Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Guest MRK303

Briarcliff Manor Autobody Shop 11/25/10

30 posts in this topic

Photo #1- Engine 93 hits the hydrant and stretches a line to the structure

Photo #2- First on scene, prior to any police or fire units. Heavy fire Charlie/Delta Corner (fire through the roof). Minor exposure problem on Delta side of neighbors house

Photo #3- Photo from front door of neighbor’s house. Homeowners were notified of the fire and were requested to evacuate the house.

Photo #4- Engine 93 arrives on location (prior to hitting the hydrant)

Photos #5,6- Briarcliff Manor firefighters wait for water

post-504-0-48414300-1290701508.jpg

post-504-0-23070700-1290701450.jpg

post-504-0-99258900-1290701458.jpg

post-504-0-95707700-1290701468.jpg

post-504-0-08124600-1290701488.jpg

post-504-0-33559900-1290701498.jpg

Edited by MRK303
JetPhoto, Alpinerunner and FF398 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



WOW! Looks like a very dangerous fire!

Great arrival shots, and thanks for sharing them with us!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, great shots, thanks for sharing! A lot of fire on arrival, not much to do but protect the exposures. You just have to be very reserved not knowing what is stored in and around a body shop. Almost looks like this could have started on the exterior, no?

Hope nobody was hurt and again, great shots.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone, stay safe!

INIT915 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You just have to be very reserved not knowing what is stored in and around a body shop.

And why not know? Part of the FD's planning & training should include knowing the hazards in your district. Infact its a big point item under "training" in the ISO rating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And why not know? Part of the FD's planning & training should include knowing the hazards in your district. Infact its a big point item under "training" in the ISO rating.

Come on Barry. With all due respect, planning and training are all good and well. But you know, as well as i, that alot of these commercial occupancies may change what they are storing on a daily basis. Even a Career department (such as the one you are affiliated with) with Inspectors/Marshalls may not be able to keep up with whats going on in these places.

Responding to ANY emergency, we must always be on alert and prepared for ANYTHING. However, there are times when things are out of our control.

Happy thanksgiving to you sir and your family, stay safe.

SRS131EMTFF, FF398, JM15 and 2 others like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on Barry. With all due respect, planning and training are all good and well. But you know, as well as i, that alot of these commercial occupancies may change what they are storing on a daily basis. Even a Career department (such as the one you are affiliated with) with Inspectors/Marshalls may not be able to keep up with whats going on in these places.

Responding to ANY emergency, we must always be on alert and prepared for ANYTHING. However, there are times when things are out of our control.

Happy thanksgiving to you sir and your family, stay safe.

Even if you know down to the milliliter exactly how much and what substances are present in an occupancy the interactions between the chemicals released can not be predicted, not even by someone with a Ph.D in Chemistry. Once you add heat to a chemical, you can break pi and sigma molecular bonds changing the structure of the chemical. This means that chemical you once had is now going to form something very different. It is very easy to form airborne organic acids with the products incomplete combustion and very electronegative species vaporized by the heat of the flames. Think a refrigerator being heated to the point where freon vaporizes, liberating the highly electronegative species Fluorine, then the fluorine bonding with H+ to form HF or hydrofluoric acid, or as we would call methyl-ethyl eat your face off, literally......

Even if you know whats in there, large amounts of chemicals anywhere will lead to increased interactions with different chemicals literally making the list of chemicals potentially released in a fire absurdly long.

I hope the water from the fire was not allowed to leach into the groundwater after the fire there. The water from a fire in an autobody shop in which hazardous chemicals from the machines or fluids were released could be considered hazardous materials.

Edited by bvfdjc316

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bottom line, when in doubt, stay out... the good thing about this, it was truss construction ( I believe from what was left when we got there ), so until it collapses, stay out... well with that much fire...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Come on Barry. With all due respect, planning and training are all good and well. But you know, as well as i, that alot of these commercial occupancies may change what they are storing on a daily basis. Even a Career department (such as the one you are affiliated with) with Inspectors/Marshalls may not be able to keep up with whats going on in these places.

As a general rule of thumb many commercial occupancies do change what they have regularly, but Autobody shops are not in that catagory. the solvents, paints, epoxies and gases they store rarely change. The City of New Rochelle requires permits for any occupancy that is performing welding/cutting and/or for spray booths. These 2 permits will not be issued until a NYS GML 209-u form be filled out and an inspector will review this, the MSDS's and perform a field inspection (as required by NYS Law) prior to issuing the permits. CIDS info will be documented and are available to 60 Control and all rigs. Each of these properties is also inspected by field units from one of the engine or truck companies.

The NYS GML 209-u form is requires that all commercial occupancies must by both UFP&BC and by insurance law list all hazardous chemicals (over certain minimum quantities)by catagory listing the maximum quantity stored at anytime. This law requires this form be updated annually and submitted to the fire chief. It has been law for 26 years.

Responding to ANY emergency, we must always be on alert and prepared for ANYTHING. However, there are times when things are out of our control.

Yes we must always be prepared for anything, and that includes knowing before the call what is located there.

Happy thanksgiving to you sir and your family, stay safe.

Thank You and to you and your family as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even if you know down to the milliliter exactly how much and what substances are present in an occupancy the interactions between the chemicals released can not be predicted, not even by someone with a Ph.D in Chemistry. Once you add heat to a chemical, you can break pi and sigma molecular bonds changing the structure of the chemical. This means that chemical you once had is now going to form something very different. It is very easy to form airborne organic acids with the products incomplete combustion and very electronegative species vaporized by the heat of the flames. Think a refrigerator being heated to the point where freon vaporizes, liberating the highly electronegative species Fluorine, then the fluorine bonding with H+ to form HF or hydrofluoric acid, or as we would call methyl-ethyl eat your face off, literally......

Even if you know whats in there, large amounts of chemicals anywhere will lead to increased interactions with different chemicals literally making the list of chemicals potentially released in a fire absurdly long.

While your statement is technically true, if you believe what you wrote, you should never respond to another call again.

We generally know that most of the chemicals in an autobody shop are flammable/combustible (& yes they are also toxic)and with the volume of fire involved in this incident all of these materials have been consumed or if properly stored (as determined from the UFP&BC required inspections) in flammable lockers, they may still be contained in those containers. The greater hazard to firefighters at this call the TRUSS!!

The toxic chemicals that are improperly stored in every garage, basement and under the sink in every kitchen is of much greater hazard to us, along with the chemicals in every vehicle fire. These concerns you raise are much greater in most peoples homes than in the autobody shop.

I hope the water from the fire was not allowed to leach into the groundwater after the fire there. The water from a fire in an autobody shop in which hazardous chemicals from the machines or fluids were released could be considered hazardous materials.

Yes they are hazadous materials, but the only time I ever saw the levels elevated is in mt vernon and it was not an autobody shop, but a distributor for autobody shop chemicals. I bet if the health dept. checked for ground levels prior to the fire and after the fire, the levels would be the same. Spills are not uncommon and as I previously wrote either the majority of this stuff has burned and gone up in the smoke or its still inside the flammable lockers.

markmets415 and chris like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How sure are you that there was no spill? Are you 100% positive that all of the chemicals released were vaporized and consumed and can not make it into the ground or surface water? What about the runoff, you are telling me that the runoff is pure H20, good enough to drink? That when it enters the water supply there are no problems with it i.e. the pH is fine, there is no increased any chemical concentration? Unless you can guarentee that the water from the fire is safe, the Federal Clean Water Act is in effect. The CWA and CERCLA dictate that what was released could be hazardous, thus unsafe for human consumption thus the need to dispose of it, thus it is a hazardous material and HAZWOPER.

There is also a big difference between the gallon of bleach, ammonia, dish soap, pesticides and fertilizer in my mud room and the amount of chemicals, particularly solvents in an autobody shop. Ever hear of TCE, industrial solvent formerly used by the military in jets because it is a solvent but is not flammable, a spill of many gallons of TCE is a HAZ-MAT incident as defined by HAZWOPER, thus disposal laws are in effect.

I would not want to the guy holding the buck when asked why the proper agencies were not notified of a spill that is now impacting groundwater. "well we though it was vaporized" type answers will not hold up in court, and in deed it has not.

We would consider the smoke and vapor to be hazardous, why not the water?

Edited by bvfdjc316

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How sure are you that there was no spill? Are you 100% positive that all of the chemicals released were vaporized and consumed and can not make it into the ground or surface water? What about the runoff, you are telling me that the runoff is pure H20, good enough to drink? That when it enters the water supply there are no problems with it i.e. the pH is fine, there is no increased any chemical concentration? Unless you can guarentee that the water from the fire is safe, the Federal Clean Water Act is in effect. The CWA and CERCLA dictate that what was released could be hazardous, thus unsafe for human consumption thus the need to dispose of it, thus it is a hazardous material and HAZWOPER.

There is also a big difference between the gallon of bleach, ammonia, dish soap, pesticides and fertilizer in my mud room and the amount of chemicals, particularly solvents in an autobody shop. Ever hear of TCE, industrial solvent formerly used by the military in jets because it is a solvent but is not flammable, a spill of many gallons of TCE is a HAZ-MAT incident as defined by HAZWOPER, thus disposal laws are in effect.

I would not want to the guy holding the buck when asked why the proper agencies were not notified of a spill that is now impacting groundwater. "well we though it was vaporized" will not hold up in court, and in deed it has not.

Let's not get fixated on theory or what-if's here. This thread is about the Briarcliff fire. The discussion thus far has been great and let's keep it that way without getting into petty debates about 100% vs. rules of thumb. I don't think anyone here is naive enough to think anything is 100% certain so let's not nit-pick the little stuff and forget that there was a really big fire that needed to be put out.

Thanks and Happy Thanksgiving to all. If you're working today, a special thank you and be safe!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nice photos. i heard a little of the siding of the neighbors house was a little melted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nice photos. i heard a little of the siding of the neighbors house was a little melted.

A little ??? maybe the upper portion of the side of the neighbors house.... and good size section...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not get fixated on theory or what-if's here. This thread is about the Briarcliff fire. The discussion thus far has been great and let's keep it that way without getting into petty debates about 100% vs. rules of thumb. I don't think anyone here is naive enough to think anything is 100% certain so let's not nit-pick the little stuff and forget that there was a really big fire that needed to be put out.

Thanks and Happy Thanksgiving to all. If you're working today, a special thank you and be safe!

While I may be slightly off topic, this discussion is still relevant.

Remember the pool company fire in Stamford several years ago, that was a massive haz-mat incident, the entire first alarm assignment as well as several officers were sent to the hospital and deconed if I remember correctly. This incident sounds very similar and unfortunately could have been very similar to the incident in Stamford. Granted that was for airbourne exposure but think what if it was in the water? Why would we not treat the water we use to put out the hazardous material on fire as a hazardous material?

We should be just as concerned about the water we let loose at a fire as we are of the vapor, fumes and smoke at fire. The airborne chemicals act fast but are not as long lived as the chemicals in water you drink.

Luckily my choose career path lets me innately understand hydrologic and airborne particle science (Fickian or Brownian Transport, dispersion coefficents, octonal water coeffiencets, hydrodynamics and hydrology as well as plume dispersion and adiabatic cooling) . All the information that the ERG tells you, distance down wind, containment zones etc etc are all calculated and understood using equations to model these situations. Understanding these modeling equations as they apply to particles, materials and the environment is what I do both in school and for a living.

Edited by bvfdjc316

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How sure are you that there was no spill? Are you 100% positive that all of the chemicals released were vaporized and consumed and can not make it into the ground or surface water? What about the runoff, you are telling me that the runoff is pure H20, good enough to drink? That when it enters the water supply there are no problems with it i.e. the pH is fine, there is no increased any chemical concentration? Unless you can guarentee that the water from the fire is safe, the Federal Clean Water Act is in effect. The CWA and CERCLA dictate that what was released could be hazardous, thus unsafe for human consumption thus the need to dispose of it, thus it is a hazardous material and HAZWOPER.

Based on this the run-off from every fire should be contained and tested as hazardous, but thats not done. Infact most fires in known chemical facilities do not contain the run-off because when flowing 1,000's of gpm how do you do it? I have been to fires in these facilities and DEC, Health Dept and the USCG at most try to contain it only from waterways and not from ground entry.

There is also a big difference between the gallon of bleach, ammonia, dish soap, pesticides and fertilizer in my mud room and the amount of chemicals, particularly solvents in an autobody shop.

Have you ever evaluated what mixing these chemicals creat? Do you know what solvents are in the local autobody shop. I have evaluated what is in our shops and a typical home, the potential combinations can be determined using CAMEO. We can also predetermine the hazard zones and if water should or should not be used based on whats stored there.

Ever hear of TCE, industrial solvent formerly used by the military in jets because it is a solvent but is not flammable, a spill of many gallons of TCE is a HAZ-MAT incident as defined by HAZWOPER, thus disposal laws are in effect.

Yes Trichloroethylene is nasty stuff, but its not generally used in anything other than major manufacturing because its a carcinogen. It is not in any of our facilities and should not be in this one. Its a major contminant in water supplies because of use prior to the mid 1970's.

I would not want to the guy holding the buck when asked why the proper agencies were not notified of a spill that is now impacting groundwater. "well we though it was vaporized" type answers will not hold up in court, and in deed it has not.

If this were a real issue, then IC's would be in trouble for run off at every fire.

We would consider the smoke and vapor to be hazardous, why not the water?

Because you can breath in those toxins easily. Hard to get contaminated water into the blood stream unless you drink it. Also much of the smoke is toxic with or without these chemicals. The amount of chemicals that might be in the water is minimal whan most places only have 3-6 55 gallon drums, some going up in smoke and the rest being mixed (diluted) with 100,000's of gallons of water.

markmets415 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Remember the pool company fire in Stamford several years ago, that was a massive haz-mat incident, the entire first alarm assignment as well as several officers were sent to the hospital and deconed if I remember correctly. This incident sounds very similar and unfortunately could have been very similar to the incident in Stamford. Granted that was for airbourne exposure but think what if it was in the water? Why would we not treat the water we use to put out the hazardous material on fire as a hazardous material?

Apples & Oranges. There is a big difference between a commercial busniess and a high hazard storage facility. The primary chemicals found in a pool supply company are highly toxic and are also highly corrosive. Quantities in a facility thats primary function is to store and sell these products.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BVFD - Get your nose out of the books and use some common sense!

1. Fire in an auto body shop. We know there's more hazards in these facilities then, say, most private dwellings. (I say most, some are ticking time bombs of God knows what). Using copious amounts of water will put it out. It's not rocket science. Remember your basic rules of engagement, Rescue, Exposures, Containment, Extinguishment and Overhaul. The neighboring house was saved, the original building was well advanced before anyone called it in. They all went home unharmed - mission accomplished.

2. An auto body shop that is only one story, roughly 50' x 75', and basically 100% involved should never be an offensive, interior attack. What is gained putting your guys in there? Salvaging the charred remains of some cars? We had a body shop on fire in February, with apartments upstairs. Initial crews reported fire in the rear and middle of the building with extension to a loft storage area. Two 2 1/2" lines made the push and knock down which worked. If we had fire conditions like Briarcliff did this morning, we would of gone defensive.

3. If you want to worry about containment of run off at a fire like this where you are flowing over 1000 GPM, let me know how well it works out. Sure you could call Haz-Mat or DOH to analyze the runoff, but other Officers here will probably agree with me that it isn't as high on the priority list as putting the fire out and protecting the exposures.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone, stop being so over-concerned about what is and isn't done at incidents not pertaining to you. Got tactical questions, don't wait until someone has an incident to start nit-picking. Start a thread and get some answers!

JohnnyOV and chris like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because you can breath in those toxins easily. Hard to get contaminated water into the blood stream unless you drink it. Also much of the smoke is toxic with or without these chemicals. The amount of chemicals that might be in the water is minimal whan most places only have 3-6 55 gallon drums, some going up in smoke and the rest being mixed (diluted) with 100,000's of gallons of water.

It almost seems like some already had a swig of the "Run-off Kool-Aid..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luckily my choose career path lets me innately understand hydrologic and airborne particle science (Fickian or Brownian Transport, dispersion coefficents, octonal water coeffiencets, hydrodynamics and hydrology as well as plume dispersion and adiabatic cooling) .

You try and use equations like that on the fireground, and you're going commit your entire first due to figureing out how to use the d@mn calculator while the place is still rippin'.

Fire fighting is simple; put the wet stuff on the red stuff. We are all experiencing problems with manpower, and sometimes its just not in the cards to dam and dike a fire scene until you're an hour or so into an operation. Lets remember what our major role is, fire suppression. Even though we should be worried about the environment that will be effected, its just not an attainable goal to have that be our primary concern.

edit: spelling

Edited by EMSJunkie712

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice pictures, thanks for posting. I hope everyone had safe and happy Thanksgiving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BVFD - Get your nose out of the books and use some common sense!

1. Fire in an auto body shop. We know there's more hazards in these facilities then, say, most private dwellings. (I say most, some are ticking time bombs of God knows what). Using copious amounts of water will put it out. It's not rocket science. Remember your basic rules of engagement, Rescue, Exposures, Containment, Extinguishment and Overhaul. The neighboring house was saved, the original building was well advanced before anyone called it in. They all went home unharmed - mission accomplished.

2. An auto body shop that is only one story, roughly 50' x 75', and basically 100% involved should never be an offensive, interior attack. What is gained putting your guys in there? Salvaging the charred remains of some cars? We had a body shop on fire in February, with apartments upstairs. Initial crews reported fire in the rear and middle of the building with extension to a loft storage area. Two 2 1/2" lines made the push and knock down which worked. If we had fire conditions like Briarcliff did this morning, we would of gone defensive.

3. If you want to worry about containment of run off at a fire like this where you are flowing over 1000 GPM, let me know how well it works out. Sure you could call Haz-Mat or DOH to analyze the runoff, but other Officers here will probably agree with me that it isn't as high on the priority list as putting the fire out and protecting the exposures.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone, stop being so over-concerned about what is and isn't done at incidents not pertaining to you. Got tactical questions, don't wait until someone has an incident to start nit-picking. Start a thread and get some answers!

Thank you.....and,.....Amen !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems everytime I log onto this website, somebody is going off on some tangent about how much they know about this, that, and the other thing. Everybody needs to be on some foolish power trip. Constructive criticism is a great thing but every topic gets alittle irate! I mean look at you guys, its turning into a science class...lol In my honest opinion, nobody got hurt and all that needs to be said about firefighting is stay in the books, know your operating procedures, know your buildings, get good at reading smoke, and let circumstances dictate procedures!

FF398, Remember585, BFD1054 and 1 other like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems everytime I log onto this website, somebody is going off on some tangent about how much they know about this, that, and the other thing. Everybody needs to be on some foolish power trip. Constructive criticism is a great thing but every topic gets alittle irate! I mean look at you guys, its turning into a science class...lol In my honest opinion, nobody got hurt and all that needs to be said about firefighting is stay in the books, know your operating procedures, know your buildings, get good at reading smoke, and let circumstances dictate procedures!

Amen. I made a point about the same thing and it somehow got deleted. Thanks moderators... :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2. An auto body shop that is only one story, roughly 50' x 75', and basically 100% involved should never be an offensive, interior attack. What is gained putting your guys in there? Salvaging the charred remains of some cars? We had a body shop on fire in February, with apartments upstairs. Initial crews reported fire in the rear and middle of the building with extension to a loft storage area. Two 2 1/2" lines made the push and knock down which worked. If we had fire conditions like Briarcliff did this morning, we would of gone defensive.

there were some beautiful cars in there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you.....and,.....Amen !

Well said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there were some beautiful cars in there

they're still just cars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any EMS requested to the scene? Rehab unit? I imagine there was EMS at the scene, perhaps just not in the I/A. Unless it was included in Briarcliff FD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just cars? They were classics man! Its hard to see this happen to a good man...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.