“Nuclear Gamble”
Jim Hutton’s Fire Commentary “Nuclear Gamble” (March 2001) about the safety of uranium hexafluoride (UF6) during transport contains misleading information.
The temperature of 1,4757F for 30 minutes criterion is based on the requirements from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), not on the standard building fire test criteria Hutton cites. An international team of experts developed the IAEA criterion. It considered flammable materials in transit as well as actual transit fires that have occurred.
Similarly, Hutton implies that “real fire” conditions have not been used. To the contrary, the cylinders and overpacks have been physically tested. The tests are done in a fire pool that is fueled by a hydrocarbon, typically JP4 or similar jet fuel. The 30-minute clock does not start until 1,4757F is reached and exceeded. Note that 1,4757F is the minimum temperature.
Hutton suggests that the cylinders should be fitted with pressure-relief devices. For this material, it would be more hazardous to install such devices. In fact, the current version of the IAEA regulations prohibits the use of a pressure-relief device for shipment of UF6 packages.
Uranium hexafluoride changes physical state from a solid to a gas at about room temperature. This is called sublimation. UF6 “melts” at elevated pressures/temperatures such as could occur at a fire. Hutton is concerned about the hydraulic rupture of the cylinder because of liquid expansion. This melting/expansion phenomenon does occur, as testing has demonstrated. Prevention of hydraulic rupture is ensured by only partially filling the UF6 cylinders. If in the rare event a UF6 cylinder were to leak, the UF6 will be vented as a gas, not a liquid.
The major hazard with uranium hexafluoride is the formation of hydrogen fluoride when uranium hexafluoride interacts with the moisture in the air. Uranium oxyfluoride is also formed; however, the hydrogen fluoride will cause physical damage before any effects of the uranium oxyfluoride occur. For this reason, the cylinder is designed and tested as a pressure vessel so it will maintain its seal during an accident involving fire.
The nuclear industry is committed to ensuring public safety from the radioactive materials it uses and transports. Accordingly, we take measures to ensure that even in the unlikely event of an accident, no members of the public, including emergency responders, will be harmed by the radioactive material. We have an outstanding safety record to back that up. No member of the public has been killed or seriously injured or harmed from radiation during normal transport or from an accident occurring during the transportation of radioactive materials.
Felix M. Killar, Jr.
Director
Material Licensees
Nuclear Energy Institute
Washington, D.C.
Jim Hutton responds: Felix M. Killar, Jr., makes several misleading statements in his response to my article.
First, my reference to the standard fire curve was intended to imply that the current regulatory requirements have no sound technical basis and are flawed. Both the time and temperature criteria the regulatory community uses are not based on hydrocarbon fires typically found in a transportation accident.
Second, he fails to inform Fire Engineering’s readers that not all cylinders are shipped within protective overpacks and that fire tests of exposed cylinders have resulted in explosive failures.
Third, I did not imply in my article that cylinders should be equipped with pressure relief valves; it was only a statement of fact. His statement that “the cylinder is designed and tested as a pressure vessel to maintain its seal during an accident involving fire” is totally false and misleading.
The nuclear industry tends to treat its employees who raise problems like the shell game: It ignores, denies, and blames others until the problems are manipulated under a different shell and the employees become the victims.
Time to fight on, not spin the FIRE Act
If Chief Art Goodrich (Letters to the Editor, April 2001) chooses to believe that receiving 81/2 percent of what we fought so hard for (the FIRE Act) is a “monumental victory,” that is his right. Perhaps if we tell ourselves this often enough we may come to truly believe it. We may also accuse critics of the phony political hype as “break[ing] rank” “when the pressure is on.” Of course, one must then ask why any pressure is on if we have been so monumentally victorious?
The simple fact is that despite our hard work, the politicians in whom we placed our faith merely threw us a bone. Granted, it was a nice juicy bone and bigger than we’ve gotten before. This fact alone and the hope that perhaps this is the start of something better could be viewed as a victory of sorts.
At the same time, compared with other federal grant programs, it was an insult that reveals the thinly disguised contempt with which many of our elected officials view our life’s calling. Our law enforcement cousins, for example, receive $7 billion (or about 17 times more than our total two-year package) annually. As Goodrich correctly surmises, “Maybe ellipse they have been yelling louder and fighting harder.” This is, of course, precisely the point. You can bet that their rank-and-file would not be expressing satisfaction, much less boastful pride, for anything like the package that we got.
Clearly, the politicians and bureaucrats (and, tragically, some in the fire service as well) see firefighters as a bunch of nice guys who are willing to take on increasingly added responsibilities without proper resources. But professionals? Well, not really. This view is only encouraged by the virtual absence of any meaningful public relations efforts on our part. It is further justified these days by our gushing show of joy and hyperbolic statements of “victory.”
If we are ever to gain the respect our profession deserves, we must, like our police counterparts, demand it. And we must insist on being professional as well. To offer just one example: While more and more police departments are requiring college degrees as prerequisites for appointment and promotion, the fire service is content to accept watered-down pass-fail exams.
We must also recognize the sometimes timid fire service leadership of those willing to go along to get along. Indeed, a few self-serving and politically minded fire service “leaders” can undo the hard work and sacrifice of many in the trenches. There is truth in that often-repeated firefighter statement: “We are our own worst enemies.”
In what appears to be a somewhat hysterical lashing out in denial, Goodrich charges that my letter in the January 2001 issue “spit in the face of everyone who worked so hard to bring the fire service a monumental victory.” If so, I was spitting in the wind, for the fact is that I was one of those who did his bit for the FIRE Act and will continue to fight for our fire service.
Now is the time for honest evaluation and forthright talk, for planning the hard work before us, and for developing strategies by which we may use the politicians rather than have them use us. It is not the time for self-congratulatory spin or self-delusion.
Charles Angione
Operations Deputy Chief (Ret.)
Plainfield (NJ) Fire Division
Bangor, Pennsylvania
Chain saws on peaked roofs
Regarding “Using a Chain Saw in Peaked-Roof Ventilation” by Peter F. Kertzie (April 2001), when I send my members on a peaked roof, I have them use three roof ladders. Two are hooked over the peak approximately six to eight feet apart; the third is placed horizontally over the first two ladders approximately six to eight feet below the peak to form an “H.” The third ladder is hooked into the other two ladders with a premade device that goes around the rails and rungs. The only time someone has to get off a ladder is when he is making the first cut at the peak.
I live in Ohio, where we have a lot of ice and snow. I have found that this is a safer way to have people cut on the roof. With a little practice, it takes only a few seconds to set this up. I feel that, for the safety of the firefighters, it is worth the time.
Doug Shade
Captain
Clayton (OH) Fire Department
Quint is not a cure-all
While I am pleased with all my issues of Fire Engineering, the April 2001 issue was one of the best in recent times. I found more than a few things to walk away with, including “Keeping Us in the Game, Barely” (Editor’s Opinion), Lance C. Peeples’ “Controlling the Door,” and John F. “Skip” Coleman’s “Searching Smarter, Part 3: Advanced Oriented Search.” I found myself cramming my brain with the knowledge presented.
It was refreshing to read “To Buy (or Not to Buy) a Quint” by Jake Rixner. His “renegade” views on the quint concept offer a realisitic view of what some officials see as a cure-all to their financial and staffing problems. The list of pros and cons is honest and unbiased, although only three of the eight pros offer a positive gain for firefighters (ladderpipe, immediate rescues, and enclosed cabs with air-conditioning).
The rest are advantages geared more toward the bean counters and those who fail to see the advantages of and necessity for engine and truck companies to arrive in quick succession. I’m glad to see that Rix-ner was not afraid to expose the quint for what it is. I only hope that he and other firefighters are able to make those rescues when seconds count. Keep up the good work; I look forward to my future issues.
Michael J. Lopina
Firefighter/Paramedic
Will County, Illinois
Congratulations to Jake Rixner for the quint article. Finally, someone who has worked with quints is willing to discuss the advantages and disadvantages instead of just the “all positive feedback” by quint supporters.
Similar to my experience, there are noteworthy disadvantages to quints, but Rixner reviewed the following key factors that are detrimental to quint apparatus but rarely mentioned.
- By combining engines and trucks, quints become an excellent tool to reduce staffing. However, once staffing is reduced, is it ever restored?
- Since quints are multifunction apparatus (engine, truck, and so forth), and firefighters primarily want to put the wet stuff on the red stuff, it is imperative that quint personnel be equally proficient in engine and truck company operations. If they are not, you have purchased an expensive engine company, and your truck company expertise will (not might) diminish. Therefore, quint officers should also have truck experience and expertise.
- Quints are normally staffed with three or four personnel. With accountability as a cornerstone, the quint suddenly becomes a multifunctional company capable of a single operation. As a side note, the Austin (TX) Fire Department staffs its quints with six to eight personnel, allowing them to accomplish three or four operations simultaneously.
- The design criteria of single-chassis apparatus dictates the interior of the apparatus be used for water tanks, hose trays, aerial device substructure, and so forth, which limits the compartment depth and, therefore, usable space. This is quickly discovered when a cursory examination reveals that compartments that appear large from the exterior actually lack depth.
At the end of the article, Rixner asks if there is a way to achieve the discipline necessary to accomplish effective ladder company duties using quints. The answer is a simplistic “yes”-if quint personnel are trained to understand the quint concept. This places the primary responsibility of proper quint operations on the shoulders of quint officers and mandates that quint officers and personnel be equally proficient in engine and truck company operations and be willing and able to accomplish either when necessary.
John Mittendorf
Battalion Chief (Ret.)
Los Angeles City (CA) Fire Department
Rural apparatus, water supply information needed
I am interested in hearing from rural volunteer fire departments regarding the type of apparatus they use and how they manage and operate their rural water supplies. I have read articles and understand the basics.
I am greatly concerned with the fire protection here at home. When a small brush fire is put out by a truck that’s at least as old as I am, I’m concerned. It’s a poor county and has limited water resources.
As a minister, I have high regard for the firefighters and paramedics who work long, hard hours. Please send any related information to Joseph Caracas, 319 Bedwell Street, Heflin, Alabama 36264-1186.