Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hazardous Materials Response topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fire Department report flags hazmat staffing gaps, longer response times and requests budget consideration
Summary
Fire Department officials told the Public Safety Committee that flex‑staffing of hazardous‑materials units has increased response times, several apparatus are decades old and grant funding covers many gear purchases; the committee noted the report and instructed inclusion in future budget planning.
The Los Angeles Fire Department presented a report on May 7 detailing hazardous‑materials (hazmat) response capacity across the city, warning that flex‑staffing practices and aging apparatus are lengthening response times and that additional personnel and equipment will be needed in future budgets.
Captain (or program manager) Scott Muffel and fire department presenters described the department’s hazmat footprint, recent incidents and staffing model. They said the city has one fully staffed HazMat Task Force (Unit 21) with other apparatus deployed as “flex‑staffed” units that do not carry full hazmat complements at all times. The department said Cal/OSHA guidance and department standards call for an initial hazmat response team size that can range up to eight personnel depending on incident complexity.
Fire presenters said flex‑staffing can double or triple response times for specialty resources when a staffed unit is not immediately available. The department reported that, in 2023, flex apparatus closures and staffing shortages contributed to extended arrivals and that response times from flex locations can reach roughly 28 minutes to specialized resources in some cases versus frame standards near 9 minutes and 30 seconds for fully staffed units. The presenters said hazmat incidents have increased and that responses rose by roughly 30% in 2024 compared with prior periods; the department reported more than 1,000 confirmed hazmat responses over recent years and several high‑profile incidents that strained resources.
The department said many specialty devices and detection systems are approaching 20–30 years old and that most equipment purchases have relied on state and federal grant funding rather than the department’s baseline budget. Presenters asked the committee to include minimum personnel (for example a captain, an engineer and two firefighters per additional hazmat apparatus) and replacement apparatus in upcoming budget cycles (they suggested phasing additions starting in the FY 2026–27 budget). They noted the city’s unique exposure — a major port, large airport operations and an expected increase in alternative-fuel vehicles — multiplies potential hazmat response needs.
Following the presentation the committee voted to note and file the report and instructed the Fire Department to include hazmat apparatus and staffing plans in future budget proposals. The roll call for the “note and file” action recorded three affirmative votes and two absences (Concejal McOsker: yes; Concejal Soto Martínez: yes; plus one affirmative recorded in clerk’s roll; Concejal Price and Concejal Park recorded as absent). The item was noted and filed.
Committee members thanked the department for the report and emphasized the need to quantify budget impacts and timeline for adding staff and replacing aging apparatus. Fire staff said they are preparing replacement plans for apparatus and will coordinate budget requests for the next fiscal cycle.
The report will be included in the department’s upcoming budget proposal and the Fire Department will return with proposed staffing and capital‑equipment timelines.
