They happen to the best of fire companies; however, rekindles should be few and far between.
One of the cardinal sins in the fire service is to have a rekindle. In the past, this was an automatic “chargeable offense” in my department. My dad would talk about how chiefs would shudder at the mere mention of the word. Today, in our kinder, gentler fire departments, we have grown more lenient toward failing to totally extinguish a fire.
In Toledo, we used to average about four rekindles a year (according to information supplied on the fire reports). Most of these are “no-harm, no-foul” types of rekindles where the ruins cannot be safely overhauled and flareups occur. On occasion, though, we do experience a rekindle in an occupied occupancy in which additional damage occurs. We went though three of these in a relatively short period of time and have instituted a new policy. As usual, we asked around and ended up modifying what a larger Ohio city did.
Prior to leaving the scene of any working fire, the battalion chief turns the fire over to an officer, normally a captain. The chief will give direction and make clear his expectations. When the captain is left in command (whose unit shall be the last to leave the scene), we leave the incident open and send the first-due engine company back one hour after the last unit leaves and the second-due engine company back after the second hour passes. If the officer of the second-in unit is confident that the fire is out, he will leave and close the incident. If he is still not sure, he will have the battalion chief return, and they will develop additional fire watches. The chief can call for the thermal imaging camera or even demolition crews if necessary.
Since implementing this policy, we have experienced no rekindles.
-John (Skip) Coleman, deputy chief of training and EMS, Toledo (OH) Department of Fire and Rescue; author of Incident Management for the Street-Smart Fire Officer (Fire Engineering, 1997) and Managing Major Fires (Fire Engineering, 2001); editorial advisory board member of Fire Engineering; and member of the FDIC Educational Committee.
Question: Many departments have experienced an increase in rekindles in the recent past. It is being reported that some insurance companies are suing fire departments over rekindles and are winning in court. Have rekindles been a problem in your department? If so, what additional steps, if any, has your department taken to eliminate them?
Rick Lasky, chief,
Lewisville (TX) Fire Department
Response: Every day, fire departments across the country respond to structure fires, arrive on the scene, do a great job knocking down the fire, take care of some other tasks, pick up, and return to quarters. Unfortunately, there are times when they are called back out to the structure to handle a rekindle.
Everyone knows that rekindles can be embarrassing and can wipe out a good job in the public’s eye. The bottom line, aside from a building owner’s setting fire to his building after we leave, is to finish the job. We have to blame ourselves. I’m not referring to the rekindle in the ruins of a building as much as to those times when we have to go back to a building that had little to moderate fire damage and now find it well involved. Getting called back for a small smoldering fire is bad enough, but this can hurt.
The Lewisville Fire Department is very thorough with its overhaul practices. This can be slowed at times in some areas of the building, mainly because our fire investigators need to work in those areas and we do not want to disturb any evidence. Our policy is a rather simple one that starts with having more than one company agree that we are good to go and that the building can be released to the building owner or another representative. Second, we try to do as much as we can to place the building back in order and remove as much of the remnants of burnt material as is reasonably possible-those items that are notorious for influencing rekindles such as sofas, mattresses, and the like.
Finally, after the last fire department unit or department member leaves the scene, we send a company back out to the building or buildings in one hour to check for any possible hot spots. We follow this procedure also when we leave the building in the hands of the occupant, the owner, or another representative. If it is felt that more visits to the site are needed, that company or another company will continue to visit the site until its members are satisfied. It also helps to have that little bit of fear some of the companies have about responding back for a rekindle. To date, our policy has worked very well.
Bob Oliphant, lieutenant,
Kalamazoo (MI) Department of Public Safety
Response: I would not characterize rekindles as a problem for our department. They do occur, but typically they involve structures that were heavily involved with fire and would be considered a total loss in any event. The fireground commander faces a tough choice of exposing his personnel to the hazards of overhauling an unsafe structure or returning later to extinguish a fire that reignited as a result of undetected hot spots.
Overhaul can cause as much damage as the fire itself, and every incident commander has probably encountered a situation where he had to evaluate the benefit of overhaul against the risk of a rekindle. We usually conduct frequent checks of structures after a fire or leave personnel on the scene as long as is necessary to ensure that the fire is out.
Tom Brennan, 20-year veteran, Fire Department of New York; retired chief, Waterbury (CT) Fire Department
Response: Rekindle-that was an awful word to “throw around” when I was still responding to fires. Overhauling-exhaustive overhauling-was the key to never having a problem with restarts of the fire condition left at the scene. And overhauling we did! We opened up everything from the fire-exposed structure to bales of rags to box cars to even dumpsters that had been torched by miscreants or the container’s owner. Of course, we had a major arson problem in the 1960s and 1970s, and units were doing an intense amount of fire duty. Nothing was restarted (or rekindled) in those days-the fire was reset!
I believe that we have a multifaceted problem. I don’t necessarily know how to solve it, but I know what I see. First is the personnel available on the fireground. In the volunteer sector, the responders no longer have the luxury of being able to find the time off to recover (or rehabilitate in today’s language). They must get back to the family or off to work rapidly. In the paid sector, the problem is not enough people responding. I read every day on the Internet of fire incidents in the United States that require a multiple alarm, mutual aid, or the like for almost any structure fire. The most common statement is, “Second alarm for a fire in the second floor of a 21/2-story private dwelling-no exposures.”
How long can you hold mutual-aid or second-alarm companies after the fire is under control? Certainly not long enough to use them for overhauling in all its aspects. And once they are released, you have the original problem of not having enough firefighters-and now they are exhausted. This is not to defend the problem but to understand it.
Second for me is training. I have yet to see the functions and intricacies of overhauling emphasized in writing. We are damage-conscious. America has been rebuilt since the old days. We no longer have the vacant buildings to train with. It is difficult to reproduce in practical sessions the many-faceted tasks associated with overhauling and the techniques involved. Training in the tasks required to gain good overhauling techniques is usually conducted at the company level. There, again, is a universal problem-the company officer. He or she has lost status in the eyes of the bean counters. In-house training sessions are usually orchestrated or nonexistent in many cases.
Complacency is next [according to my friends in the Tampa (FL) Fire Department, and I agree]. Overhauling was such an integral part of the firefighting experience that it was impossible to separate the two. As a truckie, it was a source of pride, just as important as was the arrival, entry, search, and extinguishment operation. The cooperation with the engine units was a “thing of beauty to behold.” Now, most of the “quality” of the operation is in the first phase of firefighting, and the overhauling is termed “grunt work.” It sounds silly in print, but in reality, motivation and spirit and pride are intangible qualities that create great final extinguishment practices.
Fire investigation procedures are another problem I’ve noticed (someone has to say it). It seems that it has become the practice to shut down operations too soon so the investigation team can come into the picture when the fire scene is least disturbed. That is all well and good if all the fire has been located and extinguished. Fire crews are told to leave the occupancy intact as much as possible to await the arrival of the investigation service. I have seen smoking mattresses on floors awaiting the familiar burst into flames, and worse, because of these standing orders from the investigators. I have never seen an investigator say, “Thanks guys. I realize that you are here a long time. Can we help with the additional overhauling?” It is like forensics arriving at a shooting scene to collect bullets before the shooter is captured. I can remember writing an article on overhauling and describing good engine company techniques during the overhauling phases of structure fires. I received criticism from fire investigators as well as from damage-conscious fire officials for encouraging disturbance.
Remember the definition of overhauling: “The methodical opening up of the fire area or fire building to conduct a search for hidden fire or any other hazards to life and property to assure final extinguishment.”
The use of positive-pressure ventilation at the time of the units’ arrival still makes me question the operation. Blowing onto the fire is not a good thing to do-at least before we know where it is, where it has gone, and where it is going.
Overhauling techniques were learned through a combination of understanding the basics of fire behavior and building construction (just look at the difference in fire spread and locations available between balloon and platform construction in private dwellings). It is a use of that knowledge to outguess the fire and where it could possibly be. Now we have unnatural forces at work in the fire compartment “pushing” a fact of physics with vectors of force it was never intended to have into areas that it could never have gotten into before.
Another problem is today’s building trends in construction, materials, laws, and codes. In the old days, buildings were constructed according to specification codes. Today, they build with performance codes. There can be voids anywhere in any structure. Buildings are now lightweight and were never meant to stand up to the attack of fire. Fire tactics have to be adjusted to account for the risk to the firefighter these buildings represent. Roofs are no longer thoroughly vented because of the time factor relative to the failure of support members. Departments have rules of DISengagement concerning certain construction that prevents personnel from operating on and sometimes under such construction. It is impossible to thoroughly examine building areas that you cannot stand on, under, or around! Where is the responsibility of these folks for creating the inaccessible voids that the insurance investigators are finding contribute to rekindles? Perhaps the huge insurance industry lobby as well as the one for building products can help us with our staffing problems on the responding apparatus. Besides, I would like to see a few of the investigation reports that determined that the rekindle was the cause of the second fire and the testimony of the court case. There is always that “expert” willing to testify against the operations of a fire service. What “expert” questions the “expert”?
Frank C. Schaper, chief,
St. Charles (MO) Fire Department
Response: In all fairness, try as you may, rekindles will occur. They happen to the best of fire companies. Rekindles should be few and far between, however. Any fire company worth its salt abhors a rekindle. It is a black mark against the fire company and a major irritation to the property owner and the insurance company. A rash of rekindles is certainly a cause for alarm. That situation should be checked out immediately and dealt with.
Most rekindles can be traced to poorly executed overhaul procedures and poor supervision during the overhaul process. Many times they can be traced to the same company, the same shift. In this case, fire service managers need to step in to fix the problem.
One night when I was on shift, a call for a structure fire came in; it was followed by two rekindles about 30 minutes apart. The second time, I called the battalion chief while he was at the scene. He said, “You should see this, chief.” I said, “If it comes in one more time, I will see it and you will see me, too.” I don’t know if he put it out right the third time or camped out there with a pumper all night, but it did not come in anymore that shift.
The answer to the problem, if it is a problem, is to get after those having the rekindles. This may be accomplished through counseling, or it may take retraining, but the situation is correctable. Surely with a thermal imaging camera, a plaster hook, and a 13/4-inch line, rekindles should be few and far between.
Steve Kreis, assistant chief,
Phoenix (AZ) Fire Department
Response: Rekindles have not been a significant problem in the recent past for the Phoenix Fire Department. But clearly, any rekindle will cause problems for a department and is terrible for customer service. Over the past few years, our rekindles have diminished in part due to vigilance on the part of the incident commander and the companies operating at the incident.
Our department does not have a specific standard operating procedure (SOP) regarding rekindles. For many years, the first-due engine company has been returning to the incident at one- or two-hour intervals to inspect for any hidden fires that did not appear during the initial overhaul phase. Oftentimes, several follow-up visits are required. First-due companies, and especially the company officers, need to be accountable for incidents occurring in their response areas. Preventing rekindles is just one part of that accountability.
For major incidents, companies are often required to remain on the scene for long periods of time during the overhaul phase. A well-coordinated effort between the fire investigators and the overhaul companies at a large incident can significantly reduce the number of rekindles.
Coupled with follow-up visits to the fire scene and vigilance on the part of members, technology has had a dramatic impact on lessening the possibility of rekindles. More than half of the pumpers within the department are equipped with compressed air foam (CAF) capability. Although we are still experimenting with the use of CAF during initial fire attack, the results appear to be promising in its ability to extinguish fires quickly, completely, and safely. Regarding the topic of rekindles, using CAF during overhaul has proven to be an excellent way to complete the overhaul process of the firefight. One of the benefits of CAF is its ability to extinguish small hidden fires that often cause rekindles. All of our ladder companies also carry a small handheld device containing class A foam for hard-to-reach locations. Thermal imaging cameras have also played a significant role in finding a hidden smoldering fire that we may not have found in the past.
Basically, the policy for rekindles within our department is to use vigilance during the overhaul phases of a firefight (while keeping in mind the concepts of loss control), make the prevention of rekindles a priority for the incident commander and initial companies, and use technology wherever applicable.
Rekindles are bad for everyone: the first-due company; the incident commander; the department; and especially the customer, who expects us to do it right the first time.
Ronald Hiraki, assistant chief of employee development,
Seattle (WA) Fire Department
Response: The Seattle Fire Department has had its share of rekindles-although not an unusual number or an unusual pattern. However, any rekindle is a problem, and fire officers need to evaluate the actions they took during overhaul to learn from every occurrence.
Until the mid-1980s, following extinguishment and overhaul, the Seattle Fire Department performed a cleanup of nearly every occupancy involved in fire. This included removing burned debris to the outside of the building. This was often accomplished by firefighters using scoop shovels and hauling garbage cans outside numerous times. The debris was separated into piles by type of material. Openings cut in walls, ceilings, and roofs were squared up. All openings to the building were meticulously covered with plastic. Inside the building, members would wipe down fixtures and countertops. The goal of the cleanup process was to provide a service to the citizens. Our firefighters recognized that their actions could reduce the trauma victims experience when seeing their buildings and belongings charred and smoke damaged. Our department was forced to discontinue the cleanup process because of a change in state safety regulations that dictated how the department would operate in the post-fire environment.
The cleanup process caused multiple companies to remain at the scene for several hours after the fire. Therefore, firefighters were on scene to observe and react to rekindles. Essentially, the cleanup process provided a second inspection for extinguishment. Without this added insurance, firefighters had to put a greater effort into and maintain their diligence in the overhaul of fire buildings. Many chief officers directed a fire company to remain at the scene on fire watch when buildings could not be completely or safely overhauled.
Like many departments, the Seattle Fire Department purchased its first thermal imaging camera several years ago. In addition to enhancing rescue capabilities, the cameras have been extremely useful in finding hot spots to ensure complete extinguishment. Their value cannot be overstated. These cameras help firefighters find the hot spots quickly and reduce the amount of control damage required. During the summer of 2000, Deputy Chief Raoul Evans-Ramos and Lieutenant Monty Kirkpatrick of our Support Services Division designed and organized extensive testing of thermal imaging cameras from several manufacturers. The tests were conducted by Operations Division firefighters during live fire training in an acquired structure. By the end of 2000, the department purchased one camera for each ladder company and several special units. Because these cameras are readily accessible, are easy to use, and provide clarity, the chance of rekindles is greatly reduced.
Leigh Hollins, battalion chief,
South Manatee (FL) Fire & Rescue District
Response: Our department, like most others I am sure, has experienced building fire rekindles from time to time. Although we have SOPs on many things, we do not have a specific SOP or policy on preventing rekindles.
We do, however, take steps to avoid rekindles whenever possible and to protect the public we serve should a rekindle occur. In my view, we need to deal with three types of rekindles.
The first type is when a building is “lost” and “on the ground.” Typically, these types of jobs are few and far between and usually involve a multialarm commercial fire. Inevitably, the crews end up going back for a rekindle because of the layers of debris and roofing and the inability of hose streams to penetrate all areas. These are “expected and acceptable rekindles.”
The second type is when a relatively small fire occurs, such as in a mattress, a stuffed chair, or a stove. After the fire, the officer decides to allow the occupants to stay in the home because of the rather minor nature of the fire damage. This situation will be the most dangerous because of the life safety hazard.
There are several things our officers can or must do in this situation. The first is to make sure that when we leave the home, there are working smoke detectors. If there are not, the engine company will install detectors in the home. Each engine company carries a kit with five smoke detectors and batteries. This is part of a statewide program we have adopted (see “Smoke Detector Credited with Saving Three Lives,” Fire Engineering, Feb. 1999, p. 120).
Additionally, the use of a thermal imaging camera is a great help in detecting hidden fire, hot spots, or fire extension in such cases (each of our first-out engines has a camera). Sometime, however, all areas surrounding the fire will retain heat for quite some time, such as the cabinets over a stove, and the use of a thermal imaging camera can deceive the operator because all areas are showing “hot.” Therefore, a return trip a couple hours later to check it out and use the camera again is a good option. These are life-threatening rekindles.
The third type of rekindle involves major fire involvement of the building and structural components, such as when fire is blowing out several of the building’s windows and the attic or cockloft space is involved. This type of fire is usually attacked offensively if anything is to be saved. If the crew is successful, the building will remain standing with moderate to severe damage, with the roof usually intact.
With even the most experienced officers and crews, this type of rekindle can be a problem because of the amount of damage and the large area that was exposed to flame contact. In addition, most times when there is fire penetration into the attic, the potential exists for a smoldering type of fire in the insulation. The use of blown-in, paper-backed, or cellulose insulation is a major problem in this situation. Even in areas with an adequate water supply, when you can literally soak a building and attic, this type of
rekindle can occur. In nonhydrant areas, when the extra effort to really “soak” a structure cannot be done, the risk is even greater.
In this situation, it is very important to visit the fire scene a couple of times in the two to eight hours after a fire to check for rekindles. Using a thermal imaging camera in this situation can be a great help in finding hidden hot spots after other areas have cooled. Crews should revisit the site to avoid a second fire that would burn the roof off the place, an embarrassing call at best.
In addition to the great amount of rekindle information from around the country contained in this month’s Roundtable, I recommend you read “How To Avoid Rekindles” by Bill Gustin (Fire Engineering, November 2000).
Larry Anderson, deputy chief,
Dallas (TX) Fire Department
Response: Rekindles have always been one of my pet peeves. Any fire should be battled only once. That is the purpose of overhaul and the responsibility of the last crew on the scene. Any time we are dispatched to the same address within eight hours of clearing the scene, an arson investigator is sent to determine whether this was a rekindle. If the fire is deemed a rekindle, the officer on the last company to clear the scene must submit a memo explaining the circumstances. Discipline can run from a letter of counseling to suspension. A rekindle is a serious offense in our department.
