In April, a group of industry affiliates — which included firefighters and other fire service representatives, manufacturers and researchers — met at NFPA headquarters to discuss the looming deadline for implementation of NFPA 1970: Standard on Protective Ensembles for Structural and Proximity Firefighting, Work Apparel, Open-Circuit Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) for Emergency Services, and Personal Alert Safety Systems (PASS) — the new PPE and gear standard consolidating NFPA standards 1971, 1975, 1981 and 1982. A follow-up report on the meeting provides a unique perspective on the hot button issue and what’s next.
The bottom line is that implementation of NFPA 1970 will ultimately provide long-term benefits for firefighters’ health and wellness, but there are several hurdles to overcome before the standard can make its mark. The current issue: Due to significant gaps in testing and potential manufacturing/supply chain impediments, a request to delay the implementation of the standard has been filed by several entities, including manufacturers looking for more time to research options to comply. Those requests won’t be acted upon until August, one month prior to the deadline.
So, what does this mean for fire departments? Let’s address what’s happening with NFPA 1970 at “street level,” leaving the science to the scientists.
PPE: PFAS vs. non-PFAS
The subject of cancer-causing PFAS chemicals in our PPE has been a hot and heavy topic for several years now. As the discussion has unfolded, industry partners including NFPA, UL, NIST, garment manufacturers and other stakeholder groups have invested a tremendous amount of work into finding a balance that reduces or removes PFAS from firefighting PPE, while still protecting firefighters from thermal intrusion.
While some believe this should be as easy as simply removing these chemicals, it is important to understand that there is nothing easy or simple about the issue.
PFAS chemicals are a key element of protection in our PPE and are infused into the fabric during the manufacturing process. The chemicals provide the repellency we need for intrusion by both water and external chemicals, like diesel fuel. The uniqueness of the PFAS chemical interaction is that it still allows the material to breathe from the inside, further protecting firefighters from thermal burns and cardiovascular stress.
Years and years of trials and studies have gone into getting the protection level where it is today – and I actually participated in some of those trials. We didn’t know then that PFAS was ultimately what provided part of the protection we needed.
According to the report posted to the NFPA blog, early comparisons of non-PFAS PPE purchased by the District of Columbia Fire and EMS Department (DCFEMS) have shown significant cleaning and degradation deficiencies compared to PFAS-treated PPE. However, the San Diego Fire Rescue, which is also using non-PFAS gear, is not reporting the same deficiencies.
While the two coasts tell different stories, no quantitative or comparative studies have been completed to analyze the results. It is important to note that none of the non-PFAS gear was certified as NFPA 1970-compliant. This issue was captured in the report this way: “Since NFPA 1970-compliant gear has not yet hit the market, there are no real-world studies to rely on, but lab research suggests that the new garments will have trouble repelling oil, and very likely will be less breathable and degrade faster.”
There are clearly more questions than answers, which means more studies are needed.
Accurate risk assessments
At the April meeting, the group discussed the critical need for accurate risk assessments when addressing the comparison of firefighter protection in PFAS-treated vs. non-PFAS-treated PPE. One manufacturer representative underscored a key consideration: “The risk assessment really needs to be all-encompassing. If we see the chemicals in garments as risks, we need to balance being exposed to trace amounts of those chemicals with the risks that firefighters experience out in the field. Are chemicals in the gear worse than the chemicals we are trying to protect them from? That is a much broader risk assessment than we typically think about.”
METRO Chiefs Executive Secretary Otto Drozd posed a similar sentiment as a rhetorical question: “Are we exchanging the long-term health impact of PFAS with the immediate health impact of heat exhaustion, heat stroke, cardiac arrest and some of the others?”
Again, there are far more questions than answers.
Financial impact of NFPA 1970 implementation
What has not been widely discussed is the fiscal impact this standard will have on fire departments across the country. Early results from DCFEMS suggest a 50% reduction in service life for non-PFAS PPE compared to current gear. That alone should signal a fiscal red flag for fire leaders everywhere.
Manufacturers were careful to hedge on the question of whether ensemble prices would increase for non-PFAS gear. While there is still a testing and certification process to pay for, there is no concrete manufacturing solution to get us there — yet.
More unanswered questions.
Final thoughts
Manufacturers have confirmed there is no “latest and greatest” material that will provide our current level of protection without the addition of PFAS chemicals. While the manufacturers and Chief Drozd said it more eloquently than I can, this really does feel like a “pick-your-poison” moment in fire service history. But how can we possibly vote for anything other than removing the cancer-causing chemicals from our gear?
In addition to the wholesale replacement of our PPE, this will also mean a wholesale change in our training regimen. I recall the time before safety was a priority, when blistering ears were your sign to start thinking about a way out, and taking off a glove to feel the heat gradients was the way we trained. I am not suggesting we return to these caveman days. However, as it stands today, non-PFAS PPE will require us to teach tomorrow’s firefighters much more about thermal balance and how to read their gear and their bodies. While our encapsulation today has allowed us to go further and further into the fire, it’s now clear that came at a dangerous cost.
