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 Ben Waller on
-
Cory, I'm a training officer. Training as if my life depends on it is all in a day's work.
-
Permalink Reply by Cory on
-
Ben to the 5:30 response back
Part 1 I wasn’t saying that you said that, I guess to hopefully better put it into prospective, when was in my rookie class for Elkhart, we did have a safety line to us but we rappelled which I don’t’ mind and find fun doing but I guess I don’t see the real point in doing when you don’t have a high angle rescue team? Maybe you can give me some better idea’s? I guess you could use it towards using a bailout system.
Part 2 well I have myself confused with that I wish I would have wrote more info. I will call myself a jackass on that one.
Part 3 I covered in part one we were on a safety line.
Part 4 I do believe everybody should be threw the NIMS standard classes, don’t get me wrong, but after that in the winter I can see putting on classes but I just taken them as I hear of them. But I see a lot of information that seems to be the same for the most part with new stuff in each section. I think they could do something a little different. I have used NIMS on what I called “Trash Fire” which was a 3 day fire we had that was sparked by a dust explosion at a recycling facility. At the time I only had on 7 or 8 years on where I use to volunteer, at the time I was an Assistant Chief, which trust me at that young in my career I don’t think anybody should be that high up in the rankings but I was voted into that spot and trusted I would do a good job. I do have to say I could have not used NIMS and been fine but I can not say it didn’t help in all the transitioning we had to do from shift to shift and day to day, accountability, etc. . I was told I did a great job by the Chief of where I work now who had 30 plus years on job, he said I did great on how it was ran and my response to that was well I had a great support staff other wise it wouldn’t have went as smoothly as it did. He actually retired right before I was hired. But back to NIMS do I think it has a good purpose yes, do I thank after the basics my ADD kicks in and it gets really old really fast oh yeah. That is just me.
Luke to the miss spelling I understand where you are coming from and I understand where Ben is coming from, just a little story we have a guy that his spelling is so bad and so embarrassing its not even funny. Some examples: Light = lite Hose = hoes and the list goes on. The sad thing is that it was on this guy’s cabinet doors on the engine until some kids said hey Mr. that is spelled wrong and as soon as a BC heard he was called down to clean all the writing off the door. So Ben I do understand you being anal. But Luke I understand your point to.
Be safe guys and I’ll talk to you soon, Ben thanks for the info I will check it out soon I need to get my head in my instructors book.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- …
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
