, an investigation includes acquiring of the data and information that are yielded by the accident, and learning and developing the significance conveyed by such data and information. Essentially, the process that it follows is inclusive and rigorous (Chicoine, 2000). In addition, since fire often destroys key evidence(s) of its origin, fire investigation is done with a great deal of difficulty and is made to follow several approaches. While there are professional bodies of firefighters (see NFPA 921, 2008) and textbooks on fire investigation (Chandler, 2009, pp. 129-156; Custer, 2004, pp. 334-335) that advocate specific approaches, Brannington et al. (2005) cite the two more general pertinent approaches. Accordingly, a popular approach involves the process of elimination of all known causes of fire until only the possible cause(s) remain while a reverse approach follows a determination of conditions that are present and could produce ignition – e.g., presence of heating equipment, possibility of electrical short circuit, smoking materials, and signs of explosion. This study is designed to provide a comprehensive view on the many fire investigation techniques and approaches particularly on fire in facilities. Notwithstanding that this paper is specifically focused on its subject matter, it expects to deal with great deal of information and data. And, as this paper is of limited number of pagination, it will simply make cursory presentations on these techniques and approaches in view of developing a particular fire investigation approach, and cite good practices relative to investigation of fire in facilities. Its significance consists in providing a bird’s eye-view on investigation of fire in facilities that will serve the need particularly by the public and the neophytes in the field for guidance and at the same time afford the professionals a précis on the current trends and thinking on their craft. Aims and objectives As said in the preceding, this paper generally intends to afford its readers with a comprehensive understanding of fire investigation techniques. Especially among the fire fighting community, this paper will surely provide the initial element of a systematic effort to address the problem of lack of clearly defined steps that must be taken to conduct fire investigation in a very efficient and thorough way possible. In particular, it aims to: 1. Review the techniques and approaches in the investigation of fire in facilities 2. Develop a specific approach for investigation of fire in facilities 3. Cite and recommend good practices of investigation of fire in facilities Literature Review A commonplace definition of fire – or, more particularly, uncontrolled fire – is consisted of descriptions of its destructive manifestations. Lexically, it is the active principle of burning, characterized by the heat and light of combustion. Or, it is a rapid, persistent chemical reaction releasing light and heat especially the exothermic combination of a combustible substance with oxygen (Nowak & Galambos, 1990, pp. 104). A more technical definition of fire in terms of combustion is provided by NFPA (2008), thus: Combustion is an exothermic, self-sustaining reaction involving a solid, liquid, and/or gas-phase fuel. The process is usually (but not necessarily) associated with the oxidation of a fuel by atmospheric oxygen with the emission of light. Generally, solid and liquid fuels vaporize before burning. Sometimes a solid can burn directly by glowing combustion or smouldering. Gas-phase combustion usually occurs with a visible flame. If the process is confined so that a rapid pressure rise occurs, it is called an explosion. The so-called fire triangle, or the three well-known requirements for fire, consists of the source of fuel, supply of oxygen, and source of ignition. Each one of these elements is always present in many forms, quantities and hazards in all buildings. Most fire prevention measures take into consideration the removal of one or more of these fire elements (Nowak & Galambos, 1990, pp. 105). Fire occurrences in workplace premises are classified by Holborn et al. (2002) as residential, residential-institutional, entertainment, industrial and storage, assembly and recreation, shop and commercial, and office. NFPA (2008) maintains that fire causes are accidental, natural, incendiary and undetermined. Characterized by absence of deliberate human action in the ignition of the fire, accidental fire is exemplified by failure of electrical or heat producing appliances, sparks from open burning, fire following a vehicle accident, storing combustibles too close to heat sources or careless use of smoking materials. Natural fire, however, is that which does not involve human intervention for ignition or spread such as the fire that follows earthquake, lightning, or resulting from electrical wires brought down by windstorms. Incendiary fire is human-caused – with the person deliberately igniting the fire. On this account, the NFPA (2008) is met with resistance from the people who were said to represent the fire fighting community after the document debunked the mythology – that is, when it’s hotter, it must be arson – of arson investigation. Finally, a fire with undetermined cause is that whose cause cannot be proven (Custer, 2004, pp. 333). When a fire breaks, a fire investigation – or the determination of its origin, cause and development – ensues. As such, its first step consists of attempts to identify the energy source and circumstances of ignition and the first fuels that are involved in the ignition. Briefly said, its first hurdle is to determine where the fire originated. Expectedly, this requires development of detailed information on various factors that have led or caused the fire. These factors may include the source of ignition such as the specific equipments that provide the heat that started the fire – e.g., the flame, spark or hot surface. Now, the determination of the point of origin would mean the consideration of factors that range from the obvious to the impossible. In some occasions, eyewitnesses’ accounts are enough to determine the origin of the fire. In other instances, it would require an examination of the exterior of the structure including the fire damaged areas such as the charring windows or smoke deposits in the attic vents, eaves and/or soffits. It may need to be established whether the doors or windows are open or close at the time of fire (Brannington et al., 2005). It is also concerned with the identification of the factors relating to the spread and extent of the fire and the resulting human injuries and property damage (Custer, 2004, pp. 328). Differently put, fire investigation is not limited to determining the cause of the fire. It should be including the examination of all the circumstances of growth and extension of fire (Brannington et al., 2005). There are many reasons for investigating incidences of fire (Burgoyne, 1982). It may intend to identify hazardous practices, as well as dangerous materials and products. It may endeavour to determine the effectiveness of building and fire code provisions. And, it may aspire to determine whether the fire is caused accidentally or by incendiary and, subsequently, apprehend and convict arsonist(s). Its overriding objective, though, is to reduce fire losses and prevent the occurrence of fire in the first place – which is accomplished through fire safety education programs and fire prevention codes built on the data and information that yields from careful and accurate investigation of fire incidences (Custer, 2004, pp. 328). Succinctly put, fire investigation serves the purpose of fire prevention. Fire prevention is said to include all fire service activities designed to decrease the incidence of uncontrolled fire. Besides fire investigation, fire prevention is realized through inspection to ensure enforcement of engineering and fire codes and standards, and public fire education programs. Inspection is the legal means to discover and correct deficiencies that threaten human life and property. Enforcement is implemented in the face of failure of other methods. Education informs and instructs the general public on the dangers of fire and on fire-safe behaviours. Good engineering practices and codes or standards provide safeguards that help prevent fire from starting and limit the spread of fire should it occur. And, fire investigation enriches fire prevention by indicating problem areas that may require corrective educational efforts or legislation (Carter & Rausch, 2007, pp. 120). Essentially, the process of fire investigation is built around the collection and analysis of evidence (that is, data), the development of alternative theories (hypotheses) of how the fire might have started and spread, and the testing of the alternative theories against the evidence collected and test results. Termed the scientific method by NFPI 921 (2008), this process follows basic steps and maintains that generally the theory that is most strongly supported by the evidence and requires the least complex explanation or sequence of events is most likely the cause (of the fire) (Custer, 2004, pp. 335). The scientific method of fire investigation was formalized by the NFPI 921 (2008) to the displeasure of people who claimed that fire investigation was less scientific than the other kinds of forensic investigations. As a consequence, these people maintained that investigators must be allowed to form and present their conclusions based on the traditional investigative methods (Lentini, [n.d.]). In the concrete, fire investigation starts off with fire scene analysis that aims to collect data to be used in developing cause theories. These data consist of information concerning burn patterns, fuel sources, ignition sources and evidence of fire spread. These are culled from interviews involving facility owners, occupants, passers-by, and first responders who are either the policemen or the firemen (Custer, 2004, pp. 335). There are two broad types of witnesses to fires – i.e., the people who were there when the fire started and saw it happen or arrived very shortly thereafter, and the people who were nearby and saw the fire event but were not close enough to see how it happened. The first group is usually of the most immediate help to the fire investigator. And, the second group is normally of help particularly on how the fire spread and what – if any – suspicious activities were there before the fire (Corbitt, [n.d.]). Likewise, it includes documentation of visual evidence in the form of still photos, videos, sketches and diagrams. Fire scene analysis is further enhanced by preservation and testing of physical evidence – e.g., fire debris – collected from the site of the fire. At the scene, moreover, documentary evidence such as business or personal records can be identified and collected (Custer, 2004, pp. 335). Further investigation after the fire scene analysis may need to be included in the investigation. For consistency (Pedrola, 2002), a fire investigation needs to follow the same measured steps comprising the systematic approach to fire investigation – i.e., recognition of the need, definition of problem, collection of data, analysis of data, development of hypothesis, testing of the hypothesis, and selection of final hypothesis (see NFPA 2008). The need for fire investigation is justified by the necessity to prevent future fires and identify responsible persons or products. Usually, the problem (which the scientific method attempts to meet head on) is defined by the need to determine where and how the fire started – which realizes the justification for fire investigation. The collection of data is primarily through the observation of fire flow and intensity patterns, interviews. Called empirical data, these are culled from observations and proceed from experience. Not confined to the physical fire scene, data collection is also served by follow up investigation, laboratory testing and results and literature review. After their collection, the empirical data is subjected to evaluation and review. Scientific that it is, the process uses inductive reasoning that uses the specific observations and follow-up investigation in the formation of possible hypothesis or hypotheses. Developing a hypothesis is tantamount to developing a scenario that strives to match the physical findings and support the investigation. While it is feasible to have more than one hypothesis, only one hypothesis is going to be correct. Unanswered questions on it – whether from fire behaviour, witness statements, or follow-up investigation, further analysis is going to be required until the reason for discrepancy is satisfactorily formed and explained. When the hypothesis does not match the facts, another hypothesis needs to be considered and developed. After the hypothesis is ascertained, it is going to be tested. With the use of deductive reasoning, the testing of the hypothesis is done by considering the expected fire behaviour from a suspected area of origin. Fire investigators consider, too, what the fire scene would look like if the origin was in another location. Importantly, the origin of the fire is tested for its ignition potentials. Finally, when the systematic investigation is completed, the empirical data incorporated, after the employ of inductive and deductive reasoning, and an origin and cause is developed, tested and confirmed, a final hypothesis can now be determined to be the correct scenario. The importance of having a consistently scientific method of fire investigation cannot be overly emphasized. Pedrola (2002) cites that standard operating procedures that are based on applicable laws, proven steps and verified facts are very likely to hold up with scrutiny. Actually, having a defined fire investigation protocol is a protection to firefighters and their organizations. For, in effect, such protocol translates into common denominator, similar rules and uniform procedures that fire investigators follow in incidences of fire (Carter, 2001, pp. 74). Otherwise, the inconsistencies in the way fire investigation is carried out result to – for instance – low prosecution rate. These inconsistencies in investigation effectively create questions about the strength of many cases and cast doubt on the capacity of (arson) cases to stand in court. For, at present, not only do lawyers use fire investigation guidelines and standards to dispute the investigators’ opinions. New interpretations of scientific evidence admissibility rules lead to new ways of discrediting expert testimony (Pedrola, 2002). Pedrola (2002) notes the characteristics of a fire investigation approach that is going to be very likely to work. Primarily, it needs to be very comprehensive so as to be able to guide the actions of all involved in the conduct of fire investigation and management of fire scene. The approach’s completeness is evident in the clear definitions of which actions are to be taken by whom even in different degrees of complexity of fire cases. Once a comprehensive fire investigation approach and procedures have been documented, the respective personnel need to be trained on these. It is only through these training opportunities that responsible people will be familiarize with the provisions of such an approach, and ensure coordinated response at the organizational level and not an isolated action at individual level. Methodology This study is planned to proceed through several stages. In the first stage, the proposal is going to be developed. The second stage includes a review of relevant literature. Publications – that is, journals, white papers, reports, standards, and other relevant documents – on the subject matter of this paper are going to be reviewed. The third stage would be concerned with the formulation of the design of the study that is based on the reviewed literature. The fourth stage would include a review of case studies – i.e., the method that is considered to form part of this study. The findings from the studied cases will be synthesized to develop an approach for fire investigation. The fifth stage would feature development of conclusions and recommendations, which are based on good practices. In the sixth stage, the dissertation is going to be developed. The resources available at the University are deemed adequate for the study. Human resources – such as the faculty members of the University for expert advice and the library assistants to assist in the research – are adequately sufficient. Material resources – e.g., computing resources, Internet, printing and photocopying, papers and other publications – are equally handy for this study. Timescale The table below contains the schedule for the study. The study is going to run for approximately four and half months. The proposal was developed over a period of two weeks in May 2010. The review of related literature was carried out in June 2010. The study design was finished on the first two weeks of July 2010. The case studies were done over a period of four weeks until the middle of August 2010. The conclusions and recommendations were finalized in the second half of August 2010. And, the dissertation is developed in the first two weeks of September 2010. Table 1. Study Schedule Stage Activity Date Deliverable One Development of proposal 05-15-2010 to 05-26-2010 Proposal Two Review of relevant literature 06-01-2010 to 06-30-2010 Literature review Three Study design 07-01-2010 to 07-15-2010 Study Design Four Review of case studies 07-15-2010 to 08-15-2010 Findings Five Development of conclusions and recommendations 08-15-2010 to 08-30-2010 Conclusions and recommendations Six Development of dissertation 09-01-2010 to 09-15-2010 Dissertation Conclusion There may be different approaches in the investigation of fire in facilities, but the overall method that is followed is one: that is, it is made sure that it meets the standards of scientific investigation. Fire investigation is a broad enterprise. It is not only concerned with the origin and cause of fire – as it is frequently understood. It is similarly concerned about the conflagration of fire, or the investigation of the circumstances that lead to the growth and extension or development of fire. In addition, the practical purpose of fire investigation cannot be understated. It informs the regulations that, in themselves, are aimed at protection of life and property. References Brannington, F., Bright, R. & Jason, N. (2005). Fire Investigation Handbook. Washington D.C.: National Bureau of Standards (US Department of Commerce). Burgoyne, J. (1982). The scientific investigation of occurrences of fire. Fire Safety Journal, 4 (3), pp. 159-162 Carter, H.R. (2001). The good leader must help to shape the organization. NFPA Journal, 74. Carter, H.A. & Rausch, E. (2007). Management in the fire service, 3rd ed. Sudbury (MA): Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Chandler, R. (2009). Fire investigation. New York: Delmar Cencage Learning. Chicoine, H. (2000). Theoretical foundation for fire investigation. The Investigation Process Research Resource Site. Retrieved 24 September 2010, from http://www.iprr.org/theory/hctheory.htm Corbitt, C. (n.d.). How to be a good witness to a fire. interFIRE. Retrived 25 September 2010, from http://www.interfire.org/features/how_good_witness.asp Custer, R. (2004). Fire investigation. In A. E. Cote (Ed.), Fundamentals of fire protection, pp. 328-348. Quincy (MA): Jones and Bartlett Learning. Holborn, P., Nolan, P., Golt, J. & Townsend, N. (2002). Fires in workplace premises: risk data. Fire Safety Journal, 37 (3), pp. 303-327. Kobes, M., Helsloot, I., Vries, B. & Post, J. (2010). Building safety and human behaviour in fire: A literature review. Fire Safety Journal, 45(1), pp. 1-11. Lentini, J. (n.d.). The standard of care in fire investigation. Retrieved 25 September, 2010 from http://www.innocencenetwork.org/docs/Lentini_Standard.pdf National Fire Protection Association (2008). NFPA 921: guide for fire and explosion investigation. Nowak, A.S. & Galambos, T.V. (1990). Making buildings safer for people: during hurricanes, earthquakes and fires. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Pedrola, J. (2002). Managing fire investigation scenes: executive analysis of fire service operations in emergency management. Retrieved 25 September 2010, from http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/pdf/efop/efo33863.pdf Read More