欧美国家火灾处理中到底有没有Burn Down原则?

天津的事故中，许多消防员献出了宝贵的生命。于是有人质疑，像这种规模的事故，不应当派消防员去冒险，而应当采用BurnDown原则，也就是不要派人去灭火，等着里面能燃烧、爆炸的物品一直烧完，等火熄了再去清场。而另一些人则认为根本不存在这个原则，BurnDown就是个用来钓鱼的谣言，它的意思是“笨蛋”，用来影射相信这个原则的人。

两派人马为此争论不休。正如在我朝各种公共事件中的争论那样，很少人能做到温和讨论，很多人三言两语不和就开始用各种生殖器和生理缺陷问候对方。

这种骂架当然是没有意义的。大灾当前，第一件重要的事情是防止灾害的后果进一步扩大，并对受害者进行救援；同时第二件重要的事情是追查事故的原因与责任人，从而能够防止类似的事件重演。与这两件事无关的争论，只会模糊视线、喧宾夺主。

然而即使仔细阅读肯定和否认BurnDown原则的各种论点，都会发现论据不足。有的是用谷歌搜索，有的用维基百科，有的用XX百科。说实话，这些都不圣经，找来的不过是间接结果，并不是直接证据。所以我没有轻易发表观点 咱不是消防专业人士。但是弄清楚这件事情非常重要，在如此重大的事故面前，还在无谓的争论，是不应该的。于是我进行了求证。

首先我找到了(美国)全国防火协会(NationalFireProtection Association, NFPA)、美国国家消防局(U.S.Fire Administration, USFA)、国际消防员协会(TheInternational Association of Fire Fighters,IAFF)、英国环保署(EnvironmentAgency, UKEA)，浏览了一些资料，没有找到BurnDown之类的内容，于是我8月16日写了邮件给了NFPA、IAFF、USFA。

我是这样写的：

------------------------------------------------------------------

敬启者：

我从中国写信打听是否在火灾处理中有个“burndown”原则。

您可能已经知道，8月12日，中国北方城市天津发生了一场爆炸，数十名（也许上百名）消防员遇难。公众批评消除指挥官一开始就忽视了爆炸的危险，才让这些消防员的生命受到威胁，最终遇难。部分人声称，在欧美国家，处理火灾时有一个“burndown”原则，即：如果火势不可控制且到达一定的危险程度(以至于不能被消防员扑灭)，那么为了保障消防员的安全，则需要（或者消防员有权）让火继续燃烧，直到熄灭。同时，他们在外围采取一些预防措施，例如建立防火隔离带，并且/或者疏散可能受到威胁的人。

现在，人们在愤怒地争论到底有没有这么个“burndown”原则。我决定来寻求您专业的证言。如果未来再有火灾发生，您的意见会非常重要（例如：是否有人应该为此受到责难等）。

您若能拨冗回复，我将感激不尽。

致礼

冰寒草于上海

-------------------------------------------------

NFPA是最先回复的，收件者把邮件转给一位中国的协调员，草草回复了几句没有实质性内容，给了一份文件列表，让我自己去查，但我并不是NFPA的会员，也无法下载这些文件。IAFF则完全没有回复，幸运的是，8月19日我收到了USFA的回复，回复者是USFA图书馆负责防火与信息的主管EdwardMetz。

他写道：

---------------------------------------

下午好，我把你的问题转给了我们这儿好几位防火项目的专家，可能晚点时间会得到他们的消息。不过，看起来并没有正式写下来的“burndown”原则。总体而言，你是对的：如果火势不可控制，消防指挥员可以决定设立隔离带，防止火势蔓延，并且可以不冒险让消防员进场。但这要根据很多情势而定，也许有时，消防指军也觉得必须让消防员冒险。

在美国消防界有句大家熟知的老话：能救多点就冒险，只救少点少冒险，救不出啥就别冒险。

所以，不管在哪种情况下，指挥员必须权衡风险和收益。这得取决于判断力，当然指挥员能否作出个适的决定，能否获得足够多的信息很关键，例如有无平民、火灾中的建筑性质、潜在的化学物品或有害物质等。换言之，并没有一刀切的做法。指挥员必须迅速研判形势 尽可能精确、尽可能快速，然后作出尽可能最佳的选择，而且要准备好，当有更多信息时，随时修改完善这个决定。不是件容易的事啊！很多都取决于沟通。我希望以上能帮到你，并对那些在火灾中失去生命的勇士们表示哀悼和同情。

Edward Metz

------------------------------------------------

我向Ed表示了感谢，并进一步跟他说为何弄清楚这个问题很重要。因为他问了好几个人，我也很期待其他专家的答复。

我的信如下：

------------------------------------------------

Dear Ed，

太感谢你的回复了！我会把你的建议，以及其他你咨询的专家的建议译成中文。我确信这些信息对平息关于这个问题的争论非常重要，并且让人们可以认真思考让消防员一遇火灾就冒险是否恰当？

你可能会理解：如果消防员不进入火场，有人可能会抱怨他们；如果指挥员让消防员冒险，他可能被指责。也许有时候指挥员会因为一些别的原因让消防员无谓地冒险，如政治性的原因（例如要显示一个强有力的政府形象、不想被公众指责等），或者个人原因（想显示英雄气概等）。公众有必要理解一个决定是如何、因何而作出的。唯有如此，才可能达成一致、团结一心，去寻找火灾的原因，并学会预防下一场灾难。

致礼

冰寒

------------------------------------------------

今天，8月20日，我收到了Ed的再次复信，内容如下：

------------------------------------------------

你好冰寒:

我得到了几位同事的回复，他们证实了我昨天给你写的内容。他们指出，美国交通部《紧急事件响应指南》阐述了一项原则，在特定条件下，可以撤出火场/有害区，并让火自行燃烧。例如第129或130条（PDF文件199页）：“超大型火灾，用无人值守固定架固定水龙带或机动喷嘴；如果无法做到这点，则撤离火场，让火燃烧。”这份指南列了172种场景及在那些条件下应当采取的措施。每种场景对应一种类型的化学或其它有害物质。在284页，描述了设立保护区，以及如何作出疏散或就地避险的决定。除了这些还有很多内容，你可以在这里下载完整的PDF文件，也许值得一读：http://1.usa.gov/1J3rfQg。

另一位同事回复你的问题如下：“是的，原则上和实际操作中，消防指挥员可以决定不扑救火灾，长期以来这是真的。最近宾西法尼亚Hanover发生的有害物质事故就实行了这个原则。更著名的是几十年前缅因州Westbrook发生的五金店事故。我忘记那位指军官的名字了，他就让那个五金店burndown，因为里面堆放了农药。他们用水龙带帮助控制火势，冲出的液体封闭处理。我们在70年代有许多BLEVE罐事故（注：BLEVE，boilingliquid expanding vapour explosion，沸腾液体扩散蒸气爆炸），那时消防部门就是这么处理的。”

最后，在面对有害化学物质时，有时第一个困难就是确定到底是什么物质。可能天津的情况说这个不适合，不过我可以把国家医学图书馆的这个网页分享给你，设计这个网页是为了帮助消防员确定可能会遇到什么化学品。消防员用小型手持式设备，在火灾现场就可以访问：http://webwiser.nlm.nih.gov/getHomeData.do;jsessionid=A[1**********]B864F43A3BC5C63561F4

我们国家的消防员过去有种过度冒险的文化，所以这些工具和原则就慢慢出来了，用以帮助指挥员更好地作出决定，记着在赶到现场要尽快、尽可能准确地评估形势。然而这些并不完美。人性如斯，所以失误难免。但这种文化作为一个整体，已经在改变，而且训练也在改善。

敬礼并致良好的祝愿。

Ed

-----------------------------------

总结

通过上述对话，我可以得出的结论是：没有白纸黑字儿写下“burndown”原则，但是原则上和实际操作中，是存在这个规则的。是否派人进入火场扑救，要根据现场的情况进行评估，对于不可控制而危险很大的火情，指挥员可以决定不派员冒险进入，而仅在外围采取措施防止火势扩大，或者疏散人群。但是，在作出这些决定前，应当尽可能多地了解火场信息 否则，就是拿消防员的生命开玩笑。

天津港消防是否知道这是个危险品仓库？进入前是否知道里面存放的物质？是否知道爆炸可能的规模与后果？如果在这些都不知道的情况就派消防员强进场扑救，那么在决策和行动上是不科学的。从事后我们了解到的情况来看，3000吨的准炸药、700吨的氰化钠，够得上是超大型火灾了。

无独有偶，我找到了英国环境署的文件：pollutionprevention guidelines:ControlledBurn: PPG28,第5页

In England and Wales, the Fire and Rescue Service Act2004(Reference 9) and, in Scotland, the Fire`(Scotland) Act 2005(Reference 10)placeno legaldutyon Fire andRescue Authorities to extinguish fires.Theirduty is only to provide forextinguishing fires and protecting lifeand property in the event of a fire.

For Scotland, the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005 , “extinguishing”,inrelation to a fire, includes “containing and controlling”, givingIncidentCommanders the option of using a controlledburn.

====================================

谨以此文向英勇的消防员们致敬，并衷心希望我们的消防系统可以做得更科学，在保卫公众财产和生命的时候，也能够审时度势，保证消防员的安全。他们的身后也是无数个家庭，他们的离开，不应当只是换来个英雄的称号，他们也不希望未来有人无辜遇难。

最后，向EdwardMetz友好、专业的帮助表示感谢。他在回复、咨询中表现出的快速、准确、专业水准，令我肃然起敬。

====================================

附邮件原文（隐去了涉及个人隐私的信息）

From: 冰寒（8月16日）

收件人：IAFFtburn; FEMA USFA-WEBMASTER; FEMAnetcadmissions; NFPApublicaffairs

Subject: Is there aburn down principle in uncontrollable fireaccidents?

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing fromChina to inquire if there is a "burn down"principle in fireaccidents.

As you mayhave known that in the Tianjin (a northcity in China) blast on Aug. 12, tensof, may be more than 100firemen lives were lost in the accident. Thecommanders are nowblamed by the public that they ignored the danger of theblast atthe beginning and it was their fault risked the lives of thoselostfiremen. Some people claimed that there is a "burn down"principle inUS and EU countries, which means that when a fire isout of control anddangerous enough (that cannot be put out byfiremen), for the safety offiremen, they need (or have theoption)to let the fire continue to burn till itis "down". In themeantime, they take precautious actions such asbuilding up aperipheral "fire barrier" zone, and/or evacuatingpeople that may beendangered.

People are angrilyarguing about if there is such a principle and Idecide to ask for yourprofessional testimony. This would be ofgreat help in the future when we arefaced with fire accidents again(should there be someone blamed of etc.).

With kind regardsand best wishes. Your early answer will be highlyappreciated.

Sincerely yours,Binghan

From Shanghai,China

===============================================

From: "Metz,Edward"

Date: Tue,Aug 18, 2015 09:31 PM

To: "冰寒"

Subject: FW:Is there a burn down principle inuncontrollable fireaccidents?

Good afternoon,I ve passed this question along to a number of fireprogram specialists hereand I may get more information from themlater. However it appears that whilethere is no formally written“burn down” principle, generally speaking, you arecorrect that if afire is out of control the incident commander may decide toset-up aperimeter defense to keep the fire from spreading and not risksendingin firefighters. But a lot depends on the situation andthere may be times thatthe incident commander decides he has to putfirefighter lives at risk.

There is awell-known adage in the United States fire service thatsays: “Risk a lotto save a lot. Risk little tosave little. Risk nothing to save nothing.”

So, the incidentcommander in any situation has to evaluate what therisks versus the benefitsare of a particular course of action. It sa judgment call and of course inorder to make a good decision it isvery important that the incident commanderhave as much informationas possible about things like the presence ofcivilians, the natureof the structures involved in the fire, about thepotential chemicalor other hazards involved and so on when making a decision.In otherwords there is no simple formula. Incident commanders have to sizeup thesituation as quickly and as accurately as they can and thenmake the bestdecision as possible under thecircumstances and then be prepared tomodify their decisions as moreinformation becomes available. Not an easy thingto do and a lotdepends on good communications. I hope this helps. Pleaseaccept mysympathies for the loss of your brave firefighters, sincerely,EdMetz

__________________________

Edward Metz

Library ProgramManager, NETC Library

Prevention andInformation Branch

National Fire Programs

U.S. FireAdministration/FEMA/DHS

===============================================

From: 冰寒

Sent: Tuesday, August18, 2015 10:31 PM

To: Metz,Edward

Subject: Re: FW: Isthere a burn down principle in uncontrollablefireaccidents?

Dear Ed,

Thank you so muchfor your reply! I will translate your suggestionsas well as the coming oneslater from other specialists youconsulted. I do believe this information wouldbe of great help instopping the arguments and making people think seriously ifit isproper to risk the lives of firemen every time when there is afire.

As you mayunderstand, if the firemen did not enter the center ofthe fire, they may becomplained; if the commander risked the livesof his boys, he may be blamed of.It is possible that sometimes whenthe commander unnecessarily risk the livesof firemen for someunder-table reasons, say, politics (to show a stronggovernmentimage, to avoid public complains), or personal reasons (toshowmanhood etc.). The public need to understand how and why adecision should bemade. Being only so, a consensus could be reachedand the people be united, tolook for the reason of an incident andfind out ways to prevent the next one.

Looking forward tohearing from you again.

With my bestregards and wishes!

Sincerely yours,Binghan

===============================================

Hello againBinghan,

I heard backfrom several colleagues and what they shared with meconfirmed what I hadwritten to you yesterday. They pointed out to me that the US Departmentof Transportation sEmergency Response Guide sets forth a policy to withdrawfrom somefire/hazard zones and to let the fire burn under certainconditions.See for example Guide 129 or 130 (page 199 of the PDFfile ) where it states :“For massive fire, use unmanned hoseholders or monitor nozzles; if this isimpossible, withdraw fromarea and let fire burn.” This EmergencyResponseGuide. contains 172 different scenarios and lists the actionsthatfirst responders should take under each set of conditions. Eachscenariorelates to a certain type of chemical or other hazardencountered. Then beginningon page 284, the Response Guidedescribes protective action zones and how todecide things likewhether a strategy of evacuation or shelter-in-place shouldbetaken. There is much more besides. You candownload the full pdf filehere and it might be worth some time tolook at : http://1.usa.gov/1J3rfQg

Anothercolleague wrote in response to your question: “Yes, in principle andpractice, an incidentcommander may opt not to fight a fire. This haslongbeen true. It has been applied to hazardous materialincidents recently inHanover, Pennsylvania. Onethat is more famous, occurred at a hardware store inWestbrook,Maine a few decades ago. The chief, his name escapes me, letthehardware store burn down because of the stockpile of pesticides.Hoses helpedcontrol the fire and chemical run-off was contained. Wehad a lot of BLEVE tankeraccidentsin the 1970s era too and that is how Fire Departments handledthoseas well. “

Finally, whendealing with hazardous chemicals sometimes the firstdifficulty is determiningjust what kind of chemical it is. This maynot apply to the situation inTianjin but I thought I d share thisweb page with you from our NationalLibrary of Medicine that wasdesigned to help firefighters determine what kindof chemicals theymay have encountered. It can be accessed on small handhelddevicesto make it useable to firefighters on the scene of anincident. http://webwiser.nlm.nih.gov/getHomeData.do;jsessionid=A[1**********]B864F43A3BC5C63561F4

Our fire servicehere in the United States had a culture ofexcessive risk taking in the past sothese tools and policies havegrown in response to help incident commandersarrive at betterdecisions that weigh risks and benefits and to remember to“size up”the situation as rapidly and accurately as possible when theyarriveon the scene. And it s not perfect. Human nature being whatit is there canstill be lapses here too where safety protocolsmight lapse or beignored. But the culture as awhole is changing and training improved.

Very best wishesand kind regards, Ed