Are We Valuing Fire Losses Accurately and Keeping Up with the Science of Fire Loss?

An article by Sean Scott published this March in Restoration & Remediation Magazine, Cyanide Residues in Fire Damaged Buildings, made the following observation, which all property insurance adjusters and those involved with fire damage should be aware of:

During a structure fire, toxic gases, acids, VOC’s, and a vast array of other hazardous chemicals are created. These byproducts of incomplete combustion make up the composition of smoke, soot, and particulate matter. Smoke also contains moisture vapor that will condense on cool surfaces as the smoke migrates away from the fire.

One of the most toxic gases found in structure fire environments is Hydrogen Cyanide (HCN). Classified as an asphyxiant or suffocating gas, HCN and its toxic twin Carbon Monoxide are responsible for the vast majority of smoke inhalation deaths in residential fires. HCN is generated when materials containing nitrogen burn or melt and release HCN gas…..

When HCN gas comes in contact with humidity or moisture, it can form hydrocyanic acid (HCN + H₂O → HCN(aq). If surfaces or materials are exposed to HCN gas or its aqueous form, they can become contaminated with cyanide.

Hydrocyanic acid can also evaporate, leaving behind cyanide salt residues. The extent of contamination depends on factors like humidity levels, composition of the materials that burned, surface properties, air flow, and duration of exposure. Residues of HCN can also attach to smoke particles, remain suspended in the air, and settle on surfaces.

Where does this fit into fire losses and restoration estimating? He stated this:

Testing Should Not Be an Option

If you are going to be involved in fire restoration, you will need to consider engaging an independent environmental professional (IEP). Whether you wish to embark on structural restoration or contents restoration, the role and benefits of the IEP are twofold. First, the IEP can conduct testing for potentially hazardous chemicals and gases in the workspace before work begins. This lets the restorer know what environmental hazards may be present. This testing also enhances the initial jobsite hazard analysis and helps create a safe work environment. Secondly, an IEP can provide clearance testing that will tell the restorer whether their restoration/cleaning efforts were successful. This is the same concept used today for most mold remediation projects, lead and asbestos abatement, sewage and meth lab clean up, etc.

….

Typically, when restoration practitioners are in the process of selling a fire restoration project, most will guarantee their customers that when the work is completed, the building and/or personal property will be clean, smoke odor free, and restored to a pre-loss condition. This is typically based on a visual assessment and a ‘sniff test’ once clothing is returned and just before the occupants are ready to move back into the building. However, when a customer says they smell smoke, especially on their clothing, develops a rash, or complains of a weird chemical odor, the restorer gets caught with their pants down. Here is when the restorer can end up paying to have work done over, refunding the money spent on failed cleaning and deodorization, or looking down the barrel of a lawsuit.

As people are becoming more and more educated about the toxicity of combustion byproducts, it is only a matter of time before property owners will demand proof that their home, building, or personal property are free of toxic combustion byproducts. This is where an IEP can prove to be the restorer’s greatest ally.

The Culture Has to Change

Most restorers wouldn’t think of getting involved with a mold, lead, asbestos, or sewage remediation job without the involvement of an IEP. In these types of projects, relying on a visual or olfactory assessment to prove your work was done properly would be the equivalent of committing occupational suicide. Many of the toxic byproducts generated in structure fires today, including HCN are far more hazardous to human health than most realize.”

The point is that property insurance adjusters evaluating the cost of fire losses need to include independent testing by qualified experts before and after the restoration. This is for the safety of the restoration workers as well as policyholders and others who will be occupying these fire loss structures after the remediation. Smell tests are obsolete. The expected costs of hygienists and toxicologists need to be accounted for in a fire-damaged structure.

Property insurance adjusters should re-read this post I wrote seven years ago: Insurance Company and Independent Adjusting Firms That Do Not Provide Personal Protection Equipment to Fire Claim Adjusters Are Violating OSHA Standards:

If you are an insurance adjuster, you have a legal right to have a safe workplace. Fires scenes are dangerous to your safety and health. Employers know that you are entitled by law to job safety and safety to your health while you work for them. Many insurance companies have risk managers and safety experts that know their own companies and representatives are not in compliance with OSHA standards.

I would also suggest that insurance adjusters warn their customers of these dangers as well. Policyholders are not trained about these risks. Just because those policyholders may learn that the restoration may be more expensive because of these hazards, is not a valid reason not to tell policyholders about the danger their own building poses to them after a fire.

Recent science suggests that burnt structures can emit numerous toxic chemicals like dioxins, PAHs, heavy metals, and VOCs that pose severe health risks, especially to vulnerable groups. There is no safe level of exposure to some of these toxins. ¹ Sealing surfaces or using deodorizers does not sufficiently address toxic particulates or VOCs. Proper PPE and professional remediation are crucial to protect the health of anybody going into these structures post-fire. They need to be tested to ensure safety, and these costs need to be reflected in estimates of fire damage.

Thought For The Day

I used to think the top environmental problems were biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and climate change. I thought with 30 years of good science we could address those problems. But I was wrong. The top environmental problems are selfishness, greed and apathy … And to deal with those we need a spiritual and cultural transformation. We scientists don’t know how to do that.
—Gus Speth

¹ Soot and burnt structures left behind in Lāhainā are extremely toxic, ʻĀina Momoa, (Aug. 21, 2023). Available online at https://www.kaainamomona.org/post/soot-and-burnt-structures-left-behind-in-l%C4%81hain%C4%81-are-extremely-toxic (last accessed 08.29.24).