Editor’s Opinion | By David Rhodes
“To use OSB or not to use OSB?” That is the question. Is oriented strand board (OSB) really creating more exposure hazards than wood pallets, straw, particleboard, plywood, sound board, or anything else we use as training fire loads? This has become a lingering debate within the holds of training departments, safety officers, and labor organizations and a legitimate concern for many firefighters. Some organizations, departments, and states have issued a blanket no-use policy; some have allowed limited use; some are waiting quietly for more information; and others have a “don’t ask, don’t tell” strategy.
Most all of the concern is driven by cancer prevention initiatives citing that the chemicals released from the burning OSB are linked to various exposure hazards that are causing our members harm. OSB is widely used by live fire instructors across the country because out of all the class A materials available, it provides a training fire environment that is as close to a modern fireground as we can typically create within the confines of a burn can or burn building training drill. Whether it’s used in a flashover can with several 4-foot × 8-foot sheets or a burn crib with a couple of strips behind the fire load or suspended in the ceiling to create a nice rollover in a burn room, it has become a preferred material for training fires in many places around the country. It is a relatively cheap consumable that again and again provides the biggest bang for the buck.
A few years ago, a very progressive fire department began looking at this issue and took on a massive training initiative with live burns in its container props. There was great concern about the formaldehyde known to be in the OSB. To eliminate the concern, the decision was made to use only certified formaldehyde-free OSB. This product was more expensive and imported from outside the United States. Everyone felt good about the decision; however, the decision was made on product information that led them to believe it contained no formaldehyde but was not based on any testing in fires. You see, formaldehyde-free OSB is a building term and standard that basically means the product does not emit more than a certain (low) amount of formaldehyde when used in construction. However, after some testing with these products as fuel in training fire scenarios through a DHS-funded project, it was quickly determined that formaldehyde-free OSB resulted in higher formaldehyde levels in the training prop when it was burning than did regular, plain old OSB available at the local lumber supply.
There is no doubt that firefighters need realistic live fire training. Anyone who thinks we can adequately prepare without it is simply naïve. Continued research on live fire training environments—which includes the materials we use, the amount used, the orientation of the fuels within the prop, and the design and ventilation of that prop, among other factors—is leading us to a better understanding of the exposure to products of combustion during this critical task. Surprising to some, pallets expose us to most of the same chemicals as OSB and often at similar concentrations. It has been found that it typically takes the pallets longer to reach the same stage of fire and they are less repeatable in creating the same visual effect. That can mean longer exposure times for students and instructors, increasing thermal hazards, and settling for an inferior training environment.
Maybe the question should be when to use live fire and when not to use live fire instead of focusing solely on when to use OSB. The crawl, walk, run method of training has been well established as producing results in the fire service. When is a blacked-out mask okay? When should we use theatrical smoke, and when should we use the real stuff? When can we use a digital fire panel or class B prop and when do we need a real fire? We must use all the above at the right time, based on the objectives of the training. Getting reps in with simulated conditions is good up to the point that you need to put them to use in a realistic environment—for example, to train on how to react to fire dynamics cues and how to acclimate to work in these conditions. Limiting exposure by knowing when to use a live fire smoke environment and class A materials, not eliminating them, along with proper contamination control methods such as instructor rotation, decon, and hygiene, is a much better strategy for training than spending time making emotional decisions to ban materials based on assumptions.
We must consider the consequences of not providing realistic live fire training. How many will make bad decisions in the heat of the fight that will lead to far greater injuries than they would under a controlled, risk-managed, live fire training drill?
There is no known class A material available that doesn’t expose us to hazardous conditions. We are in the risk management business, so let’s start managing the risk and be cautious about eliminating one risk that could result in a worse set of consequences. Is OSB really worse than wood pallets, straw, particleboard, sound board, or anything else we use as training fire loads? The answer is too complex to answer on this page, but the short answer is not as straightforward as some would like to believe. For those who want to ban OSB, the only real way to get the result desired from the ban is to ban all live fire training. There is always a road to somewhere bad paved with good intentions!
