WILL FOAM SAVE OUR BABIES?
BY BILL MANNING
The federal government`s involvement in advancing–through research initiatives, tax breaks, product development and marketing, and purchasing–technology hatched in the private sector is the subject of serious political debate.
The debate crystallized in fire service terms when Pyrocap International Corp., a relative newcomer to the firefighting foams market, lobbied Congress to include in HR 3838, the 1995 Department of Housing and Urban Development Reauthorization bill, a $10 million special-purpose grant under the Community Development Block Grant program for the purposes of demonstrating its foam technology to urban fire departments.
The lobbying struck the right nerve. A March 3, 1994, USA Today article reported the national fire death rate, measured in deaths per million (dpm) population, as 16.2 dpm for white people and 50.9 dpm for black people–“black residents are dying in fires at a rate of three and a half times faster than whites,” said Representative Albert R. Wynn in a letter to the chairpersons of the House and Senate VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Subcommittee on Appropriations. The USA Today report stressed that fire is the second leading cause of accidental deaths in children under five years old (1991 statistics). Pyrocap Chairman of the Board Theodore A. Adams, Jr., in testimony to the House Appropriations Subcommittee, said, “Who is at risk? It is children…and these children being killed are black children.”
The $10 million HUD grant did not stand up in the 103rd Congress. However, the Committee on Appropriations inserted language in the Federal Emergency Management Agency budget that included $1 million “for an urban and suburban area demonstration program for Pyrocap B-136, a nitrogen-based, environmentally friendly fire suppression liquid concentrate.” The final bill from Congress, signed into law, appropriated to FEMA “$750,000 for a demonstration of a biodegradable, environmentally safe, non-toxic fire suppression liquid which is effective on Class A, Class B, and many Class D metal fires”–a spec fitting Pyrocap`s self-description of its agent.
The U.S. Fire Administration, charged with implementing those FEMA dollars (equaling almost four percent of the entire USFA budget and 15 percent of the entire National Fire Academy budget) balked. To the USFA, field demonstrations–at a time when scientific data on the effectiveness of foams for structure firefighting is in the embryonic stage–was not an acceptable use of precious federal resources. Under considerable pressure, including the threat of lawsuit, the USFA held to its position.
It initiated a 14-month research project, in conjunction with the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Center for Fire Research, to study the firefighting effectiveness and environmental and toxicological aspects of various Class A, B, and D foam agents to provide the fire service with a better knowledge base from which to select its foam products and possibly form the basis for a future national standard on foam products. A report to Congress is expected later this year. Officials are hopeful that this is only the beginning of our firefighting foams research.
It is easy to get caught up in an emotional, tragic issue and rely on anecdotal evidence and hopeful assumptions to guide us. Pyrocap operated well within the bounds of legal ethics and has every reason to be disturbed–as we all are–over our troubling national fire statistics. However, testifying before Congress that, in Mr. Adams` words, “We have a technology which I won`t say will prevent every death, but if we could reduce deaths by half and at the same time increase the efficiency of the Fire Department….We should never permit a fire truck to go to a fire with just water in its tank” doesn`t cut it. And when people assert, “Our testing…found that the product significantly reduces the toxins normally found in smoke,” I`ve got questions.
By how much do foams for structure firefighting increase knockdown efficiency? Will they knock down a significant fire in its growth stage 10, 20, or 30 seconds faster? What will be the impact of a 15-second-quicker knockdown for a victim who has just spent 15 minutes in smoke and heat? Is 10 seconds saved in knockdown the sole difference in whether we live or die in the fire? Can we use data from real scientific testing of real fires to extrapolate and estimate a survivability curve? By how much do we reduce the stress on our firefighters? What is the impact on search and rescue, in quantifiable terms? Can we amass a body of research that will guide fire departments in making accurate cost-benefit analyses?
Will foam save our babies? Is it the most effective way to reduce our unacceptable fire deaths? Or is it one of many tools and many programs that, combined, will bring our fire deaths closer to where we want them–at zero?
It is easy to throw foam on every pumper and convince ourselves we are doing the best we can to save lives.
Where do we stand on the use of proven automatic sprinkler technology? Why isn`t HUD taking the lead and mandating that all new and renovated urban multifamily residential construction be fully sprinklered? Remember the very positive impact of the hotel/motel sprinkler legislation just a few years ago.
Where do we stand on our public education programs? Are they penetrating inner-city areas? How can we more effectively change human behavior, prevent babies from being left unattended, ensure that the home is more fire-safe, and ensure that children understand what it means when they steal the smoke-detector battery to power their toys?
Anecdotal evidence suggests that foam technology can and will increase structure firefighting efficiency and safety. Hopefully, it will save lives. But, we must require that our partners in Washington use science, not heartstrings, in proposing future legislation. We must require, at this stage in the foam picture, legislation that facilitates certain quantifiable research instead of door-to-door marketing of commercial products.
We call on Washington to dramatically expand federal fire programs in fire prevention, fire protection technologies, and fire suppression technologies and methodologies. It is by these three avenues that we will do what`s best for all Americans.
