Our final look at the proposed National Fire Protection Association Standard 1710, Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression, Emergency Medical Operations and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments, deals with staffing on specific apparatus. Section 3-2.2 concerns itself with “Operating Units.” Section 3-2.2.1 (in my words) states that engine companies shall be staffed with a minimum of four on-duty personnel. In areas that have target or high-hazard occupancies, staffing shall be a minimum of five or six on-duty personnel.
Section 3-2.2.2 discusses staffing for truck companies. The same numbers apply to the required staffing for truck companies-i.e., four members unless target or high-hazard occupancies are present, in which case staffing shall increase to five or six members.
The standard defines high-hazard occupancies as “buildings having high hazardous material processes or contents, high-risk residential neighborhoods with structures in close proximity to one another, and special medical and high-rise occupancies.”
“Target hazards” are defined in the standard as those occupancies that pose an unusually significant fire or life safety hazard.
The city of Toledo is 87 square miles and is composed of 17 fire districts. Every district has target and high-hazard occupancies as defined in the proposed standard. Current staffing is a minimum of four on-duty members on engine companies and three members on trucks. This poses some significant deficiencies as it relates to this portion of the standard. To our advantage is the fact that we respond three engines, one truck, one heavy rescue squad (four on-duty members), a chief, and a safety officer to every reported fire. This increases our on-scene strength well beyond the standard’s requirements (see Roundtable, November 2000).
If we were to be forced to staff all companies at this proposed level, in our current economic state, we probably would be forced to close a few fire stations. This would then have a negative impact on our response time in the city.
John (Skip) Coleman, deputy chief of operations, Toledo (OH) Department of Fire and Rescue; author of Incident Management for the Street-Smart Fire Officer (Fire Engineering, 1997); editorial advisory board member of Fire Engineering; and member of the FDIC Educational Committee.
Questions: What is the current staffing on your department’s engine and truck companies? What impact, if any, would this proposed standard have on your department?
Leigh Hollins, battalion chief,
Cedar Hammock and Southern
Manatee Fire Districts, Florida
Response: We try to maintain our current staffing level of three persons per engine-an operator, an officer, and a firefighter. We do run a two-person en-gine (operator and officer) from our two temporary stations. They were put in place to reduce response times in critical areas while we secure funding to build a permanent station at the sites and add a third person.
While not an ideal situation, with guidelines in place to get additional engines to these areas quickly and for crews not to get too “committed” until backup arrives, we feel the situation is advantageous overall.
Also, we commonly have situations at our two multiapparatus stations where, if that station has two calls going at once and we are at minimum staffing (someone is on vacation), a two-person engine needs to respond to calls. Again, we have guidelines in place stipulating that they not get too committed without proper backup.
As far as truck company staffing goes, we do not operate our aerials (one articulated platform, one tower ladder) as truck companies. We do not have (and never have had) the resources to operate this way, and we have learned how to get all the fireground assignments completed by multitasking our personnel and calling additional engine resources, when needed, to use their personnel to perform “truck” functions. One aerial responds to all commercial structure fires with one or two personnel. The primary objectives of our “truck” are the elevated stream or an observation area and specialized tools and equipment.
These situations are realities we deal with all the time. We have had much success operating this way over the years. The fact is that we have about 40 percent more staffing than we did in 1995. Personnel are just more spread out now.
Once we “build out” our stations, additional personnel will bring the normal staffing on all engines to three in the future. This is proposed to be the case as early as 2002.
The effect the NFPA 1710 proposed minimum engine and truck staffing requirement would have on us is minimal. We are striving to add stations and personnel as soon as we reasonably can. Also high on our list is providing the pay and benefits to maintain the quality of personnel we have and desire and to provide them with the best, most up-to-date equipment available, which we have been doing. Our personnel are equipped with top-of-the-line bunker gear, new SCBAs with integrated PASS devices, six thermal imaging cameras. and late-model apparatus.
Our philosophy is that all these components add up to a complete response, not just “bodies” at the scene. The fact is, most of our apparatus won’t even seat the five or six personnel NFPA 1710 is proposing! We understand all the facets of having sufficient staffing at an emergency scene. We are doing our best to achieve those goals, but we will not be changing course if the NFPA approves the standard as proposed.
Rick Lasky, chief,
Lewisville (TX) Fire Department
Response: When we looked at this area in relation to the initial alarm assignment, we were in good shape. Future planning by our department and our city manager’s office calls for increases in staffing as a whole. We have proposed adding incident technicians (battalion chief aides) for this coming fiscal year, along with a plan that will bring staffing on our engines from a minimum of three and a maximum of four to a minimum of four and a maximum of five per company. Our current initial, full-alarm response is as follows:
One-alarm response. Minimum staffing days: 16 personnel; maximum staffing days: 20:
one battalion chief (this coming fiscal year will add an aide to the battalion chief).
three engines or quints. Both run with a minimum staffing of three and a maximum staffing of four per company. The third-due engine or quint will serve as the rapid intervention team.
one tower ladder. Runs with a minimum staffing of four and a maximum staffing of five.
one advanced life support (ALS) ambulance. Runs with two firefighter paramedics.
For a working fire, a duty chief is added.
As for meeting the requirement of five or six personnel per engine or truck in high-hazard areas, pretty much all of our still (an area assigned to a specific unit) districts fall under the current definition of a high hazard. Also, we’re growing rapidly and are planning for additional stations and staffing for those stations. Staffing engines and trucks with five or six personnel would be a challenge, but if the economy holds up and if our city’s strategic plan stays on track, we could be at that staffing level in the future.
Bob Oliphant, lieutenant,
Kalamazoo (MI) Dept. of Public Safety
Response: Under optimum conditions, we meet the four-person minimum staffing requirement for engines and trucks, but personnel do not respond as a company and not everyone arrives at the same time. As a public safety department, our response is a combination of personnel who respond on the apparatus and in patrol vehicles. Depending on staffing and other demands for service, the complement of personnel responding on an apparatus could be fewer than four and may not always include an officer. Our standard response is two engines, a truck, and a squad, for a total of 16 to 20 people to handle an initial alarm assignment. We have the capability to send additional equipment and personnel if it appears that the personnel are insufficient to handle the alarm.
If the 1710 standard is mandated, we would probably reallocate personnel from other divisions and eliminate or reduce services. We could not afford the cost of hiring additional personnel.
Larry Anderson, deputy chief,
Dallas (TX) Fire Department
Response: We traditionally have tracked the response time of only the first-in unit, which, during our last fiscal year, averaged 4.3 minutes. Now that we will have a substantial reason to track response times of all responding units, it will be done. I don’t have enough hard data at this time to unequivocally state that we currently meet the eight-minute response time for all apparatus, but I suspect that we do.
Our current initial assignment to category A (nonhigh-rise) box alarms is three engines, one aerial truck, an ALS paramedic unit, and a battalion chief. With a constant staff of four firefighters on each engine and aerial, two-person ALS units, and a command tech with each battalion chief, we currently deliver 20 members to the scene of nonhigh-rise fires. Additionally, a second aerial is dispatched when the first-arriving company reports that smoke or fire is showing. We are working on a program to dispatch a second battalion chief to all working incidents to serve as the dedicated incident safety officer. When we get that program onboard, we will be delivering 26 firefighters to working assignments.
On category B (high-rise) boxes, we dispatch three engines, two aerial trucks, an ALS unit, and two battalion chiefs-a total of 26 members. Adding an “incident safety officer” (two personnel responding in one car) to that mix brings the total to 28.
1710 will not have as big an impact on large cities as it will on smaller ones, but we must always be concerned with delivering appropriate apparatus as well as personnel. Our main focus is to make sure the appropriate resources are available to mitigate whatever we encounter.
Frank C. Schaper, chief,
St. Charles (MO) Fire Department
Response: Staffing of fire apparatus has been a controversial subject in the fire service for the 32 years I have been in the fire service. The mere fact that the proposed NFPA Standard 1710 is still in draft form shows that the controversy continues. In the meantime, fire departments across the nation respond to fire emergencies with varying numbers of firefighters and fire apparatus. These responses are based on community fire experience, budget considerations, operating procedures, mutual-aid pacts, and other such things.
My fire department is no different. We dispatch four fire apparatus, one medic unit, and a duty officer on all first alarms. On average, this gives us 15 firefighters on the scene within eight minutes of being dispatched. Depending on the time of day and availability of personnel, the number of firefighters on-scene within eight minutes could be as high as 19 or 20. That leaves me with one engine and one medic unit for the rest of the city. Consequently, greater alarm companies must come from mutual-aid departments.
Could I use more staffing? Sure I could. I would like to run with at least four firefighters on my 100-foot quint along with four firefighters on my 50-foot quint. I also need battalion chiefs. This would give me 16 firefighters and a chief officer on scene in about eight minutes. This would be a boon to fireground operations and increase my comfort level as it pertains to fireground safety.
Whatever we send to the fire scene, there is one thing we must always remember: A three-story, wood-frame building burns the same in St. Charles City as it does in St. Louis, Chicago, Toledo, and Small Town USA.
Ronald Hiraki, chief of training,
Seattle (WA) Fire Department
Response: Since the early 1980s, the majority of engine companies in the Seattle Fire Department were staffed with three people. Only the engine companies in the downtown core and a few strategically placed engine companies were staffed with four or five people. All ladder companies were staffed with four or five people. In the summer of 1999, the department revised its staffing model to create four-person companies to comply with the two-in/two-out rule. The mayor and city council approved the addition of six more firefighters on-duty. If a company had more than four people, the additional people were reassigned to establish a four-person engine company.
Even with the addition of six firefighter positions, the city would still need seven more firefighter positions to staff all companies with four people. Obviously, there was opposition to closing stations and reassigning those positions. The decision was made to retain the three-person engine companies in the “double houses” outside of the downtown core. The engine companies staffed with three people and ladder companies staffed with four people were combined and designated as an “attack force.” The attack force would respond together on fire responses to ensure that enough people are present to meet the requirements of the two-in/two-out rule. The attack forces could also be split for EMS responses.
The city’s economic growth and revenue are subsiding. Voters passed several statewide tax-cutting initiatives. The likelihood of obtaining additional firefighters is marginal. If additional firefighters were added to the budget, our first priority would be to place them on the three-person engine companies. This would eliminate the attack force concept and allow those engine and ladder companies to respond independently.
Currently, we are challenged to place four people on every company. If NFPA 1710 were mandated by law, it would present a financial and logistical challenge for the city as a whole as well as for the fire department. Virtually all areas in the city of Seattle can be defined as “high-hazard” areas. This would require having a minimum of five people on all companies. This may enhance the safety of our citizens and firefighters; however, the cost would have a dramatic effect on other city services and community improvements, as well as on how the fire department would deploy resources. Citizens, city leaders, and firefighters would be forced to make some serious choices.
Garry Morris, assistant chief,
Phoenix (AZ) Fire Department
Response: All Phoenix engine and ladder companies are staffed with a minimum of four members. Currently, we staff three engines and two ladders with five members. These companies are located in our high-rise district. There may be other high-hazard areas in the city for which NFPA 1710 would help to justify five-member staffing.
The typical, just alarm assignment for reports of fire in a high-rise building would include six engines, three ladders, two battalion chiefs, a high-rise support unit, one rescue (ambulance), a command post vehicle, a duty deputy chief, and three safety officers. This assignment would bring at least 59 firefighters (including chief officers and support staff) to the scene.
For a reported fire in a high-risk commercial area, the first-alarm assignment would include four engines, two ladders, one battalion chief, a command post vehicle, a duty deputy chief, one rescue (ambulance), and three safety officers. This assignment would bring at least 30 firefighters to the scene.
