The Navy's Fire and Emergency Services is always seeking to improve its effectiveness and efficiency. Toward that end it asked the TriData Division of System Planning Corp. to evaluate its services at many installations worldwide and in the process identify its best practices in prevention so they could be shared across the service and with others.

It's enlightening to start with the proof of the results before discussing how they were achieved. The Navy protects 1 million people worldwide on its installations, and it has about 1.7 fires per 1,000 population versus 5.3 fires per 1,000 in the general population. In other words, civilians have triple the Navy's rate of fires. The Navy also has had no fire fatalities for several years, versus 13 per million in the civilian sector. Injuries are low, as well.

In terms of dollar losses, Navy losses per fire are much lower than civilian losses for both residential and non-residential structure fires. While dollar loss estimates have many problems, we reviewed records of all fires over $100,000 in the Navy and instances where the Navy fire service believed it had averted larger losses. All evidence points to the low losses in the Navy being fact.

Combination of factors

So how do they do it? Navy bases have huge numbers of hazards like munitions, aircraft fuels, heavy industry activities, and hot works such as cutting and welding. Many of its buildings date back to World War II.

The excellent Navy fire record is the result of a variety of factors, some cultural. Because ship and aircraft fires can be disastrous to sailors, all Navy personnel are trained in firefighting and the dangers that may occur from fires at sea and on aircraft. This training carries over to onshore facilities and housing. The disciplined environment of military life contributes to awareness and carefulness, but safety doesn't just happen. It requires nurturing of safety attitudes, providing prevention information and developing skills to use when fire occurs.

The Navy fire prevention programs include comprehensive plans reviews, intensive inspections and code enforcement, near universal public education, and fire warden programs. For example, a larger percentage of structures are equipped with sprinkler systems than in the civilian sector, and families who live in base housing are indoctrinated from the outset about the expectations for maintaining safe quarters.

The project team reviewed fire prevention programs from 42 installations as well as the submissions for the 2004 Navy Fire Prevention Program of the Year. More than 40 fire prevention best practices were named based on their efficiency at saving money and effectiveness at preventing losses. Five components of fire prevention were considered: organization and management of fire prevention, plans review, inspections and permits, public education, and fire investigation and arson control. The study focused on fires ashore.

Management and review

Fire prevention isn't always given the visibility it needs. Perhaps the most important best practice in managing prevention is to clearly identify the fire prevention function on an organization chart. It needs to be a key organizational element of sufficient stature and authority so its program gets the attention and resources it needs. In Naples, Italy, for example, the fire prevention branch is headed by an assistant chief who reports directly to the fire chief.

Another best organizational practice is to run fire prevention centrally when the geographic area served is small enough to allow fire prevention resources to be redeployed from day to day. For example, the fire prevention function for the Hampton Roads, Va., complex (part of Navy Region Mid-Atlantic) is centralized under the assistant chief for fire prevention, support services and training. Inspectors are based at various installations in the area, but they can be relocated to another installation when one is on leave or behind schedule.

Enforcement of building and fire codes is integral to every fire prevention program. Enforcement must include not only reviewing plans for new buildings and renovations, but also inspecting new construction to ensure that it conforms to the approved plans.

Construction plans on Navy installations are developed by Navy Public Works and facilities engineers. Most of the plans review process is conducted by Public Works with Fire and Emergency Services participation. The best practice is for Public Works to notify fire and emergency services personnel at the outset of every construction project and involve them early in the review process. Being included early in the review process is crucial to avoid expensive changes later. They're then kept in the loop until the project's completion, conducting periodic inspections before key fire prevention features are obscured by construction. For example, the Mayport, Fla., Naval Station's Fire and Emergency Services participate in plan reviews at the 0-, 30-, 60- and 100% milestones.

Those responsible for plan reviews need to be trained and certified to understand construction plans from the viewpoint of fire safety. There needs to be more than one reviewer with plans-review skills at each installation or regional fire prevention office to handle workload surges, schedule conflicts and reviewer absences.

A key aspect of plans review is the consideration of installed sprinkler or other suppression systems, which ideally should be included in all new building projects for long-term cost effectiveness. In an era of declining numbers of Navy firefighting personnel and threats from terrorist attacks, the installation of built-in sprinkler systems in high-risk and mission-critical structures is important. At Willow Grove, Pa., about 95% of their 229 buildings have either wet or dry extinguishing systems, one of the highest level uses of sprinklers we identified.

Sprinklering Navy facilities on foreign soil is especially important because of the inability to completely control the design and construction process. The dependence on host-nation firefighters who may have less formal training or training that emphasizes different techniques is also a factor. At NAS Sigonella in Italy, about two-thirds of all nonresidential structures have sprinkler systems, including most high-hazard and mission-critical structures such as hangars, warfare command and control, fuel farms, and the air terminal.

Inspections and permits

The Navy's inspection program has been conducted at a higher level of intensity and is enforced more strictly than those of most civilian jurisdictions. The Navy generally has inspected all structures except family residences at least twice each year.

Inspection frequencies vary from monthly to annually, depending on the type of occupancy. Many civilian fire departments are lucky to inspect buildings once every three years — except for the highest risks — and many structures are rarely inspected. Keflavik, Iceland, has perhaps the most intensive schedule in the Navy, inspecting most of its structures monthly with a few quarterly or yearly. This installation averaged more than nine inspections per building per year in 2003, a rate unheard of in the civilian sector.

The most cost-effective inspection frequency has not been determined, so most Navy Fire and Emergency Services departments set inspection frequencies based on judgments about mission criticality, hazard level and life safety. A fourth factor that should be considered but often isn't is the value at risk. A warehouse that's considered low-hazard but has a high-value inventory, which may be as much as a billion dollars of Navy equipment, should be considered for frequent inspections.

A key priority of inspections is the testing of sprinkler systems. They need to be inspected regularly and maintained. On most installations Public Works has the prime responsibility for their testing and maintenance. As a second tier of quality control, Fire and Emergency Services includes sprinkler inspections as part of its routine building inspections. Fire and Emergency Services at the Philadelphia Naval Business Center and many other installations often witness sprinkler flow tests conducted by Public Works.

Public Works and Fire and Emergency Services usually work together at most installations to maintain a record of the location and condition of sprinkler, suppression and fire detection systems. The best practice is to disseminate information daily on systems that are down so the dispatch center and fire crews can accordingly tailor their operational response. At Jacksonville, Fla., a list of problems with fire protection systems is updated daily and sent to all fire companies and public works departments. The list also serves as a checklist for repair priorities.

At Keflavik and Jacksonville, the status of the inspection program is visually displayed to prove that it's being accomplished. After each building is inspected, a dot is placed next to the structure on the list. Data from the inspection records are used to identify problem areas and reallocate resources or reduce goals, such as requiring less frequent inspections. Management closely tracks the inspection program.

On some installations, housing is inspected annually or when occupancy changes. Essentially every housing unit in the Navy Region Mid-Atlantic was inspected in 2003. At Guantanamo Bay, all housing, including smoke alarms, is inspected by both the housing and fire and emergency services departments when occupancy changes. Although most residential fires result from unsafe behavior that can't be prevented by inspections, the inspection visit can serve as one-on-one education. Housing inspections are undertaken as time permits. At some installations they are undertaken by line companies to save fire inspector time for inspecting the higher-risk and more technically challenging properties.

A daily “windshield inspection” is conducted of active pier areas at ports to look for potential hazards. This is standard operating procedure at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard, which has heavy industrial work and many hazards in its large port area. At Mayport, the chief inspector or a chief officer conducts drive-by inspections twice a day on busy piers. Line companies can be used for such drive-by inspections, too.

Inspections staffing

Inspectors usually have been allocated to Defense Department installations on the basis of square footage of inspectable buildings. A best practice is to consider total inspector workload, not just the square footage of structures, in allocating staffing for inspections. Inspector workload is a function of the number, type and size of structures; their use; and the desired frequency of inspections. The workload also includes public education, plans review and permit issuance.

For example, the Navy requires anyone planning to use hot works to first obtain a permit. They must notify the fire department prior to starting, post warning signs around the site where the hot works will be used and go through a safety checklist. China Lake, Calif., issued 191 permits in a recent year, and Willow Grove, Pa., issued about 620 permits annually in 2003 and 2004. Several of the most significant Navy fires in recent years have occurred where hot works permits weren't obtained.

For very large structures, two or more inspectors often are assigned. Inspections then are completed more quickly, and the inspectors are able to resolve problems more easily as a team rather than working alone. Some installations even use line fire companies to assist with or augment inspections. Line companies at the Navy Region Mid-Atlantic performed 1,600 inspections in 2003. Another best practice for efficiency, especially at geographically compact installations, is to have one or more inspectors who also are qualified as firefighters to serve as part of structural fire crews; this concept is in practice in Mechanicsburg, Pa.

Most Navy installations have a fire warden program, under which someone in each building is assigned safety duties that supplement the formal inspection process. As a key part of the Navy's risk management program, wardens perform light inspections of their premises at least weekly, if not daily. They're trained by Fire and Emergency Services to help keep hazards from accumulating between formal inspections, check extinguishers and follow up on the mitigation of problems found by inspectors.

At Guantanamo Bay the fire wardens, known as building fire marshals, accompany the fire department inspector to learn what needs to be fixed and what to check between inspections. The building fire marshals check nine aspects of safety daily and prepare a monthly report on the conditions found. At Keflavik, fire wardens inspect buildings using check lists of the minimum aspects to be inspected. In public assembly structures, they check the condition of exits, fire alarm systems, and dry chemical systems and hoods. After the structure closes for the day, they check to ensure that waste containers are emptied, electrical equipment has been disconnected and upholstered equipment is free of smoking materials. Problems are dealt with immediately.

Public education

Another critical element of the Navy's fire prevention program is fire safety education for personnel, dependents and contractors. In general, public education promotes the Navy's cultural value of personal responsibility. It also provides information on how to prevent fires and reduce injuries, and what to do to reduce damage and casualties after ignition. A major difference between the Navy and civilian practice is that the Navy reaches more than 90% of personnel during indoctrination lectures when they first arrive at a new base; a large percentage also is reached through a variety of programs throughout the year.

Another aspect of public education in which Navy training differs from civilian practice is the large number of personnel who are given hands-on training in the use of fire extinguishers. They're also encouraged to use them instead of fleeing from flames. In fact, all sea-going sailors are trained to fight fires on ships, and this training and mindset extends to shore-based activities. Of course, training should be tempered with the appropriate caveats regarding when to escape or stay to fight a fire, but there's often an extinguisher and someone trained to use it near most fires that break out. There were few injuries from fires and none from the use of extinguishers in 2004.

A public-education best practice is to reach all base personnel, including families and contractors, through lectures or other media on at least an annual basis. A variety of media is used to reinforce the lecture program. Fire prevention programs target the most significant and frequent fire and injury problems using a mix of standard messages, such as care in use of hot works, and local targets, such as dryer installation in Italy.

Fire and Emergency Services at the Regional Fire Department in Japan conducts one of the largest Fire Prevention Week campaigns in the DOD. The campaign runs for the entire month of October, like Japanese civilian fire prevention. Public service messages are broadcast over the Armed Forces Radio and Television Network. The department in Japan also conducts tours that incorporate fire safety training for more than 20,000 visitors a year.

The indoctrination lectures given to new base personnel normally run from one to two hours. Most Navy personnel rotate locations every few years, so they hear a targeted fire prevention presentation at least that often, which is more than the average civilian receives in person. However, most of the public education is conducted by fire inspectors, not public educators — one area in which civilian practice may be superior.

Philadelphia's Naval Business Center provides indoctrination lectures that reach 89% of the base personnel, to take one example. Topics include fire extinguishers, alarm pull stations, responsibilities of workers in fire notification and EMS emergencies, and shipboard egress.

Unannounced, realistic fire drills are another best practice. The fire prevention division of NAS Jacksonville appears without warning at a workplace on the installation and announces a fire scenario. They specify an area or item where the hypothetical fire starts and ask personnel to show how they would respond to it. They then critique the response.

Still another best practice is visiting family housing to test smoke alarms and provide prevention materials and education face to face. Sometimes this is done during the year and sometimes only when residency changes.

Some prevention programs extend beyond bases into the local communities, which fosters good will and promotes a spirit of cooperation. The fire service participates in holiday parades and expositions, produces TV segments at overseas locations, publishes articles on fire safety, erects billboards, and sponsors picnics. An excellent example of this type of outreach is at NAS Sigonella. The Navy's fire department works closely with its Italian fire department counterparts for joint training and the organization of a successful Fire Prevention Week.

Finally, arson investigation isn't extensive because intentionally set fires are infrequent on naval installations. Investigators often request prompt involvement of the Naval Criminal Investigation Services to assist after a fire has been determined to be arson. Mutual aid agreements are used to obtain local fire investigation expertise when an installation does not have an adequate investigation capability itself. Fire and Emergency Services in Lakehurst, N.J., is an active member of the local county prosecutor's arson task force, which enhances the expertise of the Navy's fire investigators and saves money.

Proactive program

The Navy achieves its spectacularly low fire incidence and fire losses not through its culture, but rather by providing a highly proactive prevention program of the same sort found in the civilian sector, but with much more intensity. The Navy:

• Reaches close to 100% outreach of public safety education.
• Targets education to local safety problems.
• Inspects most non-residential property at least twice a year.
• Reviews plans for new construction at the earliest stages.
• Uses more sprinkler and other suppression systems.
• Tests the sprinkler and other suppression systems more frequently.
• Assigns fire wardens to supplement inspectors.
• Provides hands-on training in how to use extinguishers.

This comprehensive approach to prevention saves taxpayers a lot of money in losses averted. If the Navy had the same structure fire experience as civilians, its losses in structures alone would be eight times higher — $25 million more — than it is each year (based on $28 per capita versus $3 in the Navy, times 1 million people protected).

Good prevention really does pay off. Although civilian fire departments don't operate in a military environment, the Navy model can be emulated in many ways, with the likelihood of an equally dramatic reduction in fire-related losses.

---

Philip Schaenman, of TriData Division — System Planning Corp., was the lead author of the report Best Practices in Fire Prevention for Fire and Emergency Services on U.S. Navy Installations, on which this article is based. The report was part of Phase II of a more comprehensive evaluation program. Carl Glover, program director for Navy Fire and Emergency Services, initiated the idea for this report and provided oversight for this program.