Oshkosh appoints Marty Bass to lead Pierce Manufacturing

Pierce Manufacturing leadership appointment

Pierce Manufacturing has appointed Marty Bass as President of Pierce Manufacturing, effective 13 January 2026.

Bass’s responsibilities include oversight of Pierce Manufacturing, MAXIMETAL, Oshkosh Airport Products (ARFF) and Frontline Communications.

He joins Pierce following a 19-year career at Brunswick Corporation.

His most recent role there was President, Americas Market Operations for the Navico Group.

Role scope and background

Bass has more than two decades of leadership experience in global manufacturing businesses, with a background in operations, quality systems and complex supply chains.

During his tenure at Brunswick, he held roles including President of Mercury Marine’s Europe, Middle East and Africa region.

He also served as Vice President of Global Category Management and Strategy at Mercury Marine.

Mike Pack, Oshkosh Corporation Executive Vice President and President, Vocational, said: “Marty is a proven leader with a deep understanding of how to deliver quality, efficiency and long-term growth to meet the critical needs of our customers.

“As Pierce continues to make significant investments in people and across operations, Marty’s experience leading advanced manufacturing organizations will be instrumental in helping us remain focused on what matters most: delivering safe, reliable, quality fire apparatus while being thoughtful stewards of our customers’ resources.”

Current operating context and investment claims

The company said Bass joins as departments across North America face increased budget pressures, industry-wide extended lead times and rising operational demands.

Pierce described its response as more than $150 million in capital investment and capacity expansions, process improvements and workforce development aimed at strengthening quality and improving production flow to reduce delivery timelines.

Bass said: “I’m honored to join Pierce Manufacturing and build upon the legacy of craftsmanship, innovation and customer commitment which defines this organization.

“Fire departments and their communities rely on Pierce apparatus to perform in the most critical moments, and that responsibility guides every decision we make.

“My focus will be on supporting our teams, reinforcing quality and operational discipline, and ensuring we continue to earn the trust of our customers and the fire service community.”

Before his corporate career, Bass served as an officer and engineer in the United States Navy within the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program.

He holds dual master’s degrees in business administration and engineering management from Northwestern University.

He also holds a master’s degree in mechanical engineering from the Naval Postgraduate School and a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.

The fire service’s greatest health risk: PGI Safety’s case for treating cancer as operational risk

Andy Slater, Managing Director for EMEA and Asia Pacific at PGI Safety, outlines exposure routes and daily hygiene steps for operational crews

Firefighter cancer risk has shifted from emerging concern to operational reality, driven by clinical evidence, national mortality data and lived experience across the service.

While awareness has grown, many brigades still struggle to convert research into everyday practice that reduces exposure, improves early detection and embeds long-term behaviour change.

Education, practical intervention and credible collaboration have therefore become central to closing that gap.

Andy Slater, Managing Director for EMEA and Asia Pacific at PGI Safety, has focused on translating evidence into frontline action through education, PPE development and shared ownership.

Drawing on sustained engagement with firefighters, clinicians and industry peers, Andy has helped shape initiatives aimed at cancer prevention, early screening and cultural change.

IFSJ Editor Iain Hoey spoke with Andy about how education, culture and practical solutions can improve firefighter health outcomes.

You have described cancer as the most serious health threat facing the fire service today. What evidence and lived experience led you to that view?

Cancer is now recognised as the leading cause of line-of-duty deaths among firefighters, surpassing acute incidents like fires or structural collapse.

In the UK, studies show firefighters face significantly higher mortality from certain cancers, with prostate cancer up to 3.8 times higher, leukaemia 3.17 times and oesophageal 2.42 times than the general population, and overall cancer mortality 1.6 times higher.

Internationally, organisations such as the IAFF report that occupational cancer accounts for around 70 to 80 percent of line-of-duty deaths in recent years.

Lived experience reinforces this: I have heard from firefighters diagnosed after years of service, often linking symptoms to repeated exposure.

Collaborations with advocates like John Lord, who survived cancer and now champions awareness through seminars, and Robbie Burns, whose personal testimony has moved entire rooms, have shared stories of colleagues affected young or posthumously.

The WHO’s IARC reclassified occupational firefighting as carcinogenic to humans in 2022, and UK surveys showing elevated diagnoses, including in younger age groups, confirm this is a real and ongoing epidemic we can address through better protection and practices.

How do firefighters encounter carcinogenic exposure, and where can daily practice reduce risk most effectively?

Firefighters encounter carcinogens primarily through inhalation of smoke and particulates, dermal absorption via skin contact with soot and toxins, especially on the neck, groin and wrists, and ingestion from hand-to-mouth transfer or contaminated gear.

Modern fires increasingly involve plastics and synthetics that release toxic chemicals such as PAHs, benzene and PFAS, which linger on PPE, appliances and within stations.

The greatest opportunities lie in consistent day-to-day decontamination protocols: immediate post-incident hygiene, showering within the hour, on-site laundering, particulate-blocking hoods to reduce neck exposure, separating clean and dirty zones in stations and appliances, and avoiding eating or storing gear in contaminated areas.

Simple changes, such as not taking PPE home and adopting breathable barrier fabrics, can dramatically cut absorption.

At PGI, we focus on gear that balances protection with comfort to encourage consistent use, turning these practices into routine habits that save lives over the long term.

How have your education and knowledge-sharing initiatives evolved in practice?

Education started with raising basic awareness of contaminants and has developed into targeted, evidence-based seminars such as the Invisible Risk series.

Early sessions focused heavily on the “why”, including exposures and statistics, but feedback showed firefighters needed the “how”: practical decontamination steps, PPE selection guidance and station culture changes.

We refined the approach by incorporating real firefighter stories, scientific input from toxicology experts, interactive gear demonstrations and emphatic presentations by Robbie Burns.

Collaborations with peers such as John Lord and Robbie have broadened reach, attracting hundreds from fire services, regulators and suppliers.

What works best are actionable takeaways, such as clear post-incident hygiene protocols, combined with peer-led discussions that build buy-in.

Post-seminar engagement has been strong, with firefighters sharing stories of changed behaviours, deeper understanding of PPE requirements and proactive steps such as pursuing SNOMED codes.

Departments have adopted better practices that reduce cross-contamination and encourage earlier health checks.

How can SNOMED codes improve screening and earlier clinical intervention for firefighters?

SNOMED CT codes allow GPs and NHS systems to record a patient’s occupation as firefighter, using code 106382009, and occupational exposure risks, such as 16090571000119109.

This flags elevated cancer risk in electronic records and prompts clinicians to consider occupational factors during consultations.

In practice, this enables targeted screening, including earlier PSA testing, faster referrals for symptoms that might otherwise be dismissed and inclusion in enhanced monitoring.

After promoting SNOMED codes through seminars, several firefighters secured rapid PSA checks, leading to early-stage diagnoses in some unfortunate cases.

Catching cancer very early delivers far better outcomes.

We urge firefighters to request that their GP adds these codes.

It is a simple administrative step with significant impact, as better data leads directly to earlier intervention and improved outcomes.

How do mental and behavioural health challenges interact with cancer risk and long-term outcomes?

PTSD, shift-work stress and burnout are prevalent within the fire service and interact strongly with physical risks.

Chronic stress weakens the immune system, potentially accelerating disease progression, while behaviours such as poor sleep, smoking, alcohol use or skipping health checks compound exposure effects.

Stress can also lead to complacency in decontamination, with firefighters rushing post-incident routines or failing to change contaminated gear properly.

Over time, this creates a cycle where poorer mental health worsens physical outcomes and cancer diagnoses add psychological burden.

Addressing mental and physical wellbeing together helps reduce overall risk, as healthier firefighters are more vigilant about exposure and early detection.

Why do you view inclusion, particularly for women, as a practical safety issue?

Inclusion is a safety imperative.

Women firefighters face risks linked to ill-fitting PPE designed for male builds, which can increase exposure through gaps, and research suggests higher risks for certain cancers, including bladder.

Hormonal factors and reproductive health considerations add further complexity.

This focus also widens to other blue light responders, particularly police and ambulance staff working fire scenes, where correct PPE and RPE fit is critical.

Exclusionary cultures deter reporting concerns or seeking help, delaying interventions.

By prioritising inclusive gear, diverse voices in training and addressing gender-specific risks in seminars, protection improves for all.

I have been fortunate to have individuals such as Dany Cotton and Michelle O’Toole contributing to this important conversation around women’s health and inclusion within the fire service.

How have peers such as John Lord and Robbie Burns shaped this work?

Collaboration underpins credibility.

John Lord, a retired station manager and cancer survivor, has been pivotal through his Invisible Risk seminars and advocacy, including promoting SNOMED codes.

His work has driven personal action, early diagnoses among attendees and wider engagement, including with retired firefighters and international audiences.

Robbie Burns, a serving watch manager, shares his personal bladder cancer journey through powerful, emphatic presentations at PGI seminars.

His testimony brings urgency and authenticity, inspiring immediate behaviour change.

Feedback consistently highlights improved daily practices, better PPE choices and proactive health steps.

Together with PGI’s technical solutions and support from industry colleagues, this peer-driven approach builds trust and motivates adoption across services.

My personal and sincere thanks also go to Mick O’Briand and Chris Thornton from Biggin Hill Airport for their tireless support.

What should the wider sector learn about improving firefighter health outcomes?

Change happens through shared ownership across firefighters, unions, manufacturers, researchers and regulators.

Education must be evidence-based, drawing on UK studies, IARC classifications and real operational data, while being delivered accessibly with practical tools and lived experience.

Sustained investment is needed in prevention, including improved PPE standards, mandatory decontamination protocols, universal SNOMED use and routine health surveillance.

Engagement following our seminars has led to behaviour change, heightened awareness of PPE and health needs, rapid PSA checks and early-stage cancer detections.

Shared ownership ensures no one waits for top-down mandates.

By combining data, lived experience and practical solutions, the sector can build lasting momentum and treat cancer as an operational risk that demands proactive, collective action.

This was originally published in the February 2026 Edition of International Fire & Safety Journal. To read your FREE copy, click here.

Argon Electronics platforms its Generic MultiGAS-Sim

Argon Electronics has spotlighted its Generic MultiGAS-SIM handheld simulation, which was publicly introduced in 2025.

Designed to mirror the look, feel and operation of a multi-gas detector, including button presses and screen layouts, the simulation runs on standard AA batteries.

It does not require calibration gases and can pair with an instructor’s app via Bluetooth to offer real-world oversight.

The aim is accurate, instrument-level simulation that is designed to reflect the needs of frontline responders.

Director of Business Development, Argon, Felipe Arrigahi’s statement

Felipe Arrigahi, Director of Business Development at Argon commented: “We created the MultiGAS-SIM to fill gaps in confined space training for toxic industrial chemicals, informed by our chemical warfare expertise.

“Ultrasound mimics vapour dispersion effectively, identifying issues like unsealed entries.

“It replicates various gases, densities and oxygen drops securely, enabling authentic practice of operational intricacies.”

According to Argon, the design removes many of the logistical burdens associated with using real detectors in training, consumable gases, regular sensor replacements and the need for controlled environments.

The system uses simulated signals rather than hazardous materials, meaning that training can be carried out almost anywhere: indoors, outdoors, in confined spaces or large open areas.

The wider ecosystem

Argon’s wider ecosystem, including Long Range Vapour Source (LRVS) emitters and options such as PlumeSIM for complex muti-hazard scenarios.

This allows instructors to escalate from simple leak simulations to large-scale CBRNe training events.

Arrighi continued: “In a key 2025 NATO exercise, the MultiGAS-SIM exhibited high fidelity.

“Teams navigated hypoxic undergrounds and mixed lab contaminants.

“Real-time readings revealed overlooked flaws. It understated realism heightened focus, exposing hidden weaknesses.

“What matters most is the realism these tools enable. Atmospheric hazards are often subtle, invisible and fast-changing and effective training needs to capture that.”

Firefighters remain exposed to hazardous fire residues despite policy changes, says London Assembly Report

Firefighters continue to face exposure to toxic contaminants

A London Assembly Fire Committee report warns that firefighters in London may be routinely exposed to hazardous substances released during fires.

The report Exposure to fire contaminants in London: A hidden, growing risk? was produced by the London Assembly Fire Committee.

The findings identify asbestos, heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants among contaminants present at incidents.

The Committee notes that definitive UK evidence on cancer causation is still emerging.

Research presented to the Committee shows higher cancer incidence and abnormal tumour markers among firefighters compared with the general population.

Fire Brigade Union commissioned research found that 4% of firefighters surveyed, around 1 in 25, reported a cancer diagnosis in a self-reported sample of more than 11,000 personnel.

Prevalence was highest among those aged 35 to 39, around three times the rate seen in the general population.

Between 10% and 15% of respondents were recorded as having abnormal tumour markers, compared with a control group drawn from the public.

Policy progress and recommendations for national action

The Committee concludes that the London Fire Brigade (LFB) Fire Contaminants Policy has shifted attitudes away from the “badge of honour” of dirty kit.

Implementation varies widely across stations, partly because of limitations in personal protective equipment availability and older station layouts.

The Committee urges the Government and the National Fire Chiefs Council to reduce firefighters’ exposure to fire contaminants.

Recommendations include creating a UK-wide exposure and health monitoring programme for firefighters.

A pilot of operational exposure monitoring in London is also proposed.

Further measures call for stronger training, assurance and compliance with fire contaminants policies, improved PPE supply and procurement planning, and greater emphasis on health promotion within occupational health services.

The Committee also asks the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council to review evidence on cancer risks linked to firefighting.

Chair of the London Assembly Fire Committee Zack Polanski AM said: “Fires don’t end when the flames are out as toxic contaminants can remain long afterward.

“Firefighters accept risk as part of the job, but exposure to toxic chemicals should not be an unavoidable consequence of protecting the public.

“While London Fire Brigade has made real progress, this report shows more needs to be done to understand and reduce the long-term health risks firefighters face.”

The report treats decontamination practices, station design and long-term health monitoring as closely connected areas for further action.

Lifestyle references criticised by the Fire Brigades Union

The Fire Brigades Union (FBU) has responded to the London Assembly Fire Committee report Exposure to fire contaminants in London: A hidden, growing risk?.

In its statement, the FBU said the report includes a recommendation referring to “positive lifestyle changes, including smoking cessation, physical fitness, diet, sleep hygiene, and alcohol awareness”.

Steve Wright, Fire Brigades Union general secretary, said: “Firefighters are dying younger and living with life-altering cancers and chronic illness.

“These are preventable occupational deaths, and this is a national scandal.

“The UK is decades behind other countries on this issue, and this report underlines the urgent need for basic, long-overdue measures: stronger prevention measures, regular health monitoring for all firefighters, and re-evaluation of compensation for firefighters’ occupational diseases.

“However, firefighters will rightly find the references to ‘lifestyle’ offensive.

“Firefighters are not getting sick because of personal choices – they are getting sick because they are being systematically exposed to toxic substances in the course of their work.

“When so many other countries and international bodies are doing the right thing and recognising the risks firefighters face, it is time for our own government to stop ignoring the evidence and act.”

Anna Stec, Professor of Fire Chemistry and Toxicity at the University of Lancashire, said: “While the report makes positive recommendations on the need for a UK-wide rollout of harmonised contamination exposure tracking and health monitoring for firefighters, the argument that firefighter cancers and diseases could be reduced through lifestyle changes is fallacious.

“Lifestyle factors influence health outcomes in any population, but they do not explain the elevated rates of cancer and disease seen in firefighters.

“Why should firefighters be expected to adopt such changes in order to compensate for the toxic environments they are routinely exposed to at work?”

Report Summary: Exposure to fire contaminants in London: A hidden, growing risk?

Why the investigation was launched

The report states that firefighters are expected to accept risk as part of their work, but that exposure to fire contaminants represents an emerging and less visible risk, particularly in relation to cancer.

Purpose of the Committee’s inquiry

The London Assembly Fire Committee launched its investigation to examine how these risks are manifesting in London, the evidence linking exposure to cancer, and what actions could better protect firefighters locally and nationally.

Nature of exposure in London

Evidence presented to the Committee indicates that firefighters in London are exposed to products of combustion at fire incidents, and that these exposures are broadly similar to those faced elsewhere in the UK.

Cumulative exposure in London

Witnesses told the Committee that, because of the high number of fires attended in London, there may be risks associated with cumulative exposure, even though London is otherwise comparable to other large metropolitan areas.

Evidence and uncertainty on cancer causation

The report notes that definitive UK evidence of direct causal links between firefighting and specific cancers is still developing, given the varied nature of exposures and the time it can take for related illnesses to emerge.

International evidence context

The Committee references the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s 2023 designation of occupational exposure as a firefighter as carcinogenic, while also noting that more UK-specific research is needed.

Why uncertainty should not delay action

The Committee argues that the absence of definitive causal proof should not prevent action, and that better assessment, measurement and tracking of exposure is needed.

Call for a national monitoring programme

The report recommends that central government, working with the National Fire Chiefs Council and devolved administrations, establish a UK-wide firefighter exposure and health monitoring programme with national standards for data collection and long-term surveillance.

Recommendation on compensation evidence review

The Committee recommends that the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council undertake a fresh review of the evidence on cancer risks linked to firefighting, in light of developments since its 2021 position paper.

Progress made by London Fire Brigade

The Committee recognises that London Fire Brigade (LFB) has taken several steps since publishing its Fire Contaminants Policy in 2022, and that this has led to a clear cultural shift away from viewing dirty kit as a “badge of honour”.

Key elements of the policy in practice

The report describes changes such as safe disrobe procedures, the use of designated zones within fire stations to reduce cross-contamination, and the expectation that firefighters should shower within an hour of exposure.

Changes to frontline practice

Witnesses and site visits indicated that firefighters are now more focused on decontamination at incidents and on preventing secondary exposure when returning to stations or fire engines.

Persistent practical barriers

The report identifies ongoing challenges with the availability of personal protective equipment, including shortages reported in 2025, which have affected implementation of the policy in some cases.

Financial and operational pressures

The Committee notes that increased cleaning and replacement of PPE are placing additional pressure on fire and rescue service budgets.

Station design as a structural constraint

The report finds that many older fire stations were not designed with modern contamination control in mind, making it difficult to separate clean and contaminated areas consistently.

Cross-contamination risks in existing stations

The Committee observed that, in some stations, contaminated equipment still has to pass through areas intended to remain clean because of building layout constraints.

Recommendations on future PPE contracts

The report recommends that LFB ensure its next PPE contract is designed to meet current and anticipated demands from fire contaminants policies, including more frequent cleaning, faster turnaround times and sufficient stock levels.

Recommendation on exposure monitoring in London

The Committee calls for LFB to develop a time-limited pilot exposure monitoring programme for operational firefighters, scoped in 2026/27 and launched in 2027/28, developed with academic and occupational health experts.

Existing health screening arrangements

The report records that London firefighters receive routine medicals every three years, including basic cardiorespiratory checks and an asbestos-specific element.

Limits of cancer screening

The Committee notes that comprehensive cancer screening for firefighters is complex, and that some cancers most strongly associated with firefighting, such as mesothelioma and bladder cancer, do not currently have safe, reliable population-level screening tests in routine NHS use.

Prevention and occupational health

The report recommends that LFB strengthen its prevention-focused approach by embedding proactive health promotion, including support around smoking cessation, fitness, diet, sleep and alcohol, within routine occupational health provision.

Regulatory context

The Committee records that the Health and Safety Executive considers the existing regulatory framework, including the Health and Safety at Work Act, COSHH regulations and Workplace Regulations, sufficient to reflect firefighting’s classification as a carcinogenic occupation.

Overall conclusion of the Committee

The Committee concludes that LFB’s Fire Contaminants Policy represents a substantial step forward, but that further national coordination, better exposure data, improved PPE systems and updated fire station design standards are needed to reduce long-term health risks for firefighters.

Storage safety simplified: Insafe explains why “small” batteries can create big fire loads

Simon Arthur, Managing Director at Insafe, outlines lithium-ion failure behaviour, common workplace scenarios and practical implications for risk assessments and response planning

Lithium-ion batteries are now embedded in everyday operations to the extent their presence is rarely questioned.

They power tools, vehicles, medical devices, handheld equipment and energy storage systems across almost every commercial and industrial sector.

What was once a specialist technology has become fundamental to smart working life.

But as their use has expanded, the fire risks associated with battery failure have become increasingly visible.

Simon Arthur, Managing Director at Insafe, highlights how incidents are appearing frequently enough to require structured attention within fire safety planning.

This reflects a wider shift from isolated events to a pattern that cuts across sectors and environments.

At Westminster, parliamentarians have recently met with councils, fire authorities and industry representatives to address the growing number of fires linked to discarded lithium-ion batteries, particularly those entering waste and recycling streams.

These discussions have focused on incident frequency, operational pressures on fire and rescue services, and wider implications for public safety, infrastructure resilience and environmental harm.

That lithium-ion battery fires are being debated at this level reflects the scale of the issue.

It is no longer confined to individual premises or industries but increasingly understood as a systemic risk arising from how batteries are manufactured, used, stored and disposed.

Similar patterns are emerging across commercial and industrial environments.

Fires linked to damaged batteries, informal storage practices or poorly managed charging arrangements are being reported in logistics facilities, manufacturing sites, healthcare settings and education estates.

In many cases, the initial ignition is relatively small, but the subsequent fire behaviour quickly distinguishes these incidents from conventional combustible events.

Thermal runaway can result in rapid heat release, the emission of flammable gases and a persistent risk of re-ignition.

This complicates emergency response and post-incident recovery, particularly in spaces not designed to contain such behaviour.

Fires may appear to be controlled, only to reignite hours later as residual heat within battery cells triggers further reactions.

Operational experience increasingly shows how lithium-ion batteries introduce a fire risk profile that does not align neatly with traditional fire safety assumptions.

The challenge is not only the battery itself, but how its failure modes interact with environments designed around different materials, fuels and fire development patterns.

Understanding how lithium-ion battery fires behave

The behaviour of lithium-ion battery fires under fault conditions underpins much of the concern expressed by fire professionals and regulators.

When a battery cell enters thermal runaway, whether due to mechanical damage, overcharging, manufacturing defects or exposure to elevated temperatures, the reaction can be both intense and sustained.

High temperatures, rapid flame development and the release of flammable and toxic gases are common features.

Once initiated, the process is difficult to interrupt, particularly where multiple cells or batteries are involved.

Heat generated by one failing cell can propagate to adjacent cells, escalating the incident and increasing the overall fire load.

In workplace settings, incidents frequently occur during storage or charging rather than active use.

Batteries may be charged unattended, grouped together in confined spaces or connected to incompatible chargers.

These conditions increase the likelihood early warning signs will be missed, whilst heat and gases will accumulate before detection occurs.

While higher-capacity batteries often attract attention, smaller-format batteries present a comparable hazard when present in sufficient numbers.

A collection of handheld tool batteries stored or charged together can generate a significant fire if failure occurs, particularly where ventilation is limited or combustible materials are nearby.

These characteristics have important implications for prevention and response.

Traditional extinguishing methods may suppress visible flames without addressing the underlying reaction within the battery cells, allowing temperatures to remain high enough for re-ignition.

Water can be effective for cooling, but access, volume and secondary risks must be considered, particularly in occupied or sensitive environments.

As understanding of these behaviours has developed, it has become clear lithium-ion battery fires require specific consideration within fire risk assessments.

Treating them as a variation of conventional combustible risk can leave critical gaps in protection, particularly where batteries are stored or charged close to people, critical assets or escape routes.

From informal practice to engineered protection

For many organisations, battery storage and charging arrangements have evolved informally.

General-purpose metal cabinets, open shelving or improvised charging points were often introduced for convenience, without detailed consideration of how a battery fire might develop within those spaces.

While such arrangements may appear orderly, they offer limited protection once failure occurs.

In some cases, informal solutions can increase risk.

Cabinets not designed to manage heat or gas release may contain a fire briefly, only to fail suddenly as temperatures rise beyond their design limits.

Poorly positioned charging areas may expose escape routes, critical operations or neighbouring occupancies to unnecessary risk.

As incident data and operational experience have increased, battery storage solutions have become more closely aligned with the specific behaviours of lithium-ion battery fires.

Purpose-built cabinets and safes now incorporate layered protection strategies designed to contain heat, manage gas release and provide early warning of developing faults.

Fire-resistant construction materials and non-combustible insulation help limit heat transfer to surrounding areas.

Integrated monitoring and alarm systems can alert occupants to overheating or malfunction before conditions escalate into a full-scale incident.

Independent testing has become a critical part of this progression.

Certification to recognised European standards, including EN 14470-1 for fire-resistant storage cabinets and EN 1363-1 for fire resistance testing, provides validation of performance under defined conditions.

These standards do not eliminate risk, but they offer a consistent, transparent benchmark for assessing how products are expected to perform during a fire.

Fire resistance ratings are necessarily time-limited, but their purpose is to provide crucial time for evacuation, intervention and coordinated response.

For duty holders, insurers and enforcing authorities, independently tested performance offers greater confidence than unverified claims or improvised solutions.

This move towards engineered protection reflects a wider trend in fire safety, where physical controls embedded within the environment support procedural measures.

For lithium-ion batteries, where failure can be sudden and difficult to predict, this combination of engineering and operational discipline is particularly important.

Integrating lithium-ion battery safety into everyday operations

Effective lithium-ion battery fire safety depends on how storage and charging solutions are integrated into daily working practices.

Different environments present different risk profiles, and recognising these distinctions allows organisations to adopt proportionate, technically informed measures.

A facilities team charging handheld tools overnight presents a different scenario to an industrial operation storing higher-capacity batteries for material-handling equipment or energy storage.

In logistics and warehousing environments, charging areas are often located within active operational zones, requiring a balance between accessibility, segregation and containment.

In healthcare or laboratory settings, preventing smoke and toxic gas spread may be the overriding concern, particularly where vulnerable occupants or sensitive equipment are present.

Educational institutions often manage large numbers of smaller batteries across multiple locations, making consistency, supervision and clarity of responsibility essential.

Alongside physical infrastructure, good operational practice remains central to reducing risk.

Routine inspection of batteries for signs of damage, clear identification and control of charging equipment, and defined procedures for handling defective or end-of-life batteries all contribute to lowering the likelihood of incidents.

When these practices are supported by appropriate storage and charging infrastructure, organisations are better positioned to manage lithium-ion battery risks in a controlled and predictable way.

In summary, the increasing focus on lithium-ion battery fires reflects a wider adjustment to changing technologies and energy use.

Electrification, automation and decentralised power systems will continue to reshape fire risk across sectors, requiring fire safety strategies to evolve accordingly.

As a specialist manufacturer and distributor, Insafe supports organisations seeking to embed tested, standards-based lithium-ion battery storage and charging solutions within their wider fire safety strategies.  This is helping to address a risk now recognisedat operational and parliamentary level.

This was originally published in the February 2026 Edition of International Fire & Safety Journal. To read your FREE copy, click here.

Maintaining seal performance: MEIKO UK tackles BA contamination

MEIKO UK Managing Director Paul Anderson explains automated BA mask decontamination, focusing on repeatability, operator exposure and workshop workflows for respiratory kit teams

Firefighters rely on breathing apparatus masks and personal protective equipment that must perform consistently in hostile environments.

During incidents and training, this equipment is exposed to soot, fine particulates and biological contaminants that can remain embedded if cleaning is poorly controlled.

For BA masks and regulators, residue can affect the seal, compromise performance or expose the next wearer to harmful substances.

Amid growing awareness of occupational health risks and cancer exposure, many fire and rescue services have moved away from manual, sink-based cleaning towards automated, repeatable processes in dedicated workshops.

MEIKO UK Managing Director Paul Anderson sat down with IFSJ Editor Iain Hoey to explain how the company’s TopClean washer-disinfector systems work, the problems they are designed to solve and how controlled cleaning processes are reshaping BA mask and PPE hygiene in the fire service.

What risks do fire services face when BA masks and PPE are not cleaned using a controlled and repeatable process?

Over recent years, fire services have placed much greater emphasis on firefighter health.

It is now widely recognised that fires expose equipment to carcinogens that can adhere to clothing and breathing apparatus masks and then be inhaled by the next wearer.

In some cases, the person cleaning the equipment may also be exposed.

Protecting firefighters therefore has to be central to how PPE is managed.

Traditionally, many services relied on a three-sink method, where equipment is dipped sequentially through separate sinks.

That approach leaves significant room for variation, relies heavily on individual practice and typically involves large volumes of chemicals, leading to inconsistent results.

With an automated process, cleaning is built around defined parameters such as time, temperature, mechanical action and chemistry.

When those elements are balanced correctly, the result is a controlled and repeatable method of cleaning every time, reducing water and chemical use while providing a consistent outcome for BA masks and other PPE.

From a technical perspective, what makes BA masks and regulators more challenging to clean than general PPE?

Cleaning PPE is very different from cleaning items like glassware or plates.

PPE goes straight back onto the human body and sits in close contact with the skin, so there has to be confidence that contaminants are fully removed.

With BA masks, cleaning the outside alone is not enough.

The inside of the mask also has to be cleaned thoroughly.

After a fire, particulates drawn into the mask can remain detectable by smell and those residues can carry bacteria and other contaminants that should not be inhaled.

The process therefore has to address both internal and external surfaces using appropriate temperatures and, where required, specific levels of disinfection.

This approach is well established in healthcare settings, where defined contact times during the final rinse are used alongside temperature and chemistry to remove viruses.

The aim is to clean a mask to a standard where it can be safely worn by one firefighter and then issued to another immediately afterwards.

Other items such as helmets, gloves and boots present fewer challenges because they are not part of the breathing system.

Masks are more demanding, and regulators and breathing components must also be protected during cleaning.

This is achieved using controlled air connections that prevent water from entering sensitive areas, allowing a fully automated process that protects the equipment while delivering a high standard of hygiene.

How do washer-disinfectors improve consistency and limit exposure compared with manual cleaning?

The cleaning process is built around what is commonly referred to as Sinner’s circle, which brings together time, temperature, mechanical action and chemistry.

In manual cleaning, those elements are applied inconsistently and are heavily influenced by the individual carrying out the task.

With an automated system, all parameters are controlled.

In a manual sink-based process, half a litre to a litre of detergent per sink is common.

In an automated washer-disinfector, chemical use is typically around seven millilitres per litre of water, and even less during the final rinse.

That level of control directly affects exposure, energy use and resource consumption.

The system uses less chemical, less water and less energy overall, which means less contaminated water entering the drainage system and a more contained process for the operator.

Throughput is also significantly higher.

Up to 40 BA masks can be cleaned per hour, with larger systems such as the TopClean D increasing capacity further, while cleaning performance remains consistent internally and externally and is supported by validated process data.

Why pressurise regulators during cleaning and what practical benefits does it deliver?

The TopClean M is designed to clean both the inside and outside of the BA mask while allowing regulators to be cleaned as part of the same process.

A regulator controls the flow of air from the cylinder to the wearer and certain internal areas cannot be exposed directly to water.

To address this, the system uses a low-pressure compressed air connection during the wash cycle.

This maintains internal air pressure within the regulator, preventing water from entering sensitive components.

The regulator is cleaned externally while its internal parts remain protected, delivering effective cleaning alongside protection of critical breathing components within a single controlled process.

How do clamping and racking features reduce cross-contamination inside larger systems?

The TopClean D is a larger system that many fire services now use as a single solution where space is limited.

It can clean masks, cylinders, backpacks, complete apparatus, gloves, boots and helmets within one controlled cycle.

It operates quickly while using less water and fewer chemicals and can incorporate heat recovery so energy from the process is reused to preheat incoming water.

Cross-contamination is prevented through controlled separation within the machine, with contaminants removed through filtration and discharged safely so items are not re-exposed during the cycle.

How are cycles and detergents set to remove contaminants without damaging seals, visors or valves?

Cleaning programmes are developed within the temperature ranges and parameters approved by mask and equipment manufacturers, supported by the relevant certifications.

Materials such as silicone and rubber need careful handling, as prolonged exposure to excessive heat can lead to gradual degradation and shorten service life.

To avoid that, temperatures, detergents and cycle times are matched to the materials being cleaned and checked in partnership with manufacturers.

This ensures contaminants are removed effectively while the integrity of seals, visors and valves is maintained.

What changes when services adopt automated cleaning and how might hygiene expectations evolve?

Moving from a manual process such as a three-sink system to an automated one is a significant change.

Initial reactions are often positive, as teams no longer need to clean equipment by hand, but structured training remains essential.

Teams are taken through the process from start to finish, supported by clear visual guidance displayed in the workshop.

The operation itself is kept simple, with most machines running on three main cycles: short, medium and long.

Heavily contaminated equipment requires a longer cycle, while routine post-training cleaning can be completed more quickly.

Training covers how to run the machine and how to maintain it, with elements such as colour-coding used to identify parts handled and cleaned daily.

Looking ahead, how do you see expectations around PPE and BA hygiene evolving?

Over the last two to three years, expectations around PPE hygiene have shifted quickly, influenced in part by developments in the United States, where contamination and cancer exposure among firefighters have been more openly discussed.

Cost will always shape decision-making.

Services still have to balance capital investment with ongoing spend on water, power and chemicals.

Systems that reduce resource use while delivering reliable decontamination allow services to improve protection for crews while making realistic choices about where money is spent over the life of the equipment.

This was originally published in the February 2026 Edition of International Fire & Safety Journal. To read your FREE copy, click here.

Fire vehicles now part of Terex portfolio after REV Group merger

Fire equipment portfolio after merger

Terex Corporation has completed its merger with REV Group, creating a combined specialty equipment manufacturer.

Terex Corporation announced the completion on 2 February 2026 in Norwalk, Connecticut.

The combined company will trade on the New York Stock Exchange as Terex Corporation under the ticker NYSE: TEX.

REV stock has ceased trading and is no longer listed on the New York Stock Exchange.

Terex’s portfolio now includes purpose-built fire appliances as part of its expanded specialty vehicle range.

The merger brings additional fire and emergency vehicles into Terex’s product line through REV Group’s existing capabilities.

Terex said its fire vehicles are designed for emergency services alongside ambulances and other specialty apparatus.

The combined business will manufacture and support fire vehicles through its global dealer parts and service network.

Integration plans and financial targets

Terex said the combination with REV Group is expected to deliver $75 million of run-rate value in 2028.

Terex said about 50% of that run-rate value is expected to be achieved over the next 12 months.

Simon Meester, Terex President and Chief Executive Officer, commented: “The combination with REV Group is a defining moment in Terex’s transformation.

“It creates a large-scale leader with a wide range of specialty equipment and a highly synergistic portfolio at the same time.

“The merger positions the company quite uniquely to accelerate profitable growth with a much more resilient top line,” Meester commented. “We look forward to leveraging the best of both organizations and creating real value for our customers and shareholders.”

Company scope and advisors

Terex said its portfolio includes specialty vehicles including fire, ambulance and Recreational Vehicles alongside waste collection vehicles and other equipment categories.

Barclays served as exclusive financial advisor to Terex, with Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson and Pryor Cashman as legal counsel, and Joele Frank, Wilkinson Brimmer Katcher as strategic communications advisor.

J.P. Morgan served as exclusive financial advisor to REV Group, with Davis Polk & Wardwell as legal counsel, and Brunswick Group as strategic communications advisor.

The announcement sets out the combined company’s market listing arrangements and the integration targets described by Terex.

A practical guide to lithium-ion battery risk at MRFs with Ryan Fogelman

By Ryan Fogelman, Fire Protection Consultant, Fire Rover

The waste and recycling industry has reached a critical inflection point when it comes to lithium-ion battery fires.

For years, operators, firefighters, insurers and municipalities have grappled with a problem that continues to grow faster than our collective ability to manage it.

That’s why the “Guide for Developing Lithium-Ion Battery Management Practices at Materials Recovery Facilities,” jointly published by the National Waste & Recycling Association (NWRA), the Recycled Materials Association (ReMA) and the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA), represents an important and timely step forward.

What the guide recognises

The guide acknowledges a reality many of us in fire protection have been documenting for nearly a decade.

Lithium-ion batteries, particularly those embedded in everyday consumer products, are now the leading cause of fires at waste and recycling facilities across North America.

From phones and power tools to e-bikes and disposable vapes, these batteries are entering waste and recycling streams in unprecedented volumes, often damaged, hidden and highly unstable.

I’m humbled by the recognition in the guide, particularly in connection with the fire incident data I’ve been compiling and publishing annually since 2016.

What 2025 data shows

If you read my reports, you already know that this year was the worst on record for publicly reported fires since I began consolidating and sharing the data in 2016.

We finished the year with 448 publicly reported waste and recycling facility fires in the U.S. and Canada.

That total is more than last year’s record of 430 fire incidents.

That total is nearly 25% above the annual average of 360 fire incidents.

While data alone doesn’t solve the problem, it plays a critical role in validating what operators and first responders experience on the frontlines every day.

The guide’s inclusion of this information signals an important shift.

Industry associations are now aligning around the fact that lithium-ion battery fires aren’t isolated events or operator failures.

They are a systemic risk tied to product design, consumer behavior and inadequate end-of-life pathways.

What the guide recommends for MRFs

The guide doesn’t pretend there is a single solution, nor does it place unrealistic expectations on facility operators.

Instead, it focuses on risk reduction, not risk elimination.

The more layers of protection you have, the lower the chance that fire can slip through the cracks and grow out of control.

As the guidance states, operators should focus on the following key areas.

  • Early identification and isolation practices for suspect batteries.
  • Employee training that emphasises recognition and response rather than blame.
  • Safe storage and handling protocols designed to limit collateral damage and contamination.
  • Emergency response planning that accounts for the unique behavior of lithium-ion fires.
  • Public education and customer messaging that acknowledges that upstream behavior matters.

Why frontline expectations need to change

The overlying fact remains that our waste and recycling employees should not be the front-line response team unless they are fully and properly trained and equipped with the right tool belt for the job.

This is why our Fire Rover solution is so effective.

It provides the earliest confirmed detection possible, and our agents manage the first six to 10 minutes of an incident, bringing order to the chaos and providing critical communications to operators and fire professionals.

The vape effect in real-world operations

In reality, waste and recycling facilities are being asked to manage a fire risk created largely outside their control.

Disposable vaping devices are a prime example.

These products combine lithium-ion batteries, thin casings and widespread improper disposal, making them uniquely dangerous once they enter processing equipment.

Data drawn from publicly reported fires at waste and recycling facilities consistently shows a troubling upward trend that I’ve identified as the vape effect.

In a nutshell, we’ve seen reported incidents increase about 26% from 2022 to 2025 compared to the average from 2016 to 2021.

I believe this vape effect is driven largely by the lack of safe, convenient drop-off locations for post-consumer electronics such as vaping devices.

Notably, in the US and Canada, this increase would be much higher if a significant number of facilities weren’t protected by Fire Rover.

What the guide signals for the sector

The release of this guide by the NWRA, the ReMA and the SWANA sends a clear message.

The industry is no longer treating lithium-ion battery fires as an operational nuisance.

It’s recognising them as a defining safety challenge of our time, and these associations are now being called on to create a proven and practical strategy for their members to learn from and best practices to follow.

From my perspective, this guide is best viewed as a foundation, not a finish line.

It equips facilities with tools they need today while reinforcing the case for broader systemic change tomorrow.

Fire risk in the waste and recycling sector will not be solved by education, technology, regulation or operators alone.

It will be solved when data, policy, product design and on-the-ground fire protection strategies finally move in the same direction.

This guide is an important step toward that alignment, and one the industry has needed for a long time.

What needs to happen next

The guide rightly calls for collaboration, but the next phase must include direct accountability and participation from battery, consumer electronics and tobacco manufacturers to help fund solutions.

Product design changes, battery removability, takeback programs and funding for public collection infrastructure aren’t optional if we expect meaningful reductions in fire incidents.

Fire Rover performance update

At Fire Rover, we continue to do our part.

We finished the year protecting more than 850 facilities.

Over the past 10 years, our system has only been overpowered twice while delivering results that were previously unheard of in the fire protection space.

The reality is that many suppliers are talking a lot and selling solutions, whether DIY approaches or other technologies, that may appear to address the problem on the surface.

Buyer beware.

There’s a reason Fire Rover is the only FM Approved smart monitor in the world, and that comes from experience, not arrogance.

Where Fire Rover started for me

I’m blessed that in 2015, Brad Gladstone and his partners, Jeremy and Pete, invented Fire Rover and that I was able to witness the first box demonstrated in the back of a scrap metal yard in my hometown of Detroit.

As with any company starting out, some people believed in us and some didn’t, but we’ve since proved to our loyal customers, insurance partners and thousands of fire professionals that our solution does what we said it would do.

In the early years, some assumed our solution was off the shelf and their best route was to try and build their own in-house solution.

Even if you can, that doesn’t mean you should.

Cost, insurance and real-world reliability

The cost of our system is largely offset by insurance savings as it helps mitigate the risk of a major or catastrophic loss by more than 99%.

For most of our systems, the cost is roughly equivalent to half of a full-time employee.

Insurance companies have been learning the hard way that all solutions are not created equal.

Many of these systems have been turned off, especially during the day, or pulled out leaving a trail of wasted dollars, time and effort.

I’ve seen many systems look pretty in the brochure but fail when it comes to real-world deployment.

Our systems are battle-tested, and we install them, maintain them and warranty all the components.

We’ve never had a false discharge, and our systems use an average of less than 500 gallons of suppressing agent or water per event.

Conclusion

It feels like tax season again.

Another year is complete, and another set of data is ready to be added to my annual report.

Last year’s report, “We Are at War: The 8th Annual Waste & Recycling Facility Fires Report in the US & CAN,” is being updated to include 2025 data and analysis.

I’m calling this report, “Fortifying the Front Lines.”

Across the U.S., Canada, France, Australia and now the United Kingdom and New Zealand, operators are making the investments needed to get a handle on the battery-related fire risk, a challenge sure to haunt us for many years to come.

To be clear, this investment is a layered approach that combines public education, policies to expand local and safe battery drop-off locations, efforts to make batteries removable from devices, operational best practices and continued investment in technologies.

Speaking of public education, I’m proud to announce that we’re making progress on a children’s book about lithium-ion battery safety, which we’re currently writing with the help of Dalan Zartman of the Energy Security Agency (ESA).

The book will include a children’s story and parent and teacher facts provided by the SWANA, the NWRA, the ESA and several other organisations.

Individuals and organisations can make a donation to provide copies of this book to classrooms across the U.S. and Canada through The Recycling Society.

If you’re interested in sponsoring a school or school district, feel free to reach out, and I will point you in the right direction.

As Fire Rover heads into its 11th year, the fire problem continues to grow.

Despite this, I truly believe we’re beginning to get a handle on this massive challenge that affects waste and recycling operators and the public at large.

I hope to have better news to share over the next 12 months.

Our waste and recycling operators perform a critical service for society, and we cannot afford for this risk to continue without an all hands on deck approach from all sides.

About the author

Ryan Fogelman, J.D., MBA, is a fire protection consultant with Fire Rover, known for his expertise in bringing innovative safety solutions to market.

His contributions to the field have earned him recognition as one of the Top 20 Global Fire Influencers by the International Fire Safety Journal in 2024 and 2025.

His products have been recognised with two Edison Innovation Awards for Industrial Safety and Consumer Products.

Since February 2016, he has focused on compiling and publishing reports on fires at waste and recycling facilities in the U.S. and Canada, analysing their impacts, solutions and consequences.

His latest report is titled “We Are at War: The 8th Annual Waste & Recycling Facility Fires Report in the US & CAN.”

He has been a member of the NFPA 401 Hazardous Materials Committee since 2019 and contributed to the NFPA 18A special task force for wetting agents in 2025.

For more information or to connect with Ryan Fogelman, you can reach him via email at rfogelman@firerover.com.

Xenon to the Rescue: How Ballyclare designed kit for everyday calls

Lightweight and comfortable, Ballyclare’s Xenon technical rescue firefighting PPE is the ultimate high-performance, ergonomic fire kit

Firefighters must have full structural kit to protect them when facing high intensity fires in a building or enclosed space, but this level of protection isn’t needed for every call out.

Government figures for the year ending June 2025 show just 6.3% of incidents attended by Fire and Rescue Services (FRSs) in England were building fires.

Instead, firefighters are far more frequently called to other types of emergency such as road traffic collisions, medical incidents or flooding.

As a result, FRSs are increasingly investing in specialist technical rescue PPE, which is better suited to the majority of incidents they face, saving their full structural PPE for when they really need it and helping to prolong its life.

Ergonomic and breathable

Ballyclare’s Xenon technical rescue jacket and trouser ensemble is particularly lightweight and breathable, featuring highly-specialist fabrics to keep firefighters both protected and comfortable on the job.

The increased flexibility and ergonomic sports styling help to meet the physical demands of the role, which often means crawling, climbing, lifting or operating machinery in complex environments.

Robust and protective

Fully certified to the Firefighters Rescue Clothing standard EN 16689:2017, Xenon technical rescue provides durable, waterproof protection from blood pathogens, chemicals and particulates.

The outer fabric is inherently flame retardant and resistant to repeated washing, which considerably extends its operating life.

It also offers outstanding visibility in dark conditions, thanks to carefully positioned phosphorescent taping.

Versatile 

This particular version of the Xenon technical rescue kit was enhanced to meet the specific requirements of FRSs in the North West of England and Northern Ireland, who together represent more than 5,800 firefighters.

They requested a bright yellow outer fabric for heightened visibility at road traffic incidents, as well as specific loops and pockets for compatibility with their existing torches, radios and equipment.

A good fit

Ballyclare offers three shaping styles to accommodate different body types, meaning around 56 sizing variations are available to choose from as standard.

Where required, bespoke garments can be created, ensuring every firefighter has garments that fit well.

Cost-effective

Requiring fewer layers than structural PPE, technical rescue kit is generally less expensive to purchase.

FRSs are finding they can save funds by using technical rescue kit for those call-outs where it is most suitable, thereby prolonging the life of more costly structural kit by reducing wear and washing.

Philip Tasker, Global Sales Lead for Fire and Security at Ballyclare, said: “Increasingly, fire and rescue services across the UK and Europe are investing in dedicated technical rescue kit which better suits the everyday incidents they face, and prolongs the life of their structural gear.

“Our Xenon technical rescue design offers the perfect balance of protection, comfort and flexibility to ensure firefighters have the most suitable kit for the challenging situations they face.”

This was originally published in the February 2026 Edition of International Fire & Safety Journal. To read your FREE copy, click here.

IFE to recruit full-time chief executive and add new technical role

IFE leadership team investment

The Institution of Fire Engineers (IFE) is expanding its leadership team through two new appointments, including a full-time Chief Executive Officer and a full-time technical post based at its headquarters in Stratford-upon-Avon.

The IFE announced the recruitment on 28 January 2026.

Recruitment plan and leadership transition

Steve Hamm, the IFE’s current Chief Executive, said: “As well as expanding our leadership capacity, these two new appointments will ensure organisational resilience and enable us to provide services to our members that reflect the evolving role of the IFE as the leading international professional body for fire safety, and to support emerging regulatory frameworks for registered fire engineers and technicians.

“Having been CEO on a part-time basis for the past five years, I will transition to a strategic fire safety advisory role following the appointment of a new full-time CEO later this year.

“The new Chief Executive will provide a dedicated full-time resource for the IFE, supported by qualified professionals who form the Corporate Management Team.”

The recruitment process is planned as a comprehensive process to ensure the Corporate Management Team is resourced for the future.

Paul Stollard, IFE Chair, said: “These appointments come at a critical time providing essential support for the IFE’s growth which will enable us to effectively navigate the increasing demands placed on the institution, particularly since the publication of the Grenfell Tower report.

“The board recognises that the current CEO has led the organisation for over 5 years on a part-time basis, having initially been engaged to provide oversight of a change management programme.

“As a qualified Chartered Engineer with extensive strategic leadership experience, Steve has led the IFE through an era of significant organisational development, leading to the situation where greater capacity is needed in both strategic leadership and technical expertise.

“The recruitment of both roles demonstrates IFE’s commitment to reinforcing its leadership framework and positioning the organisation for sustained growth and resilience.”

The IFE said it is working with a specialist executive recruitment agency to lead the appointment of the new Chief Executive Officer.

Further updates on the appointment and on strengthening technical staff resources will be shared in due course.

Call for nominations to IFE roles

The IFE said nominations opened on 1 February 2026.

Three vacancies are available, comprising two Trustee roles and the position of International President Elect.

One Trustee will be elected by the voting membership and one by the IFE International General Assembly representatives.

Trustees are responsible for setting strategic direction, overseeing governance, managing risk and ensuring legal and charitable compliance.

The International President Elect will serve for one year from the AGM in July 2026 before automatically becoming International President for a further year.

Eligibility and nomination deadline

The IFE stated that nominees for International President Elect must be Corporate Graded Members, including paid-up Life Fellows, Fellows, Members and Associates.

Applications must be supported by current serving trustees of the Board.

All nominations and supporting information must be submitted to company.secretary@ife.org.uk by 12:00 noon GMT on 28 February 2026.