Industrial Disasters - Can they be prevented? • p.22-27
JOIFF Accredited Training Providers list • p.108-109
JOIFF ANNUAL FOAM EDITION
Read expert articles from JOIFF members on Transition, Products, Standards, Pumps, Proportioning, Training and Case Studies in this exclusive foam feature.
JOIFF, the International Organisation for Industrial Emergency Services Management is a not-for-profit organisation dedicated to developing the knowledge, skills and understanding of personnel who work in and/or who are required to provide emergency response to incidents In Industry, primarily High Hazard Industry, with the aim of ensuring That risks in Industry are mitigated and managed safely.
The 4 pillars of JOIFF aiming to support its Membership in preventing and/or mitigating hazardous incidents in Industry are:
Shared Learning – improving risk awareness amongst JOIFF Members; Accredited Training – enhancing operational preparedness in emergency response and crisis management; Technical Advisory Group – raising the quality of safety standards in the working environment of High Hazard Industry and Professional Affiliation – networking and access to professionals who have similar challenges in their work through Conferences and other events and the prestige of being a member of a globally recognised organisation of emergency response.
JOIFF welcomes enquiries for Membership: please contact the JOIFF Secretariat for more information or visit the JOIFF Website.
JOIFF CLG is registered in Ireland. Registration number 362542. Address as secretariat. JOIFF is the registered Business Name of JOIFF CLG.
ABOUT THE CATALYST
The Catalyst is the Official magazine of JOIFF, The International Organisation for Industrial Emergency Services Management. The Catalyst is published Quarterly – in January, April, July & October each year. The JOIFF Catalyst magazine is distributed to all JOIFF members and member organisations worldwide. The Catalyst magazine is published by ENM Media on behalf of JOIFF.
PUBLISHER & ADVERTISING SALES
Paul Budgen
Tel: + 44 (0) 1305 831 768
Email: pbudgen@edicogroup.net
DESIGN & PRODUCTION
Christelle Sakr
Tel: +44 (0) 1305 831 768
Email: christelle@edicogroup.net
Message FROM JOIFF CHAIRMAN
JOIFF Catalyst January, 2025 - Q1 FOAM EDITION
Dear JOIFF members and readers of the Catalyst.
JOIFF Catalyst Online Magazine - Quarter 1, 2025 - Reflecting on the past year and looking ahead. As we turn the page to a New Year, it is an opportune moment to reflect on our achievements and challenges over the past year while setting our sights on the opportunities and goals for 2025.
JOIFF has continued to stand as a beacon for industrial fire and safety professionals worldwide, fostering a community dedicated to learning, collaboration, and resilience. 2024 was certainly a year of growth, both in terms of our membership and outreach and we aim to build on this success during the year ahead. I would like to welcome all our new members who have recently joined the JOIFF community from the municipal and commercial sectors, also we congratulate those individuals listed in the JOIFF roll of honour this quarter. Our members continue to demonstrate exceptional commitment to advancing safety standards, sharing knowledge, and embracing innovation.
From supporting webinars, shared leaning events to launching specialised training programs, we have collectively reinforced our mission to protect life, property, and the environment. JOIFF is a powerful reminder of the strength and diversity within our network, success stories, and the exchange of best practices across industries.Yet, 2024 also brought its share of challenges. The evolving landscape of industrial hazards demanded constant vigilance and adaptability. From addressing the complexities of energy transition risks to navigating the implications of emerging technologies, our JOIFF Community proved its resilience and capacity to lead in uncertain times.
Looking ahead to 2025, we are poised to build upon this solid foundation. Our strategic focus will include:
• Enhanced Training and Certification: supporting our training providers taking account of emerging risks to ensure responders remain at the forefront of industry standards.
• Strengthened International Collaboration: Deepening partnerships with organizations, institutions, and industry leaders to foster innovation and shared learning.
• Sustainability Initiatives: Promoting sustainable practices and supporting our members in addressing environmental challenges.
I am grateful for the dedication, expertise, and collaboration of our members and partners. Together, we have not only upheld JOIFF’s values but also set a benchmark for excellence in industrial fire and safety.
As we embark on another year, I encourage all members to actively participate in our Shared Learning events, initiatives, share insights, and continue to champion a culture of safety and preparedness. Your contributions are the lifeblood of JOIFF’s success, and I am confident that together, we will make 2025 a year of remarkable progress.Thank you for your unwavering commitment. Here’s to a safe, productive, and inspiring year ahead!
Warm regards,
Kevin Deveson
Email: kevin@joiff.com
Visit: www.joiff.com
CHAIRMAN, JOIFF MJOIFF, GIFIREENG
THE SWITCH TO FLUORINE-FREE FOAM
by James Perriss from Perimeter Solutions
ANGUS FIRE: LEADING THE WAY WITH FLUORINE-FREE SOLUTIONS
by Henry Pap from Angus Fire
TOTAL PUMP PACKAGE SOLUTIONS LEADER
by Fire Lion Global
SFFF TRANSITIONING CONCERNS
by Simon Barratt from Viking EMEA
HOW TO INTERPRETVISCOSITY VALUES OF HIGH VISCOSITY FOAM CONCENTRATES AND PROPORTIONING SYSTEMS
by Frank Preiss from FireDos
OFFSHORE INSTALLATIONS: NOW’S NOT THE TIME TO GO WITH FLUORINE FREE FOAMS
by Oil Technics
TWENTY KEY CONSIDERATIONS NEEDED WHEN TRANSITIONING TO PFAS-FREE FOAMS (F3S)
by Mike Willson from Willson Consulting
UK AIRPORT FLUORINE-FREE CHANGEOVER COMPLETED IN LARGEST HANGAR FOAM SYSTEM
by Phil Bayliss from Firemain Engineering
Tony Morrissey from Knowsley SK
NEW MEMBERS WELCOME TO JOIFF
During October, November and December 2024, the JOIFF Board of Directors were pleased to welcome the following new Members.
represented by : Ben Gemmell, C-CBRN, Hazmat & HNS Supervisor and Trainer, John Tulloch, Training and Consultancy Lead, Steven Doig, Operations Manager and Martin Lehane President/CEO European Operations.
AMBIPAR RESPONSE
Little Island, Co. Cork, Ireland
AWG FITTINGS GMBH
Baden-Württemberg, Germany
Ambipar Response is a global environmental services company that specialises in Crisis Management and Emergency Response. They provide comprehensive solutions for managing and mitigating the impacts of environmental disasters, such as chemical spills, fires, and other hazardous incidents. Their services include emergency response - offering rapid intervention for environmental accidents, particularly those involving hazardous materials - environmental risk management - developing strategies to reduce risks associated with industrial operations, helping companies comply with environmental regulations - decontamination and cleanup - cleaning and restoring sites impacted by pollution or hazardous substances - consulting and training - providing expert advice and training to companies on emergency preparedness and environmental safety protocols. Ambipar Response operates in multiple countries, serving industries like oil and gas, chemicals, and manufacturing, focusing on sustainability and reducing environmental harm.
represented by Daniel Glaser, Business Line Leader and Neil Buckley, Regional Sales Manager.
AWG Fittings GmbH, part of IDEX Corporation, is a world-leading manufacturer of mobile and stationary fire protection - top-tier fire-fighting fittings and jet pipes. AWG equips fire services, industries, and many other users worldwide with their cuttingedge and inventive products.
BLACKLINE SAFETY
Essex, UK
CERVITAS
Maryland, USA
represented by Hannah Cook, Field Marketing Manager and James Penn, Regional Sales Manager – UK South West.
Blackline Safety is a manufacturer of safety equipment, a technology leader driving innovation in the industrial workforce through IoT. Blackline provides wearable devices, personal and area gas monitoring, cloud-connected software, and data analytics to meet demanding safety challenges and help organisations to enhance overall productivity. They provide a lifeline to tens of thousands of people, having reported over 250 billion datapoints and initiated over eight million emergency alerts.
represented by Ralph Suppa, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Colby Challenger, Chief Strategy Officer (CSO), Adam Mueller, Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) and Paul Rakowski, Chief Operating Officer (COO), Training and Consulting.
Cervitas mission is rooted in their name - a blend of Latin words for community and service. Cervitas specialize in delivering high-quality training in hazardous materials, OSHA compliance, firefighting strategy and tactics, leadership, and culture building
EMIRATES FIRE FIGHTING & RESCUE COMPANY -
L.L.C - S.P.C
Abu Dhabi, UAE
represented by Leon Karakouzian, Deputy CEO, Roba Salman, Executive office Manager and Andre Nemitz, Team Head.
Emirates Fire and Rescue Company (EFRC) was founded in 2010 under the generous guidance of His Highness Sheikh Saif bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Chairman of Takaful Fund, Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Interior, to be a leading national body providing the best international standards and practices, enhancing the safety environment in the UAE community, supporting its stability, and increasing public confidence. EFRC is a highly experienced company with a track record as an industry leader in world class safety solutions, training, knowledge transfer and consultancy services across the UAE’s public and private sector. They strive to spearhead a culture of awareness, prevention and innovation to safeguard their society against fires, accidents, chemical spills, biohazards, and other emergency scenarios, thus, freeing organisations and people to pursue their productivity, progress and happiness. Headquartered in Abu Dhabi with 7 branches in total, EFRC offers flexibility in languages, locations and methods of training.
ENOC FIRE TRAINING CENTRE
Dubai, UAE
represented by Abdul Monaim Mohamed, Manager – HSE, Training Centre.
ENOC - Emirates National Oil Company Limited, is a wholly owned company of the Government of Dubai initially established in 1993, and is a leading integrated global oil and gas player operating across the energy sector value chain. It comprises more than 30 related subsidiaries involved in refining, lubricant blending, storage, aviation and retail. The Fire Training Centre comprises scenarios that allow training its emergency responders to competently deal with the range of fire incidents that that may be experienced in ENOC’s operational facilities, including multi-storey process unit fires, complex pump fires, pressurised flange fires, pressurised vessel fires, vertical tank fires, fires in petrol stations, horizontal vessel and vent fires, interior fires and fires in confined spaces.
represented by Cole Boffy, Client Success Manager and Alan Harrison, Operations Director.
Evolution Risk Assurance is a consultancy specialising in risk management and emergency response solutions for high-hazard industries. Their services include comprehensive risk management, crisis management, and fire engineering. They also offer digital tools like the Evolution Risk Operations Management Systems (EROMS) and their immersive platform Evolution XR to enhance safety and compliance.
FIRE LION GLOBAL
Vancouver, Washington, USA
represented by Aaron M Johnson, Managing Director and Dennis Convy, Global Business Development.
Fire Lion Global is the premier manufacturer of UL listed and FM Approved positive displacement foam pumps. They fabricate and supply the foam fire protection industry globally with their pumps and fully engineered foam pump systems and currently work with the major foam agent OEMs globally for the best solutions for end users who require their equipment for life safety at their respective facilities.
GALWAY FIRE & RESCUE SERVICE
Galway, Ireland
represented by Gerry O’Malley, Chief Fire Officer and Gearóid Blake, Senior Assistant Chief Fire Officer.
Galway FRS is the statutory Fire Authority for the local authority areas of Galway City and Galway County. It has the responsibility for the provision of the fire service to a population of approximately 280,000 people, the fourth largest city, and the second largest county in Ireland. Galway FRS operates both a full time and retained fire service and provides fire cover through the provision of 11 fire stations including one offshore station. In our risk profile, they have numerous Seveso Sites, rail lines, three motorways and a shipping port along with a large industrial base.
KERSTEN CORPORATE FACILITIES N.V./ KERSTEN TRAINING ACADEMY
Paramaribo, Surinam
represented by Kiertie Kal, Acting Operations Manager, Gordon Voigt, Acting General Manage, Suraya Mohan, HSEQ Coordinator.
Established in 2022, Kersten Training Academy provides education and training for the Energy sector and aims at supporting Suriname’s onshore and offshore Oil and Gas Industry by offering onshore and offshore courses in basic emergency response and various technical roles at its training facility.
LAOIS COUNTY
FIRE & RESCUE SERVICE, CO
Laois, Ireland
represented by Declan Power, Chief Fire Officer and Anthony Tynan, Senior Assistant Chief Fire Officer.
Laois County Council FRS responds to fires, road traffic accidents, flooding, chemical and hazardous incidents, and other emergencies to protect human life, property and the environment, and to reduce deaths, injuries and damage. They provide information and advice to the public, community and voluntary groups, business owners and schools about fire safety and prevention, fire regulation, building standards, and fire and emergency response. Together with the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service, they run themed events during National Fire Safety Week, aiming to raise awareness about fire safety and prevention in the home and community..
MAYO COUNTY FIRE SERVICE, CO.
Mayo, Ireland
represented by Tony Shevlin, Chief Fire Officer and Seamus Joyce, Assistant Fire Officer.
Covering an area of 2,159 sq. miles and a population of approximately 137,970 people, Mayo County Fire Service serves one of the largest geographical areas for a single fire service across the entire Country of Ireland. Mayo Fire Service provides a 24/7/365 Operational Fire service from twelve fire stations strategically located throughout the county of Mayo. Fire Service functions are carried out across three sections: Operational Fire Services, Technical Fire safety, and Community Fire Safety. In addition, Mayo County Fire Service operates the Western Region Control Centre (WRCC) serving the local authorities of Connacht and County Donegal.
PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT OMAN
Muscat, Sultanate of Oman
QUALITY WORLD
COMPANY FOR TRAINING & ENGINEERING SERVICES
Basra, Iraq
represented by Saud Hamed Hamood Al Habsi, Head of HSE & Process Safety Trainings, Yasser Hamood Al Balushi, Chief Fire Officer, Saleh mansoor Al Habsi, Head of Fire Training and Ibrahim Fida Al Ajmi, Fire Instructor.
Petroleum Development Oman (PDO) are Oman’s leading energy producers, delivering the majority of Oman’s crude oil predication and natural gas supply. PDO aim to maximise oil, gas and condensate production in a cost-competitive manner whilst minimising greenhouse gas emissions and the environmental and social impact of their operations. Through an innovative strategy focussed on prioritising excellence, safety and competitive de-carbonisation, PDO aim to build a sustainable and low carbon future to maximise value for Oman.
represented by Azhr S. Faisal, CEO and Dr. Noor Ahmend, Training Director.
Quality World Company for Training, provide training and engineering eLearning and classroom training concentrating on effective quality, environment, health and safety training for all industries.
SECURITAS
SECURITY SERVICES (UK) LIMITED
London, UK
represented by Paul Rankin, Director of Fire & Aviation, James Wallace, Fire & Safety Services Manager and Shaun Bennett, Head of Governance & Compliance.
Securitas Security Services UK Ltd is a leading provider of security services in the United Kingdom. The company is part of the global Securitas Group, a multinational security services provider headquartered in Sweden. Securitas Security Services UK offers a wide range of security solutions to businesses and organisations across various industries, including retail, construction, financial services, and more. Securitas Security Services UK Ltd also provides fire safety services as part of its comprehensive security solutions. These services are designed to help businesses and organisations comply with fire safety regulations and ensure the safety of their premises, employees, and visitors in the event of a fire.
TRONOX
Grimsby, UK
represented by Paul Richardson, Emergency Response Lead and Harry Barber, Emergency Response Specialist.
Tronox is the world’s largest supplier of titanium chemicals (TiCl4 and its derivatives), with many years of experience, safely manufacturing and distributing them throughout the world. They have developed a range of high purity titanium chemicals in various chemical forms and in a broad range of packaging types. With more than fifty years of experience serving the industry, Tronox has built a robust and reliable logistics for shipping our titanium chemicals around the globe in compliance with the Transportation of Dangerous Goods (TDG) Regulations.
The Directors look forward to the involvement of our new and existing Members in the continuing development of JOIFF.
NEW MEMBERS INTRODUCTION
Source: www.ambipar.com
At Ambipar Response, we understand that time and experience are critical when managing hazardous material incidents. With decades of expertise and a global reach, we specialize in providing stateof-the-art hazmat services that
not only minimize risks but also offer peace of mind. Whether it’s chemical spills or biological threats, our teams are prepared to handle any challenge efficiently and effectively.
Our comprehensive hazmat services cover the full spectrum of incident response. From evaluation to containment and elimination, Ambipar Response has the expertise, equipment,
AMBIPAR RESPONSE
and cutting-edge technology to manage any hazardous material scenario.
Our highly skilled hazmat technicians are quickly deployed to assess, contain, and neutralize threats, ensuring minimal impact on your operations and the surrounding environment.
What We Offer:
• Emergency Response:
Rapid deployment of highly trained hazmat technicians to handle incidents of any size.
• Risk Assessments:
Comprehensive site evaluations to identify potential hazards
• Training Programs:
Customized hazmat training courses to ensure industries remain compliant and prepared for emergencies.
• Remediation Services:
Restoring affected areas to safe operational levels through effective decontamination techniques.
• Consultancy: Expert advice on the safe and efficient management of hazardous materials, helping organizations maintain compliance and minimize risk.
Ambipar Response is more than just incident response; we lead in hazmat innovation. Our teams are equipped with advanced personal protective equipment (PPE), gas detection systems, and other cutting-edge tools to ensure safe and efficient outcomes. This commitment to safety drives everything we do, protecting both our employees and the communities we serve.
At Ambipar Response, we believe resilience comes from preparation.
Our tailored hazmat training programs and tabletop exercises provide organizations with the toolsto respond effectively in high-stress scenarios. From understanding chemical properties to mastering decontamination techniques, our courses are designed to equip your team with practical knowledge and hands-on experience.
Why Choose Ambipar:
• Proven global expertise with decades of experience.
• Cutting-edge equipment and advanced safety protocols.
• Comprehensive service range, from emergency response to long-term risk management.• Customized training and remediation services to meet specific industry needs.
DISCOVER MORE ABOUT AMBIPAR RESPONSE BY VISITING OUR WEBSITE WWW.AMBIPAR.COM AND LEARN HOW WE CAN ASSIST IN PROTECTING YOUR BUSINESS AND ENSURING SAFE HAZARDOUS MATERIAL MANAGEMENT.
Source: www.blacklinesafety.com
Blackline Safety is a global leader in industrial safety technology, with headquarters in Canada and the UK and offices in the United States, Dubai, and France. The company specializes in creating innovative safety solutions that leverage the Internet of Things (IoT) to protect workers in industrial environments. Their portfolio includes wearable devices, gas detection systems, cloud-connected software, and advanced analytics tools designed to enhance workplace safety and productivity.
Founded on the principle of
keeping workers safe, Blackline Safety addresses the challenges of hazardous environments by providing real-time monitoring and communication tools. Their products are designed for industries such as oil and gas, construction, utilities, manufacturing, and other sectors where risks to workers' health and safety are high such as exposure to toxic gases, falls, or accidents while working alone. Blackline Safety’s solutions aim to reduce these risks, providing not only safety measures but also tools for improving how workplaces operate.
Solutions for Industrial Safety
At the core of Blackline Safety’s approach is the development of connected safety devices. These tools are designed to provide constant awareness of workers’ status and location, enabling quick responses to emergencies.
The G6 wearable gas detector is one example. It is a small, lightweight device that monitors single gases such as hydrogen sulfide, carbon monoxide, or oxygen levels. By continuously tracking conditions and issuing realtime notifications, it gives workers and their teams vital insights into
potential hazards. Its emergency SOS function allows users to send immediate alerts, making it a practical option for monitoring gas exposure in high-risk jobs.
Another key device is the G7, which integrates multiple safety functions into a single tool. It tracks worker location, detects falls and no-motion events, and monitors exposure to multiple gases simultaneously. It also enables two-way communication between workers and their teams. For those working alone or in isolated areas, this functionality ensures that help can be reached quickly if something goes wrong.
In addition to personal devices, Blackline Safety has developed area monitoring solutions like the EXO 8, which can detect up to eight gases and gamma radiation. Designed to provide hazard detection over a wide area, this device is particularly useful for identifying environmental risks on large or complex worksites.
Connecting Devices to the Cloud
What sets Blackline apart is how it uses technology to link these devices to a broader system. All of its tools are connected to a cloud platform called Blackline Live, which collects and organises data in real-time. Supervisors can use the platform to monitor workers’ locations, manage alerts, and access analytics about safety trends or gas exposure. The ability to see this information from anywhere with an Internet connection has made it easier for organisations to respond proactively to risks.
Beyond Technology: Monitoring and Analytics
Blackline also provides live monitoring services, where trained personnel oversee safety alerts around the clock. Whether it’s responding to a gas leak, an injury, or a lone worker emergency, these monitoring agents ensure incidents are addressed promptly.
Through its analytics platform, Blackline aggregates data collected from devices and generates reports that organisations can use to investigate incidents or improve safety practices. This focus on data helps workplaces better understand the risks their workers face and make evidence-based decisions.
Rethinking Safety in Industrial Workplaces
Blackline Safety’s work highlights how technology can transform industrial safety. By combining wearable devices, cloud connectivity, and real-time monitoring, the company is helping organizations rethink how they protect their workers. While the challenges of hazardous work environments will always exist, innovations like these are proving to be critical in reducing risk and improving outcomes.
Cervitas Solutions
Source: www.cervitas.com
Cervitas is a premier provider of specialized training and consulting services in hazardous materials (Hazmat) management, workplace safety, and emergency response. Rooted in the principles of community and service, our mission is to equip organizations and individuals with the skills and knowledge to mitigate risks, respond effectively to emergencies, and safeguard lives, property, and the environment.
About us
Cervitas was founded by seasoned professionals with extensive experience in emergency services, hazardous materials response, and leadership development. Our team’s background spans decades of hands-on expertise in fire service, emergency medical care, and industrial safety. This wealth of experience allows us to deliver cutting-edge training that meets the dynamic needs of today’s highhazard industries.
Our name, Cervitas, combines the Latin words for “community” and “service,” reflecting our unwavering commitment to empowering others through education and fostering a culture of safety.
Services
We Provide
Cervitas offers a comprehensive range of services tailored to meet the unique needs of industrial and emergency response sectors:
• Hazmat Training: Courses covering awareness, operations, technician-level skills, and advanced incident management, including plugging and patching, decontamination, air monitoring, and radiation safety.
• Electric Vehicle (EV) Training: State-of-the-art programs addressing the challenges of EV incidents, from understanding battery hazards tosuppression techniques and safety protocols for first responders.
• Fall Protection and Confined Space Training:
Specialized programs to ensure worker safety during high-risk tasks, including rescue planning, equipment use, and compliance with OSHA standards.
• Leadership Development: Training focused on building culture, teamwork, and strategic decision-making to
enhance operational effectiveness.
• Emergency Response Drills: Realistic, scenario-based training to prepare teams for chemical spills, gas emergencies, and other Hazmat incidents.
• Consulting Services: Customizable guidance on OSHA compliance,
Our Expertise
emergency planning, equipment selection, and developing response policies.
• Specialized Training: Courses on emerging threats, including fentanyl risk mitigation, chemical and biological warfare agents, and hospital emergency response for first receivers.
We are at the forefront of innovation, offering practical and effective training solutions that incorporate the latest technologies and best practices.
Cervitas is proud to lead initiatives in emerging fields such as electric vehicle incident management and modern hazardous materials response strategies. Additionally, our expertise in fall protection and confined space training ensures that workers in high-risk environments have the skills and tools necessary to operate safely and efficiently.
Why are we joining JOIFF?
Joining JOIFF, the International Organisation for Industrial Emergency Services Management, aligns seamlessly with Cervitas’ mission. JOIFF represents a global community dedicated to promoting safety, knowledge, and competence in managing highhazard industries. By becoming a member, we look forward to sharing our expertise, learning from others, and contributing to the advancement of industry standards worldwide.
Cervitas’ offerings support JOIFF’s goals by providing cutting-edge training and consultation that ensure emergency services personnel and industrial teams are well-prepared to handle complex challenges, including those posed by new technologies like EVs and confined space scenarios.
Commitment to Excellence
At Cervitas, we strive to exceed expectations in everything we do. By fostering collaboration, sharing knowledge, and delivering exceptional training, we aim to create safer workplaces and stronger communities.
We are excited to join the JOIFF network and work alongside fellow members to enhance safety and operational readiness across industries.
We are excited to announce that Securitas Fire & Safety has joined the JOIFF community. As a global leader in safety and security, we are eager to contribute our expertise, collaborate with like-minded professionals, and support the shared mission of advancing safety and excellence in industrial fire and emergency response.
Who We Are
Securitas Fire & Safety is part of Securitas UK Ltd, a global leader in security solutions with over 90 years of experience.
With operations in more than 50 countries, we specialise in tailored safety and security solutions that integrate advanced technology, expert personnel, and robust risk management strategies.
Our Fire & Safety division focuses on protecting high-risk industrial and commercial environments. From fire prevention to emergency response, our solutions are designed to meet the unique challenges of complex industries.
Key areas of expertise include:
• Firefighting and Emergency Response Services: Providing highly trained teams and state-of-the-art technology to manage and mitigate incidents.
• Fire Risk Assessments and Inspections: Identifying potential hazards and implementing proactive measures to enhance safety.
essential skills and knowledge.
• Safety Training and Consultancy: Delivering customisable training programmes to empower organisations and their teams with
• Innovative Fire Protection Solutions: Deploying advanced systems for fire detection, prevention, and response to ensure comprehensive protection.
Source: www.securitas.uk.com
Why We Joined JOIFF
At Securitas Fire & Safety, we share JOIFF’s vision of promoting the highest standards in fire safety and emergency response.
Membership provides us with the opportunity to:
• Collaborate with a global network of experts and organisations.
• Share best practices and learn from the collective knowledge of the community.
• Enhance our professional capabilities through access to training, technical guidance, and valuable resources.
We are particularly inspired by JOIFF’s dedication to fostering resilience, innovation, and continuous improvement in industrial safety.
By joining this esteemed community, we aim to contribute meaningfully to these efforts while also strengthening our own commitment to safety excellence.
Looking Forward
As we embark on this journey with JOIFF, we are eager to:
• Engage with fellow members in knowledge-sharing initiatives.
• Participate in JOIFF’s training programmes and seminars to further enhance our skills and expertise.
• Contribute to the development and promotion of global best practices in fire and emergency management.
We believe that collaboration is key to overcoming challenges and driving innovation in industrial safety.
By working together, we can create safer environments, reduce risks, and protect what matters most.
A Message to Fellow Members
To the JOIFF community, we extend our gratitude for this opportunity to join your ranks. We look forward to connecting with you, learning from
your experiences, and sharing insights from our own journey. Together, we can make a meaningful impact in the field of fire and safety management.
Please don’t hesitate to reach out to our team to learn more about Securitas Fire & Safety and explore opportunities for collaboration. We are excited about this partnership and the positive strides we will achieve together.
James.Wallace@securitas.uk.com
SUCCESSFUL JOIFF ACCREDITATION AUDITS
During Q4 2024, the following Accredited Training Provider was awarded JOIFF accreditation:
VENTURE GULF SAFETY AND SECURITY TRAINING CENTER (VGSSTC) - DOHA, QATAR
VGSSTC Team being presented with their JOIFF certificate of accreditation
Left to Right:
Dante Ona, Ritesh Nair - Head Sales & Business Development, Alec Feldman - JOIFF, Sami Suleiman - Training Centre Manager, Yeknath Poudel, Lal Raut, Mohammed Awais
ENOC
JOIFF ACCREDITATION & MEMBERSHIP
JOIFF directors attending the 2025 Intersec event were pleased to meet representatives from the Emirates National Oil Company (ENOC) at their headquarters in Dubai. ENOC have recently joined the JOIFF community as members, also receiving accreditation for their training centre catering for ENOC emergency responders. JOIFF chairman Kevin Deveson presented membership and accreditation certificates to his Excellency Saif Humaid Al Falasi - Group Chief Executive Officer formalising the relationship.
EMIRATES NATIONAL OIL COMPANY LIMITED (ENOC) LLC TRAINING CENTRE - DUBAI, UAE
JOIFF Chairman, Kevin Deveson and JOIFF Directors, Gerry Johnson, Alec Feldman, Einar Johannesson and Steve Fraser present the JOIFF Certificate of Accreditation and Membership to ENOC's team: Excellency Saif Humaid Al Falasi - Group Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Adel Al Ali - Senior Director GHSE, Noora Al Qemzi - Director Group HR, Hari Kumar - Director GHSE Assurance, Nabeel Abdul Kareem - Head GHSE Projects & Services, Shamma Al Falasi - Director Group Communications, Abdul Monaim Mohamed - Manager HSE
Center, Faisal
ACCREDITED TRAINING PROVIDERS
HHSL SAFETY SYSTEMS LIMITED CELEBRATES ISSUE OF 5,000 JOIFF ACCREDITED CERTIFICATES. A MILESTONE OF EXCELLENCE IN SAFETY TRAINING.
HHSL Safety Systems Limited is proud to announce a significant achievement: the issuance of its 5,000th JOIFF accredited certificate. This milestone underscores HHSL's unwavering commitment to providing worldclass safety training and its consistent pursuit of excellence in the industry.
Following a successful audit in September 2018, HHSL Safety Systems Limited was awarded JOIFF Accreditation and completed its first JOIFF Accredited training courses in Q1 2019. HHSL has consistently demonstrated its dedication to upholding the highest safety standards and is currently accredited for 16 JOIFF programs, HHSL has not only met but exceeded expectations in every annual JOIFF audit. These audits rigorously assess the quality of training, facilities, and instructors, ensuring that accredited facilities maintain the stringent standards set by JOIFF. HHSL's consistent success
in these audits is a testament to its unwavering focus on quality and its commitment to providing top-tier safety training.
This dedication to excellence has been further recognised by JOIFF with the appointment of HHSL's Managing Director as the JOIFF Ambassador for the Caribbean and South America region in 2024. This prestigious appointment reflects HHSL's leadership and influence in the safety training sector within the region. It also highlights the trust and confidence that JOIFF places in HHSL's ability to promote and uphold the highest standards of safety training.
The 5,000th certificate milestone is not just a number; it represents thousands of individuals trained and equipped with the skills and knowledge necessary to operate safely in highrisk environments. It signifies HHSL's
significant contribution and positive impact to improving safety standards across various industries.
This milestone serves as a celebration of past achievements and a motivation to continue striving for excellence in the years to come. As the company looks towards the future, it remains dedicated to innovating its training programs, expanding its reach, and further solidifying its position as a leader in safety training excellence.
DISASTERS INDUSTRIAL
Can they be prevented?
The Catalyst researches and provides reports on some of the major industrial incidents that have taken place in past years in the hope that people will learn from the mistakes of others so that future incidents and subsequent unnecessary losses can be prevented.
Could these incidents have been prevented ? What do you think ?
Cargo Ship fire at Port Newark, USA
Summary:
On July 5th 2023, a fire broke out on the ro/ro container vessel Grande Costa d’Avorio Italian packed with more than 1,000 vehicles in Port Newark, USA. Two firefighters died and others were injured. In January 2024, after a lengthy Federal investigation, a 2 week public hearing was held and along with various press reports, provided the information below.
The Incident:
The fire started around 21.00 hrs when vehicles were being loaded on the vessel. A vehicle used by crew members to push the mostly inoperative vehicles up steep ramps of the ship caught fire. It appears that the fire started on deck 10 of the ship.
Two crew firefighting teams tried but failed to extinguish the fire using extinguishers and hoses. They incorrectly used a carbon-dioxide-based fire suppression system but while the system was activated, a door to the main garage on deck 12 remained open, providing the fire with continuous oxygen and rendering the fire suppression system useless.
The blaze, with heavy smoke, initially engulfed vehicles on the 10th deck, and quickly extended to decks 11 and 12. Added to this, radio communications were bad, probably due to the steel walled structure of the ship blocking the signals, all of which made it very difficult for firefighters to find out what was going on.
The fire burnt for days, prolonged by the fuel tanks of the cars continuing to explode.
Emergency Response:
Newark firefighters went on board to attempt to extinguish the blaze. About 45 minutes later, mutual aid assistance from two nearby fire departments was requested by Newark's fire dispatchers. Hundreds of firefighters from Newark and surrounding mutual aid departments including New York City answered the call.
The Port Authorities of New York and New Jersey did not have Fire Departments and they relied on Municipal Fire Department mutual aid for maritime fires. A unified command was established comprising the Coast Guard, the Port Authorities of New York and New Jersey, the Newark Fire Department and the organisation representing the Owners.
Photo credit: Dakota Santiago (The New York Times)
A Battalion Chief who attended the fire said that his firefighters weren’t given a map of the ship when they arrived. Radio communication was "horrendous". There was "confusion" over how many firefighters and which ones were missing. The ship crew members could not close the watertight door on Deck 12 due to a mechanical problem with the control panel.
Firefighting continued from the pier and fireboats and tugboats kept pouring water into the ship to try to reduce the temperature and extinguish the fire. The ship started to tilt to its starboard side as it took on water in the firefight. The crews used pumps and poked holes through the hull to allow water to drain out. It was not until 3 days after the fire began, that officials said that the fire was contained on the 11th deck and the vessel had been stabilised.
The Casualties:
2 firefighters tried to make their way to safety out of a smoke-filled deck full of vehicles. They radioed that they were lost and could not find their way out. Eventually one of the firefighters was found, unconscious and unresponsive, pinned between two vehicles so tightly that no one could move him or the vehicles. Rescuers searching for the other firefighter got into trouble themselves and issued a mayday emergency call for assistance from a stairwell not far from where the missing firefighters were being sought. The rescuers were found and led to safety but the firefighter they were searching for was still missing.
The Blame:
In November, the Coast Guard issued a marine safety alert, noting that city firefighters at Port Newark “had little to no maritime firefighting training, experience, or familiarization with cargo ships of any type”. This fire was only one of several vessel fires occurring within the last five years where the lack of familiarity with
commercial vessels and inexperience with shipboard firefighting techniques unduly endangered the safety of responding personnel.”
It was reported that the US fire Departments’ hose lines were not compatible with the European hose lines on the ship.
An attorney faulted the performance of the crew’s firefighting teams. He said they failed to put it out at the beginning and incorrectly used a carbon-dioxidebased fire suppression system and
while the system was activated, a door to the main garage on deck 12 remained open, rendering the fire suppression system useless.
The Lessons Learnt:
The inquiry will issue safety recommendations beyond those included in the November alert recommending that local fire departments and ports establish regular shipboard firefighting education and training, including language translation capabilities for non-English-speaking crews.
Photo credit: Andrew Mills
Summary:
On February 3rd 2023, cars derailed on a freight train carrying hazardous materials in East Palestine, Ohio, United States. Several railcars burned for more than two days and emergency crews conducted controlled burns of several railcars, which released dangerous chemicals into the air. As a result, residents within a 1.6-kilometer radius were evacuated.
Background:
The Norfolk Southern train consisted of 3 diesel locomotives, 141 loaded cars and 9 empty cars. Other reports note a total of 151 cars, weighing 18,000 tons. Of those cars, 20 were carrying hazardous materials, including vinyl chloride, butyl acrylate,2-ethylhexyl acrylate, ethylene glycol, monobutyl ether, isobutylene, combustible liquids, and benzene residue.
The Incident:
The train departed on 1st February. 2 days later, 51 cars derailed in East Palestine, Ohio, near the border with Pennsylvania. 49 of the cars ended up in a derailment pile, which caught fire and burned for several days. Of the 51 derailed cars, 11 were tank cars that dumped 100,000 US gallons (380,000 L) of hazardous materials.
The fire burned until 5th February. On 6th February, a mandatory evacuation of all residents within a 1-by-2-mile (1.6 by 3.2 km) area was ordered. In an effort to prevent further
explosions, Norfolk Southern emergency crews, at the direction of Unified Command under the East Palestine fire chief, conducted a controlled release and burn of the five tanks of vinyl chloride into the air. The burn caused black clouds to form above the area, and released phosgene and hydrogen chloride into the air.
The evacuation was lifted on 9th February after the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reported that the air inside and outside the evacuation zone had returned to normal levels and drinking water, sourced from different waterways, was safe.
Emergency Response:
Norfolk Southern personnel were first to respond followed by nearly 70 emergency agencies from Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania who mobilised in response.
The Environmental damage:
The US EPA and Norfolk Southern began monitoring air quality on the day of the derailment. The Toxic chemicals borne into the atmosphere polluted the air in 16 states, 540,000 square miles (1,400,000 km2), 14% of the US, according to a 2024 study from the National Atmospheric Deposition Program at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. High concentrations of chloride were discovered in Virginia, South Carolina and Wisconsin with the highest concentrations on the Canada-New York border, downwind of East Palestine. Most of the chemicals had
Freight train derailed in Ohio, USA
Photo credit: Xinhua News Agency
dissipated after two to three weeks.
The Ohio Department of Natural Resources stated the chemical spill killed an estimated 43,000 fish, crustaceans, amphibians and other marine animals. Residents reported that pets and animals as far as 10 miles (16 km) from the derailment site died overnight during the controlled release of vinyl chloride. Several captive foxes at Parker Dairy became sick over the following weekend, and one died, which its owner attributed to the derailment. Material from the crash was observed in storm drains and detected in samples of a number of waterways including the Ohio River. An oily product was seen seeping into the soil. Emergency response staff were assessing potential impacts on aquatic life.
Inhabitants have continued to experience health symptoms, despite officials asserting that no harmful chemicals were detected in the air or water.
By October 2023, Norfolk Southern had removed more than 167,000 tons of contaminated soil and more than 39 million gallons of tainted water from the derailment site.
The Cause:
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings indicating that the derailment was caused by a mechanical problem on one of the railcars' trucks. Security footage had shown fire emanating from underneath a rail car as it went by on the tracks.
nance to prevent accidents, as capital that could be used for maintenance and safety measures was instead distributed to existing shareholders. Unions and consumer organizations expressed concern about private ownership of railways and "profit-driven approach", which they state puts workers and communities at high risk.
Lessons Learnt and to be Learnt:
A police officer who presented at the incident quoted "We were never told about the cargo on the train and we were never told to wear protective clothing, although it did not matter because our Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) dates back to 2010."
main line derailments in 2023.
Immediately following the derailment, Norfolk Southern implemented a new sixpoint safety plan based on recommendations from an independent safety consultant. They hired around 1,600 new employees over two years and they began installing additional hot-box detectors which can detect the kind of malfunction that led to the accident, including detectors on each side of East Palestine.
The increased emphasis on safety has resulted in a 40% decrease in
General reaction focused on industry working conditions and safety concerns including: the lack of modern brake safety regulations, [ the implementation of precision scheduled railroading, reduced railway workers per train and increased train lengths and weight.
Critics said train companies had failed to invest in mainte-
One year after the incident, Norfolk Southern has committed more than $100 million to East Palestine, including $25 million for a regional safety training centre and $25 million in planned improvements to East Palestine's park. The company has also paid $21 million directly to residents. As of January 2024, the railroad's costs related to the derailment were $1.1 billion, with $101 million in insurance payments issued.
Photo credit: Gene J. Puskar (Associated Press)
JOIFF SHARED LEARNING
THE PAIN, DEATH & DESTRUCTION
JOIFF’s regular Shared Learning Global Incident Reports are available on the JOIFF website. Q3 and Q4 2024, many due to incompetence and carelessness which could have been
Australia
• Massive Chemical Explosion in Melbourne Factory.
• 1 dead, town evacuated after chemical spill and explosion in Queensland.
Azerbaijan
• Fire at the Heydar Aliyev Oil Refinery successfully contained.
Bangladesh
• 1 killed others sustained injuries in fire on oil tanker .
• 3 killed in explosion on a shuttle tanker moored Eastern Refinery Chittagong.
Canary Islands
• Fire on docked newly built bulk cargo carrier in Gran Canaria.
China
• Explosion on container ship in Ningbo, busiest port in the world for cargo tonnage.
Denmark
• Fire at oil refinery.
Germany
• Fire that erupted at Bayernoil Refinery in Bavaria successfully extinguished.
• 18 workers injured in explosion at BASF facility Ludwigshafen.
Greece
• 3 injured in fire at oil refinery 70km from Athens.
• Oil tanker still ablaze in Red Sea two weeks after attack .
Haiti
• 24 dead in fuel tanker explosion.
India
• 1 dead 20 injured in pharmaceutical plant hydrogen chloride leak in Andhra Pradesh
• 3 dead 9 injured in blast from gas leak in fertiliser plant in Maharashtra
• 3 dead 2 missing in fire at chemical factory in Gujarat.
• 2 dead 4 injured after explosion in chemical factory in Roha area
• 1 dead in explosion at Anakapalle factory
• 1 person missing fire and capsizing of Navy Frigate at Mumbai Dockyard
• 17 Dead 40 injured in explosion at Pharmaceutical plant in Andhra Pradesh.
• 5 dead due to the faulty mixing of chemical ingredients in chemical plant Fire.
• 2 dead, 4 Injured in chemical plant explosion
Indonesia
• Fire on oil well in Rantau Field.
• 10 injured in series of explosions at oil condensate plant in Gamsar.
• 5 Dead, 15 Injured in Indonesian tanker explosion and fire off the coast of Bali.
• 4 injured in oil well drilling platform fire in Aceh .
Iran
• 51 dead due to gas leak causing explosion in coal mine in eastern Iran.
• 10 injured, 2 with 90% burns in explosions at oil plant in central Iran
Italy
• 2 dead, 9 injured in explosion at gas refinery near Florence.
Jordan
• Fire at Aqaba oil refinery in four oil tanker lines at an oil refinery.
Malaysia
• 2 dead, 1 injured in ship explosion near Bintulu Oil Platform.
Mexico
• Fire in refinery in Salamanca causing thick clouds of smoke through the area.
• Second fire in a week at Pemex Refinery in Vera Cruz.
• 12 dead in explosion at Simec steel plant in State of Tlaxcala.
• 2 dead 1 injured in fire at Mexico’s largest Pemex Oil Refinery in Salina Cruz.
• 6 dead 2 injured in explosion at Jose Cuervo Tequila Factory.
Nepal
• 18 dead in plane crash in Nepal.
Netherlands
• Major fire in Schipol car parks destroys 40 to 50 vehicles. .
Nigeria
• At least 141 dead, 50 injured in explosion when oil tanker swerved and crashed.
• 48 dead in explosion following fuel tanker and truck collision.
• Fire at the Akaso 4 Wellhead, managed by Nigerian National Petroleum Company.
• 19 rescued from fire on Britania U drilling platform at Ajakpa Oil Field.
Norway
• Partial evacuation of North Sea platform after well Incident.
Philippines
• Oil Spill of several kilometres when 65-meter-long MT Terra Nova capsize.
LEARNING DESTRUCTION CONTINUE
website. Below are some incidents reported during been avoided with correct Safety procedures.
Russia
• 4 dead, 5 injured in explosion when fire broke out at a fuel station in Chechnya.
Singapore
• 22 crew members rescued in tanker collision in Singapore.
South Africa
• 1 dead, 3 injured in chemical explosion at Durban.
• Crew rescued from offshore supply vessel after fire in offshore supply vessel.
South Korea
• Worker injured in fire at steel plant in North Gyeongsang Province.
• 16 hospitalised following chemical leak at an industrial plant in Ulsan.
• 23 dead others injured in battery cells explosion in warehouse storing 35,000 batteries.
• Major blaze in Oil Refinery in Ulsan.
Thailand
• 3 dead when trapped in collapsed tunnel in Pak Chong district.
Turkey
• 12 injured in Tupras Refinery in Izmit.
• Fire at chemical paint factory in Tekirdag.
• 1 dead, 33 injuries In explosion at Pasta Factory in Sakarya.
United Kingdom
• 2 injured in fire at BAE Systems Barrow-in-Furness nuclear submarine shipyard.
• Major cyanide spill In West Midlands.
USA
• Fire erupts in refinery in west Tulsa.
• Large fire in petroleum tank in Tulsa contained.
• 2 dead, 11 injured in blast at food dye facility in Kentucky.
• Explosion at lithium battery recycling facility in Missouri.
• 190,000-Litre Sewage Tank Explodes in Connecticut.
• 2 dead, more than 35 injured after chemical leak at Pemex refinery in Deer Park.
• Mass evacuation due to fire at a chemical plant in Georgia.
• Emergency evacuation with chemical spill from open valve on
“
Winston Churchill Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it. paraphrased the statement by George Santayana, Spanish philosopher.
train car in Ohio.
• Lithium-ion battery storage facility burns for days San Diego.
• Over-pressurized railcar triggers explosion at Theodore Chemical Plant in Alabama.
• 1 dead in explosion on offshore gas pipeline near Louisiana.
• 33 injured in ammonia leak in a food processing facility in Virginia.
• 17 Hospitalized in toxic cloud mixture of nitric and phosphoric scid in Ohio.
• 1 dead, 12 firefighters injured in fire at fertilizer warehouse in Virginia.
• Workers seriously injured in mine shaft gas explosion.
Uzbekistan
• 4 dead, many injured in two successive accidents at the same well.
• Hydrogen Sulphide leak during drilling in gas field forces evacuations.
Venezuela
• 8 dead in gas explosion that cuts Venezuela’s fuel supply by 60%.
• Massive fire in an oil tank in La Salina terminal extinguished.
• Oil spill from refinery pollutes coastal watersextinguished.
There is no such thing as “no risk” and a great deal of Emergency Services Management is built around reducing residual risk. For effective reduction of residual risk, the prime requirement is information – and what better information can there be than that from an organisation that has suffered from an incident in the type of risk that others need to reduce?
Many disasters caused by Industry could be prevented if information is made more freely available to allow management to learn from and act on the mistakes of others who have had the experience of similar previous disasters.
Industry, Insurance and Risk Management companies all need to ask themselves if they are doing enough to educate Industry on lessons learnt. Action from lessons learnt can unquestionably reduce the number of repeat incidents and when they do occur, with knowledge gained, those attending can more effectively and competently deal with them to reduce potential loss.
PRE-FIRE PLANS AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE FOR LPG FIRES
by Onur Özutku
Developing and implementing pre-fire and emergency response plans for LPG (liquefied petroleum gas) fires is critical to minimizing risks, ensuring safety, and responding effectively to incidents. LPG is highly flammable and poses significant hazards, including the potential for explosions and fires. Comprehensive pre-fire planning and well-structured emergency response protocols are essential to manage and mitigate the impacts of LPG-related incidents effectively.
Pre-established fire response plans must be consistently communicated to plant personnel through thorough training, both in practical, on-site settings and through theoretical desk-based sessions. This approach ensures preparedness and reduces the likelihood of undesirable outcomes during emergencies. Special attention should be given to preventing BLEVE (Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosion) incidents, which represent a particularly severe risk.
Fires involving LPG storage tanks and pipelines can lead to catastrophic consequences. Immediate action is often required to prevent escalation, which may result in a storage tank explosion. To ensure preparedness, pre-fire plans should incorporate lessons learned from past accidents, making scenarios
more realistic and actionable.
A comprehensive and regularly updated pre-fire plan is essential for minimizing the risk of escalation and preventing potential tank explosions.
Frequent testing of these plans ensures their effectiveness and identifies areas for improvement.
Given the critical nature of early and accurate decision-making during an LPG fire, the pre-fire plan must include multiple realistic scenarios.
Each scenario should be tailored to the specific risks of the facility being assessed and outline recommended emergency response measures.
Picture 1: BLEVE
(Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosion)
1. Pre-Fire Plan
Some typical scenarios to include are:
a. LPG sampling fire.
b. Relief valve vent fire.
c. Ignited and unignited pressurized LPG leakage.
d. Ignited and unignited LPG vapor fire.
e. LPG pump or compressor fire.
f. Truck, ship, or tanker loading/unloading fire.
Additional Key Considerations:
Effective pre-fire plans should also include basic procedures to be carried out by personnel during any LPG fire.
These procedures are essential to ensure the fire is contained and to minimize its impact on plant personnel, neighboring facilities, and property.
1. Establishing a clear chain of command to streamline decision-making during emergencies.
2. Implementing an effective communication system that facilitates coordination with neighboring facilities.
3. Identifying access and escape routes and establishing assembly points for personnel.
4. Compiling a notification list with key telephone numbers for emergency services and critical personnel.
5. Establishing an evacuation agreement with public authorities if required.
6. Developing traffic control procedures to prevent congestion, including evacuation sequencing to avoid traffic jams.
To ensure emergency teams can respond effectively, pre-fire plans must include critical facility information that is readily available to staff:
Facility Details: Name, location (street address or directions from a known landmark).
Emergency Contacts: Telephone numbers for fire, rescue, ambulance, and other critical service organizations.
Management Contacts: Names and contact information for facility managers and alternates.
Incident Command Structure: Outline of the facility's Incident Commander and Incident Command System organization.
Facility Layout: Site plan and surrounding area map showing equipment locations, tank contents, and access routes (preferably to scale).
Hazards and PPE: Identification of special hazards, hazardous substances, and required personal protective equipment (PPE), along with their locations.
Fire Extinguishing Resources: Inventory of fire extinguishing equipment on-site and through mutual aid agreements.
Fire Water Infrastructure: Locations of fire water supplies, hydrants, ducts, monitors, main valves, and fire water pumps shown on the site layout plan.
Picture 2: Cooling Tank in LPG Fire ( PSV Fire)
Picture 3: LPG Fire Types
Picture 4: Emergency Facility Layout Plans
2. Emergency First Response Procedures
It is critically important to activate alarm systems immediately during an emergency to notify all relevant parties and initiate evacuation procedures. This ensures that both the facility and neighboring properties are aware of the situation and can respond accordingly.
In any emergency, regardless of its cause or location, LPG handling equipment must be promptly and safely deactivated. This should be followed by isolating the affected area through the closure of emergency shut-off valves to prevent further leakage or fire escalation.
A key priority is to determine the number of personnel affected by the incident and ensure proper evacuation procedures are followed. Emergency plans specific to the incident should be activated promptly, and all appropriate emergency measures should be implemented according to the nature and severity of the event.
In situations not covered by pre-existing plans, the emergency team leader must rapidly assess the situation and guide the response based on this assessment. Timely decision-making and swift action are essential to effectively manage and mitigate the incident.in light of the assessment.
3. Assessment of the Fire Scene
The type of emergency must be quickly identified (e.g., leakage, fire) along with its location, the size of the leakage (if applicable), potential spark sources, and the overall scope of the emergency. This includes determining whether there is a risk of explosion. Based on these evaluations, it is crucial to promptly decide whether external assistance is required. For instance, in the event of an LPG tank fire, swift and effective intervention is critical to minimizing damage and protecting lives. The initial step is to assess the fire. Pre-fire plans must clearly outline how such assessments should be conducted and how the emergency situation will be managed based on the findings.
During the fire, the following questions must be quickly addressed to evaluate the situation and prevent BLEVE (Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosion) and personnel injury:
a. Is there flame impingement on the dry part of the storage tank (vapor space)?
b. Has cooling water been or can cooling water be applied to the affected area?
c. Is there fire-resistant coating in the flame impingement area?
If flame impingement has occurred on the dry part of the tank for more than 10 minutes, with no fire-resistant coating and no possibility for effective cooling, evacuation must be initiated immediately. Under these conditions, BLEVE is inevitable. Before an LPG tank ruptures, warning signs may include bulging of the tank walls and a metallic ringing sound, indicating the tank body is overstretched. However, such sounds will not be audible if the relief valve is venting.
The emergency response plan must prioritize safety, outlining protocols for assessing emergencies, guiding fire containment, evacuation, and mitigation, and protecting personnel and nearby facilities. It should define key decision points for escalation or external assistance. In LPG tank fires, thorough planning and swift adherence to these protocols are vital for mitigating risks.
Picture
Picture 6: Overheated Tank Wall and BLEVE
4. Firefighting Actions
In the case of small LPG fires, extinguishing them by cutting off the contact with oxygen is effective.
However, it is extremely risky to attempt extinguishing the fire without first shutting off the source of the fuel. Priority should always be given to isolating the source.
For medium or large-scale fires in facilities, the most effective approach starts with shutting off the fuel supply using emergency shut-off valves and cooling any equipment exposed to the flames.
Emergency plans should clearly outline intervention methods tailored to different types of fires, such as flange fires, pump fires, or safety valve fires. While general strategies like isolating equipment and applying cooling water are standard in most emergency plans, each type of fire requires specific tactics. These specialized methods should be clearly defined, and personnel must be trained in their use through drills.
For flange fires, the response should include:
Shutting off the Fuel Supply: Use emergency shut-off valves to stop the fuel flow.
Identifying Exposed Equipment: Assess which equipment is exposed to heat and immediately begin cooling it with water. Inspecting for Damage: Check for issues such as loosening of bolts, gasket damage, axis misalignment, or structural impact from ground collapse.
Efficient Resource Use: Ensure water is applied only to equipment exposed to heat. Wasting water on unaffected areas during a panic can deplete plant resources, potentially exacerbating the situation. Efficient resource management and preparation are critical for a successful emergency response. Emergency equipment should be readily available to address potential fire scenarios, and personnel must be trained through regular drills to ensure proper response.
5. Actions
to Fight LPG Leakage
Dealing with leaks during emergencies requires careful evaluation and should be addressed as a distinct priority. Since LPG vapors are heavier than air, they can accumulate in low-lying areas, posing a significant explosion risk. These areas must be evacuated promptly and monitored closely. To reduce the explosion risk at high vapor concentrations, water fog can be applied effectively. Facilities in potential leakage zones typically use fixed gas detectors, which should be equipped with alarms and sirens to alert employees immediately in case of a leak.
By considering wind direction and potential sources of sparks, water curtains can be employed to help control the leakage. This approach can provide emergency teams with valuable time to implement measures to stop the leak.
Picture 8: Cooling Water
Picture 7: Tank Cooling in Fire
When addressing LPG leaks, understanding the location and type of leakage is critical. Liquid and vapor LPG leaks have distinct characteristics and effects, requiring different response strategies. For instance, liquid LPG leaks cause a significant temperature drop due to endothermic effects, while this phenomenon does not occur in vapor LPG leaks. As such, emergency response methods for these two types of leaks must differ and should be clearly outlined in emergency plans.
6. The evaluation of explosions of LPG and BLEVE
LPG vapor is highly explosive, especially when mixed with air. In the event of a leak or spillage, there is a significant risk of an explosion. Maintaining a safe distance and attempting to cool the tank or pipework by applying water to the affected area is crucial. However, if the situation escalates and an adverse event becomes imminent, immediate evacuation and the establishment of a safe perimeter are imperative. Contingency plans should clearly outline procedures for effectively managing such emergencies.
Upon arriving at a scene, you observe that a tank has sustained severe damage due to fire. From a distance of approximately 100 meters, the tank is evaluated. If one end of the tank is fully engulfed in flames, there is no operational fixed cooling system, or loud noises and a fire jet (potentially from the PRV) are present, it indicates the tank may be nearing explosion. If approximately ten minutes have elapsed since the fire started, manual cooling with water may no longer be feasible.
Under these conditions, immediate evacuation is critical. All personnel must be removed from the vicinity until the tank can be safely cooled. The potential for personnel in the area to be affected by ejected fragments must be assessed, along with the likelihood of such occurrences.
Wind Direction and Tank Orientation
The wind direction and the orientation of the tank should guide evacuation efforts. Downwind areas and locations at the tank's extremities face heightened risks.
Evacuation Planning
Evacuation should begin as soon as the incident occurs, prioritizing areas most vulnerable to projected debris and fireball effects. Without detailed emergency plans outlining tank locations and characteristics, determining the precise evacuation zone becomes difficult.
It is estimated that the diameter of the tank is approximately 1 mt and the length is 6 mt. The objective is to estimate the mass of LPG in the tank.
The tank volume is calculated approximately as follows. With D = 1 m and L/D = 6, the volume is approximately 5 m3. (according to ASME Code Tanks)
The mass of LPG is approximately half that of water (1 litre of water = 1 kg; 1 litre of LPG = 0.5 kg). Assuming that the tank is filled with LPG up to 80% capacity, the propane mass is as follows:
m = 5000 litres x 0.8 x 0.5 = 2000 kg The radius of the fireball can be calculated using the following formula: R = 3 x m x 1/3, where R is the radius of the fireball in metres and m is the mass of LPG in kilograms. In this case, m = 2000 kg, therefore R = 3 x 2000 x 1/3 = 38 m.
The fireball will last approximately 0.15 x R seconds. In this case, the fireball will last approximately 0.15 x 38 = 5.7 seconds.
It is reasonable to posit that the optimal distance for emergency responders to observe the tank is 4R, In this instance, 4 x R equates to 151 metres.
Picture 10: The dilution of an LPG leakage with water
Picture 9: Tank Cooling in Fire
Personnel should position themselves with the wind at their back and maintain a safe distance of approximately 151 meters (4R) from the ends of the tank. At this range, the risk of injury from the fireball is minimal if proper protective clothing is worn. However, the blast pressure at 4R is estimated to reach approximately 30 mbar (0.44 psi), which may cause window glass to shatter and could dislodge personnel from their feet. Due to the tank’s size, large fragments can potentially be propelled up to 15R (567 meters), and in extreme circumstances, up to 30R (1130 meters). To ensure safety, it is recommended that the public be evacuated to at least 15R (567 meters) and, if feasible, up to 30R (1130 meters) to minimize the risk of injury from debris and other hazards.
ONUR
When addressing LPG leaks, understanding the location and type of leakage is critical. Liquid and vapor
LPG leaks have distinct characteristics and effects, requiring different response strategies.
ÖZUTKU
I was born in Ankara, Türkiye in 1987, I have been living in Türkiye/Hatay for many years. I graduated from Akdeniz University in 2010 as a Mechanical Engineer, and in 2012 I completed my master's degree in heat transfer & fluid mechanics at Mustafa Kemal University. I have been working as a mechanical engineer in the sector for 13 years. I worked in the field of production and manufacturing for the first 3 years of my profession, and then for 2 years, I worked in project-based maintenance-repair and capacity increase works in Oil&LPG terminals. I have been working at Milangaz for the last 8 years. I have been working as LPG Operations Engineer for 5 years and as LPG Terminal Manager for 5 years.
Picture 12: Approximate Tank Capacities
Source: BLEVE Response and Prevention technical documentation by Dr. A. M. Birk Department of Mechanical Engineering Queen’s University
Picture 11: LPG Tank Fire from end point
Picture 13: Safe Distance according to Tank Capacity
Source: BLEVE Response and Prevention technical documentation by Dr. A. M. Birk Department of Mechanical Engineering Queen’s University
Picture 14: Safe Distance in LPG Tank Fire
Picture 15: Distance in Fireball R and Overpressure
MAKING WET STUFF
by André Tomlinson from Bristol Fire Engineering
Big Flow, Small Footprint
High-volume monitor
trailers are the true alphas of the firefighting industry. Originally designed for large-surface flammable liquid fires, typical firefighter ingenuity found work for them in a range of other events including process, high-pressure storage, marine and transportation, to name a few.
When it comes large-volume flows the current world champion in the market is the Model 4800 by the Norwegian company FFS. The 4800’s flow tops out at a staggering 90,000 l/min at 7 to 10 Bar nozzle pressure. This beast produces a reach of up to 210-meter for water flow (less 15 - 20% for foam) and features an adjustable pattern type nozzle producing semi-
aspirated foam. Foam proportioning is performed using FFS’s mobile pumps with a foam injection system built into the pump. The 4800 is fed through four 304 mm supply lines.
Williams Fire & Hazard Control is a name synonymous with big flow firefighting. The Swiss Army Knife in the Williams stable is the Ambassador monitor trailer. The Ambassador is the most versatile large-volume trailer in the industry. This is due to two features, the first being its tiller bar control that allows the monitor to be moved in all planes practically as fast as its operator’s strength allows and, secondly, the Ambassador nozzle is Hydro-chem, or then triple-medium, capable providing the capacity to
In this instalment, we will be looking at devices that allow us to project water, foam and dry chemical onto hazards.
deal with 3-Dimensional fires at range. Traditionally the Ambassador’s flowrate using the tiller-bar maxed out at 22,712 l/min. For upward flows the tiller bar had for safety reasons be forsaken for the more traditional handwheel control or remote control that slowed nozzle movement down. Williams have overcome this limitation through the design of a handbrake feature that works as a dead man’s grip. The handbrake addition now allows for dynamic flows of up to 30,000 l/min maintaining all the benefits of the tiller bar with higher degree in safety setting the Ambassador even further apart from other products in the field. The handbrake system can either be acquired as option on new builds or can be retrofitted to trailers already in commission.
Left: An Ambassador trailer with remote control. the Tiller Bar providing a “dead man’s
The FFS 4800 high-volume monitor (Source: FFS)
Firefighting Leatherman When Sparks Fly
Ground, aerial-, trailer and appliancemounted master streams have been serving the fire service since time immemorial. Remotely or manually controlled, oscillating, low-angle of attack, portable, mobile, fixed, single-, dual- or triple-medium, the variations they come in are legio. Singling out any requires a set of special capabilities. There is however two devices that bear singling out.
The Hemisphere monitor by TFT is probably the most versatile monitor on the market. The Hemisphere is the “go anywhere” master stream. Flowing up to 2,000 l/min the Hemisphere can, through a range of attachments, be deployed from I-beams, tow hitches, tank lips and handrails while
using its Flex Clamp the monitor can be strapped to wide variety of round immovable objects including bollards, Armco barriers, pillars and piping, to name a few. The monitor’s main waterway can swivel 360o. The Hemisphere is fed by a single 64 mm hose.
The Williams Fire & Hazard Control’s Daspit Tool is the big brother to the Hemisphere. Though not as agile, the Daspit Tool is highly versatile and packs a large punch. Originally designed to combat rimseal fires the Daspit has found a wide range of applications combatting industrial fires. The flow of the Daspit is highly adaptable by swapping its nozzle out. This allows the Daspit to flow from 3,700 l/min up to 7,500 l/min using Williams’s Ranger series of nozzles making it both Hydro-foam and Hydrochem capable. The second factor contributing to its versatility is the three mounting bases the monitor can be fitted on. This includes a rim-clamp tool that allows it to be attached to tank lips, I-beams, railings, channel and angle iron structures and is known to have been used on the bucket of an excavator, a throw-down tool turns it into a highly capable ground monitor and a truck-mount that turns humble pickup trucks into Quick Attack Trucks.
The Daspit has been successfully used in a wide range of industrial events including rimseal fires, sunken roofs, product on roofs, smaller fullsurface tank fires, landfill fires, spill protection and exposure protection.
Very few Incidents have the fire service community scratching heads at the moment as the safe and effective management of fires involving Electrical Vehicles (EV’s). EV fires that communicate with their battery packs will produce extremely hot and aggressive thermal runaway fires, closely akin in character to pressurefed gas fires. Once battery runaway occurs these fires are practically impossible to control through conventional techniques and, if some modicum of control is established, it can easily consume 30,000-litres and upwards of water and keep crews tied up at the scene for several hours. And then its not over yet. EV’s have reignited on recovery trucks en-route to scrapyards and in scrapyards, sometimes several time. And if that’s not enough of a challenge, the fires produce extremely toxic products of combustion and the firefighting effluent is laced with a cocktail of health and environmental hazardous substances.
EV manufacturers, innovators and fire crew ingenuity have been spending a lot of resources on finding a silver bullet for these fires. A range of solutions have been tried and tested. From mobile submersion baths, portable dam systems, using salt water or baking soda solutions, an eclectic range of nozzles, harnessing ultrahigh-pressure and CAFS as well as smothering the fires using fire blankets or liquids like Aqueous Vermiculite Dispersers (AVD). Extensive tests have proven that managing these fires is not a one-step solution. Managing thermal runaway requires two techniques: Heat removal and smothering. Heat removal requires getting water onto the batteries. Fires emanates from under the vehicle and from the interior spaces resulting in the reality that no single nozzle will do the trick. Cooling has to occur in the interior and underneath the
control. Right: An Ambassador trailer with brake bar conversion of man’s grip” safety feature when moving the nozzle dynamically
(Source: Williams Fire & Hazard Control)
The TFT Hemisphere with its Flex Clamp mounted to a pillar (Source: TFT)
The Daspit Tool mounted to a tank lip alongside the Foam Wand which is its partner tool when dealing with rimseal fires (Source: Williams Fire & Hazard Control)
vehicle. The choices to achieve smothering are even more limited. The only manageable technology for smothering to date has been fire resistant blanket.
A range of nozzles have recently appeared on the market that addresses cooling batteries from underneath the vehicle. None are as unique as the Rosenbauer “Battery Extinguishing System Technology” or BEST. This solution performs in two steps, firstly piercing the battery pack from below and, secondly, applying a spray into the battery pack. The system consists of two components, a control unit and the piercing nozzle assembly. The control unit uses compressed air to drive the nozzle with a force of 7-tons through the floor into the battery pack. Once set, the nozzle is fed by a standard pumper using a 38 mm line.
There are dozens of spray applicators on the market today catering for EV battery cooling. One that stands out is the SUDZ-IT EV utility nozzle by Toxic Suppression out of Florida in the USA. The SUDZ-IT features a water curtain that protects the firefighter inserting the nozzle under the vehicle from the radiant heat of the runaway fire. With one of a range of attachments the SUDZ-IT can also be converted as a spray applicator for the vehicle’s interior. One configuration of the SUDZ-IT turns it into a decontamination shower for post fire decontamination of firefighter protective clothing and equipment
Smothering the fire is the critical second step of the EV fire control process. The most successful and easiest to deploy solution to date is the new generation of fire blankets that have come onto the market. Taking up very little compartment space, blankets for most sized vehicles are deployed by only two crew members. Fire starvation is almost instantaneous. Thermal imaging cameras can be
used to check the efficiency of the blanket. Under-floor cooling nozzles can be inserted either before or after the deployment of the blanket.
Tests conducted with the two step tactic has shown temperatures of 100’s degrees Celsius drop to 80oC in minutes.
“ “
The only manageable technology for smothering to date has been fire resistant blankets.
The SUDZ-IT EV utility nozzle being prepared to be slipped under a vehicle (Source: Toxic Suppression)
The Rosenbauer BEST nozzle being placed (Source: Rosenbauer)
Fire blankets are deployed by a crew of two with almost instant results (Source: Bridgehill)
Pressure-fed fires, also referred to as 3-Dimensional (3D) or dynamic fires, as a rule cannot be controlled through the use of water and foam only (just to qualify: Pressure-fed fires at low-pressure or low rates of release can be extinguished by concentrated water streams though this solution does have a number of provisos to be successful and safe).
Dry chemical powder has been used for decades to control pressurefed, liquid or gas phase, fires. Using dry chemical on its own proved to be hazardous as hot surfaces frequently led to re-ignition. One solution to this challenge was to first cool the surrounding surfaces before attempting the dry powder attack. Old hands will recall using two or more water spray patterns to “bend” flames back and then poking a dry chemical nozzle through the screen to knock out the fire. In the late ‘80’s Williams Fire & Hazard Control asked the question: “Why not combine the two?” In 1988 this pursuit led to the first triple-medium nozzle combining an adjustable pattern nozzle, flowing water or foam, with a dry-chemical discharge in the centre of the pattern. This technology was called Hydrochem, later a Williams patent and trademark.
The principle of using Hydrochem to combat 3D fires kicks off with cooling the heated surfaces. If the fuel is a flammable liquid, the ground fire will need to be controlled before meaningful cooling can commence. Once cooling is established one or more tight spray patterns is used to “box” the point of flame release. This action will capture the flame in the patterns, redirecting it and reduce its size substantially. Once the fire is boxed in, a the fire out. If not successful at first,
Three-In-One
the patterns can be adjusted or augmented, followed by further dry chemical shots. Williams utilises PKW dry powder, a Purple-K based agent mixed with a bright purple pigment which allows crews to track the passage of the powder stream through the water or foam cone (powder travels two-thirds further inside the water/foam cone than in clear air).
Williams has produced a whole stable of Hydro-chem capable nozzles including handguns starting at flows
of 237 l/min and dry chemical flows of 4.5 kg/sec. Taking a step up is the Ranger-series medium flow nozzles that flows up to 15,000 l/min water or foam and up to 22 kg/sec dry chemical. The Hydro-chem nozzle series culminates in the Ambassador nozzle that can flow water or foam at 30,000 l/min and 45 kg/sec of dry chemical. The multiple options of Hydro-chem capable nozzles can weaponize handlines, ground monitors, deck guns, turret nozzles, nozzles on aerial appliances and largevolume trailer monitors.
It should be understood that Hydro-chem, as like all other methods to knock out gas or pressure-fed liquid fires, needs to have a mechanism in place to either starve the fuel supply, through isolation or patching, to control the ensuing gas or vapour cloud. Failure to do so can result in a more dire situation than allowing the fire to continue to burn.
3D fires are characterized by bright, rigid flames that defies natural laws. Gas fires will in themselves don’t produce smoke as seen in the above photo (Source: IRTcentre Belarus)
A handline and Daspit Tool ground monitor is used to control a 3D liquid fire (Source: Williams Fire & Hazard Control)
ANDRÉ TOMLINSON
IMPORTANCE OF CONTINUOUS KNOWLEDGE UPDATES FOR EMERGENCY RESPONDERS FOR THE ENERGY TRANSITION
by Steve Watkins from RelyOn Fire Academy
The rapid evolution of the energy sector, marked by the shift toward hydrogen, ammonia, and lithium-ion battery technologies, demands constant updates in the knowledge and training of emergency personnel. Once only seen in industrial applications now these hazardous materials will be more embedded in the public domain. As these energy technologies present unique challenges and hazards, keeping responders informed and prepared is essential to ensure safety, operational efficiency, and environmental protection.
This article outlines the significance of updating emergency responder knowledge and skills to effectively manage the risks associated with new energy technologies.
The global shift from fossil fuels to renewable and alternative energy sources introduces new risks and hazards for emergency responders.
Key technologies driving this transition include:
• Hydrogen: Often considered a future fuel for transport and industry, hydrogen is highly flammable and presents explosion risks under certain conditions. Handling hydrogen requires specialized knowledge of its properties and containment requirements whether that’s pressurised to 750 bar or cooled to a liquid at -253°C. THE ENERGY TRANSITION AND
Ammonia training RelyOn Esbjerg
• Ammonia: Traditionally used in agriculture, ammonia is gaining as a zero-carbon fuel alternative. While it burns without emitting CO₂, ammonia is toxic and corrosive, requiring strict handling protocols to mitigate health and environmental risks.
• Lithium-Ion Batteries: Used extensively in electric vehicles (EVs) and renewable energy storage, lithium-ion batteries present unique fire hazards. Battery fires are difficult to extinguish and can result in toxic smoke and thermal runaway incidents, necessitating specialized response strategies.
These technologies, while promising for a sustainable future, require specific handling skills and hazard mitigation approaches due to their complex and often hazardous properties.
WHY KNOWLEDGE UPDATES ARE ESSENTIAL FOR EMERGENCY RESPONDERS
Improved Safety and Incident Management
Keeping emergency personnel informed about the latest developments in energy technologies enhances their ability to respond to incidents safely and effectively. Each new technology introduces different risks that must be managed correctly:
• Hydrogen: Requires responders to have knowledge and understanding of the physical properties unique to this fuel, such as high flammability and very low minimum ignition energy (MIE) even minute static discharges can initiate ignition, invisible flames and detonation risks in confined spaces, detection challenges and high possibilities of leakages due to small molecular size and storage at very high pressures or extreme cryogenic temperatures. All offers specific challenges to a safe response where the right strategy, tactical approach and skills at the operational level.
• Ammonia: To successfully manage an incident involving ammonia like other hazardous substances an in
depth understanding of its properties is necessary, such as high toxicity giving severe respiratory distress, irritant effects to eyes nose and throat even at low concentrations, corrosive properties and chemical Burns. Furthermore ammonia has an exothermic reactions to water, is flammable under certain conditions and offers significant risk to aquatic life due to runoff from ammonia incidents. However the most problematic is how ammonia gas release can affect the surrounding and the dispersion of that migrating gas cloud. Ammonia incidents require responders to be prepared for unique and severe hazards, from toxic vapor exposure to corrosive and potentially explosive reactions. Thorough training and
proper use of equipment is critical in ensuring responder safety and minimizing the environmental and health impacts of ammonia incidents.
• Lithium-Ion Batteries: Responders need to be aware of specific hazards, like thermal runaway and hydrofluoric acid gas releases which can rapidly escalate particularly in unclosed areas, such as underground car parks. Electric vehicles create a significant challenge to responders, as the batteries are so well protected from the elements that it’s impossible to apply any extinguishing agents or cooling to control the fire. An EV car fire will escalate rapidly to other vehicles in the vicinity.
Updated training equips responders with the knowledge to recognize these unique risks and take appropriate action, which reduces the likelihood of injury and loss of life during emergencies.
Adaptation to Changing Energy Infrastructure
The infrastructure supporting the deployment of hydrogen, ammonia, and lithium-ion technologies is rapidly expanding, with hydrogen refuelling stations, ammonia fuel depots, and lithium-ion battery storage facilities becoming more prevalent. This infrastructure development increases the likelihood of emergency situations involving these technologies.
HOW CAN WE TRAIN FOR THIS?
A mixture of theoretical teaching ( face to face or online) supported by practical demonstrations showing the characteristics of each material and finally creating simulations that can mimic the response goals to give that real life awareness of the risks to responders and to ensure that the incident can be done in a safe and efficient manner. This blended learning approach will fully grasp the needs of each sector.
Environmental Protection and Risk Mitigation
Incidents involving hydrogen, ammonia, or lithium-ion batteries can have significant environmental impacts if not managed correctly. For instance, ammonia spills can contaminate water sources, and battery fires can release toxic chemicals into the air and water. Updated training ensures
that responders can take appropriate containment actions, minimizing the environmental footprint of an incident.
Furthermore, with climate-related risks on the rise, it’s essential for responders to have current knowledge
Regulatory Compliance and Public Confidence
on containment methods that align with environmental regulations and sustainability standards. Informed responders are better equipped to prevent environmental contamination and mitigate the broader impacts of energy technology incidents.
Governments and regulatory bodies worldwide are starting to set stringent safety standards for new energy technologies. Emergency response agencies must stay compliant with these evolving regulations, which often mandate specific training and knowledge in handling new energy hazards.
Compliance with these standards not only avoids legal repercussions but also builds public trust. Communities are more likely to support the development of hydrogen, ammonia, and battery facilities if they have confidence in the preparedness of emergency responders.
Recommendations for Implementing Knowledge Updates
To maintain preparedness in the face of evolving energy technologies, it is recommended that emergency response agencies adopt the following measures:emergency responders.
Continuous Professional Development: Establish programs that provide regular updates on the properties, risks, and mitigation strategies for new energy technologies.
01. 02.
Simulations and Drills: Integrate realistic scenariobased drills for hydrogen, ammonia, and lithium-ion battery incidents to help responders develop practical experience in managing these hazards.
03.
Collaboration with Industry Experts: Partnering with energy companies and technology providers can give responders access to the latest information and technical insights on emerging energy systems.
04.
Adoption of Digital Tools: Utilize digital platforms for real-time information sharing and virtual training on new safety protocols, containment measures, and environmental protection strategies.
STEVE WATKINS
Consultant training
Conclusion
As the energy sector continues its transition to renewable and alternative sources, it is imperative that emergency responders keep their knowledge current. Regular updates on the properties, risks, and handling techniques for technologies like hydrogen, ammonia, and lithium-ion batteries are essential to ensure responder
safety, regulatory compliance, environmental protection, and community confidence. By investing in continuous learning, response agencies can ensure they are fully prepared to manage the challenges posed by the future of energy.
Any further queries regarding specific training in these areas please contact out customer services department on:
A mixture of theoretical teaching supported by practical demonstrations and finally creating simulations that can mimic the response goals: this blended learning approach will fully grasp the needs of each sector.
“ “
DATA-DRIVEN DECISIONS OR LEAVING IT TO CHANCE?
by John Ottesen from Dafo Fomtec
Over the past decade, the firefighting foam industry has been undergoing a significant transition, driven by regulatory changes and environmental concerns. Initially the focus was on the voluntary change from C8 to C6 foams in 2016, which subsequently became mandatory due to legislated restrictions on PFOA in many parts of the world. Now the focus has shifted to foam concentrates free of intentionally added PFAS, commonly known as Fluorine-Free Foams (SFFF). The transition has been further accelerated by European legislation, including Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/2462, which restricts PFHxA and the proposed EU legislation imposing limitations on all PFAS-containing foams. If it ever was in dispute, industry must accept that the end of the use of PFAS containing foams in now very much in sight and transition is no longer a subject to dismiss as a “future requirement” ! From the SFFF projects Fomtec has already completed, and the extensive testing we have undertaken within the Enviro Programme we can state that the making a successful transition requires thinking beyond simple foam substitutions to consider systemic changes and performance validation.
Replacing PFAS-containing foams with SFFF is rarely a straightforward process. It often requires adjustments to application densities, modifications to hardware, and in the case of emergency firefighting changes in operational tactics. At Fomtec, we emphasize a holistic approach, recognizing that foam concentrate alone does not extinguish fires. The entire system— including hardware, water, and the finished foam—must work together to ensure effective fire suppression.
Over the past decade, Fomtec has leveraged extensive experience, conducting more than 3,000 fire tests in developing a range of SFFF formulations. We are firm believers that with SFFF the different applications where foam is used require different formulations tailored to meet the diverse demands of each application.
The Challenges of Transition Standards and Testing Protocols
A key aspect of transitioning to SFFF is understanding the differences between international standards. Standards from UL, FM,
and others have already been adapted to address the some of the different characteristics of SFFF over the PFAS containing foams. For instance, UL and FM have revised their test protocols to provide a guidance for hydrocarbon fuels when using SFFF.
Additionally, Fomtec’s Enviro Programme has gone beyond these standards to test a variety of fuels and discharge devices. This proactive approach ensures that SFFF meets or exceeds the safety margins traditionally associated with PFAScontaining foams.
Recent testing has revealed that traditional groupings of chemicals (e.g., alcohols, ketones, esters) may not apply to SFFF, necessitating individual fire performance testing for each chemical. This highlights the need for data-driven decisions, particularly as end users and insurers increasingly demand detailed performance evaluations.
Expanding the Scope of Testing
Fomtec has been working to expand the range of hydrocarbon fuels tested under the Enviro Programme, such as Jet A-1, hexane, and different gasoline
blends.
Realising that when we look at the water miscible (polar solvents) in use it would not be feasible to fire performance test all fuels, we have developed our predictive modelling tool to estimate the performance of our UL listed & FM approved Enviro ARK’s performance with these different chemicals.
This tool considers physiochemical characteristics and allows for preliminary assessments which can assist in discussions as to whether or not conducting full-scale fire tests with the chemical are required.
While testing is critical, practical constraints often arise. For example, clients may wish to utilize existing hardware, but obtaining approvals for all components can be costprohibitive.
In such cases, Fomtec works with clients to flow test devices and ensure foam qualities (expansion ratio and 25% drain times) match those achieved within our UL and/or FM approved systems. For sprinkler systems, in-house testing to UL 162 or FM 5130 standards is conducted when possible.
Real-World Applications
End users are increasingly conducting their own fire performance tests to better understand the implications of transitioning to SFFF. For instance, in the last year we worked with a client in the Middle East who requested testing with higher ambient temperatures (than we typically see in Scandinavia) and specific fuel blends. By agreeing a test location and the dates of the outdoor testing, as well as adapting the LASTFIRE test protocol, the client gained valuable insights into how their unique conditions affected the safety margin between using the foam at test application densities and the application densities applied on their systems on site.
Other projects have highlighted differences between standards and the importance of context-specific testing. For example, a specialty chemicals company needed to verify that minimum application densities specified by FM for the Enviro foam to be used on the project were sufficient for their specific fuels.
Addressing Compatibility and Stability
Additionally the discharge heads on site could not be changed discharge heads already tested and approved with the Enviro foam. Testing revealed that adjustments to pressure or spacing were necessary to meet performance requirements, leading to informed decisions about system modifications.
Compatibility between PFAScontaining foams and SFFF is a recurring concern. While these foams are not intended to be mixed, another client highlighted that residual PFAS-containing foam in piping could pose a challenge in their transition to SFFF. In this instance Fomtec agreed a test programme with the
client that involved mixing different concentrations of the existing PFAS containing foam with the new SFFF using accelerated aging and carrying out comparison fire performance tests on these mixtures to determine the short to mid-term impact on the fire performance of the resulting mixtures.
Shelf life and stability are also critical considerations for SFFF. The very nature of an SFFF is that they are
readily biodegradable and will likely have a shorter shelf life than a PFAS containing foam. We are still collecting data as we supply more SFFF to the international markets but it is clear that correct storage of an SFFF is critical for maximising the effective life of the foam.
We see some manufacturers looking to improve performance of their SFFF by the addition of partially hydrated natural polymers into their foams. These partially hydrated polymers can improve bubble stability and increase drain time whilst limiting the in-can viscosity but the viscosity may increase time, particularly if the foam concentrate comes into contact with water. These factors underscore the importance of proper storage and the need for further investigation into longterm stability.
The transition to FluorineFree Foam is no longer a theoretical discussion—it is happening now. However, these foams are not dropin replacements, and their successful deployment requires data-driven decisions. Robust testing, whether adhering to standards or extending beyond them, is essential to validate performance and ensure that the safety margins between the testing and the real world application are intact and applicable.
As an end user when you embark on facilitating your transition you need to ask yourself the question: can your potential supplier provide the evidence that the SFFF, that you would be buying as a replacement for the PFAS containing foam, has been tested and shown to be effective in the extinguishment of the products on your asset, through
the discharge devices and at the application density proposed ?
In 2025 and beyond, we anticipate increased testing of diverse fuels and greater scrutiny of SFFF stability under real-world conditions. Independent validation of these factors will be crucial to building trust and ensuring successful transitions. Fomtec remains committed to supporting end users, consultants, and partners with data-backed recommendations and innovative solutions to meet the challenges of this evolving landscape.
JOHN OTTESEN
Fomtec CEO
INFO@FOMTEC.COM
WWW.FOMTEC.COM
Performance. Redefined.
Our SKUM NFF 3x3 UL201 is redefining performance for non-fluorinated* fire suppression.
• 3% x 3% alcohol-resistant non-fluorinated* foam concentrate
• Superior performance for Class B, polar-solvent and hydrocarbon fuel fires
• Third-party verified performance at 3:1 expansion on hydrocarbon fires
• UL Listed with a wide range of proportioning equipment and discharge devices
• EN1568 Parts 1, 3 and 4 approved
• GreenScreen Certified Silver®**
*Does not contain intentionally added PFAS chemicals and produced on equipment that does not process PFAS chemicals.
**GreenScreen Certified® is a registered trademark of Clean Production Action.
CLOSING THE GAP: SFFF AND THE STANDARDS
by Gerard Visser from Johnson Controls
The firefighting foam industry is at a critical crossroads. With legislation phasing out PFAS on one side and foam manufacturers exiting the market on the other, the shift to non-fluorinated foam (NFF) concentrates, also referred to as synthetic fluorine-free foam (SFFF), is no longer theoretical: it is happening now. This transition, while necessary, is exposing significant challenges that many end users and suppliers are unprepared to face.
As an increasing number of end users adopt NFFs, many are doing so without fully understanding the consequences. At the same time, suppliers often fail to assess whether fluorine-free foams are compatible with existing firefighting hardware. This lack of awareness is not always intentional and may arise from a focus on meeting compliance standards rather than ensuring real-world performance.
Traditionally, foam manufacturers have developed their products to pass specific standards like UL, EN, IMO… Once testing produces favorable results, the products are released to the market.
The first major challenge identified in the transition to NFF, proportioning, is relatively straightforward to address. Ensuring that foam concentrates mix correctly within the allowable range is something users can check and adjust.
However, a deeper challenge is emerging as NFF are used in actual firefighting scenarios. The performance of these foams,
particularly in combination with existing hardware, can fall short of expectations.
At Johnson Controls, we understand this gap and take a unique approach to developing our NFF products.
A Holistic Approach to Foam Development
As a manufacturer of both foam agents and hardware, we recognize the importance of ensuring compatibility between the two. While many in the industry focus on ticking the boxes required by applicable standards, our priority is real-world performance.
This requires us to address not only the obvious factors like application rate and viscosity, but also the less visible and more complex challenge of expansion ratio.
Viscosity plays a crucial role in proportioning, ensuring foam concentrates mix correctly during commissioning. Standards testing evaluates application rates across different fuels, offering clear insights into product performance. However, expansion ratio is often overlooked in standard testing.
standard testing.
In many foam tests standards, like EN1568, ICAO but also IMO for the marine market, the same test nozzle called UNI 86 is used. Is this nozzle guilty for giving a false perception of non-fluorinated foam performance? This nozzle typically gives with most non-fluorinated foams an expansion ratio around or well above 7:1. This aligns with the expansion ratio found by NFPA in their 2020 research program (“Evaluation of the firefighting effectiveness of fluorine free firefighting foams”) where they suggested that fluorine free foams were best performing at expansion ratios from 7:1 up to 10:1.
Yet, most existing discharge devices commonly used in fixed or mobile foam systems initially designed for AFFF or AR-AFFF are limited to deliver
Customers looking to convert an existing AFFF system to NFF will likely incur costs associated with cleaning the system to remove residual AFFF and constituent chemicals, and may need to replace certain components of the system. As the specifics can vary by the type and design of the system, distributors/contractors/insurance/AHJ/ end users are advised to consult with a licensed fire suppression professional on the specific conversion requirements for their system.
expansion ratios ranging from 3:1 (non-air aspirated equipment cases) up to 6:1. This is typically the case for monitors, foam chambers, foam pourers…
Recognizing this mismatch, our Research and Development team is dedicating significant effort to ensuring high performance at these lower expansion ratios. By doing so, we not only maintain compatibility with existing hardware but also help customers to minimize the costs to upgrade their systems .
Bridging the Gap Through Standards
Progress is being made to address these challenges at an industry level in Europe. The EN1568 workgroup is proposing for 2025 updates revision from the 2018 edition, addressing critical issues like premix homogeneity and foam expansion sensitivity.
One complete new Annex is aimed to provide users and designers an understanding of the performance sensitivity related to the foam expansion.
The new test described in this annex provides the ability to compare extinguishing time and performance with the expansion ratio that the foam is used at.
Building a Safer Future
Looking ahead, the next step in the evolution of NFF regulation likely involves aligning the design codes and tests standards to the critical requirement of this new technology called non-fluorinated foam. This will ensure that NFF systems continue to deliver the same high standards of fire suppression and protection as their predecessors.
By addressing these technical challenges and improving standards, we can better facilitate a smoother transition to non-fluorinated foams.
Ultimately, our goal remains unchanged: extinguishing fires, protecting assets, and above all, saving lives.
GERARD VISSER
Business Development Manager Foam Products
SCAN QR CODE OR VISIT THEIR WEBSITE FOR MORE INFORMATION:
top performance when needed!
AR 3/3
For fire brigades and industrial use
° hazmat incidents in tank farms, refineries and chemical plants
° alcohol resistant and no PFAS added
Online only
° for use with inline inductors (400 L flow min. 38 mm diameter suction hose required)
° certification acc. EN 1568:2018, LASTfire, ICAO, IMO and more
HOW INDUSTRIAL FIRE SERVICES TACKLE MAJOR FIRES IN THE FUTURE
by Martin Gorski from Dr STHAMER
The transfer to fluorine free foam agents raises many questions, in particular for users.
Aside from the question of the fire performance users need to know, whether their on-site equipment and established firefighting tactics can still be used.
The law stipulates that fluorine containing foam agents with a PFOA content of 25 ppb or over that are contained at deployment must be exchanged by 04.07.2025.
New F3-AR foam agents, produced without PFAS (without fluorosurfactants) were developed to replace predominantly alcohol resistant AFFF foams. With vaPUREx® AR 3/3 F-5 Dr. STHAMER produces one of the best performing foam agents. The fire extinguishing agent proved its efficiency through numerous fire tests in compliance with various international standards. During large-scale fire tests conducted by users around the LASTfire group vaPUREx® AR 3/3 F-5 produced the fastest fire performance on the 300 sqm fire surface.
In practice, the question arises as to whether the configured proportioning systems are hydraulically compatible with the viscosity of the foam agent in order to ensure a proportioning rate of 3%.
In spring 2024, we were given the opportunity to apply vaPUREx® AR 3/3 F-5 using a large monitor of over 20,000 l/min capacity. In addition to determining the proportioning rate, we were able to check the foam expansion ratio in the landing zone of the foam. The Williams monitor tested contained a self-inducting hollow jet nozzle. This was fed by
An important question that can only be answered in practice: How quickly and how well does the foam blanket spread across the surface?
“ “
three jet pumps (large Venturi proportioners), which drew the foam concentrate from IBC's provided. The foam produced was collected in the collection chamber of a petrol storage tank and fed into the sewage treatment plant in a controlled manner. When entering the collection chamber, the excellent flowing characteristics of the foam was assessed by a team of experts present.
An important question that can only be answered in practice: How quickly and how well does the foam blanket spread across the surface?
Collecting chambers and process plants in particular are equipped various fittings that can act as obstacles. Strong flowing properties allow for the foam to completely surround those obstacles. A stable connection between the foam blanket
and the object helps to cool the walls down quickly and suppress rising vapours. During the fire tests in Vernon, vaPUREx® AR 3/3 F-5 already showed excellent connecting properties and complete vapour suppression in the area around the edge of the tank. These results can also be transferred to fittings.
The test proved that vaPUREx® AR 3/3 F-5 can be used for large fires with conventional technology and tactics. In particular, the foam expansion, conversion rate and proportioning rate must be tested individually. These result from the interaction of the fire extinguishing foam agent, proportioning device, monitor and the pipework installed between the individual components.
SCAN QR CODE OR VISIT THE LINK BELOW TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THE PRODUCT:
MARTIN GROSKI
Customer support for mobile projects, marketing and training
M.GORSKI@STHAMER.COM WWW.STHAMER.COM
WATER DRIVEN PUMP PROPORTIONERS FOR FLUORINE-FREE FOAMS (SFFF)
FIREMIKS For Industrial and Sprinkler Firefighting
Piston pumps (-PP) are well suited for systems with wide flow range, for example sprinkler systems. Gear pumps (-GP) are particularly suited for working in deluge installations and with large flow monitors.
FIREMIKS Mobile unit for Fire Brigades
With a FIREMIKS the firefighters get a flexible resource, easy to adapt to different firefighting situations. FIREMIKS works within a wide pressure and flow range giving a precise and steady dosing rate.
EASYTOINSTALLEASYTOOPERATEEASYTOTEST
COMPACT DOSING SYSTEM, NO NEED FOR PRESSURE TANK OR ADDITIONAL ENERGY SUPPLY.
RELIABLE MECHANICAL PROPORTIONER, DRIVEN BY THE WATER FLOW ONLY, NO NEED FOR PRESSURE BALANCING OR CALIBRATION
ECONOMICAL AND ENVIRONMENTALLY BENEFICIAL TESTING WITH A DOSING RETURN VALVE AND TWO SEPARATE FLOW METERS
OPERATING PRINCIPLE OF FIREMIKS FOAM
PROPORTIONERS
by Per Aredal from
FIREMIKS AB
The FIREMIKS proportioning system operates on the principle of positive displacement for both the water motor and the concentrate pump. The water motor, driven solely by the extinguishing water flow, powers the concentrate pump, which injects the concentrate into the water flow. The dosing is determined by the volumetric relationship between the water motor and the concentrate pump.
What are the technological foundations of the FIREMIKS systems?
The volumetric water motor design was conceived by the grandfather of the current management of Firemiks AB in the late 1970s. Since its inception, the focus has been to continuously refine the design to enhance performance and reliability, most importantly by launching the multi-vane motor.
Additionally, the systems modularity allows for quick adaptations, matching the water motor with a wide range of high-end concentrate pumps, each with its own unique specifications to consider.
FM-approved models of FIREMIKS
FM approval designates our system as a "Variable Viscosity Pump Proportioner," meaning that if the specified minimum and maximum flow rates in the data sheet are followed, FIREMIKS can accommodate different viscosity variations across a wide flow and pressure range. Variations in viscosity can occur due to factors such as temperature, aging, etc, or simply due to change of concentrate type or supplier. This offers the significant advantage of eliminating the need for recalibration whenever there is a change in concentrate or viscosity—unlike bladder tanks, which often require recalibration and cause critical downtime during replacement.
The FM approval we have received (Standard: 5130 - May 2021) for eight of our 3% models, across three flow sizes—1800, 2400, and 4000 lpm—confirms that the FM-approved FIREMIKS units provide accurate dosing within the approved tolerance limits specified in the standards (e.g., 3.0-3.9%) with concentrates ranging from 1 cP to high-viscosity concentrates (up to 6422 cP at a shear rate of 5 1/s).
The shear rate curve approved for the FM-approved models is as follows:
This means that if a concentrate has a shear rate curve that falls below or aligns with the specified figures, it will perform well with the FM-approved FIREMIKS models. This applies also to the new generation of fluorine-free SFFF concentrates, which are often non-Newtonian.
To ensure optimal dosing performance at maximum viscosity for any FIREMIKS model, the required concentrate delivery hose/pipe dimensions should be designed according to the specification in each units Data sheet.
FM-approved models of FIREMIKS
FIREMIKS distinguishes itself by offering two types of dosing pumps—Piston and Gear pumps—coupled with the robust multi-vane motor. When working with clients, we prioritize understanding the concentrate type and viscosity, in addition to considering flow and pressure, before recommending the most suitable pump type and providing tailored installation advice. It’s important to note that all Piston pump systems on the market have an upper viscosity limit due to the reciprocating principle of the Piston pump.
During each revolution, the plunger sucks in concentrate and then presses it out, causing the concentrate to go from zero to full speed twice per revolution. If the static viscosity of non-Newtonian concentrates is too high, the concentrate may not flow smoothly, resulting in an inaccurate dosing rate.
The FIREMIKS Piston pump models typically excel in systems with low start-up flows relative to their maximum flow rate, making them ideal for applications like sprinkler systems and offering versatility across a wide flow range.
Gear pump on the other hand are highly effective for handling very high-viscosity fluids. Their counter-rotating gears create a consistent, non-agitating flow, ensuring reliable sealing with such fluids. Gear pump models are also particularly efficient in applications operating at the higher end of the maximum flow rate, such as deluge and large fire monitor systems.
FIREMIKS 1800-3-PP-F-FA-BRZ-DRV FM-approved
FIREMIKS 1000-0,5-1-3-PP-M
The FIREMIKS Piston pump models typically excel in systems with low start-up flows relative to their maximum flow rate, making them ideal for applications like sprinkler systems and offering versatility across a wide flow range.
International Sales Director at Firemiks AB, with + 35 years of experience of producing and delivering water driven volumetric pump proportioners worldwide. PER.AREDAL@FIREMIKS.COM WWW.FIREMIKS.COM
+46-76-139 70 34
Foam School 2025
• March 24 – 28, 2025
• Vernon – France
• Theory, legislation, lessons learned and best practices
• Workshops, demonstrations and practical firefighting
TRAINING ON THE USE OF FOAM IN HIGH-RISK INDUSTRIES GOES FAR BEYOND EXTINGUISHING FIRES.
by Jochem van de Graaff and Peter de Roos from H2K
On November 12 and 13, 2024, the guideline “Use of foam in high-risk industries” was presented at the JOIFF Foam Summit in London. This guideline highlights the properties of foam in relation to different incident scenarios. This article focuses on training with foam in high-risk industries. It explores how practical training with foam changes when all properties presented in the guideline of foam are utilized, and users are trained for all types of incident scenarios where foam can be applied.
The guideline (available at www.h2k.nl) describes four typical incident scenarios in a graphical representation as displayed:
Traditionally, training and education focus on extinguishing fires, which makes sense given that firefighting is one of the primary tasks of the fire service. However, it is well known that managing incident scenarios in high-risk industries is not primarily about extinguishing fires. It is primarily about controlling the effects of a loss of containment.
Because liquids tend to flow, the focus of response is often on controlling and limiting the consequences. For example, this can involve cooling with water and foam or covering a toxic spill as much as possible. In many cases, prolonged foam application is necessary to minimize toxic effects and reduce the risk of (re)ignition.
In education and training, limited attention is paid to controlling, covering, and consolidating incidents with the use of foam. This article briefly reflects on the practical training of firefighters for response in the four incident types as shown in the graph. It reviews the traditional approach and proposes improvements to better align with reality.
Combatting
Combatting a fire with foam is only possible when the size of the incident is clear, and the liquids are no longer moving. Only then can the necessary application rate be determined, and extinguishing can be practiced based on the foam manufacturer’s guidelines (such as mixing percentage and expansion). However, there are four objections to the traditional method of training focused on extinguishing:
Training Foam:
Training foam plays an important role in foam training. It is less harmful to the environment and allows for targeted exercises, such as system use, determining throw distances and practical deployment. However, training foam is not suitable for practicing actual fire extinguishing. It does extinguish fires, but it teaches participants nothing about the specific properties of operational foam, which behaves significantly different. Operational foam is more stable, more resistant to heat and chemical exposure and is in many cases resistant to the interaction with extinguishing powder.
Excessive Application
Rates: Application rates during training are often exorbitant. Fires of just a few tens of square meters are small compared to the flows of a handheld nozzle (at least 200 liters per minute). This teaches participants nothing about realistic extinguishing durations or effective methods.
To address these issues, it is essential to clearly define the training objectives. Technical skills such as system connections and determining throwing distances can be effectively practiced with training foam. These skills should be separate from actual fire extinguishing.
To extinguish a liquid fire, it is of great added value to carry this out with operational foam, at a low flow rate of 4 - 6.5 l/min/m², or even lower. This offers participants a much better insight into the behaviour of foam. I.e. the flow of the foam, the more realistic duration of the extinguishing and the impact on the fire.
However, such exercises are only possible when the technical skills, such as operating equipment, knowledge of the throwing distances and the way in which foam should be applied, etc., have been properly practiced. H2K has now tested this distinction in several training courses, with striking effective results. 01. 02. 03. 04.
Short Fire Durations:
Training with foam has significant environmental and financial consequences due to the large quantities of fuel required. But even with larger quantities of fuel, the duration of the fire is often limited. Prolonged exposure to fire and heat also has a strong adverse effect on the training objects. However, these quantities are very small compared to what occurs in real-life scenarios. Therefore other solutions have to be found for this, for example by practicing the effect of burn time on scenarios on a smaller scale, and thus with adapted equipment to train with realistic application rates.
Small Surface During
Training: Due to the relatively small surface area’s training is conducted with handheld nozzles with low and medium expansion foam. In real life situations, due to heatflux this type of nozzle can’t be used. The heat flux of the burning fire is that big that handheld equipment is useless. In most training sessions the handheld equipment is used very frequently.
In training, "controlling the fire" often begins the exercise, followed by shutting off the fuel supply and initiating extinguishment. However, this approach does not align well with realworld practices in high-risk industries.
When controlling a fire, the emphasis is mainly on limiting the effects of a LOC (Loss of Containment). This can be achieved by cooling with water and/or foam. As long as there is still pressure/ flow, the fire cannot be extinguished with foam. In many cases, it turns out that when the effects are well controlled, the fire can burn out on its own and that it is not necessary to extinguish the fire. In fact, especially in the event of a 3D fire, where burning liquid flows from a high-altitude LOC, it is often better not to extinguish the fire. This prevents unburned products from falling into the foam, thereby leading to the formation of vapors and aerosols that can later ignite and cause escalation at a great distance from the LOC. Foam does not offer a solution in this particular case.
Stopping a leak (e.g., blocking a fire to
Controlling
pipeline) is the responsibility of process operators. They are responsible for the installation and can take measures to stop the leak. As long as those steps have not been taken, the priority for the fire brigade is to limit the effects in order to prevent further escalation.
Training with pressurized fuels (both gas and liquid) often occurs, but usually in a way that blurs the distinction between the responsibilities of operations and the fire brigade. Conducting 'valve down operations' is a good example of this. Closing a burning valve, or a valve that has been directly exposed to flames, is an extremely risky task. And when practiced these training is executed with very low pressure and minimal flow compared to the real-life situations. In real-life incidents, due to high pressures and bigger flows, a fire can’t be approached in the way this is trained.
This valve down operation does not involve mitigating the effects (the task of the fire brigade) but rather operating the equipment (the task of the operators). It is hard to imagine that in a real-life situation, a burning valve could still be operated. Seals, spindles, and valves would be damaged and deformed by the intense heat. It is no coincidence that during such exercises, the training center staff remotely closes the valve, as the burning valve in practice no longer functions due to exposure to flames and therefore must be symbolically shut off from a safe distance.
In training sessions focused on fire control, the emphasis should be on limiting the effects and effective cooling. For example, it is essential to apply 360-degree cooling to objects, even though this is technically complex and
labor-intensive. However, this approach helps to minimize material stress as much as possible. This requires training—firstly, to accurately determine where cooling is and isn't needed.
Process operators must play an active role in this process, as they are familiar with the facility and know which components are most vulnerable or pose a direct risk of escalation. Practicing, gaining insight into this dynamic, and ensuring that the consequences of fire brigade actions (such as using large amounts of water in an installation, which can itself pose a risk) are minimized, is crucial.
In addition, exercises with foam should show that in the event of a liquid fire under pressure (jet fire), the formation of the pool fire under the jet can be controlled, but that the outflow itself causes large amounts of burning product to fall into the foam blanket. This provides a significant fuel pickup and makes the foam blanket vulnerable to re-ignition. The flow of the foam blanket itself also ensures the spread of the product. This entails complex considerations about the manner of action and the possible consequences for the fire service. This is limited in most practice scenarios.
H2K notes that these types of skills are limited among the participants and that the importance of accurate execution is often not recognized.
This is remarkable, as acting safely and effectively in such situations is crucial to getting the incident under control and preventing significant damage.
Covering
There are hardly any scenarios where liquids not have been ignited and are released under pressure. Nevertheless, these types of incidents occur regularly (perhaps most often), in which, for example, the effects of toxic substances must be limited. An important factor here is limiting the outflow and controlling the spread (containment management) in combination with the use of foam. Although training centers are rarely equipped for this, these are extremely valuable exercises, as they are quite complex due to the nature of the incidents. In training more focus on the foam properties should be addressed, such as the application rate (usually lower than during fire, but how low?) and mixing ratio’s (is a higher then prescribed mixing ratio more efficient?).
Working with foam in such scenarios requires a very specific approach. The aim is to limit the spread of the liquid as much as possible, while at the same time achieving effective covering even if the supply of substances has not yet stopped. This is a challenging and very dynamic process that requires a high degree of coordination. Spotters (for example for measurements or the use of drones), the operators of monitors and nozzles of the fire brigade, and operators who may contribute to containment management, must work closely together.
All these aspects can be trained without the actual presence of a fire. Within the fire service, this is traditionally considered as less challenging, while in practice this type of scenario is more common than extinguishing fires. Such exercises should therefore be a standard part of a practical foam program.
Consolidating
Many incidents result in a situation where the fire is extinguished and the released product remains in containment and comes to a standstill, often covered by an initial layer of foam. Such situations can last for a long time, sometimes even several days, such as leaks in a tank pit or an extinguished tank fire. Evaluations and incident reports show that it is extremely difficult to sustain a longterm deployment and that there is only limited preparation for such tasks.
This requires a long-term deployment of the fire brigade in continuous cooperation with operations. This makes training these skilled people at a training center particularly complicated. Yet there are possibilities. For example, training can be given on the effective application of a foam blanket, which is different from extinguishing, where a first layer of foam is applied to cover a puddle. How exactly do you apply a new layer of foam to an existing layer? How do you ensure that the drainage time of the foam is as long as possible, so that you don't have to apply a new layer as often? How do you measure whether the foam blanket is still effective, without allowing fumes
to pass through? What are the effects of the wind and are there strategies to control it?
Although these questions are relatively easy to answer in theory, in practice it appears to receive too little attention during training. “The fire has been extinguished, next exercise.” And that is a missed opportunity. Because the extinguishing is moving on to another type of incident: consolidation. And that requires a different betting tactic and technique. The users must be trained in this.
During various training courses on this subject, it has been found that the equipment is not optimal
for consolidating incidents. In consolidation, a very stable foam blanket can be achieved by, for example, using a higher admixture percentage. However, it turns out that not all premix is converted into stable foam (conversion of premix to expanded foam) when the same nozzle is used that functions well in extinguishing. So, increased admixture rates affect the effectiveness of the foam blanket. That is not surprising, as the contrary (a less effective blanket) happens with a lower admixture rates than prescribed.
It is striking that there is little information available on such deployment techniques and that there is only
limited training on this aspect, as almost all incidents in which foam is deployed end in a phase of consolidation. Moreover, those involved in almost all incidents indicate that the nature and extent of such operations has yielded many valuable lessons.
Conclusion
As explained in this article, the guide offers new perspectives on training industrial incidents in general, and incidents in which foam is used in particular. Translating these perspectives into actual training courses will be a challenge in the upcoming period.
Clients, participants, instructors and training centers will have to focus on all the properties of the foam in relation to all the incident types mentioned in this article. This requires substantial adjustments in teaching and learning material, as well as a change in behavior and a review of the expectations regarding training and the training location.
If we take a critical look at the course of incidents in the high-risk industry and apply the 'train as you fight' principle, we see that many exercises associated with intensive training (with a lot of flames, fire, heat and evaporating firefighter suits) are aimed at achieving an extinguishing phase. Instead, the exercises should become more versatile, using all the properties of foam and focusing on all the common incident types for which foam can be used.
In this way, the training courses will contribute to safer and more effective deployments by the fire service, with a keen eye for the role that the fire service plays in relation to the tasks of process operations.
Training on the use of foam in high-risk industries goes far beyond extinguishing fires.
JOCHEM VAN DE GRAAFF
Senior Advisor / Project Coordinator at H2K
J.VANDEGRAAFF@H2K.NL
WWW.H2K.NL/EN/
PETER DE ROOS
Senior Trainer/Consultant H2K
P.DEROOS@H2K.NL
WWW.H2K.NL/EN/
Innovation Leaders in Fluorine-Free Firefighting Foam for 20+ Years
For more than 20 years, Perimeter Solutions has led the way in developing top-quality, fluorine-free foam alternatives. Our technologically advanced Class B fluorine-free foam concentrates are designed to meet your needs. We offer one of the industry’s most comprehensive and highest performing lines of firefighting foam concentrates, all of which meet global certifications and approvals. Selecting the correct foam technology is
MAKING THE SWITCH TO FLUORINE-FREE FOAM
THE FUTURE OF FIRE SUPPRESSION
by James Perriss from Perimeter Solutions
Across fire safety trade publications today, Synthetic Fluorine-free Firefighting Foam (SFFF) technology is a dominant topic—and for good reason. The industry is quickly moving away from fluorinated firefighting foam (such as AFFF’s, AR-AFFF’s, FluoroProtein foams) for a number of reasons. First, new regulations are being introduced around the world requiring organizations to move to SFFF. Beyond regulatory pressures, many organizations are proactively adopting SFFF solutions to prioritize environmental stewardship. Finally, advancements in fluorine-free technology have led to the development of high-performance solutions that meet or exceed traditional firefighting standards, proving their effectiveness worldwide.
For more than 20 years, Perimeter Solutions has developed and refined SFFF solutions, delivering innovations that have proven performance, while helping its customers navigate the complex transition away from fluorinated firefighting foams. With a comprehensive portfolio of globally approved SFFF products, UL Approved and FM Listed system hardware and extensive real-world experience, Perimeter Solutions understands the key drivers for this shift. These are steps that may help smooth the transition.
Determine what type of firefighting foam you have
Start by identifying whether your existing foam concentrate contains per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Knowing the composition and classification of your current firefighting foam is essential for compliance with new regulations and planning for its replacement. It will also help with budgeting for the transition, as it will determine whether you can continue to use your existing equipment after thorough cleaning, or if you will have to invest in a new system. (See step 6.)
Review the laws and regulations in your region, country, or industry
Regulations governing the use and transition from legacy foams vary by region and industry. Consult state and local authorities to ensure compliance.
If you are required to change your foam concentrate, determine the best way to dispose of what you currently have
Proper disposal of legacy foam is 01. 02.
critical. Cleaning the equipment can be costly, and even after cleaning, it may still contain residue, which requires proper disposal.
04.
Reevaluate the hazards you have on hand
Before selecting a new foam concentrate, conduct a comprehensive hazard analysis. Consider the types of fuels, fire risks, and suppression systems in use at your facility.
This step ensures that the new foam will provide the necessary fire protection for your specific application.
Select an appropriate foam concentrate based on your updated hazard analysis
05.
Choose an SFFF solution that meets the fire suppression requirements identified in your updated hazard analysis. Perimeter Solutions offers a broad range of Underwriters Laboratories (UL) and Factory Mutual (FM) approved products, as well as LASTFIRE, IMO, ICAO, EN1568certified. This includes SOLBERG®
VERSAGARD™ and SOLBERG® RE-HEALING™ foams, designed to match or exceed the performance requirements for various applications.
06.
Make necessary changes to your foam system
Transitioning to SFFF may require adjustments to existing equipment. Check compatibility with pumps, proportioning systems, and discharge devices. Transitioning to SFFF may require adjustments to existing equipment.
Check compatibility with pumps, proportioning systems, and discharge devices. Depending on the selected foam, modifications may not be required or may be minimal. Perimeter Solutions’ team of experts can help streamline the process.
07.
Install and commission the system
Once modifications are complete, install and thoroughly test the new system to ensure optimal performance.
Verify application rates, system pressure, and foam effectiveness.
Perimeter Solutions offers a range of SFFF concentrates that not only meet regulatory environmental standards but deliver superior performance across multiple industries. Our products include:
• SOLBERG® VERSAGARD™ 1x3 AR-SFFF: A versatile, alcohol-resistant foam concentrate for Class B hydrocarbon and polar solvent fuel fires. Certified to UL-162, EN-1568:2018, and IMO MSC.1/ Circ. 1312, it is also GreenScreen Certified Silver® and LASTFIRE batch-certified.
• SOLBERG® VERSAGARD™ 3x3 AS-100: A multipurpose foam designed for Class B hydrocarbon and polar solvent fuel fires, delivering high fluidity
with slow draining. Certified to UL16262, EN-1568:2018, IMO MSC.1/Circ. 1312 and ICAO B, it is also GreenScreen Certified Silver® and LASTFIRE batchcertified.
• SOLBERG® RE-HEALING™ 3x3 SP-100: The industry’s first UL-listed and FM-approved fluorinefree 3×3 foam concentrate with the full complement of hardware and standard sprinkler listings, including non-aspirated.
• SOLBERG® RE-HEALING™ RF1FP SFFF: Using innovative Newtonian
Perimeter Solutions offers a range of SFFF concentrates that not only meet regulatory environmental standards but deliver superior performance across multiple industries.
With more than 20 years of innovation and expertise, Perimeter Solutions products meet global performance standards, helping clients achieve both compliance and operational excellence. When you are ready to transition to SFFF technology, our certified products are engineered to support the highest levels of fire safety while reducing environmental impact.
As the transition to SFFF continues, now is the time to review the Perimeter Solutions innovate range of fluorine free firefighting foam and listed/approved hardware.
technology, this Freeze Protected SFFF foam is designed to meet the needs of floating production storage and offloading (FPSO), certified to EN1568, American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) Type Approval and LASTFIRE batch-certified.
• SOLBERG® 3% MIL-SPEC SFFF: The world’s first SFFF concentrate to be approved by the U.S. Department of Defense per the MIL-SPEC Qualified Product List (QPL) - MIL-PRF-32725 and ICAO approved and GreenScreen Certified Silver®. It is specifically designed for fast knockdown of gasoline and Jet A fuel spills. To date, we have helped more than 150 airports and military bases transition to the SOLBERG 3% MIL-SPEC SFFF.
JAMES PERRISS
Director of Product Management for Global Suppressants at Perimeter Solutions
ANGUS FIRE: LEADING THE WAY WITH FLUORINE-FREE SOLUTIONS
by Henry Pap from Angus Fire
The firefighting industry is undergoing a significant transformation as it transitions from traditional foam concentrates such as aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF), Flouroproteins (FP) and their alcohol resistant counterparts (AR), to fluorine-free solutions. This shift is driven by growing regulatory restrictions and increased demand for safer alternatives. However, simply replacing a traditional Fluorinated product with synthetic fluorine-free foam (SFFF) is not enough to ensure firefighting effectiveness and operational safety. Proven compatibility between SFFF and foam hardware is critical to achieving a seamless transition while maintaining performance standards. Angus Fire, a leader in firefighting solutions, is at the forefront of this effort, constantly testing its SFFF products with Angus foam hardware to provide customers with a reliable and safe solution.
Misleading Claims and Their Implications
Leading certification standards, such as UL 162, EN 1568, ICAO and LASTFIRE, have specific test application rates for various foam types as well as strict protocols governing qualifying tests for product certification. Related to such standards are design codes such as NFPA, EN, FM or others which prescribe the minimum recommended application densities per method of discharge. Marketing claims that present SFFF as a "drop-in replacement" for AFFF, often-citing test data rather than the prevailing design codes, are not only technically inaccurate but potentially dangerous, attempting to minimise the operational adjustments required for a safe transition to SFFF product. Misapplying SFFF, or indeed any foam, risks non-compliance with design codes, exposing operators to legal liabilities and insurance complications. In certain instances, it is worth noting some multinational companies have long adopted their own application densities that exceed the minimum requirements set by prevailing standards, thereby ensuring greater safety margins.
Let’s consider one example, LASTFIRE protocols are well established and protocols are well established and were developed with inputs from major international oil and petrochemical companies to create a standardized method for testing firefighting foams, replicating large-scale storage tank fire conditions.
These protocols offer several advantages:
Realistic Large-Scale
01.
Testing LASTFIRE tests are designed to replicate real-world fire scenarios, based on large-diameter tank fires. By simulating actual conditions at reduced scale, these protocols provide a more accurate assessment of how a foam will perform in practice.
02.
Controlled Variables and Repeatability
LASTFIRE protocols ensure controlled conditions, including consistent fuel types, fire sizes, application devices and foam application rates. This standardization enables repeatability and reliable comparison of different foam products.
This holistic approach ensures that all relevant aspects of foam performance are evaluated effectively, within defined environmental conditions.
04.
Industry Recognition
LASTFIRE protocols are widely recognized by industry stakeholders, including major oil and gas companies, regulatory bodies, and foam manufacturers.
Compliance with these protocols lends credibility to foam performance claims and facilitates acceptance in international markets.
The risk of in-house foam tests
Unlike LASTFIRE protocols, which simulate realistic foam application using monitors or handlines as well as type II applications, offering a holistic approach, some companies strongly promote their own in-house foam test with a preferred single application method, designed only to showcase specific elements of their own foam products.
Such in house tests, like the plunge test for example, fail to reflect application nuances and do not assess burn-back resistance, resulting in misleading conclusions about foam performance. The primary disadvantage of the Plunge Test is the absence of an internationally accepted standard.
HENRY PAP
Product Manager – Foam & Hardware
The test methodology varies depending on the individual or organization conducting it and the equipment used. Without a standardized framework, results are difficult to compare across different foams and scenarios, leading to inconsistent conclusions about foam performance.
Angus Fire’s Response: Leading the Way with Fluorine-Free Solutions
Transitioning to fluorinefree foam concentrate is a complex process that involves evaluating fire performance, hardware compatibility, and environmental impact. Angus Fire’s expertise and innovative fluorine-free solutions, such as Respondol and JetFoam range of high performance products, play a pivotal role in supporting this transition, offering both high-performance firefighting capability and environmental responsibility.
With proper planning and the right partner, the shift to fluorine-free foam can be both seamless and beneficial.
Angus Fire is not only addressing current regulatory demands but also shaping the future of sustainable fire suppression. FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Industrial firefighting
Hytrans delivers more than just water
When oil or petrochemical fires break out , quick access to large-scale water supply is essential. Always. In every situation.
With the Hytrans Mobile Water Transport Systems you are equipped to respond swiftly and minimizing damage when every second counts.
Visit our website or contact us directly.
hytrans.com The Netherlands
Visit us at the JOIFF Conference in Antwerp on 8 & 9 April, 2025
Fire Foam Pumps and Customized Packaged Systems Manufacturer
Unsurpassed Fire Foam Concentrate Foam Pump Designs
• Positive Displacement Rotary Gear Foam Pumps meet 100-261 psi (7-18 bar) applications complying with UL/FM/CE and ATEX to ensure performance capabilities, including the new FFF foam concentrates.
• Foam pumps and customized pumping systems are compatible with all fire fighting foam types – the only choice for special/high hazard applications.
• Robust designs include self-lubricating pumps, the ability to run dry for 10 minutes, no timing gears, and one shaft seal for trouble-free long-term service.
• Pump drivers include PTO, hydraulic, engine, electric (50/60 Hz), or water turbine to fit your unique application.
TOTAL PUMP PACKAGE SOLUTIONS LEADER
by Fire Lion Global
Fire Lion Global, locatd in the USA, designs, manfactures, and provides to the industry a full compliment of positive displacement foam pumps for the special hazards/ foam and water mist fire protection markets.
Foam pumps in the market today are even more critical than in times past. With changes to the foam agent types and compositions, foam pumps are needed more than ever to help move foam concentrates through piping to the associated proportioners to meet system demand and engineering designs. Other types of proportioning systems can be effective but with the higher friction losses due to the viscosities of the new agents, foam pumps provide the needed shearing
Fire Lion Global, located in the USA, designs, manfactures, and provides to the industry a full compliment of positive displacement foam pumps for the special hazards/foam and water mist fire protection markets.
affect on the agent in order to help move it through the piping effectively and efficiently.
Fire Lion’s product portfolio consists of gear pumps that range in size from 1” suction/discharge connections to 4” suction/discharge connections. This
line of pumps is offered to the industry with the most listings and approvals on the market today. Fire Lion is the only manufacturer on the planet that offers BOTH a UL listing and FM approval. In conjuction with the UL and FM approvals, we also offer CE marking, Civil Defense approval in both
Main and Reserve, Diesel Foam Pump, Balanced Pressure Proportioning Skid
Dubai and Abu Dhabi, and ISO 9001 certification.
Our vast experience, knowledge and contacts in the industry as a whole provides customers with the proper guideance and product availability needed for market conditions today.
Our service to customers, whether you are in the design phase and looking for what is needed in your system or in the final commissioning phase and looking for onsite
support, Fire Lion is second to none at all stages of a project.
In additon to providing fully listed
pumps and pump sets, Fire Lion can be your fully customized skid fabricator as well. Our engineering team and production team thrives in this environment and excels at providing complete packages that are fully piped, wired, and ready to go when the skid arrives at your facility.
For foam pump and skid packages, Fire Lion is your one stop shop for your foam fire protection system.
Our designs include 316SS pipe, powder coated carbon steel base frames, and all the accessories required for the pump skid you need. We offer full skid design services to be included in your package as well as proportioners installed on the skid.
From a single electric pump/controller
with no proportioner, to dual diesel powered foam pumps including fuel tanks, batteries and controllers, and a balanced pressure proportioning system, Fire Lion can do it all!!
When environmental concerns take precidence, or you need a proportioner that is foam agent independent, Fire Lion can offer the FM Approved Electronic Foam Proportioner (EFP).
This proportioner is the only electonic version on the market today with an FM approval for various flow rate ranges.
This unit utilizes a 24V power supply, has only 2 moving parts, can be tested with recirculating all foam back to the storage tank, and can be fully tested without even flowing water!
Having the FM approval on the unit ensures engineers and end users that this piece of equipment has been approved to perform against rigorous testing criteria and is durable, accurate, and user friendly.
FIRE LION GLOBAL
WWW.FIRELIONGLOBAL.COM
Fire Lion Global
Please visit our website today, firelionglobal.com, for all typical downloads and engineering specifications to include 3D drawings, PDF brochures, manuals, and Word document specifications for ease of adjustment depending on your project needs. Fire Lion has it all ready for your project, contact us today to learn more!!
Viking’s market leading range of fluorine free foam products gives you choice, solutions and third party verification from internationally recognized test laboratories. Choose data, not opinion. Choose Viking.
SFFF TRANSITIONING CONCERNS
by Simon Barratt from Viking EMEA
The restriction on the use of firefighting foams containing PFOA is drawing closer and despite the possibility of a small extension to the full implementation, end users with foam based fire protection systems are busy with system transition (retrofit) initiatives. The anticipated restriction on all kinds of PFAS (Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) in firefighting foam is also driving end users to adapt systems now. However, are they taking the correct approach and are installation companies and manufacturers giving the correct advice?
Whilst there have been many recent milestones relating to the restriction of PFAS used in firefighting foams, it was probably the announcement of intended bans on the manufacturing, sale and distribution of PFAS containing products in North America during 2019 that made the firefighting foam industry understand that it was not a question of if, but when, for the need to move to environmentally conscious foam concentrates.
From this point, the focus and R&D investment from many manufacturers switched to firefighting foams with no intentionally added PFAS. Also known as SFFF (synthetic fluorine free foam). This has resulted in an unprecedented amount of testing due to the non-generic nature of different manufacturers formulations. Fast forward to 2025 and there are now several manufacturers with full system offerings giving third party verification on what their products can achieve. However, this unprecedented testing has also revealed scenarios that do not work as well or at all. Such data is often as important as what does work backed by an Approval or Listing.
The removal of PFAS in foam has an undoubted effect on performance, as film formation and oleophobicity are two weapons that have been lost, leaving the foam blanket alone to eliminate vapor suppression and achieve fire extinction. Foam quality is a term commonly used in testing and performance evaluation of many foam discharge devices to measure the physical properties
(expansion and drainage) of the produced foam. These qualities are dependent on the foam concentrate formulation, the discharge device and the discharge pressure. These parameters are checked and validated by collecting discharge data and conducting fire tests when working with foam test standards from Factory Mutual (FM) Approvals or Underwriters Laboratories (UL).
These test authorities are also evaluating the use of standard fire protection sprinklers used in foam enhanced sprinkler and deluge systems. These devices are very common in foam based fire suppression systems but their origin is not as a foam device but purely as a low cost, compact water distribution device. Both FM and UL have rigorous foam test standards to measure the effectiveness of specific sprinklers and fuels. Other key parameters are installation height, application density, orientation and discharge pressure.
Only by running tests such as those prescribed in FM 5130, UL 162 or VdS 3896 can a manufacturer demonstrate the capabilities of their products. Such testing is time consuming and expensive but will also ensure that the limitations of products are known.
It is common in Europe that products tested in this way are often seen as not required due to the additional cost associated with Approved and Listed products. This situation is worsened by the European design standard for foam systems, EN13565-2, which does not require Approved or Listed
Fire test standards
products, where design details are clear and which are a requirement in NFPA11 for example. This means that products can be installed to generic design criteria that may or may not be effective. In this scenario, we see many opinions on what will work at the expense of using data from fire tests. It is dangerous to extrapolate the past as SFFF concentrates have different limitations. Whilst there are several products on the market tested to the same criteria as past fluorinated foams, there are still many manufacturers and suppliers that choose to assume performance rather than demonstrate
it. EN1568 is a foam concentrate test standard but is commonly used to select fixed systems components despite no real world devices been tested in that process.
For those people that are part of a decision making process where there is a need to satisfy themselves and other authorities having jurisdiction, it seems a risk to select products and solutions without test verification – but this is happening in transition projects and new installations on a regular basis.
Transitioning oversights
A recent example of this involved a transition project where there was a significant volume of MEK (Methyl Ethyl Ketone). This Ketone fuel is a common ignitable liquid, which is miscible in water and therefore requires “Alcohol Resistant” foam concentrate. MEK is commonly used in paint and ink manufacturing and was no challenge to extinguish with fluorinated firefighting foam. However, the protection that fluorinated surfactants gave the foam bubble has been lost and we now see a characteristic with SFFF products from several manufacturers where the polymeric gum layer is actively destroyed by the chemical itself and not the fire, which then prevents a foam blanket from forming.
Higher application rates can tackle this but unless a manufacturer or supplier has tested this, they will not know. In this particular scenario, the successful supplier verified performance based on Acetone, which is the Ketone representative test fuel under UL162. Acetone is often less of a challenge compared
to MEK so here the winner was assumption and opinion rather than data. In a fire scenario, the design density recommended is unlikely to be sufficient and a serious loss can be the result. How would such a decision be defended when no test data or proof of effectiveness was presented in the decision making process. For this reason, we see decision makers increasingly requesting fuel specific data and not representative test fuel data. Prompting the question if UL’s approach to test fuels should be used for SFFF qualification in the future.
Other surprising decisions during transition projects relate to the proportioning of foam concentrate and water. Based on cost saving we see proportioning equipment been adapted rather than replaced. First of all this raises a question about PFAS contamination in the new SFFF concentrate but that is a completely
different article in itself. Another aspect is how the new, probably more viscous foam concentrate, will proportion. We have seen situations where proportioners are crudely adapted by drilling a new regulating orifice plate. Without testing the device, how can performance be assured at the systems minimum and maximum flow rates? Again, opinion and assumptions rather than facts.
Verify product capability
The selection of products and suppliers comes down to many different criteria’s such as terms, cost, delivery time or relationships but when you are required to select products for foam based fire protection systems you may need to defend that decision.
Choosing products that conform to independent test standards or that have been tested for a particular application would seem a safer approach if that decision has to be defended in the future due to design review processes or a failed performance during a fire. SFFF works, but it often works differently compared to the fluorinated past, so ensure that you engage suppliers and manufacturers that have the knowledge and data to give the correct and honest advice.
SIMON
BARRATT
THE HEART OF EXTINGUISHING SYSTEMS OPTIMIZED
FOR FLUORINE-FREE FOAM AGENTS
Compared to the former FM Approval, the optimized FireDos proportioning systems are certified for even higher foam agent viscosities. The improved models achieve unique FM Approved viscosity values for FM classified ‘Variable Viscosity Proportioners’ (status December 2024).
Certified viscosity increase of 12% to 110% (depending on the shear rate)
Outstanding FM Approved viscosity values
to circulate highly viscous foam agents. GET THE PERFECT BEAT
Lower pressure loss, lower min. flow rates and higher max. flow rates*
HOW TO INTERPRET VISCOSITY VALUES OF HIGH VISCOSITY FOAM CONCENTRATES AND PROPORTIONING SYSTEMS
by Frank Preiss from FireDos
In The Catalyst Q1 2024 I published an article on WHAT TO LOOK OUT FOR WHEN DECIDING ON A PROPORTIONING SYSTEM FOR HIGH VISCOSITY FOAM AGENTS. The article discusses the use of high viscosity foam agents in the firefighting industry and the considerations for selecting an appropriate proportioning system.
It explains the importance of viscosity, particularly in non-Newtonian, highly viscous pseudoplastic foam concentrates, and covers the characterization of foam agents and compares six different types of proportioning systems and their suitability for high viscosity foam agents.
Since this publication a lot of companies have changed over from fluorine containing foam concentrates such as AFFF and AFFF-AF to non-fluorinated / fluorine free products. Generally, these new non-fluorinated foam concentrates have pseudoplastic characteristics and higher viscosities.
This article will have a look at the way both Newtonian and highly viscous foam concentrates are characterized by their viscosity values and what to look out for when comparing viscosities of foam concentrates and proportioning systems. It will show how important it is to focus on viscosity, especially in non-Newtonian, highly viscous pseudoplastic foam concentrates and discuss the ways viscosities are measured and published.
As a recap: The term viscosity refers to the resistance of a fluid to deformation. The higher the viscosity, the thicker, less flowable the fluid is. The lower the viscosity, the thinner, the more flowable it is. Low viscosity foam concentrates, such as AFFF, Hi-Ex, Class A or multipurpose are characterized as Newtonian fluids. High viscosity foam concentrates, such as AFFF-AR and FFF (also known as 3F or SFFF) are pseudoplastic fluids.
The viscosity of a foam concentrate can be characterized as a function of shear rate [1/s or /s] and dynamic viscosity [mPas or cPs]. The shear rate is the rate at which a fluid is in motion and sheared or “worked” during flow, i.e. due to the friction between the fluid and the wall of the pipe work or when it is passing from a pipe through a restriction. It could also be described as turbulence within a fluid.
A dynamic viscosity / shear rate curve
is always associated with a specific temperature, as viscosities may be greatly affected by temperature changes.
Newtonian foam concentrates have nearly the same dynamic viscosity across a band of shear rates. For a pseudoplastic fluid the viscosity will change with the speed it is being moved at.
Generally, with pseudoplastic foam concentrates, the viscosity is high when the movement is slow, and it will reduce with increasing flow speeds.
For visualization this image shows a Newtonian and a pseudoplastic fluid across the shear rates of 5 /s to 600 /s. This shear rate range is relevant for foam concentrates and proportioning systems as defined by FM Approvals.
As can be seen, viscosity changes greatly over the shear rate range, so a comparison with only one value is not possible and may lead to wrong conclusions. Generally, the lower shear rates are applicable when the flow of the pump is small, and the higher values apply for high flow volumes or when there are high turbulences in the flow path.
Besides foam concentrates, also proportioning systems
are characterized by a viscosity curve which describes the ability up to which viscosity fluids can be pumped at differing shear rates / flow velocities.
When staying within the FM Approvals range of shear rates of 5 /s and 600 /s, a foam concentrate can be safely handled by a proportioning system when the viscosity curve of the foam concentrate is lower than that of the proportioner over the complete shear rate range. If the curve of a foam concentrate exceeds the curve of the proportioning system at any interval of the viscosity curve, the proportioner may not function correctly from this point onwards and there may be flow rates where the proportioning rate may be higher or lower than allowed. In this case it is recommended to verify with the proportioner manufacturer whether the proportioning system can be used with the foam concentrate. Generally, physical tests are recommended for verification. So, going back to the above indicated presentation of viscosity results of high viscosity, pseudoplastic foam concentrates, an indication like “the proportioning system can handle viscosities of i.e. 402 mPas @ a shear rate of 50 /s” is correct, but will give you only part of the picture, as it does not specify what viscosity values can be handled at other shear rates, respectively other flow volumes. A shear rate of 50 /s can be associated with a medium flow of a proportioning system, but most systems will be used at medium to high flows, so values of 100 /s to 600 /s are more likely to be applicable, and these, in our above example, range between 267 mPas and 114 mPas. The other is the importance at low flows, as every proportioning system will have to initially be started. Here shear rates between 5 /s and 50 /s may be applicable. The viscosity of your proportioner may be above the value of 402 mPas at medium flows, but it may be below the curve of the foam concentrate at high flows of 150 /s to 600 /s. If so, this would most likely result in incorrect proportioning rates at high flow volumes.
Always bear in mind that you should use the foam concentrate viscosity curve of the lowest anticipated temperature that the system may be exposed to, to do your evaluation.
The non-fluorinated, or fluorine free foam concentrates (FFF) developed by the various manufacturers are based on different formulations which have different physical properties. An increased viscosity and plasticity can be assumed in comparison to the Fluorine-containing AFFF foam concentrates. Due to these more challenging physical properties, the necessary proportioning equipment, as well as the pipework, must be checked for suitability. With one of the development focusses of the FireDos GEN III foam proportioners having been high viscosity Fluorine-free foam concentrates, it can be said that all FireDos Gen III proportioners are designed to function with the new high viscosity, pseudoplastic foam concentrates. FOR
FRANK PREISS
is Managing Director of FireDos. FireDos are experts in foam concentrate proportioners and monitors for firefighting, focusing on their in-house-developed leading technology, manufacturing excellence and customer service.
WWW.FIREDOS.COM
OFFSHORE INSTALLATIONS: NOW’S NOT THE TIME TO GO WITH FLUORINE FREE FOAMS
by Oil Technics
In January 2025, the European Commission published the latest version of its Draft Regulation amending Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in firefighting foams. As anticipated, this mandates a ten-year derogation or transition period for offshore installations and SEVESO III sites.
While we’re still in a holding period before the new regulations are brought into force, there are compelling performance, safety and
commercial arguments for not moving to the use of fluorine-free foams on offshore installations at present.
David Evans, Managing Director of
Oil Technics Fire Fighting Products explained, ‘There’s a considerable amount of confusion and misinformation in the market. Some people in the offshore oil and gas
sector have been given the impression that they need to switch to fluorinefree foams when this is the last thing that should be happening.
‘I have no problem with fluorinefree foams – in fact we offer some excellent FFFs ourselves – but safety and performance in an emergency need to come first. As it stands, there isn’t an FFF available on the market that’s suitable for use on offshore installations. So far, no-one has developed a product that performs adequately with seawater at low temperatures.
‘Moving to an FFF is a complex decision and needs a lot of thought. A platform may need to be shut down while the existing C6 foam tanks are emptied and cleaned. Additional tanks and changes to proportioning systems may need to be installed because, typically, twice as much volume of foam will be required to extinguish a blaze if moving from C6 to FFF. This is bad news commercially,
and complex logistically, but it’s even worse from a safety viewpoint, since it’s imperative to put out any fire as quickly and completely as possible. Taking additional time isn’t acceptable when every second matters.
‘It’s unacceptable to endanger the lives and wellbeing of personnel by using a product which doesn’t perform as well as the existing foam on the platform.
‘You could make an environmental argument for changing now, but it’s only when the foams are used that PFAS are released into the environment. On the platform, they are effectively contained in the tank until needed, so there’s no threat to the environment.
‘To complicate matters further, there are compatibility issues with some fluorine-free foams.
Different brands don’t always mix well, resulting in poorer performance. You can’t top up some FFFs with anything but the same product. This means that when and if an offshore-compliant FFF
is developed, the whole shutdown, emptying and cleaning process will need to take place again. There’s really nothing to be gained from moving too quickly and without having fully examined all the safety, operational, liability and financial implications of doing so.
‘At Oil Technics, we’ve been manufacturing firefighting foams for over 30 years and we’re happy to share our expertise and technical knowledge with the offshore sector. All you need to do is give us a call. We’ve also made a series of short videos with Mike Willson, the internationally renowned fire safety expert, that explain many of the current issues that make a great starting point. This is available at https:// www.youtube.com/@ OilTechnicsFireFighting There’s a depth of information in our online knowledgebase at and our
‘expert technical team is always happy to deal with enquiries by email or phone.’
SCAN THE QR CODE TO WATCH THE VIDEOS:
TWENTY KEY CONSIDERATIONS NEEDED WHEN TRANSITIONING TO PFAS-FREE FOAMS (F3S)
by Mike Willson from Willson Consulting
Reviewing and understanding existing mandates, regulations and exceptions (derogations) by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) for a PFAS-free or Fluorine Free Foam (F3) transition, is an important first step. Increasingly F3s are required for firefighter training and system testing, but existing C6-foams may still be allowed for major fire emergencies, where they could save lives and minimise escalation potential in critical infrastructures. Particularly where all foam system discharges can be contained, collected and disposed of safely according to local regulations, which could help reduce risk of overflows. This should include bunding around foam storage tanks and any back-up stocks. This may offer the safest option for some, especially if your system uses seawater and/or stores high-hazard fuels in congested bulk tanks sharing diked/bunded areas, where risk of escalation could be increased by choosing alternative F3s.
The second step is deciding whether a PFAS-free foam transition is now necessary. If so, making these twenty simple checks could help avoid common pitfalls and ensure your facility’s existing response speed, effectiveness and reliability are maintained, delivering required life safety and critical infrastructure, without being unintentionally compromised.
Following this list could help avoid potentially eroding your future safety:
01.
Adopt a total system engineering approach , demonstrating the foam chosen is well suited to the fuels, delivery devices, proportioners, water supplies and environmental conditions likely to be experienced on your site.
Ensure your F3 is effective on existing and proposed flammable liquids being used and stored in your facility. Seek reliable test data verifying effectiveness (eg. UL162, FM5130, EN1568-3/4, Lastfire, IMO etc).
02. 03.
Obtain listed and necessary recommended application rates for specific fuels.
Some fire test standards could mislead as heptane test fuel used, not
gasoline. Research has shown 4 aromatics in gasoline prematurely attack most F3s making them harder to extinguish and more vulnerable to sudden re-ignition, which may require higher application rates than approvals suggest. Requiring F3 approval testing on gasoline or E10 (gasoline with 10% Ethanol content) if used/stored, is therefore strongly desirable.
Higher application rates and larger foam storage 04.
may be required, to enable equally fast fire control and rapid extinguishment.
Check containment capabilities will still prevent overflow of full system discharges under major fire scenarios.
Extra delivery devices and larger foam distribution pipework may also be required to handle potentially larger system flows. 05.
Care needs to be taken when walking through firefighting foam blankets to ensure they are providing an adequate vapour seal and will not suddenly ignite during disturbance.
Check your fire system uses fresh (potable) water , as F3s are generally less effective and sometimes prematurely collapsed, when used with seawater. European regulations have extended saline application transition periods to 10 years recognising these challenges. The new US F3 MilSpec 32725 also applies to land-based freshwater uses only, with continued use of C6-AFFFs for Navy use (involving seawater).
Are you using complimentary agents like Dry chemical? as research shows many F3 foam blankets may be attacked by applications of dry chemical, potentially exposing the fuel to premature re-ignition.
06. 07. 08.
Check your chosen F3 has no harmful or persistent ingredients , potentially causing severe toxicity or health concerns. NFPA Research foundation cautions “It needs to be understood that elimination of PFAS and/or fluorine from the product does not address all the potential health and environmental hazards.” Aquatic toxicity could increase with most F3 foam discharges, so best practice containment must be followed for all firefighting foams.
Check proportioners accurately deliver potentially more viscous F3 concentrates at required induction rates and possibly higher maximum flow rates, even during coldest winter conditions. F3 needs to mix uniformly without globularising the concentrate, potentially coalescing along the bottom of pipes, meaning foam solution is too weak or nozzles get clogged, potentially preventing delivery of a robust functioning foam blanket onto the hazard. Such problems could result in ineffective systems.
10.
Has extra or extended containment been considered and costed, potentially necessary if higher application rates or longer duration times are required. Could this justify retaining existing C6-concentrates for longer? Perhaps delaying an F3 transition until improved fire performance on volatile fuels, deepseated fires and saline water sources can be developed.
What storage conditions, are needed to extend concentrate life? Avoiding risk of premature gelling, separation, or water absorption potentially creating ‘sludge’ on top of the product, which could otherwise reduce firefighting effectiveness.
11.
Undertake a full costbenefit analysis of your F3 transition providing accurate budgets, cost controls, while ensuring fire performance capabilities are retained. Include all costs for clean-up, analytical work, disposal of foam concentrate, rinsings and contaminated equipment.
Arrange equivalent alternative fire cover during your F3 transition, especially if complete site/facility shut-down is not envisaged, during the several days or weeks required before the new system can be recommissioned.
13.
Basic foam application methods need reviewing as F3s behave differently to AFFFs. Without fluorinated surfactants, there is no compensation for incorrect technique of F3 alternatives. F3s require the correct aspirated and more gentle foam application methods with management of holes and breakdown to ensure an integral blanket is maintained, preventing sudden
unexpected re-involvement. Poor application techniques may cause the foam blanket to break up and re-ignite.
Firefighters may need to avoid walking through F3 blankets for their safety, especially when high-hazard fuels are beneath, like gasoline.
Adequate firefighter training and system operation should be provided to embed these techniques and skills as best practice. FAA, DoD and NFPA research has concluded the following general guidelines:
- Do not plunge the F3 foam stream into the fuel spill.
- When using variable stream nozzles, select a narrow spray angle pattern for optimal stream reach and foam aspiration, typically producing expansion ratios around 6-8:1 with only about 10% reduction in stream reach. Lower expansions of 3-4:1 may require 50% higher application rates.
- Expect typically two passes with the F3 stream , sometimes more, to completely extinguish all the fires within the sweep area (as opposed to only one pass with AFFF).
- Slowly sweep nozzles with foam parallel to the ground about waist height above the front edge of the fuel surface during the initial approach, across entire width of leading fire edge …(i.e., a gentle application from a low elevation), letting the foam blanket build up.
- Likely need to create a thicker finished foam blanket, with regular top ups, while also ‘patching’ any holes occurring, for the F3 to be most effective.
Ask your AHJ what trace level of PFAS residues is ‘clean enough’? This provides a total PFAS ppb or ppm target figure to achieve during system cleaning, before re-filling with F3. Trace
Strategies-and-Tactical-Considerations-for-New-Large-Aircraft-Update Dahlbom S, Mallin T and Bobert M (RI.SE)
contamination levels of final rinsing samples should be verified by PFAS TOP-assay or TOF (Total Organic Fluorine) analysis at an approved laboratory, to confirm within regulatory limits.
Discuss mutual aid co-operation and compatibility with neighbouring facilities while checking current back up stock volumes are still adequate for future fire emergencies. F3 products are known to NOT be compatible in storage with other brands, even from same manufacturer. This could lead to potential problems when relying on mutual aid operations.
Record and video recommissioning tests of the new system, verifying suitability and equivalency for the AHJ.
Create new firefighter training programs and system testing/operator instruction requirements to ensure your F3 systems provide satisfactory equivalent protection, are safely managed, and optimally operated.
Why are these checks so important?
This list covers the main important areas, sometimes overlooked or receiving inadequate attention by foam users when transitioning to PFAS-free or Fluorine Free foams (F3s), which are not simple ‘drop-in’ replacements.
Considering these issues has benefits, it could save you money, delays and potentially less safe or less effective systems going forward, than what was present before you introduced such changes.
So lives may depend on undergoing a thorough process.
Conclusion
The move for transitioning to F3s is strongly driven by environmental persistence, bioaccumulation risks and ecotoxicity concerns of PFAS and potential human health impacts primarily from legacy C8-PFAS in firefighting foams. But F3s do behave differently from C6-AFFFs, often requiring higher application rates and aspirated discharge devices to be equally effective as existing systems. Extra care needs to be taken on high-hazard fuels like gasoline and non-potable fire-water sources like seawater, as they bring extra challenges which even leading F3s often struggle to adequately address.
Consequently, current draft European Commission PFAS-firefighting foam restriction regulations extend transition periods to 10 years for major refineries, chemical plants, storage terminals (equivalent to Seveso III sites), offshore oil and gas installations, existing marine shipping and naval ships, in recognition of F3 difficulties on volatile fuels, bulk storage tanks, deep-seated fires and applications using seawater, all of which have been based on extensive independent fire testing research findings.
Many users find it important to use such bullet points as a ‘checklist’, helping to ensure all these aspects are adequately checked and modified as necessary, to try and ensure that fire protection systems continue operating as originally designed, without unintentional compromises to life safety or critical site infrastructure.
It also needs to be remembered that such fixed firefighting foam systems have a finite quantity of foam concentrate - if the fire is not extinguished before foam storage tanks are depleted, the fire will probably develop out of control. Some systems can be replenished during operation, although this is seldom easy, but many cannot.
It’s usually too late to find out with hind-sight that higher application rates, or longer duration times could potentially have saved precious lives, sections of, or potentially your entire facility. It’s usually better to encourage allocating the right level of rigor and expertise in planning, implementing and managing any F3 transition at your facility, while also investing in comprehensive realistic firefighter re-training, to gain the most effective use of your new F3 system.
MIKE WILLSON
Director and Technical Specialist - Firefighting Foams and Foam Systems
WILLSONCONSULTING26@YAHOO.COM.AU
35 YEARS IN FOAM
35 years of trusted service in the Fire Foam Industry. Protecting industries and supporting systems, now with the supply of 3rd generation foam. Offering C6 AFFF for long-term petrochemical site needs and expert guidance for a fluorine-free future. Expertise that you can rely on.
• Fixed and mobile foam proportioning and discharge equipment
• Continued supply of all C6 foam types
• Fluorine-free concentrates
• C8 foam sample testing and foam destruction facility
• Foam System maintenance with annual sample fire testing reports
• On site assessments for compliance to latest legislation
UK AIRPORT FLUORINE-FREE CHANGEOVER COMPLETED IN LARGEST HANGAR FOAM SYSTEM
by Phil Bayliss from Firemain Engineering
Firemain Engineering Ltd supplied a major UK airport Hangar with a Foam monitor protection system in the 1990’s. Two x 9000 litre Bladdertanks fillied with 3% AFFF supplying 4 x 6,000 litre per minute Oscillating Foam monitors have been protecting 747 and 480 Jets ever since. They were invited to change the system over to the latest 3% Fluorine Free Foam technology. The task involved the extraction and destruction of 18,000 litres of C8 AFFF which was present in the tanks for over 25 years. Firemain’s skilled Team worked over night and at weekends to remove the foam, change the Bladders and reinstate the system with new generation 3% SFFF.
All works were completed whilst maintaining fire cover for the Aircraft Hangar to function normally without down-time. With only a few parts replaced and some minimal cleaning the Foam System went through a “Changeover” to Fluorine free with minimal fuss or expensive clean-up costs often associated with this type of exercise for high-risk industries. which is demonstrates that cost effective foam replacement can be achieved whilst maintaining loss control and minimising excessive costs. 18,000
A satisfactory commissioning test provided the insurance that all functionality was maintained. The customer’s expectations were met with a new lease of life for their future proof foam system. Initial expectations of the need for renewing pipework, fire pumps and water tanks alongside the foam system were not required was well received by the Hangar Operator. Demonstrating that “Foam Changeover” to SFFF can be achieved with expert assistance to hand. litres of old “C8” foam pumped out into waiting portable tote containers then removed and transported to a licenced waste disposal facility. The liquid was then destroyed to remove the PFAS by High Temperature Incineration.
After removing and replacing the Bladders, the team quickly pumped in 18,000 litres of SFFF (Synthetic Fluorine Free Foam) into two newly installed Bladders fitted inside the existing tanks at site, to reinstate the complete system and provide a seamless continuity for the owner.
PHIL BAYLISS
Managing Director of Firemain Engineering Ltd
FOAM SYSTEM INSPECTION, MAINTENANCE & TESTING
by Tony Morrissey from Knowsley SK
Proper scheduled maintenance is crucial to ensure the correct operation of foam systems. The requirements for regular maintenance and inspection are detailed in industry standards such as NFPA 11, NFPA 25, and BS EN 13565, which we refer to when designing or installing systems. However, in our experience with foam transition projects and encountering various older systems—whether from our own installations or those of other suppliers—it’s clear that many systems lack regular maintenance. This could be due to cost, time, capability constraints, or, in many cases, a simple lack of awareness.
System designers, manufacturers, and installers are well-versed in the requirements for compliance with NFPA and EN codes. Yet, once the job is completed and the system is handed over to the customer, the necessary awareness often diminishes, especially when annual service and maintenance contracts are not in place. While most users are aware of, and conduct, yearly foam concentrate quality tests—including checks for specific gravity, pH, drainage time, and expansion ratio—these tests only check for foam degradation. The legislation for this sampling is found in BS EN 13565 (para 11.3.2.4.1) or NFPA 11 (para 13.2.6), all are clear that foam concentrate should be tested annually. However, this test alone does not guarantee system integrity or ensure that operators or maintenance contractors have followed a thorough inspection and maintenance plan. Without this, insurance may become invalid, leading to catastrophic losses.
All components of the foam system should be regularly inspected and tested, with intervals varying depending on the component type. The requirements are exhaustive and too numerous to be listed in this editorial but to provide an example; discharge
devices should be inspected monthly for location and position - and tested annually – is this undertaken on your site?
While the codes outline detailed maintenance requirements, one area often overlooked is the foam tank. Both atmospheric and bladder tanks require draining and flushing every ten years. In our experience many systems are well beyond this threshold, take a look at your own tanks and consider the last time they were drained and cleaned? Bladder tanks, in particular, are often neglected, and most will not have undergone the required ten-year hydrostatic test, especially in older sprinkler systems, in some cases we find that customers have been unaware that their bladders have ruptured rendering the system inoperable.
Fortunately, with the ongoing transition to SFFF foam, by default, foam tanks are now getting more attention. Changing foam type offers an opportunity to conduct other necessary inspections. However, for those retaining C6 foam, it’s important to consider the age of the tank and its compliance with the relevant requirements - is it worth re-using a 20 year old tank if it must be subjected to costly NDE test and cleaning?
What Should Be Done?
It’s crucial that users familiarize themselves with the requirements of the relevant codes or consult their insurers. Don’t assume that service contractors are fully compliant, especially if they are only checking foam concentrate levels and foam quality—this service level is insufficient and leads to a false sense of security. Assuming the system has goodquality foam concentrate and is well-maintained, the final step in any health check is to perform an annual proportioning rate test to ensure compliance with standards.
Foam-water solutions should be “tested annually and after any adjustments, repairs, or replacements to the proportioning system”. The requirements for these tests are clearly described in codes such as NFPA 11 (Tables 13.1.1.2 and 13.3.5.1) and BS EN 13565 (para 11.3.2.4).
Proportioning rate testing can be challenging, especially with bladder tanks, where foam and water must be mixed and tested at low, medium and maximum system capacity. Bladder tank system testing also
creates further issues such as the necessary cleanup of foam solution and refilling of the bladder. If the system still uses fluorinated foam then those proportioning tests become much more difficult, creating costly environmental spills.
Systems utilising ILBP’s or waterpowered proportioners allow testing and recycling of foam concentrate without mixing, although additional components will usually be needed as part of the test cycle to confirm the system flow rates.
Examples of situations our team has encountered during maintenance or transition::
Modern systems using electronic foam proportioners, such as the Knowsley FoamTronic®, simplify this process. The FoamTronic® accurately mixes foam concentrate and water based on the real-time firewater demand by monitoring flowrates with electromagnetic flowmeters and adjusting a concentrate control valve. This system records all process values and alarms, accessible via a userfriendly interface.
More information
For more information on system testing, maintenance agreements, or to discuss how a FoamTronic® could be integrated in your systems visit: www.knowsleysk.co.uk.
The FoamTronic® test procedure ensures that accurate proportioning is guaranteed every time. During this procedure the injection point to the firewater system is isolated and the foam delivery is diverted through a test outlet. Water flow is initiated and the FoamTronic® system starts controlling the mixing ratio. The foam concentrate is collected in a clean IBC or similar which can be returned to the foam concentrate storage tank after the
test. Full operation of the FoamTronic® system is therefore demonstrated without consuming
foam concentrate and without creating foam solution. This ability to test in an accurate and approved manner leads to ongoing savings in foam concentrate and cleanup. Annual system testing still offers only a yearly snapshot of system health. An added advantage of the FoamTronic® is its ability to provide daily status of the foam system automatically by performing self-diagnostics, which report system health and functionality of critical components, providing daily peace of mind that facilities are compliant and fully functional.
Sales Director
WWW.KNOWSLEYSK.CO.UK
FoamTronic FCV Electronic Proportioner
OIL TECHNICS: FOAM TESTING
by Oil Technics
OOil Technics has been recognised as a leader in firefighting foam testing for over three decades. We serve a global customer base from our specialised lab in the UK.
il Technics has continually held ISO 9001 accreditation since 1994 for all our manufacturing and testing sites in the UK. We have also held ISO 14001 since 2012 for our Environmental Management System and are registered with Achilles and SEQual.
With trusted partners in South Korea and Malaysia, our global client base spans oil and gas, aviation, chemicals and the maritime sector as well as leading public and private sector organisations.
We test all major foam types including, but not limited to, AFFF, AR-AFFF, HI-EX, Class A, FFF, FP, FFFP, and AR-FFFP.
Types of Foam Testing
We offer a full spectrum of foam testing including:
• Foam concentrate testing
These tests evaluate whether your stored foam is in a satisfactory condition and whether it remains compliant with international standards.
Annual testing is essential to ensure continuing integrity and is required by international standard NFPA 11:2021. Additionally, BS EN 13565-2:2019 recommends regular testing.
Quality foam concentrates are stable and can be confidently stored longterm, provided they remain unopened in their original containers with the manufacturer’s seal intact and are not compromised by dilution, temperature extremes, contamination and system failure.
• Produced foam testing
Produced foam is tested to determine whether a foam system’s proportioning and induction equipment is accurate and fit for purpose.
While foam proportioning systems are reliable, they must be rigorously maintained and inspected. Regular produced foam testing helps ensure they remain correctly proportioned.
The report you’ll get from our laboratory team will show the calculated percentage induction of your sample when measured against internationally recognised standards NFPA 11:2021 and BS EN 13565-1:2019.
Our laboratory team will evaluate whether your foam concentrate remains compliant with the specification in place at the time of
manufacture.
• IMO foam concentrate testing
IMO foam concentrate testing evaluates whether your stored foam is in a satisfactory condition and whether it remains within the manufacturer’s performance parameters.
Many maritime administrations and classification bodies require testing to be done periodically on Foam Concentrates stored on board ships in international waters.
Additionally, this is a requirement of international standard IMO MSC.1/ Circ.1312, 2009.
• PFAS TOP Assay testing
Foam concentrates and discharge water from cleaning foam systems
should be tested to ensure PFAS levels comply with local POPs regulations using TOP Assay testing.
Briefly, legacy C8 foams, which have not been manufactured since 2015, can break down over time to persistent compounds such as PFOA which have harmful effects on the environment.
C6 foams tend to have PFAS levels within the current regulations and are said to be compliant. F3 foams are not manufactured with fluorosurfactants and therefore don’t contain PFAS chemicals amongst their breakdown products.
We understand that, particularly when working in a remote or isolated site where logistics can be complicated, that having the ability to undertake indicative testing is reassuring.
Sometimes there are residues of legacy C8 degradation products in storage tanks, so testing can
make it clear whether your tank and foam system has been properly cleaned and your new foam is uncontaminated and still compliant with the latest regulations. We can advise on what you will need to do should your sample contain levels of PFAS chemicals that exceed the current limits.
We can also provide training at our UK headquarters or remotely. Where onsite testing is being used, we strongly recommend that samples also be sent to us for testing in accordance with local requirements, but at least annually.
Whatever your foam testing needs, whatever type of foam you have, wherever in the world you are, we offer an expert service.
Quick, accurate, reliable testing backed by excellent customer service. A better approach is just a call or email away.
COUNTDOWN TO HAZMAT 2025
THE UK'S PREMIER HAZMAT EVENT
by NCEC - Ricardo
Registration is still open for the annual Hazmat conference – the ultimate forum for Hazmat professionals to share experiences and learn from like-minded individuals working in the chemical incident industry.
HAbout the Event
azmat 2025 is a two-day conference run by the National Chemical Emergency Centre (NCEC), the chemical experts at Ricardo, that draws on the knowledge and experience of a broad range of multi-agency hazmat professionals and industry leaders, including NCEC’s emergency responders and chemical experts.
On the 21-22nd May 2025, the annual conference will bring together international speakers from different sectors to share world-standard presentations, case studies and deliver practical workshops on a wide range of hazmat-related subjects.
The event aims to be as dynamic as possible, with speakers encouraged to include practical elements and group interaction where relevant. Attendees will have the opportunity to tailor their experience by registering for specific workshops once the workshop programme has been finalised. Presentation and workshop topics include:
• Case studies from UK national and international speakers on recent hazmat incidents
• Lithium-ion batteries – Professor Paul Christensen
• High-risk low-frequency events
• Practical wet chemistry
• The latest research from UKHSA and the Department for Transport
Why attend?
It is paramount that Hazmat professionals stay current with hazardous materials response, chemical exposure monitoring, emergency planning, developments in legislation, future technologies, and learn lessons from past experiences. Hazmat 2025 is the best opportunity to gain a wider understanding of these issues and, more importantly, practical ways to address them.
Here is what previous attendees have had to say:
“Excellent speakers and a good range of subjects. As always, the team were excellent, quick to advise or help.”
– Alan Cundy, Dangerous Good Inspector – Ministry of Defence
“This was my first time attending and it was such a great event! I will be returning next year, definitely!” – Georgia Bentley, EH&S Specialist – CHT UK Bridgwater Ltd
Who should attend?
“Team NCEC put on an excellent event, and the atmosphere was great. Everything ran smoothly, I didn’t want for anything.”
Feldman, Director – JOIFF
The sessions are relevant to people involved in chemical incident response, and the event provides a great opportunity to question and discuss content both in the forum and informally one-on-one. Delegates come from fire services, police forces, ambulance services, the Ministry of Defence (MOD), the chemical industry, and bodies such as the Environment Agency, UKHSA and HSE.
REGISTER TODAY
SAFE AND SUSTAINABLE TRANSITION TO PFAS-FREE EXTINGUISHING FOAM
by Hans Huizinga from Kenbri
Fluorinated extinguishing foam has been an indispensable tool for fire services, industrial companies, the military and airports for many years. The high effectiveness in fighting fires was largely due to the presence of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in the extinguishing foam. However, it has now become clear that PFAS has harmful long-term effects on humans and the environment. This is why the European Commission has set the goal of reducing all emissions of hazardous substances into water and soil to levels that no longer harm public health and the environment by 2050. This ban applies not only to the emissions of PFAS, but also to their use, including in fluorinated extinguishing foams.
The need to switch to PFAS-free extinguishing foam
Industrial organisations and fire services must therefore switch to PFAS-free extinguishing foam. In recent years, manufacturers have conducted extensive research in conjunction with users of extinguishing foam concentrates to develop PFAS-free extinguishing foam, also known as SFFF or 3F. This research has borne fruit, so that there are already valid alternatives to fluorinated extinguishing foam on the market. Research has even shown that some PFAS-free alternatives outperform extinguishing foam containing PFAS.
This good news has prompted a growing number of organisations to consider making the safe switch to fluorine-free foam. While it appears that the European Commission has set a realistic time frame for this switch, this is in fact not the case. Manufacturers are being confronted with new regulations and import restrictions that directly affect the raw materials needed for PFAS. More and more manufacturers are therefore ceasing to supply extinguishing foam that contains PFAS. In addition, the diminished demand for foam containing PFAS is driving up the price of this foam. This decision is leading users of fluorinated extinguishing foam to realise that their stock of extinguishing foam concentrate cannot be rapidly replenished after use and that they are at risk of losing their ‘licence to operate’.
The switch from fluorinated extinguishing foam to PFAS-free extinguishing foam, also known as the foam transition, is raising questions for many industrial companies and fire services. How should they start the transition to PFAS-free extinguishing foam? How long will it take? And what to do with existing stocks of fluorinated extinguishing foam?
Kenbri: The Fire Fighting Company
Kenbri, The Fire Fighting Company, is a complete fire prevention and suppression partner and is playing an important role in the switch from fluorinated to PFAS-free extinguishing foam. Kenbri offers support with the foam transition, cleaning of foam extinguishing systems and procurement of fluorine-free extinguishing foam.
The Catalyst
It does this in a variety of sectors that use extinguishing foam, such as the offshore, maritime and aviation sectors, fire services and industrial companies in the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany. companies in the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany.
In order to address the challenges of the foam transition, Kenbri has developed the PFAS Cleaning & Treatment Solutions (PCTS) service package. This service covers the Management of Change process for the foam transition in consultation with the client. It sets out guidelines that ensure a safe transition to fluorine-free extinguishing foam. In-depth analysis is used to assess the suitability of the current extinguishing foam system or vehicle for the switch to PFAS-free extinguishing foam for different fire scenarios.
Graduated transition to PFAS-free extinguishing foam
Once this first step has been completed, the extinguishing systems are cleaned and/ or modified. It is important to realise here that it is not enough simply to replace fluorinated with fluorine-free extinguishing foam. The systems will then still be contaminated with PFAS. Organisations must therefore carry out a specific cleaning and sampling procedure for the transition to be safe. It is also vital to process any contaminated flushing agents in an environmentally friendly manner.
Once all the steps from the Management of Change have been completed, validation will take place via an audit of all the phases. This audit ensures that all the phases were carried out correctly, and extinguishing tests are needed to verify that the
extinguishing foam system and PFASfree extinguishing foam deliver the correct mixing ratio and work as expected.
Assessment guideline for PFAS cleaning
An assessment guideline for PFAS cleaning has been published in the Netherlands with effect from December 2024.
This guideline, draw up in collaboration with a broad project group, focuses on five key aspects of the cleaning process, as well as the storage, transport and processing of waste that
contains PFAS. The guideline provides standardised frameworks that ensure the safety and effectiveness of the cleaning process.
Kenbri: certified and reliable
With effect from January 2025, Kenbri is certified in the Netherlands in accordance with the assessment guideline for PFAS cleaning.
This certification confirms that Kenbri has developed a thorough cleaning process that meets the external guidelines. The process ensures the effective removal of PFAS
HANS HUIZINGA
is a Fire Safety Consultant at Kenbri and advises on all aspects of industrial firefighting, with an emphasis on firefighting foam concentrates and firefighting foam systems.
and complies with current laws and regulations.
For Kenbri customers, this means that they can rely on an expert and scrupulous service provider for their systems and vehicles.
Conclusion
The switch to PFAS-free extinguishing foam is a necessary and challenging step for many organisations. Kenbri offers the expertise and
support needed to make this transition safely and effectively.
With its certified cleaning process and comprehensive services, industrial companies and fire services can rely on a partner who will help them safeguard fire safety and environmental protection.
With its certified cleaning process and comprehensive services, industrial companies and fire services can rely on a partner who will help them safeguard fire safety and environmental protection.
JOIFF ACCREDITED TRAINING 2025
ABERDEEN, SCOTLAND
TRAINING trainingservices.training@3tglobal.com www.3tglobal.com
