2 in / 2 out

[ex-commish 490]

AMEN to that!!!! Thats how it is here, you get elected ONLY because you are in the "CLick" and buy the most beers at the "Station 2" across the street. No one cares about training, experience, and years in the service....Its all about whos going to make it easier for the department and not force a bunch of stuff on ya. SORRY, but this ticks me off!!! LOL You cant find a dept that elects "Qualified" people for officer any more, its now "Popularity Contests".

This is so true. I have seen good, well trained people with safety in mind passed over while other useless, backwards, gutless, and untrained people who were afraid to rock the boat put in positions of leadership. The election process is old and dangerous. Time fo change...

[Future Fireman 4]

Sorry to hijack the thread, but.....(aw who am I kidding, this is what would've eventually happened anyway )

What EXACTLY does OSHA's 2 in/2 out rule state? 2 Firefighters inside and 2 firefighters stand-by outside? Does that same rule multiply by however many FFs are inside?

Jonesy, HFD, take a word from Massachusetts. Most Volunteer fire departments around here have a full time Chief, hired by the town's selectmen. As far as I know, there's NO elections up here. I'll have to check though.

Mike

Edited July 26, 2008 by Future Fireman

[helicopper 1,050]

What EXACTLY does OSHA's 2 in/2 out rule state? 2 Firefighters inside and 2 firefighters stand-by outside? Does that same rule multiply by however many FFs are inside?

Mike, in researching the answer to your question for myself, I came across an interesting interpretation that makes much of this discussion a moot point. There is a "rescue circumstance" exemption (bold text below) that allows for FF to enter a building to conduct a rescue prior to the two out being present.

The answer to your question is also highlighted below, no, you don't need 4 out for 4 in or 8 out for 8 in. There is also a cautionary statement about using common sense and having more than two out if the building is too large to cover with just two.

Respiratory Protection Standard on the OSHA website.

1910.134(g)(4)

Procedures for interior structural firefighting. In addition to the requirements set forth under paragraph (g)(3), in interior structural fires, the employer shall ensure that:

1910.134(g)(4)(i)

At least two employees enter the IDLH atmosphere and remain in visual or voice contact with one another at all times;

1910.134(g)(4)(ii)

At least two employees are located outside the IDLH atmosphere; and

1910.134(g)(4)(iii)

All employees engaged in interior structural firefighting use SCBAs.

Note 1 to paragraph (g): One of the two individuals located outside the IDLH atmosphere may be assigned to an additional role, such as incident commander in charge of the emergency or safety officer, so long as this individual is able to perform assistance or rescue activities without jeopardizing the safety or health of any firefighter working at the incident.

Note 2 to paragraph (g): Nothing in this section is meant to preclude firefighters from performing emergency rescue activities before an entire team has assembled.

November 13, 1998

Mark Schultz, GFD

Senior Fire Inspector

Gallatin Fire Department

119 Foster Street

Gallatin, TN 37066-3209

Dear Mr. Schultz:

This is in response to your letter of April 30, addressed to Mr. John B. Miles asking for interpretations of the new Respiratory Protection Standard, 29 CFR 1910.134. You had specific questions regarding the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA's) two in/two out requirement. We apologize for the long delay of this response. As you may be aware, Federal OSHA does not have jurisdiction over employees of State and local governments, including firefighters. However, the State of Tennessee does cover public sector employees under its OSHA-approved occupational safety and health State plan. Tennessee has adopted a standard identical to the Federal respiratory protection standard. While the State may interpret its standard differently from Federal OSHA, the interpretations must be at least as effective as the Federal interpretations. You may wish to contact the Tennessee Department of Labor concerning its enforcement of the respiratory protection standard. The address is:

Michael E. Magill, Commissioner

Tennessee Department of Labor

710 James Robertson Parkway

Nashville, Tennessee 37243-5078

Telephone: (615) 741-2582

We are providing Commissioner Magill with a copy of this letter.

You had several questions asking if the two in/two out rule for interior structural fire fighting was a one for one policy, specifically if four people were in did that mean that four people had to stand by, if eleven people were inside, did that mean eleven people had to be on stand by and so on. No, the two in/two out rule may not be interpreted as four in/four out, eight in/eight out. There must always be at least two firefighters stationed outside during interior structural firefighting, prepared to enter if necessary to rescue the firefighters inside. However, the incident commander has the flexibility to determine whether more than two outside firefighters are necessary when more than two firefighters go inside. In a situation where the burning structure is very large, additional outside firefighters may be warranted to ensure effective assistance and rescue. For example, where the firefighting involves entry from different locations or levels, two outside fire fighters may have to be stationed at each point of entry.

You also asked whether standby personnel had to wait for additional standby personnel before entering to attempt a rescue of fire fighters in a structural fire. No. There is an explicit exemption in the Respiratory Protection Standard that if life is in jeopardy, the two-in/two out requirement is waived. The incident commander and the firefighters at the scene must decide whether the risks posed by entering an interior structural fire prior to the assembly of at least four firefighters is outweighed by the need to rescue victims who are at risk of death or serious physical harm. There is no violation of the standard under rescue circumstances.

Please note that on August 3, 1998, OSHA published Questions and Answers on the Respiratory Protection Standard. This 79 page document contains guidance on respiratory protection. There are many questions in this document on respiratory protection and firefighting issues and may help you develop a thorough respiratory protection program. In addition, OSHA has recently published the Compliance Directive, CPL 2-0.120, an inspection procedure document for the OSHA field offices, and the Small Entity Compliance Guide to assist small employers in complying with the respiratory standard. All these documents can be found on the Internet at the OSHA Home Page at http://www.osha.gov.

Should you require any additional information on this matter, please, feel free to contact our Office of Health Compliance Assistance at (202) 693-2190.

Sincerely,

Richard E. Fairfax

Acting Director

Directorate of Compliance Programs

April 29, 1998

J. Curtis Varone, Esq.

55 Azalea Avenue

Exeter, RI. 02822

Dear Mr. Varone:

This is in response to your letter dated January 16, to Mr. Kipp Hartmann, Area Director of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) Providence Rhode Island, Area Office. The subject of your letter is section (g)(4) of OSHA's Respiratory Protection Standard, 29 CFR 1910.134, which has been recently revised and published in the Federal Register. You have asked OSHA to provide Information on cases where firefighters who were among the first four members to arrive on the scene of a structure fire, were trapped and unable to extricate themselves.

The safety of firefighters engaged in interior structural firefighting is the major focus of paragraph (g)(4) of the OSHA Respiratory Protection standard. This provision requires that at least two employees enter the Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health (IDLH) atmosphere and remain in visual or voice contact with each other at all times. It also requires that at least two employees be located outside the IDLH atmosphere, thus the term, "two in/two out". This assures that the "two in" can monitor each other and assist with equipment failure or entrapment or other hazards, and the "two out" can monitor those in the building, initiate rescue, or call for back-up. One of the "two out" can be assigned another role such as incident commander.

The two-out provision of the standard is not a change from OSHA's prior Respiratory Protection Standard, which required standby men (plural) whenever respirators were used in imminent danger situations. The two-in requirement for firefighters, which you do not question, was not required by the prior standard but is consistent with OSHA's recent enforcement practice. OSHA's rationale for the requirements is explained in detail in the preamble to the standard at 63 Fed. Reg. 1245-1248 (Jan. 8, 1998). As well as the situations described there, OSHA has received reports of a number of incidents in which the failure to follow two-in/two-out procedures has contributed to firefighter casualties.

For example, in Lexington, Kentucky, one firefighter died and a second Kentucky OSHA cited the firefighters' employer for failing to utilize two-in/two-out procedures. In a second case, OSHA has learned about two firefighters who died from smoke inhalation after being overcome by toxic fumes while fighting an accidental fire in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Although two additional firefighters were outside the home, both were engaged in support activities (hydrant hook-up and pump operation), and neither was fully accountable for monitoring the interior personnel.

OSHA also has had a report of a success story following the adoption of two-in/two-out procedures in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The fire department there implemented an accountability and rescue system after a fatal fire. In one case, four firefighters who were performing an interior attack on an apartment building fire became disoriented and were trapped in the building. The standby personnel were able to initiate rescue operations promptly. As a result, although the four interior firefighters and two of the rescuers were injured, all survived.

Because these cases involve situations that are typical of those faced by firefighters, we expect there are additional instances of firefighters who either were or could have been saved through the utilization of two-in/two-out procedures. Most firefighters are employed by local governments, however, and their operations are not governed by Federal OSHA, which does not cover state and local government employees. In contrast, states that operate their own OSHA-approved occupational safety and health plans must cover these public employees. Therefore the provisions of the respirator standard relating to firefighters will be enforced primarily by the twenty-five state-plan states. As you know, Rhode Island does not have its own OSHA-approved state plan so no OSHA program will enforce the two-in/two-out requirement in its public fire departments. OSHA does, however, encourage compliance by these employers.

OSHA also emphasizes that the two-in/two-out provision, like all OSHA standards, states a minimum requirement. Your suggestion that safety would be enhanced if the two inside firefighters are accompanied by a supervisor is therefore not precluded by the OSHA standard. However, because an additional person would then be subject to the extrahazardous and hostile environment created by a structural fire, the need for adequate and attentive standby personnel is even more crucial. OSHA also questions your premise that, in the case of a four-person crew with a two-person interior team, one of the outside members would need to serve as a full-time incident commander. We believe it should be possible for one crew member to operate the pump or perform any other necessary support activities, while the other monitors the inside team. But regardless of the size of the team, the least desirable situation would be to have only a single outside crew member, particularly one whose attention is focused on performing support functions rather than on monitoring the firefighters inside.

We thank you for your interest in safety and health. We hope this provides you with the information you have requested. If you have further questions, please call Ms. Wanda Bissell of my staff at (202) 219-8036 Ext. 41.

Sincerely,

John B. Miles, Jr.

Directorate of Compliance Programs

[moggie6 54]

lets go in....and put water on the fire. When we are done we can come back and talk about it on emtbravo.

[JFLYNN 681]

lets go in....and put water on the fire. When we are done we can come back and talk about it on emtbravo.

perfect...there is hope for the fire service...