Firefighters Union Plans Meeting Tonight at Pioneer Elementary

Last month the Davis City Council made a series of critical decisions on fire department response time and the boundary drop.  However, when they delayed the discussion on reductions to fire staffing until what will be March 5 – election eve – due to the later hour, they gave the firefighters an opening that they are now, in one last-ditch effort, attempting to exploit.

The Vanguard obtained a flier that reads: “Did you know that the City Manager is proposing to reduce staffing/service level to the fire department?”

The flier attempts to scare citizens by suggesting that the reduction of staffing from 12 to 11 and shifting resources to allow three three-person fire engines and one two-person rescue apparatus would result in:

They write, “There’s no reduction in your fire safety tax ($32.50 per year), but there will be a huge reduction in the service level.”

They urge citizens to show up at the meeting on March 5 and write their councilmembers, asking them “not to cut staffing levels for the fire department.”

However, Interim Chief Scott Kenley spent a tremendous amount of time in his audit devising a plan that would not only save the city money, but provide the community with a strong level of service.

The firefighters are continuing to attempt to distort this issue.  The following clarifies some of the issues that they are likely to raise.

Most Fire Stations in California Operate with Three on an Engine

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.

Misconception About the Two In/Two Out Model

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.”

Public Safety or Job Protection

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, 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.

Boundary Drop Critical to Public Safety

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