Flammable liquid and vapor fires remain a national problem. A particular problem exists with LP gas fires, often resulting from improperly odorized gas in rural areas of this country and Puerto Rico. But this problem extends to the use of solvents, such as acetone in my case. As a result of my own litigation, we accumulated considerable information regarding flammable liquid and vapor fires. Hopefully, some of this information, though dated, will be useful to others.

THE PROBLEM

The National Fire Center, based on national statistics gathered between 1989 and 1998, reported an annual average of 2 million fires in the United States. Those fires resulted in an annual average in excess of 27,000 civilian injuries, more than 4,000 deaths, and estimated property damage in 1998 of $8.6 billion.

The National Fire Center found the risk for injury and death to be substantially higher for children age 4 and under, and for adults age 65 and over. The relative risk to older adults is more than twice that of the general population. Children under the age of 14 accounted for 20 percent of the fire deaths and 14 percent of the fire injuries. Among that group, African American and American Indian children were found to be at an increased risk.

The United States Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) collects annual data. It is available on-line through NEISS (National Electronic Injury Surveillance System). For 2001, based on reports received, it estimated over 19,000 thermal burn injuries to children under age 9 in the United States.

The data from the National Fire Center and CPSC does not allow for easy identification of fires resulting from the use of flammable liquids. Past independent sampling studies, however, point to the severity of the problem. In 1994, a review was conducted of the National Burn Information Exchange (NBIE) data, which was collected at the University of Michigan from selected national burn centers between 1964 and 1987. Of the 94,735 burns identified in its burn registry data base, 17,507 injuries originated from flammable liquid fires. Nor is the problem limited to industry. The review showed that 53,000 of the burn injuries occurred in the home, approximately 8500 of those involved the ignition of flammable liquids, and more than 2500 of those involved the use of a flammable liquid as a cleaning or repair agent.

In 1993, the Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association (GAMA) commissioned a study that reviewed fire data from 1988 through 1990. It uncovered an annual average in excess of 9,000 reported flammable liquid/vapor fires, with an annual casualty rate of more than 650 individuals. Nearly 20 percent of the incidents involved ignition by pilot lights of flammable liquids being used as a solvent or cleaner, and more than 30 percent involved accidental spillage of the flammable liquid. Child play accounted for approximately 5 percent of the causalities.

The true cost of flammable liquid and vapor fires lies in the severity of burn injury caused. The NBIE study found that 65 percent of the fires were preceded by an explosion causing greater burn injury and damage. Survivors had burns to 25 percent of their body, and 11 percent had full thickness burns. The GAMA study revealed that burn injury was far more likely to occur in this type of fire, with 33 percent of the fires resulting in such injury. The CPSC had earlier reported from a NEISS survey that burns from flammable liquid and vapor fires were the most severe, often involving ignited clothing and burns to the face and eyes.

The societal costs of burns from flammable liquid and vapor fires are obvious. It is generally true that the number of fires has been reduced over the last twenty (20) years. However, information suggests that the number of flammable liquid/vapor fires has not declined. Liquid propane gas (LPG) remains widely used in the rural areas, where as the number of LPG fueled barbeque grills in urban areas has expanded. Home improvement projects have grown, with residents using increasing numbers of flammable paints and solvents. Disposable butane cigarette lighters remain a primary cause of injury and death among young children.

ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM

Basic facts. Flammable liquids are often found around the home. Among the products that have caused fire and burn injury are:

• gasoline
• LP gas
• white gas
• diesel fuel
• kerosene
• lighter fluid
• glue/contact cement
• paint/paint thinner
• turpentine
• varnish
• lacquer
• alcohol
• mineral spirits
• insecticides
• household cleaners
• hairspray/nail polish remover
• acetone
• benzene
• hexane
• acetylene
• ether
• methyl ethyl ketone
• toluene

These liquids themselves do not burn. Vapors emanating from the surface of a liquid will burn when mixed with air in certain proportions, and a source of ignition is supplied. The lowest temperature at which a liquid will give off a sufficient concentration of vapor to form an ignitable mixture with air near the surface of the liquid is known as the flash point. The lower flammability limit of a fuel air mixture is the lowest volume percentage of fuel in air which is easily ignited by a small flame or will sustain combustion. A product with a high flash point is less hazardous than one with a lower flash point.

The vapors evolved from the majority of solvents and fuels found around the home are significantly heavier than air, and thus tend to settle toward the floor. As the vapor settles, its odor can become more undetectable as it invisibly travels along the floor. Outward movement away from the container is governed to some extent by diffusion properties, but more so by room air currents. It can be ignited by an ignition source remote to the location in which the flammable liquid is being used or spilled. Fire will follow the vapor back to its source

The NBIE, AGA, and CPSC data establish that flash-back fire often occurs when a distant pilot light to an appliance becomes an ignition source. The presence of an appliance utilizing room air for combustion insures that there will tend to be a natural flow of air toward the flame. Pilot lights in furnaces or water heaters low to the floor are thus especially hazardous. Other sources of ignition can cause explosion and fire, including matches, cigarettes, electrical appliances, a light switch, and even static electricity from walking across a carpeted floor.

The flammability of these liquids is often not appreciated, particularly by children. But adults too are often unfamiliar with the magnitude of the hazard. A gallon can of gasoline has an energy equivalence of 45 pounds of TNT, or 14 sticks of dynamite. Less apparent to the average consumer is the hazard presented by chemicals and solvents readily available on the market.. For example, retailers sell acetone in one-gallon containers. The combustion energy of vapors from one gallon of acetone is comparable to 41.5 pounds of TNT.

Labeling product
Many flammable liquids are inadequately labeled. With litigation having imposed liability, manufacturers have improved the warnings and instructions on their product. However, their concern remains that fully informative labeling will discourage the sale of their product.

Educational links/sources
It is critical to teach, particularly children, of the dangers of flammable liquids in and around the home. Several on-line sources offer information or links to other sources with preventative material. A few of those would include the National Fire Protection Association [www.nfpa.org]; the U.S. Fire Administration [www.usfa.fema.gov/kids]; the American Burn Association [www.ameriburn.org]; the Consumer Product Safety Commission [www.cpsc.gov]; and the Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association [www.gamanet.org].

Burn Counseling
For burn survivors, the Phoenix Society [Phoenix-society.org] provides invaluable information.

Legislative/ regulatory concerns. Burn injuries have long been recognized as among the most painful and devastating injuries an individual can sustain or survive. Burns frequently necessitate long periods of rehabilitation, multiple skin grafts lasting over a period of years, and painful physical therapy. They can leave survivors, particularly children, with lifelong physical and psychological trauma.

Of concern to burn survivors across the country is the legislative movement toward capping certain damages available in litigation. At the federal and state level, legislative leaders have sought to propose such caps on non-economic (pain and suffering) and punitive damages. The effort has already met with success in many states.
The burn survivor puts a face on such caps. How can a 5-year old child with severe facial burns, spending two months out of school in a hospital undergoing skin grafts, morphine and chemical baths, unable even to be touched by his parents for fear of infection, confronting years of reversionary surgery, and the future stare, rejection and taunting of his peers, be limited to $250,000 for the pain and suffering to be endured over the period of his or her lifetime? Juries should be allowed to make the assessment without artificial limits.

It is important to remember that a burn survivor does not recover money in litigation without proving the negligence of the defendant in causing the injury. But if a defendant manufacturer has knowingly sold its product on the market without proper warnings, and has caused burn injuries in the past, why should punitive damages not be a part of the recovery? If an importer puts a pair of children’s pajamas on the market that does not meet the requirements of the Flammable Fabrics Act, why should the burned child be limited in the amount of damages awarded?

The CPSC has limited resources and authority in directing the content of labeling on hazardous material. It, on one occasion, did ban the sale of contact adhesives in containers larger the one-half pint. Is that a ban that should be legislatively considered as to other products? Why should anyone be able to go into a local retailer, whether a hardware store, home improvement center, or neighborhood grocery store, and buy a gallon of acetone off the shelf? An estimated 500,000 gallons of acetone are being sold each year in the consumer market. Legislators need to consider more stringent labeling requirements for these flammable products

There is a further reason to develop a system of regulatory control over selling such flammable products in large volume containers. Flammable solvents are used in large quantities in the manufacture and processing of illicit drugs: cocaine, heroin, PCP, and methamphetamines. The societal cost of drug use is undisputed. But legislators must consider the risk of explosion, fire, and burn injury to innocent children, neighbors, and fire fighters.