Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSS3 - Proposed NFPA Standard 1710April 24, 2001 Item No. SS3 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Timothy Riley, Fire Chief SUBJECT: Proposed NFPA Standard 1710 RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On May 16, 2001, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) will place proposed standard NFPA 1710 on their annual meeting agenda to receive comments and hold an advisory vote of the membership to adopt, reject, or amend NFPA 1710. The standard, entitled " Standard on Organization and Deployment for Career Fire Departments," sets minimum standards for the operation of a fire department, including but not limited to: 1) the number of personnel assigned to each fire engine or truck, 2) the total number of personnel that should arrive to the scene of each type of fire within a set time frame, and 3) the recommended maximum response times for reported fire and emergency medical incidents. Many proponents state that it is time our discipline should establish a clear, indisputable national standard (there is not one currently recognized as a "standard ") in the interests of the protection of the public and the safety of our nations firefighters. Many opponents believe that the level of fire protection and emergency medical services should be a local decision, that resources should be matched to an objectively identified local risk assessment, and that a one- size -fits- all staffing and deployment model won't solve the many and varied fire protection and emergency medical services problems in America. As a Fire Chief, I find myself torn between these two camps. Indisputably, increased staffing and faster response times will lead to improved firefighter safety, higher service levels and will save lives. Yet, how many and how fast is enough? If four persons per unit is better, why not five or six? If six - minute response times save lives, wouldn't three - minute response times double the number we could save with six? And who should decide how many or how fast? I support the NFPA process as a means to provide fire service professionals with improved knowledge and tools to help us decrease the loss of life and property due to unexpected fire and emergency medical incidents. However, I do not believe that the NFPA should be deciding how we do our jobs. There are numerous local factors that should be considered when determining how to provide fire services to a community. The type and scope of the fire and medical problems found in Newport Beach are quite different than those found in Los Angeles; and dramatically different than those found in New York City. Therefore, I believe Newport Beach can best be served, not necessarily by denouncing NFPA 1710 in its entirety, but by going on record in support of the position of the California Fire Chiefs' Association, who resolved " That the California Fire Chiefs' Association supports a self- assessment process for establishing standards of coverage, service levels and deployment strategies, including accreditation." For this reason and unless directed otherwise, I will be attending the NFPA Annual Meeting on May 16, 2001, and voting against NFPA 1710. NFPA - What is It? NFPA, established in 1896, is an international, non - profit, member -based association of fire service professionals, vendors, and trade organizations whose mission is "to reduce the worldwide burden of fire and other hazards on the quality of life by providing and advocating scientifically -based consensus codes and standards, research, training and education." NFPA guidelines are voluntary, not federally mandated, and are often adopted into local ordinances and building codes. Our local ordinance adopts the NFPA standards by reference into our Fire Code. NFPA is principally financed by the sales of fire and life safety materials, membership, income from seminars, research grants, and contributions. What does NFPA 1710 propose? In essence, NFPA 1710 sets minimum standards for staffing and response times to safely and effectively respond to and mitigate fire, medical and other special hazard emergencies. Simple put, NFPA 1710 suggests the following shall be met: • minimum fire engine and fire truck staffing of four persons per unit (5 or 6 in jurisdictions with tactical & high hazard occupancies as defined by the authority having jurisdiction); • minimum staffing of 2 Emergency Medical Technicians on Basic Life Support units and 2 paramedics on Advanced Life Support units; • establishment of a Rapid Intervention Team (RIT) at all incidents; • response time of 4 minutes for the first arriving fire unit and /or the arrival of all necessary first alarm units within 8 minutes; • capability of establishing incident command, water supply, attack line(s), backup line(s), search and rescue team(s), ventilation team(s) and RIT at all structure fires; • minimum requirements for health and safety, incident management, training, communications and pre- incident planning; and • requirement that the department must inform the public about their response capabilities and the consequences of not meeting this specified deployment criteria. What the Proponents Sam Generally, proponents support the adoption of NFPA 1710 for the following reasons: • Mandatory minimum staffing levels will ensure that fire companies have sufficient personnel resources to be effective at the scene of an emergency. • Mandatory minimum staffing levels will provide for are sufficient personnel on each company to ensure firefighter safety. • NFPA 1710 will provide fire chiefs with a significant tool in the battle against tight budgets and shrinking staffing levels. • NFPA 1710 will provide an important benchmark for fire chiefs to use to measure the effectiveness of their own departments. • NFPA 1710 will guarantee that citizens are well aware and able to understand the level of service they are receiving in their communities compared to a national standard. To my knowledge, the proponents of 1710 include the International Association of Fire Chiefs (with some conditions and on a 5-4 vote of the Board of Directors), the International Association of Fire Fighters, the California Professional Firefighters, some local fire chiefs associations, and many local labor organizations. What the Opponents Say... Generally, opponents are against the adoption of NFPA 1710 for the following reasons: • One - size - fits -all organization and deployment model does not take into consideration the impact of local geographic, climatological, demographical or transportation dynamics that impact emergency response. Nor do they take into consideration local built -in fire protection or fire prevention programs that serve to reduce the risk or frequency of emergency incidents. • A standard model of deployment ignores the use of objective, criteria -based local assessment of fire and emergency medical risk with which to balance deployment decisions. Such a process has been developed by the International Association of Fire Chiefs and has been used successfully in hundreds of departments nationwide. • The authority having jurisdiction is the appropriate body to determine levels of service, including staffing levels and response times. LOCAL CONTROL OVER LOCAL ISSUES. • Agencies who elect not to follow the standard may be subject to increased lawsuits for failure to respond according to a nationally accepted practice. To my knowledge, the opponents of 1710 include the International City Managers Association, the National League of Cities, the California League of Cities, the Fire Districts Association of California, the National Public Employer Labor Relations Association, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and some local fire chiefs associations. What Happens Now? NFPA establishes standards based upon a consensus- process for development. A 30- member standards committee has been working on this standard for many years. To date, they have developed a proposal, published it and received comments on their proposal, met and considered the comments on the proposal, determined which comments should be accepted into the next version and which should be rejected, and have published their results for debate and action at the annual meeting in May. At the May meeting, the committee will receive testimony on the report on the comments, accept and reject floor revisions, and send the result to the membership for an advisory vote. The document will then be sent to a 13- member Standards Council who decides, based upon all evidence, whether or not top issue the standard or to take other action, including hearing any appeals. What If It Passes in Anaheim? My intuition tells me voting in Anaheim will support 1710 since all of organized labor is in support and half of the Fire Chiefs are in support. Should the City Council agree that we should continue to oppose NFPA 1710, we may elect to file an appeal with the Standards Council. I plan on attending the Standard Council hearing scheduled for July 12, 2001. What if NFPA 1710 becomes a Standard? As mentioned in the Executive Summary, I believe that fire and emergency medical services levels should be based on an objective community risk analysis and clear public policy decision made by the local jurisdiction. The Fire Department staff is currently completing a risk assessment study and will be developing a standards of cover presentation for the City Council. I believe that this is the most prudent method for making service level decisions and is rapidly becoming the other "standard" in the country. In fact, the League of California Cities Fire Chiefs Department and the Fire Districts Association of California are in concert with the California Fire Chiefs Association in embracing self- assessment and standards of cover as the standard in California.