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
-
Luke - WE MUST BE BREEDING [TRAINING] OUR FIREFIGHTERS {ME} to be this way???
It MUST be a systemic problem?
It seems WE justify it because we all (in general) practice it and are taught to live it, in the U.S.!
WHY are WE so WILLING to risk OUR LIFE for a building?
We rationalize that someone may be inside that building. But so many of us give up OUR LIVES for a bldg. I am sad to even say that - since the neighborhood I live in had a LODD funeral just 3 days ago.
-
Permalink Reply by capcityff on
-
How do you know it's just a building if you haven't done a search? Even vacants, there could be a homeless guy squatting. The fire has to get started somehow.
-
-
I hear ya - I don't know what the perfect answer is.
I just have lots of family members that are also firefighters and I don't want any of us to end up dead... just as much as I don't want anyone in my community dead either.
But some thing is wrong in the U.S. - why is this job so dangerous here - and not at the same level elsewhere in developed countries ???
-
Permalink Reply by Tony P on
-
Luke, you've managed to get me talking about a topic I tend to stay clear of. Yes we have of course suffered the loss of firefighters here, and you are right in that running a yearly tally just isn't done, the numbers are thankfully too low. Bearing in mind that one is one too many.
My FRS, the Country Fire Authority, was created in 1944 and since then we have lost 65 firefighters from injuries caused at, or in transit to, incidents. I know of only one of those since 2000 that was to do with a structure fire, and that was from a vehicle accident. We consider an average of one person per year to be too high. For those who don't know of us, that is for a service with 58,000 volunteers and nearly one thousand career FF's, working from over 1200 stations.
We will do an internal attack and search as a matter of course on almost every structure fire; I have been to less than a handful over the last eight years that weren't attacked in that way. Fires that are deemed suitable only for defensive attack because of structural collapse, whether allready occuring or about to, are uncommon.
There are so many posters on this and other sites that are strongly of the belief that changes need to be made, and I mean citizens of the USA in this, that hopefully it will come about. The awareness is there.
-
Permalink Reply by lutan1 on
-
But some thing is wrong in the U.S. - why is this job so dangerous here - and not at the same level elsewhere in developed countries ???
It's dangerous everywhere heather. Fire is fire. Fire is hot. Fire burns the same here as it does in the US and other parts of the world.
It's the attitude towards the task at hand, attitide towards risk, the culture of the service/members, the level of training, the lack of standardised training, etc that changes the perspective or outcome around the world.
-
-
was created in 1944 and since then we have lost 65 firefighters from injuries caused at, or in transit to, incidents.
That's 1 member per year if I do my maths correctly. Whilst it's still too high, it's also a figure to be proud of when comparing to other parts of the world.
However, having said that, these discussions need to be kept in perspective- we (Australia) don't have anywhere near the number of members or call volumes as the USA, so it does change the perspective quite a bit and needs to be considered.
-
-
We will do an internal attack and search as a matter of course on almost every structure fire; I have been to less than a handful over the last eight years that weren't attacked in that way. Fires that are deemed suitable only for defensive attack because of structural collapse, whether allready occuring or about to, are uncommon.
Maybe defensive attack should be made more common in the U.S. ?
Maybe structural collapse is not evaluated the same way other countries evaluate it?
Maybe U.S. structures and workload are configured differently than other countries, making this a much more complicated discussion. And maybe not a fair comparison to other countries??? As Luke pointed out !!!
Lots of U.S. deaths are due to collapse.
I discuss this not to piss people off - but because I am genuinely concerned about this and wish someone would figure out a way to stop the excessive U.S. deaths. I discuss to learn.
-
-
Maybe defensive attack should be made more common in the U.S. ?
Unfortunately Heather theres loads of discussions in the archives of this site where members have stated (paraphrasing here) that if you don't go interior, then you're not a real firefighter.....
How do you change attitudes like that????
-
-
I know this discussion was about South Carolina - i got a little off on a tangent.
Local LODD rests in the forefront of my heart and mind this week.
I have no doubt there are loads of conversations on this.
-
-
Heather and Luke, I agree with everything you both say. It can be too easy to generalise. I did have some of your thoughts in my post, and deleted them because the post seemed to be getting too long.
Maybe defensive attack should be made more common in the U.S. ? Perhaps - though as I said, it's uncommon here.
Maybe structural collapse is not evaluated the same way other countries evaluate it? Perhaps, though can be allied with:
Maybe U.S. structures are configured differently than other countries, ... maybe not a fair comparison to other countries??? Also perhaps - the most common house construction method here in Aust. is a timber frame with either brick or timber cladding.
Perhaps, to me, a big point is one I made? " There are so many posters on this and other sites that are strongly of the belief that changes need to be made, and I mean citizens of the USA in this, that hopefully it will come about. The awareness is there." Many people make this awareness prominant in their posts. It's unfortunate that others discount it, placing perhaps too much importance on the belief that 'there may be people inside', that 'it's not empty until we prove it' - both views we also believe in, but perhaps adressed differently?
Perhaps another thing is that we have had, for many years (about 30 in my State) the requirement for the fitting of smoke detectors in all homes. It is the Law. When we're told that 'all residents are outside' we know it's pretty safe to believe it. We will still make every effort to search though, we don't take it as a 100% certainty. It helps us to make the desision to not go in if the building looks like collapsing perhaps? Smoke alarms also help us to be called quicker getting us on-scene when a house is further from collapse? It all helps.
-
-
Thanks Tony & Luke & CapCtyFF for weighing in. I appreciate your thoughts.
it is not uncommon here to have part of a building already collapsed and another part of the same building still being interior searched or worked... with no report of people inside... even non-residential
causes me to think...
-
Permalink Reply by Vic Silverfish on
-
As one of the few people who has trained and operated in both the US and Australia, I just have to weigh in on this. For background I was with Prince George's County MD in a very active station (6000 calls/year) with engine/truck/ambo. In addition to suppression, I was an EMT and HazMat II. In Australia I'm with the NSW rural fire Service. Home response, mostly bush fire, but we do carry SCBA and respond to about 100 calls/year.
Without a doubt there is a world of difference between the two coutries' approaches. The American's tend to treat every call as a worst case scenario, and over-respond with a ton of equipment and staff. The apparatus is much larger, and is specialised to it's task (we don't have dedicated trucks or squads in Australia, just different kinds of pumper). Additionally the PPE is much heavier, and the water supply system is unbelievably good. This let us act much more aggressively as we have bigger, better gear, and a ton of back up right behind us. Perfect metaphor for America.
In Australia, the equipment is much lighter. I actually burned myself during BA training here because I did not think the PPE was so thin. The water supply system (Australia is very water poor) is much smaller, and the hydrants take forever to engage. A standard structure fire call gets 2 pumpers with 4 crew each. Additional units aren't started until the first one calls back a sit-rep.
Personally I prefer the American approach. The best defence is the better offence. For an urban setting (I don't think this will work for home response) a quick response, ton of resources, and an aggressive initial attack are the safest for civilians and for the crew. Fires don't get smaller and the building does not get stronger the longer it burns. Look at the videos that CapCity posts, they are getting to work with a bit of hustle and grabbing it by the nose so they can kick it in the tail! As a homeowner, that's what I want to see.
I don't think that aggression will work too well in the country or for a department that does not run a lot of fire. You really need the experience and massive resources in case things start to go pear-shaped.
I stand by the adage that you need to be prepared to risk a lot to protect life, and a little to protect property.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
