Hazardous Material Teams —Who Needs Them?
FEATURES
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Hazardous materials has obviously become the buzzword and the topic of the 1980s. In any given month, it’s rare to open a trade journal without coming across an article concerning some relevant information, opinion, or option on this subject.
Yet, I’ve found that throughout the country, one of the most common questions raised at hazardous material seminars is: “How do we form a hazardous materials response team?”
I usually answer by asking, “What is your definition of a hazardous materials team?” “Why do you need a hazardous materials response team and do you really need your own team?”
What is your definition of a hazardous materials team?
There are various types and functions of hazardous material teams throughout the municipal and industrial agencies. For example, many police agencies have hazardous material teams whose function it is to strictly enforce certain laws and regulations. Other hazardous material teams are solely resource and information units, providing specific product information or specialized resources, and are not capable of enforcement or control of the problem.
Then there are the industrial hazardous material response teams who provide resources, information, and control capabilities—but only for specific products.
The fire service and, in some areas of the country, the emergency medical service groups, police, and emergency management agencies have formed hazardous material response teams that are geared toward controlling an incident. These teams usually try to form themselves into an “all hazard” type operation, meaning that they will deal with every hazardous material incident from a home heating unit (propane tank) leak, to a major explosion at a chemical manufacturing plant.
Finally, we have the commercial response teams who will respond upon request and, of course, charge for their services. The commercial teams I have dealt with are very professional and dedicated groups and are a definite asset at a hazardous material emergency.
Why do you need a hazardous materials response team?
The next question “Why do you need a hazardous material response team?” seems to evoke the same basic answer: “We have a need.”
Well, what are those needs? Have you closely scrutinized them and is it necessary to form a specialized team? Many areas of the country do require hazardous material teams, especially in highly industrialized or transport centers. Yet, many other areas could be served by a regional concept instead of each agency forming its own response team. When I go to areas that have (which I would consider) an overabundance of response teams, I hear the same complaint echoed across the country: “We have no money to buy equipment. The team is zero budgeted. We’re short on manpower and we don’t have an adequate vehicle.”
While these complaints may be valid, we need only to closely examine ourselves and our situation to resolve some of them. For instance, in one large metropolitan area on the east coast, there are seven hazardous material teams operating six first-line vehicles and numerous support vehicles. There are various levels and types of manning from all-career to all-volunteer, different inventories and types of equipment, and various levels of funding. The irony of all this is that these teams are within a 30-minute response time of each other, have different standard operating procedures (SOP), do very little or no training together, possess duplicate equipment, yet are bonded to each other by an interagency mutual aid agreement.
Please do not think that I’m pointing fingers. All of these teams are made up of dedicated, concerned, highly motivated individuals. The problem lies in the bureaucracy, the red tape, and the management that unwittingly stymie the efforts of these people. When is management going to get their collective heads out of the clouds and remember that we’re all trying to do the same job? Where is the interagency, interjurisdictional cooperation and planning that we read about?
It is the continuing tradition of “We can do it better,” or “The fire service can handle everything” that creates the problem. Why, when agencies do meet on a regular basis to solve interjurisdictional problems, do they continue to agree to disagree?
Maybe we need to change our thinking concerning the need for a hazardous materials response team and what a hazardous materials team really is and does. In large metropolitan areas, if the teams are not running a large volume of calls individually, maybe a regional team with one or two strategically placed vehicles, a personnel pool, and stockpiles of equipment and materials stored throughout the area would be a solution to consolidating and conserving resources. Such a situation would certainly assure that personnel receive the same training, and with all jurisdictions contributing to the budget for tools and equipment, the costs apparently would be easier for managers to deal with.
The regional team concept could also make it easier to include members on the team from enforcement units (such as the police department), resource agencies, and possibly industries indigenous to a particular area. You could also supplement the response units with satellite units comprised of truck companies or heavy rescue squads. Of course, this regional concept may not work in areas where units run a high volume of calls or in jurisdictions surrounded by large areas of rural countryside, but it is well worth considering.
While many commercial teams have specialized tools and devices, most public agency response teams cannot afford all the necessary equipment and must rely on commercial or industrial hazardous material teams to help control an incident. There is certainly no shame in this, but what about the tools and equipment that we do buy and use? How effective/realistic are they for controlling the particular incidents that might occur in our own district?
When deciding what equipment to purchase for a hazardous material team, what often happens is that all our forces get together in a think tank (squad room of the fire station) and make every attempt to re-invent the wheel. People who have never used an explosimeter decide which one is best. Personnel who have never been in a fully encapsulating suit write up specifications on equipment that is truly foreign to them, expecting manufacturers to build them their perfect unit. To me, this indicates time and effort wasted and creates problems for manufacturers whose primary function is the manufacture and sale of suits.
When we talk tools and equipment, let’s get on the phone and find out what other groups experienced with a particular piece of equipment. How did it stand up under field conditions? Does it require exorbitant maintenance costs? Would the group choose the same equipment again?
Training is another area that requires serious consideration when forming a hazardous materials response team. My personal opinion is to get all the training you possibly can from as many different sources as you possibly can. The subject of hazardous materials is too complex to rely on only in-house training or on one or two outside courses. There is the danger of emergency personnel coming away with a false sense of confidence.
Many teams find themselves short on money and cannot send people to the various schools across the country. Again, a regional concept may help. Each agency involved in the hazardous material response plan would contribute to the training budget and various team personnel could be sent to hazardous material training schools. Upon their return, the information and knowledge gained from these courses can be shared with other team members. Eventually, all team members would be able to attend different programs.
If you cannot afford to send several people away to schools, you can certainly bring schools and members of various material handling agencies to the teams. Many of these authorities charge for their services, of course, but there are also many free programs and in-house industrial programs out there for the asking. No matter what you do, you can’t afford to let the old “We can do it better” adage rear its ugly head. You’ll only end up shortchanging your department by trying to do all training in-house or having just a few team members attend courses on their own. Proper training is one of the most important facets of forming a hazardous materials team.
SOP is another consideration when you have several teams in close proximity to one another. These teams may and probably will end up with conflicts in their SOP. If a mutual aid unit responds to a hazardous material emergency only to find the on-scene hazardous material team operating contrary to their own SOP, what will happen? Will the mutual aid unit pack up and go home? Or will there be an argument concerning whose SOP is correct while working at the incident?
Conclusion
So, who needs hazardous material teams? The answer is simple, we all do. In this age of high technology and chemical dependence, the chances of an incident occurring anywhere in this country are very real.
However, when forming a hazardous materials response team, look very closely at what you are doing. Get off your wallet, put the egos in the closet, and make some phone calls and visits to other teams that are already in operation. Learn from their mistakes and profit from their accomplishments. Don’t let the “We can do it better” blind you to the fact that mistakes you are about to make have probably already been made. A lot of wasted effort can be eliminated if we just ask other people.
Yes, we need hazardous material teams, but we need to closely scrutinize the need for the team, the potential in your area of having an incident, SOP, training, funding, vehicles, and equipment.
Lack of planning, uncoordinated efforts, and poor funding can be as dangerous as the incident itself.
