chair secretary - national fire protection association€¦ · william m. lambert, secretary ......

Report of the Committee on Technical Committee on

Fire and Emergency Services Protective Clothing and Equipment

Technical Correlating Committee (FAE-AAC)

Richard M. Duff-y, Chair Int'l Assn. of Fire Fighters, DC [L]

Rep. Int'l Assn. of Fire Fighters

William M. Lambert, Secretary Mine Safety Appliances Co., PA [M]

Leslie Anderson, U.S. Forest Service, MT [E] Thomas G. Augherton, Safety Equipment Inst., VA [RT] Dennis W, Browner, Scott Aviation, NC [M]

Pep. Industrial Safety Equipment Asgn. M .Robert A. Freese, Globe Mfg. Co., NH [M] Bill Grilliot, Morning Pride Mfg. Co., OH [M]

Rep. Fire and Emergency Mfrs. and Services Assn. Inc. Cheryl L. Harris, Dupont, VA [M] Vh'gil Hathaway, San Diego Fire Dept., CA [U]

Rep. Southern Area Fire Equipment Research Tricla Hock (Vogelpohl), Springfield, LLC, SC [M] James s. Johnson, Lawrence Livermore Nat'l Labs, CA [RT] Cy Long, Texas Commission on Fire Protection, TX [E] David G. Matthews, United Kingdom Fire Brigades Assn., England [SE] Wayde B. Miller, Jacksonville, FL [M] Jim Minx, Oklahoma State Firefighters Assn., OK [C] Jeffrey O. Stull, Int'l Personnel Protection, Inc., TX [SE] Frank P. Taylor, Lion Apparel Inc., OH [M] Robert D. Tutterow, Jr., Charlotte Fire Dept., NC [U]

Rep. Fire Industry Equipment Research Organization Bruce H. Varner, City of Carrollton Fire Dept., TX [U]

Rep. Int'l Fire Service Training Assn. Harry Winer, U.S. Navy, MA [RT] Thomas L, Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., NC [RT]

Alternates

Janice c. Bradley, Industrial Safety Equipment Assn., VA [M] (/kit. to D. W. Browner)

Robert H. Chiostergl, Southern Mills Inc., GA [M] (Alt. to T. Hock (Vogelpohl))

Nicholas J. Curtis, Lion Apparel, Inc., OH [M] (Alt. to F. P. Taylor)

Patricia A. Freeman, Globe Mfg. Co., NH [M] (Alt. to R. A. Freese)

Patricia A. Gleason, Safety Equipment Inst., VA [RT] (Alt. to T. Augherton)

Mary I. Grilliot, TFG/Morning Pride Mfg. Co. Inc., OH [M] (Alt. to B. Grilliot)

Steven B. Lumry, Oklahoma City Fire Dept., OK [C] (Alt. to J. Minx)

Bob Montgomery, Celanese Corp., NC [M] (Alt. to C. Harris)

Daniel P. Ryan, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., NC [RT] (Alt. to T. L. Wollan)

Nonvoting

Don R. Forrest, United Firefighters of Los Angeles City, CA [L] Bryan C. Heirston, Oklahoma City Fire Dept., OK ILl Richard Mangan, USDA Forest Service, MT [RT] JKirames S. Nee, ARFF Working Group, PA [U]

k H. Owen, Piano Fire Dept., TX [U] Ray F. Reed, Dallas Fire Dept., TX [U]

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on the design, performance, testing, and certification of protective clothing and protective equipment manufactured for fire and emergency services organizations and personnel, to protect against exposures encountered during emergency incident operations. This Committee shall also have the primary responsibility for documents on the selection, care, and maintenance of such protective clothing and protective equipment by fire and emergency services organizations and personnel,

Special Operations Protective Clothing and Equipment (FAE- SCE)

Don R. Forrest, Chair United Firefighters of LA City, CA [L]

Jeffrey o . Stull, Secretary Int'l Personnel Protection, Inc., TX [SE]

Thomas G. Augherton, Safety Equipment Inst., VA [RT] Dean William Cox, Fairfax Fire & Rescue Dept., VA [U] Nicholas J. Curtis, Lion Apparel, Inc., OH [M] Steve Derynck, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., NC [RT] James A. Frank, CMC Rescue, Inc., CA [M] Hamid Ghorashi, E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Co., Inc., VA [M] Daniel Gohlke, W. L. Gore & Assoc., MD [M] Diane B. Hess, Celanese, NC [M] Steve Hudson, Pigeon Mountain Industries, Inc., GA [M] Warren Isham, Nikiski Fire Dept., AK [U] James R. Lawson, U.S. Nat'l Inst. of Standards and Technology, MD [RT] Kevin S. Malley, New York City Fire Dept., NY [U] Michael L Martin, Dayton Fire Dept. Headquarters, OH [C] H. Dean Paderick, Spec Rescue Int'l, VA[SE] Jack Reall, City of Columbus Fire Division, OH [U] Jeffrey G. Scott, Altamonte Springs Fire/Rescue Dept., FL [U] Kelly Sisson, City of La Mesa Fire Dept., CA [U] Michael T. Stanhope, Southern Mills, Inc.,GA [M] Robert D. Steadman, Westinghouse SRS Fire Dept., SC [U] Karen E. Strnmlock, Intertek Testing Services, NY [RT] William F. Sullivan, Chelsea Fire Dept., MA [L]

Rep. Chelsea Firefighters Assn. Fred K. Walker, U.S. Air Force, FL [U] Harry Winer, U.S. Navy, MA [RT]

Alternates

Donald Aldridge, Lion Apparel Inc., OH [M] (AIt. to N.J. Curtis)

William R. Baer, Ahamonte Springs Fire Dept., FL [U] (Alt. to J. G. Scott)

Loui Clem, Pigeon Mountain Industries, Inc., CO [M] (Alt. to S. Hudson)

Steven D. Cola'ado, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., NC [RT] (Alt. to S. Derynck)

Kimberly Henry, Celanese AG, NC [M] (Alt. D. B. Hess)

Stephen J. King, New York City Fire Dept., NY [U] (Alt. to K. S. Malley)

Denise N. Statham, Southern Mills, Inc., GA [M] (Alt. to M. T. Stanhope)

Robert Vettori, U.S. Nat'l Inst. of Standards and Technology, MD [RT]

(Alt. toJ. R. Lawson)

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on special operations protective clothing and protective equipment, except respiratory equipment, that provides hand, foot, torso, limb, head, and interface protection for fire fighters and other emergency services responders during incidents involving special operations functions including, but not limited to, structural collapse, trench rescue, confined space entry, urban search and rescue, high angle/mountain rescue, vehicular extraction, swift water or flooding rescue, contaminated water diving, and air operations.

This committee shall also have primary responsibility for documents on station/work uniform garments that are not of themselves primary protective garments but can be combined with a primary protective garment to serve dual or multiple functions.

Additionally, this committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on the selection, care, and maintenance of special operations protective clothing and equipment by fire and emergency services organizations and personnel.

211

Technical Committee on

Structural Fire Fighting Protective Clothing and Equipment (FAE- SFF)

Kirk H. Owen, Chair Piano Fire Dept., TX [U]

Rep. NFPA Fire Service Section

Patricia A. Freeman, Secretary Globe Manufacturing Co., NH [M]

Donald Aldridge, Lion Apparel Inc., OH [M] James M. Baker, Nat'l Safety Clean, Inc., PA [IM] Donald G. Beason, Lawrence Livermore Nat'l Lab, CA [RT] Donna P. Brehm, Virginia Beach Fire Dept., VA [U] Michael Carlin, La Mesa Fire Dept., CA [U] Ross Cochran, Securitex Inc., Canada [M] Dean William Cox, Fairfax Fire & Rescue Dept., VA [U] L. Charles Davis, Division of Fire and Emergency Services, KY [U] Don R. Forrest, United Firefighters of Los Angeles City, CA [L] Mary I. Grilliot, TFG Morning Pride Mfg. Co. Inc., OH [M] Cliff Haskell, IAFF Local 522, CA [L]

Rep. Int'l Assn. of Fire Fighters Larry Horn, City of Pordand, OR [U] Stephen J. King, New York City Fire Dept., NY [U] James R. Lawson, U.S. Nat'l Inst. of Standards and Technology, MD [RT] Cy Long, Texas Commission on Fire Protection, TX [E] William T. McCutcheon, Jr., Cairns & Brother, Inc., NJ [M] Kevin J. O'Connell, Louisville Division of Fire, KY [U] Tom Ragan, Shelby Specialty Gloves, TN [M] Kevin M. Roche, Phoenix Fire Dept., AZ [U]

Rep. Int'l Fire Service TrainingAssn. Dennis K. Stout, E. D. Bullard Co., KY [M] Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services, NY [RT] Jeffrey O. Stull, Int 'i Personnel Protection, Inc., TX [SE] Robert D. Tutterow, Jr., Charlotte Fire Dept., NC [E]

Rep. Int'l Assn. of Fire Chiefs Woody Waiters, MN.State Fire/EMS/Safety/ Center, MN [C]

Rep. Nat'l Volunteer Fire Council Harry Wirier, U.S. Navy, MA [RT] Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., NC [RT]

Alternates

Roger L Barker, N. Carolina State University, NC [M] (Alt. to P. A. Freeman)

Tim Durby, City of Phoenix, AZ [U] (Alt. to I~ Roche)

Kerry W. Gordon, Cairns & Brother, Inc., NJ [M] (Alt. to W. T, McClutcheon)

Bill Grilliot, Morning Pride Mfg. L.L.C., OH [M] (Alt. to M. I. GriUiot)

James S. Johnson, Lawrence Livermore Nat'l Labs, CA [RT] (Ah. to D. G. Beason)

Kevin S. Malley, New York City Fire Dept., NY [U] (Alt. to S. J. King)

James W. Marquardt, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL [RT] (/kit. to T. L. Wollan)

Richard A. Oleson, E. D. Bullard Co., KY [M] (Alt. to D. K. Stout)

Willie "Mitch" Parish, Indiana Dept. of Transportation, IN [C] (Alt. to W. Waiters)

Kelly Sisson, City of La Mesa Fire Dept., CA [U] (Alt. to M. Carlin)

Charles C. Soros, Spencer Safety Products Co., WA [SE] (Alt. toJ. O. Stull)

Frank P. Taylor, Lion Apparel Inc., OH [M] (Alt. to D. Aldridge)

Robert Vettori, U.S. Nat'l Inst. of Standards and Technology, MD [RT]

(Ah. toJ . R. Lawson)

Nonvoting

Glen E. Gardner, U.S. Occupational Safety & Health Admin., DC [E]

Staff Liaison: Bruce W. Teele

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on special operations protective clothing and protective equipment, except respiratory equipment, that provides hand, foot, torso, limb, head, and interface protection for fire fighters and other emergency services responders during incidents involving special operations functions including, but not limited to, structural collapse, trench rescue, confined space entry, urban search and rescue, high angle /mountain rescue, vehicular extraction, swift water or flooding rescue, contaminated water diving, and air operations.

This committee shall also have primary responsibility for documents on station/work uniform garments that are not of themselves primary protective garments but can be combined with a primary protective garment to serve dual or multiple functions.

Additionally, this committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on the selection, care, and maintenance of special operations protective clothing and equipment by fire and emergency services organizauons and personnel.

These lists represent the membershi~ at the time each Committee was balloted on the text of this edition. Since that time, changes in the membership may have occurred. A key to classifications is found at the front of this book.

The Committee on Fire and Emergency Services Protective Clothing and Equipment is presenting three Reports for adoption, as follows:

The Reports were prepared by the:

* Technical Correlating Committee on Fire and Emergency Services Protective Clothing and Equipment (FAE-AAC)

• Technical Committee on Special Operations Protective Clothing and Equipment (FAE-SCE)

• Technical Committee on Structural Fire Fighting Protective Clothing and Equipment (FAE-SFF)

The Committee on Fire and Emergency Services Protective Clothing and Equipment is presenting two Reports for adoption, as follows:.

Part I of this Report on Comments was prepared by the Technical Committee on Special Operations Protective Clothing and Equipment and documents its action on the comments received on its Report on Proposals on NFPA 1983, Standard on Fire Service Life Safety Rope and System Components, 1995, edition, as published in the Report on Proposals for the 2000 November Meeting.

NFPA 1983 has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on Special Operations Protective Clothing and Equipment which consists of 25 voting members; of whom 21 voted affirmatively, 1 negatively after the circulation of negative ballots (Mr. Malley), and 3 ballots were not returned (Cox Steadman, Walker).

Mr. Malley voted negatively stating: Adequate research has not yet been completed to determine the

validity of logs related in submitted Comments; 1983-6 (Log #6), 1983-16 (Log #10a), 1983-44 (Log #10b), 1983-58 (Log #41), and 1983-59 (Log #42).

NFPA 1983 has also been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Correlating Committee on Fire and Emergency Services Protective Clothing and Equipment which consists of 21 voting members of whom 16 voted affirmatively, and 5 ballots were not returned (Harris, Hathaway, Johnson, Matthews, Miller).

Part II of this Report on Comments was prepared by the Technical Committee on Structural Fire Fighting Protective Clothing and Equipment and documents its action on the comments received on its Report on Proposals on NFPA 1851, Standard on Selection, Care, and Maintenance of Structural Fire Fighting Protective Ensembles, as published in the Report on Proposals for the 2000 November) Meeting.

NFPA 1851 has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on Structural Fire Fighting Protective Clothing and Equipment, which consists of 28 voting members; of whom 24 voted affirmatively, 2 negatively after the circulation of negative ballots (Grillot, Stull), and 2 ballots were not returned (Beason, Haskell).

212

Ms. Grilliot voted negatively stating: After m u c h soul searching I have come to the conclusion that I

mus t vote negatively on this s tandard. My concern in the action taken on C o m m e n t 1851-77 (Log #51),

C o m m e n t 1851-77 (Log #51) "cup" field test with water only does not chal lenge the mois ture barrier to the degree that I would cons ider acceptable to give the end user any degree of assurety that his ga rmen t would properly protect h im from any th ing except a cup o f "static water". Adding to my concern is the fact that the proposed ROC gives the instruct ions to remove the g a r m e n t only if

fails, infers that the g a r m e n t should be kept in service if it holds a cup o f "static water". If this water only "cup" test, its evaluation, and its r e c o m m e n d e d action appear in NFPA 1851 then it would only be logical to chal lenge the need for the viral, chemical , and pressurized water test in NFPA 1971, all o f which I firmly believe shou ld be in the Standard.

Mr. Stull voted negatively stating: I am voting against this s tandard because a few of my public

c o m m e n t s were incorrectly handled . In one specific instance, the full public c o m m e n t that I submi t ted [1851-173 (Log #151) on paragraph A-5.5.1] was t runcated and rewritten, and then indicated the action as an "accept" even though I was not p resen t and did not agree with the changes . (This m e a n s that the public never has t h e b e n e f i t of seeing the full and comprehens ive c o m m e n t that I submit ted . ) Despite this e r roneous action, I find it hard to believe that the commit tee establishes a p o s i t i o n where they do no t want informat ion provided in the s tandard that is of benefi t to the safety and heal th of firefighters. The commit tee has s t ruggled with the issue o f a manda to ry s tandard versus a r e c o m m e n d e d guide, and recognized that a subs/antiai part o f this d o c u m e n t would be in the form of guidance th rough its appendix . Yet in this c i rcumstance , the commi t tee chose to provide less an d incomple te informat ion to the fire service. A related c o m m e n t [1851-168 (Log #152)] providing similar informat ion on unde r s t and ing the impact o f c leaning on protective c lo th ing materials was rejected. The Commit tee S ta tement offers a weak rationale for the rejection o f the commen t . The Technical Commi t t ee offers a weak rationale for the rejection o f the commen t . The Technica l Commi t tee has the oppor tuni ty to inform and educate t h rough this d o c u m e n t and has chosen to remain m u t e on impor tan t issues which arise as f requen t ques t ions in the fire service.

NFPA 1851 has also been submit ted to letter ballot of the Technical Correlating Committee on Fire and Emergency Services Protective Clothing and Equipment which consists o f 21 vot ing m e m b e r s of whom 16 voted affirmatively, and 5 ballots were n o t r e t u rned (Harris, Hathaway, J o h n s o n , Matthews, Miller).

2 1 3

N F P A 1983 - - N o v e m b e r 2000 R O C

(Log #40) Commit tee : FAE.SCE

1983- 1 - (Entire Documen t ) : Reject TCC NOTE: TCC NOTE: Add new first sentence to TC

s ta tement in C o m m e n t 1983-1 to read: "See action taken on C o m m e n t 1983-44 (Log #10b)," TCC Substantiation: The TCC unde r s t ands the possibility o f confus ion regarding the

title o f CI 1801 and feels it prudent to reduce or el iminate any confus ion regard ing the re fe rences in NFPA 1983 to test m e t h o d s in CI I801. The TCC notes that the T C correctly used specific re fe rences directly to the sections (sections 8 and 9) o f CI 1801 that contain the per t inen t test me thods , and not to any rope construction specif ications or to the CI 1801 d o c u m e n t as a whole. SUBMITTER: G.P. Foster, Cordage Insti tute C O M M E N T O N PROPOSAL NO: 19836 RECOMMENDATIO N: T he Cordage Institute believes that s tandards deve lopmen t o f cordage and rope products shou ld allow for a reasonable variety of cons t ruc t ions as long as they provide the per fo rmance level required for a given application.

The d o c u m e n t refers to CI 1801-98 which is a specific cons t ruc t ion o f rope.

It is unde r s tood that o ther const ruct ions are used and accepted for Life Safety/Rescue applications. T he test r equ i r emen t s for most o the r cons t ruc t ions are covered by C1 1500 (current) "Test Methods for Fiber Rope" which is widely accepted by rope engineers and users.

ASTM D4268-93 "Standard Tes t Methods for Tes t ing Fiber Ropes" also covers a wide range o f construct ions, a l though it does not allow as many eng inee r ing de te rmina t ions as CI 1500.

Note: Suppor t ing material available for review upon reques t at NFPA headquar te r s . SUBSTANTIATION: These c o m m e n t s reflect Cordage Inst i tute policy and procedures that are des igned to ensure t ransparency and open consensus deve lopmen t o f s tandards and guidelines. C O M M r r r E E ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: T he s tandard does no t preclude a variety o f rope const ruct ion so long as they mee t the m i n i m u m per fo rmance r equ i r e men t o f this s tandard. T he title of CI 1801 specifies a specific rope cons t ruc t ion however, the test me thods conta ined in this specification can be utilized for o the r rope construct ions. The use o f CI 1801 is no t in t ended to limit the rope type to the one m e n t i o n e d in the specifications title.

This commit tee prefers the us o f CI 1801 over ASTM D4268 since there are mult iple test m e t h o d s within ASTM D 4269 and the CI 1801 is more str ingent . The use o f CI 1801 will provide more consis tent test results.

At this t ime the CI 1500 specification submi t ted not in its final publ ished form. Wi thout knowledge of the conten ts and m e t h o d s we canno t accept its usage within this d o c u m e n t .

(Log #4) Commit tee : FAE-SCE

1983- 2 - (1-3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Bill Grilliot, Morn ing Pride MFG. LLC COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : "Belt" de f in i t i on / "Ladder Escape Belt" - Remove Escape Belt f rom defini t ion o f "Ladder Escape Belt" as no requ i rements in this edi t ion for Escape Belt. Whole defini t ion mus t be reworked. SUBSTANTIATION: This edi t ion has went f rom three to two types of belts. The old Escape Belt is still found in defini t ion o f "Ladder /Escape Belt". COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commi t t ee Action taken on C o m m e n t 1983-3 (Log #12).


1983- 3 - (1-3): Accept in Principle SUBMrlq 'ER: Mitch Ross, U p p e r Arl ington Fire D e p a r m e n t C O M M E N T O N PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 RECOMMENDATION: Revise the defini t ion o f Ladde r /Escape Belt to read as follows:

~ d d e e / E s c a p e Belt. A belt that is certified as compl ian t with the applicable r equ i rements o f this s tandard for both a ladder belt and an escape belt, and that is in tended for use be.th a~ a p~.~itiv.~,ing device fc.r a person ~,n a ! a ~ c r a~ -yell a~ .~r m e only by the wearer as an emergency self-rescue device.

SUBSTANTIATION: There is no pl~,ce in the s tandard that current ly recognizes an escape belt. Therefore , canno t be a dual- certified c o m p o n e n t . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

I Revise Ladder /Escape Belt to read: Escape Belt. A belt tha t is certified as compl ian t with the

applicable requ i rements o f this s tandard for an escape belt, and that is i n t ended for use only by the wearer as an emergency self- rescue device. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The commi t tee agrees with the submi t te r bu t modif ied text to remove text that addressed a combina t ion l adde r / e scape belt.


1983- 4 - (1-3 Standard Deviation): Accept SUBMITTER: Mitch Ross, U p p e r Arl ington Fire D e p a r m e n t C O M M E N T O N PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 RECOMMENDATION: Revise the defini t ion of Standard Deviation as follows: ~ c a ! c u l a t e d us ing the formulas in 6-1.1.2, 6-2.1.2, and

SUBSTANTIATION: The appropria te formula is in 6-6.1.2, not in 6-5.3.16 COMMrFI 'EE ACTION: Accept.


1983- 5 - (2-6): Reject SUBMITTER: Kevin Slotterbeck, Seattle Manufactur ing Corpora t ion C O M M E N T O N PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 RECOMMENDATION: Section 2.6 should be el iminated in its entirety. SUBSTANTIATION: Although we believe quality of products (and procedures) are o f u tmos t impor tance , we believe this r equ i r emen t is misplaced in this NFPA s tandard as well as all NFPA s tandard documen t s . In ou r opin ion , this should be a decision that a manu fac tu r e r makes based on their own corporate goals and objectives and should not be manda t ed by NFPA. NFPA's stated mission is to reduce the bu rden o f fire on the quality o f life by advocating scientifically based consensus codes and standards, research and educa t ion for fire and related safety issues. Does this r e q u i r e m e n t directly relate to NFPA's mission? We d o n ' t believe so. For many, many years, NFPA has relied on its certification process (Chapter 2 for NFPA 1983) for assurance of quality by manufac tu re r s to mee t quality standards. Why do you now require companies to achieve an addi t ional outside certification o f its quality assurance program? Have there been failures in manufac tu re r s ' quality that you have discovered from the certification process and test ing.which has led you to the conclus ion that ISO is required? If not, t h en do no t d e m a n d this r e q u i r e m e n t and let manufac tu re r s make their own decision. If so, are there changes that need to be made to the certification process and testing of the process ra ther than requi r ing ano the r level of certification?

In addit ion to this being a misplaced requ i rement , we believe that the overall effect o f ISO certification will no t raise quality o f the i tems that are NFPA certified. In fact, we believe that many, highly effective and innovative tools and systems will no t be available for fire service use because the cost o f becoming ISO certified is cost prohibit ive for many companies , especially small manufac turers . As a result, we believe the end users o f these products will beware the burden of this r equ i r emen t in all cases e i ther by not being able to get the p roduc t a n d / o r paying h igher prices to cover cost of ISO certification. Please buck the trend, and el iminate this f rom NFPA 1983. NFPA designat ion s tands on its own; it doesn ' t need the marke t ing hype o f ISO to achieve its goal. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The manufac tu re r ' s quality assurance program is an impor tan t part of checking con t inu ing product ion to this s tandard and that it con t inues to comply with the s tandard. The r equ i r emen t for ISO registration embraces an internationally accepted quality assurance system.

The Commit tee strongly believes that this system s t reng thens the certification as the system is always measu r ing the product ion against this s tandard ra ther than jus t keeping records on product ion . This results in h igher conf idence tha t compl ian t

214


produc t remains compl ian t between the certification organizat ions "follow-up p rogram" visits.

While an ANSI quality control s tandard could have been referenced, ANSI adds its des ignat ion to the ISO 9001 d o c u m e n t and uses it as the "American nat ional s tandard".


1983- 6 - (2-6): Reject SUBMrrTER: Jerry La Montagne , Co lumbian Rope Company C O M M E N T O N P R O P O S A L N O : 1983-6 RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read as follows:

2-6 ISO P.cgi~tra:'~an far LA.am:fac=-.:rera - DELETE

S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : Section 2-5 requires a manufac tu re r to have a Manufac tures Quality Assurange Program. Some small business ' s canno t afford the added expense of ISO 9001. T he added cost o f ISO 9001 also trickles down to the end users. It should not be the NFPA's in tent to force this p rogram on manufac turers .

Co lumbian Rope is a manu fac t u r e r o f 3 and 8 s t rand Life Safety ropes. W e p r o d u c e 3 and 8 s t randed rope to the cu r r en t NFPA 1983-1995 Edition for the fire depa r tmen t s in Chicago and New York. This new proposed specification forces ou r 3 and 8 s t r anded rope ou t of the market . By allowing the s tandard to be written as proposed, i t will no t give f reedom o f choice to the end user. T h e 1995 Edition allows for testing both different const ruct ions o f ropes that can and canno t be spliced.

With the NFPA propos ing the use o f Cordage Inst i tute Standard CI 1801-98 Low Stretch and Static Kermant le Life Safety Rope and the 16-carrier nylon shea th rope proposed for test ing devices, this is asking that only one type o f cons t ruc t ion be used, braided. This would push 3 and 8 s t rand life safety ropes ou t o f the market . The 16-carrier shea th may cause device manufac tu re r s problems. The device manufac tu re r s shou ld decide what rope to use. This s h o u l d n ' t be the decision o f the NFPA Commi t t ee to make.

The Cordage Insti tute has many approved s tandards and n u m e r o u s s tandards being worked on, the NFPA should not single ou t one specific rope s tandard, they should use test ing s tandards as m e n t i o n e d above in CI-1500 Tes t Methods For Fiber Ropes. This test m e t h o d allows for testing ropes whe the r they can be spliced or not. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. C O M M r r r E E STATEMENT: See Commi t t ee Action taken on C o m m e n t 1983-5 (Log #9).

compl iance with the s tandard. The re are no changes in the const ruct ion o f the rope to con t inue to mee t the s tandard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. In 3.1.2.3 and 3.1.3.3 delete term "2001 edition" for "standard deviation" r ecommenda t i on .

See Commi t tee Action taken on C o m m e n t 1983-4 (Log #15). COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The submi t te r ' s substant ia t ion addressed the problem o f us ing the edi t ion date on the identification tape and the Commi t t ee agreed to delete that. Th e s tandard deviation issue was addressed in Commi t t ee Action taken on 1983-4 (Log #15).

( L o g g l 7 ) Commit tee : FAE-SCE

1983- 9 - (3-2.6): Accept in Principle S U B M r F r E R : Mitch Ross, U p p e r Arl ington Fire D e p a r m e n t CO MMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 RECOMMENDATION: R e n u m b e r and revise Manufac tured Systems as follows:

32 .5 .6 Manufac tured Systems g--2-=6-A-~2.5.6.1 The manufac tu re r o f mahu fac tu r ed systems

auxiliary, e q u i p m e n t certified as be ing compl ian t with this s tandard shall furnish the purchase r with a sample of sugges ted records to be main ta ined by the purchaser or user o f the au×illa: 7 equipmen= manufac tu red system.

~2 .5 .6 .2The suggested records shall include a list o f i tems that the records need to contain. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : Manufac tured Systems are a type o f auxiliary e q u i p m e n t and should be g rouped with them. In addit ion, in order to more appropriately identify them, auxiliary e q u i p m e n t should be added after Manufac tured Systems. This also helps with clarification and readibility o f the s tandard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise 3-2.6 to read as follows:

3-2.5.6 The manufac tu re o f manufac tu red systems auxiliary e q u i p m e n t that is certified as being compl ian t with this s tandard shall furnish the purchase r with a sample of sugges ted records to be main ta ined by the purchaser o r user o f the manufac tu red system auxiliary equ ipmen t .

Delete 3-2.6.1 and 3-2.6.2. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Commi t tee agrees with the submit ters without and modif ied the text for clarity.

(Log #CC7) Commit tee : FAE-SCE

1983- 7 - (3-1.1.10): Accept SUBMITrER: Technica l C ommi t t e e on Special Opera t ions Protective Cloth ing and E q u i p m e n t CO MMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows:

3.1.1.10 Load bea t ing hardware auxiliary e q u i p m e n t shall be s tamped, engraved or otherwise pe rmanen t ly marked with the required p roduc t label in format ion in 3.1.1.5, 3.1.6.1, 3.1.6.2 and 3.1.6.3. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : Even t hough auxiliary e q u i p m e n t is no t required to have all labels a t tached the informat ion in this r e c o m m e n d a t i o n should be required. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1983- 8 - (3-1.2.3 Standard Deviation, 3-1.3.3): Accept in Principle SUBMITI'ER: Mitch Ross, U p p e r Arl ington Fire D e p a r m e n t COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 RECOMMENDATION: Revise the definit ion of Standard Deviation as follows:

"...is calculated us ing the formulas in 6-1.1.2, 6-2.1.2, and 6-6,1,2...", S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : To mee t the requ i rements o f the s tandard when it changes all rope in inventory would have to be destroyed in o rder to replace the tape r u n n i n g th rough the core. By removing the year of the edit ion, the rope can be relabled and remain in

(Log #L8) Commit tee : FAE-SCE

1983- 10- (4-4.1.2): Accept SUBMITrER: Miter Ross, Uppe r Ar l ington Fire D e p a r m e n t CO MMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 RECOMMENDATIO N: Delete text as follows:

A belt that fastens only a round the waist and is i n t ended for use as a p~a'~ti.~ning dc;a.cc far a pcraan a n a !addcr and alae. i n t endcd fe.r u s e - o n ~ by the wearer as an emergency self-rescue device shall be des ignated as a~ ~u~dee/escape belt. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : The term Ladde r /Escape Belt has no m e a n i n g without an escape belt be ing recognized in the s tandard. It would be more appropr ia te to recognize an Escape Belt and a Ladder Belt separately. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1983- 11 - (4-4.6): Reject SUBMITTER: Bill Grilliot, Morn ing Pride MFG. LLC C O M M E N T O N PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 RECOMMENDATION: Add text to 4-4.6 to read as follows:

"This r equ i r emen t does no t apply to l adde r / e scape belts as def ined in 4-4.1.2. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : This m u s t be stated because in 1-3 Definit ions a l abor /escape belt is required to mee t all the ladder belt r equ i rements which would include a tether. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Requ i remen t s for a combina t ion ladder and escape belt has been deleted from the docu m en t .

See Commi t tee Action taken on C o m m e n t 1983-3 (Log #12).

2 1 5

NFPA 1983 - - N o v e m b e r 2000 ROC

(LOg #19) Commit tee : FAE-SCE

1983- 12- (4-4.6): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Mitch Ross, U p p e r Arl ington Fire D e p a r m e n t COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 RECOMMENDATION: R e n u m b e r and revise Manufac tured Systems as follows:

~ Manufac tured Systems g--2~td- 3-2.5.6.1 The manufac tu re re of m a n u f a c t u r e d systems

auxiliary e q u i p m e n t certified as being compl ian t with this s tandard shall furnish the purchaser with a sample of sugges ted records to be main ta ined by the purchase r or user o f the aux:,liary e q u i p m e n t manufac tu red system.

~ %2.5.6.2 The suggested records shall inc lude a list of i tems that the records need to contain. SUBSTANTIATION: See my substant ia t ion for C o m m e n t 1988-9 (Log #17). Wi thou t a l adde r / e scape belt, all ladder belts would need to mee t this section. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

] In 44 .6 delete last sentence. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Submit ters r e c o m m e n d a t i o n covered in Commi t tee Action taken on C o m m e n t 1988-9 (Log #17).

T h e submi t te r included 4.4.6 in his c o m m e n t and the submit ters substant iat ion addressed the delet ion of the last sen tence o f 4.4.6 as no longer applicable and the Commi t t ee agrees.


1983- 13 - (5-1.4): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Mitch Ross, U p p e r Arl ington Fire D e p a r m e n t COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read as follows:

more than IO percent at 19 perce.nt o f ~ e a k i n g =trengtE. The m a x i m u m elongat ion 9f all new life safety rooe shall no t be less than 10 percent at 10 percen t o f breakin~ sti '¢n~th when tested as soecified in 6-1.1. Breaking and Elongat ion Testing. SUBSTANTIATION: Wording shou ld be changecl as specified to stay consistent with the rest o f the s tandard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. C O M M r r I ' E E STATEMENT: See Commi t t ee Action taken on C o m m e n t 1983-14 (Log #53).

SUBSTANTIATION: Incorpora ted 5.1.7 into this paragraph since 5.1.7 is no t a pe r fo rmance r equ i r emen t and should n o t s tand a lone in this section. O the r modif iat ions make this section m o re consis tent with o thers within this d o c u m e n t related to the same test. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # t0a) Commit tee : FAE-SCE

1983- 16- (5-1.5): Reject S U B M r r r E R : Jerry La Montagne, Co lumbian Rope Co m p an y COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read as follows:

5-1.5 "...when tested in accordance with section 9.! c.fCI 1801 Low Stre=c~ Kc:'man:!c Life Safety P.ape." When tested in i~¢cordance with section 7 o f CI 1500 Test Methods for Fiber Ro te .

[In sections 5-1.6 and 5-2.3 the changes should be the same as called for in 5-1.5] SUBSTANTIATION: Columbian Rope is a manufac tu re r o f 3 and 8 s t rand Life Safety ropes. We p roduce 3 and 8 s t randed rope to the cu r ren t NFPA 1983-1995 Edition for the fire depar tmen t s in Chicago and New York. This new proposed specification forces our 3 and 8 s t randed rope ou t o f the market . By allowing the s tandard to be written as proposed, it will no t give f reedom of choice to the end user. The 1995 Edition allows for testing both di f ferent cons t ruc t ions o f ropes that can and canno t be spliced.

With the NFPA propos ing the use o f Cordage Insti tute Standard CI 1801-98 Low Stretfh and Static Ke rmande Life Safety Rope and the 16-carrier nylon shea th rope p roposed for test ing devices, this is asking that only one type o f construct ion be used, braided. This would push 3 and 8 s t rand life safety ropes out o f the market . Th e 16-carrier shea th may cause device manufac tu re r s problems. The device manufac tu re r s should decide what rope to use. This s h o u l d n ' t be the decision o f the NFPA Commi t t ee to make.

The Cordage Inst i tute has many approved s tandards and n u m e r o u s s tandards being worked on, the NFPA should no t single ot~t one specific rope s tandard, they should use test ing s tandards as m e n t i o n e d above in CI-1500 Test Methods For Fiber Ropes. This test m e t h o d allows for test ing ropes whe the r they can be spliced or not. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commi t tee Action taken o n C o m m e n t 1983-1 (Log #40).


1983- 14- (5-1.4): Accept SUBMITIT.,R: Karen E. Strumlock, Inter tek Tes t ing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read as follows:

more than 19 percent a= 10 percen t c.f breaking atrcngth. The m a x i m u m elongat ion o f all new life safetv roDe shall no t be more than 10 percent at 10 percent o f breaking s t rength when tested as soecified in 6-1.1. SUBSTANTIATION: I believe that the m a x i m u m elongat ion r equ i r emen t is what paragraph 5.1.4 is trying to cover, bu t I am no t sure due to the limited informat ion in the exist ing paragraph. If this is no t max elongation, t hen paragraph needs to be revised to make more sense. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1983- 17- (5-1.6): Accept SUBMITTER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Test ing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read as follows:

General-Use life safety rope shall have a d iameter 13 m m (1 /2 in.) or grea ter and not more than 16mm (5 /8 in.) when tested in accordance with Section 9.1 o f the Cordage Insti tute Standard CI 1801Low Stretch Kernmanf le Life Safety Rope. For the n u m o s e o f reoor t inm the calculated d iamete r o f all new life safety roDe shall be r o u n d e d to the nearest 0.5 m m (1/(34 in.), SUBSTANTIATION: Incorpora ted 5.1.7 into this paragraph since 5.1.7 is no t a pe r fo rmance r e q u i r e m e n t and should no t s tand alone in this section. O the r modif iat ions make this section m o re consis tent with o thers within this d o c u m e n t related to the same test. C O M M r r r E E ACTION: Accept.


1983- 15- (5-1.5): Accept SUBMITTER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Tes t ing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read as follows:

Light-use life safety rope shall have a d iameter 9.5 m m (3 /8 in.) or grea ter and less than 13 m m (1 / 2 in.) when tested in accordance with Section 9.1 o f the Cordage Insti tute Standard CI 1801 Low Stretch Kernmant le Life Safety ff, ope. For the purpose o f report ing, the calculated d iamete r o f all new life safety rope shall be rounded to the neares t 0.5 m m (1 /64 in.),


1983- 18- (5-1.7): Accept SUBMITTER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Tes t ing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6

I RECOMMENDATiON: Delete 5.1.7 and paragraph incorporate into 5.1.5 and 5.1.6.

R e n u m b e r A-5-1.7 as A-5.5 and A-5-1.6. SUBSTANTIATION: 5.1.7 is no t a pe r fo rmance r equ i r em en t an d shou ld become part of the pass/fai l sections it pertains to since there is no test r equ i r emen t written for this test within this s tandard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

216

N F P A 1983 ~ N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 0 R O C


1983- 19 - (5-1.10, 5-2.6, 5-3.8, 5-4.7): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Mitch Ross, U p p e r Arl ington Fire D e p a r m e n t COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 RECOMMENDATION: Delete text as follows:

. . .attached, ha~ beer=. ~ubjcctcd to ;';a~h:mg .7£ at !ea~t Cla~ 2 co.!of ~h . . . . . . . . L .~ tested in accordance with... SUBSTANTIATION: Washing to this level and the required ANSI /AATCC result in some dupl icat ion which unnecessar i ly drives up end-user costs. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

I Delete text as follows: . . . a t tached , . . . . . . . . . . . . j . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ _c at Icazt . . . . 2 cc.lor

when tested in accordance with... COMMITrEE STATEMENT: T he Commi t t ee agrees bu t needed to retain the word when (tested) for clarity.

(Log #CCI) Commit tee : FAE-SCE

1983- 20 - (5-2.1 and 5.2.2"): Accept SUBMITTER: Technica l Commi t t ee on Special Opera t ions Protective Cloth ing and Equ ipmen t COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows:

5.2.1 When tested in accordance with 6.2.1, escape rope shall have a m i n i m u m breaking s t rength o f 13.5 kN (3034 lbf).

5.2.2* The m a x i m u m elongat ion o f all new escape rope shall no t he less than 1 percen t and not more than 10 percen t at 10 percent o f breaking s t rength when tested in accordance with 6-2.1. SUBSTANTIATION: In 5.2.1 the metric convers ion and round ing resulted in a n u m b e r lower than desired. This is changed as well as some language in 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 to make the section clearer. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1983- 21 - (5-2.3, 5-2.4): Accept SUBMITTER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Tes t ing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read as follows: Escape rope shall have a d iameter 7 .5mm (0=~n95 19/64 in.) or

grea ter and less than 9 .5mm (3 /8 in.) when tested in accordance with Section 9.1 o f the Cordage Insti tute Standard CI 1801 Low Stretch K e r n m a n d e Life Safety Rope 8eetion~-.4-. For the .nur°°se. o f renor t ine , the calculated d iamete r o f all new life safetv escane rone ' sha l l be r o u n d e d to the neares t 0.5 m m (1 /64 in.).

Delete 5.2.4. R e n u m b e r A-5-2.4 to A-5-2.3.

SUBSTANTIATION: 5.2.4 is no t a pe r fo rmance r equ i r emen t and . shou ld become part o f the pass/fai l section it pertains to since there is no test r equ i r emen t written for this test within this s tandard. O t h e r modif icat ions make this sect ion more consis tent with o thers within this d o c u m e n t related to the same test. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1983- 23 - (5-3.3.1): Accept SUBMITrER: Mitch Ross, U p p e r Arl ington Fire D e p a r m e n t COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 RECOMMENDATION: Add text to read as follows:

5-3.3.1 Samnle Class II life safety harness shall be I~esl;¢d aS soecified in 6-3.5. The test torso shall not contact the ~ round du r ing any of the two test drops, SUBSTANTIATION: Dynamic drop tests are needed to main ta in c o n s u m e r conf idence in the manu fac tu r i ng process. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1983- 24 - (5-3.4.1): Accept SUBMITTER: J e f f Y o u n g , U p p e r Arl ington Fire Dep a r tm en t COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6

I RECOMMENDATION: Add text to read as follows: 5-3.4.1 Satanic Class III-life safety harness shall be tested as

specified in 6-3.5. The test torso shall no t contact the g r o u n d du r ing any Qf the two test droos. SUBSTANTIATION: Dynamic drop tests are needed to mainta in c o n s u m e r conf idence in the manufac tu r ing process. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1983- 25 - (5-3.4.1): Accept SUBMITrER: Jef f Young, Uppe r Arl ington Fire Depa r tmen t COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 RECOMMENDATION: Add text to read as follows:

.. .such shou lde r a t t achmen t points shall be tested as a hair usin~ an annronr ia te so reader device o n ~ du r ing the Static Test -Upright ng_.~f~ sl~ecified'in 6-3.2. SUBSTANTIATION: Shoulder A t t achmen t Points are des igned to be used as a pair and should be tested appropriately. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1983- 26 - (5-4.3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Jeff Young, U p p e r Arl ington Fire Depa r tmen t COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read as follows:

"5-4.3 Sample h d d e r - ~ s c a p e belts shall be tested...". SUBSTANTIATION: Ladder /Escape Belts cease to exist wi thout an escape belt classification. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Delete " ladder /" f rom both first and second sentences. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Consistency.


1983- 22 - (5-3.2.1): Accept SUBMrlq 'ER: Mitch Ross, U p p e r Arl ington Fire D e p a r m e n t COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 RECOMMENDATION: A d d text to read as follows:

~i-3,~,| Samnle Class I life safetv harness shall be tested as sneeified in 6-3.5. T he t¢~t torso shall no t contact the ~ round dur in~ any of the two test droos. SUBS~TANTIATION: Dynamic drop tests are needed to mainta in c o n s u m e r conf icence in the manu fac t u r i ng process. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1983- 27 - (5-4.3.1): Accept SUBMrITER: Jeff Young, Uppe r Arl ington Fire De p a r tm en t COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 RECOMMENDATION: Add text to read as follows: •

5-4.3.1 Samole escape belts shall be tested as snecified in 6-4.4. The test torso shall no t contact the ~round dur in~ anv of the two test drops. - - " SUBSTANTIATION: Dynamic Drop Tests are needed to main ta in c o n s u m e r conf idence in the manufac tu r ing process. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

2 1 7

NFPA 1983 - - November 2000 ROC


1983- 28 - (5-5.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Test ing Services COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 RECOMMENDATION: Revise entire section to read as follows:

5-5.1 Carabiners and Snap-Link System C o m p o n e n t s

the m a n n e r ~.f f :=nct~.n ,̂~ ~cc ! .~ed in $ 5. ! . 5-5.1.1 When tested in accordance with Section 6-5.1, light-use

carabiners and snap-links, with the gate closed, shall have a major axis m i n i m u m breaking s t rength o f at least 27 kN (6069 lbf).

5-5.1.2 W h e n tested in accordance with Section 6-5.1, light-use carabiners and snap-links, with the gate open, shall have a major axis m i n i m u m breaking s t rength of at least 7 kN ( 1574 lbf).

(157 ~. - - ~ 5-5.1.3 W h e n tested in accordance with Section 6-5.1, l ight-use

carabiners and snap-links, shall have a minor axis m i n i m u m breaking s t rength of at least 7 kN (1574 lbf).

5-5.1.4 W h e n tested in accordance with Section 6-5.1, general-use carabiners and snap-links, with the gate closed, shall have a major axis m i n i m u m breaking s t rength o f at least 40 kN (8992 lbf)+

shall hc dc~igna:cd a~ general u~c. 5-5.1.1 W h e n tested in accordance with Section 6-5.1, general-use

carabiners and snap-links, with the gate open, shall have a major axis breaking s t rength o f at least 11 kN (2473 lbf).

I . ' K T l O A ~ t IL.,f~

5-5.1.6 W h e n tested in accordance with Section 6-5.1, general-use carabiners and snap-links, shall have a m i no r axis m i n i m u m breaking s t rength of at least 11 kN (2473 lbf).

K K 1 >7 ~ , . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . k l . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . I 1 ~ 1 . ~ . L . ~ I 1 k . . . . . . : ~ .

ax'~ m' :n[mum brcaking ~trcngth, ..a.~..~. . . . . . . . . . . c . . ~ . . . . ~

S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : This pe r fo rmance r equ i r emen t section is no t written in consis tent s tandards writing language. Revisions make the section more clear and consis tent with NFPA per fo rmance r e q u i r e m e n t sections. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1983- 29 - (5-5.3.3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Kevin Slotterbeck, Seattle Manufac tur ing Corpora t ion COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 RECOMMENDATION: ROP 83-6 has been accepted and stipulates escape descen t control devices m i n i m u m breaking s t rength to be 13kN (29231bf) a l though 5-5.3.3 st ipulates 9kN (20231bf). S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : Clarification is needed between which value has been accepted by the commit tee . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Change "13kN" to read "13.5 k /N" (3034 lbf).

Also change "13kN" to read "13.5 k /N" (3034 lbf) in 5-2.1, 5-5.3.3. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The value is 13.5 kN and the Commi t tee has made the change .


1983- 30 - (5-5.3.4): Accept in Principle S U B M r r r E R : Hank Moon, Petzl America C O M M E N T O N PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6

[ R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : 5-5.3.4: Delete ent ire paragraph. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : This paragraph refers to a test descr ibed in 6-5.3.15 that lacks a m e t h o d for measur ing the "force needed to control this slippage." Witfiout a me thod , the test is invalid and

should be modif ied or deleted. At p resen t I have no proposal for a test me thod , thus my r e c o m m e n d a t i o n for deletion. COMMITTEE A C T I O N : Accept in Principle. Accept the submit ters r e commenda t i ons and also delete 3-1.6.4, 5- 5.3.7, and 5-5.3.10. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Consistency.


1983- 31 - (5-5.3.7 and 5-5.3.10): Accept SUBMITTER: Technica l Commi t t ee on Special Opera t ions Protective Clothing and E q u i p m e n t C O M M E N T O N PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6

I R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Delete 5.5.37 and 5.5.3.10. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : Revoved the ho ld ing force test from the s tandard, therefore the pass/fai l mus t also be remvoed. See Commi t t ee Action on C o m m e n t 1983-61(Log #8). COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1983- 32 - (5-5.4): Accept SUBMITrER: Karen E. Strumlock, Inter tek Tes t ing Services CO MMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise ent ire section to read as foIlowm

5-5.4 Portable A n c h o r System C o m p o n e n t s 5 5A.I Pc.rtab!e anchc.r ~c'Acc~ ~ball be ~trengtb :c~ted !n the

m a n n e r c.f f-anctlcm a~ :pecificd in S 5.!. 5.5.4.1 When tested in accordance with Section 6-5.4, light-use

portable ancho r devices shall withstand a m i n i m u m load o f at least 5 kN (1124 lbf) without p e r m a n e n t d a m a n g e or visible deformat ion t o the genera2+shapeof the de~ce- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

~ :~ : . . . . ~^~a ^c^+ ~ . . . . ~ ~.,,T .(1!2 ~. , . ~ .._..~. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5-5.4.2 W h e n tested in accordance with Section 6-5.4, light-use

~ ortable a n c h o r devices shall withstand a m i n i m u m load o f at least 2 kN (4946 lbf) without failure. 5 5A.~ L!gEt ",:~c pe.rtab!c a n c h v r dc;";cc~ ~ha!! -'Ath~w.nd a

5-5.4.3 W h e n tested in accordance with Section 6-5.4, general-use portable a n c h o r devices shall withstand a m i n i m u m load o f at least 13 kN (2923 lbf) without p e r m a n e n t damage or visible deformat ion to the general shape o f the device.

5-5.4.4 W h e n tested in accordance with Section 6-5.4,gqneral-use portable a n c h o r devices shall withstand a m i n i m u m load of at least 36 kN (8093 Ibf) without failure.

S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : This pe r fo rmance r equ i r emen t section is no t written in consis tent s tandards writing language. Revisions make the section more clear and consis tent with NFPA pe r fo rmance r equ i r emen t sections. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1983- 33- (5-5.5): Accept SUBMITTER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Tes t ing Services C O M M E N T O N P RO P OSAL NO: 1983-6 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise entire section to read as follows:

5-5.5 Pulley System C o m p o n e n t s

5-5.5.1 When tested in accordance with Section 6-5.5, light-use Ulleys shall have a m i n i m u m tensile s t rength o f at least 5 kN (1124 f) wi thout p e r m a n e n t damage to the device or damage to the

rope. 5 5.5.2 Light . . . . . . . " . . . . . h ~ . k . . . . . . :~: . . . . . . . :, . . . . . . . h ~e

~ o ~ 1 ~ . . . . 7 . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ S . . . . . b . . . . .

.4 . . . . . + ~ * h . . . . .

218


5-5.5.2 W h e n tested in accordance with Section 6-5.5, light-use pulleys shall have a m i n i m u m tensile s t rength o f at least 22 kN (4946 lbf) without failure.

5-5.5.3 .When tested in accordance with Section 6-5.5, general-use pulleys shall have a m i n i m u m tensile s t rength o f at least 22 kN (49461bf) wi thout p e r m a n e n t damage to the device or damage to the rope.

K K K A P . . . . 1 . . . . . . . I 1 . . . . . I ~ l l I ~ . . . . . . : ~ : . . . . * ~ - - ~ : , 1 ^ . * . . . . * K

% ~ L Z V 2 3 7 ~ ' : V . _ ' Z 2 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5-5.5.4 W h e n tested in accordance with Section 6-5.5, general-use pulleys shall have a m i n i m u m tensile s t rength of at least 36 kN (8093 lbf) wi thout failure.

spczl.qc~ "= 2 5.5. 5-5.5.5 W h e n tested in accordance with Secdon 6-5.5, the becket

on light-use pulleys shall have a m i n i m u m tensile s t rength o f at least 12 kN (3709 lbf) without failure.

5-5.5.6 W h e n tested in accordance with Section 6-5.5, the becket on general-use pulleys shall have a t n i n i m u m tensile s t rength o f at least 19.5 kN (6070 Ibf) without failure.

S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : This pe r fo rmance r equ i r emen t section is no t written in consis tent s tandards writing language. The revisions make the section more clear and consis tent with NFPA pe r fo rmance r e q u i r e m e n t sections.

Also 16.5 and 27 kN values are excessive and the modif ied values represent a satisfactory value for pulley beckets based on correct use the system. C O M M r r T E E ACTION: Accept.


1983- 34 - (5-5.5.6, 6-5.6): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Kevin Slotterbeck, Seattle Manufac tur ing Corpora t ion C O M M E N T ON PR OP OS AL NO: 1983-6

I R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Remove entire Section 5-5.5.6 and 6-5.6 - Pulley Efficiency Testing.

• SUBSTANTIATION: Al though informat ion about the efficiency o f a pulley could be valuable to the end user, we believe the p roposed testing m e t h o d will provide results to end users that will be mis leading and non-conclusive. T he basis for this conclus ion is as follows:

• The m e t h o d proposed inherent ly tests the pulley in a system, ra ther than testing the pulley itself. Therefore , you can not revolve the effect of the rope from the efficiency results that are being measured• O u r tests indicate that the rope used can have a significant effect on the results, even when the ropes used mee t the rope requ i rements st ipulated in 6-5.6. O u r tests resulted in as m u c h as a 7 percen t different efficiency rat ing when us ing different ropes with all o the r c o m p o n e n t s be ing equal . (Our tests inc luded 2 ropes from different manufac tu re r s and 5 pulleys f rom different manufacturers . ) As a result, the efficiency rat ing that a manufac tu re r places on their e q u i p m e n t will be d e p e n d e n t on which qualif ied rope they choose to use. Thus , there is no way for the e n d user to unde r s t and what rope was used, nor the effect that specific rope had on the specific pulley be ing tested. We went one step fur ther with our testing and pe r fo rmed the tests u n d e r various rope condi t ions (old, new, dry, wet, etc.) to fu r ther unde r s t and whether the efficiency ratings vary d e p e n d i n g on these condit ions. Indeed they do, and significantly. In addit ion, there was no correlat ion between the efficiency o f a pulley with the same rope in these various condit ions. In o the r words, a pulley may have rated at the h ighes t efficiency relative to o thers u n d e r new condit ions, bu t pe r fo rmed the worst u n d e r wet condi t ions us ing exactly the same rope. Based on these results, we could not separate these

o ther factors f rom the pulley itself in a m a n n e r that provided useful in format ion to he lp the end user make decisions on compar ing produc t pe r fo rmance as well as us ing pulleys. We believe a user could easily come to the wrong conclus ion form this in format ion and consequent ly , should be removed as a test ing m e t h o d in this d o c u m e n t .

• Unti l more test ing has been pe r fo rmed on an efficiency rating system, it shou ld no t be inc luded in the documen t . In o u r opinion, no informat ion is bet ter than providing mis leading informat ion. Once addi t ional testing has been pe r fo rmed and a bet ter me thodo logy results i n u s a b l e and valuable data, t hen an efficiency rat ing should be included in the documen t .

• This testing m e t h o d assumes that the testing env i ro n m en t (laboratory) is indicative of the condi t ions found by the en d user. We believe otherwise and the effect o f the real env i ro n m en t plays a

. s ignificant factor in the test results. This issue needs to be fu r ther investigated to de te rmine whe the r or not it's possible to take the env i ronmenta l issues ou t of the equat ion in providing an efficiency rating. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

] Accept the submit ters r e c o m m e n d a t i o n and also delete 3-1.6.6. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Consistency.


1983- 35 - (5-5.5.7): Accept in Principle S U B M I T T E R : Hank Moon, Petzl America C O M M E N T ON P R O P O S A L NO: 1983-6 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise text as follows:

5-5.5.7 Pulleys that include a becket at the bot tom of the pulley shall have the becket tested b}" c.?p!;.z:g a !c.a~ . . . . ~, . . . . . . . . . 7 bet; ' :cca t.hc c a r a t ! a c t hc,!c a r ~ the bcc'-et, in the m a n n e r snecified

SUBSTANTIATION: There mus t be a m e t h o d for the becket test. It is logical to place it in Section 6-5.5. I did not have the t ime to develop a test me thod , bu t it should read m u c h like the m e t h o d for the pulley itself. COMMrlWEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commi t tee Action taken o n C o m m e n t s 1983-33 (Log #60) and 1983-73 (Log #72).


1983- 36 - (5-5.5.8): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Hank Moon, Petzl America C O M M E N T O N PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise text as follows:

5-5.5.8 The becket on pulleys des ignated as light-use shall have a m i n i m u m tensile s t rength o f at least 15.5 kN (~709 !b) 11.89 kN (2673 lb) wi thout failure. SUBSTANTIATION: The 16.5 kN is unnecessari ly high. See submi t ted explanat ion for the derivation o f 11.89 kN.

Note: Suppor t ing material is available for review at NFPA Headqua r t e r s . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See 'Commi t tee Action taken on C o m m e n t 1983-33 (Log #60).

(Log#48) Commit tee : FAE-SCE

1983- 37 - (5-5.5.9): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Hank Moon, Petzl America C O M M E N T ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise text as follows:

5-5.5.9 The becket on pulleys designated as general-use by the manufac tu re r shall have a m i n i m u m tensile s t rength o f at least g-7- I.~T r a a . n lu~ 19.46 kN (4375 Ib) without failure. ~ * - x . . . . . . /

S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : The 27 kN is unnecessari ly high. See submi t ted explanat ion for the derivation o f 19.46 kN.

Note: Suppor t ing material is available for review at NFPA Headqua r t e r s . C O M M I T r E E ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commi t tee Action taken on C o m m e n t 1983-33 (Log #60).

219

N F P A 1983 - - N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 0 R O C

(Log #37) Committee: FAEoSCE

1983- 38- (5-5.6): Accept SUBMITTER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 RECOMMENDATION: Revise entire section to read as follows:

5-5.6 Other Auxilliary Equipment, Systems, System Components , and Manufactured Systems.

5 5.5.! 721 other aaxi!lia D -'~+'v . . . . . . . . . . . + . . . . . . . ~ .. . .

5-5.6.1 All other auxilliary equipment, systems, system components , and manufactured systems designated by the manufacturer for light-use or general-use that are not specifically addressed in this section shall be strength tested in accordance with 6-7.8.

5 5.5.2 LIP.=: uac aux'!ia~" equipment aha!! have a s i n ! m u m tenaile - + . . . . + h ~ I ' + + I + ~ . + ~ . I . K T 1 1 I O A I K + ' + . . d + K ~ . . + . . . . . . . . ÷ .-I . . . . . + ~ +

K K ~ Q | : ~ 1 ~ + . . . . . . . . . . '11 . . . . . . . : . . . . # . k ~ l l k . . . . . . 1 ~ 1 . . . .

ten£'e =trer, gth of at 'cast ~2kN ~.9{6 'E~ ;'Atha-at fa!"are. 5-5.6.2 When tested in accordance with 6-7.8, light-use auxiliary

equipment, systems, system components , and manufactured systems shall have a minimum tensile strength of at least 22kN (4946 lbf) without failure.

m m R a O . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . ; I ; . . . . . . . ; . . . . * . R o l l R . . . . . . : ~ : . . . .

5-5.6.3 When tested in accordance with 6-7.8, general-use auxiliary equipment , systems, system components , and manufactured systems shall have a minimum tensile strength of at least 36 kN (8093 lbf) without failure.

corroaion or oxidation. Fer:'oua metala aha!' aho;'- no corroaion M:

5-5.6.4 All auxiliary eqnipment, systems, system components , and manufactured systems with metal hardware and hardware that includes metal parts shall be tested for corrosion resistance as specified in 6-7.5. Metals inherently resistant to corrosion including, but not limited to, stainless steel, brass, copper, aluminum, and zinc shall show no more than light surface type corrosion or oxidation. Ferrous metals shall show no corrosion of the base metal. All hardware shall remain functional as specified in the manufacturer 's operat ing instructions.

Q A l l g-~ . . . . . . . fiber and thrcad utilizcd in the conatruction of all

~,.-,4~,4 w^., s~+~.~.+ c^. ~ , r~ , : . . . . . a CrTata,!izatlon Temperatures-

5-5.6.5 All fiber and thread utilized in the construction of all auxiliary equipment, systems, system components , and manufactured systems shall not have a melting point of less than 204 ° C (400 ° F) when tested in accordance with ASTM E 794, Standard Test Method for Melting and Crystallization Temperatues by Thermal Analysis.

w i t h ?~.+S!/STCC Teat Method 16, Option A ar E, for a I0 Eour

5-5.6.6 All dyed auxiliary equipment, systems, system components , and manufactured systems shall have a colorfastness to washing of at least Class 2 color change when tested in accordance with ANSl/AATCC Test Method 16, Option A or E, for a 10 hour exposure.

5-5.6.7 When tested in accordance with 6-7.6, the product label(s) specified in Section 3-5 shall remain in place, shall be legible to the unaided eye with 20/90 vision, or vision corrected to 20/20, at a nominal distance of 305 mm (12 in.), and shall not be torn or otherwise damaged.

.c . . . . ~- . . . . . . : ':--* equipment with ++" . . . . "+ . . . . ,-t.o, ro~ . . . . . ~.-,4

.+..a~ ~cc:'. ~'aEjccted to the ;;*aahlng teat apeciEe~ i : ' . 5 5.!~. 5.5.6.8 The product label(s) specified in Section 3-5 shall be

legible to the unaided eye with 20/20 vision, or vision corrected to 20/20, at the nominal distance of 305 mm (12 in.), both before and after the auxiliary equipment, systems, system components, and manufactured systems with the product label(s) attached has been subjected to the washing test specified in 5-5.13. SUBSTANTIATION: This performance requirement section is not written in consistent standards writing language. The revisions make the section more clear and consistent with NFPA performance requirement sections. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #CC2) Committee: FAE-SCE

1983- 39 - (5-5.10 a~,d 5-5.11): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Special Operations Protective Clothing and Equipment COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6

I RECOMMENDATION: Add to 5-5.10 and 5-5.11 at the beginning: "when the product is attached,..."

SUBSTANTIATION: Auxiliary equipment labels are not required to be attached to the device, however if and wheh they are we believe this requirement should apply. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #38) Committee: FAE-SCE

1983- 40- (5-6): Accept SUBMIT'I'ER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 RECOMMENDATION: Revise entire section to read as follows:

5-6 Manufactured Systems 5 5.! .V~anufactured a;.'a:cr...a aA~: . . . . . .a by the . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . r~_

!i-hi or -cncra! uac ~hall bc a=rength . . . . . "4 :~ +t. . . . . . . . .

5-6.1 Where a manufactured system contains a life safety harness sub-component, the life safety harness shall be individually tested, labeled and certified to meet the appropriate requirgments specified in Section 5-3 in addition to the manufactured system requirements of 5-6.2 through 5-6.5 as applicahle.

a u . . , , . ,~1~, ma.,~,,~,~l~u ol+.. . , wl . .u .... . ill~ a a ° " ,--.~ . . . . . . . . v . . . . . . t, It . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . y . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . nd . . . . . . . . . to meet the appropriate requ!rcmen:a apecificd in Section 5 + in addition +.o *~e manufactured ayatem rcquircmenta of 5 5.2 through

5-6.2 When tested in accordance with Section 6-7.8, light-use manufactured systems shall have a minimum tensile strength of at least 5 kN (1124 lbf) without permanent damage to the system or its componen t parts or visible deformation to the general shape of the system or components .

+ + - - . : I + + + . . . . + K ~ ' + + I + ~ + + ~. 1.1%T I I I O * f I k C ' t . . d + l . . ~ . . , . . . . . . . +

When tested in accordance with Section 6-7.8, light-use manufactured systems shall have a minimum tensile strength of at least 22 kN (4946 lbf) without failure.

5-6.4 When tested in accordance with Section 6-7.8, general-use manufactured systems shall have a minimum tensile strength of at least 22 Kn (lbf) without permanent damage to the system or its componen t parts or visible deformation to the general shape of the system or components .

(ACIAg~ I k ~ x . . . : * I ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . + * ^ - . : 1 + . * . + ~ g + k ~ c + * I + + + * O o I , KT . + - I

++~1 1 1 1 5 . . . . . . . . . + . . . . . . . . . . . + . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . " . . . . . . . .

.5 hen tested in accordance with Section 6-7.8, general-use manufactured systems shall have a minimum tensile strength of at least 36 kN (8993 Ibf) without failure.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a m~nimum

220


SUBSTANTIATION: This pe r fo rmance r e q u i r e m e n t section is no t written in consis tent s tandards writing language. T he revisions make the section more clear and consis tent with NFPA pe r fo rmance r e q u i r e m e n t sections. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commi t t ee Action taken on C o m m e n t 1983-38 (Log #37).


1983- 41 - (5-7.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Tes t ing Services COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read as follows:

The d iamete r o f all new throwline shall have a d iameter of 7 m m (19/64 in} or greater and less than 9 ,Smm (3 / 8 in) when tested in accordance with Section 9.1 of be de t e rmined uaing the teat m e t h o d for d iamete r as spee!.qed in T he Cordage Institute Standard, CI-1801 Low Stretch and Static Kernmant le Life Safety Rope. SUBSTANTIATION: There is no pass/fa l l r equ i r emen t provided. Change in language make the paragraph more consis tent with o thers within this s tandard. C O M M r r r E E ACTION: Accept .


1983- 42 - (5-7.3): Accept SUBMITTER: Technica l Commi t t ee on Special Opera t ions Protective Clothing and E qu i pmen t COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6

I RECOMMENDATION : Revise 5-7.3 as follows: New throwline a.ha!! lha;'c a apcei.qc gravity leaa t.han one ; ;hen a,d: T

shall float when tested as specified in 6-6.2, SUBSTANTIATION: There is no test in Chapte r 6 for 'specific gravity and the float test is sufficient to de te rmine pass/fai l for throwline. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1983- 43 - (6-1.1.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Tes t ing Services C O M M E N T O N PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 "

I R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise to read as follows: Samples a~a!! be taken .q~e,..'u eac, ~, a pmductie , n lot o f life safety

rope. . . SUBSTANTIATION: Samples do no t need to be taken from each product ion run for certification testing, COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #10b) Commit tee : FAE-SCE

1983- 44 - (6-1.1.1, 6-5.2.3): Reject TCC NOTE: TCC NOTE: Revise TC Action on Comment 1983-

44 from Reject to read: "Accept in Part in Principle (1) The Committee rejects the recommendat ion to reference CI

1500, Test Methods for Fiber Rope . (2) The Committee accepts in principle the idea that the test

method referencing CI 1801, Low Stretch Kernmantle Life Safety Rope , can be misleading when only the title o f the document is noted, and will add a new appendix item, A.6.1.1.1.

Add new A.6.1.1.1 to read: "NFPA 1983 does not preclude a variety o f rope construction so long as the construction types mee t the performance requirements o f the standard. The title o f CI 1801, Low Stretch Kerumantle Life Safety Rope , indicates a type o f rope construction; however, the e longation and breaking strength test methods contained in CI 1801 can be utilized for other types o f rope construction.

The reference to CI 1801 in NFPA 1983 is not intended to limit the rope construction to any single type of rope construction or to the construction type ment ioned in the t ide o f CI 1801. The

reference to CI 1801 in NFPA 1983 is only intended to reference the testing methods for elongation and breaking strength specif ied in sections 8 and 9 o f CI 1801 for evaluating any rope construction type for compliance with NFPA 1983."

Revise the TC Statement on Comment 1983-44 to read: "(1) The Committee chose the use o f CI 1801 rather than ANSI

D 4268, as there are multiple testing procedures in the ANSI document . The Committee bel ieves CI 1801 provides a better, more stringent testing method for the type o f rope covered by NFPA 1983, and that CI 1801 will provide more consistent test results without adversely affecting a part icular type o f rope construct ion.

At this time, proposed CI 1500, Test Methods for Fiber Rope , is not in its final form. It remains a draft within the CI process and has not become a final document . It is not appropriate for NFPA 1983 to reference CI 1500 as an established testing document."

(2) The Committee agrees in principle that there is the possibility o f confusion regarding the title o f CI 1801. The Committee is adding the appendix A.6.1.1.1 to explain the use o f the testing methods only." SUBMITTER: Jerry La Montagne , Co lumbian Rope Co m p an y C O M M E N T O N PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read as follows:

6-1.1.1 "...shall be tested for e longat ion and m i n i m u m breaking s t rength in accordance with sections 8 and 9 o f Cz',rdagc Inati:ute S tandard C! !E9! 9~ L#,;;" Stretch K e r n m a n d e Life Safety Rcpe." Shall be tested for e longat ion and m i n i m u m breaking s t rength in accordance with section 9 and 10 o f Cordage Insti tute Standards CI 1500 Test Methods for Fiber Rope.

[In section 6-2.1.1 the change should be the same as called for in 6-1.1.1]

6-5.2.3 "...with a ~ iameter o f 9 .Smm (~/E in.) an~ with a 16 carrier n)'lan ~heath" with a rode hat is the d iamete r r e c o m m e n d e d bv the manufac tu re r for the above m e n t i o n e d device.

[In sections of 6-5.2.4, 6-5.3.4, 6-5.3.5, 6-5.3.6, 6-5.3.11, 6-5.3.12, 6- 5.3.13, 6-5.5.3, 6-5.5.4, 6-5.6.3 and 6-5.6.4 the changes should be the same as called for in 6-5.2.3]

6-6.1.1 "...test m e t h o d for m i n i m u m breaking s t rength as specified

K e r m a n e e Life Safety Rope,." test m e t h o d for m i n i m u m breaking s t rength as sDecified in section 9 o f the Cordage Institut;e CI-1500 Tes t ~ le thods for Fiber Rope, S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : Columbian Rope is a manu fac tu r e r o f 3 and 8 s t rand Life Safety ropes. We p roduce 3 and 8 s t randed rope to the cu r r en t NFPA 1983-1995 Edition for the fire depa r tmen t s in Chicago and New York. This new proposed specification forces ou r 3 and 8 s t randed rope ou t o f the market . By allowing the s tandard to be written as proposed, it will no t give f reedom of choice to the end user. The 1995 Edition allows for testing both different const ruct ions o f ropes that can and canno t be spliced.

With the NFPA propos ing the use of Cordage Insti tute Standard CI 1801-98 Low Stretch and Static Kermant le Life Safety Rope and the 16-carrier nylon shea th rope proposed for test ing devices, this is asking that only one type of const ruct ion be used, braided. This w o u l d p u s h 3 and 8 s t rand life safety ropes out of the market . The 16-carrier shea th may cause device manufac tu re r s problems. Th e device manufac tu re r s should decide what rope to use. This s h o u l d n ' t be the decision of the NFPA Commi t t ee to make,

The Cordage Insti tute has many approved s tandards and n u m e r o u s s tandards being worked on, the NFPA should not single out one specific rope s tandard, they should use test ing s tandards as m e n t i o n e d above in CI-1500 Test Methods For Fiber Ropes. This test m e t h o d allows for test ing ropes whe the r they can be spliced or not . COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commi t t ee Action taken on C o m m e n t 1983-1 (Log #40).


1983- 45 - (6-1.1.2): Accept S U B M r r r E R : Karen E. Strumlock, Inter tek Tes t ing Services C O M M E N T O N PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6

I R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : In the given formula the two Es should actually be the ~ symbol.

Add text to explain the variables as follows: It = n u m b e r o f samnles x = breaking s t rength

S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : Clarification of fo rmula provided. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

221



1983- 46 - (6.2.1.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Karen E. Strumlock, Inter tek Tes t ing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 RECOMMENDATION: In the given formula the two Es should actually be the Y~ symbol.

Add text to explain the variables as follows: n = n u m b e r o f samples x = breaking strength

SUBSTANTIATIO N: Clarification o f fo rmula provided. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1983- 49 - (6.3.1.1): Accept in Principle SUBMIqWER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Test ing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read as follows:

"...At least three samples o f each mode l of each harness class shall be tested to all the static tests specified in 6-3.2 and ~ 6-3.4 for the respective harness.. ." S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : Incorrect section reference. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commit tee Action taken on C o m m e n t 1983-48 (Log #45).


1983- 47 - (6-3.1.1): Accept SUBMITTER: J e f f Y o u n g , U p p e r Ar l ington Fire Depa r tmen t COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6

I RECOMMENDATION: Add the following test to the bo t tom line of the table:

Class I Class II Class III 6.3.5 (Drop) Yes Yes Yes SUBSTANTIATION: Drop Tests are needed in the harness testitag as in past s tandards. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1983- 50 - (6-3.1.5): Accept S U B M I T r E R : Mitch Ross, U p p e r Arl ington Fire D e p a r m e n t COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 RECOMMENDATION: Add text to read as follows:

6-3.1.5 For the drop test. each samnle shall be secured to the test torso, i.e.. the test mass. and shall be connec ted to a d rop tower anchorage poin t that shall no t have a deflection greater I;han l m m (0.04 in.) when a force o f 10kN (2250 lbt3 is aonlied. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : Test is f rom a previous version o f NFPA 1983 and shou ld be included. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1983- 48 - (6-3.1.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITrER: Hank Moon, Petzl Amer ica COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

6-3.1.1 Samples of each mode l of each life safety harness class shall be selected randomly and tested to the appropr ia te tests in accordance with Table 6-3.1.1. Tes t samples shall be new and in unused condi t ion and shall conform in all respects to the manufac tu re r ' s specifications for the mode l to be tested. At least ~ o n e samples o f each mode l o f each harness class shall be tested to all- each of the static tests specified in 6-3.2 and 6.3.3 for the respective harness. A new. un tes ted samole shall be used for each o f the tests snecified in Table 6-3.1.1. P~ total of at least three samples o f each mode l and class o f life safety harness shall be required for the test series specified in Table 6.3.1.1. SUBSTANTIATIO N: In the past, test laboratories have in terpre ted this section to m e a n that each harness tested mus t be subjected to, and pass, all th ree of the static tests specified. The changed language makes it clear that each harness is required to pass only one test. This shou ld be made clear for any p roposed d r o p t e s t s as well. COMMITI 'EE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise 6-3.1.1" to read as follows:

Each mode l o f life safety harness shall be tested according to Table 6-3.1.1, Harness Test Matrix, as appropr ia te for the class o f harness. Each test shall be conduc ted on at least th ree samples o f the mode l to be tested. Submit ted test samples shall be new and in unused condi t ion and shall conform in all respects to the manufac tu re r ' s specifications for the mode l to be tested.

Revise 6-4.1.1" to read as follows: Each mode l of belt shall be tested according to Table 6-4.1.1, Belt

Test Matrix as appropriate for the belt. Each test shall be conduc ted on at least three samples o f the mode l to be tested. Submit ted test samples shall be new and in unused condi t ion and shall conform in all respects to the manufac tu re r ' s specifications for the mode l to be used.

Add new A-6.3.1.1 and A-6,4.1.1 to read: The in tent is to test three samples of each model per test. At the

manufac tu re r s discretion a new, unused sample f rom one test series may be used for one or more of the o t he r test series. For example , a sample used in harness test 6-3.2 may be used to conduc t harness test 6-3.3, or a new u n u s e d sample may be used.

A-6.4.1.1 See A-6-3.1.1. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: T he Technica l Commi t t ee does no t agree that only one sample is sufficient for certification to this s tandard. Three samples provides a more statistical basis to ensure compl iance of the product . However, we do agree language is confus ing and needs modification.


1983- 51 - (6-3.1.6): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: J e f f Y o u n g , U p p e r Arl ington Fire Depar tmen t COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 RECOMMENDATION: Add text to read as follows:

6-3.1.6 For the drop test. the test lanyard used to connec t the load-bearin~ connec t in~ ooint(s) ~O the ~¢~t mass shall be fabricated from Type 302sta in less steel. 7 x 19 aircraft cable cons t ruc t ion in accordance with MIL-W-83420D. It shall have a d iamete r o f 9.5 m m (3 /8 in .L be 1,2 m (47.2 in.) in length. eou inned with a snan hook at each end and measured from bear in~ no in t to bear in~ no in t between snan hooks when lanvard is u n d e r a " t e n s i o n of 50 N~ "The lanvard ends will be f inished with swaged eves in such a m a n o r to orevent slippage o f the eyes and snan hooks that would change tl~e length o f the test lanyarfl, SUBSTANTIATION: Drop Tests need to be added back into the Standard and this r equ i r emnt is a part o f the drop testing. C O M M I T T E E ACTION: Accept in Principle. Add text to read as follows:

6-3.1.6 For the drop test, the test lanyard used to connec t the load-bearing connec t ing point(s) to the test mass shall be fabricated from Type 302 stainless steel, 7 x 19 aircraft cable cons t ruc t ion in accordance with MIL-W-83420D. The lanyard shall be 9.5 m m (3 /8 in.) in d iamete r and 1.2 m, +13 m m (47 in., +1 /2 in.) in length measu red from bear ing point to bear ing p o i n t between snap hooks when lanyard is u n d e r a tension of 50 N. Th e lanyard shall be equ ipped with a snap hook at each end. The lanyard ends shall be f inished with. swaged eyes in such a m a n n e r to prevent sl ippage o f the eyes and snap hooks that would change the length o f the test lanyard. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Commi t tee agrees with the submi t te r bu t added a tolerance to the lanyard and added manda to ry text to last sentence . Also some editorial modificat ion for clarity was added.


1983- 52 - (6-3.5): Reject SUBMITTER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Tes t ing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 19836 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the entire section. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : This section is repeated again in 6-4.4. All pe r fo rmance r equ i r emen t s are based on Section 6-4.4, so 6-3.5 can be e l iminated. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.

2 2 2

N F P A 1983 ~ N o v e m b e r 2000 R O C

Editorial Note: In paragraph 5-3.7 change reference from 6-3.5 to read 6-3,6 as this subsect ion will be r e n u m b e r e d . See C o m m e n t 1951-53 (Log #31). COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The section is appropr ia te and is referenced in 5-3.7


1983- 53 - (6-3.6): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: J e f f Y o u n g , U p p e r Arl ington Fire Depa r tmen t COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 RECOMMENDATION: Add text to read as follows:

6-3,6 Dynamic Dron Test. 6-~,6.1 The Dynamic Drop Tes t shall be set uu as soecified in 6-

3.1. A m i n i m u m of three separate life safety harnesses shall be used for each dynamic drop test. The same harnesses shall be t~ermitted to be used for both d ron tests specified in 6-3.6.2.

6-3.6.2 O n e of the two reouired Dynamic Dron Tests shall be conduc ted for each h~.rness loed bear ine a t tach 'ment ooin t with the tes~ mass in a head-up posit ion and the second shall be conduc ted for each harness load bearin~ a t t achmen t Doint with the test mass in a head-down nosit ion.

6-3.5.3 O n e end of the test lanyard shall be a t tached to a harness 10~d bear ing a t t achmen t point and the o the r end shall be to the anchorage . The test mass shall be raised to a no in t no more than 300 m m horizontally f rom the anchorage . T h e test mass shall be in a Position that will allow it to fall freely a dis tance o f 1 me te r to f ree-hanging posit ion without in terference o r obstruct ion or striking the floor, ground• or any o the r object 0u r ing the test.

6-3.5.4 Dor ing the Dynamic Drop Test series, the test droos shall be observed to de t e rmine nass/fai l . A harness shall be considered to have failed the test if, dur in~ any one of the reouired droDs for any samole, the test mass imnacts the ~round. SUBSTANTIATION: Drop testing is still n eeded in the harness testing s tandard as in past s tandards. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

!Add text to read as follows: 6-3,5 Dynamic Drop Test. 6-3,5.1 The Dynamic Drop Test shall be set up as specified in 6-

3.1. 6-3,5.2 O n e of the two required Dynamic Drop Tests shall be

conduc ted for each harness load bear ing a t t a chmen t po in t with the test mass in a bead-up posit ion and the second shall be conduc ted for each harness load bear ing a t t achmen t poin t with the test mass in a head-down position.

6-3,5.3 One end of the test lanyard shall be a t tached to a harness load bear ing a t t achmen t point and the o the r end shall be to the an.chorage. The test mass shall be raised to and released f rom a poin t no more than 300 m m horizontally f rom the anchorage . The test mass shall be in a posit ion that will allow it to fall freely a dis tance of 1 me te r to a f ree-hanging posit ion without in terference or obstruct ion or striking the floor, g round , o r any o the r object du r ing the test.

6-3.5.4 Dur ing the Dynamic Drop Test series, the test drops shall be observed to de tern l ine pass/fail . A harness shall be cons idered to have failed the test if, dur ing any one o f the required drops for any sample, the test mass impacts the g round . COMMITTEE STATEMENT: T h e Commi t t ee agrees bu t modif ied the text for clarity.


1983- 54 - (6-4.1.1): Accept SUBMITTER: J e f f Y o u n g , Uppe r Arl ington Fire Depa r tmen t C O M M E N T ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 RECOMMENDATION: Add test as follows:

Tes t Ladder Belt t=addeW-Escape Belt 6-4.5 (Drop) No y¢~

SUBSTANTIATION: Drop test is needed for escape belts due to their use. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. R e n u m b e r test "6-4.5" to read "6-4.4" as a d rop test n u m b e r i n g was changed. C O M M r r r E E STATEMENT: See Commi t t ee Action taken on C o m m e n t 1983-57 (Log #35).


1983- 55 - (6-4.1.5): Accept SUBMITTER: J e f f Y o u n g , Uppe r Arl ington Fire Depa r tm en t COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 RECOMMENDATION: Add text to read as follows:

6-4.1,5 For the drop test. each ~ m p l e shiall be tO secure the test torso, i.e.. the test mass. and shall be connec ted to a d rou tower anchorage point that shall no t have a deflection greater than 1 m m (0.04 in.) when a force of 10kN (~250 lbf) is applied. SUBSTANTIATION: Test f rom previous version o f 1983 and should be included. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log#34) Commit tee : FAE-SCE

1983- 56 - (6-4.1.6): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: J e f fYoung , Uppe r Arl ington Fire Depa r tm en t COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 RECOMMENDATION: Add text to read as follows:

6-4.1,6 For the droo test. the test lanyard used to connec t the load-bearin~ connec t in~ ooint(s) to the test m a ~ shall be fabricated from Type 3()2"stainless steel. 7 x 19 ~ircraft cable const ruct ion in accordance with MIL-W-83420D, It shall have a d iamete r o f 9.5 m m (3 /8 in.). be 1.2 m (47.2 in.) in length. e a u i n o e d with a snao hook at each end and measured from bear ing poin t to bear ing poin t between snap hooks when lanvard is u n d e r a tens ion of 50 N. The lanyard ends will I~e f inished with swa~ed eye~ in such a m a n n e r to prevent slippage o f the eyes and snaD hooks that would change the length of the test lanyard. SUBSTANTIATION: Drop tests need to be added back into the Standard and this r equ i r emen t is a part of the drop testing. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Add text to read as follows:

6-4.1.6 For the d r o p test, the test lanyard used to connec t the load-bearing connec t ing point(s) to the test mass shall be fabricated from Type 302 stainless steel, 7 x 19 aircraft cable cons t ruc t ion in accordance with MIL-W-83420D. The lanyard shall be o f 9.5 m m (3 /8 in.) in d iamete r and be 1.2 m + 13 m m (47 in.) (1 /2 in.) in length. The lanyard shall be equ ipped with a snap hook at each end and measured from bearing point to bear ing poin t between snap hooks when lanyard is u n d e r a tension o f 50 N. The lanyard ends shall be f inished with swaged eyes in such a m a n n e r to prevent slippage o f the eyes and snap hooks that would change the length of the test lanyard. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Commi t tee agrees with the submi t te r bu t added a tolerance to the lanyard and added manda to ry text to last sentence . Also some editorial modif icat ion for clarity was added.


1983- 57- (6-4.5): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Jeff Young, U p p e r Arl ington Fire Dep a r tm en t COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read as follows:

6-4.5 Dynamic Dron Test. 6-4.5.1 The Dynamic Dron Test shall be set un as snecified in 6-

4.1. A m i n i m u m of three seoarate escane belts shall be used for each dynamic dron test.

6-3.6.2 The re shall be two d ron tests for each samole. O n e of the three required Dynamic Drop Te~t~ for each sample shall be conduc ted with the test mass in a head-un oosit ion and one of the Dynamic Droo Tests shall be conduc ted with the test mass in a head-down Position.

6-3.5.3 One end of the test lanvard shall be a t tached to a harness load bear ing iattachment point and the o ther end shall be to the anchorage , The test mass shall be raised to a point no m o re than 300 m m horizontallv from the anchorage . The test mass shall be in

v

a posit ion that will allow it tO fall freelv a distance o f 1 mete r to a f ree-han~in~ oosit ion without in ter ference or obstruct ion, or striking the floor, g round , or anv o the r obiect~ dur ing the test.

6-3.5.4 DLlrin~ the Dynamic Droo Test series, the test droDs shall be observed to ~tetermine nass/fai l . A belt shall be cons idered to have failed the test if. dur ing any one o f the reau i red droos for any samnle, the test mass imnacts the ~round.

2 2 3

NFPA 1983 - - November 2000 ROC

SUBSTANTIATION : Drop test ing is still needed in the Harness Tes t ing Standard as in the past Standard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise to read as follows:

6-4.5 Dynamic Drop Test. 6-4.5.1 The Dynamic Drop Test shall be set up as specified in 6-

4.1. 6-4.5.2 The re shall be two drop tests for each sample. O n e of the

two required Dynamic Drop Tests for each sample shall be conduc ted with the test mass in a head-up posit ion and cme of the Dynamic Drop Tests shall be conduc ted with the test mass in a head-down posit ion.

6-4.5.3 One end of the test lanyard shall be a t tached to a harness load bea t ing a t t achmen t poin t and the o ther end shall be to the anchorage . The test mass shall be raised to and released from a poin t no more than 300 m m horizontally f rom the anchorage . The test mass shall be in a posit ion that will allow it to fall freely a distance of 1 me te r to a f ree-hanging posit ion without in terference or obstruction, or striking the floor, g round , or any o the r object dur ing the test.

64.5 .4 Dur ing the Dynamic Drop Tes t series, the test d rops shall be observed to de t e rmine pass/fail . A belt shall be considered to have failed the test if, dur ing any one o f the required drops for any sample, the test mass impacts the g round . COMMI'rI'EE STATEMENT: T h e Commi t tee agrees and modif ied the text only for clarity.

(Log #411 Commit tee : FAE-SCE

1983- 58 - (6-5.2.3, 6-5.2.3.4, 6-5.3.4, 6-5.3.5, 6-5.3.6, 6-5.3.11, 6- 5.3.12, 6-5.3.13, 6-5.5.3, 6-5.5.4, 6-5.6.3, 6-5.6.4): Accept in Principle in Part SUBMITTER: Willie Crear, Sterling Rope C ompany Inc COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise text as follows:

1. 6-5.2.3 ". . .meeting the 'static rope ' r equ i rements o f :ghe

Kcr.qmar.fle L.:fe Safer> --~v . . . . . . . a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . : and ;;Sth a 16 ca r~er n;,'Ic, n ahcath, this s tandard, usin~ roue that is the d iamete r r e c o m m e n d e d bv the manufac tu re r o f the device. If the manufac tu re r cites a ranae o f diameters , the device zhall be tested with both the m i n i m u m and m a x i m u m diameters r e c o m m e n d e d .

[In Sections 6-5.2.4, 6-5.3.4, .5, and .6; 6-5.3.11, .12, and .13, all o f the delet ions and addi t ions should be the same as called out above for 6-5.2.3.] 6-5.5.4 ". . .meeting the 'static rope ' r equ i rements o f T he Cc, rdagc

~. - .~ . . . . . ~ - ~ , . ~ , t . th is s t a n d a r d , u s i n ~ r o u e t h a t is t h e m a x i m u m

diameter r e c o m m e n d e d bv the manufac tu re r of the pulley," 2. 6-5.5.3 ". . .meeting the 'static rope ' r equ i rements o f ZYhe

K e r n m a n f l e Life Safety Re, pc ;-Ath a d iameter ~,f ~.5 m m (~,/8 i::.) and vdth a !6 car~cr ny!c,n aheath, this s tandard, us ing rune that i~ o f a d iamete r r e c o m m e n d e d bv the manufac tu re r o f the oullev. If the manufac tu re r cites a range of diameters, the oullev shall b'e tested with both the minimu~n and m a x i m u m diameters r e c o m m e n d e d . "

3. 6-5.5.5 "...shall be applied between the rope loop and a -"q..'~ ( ! / 2 kq.) pin t h rough the pulley carabiner hole..." S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : 1. The, s tandard as proposed calls for a part icular type and construct idn o f life safety rope to be used in the ' m a n n e r o f funct ion" tests, r ight down to the n u m b e r o f carriers that lay down the sheath in the braiding process. It is a mystery to me as to why this is done , o ther than to p romote a part icular type of rope, s ince New England, Well ington, PMI, Bluewater, Pelican, and Sterling all build ropes that are e i ther 32 carrier, 32 carrier half occupied, or 48 cart ier construct ions. (32 carrier half occupied is no t a 16-carrier braid; they are different machinery.) I do no t feel it is the in tent o f the s tandards writers to create the illusion o f "endorsing" o n e p a r t i c u l a r type o f const ruct ion over another , and these test me thods do that, by inference, by their very presence in the s tandard. O n e p re sumes the reason for calling out a const ruct ion in the s tandard is to p romote greater congruency in the test results, bu t I personally have not seen any data suppor t ing the decision to use a part icular rope construct ion. If you do have such data indicat ing a part icular const ruct ion is necessary for repeatability in the testing, then use a 32 carrier construct ion, no t 16, no t 32-carrier half occupied, since 32 are what the great majority o f cu r ren t life safety rope manufac ture rs use. At Sterling we use a 48-carrier construct ion, bu t we are aware o f no o thers

us ing 48-carrier construct ion in the U.S., only Europe. Fur ther to the poin t o f favoring one particular const ruct ion over another , the test me thods as called ou t preclude, by inference, the use o f e i ther 3-strand or 8-strand construct ions. While you may not cons ider 3- s t rand a "modern" construct ion, it is the mos t durable of the lot, and the fire rigs in New York City and Chicago are packed with it. To p romote universal acceptance o f NFPA s tandards in the Uni ted States and the world, the first step should not be to exclude large municipal i t ies that do not exactly conform to the NFPA 'ideal ' rope. We need to keep those folks u n d e r our tent.

In a similar vein, u n d e r 6-5.5, Pulley Tensile Testing, and 6-5.6, Pulley Efficiency Testing, I can see no reason to specify "...a 16- carrier nylon sheath.", o the r than to p romote a particular brand of rope over another , by inference. The results of the tests would not be affected one way or the o the r by a part icular construct ion, they would b~ affected, however, by a part icular diameter . Tha t is why I feel thaf the test should be per formed with the m i n i m u m and m a x i m u m rope d iameter specified by the pulley manufac tu re r to be used with the pulley, in the case o f the efficiency tesL

2. The s tandard as written also dictates specific d iameters o f rope to be used in the tests. At tent ion to the part icular size of rope used in the test is a very good thing, bu t testing a personal escape rappel device with 8.0 m m rope when that same device will be used with 7.5 m m or 9.5 m m rope doesn ' t give the end user very m u c h useful data. The tests should be run us ing the m i n i m u m and m a x i m u m size ropes that the manufac tu re r o f the device states are the r e c o m m e n d e d rope sizes.

3.As for the ul t imate tensile test, the rope specified will fail on the 12.5 m m pin long before the pulley fails, if the pulley is a substantial one. The materials and cons t ruc t ion of the rope, and the d iameter of the pin, (we're trying to test pulleys here, not the pin) should be left to the test lab, with a r e commen d a t i o n o f a m i n i m u m 4:1 safety factor (net rope s t r eng th /p robab l e pulley s t rength) . This need for lab technician safety almost dictates that a very h igh tenacity yarn as a major c o m p o n e n t o f the test rope will be used, and that fiber will no t .be any nylon or polyester yarn available on the market today. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle in P a r t . . 1. Remove words "and a 16-carrier nylon sheath" from 6-5.2.3, 6- 5.2.4, 6-5.3.5, 6-5.3.6, 6-5.5.3 and 6-5.5.4.

2. Reject. 3. Revise Figure 6-5.5.5 to remove the pin symbol form the lower

part o f the pulley. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: 1. The Commi t tee agrees that the carrier const ruct ion will no t make a difference in the test results or test consistency therefore we have removed the reference from each section it is included.

2. The d iamete r of the rope will no t affect the pass/fail of the device. The use of a specific di,ameter rope is for testing consistency this does not preclude the use o f a defferent diameter.

3. It is no t in tended for the pin at tached to the rope to be a 12.5 m m pin. In o rder to clarify Figure 6-5.5.5 will be revised to remvoe the pin symbol f rom the lower part o f the pulley leaving jus t the force arrow.


1983- 59 - (6-5.2.5): Accept SUBMITTER: Hank Moon, Petzl America C O M M E N T O N PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6

I R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise text as follows: 6-5.2.5 The device shall be a t tached to the rope in the m a n n e r

i n t ended according to the manufac tu re r ' s instructions. With the end of the rope anchored , the specified force shall be applied to the device at the normal a t t achmen t poin t for 30 seconds. In th.. . , e case o f ascendin~ devices or rune ~rabs that are des igned to slip o n d e r load. the rune shall be knotted or the device otherwise blocked to nrevent ' s l ioua~e. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : There are a n u m b e r of rope grabs on the marke t des igned to slip once a certain load is exceeded. This is to prevent the rope grab severely damag ing or cut t ing the rope. The test loads o f 5kN and l l k N specified m~iy cause such a dev ice to slip and prevent the test load from being reached. The knot or o the r blockage should allow the test load to be achieved. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1983- 60 - (6-5.2.7 and 6-5.3.9): Accept SUBMITFER: Technical Commi t t ee on Special Opera t ions Protective Clothing and Equ ipmen t CO MMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6

[ R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Add new text to read as follows:

224


I Where the average breaking s t rength exceeds 40 kN without failure, the average breaking s t rength shall be repor ted as >40 kN. The produc t label requi red in 3-1.6 shall also indicate the m i n i m u m breaking s t rength as >40 kN. SUBSTANTIATION: The m i n i m u m breaking s t rength is required to be repor ted on the p roduc t label. Some products exceed the

aSS/fail r equ i rements by many times. This language would allow r s toppage of the test once the p roduc t exceeds 40 kN. This also

dictates how the breaking s t rength should be repor ted when this O C C U F S .

COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1983- 61 - (6-5.3.4 to 6-5.3.17): Accept in Principle SUBMrrTER: Kevin Slotterbeck, Seattle Manufactur ing Corpora t ion COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 RECOMMENDATION: Remove Sections 6-5.3.4 and 6-5.3A7 - Static and Dynamic test ing of descen t control devices. SUBSTANTIATION: Al though informatioff abou t the efficiency o f descen t devices could be valuable t~o the end user, we believe the proposed test ing m e t h o d will provide results to end users that will be mis leading and non-conclusive. T he basis for this conclus ion is a follows:

The m e t h o d proposed inherent ly tests the descent device in a system, ra ther than the device itself. Therefore , you can not remove the effect o f "the system" from the efficiency results of the descent device itself. O u r test results were significantly inf luenced by the condi t ions of the rope (new, old, dry, wet, dirty, etc.) as well as the angle the braking rope was pulled, and the m a n n e r in which the rope was wrapped a round the device (even small nuances that can no t be expla ined in the manufac tu re r s instruct ions have significant effects). To do our test ing we also had to make significant assumpt ions abou t the defini t ion o f "tied off" vs. locked off, how fast the load is slipped, is force needed to "control" the same th ing as "hold", are the results the same if lowering vs. rappell ing, as well as many o the r assumpt ions made that had an inf luence on the results o f the efficiency rating.

Based on ou r results, we could not separate these factors f rom the device itself in a m a n n e r that provided useful informat ion to help the end user make decisions on compar i ng p r o d u c t p e r f o r m a n c e as well as us ing descent devices. The in tent of this addit ion to the d o c u m e n t was to "provide prospective buyers with data to compare p roduc t per formance" in a simple manne r . This testing m e t h o d has not accompl i shed this objective because there are too many uncont ro l lab le variables to deal with.

T h e effect of these variables are extremely intense for the dynamic tests and somewhat lessened for the static tests, bu t in both cases, we believe addit ional considera t ion should be given to better identifying a m e t h o d of test ing which e l iminates the variables and provides in format ion the user can use to better educate themselves on which device to use. Until that happens , we believe no informat ion regarding efficiency ratings is far super ior to providing mis leading informat ion . C O M M I T T E E ACTION: Accept in Principle.

I Revise 6-5.3 to read: Descent Control Devices Tes t ing Delete 6-5.3.9 thru 6-5.3.17.

COMMITTEE, STATEMENT: T he Commi t t ee will retain the static test as the submit ters substant ia t ion only addressed the dynamic test port ion o f 6-5.3 and the submi t te r did not ask to delete the ent i re subsect ion.


1983- 62 - (6-5.3.6): Reject SUBMITTER: Kevin Slotterbeck, Seattle Manufac tur ing Corpora t ion COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 RECOMMENDATION: C hange 6-.5.3.6 to read as follows:

"...Safety Rope with a d iameter of 7.5 m m (0.295 in.) kg/-Simff and with..." SUBSTANTIATION: Section 5-2.3 def ines escape rope to have a d iamete r o f 7.5 m m (0.295 in.) or grea ter and less than 9.5 m m (3 /8 in.). We believe the test should be pe r fo rmed on the m i n i m u m d iamete r as def ined in the documen t , no t the m a x i m u m d iamete r as current ly def ined. This change would also be consis tent with the me thodo logy used for l ight use and general use

8Mlications. MITTEE ACTION: Reject.

C O M M r F r E E STATEMENT: The d iameter of the rope will no t affect the pass/fai l o f the device, the use o f a specific d iamete r rope is for testing consistency this does not preclude the use o f a different number .


1983- 63 - (6-5.3.7): Accept SUBMrFrER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Test ing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read as follows:

The device shall be a t tached to the rope in the m a n n e r in t ended according to the manufac tu re r ' s instruct ions in the locked-off mode of a t tachment . With the opposi te end of the rope anchored , the specified force shall be applied to the device for a period o f at least 30 seconds. SUBSTANTIATION: Missing word in the paragraph. C O M M r I T E E ACTION: Accept.


1983- 6 4 - (6-5.3.14): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Hank Moon, Petzl America C O M M E N T ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

6-5.3.14 The device shall be a t tached to the rope in the m a n n e r in t ended according to the manufac tu re r ' s instruct ions in the locked-off m o d e of a t tachment . The specified load shall be applied and the device observed to hold the load ;;Z.thout ~!:.ppage for at least 30 seconds after a sett l ing period o f 10 seconds has elapsed. Should the device slip, the free end of the rope shall be knot ted or the device otherwise blocked to prevent slippage. SUBSTANTIATION: The re are a n u m b e r of descen t devices on the market with integral locking mechan i sms which require no lacking or knot t ing o f the rope to be "locked off." However, some of these will slip once a certain load is exceeded. This is simply a consequence o f design. T h e test loads of 13kN and 22kN specified may cause such a device to slip and prevent the test load from being reached. The knot or o ther blockage should allow the test load to be achieved. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This paragraph has been deleted.

See Commi t t ee Action taken on C o m m e n t 1983-61 (Log #8).


1983- 65 - (6-5.3.15): Accept SUBMITI'ER: Hank Moon, Petzl America COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the following text:

6-5.3.15 The dc;~cc ~hall then bc unlocked according to the ma~ufact 'arcr 'z "~.ztr'.:ct:c.~ z..qd the !c.a~ed rope ~.!!c.-;;ed to z!'~ thrc.ugh the d e g c c a d:.:mnce o f apprc.ximatc!y o,'zc fs.?.t. The fc.rcc n e e d e d . . . . . +.-I , L : . . t : . . . . . . I . . 1 1 k . . . . . . . . . . I a . . . . . : - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o..vt.~ ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to, . . . . . . . . . . . . t h e

S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : This test described in 6-5.3.15 lacks a m e t h o d for measu r ing the "force needed to control this slippage." Wi thou t a me thod , the test is invalid and should be modif ied o r deleted. At p resen t I have no proposal for a test me thod , thus my r e c o m m e n d a t i o n for delet ion. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commi t t ee Action taken on C o m m e n t 1983-61 (Log #8).


1983- 6 6 - (6-5.3.16): Accept SUBMITTER: Hank Moon, Petzl America C O M M E N T ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6

I RECOMMENDATION: 6-5.3.16: Delete ent ire paragraph. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : This m e a s u r e m e n t uses da ta f rom a test descr ibed in 6-5.3.15 that lacks a me thod for measur ing the "force needed to control this slippage." Because this test is invalid, it can p roduce no mean ingfu l data and should be deleted. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commi t t ee Action taken on C o m m e n t 1983-61 (Log #8).

225



1983- 67- (6-5.3.17): Accept SUBMITTER: Hank Moon, Petzl America COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6

[ RECOMMENDATION: 6-5.3.17: Delete entire paragraph. SUBSTANTIATION: Redundant: This test has already been covered in 6-5.3.14. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commit tee Action taken on Comment 1983-61 (Log #8).

(Log #71 ) Committee: FAE-SCE

1983- 72- (6-5.4.3.3): Accept SUBMrrrER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read as follows:

A force shall be applied to the portable anchor device, increasing to the load specified in .~-ra-.7~ 5-5.4.3_ for light-use testing and ~- ~ 2 - 5-5.4.5 for general use at a rate of 30ram... SUBSTANTIATION: Incorrect references, as no load was specified in sections 5-5.7.2 and 5-5.8.2. COMMrrTEE ACTION: Accept.


1983- 68 - (6-5.4.1.1): Accept SUBMITrER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT O~l PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read as follows:

Samples of each model o f each portable anchor device shall be selected randomly for testing. Test samples shall be new and in an unused condit ion and shall conform in all respects to the m a nufact ufef; s s^pecific atio n s r for the, m o d e l t o bL.e ,]este d/., ~ ~ A t f ~ ~ k ̂

~mt:.ct'[J~. ~ 2 to~t~a'l" o fa t ' i eas t tVwVosamp'les'o'('ech~mo~de'l~o'(por~taL'le anchor device shall be required f o r t ~ e a c h test specified. SUBSTANTIATION: Redundant sentence. COMMI'VrF_,E ACTION: Accept.


1983- 73 - (6-5.5.7 (New)) : Accept SUBMITrER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read as follows:

6-5.5.7 Pulleys that include a becket at the bottom of the pulley shall have the becket tested by applying a load lon~tudinally

[ between the carabinder hole and the becket. SUBSTANTIATION: This paragraph is currently in the performance requi rement section and should be moved to the test requi rement section. C O M M r r r E E ACTION: Accept.


1983- 69- (6-5.4.2.1): 'Accept SUBMITTER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read as follows:

The static load tests shall be set up as specified in 6-5.4.1. SUBSTANTIATION: Missing the paragraph reference for test set up. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log#70) Committee: FAE-SCE

1983- 70- (6-5.4.2.3): Accept SLrBMITrER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read as follows:

"A force shall be applied to the portable anchor device, increasing to the loadspeci f ied in ~-ro~ 5-5.4.2 for light-use testing and .~ra~ 5-5.4.4 for general use at a rate of..." SUBSTANTIATION: Incorrect references, as no load was specified in Sections 5-5.7 and 5-5.8. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept•


1983- 71 - (6-5.4.3.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read as follows:

"The device should-shall be posit ioned according to the manufacturer ' s instructions with all surface contact points...". SUBSTANTIATION: Change in language to mandatory format. COMMrYrEE ACTION: Accept.


1983- 74- (Figure 6-5.6.4, 6-5.6.5): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Hank Moon, Petzl America COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 RECOMMENDATION: See proposed new Figure 6-5.6.4:

Ooziorz 1 Option+ 2

O

Figure 6-5.6.4

2 2 6


Section 6-5.6.5: W h i l e p u l l i n g the rope th rough the pulley at a rate o f no more than 1 foot per second, measure the force required to pull the rope th rough the pulleys. At least three measu remen t s shall be taken over a period o f no more than 3 seconds. The pulley efficiency is calculated by dividing the actual load by t imes the average of the forces measu red and is expressed as a percentage. SUBSTANTIATION: T he m e t h o d descr ibed in conjunc t ion with the existing d iagram will no t p roduce a measure o f the efficiency o f the pulley; it will, however, p roduce a m e a n s o f compar i son with o ther pulleys, q'o measure and describe the true efficiency of a pulley, it is essential to know the tens ion in the rope on e i ther side of the pulley. The m e t h o d proposed in new Figure 6-5.6.4 along with the revised text above will p roduce a true measure o f the tested pulley's true efficiency. In opt ion 2, the pulley efficiency is simply the average force measu red on Gage2 divided by the average force measu red on Gage1. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commi t tee Action taken on C o m m e n t 1983-34 (Log #5).


1983- 75 - (6-7.8 ( N e w ) ) : Accept SUBMITTER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Test ing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 RECOMMENDATION: Add a new section to cover testing requ i rements for Auxiliary Equipment , Manufac tured Systems and System C o m p o n e n t s Tes t ing as follows:

6-7.8 Auxiliary Equipment , Manufac tured Systems and System C o m p o n e n t s Testing.

6-7.8.1 Tes t Set Up. 6-7.8.1.1 Samples o f each model o f each auxiliary equ ipmen t ,

manu fac tu r ed system, and system c o m p o n e n t s shall be selected randomly for testing. T he test ing samples shall be new and in an unused condi t ion and shall conform in all respects to the manufac tu re r ' s specifications for the mode l to be tested. A total o f at least two samples of each mode l of auxiliary equ ipmen t , manu fac tu r ed systems, and system c o m p o n e n t s shall be required for each test specified.

6-7.8.1.2 If there are mult iple load-bearing points, all tests shall be repeated for each combina t ion o f load-bearing connec t ing points specified in the manufac tu re r ' s instructions.

6-7.8.1.3 For all static tests, the device shall be a t tached to the test mach ine at the load-bearing connec t ing point, in accordance with the manufac tu re r ' s ins t ruct ions for use.

6-7.8.1.4 For all tests, the device shall be posi t ioned in the m a n n e r described by the manufac tu re r ' s instruct ions for use in its lowest s t rength configurat ion.

6-7.8.1.5 For all tests, the device shall be accompan ied by all e q u i p m e n t required for use as descr ibed by the manufac tu re r ' s ins t ruct ions for use.

6-7.8.1.6 Manufac turers shall des ignate the device as light-use or general-use based on the weakest design point. T he m i n i m u m st rength o f the device shall be used to confi rm the use rating.

6-7.8.2 Static Tes t for Failure 6-7.8.2.1 The Static Test for Failure shall be set up as specified in

6-7.8.1. 6-7.8.2.2 The device shall be posi t ioned according to the

manufac tu re r ' s ins t ruct ions with all surface contact points securely seated before testing.

6-7.8.2.3 A force shall be appl ied to the auxiliary equ ipmen t , manufac tu red system, or system c o m p o n e n t increasing to the load specified in 5-5.6.3 or 5-6.3 for light-use and 5-5.6.5 or 5-6.5 for general use at a rate o f 30 m m +5 m m per minu te (1.2 in. -+0.2 in. per minu te ) . The force shall be held for 30 sec. -+1 sec., and then the tension shall be completely released over a m a x i m u m of 1 m inu t e .

6-7.8.2.4 At the conclusion of the Static Test for Failure, the sample auxiliary equ i pmen t , manufac tu red system, or system c o m p o n e n t shall be inspected to de te rmine pass/fail . An auxiliary equ ipmen t , manufac tu red systems, o r system c o m p o n e n t shall be considered to fail if any o f the load-bearing m e m b e r s fracture, collapse, or if any condi t ion exists that would cause the user to have been dropped . Results shall be recorded as pass or fail. SUBSTANTIATION: There is no text in this s tandard to covei- the above m e n t i o n e d items. 2( test m e t h o d is required in order to ensure that these i tems are tested in a consis tent manner . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1983- 76 - (A-l-3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Mitch Ross, Uppe r Arl ington Fire D e p a r m e n t COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 RECOMMENDATION: Add Append ix c o m m e n t on Design Load Definit ion to read as follows:

"a) The design load of a c o m o o n e n t is only aoolicable when the - = .

forces are aoolied to the c o m p o n e n t in a direct l inear fashion. The loads placed on a c o m o o n e n t th rough r i g ~ n g and creat ion o f a system mav be increased ~]ue to the vectors used in the rigging. Loads may be amplified substantially when forces are applied in differing directions. Users should develop processes tO identify loads placed on each c o m p o n e n t when creat ing systems and to de te rmine whe the r or not they are acceptable. For example , a rope used in a h ighl ine system as the main line migh t be loaded ( tens ioned) with ( en t imes the actual load be ing carried across on the h ighl ine svstem deoend ing on the angles involved in the rigging o f the highl ine system." SUBSTA~ITIATION: This s t a tement would bet ter enable the user to unde r s t and the design load compared to the use o f the rope in a system. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Add Appendix c o m m e n t on Design Load Definit ion to read as follows:

"a) The design load used in develooing the m i n i m u m pe r fo rmance r equ i r emen t o f a comoonent~ to this s tandard is only applicable when the forces are applied to the c o m p o n e n t in a " direct l inear fashion. The loads placed on a c o m p o n e n t th rough rigging and creat ion o f a system may be increased due to the vectors used in the rigaing. Loads may be amolif ied substantially when forces are aoolied in differing directions. Users should

. . v

develop processes to identifv loads olaced on each c o m p o n e n t when creat ing systems and to de te rmine whether o r not they are acceptable. For example , a rooe used in a h ighl ine system as the main line migh t be loaded ( tens ioned) with more than ten t imes the actual load being carried across on the highl ine system d e p e n d i n g on the angles involved in the r i g ~ n g of the highl ine

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Commi t t ee made modificat ion to the text so the impression is no t given that a "ten times" load is no t absolute and that the design load is a m i n i m u m requ i r emen t based on a l inear application.


1983- 77 - (A-1-3 Escape Belt): Accept S U B M I T r E R : Mitch Ross, U p p e r Ar l ington Fire D e p a r m e n t COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-6 RECOMMENDATION: Add Appendix language for Escape Belt def ini t ion to read as follows:

"The in tended use o f the "escave belt" is to urovide emergencv escaoe canabilitv to a fire f ighter f rom an immedia te life- - " th rea ten ing emergency above the g round floor of a structure. Escaoe belts do not have leg loons to prevent the belt f rom rising

v

~lp the torso of the user. The fire f ighter us ing an escane belt should alwavs be able to mainta in foot contact with the surface o f ~h¢ ~ r u c t u r e d~f iog descent or use a Life Safetv Harness." SUBSTANTIATION: The Append ix c o m m e n t helps to identify the p roper use of an escape belt versus a Life Safety Harness an d allows the user to make a better decision on which to use. C O M M I T r E E ACTION: Accept.

2 2 7


(Log #168) Commit tee : FAE-SFF

1851- 1 - (1-2, 1-2.1): Reject SUBMITrER: Steven Kersse, Prince William County Depa r tmen t o f Fire & Rescue COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the following text:

The F . : r p ~ c e.f thi~ z'.andard ~ha!! be t.~ c~*.zb!!~h a pre.gram f~.r

S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : (1) In the latest edit ion o f ~ Fatalities in the Uni ted States in 1998. Uni ted States Fire Adminis t ra t ion, Federal Emergency M a n a g e m e n t Agency, Augus t 1999, there are no ment ions t h r o u g h o u t the entire d o c u m e n t of any poorly main ta ined structural fire f ight ing ensemble or ensemble e l ement failures that cont r ibuted to any fatalities in the entire Uni ted States o f America. The re are no men t ions o r references in any previous edit ions o f this publicat ion conce rn ing any poorly main ta ined structural fire f ight ing ensemble or ensemble e lements that cont r ibuted to any fatalities in the entire United States o f America. If the ensemble is no t identif ied as a direct or indirect

U o s e cause of the deaths for any of these incidents, the p rp of this s tandard should only address the i tems identif ied m 1.2.2. These i tems would fit well into the cu r ren t NFPA 1971.

(2) Prior to fu r ther proposals to address the cu r r en t text as written, a defini t ion and substant iat ion of the terms "safety risks" and "potential heal th risks" need to be specifically identif ied and d o c u m e n t e d .

(3) No manufac tu re r of structural fire f ight ing ensembles o r ensemble e lements can d o c u m e n t the "life expectancy" o f any ensemble or ensemble e lement . Additionally, no manufac tu r e r or ma in t enance provider have suppl ied significant data or control led studies that this type o f s tandard would increase or decrease the "life expectancy" of any ensemble o r ensemble e lement . In fact, this draft d o c u m e n t states in Appendix A.5.5.6 and A.5.6.3 that the c leaning processes "have the potential to reduce the longevity of ga rments due to mechanica l damage", and, "cause damage to ensembles and ensemble elements ."

(4) No manufac tu r e r o f structural fire f ight ing ensembles or ensemble e lements has d o c u m e n t e d that this s tandard will increase or decrease the user protect ion capabilities o f an ensemble or ensemble e lements . Additionally, no manufac t u r e r or ma in t enance provider has suppl ied significant data or control led studies that this type o f program has any effect positive or negative on the protective capabilities of an ensemble or ~nsemble e lement . Rather, the processes involved with this draft are the identical processes that are used by manufac tu re r s and others in testing to s imulate degradat ion o f the protective capabilities.

(5) Until data is available to suppor t the purpose as written, this commi t tee should e l iminate 1.2.1. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: 1) NFPA,1851 seeks to reduce the safety risks and potential heal th risks, no t only to prevent fatalities, bu t also to reduce occupat ional injuries and adverse heal th affects. The substant ia t ion provided focused only on fatalities.

2) In using the terms "safety", "risk", and "health", the Commi t tee embraces the c o m m o n , English language definitions, and does not require specialized definit ions.

3) It is not the def ined purpose of this s tandard to de te rmine the life expectancy of protective ensemble e lements , or to a t tempt to ex tend the life expectancy of a protective ensemble e lement .

4) Al though there is the potential to reduce the longevity of the protective ensemble e lements t h rough launder ing, this potential is more than compensa ted for by the reduct ion in the potential safety and heal th risks that are achieved th rough c leaning and repair.


1851- 2 - (1-2.1): Accept SUBMI'I~ER: Denise N. Statham, Sou the rn Mills, Inc. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62

I R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise as follows: "The pur~,ose o f this s tandard shall be (to) establish a

p rogram. . . ' S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : Grammatical correction to text. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1851- 3 - (1-3 Third-Party Verification (New) ) : Hold SUBMITTER: Lois D. Colvin, Maryland Fire Equ ipmen t Corpora t ion C O M M E N T O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Add u n d e r definitions:

Third-Party Verification. A system whereby a verification organizat ion (testing laboratory) de te rmines that a repair facility has demons t r a t ed the ability to repair moisture barriers that complies with the requ i rements o f the manufac tu re r of the product and the manufac tu re r o f the garment , and establishes a follow-up p rogram conduc ted by the verification organizat ion as a check on the me thods the repair facility uses to de te rmine compl iance with the r equ i rements o f the manufacturer . S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : Definit ion needs to be added explaining third-party verification for repairs to moisture barriers. COMMITTEE ACTION: Hold. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This c o m m e n t would in t roduce a concep t that has not had public review by being included in a related proposal as publ ished in the ROP and would propose s o m e t h i n g that could not be properly handled within the time f rame for process ing the report.


1851- 4 - (1.3 Major Repair) : Reject SUBMrrTER: Jeffrey O. Stull, Int 'l Personnel Protection, Inc. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Add definit ion for Major Repair:

Major Repair. A repair of an e l emen t that requires addit ional t ra ining or expert ise f rom the e l emen t manufac tu re r to be accompl i shed . S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : This term is used in Paragraph 6.1.4 but is no t def ined. The proposed defini t ion is consis tent with the use of the term in which the r equ i r emen t indicates that major repairs be conduc ted by the manufac tu re r or by a manufac tu re r recognized repair facility. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMI'ITEE STATEMENT: See Commi t tee Action taken on C o m m e n t 1851-5 (Log #61).


1851- 5 - (1-3(x) Repair) : Reject SUBMITTER: Steve King, Cmtas Corpora t ion C O M M E N T O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Provide new definition:

1.3X Repair. An al ternat ion o f the protective element . S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : Repair has not been def ined in the s tandard . COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The word "repair" is a commonly def ined word. The r e c o m m e n d e d defini t ion would be too limited.


1851- 6 - (1-3.9): Accept SUBMITrER: Steve King, Cintas Corpora t ion C O M M E N T O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise as follows:

1.3.9 Cleaning. The act o f removing soils and contaminatc~ con t aminan t s f rom ensembles and e lements by physical- mechan ica l , chemical , ~ or combined processes. In this s tandard , c leaning is divided into three categories, routine, advanced, and specialized. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : The proposed defini t ion provides a more accurate descr ipt ion o f possible c lean ing processes. COMMITTEE A C T I O N : Accept.

2 2 8



1851- 7 - (1-3.14): Reject SUBMITrER: Denise N. Statham, Sou the rn Mills, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL N O : 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Delete entire paragraph. SUBSTANTIATION: The word "craze" is no t found anywhere in the documen t ; a defini t ion for it is unnecessary. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMI'I'rEE STATEMENT: T he word "craze" describes a form of e l emen t degradat ion that is of concern to the safety o f the user. The word is used in several places in the documen t .


1851- 8 - (1-3.28): Accept in Principle SUBMrI ' / 'ER: Steve King, Cintas Corpora t ion COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows:

1.3.28 Field-test. T h e non-laboratory evaluation o f an ensemble or e l ement t h rough actual or s imulated use (wearing) to de te rmine its pe r fo rmance and acceptability relative to organiz,~tion expecta t ions o r to compare products in a m a n n e r related to their i n t ended use. SUBSTANTIATION: T he cur ren t def ini t ion is unclear . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise defini t ion for "Field Test" to read:

The non-laboratory evaluation of one o r more protective ensemble e l emen t s used to de te rmine p roduc t pe r fo rmance related to organizat ional expecta t ions or to compare products in a m a n n e r related to their i n t ended use. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: T he Commi t tee agrees with the submi t te r and provided appropr ia te text.


1851- 9 - (1o3.66): Reject SUBMITI'ER: Steve King, Cintas Corpora t ion COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows:

1.3.66 Ret i rement . T he process o f permanent ly removing an e l emen t f rom service for use by any organization.

v

SUBSTANTIATION: It is impor tan t to dist inguish between removal f rom service and re t i rement . I t is possible for one organizat ion to remove an ensemble from service for its con t inued use by that organizat ion, bu t the same ensemble may be put into service by a n o t h e r organizat ion. This practice could occur when an organizat ion manda te s a l imited service life for a specific ensemble . COMM1TI'EE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commi t t ee Action taken on C o m m e n t 1851-36 (Log #117).

SUBSTANTIATION: The defini t ion for "wear test" is r e d u n d a n t with "field-test." C O M M r r T E E ACTION: Accept.


1851- 12- (2-1.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Kevin M. Roche , Phoen ix Fire Dept., AZ COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62

I RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows:

The organizat ion shall develop and i m p l e m e n t a n d - a p ~ a program. . . SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1851- 13- (2-1.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Kevin M. Roche , Phoen ix Fire Dept., AZ COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows:

"...and ensemble e lements that are suitable and.. . SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept .


1851- 14- (2-1.2): Reject SUBMITTER: Bill Grilliot, Morn ing Pride MFG. LLC COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: 21.2 - Remove "have the goal of providing"

Should read - "This p rogram shall provide..." SUBSTANTIATION: None. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Text is correct and sufficient as written.


1851- 15- (2-2): Accept SUBMI'rTER: Kevin M. Roche , Phoen ix Fire Dept., AZ COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Change section tide to "program organization." SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1851- 10- (1-3.79): Accept SUBMITTER: Denise N. Statham, Sou the rn Mills, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62

I RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: "The force at which (a fiber) or a fabric will break when put tedqn-

SUBSTANTIATION: This is a more technical defini t ion based on textile literature. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1851- 16- (2-2.1): Hold SUBMITI~R: Kevin M. Roche , Phoen ix Fire Dept., AZ COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62. RECOMMENDATION: Add a mode l SOP in the appendix. SUBSTANTIATION: A model SOP wil lprovide the user with he lp in the deve lopment o f a local SOP. COMMITrE , E ACTION: Hold. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: An SOP was not provided for the Technica l Commi t t ee to inc lude in the append ix and an SOP was no t located at the ROC meet ing .


1851- 11 - (1-3.84 wear test): Accept SUBMITTER: Steve King, Cintas Corpora t ion COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62

I RECOMMENDATION: Delete defini t ion for "wear test" (1.3.84).


1851- 17 - (2-2.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Kevin M. Roche , Phoen ix Fire Dept., AZ COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows:

... shall include at least the i tems out l ined in table.."

2 2 9


Make Sections 2.2.2.1 through 2.2.2.5 into a table. Add a section in the table related to re t i rement and disposal. SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise 2.2,2 to read:

2.2.2 The probram shall at least incorporate the requirements in Table 2.2.2.

The Commit tee has responded to record keeping concerns by revising several sections a n d / o r requirements of the proposed standard.

This proposed standard has been revised so that a garment in storage (and not in use) is not required to be inspected or cleaned.

Required Program Parts for structural fire fightin~ protective ensembles and elements

Selection Inspection

Cleanin~ and Decontaminat ion Repair Storage

Ret i rement

Chapter 3

6 7 8

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Submitter did not submit specific language so the Committee provided it.

(Log #172) Committee: FAE-SFF

1851- 18 - (2-2.3 and A-2.2.3 ( N e w ) ) : Accept SUBMITTER: Dean William Cox, Fairfax Cnty Fire and Rescue Dept., VA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Add new 2.2.3 to read:

2.2.3* The or.ganization shall not add accessories and shall not permit accessories to be added to an ensemble e lement unless:

a) The accessory has been certified for use with the e lement in accordance with NFPA 1971, or

b) The organization has the equ ipmen t manufacturer 's approval to use the accessory with their ensemble elements.

Add new A.2.2.3 to read: Organizations should ensure that accessories do not degrade the

performance of ensemble elements. SUBSTANTIATION: Accessories are not addressed in helmet inspection. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1851- 19 - (2-3 and 5.3.1): Reject SUBMITI'ER: Gerald Luker, Boiling Springs Fire District COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: The proposed name should be RECOMMENDATION ra ther than a STANDARD. SUBSTANTIATION: The coriamittee is interjecting itself into the Authority Having Jurisdiction's budget planning, risk analysis, and liability programs by imposing unrealistic and restrictive mandates. Most o f the proposals in Chapter 2 do nothing more than create more bureaucracy.

2-3 The record keeping in this proposed documen t will place a burden on any size depar tment . In some smaller depar tments it may even be cost prohibitive. OSHA already requires recordkeeping on PPE, why are we imposing even more bureaucratic nonsense on ourselves.

5.3.1 The imposition of a proscribed cleaning schedule is too restrictive. What was the criteria used to de termine this schedule? Does the standard take into account that the equ ipment is often times stored in clean storage bags? Even if the ensemble is rarely used, as in the case of companies or depar tments with 1 low call volume, it still has to be cleaned? The equ ipment will be worn out in a few short years from washing alone! L e a v e the decision to the Authority Having Jurisdiction, The manufacturer has basic care and cleaning instructions, but the decision should be left with the end user since h e / s h e knows the history of use of a particular ensemble, many of the issues in the standard are covered in the FEMSA booklet, COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMH'FEE STATEMENT: The Commit tee believes that the proposed documen t should be a Standard, not a r e c o m m e n d e d practice. These requirements are necessary to ensure that PPE is properly inspected and maintained throughout its useful life for health and safety considerations, and therefore should be mandatory.


1851- 20 - (2-3.1): Reject SUBMITTER: Steve King, Cintas Corporation COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows:

2.3.1 The organization shall comF.:Ic =.-:~ maintain records on their structural fire fighting protective ensembles and ensemble elements. SUBSTANTIATION: It is not necessary to indicate compilation of records by the organization. Instead, the organization should he accountable to maintain records. It is possible that a third party organization may actually compile records on the behalf o f the organization. COMMrlTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee feels that "compiling" records is an essential part of record keeping. The document does not restrict the organization from having a third party collect or maintain information for records.


1851- 21 - (2-3.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Kevin M. Roche, Phoenix Fire Dept., AZ COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Add appendix material explaining the importance of record keeping. SUBSTANTIATION: The importance of record keeping needs to be explained. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action taken on Comment 1851-24 (Log #108).


1851- 22- (2-3.2): Reject SUBMHq'ER: Steve King, Cintas Corporat ion COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Delete bullets (7) through (14). SUBSTANTIATION: A number of the record-keeping items may be overly burdensome to smaller organizations. Bullets (1) through (6) are essential information for care and maintenance of protective elements. A separate comment has been submitted suggesting record-keeping items (7) through (14) as a r ecommended pract ice in the s tandard 's appendix. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITI'EE STATEMENT: The Committee did not delete these items but did rearrange their presentation.

See Committee Action taken on C ommen t 1851-24 (Log #108).


1851- 23 - (2-3.2(14)): Reject SUBMH'TE,R: Steve King, Cintas Corporat ion COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows:

2.3.2(14) Person within the orcanization authorizing LI~ e lement for serviceability. SUBSTANTIATION: It is important to distinguish that the accountability for assigning service of personal protective equ ipment be from within the organization. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The item is being removed from list. See Committee Action taken on 1851-24 (Log #108 ).

, 2 3 0



1851- 24 - (2-3.2(g) thru (n)) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Kevin M. Roche, Phoenix Fire Dept., AZ COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Move items (g) through (n) to an appendix item and add "date of retirement" and method of disposal. Add "condition when issued" as new (g) to 2.3.2 SUBSTANTIATION: The amount of information proposed is excessive as a minimum. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise 2.3.2 to read:

2.3.2 At least the following records shall be kept for each ensemble elements:

1) Person to whom e lement is issued 2) Date and condit ion where issued 3) Manufacturer and model name or design, 4) Manufacturer 's identification number , lot number , or serial

number 5) Month and year of manufacture 6) Date(s) o f and findings of advanced inspection(s) by

organization 7) Date(s) o f advanced cleaning or decontaminat ion by

organization 8) Reason for advanced cleaning or decontaminat ion and who

performed cleaning or decontaminat ion 9) Date(s) o f repair(s), who per formed repair(s), and brief

description of any repair(s) 10) Date of re t i rement 1 l) Date and method of disposal

Add new A.2.3.1 to read: Records are an important part o f an overall protective clothing

management program. Records can be used to provide information about the life cycle of protective ensembles and elements, they can be used to document repair and decontaminat ion efforts, and can be used to compare the effectiveness of elements that are made of different materials or by different manufacturers. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Commit tee provided the revised text and new appendix text.


1851- 25- (2-4.1): Reject SUBMrrTER: Kevin M. Roche, Phoenix Fire Dept., AZ COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows:

When issuing or reissuing structural fire fighting.. SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: It is impractical to require fire depar tments to maintain, reproduce, and distribute this information over the life of the element.


1851- 26 - (2-4.1.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Kevin M. Roche, Phoenix Fire Dept., AZ COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Add a section that requires that copies of manufacturer ' s instructions be kept on file. SUBSTANTIATION: For reference. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Add new 2.4.3 to read:

The organization shall retain a copy of manufacturer ' s instructions regarding the care, use, and maintenance of their protective ensembles for reference purposes. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Commit tee provided the text.


1851- 27 - (2-4.2): Accept . SUBMITTER: Steve King, Cintas Corporat ion COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows:

2.4.2 Where the manufacturer ' s instructions regarding the care, use, or maintenance of their protective ensembles or e lements

differ from a ~ requirement(s) in this standard, the manufacturer 's instructions shall be followed for that requ i rement (s ) , SUBSTANTIATION: The use of manufacturer instructions should be specific for those areas where specific instructions are provided COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1851- 28 - (2-4.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Kevin M. Roche, Phoenix Fire Dept., AZ COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows:

... and elements differ from ~ requirement(s) in this standard..." SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action taken on Comment 1851-27 (Log #68).

(I.~g #114) Committee: FAE-SFF

1851- 29 - (2-5): Accept SUBMITTER: Kevin M. Roche, Phoenix Fire Dept., AZ COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows:

"...SOP's that minimize the public's fis4e-of exposure to soiled " SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1851- 30- (2-5.1): Reject SUBMrI~I'ER: Steve King, Cintas Corporat ion COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows:

2.5.1 The organization shall develop written standard operat ing orocedures (SOPs) that minimize the public's risk of exposure to soiled or contaminated structural fire fighting protective ensembles and elements during storage and period of nonu~e. SUBSTANTIATION: The requirement should consider the practical implications that occur when ensembles and elements are in use (where contact with the public is possible) and for groups that may handle the clothing as part o f its care and maintenance. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The acronymn "SOP" is explained in 2.2.1. See also C ommen t 1851-29 (Log #114).


1851- 31 - (2-6): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Kevin M. Roche, Phoenix Fire Dept., AZ COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Make Section 2.6 a new chapter on ret irement. SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Move 2.6 (Retirement) and 2.7 (Disposal) to new Chapter 8 to be retitled "Retirement and Disposal". COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Disposal should be included in the chapter dealing with ret i rement. Ret i rement and disposal should be prominendy identified in their own chapter.

See Committee Action taken on C ommen t 1851-36 (Log #117).

231

N F P A 1851 ~ N o v e m b e r 2000 R O C


1851- 32 - (2-6.2): Reject SUBMITrER: Steve King, Cintas Corpora t ion COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read as follows:

2.6.2 Structural fire f ight ing ensembles and ensemble e lements that were not in compl iance with the edit ion o f the respective NFPA s tandard that was cu r ren t when the e lement ( s ) were manufac tu red , shall be retired by the organizat ion. SUBSTANTIATION: The responsibility for ret ir ing personal protective e q u i p m e n t mus t be with the organization. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Submit ter was p resen t at the ROC mee t ing on 1 May 00 and requested the Commi t t ee no t process this c o m m e n t .


1851- 33 - (2-6.2): Reject SUBMITTER: Kevin M. Roche , Phoen ix Fire Dept., AZ COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Delete section. SUBSTANTIATION: Covered in NFPA 1500. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Submit te r was present at the ROC meet ing on 1 May 00 and requested the Commi t t ee no t process this c o m m e n t .


1851- 34 - (2-7.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: L. Charles Davis, Lexington Fire Depa r tmen t COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows:

Retired structural fire f ighting ensembles and ensemble e l emen t s shall be . . . . . . )'~ . . . . . . r- . . . . . . ma rked m a m a n n e r

that they~4tt--e,~ m..~_~ be used i-n-any-for non-live fire training_ exercises onlv fire -.6.--"-6~'-t'*;~- ~,r ~ ther cmergev.cy acti;5:'.'e:

S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : Fire depa r tmen t s shou!d be allowed to utilize old gear no longer suitable for fire f ight ing for various non- live fire t ra ining exercises such as ladder training, SCBA maze, crawling on rough surfaces, etc, ra ther than subject ing serviceable gear to u n d u e wear and tear. T he gear could be marked "Training Only" and stored at the t raining cen te r for use by fire compan ies du r ing these t raining sessions. " COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: See Commi t t ee Action taken on C o m m e n t 1851-36 (Log #117).


1851- 35 - (2-7.1): Accept in Principle SUBMI'FFER: L. Charles Davis, Lexington Fire Depa r tmen t COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Add text as follows:

Retired structural fire f ight ing ensembles and ensemble e l emen t s may be sent to less developed countr ies outs ide the Uni ted States for utilization by fire fighters in those areas. SUBSTANTIATION: There are n u m e r o u s countr ies outs ide the Uni ted States where fire fighters are f ighting fires with no gear whatsoever. The re are missionary p rograms and civic p rograms that would welcome used gar for utilization by the fire fighters in these communi t ies . T he author i ty having jur isdic t ion would de te rmine which ear qualified for these progi-ams. COMMITFEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commi t t ee Action taken on C o m m e n t 1851-36 (Log #117).


1851- 36- (2-7.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Kevin M. Roche, Phoen ix Fire Dept., AZ COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62

] R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Create new Chapter 8 to read as follows: Add new definit ion: 1.3.66 Ret i rement . The process of pe rmanent ly removing an e l emen t f rom emergency operat ions service in the organization. Create new Chapter 8 - Ret i rement , Disposition, and Special Inc ident P rocedure 8.1 Ret i rement 8.1.1" Structural fire f ight ing ensembles and ensemble e lements that are worn or damaged to the ex ten t that the organization deems it no t possible or cost effective to repair them, shall be retired in accordance with 8.2.1. 8.1.2 Structural fire f ight ing ensembles and ensemble e lements that are con tamina ted to the ex ten t that the organization deems it not possible or cost effective to decon tamina te them, shall be retired in accordance with 8.2.1. 8.1.3" Structural fire f ight ing ensembles and ensemble e lements that are no longer o f use to the organization for emergency opera t ions service but are not contamina ted , defective, or damaged shall be retired in accordance with 8.2.1 or 8.2.2. 8.1.4" Structural fire f ight ing ensembles and ensemble e lements that were not in compl iance with the edit ion o f the respective NFPA standard, that was cu r ren t when the e lement(s ) were manufac tu red , shall be retired in accordance with 8.2.1. 8.2 Disposition of Retired Elements 8.2.1 Retired structural fire f ighting ensembles and ensemble e lements shall be destroyed or disposed of in a m a n n e r assur ing that they will no t be used in any fire f ighting or emergency activities, inc luding training. 8.2.2 Retired structural fire f ight ing ensembles and ensemble e lements as de t e rmined in 8.1.3 shall be permi t ted to be:

(a) used for t ra ining that does not involve live fire provided they are appropriately marked as such or;

(b) utilized as de t e rmined by the organization. 8.3 Special Inc ident Procedure 8.3.1" The organizat ion shall have procedures for the handl ing and custody of ensembles and ensemble e lements that are directly related to serious fire f ighter injuries and fire fighter fatalities. 8.3.2* In the absence o f any o the r prevailing rules o f evidence, the organiza t ion ' s p rocedures shall include at least the following:

(a) Provisions for the immedia te removal from service and preservation o f all personal protective c lothing and e q u i p m e n t utilized by the injured or deceased fire fighter. Custody of such c lo th ing and e q u i p m e n t shall be main ta ined at a secure location with control led, d o c u m e n t e d access.

(b) All such c lothing and e q u i p m e n t should be non- destructively tagged and stored only in paper or cardboard conta iners to prevent fu r the r degradat ion or damage . Plastic or air t ight conta iners shall not be used.

(c) Review of the personal protective clothing and e q u i p m e n t by

~ ualified m e m b e r s o f the organizat ion or outside exper ts to e t e rmine the condi t ion thereof.

8.3.3* The organizat ion shall de te rmine a specific period of t ime for re ta ining custody of the personal protective c lothing and equ ipmen t . A-8.1.1 Organizat ions should develop specific criteria for removal o f prol~ective c lo th ing and e q u i p m e n t from service that are specific to the ensembles and ensemble e lements being used, the instruct ions of the manufac ture r , and the exper ience o f the organizat ion. Re t i rement criteria should be based on a n u m b e r o f factors, inc luding bu t no t l imited to: the overall condi t ion of the i tem, specific deter iora t ion o f materials or c o m p o n e n t s beyond thei r economical repair, or the ability to adequately remove hazardous materials and o ther contaminants . Physical damage from use or imprope r c leaning are o ther factors that can affect when an i tem should be retired. The actual service life of ensembles and ensemble e lements will vary d e p e n d i n g u p o n the a m o u n t of their use and the care that they receive.

Where e lements are worn, damaged, or contaminated , organizat ions should de te rmine if it will be more appropria te for them to be repaired, decon tamina ted , or replaced. On e general guidel ine is if the cost of the repair or decon tamina t ion is greater than 50 percen t of the rep lacement cost of the ensemble and ensemble e lements , r ep lacement should be considered. Organizat ions should use a member ( s ) who has received t ra ining in the inspect ion o f structural fire f ighting protective ensembles , unde r s t ands the l imitations o f each ensemble and e lement , and recognized the signs o f failure, to help them make these decisions. A-8.1.3 Changes in the type of structural fire f ight ing ensembles and ensemble e lements by a fire depa r tmen t may result in the

232

N F P A 1851 m N o v e m b e r 2000 R O C

ret i rement of elements that have not reached the end of their service life. These items may be of no fur ther use to the organization in front line service, but may be of use for training or donat ion to o ther organizations. A-8.1.4 All structural fire fighting protective ensembles and protective ensemble e lements are required by NFPA 1971, Standard on Protective Ensemble for Structural Fire Fighting, to be certified by an independent , third-party certification organization. In order for ensembles or elements to meet the requirements of NFPA 1971, the item must carry a s tatement on the product label stating compliance and also the label, symbol, or o ther identifying mark of that certification organization.

Any structural fire fighting ensemble or e lement that does not bear the appropriate compliance s tatement AND the mark of an independent , third-party certification organization is NOT COMPLIANT with NFPA 1971, even if the product label states that the ensemble or e lement is compliant!

Third-party certification is an important means of ensuring the quality of fire and emergency services protective clothing and equipment . To be certain that an item is properly certified, labeled, and listed, the NFPA strongly recommends that prospective purchasers require appropriate evidence of certification for the specific product and model from the manufacturer before purchasing. Prospective purchasers' also should contact the certification organizations and request copies of the certification organization's "list" of certified products to the appropriate NFPA standard. This "listing" is a required of third- party certification by NFPA 1971 and is a service performed by the certification organization.

Details about certification and product labeling can be found in Chapters 2 and 3 of NFPA 1971. Also, the definitions for "certification/certified, ~ "labeled," and :listed ~ in Section 1-3 of NFPA 1971 should be reviewed.

The National Fire Protection Association(NFPA), from time to time, has received complaints that certain items of fire and emergency services protective clothing or protective equipment might be carrying labels falsely identifying them as compliant with an NFPA standard.

NFPA advises those purchasing fire and emergency services rOtective clothing or protective equipment to be aware of the llowing:

All NFPA standards on fire and emergency services protective clothing and equ ipment require that the item be certified by an independent , third-party certification organization and, as with NFPA 1971 ensembles and ensemble elements, all items of fire and emergency services protective clothing and equipment must carry the appropriate compliance s ta tement AND the label, symbol, or o ther identifying mark of that certification organization.

Any item of fire and emergency services protective clothin~g or protective equipment , covered by an NFPA standard, that tines no t bear the mark of an independent , third-party certification organization is NOT COMPLIANT with the appropriate NFPA standard, even if the product label states that the item is compliant!

When in doubt as to the authenticity of a certification claim, contact the certification organization directly, or the consumer protect ion agency of your state/provincial government. A-8.3.1 Organizations can find additional guidance related to the processing of ensembles and ensemble elements that are directly related to serious fire fighter injuries and fire fighter fatalities in the International Association of Fire Fighters manual "Line of Duty Notification, Assistance, and Investigation Policy" available at www.iaff .org/iaff /Health_Safety/l ineofdutydeath.html and the International Association of Fire Chiefs manual "Guide for Investigating a Line-of-Duty Death" available at www.iafc.org. A-8.3.2 and A-8.3.3 When developing these procedures, the organization should coordinate with o ther agencies such as the medical examiner, law enforcement , or o ther experts to de termine what actions a appropriate. SUBSTANTIATION: Carries out Commit tee Action taken on Comment 1851-31 (Log #115). COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1851- 37 - (2-7.1.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Kevin M. Roche, Phoenix Fire Dept., AZ COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Retired coats and trousers shall be permit ted to be used for training that does not involve the use of live fire.

SUBSTANTIATION: Allows use of retired garments for low hazards training. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commit tee Action taken on Comment 1851-36 (Log #117).


1851- 38- (2-7.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Kevin M. Roche, Phoenix Fire Dept., AZ C O M M E N T O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Renumber as 2.8. SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action taken on Comment 1851-36 (Log #117).


1851- 39 - (2.8): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Larry Horn, Port land Fire Bureau, OR COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-59 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Add new text to read:

2.8 Special Incident Handl ing Procedure. 2.8.1 The organization shall have procedures for the handl ing

and custody of ensembles and ensemble elements that are directlv related to serious firefighter injuries and firefighter fatalities.

2.8.2* In incidents where serious firefighter injuries or firefighter fatalities have occurred, iurisdiction shall be confirmed to prevent violation of evidentiarv rYules. The organization shall coordinate

v

with law enforcement to de termine what actions are appropriate, A.2.8.2 In the absence of anv o ther prevailing rules of evidence,

the organization's nrocedures ' should include at least the following: (a) Provisions for the immediate removal from service and

preservation of all uersonal nrotective clothing and equipment. Custody of all such" clothing and equipment shall be maintained at a secure location with controlled, documented access. All such clothing and equ ipment should be non-destructively tagged and stored in only naner or cardboard containers to prevent fur ther degradat ion or damage. (Plastic or airtight containers must not be usr_d2

(b) Review of the oersonal orotective clothing and eau ioment bv qualified members of the organization or outside experts to de termine the condit ion thereof.

(c) A soecific oeriod of time for retaining custody of the oersonal orotective clothing and, eau ioment should be de termined based on the advice of outside experts. SUBSTANTIATION: Support ing text for standard and appendix material would provide a guideline for appropriate handling of P.P.E. in the event of a fire fighter serious injury or fatality. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commit tee Action taken on 1851-36 (Log #117).


1851- 40 - (2-8): Reject SUBMITTER: Dean William Cox, Fairfax Cnty Fire and Rescue Dept., VA C O M M E N T O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Add as follows:

2.8 Contract Cleaner Quality Assurance Program. 2.8.1 The contract cleaner shall provide and maintain a quality

assurance program that includes a documented inspection and product recall system. The contract cleaner shall have an inspection system to substantiate conformance to this standard.

2.8.2 The contract cleaner shall maintain written inspection and testing instructions. The instructions shall prescribe inspection and test o f materials, work in process, and completed articles. Criteria for acceptance and rejection of materials, processes and final product shall be part o f the instructions.

233


2.8.3 The contract cleaner shall maintain records of work performed.

2.8.4 The contract cleaner 's inspection system shall provide for procedures that ensure the latest applicable drawings, specifications, and instructions are used for inspection and testing.

2.8.5 The contract cleaner shall, as part o f the quality assurance program, maintain a calibration program of all instruments used to ens~]re p roper control of testing. The calibration program shall document the date of calibration and performance verification.

2.8.6 The contract cleaner shall maintain a system for identifying the appropriate inspection status of repair materials, work in progress, and finished goods.

2.8.7 The contract cleaner 's quality assurance program shall be audited by the third party certification organization to determine that the program is sufficient to ensue cont inued product compliance with this standard. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : As the document is written currently, there is no quality assurance of cleaning. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: These requi rements did not receive public review as they were not in the ROP and now there is advisory information in A.5.1.5.

See Committee Action on Comment 1851-169 (Log #48)


1851- 41 - (2-9): Reject S U B M ~ Dean William Cox, Fairfax Cnty Fire and Rescue Dept., VA COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Add text to read as follows:

2.9 ISO Registration for Contract Cleaner 2.9.1 The contract cleaner shall provide and operate a quality

assurance program. 2.9.2 The contract cleaner shall be registered to ISO 9002,

Quality Systems - Model for Quality Assurance in Design, Development, Production, Installation and Servicing.

2.9.3 The ISO registration requirements shall have an effective date of 1 March 2003.

2.9.4 Until 1 March 2003, o r until the date the contract cleaner becomes ISO registered, whichever date occurs first, the contract cleaner shall comply with Section 2.8. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : As the documen t is written currently, there is no quality assurance of cleaning. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Commit tee had no substantiation that the referenced ISO requirements are appropriate for contract cleaners.


1851- 42 - (3.1.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Kevin J. O'Connell , Louisville Fire & Rescue COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows:

3.1.1" Prior to starting the prca~urcmc::t ~ process of structural fire fighting ensembles and ensemble elements, a risk asse~ment shall be performed. The risk assessment shall include, but not be limited to, the e,xpeeted hazards that can be encounte red by structural fire~ fighters based on the-

: type of dtities performed frequency of use of ensemble e lements

: the organization's experiences incident operations

* , aria-, thc organ!zafion'°o geographic location and elimac-tie con~!tie.n~ climate. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : The suggested changes do no t change the intent o f this section. It takes several items out o f A.3.1.2 and rearranges the text to a more user friendly format. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1851- 43- (3-1.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Steve King, Cintas Corporat ion COMMENT O N P RO P OSAL NO: 1851-62

. [ R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise first sentence of 3.1.1 to read: [ "Prior to starting the ~ process of structural fire fighting [ ensembles and ensemble elements, a risk assessment shall be [ performed by the organization.

S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : The responsibility for performing the risk assessment lies with the organization. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1851- 44- (3.1.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Kevin J. O'Connell , Louisville Fire & Rescue CO MMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-1 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise text to read as follows:

3.1.2' The organization shall review the current edition of NFPA 1971, NFPA 1500, NFPA 600, and any applicable 8",ate- Federal or F-edeeat State OSHA standards relating to structural fire fighting ensembles and ensemble e lements i n o r d e r to determine how they affect the ,election process.

Editorial comment : In addition NFPA 600 should be added to the list o f referenced documents in 8.1.1. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : This is simply a clarification of what I believe is the intent of this section. That is, relating the listed documents specifically to the selection process, which this chapter covers. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #36) Committee: FAE-AAC

1851- 45 - (3-1.2.19(new)): Accept in Principle S U B M r r r E R : Technical Correlating Commit tee on Fire and Emergency Services Protective Clothing and Equipment C O M M E N T O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-29 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : The TCC directs the TC to reconsider the action taken on 1851-29 and the issues raised in the proposal. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : The TC needs to consider developing advisory information for the document ' s appendix to assist the organization in evaluating the effectiveness of a contract cleaner 's decontamina t ion process. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMrlYrEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action taken on Comment 1851-173 (Log #151).

Also, see Commit tee Action taken on Comment 1851-169 (Log #48).

(Log #55) Committee: FAE~SFF

1851- 46- (3-1.3): Reject SUBMITTER: L. Charles Davis, Lexington Fire Depar tment COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise text as follows:

"The organization shall ensur~ specify..." S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : Most organizations lack the resources to "ensure" that e lements are complaint to 1971 and must rely on the integrity of the manufacturer and certifying agency. Their best opt ion is to "specify" compliance which places the responsibility on the manufacturer. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The ultimate responsibility to ensure compliance is ' the organization's responsibility. A suggested me thod is included in the appendix. See Commit tee Action taken on Comment 1851-159 (Log #33).

234



1851- 47- (3-1.3): Reject S U B M r r r E R : Allen S. Williams, Anne Arundel County EMS/Fi re /Rescue , MD COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDA:r lON: Delete this entire section.

certified a~ 5cing compliant ;;~.th NFPA !971 hy a third party certification organizatio~

or move this to section 3.1.7 and insert the following verbiage as a new 3.1.7(b):

"Purchase specifications shall require that the e lements under consideration are certified as being compliant with NFPA 1971 by a third-party certification organization." SUBSTANTIATION: This is currently required in NFPA 1971. Stated in this form, it appears that the fire depar tment must organize a third-party certification. Either of the two options above would be an acceptable solution to this problem. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMII~rEE STATEMENT: See Commit tee Action taken on Comment 1851-159 (Log #33).

(Log .#29) Committee: FAE-SFF

1851- 48- (3.1.4): Accept S U B M r r r E R : Donald Aldridge, Lion Apparel, Inc. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise text to read:

"Based on the risk assessment..." (continue as written). S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : I feel this change will give the organization better direction. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #30) Commit tee: FAE-SFF

1851- 49- (3.1.5): Accept SUBMITTER: Donald Aldridge, Lion Apparel, Inc. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows:

"The organization shall ve~fycnsurc that the ensembles and ensemble e lements under considerat ion interface properly with o ther personal protective items a!rcady in acrvice with which they will be used." SUBSTANTIATION: It is felt these changes better states the requirements of th isparagraph. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

, (Log #32) Committee: FAE-SFF

1851- 50- (3.1.6): Accept SUBMITTER: Donald Aldridge, Lion Apparel, Inc. COMMENT O N P R O P O S A L N O : 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows:

3.1.6 Where a field test is conducted the organization shall establish criteria to ensure a systematic evaluation.

A.3.1.6 Organizations should contact manufacturers or vendors about field tests programs. Many will provide sample items for tests. The following criteria should be used to conduct an effective field test:

(a) Test participants should be selected based on a cross section of personnel , willingness to participate, objectivity and level of operational activity.

(b) Participants should wear test each different product model being evaluated from each manufacturer for a particular ensemble element. Participants should be fitted for each product model being evaluated from each manufacturer . Evaluations should be conducted using the same participants, who use/evaluate each ensemble.

(c) A product evaluation form should be developed for each e lement and interface area. The form should include a rating system for those characteristics considered important to the organization that will facilitate a quantitative evaluation. Evaluation forms should include general performance criteria; a specific length of t imer for the field test; and criteria addressing ease of

movement , ability to work, etc. Size and fit issues should be addressed since they relate to comparative evaluation of ensembles and ensemble elements. Evaluation forms that provide only narrative responses should be avoided.

(d) The organization should solicit periodic reports from participants in the field test. At least three evaluation reports should be completed. These evaluation reports should be filled out independently.

(e) The organization should conclude the evaluation process in a timely manner and analyze the results. SUBSTANTIATION: These changes should make this area easier to understand and use. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1851- 51 - (3-1.6): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: L. Charles Davis, Lexington Fire Depar tment COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Move Section 3.1.6 to the appendix. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : Many depar tments are too small to conduct a wear test meet ing these "minimum" criteria. Move this section to the appendix changing the "shalls" to "shoulds" and cite the text as one example of a wear test. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commit tee Action taken on Comment 1851-50 (Log #32).


1851- 52 - (3-1.6): Accept in Principle SUBMITrER: Steve King, Cintas Corporat ion COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows:

3.1.6 Where a wear:field-test is conducted, at least the following criteria shall be used for designing a systematic evaluation procedure . S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : the in tended change attempts to clarify the requirement . Field-test is the preferred term for an evaluation of protective ensembles. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commit tee Action taken on Comment 1851-50 (Log #32).


1851- 53 - (3-1.6(b)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Steve King, Cintas Corporat ion C O M M E N T O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows:

3.1.6(b) Participants shall ~ nerform a field-test fo_.£r each different product o r model being evaluated from each

, manufacturer for a particular ensemble element . Participants shall be fitted for each product o r model being evaluated ff-om-_t~ each manufacturer or their representative. Evaluation forms that provide only narrative responses shall be avoided. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : The in tended changes at tempt to clarify the requirements. It is important to avoid the use of wear test as a verb since it is defined as a noun in this standard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. C O M M I T r E E STATEMENT: See Committee Action taken on C ommen t 1851-50 (Log #32).


1851- 54- (3.1.7): Accept SUBMITI'ER: Kevin J. O'Connell , Louisville Fire & Rescue COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-1 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise text to read as follows:

3.1.7" Where the organization develops purchase specifications at least the following criteria shall be included:

235


(a) Purchase specifications shall require that the element(s) to be purchased shall be compliant with the current edit ion of NFPA 1971.

Move all o f (b) to Appendix with the changes shown: (b) Purchase specifications ~ s h a i l - i n d i c a t e the

organization's selection of choice for the following required NFPA 1971 e lement components:

(1) Garment outer shell material; fabric, weight, color. (2) Garment thermal liner material. (3) Garment moisture barrier material; base fabric, film or

(4) Garment trim; configuration, material, color. (5) Garment closure system. (6) Garment wristlets; material, design. (7) Hood; material, face open ing design. (8) Gloves; body-composi te materials, wristlet or gauntlet,

wristlet material. (9) Helmet; material, color, re tent ion system, trim

configuration, trim color, ear cover material, ear cover dimension, eye protection.

(10) Boots; composi te materials. (c)* Where the organization selects criteria that exceeds the

minimum requirements of NFPA 1971, such criteria shall be stipulated in the purchase specifications.

(d)* Purchase specifications shall require that manufacturers bids include substantiation of certification for each e lement and model stated in the bid.

(e)* Where applicable, the purchase specifications shall define the process for determining proper fit.

(f)* The organization shall compare each bid submittal against purchase specifications. SUBSTANTIATION: The paragraph as written restricts the authority having jurisdiction to a material specific type o f specification and does not allow for o the r types of specifications, such as a performance based specification. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1851- 55 - (3-1.7(d)): Reject SUBMITTER: Patricia A. Freeman, Globe Manufacturing Co., Inc. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Delete Section 3.1.7(d):

m ,~e l 3mte~ ia t~c ben,4.. SUBSTANTIATION: Third part>, certification reports are extremely,lengthy and always subject to change, as new materials a n d / o r features are added, tested, or deleted. Therefore, most certification agencies, and certainly Underwriters Laboratories, will not allow a single page to be copied. The repor t contains a s tatement that the only way a company is authorized to reproduce the Report is to do it in its entirety. Since the standard requires a third party mark on the certification label, this mark is the substantiation of certification. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The substantiation of product certification is an important part of the selection process to assure compliant product is purchased.


1851- 56 - (Chapter 4): Accept in Principle S U B M r r r E R : Ross Cochran, Securitex Inc. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : For all Chapter 4, e i ther replace "hazardous materials" by "hazardous chemicals" or add a defini t ion of "hazardous materials" to Section 1.3 Definitions. SUBSTANTIATION: Without a definition for "hazardous materials" in the proposed standard, the u se r / r eade r is left to de termine for himself what materials are hazardous: As a result, the use may take unnecessary precautions or not enough. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Committee accepts the submitter 's intent and is adding the standard project definition for hazardous materials. The Technical Correlating Commit tee has directed for

this project the the term hazardous materials be used, not hazardous chemicals. As such, the definition and use of the term hazardous materials replaced the definition and use of the term hazardous chemical in this document (starting in 1.3.39)

(Log #CC2) 1851- 57 - (Chapter 4): Accept SUBMrIq 'ER: Technical Commit tee on Structural Fire Fighting Protective Clothing and Equipment C O M M E N T O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Section 4.2.2(c)(3)a

1. Proposal to change the text to: a. "cracks, z£_q~_ng., dents, and abrasions" Section 4-2.2(c) (6) 2. (6)* "Damaged or missing components of the

faceshield/goggle system, including discoloration, ~ and scratches to the faceshield/goggle lens, limiting visibility. SUBSTANTIATION: Crazing is def ined in the definition section, but was omitted from the inspection section. Crazing is an early sign of damge due to chemical, UV, or extreme high temperature conditions, and should be a focus of the inspection. COMMrIq 'EE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #37) Committee: FAE-AAC

1851- 58 - (4-1): Accept in Principle SUBMITPER: Technical Correlating Commit tee on Fire and Emergency Services Protective Clothing and Equipment C O M M E N T O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-46 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : The TCC directs the TC to reconsider their "reject" action on 1851-46. SUBSTANTIATION: The issue of moisture barriers is critical to the protection for fire fighters. Recently, there have been field reports and barrier manufacturer confirmation of apparent premature failure of moisture barriers. Moisture barriers need to be evaluated periodically to ensure satisfactory performance while the garments remain m service. The TC needs to address these issues at this time while the documen t is under development. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. C O M M r l T E E STATEMENT: See Committee Action taken on Comment 1851-77 (Log #51).


1851- 59- (4-1.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Michael Carlin, LaMesa Fire Depar tment COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : New paragraph 4.1.1.1 to read:

Protective gloves shall be worn by personnel conduct ing the inspect ion. SUBSTANTIATION: Soiled elements can pose a health risk to the person conduct ing the inspection, appropr ia te precautions should be taken to provide protect ion from possible exposure to contaminants during the inspection process. COMMITYEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Add new 4.3.1.2 to read as follows:

4.3.1.2 Universal precautions shall be observed, as appropriate, when handl ing elements. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee modified the text and applied it to advanced inspections.


1851- 60- (4-1.1): Reject SUBMITTER: Michael Carlin, LaMesa Fire Depar tment C O M M E N T O N P R O P O S A L NO: 185~-62 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise text in 4.1.1 to read:

Any e lement that is soiled or contaminated shall be cleaned or decontaminated before an inspection is initiated. SUBSTANTIATION: Soiled or contaminated elements can pose a health risk to the person conduct ing the inspection. Elements shall

236


be c leaned or decon tamina ted pr ior to init iating the inspect ion to minimize the exposure risk. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commi t tee Action ,taken on 1851-59 (Log #158) and also see 4.1.3 and 4.2.1 in documen t .

(Log #38) Commit tee : FAE-AAC

1851-61 - (4-1.3.3(new) 4-2.3.3, (new) 4-3.3.3 (new) 4-4.3.3 (new)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Technical Correla t ing Commi t t ee on Fire and Emergency Services Protective Clothing and Equ ipmen t COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-53 RECOMMENDATION: The TCC directs the TC to revisit 1951-53. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : T he TC needs to de te rmine whether the issue of removing ensembles or e lements f rom service should be addressed in a separate section, us ing the append ix material in A.2.7.2 as part of the procedure , in o rder to bet ter specify these act ions for such special c i rcumstances . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commi t t ee Action on C o m m e n t 1851-36 (Log #117).


1851- 62 - (4-2.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Allen S. Williams, A n n e Arunde l County EMS/F i r e /Rescue , MD COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Add the following text in the appendix:

"It is no t the in tent o f this s tandard to require an inspect ion each t ime an ensemble i tem is donned . T he in ten t ion is to conduc t a rout ine inspect ion following each use that may have exposed it to a potential heal th risk." S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : Curren t verbiage may lead user to believe they mus t conduc t a "Routine Inspect ion" each time an ensemble e l emen t is donned . The re are t imes when t is donned , but it has no t been exposed to a potential heal th risk. Examples may be du r ing responses that result in units being canceled, instances where an e l emen t is used as an ou te r g a r m e n t to protect f rom weather, du r ing rout ine operat ions, etc. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Add new sentence to 4.2.1 to read as follows:

The organizat ion shall establish what const i tutes "use" to at least include each t ime the e lement ( s ) is exposed to, o r is suspected to having been exposed, damage or contamina t ion . COMMITTEE STATEMENT: T h e Commi t t ee agrees bu t wanted to provide a r equ i r em en t that the organizat ion will define "use".


1851- 63 - (4-2.2): Reject SUBMITTER: Bill Grilliot, Morn ing Pride MFG. LLC C O M M E N T O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Add text to read as follows:

"4.2.2 ... 5) Damage to mois ture barrier, barrier por t ion o f l ining

system." S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : None, COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMrIWEE STATEMENT: T he Comit tee believes this is beyond the capability of a rout ine inspect ion.


1851- 64 - (4-2.2): Reject SUBM1TTER: Dean William Cox, Fairfax Cnty Fire and Rescue Dept., VA C O M M E N T O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise as follows:

4.2.2: Add an asterisk "*" - need asterisk. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : T he section has an Append ix item. COMMrrTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Asterisk is a t tached to 4.2.2(c)(6).


1851- 65 - (4-2.2): Reject SUBMITTER: Dean William Cox, Fairfax Cnty Fire and Rescue Dept. , VA COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Add to 4.2.2 as follows:

"(5) Closure system c o m p e n e n t damage and functionality. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : To be consis tent with o the r areas of the Standard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This issue is addressed in 4.2.2(A) (3) (b).

(Log #178) 1851- 66 - (4-2.2): Hold SUBMITTER: J o h n Granby, Lion Apparel Inc COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise the present format:

The rout ine inspect ion shall include, as a m i n i m u m the following i tems as details in char t _ _ on the following page. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : The present m e t h o d o f utilizing an out l ine form and repeat ing each of the specific areas for each i tem is both t ime c o n s u m i n g and confus ing to the user. By going to a char t form all informat ion the item to be inspected are immediately clear to the user and quickly desirable. COMMITTEE ACTION: Hold. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This c o m m e n t would change the text p roposed by the Technical Commi t tee to the point that the Technical Commi t t ee would have to restudy the text of the ROP or o the r affected parts of the D o c u m e n t and tha t ' could not be properly hand led within the t ime frame for processing the text.


1851-67- (4-2.2(a)5 ( N e w ) ) : Reject SUBMITTER: Allen S. Williams, A n n e Arunde l County EMS/F i r e /Rescue , MD CO MMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Add a new sect ion 4-2.2(a)(5):

(b) Moist o r D a m p e r inne r liners. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : Fire fighters may be exposed to a greater risk o f receiving a s t ream burn when the inne r l iner o f their s tructural fire f ight ing coat or trousers is moist or damp. to reduce this risk, effort should be made to recognize mois t or d a m p inne r liners and ensure they are dried or replaced. This may be more prevalent in warmer climates.

Note: perhaps , this "s ta tement o f problem" should be placed in the append ix to bet ter explain why it is necessary to include this as an inspect ion item. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Moist or d a m p inne r liners are n o n p e r m a n e n t condi t ions that would not result in the e l ement being e i ther c leaned or repaired. It would be best addressed by individual organizat ion policy to directly correct this si tuation if it poses a p rob lem for their si tuation.


1851- 68 - (4-3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: W. Keith Brower, L o u d o u n County Fire & Rescue C O M M E N T O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Add language to 4.2 Rout ine insnect ion and 4.3 Advanced Insnei=tion: manufac tu re r shall provide t ra ining d o c u m e n t a t i o n for conduc t ing inspection. O_Qp_tiQ.a include as

~ eneral s ta tement (Section 4.1) U B S T A N T I A T I O N : 4.3.1 references that inspect ions are to be

done by t ra ined personnel . The proposed s tandard tells what to inspect, but there is no th ing offered to help train inspectors. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Resources for t ra in ing are inc luded in A.4.3.1.

237


Nonconformi ty A. Coats B. Hoods C. Helmets D. Gloves E. Boots and Trouse rs*

1. Soilin~ X X X X X 2. Contamina t ion from X X X X X hazardous materials or biological agents 3. Tears and Cuts X X X X X

X 4. D a m a g e d / m i s s i n g hardware and closure systems 5. Charrinlg, burnholes , mel t in~ 6. Shrinkage 7. Material degradat ion 8. Material discoloration 9. Damaged or miss ing reflective trim 10. Loss of face open i ng elasticity or adiustability 11. Cracks, dents, abrasions 12. Bubbling, soft spots 13. Damaged or miss ing c o m p o n e n t s o f the suspens ion and re tent ion systems 14. Damaged or miss ing c o m p o n e n t s o f the facesh ie ld /goggle system, inc luding discolorat ion and scratches to the lens

X X X X X

X X X X

X

X X

X X X

X X X X X

X*

15. Inverted Liner X 16. E x p o s e d / d e f o r m e d steel toe, X steel midsole and shank 17. Loss of water resistance X 18. Closure system c o m p o n e n t damage and functionali ty

X


1851- 69 - (4-3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Patricia A. Freeman, Globe Manufac tu r ing Co., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Add a n o t h e r paragraph, and r e n u m b e r accordingly:

4.3.2(a) (12) Loss of mois ture barrier water resistance. SUBSTANTIATION: With all of the d e m a n d s placed upon the mois ture barrier, it is impor tan t to routinely inspect for loss o f water resistance. While this does no t guaran tee con t inued viral and chemical resistance, the loss of water resistance is a clear indicator that the o the r factors are also loss. W h e t h e r you suppor t the exist ing field test or not, we owe it to the fire service to give them a practical way to check for con t inued serviceability. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commi t t ee Action taken on 1851-77 (Log #51).


1851- 70 - (4-3, 4-3.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Leland Bishop, City o f Piano Texas-Fire Rescue COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows:

Advanced inspect ion o f all personal ensembles and ensemble e lements shall be conduc ted at a m i n i m u m of every (~ . . . . ho~ , L , . v . . . . . . !

(12 m o n t h s ) , or whenever rout ine inspect ions indicate that a

~ roblem may exist. The advanced inspect ions shall be conduc ted y m e m b e r s of the organizat ion who have received t ra ining in the

inspect ion of structural fire f ight ing protective c lothing and equ ipmen t . SUBSTANTIATION: The purpose o f advanced inspect ions should be to provide an e n h a n c e m e n t to the rout ine inspect ion level, bu t not to replace it. Requir ing advanced inspect ions every 6 m o n t h s will m e a n that some organizat ions will have to initiate a nons top inspect ion process in o rder to achieve the necessary n u m b e r o f inspections. Such a process will create an addit ional workload for the organizat ion and may create the impress ion that the rout ine inspect ion level is no t impor tant , since the organizat ion is always inspect ing anyway. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1851- 71 - (4-3.1): Accept SUBMITTER: L. Charles Davis, Lexington Fire Depar tmen t COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62

I RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows: "An advanced inspection.. .shall be conducted , at a m i n i m u m of

every 612 months . . . " SUBSTANTIATION: Many depa r tmen t s are simply too large to conduc t an advanced inspect ion every 6 months . O the r sections of this d o c u m e n t call for rout ine c leaning and inspect ion at regular intervals. Garments found in need of fur ther a t tent ion at those t imes would warrant an advanced inspection. Otherwise, conduc t an annua l advanced inspection. It is unrealistic an inspect ion of this magn i tude every 6 months . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1851- 72- (4-3.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Allen S. Williams, Anne Arunde l County EMS/F i r e /Rescue , MD COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Add addit ional text to 4.3.1:

"An advanced inspect ion o f all personal ensembles and ensemble e lements shall be conducted , at a m i n i m u m of every six months , o r following a rout ine inspect ion that identifies an item that reuuires m a i n t e n a n c e and following anv advanced cleaning." the inspect ion shall be done by a m e m b e r of ' the organizat ion wlao has received t ra in ing in the inspect ion o f structural fire f ight ing protective c lo th ing and equ ipmen t . SUBSTANTIATION: There should be o ther criteria in addit ion to t ime that requires an "Advanced Inspection." For example , if char r ing is found du r ing a rout ine inspection, the material should be tested as descr ibed in the append ix for A-4.3.2(a) (3). Th e l iner and o the r things included in the "Advanced Inspect ion" should he looked at as well. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Commi t tee feels the submit ters in ten t is adequately covered in 4.1.3 so the addit ional text was not added in 4.3.1.

2 3 8

N F P A 1851 m N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 0 R O C


1851- 73 - (4-3.2): Accept SUBMITrER: Cy Long, Texas C o m m . on Fire Protect ion COMMENT ON PRO P OS AL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION : Add to 4.3.2(a), (c), (d), and (e):

Accessories for compl iance with Section 2.2.3. SUBSTANTIATION: Cons ider ing safety first and foremost , many fire fighters may be incl ined to receive after market i tems that would affect the weight, balance, integrity, interface area, and per fo rmance o f their protective c lothing unknowingly. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1851- 74- (4-3.2): Reject SUBMITTER: Bill Grilliot, Morn ing Pride.MFG. LLC C O M M E N T ON P R O P O S A L NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Add text to read as follows:

"4.3.2 ... 13) Loss or damage of liquid barr ier por t ion o f the mois ture

barrier lining." S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The fragile na ture o f the barrier could lead to u n n e e d e d damage du r ing disassembly o f garment .

• Beyond the capability o f mos t fire depa r tmen t s Requires partial disassembly o f the g a r m e n t in mos t cases Visual inspect ion nay no t reveal all p rob lems


1851- 75 - (4-3.2): Reject SUBMrl~rER: Dean William Cox, Fairfax Cnty Fire and Rescue Dept. , VA C O M M E N T ON PRO P OS AL NO: 1851-62 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise as follows:

4.3.2(12) closure system c o m p o n e n t damage and functionality. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : To be consis tent with o the r areas o f the Standard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrF.,E STATEMENT: See Commi t tee Action taken on C o m m e n t 1851-65 (Log #174).

(Log #177) 1851- 76- (4-3.2): Hold SUBMITTEI~ J o h n Granby, Lion Apparel lnc C O M M E N T O N PRO P OS AL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION : Revise 4.3.2 to read as follows:

Advanced inspect ion shall include, as a m i n i m u m the following i tems as details in char t _ _ on the following page: SUBSTANTIATION: T he present m e t h o d of utilizing an out l ine form and repea t ing each o f the specific areas for each i tem is both t ime c o n s u m i n g and confus ing to the reader. By going to a char t form all informat ion needed for all i tems covered by 1851 to be inspected are immediate ly identifiable and quickly desirable to the user. Any item that has an asterisk in the block will refer to an

o~Me ndix i tem. MITTEE ACTION: Hold.

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This c o m m e n t would change the text p roposed by the Technical Commi t t ee to the point that the Technical Commi t tee would have to restudy the text of the ROP or o the r affected parts of the D o c u m e n t and that could not be properly hand led within the t ime f rame for process ing the text.

Log #51) Commit tee : FAE-SFF

1851- 77 - (4-3.2, A.4.3.2 (New) ) : Accept in Principle TCC NOTE: TCC NOTE: 1851-77 (4.3.2, A.4.3.2 (New)): Accept

in Principle (1) Add new 4.3.2 (a)(4)* to read: "(4)* Loss o f mois ture barr ier integrity as indicated by:

• rips, tears, cuts, and abrasions, • discolorat ion, • the rmal damage . "

R e n u m b e r the remain ing i tems in 4.3.2 (a). (2) Add new A.4.3.2 (a)(4) to read: "A.4.3.2(a) (4) While all materials and c o m p o n e n t s in protect ive

e lements are suscept ib le to d i f fe ren t types o f damage f rom wear o r

abuse, the mois tu re barrier is one o f the mos t diff icul t par ts o f the protect ive garmefi t to inspect and evaluate. This is because the f i lm or coat ing side, o f mos t mois tu re barr iers , faces the inter ior o f the l iner and is h idden f rom easy examinat ion. Even where a ga rmen t is equ ipped with a means o f open ing the l iner to view the f i lm or coating side, it is diff icul t to conduc t a visual evaluation o f the mois ture barr ier f i lm or coating. Even a physical examina t ion o f the mois ture barrier fi lm or coating side will no t detect all types o f damage or defec ts that can lead to loss o f l iquid-penetrat ion resis tance for the protective garment .

Moisture barr ier coatings or f i lms could become abraded, tear, or have pinholes f r om use. In severe cases, this degradat ion in s o m e mois tu re barr ier materials can take the fo rm of separat ion, cracking, or flaking. Tapes used on mois tu re barr ier seams, to en su re ga rmen t integrity against l iquid penet ra t ion , could also crack, lift, or complete ly separate . Only the mos t obvious damage is usually observable, therefore , the following field evaluation p rocedu re is r e c o m m e n d e d .

The field evaluat ion p rocedure shou ld be p e r f o r m e d on high abras ion areas o f the garments ; such as the broades t par t o f the shoulders and the back waist area o f the coat, and the knees , crotch, and seat o f the t rousers . However, where potential damage to the ga rmen t ou te r shell or thermal barr ier has been detected, the p rocedure shou ld be conduc ted on the cor respond ing area o f the mois ture barrier; and where potential damage to the mois ture barr ier has been de tec ted or is expected , the p rocedure should be conduc ted on that area.

T h e field evaluat ion p rocedure shou ld be p e r f o r m e d at r o o m tempera ture . An alcohol-water mix ture shou ld be m a d e by combin ing 1 par t rubb ing alcohol (70% isopropanol alcohol) with 6 par ts o f tap water. I f there are any ques t ions about using alcohol-tap water mix ture for evaluat ing the protect ive garment , the ga rmen t manu fac tu r e r shou ld be contac ted directly for advice.

A dry t h e r m a l / m o i s t u r e barr ier l iner shou ld be placed over a bucket with the thermal barr ier s ide facing down and the mois ture barr ier s ide facing up. About _ cup o f the alcohol-tap water nfixture shou ld be p o u r e d into a cupped area o f the mois ture barr ier s ide o f the l iner and the mix tu re shou ld s tand for 2 to 3 minutes . If the l iquid passes th rough the mois tu re barr ier and wets the thermal barrier, the l iner shou ld be r emoved f rom service and repai red or replaced. After pe r fo rming this field evaluation procedure , the l iner shou ld be c leaned and allowed to complete ly dry to remove all traces o f the alcohol. tap water mixture .

It is impor tan t to realize that this field evaluat ion p rocedure can p roduce resul ts that are inconsis tent with more comprehens ive or sophis t icated testing, and nfight only detect the worst-case failure areas. To p e r f o r m m o r e comprehens ive or sophis t ica ted test ing o f the mois tu re barrier, the ga rmen t m a n u f a c t u r e r shou ld be contac ted for advice."

(3) O the r related changes to Chapter 4: (3a) Revise 4.3.2(a) to read: "All layers o f the coat and t rousers

shah be inspec ted for the following:" (3b) Revise first blallet o f 4.3.2(a)(3) to read: " . . . r ips , tear, emd-

cuts, and abras ions . " TCC Substantiat ion: U p o n review o f the TC ' s act ion and a

negative TC ballot subnd t t ed on this ROC, the TCC dec ided that only one field evaluat ion p rocedure shou ld be provided and that more sophis t ica ted evaluations, i f any, be de t e rmined by the ga rmen t manufac ture r . Based on the original language in r e c o m m e n d a t i o n o f the new A.4.3.2 (a), the TC(~ chose the field evaluation p rocedure based on the alcohol-water mix tu re as being the mos t sensitive o f the two descr ibed field evaluat ion p rocedures . SUBMITTER: Rober t Tutterow, Charlot te Fire Dept. C O M M E N T ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Add a new (4) and r e n u m b e r accordingly:

(4) Loss of mois ture barrier integrity as indicated by: • rips, tears, cuts and abrasions • Discoloration • The rma l damage Appendix for new (4) A.4.3.2(a)4: Moisture barriers have historically been a fragile c o m p o n e n t o f

the protective coats and trousers. T h o u g h improvements are be ing made , it is extremely impor tan t that mois ture barriers be inspected. Moisture barrier damage or failure may be difficult to de te rmine th rough a visual inspect ion since it is usually concealed.

Fire Depar tments may want to take an incrementa l approach to test the integrity o f the moisture barrier. For example:

Opt ion 1: A simple field test can be pe r fo rmed by placing the t h e r m a l / m o i s t u r e barrier l iner on a flat surface (or over a bucket) with the dry thermal barrier facing down and dry mois ture barrier facing up. Pour abou t 1 /2 cup ot~ water on the mois ture barrier and wait a few minutes . If the water passes t h rough he mois ture barrier and wets the thermal barrier, the l iner should be removed

2 3 9


Note: Chart f r om 1851-76 (Log #177)

Nonconfo rmi ty

1. Soilin8 2. Contamina t ion from hazardous materials or biological agents 3. Tears and Cuts 4. Closure system c o m p o n e n t damage and functionally 5. Charrin/~, burnholes , mel t ing 6. Shrinkage 7. Material degradat ion (UV or chemical damage) 8. Material discolorat ion 9. Reflective trim integrity; a t t achmen t to garment ; reflectivit)~ damage 10. Loss of face open ing elasticity or adiustabilit)~ 11. Cracks, dents, abrasions 12. Bubbling, soft spots 13. Damaged or miss ing c o m p o n e n t s o f the suspens ion and re tent ion systems 14. Damaged or miss ing c o m p o n e n t s o f the facesbie ld /goggle system, inc luding discolorat ion and scratches to the lens 15. Inverted glove liner 16. E x p o s e d / d e f o r m e d steel toe, steel midlose and shank 17. Loss o f ~'ater resistance 18. Evaluation of System Fit and coa t / t r ouse r overlap 19. Loss o f seam integrity 20. Broken or missing stitches 21. Loss or shif t ing of Liner material 22. Loss of wristlet elasticity; s t retching of wristlet 23. Label integrity legibility* 24. Hook and 1oo functionali ty 25. Liner a t t achmen t System 26. Material elasticity; s t retching out o f shape 27. Damage to the impact cap 28. Loss o f flexibility 29. Punctures , cracking, or splitting 30. Excessive tread wear

A. Coats B. Hoods and Trouse rs* X* X X X

X X

X* X X X

X* X X*

X

X

X X

X X X X

X

X

31. Condi t ion of Lining; tears, excessive wear, separat ion from outer layer

from service and repaired or replaced. Perform this simple test in high abrasion areas (like the broadest part o f the shoulders , at the knee, or the seat o f the pants) , or where potential damage to the shell or thermal barrier has been detected. Because o f the difficulty to de te rmine with any certainty whe the r the mois ture barrier leaks by simply looking at e i ther the film or the fabric it 's laminated to, it is imperative that the test be per formed. However, it is also impor tan t to unders tand that this test may only detect the worst case failure areas, it will no t necessarily assure that the mois ture barrier does not leak.

Op t ion 2: Fire depa r tmen t s may want to have a more extensive test e r fo rmed as described in NFPA 1971 - Standard on Protective nsemble for Structural Fire Fighting, Section 6-27, "Water

Penetra t ion Test", 6-28 "Liquid Penetra t ion Resistance Test" and 6- 29 "Viral Penetra t ion Resistance Test". T he m a n u f a c t u r e r or manufac tu re r ' s author ized repair facility should per form this test. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : Moisture barrier integrity is difficult to de t e rmine th rough visual inspection. This wording provides gu idance for the end user to inspect barriers. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Add new 4.3.2.(a)(4)* and r e n u m b e r accordingly.

(4) Loss of mois ture barrier integrity as indicated by

C. Helmets D. Gloves

X X X x "x ' x

X ' X ' X X ' X ' X

X X X

X X X

E. Boots

X X X

X X X X*

X X X

X X

X |

X |

X X*

X X

X

X X

X

X

X

X X X

X |

X

• rips, tears, cuts, and abrasions • discoloration • thermal damage Add new A.4..3.2(a) (4) While all materials and c o m p o n e n t s in protect ive e lements are

susceptible to different types o f damage from wear or abuse, the mois ture barrier is one of the most difficult parts o f the protective g a r m e n t to inspect and evaluate. This is because the film or coat ing side o f mos t mois ture barriers face the interior of the l iner and is h idden from easy examinat ion. Unless the protective g a r m e n t is equ ipped with a means o f open ing the l iner to view the film or coat ing side, it is difficult to conduc t a tho rough evaluation of the mois ture barrier. Even a physical examina t ion of the mois ture barrier film or coat ing side will no t detect all types ofd

! damage or defects that can lead to loss of penet ra t ion resistance for the protective garment .

Moisture barrier coatings or films may become abraded, tear, or have pinholes f rom use. In severe cases, this degradat ion in some mois ture barrier materials can take the form so separat ion, cracking, or flaking. Tapes used on mois ture barrier seams to ensure g a r m e n t integrity against liquid penet ra t ion may also crack, lift, or comple te separate. Only the most ob(,ious damage is usually observable. For this reason, the following hierarchy of

240


increasingly sophisticated testing is recommended and four different options are provided. However, any option or combination of options can be used at any time.

Option t Perform one of two simple tests to evaluate the integrity of the

moisture barrier (liner): 1. In the first test, place the dry thermal/moisture barrier liner

over a bucket with the therma ! barrier side facing down and the moisture barrier facing up. Pour about 1/2 cup of tap water into a cupped area of the moisture barrier and wait 2-3 minutes. Perform th~s test at room temperature.

2. In the second test, substitute an alcohol-water mixture for water in test one. Make the alcohol-water mixture by mixing 1 part rubbing alcohol (70 percent isopropanol alcohol) and 6 parts of tap water. Since the alcohol provides a lower surface tension liquid that permits easier detection of holes or defects, this second test is the preferred test of the two field tests.

ff any questions exist for using alcohol for testing the protective garment, check with the manufacturer. Following the use of this test, the liner should be cleaned and allowed to c completely dry to remove all traces of the isopropanol mixture.

In either test, if the liquid passes through the moisture barrier and wets the thermal barrier, then the liner should be removed from service and repaired or replaced. Perform these simple tests in high abrasion areas (like the broadest part of the shoulders and back waist area of the coat, and the knees, crotch area and seat of the pants), or where potential damage to the shell or thermal barrier has been detected. It is important to realize that these tests can produce resdlts that are inconsistent with more comprehensive or sophisticated testing, and may only detect the worst.

Option 2 During the inspection process, the organization may wish to

engage in a more comprehensive level of testing. For example, a random sampling of the ensemble should be submitted to an outside facility for verification uf moisture barrier integrity. Testing at the outside facility may involve non-destructive water ~.enetration testing of the liner. This testing is capable of reproducibly showing smaller holes or defects in liners. More sophisticated testing (to evaluate liner performance against liquid chemicals or blood- borne pathogens) will require the removal of liner samples.

Option 3 Organizations may want to have more extensive testing performed

as described in NFPA 1971, Standard on Protective Ensemble for Structural Fire Fighting, using the procedures in Section 6-27 (Water Penetration Test), Section 6-28 (Liquid Penetration Test, and Section 6-29 ("Viral Penetration Test). T h e manufacturer or manufacturer's recommended testing facility should perform this test. Organizations should be aware that these tests are destructive and require replacement of the evaluated liner.

Option 4 For a more formal inspection program, the organization may wish

to annually submit a specific percentage (for example 1 percent) of its in-service moistures barriers to an independent third party

! certification organization for verification of moisture barrier integrity. The percentage selected should be based on length of service, physical appearance, and findings from the advanced inspection process.

Other related changes to Chapter 4 4.3.2(a) All layers of the garment elements shall be inspected for

the following: 4.3.2(a))3) (first bullet) rips, tear, and- cuts. and abrasion Renumber list to include addition of new 4.3.2(a)(4)

COMMrrrEE STATEMENT: The Committee agrees and has reworked the proposed text to aid user understanding.

(LOg #154) • Committee: FAE-SFF

1851- 78 - (4-3.2(a)(3)): Reject SUBMrrTER: Jeffrey O. Stuil, Int'l Personnel Protection, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Add new bullet to 4.3.2(a)(3)

• Integrity of the coating or film of the moisture barrier. SUBSTANTIATION: It ~s important that the integrity of the moisture barrier be checked visually since degradation or , film/coating separation may go undetected. Proposed testing involving pouring a half cut of water onto the liner is insufficient to detect many leaks. COMMrrrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMrITEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action taken on 1851-74 (Log #135).


1851- 79 - (4-3.2(c)(7), 4-2.2(b)(4)): Accept SUBMrrrER: Harry Winer, U.S. Navy COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows:

Loss of face opening tqas~4ty [delete elasticity and replace with adlustmerK]. SUBSTANTIATION: Hoods may have a manual adjustment feature in place of an elastic. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1851- 80 - (4-3.2(e)(7)): Accept SUBMITrER: Donna P. Brehm, Virginia Beach Fire Dept., VA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62

I RECOMMENDATION: Add fourth bullet: Heel counter failure. SUBSTANTIATION: According to the,manufacturers we have beendeal ing with, heel counter failure is grounds for retiring the footwear as the loss of the counter indicates loss of structural integrity in the ankle area and loss of proper support for the foot and ankle-increasing the chance for injury. COMMrrrEE ACTION: Accept.


1851- 81 - (5.1.2): Accept .... SUBMrrTER: Larry Horn, Portland Fire Bureau, OR COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62

[ RECOMMENDATION: Delete 5.1.2 and 5.1.2.1. SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial. Requirement now appears in this document. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1851- 82 - (5-1.4): Accept SUBMITTER: Steve King, Cintas Corporation COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Add to end of paragraph 5.1.4:

"...unless approved by the ensemble or element manufacturer." SUBSTANTIATION: New dry cleaning and related cleaning technology is being developed that does not make use of traditional dry cleaning solvents. Such processes may provide effective cleaning of structural fire fighting ensembles and ensemble elements. The standard should not be process-restrictive if new technology can provide effective cleaning of protective ensembles with any adverse effects on ensemble performance. COMMrrTEE ACTION: Accept.


1851- 83- (5-3.1): Reject SUBMrI'rER: Jeffrey O. Stull, Int'l Personnel Protection, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read as follows:

5.3.1" Every six months, at a minimum, elements shall have been issues and used, and are ~.'lcd, shall receive advanced cleaning. SUBSTANTIATION: Advanced cleaning must be performed at regular intervals to ensure that clothing remains free of contaminants regardless of visual appearance bf soiling. A number of exposures can occur, contaminate clothing with fire gases, and result in clothing that can be relatively unsafe for use. Clothing that has not been cleaned and appears to be unsoiled has been shown to contain numerous fire gas chemicals including carcinogenic polynuclear aromatic compounds. Periodic cleaning of clothing that' is required to avoid use of clothing that could be contaminated without visible evidence of soiling. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.

241


COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Requir ing that ga rments receive advanced c leaning every 6 m o n t h s at a m i n i m u m can prove to be excessive for some depar tments . Appendix informat ion was added u n d e r 1851-170 (Log #75), to fur ther explain that no t all soiling is visible and that advanced l aunde r ing should be cons idered periodically.


1851- 84 - (5-3.3(b), (c) and (d) ) : Reject SUBMITTER: D o n n a P. B r e h m , Virginia Beach Fire Dept., VA COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Edit (b), (c), (d) and (e) to read:

(b) Clean following the utility sink or mach ine c leaning procedures and re inspect for residual soil and con tamina t ion . Repeat the c leaning process if necessary, OR

(c) Utilize a qualified contract c leaning service. (d) and (c) are dele ted as they have been incorpora ted into (h)

and (c). (a) remains as written. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : Better flow of informat ion. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Submit ter was p resen t at the ROC mee t ing on 3 May and reques ted that this c o m m e n t not be processed.


1851- 85 - (5-4.2, 5-4.4): Accept SUBMITTER: D o n n a P. B r e h m , Virginia Beach Fire Dept., VA COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 REC'OMMENDATION: Combine 5.4.2 and 5.4.4 and r e n u m b e r sect ion.

5.4.2 to read: Elements that are known or suspected to be con tamina ted shall

be isolated, tagged, and bagged. The con tamina ted e lements shall be removed from service until they can receive specialized c leaning as necessary to remove the specific con taminan t ( s ) .

Delete 5.4.4 and r enumber . S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : Removes r edundancy-more concise. C O M M I E ACTION: Accept.


1851- 86 - (5-4.5.1): Accept SUBMITTER: D o n n a P. B r e h m , Virginia Beach Fire Dept., VA COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Delete 5.4.5.1, 5.4.5.2, and 5.4.5.3. SUBSTANTIATION: Paragraph 5.4.5 adequately covers the requ i rement . C O M M I T r E E ACTION: Accept.


1851- 87 - (5-4.6): Accept SUBMITTER: Michael Carlin, LaMesa Fire Depa r t men t COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise as follows:

For e lements that have been soiled with body fluids the following process shall be used:

(1) Follow m a n u r a c t u r e r ' s instruct ions to de t e rmi ne appropr ia te dis infectant to use.

(2) Clean following utility sink... (3) Inspect for effectiveness o f c leaning and ...

SUBSTANTIATION: 'Cer ta in manufac tu re r s r e c o m m e n d the specific use o f appropr ia te dis infectant chemicals for blood and body fluids. The s tandard does no t make reference to this. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1851-88- (5-4.6(a)(b), (c) and (d)) : Reject SUBMITTER: D o n n a P. B r e h m , Virginia Beach Fire Dept., VA COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Edit (a), (b), (c) and (d) to read:

(a) Clean following the utility sink o r mach ine cleaning procedures and reinspect for residual contaminat ion . Repeat the c lean ing process if necessary, OR

(b) Utilize a qualified contract c leaning service. SUBSTANTIATION: Better flow of information. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Submit ter present at the ROC mee t ing at 3 May 00 and reques ted that the Commi t tee not process this c o m m e n t .


1851- 89 - (5-4.7): Accept SUBMITTER: Steve King, Ciotas Corpora t ion COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise as follows:

5.4.7* Where e lements are known or suspected o f being con tamina t ed with a hazardous material or biological agent , the c o n t a m i n a n t or suspected c o n t a m i n a n t shall be identified l ~ oreanizat ion, if possible. S I JBSTANTIATION: It is the organizat ions responsibility to identify the contaminants . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1851- 90 - (5-5, 5-5.4.2): Reject SUBMITTER: Steven Kersse, Prince William County Depar tmen t o f Fire & Rescue COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Delete the following text:

!/ncr~ ;;'/:h li~cr=. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : To per form jus t the wash cycle of this process on one comple te structural f irefighting ensemble us ing a single dedicated washer in a fire station will exceed six (6) hours o f un in t e r rup ted wash t ime us ing the above referenced paragraph and the process o u d i n e d in 5.5.6*.

Ensemble Element

Coat liner Wash Empt~ Wash Coat Shell Wash Empty Wash Trouser liner Wash Empt~ Wash Trouser Shell Wash Empty Wash Hood Wash Empty Wash Gloves Wash Empty Wash

Boots Empty Helmet

ProceSs • . Estimated Time in Minutes 30

the washer 30

the washer

the washer

the washer

the washer

30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30

the washer 30

Washed in the utility sink N/A Clean the utility sink Washed in utility sink

N/A N / A

Total Time in Itnm-s .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 hours total

T h e n it will take several days of drying time. Using this process for the advanced c leaning as identified in 5.3, appears to have no purpose o the r than to increase cost and time for cleaning. The issue of cross con tamina t ion is absurd since the ga rmen t s are all be ing "cleaned", the end result is that they all come ou t cleaned. This process may have a min imal benefi t for specialized c leaning as identified in 5.4, but certainly not for the advanced cleaning.

2 4 2


We have est imated that this p rogram will require addit ional personne l and increase costs a m i n i m u m o f an addit ional $200,000 annual ly for our d e p a r t m e n t o f 236 personnel . We believe that the commi t t ee needs to per form indep th fiscal impact studies for a broad range o f career and volunteer depa r t men t s prior to adopt ion o f this cost prohibitive s tandard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commi t t ee Action taken on C o m m e n t 1851-101 (Log #82).

S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : NFPA 1971 requires each e l emen t label to have c leaning precaut ions and each e l emen t to include a user guide with informat ion on c leaning and decon tamina t ion . As the r equ i r emen t is current ly worded, it a lmost appears that the organizat ion should always consul t the manufac tu re r for how to clean, when in reality the organizat ion should already have that informat ion . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1851- 91 - (5.5.1): Accept S U B M r r r E R : Larry Horn , P o rdand Fire Bureau, OR C O M M E N T O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62

] R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Delete third (last) sen tence of 5.5.1. SUBSTANTIATION: Reference not n e e d e d as r equ i rements are inc luded in this documen t . C O M M r r r E E ACTION: Accept.


1851- 93 - (5-5.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Steve King, Cintas Corpora t ion COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Delete paragraph 5.5.2.

R e n u m b e r 5.5.2.1 as 5.5.2 and 5.5.2.2 as 5.5.3 and as follows. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : Text conflicts with 5.5.1. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1851- 92 - (5-5.1, 5-6.1, 5-7.1, 5-8, 5-9.1 and 5.10): Accept S U B M r r r E R : Patricia A. Freeman, Globe Manufac tu r ing Co., Inc. C O M M E N T O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise 5.5.1 to add the under l ined verbiage:

5.5.1 Organizat ions shall examine the manufac tu re r ' s label and user informat ion for instruct ions on c leaning that the manufac tu re r provided with the ensemble or e lement . In the absence o f manufac tu re r s ' instruct ions or manufac tu re r s approval o f alternative p rocedures the c lean ing procedures provided in this sect ion shall be used. Revise 5.6.1 to read: "5.6.1 Organizat ions shall examine the manufac tu re r ' s label and

user informat ion for instruct ions on drying procedures that the m a n u f a c t u r e r provided with the ensemble or e lement . In absence o f manufac tu re r ' s ins t ruct ions or manufac tu re r ' s approval o f alternative procedures , the drying procedures prowded in this section shall be used."

Add new 5.7.1 to read ( r e n u m b e r the exist ing paragraph) "5.7.1 Organizat ions shall exami ne the manufac tu re r ' s label and

user informat ion for instruct ions on c leaning and drying procedures that the manu fac t u r e r provided with the ensemble or e lement . In absence o f manufac tu re r ' s instruct ions or manu fac tu r e r ' s approval o f alternative procedures , the c leaning and drying procedures provided in this section shall be used."

Revise Section 5.8 to read: "5.8 Addit ional Procedures for Gloves 5.8.1 Organizat ions shall examine the manufac tu re r ' s label and

user informat ion for instruct ions on c leaning and drying p rocedures that the manufac tu re r provided with the ensemble or e lement . In absence o f manufac tu re r ' s instruct ions or manufac tu re r ' s approval o f alternative procedures , the c leaning and drying procedures provided in this section shall be used.

5.8.2 Gloves shall be c leaned in a utility sink us ing mild de te rgent and water.

5.8.3 Gloves shall no t be mach i ne dr ied with heat." Add new 5.9.1 to read ( r e n u m b e r the exist ing paragraphs) : "5.9.1 Organizat ions shall examine the manufac tu re r ' s label and

user in format ion for instruct ions on c lean ing and drying procedures that the ma nu fac t u r e r provided with the ensemble or e lement . In absence o f manufac tu re r ' s instruct ions or manufac tu re r ' s approval of alternative procedures , the c leaning and drying procedures provided in this section shall be used."

Add new Section 5.10 to read: "5.10 Addit ional Procedures for Hoods 5.10.1 Organizat ions shall examine the manufac tu re r ' s label and

user informat ion for instruct ions on c lean ing and drying procedures that the manu fac t u r e r provided with a the ensemble or e lement . In absence of manufac tu re r ' s ins t ruct ions or manufac tu re r ' s approval o f alternative procedures , the c leaning and drying procedures provided in this sections shall be used.

5.10.2 Hoods shall be c leaned in accordance with the general provisions for ga rmen t s in Section 5.5, as applicable.

5.10.3 Hoods shall be dried in accordance with the provisions for ga rmen t s in Section 5.6, as applicable.


1851- 94 - (5-5.2.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Chr i s topher Gaudette , Reflexite Corp. CO MMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise text I~o read as follows:

Cleaning and decon tamina t ion solut ions shall n e t be greater :hun p14-40~, have a oH range o f not less than 6.0 oh and not ~real~¢r

S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : A range for pH solutions should be provided in this section. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1851- 95 - (5-5.2.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Steve King, Cintas Corpora t ion C O M M E N T O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise as follows:

5.5.2.2 In the absence o f manufac tu re r ' s instructions, c leaning and decon tamina t ion solutions shall no t be greater than pH t O ~ 11.0. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : the .procedures for mach ine washing should not be process-restrictive. ~ur the rmore , different p rocedures may be necessary for appropr ia te care o f different c lo thing materials and componen t s . It has not been demons t r a t ed universally that pH above 10.5 will cause an adverse impact on the clothing. Some industrial l aunde r ing procedures opera te at or near a pH of 10.5 and provide adequate c leaning of f irefighter c lo thing without any long-term impact on their per formance . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commi t tee Action taken on C o m m e n t 1851-93 (Log #77) and 1851-94 (Log #46).


1851- 96 - (5-5.2.2): Reject SUBMrlq 'ER: Steve King, Cintas Corporat ion CO MMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise as follows:

A.5.5.2.2 Organizat ions and end users should be aware that different materials and componen t s on protective e lements may require different washing condi t ions in terms of pH to prevent damage to those materials and componen t s . Different ranges in pH may be permi t ted for each material and componen t . Th e selection o f a pH range should account for all materials and c o m p o n e n t s on the protective e lement . S U B S T A N T I A T I O N - Guidance shou ld be provided to en d users that pH limits will vary with materials and c o m p o n e n t s used in the cons t ruc t ion o f protective e lements . COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Submit ter was p resen t at the ROC mee t ing and asked the Commi t t ee not to process this c o m m e n t .

243



1851- 97 - (5-5.3): Accept SUBMITrER: Steve King, Cintas Corpora t ion COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows:

5.5.3 Heavy scrubbing or soravin¢ with high velocity such as a power washer, shall no t be used. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : T he term, "high velocity power washers" could be used conno te certain types o f washing machines . The r e c o m m e n d e d language clarifies the in tent o f the requ i rement . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1851- 98 - (5-5.4): Accept SUBMIqq'ER: Denise N. Statham, Sou the rn Mills, Inc. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: "Protective ensembles and protective ensemble e lements shall be..." S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : The added language is necessary to differentiate between protective and nonprotec t ive ensembles and e lements . C O M M I T r E E ACTION: Accept.


1851- 99 - (5-5.4.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Steve King, Cintas Corpora t ion C O M M E N T O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62' R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Delete pa ragraph 5.5.4.1. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : It is possible to design c lean ing processes where different types of c lo thing and e q u i p m e n t can be s imul taneously washed. T he restriction to separate types o f c lo thing should no t be applied universally to the c leaning o f all f i refighter c lo th ing and equ ipmen t . This restriction could he made opt ional and presen ted as an append ix i tem for pa ragraph 5.5.4. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

] Move text o f 5.5.4.1 to become A.5.5.4.1. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: T he Commi t t ee will retain text as advisory in the appendix .


1851- 100 - (5-5.4.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITrER: Steven Kersse, Prince William County Depa r tmen t o f Fire & Rescue COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Delete the following:

5.5.4.I En~cmS!c~ and en~emS!e e!cmen~. =hall c, nly ~c c leaned and dcc- .n tamlnatcd ;;-th !ikc item~, inc lud ing bu t nc.t l imited to,

S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : To per form jus t the wash cycle of this process on one comple te s tructural f i ref ighting ensemble us ing a sin.gle dedicated washer in a fire station will exceed six (6) hours of un in t e r rup t ed wash t ime using the above referenced pa ragraph and the process out l ined in 5.5.6*.

Ememble Process Estimated Total Element Tune in Tune in

. . . . . . . . . . . . ~ t ~ ...... nora , i , i i , i l l | i l l

Coat liner Wash 30 .5 Empt~ Wash the washer 30 1 Coat Shell Wash 30 1.5 Empty Wash the washer 30 2 Trouser liner Wash 30 2.5 Empty Wash the washer 30 3 Trouser Shell Wash 30 3.5 Empty Wash the washer 30 4 Hood Wash 30 4.5 Empty Wash the washer 30 5 Gloves Wash 30 5.5 Empty Wash the washer 30 6 hours

total Boots N/A Empty Helmet

Washed in the utility sink Clean the utility sink Washed in utility sink

N/A N/A

T h e n it will take several days o f drying time. Using this process for the advanced c leaning as i den t i f ed in 5.3, appears to have no purpose o the r than to increase cost and time for cleaning. The Issue o f cross con tamina t ion is absurd since the garments are all be ing "cleaned", the end result is that they all come out cleaned. This process may have a min imal benefi t for specialized c leaning as identified in 5.4, bu t certainly not for the advanced cleaning.

We have es t imated that this p rogram will require addit ional personne l and increase costs a m i n i m u m of an addit ional $200,000 annual ly for ou r d e p a r t m e n t of 236 personnel . We believe that the commi t t ee needs to per form indep th fiscal impact studies for a broad range o f career and volunteer depa r tmen t s prior to adopt ion o f this cost prohibitive s tandard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITrE,E STATEMENT: See Commi t t ee Action on C o m m e n t 1851-99 (Log #81).


1851- 101 - (5-5.4.2): Reject SUBMITrER: Steve King, Cintas Corpora t ion COMMENT O N P RO P OSAL NO: 1851.62 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Delete pa ragraph 5.5.4.2. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : It is possible to design c leaning processes where both the l iner and shell can be s imul taneously washed without adverse effects on e i ther c lo thing l iner or shell. The restriction to separate l iner and shell for f irefighter protective c lo th ing should not be applied universally to the c leaning o f all f i refighter c lo th ing and equ ipmen t . This restriction could be made opt ional and presen t as an a p p e n d i x i tem for paragraph 5.5.4. COMMITI 'EE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Keep the r equ i r emen t within the s tandard as this is the r e c o m m e n d a t i o n o f mos t manufac tu re r s as the mos t effective m e t h o d o f c leaning garments . It is ou r in tent to encourage the fire service to follow such r ecommenda t ions .

244



1851- 102- (5-5.4.2): Reject SUBMrI ' rER: Greg Nicoil, Fire Service M a n a g e m e n t Ltd COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Delete paragraph 5-5.4.2:

Where the shells and the liners o f protective g a r m e n t e lements are separable, those i tems shall only be c leaned and decon tamina t ed with like items, inc luding but not l imited to, shells with shells and l iners with liners.

Proposed revised text: Appendix paragraph A-5-5.4.2: It is highly r e c o m m e n d e d that g a r m e n t l iner systems be removed

if possible and cleaned separately to avoid con tamina t ion with the debris found in the shell. Removing the l iner ~ result in better c leaning since the moisture barrier limits the flow of water t h rough the ou te r shell fabric. Separat ing the l iner f rom the out le t shell will also reduce d ry ing t ime . S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : The primary concern for not separa t ing shells f rom liners is the increased threat to the occupat ional heal th o f firefighters and contract c leaning technicians. Keeping liners and shells toge ther results in less hand l ing o f gear by persons charged with the task of c leaning the gear. Of ten there is litde know as to the condit ion, or the types o f con tamina te conta ined on the gear to which the handlers will be exposed.

In l iormal washing situations, is it necessary to separ/ate the l inder f rom the shell when cleaning?

In a p roper mach ine with the p roper c leaning solutions, all e l ements of the gear are c leaned and thoroughly rinsed, leaving the gear clean without having, to separate the shell f rom the liner.

In a si tuation with a serious con tamina t ion prob lem exists, it would be r e c o m m e n d e d to separate the shells f rom the liners.

The a r g u m e n t for separa t ing liners and shells to reduce drying t ime is mute . Should a set o bunke r gear need to be re tu rned to front line duty immediately then the firefighters may elect to separate the l iner f rom the shell if it is felt that this p rocedure will reduce drying time. Separat ing shell f rom liners doubles the t ime required for washing.

Reason for keeping the liners and the shells at tached: • The primary concern for not separa t ing shells f rom liners is the

increased threat to the occupat ional heal th o f firefighters and contract c leaning technicians. Keeping liners and shells toge ther results in less hand l ing of gear by persons charged with the task o f c lean ing the gear. Often there is little known as to the condit ion, or the types of con tamina te conta ined on the gear to which the handlers will be exposed.

Addit ional concerns: • In mult iple suit wash situations, shells and liners could get

mixed up with similar gear o f o the r firefighters. Having firefighters respond to a call du r ing mid wash cycle, or having the wash cycle run th rough a shift change would fu r ther c o m p o u n d this situation.

• Less labor required for wash cycle. Two loads per suit instead of one.

• Reduced mach ine t ime results in lesser negative env i ronmenta l impact .

• Less space and racking required for drying suits. Durability Quest ion. • Gear washed in a front-load washer / ex t rac to r having all closure

systems fastened and suspended in 50-60 gallons o f water should have little or no abrasion.

• Liners washed with o ther l iner having exposed hook "velcro type" fasteners exposed, of ten result in increased damage , especially to fabrics such as E89.

• The tumbl ing action of clothes dryers would have a m u c h greater abrasive degrad ing affect on gear than that of front-load washer /ext rac tors . The hardware o f the closure systems cont inual ly pounds against all three e lements t h r o u g h o u t the whole drying cycle. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commi t t ee Action taken on C o m m e n t 1851-101 (Log #82).


1851- 103 - (5-5.5 and A-5.5.5): Accept SUBMITTER: Robert L. Jensen , Jr., 3M COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise 5.5.5 to read:

The following procedures shall be used when c lean ing in a utility sink."

Revise A.5.5.5 to read: "Cleaning in a utility sink is..."

S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : Editorial change for clarity. COMMITTEE A~TION: Accept,


1851- 104- (5-5.5.3 A.5.5.5 (3)): Accept SUBMITTER: Robert L. Jensen , Jr., 3M CO MMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise text to read as follows: ,2 .5 ;5(3)* y2!l the sink with water not to exceed 105°F u~}ng 100°F

°~A;5.5.5(37"X~ater above 105°F may cause scalding of the hands when washing is pe r fo rmed in a utility sink. Water at this t empera tu re may also cause damage to some c o m p o n e n t s on protective clothing. SUBSTAN'FIATION: Water above 105°F may cause scalding of the " hands when washing is pe r fo rmed in a utility sink. Water at this t empera tu re may also cause damage to some c o m p o n e n t s on protective clothing. CO MMrrTEE ACTION: Accept.


1851- 105 - (5-5.6): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Steve King, Cintas Corpora t ion C O M M E N T O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise as follows:

5.5.6* Machine c leaning o f protective garments shall be in accordance with the g a r m e n t manufac tu re r ' s instruct ions.

Move the cu r ren t p rocedures in 5.5.6 to the append ix as r e c o m m e n d e d procedures in the absence o f manfuac tu re r ' s instruct ions. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : Tl~e proposed washing instruct ions are no t universally accepted and p re sume that the cu r r en t c lo th ing material remain unchanged . Given that materials and c lo th ing designs change and that different procedures can be developed, which offer effective c leaning o f clothing, organizat ions should not be restricted to us ing one set o f ins t rucuons for mach ine washing o f clothing. Fur thermore , many contract c lean ing organizat ions have developed effective procedures that do not mee t the proposed mach ine c leaning but yet have demons t ra ted effective c leaning and no effects on c lo th ing per formance . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commi t tee Action taken on C o m m e n t 1851-92 (Log #130).


1851- 106 - (5-5.6(1)): Accept in Principle S U B M r r r E R : Steve King, Cintas Corpora t ion C O M M E N T O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851432 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise as follows:

5.5.6(1) D~ not ovcr!oa~ the mach ine accordance with manufac tu re r ' s instruct ions or the ~uidel ines

v

nrovided by the mach ine manufac turer . S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : The cur ren t p rocedure does not offer any specific gu idance to the end user. No means is given for unde r s t and ing what overloading a washing m a c h i n e means . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise A.5.5.6(1) to read: A.5.5.6(1) For example , no more than one set o f ga lmen t s in a top load mach ine and follow mach ine manufac tu re r ' s ins t ruct ions for f ront load machines . Proper load size is essential for effective cleaning. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Advice placed in append ix ra ther than mandatory text.


1851- 107 - (5-5.6(5)): Accept in Principle SUBMITrER: Steve King, Cintas Corpora t ion CO MMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise as follows:

5.5.6(5) Set and start the mach ine cycle; use 420°F !25°F~Zed.._~ a t empera tu re in accordance with manufac tu re r ' s instruct ions.

2 4 5


SUBSTANTIATION: The specific washing temperature will be d e p e n d e n t on the materials used in the construction of the clothing and the clothing design. The r ecommended procedures presume use of a standard washing machine with standard procedures. Several other procedures are available to the fire service for washing that may make use of different temperature wash water and o ther conditions. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commit tee Action taken on Comments 1851-92 (Log #130) and 1851-104 (Log #40).

(Log #41 ) Committee: FAE-SFF

1851- 108 - (5-5.6(e), A.5.5.6 (e)) : Accept SUBMITTER: Robert L. Jensen, Jr., 3M COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows:

5.5.6(e)* Set and start the machine cycle; use 129°F !gE°F watcr a water temperature setting not to exceed 105°F. SUBSTANTIATION" Water at temperatures above 105°F may cause damage to some components on protective clothing. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

protect the clothing from damage. They may inhibit effective cleaning in some launder ing processes. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action taken on C ommen t 1851-92 (Log #130).


1851- 112- (5-6.3(4)): Accept in Principle SUBMITI'ER: Steve King, Cintas Corporat ion COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows:

5.6.3(4)* If the dryer ha~ anc . heat c.ptic.n, u~c it. Drying shall be in accordance with the manufacturer 's instructions. SUBSTANTIATION: The dryer setting will depend on the material and garment design. Organizations and end users should rely on manufacturer information for these instructions. C O M M r I ' r E E ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action taken on Comment 1851-92 (Log #130).


1851- 109 - (5-6): Reject SUBMITTER: Chris topher Gaudette, Reflexite Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Revise Section 5.6.1, second sentence as follows:

In the absence of manufacturers ' instruction e.ne ~.f :.he dD'ing procedure= prc, vided ~n t~i= =ccficn ~ha!! 5c u~cd. the following procedure shall be used for air-drvin~.

(1)* Place e lements in an area with ~ood ventilation. v

(2)* Do not drv in direct sunlight. Delete Section 5.6.2. Delete Section 5.6.3 or move information to the appendix.

SUBSTANTIATION: Section A.5.6.3 states that machine drying o f ensembles and ensemble e lements is not generally r ecommended . Therefore, all references to machine drying should be removed from he body of the standard. They may be provided as additional information in the appendix. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: See Committee.Action taken on Comment 1851-114 (Log #43).


1851- 110- (5-6.2.2): Reject SUBM1TrER: Robert L. Jensen, Jr., 3M COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows:

Do not dry in direct sunlight or in direct f luorescent light. SUBSTANTIATION: Recent industry information has shown that storage of clothing under continuous f luorescent light can cause degradat ion o f some clothing materials and components . COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This part of the text does not apply to storage but applies to drying.


1851- 111 - (5-6.3(3)): Accept in Principle SLrBMITrER: Steve King, Cintas Corporat ion COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Delete paragraph 5.6.3(3). SUBSTANTIATION: Launder ing procedures have been developed that do not require clothing to be turned inside out to protect from damage from contact with hardware. Laundry bags are rarely used in many laundering processes and do little to


1851- 113 - (5-6.3(5)): Accept in Principle SUBMITrER: Steve King, Cintas Corporat ion COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Delete paragraph 5.6.3(5). SUBSTANTIATION: The appropriate temperature for measuring drying is the stack, not the basket, temperature. Allowances should be made for different materials or procedures that might be specified by the manufacturer. Clothing should be dried in accordance with manufacturer ' s instructions as r ecommended in a related publ ic comment . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee,Action taken on Comment 1851-92 (Log #130).


1851- 114- (5-6.3.5): Accept SUBMITTER: Robert L. Jensen ,J r . , 3M COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62

I RECOMMENDATION: Revise 5.6.3.(5) to read: If heat must be used, basket temperature shall not exceed 105°F.

SUBSTANTIATION: Protective clothing should not be dried on heat settings since repeated drying under these conditions can cause damage or degradation of some clothing materials and componen t s . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1851- 115 - (5-7.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Harry Winer, U.S. Navy COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Delete 5.7.1. SUBSTANTIATION: Helmets can be machine cleaned in a specially designed machine. Dishwasher with special racks to hold helmets. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action taken on Comment 1851o92 (Log #130) that allows alternative procedures.


1851- 116- (5-8 and 5.8.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Steve King, Cintas Corporation COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Delete Section 5.8 and paragraph 5.8.1.

246


S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : It may be possible to machine dry gloves at heat settings depend ing on the materials used in glove construction. The standard should not limit this possibility. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commit tee Action taken on Comment 1851-92 (Log #130).

(Log #CC1) 1851- 117- (Chapter 6): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commit tee on Structural Fire Fighting Protective Clothing and Equipment COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Add a new paragraph as first paragraph in each section in Chapter 6.

Add new 6.1.1 to read: "6.1.1 A member(s) of the organization who have received

training in the repair of garment e lements shall be responsible for )erformint or managing specialized repairs." Add new 6.2.1 to read: "6.2.1 A member(s) o f the organization who have received

raining in the repair o f helmet e lements shall be responsible for performing or managing specialized repairs."

Add new 6.3.1 to read: "6.3.1 A member(s) o f the organization who have received

training in the repair of glove elements shall be responsible for per forming or managing specialized repairs."

Add new 6.4.1 to read: "6.4.1 A member(s) o f the organization who have received

training in the repair o f footwear e lements shall be responsible for per forming or managing specialized repairs."

Add new 6.5.1 to read: "6.5.1 A member(s) of the organization who have received

training in the repair of hood interface components shall be responsible for performing or managing specialized repairs." S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : None. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1851- 118- (6.1.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Jeffrey O. Stuli, Int'l Personnel Protection, Inc. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62

I R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise text to read as follows: 6.1.1 Garments shall be t.".v.r~.ug.L.l) • c!eane~ subjected to

advanced cleanin¢, or soecialized cleanin¢ when necessary, before any repair work i sunder taken . ~ " S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : The proposed language clarifies "thoroughly cleaned" using terms defined in the standard. C O M M I T T E E A C T I O N : Accept.


1851- 119- (6.1.2): Accept SUBMITrER: Jeffrey O. Stull, Int'l Personnel Protection, Inc. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62

I R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise text to read as follows: 6.1.2 Change first part o f requirement to read: All repairs and alterations to garments shall be done in a manne r

and using materials that are approved by the manufacturer. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : There are circumstances where a replacement material can be used without affecting the compliance of the protective garment. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1851- 120- (6-1.4): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Bill Grilliot, Morning Pride MFG. LLC COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : In 6.1.4 need to add examples of "Major Repairs" similar to the example of Minor Repairs in 6.1.6. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N :

COMMI'FI'EE ACTION: Accept in Principle. ] Add second sentence to 6.1.4 to read: ] "The manufacturer shall be contacted if the organization is [ unsure of whether a repair is major or minor, o r can be ] accomplished without adversely affecting the integrity of the I garment."

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Examples are not practical because of differences in repairs can be minor or major depend ing on the garment construction.


1851- 121 - (6-1.4, 615, 616): Reject SUBMITTER: Steve King, Cintas Corporat ion CO MMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise as follows:

6.1.4" Major repairs to all lavers including the outer shell, moisture barrier, ~nd thermal blarrier, shall only be per formed by the manufacturer or by a manufacturer 's recognized repair facility consistent with the manufacturer ' s instructions and methods.

Delete paragraphs 6.1.5 and 6.1.6; move appendix items A.6.1.5 and A.6.1.6 to A.6.1.4. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : The same practice for repairs should be

lied to all layers of theprotec t ive garment. MITTEE ACTION: Reject.

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Current text is suficient and provides an easier flow of information.


1851- 122- (6-1.5): Hold SUBMrrTER: Lois D. Colvi,l, Maryland Fire Equipment Corporat ion C O M M E N T O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise 6.1.5 to read:

All repairs to the moisture barrier shall only be performed by the manufacturer or by a (ma~ufacturcr'~ . . . . . . :_~a r~: , : . . . . . . . : . . . . . w=th t~c manufact-,:rcr'~ in~tr,=ct!~,az an~ mcth~,~ reoair, f~¢ility with a Third-party verification for the reoairs to moisture barriers. The organization shall contact the manufacturer if unsure as to whether an area to be repaired contains a moisture barrier.

The organization has no assurance that their PPE (moisture barrier) is being repaired by a qualified facility using compliant materials and equipment . S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : This revision would assure the organization that their PPE (moisture barrier) is being repaired by skilled, factory trained personnel usin~ the proper materials and equipment . A third party veritlcation provides this assurance. COMMITTEE ACTION: Hold. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The comment would introduce a concept that has not had public review by being included in a related proposal as published in the ROP and would propose something that could not be properly handled within the time frame for processing the report.


1851- 123 - (6.1.5, 6.1.6 and A.6.1.6 ): Reject SUBMITI'ER: Jeffrey O. Stull, Int'l Personnel Protection, Inc. C O M M E N T O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : For paragraph 6.1.5 change first part of requi rement to read:

"All repairs to the moisture barrier and thermal barrier shall..." Delete Paragraphs 6.1.6 and A.6.1.6.

S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : Even with the initial s tatement in 6.1.6, field repairs o f the thermal barrier run the risk of punctur ing or affecting the moisture barrier. These repairs should only be attempted, by the manufacturer or a manufacturer recognized repair facility. CO MMrF rEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Current text in 6.I.6 is sufficient; some repairs in the field can be done to the thermal liner without damage to the moisture barrier.

247



1851- 124 - (6.1.7 and 6.1.8): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Jeffrey O. Stull, Int'l Personnel Protection, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Delete 6.1.8 and replace 6.1.7 and 6.1.8 with the following:

6.1.7 Repairs shall be completed on all componen t s and on all layers of the composite that have been damaged.

6.1.8 Components or layers that are damaged in the repair process shall be repaired. SUBSTANTIATION: The current 6.1.8 is redundant with Paragraph 6.1.2. Paragraph 6.1.7 is unclear as written and should be rewritten as separate requirements. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

I Revise 6.1.7 to read as follows: Repairs shall be completed on all componen t s and on all layers

of the composite that have been damaged or that are affected by the repair.

Delete 6.1.8 and renumber remaining paragraphs. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee combined both issues into 6.1.7.

COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The comment would introduce a concept that has not had public review by being included in a related proposal as published in the ROP and would propose something that could not be properly handled within the time frame for processing the report.


1851- 128- (6.1.13): Reject SUBMITrER: Jeffrey O. Stull, Int'l Personnel Protection, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows:

6.1.13 All minor seams, o ther than moisture barrier seams, shall be repaired o~atter-ed in a manne r consistent with the manufacturer ' s instruction. SUBSTANTIATION: This chapter covers repair. Alteration should not be included in this requirement . COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: As alterations follow many of the same criterion that apply to repairs, alteration items have been included in Chapter 6.


1851- 125- (6-1.8): Reject SUBMITTER: Steve King, Cintas Corporat ion COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows:

6.1.8 Thread used for repair o r alteration shall be the same as the original thread used in the construct ion, ir.c!',:dZ, ng

~: . . . . a . . . . o f the garment. SUBSTANTIATION: The current wording is unclear. The proposed language clarifies the requirement consistent with its original intent. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action taken on 1851-119 (Log #3).

(Log #11 ) Committee: FAE-SFF

1851- 129 - (6.1.17 6.1.18, 6.1.19,6.1.20, 6.2.3, and 6.4.3): Reject SUBMITrER: Jeffrey O. Stull, Int'l Personnel Protection, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Replace "source" with "repair facility" in paragraphs 6.1.7, 6.1.18, 6.1.19, 6.1.20, 6.1.21, 6 .2 .gand 6.4.3. SUBSTANTIATION: The term source is too ambiguous and may nei ther be accessible nor appropriate for the organization to contact. In contrast, the manufacturer recognized repair facility would have access to the proper materials and components to repair protective elements. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The current term, "manufacturer 's recognized source" embraces repair facilities and other sources.


1851- 126- (6.1.10): Reject SUBMITTF~: Jeffrey O. Stull, Int'l Personnel Protection, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: 6.1.10 Change first part o f requirement to read:

",V, ajor A seams are cr',t';cal to the :.nteg~ty _c ,k . . . . . . . . . . a Restitching of..." SUBSTANTIATION: The port ion of the requi rement being deleted is not necessary for unders tanding the requi rement and is contained in the definition for Major A seams. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee believes there is no harm done in restating the importance of Major A seams.


1851- 127 - (6-1.11, 6-1.14): Hold SUBMITTER: Lois D. Colvin, Maryland Fire Equipment Corporat ion COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Revise 6.1.11 and 6.1.14 to read:

6.1.11 Major B seams in the moisture barrier shall be repaired or altered only by the manufacturer or by a (manufacturer re.cogn-~zc~ repair faci!iW) Reoair Facilitv with a third-party verification for reoairs and alterations to moisture barriers.

6.1.14 Minor seams should read the same way. The organization has no assurance that their PPE moisture barrier Major B seams and minor seams are being opened and closed by a qualified facility using compliant materials and equipment . SUBSTANTIATION: A third party verification facility for repairs to moisture barriers would provide assurance to the organization. COMMITTEE ACTION: Hold.


1851- 130- (6.1.18): Accept SUBMITrER: Jeffrey O. Stull, Int'l Personnel Protection, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows:

6.1.18 Replacement hardware shall be installed in a manner consistent with the garment manufacturer 's method of construction~ m' ,d-Replacement hardware shall be... SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial change for clarity. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1851- 131 - (6.1.21): Accept SUBMITTER: Jeffrey O. Stull, Int'l Personnel Proti~ction, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:-1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows:

6.1.21 Replacement re inforcement materials shall be installed in a manner consistent with the manufacturer 's method of cons t ruc t ion , and- Replacement re inforcement material shall be... SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial change for clarity. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.



248


6.2.1 Helmets shall be thoroughl;,' cleaned ~ e c t e d to advanced cleaning, and specialized cleaning when neces~i~,ry, before any reoair work is undertaken. SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed language clarifies "thoroughly cleaned" using terms defined in the standard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1851- 133- (6.2.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Jeffrey O. Stull, Int'l Personnel Protection, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows:

6.2.2 Change first part of requirement to read: All repairs and alterations to helmets shall be done in a manner

and using materials that are approved by the manufacturer. SUBSTANTIATION: The nature of helmets and difficulty in effecting adequate repairs dictate that all repairs be done as

eCified by the manufacturer. MMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1851- 134- (6.2.4): Accept SUBMITTER: Jeffrey O. Stull, Int'l Personnel Protection, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Delete last sentence. SUBSTANTIATION: This part of the requirement is redundant with Paragraph 6.2.2. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1851- 137- (6-3): Reject SUBMITTER: Harry Winer, U.S. Navy COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851`62 RECOMMENDATION: Delete all repair~ ta gle.vca akal! be dane in-the-same manner and ualng =he aamc ma:cna!a aa t~.e manufacturer.

Revised text: 6.3 Glove shall not be repaired. If damaged shall be replaced.

SUBSTANTIATION: Gloves are not manufactured in a manner where they can easily be repaired. Repair costs can easily exceed replacement costs. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The organization should retain the right to make this decision. Minor problems could easily correct the situation and retain a viable glove.


1851- 138 - (6-3and 6-5 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Michael Carlin, LaMesa Fire Department COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text in 6.3 to read:

All repairs to gloves shall be done in a manner and using materials that are approved by the manufacturer.

Add new 6.5 to read as follows: 6.5 Hood Repair. All repairs and alterations to hoods shall be

done in a manner and using materials that are approved by the manufacturer. SUBSTANTIATION: Field repairs of gloves could result in unsuspected damage to the moisture barrier. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1851- 135 - (6-2.4): Accept SUBMITTER: Donna P. Brehm, Virginia Beach Fire Dept., VA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851`62

I RECOMMENDATION: In line 2, replace "...the helmet shall be returned to the manufacturer for determination of serviceability," with "...the manufacturer shall be contacted to determine serviceability." SUBSTANTIATION: The majority of helmets in use today have polycarbonate or a composite shell. A vast majority of the time, any visible damage to the shell such as cracking, warping or dents are unequivocal reurement criteria. It is clearly in the end users best interest to be allowed to contact the manufacturer by fax/phone or electronic mail to clarify retirement level damage before going to the expense of mailing a helmet to the manufacturer that would retire. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1851- 136- (6.2.6): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Jeffrey O. Stull, Int'l Personnel Protection, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851`62 RECOMMENDATION: Change "cracks" to "knicks". SUBSTANTIATION: The requirement as written is inconsistent with Paragraph 6.2.4 that requires cracks in helmets to be repaired by the manufacturer. The original intent of this requirement was to address small knicks in the outer surface of the helmet that do not affect its performance. COMMrI~EE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

I Revise 6.2.6 to read: "Small surface knicks shall be repaired {n accordance with the

manufacturers instructions." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee agrees and supplied the full text.


1851- 139 - (6-3.1): Accept SUBMITrER: Jeffrey O. Stull, Int'l Personnel Protection, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62

I RECOMMENDATION: Add text to read as follows: 6.3.1 Gloves shall be subjected to advanced cleaning, or

specialized cleaning when necessary, before any repair work in undertaken. SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed language clarifies "throughly cleaned" using terms defined in the standard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1851- 140- (6.3.2): Reject SUBMITrER: Jeffrey O. Stull, Int'l Personnel Protection, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Add text to read as follows:

6.3.2 Gloves shall only be repaired by the manufacturer. SUBSTANTIATION: The design of most gloves makes it difficult to repair gloves without affecting their performance properties, especially the moisture barrier. COMM1TI"EE ACTION: Reject. COMMIWrEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action taken on Comment 1851-138 (Log #160).

249



1851- 141 - (6-4, 6-4.3): Reject SUBMITTER: Prakash G. Devasthali, Norcross Safety Products L.L.C. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Combine 6.4.2 and 6.4.3 and renumber as 6.4.3 to read:

All feasible repairs to rubber / l ea the r boots o ther than replacing drop-in insoles provided by boot manufacturer , zipper assemblies, boot laces shall be performed by footwear manufacturer . Feasibility of repairs shall be de te rmined only by the footwear manufacturer . SUBSTANTIATION: Not every shoe repair shop is familiar with issues relating to compliance with NFPA standards and may inadvertendy render the footwear noncompliance.

Not all damages to footwear can be repaired and still maintain the compliance/cer t i f icat ion. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Existing text has better detail and is more suitable for these requirements.


1851- 145 - (6-4.4 ( N e w ) ) : Reject SUBMITTER: Prakash G. Devasthali, Norcross Safety Products L.LC. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Add new text to read as follows:

6.4.4 Any irrepairable footwear and repaired footwear that does not maintain the certification after repairs shall be taken out of service or retired. SUBSTANTIATION: All damages to footwear are not repairable. Similarly.all repaired footwear may not. continue to. maintain third party certlficauon. Some of the repairs, e.g. resohng of footwear, cannot be tested to all criteria to verify compliance with the standard. This essentially is a nightmare from certification standpoint. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Compliance only exists foar new elements. See Committee Action taken on 1851-36 (Log #117).


1851- 142 - (6-4.2 ( N e w ) ) : Accept in Principle SUBMrr ' rER: Prakash G. Devasthali, Norcross Safety Products L.L.C. "- COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Add new text to read:

6.4.2 Any repaired footwear, rubber or leather shall remain fully compliant with the standard it was originally certified to and shall maintain the 3rd party certification.

(Delete 6.4.2 and replace with proposed verbiage above). SUBSTANTIATION: At present all footwear products are certified as out o f the box. Any aftermarket modifications or repairs negate the original certification of the product. The repaired product is not eligible to bear certification organization logo. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

I Revise text to read as follows: 6.4.2 Change first part of requirement to read: All repairs and alterations to footwear shall be done in a manne r

and using materials that are approved by the manufacturer. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee chose to use text that is consistent in repair requirements used for the o ther elements.


1851- 146 - (7-1.1): Accept in Principle SUBM1TTER: Harry Winer, U.S. Navy COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows:

Ensembles and ensemble e lements shall not be stored in direct (replace with) "or indirect natural or artificial light

source. SUBSTANTIATION: See A.7.1.1. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise text to read as follows:

7.1.1 Ensembles or ensemble elements shall not be stored in direct sunlight or exnosed to direct sunlight while not being worn,

New text for appendix A-7.1.1 UV light, especially from sunlight, is a known cause of protective

ensemble degradation. Storage in direct sunlight will cause degradat ion of fibers in protective garments resulting in fabric strength loss, and can cause accelerated aging of o ther equipment . In addit ion o ther UV light sources, such as florescent light, can cause similar degradation, al though ongoing research suggests that the degradation from florescent light is far less severe than exposure to direct sunlight. Therefore, ensembles and ensemble e lements should be stored to minimize exposure to all sources of UV light. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee modified the text for clarity.


1851- 143 - (6.4.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Jeffrey O. Stull, Int'l Personnel Protection, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows:

6.4.1 Footwear shall be thr~,ughly c!ca~.ed subjected to advanced cleanin~ or snecialized cleaning when necessary before any repair work is undertaken. SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed language clarifies "thoroughly cleaned" using terms defined in the standard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1851- 147 - (7-1.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Denise N. Statham, Southern Mills, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: "Ensembles and ensemble e lements shall not be stored in (or exposed to) direct sunlight." SUBSTANTIATION: Additional langua,~e is needed to cover situations when gear may not be "stored.' COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action taken on Comment 1851-146 (Log #95).

(Log #CC3) 1851- 144- (6-4.2): Accept SUBMrrTER: Technical Commit tee on Structural Fire Fighting Protective Clothing and Equipment COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 I RECOMMENDATION: Add text to read as follows:

"...repair service recognized by the manufacturer" to the end of 6.4.2. SUBSTANTIATION: Consistency. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1851- 148- (7-1.4): Accept SUBMITTER: Harry Winer, U.S. Navy COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62

I RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: Ensemble and ensemble e lements shall not be stored in airtight

containers unless they are new and unissued. SUBSTANTIATION: A light blocking air tight container will help eliminate degradation in storage. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

250

N F P A 1851 1 N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 0 R O C

(LOg #19) Committee: FAE-SFF

1851- 149- (7.1.5): Accept SUBMITTER: Jeffrey O. Stull, Int'l Personnel Protection, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851.62

I RECOMMENDATION: Reduced maximum storage to 140°F. SUBSTANTIATION: The specified maximum temperature is unrealistic for ambient storage conditions even under the hottest ambient conditions. Storage of some protective elements at the current maximum storage temperature for extended periods of time could actual cause accelerated aging of some components or materials. The new suggested temperature is more realistic and is also represented as the maximum drying temperature for garments. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(LOg #20) Committee: FAE-SFF


7.1.6 Ensembles and ensemble elements shall not be stored or transported in compartments or trunks with sharp objects, tools, or other equipment that could damage the ensembles or ensemble

Where ensembles or ensemble elements must be... SUBSTANTIATION: The suggested change clarifies the intent of the requirement. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


• 1851- 151 - (7.1.7): Accept SUBIItI ' r rF~ Jeffrey O. Stull, Int'l Personnel Protection, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851.62

I RECOMMENDATION: Change "transported" to "taken". SUBSTANTIATION: The suggested change clarifies the intent of the requirement. COMMITrF~ ACTION: Accept.

!,Log #133) Committee. FAE-SFF

1851- 152 - (8-1): Accept SUBMrrrER: Bill Grilliot, Morning Pride MFG. LLC COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851.62

[ RECOMMENDATION: Add NFPA 600 reference in 3.1.2. SUBSTANTIATION: COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1851- 153- (A-2-2.2.2): Accept SUBMITFER: Kevin M. Roche, Phoenix Fire Dept., AZ COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62

I RECOMMENDATION: Move to A-2.1.1. SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial., COMMrITEE ACTION: Accept.


1851- 154- (A-2-2.5): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Kcvin M. Roche, Phoenix Fire Dept., AZ COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851.62 RECOMMENDATION: Move.to appendix Chapter 7. SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: Reference to A-2-2.5 is incorrect. The correct reference is A.2.2.2.5. Move A.2.2.2.5 to become A.7.1.


1851- 155 - (A-2-3.2): Reject SUBM1TFER: Steve King, Cintas Corporation COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows:

A.2.3.2 It is recommended that additional records be kept for each ensemble, including but not limited to:

(1) Date(s) and findings of inspection(s) by organization (2) Date(s) cleaned or decontaminated by organization (3)Reason for cleaning and decontaminating (4) Who performed cleaning or decontamination (5) Date(s) of repair(s) (6) Who performed repair(s) (7) Brief description o f any repair(s) (8) Person withm the organization authorizing the element for

serviceability • Organizations ma], wish to seek the assistance of a third party

program manager tor maintaining this information on their ensembles. " SUBSTANTIATION: The level of detail for information on care and maintenance of protective ensembles kept by the organization should dependpardy on their capabilities to maintain this information andshould be specific to the organization's needs. COMMITrF, E ACTION: Reject. COMMrr rF~ STATEMENT: Items are in the requirements in 2.3.2 and therefore need not be in the appendix.

See Committee Action taken on Comment 1851-24 (Log #108).


1851- 156- (A-2-6.1): Accept SuBMrr rF .~ Steve King, Cintas Corporation COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows

A.2.6.1 Retirement criteria ar-eshould be based on a number of factors, including but not limited to: the overall condition of the item, specific deterioration of materials or components beyond their renair economicallv, c::F~.;u=c~ :~ prc.duc=: ~f cc.m~ugfi~.n, or the inal3ilitv to adeauatelv remove hazardous materialsr, and other contaminants. Physical damage from use or improper cleaning are other factors that can affect when an item should be retired. The actual service life of ensembles and ensemble elements will vary :lepending upon the amount of their use and the care they receive.

Add new 2.6.1: OrtTanizations must develoo soecific criteria for removal of

protective clothing and equi'pmeqt from service. The criteria for retirement should include but not be limited to issues that are soecific to the ensembles or ensemble elements bein~ used bv the o~anization, the manufacturer instructions, and theexnerience of the organization. SUBS~'ANTIATION: Greater guidance is needed for this critical area to allow organizations to make prudent decisions. Use of protective ensembles at all structural fires involves exposure to

roducts of combustio n. OMMrrrEE ACTION: Accept.


1851- 157- (A-2-9 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMrrI3g~ Larry Horn, Pordand Fire Bureau, OR COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-53 RECOMMENDATION: Add new appendix item to read:

A.2.9 The organization should consider obtaining a copy of the IAFF, "Firefighter Line-of-Duty death and injury investigations manual "to assist with a proper investigation, copies can be obtained at??" SUBSTANTIATION: Add new verbiage to appendix to specifically address recommended procedure for chain of custody of ensemble in, the event of a fire fighter fatality or serious injury. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMrFrEE STATF.AiENT: See Committee Action taken on Comment 1851-36 (Log #117).

251


(LOg #24) Commit tee : FAE-SFF

1851- 158- (A.3.1.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Kevin J. O 'Connel l , Louisville Fire & Rescue COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-1 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise text to read as follows:

A.3.1.2 These s tandards provide rcquirement~ fc, r :ke ~:ructural c._~ c.~..: . . . . . . . ~-~ . . . . m i n i m u m requi rements . "~'^" .t.^.`4a ~.~ . . . . . ~ . . . . . . `4 ..z.t. . . . . a Addi t ional r equ i rements

Organizat ions should also solicit and exchange informat ion with o the r organizat ions as a fu r ther informat ional resource. Fire service user g roups such as SAFER, NAFER, CAFER, and FIERO are also avenues to aid in this process. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : This c o m m e n t s p resupposes that the c o m m e n t taking the i tems ou t of this append ix item and adding them as bulleted items in paragraph 3.1.1 is accepted. If so, this e l iminates redundancy . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1851- 159 - (A.3.1.3): Accept SUBMITTER: Donald Aldridge, Lion Apparel , Inc. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Replace the entire pa ragraph with the foliowi ng:

"Certification of protective e lements can be checked bv examin ing the o roduc t label for the mark o f the certification organizat ion. The 'o rgan iza t ion should fu r ther check the certification o f the soecific orotective e l emen t bv contact in~ the certification 9rganizat lon and asking if the item is listed as bein¢ certified as compol ian t with NFPA 1971. Finally. the organizat ion can check the legitimacy of the certification organizat ion bv asking for d o c u m e n t a t i o n that shows that the certification organiza t ion has been accredited to ANSI Z34.1 o r ANSI/ ISO 65." S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : It is felt the above informat ion bet ter explains the process for checking the p roduc t label than what is in the ROP. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(LOg #34) Commit tee : FAE-SFF

1851- 160- (A.3.1.6): Accept in Principle S U B M r r r E R : Donald Aldridge, Lion Apparel , Inc. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Move the following text f rom 3.1.6 to A.3.1.6 and add:

"When practical part icipants sha44- should wear test each different p roduc t mode l be ing evaluated from each manufac t u r e r for a part icular ensemble e lement . Participants shall be fitted for each produc t model being evaluated from each manufac ture r . Evaluations shall be conduc ted us ing the same participants, who use /eva lua ted each ensemble ." S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : This r equ i r emen t may no t always be possible so it is bet ter to use as a guidel ine instead of a r equ i rement . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commi t t ee Action taken on C o m m e n t 1851-50 (Log #32).


1851- 161 - (A.3.1.6(d)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Donald Aldridge, Lion Apparel , Inc. C O M M E N T O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise text to read as follows:

"Drop Everything Beyond. Comoleted:. At least three evaluation reports should be comple ted ; at the end e,f ~ e first week, at the

S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : We should allow the organizat ion to de te rmine the best t ime to do the evaluation reports. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commit tee Action taken on C o m m e n t 1851-50 (Log #32).


1851- 162 - (A-4-1.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Kelly Sisson, City of La Mesa Fire Dept. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Change the word "dirty" to the word "soiled". S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : Consistency with the text in 4.1.2. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1851- 163- (A-4-3.2(a)(12)): Accept in Principle SUBMI~I 'ER: Patricia A. Freeman, Globe Manufac tur ing Co., Inc. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Add the following text to provide field test for de t e rmin ing water resistance of moisture barrier.

A simple field test for checking water resistance of mois ture barriers is to place your l iner on a flat surface (or over a bucket) with the dry thermal barrier facing down and dry moisture barrier facing up. Pour abou t 1 /2 cup o f water on the moisture barrier and wait a few minutes . If the water passes th rough the mois ture barrier and wets the thermal barrier, your l iner should be removed from service and repaired or replaced. Perform this simple test in h igh abrasion areas (like the broadest part o f the shoulders , at the knee, or the seat of the pants) , or where you have detected o the r

~ otential damage to the shell o r thermal barrier. U B S T A N T I A T I O N : The d o c u m e n t provides field tests for

checking visibility o f trim, water resistance o f boots and of gloves, and even a "pu l l /push" test to help de te rmine if fabric has lost tensile s t rength after thermal exposure. While none of these tests are very scientific or offer any guarantees , they do provide some guidance to users on how to per form field checks for con t inued serviceability, without requi r ing destructive testing or removal from the field. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. C O M M I T r E E STATEMENT: See Commit tee Action taken on C o m m e n t 1851-77 (Log #51).


1851- 164 - (A-4-3.2(a) (8)): Accept SUBMITrER: Jeffrey O. Stull, Int 'l Personnel Protection, Inc. COMMENT O N P RO P OSAL NO: 1851-62 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise as follows:

A.4.3.2(a)8) add to end: '3Nhile this p rocedure provides a practical evaluation of trim retro

reflective pe r to rmance , it does no t evaluate trim f luorescence or m e a n that the trim will provide adequate fire f ighter visibility. Trim may lose f luorescence (day-time visibility) and still remain retro reflective. Tr im may also appear to be retro reflective and not have sufficient intensity for n ight t ime visibility at far distances. Only testing u n d e r laboratory condi t ions can provide an accurate de te rmina t ion o f trim visibility properties." S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : End users should be caut ioned about the l imitations o f the practice test for de t e rmin ing trim visibility per formance . T h e proposed narrative provides a descr ipt ion of these limitations. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

252



1851- 165 - (A-4-3.2(c)(6) ( N e w ) ) : Accept SUBMITTER: D o n n a P. B rehm, Virginia Beach Fire Dept., VA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Add new append ix text to read:

A.4.3.2(e) (6) Excessive tread wear significantly reduces traction and safe foot ing on many surfaces such as wet f looring and roads, roofs, ladder rungs and appara tus steps and platforms. Inspect ion o f tread wear should focus on the heel and ball of foot areas as these two areas carry the majority of a f irefighter 's body weight and are the most critical in main ta in ing adequate traction. The organizat ion should consul t with the manu fac t u r e r and set guidel ines for a m i n i m u m tread dep th that mus t be present for footwear to remain in service. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : Exper ience with VBFD footwear has con t inued to suppor t the need for specific guidel ines in this area. Our improved safety record has followed our increased inspect ion of this area-validating it's impor tance to firefighter safety. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1851- 166 - (A~b3.2(d).3): Accept in Principle SUBMITrER: Mark A. Williams, W. L. Gore & Associates C O M M E N T O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise as follows:

The test subject should repeatedly flex his or her hands for a period o f g0-seconds mi.,5__~_j_O_.u.t~ and then remove their hands from the water. SUBSTANTIATION: The watert ight integrity o f a glove canno t be de t e rmined in less than 2 minutes - this is the t ime typically required for water to pass t h rough the sewn seams in the leather shell, NFPA 1971-2000 requires 5 minutes . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

I Set test t ime as 2 minutes . COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Submit ters substant i ta t ion claims that 2 minutes is the m i n i m u m for this text.


1851- 167- (A-5-1.1): Accept SUBMITTER: D o n n a P. B r e h m , Virginia Beach Fire Dept., VA C O M M E N T ON PRO P OS AL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION : Paragraph 2, line 5: replace the term "hazmat chemicals" with "hazardous materials."

Paragraph 5, line 1: revise to read: Toxins that a f irefighter will come into contact with can be

t rapped within the fibers... (The words "can be" replace the words "are found in soot" in the

sen tence) SUBSTANTIATION: Rep lacement o f hazardous materials term for consistency within the documen t .

Revision to line 1 of paragraph 5 is improved gener ic applicability to the issue be ing discussed. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1851- 168- (A-5-1.1): Reject TCC NOTE: TCC NOTE: (1) Correct re fe rence line from Comment 1851-168 (A-5-1.1) to

read: "1851-168 (A.5.1.5)" (2) Change TC action from "Reject" to read: "Accept in

Principle ." (3) Add new text to the end of i tem 1 in action taken on

Comment 1851-169 (Log #48), to read: "1. Can the ensembles or ensemble e lements be effectively c leaned or decontaminated? (See "Notes" followin~ i tem 14 belowA"

(4) Revise the " r ec ommenda t i on" in C o m m e n t 1851-168 (Log #1~2) as follows:

(4a) Inser t text o f submitter's "recommendation" [1851-168 (Log #152)I as modi f ied herein, into A.5.1.5 to follow the 14-item list accepted by action on Comment 1851-169 (Log #48).

(4b) Revise first paragraph of the "recommendation" to read: "Notes: It is impor tan t that the organizat ion request information from the contract cleaner or cleaning agent supplier about the effect iveness o f cleaning agents and cleaning procedures , in addition to the effects o f the cleaning agents and cleaning

procedures on protective clothing. There are few establ ished procedures for making these determinations, although the following guidel ines are offered."

(4c) Add new first sentence to the beginning o f the second paragraph o f the recommendation, t o read: "Request that the contract cleaner or cleaning agent supplier provide information about the cleaning effect iveness o f their process or the cleaning agent. Actual c leaning ef fec t iveness . . . "

(4d) Add new first sentence to the beginning o f the third paragraph o f the recommendat ion, to read: "Request that the contract cleaner or cleaning agent supplier provide data about the effects o f their c leaning process or cleaning agent on protective garments for s tructural fire fighting. The effects o f the . . ."

(4e) Following the third paragraph of the recommendat ion, renumber Table A.5.1.1 to read: "Table A.5.1.5"

TCC Substantiation: Upon review of the TC negative ballot on the R O C with the submi t t e r p resen t , the TCC learned that the application of the suggested appendix information was not clear and that the intention of the proposed language was therefore misunderstood by the Technical Committee (the submi t t e r was not present at the TC meet ing when this specif ic comment was discussed and acted upon). The TCC modi f i ed the proposed language to reflect the submitter's intent and combined the modi f ied text into appendix i tem A.5.1.5, which was also revised by the T C in action taken on Comment 1851-169 (Log #48). SUBMITTER: Jeffrey O. Stull, Int'l Personnel Protection, Inc. C O M M E N T ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Add new appendix Section A.5.1.1:

A.5.1.1 It is impor tan t that c leaning agents and c leaning procedures be evaluated for their effectiveness in c leaning in addi t ion to the effects of the c leaning agents and c leaning procedures on clothing. There are few establ ished procedures for mak ing these de terminat ions , a l though he following guidel ines are offered.

Actual c leaning effectiveness should be demons t r a t ed by washing c lo th ing that has e i ther become soiled from use or is intentionally soiled, Cleaning effectiveness is typically conf i rmed by a visual compar i son o f the before and after c leaned samples. It is impor tan t to note that c lothing that appears clean, may not be fully clean and can conta in chemical contaminants .

The effects o f the c leaning agen t or c leaning process on clothing should be j u d g e d by on the basis o f tests per formed on representat ive material or c lo thing samples following several c leaning cycles (washing and drying), these samples should be subjected to at least 10 c leaning cycles; however, organizat ions may want to have suppliers or contract c leanings demons t ra te effects on c lothing after as many as 25 c leaning cycles. Ideally, c lo thing should be evaluated for each of the pe r fo rmance propert ies listed in NFPA 1971, Standard on Protective Ensemble for Structural Fire Fighting, however, key propert ies can be selected. Table A.5.1.1 provides a r e c o m m e n d e d list o f key propert ies for evaluation. (See Table A.5.1.1 on the following page.) O the r propert ies may be evaluated that are of interest to the organizat ion. Examples include:

* composi te weight • composi te thickness • composi te total hea t loss (breathability) • ou te r shell colorfastness to washing • ou te r shell colorfastness to l ight exposure • ou ter shell or thermal barrier abrasion resistance The effects o f c leaning propert ies are evaluated by compar ing the

measu red property after washing with the same property measu red for new material. Both the after-cleaning level and the change for the measured property are impor tan t to review. Propert ies should remain at or above the m i n i m u m per formance requ i rements established in NFPA 1971, Standard on Protective Ensemble for Structural Fire Fighting. Nevertheless, it is impor tan t to take note of large changes in c lo thing material properties. For example , the tear s t rength o f a material may be measured at a level o f 25 pounds before c leaning and then 22 pounds after several cycles whereas a different material could begin at 40 pounds and drop to 25 p o u n d s after the same n u m b e r of c leaning cycles. This part icular case points ou t the case where one material may be more susceptible to cleaning.

It is also possible that some measured propert ies may increase after mult iple c lean ing samples. For example , thermal insulat ion as measu red in the thermal protective per fo rmance test of ten improves after washing because the thickness (or loft) o f the materials increase.

The loss of water absorpt ion resistance for ou te r shell may be reduced by the reapplicat ion of water-repellent finishes. It is essenti~il that chemicals used in this process be de t e rmin ed to be safe without any adverse effects on the clothing.

2 5 3


Table A.5.1.1 R e c o m m e n d e d Performance Tests for Evaluating Effects o f Cleaning Agents or Cleaning Procedures Performance Proper ty - Test

Method* Type o f Samples

Therma l protective Section 6-10 Compos i t e pe r fo rmance Flame resistance Section 6-2 Ou te r shell

Moistm'e barrier The rma l barrier

Tear s t rength Section 6-12 Ou te r shell Moisture barrier The rma l barrier

Specimens Required**

3 - 1 5 0 m m x 1 5 0 m m squares 5 - 75 m m x 300 mm rectangles (in each material direction) 5 - 7 5 m m x 3 0 0 m m rectangles (in each material direction)

Tensile s t rength Section 6-50 Ou te r shell 5 - 100 m m x 200 m m rectangles (in each material direction)

Water absorpt ion Section 6-26 Ou te r shell 3 - 200 mm squares Cleaning shr inkage Section 6-27 5 - 375 m m sqnares Ou te r shell

Moisture barrier The rma l barrier Moisture barr ier seams

Moisture barrier seams

Section 6-28

Section 6-29

Fuel C pene t ra ton resistance I | I ~ l i l I H I | q f ~ , | l [ I ] I

3 - 75 m m squares

4 - 75 m m squares Trim visibility Section 6-46 Tr im sections 4 - 305 m m lengths *Section from NFPA 19"71, Standard on Protective Ensemble for Structural Fire Fighting (2000 edit ion) **Specimens that would e i ther be removed from c lo th ing or representat ive material samples.

In evaluat ing the effects o f a c leaning agent or c leaning procedures on clothing, it is impor tan t to realize that applying mult iple c leaning cycles to protective c lo th ing does not s imulate its use. Cleaning is bu t one factor in the "wear' o f protective clothing. Cleaning when properly applied may also ex tend the life of the protective i:lothing. SUBSTANTIATION: While the s tandard outl ines general me thods for hand and mach ine c l e a n i n g o f protective e lements , it does not offer a way for evaluating the effectiveness o f these c leaning me thods or tbeir impact on the per fo rmance proper t ies o f protective garments . The sugges ted appendix section provides guidel ines that are useful for evaluat ing potential c leaning me thods for effectiveness and impact on the clothing. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Commi t tee feels this r e c o m m e n d a t i o n in t roduces concepts that suggest addit ional requ i rements to NFPA 1971. This d o c u m e n t is the structural user d o c u m e n t for field evahmtion o f structural fire fighters protective ensemble . NFPA 1971, Standard on Protective Ensemble for Structural Fire Fighting, testing is destructive testing and is not in tended for "in sercice" garments . The Commi t tee feels that such testing is not applicable in NFPA 1851. T he effects o f such testing in this context are not known and it is the Commi t t ee ' s op in ion that they are not appropr ia te to suggest in the "user" d o c u m e n t (NFPA 1851).


1851- 169- (A-5-1.5): Accept SUBMITTER: James R. Lawson, NIST, Bldg and Fire Research Lab. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Revise A.5.1.5 to read as follows:

For ensembles and ensemble e lements that are to be c leaned or decon tamina ted by contract cleaning, refer to the following quest ions to assist in de t e rmin ing if the contract c leaner is knowledgeable e n o u g h to provide adequate service and not cause damage to the ensembles and ensemble e lements .

1. Can the ensembles or ensemble e lements be effectively c leaned or decon tamina ted?

2. Does the contract c leaner have references for c leaning a n d / o r decon tamina t ion of ensembles and ensemble e lements?

3. Does the contract c leaner have liability insurance to clean protective c lothing (i.e., for the repair or r ep lacement of ensembles and ensemble e lements damaged in laundry, f rom wash water con tamina t ion , etc.)?

4. Does the contract c leaner take reasonable precaut ions for protect ing their personnel from c o n t a m i n a n t exposures while hand l ing ensembles and ensemble e lements?

5. Is the contract c leaner familiar with the requi rements of NFPA 1971, and NFPA 1581, as well as federal state, and local regulat ions?

6. Does the contract c leaner have a quality assurance program? 7. What type of process does the contract c leaner use? Are

Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) available? If the process is proprietary, it is approved by the ensemble ' s or ensemble elements; manufac ture r?

8. Does tbe contract c leaner take appropria te steps to prevent cross con tamina t ion between any and all products laundered in the facility?

9. How does the contract c leaner demons t ra te the effectiveness of the c leaning process?

10. What testing or evaluation method(s ) will be used to assure that decon tamina ted ensembles or ensemble e lements are truly decon tamina ted and safe to wear?

11. Does the contract c leaner comply with applicable federal, state, and local wastewater d ischarge regulat ions and standard?

12. Does the contract c leaner provide delivery and pick-up sereices for soiled a n d / o r con tamina ted ensembles and ensemble e lements?

13. Does the contract c leaner have the capability to restore water repel lent propert ies of ensembles and ensemble elements?

14. What is the turn a round time provided by the contract cleaner? SUBSTANTIATION: The cu r ren t wording is r edundan t and is unnecessar i ly wordy. This r e c o m m e n d a t i o n produces a more effective and efficient section. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1851- 170- (A-5-3.1): Accept SUBMITrER: Steve King, Cintas Corpora t ion COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Add to end of A.5.3.1:

"Soiling may not always be visible. Soiling may be difficult to observe on darkly-colored materials. In addit ion, exposure can occur where c lothing is con tamina ted with fire gases, and result in c lo th ing that can be relatively unsafe for use. c lo thing that has not been cleaned and appears to be unsoi led has been shown to conta in n u m e r o u s fire gas chemicals inc luding carcinogenic polynuclear aromatic compounds . Periodic c leaning o f c lo th ing that is required to avoid use o f c lothing that could be con tamina ted without visible evidence of soiling." SUBSTANTIATION: End users should be caut ioned that soiling isn ' t always evident and should consider that use o f c lothing may con tamina te clothing, resul t ing in the need for advanced cleaning. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #59)

254

N F P A 1851 m N o v e m b e r 2000 R O C

Commit tee : FAE-SFF 1851- 171 - (A-5-4.1): Accept S U B M ~ R : Steve King, Cintas Corpora t ion C O M M E N T ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Add second paragraph to A.5.4.1 to read: "The effectiveness of c leaning processes will vary with the type of

c leaning process used. In some cases, advanced c lean ing can accomplish the same funct ions as specialized cleaning, such as in the removal of body fluids." SUBSTANTIATION: The existing defini t ions do not dist inguish between the capabilities of different processes that may be used to clean firefighter clothing. A n u m b e r o f advanced c leaning processes are also capable of achieving the same c leaning effectiveness as specialized c leaning for biological agents o f hazardous materials. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.


1851- 172 - (A-5-4.7.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Jeffrey O. Stull, Int'l Personnel Protection, Inc. C O M M E N T O N PRO P OS AL NO: 1851-62 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Add new append ix section:

A.4.3.2 While all materials and c o m p o n e n t s in protective e lements are equally susceptible to different types o f damage from wear o r abuse, the mois ture barrier is one o f the most difficult

c arts of protective ga rmen t s to inspect and evaluate. This is ecause the film or coat ing side o f many mois ture barrier systems

face to the interior o f the liner and is h idden from easy examinat ion . Unless the protective g a r m e n t is equ ipped with a means of open ing the l iner to view the film or coat ing side, it is difficult to conduc t a t ho rough evaluation of its state.

Moisture barrier coatings and films may crack or have p inholes f rom use. In severe cases, this degradat ion for some materials can take the form of flaking. Tapes used on mois ture barrier seams to ensure g a r m e n t integrity may also crack, lift, or completely separate. Only the mos t obvious damage is usually observable and simple tests do no t show damage that r epresen t ing a loss o f barrie4" pe r fo rmance consis tent with NFPA 1971, S t a n d a r d on Protective Ensemble for Structural Fire Fighting.

For example , pour ing water over the l iner in o rder to de te rmine if the mois ture barrier port ion of the l iner is still offer ing adequate pe r fo rmance is not appropr ia te since this test will only show severe damage . A more useful test would involve mix ing 6 parts o f rubbing alcohol ( isopropanol) over the l iner thermal barrier side and then examin ing fabric side o f the mois ture barrier for evidence o f liquid. The rubbing alcohol - water mixture serves to provide a liquid surface tens ion tha t is closer to blood and some f i reground chemicals. This improvemen t of the test by us ing a lower surface tension liquid will identify mois ture barrier leakage more readily but still does not evaluate mois ture barr ier pe r fo rmance to the same level as requi red in NFPA 1971.

Short o f removing moisture barrier spec imens from protective a rmen t s for testing to NFPA 1971, the mos t appropr ia te m e t h o d r nondestruct ively evaluating the mois ture barrier is use of a

special hydrostatic testing device that can c lamp on to the c lothing for pe r fo rming the test. This device creates a seal with the l iner that permits applying pressure beh ind the test liquid. These p rocedures can thus emula te the NFPA 1971-based liquid penet ra t ion resistance testing when the test liquid is water. Use of the alcohol - water mixture described above in the test ing device provides a means for gaining a level o f detect ion that is very close to the level of barrier assessment that is achieved in viral pene t ra t ion resistance testing.

Specifications for the testing device are given below: [ Design drawings and list o f parts will be provided to the

commi t t ee for review.] Based on the informat ion above, the following hierarchy is

establ ished for assessing the mois ture barrier effectiveness in the field provided in o rder of increasing sensitivity for de tec t ing d am age;

1. Use of a 1:6 alcohol - water mixture poured on locations on the liner

2. Use o f a hydrostatic testing device with water to evaluate port ions o f the liners.

3. Use o f a hydrostatic testing device with a 1:6 alcohol - water mixture to evaluate port ions o f the liners.

In us ing any of the above methods , testing should be applied to those areas where damage is most likely, this may be in areas where damage to the ou te r shell por t ion of the g a r m e n t is known to occur or in areas where the g a r m e n t l iner is routinely flexed, such as u n d e r the arms and at the elbows on the sleeves.

In us ing e i ther water or the alcohol - water mixture , it is essential that the tested liner be allowed to completely dry before pu t t ing the g a r m e n t back in service. The alcohol should completely evaporate leaving little if any residual liquid. It is also impor tan t that the c lothing be properly assembled when replacing the l iner if removed for this testing. SUBSTANTIATION: Given concerns for the inspect ion o f the mois ture barrier for con t inued mois ture barrier per formance , the s tandard should provide an appropria te set of field testing m e th o d s that can adequately assess the barrier funct ion o f the mois ture barrier in a m a n n e r consis tent with its required per formance . A short repor t will be made available du r ing the Technical Commi t tee mee t ing to show the sensitivity of different practices used to examine the integrity of moisture barriers. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commit tee Action taken on C o m m e n t 1851-77 (Log #51).


1851- 173 - (A-5-5.1): Accept in Principle TCC NOTE: TCC NOTE: Change T C a c t i o n on Comment 1851- 173 from "Accept in Principle" to read: "Accept."

TCC Substantiation: The TCC is adding the full recommendat ion o f the submitter

even though it might not be applicable to all users o f this document . The TCC is conce rned with users having as much information as poss ible on how to inspect their protective gdarments, including the moisture barrier, and to make a

etermination on serviceability. In particular, there have been recent problems with certain moisture barrier films that have apparently degraded prematurely, and this degradation can be difficult to discover during normal inspections. Users who are not aware o f this problem, or are not aware o f the need and types o f inspections and evaluations to conduct on their protective garments, face an increased possibility o f usin~ protective garments that have lost some or all o f the liquid-penetration protection. Where doubts exist as to the serviceability, the TCC feels the users should have as much information and be informed as possible in order to make fur ther evaluat ions in-honse, or to send the garment to the manufacturer or the manufacturer's service center for a more in depth evaluation. In several items in this ROC, the TCC has added text, or strengthened text, to give the users such in format inn . While a number o f users or fire departments might not be able to fully apply these recommendat ions , the TCC feels that the valid available information should be provided. This information is being added as part o f the appendix, and therefore, it is advisory in nature and does not give requirements or other mandatory criteria for inspecting, evaluating, or testing these garments. SUBMITTER: Jeffrey O. Stull, Int 'l Personnel Protection, Inc. C O M M E N T ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Add text to read as follows: Add the following section to the append ix to read as follows:

A.5.4.7.2 Organizat ions should be aware that decon tamina t ion o f protective c lo th ing and e q u i p m e n t is a compl ica ted p rocess for which there is no guaran tee for demons t ra t ing that protective e lements are free f rom contamina t ion .

While the purpose o f decon tamina t ion is to remove all con taminan t ( s ) f rom e lement , decon tamina t ion procedures or c leaning processes are not always 100 percent effective in removing all con tamina t ion . The actual success of a decon tamina t ion process can only be de t e rmined by measu r ing the concent ra t ion o f the con taminan t ( s ) in the e l emen t before and after the selected decon tamina t ion or c leaning process. The sole evaluation o f con tamina t ion levels in rinse water is no t an appropr ia te m easu re of decon tamina t ion effectiveness. Claims for protective e lements be ing contaminant - f ree based on s ta tements f rom contract c leaners or f rom the use of specific c leaning products should be viewed with caut ion.

Procedures used for measu r ing con tamina t ion levels in c lo th ing should be specific the con taminan t ( s ) , if known. Useful analytical p rocedures for measu r ing levels of semi-volatile organic chemicals in materials are found in EPA me thods 3540 (extraction) and 8720 (analysis). These p rocedures involve extract ing a small piece of fabric in a solvent such as methylene chloride and analyzing the extract solution us ing gas ch roma tog raphy in conjunc t ion with mass spectrometry. The ~as ch roma tography separates chemical con taminan t s and quant i t ies their amoun t , while the mass spect rometry identifies the specific chemical .

Similar analytical p rocedures for measu r ing levels o f inorganic chemicals (such as heavy menta l con taminan t s like c h r o m i u m and lead) in materials are found in EPA me thods 3015 (digestion) and

2 5 5


6010 (extraction). These procedures similarly involve analysis of a small c lo th ing material spec imen by digest ing the spec imen in nitric acid and then treat ing with 50 percen t hydrogen peroxide. The solution o f the digested spec imen is then di luted for analysis by atomic absorpt ion or ion coupled plasma spectroscopy to identify and de te rmine the a m o u n t of different inorganic substances .

Since these procedures are vec/sensi t ive for quantifying many forms of contaminat ion , any testing for measu r ing con tamina t ion levels should involve "control" tests. Control tests are separate measu remen t s of c lo thing to de te rmine o ther background contamina t ion that might be p resen t in the material or in residue left fi 'om the c leaning agents or c leaning procedures . Failure to cons ider these chemicals can interfere with the accuracy of n~easurements for actual con taminants . In general two control tests are needed:

1. A test o f the same material being analyzed without con taminan t p resen t (this could be taken from clothing having a similar history that was unexposed to the con t ami nams)

2. A test of the same material after washing that have been subjected to the c lean ing process (this could be accompl i shed on a piece o f new material that has been cleaned us ing the subject c leaning agen t and procedures) .

The levels o f residual con taminan t s f rom these control tests should be subtracted from the after-cleaning samples. The residual con tamina t ion from the first control test should be subtrac ted from the pre-cleaning samples.

Decon tamina t ion effectiveness can be de t e rmi ned by calculat ing the propor t ion o f con t ami nan t removed us ing the following equat ion .

Concerns over protective e l emen t contamina t ion may arise fi-om a single incident involving a con tamina t ion event or may be an ongo ing considerat ion as con taminan t s from rout ine si tuations accumula te within the clothing. Organizat ions may wish to periodically sample c lo th ing to de te rmine the effectiveness o f c lean ing processes in removing harmful contaminants . Organizat ions engaged in the process should unders tand the l imitations of the approach, specifically that sampl ing canno t be representat ive o f protective e lements in use.

Fur ther details abou t this informat ion is provided in the "Research, Testing, and Analysis on the Decontamina t ion of Fire Fight ing Protective Clothing and Equipment ," Final Report for Contract No. EME-96-CO-0050, U.S. Fire Administrat ion, Emmitsburg , MD 21727. A synopsis o f this report is provided in:

J.O. Stull, Dodgen and R. McCarthy, "Evaluating the Effectiveness o f Different Decontanf inat ion and l aunder ing Approach for Structural Fire Fighting Clothing," Per fo lmance of Protective Clothing: Fifth Volume, ASTM STP 1237 (J.S. Johns ton and S.Z. Mansdorf , eds.), Amer ican Society for Test ing and Materials, Phi lade lph ia , 1996, pp. 447-470. SUBSTANTIATION: Organizat ions and end users need a better unde r s t and ing o f decon tamina t ion and decontamina t ion effectiveness, so they can j u d g e the claims of c leaning agent suppliers and contract cleaners. The proposed informat ion offers guidel ines for evaluating protective garments for levels of con tamina t ion and de te rmin ing decontamina t ion effectiveness for respective c leaning agents and c leaning processes.

Decon tamina t i on efficiency = Initial level o f c o n t a m i n a n t in c lo th ing - Final level o f c o n t a m i n a n t in c lo th ing

Initial level o f c o n t a m i n a n t in c lo th ing

The decon tamina t ion effectiveness will vary with each c o n t a m i n a n t because some con taminan t s may be more easily removed o the r con taminan t s given differences in the propert ies of the con t aminan t and propert ies o f the con tamina ted e l emen t materials. For example , chemicals such as hexane and benzene that evaporate easily will usual be removed relatively easy when compared with non-violatile (non-evaporat ing) chemicals found in tars and oily chemicals.

The remain ing level of con t ami nan t in protective e l emen t may be used to de te rmine the potential risk to the wearer. However, there are no establ ished safe levels o f surface concent ra t ion for m o s t contaminants . The decision to reuse a protective e l emen t based on known, measu red levels of con tamina t ion mus t be unde r t aken by a t ra ined professional who is familiar with the proper t ies and hazards of the con taminant . Any uncer ta inty in the risk presented by residual con tamina t ion in the protective e l emen t may be cause for re t i rement and disposal of the protective item.

The procedures for measu r ing con tamina t ion levels in protective e lements are usually destructive in that they require that a spec imen be taken from the protective e lement and subjected to extract ion or digest ion with a solvent. This r equ i r emen t in addit ion to the expense of the analytical testing may make the decision to investigate con tamina t ion levels in protective e lements cost- prohibitive.

Specimens of protective e lements taken for de te rmina t ion o f con tamina t ion levels may not be representat ive for all areas of the protective e l emen t be ing sampled. For example , a spec imen taken from the pocket of the coat may not reflect the con tamina t ion levels for the back or the coat or the bot tom of the trousers. In addit ion, sampl ing of one protective e l emen t may not be representat ive of all e lements from a certain g roup that arc, or are suspected o f being, con tamina ted . Con tamina t ion levels within different protective e lements of the same type d e p e n d on the type o f exposure , the condi t ion o f the protective e l emen t and the care provided to that protective e lement .

COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Add new A.5.5.1 to read:

A.5.5.1 Organizat ions should be aware that decontamina t ion o f protective c lothing and e q u i p m e n t is a complicated process for which there is no guaran tee for demons t r a t ing that protective e lements are free f rom contamina t ion .

While the purpose o f decon tamina t ion is to remove all con taminan t ( s ) f rom the e lement , decon tamina t ion procedures or c leaning process are not always 100 percent effective in removing all con tamina t ion . The actual success o f a decon tamina t ion process can only be de t e rmined by measur ing the concent ra t ion of the con taminan t ( s ) in the e l ement before and after the selected decon tamina t ion or c leaning process. The sole evaluation of decon tamina t ion levels in rinse water is no t an appropria te measu re o f decon tamina t ion effectiveness. Claims for protective e lements be ing contaminant - f ree based on s ta tements from cont rac t c leaners or from the use o f specific c leaning products should be viewed with caution.

Useful analytic p rocedures for measu r ing con tamina t ion levels of semi-violatile organic chemicals in materials are found in EPA m e t h o d s 3540, 8720, 3015, 6010. The procedures for measur ing con tamina t ion levels in protective e lements are usually destructive in that they require that a spec imen be taken from the protective e l emen t and subjected to extract ion or digest ion with a solvent. This r equ i r emen t in addi t ion to the expense of the analytical testing may make the decision to investtgate contamina t ion levels in protective e lements cost-prohibitive. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Technical Commit tee agrees with the submi t te r ' s concept but did not agree with the extensive level o f detail and equat ions. The Technical Commi t tee modif ied the text for ease of user unders tanding .

256



1851- 174 - (A-5-5.6(5)): Accept SUBMrlWF_Jt: Jeffrey O. Stull, Int'l Personnel Protection, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows:

A.5.5.6(5) It is important to check with the manufacturer as the appropriate wash temperature for machine washing of protective garments because different materials and components in the ~arment'dan have different susceptibility to wash temperatures and other washing conditions. For example, leather, rubber coate'd materials, and some fluorescent film based materials may be affected by relatively high wash temperatures, and may degrade prematurely when repeated washed under these conditions. SUBSTANTIATION: Insufficient guidance is provided in the standard to caution end users agamst adverse washing conditions. The mandated procedures in 5.5.5 may not be suitable for all clothing materials and components. End users and laundering facilities must be guided to contact the manufacturer or material supply for additional information on this topic. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. '


1851- 175 - (A-5-6.3, A.5.6.3 (5), A.5.6.3 (6)): Reject SUBMrYrER: Robert L. Jensen, Jr., 3M COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Incorporate A.5.6.3(5) and A.5.6.3(6) into A.5.6.3.

A.5.6.3 to read as follows: A.5.6.3 Machine drying of ensembles and ensemble elements is

generally not recommended. Dryers can reach very high basket temperatures during operation, potentially damaging ensemble elements. Temperatures can rise as the garments in the basket dry out. Machine drying also includes mechanical action which can cause damage to ensembles and ensemble elements. Excessive temperatures can cause damage to ensembles and ensemble elements, excessive garmem shrinkage, and potentially cause premature failure and retirement of the protective garment. Consult garment manufacturers for drying instructl'ons. SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial changes for clarity of supplemental information. C O M M r ] ~ ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Existing text better highlights advisory information.


1851- 176- (A.6.1.5): Reject SUBMITrER: Jeffrey O. Stull, Int'l Personnel Protection, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1851-62 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows:

A.6.1.5 Moisture barrier materials are found in collars, collar closure systems, closure facings, and can also he found in other assemblies including but not limited to, storm flaps and sleeve wells. SUBSTANTIATION: Closure facings, which contain moisture barrier and are necessary for the overall integrity of the garment, were left out of the list. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The possibility of moisture barrier being inclosure facings is already covered in the existing text of A.6.1.5 that addresses "...found, in other locations..."

Editorial Correction

The Technical Committee on on Structural Fire Fighting Protective Clothing and Equipment proposes the following editorial change to NFPA 1851, Standard on Selection, Care, and Maintenance of Structu.ral Fire Fighting Protective Ensembles.

1.1.3 Insert "for" between ensembles and training in the second line? Not sure if this is right, but this sentence needs something.

1.3.5 Remove the word ~Sax" in the third line before Hazardous Materials.

3.1.8 In the second line, change "insure" to "ensure".

5.4.7.1 Add "of the contaminant" after manufacturer in the second line. There may have been a public comment that corrected this.

5.5.5 In item 10, are (7) and (8) supposed to be in parantheses:

A.3.1.3 Add to the end of A.3.1.3 the statement: "See also A.8.1.4."

257

chair secretary - national fire protection association€¦ · william m. lambert, secretary ......

Documents