Commentary response
John J. O`Brien
Lieutenant
Boston (MA) Fire Department
I am delighted with the interest generated by Greg Falkenthal`s article “It`s Time to Reclaim Our Fire Service” (Fire Commentary, March 1999; Letters to the Editor, May 1999). There are no hard-and-fast answers to the issues he raised, and I understand the stance his detractors have taken. In either instance, an argument can be persuasive for both sides, for each has made the fire service safety issue an important focal point that all who care about firefighting should embrace in their agendas.
When one examines the two-in/two-out concept, keep in mind its origin: OSHA`s implementation of the 26 CFR Section 1910.146 final rule is intended to eliminate deaths and injuries to workers entering and working in confined spaces and to rescue workers. Its scope and application addressed the practices and procedures to protect employees in general industry from the hazards of entry into permit-required confined spaces; it did not apply to agriculture, construction, or shipyard employment. Parts 1928, 1926, and 1915 apply to these areas. The regulations spelled out duties of each member, entry personnel, attendant, and entry supervisor and also include rescue. What OSHA failed to define at that time was who are rescue workers.
Industry had the option to use its own trained personnel or obtain the services of an outside contractor specializing in confined space rescue. Many companies opted for the outside contractor for obvious reasons. Maintaining their own rescue service is expensive and also carries with it a reasonably high degree of liability, training certification/recertification, and equipment. Many a company opted for the outside contractors primarily as a money issue. What agency is summoned for all manner of emergency assistance? The fire department.
The fire service jumped at the opportunity; assumed the training and certification of its personnel; and, above all, assumed the liability. This brings us full circle: Now the fire service must comply with the OSHA standard as it applies to the rescue workers standard in 29 CFR 1910.146.2. For two rescuers in, two rescuers must be ready if assistance is needed.
The initial rule did not apply to fire situations, but now since the rule has been applied to us on a rescue front for industry, it has been applied to the fireground for obvious reasons. Many fires are fought in a confined environment and, therefore, qualify under OSHA`s rule. Many states must comply with the federal rule while others enact their own state regulations, which in many cases are more restrictive. The two-in/two-out rule is an acceptable and necessary policy for industrial safety and good legislation and has been adopted (in many cases, mandated) for the fire service. The debate is, Does it realistically apply to the fire service? (This is an issue Falkenthal addresses.)
Many seem to equate SOPs with a legal document that will be applied verbatim to the task at hand–no exceptions. SOPs are guidelines to be used as a reference and to point the officer in the preferred direction. They also serve as safeguards for employee and employer and aid in minimizing injury and helping the incident commander place resources and decide what resources are required.
The more significant argument for SOPs is that they are essential to a municipality in that they can be assets in cases involving liability of a civil or criminal nature. Example: A firefighter is seriously injured or killed in the line of duty. His family counsel sues the city or town that employed the firefighter. In court, under oath, what will learned counsel ask the employer? “What, if any, guideline did the employee have at his disposal to ensure his safety?” Another pointed question, “Did the employee receive adequate training to ensure his safety?” And the frequently asked, pointed question to the employer`s agent, the training officer: “What credentials do you possess that qualify you to instruct employees?” Looking cynically at this scenario, one sees that the SOP is a very important resource to have in one`s arsenal.
It is reasonable to assume that every new firefighter goes through a very rigorous and extensive training period before jumping on the back step. On the back step, the officer has a reasonable understanding of his duties. All the firefighters have to do is what they rehearsed in drill school. On arrival at the fire, if they suddenly contract amnesia, their officer will put things right. Their officer ….
We tend to dismiss the idea that those in charge need a little training. This officer may be newly appointed, recently transferred from an administrative position that kept him out of the loop. To whom does the officer rely on now? The incident commander expects his officers and firefighters to be capable of carrying out his orders. If all his resources can`t perform as he would certainly expect, then the incident commander is put in a very untenable position.
With this in mind, wouldn`t it make sense to have chief officers and company officers schedule quarterly sessions in which to voice their concerns? By speaking and addressing the concerns of each rank, outside the less charged fireground environment, a greater understanding of what is expected from each end of the chain of command could benefit all members. SOPs could be reaffirmed and interpretations discussed, resulting in an improved acceptance of the SOPs as a tool, not as a rule or regulation that must be rigidly followed.
The public should have an opportunity to observe the advantages of a fully staffed fire department and would gain a greater understanding of the services provided for them through their taxes. Newspapers have sometimes shown both fire and EMS personnel in an unfavorable light, telling of alleged turf wars, late responses, and the ever-present gender/racial issues that are always in any article addressing the civil servant. We in the livesaving business (fire, EMS, and police) are always the profession society uses as the mirror in which it views itself. Consequently, we have to set the bar so the reflection society sees will be viewed as an admirable image. The communities we serve expect nothing less.
We are obligated to provide such a service. Ask someone in the community what firefighters do, and the usual answer is, “They put out fires.” True, but public apathy can be detrimental when it comes to collective bargaining. Public relations have to be improved by being visible while performing in-service inspections, conducting educational programs in our schools, and promoting the fire service as a noble vocation, not just a job.
The fire service is now a career. Study hard, get promoted, and climb the pay scale. Firefighters of the 1960s through the 1980s faced different challenges–riots, poor equipment, and low pay. One didn`t become a firefighter for monetary gain–the hours were longer and the money short. Respect and admiration were the motivations. The back step was akin to an amusement park ride. The landscape may have changed, but the terrain remains the same: a proud and dedicated profession that still commands the respect and admiration of those we serve.
One positive remains: There may be better ways of making a living, but none as rewarding.
