Down the drain?

What now for the Fire Service and Environment Agency Partnership? ADO David Hanlon and Water Pollution Control Specialist Bruce McGlashan, discuss the challenges facing both the Environment Agency and the Fire Service in developing their partnership and the opportunities provided by the inclusion of 'environmental duties' within the Fire and Rescue Service Bill

The Fire Service prides itself on its public safety record and lightly so. The Service's fire safety and emergency response capability is, after all, world class. However, where does protecting the aquatic environment fit into the Service's public safety role?

Put simply, every time a fire crew block a drain, absorb a spill or dam a stream at an incident they are protecting a water resource. That resource is continually being drawn on to provide among other things, public drinking water. Should that drinking water become contaminated, there is a real risk to human health.

By protecting drinking water, the crews are safeguarding public health as well as the wider environment. The connection between pollution control and public safety is often over looked but should be an essential element within brigades' integrated risk management plans (IRMPs), which are of course public safety based.

The importance of the Fire Service role in protecting the aquatic environment was recognised 14 years ago when a Memorandum of Understanding between the former National Rivers Authority (NRA) and CACFOA was first suggested. After detailed discussions, the MoU was eventually signed in 1994 formalising the working arrangements between the two organisations.

What followed was a working partnership which mitigated the impact of a large number of pollution events including many high pro file incidents The MoU was subsequently updated in 1999 when the Protocol on Fire Service Issues between the Local Government Association and the Agency was signed. This updated document included improvements based on operational experience and new topics of mutual interest given the greater range of responsibilities of the Environment Agency compared with the NRA.

Since then the partnership has strengthened further and the Environment Agency now considers the partnership to be one of its most successfully water pollution prevention initiatives contributing to its aim of protecting and improving the aquatic environment. There are many examples of successes to support this conclusion, for example in some Agency areas around 20 per cent of the total number of pollution incident reports received by the Agency now originate from the Fire Service compared to less than five per cent before the partnership began Spreading the word to fire and Agency colleagues in Scotland and Northern Ireland has been an important spin-off from this success.

For the Fire Service, the partnership has contributed towards a change of attitudes of incident commanders and fire crews alike. Controlled burns and allocating resources to environmental protection are now routinely included within the arsenal of tactics available to incident commanders. Agency officer involvement in the Hazardous Materials and Environmental Protection Course (HMEP) at the Fire Service College has trained the UK's specialist HAZMAT, now HMEP officers, to deal effectively with polluting situations. The concept of environmental protection is now firmly embedded within Fire Service operations

Not all has been plain sailing though. Resource pressures on the Agency have made it difficult to provide the consistent level of support the Agency would have liked. This has left some brigades without adequate equipment, support and training and consequently some CFOs threatening to pull out of the initiative altogether To describe the coverage of the partnership as comprehensive would be an over statement. The Local Working Arrangements (LWAs), which are designed to be agreed and signed by the local Agency region and fire brigade, have been formalised in only a few of the UK's 60 brigades. Where LWAs have been signed, some aspects of the agreement, such as exchange of information arrangements and training initiatives, are not as successful as they might be. There is still much to do, so where now for the partner ship?

Before decisions are made about the way forward for the partnership, it is important to consider the need for its continuance. Certainly, for the Agency to have an emergency response capability, which the Service often provides, is important and cost effective for the Agency. For fire brigades, expert advice and training support have been beneficial in terms of a professional approach to dealing with hazmats and polluting incidents.

Where forthcoming, Agency supplied equipment has been used effectively at minor, moderate and major incidents to both contain the incident and protect the environment. The Water Resources Act 1991 and the Water Industries Act 2001 require brigades to comply with a three part defence should polluting material enter any controlled waters, (sewers for WI Act) namely a danger to life or health, informing the Agency and taking mitigating action. In order for fire personnel to both identify 'controlled waters' and be in a position to take mitigating action, training and equipment provision is required. Given these benefits and responsibilities it is vital that the partnership is continued and developed.

It is therefore very encouraging that, despite being subject to a keen financial settlement from the government, the Agency has concluded that the partnership is a high priority and will be actively supported this coming financial year. In practice this means that for the first time there will be a national Agency budget for the provision of pollution containment equipment and training fill fire brigades This should help with the Agency's aim of ensuring that all English and Welsh brigades who wish to participate in the initiative are equipped and trained to a nationally consistent level.

Equally important, an Agency technical specialist has been appointed to co-ordinate the partnership initiative. Their key task will be to work with local Agency and brigade contacts to develop the partnership in a nationally consistent manner that meets local needs.

Some brigades would maintain that they have demonstrated a substantial commitment to the initiative in terms of time and stowage space. However, it could be argued that as there are mutual benefits there ought to be equal responsibilities and that the burden of funding the partnership should not rest with the Environment Agency alone. The authors of the Fire and Rescue Service Bill appear at first glance to agree, but is there any substance in the proposed environmental aspects of the paper? Flooding incidents are easy to identify within the sections of the Bill but they are not the topic of this discussion paper. Part 2, 11 (2) (a) stales: 'Fire and Rescue Authority to take any action it considers appropriate-(if) the event or situation is one that causes or is likely to cause harm to the environment (including the life and health of plants and animals)'.

But what is intended from the inclusion of this clause? David Nieberg, press spokesperson for the ODPM, provides us with an explanation:

"The Bill as drafted does not place an explicit duty or requirement on the Fire and Rescue Service with regard to protecting the environment. This is (also) the case under the Fire Services Act 1947. But each IRMP should demonstrate how a fire and rescue authority will take account of the built and natural environment in its wider community safety strategy. Existing protocols with the Environment Agency and Maritime Coastguard Agency will continue to provide the operational mechanism to take this work forward. Fire and rescue authorities will/are discussing these protocols with relevant agencies in light of their proposed new functions to deal with major emergencies, for example serious flooding, terrorist incidents etc."

So without explicit governmental direction, the protocol still remains the most effective way forward. To support this, evidence from a recent EU study project concluded that a balance between Fire Service legislation, requiring protection of the aquatic environment and agreements with the water quality enforcing authorities provide for the most successful emergency response system. IRMP and the requirement to protect the environment through plans produced by risk assessment should allow brigades to approach their local Agency contact with evidence to support local pollution prevention initiatives.

As an example of this concept in action, officers in Oxfordshire Fire and Rescue Service recently identified, through examination of historical data, that mercury incidents posed a significant threat to the water environment due to the large number of laboratories and colleges within the county. Local HMEPOs were not equipped to deal with such incidents Following discussions with Agency staff, 12 mercury spill kits were provided by the Agency. Training is currently being organised.

In conclusion, the Environment Agency's continuing commitment to the Fire Service initiative should be welcomed. However there is disappointment that the new Fire and Rescue Service Bill is not explicit in the environmental protection duties it mentions. Failure to protect the aquatic environment could place brigades in a difficult situation legally, politically and morally. However, the requirement to consider the environment within IRMP, together with the strengthened commitment from the Agency, should ensure that the protocol and the associated Local Working Arrangements play a key role in ensuring public safety through the protection of the aquatic environment in the future.

About the Authors:

ADO David Hanlon is the brigade HMEPO in Oxfordshire Fire and Rescue Service and has substantial experience in Fire Service pollution control matters. Bruce McGlashan, based in the Environment Agency's Southern Region Office in Worthing, has recently been appointed as the Agency's Technical Advisor Fire Service and Major Stakeholders, and had a significant involvement in the production of the MoU and protocol.

COPYRIGHT 2004 DMG World Media Ltd.
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group