Frequency of plant inspections questioned

Adrienne Packer

Monday, Aug. 12, 2002 | 10:55 a.m.

Fifteen years ago, the frequency of Clark County inspections at high-risk manufacturing facilities was questioned after a Henderson rocket fuel processing plant exploded, killing two employees.

Although recommendations were made to inspect such plants annually, there still were no set policies when AeroTech -- a model rocket fuel plant -- burst into flames in October 2001.

While Clark County Manager Thom Reilly said Friday that AeroTech was responsible for the explosion and could face criminal charges, he conceded the county also had failed.

Since the AeroTech fire that killed one worker, Reilly said the county has increased its fire inspection staff by 50 percent--from 19 to 29 inspectors. He will also ensure high-risk plants are inspected yearly.

"There will be many more surprise inspections," Reilly said. "It needs to be acknowledged that the state investigation confirmed what we knew from out own internal review. We need to improve our inspections of businesses that are involved with hazardous materials."

AeroTch was inspected regularly until 1995 when there was a five-year gap. State Fire Marshal Doyle Sutton said it is unusual for government agencies that have hazardous material plants within their jurisdiction not to inspect them annually.

Fire Chief Earl Greene, who was with the department after the Pacific Engineering Production Company of Nevada blast in 1988, said the department struggled to follow recommendations to perform annual inspections because of a subsequent construction boom.

In the years following the PEPCON explosion, several mega-resorts opened on the Las Vegas Strip. The fire department was responsible for inspecting the new hotels as well as regulating about 1,800 facilities which handle and store hazardous materials in Clark County.

"It has been a major headache keeping up with growth," Greene said.

In March, Clark County commissioners budgeted about $250,000 for four additional fire inspectors. The inspectors are taking a yearlong hazardous materials course. Meanwhile, the department's experienced inspectors have been reassigned to high-risk plants.

But according to Greene, Reilly and a state fire marshal report on the AeroTech explosion, inspections might not have prevented the blaze. The report said AeroTech officials repeatedly violated safety laws, acts that could lead to criminal prosecution.

District Attorney Stewart Bell said Friday six deputy district attorneys are reviewing the 100-page report to determine whether the case will be forwarded to a grand jury. Bell said his office will conduct more interviews and review nearly 200 pieces of evidence collected by the state fire marshal.

It will take several weeks to a few months before Bell renders a decision.

"We certainly are concerned," Bell said. "By all accounts, this could have been prevented and should not have occurred."

Reilly blasted AeroTech, saying the company's "purposeful neglect" led to the death of employee Avellino Corpuz.

"The incident was appalling and tragic. The reason I say that is because the entire episode was preventable," Reilly said. "AeroTech was the worst kind of corporate neighbor."

Firefighters responded to fire around noon Oct. 15. After extinguishing the initial blaze, barrels of water-soaked magnesium exploded causing an inferno that lasted 24 hours. AeroTech has since sued the fire department, saying firefighters caused the second blast.

Bell said Friday the county will make a motion to have the lawsuit dismissed. He said his position is backed by the fire marshal's report, which says the county handled the fire properly.

But Cole Wist, a Denver-based attorney who represents AeroTech, said the fire marshal's report supports the company's lawsuit against the county.

In the lawsuit, AeroTech attorneys claim fire officials entered the business without permission following the blaze and took evidence without permission. It also claims firefighters were negligent in the the fires were fought.

The report says the county has lost log books and Wist said it also suggests the county's fire department was ill-prepared to handle hazardous materials.

"They didn't have the property equipment or expertise (to handle the magnesium barrels). All they needed was sand or salt," Wist said. "This all resulted in confusion on the date of the fire, which paralyzed the action of the fire department. The three-hour delay ultimately resulted in the destruction of the facility, which is unfortunate."

Greene defended his hazardous materials unit, calling it "one of the best hazmat units in the state of Nevada." He said since the AeroTech fire, however, hazardous material specialists dedicate their time soley to the unit; they no longer split time with ladder trucks.

During the investigation, the state's Occupational Safety and Health Enforcement Section of the department of business and industry found that AeroTech's safety program didn't meet Nevada Administrative Code.

AeroTech reported it stored far less dangerous chemicals at the plant on Palm Street off Boulder Highway than it actually had on site. For example, the company told state officials it stored 50 pounds of unburned magnesium; it later requested that 400 pounds be removed from the plant.

Gary Rosenfield, owner of the business, "neglected to disclose the true nature of his business as it pertained to the storage and use of hazardous, explosive and combustible materials to county licensing and regulatory agencies," the state fire marshal's report says.

The company was informed repeatedly that it could not store more than 1,000 pounds of ammonium perchlorate -- a volatile chemical that also contributed to the PEPCON explosion -- at the plant. Yet the report says AeroTech consistently ordered 2,500 pounds of the chemical each month.

Employees also test-fired rocket motors in the parking lot. In 1994, a rocket test failed, sending the rocket motor into a cinderblock wall separating the plant from an apartment complex.

Wist said AeroTech officials were never privy to the notes the inspector took during a visit in 2000. But he dismissed the notion AeroTech ignored safety policies.

"I reject comments that AeroTech is some rogue corporate outlaw hiding things from officials," Wist said. "This business was heavily regulated. There were no mysteries about what materials were stored at those offices."

Along with more frequent investigations, including unannounced visits, Reilly said the county will take the unprecedented step of creating a hazardous material database. The database will outline the type and amount of chemicals stored at facilities doing business in the county.

Reilly also said changes will be made in the Fire Department's investigations division, acknowledging there are "weaknesses." Inspectors failed to obtain the proper documentation before searching the Aerotech plant and misplaced evidence collected after the fire.

Though Reilly said he is implementing new policies to address potentially dangerous plants, he defended the county against critics who have questioned the fire department's handling of the blaze and lack of inspections.

"The government can't police everything; that's what galls me about these allegations," Reilly said.

Even Greene, armed with more inspectors and thorough information about high-risk manufacturing plants, said he will continue to depend on companies to comply with safety laws.

"If someone is not complying with regulations; there is no way we can prevent what happened at AeroTech," Greene said. "Additional inspectors wouldn't have made a difference."

archive