The National Fire Protection Association Standards Council announced July 17 that it will issue NFPA 1710, its controversial staffing and deployment standard, but the battle's not over yet. Opposing forces have appealed the decision to the NFPA board of directors — and say they're likely to battle the standard in court if that doesn't stop 1710.

NFPA members overwhelmingly approved 1710 and its much less controversial volunteer-oriented counterpart, NFPA 1720, May 16 in Anaheim, Calif. Opponents claim 1710 will be an incredibly expensive affront to the principles of home rule; supporters note that NFPA standards are voluntary, that standards may be implemented without being formally adopted, and that the opposition's price tag for compliance is tremendously overinflated.

The debate about NFPA 1710 devolved quickly following the lopsided vote — approximately 2,200 to 500 — in Anaheim. The rhetoric in published reports, briefing notes to local reporters and the appeals to the NFPA Standards Council grew venomous. The League of California Cities and the IAFF traded hundreds of pages of written appeals, rebuttals and counter-rebuttals, all supported by thousands of pages of documents.

One of the most frequent issues raised during the appeals process: Claims that 1710 opponents were mistreated during the meeting in Anaheim, particularly by Chief Alan V. Brunacini, who led the 1710 technical committee.

The roughly two-hour discussion about 1710 was punctuated by varying levels of applause, cheers and whistles approximately 45 times. Of those times, about 30 were from 1710's supporters. However, at least 14 times the break in protocol came from 1710's opponents.

One could argue that Brunacini “started it” with a dig at the length of the first speaker's remarks. Still, a number of 1710's opponents seemed happy enough to use the informal format for their own remarks. Dissenting city managers, mayors and fire chiefs got applause and cheers of their own when they landed a joke — or a punch.

“It's interesting that the local government folks can come to the meeting, get up on the floor, and accuse the 1710 committee of committing local government sedition, of wrecking the very fabric of New Federalism, by passing this standard,” Brunacini said. “Then when the chairman of the committee answers the charge, he's being impolite? This ain't a barroom fight, but it ain't a sewing club.”

Here is a quick overview of the two primary battles still being fought in the court of public opinion:

Staffing. One of the biggest misconceptions about NFPA 1710 is that it requires four-person staffing of every rig. In fact, NFPA 1710's definition of company in section 3.8.1 indicates that the engine-company complement may arrive on different pieces of apparatus as long as they are dispatched and arrive at the same time, continuously operate together and are managed by one company officer. For example, a two-person engine and two-person medic dispatched at the same time and arriving together would be in compliance. Mutual aid and automatic-aid agreements also may be used to comply.

Response time. Another element of NFPA 1710 being taken as an absolute is a four-minute response time. Actually, NFPA 1710 allows 60 seconds for turnout and calls for the first engine company to arrive at a fire-suppression incident in four minutes (240 seconds) and/or eight minutes (480 seconds) for the first full-alarm assignment, 90% of the time. In other words, a department can miss the four-minute mark on occasion, but it must make the eight-minute mark to comply. With turnout time included, fire departments effectively have five-minute and nine-minute response requirements. There's no such “and/or” construction for EMS calls.

The latest public discussion about 1710 showed how polarized some of the factions have become. Interestingly enough, the atmosphere at the July 10 Standards Council meeting in San Francisco wasn't as boisterous as Anaheim's, but barbs flew all the same. Several appellants blasted the union, acted as if they themselves had just invented sprinklers, and fumbled when questioned by members of the council.

Fremont (Calif.) Mayor Gus Morrison represented the U.S. Conference of Mayors. He criticized the lack of specificity about which fire departments would be affected by NFPA 1710, noting that the term “substantially all career” was not defined in the standard. He also held up a sprinkler head. “It's a nasty little secret,” he said. “These devices don't join unions.”

The International Association of Fire Chiefs' Mike Brown reminded Morrison and several others who touted sprinklers how the majority of local governments precluded sprinkler ordinances by adopting so-called mini-max building codes.

Council members asked International City/County Management Association representative Mike Lawson if ICMA Executive Director Bill Hansel and another staff member had been invited to attend two separate meetings in anticipation of 1710 and 1720. Lawson acknowledged that they had indeed participated in those two meetings. So why didn't ICMA remain involved in the process?

“I can't explain that,” Lawson answered.

IAFF General President Harold Schaitberger said opponents' complaining that they weren't invited are simply trying to obscure the fact they lost badly because they weren't paying attention.

“The city management organizations are flailing in the water,” Schaitberger said. “The reality of the matter is, none of this was a secret. They just were not following the process. Their current opposition is vicious, but they've taken the low road all the way.”

When the council announced it would issue NFPA 1710 and 1720, it did so with one modification: the addition to both standards language about equivalency. Similar language appears in more than a dozen prior NFPA standards, including 1500.

The council also put 1710's review on the fast track — three years rather than five — and indicated it would expand the 1710 technical committee's membership. The revised committee is expected to include incumbents and local elected officials.