Impact case study database

Raising awareness of soil contamination caused by the Grenfell Tower fire

Stec’s investigation into the persistent environmental contamination caused by deposition of particulates from the Grenfell Tower Fire was the first analysis to be conducted at or near the site. Public Health England had previously only conducted air quality monitoring, targeting the most common atmospheric pollutants: an approach insufficient for uncovering the full extent of contamination caused by the tragedy. Where Public Health England had concluded a ‘consistently low’ risk to public health, Stec’s findings uncovered an overlooked and considerable risk to residents and firefighters’ health and the urgent need for investigation. Her preliminary findings, showing high concentrations of potential carcinogens in the area, were shared with PHE, NHS England and government officials in February 2018. They were reported on the front page of The Guardian every day for a week, in October 2018 [A]. This led to Prime Minister Theresa May calling on her chief scientific advisor, Sir Patrick Vallance, to establish a Scientific Advisory Group (SAG) on Grenfell Environmental Contamination, onto which Prof Stec was invited as the leading expert (Prof Chris Witty was a member of the group) [B]. The SAG commissioned comprehensive soil analysis as well as a GBP50,000,000 programme of health screening for affected residents [C]. Stec was called to give evidence on both the Grenfell Contamination and firefighter cancers to the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) [D], and her work featured heavily in their report [E]. Stec’s Grenfell contamination work was one of six final nominees for the Times Higher Education Research Project of the Year Award in 2020 [F].

Protecting firefighters from exposure to toxic fire effluent and residues

Stec initiated a meeting in the European Parliament for the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) Against Cancer Group in September 2017 to raise awareness of firefighters’ occupational exposure to toxic fire effluents and increased risk of cancer and disease. Pavel Poc, MEP Vice Chair of the MEPs Against Cancer Group, summarised: “It is clear that it is time to take action both on national and EU levels to ensure that our firefighters are no longer left alone in their battle with cancer. I call on upon the Euro commission and member states to take a strong and necessary lead on this issue and I call on all colleagues in the European parliament to support us, to support this initiative with only objective in mind the safety of our firefighters and all EU citizens.” [G]. This work was also presented to UK Members of Parliament and peers at the All-Party Parliamentary Fire Safety & Rescue Group and to the Government’s Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. It was also discussed at the British Standards technical committee (Firefighters’ PPE, PH/14). Stec’s research findings directly led to representation by counsel for the Grenfell Tower fire victims, and also counsel for the FBU, arguing that cancers and other chronic diseases should be included in the Grenfell Tower Public Inquiry led by Sir Martin Moore-Bick [H].

The utility and potential of the contamination study [2] for protecting firefighters’ health has been recognised by the Environmental Audit Committee in Recommendation 15 of the Report on Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life: ‘Recommendation 15: We also recommend that the Health and Safety Executive monitors the progress of the Fire Brigades Union research and provides assistance in implementing recommendations which seek to improve the work environments of UK firefighters. This should include measures to minimise contamination from clothing and equipment and reduce the overall exposure of firefighters, their families and the public’ [I, J]. The UCLan guidance document, commissioned by the FBU, Minimising firefighters’ exposure to toxic fire effluents Interim Best Practice Report responded to and set out the strategies for addressing the issues raised in Recommendation 15 [K1].

Research undertaken in collaboration with the FBU has already had significant impact by raising awareness of, and reforming, fire contamination control practices within UK FRSs. The best practice report [3] aims to help protect firefighters’ health by highlighting the risks and common sources of contamination. It also suggests preventative measures for minimising exposure to contaminants and best practice for the decontamination of FRS personnel and firefighting equipment after exposure to toxic fire effluent. It provides background information, statistics, resources and actions vital for improving firefighters’ health and well-being, keeping them safe and preventing the contamination which otherwise will lead to serious health conditions resulting in either life-changing problems and/or premature death. This is the first time such guidance has been provided to UK FRSs.

Matt Wrack, FBU General Secretary, says in his foreword to the report that it “not only provides evidence of the heightened risk faced by firefighters through their work, but also delivers clear and authoritative guidance to fire and rescue services across the UK about the measures they can take to minimise firefighters’ exposure to contaminants. The report details how firefighters face danger from breathing and ingesting contaminants long after a fire has been extinguished – and how these toxic fire effluents can be absorbed by the skin. It demonstrates where current Fire and Rescue health and safety practices are failing, builds on existing good practice and sets out a path to a safer future.” [K1]

The report made a series of practical recommendations, supported by the FBU, for changes that could be implemented by both the fire service and firefighters themselves. One firefighter commented: “I believe if the current recommendations had been in place when I first joined the service, I am in no doubt that they would have made a difference to me and my colleagues. If we’d known and we’d had these measures, we’d have used them and fewer of us would have got sick.” [K2, K3]

The UK government’s Industrial Injuries Advisory Council (IIAC) is planning to publish their review on firefighters and cancer imminently (March 2021) and have expressed interest in referencing the best practice recommendations made within the guidance document [L].

Distribution and best practice adoption in the UK and abroad

The impact of the guidance document is having a positive influence on the health of firefighters internationally. Fire Services in Poland have already adopted the document. The Firefighters Union KSP NSZZ "Solidarność" have said they “recommend this document to be used by all firefighters in Poland.” [M]. The Chief of the Fire Brigade in Olsztyn-Gutkowo, stated that the best practice report “has some impressive, radical, provoking and stimulating suggestions that are really needed in our sector in order to make any change. Our Fire Brigade is on board with all your findings in your report.” Zapadka also confirms that the “document was distributed across Polish Fire Stations, and I am sure that there are more Fire Brigades using and adopting your document.” [M] Following publication of the guidance in November 2020 emergency services and fire professionals in the USA, Australia, Netherlands, Norway and Ireland have expressed interest in the guidance [M].

The best practice document was welcomed by the FRSs in the UK, many of them incorporating the recommendations into their practice. Examples include fire services from London, Scotland, Greater Manchester, East Sussex, Essex, Hampshire, Avon, Lancashire, Merseyside and the Isle of Wight. In a letter to Matt Wrack, Martin Blunden of the Scottish Fire Rescue Service states that their Contaminants Control Group “has implemented action planning in all key areas where contaminants can present, this includes station design, appliance design, firefighting operations, PPE, Occupational Health, culture & behaviour, training and record keeping. In support of this work, the Service published a general information note in June 2020 which outlines in detail the standards, processes and behaviours expected in relation to these key areas.” Furthermore, Blunden reports that “This work will continue to be of high importance for the Service and the CG are currently scoping the recommendations from the UCLan Interim Report to ensure that any learning and recommendations are incorporated into the ongoing work of the CG.” [M]