Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Councilmember calls hearing on DC water issues at mansion fire. Mayor wants reports. But what happened to the last report into these same problems?
Click here and then scroll down for the latest fire and EMS news from STATter911.com
Watch 9NEWS NOW 6:00 PM report on this storyWatch December 10, 2007 DC City Council hearing
Watch October 4, 2007 DC City Council hearing
2007 Adams Mill Road report by J. Gordon Routley
2007 WASA report executive summary
Routley analyzes WASA's 2007 report
DC Fire & EMS Department photographer Vito Maggiolo's raw video from 2007 Adams Morgan fire
Councilmember Jim Graham announced Friday he will hold a hearing on September 16 to determine what went wrong at the fire last Wednesday night at the Chain Bridge Road mansion of former DC Board of Education president Peggy Cooper Cafritz. The Ward 1 councilmember is trying to determine why it took the DC Fire & EMS Department almost two hours to establish a reliable water supply to combat the fire.
Mayor Adrian Fenty has asked the fire chief and the DC Water & Sewer Authority (WASA) for reports this week on what happened and how to correct the issues.
If this sounds familiar, it should. In late 2007, Councilmember Graham held a series of hearings looking at the serious water supply issues that became apparent during a four-alarm fire that destroyed an apartment building in Adams Morgan on October 1 of that year. The Fenty administration also ordered an investigative report into the problems that occurred during that fire.
So what happened to the report?
It might be easier to tell you what didn't happen. During the 2007 hearings Jim Graham's Committee on Public Works and the Environment never heard from the man who headed the investigation into what went wrong at the fire on Adams Mill Road. In fact, in a December 10, 2007 hearing shortly after the report was released, the fire department didn't present the report's findings. During that hearing there was no mention or discussion of the report, despite the report's ominous warning that the water system in the Nation's Capital was "questionable".
It appears many of the same issues brought up in the 2007 report came into play at the July 29 fire on Chain Bridge Road.
The report also greatly conflicted with a report released at the same time by the DC Water & Sewer Authority (WASA). During that December 10 hearing WASA's general manager presented some of the findings from its report.
Click above to watch the conclusion of the December 10, 2007 hearing.
The investigation of the 2007 fire
Within hours after the 2007 fire there was finger pointing between Chief Dennis Rubin and officials at the DC Water & Sewer Authority (WASA), including its general manager at the time, Jerry Johnson. The controversy surrounded who was responsible for the inadequate water flow at the scene of the fire. Graham, who witnessed the fire, was also critical of WASA.
The tension carried over into a hearing Graham held three-days later. In that hearing Chief Rubin called the executives who ran WASA "uncooperative".
Immediately after the 2007 fire, the city engaged the services of consultant and former Shreveport, Louisiana fire chief J. Gordon Routley to lead a team looking into the fire and related water problems. The DC Fire & EMS Department says the report cost $12,000.
On November 16, Mayor Adrian Fenty released Routley's 76-page report. On the same day WASA released an executive summary of its own report. The two reports came up with greatly different conclusions.
Routley wrote that both WASA and the fire department had to do a better job of handling the water supply needed for larger fires. The report was critical of WASA's response and the information it provided at the scene of the fire. It also had serious questions about the water system's reliability.
By contrast, WASA's report found that the water system around the Adams Morgan fire met NFPA guidelines. The WASA report, looking at the city's smallest water mains, concluded there was only one occupied portion of the city where water flow was a significant problem.
The 2007 council hearings
On December 10, a little more than three-weeks after the reports were released, Councilmember Graham held a hearing on the Adams Morgan fire. Gordon Routley was in Washington and was to be part of the panel testifying before the committee. STATter911.com, aware of Routley's scheduled testimony, watched the hearing. There was no appearance by Routley, or any discussion of his report.
At the time, STATter911.com was told by a number of sources there was some sort of an agreement between city officials and WASA that the report would not be part of the hearing. No reason was given other than the parties were now in agreement on how to move forward with many of these difficult issues.
Councilmember Graham says he is no recollection of any agreements and does not recall the Routley report.
During the December 10 hearing there was much discussion over the progress Chief Rubin and WASA's Jerry Johnson made in addressing the problems. Their memorandum of understanding set the stage for jointly funded hydrant inspections by firefighters, along with flow testing and hydrant marking by WASA.
Jerry Johnson concluded his testimony in that hearing by saying, "I want to assure the residence they can go to sleep tonight knowing there is adequate flow of safe water in the mains of the District of Columbia to not only provide them with good wholesome drinking water but to suppress any fire or any other emergency that may occur in the city."
Issues from 2007 report that linger
What Graham, his committee, and the public didn't hear from Routley or anyone else during that 2007 hearing was any discussion about some of the major concerns outlined in the city sponsored report. Many of those same issues were once again evident last Wednesday night.
DC Fire & EMS Department officials familiar with the operations on Chain Bridge Road said that current maps supplied by WASA are not clear about the connections between hydrants and specific water mains. The sources, who are not authorized to speak publicly on this matter, said there was much trial and error trying to find water from a source separate from the inadequate 8-inch main on Chain Bridge Road.
In the 2oo7 report Routley wrote:
The water system maps that are available to DC Fire & EMS Department are out of date and very difficult to read. It is almost impossible to determine which hydrants are supplied by large mains from these maps.
The sources claim the response by WASA to Wednesday's fire was too little, too late. While no official has been able to supply an exact time the first WASA crew arrived, sources indicate there was a two person crew on the scene about one hour and fifteen minutes after the fire began. The sources indicate the fire department needed a larger and more timely response from WASA employees who were more knowledgeable of the system and the fire department's needs.
After the 2007 fire the report recommended, "A system should be established to ensure that WASA technical expertise is readily available for emergency situations found". Also, according to the report:
The institutional knowledge, from WASA, that is needed to advise DC Fire & EMS Commanders on the details of the water system infrastructure and where to seek additional water when high demand incidents occur was not available on the night the fire occurred. This knowledge is limited to a small number of senior WASA employees.
In addition the report brought out shortcomings in the DC Fire & EMS Department's abilities and procedures for handling larger fires. Despite the report's recommendations that the city have staffed "water supply companies" with 5-inch hose, the department still uses 4-inch hose on six unstaffed water supply engines. A company responds to a firehouse to pick up the water supply unit when a second-alarm is dispatched or when requested by an incident commander. With the exception of the water supply companies, DC's engine companies use 3-inch supply lines.
Chief Rubin told STATter911.com last Thursday he would like to improve the water supply company situation but does not have the money in his budget.
There were many recommendations in the 2007 report that have been acted on, including the hydrant inspections and flow testing. DC Fire and EMS Department spokesman Pete Piringer says the department uses the 2007 report as a guide and has implemented most of its recommendations. But Piringer confirms there are a number of recommendations in the report that may be relevant to Wednesday's fire that haven't been funded or are up to WASA to handle.
Still, the real headline from the 2007 report may come from one of its major findings:
The condition of the water system infrastructure is highly questionable due to its age and condition, as due to deferred maintenance and inspections. Major portions of the underground infrastructure will have to be replaced to upgrade the system. Correction of these problems will require millions of dollars and at least two decades of continual effort.
To this date J. Gordon Routley has not been publicly questioned by Chairman Graham or other councilmembers about his reasons for making that bleak assessment of the water system in the Nation's Capital.
: August 4, 2009 7:13 PM : August 4, 2009 7:41 PM 
FYI - Up here in Vermont we use 4" supply lines in the country where there are no hydrants and 5" lines in the town where they have them thar modern fire plugs.
: August 4, 2009 9:31 PM : August 5, 2009 8:54 AM Also, if Routely didn't testify in the Council about his report, it was his decision (or the decision of the administration). Anyone who wants to testify in a Council hearing, can. That is Council policy.
It also doesn't take extra "funds" for the firefighters to familiarize themselves with the hydrants in their first due area (which they are supposed to do as part of their JOB). Since all the hydrants were supposedly marked as to their flow and operability after the Adams Morgan fire, their first due engine should have known which had what flow and which were in working order. (The lack of clear maps would be significant only if these guys were out of their regular response area and they weren't.)
Also, I monitor these things very carefully and I don't recall Fire/EMS ever making a request to the Council for additional money to buy 5 inch pipes. So if they didn't ask, how could the Council be expected to give? Fire/EMS did have plenty of money to assign uniformed firefighters to check hydrants. Someone should ask Fire/EMS when was the last time the hydrants on Chain Bridge road were checked?
My point is, if Fire/EMS knew that there was a problem, they needed to take extra special care of areas of the city where they KNOW there are problems. What do you think firefighters do in rural areas where there are no fire hydrants?
: August 5, 2009 9:24 AM Until recently there has been NO formal or substantial organized fire ground training provided by the department. The only recent programs included a RIT and FF survival training program which was administered to the department, and then very recently the engine company operations training program. These types of training programs should be administered to the departments force quarterly, not every few years. In the past it has been up to the companies to provide that type of training at the station in between calls, and as their crews continuity is continually challenged by the current department staffing structure. This is the monster they have created, and as far I am concerned they are getting what they ask for.
And for the record I was at the Chain Bridge Road fire, I was inside with a hand line attacking the fire (which is not my primary job on a fire ground as I am assigned to a unit with other primary duties on a structure fire than extinguishment-so its better not to ask how me and members of my company ended up with hand lines). We were making headway until we were pulled out. The fire ground leadership (Incident Command) during this fire through their poor decisions and poor fire ground tactics created the mess that became that fire. Was the water supply an issue, Yes, however, with good leadership, sound tactics, and a coordinated fire attack that fire could have been extinguished before it became a total loss. The infighting that went on at the Chief’s level on the fire ground was disgusting to see from a line firefighter’s perspective. No one from the Chief’s to the line fireman should be proud about anything that went on at this fire. It was a disgrace. I am sorry that Ms. Cafritz and her family lost everything, if I were her or some diligent reporters that are covering this story I wouldn’t rest until I found the answers that satisfied my questions. It worked for the Rosenbaum’s and now they own the DC Fire & EMS Department.
: August 5, 2009 10:31 AM Don't worry brother, you are not alone, many of our departments in this area have had the ability to extinguish large or complex fires decreased to the point of being shameful.
The only time anything at all is addressed is when the someone with money sues or the news media make it a big deal. Otherwise, our problems are swept under the rug.
: August 5, 2009 12:07 PM More "chiefs" than fire suppression personnel. More opinions that real knowledge. And really NO ONE seems to have a clue except the fire suppression people who are not allowed to do their jobs because some "sector commander" wants to "be in charge" or the Chief is too busy mugging for the cameras instead of LEADING his people!
Once upon a time...there was TRAINING MONEY for the troops and in order to keep you job you had to TRAIN and KNOW your duties! You had to show PROFICIENCY in your skills! But NOW the money goes to "command staff", perks, travel, guest appearances at everybody else's department but your own, and expos.
If some of these wonks who are wanded to "command" positions would practice on sharpening their skills with their troops and quit running around polishing their resumes, MAYBE the firegrounds and incidents would run more smoothly and problems could be handled instead of blaming everyone else under the sun for THEIR shortcomings!
If these "incident commanders" would LEARN THEIR AREAS like their station crews, they would KNOW how to develop work-arounds for problems such as this (and they CAN be worked around in emergencies). THAT is what "incident command" is SUPPOSED to be all about! Guidance for the troops to cope with resource and manpower shortcomings!
But we can't have THAT! The fires might actually go OUT then! And the "incident commanders" might actually have to do WORK!
: August 5, 2009 3:33 PM : August 5, 2009 5:19 PM : August 5, 2009 5:22 PM Too busy responding to medicals, I'd guess. Another reason to SEPARATE THE SERVICES!
: August 5, 2009 5:51 PM Someday I wish the public knew the truth,How the Mutual Aid system is not functioning,.
Let it burn,they look really bad.
: August 7, 2009 8:31 AM Links to this post:
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
