Story by D.K. Knight
Co-Publisher/Executive Editor
The ultra low sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel that petroleum refineries have been producing for several years is a cleaner-burning formulation, but it’s also more hazardous, as noted recently by the Assn. of Equipment Manufacturers (AEM). The group recently issued Practices Guidance Bulletin 6/13 that warned of higher static electricity fire/explosion risks during refueling.
With most of the sulfur removed, the fuel is less conductive, and its ability to hold a static charge is increased. Regardless of its formulation, diesel fuel has never been a great conductor of electricity, but with most of the sulfur removed, its poor-to-moderate conductivity has been diminished. Thus, its hazardous status is elevated. Static charges can build up in the fuel as it flows through a delivery system and could result in a fire or explosion if they discharge while combustible vapors are present.
To dampen this threat, AEM recommends that the entire fuel system—storage tank, transfer pump, transfer hose, nozzle, etc.—be properly grounded and bonded. Those who refuel equipment would do well to abide by this recommendation.
The AEM bulletin was discussed at the September 19 meeting of Timber Equipment Applications Management (TEAM). Insurer representatives in the group were unaware and surprised by the hazard potential of ULSD and departed determined to get the word out to their customers.
If it has anything to do with the threat of forest machine fires and the fallout thereof, TEAM is on point. The group consists of forest machine manufacturers, logging contractors, insurance providers, fire suppression systems manufacturers, association leaders and others. It provides a forum for developing and distributing risk management information. Formed in 2001, it first focused on heightening forest equipment fire awareness and educating machine owners and operators about fire prevention. This has resulted in fewer and less severe forest machine fires. In recent years its has dwelled on more thorough maintenance practices (clean-inspect-repair) on the part of machine owners/operators and improved design (compartmentalization-fire detection devices) on the part of manufacturers.
Its Fire Safety Video, created about three years ago and distinguished by its “loggers talking to loggers” format, has been well received and has certainly raised the awareness of equipment fire prevention. It has been viewed by thousands of loggers and machine operators in multiple states, not to mention scores of equipment engineers. The organization has plans to place the video on YouTube and to produce a Spanish version.
A revised DVD set will incorporate much of the existing video while focusing on two components: 1) fire prevention; and 2) fire extinguisher types. It will also include warnings of increased fire risks from the hotter-by-design exhaust of lower emission Tier 4 engines, the proper refueling techniques regarding ULSD, and logger liability should a machine fire expand to surrounding woods or beyond.
As I understand it, at least some Tier 4 engines have larger exhaust after-treatment devices. This larger surface area, combined with the engines’ hotter exhaust temperatures, increases the possibility of fire, and only accentuates the need for loggers and operators to follow proper service and maintenance procedures.
Some loggers are already on the right track. It was noted that in many cases loggers who choose to keep their machines longer have stepped up their maintenance and cleaning routines, with some offering incentives to operators for looking after their mounts more diligently. This seems to be particularly the case in New England.
The wildfire/logger liability issue is also significant, given two cases that come to mind, one of which was discussed at length by TEAM members. Interestingly, machine fires were not involved in either incident, the most recent of which occurred earlier this year in Wisconsin. A logger’s feller-buncher struck a rock with its felling head, allegedly resulting in sparks that touched off a blaze that quickly got out of control and burned through 7,500 acres and destroyed 17 houses. According to the dialog, the logger has been billed for more than $600,000 in firefighting costs alone.
Another wildfire incident that a logger got caught up in occurred in 2007 in California. Howell’s Forest Harvesting was working as a contractor for Sierra Pacific Industries, but on other privately owned land, when the fire broke out. By the time it was subdued two weeks later, the fire had charred some 65,000 acres, 45,000 of it in two national forests. The federal government subsequently sued the logger, Sierra Pacific, and other private landowners. The case was eventually settled, with Sierra Pacific paying $47 million in cash and $67.5 million in land. Owners and managers of the land where the fire started paid $7 million. The logger accused of starting the fire—sparks caused by a bulldozer crossing rocks were touted as the igniter—paid $1 million.
It was pointed out during the TEAM meeting that while forest equipment fire claims are down and losses are smaller, they continue to outnumber fire claims for construction and mining equipment. A spokesman for Daigle & Associates said that of 300 claims in the past 18 months, 177 were for fire damage. In the forest category during this period there were 66 skidder fires and 55 feller-buncher fires, with an average loss after deductions of $55,100. A majority of fire losses across the U.S. involved machines 5-20 years old that belonged to either second of third owners.
Insurance representatives told that, in the South, chippers and grinders have now surpassed feller-bunchers in fire losses. With pellet markets rapidly emerging in recent years, many more chippers and grinders are being sold and deployed. They also noted that fire suppression systems, properly maintained, result in an 85% fire loss save rate, but high installation and maintenance costs discourage their use. Generally, insurance providers have not yet developed risk management programs that require and support the use of such systems.