WITH ITS radio ads and handbills suggesting that the city is ill-prepared for emergencies involving hazardous materials, the Boston firefighters union is only blowing smoke at the public. Especially galling is the union’s call for a stand-alone hazardous materials unit. It would offer little in the way of added coverage while lowering the workload and boosting the salaries of select firefighters.
Hazardous materials can range from antifreeze spills from fender-benders to the release of dangerous chemicals or biological agents. Boston has 55 fire companies, of which five - consisting of about 100 firefighters - have the specialized “technician level’’ training needed to analyze, contain, and remove hazardous materials. But the brunt of their work is performing duties required of any firefighter. City officials say the union wants to convert one of these companies, in the South End, into a specialized unit that does nothing but deal with hazardous materials - without changing the duties of the other four firehouses with specialized hazmat training.
Fire Commissioner Roderick Fraser says there is no compelling reason to take a unit out of general service to respond solely to these incidents. Instead, Fraser says he is in the process of providing every firefighter in the city with basic “operations level’’ training in dealing with hazardous materials. Regional hazmat teams, he says, can be called upon in the event of large-scale incidents.
The union’s fear-mongering has less to do with Boston’s preparedness than with its own contentious contract fight with the city. The Menino administration rightly argues that hazardous materials training is a core skill for a modern fire department, and firefighters who undergo it should not get huge pay hikes to do so - especially when the city is paying for the training. About 400 city EMTs have hazmat technician training, and they show up for work without extra pay. Yet the fire union, according to city officials, wants annual stipends of 3 to 5 percent for firefighters with hazmat training.
Sadly, the union’s campaign has gained some traction. In a recent debate, mayoral challenger Michael Flaherty, who has the fire union’s endorsement, needled Menino over the lack of a dedicated hazmat unit. But there is nothing to indicate that the city has been lax in evaluating the ability of emergency personnel to respond to hazardous materials.
For Boston taxpayers, however, there is a hazard in giving in to the demands of the city’s firefighters.
