Right-to-Know Legislation
ON HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
One of the major problems facing firefighters arriving at a hazardous materials incident is identifying the chemicals involved. At a transportation accident, this can sometimes be done through the shipping papers or the placard. Unfortunately, in bulk transportation the placard only identifies the product with the Department of Transportation (DOT) four-digit number. These numbers contain catchall categories such as “flammable liquid, not otherwise specified (NOS).”
Even if the product is identified in the shipping document, determining the product’s hazards, its physical and chemical properties, and the special protective clothing necessary at an incident are sometimes very difficult. Even with such reference sources as CHEMTREC, there are many trade name products that will be impossible to find out about in time to make a safe and effective strategic decision.
Because of this problem, many states and cities have considered Right-toKnow Legislation. The problem is the many variances that arise in different laws for each local area.
There are three types of Right-toKnow Legislation: The first involves the employee’s right to know about the hazards of any chemicals to which he is exposed while working. The chemicals involved are usually the same and known well in advance of any exposure problem. Information on these chemicals can be kept in a single place and be made available for inspection.
The second kind of Right-to-Know Legislation involves the need for emergency response personnel to learn about the materials being transported in the event of an accidental release.
There are several Right-to-Know Laws that give the public access to information about the chemicals being transported, used, or stored in their community. This third type of law, while important, does not have an impact on emergency personnel.
The state of Oregon in 1979 became the first to enact a workplace RighttoKnow Law. Then, in early 1981, the Carter Administration proposed a federal regulation that would establish it on a national scale.
However, the proposed federal regulation was withdrawn by the new Reagan Administration before its enactment. It was then re-issued in late 1982, revised in 1983, and issued as a final rule in November 1983. However, by this time many states and cities had adopted their own regulations.
With all of the discussion about this type of regulation, there have been several misconceptions about exactly what the rules are intended to do. First, they are designed to provide specific groups or individuals with information about the hazards of particular chemicals. It is important to remember that these laws do not regulate the amount or types of chemicals transported or used in the community.
As far as the fire service is concerned, our needs are to have information about the hazards of a chemical that has been spilled or released either at a fixed installation or while being transported. This information helps the officer make decisions quickly and correctly.
Some of the states’ laws that have been enacted require that all facilities using, storing, or handling hazardous materials notify the local fire department. This means that trucking companies and railroad lines moving goods through the community must provide a list of the chemicals as well as information about their hazards. Certainly this seems like a worthwhile activity, until you think about the mounds of paper that will be generated. How can this information be quickly and efficiencly sifted through when an accident occurs?
Fire departments are experiencing a severe shortage of personnel. Volunteer fire departments do not have individuals available at the fire station all of the time. Who will provide this information, collected at great expense, to the field officer handling the incident?
Several suggestions have been proposed for easing the burden of record keeping for the fire service. The first technique calls for industries using hazardous materials to maintain upto-date information on their chemicals. This information would be kept in a locked box (to which the fire department has a master key) at a convenient location outside the facility. Then, if an incident occurs, the officer can open the box and review the inventory and reference sheets for each chemical.
Transportation incidents are a little more complicated. Currently, the DOT is soliciting comments on a proposal that would require vehicles transporting a hazardous material to carry either a copy of the 1984 EMERGENCY RESPONSE GUIDEBOOK or a copy of the material safety data sheet (MSDS) for each chemical being carried.
The 1984 EMERGENCY RESPONSE GUIDEBOOK, published by the Department of Transportation, is distributed free to all emergency response agencies. The MSDS provides information such as hazard ingredients, physical data, fire and explosion hazard data, health hazard data, reactivity data, spill or leak containment procedures, and any special precautions.
The International Association of Fire Fighters has taken a strong stand on the need for Right-to-Know Legislation. Its president, John A. Gannon, says: “Given the weak federal legislation that has been promulgated, it is our opinion that state, provincial and local rightto-know initiatives are the only way to gain adequate protection.”
On the other side of the coin are the manufacturers who feel that there are several reasons for not providing the kind of detailed data that some of the current laws require. They are concerned about releasing trade secrets as a result of the detail required in many of the local laws.
Many of the manufacturers ship across state lines. It would be very costly to maintain different sets of informational data to satisfy the various laws that the trucks, trains, and barges must comply with as they pass through different states.
In the next year, the issue of how to approach the right-to-know problem will be settled. In all of the rhetoric, we should not lose sight of the fact that emergency response people need to know what the chemical is and what hazard it presents. We need that information quickly and efficiently. Let’s not get lost in the shuffle of positions and economic crying. It is we who need the information.
