LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
E 9-1-1 issue not black and white
I am a career firefighter with 23 years of service— 13 years as a field officer and the last eight years as a chief officer charged with the Tulsa Fire Department Emergency Communications and Information Management Systems. In that capacity I manage 17 civilian dispatch personnel and have actively represented the department in designing and implementing a computer-aided dispatch system, an 800MHz trunked radio system, and an E 91-1 system. I currently am directing the implementation of an integrated information management network, which will link our .32 fire stations and the administrative functions of the department.
After reading Mr. Francis X. Holt’s articles in your November issue and Chief Donald H. Harrison’s letter of disdain concerning Mr. Holt’s position and your response to Chief Harrison in the February issue, I feel compelled to offer some observations.
Mr. Holt does appear to be selling a concept—a concept to which Chief Harrison obviously has strong opposition. I believe both positions to be overly zealous and a trifle unrealistic.
- Mr. Holt tends to present shared dispatching (a less-threatening name for consolidated dispatching) as “workable, affordable, and desirable.” I agree that this certainly may be true in many jurisdictions but not necessarily in “all but the busiest operations.”
- Chief Harrison certainly reacted strongly to the emotional provocation Mr Holt provided with his declarations against “tradition or ‘turf.’” However. 1 also disagree with the chief’s inference that only police officers or firefighters should perform dispatch duties.
Mr. Manning was right on target when he said “…the issue isn’t civilian vs. uniformed; it’s whether you have effective managers supervising welltrained staff.” There is one other critical element that directs and, in fact, encourages good managers. That element is a commitment to excellence in serving the needs of our citizens.
I have visited and studied many communications centers. Some of these centers utilized uniformed staff, some nonuniformed; some were consolidated, some were not. In all cases, the performance of the work unit was dependent on management’s commitment to excellence of service rather than its philosophies regarding consolidated or independent dispatching and uniformed or nonuniformed staff.
Mr. Holt’s position is highly touted by city managers and budget people who are naturally attuned to “creative economics.” Unfortunately, this approach, more often than not, leads to short-staffing and unreasonably low pay scales for telecommunicators. Iliis inevitably results in less-thanexcellent service delivery and unacceptably high rates of turnover within the ranks of telecommunicators.
Chief Harrison is correct in his assertion that “…you cannot train a person in experience.” This is a point with which I strongly agree. Further. 1 see nothing wrong with “tradition” as long as it does not blind one to current realities. And “turf” is not all bad, either. It is a negative term for control, which is one of the functions of management.
If it seems as though I am coming down squarely on all sides of this issue, 1 am. Until the professionals in the field begin to focus on excellence in service delivery to the taxpaying citizen rather than pet theories and personal prejudices, a great deal of time will continue to be lost arguing over ancillary issues.
Holt and Harrison should move off the emotional plane and recognize there is no single, simple solution to these issues. Each issue must be considered according to the needs of the community served. As professionals, it is our duty to seek out with open eyes and minds workable, affordable, and effective emergency communications for those we serve.
D. S. Starr
Chief of Communications and Information Services Tulsa (OK) Fire Department
Response to radiation emergencies
The article “Response to Radiation Emergencies” by Anthony Gaglierd in the February 1991 issue was very well-presented and offered some very important facts concerning radiation emergencies. I do feel, though, that Mr. Gaglierd needed to further explain some of the terminology used in the article and that some of the described actions are incorrect.
I am a former firefighter and now perform fire protection engineering functions for nuclear power utilities. Since entering this field, I have had to learn a lot more about nuclear radiation than I had to know in the past.
First, Gaglierd mentions “stay times” in his article. 1 have to wonder how many fire chiefs know what the true meaning of this term is and how to readily apply it to the situation. Gaglierd leads one to believe that stay time can be calculated from the first reading obtained. This is untrue. In order to calculate stay time, one must know the type and amount of radiation being emitted at the actual work area. Phis could be much higher than the initial reading. This information can only be obtained by entering the radiation area, performing a survey, and reporting the results of the survey to the officer in charge. With this information, stay times can be accurately calculated.
Then Gaglierd mentions the 5 R dose limit. He states that this is below the federal government’s limits. 1 know that the federal guidelines for nuclear facilities is 1.25 R/quarter, which equates to 5 R/year. It is also true that for a once-in-a-lifetime exposure, the federal limit is 75 R for lifesaving emergencies.
Next Gaglierd speaks of monitoring equipment, and i again wonder how many fire chiefs are cognizant of the actual types of equipment that are required to perform the necessary surveys. Radiation-monitoring equipment, pocket dosimeters, and thermal luminescent devices (TLDs) are quite expensive and require many hours of training and maintenance to ensure proper operation. Further, there is the procurement of protective clothing, proper masks for the environment, proper decon materials, and the equipment and the training required to perform these tasks efficiently. Along the same line, Gaglierd refers to using plastic bags for contaminated materials. 1 feel that he should have specified plastic bags that are properly identified as containing radioactive material, as plain plastic bags could become confused with other disposable material and be disposed of incorrectly.
Gaglierd mentions in the section on fixed facilities that if airborne contamination is present, the ventilation system should be shut down. I question his reasoning for this, as those facilities that have radiation sources and use these sources often must have special ventilation systems to handle any radiation release. These ventilation systems usually consist of special HEPA filters that will trap these particulates. If the airborne contamination has been allowed to escape the area of use, then 1 agree with the statement that the ventilation should be shut down, but only for the nonradiation area.
List. Gaglierd should have included among the sources of information the regional Nuclear Regulatory Commission offices throughout the United States and nuclear power facilities. Both of these sources can supply information and expertise.
I feel that with the numerous nuclear facilities and the large volume of material that is being transported across the nation’s highways and airways that all fire departments should learn as much as they can about nuclear materials. Nuclear materials should not be feared but rather respected.
Gerald Van Gelder
Senior Fire Protection Specialist Vanguard Consultants, Inc.
Martinez, Georgia
I read with much interest the article “Response to Radiation Emergencies” by Anthony M. Gaglierd in the February issue. While I feel that the author did a creditable job, there are some inaccuracies that must be addressed in the interest of safety.
First, let me establish my credentials. 1 am a retired battalion chief of the City of Warwick (RI) Fire Department currently employed by the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation. In my employ I am responsible for the training of the fire brigade, hazardous-materials training, and initial employee training, which includes health physics. I do extensive training with fire and rescue departments within the 50-mile Emergency Planning Zone as well as other training on request.
Now on to the specifics about the article in question. In the paragraph entitled “Transportation incidents,” the author states, “A two-person monitoring team, wearing full protective clothing, SCBA, and personal dosimetry and using highand low-range survey meters should approach the scene beginning from about 500 feet upw’ind.”
While I am sure that the author was trying to be gender-neutral in this case, that is not wise. In a radiation incident the gender of the participants is important, as a female is subjected to greater risk than her male counterpart. By way of explanation, a female is born with all of the eggs she will ever have already in her body. Radiation is the most damaging to developing cells and can damage a woman’s potential to have children. In the nuclear industry, if it should become necessary to expose an individual in an emergency situation, a male volunteer over the age of 45 usually is selected.
The author states that the monitoring team should have “personal dosimetry.” This is a correct statement, but it needs to be qualified. Most fire and rescue departments are equipped with dosimeters and monitoring equipment supplied by the old Civil Defense Agency. Many of these instruments read too high to be of any practical value in accident work; after all, they were designed for use after an atomic attack when radiation was expected to be very high. By the time a person could get a reading on one of these devices, he already has been overexposed.
This equipment also is very inaccu-■■■ rate, particularly if dropped, bumped, or hit, which causes the device to go off scale. In addition, the meters must be “rezeroed” before use because they will lose a charge during storage. The thermoluminescent dosimeter referred to is excellent, but it cannot be read by the individual on the job. It must be sent to a laboratory to be read. The same fact should be understood for the survey meters supplied by the government. They are highrange instruments, for the most part, and would not even respond to most of the shipments that are made over the avenues of transportation.
The article goes on to state, “The team should constantly observe the survey meter until it shows a reading of ImR/hr.” This should have been followed by “above background.” In this part of the country (New England), that qualification could be very significant. The granite that makes up the hills of New England is highly radioactive and the presence of radon gas has been a continuing problem to many in this area.
I feel that the author made a common mistake—mixing mR and R, millirems and rents. This can be very confusing to those who have had little to do with radioactive material. The R or rem is a very large measurement, witnessed by the fact that as a radiation worker, I am allowed to get no more than 5 R in a year. The measurement most commonly used in the industry is the inR or millirem —one one-thousandth of a rem.
I have found that in try ing to teach those who have little understanding of the measurements it is better to stick with one measurement, and the millirem is the preferred one. Therefore the statement “This 5-R limit for emergency workers is based on the latest recommendation of the National Council on Radiation Protection” should have been ‘ This 5,000-millirem limit….”
The author correctly stated the primary objective when involved in rescuing victims of accidents involving radioactive material. One of the more common incidents that is faced by fire and rescue departments is on the interstate highways. As an added precaution, the rescuers should approach the vehicle keeping the cab of the truck, and therefore the mass of metal that it represents, between the rescue party and the radioactive source. The three methods for reducing the amount of radiation to which rescuers might be exposed are to utilize time, distance, and shielding. Time and distance were well explained, but shielding could stand a little elaboration. At a radiation incident, responding personnel should try to use anything that will shield them from the radiation. Radiation travels in straight lines, some at the speed of light. One method that can be used is to park vehicles on the opposite side of the brow of a hill, to reduce exposure.
In the section entitled “Fixed-facility accidents,” the author states, “If the contamination is airborne, take action to limit the spread of contamination, such as shutting down the building’s ventilation system.” In a nuclear power plant this is very bad advice. NO THING can or should be operated by the responding personnel. There can be major consequences to such action. All nuclear power plants are required by federal law to have a firebrigade. These fire brigades are generally made up of some personnel from the operations department. The responding forces should look to them for advice and for the operation of any equipment.
Under the section entitled “Local private recourses,” the statement is made, “As part of your preplanning, identify facilities in your community that use radioactive materials. Request their assistance in handling a radiation incident in advance. Find out who to call and what equipment and instrumentation they can provide in an incident.” This is sound advice but may need a little qualification. If the local entity is a nuclear power plant, particularly a smaller one, it may not have sufficient staff to be able to send assistance in a timely manner. Nuclear power plants are required by federal law to have a minimum number of radiation protection technicians on their site at all times. If they were to go below this minimum they would be subject to heavy fines by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). If the request for aid was made through an agency such as the DOT, DOE, or CHEMTREC, a timely response would be more probable. Best of all would be a call to the regional headquarters of the NRC. In this way the Radiation Protection Department can respond without the concern of violating federal law.
With the emphasis on hazardous materials today, it is only natural and necessary that radioactive material be included. It is too bad that there is so much fear and misinformation relative to this material. I must admit that I was just as fearful during my years in the fire service. Now that I work in the nuclear industry I try to do everything I can to foster understanding and allay fears of radioactive materials. Too often in fire service publications articles are written that are long on scientific data and short on good, basic information on how to handleemergencies. For example, most texts state that you should establish the “hot zone” when you get a reading of 1 mR on your monitoring instrument. Right off this says that this is an area of risk. This should be followed by a few facts. For example, no damage can be detected in the body from radiation exposure below 25,000 mR and then only a slight change in the white blood cells. As a point of fact, many of the firefighters at Chernobyl were subjected to as much as 100,000 mR and lived. This is not to say that they were not ill and did not suffer greatly. It does show that radiation dose information is very conservative. There arctwo schools of scientific thought on this subject: One says that any exposure is dangerous; the other says that exposure below a certain level is not dangerous. Both positions are supportable. But as I do more in the area of hazardous materials, I have come to the conclusion that there are many more chemicals and materials transported over the byways of this country that are much more dangerous than radioactive materials—and few are more misunderstood.
Harry A. Lefebvre
Technical Training Instructor
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power
Corporation
Brattleboro, Vermont
Tone down letters
I see a trend developing in Fire Engineering and other fire service publications that I hope will be short-lived: It is the publishing of letters to the editor that include personal attacks on the character or qualifications of authors.
In the January 1991 issue of Fire Engineering Roger B. Williams comments on “The Forgotten Fracture” by Jeffrey A. Busch (October 1990). Mr. Williams’ letter makes some valid points. As an EMT and vehicle rescue technician, I basically agree that the suggested use of MAST is cumbersome. Had the letter stopped there, there would be no issue. The last paragraph of the letter, however, states, “Perhaps Busch should spend more time working accidents….” This sentence, and the tone of the entire paragraph, makes the letter sound more like a personal attack than constructive criticism.
1 hope that this letter was written in haste and mailed before it could be reread and toned down by the writer. We all say things in the heat of the moment that we wish we had not said; the advantage of written communication is that we can change our words before anyone else sees them. In the event that letters of this type do get to the editorial office, it is the magazine editor’s responsibility to ensure that published comments are professional and constructive. I do not advocate censorship, but I do advocate good taste.
Patric E. McCon
Supervisor
Fire Protection
LTV Steel Corporation
Cleveland, Ohio
Rope-rescue pointers
I must compliment you on your fine magazine; each issue appears to have more information than the previous. I found the November and December 1990 issues the best so far. I am compelled to comment on articles in each.
Tom Carr’s article “Rescue ’90; The Big One” in December was an interesting overview of the program that he ran, which I attended. As he stated, “Safety was one of the primary concerns of the seminar.” However, your cover photo shows that it was not. During the lectures, the question of using cranes as a lowering device for personnel was asked of Bob De Benedictis, a crane-rigging and safety specialist. He stated that it should not be done and that OSH A allows it if it is for lifesaving only and there are no other means. The cover showed an instructor performing this procedure two days after that lecture. This was not for lifesaving, and we had other means of moving this stretcher (tower ladtier, rope, or the stairs). Your cover shows a lack of safety, and the rescue was only performed this way because the media were present.
In Jack Hibbard’s article “SingleSlide Rope Rescues” in November, you have some of the best photos on what can go wrong during rope rescue that 1 have seen in any fire service magazine. I have some suggestions that may make his methods safer and physically less demanding:
- The rescuer should have a top belay line (safety line).
- Use a rappel rack or at least double wrap the figure eight to prevent loss of control.
- Rappel out of the bag. Attach the rope bag to your harness or over your shoulder with a shoulder strap. This will prevent the victim from grabbing your rope, regardless of where you rappel from.
- Add an adjustable strap between the rescue sling and your rappel device. Rappel to the top of the window (out of the victim’s reach). Sw ing the
- sling into him and have him clip it around himself. He will do this because he has no choice. Drop your legs down; this will shorten the distance. Tighten the adjustable strap. Push off the building with your legs; this will pull your victim out the window without shock-loading your rope or anchors. If you attach the sling directly to the rappel device, not to your harness, the victim’s weight will be transferred to the rope and not to you. (It takes no physical strength this way; you can easily rescue someone three times your weight.)
High-angle rescue is the most dangerous type of rescue. However, if we follow some basic safety rules, it should be the safest. Be safe.
Barry Nechis
Firefighter!EMT-P
New Rochelle (NY) Fire Department
Private fire hydrants
How many times have you heard someone say, “Those are private fire hydrants”? What exactly are they— fire hydrants that are privately owned? Fire hydrants that are on private property? Did someone buy a fire hydrant for personal use only? Or maybe for use only by a family pet?
You have seen all kinds of fire hydrants in all kinds of locations, but have you ever wondered what their purpose was if they weren’t on public property? These “ private hydrants” — or “yard hydrants” as they sometimes are called —are for whose use? The individual who owns the property on which they are located? The local fire department? A private fire department that may or may not exist?
The term “private hydrant” is misleading, for no one “owns” a fire hydrant. You might buy a fire hydrant and have it installed on your property and connected to a water system, but do you really own it? Do you keep others away from it in an emergency? If someone owns it. who maintains it? The property owner, who probably doesn’t have any idea of how to open the valve; the local water department; the fire department; or a local plumber? Who has the best working knowledge of how to operate a fire hydrant and its uses?
We have seen these fire hydrants located on properties such as shopping centers, large apartment complexes, factories, commercial office complexes, nursing homes, retirement centers, and hotels along interstate highways. Do these hydrants get a regular maintenance check twice yearly or were they checked only when they were installed, which could have been 30 or 40 years ago?
Some factories have their own private fire brigades or maintenance staffs who check their fire hydrants regularly. But what about all the other hydrants? Who checks them? Do nursing homes send nurses aides out to check their fire hydrants? Do secretaries check hydrants for office buildings or janitors for shopping centers?
Volunteer fire companies in semirural areas welcome the installation of these private fire hydrants in their areas because they’re a water source.
Does your department check these hydrants? Or are you restricted from touching them by order of your chief, mayor, or someone else who believes that if you go to check them and something breaks in the process, your department will be held responsible? If it’s there to be used, you have to test it to make sure it works, don’t you? Whose liability is it then if it doesn’t work during an emergency?
We also must look at the issue from the owners’ point of view. They won’t spend extra money on fire hydrants if state and local laws or building codes don’t call for it. The owners in most cases expect the local fire department to check the hydrants because the firefighters are most likely to use them and —in all probability—they are the ones who requested them in the first place!
More and more of these fire hydrants are appearing since most new construction is in suburban and rural areas. What do you do: check them or let them stand there and rust?
Joseph N. Simons
Disaster Coordinator
Harrison Township (OH)
Fire Department
Request for information
The fire department of Chiayi City, Taiwan, Republic of China is creating a five-year development project for the city of Chiayi. If successful, it will be promoted to fire departments in other cities and the benefits to our communities will be substantial.
The main goal of this project is to define guidelines to overhaul, purchase, or update the fire engines, emergency and disaster equipment, and computer and communication equipment; enhance firefighting skills through education and training; improve the method and process of firefighter and fire company certification; and improve public awareness of fire prevention.
Even though we succeed in fighting fires, we are lacking in many other areas concerning modern information and publications. Your assistance in sharing with us any publications, books, visual aids, or reports regarding the above topics will be greatly appreciated. Even small items, such as old reports or publications, may become very valuable information for us. Please send any relevant information to: 10F #2, 318 Chuay-Young Road, Chiayi City, Taiwan, Republic of China.
Chief Jer-Fong Hsu
Chiayi City Fire Department
Taiwan, Republic of China
Lessons to be learned
As a rookie firefighter, I read each of the fire service publications my department receives with intense scrutiny. I am, expectedly, seeking to learn everything I can front every source I can.
1 just received the March issue of Fire Engineering. What strikes me about the cover photo is the potential hazards to which the two firefighters are subjecting themselves.
- They obviously are performing roof ventilation. Once that vent is open and the ground crew hits the blaze with charged lines, fire by-products (many toxic) are going to erupt through the opening. Each firefighter is equipped with SCBA, but neither is wearing his mask. I doubt they will have time to don them when the vent is opened.
- The firefighter using the rescue saw has failed to bring his helmet shield down for eye protection. Rescue saws are notorious for kicking debris up and back (of course, if he were wearing his SCBA mask in the first place, he would not need his helmet shield).
- There is no roof ladder to distribute their weight in the event of a ceiling collapse.
- A hanging waist strap from the SCBA of the firefighter on the left has necessitated his partner’s support of the gear.
These guys probably have been in the fire service far longer than I. Are there good reasons for these omissions? I’d sure like to know’.
Charlie Cannata
Charlotte (VT) Volunteer
Fire Department
