It was a different era, when the city of Davis went to four firefighters on an engine in 1999 as a way to meet the new OSHA regulations requiring two men in and two men out in order to fight a fire.
The staff report in 1999, written by then-Fire Chief Rose Conroy, shows at that time the city responded to about 2538 calls for service with four firefighters at the main downtown station and three at the other two stations.
Wrote the chief at that time, “Beginning May 22, 1999 we will no longer be able to allow the first in engine company to enter the structure to begin search & rescue or to attack the fire.”
There are exceptions to the regulation: “If, upon arrival at the scene, members find an imminent life-threatening situation where immediate action may prevent the loss of life or serious injury, such action shall be permitted with less than four persons on the scene.”
She noted, “We will have to wait for the arrival of the second due engine company before entering the structure.”
Back in 1999, the council unanimously approved the hiring of six firefighters at the cost of $368,676.
Tonight the city council will look toward reducing the number of fire personnel on staff, from 12 to 11. That would create three three-person fire engines and one two-person rescue apparatus.
Despite the OSHA regulations, most fire stations in California operate with three people on an engine. 90 to 95 percent of them, according to Interim Chief Scott Kenley. In his analysis, it shows that two in/two out would be a factor for a single three-person engine, perhaps twice a year.
There is a lot of misconception about the two in/two out model.
OSHA itself described when the standard takes effect. In a 1998 publication, OSHA argues, “The ‘two-in, two-out’ requirement does not take effect until firefighters begin to perform interior structural firefighting.”
“Interior structural firefighting is firefighting to control or extinguish a fire in an advanced stage of burning inside a building,” they write. “Because the fire is producing large amounts of smoke, heat and toxic products of combustion, exposure of firefighters is extremely hazardous and is considered an ‘immediately dangerous to life or health’ (IDLH) environment.”
IDLH is defined by OSHA as “… an atmosphere that poses an immediate threat to life, would cause irreversible adverse health effects, or would impair an individual’s ability to escape from a dangerous atmosphere.”
They write: “Only those situations where the acute exposure would threaten life, initiate an irreversible process that threatens life or health, or impede the ability of the worker to escape from the atmosphere would constitute IDLH conditions.”
Naturally, that description does not constitute every interior atmosphere. And OSHA differentiates IDLH from the incipient firefighting stage.
OSHA writes, “Incipient stage firefighting, on the other hand, involves the control or extinguishment of a fire in the initial or beginning stage, using portable fire extinguishers or small hose lines without the need for personal protective equipment.”
Because of this, firefighters do not have to stay outside of the building, necessarily. It may be that only the attic fire is an IDLH environment.
” Respiratory protection and ‘two-in, two-out’ are required in all interior structural firefighting situations. Interior structural fires are considered to be IDLH atmospheres,” OSHA writes. “However, the use of respiratory protection does not, by itself, invoke the requirements associated with an IDLH atmosphere. The use of a self- contained breathing apparatus could be unrelated to exposure to an IDLH atmosphere associated with an interior structural fire.”
Nor does the presence of visible smoke trigger IDLH.
In 2002, then-OSHA director of Enforcement Programs, Richard E. Fairfax wrote, “The presence of visible smoke itself does not trigger a requirement to wear any particular type of respirator. Fires that have not progressed beyond the incipient stage, such as stove grease fires, might be extinguished without the responders needing to wear any respiratory protection. Larger fires, which have progressed beyond the incipient stage, would require SCBAs for entry.”
The firefighters’ union, wishing to protect union jobs rather than necessarily promote safety, have attempted to transform this into a safety issue.
First, as even Rose Conroy in 1999 acknowledged, if an individual is in the structure, the standard does not apply. Firefighters may make immediate entry to effect a rescue.
Thus, the Interim Chief Kenley argues that this becomes a matter of property value, not safety.
The firefighters’ union may counter that each extra minute they wait to attack a fire means the fire grows bigger and increases the risk to the firefighters once they are able to enter the building.
However, Interim Chief Kenley does not believe this is an insurmountable hurdle. While far from the ideal way to attack a fire, the firefighters can stick their hose through the window. This will push the fire into areas that it may cause more damage, but it will prevent the fire from growing.
This is actually a worst-case scenario. These scenarios only occur in Davis about twice a year. With the current proposal, it would only impact the outlying areas. The central fire station will have five firefighters on duty.
Moreover, with the boundary drop and proximity of UC Davis, the risk here is further reduced.
In fact, Davis represents a relatively low risk for fires, overall. It is a primary reason we see so few fires to begin with. The city has high standards for construction, it is modern, and because most of the residences are relatively affluent, the upkeep on properties greatly reduces the risk.
The places with the greatest risk for fire are the older homes in the core, homes that will be served by the central fire station that will have five personnel immediately available.
The bottom line that residents need to understand is that what we are dealing with is not a public safety issue, but rather a property issue.
When the council meets this evening, they must weigh the risks of slightly more property damage, perhaps twice a year at the very most, given the other factors, against the costs of carrying an additional firefighter around the clock, year around.
In a city that does not have a huge fire risk, the costs are more for the city to carry that extra firefighter and those costs do not represent a public safety issue.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“When the council meets this evening, they must weigh the risks of slightly more property damage perhaps twice a year at the very most given the other factors, against the costs of carrying an additional firefighter around the clock, year round.”
There always has to be a balance with safety and costs. In this case the tradeoff is worth the savings.
“The firefighters’ union, wishing to protect union jobs rather than necessarily promote safety, have attempted to transform this into a safety issue.”
Firefighting as a job role, has a property where the value of the job is mainly in reducing loss in the event of an issue instead of creating value when there is no issue. There is an intrinsic conflict of interest because to be paid more is to wish for more issues. This is a fundamental stress against ethical decisions.
To relief the fundamental stress in ethics, a job role that deals with reducing loss in case of an issue, can be paired with a job role designed to create value.
For example, the job description of a firefighter could include technological, procedural, and civil researches on fire prevention. The agency that fights fire and the agency that does the research to prevent fire should be the same agency, so that each member of the agency can have an active role in reducing fire or other emergencies, and empowering the public to protect themselves in case of emergencies when there is no official personnel on scene.
The emphasis on prevention should not require a grant as if it is a side project. It should be part of the job description of the role subjected to evaluation and performance metrics.
Firefighters have the first hand experience of dealing with emergencies, they are among the best resources we as a society have in eliminating emergencies. The job role should be designed to recognize that asset.
The fundamental effects of division of labor is not the same for all job roles. When division of labor causes a job role to only get paid when there are negative situations, ethics can be compromised.
Firefighting is a division of labor vulnerable to this type of issue.
“Tonight the city council will look toward reducing the number of fire personnel on staff, from 12 to 11. That would create three three-person fire engines and one two-person rescue apparatus.”
Not sure I can figure out the math here. Increase by six to allow for four on trucks, decrease by one to get back to operating with three? There must be something else in the equation.
And, about how much does each firefighter cost us now compared to the non-constant $370,000 it cost us to bring six of them aboard 24 years ago?
“To relief the fundamental stress in ethics, a job role that deals with reducing loss in case of an issue, can be paired with a job role designed to create value.”
Interesting concept. In many communities, firefighters perform services such as public safety awareness and CPR training as well as serve as building inspectors. I’m not aware whether this is true in Davis. I do know they’ve devoted much time and money in past years to help our citizens determine who should be on the city council.
Which raises a question: how many firefighters live in Davis and how many commute from the Bay Area and other areas?
Just Saying: “Not sure I can figure out the math here. Increase by six to allow for four on trucks, decrease by one to get back to operating with three? There must be something else in the equation. “
The six we increased moved us from 10 per shift to 12. Now we are going from 12 to 11 which will allow us to carry three fewer firefighters on staff. We will not have to lay off anyone because we have not rehired during attrition.
“We will not have to lay off anyone because we have not rehired during attrition.”
Then how do we now still have 4 on a truck? Currently covered with OT?
That’s a good question – I assume that’s the case.
Re: JustSaying
“In many communities, firefighters perform services such as public safety awareness and CPR training as well as serve as building inspectors. I’m not aware whether this is true in Davis.”
I think this is true in Davis, but I don’t know how this factors in the job description. The last time I was in Davis CERT training, I heard that many of the firefighters have their side outreach or research project to help the community (in addition to building inspection etc.).
When I say the job role creates a stress toward ethics, I don’t mean that firefighters are unethical. I just mean that it makes the job harder even if the firefighters are ethical because of the fundamental conflict of interest.
However, in terms of presenting a case supporting more personnel, conceptually, the presentation would not only show us how many responses the firefighters went, but how many community members are trained, how many buildings are inspected, and how many new improvements are proposed and tested to improve emergency response and in reducing emergency.
“Then how do we now still have 4 on a truck?”
I thought we meant this:
Now:
o Engine 1: 4 ppl
o Engine 2: 4 ppl
o Engine 3: 4 ppl
TOTAL = 12 ppl
Proposed:
o Engine 1: 3 ppl
o Engine 2: 3 ppl
o Engine 3: 3 ppl
o Recuse Car: 2 ppl
TOTAL = 11 ppl
Just Saying: “Not sure I can figure out the math here. Increase by six to allow for four on trucks, decrease by one to get back to operating with three? There must be something else in the equation. ”
I think there are three stations and there were 11 FF per shift per station, there are two shifts per day. To increase to 12 FF per shift per station is to add 6 FF.
Edgar: they are on 24 hour shifts, so one per day.
Edgar wrote:
> Firefighters have the first hand experience of
> dealing with emergencies, they are among the best
> resources we as a society have in eliminating
> emergencies. The job role should be designed to
> recognize that asset.
The union will never go for anything that will cut in to the time firefighters are paid to sleep, eat, watch sports and play Call of Duty…
“The six we increased moved us from 10 per shift to 12. Now we are going from 12 to 11 which will allow us to carry three fewer firefighters on staff.”
So, the total cutback is three firefighters, one per shift? If so, that still doesn’t explain why it took a total of six to go up to four-per-truck and we only gain three when we go back. Is Edgar’s impression–that we’re adding a two-person rescue car–the reason we’ve lost two in making the fallback?
JS:
In 1998 we had 10 firefighters per shift. That was raised to 12 per shift in 1999-2000. That caused the need to higher six additional firefighters. now we are reducing to 11, which will cause us to reduce by three.
I asked Chief Kenley the staffing.
His response: “We currently have twelve assigned per shift. Overtime is only required when a vacancy is created due to vacation or sick. The City will need to hire new firefighters with the next retirement.
“The recommendation is to maintain the current twelve personnel shift staffing, resulting in one person available to cover the first vacancy per shift. This will reduce the cost of overtime, and minimize the potential for employee burnout due to working an excessive number of overtones.”
Can the Council also address the release time for union activities and prevent/ban overtime pay to cover for the person off on union business?
Thank you David for the correction. Could you check my basic understanding:
o There are 3 fire station
o There are 3 engines, one for each station.
o There are 36 firefighters rotating for 3 shifts
o Each shift there are 12 firefighters
o Each shift is 24 hours long
o Each firefighter is on-duty about 56 hours per week
The proposal wants:
o Add a rescue car
o Keep all 12 firefighters
Does the fire department currently have that rescue car?
If not, are we getting it because the reduced operation cost of having that car will pay itself off compared to the operation cost of using an engine for the same function?
How does the proposal address the concern that too much funding is going to the fire department?
[quote]”His response: ‘We currently have twelve assigned per shift. Overtime is only required when a vacancy is created due to vacation or sick(ness). The City will need to hire new firefighters with the next retirement.
‘The recommendation is to maintain the current twelve personnel shift staffing, resulting in one person available to cover the first vacancy per shift. This will reduce the cost of overtime, and minimize the potential for employee burnout due to working an excessive number of [s]overtones[/s] (overtime hours).'”[/quote]Why are we not getting rid of 6 positions to get back to the state we’re returning to?
How many of the six “surplus” positions are we keeping in order to cover for people who are ill or on vacation? Have we been paying for more than 6,000 hours of overtime “only for” the two needs each year–that’s a lot of vacations and sickness….and overtime in the past.
Still confusing. Does Edgar’s latest accounting accurately reflect the staffing and scheduling. This shouldn’t be that hard to pin down, sorry.
If we’re fully staffed now, why wouldn’t we be able to lose some through attrition instead of immediately “hire new firefighters with the next retirement.” On the other hand, if we’re already at the reduced level, how have we been maintaining the 2 in/2 out requirement?