I was recently involved in an incident that sent one of our guys to the hospital. We got lucky. We were not battling a blaze, performing heavy extrication, trench rescue or anything like that. It was just a drill.

The worst thing is that the incident did not just happen. I watched it escalate from a not-so-comfortably fitting ensemble to a minor equipment malfunction to a very close call. I clearly remember looking around and seeing some participants joking and talking about stuff unrelated to the drill, others smoking, while some were completely uninvolved. And then, of course, there was me not expressing my concerns or doing something, anything, to prevent what was about to unfold. I learned a valuable lesson that day at the expense of a friend.

Coaches often preach that winning teams practice like they play. They get ready for the game with the same speed and intensity. We should train like we respond. And for the most part we do. We expose ourselves to realistic situations with burning buildings, rolled over vehicles, icy waters and confined spaces to simulate the emergency scenes. But because it is training and it is a controlled environment, safety becomes less of a concern; we often let our guard down. Then, when an incident occurs during training, it forces us to become reactive.

Why not be proactive in the first place? Why not assign a safety officer for the drill? Wouldn't we have a safety officer at the scene? Is it because it is just a drill? If we are going to be a winning team, let's practice like we play, and take all the precautionary measures to make sure that everyone goes home.

So when things go wrong and people get hurt, who is to blame? The question ought to be who is responsible for safety. As my fire department's health and safety officer and the safety guy at work, I am often seen as the person responsible for others' well being. “Here comes the safety officer, we are now safe.” I frequently hear this statement, and I resent it because it is an unrealistic and dangerous expectation. I can provide some safety-related information, help decipher the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and National Fire Protection Association regulations, and I can offer some training and advice. But I cannot be everywhere with everyone to make sure that we are all safe. According to the cliché, there is no I in team. Well, there is no I in safety either. Perhaps we should introduce the word “safe-team” to illustrate that this is not a one-man job. We are all equally responsible for safety, from the chief to the probie.

One of the main goals of most organizations is to be safe. The statement is certainly true for every fire department I know. The incentive may lie within the core values of the organization and its intrinsically motivated personnel. Or it may simply be the 29th title of the Code of Federal Regulations (OSHA and the concern of non-compliance). Regardless of the stimulus, no one will claim that they are striving for a less safe working environment.

Unfortunately, the word safety and all of its derivatives are so overused and abused that we become desensitized to it both in theory and application. It is particularly challenging to apply the concept when we, as leaders and safety advocators, do not have an appreciation for what it really means.

So, what is safety? It is the control or management of known hazards to an acceptable level of risk. Interestingly enough, the definition does not specify any particular occupation, so it is equally applicable to manufacturing, agriculture, education, mining, construction and firefighting. As a matter of fact, there is no mention of workplace environment what so ever. Yet, the common misconception that we need to worry about hazards only at the workplace is very widely held.

We follow all safety policies while at work, but as soon as we get home we elevate stupidity to an entirely new level. We change the light bulb climbing on the swiveling chair, and we are confident that the “do not sit or stand” sign on the stepladder was intended for all other customers but us. We use saws without machine guards or personal protection. Hazards are everywhere and more often than not, we know when we are being foolish. It is wise to take a few seconds to think what might happen and how to prevent it through control or management.

There are three principle methods of controlling or managing hazards: Engineering controls, administrative or work-practice controls, and personal protective equipment.

Engineering controls is an approach based upon the principle of eliminating the hazard. The most effective way to achieve this is through accounting for and anticipating the hazard at the design stage. Local exhaust ventilation systems, material substitution and process alteration are examples of engineering controls. But something as simple as a sharps container or a biohazard bag may serve a similar purpose, as they isolate the hazard from the person.

If the hazard cannot be engineered out of the work environment, use behavior-based practices that will prevent injury or illness. Education, training, standard operating procedures, work schedules, signs and communications are all work-practice controls that can help minimize the risk. For example, after taking care of the patients at the traffic accident scene or after assisting the recon team decontaminate themselves, let's wait until we get to the firehouse and thoroughly wash our hands before eating.

PPE is the last line of defense. When we have exhausted our resources in the aforementioned methods of prevention, PPE may be the only option to keep our personnel safe. In the emergency response field, PPE is usually the only feasible means of control. Therefore, selecting proper PPE is essential. Unfortunately, there is no miracle material that can protect us from all hazards. Even the finest products have many limitations and donning them does not make the wearer invincible. Whether it is fire or heat rating, puncture or cut resistance, permeability or chemical compatibility, knowledge of the properties' shortcomings and the conditions under which those PPE articles will be used helps select the proper ensemble. And above all, the protective apparel must fit the wearer.

In order, however, to control or manage those hazards, we need to anticipate, identify and recognize the conditions whether they currently exist or are at a potential stage. A structure fire is an existing hazard. And so is the traffic at the scene of a motor vehicle accident. Operating within the flammable range of a substance, however, implies a potential condition. Create one spark and the consequences can be explosive.

In the field of hazardous materials, the hazard often lies within the properties of the chemical. Recognizing and identifying these material is vital for the successful management of an incident. In Hazmat Operations class we learn about the eight-step process Step one is site management and control. Step two is product identification; in other words, hazard analysis. If step two is unsuccessful, we are instructed to go back to step one, isolate the area and deny entry until we are able to determine the nature of the hazmat. Without knowledge of the material involved, we cannot setup protection zones, select PPE, develop an action plan and we can certainly not employ any offensive mitigation tactics. So, in order to act safely, regardless of the situation, we first need to evaluate the hazards.

Then, assess the risk. At the emergency scene, check for such safety concerns as vehicle placement, fire extent, exposures, traffic control, presence of hazardous materials and water availability. By doing so, officers are executing the hazard analysis and risk assessment, better known as a size up.

Risk is the combination of three factors: probability of occurrence, severity of the outcome and frequency of exposure. The greater the likelihood of an incident taking place due to a hazard, the greater the risk. But risk also is subject to severity of the outcome; hence a course of actions that leads to a paper cut is less risky than the one that yields to a severed finger. Frequency refers to the number of exposures by an individual and to the number of people affected by the hazard. A defective ground ladder poses a higher risk if the majority of the company members use it daily rather than if one person uses it on rare occasions.

Zero risk is unattainable. Every activity undertaken carries some level of risk. And this is where cost-benefit analysis comes into play. Driving to work each day is a risky proposition, but most do it. As long as drivers are buckled up, well rested, follow traffic rules and regulations, and refrain from moronic activities (you know what I am talking about,) the risk of an accident is reduced to an acceptable level. Staying home may provide a safer state but it is not a viable alternative.

In this line of work — whether paid, volunteer or combination — the hazards are exaggerated. The goal is to respond to and train for them effectively and efficiently, while limiting the risk so we can do it again the next day.

Safety is not a state of utopia. It is what we make it with proper hazard analysis and risk assessment. Safety is a culture, a way of life that we need to instill to our members. As leaders in the fire service, we need to embrace and promote the concept. We need to buy into it and sell it to our followers. But we must not convey the message in a threatening and resentful manner. Our efforts must be directed toward voluntarily changing behaviors. Folks, we are in the field of marketing, not criminal justice. Safety is not the job for the safety guy. It is not a job for the safety officer, but a duty for all. It is not a policy or procedure for the fireground only. It is a state of mind for every drill and every training session. I am not ready for another trip to the emergency room. For me, it will never again be just a drill. From now on, I will conduct myself as if it is an actual incident, and when I am the instructor I will demand the same from my audience.

---

Pano Koukopoulos is a lieutenant at the Woodbury (Conn.) Fire Dept and a hazardous materials instructor for the Connecticut Fire Academy. He has earned a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering from Northeastern University and a master's degree in oceanography and limnology from Western Connecticut State University. He is board-certified as a hazardous materials manager, environmental trainer and NFPA 472 hazardous materials technician. He has been involved in the EH&S field for the last 12 years. He is the associate director of Environmental and Facilities Services at WCSU, and an advisory board member at the Northwest CT Regional Hazmat Team. He is also an adjunct instructor at WCSU (Biology) and CCSU (Industrial Technology).