What happens when these same responders are now faced with an anhydrous ammonia leak at a facility, a train derailment involving chlorine, or a transportation accident where an intermodal of hydrogen chloride is threatening motorists? What happens when a box alarm at a chemical facility is determined to be a vat on fire and the activation of the sprinkler system has now caused a chemical reaction? This results in several companies of firefighters exposed to corrosive gas and in need of rapid decontamination and medical treatment. Most departments however, especially smaller ones, are only familiar with dealing with everyday Level I incidents such as fuel spills, natural gas leaks, and carbon monoxide alarms. Hazmat incidents may have predictable outcomes, especially for those who are well trained and experienced in hazmat response. Whether we are following Ludwig Benner’s D.E.C.I.D.E method or following the APIE method, we take all of the available data and plug it into a response formula that will naturally flow from the moment we are dispatched to the stabilization of the incident. Most of the time this is true and the response models we teach to new technicians reflects this methodology. In contrast to structure fires, we are taught in hazmat response that everything slows down we do not rush into hazardous materials incidents hastily but rather methodically with a well-thought-out incident action plan (IAP). As first responders in a modern technological, era made possible by the endless creation of chemical compounds, we can often be placed in extraordinary conditions in a surprisingly short amount of time.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |