Misunderstandings Drive 2 In/2 Out Discussion for Firefighting in Davis

It was a different era, when the city of Davis went to four firefighters on an engine in 1999 as a way to meet the new OSHA regulations requiring two men in and two men out in order to fight a fire.

The staff report in 1999, written by then-Fire Chief Rose Conroy, shows at that time the city responded to about 2538 calls for service with four firefighters at the main downtown station and three at the other two stations.

Wrote the chief at that time, “Beginning May 22, 1999 we will no longer be able to allow the first in engine company to enter the structure to begin search & rescue or to attack the fire.”

There are exceptions to the regulation: “If, upon arrival at the scene, members find an imminent life-threatening situation where immediate action may prevent the loss of life or serious injury, such action shall be permitted with less than four persons on the scene.”

She noted, “We will have to wait for the arrival of the second due engine company before entering the structure.”

Back in 1999, the council unanimously approved the hiring of six firefighters at the cost of $368,676.

Tonight the city council will look toward reducing the number of fire personnel on staff, from 12 to 11.  That would create three three-person fire engines and one two-person rescue apparatus.

Despite the OSHA regulations, most fire stations in California operate with three people on an engine.  90 to 95 percent of them, according to Interim Chief Scott Kenley.  In his analysis, it shows that two in/two out would be a factor for a single three-person engine, perhaps twice a year.

There is a lot of misconception about the two in/two out model.

OSHA itself described when the standard takes effect.  In a 1998 publication, OSHA argues, “The ‘two-in, two-out’ requirement does not take effect until firefighters begin to perform interior structural firefighting.”

“Interior structural firefighting is firefighting to control or extinguish a fire in an advanced stage of burning inside a building,” they write. “Because the fire is producing large amounts of smoke, heat and toxic products of combustion, exposure of firefighters is extremely hazardous and is considered an ‘immediately dangerous to life or health’ (IDLH) environment.”

IDLH is defined by OSHA as “… an atmosphere that poses an immediate threat to life, would cause irreversible adverse health effects, or would impair an individual’s ability to escape from a dangerous atmosphere.”

They write: “Only those situations where the acute exposure would threaten life, initiate an irreversible process that threatens life or health, or impede the ability of the worker to escape from the atmosphere would constitute IDLH conditions.”

Naturally, that description does not constitute every interior atmosphere.  And OSHA differentiates IDLH from the incipient firefighting stage.

OSHA writes,  “Incipient stage firefighting, on the other hand, involves the control or extinguishment of a fire in the initial or beginning stage, using portable fire extinguishers or small hose lines without the need for personal protective equipment.”

Because of this, firefighters do not have to stay outside of the building, necessarily.  It may be that only the attic fire is an IDLH environment.

” Respiratory protection and ‘two-in, two-out’ are required in all interior structural firefighting situations. Interior structural fires are considered to be IDLH atmospheres,” OSHA writes.  “However, the use of respiratory protection does not, by itself, invoke the requirements associated with an IDLH atmosphere. The use of a self- contained breathing apparatus could be unrelated to exposure to an IDLH atmosphere associated with an interior structural fire.”

Nor does the presence of visible smoke trigger IDLH.

In 2002, then-OSHA director of Enforcement Programs, Richard E. Fairfax wrote, “The presence of visible smoke itself does not trigger a requirement to wear any particular type of respirator. Fires that have not progressed beyond the incipient stage, such as stove grease fires, might be extinguished without the responders needing to wear any respiratory protection. Larger fires, which have progressed beyond the incipient stage, would require SCBAs for entry.”

The firefighters’ union, wishing to protect union jobs rather than necessarily promote safety, have attempted to transform this into a safety issue.

First, as even Rose Conroy in 1999 acknowledged, if an individual is in the structure, the standard does not apply.  Firefighters may make immediate entry to effect a rescue.

Thus, the Interim Chief Kenley argues that this becomes a matter of property value, not safety.

The firefighters’ union may counter that each extra minute they wait to attack a fire means the fire grows bigger and increases the risk to the firefighters once they are able to enter the building.

However, Interim Chief Kenley does not believe this is an insurmountable hurdle.  While far from the ideal way to attack a fire, the firefighters can stick their hose through the window.  This will push the fire into areas that it may cause more damage, but it will prevent the fire from growing.

This is actually a worst-case scenario.  These scenarios only occur in Davis about twice a year.  With the current proposal, it would only impact the outlying areas.  The central fire station will have five firefighters on duty.

Moreover, with the boundary drop and proximity of UC Davis, the risk here is further reduced.

In fact, Davis represents a relatively low risk for fires, overall.  It is a primary reason we see so few fires to begin with.  The city has high standards for construction, it is modern, and because most of the residences are relatively affluent, the upkeep on properties greatly reduces the risk.

The places with the greatest risk for fire are the older homes in the core, homes that will be served by the central fire station that will have five personnel immediately available.

The bottom line that residents need to understand is that what we are dealing with is not a public safety issue, but rather a property issue.

When the council meets this evening, they must weigh the risks of slightly more property damage, perhaps twice a year at the very most, given the other factors, against the costs of carrying an additional firefighter around the clock, year around.

In a city that does not have a huge fire risk, the costs are more for the city to carry that extra firefighter and those costs do not represent a public safety issue.

—David M. Greenwald reporting