Fire Chief C.A. “Pete” Shelton

(1932-2024)

by Kay L. Goodwyn, President/CEO 

I was 20 years old when I walked into the Beaumont (TX) Central Fire Station to interview for an administrative job. I had actually applied with the City of Beaumont – and it just so happened the available opening was for Fire Chief C. A. Shelton and the Beaumont Fire Department. Fortunately, I was selected for the job, and as they say, “The rest is history.” 

Soon, Chief Shelton became my “forever boss” and lifelong mentor. He was everything you think of in a Fire Chief – he was a big man with a very commanding presence. And, when it came to the fire department and his beloved City of Beaumont, he was very serious and all business. He was tough, no doubt about it. And he wanted things (every-thing!) done right; and, of course, done immediately. He set the standards high for himself and everybody else within the department he loved so deeply.  

Chief was also very hands-on and involved in every aspect of the department – nothing missed his careful inspection. I saw how stressful his job was as the leader of a 240+ person department. And he lived it 24 hours a day. I watched him make many tough calls from that big desk as well as from the fire ground during a major emergency. But he always wanted to do the right thing in the right way, no matter what the task. 

During my first couple of years at the BFD, I fell in love with the fire service. I wanted to know everything about it – and Chief expected me to as well. My dad had been in the U.S. Forest Service, so I remembered when he had to occasionally go out to fires in the Piney Woods of Deep East Texas – and I especially remember the Smokey Bear coloring books he brought home! There has been a long appreciation in my life for emergency responders. 

Chief Shelton gave me every opportunity to work with the various divisions within the department – and I loved it all.! A few years into my employment, Chief knew I wanted to do more… Yes, I wanted to try out for the Fire Academy. While he was not crazy about idea, he supported me and encouraged me along the way. I studied for the Civil Service exam while preparing for the dreaded physical agility test seven days a week. I had never worked so hard. I came in second on the written exam and completed all of the agility test except the darn pull ups – and you were allowed to miss two of the segments and still pass the test. So, with advice from a local female police officer, I learned how to scale a six-foot wall – it just took a special technique and lots of bruises.  

Because I had worked with most of the firefighters and staff at the fire department for several years, I had the support of most of them. In fact, some of the older guys would volunteer to work with me in learning how to drive the older fire trucks that were out at the Training Center. So many people helped me – and I will never forget them. 

Then, in the freezing cold of January 1976, Chief Shelton welcomed me to the Beaumont Fire Academy. It was at the BFD Training Center where I attended with 25 other rookies from surrounding fire departments (Beaumont, Port Arthur, Nederland, etc.). I didn’t know any of them, so it was quite interesting, and I definitely have many, many stories to tell. Three months later most of the group graduated from the academy as the best of friends. But, no doubt, those guys nearly drove me crazy – and we were together seven days a week! 

For eight years, I enjoyed my time at the BFD and working for Chief Shelton – he afforded me so many opportunities to learn and grow. He and others taught me about writing detailed specifications for purchasing everything from 5-inch fire hose to 100-ft. aerial trucks. And, yes, getting a new fire truck was a big day, for sure. I think the most trucks we had delivered at one time was three, but it was quite a task getting them outfitted right down to the “gold leaf” numbering on the doors. Chief was strict to uphold the traditions of the fire service while always progressing, always advancing and being the best at everything we did. 

Chief was instrumental in making the BFD and its Fire Training Center one of the best in the country. He was relentless when it came to budget time – and he never thought about backing down – whether it was facing the city manager or the mayor! Again, he made sure we were always growing and progressing.  

During the years, we conducted numerous regional fire academies at our Training Center and there was also a large fire school each year with hundreds of people – Chief was in his glory! And he never failed to help outfit a small volunteer group if they were short on their gear. He really loved helping people – especially those that loved the fire service like he did. 

Chief Shelton was so good to me; however, we did butt heads over one major topic…Angel, the dalmatian fire dog. I had always been an animal nut and insisted Angel have the best in medical care and accommodations. Chief did not share my animal craziness, so it really put him to the test at times. Then Angel got so fond of me that she would not leave my side – from leaping into the jump-seat on the engine with me when we made a run to strutting into the Chief’s office completely unannounced. In fact, she would scratch the paint from Chief’s office door if I happened to go in there without her. Angel, ironic name, was always getting into trouble. Because we worked at the downtown fire station, there were numerous people walking by on their way to lunch. More than once, Angel stole a brown lunch bag right out of a stranger’s hands. She was reported to the Fire Chief multiple times – and more complaints came in weekly about MY dog! 

When I left the BFD to move to Baton Rouge, it was a very sad day. But Chief was understanding and wished me all the best. My next challenge was just ahead – I had never owned or operated a business, although I was excited about the new little company called Roco Rescue. For the next 40 years, Chief Shelton and I remained in contact. He has always been a guiding force in my life. I remain committed to his goals of excellence and being the best possible. I truly believe his mentorship has had much to do with the success I’ve enjoyed in business and in life. He will never be forgotten. Here’s to you, Chief. 

https://broussards1889.com/obituary/c-a-pete-shelton/ 

Jackson, Mississippi is a burgeoning metro area with over 600,000 residents. Interstate highways busily crisscross the city. In the early evening of April 30, 2024, emergency responders found themselves planning how to recover the body of a man that had been missing for a month.

An angler had discovered the body and called 911. Local law enforcement confirmed the location of the body and the Hinds County Department of Emergency Management called for resources. Raymond Fire Protection District answered the call. As the Technical Rescue arm of the multi-agency response and also knowing that the area was filled with levees and flood control zones, Raymond firefighters geared up with ropes and a SKED stretcher system.

On scene personnel had originally determined that boat access would be the best approach, but the location of the body along the 40’ rocky slope quickly changed to a ground-based recovery.

Raymond firefighters and other responders moved through three quarters of a mile of brush, loose scree, and at times, knee deep sand to arrive on the levee above the body. With darkness now upon them, the eight technical rescuers began planning the recovery operation.

Because they were in the middle of the often-flooded levee, rescuers moved forty yards to the west of the Pearl River to an elevated billboard advertising to the thousands of cars passing by every day on Interstate 20. An anchor was established and extended over 100-feet to the top of the levee.

Three rescuers scrambled down the slope to assist local law enforcement. The victim was placed in a body bag and securely packed in the SKED stretcher. Meanwhile, topside rescuers used the extended anchor to establish a haul system using a Petzl Maestro and a newly acquired CMC Capto in a 3:1 Z-Rig configuration.

Four litter attendants lifted the man, and the haul began. Heavy brush and knee-deep sand proved challenging, but the team soon reached the top of the levee. While rescuers were coming up the slope, personnel from Hind County EMS, Jackson Fire Department and local law enforcement had made access to the area traveling in a side-by-side. The victim was loaded and driven to the roadway to be transferred to the coroner. All told, emergency responders spent nearly four hours moving the body.

So often, the outcome of our rescue response is predetermined. Our actions provide closure rather than the excitement of a rescue. However, we can take solace in knowing that the professionalism and preparedness of local responders gave a local family the opportunity to say goodbye.

Roco Rescue is honored to recognize Raymond Fire Department, Hinds County Department of Emergency Management and other Jackson, Mississippi, responders that espouse the definition of quiet professional.

In confined space work, ensuring air quality is a top priority. With directives from OSHA and consensus recommendations from ANSI & NFPA, understanding the ins and outs of atmospheric monitoring is key. This article will briefly review what OSHA requires as well as what ANSI, NFPA and Roco recommend for practices that ensure worker safety remains the top priority in working in these challenging environments. While the OSHA General Industry standard allows for periodic monitoring and sets no exact timespan between testing – however, as a safer way, Roco recommends continuous air monitoring any time workers are in the space.

OSHA 1910.146 refers to testing the internal atmosphere before an employee enters the space and testing as necessary to maintain acceptable entry conditions. Testing should be based on the hazard assessment for a given space as well as how rapidly those hazards could cause a change in the atmosphere, which may require additional action for safe entry.

OSHA’s Confined Spaces in Construction (1926-Subpart AA) also references monitoring frequency. It states continuous monitoring is required unless periodic monitoring is sufficient to ensure entry conditions are maintained, or continuous monitoring is not commercially available.

Note: Also take into consideration any previous work activities that may have introduced atmospheric hazards into the space as well as any known history of hazardous atmospheric conditions.

"Roco strongly encourages continuous monitoring while workers are inside a permit-required confined space."

Looking at best practice consensus standards, ANSI Z117 advocates for continuous monitoring in situations when a worker is present in a space where atmospheric conditions have the potential to change.

The national consensus standard, NFPA 350 Guide for Safe Confined Space Entry and Work 2022, also generally refers to “continuous air monitoring” when possible. Here’s a quote from NFPA 350, Section 7.13.1 (www.nfpa.org), Continuous Atmospheric Monitoring, “Atmospheric conditions can change quickly or gradually over time; without continuous atmospheric monitoring, air contaminants may increase, or the oxygen percentage may decrease or increase, creating dangerous confined space atmospheric conditions.” NFPA adds, “Entrants, Attendants, and other personnel may be unaware of changing conditions if the air quality was only initially monitored and determined to be acceptable. The atmosphere within and outside the confined space should be monitored continuously to ensure continued safe working conditions.”

PRE-ENTRY TESTING

Although OSHA does not define a specific timeline to conduct pre-entry monitoring, Roco uses as a guideline that a “baseline test” is to be conducted approximately 30 minutes prior to the entry and then again immediately prior to entry. If ventilation is being used as a control measure for atmospheric hazards, initial atmospheric monitoring should be conducted without ventilation to establish a baseline atmosphere.

A comparison of these readings could indicate that atmospheric changes have occurred inside the space. If a space has been vacated for a period of time, it is recommended that similar baseline testing be repeated. This is critical as it may reveal the presence of previously unrecognized or unanticipated atmospheric hazards.

Again, confined space work is inherently hazardous – and atmospheric hazards are a leading cause of fatalities. Do everything you can to keep your people safe. Don’t let your guard down even for a minute!

Additional Resources: 

Frequently Asked Questions: OSHA PRCS Standard Clarification 

How much periodic testing is required?

The frequency of testing depends on the nature of the permit space and the results of the initial testing performed under paragraph (c)(5)(ii)(c). The requirement in paragraph (c)(5)(ii)(F) for periodic testing as necessary to ensure the space is maintained within the limits of the acceptable entry conditions is critical. OSHA believes that all permit space atmospheres are dynamic due to variables such as temperature, pressure, physical characteristics of the material posing the atmospheric hazard, variable efficiency of ventilation equipment and air delivery system, etc. The employer will have to determine and document on an individual permit space basis what the frequency of testing will be and under what conditions the verification testing will be done.
 
What does testing or monitoring "as necessary" mean as required by 1910.146(d)(5)(ii) to decide if the acceptable entry conditions are being maintained?

The standard does not have specific frequency rates because of the performance-oriented nature of the standard and the unique hazards of each permit space. However, there will always be, to some degree, testing or monitoring during entry operations which is reflective of the atmospheric hazard.

Some of the factors that affect frequency are:

* Results of test allowing entry.
* The regularity of entry (daily, weekly, or monthly).
* The uniformity of the permit space (the extent to which the configuration, use, and contents vary).
* The documented history of previous monitoring activities.
* Knowledge of the hazards which affect the permit space as well as the historical experience gained from monitoring results of previous entries.

Knowledge and recorded data gained from successive entries (such as ventilation required to maintain acceptable entry conditions) may be used to document changes in the frequency of monitoring.

Learn More

QUESTION: How often should respiratory protection equipment be inspected, cleaned, and replaced in an industrial rescue setting?

ANSWER: 

That's a great question! While OSHA’s 1910.134 – Respiratory Protection Standard doesn't provide a specific schedule for inspection, cleaning, and replacement, it does emphasize the need for you and your company to create one. This schedule should follow the manufacturer's guidelines for your specific respiratory protection equipment. Remember that this is a general guide and not specific to your equipment.

"Always refer to the manufacturer's guidelines for the best results."

Half-face respirators are a type of protective gear that covers the nose and mouth. They use replaceable filters or cartridges to remove contaminants from the air. These respirators are ideal for environments with moderate levels of airborne hazards. Some of the places where half-face respirators are commonly used include manufacturing plants where workers are exposed to moderate levels of airborne particulates like dust, pollen, or metal fumes, as well as laboratories where there is a risk of exposure to low concentrations of hazardous chemicals or solvents during handling or mixing processes. When using half-face respirators, it is vital to inspect the facepiece for cracks, tears, or distortion. The condition of the straps or head harness should also be checked for elasticity and proper adjustment. Additionally, the inhalation and exhalation valves should be examined for any signs of damage or deterioration and inspect the filter or cartridge connections to ensure they are securely attached without any leaks.

Full-face respirators are designed to provide both respiratory and eye protection. They cover the entire face and offer superior protection against gases, vapors, and particulates. These devices are particularly useful in workplaces where workers are exposed to chemicals or toxic fumes, such as chemical processing plants or industrial painting operations. Inspection should involve checking the entire facepiece for any cracks, scratches, or damage that could compromise its integrity. The condition of the head harness and straps should also be assessed to ensure that they are intact and adjustable. Additionally, the respirator's lens should be inspected for scratches, fogging, or other impairments affecting visibility. Finally, test the operation of the inhalation and exhalation valves to ensure that they open and close correctly. 

Self-contained breathing Apparatus (SCBAs) offer the highest level of respiratory protection and are utilized in environments where the air is immediately dangerous to life or health (IDLH). They include a full-face mask connected to a compressed air cylinder worn on the back.  SCBAs are commonly used in confined spaces like storage tanks, sewers, or underground tunnels where there is a risk of oxygen deficiency or the presence of toxic gases. They are also used in firefighting operations where firefighters need respiratory protection in environments with high levels of smoke, heat, and toxic gases.

Before using SCBAs, it is important to inspect the facepiece, head harness, and straps for any signs of damage or wear. Additionally, check the cylinder for dents, corrosion, or any other signs of damage. Inspect the regulator, pressure gauge, and other components to ensure they are functioning properly. Finally, make sure that the emergency bypass valve is operating correctly.

Supplied Air Respirators (SARs) are devices that deliver clean air from an external source, such as an air compressor or compressed air cylinder, to the wearer's mask or hood. These respirators are commonly used in environments with limited oxygen or high concentrations of contaminants. SARs can be particularly useful in welding operations where workers require a continuous supply of clean air to protect against metal fumes and welding gases. 

To ensure that SARs function correctly, it is crucial to inspect the airline hose for cuts, kinks, or abrasions. Additionally, it is vital to check the connections between the respirator and the air supply source for leaks. Furthermore, ensuring that the regulator and pressure gauge are functioning correctly is crucial. Finally, verifying that the air supply source provides clean, breathable air is essential to the safe and effective use of SARs.

"It all comes down to this… The human body takes about 20,000 breaths per day. How much do you trust your equipment with one of those breaths?"

Brannon Aaron, ASP, NRP is an Associate Safety Professional through the Board of Certified Safety Professionals and a Nationally Registered Paramedic who works as a Safety Specialist and CSRT Crew Chief at Roco Rescue. Brannon has an extensive military background as well as years of experience in Pre-hospital Emergency Medical Services and emergency response settings. 

Follow Brannon 

Additional Resources

• Q&A: Cleaning Your Rescue Rope?
• Rescue Equipment Inspection Guidelines & Checklist

QUESTION: 
What's the difference between a fall arrest and a fall restraint system, and in what situations should each be used? Are there any regulations or best practices to follow? 

ANSWER: 

Fall Arrest vs. Fall Restraint: 

A fall arrest system is designed to stop a fall that is already occurring. It includes components such as a full-body harness, a lanyard, and a secure anchorage point, all aiming to safely catch the worker if they fall, minimizing injury during the deceleration process. In contrast, a fall restraint system prevents the worker from reaching a point where a fall could occur. This system involves a tether attached to a worker's harness, restricting movement to a safe distance from the edge. 

Minimum Requirements vs. Industry Best Practices: 

OSHA regulations are considered minimum requirements and govern both fall arrest and fall restraint systems, ensuring they meet the baseline for strength, durability, and performance. For fall arrest systems, these requirements specify a maximum arresting force of 1,800 pounds when using a body harness and necessitate anchorage points capable of withstanding at least 5,000 pounds of force. Additionally, these regulations limit the maximum deceleration distance to 3.5 feet and the maximum free fall distance to 6 feet. 

The standards found in ANSI Z359 are generally considered industry best practices and provide more comprehensive guidelines for both types of systems. For fall arrest systems, they outline specifications for each component, including design, testing, and compatibility requirements. They emphasize using energy-absorbing lanyards to reduce arresting force, require harnesses to evenly distribute forces across the body, and insist on proper maintenance schedules to ensure continued performance. For fall restraint systems, industry best practices focus on prevention, recommending adjustable tethers and lanyards to limit workers' reach and ensuring all components are rated for their intended use and compatible with each other. They also outline regular inspection and maintenance requirements to ensure system reliability.

Choosing Between Fall Arrest and Fall Restraint: 

The choice between a fall arrest or fall restraint system depends on the work environment and the tasks being performed. If it's possible to completely prevent a fall by using a restraint system, this is often the preferred approach due to its preventive nature. However, in situations where workers must work near or beyond the edge of a fall hazard, and restraint is not feasible, fall arrest systems are necessary. 

For example, in rooftop maintenance, where workers are scheduled to perform routine checks on HVAC units and solar panels on the top of a building, a fall restraint system may be preferred. The workers use a tether attached to their harnesses, anchored to points on the roof, restricting their movement and preventing them from reaching the roof's edge or getting too close to skylights or other openings. In contrast, in steel framework construction, where workers are assembling a new steel structure for an extension of the facility, a fall arrest system might be necessary. This task involves maneuvering across beams at significant heights, climbing ladders, and working near edges. A fall arrest system allows this flexibility while providing safety, catching workers if they fall, and minimizing injury during the deceleration process. 

By distinguishing between fall arrest and fall restraint systems and understanding both minimum requirements and industry best practices, workers and employers can take proactive steps to mitigate the risks of working at heights. The goal is to stop falls, ensuring every worker returns home safely at the end of the day.  

 Chris Warrick, NRP is a Nationally Registered Paramedic, Confined Space Rescue Technician, and EMS educator who serves as Medical Program Manager at Roco Rescue. 

Follow Chris 

Additional Q&A Resources

• Hierarchy of Fall Protection Poster
• Suspension Trauma Explained