A place to ask questions and add to probative and informative discussions associated with the various aspects of the field of fire investigation. -- FORUM RULES---BE CIVIL AND NO NAME CALLING, NO BELITTLING, NO BERATING, NO DENIGRATING others. Postings in violation of these rules can be removed or editted to remove the offending remarks at the discretion of the moderators and/or site administrator.
Re: Fire Cause Classification
Posted by:
J L Mazerat (IP Logged)
Date: July 03, 2022 10:03AM
When one looks at what is in and what is being removed from NFPA 921 it is important to understand why the NFPA formed the Committee on Fire Investigation. The National Fire Protection Association Technical Committee on Fire Investigations was formed for the purpose of having primary responsibility for documents relating to techniques to be used in investigating fire, and equipment and facilities designed to assist or to be used in developing or verifying data needed by fire investigators in the determination of the origin and development of hostile fires. The question is now, is the committee complying with the stated goal.
The first thing I notice is that the goal goes beyond just the establishment of the origin and cause. The goal also relates to the development of the fire. Does the development include responsibility, and does this include intent? When discussing the development of the fire in Chapter 21 NFPA 921 list 14 areas of consideration for the investigator. Included in these areas of consideration are human behavior, and intentional acts. If one looks at the 14 areas of consideration all require some level of placing the blame for the fire and smoke spread. Each of these require a person to formulate a hypothesis for each of the 14 areas. If one is following the guidance of NFPA 921 there should be 14 different hypotheses developed besides the ones for the origin and cause.
Now if one is to follow the guidance of 921 as to identifying the responsibility for the fire one needs to consider 921’s definition of responsibility. 921 defines responsibility for a fire or explosion incident is the accountability of a person or other entity for the event or sequence of events that caused the fire or explosion, spread of the fire, bodily injuries, loss of life, or property damage. Is not 921 instructing the investigator to classify the person that is involved intent? NFPA 921 specifically states that it is the
role of the person who performs the analysis to identify responsibility so that fire safety, code enforcement, or litigation processes can be undertaken. It goes on to say that a series or sequence of events or conditions often causes a fire or explosion and the resulting spread, injuries, and damage. A failure analysis often shows that a change to any one or more of these conditions, acts, or omissions could have prevented or mitigated the incident. In this way, responsibility may fall on more than one person or entity. In such a case, multiple or various degrees of responsibility may be assessed. Now here is additional hypothesis that must be developed and tested.
All this leads one to classification of the events that not only resulted in the fire and the fire’s spread but through the classification placing the responsibility. Now they are wanting to remove any guidance on the proper way this classification should be conducted. This is why I wonder if the committee reads the information in their own document before making these decisions.
Jim Mazerat
Forensic Investigations Group