The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Evacuating is not always best
Don’t make me out to be a liar. I teach safety classes to child care providers. In one of my classes I teach evacuation procedures and during this class I tell them about Sheltering in place. I tell them that they should only be evacuated during a chemical incident is if they are in the blast zone.
As a fire line officer it was always my idea that, if there is a chemical leak or incident that people need to be evacuated. As I researched my class I found that in many cases that is the worst thing to do. Why you may ask? When you’re evacuating people where are they going? From their home to another location and they need to go outside to do that and in many cases they are being exposed to the chemical.
Some items from a study of the National Institute for Chemical Studies;
Sheltering in place as a public protective action has received large amounts of attention as a result of the submission of Risk Management Plans (RMP). Although sheltering in place has been used by emergency management officials for many years, very little data have been collected on how it has been used and its effectiveness. Both supporters and critics alike have expressed interest in such a collection of data about sheltering in place.
Many, if not most communities in the United States are vulnerable to the health and safety impacts of a hazardous materials emergency. These types of emergencies can result from accidents that occur at a wide variety of places including industrial facilities, government and educational institutions, commercial establishments, farms, and during transport. When these events occur, emergency response officials have two basic tools to protect the threatened public. One is to evacuate the public out of the area affected by the hazardous material release. The other is to request that the public “shelter in place, “ that is, go indoors, close up the building and wait for the danger to pass.
Evacuation has long been used to move the public away from danger. Its goal in hazardous materials emergencies is to avoid or minimize exposure to dangerous chemicals. When evacuation can be completed before dangerous levels of hazardous materials move into the community, it is the public protective action of choice. This will avoid exposure to the hazardous material completely. It may also be preferable when the leak is large, unpredictable and difficult to control, or when there is a high risk of explosion or flash over. However, evacuations can take a very long time to complete, particularly in areas with high population density. And evacuating has inherent risks unrelated to the hazardous material. Managing an evacuation is a resource-intensive activity for local emergency management agencies.
(In a conversation with a emergency management agent I was told that it could take as long as 4 hours from the time the OIC says evacuate until the first person is walking into a shelter)
Shelter in place as a public protection tool has gained acceptance as a public protection tool. The goal of sheltering in place during hazardous materials accidents is to minimize the exposure of the threatened public to the dangerous chemical(s). Sheltering in place uses a structure and its indoor atmosphere to temporarily separate people from a hazardous outdoor atmosphere. The people will still be in the endangered area, but will be protected by the barrier created by the shelter and the short-term protection of its indoor atmosphere.
Scientific studies of Sheltering as a Protective Action
Some early studies of sheltering effectiveness calculated that, for a typical dwelling and a plume lasting 10 minutes, the dose indoors would be about one-tenth of the outside dose. For other types of dwellings and
releases, the indoor dose could be as little as one percent of that received outdoors.2
In this modeled example, a person staying outside would have been exposed to 400 parts per million of the toxic gas for 10 minutes. On the other hand, a person who immediately closed up his house prior to the
arrival of the cloud would have been exposed to no more than 60 parts per million during the same 10 minutes. If the hypothetical toxic gas causes harmful effects in a person exposed to 100 parts per million for
10 minutes, it is clear that sheltering in place would have been beneficial to a person using this technique.
Basically what their saying is that a person is usually safer inside then out. Several examples
Houston, TX on May 11, 1976
A tank truck carrying anhydrous ammonia wrecked on an exit ramp and toppled onto a freeway below. On impact, the tank ruptured and released about 7,500 gallons of ammonia. The ammonia immediately vaporized and formed a thick plume. With winds of about 7 mph, most of the ammonia cloud had dispersed
after 5 minutes. The cloud surrounded the nearby Houston Post newspaper building – birds on the roof were killed. For people within 1,000 feet of the release point, 78 were hospitalized for symptoms of ammonia exposure, 100 were treated for less severe injuries, and 4 died as a result of ammonia exposure. The National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigation concluded that people who sheltered and stayed inside buildings (including workers in the Houston Post building) received no harm from the ammonia release. NTSB also concluded that people who stayed in their cars generally received less
Pensacola, FL on November 9, 1977
A railroad tank car carrying anhydrous ammonia derailed and was punctured resulting in a release of ammonia vapors. Two deaths and 46 injuries were reported for those who were evacuated. In six
houses that were very close to the accident site, there was no time to evacuate. Those residents closed their windows and doors and stuffed towels under doors and around windows. NTSB concluded that a breathable and survivable atmosphere was maintained
Miamisburg, OH on July 8, 1986
A CSX rail tank car derailed releasing liquid phosphorus. About 30,000 people were evacuated from the surrounding area. However, a local hospital near the accident site was unable to evacuate. The hospital staff and patients sheltered in place and were not injured. (Information from a telephone interview on 12-
15-97 with Lt. Andy Harp, Miamisburg Fire Department, one of the first responders on the scene, as reported by East Harris, TX Manufacturers Association)
And for me the best example of sheltering in place working
Fort Rucker, AL on November 8, 1994
Chlorine gas (150 lbs.) escaped from a sewage treatment facility at the U.S. Army Aviation Center and Fort Rucker. The release occurred in the early evening, 6:10 pm, and lasted for about 2 hours. According to the RMP filed by the facility, 128 people sheltered and 128 people evacuated. This resulted in 21 public
responders being hospitalized , 22 workers being injured and injury to one member of the public who was onsite at the time. The chlorine release also damage plants in the area. Stability conditions of F meant that the cloud of chlorine gas dispersed very slowly; temperature was 65 F and wind at 3 knots from the south.
Some studies have shown that people who are evacuated have a 16% chance is long term illness due to exposure as opposed to only 1% of those that sheltered in place. The chance is immediate injury from exposure during evacuation is 38%.
The best thing for you do to is contact your local or state Emergency Management Agency and find out, how long it would take to set up evacuation, their procedures for evacuation and their thoughts on sheltering in place.
Sheltering in place is not very complicated. All you really need is some plastic and duct tape. I have my day cares putting together kits with Radios, water, snacks, first aid kits and toiletries for less then $75.
More Information if needed
www.redcross.org/preparedness/cdc_english/Sheltering.asp
www.fwps.org/info/emergencies/preparation/shelter.html
www.floodconference.com.au/.../Session%207%20paper%2023%20Coates.pdf
eetd.lbl.gov/ie/pdf/LBNL-62107.pdf
As a fire line officer it was always my idea that, if there is a chemical leak or incident that people need to be evacuated. As I researched my class I found that in many cases that is the worst thing to do. Why you may ask? When you’re evacuating people where are they going? From their home to another location and they need to go outside to do that and in many cases they are being exposed to the chemical.
Some items from a study of the National Institute for Chemical Studies;
Sheltering in place as a public protective action has received large amounts of attention as a result of the submission of Risk Management Plans (RMP). Although sheltering in place has been used by emergency management officials for many years, very little data have been collected on how it has been used and its effectiveness. Both supporters and critics alike have expressed interest in such a collection of data about sheltering in place.
Many, if not most communities in the United States are vulnerable to the health and safety impacts of a hazardous materials emergency. These types of emergencies can result from accidents that occur at a wide variety of places including industrial facilities, government and educational institutions, commercial establishments, farms, and during transport. When these events occur, emergency response officials have two basic tools to protect the threatened public. One is to evacuate the public out of the area affected by the hazardous material release. The other is to request that the public “shelter in place, “ that is, go indoors, close up the building and wait for the danger to pass.
Evacuation has long been used to move the public away from danger. Its goal in hazardous materials emergencies is to avoid or minimize exposure to dangerous chemicals. When evacuation can be completed before dangerous levels of hazardous materials move into the community, it is the public protective action of choice. This will avoid exposure to the hazardous material completely. It may also be preferable when the leak is large, unpredictable and difficult to control, or when there is a high risk of explosion or flash over. However, evacuations can take a very long time to complete, particularly in areas with high population density. And evacuating has inherent risks unrelated to the hazardous material. Managing an evacuation is a resource-intensive activity for local emergency management agencies.
(In a conversation with a emergency management agent I was told that it could take as long as 4 hours from the time the OIC says evacuate until the first person is walking into a shelter)
Shelter in place as a public protection tool has gained acceptance as a public protection tool. The goal of sheltering in place during hazardous materials accidents is to minimize the exposure of the threatened public to the dangerous chemical(s). Sheltering in place uses a structure and its indoor atmosphere to temporarily separate people from a hazardous outdoor atmosphere. The people will still be in the endangered area, but will be protected by the barrier created by the shelter and the short-term protection of its indoor atmosphere.
Scientific studies of Sheltering as a Protective Action
Some early studies of sheltering effectiveness calculated that, for a typical dwelling and a plume lasting 10 minutes, the dose indoors would be about one-tenth of the outside dose. For other types of dwellings and
releases, the indoor dose could be as little as one percent of that received outdoors.2
In this modeled example, a person staying outside would have been exposed to 400 parts per million of the toxic gas for 10 minutes. On the other hand, a person who immediately closed up his house prior to the
arrival of the cloud would have been exposed to no more than 60 parts per million during the same 10 minutes. If the hypothetical toxic gas causes harmful effects in a person exposed to 100 parts per million for
10 minutes, it is clear that sheltering in place would have been beneficial to a person using this technique.
Basically what their saying is that a person is usually safer inside then out. Several examples
Houston, TX on May 11, 1976
A tank truck carrying anhydrous ammonia wrecked on an exit ramp and toppled onto a freeway below. On impact, the tank ruptured and released about 7,500 gallons of ammonia. The ammonia immediately vaporized and formed a thick plume. With winds of about 7 mph, most of the ammonia cloud had dispersed
after 5 minutes. The cloud surrounded the nearby Houston Post newspaper building – birds on the roof were killed. For people within 1,000 feet of the release point, 78 were hospitalized for symptoms of ammonia exposure, 100 were treated for less severe injuries, and 4 died as a result of ammonia exposure. The National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigation concluded that people who sheltered and stayed inside buildings (including workers in the Houston Post building) received no harm from the ammonia release. NTSB also concluded that people who stayed in their cars generally received less
Pensacola, FL on November 9, 1977
A railroad tank car carrying anhydrous ammonia derailed and was punctured resulting in a release of ammonia vapors. Two deaths and 46 injuries were reported for those who were evacuated. In six
houses that were very close to the accident site, there was no time to evacuate. Those residents closed their windows and doors and stuffed towels under doors and around windows. NTSB concluded that a breathable and survivable atmosphere was maintained
Miamisburg, OH on July 8, 1986
A CSX rail tank car derailed releasing liquid phosphorus. About 30,000 people were evacuated from the surrounding area. However, a local hospital near the accident site was unable to evacuate. The hospital staff and patients sheltered in place and were not injured. (Information from a telephone interview on 12-
15-97 with Lt. Andy Harp, Miamisburg Fire Department, one of the first responders on the scene, as reported by East Harris, TX Manufacturers Association)
And for me the best example of sheltering in place working
Fort Rucker, AL on November 8, 1994
Chlorine gas (150 lbs.) escaped from a sewage treatment facility at the U.S. Army Aviation Center and Fort Rucker. The release occurred in the early evening, 6:10 pm, and lasted for about 2 hours. According to the RMP filed by the facility, 128 people sheltered and 128 people evacuated. This resulted in 21 public
responders being hospitalized , 22 workers being injured and injury to one member of the public who was onsite at the time. The chlorine release also damage plants in the area. Stability conditions of F meant that the cloud of chlorine gas dispersed very slowly; temperature was 65 F and wind at 3 knots from the south.
Some studies have shown that people who are evacuated have a 16% chance is long term illness due to exposure as opposed to only 1% of those that sheltered in place. The chance is immediate injury from exposure during evacuation is 38%.
The best thing for you do to is contact your local or state Emergency Management Agency and find out, how long it would take to set up evacuation, their procedures for evacuation and their thoughts on sheltering in place.
Sheltering in place is not very complicated. All you really need is some plastic and duct tape. I have my day cares putting together kits with Radios, water, snacks, first aid kits and toiletries for less then $75.
More Information if needed
www.redcross.org/preparedness/cdc_english/Sheltering.asp
www.fwps.org/info/emergencies/preparation/shelter.html
www.floodconference.com.au/.../Session%207%20paper%2023%20Coates.pdf
eetd.lbl.gov/ie/pdf/LBNL-62107.pdf
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
If you completely seal a building with plastic and duct tape, the occupants will eventually suffocate when the oxygen runs out.
I'm not opposed to sheltering in place, but to ensure that it's a viable option, you need to know the specific chemical involved and be able to monitor the downwind concentrations. Sheltering in place is a trade-off. If exposure to very small amounts of chemical vapor is safer than the dangers of evacuation, then shelter in place. If the chemical is more dangerous than the evacuation risk, then evacuate.
An example of sheltering in place unnecessarily killing many civilians...2 World Trade Center on 9/11/01. The fire wardens talked many people out of vertical evacuations, and a lot of those people died because they didn't get out of that tower while they still had time to do so.
-
Permalink Reply by FETC on
-
How many daycares have the ability to seal up a facility? Pretty much none. Besides that decision needs to be based with some educational background... knowledge and information in which the incident commander hopefully has... If they determine a neighborhood needs evacuation, it is because the plume has not arrived yet and is safe to evacuate. Plus you are not going to be able to keep the parents from trying to come get their children. It simply won't work.
You are basically teaching the facility to consider sheltering in place as a better option which it may not be given a timeline.
-
Permalink Reply by Just Plain Craig Moyer on
-
A couple of things,
1- You will not suffocate if your sealed in a house. It's not actually airtight. No house can be, but what is happening is that the air that does penetrate is being filtered.
2- Many states are making it a requirement that child care centers and home daycares have a shelter in place plan in place. Its not very hard to do. Turn off the Ac or heat, go into a room with as little windows and doors as possible, place plastic over the vents and tape around the doors. Yes it will get hot and stuffy but I rather be hot and stuffy then comfortable and dead.
3- It takes the same time to notify someone to shelter in place as it does to tell them to get out. But its quicker. By sheltering in place you don't have to go anywhere. By evacuating you have to contact transportation companies, the shelter site and then you have roads getting backed up and people more exposed.
4- Parents getting thier children is an issue no matter what you do. If you evacuate parents are coming to the center not the shelter to get kids.
5- The WTC is one of the worst exmples of not evacuating. That is a case of not enough information. I'm talking about having the right information asnd using it wisely.
Finally there are times that there needs to be an evacuation. And there are times when its better to stay put. We are emergency responders need to understand better and be able to choose between the two.
-
-
Your house doesn't have to be airtight to suffocate you - it just has to be sealed enough to drop the oxygen content below the 19.5% oxygen content that makes it IDLH when the occupants breathe the oxygen level down over a short period of time. The smaller the room you choose, the sooner you'll run out of a life-sustaining level of oxygen in the air. That's why the Bush Administration dropped the duct-tape-and-plastic shelter idea. During the Iraq SCUD attacks on Israel during Operation Desert Storm, the Israelis used some duct tape and plastic, but they did it in conjunction with a filter system that allowed air exchange...or they forwent the plastic sheeting and just wore respirators with organic vapor cannister filters.
Hot and stuffy can also mean "heat stroke" or other life threatening heat stress for the occupants, particularly in hot climates during the summer.
Most disaster situations include not having enough information. If you're counting on having the "right information" prior to making an evacuate or shelter-in-place decision, you might be waiting for a long, long time.
There are some things that are so bad, that no matter how bad the evacuation problems are, the evacuation is better than sheltering in place. Major hurricanes(Katrina, Wilma), high-rise fires (WTC 1993, WTC 2001), big floods (typical Mississippi and Red River floods), and high-level radiation accidents (Chernobyl) are examples of getting out being better than virtually any shelter-in-place that's available.
-
-
Theres only 21% O2 in the air. You need at least 15-17% depending on heealth and other factors.
I also theach them to have a small fan inside the room to not only cool the room but to pressurize it. There are several levels of shelterinig in place. From the basic close the door to total building modifaction. Maybe I'll aid the no plastic but face mask method depending on the location.
There several reasons not to SIP but there are more reason to SIP. More people get hurt evacuatinig then those staying inside. Even with "just closing the door".
Ben, you mentioned some very good examples of why to not to shelter in place. This is like using a 2 1/2 or a ladder pipe. Both will do the job, you just have to decide which is better for that particular job.
-
Permalink Reply by DUST on
-
Sheltering in place without any fresh air added is a good solution for a short term incident but the air in the room will become toxic after a few hours when the carbon dioxide gas builds up from everyone's exhaled breath.
-
Permalink Reply by Oldman on
-
If you live around the Houston Ship Channel/Pasadena area of Houston, a shelter in place occurs 2 - 3 times a month. Using a reverse 911 system, citizens are notified of the shelter in place orders. The media broadcasts them, the chemical plants themselves have public address systems and also a series of horn or sirens which also alert the public.
The shelter in place orders are relayed to the Emergency Management office from the facilities themselves as they know what is being released, and what needs to be done to mitigate the situation. Haz mat will come out for air monitoring etc, but the plants take care of the incidents themselves.
Schools and daycare centers all have written plans for SIP, and the parents are made aware from the start, that they will not be allowed to pick up their children, so the parents are not much of an issue. It's simply a way of life around here.
In the almost 21 years I've lived in the Houston area, I've never heard of even one fatality caused by suffocation inside someones house or building. It doesn't happen. Most chemical releases which do not ignite are contained within a hour or two. The ones which do ignite are allowed to burn and the fuel source is cut off, again, usually within an hour.
Shelter in place is only advised during hurricanes or flooding when early warnings were not heeded and people choose to stay instead of evacuating. Lessons learned in Katrina and Rita have been implemented and incorporated into contingency plans to allow for orderly and safe evacuation ahead of time. Storms are quite different from a chemical release.
SIP plans are not something to implement all willy nilly. They are not a one size fits all solution. But if facility managers, city and county leaders, emergency management personnel all sit down and plan for incidents to happen, the more effective and efficient the event can be handled with SIP.
-
-
How many of those SIP incidents have the residents taping plastic over all of their doors and windows?
-
-
Not all chemical releases are "different than storms"...the January 2005 Graniteville, SC chlorine tanker derailment is an example. The entire town was evacuated, 9 civilians died, and numerous other civilians, firefighters, and other responders have permanent health problems from chlorine inhalation. Large numbers of animals also died in that incident, which took 9 days to resolve.
There was also a large amount of infrastructure damage, including large amounts of electrical wiring corroded beyond repair in local homes and businesses, and the fire department having to rebuild their HQ station and replace several apparatus severely corroded by the chlorine.
-
Permalink Reply by Todd on
-
"Hot and stuffy can also mean "heat stroke" or other life threatening heat stress for the occupants, particularly in hot climates during the summer."
Could you imagine shelter in place in South Carolina in July or August?
We cut off our AC the week we went to the SCFFA convention in July and came back late Saturday night to a 90 degree house without it being sealed up with plastic. Just for background my house is surrounded by huge oak trees and only gets hit by direct sunlight for two hours each day.
Considering that most of our day care centers are typically sheet metal buildings with only a front brick facade I'd hate to see how hot it would get with not only the A/C cut off, but with all the occupants crowded into one small room.
-
-
You're right Ben, there will always be the exceptions.
Tape and plastic are probably not used around here, that I'm aware of. I am also not saying that there may not be times when evacuations would be necessary.
But in his post, JPC uses the 1976 incident in Houston. This incident is still a model used in incident command classes as well as hazmat classes which illustrates that SIP is effective in limiting exposure and casualties.
Shelter in place should be another tool to consider in our arsenal when dealing with not only chemical releases, but in fires as well.
-
-
Note that I haven't said that shelter in place is bad or that it doesn't work.
Like the fog vs. smooth bore nozzle debate, the correct answer is that you should have both in your toolbox, know how to use both, and understand that sometimes, the only way to survive is to use Monty Python tactics..RUN AWAAAAAY.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
