❓ A WA parliamentary question investigates the testing and potential use of ETI gel MVP clear aqueous, a fire extinguishing product, by the Fire and Emergency Services Authority (FESA). The response details testing conditions and concludes the product isn't superior to existing options, citing pre-mixing as a drawback.
AnsweredQoN 261Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES AUTHORITY - NEW PRODUCT
I refer to the product ETI gel MVP clear aqueous, which has the ability to extinguish fire. (1) Has this product been tested by the Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia? (2) If so, how many times has this product been tested by FESA? (3) Where did this testing take place and under what conditions? (4) Will the minister provide details of the outcomes of this testing? (5) Does this product have the potential to save houses that are threatened by bushfire? (6) If so, why is the Western Australian product not being used by FESA? (7) Does this product have the ability to put out industrial fires? (8) Has FESA tested this product on burning tyres? (9) Is this product superior to any that is on the market at present? Hon KIM CHANCE
I refer to the product ETI gel MVP clear aqueous, which has the ability to extinguish fire. (1) Has this product been tested by the Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia? (2) If so, how many times has this product been tested by FESA? (3) Where did this testing take place and under what conditions? (4) Will the minister provide details of the outcomes of this testing? (5) Does this product have the potential to save houses that are threatened by bushfire? (6) If so, why is the Western Australian product not being used by FESA? (7) Does this product have the ability to put out industrial fires? (8) Has FESA tested this product on burning tyres? (9) Is this product superior to any that is on the market at present? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
On behalf of the minister representing the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, I thank Hon Robyn McSweeney for her comprehensive question. It is a comprehensive answer. I table the answer and seek leave for it to be incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1508.] The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Three times. (3) The testing was undertaken in quite different circumstances. In the first trials, the product was used at fire incidents by shifts of career fire fighters at a station where a bush fire vehicle was positioned. The second trial was at an actual fire at a scrap yard fire at Smorgon Steel, Jackson Street, Bassendean. The third was a controlled field trial involving a bush fire scenario. The trials involving career staff were undertaken during normal operations at a busy suburban fire station using their medium tanker. This vehicle is specifically designed for bush fire fighting and the trial included extinguishing bush, grass and scrub fires. The manufacturer provided the product mixing and application instructions prior to the trials. At the scrap yard fire, the product was provided and applied under guidance by the manufacturer to the large pile of burning scrap, which consisted of mainly compressed cars and other metal scrap products. During the fire, the manufacturer offered to provide the product MVP Clear which he claimed would put out the fire, which was proving difficult to extinguish. Experienced bush fire brigade volunteers and Career Fire and Rescue fire fighters tested the ETI Gel MVP Clear at a simulated bush fire scenario in the third test. The manufacturer again provided all the necessary information about its application prior to the tests. (4) The manufacturer has been provided with correspondence a number of times about the outcomes of the test. (5) Yes, but no more than many other products available on the market today. (6) The product has not demonstrated during the trials that it out performs any other similar product on the market. In fact it has one major draw back. Because it comes in a gel form, it requires pre-mixing. Career and volunteer fire fighters have rejected the pre mixing aspect because it is operationally limiting and there are many other products that do the same task which do not require this form of handling. (7) An industrial fire is too broad a category to provide a blanket answer. From the trial at the Smorgan scrap yard fire, it doesn’t appear to have any extinguishing characteristics different from other similar products on the market. (8) Yes, at the scrap yard fire. (9) It doesn’t appear so.
(1) Has this product been tested by the Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia? (2) If so, how many times has this product been tested by FESA? (3) Where did this testing take place and under what conditions? (4) Will the minister provide details of the outcomes of this testing? (5) Does this product have the potential to save houses that are threatened by bushfire? (6) If so, why is the Western Australian product not being used by FESA? (7) Does this product have the ability to put out industrial fires? (8) Has FESA tested this product on burning tyres? (9) Is this product superior to any that is on the market at present? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: On behalf of the minister representing the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, I thank Hon Robyn McSweeney for her comprehensive question. It is a comprehensive answer. I table the answer and seek leave for it to be incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1508.] The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Three times. (3) The testing was undertaken in quite different circumstances. In the first trials, the product was used at fire incidents by shifts of career fire fighters at a station where a bush fire vehicle was positioned. The second trial was at an actual fire at a scrap yard fire at Smorgon Steel, Jackson Street, Bassendean. The third was a controlled field trial involving a bush fire scenario. The trials involving career staff were undertaken during normal operations at a busy suburban fire station using their medium tanker. This vehicle is specifically designed for bush fire fighting and the trial included extinguishing bush, grass and scrub fires. The manufacturer provided the product mixing and application instructions prior to the trials. At the scrap yard fire, the product was provided and applied under guidance by the manufacturer to the large pile of burning scrap, which consisted of mainly compressed cars and other metal scrap products. During the fire, the manufacturer offered to provide the product MVP Clear which he claimed would put out the fire, which was proving difficult to extinguish. Experienced bush fire brigade volunteers and Career Fire and Rescue fire fighters tested the ETI Gel MVP Clear at a simulated bush fire scenario in the third test. The manufacturer again provided all the necessary information about its application prior to the tests. (4) The manufacturer has been provided with correspondence a number of times about the outcomes of the test. (5) Yes, but no more than many other products available on the market today. (6) The product has not demonstrated during the trials that it out performs any other similar product on the market. In fact it has one major draw back. Because it comes in a gel form, it requires pre-mixing. Career and volunteer fire fighters have rejected the pre mixing aspect because it is operationally limiting and there are many other products that do the same task which do not require this form of handling. (7) An industrial fire is too broad a category to provide a blanket answer. From the trial at the Smorgan scrap yard fire, it doesn’t appear to have any extinguishing characteristics different from other similar products on the market. (8) Yes, at the scrap yard fire. (9) It doesn’t appear so.
(2) If so, how many times has this product been tested by FESA? (3) Where did this testing take place and under what conditions? (4) Will the minister provide details of the outcomes of this testing? (5) Does this product have the potential to save houses that are threatened by bushfire? (6) If so, why is the Western Australian product not being used by FESA? (7) Does this product have the ability to put out industrial fires? (8) Has FESA tested this product on burning tyres? (9) Is this product superior to any that is on the market at present? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: On behalf of the minister representing the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, I thank Hon Robyn McSweeney for her comprehensive question. It is a comprehensive answer. I table the answer and seek leave for it to be incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1508.] The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Three times. (3) The testing was undertaken in quite different circumstances. In the first trials, the product was used at fire incidents by shifts of career fire fighters at a station where a bush fire vehicle was positioned. The second trial was at an actual fire at a scrap yard fire at Smorgon Steel, Jackson Street, Bassendean. The third was a controlled field trial involving a bush fire scenario. The trials involving career staff were undertaken during normal operations at a busy suburban fire station using their medium tanker. This vehicle is specifically designed for bush fire fighting and the trial included extinguishing bush, grass and scrub fires. The manufacturer provided the product mixing and application instructions prior to the trials. At the scrap yard fire, the product was provided and applied under guidance by the manufacturer to the large pile of burning scrap, which consisted of mainly compressed cars and other metal scrap products. During the fire, the manufacturer offered to provide the product MVP Clear which he claimed would put out the fire, which was proving difficult to extinguish. Experienced bush fire brigade volunteers and Career Fire and Rescue fire fighters tested the ETI Gel MVP Clear at a simulated bush fire scenario in the third test. The manufacturer again provided all the necessary information about its application prior to the tests. (4) The manufacturer has been provided with correspondence a number of times about the outcomes of the test. (5) Yes, but no more than many other products available on the market today. (6) The product has not demonstrated during the trials that it out performs any other similar product on the market. In fact it has one major draw back. Because it comes in a gel form, it requires pre-mixing. Career and volunteer fire fighters have rejected the pre mixing aspect because it is operationally limiting and there are many other products that do the same task which do not require this form of handling. (7) An industrial fire is too broad a category to provide a blanket answer. From the trial at the Smorgan scrap yard fire, it doesn’t appear to have any extinguishing characteristics different from other similar products on the market. (8) Yes, at the scrap yard fire. (9) It doesn’t appear so.
(3) Where did this testing take place and under what conditions? (4) Will the minister provide details of the outcomes of this testing? (5) Does this product have the potential to save houses that are threatened by bushfire? (6) If so, why is the Western Australian product not being used by FESA? (7) Does this product have the ability to put out industrial fires? (8) Has FESA tested this product on burning tyres? (9) Is this product superior to any that is on the market at present? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: On behalf of the minister representing the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, I thank Hon Robyn McSweeney for her comprehensive question. It is a comprehensive answer. I table the answer and seek leave for it to be incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1508.] The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Three times. (3) The testing was undertaken in quite different circumstances. In the first trials, the product was used at fire incidents by shifts of career fire fighters at a station where a bush fire vehicle was positioned. The second trial was at an actual fire at a scrap yard fire at Smorgon Steel, Jackson Street, Bassendean. The third was a controlled field trial involving a bush fire scenario. The trials involving career staff were undertaken during normal operations at a busy suburban fire station using their medium tanker. This vehicle is specifically designed for bush fire fighting and the trial included extinguishing bush, grass and scrub fires. The manufacturer provided the product mixing and application instructions prior to the trials. At the scrap yard fire, the product was provided and applied under guidance by the manufacturer to the large pile of burning scrap, which consisted of mainly compressed cars and other metal scrap products. During the fire, the manufacturer offered to provide the product MVP Clear which he claimed would put out the fire, which was proving difficult to extinguish. Experienced bush fire brigade volunteers and Career Fire and Rescue fire fighters tested the ETI Gel MVP Clear at a simulated bush fire scenario in the third test. The manufacturer again provided all the necessary information about its application prior to the tests. (4) The manufacturer has been provided with correspondence a number of times about the outcomes of the test. (5) Yes, but no more than many other products available on the market today. (6) The product has not demonstrated during the trials that it out performs any other similar product on the market. In fact it has one major draw back. Because it comes in a gel form, it requires pre-mixing. Career and volunteer fire fighters have rejected the pre mixing aspect because it is operationally limiting and there are many other products that do the same task which do not require this form of handling. (7) An industrial fire is too broad a category to provide a blanket answer. From the trial at the Smorgan scrap yard fire, it doesn’t appear to have any extinguishing characteristics different from other similar products on the market. (8) Yes, at the scrap yard fire. (9) It doesn’t appear so.
(4) Will the minister provide details of the outcomes of this testing? (5) Does this product have the potential to save houses that are threatened by bushfire? (6) If so, why is the Western Australian product not being used by FESA? (7) Does this product have the ability to put out industrial fires? (8) Has FESA tested this product on burning tyres? (9) Is this product superior to any that is on the market at present? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: On behalf of the minister representing the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, I thank Hon Robyn McSweeney for her comprehensive question. It is a comprehensive answer. I table the answer and seek leave for it to be incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1508.] The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Three times. (3) The testing was undertaken in quite different circumstances. In the first trials, the product was used at fire incidents by shifts of career fire fighters at a station where a bush fire vehicle was positioned. The second trial was at an actual fire at a scrap yard fire at Smorgon Steel, Jackson Street, Bassendean. The third was a controlled field trial involving a bush fire scenario. The trials involving career staff were undertaken during normal operations at a busy suburban fire station using their medium tanker. This vehicle is specifically designed for bush fire fighting and the trial included extinguishing bush, grass and scrub fires. The manufacturer provided the product mixing and application instructions prior to the trials. At the scrap yard fire, the product was provided and applied under guidance by the manufacturer to the large pile of burning scrap, which consisted of mainly compressed cars and other metal scrap products. During the fire, the manufacturer offered to provide the product MVP Clear which he claimed would put out the fire, which was proving difficult to extinguish. Experienced bush fire brigade volunteers and Career Fire and Rescue fire fighters tested the ETI Gel MVP Clear at a simulated bush fire scenario in the third test. The manufacturer again provided all the necessary information about its application prior to the tests. (4) The manufacturer has been provided with correspondence a number of times about the outcomes of the test. (5) Yes, but no more than many other products available on the market today. (6) The product has not demonstrated during the trials that it out performs any other similar product on the market. In fact it has one major draw back. Because it comes in a gel form, it requires pre-mixing. Career and volunteer fire fighters have rejected the pre mixing aspect because it is operationally limiting and there are many other products that do the same task which do not require this form of handling. (7) An industrial fire is too broad a category to provide a blanket answer. From the trial at the Smorgan scrap yard fire, it doesn’t appear to have any extinguishing characteristics different from other similar products on the market. (8) Yes, at the scrap yard fire. (9) It doesn’t appear so.
(5) Does this product have the potential to save houses that are threatened by bushfire? (6) If so, why is the Western Australian product not being used by FESA? (7) Does this product have the ability to put out industrial fires? (8) Has FESA tested this product on burning tyres? (9) Is this product superior to any that is on the market at present? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: On behalf of the minister representing the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, I thank Hon Robyn McSweeney for her comprehensive question. It is a comprehensive answer. I table the answer and seek leave for it to be incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1508.] The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Three times. (3) The testing was undertaken in quite different circumstances. In the first trials, the product was used at fire incidents by shifts of career fire fighters at a station where a bush fire vehicle was positioned. The second trial was at an actual fire at a scrap yard fire at Smorgon Steel, Jackson Street, Bassendean. The third was a controlled field trial involving a bush fire scenario. The trials involving career staff were undertaken during normal operations at a busy suburban fire station using their medium tanker. This vehicle is specifically designed for bush fire fighting and the trial included extinguishing bush, grass and scrub fires. The manufacturer provided the product mixing and application instructions prior to the trials. At the scrap yard fire, the product was provided and applied under guidance by the manufacturer to the large pile of burning scrap, which consisted of mainly compressed cars and other metal scrap products. During the fire, the manufacturer offered to provide the product MVP Clear which he claimed would put out the fire, which was proving difficult to extinguish. Experienced bush fire brigade volunteers and Career Fire and Rescue fire fighters tested the ETI Gel MVP Clear at a simulated bush fire scenario in the third test. The manufacturer again provided all the necessary information about its application prior to the tests. (4) The manufacturer has been provided with correspondence a number of times about the outcomes of the test. (5) Yes, but no more than many other products available on the market today. (6) The product has not demonstrated during the trials that it out performs any other similar product on the market. In fact it has one major draw back. Because it comes in a gel form, it requires pre-mixing. Career and volunteer fire fighters have rejected the pre mixing aspect because it is operationally limiting and there are many other products that do the same task which do not require this form of handling. (7) An industrial fire is too broad a category to provide a blanket answer. From the trial at the Smorgan scrap yard fire, it doesn’t appear to have any extinguishing characteristics different from other similar products on the market. (8) Yes, at the scrap yard fire. (9) It doesn’t appear so.
(6) If so, why is the Western Australian product not being used by FESA? (7) Does this product have the ability to put out industrial fires? (8) Has FESA tested this product on burning tyres? (9) Is this product superior to any that is on the market at present? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: On behalf of the minister representing the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, I thank Hon Robyn McSweeney for her comprehensive question. It is a comprehensive answer. I table the answer and seek leave for it to be incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1508.] The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Three times. (3) The testing was undertaken in quite different circumstances. In the first trials, the product was used at fire incidents by shifts of career fire fighters at a station where a bush fire vehicle was positioned. The second trial was at an actual fire at a scrap yard fire at Smorgon Steel, Jackson Street, Bassendean. The third was a controlled field trial involving a bush fire scenario. The trials involving career staff were undertaken during normal operations at a busy suburban fire station using their medium tanker. This vehicle is specifically designed for bush fire fighting and the trial included extinguishing bush, grass and scrub fires. The manufacturer provided the product mixing and application instructions prior to the trials. At the scrap yard fire, the product was provided and applied under guidance by the manufacturer to the large pile of burning scrap, which consisted of mainly compressed cars and other metal scrap products. During the fire, the manufacturer offered to provide the product MVP Clear which he claimed would put out the fire, which was proving difficult to extinguish. Experienced bush fire brigade volunteers and Career Fire and Rescue fire fighters tested the ETI Gel MVP Clear at a simulated bush fire scenario in the third test. The manufacturer again provided all the necessary information about its application prior to the tests. (4) The manufacturer has been provided with correspondence a number of times about the outcomes of the test. (5) Yes, but no more than many other products available on the market today. (6) The product has not demonstrated during the trials that it out performs any other similar product on the market. In fact it has one major draw back. Because it comes in a gel form, it requires pre-mixing. Career and volunteer fire fighters have rejected the pre mixing aspect because it is operationally limiting and there are many other products that do the same task which do not require this form of handling. (7) An industrial fire is too broad a category to provide a blanket answer. From the trial at the Smorgan scrap yard fire, it doesn’t appear to have any extinguishing characteristics different from other similar products on the market. (8) Yes, at the scrap yard fire. (9) It doesn’t appear so.
(7) Does this product have the ability to put out industrial fires? (8) Has FESA tested this product on burning tyres? (9) Is this product superior to any that is on the market at present? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: On behalf of the minister representing the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, I thank Hon Robyn McSweeney for her comprehensive question. It is a comprehensive answer. I table the answer and seek leave for it to be incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1508.] The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Three times. (3) The testing was undertaken in quite different circumstances. In the first trials, the product was used at fire incidents by shifts of career fire fighters at a station where a bush fire vehicle was positioned. The second trial was at an actual fire at a scrap yard fire at Smorgon Steel, Jackson Street, Bassendean. The third was a controlled field trial involving a bush fire scenario. The trials involving career staff were undertaken during normal operations at a busy suburban fire station using their medium tanker. This vehicle is specifically designed for bush fire fighting and the trial included extinguishing bush, grass and scrub fires. The manufacturer provided the product mixing and application instructions prior to the trials. At the scrap yard fire, the product was provided and applied under guidance by the manufacturer to the large pile of burning scrap, which consisted of mainly compressed cars and other metal scrap products. During the fire, the manufacturer offered to provide the product MVP Clear which he claimed would put out the fire, which was proving difficult to extinguish. Experienced bush fire brigade volunteers and Career Fire and Rescue fire fighters tested the ETI Gel MVP Clear at a simulated bush fire scenario in the third test. The manufacturer again provided all the necessary information about its application prior to the tests. (4) The manufacturer has been provided with correspondence a number of times about the outcomes of the test. (5) Yes, but no more than many other products available on the market today. (6) The product has not demonstrated during the trials that it out performs any other similar product on the market. In fact it has one major draw back. Because it comes in a gel form, it requires pre-mixing. Career and volunteer fire fighters have rejected the pre mixing aspect because it is operationally limiting and there are many other products that do the same task which do not require this form of handling. (7) An industrial fire is too broad a category to provide a blanket answer. From the trial at the Smorgan scrap yard fire, it doesn’t appear to have any extinguishing characteristics different from other similar products on the market. (8) Yes, at the scrap yard fire. (9) It doesn’t appear so.
(8) Has FESA tested this product on burning tyres? (9) Is this product superior to any that is on the market at present? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: On behalf of the minister representing the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, I thank Hon Robyn McSweeney for her comprehensive question. It is a comprehensive answer. I table the answer and seek leave for it to be incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1508.] The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Three times. (3) The testing was undertaken in quite different circumstances. In the first trials, the product was used at fire incidents by shifts of career fire fighters at a station where a bush fire vehicle was positioned. The second trial was at an actual fire at a scrap yard fire at Smorgon Steel, Jackson Street, Bassendean. The third was a controlled field trial involving a bush fire scenario. The trials involving career staff were undertaken during normal operations at a busy suburban fire station using their medium tanker. This vehicle is specifically designed for bush fire fighting and the trial included extinguishing bush, grass and scrub fires. The manufacturer provided the product mixing and application instructions prior to the trials. At the scrap yard fire, the product was provided and applied under guidance by the manufacturer to the large pile of burning scrap, which consisted of mainly compressed cars and other metal scrap products. During the fire, the manufacturer offered to provide the product MVP Clear which he claimed would put out the fire, which was proving difficult to extinguish. Experienced bush fire brigade volunteers and Career Fire and Rescue fire fighters tested the ETI Gel MVP Clear at a simulated bush fire scenario in the third test. The manufacturer again provided all the necessary information about its application prior to the tests. (4) The manufacturer has been provided with correspondence a number of times about the outcomes of the test. (5) Yes, but no more than many other products available on the market today. (6) The product has not demonstrated during the trials that it out performs any other similar product on the market. In fact it has one major draw back. Because it comes in a gel form, it requires pre-mixing. Career and volunteer fire fighters have rejected the pre mixing aspect because it is operationally limiting and there are many other products that do the same task which do not require this form of handling. (7) An industrial fire is too broad a category to provide a blanket answer. From the trial at the Smorgan scrap yard fire, it doesn’t appear to have any extinguishing characteristics different from other similar products on the market. (8) Yes, at the scrap yard fire. (9) It doesn’t appear so.
(9) Is this product superior to any that is on the market at present? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: On behalf of the minister representing the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, I thank Hon Robyn McSweeney for her comprehensive question. It is a comprehensive answer. I table the answer and seek leave for it to be incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1508.] The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Three times. (3) The testing was undertaken in quite different circumstances. In the first trials, the product was used at fire incidents by shifts of career fire fighters at a station where a bush fire vehicle was positioned. The second trial was at an actual fire at a scrap yard fire at Smorgon Steel, Jackson Street, Bassendean. The third was a controlled field trial involving a bush fire scenario. The trials involving career staff were undertaken during normal operations at a busy suburban fire station using their medium tanker. This vehicle is specifically designed for bush fire fighting and the trial included extinguishing bush, grass and scrub fires. The manufacturer provided the product mixing and application instructions prior to the trials. At the scrap yard fire, the product was provided and applied under guidance by the manufacturer to the large pile of burning scrap, which consisted of mainly compressed cars and other metal scrap products. During the fire, the manufacturer offered to provide the product MVP Clear which he claimed would put out the fire, which was proving difficult to extinguish. Experienced bush fire brigade volunteers and Career Fire and Rescue fire fighters tested the ETI Gel MVP Clear at a simulated bush fire scenario in the third test. The manufacturer again provided all the necessary information about its application prior to the tests. (4) The manufacturer has been provided with correspondence a number of times about the outcomes of the test. (5) Yes, but no more than many other products available on the market today. (6) The product has not demonstrated during the trials that it out performs any other similar product on the market. In fact it has one major draw back. Because it comes in a gel form, it requires pre-mixing. Career and volunteer fire fighters have rejected the pre mixing aspect because it is operationally limiting and there are many other products that do the same task which do not require this form of handling. (7) An industrial fire is too broad a category to provide a blanket answer. From the trial at the Smorgan scrap yard fire, it doesn’t appear to have any extinguishing characteristics different from other similar products on the market. (8) Yes, at the scrap yard fire. (9) It doesn’t appear so.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: On behalf of the minister representing the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, I thank Hon Robyn McSweeney for her comprehensive question. It is a comprehensive answer. I table the answer and seek leave for it to be incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1508.] The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Three times. (3) The testing was undertaken in quite different circumstances. In the first trials, the product was used at fire incidents by shifts of career fire fighters at a station where a bush fire vehicle was positioned. The second trial was at an actual fire at a scrap yard fire at Smorgon Steel, Jackson Street, Bassendean. The third was a controlled field trial involving a bush fire scenario. The trials involving career staff were undertaken during normal operations at a busy suburban fire station using their medium tanker. This vehicle is specifically designed for bush fire fighting and the trial included extinguishing bush, grass and scrub fires. The manufacturer provided the product mixing and application instructions prior to the trials. At the scrap yard fire, the product was provided and applied under guidance by the manufacturer to the large pile of burning scrap, which consisted of mainly compressed cars and other metal scrap products. During the fire, the manufacturer offered to provide the product MVP Clear which he claimed would put out the fire, which was proving difficult to extinguish. Experienced bush fire brigade volunteers and Career Fire and Rescue fire fighters tested the ETI Gel MVP Clear at a simulated bush fire scenario in the third test. The manufacturer again provided all the necessary information about its application prior to the tests. (4) The manufacturer has been provided with correspondence a number of times about the outcomes of the test. (5) Yes, but no more than many other products available on the market today. (6) The product has not demonstrated during the trials that it out performs any other similar product on the market. In fact it has one major draw back. Because it comes in a gel form, it requires pre-mixing. Career and volunteer fire fighters have rejected the pre mixing aspect because it is operationally limiting and there are many other products that do the same task which do not require this form of handling. (7) An industrial fire is too broad a category to provide a blanket answer. From the trial at the Smorgan scrap yard fire, it doesn’t appear to have any extinguishing characteristics different from other similar products on the market. (8) Yes, at the scrap yard fire. (9) It doesn’t appear so.
On behalf of the minister representing the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, I thank Hon Robyn McSweeney for her comprehensive question. It is a comprehensive answer. I table the answer and seek leave for it to be incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1508.] The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Three times. (3) The testing was undertaken in quite different circumstances. In the first trials, the product was used at fire incidents by shifts of career fire fighters at a station where a bush fire vehicle was positioned. The second trial was at an actual fire at a scrap yard fire at Smorgon Steel, Jackson Street, Bassendean. The third was a controlled field trial involving a bush fire scenario. The trials involving career staff were undertaken during normal operations at a busy suburban fire station using their medium tanker. This vehicle is specifically designed for bush fire fighting and the trial included extinguishing bush, grass and scrub fires. The manufacturer provided the product mixing and application instructions prior to the trials. At the scrap yard fire, the product was provided and applied under guidance by the manufacturer to the large pile of burning scrap, which consisted of mainly compressed cars and other metal scrap products. During the fire, the manufacturer offered to provide the product MVP Clear which he claimed would put out the fire, which was proving difficult to extinguish. Experienced bush fire brigade volunteers and Career Fire and Rescue fire fighters tested the ETI Gel MVP Clear at a simulated bush fire scenario in the third test. The manufacturer again provided all the necessary information about its application prior to the tests. (4) The manufacturer has been provided with correspondence a number of times about the outcomes of the test. (5) Yes, but no more than many other products available on the market today. (6) The product has not demonstrated during the trials that it out performs any other similar product on the market. In fact it has one major draw back. Because it comes in a gel form, it requires pre-mixing. Career and volunteer fire fighters have rejected the pre mixing aspect because it is operationally limiting and there are many other products that do the same task which do not require this form of handling. (7) An industrial fire is too broad a category to provide a blanket answer. From the trial at the Smorgan scrap yard fire, it doesn’t appear to have any extinguishing characteristics different from other similar products on the market. (8) Yes, at the scrap yard fire. (9) It doesn’t appear so.
Leave granted. [See paper 1508.] The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Three times. (3) The testing was undertaken in quite different circumstances. In the first trials, the product was used at fire incidents by shifts of career fire fighters at a station where a bush fire vehicle was positioned. The second trial was at an actual fire at a scrap yard fire at Smorgon Steel, Jackson Street, Bassendean. The third was a controlled field trial involving a bush fire scenario. The trials involving career staff were undertaken during normal operations at a busy suburban fire station using their medium tanker. This vehicle is specifically designed for bush fire fighting and the trial included extinguishing bush, grass and scrub fires. The manufacturer provided the product mixing and application instructions prior to the trials. At the scrap yard fire, the product was provided and applied under guidance by the manufacturer to the large pile of burning scrap, which consisted of mainly compressed cars and other metal scrap products. During the fire, the manufacturer offered to provide the product MVP Clear which he claimed would put out the fire, which was proving difficult to extinguish. Experienced bush fire brigade volunteers and Career Fire and Rescue fire fighters tested the ETI Gel MVP Clear at a simulated bush fire scenario in the third test. The manufacturer again provided all the necessary information about its application prior to the tests. (4) The manufacturer has been provided with correspondence a number of times about the outcomes of the test. (5) Yes, but no more than many other products available on the market today. (6) The product has not demonstrated during the trials that it out performs any other similar product on the market. In fact it has one major draw back. Because it comes in a gel form, it requires pre-mixing. Career and volunteer fire fighters have rejected the pre mixing aspect because it is operationally limiting and there are many other products that do the same task which do not require this form of handling. (7) An industrial fire is too broad a category to provide a blanket answer. From the trial at the Smorgan scrap yard fire, it doesn’t appear to have any extinguishing characteristics different from other similar products on the market. (8) Yes, at the scrap yard fire. (9) It doesn’t appear so.
[See paper 1508.] The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Three times. (3) The testing was undertaken in quite different circumstances. In the first trials, the product was used at fire incidents by shifts of career fire fighters at a station where a bush fire vehicle was positioned. The second trial was at an actual fire at a scrap yard fire at Smorgon Steel, Jackson Street, Bassendean. The third was a controlled field trial involving a bush fire scenario. The trials involving career staff were undertaken during normal operations at a busy suburban fire station using their medium tanker. This vehicle is specifically designed for bush fire fighting and the trial included extinguishing bush, grass and scrub fires. The manufacturer provided the product mixing and application instructions prior to the trials. At the scrap yard fire, the product was provided and applied under guidance by the manufacturer to the large pile of burning scrap, which consisted of mainly compressed cars and other metal scrap products. During the fire, the manufacturer offered to provide the product MVP Clear which he claimed would put out the fire, which was proving difficult to extinguish. Experienced bush fire brigade volunteers and Career Fire and Rescue fire fighters tested the ETI Gel MVP Clear at a simulated bush fire scenario in the third test. The manufacturer again provided all the necessary information about its application prior to the tests. (4) The manufacturer has been provided with correspondence a number of times about the outcomes of the test. (5) Yes, but no more than many other products available on the market today. (6) The product has not demonstrated during the trials that it out performs any other similar product on the market. In fact it has one major draw back. Because it comes in a gel form, it requires pre-mixing. Career and volunteer fire fighters have rejected the pre mixing aspect because it is operationally limiting and there are many other products that do the same task which do not require this form of handling. (7) An industrial fire is too broad a category to provide a blanket answer. From the trial at the Smorgan scrap yard fire, it doesn’t appear to have any extinguishing characteristics different from other similar products on the market. (8) Yes, at the scrap yard fire. (9) It doesn’t appear so.
The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Three times. (3) The testing was undertaken in quite different circumstances. In the first trials, the product was used at fire incidents by shifts of career fire fighters at a station where a bush fire vehicle was positioned. The second trial was at an actual fire at a scrap yard fire at Smorgon Steel, Jackson Street, Bassendean. The third was a controlled field trial involving a bush fire scenario. The trials involving career staff were undertaken during normal operations at a busy suburban fire station using their medium tanker. This vehicle is specifically designed for bush fire fighting and the trial included extinguishing bush, grass and scrub fires. The manufacturer provided the product mixing and application instructions prior to the trials. At the scrap yard fire, the product was provided and applied under guidance by the manufacturer to the large pile of burning scrap, which consisted of mainly compressed cars and other metal scrap products. During the fire, the manufacturer offered to provide the product MVP Clear which he claimed would put out the fire, which was proving difficult to extinguish. Experienced bush fire brigade volunteers and Career Fire and Rescue fire fighters tested the ETI Gel MVP Clear at a simulated bush fire scenario in the third test. The manufacturer again provided all the necessary information about its application prior to the tests. (4) The manufacturer has been provided with correspondence a number of times about the outcomes of the test. (5) Yes, but no more than many other products available on the market today. (6) The product has not demonstrated during the trials that it out performs any other similar product on the market. In fact it has one major draw back. Because it comes in a gel form, it requires pre-mixing. Career and volunteer fire fighters have rejected the pre mixing aspect because it is operationally limiting and there are many other products that do the same task which do not require this form of handling. (7) An industrial fire is too broad a category to provide a blanket answer. From the trial at the Smorgan scrap yard fire, it doesn’t appear to have any extinguishing characteristics different from other similar products on the market. (8) Yes, at the scrap yard fire. (9) It doesn’t appear so.
I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Three times. (3) The testing was undertaken in quite different circumstances. In the first trials, the product was used at fire incidents by shifts of career fire fighters at a station where a bush fire vehicle was positioned. The second trial was at an actual fire at a scrap yard fire at Smorgon Steel, Jackson Street, Bassendean. The third was a controlled field trial involving a bush fire scenario. The trials involving career staff were undertaken during normal operations at a busy suburban fire station using their medium tanker. This vehicle is specifically designed for bush fire fighting and the trial included extinguishing bush, grass and scrub fires. The manufacturer provided the product mixing and application instructions prior to the trials. At the scrap yard fire, the product was provided and applied under guidance by the manufacturer to the large pile of burning scrap, which consisted of mainly compressed cars and other metal scrap products. During the fire, the manufacturer offered to provide the product MVP Clear which he claimed would put out the fire, which was proving difficult to extinguish. Experienced bush fire brigade volunteers and Career Fire and Rescue fire fighters tested the ETI Gel MVP Clear at a simulated bush fire scenario in the third test. The manufacturer again provided all the necessary information about its application prior to the tests. (4) The manufacturer has been provided with correspondence a number of times about the outcomes of the test. (5) Yes, but no more than many other products available on the market today. (6) The product has not demonstrated during the trials that it out performs any other similar product on the market. In fact it has one major draw back. Because it comes in a gel form, it requires pre-mixing. Career and volunteer fire fighters have rejected the pre mixing aspect because it is operationally limiting and there are many other products that do the same task which do not require this form of handling. (7) An industrial fire is too broad a category to provide a blanket answer. From the trial at the Smorgan scrap yard fire, it doesn’t appear to have any extinguishing characteristics different from other similar products on the market. (8) Yes, at the scrap yard fire. (9) It doesn’t appear so.
I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Three times. (3) The testing was undertaken in quite different circumstances. In the first trials, the product was used at fire incidents by shifts of career fire fighters at a station where a bush fire vehicle was positioned. The second trial was at an actual fire at a scrap yard fire at Smorgon Steel, Jackson Street, Bassendean. The third was a controlled field trial involving a bush fire scenario. The trials involving career staff were undertaken during normal operations at a busy suburban fire station using their medium tanker. This vehicle is specifically designed for bush fire fighting and the trial included extinguishing bush, grass and scrub fires. The manufacturer provided the product mixing and application instructions prior to the trials. At the scrap yard fire, the product was provided and applied under guidance by the manufacturer to the large pile of burning scrap, which consisted of mainly compressed cars and other metal scrap products. During the fire, the manufacturer offered to provide the product MVP Clear which he claimed would put out the fire, which was proving difficult to extinguish. Experienced bush fire brigade volunteers and Career Fire and Rescue fire fighters tested the ETI Gel MVP Clear at a simulated bush fire scenario in the third test. The manufacturer again provided all the necessary information about its application prior to the tests. (4) The manufacturer has been provided with correspondence a number of times about the outcomes of the test. (5) Yes, but no more than many other products available on the market today. (6) The product has not demonstrated during the trials that it out performs any other similar product on the market. In fact it has one major draw back. Because it comes in a gel form, it requires pre-mixing. Career and volunteer fire fighters have rejected the pre mixing aspect because it is operationally limiting and there are many other products that do the same task which do not require this form of handling. (7) An industrial fire is too broad a category to provide a blanket answer. From the trial at the Smorgan scrap yard fire, it doesn’t appear to have any extinguishing characteristics different from other similar products on the market. (8) Yes, at the scrap yard fire. (9) It doesn’t appear so.
(1) Yes. (2) Three times. (3) The testing was undertaken in quite different circumstances. In the first trials, the product was used at fire incidents by shifts of career fire fighters at a station where a bush fire vehicle was positioned. The second trial was at an actual fire at a scrap yard fire at Smorgon Steel, Jackson Street, Bassendean. The third was a controlled field trial involving a bush fire scenario. The trials involving career staff were undertaken during normal operations at a busy suburban fire station using their medium tanker. This vehicle is specifically designed for bush fire fighting and the trial included extinguishing bush, grass and scrub fires. The manufacturer provided the product mixing and application instructions prior to the trials. At the scrap yard fire, the product was provided and applied under guidance by the manufacturer to the large pile of burning scrap, which consisted of mainly compressed cars and other metal scrap products. During the fire, the manufacturer offered to provide the product MVP Clear which he claimed would put out the fire, which was proving difficult to extinguish. Experienced bush fire brigade volunteers and Career Fire and Rescue fire fighters tested the ETI Gel MVP Clear at a simulated bush fire scenario in the third test. The manufacturer again provided all the necessary information about its application prior to the tests. (4) The manufacturer has been provided with correspondence a number of times about the outcomes of the test. (5) Yes, but no more than many other products available on the market today. (6) The product has not demonstrated during the trials that it out performs any other similar product on the market. In fact it has one major draw back. Because it comes in a gel form, it requires pre-mixing. Career and volunteer fire fighters have rejected the pre mixing aspect because it is operationally limiting and there are many other products that do the same task which do not require this form of handling. (7) An industrial fire is too broad a category to provide a blanket answer. From the trial at the Smorgan scrap yard fire, it doesn’t appear to have any extinguishing characteristics different from other similar products on the market. (8) Yes, at the scrap yard fire. (9) It doesn’t appear so.
(2) Three times. (3) The testing was undertaken in quite different circumstances. In the first trials, the product was used at fire incidents by shifts of career fire fighters at a station where a bush fire vehicle was positioned. The second trial was at an actual fire at a scrap yard fire at Smorgon Steel, Jackson Street, Bassendean. The third was a controlled field trial involving a bush fire scenario. The trials involving career staff were undertaken during normal operations at a busy suburban fire station using their medium tanker. This vehicle is specifically designed for bush fire fighting and the trial included extinguishing bush, grass and scrub fires. The manufacturer provided the product mixing and application instructions prior to the trials. At the scrap yard fire, the product was provided and applied under guidance by the manufacturer to the large pile of burning scrap, which consisted of mainly compressed cars and other metal scrap products. During the fire, the manufacturer offered to provide the product MVP Clear which he claimed would put out the fire, which was proving difficult to extinguish. Experienced bush fire brigade volunteers and Career Fire and Rescue fire fighters tested the ETI Gel MVP Clear at a simulated bush fire scenario in the third test. The manufacturer again provided all the necessary information about its application prior to the tests. (4) The manufacturer has been provided with correspondence a number of times about the outcomes of the test. (5) Yes, but no more than many other products available on the market today. (6) The product has not demonstrated during the trials that it out performs any other similar product on the market. In fact it has one major draw back. Because it comes in a gel form, it requires pre-mixing. Career and volunteer fire fighters have rejected the pre mixing aspect because it is operationally limiting and there are many other products that do the same task which do not require this form of handling. (7) An industrial fire is too broad a category to provide a blanket answer. From the trial at the Smorgan scrap yard fire, it doesn’t appear to have any extinguishing characteristics different from other similar products on the market. (8) Yes, at the scrap yard fire. (9) It doesn’t appear so.
(3) The testing was undertaken in quite different circumstances. In the first trials, the product was used at fire incidents by shifts of career fire fighters at a station where a bush fire vehicle was positioned. The second trial was at an actual fire at a scrap yard fire at Smorgon Steel, Jackson Street, Bassendean. The third was a controlled field trial involving a bush fire scenario. The trials involving career staff were undertaken during normal operations at a busy suburban fire station using their medium tanker. This vehicle is specifically designed for bush fire fighting and the trial included extinguishing bush, grass and scrub fires. The manufacturer provided the product mixing and application instructions prior to the trials. At the scrap yard fire, the product was provided and applied under guidance by the manufacturer to the large pile of burning scrap, which consisted of mainly compressed cars and other metal scrap products. During the fire, the manufacturer offered to provide the product MVP Clear which he claimed would put out the fire, which was proving difficult to extinguish. Experienced bush fire brigade volunteers and Career Fire and Rescue fire fighters tested the ETI Gel MVP Clear at a simulated bush fire scenario in the third test. The manufacturer again provided all the necessary information about its application prior to the tests. (4) The manufacturer has been provided with correspondence a number of times about the outcomes of the test. (5) Yes, but no more than many other products available on the market today. (6) The product has not demonstrated during the trials that it out performs any other similar product on the market. In fact it has one major draw back. Because it comes in a gel form, it requires pre-mixing. Career and volunteer fire fighters have rejected the pre mixing aspect because it is operationally limiting and there are many other products that do the same task which do not require this form of handling. (7) An industrial fire is too broad a category to provide a blanket answer. From the trial at the Smorgan scrap yard fire, it doesn’t appear to have any extinguishing characteristics different from other similar products on the market. (8) Yes, at the scrap yard fire. (9) It doesn’t appear so.
At the scrap yard fire, the product was provided and applied under guidance by the manufacturer to the large pile of burning scrap, which consisted of mainly compressed cars and other metal scrap products. During the fire, the manufacturer offered to provide the product MVP Clear which he claimed would put out the fire, which was proving difficult to extinguish. Experienced bush fire brigade volunteers and Career Fire and Rescue fire fighters tested the ETI Gel MVP Clear at a simulated bush fire scenario in the third test. The manufacturer again provided all the necessary information about its application prior to the tests.
Experienced bush fire brigade volunteers and Career Fire and Rescue fire fighters tested the ETI Gel MVP Clear at a simulated bush fire scenario in the third test. The manufacturer again provided all the necessary information about its application prior to the tests.
(5) Yes, but no more than many other products available on the market today. (6) The product has not demonstrated during the trials that it out performs any other similar product on the market. In fact it has one major draw back. Because it comes in a gel form, it requires pre-mixing. Career and volunteer fire fighters have rejected the pre mixing aspect because it is operationally limiting and there are many other products that do the same task which do not require this form of handling. (7) An industrial fire is too broad a category to provide a blanket answer. From the trial at the Smorgan scrap yard fire, it doesn’t appear to have any extinguishing characteristics different from other similar products on the market. (8) Yes, at the scrap yard fire. (9) It doesn’t appear so.
(6) The product has not demonstrated during the trials that it out performs any other similar product on the market. In fact it has one major draw back. Because it comes in a gel form, it requires pre-mixing. Career and volunteer fire fighters have rejected the pre mixing aspect because it is operationally limiting and there are many other products that do the same task which do not require this form of handling. (7) An industrial fire is too broad a category to provide a blanket answer. From the trial at the Smorgan scrap yard fire, it doesn’t appear to have any extinguishing characteristics different from other similar products on the market. (8) Yes, at the scrap yard fire. (9) It doesn’t appear so.
(7) An industrial fire is too broad a category to provide a blanket answer. From the trial at the Smorgan scrap yard fire, it doesn’t appear to have any extinguishing characteristics different from other similar products on the market. (8) Yes, at the scrap yard fire. (9) It doesn’t appear so.
(8) Yes, at the scrap yard fire. (9) It doesn’t appear so.
(9) It doesn’t appear so.
(1) Has this product been tested by the Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia? (2) If so, how many times has this product been tested by FESA? (3) Where did this testing take place and under what conditions? (4) Will the minister provide details of the outcomes of this testing? (5) Does this product have the potential to save houses that are threatened by bushfire? (6) If so, why is the Western Australian product not being used by FESA? (7) Does this product have the ability to put out industrial fires? (8) Has FESA tested this product on burning tyres? (9) Is this product superior to any that is on the market at present? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: On behalf of the minister representing the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, I thank Hon Robyn McSweeney for her comprehensive question. It is a comprehensive answer. I table the answer and seek leave for it to be incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1508.] The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Three times. (3) The testing was undertaken in quite different circumstances. In the first trials, the product was used at fire incidents by shifts of career fire fighters at a station where a bush fire vehicle was positioned. The second trial was at an actual fire at a scrap yard fire at Smorgon Steel, Jackson Street, Bassendean. The third was a controlled field trial involving a bush fire scenario. The trials involving career staff were undertaken during normal operations at a busy suburban fire station using their medium tanker. This vehicle is specifically designed for bush fire fighting and the trial included extinguishing bush, grass and scrub fires. The manufacturer provided the product mixing and application instructions prior to the trials. At the scrap yard fire, the product was provided and applied under guidance by the manufacturer to the large pile of burning scrap, which consisted of mainly compressed cars and other metal scrap products. During the fire, the manufacturer offered to provide the product MVP Clear which he claimed would put out the fire, which was proving difficult to extinguish. Experienced bush fire brigade volunteers and Career Fire and Rescue fire fighters tested the ETI Gel MVP Clear at a simulated bush fire scenario in the third test. The manufacturer again provided all the necessary information about its application prior to the tests. (4) The manufacturer has been provided with correspondence a number of times about the outcomes of the test. (5) Yes, but no more than many other products available on the market today. (6) The product has not demonstrated during the trials that it out performs any other similar product on the market. In fact it has one major draw back. Because it comes in a gel form, it requires pre-mixing. Career and volunteer fire fighters have rejected the pre mixing aspect because it is operationally limiting and there are many other products that do the same task which do not require this form of handling. (7) An industrial fire is too broad a category to provide a blanket answer. From the trial at the Smorgan scrap yard fire, it doesn’t appear to have any extinguishing characteristics different from other similar products on the market. (8) Yes, at the scrap yard fire. (9) It doesn’t appear so.
(2) If so, how many times has this product been tested by FESA? (3) Where did this testing take place and under what conditions? (4) Will the minister provide details of the outcomes of this testing? (5) Does this product have the potential to save houses that are threatened by bushfire? (6) If so, why is the Western Australian product not being used by FESA? (7) Does this product have the ability to put out industrial fires? (8) Has FESA tested this product on burning tyres? (9) Is this product superior to any that is on the market at present? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: On behalf of the minister representing the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, I thank Hon Robyn McSweeney for her comprehensive question. It is a comprehensive answer. I table the answer and seek leave for it to be incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1508.] The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Three times. (3) The testing was undertaken in quite different circumstances. In the first trials, the product was used at fire incidents by shifts of career fire fighters at a station where a bush fire vehicle was positioned. The second trial was at an actual fire at a scrap yard fire at Smorgon Steel, Jackson Street, Bassendean. The third was a controlled field trial involving a bush fire scenario. The trials involving career staff were undertaken during normal operations at a busy suburban fire station using their medium tanker. This vehicle is specifically designed for bush fire fighting and the trial included extinguishing bush, grass and scrub fires. The manufacturer provided the product mixing and application instructions prior to the trials. At the scrap yard fire, the product was provided and applied under guidance by the manufacturer to the large pile of burning scrap, which consisted of mainly compressed cars and other metal scrap products. During the fire, the manufacturer offered to provide the product MVP Clear which he claimed would put out the fire, which was proving difficult to extinguish. Experienced bush fire brigade volunteers and Career Fire and Rescue fire fighters tested the ETI Gel MVP Clear at a simulated bush fire scenario in the third test. The manufacturer again provided all the necessary information about its application prior to the tests. (4) The manufacturer has been provided with correspondence a number of times about the outcomes of the test. (5) Yes, but no more than many other products available on the market today. (6) The product has not demonstrated during the trials that it out performs any other similar product on the market. In fact it has one major draw back. Because it comes in a gel form, it requires pre-mixing. Career and volunteer fire fighters have rejected the pre mixing aspect because it is operationally limiting and there are many other products that do the same task which do not require this form of handling. (7) An industrial fire is too broad a category to provide a blanket answer. From the trial at the Smorgan scrap yard fire, it doesn’t appear to have any extinguishing characteristics different from other similar products on the market. (8) Yes, at the scrap yard fire. (9) It doesn’t appear so.
(3) Where did this testing take place and under what conditions? (4) Will the minister provide details of the outcomes of this testing? (5) Does this product have the potential to save houses that are threatened by bushfire? (6) If so, why is the Western Australian product not being used by FESA? (7) Does this product have the ability to put out industrial fires? (8) Has FESA tested this product on burning tyres? (9) Is this product superior to any that is on the market at present? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: On behalf of the minister representing the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, I thank Hon Robyn McSweeney for her comprehensive question. It is a comprehensive answer. I table the answer and seek leave for it to be incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1508.] The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Three times. (3) The testing was undertaken in quite different circumstances. In the first trials, the product was used at fire incidents by shifts of career fire fighters at a station where a bush fire vehicle was positioned. The second trial was at an actual fire at a scrap yard fire at Smorgon Steel, Jackson Street, Bassendean. The third was a controlled field trial involving a bush fire scenario. The trials involving career staff were undertaken during normal operations at a busy suburban fire station using their medium tanker. This vehicle is specifically designed for bush fire fighting and the trial included extinguishing bush, grass and scrub fires. The manufacturer provided the product mixing and application instructions prior to the trials. At the scrap yard fire, the product was provided and applied under guidance by the manufacturer to the large pile of burning scrap, which consisted of mainly compressed cars and other metal scrap products. During the fire, the manufacturer offered to provide the product MVP Clear which he claimed would put out the fire, which was proving difficult to extinguish. Experienced bush fire brigade volunteers and Career Fire and Rescue fire fighters tested the ETI Gel MVP Clear at a simulated bush fire scenario in the third test. The manufacturer again provided all the necessary information about its application prior to the tests. (4) The manufacturer has been provided with correspondence a number of times about the outcomes of the test. (5) Yes, but no more than many other products available on the market today. (6) The product has not demonstrated during the trials that it out performs any other similar product on the market. In fact it has one major draw back. Because it comes in a gel form, it requires pre-mixing. Career and volunteer fire fighters have rejected the pre mixing aspect because it is operationally limiting and there are many other products that do the same task which do not require this form of handling. (7) An industrial fire is too broad a category to provide a blanket answer. From the trial at the Smorgan scrap yard fire, it doesn’t appear to have any extinguishing characteristics different from other similar products on the market. (8) Yes, at the scrap yard fire. (9) It doesn’t appear so.
(4) Will the minister provide details of the outcomes of this testing? (5) Does this product have the potential to save houses that are threatened by bushfire? (6) If so, why is the Western Australian product not being used by FESA? (7) Does this product have the ability to put out industrial fires? (8) Has FESA tested this product on burning tyres? (9) Is this product superior to any that is on the market at present? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: On behalf of the minister representing the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, I thank Hon Robyn McSweeney for her comprehensive question. It is a comprehensive answer. I table the answer and seek leave for it to be incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1508.] The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Three times. (3) The testing was undertaken in quite different circumstances. In the first trials, the product was used at fire incidents by shifts of career fire fighters at a station where a bush fire vehicle was positioned. The second trial was at an actual fire at a scrap yard fire at Smorgon Steel, Jackson Street, Bassendean. The third was a controlled field trial involving a bush fire scenario. The trials involving career staff were undertaken during normal operations at a busy suburban fire station using their medium tanker. This vehicle is specifically designed for bush fire fighting and the trial included extinguishing bush, grass and scrub fires. The manufacturer provided the product mixing and application instructions prior to the trials. At the scrap yard fire, the product was provided and applied under guidance by the manufacturer to the large pile of burning scrap, which consisted of mainly compressed cars and other metal scrap products. During the fire, the manufacturer offered to provide the product MVP Clear which he claimed would put out the fire, which was proving difficult to extinguish. Experienced bush fire brigade volunteers and Career Fire and Rescue fire fighters tested the ETI Gel MVP Clear at a simulated bush fire scenario in the third test. The manufacturer again provided all the necessary information about its application prior to the tests. (4) The manufacturer has been provided with correspondence a number of times about the outcomes of the test. (5) Yes, but no more than many other products available on the market today. (6) The product has not demonstrated during the trials that it out performs any other similar product on the market. In fact it has one major draw back. Because it comes in a gel form, it requires pre-mixing. Career and volunteer fire fighters have rejected the pre mixing aspect because it is operationally limiting and there are many other products that do the same task which do not require this form of handling. (7) An industrial fire is too broad a category to provide a blanket answer. From the trial at the Smorgan scrap yard fire, it doesn’t appear to have any extinguishing characteristics different from other similar products on the market. (8) Yes, at the scrap yard fire. (9) It doesn’t appear so.
(5) Does this product have the potential to save houses that are threatened by bushfire? (6) If so, why is the Western Australian product not being used by FESA? (7) Does this product have the ability to put out industrial fires? (8) Has FESA tested this product on burning tyres? (9) Is this product superior to any that is on the market at present? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: On behalf of the minister representing the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, I thank Hon Robyn McSweeney for her comprehensive question. It is a comprehensive answer. I table the answer and seek leave for it to be incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1508.] The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Three times. (3) The testing was undertaken in quite different circumstances. In the first trials, the product was used at fire incidents by shifts of career fire fighters at a station where a bush fire vehicle was positioned. The second trial was at an actual fire at a scrap yard fire at Smorgon Steel, Jackson Street, Bassendean. The third was a controlled field trial involving a bush fire scenario. The trials involving career staff were undertaken during normal operations at a busy suburban fire station using their medium tanker. This vehicle is specifically designed for bush fire fighting and the trial included extinguishing bush, grass and scrub fires. The manufacturer provided the product mixing and application instructions prior to the trials. At the scrap yard fire, the product was provided and applied under guidance by the manufacturer to the large pile of burning scrap, which consisted of mainly compressed cars and other metal scrap products. During the fire, the manufacturer offered to provide the product MVP Clear which he claimed would put out the fire, which was proving difficult to extinguish. Experienced bush fire brigade volunteers and Career Fire and Rescue fire fighters tested the ETI Gel MVP Clear at a simulated bush fire scenario in the third test. The manufacturer again provided all the necessary information about its application prior to the tests. (4) The manufacturer has been provided with correspondence a number of times about the outcomes of the test. (5) Yes, but no more than many other products available on the market today. (6) The product has not demonstrated during the trials that it out performs any other similar product on the market. In fact it has one major draw back. Because it comes in a gel form, it requires pre-mixing. Career and volunteer fire fighters have rejected the pre mixing aspect because it is operationally limiting and there are many other products that do the same task which do not require this form of handling. (7) An industrial fire is too broad a category to provide a blanket answer. From the trial at the Smorgan scrap yard fire, it doesn’t appear to have any extinguishing characteristics different from other similar products on the market. (8) Yes, at the scrap yard fire. (9) It doesn’t appear so.
(6) If so, why is the Western Australian product not being used by FESA? (7) Does this product have the ability to put out industrial fires? (8) Has FESA tested this product on burning tyres? (9) Is this product superior to any that is on the market at present? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: On behalf of the minister representing the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, I thank Hon Robyn McSweeney for her comprehensive question. It is a comprehensive answer. I table the answer and seek leave for it to be incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1508.] The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Three times. (3) The testing was undertaken in quite different circumstances. In the first trials, the product was used at fire incidents by shifts of career fire fighters at a station where a bush fire vehicle was positioned. The second trial was at an actual fire at a scrap yard fire at Smorgon Steel, Jackson Street, Bassendean. The third was a controlled field trial involving a bush fire scenario. The trials involving career staff were undertaken during normal operations at a busy suburban fire station using their medium tanker. This vehicle is specifically designed for bush fire fighting and the trial included extinguishing bush, grass and scrub fires. The manufacturer provided the product mixing and application instructions prior to the trials. At the scrap yard fire, the product was provided and applied under guidance by the manufacturer to the large pile of burning scrap, which consisted of mainly compressed cars and other metal scrap products. During the fire, the manufacturer offered to provide the product MVP Clear which he claimed would put out the fire, which was proving difficult to extinguish. Experienced bush fire brigade volunteers and Career Fire and Rescue fire fighters tested the ETI Gel MVP Clear at a simulated bush fire scenario in the third test. The manufacturer again provided all the necessary information about its application prior to the tests. (4) The manufacturer has been provided with correspondence a number of times about the outcomes of the test. (5) Yes, but no more than many other products available on the market today. (6) The product has not demonstrated during the trials that it out performs any other similar product on the market. In fact it has one major draw back. Because it comes in a gel form, it requires pre-mixing. Career and volunteer fire fighters have rejected the pre mixing aspect because it is operationally limiting and there are many other products that do the same task which do not require this form of handling. (7) An industrial fire is too broad a category to provide a blanket answer. From the trial at the Smorgan scrap yard fire, it doesn’t appear to have any extinguishing characteristics different from other similar products on the market. (8) Yes, at the scrap yard fire. (9) It doesn’t appear so.
(7) Does this product have the ability to put out industrial fires? (8) Has FESA tested this product on burning tyres? (9) Is this product superior to any that is on the market at present? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: On behalf of the minister representing the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, I thank Hon Robyn McSweeney for her comprehensive question. It is a comprehensive answer. I table the answer and seek leave for it to be incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1508.] The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Three times. (3) The testing was undertaken in quite different circumstances. In the first trials, the product was used at fire incidents by shifts of career fire fighters at a station where a bush fire vehicle was positioned. The second trial was at an actual fire at a scrap yard fire at Smorgon Steel, Jackson Street, Bassendean. The third was a controlled field trial involving a bush fire scenario. The trials involving career staff were undertaken during normal operations at a busy suburban fire station using their medium tanker. This vehicle is specifically designed for bush fire fighting and the trial included extinguishing bush, grass and scrub fires. The manufacturer provided the product mixing and application instructions prior to the trials. At the scrap yard fire, the product was provided and applied under guidance by the manufacturer to the large pile of burning scrap, which consisted of mainly compressed cars and other metal scrap products. During the fire, the manufacturer offered to provide the product MVP Clear which he claimed would put out the fire, which was proving difficult to extinguish. Experienced bush fire brigade volunteers and Career Fire and Rescue fire fighters tested the ETI Gel MVP Clear at a simulated bush fire scenario in the third test. The manufacturer again provided all the necessary information about its application prior to the tests. (4) The manufacturer has been provided with correspondence a number of times about the outcomes of the test. (5) Yes, but no more than many other products available on the market today. (6) The product has not demonstrated during the trials that it out performs any other similar product on the market. In fact it has one major draw back. Because it comes in a gel form, it requires pre-mixing. Career and volunteer fire fighters have rejected the pre mixing aspect because it is operationally limiting and there are many other products that do the same task which do not require this form of handling. (7) An industrial fire is too broad a category to provide a blanket answer. From the trial at the Smorgan scrap yard fire, it doesn’t appear to have any extinguishing characteristics different from other similar products on the market. (8) Yes, at the scrap yard fire. (9) It doesn’t appear so.
(8) Has FESA tested this product on burning tyres? (9) Is this product superior to any that is on the market at present? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: On behalf of the minister representing the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, I thank Hon Robyn McSweeney for her comprehensive question. It is a comprehensive answer. I table the answer and seek leave for it to be incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1508.] The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Three times. (3) The testing was undertaken in quite different circumstances. In the first trials, the product was used at fire incidents by shifts of career fire fighters at a station where a bush fire vehicle was positioned. The second trial was at an actual fire at a scrap yard fire at Smorgon Steel, Jackson Street, Bassendean. The third was a controlled field trial involving a bush fire scenario. The trials involving career staff were undertaken during normal operations at a busy suburban fire station using their medium tanker. This vehicle is specifically designed for bush fire fighting and the trial included extinguishing bush, grass and scrub fires. The manufacturer provided the product mixing and application instructions prior to the trials. At the scrap yard fire, the product was provided and applied under guidance by the manufacturer to the large pile of burning scrap, which consisted of mainly compressed cars and other metal scrap products. During the fire, the manufacturer offered to provide the product MVP Clear which he claimed would put out the fire, which was proving difficult to extinguish. Experienced bush fire brigade volunteers and Career Fire and Rescue fire fighters tested the ETI Gel MVP Clear at a simulated bush fire scenario in the third test. The manufacturer again provided all the necessary information about its application prior to the tests. (4) The manufacturer has been provided with correspondence a number of times about the outcomes of the test. (5) Yes, but no more than many other products available on the market today. (6) The product has not demonstrated during the trials that it out performs any other similar product on the market. In fact it has one major draw back. Because it comes in a gel form, it requires pre-mixing. Career and volunteer fire fighters have rejected the pre mixing aspect because it is operationally limiting and there are many other products that do the same task which do not require this form of handling. (7) An industrial fire is too broad a category to provide a blanket answer. From the trial at the Smorgan scrap yard fire, it doesn’t appear to have any extinguishing characteristics different from other similar products on the market. (8) Yes, at the scrap yard fire. (9) It doesn’t appear so.
(9) Is this product superior to any that is on the market at present? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: On behalf of the minister representing the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, I thank Hon Robyn McSweeney for her comprehensive question. It is a comprehensive answer. I table the answer and seek leave for it to be incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1508.] The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Three times. (3) The testing was undertaken in quite different circumstances. In the first trials, the product was used at fire incidents by shifts of career fire fighters at a station where a bush fire vehicle was positioned. The second trial was at an actual fire at a scrap yard fire at Smorgon Steel, Jackson Street, Bassendean. The third was a controlled field trial involving a bush fire scenario. The trials involving career staff were undertaken during normal operations at a busy suburban fire station using their medium tanker. This vehicle is specifically designed for bush fire fighting and the trial included extinguishing bush, grass and scrub fires. The manufacturer provided the product mixing and application instructions prior to the trials. At the scrap yard fire, the product was provided and applied under guidance by the manufacturer to the large pile of burning scrap, which consisted of mainly compressed cars and other metal scrap products. During the fire, the manufacturer offered to provide the product MVP Clear which he claimed would put out the fire, which was proving difficult to extinguish. Experienced bush fire brigade volunteers and Career Fire and Rescue fire fighters tested the ETI Gel MVP Clear at a simulated bush fire scenario in the third test. The manufacturer again provided all the necessary information about its application prior to the tests. (4) The manufacturer has been provided with correspondence a number of times about the outcomes of the test. (5) Yes, but no more than many other products available on the market today. (6) The product has not demonstrated during the trials that it out performs any other similar product on the market. In fact it has one major draw back. Because it comes in a gel form, it requires pre-mixing. Career and volunteer fire fighters have rejected the pre mixing aspect because it is operationally limiting and there are many other products that do the same task which do not require this form of handling. (7) An industrial fire is too broad a category to provide a blanket answer. From the trial at the Smorgan scrap yard fire, it doesn’t appear to have any extinguishing characteristics different from other similar products on the market. (8) Yes, at the scrap yard fire. (9) It doesn’t appear so.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: On behalf of the minister representing the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, I thank Hon Robyn McSweeney for her comprehensive question. It is a comprehensive answer. I table the answer and seek leave for it to be incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1508.] The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Three times. (3) The testing was undertaken in quite different circumstances. In the first trials, the product was used at fire incidents by shifts of career fire fighters at a station where a bush fire vehicle was positioned. The second trial was at an actual fire at a scrap yard fire at Smorgon Steel, Jackson Street, Bassendean. The third was a controlled field trial involving a bush fire scenario. The trials involving career staff were undertaken during normal operations at a busy suburban fire station using their medium tanker. This vehicle is specifically designed for bush fire fighting and the trial included extinguishing bush, grass and scrub fires. The manufacturer provided the product mixing and application instructions prior to the trials. At the scrap yard fire, the product was provided and applied under guidance by the manufacturer to the large pile of burning scrap, which consisted of mainly compressed cars and other metal scrap products. During the fire, the manufacturer offered to provide the product MVP Clear which he claimed would put out the fire, which was proving difficult to extinguish. Experienced bush fire brigade volunteers and Career Fire and Rescue fire fighters tested the ETI Gel MVP Clear at a simulated bush fire scenario in the third test. The manufacturer again provided all the necessary information about its application prior to the tests. (4) The manufacturer has been provided with correspondence a number of times about the outcomes of the test. (5) Yes, but no more than many other products available on the market today. (6) The product has not demonstrated during the trials that it out performs any other similar product on the market. In fact it has one major draw back. Because it comes in a gel form, it requires pre-mixing. Career and volunteer fire fighters have rejected the pre mixing aspect because it is operationally limiting and there are many other products that do the same task which do not require this form of handling. (7) An industrial fire is too broad a category to provide a blanket answer. From the trial at the Smorgan scrap yard fire, it doesn’t appear to have any extinguishing characteristics different from other similar products on the market. (8) Yes, at the scrap yard fire. (9) It doesn’t appear so.
On behalf of the minister representing the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, I thank Hon Robyn McSweeney for her comprehensive question. It is a comprehensive answer. I table the answer and seek leave for it to be incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1508.] The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Three times. (3) The testing was undertaken in quite different circumstances. In the first trials, the product was used at fire incidents by shifts of career fire fighters at a station where a bush fire vehicle was positioned. The second trial was at an actual fire at a scrap yard fire at Smorgon Steel, Jackson Street, Bassendean. The third was a controlled field trial involving a bush fire scenario. The trials involving career staff were undertaken during normal operations at a busy suburban fire station using their medium tanker. This vehicle is specifically designed for bush fire fighting and the trial included extinguishing bush, grass and scrub fires. The manufacturer provided the product mixing and application instructions prior to the trials. At the scrap yard fire, the product was provided and applied under guidance by the manufacturer to the large pile of burning scrap, which consisted of mainly compressed cars and other metal scrap products. During the fire, the manufacturer offered to provide the product MVP Clear which he claimed would put out the fire, which was proving difficult to extinguish. Experienced bush fire brigade volunteers and Career Fire and Rescue fire fighters tested the ETI Gel MVP Clear at a simulated bush fire scenario in the third test. The manufacturer again provided all the necessary information about its application prior to the tests. (4) The manufacturer has been provided with correspondence a number of times about the outcomes of the test. (5) Yes, but no more than many other products available on the market today. (6) The product has not demonstrated during the trials that it out performs any other similar product on the market. In fact it has one major draw back. Because it comes in a gel form, it requires pre-mixing. Career and volunteer fire fighters have rejected the pre mixing aspect because it is operationally limiting and there are many other products that do the same task which do not require this form of handling. (7) An industrial fire is too broad a category to provide a blanket answer. From the trial at the Smorgan scrap yard fire, it doesn’t appear to have any extinguishing characteristics different from other similar products on the market. (8) Yes, at the scrap yard fire. (9) It doesn’t appear so.
Leave granted. [See paper 1508.] The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Three times. (3) The testing was undertaken in quite different circumstances. In the first trials, the product was used at fire incidents by shifts of career fire fighters at a station where a bush fire vehicle was positioned. The second trial was at an actual fire at a scrap yard fire at Smorgon Steel, Jackson Street, Bassendean. The third was a controlled field trial involving a bush fire scenario. The trials involving career staff were undertaken during normal operations at a busy suburban fire station using their medium tanker. This vehicle is specifically designed for bush fire fighting and the trial included extinguishing bush, grass and scrub fires. The manufacturer provided the product mixing and application instructions prior to the trials. At the scrap yard fire, the product was provided and applied under guidance by the manufacturer to the large pile of burning scrap, which consisted of mainly compressed cars and other metal scrap products. During the fire, the manufacturer offered to provide the product MVP Clear which he claimed would put out the fire, which was proving difficult to extinguish. Experienced bush fire brigade volunteers and Career Fire and Rescue fire fighters tested the ETI Gel MVP Clear at a simulated bush fire scenario in the third test. The manufacturer again provided all the necessary information about its application prior to the tests. (4) The manufacturer has been provided with correspondence a number of times about the outcomes of the test. (5) Yes, but no more than many other products available on the market today. (6) The product has not demonstrated during the trials that it out performs any other similar product on the market. In fact it has one major draw back. Because it comes in a gel form, it requires pre-mixing. Career and volunteer fire fighters have rejected the pre mixing aspect because it is operationally limiting and there are many other products that do the same task which do not require this form of handling. (7) An industrial fire is too broad a category to provide a blanket answer. From the trial at the Smorgan scrap yard fire, it doesn’t appear to have any extinguishing characteristics different from other similar products on the market. (8) Yes, at the scrap yard fire. (9) It doesn’t appear so.
[See paper 1508.] The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Three times. (3) The testing was undertaken in quite different circumstances. In the first trials, the product was used at fire incidents by shifts of career fire fighters at a station where a bush fire vehicle was positioned. The second trial was at an actual fire at a scrap yard fire at Smorgon Steel, Jackson Street, Bassendean. The third was a controlled field trial involving a bush fire scenario. The trials involving career staff were undertaken during normal operations at a busy suburban fire station using their medium tanker. This vehicle is specifically designed for bush fire fighting and the trial included extinguishing bush, grass and scrub fires. The manufacturer provided the product mixing and application instructions prior to the trials. At the scrap yard fire, the product was provided and applied under guidance by the manufacturer to the large pile of burning scrap, which consisted of mainly compressed cars and other metal scrap products. During the fire, the manufacturer offered to provide the product MVP Clear which he claimed would put out the fire, which was proving difficult to extinguish. Experienced bush fire brigade volunteers and Career Fire and Rescue fire fighters tested the ETI Gel MVP Clear at a simulated bush fire scenario in the third test. The manufacturer again provided all the necessary information about its application prior to the tests. (4) The manufacturer has been provided with correspondence a number of times about the outcomes of the test. (5) Yes, but no more than many other products available on the market today. (6) The product has not demonstrated during the trials that it out performs any other similar product on the market. In fact it has one major draw back. Because it comes in a gel form, it requires pre-mixing. Career and volunteer fire fighters have rejected the pre mixing aspect because it is operationally limiting and there are many other products that do the same task which do not require this form of handling. (7) An industrial fire is too broad a category to provide a blanket answer. From the trial at the Smorgan scrap yard fire, it doesn’t appear to have any extinguishing characteristics different from other similar products on the market. (8) Yes, at the scrap yard fire. (9) It doesn’t appear so.
The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Three times. (3) The testing was undertaken in quite different circumstances. In the first trials, the product was used at fire incidents by shifts of career fire fighters at a station where a bush fire vehicle was positioned. The second trial was at an actual fire at a scrap yard fire at Smorgon Steel, Jackson Street, Bassendean. The third was a controlled field trial involving a bush fire scenario. The trials involving career staff were undertaken during normal operations at a busy suburban fire station using their medium tanker. This vehicle is specifically designed for bush fire fighting and the trial included extinguishing bush, grass and scrub fires. The manufacturer provided the product mixing and application instructions prior to the trials. At the scrap yard fire, the product was provided and applied under guidance by the manufacturer to the large pile of burning scrap, which consisted of mainly compressed cars and other metal scrap products. During the fire, the manufacturer offered to provide the product MVP Clear which he claimed would put out the fire, which was proving difficult to extinguish. Experienced bush fire brigade volunteers and Career Fire and Rescue fire fighters tested the ETI Gel MVP Clear at a simulated bush fire scenario in the third test. The manufacturer again provided all the necessary information about its application prior to the tests. (4) The manufacturer has been provided with correspondence a number of times about the outcomes of the test. (5) Yes, but no more than many other products available on the market today. (6) The product has not demonstrated during the trials that it out performs any other similar product on the market. In fact it has one major draw back. Because it comes in a gel form, it requires pre-mixing. Career and volunteer fire fighters have rejected the pre mixing aspect because it is operationally limiting and there are many other products that do the same task which do not require this form of handling. (7) An industrial fire is too broad a category to provide a blanket answer. From the trial at the Smorgan scrap yard fire, it doesn’t appear to have any extinguishing characteristics different from other similar products on the market. (8) Yes, at the scrap yard fire. (9) It doesn’t appear so.
I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Three times. (3) The testing was undertaken in quite different circumstances. In the first trials, the product was used at fire incidents by shifts of career fire fighters at a station where a bush fire vehicle was positioned. The second trial was at an actual fire at a scrap yard fire at Smorgon Steel, Jackson Street, Bassendean. The third was a controlled field trial involving a bush fire scenario. The trials involving career staff were undertaken during normal operations at a busy suburban fire station using their medium tanker. This vehicle is specifically designed for bush fire fighting and the trial included extinguishing bush, grass and scrub fires. The manufacturer provided the product mixing and application instructions prior to the trials. At the scrap yard fire, the product was provided and applied under guidance by the manufacturer to the large pile of burning scrap, which consisted of mainly compressed cars and other metal scrap products. During the fire, the manufacturer offered to provide the product MVP Clear which he claimed would put out the fire, which was proving difficult to extinguish. Experienced bush fire brigade volunteers and Career Fire and Rescue fire fighters tested the ETI Gel MVP Clear at a simulated bush fire scenario in the third test. The manufacturer again provided all the necessary information about its application prior to the tests. (4) The manufacturer has been provided with correspondence a number of times about the outcomes of the test. (5) Yes, but no more than many other products available on the market today. (6) The product has not demonstrated during the trials that it out performs any other similar product on the market. In fact it has one major draw back. Because it comes in a gel form, it requires pre-mixing. Career and volunteer fire fighters have rejected the pre mixing aspect because it is operationally limiting and there are many other products that do the same task which do not require this form of handling. (7) An industrial fire is too broad a category to provide a blanket answer. From the trial at the Smorgan scrap yard fire, it doesn’t appear to have any extinguishing characteristics different from other similar products on the market. (8) Yes, at the scrap yard fire. (9) It doesn’t appear so.
I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Three times. (3) The testing was undertaken in quite different circumstances. In the first trials, the product was used at fire incidents by shifts of career fire fighters at a station where a bush fire vehicle was positioned. The second trial was at an actual fire at a scrap yard fire at Smorgon Steel, Jackson Street, Bassendean. The third was a controlled field trial involving a bush fire scenario. The trials involving career staff were undertaken during normal operations at a busy suburban fire station using their medium tanker. This vehicle is specifically designed for bush fire fighting and the trial included extinguishing bush, grass and scrub fires. The manufacturer provided the product mixing and application instructions prior to the trials. At the scrap yard fire, the product was provided and applied under guidance by the manufacturer to the large pile of burning scrap, which consisted of mainly compressed cars and other metal scrap products. During the fire, the manufacturer offered to provide the product MVP Clear which he claimed would put out the fire, which was proving difficult to extinguish. Experienced bush fire brigade volunteers and Career Fire and Rescue fire fighters tested the ETI Gel MVP Clear at a simulated bush fire scenario in the third test. The manufacturer again provided all the necessary information about its application prior to the tests. (4) The manufacturer has been provided with correspondence a number of times about the outcomes of the test. (5) Yes, but no more than many other products available on the market today. (6) The product has not demonstrated during the trials that it out performs any other similar product on the market. In fact it has one major draw back. Because it comes in a gel form, it requires pre-mixing. Career and volunteer fire fighters have rejected the pre mixing aspect because it is operationally limiting and there are many other products that do the same task which do not require this form of handling. (7) An industrial fire is too broad a category to provide a blanket answer. From the trial at the Smorgan scrap yard fire, it doesn’t appear to have any extinguishing characteristics different from other similar products on the market. (8) Yes, at the scrap yard fire. (9) It doesn’t appear so.
(1) Yes. (2) Three times. (3) The testing was undertaken in quite different circumstances. In the first trials, the product was used at fire incidents by shifts of career fire fighters at a station where a bush fire vehicle was positioned. The second trial was at an actual fire at a scrap yard fire at Smorgon Steel, Jackson Street, Bassendean. The third was a controlled field trial involving a bush fire scenario. The trials involving career staff were undertaken during normal operations at a busy suburban fire station using their medium tanker. This vehicle is specifically designed for bush fire fighting and the trial included extinguishing bush, grass and scrub fires. The manufacturer provided the product mixing and application instructions prior to the trials. At the scrap yard fire, the product was provided and applied under guidance by the manufacturer to the large pile of burning scrap, which consisted of mainly compressed cars and other metal scrap products. During the fire, the manufacturer offered to provide the product MVP Clear which he claimed would put out the fire, which was proving difficult to extinguish. Experienced bush fire brigade volunteers and Career Fire and Rescue fire fighters tested the ETI Gel MVP Clear at a simulated bush fire scenario in the third test. The manufacturer again provided all the necessary information about its application prior to the tests. (4) The manufacturer has been provided with correspondence a number of times about the outcomes of the test. (5) Yes, but no more than many other products available on the market today. (6) The product has not demonstrated during the trials that it out performs any other similar product on the market. In fact it has one major draw back. Because it comes in a gel form, it requires pre-mixing. Career and volunteer fire fighters have rejected the pre mixing aspect because it is operationally limiting and there are many other products that do the same task which do not require this form of handling. (7) An industrial fire is too broad a category to provide a blanket answer. From the trial at the Smorgan scrap yard fire, it doesn’t appear to have any extinguishing characteristics different from other similar products on the market. (8) Yes, at the scrap yard fire. (9) It doesn’t appear so.
(2) Three times. (3) The testing was undertaken in quite different circumstances. In the first trials, the product was used at fire incidents by shifts of career fire fighters at a station where a bush fire vehicle was positioned. The second trial was at an actual fire at a scrap yard fire at Smorgon Steel, Jackson Street, Bassendean. The third was a controlled field trial involving a bush fire scenario. The trials involving career staff were undertaken during normal operations at a busy suburban fire station using their medium tanker. This vehicle is specifically designed for bush fire fighting and the trial included extinguishing bush, grass and scrub fires. The manufacturer provided the product mixing and application instructions prior to the trials. At the scrap yard fire, the product was provided and applied under guidance by the manufacturer to the large pile of burning scrap, which consisted of mainly compressed cars and other metal scrap products. During the fire, the manufacturer offered to provide the product MVP Clear which he claimed would put out the fire, which was proving difficult to extinguish. Experienced bush fire brigade volunteers and Career Fire and Rescue fire fighters tested the ETI Gel MVP Clear at a simulated bush fire scenario in the third test. The manufacturer again provided all the necessary information about its application prior to the tests. (4) The manufacturer has been provided with correspondence a number of times about the outcomes of the test. (5) Yes, but no more than many other products available on the market today. (6) The product has not demonstrated during the trials that it out performs any other similar product on the market. In fact it has one major draw back. Because it comes in a gel form, it requires pre-mixing. Career and volunteer fire fighters have rejected the pre mixing aspect because it is operationally limiting and there are many other products that do the same task which do not require this form of handling. (7) An industrial fire is too broad a category to provide a blanket answer. From the trial at the Smorgan scrap yard fire, it doesn’t appear to have any extinguishing characteristics different from other similar products on the market. (8) Yes, at the scrap yard fire. (9) It doesn’t appear so.
(3) The testing was undertaken in quite different circumstances. In the first trials, the product was used at fire incidents by shifts of career fire fighters at a station where a bush fire vehicle was positioned. The second trial was at an actual fire at a scrap yard fire at Smorgon Steel, Jackson Street, Bassendean. The third was a controlled field trial involving a bush fire scenario. The trials involving career staff were undertaken during normal operations at a busy suburban fire station using their medium tanker. This vehicle is specifically designed for bush fire fighting and the trial included extinguishing bush, grass and scrub fires. The manufacturer provided the product mixing and application instructions prior to the trials. At the scrap yard fire, the product was provided and applied under guidance by the manufacturer to the large pile of burning scrap, which consisted of mainly compressed cars and other metal scrap products. During the fire, the manufacturer offered to provide the product MVP Clear which he claimed would put out the fire, which was proving difficult to extinguish. Experienced bush fire brigade volunteers and Career Fire and Rescue fire fighters tested the ETI Gel MVP Clear at a simulated bush fire scenario in the third test. The manufacturer again provided all the necessary information about its application prior to the tests. (4) The manufacturer has been provided with correspondence a number of times about the outcomes of the test. (5) Yes, but no more than many other products available on the market today. (6) The product has not demonstrated during the trials that it out performs any other similar product on the market. In fact it has one major draw back. Because it comes in a gel form, it requires pre-mixing. Career and volunteer fire fighters have rejected the pre mixing aspect because it is operationally limiting and there are many other products that do the same task which do not require this form of handling. (7) An industrial fire is too broad a category to provide a blanket answer. From the trial at the Smorgan scrap yard fire, it doesn’t appear to have any extinguishing characteristics different from other similar products on the market. (8) Yes, at the scrap yard fire. (9) It doesn’t appear so.
At the scrap yard fire, the product was provided and applied under guidance by the manufacturer to the large pile of burning scrap, which consisted of mainly compressed cars and other metal scrap products. During the fire, the manufacturer offered to provide the product MVP Clear which he claimed would put out the fire, which was proving difficult to extinguish. Experienced bush fire brigade volunteers and Career Fire and Rescue fire fighters tested the ETI Gel MVP Clear at a simulated bush fire scenario in the third test. The manufacturer again provided all the necessary information about its application prior to the tests.
Experienced bush fire brigade volunteers and Career Fire and Rescue fire fighters tested the ETI Gel MVP Clear at a simulated bush fire scenario in the third test. The manufacturer again provided all the necessary information about its application prior to the tests.
(5) Yes, but no more than many other products available on the market today. (6) The product has not demonstrated during the trials that it out performs any other similar product on the market. In fact it has one major draw back. Because it comes in a gel form, it requires pre-mixing. Career and volunteer fire fighters have rejected the pre mixing aspect because it is operationally limiting and there are many other products that do the same task which do not require this form of handling. (7) An industrial fire is too broad a category to provide a blanket answer. From the trial at the Smorgan scrap yard fire, it doesn’t appear to have any extinguishing characteristics different from other similar products on the market. (8) Yes, at the scrap yard fire. (9) It doesn’t appear so.
(6) The product has not demonstrated during the trials that it out performs any other similar product on the market. In fact it has one major draw back. Because it comes in a gel form, it requires pre-mixing. Career and volunteer fire fighters have rejected the pre mixing aspect because it is operationally limiting and there are many other products that do the same task which do not require this form of handling. (7) An industrial fire is too broad a category to provide a blanket answer. From the trial at the Smorgan scrap yard fire, it doesn’t appear to have any extinguishing characteristics different from other similar products on the market. (8) Yes, at the scrap yard fire. (9) It doesn’t appear so.
(7) An industrial fire is too broad a category to provide a blanket answer. From the trial at the Smorgan scrap yard fire, it doesn’t appear to have any extinguishing characteristics different from other similar products on the market. (8) Yes, at the scrap yard fire. (9) It doesn’t appear so.
(8) Yes, at the scrap yard fire. (9) It doesn’t appear so.
(9) It doesn’t appear so.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.