Environmental Management Systems Sheffield Flooding - Case Study Example

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS Sheffield Flooding – June 24-25, 2007 1. Introduction The June 2007 Sheffield flooding incident was primarily caused by extremely heavy rainfall which displaced a significant number of people, destroyed valuable properties, and damaged the environment. However, there were also a number of contributory factors that led to the disastrous flooding such as environmental and emergency management which will be discuss in the following section. These include discussions on the immediate impact and risk associated with flooding and the roles played by different agencies during and after the event. Evaluation of the effectiveness of environmental management systems being use at the time and the important lessons learned from the flooding incident. Finally, recommendations will be given to help prevent future flooding and its impact to the environment. 2. The June 2007 Sheffield Flood 2.1 Contributory factors causing the flood The rainfall experienced in Sheffield between the 24th and 25th of June was 21 mm more compared to the monthly of average 67 mm for June while the ground conditions was already saturated. According to memorandum of the Sheffield City Council, the flooding was caused by the significant volume and speed of water coming from the fluvial river system in a considerably short time (Food and Rural Affairs Committee 2008, p.59.) However, considering the evident danger of flooding in case rainfall increased beyond the average, flooding in Sheffield was considered by local authorities as low risk that requires no immediate concern. The flood raised a number of issues and a few of the most important factors contributing to the flood are as follows: a. No flood defences or flood prevention structures are in place. b. No effective flood warning system c. No effective emergency plan and evacuation procedure d. Incorrect city planning and development According to the Food and Rural Affairs Committee (2008, p.11), report to the UK House of Commons, the above factors were caused by lack of organisational responsibility from national or local authorities. For instance, although the Meteorological Office issued a forecast of heavy rainfall over the region, the Sheffield authorities had no information which can help them predict which drain or streets are vulnerable to flooding. Moreover, there was no agency or somebody responsible for issuing flood warnings to people. Consequently, residents of Sheffield are not aware of any danger coming until the actual flooding occurs (Samuels 2008, p.132). According to Smith & Petley (2009, p. 248), Sheffield has no sufficient flood defence structures to protect them from flooding and as a result, most part of the city was submerged to flood waters. The flood in Sheffield in part may be also attributed to poor city planning and development because some structures like the Meadowhall mega shopping complex and other buildings built in potential flood plains have increased rainfall runoff (Smith 2009, p.13), 2.2 The immediate impact and significant risks caused by the flood During the floor, the sewage systems in almost all part of Sheffield overflowed into the streets because they were filled with toxic washout raw sewage (Roaf et al. p.319). The water from the heavy rainfall overwhelmed the drainage and sewage system (Food and Rural Affairs Committee, 2008, .p.5). The water table rose to the level that the old pumps cannot remove the storm water sufficiently (Smith & Petley 2009, p.248). In the afternoon June 25, 2007, the bank of River Don in the centre of Sheffield burst and a strong torrent of water travelled through the roads of the City. On his way home from school, fourteen year old Ryan Parry died from floodwaters, 68 years old Peter Harding was swept away, and an ex-police officer Gary Priestly died as he tried to get home (Smith 2007, p.6). In general, around two thousand homes and business establishments were flooded, two fatalities, damaged or inaccessible roads, a large number of stranded people, the railway station and M1 was closed, no electricity to over 48,000 homes, schools were forced to close, and large number of people evacuated. Since a significant number of households were still unable to return to their homes due to slow remedial work, risk that may be cause by the Sheffield flood is serious health problems associated with evacuees living in caravans for months. Moreover, there is also considerable risk of contamination of water, land, and the environment. 2.3 Agencies involved and outline of their responses and role during the event including the recovery phase. 2.3.1 The Sheffield City Council On immediate response to flooding, the Sheffield City Council operating a Silver Command level at their emergency control centre activated the emergency plan. The aim was to minimise the impact of the flooding and deal with the immediate crisis. After 40 minutes, a Gold Command was activated and the SCC participated in a multi-agency response structure consisting of the police, the fire and rescues service, environmental agency, and health services (Food and Rural Affairs Committee 2008, p.61). 2.3.2 The Police The primary role of the police during the flood was to search for missing persons including the 14 year old boy and a man that was swept away by the torrent. The police also coordinated with the rescue operations being conducted by the Royal Air Force and the FRS. They also advised people to stay away from the water and wait for the rescuers. The police closed the north and southbound lane of the M1 to protect people from the threat of the Ulley Dam burst. After the flood, the police were still involved in finding missing persons and assisting people at emergency centres (BBC News 2007, p.1). 2.3.3 The Fire and Rescue Service Like the Environmental Agency, the FRS is responsible for providing warning of floor, protect people and properties, save lives, and protect the environment (HM Government 2008, p.39). During the flood, the South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Services responded to over 600 incidents and evacuation requirements in Sheffield. They also provided high volume pumps and conducted rescuer operations using their rescue boats. After the flood, the FRS people were also involved in clean-up operation including pumping out the water from the streets of Sheffield (Communities and Local Government Committee 2008, p.5). 2.3.4 The Environmental Agency The main role of the environment agencies is to protect the environment, the people, and the built environment by providing effective defence from flood. These include providing flood warning, operating and maintain river structures, and encouraging development that is friendly with the environment. In Sheffield’s flooding in 2007, the environment agencies joined others in a multi-agency response. Their role was to provide warning and help in the response operations being conducted by the police and the fire and rescue service (HM Government 2008, p.30). 2.3.5 The Military The military on the other hand conducted rooftop helicopter rescues and support operations to protect the Thorpe Marsh Power Station from flood waters. After the flood, they joined the police in search operations and assisting people in stranded in emergency centres (Communities and Local Government 2007, p.5). 2.4 Evaluating the effectiveness of environmental management systems in place at the time. According to the report of the Food and Rural Affairs Committee (2008, p.61) to the House of Commons, the Gold and Silver Command worked well but some responding organisation specifically the local authorities were not prepared for such large crisis. Most training exercises done before were for tidal flooding thus the local authorities were not thinking and prepared for surface water flood. Moreover, responders are not adequately resourced as they were not expecting such unconceivable emergency event that lasted several days. Similarly, the environmental management systems in place at the time have its own problem and evaluating its effectiveness in terms of flooding, the EMS suffers some major shortcomings. For instance, the environmental problems particularly the potential for flooding was never considered high risk and therefore no flood defences were constructed. Surface water flooding was never expected thus training and other preparations were focused on tidal flooding (Food and Rural Affairs Committee 2008, p.59). Moreover, urban development was not properly implemented based on environmental concerns as evidenced by various structures built on potential flood plains and areas that can increase rainfall runoff. Environmental protection generally relies on the philosophy of sustainable development where people must be environmentally responsible. This is because failure to do so can lead to the destruction of the earth’s natural resources and subsequently the people living in it (HM Government 2008, p.10). Apparently, the environmental management system applied to Sheffield did not adequately address various environmental concerns and the principle of sustainable development as evidenced by severe surface water flooding. Aside from disregard to the changing climate and adequate warning systems, there was no investment made on flood defences and infrastructure improvement. Moreover, the 2007 Sheffield flooding revealed that various drainage systems in the city failed along with the old sewerage and water pumping stations (Smith & Petley 2009, p.248). Housing developments and other properties put the drainage systems under strain and with intense rainfall the risk of flooding is much higher (Committee of Public Accounts 2007, p.11). The lack of adequate and efficient environmental management systems was made worse the fact that there was confusion among the city council officials about responsibility over the June, 2007 flood. Sheffield’s own officials were arguing about which agency is responsible- the EA, local authorities, or the council. It appears that no one seems to know that the deteriorating environment and the subsequent flood is the responsibility of all who by the law should protect the community (Communities and Local Government Committee 2008, p.11). In general, the EMS in Sheffield failed to adequately address and implement environmental needs and policies. It was only after the flood that they realized that surface water flooding is high risk and need their attention. 2.5 Lesson learned The Sheffield flooding raised a number of issues and the most important were the lack of timely warning, flood defence, and flood prevention investments. However, these flooding issues were made possible by inaccurate risk assessment of the local authorities regarding surface water flooding. As mentioned, earlier surface water flooding was considered low risk thus no one prepared for it. From the Sheffield flooding incident in 2007, a number of important lessons were learned and these include the importance of accurate environmental risk assessment, the value of sustainable development, the importance of effective warning system during an emergency, the benefit of investing in flood defence and critical infrastructures, and the advantage of having clear responsibilities among local authorities, environmental agencies and emergency services during a crisis. Clearly, the root of all sufferings and destruction is the failure of the authorities to assess the level of risk posed by the surface water and the changing climate. The failures of environmental agencies to advice, make preparation, and invest on flood defences and warning systems in Sheffield. 2.6 Recommendations to prevent future flooding or mitigate its effects on the environment Flooding in Sheffield is expected and what had happened in 2007 may again occur in the near future. For this reason, investment on flood prevention and defence is recommended along with accurate and effective flood warning system. These include rehabilitation of old drainage and sewage system. The Sheffield authorities must always bear in mind the importance of sustainable development and environmental protection and avoid further construction on potential flood plains. Environment agencies must conduct a well-thought risk assessment and correctly identify the hazards. They should educate the public about the possibility of flood and appropriate action they should take during an emergency. More importantly, roles, responsibilities, and duties of every agency involve must be clarified to avoid confusion during an emergency. 3. Conclusion The June 2007 Sheffield flooding was caused by a number of factors that include unexpected heavy rainfall, environmental mismanagement, poor risk assessment, and ineffective flood warning system. The responders during the event include the city council, environmental agencies, fire and rescues service, military, and the police. The immediate impact of the flood is displaced residents, destroyed properties, and damage to environment. Health risk due to contamination of land and water, and residents extended stay in emergency centres due to extremely slow rehabilitation works. One of the most important lessons learned from the event is the importance of sustainable development and environmental protection. To prevent future flooding, authorities must investment on flood prevention and defences. More importantly, they should conduct an appropriate risk assessment, educate the public, and clarify their roles during an emergency to avoid confusion. 4. Reference list BBC News, 2007, Floods force thousands from homes, available online at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6239828.stm Committee of Public Accounts, 2007, Environment Agency: building and maintaining river and coastal flood defences in England, fourth report of session 2007-08, report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence, The Stationery Office, UK Communities and Local Government Committee, 2008, Communities and Local Government: departmental annual report 2007, second report of session 2007-08, report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence, The Stationery Office, UK Food and Rural Affairs Committee, 2008, Flooding: Oral and written evidence, Volume 2 HC (Series) (Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons) Flooding: Fifth Report of Session 2007-08, Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Environment, The Stationery Office, UK HM Government, 2008, Fire and Rescue Manual: Volume 2: Fire Service Operations, Environmental Protection, The Stationery Office, UK Roaf S, Crichton D., & Nicol F., 2009, Adapting buildings and cities for climate change: a 21st century survival guide, Architectural Press, UK Smith M. 2007, The Great Flood: How Sheffield, Rotherham, Barnsley, Doncaster, Chesterfield and Worksop Survived the Summer Storms of 2007, At Heart Ltd, UK Smith K. & Petley, 2009, Environmental hazards: assessing risk and reducing disaster, Taylor & Francis, UK Smith P. 2009, Building for a Changing Climate: The Challenge for Construction, Planning and Energy, Earthscan, UK Read More