SoBran cornerDeveloping Personnel Protective Equipment strategies for law-enforcement responders // By M. K. James, SoBran, Inc.
Published 24 November 2009
First responders are a critical element in any chemical, biological, radiation, nuclear, or explosive (CBRNE) response scenario; in most cases they will be the first to arrive and the last to leave; there is a bone-a-fide need for personnel protective equipment (PPE) designed and developed specifically for first responders, but there is little movement by manufactures in that direction; in the mean time, agencies and organizations must work with the available technology and technical expertise
It happens almost every day: Law enforcement officers are the first line of defense in situations involving chemical, biological, radiation, nuclear, or explosive (CBRNE) threats. Each time, they face a unique set of personnel protective equipment (PPE) challenges.
Protective equipment manufacturers do an adequate job in developing and fielding protective equipment, but they focus primarily on the development of equipment designed for use by fire fighters and other non-law enforcement personnel. Unlike specially equipped and trained fire, rescue, and incident specific response teams, law enforcement officers require equipment that adequately protects them without compromising their ability safely and effectively to perform their assigned duties.
Limiting homeland defense professionals
A quick scan of the Internet or trade journals shows that there are very few companies catering to the CBRNE protection needs of the first responder, leaving departments and agencies to fend for themselves when identifying and selecting equipment.
Attempts to use PPE designed for firefighting quickly shows that the use of such equipment would severely restrict the responder’s ability to respond in a tactical environment. First responders depend on mobility and their ability rapidly to access a situation to survive. NFPA 1991 (Class 1) and NFPA 1994 (Class 2, 3, 4) equipment this limits mobility, restricts visibility, and muffles or disrupts sounds is unacceptable. Such equipment alters the way respondents see, hear, and feel the tactical environment. Gloves, air supply regulators, and the internal noise generated by class 1 and 2 suites reduce the ability of the officer to quickly recognize and respond to threats.
Additionally, the use of such gear markedly alters the way responders wear and use his or her support equipment. Responders tend to be highly dependent the use of repetitive motion and touch when employing weapons or support equipment such as handcuffs, defensive sprays, or other non-lethal equipment. PPE alters the placement and feel of such equipment causing hesitation and increasing risk. Another significant limitation of Class 1 and 2 PPE is its dependence on a closed air supply. Because law enforcement officers cannot withdraw from tactical positions to change air canisters, the use of such equipment is not practical.
When selecting PPE, government agencies and businesses alike are faced with several tactical and financial issues. First, the equipment must be cost effective, portable, easily stored in a single package or tactical bag, and capable of withstanding non-environmentally controlled areas such as car trunks and motorcycle bags for
