In the NIOSH Alert Preventing Deaths and Injuries of Firefighters When Fighting Fires in Unoccupied Structures (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/review/public/141/pdfs/DraftAlertUnoccupiedStructures.pdf), there are several references made to risk assessment, developing and enforcing risk management plans and then training the firefighters, safety officers and incident commanders to the plan.
This is accomplished by creating SOPs/SOGs specific to risk management.
What I want to point out straight off the git go is that every incident is going to be different in some ways, but your process for assessing risk should be the same every time. It is not one of those “if you don’t see this, then skip steps 3 and 4”. No; you should measure risk the same way every time and THAT, along with a proper size up will determine your tactics.
In Paul Grimwood’s latest book, Euro Firefighter, he discusses risk management at length.
I believe that it is by design that it appears in the very beginning of the book to underscore its importance to a successful outcome.
A clear distinction is drawn between what is a size up and what is risk assessment, because they are NOT one and the same.
According to Grimwood: The purpose of size up is to efficiently deploy my forces to achieve life and property protection and to have sufficient resources on-scene.
The purpose of risk assessment is to establish the level and types of exposure to risk that personnel may encounter and to decide how these hazards might be managed, controlled, prevented or ‘balanced against the potential for gains’.
When you look at common factors associated with firefighter deaths, is it any wonder that more focus and a sense of urgency is placed upon properly assessing risk?
When you place your people inside a structure with radios that don’t work, radios that might be on the wrong channel or worse, no radio at all, then you haven’t properly assessed risk.
If you have anyone at the incident and PASS devices have not been activated, then your risk management plan has failed, because training your department in the proper use and maintenance of their personal protective equipment is also a part of that plan.
When you think about the goal of the incident commander, it is to get the job done and get it done safely. Conversely, the goal of the safety officer is to do it safely and to still get the job done. Firefighters should be empowered to communicate any condition that compromises their safety.
Recently, I read an excellent article on risk assessment in Professional Safety magazine, a monthly magazine published by the American Society of Safety Engineers. The article was written by Jerry D. Loghry and Chad B. Veach.
What caught my attention was a part of the article that discussed “probability of loss”. It stated that probability is measured as the number of times in which a particular event can result from a certain activity, divided by the number of all outcomes occurring from that activity.
I realize that it is a mathematical calculation, but think about it. If we are looking for empirical data that will ease our conscience and help to flush the bitter taste from our mouths because we would not take unnecessary risks with an unoccupied structure, then “probability of loss” is it!
If it sounds too “theoretical”, then think about this; Loghry and Veach also state a more basic concept, which is: The more ways an event can occur in given circumstances, the greater the probability that it will occur…The frequency of previous event occurrences can indicate a strong probability of future recurrences.
Does that make sense; the frequency of injuries at vacant/unoccupied structures can predict a strong probability that it will happen again?
Let’s look at a study that was done at Flint, MI in 2007. From Grimwood’s Euro Firefighter: Out of 767 total structure fires dispatched, 443 resulted in a report of actual structure fire. The 443 structure fires involved 264 occupied structures and 179 vacant structures. Vacant structure fires represented 40% of the department’s structure fire call volume.
The department’s injury rate at vacant structure fires is more than TRIPLE the national average reported by the NFPA.
62% of the department’s fire-ground injuries occurred at vacant structure fires.
79% of the cost from fire-ground injuries resulted from fires at vacant structures.
93% of the cost of injuries at fires in vacant structures occurred in buildings that were unsecured when firefighters arrived.
Fire-ground operations produced (21) injuries at vacant buildings.
(13) injuries occurred during fires at occupied buildings-whilst most injuries were minor by nature, the potential for serious injury or LODD clearly exists.
If THAT doesn’t get your attention, I don’t know what will.
My conclusion? The NIOSH Alert Preventing Deaths and Injuries of Firefighters When Fighting Fires in Unoccupied Structures (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/review/public/141/pdfs/DraftAlertUnoccupiedStructures.pdf) must be taken seriously by every fire department in our country.
Drawing up a risk assessment plan with detailed SOPs/SOGs should start NOW!
If you would like to comment to NIOSH about the alert, please go to http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/review/public/141/comments.html.
TCSS.
The article as submitted is published under The Adventures of Jake and Vinnie© umbrella and is the intellectual property of Art Goodrich a.k.a. xchief22 and ChiefReason. It is protected by federal copyright laws and cannot be re-printed in any form without expressed permission from the author. You may read other works by the author at www.chiefreasonart.com.
Also on Chief Reason …
- Building a Risk Assessment Plan – February 20, 2009
- Ordering From the Risk Menu – February 28, 2009
- FIRE Act; Time to Cut and Run? – July 6, 2009
- Just Follow My Lead – January 18, 2009
No Comments