Report of the Committee on
95
246 Report of the Committee on Fire and Emergency Service Organization and Deployment — Career Alan V. Brunacini, Chair City of Phoenix Fire Dept., AZ [E] Richard M. Duffy, Secretary Int’l Assn. of Fire Fighters, DC [L] (Alt. to IAFF Reps.) Terry Allen, City of Cambridge, ON, Canada [E] Rep. NFPA FSS Robert C. Barr, Firescope, Inc., MA [SE] Wayne Bernard, City of Surrey Fire Dept., BC, Canada [E] Rep. Fire Chiefs’ Assn. of British Columbia William L. Bingham, City of Boynton Beach, FL [U] Rep. Int’l Fire Marshals Assn. Diane Breedlove, City of Sugar Land, TX [C] Kenneth E. Buzzell, United Firefighters of LA City, CA [L] Rep. Int’l Assn. of Fire Fighters Ross Chadwick, City of Denton, TX [E] Welling S. Clark, ITT Industries, CO [RT] John L Cochran, U.S. Fire Administration, MD [SE] Dennis R. Compton, Mesa Fire Dept., AZ [E] Rep. Int’l Assn. of Fire Chiefs Don R. Forrest, United Firefighters of Los Angeles City, CA [L] Lawrence D. Garcia, City of Wichita, KS [E] Rep. Int’l Assn. of Fire Chiefs Harold B. Hairston, City of Philadelphia Fire Dept., PA [E] Rep. Metropolitan Fire Chiefs Patrick K. Hughes, North Richland Hills Fire Dept., TX [U] Rep. Int’l Fire Service Accreditation Congress, William D. Killen, U.S. Dept. of the Navy, DC [U] John K. King, City of Detroit Fire Dept., MI [L] Cortez Lawrence, Auburn Public Safety Dept., AL [E] Jim Lee, Toronto Professional Fire Fighters’ Assn., ON, Canada [L] Rep. Int’l Assn. of Fire Fighters David McCormack, Int’l Assn. of Fire Fighters, DC [L] Larry Mullikin, Stillwater Fire Dept., OK [M] Rep. Int’l Fire Service Training Assn. Christopher E. Platten, Wylie, McBride, Jesinger, Sure & Platten, CA [SE] Franklin D. Pratt, Los Angeles County Fire Dept., CA [SE] Gary Rainey, Miami Dade Fire Rescue, FL [L] Ken Riddle, City of Las Vegas Fire Dept., NV [U] Nick Russo, Dept. of Fire/Rescue & Emergency Services, MA [E] Rep. Int’l Assn. of Fire Chiefs Mark A. Sanders, Cincinnati Fire Fighters Union, OH [L] Patrick Smith, U.S. Dept. of Energy, ID [U] Charles C. Soros, Spencer Safety Products Co., WA [M] Rep. Fire Dept Safety Officers Assn. Edward L. Stinnette, Fairfax County Fire and Rescue Dept., VA [E] Alternates Sallie Clark, Colorado Springs, CO [RT], (Alt. to W. S. Clark) Steve Kreis, City of Phoenix Fire Dept., AZ [E] (Alt. to A. V. Brunacini) Don N. Whittaker, Bechtel BWXT Idaho, LLC (BBWI), ID [U] (Alt to P. Smith) Milt Wilson, City of Oshawa, ON [E] Rep. NFPA Fire Service Section (Alt. to T. Allen) Staff Liaison: Stephen N. Foley Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on the organization, operation, deployment, and evaluation of substantially all career public fire protection and emergency medical services. This list represents the membership at the time the Committee was balloted on the text of this edition. Since that time, changes in the membership may have occurred. A key to classifications is found at the front of this book. The Report of the Technical Committee on Fire and Emergency Service Organization and Deployment — Career is presented for adoption. This Report was prepared by the Technical Committee on Fire and Emergency Service Organization and Deployment — Career , and proposes for adoption, a new document, NFPA 1710, Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments . This Report has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on Fire and Emergency Service Organization and Deployment — Career, which consists of 31 voting members. The results of the balloting, after circulation of any negative votes, can be found in the report. This Report has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on on Fire and Emergency Service Organization and Deployment — Career, which consists of 30 voting members; of whom 27 voted affirmatively, 2 negatively after circulation of negative ballots (Garcia, Lawrence) and 1 abstained (Breedlove). Mr. Clark voted affirmatively with the following comment: “I do have a concern that NFPA 1710 creates a one-time-fits-all fire response. It is important to create a standard and I hope we can address it once NFPA 1710 is accepted. I will volunteer to help due technical analysis in this aspect.” Mr. Cochran voted affirmatively with the following comment: “The United States Fire Administration (USFA) votes “affirmative” on the NFPA ROP letter ballot for NFPA 1710, Standard on Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations. I understand that an accompanying written comment is not necessary if, as a member of the technical committee, my organization’s vote is in the affirmative position. However, USFA’s Chief Operating Officer, Mr. Ken Burris, suggest I proceed with providing you with a brief commentary regarding USFA’s ballot position. USFA’s decision to vote affirmative on this ballot is due to an ongoing recognition and support of public policy, both proposed and adopted, that insures for an optimum benefit to the public while allocating sufficient resources for efficient and safe levels of public fire department operations. At the same time USFA recognizes that local communities have the ultimate responsibility of determining the level of their local fire defenses. It is with this view that USFA will continue its commitment in the support and development of consensus standard that insures effective organization and deployment of the career fire services.” Mr. Garcia voted negatively stating: “My vote on the proposed NFPA 1710 standard is the result of the draft report of the 1710 Committee meeting of March 8 through 10, 2000. As an example, unless I misinterpreted the discussion that occurred on the issues involving “Response Time Objectives” (Chapter 4, paragraphs 1.2.1, a-b-c), what is reported, clearly, does not reflect the discussion had within the committee, on those objectives.” Mr. Lawrence voted negatively stating: “Conceptually I favor community based performance standards. Competent fire service leadership together with other interested groups can develop and evaluate deployment and response standards that best fit a community. While I consider the performance standard for staffing as reasonable for most suburban/urban communities, it is reasonable to allow alternative methodologies to be used to achieve desired outcomes. There is no empirical evidence to support the proposed standard.” Ms. Breedlove abstained with the following comment: “I believe this standard is the best the committee can do. I do not believe I can vote yes for a document that requires every fire department to provide first responders with AED’s. I also have concern about the staffing requirements and our ability to document the difference in results. My department staffed at 4 but there are areas that have sprinklers, etc., where something different may be acceptable.”
Transcript of Report of the Committee on
246
Report of the Committee on
Fire and Emergency Service Organization andDeployment — Career
Alan V. Brunacini, ChairCity of Phoenix Fire Dept., AZ [E]
Richard M. Duffy, SecretaryInt’l Assn. of Fire Fighters, DC [L]
(Alt. to IAFF Reps.)
Terry Allen, City of Cambridge, ON, Canada [E] Rep. NFPA FSSRobert C. Barr, Firescope, Inc., MA [SE]Wayne Bernard, City of Surrey Fire Dept., BC, Canada [E] Rep. Fire Chiefs’ Assn. of British ColumbiaWilliam L. Bingham, City of Boynton Beach, FL [U] Rep. Int’l Fire Marshals Assn.Diane Breedlove, City of Sugar Land, TX [C]Kenneth E. Buzzell, United Firefighters of LA City, CA [L] Rep. Int’l Assn. of Fire FightersRoss Chadwick, City of Denton, TX [E]Welling S. Clark, ITT Industries, CO [RT]John L Cochran, U.S. Fire Administration, MD [SE]Dennis R. Compton, Mesa Fire Dept., AZ [E] Rep. Int’l Assn. of Fire ChiefsDon R. Forrest, United Firefighters of Los Angeles City, CA [L]Lawrence D. Garcia, City of Wichita, KS [E] Rep. Int’l Assn. of Fire ChiefsHarold B. Hairston, City of Philadelphia Fire Dept., PA [E] Rep. Metropolitan Fire ChiefsPatrick K. Hughes, North Richland Hills Fire Dept., TX [U] Rep. Int’l Fire Service Accreditation Congress,William D. Killen, U.S. Dept. of the Navy, DC [U]John K. King, City of Detroit Fire Dept., MI [L]Cortez Lawrence, Auburn Public Safety Dept., AL [E]Jim Lee, Toronto Professional Fire Fighters’ Assn., ON, Canada [L] Rep. Int’l Assn. of Fire FightersDavid McCormack, Int’l Assn. of Fire Fighters, DC [L]Larry Mullikin, Stillwater Fire Dept., OK [M] Rep. Int’l Fire Service Training Assn.Christopher E. Platten, Wylie, McBride, Jesinger, Sure & Platten,
CA [SE]Franklin D. Pratt, Los Angeles County Fire Dept., CA [SE]Gary Rainey, Miami Dade Fire Rescue, FL [L]Ken Riddle, City of Las Vegas Fire Dept., NV [U]Nick Russo, Dept. of Fire/Rescue & Emergency Services, MA [E] Rep. Int’l Assn. of Fire ChiefsMark A. Sanders, Cincinnati Fire Fighters Union, OH [L]Patrick Smith, U.S. Dept. of Energy, ID [U]Charles C. Soros, Spencer Safety Products Co., WA [M] Rep. Fire Dept Safety Officers Assn.Edward L. Stinnette, Fairfax County Fire and Rescue Dept., VA [E]
Alternates
Sallie Clark, Colorado Springs, CO [RT], (Alt. to W. S. Clark)Steve Kreis, City of Phoenix Fire Dept., AZ [E] (Alt. to A. V. Brunacini)Don N. Whittaker, Bechtel BWXT Idaho, LLC (BBWI), ID [U] (Alt to P. Smith)Milt Wilson, City of Oshawa, ON [E] Rep. NFPA Fire Service Section (Alt. to T. Allen)
Staff Liaison: Stephen N. Foley
Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primaryresponsibility for documents on the organization, operation,deployment, and evaluation of substantially all career public fireprotection and emergency medical services.
This list represents the membership at the time the Committee wasballoted on the text of this edition. Since that time, changes in themembership may have occurred. A key to classifications is found at thefront of this book.
The Report of the Technical Committee on Fire and EmergencyService Organization and Deployment — Career is presented foradoption.
This Report was prepared by the Technical Committee on Fireand Emergency Service Organization and Deployment — Career,and proposes for adoption, a new document, NFPA 1710,Standard for the Organization and Deployment of FireSuppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations andSpecial Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments .
This Report has been submitted to letter ballot of the TechnicalCommittee on Fire and Emergency Service Organization andDeployment — Career, which consists of 31 voting members. Theresults of the balloting, after circulation of any negative votes, canbe found in the report.
This Report has been submitted to letter ballot of the TechnicalCommittee on on Fire and Emergency Service Organization andDeployment — Career, which consists of 30 voting members; ofwhom 27 voted affirmatively, 2 negatively after circulation ofnegative ballots (Garcia, Lawrence) and 1 abstained (Breedlove).
Mr. Clark voted affirmatively with the following comment: “I do have a concern that NFPA 1710 creates a one-time-fits-allfire response. It is important to create a standard and I hope wecan address it once NFPA 1710 is accepted. I will volunteer to helpdue technical analysis in this aspect.”
Mr. Cochran voted affirmatively with the following comment: “The United States Fire Administration (USFA) votes“affirmative” on the NFPA ROP letter ballot for NFPA 1710,Standard on Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression,Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations. Iunderstand that an accompanying written comment is notnecessary if, as a member of the technical committee, myorganization’s vote is in the affirmative position. However, USFA’sChief Operating Officer, Mr. Ken Burris, suggest I proceed withproviding you with a brief commentary regarding USFA’s ballotposition. USFA’s decision to vote affirmative on this ballot is due to anongoing recognition and support of public policy, both proposedand adopted, that insures for an optimum benefit to the publicwhile allocating sufficient resources for efficient and safe levels ofpublic fire department operations. At the same time USFArecognizes that local communities have the ultimate responsibilityof determining the level of their local fire defenses. It is with thisview that USFA will continue its commitment in the support anddevelopment of consensus standard that insures effectiveorganization and deployment of the career fire services.”
Mr. Garcia voted negatively stating: “My vote on the proposed NFPA 1710 standard is the result of thedraft report of the 1710 Committee meeting of March 8 through 10,2000. As an example, unless I misinterpreted the discussion thatoccurred on the issues involving “Response Time Objectives”(Chapter 4, paragraphs 1.2.1, a-b-c), what is reported, clearly, doesnot reflect the discussion had within the committee, on thoseobjectives.”
Mr. Lawrence voted negatively stating: “Conceptually I favor community based performance standards.Competent fire service leadership together with other interestedgroups can develop and evaluate deployment and responsestandards that best fit a community. While I consider theperformance standard for staffing as reasonable for mostsuburban/urban communities, it is reasonable to allow alternativemethodologies to be used to achieve desired outcomes. There isno empirical evidence to support the proposed standard.”
Ms. Breedlove abstained with the following comment: “I believe this standard is the best the committee can do. I do notbelieve I can vote yes for a document that requires every firedepartment to provide first responders with AED’s. I also haveconcern about the staffing requirements and our ability todocument the difference in results. My department staffed at 4 butthere are areas that have sprinklers, etc., where something differentmay be acceptable.”
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
247
(Log #1052)1710- 1 - (Title): RejectSUBMITTER: Wayne Waggoner, Tennessee Fire CodeDevelopment CommitteeRECOMMENDATION : Revise title as follows: Standard for the Organization and Deployment of FireSuppression, Emergency Medical Operations and SpecialOperations to the Public by Career Fire Departments.SUBSTANTIATION: A single standard is needed for both Careerand Volunteer Fire Departments.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee in good faithattempted to develop a standard (proposed 1200) addressing thecareer and volunteer sectors of the fire service. After a three-yeareffort, the technical committee was deadlocked and was unable toproceed. The committee was disbanded and the StandardsCouncil established two separate committees.
___________________
(Log #1565)1710- 2 - (Title): RejectSUBMITTER: Robert Carnahan, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression, EmergencyMedical Operations and Special Operations to the Public byCareer Metro Departments.SUBSTANTIATION: This standard should only apply to MetroDepartments which are further defined in the definitions that Isubmitted earlier.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-1 (Log #1052).
___________________
(Log #1839)1710- 3 - (Title): RejectSUBMITTER: Peter R. Lucarelli, Bellevue Fire Department, WARECOMMENDATION : Revise title to read as follows: Standard for the Organization and Deployment of FireSuppression, Emergency Medical Operations and SpecialOperations to the Public by Career Fire Departments Serving aPopulation of 300,000 or Greater. SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed standard is in conflict withother NFPA Standards that address built-in fire protection systemsin that no consideration is given to newer or smaller communitieswho have a substantial investment in built-in fire protectionsystems and experience very low fire losses.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-1 (Log #1052).
___________________
(Log #1053)1710- 4 - (1-1): RejectSUBMITTER: Wayne Waggoner, Tennessee Fire CodeDevelopment CommitteeRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: 1-1* Scope 1-1.1 This standard contains minimum requirements relating tothe organization and deployment of fire suppression, emergencymedical operations and special operations to the public bysubstantially (fully Paid) all career fire departments.SUBSTANTIATION: The change is made to clear up ambiguitythat is caused by the word substantially and to assure that thedefinition of Member does to create further confusion incalculating a ration between career and volunteer. Substantiallycan not be used in code manual style for NFPA document 2.2.2.1.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Standard Council required the word“Substantially” be included in the Scoop of the Committee.
___________________
(Log #11)1710- 5 - (1-1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Robert Carnahan, Clackamas County Fire Dist. 1Carl Brumund, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #353)Orville Downer, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #428)Daniel C. Olsen, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #458)Dan Marshall, Jackson County Fire Dist. #5 (Log #525)
Rich Mackie, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #579)J. Ben Reisz, Sumner, WA (Log #887)Martin Goughnor, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1541)Norman Whiteley, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1566)Randy R. Bruegman, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1635)Joan Johnson, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1804)Allan MacKay, Sedro-Woolley, WA/Whatcom County FireProtection Dist. #18 (Log #1830)Lyle J. Payne, Pleasant Hill RFPD (Log #2196)Jon R. Brown, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #2300)RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “This standard contains minimum requirements relating to theorganization and deployment of fire suppression, emergencymedical operations and special operations to the public bysubstantially all fully paid Metro size career fire departmentagency .”SUBSTANTIATION: This change is made to clear up ambiguitythat is caused by the word substantially and to assure that thedefinition of Member does not create further confusion incalculating a ration between career and volunteer.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee’s scope was toaddress the career fire department’s organization and deploymentwhere the fire department’s services are delivered primarily orsubstantially by career fire fighters.
___________________
(Log #37)1710- 6 - (1-1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: John Shull, Scappoose Rural Fire Dist.Dennis Marceaux, Scappoose Rural Fire Prot. (Log #53)Gloria Gass, Cloverdale, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist.
(Log #69)Mickey Hays, Beaver, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist.
(Log #104)Greg Gass, Cloverdale, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist.
(Log #120)Mary Lou Fletcher, Beaver, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protection
Dist. (Log #136)Kevin Wickman, Keizer Fire Dist. (Log #152)Wayne Sandford, East Haven Fire (Log #165)Lewis R. Beachy, Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #182)Roy O. Palmer, Polk County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #198)Calvin Johnson, Lewis County Fire Dist. #2 (Log #212)Patricia Schrom, Grant County Fire Protection Dist. #11/Fire
Protection Dist. (Log #275)Richard A. Knight, Fire Protection Dist. #5 Mason County (Log
#288)Harold Edwards, Delhi Twp Fire Dept. (Log #303)William Steel, Pierce County Fire Dist. #26 (Log #331)Jeff Grunewald, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue (Log #357)Curtis E. Goodman, City of Norwood/Fire Dept. (Log #385)Darrell Hartmann, Brookings Fire Dept. (Log #404)Ted Biermann, Adams County Fire Protection Dist. #2 (Log #406)Earl Cordes, Jefferson County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #430)D. J. Cornish, Manzanita, OR/Manzanita Fire Dept. (Log #460)Judd Burrow, Manzanita/OR (Log #476)Jeremy Strozyle, Nehalem, OR/ Manzanita Public Safety (Log
#492)Bret Siler, Nehalem, OR/Manzanita Fire Dept. (Log #508)Jerry McDowell, Whatcom County Fire Protection Dist. #1 (Log
#549)Bruce Holloway, Spokane County Fire Dist. #3 (Log #551)S. D. ‘Skip’ Smith, Santa Clara Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log
#601)Charles Hennigan, Thurston County Fire Protection Dist. #13 (Log
#614)Randall Iverson, Jackson County Fire District #3 (Log #630)Don Rowe, Sisters-Camp Sherman RFPD (Log #639)Jon C. Bugher, Clallam County Fire Dist. #2 (Log #676)Paul Epler, Vernonia Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #699)Michael J. Sneddon, Charleston Fire Dist. (Log #704)Brad Litthems, Snohowesh County Fire Protection Dist. #15 (Log
#726)Ken Walkington, Kitsap County Fire Dist. #14 (Log #737)Joel Stein, Keizer Fire Dist. (Log #775)Douglas VanPelt, Corvallis Fire Dept. (Log #783)William Seifert, Skamania County (WA) Fire Dist. #6 (Log #784)Michael Brondi, Skagit County Fire Dist. #19/Rockport/Marblemt.
Fire Depts. (Log #794)George Dunkel, St. Helens Rural Fire Dist. (Log #809)Gary J. Hudson, St. Helens Rural Fire Dist. (Log #819)
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
248
Matthew Shuler, Eugene Fire and EMS Dept. (Log #832)Scott Koehler, Stanwood Fire Dept. (Log #846)Stephen D. Allen, Cottage Grove/South Lane Rural Fire Dept.
(Log #863)Dan Stout, Fire Dist. #8 – Spokane County (Log #877)Louis Hayvaz, Thurston County Fire Protection Dist. #13 (Log
#906)Monty Moore, Kittitas County Fire Dist. #8 (Log #907)Cleve Rooper, Cannon Beach RFPD (Log #920)William H. Combs, Sutherlin Fire Dept./City of Sutherlin (Log
#936)Charles W. Edwards, Hansville, WA/Kitsap Fire Protection Dist.
#14 (Log #952)John Schlegel, Tri-City RFPD (Log #964)Bill Schmitt, Klickitat Fire Protection Dist. #13 (Klickitat County)
(Log #981)Bill Alguire, Keizer Fire Dist. (Log #990)Ted Ames, Warrenton Fire Dept. (Log #1029)Craig Helgeland, Camano Island Fire & Rescue (Log #1030)David Elkins, KCFPD #4/WFCA (Log #1031)Dale Mitchell, Pierce County Fire Dist. #8 (Log #1042)Paul M. Olheiser, Knappa Fire Dist. (Log #1099)Larry D. Eckhardt, Hoodland Fire Dist. #74 (Log #1104)Mike Rieger, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1117)Charles Spittles, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1148)Cindy Manning, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1185)Corey Tohl, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1201)Terry Zuercher, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1217)Tennessee Hodgon, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1233)Thomas G. Miller, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1257)Roy Ellerbroek, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1273)Mike Ellerbroek, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1289)Aaron Burris, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1297)Leonard Ingles, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1322)Stephen Stelzig, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1330)Frank Reding, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1346)Leroy Goff, Sumner, WA/City of Sumner (Log #1362)Kyle Sheets, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1380)Tim Hamburger, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1388)Ken n, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1404)Kyle Adams, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1428)David B. Schelhaas, Scappoose Rural Fire Dept. (Log #1441)John R. McAdoo, Estacada Fire Dist. #69 (Log #1467)Dan O’Dell, Boring Fire Dist. (Log #1468)Larry A. Long, Estacada Rural Fire Dist. #69 (Log #1506)Lanny R. Boston, Bandon Rural Fire Protection Dist. #8/City of
Bandon Fire Dept. (Log #1509)John A. Stein, Dallas Fire Dept. (Log #1527)Robert D. Wilson, Quilcene, WA/Quilcene Vol. Fire Dept. (Log
#1590)Jack R. Carriger, Nestucca RFPD (Log #1620)Aaron Vaughn, Scappoose Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #1661)Dale Staib, Philomath RFPD #4 (Log #1665)Scott Pearson, Snohomish County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1701)Patrick Reitz, Terrebonne, OR/Crooked River Ranch RFPD (Log
#1732)Jeff Griffin, Oregon Fire Chiefs’ Assn. (Log #1777)Chris Asanovic, Cornelius City/Rural Fire Dept. (Log #1894)Jeff Griffin, Oregon Fire Chiefs’ Assn. (Log #1907)David Chastain, Clallam County Fire Protection Dist. #4 (Log
#1917)Robert Wilson, Jefferson County Fire Dist. #2 (Log #1930)Wayne Kier, Jefferson County Fire Dist. #3 (Log #1940)Jane Lee, KCRFPD #7 (Log #1981)Edward A. Lewis, Spokane County Fire Dist. #4 (Log #2149)Gary Abrams, NRFPD (Log #2163)Duaine Harding Sr., NRFPD (Log #2186)Joseph R. Guyette, Dover-Foxcroft Fire Dept./MSFFF (Log #2249)Michael S. Curtis, Dover-Foxcroft Fire Dept. (Log #2262)Darin Welburn, Jackson County FD #5 (Log #2274)RECOMMENDATION : This standard contains minimumrequirements relating to the organization and deployment of firesuppression, emergency medical operations and special operationsto the public by (substantially) (fully paid) career firedepartments.SUBSTANTIATION: The change is made to clear up ambiguitythat is caused by the word substantially and to assure that thedefinition of Member does not create further confusion incalculating a ration between career and volunteer.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-5 (Log #11).
___________________
(Log #324)1710- 7 - (1-1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Dean R. Shank, Central Kitsap Fire RescueRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The standard contains minimum recommended requirementsrelating to organization and deployment of fire suppression,emergency medical operations, and special operations to thepublic by substantially all career departments.”SUBSTANTIATION: The community and citizens throughout theUnited States will determine the minimum requirement they willexpect from their fire service.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-5 (Log #11).
___________________
(Log #656)1710- 8 - (1-1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Duane M. Malo, Washington State Assn. of FireChiefsRECOMMENDATION : Delete “substantially all” to read: “to the public by substantially all career fire departments.SUBSTANTIATION: This clarifies who is intended to beimpacted. Individual combination can always apply the careerstandard if they choose. NFPA 1720 requires AHJ’s incombination departments to determine if that standard isappropriate.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-5 (Log #11).
___________________
(Log #670)1710- 9 - (1-1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Duane M. Malo, Washington State Assn. of FireChiefsRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “This standard contains minimum requirements relating to theorganization and deployment of fire suppression, emergencymedical operations and special operations to the public bysubstantially fully paid career fire departments.”SUBSTANTIATION: The change is made to clear up ambiguitythat is caused by the word substantially.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-5 (Log #11).
___________________
(Log #675)1710- 10 - (1-1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Joseph M. Kolisch, Enumclaw Fire Dept./King Co.Fire Dist. 28RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “This standard contains minimum requirements relating to theorganization and deployment of fire suppression, emergencymedical operations and special operations to the public bysubstantially all career fire departments fire departmentscomprised of fully paid career personnel .”SUBSTANTIATION: “Substantially” is an ambiguous word. Thischange provides for clear meaning of who this standard applies to.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-5 (Log #11).
___________________
(Log #719)1710- 11 - (1-1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Marquam R. Johnson, Torrington Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Create “third” document - NFPA 1715? -for combination systems.SUBSTANTIATION: Medium-sized (20,000 -50,000)communities often have combination systems of career andvolunteer personnel. Neither standard addresses such systemsadequately. In our case “system” is comprised of separate career
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
249
and volunteer departments and both standards (as written) wouldapply to different parts of it.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-5 (Log #11).
___________________
(Log #1499)1710- 12 - (1-1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Alan D. Predmore, City of Buckley Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: 1-1.1 This standard contains minimum requirements relating tothe organization and deployment of fire suppression, emergencymedical operations, and special operations to the public bysubstantially all career fire departments fire departmentscomprised of fully paid career personnel. SUBSTANTIATION: “Substantially” is an ambiguous word. Thischange provides for clear meaning of who this standard applies to.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-5 (Log #11).
___________________
(Log #1840)1710- 13 - (1-1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Peter R. Lucarelli, Bellevue Fire Department, WARECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “This standard contains minimum requirements relating to theorganization and deployment of fire suppression, emergencymedical operations and special operations to the public bysubstantially all career fire departments serving a population of300,000 or greater. ”SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed standard is in conflict withother NFPA Standards that address built-in fire protection systemsin that no consideration is given to newer or small communitieswho have a substantial investment in built-in fire protectionsystems and experience very low fire losses.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-5 (Log #11).
___________________
(Log #1878)1710- 14 - (1-1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Robert E. Anderson, Spokane County Fire Dist. #9RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “This standard contains minimum requirements recommendedstandards relating to the organization and deployment of firesuppression, emergency medical operations, and specialoperations to the public by urban substantially all totally career firedepartments.”SUBSTANTIATION: Service standards need to be determinedlocally to address - local needs based on risk, population density,community expectations and ability to fund fire departmentoperations. Population density per square mile might serve as abetter guide in developing such standards rather thancareer/volunteer status.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-5 (Log #11).
___________________
(Log #1926)1710- 15 - (1-1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Robert E. Anderson, Spokane County Fire Dist. #9RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “This standard contains minimum requirements relating to theorganization and deployment of fire suppression, emergencymedical operations and special operations to the public bysubstantially all totally career urban fire departments.”SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed revised text clarifies theintended scope to these fire departments staffed totally careerfirefighters. Combination career/volunteer fire departments likeours usually serve suburban and rural areas with less populationdensity, proper road systems, less resource availability and longerresponse times.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-5 (Log #11).
___________________
(Log #1927)1710- 16 - (1-1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Robert E. Anderson, Spokane County Fire Dist. #9RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “This standard contains minimum requirements relating to theorganization and deployment of fire suppression, emergencymedical operations and special operations to the public bysubstantially all career fire departments serving jurisdiction withaverage population density in excess of 5,000 per sq mile. ”SUBSTANTIATION: The standard should not be based oncareer or volunteer employee status but based on level of servicerequired and the number of firefighters and apparatus required todeliver it. Urban high density areas require a higher level ofservice than suburban, rural or wilderness densities. One size fitsall simply makes no sense.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-5 (Log #11).
___________________
(Log #1929)1710- 17 - (1-1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Robert W. Waldron, Spokane County Fire Dist. #9RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “...To the public by substantially (60 percent full-time paid ormore) all career departments.”SUBSTANTIATION: Clarify substantially by inserting quantifiablephrase. Would still allow for minor volunteer functions to occur.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-5 (Log #11).
___________________
(Log #1956)1710- 18 - (1-1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Chip Prather, Orange County Fire AuthorityRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “This standard contains minimum requirements relating to theorganization and deployment of fire suppression, emergencymedical operations, and special operations to the public bysubstantially all career fire departments. Minimum requirementsrelating to the organization and deployment of fire suppression,emergency medical operations, and special operations to thepublic by all career, combination and volunteer departments shallbe determined by the local jurisdiction vested with thatresponsibility. ”SUBSTANTIATION: Leaving volunteers out of the scope of thissection/paragraph does not address the needs of combinationdepartments.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-5 (Log #11).
___________________
(Log #2013)1710- 19 - (1-1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept./Rep.Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “This standard contains minimum requirementsrecommendations relating to the organization...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-5 (Log #11).
___________________
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
250
(Log #2074)1710- 20 - (1-1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “This standard contains minimum requirementsrecommendations relating to the organization...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-5 (Log #11).
___________________
(Log #2170)1710- 21 - (1-1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Brown, Kitsap County Fire District #7RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “This standard contains minimum requirements relating to theorganization and deployment of fire suppression, emergencymedical operations, and special operations to the public bysubstantially fully paid career fire departments.”SUBSTANTIATION: This revision is proposed to clear upambiguity that is caused by the word substantially and to assurethat the definition of Member does not create further confusion incalculating a ration between career and volunteer personnel.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-5 (Log #11).
___________________
(Log #2196)1710- 22 - (1-1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Lyle J. Payne, Pleasant Hill RFPDRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “This standard contains minimum requirements relating to theorganization and deployment f fire suppression, emergencymedical operations and special operations to the public bysubstantially fully paid career fire departments.”SUBSTANTIATION: The change is made to clear up ambiguitythat is caused by the word substantially and to assure that thedefinition of member does not create further confusion incalculating a ration between career and volunteer.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-5 (Log #11).
___________________
(Log #2307)1710- 23 - (1-1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: James Farrell, Skokie Fire Dept., ILRECOMMENDATION : In 1-1.1 delete the word "substantially".SUBSTANTIATION: I am not sure why the word is included inthis paragraph. If it is intended to indicate that most careerdepartments are covered by this standard it is really not needed. Ifit is intended to indicate that the standard applies to thosedepartments that have mostly career members, it should indicateexactly what percentage or number it refers to. The word "substantially" in this context is confusing andambiguous.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-5 (Log #11).
___________________
(Log #1054)1710- 24 - (1-1.1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Wayne Waggoner, Tennessee Fire CodeDevelopment CommitteeRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: The requirements address the functions and outcomes of firedepartment emergency service delivery, response capabilities, andresources.
SUBSTANTIATION: Outcomes can not be required orpredicted, only desired. Depending upon the mode of operationused will determine the outcome of the situation.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-5 (Log #11).
___________________
(Log #2014)1710- 25 - (1-1.1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept./Rep.Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The requirements recommendations address functions andoutcomes...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-5 (Log #11).
___________________(Log #2075)
1710- 26 - (1-1.1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The requirements recommendations address functions andoutcomes...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-5 (Log #11).
___________________
(Log #1825)1710- 27 - (1-1.1.1.1): AcceptSUBMITTER: J. Gordon Routley, Champlain, NYRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: 1-1.1.1.1 The requirements address emergency service delivery functions and outcomes of performed by fire departments,emergency service delivery, in addition to fire department responsecapabilities and resources.SUBSTANTIATION: It is not feasible to establish a standard foroutcomes. The standard addresses functions and the capabilitiesand resources that are needed to perform those functions.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.
___________________
(Log #2015)1710- 28 - (1-1.1.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept./Rep.Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “This standard also contains minimum requirementsrecommendations for managing resources and systems...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee was responsible forwriting a “minimum standard” and early in the process rejecteddeveloping a “recommended practice”.
___________________
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
251
(Log #2076)1710- 29 - (1-1.1.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “This standard also contains minimum requirementsrecommendations for managing resources and systems...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-28 (Log #2015).
___________________
(Log #605)1710- 30 - (1-1.1.3): RejectSUBMITTER: Charles Hennigan, Thurston County FireProtection Dist. #13RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “This standard is applicable to those fire departments whoseemergency response deployment is substantially all volunteercomprised of volunteer or a combination of volunteer and careerpersonnel. ”SUBSTANTIATION: This standard should apply to all but the100 percent career department that falls under NFPA 1710.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee’s scope was toaddress the career fire department’s organization and deploymentwhere the fire department’s services are delivered substantially bycareer fire fighters.
___________________
(Log #623)1710- 31 - (1-1.1.3): RejectSUBMITTER: Donald H. Butz, Rancho Santa Fe Fire ProtectionDist.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Nor does This standard shall address the impact of fireprevention, public life safety education, fire investigations, supportservices, personnel management, and budgeting.”SUBSTANTIATION: The standard does not allow for factorsinfluencing operational demands of a fire department. Forexample, a community with a large percentage of structuresprotected by automatic fire sprinkler systems would not have aneed for four (4), five (5), or six (6) personnel on an engine ortruck. The deployment and planning of deployment should take intoconsideration all aspects of the services provided including thenon-emergency activities and programs. The contributions of fireprevention’s engineer, education and enforcement are to beutilized in configuring the response demand or problem. The fireservice has marketed its with all these program and/orcomponents as contributing, however, the NFPA 1710 standarddoes not.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-30 (Log #605).
___________________
(Log #1925)1710- 32 - (1-1.1.3): RejectSUBMITTER: Robert E. Anderson, Spokane County Fire Dist. #9RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “This standard is applicable to those fire departments whoseemergency response deployment is substantially all volunteercomprised of volunteer or a combination of volunteer and careerpersonnel .”SUBSTANTIATION: Combination career/volunteer and allvolunteer fire department like ours usually serve small cities andtowns, suburban and rural areas. These areas are less populated,have poor road systems, long response times and often difficultterrain The standards need to reflect this reality not assume theurban vision of fire protection.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-30 (Log #605).
___________________
(Log #1)1710- 33 - (1-1.1.3.1): AcceptSUBMITTER: L. Charles Smeby, Jr., FL State Fire CollegeRECOMMENDATION : The fire department shall provide theapplicable training, prevention, public education and emergencyresponse operations, related to fire suppression, EMS, specialoperations, and incident recovery. The fire department shalldeploy these systems during applicable emergency operations.SUBSTANTIATION: Training is the foundation for alloperations. The other suggestions are for clarity only.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.
___________________
(Log #83)1710- 34 - (1-1.1.3.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Larry D. Donner, Boulder Fire Dept., CORECOMMENDATION : Delete this entire section.SUBSTANTIATION: The ability to establish service deliverystandards is vested with the jurisdiction having authority. NFPAshould not attempt to circumvent this authority through thestandards process. In addition, this section contradicts the last sentence in Section1-1.1.3.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Proposal1710-33 (Log #1).
___________________
(Log #1824)1710- 35 - (1-1.1.3.1): RejectSUBMITTER: J. Gordon Routley, Champlain, NYRECOMMENDATION : Delete the following text: 1-1.1.3.1 The fire department shall provide the applicable...Thefire department shall deploy these systems during applicabledeployed operations.SUBSTANTIATION: I have no idea what this paragraph is tryingto say. Please fix it or delete it entirely.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Proposal1710-33 (Log #1).
___________________
(Log #2016)1710- 36 - (1-1.1.3.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept./Rep.Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department shall should provide the applicableprevention...recovery. The fire department shall should deploythese...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Proposal1710-33 (Log #1).
___________________
(Log #2077)1710- 37 - (1-1.1.3.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department shall should provide the applicableprevention...recovery. The fire department shall should deploythese...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
252
These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Proposal1710-33 (Log #1).
___________________
(Log #1055)1710- 38 - (1-2): RejectSUBMITTER: Wayne Waggoner, Tennessee Fire CodeDevelopment CommitteeRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: 1-2 Purpose. 1-2.1* The purpose of this standard is to specify the minimumcriteria addressing the effectiveness and efficiency of the Totally career public fire suppression, emergency medical service, andspecial operations delivery in protecting the public of thejurisdiction and the occupational safety and health of firedepartment employees.SUBSTANTIATION: This will clarify the difference between aFull time and Part Time Fire Department.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee’s scope was toaddress the career fire department’s organization and deploymentwhere the fire department’s services are delivered primarily orsubstantially by career fire fighters.
___________________
(Log #12)1710- 39 - (1-2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Robert Carnahan, Clackamas County Fire Dist. 1RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: The purpose of this standard is to specify the minimum criteriaaddressing the effectiveness and efficiency as determined byscientific study, of the all career public fire suppression,emergency medical service, and special operations delivery inprotecting the public of the jurisdiction and the occupationalsafety and health of the fire department employees.SUBSTANTIATION: The basis for this standard must bereasoned and a result of scientific study. Effectiveness andefficiency can be determined by fire loss records and time on thescene. Occupational safety and health status of fire departmentemployees can be compared to other agencies. Making anassumption that more people increase effectiveness, efficiency andsafety needs to be supported empirical accepted data.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The standard was based onscientific study, experience and data. Support of the purposestatement, including the scientific study, is included in A.1.2.1.
___________________
(Log #38)1710- 40 - (1-2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: John Shull, Scappoose Rural Fire Dist.Dennis Marceaux, Scappoose Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log
#54)Gloria Gass, Cloverdale, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist.
(Log #70)Mickey Hays, Beaver, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist.
(Log #105)Greg Gass, Cloverdale, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist.
(Log #121)Mary Lou Fletcher, Beaver, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protection
Dist. (Log #137)Kevin Wickman, Keizer Fire Dist. (Log #153)Levi R. Beachy, Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #183)Roy O. Palmer, Polk County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #199)Calvin Johnson, Lewis County Fire Dist. #2 (Log #213)Dennis England, City of Hillsboro/Washington County Fire Dist.
#2/Hillsboro Fire Dept. (Log #225)Dennis Ross, City of Hillsboro/Washington County Fire Dist. #2
(Log #234)Dennis Ross, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept. (Log #243)Patricia Schrom, Grant County Fire Protection Dist. #11/Fire
Protection Dist. (Log #276)Richard A. Knight, Fire Protection Dist. #5 Mason County (Log
#292)Harold Edwards, Delhi Twp Fire Dept. (Log #308)William Steel, Pierce County Fire Dist. #26 (Log #332)
Carl Brumund, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #352)Jeff Grunewald, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue (Log #359)Curtis E. Goodman, Norwood Fire Dept. (Log #374)Darrell Hartmann, Brookings Fire Dept. (Log #390)Ted Biermann, Adams County Fire Protection Dist. #2 (Log #407)Orville Downer, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #427)Earl Cordes, Jefferson County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #433)Daniel C. Olsen, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #457)D. J. Cornish, Manzanita, OR/Manzanita Fire Dept. (Log #461)Judd Burrow, Manzanita, OR/Manzanita Public Safety (Log #477)Jeremy Strozyle, Nehalem, OR/Manzanita Public Safety (Log #493)Bret Siler, Nehalem, OR/Manzanita Fire Dept. (Log #509)Dan Marshall, Jackson County Fire Dist. #5 (Log #526)Jerry McDowell, Whatcom County Fire Protection Dist. #1 (Log
#542)Bruce Holloway, Spokane County Fire Dist. #3 (Log #552)Rich Mackie, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #578)S. D. ‘Skip’ Smith, Santa Clara Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log
#600)Charles Hennigan, Thurston County Fire Protection Dist. #13 (Log
#608)Don Rowe, Sisters-Camp Sherman RFPD (Log #640)Duane M. Malo, Washington State Assn. of Fire Chiefs (Log #659)Jon C. Bugher, Clallam County Fire Dist. #2 (Log #677)Paul Epler, Vernonia Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #698)Michael J. Sneddon, Charleston Fire Dist. (Log #705)Brad Litthams, Snohowish County Fire Protection Dist. #5 (Log
#727)Ken Walkington, Kitsap County Fire Dist. #14 (Log #738)Greg Frank, Keizer Fire Dist. (Log #749)Douglas VanPelt, Corvallis Fire Dept. (Log #751)Joel Stein, Keizer Fire Dist. (Log #774)William Seifert, Skamania County (WA) Fire Dist. #6 (Log #785)Michael Brondi, Skagit County Fire Dist. #19 (Log #795)George M. Dunkel, St. Helens Rural Fire Dist. (Log #804)Gary J. Hudson, St. Helens Rural Fire Dist. (Log #814)Matthew Shuler, Eugene Fire and EMS Dept. (Log #833)Scott Koehler, Stanwood Fire Dept. (Log #847)Stephen D. Allen, Cottage Grove/South Lane Rural Fire Dept.
(Log #864)Dan Stout, Fire Dist. #8 – Spokane County (Log #878)J. Ben Reisz, Sumner, WA (Log #888)Louis Hayvaz, Thurston County Fire Protection Dist. #13 (Log
#900)Monty Moore, Kittites County Fire Dist. #8 (Log #908)Cleve Rooper, Cannon Beach RFPD (Log #921)William H. Combs, Sutherlin Fire Dept. (Log #937)Charles W. Edwards, Hansville, WA/Kitrap Fire Protection Dist.
#14 (Log #953)John Schlegel, Tri-City RFPD (Log #965)Bill Schmitt, Klickitat Fire Protection Dist. #13 (Log #982)Bill Alguire, Keizer Fire Dist. (Log #991)Ted Ames, Warrenton Fire Dept. (Log #1003)Craig Helgeland, Camano Island Fire & Rescue (Log #1016)David Elkins, KCFPD #4/WFCA (Log #1032)Dale Mitchell, Pierce County Fire Dist. #8/WFCA (Log #1043)Paul M. Olheiser, Knappa Fire Dist. (Log #1098)Larry D. Eckhardt, Hoodland Fire Dist. #74 (Log #1105)Mike Rieger, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1118)Charles Spittles, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1149)Cindy Manning, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1186)Corey Tohl, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1202)Terry Zuercher, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1218)Tennessee Hodgdon, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1234)Thomas G. Miller, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1258)Roy Ellerbroek, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1274)Mike Ellerbroek, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1290)Aaron Burris, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1298)Leonard Ingles, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1323)Stephen Stelzig, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1331)Frank Reding, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1347)Leroy Goff, Sumner, WA/City of Sumner (Log #1363)Kyle Sheets, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log 1381)Tim Hamburger, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1389)Ken Aufednmauer, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1405)Kyle Adams, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1429)David B. Schelhaas, Scappoose Rural Fire Dept. (Log #1436)John R. McAdoo, Estacada Fire Dist. #69 (Log #1452)Dan O’Dell, Boring Fire Dist. (Log #1483)Larry A. Long, Estacada Rural Fire Dist. #69 (Log #1484)Lanny R. Boston, Bandon Rural Fire Protection Dist. #8/City of
Bandon Fire Dept./Southwestern Oregon Fire Chiefs Assn. (Log#1510)
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
253
John A. Stein, Dallas Fire Dept. (Log #1528)Martin Goughnour, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1542)Robert D. Wilson, Quilcene, WA/Quilcene Vol. Fire Dept. (Log
#1591)Jack R. Carriger, Nestucca RFPD (Log #1621)Randy R. Bruegman, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1636)Aaron Vaughn, Scappoose Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #1662)Dale Staib, Philomath RFPD #4 (Log #1666)Scott Pearson, Snohomish County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1702)Patrick Reitz, Terrebonne, OR/Crooked River Ranch RFPD (Log
#1733)Jeff Griffin, Oregon Fire Chiefs’ Assn. (Log #1788)Joan Johnson, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1803)Allan MacKay, Sedro-Woolley, WA/Whatcom County Fire
Protection Dist. #18 (Log #1831)Charles R. Cable, Cloverdale Rural Fire Dist. (Log #1875)Chris Asanovic, Cornelius City/Rural Fire Dept. (Log #1895)David Chastain, Clallam County Fire Protection Dist. #4 (Log
#1918)Robert Wilson, Jefferson County Fire Dist. #2 (Log #1931)Wayne Kier, Jefferson County Fire Dist. 33 (Log #1941)Jane Lee, KCFPD #7 (Log #1979)Edward A. Lewis, Spokane County Fire Dist. #4 (Log #2150)Gary Abrams, NRFPD (Log #2175)Duaine Harding Sr., NRFPD (Log #2193)Lyle J. Payne, Pleasant Hill RFPD (Log #2194)Joseph R. Guyette, Dover-Foxcroft,ME/MSFFF (Log #2254)Michael S. Curtis, Dover-Foxcroft Fire Dept. (Log #2257)Darin Welburn, Jackson County FD #5 (Log #2275)Jon R. Brown, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #2299)RECOMMENDATION : Revise text as follows: “The purpose of this standard is to specify the minimum criteriaaddressing the effectiveness and efficiency as determined byscientific study, of the all career public fire suppression,emergency medical service, and special operations delivery inprotecting the public of the jurisdiction and the occupationalsafety and health of the fire department employees.”SUBSTANTIATION: The basis for this standard must bereasoned and a result of scientific study. Effectiveness andefficiency can be determined by fire loss records and time on thescene. Occupational safety and health status of fire departmentemployees can be compared to other agencies. Making anassumption that more people increase effectiveness, efficiency andsafety needs to be supported empirical accepted data. Adding theword all maintains consistency with the scope of this standard.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-39 (Log #12).
___________________
(Log #167)1710- 41 - (1-2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Wayne E. Sandford, East Haven Fire, CTRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The purpose of this standard is to specify the minimum criteriaaddressing the effectiveness and efficiency as determined byscientific study, of the all career public fire suppression,emergency medical service, and special operations delivery inprotecting the public of the jurisdiction and the occupationalsafety and health of the fire department employees.”SUBSTANTIATION: The basis for this standard must bereasoned and a result of scientific study. Effectiveness andefficiency can be determined by fire loss records and time on thescene. Occupational safety and health status of fire departmentemployees can be compared to other agencies. Making anassumption that more people increase effectiveness, efficiency andsafety needs to be supported empirical accepted data. Adding theword all maintains consistency with the scope of this standard.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-39 (Log #12).
___________________
(Log #1567)1710- 42 - (1-2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Norman Whiteley, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The purpose of this standard is to specify the minimum criteriaaddressing the effectiveness and efficiency as determined byscientific study, of the all career public fire suppression,emergency medical service, and special operations delivery in
protecting the public of the jurisdiction and the occupationalsafety and health of the fire department employees.”SUBSTANTIATION: The basis for this standard must bereasoned and a result of scientific study. Effectiveness andefficiency can be determined by fire loss records and time on thescene. Occupational safety and health status of fire departmentemployees can be compared to other agencies. Making anassumption that more people increase effectiveness, efficiency andsafety needs to be supported empirical accepted data.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-39 (Log #12).
___________________
(Log #1696)1710- 43 - (1-2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: John A. Dutch, City of Norman Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: recommend (specify the minimum)SUBSTANTIATION: If one specifies minimum criteria in such abroad category as this, it should apply only to a well-definedminimum condition or situation. Again, the “one size fits all”approach is incongruous, inconsistent and vague in meaning andapplication, and indefensible.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-39 (Log #12).
___________________
(Log #1714)1710- 44 - (1-2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Bobby Williams, Spokane Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: The purpose of this standard is to specify the minimumrecommended criteria addressing the effectiveness and efficiencyof the career public fire suppression, emergency medical service,and special operations delivery in protecting the public of thejurisdiction and the occupational safety and health of firedepartment employees.SUBSTANTIATION: As detailed in the draft appendix text,Section A-2-1.1, “The governing body has the right and shouldassert its authority to set the specific services and the limits ofservices the fire department will provide...”. By establishingminimum criteria rather than recommended criteria, it appearsthat the right of the governing body is trying to be taken away.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-39 (Log #12).
___________________
(Log #1754)1710- 45 - (1-2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Norman G. Angelo, Kent Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The purpose of this standard is to specify the minimum criteriaaddressing the effectiveness and efficiency of the career public firesuppression, emergency medical service, and special operationsdelivery in protecting the public of the jurisdiction and theoccupational safety and health of fire department employees forlocal governments to determine the effectiveness and efficiency inaddressing levels of risk within a community through the use ofscientific study. Such a study needs to to fully provide for theoccupational health and safety of fire department employees whilemeeting minimum standards for providing for the locallyacceptable level of service for Fire Suppression, Fire and EMSPrevention, Emergency Medical and Special OperationsResponse. ”SUBSTANTIATION: The basis for this standard must be areasoned scientific study that enables local government todetermine the level of resources needed based on an analysis oflocal/regional fire and life safety risk within their community, thecommunities acceptable of risk as determined by the citizens andfully addressing the health and safety of fire department employees.There is more than one combination of staffing, offsetting levels ofrisks, and protection of fire department employees for the diversecommunities across the United States. The standard andminimum criteria need to be based on empirical data methodsthat allow a local government the ability to determine theiracceptable level of service and risk as long as they balance it by
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
254
properly providing for fire department employee’s health andsafety.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-39 (Log #12).
___________________
(Log #1841)1710- 46 - (1-2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Peter R. Lucarelli, Bellevue Fire Department, WARECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: The purpose of this standard is to specify the minimum criteriaaddressing the effectiveness and efficiency of the career public firesuppression, emergency medical service, and special operationsdelivery in protecting the public of the jurisdiction and theoccupational safety and health of fire department employees injurisdictions where these services are provided to populations of300,000 or greater. SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed standard totally ignores theinvestment in built-in fire protection systems, the fire loss, andpersonnel safety experience of newer and smaller jurisdictions.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-39 (Log #12).
___________________(Log #1954)
1710- 47 - (1-2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Brian J. Thibeault, Plymouth Fire RescueRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The purpose of this standard is to specify the minimum criteriaaddressing the effectiveness and efficiency as determined byscientific study, of the all career public fire suppression,emergency medical service, and special operations delivery inprotecting the public of the jurisdiction and the occupationalsafety and health of the fire department employees.”SUBSTANTIATION: The basis for this standard must bereasoned and a result of scientific study. Effectiveness andefficiency can be determined by fire loss records and time on thescene. Occupational safety and health status of fire departmentemployees can be compared to other agencies. Making anassumption that more people increase effectiveness, efficiency andsafety needs to be supported by empirical accepted data. Addingthe word all maintains consistency with the scope of this standard.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-39 (Log #12).
___________________
(Log #1957)1710- 48 - (1-2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Chip Prather, Orange County Fire AuthorityRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The purpose of this standard is to specify the minimum criteriaaddressing the effectiveness and efficiency of all career public firesuppression, emergency medical service, and special operationsdelivery in protecting the public of the jurisdiction and theoccupational safety and health of fire department employees. Localjurisdictions shall determine minimum criteria and staffingstandards based on assessment of community need. ”SUBSTANTIATION: Recognizing that reference to “occupationalsafety and health” is referenced in this section titled, “Purpose,”lends increased concern that this could result in a future OSHAmandate through pressure from special interest groups in thosestates that are not NFPA states. If that occurs, control/decisions atthe local level are lost and will result in significant fiscal impacts.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-39 (Log #12).
___________________(Log #1826)
1710- 49 - (1-2.1, 1-3 Initial Attack, Mutual Aid, Response Time,Tactical Hazard): RejectSUBMITTER: J. Gordon Routley, Champlain, NYRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: 1-2.1 The purpose of this standard is to specify the minimumcriteria addressing the effectiveness and efficiency of the careerpublic fire suppression departments, performing fire suppression,emergency medical service and special operations delivery
functions in protecting the public of the jurisdiction and theoccupational safety and health of fire department employees. Revise definitions to read as follows: Initial Attack. Fire suppression efforts that are initiated by thefirst arriving fire department unit(s) and continue until one of thefollowing events occurs: 1. The fire is controlled. 2. The fire is not controlled and the initial strategy is changed. 3. Additional resources, beyond the first alarm assignment, aredeployed. Mutual Aid. The response of fire department personnel andequipment to an incident in another jurisdiction to provideassistance to another fire department or public safety agency, inaccordance with a written agreement between or among thejurisdictions. Response Time. The elapsed time from the receipt of an alarmto arrival at the scene of the emergency incident. Response timeincludes the dispatch of apparatus and personnel, turnout andtravel time to the location of the incident. Tactical Hazard. The performance of operations at anemergency incident that present an unusual risk to fire departmentmembers.SUBSTANTIATION: I don’t see anything in the proposedstandard that addresses efficiency. (I looked very closely at everypage.) The rest is editorial. The suggested revisions are intended to provide definitions thatstate their intent more clearly.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-39 (Log #12).
___________________
(Log #1715)1710- 50 - (1-2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Bobby Williams, Spokane Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: Nothing herein is intended to restrict any jurisdiction fromexceeding these minimum requirements recommendations. SUBSTANTIATION: As detailed in the draft appendix text,Section A-2-1.1, “The governing body has the right and shouldassert its authority to set the specific services and the limits ofservices the fire department will provide...”. By establishingminimum requirements rather than minimum recommendations,it appears that the right of the governing body is trying to be takenaway.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-561 (Log #97).
___________________
(Log #2017)1710- 51 - (1-2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept./Rep.Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Nothing herein is intended to restrict any jurisdiction fromexceeding these minimum requirements recommendations .”SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-561 (Log #97).
___________________
(Log #2078)1710- 52 - (1-2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Nothing herein is intended to restrict any jurisdiction fromexceeding these minimum requirements recommendations ”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
255
These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-561 (Log #97).
___________________
(Log #1958)1710- 53 - (1-3): RejectSUBMITTER: Chip Prather, Orange County Fire AuthorityRECOMMENDATION : Delete text as follows: “Definitions” includes buildings having high-hazard materials,processes, or contents. Also included would be high-riskresidential occupancies, neighborhoods with structures in closeproximity to one another, special medical occupancies, and high-rise occupancies.”SUBSTANTIATION: In the definitions, the term, “High HazardOccupancy” is defined. This definition impacts occupancies inalmost every community and first due area in OCFA jurisdiction.These occupancies in later part of standard require increasedstaffing to 5 or 6 people, which is not possible without significantfiscal impact. This proposed requirement does not take intoaccount local codes and standards for life safety, i.e., constructiontype, station location, water supply and staffing issues. Thisdefinition as proposed is too broad .COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee believes that thedefinition is not broad and meets the intent of the standard.
___________________
(Log #1809)1710- 54 - (1-3 Action Taken (New) ): RejectSUBMITTER: Rick Mawhirter, Western Missouri Fire Chiefs Assn.RECOMMENDATION : Add the following definition: Action Taken. The time from initial receipt of alarm to taking apositive action to mitigate the emergency. The time beingmeasured begins at the receipt of alarm at the Public SafetyAnswering Point and includes dispatch of apparatus andpersonnel, turnout of apparatus and personnel, travel time of theapparatus to the address of the emergency, and the travel time ofthe fire fighters to the location of the emergency such as a floor ofa building, the area of a manufacturing plant or at the aisle withinan arena. The time would end when a positive action was takensuch as commencing patient assessment, size-up of a fire, ormitigating a hazardous materials flow. SUBSTANTIATION: The time that it takes to travel to an addressis not as important to measure as the time prior to the firedepartment taking some type of action. Fire departmentdeployment needs to be changed depending upon the type ofhazards being protected. A shorter travel time is needed if an areahas numerous high-rises or large manufacturing plants as opposedto providing protection primarily for single-family residences. Thetime is more effectively measured from the time 9-1-1 rings until afire department arrives at the true location of the emergency andnot stepping off the apparatus onto the sidewalk when they maystill be several minutes away from where they are needed. Theresponse times in the standard should be based on “action taken”rather than “response time.”COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Not a term used in the document.
___________________
(Log #2008)1710- 55 - (1-3 Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF), AirportFire Department Personnel (New) ): Accept in PartSUBMITTER: Don Hilderbrand, Phoenix Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Add new definition to read as follows: Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF). The fire fightingaction taken to prevent, control, or extinguish fire involved oradjacent to an aircraft for the purpose of maintaining maximumescape routes for occupants using normal and emergency routesfor egress. Additionally, ARFF personnel will enter the aircraft toprovide assistance to the extent possible in the evacuation of theoccupants. Although life safety is primary to ARFF personnel,responsibilities such as fuselage integrity and salvage should bemaintained to the extent possible.
Airport Fire Department Personnel. Personnel under theoperational jurisdiction of the chief of the airport fire departmentassigned to aircraft rescue and fire fighting and other functions.SUBSTANTIATION: Many airport fire departments providemulti-service requirements just as municipal departments do. Inaddition to those they must meet other requirements for aircraftrelated incidents. While these requirements for aircraft emergencyincidents are outlined in federal requirements, there is nostandard for response and staffing capabilities. The developmentof this standard should include those ARFF capabilities.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Part.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-517 (Log #2008a).
___________________
(Log #1085)1710- 56 - (1-3 Chief Officer): RejectSUBMITTER: Wayne Waggoner, Tennessee Fire CodeDevelopment CommitteeRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: Senior Responding Chief Officer. A member whose rank isabove that of a company officer, who responds automatically or isdispatched to an alarm beyond the initial attack capabilities, orother special calls. The purpose of their response is to assumecommand, through a formalized transfer of command process,and to allow company officers to directly supervise personnelassigned to them. In some jurisdictions this is the rank of SeniorDivisional Officer (UK Fire Service), District Chief, BattalionChief, Deputy Chief, or Assistant Chief.SUBSTANTIATION: This will allow the department to respondan officer that does not retain the rank of chief. We see norelevance for the referral to the UK Fire Service.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Not a term used in the document.
___________________
(Log #13)1710- 57 - (1-3 Chief Officers): RejectSUBMITTER: Robert Carnahan, Clackamas County Fire Dist. 1Martin Goughnour, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1543)Norman Whiteley, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1568)Randy R. Bruegman, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1637)RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: Chief Officers A member whose rank is above that of a companyofficer, who responds automatically or is dispatched to an alarm.The chief officer may count toward the staffing requirements of anarriving company. Beyond the initial attack capabilities, or otherspecial calls. The purpose of their response is to assumecommand, through a formalized transfer of command process,and to allow company officers to directly supervise personnelassigned to them. In some jurisdictions this is the rank of SeniorDivisional Officer (UK Fire Service), District Chief, BattalionChief, Deputy Chief or Assistant Chief.SUBSTANTIATION: Utilization of the chief officer as the directsupervisor would not be allowed if the standard were adopted asproposed.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee changed thedefinition of chief officers to supervisory chief officers and editedtext.
___________________
(Log #1142)1710- 58 - (1-3 Company (a)): RejectSUBMITTER: Gary F. Duignan, Forestville Fire ProtectionDistrictRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: Under the direct supervision of an officer or person acting in theposition of an officer.SUBSTANTIATION: A fire dept. unit may not always have anofficer on board. It could be an engineer or senior firefighter.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: It is clearly understood for thepurposes of this standard, that there are no differences between anacting, interim or permanent officer.
___________________
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
256
(Log #1758)1710- 59 - (1-3 Company (d)): RejectSUBMITTER: Randy Sheppard, Palm Beach County Fire-RescueRECOMMENDATION : Delete Section (d): (d) Usually operating with one piece of fire apparatus (engine,ladder truck, elevating platform, quint, rescue, spad, ambulanceSUBSTANTIATION: Section (d) as written does not allowdepartments to use two-piece task force deployment approach andsatisfy responsibilities of a company. It does not give credit forfirefighters riding on ALS Rescues to be included within the firecompany definition.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #2)1710- 60 - (1-3 Company (e)): RejectSUBMITTER: L. Charles Smeby, Jr., FL State Fire CollegeRECOMMENDATION : Change Company (e) to read: “Members arriving at the incident scene on fire apparatus.”SUBSTANTIATION: For clarity only.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Already stated in definition.
___________________
(Log #14)1710- 61 - (1-3 Company (e)): RejectSUBMITTER: Robert Carnahan, Clackamas County Fire Dist. 1Martin Goughnour, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1544)Norman Whiteley, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1569)Randy R. Bruegman, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1638)RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: Company (e) Assembling Arriving at the incident scene on fireapparatus. “Company,” as used in this standard, is synonymouswith company unit, response team, crew, and response group,rather than a synonym for a fire department.SUBSTANTIATION: The provision for members to be countedas part of a company who may arrive in a staff vehicle or onanother piece of apparatus should be maintained. A narrowinterpretation of the standard might cause some to think that allmembers must ride the same vehicle to the incident in order to becounted as part of the company.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Not applicable to the standard.
___________________
(Log #1056)1710- 62 - (1-3 Company Officer): RejectSUBMITTER: Wayne Waggoner, Tennessee Fire CodeDevelopment CommitteeRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: Company Officer. A supervisor of a crew/company personnel.this person may be someone appointed in an acting capacity. Therank designation to be determined by the AHJ. structure could beeither sergeant, lieutenant, or captain.SUBSTANTIATION: The titles of rank listed is the rankstructure. This committee believes that titles of rank are alreadyestablished by department and would be subject to change if thisstandard were adopted. The rank designation should bedetermined by the AHJ.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: For the purposes of this standard,the current text is clear.
___________________
(Log #1757)1710- 63 - (1-3 Full Alarm Assignment (New) ): Accept inPrincipleSUBMITTER: Randy Sheppard, Palm Beach County Fire-RescueRECOMMENDATION : Add definition to read as follows: Full Alarm Assignment - Those fire suppression personnel andresources dispatched to the scene of a structural fire emergency.SUBSTANTIATION: Currently, there is no definition for “fullalarm assignment” - and it needs to be limited to confirmedworking structural fires - not every emergency the agency respondsto (i.e., every medical, hazmat, car fire, etc.)
COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Definition for an initial full alarm assignment: “Initial Full AlarmAssignment. Those personnel, equipment and resourcesordinarily dispatched upon notification of a structural fire”.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Definition.
___________________
(Log #1057)1710- 64 - (1-3 Hazardous Area): Accept in PartSUBMITTER: Wayne Waggoner, Tennessee Fire CodeDevelopment CommitteeRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: Hazardous Area. The area where members might be exposed toa hazard s ous atmosphere. A particular substance, device, event,circumstance, or condition that presents a danger to members ofthe fire department.SUBSTANTIATION: Other Items are also factors in a hazardousatmospheres are too numerous to list. So it is left open to coverall items.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Part. The committee deleted the entire definition of hazardous area.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The term is no longer used in thedocument.
___________________
(Log #15)1710- 65 - (1-3 Hazardous Atmosphere): RejectSUBMITTER: Robert Carnahan, Clackamas County Fire Dist. 1Martin Goughnour, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1545)Norman Whiteley, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1570)Randy R. Bruegman, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1639)RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: Hazardous Atmosphere. Any atmosphere that is oxygen deficient<10 percent or that contains a toxic or disease-producingcontaminant. A hazardous atmosphere is may or may not beimmediately dangerous to life and health.SUBSTANTIATION: It is important that definition be clear.What is oxygen deficient at sea level is not at higher elevations. Itis not appropriate to write a rule or standard that has an open end.If there is a known substance that is toxic or disease-producingthen the atmosphere should be so defined. The definition shouldbe a definition not open ended.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The term is no longer used in thedocument.
___________________
(Log #918)1710- 66 - (1-3 High Hazard Occupancy): RejectSUBMITTER: Cleve Rooper, Cannon Beach RFPDRECOMMENDATION : Delete the following text: High Hazard Occupancy. Includes buildings having high hazardmaterials, processes, or contents. Also included would be highrisk residential occupancies, neighborhoods with structures inclose proximity to one another, special medical occupancies, andhigh rise occupancies.SUBSTANTIATION: Definition is unreasonably vague. It couldbe interpreted and applied many different ways. Could not bedefended in court or anywhere else.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-53 (Log #1958).
___________________
(Log #16)1710- 67 - (1-3 Incipient Stage): RejectSUBMITTER: Robert Carnahan, Clackamas County Fire Dist. 1Martin Goughnour, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1546)Norman Whiteley, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1571)Randy R. Bruegman, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1640)RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: Incipient Stage. The initial or beginning stage of a fire that canbe controlled or extinguished by portable fire extinguishers, ClassII standpipe or small 1 1/2 in. hand line hose systems without theneed for protective clothing or breathing apparatus.SUBSTANTIATION: Definition must be provided. 1 1/2 hose isthe smallest type hose line on most fire apparatus in the UnitedStates.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
257
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The term is no longer used in thedocument.
___________________
(Log #1058)1710- 68 - (1-3 Incipient Stage): RejectSUBMITTER: Wayne Waggoner, Tennessee Fire CodeDevelopment CommitteeRECOMMENDATION : Revise the following text: Incipient Stage. The initial or beginning stage of a fire. that canbe controlled or extinguished by portable fire extinguishers, ClassII standpipe or small hose systems without the need for protectiveclothing or breathing apparatus.SUBSTANTIATION: This definition is too general to relate tothe fire service, but does relate well for a definition to the generalpublic.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-67 (Log #16).
___________________
(Log #3)1710- 69 - (1-3 Initial Attack): RejectSUBMITTER: L. Charles Smeby, Jr., FL State Fire CollegeRECOMMENDATION : Change Initial Attack to read: “Firefighting efforts and activities which occur in the timeincrement between the arrival of the fire department on the sceneand either the tactical decision by the Incident Commander thatthe resources dispatched on the original response will beinsufficient to control and extinguish the fire, or the commitmentby 3 or more companies to fire operations.”SUBSTANTIATION: Some fire departments send up to 7companies on a first alarm assignment. Therefore, the InitialAttack for these department would be 7 as compared to thenational average of about 4 (Ref: 1995 Phoenix Fire DepartmentSurvey Results). Therefore, the term "original response" does varyconsiderably depending on local dispatch policies, not necessarythe size or complexity of the emergency.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: For the purposes of this standard,the current text is clear.
___________________
(Log #CP1)1710- 70 - (1-3 Initial Rapid Intervention Team (IRIT)): Accept inPartSUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Fire Service OccupationalSafetyRECOMMENDATION : Change the following definition: Initial Rapid Intervention Team (IRIT). The (2) members ofthe initial attack team who are assigned for the rapid deploymentto rescue lost or trapped members. Change: IRIT to Rapid Intervention Crew as defined in NFPA1500.SUBSTANTIATION: The Technical Committee on Fire ServiceOccupational Safety has used the term Rapid Intervention Crew(RIC) since it’s inception in the 1992 edition of NFPA 1500. Theterm “Crew” is an ICS term and is also used in NFPA 1521 andNFPA 1561. The National Fire Incident Management SystemConsortium has also used this term in the development of the“Model Procedures Guides” published by IFSTA/FPP.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Part. In IRIT and RIT, terms were changed to IRIC and RIC, andteam to crew. Definition will read: Rapid Intervention Crew/Company (RIC). A minimum of twofully equipped personnel on-site, in a ready state, for immediaterescue of injured or trapped personnel.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee agrees with thechange for consistency with other NFPA documents.
___________________
(Log #260)1710- 71 - (1-3 Initial Rapid Intervention Team (IRIT)): Accept inPartSUBMITTER: Mario David Rueda, Los Angeles City Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise the definition to read as follows: Initial Rapid Intervention Team Crew or Company (IRIT)(IRIC) . The two (2) members of the initial attack team companyor crew.
SUBSTANTIATION: Replacing the team terminology withcompany or crew allows consistency with NFPA 1500.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Part.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on 1710-70(Log #CP1).
___________________
(Log #1059)1710- 72 - (1-3 Initial Rapid Intervention Team (IRIT)): Accept inPartSUBMITTER: Wayne Waggoner, Tennessee Fire CodeDevelopment CommitteeRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: Initial Rapid Intervention Team (IRIT). The (2) members ofthe initial attack team who are assigned for the rapid deploymentto rescue lost or trapped members. Rapid Intervention Team (RIT). A dedicated team of (4 2 )personnel who are assigned to rescue trapped or lost members.They report directly to the Incident Commander or OperationsOfficer Chief. This dedicated team is not to be confused with theIRIT.SUBSTANTIATION: This brings it more in line with existingOSHA Standards.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Part.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on 1710-70(Log #CP1).
___________________(Log #17)
1710- 73 - (1-3 Member): RejectSUBMITTER: Robert Carnahan, Clackamas County Fire Dist. 1Martin Goughnour, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1547)Norman Whiteley, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1572)Randy R. Bruegman, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1641)RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: Member. A person who is employed on a full time basis and isinvolved in performing duties and responsibilities of a firedepartment, under the auspices of the organization. A firedepartment member may occupy any position or rank within thefire department, and may or may not must be engage d inemergency operations.SUBSTANTIATION: It is not appropriate to include all supportpersonnel who may be employed by the fire department in thisrule.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.The committee changes the current definition to the definitionused in NFPA 1500 so that it will now read: Member. A person involved in performing the duties andresponsibilities of a fire department under the auspices of theorganization. A fire department member can be a full-time or part-time employee or a paid or unpaid volunteer, can occupy anyposition or rank within the fire department, and can engage inemergency operations.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Consistency with NFPA 1500definition.
___________________(Log #1060)
1710- 74 - (1-3 Member): RejectSUBMITTER: Wayne Waggoner, Tennessee Fire CodeDevelopment CommitteeRECOMMENDATION : Add text to read as follows: Member. A person who is employed on a full time basis and isinvolved in performing the duties and responsibilities of a firedepartment, under the auspices of the organization. A firedepartment member may be a full-time or part-time employee,may occupy any position or rank within the fire department, andmay or may not engage in emergency operations. A firedepartment member may occupy any position or rank within thefire department, and may or may not engage in emergencyoperations.SUBSTANTIATION: This standard should address part time andon call employees.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.The committee changes the current definition to the definitionused in NFPA 1500 so that it will now read: Member. A person involved in performing the duties andresponsibilities of a fire department under the auspices of theorganization. A fire department member can be a full-time or part-time employee or a paid or unpaid volunteer, can occupy anyposition or rank within the fire department, and can engage inemergency operations.
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
258
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Consistency with NFPA 1500definition.
___________________
(Log #18)1710- 75 - (1-3 Metro Department (New) ): RejectSUBMITTER: Robert Carnahan, Clackamas County Fire Dist. 1Martin Goughnour, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1548)Norman Whiteley, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1573)Randy R. Bruegman, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1642)RECOMMENDATION : Add new text to read as follows: Metro Department. A metro fire department is any departmentthat has 400 or more full time career combat fire fighters. SUBSTANTIATION: Metro size departments are defined forIAFC and National Fire Academy purposes. These departmentshave historically had the highest fire risk (large, older buildings)and risk to fire fighters, the incident history to warrant therequirements of this standard and the largest fire losses.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The term is no longer used in thedocument.
___________________
(Log #4)1710- 76 - (1-3 Mutual Aid): RejectSUBMITTER: L. Charles Smeby, Jr., FL State Fire CollegeRECOMMENDATION : Delete Mutual Aid and add the languageto the definition of Automatic Aid.SUBSTANTIATION: Both definitions talk about the same item.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The terms are completely different.
___________________
(Log #1842)1710- 77 - (1-3 Mutual Aid): RejectSUBMITTER: Peter R. Lucarelli, Bellevue Fire Department, WARECOMMENDATION : Revise definition to read as follows: Mutual Aid. A written policy or agreement contract to allow forthe deployment of personnel and equipment to a specific an alarmin another jurisdiction, when requested by the jurisdiction needingassistance and approved by the jurisdiction receiving the request. This may is be part of the written deployment criteria, for responseto alarms, as dispatched by a communication center. (See alsoautomatic aid.)SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed definition for mutual aiddoes not reflect the general practice of the fire service in theutilization of mutual aid. Mutual Aid is usually a reciprocalagreement between jurisdictions that allows for the request andapproval of resources for a specific incident that has/mayoverwhelm the fire resources of another jurisdiction.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: For the purposes of this standard,the current text is clear.
___________________
(Log #1061)1710- 78 - (1-3 Offensive Operations): RejectSUBMITTER: Wayne Waggoner, Tennessee Fire CodeDevelopment CommitteeRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: Offensive Operations. Actions that involve a direct attack on afire to directly control and extinguish the fire, only typically performed in the interior of involved structures.SUBSTANTIATION: Offensive operations are not limited tointerior attack.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.The committee deletes the definition from the current text.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The term is no longer used in thedocument.
___________________
(Log #5)1710- 79 - (1-3 Officer): RejectSUBMITTER: L. Charles Smeby, Jr., FL State Fire CollegeRECOMMENDATION : Change the second sentence in thedefinition of Officer to read: “This person maybe someone appointed in an acting capacitythat has met all the requirements for the position but has not beenpromoted or appointed.”
SUBSTANTIATION: There should not be any persons who arenot at least qualified to be an officer in an acting position:Reference NFPA 1500. 3-2.5 All fire officers shall at least meet the requirements for FireOfficer I as specified in NFPA 1021, Standard for Fire OfficerProfessional Qualifications. 6-3.3.4 Where assigned as a company, members shall beresponsible to remain under the supervision of their assignedcompany officer.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: For the purposes of this standard,the current text is clear.
___________________
(Log #1062)1710- 80 - (1-3 Officer): RejectSUBMITTER: Wayne Waggoner, Tennessee Fire CodeDevelopment CommitteeRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: Officer. A supervisor of a crew/company personnel whetherpermanently assigned in this role or This person may be someoneappointed in an acting capacity. The rank structure could beeither sergeant, lieutenant, or captain.SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed language eliminates theambiguous terms listed as unusable in the Manual of Style Table2.2.2.3.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: For the purposes of this standard,the current text is clear.
___________________
(Log #1716)1710- 81 - (1-3 Officer): RejectSUBMITTER: Bobby Williams, Spokane Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise definition to read as follows: Officer. A supervisor of a crew/company personnel. Thisperson may be someone appointed in an acting capacity. The rankstructure In some jurisdictions this is the rank of could be eithersergeant, lieutenant, or captain.SUBSTANTIATION: As written, the rank structure restrictsjurisdictions to one of the three options (sergeant, lieutenant orcaptain) when there may be a number of different titles used.Proposed wording is the same concept used in the definition ofChief Officer, which gives the jurisdiction the flexibility of usingthe title, they wish to.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: For the purposes of this standard,the current text is clear.
___________________
(Log #1720)1710- 82 - (1-3 Operational Response Criteria (New) ): RejectSUBMITTER: Bobby Williams, Spokane Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Add a definition for “operationalresponse criteria”.SUBSTANTIATION: The term “operational response criteria” isused throughout Section 2-2. Some clarity should be provided asto the intent of the wording.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.Where the term “operational response criteria” is used, change to“criteria”.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee believes that thischange will eliminate any confusing terms.
___________________
(Log #373)1710- 83 - (1-3 Public Fire Department): RejectSUBMITTER: Richard K. Stiles, Hanford Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Add the word “industrial” to Public FireDepartment definition. To include private-industrial firedepartments.SUBSTANTIATION: Some AHJs may designate their private firedepartments as “industrial” to escape applicability of the standard.Adding the word “Industrial” to this definition would assureinclusion of such fire departments in the NFPA 1710 standard.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The term industrial is beyond thescope of this standard.
___________________
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
259
(Log #2305)1710- 84 - (1-3 Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP)): RejectSUBMITTER: James Farrell, Skokie Fire Dept., ILRECOMMENDATION : Revise text: Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) "911 calls" should bechanged to "alarms".SUBSTANTIATION: See definition of Alarm in 1-3 of theproposal. A PSAP may receive alarms in a variety of ways not just911 calls.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Consistency with NFPA 1221definition.
___________________
(Log #19)1710- 85 - (1-3 Rapid Intervention team (RIT)): Accept in PartSUBMITTER: Robert Carnahan, Clackamas County Fire Dist. 1Martin Goughnour, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1549)Norman Whiteley, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1574)Randy R. Bruegman, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1643)RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: Rapid Intervention Team (RIT). A dedicated team of (4)personnel who are assigned to rescue trapped or lost members.They report directly to the Incident Commander or OperationsChief. This dedicated team is not to be confused with the IRIT.SUBSTANTIATION: The use of the word dedicated isredundant. The RIT is defined in the Respiratory Protection Act.Identifying 4 personnel is not necessary here.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Part. Keep the definition for IRIC, and use NFPA 1500 definition forRIC.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The definition of IRIC is neededand the committee believes the current text definition is clear.RIC definition is used for consistency with NFPA 1500.
___________________
(Log #264)1710- 86 - (1-3 Rapid Intervention Team (RIT)): Accept in PartSUBMITTER: Mario David Rueda, Los Angeles City Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise definition to read as follows: “Rapid Intervention Team (RIT) Crew or Company (RIC) . Adedicated team of at least (4) personnel...”.SUBSTANTIATION: Replacing the term team with company orcrew allows consistency with NFPA 1500. Inserting the words “atleast” permits (5) or (6) member crews or companies for rapidintervention and does not limit a company to (4).COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Part.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-85 (Log #19).
___________________(Log #1063)
1710- 87 - (1-3 Rapid Intervention Team (RIT)): Accept in PartSUBMITTER: Wayne Waggoner, Tennessee Fire CodeDevelopment CommitteeRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: Rapid Intervention Team (RIT). A dedicated team of (4 2 )personnel who are assigned to rescue trapped or lost members.They report directly to the Incident Commander or Operationsofficer Chief. This dedicated team is not to be confused with theIRIT.SUBSTANTIATION: Members of the RIT Team should be thesame as what is required in the OSHA 2 in and 2 out rule. TheRIT Team shall report to the IC and or the Operations officer tobe consistent with NFPA 1561.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Part.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-85 (Log #19).
___________________(Log #1717)
1710- 88 - (1-3 Rapid Intervention Team (RIT)): Accept in PartSUBMITTER: Bobby Williams, Spokane Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise definition to read as follows: Rapid Intervention Team (RIT). A dedicated team of (4) (2) ormore personnel who are assigned for the rapid deployment torescue trapped or lost or trapped members. They report directlyto the Incident Commander or Operations Chief. This dedicatedteam is not to be confused with the IRIT.SUBSTANTIATION: The wording dealing with the responsibilityof the RIT should be the same as in the definition of IRIT. Thedifference between IRIT and RIT should be based upon from
where the assignment is made. For a IRIT, assignment is from theinitial attack team, whereas for RIT it can be from any resourceson the scene. Increasing the number of personnel assigned to RITshould be up to the discretion of the IC based on conditions.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Part.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-85 (Log #19).
___________________
(Log #1759)1710- 89 - (1-3 Rapid Intervention Team (RIT)): Accept in PartSUBMITTER: Randy Sheppard, Palm Beach County Fire-RescueRECOMMENDATION : RIT - A dedicated team of (4) two (2)personnel who are assigned to rescue trapped or lost members.They report directly to the Incident Commander or OperationsChief. This dedicated team is not to be confused with the IRIT.SUBSTANTIATION: There is no justification for a four-memberRapid Intervention Team. A more flexible approach would be atwo-person RIT and a standard which calls for an appropriatenumber of teams based on the number of personnel involved ininterior firefighting and the complexity of the fire scenario.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Part.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-85 (Log #19).
___________________
(Log #2308)1710- 90 - (1-3 Rapid Intervention Team (RIT)): Accept in PartSUBMITTER: James Farrell, Skokie Fire Dept., ILRECOMMENDATION : Revise text: Rapid Intervention Team (RIT). A rapid intervention team shallconsist of at least two members and shall be available for rescue ofa member or a team if the need arises. Rapid intervention teamsshall be fully equipped with the appropriate protective clothing,protective equipment, SCBA, and any specialized rescueequipment that might be needed given the specifics of theoperation under way.SUBSTANTIATION: The definition of an RIT in this documentdoes not correspond to the one used in NFPA 1500 6-5.2 which isreferenced by NFPA 1710. This definition will bring the twodocuments into agreement. NFPA 1500 6-5.2 A rapid intervention crew shall consist of atleast two members and shall be available for rescue of a memberor a team if the need arises. Rapid intervention crews shall be fullyequipped with the appropriate protective clothing, protectiveequipment, SCBA, and any specialized rescue equipment thatmight be needed given the specifics of the operation under way.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Part.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-85 (Log #19).
___________________
(Log #21)1710- 91 - (1-3 Receipt of Alarm): RejectSUBMITTER: Robert Carnahan, Clackamas County Fire Dist. 1Martin Goughnour, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1551)Norman Whiteley, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1576)Randy R. Bruegman, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1645)RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: Receipt of Alarm. The point where sufficient information isknown to the dispatcher and has been transmitted to deployapplicable units for deployment to the emergency.SUBSTANTIATION: The response time “clock” should not beginprior to the caller transmitting the necessary information forpurposes of this standard. This standard relates to firedepartments and should confine its requirements to those tasksthat they have control over. The call-handling portion althoughvery important should be addressed in NFPA 1221.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The term is no longer used in thedocument.
___________________
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
260
(Log #20)1710- 92 - (1-3 Response Time): RejectSUBMITTER: Robert Carnahan, Clackamas County Fire Dist. 1Martin Goughnour, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1550)Norman Whiteley, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1575)Randy R. Bruegman, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1644)RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: Response Time. The time from initial receipt of alarm to arrivalat the scene of an emergency incident. Response time begins atthe receipt of alarm at the public safety access point and includesdispatch of apparatus and personnel and include the turnout time of apparatus and personnel, and travel time to the emergency.SUBSTANTIATION: Response time should be described in afashion that includes specific event that occur once a call is made.Each of the events listed in the definition is critical and defined inthe other proposed definitions associated with this submital.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.The committee rewrote the required definitions.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-288 (Log #1073).
___________________
(Log #1523)1710- 93 - (1-3 Response Time): RejectSUBMITTER: Bruce J. Moeller, Sunrise Fire-Rescue/City ofSunriseRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: Response Time. The time from initial completed receipt ofalarm to arrival at the scene of an emergency incident. Responsetime begins at the completed receipt of alarm at the public safetyaccess answering point and includes dispatch of apparatus andpersonnel, turnout of apparatus and personnel, and travel time tothe emergency incident.SUBSTANTIATION: The use of term “initial” receipt is unclear.The term completed receipt of alarm is consistent with NFPA1221-1999, Section 4-3.1.(3) and appears consistent with theCommittee’s intent as demonstrated by the definition in Section 1-3 Receipt of Alarm, a “point where sufficient information is knownto the dispatcher to deploy...” This revision will further clarify theintent that the time from 9-1-1 phone answering until “dispatch ofthe emergency response agency” will not include the maximum of60 seconds permitted under NFPA 1221-1999, Section 4-3.1(3). The use of public safety answering point is consistent with thelanguage in 1-3 Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP).COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-92 (Log #20).
___________________
(Log #1718)1710- 94 - (1-3 Response Time): RejectSUBMITTER: Bobby Williams, Spokane Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: Response Time. The time from initial receipt of alarm to arrivalat the scene of an emergency incident. Response time begins atthe receipt of alarm at the public safety access point (including all9-1-1 processing time) and includes dispatch of apparatus andpersonnel, turnout of apparatus and personnel, and travel time tothe emergency incident.SUBSTANTIATION: The draft text does not make it clear that all9-1-1 processing time is included in response time. The proposedtext clarifies that point. If it is not the intent to include all 9-1-1processing time in response time, then that fact needs to beclarified.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-92 (Log #20).
___________________
(Log #1959)1710- 95 - (1-3 Response Time): RejectSUBMITTER: Chip Prather, Orange County Fire AuthorityRECOMMENDATION : Revise definition as follows: Response Time. The time from initial receipt of alarm to arrivalat the scene of an emergency incident. Response time begins atthe receipt of alarm at the public safety access point and includesdispatch of apparatus and personnel, turnout of apparatus andpersonnel, and travel time to emergency incident.
SUBSTANTIATION: The issue of whether time in emergencycommunications center (ECC) to receive the 911 call and processthe information as being part of the response time will never be anissue as the standard clearly states it is and ultimately is included inthe unrealistic four minute criteria .COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-92 (Log #20).
___________________
(Log #2304)1710- 96 - (1-3 Response Time): RejectSUBMITTER: James Farrell, Skokie Fire Dept., ILRECOMMENDATION : Revise text: Response Time. The time from initial receipt of alarm to arrivalat the scene of an emergency incident. Response time begins at thereceipt of alarm at the public safety answering point (PSAP) andincludes Alarm Processing Time, Turnout Time, and Travel Time.SUBSTANTIATION: The three times (Alarm Processing Time,Turnout Time, and Travel Time) should also be defined toeliminate confusionCOMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-92 (Log #20).
___________________
(Log #1177)1710- 97 - (1-3 Target Hazards): RejectSUBMITTER: Richard W. Duncanson, Middletown Fire Dept.,NYRECOMMENDATION : Add definition to read as follows: Target hazards. A target hazard is a particular building, structureor location that presents a significant challenge to emergencyresponders. Target hazards are determined by the authority havingjurisdiction based upon, but not limited to, the occupancylocation, special conditions and the available resources.SUBSTANTIATION: No current definition is in the Standard.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The term is no longer used in thedocument.
___________________
(Log #22)1710- 98 - (1-3 Travel Time (New) ): RejectSUBMITTER: Robert Carnahan, Clackamas County Fire Dist. 1Martin Goughnour, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1552)Norman Whiteley, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1577)Randy R. Bruegman, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1646)RECOMMENDATION : Add text to read as follows: Travel Time. The point at which units are en-route to the call.When responding from a fixed facility. Total travel time beginswith this initial time point and ends with the on-scene time. Whenconducting simulated analysis travel time is based on 35 mphaverage or 53.1 ft/second. SUBSTANTIATION: This definition further defines travel timeand uses a national accepted standard to measure it by.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-92 (Log #20).
___________________
(Log #2302)1710- 99 - (1-3 Travel Time (New) ): RejectSUBMITTER: James Farrell, Skokie Fire Dept., ILRECOMMENDATION : Add new text: Travel Time. The time interval from the point at whichemergency responders start in route to an alarm until they arrive atthe scene of the incident.SUBSTANTIATION: This is one of the three parts of ResponseTime and needs to be defined.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-92 (Log #20).
___________________
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
261
(Log #23)1710- 100 - (1-3 Turnout Time (New) ): RejectSUBMITTER: Robert Carnahan, Clackamas County Fire Dist. 1Martin Goughnour, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1553)Norman Whiteley, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1578)Randy R. Bruegman, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1647)RECOMMENDATION : Add text to read as follows: Turnout Time. The time point at which responding unitsacknowledge receipt of the call from the dispatch center, totalturnout time begins at this point and ends with beginning of traveltime. For fully staffed fire stations the bench mark is 60 secondsbetween 0700 and 2200 and 90 seconds between 2200 and 0700. SUBSTANTIATION: It is inappropriate to include in responsetime the call handling time at a dispatch center. Chapter 4Communication System defines and stipulates the NFPA 1221applies.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-92 (Log #20).
___________________
(Log #2303)1710- 101 - (1-3 Turnout Time (New) ): RejectSUBMITTER: James Farrell, Skokie Fire Dept., ILRECOMMENDATION : Add new text: Turnout Time. The time interval from the point at whichemergency responders acknowledge the receipt of an alarm untilthey start in route to the alarm.SUBSTANTIATION: This is one of the three parts of ResponseTime and needs to be defined.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-92 (Log #20).
___________________
(Log #354)1710- 102 - (1-3 Various Definitions): RejectSUBMITTER: Carl Brumund, Marion County Fire District #1RECOMMENDATION : Revise the following definitions: Chief Officers. A member whose rank is above that of a companyofficer, who responds automatically or is dispatched to an alarm.The chief officer may count toward the staffing requirements of anarriving company. Beyond the initial attack capabilities, or otherspecial calls. The purpose of their response is to assumecommand, through a formalized transfer of command process, andto allow company officers to directly supervise personnel assignedto them. In some jurisdictions this is the rank of Senior DivisionalOfficer (UK Fire service), District Chief, Battalion Chief, DeputyChief or Assistant Chief. Company. (e) Assembling at the incident scene on fire apparatus.“Company” as used in this standard, is synonymous with companyunit, response team, crew, and response group, rather than asynonym for a fire department. Hazardous Atmosphere. Any atmosphere that is oxygen deficient,less than 10 percent, or that contains a toxic or disease-producingcontaminant. A hazardous atmosphere is may or may not beimmediately dangerous to life and health. Incipient Stage. The initial or beginning stage of a fire than canbe controlled or extinguished by portable fire extinguishers, ClassII standpipe or small 1-1/2 in. hand line hose systems without theneed for protective clothing or breathing apparatus. Member. A person who is employed on a full time basis and isinvolved in performing duties and responsibilities of a firedepartment, under the auspices of the organization. A firedepartment member may occupy any position or rank within thefire department, and may or may not must be engage d inemergency operations. Metro Department. A Metro fire department is any departmentthat has 400 or more full-time career combat firefighters. Rapid Intervention Team (RIT). A dedicated team of (4)personnel who are assigned to rescue trapped or lost members.They report directly to the Incident Commander or OperationsChief. This dedicated team is not to be confused with the IRIT. Response Time. The time from initial receipt of alarm to arrivalat the scene of an emergency incident. Response time begins at thereceipt of alarm at the public safety access point and includesdispatch of apparatus and personnel and include the turnout time of apparatus and personnel, and travel time to the emergency.
Receipt of Alarm. The point where sufficient information isknown to the dispatcher and has been transmitted to deployapplicable units for deployment to the emergency. Travel Time. The point at which units are enroute to the call.When responding from a fixed facility. Total travel time beginswith this initial time point and ends with the on-scene time. Whenconducting simulated analysis travel time is based on 35 mphaverage or 53.1 ft/sec. Turnout Time. The time point at which responding unitsacknowledge receipt of the call from the dispatch center, totalturnout time begins at this point and ends with beginning of traveltime. For fully staffed fire stations the bench mark is 60 secbetween 0700 and 2200 and 90 sec between 2200 and 0700. SUBSTANTIATION: Chief Officers. Utilization of the chiefofficer as the direct supervisor would not be allowed if the standardwere adopted as proposed. Company. (e) The provision for members to be counted as partof a company who may arrive in a staff vehicle or on another pieceof apparatus should be maintained. A narrow interpretation of thestandard might cause some to think that all members must ride thesame vehicle to the incident in order to be counted as part of thecompany. Hazardous Atmosphere. It is important that definition be clear.What is oxygen deficient at sea level is not at higher elevations. It isnot appropriate to write a rule or standard that has an open end.If there is a known substance that is toxic or disease-producingthen the atmosphere should be so defined. The definition shouldbe a definition not open ended. Incipient State. Definition must be provided. 1-1/2 in. hose isthe smallest type hose line on most fire apparatus in the UnitedStates. Member. It is not appropriate to include all support personnelwho may employed by the fire department in this rule. Rapid Intervention Team (RIT). The use of the word“dedicated” is redundant. The RIT is defined in the RespiratoryProtection Act. Identifying 4 personnel is not necessary here. Response Time. It is inappropriate to include in response timethe call handling time at a dispatch center. Chapter 4Communication System defines and stipulates the NFPA 1221applies.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See actions taken on definitions nowincluded in Chapter 3. However, the following definitions are notused in the document. Metro Department, Travel Time andTurnout time.
___________________
(Log #1827)1710- 103 - (1-3 Various Definitions): RejectSUBMITTER: J. Gordon Routley, Champlain, NYRECOMMENDATION : Revise definitions to read as follows: “Advanced Life Support (ALS). Performance of emergencymedical service functions at a level that includes advanced airwaymanagement...” “Basic Life Support (BLS). Performance of emergency medicalservice functions at a level the includes basic airwaymanagement,...” Chief Officer. A member whose rank is above that of companyofficer. (Delete the rest of the definition.) “First Responder. Performance of emergency medical servicefunctions at a level that includes initial assessment...” Hazardous Area. The area where members are or could beexposed to a hazardous atmosphere or to a substance, device,event, circumstance, or condition that presents a physical danger. Hazardous Occupancy. A building or premises that has thepotential to expose fire department members to unusual hazards,such as hazardous materials, industrial processes, highly flammablecontents or possible structural collapse. High Risk Occupancy. A building or premises that presents anunusual risk to it’s occupants or to the general public or presentsunusual demands in relation to rescue, fire suppression and othersuppression and other emergency service functions performed bythe fire department.SUBSTANTIATION:COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The current text for ALS and BLSdefinitions is applicable to the standard of care required by thedocument. The proposed changes for these items would diminishthat care. Other definitions already addressed, see actions taken ondefinitions now in Chapter 3.
___________________
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
262
(Log #281a)1710- 104 - (1-3 Wildland (New) ): RejectSUBMITTER: Thomas J. Cuff, Jr., The Firemen's Assn. of theState of NYRECOMMENDATION : Add a new definition to read as follows: Wildland. (Use definition from Wildland Standard). SUBSTANTIATION: Due to the unique operations and risksinvolved in wildland firefighting and the number of firedepartments involved in it, the subject should be included.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: No text proposed. See CommitteeAction and Statement on Proposal 1710-522 (Log #281).
___________________
(Log #1719)1710- 105 - (1-3 Working Structural Fire): RejectSUBMITTER: Bobby Williams, Spokane Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: Working Structural Fire. Any structural fire beyond incipientstage is considered to be a working structural fire that requires theuse of a 1 1/2 in. or larger fire attack hose line and that alsorequires the use of self-contained breathing apparatus for membersentering the hazardous area .SUBSTANTIATION: The proposal utilizes the definition fromNFPA 1500 for consistency among documents.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.Delete definition of working structural fire.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Term no longer used in document.
___________________(Log #556)
1710- 106 - (Chapter 2 and 3): RejectSUBMITTER: Bruce Holloway, Spokane County Fire Dist.#3/Rep. WA State of Assn. of Fire ChiefsRECOMMENDATION : Delete 3-2.2 and all subsections; delete 3-3.4.3.2 and 3-3.4.3.3; amend 2-1.1.1 and 2-3.2.1 to delete referenceto the criteria sections deleted; amend 3-2.1.2.1 to delete referenceto 3-2.2 and 3-2.3.SUBSTANTIATION: These specific standards are inconsistentwith the scope and purpose in Chapter 1 and the process of localcontrol as defined in Chapter 2. All such specific standards shouldbe defined by local need and resources through the processdescribed in Chapter 2, 3-2.1 provides guidance.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The document is a minimumstandard. Mandatory text is consistent with the scope of thestandard. The adoption or non-adoption of this standard isdecided by the AHJ on the local level.
___________________
(Log #560)1710- 107 - (Chapters 2, 3, 4, and 5): RejectSUBMITTER: Bruce Holloway, Spokane County Fire Dist.#3/Rep. WA State of Assn. of Fire ChiefsRECOMMENDATION : In Chapters 2, 3, 4, and 5, delete shall andinsert should in all locations. In Chapter 5, delete mandatory andinsert recommended in Section 5-1.SUBSTANTIATION: The use of “shall” and “mandatory” areinconsistent with the scope and purpose stated in Chapter 1, see1-1.1, 1-2.1, and the definitions of “shall” and “should in Section1-3.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-106 (Log #556).
___________________
(Log #98)1710- 108 - (Chapters 2 and 3): RejectSUBMITTER: Dwight B. Van Zanen, Maple Valley Fire and LifeSafety/Rep. King County Fire Protection Dist. #43RECOMMENDATION : Delete 3-2.2 and all subsections; deletesubsection 3-3.4.3.2 and 3-3.4.3.3; amend 2-1.1.1 and 2-3.2.1 todelete reference to the criteria sections deleted; amend 3-2.1.2.1 todelete reference to 3-2.2 and 3-2.3.
SUBSTANTIATION: These specific standards are inconsistentwith the scope and purpose in Chapter One, and the process oflocal control as defined in Chapter Two. All such specificstandards should be defined by local need and resources throughthe process described in Chapter Two, Section 3-2.1 providesguidance.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-106 (Log #556).
___________________
(Log #2018)1710- 109 - (2-1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept./Rep.Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The authority having jurisdiction shall should maintain a writtenstatement...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The document is a minimumstandard. Mandatory text is consistent with the scope of thestandard.
___________________
(Log #2079)1710- 110 - (2-1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The authority having jurisdiction shall should maintain a writtenstatement...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #723)1710- 111 - (2-1.1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Marquam R. Johnson, Torrington Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Fire department organizational statement shall set forth thepercentages of incidents and geographical area along with theirrespective initial and full assignment response times.”SUBSTANTIATION: Leave times and percentages to intelligent,informed local decision. “Force” audit as required in 2-1.1.2.1 toassure “informed decision”.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-112 (Log #1819).
___________________
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
263
(Log #1819)1710- 112 - (2-1.1.1): Accept in Principle in PartSUBMITTER: J. Gordon Routley, Champlain, NYRECOMMENDATION : Delete all of 2-1.1.1 through 2-1.1.2.1 asproposed, as well as 3-2.3.1.1, 3-2.3.2.1, and Section 3-3.4.3 andsubstitute the following: 2-1.2* The fire department organizational statement shall includeservice delivery objectives. These objectives shall include specificresponse time objectives for each major service component andobjectives for the percentage of responses that meet the responsetime objectives. 2-1.2.1 The fire department shall establish response timeobjectives of: (a) 4 minutes (240 seconds) or less for the arrival of the firstarriving engine company at a structure fire. (b) 8 minutes (480 seconds) or less for the deployment of a fullfirst alarm assignment at a structure fire. (c) 4 minutes (240 seconds) or less for the arrival of a unit withFirst Responder or higher level capability at an emergency medicalincident. (d) 8 minutes (480 seconds) or less for the arrival of anAdvanced Life Support unit at an emergency medical incident,where this service is provided by the fire department. 2-1.2.2 The fire department shall establish a performanceobjective of not less than 80 percent for the achievement of eachresponse time objective specified in 2-1.2.1. 2-1.2.3 The fire department shall measure it’s level of service inmeeting the response time objectives and produce acomprehensive audit report, at least annually. This report shallprovide data relating to the achievement of each response timeobjective in each geographic area within the jurisdiction of the firedepartment. 2-1.2.4 The Fire Chief shall, at least annually, provide a writtenreport to the authority having jurisdiction, referring to the auditreport required by 2-1.2.3, explaining any deficiencies in meetingthe performance objectives. This report shall define thegeographic areas and/or circumstances in which the objectives arenot being met. This report shall also explain the predictableconsequences of these deficiencies and address the steps that arenecessary to achieve compliance. Appendix A-2-1.2 The response time objectives and performance levelsspecified 2-1.2.1 and 2-1.2.2 are appropriate for an urban area.Where fire departments serve remote areas, rural areas or otherareas where these response times and performance levels are notfeasible, the authority having jurisdiction should determine andadopt more suitable objectives.SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed language for this section isdifficult to interpret, particularly when it refers back and forth toseveral different sections. The document should be clear andspecific and should not cause the user to become frustrated intrying to understand the requirements. All of the requirementsrelating to response time objectives should be incorporated intoone section and clearly stated. The 90 percent performance level specified in 2-1.1.2.1 will bevirtually impossible to achieve for the vast majority of firedepartments. Even if a fire department has all of the resources thatwould be needed to be able to arrive at every geographic locationin the jurisdiction within 4 minutes, 90 percent is an extremely highperformance expectation, considering simultaneous calls, trafficconditions, inclement weather and other circumstances. Allowingfor the reality that most fire departments are responsible for somegeographic areas that are difficult to reach, an 80 percentperformance level for meeting the response time objectives is muchmore realistic. The suggested language would allow a jurisdiction to set fasterresponse time objectives and higher performance levelexpectations. The appendix note recognizes that differentobjectives should be adopted in jurisdictions or parts ofjurisdictions where the 4 and 8 minute response time objectives arenot feasible.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle in Part. 2-1.1.1 (A) is the old (a) and (b) combined. (B) is the old (c). (C) is the old (d). Accept 2-1.2 as proposed. Amend 2-1.2.1 (a) and (b) to read: (a) 4 minutes (240) seconds) or less for the arrival of the firstarriving engine company at a fire suppression incident and/or 8minutes (480 seconds) or less for the deployment of a full firstalarm assignment at a fire suppression incident. Renumber (c) to(b) and (d) to (c). Amend 2-1.2.2 by changing 80 percent to 90 percent.
Amend 2-1.2.3 to read “The fire department shall evaluate their level of service anddeployment delivery and response time objectives on an annualbasis. The evaluations shall be based on data relating to level ofservice, deployment and the achievement of each response timeobjective in each geographic area within the jurisdiction of the firedepartment.” Amend 2-1.2.4 to read: “Based on the annual evaluations, the fire department shallprovide a written report to the authority having jurisdiction, basedon the annual evaluations required by 2-1.2.3 on a quadrennialbasis. The quadrennial report shall define the geographic areasand/or circumstances in which the requirements of this standardare not being met. This report shall also explain the predictableconsequences of these deficiencies and address the steps that arenecessary to achieve compliance.” Delete proposed A-2-1.2 Do not delete 3-2.3.1.1, 3-2.3.2.1 and Section 3-3.4.3.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts thesubstantiation provided by the commentator, however editorialchanges were made. The appendix item was deleted since it didnot provide explanatory text. The committee allowed the proposeddeletions in Chapter 3 to remain for clarity.
___________________(Log #1843)
1710- 113 - (2-1.1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Eisner, Bellevue Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : The Fire Department organizationalstatement shall set forth the percentage of incidents andgeographical areas for which the response time criteria establishedby the local jurisdiction required by 3-2.3.1.1 for fire suppressionand 3-3.4.3.2 and 3-3.4.3.2.1 for emergency medical services isachieved.SUBSTANTIATION: All fire suppression and emergency medicalservices resources shall be deployed as defined by the localjurisdiction.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-112 (Log #1819).
___________________(Log #2019)
1710- 114 - (2-1.1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept./Rep.Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department organizational statement shall should setforth the percentage of incidents and geographical areas for whichthe response time criteria required recommended by 3-2.3.1.1for...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________(Log #2080)
1710- 115 - (2-1.1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department organizational statement shall should setforth the percentage of incidents and geographical areas for whichthe response time criteria required recommended by 3-2.3.1.1for...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
264
(Log #1806)1710- 116 - (2-1.1.1, 3-2.2, 3-2.3, 3-3.4): RejectSUBMITTER: Rick Frye, Hurst Fire Dept., TXRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: Section 2-1.1.1 Based on the audit, the fire chief shall provide awritten report to the authority having jurisdiction describing thereason(s) and the anticipated consequence(s) concerning levels ofservice to the jurisdiction for those incidents or geographical areasin which the criteria set forth in 2-1.1.1 cannot be met ninety (90)percent of the time. This report shall address the necessary stepsto achieve full compliance...This is designed to add drastically tothe unemployment of fire chiefs. A fire chief that goes back yearafter year to point out deficiencies in service to the “jurisdictionhaving authority” will not last very long before he/she is replacedby someone willing to ignore NFPA standards altogether. Thiscannot be the objective of such standards. Compliance should begained on the merit of the standards themselves. Standards writtenwithout the basis of being anchored with a degree of universalcompliance and acceptance are destined to be ignored andviolated. Why should we pass standards that a very large portion ofthe fire service do not and cannot meet because of financial andpolitical constraints. Section 3-2.2.1 Fire companies whose primary functions are topump and deliver water and perform basic fire fighting at firesincluding search and rescue shall be known as engine companies.These Companies shall be staffed with a minimum of four (4) onduty personnel. In jurisdictions where tactical hazards and high-hazard occupancies are identified, these companies shall be staffedwith a minimum of five (5) or six (6) on-duty personnel...Idisagree with the minimum staffing for engine company staffing offour (4). Two in Two Out covers the safety issue with aperformance standard. The performance based standard allowscommunities and fire chiefs to divide their personnel resourcesbetween what apparatus bests fits the needs of the community, andalso provides for fire ground safety. This proposal adds anotherunnecessary layer of mandates to a safety matter already addressed. Section 3-2.2.2 The above argument applies here also. Section 3-2.3.1.1 The fire department’s fire suppression resourcesshall be deployed to provide for the arrival for an engine companywithin a four (4) minutes and/or the full initial alarm assignmentwithin an eight (8) minute response time to ninety (90) percent ofthe incidents as established in Section 2-1....This response time is agreat target, but the reality is that with traffic congestion, growth,and other uncontrollable factors, four (4) minutes is a stretch formost communities. Accurate dispatch and arrival time recording isalso a problem for many dispatch centers with limitedtechnological capabilities. The next step might be to mandate veryexpensive computer aided dispatch centers, the number of on dutydispatchers, or separate fire, police, and EMS dispatchers. Section 3-2.3.2.2 The first alarm assignment shall provide for thefollowing...The provisions for first full alarm assignment soundgreat, but many communities do not have thirteen (13) or fourteen(14) firefighters available for a first alarm response. Communitiesof limited resources will only find themselves in a position to be inviolation of one more standards for the attorneys to file suit aboutin the event of fire ground problems. Section 3-2.3.3 The fire department shall have the capability foradditional alarm assignments that can provide fro additionalpersonnel and additional services... This again is a noble idea, butmany communities, that do not have neighboring communities in areasonable distance, will be unable to comply and will be inviolation without the hope of ever being capable of meeting thisstandard. Section 3-3.4.3.2 The fire department’s emergency medicalservices for providing First Responder with AED shall be deployedto provide for the arrival of a First Responder with AED within afour (4) minute response time in ninety (90) percent of theincidents as established in Section 2-1...Again this is a great target.The reality is that with traffic congestion, growth, anduncontrollable factors, four (4) minutes is a stretch for mostcommunities. Accurate dispatch and arrival time recording is alsoa problem for many dispatch centers with limited technologicalcapabilities. The next step might be to mandate very expensivecomputer aided dispatch centers, the number of on dutydispatchers, or separate fire, police, and EMS dispatchers.SUBSTANTIATION: None.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-112 (Log #1819).
___________________
(Log #2020)1710- 117 - (2-1.1.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept./Rep.Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department shall should audit their level of service anddeployment delivery on an annual basis”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2081)1710- 118 - (2-1.1.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department shall should audit their level of service anddeployment delivery on an annual basis...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2200)1710- 119 - (2-1.1.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Lou Paulson, United Professional Firefighters ofContra Costa CountyRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department shall audit their level of service anddeployment delivery at a minimum on an annual basis.”SUBSTANTIATION: By adding the new text it allows for moreflexibility in auditing levels of service and deployment.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-112 (Log #1819).
___________________
(Log #84)1710- 120 - (2-1.1.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Larry D. Donner, Boulder Fire Dept., CORECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: Based on the audit, the fire chief shall provide a written report tothe authority having jurisdiction describing the reason(s) and theanticipated consequences(s) concerning levels of service to thejurisdiction for those incidents or geographical areas in which thecriteria set forth in 2-1.1.1 cannot be net ninety (90) percent of thetime. This report shall address the necessary steps to achieve fullcompliance the department’s ability or inability to meet servicelevels set by the authority having jurisdiction. SUBSTANTIATION: The ability to establish service deliverystandards is vested with the jurisdiction having authority. Theresponsibility to meet those standards are the responsibility of theauthority having jurisdiction.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-112 (Log #1819).
___________________
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
265
(Log #1760)1710- 121 - (2-1.1.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Randy Sheppard, Palm Beach County Fire-RescueRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: Based on the audit...in which the criteria set forth in 2.1.1.1cannot be met. ninety (90) percent of the time. This report shalladdress the necessary steps to achieve full compliance.SUBSTANTIATION: In 2-1.1.1 it is left to the fire agency todetermine appropriate percentage of response time criteria. Thereis no justification of an indicator of 90 percent to provide an auditreport. Also, guidelines need to be included on what should beincluded in the audit report.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-112 (Log #1819).
___________________
(Log #1844)1710- 122 - (2-1.1.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Eisner, Bellevue Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: Based on the audit, the fire chief shall provide a written report tothe authority having jurisdiction describing the reason(s) and theanticipated consequence(s) concerning levels of service to thejurisdiction for those incidents or geographical areas in which thecriteria set forth in 2.1.1.1 cannot be met ninety (90) percent of thetime. This report shall address the necessary steps to achieve fullcompliance.SUBSTANTIATION: All fire department resources shall bedeployed as defined by the local jurisdiction.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-112 (Log #1819).
___________________
(Log #1968)1710- 123 - (2-1.1.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Chip Prather, Orange County Fire AuthorityRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Requires the Fire Chief to do an audit and do a written report tothe authority having jurisdiction describing the reason(s) and theanticipated consequences concerning levels of service to thejurisdiction of those incidents or geographical areas in which thecriteria set forth in 2-1.1.1, cannot be met ninety (90) percent ofthe time. Report shall address necessary steps to be achieve fullcompliance. Local government/Fire Chief shall implementcontinuous quality improvement (CQI) Program to monitorservice performance standards as established by local government. ”SUBSTANTIATION: Requires the Fire Chief to do an audit anddo a written report to the Board as to why we did not meetresponse criteria to 90 percent and steps to achieve full complianceis nothing more than forcing the issue in public to add morecompanies and career personnel.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-112 (Log #1819).
___________________
(Log #2021)1710- 124 - (2-1.1.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept./Rep.Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Based on the audit, the fire chief shall should provide a writtenreport... This report shall should address...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-112 (Log #1819).
___________________
(Log #2082)1710- 125 - (2-1.1.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Based on the audit, the fire chief shall should provide a writtenreport... The report shall should address...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-112 (Log #1819).
___________________
(Log #6)1710- 126 - (2-1.1.2.1 (New)): RejectSUBMITTER: L. Charles Smeby, Jr., FL State Fire CollegeRECOMMENDATION : Add new section 2-1.1.2.1 to read: “This report shall be distributed annually to the elected officials,media and be made available to the public.”SUBSTANTIATION: This report will not do any good unless it iswidely circulated so that an open discussion and review can bemade by the decision makers and the customers.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Annual reports are now notrequired, and the distribution to the media and public is notgermane to the standard.
___________________
(Log #1176)1710- 127 - (2-2.1): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Richard W. Duncanson, Middletown Fire Dept., NYRECOMMENDATION : Add text to read as follows: The fire department organizational statement shall set forthoperational requirements to conduct pre-incident planning inaccordance with NFPA 1620, Recommended Practice for Pre-Incident Planning for fires and other emergencies. Particularattention shall be provided to all target hazards.SUBSTANTIATION: Consider the following: 1. Proper planning and evaluation of risk is a key element toeffective deployment of resources. 2. NFPA 1620 provides the framework for the effective use ofpersonnel and equipment in effectively controlling an emergency. 3. Sufficient latitude is provided within NFPA 1620 for theauthority having jurisdiction to determine the level and complexityof pre-incident plan necessary.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Move to Chapter 4 and amend to read: 4-5 Pre-incident Planning. 4-5.1 The fire department shall set forth operationalrequirements to conduct pre-incident planning. Particularattention shall be provided to all target hazards. Add appendix item referenced to this section to read: A-4-5 For additional information, see NFPA 1620 RecommendedPractice for Pre-Incident Planning.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee believes that pre-incident planning is important and has placed the requirements, asamended in Chapter 4 which addresses fire department systems.
___________________
(Log #2022)1710- 128 - (2-2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept./Rep.Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department organizational statement shall should setforth...department is required to may respond”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
266
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The document is a minimumstandard requiring mandatory text.
___________________
(Log #2083)1710- 129 - (2-2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department organizational statement shall should setforth...department is required to may respond”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-128 (Log #2022).
___________________
(Log #1845)1710- 130 - (2-3.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Lou Faehnrich, Bellevue Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: The fire department organization statement shall should set forththe operational response criteria for emergency medical incidentsto which the fire department is required to respond within itsjurisdiction.SUBSTANTIATION: Fire Department organizational statementsshould be broad and not include operational criteria. Shouldrather than shall is advisory rather than legislative.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-128 (Log #2022).
___________________
(Log #2023)1710- 131 - (2-3.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept./Rep.Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department organizational statement shall should setforth...department is required to may respond”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-128 (Log #2022).
___________________
(Log #2084)1710- 132 - (2-3.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department organizational statement shall should setforth...department is required to may respond”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-128 (Log #2022).
___________________
(Log #657)1710- 133 - (2-3.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Duane M. Malo, Washington State Assn. of FireChiefsRECOMMENDATION : Add the words after two minutes “ofassembly” to read: “within two minutes of assembly 90 percent of the time.”SUBSTANTIATION: With the original language, it was includedwhat the two minutes referred to time assembled response time,time of calls, etc. This clarifies language.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Recommendation not germane tothis career standard.
___________________
(Log #1846)1710- 134 - (2-3.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Lou Faehnrich, Bellevue Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department organizational statement shall ensure thefire department’s emergency medical response capability shouldinclude sufficient personnel, equipment, and resources toeffectively and safely deploy at the First Responder with automaticexternal defibrillator (AED) or higher treatment level.”SUBSTANTIATION: Fire Department organizational statementsshould be broad and not include operational criteria. Shouldrather than shall is advisory rather than legislative.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The document is a minimumstandard requiring required text.
___________________
(Log #85)1710- 135 - (2-3.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Larry D. Donner, Boulder Fire Dept., CORECOMMENDATION : Delete the entire section.SUBSTANTIATION: The ability to establish service deliverystandards and organizational responsibility for service delivery isvested with the jurisdiction having authority.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This is not germane to the standardand would not require the AHJ to provide consistent criteriaregardless of the provider.
___________________
(Log #1713)1710- 136 - (2-3.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Gregory W. Frederick, Louisville Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Add text to read as follows: Where emergency medical services beyond the First Responderwith automatic defibrillator level are provided by another agency orprivate organization, the authority having jurisdiction shall includein the organizational statement the minimum staffing, deploymentand response time criteria as required in Section 3-3 based onrecommendations from the fire department. Should identifyresponses that are non-emergency basis. SUBSTANTIATION: Response times described in 3-3.4.3.3 couldnot be met on a non-emergency response.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-135 (Log #85).
___________________
(Log #1761)1710- 137 - (2-3.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Randy Sheppard, Palm Beach County Fire-RescueRECOMMENDATION : Delete entire Section 2-3.2.1.SUBSTANTIATION: This section imposes standards on a non-fire organization not under the authority of the fire jurisdiction andthose standards could be in conflict or in violation of state or localEMS law, (for instance, a state mandated staffing standard).COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-135 (Log #85).
___________________
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
267
(Log #1823)1710- 138 - (2-3.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: J. Gordon Routley, Champlain, NYRECOMMENDATION : Delete 2-3.2.1.SUBSTANTIATION: I have no idea what this section is trying tosay, but I think that we can live without it.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-135 (Log #85).
___________________
(Log #1847)1710- 139 - (2-3.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Lou Faehnrich, Bellevue Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: Where emergency medical services beyond the First Responderwith automatic defibrillator level are provided by another agency orprivate organization, the authority having jurisdiction shall should include in the organizational statement the establish minimumstaffing, deployment and response time criteria as required inSection 3-3 based on recommendations from the fire department.SUBSTANTIATION: Fire Department organizational statementsshould be broad and not include operational criteria. Shouldrather than shall is advisory rather than legislative.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-135 (Log #85).
___________________
(Log #2024)1710- 140 - (2-3.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept./Rep.Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “...statement the minimum staffing, deployment and responsetime criteria as required recommended in Section 3-3 based onrecommendations from the fire department”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2085)1710- 141 - (2-3.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “...statement the minimum staffing, deployment and responsetime criteria as required recommended in Section 3-3 based onrecommendations from the fire department”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2025)1710- 142 - (2-4.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept./Rep.Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department organizational statement shall should setforth...the fire department is required to may respond”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use as
guidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2086)1710- 143 - (2-4.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department organizational statement shall should setforth...the fire department is required to may respond”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #86)1710- 144 - (2-4.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Larry D. Donner, Boulder Fire Dept., CORECOMMENDATION : Delete the entire section.SUBSTANTIATION: The ability to establish service deliverystandards is vested with the jurisdiction having authority.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee believes that servicedelivery requirements must be established within this standard,consistent with the scope of the committee and this document.
___________________
(Log #2026)1710- 145 - (2-4.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept./Rep.Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department organizational statement shall should ensurethe fire department’s hazardous...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2087)1710- 146 - (2-4.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department organizational statement shall should ensurethe fire department’s hazardous...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
268
(Log #87)1710- 147 - (2-4.3): RejectSUBMITTER: Larry D. Donner, Boulder Fire Dept., CORECOMMENDATION : Delete the entire section.SUBSTANTIATION: The ability to establish service deliverystandards is vested with the jurisdiction having authority.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee believes that servicedelivery requirements must be established within this standard,consistent with the scope of the committee and this document.
___________________
(Log #1762)1710- 148 - (2-4.3): RejectSUBMITTER: Randy Sheppard, Palm Beach County Fire-RescueRECOMMENDATION : Add text to read as follows: If the fire department organizational statement includes deliveryof confined space rescues, the authority having jurisdiction shallensure the fire department’s confined space response capabilityincludes sufficient personnel, equipment, and resources toeffectively and safely deploy at the Confined Space Operationallevel as required by 29CFR 1910.146.SUBSTANTIATION: As written, this section mandates firedepartments to accomplish confined space rescues - a servicewhich may not be within the legal authority of that jurisdiction dueto other statutory agencies within the affected fire jurisdiction.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The fire department shall have acapability to response with sufficient personnel, equipment andresources and the standard allows for such response either by thedepartment or through an intercommunity agreement (e.g. mutualaid) as established through the organizational statement.
___________________
(Log #2027)1710- 149 - (2-4.3): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept./Rep.Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department organizational statement shall should ensurethe fire department’s hazardous...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2088)1710- 150 - (2-4.3): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department organizational statement shall should ensurethe fire department’s hazardous...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2028)1710- 151 - (2-4.4): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department organizational statement shall should setforth the operational response criteria...”.
SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2089)1710- 152 - (2-4.4): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department organizational statement shall should setforth the operational response criteria...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2029)1710- 153 - (2-5.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Mutual aid, automatic aid and fire protection agreements shallshould be in writing and shall should address such issues...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2090)1710- 154 - (2-5.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Mutual aid, automatic aid and fire protection agreements shallshould be in writing and shall should address such issues...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2030)1710- 155 - (2-5.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “...mutual aid, automatic aid and fire protection agreement plansshall should be comprehensive to...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officials
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
269
charged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2091)1710- 156 - (2-5.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “...mutual aid, automatic aid and fire protection agreement plansshall should be comprehensive to...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #265)1710- 157 - (2-5.3): Accept in Principle in PartSUBMITTER: Mario David Rueda, Los Angeles City Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Apparatus responding to mutual aid incidents shall be equippedwith communication equipment that allow personnel tocommunicate with incident commanders, division group, or sectorofficers without disruption of their local frequency.”SUBSTANTIATION: Adding divisions and groups providesconsistency with NFPA 1500.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle in Part. Revise text by replacing “Apparatus” with “Companies” add“commander and division officers, group officers, or” after“incident” and delete “without disruption of their local frequency”. Text will now read: “Companies responding to mutual aid incidents shall beequipped with communication equipment that allow members tocommunicate with the incident commander, division officers,group officers or sector officers.”COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Editorial; changes made to keepterms consistent.
___________________
(Log #1763)1710- 158 - (2-5.3): Accept in Principle in PartSUBMITTER: Randy Sheppard, Palm Beach County Fire-RescueRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: Each party to a mutual aid or automatic aid fire protectionagreement shall assure adequate communications betweenresponding emergency units during all mutual aid operations.SUBSTANTIATION: This proposed wording allows foralternative methods of communication between mutual aiddepartments such as pre-positioned radio caches, movement toalternative mutual channels, hard-wired systems on scene. It allowsflexibility when agencies are a part of mutual aid agreements withmultiple jurisdictions ALL of which are on different radiocommunication systems.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle in Part.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-157 (Log #265).
___________________
(Log #1815)1710- 159 - (2-5.3): RejectSUBMITTER: J. Gordon Routley, Champlain, NYRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Apparatus Companies responding to mutual aid incidents shallbe equipped with communications equipment that allow personnelto communicate with the Incident Commander and with sectorofficers without disruption of their local frequency.”SUBSTANTIATION: The statement should emphasize the needfor a company to be able to communicate at the scene of anincident, not for their apparatus to be equipped with a mutual aid
radio. The minimum requirement should be a portable radio foreach company. The intent of the proposed statement on frequency disruption isnot clear. Is the concern related to disruption of the respondingunit’s “home” frequency or the frequency of the jurisdiction wherethe unit is responding? In either case the requirement on frequency disruption isunnecessary and confusing. Who has this problem? If it is not aproblem, it does not require a solution. “Disruption of a frequency” is a vague concept. If there is adisruption, it is a disruption of communications, not a disruptionof frequency.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-157 (Log #265).
___________________
(Log #2031)1710- 160 - (2-5.3): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept./Rep.Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Apparatus responding to mutual aid incidents shall should beequipped with...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2092)1710- 161 - (2-5.3): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Apparatus responding to mutual aid incidents shall should beequipped with...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________(Log #99)
1710- 162 - (Chapter 3): RejectSUBMITTER: Dwight B. Van Zanen, Maple Valley Fire and LifeSafety/Rep. King County Fire Protection Dist. #43Bruce Holloway, Spokane County Fire Dist. #3/WSAFC (Log #563)Duane M. Malo, Washington State Assn. of Fire Chiefs (Log #661)RECOMMENDATION : Revise text as follows: Section 3-2.2.1 Replace four (4), five(5), and (six (6) with (localstandard) Section 3-2.3.1.1 Replace four (4), and eight (8) with (localstandard) Section 3-2.3.2.1 Replace eight with (local standard) Section 3-3.4.3 Replace (4) and eight with (local standard) SUBSTANTIATION: These specific standards are inconsistentwith the scope and purpose in Chapter One and the process oflocal control as defined in Chapter Two. All such specificstandards should be defined by local need and resources throughthe process described in Chapter Two.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee believes that aminimum staffing criterion per unit of response is an essentialcomponent of the standard and consistent with the scope of thestandard.
___________________
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
270
(Log #1848)1710- 163 - (3-1): RejectSUBMITTER: Ronald A. Pedee, Bellevue Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: Purpose. The services provided by the fire department shallinclude those activities as required by Chapter 2 are determined bythe local jurisidiction. The procedures involved in providing thesethe services selected by the local jurisdiction, based on an analysisof the fire problem and the community standard of care, includingoperations and deployment shall be established through writtenadministrative regulations, standard operating procedures, anddepartmental orders.SUBSTANTIATION: The services of each fire department oughtto be determined by each jurisdiction according to thecommunity’s assessment of its needs and desired level of service.The needs of local jurisdictions, and fire risk to the community,vary greatly.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The document is a minimumstandard. Mandatory text is consistent with the scope of thestandard. The adoption or non-adoption of this standard isdecided by the AHJ on the local level.
___________________
(Log #2032)1710- 164 - (3-1): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The services provided by the fire department shall should include those activities as required recommended by Chapter 2....and deployment, shall should be established through written...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________(Log #2093)
1710- 165 - (3-1): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The services provided by the fire department shall should include those activities as required recommended by Chapter 2....and deployment, shall should be established through written...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________(Log #2306)
1710- 166 - (3-1(e)): RejectSUBMITTER: James Farrell, Skokie Fire Dept., ILRECOMMENDATION : Add text to read: Company. A group of members: (e) Arriving at the incident scene on fire apparatus (notnecessarily the same apparatus). "Company," as used in thisstandard, is synonymous with company unit, response team, crew,and response group, rather than a synonym for a fire department.SUBSTANTIATION: The addition of the bracketed text will helpto clarify that a "Company" does not have to arrive at the scene ofan incident on the same apparatus but can be assembled on thescene as many departments now do.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #1849)1710- 167 - (3-2): RejectSUBMITTER: Ronald A. Pedee, Bellevue Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: Fire Suppression Services. Fire suppression operations , using theresources allocated by the local jurisdiction, should shall beorganized using the Incident Command System (ICS) and RiskAssessment/Management to ensure the fire department’s firesuppression capability includes sufficient personnel, equipment,and resources to efficiently, effectively, and safely deploy the initialarriving company, the full initial alarm assignment and additionalalarm assignments. The fire department shall be permitted to usethe established automatic mutual aid or mutual aid agreements inproviding services to comply with the requirements of this section.SUBSTANTIATION: There should be no requirements regardingresources allocated to fire department services in a community.Whatever resources are provided should be deployed using ICS andRisk Management. With a specific sized fire, the efficiency andeffectiveness of resources allocated by local jurisdictions will varygreatly, dependent on amount of resources allocated. This is alocal decision, not one for the NFPA to legislate by “shall” or by“requirement”.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #1969)1710- 168 - (3-2): RejectSUBMITTER: Chip Prather, Orange County Fire AuthorityRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Fire suppression operations shall be organized to ensure the firedepartment’s fire suppression capability includes sufficientpersonnel, equipment, and resources to efficiently, effectively, andsafely deploy the initial arriving company, the full initial alarmassignments, and additional alarms. Fire departments shall bepermitted to use established automatic aid and/or mutual aid tocomply with this requirement.”SUBSTANTIATION: States that services shall be organized toensure that capabilities include sufficient personnel, equipment,and resources to efficiently, effectively, and safely deploy the initialarriving company, full initial alarm and additional assignments.However, the standard establishes what the standard of responsetime and personnel staffing will be. How can the Fire Chief bedictated to organize his department to do what is asked and yet notbe in control of how he staffs units or deploys units. It basicallysays that the Fire Chief needs to organize his department to beeffective but then tells him how he must do it. Community need,risk, demographics, call history, etc., are what dictate efficient,effective and safe deployment; not mandatory staffing and responsecriteria imposed by NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee believes that thecurrent text is appropriate and sufficiently addresses the intent ofthe standard. Additionally the commentator’s substantiation doesnot match his proposed recommendation that is proposing arecommended practice that the committee has rejected.
___________________
(Log #2033)1710- 169 - (3-2): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Fire suppression operations shall should be organized toensure... The fire department shall should be...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
271
(Log #2094)1710- 170 - (3-2): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Fire suppression operations shall should be organized toensure... The fire department shall should be...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #718)1710- 171 - (3-2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Duane M. Malo, Washington State Assn. of FireChiefsRECOMMENDATION : Delete 3-2.1.SUBSTANTIATION: This language is inconsistent with the statedpurpose (1-2.1) of NFPA 1710. OSHA, when dealing with the “twoin/two out” issue emphasize in many occasions that the IC needsto have flexibility to use their professional judgment. Bypredetermining these assignments will actually negatively affecteffectiveness, efficiency, and ultimately safety as outlined in OSHAdocuments on fire fighter safety.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The standard is not a tacticaloperations document thus the commentator’s recommendation isnot germane.
___________________
(Log #1064)1710- 172 - (3-2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Wayne Waggoner, Tennessee Fire CodeDevelopment CommitteeRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: 3-2.1.1* On-duty fire suppression personnel shall be comprisedof the numbers necessary for safe and effective fire-fightingperformance relative to the expected fire-fighting conditions.These shall be determined by the AHJ through task analyses thatshall include the following: (a) Life hazard to the populace protected, (b) Provisions of safe and effective fire-fighting performanceconditions for the fire fighters, (c) The potential property loss, (d) The nature, configuration, hazards, and internal protectionof the properties involved, and (e) The types of fire ground tactics and evolutions employed asstandard procedure, the type of apparatus used, and the resultsexpected to be obtained at the fire scene.SUBSTANTIATION: Minimum staffing should be determined bythe local jurisdiction no data supporting improved efficiency.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: On duty fire suppression personnelmust be determined by the fire department using the prescribedtask analysis.
___________________
(Log #1851)1710- 173 - (3-2.1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Ronald A. Pedee, Bellevue Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: On-duty fire suppression personnel shall should be determinedby the local jurisdiction based upon a community assessment ofthe level of risk to the community and their adopted standard ofcare comprised of the numbers necessary for safe and effective fire-fighting performance relative to the expected fire-fightingconditions. These shall be determined through task analyses thatshall include the following: (a) Life hazard to the populace protected, (b) Provisions of safe and effective fire-fighting performanceconditions for the fire fighters, (c) The potential property loss,
(d) The nature, configuration, hazards, and internal protectionof the properties involved, and (e) The types of fireground tactics and evolutions employed asstandard procedure, the type of apparatus used, and the resultsexpected to be obtained at the fire sceneSUBSTANTIATION: The on-duty fire suppression force of anycommunity is an entirely local decision. With the resources soallocated it its the fire department’s responsibility to operate asefficiently and effectively as resources permit and safely. The aboveproposal recognizes differences in local fire problems, allows fortechnological solutions (i.e. sprinklers), and avoids conflict withthe statutory duty of local officials.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2034)1710- 174 - (3-2.1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “On-duty fire suppression personnel shall should be comprisedof... These shall should be determined through task analyses thatshall should include the following...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2095)1710- 175 - (3-2.1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “On-duty fire suppression personnel shall should be comprisedof... These shall should be determined through task analyses thatshall should include the following:”SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #24)1710- 176 - (3-2.1.1(c)): RejectSUBMITTER: Robert Carnahan, Clackamas County Fire Dist. 1John Schull, Scappose Rural Fire Dist. (Log #39)Dennis Marceaux, Scappose Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #55)Gloria Gass, Colverdale, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist.
(Log #72)Mickey Hays, Beaver, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist.
(Log #106)Greg Gass, Cloverdale, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist.
(Log #122)Mary Lou Fletcher, Beaver, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protection
Dist. (Log #138)Kevin R. Wickman, Keizer Fire Dist. (Log #154)Wayne E. Sandford, East Haven Fire (Log #168)Levi B. Beachy, Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #184)Roy O. Palmer, Pol County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #200)Calvin Johnson, Lewis County Fire Dist. #2/Toledo Fire Dist. (Log
#215)Dennis England, City of Hillsboro/Washington County Fire Dist.
#2 (Log #226)Dennis Ross, City of Hillsboro/Washington County Fire Dist. #2
(Log #235)Dennis Ross, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept. (Log #244)
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
272
Patricia Schrom, Grant County Fire Protection Dist. #11 (Log #274)Richard A. Knight, Fire Protection Dist. #5 Mason County (Log
#287)Harold Edwards, Delhi Twp Fire Dept. (Log #305)William Steel, Pierce County Fire Dist. #26 (Log #333)Carl Brumund, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #351)Jeff Grunewald, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue (Log #360)Curtis E. Goodman, City of Norwood/Fire Dept. (Log #387)Darrell Hartmann, Brookings Fire Dept. (Log #391)Ted Biermann, Adams County Fire Protection Dist. #2 (Log #408)Orville Downer, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #426)Earles Cordes, Jefferson County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #434)Daniel C. Olsen, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #456)D. J. Cornish, Manzanita, OR/Manzanita Fire Dept. (Log #462)Judd Burrow, Manzanita, OR/Manzanita Public Safety (Log #478)Jeremy Stroznk, Nehalem, OR/Manzanita Public Safety (Log #494)Bret Siler, Nehalem, OR/Manzanita Fire Dept. (Log #510)Dan Marshall, Jackson County Fire Dist. #5 (Log #527)Jerry McDowell, Whatcom County Fire Protection Dist. #1 (Log
#543)Rich Mackie, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #577)S. D. ‘Skip’ Smith, Santa Clara Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log
#599)Charles Hennigan, Thurston County Fire Protection Dist. #13 (Log
#603)Don Rowe, Sisters-Camp Sherman RFPD (Log #641)Jon C. Bugher, Clallam County Fire Dist. #2 (Log #678)Paul Epler, Vernonia Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #696)Michael J. Sneddon, Charleston Fire Dist. (Log #706)Brad Litthans, Sanhouesh County FPD #15 (Log #728)Ken Walkington, Kitsap County Fire Dist. #14 (Log 739)Greg Frank, Keizer Fire Dist. (Log #748)Douglas VanPelt, Corvallis Fire Dept. (Log #752)Michael Brondi, SCFD #19/Rockport/Marblemt. Fire Depts. (Log
#796)George M. Dunkel, St. Helens Rural Fire Dist. (Log #807)Gary J. Hudson, St. Helens Rural Fire Dist. (Log #817)Joel Stein, Keizer Fire Dist. (Log #773)William Seifert, Skamania County (WA) Fire Dist. #6 (Log #786)Matthew Shuler, Eugene Fire and EMS Dept./City of Eugene (Log
#834)Scott Koehler, Stanwood Fire Dept. (Log #848)Stephen D. Allen, Cottage Grove/South Lane Rural Fire Dept.
(Log #865)Dan Stout, Fire Dist. #8 – Spokane County (Log #879)Louis Hayvaz, Thurston County Fire Protection Dist. #13 (Log
#899)Monty Moore, Kittites County Fire Dist. #8 (Log #909)Cleve Rooper, Cannon Beach RFPD (Log #922)William H. Combs, Sutherlin Fire Dept. (Log #938)Charles W. Edwards, Hansville, WA/Kitsap Fire Protection Dist.
#14 (Log #954)John Schlegel, Tri-City RFPD (Log #966)Bill Schmitt, Klickitat Fire Protection Dist. #13 (Klickitat County)
(Log #983)Bill Alguire, Keizer Fire Dist. (Log #992)Ted Ames, Warrenton Fire Dept. (Log #1004)Craig Helgeland, Camano Island Fire & Rescue (Log #1017)David Elkins, KCFPD #4/WFCA (Log #1033)Dale Mitchell, Pierce County Fire Dist. #8 (Log #1044)Paul M. Olheiser, Knappa Fire Dist. (Log #1097)Larry D. Eckhardt, Hoodland Fire Dist. #74 (Log #1106)Mike Rieger, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1119)Brian J. Thibeault, Plymouth Fire Rescue (Log #1951)Charles Spittles, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1150)Cindy Manning, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1187)Corey Tohl, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1203)Terry Zuercher, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1219)Tennessee Hodgdon, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1235)Thomas G. Miller, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1259)Roy Ellerbroek, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1275)Mike Ellerbroek, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1291)Aaron Burris, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1299)Leonard Ingles, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1324)Steven Stelzig, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1332)Frank Reding, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1348)Leroy Goff, Sumner, WA/City of Sumner (Log #1364)Kyle Sheets, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1382)Tim Hamburger, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1390)Ken Aufdermauer, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1406)Kyle Adams, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1430)David B. Schelhaas, Scappoose Rural Fire Dept. (Log #1439)John R. McAdoo, Estacada Fire Dist. #69 (Log #1453)
Dan O’Dell, Boring Fire Dist. (Log #1481)Larry A. Long, Estacada Rural Fire Dist. #69 (Log #1485)Lanny Boston, Bandon Rural Fire Protection Dist. #8/City of
Bandon Fire Dept./Southwestern Oregon Fire Chiefs Assn. (Log#1511)
John A. Stein, Dallas Fire Dept. (Log #1529)Martin Goughnour, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1554)Norman Whiteley, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1579)Robert D. Wilson, Quilcene, WA/Quilcene Volunteer Fire Dept.
(Log #1592)Aaron Vaughn, Scappoose Rural Fire Dept. (Log #1606)Jack R. Carriger, Nestucca RFPD (Log #1622)Randy R. Bruegman, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1648)Dale Staib, Philomath RFPD #4 (Log #1667)Scott Pearson, Snohomish County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1703)Patrick Reitz, Terrebonne, OR/Crooked River Ranch RFPD (Log
#1734)Jeff Griffin, Oregon Fire Chiefs’ Assn. (Log #1791)Joan Johnson, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1802)Allan MacKay, Sedro-Woolley, WA/Whatcom County Fire
Protection Dist. #18 (Log #1832)Chris Asanovic, Cornelius City/Rural Fire Dept. (Log #1880)David Chastain, Clallam County Fire Protection Dist. #4 (Log
#1919)Robert Wilson, Jefferson County Fire Dist. #2 (Log #1932)Wayne Kier, Jefferson County Fire Dist. #3 (Log #1942)Jane Lee, KCRFPD #7 (Log #1980)Edward A. Lewis, Spokane County Fire Dist. #4 (Log #2151)Gary Abrams, NRFPD (Log #2171)Duaine Harding Sr., NRFPD (Log #2189)Lyle J. Payne, Pleasant Hill RFPD (Log #2214)Joseph R. Guyette, Dover-Foxcroft Fire Dept. (Log #2251)Michael S. Curtis, Dover-Foxcroft Fire Dept. (Log #2260)Darin Welburn, Jackson County FD #5 (Log #2276)Jon R. Brown, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #2298)RECOMMENDATION : Revise text as follows: 3-2.1.1(c) The potential property loss , based on historical fireloss data for that jurisdiction .SUBSTANTIATION: Fire loss data must be collected andreported on for each jurisdiction. To leave the definitions open tointerpretation, as this does, could have the effect of an older,urbanized city, such as Chicago, fire losses impacting fireoperations in Eugene, Oregon.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.A-3-2.1.1(c) For further information see NFPA 1250,Recommended Practice for Emergency Services Risk ManagementCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: Historical fire loss data is notnecessarily predictive of fire loss potential. While it is alreadyincluded in potential property loss, but by itself is restrictive.There are many components to evaluate potential property loss.The committee is including an appendix item referring the readerto explanatory information in NFPA Practice 1250, RecommendedPractice for Emergency Services Risk Management.
___________________
(Log #553)1710- 177 - (3-2.1.1(c)): RejectSUBMITTER: Bruce Holloway, Spokane County Fire Dist.#3/Rep. WA State of Assn. of Fire ChiefsRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The potential property loss, based on historical fire loss data forthat jurisdiction .”SUBSTANTIATION: Fire loss data must be collected andreported on for each jurisdiction. To leave the definitions open tointerpretation, as this does, could have the effect of an older,urbanized city’s fire loss impacting staffing in small ruralcommunities.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-176 (Log #24).
___________________
(Log #668)1710- 178 - (3-2.1.1(c)): RejectSUBMITTER: Duane M. Malo, Washington State Assn. of FireChiefsRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The potential property loss, based on historical fire loss data forthat jurisdiction .”SUBSTANTIATION: Fire loss data must be collected andreported on for each jurisdiction. To leave the definitions open to
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
273
interpretation, as this does, could have the effect of an older,urbanized city’s fire loss impacting staffing in small ruralcommunities.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #674)1710- 179 - (3-2.1.1(c)): RejectSUBMITTER: Joseph M. Kolisch, Enumclaw Fire Dept./King Co.Fire Dist. 28RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: (c) The potential property loss based on historical fire loss dataof the local jurisdiction .SUBSTANTIATION: Fire loss data must be based on the datafrom the local jurisdiction. As the standard is proposed, there istoo much room for interpretation. Without local jurisdiction databeing used, erroneous comparisons could occur.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #889)1710- 180 - (3-2.1.1(c)): RejectSUBMITTER: J. Ben Reisz, Sumner, WARECOMMENDATION : Add text to read as follows: The potential property loss, based on historical fire loss data forthat jurisdiction. SUBSTANTIATION: Fire loss data must be collected andreported on for each jurisdiction. To leave the definitions open tointerpretation, as this does, could have the effect of an older,urbanized city, such as Chicago, fire losses impacting fireoperations in Sumner, WA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #1500)1710- 181 - (3-2.1.1(c)): RejectSUBMITTER: Alan D. Predmore, City of Buckley Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: (c) The potential property loss based on historical fire loss dataof the local jurisdiction. SUBSTANTIATION: Fire loss data must be based on the datafrom the local jurisdiction. As the standard is proposed, there istoo much room for interpretation. Without local jurisdiction databeing used, erroneous comparisons could occur.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #1755)1710- 182 - (3-2.1.1(c)): RejectSUBMITTER: Norman G. Angelo, Kent Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The potential property loss, based on a community’sstandardized (including data collection definitions) measurementof historical fire/special hazard loss data and a bi-annual analysisof the community’s levels of risk as a result of changes in thecommunity’s total fire and life safety environment. ”SUBSTANTIATION: Data with standardized definitions andmethods of collection related to fire loss and other special hazardswould allow local communities to determine the appropriate levelof service and acceptable levels of risk while being able tobenchmark against similar communities. The potential forproperty loss could vary significantly from community tocommunity. It is essential that the service level for a community bebased upon their specific acceptable level of risk as determined inconjunction with grass roots citizens. Equally important is aperiodic (at least bi-annually) analysis of the changing fire and lifesafety environment rather than depending solely on generalizedpotentials or historical data that may be misleading due to uniqueevents or inaccurate fire loss estimates.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2174)1710- 183 - (3-2.1.1(c)): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Brown, Kitsap County Fire District #7RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The potential property loss, based on historical fire loss data forthe authority having jurisdiction .”SUBSTANTIATION: Fire loss data must be collected andreported based on that which is applicable for the localjurisdiction. To leave the definitions open to interpretation, as thisdoes fails to account for local diversity. Nor does this account forbuilt-in fire protection and suppression systems.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-176 (Log #24).
___________________
(Log #1764)1710- 184 - (3-2.1.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Randy Sheppard, Palm Beach County Fire-RescueRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: On-duty personnel assigned to fire suppression personnel shall beorganized into company units. and shall have appropriateapparatus and equipment assigned to such companies.SUBSTANTIATION: Flexibility is needed to utilize firesuppression resources that are not routinely assigned to a station ora specific apparatus (ed: fire marshal, fire inspector who hold FFcertification) and can be dispatched to the scene. The definitionof a company identifies the use of apparatus for the appropriatepurpose and is not needed here.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See the defined term “company” thatallows flexibility in the assignment of personnel.
___________________
(Log #2035)1710- 185 - (3-2.1.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “On-duty personnel assigned to fire suppression shall should beorganized...and shall should have...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2096)1710- 186 - (3-2.1.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “On-duty personnel assigned to fire suppression shall should beorganized...and shall should have...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #1855)1710- 187 - (3-2.1.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Ronald A. Pedee, Bellevue Fire Dept.
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
274
RECOMMENDATION : Delete the following text: The fire department shall identify minimum company staffinglevels as necessary to meet the deployment criteria required inSections 3-2.2 and 3-2.3 to ensure that a sufficient number ofmembers are assigned, on-duty and available to safely andeffectively respond with each company.SUBSTANTIATION: The on-duty fire suppression force of anycommunity is an entirely local decision. With the resources soallocated it is the fire department’s responsibility to operate asefficiently and effectively as resources permit and safely. The aboveproposal recognizes differences in local fire problems, allows fortechnological solutions (i.e. sprinklers), and avoids conflict withthe statutory duty of local officials.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Proposed language is in conflictwith the scope of the standard, which is to provide minimumrequirements for fire department service delivery and deployment.
___________________
(Log #2036)1710- 188 - (3-2.1.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department shall should identify minimum companystaffing levels...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2097)1710- 189 - (3-2.1.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department shall should identify minimum companystaffing levels...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #1065)1710- 190 - (3-2.1.2.1, A-3-2.1.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Wayne Waggoner, Tennessee Fire CodeDevelopment CommitteeRECOMMENDATION : Delete the following text: 3-2.1.2.1* The fire department shall identify minimum companystaffing levels as necessary to meet the deployment criteria requiredin Sections 3-2.2 and 3-2.3 to ensure that a sufficient number ofmembers are assigned, on-duty and available to safely andeffectively respond with each company. A-3-2.1.2.1 An early aggressive and offensive primary interiorattack on a working structural fire results in greatly reduced loss oflife and property damage. Consequently, given that the progressionof a structural fire to the point of “flashover” (the very rapidspreading of the fire due to super heating of room contents andother combustibles) generally occurs in less than 10 minutes, twoof the most important elements in limiting fire spread are the quickarrival of sufficient numbers of personnel and equipment to attackand extinguish the fire as close to the point of its origin as possible.For more information refer to Fire Service Today, Reduced Staffing:At What Cost? and National Institute of Standards and Technology,Hazard I Fire Hazard Assessment Method. Also, refer to National FireAcademy, Fire Risk Analysis: A Systems Approach; Office of the
Ontario Fire Marshal, Fire Ground Staffing and Delivery SystemsWithin A Comprehensive Fire Safety Effectiveness. The ability of adequate fire suppression forces to greatly influencethe outcome of a structural fire is undeniable and predictable.Data generated by the National Fire Protection Associationdemonstrates that prevention of flashover, i.e., extent of fire beyondroom of origin, can substantially reduce the human property lossassociated with structure fires.
Fire Extension in Residential Structures*1993–1997
Rate per 1,000 FiresFire
ExtensionCivilianDeaths
CivilianInjuries
Dollar LossPer Fire
Confined toRoom of Origin 2.45 38.09 $ 3,261Confined toFloor of Origin 21.08 107.81 23,742Beyond Floor ofOrigin 28.58 70.65 35,834Source: NFPA Annual Fire Experience Survey andNFIRS.*Residential structures inclulde dwellings, duplexes,manufactured homes (also called mobile homes),apartments, rowhouses, townhouses, hotels and motels,dormitories, and barracks.
An early aggressive and offensive initial interior attack on aworking structural fire results in greatly reduced loss of life andproperty damage. Consequently, given that the progression of astructural fire to the point of “flashover” (the very rapid spreadingof the fire due to super heating of room contents and othercombustibles) generally occurs in less than 10 minutes3, two of themost important elements in limiting fire spread are the quickarrival of sufficient numbers of personnel and equipment to attackand extinguish the fire as close to the point of its origin as possible.
Delete Existing Figure A-3-2.1.2.1
Figure A-3-2.1.2.1 Fire Propagation CurveSUBSTANTIATION: Information in the appendix does notsupport the requirement in the text of the standard, and the info inthe appendix is used out of it original context. Strike the chart andfire propagation curve. For instance, the impact of early detectionis ignored when relating the fire propagation curve to theeffectiveness of fire suppression. Also, the relative infrequency ofcivilian deaths when fire is confined to the room of origin is notonly impacted by the time of detection, but also by the ability ofbuilding occupants to exit buildings that are on fire on their ownmore so than by action performed by fire departments. Theexisting test implies that these loses are less due actions taken byfire suppression forces when in fact the other contributing factorshave more influence. Lastly the appendix describes flashover asoccurring “generally” in less than 10 minutes, yet the firepropagation curve used in the illustration depicts extension beyondthe room of origin at twelve minutes.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee believes the deletionof the text conflicts with the scope of the standard, which is toprovide minimum requirements for fire department service deliveryand deployment. The appendix does provide information thatfurther provides explains the required text.
___________________
(Log #40)1710- 191 - (3-2.1.2.2): AcceptSUBMITTER: John Shull, Scappoose Rural Fire Dist.Dennis Marceaux, Scappoose Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #56)Gloria Gass, Cloverdale, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist.
(Log #71)Mickey Hays, Beaver, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist.
(Log #107)Greg Gass, Cloverdale, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist.,
(Log #123)Mary Lou Fletcher, Beaver, OR (Log #139)Levi R. Beachy, Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #185)Roy O. Palmer, Polk County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #201)Calvin Johnson, Lewis County Fire Dist. #2./Toledo Fire Dist. (Log
#216)Dennis England, City of Hillsboro/Washington County Fire Dist.
#2/Hillsboro Fire Dept. (Log #229)
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
275
Dennis Ross, City of Hillsboro/Washington County Fire Dist. #2(Log #238)
Dennis Ross, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept. (Log #247)Patricia Schrom, Grant County Fire Proteciton Dist. #11, (Log
#270)Richard A. Knight, Fire Protection Dist. #5 Mason County (Log
#286)Harold Edwards, Delhi Twp Fire Dept. (Log #304)William Steel, Pierce County Fire Dist. (Log #334)Jeff Grunewald, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue (Log #363)Curtis E. Goodman, City of Norwood/Fire Dept. (Log #386)Darrell Hartmann, Brookings Fire Dept. (Log #405)Ted Biermann, Lind, WA/Adams County Fire Protection Dist. #2
(Log #409)Earl Cordes, Jefferson County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #437)D. J. Cornish, Manzanita, OR/Manzanita Fire Dept. (Log #463)Judd Burrow, Manzanita, OR/Manzanita Public Safety (Log #479)Jeremy Stroznk, Nehalem, OR/Manzanita Public Safety (Log #495)Bret Siler, Nehalem, OR/Manzanita Fire Dept. (Log #511)Dan Marshall, Jackson County Fire Dist. #5 (Log #530)Jerry McDowell, Whatcom County Fire Protection Dist. #1 (Log
#544)Bruce Holloway, Spokane County Fire Dist. #3 (Log #554)S. D. ‘Skip’ Smith, Santa Clara Rural Fire Protection (Log #593)Charles Hennigan, Thurston County Fire Protection Dist. #13 (Log
#604)Don Rowe, Sisters-Camp Sherman RFPD (Log #644)Duane M. Malo, Washington State Assn. of Fire Chiefs (Log #669)Jon C. Bugher, Clallam County Fire Dist. #2 (Log #679)Paul Epler, Vernonia Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #694)Michael J. Sneddon, Charleston Fire Dist. (Log #709)Brad Litthams, Snohowish County Fire Protection Dist. #15 (Log
#729)Ken Walkington, Kitsap County Fire Dist. #14 (Log #740)Douglas VanPelt, Corvallis Fire Dept. (Log #755)William Siefert, Skamania County (WA) Fire Dist. #6 (Log #787)Michael Brondi, SCFD #19/Rockport/Marblemount Fire Depts.
(Log #797)George M. Dunkel, St. Helens Rural Fire Dist. (Log #808)Gary J. Hudson, St. Helens Rural Fire Dist. (Log #818)Matthew Shuler, Eugene Fire and EMS Dept. (Log #837)Scott Koehler, Stanwood Fire Dept. (Log #849)Stephen D. Allen, Cottage Grove/South Lane Rural Fire Dept.
(Log #868)Dan Stout, Fire Dist. #8 – Spokane County (Log #880)J. Bea Reisz, Sumner, WA (Log #890)Louis Hayvaz, Thurston County Fire Protection Dist. #13 (Log
#897)Monty Moore, Kittites County Fire Dist. #8 (Log 910)Cleve Rooper, Cannon Beach RFPD (Log #925)William H. Combs, City of Sutherlin Fire Dept. (Log #941)Charles w. Edwards, Hansville WA/Kitsap Fire Protection Dist. #14
(Log #955)John Schlegel, Tri-city RFPD (Log #969)Bill Schmitt, Klickitat County Fire Protection Dist. #13 (Log #978)Ted Ames, Warrenton Fire Dept. (Log #1007)Craig Helgeland, Camano Island Fire and Rescue (Log #1018)David Elking, KLFPD #4/WFCA (Log #1034)Dale Mitchell, Pierce County Fire Dist. #8 (Log #1045)Paul M. Olheiser, Knappa Fire Dist. (Log #1094)Mike Rieger, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1120)Charles Spittles, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1151)Cindy Manning, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1188)Corey Tohl, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1204)Terry Zuercher, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1220)Tennessee Hodgdon, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1236)Thomas G. Miller, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1260)Roy Ellerbroek, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1276)Mike Ellerbroek, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1292)Aaron Burris, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1300)Leonard Ingles, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1325)Steven Stelzig, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1333)Frank Reding, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1349)Leroy Goff, Sumner, WA/City of Sumner (Log #1365)Kyle Sheets, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1383)Tim Hamburger, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1391)Ken Aufdenmauer, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1407)Kyle Adams, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1431)David B. Schelaas, Scappoose Rural Fire Dept. (Log #1440)John R. McAdoo, Estacada Fire Dist. #69 (Log #1456)Dan O’Dell, Boring Fire Dist. (Log #1479)Larry A. Long, Estacada Rural Fire Dist. #69 (Log #1488)
Lanny R. Boston, Bandon Rural Fire Protection Dist. #8/City ofBandon Fire Dept./Southwestern Oregon Fire Chiefs Assn. (Log#1512)
John A. Stein, Dallas Fire Dept. (Log #1532)Robert D. Wilson, Quilcene, WA/Quilcene Vol. Fire Dept. (Log
#1593)Aaron Vaughn, Scappoose Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #1607)Jack R. Carriger, Nestucca RFPD (Log #1623)Dale Staib, Philomath RFPD #4 (Log #1670)Scott Pearson, Snohomish County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1704)Patrick Reitz, Terrebonne, OR/Crooked River Ranch RFPD (Log
#1735)Jeff Griffin, Oregon Fire Chiefs’ Assn. (Log #1776)Allan MacKay, Sedro-Woolley, WA/Whatcom County Fire
Protection Dist. #18 (Log #1833)Charles R. Cable, Cloverdale Rural Fire Dist. (Log #1873)Chris Asanovic Cornelius City/Rural Fire Dept. (Log #1883)David Chastain, Clallam County Fire Protection Dist. #4 (Log
#1920)Robert Wilson, Jefferson County Fire Dist. #2 (Log #1933)Wayne Kier, Jefferson County Fire Dist. #3 (Log #1943)Brian J. Thibeault, Plymouth Fire Rescue (Log #1950)Jane Lee, KCFPD #7 (Log #1978)Edward A. Lewis, Spokane County Fire Dist. #4 (Log #2157)Gary Abrams, NRFPD (Log #2169)Duaine Harding Jr., NRFPD (Log #2187)Mike Brown, Kitsap County Fire Dist. #7 (Log #2188)Lyle J. Payne, Pleasant Hill RFPD (Log #2213)Joseph R. Guyotte, Dover-Foxcroft Fire Dept. (Log #2250)Michael S. Curtis, Dover-Foxcroft Fire Dept. (Log #2261)Darin Welburn, Jackson County FD #5 (Log #2279)RECOMMENDATION : Add new text as follows: “ Each company shall be led by an officer, who shall beconsidered a part of the company. “SUBSTANTIATION: Absent this language, the reader may be ledto believe that the officer is not to be counted as a member of thecompany.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.
___________________
(Log #169)1710- 192 - (3-2.1.2.2): AcceptSUBMITTER: Wayne E. Sandford, East Haven Fire, CTRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Each company shall be led by an officer, who shall beconsidered a part of the company. ”SUBSTANTIATION: Absent this language, the reader may be ledto believe that the officer is not to be counted as a member of thecompany.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.
___________________
(Log #673)1710- 193 - (3-2.1.2.2): AcceptSUBMITTER: Joseph M. Kolisch, Enumclaw Fire Dept./King Co.Fire Dist. 28RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Each company shall be led by an officer who shall be considereda part of that company .”SUBSTANTIATION: Without this additional language, you maybe led to believe that the company officer is not a component ofthe company.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.
___________________
(Log #1070)1710- 194 - (3-2.1.2.2): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Wayne Waggoner, Tennessee Fire CodeDevelopment CommitteeRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: 3-2.1.2.2 Each company shall be led by an company officer.SUBSTANTIATION: This change is for clarification to thedefinition of Officer.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Proposal1710-191 (Log #40), 1710-192 (Log #169), and 1710-193 (Log #673).
___________________
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
276
(Log #1144)1710- 195 - (3-2.1.2.2): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Gary F. Duignan, Forestville Fire Protection DistrictRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: Each company shall be lead by an officer or acting officer.SUBSTANTIATION: We can’t always get an officer on each unit.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Proposal1710-191 (Log #40), 1710-192 (Log #169), and 1710-193 (Log #673).
___________________
(Log #1501)1710- 196 - (3-2.1.2.2): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Alan D. Predmore, City of Buckley Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Add text to read as follows: Each company shall be led by an officer who shall be considereda part of that company. SUBSTANTIATION: Without this additional language, you maybe led to believe that the company officer is not a component ofthe company.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Proposal1710-191 (Log #40), 1710-192 (Log (169), and 1710-193 (Log #673).
___________________
(Log #1756)1710- 197 - (3-2.1.2.2): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Norman G. Angelo, Kent Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Add text to read as follows: “Each company shall be led by an officer , who shall be part of thecompany. ”SUBSTANTIATION: Absent this language, a person reading thestandard could be led to believe that the officer is not counted as amember of the company.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Proposal1710-191 (Log #40), 1710-192 (Log (169), and 1710-193 (Log #673).
___________________
(Log #1852)1710- 198 - (3-2.1.2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Ronald A. Pedee, Bellevue Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: Each fire company should shall be led by an officer or an actingofficer. SUBSTANTIATION: EMS Companies may not be led by officers;provides for a designated person in charge without restraining thedepartments ability to use an acting officer to provide command, ifnecessary.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2037)1710- 199 - (3-2.1.2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Each company shall should be led by an officer...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2098)1710- 200 - (3-2.1.2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Each company shall should be led by an officer...”.
SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #25)1710- 201 - (3-2.1.2.3): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Robert Carnahan, Clackamas County Fire Dist. 1Carl Brumund, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #350)Orville Downer, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #425)Daniel C. Olsen, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #455)Rich Mackie, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #576)Martin Goughnour, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1555)Norman Whiteley, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1580)Randy R. Bruegman, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1649)Joan Johnson, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1801)Jon R. Brown, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #2297)RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: 3-2.1.2.3 Each Company shall be led by an officer who shall beconsidered a part of the company. SUBSTANTIATION: Absent this language the reader may be ledto believe that the officer is not to be counted as a member of thecompany.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Proposal1710-191(Log #40), 1710-192 (Log #169), and 1710-193 (Log #673).
___________________
(Log #325)1710- 202 - (3-2.1.2.3): Accept in Principle in PartSUBMITTER: Dean R. Shank, Central Kitsap Fire RescueRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Supervisory chief officers shall respond and assume commandduring all working structures fires.”SUBSTANTIATION: The Incident Command system and itstraining are very clear that any officer can assume the commandposition. A chief officer is not the only person capable ofcommanding.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle in Part. Delete both of the current paragraphs 3-2.1.2.3. Replace with thefollowing: 3-2.1.2.3* Supervisory chief officers shall be dispatched or notifiedto respond to all full alarm assignments. The supervisory chiefofficer shall ensure that the incident management system isestablished as required in Chapter 4-2.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee agrees with thecommentator’s on this paragraph and has combined the aboveproposals.
___________________
(Log #654)1710- 203 - (3-2.1.2.3): Accept in Principle in PartSUBMITTER: Duane M. Malo, Washington State Assn. of FireChiefsRECOMMENDATION : Delete 3-2.1.2.3.SUBSTANTIATION: This language is confusing as the definitionof “Chief Officer” dispatched to calls beyond “initial attack” ratherthan “working structure fire” requires that he “assumes command”.Command and safety may be better served not to pass command.Also “Supervisory” Chief Officer is not defined.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle in Part.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-202 (Log #325).
___________________
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
277
(Log #1066)1710- 204 - (3-2.1.2.3): Accept in Principle in PartSUBMITTER: Wayne Waggoner, Tennessee Fire CodeDevelopment CommitteeRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: 3-2.1.2.3* Senior responding Supervisory chief officers shall beavailable to command the fire companies. Provision shall be madefor chief officers to designate technical support personnel inmanaging an incident.SUBSTANTIATION: Some career departments respond with anofficer of less rank than a chief. It has been recognized that seniorresponding officer could hold the rank of Captain or evenLieutenant.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle in Part.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-202 (Log #325).
___________________
(Log #1067)1710- 205 - (3-2.1.2.3): Accept in Principle in PartSUBMITTER: Wayne Waggoner, Tennessee Fire CodeDevelopment CommitteeRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: 3-2.1.3.3* Senior responding Supervisory chief officer shallrespond and insure that assume command during all workingstructural fires. an incident management system be provided, inaccordance with NFPA 1561, Standard on Fire DepartmentIncident Management System, to form the basic structure of allemergency operations of the fire department, regardless of thescale of the department or the emergency. SUBSTANTIATION: Some career departments respond with anofficer of less rank than a chief. It has been recognized that seniorresponding officer could hold the rank of Captain or evenLieutenant. The fire department recognized the importance ofNFPA 1561.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle in Part.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-202 (Log #325).
___________________
(Log #1068)1710- 206 - (3-2.1.2.3): Accept in Principle in PartSUBMITTER: Wayne Waggoner, Tennessee Fire CodeDevelopment CommitteeRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: 3-2.1.2.3* Senior Responding Supervisory chief officers asdetermined by the AHJ shall be available to command the firecompanies. Provision shall be made for supervisory chief officersto designate technical support personnel in managing an incident.In accordance with policies set by the AHJ SUBSTANTIATION: Each AHJ may refer to supervisorypersonnel by different terms.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle in Part.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-202 (Log #325).
___________________
(Log #1069)1710- 207 - (3-2.1.2.3): Accept in Principle in PartSUBMITTER: Wayne Waggoner, Tennessee Fire CodeDevelopment CommitteeRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: 3-2.1.2.3* Senior Responding Supervisory chief officers shall beavailable to respond and assume command during all to workingstructural fires in accordance with policies set by the AHJ. SUBSTANTIATION: Each AHJ may refer to supervisorypersonnel by different terms. The local authority should beallowed to derermine the level of assistance required by first in lineofficers.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle in Part.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-202 (Log #325).
___________________
(Log #1603)1710- 208 - (3-2.1.2.3): Accept in Principle in PartSUBMITTER: J. G. Bale, Surrey Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: Supervisory Chief Officers shall respond to working structuralfires if deemed necessary. He/she may assume command if thesituation would be improved.SUBSTANTIATION: Is it necessary to have a Chief Officerrespond to all working structural fires? Garages, sheds, vehicles,etc. may not require this. Should assumption of command beautomatic? Isn’t it recommended that command only betransferred if it will improve the situation.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle in Part.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-202 (Log #325).
___________________
(Log #1721)1710- 209 - (3-2.1.2.3): Accept in Principle in PartSUBMITTER: Bobby Williams, Spokane Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: Supervisory chief officers shall respond and may assumecommand during all working structural fires.SUBSTANTIATION: Proposed wording allows chief officers tomake the determination to assume command based on thesituation. Based on conditions, chief officers may allow juniorofficers to remain in command under their supervision formentoring/training purposes.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle in Part.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-202 (Log #325).
___________________
(Log #1853)1710- 210 - (3-2.1.2.3): RejectSUBMITTER: Ronald A. Pedee, Bellevue Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: Supervisory chief officers shall should be available to commandthe fire companies. Provision shall should be made for chiefofficers to designate technical support personnel in managing anincident.SUBSTANTIATION: Level of supervision and availability fordeployment are local decisions and this proposal removes anyconflict. Certainly, a supervisory Chief Officer on all workingstructural fires is highly desirable, if available.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #1854)1710- 211 - (3-2.1.2.3): RejectSUBMITTER: Ronald A. Pedee, Bellevue Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: Supervisory chief officers shall should respond and assumecommand during all working structural fires.SUBSTANTIATION: Level of supervision and availability fordeployment are local decisions and this proposal removes andconflict. Certainly, a supervisory chief officer on all workingstructural fires is highly desirable, if available.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2038)1710- 212 - (3-2.1.2.3): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Supervisory chief officers shall should be available... Provisionshall should be made for chief...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
278
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2099)1710- 213 - (3-2.1.2.3): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Supervisory chief officers shall should be available... Provisionshall should be made for chief...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #1026)1710- 214 - (3-2.1.2.4): Accept in Principle in PartSUBMITTER: Frederick G. Eggers, Jersey City Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Add text to read as follows: A Safety Officer whose primary function is to reduce theprobability of occupational fatalities, and injuries and preventexposures to hazardous materials and contagious diseases, shallrespond on confirmed emergency situations.SUBSTANTIATION: Chief Officers and Company Officers, mayat times, overlook safety factors, while trying to accomplish theirmission of fire suppression. The Safety Officer’s only concern isthe safety of all operating personnel no matter what the outcome ofthe incident.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle in Part. Move the following amended text to paragraph 3-2.3.x 3-2.3.3.2.4 A safety officer shall be deployed to all incidents thatescalate beyond a full alarm assignment or when there is asignificant risk to fire fighters. The safety officer shall ensure thatthe safety and health system is established as required in Chapter 4-1.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee agrees that a safetyofficer needs to be deployed to designated emergencies.
___________________
(Log #2039)1710- 215 - (3-2.1.2.4): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Supervisory chief officers shall should respond and assumecommand during all working...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2100)1710- 216 - (3-2.1.2.4): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Supervisory chief officers shall should respond and assumecommand during all working...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.
COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #1025)1710- 217 - (3-2.1.2.5): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Frederick G. Eggers, Jersey City Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Add the following text: Chief Officers shall have technicians assigned to them forcompany and personnel accountability purposes.SUBSTANTIATION: Numerous fire deaths have been attributedto the lack of accountability on the fire ground. The loss ofmultiple fire personnel in Los Angeles pointed out the need for atechnician to track all personnel. The Incident Commander justhas so much to do at an emergency situation, but this(accountability) must not be overlooked.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Add the following text: 3-2.1.2.4* Supervisory chief officers shall have staff aides deployedto them for purposes of incident management and accountability atemergency incidents. Staff Aide. A fire fighter or fire officer assigned to a supervisorychief officer to assist with the logistical and tactical functions ofincident or sector command. Staff aides may be known as FieldIncident Technicians, Staff Assistants, Battalion Fire Fighter, orBattalion Adjutant. The following appendix item was developed: A-1-3 Staff Aide. This member is assigned to a supervisory chiefofficer who assists at incident scene operations, which may includepersonnel accountability, communications, and other logisticaland administrative support. In addition this member may assist incoordinating training activities, respond to citizen inquiries,coordinate staffing issues and sick leave follow-up, and resourceallocations for facilities, and apparatus under the supervisory chiefofficers jurisdiction.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The requirements for accountabilityas the commentator requests are presently required in paragraph 3-2.3.1.2. However the committee believes that responding chiefsupervisory officers must have staff aides assigned to them atemergency incidents.
___________________
(Log #323)1710- 218 - (3-2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Dean R. Shank, Central Kitsap Fire RescueRECOMMENDATION : Delete entire section.SUBSTANTIATION: This entire section would not allow theIncident Commander to utilize the staffing on the scene (i.e.,teams, crews, etc.). How the members get there should not makedifference. Need to look at NFPA 1720 wording “Assembled”makes more sense. Under your example, it appears that a enginecompany of four (4) would not be allowed to split into two teams.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. Change the last sentence in 3-2.2.1 and 3-2.2.2 to read: “In jurisdictions with tactical hazards, high-hazard occupancies,high incident frequencies, geographical restrictions or otherpertinent factors as identified by the AHJ these companies shall bestaffed with a minimum of five (5) or six (6) on-duty personnel.” Change the last sentence in 3-2.2.3 to read: “These companies shall be staffed with a minimum number ofon-duty personnel as required by the tactical hazards, high-hazardoccupancies, high incident frequencies, geographical restrictionsor other pertinent factors as identified by the AHJ.” Add the following appendix: A-1-3 Company (f) Jurisdictions exist where the responsecapability of the initial alarm assignment is configured with theresponse of a (2) apparatus assignment. In some jurisdictions theymay not have seated and belted positions for (4) personnel andtherefore would respond an additional vehicle in consort with theinitial arriving engine to carry additional personnel. This would beto ensure that a minimum of four personnel are assigned to anddeployed as a company. The intent of this definition and therequirements in the standard are to ensure that these two (ormore) pieces of apparatus would always be dispatched, andrespond together as a single company. Some examples of thiswould include the following: (a) An engine and tanker/tender that would be respondingoutside a municipal water district.
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
279
(b) A multiple piece company assignment, specified in a firedepartment’s response SOP’s, such as an engine company responsewith a pumper and a hose wagon. (c) An engine with a vehicle personnel carrier. (d) An engine with an ambulance or rescue unit.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee believes that careerfire departments are expected to supply on a continuous basis anunanticipated response to fires and emergencies at any time of theday or night. They are heavy dependent on timely response ofproperly trained and equipped personnel to establish control ofthe situation at the location where it exists. Consequently thatequipment and personnel must be transported to the incidentscene on fire apparatus so that they can execute immediate andsimultaneous tasks. Success of an operation is heavy dependentupon coordination of the critical components of time, personneland equipment which are addressed in this standard with aminimum required number of personnel on unit of response. Staffing requirements are based on minimum levels for safe,efficient and effective operations at an emergency. However, the committee wants to assure that there is noconfusion on this issue and has amended the definition ofcompany to include: (f) Company configurations shall be permitted to allow formultiple apparatus that are dispatched and arrive together andcontinuously operate together and are managed by a singlecompany officer.
___________________
(Log #655)1710- 219 - (3-2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Duane M. Malo, Washington State Assn. of FireChiefsRECOMMENDATION : Delete 3-2.2.SUBSTANTIATION: This issue is already covered in 3-2.1. Ifjurisdictions follow 3-2.1, they will have greater operationeffectiveness and efficiency than merely minimum numbersassigned without regard to local conditions (i.e., fully sprinkleredcommunities, response times vs. manpower requirements, etc.).COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #860)1710- 220 - (3-2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: John Troeger, Green Bay Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Delete this section in its entirety.SUBSTANTIATION: Staffing levels should be determined by theAHJ.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #564)1710- 221 - (3-2.2, 3-2.3): RejectSUBMITTER: Steven L. Dumovich, Wilmette Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: 3-2.2 Operating Units. 3-2.2.1 Fire companies whose primary functions are to pump anddeliver water and perform basic fire fighting at fires includingsearch and rescue shall be known as engine companies. Thesecompanies shall be staffed with a minimum of four (4) on-dutypersonnel. In jurisdictions where tactical hazards and high-hazardoccupancies are identified, these companies shall be staffed with aminimum of five (5) or six (6) on-duty personnel. Thesecompanies shall be staffed with a minimum number of on-dutypersonnel as required by the tactical and occupancy hazards. 3-2.2.2 Fire companies whose primary functions are to performthe variety of services associated with truck work, such as forcibleentry, ventilation, search and rescue, aerial operations for waterdelivery and rescue, utility control, illumination, overhaul, andsalvage work, shall be known as ladder or truck companies. Thesecompanies shall be staffed with a minimum of four (4) on-dutypersonnel. In jurisdictions where tactical hazards and high-hazardoccupancies are identified, these companies shall be staffed with aminimum of five (5) or six (6) on-duty personnel. Thesecompanies shall be staffed with a minimum number of on-dutypersonnel as required by the tactical and occupancy hazards.
3-2.2.3 Other types of companies equipped with specializedapparatus and equipment shall be provided to assist engine andladder companies where deemed necessary as part of establishedpractice. These companies shall be staffed with a minimumnumber of on-duty personnel as required by the tactical andoccupancy hazards. 3-2.3 Deployment. 3-2.3.1 Initial Arriving Company. 3-2.3.1.1 The fire department’s fire suppression resources shallbe deployed to provide for the arrival of an engine company withina four (4) minute response time and/or the full initial alarmassignment within an eight (8) minute response time to ninety (90)percent of the incidents as established in Section 2-1.SUBSTANTIATION: There are several problems with theproposed text’s establishment of a single level of acceptableminimum staffing of response units. 1. Minimum staffing of professional fire department responseunits is a long-standing subject of collective bargaining in thosejurisdictions where employees are represented by labor unions.Adoption of this standard will put NFPA in the position ofadversely affecting municipalities in labor negotiations and willunnecessarily and unjustifiably interfere with the collectivebargaining process. Minimum staffing is a matter determined on acase-by-case basis by the professional leadership of eachdepartment based on its needs. The NFPA proposed standard willbe used by unions at negotiating sessions or in impasse arbitrationto justify increased personnel costs to municipalities. NFPAshould not be in the position of interfering with the collectivebargaining process. 2. The proposed minimum staffing requirements are likely to beused in hostile litigation against municipalities to suggest that thereexists some sort of nationally recognized standard of care and thefire departments that do not adopt this standard are negligent intheir delivery of emergency services. The proposed text createsunnecessary liability risk to municipalities if they do not concur inand adopt the proposed NFPA standard. 3. The proposed minimum staffing standard is a one-size-fits-allover generalization that is not justified by oeprational needs in allmunicipalities. The proposed change to these sections deletes the specific staffinglevels in favor of the same flexible language contained in 3-2.2.3 ofsubsection 3-2.2. The change would preserve the ability of localfire chiefs to determine minimum staffing in their informedprofessional judgment.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #1774)1710- 222 - (3-2.2, 3-3.3, 3-3.4): RejectSUBMITTER: J. Kenneth Jones, Speer, Hoyt, Jones, Poppe, Wolf& Griffith, P.C.RECOMMENDATION : Delete all text in 3-2.2 through 3-3.4.3.3.SUBSTANTIATION: The deletions are necessary to preserve thelocal control that is acknowledged in = A-2-1.1. In Oregon,funding levels are subject to constitutional tax limitation measures.(Art. XI Sec. 11). These include maximum rates, frozenpermanent rates, and super majority election requirements foradditional funds. Oregon emergency medical services aregoverned by State law imposing a requirement of border-to-bordercoverage in each county (Oregon Statutes Chapter 682). Theelected county officials decide the response times, level of service,service provider, and in some cases, even fees within the variouscounty areas. Manning issues are subject to union negotiations. Thesestandards may actually delay a response and incident assessmentwaiting on additional personnel. Oregon OSHA addresses safetyissues and the Fire Marshal and Health Division address trainingand standards in their respective areas. Hiring more personnel isthe NFPA approach. The reality doesn’t allow the luxury of extrapeople all the time for what may be the one fire response for theweek. The standards ignore the local fiscal ability anddetermination of the service levels.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
280
(Log #1913)1710- 223 - (3-2.2 through 3-3.4.3.3): RejectSUBMITTER: J. Kenneth Jones, Speer, Hoyt, Jones, Poppe, Wolf& Griffith, P.C.RECOMMENDATION : Delete all text in 3-2.2 through 3-3.4.3.3.SUBSTANTIATION: The deletions are necessary to preserve thelocal control that is acknowledged in A-2-1.1. In Oregon, fundinglevels are subject to constitutional tax limitation measures. (ArticleXI Section 11) These include maximum rates, frozen permanentrates, and super majority election requirements for additionalfunds. Oregon emergency medical services are governed by Statelaw imposing a requirement of border-to-border coverage in eachcounty (Oregon Statutes Chapter 682). The elected county officialsdecide the response times, level of service, service provider, and insome cases, even fees within the various county areas. Manning issues are subject to union negotiations. Thesestandards may actually delay a response and incident assessmentwaiting on additional personnel. Oregon OSHA addresses safetyissues and the Fire Marshal and Health Division address trainingand standards in their respective areas. Hiring more personnel isthe NFPA approach. The reality doesn’t allow the luxury of extrapeople all the time for what may be the one fire response for theweek. The standards ignore the local fiscal ability anddetermination of the service levels.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #41)1710- 224 - (3-2.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: John Shull, Scappoose Rural Fire Dist.Dennis Marceaux, Scappoose Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #57)Gloria Gass, Cloverdale, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist.
(Log #73)Mickey Hays, Beaver, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist.
(Log #109)Greg Gass, Cloverdale, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist.
(Log #125)Mary Lou Fletcher, Beaver, OR (Log #141)Kevin Wickman, Keizer Fire Dist. (Log #155)Wayne Sandford, East Haven Fire (Log #170)Levi B. Beachy, Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #187)Roy O. Palmer, Polk County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #202)Calvin Johnson, Lewis County Fire Dist. #2 (Log #221)Dennis England, City of Hillsboro/Washington County Fire Dist.
#2/Hillsboro Fire Dept. (Log #227)Dennis Ross, City of Hillsboro/Washington County Fire Dist. #2
(Log #236)Dennis Ross, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept. (Log #245)Patricia Schrom, Grant County Fire Dist. #11 (Log #278)Richard A. Knight, Fire Protection Fire Dist. #5 Mason County
(Log #282)Harold Edwards, Delhi Twp Fire Dept. (Log #301)William Steel, Pierce County Fire Dist. #26 (Log #339)Jeff Grunewald, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue (Log #361)Curtis E. Goodman, City of Norwood/Fire Dept. (Log #383)Darrell Hartmann, Brookings Fire Dept. (Log #402)Ted Biermann, Adams County Fire Protection Dist. #2 (Log #414)Earl Cordes, Jefferson County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #435)D. J. Cornish, Manzanita, OR/Manzanita Fire Dept. (Log #468)Judd Burrow, Manzanita, OR/Manzanita Public Safety (Log #484)Jeremy Strozyk, Nehalem, OR/Manzanita Public Safety (Log #500)Bret Siler, Nehalem, OR/Manzanita Fire Dept. (Log #516)Dan Marshall, Jackson County Fire Dist. #5 (Log 528)Jerry McDowell, Whatcom County Fire Protection Dist. #1 (Log
#549)S. D. ‘Skip’ Smith, Santa Clara Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log
#591)Charles Hennigan, Thurston County Fire Protection Dist. #13 (Log
#612)Don Rowe, Sisters-Camp Sherman RFPD (Log #642)Jon C. Bugher, Clallam County Fire Dist. #2 (Log #684)Paul Epler, Vernonia Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #697)Michael J. Sneddon, Charleston Fire Dist. (Log #707)Brad Littham, Snohowesh County Fire Protection Dist. (Log #734)Ken Walkington, Kitsap County Fire Dist. #14 (Log #745)Douglas VanPelt, Corvallis Fire Dept. (Log #753)Joel Stein, Keizer Fire Dist. (Log #772)William Seifert, Skamania County (WA) Fire Dist. #6 (Log #792)Michael Brondi, SCFD #19, Rockport/Marblemt. Fire Depts. (Log
#802)
Gary J. Hudson, St. Helens Rural Fire Dist. (Log #821)Matthew Shuler, Eugene Fire and EMS Dept./City of Eugene (Log
#835)Scott Koehler, Stanwood Fire Dept. (Log #854)Stephen D. Allen, Cottage Grove/South Lane Rural Fire Dept.
(Log #866)Dan Stout, Fire Dist. #8 – Spokane County (Log #885)Louis Hayvaz, Thurston County Fire Protection Dist. #13 (Log
#904)Monty Moore, Kittites County Fire Dist. #8 (Log #915)Cleve Rooper, Cannon Beach RFPD (Log #923)William H. Combs, Sutherlin Fire Dept. (Log #939)Charles W. Edwards, Hansville, WA/Kitsap Fire Protection Dist.
#14 (Log #960)John Schlegel, Tri-City RFPD (Log #967)Bill Schmitt, Klickitat County Fire Protection Dist. #13 (Log #986)Bill Alguire, Keizer Fire Dist. (Log #993)Ted Ames, Warrenton Fire Dept. (Log #1005)Craig Helgeland, Camano Island Fire & Rescue (Log #1023)David Elkins, KCFPD #4/WFCA (Log #1039)Dale Mitchell, Pierce County Fire Dist. #8 (Log #1049)Paul M. Olheiser, Knappa Fire Dist. (Log #1096)Larry D. Eckhardt, Hoodland Fire Dist. #74 (Log #1107)Mike Rieger, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1125)Charles Spittles, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1156)Cindy Manning, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1193)Corey Tohl, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1209)Terry Zuercher, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1225)Tennessee Hodgdon, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1241)Thomas G. Miller, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1249)Roy Ellerbroek, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1265)Mike Ellerbroek, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1281)Aaron Burris, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1305)Leonard Ingles, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1313)Stephen Stelzig, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1338)Frank Reding, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1354)Leroy Goff, Sumner,WA/City of Sumner (Log #1370)Kyle Sheets, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1372)Tim Hamburger, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1396)Ken Aufdermauer, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1412)Kyle Adams, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1420)David B. Schelhaas, Scappoose Rural Fire Dept. (Log #1443)John R. McAdoo, Estacada Fire Dist. #69 (Log #1454)Dan O’Dell, Boring Fire Dist. (Log #1482)Larry A. Long, Estacada Rural Fire Dist. #69 (Log #1486)Lanny R. Boston, Bandon Rural Fire Protection Dist. #8/City of
Bandon Fire Dept./Southwestern Oregon Fire Chiefs Assn. (Log#1513)
John A. Stein, Dallas Fire Dept. (Log #1530)Robert D. Wilson, Quilcene, WA/Quilcene Vol. Fire Dept. (Log
#1598)Aaron Vaughn, Scappoose Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #1608)Jack R. Carriger, Nestucca RFPD (Log #1625)Dale Staib, Philomath RFPD #4 (Log #1668)Scott Pearson, Snohomish County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1709)Patrick Reitz, Terrebonne, OR/Crooked River Ranch RFPD (Log
#1737)Jeff Griffin, Oregon Fire Chiefs’ Assn. (Log #1779)Allan MacKay, Sedro-Woolley, WA/Whatcom County Fire
Protection Dist. #18 (Log #1836)Charles R. Cable, Cloverdale Rural Fire Dist. (Log #1874)Chris Asanovic, Cornelius City/Rural Fire Dept. (Log #1881)David Chastain, Clallam County Fire Protection Dist. #4 (Log
#1922)Robert Wilson, Jefferson County Fire Dist. #2 (Log #1938)Wayne Kier, Jefferson County Fire Dist. #3 (Log #1948)Jane Lee, KCRFPD #7 (Log #1975)Edward A. Lewis, Spokane County Fire Dist. #4 (Log #2155)Gary Abrams, NRFPD (Log #2165)Duaine M. Harding Fr., NRFPD (Log #2184)Lyle J. Payne, Pleasant Hill RFPD (Log #2208)Joseph R. Guyette, MSFFF (Log #2248)Michael S. Curtis, Dover-Foxcroft Fire Dept. (Log #2263)Darin Welburn, Jackson County FD #5 (Log #2277)RECOMMENDATION : Revise text as follows: “...These companies shall be staffed with a minimum of four (4)on duty personnel. In jurisdictions where tactical hazards andhigh-hazard occupancies are identified, these companies shall bestaffed with a minimum of five (5) or six (6) on duty personnel.Minimum company staffing shall be determined by the localjurisdiction. ”SUBSTANTIATION: This change will allow each jurisdiction tostaff according to their needs. Chicago, IL hazards may require a
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
281
response staff of 15. The rural hazards of Jackson County 3, inOregon, may require a response staff of 3.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #42)1710- 225 - (3-2.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: John Shull, Scappoose Rural Fire Dist.Dennis Marceaux, Scappoose Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #58)Gloria Gass, Cloverdale, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist.
(Log #74)Mickey Hays, Beaver, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist.
(Log #108)Greg Gass, Cloverdale, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist.
(Log #124)Mary Lou Fletcher, Beaver, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protection
Dist. (Log #140)Wayne Sandford, East Haven Fire (Log #171)Levi B. Beachy, Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #186)Roy O. Palmer, Polk County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #203)Calvin Johnson, Lewis County Fire Dist. #2 (Log #217)Dennis England, City of Hillsboro/Washington County Fire Dist.
#2/Hillsboro Fire Dept. (Log #228)Dennis Ross, City of Hillsboro/Washington County Fire Dist. #2
(Log #237)Patricia Schrom, Grant County Fire Dist. #11 (Log #269)Richard A. Knight, Fire Protection Dist. #5 Mason County (Log
#284)Harold Edwards, Delhi Twp Fire Dept. (Log #306)William Steel, Pierce County Fire Dist. #26 (Log #335)Jerry McDowell, Whatcom County Fire Protection Dist. #1 (Log
#545)Jeff Grunewald, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue (Log #362)Curtis E. Goodman, City of Norwood/Fire Dept. (Log #388)Darrell Hartmann, Brookings Fire Dept. (Log #392)Ted Biermann, Adams County Fire Protection Dist. #2 (Log #410)Earl Cords, Jefferson County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #436)D. J. Cornish, Manzanita, OR/Manzanita Fire Dept. (Log #464)Judd Burrow, Manzanita, OR/Manzanita Public Safety (Log #480)Jeremy Strozyk, Nehalem, OR/Manzanita Public Safety (Log #496)Bret Siler, Nehalem, OR/Manzanita Fire Dept. (Log #512)Dan Marshall, Jackson County Fire Dist. #5 (Log #529)Charles Hennigan, Thurston County Fire Protection Dist. #13 (Log
#607)Don Rowe, Sisters-Camp Sherman RFPD (Log #643)Jon C. Bugher, Clallam County Fire Dist. #2 (Log #680)Paul Epler, Vernonia Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #695)Michael J. Sneddon, Charleston Fire Dist. (Log #708)Brad Litthan, Snohowash County FPD #15 (Log #730)Ken Walkington, Kitsap County fire Dist. #14 (Log #741)Douglas VanPelt, Corvallis Fire Dept. (Log #754)Michael Brondi, SCFD #19/Rockport/Marblemt. Fire Depts. (Log
#798)George M. Dunkel, St. Helens Rural Fire Dist. (Log #806)Gary J. Hudson, St. Helens Rural Dist. (Log #816)William Seifert, Skamania County (WA) Fire Dist. #6 (Log #788)Matthew Shuler, Eugene Fire and EMS Dept./City of Eugene (Log
#836)Scott Koehler, Stanwood Fire Dept. (Log #850)Stephen D. Allen, Cottage Grove/South Lane Rural Fire Dept.
(Log #867)Dan Stout, Fire Dist. #8 – Spokane County (Log #881)J. Ben Reisz, Sumner, WA (Log #891)Louis Hayvaz, Thurston County Fire Protection Dist. #13 (Log
#898)Monty Moore, Kittites County Fire Dist. #8 (Log #911)Cleve Rooper, Cannon Beach RFPD (Log #924)Williams H. Combs, City of Sutherlin Fire Dept. (Log #940)Charles W. Edwards, Hansville, WA/Kitsap Fire Protection Dist.
#14 (Log #956)John Schlegel, Tri-City RFPD (Log #968)Bill Schmitt, Klickitat Fire Protection Dist. #13 (Log #979)Ted Ames, Warrenton Fire Dept. (Log #1006)Craig Helgeland, Camano Island Fire & Rescue (Log #1019)David Elking, KCFD #4/WFCA (Log #1035)Dale Mitchell, Pierce County Fire Dist. #18 (Log #1046)Paul M. Olheisen, Knappa Fire Dist. (Log #1095)Larry D. Eckhardt, Hoodland Fire Dist. #74 (Log #1108)Mike Rieger, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1121)Charles Spittles, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1152)
Cindy Manning, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1189)Corey Tohl, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1205)Terry Zuercher, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1221)Tennessee Hodgdon, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1237)Thomas G. Miller, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1261)Roy Ellerbroek, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1277)Mike Ellerbroek, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1293)Aaron Burris, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1301)Leonard Ingles, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1326)Stephen Stelzig, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1334)Frank Reding, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1350)Leroy Goff, Sumner,WA/City of Sumner (Log #1366)Kyle Sheets, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1384)Tim Hamburger, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1392)Ken Aufdermauer, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1408)Kyle Adams, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1432)David B. Schelhaas, Scappoose Rural Fire Dept. (Log #1438)John R. McAdoo, Estacada Fire Dist. #69 (Log #1455)Dan O’Dell, Boring Fire Dist. (Log #1480)Larry A. Long, Estacada Rural Fire Dist. #69 (Log #1487)Lanny R. Boston, Bandon Rural Fire Protection Dist. #8/City of
Bandon Fire Dept./Southwestern Oregon Fire Chiefs Assn. (Log#1518)
John A. Stein, Dallas Fire Dept. (Log #1531)Robert D. Wilson, Quilcene, WA/Quilcene Vol. Fire Dept. (Log
#1594)Aaron Vaughn, Scappoose Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #1609)Jack R. Carrigen, Nestucca RFPD (Log #1624)Dale Staib, Philomath RFPD #4 (Log #1669)Scott Pearson, Snohomish County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1705)Patrick Reitz, Terrebonne, OR/Crooked River Ranch RFPD (Log
#1736)Jeff Griffin, Oregon Fire Chiefs’ Assn. (Log #1790)Allan MacKay, Sedro-Woolley, WA/Whatcom County Fire
Protection Dist. #18 (Log #1834)Charles R. Cable, Cloverdale Rural Fire Dist. (Log #1872)Chris Asanovic, Cornelius City/Rural Fire Dept. (Log #1882)David Chastain, Clallam County Fire Protection Dist. #4 (Log
#1921)Robert Wilson, Jefferson County Fire Dist. #2 (Log #1934)Wayne Kier, Jefferson County Fire Dist. #3 (Log #1944)Jane Lee, KCFPD #7 (Log #1977)Edward A. Lewis, Spokane County Fire Dist. #4 (Log #2152)Gary Abreams, NRFPD (Log #2172)Duaine Harding Jr., NRFPD (Log #2190)Lyle J. Payne, Pleasant Hill RFPD (Log #2212)Joseph R. Guyette, Dover-Foxcroft, ME/MSFFF (Log #2252)Michael S. Curtis, Dover-Foxcroft Fire Dept. (Log #2259)Darin Welburn, Jackson County FD #5 (Log #2278)RECOMMENDATION : Revise text as follows: “Fire companies whose primary functions are to pump anddeliver water and perform basic fire fighting at fires includingsearch and rescue shall be known as engine companies. Thesecompanies shall be staffed with a minimum of comprised of four(4) on-duty personnel. In jurisdictions where tactical hazards andhigh-hazard occupancies are identified, these companies shall may be staffed with a minimum of five (5) or six (6) on-dutypersonnel.”SUBSTANTIATION: Current language is not clear. Provisionsfor members of a company arriving in different vehicles should beprovided. The proposed new language clarifies that a companycan exist if they all assemble at the incident, regardless of how theyget there.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #88)1710- 226 - (3-2.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Larry D. Donner, Boulder Fire Dept., CORECOMMENDATION : Delete the following text: “These companies shall be staffed with a minimum of four (4) onduty personnel. In jurisdictions where tactical hazards and highhazard occupancies are identified, these companies shall be staffedwith a minimum of five (5) or six (6) on duty personnel.”SUBSTANTIATION: The ability to establish service deliverystandards is vested with the jurisdiction having authority. NFPAshould not attempt to circumvent this authority through thestandards process.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
282
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #322)1710- 227 - (3-2.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Dean R. Shank, Central Kitsap Fire RescueRECOMMENDATION : Delete paragraph.SUBSTANTIATION: Minimum company staffing shall bedetermined by the local jurisdiction. The citizens will determinewhat level of service they are willing to pay for.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #326)1710- 228 - (3-2.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Robert Goodyear, Moraga Orinda Fire DistrictRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: 3-2.2.1 Fire companies whose primary functions are to pump anddeliver water and perform basic fire fighting at fires includingsearch and rescue shall be known as engine companies. Thesecompanies shall be staffed with a minimum of three (3) four (4)on-duty personnel. In jurisdictions where tactical hazards andhigh-hazard occupancies are identified, these companies shall bestaffed with a minimum of four (4), five (5) or (6) on-dutypersonnel.SUBSTANTIATION: Many fire districts, including ours, lack thefunding ability to provide the staffing levels suggested in NFPA1710. A more reasonable approach, and more fiscally prudent,would be to require sprinkler systems in occupancies, especiallythose outside a four (4) minute response zone.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #555)1710- 229 - (3-2.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Bruce Holloway, Spokane County Fire Dist.#3/Rep. WA State of Assn. of Fire ChiefsRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Fire companies whose primary functions are to pump anddeliver water and perform basic fire fighting at fires includingsearch and rescue shall be known as engine companies. Minimumcompany staffing shall be determined by local jurisdiction.”SUBSTANTIATION: This change will allow local governments todetermine the appropriate staffing needs for the exposures.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #622)1710- 230 - (3-2.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Donald H. Butz, Rancho Santa Fe Fire ProtectionDist.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “...These companies shall be staffed with a minimum of four (4)on-duty personnel. In jurisdictions where tactical hazards and high-hazard occupancies are identified, these companies shall be staffedwith a minimum of five (5) or six (6) on-duty personnel. Thesecompanies shall be staffed with a minimum number of on-dutypersonnel as required by the tactical and occupancy hazards. ”SUBSTANTIATION: The text utilized is from 3-2.2.3. Thisapproach allows for the flexibility needed at the local level toaddress concerns and conditions which effect the local agency.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #624)1710- 231 - (3-2.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Donald H. Butz, Rancho Santa Fe Fire ProtectionDist.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “...These companies shall be staffed with a minimum number ofpersonnel as authorized by the AHJ . These companies shallshould be staffed with a minimum of four (4) three (3) on-dutypersonnel. In jurisdictions where tactical hazards and high-hazardoccupancies are identified, these companies shall should be staffedwith a minimum of four (4), five (5), or six (6) on-dutypersonnel.”SUBSTANTIATION: The staffing requirements of four personnelis not fiscally possible in many departments, particularly small andmedium sized agencies. The staffing requirement does not takeinto consideration the benefit of engineered protection systems,such as building construction, ventilation systems, and/orextinguishing systems.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________(Log #627)
1710- 232 - (3-2.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Donald H. Butz, Rancho Santa Fe Fire ProtectionDist.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “These companies shall be staffed with a minimum of four (4)on-duty personnel. In jurisdictions where tactical hazards andhigh-hazard occupancies are identified, these companies shall bestaffed with a minimum of five (5) or six (6) on-duty personnel.The Fire Chief with the approval of the AHJ shall identifyminimum staffing requirements to ensure that a sufficient numberof personnel are on-duty to operate safely and effectively. ”SUBSTANTIATION: The revised text is from NFPA 1720, 2001edition, 2-1.4. If a volunteer organization is capable of determiningsafe and effective staffing levels, then why should a paid-careerdepartment be restricted with a set minimum number of personnelper apparatus.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________(Log #665)
1710- 233 - (3-2.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Duane M. Malo, Washington State Assn. of FireChiefsRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Fire companies whose primary functions are to pump anddeliver water and perform basic fire fighting at fires includingsearch and rescue shall be known as engine companies. Minimumcompany staffing shall be determined by local jurisdiction,”.SUBSTANTIATION: This change will allow local governments todetermine the appropriate staffing needs for the exposures.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #895)1710- 234 - (3-2.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: J. Ben Reisz, Sumner, WARECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “...These companies shall be staffed with a minimum of four (4)on duty personnel. In jurisdictions where tactical hazards and highhazard occupancies are identified, these companies shall be staffedwith a minimum of five (5) or six (6) on duty personnel.Minimum company staffing shall be determined by the localjurisdiction. ”SUBSTANTIATION: This change will allow each jurisdiction tostaff according to their needs. Chicago, IL hazards may require aresponse staff of 15. The rural hazards of Pierce County, in WA,may require a response staff of 3.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
283
(Log #1071)1710- 235 - (3-2.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Wayne Waggoner, Tennessee Fire CodeDevelopment CommitteeRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: 3-2.2.1 Fire companies whose primary functions are to pump anddeliver water and perform basic fire fighting at fires includingsearch and rescue shall be known as engine companies. Thesecompanies shall be staffed with a minimum of four (4) on dutypersonnel number of personnel as determined by the AHJ. Injurisdictions where tactical hazards and high-hazard occupanciesare identified, these companies shall be staffed with a minimum offive (5) or six (6) on duty personnel number of personnel asdetermined by the AHJ. SUBSTANTIATION: No demonstrated advantages aredocumented to rationalize a definite number of personnel neededexcept at the local level.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #1072)1710- 236 - (3-2.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Wayne Waggoner, Tennessee Fire CodeDevelopment CommitteeRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: 3-2.2.1 Other types of companies equipped with specializedapparatus and equipment shall be provided to assist engine andladder companies where deemed necessary as part of establishedpractice. These companies shall be staffed with a minimumnumber of on-duty personnel as required by the tactical andoccupancy hazards determined by the AHJ. SUBSTANTIATION: No demonstrated advantages aredocumented to rationalize a definite number of personnel neededexcept at the local level.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #1143)1710- 237 - (3-2.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Gary F. Duignan, Forestville Fire Protection DistrictRECOMMENDATION : Delete all. Or, revise to allowdepartments to staff as local conditions delegate.SUBSTANTIATION: It is not possible to staff fire dept. units with4+ on duty personnel when you only have one or two personnel onduty and rely on volunteers. If we have to follow this, many timesthe fire dept. won’t be able to respond. Or, the Federal Gov’tcould give the fire dept. funds to hire more personnel.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #1165)1710- 238 - (3-2.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Jackie T. Gibbs, Marietta Fire and EmergencyServicesRECOMMENDATION : Delete the following text: “These companies shall be staffed with a minimum of four (4)on-duty personnel. In jurisdictions where tactical hazards andhigh-hazard occupancies are identified, these companies shall bestaffed with a minimum of five (5) or six (6) on-duty personnel.”SUBSTANTIATION: There is no justification for a prescriptivesolution to a performance problem. The committee cannot showany relationship to the death or injury of firefighters to the numberassigned to a piece of equipment except in cases of automotiveaccidents. Use the performance wording found in 3-2.2.3.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #1172)1710- 239 - (3-2.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Robert L. Ridgeway, Gastonia Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Change 2nd and 3rd sentences to read: (It is recommended that) these companies shall (should) bestaffed with a minimum of four (4) on-duty personnel. Injurisdictions where tactical hazards and high-hazard occupanciesare identified, these companies shall be staffed with a minimum of5 or 6 personnel (these companies should be staffed withadditional personnel or additional companies should be added tothe initial first alarm assignment).SUBSTANTIATION: While no experienced structural fire officerwould disagree with the Committee’s proposal, they are simplybeyond the financial reach of most departments and communitiesin the nation. A more realistic approach would be to word thesection as a “recommendation”, as opposed to a “mandatedstandard”. This language would also be consistent with that ascontained in NFPA 1500 (1997); A-6-4.1, A-6-4.3, an A-6-4.4.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #1502)1710- 240 - (3-2.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Alan D. Predmore, City of Buckley Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “These companies shall be staffed with a minimum of four (4)on-duty personnel. In jurisdictions where tactical hazards andhigh-hazard occupancies are identified, these companies shall bestaffed with a minimum of five (5) or six (6) on-duty personnel.These companies shall be staffed based on the requirementsestablished by the local jurisdiction. ”SUBSTANTIATION: The standard as proposed does notestablish a standard. Room must be left for local jurisdictions tomake decisions regarding personnel and staffing issued. Theproposed change will allow local jurisdictions to determineappropriate staffing levels.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #1604)1710- 241 - (3-2.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: J. G. Bale, Surrey Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Delete last sentence.SUBSTANTIATION: Focus should be on achieving four personcrews. Five of six person will be unachievable for many departments.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #1681)1710- 242 - (3-2.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro/Rep. WashingtonCounty Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “These companies shall should be staffed with... In jurisdictionscompanies shall should be staffed...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
284
(Log #1697)1710- 243 - (3-2.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: John A. Dutch, City of Norman Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Delete all wording after the first sentence,which ends with “engine companies”.SUBSTANTIATION: Such an arbitrary requirement does notconsider whether or not desireable outcomes are being metutilizing locally developed staffing criteria.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #1722)1710- 244 - (3-2.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Bobby Williams, Spokane Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: Fire companies whose primary functions are to pump and deliverwater and perform basic fire fighting at fires including search andrescue shall be known as engine companies. These companiesshall should be staffed with a minimum of four (4) on-dutypersonnel. In jurisdictions where tactical hazards and high-hazardoccupancies are identified, these companies shall should be staffedwith a minimum of five (5) or six (6) on-duty personnel.SUBSTANTIATION: While it is desirable to have 4 or morepersonnel on every company, the level of staffing is the decision ofthe governing body. The staffing levels identified in the draftdocument should be provided as recommended levels. In the first sentence, draft wording mandates that this type ofapparatus be called an engine. There are many jurisdictions thatdo not use this terminology. The wording should be adjusted as itis in other sections of this and other NFPA documents to give theflexibility to the local jurisdiction to use the wording desired, aslong as meets the general intent of the section.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #1752)1710- 245 - (3-2.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Norman G. Angelo, Kent Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Fire companies whose primary functions are to pump anddeliver water and perform basic fire fighting at fires includingsearch and rescue shall be known as engine companies. Thesecompanies shall be staffed with a minimum of four (4) on-dutypersonnel. In jurisdictions where tactical hazards and high-hazardoccupancies are identified, these companies shall be staffed with aminimum of five (5) or six (6) on-duty personnel respond withsufficient staff and companies to allow for firefighters to provide fortheir safety as they mitigate the emergency. ”SUBSTANTIATION: The current language assumes that the levelof risk and hazards within all communities are the same and theyhave the same level of acceptable risk to the community. The keyhere is that firefighter safety should not be compromised even if thecitizens in a given community choose a higher level of personalrisk. There is more than one approach to insure firefighter safety.In one community a minimum of three (3) may be safe while inanother it may take more than four (4). In any case the level ofservice needs to be analyzed and set at the local level based uponan analysis of the communities hazard vulnerability and theirdesired level of service.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #1765)1710- 246 - (3-2.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Randy Sheppard, Palm Beach County Fire-RescueRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Fire companies whose primary functions ..shall be known asengine companies. These companies shall be staffed with aminimum of four (4) on-duty personnel. In jurisdictions wheretactical hazards and high-hazard occupancies are identified, thesecompanies shall be staffed with a minimum of five (5) or six (6)on-duty personnel.”SUBSTANTIATION: Section 3-2.1.2.1 establish the authority forfire departments to determine minimum company staffing levels.
The inclusion of sentences 2 and 3 in Section 3-2.2.1 is in conflictwith that section and, therefore, should be deleted. In addition,no guidelines or standards are established to identify what tacticalhazards or high hazard occupancies would require additionalpersonnel.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #1772)1710- 247 - (3-2.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Kenneth M. Craft, Bonita Springs Fire Control andRescue DistrictRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Fire companies whose primary functions are to pump anddeliver water and perform basic fire fighting at fires includingsearch and rescue shall be known as engine companies. Thesecompanies shall be staffed with a minimum of four (4) three (3) on-duty personnel. In jurisdictions where tactical hazards andhigh-hazard occupancies are identified, these companies shall bestaffed with a minimum of five (5) or six (6) three (3) up to six (6) on-duty personnel.”SUBSTANTIATION: Due to new building codes, standards,sprinkling, etc, initial truck company manning for small careerdepartment with limited on-duty personnel should be considered.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #1810)1710- 248 - (3-2.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Rick Mawhirter, Western Missouri Fire Chiefs Assn.RECOMMENDATION : Add as the last sentence: “ Companies may respond in two separate vehicles and thepersonnel assigned shall equal the company staffing that is noted inthe standard. ”SUBSTANTIATION: Departments should have the latitude todetermine how their staffing is distributed. In some jurisdictions acompany may be comprised of three personnel on an engine andtwo on an ambulance. The units respond as a two-piece company.The same would hold true if there is a two-piece engine consistingof personnel assigned on an engine and then on a separate piece ofapparatus such as a hose wagon or a relay pumper.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #1850)1710- 249 - (3-2.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Ronald A. Pedee, Bellevue Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Fire companies whose primary functions are to pump anddeliver water and perform basic fire fighting at fires includingsearch and rescue shall be known as engine companies. Thesecompanies shall be staffed with a minimum of four (4) on-dutypersonnel. In jurisdictions where tactical hazards and high-hazardoccupancies are identified, these companies shall be staffed with aminimum of five (5) or six (6) on-duty personnel.”SUBSTANTIATION: The above amended proposal deals with theassumption in the original text that only engine companies of 4 ormore persons can be effectively or safety deployed; it would only becorrect to say that 4 are more effective than 3, 5 than 4, and so on.Avoids conflict with local authority for resource allocation,problem assessment, and standard of care.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #1952)1710- 250 - (3-2.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Brian J. Thibeault, Plymouth Fire RescueRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Fire companies whose primary functions are to pump anddeliver water and perform basic fire fighting at fires includingsearch and rescue shall be known as engine companies. These
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
285
companies shall be staffed with a minimum of comprised of four(4) on-duty personnel. In jurisdictions where tactical hazards andhigh-hazard occupancies are identified, these companies shall may be staffed with a minimum of five (5) or six (6) on-dutypersonnel.”SUBSTANTIATION: Current language is not clear. Provisionsfor members of a company arriving in different vehicles should beprovided. The proposed new language clarifies that a companycan exist if they all assemble at the incident, regardless of how theyget there.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #1960)1710- 251 - (3-2.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Chip Prather, Orange County Fire AuthorityRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Fire companies whose primary functions are to pump anddeliver water and perform basic fire fighting at fires includingsearch and rescue shall be known as engine companies.Companies shall may be staffed with a minimum of four (4) on-duty personnel. Jurisdictions where tactical hazards/high hazardsare identified, companies shall may be staffed with a minimum offive (5) or six (6) on-duty personnel. Staffing levels to bedetermined by local jurisdiction/community risk assessment.”SUBSTANTIATION: Clearly this does not allow local governmentofficials and the Fire Chief to be responsive for analysis of theircommunity risks and financial considerations in determiningservice levels. This could destroy many communities who can notafford this level of staffing.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #2101)1710- 252 - (3-2.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “These companies shall should be staffed with... Injurisdictions...companies shall should be staffed...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #2192)1710- 253 - (3-2.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Brown, Kitsap County Fire District #7RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Fire companies whose primary functions are to pump anddeliver water and perform basic firefighting at fires includingsearch and rescue shall be known as engine companies. Thesecompanies shall be staffed with a minimum of comprised of four(4) on-duty personnel. In jurisdictions where tactical hazards andhigh-hazard occupancies are identified, these companies shall may be staffed with five (5) or six (6) on-duty personnel.”SUBSTANTIATION: The current language is not clear.Provisions for members of a company arriving in different vehiclesshould be provided. Many organizations respond a single companyof four personnel with two vehicles. For example, two personnelmay follow an engine with a medic unit to deliver the medic unit tothe scene or keep the medic unit with the personnel for anadditional alarm. The proposed revision clarifies that a companycan exist if they all assemble at the incident scene, regardless ofhow they get there. Their mode of transportation should beirrelevant if they can assemble in a comparable and efficientmanner.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #2195)1710- 254 - (3-2.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Brown, Kitsap County Fire District #7RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “...these companies shall be staffed with a minimum of four (4)on-duty personnel. In jurisdictions where tactical hazards andhigh-hazard occupancies are identified, these companies shall bestaffed with a minimum of five (5) or six (6) on duty personnel.Minimum company staffing shall be determined by the localjurisdiction .”SUBSTANTIATION: This proposed change would allow for localjurisdictions to match their staffing levels to local needs andcapacity. A one size fits all standard does not allow for real worlddiversity between different regions of the country. Nor does thestandard allow for alternative approaches to risk management.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #540)1710- 255 - (3-2.2.1, 3-2.2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Richard James Probert, San Ramon Valley FireProtection Dist.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: 3-2.2.1 Fire companies whose primary functions are to pump anddeliver water and perform basic fire fighting at fires includingsearch and rescue shall be known as engine companies. Thesecompanies shall be staffed It is recommended that thesecompanies be staffed with a minimum of four (4) on-dutypersonnel. In jurisdictions where tactical hazards and high-hazardoccupancies are identified, it is recommended that thesecompanies be staffed these companies shall be staffed with aminimum of five (5) or six (6) on-duty personnel. 3-2.2.2 Fire companies whose primary functions are to performthe variety of services associated with truck work, such as forcibleentry, ventilation, search and rescue, aerial operations for waterdelivery and rescue, utility control, illumination, overhaul, andsalvage work, shall be known as ladder or truck companies. It isrecommended that these companies be staffed These companiesshall be staffed with a minimum of four (4) on-duty personnel. Injurisdictions where tactical hazards and high-hazard occupanciesare identified, it is recommended that these companies be staffed these companies shall be staffed with a minimum of five (5) or six(6) on-duty personnel.SUBSTANTIATION: As the standard is currently written, 3-2.2.1and 3-2.2.2 take away local elected officials’ responsibility indetermining the level of service appropriate for their particularagency. Changing the wording to a recommendation makes thegeneral point, and also provides the needed flexibility for localelected officials to operate within the constraints and/or the needsof each jurisdiction.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #724)1710- 256 - (3-2.2.1, 3-2.2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Marquam R. Johnson, Torrington Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise the text to read as follows: “...these companies shall be staffed with a minimum number ofon-duty personnel as required by the tactical operation plans andthe occupancy hazard.”SUBSTANTIATION: Leave precise unit staffing to locality - basedon their game plans - i.e., quints squads, traditional engine andtruck - whatever. Rely on operational standards set for the in 3-2.3.2.2.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
286
(Log #1816)1710- 257 - (3-2.2.1, 3-2.2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: J. Gordon Routley, Champlain, NYRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “In jurisdictions where tactical hazards and high hazardoccupancies are identified, these companies shall be staffed with aminimum of five (5) or six (6) on duty personnel. The authorityhaving jurisdiction shall determine if additional personnel arerequired to staff companies based on the presence of high hazardoccupancies and tactical hazards in the jurisdiction. ” Add Appendix notes(s) to 3-2.2.1 and 3-2.2.2: “ The need for additional personnel to staff engine and laddercompanies should be considered where these companies respondto high hazard occupancies, where unusual tactical hazards can beanticipated, and/or where the safe and efficient completion ofanticipated tasks require more than 4 personnel. ”SUBSTANTIATION: As proposed, the requirement for aminimum of 5 or 6 on duty personnel is not explicit orenforceable. There is no way to determine if something is atactical hazard or a high hazard occupancy except judgment. Evenif there is agreement that tactical hazards and/or high hazardoccupancies are present, how does the AHJ determine if theminimum requirement is 5 or 6 personnel in that particularsituation? A requirement for the AHJ to consider and determine ifadditional staffing is necessary can be enforced as a mandatoryrequirement. The appendix note provides guidance in making ajudgmental determination.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #2010)1710- 258 - (3-2.2.1, 3-2.2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Ronald B. Irwin, The City of Sparks Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Remove altogether from the document, 3-2.2.1 and 3-2.2.2. This staffing issue is a local government functiononly, not NFPA.SUBSTANTIATION: Staff is local government jurisdiction, as totheir own financial ability. Should not be a decision of NFPA orany other organization.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #26)1710- 259 - (3-2.2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Robert Carnahan, Clackamas County Fire Dist. 1Carl Brumund, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #349)Orville Downer, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #424)Daniel C. Olsen, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #454)Rich Mackie, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #575)S. D. ‘Skip’ Smith, Santa Clara Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log
#594)Martin Goughnour, Clackamas County Frie Dist. #1 (Log #1556)Norman Whiteley, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1581)Randy R. Bruegman, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1650)Joan Johnson, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1800)Jon R. Brown, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #2296)RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: 3-2.2.2 Fire companies whose primary functions are to pump anddeliver water and perform basic fire fighting at fires includingsearch and rescue shall be known as engine companies. Thesecompanies shall be comprised of sufficient personnel to combatthe fires of the AHJ based upon historical call volume and acommunity risk hazard evaluation completed by the AHJ. staffedwith a minimum of four (4) on duty personnel. In jurisdictionswhere the historical call volume includes significant events, largeloss fires and/or life losses in high risk occupancies, tatical hazardsand high hazard occupancies are identified, these companies shallfires, engine companies may be staffed with a minimum of five (5)or (6) additional on-duty personnel.SUBSTANTIATION: Current language is not clear. Scientificdata should be used in establishing the number of personnel tostaff a company. If the historical call volume warrants additionalstaffing more should be added. If the AHJ determines that datadoes not support 4, 5 or 6 person companies the data not a NFPA
standard should apply. Provisions for members of a companyarriving in different vehicles should be provided. The proposednew language clarifies that a company can exists if they all assembleat the incident, regardless of how they get there.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #43)1710- 260 - (3-2.2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: John Shull, Scappoose Rural Fire Dist.Dennis Marceaux, Scappoose Rural Fire Protection Dist., (Log
#59)Gloria Gass, Cloverdale, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist.,
(Log #75)Mickey Hays, Beaver, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist.,
(Log #110)Greg Gass, Cloverdale, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist.,
(Log #126)Mary Lou Fletcher, Beaver, OR (Log #142)Levi B. Beachy, Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #188)Roy O. Palmer, Polk County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #204)Calvin Johnson, Lewis County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #222)Dennis England, City of Hillsboro/Washington County Fire Dist.
#2/Hillsboro Fire Dept. (Log #230)Dennis Ross, City of Hillsboro/Washington County Fire Dist. #2
(Log #239)Dennis Ross, Hillsboro Fire Dept. (Log #248)Patricia Schrom, Grant County Fire Dist. #11 (Log #277)Richard A. Knight, Fire Protection Dist. #5 Mason County (Log
#290)Harold Edwards, Delhi Twp Fire Dept. (Log #300)William Steel, Pierce County Fire Dist. #26 (Log #340)Jeff Grunewald, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue (Log #364)Curtis E. Goodman, City of Norwood/Fire Dept. (Log #382)Darrell Hartmann, Brookings Fire Dept. (Log #401)Ted Biermann, Lind, WA/Adams County Fire Protection Dist. #2
(Log #415)Earl Cordes, Jefferson County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #438)D. J. Cornish, Manzanita, OR/Manzanita Fire Dept. (Log #469)Judd Burrow, Manzanita, OR/Manzanita Public Safety (Log #485)Jeremy Strozyk, Nehalem, OR/Manzanita Public Safety (Log #501)Bret Siler, Nehalem, OR/Manzanita Fire Dept. (Log #517)Dan Marshall, Jackson County Fire Dist. #5 (Log #531)Jerry McDowell, Whatcom County Fire Protection Dist. #1 (Log
#550)Bruce Holloway, Spokane County Fire Dist. #3/WSAFC (Log #559)S. D. ‘Skip’ Smith, Santa Clara Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log
#588)Charles Hennigan, Thurston County Fire Protection Dist. #13 (Log
#613)Don Rowe, Sisters-Camp Sherman RFPD (Log #645)Duane M. Malo, Washington State Assn. of Fire Chiefs (Log #664)Jon C. Bugher, Clallam County Fire Dist. #2 (Log #685)Paul Epler, Vernonia Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #693)Michael J. Sneddon, Charleston Fire Dist. (Log #710)Brad Litthans, Snohowish County Fire Protection Dist. #15 (Log
#735)Ken Walkington, Kitsap County Fire Dist. #14 (Log 746)Douglas VanPelt, Corvallis Fire Dept. (Log #756)Joel Stein, Keizer Fire Dist. (Log #771)William Seifert, Skamania County (WA) Fire Dist. #6 (Log #793)Michael Brondi, Skagit County Fire Dist. #19/Rockport/Marblemt.
Fire Depts. (Log #803)Gary J. Hudson, St. Helens Rural Fire Dist. (Log #822)Matthew Shuler, Eugene Fire and EMS Dept. (Log #838)Scott Koehler, Stanwood Fire Dept. (Log #855)Stephen D. Allen, Cottage Grove/South Lane Rural Dept. (Log
#869)Dan Stout, Fire Dist. #8 – Spokane County (Log #886)J. Ben Reisz, Sumner, WA (Log #896)Louis Hayvaz, Thurston County Fire Protection Dist. #13 (Log
#905)Monty Moore, Kittitas County Fire Dist. #8 (Log #916)Cleve Rooper, Cannon Beach RFPD (Log #926)William H. Combs, Sutherlin Fire Dept. (Log #942)Charles W. Edwards, Hansville, WA/Kitsad Fire Protection Dist.
#14 (Log #961)John Schlegel, Tri-City RFPD (Log #970)Bill Schmitt, Klickitat County Fire Protection Dist. #13 (Log #987)Bill Aguire, Keizer Fire Dist. (Log #994)
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
287
Ted Ames, Warrenton Fire Dept. (Log #1008)Craig Helgeland, Camano Island Fire & Rescue (Log #1024)David Elking, KCFPD #4/WFCA (Log #1040)Dale Mitchell, Pierce County Fire Dist. #8 (Log #1041)Paul M. Olheiser, Knappa Fire Dist. (Log #1093)Larry D. Eckhardt, Hoodland Fire Dist. #74 (Log #1109)Mike Rieger, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1126)Charles Spittles, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1157)Cindy Manning, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1194)Corey Tohl, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1210)Terry Zuercher, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1226)Tennessee Hodgdon, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1242)Thomas G. Miller, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1250)Roy Ellerbroek, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1266)Mike Ellerbroek, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1282)Aaron Burris, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1306)Leonard Ingles, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1314)Stephen Stelzig, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1339)Frank Reding, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1355)Leroy Goff, Sumner, WA/City of Sumner (Log #1371)Kyle Sheets, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1373)Tim Hamburger, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1397)Ken Aufdermauer, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1413)Kyle Adams, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1421)David B. Schelhaas, Scappoose Rural Fire Dept. (Log #1444)John R. McAdoo, Estacada Fire Dist. #69 (Log #1457)Dan O’Dell, Boring Fire Dist. (Log #1478)Larry A. Long, Estacada Rural Fire Dist. #69 (Log #1489)Lanny R. Boston, Bandon Rural Fire Protection Dist. #8/City of
Bandon Fire Dept./Southwestern Oregon Fire Chiefs Assn. (Log#1514)
John A. Stein, Dallas Fire Dept. (Log #1533)Robert D. Wilson, Quilcene, WA/Quilcene Vol. Fire Dept. (Log
#1599)Aaron Vaughn, Scappoose Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #1610)Jack R. Carriger, Nestucca RFPD (Log #1626)Dale Staib, Philomath RFPD #4 (Log #1671)Scott Pearson, Snohomish County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1700)Patrick Reitz, Terrebonne, OR/Crooked River Ranch RFPD (Log
#1738)Jeff Griffin, Oregon Fire Chiefs Assn. (Log #1780)Allan MacKay, Sedro-Woolley, ME/Whatcom County Fire
Protection Dist. #18 (Log #1837)Chris Asanovic, Cornelius City/Rural Fire Dept. (Log #1884)David Chastain, Clallam County Fire Protection Dist. #4 (Log
#1923)Robert Wilson, Jefferson County Fire Dist. #2 (Log #1939)Wayne Kier, Jefferson County Fire Dist. #3 (Log #1949)Jane Lee, KCFPD #7 (Log #1976)Edward A. Lewis, Spokane County Fire Dist. #4 (Log #2154)Gary Abrams, NRFPD (Log #2166)Duaine Harding Jr., NRFPD (Log #2183)Lyle J. Payne, Pleasant RFPD (Log #2207)Joseph R. Guyotte, MSFFF (Log #2247)Michael S. Curtis, Dover-Foxcroft Fire Dept. (Log #2264)Darin Welburn, Jackson County Fire Dist. #5 (Log #2280)RECOMMENDATION : Revise text as follows: “...These companies shall be staffed with a minimum of four (4)on duty personnel. In jurisdictions where tactical hazards andhigh-hazard occupancies are identified, these companies shall bestaffed with a minimum of five (5) or six (6) on duty personnel.Minimum company staffing shall be determined by the localjurisdiction. ”SUBSTANTIATION: This change will allow local governementsto determine the appropriate staffing needs for the exposures.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #89)1710- 261 - (3-2.2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Larry D. Donner, Boulder Fire Dept., CORECOMMENDATION : Delete the following text: “These companies shall be staffed with a minimum of four (4) onduty personnel. In jurisdictions where tactical hazards and highhazard occupancies are identified, these companies shall be staffedwith a minimum of five (5) or six (6) on duty personnel.”SUBSTANTIATION: The ability to establish service deliverystandards is vested with the jurisdiction having authority. NFPAshould not attempt to circumvent this authority through thestandards process.
COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #156)1710- 262 - (3-2.2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Kevin R. Wickman, Keizer Fire Dist, ORRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “...These companies shall be staffed with a minimum of four (4)on-duty personnel. In jurisdictions where tactical hazards andhigh-hazard occupancies are identified, these companies shall bestaffed with a minimum of five (5) of (six (6) on duty personnel.Minimum company staffing shall be determined by localjurisdiction. ”SUBSTANTIATION: This change will allow local governments todetermine the appropriate staffing needs for the exposures.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #172)1710- 263 - (3-2.2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Wayne E. Sandford, East Haven Fire, CTRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “...These companies shall be staffed with a minimum of four (4)on-duty personnel. In jurisdictions where tactical hazards andhigh-hazard occupancies are identified, these companies shall bestaffed with a minimum of five (5) or six (6) on-duty personnel.Minimum company staffing shall be determined by localjurisdiction. ”SUBSTANTIATION: This change will allow local governments todetermine the appropriate staffing needs for the exposures.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #321)1710- 264 - (3-2.2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Dean R. Shank, Central Kitsap Fire RescueRECOMMENDATION : Delete entire paragraph.SUBSTANTIATION: Minimum company staffing should bedetermined by local jurisdiction and with community support.The citizens will determine what level of service they require andwant. Local jurisdictions should be able to determine their staffinglevels to their own local needs and capacity.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #327)1710- 265 - (3-2.2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Robert Goodyear, Moraga Orinda Fire DistrictRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: 3-2.2.2 Fire companies whose primary functions are to performthe variety of services associated with truck work, such as forcibleentry, ventilation, search and rescue, aerial operations for waterdelivery and rescue, utility control, illumination, overhaul, andsalvage work, shall be known as ladder or truck companies. Thesecompanies shall be staffed with a minimum of three (3) four (4)on-duty personnel. In jurisdictions where tactical hazards andhigh-hazard occupancies are identified, these companies shall bestaffed with a minimum of four (4), five (5) or (6) on-dutypersonnel.SUBSTANTIATION: Many fire districts, including ours, lack thefunding ability to provide the staffing levels suggested in NFPA1710. A more reasonable approach, and more fiscally prudent,would be to require sprinkler systems in occupancies, especiallythose outside a four (4) minute response zone.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
288
(Log #621)1710- 266 - (3-2.2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Donald H. Butz, Rancho Santa Fe Fire ProtectionDist.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “...These companies shall be staffed with a minimum of four (4)on-duty personnel. In jurisdictions where tactical hazards and high-hazard occupancies are identified, these companies shall be staffedwith a minimum of five (5) or six (6) on-duty personnel. Thesecompanies shall be staffed with a minimum number of on-dutypersonnel as required by the tactical and occupancy hazards. ”SUBSTANTIATION: The text utilized is from 3-2.2.3. Thisapproach allows for the flexibility needed at the local level toaddress concerns and conditions which effect the local agency.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #625)1710- 267 - (3-2.2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Donald H. Butz, Rancho Santa Fe Fire ProtectionDist.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “...These companies shall be staffed with a minimum number ofpersonnel as authorized by the AHJ . These companies shallshould be staffed with a minimum of four (4) three (3) on-dutypersonnel. In jurisdictions where tactical hazards and high-hazardoccupancies are identified, these companies shall should be staffedwith a minimum of four (4), five (5), or six (6) on-dutypersonnel.”SUBSTANTIATION: The staffing requirements of four personnelis not fiscally possible in many departments, particularly small andmedium sized agencies. The staffing requirement does not takeinto consideration the benefit of engineered protection systems,such as building construction, ventilation systems, and/orextinguishing systems.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #626)1710- 268 - (3-2.2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Donald H. Butz, Rancho Santa Fe Fire ProtectionDist.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “These companies shall be staffed with a minimum of four (4)on-duty personnel. In jurisdictions where tactical hazards andhigh-hazard occupancies are identified, these companies shall bestaffed with a minimum of five (5) or six (6) on-duty personnel.The Fire Chief with the approval of the AHJ shall identifyminimum staffing requirements to ensure that a sufficient numberof personnel are on-duty to operate safely and effectively. ”SUBSTANTIATION: The revised text is from NFPA 1720, 2001edition, 2-1.4. If a volunteer organization is capable of determiningsafe and effective staffing levels, then why should a paid-careerdepartment be restricted with a set minimum number of personnelper apparatus.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #1166)1710- 269 - (3-2.2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Jackie T. Gibbs, Marietta Fire and EmergencyServicesRECOMMENDATION : Delete the following text: “These companies shall be staffed with a minimum of four (4)on-duty personnel. In jurisdictions where tactical hazards andhigh-hazard occupancies are identified, these companies shall bestaffed with a minimum of five (5) or six (6) on-duty personnel.”SUBSTANTIATION: There is no justification for a prescriptivesolution to a performance problem. The committee cannot showany relationship to the death or injury of firefighters to the numberassigned to a piece of equipment except in cases of automotiveaccidents. Use the performance wording found in 3-2.2.3.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #1173)1710- 270 - (3-2.2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Robert L. Ridgeway, Gastonia Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Change wording in last two sentences ofparagraph to read as follows: “These companies shall (should) be staffed with a minimum offour (4) on-duty personnel. In jurisdictions where tactical hazardsand high hazard occupancies exist, these companies shall bestaffed with a minimum of 5 or 6 on-duty personnel (should bestaffed with additional personnel or additional companies shouldbe added to the initial first alarm assignment).”SUBSTANTIATION: Justification for this proposed change is thesame as that previously noted for engine companies; the originallanguage concerning staffing level is simply beyond the financialability of most fire departments and communities to attain.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #1503)1710- 271 - (3-2.2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Alan D. Predmore, City of Buckley Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “...These companies shall be staffed with a with a minimum offour (4) on duty personnel. In jurisdiction where tactical hazardsand high-hazard occupancies are identified, these companies shallbe staffed with a minimum of five (5) or six (6) on duty personnel.based on the requirements established by the local jurisdiction. ”SUBSTANTIATION: The standard as proposed does notestablish a standard. Room must be left for local jurisdictions tomake decisions regarding personnel and staffing issues. Theproposed change will allow local jurisdictions to determineappropriate staffing levels.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #1682)1710- 272 - (3-2.2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro/Rep. WashingtonCounty Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “These companies shall should be staffed with... In jurisdictionscompanies shall should be staffed...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #1698)1710- 273 - (3-2.2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: John A. Dutch, City of Norman Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Delete all wording after the first sentence,which ends with “truck companies”.SUBSTANTIATION: Such an arbitrary requirement does notconsider whether or not desireable outcomes are being metutilizing locally developed staffing criteria.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
289
(Log #1723)1710- 274 - (3-2.2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Bobby Williams, Spokane Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Fire companies whose primary functions are to perform thevariety of services associated with truck work, such as forcible entry,ventilation, search and rescue, aerial operations for water deliveryand rescue, utility control, illumination, overhaul, and salvagework, shall be known as ladder or truck companies. Thesecompanies shall should be staffed with a minimum of four (4) on-duty personnel. In jurisdictions where tactical hazards and high-hazard occupancies are identified, these companies shall should bestaffed with a minimum of five (5) or six (6) on-duty personnel.”SUBSTANTIATION: While it is desirable to have 4 or morepersonnel on every company, the level of staffing is the decision ofthe governing body. The staffing levels identified in the draftdocument should be provided as recommended levels.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #1753)1710- 275 - (3-2.2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Norman G. Angelo, Kent Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Fire companies whose primary functions are to perform thevariety of services associated with truck work, such as forcible entry,ventilation, search and rescue, aerial operations for water deliveryand rescue, utility control, illumination, overhaul, and salvagework, shall be known as ladder or truck companies. Thesecompanies shallbe staffed with a minimum of four (4) on-dutypersonnel. In jurisdictions where tactical hazards and high-hazardoccupancies are identified, these companies shall be staffed with aminimum of five (5) or six (6) on-duty personnel respond withsufficient staff and companies to allow for firefighters to provide fortheir safety as they mitigate the emergency. ”SUBSTANTIATION: The current language assumes that the levelof risk and hazards within all communities are the same and thatthey have the same level of acceptable risk to the community. Thekey here is that firefighter safety should not be compromised even ifthe citizens in a given community choose a higher level of personalrisk. There is more than one approach to insure firefighter safety.In one community a minimum of three (3) may be safe while inanother it may take more than four (4). In any case, the level ofservice needs to be analyzed and set at the local level based uponan analysis of the communities hazard vulnerability and theirdesired level of service.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #1773)1710- 276 - (3-2.2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Kenneth M. Craft, Bonita Springs Fire Control andRescue DistrictRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Fire companies whose primary functions are to perform thevariety of services associated with truck work, such as forcible entry,ventilation, search and rescue, aerial operations for water deliveryand rescue, utility control, illumination, overhaul, and salvagework, shall be known as ladder or truck companies. Thesecompanies shall be staffed with a minimum of four (4) three (3) on-duty personnel. In jurisdictions where tactical hazards andhigh-hazard occupancies are identified, these companies shall bestaffed with a minimum of five (5) or six (6) three (3) up to six (6) on-duty personnel.”SUBSTANTIATION: Due to new building codes, standards,sprinkling, etc, initial truck company manning for small careerdepartment with limited on-duty personnel should be considered.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #1856)1710- 277 - (3-2.2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Ronald A. Pedee, Bellevue Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Fire companies whose primary functions are to perform thevariety of services associated with truck work, such as forcible entry,ventilation, search and rescue, aerial operations for water deliveryand rescue, utility control, illumination, overhaul, and salvagework, shall be known as ladder or truck companies. Thesecompanies shall be staffed with a minimum of four (4) on-dutypersonnel. In jurisdictions where tactical hazards and high-hazardoccupancies are identified, these companies shall be staffed with aminimum of five (5) or six (6) on-duty personnel.”SUBSTANTIATION: The above proposal deals with theassumption in the original text that only truck or ladder companiesof 4 or more persons can be effectively or safety deployed; it wouldonly be correct to say that 4 are more effective than 3, 5 than 4, andso on. Avoids conflict with local authority for resource allocation,problem assessment, and standard of care.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #1961)1710- 278 - (3-2.2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Chip Prather, Orange County Fire AuthorityRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Fire companies whose primary functions are to perform a varietyof services associated with truck work, such as forcible entry,ventilation, search and rescue, aerial operations for water deliveriesand rescue, utility control, illumination, overhaul and salvage work,shall be known as ladder or truck companies. These companiesshall may be staffed with a minimum of four (4) on-dutypersonnel. Where tactical hazards, high hazards are identified,companies shall may be staffed with a minimum of five (5) or six(6) on-duty personnel.”SUBSTANTIATION: Recommendation is taking away the abilityof local government and the Fire Chief to make appropriate policydecisions that assess the community risk, local expertise and overallfinancial considerations that have the potential for tremendousfinancial impacts to communities.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #2102)1710- 279 - (3-2.2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “These companies shall should be staffed with... Injurisdictions...companies shall should be staffed...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #2232)1710- 280 - (3-2.2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Brown, Kitsap County Fire District #7RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “...these companies shall be staffed with a minimum of four (4)on-duty personnel. In jurisdictions where tactical hazards and highhazard occupancies are identified, these companies shall be staffedwith a minimum of five (5) or six (6) on-duty personnel.Minimum company staffing shall be determined by the localjurisdiction. ”SUBSTANTIATION: This proposed change would allow for localjurisdictions to match their staffing levels to local needs andcapacity. A one size fits all standard does not allow for real world
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
290
diversity between different regions of the country. Nor does thestandard allow for alternative approaches to risk management.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________(Log #602)
1710- 281 - (3-2.2.3): RejectSUBMITTER: Keith Richter, Contra Costa County Fire ProtectionDist.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Fire companies whose primary function can be a combination ofengine and truck work can be known as quint companies.”SUBSTANTIATION: Current proposed language does notadequately address combination fire companies operating in an“either/or” mode from a quint-type apparatus, many fire agenciesare using these vehicles for adaptive response and are notdedicated as an engine company or a truck company foridentification purposes.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Already covered in definitions.
___________________
(Log #1683)1710- 282 - (3-2.2.3): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro/Rep. WashingtonCounty Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Other types of companies equipped with specialized apparatusand equipment shall should be provided...” “These companies shall should be staffed...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________(Log #1811)
1710- 283 - (3-2.2.3): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Rick Mawhirter, Western Missouri Fire Chiefs Assn.RECOMMENDATION : Add as the last sentence: “ Companies may respond in two separate vehicles and thepersonnel assigned shall equal the company staffing that is noted inthe standard. ”SUBSTANTIATION: Departments should have the latitude todetermine how their staffing is distributed. In some jurisdictions acompany may be comprised of three personnel on an engine andtwo on an ambulance. The units respond as a two-piece company.The same would hold true if there is a two-piece engine consistingof personnel assigned on an engine and then on a separate piece ofapparatus such as a hose wagon or a relay pumper.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-218 (Log #323).
___________________
(Log #1857)1710- 284 - (3-2.2.3): RejectSUBMITTER: Ronald A. Pedee, Bellevue Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Other types of companies equipped with specialized apparatusand equipment shall should be provided to assist engine andladder companies where deemed necessary as part of establishedpractice. These companies shall be staffed with a minimumnumber of on-duty personnel as required by the tactical andoccupancy hazards.”SUBSTANTIATION: Avoids conflict with local authority forresource allocation, problem assessment, and standard of care indetermining apparatus or company staffing levels.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2103)1710- 285 - (3-2.2.3): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Other types of companies equipped with specialized apparatusand equipment shall should be provided... These companies shallshould be staffed...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #320)1710- 286 - (3-2.2.3.1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Dean R. Shank, Central Kitsap Fire RescueRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire departments fire suppression resources shall should bedeployed to provide for the arrival of an engine company within afour (4) minute response time.” Delete the rest.SUBSTANTIATION: A full initial alarm assignment variesthroughout the United States. It would be impossible to have allfirst alarm assignments available 80 or 90 percent of the time intheir first due areas. Secondary units are called in to cover the firstalarm assignment and they would not meet the required time lines.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #280)1710- 287 - (3-2.2.4, 3-5 (New) ): Accept in Principle in PartSUBMITTER: Thomas J. Cuff, Jr., The Firemen's Assn. of theState of NYRECOMMENDATION : Add new sections to read as follows: 3-2.2.4 Fire companies whose primary functions are to performfirefighting operations on water from vessels specifically designedand equipped for firefighting operations involving ships, bargesand other marine vessels, docks and other shoreline exposures aswell as providing additional water capacity for land companiesoperating near the water shall be known as Marine Companies.These companies shall be staffed with appropriately qualified (andlicensed, if needed, depending upon waters entered) personnel tooperate the vessel. Firefighters may be permanently assigned or,the vessel may respond with land company personnel aboard. 3-5 Marine Operations. 3-5.1 In jurisdictions where there is a risk of fire involvingshoreline installations, docks, marinas, ship and/or barge traffic,or other exposures where access by land-based companies isinsufficient to contain and extinguish fires in or on such exposures,the AHJ shall provide appropriately designed and equipped vesselsand specifically trained marine personnel, if required, andspecifically trained firefighters to man such vessels. 3-5.2 Any vessels acquired for marine firefighting operations shallmeet the requirements of NFPA 1941, Marine Fire Fighting Vessels. 3-5.3 All firefighters who may participate in firefighting on marinefire fighting vessels shall meet the training requirements of NFPA1404, Land-based Fire Fighters Who Fight Marine Vessel Fires. SUBSTANTIATION: If needed, marine operating capability mustbe provided by the authority having jurisdiction.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle in Part. Revise the commentator’s text for new 3-6 to read: 3-6* Marine Rescue and Fire Fighting (MRFF) Services. 3-6.1 Marine rescue and fire fighting operations shall beorganized to ensure the fire department’s marine capabilityincludes sufficient personnel, equipment, and resources toefficiently, effectively, and safely deploy the alarm assignmentsassociated with a marine emergency incident. 3-6.2 The fire department shall adopt a marine operationsresponse plan and standard operating procedures (SOPs) thatspecify the roles and responsibilities of the fire department and the
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
291
authorized functions of members responding to marineemergencies. 3-6.2.1 Fire Department marine SOPs shall be coordinated withthe applicable agencies, such as the port or harbor authority andsupporting agencies. 3-6.3 Marine fire departments shall have access to special tools,equipment, supplies, PPE, and other marine resources that arerequired to perform operations safely and effectively, in theirassigned roles and responsibilities. 3-6.4 Staffing. 3-6.4.1 On-duty marine personnel shall be comprised of thenumbers necessary for safe and effective fire-fighting performancerelative to the expected marine rescue and fire fighting conditions.These shall be determined through task analyses as required fortypes of marine vessels and through additional task analysis thatincludes the following: (a) Life hazard to the populace protected, (b) Provisions of safe and effective fire-fighting performanceconditions for the fire fighters, (c) The potential property loss, (d) The nature, configuration, hazards, and internal protectionof the properties involved, and (e) The types of tactics and evolutions employed as standardprocedure, the type of marine vessel used, and the results expectedto be obtained at the fire scene. 3-6.4.2 On-duty personnel assigned to marine fire fighting shallbe organized into company units and shall have appropriate vesselsand equipment assigned to such companies. 3-6.4.2.1 Each marine company shall be led by an officer. 3-6.5 Operating Units. 3-6.5.1 Fire companies whose primary function is to deliver andpump water and extinguishing agents at the scene of a marineincident and using a marine vessel shall be known as marinecompanies. These companies shall be staffed with a minimumnumber of on-duty personnel as required by the tactical andoccupancy hazards to which the marine vessel responds and by theregulatory authorities having jurisdiction over navigable waters. Add the following appendix items: A-3-6.1 For additional information on marine fire fighting seeNFPA 1405, Guide for Land Based Fire Fighters Who Respond toMarine Vessel Fires. A-3-6.1 For additional information on Marine Rescue and FireFighting Vessels. See NFPA 1926, Standard on Marine Fire FightingVessels. Add the following definitions: Marine Rescue and Fire Fighting. The fire fighting action taken toprevent, control, or extinguish fire involved in or adjacent to amarine vessel and the rescue actions for occupants using normaland emergency routes for egress. Marine companies may beutilized for special operations, including a platform for dive andSCUBA operations and for providing a secure water supply forland-based operations.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee agreed with thecommentator and revised the proposed text so as to be consistentwith the scope of the standard.
___________________
(Log #1073)1710- 288 - (3-2.3): RejectSUBMITTER: Wayne Waggoner, Tennessee Fire CodeDevelopment CommitteeRECOMMENDATION : Revise text as follows: 3-2.3 Deployment. 3-2.3.1 Initial Arriving Company. 3-2.3.1.1 The fire department’s fire suppression resources shallbe deployed to provide for the arrival of an engine company withina four (4) minute response time and/or the full initial alarmassignment within an eight (8) minute response time to ninety (90)percent of the incidents as established in Section 2-1. 3-2.3.1.1 The fire department’s fire suppression resources shallbe deployed to provide for the arrival of an Engine Company andfull initial alarm assignment as quickly as possible and inaccordance with NFPA 1500. 3-2.3.1.1.1 The initial arriving company shall have the capabilityto initiate the functional requirements of the initial full alarmassignment.SUBSTANTIATION: The initial company can not initiate thefunctional requirements of a full alarm assignment.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.Edit text of the following definitions. Response Time. The time increment that begins when units arenotified and ends with the arrival at the scene of an emergency
incident. Response time includes turnout of apparatus andpersonnel, and travel time to the emergency incident. Dispatch Time (Call Processing Time).* The point of receipt ofthe emergency alarm at the public safety answering point to thepoint where sufficient information is known to the dispatcher andapplicable units are notified of the emergency. Appendix for dispatch time: Dispatch times are addressed in NFPA 1221, Standard for theInstallation, Maintenance, and Use of Public Emergency ServiceCommunications Systems, Chapter 4-3.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee further clarified thedefinitions of response time and dispatch time.
___________________
(Log #2309)1710- 289 - (3-2.3): RejectSUBMITTER: James Farrell, Skokie Fire Dept., ILRECOMMENDATION : Revise text: 3-2.3 Deployment. Delete 3-2.3.1.1 and insert the following to read: 3-2.3.1.1 Level III Deployment. The fire department's firesuppression resources shall be deployed to provide for the arrivalof an engine company within six (6) minute response time toninety (90) percent of the incidents. 3-2.3.1.2 Level II Deployment. The fire department's firesuppression resources shall be deployed to provide for the arrivalof an engine company within six (6) minute response time and asecond engine company within twelve (12) minute response timeto ninety (90) percent of the incidents. 3-2.3.1.3 Level I Deployment. The fire department's firesuppression resources shall be deployed to provide for the arrivalof an engine company within six (6) minute response time and thefirst 3 companies with twelve (12) minutes response time to ninety(90) percent of the incidents.SUBSTANTIATION: First, this is a minimum standard and itshould reflect the minimum resources needed to safety attack aninterior structural fire. NFPA 1500 and the OSHA RespiratoryProtection Standard both use the two-in two-out for the minimumnumber to safely start interior fire fighting operations. However,since this is a national standard and will in many situations replacethe present practice of using ISO ratings, this proposed three levelscan replace the 10 levels used in the ISO ratings. This also reduces the resources needed for a jurisdiction tocomply with this deployment standard using on-duty personnel.For many areas that are served by suburban or newly developedcommunities, having the resources needed to comply with theLevel I Deployment would be very difficult or impossible. Secondly, since this is written as a maximum response time (90%of the time), the average response time for this new proposedstandard would be about 3 minutes and 20 seconds. An average ismade up of many observations, some short and some long withmost near the middle. Looking at the 1995 Phoenix survey, page 7, the average responsetime for cities of 100,000 or greater varies between a low of 4:03 anda high of 4:28. It is my understanding that these response timestatistics do not include call receipt and dispatch times which mayrun 1 minute or more. With a new total of time for existing firedepartments of 5:01 to 5:48, this would indicate that most of thesecities could not meet this standard (i.e. 4 minutes)! On a more scientific analysis, the first arriving engine companyshould arrive in time to make a difference in those cases were life isin danger. Over 81% of fire deaths occur in residential structureswhere "flashover" has occurred. As explained in the Appendixitem A-3-2.1.2.1. of the Draft, Flashover occurs within in 10minutes. If we subtract the "setup" time from the flashover time,then we would have a good guideline for a reasonable responsetime. In NFPA 1410, Standard on Training for Initial Fire Attack, theappendix material contains several water supply scenarios alongwith a maximum time for completion. One requires the firstarriving companies to extend and operate two handlines flowing atotal of 300 GPM. The total time is listed as 3.5 minutes (A-4-1.1,Figure 3). If you subtract this time of 3.5 from 10 (for flashover),you obtain 6.5 minutes. This would allow about 30 seconds as asafety factor. To address the proposed change to three companies, thefollowing is submitted: Some fire departments send up to 7companies on a first alarm assignment. Therefore, the InitialAttack for these departments would be 7 as compared to thenational average of about 4 (Ref: 1995 Phoenix Fire DepartmentSurvey Results). Therefore, the term "initial response" does vary
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
292
considerably depending on local dispatch policies, not necessarythe size or complexity of the emergency.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-288 (Log #1073).
___________________
(Log #1074)1710- 290 - (3-2.3.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Wayne Waggoner, Tennessee Fire CodeDevelopment CommitteeRECOMMENDATION : Add text to read as follows: 3-2.3.1 Initial Full Alarm Assignment Capability in response tostructure fires. SUBSTANTIATION: This section as worded applies to allresponses whereas the intent appears to be for structure fires.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-288 (Log #1073).
___________________
(Log #7)1710- 291 - (3-2.3.1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: L. Charles Smeby, Jr., FL State Fire CollegeRECOMMENDATION : Change to read as follows: “The fire department's fire suppression resources shall bedeployed to provide for the arrival of an engine company within asix (6) minute response time and/or the first 3 fire companieswithin an ten (12) minute response time to ninety (90) percent ofthe incidents as established in Section 2-1.”SUBSTANTIATION: First, since this is written as a maximumresponse time (90% of the time), the average response time for thisnew proposed standard would be about 3 minutes and 20 seconds.An average is made up of many observations, some short and somelong with most near the middle. Looking at the 1995 Phoenix survey, page 7, the average responsetime for cities of 100,000 or greater varies between a low of 4:03 anda high of 4:28. It is my understanding that these response timestatistics do not include call receipt and dispatch times which mayrun 1 minute or more. With a new total of time for existing firedepartments of 5:01 to 5:48, this would indicate that most of thesecities could not meet this standard (i.e. 4 minutes)! On a more scientific analysis, the first arriving engine companyshould arrive in time to make a difference in those cases were life isin danger. Over 81% of fire deaths occur in residential structureswhere "flashover" has occurred. As explained in the Appendixitem A-3-2.1.2.1. of the Draft, Flashover occurs within in 10minutes. If we subtract the "setup" time from the flashover time,then we would have a good guideline for a reasonable responsetime. In NFPA 1410, Standard on Training for Initial Fire Attack, theappendix material contains several water supply scenarios alongwith a maximum time for completion. One requires the firstarriving companies to extend and operate two handlines flowing atotal of 300 GPM. The total time is listed as 3.5 minutes (A-4-1.1,Figure 3). If you subtract this time of 3.5 from 10 (for flashover),you obtain 6.5 minutes. This would allow about 30 seconds as asafety factor. To address the proposed change to three companies, thefollowing is submitted: Some fire departments send up to 7companies on a first alarm assignment. Therefore, the InitialAttack for these departments would be 7 as compared to thenational average of about 4 (Ref: 1995 Phoenix Fire DepartmentSurvey Results). Therefore, the term "initial response" does varyconsiderably depending on local dispatch policies, not necessarythe size or complexity of the emergency.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-288 (Log #1073).
___________________
(Log #44)1710- 292 - (3-2.3.1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: John Shull, Scappoose Rural Fire Dist.Dennis Marceaux, Scappoose Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #60)Gloria Gass, Cloverdale, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist.
(Log #76)Mickey Hays, Beaver, OR/ Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist.
(Log #111)
Greg Gass, Cloverdale, OR/ Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist.(Log #127)
Mary Lou Fletcher, Beaver/OR (Log #143)Wayne Sandford, East Haven Fire (Log #173)Levi R. Beachy, Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #189)Roy O. Palmer, Polk County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #205)Harold Edwards, Delhi Twp Fire Dept. (Log #299)Jeff Grunewald, Tualation Valley Fire & Rescue (Log #365)Curtis E. Goodman, City of Norwood/Fire Dept. (Log #387)Darrell Hartmann, Brookings Fire Dept. (Log #400)Earl Cordes, Jefferson County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #439)D. J. Cornish, Manzanita, OR/Manzanita Fire Dept. (Log #470)Judd Burrow, Manzanita, OR/Manzanita Public Safety (Log #486)Jeremy Strozyk, Nahalem, OR Manzanita Public Safety (Log #502)Bret Siler, Nehalem, OR/Manzanita Fire Dept. (Log #518)Dan Marshall, Jackson County Fire Dist. #5 (Log #532)S. D. ‘Skip’ Smith, Santa Clara Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log
#587)Don Rowe, Sisters-Camp Sherman RFPD (Log #646)Paul Epler, Vernonia Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #692)Michael J. Sneddon, Charleston Fire Dist. (Log #711)Douglas VanPelt, Corvallis Fire Dept. (Log #757)Joel Stein, Keizser Fire Dist. (Log #770)George Dunkel, St. Helens Rural Fire Dist. (Log #810)Gary J. Hudson, St. Helens Rural Fire Dist. (Log #823)Matthew Shuler, Eugene Fire and EMS Dept. /City of Eugene (Log
#839)Stephen D. Allen, Cottage Grove/South Lane Rural Fire Dept.
(Log #870)Cleve Rooper, Cannon Beach RFPD (Log #927)William H. Combs, City of Sutherlin Fire Dept. (Log #943)John Schlegel, Tri-City RFPD (Log #971)Bill Alguire, Keizer Fire Dist. (Log #995)Ted Ames, Warrenton Fire Dept. (Log #1009)Paul M. Olheiser, Knappa Fire Dist. (Log #1092)Larry D. Eckhardt, Hoodland Fire Dist. #74 (Log #1110)Mike Rieger, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1127)Cindy Manning, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1195)Corey Tohl, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1211)Terry Zuercher, Tillammook Fire Dist. (Log #1227)Tennessee Hodgdon, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1243)Thomas G. Miller, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1251)Roy Ellerbroek, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1267)Mike Ellerbroek, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1283)Aaron, Burris, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1307)Leonard Ingles, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1315)Steven Stelzig, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1340)Frank Reding, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1356)Kyle Sheets, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1374)Tim Hamburger, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1398)Ken Aufdermauer, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1414)Kyle Adams, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1422)David B. Schelhaas, Scappoose Rural Fire Dept. (Log #1445)John R. McAdoo, Estacada Fire Dist. #69 (Log #1458)Dan O’Dell, Boring Fire Dist. (Log #1477)Larry A. Long, Estacada Rural Fire Dist. #69 (Log #1490)Lanny R. Boston, Bandon Rural Fire Protection Dist. #8/City of
Bandon Fire Dept./Southwest Oregon Fire Chiefs Assn. (Log#1515)
John A. Stein, Dallas Fire Dept. (Log #1534)Aaron Vaughn, Scappoose Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #1611)Jack R. Carriger, Nestucca RFPD (Log #1627)Dale Staib, Philomath RFPD #4 (Log #1672)Patrick Reitz, Terrebonne, OR/Crrooked River Ranch RFPD (Log
#1739)Jeff Griffin, Oregon Fire Chiefs’ Assn. (Log #1781)Chris Asanovic, Cornelius City/Rural Fire Dept. (Log #1885)Gary Abrams, NRFPD (Log #2167)Duaine M. Harding Sr., NRFPD (Log #2182)Lyle J. Payne, Pleasant Hill RFPD (Log #2206)Joseph R. Guyotte, MSFFF (Log #2246)Michael S. Curtis, Dover-Foxcroft Fire Dept. (Log #2265)Darin Welburn, Jackson County Fire Dist. #5 (Log #2281)RECOMMENDATION : Revise text as follows: “The fire department’s fire suppression...ninety (90) percent ofthe incidents as established in Section 2-1. The fire department’sfire suppression resources shall be deployed to provide for thearrival of an engine company and full initial alarm assignment asquickly as is safely possible. ”SUBSTANTIATION: Requiring response times will compromisethe safety of fire fighters with no regard for driving conditionsoutside of their control.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
293
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-288 (Log #1073).
___________________
(Log #90)1710- 293 - (3-2.3.1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Larry D. Donner, Boulder Fire Dept., CORECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department’s fire suppression resources shall bedeployed to provide for the arrival of an engine company within afour (4) minute response time and/or the full initial alarmassignment within an eight (8) minute response time to ninety (90)percent of the incidents as established in Section 2-1 as soon aspossible. ”SUBSTANTIATION: The ability to establish service deliverystandards is vested with the jurisdiction having authority. NFPAshould not attempt to circumvent this authority through thestandards process.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-288 (Log #1073).
___________________
(Log #157)1710- 294 - (3-2.3.1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Kevin R. Wickman, Keizer Fire Dist, ORRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department’s fire suppression...ninety (90) percent ofthe incidents as established in Section 2-1. The fire department’sfire suppression resources shall be deployed to provide for thearrival of an engine company and full initial alarm assignment asquickly as is safely possible. ”SUBSTANTIATION: Requiring response times will compromisethe safety of firefighters with no regard for driving conditionsoutside of their control.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-288 (Log #1073).
___________________
(Log #312)1710- 295 - (3-2.3.1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Dean R. Shank, Central Kitsap Fire RescueRECOMMENDATION : Delete entire paragraph.SUBSTANTIATION: The citizens determine what level they arewilling to pay for and accept.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-288 (Log #1073).
___________________
(Log #328)1710- 296 - (3-2.3.1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Robert Goodyear, Moraga Orinda Fire DistrictRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: 3-2.3.1.1 The fire department’s fire suppression resources shallbe deployed to provide for the arrival of an engine company withina five (5) four (4) minute response time and/or the full initialalarm assignment within a ten (10) eight (8) minute response timeto ninety (90) percent of the incidents as established in Section 2-1.SUBSTANTIATION: Many districts are not financially supportedto provide the number of fire stations and personnel required tomeet the standard of four (4) minute response times for the arrivalof the first company and (10) minute response times for thedeployment of a full first alarm assignment. Additionally,infrastructures in many areas limit the ability to meet the criteria.A more reasonable approach, and more fiscally prudent, would beto require sprinkler systems in occupancies, especially thoseoutside a four (4) minute response zone.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-288 (Log #1073).
___________________
(Log #628)1710- 297 - (3-2.3.1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Donald H. Butz, Rancho Santa Fe Fire ProtectionDist.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department’s fire suppression resources shall bedeployed to provide for the arrival of an engine company with afour (4) minute response time and/or the full initial alarmassignment with an eight (8) minute response time to ninety (90)percent of the incidents as established in Section 2-1. Uponassembling the necessary resources, the fire department shall havethe capability to safely initiate an initial attack, within two (2)minutes ninety (90) percent of the time. ”SUBSTANTIATION: The response times indicated are notrealistic to ninety (90) percent of all incidents. Using thedefinition of response time as listed is very restrictive.Topographical features, road/traffic patterns, community growthpatterns, etc., are not taken into consideration.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-288 (Log #1073).
___________________
(Log #629)1710- 298 - (3-2.3.1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Donald H. Butz, Rancho Santa Fe Fire ProtectionDist.RECOMMENDATION : Delete text as follows: “The fire department’s fire suppression resources shall bedeployed to provide for the arrival of an engine company with afour (4) minute response time and/or the full initial alarmassignment with an eight (8) minute response time to ninety (90)percent of the incidents as established in Section 2-1.”SUBSTANTIATION: The parameters established in 3-2.3.1.1 arenot realistic with a rural/small urban town environment. Not tomention with a 1/2 to 1 minute dispatching process; 1/2 to 1 1/2minute assembly and loading onto the apparatus that leaves from 11/2 to 3 minutes for travel time and deployment. This time framewould require distances between station to be approximately 6 to 8minutes apart. Again, this is fiscally impossible to accomplish withexisting revenues.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-288 (Log #1073).
___________________
(Log #725)1710- 299 - (3-2.3.1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Marquam R. Johnson, Torrington Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Delete paragraph and move to theAppendix.SUBSTANTIATION: Response time should be local decision, ascalled for by 2-1.1.1 and 2-1.1.2 and 2-1.1.2.1. Recommendation of4-minute and 8-minute time (along with summary of backupscientific facts) should be in appendix for use as “one possiblemeasuring stick”.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-288 (Log #1073).
___________________
(Log #858)1710- 300 - (3-2.3.1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: John Troeger, Green Bay Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Eliminate current section in its entirety. Add: The Fire Departments fire suppression resources shall bedeployed to provide for the arrival of an Engine Company and fullinitial alarm assignment as quickly as is safely possible.SUBSTANTIATION: The requirement of a (4) four minuteresponse time is unreasonable and unobtainable by 90 percent ofthe Fire Departments in this country. Response Standards shouldbe established by the AHJ.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-288 (Log #1073).
___________________
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
294
(Log #1145)1710- 301 - (3-2.3.1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Gary F. Duignan, Forestville Fire Protection DistrictRECOMMENDATION : Delete.SUBSTANTIATION: This is an impossible time frame to meet inmany areas. 1) Some area in our District are 15+ minutes response and we arethe closest dept. by far. 2) Also, if we have to wait for volunteers, we can make 4 minutes90 percent of the time.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-288 (Log #1073).
___________________
(Log #1158)1710- 302 - (3-2.3.1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Charles Spittles, Tillamook Fire DistrictRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department’s fire suppression...(90) percent of theincidents as established in Section 2-1. The fire department’s firesuppression resources shall be deployed to provide for the arrivalof an engine company and full initial alarm assignment as quicklyas is safely possible. ”SUBSTANTIATION: Requiring response times will compromisethe safety of firefighters with no regard for driving conditionsoutside of their control.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-288 (Log #1073).
___________________
(Log #1174)1710- 303 - (3-2.3.1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Robert L. Ridgeway, Gastonia Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Change text to read as follows: “The fire department’s fire suppression resources shall bedeployed to provide for the arrival of an engine company within afour (4) (seven(7)) minute response time and/or the full initialalarm assignment within an eight (8) (eleven (11)) minuteresponse time to 90 percent of the incidents as established inSection 2-1.”SUBSTANTIATION: Response time as defined in Section 1-3includes both alarm processing time and turnout time. Typically,one (1) minute is allowed for alarm processing and one (1)minute for turnout time. This leaves only two (2) minutes ofactual driving time to travel up to 1 1/2 miles. Our departmentconducted considerable research into response times during arecently completed national fire service accreditation project, andbelieves that 7 and 11 minutes respectively would be more realisticand achievable.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-288 (Log #1073).
___________________
(Log #1605)1710- 304 - (3-2.3.1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: J. G. Bale, Surrey Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Change from 4 and 8 minutes to 5 and 9minutes.SUBSTANTIATION: The times relating to 4 and 8 minutes arelargely unachievable by many departments.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-288 (Log #1073).
___________________
(Log #1684)1710- 305 - (3-2.3.1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro/Rep. WashingtonCounty Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department’s fire suppression resources shall should bedeployed...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.
These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-288 (Log #1073).
___________________
(Log #1685)1710- 306 - (3-2.3.1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro/Rep. WashingtonCounty Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The initial arriving company shall should have the capability...”SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-288 (Log #1073).
___________________
(Log #1699)1710- 307 - (3-2.3.1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: John A. Dutch, City of Norman Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Delete entire paragraph.SUBSTANTIATION: Current wording does not consider whetheror not desirable outcomes are being met utilizing locally developedand pertinent deployment criteria.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-288 (Log #1073).
___________________
(Log #1724)1710- 308 - (3-2.3.1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Bobby Williams, Spokane Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department’s fire suppression resources shall should bedeployed to provide for the arrival of an engine company within afour (4) minute response time and/or the full initial alarmassignment within an eight (8) minute response time to ninety (90)percent of the incidents as established in Section 2-1.”SUBSTANTIATION: While it is desirable to have a 4 and 8minute response times for deployment of fire suppressionresources, response times provided are the service level decisionsof the governing body.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-288 (Log #1073).
___________________
(Log #1750)1710- 309 - (3-2.3.1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Frank Edwards, Chesterfield County Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “within a four minute response time within established localstandards within an eight minute response time within establishedlocal response time standards .”SUBSTANTIATION: Jurisdiction’s needs and resources aredifferent. Response time standards should be established by thelocal authority having jurisdiction.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-288 (Log #1073).
___________________
(Log #1766)1710- 310 - (3-2.3.1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Randy Sheppard, Palm Beach County Fire-RescueRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department’s fire suppression resources shall bedeployed to provide for the arrival of an engine company within afour (4) minute in an average 6 minute response time and/or the
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
295
full initial alarm assignment within an eight (8) minute in anaverage 8 minute response time. to ninety (90) percent of theincidents as established in Section 2-1.”SUBSTANTIATION: The four minute standard is unachievablethroughout most of the United States. Fractile measurements forresponse time are useful planning tools and assist in makingcorrective actions, but are not as appropriate a standard as averageresponse time.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-288 (Log #1073).
___________________
(Log #1812)1710- 311 - (3-2.3.1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Rick Mawhirter, Western Missouri Fire Chiefs Assn.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department’s fire suppression shall be deployed toprovide for the arrival of an engine company within a four (4) six(6) minute response time and/or the full initial alarm assignmentwithin an eight (8) a ten (10) minute response time to ninety (90)eighty (80) percent of the incidents as established in Section 2-1.”SUBSTANTIATION: The response times that are in the originalproposal would not be a standard, but would be an ultimate goalfor the fire service. The numbers that were originally proposed bythe committee would be extremely difficult for any department tomeet.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-288 (Log #1073).
___________________
(Log #1858)1710- 312 - (3-2.3.1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Daily, Bellevue Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department’s fire suppression resources shall bedeployed to provide for the arrival of an engine company within afour (4) minute timeframe determined by the local jurisdiction and/or the full initial alarm assignment within an eight (8) minuteresponse time to ninety (90) percent of the incidents as establishedin Section 2-1.”SUBSTANTIATION: The basis for this standard must be basedon scientific information and encompass the constructionstandards and built-in systems within the community.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-288 (Log #1073).
___________________
(Log #1870)1710- 313 - (3-2.3.1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Mario David Rueda, Los Angeles City Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The Fire Department’s fire suppression resources shall bedeployed to provide for the arrival of an engine company firesuppression resource within a four (4) five (5) minute responsetime.”SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed standard should provide forthe arrival of a resource that will initiate mitigation efforts not justan engine company. Also, five (5) minutes is a more reasonableobjective.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-288 (Log #1073).
___________________
(Log #1955)1710- 314 - (3-2.3.1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: James Farrell, Skokie Fire Dept., ILRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: 3-2.3.1.1 The fire department’s fire suppression resources shallbe deployed to provide for the arrival of an engine company initialcompany with a four (4) minute six (6) minute response timeand/or the full initial alarm assignment within an eight (8) minutea ten (10) minute response time to ninety (90) percent of theincidents as established in Section 2-1.
SUBSTANTIATION: The change from an engine company toinitial company provides for other apparatus with the samecapabilities of an engine company to be used in the evaluation ofthe response time. This could be a Squad, Rescue, Quint, etc.Company. The change from a four (4) minute response time to a six (6)minute response time takes into consideration that the definition ofresponse time includes the call taking time and the turnout time.The benchmark for Alarm Processing is a 50-second time frameand the turnout time is benchmarked at 60 seconds for staffed firestations (CFAI). If the four (4) minute response time were to beachieved it would mean that the actual travel time would have to be2 minutes and 10 seconds. That seems nearly impossible for alarge number of departments. This justification would also applyto the change from an eight (8) minute response time to a ten (10)minute response time for the full initial alarm assignment.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-288 (Log #1073).
___________________
(Log #1970)1710- 315 - (3-2.3.1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Chip Prather, Orange County Fire AuthorityRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Fire department’s fire suppression resources shall be deployed toprovide for the arrival of an engine company within four (4)minutes response time and/or the full initial alarm assignmentwithin an eight (8) minute response time to ninety (90) percent ofthe incidents as established in Section 2-1. Fire departmentresources shall be deployed in accordance to local needs based onlocal government/Fire Chiefs’ assessment of community risk. ”SUBSTANTIATION: Proposed section if approved would havetremendous impacts on resource requirements to accomplish this,and thus, increased costs that exceed capabilities which are notacceptable.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-288 (Log #1073).
___________________
(Log #2104)1710- 316 - (3-2.3.1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department’s fire suppression resources shall should bedeployed...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-288 (Log #1073).
___________________
(Log #2105)1710- 317 - (3-2.3.1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The initial arriving company shall should have the capability...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-288 (Log #1073).
___________________
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
296
(Log #2233)1710- 318 - (3-2.3.1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Brown, Kitsap County Fire District #7RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department’s fire suppression...ninety (90) percent ofthe incident as established in Section 2-1. The fire department’sfire suppression resources shall be deployed to provide for thearrival of an engine company and full initial alarm assignment asquickly as is possible. ”SUBSTANTIATION: Requiring response times will compromisethe safety of firefighters with no regard for driving conditionsoutside of their control.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-288 (Log #1073).
___________________
(Log #1820)1710- 319 - (3-2.3.1.1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: J. Gordon Routley, Champlain, NYRECOMMENDATION : Delete and substitute text: “The initial arriving company shall have the capability to initiatethe functional requirements of the initial first alarm assignment. The initial arriving engine company (or multi-function companyperforming engine company functions) shall have the capability toinitiate an interior fire attack. ”SUBSTANTIATION: I believe that this statement more clearlyexpresses the intended concept.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Proposal1710-320 (Log #1725).
___________________
(Log #1725)1710- 320 - (3-2.3.1.1.1): AcceptSUBMITTER: Bobby Williams, Spokane Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Delete the following text: “The initial arriving company shall have the capability to initiatethe functional requirements of the initial full alarm assignment.”SUBSTANTIATION: The intent is not clear by the draft text. Thedraft text should either be removed or expanded to clarify theintent. Proposed wording is not provided because the intent is unclear.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.
___________________
(Log #1146)1710- 321 - (3-2.3.1.1.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Gary F. Duignan, Forestville Fire Protection DistrictRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: Personnel assigned to the initial arriving full alarm assignmentshall have the capabilities to implement an IRIT.SUBSTANTIATION: The IRIT team may arrive on the second orthird arriving unit.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Language for IRIT capabilities iscurrently included in 3-2.3.2.2 (h).
___________________
(Log #91)1710- 322 - (3-2.3.1.2): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Larry D. Donner, Boulder Fire Dept., CORECOMMENDATION : Delete this entire section.SUBSTANTIATION: The ability to establish service deliverystandards is vested with the jurisdiction having authority. NFPAshould not attempt to circumvent this authority through thestandards process.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Keep and revise the first sentence in 3-2.3.1.2* Personnel assignedto the initial arriving company shall have the capability toimplement an Initial Rapid Intervention Crew (IRIC). Delete therest of this section and sections 3-2.3.1.3 and 3-2.3.1.4 and insection 3-2.3.2.2 (d) delete the second sentence.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The specific tactical and operationalrequirements for an initial rapid intervention crew are included inNFPA 1500. The fire department must have the capability toimplement a safety and health program as required by section 4-1.
___________________
(Log #101)1710- 323 - (3-2.3.1.2): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Dwight B. Van Zanen, Maple Valley Fire and LifeSafety/Rep. King County Fire Protection Dist. #43Bruce Holloway, Spokane County Fire Dist. #3/WSAFC (Log #562)Duane M. Malo, Washington State Assn. of Fire Chiefs (Log #662)RECOMMENDATION : Delete the last sentence, and add, “exceptas provided for in section 3-2.3.1.4, an IRIT should be establishedprior to an interior attack on a fire beyond the “incipent stage”.This provision shall not be interrupted to prevent an interior attackwith four (4) personnel on location and capable of fire fightingoperations.”SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed replacement text will assurethat an attack can begin when four personnel are available andcapable of fire fighting. The existing language could require arrivalof more than four, before attack operations.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-322 (Log #91).
___________________
(Log #266)1710- 324 - (3-2.3.1.2): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Mario David Rueda, Los Angeles City Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Replace entire section with language fromNFPA 1500, 6-4.4.2.SUBSTANTIATION: NFPA 1500 details specific provisions indealing with personnel assigned to rapid intervention crews.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-322 (Log #91).
___________________
(Log #313)1710- 325 - (3-2.3.1.2): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Dean R. Shank, Central Kitsap Fire RescueRECOMMENDATION : Delete entire paragraph.SUBSTANTIATION: OSHA’s two-in - two-out rule covers thesafety issue when an interior attack is initiated. Your standarddiscusses a IRIT team which is also covered under OSHA withability for the company officer to utilize his resources toaccomplish the tasks.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-322 (Log #91).
___________________
(Log #1075)1710- 326 - (3-2.3.1.2): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Wayne Waggoner, Tennessee Fire CodeDevelopment CommitteeRECOMMENDATION : Delete the following text: 3-2.3.1.2* Personnel assigned to the initial arriving company shallhave the capability to implement an Initial Rapid InterventionTeam (IRIT). One fire fighter shall be assigned duties as thePrimary IRIT Member and one fire fighter shall assume theposition as Secondary IRIT Member. Only the individual assignedas the Secondary IRIT Member shall be permitted to perform tasksin addition to accountability, but only if those tasks could beimmediately abandoned without jeopardizing the safety and healthof others at the emergency scene. No one would serve as aSecondary IRIT Member when the other activities in which he orshe is engaged inhibit his or her ability to assist in monitoring theinterior team(s) and if necessary, perform rescue or are of suchimportance that they cannot be abandoned without placing otherfire fighters in danger. At no time shall an interior attack beinitiated until the IRIT is fully operational. In accordance with theOsha 29 CFR 1910.134 Respiratory Standard. 3-2.3.1.3 The IRIT shall be immediately ready for assignment andmust have full personal protective clothing and SCBA, necessaryrescue tools and equipment and a radio for each member of theIRIT. The IRIT must closely monitor the tactical radio channels atall times for activities and status of companies. The IRIT shallmaintain knowledge of all company locations. 3-2.3.1.4 The exception to this requirement for an IRIT is whenunits arrive on scene and discover that an emergency rescue of thepublic is necessary. This may be accomplished before an IRIT orfull RIT is assembled. This exception is only permitted during anoperation involving known life-threatening situations whereimmediate action is necessary. Any such actions taken in
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
297
accordance with this exception must be thoroughly investigated bythe fire department with a written report submitted to the FireChief. This exception is not to be confused with the standardmission of completing a primary search as a standard operatingpractice as a normal tactical priority that shall be conducted withan IRIT or RIT.SUBSTANTIATION: These sections are covered in OSHA andNFPA 1500 and should not be referenced in this document.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-322 (Log #91).
___________________
(Log #1602)1710- 327 - (3-2.3.1.2): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: J. G. Bale, Surrey Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: If upon arrival at the scene, members find imminent life-threatening situation or upon determination of the Officer inCharge that a rapid, safe initial interior attack would mitigate thesituation, then an exception can be made to this requirement inaccordance with NFPA 1500, Section 6-2.SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed change does not allow aninitial attack to be made until 5 members are on scene since thePump Operator cannot abandon his job. Most departments donot have initial responding 5 person crews which could result inmany minor fire situations accelerating into something moreserious while a crew is waiting for more personnel to arrive.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-322 (Log #91).
___________________(Log #1686)
1710- 328 - (3-2.3.1.2): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro/Rep. WashingtonCounty Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: Personnel assigned to the initial arriving company shall should have the capability... One firefighter shall should be assigned...andone firefightershall should assume the position...SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-322 (Log #91).
___________________
(Log #1859)1710- 329 - (3-2.3.1.2): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Mike Daily, Bellevue Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Delete the following text: “Personnel assigned to the initial arriving company shall have thecapability to implement an Initial Rapid Intervention Team(IRIT). One fire fighter shall be assigned duties as the PrimaryIRIT Member and one fire fighter shall assume the position asSecondary IRIT Member. Only the individual assigned as theSecondary IRIT Member shall be permitted to perform tasks inaddition to accountability, but only if those tasks could beimmediately abandoned without jeopardizing the safety and healthof others at the emergency scene. No one would serve as aSecondary IRIT Member when the other activities in which he orshe is engaged inhibit his or her ability to assist in monitoring theinterior team(s) and if necessary, perform rescue or are of suchimportance that they cannot be abandoned without placing otherfire fighters in danger. At no time shall an interior attack beinitiated until the IRIT is fully operational.”SUBSTANTIATION: It is my opinion that this IRIT concept goesway beyond the requirements of 2 in 2 out, and usurps the IncidentCommanders ability to manage resources in a manner that bestaddresses all the needs and risks of the incident.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-322 (Log #91).
___________________
(Log #2106)1710- 330 - (3-2.3.1.2): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Personnel assigned to the initial arriving company shall should have the capability... One firefighter shall should be assigned...andone firefighter shall should assume the position...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-322 (Log #91).
___________________
(Log #634)1710- 331 - (3-2.3.1.2, 3-2.3.1.4): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Robert H. Wilcox, Matteson Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : You seem to rely heavily on the onlyfederally required Standard (29 CFR 1910.134), which establishescertain safety criteria for firefighters involved in structuralfirefighting. However, you have taken certain liberties whiledeveloping your proposed language, which clearly changes themeaning of some of the key provisions found in the standard itself. Delete the following language found in 3-2.3.1.2*: The proposed language embellishes to a great degree the plainlanguage found in 29 CFR 1910.134(g)(4)(iii) Note One. Therefore the proposed text should be removed and the exact textfound in the standard inserted: “ One of the two individuals located outside the IDLH atmospheremay be assigned to an additional role, such as incidentcommander in charge of the emergency or safety officer, so long asthis individual is able to perform assistance or rescue activitieswithout jeopardizing the safety or health of any firefighter workingat the incident. ” Delete the following language found in 3-2.3.1.4: “There is no requirement anywhere in 29 CFR 1910.134 whichrequires each member of the IRIT to be equipped with a portableradio. Since IRIT personnel are required by this same standard towork as a team this requirement seems excessive. As a practicalmatter once the IRIT is assigned a second RIT has to beestablished to monitor the IRIT and additional portable radioswould not provide any additional benefit. Finally, mostdepartments don’t provide each fire unit with portable radios foreach position, but rather provide one for the Company Officer.” Therefore, the language requiring each team member of the IRITto have a portable radio should be removed. Delete the following language found in 3-2.3.1.4: “This exception is only permitted during an operation involvingknown life-threatening situations where immediate action isnecessary.” This language is totally inconsistent with that found in 29 CFR1910.134. The language should be changed to reflect that found inthe OSHA standard. The language you have incorporated hascaused a great deal of confusion in dealing with the OSHAstandard. If this proposed language is allowed it will furtherexacerbate the problem. The language should be changed as follows: “ Nothing in the section is meant to preclude firefighters fromperforming emergency rescue activities before an entire team hasassembled. [1910.134(g)(4)(iii) Note Two]”SUBSTANTIATION: My only other comment relates to how theCommittee has addressed the staffing issue. In your proposalChapter 3 titled “Services of the Fire Department” there appears tobe some flexibility for the Community to develop staffing levelswhich they believe meet the criteria found in Section 3-2 given fiscalrestraints. However, 3-2.2.1 defines the minimum staffing level for a varietyof different companies using the word shall throughout theparagraph. There is no consideration given to a community’sability to financially address this complex staffing issue. Believe me as a Chief Officer I would love to see the level ofstaffing proposed by the new standard, but as a realist from a smallsuburban department I see no way that we will ever have thisstaffing level. Although I also fully understand that the NFPAstandard is a consensus standard it places the majority of Fire
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
298
Chiefs in this country in a position of noncompliance because wedon’t have the means to comply. This I feel is a terrible strategycoming forward from a nationally recognized organization such asthe NFPA. I believe that it is more appropriate that the NFPA takethe position that the company staffing should be established at acertain level to afford the most efficient and safe use of firepersonnel. I have grave concerns that should this standard be passed in itscurrent form that Federal Agencies will then adopt this otherwisenon-binding language into a rigid requirement. This I submitwould be a deathblow to those department’s whose make-updoesn’t reflect those of the committee members.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-322 (Log #91).
___________________
(Log #92)1710- 332 - (3-2.3.1.3): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Larry D. Donner, Boulder Fire Dept., CORECOMMENDATION : Delete this entire section.SUBSTANTIATION: The ability to establish service deliverystandards is vested with the jurisdiction having authority. NFPAshould not attempt to circumvent this authority through thestandards process.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-322 (Log #91).
___________________
(Log #319)1710- 333 - (3-2.3.1.3): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Dean R. Shank, Central Kitsap Fire RescueRECOMMENDATION : Delete entire paragraph.SUBSTANTIATION: This is what a RIT team is responsible tohave and perform on the scene. On the initial attack, recommendyou use OSHA requirements of two-in - two-out rule. We alreadywent through this during the NFPA 1500 adoption process.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-322 (Log #91).
___________________
(Log #615)1710- 334 - (3-2.3.1.3): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Donald H. Butz, Rancho Santa Fe Fire ProtectionDist.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The IRIT shall be immediately ready for assignment and musthave full personal protective clothing and SCBA, necessary rescuetools and equipment and a radio for each primary member of theIRIT as defined in 3-2.3.1.2 . The IRIT must closely monitor thetactical radio channels at all times for activities and status ofcompanies. The IRIT shall maintain knowledge of all companylocations.”SUBSTANTIATION: A radio for each member of a IRIT wouldbe a logistical problem for many departments. To accomplish thisit would almost take a radio for every position on each apparatus.This would be a significant fiscal impact on any department,particularly if implemented at once.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-322 (Log #91).
___________________
(Log #1687)1710- 335 - (3-2.3.1.3): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro/Rep. WashingtonCounty Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “...The IRIT shall should maintain knowledge of all companylocations.”SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.
COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-322 (Log #91).
___________________
(Log #1712)1710- 336 - (3-2.3.1.3): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Gregory W. Frederick, Louisville Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The IRIT shall be immediately ready for assignment and musthave full personal protective clothing and SCBA, necessary rescuetools and equipment and a radio for each member of the IRIT.The IRIT must closely monitor the tactical radio channels at alltimes for activities and status of companies. The IRIT shallmaintain knowledge of all company locations.”SUBSTANTIATION: Unit should function with team concept.Excessive radios would create feedback situation. The number ofradios necessary would be excessive.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-322 (Log #91).
___________________
(Log #2107)1710- 337 - (3-2.3.1.3): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “...The IRIT shall should maintain knowledge of all companylocations”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-322 (Log #91).
___________________
(Log #27)1710- 338 - (3-2.3.1.4): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Robert Carnahan, Clackamas County Fire Dist. 1Carl Brumund, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #348)Orville Downer, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #423)Daniel C. Olsen, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #453)Rich Mackie, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #574)Martin Goughnour, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1557)Norman Whiteley, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1582)Randy R. Bruegman, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1651)Joan Johnson, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1799)Jon R. Brown, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #2295)RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: 3-2.3.1.4 The exception to this requirement for an IRIT is whenunits arrive on scene and discover that an emergency rescue of thepublic is necessary. This may be accomplished before and IRIT orfull RIT is assembled. This exception is only permitted during anoperation involving KNOWN life threatening situations whereimmediate action can be reasonable suspected as is necessary. Anysuch actions taken in accordance with this exception must bethoroughly investigated by the fire department with a written reportsubmitted to the fire chief. This exception is not to be confusedwith the standard mission of completing a primary search as astandard operating practice as a normal tactical priority that shallbe conducted with an IRIT or RIT.SUBSTANTIATION: It is seldom possible to KNOW for surewhat condition a victim may be in. Individuals could argue that ahome was so involved that the victim was surely dead and thereforeno rescue attempt should have been made. Changing the wordingto reasonably suspected clarifies the intentions.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-322 (Log #91).
___________________
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
299
(Log #93)1710- 339 - (3-2.3.1.4): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Larry D. Donner, Boulder Fire Dept., CORECOMMENDATION : Delete this entire section.SUBSTANTIATION: The ability to establish service deliverystandards is vested with the jurisdiction having authority. NFPAshould not attempt to circumvent this authority through thestandards process.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-322 (Log #91).
___________________
(Log #318)1710- 340 - (3-2.3.1.4): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Dean R. Shank, Central Kitsap Fire RescueRECOMMENDATION : Delete entire paragraph.SUBSTANTIATION: OSHA already gives direction on these typesof events. What is your definition of “KNOWN”?, it is not in yourdefinition section. Officers in charge are trained to evaluate thescene and to make appropriate decisions. This standard would beinterpreted different by each company officer or department.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-322 (Log #91).
___________________
(Log #1860)1710- 341 - (3-2.3.1.4): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Mike Daily, Bellevue Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Delete the following text: “The exception to this requirement for an IRIT is when unitsarrive on scene and discover that an emergency rescue of thepublic is necessary. This may be accomplished before an IRIT orfull RIT is assembled. This exception is only permitted during anoperation involving known life-threatening situations whereimmediate action is necessary. Any such actions taken inaccordance with this exception must be thoroughly investigated bythe fire department with a written report submitted to the FireChief. This exception is not to be confused with the standardmission of completing a primary search as a standard operatingpractice as a normal tactical priority that shall be conducted withan IRIT or RIT.”SUBSTANTIATION: Exceptions to 2 in 2 out are addressed ineither local statutes for non-OSHA states or adequately for OSHAstates.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-322 (Log #91).
___________________
(Log #94)1710- 342 - (3-2.3.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Larry D. Donner, Boulder Fire Dept., CORECOMMENDATION : Delete this entire section.SUBSTANTIATION: The ability to establish service deliverystandards is vested with the jurisdiction having authority. NFPAshould not attempt to circumvent this authority through thestandards process.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee believes that careerfire departments are expected to supply on a continuous basis anunanticipated response to fires and emergencies at any time of theday or night. They are heavy dependent on timely response ofproperly trained and equipped personnel to establish control ofthe situation at the location where it exists. Consequently thatequipment and personnel must be transported to the incidentscene on fire apparatus so that they can execute immediate andsimultaneous tasks. Success of an operation is heavy dependentupon coordination of the critical components of time, personneland equipment which are addressed in this standard with aminimum required number of personnel on unit of response inthe specified response times. Deployment times are based on minimum levels for safe, efficientand effective operations at an emergency.
___________________
(Log #315)1710- 343 - (3-2.3.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Dean R. Shank, Central Kitsap Fire RescueRECOMMENDATION : Delete entire section.SUBSTANTIATION: Per this section, it would require 15members on the scene no matter what type of incident. It does notaccount for different events where some tasks would not berequired. The standard dictates all the assignments that might beneeded, even if they are not required. Let the IncidentCommander evaluate the resources needs and make the neededassignments.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-342 (Log #94).
___________________
(Log #9)1710- 344 - (3-2.3.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: L. Charles Smeby, Jr., FL State Fire CollegeRECOMMENDATION : Change to read: “The fire department shall have the capability to deploy the first 3fire companies within a twelve minute response time.”SUBSTANTIATION: I would like to refer the committee back tomy state for my proposed change to 3-2.3.1.1. If the change inresponse times is accepted, then this should be changed. To address the proposed change to three companies, thefollowing is submitted: Some fire departments send up to 7companies on a first alarm assignment. Therefore, the InitialAttack for these departments would be 7 as compared to thenational average of about 4 (Ref: 1995 Phoenix Fire DepartmentSurvey Results). Therefore, the term "initial response" does varyconsiderably depending on local dispatch policies, not necessarythe size or complexity of the emergency.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-342 (Log #94).
___________________
(Log #28)1710- 345 - (3-2.3.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Robert Carnahan, Clackamas County Fire Dist. 1Dennis England, City of Hillsboro/Washington County Fire Dist.
#2/Hillsboro Fire Dept. (Log #231)Dennis Ross, City of Hillsboro/Washington County Fire Dist. #2
(Log #240)Dennis Ross, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept. (Log #249)Patricia Schrom, Grant County Fire Dist. #11/Fire Protection Dist.
(Log #272)Richard A. Knight, Fire Protection Dist. #5 Mason County (Log
#285)Harold Edwards, Delhi Twp Fire Dept. (Log #307)William Steel, Pierce County Fire Dist. #26 (Log #336)Carl Brumund, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #347)Jeff Grunewald, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue (Log #366)Curtis E. Goodman, City of Norwood/Fire Division (Log #389)Darrell Hartmann, Brookings Fire Dept. (Log #393)Ted Biermann, Adams County Fire Protection Dist. #2 (Log #411)Orville Downer, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #422)Earl Cordes, Jefferson County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #440)Daniel C. Olsen, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #452)D. J. Cornish, Manzanita, OR/Manzanita Fire Dept. (Log #465)Judd Burrow, Manzanita, OR/Manzanita Public Safety (Log #481)Jeremy Strozyk, Nehalem, OR/Manzanita Public Safety (Log #497)Bret Siler, Nehalem, OR/Manzanita Fire Dept. (Log #513)Dan Marshall, Jackson County Fire Dist. #5 (Log #533)Jerry McDowell, Whatcom County Fire Protection Dist. #1 (Log
#546)Rich Mackie, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #573)S. D. ‘Skip’ Smith, Santa Clara Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log
#590)Charles Hennigan, Thurston County Fire Protection Dist. #13 (Log
#609)Don Rowe, Sisters-Camp Sherman RFPD (Log #647)Jon C. Bugher, Clallam County Fire Dist. #2 (Log #681)Paul Epler, Vernonia Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #691)Michael J. Sneddon, Charleston Fire Dist. (Log #712)Brad Litthans, Snohowish Couunty Fire Protection Dist. #15 (Log
#731)Ken Walkington, Kitsad County Fire Dist. #14 (Log #742)Douglas VanPelt, Corvallis Fire Dept. (Log #758)Joel Stein, Keizer Fire Dist. (Log #769)
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
300
Greg Frank, Keizer Fire Dist. (Log #780)William Seifert, Skamania County (WA) Fire Dist. #6 (Log #789)Michael Brondi, SCFD #19/Rockport/Marblemt. Fire Dept. (Log
#799)George Dunkel, St. Helens Rural Fire Dist. (Log #805)Gary J. Hudson, St. Helens Rural Fire Dist. (Log #815)Matthew Shuler, Eugene Fire and EMS Dept. (Log #840)Scott Koehler, Stanwood Fire Dept. (Log #851)Stephen D. Allen, Cottage Grove/South Lane Rural Fire Dept.
(Log #871)Dan Stout, Fire Dist. #8 – Spokane County (Log #882)J. Ben Reisz, Sunmer, WA (Log #892)Louis Hayvaz, Thurston County Fire Protection Dist. #13 (Log
#901)Monty Moore, Kittitas County Fire Dist. #8 (Log #912)Cleve Rooper, Cannon Beach RFPD (Log #928)William H. Combs, City of Sutherlin Fire Dept. (Log #944)Charles W. Edwards, Hansville, WA (Log #957)John Schlegel, Tri-City RFPD (Log #972)Bill Schmitt, Klickitat County Fire Protection Dist. #13 (Log #980)Bill Alguire, Keizer Fire Dist. (Log #996)Ted Ames, Warrenton Fire Dept. (Log #1010)Craig Helgeland, Camano Island Fire & Rescue (Log #1020)David Elkins, KCFPD #4/WFCA (Log #1036)Paul M. Olheiser, Knappa Fire Dist. (Log #1091)Larry D. Eckhardt, Hoodland Fire Dist. #74 (Log #1111)Mike Rieger, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1122)Wayne Kier, Jefferson County Fire Dist. #3 (Log #1945)Charles Spittles, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1153)Cindy Manning, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1190)Corey Tohl, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1206)Terry Zuercher, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1222)Tennessee Hodgdon, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1238)Thomas G. Miller, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1262)Roy Ellerbroek, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1278)Mike Ellerbroek, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1294)Aaron Burris, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1302)Leonard Ingles, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1327)Steven Stelzig, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1335)Frank Reding, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1351)Leroy Goff, Sumner, WA/City of Sumner (Log #1367)Kyle Sheets, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1385)Tim Hamburger, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1393)Ken Aufdenmauer, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1409)Klyle Adams, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1433)David B. Schelhaas, Scappoose Rural Fire Dept. (Log #1437)John R. McAdoo, Estacada Fire Dist. #69 (Log #1459)Dan O’Dell, Boring Fire Dist. (Log #1476)Larry A. Long, Estacada Rural Fire Dist. #69 (Log #1491)Lanny R. Boston, Bandon Rural Fire Protection Dist. #8/City of
Bandon Fire Dept./Southwestern Oregon Fire Chiefs Assn. (Log#1517)
John A. Stein, Dallas Fire Dept. (Log #1535)Martin Goughnour, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1558)Norman Whiteley, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1583)Randy R. Bruegman, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1652)Dale Staib, Philomath RFPD #4 (Log #1673)Scott Pearson, Snohomish County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1706)Patrick Reitz, Terrebone, OR/Crooked River Ranch RFPD (Log
#1740)Jeff Griffin, Oregon Fire Chiefs’ Assn. (Log #1789)Joan Johnson, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1798)Allan MacKay, Sedro-Woolley, WA/Whatcom County Fire
Protection Dist. #18 (Log #1828)Chris Asanovic, Cornelius City/Rural Fire Dept. (Log #1886)Jeff Griffin, Oregon Fire Chiefs’ Assn. (Log #1909)David Chastain, Clallam County Fire Protection Dist. #4 (Log
#1924)Robert Wilson, Jefferson County Fire Dist. #2 (Log #1935)Jane Lee, KCFPD #7 (Log #1972)Gary Abrams, NRFPD (Log #2173)Duaine Harding Sr., NRFPD (Log #2191)Lyle J. Payne, Pleasant Hill RFPD (Log #2211)Chris Asanovic, Cornelius City/Rural Fire Dept. (Log #2225)Joseph R. Guyette, Dover-Foxcroft, ME/MSFFF (Log #2253)Michael S. Curtis, Dover-Foxcroft Fire Dept. (Log #2258)Darin Welburn, Jackson County Fire Dist. #5 (Log #2282)Jon R. Brown, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #2294)RECOMMENDATION : Delete the following text: 3-2.3.2.1 The fire department shall have the capability to deployan initial full alarm assignment within an eight minute responsetime.
SUBSTANTIATION: This provision is in conflict with 3-2.3.1.1.1and is not needed.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-342 (Log #94).
___________________
(Log #45)1710- 346 - (3-2.3.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: John Shull, Scappoose Rural Fire Dist.Gloria Gass, Cloverdale, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist.
(Log #77)Greg Gass, Cloverdale, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist.
(Log #129)Mary Lou Fletcher, Beaver, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protection
Dist. (Log #145)Kevin Wickman, Keizer Fire Dist. (Log #158)Wayne Sandford, East Haven Fire (Log #175)Levi B. Beachy, Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #191)Roy O. Palmer, Polk County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #206)Harold Edwards, Delhi Twp Fire Dept. (Log #298)Jeff Grunewald, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue (Log #367)Curtis E. Goodman, City of Norwood/Fire Dept. (Log #380)Darrell Hartmann, Brookings Fire Dept. (Log #399)Earl Cordes, Jefferson County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #441)D. J. Cornish, Manzanita, OR/Manzanita Fire Dept. (Log #471)Judd Burrow, Manzanita, OR/Manzanita Public Safety (Log #487)Jeremy Strozyk, Nehalem, OR/Manzanita Public Safety (Log #503)Bret Siler, Nehalem, OR/Manzanita Fire Dept. (Log #519)Dan Marshall, Jackson County Fire Dist. #5 (Log #534)S. D. ‘Skip’ Smith, Santa Clara Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log
#598)Don Rowe, Sisters-Camp Sherman RFPD (Log #648)Paul Epler, Vernonia Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #690)Michael J. Sneddon, Charleston Fire Dist. (Log #713)Greg Frank, Keizer Fire Dist. (Log #750)Douglas VanPelt, Corvallis Fire Dept. (Log #759)Joel Stein, Keizer Fire Dist. (Log #768)George M. Dunkel, St. Helens Rural Fire Dist. (Log #811)Gary J. Hudson, St. Helens Rural Fire Dist. (Log #824)Matthew Shuler, Eugene Fire and EMS Dept. (Log #841)Stephen D. Allen, Cottage Grove/South Lane Rural Fire Dept.
(Log #872)Cleve Rooper, Cannon RFPD (Log #929)Williams H. Combs, City of Sutherlin Fire Dept. (Log #945)John Schlegel, Tri-city RFPD (Log #973)Bill Alguire, Keizer Fire Dist. (Log #997)Ted Ames, Warrenton Fire Dept. (Log #1011)Dale Mitchell, Pierce County Fire Dist. #8 (Log #1047)Paul M. Olheiser, Knappa Fire Dist. (Log #1090)Larry D. Eckhardt, Hoodland Dist. #74 (Log #1112)Mike Rieger, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1128)Charles Spittles, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1159)Cindy Manning, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1196)Corey Tohl, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1212)Terry Zuercher, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1228)Tennessee Hodgdon, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1244)Thomas G. Miller, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1252)Roy Ellerbroek, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1268)Mike Ellerbroek, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1284)Aaron Burris, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1308)Leonard Ingles, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1316)Steven Stelzig, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1341)Frank Reding, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1357)Kyle Sheets, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1375)Tim Hamburger, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1399)Ken Aufdermauer, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1415)Kyle Adams, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1423)David B. Schelhaas, Scappoose Rural Fire Dept. (Log #1446)John R. McAdoo, Estacada Fire Dist. #69 (Log #1460)Dan O’Dell, Boring Fire Dist. (Log #1475)Larry A. Long, Estacada Rural Fire Dist. #69 (Log #1492)Lanny R. Boston, Bandon Rural Fire Protection Dist. #8/City of
Bandon Fire Dept./Southwestern Oregon Fire Chiefs Assn. (Log#1516)
John A. Stein, Dallas Fire Dept. (Log #1536)Aaron Vaughn, Scappoose Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #1612)Jack R. Carriger, Nestucca RFPD (Log #1628)Dale Staib, Philomath RFPD #4 (Log #1674)Patrick Reitz, Terrebonne, OR/Crooked River Ranch RFPD (Log
#1741)Jeff Griffin, Oregon Fire Chiefs’ Assn. (Log #1782)
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
301
Chris Asanovic, Cornelius City/Rural Fire Dept. (Log #1887)Gary Abrams, NRFPD (Log #2168)Duaine M. Harding Sr., NRFPD (Log #2181)Lyle J. Payne, Pleasant Hill RFPD (Log #2205)Joseph R. Guyotte, MSFFF (Log #2245)Michael S. Curtis, Dover-Foxcroft Fire Dept. (Log #2266)Darin Welburn, Jackson County Fire Dist. #5 (Log #2283)RECOMMENDATION : Delete the following text: “The fire department shall have the capability to deploy an initialfull alarm assignment within an eight minute response time.”SUBSTANTIATION: Response time is a combination of manyfactors. Some of those factors are outside the operator’s control.We can not compromise the life safety of fire fighters.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-342 (Log #94).
___________________
(Log #46)1710- 347 - (3-2.3.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: John Shull, Scappoose Rural Fire Dist.Dennis Marceaux, Scappoose Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #62)Gloria Gass, Cloverdale, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist.
(Log #78)Mickey Hays, Beaver, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist.
(Log #113)Greg Gass, Cloverdale, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist.
(Log #128)Mary Lou Fletcher, Beaver, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protection
Dist. (Log #144)Levi R. Beachy, Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #190)Roy O. Palmer, Polk County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #207)Robert D. Wilson, Quilcene, WA/Quilcene Vol. Fire Dept. (Log
#1595)Aaron Vaughn, Scappoose Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #1613)Jack R. Carriger, Nestucca RFPD (Log #1629)RECOMMENDATION : Delete the following text: “The fire department shall have the capability to deploy an initialfull alarm assignment within an eight minute response time.”SUBSTANTIATION: This provision is in conflict with 3-2.3.1.1.1and is not needed.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-342 (Log #94).
___________________
(Log #61)1710- 348 - (3-2.3.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis Marceaux, Scappoose Rural Fire ProtectionDist.RECOMMENDATION : Delete the following text: “The fire department shall have the capability to deploy an initialfull alarm assignment within an eight minute response time.”SUBSTANTIATION: This provision is in conflict with 3-2.3.1.1.1and is not needed.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-342 (Log #94).
___________________
(Log #112)1710- 349 - (3-2.3.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Mickey E. Hays, Rep. Nestucca Rural FireProtection Dist.RECOMMENDATION : Delete the following text: “The fire department shall have the capability to deploy an initialfull alarm assignment within an eight minute response time.”SUBSTANTIATION: This provision is in conflict with 3-2.3.1.1.1and is not needed.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-342 (Log #94).
___________________
(Log #174)1710- 350 - (3-2.3.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Wayne E. Sandford, East Haven Fire, CTRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department shall have the capability to deploy an initialfull alarm assignment within an eight minute response time.”SUBSTANTIATION: This provision is in conflict with 3-2.3.1.1.1and is not needed.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-342 (Log #94).
___________________(Log #218)
1710- 351 - (3-2.3.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Calvin Johnson, Lewis County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Delete the following text: “The fire department shall have the capability to deploy an initialfull alarm assignment within an eight minute response time.”SUBSTANTIATION: This provision is in conflict with 3-2.3.1.1.1and is not needed.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-342 (Log #94).
___________________
(Log #314)1710- 352 - (3-2.3.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Dean R. Shank, Central Kitsap Fire RescueRECOMMENDATION : Delete entire paragraph.SUBSTANTIATION: Delete or change wording from shall toshould .COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-342 (Log #94).
___________________(Log #316)
1710- 353 - (3-2.3.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Dean R. Shank, Central Kitsap Fire RescueRECOMMENDATION : Delete entire paragraph.SUBSTANTIATION: The demographic and geographic’s of adepartments area will determine what the acceptable time framefor a initial full alarm to reach the scene. This does not allow thefact that the first due equipment might be assigned to anotherincident, which would require the second due to cover.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-342 (Log #94).
___________________
(Log #329)1710- 354 - (3-2.3.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Robert Goodyear, Moraga Orinda Fire DistrictRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: 3-2.3.2.1 The fire department shall have the capability to deployan initial full alarm assignment within a ten eight minute responsetime.SUBSTANTIATION: Many districts are not financially supportedto provide the number of fire stations and personnel required tomeet the standard of ten (10) minute response times for thedeployment of a full first alarm assignment. Additionally,infrastructures in many areas limit the ability to meet the criteria.A more reasonable approach, and more fiscally prudent, would beto require sprinkler systems in occupancies, especially thoseoutside a four (4) minute response zone.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-342 (Log #94).
___________________(Log #616)
1710- 355 - (3-2.3.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Donald H. Butz, Rancho Santa Fe Fire ProtectionDist.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department shall should have the capability to deploy aninitial alarm within an eight (8) minute response time.”SUBSTANTIATION: This requirement would not be possiblewith the geographical and fiscal constraints of a small departmentlike Rancho Santa Fe Fire Protection District.
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
302
COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-342 (Log #94).
___________________
(Log #722)1710- 356 - (3-2.3.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Marquam R. Johnson, Torrington Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “...assignment to a percentage of the geographic area and in atime as determined by the AHJ as per 2-1.1.1.”SUBSTANTIATION: Specific time frame recommendation (andsupporting scientific background material) should be in theappendix to allow the AHJ to make an informed yet local decision.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-342 (Log #94).
___________________
(Log #1076)1710- 357 - (3-2.3.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Wayne Waggoner, Tennessee Fire CodeDevelopment CommitteeRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: 3-2.3.2.1 The fire department shall have the capability to deploybegin an initial operation full alarm assignment within an eightminute response time in 90 percent of responses under typicalcircumstances. SUBSTANTIATION: This change will make the document moreconsistent with its other sections if the proposed changes areaccepted.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-342 (Log #94).
___________________
(Log #1147)1710- 358 - (3-2.3.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Gary F. Duignan, Forestville Fire Protection DistrictRECOMMENDATION : Delete.SUBSTANTIATION: Eight minute response time is not possible.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-342 (Log #94).
___________________
(Log #1167)1710- 359 - (3-2.3.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Jackie T. Gibbs, Marietta Fire and EmergencyServicesRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department shall have the capability to deploy and initialfull alarm assignment within an eight minute response time afterconfirmation of a working fire. ”SUBSTANTIATION: With the large number of false alarms, goodintent and miscellaneous calls, the fire service should work toreduce the number of emergency calls that put the public at risk ofaccidents at a much higher rate than actual fires.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-342 (Log #94).
___________________
(Log #1688)1710- 360 - (3-2.3.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro/Rep. WashingtonCounty Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department shall should have the capability to...”SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-342 (Log #94).
___________________
(Log #1726)1710- 361 - (3-2.3.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Bobby Williams, Spokane Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department shall should have the capability to deploy aninitial full alarm assignment within an eight (8) minute responsetime.”SUBSTANTIATION: While it is desirable to have a 8 minuteresponse times for deployment of fire suppression resources,response times provided are the service level decisions of thegoverning body. The response time levels identified in the draft document shouldbe provided as recommended levels.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-342 (Log #94).
___________________
(Log #1749)1710- 362 - (3-2.3.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Frank Edwards, Chesterfield County Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “within an eight minute response time within established localresponse time standards ”SUBSTANTIATION: Jurisdiction’s needs and resources aredifferent. Response time standards should be established by thelocal authority having jurisdiction.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-342 (Log #94).
___________________
(Log #1767)1710- 363 - (3-2.3.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Randy Sheppard, Palm Beach County Fire-RescueRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department shall have the capability to deploy an initialfull alarm assignment, including mutual aid and automatic aid firesuppression resources, within and eight minute the response timecriteria identified in Section 3-2.3.1.1. ”SUBSTANTIATION: As written, this conflicts with existing 3-2.3.1.1 and does not specify credit for mutual aid or automatic aidresources as identified in Section 2-5.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-342 (Log #94).
___________________
(Log #1813)1710- 364 - (3-2.3.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Rick Mawhirter, Western Missouri Fire Chiefs Assn.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department shall have the capability to deploy an initialfull alarm assignment within an eight a ten (10) minute responsetime.”SUBSTANTIATION: Very few fire departments in the UnitedStates would be able to deploy an initial full alarm assignment withan eight-minute response time. This means that instead ofestablishing a standard that is currently in general use, it wouldcreate a new goal that is probably not fiscally reasonable.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-342 (Log #94).
___________________
(Log #1817)1710- 365 - (3-2.3.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: J. Gordon Routley, Champlain, NYRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department shall have the capability to deploy an initialfirst alarm assignment within an 8 minute response time. Theauthority having jurisdiction shall determine the number and typesof companies and the number of personnel that shall respond to a
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
303
reported structure fire in the jurisdiction or in each area within thejurisdiction. This determination shall be based on the types ofstructures and risks that are present and the functions that must beperformed to safely initiate an effective fire attack. The authorityhaving jurisdiction shall also determine the time in which therequired resources shall be deployed at the scene of a fire. ”SUBSTANTIATION: This requirement insinuates that there isone level of initial response capability that is appropriate for allsituations. The full first alarm assignment described in 3-2.3.2.2requires at least 12 to 14 personnel to be deployed at the scene of astructure fire within 8 minutes. This appears to be a reasonable“middle of the road” requirement, however, it is inadequate forhigh risk areas and excessive for low risk areas. Making this asingle mandatory requirement, with no other considerations, is aserious over simplification. Most medium to large cities have the ability to deploy this level offire suppression capability within 8 minutes, however, it may beinadequate for the risks they protect. In smaller communities itmay be impossible to assemble this number of personnel within 8minutes and the requirement my be excessive for the level of risk.In areas with low population density, even in large cities, it may beimpossible and unnecessary to meet this requirement.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-342 (Log #94).
___________________
(Log #1953)1710- 366 - (3-2.3.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Brian J. Thibeault, Plymouth Fire RescueRECOMMENDATION : Delete the following text: “The fire department shall have the capability to deploy an initialfull alarm assignment within an eight minute response time.”SUBSTANTIATION: This provision is in conflict with 3-2.3.1.1.1and is not needed.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-342 (Log #94).
___________________
(Log #1962)1710- 367 - (3-2.3.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Chip Prather, Orange County Fire AuthorityRECOMMENDATION : Delete the following text in its entirety: “The fire department shall have the capability to deploy an initialfull alarm assignment within an eight minute response time.”SUBSTANTIATION: This requirement dictates how the resourcesin the first alarm will be deployed which overly restricts localdepartments to established tactical policies that meet localconditions.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-342 (Log #94).
___________________
(Log #2108)1710- 368 - (3-2.3.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department shall should have the capability to...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-342 (Log #94).
___________________
(Log #2234)1710- 369 - (3-2.3.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Brown, Kitsap County Fire District #7RECOMMENDATION : Delete text as follows: “The fire department shall have the capability to deploy an initialfull alarm assignment within an eight-minute response time.”
SUBSTANTIATION: Response time is a combination of manyfactors. Some of those factors are outside the operator’s control.We can not compromise the life safety of firefighters. Nor does thestandard account for built-in fire protection.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-342 (Log #94).
___________________
(Log #2235)1710- 370 - (3-2.3.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Brown, Kitsap County Fire District #7RECOMMENDATION : Delete text as follows: “The fire department shall have the capability to deploy an initialfull alarm assignment within an eight-minute response time.”SUBSTANTIATION: This provision is in conflict with 3-2.3.1.1.1and is not needed. The statement is redundant.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-342 (Log #94).
___________________
(Log #1821)1710- 371 - (3-2.3.2.1, 3-2.3.2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: J. Gordon Routley, Champlain, NYRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: 3-2.3.2.1 The fire department shall have the capability to deployan initial first alarm assignment within an eight minute responsetime that includes sufficient resources to conduct an offensiveinterior fire attack, based on the size, occupancy and constructionand of structures in each area of the jurisdiction. 3-2.3.2.2 The full first alarm assignment for a structure fire shallprovide for sufficient resources to perform at least the following:SUBSTANTIATION: This revision emphasizes that the full firstalarm assignment should be capable of initiating an interior attackthat is in proportion with the size and occupancy of the structure. The 8 minute time objective previously contained in 3-2.3.2.1should be moved to Section 2-1.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.1. Reject. 2. The first sentence of 3-2.3.2.2 is changed to read: “The first full alarm assignment shall deploy the personnel andresources that provide for the following:”COMMITTEE STATEMENT: 1. See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-342 (Log #94). 2. The committee believes that language for an initial full alarmassignment is relevant to all career fire departments. The functionsrequired in this section are directly related to the benchmark fireestablished through scientific study and national demographics,that is a 2000 square foot, single family, detached home, without abasement and no exposures with a room and contents fire.
___________________
(Log #100)1710- 372 - (3-2.3.2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Dwight B. Van Zanen, Maple Valley Fire and LifeSafety/Rep. King County Fire Protection Dist. #43Bruce Holloway, Spokane County Fire Dist. 3/WSAFC (Log #561)Duane M. Malo, Washington State Assn. of Fire Chiefs (Log #663)RECOMMENDATION : Delete each reference to the requirednumber of personnel.SUBSTANTIATION: The total number of personnel identified in3-2.3.2.2 exceeds the minimum required to deal with an “initialattack”. As such, it exceeds the scope and purpose stated inChapter One. It is in conflict with the practice of most small firedepartments that routinely and safely extinguish small room fireswith 6-8 staff.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-371 (Log #1821).
___________________
(Log #617)1710- 373 - (3-2.3.2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Donald H. Butz, Rancho Santa Fe Fire ProtectionDist.RECOMMENDATION : Delete the entire section: “The first full alarm assignment shall provide for the following: (a) Establishment of incident command outside...
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
304
(h) Establishment of an initial rapid intervention team (IRIT)that shall consist of a minimum of two properly equipped andtrained personnel.”SUBSTANTIATION: As written, the section would require 15personnel on an initial alarm deployment. It does not allow forthe flexibility of some assignments, such as ventilation and searchand rescue being performed by the same group of personnel. Inaddition, most Southern California departments could notoperationally deploy 5 engines (with the average staffing of 3personnel to each apparatus) to meet the staffing requirements asoutlines in this section.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-371 (Log #1821).
___________________
(Log #618)1710- 374 - (3-2.3.2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Donald H. Butz, Rancho Santa Fe Fire ProtectionDist.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The first full alarm assignment shall should provide for thefollowing: (a) Establishment of incident command outside... (h) Establishment of an initial rapid intervention team (IRIT)that shall consist of a minimum of two properly equipped andtrained personnel.”SUBSTANTIATION: The word change would allow the localconditions to be taken into consideration. For example,subsection (b) of this section would not be possible in a non-hydrant or limited rural water supply area. Overall, for RanchoSanta Fe Fire District to accomplish the minimum staffingrequirements of the section would take five (5) apparatus, with 3personnel staffing each, plus a chief officer. This would be a onehundred (100) percent commitment level from within, plusrequesting two (2) mutual or automatic aid apparatus. Many small and medium sized agencies could not accomplish thiswithout committing fifty (50) to one hundred (100) percent ofavailable resources. In addition, to having difficulty in getting allthe apparatus to the scene within eight (8) minutes.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #1137)1710- 375 - (3-2.3.2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Gary F. Duignan, Forestville Fire Protection DistrictRECOMMENDATION : Delete.SUBSTANTIATION: Where do we get the personnel to do allthese tasks or the money to hire people?COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-371 (Log #1821).
___________________(Log #1689)
1710- 376 - (3-2.3.2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro/Rep. WashingtonCounty Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: The first full alarm assignment shall should provide for thefollowing:SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________(Log #1814)
1710- 377 - (3-2.3.2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Rick Mawhirter, Western Missouri Fire Chiefs Assn.RECOMMENDATION : Delete all of the current (d) (d) Provision of one support person for each attack and backupline deployed to provide hydrant hookup, assist in line lays, utility
control, and forcible entry. This individual shall be permitted tobe assigned as a member of the initial rapid intervention team(IRIT). Replace with the following wording: (d) The Rapid Intervention Team may assist on exterioroperations in order to provide hydrant hookup, assist in line lays,utility control, and forcible entry. SUBSTANTIATION: This would permit the Rapid InterventionTeam to work as a group rather than splitting one individual offthat is detrimental to accountability. Fire fighters should not bedeployed on single-person assignments.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-371 (Log #1821).
___________________
(Log #1818)1710- 378 - (3-2.3.2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: J. Gordon Routley, Champlain, NYRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The full first alarm assignment for a moderate risk area in ahypothetical medium to large jurisdiction with medium populationdensity shall be deployed at the scene of a hypothetical structurefire within 8 minutes and shall provide for the followingcapabilities: ”SUBSTANTIATION: The suggested qualifiers place the proposedretirements in an appropriate hypothetical perspective.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-371 (Log #1821).
___________________
(Log #1861)1710- 379 - (3-2.3.2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Daily, Bellevue Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Delete the following text: “The first full alarm assignment shall provide for the following: (a) Establishment of incident command outside of the hazardarea for the overall coordination and direction of the initial fullalarm assignment. A minimum of one individual shall bededicated to this task. (b) Establishment of an uninterrupted water supply of aminimum 400 gpm for 30 minutes. Supply line(s) shall bemaintained by an operator who shall remain with each fireapparatus supplying the water flow to ensure uninterrupted waterflow application. (c) Establishment of an effective water flow application rate of300 gpm from two handlines, one of which shall be an attack linewith a minimum of 100 gpm and one of which shall be a back-upline with a minimum of 200 gpm. Attack and backup lines shall beoperated by a minimum of two personnel each to effectively andsafely maintain the line. (d) Provision of one support person for each attack and backupline deployed to provide hydrant hookup, assist in line lays, utilitycontrol, and forcible entry. This individual shall be permitted tobe assigned as a member of the initial rapid intervention team(IRIT). (e) A minimum of one victim search and rescue team shall bepart of an initial interior attack. Each search and rescue team shallconsist of a minimum of two personnel. (f) A minimum of one ventilation team shall be part of an initialinterior attack. Each ventilation team shall consist of a minimumof two personnel to perform structure ventilation in coordinationwith the primary interior attack. (g) If an aerial device is used in operations, one person shallfunction as an aerial operator who shall remain at the primarycontrol of the aerial device at all times. (h) Establishment of an initial rapid intervention team (IRIT)that shall consist of a minimum of two properly equipped andtrained personnel.”SUBSTANTIATION: Section b overstates the capabilities of manywater supply systems and appears to ignore areas where hydrantsare not available. Section c mandates a backup line flowing 200 gpm. This is not arealistic expectation for most departments and does not addressthe need to deploy resources in a manner determined by theIncident Commander. Section d is in conflict with established accountability principlesand encourages breaking up of teams to effect the issues containedin that section.
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
305
Sections e, f and h mandate use of resources in a manner otherthan that deemed necessary based on the needs of the incident,and as assigned by the Incident Commander.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-371 (Log #1821).
___________________
(Log #2109)1710- 380 - (3-2.3.2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The first full alarm assignment shall should provide for thefollowing:”SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #1140)1710- 381 - (3-2.3.2.2(a)): RejectSUBMITTER: Gary F. Duignan, Forestville Fire Protection DistrictRECOMMENDATION : Delete.SUBSTANTIATION: Don’t always have enough personnel to havethis position, but use an engine officer or unit officer for the I.C.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-371 (Log #1821).
___________________
(Log #1690)1710- 382 - (3-2.3.2.2(a)): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro/Rep. WashingtonCounty Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “(a) ...A minimum of one individual shall should be dedicatedto this task.”SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2110)1710- 383 - (3-2.3.2.2(a)): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “(a) ...A minimum of one individual shall should be dedicatedto this task.”SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #47)1710- 384 - (3-2.3.2.2(a) through (h)): RejectSUBMITTER: John Shull, Scappoose Rural Fire Dist.Dennis Marceaux, Scappoose Rural Fire Protection Dist., (Log
#63)Gloria Gass, Cloverdale, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist.,
(Log #79)Mickey Hays, Beaver, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist.,
(Log #114)Greg Gass, Cloverdale, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist.,
(Log #130)Mary Lou Fletcher, Beaver, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protection
Dist., (Log #146)Kevin Wickman, Keizer Fire Dist. (Log #160)Wayne Sandford, East Haven Fire (Log #177)Levi R. Beachy, Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #192)Roy O. Palmer, Polk County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #208)Harold Edwards, Delhi Twp Fire Dept. (Log #295)Jeff Grunewald, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue (Log #369)Curtis E. Goodman, City of Norwood/Fire Dept. (Log #377)Darrell Hartmann, Brookings Fire Dept. (Log #398)Earl Cordes, Jefferson County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #443)D. J. Cornish, Manzanita, OR/Manzanita Fire Dept. (Log #472)Judd Burrow, Manzanita, OR/Manzanita Public Safety (Log #488)Jeremy Strozyle, Nehalem, OR/Manzanita Public Safety (Log #504)Bret Siler, Nehalem, OR/Manzanita Fire Dept. (Log #520)Dan Marshall, Jackson County Fire Dist. #5 (Log #536)S. D. ‘Skip’ Smith, Santa Clara Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log
#589)Don Rowe, Sisters-Camp Sherman RFPD (Log #650)Michael J. Sneddon, Charleston Fire Dist. (Log #715)Paul Epler, Vernonia Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #688)Douglas VanPelt, Corvallis Fire Dept. (Log #761)Joel Stein, Keizer Fire Dist. (Log #766)Greg Frank, Keizer Fire Dist. (Log #778)Gary J. Hudson, St. Helens Rural Fire Dist. (Log #825)Matthew Shuler Eugene Fire and EMS Dept./City of Eugene (Log
#843)Stephen D. Allen, Cottage Grove/South Lane Rural Fire Dept.
(Log #874)Cleve Rooper, Cannon Beach RFPD (Log #931)William H. Combs, City of Sutherlin Fire Dept. (Log #947)John Schlegel, Tri-City RFPD (Log #975)Bill Alguire, Keizer Fire Dist. (Log #999)Ted Ames, Warrenton Fire Dept. (Log #1013)Paul M. Olheiser, Knappa Fire Dist. (Log #1088)Larry D. Eckhardt, Hoodland Fire Dist. (Log #1114)Mike Rieger, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1129)Charles Spittles, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1160)Cindy Manning, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1197)Corey Tohl, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1213)Terry Zuercher, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1229)Tennessee Hodgdon, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1245)Thomas G. Miller, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1253)Roy Ellerbroek, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1269)Mike Ellerbroek, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1285)Aaron Burris, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1309)Leonard Ingles, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1317)Steven Stelzig, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1342)Frank Reding, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1358)Kyle Sheets, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1376)Tim Hamburger, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1400)Ken Aufdermauer, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1416)Kyle Adams, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1424)David B. Schelhaas, Scappoose Rural Fire Dept. (Log #1447)John R. McAdoo, Estacada Fire Dist. #69 (Log #1462)Dan O’Dell, Boring Fire Dist. (Log #1474)Larry A. Long, Estacada Rural Fire Dist. #69 (Log #1494)Lanny R. Boston, Bandon Rural Fire Protection Dist. #8/City of
Bandon Fire Dept./Southwestern Oregon Fire Chiefs Assn. (Log#1519)
John A. Stein, Dallas Fire Dept. (Log #1538)Aaron Vaughn, Scappoose Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #1614)Jack R. Carriger, Nestucca RFPD (Log #1630)Dale Staib, Philomath RFPD #4 (Log #1676)Patrick Reitz, Terrebonne, OR/Crooked River Ranch RFPD (Log
#1742)Jeff Griffin, Oregon Fire Chiefs’ Assn. (Log #1783)Chris Asanovic, Cornelius City/Rural Fire Dept. (Log #1889)Gary Abrams, NRFPD (Log #2161)Duaine M. Harding Jr., NRFPD (Log #2180)Lyle J. Payne, Pleasant Hill RFPD (Log #2204)Joseph R. Guyette, MSFFF (Log #2244)
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
306
Michael S. Curtis, Dover-Foxcroft Fire Dept. (Log #2267)Darin Welburn, Jackson County Fire Dist. #5 (Log #2285)RECOMMENDATION : Delete the following text: “The first full alarm assignment...equipped and trainedpersonnel.”SUBSTANTIATION: This standard does not allow the localjurisdiction to establish reasonable standards for it’s unique needs.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-371 (Log #1821).
___________________(Log #317)
1710- 385 - (3-2.3.2.2(a) through (h)): RejectSUBMITTER: Dean R. Shank, Central Kitsap Fire RescueRECOMMENDATION : Delete all sections.SUBSTANTIATION: This requires assignments even if they arenot needed. By your standards a minimum of 15 members wouldneed to be on the scene and assigned before any firefighting effortswould be allowed.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-371 (Log #1821).
___________________(Log #2236)
1710- 386 - (3-2.3.2.2(a) through (h)): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Brown, Kitsap County Fire District #7RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The first full alarm assignment...equipped and trainedpersonnel. The first full alarm assignment shall be organized in amanner that ensures that fire suppression operations includes thecapability of sufficient personnel, equipment, and resources toefficiently, effectively, and safely deploy. ”SUBSTANTIATION: This standard does not allow the localjurisdiction to establish reasonable standards based on local needsand capacity. Nor does the standard account for built-in fireprotection.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-371 (Log #1821).
___________________
(Log #259)1710- 387 - (3-2.3.2.2(b)): RejectSUBMITTER: Mario David Rueda, Los Angeles City Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Supply line(s) and firefighting hose lines shall be maintained byan operator who shall should remain with each fire apparatussupplying the water flow to ensure uninterrupted water flowapplication. Operators may perform duties that do not impacttheir primary task provided they remain in proximity to theirpumping apparatus, including assignment as a member of anInitial Rapid Intervention Crew or Company (IRIC). ”SUBSTANTIATION: Pump operators can ensure water flow andcontinue to perform duties such as prepare additional hose lines,obtain additional supply lines, change air bottles, etcetera,provided they remain in the proximity of their apparatus. Being amember of an IRIC is consistent with NFPA 1500.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. The committee, revised second section of 3-2.3.2.2 (b) to read.“Supply line(s) shall be maintained by an operator who shallensure uninterrupted water flow application.”COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee reviewed theproposal and modified the language to reflect the intent of thecommittee.
___________________
(Log #1141)1710- 388 - (3-2.3.2.2(b)): RejectSUBMITTER: Gary F. Duignan, Forestville Fire Protection DistrictRECOMMENDATION : Delete.SUBSTANTIATION: Impossible to meet with water tender unitsin most areas.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-387 (Log #259).
___________________
(Log #1691)1710- 389 - (3-2.3.2.2(b)): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro/Rep. WashingtonCounty Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “(b) ...Supply lines(s) shall who should be maintained by anoperator shall should remain with...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-387 (Log #259).
___________________
(Log #2111)1710- 390 - (3-2.3.2.2(b)): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “(b) ...Supply line(s) shall should be maintained by an operatorwho shall should remain with...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-387 (Log #259).
___________________
(Log #263)1710- 391 - (3-2.3.2.2(c)): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Mario David Rueda, Los Angeles City Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Establishment of an effective water flow application rate of 300gpm from two handlines. one of which shall be an attack line witha minimum of 100 gpm and one of which shall be a back-up linewith a minimum of 200 gpm. Attack and backup lines shall beoperated by a minimum of two personnel each to effectively andsafely maintain the line.”SUBSTANTIATION: Company officers should select appropriatehoselines for fire attack and backup. On large volume fires, fireattack is initiated with 2 1/2 in. handlines and mopped up with 11/2 in. or 1 3/4 in. hoselines.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Place the commentator's struck language with the following: “eachof which shall have a minimum of 100 gpm”.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee agrees with thecommentator, but wanted to assure that neither line provided lessthan 100 gpm.
___________________
(Log #720)1710- 392 - (3-2.3.2.2(c)): RejectSUBMITTER: Marquam R. Johnson, Torrington Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Remove section.SUBSTANTIATION: In smaller-manned systems, attack crew and“line above fire” crew simultaneously perform search functions withfire attack.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-391 (Log #263).
___________________
(Log #721)1710- 393 - (3-2.3.2.2(c)): RejectSUBMITTER: Marquam R. Johnson, Torrington Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : No specific wording proposed.SUBSTANTIATION: This section as written fails to address“science” of new technologies (specifically Class A compressed air
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
307
foam) and serves to limit technological growth of fire suppressionactivities.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-391 (Log #263).
___________________
(Log #1168)1710- 394 - (3-2.3.2.2(c)): RejectSUBMITTER: Jackie T. Gibbs, Marietta Fire and EmergencyServicesRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: (c) Establishment of an effective water flow application rate of300 gpm from two handlines, one of which shall be an attack linewith a minimum of 100 gpm and one of which shall be a back-upline with a minimum of 200 gpm. Attack and backup lines shall beoperated by a minimum of two personnel each to effectively andsafely maintain the line.SUBSTANTIATION: The benefit of trading maneuverability forcapacity in handlines has not been settled. Each departmentshould be able to decide.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-391 (Log #263).
___________________
(Log #1692)1710- 395 - (3-2.3.2.2(c)): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro/Rep. WashingtonCounty Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “(c) ...one of which shall should be an...of which shall should bea back-up...Attack and backup lines shall should be operated by...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2112)1710- 396 - (3-2.3.2.2(c)): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “(c) ...one of which shall should be an...of which shall should bea back-up... Attack and backup lines shall should be operatedby...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #1139)1710- 397 - (3-2.3.2.2(d)): RejectSUBMITTER: Gary F. Duignan, Forestville Fire Protection DistrictRECOMMENDATION : Delete section.SUBSTANTIATION: Where do we get the personnel to do this ifwe have several lines out?COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-371 (Log #1821).
___________________
(Log #1693)1710- 398 - (3-2.3.2.2(d)): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro/Rep. WashingtonCounty Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “(d) ...This individual shall should be permitted to...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2113)1710- 399 - (3-2.3.2.2(d)): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “(d) ...This individual shall should be permitted to...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #1746)1710- 400 - (3-2.3.2.2(d), (e) and (f)): RejectSUBMITTER: Frank Edwards, Chesterfield County Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : None.SUBSTANTIATION: Each jurisdiction should determine staffingfor specific tasks and functions based on resource availability. Anational standard does not need to address specific task levelfunctions for fireground operations.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: No recommendation given.
___________________
(Log #1138)1710- 401 - (3-2.3.2.2(e)): RejectSUBMITTER: Gary F. Duignan, Forestville Fire Protection DistrictRECOMMENDATION : May be part of the attack team.SUBSTANTIATION: Don’t have enough personnel to do all thesetasks you want done as with other parts of this. Find us the Federalfunding to hire more paid staff as we run out of volunteers.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-371 (Log #1821).
___________________(Log #1694)
1710- 402 - (3-2.3.2.2(e)): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro/Rep. WashingtonCounty Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “(e) ...rescue team shall should be part of an initial interiorattack.”SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
308
(Log #2114)1710- 403 - (3-2.3.2.2(e)): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “(e) ...rescue team shall should be part of an initial interiorattack...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2040)1710- 404 - (3-2.3.2.2(f)): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “(f) A minimum on one ventilation team shall should be part...Each ventilation team shall should consist...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2115)1710- 405 - (3-2.3.2.2(f)): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “(f) A minimum on one ventilation team shall should be part...Each ventilation team shall should consist...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #267)1710- 406 - (3-2.3.2.2(g)): RejectSUBMITTER: Mario David Rueda, Los Angeles City Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “If an aerial ladder is used in rescue operations, or if themovement or relocation of the aerial ladder is needed forfirefighter safety, then an aerial operator shall remain at theprimary control of the aerial device at all times.”SUBSTANTIATION: When an aerial ladder is used to gain accessto a roof or above ground, the aerial ladder operator should not berestricted in movement. That person often serves as part of theventilation team. In ventilation operations, the aerial serves as anescape route for the ventilation crew and should not be moved.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.The committee, revised second section of 3-2.3.2.2 (g) by deletingthe words “remain at the” and replacing with the word “maintain”.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee reviewed theproposal and modified the language to reflect the intent of thecommittee.
___________________
(Log #2041)1710- 407 - (3-2.3.2.2(g)): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “(g) ...one person shall should function as...who shall should remain at...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2116)1710- 408 - (3-2.3.2.2(g)): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “(g) ...one person shall should function as...who shall should remain at...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2042)1710- 409 - (3-2.3.2.2(h)): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “(h) Establishment of...that shall should consist of a minimum oftwo...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2117)1710- 410 - (3-2.3.2.2(h)): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “(h) Establishment of...that shall should consist of a minimum oftwo...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
309
(Log #653)1710- 411 - (3-2.3.2.3 (New) ): RejectSUBMITTER: John D. Wiseman, Murfreesboro, TNRECOMMENDATION : Add a new section to read as follows: “The fire department may make an initial attack through anoutside door or outside window without satisfying any of therequirements of 3-2.3.2.2 except for the establishment of incidentcommand.”SUBSTANTIATION: Basically you are setting up an impossiblestandard for most fire departments under most circumstances. NOTE: Supporting material is available for review at NFPAHeadquarters.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-371 (Log #1821).
___________________
(Log #2043)1710- 412 - (3-2.3.3.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department shall should have the capability for...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2118)1710- 413 - (3-2.3.3.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department shall should have the capability for...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #29)1710- 414 - (3-2.3.3.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Robert Carnahan, Clackamas County Fire Dist. 1Carl Brumund, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #346)Orville Downer, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #421)Daniel C. Olsen, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #451)Rich Mackie, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #572)Martin Goughnour, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1559)Norman Whiteley, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1584)Randy R. Bruegman, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1653)Joan Johnson, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1797)Jon R. Brown, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #2293)RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: 3-2.3.3.2 When an incident escalates beyond the initial full alarmassignment, or when there is significant risk to fire fighters due tothe magnitude of the incident, the Incident Commanders shallupgrade the IRIT to a full Rapid Intervention Team RIT thatconsists of four dedicated, fully equipped and trained fire fighters.SUBSTANTIATION: The inclusion of the word dedicated is notneeded and with it may cause needless on scene conflict betweenthe incident commander and the RIT.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.The committee revised 3-2.3.3.2 to read: “When an incident escalates beyond the initial full alarmassignment or when there is significant risk to fire fighters due tothe magnitude of the incident, the fire department shall have thecapacity to implement a full Rapid Intervention Crew. Delete therest of this section, 3-2.3.3.2.1 through 3-2.3.3.2.3.”
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The specific tactical and operationalrequirements for a rapid intervention crew are included in NFPA1500. The fire department must have the capability to implement asafety and health program as required by section 4-1.
___________________
(Log #262)1710- 415 - (3-2.3.3.2): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Mario David Rueda, Los Angeles City Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text as follows: “Team Crew or Company .”SUBSTANTIATION: Provide for consistency with NFPA 1500.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposals 1710-322 (Log #91) and 1710-414 (Log#29).
___________________
(Log #1601)1710- 416 - (3-2.3.3.2): RejectSUBMITTER: J. G. Bale, Surrey Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Delete current wording and replace with: “When an incident escalates beyond the initial full alarmassignment, or when there is significant risk to firefighters due tothe magnitude of the incident, the Rapid Intervention Crews shallbe either: (a) on scene members designated and dedicated as RapidIntervention Crews (b) on scene company or companies either in a staging area, ordesignated and dedicated as Rapid Intervention Crews.”SUBSTANTIATION: The current proposal requires a completecompany to assume RIT duties in an escalated incident. Thisrevision provides for flexibility to establish companies of individualRIT crews as may be required. It may not be practical in somesituations to have fully trained companies. When an incidentexpands beyond the initial full alarm assignment it may be effectiveto maintain two person RIT crews in many situations. This justallows for flexibility.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposals 1710-322 (Log #91) and 1710-414 (Log#29).
___________________
(Log #1727)1710- 417 - (3-2.3.3.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Bobby Williams, Spokane Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “When an incident escalates beyond the initial full alarmassignment, or when there is significant risk to fire fighters due tothe magnitude of the incident, the Incident Commander shallshould upgrade the IRIT to a full Rapid Intervention Team (RIT)that consists of four 2 or more dedicated, fully equipped andtrained fire fighters.”SUBSTANTIATION: While the assignment of a 4 person RITteam may be desirable, the decision to establish the team withmore than 2 personnel should be at the discretion of the IC basedon the conditions of the incident.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposals 1710-322 (Log #91) and 1710-414 (Log#29).
___________________
(Log #1768)1710- 418 - (3-2.3.3.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Randy Sheppard, Palm Beach County Fire-RescueRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “When an incident escalates...the Incident Commander shallupgrade the IRIT to a full Rapid Intervention Team (RIT) thatconsists of four dedicated, fully equipped and trained firefighters.assign additional Rapid Intervention Teams as appropriate.”SUBSTANTIATION: Incidents may require more than one RITand the Incident Commander should make those assignmentsbased on the complexity of the incident, risk factors, etc. Thereshould only be established one type of RIT, as opposed to theexisting definition creating separate IRIT and RIT teams.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
310
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and Statementon Proposals 1710-322 (Log #91) and 1710-414 (Log #29).
___________________
(Log #1862)1710- 419 - (3-2.3.3.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Daily, Bellevue Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Delete the following text: “When an incident escalates beyond the initial full alarmassignment, or when there is significant risk to fire fighters due tothe magnitude of the incident, the Incident Commander shallupgrade the IRIT to a full Rapid Intervention Team (RIT) thatconsists of four dedicated, fully equipped and trained fire fighters.”SUBSTANTIATION: Mandating the creation of a 4 member RITgoes beyond the scope of 2 in 2 out statues. This decision shouldbe made based on the incident, and is a responsiblity of theIncident Commander.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and Statementon Proposals 1710-322 (Log #91) and 1710-414 (Log #29).
___________________(Log #2044)
1710- 420 - (3-2.3.3.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “When an incident escalates...the Incident Commander shallshould upgrade the IRIT to...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2119)1710- 421 - (3-2.3.3.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “When an incident escalates...the Incident Commander shallshould upgrade the IRIT to...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #261)1710- 422 - (3-2.3.3.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Mario David Rueda, Los Angeles City Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text as follows: “Team Crew or Company .”SUBSTANTIATION: Provide for consistency with NFPA 1500.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and Statementon Proposals 1710-322 (Log #91) and 1710-414 (Log #29).
___________________(Log #619)
1710- 423 - (3-2.3.3.2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Donald H. Butz, Rancho Santa Fe Fire ProtectionDist.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The RIT shall be immediately ready for assignment and musthave full personal protective clothing and SCBA, necessary rescuetools and equipment and a radio for each member of the tworadios for each RIT. The RIT Officer must closely monitor thetactical radio channels at all times for activities and status of
companies. The RIT shall maintain knowledge of all companylocations.”SUBSTANTIATION: The cost of radios to ensure each memberof the RIT is prohibitive for small agencies. An addition problemwill be excessive radio communication. With everyone with aradio, there will be the possibility of increase radio traffic. Radiodiscipline will become an issue. This requirement will also lead into other operations problems.The relying on technology can create company/crew control issuesas well as a trend of being dependent on radio communicationsand possibly moving away from face-to-face.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2045)1710- 424 - (3-2.3.3.2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The RIT shall should be immediately ready... The RIT shallshould maintain knowledge of...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2120)1710- 425 - (3-2.3.3.2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The RIT shall should be immediately ready... The RIT shallshould maintain knowledge of...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #1769)1710- 426 - (3-3.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Randy Sheppard, Palm Beach County Fire-RescueRECOMMENDATION : Delete entire section.SUBSTANTIATION: This duplicates Section 2-3.2.1 and is notneeded.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Language is not a duplication.
___________________
(Log #1863)1710- 427 - (3-3.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Lou Faehnrich, Bellevue Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: Purpose. Emergency medical services operations shall should beorganized to ensure the fire department’s emergency medicalcapability includes sufficient personnel, equipment, and resourcesto efficiently, effectively, and safely deploy the initial arrivingcompany and additional alarm assignments. The fire departmentshall be permitted to use established automatic mutual aid ormutual aid agreements to comply with the requirements of thissection.SUBSTANTIATION: Should rather than shall is advisory ratherthan legislative.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
311
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2046)1710- 428 - (3-3.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Emergency medical services operations shall should be organizedto... The fire department shall should be permitted...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2121)1710- 429 - (3-3.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Emergency medical services operations shall should be organizedto... The fire department shall should be permitted...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2047)1710- 430 - (3-3.1.3): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department shall should clearly document its role...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2122)1710- 431 - (3-3.1.3): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department shall should clearly document its role...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2048)1710- 432 - (3-3.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The basic treatment levels...shall should be categorized as FirstResponder,... The specific patient...shall should be determinedby...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2123)1710- 433 - (3-3.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The basic treatment levels...shall should be categorized as FirstResponder,... The specific patient...shall should be determinedby...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #30)1710- 434 - (3-3.2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Robert Carnahan, Clackamas County Fire Dist. 1Carl Brumund, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #345)Orville Downer, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #420)Daniel C. Olsen, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #450)Rich Mackie, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #571)Martin Goughnour, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1560)Norman Whiteley, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1585)Randy R. Bruegman, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1654)Joan Johnson, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1796)Jon R. Brown, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #2292)RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: 3.3.2.2 The minimal level of training for all fire fighters whorespond to emergency medical incidents shall be to that level ofFirst Responder that provides automatic external defibrillator(AED) capability. The AHJ shall determine if further training isrequired.SUBSTANTIATION: The word medical should be inserted toclear up any confusion that may occur when reading this article.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.The committee wanted to clarify text by adding the word “all” priorto the words “emergency incidents”.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee believes thatminimum training requirements for all fire fighters responding toall emergencies must be at a minimum level of first responder withAED to clarify the committee’s intent.
___________________
(Log #48)1710- 435 - (3-3.2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: John Shull, Scappoose Rural Fire Dist.Dennis Marceaux, Scappoose Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #64)Gloria Gass, Cloverdale, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist.
(Log #80)Mickey Hays, Beaver, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist.
(Log #115)Greg Gass, Cloverdale, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist.
(Log #131)Mary Lou Fletcher, Beaver, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protection
Dist. (Log #147)
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
312
Kevin Wickman, Keizer Fire Dist. (Log #159)Wayne Sandford, East Haven Fire (Log #176)Levi R. Beachy, Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #193)Roy O. Palmer, Polk County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #209)Harold Edwards, Delhi Twp Fire Dept. (Log #297)Jeff Grunewald, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue (Log #368)Curtis E. Goodman, City of Norwood/Fire Dept. (Log #379)Darrell Hartmann, Brookings Fire Dept. (Log #397)Earl Cordes, Jefferson County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #442)D. J. Cornish, Manzanita, OR/Manzanita Fire Dept. (Log #473)Judd Burrow, Manzanita, OR/Manzanita Public Safety (Log #489)Jeremy Strozyk, Nehalem, OR (Log #505)Bret Siler, Nehalem, OR/Manzanita Frie Dept. (Log #521)Dan Marshall, Jackson County Fire Dist. #5 (Log #535)S. D. ‘Skip’ Smith, Santa Clara Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log
#592)Don Rowe, Sisters-Camp Sherman RFPD (Log #649)Paul Epler, Vernonia Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #689)Michael J. Sneddon, Charleston Fire Dist. (Log #714)Douglas VanPelt, Corvallis Fire Dept. (Log #760)Joel Stein, Keizer Fire Dist. (Log #767)Gary J. Hudson, St. Helens Rural Fire Dist. (Log #826)Matthew Shuler, Eugene Fire and EMS Dept. (Log #842)Stephen D. Allen, Cottage Grove/South Lane Rural Fire Dept.
(Log #873)Cleve Rooper, Cannon Beach RFPD (Log #930)William H. Combs, City of Sutherlin Fire Dept. (Log #946)John Schlegel, Tri-City RFPD (Log #974)Bill Alguire, Keizer Fire Dist. (Log #998)Ted Ames, Warrenton Fire Dept. (Log #1012)Paul M. Olheisen, Knappa Fire Dist. (Log #1089)Larry D. Eckhardt, Hoodland Fire Dist. (Log #1113)Mike Rieger, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1130)Cindy Manning, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1198)Corey Tohl, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1214)Terry Zuercher, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1230)Tennessee Hodgdon, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1246)Thomas G. Miller, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1254)Roy Ellerbroek, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1270)Mike Ellerbroek, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1286)Aaron Burris, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1310)Leonard Ingles, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1318)Steven Stelzig, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1343)Frank Reding, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1359)Kyle Sheets, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1377)Tim Hamburger, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1401)Ken Aufdermauer, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1417)Kyle Adams, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1425)David B. Schelhaas, Scappoose Rural Fire Dept. (Log #1448)John R. McAdoo, Estacada Fire Dist. #69 (Log #1461)Dan O’Dell, Boring Fire Dist. (Log #1473)Larry A. Long, Estacada Rural Fire Dist. #69 (Log #1493)John A. Stein, Dallas Fire Dept. (Log #1537)Aaron Vaughn, Scappoose Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #1615)Jack R. Carriger, Nestucca RFPD (Log #1631)Dale Staib, Philomath RFPD #4 (Log #1675)Patrick Reitz, Terrebone, OR/Crooked River Ranch RFPD (Log
#1743)Jeff Griffin, Oregon Fire Chiefs’ Assn. (Log #1784)Chris Asanovic, Cornelius City/Rural Fire Dept. (Log #1888)Gary Abrams, NRFPD (Log #2162)Duaine M. Harding Sr., NRFPD (Log #2179)Lyle J. Payne, Pleasant Hill RFPD (Log #2203)Joseph R. Guyette, MSFFF (Log #2243)Michael S. Curtis, Dover-Foxcroft Fire Dept. (Log #2268)Darin Welburn, Jackson County Fire Dist. #5 (Log #2284)RECOMMENDATION : Delete the following text: “The minimum level of training for all fire fighters who respondto emergency incidents shall be to that level of First Responder thatprovides automatic external defibrillator (AED) capability. TheAHJ shall determine if further training is required.”SUBSTANTIATION: This standard restricts local jurisdictionsfrom establishing standards that are more appropriately made atthe local level.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-434 (Log #30).
___________________
(Log #1077)1710- 436 - (3-3.2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Wayne Waggoner, Tennessee Fire CodeDevelopment CommitteeRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: 3-3.2.2 The minimal level of training for all fire fighters whorespond to emergency incidents shall be to that level of FirstResponder that provides automatic external defibrillator (AED)capability. The AHJ shall determine if further training is required.SUBSTANTIATION: Some state laws or state EMS boards will notallow the first responder to use the automatic external defibrillator(AED).COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-434 (Log #30).
___________________
(Log #1136)1710- 437 - (3-3.2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Gary F. Duignan, Forestville Fire Protection DistrictRECOMMENDATION : Delete.SUBSTANTIATION: Not all fire departments can afford the AEDequipment or fund training. Provide free AED’s to departments.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-434 (Log #30).
___________________
(Log #1161)1710- 438 - (3-3.2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Charles Spittles, Tillamook Fire DistrictRECOMMENDATION : 3-3.2.2 The minimal level of training forall fire fighters who respond to emergency incidents shall be to thatlevel of First Responder that provides automatic externaldefibrillator (AED) capability. The AHJ shall determine if furthertraining is required. Delete text in its entirety.SUBSTANTIATION: This standard restricts local jurisdictionsfrom establishing standards that are more appropriately made atthe local level.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-434 (Log #30).
___________________
(Log #2049)1710- 439 - (3-3.2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The minimal level of training...shall should be to that level...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2124)1710- 440 - (3-3.2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The minimal level of training...shall should be to that level...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
313
(Log #2237)1710- 441 - (3-3.2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Brown, Kitsap County Fire District #7RECOMMENDATION : Delete text as follows: “The minimal level of training for all firefighters who respond toemergency incidents shall be to that level of First Responder thatprovides automatic external defibrillator (AED) capability. TheAHJ shall determine if further training is required.”SUBSTANTIATION: This standard restricts local jurisdictionsfrom establishing standards that are more appropriately made atthe local level.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________(Log #CP4)
1710- 442 - (3-3.4): AcceptSUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Fire Service OccupationalSafetyRECOMMENDATION : Add the following to the EMS section: 3-3.4.3 Staffing. 3-3.4.3.1* On-duty emergency medical services units shall bestaffed with the minimum numbers of personnel necessary for safeand effective emergency medical care relative to the level ofemergency medical services provided by the fire department. 3-3.4.3.2 Operating Units. Emergency medical services staffingrequirements are based on the minimum levels needed to provideeffective patient care and member safety. Units that provideemergency medical care shall be staffed at a minimum withpersonnel that are trained to the first responder/AED level. 3-3.4.3.2.1 Basic Life Support. Units that provide basic lifesupport transport shall be staffed with a minimum of two (2)members providing patient care that are trained to emergencymedical technician-basic level. 3-3.4.3.2.2 Advanced Life Support. Units that provide advancedlife support transport shall be staffed with a minimum of two (2)members providing patient care that are trained to emergencymedical technician-paramedic level. Add an additional sentence to 3-3.4.3.3 to read as follows: “ALS emergency response deployments shall include a minimumof two (2) members trained at the EMT-P level and two (2)members trained at the EMT-B level arriving on scene within theestablished response time.” Add new appendix item: A-3-3.4.3.3 The American Heart Association recommends theminimum required personnel for a emergency cardiac careresponse. In those systems that have attained survival rates higherthan 20% for patients with ventricular fibrillation, response teamsincluded as a minimum, two ALS providers and two BLS providers.See Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and EmergencyCardiac Care, JAMA, October 28, 1992, Vol. 268, No. 16.SUBSTANTIATION: The committee was informed by the StaffLiaison that the next revision of the document will have stylechanges that include moving the referenced publications anddefinitions to different places in the document. This will result inrenumbering. Consequently, the numbers included in the abovecommittee report will be different in the report that will be sent outfor committee ballot.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.
___________________(Log #31)
1710- 443 - (3-3.4.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Robert Carnahan, Clackamas County Fire Dist. 1Martin Goughnour, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1561)Norman Whiteley, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1586)Randy R. Bruegman, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1655)RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: 3-3.4.1 There are five fourteen basic functions within an EMSSystem according the National Highway Transportation SafetyAdministration: SUBSTANTIATION: The NHTSA has identified 14 functions ofan EMS system. If NFPA is prepared to make a new globalassumption concerning EMS sufficient data ought first be presentedto support it.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Commentator misinterpreted thereferenced document that defines the characteristics or attributesof an EMS system not the functions. For the purpose of thisdocument as it relates to the fire service, the current language iscorrect.
___________________
(Log #343)1710- 444 - (3-3.4.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Carl Brumund, Marion County Fire District #1RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read: “There are five basic functions within an EMS System:”SUBSTANTIATION: The NHTSA has identified 14 functions ofan EMS system. If NFPA is prepared to make a new globalassumption concerning EMS, sufficient data ought first bepresented to support it.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatemetn on Proposal 1710-443 (Log #31).
___________________
(Log #418)1710- 445 - (3-3.4.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Orville Downer, Marion County Fire District #1RECOMMENDATION : Revise text as follows: “There are five basic functions within an EMS System:”SUBSTANTIATION: The NHTSA has identified 14 functions ofan EMS system. If NFPA is prepared to make a new globalassumption concerning EMS, sufficient data ought first bepresented to support it.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatemetn on Proposal 1710-443 (Log #31).
___________________
(Log #448)1710- 446 - (3-3.4.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Daniel C. Olsen, Marion County Fire District #1RECOMMENDATION : Revise text as follows: “There are five basic functions within an EMS System:”SUBSTANTIATION: The NHTSA has identified 14 functions ofan EMS system. If NFPA is prepared to make a new globalassumption concerning EMS, sufficient data ought first bepresented to support it.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatemetn on Proposal 1710-443 (Log #31).
___________________
(Log #569)1710- 447 - (3-3.4.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Rich Mackie, Marion County Fire District #1RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read: “There are five basic functions within and EMS System:”.SUBSTANTIATION: The NHTSA has identified 14 functions ofan EMS systems. If NFPA is prepared to make a new globalassumption concerning EMS, sufficient data ought first bepresented to support it.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatemetn on Proposal 1710-443 (Log #31).
___________________(Log #1080)
1710- 448 - (3-3.4.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Wayne Waggoner, Tennessee Fire CodeDevelopment CommitteeRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: 3-3.4.1 There are five basic functions within an EMS system: (a) The initial response to provide medical treatment at thelocation of the emergency (First Responder ). with AED capabilityor higher) (b) Basic Life Support response (c) Advanced Life Support response (d) Patient transport in an ambulance or alternative vehicledesigned to provide for uninterrupted patient care at the ALS orBLS level while en route to a medical facility (e) Assurance of response and medical care through a qualitymanagement programSUBSTANTIATION: Some state laws or state EMS boards will notallow the first responder to use the automatic external defibrillator(AED).COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The standard does not establish alegal duty contrary to federal, state or provincial law.
___________________
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
314
(Log #1794)1710- 449 - (3-3.4.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Joan Johnson, Marion County Fire Dist. #1RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “There are five basic functions within an EMS System:”SUBSTANTIATION: The NHTSA has identified 14 functions ofan EMS system. If NFPA is prepared to make a new globalassumption concerning EMS, sufficient data ought first bepresented to support it.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatemetn on Proposal 1710-443 (Log #31).
___________________
(Log #1864)1710- 450 - (3-3.4.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Lou Faehnrich, Bellevue Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “There are five twelve basic functions within an EMS system: (a) The initial response to provide medical treatment at thelocation of the emergency (First Responder with AED capability orhigher) (b) Basic Life Support Response (c) Advanced Life Support response (d) Patient transport in an ambulance or alternative vehicledesigned to provide for uninterrupted patient care at the ALS orBLS level while en route to a medical facility (e) Assurance of response and medical care through a qualitymanagement program (a) System organization and management (b) Medical direction (c) Human resources and training (d) Communications (e) Emergency response (f) Transportation (g) Care facilities (h) Quality assurance (i) Public information and education (j) Disaster medical services (k) Research (l) Special populations ”.SUBSTANTIATION: The basic or fundamental functions for EMSwere outlined in two different secitons of the Standard and wereconflicting in description and/or definition. This modification isintended to simplify the standard and provide a clearunderstanding of the basic functions for EMS.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatemetn on Proposal 1710-443 (Log #31).
___________________
(Log #2290)1710- 451 - (3-3.4.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Jon R. Brown, Marion County Fire Dist. #1RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “There are five basic functions within an EMS System:”SUBSTANTIATION: The NHTSA has identified 14 functions ofan EMS system. If NFPA is prepared to make a new globalassumption concerning EMS, sufficient data ought first bepresented to support it.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatemetn on Proposal 1710-443 (Log #31).
___________________
(Log #1865)1710- 452 - (3-3.4.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Lou Faehnrich, Bellevue Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department shall should be involved in providing any orall of these components in different systems and at different levels: (a) Fire department provides initial treatment only (FirstResponder with AED capability and/or Basic Life Support) (b) Fire department provides initial treatment and advancedtreatment (personnel trained at above First Responder and BasicLife Support) (c) Fire department provides initial response, advancedtreatment, and ambulance transportation (Advanced Life Supportcapability with the addition of patient transportation)
(d) Fire department provides initial response and Basic LifeSupport (e) Fire department provides initial response, Basic Life Supportand transportation (f) Fire department provides initial response, Basic Life Support,Advanced Life Support and transportation ”.SUBSTANTIATION: The additional items identified completesome of the components commonly utilized today.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2050)1710- 453 - (3-3.4.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department shall should be involved in providing...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2125)1710- 454 - (3-3.4.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire departmentshall should be involved in providing...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #1710)1710- 455 - (3-3.4.2(c)): RejectSUBMITTER: Gregory W. Frederick, Louisville Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: (c) Fire department provides initial response, advancedtreatment, and ambulance transportation (Advanced or Basic LifeSupport or BLS capability with the addition of patienttransportation)SUBSTANTIATION: This would allow for departments to useBasic Life Support transports. Eighty-five percent of our 98/99transport statistics were BLS.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-452 (Log #1865).
___________________
(Log #2199)1710- 456 - (3-3.4.3): RejectSUBMITTER: Collin DeWitt, Town of Gilbert Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: 3-3.4.3 Service Delivery Deployment. 3-3.4.3.3 When provided in a tiered response, the firedepartment’s emergency medical services for providing AdvancedLife Support shall be deployed to provide for the arrival of anAdvanced Life Support company within an eight (8) minuteresponse time to ninety (90) percent of the incidents as establishedin Section 2-1.SUBSTANTIATION: There is such a multiplicity of models forthe delivery of EMS and specifically ALS within the fire service thatthis section seemed to need a qualifier to be applicable. Without
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
315
the provision of “...in a tiered response,...” the section seems toincrease the ALS response for non-tiered, all-ALS systems, to eight(8) minutes. This would also require a definition of “tiered response” inSection 1-3. I would offer that in this context, “tiered response”means that the fire department model for service delivery is FirstResponse and/or Basic Life Support sent initially for primaryevaluation and care with simultaneous or subsequent ALS responseas indicated by department protocol.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This is a response time requirementand language addressing tiered response is not germane.
___________________
(Log #309)1710- 457 - (3-3.4.3, 3-3.4.3.3): RejectSUBMITTER: Collin DeWitt, Town of Gilbert Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: 3-3.4.3 Service Delivery Deployment. 3-3.4.3.3 When provided in a tiered response, the firedepartment’s emergency medical services for providing AdvancedLife Support shall be deployed to provide for the arrival of anAdvanced Life Support company within an eight (8) minuteresponse time to ninety (90) percent of the incidents as establishedin Section 2-1.SUBSTANTIATION: There is such a multiplicity of models forthe delivery of EMS and specifically ALS within the fire service thatthis section seemed to need a qualifier to be applicable. Withoutthe provisions of “...in a tiered response,...” the section seems toincrease the ALS response for non-tiered, all ALS systems, to eight(8) minutes. This would also require a definition of “tiered response” inSection 1-3. I would offer that in this context, “tiered response”means that the fire department model for service delivery is FirstResponse and/or Basic Life Support sent initially for primaryevaluation and care with simultaneous or subsequent ALS responseas indicated by department protocol.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-562 (Log #219).
___________________
(Log #2051)1710- 458 - (3-3.4.3.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department shall should adopt service deliveryobjectives...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2126)1710- 459 - (3-3.4.3.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department shall should adopt service deliveryobjectives...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #10)1710- 460 - (3-3.4.3.2): RejectSUBMITTER: L. Charles Smeby, Jr., FL State Fire CollegeRECOMMENDATION : Change to read as follows: “The fire department's emergency medical services for providingFirst Responder with AED shall be deployed to provide for thearrival of a First Responder AED company within a six (6) minuteresponse time to ninety (90) percent of the incidents as establishedin Section 2-1.”SUBSTANTIATION: Since this has to line up with the responsetime of fire companies, unless a jurisdiction would like to buildadditional "EMS stations," they must be identical. The sameproblem with existing service can be seen in First Responders as isevident with first arriving engines. Since this is written as a maximum response time (90% of thetime), the average response time for this new proposed standardwould be about 3 minutes and 20 seconds. An average is made upof many observations, some short and some long with most nearthe middle. Looking at the 1995 Phoenix survey, page 7, the average responsetime for cities of 100,000 or greater varies between a low of 3:52 anda high of 5:05. In addition, it is my understanding that thesenumbers do not include call receipt and dispatch times which mayrun 1 minute or more. With a new total of time for existing firedepartments of 4:52 to 6:05, this would indicate that most of thesecities could not meet this standard (i.e. 4 minutes)!COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee believes thatemergency medical services provided by career fire departments areexpected to supply on a continuous basis an unanticipatedresponse to medical emergencies at any time of the day or night.They are heavy dependent on timely response of properly trainedand equipped personnel to provide pre-hospital care at thelocation where it exists. Success of an operation is heavy dependentupon coordination of the critical components of time, personneland equipment that are addressed in this standard with thespecified response times. Response times (those that the firedepartments have control of) are directly related to patient careand survival rates. The committee does acknowledge that othertimes (including emergency recognition time, call taker processing,etc.) have an impact on patient care. However, the fire departmentcan measure and evaluate consistently the deployment timesaddressed in this standard.
___________________
(Log #32)1710- 461 - (3-3.4.3.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Robert Carnahan, Clackamas County Fire Dist. 1Carl Brumund, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #344)Orville Downer, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #419)Daniel C. Olsen, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #449)Rich Mackie, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #570)Martin Goughnour, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1562)Norman Whiteley, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1587)Randy R. Bruegman, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1656)Joan Johnson, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1795)RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: 3-3.4.3.2 The fire department’s that provide emergency medicalservices for providing including First Responder with AED , shall bedeployed to provide for the arrival of a First Responder and AEDcompany within the response guidelines established by the AHJ inthere adopted standard of coverage policy . a (4) minute responseninety (90) percent of the incidents as established in Section 2-1.SUBSTANTIATION: Each AHJ is required to adopt a standard ofcoverage document. Once adopted and accepted by thecommunity that is being served it should be the benchmark that isfollowed and to which the fire agency is held accountable. Theother changes are grammatical.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-460 (Log #10).
___________________
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
316
(Log #49)1710- 462 - (3-3.4.3.2): RejectSUBMITTER: John Shull, Scappoose Rural Fire Dist.Dennis Marceaux, Scappoose Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #65)Gloria Gass, Cloverdale, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist.
(Log #81)Mickey Hays, Beaver, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist.
(Log #116)Greg Gass, Cloverdale, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protecton Dist.
(Log #132)Mary Lou Fletcher, Beaver, OR/Nestucca Rural Protection Dist.
(Log #148)Kevin Wickman, Keizer Fire Dist. (Log #161)Wayne Sandford, East Haven Fire (Log #178)Levi R. Beachy, Nestucca Rural Protection Dist. (Log #194)Roy O. Palmer, Polk County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #210)Harold Edwards, Delhi Twp Fire Dept. (Log #296)Jeff Grunewald, Tualation Valley Fire & Rescue (Log #370)Curtis E. Goodman, City of Norwood/Fire Dept. (Log #378)Darrell Hartmann, Brookings Fire Dept. (Log #396)Earl Cordes, Jefferson County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #444)D. J. Cornish, Manzanita, OR/Mazanita Fire Dept. (Log #474)Judd Burrow, Manzanita, OR (Log #490)Jeremy Strozyk, Nehalem, OR/Manzanita Public Safety (Log #506)Bret Siler, Nehalem, OR/Manzanita Fire Dept. (Log #522)Dan Marshall, Jackson County Fire Dist. #5 (Log #537)S. D. ‘Skip’ Smith, Santa Clara Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log
#595)Don Rowe, Sisters-Camp Sherman RFPD (Log #651)Paul Epler, Vernonia Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #687)Michael J. Sneddon, Charleston Fire Dist. (Log #716)Douglas VanPelt, Corvallis Fire Dept. (Log #762)Joel Stein, Keizer Fire Dist. (Log #765)Greg Frank, Keizer Fire Dist. (Log #779)George M. Dunkel, St. Helens Rural Fire Dist. (Log #812)Gary J. Hudson, St. Helens Rural Fire Dist. (Log #827)Matthew Shuler, Eugene Fire and EMS Dept./City of Eugene (Log
#844)Stephen D. Allen, Cottage Grove/South Lane Rural Fire Dept.
(Log #875)Cleve Rooper, Cannon Beach RFPD (Log #932)William H. Combs, City of Sutherlin Fire Dept. (Log #948)John Schlegel, Tri-City RFPD (Log #976)Bill Alguire, Keizer Fire Dist. (Log #1000)Ted Ames, Warrenton Fire Dept. (Log #1014)Paul M. Olheisen, Knappa Fire Dist. (Log #1087)Larry D. Eckhardt, Hoodland Fire Dist. #74 (Log #1115)Mike Rieger, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1131)Charles Spittles, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1162)Cindy Manning, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1199)Corey Tohl, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1215)Terry Zuercher, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1231)Tennessee Hodgdon, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1247)Thomas G. Miller, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1255)Roy Ellerbroek, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1271)Mike Ellerbroek, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1287)Aaron Burris, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1311)Leonard Ingles, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1319)Steven Stelzig, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1344)Frank Reding, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1360)Kyle Sheets, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1378)Tim Hamburger, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1402)Ken Aufdermauer, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1418)Kyle Adams, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1426)David B. Schelhaas, Scappoose Rural Fire Dept. (Log #1449)John R. McAdoo, Estacada Fire Dist. #69 (Log #1463)Dan O’Dell, Boring Fire Dist. (Log #1472)Larry A. Long, Estacada Rural Fire Dist. #69 (Log #1495)Lanny R. Boston, Bandon Rural Fire Protection Dist. #8/City of
Bandon Fire Dept./Southwestern Oregon Fire Chiefs’ Assn. (Log#1520)
John A. Stein, Dallas Fire Chief (Log #1539)Aaron Vaughn, Scappoose Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #1616)Jack R. Carriger, Nestucca RFPD (Log #1632)Dale Staib, Philomath RFPD #4 (Log #1677)Patrick Reitz, Terrebonne, OR/Crooked River Ranch RFPD (Log
#1744)Jeff Griffin, Oregon Fire Chiefs’ Assn. (Log #1785)Chris Asanovic, Cornelius City/Rural Fire Dept. (Log #1890)Gary Abrams, NRFPD (Log #2159)Duaine M. Harding Jr., NRFPD (Log #2178)Lyle J. Payne, Pleasant Hill RFPD (Log #2202)Joseph R. Guyotte, MSFFF (Log #2242)
Michael S. Curtis, Dover-Foxcroft Fire Dept. (Log #2269)Darin Welburn, Jackson County Fire Dist. #5 (Log #2286)RECOMMENDATION : Revise text as follows: “The fire department’s emergency medical services for providingFirst Responder with AED shall be deployed to provide for thearrival of a First Responder with AED company within a (4) minuteresponse time to ninety (90) percent of the incidents as establishedin Section 2-1 as quickly as is safely possible.”SUBSTANTIATION: Response time requirements do not takeinto consideration factors outside the operator’s control. Thisstandard will place personnel in unsafe condition.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-460 (Log #10).
___________________
(Log #95)1710- 463 - (3-3.4.3.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Larry D. Donner, Boulder Fire Dept., CORECOMMENDATION : Delete this entire section.SUBSTANTIATION: The ability to establish service deliverystandards is vested with the jurisdiction having authority. NFPAshould not attempt to circumvent this authority through thestandards process.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-460 (Log #10).
___________________
(Log #330)1710- 464 - (3-3.4.3.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Robert Goodyear, Moraga Orinda Fire DistrictRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: 3-3.4.3.2 The fire departments emergency medical services forproviding First Responder with AED shall be deployed to providefor the arrival of a First Responder with AED company within a (5)five (4) minute response time to ninety (90) percent of theincidents as established in Section 2-1.SUBSTANTIATION: Many districts are not financially supportedto provide the number of fire stations and personnel required tomeet the standard of four (4) minute response times. Additionally,infrastructures in many areas limit the ability to meet the criteria.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-460 (Log #10).
___________________
(Log #620)1710- 465 - (3-3.4.3.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Donald H. Butz, Rancho Santa Fe Fire ProtectionDist.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department’s emergency medical services for providingFirst Responder with AED shall should be deployed to provide forthe arrival of a First Responder with AED company with a four (4)minute response time to ninety (90) percent of the incidents asestablished in Section 2-1.”SUBSTANTIATION: The intent and logic is sound however,unrealistic. Limitations such as topograph, budget, routing/trafficpatterns, etc., must be taken into consideration. This type ofresponse criteria would be impossible to accomplish in a ruralsetting even with a paid-career fire department.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-460 (Log #10).
___________________
(Log #857)1710- 466 - (3-3.4.3.2): RejectSUBMITTER: John Troeger, Green Bay Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Eliminate current section in its entirety. Add: The Fire Departments Emergency Medical Services shall bedeployed to provide for the arrival of an Engine Company and FullInitial Alarm Assignment as quickly as is safely possible.SUBSTANTIATION: The requirement of a (4) four minuteresponse time is unreasonable and unobtainable by 90 percent ofthe Fire Departments in this country. Response Standards shouldbe established by the AHJ.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
317
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-460 (Log #10).
___________________
(Log #1078)1710- 467 - (3-3.4.3.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Wayne Waggoner, Tennessee Fire CodeDevelopment CommitteeRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: 3-3.4.3.2 The fire department’s emergency medical services forproviding First Responder with AED shall be deployed to providefor the arrival of a First Responder with AED company as quickly aspossible and in accordance with NFPA 1500. within a (4-8) minuteresponse time to ninety (90 percent of the incidents as establishedin Section 2-1.SUBSTANTIATION: In the majority of jurisdictions a 4-minuteresponse time is unreasonable. In researching a majority of firedepartments in the State of Tennessee it was revealed that 8minutes was a reasonable amount of response time for firstresponder service. The fire department’s fire suppressionresources shall be deployed to provide for the arrival of an EngineCompany and full initial alarm assignment as quickly as possibleand in accordance with NFPA 1500.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-460 (Log #10).
___________________(Log #1135)
1710- 468 - (3-3.4.3.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Gary F. Duignan, Forestville Fire Protection DistrictRECOMMENDATION : Delete.SUBSTANTIATION: Impossible to meet some response times.Even if a crew is in the station, are 15+ minutes. And there are nofirst responders closer. Provide Federal Funds to hire morefirefighters.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-460 (Log #10).
___________________
(Log #1175)1710- 469 - (3-3.4.3.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Robert L. Ridgeway, Gastonia Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Change wording to read as follows: “The fire department’s emergency medical services for providingFirst Responder with AED shall be deployed to provide for thearrival of a First Responder company with AED within a four (4)(Seven (7)) minute response time to ninety (90) percent of theincidents as established in Section 2-1.”SUBSTANTIATION: Same justification as noted for Section 3-2.2.1.
COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-460 (Log #10).
___________________(Log #1524)
1710- 470 - (3-3.4.3.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Bruce J. Moeller, Sunrise Fire-Rescue/City ofSunriseRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: 3-3.4.3.2 The fire department’s emergency medical services forproviding First Responder with AED shall be deployed to providefor the arrival of a First Responder with AED company within afour (4) minute response time to ninety (90) percent of theincidents as established in Section 2-1. response times determinedthrough task analysis that shall include the characteristics definedin 3-2.1.1. The AHJ shall establish such standards as a fractileresponse time at the ninety (90) percent level. SUBSTANTIATION: The use of fractile response times, whilemore desirable from a quality assurance/performancemeasurement perspective, is not well understood by all agencies inthe fire service. A clear distinction must be made between average(or mean) response times and fractile response times. Thefollowing analysis is provided to demonstrate the inability of mostagencies to attain a four (4) minute, ninety (90) percent responsetime standard. As demonstrated in Chart 1, the use of four (4) minute, ninety(90) percent requirement is roughly equivalent to a medianresponse time of two (2) to three (3) minutes (U.S. Department ofHealth and Human Services, 1993) and a mean response time ofapproximately three (3) minutes. (See Chart 1 as shown below)Therefore, this analysis shall utilize a three (3) minute responsetime. The data in Chart 1 is from a suburban-urban community of80,000 with 21 square miles and five (5) fire-rescue stations.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-460 (Log #10).
___________________(Log #1728)
1710- 471 - (3-3.4.3.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Bobby Williams, Spokane Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: The fire department’s emergency medical services for providingFirst Responder with AED shall should be deployed to provide forthe arrival of a First Responder with AED company within a (4)minute response time to ninety (90) percent of the incidents asestablished in Section 2-1.SUBSTANTIATION: While it is desirable to have a 4 minuteresponse time for EMS first responder services, response timesprovided are the service level decisions of the governing body.
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
318
The response time levels identified in the draft document shouldbe provided as recommended levels.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________Log #1748)
1710- 472 - (3-3.4.3.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Frank Edwards, Chesterfield County Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “within an four minute response time within established localresponse time standards .”SUBSTANTIATION: There are no nationally establishedresponse time standards for EMS, other than for cardiac relatedincidents. Cardiac incidents make up a small proportion of ajurisdiction’s EMS workload. Response time standards should takeinto consideration a jurisdiction’s need and resources.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-460 (Log #10).
___________________Log #1770)
1710- 473 - (3-3.4.3.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Randy Sheppard, Palm Beach County Fire-RescueRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department‘s emergency services shall assure delivery offor providing First Responder with AED emergency medicalservices shall be deployed to provide for the arrival of a FirstResponder with AED company within a four minute in an average 6minute response time for life-threatening emergency medicalincidents. to ninety (90) percent of the incidents as established inSection 2-1.”SUBSTANTIATION: First responder with AED services are onlywarranted on severe emergency medical related calls and not ALLrequests for assistance which might be received by a firedepartment. Also, four minutes is an unachievable standard formost of the United States and fractile performance criteria areuseful as planning tools, but not appropriate as a standard.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-460 (Log #10).
___________________
(Log #1808)1710- 474 - (3-3.4.3.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Rick Mawhirter, Western Missouri Fire Chiefs Assn.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department’s emergency medical services for providingFirst Responder with AED shall be deployed to provide for thearrival of a First Responder with AED company within a (4) six (6) minute response time to ninety (90) eighty (80) percent of theincidents as established in Section 2-1.”SUBSTANTIATION: The four-minute response time isunreasonable to expect fire departments to meet. This would notbe a standard that would be adhered to by most fire departments inthe country. The standard needs to include a more reasonableresponse time that the majority of departments could meet whilebeing fiscally responsible.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-460 (Log #10).
___________________
(Log #1871)1710- 475 - (3-3.4.3.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Mario David Rueda, Los Angeles City Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The Fire Department’s emergency medical services for providingFirst Responder with AED shall be deployed to provide for thearrival of a First Responder with AED company within a (4) four(5) five minute response time.”SUBSTANTIATION: The objective is more achievable at five (5)minutes and is reasonable. Fire Departments need to traincivilians to provide CPR prior to arrival of Fire Departmentresources. Also, some departments dispatch rescue ambulances,not fire companies, on initial dispatch.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-460 (Log #10).
___________________
(Log #1963)1710- 476 - (3-3.4.3.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Chip Prather, Orange County Fire AuthorityRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department’s emergency medical services for providingfirst responder with AED shall be deployed to provide for thearrival of a first responder with AED company within a four (4)minute response time to ninety (90) percent of the incidents asestablished in Section 2-1. as determined by local government andFire Chief.”SUBSTANTIATION: This proposed regulation does not allow thelocal governing body to evaluate local needs and resources todetermine what is their acceptable level of service to theircommunity. This proposed regulation would mandate equipmentand procedures which are not the jurisdiction of local fire services.This is vested with the local Emergency Medical Services Authority(EMSA).COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-460 (Log #10).
___________________
(Log #2052)1710- 477 - (3-3.4.3.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department’s...with AED shall should be deployed to...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2127)1710- 478 - (3-3.4.3.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department’s...with AED shall should be deployed to...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2238)1710- 479 - (3-3.4.3.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Brown, Kitsap County Fire District #7RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department’s emergency medical services for providingFirst Responder with AED shall be deployed to provide for thearrival of a First Responder with AED company within a four (4)minute response time to ninety (90) percent of the incidents asestablished in Section 2-1. as quickly as is safely possible. ”SUBSTANTIATION: Response time is a combination of manyfactors. Some of those factors are outside the operator’s control.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-460 (Log #10).
___________________
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
319
(Log #2291)1710- 480 - (3-3.4.3.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Jon R. Brown, Marion County Fire Dist. #1RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department’s that provide emergency medical servicesfor providing including First Responder with AED, shall bedeployed to provide for the arrival of a First Responder and AEDcompany within the response guidelines established by the AHJ intheir adopted standard of coverage policy. A (4) minute responseninety (90) percent of the incidents as established in Section 2-1.”SUBSTANTIATION: Each AHJ is required to adopt a standard ofcoverage document. Once adopted and accepted by thecommunity that is being served it should be the benchmark that isfollowed and to which the fire agency is held accountable. Theother changes are grammatical.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-460 (Log #10).
___________________Log #50)
1710- 481 - (3-3.4.3.3): RejectSUBMITTER: John Shull, Scappoose Rural Fire Dist.Dennis Marceaux, Scappoose Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #66)Gloria Gass, Cloverdale, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist.
(Log #82)Mickey Hays, Beaver, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist.
(Log #117)Greg Gass, Cloverdale, OR/ Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist
(Log #133)Mary Lou Fletcher, Beaver, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protection
Dist. (Log #149)Kevin Wickman, Keizer Fire Dist. (Log #162)Wayne Sandford, East Haven Fire (Log #179)Levi R. Beachy, Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #195)Roy O. Palmer, Polk County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #211)Harold Edwards, Delhi Twp Fire Dept. (Log #294)Jeff Grunewald, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue (Log #371)Curtis E. Goodman, City of Norwood/Fire Dept. (Log #376)Darrell Hartmann, Brookings Fire Dept. (Log #395)Earl Cordes, Jefferson County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #445)D. J. Cornish, Manzanita, OR/Manzanita Fire Dept. (Log #475)Judd Burrow, Manzanita, OR/Manzanita Public Safety (Log #491)Jeremy Strozyk, Nehalem, OR/Manzanita Public Safety (Log #507)Bret Siler, Nehalem, OR/Manzanita Fire Dept. (Log #523)Dan Marshall, Jackson County Fire Dist. #5 (Log #538)S. D. ‘Skip’ Smith, Santa Clara Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log
#586)Don Rowe, Sisters-Camp Sherman RFPD (Log #652)Paul Epler, Vernonia Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #686)Michael J. Sneddon, Charleston Fire Dist. (Log #717)Douglas VanPelt, Corvallis Fire Dept. (Log #763)Joel Stein, Keizer Fire Dist. (Log #764)George M. Dunkel, St. Helens Rural Fire Dist. (Log #813)Gary J. Hudson, St. Helens Rural Fire Dist. (Log #828)Matthew Shuler, Eugene Fire and EMS Dept./City of Euqene (Log
#845)Stephen D. Allen, Cottage Grove/South Lane Rural Fire Dept.
(Log #876)Cleve Rooper, Cannon Beach RFPD (Log #933)William H. Combs, City of Sutherlin Fire Dept. (Log #949)John Schlegel, Tri-City RFPD (Log #977)Bill Alguire, Keizer Fire Dist. (Log #1001)Ted Ames, Warrenton Fire Dept. (Log #1015)Paul M. Olheiser, Knappa Fire Dist. (Log #1086)Larry D. Eckhardt, Hoodland Fire Dist. #74 (Log #1116)Mike Rieger, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1132)Charles Spittles, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1163)Cindy Manning, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1200)Corey Tohl, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1216)Terry Zuercher, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1232)Tennessee Hodgdon, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1248)Thomas G. Miller, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1256)Roy Ellerbroek, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1272)Mike Ellerbroek, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1288)Aaron Burris, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1312)Leonard Ingles, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1320)Steven Stelzig, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1345)Frank Reding, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1361)Kyle Sheets, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1379)Tim Hamburger, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1403)Ken Aufdenmauer, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1419)Kyle Adams, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1427)
David B. Schelhaas, Scappoose Rural Fire Dept. (Log #1450)John R. McAdoo, Estacada Fire Dist. #69 (Log #1464)Dan O’Dell, Boring Fire Dist. (Log #1471)Larry A. Long, Estacada Rural Fire Dept. #69 (Log #1496)Lanny R. Boston, Bandon Rural Fire Protection Dist. #8/City of
Bandon Fire Dept./Southwestern Oregon Fire Chiefs’ Assn. (Log#1521)
John A. Stein, Dallas Fire Dept. (Log #1540)Aaron Vaughn, Scappoose Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #1617)Jack R. Carriger, Nestucca RFPD (Log #1633)Dale Staib, Philomath RFPD #4 (Log #1678)Patrick Reitz, Terrebonne, OR/Crooked River Ranch RFPD (Log
#1745)Jeff Griffin, Oregon Fire Chiefs’ Assn. (Log #1786)Chris Asanovic, Corenlius City/Rural Fire Dept. (Log #1891)Gary Abrams, NRFPD (Log #2160)Duaine Harding Jr., NRFPD (Log #2177)Lyle J. Payne, Pleasant Hill RFPD (Log #2201)Joseph R. Guyotte, MSFFF (Log #2241)Michael S. Curtis, Dover-Foxcroft Fire Dept. (Log #2270)Darin Welburn, Jackson County Fire Dist. #5 (Log #2287)RECOMMENDATION : Revise text as follows: “When provided, the fire department’s emergency medicalservices for providing Advanced Life Support shall be deployed toprovide for the arrival of an Advanced Life Support company withinan (8) minute response time to ninety (90) percent of the incidentsas established in Section 2-1 as quickly as possible .”SUBSTANTIATION: Response time requirements do not takeinto consideration factors outside the operator’s control. Thisstandard will place personnel in unsafe conditions.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee believes thatemergency medical services provided by career fire departments areexpected to supply on a continuous basis an unanticipatedresponse to medical emergencies at any time of the day or night.They are heavy dependent on timely response of properly trainedand equipped personnel to provide pre-hospital care at thelocation where it exists. Success of an operation is heavy dependentupon coordination of the critical components of time, personneland equipment that are addressed in this standard with thespecified response times. Response times (those that the firedepartments have control of) are directly related to patient careand survival rates. The committee does acknowledge that othertimes (including emergency recognition time, call taker processing,etc.) have an impact on patient care. However, the fire departmentcan measure and evaluate consistently the deployment timesaddressed in this standard.
___________________
(Log #96)1710- 482 - (3-3.4.3.3): RejectSUBMITTER: Larry D. Donner, Boulder Fire Dept., CORECOMMENDATION : Delete this entire section.SUBSTANTIATION: The ability to establish service deliverystandards is vested with the jurisdiction having authority. NFPAshould not attempt to circumvent this authority through thestandards process.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-481 (Log #50).
___________________
(Log #856)1710- 483 - (3-3.4.3.3): RejectSUBMITTER: John Troeger, Green Bay Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Eliminate current section in its entirety. Add: The Fire Departments Emergency Medical Services shall bedeployed to provide for the arrival of an Engine Company and FullInitial Alarm Assignment as quickly as is safely possible.SUBSTANTIATION: The requirement of a (4) four minuteresponse time is unreasonable and unobtainable by 90 percent ofthe Fire Departments in this country. Response Standards shouldbe established by the AHJ.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-481 (Log #50).
___________________
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
320
(Log #1079)1710- 484 - (3-3.4.3.3): RejectSUBMITTER: Wayne Waggoner, Tennessee Fire CodeDevelopment CommitteeRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: 3-3.4.3.3 When provided, the fire department’s emergencymedical services for providing Advanced Life Support shall bedeployed to provide for the arrival of an Advanced Life Supportcompany as quickly as possible and in accordance with NFPA 1500. within an eight (8 10) minute response time to ninety (90) percentof the incidents as established in Section 2-1.SUBSTANTIATION: In the majority of jurisdictions a 8-minuteresponse time is unreasonable. In researching a majority of firedepartments in the State of Tennessee it was revealed that 10minutes was a reasonable amount of response time for an ALSengine company. The fire department’s fire suppression resourcesshall be deployed to provide for the arrival of an Engine Companyand full initial alarm assignment as quickly as possible and inaccordance with NFPA 1500.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-481 (Log #50).
___________________
(Log #1711)1710- 485 - (3-3.4.3.3): RejectSUBMITTER: Gregory W. Frederick, Louisville Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “When provided, the fire department’s emergency medicalservices for providing Advanced Life Support shall be deployed toprovide for the arrival of an Advanced Life Support company withinan eight (8) minute response time to ninety (90) percent of theincidents as established in Section 2-1.” Exception: Incident responses deemed as non-emergency in 2-1shall be excluded. SUBSTANTIATION: To exclude non-emergency response fromthe response time criteria.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-481 (Log #50).
___________________
(Log #1729)1710- 486 - (3-3.4.3.3): RejectSUBMITTER: Bobby Williams, Spokane Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “When provided, the fire department’s emergency medicalservices for providing Advanced Life Support shall should bedeployed to provide for the arrival of an Advanced Life Supportcompany within an eight (8) minute response time to ninety (90)percent of the incidents as established in Section 2-1.”SUBSTANTIATION: While it is desirable to have a 8 minuteresponse time for EMS ALS services, response times provided arethe service level decisions of the governing body. The response time levels identified in the draft document shouldbe provided as recommended levels.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #1747)1710- 487 - (3-3.4.3.3): RejectSUBMITTER: Frank Edwards, Chesterfield County Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “within an eight minute response time within established localresponse time standards .”SUBSTANTIATION: There are no nationally establishedresponse time standards for EMS, other than for cardiac relatedincidents. Cardiac incidents make up a small proportion of ajurisdiction’s EMS workload. Response time standards should takeinto account a jurisdiction’s needs and resources. Outcomebased measures should be the true measure of proper servicedelivery.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-481 (Log #50).
___________________
(Log #1966)1710- 488 - (3-3.4.3.3): RejectSUBMITTER: Chip Prather, Orange County Fire AuthorityRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “When provided, the fire department’s emergency medicalservices for providing advanced life support shall be deployed toprovide for the arrival of an advanced life support company withinand eight (8) minute response time to ninety (90) percent of theincidents as established in Section 2-1. Within time framesdetermined by the local governing body and Fire Chief. ”SUBSTANTIATION: This proposed requirement does not allowthe local governing body to evaluate local needs and resources andto determine what is their acceptable level of service to theircommunity.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-481 (Log #50).
___________________
(Log #2053)1710- 489 - (3-3.4.3.3): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “When provided...Life Support shall should be deployed to...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________(Log #2128)
1710- 490 - (3-3.4.3.3): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “When provided...Life Support shall should be deployed to...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________(Log #2239)
1710- 491 - (3-3.4.3.3): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Brown, Kitsap County Fire District #7RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “When provided, the fire department’s emergency medicalservices for providing Advanced Life Support shall be deployed toprovide for the arrival of an Advanced Life Support company withina eight (8) minute response time to ninety (90) percent of theincidents as established in Section 2-1. as quickly as is safelypossible. ”SUBSTANTIATION: Response time is a combination of manyfactors. Some of those factors are outside the operator’s control.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-481 (Log #50).
___________________(Log #2054)
1710- 492 - (3-3.5.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department shall should institute...as requiredrecommended in 3-3.4.3...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
321
These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________(Log #2129)
1710- 493 - (3-3.5.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department shall should institute...as requiredrecommended in 3-3.4.3...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________(Log #2055)
1710- 494 - (3-3.5.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “...This review process shall should be documented...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________(Log #2130)
1710- 495 - (3-3.5.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “...This review process shall should be documented...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________(Log #1081)
1710- 496 - (3-3.5.3): RejectSUBMITTER: Wayne Waggoner, Tennessee Fire CodeDevelopment CommitteeRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: 3-3.5.3 All fire departments with ALS services will have a persondetermined by the AHJ to be competent to provide oversight named medical director with and the responsibility to oversee andassure quality medical care in accordance with state or provinciallaw or regulation. This review process shall be documented.SUBSTANTIATION: Without having a definition of “medicalexpert” we believe the AHJ should have the authority andresponsibility to determine who is competent to oversee andarrange review of medical care provisions. It should bedetermined by the courts if a person is an expert not this standard.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. 3-3.5.2 was rewritten to: “All first responder and BLS medicalcare provided by the fire department shall be reviewed by the firedepartment medical personnel. This review process shall bedocumented.”
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The term medical expert is notapplicable to this section. However it was used in 3-3.5.2. Theterm was changed to medical personnel and the text rewritten forgrammar.
___________________(Log #2056)
1710- 497 - (3-3.5.3): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “All fire departments with ALS services will should have a namedmedical director...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________(Log #2131)
1710- 498 - (3-3.5.3): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “All fire departments with ALS services will should have a namedmedical director...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________(Log #34)
1710- 499 - (3-3.5.4): RejectSUBMITTER: Robert Carnahan, Clackamas County Fire Dist. 1Carl Brumund, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #341)Orville Downer, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #416)Daniel C. Olsen, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #446)Rich Mackie, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #567)Martin Goughnour, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1564)Norman Whiteley, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1589)Randy R. Bruegman, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1658)Joan Johnson, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1792)RECOMMENDATION : Delete the following text: 3-3.5.4 Fire departments providing ALS services shall provided amechanism for immediate communications with EMS supervisionand medical oversight.SUBSTANTIATION: The article is not needed if the provisions of3-3.5.1 are followed. Components of the communication systemare appropriately addressed elsewhere.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: These specific communicationsrequirements are not covered elsewhere, and the section’s textrelates to supervision and medical oversight.
___________________(Log #2057)
1710- 500 - (3-3.5.4): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Fire departments providing ALS services shall should provide amechanism for...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
322
(Log #2132)1710- 501 - (3-3.5.4): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Fire departments providing ALS services shall should provide amechanism for...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #1083)1710- 502 - (3-4.1): AcceptSUBMITTER: Wayne Waggoner, Tennessee Fire CodeDevelopment CommitteeRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: 3-4 Special Operations Response. 3-4.1 Purpose. Special operations shall be organized to ensurethe fire department’s special operations capability includessufficient personnel, equipment, and resources to efficiently,effectively, and safely deploy the initial arriving compan ies andadditional alarm assignments providing such services. The firedepartment shall be permitted to use established automatic mutualaid or mutual aid agreements to comply with the requirements ofthis section.SUBSTANTIATION: Making the company plural this makes all ofthe arriving companies responsible for deploying the properresources.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. Editorially change to “company(s).
___________________
(Log #2058)1710- 503 - (3-4.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Special operations shall should be organized to... The firedepartment shall should be permitted to...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2133)1710- 504 - (3-4.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Special operations shall should be organized to... The firedepartment shall should be permitted to...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2059)1710- 505 - (3-4.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department shall should adopt a special operationsresponse plan...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2134)1710- 506 - (3-4.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department shall should adopt a special operationsresponse plan...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #1082)1710- 507 - (3-4.3): AcceptSUBMITTER: Wayne Waggoner, Tennessee Fire CodeDevelopment CommitteeRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: 3-4.3 All fire department members who are expected to respondto emergency incidents beyond the First Responder Operationslevel for Haz-Mat response and the Confined Space Operationslevel for confined space operations shall be trained to theapplicable requirements of NFPA 472, Standard on HazardousMaterials Response Professional Competencies and NFPA 1670,Standard on Technical Rescue Operations. 3- 4.3 All fire department members who are expected to respondto emergency incidents beyond the First Responder Operationslevel for Haz-mat response shall be trained to the applicablerequirements of NFPA 472, Standard on Hazardous MaterialsResponse Professional Competencies. 3- 4.4 All fire department members who are expected to respondto emergency incidents beyond the Confined Space Operationslevel for confined space operations shall be trained to theapplicable requirements of NFPA 1670, Standard on TechnicalRescue Operations. SUBSTANTIATION: The committee feels that there should betwo sections.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.
___________________
(Log #1964)1710- 508 - (3-4.3): RejectSUBMITTER: Chip Prather, Orange County Fire AuthorityRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Requires compliance with NFPA 472 and NFPA 1670 forresponse to haz-mat and technical rescue incidents respectively.”SUBSTANTIATION: Currently all haz-mat technicians are trainedat levels that meet or exceed NFPA 472. This proposed regulationdoes not address the issue of local control.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee believes that theestablished minimum training requirements are necessary.
___________________
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
323
(Log #2060)1710- 509 - (3-4.3): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “All fire department members shall should be trained to theapplicable requirements...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #1771)1710- 510 - (3-4.4): RejectSUBMITTER: Randy Sheppard, Palm Beach County Fire-RescueRECOMMENDATION : Add text to read as follows: “ RIT members for use at Special Operations Incidents shall betrained to the Operational level for the type of Special Operationscall (i.e., hazmat, confined space). RIT members must also becompetent in the use of specialized personal protection equipmentnecessary to accomplish these types of rescues. ”SUBSTANTIATION: Rescues anticipated at the scene of SpecialOperations incidents (hazmat, confined space) are more complexthan at structural fire incidents and, therefore require a higher levelof expertise and training on specialized equipment.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.The committee revised 3-4-4 to read: “The fire department shall have the capacity to implement aRapid Intervention Crew during all special operation incidents thatwould subject fire fighters to immediate danger of injury, or in theevent of equipment failure or other sudden events.”COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The specific tactical and operationalrequirements for a rapid intervention crew are included in NFPA1500. The fire department must have the capability to implement asafety and health program as required by section 4-1, includingspecific requirements during special operations. Thecommentator’s position is included in the requirements of NFPA1500.
___________________
(Log #2061)1710- 511 - (3-4.4): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Whenever members...shall should be standing by withequipment...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2135)1710- 512 - (3-4.4): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Whenever members...shall should be standing by withequipment...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2062)1710- 513 - (3-4.5): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department shall should provide or have access to...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2136)1710- 514 - (3-4.5): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department shall should provide or have access to...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2063)1710- 515 - (3-4.6): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “If there is...shall should determine the... The fire departmentshall should be limited to...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2137)1710- 516 - (3-4.6): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “If there is...shall should determine the... The fire departmentshall should be limited to...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
324
(Log #2008a)1710- 517 - (3-5 (New) ): Accept in Principle in PartSUBMITTER: Don Hilderbrand, Phoenix Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Add a new Section 3-5 to read as follows: 3-5 Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting (ARFF) Operations. 3-5.1* Aircraft rescue and firefighting operations shall beorganized to ensure capabilities includes sufficient personnel,equipment, and resources to efficiently, effectively, and safelydeploy the initial arriving companies and additional alarmassignments to provide such services. A-3-5.1 Water and Agent Resupply and Conservation. Auxiliarywater tankers should be dispatched whenever there is anyindication of possible need and especially when the aircraftaccident site is known to be beyond water relay capability.Prearrangement’s should be made to ensure that additionalsupplies of extinguishing agents are brought to the scene. Prudentutilization of agents under these circumstances is particularlyimportant, and application methods should be carefully selected toensure their most effective use. It is considered impractical to require airport authorities toprovide quantities of extinguishing agents to deal with the worstsituation that could arise using only the equipment located on theairport. Therefore, it is necessary for airport emergency plans tocontain instructions for requesting support from externally-basedfire services following an emergency. It is not easy to specify anoperational requirements which makes adequate provision in allcircumstances. It is clear that need for additional water couldarise in as little as five minutes, although in this time the initial firesituation should be greatly reduced. If total extinguishment hasnot been achieved the fire can quickly extend and the equipmentmust be replenished. Airports should consider providing additional water as a supportfacility. There might be exceptions where airports have adequatepiped, stored, or natural water supplies, provided that these areavailable at an accident in sufficient quantity and in time to meetthe operational requirement. In each case the authority having jurisdiction should consultclosely with the Chief Fire Officer of the Mutual Aid Fire Serviceregarding response and supply of additional water supplies. Theairport authority will need to assess the suitability of the waterresources which can be mobilized to support the airport fireservice when a serious and prolonged post-accident fire occurs.Therefore, the speed of mobilization and the rate at which thewater can be delivered to the accident site are important factors. 3-5.1.1 Deployment of initial arriving companies shall meet therequirements of the airport assigned category as outlined in NFPA403. 3-5.2 Airport fire department shall adopt ARFF operationsresponse plan and standard operating procedures (SOPs) thatspecify the roles and responsibilities of the fire department and theauthorized functions of members responding to airport and aircraftemergencies. 3-5.2.1 ARFF SOPs shall be coordinated with and approved bythe airport authority and supporting agencies. 3-5.3 ARFF fire department members who are expected torespond to airport, aircraft, and aircraft support equipmentemergency incidents shall meet NFPA 1003. 3-5.3.1 ARFF fire department members shall be trained to theapplicable requirements in NFPA 472. 3-5.3.2 ARFF fire department members who perform specialoperations shall meet the requirements of NFPA 1006. 3-5.4 ARFF fire departments shall have access to special tools,equipment, supplies, PPE, and other airport resources that arerequired to perform operations safely and effectively, in theirassigned roles and responsibilities. 3-5.5 ARFF fire departments whose primary functions are topump water and foam to combat aircraft fires, search and rescue,and emergency medical services shall be staffed with a minimum of3 on duty personnel. In jurisdictions that can not rely on outsideresources, it shall be necessary to increase on-duty staffing levels. 3-5.5.1 ARFF SOPs for IRIT and RIT shall meet the requirementsof 3-2.3.1.2 and 3-2.3.3.2.1. 3-5.5.2 Fire companies equipped with specialized equipment orother resources shall be deployed to assist ARFF companies, andto perform other types of airport emergency operations. 3-5.6 ARFF companies shall deploy to provide for the arrival ofthe first ARFF company to reach operational runways within 2minutes and the rapid response area within 2.5 minutes. OtherARFF companies necessary to meet the agent quantities anddischarge rate for the assigned airport category shall arrive atintervals not to exceed 30 seconds, and meet the requirements ofNFPA 403.
3-5.6.1 ARFF companies that deploy to structural incidents onairport property shall meet the response time requirements of 3-2.3.SUBSTANTIATION: Many airport fire departments providemulti-service requirements just as municipal departments do. Inaddition to those they must meet other requirements for aircraftrelated incidents. While these requirements for aircraft emergencyincidents are outlined in federal requirements, there is no standardfor response and staffing capabilities. The development of thisstandard should include those ARFF capabilities.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle in Part. Revise the commentator’s text for new 3-5 to read: 3-5* Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) Services. 3-5.1 Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting operations shall beorganized to ensure the fire department’s ARFF capability includessufficient personnel, equipment, and resources to efficiently,effectively, and safely deploy the initial arriving company, the fullinitial alarm assignment and additional alarm assignments. Thefire department shall be permitted to use established automaticmutual aid or mutual aid agreements to comply with therequirements of this section. 3-5.2 Airport fire department shall adopt ARFF operationsresponse plan and standard operating procedures (SOPs) thatspecify the roles and responsibilities of the fire department and theauthorized functions of members responding to airport and aircraftemergencies. 3-5.2.1 Fire Department ARFF SOPs shall be coordinated withthe airport authority and supporting agencies. 3-5.3 ARFF fire departments shall have access to special tools,equipment, supplies, PPE, and other airport resources that arerequired to perform operations safely and effectively, in theirassigned roles and responsibilities. 3-5.4 Staffing. 3-5.4.1 On-duty ARFF personnel shall be comprised of thenumbers necessary for safe and effective fire-fighting performancerelative to the expected aircraft rescue and fire fighting conditions.These shall be determined through task analyses as required fortypes of aircraft and airport designations established by NFPA 403and through additional task analysis that includes the following : (a) Life hazard to the populace protected, (b) Provisions of safe and effective fire-fighting performanceconditions for the fire fighters, (c) The potential property loss, (d) The nature, configuration, hazards, and internal protectionof the properties involved, and (e) The types of fireground tactics and evolutions employed asstandard procedure, the type of apparatus used, and the resultsexpected to be obtained at the fire scene 3-5.4.2 On-duty personnel assigned to ARFF shall be organizedinto company units and shall have appropriate apparatus andequipment assigned to such companies. 3-5.4.2.1 The fire department shall identify minimum companystaffing levels as necessary to meet the deployment criteria requiredin Sections 3-2.2 and 3-2.3 to ensure that a sufficient number ofmembers are assigned, on-duty and available to safely andeffectively respond with each company. 3-5.4.2.2 Each company shall be led by an officer. 3-5.4.2.3 Supervisory chief officers shall be dispatched or notifiedto respond to all full alarm assignments. The supervisory chiefofficer shall ensure that the incident management system isestablished as required in Chapter 4-2. 3-5.5 Operating Units. 3-5.5.1 Fire companies whose primary function is to deliver andpump water and extinguishing agents at the scene of an aircraftincident shall be known as ARFF companies. These companiesshall be staffed with a minimum of three (3) on-duty personnel. 3-5.5.1 Engine and ladder (truck) companies that respond on anaircraft rescue and fire fighting incident shall be staffed as requiredby Sections 3-2.2.1 and 3-2.2.2. 3-5.5.3 Other types of companies equipped with specializedapparatus and equipment for aircraft rescue and fire fighting shallbe provided to assist ARFF, engine and ladder companies wheredeemed necessary as part of established practice. Thesecompanies shall be staffed with a minimum number of on-dutypersonnel as required by the tactical and occupancy hazards. 3-5.6 Deployment. 3-5.6.1 The fire department’s ARFF resources shall deploy therequired number of vehicles as required for the airport assignedcategory as established by NFPA 403, Standard for Aircraft Rescueand Fire Fighting Services at Airports. 3-5.6.1 Initial Arriving Company. 3-5.6.1.1 The fire department’s ARFF resources shall be deployedto provide for the arrival of an ARFF company to any point on the
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
325
operational runway within two (2) minutes (120 seconds) and toany point remaining within the on-airport portion of the rapidresponse area (RRA) within two and one-half (2.5) minutes (150seconds) as required by NFPA 403. 3-5.6.1.1.1 The first arriving ARFF company shall be capable tobegin application of the required extinguishing agent within three(3) minutes (180 seconds) from the time of alarm as required byFAR 139.39. 3-5.6.1.2* Personnel assigned to the initial arriving company shallhave the capability to implement an Initial Rapid Intervention Crew(IRIC). ARFF operations that require personnel to leave theprotection of the ARFF vehicle and operate within 75 feet of theaircraft involved in the incident shall not be initiated until the IRICis fully operational. 3-5.6.2 Initial Full Alarm Assignment Capability. 3-5.6.2.1 The fire department shall have the capability to deployan initial full alarm assignment within a four minute (240 second)response time as required by FAR 139.39. 3-5.6.2.2 All vehicles required for the initial full alarm assignmentshall arrive in intervals not exceeding 30 seconds from the arrival ofthe initial ARFF vehicle as specified in Section 3-2.3.1.1, per therequirements of NFPA 403. 3-5.6.2.3 The first full alarm assignment shall provide for thefollowing: (a) Establishment of incident command outside of the hazardarea for the overall coordination and direction of the initial fullalarm assignment. A minimum of one individual shall bededicated to this task. (b) Establishment of an effective extinguishing agent flow asrequired for the airport assigned category by NFPA 403. (c) Establishment of an initial rapid intervention crew (IRIC)that shall consist of a minimum of two properly equipped andtrained personnel. 3-5.6.3 Additional Alarm Assignments. 3-5.6.3.1 The fire department shall have the capability foradditional alarm assignments that can provide for additionalpersonnel and additional services including the application ofextinguishing agent to prevent, control or extinguish fire involving,or adjacent to an aircraft for the purpose of providing maximumfuselage integrity and escape area for occupants; aircraft emergencyescape assistance, engagement in aircraft interior search andrescue, forcible entry, ventilation, preservation of property;accountability for personnel; and provision of support activities forthose situations that are beyond the capability of the initial alarmassignment. 3-5.6.3.2 When an incident escalates beyond the initial full alarmassignment, or when there is significant risk to fire fighters due tothe magnitude of the incident, the Incident Commander shallupgrade the IRIC to a full Rapid Intervention Crew (RIC). 3-5.7 Non-Aircraft Emergencies 3-5.7.1 ARFF companies that deploy to structural incidents onairport property shall meet the response time requirements of 3-2.3. 3-5.7.2 ARFF companies that deploy to emergency medicalincidents on airport property shall meet the response timerequirements of 3-2.4. Add the following appendix items: A-3-5.1 Water and Agent Resupply and Conservation. Auxiliarywater tankers should be dispatched whenever there is anyindication of possible need and especially when the aircraftaccident site is known to be beyond water relay capability. Pre-arrangements should be made to ensure that additional supplies ofextinguishing agents are brought to the scene. Prudent utilizationof agents under these circumstances is particularly important, andapplication methods should be carefully selected to ensure theirmost effective use. Therefore, it is necessary for airport emergencyplans to contain instructions for requesting support from externallybased fire services following an emergency. It is not easy to specifyan operational requirement that makes adequate provision in allcircumstances. It is clear that a need for additional water couldarise in as little as five minutes, although in this time the initialfire situation should be greatly reduced. If total extinguishmenthas not been achieved the fire can quickly extend and theequipment must be replenished. Airports should considerproviding additional water as a support facility. There might beexceptions where airports have adequate piped, stored, or naturalwater supplies, provided that these are available at an accident insufficient quantity and in time to meet the operationalrequirement. In each case the authority having jurisdiction shouldconsult closely with fire departments that provide mutual orautomatic aid regarding response and supply of additional watersupplies. The airport authority will need to assess the suitability ofthe water resources that can be mobilized to support the airport
fire service when a serious and prolonged post-accident fire occurs.Therefore, the speed of mobilization and the rate at which thewater can be delivered to the accident site are important factors. A-3-5.6.1.2 The United States Department of Defense has definedthe areas involved in the emergency within 75 feet of the aircraft asImmediately Dangerous to Life and Health. Operations within anIDLH atmosphere require a rapid intervention crew as establishedin 29 CFR 1910.134. Add the following definitions: Definitions: Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF). The fire fightingaction taken to prevent, control, or extinguish fire involved in oradjacent to an aircraft for the purpose of maintaining maximumescape routes for occupants using normal and emergency routesfor egress. Additionally, ARFF personnel will enter the aircraft toprovide assistance to the extent possible in the extrication andevacuation of the occupants. Airport Fire Department Personnel. Personnel assigned toaircraft rescue and fire fighting and other functions. Theseindividuals may also be responsible for additional fire protectionand suppression, emergency medical and other emergencyresponse within the boundaries of the airport facility. ARFF Vehicle. Fire fighting apparatus designed to carrypersonnel and fire fighting and rescue equipment for extinguishingfires involving aircraft and facilitating the rescue of endangeredaircraft occupants on, or in the vicinity of, an airport. Theapparatus is typically equipped with a large water tank(commencing at 1,000 gallons and extending to over 6,000gallons); a supply of fire fighting extinguishing agents; remote-controlled large roof turret(s), extendable turret nozzle(s), andbumper turret(s) (ground sweep nozzles) that are used for thedischarge of extinguishing agent; and pre-connected handlines.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee agreed with thecommentator and revised the proposed text so as to be consistentwith the scope of the standard.
___________________
(Log #33)1710- 518 - (3-5.5.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Robert Carnahan, Clackamas County Fire Dist. 1Carl Brumund, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #342)Orville Downer, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #417)Daniel C. Olsen, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #447)Rich Mackie, Marion County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #568)Martin Goughnour, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1563)Norman Whiteley, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1588)Randy R. Bruegman, Clackamas County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1657)RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: 3-5.5.1 The fire department shall establish and adopt institute aquality management program process based on performancemeasures to that assure that all emergency medical services hasappropriate response times as required in 3-3.4.3 for all medicalresponses. have been provided in a manner and fashion that isacceptable to the named medical director. SUBSTANTIATION: Quality management is much more thanmonitoring responses times, and accountability to the medicaldirector is important.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Not within the scope of thestandard.
___________________
(Log #1793)1710- 519 - (3-5.5.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Joan Johnson, Marion County Fire Dist. #1RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The Fire Department shall establish and adopt institute a qualitymanagement program process based on performance measures tothat assure that all emergency medical services has appropriateresponse times as required in 3-3.4.3 for all medical responses.have been provided in manner and fashion that is acceptable to thenamed medical director. ”SUBSTANTIATION: Quality management is much more thanmonitoring responses times, and accountability to the medicaldirector is important.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-518 (Log #33).
___________________
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
326
(Log #2289)1710- 520 - (3-5.5.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Jon R. Brown, Marion County Fire Dist. #1RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department shall establish and adopt institute a qualitymanagement program process based on performance measures tothat assure that all emergency medical services has appropriateresponse times as required in 3-3.4.3 for all medical responses.have been provided in a manner and fashion that is acceptable tothe named medical director. ”SUBSTANTIATION: Quality management is much more thanmonitoring responses times, and accountability to the medicaldirector is important.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-518 (Log #33).
___________________
(Log #2288)1710- 521 - (3-5.5.4): RejectSUBMITTER: Jon R. Brown, Marion County Fire Dist. #1RECOMMENDATION : Delete text as follows: 3-3.5.4 Fire departments providing ALS services shall provide amechanism for immediate communications with EMS supervisionand medical oversight.SUBSTANTIATION: The section is not needed if the provisionsof 3-3.5.1 are followed. Components of the communication systemare appropriately addressed elsewhere.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-499 (Log #34).
___________________
(Log #281)1710- 522 - (3-6 (New) ): Accept in Principle in PartSUBMITTER: Thomas J. Cuff, Jr., The Firemen's Assn. of theState of NYRECOMMENDATION : Add a new section to read as follows: 3-6 Wildland Firefighting. 3-6.1 A fire department which may be expected to respond towildland fires frequently and/or for extended periods shall providespecialized training for its firefighters, fire attack and supportapparatus, all necessary tools and equipment and as well asadequate supervision. 3-6.2 Any fire fighting personnel primarily assigned to wildlandfire fighting shall meet the requirements of NFPA 1051, WildlandFirefighter Professional Qualifications or equivalent approved bythe AHJ. 3-6.3 Any specialized vehicles acquired for the primary purposeof wildland fire fighting shall meet the requirements of NFPA 1906,Wildland Fire Apparatus. 3-6.4 Protective Clothing for Wildland Fire Fighting Operations. 3-6.4.1 All firefighters who engage in, or are exposed to, thehazards of wildland fire fighting, frequently and/or for extendedperiods, shall be provided with protective clothing and survivalequipment which shall meet the requirements of NFPA 1977,Wildland Fire Fighting Protective Clothing and Equipment. 3-6.4.2 Fire departments which respond to both structure firesand occasional wildland fires shall utilize structure fire personalprotective clothing unless it is determined that the wildlandoperation will be extensive. In any event, the fire department shallensure that personnel are appropriately dressed for the specificoperation. 3-6.4.3 Fire departments shall not permit firefighters wearingwildland firefighting protective clothing to engage in structural firefighting. SUBSTANTIATION: Due to the unique operations and risksinvolved in wildland firefighting and the number of firedepartments involved in it, the subject should be included.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle in Part. Revise the commentator’s text for new 3-7 to read: 3-7 Wildland Fire Suppression Services. 3-7.1* Wildland fire suppression operations shall be organized toensure the fire department’s wildland fire suppression capabilityincludes sufficient personnel, equipment and resources toefficiently, effectively and safely deploy wildland wildland directoperations that can address marginal situations before they get out
of control and wildland indirect fire fighting operations that can beassembled and placed into operation against major wildland fires. 3-7.2 Fire departments performing wildland operations shalladopt a wildland fire fighting operations response plan andstandard operating procedures (SOPs) that specify the roles andresponsibilities of the fire department and the authorized functionsof members responding to wildland fire emergencies. 3-7.2.1 All wildland fire suppression operations shall beorganized to ensure compliance with NFPA 295, Standard forWildfire Control, 1998 Edition 3-7.3 Fire departments performing wildland operations shall haveaccess to special tools, equipment, supplies, PPE, and otherwildland resources that are required to perform operations safelyand effectively, in their assigned roles and responsibilities. 3-7.4 Staffing. 3-7.4.1 On-duty wildland fire fighting personnel shall becomprised of the numbers necessary for safe and effective fire-fighting performance relative to the expected wildland fire fightingconditions. These shall be determined through task analyses thatincludes the following : (a) Life hazard to the populace protected, (b) Provisions of safe and effective fire-fighting performanceconditions for the fire fighters, (c) The potential property loss, (d) The nature, configuration, hazards, and internal protectionof the properties involved, (e) The types of wildland tactics and evolutions employed asstandard procedure, the type of apparatus used, and the resultsexpected to be obtained at the fire scene, and (f) The topography, vegetation and terrain in the responsearea(s). 3-7.4.2 On-duty personnel assigned to wildland operations shallbe organized into company units and shall have appropriateapparatus and equipment assigned to such companies. 3-7.4.2.1 The fire department shall identify minimum companystaffing levels as necessary to meet the deployment criteria toensure that a sufficient number of members are assigned, on-dutyand available to safely and effectively respond with each company. 3-7.4.2.2 Each company shall be led by an officer. 3-7.4.2.3 Supervisory chief officers shall be dispatched or notifiedto respond to all full alarm assignments. The supervisory chiefofficer shall ensure that the incident management system isestablished as required in Chapter 4-2. 3-7.5 Operating Units. 3-7.5.1 Fire companies whose primary function is to deliver andpump water and extinguishing agents at the scene of an wildlandfire shall be known as wildland companies. These companies shallbe staffed with a minimum of four (4) on-duty personnel. 3-7.5.2 Engine and ladder (truck) companies that respond on awildland fire fighting and/or urban interface wildland fire fightingincidents shall be staffed as required by Sections 3-2.2.1 and 3-2.2.2. 3-7.5.3 Other types of companies equipped with specializedapparatus and equipment for wildland fire fighting, includingaircraft, heavy equipment, mini pumpers, and fast attack vehicleshall be provided to assist wildland, engine and ladder companieswhere deemed necessary as part of established practice. Thesecompanies shall be staffed with a minimum number of on-dutypersonnel as required by the tactical, topographical,environmental, fuel (vegetation) and occupancy hazards. 3-7.6 Deployment. 3-7.6.1 The fire department’s wildland resources shall deploy therequired number of vehicles as required for a direct and/or anindirect attack. 3-7.6.1.1* Prior to the initiation of any wildland fire attack, thefire department shall have the capacity to establish a lookout(s),communications with all crew members, escape route(s) and safetyzone(s) for vehicles and personnel. 3-7.6.2 Direct Attack. 3-7.6.2.1 The fire department shall have the capability to safelyinitiate a direct wildland attack within 10 minutes after arrival of theinitial company or crew at the fire scene. 3-7.6.2.2 One individual in the first arriving company or crewshall be assigned as the Incident Commander for the overallcoordination and direction of the direct attack activities. 3-7.6.2.3 The direct wildland attack shall include: (a) Establishment of an effective water flow application rate of30 gpm from at least two 500’, 1 1/2 in diameter attack handlinefrom, two engines. Each attack handline shall be operated by aminimum of two personnel each to effectively and safely deployand maintain the line. (b) Provision of one operator who shall remain with each fireapparatus supplying water flow to ensure uninterrupted water flowapplication.
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
327
(c) Provision of a wildland crew leader or company officer witheach crew who shall be responsible for overall supervision of eachof the crew and for maintaining personnel accountability and crewsafety. 3-7.6.3 Indirect Attack. 3-7.6.3.1 The fire department providing wildland fire suppressionoperations shall have the capability to deploy an indirect attack,including application of water to the fire; engagement in searchand rescue, preservation of property; accountability for personnel;and provision of support activities for those situations that arebeyond the capability of the direct attack. 3-7.6.3.2 The requirements for the indirect attack shall bemaintained pursuant to Section 2-2.1 of this Standard. 3-7.7 Non-Wildland Emergencies. 3-7.7.1 Wildland companies that deploy to structural incidentsshall meet the response time requirements of 3-2.3. 3-7.7.2 Wildland companies that deploy to emergency medicalincidents on shall meet the response time requirements of 3-2.4. New Appendix item A-3-7.6.1.1* A system developed by the United States ForestService, Chief Paul Gleason, addresses specific mandatory fireorders in a system termed “LCES”, Lookout(s),Communication(s), Escape Route(s), and Safety Zone(s). Thesefour items are to be implemented as an integrated system by asingle resource unit, a strike team, or a full assignment. Theimplementation of LECS is a minimum safety requirement prior tothe initiation of any wildland fire fighting operations.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee revised the proposedtext so as to be consistent with the scope of the standard.
___________________
(Log #1965)1710- 523 - (4-1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Chip Prather, Orange County Fire AuthorityRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Firefighter Occupational Safety and Health Program shall beprovided, in accordance with NFPA 1500 Standard federal, local,and state laws on fire occupational safety and health to form thebasic structure of protecting the health and safety of firefighters,regardless of the scope or the department or the emergency.”SUBSTANTIATION: This proposed standard would have impactson OCFA that, if forced to comply with entire NFPA 1500Standard, would be cost prohibitive and would pose a significantfinancial burden on local jurisdictions.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: NFPA is a more comprehensivedocument addressing fire fighter safety and health that thecommittee agreed needs to be required.
___________________
(Log #2064)1710- 524 - (4-1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “A firefighter occupational...shall should be provided, inaccordance with...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2138)1710- 525 - (4-1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “A firefighter occupational...shall should be provided, inaccordance with...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officials
charged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #279)1710- 526 - (4-1.2 (New) ): RejectSUBMITTER: Thomas J. Cuff, Jr., The Firemen's Assn. of theState of NYRECOMMENDATION : Add a new section to read as follows: 4-1.2 The fire department shall designate an Infection ControlOfficer who shall, among other duties as may be assigned, serve asthe focal point for communication with medical facilities to whichpatients have been transported for the purpose of notification tothe fire department that an exposure to an infectious disease mayhave taken place. SUBSTANTIATION: Required by Ryan-White federal legislation.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The specific tactical and operationalrequirements for an infection control program are contained inNFPA 1500. The fire department must have the capability toimplement a safety and health program as required by section 4-1.
___________________
(Log #2065)1710- 527 - (4-2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “An incident management system shall should be provided, inaccordance with...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2139)1710- 528 - (4-2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “An incident management system shall should be provided, inaccordance with...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2066)1710- 529 - (4-2.1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “An effective incident management system shall should bedesigned to...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
328
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2140)1710- 530 - (4-2.1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “An effective incident management system shall should bedesigned to...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #1084)1710- 531 - (4-2.1.2): Accept in PartSUBMITTER: Wayne Waggoner, Tennessee Fire CodeDevelopment CommitteeRECOMMENDATION : Delete the following text: 4-2.1.2* The authority for incident command at EMS incidentsshall be established in standard operating procedures and by lawsand regulations that apply to the EMS system within the localjurisdiction. A-4-2.1.1 Unlike fire incidents where command is normallypredicated by rank structure, EMS patient care command is basedupon statutory recognition of the individual with the highest levelof medical certification. It is recommended that departmentsadopt protocols that define the degree of both member and non-member involvement in direct patient care based upon localstandards, medical control and statutory requirements.SUBSTANTIATION: This is covered in Section 4-2-1.1. You donot need a separate EMS commander. An EMS sector shall beestablished in accordance with NFPA 1561. By complying withEMS rules and regulations the highest ranking EMS person will bein charge of the EMS sector.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Part. Delete 4-2.1.2. In A-4-2.1.1 remove the word “command” after“EMS patient care”.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee agrees with theintent of the commentator and has clarified the appendix byremoving command so as to not confuse the provision of patientcare.
___________________
(Log #2067)1710- 532 - (4-2.1.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The authority for incident command at EMS incidents shallshould be established in...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2141)1710- 533 - (4-2.1.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The authority for incident command at EMS incidents shallshould be established in...”.
SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #268)1710- 534 - (4-3.1): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Mario David Rueda, Los Angeles City Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Standard terminology shall comply with NFPA 1561, includingemergency traffic. clear text, and incident clock. ”SUBSTANTIATION: Standardized communications are detailedin NFPA 1561. This standard should be consistent.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. In, 4-4.3.1 add, “, in compliance with NFPA 1561,” after the words“Standard terminology”.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee agrees with theintent of the commentator.
___________________
(Log #2068)1710- 535 - (4-3.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department shall should have a training program...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2142)1710- 536 - (4-3.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department shall should have a training program...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________(Log #2069)
1710- 537 - (4-4.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department shall should have a reliablecommunications system...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
329
(Log #2143)1710- 538 - (4-4.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The fire department shall should have a reliablecommunications system...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #1967)1710- 539 - (4-4.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Chip Prather, Orange County Fire AuthorityRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “All communications’ facilities, equipment, staffing, andoperating resources shall comply with NFPA 1221 including standards for the installation, maintenance, and use of emergencyservices communications system. Shall be in accordance tostandards established by local government/jurisdiction based oncommunity need. ”SUBSTANTIATION: This proposed requirements takes thedecision process away from local governments who know best whatthey need to serve their communities.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: NFPA 1221 is a more comprehensivedocument communications.
___________________
(Log #2070)1710- 540 - (4-4.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “All communications...shall should comply with...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2144)1710- 541 - (4-4.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “All communications...shall should comply with...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2071)1710- 542 - (4-4.3): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Operating procedures for radio communications shall should provide for...”.
SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2145)1710- 543 - (4-4.3): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Operating procedures for radio communications shall should provide for...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2072)1710- 544 - (4-4.3.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Standard terminology shall should be established to transmit...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #2146)1710- 545 - (4-4.3.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “Standard terminology shall should be established to transmit...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-109 (Log #2018).
___________________
(Log #1866)1710- 546 - (5-1): RejectSUBMITTER: Steven R. Nuttall, City of Bellevue Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The following documents or portions thereof are referencedwithin this standard as mandatory requirements and shall beconsidered part of the requirements recommendations of thisstandard. The edition indicated for each referenced mandatorydocument is the current edition as of the date of the NFPAissuance of this standard. Some of these mandatory documentsmight also be referenced in this standard for specific informationalpurposes and, therefore, are also listed in Appendix A.”
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
330
SUBSTANTIATION: The revised language is intended to reflectthat the language contained within the proposed standard shouldbe considered recommendations rather than mandatoryrequirements. The deployment of resources, and the scope andlevel of service provided by the fire department should remain alocal jurisdictional issue. In addition, the use of the wordmandatory suggests that use or adoption of the proposed standardcould result in the mandatory use of other standards, includingNFPA 1500.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This is a required statement in allNFPA documents that are minimum standards.
___________________
(Log #2147)1710- 547 - (5-1): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The following documents or...as mandatory requirementsrecommendations and shall should be considered part...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-546 (Log #1866).
___________________
(Log #1867)1710- 548 - (A-1-1): RejectSUBMITTER: Steven R. Nuttall, City of Bellevue Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: A-1-1 The standard includes minimum requirementsrecommendations that are intended to provide effective, efficient,and safe protective services that operate on a sound basis to preventfires and reduce risk to lives and property, to deal with incidentsthat occur, and to prepare for anticipated incidents. It setsminimum standards considered necessary for the provision ofpublic fire protection by career fire departments. It addresses thestructure and operation of organizations providing such services,including fire suppression and other assigned emergency responseresponsibilities, including emergency medical services and specialoperations.SUBSTANTIATION: The revised language is intended to reflectthat the language contained within the proposed standard shouldbe considered recommendations rather than minimumrequirements. The deployment of resources, and the scope andlevel of service provided by the fire department should remain alocal jurisdictional issue. In addition, the use of the wordminimum requirements suggests that use or adoption of theproposed standard requires that a local jurisdiction providedeployment of resources in strict compliance with this standard,without due regard to local conditions, efforts to understand localhazards, or implementation of alternative strategies, including theuse of built-in fire protection.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-546 (Log #1866).
___________________
(Log #2073)1710- 549 - (A-1-1): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Burnett, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The standard includes minimum requirementsrecommendations that are... It sets minimum standardsrecommendations considered for anticipated incidents...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-546 (Log #1866).
___________________
(Log #2148)1710- 550 - (A-1-1): RejectSUBMITTER: Dennis England, City of Hillsboro FireDept./Washington County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The standard includes minimum requirementsrecommendations that are... It sets minimum standardsrecommendations considered for anticipated incidents...”.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to the NFPA establishingrequirements to which fire departments must adhere. NFPAshould make recommendations that local jurisdictions can use asguidelines in establishing the level of service they will provide.These decisions should be made by elected or appointed officialscharged with the responsibility of making this determination, notthe NFPA.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-546 (Log #1866).
___________________
(Log #1730)1710- 551 - (A-2-1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Bobby Williams, Spokane Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The authority having jurisdiction governing body generally hasthe responsibility to determine the following: (a) The scope and level of service provided by the firedepartment (b) The necessary level of funding (c) The necessary level of personnel and resources, includingfacilities In order to provide service, the AHJ governing body should havethe power to levy taxes or solicit funding, to own property andequipment, and to cover personnel costs. The authority necessaryis conveyed by law to a local jurisdiction.”SUBSTANTIATION: The draft text appears to inappropriatelyinterchange the responsibility of the AHJ and the governing body.While the AHJ may recommend the items outlined in (a), (b) and(c). It is normally the governing body that has the responsibilityfor determining those items. Additionally, it is normally thegoverning body that has the power to levy taxes, solicit funds, etc.,not the AHJ.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: AHJ is a standardized NFPA term.By using the term governing body it would limit the scope of thedocument.
___________________
(Log #1171)1710- 552 - (A-2-1.1(a)): RejectSUBMITTER: Jackie T. Gibbs, Marietta Fire and EmergencyServicesRECOMMENDATION : Delete the following text: (a) The scope and level of service provided by the firedepartment.SUBSTANTIATION: Conflicts with NFPA 1710.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: There is no conflict, this is NFPA1710.
___________________
(Log #1170)1710- 553 - (A-2-1.1(c)): RejectSUBMITTER: Jackie T. Gibbs, Marietta Fire and EmergencyServicesRECOMMENDATION : Delete the following text: (c) The necessary level of personnel and resources, includingfacilitiesSUBSTANTIATION: Conflicts with NFPA 1710.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: There is no conflict, this is NFPA1710.
___________________
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
331
(Log #1822)1710- 554 - (A-3-2.1.2.1): AcceptSUBMITTER: J. Gordon Routley, Champlain, NYRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: An early aggressive and offensive primary interior attack on aworking fire results in greatly reduced loss of life and propertydamage. , where feasible, is usually the most effective strategy toreduce loss of lives and property damage. SUBSTANTIATION: As proposed this statement appears to be astatement of absolute fact applicable in all situations. The revisedlanguage places the thought in a more appropriate context.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.
___________________
(Log #8)1710- 555 - (A-3-2.3.1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: L. Charles Smeby, Jr., FL State Fire CollegeRECOMMENDATION : Add a new appendix item to read asfollows: “After a through evaluation of a fire department's actual timedresponses, there may be some areas with existing response timeslower that the standard. For areas that have excessive response time above the standard, itis a simple matter of building new stations to meet the responsetime criteria. For existing situations it is not so simple. In existing developed areas, there may be structures that requireheavier responses or quicker response times. For example, anolder six story walkup apartment of questionable fire resistiveconstruction, may take up to 10 minutes for fire companies to"setup" hoselines to operate on the fire. Remember, newerconstruction is generally built using contemporary building andfire codes. The other major problem of aliening the stations to fit theresponse time standard in existing situations is the reality that it isnot just building one new station, but may require the relocationand building of several fire stations to take care of a low responsetime. Many existing situations of response times below this standard canbe justified by cost-benefit analysis or fire hazard potential. It isrecommended that a through analysis be conducted before closing,consolidation or relocating any existing fire stations.”SUBSTANTIATION: To give guidance to decision makers whomay look at this standard and attempt to fit existing situations intostrict compliance with this proposed response time standard.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee does not believe thatthe proposed language gives adequate guidance.
___________________
(Log #1869)1710- 556 - (A-3-3): RejectSUBMITTER: Lou Faehnrich, Bellevue Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “An Emergency Medical Services System is defined as acomprehensive, coordinated arrangement of resources andfunctions which are organized to respond in a timely, stagedmanner to medical emergencies, regardless of their cause. Theterm system may be applied locally, at the state or national level.For the purposes of this standard it shall mean locally. Thefundamental functions of an EMS system are the following: (a) System organization and management (b) Medical direction (c) Human resources & training (d) Communications (e) Emergency response (f) Transportation (g) Care facilities (h) Quality assurance (i) Public information & education (j) Disaster medical services (k) Research (l) Special populations”.
SUBSTANTIATION: The deleted items more appropriatelybelong in 3-3.4.1 as basic functions within an EMS system.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.The committee references NHTSA publication, EmergencyMedical Services, Agenda for the Future in Appendix B.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Proposal1710-443 (Log #31).
___________________(Log #1971)
1710- 557 - (A-3-3.4.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Chip Prather, Orange County Fire AuthorityRECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: A-3-3.4.2 The response times for fire suppression are alsoconsistent with those recommended by the American HeartAssociation (AHA) for delivery of pre-hospital emergency medicalcare. The AHA’s emergency medical services maximum responsetime recommendation is 4 minutes for initiation of basic lifesupport (BLS) and 8 minutes for initiation of advanced life support(ALS). For cardiac arrest, the highest hospital discharge rate has beenachieved in patients in whom CPR was initiated within 4 minutes ofarrest and ACLS within 8 minutes. Early bystander rescuebreathing or CPR intervention and fast emergency medical services(EMS ) response are therefore essential in improving survival rates.(The Journal of the American Medical Association, October 28,1992; p. 2184) The National Conference on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation andEmergency Cardiac Care recommends that all fire-fighting units beequipped with and trained to operate automatic externaldefibrillators and the following recommendation regardingminimum staffing per EMS response: Early ACLS provided by paramedics at the scene is another criticallink in the management of cardiac arrest. EMS systems should havesufficient staffing to provide a minimum of two rescuers trained inACLS to respond to the emergency. However, because of thedifficulties in treating cardiac arrest in the field, additionalresponders should be present. In systems that have attainedsurvival rates higher than 20% for patients with ventricularfibrillation, the response teams have a minimum of two ACLSproviders plus a minimum of two BLS personnel at the scene.Most experts agree that four responders (at least two trained inACLS and two trained in BLS) are the minimum required toprovide ACLS to cardiac arrest victims... (The Journal of theAmerican Medical Association, October 28, 1992; p. 2291).SUBSTANTIATION: Does not identify how this mix of personnelis accomplished; also fails to recognize role of local EMSAStandards in provisions of ALS care.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Mandatory text was deleted.
___________________
(Log #1868)1710- 558 - (B-1): RejectSUBMITTER: Steven R. Nuttall, City of Bellevue Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: “The following documents or portions thereof are referencedwithin this standard for informational purposes only and are thusnot considered part of the requirements of this standard unlessalso listed in Chapter 22. The edition indicated here for eachreference is the current edition as of the date of the NFPA issuanceof this standard.”SUBSTANTIATION: Although the reference to Chapter 22appears to be a typographical error, the deletion of the reference toan additional chapter is consistent with the viewpoint that theentire document should be considered as recommendations.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The document does not containrecommendations. Typographical error referencing Chapter 22has been changed to Chapter 5.
___________________
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
332
(Log #35)1710- 559 - (Entire Document): RejectSUBMITTER: John Shull, Scappoose Rural Fire Dist.Dennis Marceaux, Scappose Rural Fire Prot. (Log #51)Gloria Gass, Cloverdale, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist.
(Log #67)Mickey Hays, Beaver, OR/Nestucca Fire Protection Dist. (Log
#102)Greg Gass, Cloverdale, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist.
(Log #118)Mary Lou Fletcher, Beaver, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protection
Dist. (Log #134)Kevin Wickman, Keizer Fire Dist. (Log #150)Wayne Sandford, East Haven Fire (Log #163)Levi R. Beachy, Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #181)Roy O. Palmer, Polk County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #196)Dennis England, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept./Washington County
Fire Dist. #2 (Log #223)Dennis Ross, City of Hillsboro/Washington County Fire Dist. #2
(Log #232)Harold Edwards, Delhi Twp Fire Dept. (Log #293)Jeff Grunewald, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue (Log #355)Curtis E. Goodman, City of Norwood/Fire Dept. (Log #375)Darrell Hartmann, Brookings Fire Dept. (Log #394)Earl Cordes, Jefferson County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #432)Dan Marshall, Jackson County Fire Dist. #5 (Log #537)Dave Sterbenz, Kansas State Firefighters Assn. (Log #565)George E. “Scott” Dodd, II, Lake Oswego Fire, Rescue, & Life
Safety (Log #582)James L. Rankin, Eastside Fire & Rescue (Log #584)S. D. ‘Skip’ Smith, Santa Clara Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log
#597)Don Rowe, Sisters-Camp Sherman RFPD (Log #637)Paul Epler, Vernonia Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #701)Michael Sneddon, Charleston Fire Dist. (Log #702)Gary J. Hudson, St. Helens Rural Fire Dist. (Log #829)Matthew Shuler, Eugene Fire and EMS Dept./City of Eugene (Log
#830)Joel Stein, Keizer Fire Dist. (Log #777)Douglas VanPelt, Corvallis Fire Dept. (Log #781)Stephen D. Allen, Cottage Grove/South Lane Rural Fire Dept.
(Log #861)Cleve Rooper, Cannon Beach RFPD (Log #917)William H. Combs, Sutherlin Fire Dept./City of Sutherlin (Log
#934)Phil Sample, Lake Oswego Fire Rescue (Log #950)John Schlegel, Tri-City Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #962)Bill Alguire, Keizer Fire Dist. (Log #988)Ted Ames, Warrenton Fire Dept. (Log #1027)Paul Olheiser, Knappa Fire Dist. (Log #1100)Larry D. Eckhardt, Hoodland Fire Dist. (Log #1102)James R. Puchete, Seaside Fire & Rescue Dept./City of Seaside
(Log #1321)David B. Schelhaas, Scappoose Rural Fire Dept. (Log #1451)John R. McAdoo, Estacada Fire Dist. #69 (Log #1465)Dan O’Dell, Boring Fire Dist. #59 (Log #1470)Larry A. Long, Estacada Rural Fire Dist. #69 (Log #1504)Lanny R. Boston, Bandon Rural Fire Protection Dist. #8/City of
Bandon Fire Dept. (Log #1508)John A. Stein, Dallas Fire Dept. (Log #1525)Scott Nielson, Scappoose Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #1600)Jack R. Carriger, Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #1618)Aaron Vaughn, Scappoose Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log 1659)Dale Staib, Philomath Rural Fire Protection Dist. #4 (Log #1663)Jeff Griffin, Oregon Fire Chief’s Assn. (Log #1787)Charles R. Cable, Cloverdale Rural Fire Dist. (Log #1876)Chris Asanovic, Cornelius City/Rural Fire Dept. (Log #1892)Gary Abrams, NRFPD (Log #2158)Duaine M. Harding Jr., NRFPD (Log #2176)Joseph R. Guyotte, MSFFF (Log #2240)Michael S. Curtis, Dover-Foxcroft Fire Dept. (Log #2271)Darin Welburn, Jackson County Fire Dept. #5 (Log #2272)RECOMMENDATION : Delete NFPA 1710 in its entirety.SUBSTANTIATION: The NFPA, while they do an excellent jobwith technical standards, should not attempt to write a managerialstandard that involves local communities, governments andindividual departments. These are decisions best made at the locallevel, and there are other vehicles to address fire serviceorganization and management such as the IAFC Accreditation. Iam opposed to the development of NFPA 1710 and NFPA 1720, orany additional management standards for the fire service.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-562 (Log #219).
___________________
(Log #36)1710- 560 - (Entire Document): RejectSUBMITTER: John Shull, Scappoose Rural Fire Dist.Dennis Marceaux, Scappoose Rural Fire Prot. (Log #52)Gloria Gass, Cloverdale, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist.
(Log #68)Mickey Hays, Beaver, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist.
(Log #103)Greg Gass, Cloverdale, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist.
(Log #119)Mary Lou Fletcher, Beaver, OR/Nestucca Rural Fire Protection
Dist. (Log #135)Kevin Wickman, Keizer Fire Dist. (Log #151)Wayne Sandford, East Haven Fire (Log #164)Levi R. Beachy, Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #180)Roy O. Palmer, Polk County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #197)Calvin Johnson, Lewis County Fire Dist. #2 (Log #220)Dennis England, City of Hillsboro/Washington County Fire Dist.
#2/Hillsboro Fire Dept. (Log #224)Dennis Ross, City of Hillsboro/Washington County Fire Dist. #2
(Log #233)Dennis Ross, City of Hillsboro Fire Dept. (Log #242)Patricia Schrom, Grant County Fire Dist. #11/Fire Protection Dist.
(Log #273)Richard A. Knight, Fire Protection Dist. #5 Mason County (Log
#291)Harold Edwards, Delhi Twp Fire Dept. (Log #302)Dean R. Shank, Central Kitsap Fire Rescue/Central Kitsap Fire
Rescue Chief Officers (Log #310)William Steel, Pierce County Fire Dist. #26 (Log #338)Jeff Grunewald, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue (Log #356)Curtis E. Goodman, City of Norwood/Fire Dept. (Log #384)Darrell Hartmann, Brookings Fire Dept. (Log #403)Ted Biermann, Adams County Fire Protection Dist. #2 (Log #413)Earl Cordes, Jefferson County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #431)D. J. Cornish, Manzanita, OR/Mazanita Fire Dept. (Log #467)Judd Burrow, Manzanita, OR/Manzanita Public Safety (Log #483)JeremyStrozyk, Nehalem, OR/Manzanita Public Safety (Log #499)Bret Siler, Nehalem, OR/Manzanita Fire Dept. (Log #515)Dan Marshall, Jackson County Fire Dist. #5 (Log #524)Jerry McDowell, Whatcom County Fire Protection Dist. #1 (Log
#548)Bruce Holloway, Spokane County Fire Dist. #3 (Log #558)David M. Sterbenz, Kansas State Firefighters Assn. (Log #566)George E. “Scott” Dodd II, Lake Oswege Fire, Rescue & Life Safety
(Log #581)S. D. ‘Skip’ Smith, Santa Clara Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log
#596)Charles Hennigan, Thurston County Fire Protection Dist. #13 (Log
#611)Don Rowe, Sisters—Camp Sherman RFPD (Log #638)Duane M. Malo, Washington State Assn. Of fire Chiefs (Log #660)Jon C. Bugher, Clallam County Fire Dist. #2 (Log #683)Paul Epler, Vernonia Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #700)Michael J. Sneddon, Charleston Fire Dist. (Log #703)Brad Litthans, Snohowish County FPD #15 (Log #733)Jim Gustafson, LaPine Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #736)Ken Walkington, Kitsap County Fire Dist. #14 (Log #744)Joel Stein, Keizer Fire Dist. (Log #776)Douglas VanPelt, Corvallis Fire Dept. (Log #782)William Seifert, Skamania County, WA (Log #791)Michael Brondi, SCFD #19/Rockport Marblemt. Fire Depts. (Log
#801)Gary J. Hudson, St. Helens Rural Fire Dist. (Log #820)Matthew Shuler, Eugene Fire and EMS Dept. (Log #831)Scott Koehler, Stanwood Fire Dept. (Log #853)Stephen D. Allen, Cottage Grove/South Lane Rural Fire Dept.
(Log #862)Dan Stout, Fire Dist. #8 – Spokane County (Log #884)J. Ben Reisz, Sumner, WA (Log #894)Louis Hayvaz, Thurston County Fire Protection Dist. #13 (Log
#903)Monty Moore, Kittites County Fire Dist. #8 (Log #914)Cleve Rooper, Cannon Beach RFPD (Log #919)William H. Combs, Sutherlin Fire Dept./City of Sutherlin (Log
#935)Charles W. Edwards, Hansville, WA/Kitsap Fire Protection Dist.
#14 (Log #959)
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
333
John Schlegel, Tri-City RFPD (Log #963)Bill Schmitt, Klickitat County Fire Protection Dist. #13 (Log #985)Bill Alguire, Keizer Fire Dist. (Log #989)Craig Helgeland, Camano Island Fire & Rescue (Log #1022)Ted Ames, Warrenton Fire Dept. (Log #1028)David Elkins, KCFPD #4/WFCA (Log #1038)Dale Mitchell, Pierce County Fire Dist. #8 (Log #1050)Paul M. Olheiser, Knappa Fire Dist. (Log #1101)Larry D. Eckhardt, Hoodland Fire Dist. #74 (Log #1103)Mike Rieger, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1124)Jake Doty, Pierce County Fire Dist. #20 (Log #1133)Charles Spittles, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1155)Cindy Manning, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1192)Corey Tohl, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1208)Terry Zuercher, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1224)Tennessee Hodgdon, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1240)Thomas G. Miller, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1264)Roy Ellerbroek, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1280)Mike Ellerbroek, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1296)Aaron Burris, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1304)Leonard Ingles, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1329)Steven Stelzig, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1337)Frank Reding, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1353)Leroy Goff, Sumner, WA/City of Sumner (Log #1369)Kyle Sheets, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1387)Tim Hamburger, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1395)Ken Aufdemaur, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1411)Kyle Adams, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1435)David B. Schelhaas, Scappoose Rural Fire Dept. (Log #1442)John R. McAdoo, Estacada Fire Dist. #69 (Log #1466)Dan O’Dell, Boring Fire Dist. (Log #1469)Larry A. Long, Estacada Rural Fire Dist. #69 (Log #1505)Lanny R. Boston, Bandon Rural Fire Protection Dist. #8/Bandon
City Fire Dept./Southwestern Oregon Fire Chiefs Assn. (Log#1507)
John A. Stein, Dallas Fire Dept. (Log #1526)Robert D. Wilson, Quilcene, WA/Quilene Vol. Fire Dept. (Log
#1597)Jack R. Carrigen, Nestucca Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #1619)Scott Nielson, Scappoose Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #1634)Aaron Vaughn, Scappoose Rural Fire Protection Dist. (Log #1660)Dale Staib, Philomath RFPD #4 (Log #1664)Scott Pearson, Snohomish County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1708)Jeff Griffin, Oregon Fire Chiefs’ Assn. (Log #1778)Allan MacKay, Sedro-Woelley, WA/Whatcom County Fire
Protection Dist. #18 (Log #1835)Charles R. Cable, Cloverdale Rural Fire Dist. (Log #1877)Chris Asanovic, Cornelius City/Rural Fire Dept. (Log #1893)David Chastain, Clallam County Fire Protection Dist. #4 (Log
#1915)Ted Gettman, Cowlitz County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1928)Robert Wilson, Jefferson County Fire Dist. #2 (Log #1937)Wayne Kier, Jefferson County Fire Dist. #3 (Log #1947)Jane Lee, KCFPD #7 (Log #1974)Robert J. Kilpeck, Brandon Fire Dept. (Log #1983)Michael Purcell, Tangent RFPD (Log #1986)Edward A. Lewis, Spokane County Fire Dist. #4 (Log #2156)Gary Abrams, NRFPD (Log #2164)Duaine M. Harding Sr., NRFPD (Log #2185)Lyle J. Payne, Pleasant Hill RFPD (Log #2209)Joseph R. Guyette, Dover-Foxcroft, ME/MSFFF (Log #2255)Michael S. Curtis, Dover-Foxcroft Fire Dept. (Log #2256)Darin Welburn, Jackson County FD. #5 (Log #2273)RECOMMENDATION : Delete proposed NFPA 1710 in its entirety.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to this standard in its entiretybecause it deprives local jurisdictions to determine their own levelof service.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-562 (Log #219).
___________________
(Log #97)1710- 561 - (Entire Document): RejectSUBMITTER: Dwight B. Van Zanen, Maple Valley Fire and LifeSafety/Rep. King County Fire Protection Dist. #43Duane M. Malo, Washington State Assn. of Fire Chiefs (Log #666)RECOMMENDATION : Revise text to read as follows: In Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5 delete shall and insert should in alllocations. In Chapter 5, delete mandatory and insert recommended inSection 5-1.
SUBSTANTIATION: The use of “shall” and “mandatory” areinconsistent with the scope and purpose stated in Chapter one.See 1-1.1, 1-2.1, and the definitions of “shall” and “should” in 1-3.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The document is a minimumstandard requiring required text.
___________________
(Log #219)1710- 562 - (Entire Document): RejectSUBMITTER: Calvin Johnson, Lewis County Fire Dist. #2Patricia Schrom, Grant County Fire Protection Dist. #11/FireProtection Dist. (Log #271)Richard A. Knight, Fire Protection Dist. #5 Mason County (Log#283)William Steel, Pierce County Fire Dist. #26 (Log #337)Ted Biermann, Adams County Fire Protection Dist. #2 (Log #412)D. J. Cornish, Manzanita, OR/Manzanita Fire Dept. (Log #466)Judd Burrow, Manzanita, OR/Manzanita Public Safety (Log #482)Jeremy Strozyuk, Nehalem, OR/Manzanita Public Safety (Log #498)Bret Siler, Nehalem, OR/Manzanita Fire Dept. (Log #514)Jerry McDowell, Whatcom County Fire Protection Dist. #1 (Log#547)Bruce Holloway, Spokane County Fire Dist. #3 (Log #557)Charles Hennigan, Thurston County Fire Protection Dist. #13 (Log#610)Duane M. Malo, Washington State Assn. of Fire Chiefs (Log #658)Jon C. Bugher, Clallam County Fire Dist. 2 (Log #682)Brad Litthams, Snohowash County Fire Protection Dist. #15 (Log#732)Ken Walkington, Kitsap County Fire Dist. #14 (Log #743)William Seifert, Skamania County (WA) Fire Dist. #6 (Log #790)Michael Brondi, SCFD #19/Rockport/Marblemt. Fire Depts. (Log#800)Scott Koehler, Stanwood Fire Dept. (Log #852)Dan Stout, Fire Dist. #8 – Spokane County (Log #883)J. Ben Reisz, Sumner, WA (Log #893)Louis Hayvaz, Thurston County Protection Dist. #13 (Log #902)Monty Moore, Kittitas County Fire Dist. #8 (Log #913)Charles W. Edwards, Hansville, WA/Kitsap Fire Protection Dist.#14 (Log #958)Bill Schmitt, Klickitat County Fire Protection Dist. #13 (Log #984)Bill Knannlein, Grays Harbor County Fire CommissionersAssn./Grays Harbor Fire Dist. #10 (Log #1002)Craig Helgeland, Camano Island Fire & Rescue (Log #1021)David Elkins, KCFPD #4/WFCA (Log #1037)Dale Mitchell, Pierce County Fire Dist. #8 (Log #1048)Mike Rieger, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1123)Charles Spittles, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1154)Cindy Manning, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1191)Corey Tohl, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1207)Terry Zuercher, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1223)Tennessee Hodgdon, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1239)Thomas G. Miller, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1263)Roy Ellerbroek, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1279)Mike Ellerbroek, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1295)Aaron Burris, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1303)Leonard Ingles, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1328)Steven Stelzig, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1336)Frank Reding, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1352)Leroy Goff, Sumner, WA/City of Sumner (Log #1368)Kyle Sheets, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1386)Tim Hamburger, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1394)Ken Aufdenmauer, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1410)Kyle Adams, Tillamook Fire Dist. (Log #1434)Robert D. Wilson, Quilcene, WA/Quilcene Vol. Fire Dept. (Log#1596)Scott Pearson, Snohomish County Fire Dist. #1 (Log #1707)Allan MacKay, Sedro-Woolley, WA/Whatcom County FireProtection Dist. #18 (Log #1829)David Chastain, Clallam County Fire Protection Dist. #4 (Log#1916)Robert Wilson, Jefferson County Fire Dist. #2 (Log #1936)Wayne Kier, Jefferson County Fire Dist. #2 (Log #1946)Jane Lee, KCFPD #7 (Log #1973)Edward A. Lewis, Spokane County Fire Dist. #4 (Log #2153)Lyle J. Payne, Pleasant Hill RFPD (Log #2210)RECOMMENDATION : Delete the following text in its entirety: “1-1* Scope...A-4-2.1.1.”SUBSTANTIATION: I am opposed to the fire service having thedouble standard of NFPA 1710 and NFPA 1720. NFPA 1710 isNOT a viable option.
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
334
COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee believes that thecommittee has fulfilled its mandate to develop a minimumstandard for career fire service deployment and organization.
___________________
(Log #310)1710- 563 - (Entire Document): RejectSUBMITTER: Dean R. Shank, Central Kitsap Fire RescueRECOMMENDATION : Delete the proposed NFPA 1710 standardin its entirety.SUBSTANTIATION: This standard attempts to establishmandated service levels. We oppose this standard in its entiretybecause it does not allow for local diversity or allow the communityto determine their own level of service. In reviewing the proposed NFPA 1710 and NFPA 1720 standardsby out nine (9) Chief Officers, we generally agreed with whatappears to be the intent of the standards. But it would appear thatNFPA is attempting to establish a minimum standard of care byestablishing minimum staffing levels and minimum response times.This is admirable, until you consider the far-reaching implicationsthat will have to local governance. We do agree that everydepartment in the national should establish an appropriate level ofservice to their community, but feel that a national standard wouldnot, nor could not, be met by every agency. Acknowledging thatNFPA standards are developed as a model industry standard meantfor voluntary compliance, history has repeatedly shown thatcreation of NFPA’s standards creates a model with an impliedobligation for compliance. With this understanding, Central Kitsap Fire and Rescuerecommends that both the NFPA 1710 and NFPA 1720 standardsare deleted in their entirety.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-562 (Log #219).
___________________
(Log #311)1710- 564 - (Entire Document): RejectSUBMITTER: Dean R. Shank, Central Kitsap Fire RescueRECOMMENDATION : This standard attempts to establishmandated service levels. We oppose these standards in theirentirety because they do not allow for local diversity or allow thecommunity to determine their own level of service.SUBSTANTIATION: None.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-562 (Log #219).
___________________
(Log #583)1710- 565 - (Entire Document): RejectSUBMITTER: George E. (Scott) Dodd, II, Lake Oswego Fire,Rescue & Life SafetyRECOMMENDATION : Delete NFPA 1710 in its entirety.SUBSTANTIATION: Oregon has and continues to face voterbacked tax revolt initiatives. They limit and cut tax rates so thatmany cities and fire districts have had to lay off personnel and shutdown stations. A new initiative on the 2000 ballot forcesgovernments to look at privatization of most of its services,including fire. Compliance with NFPA 1710 would double mybudget, possibly causing our voters to move to privatization.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-562 (Log #219).
___________________
(Log #631)1710- 566 - (Entire Document): RejectSUBMITTER: Randall P. Iverson, Jackson County Fire Dist #3RECOMMENDATION : Delete NFPA 1710 in its entirety.SUBSTANTIATION: The issues of level of service should be leftto local decision. They are planning issues and should not besubject to national standards.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-562 (Log #219).
___________________
(Log #632)1710- 567 - (Entire Document): RejectSUBMITTER: Joseph M. Kolisch, Enumclaw Fire Dept./King Co.Fire Dist. 28RECOMMENDATION : Delete proposed NFPA 1710 in its entirety.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to this standard in its entirety. Thecreation of dual standards for the fire service opens the fire serviceto criticism, both internally and externally. For the fire service toremain united we can not have dual standards that separate careerand volunteer personnel and organizations. No matter whether aservice is provided by career, volunteer or a combination ofpersonnel, the task is the same. For this reason we can not havedual standards.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-562 (Log #219).
___________________(Log #633)
1710- 568 - (Entire Document): RejectSUBMITTER: Alan D. Predmore, City of Buckley Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Delete proposed NFPA 1710 in its entirety.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to this standard in its entirety. Thecreation of dual standards for the fire service opens the fire serviceto criticism, both internally and externally. For the fire service toremain united we can not have dual standards that separate careerand volunteer personnel and organizations. No matter whether aservice is provided by career, volunteer or a combination ofpersonnel, the task is the same. For this reason we can not havedual standards.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-562 (Log #219).
___________________(Log #660)
1710- 569 - (Entire Document): RejectSUBMITTER: Duane M. Malo, Washington State Assn. of FireChiefsRECOMMENDATION : Delete proposed NFPA 1710 in its entirety.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to these standards in their entiretybecause they deprive local jurisdictions responsibility to evaluatetheir own level of service and risk.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-562 (Log #219).
___________________
(Log #671)1710- 570 - (Entire Document): RejectSUBMITTER: Joseph M. Kolisch, Enumclaw Fire Dept./King Co.Fire Dist. 28RECOMMENDATION : Delete the text of NFPA 1710 in itsentirety.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to this standard in its entirety. Sucha standard would deprive local jurisdictions of their responsibilityto determine their local level of service based on their needsand/or demands. Such a standard would disable a jurisdictionfrom its ability to provide customer service based on the demandsand expectations of their local community.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-562 (Log #219).
___________________
(Log #672)1710- 571 - (Entire Document): RejectSUBMITTER: Joseph M. Kolisch, Enumclaw Fire Dept./King Co.Fire Dist. 28RECOMMENDATION : Delete text in its entirety.SUBSTANTIATION: I am against the creation of doublestandards, as is proposed with NFPA 1710 and NFPA 1720. Nomatter whether a fire department is volunteer, career, orcombination, they serve the same purpose and perform the samefunction/tasks. Double standards would further create adivision/separation between career and volunteer fire personnel.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-562 (Log #219).
___________________
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
335
(Log #747)1710- 572 - (Entire Document): RejectSUBMITTER: John Becker, Victorville Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Proposed delete entire standard.SUBSTANTIATION: You are creating a standard that is notobtainable by most fire departments in the U.S. Staffing andservice levels must be local agency issues -- not national policy. After reviewing proposed NFPA Standard No. 1710, I wasastounded that such a document would even be proposed. Thecreation of such a national standard without respect to theeconomic impact is irresponsible and a disservice to firedepartments throughout the United States. Where would youpropose we obtain the funding to staff apparatus with five personsor construct twice as many fire stations as we presently operate? Itis quite simple to merely state “create a fee or vote in anassessment;” however, stark reality has shown us the voters are notlikely to increase taxes or fees. The level of staffing, location of fire stations, response times, andlevels of service must be determined locally by the elected officialsin response to the requests and needs of the citizens whom theyrepresent. As a professional firefighter for twenty-seven years, I amopposed to NFPA No. 1710 in its entirety and strongly recommendit be rewritten. I am an advocate of the R.I.T. concept and I.C.S.,and our department operates daily within those parameters. I will remain opposed to any national staffing doctrine orestablishment of service levels until such time as the state or federalgovernment funds such standards to the suggested levels.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-562 (Log #219).
___________________
(Log #859)1710- 573 - (Entire Document): RejectSUBMITTER: John Troeger, Green Bay Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Delete 1710 in its entirety.SUBSTANTIATION: This standard would unduly restrict localjurisdictions in the determination of the type and quality of FireService and EMS Service to provide.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-562 (Log #219).
___________________
(Log #951)1710- 574 - (Entire Document): RejectSUBMITTER: Larry D. Goff, Lake Oswego Dept of Fire, Rescue &Life SafetyRECOMMENDATION : Delete proposed NFPA 1710 in its entirety.SUBSTANTIATION: NFPA 1710 would deprive local jurisdictionsthe right to determine their own level of service. NFPA needs tostay in technical standards. Managerial standards such as 1710 and1720 are not best addressed by the NFPA. If NFPA moves intomanagerial standards it will hurt technical standards process.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-562 (Log #219).
___________________
(Log #1051)1710- 575 - (Entire Document): RejectSUBMITTER: Wayne Waggoner, Tennessee Fire CodeDevelopment CommitteeRECOMMENDATION : Document needs to be sent back tocommittee for consideration of combining both NFPA 1710 and1720.SUBSTANTIATION: The committee feels that the document wasput together too quickly, Review period too short, requirementsthat cannot be legally met by Fire Departments, FundingConsideration, no consistency between the standards developed byNFPA, Set type of activities stay out of the personnel issues,Classifications of combination departments is subjective,Jeopardizing the small fire departments, No references to CodeEnforcement and Public Fire Education, Risk factors are the samefor both types of departments.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-562 (Log #219).
___________________
(Log #1134)1710- 576 - (Entire Document): RejectSUBMITTER: Gary Turner, Montclair Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : SUBSTANTIATION: Unless this proposal is backed by anunlimited amount of money for personnel and equipment, theproposed staffing levels and response times are not realistic formost fire depts. in the U.S. Level of service is a matter of localcontrol.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-562 (Log #219).
___________________(Log #1164)
1710- 577 - (Entire Document): RejectSUBMITTER: Jackie T. Gibbs, Marietta Fire and EmergencyServicesRECOMMENDATION : Delete proposed document.SUBSTANTIATION: The committee has issued no technical datato support this radical proposal. The organization and deploymentof fire department resources should be a performance standard. Aprescriptive approach is not acceptable.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-562 (Log #219).
___________________
(Log #1497)1710- 578 - (Entire Document): RejectSUBMITTER: Alan D. Predmore, City of Buckley Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Delete the text of NFPA 1710 in itsentirety.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to these standards in their entirety.Such a standard would deprive local jurisdictions of theirresponsibility to determine their local level of service based ontheir needs and/or demands. Such a standard would disable ajurisdiction from its ability to provide customer service based onthe demands and expectations of their local community.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-562 (Log #219).
___________________
(Log #1498)1710- 579 - (Entire Document): RejectSUBMITTER: Alan D. Predmore, City of Buckley Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Delete text in its entirety.SUBSTANTIATION: I am against the creation of doublestandards, as is proposed with standard 1710 and 1720. No matterwhether a fire department is volunteer, career, or combination,they serve the same purpose and perform the same function/tasks.Double standards would further create a division/separationbetween career and volunteer fire personnel.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-562 (Log #219).
___________________(Log #1679)
1710- 580 - (Entire Document): RejectSUBMITTER: Ben F. Owens, Show Low Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Having just read my October/NovemberUpdates article on the "NFPA's Fire Service Organization andDeployment Projects Move Forward" one important questioncomes to mind. Just where do the many Combination Departmentsin this Country fall into these two standards?SUBSTANTIATION: Trying to force us between the cracks and fitus into the middle of two standards will serve only to injure ouroperations. If there is a thought process in the committees thatwould assist those Chiefs like myself that are constantly challengingpoliticians over needed department growth I would like to hear it. Ican tell you now, those politicians will hammer us with the NFPA1710 being too demanding, therefore, limiting the combinationChief's efforts in trying to develop and run a department that needsto exceed the NFPA 1720 standards. I fear that we will see politicians using these Standards as a tool toeliminate or at least stall and discourage growth from Volunteer toCombination Departments. I fear their (politicians) attitude willbe, "we could never meet NFPA 1710 criteria so we might as wellreduce our Department so they meet NFPA 1720 ". I believe you
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
336
can read between those lines as to what will happen with the "Combination Departments" if the politicians can choosestandards!! Not all of us have the resources (Financial or Population) to be "Full-time paid" or " All Volunteer" therefore we have adapted witha combination of both systems to provide a services to ourCommunities. Please, don't misunderstand me, I support thesestandards - I just fear they have left out a very large, importantsegment of the Fire Service.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-562 (Log #219).
___________________(Log #1680)
1710- 581 - (Entire Document): RejectSUBMITTER: Ronald B. Irwin, The City of Sparks Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : I strongly object to the staffing asrecommended in the proposed NFPA 1710, and request that thesecomments be forwarded to the Committee. First, this proposed standard is the continued result of severalother proposed standards that have failed. This result is an endrun by the labor group IAFF and others that have no regard forlocal jurisdiction financial conditions. When IAFF pulled out ofNFPA, after their defeat in New Orleans, they had continued theirefforts by discussing the standards. When the last proposed NFPA1200 failed, mainly by the volunteer side, they again came back withNFPA 1710 and NFPA 1720. The volunteer standard, NFPA 1720,has nothing for standardized staffing; however, NFPA 1710 forcareer departments does address staffing. This is discrimination. Second, this proposed standard will cause financial difficulty forsmaller cities, which they may not be able to handle, and mayresult in a down sizing of their department. This standard wouldtake away the authority of local jurisdictions to set their ownstandards and may cause some departments to go backwardsinstead of growing. In today’s world, when 99 percent of our incidents are not firecalls, it is not always the wisest investment to have the large staffingthat is proposed by NFPA 1710. Third, there is no room for exception to the rules, such as theexception of the 2 in/2 out rule.SUBSTANTIATION: I would hope that you reconsider, removingthe staffing portion of 3-2.2, entitled “Operating Units,” and letlocal entities operate their department the best and safest possibleway they can with funds that they have available.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-562 (Log #219).
___________________
(Log #1695)1710- 582 - (Entire Document): RejectSUBMITTER: John A. Dutch, City of Norman Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Delete the entire document.SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed standard presents a “one sizefits all” approach formula, utilizing as a model, a city that is sounique and different in and of itself that there are few, if any, othercities just like it in any meaningful way. Such an approachdisregards local needs, conditions, capabilities, and whether or notdesirable fire protection outcomes are already being met.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-562 (Log #219).
___________________
(Log #1731)1710- 583 - (Entire Document): RejectSUBMITTER: Daniel Center, Cedar Hammock Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Eliminate minimum planningrequirements of 3-2.2.1, 3-2.2.2, 3-2.3.1.2, and 3-2.3.2.2(c).SUBSTANTIATION: A-2-1.1(c) minimum planning levels do notallow the governing body to set the specific services and the limit ofthe services the fire department will provide.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-562 (Log #219).
___________________
(Log #1751)1710- 584 - (Entire Document): RejectSUBMITTER: Norman G. Angelo, Kent Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Delete proposed NFPA 1710 in its entirety,and rewrite it with an emphasis on managing risk to firefighters(allowing for the realities of different levels of risk by situations andcommunity hazard vulnerability) and respecting the right of acommunity to set its acceptable level of risk. Instead of setting uni-standards for each community - it would be more appropriate torequire each community to identify its acceptable level of riskthrough a public process involving diverse representation from thegrass root citizen level of a community.SUBSTANTIATION: While there are many good conceptsexpressly within the standard, there are far too many parts thatmake generic assumptions about the Fire & Life SafetyEnvironment, level of risk to Firefighters, and the acceptable levelof risk to a specific community. One size fits all solution will causemany communities to come into compliance using approaches thatwill result in increased risks to firefighters, citizens and the generalcommunity. A better approach would be to identify a standard thatwould: A. Allow a community to adjust response time and staffingstandards based on alternative methods of risk reduction (e.g.sprinklers, proactive EMS services in conjunction with the healthagencies, proactive involvement of business and citizens inpreparing for and reducing risk, etc.) B. And respect the right of a community to identify theiracceptable level of risk as long as they identify companionstandards that provide for firefighter safety. Insurance rates shouldprovide a partial balance for the communities in addressing risk.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-562 (Log #219).
___________________
(Log #1775)1710- 585 - (Entire Document): RejectSUBMITTER: J. Kenneth Jones, Speer, Hoyt, Jones, Poppe, Wolf& Griffith, P.C.RECOMMENDATION : Not to adopt document.SUBSTANTIATION: This standard is not needed and isinherently contradictory to the premise of local control by the localjurisdiction that is clearly described in A-2-1.1. Departments, asyou acknowledge, have governing bodies. Those bodies set thelevel of service to be provided in their area. This service level iscontingent upon the various needs of the area and the operationalmonies available. To set an artificial level of response and services in a vacuumwithout taking into account the various requirements andrestrictions in local jurisdictions is irresponsible. Already in placeare OSHA requirements for firefighter safety. These are veryspecific. In place are Haz-Mat requirements, training requirementsand EMS requirements. These requirements vary from departmentto department depending on the jurisdictions’ obligations as theyrelate to certain emergencies. Oregon has achieved the lowestworkers compensation rates in the nation by having excellent localtraining geared to local needs. This is ignored in a blanketstandard. A-1-3 indicates, NFPA standards may be considered a compliancestandard. Any department that does not meet this standard may besubjected to extensive litigation over claims for excess propertydamages or delays in treatment or services based on this artificialstandard, without any consideration of the fiscal or physical factsthat must be balanced on a daily basis by local jurisdictions.Creating additional claims and areas for tort lawyers would be theresult ignoring the realities existing in any local jurisdiction.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-562 (Log #219).
___________________
(Log #1807)1710- 586 - (Entire Document): RejectSUBMITTER: Robert Dodge, City of North Las Vegas Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : None.SUBSTANTIATION: The City of North Las Vegas FireDepartment feels compelled to address the NFPA in regards to theadoption process of Standard 1710. It is the view of thisDepartment that the proposed Standard is an abstract attempt todictate the manning and equipment levels of hundreds of careerFire Departments across the United States. This seems to be a
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
337
political departure from the fiduciary purpose of the organization.There are certainly ideas and concepts included in the documentthat have merit and encourage further discovery, but require broadspectrums of application. For this organization to specify throughthe word “shall”, unyielding methods of service delivery, is adisservice to itself and all Fire Departments across the nation. Therespect that the NFPA has earned through its standards asunbiased, scientific applications would be severely compromisedby this Standard. Even though the Standard is careful to spell outthe duties and ability of the “Authority having Jurisdiction” to setservice levels, the National Fire Protection Association has achievedthe distinguished status, nationally, as the “minimum acceptableindustry standard”, and thereby dictates the operations of FireDepartments. It is our position that specifics as to manning andservice delivery should not be spelled out through this document,but rather the methods used to achieve them should be exploited. One example of this recently manifested itself through the OSHARespiratory Protection Act, here the resultant safety of thepersonnel was addressed, not their method of arrival, as theindicated minimum four personnel assigned to an engine wouldseem to mandate. This Department would encourage the NFPA tochannel its energies into areas that provide fewer politicalimplications and address more societal changes. The widespreadproliferation of fire sprinklers would provide a ten-fold advantageverses the proposed standard. Why not make fire sprinklers in allstructures a minimum acceptable standard and obtain ownershipof the process for the entire nation. As presented in the proposed standard, the minimum standardsprovide for what is viewed by this Department as an unfundedmandate, which the Nevada State Constitution provides no methodof relief as taxes are dictated by it. Lets get back to thetechnological age and invent new methods and ideas to providesafer and more complete service to our constituents, withoutundue fiscal burdens on the people of our communities. We hopethat our voice in this matter is echoed one hundred fold bycomments on this proposal, and the committee chooses to take afresh approach to this Standard.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-562 (Log #219).
___________________
(Log #1838)1710- 587 - (Entire Document): RejectSUBMITTER: Peter R. Lucarelli, Bellevue Fire Department, WARECOMMENDATION : Delete and discontinue the proposedNFPA 1710 standard in its entirety.SUBSTANTIATION: I strongly object to the proposed NFPA 1710standards in their entirety due to the unfunded mandates imposed,and loss of local authority and responsibility to evaluate anddetermine the level of service and acceptable risk within theircommunity.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-562 (Log #219).
___________________
(Log #1912)1710- 588 - (Entire Document): RejectSUBMITTER: J. Kenneth Jones, Speer, Hoyt, Jones, Poppe, Wolf& Griffith, P.C./Rep. Oregon Fire Dist. Directors Assn.RECOMMENDATION : Do not adopt the document.SUBSTANTIATION: This standard is not needed and isinherently contradictory to the premise of local control by the localjurisdiction that is clearly described in A-2-1.1 Departments, as youacknowledge, have governing bodies. Those bodies set the level ofservice to be provided in their area. This service level is contingentupon the various needs of the area and the operational moniesavailable. To set an artificial level of response and services in a vacuumwithout taking into account the various requirements andrestrictions in local jurisdictions is irresponsible. Already in placeare OSHA requirements for firefighter safety. These are veryspecific. In place are Haz-Mat requirements, training requirementsand EMS requirements. These requirements vary from departmentto department depending on the jurisdictions’ obligations as theyrelate to certain emergencies. Oregon has achieved the lowestworkers compensation rates in the nation by having excellent localtraining geared to local needs. This is ignored in a blanketstandard.
A-1-3 indicates, NFPA standards may be considered a compliancestandard. Any department that does not meet this standard may besubjected to extensive litigation over claims for excess propertydamages or delays in treatment or services based on is artificialstandard, without any consideration of the fiscal or physical factsthat must be balanced on a daily basis by local jurisdictions.Creating additional claims and areas for tort lawyers would be theresult ignoring the realities existing in any local jurisdiction.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-562 (Log #219).
___________________
(Log #1914)1710- 589 - (Entire Document): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Asher, Rep. Chelan County Fire Dist. #8RECOMMENDATION : Delete proposed NFPA 1710 in its entirety.SUBSTANTIATION: The commissioners of Chelan County FireDist. #8 object to the establishment of standards that limit a localjurisdictions ability to determine its own level of service.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-562 (Log #219).
___________________
(Log #1982)1710- 590 - (Entire Document): RejectSUBMITTER: Robert J. Kilpeck, Brandon Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Delete NFPA 1710 in its entirety.SUBSTANTIATION: NFPA does an excellent job with technicalstandards, they should not attempt to write a managerial standardthat involves local communities, governments and individual firedepartments. These are decisions best made at the local level.There are other ways to address fire service organization andmanagement. I am opposed to the development of NFPA 1710, orany standard that will divide the fire service in this country.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-562 (Log #219).
___________________
(Log #1984)1710- 591 - (Entire Document): RejectSUBMITTER: Charles Thompson, Pittsford,, VT,RECOMMENDATION : Delete proposed NFPA 1710 in its entirety.SUBSTANTIATION: I object to this standard in its entiretybecause it deprives local jurisdictions of determining their ownlevel of service and manning levels.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-562 (Log #219).
___________________
(Log #1985)1710- 592 - (Entire Document): RejectSUBMITTER: Charles Thompson, Pittsford,, VT,RECOMMENDATION : Delete NFPA 1710 in its entirety.SUBSTANTIATION: NFPA does an excellent job with technicalstandards. They should not attempt to write a managerial standardthat involves local communities, governments, municipal andprivate fire departments. These are decisions best made at thelocal level. There are other ways to address fire serviceorganization and management. I am opposed to the developmentof NFPA 1710, or any standard that will divide the fire service inthis country.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-562 (Log #219).
___________________
(Log #2009)1710- 593 - (Entire Document): RejectSUBMITTER: Samantha Guastella, Nat’l League of CitiesRECOMMENDATION : On behalf of 136,000 state and localelected officials, I am writing to express the National League ofCities’ (NLC) strong opposition to the National Fire ProtectionAssociation’s proposed fire code standard for professional andvolunteer firefighters, NFPA 1710 and NFPA 1720, respectively. We
NFPA 1710 — May 2001 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA
338
oppose any action that could limit local flexibility to address publicsafety and other issues of concern to the citizens and taxpayers thatwe represent.SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed standard as currently draftedis unfunded federal mandates. NLC objects to the federalgovernment passing laws and promulgating regulations thatinterfere with state and local governments’ ability to manage theirworkforce in a manner consistent with local needs and conditions.The proposed fire code standard preempts state and localgovernments by depriving local jurisdictions of the responsibility toevaluate their own level of service and risk and establishingminimum company staffing requirements. We also object to theNFPA creating model standards with answers that cannot be fullyresponsive to the vast array of local needs and conditions. Please understand that while we do not oppose organizations likeyours providing assistance to help make working conditions safe forfirefighters, and preserving property, in the interests of goodmanagement practice, we must oppose one-size-fits-all standards ormodels.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-562 (Log #219).
___________________
(Log #2012)1710- 594 - (Entire Document): RejectSUBMITTER: Carol Greene, Assn. of Washington CitiesRECOMMENDATION : We urge the Standards Council to rejectand not approve the proposed standard.SUBSTANTIATION: On behalf of 277 cities in Washington state,I am writing to express serious concern regarding the NFPA 1710proposals. • This is a tremendous unfunded mandate for all communities. • Both NFPA 1710 and NFPA 1720 take away a localgovernment’s ability to decide how to best deal with fire protection,depending on the local environment. Minimum manningstandards, as expressed in the NFPA proposal, take away the abilityof each local government to respond to local needs andconditions-which includes fire prevention and EMS-not just firesuppression. One broad brush mandate for all situations does notwork and we are strongly opposed to an agency or association suchas NFPA mandating yet another set of costly proposals, withoutregard and deference to decision making of local elected officialsand fire chiefs. • NFPA is assuming a legislative role that it has no authority for.Congress, state legislatures, OSHA and state labor agencies are theappropriate forums for this type of rule-making, where a vehicle forpublic hearings can take place. • For your information, Washington cities are dealing with severefinancial constraints placed on them as a result of the passage ofInitiative 695, a measure passed by the people of Washington whichtakes away revenues and requires any new tax measures to beapproved by the people. Such financial limitations make itessential for each local government to make the most efficient useof its resources to provide the services and priorities as determinedby their local elected officials. Many of our fire chiefs, and the Washington State Association ofFire Chiefs, have expressed technical concerns with the proposals,as indicated in their comments which have been submitted directlyto you.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-562 (Log #219).
___________________
(Log #2197)1710- 595 - (Entire Document): RejectSUBMITTER: Michael V. Hansen, Douglas County Fire Dist. #2RECOMMENDATION : Delete NFPA 1710 in its entirety.SUBSTANTIATION: NFPA should not involve itself in issuescurrently being decided by local elected officials. I am opposed tothe development of NFPA 1710, or any standard that takes awaylocal control on deciding what the level of service will be.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-562 (Log #219).
___________________
(Log #2198)1710- 596 - (Entire Document): RejectSUBMITTER: Donald R. Bivins, Vancouver Fire Dept.RECOMMENDATION : Delete proposed NFPA 1710 in its entirety.SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed standard obstructs localcontrol, interfering with each jurisdiction’s ability to determine itsown level of acceptable risk or level of service. On that basis, Iobject.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-562 (Log #219).
___________________
(Log #2231)1710- 597 - (Entire Document): RejectSUBMITTER: Mike Brown, Kitsap County Fire District #7RECOMMENDATION : Delete the proposed NFPA 1710 standardin its entirety.SUBSTANTIATION: The NFPA should not attempt to establishservice level standards that preclude the involvement of localcommunities, governments, and individual departments. These arestandards best determined at the local level. The standard doesnot account for other fire service organizations such as ISO, staterating bureaus, IAFC accreditation, and so on. We oppose thesestandards in their entirety because they set a standard that does notallow for local diversity ad community priorities. The standarddeprives local communities and jurisdictions of the ability todetermine their own level of service.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action andStatement on Proposal 1710-562 (Log #219).
___________________
(Log #CP2)1710- 598 - (Entire Document): AcceptSUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Fire and EmergencyService Organization and Deployment - CareerRECOMMENDATION : Restructure entire document to complywith the NFPA Manual of Style as follows: 1. Chapter 1 to contain administrative text only. 2. Chapter 2 to contain only referenced publications cited in themandatory portions of the document. 3. Chapter 3 to contain only definitions. 4. All mandatory sections of the document must be evaluated forusability, adoptability, and enforceability language. Generatenecessary committee proposals. 5. All units of measure in document are converted to SI units withinch/pound units in parentheses. 6. Appendices restructured and renamed as "Annexes."SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial restructuring, to conform with the2000 edition of the NFPA Manual of Style.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.
___________________
(Log #CP3)1710- 599 - (Entire Document): AcceptSUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Fire and EmergencyService Organization and Deployment - CareerRECOMMENDATION : The Technical Committee on Fire andEmergency Service Organization and Deployment - Careerproposes for adoption a new document NFPA 1710, Standard forthe Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression, EmergencyMedical Operations and Special Operations to the Public byCareer Fire Departments, as shown at the end of this report.SUBSTANTIATION: The Technical Committee reviewed andconsidered both public and committee proposals and haveincluded those accepted changes into the document. Thecommittee felt that by changing the title and formatting thedocument, to parallel that of the career document it would assistthe users of the document. The revised document containsadditional annex material, and has been re-formatted to the NFPA1M Manual of Style changes.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.
___________________
FORM FOR COMMENTS ON NFPA REPORT ON PROPOSALS2001 MAY ASSOCIATION TECHNICAL MEETING
FINAL DATE FOR RECEIPT OF COMMENTS: 5:00 pm EST, OCTOBER 6, 2000
For further information on the standards-making process, please contactthe Codes and Standards Administration at 617-984-7249
For technical assistance, please call NFPA at 617-770-3000
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Log #:
Date Rec'd:
Please indicate in which format you wish to receive your ROP/ROC ■ electronic ■ paper ■ download(Note: In choosing the download option you intend to view the ROP/ROC from our Website; no copy will be sent to you.)
Date ________________ Name ________________________________________________ Tel. No.
Company _ ________________________________________________________________________________________________
Street Address ______ ___________________________ City ________________________ State ______ Zip
Please Indicate Organization Represented (if any) _______________________________________________________
1. a) NFPA Document Title ___________________________________ NFPA No. & Year
b) Section/Paragraph _____________________________________
2 . Comment on Proposal No. (from ROP): ________________
3 . Comment recommends: (check one) ■ new text ■ revised text ■ deleted text
4 . Comment (include proposed new or revised wording, or identification of wording to be deleted): (Note:Proposed text should be in legislative format: i.e., use underscore to denote wording to be inserted ( inserted wording ) and strike-through to denote wording to be deleted (deleted wording). _________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
5 . Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Comment: (Note: State the problem that will be resolved by yourrecommendation; give the specific reason for your comment including copies of tests, research papers, fire experience, etc. If morethan 200 words, it may be abstracted for publication.) ____________________________________________________
6 . ■ This Comment is original material. (Note: Original material is considered to be the submitter’s own idea based on or asa result of his/her own experience, thought, or research ad, to the best of his/her knowledge, is not copied from another source.)
■ This Comment is not original material, its source (if known) is as follows: _____________________
I hereby grant the NFPA the nonexclusive, royalty-free rights, including nonexclusive, royalty-free rights in copyright, in this comment,and I understand that I acquire no rights in any publication of NFPA in which this comment in this or another similar or analogous form isused.
Signature (Required) _____________________________________________________________________
PLEASE USE SEPARATE FORM FOR EACH COMMENT • NFPA Fax: (617) 770-3500
Mail to: Secretary, Standards Council, National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, P.O. Box 9101, Quincy, MA 02269
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING COMMENTS — PLEASE READ CAREFULLY
1. Type or print in Black Ink.
2. Indicate the number, edition year, and title of the document. Also indicate the specific section orparagraph that the proposed amendment applies to.
3. Indicate the proposal number to which the comment is directed.
4. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether this comment recommends adding new text,revising existing text, or deleting text.
5. In the space identified as "Comment" indicate the exact wording you propose as new or revisedtext, or the text you propose be deleted.
6. In the space title "Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Comment" state the problemswhich will be resolved by your recommendation and give the specific reason for your comment.Include copies of test results, research papers, fire experience, or other materials thatsubstantiate your recommendation.
7. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not this comment is original material, and if it isnot, indicate the source of the material.
8. Sign the comment.
If supplementary material (photographs, diagrams, reports, etc.) is included, you may berequired to submit sufficient copies for all members and alternates of the technical committee.The technical committee is authorized to abstract the "Statement of Problem and Substantiationfor Comment" if it exceeds 200 words for publication in the Report on Comments.
NOTE: The NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects in Paragraph 4-4.5 state: Eachcomment shall be submitted to the Council Secretary and shall include: (a) identification of thesubmitter and his or her affiliation (i.e. technical committee, organization, company), whereappropriate; (b) identification of the document, and
________________
