Environmental Management System: The June 2007 Sheffield Flooding - Case Study Example

ENVIROMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM The June 2007 Sheffield Flooding INTRODUCTION Generally, organisations can benefit from Environmental Management Systems’ structured and standard approach in managing environmental performance and responsibilities because they can operate in a sustainable manner without hurting the environment (HM Government 2008, p.164). Application of EMS therefore prevents disasters caused by interfering with the natural environment and ensures safe community life. In contrast, ignorance or misapplication of EMS can lead to various problems such as pollution of land, water, and air. Failure to implement EMS properly can also lead to disastrous consequences such as flooding that can severely damage properties, kill people, and contaminate the environment. Although the cause of the 2007 Sheffield flooding was clearly constant heavy rainfall during the latter part of June, other contributing factors associated with environmental protection and management are to be blame for the disaster. The following sections discuss the contributory factors causing the destructive surface water flooding in Sheffield last June 25, 2007, the immediate impact of such flooding to the community, the significant risk associated with flooding, the agencies involved their roles and responses during and after the flooding, and performance of the existing EMS during that time. Furthermore, it will also include discussions on various lessons that can be learned from the 2007 Sheffield flooding and approaches that can be used to prevent or mitigate the effects of flooding in the future. CONTRIBUTORY FACTORS CAUSING THE FLOOD The dramatic events on June 25 started as early as June 15 when 90mm of rain fell over Sheffield. In June 25, heavier rain fell which has reached 100mm in just twenty-four hours. Since Sheffield is located in an area where three fast and overflowing rivers’ Don, Loxley and Sheaf meet and the old drainage system was being overwhelmed by continuous heavy rain, localised flooding occurred. However, this severe flooding was not caused by these natural occurrences alone, as there are a number of contributing factors that essentially led to the devastating flood (Environment Agency 2008, p.2). a. A large number of homes and other structures were built on the Sheffield rivers’ natural floodplains and consequently the River Don have been forced to flow into channels and culvert because it has too little space to expand when overflowing. The old drainage systems were overwhelmed by the extreme rain while the rivers around Sheffield overflowed causing widespread flooding (Environment Agency 2008, p.3). b. Another important factor contributed to the flood was the lack of accurate environmental assessment. This is because surface water flooding in Sheffield was previously considered low risk (Food and Public Affairs Committee Report 2008, p.59) and therefore no preparation or flood defences were built. In fact, the report submitted by the Environment Agency recommended improvement on current flood risk assessment and redevelopment of Sheffield’s floodplains (Environment Agency 2008, p. 2). c. As the flood level rapidly rose on June 25, people were unaware and trapped helplessly in the highest point of their homes. Some spent the night on the roof and waited for the floodwaters to recede (Environment Agency 2008, p.3). Some were evacuated from flooded buildings and some were rescued from the roof by military helicopters. The reality that most people were caught unaware indicates that the responsible authorities never warned them earlier. The failure of the flood warning system is a contributory factor why a certain flood become so devastating and caused a lot of damage. IMMEDIATE IMPACT AND RISK CAUSED BY FLOODING Over 1,200 homes were submerged floodwaters and over a thousand business establishments were affected. For instance, millions of pounds worth of losses and damage were incurred due the closure of Meadowhall Shopping Centre and other industrial firms. The flood caused major manufacturing firms tens of millions of pounds in clean-up operations. The rapid flow of floodwaters damaged roads, bridge, and two people were swept away and died from floodwaters. The supply of electricity and water was cut off resulting to 48,000 people living without power and water for several days (Environment Agency 2007, p.2). The M1 motorway was closed for almost two days while Ulley Dam threatens Sheffield’s major electricity sub-station and gas network. The flood made substantial damage to the stability of the Ulley Dam because the high velocity outflows cause severe erosion the earth embankment (Farquharson 2008, p.351). According to the Sheffield Council report, the City was actually divided in half by floodwaters resulting to a significant number of people without access to the main accident and emergency centre. The situation was made worse by a number of badly damaged and inaccessible roads. The Sheffield’s railway station was also closed resulting to a considerable number of passengers stranded. Several thousands of people had to be evacuated and a large number of these people only return to their months later (Food and Rural Affairs Committee 2008, p.60). As the flood recedes, more problems appeared and people were faced with the effects of the mud, silt and sewage, bad odour, rats, mosquitoes, flies, and other infestations. The new living arrangement made people feel personal stress and some reported physical health problems such as diarrhoea, asthma, sore throats, cold sores, and other that may be associated with the damp living condition and contamination caused by the flood. In the farms, farmers faced the destruction of stored feed and grassland contamination. The animal’s milking productivity may be affected by contaminated feed and water and farmers may not get the usual yields from their crops (Department of Communities and Local Government, 2008, p.24). AGENCIES ROLES AND RESPONSES DURING & AFTER THE FLOODING EVENT At the early stage of the flood, the Sheffield City Council established a Silver Command and activated the city’s emergency plan. An hour later, the SCC joined the Gold Command led by a certain incident commander with more experience in dealing with large-scale disaster. The response was participated by various agencies including the Fire and Rescue Service, the military, the Environment Agency, the Police, and health agencies (Food and Rural Affairs Committee 2008, p. 59). a. The Fire and Rescue Service In coordination with other agencies, the fire and rescue service roles were to receive calls and respond appropriately. During the flood, the Sheffield’s FRS conducted rescue operations using their boats and help in the evacuation of residents. They also provided high volume pumps to reduce the flood level. The FRS role is generally to save life and property while protecting the environment (HM Government 2008, p.39). When the flood subsided, the FRS conducted clean-up operation and help in search operations. b. The Military The military performed land and air rescue operations. The Royal Air Force rescued residents trapped at the roof of their homes and transported them to the evacuation centres. Along with other agencies such as the police and FRS, they also participated in land rescue and search operations. They also joined the FRS in clearing and cleaning operation after the flood. c. Environment Agency The Environment Agency works hand in hand with other emergency responders in Gold and Silver Command level while constantly monitoring the weather condition, the river and sea level and provides warnings whenever necessary. After the flood, the Environment Agency assessed the damage caused by the flood to the people and the environment and review existing policies, approaches, strategies, and recommends improvement. d. The Police During the Sheffield flooding, the police take the primary role of searching and rescuing people affected by the rapid flow of floodwaters. The police also ensure that people would stay away from floodwater and encourage them to stay in their homes. The also assist and organise people that were already in the emergency centres. The police also managed the traffic in M1 motorway to prevent and protect people from the possible bursting of the Ulley Dam, which at the time was heavily under pressure by the overwhelming volume of water. At the recovery phase, the police joined other agencies in providing assistance to stranded resident, clearing and cleaning, and re-organising the community. EVALUATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IN PLACE AT THE TIME The impact of the flood can tell how the environmental management system being use at the time performs. The flood caused several deaths; thousands of people displaced, livelihoods devastated, critical infrastructures severely damaged, and many were traumatised. An environmental management system should be in general ensures that environmental policies are implemented and critical infrastructures for environmental protection maintained. However, the Sheffield 2007 flooding raised a number of issues regarding the implementation and performance of the existing EMS. For instance, lack of maintenance of drains, rivers, too much development in the flood plains, inadequate flood defences, and confusion over responsibilities. The environmental management systems at the time did not perform well. In fact, it suffers considerably due to lack of accurate flood risk assessment and important environmental information. As mentioned earlier, surface water flooding was never expected and considered low risk by the responsible authorities. Floodplain development continually ignored the consequences of interfering with nature and existing flood prevention system was inadequately maintained. In general, the EMS at that time was poorly implemented and requires major improvement. LESSONS LEARNED One of the most important lessons learned from the 2007 Sheffield flooding is the lesson that surface water flooding should not be ignored. If it was considered and assessed appropriately the impact of flood could have been minimised or totally avoided. There could have been adequate flood defences built if the threat of surface water flooding is already known. More importantly, the public will be prepared knowing that such threat exists. Another lesson learned from the devastating flood is the importance of sustainable development. For instance, if development in the river’s natural floodplains did not occur, floodwater level will be low and the volume of water coming from the river will not go through and overwhelm the city’s drainage system. From this incident, the importance of implementing environmental policies is clear and lessons should be learned that activities with environmental implications should stop. The Environment Agency and the local authorities should learn that quality environmental assessment is very important and strict implementation EMS is essential to avoid future problems RECOMMENDATIONS TO PREVENT FLOODING AND ITS EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT The cause of the 2007 Sheffield flood is primarily the changing weather condition and apparently, more heavy rains should be expected. Sheffield authorities should start and continue building flood prevention structures and improve their existing sewage and drainage system. Rehabilitation of existing pumping station or installation of more pumping stations is recommended. Surface water flooding in the area is now a known threat and therefore environmental policies concerning river and floodplains should be fully enforced to avoid the re-occurrence of such devastating flood. Residents of Sheffield should be educated about the threat and appropriate actions that should be taken in case of flood. The flood warning system should be improved and every agency should have clear roles and responsibilities to avoid confusion. The Environmental Agency should conduct a review and re-assessment of flood risk in the area and recommend a long-term solution to the problem. Similarly, the local authorities should always bear in mind that they should interfere with nature. CONCLUSION Environmental Management System can help the community manage their environment effectively. Absence or misapplication of EMS can lead to various problems caused by interfering with nature. The Sheffield flood was caused by heavy rainfall and mismanagement of the environment. Development in floodplains forced the river to overflow into channels and culverts because there was too little space for the river to expand when overflowing. Coupled with lack of accurate flood risk assessment, development in floodplains continues while buildings of flood defences were ignored. People are generally not aware of threat thus most of the residents were trapped by floodwaters and had to be evacuated. Even when the floodwater recedes, the community still face the risk of contamination, sickness, stress, and economic hardship. In the near future, flood-warning system should be improved and the public should be educated about the threat and appropriate actions that should be taken. Development in the river’s natural floodplains should stop and EMS implementation should be improved to the level that every environmental policy is followed. REFERENCE LIST Department of Communities and Local Government, 2008, Learning Lessons from the 2007 floods, Chapter 1: The Events of June and July – a summary. DCLG, p. 9 -18 Environment Agency, 2007, Review of 2007 Summer Floods, available online at www.environment-agency.gov.uk Environment Agency, 2008, Case Study: 2007 Summer Floods: Reducing the pressure of Sheffield’s floodplain, available online at www.environment-agency.gov.uk Farquharson F. 2008, The Summer 2007 Floods – A Hydrological Account, BHS 10th National Hydrology Symposium, Exeter, pp.346 – 352 Food and Rural Affairs Committee, 2008, Flooding: Oral and written evidence, Volume 2, HC (Series), The Stationery Office, UK Food and Rural Affairs Committee, 2008, House of Commons Environment, Flooding, Fifth Report of Session 2007-2008, Volume 1, The Stationery Office Limited, London, UK HM Government, 2008, Fire and Rescue Manual: Volume 2: Fire Service Operations- Environmental Protection. Communities and Local Government, UK Read More