Haz-Mat Coordination Stressed
features
The need for better coordination between the fire service and growing numbers of other personnel responding to serious hazardous emergencies was stressed at the 1982 Hazardous Material Spills Conference held April 18-22 in Milwaukee.
Existing frustrations of the fire service were stated candidly by Warren Isman, chief of the Montgomery County, Md., Department of Fire and Rescue Services. Speaking at a session entitled “Who’s in charge?” Isman declared, “We’re going down the road toward a confrontation and it really scares the hell out of me.”
He referred to the experts from various state, federal and private organizations who arrive at the scene several hours late with advice for the tired fire chief after he’s already made the crucial decisions alone because there wasn’t time to wait.
Isman cited a pesticide warehouse fire in March 1981 at a small commercial greenhouse in Montgomery County that caused evacuation of nearby residents because of the health threat posed by toxic substances in the smoke.
Monday morning quarterback
He described his inability to contact state officials by phone “because the state doesn’t work on Saturday night.” However, he continued, a state official did come by the next day and immediately went on local television to discount the need for evacuation (more than 30 civilians and fire and police personnel received hospital treatment as a result of breat hing the toxic smoke).
“When a hazardous materials incident occurs, somebody’s got to make decisions,” Isman declared. “Ninetynine times out of 100 it’s the fire chief because he’s there at the beginning with the equipment, the manpower and the teamwork.”
This was not disputed, and the question turned to “Who’s in charge of what?” Joseph LeFleur of the Wisconsin Emergency Service Agency suggested that the fire chief may be too busy with the primary emergency to be in charge of all aspects of a serious hazardous materials incident.
One of the lessons of the 1979 Mississauga, Ontario, railroad derailment, it was pointed out in a conference paper, was that the police took charge of public evacuation while the fire department was in charge of the accident scene, which seemed to be a good division of labor for similar circumstances.
Geoffrey Langley of the Emergency Response Unit, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, cited the Feb. 21, 1981 fire at an Ottawa, Ill., agricultural chemical warehouse filled to capacity with more than 800,000 pounds of over 100 different farm chemicals.
Can’t do all things
He showed that handling the environmental aspects of such an incident requires specialized knowledge and equipment for air and water sampling, proper cleanup and disposal of large amounts of hazardous substances that the fire department does not have.
Both Langley and Robert Melvold of Rockwell International, who described fire control procedures for derailments involving hazardous substances, agreed that it may be best not to extinguish some hazardous materials fires.
At the Ottawa, Ill., fire, for example, the Ottawa, Serena and Wendron fire departments stopped pouring water on the blaze after pumping about 40,000 gallons. Langley said it was obvious that water was ineffective against the intense fire and would only contribute to pesticide runoff. Sand and a high expansion 1.5 percent protein foam were then applied to extinguish the fire.
Melvold cautioned that unless certain hazardous materials fires are allowed to burn, a very dangerous source of flammable, toxic vapor may be created (papers on use of foam products for this problem were given). He acknowledged that a decision to “let it burn” can be very difficult.
Fortunately, many conference speakers noted a number of rapidly occurring developments that soon will help fire service personnel make informed decisions upon arrival at the scene, and provide important support thereafter.
Direct contact with CHEMTREC
Floyd Taylor of AT&T, Basking Ridge, N.J., described the hazardous materials emergency response system that enables a fire chief to talk directly to chemical experts from the scene, using a radio/telephone link to the recently improved CHEMTREC system.
Previously, CHEMTREC provided a time-consuming voice relay between the fire chief and chemical experts, with information often garbled in the multiple relay process from person to person, Taylor explained.
Now, fire departments with mobile radio-to-telephone patching capability can put the fire chief at the scene in direct telephone contact with CHEMTREC, that can arrange an immediate telephone conference for the chief with a dozen or more experts, including chemical manufacturers, shippers, carriers and others.
In addition, Taylor pointed out, CHEMTREC provides an immediate data communications link to many chemical companies, improving accuracy of information and reducing response time by one third.
The greatly increased direct involvement of private industry in the control of hazardous material emergencies was evident at the biannual conference. Many companies that previously were hard to contact and reluctant to comment have geared up for immediate response to incidents involving their products and facilities.
The Union Carbide, Texaco, Hewlett Packard and Monsanto company emergency response programs were described, films of the DuPont RHYTHM program were shown, and representatives of Hoffman-LaRoche and Mobay Chemical Co. explained how they and other firms were organized for emergency response.
Typically, there is a manned 24-hour special toll-free company telephone number that can be called direct or through CHEMTREC. Immediate product information and fire fighting advice is given by a company specialist trained in handling hazardous materials.
Concurrently, a team of experts from the company’s headquarters or nearest regional response facility is dispatched at once to the scene in a special truck for containment, cleanup and prevention of additional problems. These special trucks contain a communications system, chemical suits and other protective clothing, chemical storage tanks, pumps, tools, absorbents, neutralizing agents, hoists and a variety of other equipment.
In an alternative approach, some companies have hired emergency response contracting firms to be on continuous standby. They get to the scene by private jet and regional response trucks, usually within a few hours.
Thomas Phemister, with the Bureau of Explosives of the American Association of Railroads, and officials of individual railroads outlined the similar sophisticated response procedures they have implemented to assist fire service personnel at the scene of a hazardous material incident involving railroads.
LPG emergencies
Daniel Myers of the National LP Gas Association told of his organization’s attempt to provide fire personnel with immediate assistance from local LPG dealers and agents in the event of an LPG emergency.
He said the association has been encouraging state legislatures to pass Good Samaritan laws to protect any person (except those who have a duty to respond) rendering assistance in an LPG emergency. Without such protection, he explained, nearby experts would be advised not to volunteer their services for fear of incurring heavy legal liability.
Nine states now have Good Samaritan laws, Myers pointed out, adding that the trend is for these laws to cover hazardous material emergencies in general, and not just LPG incidents.
Avoiding confrontations
Advice for avoiding conflict and confrontation among the growing number of specialized responders at a serious hazardous materials emergency was given by Commander L.A. (Skip) Onstad, U.S. Coast Guard, Long Beach, Calif., who described a successful mutual-aid response to the Asia Gem ship explosion and fire in January 1981 at Long Beach.
Concluded Onstad: “Emergency response must be a team effort to be effective. It generally involves public safety personnel, trained experts, owner/operators and their representatives (including lawyers), insurance underwriters or their representatives, and a multitude of other interested persons who materialize out of the woodwork.
“One of the keys to an effective response is to organize these people into a cooperative team working toward a common goal. This can be extremely difficult given the biases and differing interests of those involved.
“Pre-incident contingency planning is an important step whereby much can be done to develop an attitude of cooperation among many of these people. Determining ahead of time what role each agency will play under varying circumstances is paramount. If this is done well, each agency will know who is in charge and what is expected of them, in general terms, when an incident occurs.
“Just as important, key personnel will know each other personally, have a degree of mutual respect for one another’s authority, capability and responsibility and have essentially established their turf beforehand.” •
Onstad continued, “In terms of ‘small group therapy,’ the formal organization already will have evolved to a great extent, and people will have established their positions in the group. The period of getting to know one another will be reduced, and the group or team will be in a much better position to get on with its business of responding to the incident.
Alternative strategies
“Another form of contingency planning takes place during an incident. The development of alternative strategies during an incident by key personnel is an important aspect in any wellmanaged response. The assumption that first approaches will not work, revised plans will fail, and the worst case will happen must be adopted and alternative plans devised.
“This necessary form of contingency planning is highly dependent on the existence and quality of the plans and relationships developed prior to a hazardous materials emergency.”
The three-day conference was sponsored by the Bureau of Explosives, the Chemical Manufacturers Association, the U. S. Coast Guard and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency in cooperation with a number of affiliated organizations, including the International Association of Fire Chiefs.
