California Fire News - Updates in your mail box

Link to California Fire News - Structure, Wildland, EMS

CAL FIRE NEWS - MVU - Ramona - Shore line shocker

Posted: 27 Jan 2009 05:45 PM PST

A state firefighter suffered an apparently minor electric shock today when a piece of equipment a "shore line" malfunctioned at a San Diego County firehouse.

What Happened: The crew member was disconecting the shore line connected to an apparatus when the accident at the Ramona-area Cal Fire station occurred shortly before noon, said Nick Schuler, a captain with the agency.

Injuries: Medics took the firefighter to Pomerado Hospital in Poway for an evaluation, according to Schuler; he was likely to be released later today.

Who: An engineer at Station 82 who is in his 30s - reportedly now has a Don King hairstyle

Cause: The cause of the accident was under investigation. but officially it was said "as the engineer was pulling the line, the cord disconnected and his hand came in contact with some wires from the extension cord, causing it to arc" said Cal Fire Capt. Nick Schuler.

The accident happened as the group was leaving the station, Schuler said, noting that the firefighters were not responding to an emergency call.

Morning Coffee break: Grammatical confusion - Recognizable Doors

Posted: 27 Jan 2009 09:55 AM PST

Editor: As I slap my forehead!
Update: Re: Coffee Break Training for U.S. Fire Administration.

There seems to be some confusion regarding the grammar in a sentence in today's Coffee Break Training:

A sentence within the body of the text states: "There is no question that the doors could be confused with the adjacent wall finishes," while the photo caption reads ""The pattern on these doors provides a clear contrast to the adjacent wall."

People are asking if that is a conflict, and suggesting the sentence should read"There is no question that the doors would NOT be confused with the adjacent wall finishes." That phrasing, though, is a double negative that is grammatically incorrect.

Rather than "There is no question that the doors could be confused with the adjacent wall finishes," perhaps it would be better understoon if if read "There is no question that the doors would be confused with the adjacent wall finishes."

Thaks for your attention to detail.

Rob
-------------------------------------------------------------

RECOGNIZABLE DOORS

Take a quick look around the room where you are right now.
Is the door leading to the exit readily apparent?
Morning
Today's Coffee Break Training, "Recognizable Doors," describes the requirements for egress doors to be visually different from the adjacent construction or decorations.

Your Coffee Break can be downloaded from http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/pdf/coffee-break/cb_fp_2009_4.pdf

Morning Coffee break - Learning Objective

Means of Egress: Recognizable Doors
No. FP-2009-4 January 27, 2009
Learning Objective: The student shall be able to explain the requirement that doors in the means of egress must beclearly recognizable.

The pattern on these doors
provides a clear contrast to the adjacent wall.

Interior designers, decorators, and owners often select colors, patterns, and styles to convey a specific message or theme about their business.

Occasionally, these design treatments create so much "visual clutter" that it is nearly impossible to distinguish the means of egress from the adjacent walls. During an emergency, building occupants should have clear visual clues to identify the quickest and safest way out of a building.

To avoid problems and prevent confusion, the model fire and building codes require that means of egress doors be "readily distinguishable" from the adjacent construction and wall finishes so the doors are easily recognizable as doors. Mirrors or similar reflecting materials may not be used on egress doors.

No doors in the means of egress may be concealed by curtains, drapes, decorations, or similar materials.

In the illustrated example, the designer applied colorful and visually contrasting wallpaper to the door leaves.

There is no question that the doors could be confused with the adjacent wall finishes.

There is one concern with this solution, though. The wallpaper that was applied must meet the appropriate flame spread requirements for the place of assembly where these doors are located.

In this example, since the building in which it is located is protected by an automatic sprinkler system; the wallpaper must have a Class C flame spread rating. In fact, all of the wall finishes in this space must have a Class C flame spread rating.

For additional information, refer to the International Building Code® or International Fire Code®, Chapter 10, NFPA 5000®, Building Construction and Safety Code®, Chapter 11, NFPA 1, Uniform Fire Code®, Chapter 14, or NFPA 101®, Life Safety Code®, Chapter 7.

Eligible for Continuing Education Units (CEUs) - at www.nfaonline.dhs.gov
For archived downloads, go to: www.usfa.dhs.gov/nfa/coffee-break/

This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now

News: LAFCO report - CAL FIRE CZU covers SCU without budget

Posted: 27 Jan 2009 08:49 AM PST

Santa Cruz County taxpayers helps pay for firefighting in Santa Clara County

Santa Cruz County taxpayers are helping foot the bill for fire and emergency medical services in neighboring Santa Clara County, where thousands get the service free.

A review of records in both counties shows state firefighters, while under contract to cover rural parts of Santa Cruz County, routinely respond to service calls in Santa Clara County, where no comparable coverage exists.

The cost to Santa Cruz County of fielding the Santa Clara County calls, which may number 200 a year, is difficult to pinpoint, and goes beyond finances to safety concerns. Those firefighters crossing the county line are not readily available for Santa Cruz County emergencies.

"There's a camaraderie among firefighters that you don't split hairs over costs, but I can understand the problem here," said Pat McCormick, who as head of Santa Cruz County's Local Agency Formation Commission regulates the boundaries of counties and tax districts. "Response in some areas appears to be totally funded (by other areas) and these areas are not providing mutual aid to anybody else."

A Santa Clara County LAFCO report indicates about 6,000 residents in Santa Clara County live outside a fire district, meaning they have no fire department, nor are they taxed for local fire service. Consequently, firefighters from other areas, including Santa Clara County, respond to the roughly 600 service calls these residents make annually, the report says.

The report dates to 2004, but Santa Clara County commission officials say the situation is no different today.

Ferreira's crews are already squeezed by last year's county budget cuts as well as by the failure of a local tax measure in 2007 that would have provided additional fire funding. In both cases, the result has been fewer firefighters on duty in Santa Cruz County.

Santa Cruz County, since the 1960s, has contracted with state firefighters to serve about 24,000 residents not served by a local fire department — mostly in Bonny Doon, Davenport, the Summit/Loma Prieta area, South Skyline and Corralitos. The arrangement runs November through May, since the state pays for coverage during the high fire season.

The service, which cost the county about $2 million last year, is funded through property taxes from area residents in addition to an annual fee of about $120 per household. The cost is expected to increase to $2.2 million this year because the county has requested more attention in Bonny Doon.

The state contract will be discussed by the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors today.

Santa Clara County, meanwhile, does not contract with the state for offseason coverage because the vast majority of residents there live within the boundaries of a local fire department.

That leaves the 6,000 residents outside those boundaries relying on nearby agencies for service — what the LAFCO report calls a "subsidy," and a situation Santa Clara County officials say they've begun to look at.

Santa Clara County Supervisor Don Gage, without providing a time line, says he expects to find ways to address the gaps in fire coverage, noting his concerns about the safety of Santa Clara County residents who don't have a fire department assigned to them.

But Gage downplayed the additional burden that Santa Cruz County or other fire agencies were bearing by handling calls from these areas.

"There's going to be some unfairness there . . . (but) through mutual aid, it generally washes out," he said.

Gage pointed to Santa Clara County's assistance with the major wildfires that burned in Santa Cruz County last year.

The difference in going to Santa Cruz County, though, is that firefighters don't have to deal with areas where no agency is assigned responsibility and the questions of cost, liability and expectation that arise, LAFCO officials say.

Assigning coverage to these areas is not as easy as it may seem.

Most of the 6,000 residents outside fire districts are in remote areas, where the taxes they but Santa Clara County commission officials say the situation is no different today.

John Ferreira, who oversees Santa Cruz County firefighters as the local California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection chief, estimates his teams field 100 to 200 calls in Santa Clara County each year, which he couldn't easily put a price tag on. A station on Highway 35 responds to areas above the community of Saratoga and a station in the Loma Prieta area heads east over the county line.

"We're not going to stop responding, but is it right for Santa Cruz County resources, meaning money and people, to respond to parts of Santa Clara County where the people aren't paying?" Ferreira said. "And what about having an engine there when our responsibility is here?"

would pay if they were included in a fire district would not cover the expense of covering them, said Dunia Noel, an analyst with Santa Clara County LAFCO. Plus, state limits on the amount of taxes that can be collected could mean stripping other public agencies of funds.

"The districts don't want to expand if they're not going to get the money to provide that service," she said.

But Santa Cruz County Supervisor Neal Coonerty says Santa Clara County has the responsibility of making sure those wildlands get covered.

"We're happy to respond (to Santa Clara County) because protecting lives is a priority, but it should be a level playing field," he said. "If they're not able to respond from some areas, it's a one-way street and that's not fair."

Source: mercurynews.com - Link

Palm Desert: Two police rescue vehicles damaged in arson fire

Posted: 27 Jan 2009 07:46 AM PST

Two sheriff's department vehicles were damaged in a blaze early Monday morning in what law enforcement officials have ruled an arson.

According to police reports, Palm Desert police officers and Cal Fire responded to 74-000 block of Avenue 42 in Palm Desert where they discovered two vehicles belonging to the Desert Search and Rescue Team engulfed in flames.

The fire was quickly extinguished and an investigation initiated.

Palm Desert police and Cal Fire arson investigators determined the cause of the fire was arson.

No injuries were reported during the incident.Anyone with information about this incident should contact investigator Butvidas at 836-1660. Information can also be reported anonymously through Crime Stoppers at 341-STOP.
Source: mydesert.com - link