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 Fabulous Heather Days of Summer on
-
i am not trying to fight with you... really.
i just was thinking about your point all night -so I see your point - tiny undeveloped fires can often be dealt with quickly - i wonder if the Incipient stage is the exact stage where most decisions turn good or bad - since it can easily be mis-read and it can appear more manageable at a glance - which may not take all influences into consideration.
-
-
ok - i'll give you that - someone elses opinion - your experience is different than mine
To clarify my prior comment - it is NOT safer [ for firefighhters] to enter the building when you have no back-up outside - is me expressing MY opinion...
I like Child Please - LOL - that is funny - I have not heard that one in a long time - I really am not trying to piss you off... It's just one of my natural gifts ;-)
-
Permalink Reply by Mark Oomkes on
-
Think about it this way Heather, if the fire is extinguished, all our problems go away. A tad simplistic.
But, if the fire goes out before structural members are involved, there is basically no more chance of collapse than before the fire started.
If the fire is allowed to grow--which is currently doubling in size every 19-30 seconds instead of every minute--then the chance of flashover and further involvement of the structure is going to occur, and that is when problems occur.
-
-
I think this may be the first time I have ever been called tactful.
I owe you a beer or a beverage of your choice. lol
-
-
Yup Mark, this may be what gets people in trouble. Are there times people risk their lives to prevent the doubling - but it has already gone too far... too fast... and quickly turns into hell...
(look at the issues highlighted by OSHA in the new Ill death (different thread) - they challenged among other things tactical errors were made)
-
-
I never said it was only to justify staffing, just that that is part of the issue. I feel much better when I know I have a couple guys or a full RIT\RIC dedicated to pulling me out if the stuff hits the fan.
But we also need to face reality. There are just some departments that do not have the call volume or tax base to support 4 on an engine\5 on a truck. I have always been POC\volunteer\whatever and have a different way of viewing these things.
I also am a taxpayer--personally and as a business owner--so am very aware of what I get for what I pay for. And therefore we can't just tax and tax and tax to get that manpower that cities\career departments have, because they have the volume and tax base.
So I remain firm in my conviction that at times, 2-in\2-out will cause more problems with these type of departments. We also need to remember that these departments don't have the shift to shift training and experience that career departments do, so waiting that 3, 4, 5 minutes for the second company to get there can cause even more harm because what was a room and contents is now involving structural members and they may not realize it.
Sure, more training is the answer. See above about being POC or volunteers giving their time, this not being a full time job.
I am not arguing what is better, there is no doubt that 4 FF's on an engine are faster. But it just isn't realistic in many areas. You really think it is realistic for town\township\fire district that runs 100 calls a year and is spread out over 100+ square miles to have 2 fully staffed, 4 person engine crews? Not even getting into a truck crew? Or a rescue?
And you made my point with your answer to the RIT\RIC staffing. 2-in\2-out is basically a feel good regulation that really isn't solving the problem. You have even made that point by saying it is old and outdated.
Yes, it is my opinion that 2-in\2-out was promulgated in part by the unions to increase their membership.
It is also to help us when we get in trouble. I am not going to deny or even argue it. But now it is even admitted that it is somewhat pointless.
Good discussions, I appreciate the well thought out arguments and that it doesn't turn into kindergarten name calling. I realize I'm new to FFN, and hope you don't think I'm a troll, that is not my intention, I lurked for quite some time before joining, should have a long time ago as I've learned a lot.
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
That's entirely speculative.
What is speculative? I am just stating the possibility of pulling a line and to search off a line, that is it. PERIOD. I am NOT making speculations about this incident, I am NOT speculating on how they do things, I am NOT Monday morning QBing here either. I am just stating the very real, actual fact that one CAN pull a line and also search. I have mentioned countless times it is not ideal, it is not the best approach, and the team is limited to what they can do...whether it is to hit the fire....or rescue. As I have also mentioned the situation will dictate the tactics used, whether it is time difference for backup, if there is a victim, the fire conditions and so forth.
In short Ben, it is just another tool in the toolbox. I responded in retort to your comments to Capcity about proximity of companies in DC as compared to N. Charleston, and intejected the possibility of doing both from a dept setup similar to N. Charleston. That is it. I'm not making speculations here, hell I never even commented on the incident at hand here.
It's not safe to assume that they had lots of backup at the fire quickly, especially given the way the citations were written.
It doesn't even say if the company involved was in their own 1st due or not.
Not assuming a damn thing here Ben, zero, zilch, nada...not even commenting on the article....just that it is possible to pull a line and search if the need presented itself. All decisions will solely depend upon conditions, proximity of backup, report of victims and so forth....that is all.
-
-
Yup Mark, this may be what gets people in trouble. Are there times people risk their lives to prevent the doubling - but it has already gone too far... too fast... and quickly turns into hell...
(look at the issues highlighted by OSHA in the new Ill death (different thread) - they challenged among other things tactical errors were made)
Heather,
You seem to generalize all situations based off of another like. (like mentioning the IL LODD). The answer about catching the fire in the incipient stage and extinguishing it DOES correct the main problem. However, EVERY scenario will be different, from the advancement of the fire, rescue potential, actual reports of people trapped, day/nioght time indicators of the structure being occupied and so forth.
You seem to be just make generalized statements than looking at the picture which presents at the time of arrival. In the IL LODD, there was credible reports of a victim inside. The conditions presented at the time they went in is unknown to make generalizations from a report.
That is why I asked you to look at the link, because despite the thoroughness of that report, it still doesn't give a picture of conditions presented on arrival, the tactics used, the subtle factors and so forth. Basically, it is easy to look at a report and to make a generalization and to think FF injuries/deaths is because of going in, before backup, etc or to go in just to prevent "the doubling". The conditions and situation presented is what makes the determination, which is why training is paramount.
-
-
I see your point. Lots of factors.
As I have said before - I do not bring all the answers, just questions. You are free not to answer any or all of my speculations... And I can only speculate always - since I was not there... and each situation is different... as you expressed...
I was not trying to generalize, as illustrated by my words...
May Be
and
Are There
(p.s. I am still reading your report)
-
-
Mark,
I understand the issue facing many departments. Hell there are career depts running 3 man pumps, even 2 man pumps with career personnel. In the event of a fire this means it will take many more apparatus out of service to get the proper manpower to mitigate the problem, thus leaving other areas unprotected. It is all a part of the risk/benefit and what they can do with the resources provided.
Yes, such issues are a problem which affects many volunteers, but the issue of 2 in and 2 out goes well beyond unions (that really is a BS argument there too) because 2 in 2 out affects even those depts not unionized and in right to work states. It has nothing to do with increasing membership in a union, nor even some grand conspiracy to eliminate volunteers. 2 in 2 out is about protecting ourselves on the fireground, BECAUSE of the number of fire related (actual fire related) LODD and injuries in the past.
RIT staffing has been increased also because of such LODDs that if a FF goes down it will take more than 2 people to get them out. In fact even RIT staffing of even 4 is about 3 times less than what it probably would take to successfully perform a RIT operation, this is why there are techniques like the Denver Drill, through the floor, etc. You also see safety standards in even new turnout gear today like the DRD device. This is something for any FF, career or not, it is about safety, not staffing nor union membership.
The whole point about 2 in 2out is not about increasing staffing, but adjusting how fires are mitigated and to prevent the loss of FF. Having at least 2 outside helps to buy time to get those inside out if something happened, even if it is holding a fire in check enough for the crew to get out.
I don't buy your theory/conviction that 2 in 2 out creates more problems for volunteer/short staffed depts. I don't buy it because the standard has adjusted the way operations take place and even increased/developed mutual aid to get resources there. Mutual aid was pretty unheard of prior to 2 in 2 out, and today is almost everywhere. This has nothing to do with staffing and even training of career depts, but to instead make an informed decision based on the situation present. If this means a building burns because there wasn't enough staffing then it is still better than planting a few FF's because they rushed in....isn't it?
(BTW Mark, if you are a volunteer, you may want to edit your profile info, it reads as though you are a captain on a paid dept)
-
-
don't encourage him... or offer him beer...
no feeding the bears ;-)
-
-
Volunteer or paid on call, you pick? Wasn't sure, but I am not career.
I am a captain, either way.
Thanks again for your side of things, I have been wrong before once or twice.......OK, many, many times. So I could be wrong on this as well. Probably just need to expand my horizons on this subject as well, it has done wonders for me on other subjects in the past.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
