NFPA Journal

Editor’s note: The following letter was received in response to a recent “First Responder” column [“Concerns Heard,” January/February] by Ken Willette, division manager for Public Fire Protection at NFPA. The column focused on possible changes to NFPA standards that address fire hoses, discussions that began following a 2014 fire in Boston where a fire hose failed. Two Boston firefighters died in the fire. The letter was written by Kathy Crosby–Bell, the mother of Michael Kennedy, one of the firefighters who died. Crosby–Bell’s letter was sent to NFPA in an email with the subject line “Please publish as written.” The letter appears here in its original, unedited form. Additional coverage of the fire and subsequent events can be found on the NFPA Today blog.

To the editor:

I’ve struggled with the response to the article published by the NFPA Journal for many reasons, not the least of which is, Ken Willette wrote it. It brings back the emotional disbelief I felt when I watched the Channel 5, Kathy Curran interview, of Ken Willette, regarding the NFPA’s position on fire attack hose. So closely following the deaths of Michael and LT. Ed Walsh, Ken Willett condescendingly declared more firefighters (all of whom like Michael and Ed train rigorously to the equipment they are provided) might be killed if fire attack hose were improved. To my admittedly biased ear, it was an unforgettable and shocking “blame the victim” moment. Ken Willett now taking the liberty of describing me as “concerned” when in fact he knows me to be absolutely livid is stirring the pot. The number of misleading and manipulated statements in that article inflamed my anger again. Notably, the article was sent to me too late to challenge prior to publication.

I speak for myself here. The NFPA has taken the position that “the process” must be adhered to, despite the clear and compelling evidence that fire hose compliance standards are endangering and/or killing fire victims and firefighters. Common sense plays no role in the NFPA “process”.

Contrary to the misleading statements in the NFPA article, the study at WPI Fire Protection Engineering was conceived of, requested and funded by Last Call Foundation in memory of my son Michael Kennedy. The NFPA and hose manufacturers who sat on the NFPA 1961 technical committee did not, to my knowledge, fund any portion of that study. In fact hose manufacturers playing any role, even through the NFPA would compromise the integrity of the study.

WPI Professor Kathy Notarianni and her team, initially eager to accept the $ 75,000 funding and begin work on the project gave an interview to the Boston Herald, shortly after beginning. In part, it read as follows.
“Fire Hose Failure Uncovered; Boston fire fuels study of attack lines nationwide A leading fire safety researcher is sounding the alarm over faulty fire hoses, warning that the popular lightweight version — similar to the one that burned in a Beacon Street blaze that killed two Boston firefighters — are failing nationwide.” When we started this project, our goal was to produce a safer, next generation hose. What we have uncovered is a nation-wide catastrophe lurking just under the radar. The current national standards for hose manufacture only require that the hose meet a certain burst pressure under non-fire conditions. This single criteria has allowed for production of “lightweight” hose, i.e., made with significantly less jacketing material, typically overseas. Since the lightweight hose is stamped as code compliant, and is lighter to carry and easier to fold this hose is being widely purchased by the fire service. Only now, as this new lightweight hose is being used on the fire ground are we seeing a wide range of hose failure due to burn through of the lighter jacket.” She went on to note a hole that developed in a fire attack hose in her town during fire ground operation the previous week.

Sadly communications seem to have failed between WPI and Last Call Foundation, almost immediately following that publication. WPI Study Team took on a very different and confidential tone. Last Call Foundation Board members had a long-standing invitation to WPI to review progress, after several weather related delays, last spring we finally met. Visitors and study participants alike were required to sign confidentiality agreements. I of course refused. A member of the press following the fire attack hose burn through story contacted the University requesting to be included and or to be on campus to interview me following the meeting. The interim Dean’s reaction was offensive; he called and shouted at me. He adamantly refused to allow the press access.

I, like the NFPA, am well aware in light of the initial research, and the “Attack Fire Hose Burn Through Data Base”, established as part of the LCF study by WPI, that catastrophic hose failure is not limited to that hose or that fire. Fire attack hose failure is widespread; 96 hose failures from September 2014 to September 2015 were voluntarily reported and verified, all the information is sitting in a database built by WPI (which I was initially told the fire service would have access to as soon as 100 reports were verified).

WPI reported at last Falls NFPA 1961 Technical Committee meeting, that there has been no thermal improvements to fire hose in more than 100 years!

I maintain that it is a moral imperative that a deadline be established by NFPA for Compliance Standards to be vastly improved. Significantly more rigorous thermal compliance standards, reflective of real fire ground conditions, with detailed and timed failure results and circumstances, reported to the fire service. I believe it’s unethical to do less and in view of the vast improvements made to PPE, the firefighters complementary safety equipment, absent requirements for corresponding improvements to fire attack hose is obviously negligent.

Immediately updating NFPA 1961 with a reasonably rigorous compliance test deadline… Fire resistant hose in 2 years, followed by a flameproof compliance standard in 5-years. Abolish lightweight hose except for high rise fires. This would accomplish the NFPA stated goal to “drive innovation” rather than maintain for any period at all, the low standard that NFPA 1961 represents, which has enabled inferior products to be introduced to the market and endanger lives.

Thermal engineers long ago enabled spaceships to meet the temperature extremes of space. They can most certainly design a safer fire attack hose. Manufacturers failing to update and apply current thermal technologies to a critical piece of fire equipment, which they represent that they design and sell to be relied upon for life saving water, under the dire hostile conditions firefighters face daily is scandalous.

For the NFPA to continue to approve this is unforgivable.

Leaving firefighter and fire victims at the mercy of the current inferior products is in my opinion criminal.