BY JOHN “SKIP” COLEMAN
September 11, 2001, has changed the fire service profoundly, not only in the United States but also around the world. New words (or words that were seldom used before), procedures, tools, and policies have been developed and implemented. Ten years ago, how many departments had a policy in place that gave assignments and implemented activities and activations if we went to a “threat level red”? I’m not sure the fire service knew what “threat level red” was 10 years ago. Mass decon is another one of those terms and procedures brought to the forefront after September 11.
This issue brought more responses than I had anticipated. Of the 34 respondents, 24 said they believe that training in mass decon is worth the effort. Fifteen indicated that they trained with outside entities such as EMS and hospitals. Only two stated outright that training in mass decon was not worth the effort. Some of the specific comments follow.
Question: Do you practice mass decon only within your department, or do you practice with hospitals and transport units? Do you believe mass decon is worth the effort?
Thomas Dunne, deputy chief, Fire Department of New York:New York City is both a terrorist target and one of the most densely populated areas in the country. Mass decon is more than a concept for us; it is a potential reality. In fact, FDNY has proactively established and positioned decon task forces for incidents ranging from significant United Nations meetings to major events in Yankee Stadium …. Given the challenges presented, any effort to rehearse procedures and improve communication between fire and medical personnel is a very productive use of our drill time.
Gary Seidel, chief, Hillsboro (OR) Fire Department:Mass decon training is worth the effort because it builds a better understanding of each other’s capabilities, demonstrates the need to work in a collaborative effort, and makes us better prepared if there is a need for mass decon.
Bob Metzger, chief, Golden Gate (FL) Fire District: Mass decon training is absolutely worth the effort, provided the emphasis is on establishing it early. Although many victims of a large-scale exposure may have already fled the scene to seek aid on their own, there are still likely to be many who have not. They will need the professional expertise of basic care. In the process of providing this, useful information can be provided to the hospitals about the nature of the incident and its impact on those being treated at the scene.
Jeffrey Schwering, captain, Crestwood (MO) Department of Fire Services:Mass decon is worth the effort. In today’s world, firefighters, again, must step up to meet another challenge that has been placed squarely on our shoulders. I’m not a big hazardous materials guy, but we owe the civilians the best protection we can give.
Gregory Noll, program manager, South Central (PA) Regional Task Force, Lancaster, PA:Based on current threats and risks, we believe that mass decon is a necessary response capability. Given incident timelines, mass decon is a First Responder-Operations level skill and should be able to be delivered without the support of a hazardous materials response team.
Yousef Ghadanfari, fire prevention engineer, Kuwait National Petroleum Company-HSE:Many challenges arise when conducting mass decon, including difficulty in controlling people’s coming and going in all directions. Do we have the authority to detain persons we might see as contaminant carriers? I believe it is worth the effort to conduct mass decon. More effort should be put into educating the community on the importance of mass decon, which will take a lot of time, especially in communities with cultural diversity.
Jason Hoevelmann, deputy chief, Sullivan (MO) Fire Protection District:We do not have the capabilities for mass decon. Regional hazmat teams are called to respond to major events. We can do emergency decon, if needed, for a very small number of victims, but we are limited in personal protective equipment, depending on the product.
Ray Maloney, safety officer, Northport (NY) Fire Department:At this time, we do not practice mass decon or technical decon. There is no provision to isolate those patients/victims who are contaminated or contagious, which puts our first responder fire and EMS personnel at risk.
Dan Oberste, battalion chief, Little Rock (AR) Fire Department:Mass decon has value, but I think that an oversensitivity to modesty prevents most of us from performing the most effective mass decon procedure of removing that grossly contaminated outer layer, the victim’s clothing.
Dale Justice, assistant chief, Indian River County Fire Rescue, Vero Beach, FL:We practice within our department and include transport units, as they are a part of fire/rescue. Mass decon is absolutely worth the effort.
Eric Smith, captain, Westland (MI) Fire Department:As with all incidents, the priorities remain the same; mass decon can be an important part of the tasks that help us meet these goals. Removing gross contaminants may reduce direct injuries and the dose received by the victim. It will protect responders and emergency care providers from potential injury by cross-contamination.
View all the responses at fireengineering.com.
John “Skip” Coleman retired as assistant chief from the Toledo (OH) Department of Fire and Rescue. He is a technical editor of Fire Engineering; a member of the FDIC Educational Advisory Board; and author of Incident Management for the Street-Smart Fire Officer (Fire Engineering, 1997), Managing Major Fires (Fire Engineering, 2000), and Incident Management for the Street-Smart Fire Officer, Second Edition (Fire Engineering, 2008).
