Duct fire

[efdcapt115 1,511]

(Thanks again to Batt. 2 FDNY for sharing images of an interesting fire.)

July 4th night at 0200 hours B2 had run for gas leak. Thought it would be a routine run. Turned out to be fire in restaurant exhaust duct which ran up the outside of a tall building. Fast truck discovered the origin of fire in restaurant at end of the building, about 50 feet away from main entrance to the apartment building.

Duct work ran through an exterior deck at 2nd floor rear. You can see the burnt grease in the duct.

Looking up vertically at duct.

Damage was at kitchen in rear of this restaurant. Problem was sprinklers never went off.

Inspection opening to check the pipe chases for fire extension.

[helicopper 1,050]

How'd they find it? Did they use a TIC?

[efdcapt115 1,511]

How'd they find it? Did they use a TIC?

Hey Chris,

Chief Kearon stated the FAST Truck located the fire. They were probably on an exterior recon for means of egress access points to force for the brothers operating inside to have escape options if needed. Checking all sides of the structure as we know is FAST Company SOG.

I imagine the fire became apparent when they observed that exposure, as the duct apparently burned through.

Regards,

~George

Edited July 18, 2009 by efdcapt115

[helicopper 1,050]

Hey Chris,

Chief Kearon stated the FAST Truck located the fire. They were probably on an exterior recon for means of egress access points to force for the brothers operating inside to have escape options if needed. Checking all sides of the structure as we know is FAST Company SOG.

I imagine the fire became apparent when they observed that exposure, as the duct apparently burned through.

Regards,

~George

Thanks for the info.

With regard to FAST Company operations, do they have/use TICs as part of their SOG? I imagine that there are circumstances where they could identify hot spots during their recon that are as yet undetected.

Just curious.

[x635 4,066]

Wow! That looks like a tricky job! Thanks for sharing the photo!

Is it in the new code that pipe/duct chases need to be sprinklered? Also, is there any type of new technology to stop or slow duct fires? I know most hood systems have extinguishing systems required, but I'm suprised that requirment doesn't extend to the ductwork, especially in large buildings.

Also, could CO pose an issue to occupants in the building if this fire burned unoticed for a while?

[16fire5 693]

To answer some of the questions posed

Duct fires are extremely tricky.

An FDNY truck officer will probably always have a TIC, but many times the duct will be glowing from the fire. This can and frequently extend the fire to what ever the duct is touching like the woodend joists where is passes through a floor or roof.

Lots of trucks including the one I work in have positional assignments for duct fires.

Code in NYC requires a schematic be posted in the kitchen that shows the run of the duct. It's there half the time but compliance is getting better.

The FAST truck has a TIC since all FDNY trucks, rescues, squads, and HMC 1 are issued them (select battalions are using the old cameras as part of a pilot program).

2 lines minimum are usually stretched 1 to the kitchen and one to the duct termination point.

Alot of the complexity is because on the additions, and renovations to the buildings involved. Many time accessing the rear or sides of the building is difficult or impossible.

Within the last year we responded to a duct fire that went to a second alarm because the duct passed into the adjoining building and the fire venting from the duct spread fire to window frames in exposure 3.

Even with the hood system if the grease has built up in the duct the fire is past the hood system before the hood can extinguish it. Spinklers similar to those in the compactor would be a good idea but would need a high heat setting due to the fact that the duct is normally pretty hot.

[efdcapt115 1,511]

To answer some of the questions posed

Lt.,

That is great information. Thank you for sharing.

[efdcapt115 1,511]

Also, could CO pose an issue to occupants in the building if this fire burned unoticed for a while?

Great question for all firefighters and officers to think about IMHO.

[ny10570 745]

CO is absolutely an issue as these fires tend to smolder for long periods of time with poor ventilation. Incomplete combustion is one of your biggest CO producers.

If a duct system is properly maintained and cleaned this wouldn't be an issue. They just need to legislate better maintenance and inspection rules.

[16fire5 693]

I agree CO should be on everyone's mind and technology has helped us there. The advent of the personal size CO monitors allows departments to equip each company officer with one. In fact the FDNY equips each engine officer with one and ladder companies are issued 2. These newer generation monitors seem to be a lot more durable and smaller than the first ones issued. Having these monitors is essential for investigating CO alarms activations but enhances the officers ability to make decisions at so many other call types. The monitors at fires help the IC decide on evacuation in high rise fires, assure levels are safe after oil burner emergencies, and decide on SCBA removal just to name a few. Additionally FDNY Bureau of EMS units no carry the personal CO monitors because of an incident that came in as a medical call type that turned out to involve multipe unconscious patients due to a CO emergency in the building. Many symptoms of lower level CO posioning mimic flu like symptoms and in most places this is an EMS only response. Equipping EMS units protects the crew and can help undercover the true underlying cause.

One thing to remember is although most fire departments are getting real good at monitoring for CO we have yet to fully realize the scope of cyanide. Just because the atmosphere post fire is down to acceptable CO levels does not tell us what the cyanide levels are. I know lots of reasearch is now being dedicated to this topic and im sure in the future we will be able to monitor for it too but until then protect your self when in doubt wear your SCBA. When your vibra alert goes off take relief there's plenty of companies in the street standing by for something to do.

[efdcapt115 1,511]

I agree CO should be on everyone's mind and technology has helped us there. The advent of the personal size CO monitors allows departments to equip each company officer with one. In fact the FDNY equips each engine officer with one and ladder companies are issued 2. These newer generation monitors seem to be a lot more durable and smaller than the first ones issued. Having these monitors is essential for investigating CO alarms activations but enhances the officers ability to make decisions at so many other call types. The monitors at fires help the IC decide on evacuation in high rise fires, assure levels are safe after oil burner emergencies, and decide on SCBA removal just to name a few. Additionally FDNY Bureau of EMS units no carry the personal CO monitors because of an incident that came in as a medical call type that turned out to involve multipe unconscious patients due to a CO emergency in the building. Many symptoms of lower level CO posioning mimic flu like symptoms and in most places this is an EMS only response. Equipping EMS units protects the crew and can help undercover the true underlying cause.

One thing to remember is although most fire departments are getting real good at monitoring for CO we have yet to fully realize the scope of cyanide. Just because the atmosphere post fire is down to acceptable CO levels does not tell us what the cyanide levels are. I know lots of reasearch is now being dedicated to this topic and im sure in the future we will be able to monitor for it too but until then protect your self when in doubt wear your SCBA. When your vibra alert goes off take relief there's plenty of companies in the street standing by for something to do.

In Eastchester as well, all company officers carry CO monitors as well as TICs. Westchester Fire Control EMD trained dispatchers generally determine the level of response to a CO alarm, and many times without apparent CO exposure symptoms being relayed from the caller, FD gets the run exclusively, with the IC/company officers having the option to upgrade the response for EMS units if needed. Equipping the buses and Medic units with CO detectors might be cost prohibitive in some EMS agencies in Westchester, but if they could swing it, it would be another big improvement in customer service, providing an additional layer of protection.

Let's hope a personal-sized cyanide monitor becomes commerically viable and available for the fire service asap.

Edited July 20, 2009 by efdcapt115

[ny10570 745]

Personal cyanide detectors are both available and reasonably priced. The same company that makes the CO monitors FDNY uses makes a Hydrogen Cyanide sensor for the same monitor. I believe the CO monitors run about $250 and the HCN monitor would be about $400.

[efdcapt115 1,511]

Personal cyanide detectors are both available and reasonably priced. The same company that makes the CO monitors FDNY uses makes a Hydrogen Cyanide sensor for the same monitor. I believe the CO monitors run about $250 and the HCN monitor would be about $400.

Very cool. When I read your post, I instantly thought.....AFG grant application. Perfect item to go for en-mass to fully outfit an entire department.

[x635 4,066]

Excellent information! I love to see threads like these here on EMTBravo, and hope to see more.......

[JBE 328]

This was the second of four working fires we had in Manhattan that night. The next to last one came in about a half hour after this, and we started the night off with a 2nd up on Convent Avenue.