Robert Tutterow

Many of you are aware of the recent talk of perfluorooctanoic acids (PFOAs) causing cancer among firefighters. The talk has basically been in the social media circles.

The primary purpose of this column is to provide a brief overview of PFOAs and then address, in more detail, the totally inaccurate statement in an article that reads: “Of the 16 voting members on the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1971, Standard on Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting, committee, 10 are manufacturers. The others are made up of scientists, special experts, and one or two firefighters/chiefs.”

PFOAs

First just a brief comment about PFOAs. They are found in many products, including nonstick cookware, food packaging, carpet, upholstery, and consumer clothing. They have been found in water supplies and dust in homes. Now that the science is known, PFOAs are being eliminated in many manufacturing processes. They were used in firefighter personal protective equipment (PPE), but this practice has also been discontinued. Is it possible that a firefighter could have or might have contracted cancer from the PFOAs in his PPE? It is extremely unlikely, considering all the other more likely carcinogenic exposures, such as failure to wear the self-contained breathing apparatus face piece through overhaul completion, dirty PPE, diesel exhaust, and eating food prepared in certain treated nonstick cookware. The PFOAs used in firefighting PPE are the same as those used in bulletproof vests. I am not aware of a cancer epidemic among law enforcement or military personnel. For more information, please read the article published by the International Association of Fire Fighters in May titled, “PFOA and Turnout Gear.” It is an excellent source of balanced information.

NFPA Technical Committee Control

Now to the inaccurate statement referenced above. The clear insinuation is that the manufacturers control the technical committees. The statement and implication are wrong. As of this writing, there are 34 principal members of the technical committee and 30 alternate members. Alternate members can only vote in the absence of the principal member for whom they are an alternate. The roster is available to the public on the NFPA Web site. It can be found by doing a search for “NFPA 1971.” Click on the first link that pops up, then click on “Technical Committee.” From there you can find the roster.

Each member of an NFPA technical committee is assigned a classification. There are nine classifications:

1. Manufacturer.
2. User.
3. Installer/maintainer.
4. Labor.
5. Applied research/testing laboratory.
6. Enforcing authority.
7. Insurance.
8. Consumer.
9. Special Expert.

No more than one-third of the committee members can be from one classification.

In theory, fire service personnel can come from all classifications except manufacturer. Of the 34 principal members on the NFPA 1971 technical committee, 14 are current or retired fire department members. Eight of the members are classified as manufacturers. Members who perform PPE maintenance and repair are considered installer/maintainers. There are members who represent independent testing such as

Robert Tutterow

Many of you are aware of the recent talk of perfluorooctanoic acids (PFOAs) causing cancer among firefighters. The talk has basically been in the social media circles.

The primary purpose of this column is to provide a brief overview of PFOAs and then address, in more detail, the totally inaccurate statement in an article that reads: “Of the 16 voting members on the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1971, Standard on Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting, committee, 10 are manufacturers. The others are made up of scientists, special experts, and one or two firefighters/chiefs.”

PFOAs

First just a brief comment about PFOAs. They are found in many products, including nonstick cookware, food packaging, carpet, upholstery, and consumer clothing. They have been found in water supplies and dust in homes. Now that the science is known, PFOAs are being eliminated in many manufacturing processes. They were used in firefighter personal protective equipment (PPE), but this practice has also been discontinued. Is it possible that a firefighter could have or might have contracted cancer from the PFOAs in his PPE? It is extremely unlikely, considering all the other more likely carcinogenic exposures, such as failure to wear the self-contained breathing apparatus face piece through overhaul completion, dirty PPE, diesel exhaust, and eating food prepared in certain treated nonstick cookware. The PFOAs used in firefighting PPE are the same as those used in bulletproof vests. I am not aware of a cancer epidemic among law enforcement or military personnel. For more information, please read the article published by the International Association of Fire Fighters in May titled, “PFOA and Turnout Gear.” It is an excellent source of balanced information.

NFPA Technical Committee Control

Now to the inaccurate statement referenced above. The clear insinuation is that the manufacturers control the technical committees. The statement and implication are wrong. As of this writing, there are 34 principal members of the technical committee and 30 alternate members. Alternate members can only vote in the absence of the principal member for whom they are an alternate. The roster is available to the public on the NFPA Web site. It can be found by doing a search for “NFPA 1971.” Click on the first link that pops up, then click on “Technical Committee.” From there you can find the roster.

Each member of an NFPA technical committee is assigned a classification. There are nine classifications:

1. Manufacturer.
2. User.
3. Installer/maintainer.
4. Labor.
5. Applied research/testing laboratory.
6. Enforcing authority.
7. Insurance.
8. Consumer.
9. Special Expert.

No more than one-third of the committee members can be from one classification.

In theory, fire service personnel can come from all classifications except manufacturer. Of the 34 principal members on the NFPA 1971 technical committee, 14 are current or retired fire department members. Eight of the members are classified as manufacturers. Members who perform PPE maintenance and repair are considered installer/maintainers. There are members who represent independent testing such as

Richard Marinucci

The mission of the fire service has grown significantly with the addition of more responsibilities and expectations, but the basis of delivery is to get the resources to the emergency in the moments that matter.

If you have great staffing and an inadequate response time, the outcome is usually not good. Conversely, quick response without proper personnel for the job will not result in the best solution. In many, if not most, departments, resource allocation has maxed out. By this I mean that staffing per vehicle, station locations, vehicles, and other costly items will not change for the positive very significantly. So, to improve service, organizations look to technology for advancement.

In today’s world, we have come to expect that there is a technological solution for almost everything. We may still be amazed at some of the capabilities of technology, the information we have at our fingertips, and how we can simplify some jobs. Initial releases of technology can be expensive, but as more versions are released the cost can be significantly reduced. The question often is not whether something can be done with technology but whether it will be affordable.

Many companies hold focus groups, retain subject matter experts, or simply do some research to determine the needs of a particular industry. If you have ever participated, you know that there is great potential to meet the needs of a job with technology. The question is not whether something can be developed but if there is funding to support the development. Depending on the cost, there has to be a forecast as to whether there will be a market that will translate into profits. Often, the initial production of technology can create a price point that is out of reach for many, if not most. Those old enough to remember recall days of mobile phones (probably more commonly known as car phones) that were only available to the rich. Obviously, the cost (along with mobility) came down so the masses could afford them. Cell phones are now considered essential.

Some technology is simple and affordable. In these cases, departments embrace and consider them part of the essentials of doing business. Others may not be so simple and might be relatively expensive but required as a basic of providing service or required by laws, regulations, or standards. In these cases, organizations have little choice but to use the technology. This is a good thing, as it removes budget constraints and politics as excuses for not embracing the technology. For example, departments need compliant self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) with the required technology to meet the standards. Departments placing firefighters in hazard zones need SCBA to do the basics of the job. Funds must be appropriated for purchase if there is to be a fire department that will put firefighters in immediately dangerous to life or health environments.

Other technologies would greatly benefit fire protection but are not used to their potential because of political and financial reasons. These include automatic sprinkler systems, automatic fire alarms, and firefighter air replenishment systems. There are champions of sprinkler systems who have had continual battles to enact code changes that would require sprinklers in residential buildings. There is no doubt this would have a positive effect on fire loss. Yet, there are those who offer opposition and use their political connections to oppose adoption. Regarding automatic fire alarms, one could argue that sending a signal automatically without the

Richard Marinucci

The mission of the fire service has grown significantly with the addition of more responsibilities and expectations, but the basis of delivery is to get the resources to the emergency in the moments that matter.

If you have great staffing and an inadequate response time, the outcome is usually not good. Conversely, quick response without proper personnel for the job will not result in the best solution. In many, if not most, departments, resource allocation has maxed out. By this I mean that staffing per vehicle, station locations, vehicles, and other costly items will not change for the positive very significantly. So, to improve service, organizations look to technology for advancement.

In today’s world, we have come to expect that there is a technological solution for almost everything. We may still be amazed at some of the capabilities of technology, the information we have at our fingertips, and how we can simplify some jobs. Initial releases of technology can be expensive, but as more versions are released the cost can be significantly reduced. The question often is not whether something can be done with technology but whether it will be affordable.

Many companies hold focus groups, retain subject matter experts, or simply do some research to determine the needs of a particular industry. If you have ever participated, you know that there is great potential to meet the needs of a job with technology. The question is not whether something can be developed but if there is funding to support the development. Depending on the cost, there has to be a forecast as to whether there will be a market that will translate into profits. Often, the initial production of technology can create a price point that is out of reach for many, if not most. Those old enough to remember recall days of mobile phones (probably more commonly known as car phones) that were only available to the rich. Obviously, the cost (along with mobility) came down so the masses could afford them. Cell phones are now considered essential.

Some technology is simple and affordable. In these cases, departments embrace and consider them part of the essentials of doing business. Others may not be so simple and might be relatively expensive but required as a basic of providing service or required by laws, regulations, or standards. In these cases, organizations have little choice but to use the technology. This is a good thing, as it removes budget constraints and politics as excuses for not embracing the technology. For example, departments need compliant self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) with the required technology to meet the standards. Departments placing firefighters in hazard zones need SCBA to do the basics of the job. Funds must be appropriated for purchase if there is to be a fire department that will put firefighters in immediately dangerous to life or health environments.

Other technologies would greatly benefit fire protection but are not used to their potential because of political and financial reasons. These include automatic sprinkler systems, automatic fire alarms, and firefighter air replenishment systems. There are champions of sprinkler systems who have had continual battles to enact code changes that would require sprinklers in residential buildings. There is no doubt this would have a positive effect on fire loss. Yet, there are those who offer opposition and use their political connections to oppose adoption. Regarding automatic fire alarms, one could argue that sending a signal automatically without the

Richard Marinucci

The mission of the fire service has grown significantly with the addition of more responsibilities and expectations, but the basis of delivery is to get the resources to the emergency in the moments that matter.

If you have great staffing and an inadequate response time, the outcome is usually not good. Conversely, quick response without proper personnel for the job will not result in the best solution. In many, if not most, departments, resource allocation has maxed out. By this I mean that staffing per vehicle, station locations, vehicles, and other costly items will not change for the positive very significantly. So, to improve service, organizations look to technology for advancement.

In today’s world, we have come to expect that there is a technological solution for almost everything. We may still be amazed at some of the capabilities of technology, the information we have at our fingertips, and how we can simplify some jobs. Initial releases of technology can be expensive, but as more versions are released the cost can be significantly reduced. The question often is not whether something can be done with technology but whether it will be affordable.

Many companies hold focus groups, retain subject matter experts, or simply do some research to determine the needs of a particular industry. If you have ever participated, you know that there is great potential to meet the needs of a job with technology. The question is not whether something can be developed but if there is funding to support the development. Depending on the cost, there has to be a forecast as to whether there will be a market that will translate into profits. Often, the initial production of technology can create a price point that is out of reach for many, if not most. Those old enough to remember recall days of mobile phones (probably more commonly known as car phones) that were only available to the rich. Obviously, the cost (along with mobility) came down so the masses could afford them. Cell phones are now considered essential.

Some technology is simple and affordable. In these cases, departments embrace and consider them part of the essentials of doing business. Others may not be so simple and might be relatively expensive but required as a basic of providing service or required by laws, regulations, or standards. In these cases, organizations have little choice but to use the technology. This is a good thing, as it removes budget constraints and politics as excuses for not embracing the technology. For example, departments need compliant self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) with the required technology to meet the standards. Departments placing firefighters in hazard zones need SCBA to do the basics of the job. Funds must be appropriated for purchase if there is to be a fire department that will put firefighters in immediately dangerous to life or health environments.

Other technologies would greatly benefit fire protection but are not used to their potential because of political and financial reasons. These include automatic sprinkler systems, automatic fire alarms, and firefighter air replenishment systems. There are champions of sprinkler systems who have had continual battles to enact code changes that would require sprinklers in residential buildings. There is no doubt this would have a positive effect on fire loss. Yet, there are those who offer opposition and use their political connections to oppose adoption. Regarding automatic fire alarms, one could argue that sending a signal automatically without the