Fire Sector Summit 2019 NEWS


response; toxic release rate; buoyancy of fumes; dispersion; toxic effects; and large inventory – ‘complex issues’ with ‘little technical guidance’. A ‘complex risk balance’ exists between factors including heat generation; toxic material dispersion; plume liftoff; dispersion patterns; plume seeding fractions; mixtures that vaporise ‘and those that don’t’; and high wind frequency and direction. No offsite deaths are known to have been caused worldwide, but there is ‘lots of data on harm to nature’. The question that needs to be asked is whether this ‘should be taken into account in the building safety regime’.


The focus needs to be on smoke control, he stressed, showing relevant paragraphs in the report summary on the loss of compartmentation and fire spread that were peppered with the word ‘smoke’. Describing problems with designing for smoke control – including resistance to regulation, insufficiency of the A2-s1, d0 requirement of Regulation 7, and the role of toxic smoke – he advocated a test to support graded classification, proof of smoke compartmentation, and the ability to analyse toxicity, debris and damage classification. ADB Section B4 wording also needs amending; for example, the ‘external envelope’ should mean the whole external envelope and be extended to modular, as well as conventional flat pack buildings. Dr Evans encouraged industry to


drive change, as government does not listen, ignoring criticism of Advice Notes and numerous warnings about Class 0 and composite materials, the toxicity of products such as polyisocyanurate (PIR), and high pressure laminate (HPL) testing. If smoke is not regulated, he


warned, it ‘would be consistent’ for the government to reinstate BS 8414 after the review, while maintaining it had addressed shortcomings – ‘and with industry agreement’ – with no bar to manufacturers ‘flooding their products with chemical flame retardants to pass the test’. The solution? The FPA, MCRMA and


University of Central Lancashire should develop their own BS 8414 version, augmented with smoke and toxicity testing, in which common combinations of materials could be benchmarked.


Warehouse fires Graham Atkinson of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) explored toxic risks from warehouse fires, relating this to contaminations at Grenfell and Notre-Dame. With increasing public concerns over health risks, he asked ‘are they right?’, noting ‘we may have to consider this more in future’. HSE has been assessing risks from


chemical fires for ‘nearly 30 years’, and under the COMAH Regulations can ‘grant or withhold permission’ for storing toxic chemicals, and advise ‘for or against’ developments near sites. Identifying major accident hazards can help ‘assess the extent and severity’ of potential risks. There is also a legal responsibility to assess toxic fume risks, ‘motivate and guide’ improvements, and support a ‘let burn’ policy to ‘avert worse damage and risks’. It was ‘hard to prove there is not a risk posed by fumes’, and entirely possible to surmise a plume at Grenfell may have been 1km wide, 100m high and 290m long, though analyses are ‘excessively conservative’, and a ‘more realistic’ model was required. Key elements include frequency; timing of fire growth and structural


Toxicity risks Cambridge University’s Vitalina Chamberlain-Evans looked at toxicity health effects, the two types of which are acute, which harms quickly and can kill; and chronic, which causes long term problems. Fire toxicity is the ‘biggest cause of death and injury’, with carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen cyanide (HCN) common toxins. CO is naturally produced in the body, stored in muscles if there is too much, and removed in the lungs – over 30% concentration can kill, while 10 to 30% causes ‘reversible’ organ damage. HCN is 35 times more toxic, disrupts energy, kills cells and affects the brain. On smoke exposure, Mrs Chamberlain-Evans noted that studies of mice found that protein levels had changed – specifically related to immunity and cancer. Antibodies recognise and remember new molecules within the body, but the burning of manmade chemicals exposes us to molecules ‘not known to nature’. This means the body ‘can’t


defend itself’, while chronic exposure can affect a body at all levels, even DNA – smoke particulates enter through the lungs and gut, can cause genetic changes and stay in the body ‘forever’ when absorbed by organs. Referencing Professor Anna Stec’s Grenfell toxicity study, Mrs Chamberlain-Evans noted that acute and chronic toxins were found in ‘huge amounts’.


(Article continues overleaf) www.frmjournal.com DECEMBER 2019/JANUARY 2020 17


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60