Local News

Board: Fire Code Needed for Hazardous Waste Sites

Posted April 16, 2008

Map Marker  Find News Near Me

— The U.S. Chemical Safety Board on Wednesday called for better record-keeping and improved fire-suppression systems at hazardous waste processing facilities.

The recommendations were part of the board's final report on the October 2006 chemical fire at the Environmental Quality Industrial Services plant in Apex.

The chemical board showed a 16-minute video recreation of the Oct. 5, 2006, explosion at the EQ site. The rapidly spreading fire created a plume that Apex officials feared contained toxic chemicals, so they ordered 17,000 residents – more than half the town – to  leave their homes.

The fire burned itself out the following day, and residents were allowed to return to their homes two days after the explosion.

No one was seriously hurt in the incident, although 30 people, including 13 first responders, had to seek medical attention.

"The EQ facility was not adequately prepared for a fire that might occur after hours, when no people were present," CSB member William Wark said.

The facility, which collected hazardous materials from businesses and repackaged them for disposal elsewhere, had no fire walls or fire-suppression system to keep fires from spreading, Wark said. The only equipment on the site were hand-held fire extinguishers, which were ineffective with no one around to operate them, he said.

The cause of the fire has never been determined, but the chemical board said last year that oxygen canisters that hadn't been discharged before being removed from airplanes and sent to EQ accelerated the spread of the fire. The board issued a national safety advisory on the handling of the canisters.

The EQ fire was among 23 fires or chemical releases from hazardous waste sites in a five-year period, Wark said. One-third of those incidents required an evacuation, order to seek shelter or traffic detour, he said.

The CSB called for the Environmental Technology Council, the industry association for hazardous waste firms, to work with the National Fire Protection Association on a national fire code for waste facilities.

The chemical board also called for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to require waste facilities to periodically give local and state regulators up-to-date records of hazardous materials stored at their sites.

Emergency personnel had difficulty responding to and fighting the EQ fire because the company couldn't provide them with details about the types of chemicals and other materials in the facility.

"Specific, accurate, up-to-date information about chemical hazards is essential to emergency-response planning," Wark said. "Communities have a fundamental right to know about stored hazardous materials that might affect their health and well-being."

State lawmakers last year tightened regulations on hazardous waste facilities, requiring more access to records.

"It's unfortunate that it takes a situation like this to bring it to everyone's attention," said Bob Howington, president of Apex Cabinet Co., which is near the EQ site and was closed for two days after the fire.

Fourth District U.S. Rep. David Price, who represents the Apex area, sent a letter Wednesday to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, urging him to adopt the CSB recommendation. Price also said he plans to discuss with federal regulators other safety issues brought to light by the EQ fire, such as creating clear rules for the transport of unspent oxygen canisters.

"Thankfully, it won't be Apex dealing with this, since we no longer have hazardous waste facilities in our town," said Mayor Keith Weatherly, who fought to stop EQ from rebuilding and reopening its facility.

The state Division of Waste Management levied a record $553,225 fine against the company in March 2007, citing previous violations of the company's hazardous waste permit at the site, including unreported fires and chemical leaks.

EQ agreed last fall not to rebuild its Apex site to settle a dispute with state regulators. The company agreed to pay more than $400,000 in penalties, fees and reimbursements to the state.

The company also has paid more than $200,000 in reimbursements to the town and individuals.


This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • JXJ Apr 17, 2008

    People are so upset that this place was even there. It was there before most of the people living around it. Apex knew it was there and so did the fire dept. You can't just sneak one of those places in somewhere.

  • JXJ Apr 17, 2008

    Sutherngrl. Honestly, I have no idea about the circumstances of the other EQ fires. In all honesty, I don't know every single detail about the Apex fire. An arsonist? Good one. I don't think so. More like a waste generator sent something to EQ they shouldn't have. Shame on them. What I do know is the fire could have been extinguished and the fire dept decided instead to just watch it get bigger to the point that they were right to stay outside. My experience, contrary to what you may have thought: about 15 years of hazmat, environmental/safety compliance experience. People are so down on haz waste facilities now, when the very same thing (probably worse) could happen in many of the local factories...where all this waste is generated!

  • Vietnam Vet Apr 16, 2008

    Maybe it's just me, but you would think that these "regulations" would already be in place for businesses handling this type of material?

  • OLD PIRATE 2 Apr 16, 2008

    Thats right more regulations to drive up price of businesses and create more jobs...takes 18 months to investigate and do a report. More government will not fix this problem. Does anyone really think the company wanted this to happen?

  • whatelseisnew Apr 16, 2008

    New code: = no more than 2 matches per attempt. Fire may be started with or without mortar rounds included.

  • firedude Apr 16, 2008

    Also JXJ If you know people that were there before our fire department and the fire was small why did they not put it out. Also If they would have called 911 we would have been dispatched to correct location and not and intersection in the vicinity of the address.

  • firedude Apr 16, 2008

    JXJ. I will be at work on friday afternoon and will welcome you to come by the station to discuss this further. I may be able to spread some light on the event so you will quit saying that it was a small fire and we could have handled it. Please stop by antime

  • sutherngrl94 Apr 16, 2008

    Also, JXJ, I'm wondering if EQ submitted all of the appropriate paperwork to all of the other fire departments that responded to the explosions of their other companies. Do you have sources for that too? Also, I'm curious as to whether or not your "source" is an arsonist who started the fire or the truck driver who had to be woken up before the chemicals killed him. I'm also a little curious as to the haz-mat background you and/or your "source" has to be able to give the information you are giving out because the Raleigh HazMat team wouldn't go in to put the fire out either and their training is quite substantial. If you or your source knows so much more than all of the people running the scene then why weren't you at Winn-Dixie on Hwy. 64 helping out?

  • JXJ Apr 16, 2008

    Well, unfortunately, I do know about it and it is disturbing what people don't know.

  • JXJ Apr 16, 2008

    Sorry if I hurt your feelings. I have checked with people that were there before your fire department. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate firemen and what they do, however, I think this is something that has been kept a nice little secret. Trust me, my sources are good. The guy who very first discovered the fire did not discover and explosion. It was something small and manageable. They had the equipment and training to extinguish the fire and were not allowed to do it. I don't blame you for not wanting to let that information out to the public. Probably wouldn't make you look very good.