Monty

I think you have a better chance of seeing FDNY allowing NYPD ESU to take on fire suppression activities before you see them call in a single volley department from Westchester or NJ. (obviously a sarcastic statement... In other words there's no way FDNY would turn to volleys unless completely, absolutely necessary)

I agree with that mostly - I'm sure you'd see career from Westchester and NJ before volunteer - but how about Long Island?

I wonder if it is worth getting a Canadian or Central / South American registered vehicle?

Again, why are they needed. Show me the justification for this duplication of services in such a small area. I'm gonna have to side with the Newsday studies on this one. There is 0 need for Long Island to have more apparatus then NYC and LA combined. ZERO.

For a strictly fire only, zero EMS runs, all volunteer department, I'll put a friendly wager on that . Based off their website compared to others, it looks like they are. Keep in mind, they do not employ any janitors or day watch individuals as well...

FYI: this is in no way trying to boost anyone's ego, or shoot anyone's down. All I'm trying to reference is when you drive and blink your eyes and there is another firehouse 0.8 miles away, something screams over redundant...

I'm not saying all these departments and units are needed - but I was surprised that you were surprised at the number

I'll also concede that last year, YHFD did run to more calls than the 'all volunteer' department I was thinking of - by about 90.

It amazes me that an area, like the Capt, stated earlier, the size of Somers and Yorktown (both about equal size, Somers being slightly bigger) needs 12 different departments with a full assortment of apparatus. Yorktown and somers are pretty much right in line with each other being the most active all volunteer departments in the county (Somers being both EMS and Fire at around 2000-2100, and Yorktown strictly fire at around 600-650) with slightly less population in the combined area then Colonie. Why is it necessary to have 12 departments in an area that 2, or even a well managed 1 could handle? It literally boggles my mind that 12 departments are even able to fit into an area that small. Each department on average only covers 4.6 square miles. I cannot think of a bigger waste of tax payer money, other then burning it for fun, then the situation going on here.

If you want to keep your little fiefdoms, why not keep each department to a single or dual company (engine, truck, or rescue), and dispatch like many counties in Maryland do (Hell this could even work here in Westchester too - OMG BLASPHEMY!). The first due will still be responsible, but you'll be getting auto aid from other departments at the same time. Set the same training standards, the same operational guidelines, the same everything and make it work. Progression while being the most efficient machine you can be is the wave of the future boys. Everyone needs to hop on the train before your customers start pulling rail sections off the tracks to sell for cash........

Well, actually - are you ready for this ......

Based on Wikipedia, Colonie has a land area of 56 square miles ... Greenburgh has a land area of 30 square miles. Populations are about the same 80-86K.

The Town of Greenburgh includes:

Ardsley

Dobbs Ferry

Elmsford

Hastings-on-Hudson

Irvington

Tarrytown

Fairview

Greenville (commonly known as Edgemont)

Hartsdale

So - it shouldn't be that hard to imagine that Colonie has 12 departments when a smaller geographical area (about half the size), and less than 10% larger population has 9 departments.

I'm sure if you were to look at Long Island you might be even more surprised ........

I also think that there are some that might counter your claim of Yorktown being the most active all volunteer departments in Westchester

If they're not required to certify as firefighters how are they called "firefighter"? What's their civil service job title and what do they do for the fire district?

They don't have civil service titles as they are employees of a private corporation as nysff said. A bit like contracting with Rural Metro (but probably much better).

I was a member with one of the town departments for several years before moving down state. Back then there was some talk of consolidation. The population is about 80K or so, however it can get close to double that during the working day with offices, businesses, shops, hotels etc.

I know my old department (Shaker Road) has gone from having 4 Chiefs and 3 maxi pumpers, 2 mini pumpers, tower ladder and rescue 15 years ago to now having 3 Chiefs, 3 maxi pumpers (2 rescue pumpers) and 1 tower ladder. From the article it mentions some of the other departments downsizing as well and eliminating a truck or a rescue.

Probably about 15 years ago the department hired 3 employees, who have to be volunteer fire fighters and respond 'mutual aid' to the department if there are not enough members. It's worked pretty well. About 13 years ago the department instituted a bunk in program. I think all the town depts have membership requirements to remain active. At Shaker Road you have to either attend a minimum 10% of calls (they run 800+ / year) or spend a certain number of hours as part of the duty crew.

I agree with some of the other posts here that the Town Departments are well run, good inter department team work, strong mutual aid, consistent SOPs and ICS, well trained. I'm not sure how far consolidation is going to go given the classic local rule but it might happen ...

Last thing - the article mentions a budget of $8.8 million, and Colonie EMS budget is $3.8 million. Schenectady Budget for Fire and EMS is $6.6 million (I don't know if they transport). City of Troy Budget is $14.8 million for Fire and EMS. So, the budget for the Town's Fire and EMS is more than Schenectady, but less than Troy - both of which have smaller populations and less area according to wikipedia.

A couple of links for the area ... https://twitter.com/#!/WTEN/local-police-fire-depts and

http://www.shakerroadfire.com/

Came across this - http://www.nyalert.gov/Public/News/AllHazPRView.aspx?notID=3386794&refer=HOME&source=RSS&messageID=AghxO4T6A& ironic timing giving the recent events in Sleepy Hollow.

Interesting timing of this press release Friday at 3:30pm - a time typically reserved for press releases that want as little coverage as possible!

It was mentioned that there is a "...national response standard is BLS in 4 minutes (drive time)..." My comments were questioning how that is even obtainable without massive investments in EMS. I have spent 4 minutes pulled off to the side of the road in NYC waiting for an ambulance move half a block so how does the busiest EMS agency in the world meet the national standard. Is it with the CFR engines, or do they ignore the standard? That is where the statistics came from, its merely to high-light the scope of the FDNY EMS system in hopes it can be compared to someone else's and illuminate how these standards are meet in different environments.

Interesting story on the firegeezer blog about Kansas City ambulance response

When life-threatening medical emergencies strike in Kansas City, the Fire Department’s ambulances are supposed to get to the scene in nine minutes or less at least 90 percent of the time.

The Fire Department has failed in every three-month period since the takeover to meet the council’s response requirement citywide. In fact, the department hasn’t yet reached the mandated response time citywide in any single month

So far, the City Council has largely ignored the Fire Department’s inability to meet the response standard required in 2010.

That’s unacceptable. The International Association of Firefighters and the American Heart Association are among groups that promote the common-sense importance of establishing and meeting standards to save patients’ lives.

The Kansas City Fire Department also does not meet the National Fire Protection Association Standard 1710. It essentially establishes an eight-minute response time by fire-based ambulances to 90 percent of life-threatening incidents.

A laudable goal - but how realistic is this? I don't think any more can be done for less - or even the same. How much are people willing to pay to achieve this level of care?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion so I will chime in with mine on this statement, but before I do let me just preface this post with this:

I have known Chief Brown for many years, and I have the utmost respect for him and for his service to the City. That said IMO the plan put forth, while in keeping with the "cost neutral" mandate has some major flaws. Chief (no pun intended) among them is the fact that the redistribution of personnel and equipment will lead to less not more fire protection overall.

.........

Cogs

I think you made some valid points and have valid questions which I presonally don't have the answer to - but I'm sure others more closely involved could supply answers, or provide compromises to the original 'Brown' plan to improve it. As for reducing volunteers - that's quite likely because I'm sure (like most other volunteer departments) there are members whose first priority is not fire suppression. And that is not always a bad thing. However, those volunteers that want to be active in fire suppression stand a very good chance of being a credible addition to SFRD; in the eyes of most of the members. Like everything, there will be exceptions and I'm sure some members who wont want anything to do with volunteers but I expect they would be a small minority.

The Tri-Data study from Nov 2008, at http://www.docstoc.com/docs/2875643/Stamford-Strategic-Fire-Study seems to be very thorough and addresses call volumes, travel time etc and has recommendations for relocating stations for better coverage.

There is an interesting letter written by an ex-SFRD member that seems to make a lot of sense at http://boardofreps.org/committees/publicsafety/2010/items/ps28011/ps28011_tomczyk_110312.pdf. One of the interesting points is that he addresses the claim of the Administration needing 100+ new SFRD employees to equal the new SVFD capabilities, he points out that SFRD already has a significant amount of these members already in place.

The saga continues .....

I took it 2 years ago and loved it... sadly this course is offered during the week, and I can not get off work, so I'm out... Strongly recommend it to anyone, Captain Morris is a great guy...

Likewise, I strongly second that.

is this a wet down or a dry down???

I don't believe it is a traditional wet down, in the way that some I've been to are very wet!

(Unless of course Mother Nature decides otherwise)

Interesting to see the media, and the Unions in this piece. As always, I'm sure there's more to the story than just this.

But where did the £1,500 come from? So, two stations were retained / paid on call. The other crews were on duty so ther's no extra cost for them. Did they have any other calls or backfill with more retained personel?

How about fuel? Well, at 10:45 would they be out anyway?

Anyway, good to see the local lads took care of it - and were able to do so with out getting reprimanded for it!

On a different but similar vein: http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/east-hampshire/fury_over_rescue_delay_after_man_dies_in_gosport_lake_1_2496102

Ms Hughes said: ‘He could have still been alive. How did they know it was too late for him? It’s a disgrace. I’ve got no faith in the fire brigade now.

‘I said “go and get him, he’s only been in there five minutes”. But they said they couldn’t. Whether he was dead by that time I don’t know.

‘I asked one of them why they didn’t go in and he said they couldn’t go any deeper than ankle deep.’

Came across this on facebook ....

* Note Date is April 30th 2011 *

It's not in my district and it isn't really my business, but I'm curious. What district are they in? Who would be the AHJ over Indian Point? I seem to recall (correct me if I'm wrong), the last fire they had, the responding FD apparatus being ?held at the gate? until it was decided whether or not they would be *permitted* on-site. That sounds a queer way to run an incident scene, to say the least; you don't say 'no' to a Chief.

Not criticizing, just trying to understand.

Mike

I forget where I heard it (some training course - SEMO maybe), but I think a nuclear plant is one of the very few places in New York where the local government is NOT the AHJ .....

It wouldn't be that hard to see if the person did 60 or 105 because you have to look at them to know whether to put it in the scanner to grade 60 or 105 plus it's not hard to figure it out. Look at the top if it says 1 test other than NRFD then it was 60 if there's two including NRFD it's 105 done! So in fact they do have money because you have to look in order to grade them.

I'm sure the people feeding the machines scoring aren't looking at the forms - and probably don't have a clue what the test is for, or what is required of that test.

Likewise the agency that hire from the list I'm sure just get a list of applicants and scores and never see the test answer form.

Now of course, if you can't follow the directions and write the wrong code for the test - then that's a different story ....

A couple of things that have come to my mind seeing this incident - more so the nuclear aspect.

I know there exist caches of equipment, decontamination stuff etc in the 4 counties around Indian Point - but who knows how to use it? How long would that take to set up?

Secondly, I've often heard both inside and outside of emergency services that a nuclear incident / accident would build up over time. In this case given the earthquake, tsunami and everything else, it has been days in the making - which should give time to evacuate. However, initially, I'm sure there would be chaos with self evacuations.

Thirdly, how much faith are people going to have in the 'spin' from the Government, Entity etc? As it is now there are plenty of 'skeptical' experts out there. Who do you believe? Do you believe EPA in the wake of 911?

At the very least, there should be lots of additional real life information to consider when next reviewing IP's emergency plans.

I was there and it was great presentation by Chief Terpak. The chief is a great public speaker and if you get the chance to see his presentation don't miss out.

Likewise, I made the trip there. I second that Chief Terpak was a great speaker - up there with Chief Goldfeder. Right on target with his presentation, the current political climate and the job. A lot of good reminders with some new information for me.

I was very surprised at how few attendees there were. Stamford Local did a great job with the hospitality.

I'd definitely recommend attending the event next time - or any presentation with Chief Terpak.

Very well done presentation on where our federal money goes is at http://www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/ - you can really drill down and see where money is going and how much of the pie - so to speak.

How about offering to house train and maintain the county assets by one of the Fd's in Westchester? Its apparent the County has no personel for the equipment maybe the best option is to assign it to a local FD.

I've heard that some of the assets (EMS / Fire Gators) that DES has are manned by the Grasslands Fire Brigade and an agreement is in place with a local volunteer department to staff them at other times (Hawthorne I think).

I assume requesting these assets would go through the mutual aid plan - via the Battalion cars or 60 Control - who presumably have their own (secret? ) procedures.

Maybe management is still working on the plan for the Scene Support equipment ...... perhaps they can find a way to use it as a way to generate income? Anybody want to rent lots of tents?

Good response to all who have posted. Thank you.

I waited a while to comment on the responses. While all have provided pertinent information on training requirements, few have posted the "how" of how the requirements are enforced, which is what I really wanted to find out.

FFCogs answered how his FD enforces training requirements, they are in their By-Laws, this is what what I was looking for. bvfdjc316 was close, providing the specifics of the requirements, but not stating how they are enforced.

What I am getting at is, are the initial and refresher training requirements in writing, and if so are they By-Laws, SOP/SOG, Union Contract, or something else?

Some have posted that the Career Firefighter requirements are NY State Law. Does this mean that if you violate a State Law (not meeting the training requirements, or not wearing a seatbelt (yeah,yeah, I know emergency vehicles are exempt in NYS)) you could be terminated? What are the consequences if a Career FF does not meet the annual training requirements, and if there are consequences, what is the enforcing document/policy etc?

On the Volunteer side, what specific document, if any, mandates a Firefighter in the Department must meet a specific level of training, (initially AND refresher) or is it just "well, the Chief four years ago (who is no longer Chief) said we have to do this and that's how we have done it since.

What I am asking about, is how are the requirements enforced. Keep up the responses.

In my old department upstate it was basically in the bylaws of the department (which was a non-profit contracted by the town for a fire protection district). The bylaws gave the Chief his power and the bylaws stated the requirements for active membership. Around the mid 90's the concept of an online / offline active firefighter was established. If you didn't have a current physical examination, didn't have annual OSHA training, didn't have bloodborne pathogens then you were offline and couldn't respond until you got your training and were placed online again. If at the end of the term and you didn't meet your requirements (drills, fires etc) you were taken off the active rolls (unless you were a life member with >20 years).

This way you could still have the prestige of being life active, being recognised for having put in 20+ years of service but no longer able to respond if not appropriately trained as you were now 'off-line'.

Thanks, I know that somewhere it says something similar to States have to set standards that match or exceed OSHA - so NY can certainly set higher standards than the feds - although if they're not bothering to enforce them until the fact you could ask why bother. Bit like shutting the stable door once the horse has bolted.

And I agree the standard talks about suspected release of a hazardous substance. One part of the definition (from http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=22298) Any biological agent and other disease-causing agent which after release into the environment and upon exposure, ingestion, inhalation, or assimilation into any person...will or may reasonably be anticipated to cause death, disease, behavioral abnormalities, cancer, genetic mutation, physiological malfunctions...or physiological deformations in such persons or their offspring I'm not sure that some of those cases (eg injured person) cover that reasonable anticipation. Sure some cases could, but a very small percentage - and it does make sense to take reasonable and prudent precautions for those small cases (ie proper PPE, barrier protection etc) - but I'm not sure it meets the strict definition. Guess that would be for a jury or judge to decide

A good lawyer could probably argue both sides on other examples too.

Quote: "As this language suggests, it is not the case that all firefighters are required to be trained to the first responder operations level. Firefighters who are not expected to respond to releases or potential releases of hazardous substances and who would take no action beyond notifying appropriate authorities of a hazardous substance release need only be trained to the first responder awareness level. See 29 CFR 1910.120(q)(6)(i)."

You left out "As you may be aware, Federal OSHA does not generally cover volunteer firefighters." They also do not cover municipal firefighters. The 26 OSHA "Plan" States cover municipals (i.e. PESH).

Unfortinatly PESH's website does not have great documentation of its interpritations. Prior to the 1986 29CFR1910.120 Hazmat ruling. NYS OFPC provided hazmat I and II. PESH determined that HM-I ended up being equal to HM Awarness and a little bit of Ops. and HM-II was almost Technician. But their was no Ops. level.

In 1986 Nassau County did a tremendous job of Training all its ff's to the awareness level. An Administratve Law Judge for DOL ruled that (based on what I wrote below) Operations was the minimum level in NYS for firefighters. I am looking for the rulling (I have it buried somewhare in my HM paperwork. When I find it I'll attach it).

Quote: "If a fire department receives an emergency call reporting a suspected release of a hazardous substance, this would be considered sufficient information to warrant an emergency response. The fire department should not knowingly dispatch an "Awareness Level" fire fighter to respond to a hazardous substance emergency response"

Respond to an MVA......

Respond to an unknown odor.....

Respond to a gas leak.......

Respond to a CO detector activation.....

Respond to a reported fire.......

Respond to an injured person

Which of the above does not have a suspected "hazardous substance"?

Quote: "Fire fighters trained at the first responder awareness level are trained to identify the release of a hazardous substance and to notify the proper authorities of the release without approaching the point of release"

The issue is this qute is based on the following standard section:

1910.120(q)(6)(i) First responder awareness level.

First responders at the awareness level are individuals who are likely to witness or discover a hazardous substance release and who have been trained to initiate an emergency response sequence by notifying the proper authorities of the release. They would take no further action beyond notifying the authorities of the release.

Firefighters are expected to use absorbant or dirt to contain spills, use fans or natural ventilation and fog streams. That clearly puts them under Operations:

1910.120(q)(6)(ii)First responder operations level.

First responders at the operations level are individuals who respond to releases or potential releases of hazardous substances as part of the initial response to the site for the purpose of protecting nearby persons, property, or the environment from the effects of the release. They are trained to respond in a defensive fashion without actually trying to stop the release. Their function is to contain the release from a safe distance, keep it from spreading, and prevent exposures.

About the same time the union's contract is up.... coincidence????

Actually, that was July of last year (that the results were supposed to be announced)

>> Capt. Nechis a question. As you said above, a firefighter needs HMFRO before responding, ok I got that fine but my question is does a ride along, a junior firefighter, exterior firefighter or EMT only member in a fire department based system need that same HMFRO? <<

Great question and Steve gave the correct answer for the junior firefighter and exterior firefighter. OSHA & PESH (NYS OSHA) have determined that all Firefighters require HMFRO before being allowed to respond, but EMS only members are only required to have hazmat awareness level. The ride along is not an "employee" so no training is required, however the dept is also responsible to ensure his/her safety.

Some have argued that they would not respond to "releases or potential releases of hazardous substances" so they do not need the training. But every call has a releases or potential releases; MVA's, Fire, CO calls, odor's, peds struck (biological), flooded basement, etc.

Remember its not just "Hazmat" Calls. The law says ALL CALLS

1910.120(q)(6)Training.

Training shall be based on the duties and function to be performed by each responder of an emergency response organization. The skill and knowledge levels required for all new responders, those hired after the effective date of this standard (1986), shall be conveyed to them through training before they are permitted to take part in actual emergency operations on an incident. Employees who participate, or are expected to participate, in emergency response, shall be given training in accordance with the following paragraphs:

YES all firefighters would include exterior.

Is this cited anywhere? In these responses I previously found on the OSHA site it contradicts that and explicitly says awareness is the minimum level for firefighters http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=27409 (Nov 2008)

As this language suggests, it is not the case that all firefighters are required to be trained to the first responder operations level. Firefighters who are not expected to respond to releases or potential releases of hazardous substances and who would take no action beyond notifying appropriate authorities of a hazardous substance release need only be trained to the first responder awareness level. See 29 CFR 1910.120(q)(6)(i).

However, anyone responding to a reported hazmat incident needs to at least be Hazmat operatins level http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=24753:

If a fire department receives an emergency call reporting a suspected release of a hazardous substance, this would be considered sufficient information to warrant an emergency response. The fire department should not knowingly dispatch an "Awareness Level" fire fighter to respond to a hazardous substance emergency response

Fire fighters trained at the first responder awareness level are trained to identify the release of a hazardous substance and to notify the proper authorities of the release without approaching the point of release

and http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=21788, states:

SUMMARY REQUIREMENTS FOR RESPONSE TO IDLH OR POTENTIAL IDLH ATMOSPHERES USING SELF-CONTAINED BREATHING APPARATUS

The HAZWOPER standard requires the use of the buddy system with standby personnel for emergency response operations involving the release of hazardous substance(s) producing IDLH conditions for employees responding. The regulation specifies a minimum of four personnel, two as a team in the buddy system and two standby back-up personnel, to conduct operations in hazardous areas safely.

The use of SCBAs in IDLH atmospheres for circumstances not covered by HAZWOPER is covered by the Respiratory Protection standard which requires two standby personnel to be present outside the IDLH hazard area. Failure to have two standby persons for a known, existing IDLH, e.g., an interior structural fire, would be a violation of 1910.134(e)(3)(ii).

I think one of the thing that complicates the volunteer answer in New York are the different structures of fire protection. I'm not an expert on this but I'd start with the suggestions below.

I'd say that in a Fire Protection District, it's the Fire Department and the Chief - the Chief reporting to the Board of Directors.

In a fire district with 'true' fire commissioners then it would be the Chief, who answers to the board of Fire Commissioners.

In a village fire department, it would be the Chief, who answers to the Village Board.

In the structure where individual Companies are part of a larger department I would think it would fall to the Chief as far as PESH would be concerned.

However, in this litigious environment I'm sure some lawyer would add the line officers and civil officers of the company to the lawsuit for good measure

Was curious to see what happened here. Seems like there has been some compromise - although it's unclear what other than continuing service for another month.

http://www.wivb.com/dpp/news/southern_tier/Understanding-reached-in-fire-contract