LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Painful extrications

Congratulations to Michael Ciampo for an excellent overview of a challenging technical rescue (Training Notebook, June 1993). Although he appropriately emphasized avoiding further injury to the trapped finger, certain rescues may require manipulations that cause pain or some degree of injury. When the pain of the extrication sequence makes it impossible for the victim to cooperate or to permit progress through the evolution, an additional resource may be helpful.

Emergency physicians and anesthesiologists can anesthetize an entrapped finger quickly and easily. The procedure, referred to in medical jargon as a “digital nerve block,” uses a small injection of local anesthetic solution at the base of the finger to make it completely numb. It is a low-risk intervention and requires no more than five to 10 minutes to completely numb the finger. In extraordinary circumstances, anesthesiologists can administer nerve injections to anesthetize an entire arm, although the risks involved are greater.

Although it would be an extraordinary circumstance that would require such an intervention, it could make an otherwise impossible situation manageable for victims and rescuers.

Thomas J. Poulton Medical Director Topeka (KS) Fire Department

Minimum foam application rates

I have followed Leslie P. Omans’ articles (“Fighting Flammable Liquid Fires: A Primer,” Parts 1-3, JanuaryMarch 1993) with great interest and must compliment him on the information and the easy-to-understand way it is presented. I have one comment, however, with regard to Part 3. While the given theory behind the spill fire application rates is fine, in practical terms these foam application rates often are difficult or next to impossible to achieve.

Using the NFPA 11 guidelines to calculate the application rate for an area of 5,000 square feet, we arrive at a minimum rate of 500 gpm. Omans states that “we will need five 1 ½-inch foam hoselines (5 X 100 gpm = 500 gpm) or three l4-inch foam lines (3 X 200 gpm = 600 gpm) or two 2½inch lines just to put the fire out.”

Apart from the logistics involved in running five 1’/2-inch lines with five inline eductors, how does the average department achieve a flow of 200 gpm through three separate lines to achieve a total flow of 600 gpm?

In my 15 years of fire service experience, I have found that the average municipal department has—at best— a single inline eductor rated at 95 gpm (suitable for approximately 1,000 square feet at 0.1 gpm/square foot), and most are not equipped with more than one on each vehicle. The problem is multiplied when it comes to minimum application rates for polar solvent fires. Large-volume foam delivery capability is more the exception than the rule.

Another problem involves the numbers game when it comes to NFPA 11 and its recommendation of 15 minutes’ application. Most smaller departments are overwhelmed by the minimum foam requirements. Using the same example of a 5,000-square-foot area, 15 minutes’ application would require 225 gallons of foam concentrate, or 45 pails—more than the average foam inventory of a small department.

I realize that raising these points is a sound argument for good preplanning and a mutual-aid foam bank, but the lack of large-volume foam delivery systems and limited resources are problems that do exist in today’s fire service. Perhaps Omans could address these issues in future articles.

Chris M. Ransom Orilla, Ontario, Canada

Les Omans responds: Providing enough foam supply and application equipment for large flammable liquid incidents can be a perplexing problem for smaller fire departments. As stated in the letter, part of the answer to the problem is effective training, preplanning, and mutual-aid agreements.

All departments should identify what foam resources are available to them and where in their given regions the resources are located. Some good sources are military bases, airports, and industrial complexes. Some foam manufacturers also may be willing to stockpile a quantity of foam concentrate in a given area. An example is the Petrochemical Mutual-Aid Group in the San Francisco Bay area, in which two foam manufacturers have stored more than 8,000 gallons of foam concentrate in three locations. The Coast Guard also has firefighting plans that list all organizations in their jurisdictions with foam concentrate and specialized foam application equipment.

The businesses in a fire department’s jurisdiction that store or use flammable liquids can be required to provide sufficient quantities of foam to handle an emergency at their facilities. In San Jose, California, several petroleum storage facilities jointly purchased foam concentrate and a foam nurse trailer for use by the San Jose Fire Department. Many large flammable liquid fires have lasted for several days. Large quantities of foam concentrate and specialized foam equipment usually can be trucked or flown into an area of need within hours. Sometimes industrial facilities change the type of foam concentrate they are using. The former concentrate is still in good condition and can be purchased from the foam manufacturer or dealer at a substantially reduced price.

Finally, letting a flammable liquid fire burn out in a controlled manner is a legitimate tactic and sometimes a wise decision from an environmental standpoint. Fire departments should be prepared to use limited quantities of foam for rescue and exposure protection and to limit the area of involvement and amount of destruction.

Well-trained firefighters using effective application techniques often can extinguish a large fire using much less than the minimum application rate. This is where training and preplanning pay off.

Request for donations

Duluth Technical College has started construction of what we hope will be a world-class training facility for firefighters, with an early emphasis on aircraft crash firefighting. One of the unique features of this program is its high-tech, contemporary approach to firefighting and its ability to demonstrate new and advanced firefighting tactics.

We are soliciting from manufacturers donations of equipment to be used at the school. We realize that such donations require some sacrifice; for this reason, we plan to include, in the lobby area of the school, a plaque recognizing all companies that give donations of S500 or more worth of products, along with racks for informational brochures the companies may provide to us. Duluth Technical College is a nonprofit organization; donations made to the school are folly tax-deductible.

For further information, contact Duluth Technical College; 2101 Trinity Rd.; Duluth, MN 55811; (218) 722-2801 or (800) 432-2884.

Steven H. Hartsock Fire Technology and Administration Duluth Technical College Duluth, Minnesota

Standpipe systems

Glenn Corbett had many good things to say in his column on standpipe systems (Fire Prevention Bureau, March 1993). However, I feel he overlooked some very important points. While it is true that fire departments strive to have 100-psi nozzle pressure in order to have a good fog fire stream, we also need to look at several other issues:

  • Is the building hilly sprinklered? (In most cases, newer buildings will be sprinklered if they are required to have standpipes; in older buildings, the new standpipe codes generally don’t apply.)
  • Why do we need to use the standpipe (for fighting a fire or for mop-up operations)?
  • If a combination sprinkler/standpipe riser is proposed, two sets of calculations must be submitted to ensure that the design requirements of both can be met (the new code change is probably going to eliminate most combination risers, since sprinkler systems will have to be modified to handle the pressures developed to meet the new standpipe requirements).
  • If the sprinkler system has not done its job of controlling or extinguishing the fire, it is unlikely that a standpipe operation will be successful either, and personnel safety issues are compounded by a standpipe firefighting operation.
  • Typically, sprinkler system water and pressure demands arc going to be much lower than standpipe demands. Therefore, the standpipe demands will dictate design.
  • If standpipes dictate design, the likelihood of having to use high-pressure fittings and/or pressure-reducing devices on both the sprinkler and standpipe systems will increase installation costs substantially.
  • Because of the greater hydraulic requirements for a standpipe system, the potential for sprinkler failures is increased unless sprinkler systems are modified.
  • To get 100 psi at the top of the riser (or most remote nozzle) for a 250-gpm or greater flow almost always is going to require a fire pump or is going to approximately double the size of the fire pump that must be provided otherwise. Thus, the cost of fire protection systems will escalate, creating additional reasons to object to built-in fire protection.
  • Some view the standpipe issue as a job security ploy by firefighters, since standpipes are manual pieces of firefighting equipment and their presence implies that firefighters are needed. (It is true that their presence provides a tool for firefighters, but the issue is still, Is the standpipe to be used for firefighting or mop-up?)

I am all for providing appropriate firefighting tools, since 1 was a firefighter for many years. But 1 also ask everyone, including the fire service, fire protection designers, and code writers, to step back and look at what is reasonable. What are the functions of the fire pump, the fire sprinkler system, and the standpipe? Which device operates at what point in time of a fire’s growth, and how does the operation of each affect the need and/or operation of the others? We could add HVAC, smoke control, smoke exhaust, fire walls, fire doors, fire detection, and fire alarm systems to this list. We must carefully look at the interaction of fire protection systems and devices rather than blindly add another code requirement (and more cost) to solve a problem without looking at the impact that addition will have on already existing items.

How many sprinkler contractors will follow the requirements of NFPA 13, Section 4-5.1.2, and put in listed pressure-reducing valves, including pressure gauges, on each side of this valve? How’ many will overlook this item and hope that either nothing happens or they don’t get caught?

Many more people buy Volkswagens or Fords than buy Lincolns or Jaguars even though all automobiles have the same basic function—transportation. Let’s not force people to buy additional bells and whistles if accomplishing the intended function does not require them. I think we need to revisit the standpipe design requirements and not think of standpipes alone but as part of overall fire protection. We may need to focus on improving the reliability and function of the other fire protection systems and back off on the standpipe requirements, recognizing that standpipes are a backup fire protection system and not the primary system. I would hope that the addition of fire sprinklers is considered long before we try to force retrofits of existing standpipe systems that do not meet current codes. A sprinkler retrofit should make us reevaluate the standpipe role, perhaps justifying a possible reduction in standpipe requirements.

Ronald K. Melott President Melott and Associates, Inc. Beaverton, Oregon

Glenn Corbett responds: As I mentioned in my March column, philosophies on standpipe installation and use vary widely. This is especially true in cases w’here sprinkler systems and standpipe systems are viewed together. I get the impression from your letter that you place great emphasis on the reliability of automatic sprinkler systems in buildings provided with both sprinklers and a standpipe system.

You mention firefighters’ need for a “good fog fire stream.” I would argue that in the case of a significant fire in a high-rise (where standpipes most likely are in use), the quantity of water applied on the fire is the critical criterion. Fog streams are no match for this type of fire—the stream reach, form, and volume just don’t cut it.

Unfortunately, to get the necessary volume of water from the 100-psi automatic/combination nozzle attached to the 1½or l4-inch hose in use by the overwhelming majority of fire departments, high pressures must be supplied to the standpipe system. As mentioned in the column, only three percent of fire departments still use 2 Vi-inch hoselines with standpipes, according to an NFPA survey.

While everyone agrees that automatic sprinklers are our most effective weapon against fire to date, they are not a panacea. The real world has shown that sprinkler systems do not function correctly 100 percent of the time—because of human error, equipment failure, and so forth. To completely rely on sprinklers is a major gamble —especially 60 floors above the street. Standpipes save firefighters tremendous time in stretching hoselines from the street and up the stairwell to the fire floor in a high-rise building. The effort expended by fire departments forced to create their own “portable standpipes” (because of pressure problems at the hose valve) is measured in hours, not minutes.

In addition, to view a standpipe system as just a “mop-up” piece of equipment again assumes absolutely no failures of the sprinkler system. I wouldn’t want to bet on perfect performance by the sprinkler system where alternative options to extinguish the fire are nil.

To assert that without the extinguishment of the fire by the sprinkler system the “standpipe system is not going to be successful either” flies in the face of thousands of fires successfully extinguished with standpipes.

High-pressure fittings are a fact of life today. The desire to create “single-zone” high-rise standpipe/sprinkler systems to save money has certainly increased the use of these fittings. Even if the design standpipe pressure is low enough that highpressure fittings are not required, the actual pressure required to properly operate will dictate the actual pressure “seen” by the standpipe riser. The pump operator in the street will be the determining factor in what pressure is supplied to the system during a fire. (1 don’t know of many fire companies that preplan the pressure ratings of all the fittings used in standpipe systems.)

How many sprinkler/standpipe system designers question the fire department as to the necessary operating pressures for their hoselines? litis certainly will become more of a problem as the model codes move toward requiring “sprinkler system only” water supplies, with their corresponding relatively low pressures.

The cost of larger pumps and highpressure fittings increases the cost of the system. However, such costs pale in comparison with the loss of several floors of a high-rise building.

I find it incredible that you would state that the installation of standpipe systems is a “job security ploy by firefighters.” Maybe the furor over NFPA 1500 is all wrong—firefighters should clamor to NFPA 14 and the model building codes to save jobs. 1 think not.

In terms of cost, the higher minimum hose valve pressures (100 psi vs. 65 psi) required by current codes does increase the cost of the system. However, the code-writing organizations also have reduced the total water supply requirements for standpipe systems, lowering the cost of installation.

As far as I’m concerned, the standpipe system is an essential piece of equipment in a high-rise building— not a bell or a whistle. Fire protection must take a balanced approach—we get only one shot. Redundancy is the key to establishing a proper level of fire safety. If a given fire is extinguished by a sprinkler system—great! If it isn’t, the standpipe system is available for immediate use—we won’t have to wait hours to mount an attack on a half dozen now-involved floors.

In terms of sprinkler system retrofits, I’ve had the great fortune to get several existing high-rise buildings provided with sprinklers. By far, most of these buildings already had standpipe systems, which did not result in additional cost to the owner. To the contrary, the owners are happy to have the standpipes to “tap” into their sprinkler systems. As far as I know, not many jurisdictions are requiring upgrades in flow/pressure for existing standpipes.

Standpipes have been and will continue to be an essential tool for firefighters. The skylines of many cities across America can credit standpipes for effective fire suppression during the infrequent, yet devastating, highrise fire.

Predicting collapse

As a follow-up to “You can’t predict it” (Letters to the Editor, March 1993), I have the following to say:

I think the collapse might have been predicted, not necessarily by fireground observations, but by more informed prefire planning. The lessons of this fire had all been learned before.

When tested against the ASTE El 19 standard fire, steel bar joists failed in about seven minutes [Building Construction for the Fire Service, by Francis L. Brannigan (NFPA, 1992), page 535]. The fact that there was a heavy local load of air conditioners should have been noted in the preplan. The conventional beefing up of steel (heavier members or multiple members) under heavy loads is fine under normal conditions but is not adequate in a fire, since all members are heated to failure at the same time. The undesigned load of the chairs hung overhead also should have been noted in a prefire plan. Such roofs usually are of minimum design, and undesigned live loads are significant.

A close examination of the center picture shows that the roof was a typical built-up combustible metal deck roof. This roof can burn independently of the main fire and is easily ignited. Codes consider this “noncombustible construction” because of the mistaken attitude that anything above the structural roof is insignificant. The sprinkler experts follow this same erroneous reasoning; they state that sprinklers below a ceiling are adequate and that the void does not need sprinklers. We are all paying for a SI75 million loss in 1985 at Tinker Air Force Base because of this erroneous reasoning.

Factory Mutual was heavily burned by the General Motors Livonia, Michigan, Transmission Plant fire in 1953. Since then, HPR (highly protected risk) insurance companies have been aware of the combustible metal deck roof hazard and, regardless of contents, have often required that either sprinklers or an FM Type I or a ULclassified roof (which will not extend the fire) be installed. Unfortunately, this hazard generally is not well-understood by fire departments or code officials. In a Dallas, Texas, fire, heat moving through the ceiling void in a similar structure elongated the bar joists and pushed down the wall, dropping six firefighters into the fire below.

In any event, ventilation of such a roof is dangerous and useless. FM tests in 1959 demonstrated that a 56square-foot vent was required to properly vent a 20by 100-foot test structure in which a roof fire was the only fire.

Francis L. Brannigan, SFPE Port Republic, Maryland

Four Firefighters Hurt in Fire in Abandoned Harlem (NY) Building

Four firefighters were injured battling a massive fire that tore through an abandoned Harlem building where jazz icon Billie Holiday reportedly once lived.