AgdaPkt 2002-12-09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

� • • • I � A CLOSER LOOK AT NFPA STANDARD 1710 The National Fire Protection Association's standard relating to fire company staffing and deployment levels (NFPA 1710) was approved more than a year ago, and repercussions from its passage are beginning to surface in • some local governments. Since substantial misinformation about Standard 1710 currently is circulating, this article attempts to provide a more balanced view of the Standard, so that local officials do not rush to judgment on fire service staffing and response time decisions without knowing all the facts. In recent weeks, some cities have reported that Standard 1710 of the National Fire Protection Association is being specifically cited in their communities as a means to leverage more resources for only one aspect of the fire service: staffing and deployment. Other important priorities, including fire prevention efforts, police protection, general emergency and terrorism preparedness, and other services of local government could be negatively affected as a result. Proponents of increased fire staffing often state that NFPA 1710 requires, without exception, a minimum of four persons in each fire company. That is an inaccurate and incomplete reading of 1710. The NFPA Stan- dards Council included in Standard 1710 an equivalency clause that states: "Nothing in this standard is intended to prohibit the use of systems, methods, or approaches of equivalent or superior performance to those prescribed in this standard. Technical documentation shall be submitted to the authority having jurisdiction to demonstrate equivalency." By inserting this equivalency clause into 1710, it is clear that the Standards Council determined that there are other equivalent approaches to fulfilling 1710 rather than simple reliance on input-type measures (e.g., minimum four-person staffing, maximum response times) cited elsewhere in the standard. The International Association of Fire Chiefs notes in its "1710 Decision Guide" (in the "downloads" section of www.iafc.oro) that equivalency must be based on reasonable and sound principles that could be explained to a jury. The Guide states that the analysis of resource deployment in relation to risk (which is a component to the voluntary accreditation process of the Commission on Fire Accreditation, International (www.cfainet.or� is an opt; �n to consider in order to meet the equivalency clause. Another related approach would be to use the "Standards of Response Cover" document that is currently being developed by the CFAI and is expected to be released in December, 2002. This document will be made available free-of-charge on the Web site of the Public Entity Risk Institute,www.riskinstitute.ora. Clearly, there are many more options for equivalency that could be developed by managers, fire chiefs, and corporation coun- sels and then presented to elected officials for their consideration and action. A different approach has been taken by at least one community. This community reviewed the process by which 1710 was promulgated and concluded that the,process was biased and not supported by science. The city council of that community then passed a resolution it did not recognize the validity of NFPA 1710. A boiierplate version of that resolution is found in an article about NFPA 1710 in the "News" section of the ICMA home page: www.icma.ora. Finally, although 1710 is an approved standard of NFPA, proposals for revising or changing 1710 currently are being considered and must be submitted to NfPA no later than January 3, 2003. for information on that process, see the related article in this issue. PAGE 6/PRIORITY FOCUS Visit the League's Official Web Site--www.cacities.org