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 capcityff on
-
My point was that if conditions are okay enough for you to do a search without a hose line, you should be able to send another crew in there with one and they will be fine. I know other departments may not have the resources mine does, but a national standard would affect us as well. If a rescue or truck company is doing a search, we usually have a few engine companies in there at the same time.
-
Permalink Reply by Mark Raymon on
-
Entry into grain bins at grain elevators were informed that OSHA will not tolerate grain entrapment and engulfment anymore. Increased fines and criminal prosecution will be enforced to follow. We do training every six months and smaller trainings when needed.
It is time all industry and city leaders get held accountable...it is really sad when people get hurt or killed to get OSHA to say something.
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
OK, here is the South Carolina exemption from the 2-In, 2-Out rule. I forgot the Incident Command training requirement, because that training and use of the system is automatic in my department.
"There is an explicit exemption in the standard, adopted by both federal OSHA and S.C. OSHA, that if human life is in jeopardy, firefighters can perform a rescue without following the "two-in and two-out" requirement.
In recognition that many fire departments have chosen to emphasize rapid response and in recognition that firefighters’ safety is improved by preventing the full involvement of a structure by fire, South Carolina also allows a limited short-time deviation when the following five conditions are met:
1. the incident commander has completed the Incident Command System course or its equivalent as certified by the South Carolina Fire Academy;
2. the employees who enter the IDLH atmosphere have completed the Basic Firefighter course or its equivalent as certified by the South Carolina Fire Academy;
3. the incident commander has determined that the standard staffing pattern is not feasible;
4. the incident commander has determined that entry can be made safely with the personnel on-site; and
5. arrival of additional employees to complete the standard staffing pattern is imminent.
S.C. OSHA has determined that the “two-in and two-out” rule is in effect for every fire department at any fire which is beyond the initial or beginning stage and which cannot be controlled or extinguished immediately. Any fire beyond this stage is considered by S.C. OSHA to be “immediately dangerous to life and health” (IDLH)."
-
Permalink Reply by Tony P on
-
Vic? I must ask, in what way is the structure fire attack method here less 'aggressive' than that in the USA? I've asked this same question before in threads here and elswhere and never had a reply. I've even asked for a definition of 'aggressive' in relation to firefighting. I've described how we arrive on scene, and have the first crew immediately go internal on attack and search. Always, unless the fire is seen as unsafe due to structure collapse, I've only been to maybe four structure fires where there was not an immediate internal attack. We get structure fires out, limiting damage to the room/area of origin in most cases. How are we not 'aggressive'? I often think that the word 'aggressive' is used to descibe any firefighting not done the 'American Way'. For most users of the word, I think it is simply not understanding other methods, at times as a not-so-veiled insult (I definitely don't think that of you Vic). I don't understand the use.
The method we follow here in Aust. comes mainly from that used in the UK/EU, are they not 'aggressive'? The London Fire Brigade (LFB) do it, and they are the second busiest fire service in the world, second only to Tokyo I believe, taking into account their call numbers and that they don't do ambulance work (as we don't).
I'm being serious. I really don't understand our apparent lack of aggression. And yes I've known it to be applied to the LFB as well. You Vic, have done the job in two countries, inthe USA with a busy (large?) FD. In Australia you are with a small(ish) country brigade I think? We in Victoria of course have small country Brigades that have limited structural experience (and training, which is something I don't agree with) but we also cover over 50% of the city of Melbourne plus all other towns in the State. I'm not 'having a go' at you, nor your brigade, just trying to point out there are differences around the country - for instance with the NSWFB having several hundred country towns with retained FF's. Unlike NSW we don't have the retained system, all towns have volunteer and some have a three person career crew supporting the vols.
I say again, I'm not having a go at anyone, I truly don't understand how our urban/suburban/large town system of fighting a structure fire can be seen as not being 'aggressive'. I see the biggest difference maybe in that we don't climb up and cut holes in roofs, not usually until after the fire has been knocked down. We arrive, we go internal, we put water on the fire. We put the fire out. We have far more saves than losses.
Surely it's just a difference in methods, surely the word 'aggressive' doesn't belong in a comparison? My little dictionary says this about 'aggressive' - 1. marked by or noted for aggression; tending to attack. 2. active, energetic, vigorous.
-
-
capcity, That works for DC, because of your manpower and concentration of stations.
North Charleston - 47 square miles (land), with 11 fire stations and one under construction. They operate 11 engines, 2 trucks, a tower ladder, and 3 rescues.
DCFEMS, by way of comparison covers 61 square miles (land), has 33 fire stations with 33 engines, 15 ladders, one tower ladder, and 3 rescues.
The relative station density is 1.8 square miles per station in DC and 4.28 square miles per stationfor North Charleston. To put the numbers another way, DC's station density is almost three times what North Chuck's is.
That means if the first due station for North Chuck isn't a double-company house or if one of the two companies is out on another call, then it is much less likely that they're going to have the manpower to both search and stretch a line at the same time. The company officer will have to pick one or the other, even if their rig is equipped to do both.
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
My point was that if conditions are okay enough for you to do a search without a hose line, you should be able to send another crew in there with one and they will be fine.
That means if the first due station for North Chuck isn't a double-company house or if one of the two companies is out on another call, then it is much less likely that they're going to have the manpower to both search and stretch a line at the same time.
I agree with Capcity, and understand the point that basically if the structure is fine enough to do a search, then it should be fine enough to do an interior attack. This reply was to Heather who commented that one could do a quick search and then go defensive as a fire attack.
As for pulling a line and search at the same time, it is possible to do both, with either fire attack or rescue taking the priority. We also have a few stations that can arrive with only an engine with 4 personnel and did have a fire where it was in such a station's first due, that they were alone for several minutes. (although they didn't go in, all were accounted for and the fire was well progressed).
Close to North Charleston, we have land area of 54 sq mi, with 7 stations, 7 pumps, 2 1/4 trucks, 4 ambulance...so while a company may be alone for a bit, help is still relatively quick to arrive. (barring of course multiple simultaneous calls)
However, there are times when a line can be pulled and go in for attack and do a search. If encountering the fire, you can put it out, or contain it enough for other companies. If you come across a victim, you can pull them out and chances are other companies would be arriving to take over attack, etc. The only real times where you couldn't stretch a line and do a search is if you are on something other than an engine.
-
Permalink Reply by M.J. 6821 on
-
As for pulling a line and search at the same time, it is possible to do both, with either fire attack or rescue taking the priority. We also have a few stations that can arrive with only an engine with 4 personnel and did have a fire where it was in such a station's first due, that they were alone for several minutes. (although they didn't go in, all were accounted for and the fire was well progressed).
John if they are arriving with 4 firefighters is that counting the IC and the engineer if thats the case there goes your 2in 2out if something goes wrong how are you going to get your interior guys out.
-
-
John, sometimes that will work. The problem is that if one crew tries to search while dragging a charged line, it will slow the search, it generally limits what can be searched, and it tends to focus the search on places to which the line can easily be taken.
I spent a lot of my career on truck and rescue companies that didn't have any firefighting capability larger than a water can. We did a lot of searches without a line either over the fire in a multistory building or near the fire with a barrier like a closed door between us and the fire. We also got a few can jobs along the way.
Most engine companies that engage in both activities at the same time do so out of necessity, not because it is desirable.
-
-
Maybe defensive attack should be made more common in the U.S.?
How do you define "more common"? There are many factors which go into a sizeup and to determine if the fire should be offensive or defensive in nature. Also, chances are if one really found the number of fires in the U.S. in a given year and which ones were "defensive" or "offensive" chances are there would be a much higher percentage of defensive. Secondly, it depends upon other factors (as mentioned) that an attack which started as offensive transitioned to defensive, or a quick "blitz" attack from outside, enabled for interior operations to take place. Basically there is much more involved than to make a blanket statement that defensive should be more common in the U.S.
Maybe structural collapse is not evaluated the same way other countries evaluate it?
Well how do you evaluate it? Time checks? Preplan? Building characteristics? Signs of potential fail (IE tie-back bracing "stars", cracks in mortar, smoke showing from cracks), building construction? It is basic FF training that a lightweight wood frame, truss construction, isn't going to last as long as a non combustible structure. Again, this is all part of size up, knowing the district, etc.
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?
Nor, a fair comparison to the U.S. In my travels abroad, mainly Europe, the construction of most homes etc were mostly type III construction, or more non-combustible. Yards, driveways, set backs, etc were a rarity. Fires tend to be contained much better and a quick attack with smaller lines typically accomplish the task. Whereas, here we do have predominately light weight wood frame construction, set backs, yards, etc are common. Distance is also a consideration, many communities in the U.S. are more spread out. All can play factors.
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.
If looking at LODD, the problem there is that while 100 LODD has been common in the U.S. one has to look at how many are due to actual fire events like collapse, flashover, backdraft, etc. The numbers are quite low, especially when considering the size of the U.S compared to other countries, the number of firefighters, the number of actual incidents and so forth. So yes, it only makes sense a larger country, with many more FF's and more incidents will see more LODD.
As for the number of deaths due to collapse, it also depends on circumstances involved, like if it was the collapse itself caused a death, or was it due to other factors and collapse occurred later? It seems you are viewing things from a black and white issue, instead of looking into the grey area where the true risk/benefit analysis lies.
-
-
John if they are arriving with 4 firefighters is that counting the IC and the engineer if thats the case there goes your 2in 2out if something goes wrong how are you going to get your interior guys out.
MJ,
I never said it was desirable, nor common. However, it is possible to do so. In the case where such an event would happen is if there is a rescue potential (confirmed) and if that is the case, 2 in 2 out doesn't apply. For a fire call here, 3 pumps (crew of 4), 1 truck (crew of 3), 1 ambo (crew of 2), and a bat chief....so 18 personnel minimum for a fire call. Response times are pretty short here too considering the distances so by the time the first due gets on scene, pulls lines, size up, etc....other crews are typically arriving.
I mentioned the one incident because this was the only time I know of where a single pump crew was on its own for a period of time...and also mentioned they did not make entry. I'm just rebutting the comment that both search and a hoseline couldn't take place together.
-
-
The problem is that if one crew tries to search while dragging a charged line, it will slow the search, it generally limits what can be searched, and it tends to focus the search on places to which the line can easily be taken.
Absolutely, which is why I stated that either rescue or fire attack would take precedence. If you encounter the victim right away, you can immediately remove. If encountering the fire, you can extinguish it (removing the hazard) or keep it in check for other crews to arrive and assist.
I am no fan of searching with a handline, but just stating it is possible and can be a consideration. I have also had a few fires where a can or even a 5# dry chem from the bldg was enough to extinguish the fire, or keep it in check (no cans on the ambo)
Most engine companies that engage in both activities at the same time do so out of necessity, not because it is desirable.
Absolutely and never did state it was desirable, only that is was possible. I was putting in another perspective that could be similar to what North Charleston does compared to DC. As I mentioned in my reply to MJ, such a time to search and stretch a line typically wouldn't happen here, just that it is possible to do.
-
Permalink Reply by Mark Oomkes on
-
It's about a certain organization trying to increase their membership roles by attempting to require more staffing that many municipalities and fire departments can not justify due to population, call volume, tax base.
Tell me, what is safer, 2 trained firefighters knocking down a room and contents fire upon arrival or waiting for the the next company to arrive and allowing the fire to build. We keep hearing how fires are increasing in heat and size, in about half the time that they use to because of all the synthetics. And how lightweight construction is our enemy, so do we put the fire out when it's small or wait 1, 2, 3 or more minutes 'til the next company arrives?
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
