Skip to content


Remembrance: Worcester Cold Storage Tragedy

No comments

Worcester Cold Storage Tragedy

On December 3, 1999, a five-alarm fire at the Worcester Cold Storage & Warehouse Co. building claimed the lives of six brave firefighters who responded to the call. These six heros, The Worcester 6, sacrificed their lives to try and rescue two individuals who were believed to be trapped inside the inferno. May the Worcester 6 always be remembered; “Fallen Heroes Never Forgotten.”

Firefighter Paul A. Brotherton
Firefighter
Paul A. Brotherton
Firefighter Timothy P. Jackson
Firefighter
Timothy P. Jackson
Firefighter Jeremiah M. Lucey
Firefighter
Jeremiah M. Lucey
Firefighter James F. Lyons
Firefighter
James F. Lyons
Firefighter Joseph T. McGuirk
Firefighter
Joseph T. McGuirk
Lieutenant Thomas E. Spencer
Lieutenant
Thomas E. Spencer

Remembrance: Worcester Cold Storage Warehouse Fire and the Worcester Six

No comments

Today December 3, 2011 marks the 12th anniversary of the Worcester Cold Storage Warehouse fire that resulted in the line of duty death of six courages brother firefighters.   

For those of you who remember this event, take the time to reflect and honor the sacrifice made this day; to those of you who have not heard about the fire before- take the time to learn about the incident, the firefighters, the building, the operational factors and challenges, the courage, fortitude and convictions that define the American Fire Service, it’s honor, tradition and brotherhood.   

The Worcester Six;   

  • Firefighter Paul Brotherton Rescue 1
  • Firefighter Jeremiah Lucey Rescue 1
  • Lieutenant Thomas Spencer Ladder 2
  • Firefighter Timothy Jackson Ladder 2
  • Firefighter James Lyons Engine 3
  • Firefighter Joseph McGuirk Engine

   

On Friday, December 3, 1999, at 1813 hours, the Worcester, Massachusetts Fire Department dispatched Box 1438 for 266 Franklin Street, the Worcester Cold Storage and Warehouse Co. A motorist had spotted smoke coming from the roof while driving on an adjacent elevated highway. The original building was constructed in 1906, contained another 43,000 square feet. Both were 6 stories above grade. The building was known to be abandoned for over 10 years.   

   

Size-Up: Report of the Week (ROTW)

No comments

 

Size-Up and Risk Assessment Skills: How are yours?

 

In this week’s issue of the National Fire Fighter’s Near-Miss Reporting System’s Report of the Week (ROTW) an informative focus was provided on near-miss reports related to Size-Up. We’re posting the ROTW alert in it’s entirety below.

Go over to the National Fire Fighter’s Near-Miss Reporting System and check out the resources and subcribe to the weekly ROTW today.

Sizing up a structure for a fire attack is a skill that takes time, practice and experience to fully develop. When the first arriving (and any other arriving) officer surveys the structure, the process needs to be rapid and thorough. In some cases, if the size-up is too rapid, critical points can be overlooked. This oversight can result in unintended consequences for the initial attack team.

As seen in ROTW 11-216, it is worthwhile to take an extra minute to process the situation prior to attack.

“We were dispatched to an attic fire in a single-family home. Initial arrival was an on duty engine and ladder truck with two firefighters and one officer, who gave an on scene report of a two-story wood frame residential structure with heavy smoke showing from the rear…After seeing three sides of the building, the officer (myself) ran around to back side and found heavy flames venting from the second floor gable end off the rear of the structure. At the time it was not known if this area was an attic over a first floor addition or a room on the second floor. The officer decided a quick interior search and fire attack, pushing the fire out the already vented hole, would be the initial strategy…After searching the first floor and finding no stairs, the initial team exited the first floor and went to the rear of the structure where an exterior stairwell was found to the second floor. On initial size-up, the stairwell and two mailboxes on the house were missed, causing approximately a one minute delay to fire attack…Upon entry to the second floor, conditions were a light haze with complete visibility of the occupied area…A small pike pole was used to breach the wall while the nozzleman stood ready and the third firefighter moved hose. After an area between the studs and about two feet tall was opened, the attack line was discharged. Conditions went from almost clear to black and steamy instantly. After spraying the nozzle for less than 30 seconds (maybe even sooner) the room became too hot to occupy. All three of us announced we had to get out, almost at the same time…”

Reading the structure is as important as reading the smoke and fire conditions prior to mounting an interior attack. Aesthetics can play a large role in the building design, and what appears to be structural may truly not be safe to load. As 11-216 illustrates, the fire blowing from an upper floor window may not be as visible on the inside as it is on the outside. Once you have read the entire account of 11-216, and the related reports, consider the following:

  1. The report notes that, “…exterior stairwell and two mailboxes on the house were missed”. What situational loss factor would best describe why that occurred? Go to our Facebook Page and record your answer and the reason why you selected the factor.   
    • a. Distraction
    • b. Fixation  
    • c. Overload
  2. What fire behavior phenomenon occurred when the crew opened the interior wall and experienced conditions that went from “clear to black”?
  3. If you were dispatched for fire in the attic and arrive to find heavy smoke and fire showing, what attack line would you select and why?
  4. Based solely on the information provided in 11-216, would a two out be necessary before the interior attack could commence?
  5. The reporter states “heavy smoke” was observed. Jot down a few factors that mean “heavy smoke” to you. Discuss what you wrote down with your colleagues. 

The time pressure to go into action when we arrive at a working fire will often cause the size-up to be hurried. Remembering the lessons learned from 11-216 will make your next size-up more complete. The NMRS staff expressed thier thanks to the lieutenant from Region V for sharing what was learned.

 

Related Reports- Topical Relation: Size-up    

Have you avoided a disaster because of a good size-up? Submit your report to www.firefighternearmiss.com today to pass on your experience.

Realize that the resource center and the near-miss reports are all formulative and can very easily support training drill development, just in time training, table-top discussions, scenario based exercises and review discussions with company, staff or command officers and all station or company personnel.NMRS Resource Section, HERE
 
Links:  
 
Near-Miss Reporting Form example, HERE
  • NFFNMRS Facebook Page, HERE
  • Past Report of the Week Library, HERE
  • 2011 Calendar and Annual Report, HERE

 

Got a Near-Miss Report to Submit? Click on the button for a direct link to the NFNMRS here

 Don’t forget to go to the National Firefighter Near Miss Reporting System for  number of exceptional training aids, resources, PPT and more. NFFNMRS, HERE

Supervisor cleared on all charges in Deutsche Bank Building Fire that killed 2 FDNY Firefighters

1 comment

AP Photo

 

5-5-5-5 August 18, 2007

Published reports are being stating that the least senior of three construction officials in the Deutsche Bank manslaughter trial was acquitted of all charges today — after telling jurors that he had no idea the giant pipe he helped remove from the basement had anything to do with providing water to firefighters.

A construction foreman charged with the deaths of two firefighters in the Deutsche Bank building blaze was acquitted of all charges. Salvatore DePaola was cleared by a Manhattan jury of manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide on the eighth day of deliberations.

According to reports published in a number of NYC newspapers; “It’s a happy day and a sad day,” said DePaola. “We’ve still got two firefighters that are deceased.” Firefighters Robert Beddia, 33, and Joe Graffagnino, 53 perished after they raced into the burning Ground Zero tower in 2007.

Prosecutors argued that DePaola, who works for the John Galt Corporation, and two of his colleagues should have known a key firefighting pipe had been cut. Salvatore DePaola, 56, of Staten Island, broke into tears as he was found not guilty of manslaughter and reckless endangerment charges in the August, 2007, smoke inhalation deaths of firefighters Robert Beddia and Joseph Graffagnino.

“I had no idea it was a standpipe,” DePaola insisted of the primary physical evidence in the case — a 42-foot section of pipe that all three defendants were accused of intentionally disregarding and discarding after it crashed to the ground from the basement ceiling nine months before the fire.

The jury is still deliberating in the case of DePaola’s colleague, site safety manager Jeffrey Melofchik.

AP Photo   Deutsche Bank office building Fire in New York
 

Jurors have yet to reach a verdict on identical manslaughter and endangerment charges against their remaining defendant, Jeffrey Melofchik, 48, who worked as site safety manager for the demolition’s general contractor, Bovis Lend Lease. They will continue their deliberations tomorrow.

A third defendant, project asbestos abatement director, Mitchel Alvo, 58, has opted for a non-jury verdict; Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Rena Uviller has not said when she will render that decision.

As to who he thought should have been prosecuted in the defendants’ stead, De Paola — whose own son is a firefighter at Engine 160 in Staten Island — made a reference to “lieutenants” with the FDNY before his lawyer advised him to remain silent on that issue, given that deliberations are continuing.

Today was the seventh full day of deliberations in the three-month-long trial.

Previous CommandSafety.com coverage:

Other References and postings;

  • NY Daily News: Battle to save trapped firefighters
  • WABC: Fatal Deutsche Bank fire report released (2008)
  • FDNY Penalties After Deutsche Bank Fire
  • Lawyers: Evidence Withheld in Deutsche Bank Fire Trial
  • FDNY Disciplines Company Officers Following Tragic Deutsche Bank Fire
  • Attorney Claims Deutsche Bank Contractors Are “Scapegoats”  
  • Three UK Fire Service Managers charged in LODD incident

    No comments

       

    Three fire service managers in charge of the operation at a south Warwickshire vegetable packing warehouse in which four firefighters died are to face prosecution for manslaughter. 

    The Crown Prosecution Service has decided that that Warwickshire Fire and Rescue Service managers Paul Simmons, Adrian Ashley and Timothy Woodward will face charges of manslaughter by gross negligence for the deaths at Atherstone-on-Stour in November 2007. 

    In addition, Warwickshire County Council will face a charge of failing to ensure the health and safety at work of its employees, under section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. 

    John Averis, 27, of Tredington near Shipston, Darren Yates-Bradley, 24, of Alcester, Ashley Stephens, 20, from Alcester and Ian Reid, 44, from Stratford, all died while fighteing the fire on November 2, 2007. 

    Four UK Firefighters Died in the Line of Duty

    Darren had married his sweetheart Fay Beesley from Chipping Campden only a month before he died. 

    Michael Gregory, reviewing lawyer in the CPS Special Crime Division, said: “Following a thorough investigation by Warwickshire Police and the Health and Safety Executive, I have reviewed the evidence in this case very carefully and I have decided that there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest to charge Paul Simmons, Adrian Ashley and Timothy Woodward with gross negligence manslaughter. 

    “Mr Simmons and Mr Ashley were Watch Managers and Mr Woodward was a Station Manager at the time of the fire, but they all acted as incident commanders before, during and after their colleagues were sent into the burning building. In that role they were responsible for making the operational decisions while their colleagues tried to put out the fire. 

    “I have also decided that there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction against Warwickshire County Council for failing to protect the health and safety of its employees and that it is in the public interest to prosecute. 

    “I send my sincere condolences to the families of these four men who died in such terrible circumstances.” 

    Nine other people investigated by Warwickshire Police in connection with the incident have been told there was insufficient evidence to take any action against them. 

    Related stories

    Previous Posting 

    CPS decision on Atherstone fire deaths 

    Three Warwickshire Fire and Rescue Service managers will face charges of manslaughter by gross negligence for the deaths of four firefighters in a warehouse in Atherstone-on-Stour in 2007, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has decided. 

    In addition, Warwickshire County Council will face a charge of failing to ensure the health and safety at work of its employees, under section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. 

    Ian Reid, John Averis, Ashley Stephens and Darren Yates-Badley tragically lost their lives in a fire at the premises of Wealmoor (Atherstone) Ltd on 2 November 2007. 

    Michael Gregory, reviewing lawyer in the CPS Special Crime Division, said: 

    “Following a thorough investigation by Warwickshire Police and the Health and Safety Executive, I have reviewed the evidence in this case very carefully and I have decided that there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest to charge Paul Simmons, Adrian Ashley and Timothy Woodward with gross negligence manslaughter.  

    “Mr Simmons and Mr Ashley were Watch Managers and Mr Woodward was a Station Manager at the time of the fire, but they all acted as incident commanders before, during and after their colleagues were sent into the burning building. In that role they were responsible for making the operational decisions while their colleagues tried to put out the fire.  

    “I have also decided that there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction against Warwickshire County Council for failing to protect the health and safety of its employees and that it is in the public interest to prosecute.  

    “I send my sincere condolences to the families of these four men who died in such terrible circumstances.”  

    Nine other individuals, who were investigated by Warwickshire Police, have been told that there was insufficient evidence to take any action against them. 

    The defendants will appear at Leamington Spa Magistrates’ Court on 1 April 2011. 

    • The CPS provided advice to Warwickshire Police and the Health and Safety Executive during the course of their investigations. Warwickshire Police passed a file of evidence to the CPS in August 2010 and submitted an outstanding expert report at the end of October 2010. The CPS received further expert advice at the end of January 2011, and received advice from a Queen’s Counsel on 14 February 2011 before reaching its decision. 

    • The CPS has not received any evidence from the police relating to any suspects for deliberately starting the fire. 

    • The decision whether any prosecutions should be brought under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 is one for the Health and Safety Executive. 

    From 2007 Incident Reporting:

    Firefighter dies tackling blaze

    Crews at the warehouse fire
    Hopes were fading for the wellbeing of the three missing firefighters

    A firefighter has died and three others are missing after a suspected arson attack at a warehouse in Warwickshire.The crew member’s body was recovered during the blaze at the vegetable packing plant in Atherstone on Stour, near Stratford-upon-Avon.The fire, on Atherstone Industrial Estate, started at 1845 GMT on Friday.Hopes were fading for the fate of the missing firefighters and union leaders said the incident may be the worst loss of life for more than 30 years. Andy Dark, assistant general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union (FBU), told BBC News the potential loss of four lives would make the incident the worst loss of life among its members since 1972.It is believed that warehouse staff were in the building when fire broke out and Mr Dark said crews would have been sent in if they thought more civilians may be inside.He said: “If there is any doubt in the mind of the firefighting crews, and particularly the officers in charge of those crews, that there may be a risk to life in that building they will commit crews where they believe it is safe to do so.”That is primarily what we are – our core and primary function is to save life and to rescue.”‘Worst night’Up to 100 firefighters and five ambulance crews were called to the scene and up to 16 fire engines were used to tackle the blaze, which was still alight on Saturday morning. 

    Crews at the warehouse fire
    Crews were still fighting the fatal fire 12 hours after it began

    A search of the building for the missing firefighters is to get under way as soon as colleagues can enter the building, which suffered a partial collapse during the fire.Police said they were treating the blaze as suspicious and the county’s chief fire officer said it was a building “where we would not expect a fire to start”.Fire crews from Warwickshire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire and the West Midlands were called to the blaze.West Midlands Ambulance spokesman Murray MacGregor said he understood “large parts” of the roof had collapsed and said the three firefighters who were unaccounted for had not been seen since early in the evening.He said: “We were all hoping against hope that the situation we found ourselves in wouldn’t turn out to be true. 

    The firefighters tonight were heroically doing their job
    William Brown, chief fire officer, Warwickshire County Council

    He added that hopes of finding the three missing firefighters safe and well had “pretty much faded now”.Mr McGregor said the firefighter who died had been taken to Warwick Hospital following attempts to resuscitate him as soon as he was brought out of the building.‘Heroic firefighters’William Brown, Warwickshire Fire and Rescue’s chief fire officer, said: “We are deeply shocked by tonight’s tragedy.”Our hearts, thoughts and prayers go out to the families and friends of our firefighters. 

    Crews at the warehouse fire
    Firefighters from across the West Midlands were called to the scene

    “The firefighters tonight were heroically doing their job.”Our thanks go to our colleagues in the emergency services, the police, ambulance and of course our cross-border firefighters, who have worked with us and supported us through this terrible night.”Tonight has been one of those events that firefighters all over the world dread and it’s happened to us here in Warwickshire.”Asked why the fire was being treated as suspicious, he said: “This fire has started in a building where we would not expect a fire to start. 

    Our thoughts are with our colleagues in the fire service today and with the family and friends of the firefighter who has died and those who are missing
    Ch Supt Mak Chishty, Warwickshire Police

    “We don’t know what has caused the fire.”And we just approach it from that position – treat it as suspicious to start with and find out why this fire started.”Ch Supt Mak Chishty of Warwickshire Police said a full investigation into the cause of the fire had already begun and investigators from the police and fire service would be examining the scene after daylight on Saturday.He said: “Our thoughts are with our colleagues in the fire service today and with the family and friends of the firefighter who has died and those who are missing.”Local resident Ben Shimmin, who lives in a village near the scene of the fire, said the warehouse was on the site of a disused airfield, with the nearest houses about three-quarters of a mile away, but there were other industrial buildings nearby.He said he became aware of the fire when he lost his water supply, with water being diverted to use to fight the flames.He said: “From the road you can quite clearly see the blaze above the tree line and above the roof line of the building.”There’s a lot of smoke, and obviously a lot of police presence.”

    Worcester Cold Storage Warehouse Fire 1999

    3 comments

    Today December 3, 2010 marks the 11th anniversary of the Worcester Cold Storage Warehouse fire that resulted in the line of duty death of six courages brother firefighters.   

    For those of you who remember this event, take the time to reflect and honor the sacrifice made this day; to those of you who have not heard about the fire before- take the time to learn about the incident, the firefighters, the building, the operational factors and challenges, the courage, fortitude and convictions that define the American Fire Service, it’s honor, tradition and brotherhood.   

    The Worcester Six;   

    • Firefighter Paul Brotherton Rescue 1
    • Firefighter Jeremiah Lucey Rescue 1
    • Lieutenant Thomas Spencer Ladder 2
    • Firefighter Timothy Jackson Ladder 2
    • Firefighter James Lyons Engine 3
    • Firefighter Joseph McGuirk Engine

       

    On Friday, December 3, 1999, at 1813 hours, the Worcester, Massachusetts Fire Department dispatched Box 1438 for 266 Franklin Street, the Worcester Cold Storage and Warehouse Co. A motorist had spotted smoke coming from the roof while driving on an adjacent elevated highway. The original building was constructed in 1906, contained another 43,000 square feet. Both were 6 stories above grade. The building was known to be abandoned for over 10 years.   

    Due to these and other factors, the responding District Chief ordered a second alarm within 4 minutes of the initial dispatch. The first alarm assignment brought 30 firefighters and officers and 7 pieces of apparatus to the scene. The second provided an additional 12 men and 3 trucks as well as a Deputy Chief. Firefighters encountered a light smoke condition throughout the warehouse, and crews found a large fire in the former office area of the second floor. An aggressive interior attack was started within the second floor and ventilation was conducted on the roof. There were no windows or other openings in the warehousing space above the second floor.   

    Eleven minutes into the fire, the owner of the abutting Kenmore Diner advised fire operations of two homeless people who might be living in the warehouse. The rescue company, having divided into two crews, started a building search. Some 22 minutes later the rescue crew searching down from the roof became lost in the vast dark spaces of the fifth floor. They were running low on air and called for help. Interior conditions were deteriorating rapidly despite efforts to extinguish the blaze, and visibility was nearly lost on the upper floors. Investigators have placed these two firefighters over 150 feet from the only available exit.   

    Copywrite 1999 Roger B. Conant All Rights Reserved

    An extensive search was conducted by Worcester Fire crews through the third and fourth alarms. Suppression efforts continued to be ineffective against huge volumes of petroleum based materials, and ultimately two more crews became disoriented on the upper floors and were unable to escape. When the evacuation order was given one hour and forty-five minutes into the event, five firefighters and one officer were missing. None survived.   

    A subsequent exterior attack was set up and lasted for over 20 hours utilizing aerial pieces and deluge guns from Worcester and neighboring departments. Task force groups from across the State of Massachusetts responded to initial suppression and subsequent recovery efforts. During this time, the four upper floors collapsed onto the second which became known as “the deck”. Over 6 million gallons of water were used during the suppression efforts.   

    According to NFPA records, this is the first loss of six firefighters in a structure fire where neither building collapse nor an explosion was a contributing factor to the fatalities.     

     

    Fireground Operations

        

    KEY ISSUES   

    Abandoned building left unprotected and unsecured.   

    • The failure to properly secure and maintain security at this warehouse allowed vagrants to enter, live in, and cause a fire in the building.
    • The lack of detection and suppression systems allowed the fire to grow unrestrained until discovered from the outside.

    No barriers to prevent the spread of fire and smoke in a large space.   

    • Despite some floors having over 15,000 square feet of storage space, there were no rated fire walls, functioning fire doors, or even an interior finish that would help limit fire growth and the spread of heat and smoke.

    Fire spread via combustible interior finishes.   

    • Being a cold storage warehouse, many walls and ceilings were covered with a combustible insulation material including cork, tar, expanded polystyrene foam, and sprayed-on polyurethane foam.

    Delayed fire reporting   

    • The building occupants left the warehouse without notifying authorities, and the fire was reported by passing motorists who observed smoke venting from the roof.
    • The absence of uncovered windows also prevented earlier detection from the exterior.

    Access limitations for fire suppression and rescue.   

    • Building construction featured a single staircase from the basement to the roof. This vertical opening was the only way to move through all levels and was congested with men and equipment from the start of operations.
    • The storage areas of the warehouse had no windows. These two factors left firefighters above the first floor without a secondary escape route and prevented ladder and rescue operations through windows.

    Unusually long interior travel distances.   

    • Firefighters had to crawl over 200 feet through heavy smoke from the single staircase to conduct a proper search.
    • Most lifelines were only 50 foot and SCBA air was limited to 30 minutes.
    • Searches and rescue operations were ineffective under these circumstances.

        

    Exterior Circa 1998

    BUILDING HISTORY AND CONSTRUCTION   

    The Worcester Cold Storage and Warehouse building was a six story structure at 266 Franklin Street in the heart of Worcester’s former warehousing and cold storage district. In the first half of the 21st century, cold storage was vital to the preservation and delivery of food before refrigerators became commonplace in American kitchens. The location was ideal with rail service provided by the former Boston and Albany Railroad which had a siding against the south end of the warehouse.   

    Even after the post-WWII decline in railroads, truck traffic was easily accommodated over nearby roads and later on the abutting Interstate 290 which was built in the late 1960’s.   

    The original warehouse (called “A-building” in previous reports) was constructed in 1906, faced due north onto Franklin Street and bordered Arctic Street to the east. There were six storage levels as well as a basement. The building measured 88 feet by 88 feet and had over 7,000 square feet of floor space on each level. The warehouse had an approximate exterior height of 80 feet.   

    An addition (called “B-building”) was constructed in 1912 against the west wall of A-building and measured 72 feet by 120 feet on the third floor and above. The 72 foot wall faced Franklin Street. The first and second floors were 88 foot and 101 foot deep respectively to accommodate railroad sidings and other structures on the southern on “C” side. Other investigations have referred to the former western exterior wall of A-building as “the fire wall” but there is no indication that this was a planned function. At least one opening was cut through this party wall on each level to access the new addition. B-building provided an additional 7,000 square feet of storage on the third floor and over 8,000 on floors four through six.   

    The Worcester Cold Storage complex involved additional structures to the south, but these were physically separate buildings and were not involved in this incident. The known openings between the warehouse and the southern structures were for utilities and refrigerants. The only effect was to block aerial access from the south during the fire.   

    • Construction methods appear to be the same in both A and B buildings.
    • Exterior walls were 18 inches thick and consisted of brick and mortar. Interior floors on the first and second levels were poured concrete and were supported by cast iron columns.
    • The concrete was covered with carpet or asbestos tile where appropriate for use.
    • Upper floors were of heavy timber construction with 12 foot long 4 inch by 12 inch wood joists (16 inch o.c.) resting in pockets in the east and west brick exterior walls and attached to 16 inch by 16 inch wood girders on the inside.
    • The girders were on 12 foot centers and rested on 16 inch by 16 inch wood columns which were spaced 12 feet apart in both dimensions.
    • Flooring consisted of two layers of tongue and groove hardwood with some areas having an additional layer of 3/8 inch diamond plate.
    • Ceilings on individual floors varied from open joists in storage areas to be a suspended ceiling in the office area on the second floor.
    • Photographs taken prior to the fire suggest that some sections also had “glass board” as a finished surface. The exact make up of this material has not been determined.
    • No documentation was made of ceiling heights within the warehouse, but it appears they were approximately 11 foot throughout.
    • The roof was tar and gravel over a wood deck which covered a 4 foot tall cockloft above the sixth floor ceiling/roof assembly.
    • Roof penetrations included the stairway and elevator shaft on the east end of A-building and a skylight over the elevator shafts on B-building. An illuminated billboard sat on the roof of B-building and received power external to the warehouse structure.

    NOTE: For the balance of this report the entire fire building will be referred to as the “warehouse” which consists of “A-building” on the east and “B-building” on the west. The A and B terminology was adopted early on in other investigations and should not be confused with fireground identifications of sides “A, B, C, & D”. In a large complex such as this, other terminology could have been created such as “Building 1”, “Building Z”, etc. (refer to the USFA Report for diagrams)   

    BUILDING USE   

    Worcester Cold Storage, a business, occupied the warehouse from 1906 until 1983 when it was sold to Chicago Dressed Beef. In 1987, CDB Realty Trust purchased the warehouse. CDB moved its operations to Millbrook Street in 1988 and shut down the refrigeration system in 1989 at which time the building was abandoned.   

    During its use, various petroleum based insulation materials were incorporated into the building including rigid expanded polystyrene boards and blown on polyurethane foam. These were applied to improve the temperature performance of the buildings Additionally, condensation along the exterior walls lead to the decay of some floor joists. Steel beams or angle brackets were added against the brick walls to pick up the floor load in several places.   

    • Even to long term employees, the building was hard to navigate.
    • The upper four stories were almost identical, and some workers reported getting lost under the dim interior lighting conditions.
    • Condensation would cause ice to form around the ceiling fixtures, and this cone of ice would severely limit the amount of illumination.
    • There was no useful external light then or during the fire.

    After it’s closing in 1989, the building was illegally entered on many occasions, resulting in vandalism, occupancy by homeless individuals, and a number of small “campfires.” At the time the fire occurred, there were no utility services in operation. Significant amounts of garbage and human wastes were scattered around the warehouse. The homeless woman involved in this incident said the interior smelled like a sewer.   

    VERTICAL PENETRATIONS   

    There were three stairways in the warehouse. Stairway 1 was in the northwest corner of B-building and went from the first floor (approximate street level) up to the second floor office area. Stairway 2 was located in the southern portion of B-building and went from the first floor to the third. It may have also accessed the basement. Stairway 3 was on the east side of A-building and ran from the basement to the roof. This was the only means of egress from the upper floors and was used heavily during the fire.   

    Two elevators were adjacent to stairway 3, and two more were adjacent to Stairway 2. At the time of the fire, all had been disabled, and the cars were in the basement. It is unknown if individual access doors were open or closed. The elevator shaft in B-building had a reinforced glass canopy at the roof level.   

    • A 14 inch by 14 inch shaft penetrated the ceiling of the second floor office area and originally housed a 12 inch pipe for the ammonia recovery system.
    • This may have opened through all floors, and the presence of the pipe could not be confirmed.

    HORIZONTAL PENETRATIONS   

    There was one opening on each level through the party wall dividing A-building from B-building. There were numerous doors and windows on the first floor, and several were forced open by firefighters to gain access. All windows on this level were secured with plywood to prevent entry. Windows on the second floor of B-building were limited to the office area in the northwest section and were also covered with plywood. There was a window on each of the second, third, and fourth floors in stairway 3 on the east side of A-building. A window opened into the adjacent elevator shaft on each of these floors also. All were blocked with plywood.   

    INTERIOR FINISH   

    Because the warehouse was used for cold storage, the insides of exterior walls and the roof were heavily insulated. Barriers between office space and freezer space were also heavily insulated. The original material of choice was cork which was impregnated or secured with tar. The thickness has been described from 6 inches to 18 inches depending on the location. Evidence was also found of additional layers of expanded polystyrene sheets and blown on polyurethane. In many places the finished surface was “glass board”. A recovered piece of this glass board was ignited by Worcester Fire personnel after this incident. The sample sustained combustion and gave off stringy black smoke not unlike pure styrene.   

    It was reported that all the interior partitions were made of corkboard, but it was probably a covering rather than a structural element. The office walls on the second floor were paneling installed over drywall. Many photographs of the cold storage areas taken before the fire show interior surfaces with a clean outer appearance consistent with the glass board. This would have provided a cleanable and wear resistant surface as opposed to bare cork or foam insulation.   

    INTERIOR LAYOUT   

    Since the fire did not extend to the basement or first floor, the layout of these spaces is less important. The first floor did, however, provide the access to the rest of the building for fire operations. All space above the first floor was used for cold storage or moving goods with the exception of the second floor office area on the northern half of B-building.   

      

        

     

      

    Green Building Construction for the Fire Service

    No comments

     

    Green Building Construction for the Fire Service by Lt. John Shafer

    What is a Green Building? Take a look at a new Blog Post on Firehouse.com by an emerging and up and coming leader in the fire service Lt. John Shafer. Check out  Lt. Shafer’s facebook page called Green Buildings for the Fire Service with informative information on Green Building issues http://www.facebook.com/pages/Green-Building-Construction-for-Fire-Service/146302678730175

    Another Average Week…for most of us

    No comments

    During this week, there were on average, over 10,173 structure fires in the United States. According to NFPA statistics the following occur on average in the U.S;

    • A fire department responded to a fire every 20 seconds.
    • One structure fire was reported every 59 seconds.
    • One home structure fire was reported every 79 seconds
    • One civilian fire injury was reported every 30 minutes.
    • One civilian fire death occurred every 2 hours and 33 minutes.
    • One outside fire was reported every 41 seconds.
    • One vehicle fire was reported every 122 seconds.

    There are on average of Eight to Ten Firefighter Line-of-duty Deaths each month. There have been two LODD’s reported this first week of November alone.

    The fire service continues to struggle with the challenges, opposition and merits in adjusting, altering, and changing our strategic and tactical ways of doing business in the streets. Some disagree others are indifferent, but regardless of your positions; the business of firefighting is changing, to some it’s just not being recognized or acknowledged. The traditional attitudes and beliefs of equating aggressive firefighting operations in all occupancy types coupled with the correlating, established and pragmatic operational strategies and tactics MUST not only be questioned, they need to be adjusted and modified; risk assessment, risk-benefit analysis, safety and survivability profiling, operational value and firefighter injury and LODD reduction must be further institutionalized to become a recognized part of modern firefighting operations.

    Fire suppression tactics must be adjusted for the rapidly changing methods and materials impacting all forms of building construction, occupancies and structures. The need to redefine the art and science of firefighting continues to be a passionate discussion point.

    The demands and requirements of modern firefighting will continue to require the placement of personnel within situations and buildings that carry risk, uncertainty and inherent danger. As a result, risk management must become fluid and integrate all personnel. We must manage dynamic risks with a balanced approach of effective assessment, analysis and probability within command decision making that results in safety conscious strategies and tactics.

    Don’t mistake determined, effective and proactive firefighting with that of reckless, baseless and risk-preferring and self-indulging firefighting. There is a difference, a big difference! When we address relationships of Building Construction, Command Risk Management and Firefighter Safety with the occupancy and structural environment, all personnel, regardless of rank, need to equate the occupancy risk with strategic and tactical incident action plans.

    These safely compliment the identified firefighting operation risk, with the projected building risk profile and interface appropriate behavioral characteristics in the task level firefighting activities. Again, equating building, occupancy risk profiles with determined, effective and proactive firefighting.

    Stop and reflect today, where do you stand? What are your true beliefs and convictions in regards to the developing safety culture that is being forged and institutionalized within our fire service?

    Looking at the Big Picture

    No comments

    A recent posting by Chief Ben Waller on the Candle-Moth Syndrome and the reference to Target Fixation brings to light some very important insights related to buildings, occupancies and the risk assessment process.

    The relationship of target fixation and faulted size-up that ultimately progresses to faulted tactics and the potential for detrimental incident outcomes is typically overlooked and seldom discussed.Target fixation is a process by which the brain is focused so intently on an observed object that awareness of other obstacles or hazards can diminish.

    Also, in an avoidance scenario, the observer can become so fixated on the target that the observer will end up colliding with the object. How many times have you been “drawn” towards a specific tactical sortie, or have disregarded mission critical indicators that were so obvious, after the incident that you wondered what came over you in the heat of the battle? The Candle-Moth Syndrome is just the start of it.

    In the realm of building construction, occupancy profiling and risk assessment, company and command officers must strive to develop astute and clear observation skills to quickly scan for key visual indicators that provide validation points on possible inherent building and construction type and systems, looking beyond the obvious at times and quickly processing that data and assumptions into definable strategic plans and tactical assignments-all with the appropriate balance of risk.The ability to move past target fixation attributes; and the skills to balance presumptive or validated past experience, street level assumptions and intuitive decision-making whether it’s recognition primed decision-making modeling and approach (RPD) or naturalistic decision Making (NDM), scan your operational field broadly and look over your buildings and occupancies with a wider field of vision and beyond.

    Recognize that some “target fixation” points are very important in the overall processing and assessment of an incident, but are a part of the overall sum of the equating and evolving incident scene. I’ve spoken about the Predictability of Performance in building construction and occupancies a few times, and the challenge it presents in the context of present day fire suppression operations. Although experience drives a lot, there are times in which past experiences may not be the only recommended force that drives the incident action plan.

    Be cognizant of the fact that similar building types can perform differently under what may be derived as similar fire conditions. Don’t get caught in target fixation and above all, have an understanding of building construction systems, their correlation to occupancy configurations and ultimately how they perform under fire (conditions). Know your buildings, expand your knowledge, develop your operational skills and enhance your tactical capabilities. It all starts with the structure….at a structure fire.

    Effective Battle Plans & Performance

    1 comment

    The following are quotes from Fire Chief Anthony Aiellos (ret) Hackensack (NJ) Fire Department, Fire Chief during the Hackensack Ford Fire, July, 1988…

    “If you don’t fully understand how a building truly performs or reacts under fire conditions and the variables that can influence its stability and degradation, movement of fire and products of combustion and the resource requirements for fire suppression in terms of staffing, apparatus and required fire flows, then you will be functioning and operating in a reactionary manner.”

    “This places higher risk to your personnel and lessens the likelihood for effective, efficient and safe operations. You’re just not doing your job effectively and you’re at RISK. These risks can equate into insurmountable operational challenges and could lead to adverse incident outcomes. Someone could get hurt, someone could die, it’s that simple, it’s that obvious.”

    Risk Based Response Assignments
    The buildings, structures and occupancies that comprise typical response districts pose unique and consistent challenges during structural fire attack. The variety of occupancies and building characteristics establish varying degrees of risk potential, with defined and recognizable strategic and tactical measures to be taken-sometimes uniquely to each occupancy type. Although each occupancy type presents variables that dictate how a particular incident is handled, most company operations evolve from basic principles rooted in past performance and operations at similar structures. This is based on what I define as; “predictability of performance.”

    When we look at various buildings and occupancies, past operational experiences; those that were successful, and those that were not, give us experiences that define and determine how we access, react and expect similar structures and occupancies to perform at a given alarm in the future. Naturalistic (or recognition-primed) decision-making forms much of this basis. We predicate certain expectations that fire will travel in a defined (predictable) manner that fire will hold within a room and compartment for a given duration of time, that the fire load and related fire flows required will be appropriate for an expected size and severity of fire encountered within a given building, occupancy, structural system.

    We used to know with a measured degree of predictability, how our buildings would perform, react and fail under most fire conditions. This is what our years of fireground experience provided us, and how we ultimately would predict, assess, plan and implement our incident action plans and ultimately deploy our companies-based upon the predictable performance expected. Conventional Construction Structures (CCS) had this “predictably of performance.” You know, that typical residential structure, the 2-1/2 story wood frame, the three story brick and joist type III occupancy, the four story frame multiple occupancy, etc., etc.

    Unlike Engineered System Structures (ESS) whose predictability is rooted in the fact that they are unpredictable.The emerging fire service issues affecting buildings, occupancies and structural systems related to ESS is only beginning to take hold a prominent role and level of significance that is long overdue. The fire service has been dealing with the operational issues and line-of-duty deaths related to ESS since the 1980s and now in 2009, we’re finally raising these ESS issues to a dialog point that is influencing firefighter safety, survival and operations. ( Refer to the Underwriters Laboratory’s (UL) UL University on-line training module for a state-of-the art presentation on Structural Stability of Engineered Lumber in Fire Conditions and performance results that correlate towards redefining fire suppression operations)

    The fire service is beginning to fully recognize the merits in adjusting, altering, and changing our strategic and tactical ways of doing business in the streets. It’s becoming self evident in the fire service that it’s no longer acceptable to think that ESS buildings and occupancies will perform in the same manner as CCS buildings and occupancies and that tactics deployed in both CCS and ESS buildings and occupancies will react under similar strategic and tactical plans and tasks. These unique and inherent factors within the ESS profiles must give us a new standard for operational deployment; strategies and tactics that are defined by the risk profile of the building, its engineered structural systems, materials and methods of construction and the fire loading present.

    Considerations for changing fire flow rates, the sizing of hose line and the adequacies for fire flow demand and application rates, staffing needs for safe operations, considerations for defensive positioning and defensive operating postures must be considered, and it warrants repeating again; Reckless-Aggressive firefighting must be redefined in the built environment and associated with goal oriented tactical operations that are defined by risk assessed and analyzed tasks that are executed under battle plans that promote the best in safety practices and survivability within know hostile structural fire environment- with determined, effective and proactive firefighting.