Chief Concerns Richard Marinucci
Fire departments have probably always responded to some types of hazardous materials emergencies.
For the most part, when circumstances require a response from local government and there are no clear-cut options, the fire department often is the default agency. Prior to the establishment of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations and National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards, fire departments sent out their personnel to do the best they could. Fortunately, in many cases, there were not too many events, and the complexity was not as great as it is today. Through advances in society and science, many new chemicals exist and methods to use and transport have increased. Yet, statistically and anecdotally, response to emergencies involving hazardous materials has not overburdened most departments.
The need to be prepared to respond remains. As standards and regulations have been developed, fire departments have had more expectations placed on them. They have been given direction as to preparation and response. It could be argued that many of the requirements are not completely aligned with typical fire department responses. Time often is not critical to take action, and those performing jobs must have the proper training. In contrast, response to structure fires has always relied on rapid response with the purpose of getting to the scene in the moments that matter—that is, in time to save those who are savable and minimize the damage caused by the spread of fire. Regarding training, beyond the bare minimum, it is up to the local departments. Though national standards exist, states retain the right to establish the standards acceptable within their jurisdiction. Local organizations can exceed those minimums but not go below the requirements.
- Hazardous-Materials Incident Response
- Hazmat Responses Answered with Large and Small Rigs and Trailers
- Specialty PPE in Use at Hazardous Materials, ARFF, and Industrial Incidents
- The Challenges of Hazmat Responses
- Lessons Learned from Hazmat Training and Response
- Responding to a Hazmat Call
This could be an oversimplification but is intended to generate some discussion regarding the differences in approaches to responses to various incidents that occur within jurisdictions. We can start by looking at the typical makeup of firefighters. Generally, they are action oriented and conditioned to respond quickly, make decisions and acting at a moment’s notice, often without having all the information needed. Much of this is predicated on policies and procedures, standard operating guidelines, training, and experience. It often leads to a situation where emergencies are approached with an “autopilot” mentality, which can lead to complacency. It can also be established in a culture of an organization that has or wants a reputation of being an aggressive fire department. Yet, when a run presents that has a component of a known or an unknown substance, these same firefighters will hit the brakes and pause to consider options.
It is sometimes hard to believe that the same “hard charging” firefighters can ratchet back their enthusiasm for an emergency involving hazardous materials and take a much more methodical approach. There seems to be no sense of urgency in many cases to act without first gathering as much information as possible. Now, we can agree there are differences, and how we go about the business of each probably requires a different approach. But, we could also look at similarities and investigate ways to improve in both areas by seeing which tactics can cross over. Why can you get a firefighter to pause and think when he sees an event involving a chemical but that same individual will throw caution to the wind if there are flames and smoke? And, in many of those hostile fire events, the same chemicals can exist. Urgency to act is certainly a factor, but knowing your business and being properly prepared should be part of both responses.
Another aspect of hazardous materials responses that is different is in the area of decontamination. I realize that this is changing, but there still exist dissimilar approaches and philosophies in many cases. Teams who respond to chemical emergencies will establish decontamination early as part of their work plan and operation. They will wash contaminants off and package the waste. They certainly won’t put it back in the passenger compartment of their vehicle. The people will be deconned, as will any equipment used. Depending on the incident, items may be considered disposable and used just once. This process also contradicts the urgency to get back in service in case there is another call. For fires, firefighters will rush to return to service so they can respond to another call quickly, often taking shortcuts on cleaning and replacing tools and equipment. There are changes afoot, but one might think it hypocritical to make sure everything is clean and personnel are protected in one type of incident but similar considerations are not given in others. We should ask why one is more important than the other.
To look at this in more detail, you only need to look at turnout gear, hose, and SCBA. Bunkers are frequently returned to the station contaminated. Hose is loaded dirty. SCBA may only be partially cleaned. Why is this okay? Because we might get another call on the way back to the station, so we have to be ready. But is the risk of exposure worth it if it is for fire response purposes as opposed to hazmat incidents? In this way of thinking, it is okay to be exposed to potential or known carcinogens longer if the reason for the contamination is a fire. But, if there are no flames and just some chemicals, we better clean up properly as soon as we can. Maybe it is time to align our approaches a little closer. I am certain there are some who will think I have totally lost my mind, and maybe I have. But the point of the discussion here is to become more consistent and have a logical and intellectual reason for our approach to all types of calls.
Something else to consider—members of hazardous materials response teams spend a lot of time training for incidents not likely to occur. It is the classic high-risk/low-frequency event where a lack of preparation will cause problems. On the fire side, there are a number of these for most departments—commercial buildings, high-rise fires, Maydays, big box and mega-box buildings, etc. Departments, shifts, stations, and companies need to be honest with themselves and ask if they are doing what they can to be prepared. They need the same approach and mindset of hazmat teams. Look at your community and consider those things with a low probability of occurring and get ready just in case.
The approach to hazmat incidents is often very different than a response to a fire. Those trained to higher levels of hazmat response take a much more methodical and measured approach than firefighters addressing a structure on fire. Why such a difference and how can the same individuals take different approaches to the emergencies presented? There are reasons and perhaps there are lessons to be learned.
This is a good time to do some research on this, as many fires today generate significant amounts of hazardous materials. It is definitely related to the health and safety of all firefighters. Risk and benefit must be considered. Competence is a big deal when it comes to health and safety. The better one is prepared, the better chance of retiring with fewer physical problems. Departments and individuals should inventory their approach and see where changes can be made that will not affect services but do more to protect the most valuable resource of any department, the people.
RICHARD MARINUCCI is the executive director of the Fire Department Safety Officers Association (FDSOA) and chief (ret.) of the White Lake Township (MI) Fire Department. He retired as chief of the Farmington Hills (MI) Fire Department in 2008, a position he had held since 1984. He is a Fire Apparatus & Emergency Equipment and Fire Engineering Editorial Advisory Board member, a past president of the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC), and past chairman of the Commission on Chief Fire Officer Designation. In 1999, he served as acting chief operating officer of the U.S. Fire Administration for seven months. He has a master’s degree and three bachelor’s degrees in fire science and administration and has taught extensively.
