Saw this yesterday. Apart from the fact that it was a chemical spill  there was no detailed information. I was surprised(concerned) that several hours after the spill that there was no information about the nature of the spill. It could be a very minor spill and the Fire and Rescue people decided to treat it as a bit of a training exercise or it could be more serious, just don’t know.

I have not seen any updates, since yesterday. This could be because someone has decided on a news blackout in the hope that people will get bored and stop asking questions or it could that they genuinely don’t know what happened (which is very worrying!).

I was once told a of a small fire that broke out in an under bench chemical cabinet. The labs were evacuated  and the emergency services called. Two fire fighters went into the lab and using a single CO2 extinguisher put out the fire. Meanwhile outside the brigade had initiated its major incident plan, bringing in  all of its chemical control assets from all over the county to the university in question.  They had also arranged with neighbouring brigades to cover those areas of the county who’s resources had been redeployed.  Something of an overkill. The police also stopped all traffic on the ring road just as rush hour was coming up.

Many questions were asked and reputations were damaged.

A chemical incident is fundamentally different to virtually all other incidents attended by the fire service. There is rarely the critical urgency that is present at a fire or RTC. The early stages of a chemical incident are more an information gathering/risk assessing in slow time type of situation. 

Its rare that the fire service can complete a RA before committing crews at a fire. A more dynamic approach is taken where crews may be committed urgently and their plan adjusted as information is received and the RA findings are adjusted. In a chemical incident, there is usually time to use a traditional RA approach and wait for the findings of the RA before committing.

Don’t forget that a small spelling mistake of a chemical can mean the difference between the safe use of water to wash down a spillage and an explosion occurring if you have got it wrong. Plus, all action plans will often be run through the fire service’s experts and not necessarily those staff on the ground who work with the stuff every day. Its essential to have this belt and braces approach to reduce the risk of problems.

Recent health surveys have indicated that excessive exposure to heat is more detrimental to health than previously feared. Changes in breathing apparatus procedures have been adopted in many areas. In London for instance, a BA wearer will only be committed once. As a result, twice as many fire appliances are required today for a bread-and-butter shout than would have been the case even 5 years ago. This rule applies to BA wearers in chemical protection suits, as trust me, you get very hot very quickly when locked inside a boil-in-the-bag suit like that!!

There is also an approach where the fire service would rather stand things up (treat the incident as the worse case scenario) and then stand them down when the RA findings dictate. Its the same as an electrician taking a full toolbox to change a lightbulb… just in case. This is why it sometimes seems as if far too many appliances are in attendance.

Finally, I refer you to the Grenfell Inquiry (and numerous inquiries before that). Fire officers were put through the mill by men in suits in a quasi courtroom setting - often for days. The men in suits had months to prepare their questions and strategy. Meanwhile at the fire, the firefighters had seconds to make critical decisions without the luxury of the internet or files of reference material to refer to. It was a hugely stressful time for those individuals and their families.

This is the benchmark that fire officers have to consider when making operational decisions now. Will my decision lead to an event that is career ending? Will it see me standing in the dock? Will I go down if this goes pear-shaped? Its no wonder that a ‘no risk’ approach is being taken by individual fire officers. Grenfell has shown, you vere away from procedures at your own risk

So if there is congestion in the streets, a railway shut down for hours, elderly people sitting in s school gym all night or some other ‘excessive’ action plan, don’t blame the 999 services, blame the legal profession