Well-meaning safety rules actually threaten safety
Richard Sterne
Captain
District of Columbia Fire Department
Kudos to Dr. Charles R. Jennings for his letter on “Reregulating the Fire Service” (January 1999). We, as a profession, are indeed the victims of solutions in search of a problem. Neither well-meaning, but uninformed Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) bureaucrats or the “committee mentality” that develops so-called consensus standards at the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) should be dictating how communities with wide variations in finances and fire activity should run their fire departments. Yes, Virginia, sometimes even firefighter safety is a political decision and is best made at the local level.
Dr. Jennings` point was forcibly driven home by Chief Daniel J. Hargarten`s commentary on complying with OSHA`s revised respiratory protection standards (“Complying with OSHA`s Revised Respiratory Protection Standard,” Fire Commentary, January 1999). Obviously, Chief Hargarten has given this subject deep study, and even he doesn`t know what the rules are. How in the world can we expect the average firefighter to get it right, in the middle of the night with fire blowing out the windows, when the chief can`t even make sense of the rules in his office in broad daylight?
The story line is that these rules were developed to increase firefighter safety, but somewhere along the line, OSHA and the NFPA (who should know better) lost sight of what they were trying to accomplish. The bottom line is that the best way to make the fireground safer is to put the fire out. End of problem. The longer we wait to attack the fire, the bigger and more unsafe it becomes. Who is going to suffer? The poor guy who has to take a beating putting out what should have been an easy fire. Sometimes the safest method is a quick attack with less than optimum staffing.
Jennings is absolutely right: “One size fits all” rarely fits anyone or, in this case, anywhere. Another thing that will suffer is the fire department`s reputation in the community. We have spent years, even centuries, building public support and good will, which have often paid handsome dividends in political and budget support. Whether in a big city or small town, the taxpaying public demands prompt and efficient service. No citizen is going to tolerate having a pumper parked at the curb and three firefighters standing around for lack of a fourth (or sixth) while his home burns down. Some groups may think this will prompt every locality to fund fully staffed fire companies. Hogwash! Most localities will probably cut the fire service to the bone. Why pay big bucks for a fire department that won`t fight fires?
As a group, we are loaded with experience, training, and common sense. Yet, the rule makers at OSHA don`t trust us to make a common-sense fireground decision. Nor do our own people at the NFPA, who seem to get so caught up playing “can you top this?” in making simple things difficult. It`s time for someone to step in and put an end to these well-meaning safety rules that really put firefighters and the public at greater risk. Congressional Fire Service Caucus, are you listening?
