The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
South Carolina Department Charged Over 2-In, 2-Out Violation
WCSC
Reprinted with Permission
NORTH CHARLESTON, SC (WCSC) - Officials with the North Charleston Fire Department said they are committed to safety in the face of recent citations issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration stemming from a July 5 fire.
Related
SCOnFire Coverage:
In that fire three North Charleston firefighters sustained burns battling a house fire on Purity Drive near Rivers Avenue.
This month, the city and fire department received two citations from OSHA stemming from the house fire. Both citations claim the department put their men in a dangerous situation.
A statement released by OSHA said, "The employer knew or should have known that on or about July 5, 2010, firefighters performing interior structural firefighting were exposed to the hazard of being trapped in a burning residential building."
OSHA contends there were three rules that were not followed while trying to extinguish the fire.
The department must have at least two people in contact with each other at all times while inside a burning structure, two firefighters must be outside the structure at all times and everybody must be wearing a self-containing breathing apparatus.
Copyright 2010 WCSC. All rights reserved.
Reprinted with Permission
NORTH CHARLESTON, SC (WCSC) - Officials with the North Charleston Fire Department said they are committed to safety in the face of recent citations issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration stemming from a July 5 fire.
Related
- Firefighter released from burn unit after North Charleston fire
- North Charleston Fire Department, City slapped with citation
- Fire department cited for safety violations
- Citation and Notification of Penalty
SCOnFire Coverage:
In that fire three North Charleston firefighters sustained burns battling a house fire on Purity Drive near Rivers Avenue.
This month, the city and fire department received two citations from OSHA stemming from the house fire. Both citations claim the department put their men in a dangerous situation.
A statement released by OSHA said, "The employer knew or should have known that on or about July 5, 2010, firefighters performing interior structural firefighting were exposed to the hazard of being trapped in a burning residential building."
OSHA contends there were three rules that were not followed while trying to extinguish the fire.
The department must have at least two people in contact with each other at all times while inside a burning structure, two firefighters must be outside the structure at all times and everybody must be wearing a self-containing breathing apparatus.
Copyright 2010 WCSC. All rights reserved.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by lutan1 on
-
Not denying that Ben, but Cory seems to think it's not worth it for his dept....
-
Permalink Reply by Cory on
-
sorry for the miss spelling smart ass, but I wouldn't expect any less from a brother, cause I know I would have done the same thing in looking up the word and copy and pasting. We do have and buildings that are taller than 3 stories but here is the problem with "rappelling" if that is the only training you get is it really something you should train on? So just like in this instant someone gets hurt OSHA comes in and dings you for not having High Angle Rescue? I am surprised that you actually "rappelled" and where not put on a line with someone taking you up and down? I do not have training on that nor does my dept. Some people do have it but the last time they have trained on it has been??? I do not have a lack of understanding of NIMS, I just don't agree with it, like I said some of it is relevant, and some is not. Yes you can say on any call you use NIMS really give me a break, I was going to be taking another couple day course this weekend but it got canceled due to the lack of people signing up. Why did I take it? Because I know it is something I will hopefully be able to take something from and apply it someday. But as far as NIMS goes it does go over the same things a lot of the time. Is there new information in the classes as you go, of course. But I believe there is a lot of better information out there for guys on the streets than to run a nims class. Everything past the basics I've signed up at other dept. to take just for future reference. Luckly our dept. doesn't waste much time one stuff we don't need, so my statement on crap we don't need was probably more of an over or miss statement. I did have a few more things wrote in but I have to get to work so when I get a chance I'll try to get back on and finish it. And if I was wrong about "rappelling" please pass along the education so I can add that to my learning for the day. and what is (sic)?
-
-
Cory, you'll get used to Ben's responses. As informative as they are, they can sometimes be a bit frustrating with his nit-picking, and as you've just discovered, his literal interpretation of things.
Having said that, I'm not sure that I'd go so far as calling a Chief a smart ass.
Here's the family portrait too:
-
-
My last name is Wise im going to have to get that image from you lol, do I normally call a chief a smart ass hell no id be back on the bus lol. I would say good morning to you but I know its probably the evening there?
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
Cory,
"...here is the problem with "rappelling" if that is the only training you get is it really something you should train on?" I did not say that. Rappelling is one tool in the high angle rescue toolbox, and it is a requirement of the NFPA 1006 Technical Rescue Professional Qualifications standard. That standard is the minimum national standard in the U.S.
"So just like in this instant someone gets hurt OSHA comes in and dings you for not having High Angle Rescue?" I'm not sure what you mean by that. It's more a case of your community "dinging" your department for not having a capability to deal with known hazards in your response area. There are other issues, but that one is the most basic.
I am surprised that you actually "rappelled" and where not put on a line with someone taking you up and down? Practiced it, performed rescues with it, trained others on it, and co-wrote two state fire academy course that teach it. It shouldn't be surprising - rappelling has been an essential part of rope rescue for decades.
"But I believe there is a lot of better information out there for guys on the streets than to run a nims class." What is more important than the basics of incident management, personnel accountability, and the minimum national standards for how the incident command system works (or should work) for every firefighter and other responder that responds to a fire, rescue, hazmat, multi-casualty call, disaster, or any multi-agency incident?
Here are a few links to high angle rescue programs that teach rappelling as one of the basics:
Rescue Dynamics
University of Utah College Health
PRS/TARS
ROCO
CMC
Ropes that Rescue
Rescue 3 International
South Carolina Fire Academy course catalog - look for the 3310 Low Angle Rope Rescue Operations and 3316 High Angle Rope Rescue Operations courses.
There are many other examples. All of the above teach rappelling as one component of a high-angle rescue program.
-
-
Luke, I've progressed far past the point where namecalling bothers me.
As for "nit-picking" I just have a thing for accuracy. Information based on less-than-completely-accurate information passed on here means that those who pass it on essentially base our profession on urban legends, and I have higher standards than that.
Call them "nit-picking" if you wish, but in a world where firefighter fatalities often occur according to the Swiss Cheese Theory, correcting small errors is important in closing the holes in the cheese. I learned this theory as a technique for improving patient safety (I'm a paramedic) but it applies to fire, rescue, and other responder safety issues as well. I've also participated in the LOOD investigations of several of my friends' deaths. In every one, if someone had just done a little "nit picking" and closed up one of the holes in one slice of cheese, my friends would still be alive.
As for literal interpretation of what others say, how else should things be interpreted here? With something someone else just makes up? With something I just make up? With something that is demonstrably in error? Or...what?
-
-
Additional information on rappelling:
NFPA 1006 Standard for Technical Rescuer Professional Qualifications, Section 6.1.6:
"Descend a fixed rope in a high-angle environment, given an anchored fixed-rope system, a minimum descent distance of 6.1m (20 ft.) a system to allow descent of a fixed rope, a belay system, a life safety harness worn by the person descending, and personal protective equipment, so that the person descending is attached to the fixed rope in a manner tha will not allow him or her to fall, the person descending is attached to the rope by means of a descent control device, the speed of the descent is controlled, injury to the person descending is minimized, the person descending can stop at any point on the fixed rope and rest suspended by his or her harness, the system will not be stressed to the point of failure, the system is suitable for the site, and the objective is reached."
That is an objective for a Level I rope rescuer - the basic level formerly known as "Operations". In other words, rappelling is a basic rope rescue skill.
-
Permalink Reply by Todd on
-
Actually, in SC, if you have an IC and a pump operator on the outside and 2 firefighters on the line inside, then it meets the 2 in, 2 out standard as written here.
I guess it depends on who you talk to at SC OSHA.
When my department asked for an opinion from a SCOSHA official on what constitutes the two out we were informed that the pump operator does not count toward the two out, and that the IC could only count for initial operations when you were assured that sufficient manpower was imminently arriving. In other words, we were pretty much told that we had to have a minimum of 6 personnel on scene prior to making entry.
No big surprise that there are different interpretations even within the regulatory agency itself.
-
-
Call them "nit-picking" if you wish, but in a world where firefighter fatalities often occur according to the Swiss Cheese Theory, correcting small errors is important in closing the holes in the cheese.
I agree Ben, but reppell versus rappell? Seriously, that's not a deal breaker in addressing the issues that Cory and others have raised...
-
-
Luke,
If we want have a profession that is truly professional, then we need to appear professional in public. That includes things like correct spelling.
If someone wants to diss certain types of training as being non-essential or as B.S. then at least he could spell what he's dissing correctly.
-
-
Ben I will reply when I get a chance I'm trying to fix my aol email so I can get out so emails about an escort we are doing for a fallen soldier in the AM that was killed in a Black Hawk. So when I get a chance to really read what you have put I will get back with you, be safe you guys! Train as if your life depends on it! Because it does!
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
