Letters to the Editor
SARA regulations generate heaps of paper—and problems—for fire departments
I read with great interest “SARA in All Its Simplicity,” an over-simplified article in February’s issue by Frank Fire. As a practitioner in the field, I only wish that Mr. Fire was correct when he states, “Some fire departments feared they’d be buried by MSDSs.” It’s not a fear, but a reality. Already, we in Fairfax County, Va., are beginning to receive boxes of paper which will be difficult to store and retrieve. It’s not a myth, but a current problem.
In addition, Mr. Fire’s article contains a major error. He states that “The truth of the matter is that neither fire departments nor the local or state planning groups can insist on either forms of reporting.” The fact is that any of the three groups—state commission, local committee, or fire department—can require the submittal of the Tier II inventory or MSDS sheets.
The critical item, however, is that the legal advisors to the companies are recommending the voluntary submittal of the Tier 11 inventories and the MSDSs to limit the liability in case of accidental release. This is what will really create paper overload. In order for a fire department to make use of all this information, they’ll have to be able to store and retrieve it; that could be overwhelming.
Finally, the requirement for submittal of all of this data significantly expands when the Occupational Safety and Health Administration coverage for nonmanufacturing facilities comes into play.
The problem of SARA for the fire service is significant and shouldn’t be downplayed. Fire departments will find themselves in a legal jungle should a chemical release occur and they’re unable to retrieve the information previously provided.
We enjoy hearing from our readers. In addition to sending comments, you’re welcome to send questions that come up as you read articles here; we’ll be happy to forward them to our authors. Whether you have questions or comments, write to Fire Engineering, 250 Fifth Ave., New York, NY 10001.
Warren E. Isman
Chief, Fire and Rescue Department Fairfax County, Va.
Frank Fire responds:
The first point Chief Isman makes confuses a statement I made with one of the myths that I maintain exists concerning SARA and Title III. Indeed, I did say “,Some fire departments feared they’d be buried by MSDSs, so they instructed companies in their district to report by list.” The first myth I mentioned was that fire departments could dictate how the reporting is done. The method of reporting is dictated by law, not by the local fire department. I certainly didn’t indicate that it was a myth that some departments would be “buried by MSDSs,” but a fear. In Chief Isman’s department, this fear may have become a reality.
I differ with Chief Isman that the article contains a major error. I stand by my statement that neither fire departments nor the local or state planning groups can insist on either form of reporting for the initial reporting requirement. The law clearly states in Section 311 that “The owner or operator of any facility which is required to prepare or have available a material safety data sheet for a hazardous chemical under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 and regulations promulgated under that Act (15 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) shall submit a material safety data sheet for each such chemical, or a list of such chemicals as described in paragraph (2), to each of the following:
- The appropriate local emergency planning committee.
- The state emergency planning commission.
- The fire department with jurisdiction over the facility.
Under (c) Availability of MSDS on request:
(1) The Local Planning Committee— If an owner or operator of a facility submits a list of chemicals under subsec- tion (a)(1), the owner or operator, upon request by the local emergency planning committee, shall submit the material safety data sheet for any chemical to such committee.”
Clearly, the law spells out the method of reporting, and the three entities to which the reporting is made. After the initial reporting, the law states that only the local emergency planning committee can request the MSDS.
Voluntary submittal of Tier II information under Section 312 is good advice to covered facilities because it will save time, effort, and money in gathering this information later when the fire departments request more specific information reported under Section 312 (e). This sort of information will be very helpful to fire departments that want to train their firefighters and responders for hazardous-materials incidents at these plants.
Chief Isman infers that I indicated that Tier II information can’t be requested by any of the three groups. A careful reexamination of the article, specifically on page 43, shows that I stated that for any particular chemical, any of the agencies to which the report is sent may request Tier II information.
Chief Isman is correct when he says that submittal of data will expand as the OSHA coverage for nonmanufacturing facilities comes into play. That’s an additional reason I wrote the article and suggested a method of organizing the information.
I stand by my contention that there are myths surrounding SARA and Title III, and that the law is basically a simple one, seemingly made complicated by the enormous amount of work that must be done. My major premise is still tha t fire departmen ts should pay a ttention to those responsibilites given to them by law and use the information to protect themselves, their communities, and their facilities. This can be accomplished by educating, training, and equipping themselves properly. Fire departments now have what they need to do this—information on those haz mats made, stored, and used in their districts.
The meaning of sexual harassment extends far beyond touch
The March issue just arrived, and I’ve read “It’s Not a Debate Any Longer” [Editor’s Opinion, page 6], I agree with you wholeheartedly that training and orientation in this area are woefully neglected, but there are some notable exceptions.
There is, however, something that concerns me deeply. It’s implied, but I’m not sure intended, that sexual harassment requires that an offender actually lay hands on the complainant.
Under Title VII of the 14th Amendment, sexual harassment may be defined in a variey of ways and doesn’t require assault or fondling for a complaint to be valid. Hazing, withholding of equal training, verbal abuse, the “silent treatment,” denial of equal pay for equal work, and ostracism have all been affirmed as valid causes for complaint.
The Fire Department of New York City had to learn the hard way that treating women the same as men isn’t sufficient to ward off complaints. We believed that equality of treatment translated to treating female candidates the same as male recruits. Our naivete left us open to severe criticism from a federal court, which ruled that our equal treatment policy didn’t satisfy the test imposed by Title VII.
In his decision, the judge chastised the department for not recognizing that females as a class had been deprived by society, as they hadn’t had an equal opportunity to work with tools and equipment in the past. The judge reasoned that a male recruit had the opportunity as a youngster to observe adult male role models using axes, hammers, and power tools, and was therefore familiar with their use. A female recruit wouldn’t have had the same opportunity. His opinion was that our department had withheld remedial training in these areas by not training women in the use of tools prior to training them in firematics. So it is that sexual harassment goes much deeper than an assault or an unsolicited sexual advance. Sexual harassment under the law goes far beyond the conventional wisdom of the average firefighter. Training in this area is just as necessary as training in firematics.
You’re absolutely correct when you say that it’s not a debate any longer. The sooner diehards in the fire service accept the fact that female firefighters are here to stay, the sooner real progress can be made in all forms of fire service training.
John J. O’Rourke
Chief of Department (retired)
Fire Department of New York City Sea ford, N. Y.
Book’s “tools” build life-saving knowledge
I really got a lot out of Vinny Dunn’s book, Collapse of Burning Buildings: A Guide to Fireground Safety. All officers in the country should ask themselves the same question Chief Dunn asked himself 10 years ago: “… how I could, in good conscience, command an operation and be responsible for the lives of other firefighters if I had such scanty knowledge of collapse dangers.”
I’m thankful that I’d read 19 chapters of the book before I was forced to ask that question. Each chapter punctuated the voids in my knowledge of the subject. And each chapter provided the “tools” necessary to fill that void through further study.
If Chief Dunn’s recommendations for post-fire analysis were to become standard operating procedure throughout the fire service, there’d be a significant reduction in the number of firefighters killed or injured as a result of emergency scene operations.
The book should be required reading for every present and prospective fire officer.
Kenneth C. Henry
District Chief
Hillsborough County (Fla.)
Fire Department
