In the last few days, the two-part article published by MSNBC on the issues of firefighter PASS devices, CDC/NIOSH (I am referring to the NIOSH Firefighter Fatality Investigation and Prevention Program) investigations, all related to the injury and death of firefighters, has been read with interest, emotion, yawns, outrage and worry.
This is not a new issue although the report done by MSNBC's Bill Dedman comes at a very important time in the fire service, since the issues of firefighter safety, health and survival have never been more focused upon. For one, I welcome these issues of firefighter safety and survival being raised to a national level and if this what it takes to do it, so be it.
Some firefighters writing in are outraged at this whole situation. Some want to know who those people are and why are they in charge of NIOSH? Others wrote in asking how can they (CDC/NIOSH) live with themselves? In classic firehouse fashion, and we have all done it good or bad, some reacted like we do to a working fire! And we each react differently. Some scream, yell and go nuts. Some respond and get the job done. Some do a little bit of both. Hopefully, unlike the "old" days, we will respond to this thoughtfully, without going too nuts. It is a big deal? Absolutely. But if we don't come up with some solutions and respond in some sense of unison, nothing will change.
My initial thoughts are that this is one reporter (and Bill has a very good reputation, he did the excellent staffing series in The Boston Globe a few years ago, that was picked up nationally) with one probationary employee (and a seasoned FF / fire protection engineer) who raised some concern and complained to a superior. The superior didn't agree, sometimes that happens and then all parties have decisions to make.
I think the problem of "culture clash" played a key factor in the issues of communication. Sometimes, we, as firefighters, see things "firefighter" ways. That's OK. That's as it should be. We are always firefighters- We think as firefighters. There are other NIOSH employees, some who are firefighters. But they "happen" to be firefighters. It is not a requirement. Technically, NIOSH employees can investigate firefighter deaths without ever being a firefighter. That's probably a problem. Sort of like civilian (non-firefighters) fire inspectors doing fire inspections or pre-plans. They get it done well, but who has the vested interest, firefighters or non-firefighters?
Perhaps this was an issue of a caring seasoned firefighter/fire protection engineer who was able to speak our language in an organization with some folks who do not speak it. That doesn't make any of them bad folks. It just brings out the issue that we, as firefighters, would like to deal with folks who know and have done what we do. Should the NIOSH folks be 100% firefighters? Absolutely not. We absolutely need the technical non-firefighter experts to completely investigate firefighter deaths. But having firefighting experts more involved can help solve communication issues, as well as bridge the "understanding factor" between those who have crawled down hallways and those who have not.
So what's the deal with NIOSH's Firefighter Fatality Investigation and Prevention Program?
The NIOSH program is tiny with it's 14-person staff and about $2 million to run the program. Their role is generally to identify what contributed to our specific deaths and provide recommendations for prevention. It is different from the authority of other big government agencies, "law enforcing" agencies that conduct crime investigations (FBI), lead arson investigations (ATF), or identify responsibility for a disaster such as the National Transportation Safety Board with their $76 million budget.
NIOSH's firefighter fatality program has done around 350 investigations since its inception in 1998. And it's very hard to argue that they have not made a positive difference preventing fire- fighter fatalities (all firefighter fatalities, volunteer, career, whatever), such as revisions in NFPA standards, changes in fire training programs, equipment design, etc. Their work and their reports have absolutely saved firefighters' lives.
From what I know, NIOSH has worked with our associations like the IAFF, IAFC, NFPA, etc. to develop and make improvements in standards for PASS devices when they had evidence from a fatality investigation in 2003 that PASS devices might not work as they should under normal fire conditions. In five investigations prior to 2003, where PASS devices were reported not to have been heard, NIOSH documented those findings in reports that were sent out to all fire departments, associations, etc. Keep reading.
NIOSH folks do have some excellent safety and fire service expertise, including firefighting experience, but they are not required to have firefighting expertise. I think the program should be required to, at some level, have firefighting experts on staff, full-time, by design. Outside experts are paid a small stipend to provide additional input as needed, and frequently review fatality investigation reports in draft.
I have had that opportunity (on three occasions) and all of my comments and suggestions to improve firefighter survival and safety were used by NIOSH. When I think about so many seasoned fire service veterans who may be retired, for example, what a wealth of information they could provide as a much more active PART of the NIOSH program. Highly educated fire officers who have gone to thousands of fires, imagine how much their input, their full-time input, would matter.
As far as the fire service being kept in that dark, out of the loop. and "NO ONE TELLING US ABOUT THE PASS DEVICE PROBLEM", not exactly true. The NFPA published an excellent notification document on this issue. It was resent by the IAFC, the IAFF and posted on every national fire service website. It was everywhere. Don't believe me?
GOOGLE This: PASS alarm signals can fail at high temperatures
Certainly there are a few fire departments that don't have e-mail, don't read fire magazines and don't check websites. But for the most part, the word got out. Honestly, it is 2007 and there should be a way to get in touch with EVERY fire department nationally. Or each state fire organization(s) should do everything they can to get this kind of critical information out. On the other hand, there are some folks that don't pass info on to their firefighters. But that's another issue for another time.
As far as the reports not being accurate: the NIOSH reports I looked at do address the PASS failure issue when applicable. Is the information as "red flag" as it should be? Probably not'but of course, we would have to actually read the reports. And many in our business don't.
About the NIOSH fire reports. A fire officer once said to me, "Yeah, the reports are good but so many of them say the same thing." My response is that our fatalities, while all unique in their own personal way, are so often the same. I am not talking about the heroic ones, where firefighters gave their lives in a risk that was considered worth it. I am talking about the other ones. The ones where some of us lost our lives in the performance of not so heroic actions. I mean, how many times can some of the reports tell us to wear and use all of our PPE, don't breathe smoke, improve upon training, respect and enforce SOPs, belt in, study building construction, pre-plan, use incident command, study fire behavior, don't blow red lights and stop signs, slow down and take care of ourselves?
So should NIOSH have been more aggressive in "marketing" the PASS problems? Should they "red flag" the issues when they come up so we all know, much, much quicker? I don't know if they can or are able to do that. I wish they could. And we need to want to make the changes so they can. NIOSH needs the funding and the authoritative capability to do that and much more.
But what about the manufacturers? Should the manufacturers, if they knew of problems, have issued urgent recalls? Absolutely. Nothing stops them from doing that. Why wouldn't a manufacturer want to do what's best for firefighters? Forget the legal aspects. But why wouldn't a manufacturer want to do what's best for firefighters? And, this is a problem.
Are the NIOSH reports perfect? No. But they are what we have at this point, and their value should not be underestimated. It is time to crank up the investigation authority $$$ of firefighter line of duty deaths. Maybe tougher authority should be granted to NIOSH. We need to ask WHY NIOSH doesn't name names and list manufacturers with proven problem equipment. And like IAFF's Rich Duffy said, maybe firefighter LODD's should be considered crimes until they are shown to have not been? Maybe even a federal crime.
But what we should maybe not do is to jump too fast on the bandwagon before the facts are clear. I hate to see any breakdown in our confidence in the NIOSH investigative process. Overall, it seems to have worked as much as it is allowed to.
As far as a cover-up, I sure hope not. And I don't see that because the reports did identify the FF fatalities with PASS problems, though clearly not as fast as would best serve any firefighter wearing a PASS device though. NIOSH needs to make "headlines" with the problems with the PASS devices. And any other firefighter safety equipment or issues. When a NIOSH report comes out, we should run to see them as if it is "breaking news", because it is.
What is stopping NIOSH from sometimes being less aggressive than what we may need? Maybe it's government fear? Maybe they are afraid that if they make waves, they will get in some kind of trouble or maybe the owner of this company will call that congressman who owes this one a favor and, well, you know the story.
Maybe the fire service is what's holding them back. Maybe if equipment manufacturer names are mentioned and focused on following a LODD investigation, then, could the IC of the fire, the fire chief, fire officers, fire training officers, fire commissioners and those responsible be named next? Maybe even charged like they do in Canada? We can't have one (looking into equipment problems and those responsible) without the other (looking into fire officers who may be responsible), and maybe it is time for both.
From working closely with us to the survivors of fallen firefighters, NIOSH knows that the deaths of firefighters are horribly devastating. From my view, they take their responsibility seriously. I also have spoken to and know the gentleman that the story talks about. He is a 20-year veteran firefighter, fire officer and fire protection engineer. He also took his responsibility at NIOSH very seriously. Maybe too seriously. But that is history. So what do we do now?
- We know that PASS alarms have problems as described, ALL of them. We need to hold manufacturers responsible at whatever levels it takes within your FD, as well as at the national and state levels. Ask the questions.
Where do you think the need for these changes came from?
- The NIOSH Firefighter Fatality Investigation and Prevention Program is OUR program. I usually can't stand it when someone says that something is "mine". But it's a fact. It exists just for firefighters. Thanks to the IAFF, it exists for ALL firefighters. As far as I am concerned, the NIOSH fire program is not what it could be. They need some SERIOUS funding and some SERIOUS authority so they can do what is needed'what we need so we can send more of us home.
So, what is needed? The IAFF and the IAFC (representing career and volunteer chiefs, with technical input from the NFPA) should jointly determine what that is, what is needed, determine what it will cost and get every one of us to help lobby for it and get it funded so that in the future, the resources exist so that NIOSH can get moved to a much higher level of authority.
Word is that Senator Kerry is asking for an investigation. I am not sure what that will mean, but my hope is that they will see that more funding, more authority and more fire service involvement is needed.
Perhaps with future changes would be some kind of Board of Advisors consisting of IAFF and IAFC representatives to provide NIOSH with an even closer line to the fire service. And that "board" should include seasoned, highly educated and experienced fire service professionals to work in and with the staff, assuring that every bit of increased importance be applied to figuring our how we, what or who may, in applicable cases, be responsible, and what can be done to prevent it.
Additionally, more disclosure of all the details and facts (as allowed by law) could make the reports even more effective in making change. Maybe when they find "something wrong" with a product, for example, that "possibility" (with facts based upon why there is a concern) can be posted and we can be notified to at least take a look at it. Maybe it is a problem, maybe it isn't. But it needs to come out so we can at least check it out in our own firehouses. If it is a problem, it will matter to us. If it isn't, a second notification can be issued stating why it is no longer a problem and rumors will be overrun by fact.
We have an incredible opportunity to greatly improve the current effective program to better serve us as firefighters. Or, we can show little interest after all the emotion dies down and wait for another issue to come along, and do little about that. What would the firefighters and the families of those whose names appear on the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation Memorial Wall want us to do? That's what this is all about. Less names on the wall.
Related Links
