Post fire cleanup

[TheCommish]

Does anyone know of a code or regulation that would requis air smoke damaged soot s stained building components or installation to be cleaned removed or encapsulated

 

[steveray]

Does anyone know of a code or regulation that would requis air smoke damaged soot s stained building components or installation to be cleaned removed or encapsulated

Not it….

 

[TheCommish]

Failed the insulation inspection; gaps in vapor barrier, insulation, damaged vapor barrier, they told the plumbing inspector it was going to be cleaned up later

 

[Gregg Harris]

Does anyone know of a code or regulation that would requis air smoke damaged soot s stained building components or installation to be cleaned removed or encapsulated

[A] 114.6 Restoration or abatement.​

IFC

 

[TheCommish]

Helpful thanks

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

How is IFC 114.6 related to the question? It says nothing about smoke damage. It calls for abatement when (if) the fire code official (not the building official) determines that a structure or a piece of equipment is unsafe.

[A] 114.6 Restoration or abatement.

The structure or equipment determined to be unsafe by the fire code official is permitted to be restored to a safe condition. The owner, the owner’s authorized agent, operator or occupant of a structure, premises or equipment deemed unsafe by the fire code official shall abate or cause to be abated or corrected such unsafe conditions either by repair, rehabilitation, demolition or other approved corrective action. To the extent that repairs, alterations or additions are made or a change of occupancy occurs during the restoration of the structure, such repairs, alterations, additions or change of occupancy shall comply with the requirements of Section 105.1.5 and the International Existing Building Code.

The IFC doesn't define "unsafe" (or "safe," for that matter). Neither does the IBC. It's unlikely that a fire code official would cite smoke stains as an unsafe condition, so where does that leave you?

 

[Gregg Harris]

How is IFC 114.6 related to the question? It says nothing about smoke damage. It calls for abatement when (if) the fire code official (not the building official) determines that a structure or a piece of equipment is unsafe.



The IFC doesn't define "unsafe" (or "safe," for that matter). Neither does the IBC. It's unlikely that a fire code official would cite smoke stains as an unsafe condition, so where does that leave you?

[A] 115.1.1 Unsafe conditions.​

Clearly, the conditions of repairs, vapor barriers etc., would need to meet current building codes when repairs are made.

 

[Gregg Harris]

[A] 115.1.1 Unsafe conditions.​

Clearly, the conditions of repairs, vapor barriers etc., would need to meet current building codes when repairs are made.

https://codes.iccsafe.org/lookup/content-id/24199922​

IBC​

[A] 116.1 Unsafe conditions​

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

[A] 115.1.1 Unsafe conditions.​

Clearly, the conditions of repairs, vapor barriers etc., would need to meet current building codes when repairs are made.

You keep citing code sections without the code language or explaining how they might apply.



The question was about smoke damage and soot stains. There's no mention of smoke damage or soot stains in IFC 115.1.1. Smoke damage and soot stains are cosmetic issues, not unsafe conditions as addressed by 115.1.1

 

[Gregg Harris]

So

You keep citing code sections without the code language or explaining how they might apply.

View attachment 17242

The question was about smoke damage and soot stains. There's no mention of smoke damage or soot stains in IFC 115.1.1. Smoke damage and soot stains are cosmetic issues, not unsafe conditions as addressed by 115.1.1

Your position on soot and smoke stains from a structure fire is that they are merely cosmetic and safe?
They do not present a hazard to human life and do not require abatement?

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

So

Your position on soot and smoke stains from a structure fire is that they are merely cosmetic and safe?
They do not present a hazard to human life and do not require abatement?

Yes, that's my opinion. But the only opinion that counts is the opinion of the fire code official in the jurisdiction of the location of the structure in question. It was my understanding that TheCommish (the OP who posed the question) is a building official, not a fire marshal. If that's correct, he doesn't enforce the IFC (if it's even adopted in Massachusetts), so whether smoke stains will require abatement under the IFC would be determined by the fire code official in the jurisdiction.

IFC section 115.1.1 doesn't just say unsafe conditions have to be abated or repaired, it specifies WHICH conditions may be unsafe and require abatement:

• Inadequate means of egress
• Inadequate light and ventilation
• Constitute a fire hazard
• Are otherwise dangerous to human life or public welfare

I have never heard of soot or smoke damage being deemed dangerous to human life. YMMV.

 

[Gregg Harris]

Yes, that's my opinion. But the only opinion that counts is the opinion of the fire code official in the jurisdiction of the location of the structure in question. It was my understanding that TheCommish (the OP who posed the question) is a building official, not a fire marshal. If that's correct, he doesn't enforce the IFC (if it's even adopted in Massachusetts), so whether smoke stains will require abatement under the IFC would be determined by the fire code official in the jurisdiction.

IFC section 115.1.1 doesn't just say unsafe conditions have to be abated or repaired, it specifies WHICH conditions may be unsafe and require abatement:

• Inadequate means of egress
• Inadequate light and ventilation
• Constitute a fire hazard
• Are otherwise dangerous to human life or public welfare

I have never heard of soot or smoke damage being deemed dangerous to human life. YMMV.

The soot that can be produced from a structure fire can be rather toxic to humans, and the type of material burned in the structure dictates how dangerous the abatement will be. VOC, heavy metals, formaldehyde etc., are hazardous and require the correct disposal to be set in place.

There is actually an ANSI standard ANSI/II CRC S 700 that was created for this very type scenario. It has not been adopted by OSHA yet, so at this point, it is not technically enforceable by AHJ, but it is the works.

 

[ICE]

I might be incorrect but I don't think that the TheCommish is referring to dangerous or toxic refuse that might need special handling. What he has is obvious smoke damage and some possible charring. If the charring is superficial, it is not a problem. Smoke damage is likewise not addressed by any code. It comes down to what the owner wants to do about it. The smoke damage can be dealt with by a chemical coating meant for that purpose. Just because it smells bad, there isn't a building department issue.

What might be an issue for the AHJ is electrical equipment and romex that was exposed to super heated gasses.

As an aside. I had a job where every window in a dwelling was busted out by the Sheriff. There was a hostage situation and tear gas grenades were launched in through the windows, all of the windows. Every electrical device from the refrigerator to the doorbell had to be replaced due to exposure to teargas. Switches, receptacles and appliances, all had to go.
There was a bunch of dents in the stucco where the Sheriff missed the window.

If ever you're having a downer day, remember that HO. His son was the bad guy so the insurance didn't cover the damage. He didn't have a hostage as the Sheriff assumed...just crazy enough to make them think so. The Sheriff could have gone home and let Pops figure it out. But the Sheriff has all the stuff and an itch to use it.

 

[Gregg Harris]

Smoke, soot, and ash can all be corrosive like the tear gas in your example, when in a vapor state, causing damage that is not readily seen.