Hey, there! Log in / Register

Fire commissioner blames improperly installed exhaust pipe for six-alarm Ashmont fire

Also, waiting 90 minutes to report some smoke didn't help, BFD Commissioner Joe Finn announced today, the Dorchester Reporter reports.

Also not helping: The sprinklers didn't work in the building nearing completion.

Neighborhoods: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

If the construction workers smelled smoke for over an hour then why didn't the smoke alarms go off?

up
Voting closed 0

System wasnt on yet.

up
Voting closed 0

Yes, in theory, it's possible to build large, multi-story fire-safe buildings out of wood. But unless every special design consideration is precisely followed, the notion of safety is but a façade.

It's a blessing this fire occurred before occupancy, otherwise the defect wouldn't have been discovered. We can only wonder how many other safety-compromising defects have been overlooked in the many other recently constructed wooden apartment buildings.

If nothing else, it proves this new type of construction is not being properly inspected.

up
Voting closed 0

As the report states, the only defect was flammable shit piled up on and against the pipe that some contractor left out.

That "defect" isn't a problem when the walls are closed up and the outlets properly secured.

up
Voting closed 0

How does a contractor forget to insulate a hot multi-story flue and keep flammable stuff away from it? That takes multiple instances of negligence.

up
Voting closed 0

And when plans aren't followed bad stuff happens. That's the message. It's the contractor's fault, not the building method.

up
Voting closed 0

But the building method must also be questioned when such errors can be so easily made, are not detected during construction, yet can result in fires so devastating the entire structure will burn to the ground.

up
Voting closed 0

Look at the UMass parking garage. Even concrete can fail when contractors cut corners.

No method of construction is "safe" if not built according to plans and the safety systems are disabled.

up
Voting closed 0

to reduce the chase size in order to accommodate some other change? Why would the framing contractor take it upon itself to reduce a chase size by inches? To what benefit?

up
Voting closed 0

With the surface temp of the generator exhaust, there needs to be code minimum distances maintained from combustible materials. The architect/engineer wouldn't approve this change. If contractor made change without notifying design team, it would be their liability (need to submit a request to make changes, need request approved before implementing). Materials don't need to touch pipe to catch fire, just be too close.

up
Voting closed 0

Source: I am an engineer and do this all the time :)

up
Voting closed 0

Do you have any expert knowledge beyond reading about a few recent fires?

This sort of construction is common and safe as shown by the thousands of buildings that have been fine after public occupancy has been granted.

This building had a trifecta of bad things going for it. To make judgements based on this one building is as foolish as claiming global warming is a hoax after a winner with a lot of snow.

up
Voting closed 0

I never professed to be an expert, only that these spectacular fires appear to be warning signs. The presence of smoke was an obvious warning sign, but people chose to ignore that too until it was too late. Why?

up
Voting closed 0

1. Boston isn't the only place that such construction is being used. In fact, Boston is kind of late to the game.

2. The more such buildings are under construction, the more will have fires. We notice when there are more fires - but do we notice how many such buildings of this type are going up at the same time? Denominators matter.

If the type of building is an issue, there are enough of them going up nationally over the last 20 years and enough fires to provide data on relative numbers being destroyed. (leaving out the arson fires, of course)

up
Voting closed 0

I'm glad Boston is 'late to the game' of approving reckless wood frame construction methods which create added risk to communities.

up
Voting closed 0

I know you're not just Swirly, you're a very SmartGrrl, and you also care about public health and safety. If the recent fires in Boston are an anomaly, don't you think it's even more important to understand why they occurred?

I'm sure you know, an essential component of fire-safe construction has long been about being able to "compartmentalize" a fire. Even where a flammable material like wood is used, properly constructed fire-blocks of masonry or even sheetrock within a structure, are designed to slow down the spread of fires. This is supposed to be one of the fire-safety features built into modern wooden construction. Yet, these fires spread so fast and so intensely they couldn't be extinguished. Doesn't that signal to you, there's something wrong with the design or implementation of the compartmentalization systems?

In this example, contractors were able to make changes to a design (probably to save money) without anyone noticing— until it actually caught on fire! Changing what was supposed to be a 12" clearance, to a 3" clearance resulted in disaster. The contractors possibly didn't realize what a danger it was, because they don't understand all the modern safety details of wooden construction. Don't you wonder if other dangerous changes are being made, as profit-motivated developers push the envelope of height and density?

Meanwhile, wood is but one component. Perhaps just less-flammable choices for all the glues and plastic-based finish materials would make a big difference. The recent fires present an opportunity to learn what did and didn't work. If there were practical ways to increase and/or assure the effectiveness of fire-safey in wooden construction, wouldn't you want someone to study it?

up
Voting closed 0

In this case, the whole thing could have been averted if tests of anything using combustion - generators, furnaces, hot water systems - were not permitted until they were properly inspected.

The problems come when "these buildings with wood are dangerous" is inferred from an n=1 data set. In this case, the fire had little to do with the construction method and everything to do with the details of the exhaust system for the generator.

Interesting that the UK built test structures for these types of buildings, but completely ignored existing and established test protocols for insulated aluminum cladding ...

up
Voting closed 0

Where was it said that the contractor deliberately made a change to the design? You are assuming something was done on purpose rather than it being a horrible mistake.

up
Voting closed 0

I had to look this up in my files, but in January 2015 an occupied 408-unit apartment complex in Edgewater NJ burned in an inferno like this, caused (if I recall correctly) by a plumber's torch. Luckily it was in the daytime and everyone escaped safely.

The New Jersey fire was in a complex developed by Avalon, which has an increasing presence around Boston.

There have also been some smaller fires in occupied apartment complexes in Massachusetts, typically destroying just one building of maybe 24 units, erected before these wooden behemoths became legal, but using a similar construction technique on a smaller scale.

up
Voting closed 0

This building was named The Treadmark as a tribute to Ashmont Tire that previously occupied the site. My wife thought that the resurrected building should be renamed The Firestone instead.

up
Voting closed 0

up
Voting closed 0

Fixed.

up
Voting closed 0