Fire Service Urged to Take Lead In Increasing SCBA Level of Safety
departments
Director
South Carolina Fire Academy
Wearing breathing apparatus to fight fires is more than just knowing how to put it on and take it off.
- It requires knowledge of the skills of fire fighting.
- It is being aware of your own physical fitness and knowing your physical limitations and not letting yourself get into a position of exceeding these limitations—if at all possible.
- It is your knowledge of your own psychological makeup and limitations. Many in the fire service do not have the needed psychological makeup to wear breathing apparatus. How many entrance requirements do you find with a screening process that deals with the psyche under the stress and strain of fire fighting? Do we even know how to test for this? If we do, are the tests valid for the fire fighter—or have we again applied someone else’s test from another profession or discipline?
- It is knowledge of building construction, pre-fire planning and many other subjects that go into the development of a good attitude and confidence toward the use of breathing apparatus.
Areas of concern
As I see it, there are several areas that should concern us all in regard to self-preservation while using breathing apparatus:
- A poor attitude and misinformation about breathing apparatus.
- The misconceptions surrounding maintenance.
- The disparity of training programs’ effectiveness.
- Our inability to learn from mistakes.
- The standards imposed on the fire service.
There are still too many who consider leather lungs as macho. Some people still think that ordinary smoke is not toxic. We hear and see so many times about the smoke produced by the new plastics and materials we find in fires of today that were not there before. I dare say the only difference between the old and the new smoke is the length of time it takes to kill you—not if it will kill.
These people can only be converted through attrition and a thorough retraining program. Many in the fire service display a “care-less” attitude about their breathing apparatus. Since the general feelings about it are that it is too heavy, too bulky, doesn’t last long enough, and takes so long to repair what’s the use of wearing it in the first place?
Training needed
The present apparatus is all that we have for now. We must make the best of it. We can use today’s apparatus effectively with the proper attitude and training. However, attitude development begins when the fire fighter enters the fire service, not after he has been on the line for a while.
One example of the lack of understanding in the fire service concerning breathing apparatus is taken from an article in a national monthly magazine printed in 1978:
“New masks are being approved, some of which weigh less than 20 pounds and are very compact. The mask used by U. S. combat forces in Vietnam weighs only two pounds, filters all known toxic gases, and will function properly in very high and very low temperatures. These masks, in my opinion, are ideal for small departments.”
It is no wonder we have fire fighters killed with that kind of ignorance. It is clearly evident that the author of that article is completely out of touch with the fire fighters’ actual environment. I would like to think that this is the exception, but I wonder if it is.
Maintenance mystique
There is a mystique about routine or first eschelon maintenance. This is partially due to the approval standards imposed by the old Bureau of Mines (BOM), now the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), and the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). It is also partially due to the fear of liability suits. There is a common misconception that only the factory or service center can touch the apparatus or something ominous will happen.
Most people with any mechanical ability and a little training can perform much—if not most—of the maintenance required to keep the apparatus operational. However, this does not include the first stage pressure reduction mechanism of the regulator.
A good maintenance program in your department is a necessity and goes a long way in providing confidence in the use of your apparatus. Maintenance programs are not merely replacing screws, O-rings, and webbing of the unit. It starts with the air compressed for breathing and follows through to forecasting replacement of known wear points and parts before they actually break down.
One small example of knowing your apparatus maintenance system is the influence that dew point has on the overall performance of your apparatus. Dew point is that temperature and pressure at which condensation occurs. It is a small item, but extremely important. The lack of a proper air dew point can cause problems in the regulator. If you are going to purchase a compressor and air purification system, you must be knowledgeable about the correct system and technique for processing air.
Improper training
In the United States, we have as many different breathing apparatus training programs as we have departments. Unfortunately, there are many that are too poorly conceived and implemented. An example of one that fits this category was reported in the same national magazine. Let me quote a small excerpt:
“The smoke chamber is in the basement of the drill tower. After students have descended the steps, donned their masks, and entered the smoke maze, the assistant instructor slams two steel doors shut. ‘Most students at that frightening moment couldn’t tell you their name, let alone think how to get out of the maze,’ observes the principal instructor. He further states that ‘the psychological shock is tremendous. Many students are still having difficulty adjusting to the confinement of the self-contained breathing apparatus when the door slams and they realize they can’t see their hand in front of their masks’.”
No wonder the students are having difficulty in adjusting! I can just see it now! The article goes on to describe the maze and the conditions under which the student is subjected:
“Such scrupulous reality frequently results in real dangers. It is often necessary to rescue students from the chamber. When an instructor fell and broke the air hose from his air cylinder at the regulator of his self-contained breathing apparatus, his complete air supply was gone in less than thirty seconds. While he was being rescued, another instructor was taking an overcome student out through the entry maze. ‘I’ve aged ten years since I heard that damn door close,’ one student gasped as he pulled off his mask. The benefits for the present, according to the training officer, was surviving the smoke chamber and feeling the excitement of successful completion of the course. The instruction and realistic experience of the smoke diving course will save lives in the future.”
This smoke diving course curriculum covers hazardous gases, fire zone atmosphere, self-contained breathing apparatus, and a trip through the smoke chamber. Would you like to guess how long the course is? Not six weeks or even six days, but every bit of six hours. This article was published within the last year.
Shock treatment
That’s not a course—it’s shock treatment, designed to hurt or kill someone wearing breathing apparatus in training. When I say hurt, I don’t mean physically hurt, but also emotionally hurt. They won’t have to worry about them having trouble wearing the apparatus, because I doubt if they will ever come close to another unit.
Fire training is dangerous, but there is no need—and it borders on negligence—to subject another human being needlessly to such an emotional shock. However, there are those who would approve of this type of training. We have a long way to go, don’t we?
It would he nice if we had a training program in this country similar to some of our European counterparts. Theirs is a national breathing apparatus program, however, and I am not sure that their system would work completely in this country. That fact should not prohibit us from learning and initiating changes in our programs that would accomplish the same desired result.
Maintenance problem
In fire departments with effective maintenance programs, they know the parts that do not hold up to fire service wear and tear. What we don’t know is how widespread that problem is throughout this country.
In many cases when you call the manufacturers’ attention to a problem, they will be more than happy to repair or replace the questionable part. There is a report of at least one wrapped aluminum bottle where the wrappings separated from the bottle. The problem was pointed out to the manufacturer and the bottle was returned for observation. When the owner requested to have the bottle returned, all of a sudden the bottle was lost—it couldn’t be found. How many manufacturers’ recalls have you heard of over the past 10 years in the fire service where breathing apparatus is concerned?
Individually, we all know of problems that we have experienced. Collectively, the fire service is not yet in a position to bring about recalls or changes in present-day apparatus due to failure or breakdown.
Failure reporting system
I would recommend the need for a national breathing apparatus failure reporting system, or something similar. This system would be for the sole purpose of determining the cause of failure to bring about the needed changes in the quality of manufacturers’ equipment and their attitude toward their product as it affects the fire service.
Until we in the fire service accomplish this, we will be subject to the discretion of NIOSH and the manufacturer. We must become a power for them to reckon with!
Over the years there have been too many fire fighters killed while wearing breathing apparatus. In many cases, the apparatus is suspected as the equipment that failed to provide the protection necessary to do the job. There is little statistical information or concrete proof the apparatus itself—and that alone—is the culprit. Many fire fighters, officers, and even fire chiefs are unable to reconstruct the sequence of events that surround a fatality of a fire fighter wearing breathing apparatus.
In all too many cases, the events surrounding the death are conveniently swept under the rug in the hope that it won’t happen again. Sometimes it is the city or governmental agency which puts the hush over the incident. This action does not help the next fire fighter who might be a victim of similar circumstances.
Mandatory autopsy urged
It is extremely difficult to actually substantiate the events during a fire which lead to a fire fighter’s death. It should be a must to require an autopsy of all fire fighters killed in the line of duty to determine the actual cause of death.
If it were possible, it would help significantly to isolate or impound the apparatus worn that is suspected of or contributing to the cause of death. It would help to have that unit sent to an unbiased investigator to determine its contribution, or lack of contribution, in the individual’s injury or death. Unfortunately, there is no independent agency available to do the job.
If we were honest with ourselves, I believe we would find a lack of effective training to be the largest contributing factor to the deaths of fire fighters wearing breathing apparatus.
In testimony at a NIOSH public hearing in October 1977, concerning respirator testing and approval, I gave the following report:
“For years the Institute (Maryland Fire and Rescue Institute) has been concerned about the validity of the respirator testing and approval procedures as they affect the fire fighter in Maryland and the nation. Unfortunately, the fire service has had little if any real input into this standard. The same was probably true when the initial test for respirators was developed. This has proved to be very frustrating for the fire service.
“The National Aeronautics and Space Administration spent thousands of tax dollars to re-invent the wheel and redesign the demand apparatus, something industry should have done on its own! This developmental work brought many good advances in the breathing apparatus design and equipment for the fire service. When NASA officials were asked about how fire departments would increase their capability for filling the higher pressure bottles, the answer came back, ‘We don’t see any problem.’
“Herein lies the problem for the fire service—nonaffiliated professionals designing apparatus for environments and working conditions they know little or nothing about.
“This same thing can be said about the present respirator testing and approval procedures. Some federal employees who are inflexible and intolerant of the fire service’s problems and other federal employees at higher levels who are aware of inferior workmanship and materials are afraid of embarrassing the manufacturer because of their political clout and fear of a reduction in their budgets because of that clout. These are all symptoms of the problem.
“In addition, it could be said that the ‘approval’ has little meaning for the fire service since ‘approval’ units are often drastically altered to suit the individual or fire department using them.
“The fire service needs desperately to have its own standard for approval, for it is the fire-rescue services that use breathing apparatus more than those in industry. While some will say the fire service is 40 percent of the sales market for the manufacturer in any given year, it probably is 80 to 90 percent the user. However the fire service has had little, if any, input into the development of these standards it is affected by.
“A lack of communications, inadequate public hearing notification, and a lack of travel money for fire service experts to participate in the making of standards are additional problems encountered. It is unfortunate that the fire service has been unable to participate in the past for these and other reasons, but we will no longer stand aside and watch outsiders determine the fate of our personnel.”
Please turn page
The standard which covers the testing and approval for respiratory protective devices (referred to as the CFR, Title 30, Part II) has not been upgraded in many years. It is this standard that the industry uses for the manufacturing and approval of all breathing apparatus. Perhaps the best approach would be to scrap the existing procedures and then develop procedures specifically designed to meet the needs of the fire service. Performance criteria should be developed and implemented for the following areas:
- Approval should be based upon performance standards for component parts, as well as for single complete unit apparatus. This would provide independent manufacturers with the ability to provide approved components—in some cases at a much lower cost to the consumer.
- Interchangeability of bottles, facepieces and breathing tube connectors that attach to the regulators without loss of approval.
- Temperature variance and shock temperature shifting, as related to the real world of fire fighting.
- Impact test on lenses of facepieces and other applicable materials.
- Corrosion criteria as related to different metals being used together (causing electrolysis) and exposure to these metals to chemicals as produced by the fire (acids, salt spray, etc.).
- Time performance and duration criteria which are valid for the job of fire fighting
- Closer quality control of defects reported and recal procedures which are enforced. Equipment failure records should be maintained by NIOSH or other similar agency.
- Criteria for communications, both voice and radio, should be researched and improved for fire fighter breathing apparatus.
- Flame-retardance criteria for all materials used as component parts of the unit.
- Development of a Schrader-type connector for the breathing tube connector to the regulator.
- Performance standards for wear, scratch and dent resistance of the bottle, as well as rust prevention, must be established for the fire fighting environment.
- Performance criteria presently is nonexistent for air purification systems. This must also be developed. Some advertising borders on being blatantly false. The term “purified air” must be defined so that the consumers have a standard to go by.
- Apparatus maintenance criteria should be developed so that the shroud of mystique is lifted.
- Consideration must be given auxiliary connections to allow for rescue buddy breathing. These connections can be made a part of the regulator or could be connected as a component part.
NIOSH approval criticized
It has been two years since that testimony was given and while there has been little change, a most significant development may be in the offering. Recently, NIOSH had an evaluation made of its respirator testing criteria and approval programs and procedures. This evaluation is a direct outgrowth of the public hearings held in 1977 with the first real input by the fire service. This report is not complimentary of NIOSH’s criteria or approval procedure.
This is further borne out in OSHA’s suggestion that it may have to “adopt additional requirements for respirators rather than simply relying on the NIOSH approval.” One of the four major conclusions in the report was:
“The Division of Safety Research (DSR) Certification procedures represent an amalgamation of regulatory standards, checklists, audits, bench tests, and test protocols that are product and manufacturer-oriented rather than user-oriented.”
One of the consultants’ recommendations to NIOSH was:
“A major addition to the testing and certification program should be the development of an information feedback system of product failures and near failures and an information distribution system that will provide users, potential users, and manufacturers with product performance.”
The report also questions the authority of NIOSH to establish certification programs by stating:
“The Occupational Safety and Health Act does not contain any statutory language requiring NIOSH approval or certification of protective equipment.”
No assurance for users
In analysis of the current certification program, the report goes on to say that:
“NIOSH testing and analysis has already determined that much of the currently available PPE performance criteria is not based on scientific principles for worker protection…A necessary first step to improve worker safety and health in the workplace is the development of performance criteria, performance standards, and test procedures that will reflect user experience in the workplace….It is fair to state that while the current NIOSH quality assurance program offers the manufacturer a high degree of ‘respectability’ if he/she complies with NIOSH suggested procedures, it does not assure the users that devices produced under such a program have a sufficiently high assurance of safety. The recent problems with Scott and Survivair units attest to the weaknesses of the current system.”
It would appear from the excerpts mentioned that NIOSH is in serious trouble with its respirator testing, certification and approval program. I think most of us in the fire service have known this for a long time, but we have been frustrated in doing anything about it for the reasons mentioned previously.
We do need our own standard developed with concerted input by informed personnel from the fire service. We also need technical advice from experts in related fields, but not at the expense of the overall objective—the safety of the fire fighter and the real world of fireground use of breathing apparatus. It must be free from special interest groups outside the fire service.
Lack of fire influence
The Code of Federal Regulations is influenced by many organizations and agencies with their membership on committees that write standards adopted by the federal government. If you have a chance, take a look at the makeup of the committee’s organization membership. You will see that it is difficult, if not impossible, for the fire service to make an impression on the committee. Why should we be burdened with what those outside the fire service want to impose on us? I seriously question whose interests are served by the current standards affecting fire service breathing apparatus.
Take for example the ANSI standard Z 88.5 titled, “Practices for Respiratory Protection for the Fire Service.” Some of the organizations which make up subcommittees are the National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety, Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the U. S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration, American Society of Safety Engineers, Industrial Safety Equipment Association, American Industrial Hygiene Association and individual members.
I do not question the sincerity—or integrity—of the individuals who represent their organizations; some are personal friends, but most members would have a difficult time relating to the fire fighter and the problems he encounters while wearing breathing apparatus on the fireground. If the shoe were on the other foot, you would hear some squawking. The organizations mentioned have tremendous resources to support their positions. The fire service does not!
I have asked myself many questions. The answers to many can be given only by YOU. We will all have to work hard for the answers to others. We do have to be our own best friends and not our own worst enemies.
