Richard Marinucci

Firefighting has continued to evolve to the point where there is more universal recognition of the need for training and compliance with standards by those individuals and organizations that respond to emergencies.

But, there are very specific events that require specialized training and specific equipment. There is not as much “wiggle room” regarding this from a regulatory and standard perspective. These events-hazmat responses and technical rescue scenarios-are relatively late additions to fire departments’ responsibilities, and they have been regulated almost from day one. As such, it behooves organizations to know the requirements so they not only provide the quality service their customers expect but also avoid liability should something go wrong.

I am certain that some response teams don’t comply 100 percent with the various regulations and standards that provide guidance and direction to responders. And, as with many circumstances similar to this, it only becomes an issue when something goes wrong. To put it another way: Many drivers do not comply with various posted speed limits or other roadway regulations. They don’t get into trouble unless they are caught by law enforcement or, worse yet, they cause a crash. They only suffer consequences after a mishap. Similar thought processes can contribute to neglect on the part of response teams to these special incidents. Only if there are unexpected outcomes will there be challenges. If there are, there will be a review of applicable regulations and standards. Some have the force of law, and others are expected to be followed.

Hazmat Response

Responses to hazmat incidents may have been the first official add-on to fire departments’ responsibilities other than emergency medical services (EMS). And, like EMS, hazmat has established protocols with a requirement to comply with accepted standards. Departments cannot purchase a supply of “kitty litter” and buy a few encapsulating suits to begin responding to calls. They must have the equipment commensurate with the types of hazards they can reasonably expect along with the appropriate training. This will vary according to expectations for what will be done regarding identifying and mitigating hazards. There is a qualification classification system-awareness, operations, technician, specialist-that identifies the involvement an individual may have during a hazmat incident.

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 472, Standard for Competence of Responders to Hazardous Materials/Weapons of Mass Destruction Incidents (2013 ed.), establishes criteria for response to hazmat incidents. Those involved with response teams must be intimately familiar with this document. Chief officers, even if they are not direct responders, must also know the standard and take steps for compliance. Even though some may argue this is an advisory standard, ignoring its contents would be foolish. Should something run afoul, there will be consequences. There will be legal liabilities relative to the standard, and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) states will consider this as an acceptable standard that must be followed. Fortunately, almost anyone with official responsibilities in the hazmat arena will know this. It is those who are not prepared who should reconsider.

Speaking of OSHA, there are regulations identified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) that responders must know and follow. This is not to imply that they need to be memorized, but a working knowledge is essential, and the contents of

Richard Marinucci

Firefighting has continued to evolve to the point where there is more universal recognition of the need for training and compliance with standards by those individuals and organizations that respond to emergencies.

But, there are very specific events that require specialized training and specific equipment. There is not as much “wiggle room” regarding this from a regulatory and standard perspective. These events-hazmat responses and technical rescue scenarios-are relatively late additions to fire departments’ responsibilities, and they have been regulated almost from day one. As such, it behooves organizations to know the requirements so they not only provide the quality service their customers expect but also avoid liability should something go wrong.

I am certain that some response teams don’t comply 100 percent with the various regulations and standards that provide guidance and direction to responders. And, as with many circumstances similar to this, it only becomes an issue when something goes wrong. To put it another way: Many drivers do not comply with various posted speed limits or other roadway regulations. They don’t get into trouble unless they are caught by law enforcement or, worse yet, they cause a crash. They only suffer consequences after a mishap. Similar thought processes can contribute to neglect on the part of response teams to these special incidents. Only if there are unexpected outcomes will there be challenges. If there are, there will be a review of applicable regulations and standards. Some have the force of law, and others are expected to be followed.

Hazmat Response

Responses to hazmat incidents may have been the first official add-on to fire departments’ responsibilities other than emergency medical services (EMS). And, like EMS, hazmat has established protocols with a requirement to comply with accepted standards. Departments cannot purchase a supply of “kitty litter” and buy a few encapsulating suits to begin responding to calls. They must have the equipment commensurate with the types of hazards they can reasonably expect along with the appropriate training. This will vary according to expectations for what will be done regarding identifying and mitigating hazards. There is a qualification classification system-awareness, operations, technician, specialist-that identifies the involvement an individual may have during a hazmat incident.

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 472, Standard for Competence of Responders to Hazardous Materials/Weapons of Mass Destruction Incidents (2013 ed.), establishes criteria for response to hazmat incidents. Those involved with response teams must be intimately familiar with this document. Chief officers, even if they are not direct responders, must also know the standard and take steps for compliance. Even though some may argue this is an advisory standard, ignoring its contents would be foolish. Should something run afoul, there will be consequences. There will be legal liabilities relative to the standard, and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) states will consider this as an acceptable standard that must be followed. Fortunately, almost anyone with official responsibilities in the hazmat arena will know this. It is those who are not prepared who should reconsider.

Speaking of OSHA, there are regulations identified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) that responders must know and follow. This is not to imply that they need to be memorized, but a working knowledge is essential, and the contents of

Richard Marinucci

Firefighting has continued to evolve to the point where there is more universal recognition of the need for training and compliance with standards by those individuals and organizations that respond to emergencies.

But, there are very specific events that require specialized training and specific equipment. There is not as much “wiggle room” regarding this from a regulatory and standard perspective. These events-hazmat responses and technical rescue scenarios-are relatively late additions to fire departments’ responsibilities, and they have been regulated almost from day one. As such, it behooves organizations to know the requirements so they not only provide the quality service their customers expect but also avoid liability should something go wrong.

I am certain that some response teams don’t comply 100 percent with the various regulations and standards that provide guidance and direction to responders. And, as with many circumstances similar to this, it only becomes an issue when something goes wrong. To put it another way: Many drivers do not comply with various posted speed limits or other roadway regulations. They don’t get into trouble unless they are caught by law enforcement or, worse yet, they cause a crash. They only suffer consequences after a mishap. Similar thought processes can contribute to neglect on the part of response teams to these special incidents. Only if there are unexpected outcomes will there be challenges. If there are, there will be a review of applicable regulations and standards. Some have the force of law, and others are expected to be followed.

Hazmat Response

Responses to hazmat incidents may have been the first official add-on to fire departments’ responsibilities other than emergency medical services (EMS). And, like EMS, hazmat has established protocols with a requirement to comply with accepted standards. Departments cannot purchase a supply of “kitty litter” and buy a few encapsulating suits to begin responding to calls. They must have the equipment commensurate with the types of hazards they can reasonably expect along with the appropriate training. This will vary according to expectations for what will be done regarding identifying and mitigating hazards. There is a qualification classification system-awareness, operations, technician, specialist-that identifies the involvement an individual may have during a hazmat incident.

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 472, Standard for Competence of Responders to Hazardous Materials/Weapons of Mass Destruction Incidents (2013 ed.), establishes criteria for response to hazmat incidents. Those involved with response teams must be intimately familiar with this document. Chief officers, even if they are not direct responders, must also know the standard and take steps for compliance. Even though some may argue this is an advisory standard, ignoring its contents would be foolish. Should something run afoul, there will be consequences. There will be legal liabilities relative to the standard, and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) states will consider this as an acceptable standard that must be followed. Fortunately, almost anyone with official responsibilities in the hazmat arena will know this. It is those who are not prepared who should reconsider.

Speaking of OSHA, there are regulations identified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) that responders must know and follow. This is not to imply that they need to be memorized, but a working knowledge is essential, and the contents of

By Mark E. Davis

On October 22-23, 2016, Chief Ira Walker Jr. and members of the Eureka Volunteer Fire Department, lin Stewartstown, Pennsylvania, had the opportunity to display their water hauling skills during a weekend rural water supply training seminar sponsored by the department. The 16-hour seminar covered all aspects of hauling water with tankers.

The weekend began with a classroom session on Saturday morning that reviewed and discussed such topics as fire flow demand, Insurance Services Office (ISO) water supply criteria, types of water hauling vehicles, modes of operation, drafting operations, dump site setup operations, and fill site operations. Saturday afternoon brought practical skill sessions on dump site and fill site operations.

1 Engine 54-4 from the Eureka Volunteer Fire Department, in Stewartstown, Pennsylvania, is a 2015 Sutphen pumper equipped with a 2,250-gpm Hale XS pump. (Photos by author.)

On Sunday morning, crews conducted more practical skill sessions on dump site and fill site operations. The seminar culminated Sunday afternoon with a two-hour tanker shuttle exercise where the goal was to deliver an uninterrupted 500-gallon-per-minute (gpm) flow for two hours. The two-hour exercise is really the “old” ISO two-hour water supply drill where fire departments could demonstrate their ability to haul water in their nonhydranted areas to meet the ISO’s needed fire flows for target hazards within the community. Even though the ISO has moved to computer modeling in lieu of the two-hour drill, the drill is still a good assessment of a department’s ability to initiate and sustain a water supply operation using tankers.

Conducting the Drill

The two-hour drill comprises three time segments. The first segment lasts for five minutes and is sometimes referred to as “setup time.” Time starts on the first engine’s arrival at the designated drill site. At the five-minute mark, that engine must begin flowing water at a rate of 250 gpm-generally through some type of attack line.

The second segment of the drill lasts 10 minutes (minutes five through 15 of the drill). During this segment, water supply operations are allowed to expand using additional personnel and equipment. At the end of the 10-minute segment, the participants can increase the flow to whatever they wish. However, that flow must then be sustained for the remainder of the two-hour period.

2 Engine 54-4’s pump panel is laid out for ease of operation, including the suction inlet control valves and their corresponding air primer controls.

The third and final segment of the drill lasts 105 minutes. During this time period, the flow must not be interrupted or reduced. When the ISO used to require this drill, an interruption in flow resulted in drill failure. During training seminars, interruptions in flow and changes in flow rates are accepted as part of the learning process, and the drill continues to allow participants to overcome problems.

During the Eureka seminar, units and personnel from numerous department