The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Are Environmental Concerns As a Result of Fire, Our Problem?
In a discussion I started recently about fires in tunnels ( http://www.firefighternation.com/forum/topic/show?id=889755%3ATopic... ), the discussion digressed a little bit and the topic of environmental concerns raised over the use of foams came up.
Are the envionmental issues our problem to look at and rectify as we're the one's spraying the stuff around and so on?
Buncefield in the UK was an interesting fire, as I beleive it was somewhere in the vicinity of 48 hours before foam was applied as all the run off, contamination issues, etc in relation to the use of foam and the burning fuel had to be addressed and rectified.
Is it just a case of we spray the wet stuff on the red stuff or are dead fish and other nasties an issue for us to be concerned with?
This is a great web site about Buncefield- http://www.buncefieldinvestigation.gov.uk/index.htm
And this is the report that talks about some of the foam issues-
http://www.buncefieldinvestigation.gov.uk/reports/preparedness.pdf
Are the envionmental issues our problem to look at and rectify as we're the one's spraying the stuff around and so on?
Buncefield in the UK was an interesting fire, as I beleive it was somewhere in the vicinity of 48 hours before foam was applied as all the run off, contamination issues, etc in relation to the use of foam and the burning fuel had to be addressed and rectified.
Is it just a case of we spray the wet stuff on the red stuff or are dead fish and other nasties an issue for us to be concerned with?
This is a great web site about Buncefield- http://www.buncefieldinvestigation.gov.uk/index.htm
And this is the report that talks about some of the foam issues-
http://www.buncefieldinvestigation.gov.uk/reports/preparedness.pdf
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by lutan1 on
-
One of the Buncefield reports recommends controlled burns at these sort of incidents.
By their definition, "controlled burn A strategy used to reduce the risk of the run-off of contaminated firewater, by limiting or prohibiting the application of fire fighting water or foam"
Note the words- PROHIBITING THE APPLICATION OF FIRE FIGHTING WATER OR FOAM.....
-
Permalink Reply by Lawrence W on
-
AGREED!
Particularly in the private sector (and I am from the private sector) the person, entity, corporation or other institution should be responsible for their own runoff. I have worked in both Chemical Manufacturing and Electronics Manufacturing and have been responsible for fire protection in both worlds. Each company has taken steps to alleviate this problem (Preplan?) prior to a fire incident on their property. The chemical manufacturer, for example collected all water runoff in all areas of their property for processing internally prior to being pumped directly to the municipal water treatment plant.
In a municipal system, the task to preplan every property and every possible scenario would be difficult, if not impossible. The municipal systems would have to depend on the private sector to handle much of this. There are times that it would be just impossible to contain water runoff, no matter who is the recipient of the unfortunate event. For example, runoff from a fuel related fire on an interstate. While we may be able to dike and control much of this (if we think about it with all the adrenaline flowing) it would be impossible to completely prevent all types of releases.
Enforcement would be a major hurdle for a municipal system. There are enough problems with getting some areas to conform to the local codes (Life Safety, Fire Prevention, Etc.) properly. Can you imagine trying to tell a fast food restaurant that they have to build a containment dike around their establishment because they use deep fat fryers? Should they have a fire, the water applied by the fire department could contain hazardous materials both related to the fire and as stored materials in the building. It would be nearly impossible to track and worse to enforce.
So, with that said, I don't think that the environmental impact should be a primary concern in our assessment and intervention in a fire emergency. I think that the fishies and the birdies and all the creatures of the world do deserve a fair shot, but to impact the mitigation of an emergency, or to compound the expense and headache of an emergency response is just not practical. When a company has an established hazard, they should (and many do) make an effort to contain their hazard as is regulated by OSHA, EPA and other agencies.
There are situations that a "Controlled Burn" is appropriate, and when used properly, is very effective. This is (and should be) tightly regulated and evaluated for effectiveness on a case by case basis. To trade one environmental hazard (water runoff) for another (byproducts of combustion in the air) is a decision that has to be very carefully considered, including volume and time of water application, potential release hazards, surrounding occupancies, accessibility of the burning material, local waterways and their tributaries, and many more.
Each situation is unique in its evolution and must be handled as such. There is no blanket answer that fits every situation. All available information should be considered and an informed practical decision made for the handling of the situation at hand.
-
Permalink Reply by Tony P on
-
Well well, how different things can be.
Our procedures are to always consider the environmental impact of our fire fighting actions. We must do whatever is possible to minimise enrironmental damage. For instance, don't use Class A foam near a waterway; if an area is going to be covered with Class B foam, bund it, keep it from getting into the drainage system. Whatever is needed.
-
-
I'm hearing ya' Ed!
It is a hard one, that's for sure.
I'm in two minds as to whether it is a concern for us- on one hand I agree that there is enough to worry about, but on the other hand, we know there's issues with the products we use (Such as Tony P suggested) so we should perhaps be more vigalant with it's use.
In theory, the earlier suggestions about it being the plant operators problem is good- the reality is, if the operatiors/owners did everything they could to make their plant as safe and as environmentally friendly as possible, we probably wouldn't be called in the first place. There's a million and one fires the world over which will boil down to poor desigm, poor maintenance, poor safety measures, etc as the cause of it....
-
Permalink Reply by Brian Dumser on
-
Enforcement would be a major hurdle for a municipal system. There are enough problems with getting some areas to conform to the local codes (Life Safety, Fire Prevention, Etc.) properly. Can you imagine trying to tell a fast food restaurant that they have to build a containment dike around their establishment because they use deep fat fryers? Should they have a fire, the water applied by the fire department could contain hazardous materials both related to the fire and as stored materials in the building. It would be nearly impossible to track and worse to enforce.
So, with that said, I don't think that the environmental impact should be a primary concern in our assessment and intervention in a fire emergency. I think that the fishies and the birdies and all the creatures of the world do deserve a fair shot, but to impact the mitigation of an emergency, or to compound the expense and headache of an emergency response is just not practical. When a company has an established hazard, they should (and many do) make an effort to contain their hazard as is regulated by OSHA, EPA and other agencies.
I couldn't have said it better myself, Lawrence W. Stay safe!
-
Permalink Reply by rfdjumper on
-
I believe it comes down to Due Regard. Should the environment be the #1 priority at a fire scene, I'd say no. When the incident settles down a little should measures be put in place to minimize the envirnmental impact, sure.
-
-
The problem there is that the damage has often been done (ie: foam has already contaminated the waterways or ground for example). It may be too little, too late....
-
Permalink Reply by Bill Muehsam on
-
Short answer, YES. If you and/or your Department are "careless" or don't use "accepted practices", etc., you can and will be held fiscally responsible for any and all clean up costs. I have presonnal knowledge of EPA fining FD's for conducting "washdowns" resulting in contaminated soil and local streams. We no longer put a drop of water on an accident scene. ALL dry absorbent. Remember, by Federal law, the "spiller" is responsible for all "clean up" costs. FD's beware and be aware of your tactics.
-
-
I don't know.
Is it a "time" issue? ie: If there is not life safety threat, then can we afford to take the time to address the run off isuses before putting the wet stuff on?
-
Permalink Reply by firechief911 on
-
one of the down falls of foam but what do ya do
-
-
I'll drop an answer on this one. My earlier example of using B Class foam - You start using it, it starts flowing towards the drains. Got enough people on scene? Bund the area - a simple half-charged 64mm will often do the job. Not enough people on-scene? Not much you can do except call for help - but that should be done anyway.
Balancing potential environmental damage against potential damage from a fire? Not really that hard in my opinion. If the actions taken to extinghish a fire end up causing more damage to the surrounding area etc than the fire was going to cause, why would you want to do it? Be aware of what tools you're using, always be aware of possible environmental damage, and follow the best course. You never know, in some instances it might be better to let the fire burn itself out while protecting exposures! Each case is different, each case requires it's own plan of action.
Before anyone starts to flame me for being too defensive, we are very aggressive in our firefighting, very rairly do we perform a surround and drown. Our plans of action always follow the RECEO acronym - always. Rescue Exposures Containment Extinguish Overhaul.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
