Can you clarify what you mean by extinguisher material of some sort? Vinyl chloride fires of a large size such as the Ohio one, firefighters are in a world of shit. Damage control is what’s occurring, let the tanks burn, try and keep the other tanks cool so they don’t explode, try and contain the leaked chemical as best you can. It’s a Herculean task that’s very easy to look back on with 20/20 vision from a firefighting standpoint.
There isn’t. That is only effective on a small fire, not one in which hundreds of thousands of gallons of industrial strength undiluted chemicals are burning.
I’m well aware of that, but foam is not indicated in this particular kind of vinyl chloride fire, ie one where there is far too much VC burning at once. Getting foam into that fire will do nothing, get away from the tanks that are heating up and about to explode, and try and get enough water on them to stop from exploding. These industrial chemical fires have specific instructions for this.
So, you are a hazmat tech and have your tech-ref in front of you to disperse that info or are you just pulling your opinion out of your nether regions?
In my defense though, you stated there are no extinguisher materials use for "large amounts of undiluted industrial chemicals" and my response was based on that statement.
Edit - I stand corrected (and man enough to admit it).
I actually looked up Vinyl chloride FF operations.
No offense taken or intended. Been out of the game for over a decade but still know the basics and can look up the rest if I had to. Never dealt with vinyl chloride before so did not know specifics.
Specifically, foam isn’t used until you know you have no more chemical feeding the fire for this particular chemical. I also spoke to a buddy who is an industrial firefighter specifically about this fire in particular, not a firsthand source who was there. But it’s better than an anonymous internet headline.
Firefighter foams, such as AFFF (Look it up - useful for suppressing vapors) are used in conjunction with water - they are literally drawn into the firestream and the water is how they are applied. I'm not sure if any of those type of things were used or not, but, unless you know what you are dealing with before you start firefighting operations, the things that are usually done first are to "put the wet stuff on the red stuff" and worry about the runoff after the fact. That goes double for volunteer departments which are more than likely a large part of the response during the early stages because they know their resources will be exhausted if they don't react quick enough.
I'm fairly certain the volatile nature of the fire was part of the equation. Some of the tanks were leaking, and the fear was that the chemical could ignite inside the tanks and explode, scattering the contents far and wide, versus them opening them up and keeping water on it. There wasn't time for them to bring comparably-sized tankers and siphon the uncombusted chemicals, if that were even an option.
You want to blow it up on your terms as a firefighter once it’s determined that you simply can not get enough water on the tanks to cool them. Instead of an explosion also killing a bunch of firefighters, you have an explosion with everyone a safe distance away then get back into the fray.
They describe a lot of what was happening and how the decisions were made at this hearing from yesterday. The first half is residents telling their stories. The middle section is all the officials. The last part is attorneys. https://veterans.pasenategop.com/vets-022323/
Some trucks carry foam - with hazmat there are specific books carried so we know what we are dealing with and the best way to handle it. Covers everything from how to fight it to how wide of an area to evacuate
Also - yes water can be used on tanks to keep them cool - house fire close to the propane tank means you have a dedicated line to covering the propane tank because they make one hell of a big boom
Usually you see the big long foam things - there are some pics of them in the creek floating around.. those can be used sometimes I’ve never seen them catch all of it. Likely there is water drainage &/or standing water that was contaminated. Even on a big rig accident you can have contaminated soil and or water — they carry lots of diesel and various fluids just for the cab. For an accident of this scale…. It’s all going to be a hot mess. Typical fire depts aren’t handling this alone—- hazmat team would have been called in fast (or should have been)
NO, it's a Class B fire. I believe a dry powder would have been best. Perhaps, even zeolite. That is what they used in Fukashima. It is known for its tremendous ability to soak up toxins. Very inexpensive stuff.There are four types of fired.
Class A: Ordinary Combustibles - Wood, paper, plastic, cloth, rubber.
Best Extinguisher: Water: Such as water from a garden hose or tap. Dry Chemicals: ABC fire extinguishers usually contain dry chemicals. Other Methods: Fire blankets can deprive a small fire of oxygen
Class B: Flammable Liquids and Gases - Gasoline, most oils: including the oil you put in your car and your chainsaw car-bike chains, most oil-based paints, alcohol, hydrogen, butane, methane, and ethylene
Best Extinguisher: Water is not usually recommended for Class B fires as water can scatter the liquid fuel. Halon, Dry Chemical Fire Extinguisher, and Foam.
Class C: Electrical Equipment - Clothes Dryers, Wiring and Cords, Space Heaters:
Best Extinguisher: Dry Chemical Extinguisher
Class D: Combustible Metals - sodium, lithium, magnesium
Best Extinguisher: Dry powder. Magnesium cannot be extinguished.
Class K: Cooking Fires involving Oils and Fats - Vegetable Oil, Cooking Grease
Best Extinguisher: Water Mist, Foam, Fire Suppression Blanket
I wrote previously about this asking the same question.
Seven days ago, I wrote:
I have been asking who approved the torching of the chemical spill in East Palestine? I also suspected that RINO OH Governor DeWine approved it. I didn't consider Pennsylvania because the disaster occurred in Ohio. Mike DeWine is a RINO.... and I believe Ohio is corrupt election-wise too. To trick the hoi polloi; the common people... even the 'lumpenproletariat' that DeWine was appointed to rule over is revealing. Dewine is a lawyer....Most lawyers are unskilled in the practical trades or in common reality. Shystering is a standard way of life for all too many attorneys. Political lawyers tend to put their finger up there asses before determining which way the wind is blowing. It's the degree of smell that determines decision making for lawyer politicians. In this case, burning the toxins was getting rid of evidence that might of involved a quick chemical response team that DeWine undoubtedly didn't have. Instead, he sat on his hands complaining the federal government isn't providing disaster funds. Time delayed is killing a growing number of people.
I posted 9-days ago:
"There is indeed a good probability that the waterways will be contaminated. I'm more concerned with the Butyl acrylate, Ethylhexyl acrylate, and Ethylene glycol monobutyl that spilled getting into the waterways. The long term effect of these chemicals getting into the water table is very troublesome. These 3 chemicals are liquids, which if not dealt with immediately and thoroughly, would get into the ground water and affect the water shed.
Consider the 6 train cars of vinyl chloride though. Vinyl chloride is a monomer and becomes a gas at only 8 degrees Fahrenheit. In addition, these cars were ignited which causes this chemical to disassociate into H2, Cl, and CO in the air. Hence, the black column of smoke rising into the sky. The H2 and Cl can easily form airborne hydrochloric acid and Phosphene (COCl2) is another gas that's created from burning chemicals like this. Depending on many factors, the HCL will precipitate in rain droplets making acid rain.
To me, the immediate danger lies in the fallout from this toxic cloud that people downwind will be exposed to. The contamination of the water shed will be a factor for years to come."
I am not a rocket scientist....And I don't have to be. Neither do you to predict what will happen.
"I can't believe there isn't a better solution than what is being provided here for a chemical accident like this. Is it wrong to suggest the emergency response here borderlines on ineptness? How about investing in minutemen 'crack' chemical spill teams instead of SWAT? Let's equip them with 'military' style armaments for neutralizing hazardous spills. Yes, there's a little 'play' on the wording here. From all the hazardous spills of late, it sounds like its time has come for every city to have a well developed minuteman chemical response teams.
There are chemical agents for neutralizing these toxins. I provide examples for the nitric acid spill. There are neutralizing agents for vinyl chloride too. Why is there no prepared response team for this? The EPA is politicized and inept, State governments are wrongly dependent on federal disaster funding. This is all aftermath damage control. Why wouldn't State governments be prescient enough to foresee disasters like this occurring?
As a chemist who is familiar with practically every industrial chemical, I can say that there is no simple answer to your question about using water for a chemical fire. The answer depends on the chemical. Some chemicals are water soluble and burn easily. Fires involving some of these chemicals can be extinguished easily with water because the chemical dissolves in water and is no longer floating on the surface of the water. Other chemicals won't burn but they can react with water to produce toxic or corrosive gases that easily could overwhelm the firefighters and anyone in the vicinity. The key to handling any situation involving a chemical fire or spill is to know what you are dealing with and to take actions that are appropriate for the specific chemical involved.
Here's a list of all of the rail cars involved in the accident in East Palestine
Sadly Boys and Girls, we will never get the truth from Biden's freak-show administration.
Can you clarify what you mean by extinguisher material of some sort? Vinyl chloride fires of a large size such as the Ohio one, firefighters are in a world of shit. Damage control is what’s occurring, let the tanks burn, try and keep the other tanks cool so they don’t explode, try and contain the leaked chemical as best you can. It’s a Herculean task that’s very easy to look back on with 20/20 vision from a firefighting standpoint.
There isn’t. That is only effective on a small fire, not one in which hundreds of thousands of gallons of industrial strength undiluted chemicals are burning.
Well, you're actually wrong on that point - large amounts of chemicals are exactly why there are various foams used by firefighters.
Good article on foams and why they are used
https://www.piercemfg.com/pierce/blog/fire-fighting-foam-systems
I’m well aware of that, but foam is not indicated in this particular kind of vinyl chloride fire, ie one where there is far too much VC burning at once. Getting foam into that fire will do nothing, get away from the tanks that are heating up and about to explode, and try and get enough water on them to stop from exploding. These industrial chemical fires have specific instructions for this.
So, you are a hazmat tech and have your tech-ref in front of you to disperse that info or are you just pulling your opinion out of your nether regions?
In my defense though, you stated there are no extinguisher materials use for "large amounts of undiluted industrial chemicals" and my response was based on that statement.
Edit - I stand corrected (and man enough to admit it).
I actually looked up Vinyl chloride FF operations.
https://webwiser.nlm.nih.gov/substance?substanceId=43&catId=60
No worries by the way. I love talking hazmat. Sorry there was a miscommunication between us there.
No offense taken or intended. Been out of the game for over a decade but still know the basics and can look up the rest if I had to. Never dealt with vinyl chloride before so did not know specifics.
Yes to both. It’s a very easy search to find for free on the internet as well. https://webwiser.nlm.nih.gov/substance?substanceId=43&identifier=Vinyl%20chloride&identifierType=name&menuItemId=6&catId=60
Specifically, foam isn’t used until you know you have no more chemical feeding the fire for this particular chemical. I also spoke to a buddy who is an industrial firefighter specifically about this fire in particular, not a firsthand source who was there. But it’s better than an anonymous internet headline.
Firefighter foams, such as AFFF (Look it up - useful for suppressing vapors) are used in conjunction with water - they are literally drawn into the firestream and the water is how they are applied. I'm not sure if any of those type of things were used or not, but, unless you know what you are dealing with before you start firefighting operations, the things that are usually done first are to "put the wet stuff on the red stuff" and worry about the runoff after the fact. That goes double for volunteer departments which are more than likely a large part of the response during the early stages because they know their resources will be exhausted if they don't react quick enough.
I'm fairly certain the volatile nature of the fire was part of the equation. Some of the tanks were leaking, and the fear was that the chemical could ignite inside the tanks and explode, scattering the contents far and wide, versus them opening them up and keeping water on it. There wasn't time for them to bring comparably-sized tankers and siphon the uncombusted chemicals, if that were even an option.
If they were afraid of it possibly exploding, why did they blow it up?
You want to blow it up on your terms as a firefighter once it’s determined that you simply can not get enough water on the tanks to cool them. Instead of an explosion also killing a bunch of firefighters, you have an explosion with everyone a safe distance away then get back into the fray.
It wasn't blown up -- they just ignited the remaining tanks.
They describe a lot of what was happening and how the decisions were made at this hearing from yesterday. The first half is residents telling their stories. The middle section is all the officials. The last part is attorneys. https://veterans.pasenategop.com/vets-022323/
Some trucks carry foam - with hazmat there are specific books carried so we know what we are dealing with and the best way to handle it. Covers everything from how to fight it to how wide of an area to evacuate Also - yes water can be used on tanks to keep them cool - house fire close to the propane tank means you have a dedicated line to covering the propane tank because they make one hell of a big boom
Usually you see the big long foam things - there are some pics of them in the creek floating around.. those can be used sometimes I’ve never seen them catch all of it. Likely there is water drainage &/or standing water that was contaminated. Even on a big rig accident you can have contaminated soil and or water — they carry lots of diesel and various fluids just for the cab. For an accident of this scale…. It’s all going to be a hot mess. Typical fire depts aren’t handling this alone—- hazmat team would have been called in fast (or should have been)
Maybe this will give you a clue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zx-2_FkAE6c
NO, it's a Class B fire. I believe a dry powder would have been best. Perhaps, even zeolite. That is what they used in Fukashima. It is known for its tremendous ability to soak up toxins. Very inexpensive stuff.There are four types of fired.
Class A: Ordinary Combustibles - Wood, paper, plastic, cloth, rubber.
Best Extinguisher: Water: Such as water from a garden hose or tap. Dry Chemicals: ABC fire extinguishers usually contain dry chemicals. Other Methods: Fire blankets can deprive a small fire of oxygen
Class B: Flammable Liquids and Gases - Gasoline, most oils: including the oil you put in your car and your chainsaw car-bike chains, most oil-based paints, alcohol, hydrogen, butane, methane, and ethylene
Best Extinguisher: Water is not usually recommended for Class B fires as water can scatter the liquid fuel. Halon, Dry Chemical Fire Extinguisher, and Foam.
Class C: Electrical Equipment - Clothes Dryers, Wiring and Cords, Space Heaters:
Best Extinguisher: Dry Chemical Extinguisher
Class D: Combustible Metals - sodium, lithium, magnesium
Best Extinguisher: Dry powder. Magnesium cannot be extinguished.
Class K: Cooking Fires involving Oils and Fats - Vegetable Oil, Cooking Grease
Best Extinguisher: Water Mist, Foam, Fire Suppression Blanket
I wrote previously about this asking the same question.
Seven days ago, I wrote:
I have been asking who approved the torching of the chemical spill in East Palestine? I also suspected that RINO OH Governor DeWine approved it. I didn't consider Pennsylvania because the disaster occurred in Ohio. Mike DeWine is a RINO.... and I believe Ohio is corrupt election-wise too. To trick the hoi polloi; the common people... even the 'lumpenproletariat' that DeWine was appointed to rule over is revealing. Dewine is a lawyer....Most lawyers are unskilled in the practical trades or in common reality. Shystering is a standard way of life for all too many attorneys. Political lawyers tend to put their finger up there asses before determining which way the wind is blowing. It's the degree of smell that determines decision making for lawyer politicians. In this case, burning the toxins was getting rid of evidence that might of involved a quick chemical response team that DeWine undoubtedly didn't have. Instead, he sat on his hands complaining the federal government isn't providing disaster funds. Time delayed is killing a growing number of people.
I posted 9-days ago:
I am not a rocket scientist....And I don't have to be. Neither do you to predict what will happen.
Then yesterday, the AZ nitric acid truck spill occurred. I said the following:
As you already know, most of it was burned. So, it is a big unknown what is on site and even a bigger one with the fall out.
As a chemist who is familiar with practically every industrial chemical, I can say that there is no simple answer to your question about using water for a chemical fire. The answer depends on the chemical. Some chemicals are water soluble and burn easily. Fires involving some of these chemicals can be extinguished easily with water because the chemical dissolves in water and is no longer floating on the surface of the water. Other chemicals won't burn but they can react with water to produce toxic or corrosive gases that easily could overwhelm the firefighters and anyone in the vicinity. The key to handling any situation involving a chemical fire or spill is to know what you are dealing with and to take actions that are appropriate for the specific chemical involved.
Here's a list of all of the rail cars involved in the accident in East Palestine
https://www.wpsdlocal6.com/train-32n---east-palestine---derail-list-norfolk-southern-document/pdf_e6d7a28c-aed8-11ed-8b65-bfeccb67b128.html
Three of the four tank cars containing vinyl chloride did not leak, but they were still vented and burned anyway. WTF!
I heard water was being used prior to explosion to keep tanks cool.