LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
“You can’t predict it”
At 0239 hours on September 10, 1992, my department received an alarm for an 11,000-square-foot building occupied by a muffler shop (3,000 sq, ft ), a stained glass shop (4,000 sq. ft.), and a furniture and refinishing store (4,000 sq. ft ). The structure was an unprotected noncombustible cement block building with a steel bar joist and a metal pan roof.
The first-in engine (E-3) arrived seven minutes after the alarm was received to find smoke showing. They immediately requested a box alarm. After size-up, E-3 decided to make entry through the front of the building Approximately 20 feet into the building, they came across numerous obstacles and decided to approach the fire from the back of the building. E-3 crews retreated and pulled a 2½inch skid to the back door. At that time, they were met by arriving box alarm companies, and a command post was set up.
Roof ventilation was ordered, so Ladder 7 (under my direction ) set up the main ladder on the building’s northeast corner and a 28-foot ground ladder on the southeast corner for a secondary escape route. Another firefighter and 1 proceeded to the roof via the main ladder and were stepping off the ladder onto the roof when the back two-thirds of the roof fell and collapsed. 1 2 minutes into the alarm.
After descending the main ladder, the vehicle operator rotated the ladder away from the flames and prepared for a defensive attack with the ladder pipe. Immediately after the collapse, the emergency evacuation signal was given and a roll call was taken.
Luckily, no crew had entered the back of the building. E-3 and E-7’s crews had cut a hole in the back overhead door and were making headway on the fire when the roof failed. Very little fire damage was done to the stained glass shop next door, which, along with the muffler shop, received only smoke damage.
Besides the normal dead load, which included two large air conditioners, approximately 100 chairs had been hung from the steel bar joist tor display. The roof failed along the east wall, where the origin of the fire was determined to be. The fire alarm system consisted of one smoke detector and two heat detectors, the closest approximately 31 feet away from the point of origin. We also noted that the detectors were mounted on the bottom of the bar joist, approximately two feet from the ceiling.
What could we have done to predict the collapse? Before ascending the ladder, I looked down the cement block wall and saw no cracks or any other conditions that might indicate a collapse. By the time I was going to step onto the roof, it failed. What did I miss?
My question was answered during a phone call to City of New York (NY) Fire Department Deputy Chief Vincent Dunn, author of Collapse of Burning Buildings (Fire Engineering Books, 1988), who stated, “Lieutenant, you can’t predict it. Don’t take the chance.”
Chuck Wehrli
Lieutenant
Naperville (IL) Fire Department
AFFF and extinguisher must be compatible
I read with interest “A Case for an Extinguisher” by Tom Brennan (Random Thoughts, April 1992). As a representative of an AFFF products manufacturer, 1 appreciate Brennan’s recommendation to use it in extinguishers to increase their effectiveness. It makes a conventional water extinguisher more effective on Class A fires and permits it to be used on Class B fires as well.
However, I would like to add a word of caution to those users who include AFFF in extinguishers: It is absolutely essential they ensure the compatibility of the extinguisher with the AFFF used. Years of compatibility testing have shown that AFFF can have a detrimental effect on certain types of rubber and plastic parts. Failure of these parts can cause the extinguisher to malfunction or not work at all. Murphy’s I .aw would tell us that this failure would occur at the wrong time.
I also question AFFF’s ability to act as an extinguishing agent by interrupting the chemical chain reaction, as stated by Brennan. It has been our experience that this is not the case. AFFFs work by absorbing heat, separating oxygen from fuel, and sealing the fuel surface.
Richard E. Ottman
Technical Service Specialist
Lightwater™ AFFF/ATC Project
3M Company
St. Paul, Minnesota
Critical flow rate
I was a little confused with the article “Critical Flow Rate” by C. Bruce Edwards (September 1992). He talks about several mechanisms by which water suppresses fire. One he failed to mention is the smothering effects of steam, as found in the IFSTA manual Essentials Of Fire Fighting, chapter 9 (Fire Streams) under the section, “The Extinguishing Properties of Water.” It states that the steam produced also can be an aid by smothering fires caused by certain types of materials. This section also says that smothering is accomplished when the expansion of steam reduces oxygen in a confined space. Knowing this as a basic firefighter, this option should have been taken into account for aiding to darken down a fire, rather than relying only on flow rates to darken a fire. Training, experience, and technique also play a major role in fire suppression.
Brad A. Kramer
Firefighter
Rocky Flats (CO) Fire Department
Bruce Edwards responds: Your thought-provoking letter plunges us into the great debate between the “steamers,” who swear by fog, and the “coolers,” who swear by straight streams.
The steamers base their belief in the “smothering effect of steam” on the World War II experiments of Lloyd Layman, in which he found that a water fog is highly effective in suppressing shipboard fires in closed (unventilated) compartments.
Unfortunately, steamers take Layman’s work out of context, assuming it applies equally to well-ventilated structure fires. Modern ventilation practices preclude the “confined space” you mention, so the smothering effect of steam by displacing oxygen is reduced, since steam is replaced by fresh air during ventilation.
Belief in the overriding effectiveness of steam in smothering fire in ventilated compartments has resulted in routine use of 100-psi fog patterns and high-pressure fog for interior firefighting. I suspect this has led to many personal injuries and lost buildings, since fog patterns tend to spread fire and blow fire back on the nozzleman much more than straight streams. Also, they lack the reach of straight streams and so cannot penetrate to the back of large compartments.
The coolers, who attack burning material with straight streams to cool it below the ignition temperature and reduce pyrolytic fuel generation, seem to base their position on the following:
- Traditional use of smooth-bore nozzles, which were invented before combination fog nozzles (not a valid reason).
- Experience with the problems of standard-pressure fog nozzles in interior firefighting.
My own experience, which includes having been burned by tog nozzle blow-back and having seen fire extend by being blown by a fog pattern, led me from the steamer position, but not to replacing preconnected combination nozzles with smooth bores.
My standard operating procedure has been to ensure that combination nozzles are left closed and set to straight stream in the hosebed to prevent personal injury.
To distribute water throughout a compartment after flashover immediately following ventilation, a broken straight stream of Class A foam solution (up to 350 gpm) above the critical flow rate (CFR) is applied as described in my article. Visible burning material is attacked by sweeping from the bottom up to maintain thermal layering.
After the fire is darkened, which typically takes under half a minute, a brief shot of narrow spray of about 100 gpm is used wherever the fire threatens to rekindle. If it does rekindle, the full 350 gpm is applied for a few seconds in a broken stream to knock it down again. My department found this procedure highly effective to the point where fully involved house fires are typically darkened with less than 100 gallons of water.
Before flashover, a narrow spray often is used to reduce water damage. The usefulness of spray is the reason 1 still use combination nozzles instead of smooth bores.
The “steaming”-vs.-“cooling” debate has raged for decades, neither side being fettered by much fact. The matter must be settled by measurement, not debate.
With funding from Forestry Canada, the Canadian Armed Forces, and manufacturers, the research project “Quantitative Evaluation of Enhanced Water Fire Suppression” is providing a scientific basis for improved fire suppression systems and techniques, through reproducible full-scale wellventilated fires. Burn tests compare Class A foam systems with plain water in both fog patterns and straight streams. Results will be submitted for publication at a later date. This may help bring the debate to a conclusion based on actual fire tests instead of passionate argument.
The CFR concept provides a means for comparing suppression systems— taking into account all fire suppression mechanisms, since it is based on measurement of actual fire suppression effectiveness rather than theory. The significance of CFR for practical firefighting is that unless suppressant is applied at a gpm greater than the CFR. a fire cannot be darkened— regardless of whether fog or straight streams are used.
“Steaming,” “cooling.” and other mechanisms certainly apply to fire suppression. We simply don’t know which predominate. As with many such debates, we are likely to discover that both positions are partially correct.
A new factor is the low-pressure fog nozzle. My burn experiments this past October suggested that low-pressure fog (about 50 psi) may be much more effective than standard 100-psi fog and may be superior to straight streams. Given funding, this theory will be tested this summer.
Your comments have spurred me to attempt to estimate, in my next series of burn experiments, the relative effects of steam and cooling on wellventilated fires. Many thanks for the suggestion.
C. Bruce Edwards
Project Coordinator Quantitative Evaluation of Enhanced Water Fire Suppression North Vancouver, BC, Canada
The only game…
Editor’s note: Following is a sampling of some of the letters we received in response to “The Only Game in Town ” Parts 1 and 2 (Editor’s Opinion, October and November 1992 issues of Fire Engineering). We appreciate all who wrote in. Thanks also to the more than 50 callers who phoned in vety positive and supportive responses. Due to space, most of the letters were edited, some considerably. Rather than devoting extensive column inches to ongoing debate, / restrain myself from publicly answering some of the less favorable opinions that follow.
— William .4. Manning
Flip, hip, hooray! Finally a leading national fire magazine has spoken out. questioning the true intent of the NFPA and the NFPA “consensus” standards. Bill Manning is to be commended for his open questioning of the NFPA’s standard-making process and its true intent.
The whole idea of a national consensus standard is commendable. Standard methods for firefighting, incident command, sprinkler codes, etc. are exactly the way the fire service of this country should be headed. These standards should be available as a guideline for each individual fire department to follow in setting up operating procedures. They should not be allowed to be used by lawyers as a threat and a loophole to hang over a fire department.
When the local fire department responds to the fully involved unprotected building, the insurance lawyers should be looking at the building’s contractor and owner as to why no sprinklers or at least an alarm system was installed—not at the responding department to see if it has NFPA 1901 compliant pumpers, a preplan has been made out to NFPA 903, the hydrants arc color-coded to NFPA 1201, and firefighters arc certified to NFPA 1001, etc.
Let’s get the NFPA headed in the right direction as a standard-making organization for the fire service of tomorrow—not as a ‘standard-gushing” organization run by people who may not have the best interests of the nation’s fire service in mind.
Wayne DePew
N’eu1York State /’ire Instructor
Kerhonkson, New York’
1 am a certified fire protection specialist and certified fire inspector and have been consulting in this area for some time. 1 have been on the Member Advisory Council of the NFPA for almost two years.
1 have never had a problem with intelligent people making constructive observations, positive or negative, about any organization or operation. However, what you printed in your editorials sounds to me more like someone with an ax to grind.
I am not surprised that many of the firefighters you talk to are not in the NFPA corner. 1 find very few “rankand-file” firefighters who really know much about the NFPA or what it does. Ibis makes your inaccurate editorials that much more dangerous.
The problem is not propagating excessive codes and standards, but rather that the majority of the people wbo are supposed to use them don’t have the faintest idea of what they are all about. Also, if you had a clear understanding of the concept of the NFPA codes and standards, you would know that they are minimum requirements, not bells and whistles. Participation in the NFPA code-making process does not require a chest full of money; anyone can comment and make proposals to the technical committees on any of the codes/standards at any time.
If you will look a little closer, you will find an organization that is greatly interested in what the masses and the individuals have to say. If it is not what you think it should be, then join and work to make it the best.
David R. Blossom
Apopka, Florida
Your Editor’s Opinion creates an impression of the standards-development process that clearly shows you do not quite understand it.
First of all. the NFPA does not write standards—the NFPA membership writes standards. The NFPA only provides the structure that enables the membership to generate the documents.
Second, standards are developed on request. Any standard specific to and impacting on the fire service is the result of fire service personnel asking the NFPA membership to develop one, not the NFPA deciding to “write” one.
Third, the fire service is the single largest block of membership in the NFPA and as such can be very powerful. It follows that, if the fire service did not want these standards, it would simply kill them in committee. At anytime, the fire service can request that the NFPA have any standard reconsidered. Firefighters, when not “too busy” fighting fires, are busy developing standards at a rate that far outpaces many other areas of standards development.
Firefighters are the fire service. If the fire service is not responding to the needs of its firefighters, then blame local fire service administrators, not the NFPA.
David M. Birk
Fire Protection Engineer
Jessup, Maryland
Many of your points are well-taken, are accurate, and have long needed to be said in a public forum outside the hallowed halls of Batterymarch Park. 1 take issue, however, with your comments, read collectively, that the NFPA’s standards have not provided a greater margin of safety’ for firefighters and have otherwise been an obstacle to be overcome rather than a tool for a safer working environment for the nation’s firefighters.
As a member of the NFPA Technical Committee on Fire Service Occupational Safety and Health, 1 can state with firsthand knowiedge the depth of the debate and the seriousness of purpose that the diverse members of the Committee brought to their meetings. The principal result has been the so-called “1500 Standard,” which has revolutionized the business of delivering fire department services just as the gasoline engine did the horse brigade. The statistics bear witness to its effect. We are killing ourselves in lesser numbers, and we are hurting ourselves less seriously. Operations are being standardized from community to community; and there is, finally, a single source that can be consulted to give a definition of good, safe, reasonable, and recommended operating procedures for any particular incident.
If the fire service spent less time complaining about the existence of the 1500 standard and the changes it has mandated and more time discussing how it might be successfully integrated into current operations, there might be an even more dramatic drop in our annual death and injury statistics.
Neil Rossman Attorney
Passman, Passman & Eschelbacher Boston, Massachusetts
Congratulations for taking a stand against the establishment! For a number of years it has disturbed me that the national fire service organizations have left the “little guys” behind and become trade organizations run by professionals just like those in other professions. While all the organizations have high-sounding goal statements, an objective observer would see that the benefits of membership for a small-town firefighter or officer in mid-America are very few.
While the NFPA standards-making process ensures that the standards promulgated are the result of input from a wide cross-section of interest groups, 1 agree with Bill Manning that many standards have lately been issued that intrude on local control of the fire service. Incident management, for instance, is one aspect of firefighting that is best left to the discretion of a well-trained officer.
We must not be afraid to ask “why” when we don’t agree with the way our national organizations are being operated. Although those with the courage to question the system will never be invited to enter the “inner sanctum,” it is the existence of the inner sanctum that allows an association to grow away from its membership.
Patric E. McCon
Mantua, Ohio
Your suggestions for the NFPA are right on target. A few years ago I gave up my membership in the NFPA. It became quite apparent to me that the NFPA had lost sight of its mission. While 1 appreciate the hard work and generosity of its many volunteers, I was discouraged that their efforts were exploited by the NFPA. I got tired of the constant barrage of “junk” mail from the NFPA, financed by my membership fee, soliciting the purchase of overpriced publications. I felt that my membership fee could be invested much more wisely, and since the NFPA would not even acknowledge my suggestions, I reinvested it for them.
If the consensus standards and codes developed by the NFPA are intended to be publicly adopted, observed, and enforced, then their publication should be free of copyright protection and their duplication and dissemination should be encouraged.
I personally do not know of any other laws, rules, regulations, codes, or standards that are copy-protected. 1 have often been embarrassed to inform a citizen or small business person willing to improve his/her fire safety situation that the information needed to get started had to be purchased for what seems to be excessive cost. If the NFPA cannot afford to do this as it is currently structured, then it desperately needs to restructure.
I would be shocked if the NFPA responded and acted on any of your or my suggestions. I’m afraid it has become a fire code-breathing dragon.
Jack Bergeron
Deputy Chief
Laurence (MA) lire Department
The most disturbing aspect about the NFPA embezzlement problem is the lack of information that has come from the organization to the (.luespaying membership. The only official information has been about the search and selection of Mr. Grant’s replacement. The NFPA’s organizational behavior seems closer to the United Way scandal than the image portrayed in the official NFPA history Men Against lire. What would Percy Bugbee have done in this situation?
The cost of mailing a letter to each member explaining the situation and the actions taken to rectify the problem would have been much cheaper than the loss of faith that is occurring now. Is the NFPA going to take action to recover the money lost? Or is it a “bad debt” that will be recovered byraising the cost of NFPA membership, books, and codes?
I hope that the harsh glare of publicity directed at the executive offices of the NFPA will generate the sametype of organizational response that a large-loss fire does. I hope that NFPA President George Miller can release a report outlining the conditions that led up to the executive disaster, the actions taken to recover the losses, and a description of new procedures and practices that will prevent a reoccurrence.
Michael J. Ward
/■ire Science Lecturer Sort hern Virginia Community College
Manassas, Virginia
You certainly addressed some issues regarding the NFPA that are and should be of concern to all of us in the fire service. 1 admire you for expressing some thoughts and things to think about that most editors would shy away from due to the influence and position the NFPA has in developing standards purportedly for the best interests of the fire service. We should all continue to be very aware of the issues you have addressed.
W.J. Dariey
President
U ..V. Dariey 6Co.
Melrose Park. Illinois
Your recent diatribe against the NFPA was ill-informed and undeserved. Just who do you think the NFPA is? It is a membership organization numbering approximately 60,000 individuals and organizations. The largest single occupational block of membership is that of the fire service in the United States and Canada. This fire service representation consists of individuals and fire departments, both career and volunteer. Your characterization of the relationship between the fire service and NFPA as an “us”-vs.-“them” situation does not recognize these facts.
I am not certain to whom you have been listening when you refer to “firefighters in the field,” but 1 am certain that you are not aware of the incredible number of hours invested by a large number of individuals in drafting NFPA standards.
The approach you have taken is one similar to the ostrich’s placing his head in the sand. Issues regarding firefighter safety, staffing, training, fireprevention. and protection will always be on the fire service plate. These issues and their standards artraised by the fire service as proposed projects that are open to comment and input long before committees are appointed.
If you are looking for someone to blame for the level of regulation in the fire service—and for that matter, in all of life—take aim at the law profession. While our litigious society continues to litigate, the NFPA committee members work hard within the very open NFPA system to make sure the standards that are written are fair and equitable.
Douglas P. Forsman
Director
Lire Protection Publications Oklahoma State University Stillu ‘ater, Oklahoma
It is evident from the recent series of editorials that Lire engineering has adopted NFPA-bashing as its current editorial crusade. The insinuation of the editorials depicts the NFPA as an enemy of the fire service, driven by unnamed power brokers who want to regulate the fire service to death. The first thing wrong with that theory is that there is no such powerful force within the NFPA pushing in that direction—except the fire service itself. More specifically, the individuals and organizations from within the fire service who participate actively in the NFPA are the driving force behind the standards affecting the fire service.
I am dismayed that you have chosen to write for those readers who always want to find fault, instead of using your editorial power to help place controversial topics in perspective. Most of the complaints are coming from individuals who have never taken the time to understand the NFPA system and to participate in it.
In an organization as large as the NFPA, there will always be room for improvements. It would be foolish to think that everything is perfect, as much as it is ridiculous to portray the NFPA as an enemy of the fire service. I do not believe that we can find a better environment within which to deal with our issues. There are opportunities to bring about positivechanges in the NFPA, but the first requirement for anyone demanding changes should be a thorough understanding of how the organization and the system work today. It is too easy to stand outside and complain, without taking advantage of the opportunities available to participate in the existing system. I would like to see an editorial with some positive suggestions for the NFPA.
J. Gordon Routley Arlington, Virginia
Thanks to Bill Manning for having the courage to speak out against the proliferation of NFPA standards. 1 also am 100 percent for real firefighter safety—I’ve cried at too many funerals. But the current proliferation of NFPA standards (which I feel have been produced with inadequate representation from the operations side of the fire service) does not in all cases promote safety. In some cases, the standards are not practical to implement. and in other cases the validity of the standards is highly debatable. The NFPA standards process makes it almost impossible for most departments to have any say in the development and approval of these standards; and yet, as you point out, the liability hammer is poised.
It is time tor the fire service to take a united stand and state as a group that these so-called consensus standards do not represent the consensus of the fire service.
James Master
Assistant Chief Bethescla-Chevy Chase (MD) Rescue Squad
Bill Manning is right on target. Fire departments are being pressured into spending a big chunk of their limited budgets to comply with NFPA standards in fear of the liability issue connnected with not complying with nationally recognized standards, whether or not the expense directly benefits the firefighters or their communities.
Manning is sure to come under fire for his views, but they do reflect the opinion of a lot of us in the fire service. Thanks for his courage and candor; it shows that he hears us and has a good understanding of what affects us in our work.
Bill Gustin
Captain
Metro-Dade (hi.) /’ire Department
Bravo to Bill Manning. It is about time someone took a shot at the ivory tower. These are some of my other concerns:
Many of the committees are made up of people from the various manufacturing companies that will be impacted by the standards. This is wrong! The FAA is not made up of people from Hoeing or McDonnell Douglas. There also has been, in my opinion, an effort at times to put the squeeze on competition through the standard process. Some manufacturers on the committees have almost written their unique specs, not a generic standard. It also is very difficult for a department to bring protective equipment up to standard, only to have the standard change a short time later.
Mike Lombardo
Buffalo (NY) hire Department
hire Engineering’s October 1992 editiorial is the most inaccurate and irresponsible writing I have ever seen in a fire service publication. Editorial freedom is one thing; unfounded attacks are something else.
It is apparent that editor Hill Manning does not understand the standards-making process. The overwhelming number of requests for fire service standards come from the fire service itself. This was certainly the case for standards now used in the professional qualifications system. In 1972 I was a member of the Joint Council, and I can assure you that the idea of incorporating the ProQual standards in the NFPA system came from us, not them. For years the NFPA has supported this system at considerable direct and indirect expense.
The suggestion that the NFPA is the “government of the fire service” is stupid. There are numerous checks and balances in the code-making process—so many, in fact, that some feel the process now takes too long and is too complicated. Regardless, there are many opportunities for all to have their voices heard.
It is tragic when one of our premier professional publications feels it must resort to this type of trash writing.
David B. Gratz International Consulting Services Silver Spring, Mary land
1 think your scathing criticism of the NFPA is somewhat unjustified. I can personally testify’ that for quite some time this organization’s writings have served my community and my fellow firefighters and citizens extremely well. Yes, the NFPA has suffered some “difficulties” of late and maybe some of its management didn’t act wisely or in the best interest of the general membership. But these issues were addressed. Those people are gone now, and with them, hopefully, have gone the policies that may have impeded the NFPA’s true goals. As you stated in the November Editor’s Opinion, it is incumbent upon the members to “pick up a pen and express your concerns and opinions.” Hut to propose that the NEPA standards be unilaterally discarded in favor of any other model codes—or, worse yet, that a new model code be created — is far from a reasonable alternative, except on an individual community basis! It is each community that rightfully must control its own destiny. Not only do we have that right, we have that responsibility. And if it’s our state or federal government that adopts or enforces what we feel is inappropriate, then we must lobby, convince, cajole, or in some other fashion force those respective politicians to bring about the desired changes. Let us not blame someone else for our own inaction or apathy!
1 sincerely enjoy your magazine and find it invaluable as a learning tool. It is only through the continued sharing of our experiences, problems, and — yes —viewpoints that we continue to control the terrible, unforgiving ravages of the devil fire.
Joseph F. Sauerwein Chief Fire Marshal Division of Fire Prevention Brookhaven, New York
Congratulations for taking on the “Big Boys” with your editorials. To say the fire/rescue service is being legislated out of business is an understatement! rile NFPA has certainly been instrumental in shaping the field and, herein could lie the problem; unlike NIOSH, which makes the snowballs for OSHA to throw, the NFPA doctrine has become the “Law of the Land.” Regardless of whether a department has adopted the standards, in a court of law. the NFPA standard carries the weight. This, in my opinion, can be deadly, especially in light of the increase in lawsuits, which will be resolved on a standard —not a law.
Your numbing thought just might be the way to go, where common sense prevails in the makeup of standards instead of the dictates of a good old boys’ club that parallels FEMA’s disastrous thinking and insensitivity to ihe need.
Keep up a good image tor the fire/rescue industry and continue to expose the sacred cows!
James B. Gargan Senior Vice President Rescue Training Associates, Ltd.
Wilmington, Del a ware
I am a volunteer firefighter with 33 years of experience. I personally believe the NFPA is controlled by the manufacturers and the “Paid Fire Department Personnel.” The time has come for the members of the volunteer fire service to say “enough already” to the NFPA and stop supporting this organization.
Thank you for letting me voice my opinion; 1 hope more volunteers will wake up and start challenging the NFPA
Fred R. Smith
Fire Chief North End Fire Company Potts town, Pennsylvania
1 perceived your October column to be an effort at grandstanding, a cheap shot at the NFPA, perhaps intended to get you out from under the shadows of your predecessor. Fvcn more bothersome was that your comments seemed to come out of left field. After all. your magazine goes back a long time. It witnessed the birth of the NFPA and over the years has enjoyed a close association, as evidenced by the number of editorial advisory board members and columnists attached to your magazine who are strong and active NFPA supporters. Why did you engage in editorial bashing, which only serves to foster ill feelings, instead of taking a more direct and constructive approach with the NFPA that might have promoted dialogue and possible improvements? Hiding behind your magazine might have been a valid approach only after other avenues of communication had been exhausted or unresponsive. 1. too, see a lot of things that I feel merit attention and improvement. As an active member, I feel qualified to make those comments. 1 have trouble, however, attaching the same credibility to an armchair critic.
In fairness, however, you do raise some constructive comments in your November column that bear mention. For openers, it is true that codes alone will not stem the high fire losses or reduce the number of injuries. Until fire department administrators give a higher priority to public education and prevention and budget adequately for these needs as well and reorientate away from the high emphasis placed on combat, the statistics will not change, and we will continue to head the list of fire losses among the industrialized nations. As a frustrated fire investigator, I personally feel that insurance companies as well will have to shoulder a greater responsibility.
With respect to firefighter representation and visibility on committees. it is true that at the NFPA level the cost of participation can be prohibitive. I share your concerns, and with the assistance of the Fire Service Section Executive, have been actively working on a project that would see funding made available so as to ensure a good fire service representation in relevant code-making organizations. Up until recently, our primary stumbling block had been finding a nonpartisan third party that would undertake administering just such a fund. I am happy to report that we are now sifting through several offers. This has permitted us to advance to the second step, which is to draft the selection criteria and eligibility requirements.
You suggest that the NFPA take the lead and drop those codes alreadycovered by other code-making organizations. Coming from a Canadian perspective, I’ve seen some of the ULC and CSA codes, and those organizations are worse than the NFPA when it comes to serving “membership needs.” And don’t think for a minute that these organizations are giving their codes away.
You refer to the voting process and that members must vote in person to be counted. I support your suggestion and do not intend to settle for anything less than a complete reassessment of that aspect of the voting procedures.
You suggest taxing corporate members so as to create a source of funding that can be used to subsidize firefighter participation on committees. The NFPA cannot undertake personally administering such a proposal. It must be handled by a nonpartisan third party, as I previously mentioned.
You mention providing materials to firefighters at cost or close to cost. I sympathize with your sentiments; however, I cannot condone discrimination within the membership; neither could I accept policies that would serve to favor one type of member over another.
You suggest that the NFPA seek more federal subsidies. Again, a nice suggestion that may not amount to much. Dollars are tight up here in Canada. I wasn’t aware that the economic climate was so vastly improved in your neck of the woods.
You want to eliminate the politics from the NFPA. An admirable objective, indeed. I, too, on occasion have wondered at some of the actions of the Standards Council. Most of the time, it seems to function pretty well. Presently, it is undergoing some turnover. The Fire Service Section has nominated its immediate past chairman for the Council. Bill Peterson, chief of Plano, Texas, is one active and extremely competent individual.
Finally, you allude to certain activities on the part of Robert Grant and Daniel Pillero, issues that are before the courts—or so I understand—and on which I am not sufficiently informed to pass comment beyond what is rumored. 1 do think that while it was an unfortunate incident, it did force the board of directors to analyze its complicity in the situation and devise means to ensure that a similar situation could not be repeated.
Douglas R. Lion Chief Inspector City of Cote Saint-Luc, Quebec NFPA Fire Service Section Executive Board
