GENERATOR CAUSED BOSTON FIRE
The catastrophic fire in a six-story mixed-use wood-framed structure in the Boston neighborhood of Dorchester last month was started by the hot cast-iron exhaust pipe of a backup power generator in the building’s basement, according to a report in the Boston Globe (see: “Improperly installed exhaust pipe ignited massive Dorchester fire, commissioner says,” by Travis Andersen, Tim Logan and John R. Ellement). The fire in the 83-unit complex “broke out on the afternoon of June 28 as workers were testing the building’s emergency systems ahead of safety inspections planned for the following day,” the Globe reported. “They were testing an emergency generator in the basement, Finn said, and using a cast-iron exhaust pipe, installed the day before, to vent fumes from the generator up through the six-story building and out from the roof. Architectural drawings called for a 12-inch space around the exhaust pipe, Finn said. It was put in place with just 3 inches of clearance. As the pipe heated up, the wood caught fire.”
The fire has added energy to a long-simmering debate among firefighters, builders, and code officials about the fire safety of large wood-frame structures of this type (six-story multi-use complexes with five stories of wood construction built atop a one-story concrete podium, nicknamed “one-plus-five” buildings). While sprinklers, fire separation assemblies, and strict egress requirements make the building style reasonably safe for occupants when the building is finished, the projects can resemble a bonfire during the final stages of construction, after framing is complete but before most of the fire-safety elements are installed. That fact has not been lost on arsonists: arson accounts for many recent fires in the late stages of this kind of project, according to news reports.
The Dorchester fire was accidental. But Boston fire commissioner Joseph Finn criticized the response of workers at the fire, reported the Boston Herald (see: “Boston fire chief blasts construction workers for slow response to blaze,” by Dan Atkinson). “The city’s fire commissioner blasted construction workers for taking 90 minutes to report a fire that destroyed a six-story building in Dorchester last month,” the paper reported, “and said city officials are working on new safety standards for buildings under construction — particularly those with highly flammable wood frames.”
“Finn said the lack of sprinklers hampered fighting the fire, but the main factor was construction workers smelling smoke and seeing haze at 1 p.m. and not calling BFD until 2:30 p.m,” the Herald reported. “The building’s mostly wood structure is allowed under the International Building Code, but [Inspectional Services Commissioner Buddy Christopher] said ISD and BFD officials will review procedures for examining wood buildings that are under construction and most likely to catch fire.”
Just a month after the Dorchester fire, flames destroyed a similar project in nearby Waltham, Mass., reported CBS Boston station WBZ Channel 4 (see: “Fire Destroys 5 Buildings In Waltham Apartment Complex”). “The blaze was first reported around 4 a.m., and it took crews from over a dozen different communities nearly four hours to get it under control,” the station reported. “Five apartment buildings under construction, set to hold 260 units, were destroyed in the blaze, which spanned about two blocks. Waltham Fire Chief Paul Ciccone said crews experienced water pressure issues due to the sheer size of the fire.”
Pointing out the similarities between the Waltham fire and the previous month’s Dorchester fire, Waltham City Council Vice President Robert Logan told CBS that he’s asking the state to take a second look at building regulations, CBS reported (see: “Chief Says Wood Frame Construction Made Waltham Fire Difficult To Fight”). Said Logan, “I intend to bring in a resolution to the Waltham City Council for what it’s worth, to ask our local delegation to bring something in at the state level to look at this issue and see if maybe we can get the state building code changed.”
REPEAT FLOODING AND THE FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
Congress has barely two months to enact some sort of re-authorization for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) before its current authorization, passed in 2012, expires at the end of September. Run by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and backed by federal dollars, but administered mostly through private-sector insurance firms, the NFIP paid out billions of dollars after Hurricane Katrina, and again after Hurricane Sandy, leaving billions of dollars on the program’s books in the form of debt to the U.S. Treasury.
A recent study from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the non-profit environmental advocacy group, pointed out one of the NFIP’s biggest liabilities: its payouts are heavily weighted in favor of buildings in well-known flood locations that have flooded repeatedly over the years. For thousands of, homeowners flood damage — and the repairs and insurance payouts — have become almost routine. Writes the NRDC: “Between 1978 and 2015, the NFIP paid $5.5 billion to repair and rebuild more than 30,000 ‘severe repetitive loss properties.’ These homes and businesses have been rebuilt multiple times in the wake of floods or hurricanes and are the most flood-prone properties insured through the NFIP. While they represent just 0.6 percent of the 5.1 million properties insured through the NFIP, they account for a disproportionate 9.6 percent of all damages paid, as of 2015.” (For the full “issue brief,” see: “Seeking Higher Ground: How to Break the Cycle of Repeated Flooding with Climate-Smart Flood Insurance Reforms”.)
The NRDC’s recommendation? Spend the Federal dollars on moving people to dry locations, instead of repairing their flood-prone houses. And there’s a twist: “Under this proposal, homeowners would be able to voluntarily sign up for a buyout before the next flood occurs,” writes NRDC. “If a flood then substantially damages their home, FEMA would quickly provide funding that enables the local government to purchase the flood-prone property and convert it to open space while freeing the owner to relocate.”
In related news, NPR reports on FEMA’s on-again, off-again effort to redraw flood zone maps (see: “Mapping Coastal Flood Risk Lags Behind Sea Level Rise,” by Christopher Joyce). The map revisions, which have been slowly rolling out for years over coastal and river-bottom locations around the country, don’t account for future sea levels or the increased risk of heavy rainfall that goes with a warming planet.
David Guignet, a floodplain engineer for the state of Maryland, told NPR that he “does want people to know if their property lies in the path of sea level rise. He says a homeowner may look at his or her property on a map and decide, ‘In 30 years, if the sea level rise is going to get to that point, well then I might decide that I want to move by then… or maybe do other things when I modify my house so the next [addition] I build is higher.'” That way, homeowners could decide to get out of the way of ocean flooding before the flooding becomes routine.
WILDFIRES RAGE IN THE WEST
The active 2017 wildfire season continued last week in the western U.S., as fire crews struggled to control big fires in multiple states. The Los Angeles Times had a report (see: “After a wet and snowy winter, wildfires rage across the West,” by Melissa Etehad). Big, destructive fires were burning in Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Wyoming, and of course, California, the paper reported.
In California, lighting sparked dozens of fires, the San Francisco Chronicle reported (see: “79 wildfires in Northern California in last 24 hours, most likely sparked by lightning,” by Amy Graff). In Montana, hundreds of firefighters were battling the nation’s largest fire, the so-called Lodgepole Complex fire, Reuters reported (see: “Crews gain ground against Montana wildfire, largest in U.S.,” by Brendan O’Brien, Timothy Mclaughlin, and Steve Gorman). California’s largest fire, the Detwiler fire, was visible from outer space, National Geographic reported (see: “Devastating Wildfire Can Be Seen From Space,” by Sarah Gibbens).
STATE BY STATE
Oregon: It looks like six “tiny houses” on a single residential lot, but it’s not, reports KGW-TV (see: “Builder puts small structures on Portland lot, but they aren’t tiny homes,” by Keely Chalmers). Builder Bradley Bloom’s clever work-around takes advantage of the fine points of the local building and zoning codes: “It’s a tiny village of sorts made up of six individually themed living spaces,” the station reports. “Each one has a shower, toilet and a sink just like your typical tiny house… [but] Under city code, the two closest to the street are considered primary residences, the rest are considered detached or satellite bedrooms.”
California: The southern California town of Newport Beach has okayed “granny flats” in its quest to boost the local housing supply, reported the Orange County Register (see: “Newport Beach gives first OK to ‘granny flats’ in some neighborhoods to increase housing,” by Louis Casiano Jr.). New structures would only be permitted on lots of 5,000 square feet or larger, but repurposing existing spaces could be allowed with no lot-size restrictions, the paper reported.
Texas: Lawmakers passed a measure that would give building departments a 30-day deadline to act on building permit applications, reported the Austin American-Statesman (see: “Texas Senate approves bill aimed to speed up building permits,” by Philip Jankowski). “Under SB 13, sponsored by Sen. Konni Burton, R-Fort Worth, local governments for the most part would have 30 days to approve or deny a building permit,” the paper reported. “Failure to meet the deadline results in a building permit’s automatic approval.”
