Module 9: Control Techniques - International Association of Fire ...

IAFF Training for Hazardous Materials: Technician©
Student Text
City, there was no accelerant, such as the fuel oil mixed with the ammonium nitrate at the
Maysville plant, authorities said. Another difference was the ammonium nitrate was not contained
but was burning freely at the plant, they said.
The State Fire Marshal’s office feared that applying water or foam to the blaze would create huge
vapor clouds that would spread to more populated areas, Redmond said. Authorities also worried
about potential runoff of chemicals into the Ohio River if they fought the fire, he said. The plant
is about 600 yards from the river.
“The reality is it’s a matter of picking the lesser of two evils,” Redmond said. “The burning of
these chemicals in the atmosphere does have a negative effect on the environment. But that
effect is less than the vapor clouds.”
Raby said anther reason for letting the fire burn was the more intense the heat, the higher the
smoke would drift into the atmosphere.
Copyright 1997, The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten,
or redistributed.
Questions
1. This case study illustrates that sometimes the best action is no action at all. Would control
actions have been possible at any point in this incident? If so, when? What actions would
you have taken?
2. At what point do you determine that control actions are not possible?
3. Discuss other potential situations at facilities in your area in which no action would
be the best action.
9-86 Module 9: Control Techniques