Status of Contamination Control

Keeping It Safe Robert Tutterow

Contamination control in the fire service did not emerge as an issue until the early 1990s. The few of us who were involved 30 years ago knew it was a righteous endeavor. However, we had two major obstacles to overcome.

First, there was the ever-present fire service culture that did not want to see a need to address contamination. Second, there was little published scientific data to support the initiative. But there was a tremendous amount of anecdotal evidence to show there was a problem to be addressed. The more we learned, the more we discovered there was so much more to learn. By the way, that situation remains today.

The initial impetus was to approach the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) to develop a user standard for the selection, care, and use of personal protective equipment (PPE). Unfortunately, the NFPA got tangled up on deciding which existing technical committee should develop this standard. Originally, it was to reside with the occupational safety and health committee (responsible for NFPA 1500). Eventually, the NFPA decided it would be better for it to reside with the technical committee responsible for PPE (NFPA 1971). This discussion lasted for about three years. In the meantime, four fire service organizations joined together to develop a user guideline to help the fire service move forward until a new standard could be developed. The user organizations were three West Coast organizations—SAFER (Southern Area Fire Equipment Research), NAFER (Northern Area Fire Equipment Research Organization), and CAFER (Central Area Fire Equipment Research Organization)—and one southeast organization, F.I.E.R.O. (Fire Industry Education Research Organization). These groups developed a document appropriately titled “PPE Care and Use Guidelines.” The 75-page document served as the interim “go-to” PPE reference for fire departments until the issuance of the new NFPA 1851.

With that background, where does the fire service now stand as it addresses contamination control? The movement to control contamination moved at a relatively slow pace until it was discovered that contamination was a direct contributor to firefighters developing cancer at a higher rate than the rest of the population. Last year, Dr. Jamie McAllister, with the University of Maryland’s Department of Fire Protection Engineering, led a team to research how fire departments are addressing contamination control and the challenges they face. The research project was funded by the USFA/FEMA Fire Prevention and Safety Program.

The project included a national survey of fire departments. The survey asked for departments to submit their policies on contamination control, including post-fire air monitoring, PPE cleaning, personal hygiene, and apparatus/equipment cleaning; 78% of their responses came from career departments, 20% from combination departments, and 2% from all-volunteer departments. Just over 50% of the departments had policies on post-fire air monitoring, 73% had policies on post-fire PPE cleaning, 70% had personal hygiene policies, and 42% had policies on apparatus/equipment cleaning. Regrettably, 22% had no policies at all.

A few interesting findings from the research highlight the need to do more. Many policies did not reference any NFPA standards and some of the NFPA standards referenced were not the current revision of the standard. None of the policies addressed the off-gassing from contaminated PPE.

On completion of the survey compilation, the university conducted a user workshop to address the findings. Five “steps to success” emerged.

1. Provide training opportunities.
2. Let others see the policy in use (fire service—especially rookies—and those who hold the purse strings).
3. Clearly identify the need and leverage resources.
4. Receive internal feedback from leadership and “boots on the ground.”
5. Share information with ALL members explaining the benefit and why it is important.

The workshop group came up with the following challenges:

• Educating others and themselves.
• Educating upper management (job has changed since upper management had boots on the ground).
• How clean is clean?
• Resource management (avoiding using contamination control equipment for other purposes).
• Identifying the best cleaning products.
• Clearly identifying the exposure.
• Determining what is obtainable.

From all their work, they came up with the following future initiatives:

• Recognizing that contamination affects more than just suppression firefighters (investigators, etc.).
• Introducing the science behind the risks to new recruits.
• Developing the cultural message.
• Educating the health and safety officer and incident safety officer of their roles; formalizing continuing education.
• Better defining exposure.
• Implementing contamination control standard operating procedures (SOPs) at the training academy for both recruit and in-service training.
• Using exposure data to revisit/revise SOPs and policies.

Where does your department stand in the contamination control process?

ROBERT TUTTEROW retired as safety coordinator for the Charlotte (NC) Fire Department and is a member of the Fire Apparatus & Emergency Equipment Editorial Advisory Board. His 44-year career includes 10 as a volunteer. He has been very active in the National Fire Protection Association through service on the Fire Service Section Executive Board and technical committees involved with safety, apparatus, and personal protective equipment. He is a founding member and president of the Fire Industry Education Resource Organization (F.I.E.R.O.).