MEC&F Expert Engineers : 11/15/14

Saturday, November 15, 2014

THE FAULTY "ARSON" INVESTIGATIONS: EXPERTS’ FAILURE TO ELIMINATE ALL POTENTIAL IGNITION SOURCES RESULTS IN OVERTURNED ARSON AND FRAUD CONVICTIONS IN NEW YORK



Experts’ Failure to Eliminate all Potential Ignition Sources Results in Overturned Arson and Fraud Convictions in New York



We reported few months ago of the false fire investigations performed by fire investigators.  Here is the link to that report.
LACK OF SCIENCE IS BEHIND MANY FALSE ARSON CAUSE AND ORIGIN INVESTIGATIONS
Arson investigation, unfortunately, is a field where junk science has been the rule rather than the exception.  A large body of cause-and-effect mythology has developed in fire investigations over the years.  As far back as 30 years ago we have been arguing that the opinions stated by many fire investigators were not based on science and they were in fact false.  Due to these faulty opinions, many people were convicted of arson and many people lost their home and their livelihood.  Some people have allegedly been put to death having been convicted of arson, based on the same old cause-and-effect mythology.  Through the 1980s, proponents (including ourselves) of a science-based approach to arson investigations waged an uphill battle, finally winning a major victory in 1992 when the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) published its Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations (NFPA 921).  NFPA 921 would subsequently become the bible in fire and arson investigations.



Prior to NFPA 921, the fundamental principles for determining the causes of fires did not involve science per se, but rather experience-based hypotheses that were not tested to determine their validity.  This process, known as “negative corpus,” relied on a process of elimination rather than supporting evidence or scientifically supported conclusions, and some investigators feared that a science-based approach would establish criteria of proof that would be too difficult to meet.  So, they fought NFPA 921.
The Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals decision was handed down in 1993, where the U.S. Supreme Court made judges the gatekeepers of expert testimony.  The ruling said that judges have to determine if expert testimony is reliable, and that using a methodology that has been peer reviewed, published, and accepted was part of that reliability test.  So in cases that included fire investigations, courts began gravitating towards NFPA 921, a consensus document from a group of leaders in the fire investigation community.  The U.S. courts began referring to NFPA 921 as the “standard of care” for evaluating expert testimony regarding fire investigations.
An organization called the Innocence Project [which works to exonerate the wrongfully convicted] has taken an interest in arson cases.  They are going back and evaluating the science or lack thereof in investigations and comparing it with what’s available today.  They estimate that between 200 and 400 individuals may have been wrongly convicted of arson based on false evidence and false expert testimony using non-scientific methods.
We are also very gratified to see state legislatures now trying to reverse some of the wrongs committed over the years as a result of these false opinions and wrongful convictions.  In this blog lack of validity of common myths is reviewed, and new forensic engineering analysis techniques discussed consistent with the NFPA 921.



As a further proof of our report, we previde below a case from New York where a person was convicted based on this faulty fire investigation.

In the case of The People of the State of New York v. James Richardson, —N.Y.S.2d -, 2008 WL 442 5918 (N.Y.A.D. Third Dept.)(October 2, 2008); the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York, reversed convictions of arson in the third degree and insurance fraud in the third degree having concluded that the jury verdicts were not supported by the weight of the evidence. The standard on review required the Court to independently review the evidence and make a determination of whether the evidence was “of such weight and credibility as to convince [the Court] that the jury was justified in finding the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at *3.
On February 15, 2007, the defendant’s home was involved in a fire which caused severe damage, particularly to the kitchen area of the property. The fire was discovered approximately two hours after the defendant had left the premises and it was undisputed that the defendant had sole access to the property. Two arson investigators concluded that the fire originated in the kitchen where a space heater, refrigerator, stove, microwave, water cooler, and outside light were all plugged into and powered by a single electrical outlet through the use of a power strip. Both investigators testified that they ruled out all accidental causes. Moreover, a laboratory report confirmed the presence of a medium petroleum distillate on a portion of the baseboard where the fire originated.



However, both fire investigators, one being trained just five months prior to the fire and employed by the City of Albany Fire Department, and the other having been retained by the defendant’s insurance company, admitted that they were unable to pinpoint the actual cause of the fire. Further, and critical to the Court, was the fact that while the experts claimed to have eliminated the possibility of mechanical sources as the cause of the fire, neither had the majority of the kitchen appliances inspected, all of which were grouped together in the same area of the small, compact kitchen. Further, the investigators noticed three tripped circuit breakers, indicating a possible circuit overload, but did not determine the reason for the breakers’ failure or even determine with which appliances they were associated. Rather, the Court criticized, one of the investigators relied on an expert report issued by an engineer specializing in failure analysis who examined the space heater, the electrical outlet, power strip and the remains of several electrical wires, but who failed to examine the scene, investigate the tripped circuit breakers or examine the remaining electrical appliances in close proximity to the fire’s origin.
Further, the Court found of equal importance that the defendant had testified that he was in the process of repainting the kitchen at the time of the fire and also stored charcoal lighter fluid in a box near the space heater. In fact, cans of paint were discovered in the kitchen in the fire debris, most of which spilled during the fire department’s efforts to extinguish the fire. Thus, while investigators testified as to the presence of medium petroleum distillate—examples of which include paint thinner and some brands of charcoal lighter fluid—neither identified the specific distillate found on the baseboard and neither provided “unequivocal testimony” excluding paint thinner, turpentine or charcoal lighter fluid as the source of the distillate. The Court was also troubled by the fact that testing of a burn pattern on the floor was negative for the presence of ignitable fluids. the Court did not discuss the possibility or likelihood that a distillate may be consumed during a fire such that no residue is detected; it was not clear whether this was raised at trial.



The opinion, however, was a divided one and Judge Carpinello and Presiding Judge Cardona dissented. The dissenters noted that on appeal that the Court could not evaluate the demeanor of the defendant while testifying at trial. The dissent further noted that there was no sign of forced entry at the property and stressed the fact that two certified fire investigators did eliminate all accidental causes of the fire based on their physical inspection of the premises.
In discussing particular evidence in the case, the dissent took exception to the majority’s conclusion that the experts did not “reasonably” exclude the possibility of an electrical fire and pointed to the following: (1) the precise origin identified by a “v-pattern” on the wall was in the corner of the kitchen, near the stove; (2) none of the appliances referred to by the majority were at the base of that “v-pattern”; (3) the stove and refrigerator were examined and eliminated as potential sources; (4) the tripped circuit breakers may simply have been tripped due to the heat of the fire; (5) the baseboard at the origin of the fire tested positive for medium petroleum distillate; (6) there was an unusual burn pattern on the floor consistent with a liquid burning across the floor surface; and (7) an engineering examination of the electric heater as well as statements from the defendant eliminated it as the cause of the fire.
While the Court’s opinion makes no mention of NFPA 921 Guide for Fire & Explosion Investigations, it demonstrates that it is critical for arson investigators to eliminate all potential causes of fire before concluding that a fire is incendiary. In fact, in this case, the experts’ failure to examine and eliminate certain potential ignition sources in the area of origin was pivotal in overturning the defendant’s convictions.


4 WORKERS WERE KILLED AT A DUPONT PLANT ON SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2014 - THEY WERE EXPOSED TO METHYL MERCAPTAN


 FOUR (4) WORKERS WERE KILLED AT A DUPONT PLANT ON SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2014 - THEY WERE EXPOSED TO METHYL MERCAPTAN





Our experience with this chemical suggest that the workers did not have proper respiratory protection with them when they investigated the gas leak.

LA PORTE, Texas (AP) — Four workers were killed and one was injured Saturday during a hazardous chemical leak at a suburban Houston industrial plant, DuPont officials said.

The chemical, methyl mercaptan, began leaking around 4 a.m. in a unit at the DuPont plant in La Porte, about 20 miles east of Houston. Plant officials said the release was contained by 6 a.m.

Methyl mercaptan was used at the plant to create crop-protection products such as insecticides and fungicides, according to DuPont. The cause of the leak was not immediately known.

Five employees were in the unit at the time of the incident and were exposed to the chemical, the company said. Four died at the plant, and one was hospitalized.

“There are no words to fully express the loss we feel or the concern and sympathy we extend to the families of the employees and their co-workers,” plant manager Randall Clements said in a statement. “We are in close touch with them and providing them every measure of support and assistance at this time.”

The company said the fifth worker who was hospitalized was being held for observation but didn’t provide further details. DuPont would only say “the employee is currently receiving treatment.”

None of the victims was immediately identified.

Clements said that the employees had responded to the leak in a valve when they were exposed and that the company would be cooperating with local, state and federal officials investigating the leak.

“As part of that investigation, we are conducting our own top-to-bottom review of this incident and we will share what we learn with the relevant authorities,” he said.

Jeff Suggs, emergency management coordinator for La Porte, said the chemical release was not toxic for those living nearby, but that it caused a smell that’s similar to rotten eggs.

“It’s a nuisance smell in the area. It’s a smell that’s traveled quite far,” Suggs said.

Methyl mercaptan is also commonly used to odorize natural gas — which has no odor — for safety purposes.

The La Porte plant has 320 DuPont employees. Four other companies are also tenants at the complex



THE ROLLOVER RISKS OF TWO-TANK TANKERS ARE TOO GREAT TO CONTINUE TO ALLOW THEM CARRYING HAZARDOUS MATERIALS WITHOUT ADDITIONAL SAFETY MEASURES



THE ROLLOVER RISKS OF TWO-TANK TANKERS ARE TOO GREAT TO CONTINUE TO ALLOW THEM CARRYING HAZARDOUS MATERIALS WITHOUT ADDITIONAL SAFETY MEASURES





The recent (October 31, 2014) rollover of a two-car tanker in Los Angeles reminds how dangerous these two-tank tankers are for carrying flammable liquids.  Tankers are by far the hardest commercial vehicle to control.  The fluid slosh can easily throw the driver around if the driver is not expending it.

The forces generated by the sloshing of bulk liquid carried in tanker trucks can cause accidents.  The roll-over tendency of a vehicle can be measured in terms of how many "g" (gravitational acceleration) that vehicle can withstand in cornering. The higher this value, the safer the vehicle. For example, full size passenger cars can withstand around 1.2 g. For a loaded semi-truck the number is 0.4, and for half empty tanker truck it can be as bad as 0.15. Tanker trucks are used for supplying soldiers with water and fuel. The trucks sometimes need to operate on rough terrain at relatively high speeds. This exposes the truck to a roll-over risk. If the tanker is partially empty, the risk of roll-over becomes much higher. 


THE BATTERING OF SUPER STORM SANDY FLOOD POLICYHOLDERS – HOW THE WYO INSURERS ABUSE THE PROCESS TO MINIMIZE THE PAYMENT DUE TO THE STORM VICTIMS, WHILE LINING UP THEIR POCKETS WITH MILLIONS OF DOLLARS



THE BATTERING OF SUPER STORM SANDY FLOOD POLICYHOLDERS – HOW THE WYO INSURERS ABUSE THE PROCESS TO MINIMIZE THE PAYMENT DUE TO THE STORM VICTIMS, WHILE LINING UP THEIR POCKETS WITH MILLIONS OF DOLLARS




We provide below a write-up prepared by law firms who represent Super Storm Sandy Victims.  Unfortunately, we concur with these statements.  The process is intended to minimize payments to the victims and not to properly compensate them for their insured damages.

In addition, these insurers pick "experts" who would say what the insurers want to hear, i.e., that there is damage or that there is minimal damage or that the damage is pre-existing, and so on.

The policyholders then start complaining about the opinions of these "experts", without hiring their own expert, perhaps because they have no money.  This is a very sad and dishonest situation that must change.



What Is The Write Your Own Program?
The Write Your Own (WYO) Program began in 1983 and is a cooperative undertaking of the insurance industry and FEMA. The WYO Program allows participating property and casualty insurance companies to write and service the Standard Flood Insurance Policy in their own names. The companies receive an expense allowance for policies written and claims processed while the Federal Government retains responsibility for underwriting losses. The WYO Program operates as part of the NFIP, and is subject to its rules and regulations.
The goals of the WYO Program are:

  • Increase the NFIP policy base and the geographic distribution of policies;
  • Improve service to NFIP policyholders through the infusion of insurance industry knowledge; 
  • Provide the insurance industry with direct operating experience with flood insurance.
 



POTENTIAL OCCUPATIONAL OVEREXPOSURE TO LEAD, CADMIUM, CHROMIUM, MERCURY AND NOISE AT ELECTRONIC SCRAP RECYCLING FACILITIES - EMERGING GLOBAL THREATS FROM E-WASTE



Potential Occupational Overexposure to Lead, Cadmium, Chromium, Mercury and Noise at Electronic Scrap Recycling Facilities – EMERGING GLOBAL THREATS FROM E-WASTE




Background
E-waste (electronic waste) is the fastest growing waste stream in many countries.  The U.S remains the world’s largest e-waste polluter closely followed by China, according to a U.N think tank study.

E-Waste- which includes phones, televisions, laptops and computers, poses danger to humans and the environment alike due to lead, mercury and other poisonous toxins present in batteries. 

The StEP initiative reports the U.S dumped more than 9.4 million metric tons of e-waste in 2012, more than 2 million metric tons more than its economic rival. Per Capita, each person in the U.S is responsible for 30 kilograms (66 pounds) compared to the global average of 7 kilograms (15 pounds) per person. 
  


Recycling of the E-Waste
Go Green! Recycle! We have all heard the call to be more environmentally conscious. However, not everyone is aware of the many health and safety hazards facing employees who handle the recycling of electronics. Many recycled electronics can contain hazardous materials such as lead, cadmium and other toxic metals. In 2011, the U.S. e-scrap recycling industry contributed approximately $90 billion to the U.S. economy, compared with less than $1 billion in 2002 [ISRI 2014]. The ‘e-scrap’ recycling industry is also called ‘e-waste’ or ‘e-cycle.’ This industry sector generated about 138,000 direct jobs in 2011, up from 6,000 employees in 2002, and recycled more than 130 million metric tons of materials in 2010 [ISRI 2014]. To better document the hazards, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has completed exposure evaluations at several electronics recycling facilities and conducted a survey of electronics recycling facilities across the United States.




Recent NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluations
Through the NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) Program we have measured employee exposures to lead, cadmium, chromium, and noisein e-scrap recycling facilities. We found that employees in facilities that process cathode ray tube (CRT) glass, including employees in areas away from where the CRT glass is processed, can be overexposed to lead and cadmium. At some facilities, we have found lead, cadmium, and other toxic metals on surfaces outside of production areas, ineffective engineering controls, and poor employee work practices such as dry sweeping (causes dust laden with toxic metals to be swept back into the air). NIOSH has also found conditions that can lead to “take-home” exposures; for example, in some e-scrap recycling facilities the employees did not have access to showers or work uniforms. As a result, employees tracked contamination through the facility and to their personal vehicles, and potentially to their homes. More information and prevention recommendations can be found in the HHE reports listed below.




Given that results from hazard evaluations at individual sites might not be representative of an industry as a whole, we conducted a telephone survey of 47 facilities in the United States to provide a broader picture. Through the survey, we identified several types of occupational health hazards in the e-scrap recycling industry. We learned that responding facilities 1) had between 10 and 80 employees, 2) recycled a wide array of electronics, and 3) performed manual recycling processes. Some facilities had practices indicative of poor control of dust generated during recycling. The survey showed that e-scrap recycling has the potential for a wide variety of occupational exposures and that educating the industry about health and safety practices was needed to help protect employee health. More information can be found in the survey report Adobe PDF file.


                              Recycled phones before being shredded.

NIOSH shared information from the HHEs and survey with the Institute for Scrap Recycling Industries, Incorporated (ISRI), R2 Solutions (now called Sustainable Electronics Recycling International [SERI]), and the Basel Action Network (BAN). These organizations administer the Recycling Industry Operating Standard™ (RIOS™), the Responsible Recycling Standard for Electronics Recyclers (R2,) and the e-Stewards® Standard for Responsible Recycling and Reuse of Electronic Equipment (e-Stewards®). These are voluntary certification standards for electronic recyclers. Continued efforts are needed to ensure that occupational health and safety considerations are an important component of voluntary certification programs.

Participate in a New NIOSH Study
Starting Fall 2014, NIOSH will begin a study to evaluate occupational exposures to metals and flame retardants in e-scrap recycling facilities and to recommend controls to reduce employee exposures. The HHE Program is looking for five facilities that would like to participate. We plan to observe work processes and practices, and evaluate exposure controls and employee health. During the visits, a team of industrial hygienists and medical officers will assess occupational exposures to workers at each facility, including metals (such as lead, cadmium, and indium) and flame retardants (such as polybrominated diphenyl ethers and newer alternatives). We will also evaluate engineering controls such as local exhaust ventilation, and the use of work practices and personal protective equipment at these workplaces. There is no cost to the facility to participate. The findings and recommendations from these evaluations will be shared with employer and employee representatives at each facility and will be posted on the NIOSH HHE Program website.

Seeking Feedback
NIOSH is interested in learning more about employee exposures to other harmful materials, physical hazards, or other stressors at e-scrap recycling facilities. Let us know what e-scrap health and safety hazards you think have not been well studied. We also want to learn about measures that have been effective in preventing or minimizing these workplace hazards.










Regulations/Standards







Legislative Recycling Mandates
Federal Legislative Mandates for Electronics Recovery: At present, there is no Federal mandate to recycle e-waste. There have been numerous attempts to develop a Federal law. However, to date, there is no consensus on a Federal approach.
State Mandatory Electronics Recovery Programs: Many states have instituted mandatory electronics recovery programs. The following website provides regularly updated information on state e-waste legislation:




Regulations Governing Management of Used Electronics
Some electronics (such as color CRT computer monitors, color CRT TV tubes, and smaller items such as cell phones and other hand-helds) test hazardous under Federal law. If so, they are subject to special handling requirements under Federal law, subject to certain exemptions. It is the generators' responsibility to determine if their materials are hazardous waste. For more information on hazardous waste identification, see the Waste Determination webpage.
EPA encourages reuse and recycling of used electronics, including those that test hazardous. To facilitate more reuse and recycling of these products, EPA has less stringent management requirements for products bound for reuse and recycling. Specifics follow:



Resale or Donation: Computer monitors and televisions sent for continued use (ie. resale or donation) are not considered hazardous wastes.
Federal Regulatory Requirements for Recycling of CRTs: EPA encourages recycling of CRTs. Thus, CRTs sent for recycling are subject to streamlined handling requirements. For more information on the CRT Rule, including export requirements and frequent questions please see Cathode Ray Tubes Final Rule.
Federal Regulatory Requirements for Circuit Boards within the United States: Circuit Boards are subject to a special exemption from Federal hazardous waste rules.


  • Whole unused circuit boards are considered unused commercial chemical products, which are unregulated.
  • Whole used circuit boards meet the definition of spent materials but also meet the definition of scrap metal. Therefore, whole used circuit boards that are recycled are exempt from the hazardous waste regulations.
  • Shredded circuit boards are excluded from the definition of solid waste if they are containerized (ie., fiberpaks) prior to recovery. These shredded circuit boards cannot contain mercury switches, mercury relays, nickel-cadmium batteries, or lithium batteries. If these materials are not treated this way, then they are considered hazardous waste and must be treated as such.


Note: This discussion summarizes relevant federal regulatory requirements. For the complete federal hazardous waste requirements for generators, consult 40 CFR Parts 260-262.





Federal Regulatory Requirements for Disposal CRTs and Other Electronics that Test Hazardous


  • Large Quantities Sent for Disposal: Wastes from facilities that generate over 100 kilograms (about 220 pounds) per month of hazardous waste are regulated under Federal law when disposed. CRTs from such facilities sent for disposal (as opposed to reuse, refurbishment or recycling) must be manifested and sent as hazardous waste to a permitted hazardous waste landfill.
  • Small Quantities Exempt: Businesses and other organizations that send for disposal (as opposed to reuse, refurbishment or recycling) less than 100 kilograms (about 220 pounds) per month of hazardous waste are not required to handle this material as hazardous waste. If a small-quantity generator wishes to dispose of a small quantity of CRTs or other used electronics that test hazardous under Federal law, these materials can go to any disposal facility authorized to receive solid waste (eg. a municipal landfill), unless state law requires more stringent management (eg. CA).
  • Household Exemption for Electronics Sent to Disposal: Used computer monitors or televisions generated by households are not considered hazardous waste and are not regulated under Federal regulations. State laws may be more stringent as reqards electronics from households (eg. CA).


State Regulatory Requirements for Disposal of Electronics that Test Hazardous
State regulatory requirements for e-waste can be more stringent than the Federal requirements, and vary from state to state. California considers CRTs to be spent materials and regulates all CRT as hazardous waste, ie. they are banned from landfills. Other states, such as Massachusetts and Florida, have taken steps to streamline hazardous waste regulations for CRTs, reducing special handling requirements if these products are directed to recycling. Many states are developing Universal Waste exemptions for CRT which also streamline management of CRTs bound for recycling. If you are planning on disposing used CRTs (or other electronics that test hazardous under state or Federal law), check relevant state requirements, which might be different from federal regulatory requirements.





Presentation