
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Rollover tanker
With regard to “Rollover Tanker Puts Training to the Test” by Joe Schumacher and Nick Nuanes in the March 1991 issue, I was very impressed with the way Amoco and the Denver Fire Department worked together to neutralize a potentially lethal situation. However, one aspect of the disaster was not addressed in the article.
Specifically, my concerns lie in the manner in which removal and transfer operations were conducted. The article states that “with all possible precautions taken, haz-mat teams began removal and transfer operations.” Flammable product then was removed with a pump driven via a PTO on a tank truck adjacent to the overturned tanker. Using a pump driven by a PTO (which is presumably driven by a diesel engine-powered tractor) near an overturned gasoline tanker is tantamount to inviting a diesel runaway.
Using a diesel engine-driven PTOpowered pump in gasoline transfer operations can (and often does) result in a diesel runaway and explosion. Gasoline fumes will propel a diesel engine into running away almost instantly. Diesel engines, unlike their gasoline counterparts, will continue to run on flammable vapors after the engine’s key is turned off. 1 call your attention to a recent incident in Midland. Texas in which a diesel-powered tank truck was using a PTO-driven pump to transfer gasoline from the truck’s tanks to an aboveground storage tank. Gasoline fumes escaped during the transfer operation and caused the tank truck’s diesel engine to runaway, resulting in a catastrophic fire and explosion.
Special precautions must be made for diesel engines operating near flammable vapors. Specifically, diesel engines operating near flammable vapors should be equipped with an. intake air shutoff valve (no air means no combustion). An intake air shutoff valve provides an elementary, safe, and reliable means of protection from runaway.
Brian M. Bruckner
Technical Specialist
AMOT Controls Corporation
Richmond, California
Haz-mat legislation
Your magazine has a reputation for providing up-to-date, informative, and accurate technical information about critical fire service issues, so I was quite surprised to read Peter G. Sparber’s frivolous and misleading Capitol Connection column in your March 1991 issue criticizing federal legislation aimed at protecting the health and safety of firefighters who must handle hazardous materials.
As your readers know all too well, the dangers faced by first responders in hazardous-materials incidents are no laughing matter. Firefighters in Kansas City, Buffalo, and other communities have lost their lives in hazardous-materials incidents —and many other firefighters will suffer the ill effects of exposure to toxic substances years from now.
The potential for deaths and injuries, not only to first responders but to unsuspecting civilians, exists every day on our nation’s highways, railways, waterways, and air routes. It is only a matter of time before a truck driver’s momentary lapse of attention or a stretch of icy highway will result in a disaster that will rival Chernobyl or Bhopal. Then even those fire service groups that opposed the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act will be clamoring for federal legislation to protect first responders and the public from future incidents.
The International Association of Fire Fighters and other forward-thinking fire service professionals, such as Jim Estepp, former 1AFC president and public safety director of Prince George’s County, Maryland, firmly believe that it is in the public’s interest to take steps now to enact long overdue hazardous-materials transportation safeguards. That is why we fought so hard for the Applegate hazardousmaterials transportation bill, and despite Sparber’s assertions to the contrary, why Congress authorized the National Academy of Sciences to evaluate the computerized hazardous-materials tracking system proposal and report back within 18 months so our federal legislators can further address the issue.
As noted in his biography, the author works closely with the National Volunteer Fire Council (NVFC), which opposed the hazardous-materials bill for reasons we still can’t figure out, since volunteer firefighters need the safety precautions and training included in this legislation as much as, if not more than, career professionals who often receive extensive hazardous-materials training.
It is also ironic that Sparber chose to breeze over the politics of the hazardous-materials issue, particularly the extensive financial and political muscle that the chemical and trucking industries mustered to try to defeat this important bill. Furthermore, in his account of Chief Estepp’s support for the measure, despite the opposition of the lAFC’s own hazardousmaterials committee, the author failed to note that chemical industry representatives, who would prefer to see no regulation of hazardous materials, sit on that same 1AFC committee that opposed Estepp’s efforts.
Two other issues —one which Sparber ignored in his column —provide a revealing look at why the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA), the American Trucking Association (ATA), and, presumably, the NVFC and the 1AFC hazardous-materials committee really opposed the legislation.
- The computerized tracking system embodied in the Applegate Bill would provide local officials and fire departments with flow studies and statistics detailing the number and types of hazardous-materials shipments that pass through their communities. Obviously, the chemical and trucking industries would prefer that our nation’s citizens remain unaware of the more than 500,000 potentially deadly cargoes that pass by their schools, hospitals, and homes every day.
- Such a computer tracking system also could shed some well-deserved light on the safety records of individual chemical and trucking companies, as Sparber noted in his column. The CMA and the ATA won’t take kindly to such disclosures, but they certainly would benefit local communities in their emergency response planning.
Although it has been shown time and again that a computerized tracking system would save trucking companies money and cost less than they are currently paying for the antiquated placard and manifest system, the CMA, the ATA, and Sparber continue to raise the tired argument that the Applegate bill will increase shipping costs.
We should know’ better than to listen to the chemical industry when it comes to issues concerning hazardous-materials safety. Twenty years ago it was the same chemical industry that launched a massive campaign against federal Superfund legislation that would clean up hazardous waste dumps, arguing that such legislation was unnecessary. Today, our nation’s landscape is littered with toxic waste dumps from Love Canal to Times Beach, Missouri —many of them caused by unscrupulous firms that illegally dumped their deadly chemicals and toxic wastes in the dark of night—and Superfund monies don’t even come close to providing the funds needed to clean up hundreds of these toxic time bombs.
The chemical industry is making the same argument this time—that the hazardous-materials transportation identification issue is unnecessary. I can only compare this to the kind of blatant disregard for human life that was shown by the asbestos companies when safety concerns were raised. They knew their asbestos products were killing and permanently disabling workers, but out of corporate greed they hid these facts and said new regulations were unnecessary.
History has proven that the chemical industry w’as wrong on Superfund—and it will be proven wrong on its staunch opposition to a computerized hazardous-materials tracking system.
Sparber is correct w hen he notes that there has not been a headlinegrabbing hazardous-materials incident in this country to rival the fatalities and horror of a Chernobyl or Bhopal. So far, we have been lucky, but the potential for such a disaster and the insidious long-term health effects such an incident can have on citizens, firefighters, and other first responders is ever present.
Those of us who have dedicated our professional careers to protecting the lives and property of others, rather than to financial profits, have learned that preventing a disaster is much better—and much safer—than responding to one.
- Alfred K. Whitehead
President
International Association
of Fire Fighters
Washington, D.C.
I write to register my strong objection to and anger over an article that appeared in your March 1991 issue entitled “Haz-Mat Legislation: The Debate Goes On,” by Peter G. Sparber. Not only are Mr. Sparber’s comments totally biased, which 1 recognize is his constitutional right, but I am personally insulted by his personal derogatory reference to me.
I respect Mr. Sparber’s right to disagree with and oppose the legislation that I sponsored in the 101st Congress calling for a nationwide computerized central reporting and data center for the purpose of providing instantaneous data on hazardousmaterial shipments to emergency response personnel, the so-called “Applegate bill,” regardless of his rationale or underlying purpose. However, to degrade me personally as a sponsor of legislation designed to protect the health and safety of firefighters, both paid and volunteer, is nothing but a cheap shot, and I resent it. His remarks demonstrate his lack of character and integrity and are a pock on the magazine in which the article appeared.
In early 1990, I met with Mr. Sparber and representatives of the National Volunteer Fire Council (NVFC), for whom he is a paid lobbyist, in an effort to explain my bill and to request their support. The overwhelming majority of all fire department personnel in my Eastern Ohio congressional district are volunteer, and I have received strong support for my proposal from every volunteer to whom I spoke. I strongly believed that my efforts would aid all first responders. The reception I received was cordial and considerate. While no commitment was given, it was indicated that the group would give the bill their consideration.
The NVFC eventually rejected my bill —again, their choice—but did not provide me with any reason or alternative as to how the bill could be crafted in an effort to aid their own concerns, which I would have been very’ willing to do and made that offer at our meeting. I am proud of the cooperation given to me and the support given to this proposal by the Fraternal Order of Police, the Teamsters, the International Association of Fire Fighters, and most other emergency response groups.
It is important to point out that the major concern of the volunteers during our meeting was the loss of the money they now receive from the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA), which was adamantly opposed to my bill. And, anyone with an ounce of sense and knowledge of my bill understands why CMA opposed me. It is the CMA that operates and maintains the answering service called CHEMTREC that is supposed to be used by first responders to determine what actions to take in a haz-mat accident, as long as the material is known. My bill would have, at the very least, significantly complemented and improved CHEMTREC, or even replaced it, which is needed as firefighters across the nation have condemned this service and now refuse to use it.
I maintain that the monetary grants that would have been available to all fire departments and communities as a result of my original legislation would have far exceeded the payments made to these groups by CMA. Regretfully, the NVFC could not grasp this.
Mr. Sparber is also critical of the language of the final bill that was eventually signed into law late last year. My original bill, H. R. 2584, was changed significantly from providing a very structured computer system to a long-term study to be conducted by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) that I nowr believe w ill provide all the answers to questions posed by the critics of my bill. What Mr. Sparber does not point out, however, is that it is because of the language of the ultimate bill that I worked out that it provides for additional health and safety standards specifically for volunteer firefighters.
The author also finds something wTong with being able to determine safety’ records of individual chemical and shipping companies. Why? Well, the chemical companies’ money talks, but don’t the general public, the first responders, and the volunteers, who pay Mr. Sparber to represent them, deserve this knowledge? 1 believe they do. First responders need to know what they are dealing with, and the current placard system is simply too inaccurate to make the proper determinations all the time. Volunteers as well as paid firefighters and their families deserve the full protection this legislation would afford them.
Mr. Sparber’s personal ignorance of my bill and the current manifest system is evident by his remarks about a per-shipment manifest fee that, 1 might add, will be addressed in the study mentioned above. To begin with, I did not mandate a set fee. Rather, a fee was to be determined by the Secretary of Transportation as payment for every manifest filed in the nationwide computer system. Yes, this is a user fee and yes, it would be paid for by the shipper and yes, ultimately passed to consumers. Does Mr. Sparber think for one second that there are no costs associated with completing the paper manifest now carried on haz-mat shipments? It may not be a set fee, but there is certainly a cost, and according to experts with whom I have talked, these hidden costs are much higher than what it would cost a shipper to file a manifest electronically. I assure you, too, that these costs also are passed on to the consumer.
I could address many other points in Mr. Sparber’s article, but in the interest of brevity I will not carry on the debate further. We will wait for the NAS study to be completed and will then proceed to implement a system that will provide the best tool first responders can have—knowledge.
Douglas Applegate
US. Congressman
18th District, Ohio
I enjoyed the Capitol Connection column in your March 1991 issue and agree with its conclusion that the hazardous-materials transportation issue poses some serious questions for legislators at all levels of government, especially those in Congress.
My only criticism of the column is the gentle way in which it characterizes the “Applegate” bill. That piece of legislation made little sense to many of us who deal with haz-mat incidents on a regular basis.
I do agree that the fire service needs far better information at the scene of most incidents. The sophisticated approach set forth by Congressman Applegate is just too far beyond the foreseeable capabilities of the tens of thousands of small volunteer departments that protect most of this nation.
We need legislation that provides training, information, and the right sort of equipment for firefighters. Anything less continues to place firefighters in jeopardy.
George A. Miller
Assistant Director, Fire Safety
Bureau of Fire Safety
State of New Jersey
Letters on letters
I would like to comment on several of Tom Brennan’s responses to J. Greg Taylor’s letter in the March 1991 issue. Brennan says, “1 am talking to firefighters, those people who must enter structures on fire—-America’s only uncontrolled atmosphere wherein the human body operates.” It does not appear much thought went into this statement. One of Webster’s definitions of atmosphere is “a surrounding influence or environment.” It doesn’t take much imagination to see uncontrolled atmospheres in which others work; military personnel quickly come to mind. Police officers, mine workers, farmers, road workers, convenience store clerks, and in recent years even postal and McDonald’s employees have been caught in uncontrolled environments.
Brennan then says, “Firefighters are America’s rescuers of life from fire.” Today’s true firefighters are rescuers of life from fire in ways other than pulling someone through a window. Webster’s suggests that to rescue is to free from danger. Early warning is an effective way to free from danger in many situations. Rather than Brennan’s description of fire department employees’ duties, true firefighters (if we are really interested in saving lives and property) participate in prevention and education as well as extinguishment. The reduction in life loss since smoke detectors and fire safety education have received emphasis is outstanding
Next Brennan says, “It’s not the educators and the prevention specialists or inspectors who have to commit their own lives for another’s safety.” In progressive fire departments the firefighters, educators, prevention specialists, and inspectors are the same people. The fact that firefighters teach fire safety to children or inspect a building they may enter later to fight fire or make a rescue in no way lessens their effectiveness. Obviously, the contrary is true. So, in this case, it is the firefighter/educator/prevention specialist/inspector who commits his or her life for others’ safety.
Brennan’s comment “We are losing people at fires. They are lost because of lack of sufficient manning levels that will not allow us to intercede in all areas of the fire building—all at once” is probably true. However, I wonder what the impact would be if the cost of one more person per pumper or truck were applied to installing smoke detectors or automatic sprinklers.
Brennan’s and Taylor’s differences of opinion regarding the occupant being dead or alive at fire department arrival may be due to geographical differences. Both are probably right. In communities where most fire deaths occur in single-family dwellings. the death probably occurs before the fire trucks arrive; in large cities, the victims may be trapped in upper floors or more distant areas by the fire spreading from the point of origin throughout the building. Consequently, Taylor’s comment “…if the occupants have not made it on their own, the odds for their survival are not in their favor” is probably true in his jurisdiction.
Brennan’s statement “I really don’t know any experienced and sincere firefighter who would give any credibility to your remarks” may be true for New York, but not for other parts of America. Mr. Brennan, I share your concern for the firefighter/preventer/ inspector/educator who has to deal with his/her own questioning about a fire loss.
Though most of us probably have not responded to 33,000 fire alarms, many of us remember many instances of fire deaths. None of the ones I have experienced would have been different with another person on each vehicle. Most of the lives would have been saved with earlier warning. Each of us who is committed to reducing the threat of fire should salute and support those firefighters/preventers/ inspectors/educators.
Joe Erwin
Fire Chief
Hurst (TX) Fire Department
J. Greg Taylor’s letter to the editor in your March 1991 issue and Tom Brennan’s response were of special interest to me as an 18-year veteran of the Amarillo (TX) Fire Department. Brennan’s response was right on the mark. Taylor is not a firefighter with our department and does not represent its feelings or attitudes. He is a civilian appointed to the Fire Prevention Department.
Our 206-member department is a modern, well-equipped, well-trained, dedicated, and undermanned group. This department and the citizens we serve have paid, and unfortunately will probably continue to pay, the physical and emotional price of running twoand three-man engine companies.
Charles D. Upton
Lieutenant
Amarillo Fire Department
Amarillo, Texas