Bristol warehouse fire chemicals entered Brislington Brook and may have killed eels
The Environment Agency has confirmed that chemicals from firewater runoff at a Bristol warehouse fire entered Brislington Brook and may have caused eel deaths, with its investigation ongoing.
The Full Story
A plain summary built from the channels that reported this story.
The Environment Agency has confirmed that chemicals from firewater runoff at a Bristol warehouse fire entered Brislington Brook and spread downstream. Its assessment indicates that eel deaths found in the water may have resulted from a combination of factors, including multiple chemicals acting together and pollution levels changing throughout the incident.
Dead eels were found within a week of the fire at a warehouse in Brislington. Five weeks on, people who look after the brook say they are still very concerned about its condition. One said: "This should be full of little fish and invertebrates and it's not. It's murky and, yes, very upsetting."
The fire water runoff had been a concern for local guardians from the start. They feared that water used to put out the fire could have polluted the brook. The Environment Agency's investigation continues, and it has cautioned that chemical incidents are always complex.
Those who look after Brislington Brook want someone held to account. They say repairs and restoration will cost money. They want to bring back eels and other lost fish and wildlife, and they want action to stop similar pollution happening again.
Avon Fire and Rescue Service said reducing the impact of contaminants on the local environment is extremely important to it. It said it works closely with the Environment Agency. During the fire, it took steps to stop contaminants spreading by blocking drains around the site and by containing runoff water where possible.
Residents saw foam on the river after the incident, but Avon Fire and Rescue Service said it did not use any fire suppressant foam during the fire. The cause of the eel deaths and the full scale of the damage remain under investigation.
The guardians of the brook want the polluter, whoever that may be, to pay for improvements. However, a single source for the pollution may never be found.
On screen
Stills are sampled automatically at 60-second intervals. Where shown, the still is the nearest available frame from the relevant broadcast segment and is included to show what was on screen during that part of the broadcast. A still may not correspond to the exact second of a quoted phrase.
Key Claims
Claims reported during this story's coverage, grouped by how many channels reported each one. Select a dot to see the source excerpt.
| Claim |  |
|---|---|
| Only on one channel | |
| Avon Fire and Rescue Service acted to limit contaminant spread by blocking drains and containing runoff where possible. | |
| Environment Agency sampling found that chemicals from firewater runoff entered Brislington Brook and spread downstream. | |
| The Environment Agency said eel deaths may have resulted from a combination of factors, including multiple chemicals and changing pollution levels. | |
Channel Perspectives
What each channel focused on, with key quotes.
The report focused on the Environment Agency's confirmation that firewater chemicals reached Brislington Brook and on local concern about eel deaths. It gave space to the guardians of the brook, who want accountability and restoration, and included Avon Fire and Rescue Service's account of drain blocking and containment. It also noted that a single pollution source may never be found.
- “This should be full of little fish and invertebrates and it's not. It's murky and, yes, very upsetting.”
- “our assessment indicates the eel deaths may have resulted from a combination of factors including multiple chemicals acting together and the levels of pollution changing throughout the incident.”
- “they say they didn't use any fire suppressant foam during the incident.”
Broadcast Timeline
News broadcasts tracked for this story, in time order.