Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
TECHINICAL COMMITTEE ON STRUCTURAL AND PROXIMITY FIRE FIGHTING
PROTECTIVE CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT
San Antonio, TX
7-8 OCTOBER 2014
NFPA 1971 and NFPA 1851 PRE-FIRST DRAFT MEETING
7 October 2014
Agenda items 1 and 2: Call to Order, Introduction of Members and Guests
TC Chairman King called the meeting to order at 0900. Chairman King then called for an
introduction of members and guests.
The following members and guests were present:
Principal Members Present:
Stephen King Chair
Jason Allen Intertek Testing Services
George Berger USMC/Marine Corps Systems Command
Steven Corrado Underwriters Laboratories, Inc
Paul Curtis L.N. Curtis & Sons
Tim Durby Prescott Fire Department
Richard Edinger International Association of Fire Chiefs
David Fanning E.D. Bullard Company
Patricia Freeman Globe Manufacturing COMPANY, LLC
Richard Granger, Jr Charlotte Fire Department
William Haskell NIOSH-NPPTL
Earl Hayden International Association of Fire Fighters
John Karban FireDex, LLC
Kim Klaren Fairfax County Fire & Rescue Department
Steve Lakey Verified Independent Service Providers Association
Karen Lehtonen Lion Apparel, Inc.
Michael McKenna Michael McKenna & Associates, LLC
Daniel Melia Fire Department City of New York
Andrew Oliver Gear Wash, LLC
Louis Ott Gentex Corporation
Principal Members Present (cont’d): Tom Ragan Shelby Specialty Gloves
Jim Reidy Texas State Association of Fire Fighters
John Rihn Mine Safety Appliances Company
R. Wendell Robison National Volunteer Fire Council
Kelly Sisson Heartland Fire & Rescue
Jeffrey Stull International Personnel Protection, Inc
Tim Tomlinson Addison Fire Department
Robert Tutterow Fire Industry Equipment Research Organization
Richard Weise Southern Area Fire Equipment Research
Harry Winer HIP Consulting, LLC
Guests Present:
Joey Underwood Safety Components
Jamie Martin Safety Components
Chris Parkinson Lion
Jim Hanley RTI
Ray Russell Phenix Fire Helmets
Nicole Clescen Phenix Technology
Shaun Russell Phenix Technology
Angel Sanchez, Jr. Phenix Technology, Inc
Tim Gardner Texas Commission on Fire Protection
Scott Cheek Honeywell
Jennifer Wise W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc
Joe Xiras Minerva Bunker Gear Cleaners
Jennifer Brust Honeywell
Alternate Members Present:
Eric Buzard Mine Safety Appliances Company
Brandi Chestang US Department of the Navy
Nicholas Curtis Technical/Creative Resource Group
Matthew Elmore E.D. Bullard Company
Jonathan Fesik Fire Industry Repair Maintenance Inc.
Tom Hamma Heartland Fire & Rescue
Tricia Hock Safety Equipment Institute (SEI)
Rickey Johnson, Jr. Addison Fire Department
Michael Laton Honeywell First Responder Products
Amanda Newsom Underwriters Laboratories Inc.
Marni Schmid (Secretary) Fortunes Collide Marketing/Alt. for F.I.E.R.O.
Jeff Sedivec L.N. Curtis & Sons (Curtis)
Patrick Woods Fire Department City of New York
Staff Liaison
David Trebisacci National Fire Protection Association
Guests Present (cont’d):
Jim Walter Honeywell
Brian Marenco Honeywell
Bob Keys FDNY Consulting, LLC
Kirk Owen TenCate Protective Fabrics
Charles Dunn TenCate Protective Fabrics
Matt Colatrylie TenCate Protective Fabrics
Robert Self TenCate Protective Fabrics
Steve Tull Texas Commission on Fire Protection
Kevin Groppe Waco Fire
Allen Rom Fire-Dex
Travis Walden Austin Fire Department
Ronald Krusleski Houston Fire Department
Timothy Neal Houston Fire Department
John Gillette Texas Commission on Fire Protection / Frisco FD
Pat Ekiss Texas Commission on Fire Protection / City of Taylor Fire
Tim Rutland Texas Commission on Fire Protection
Mike Wisko Galveston Fire/Texas Fire Chief Association
Harrish Lilani NORFAB Corp
Jessie Gentry DFW Airport
Tim Gardner 3M Personal Safety Division
Kevin Roche Facets Consulting
Christian Jaehrling Haix North America Inc
Bill VanLent Veridian-FEMSA
Tim Porch 3M PSD
Bill Brooks UniMac Laundry Systems
Laura Pritchard Newtex Industries, Inc
Doug Bailey Newtex, Inc
Mark Williams W.L. Gore
Holly Blake W.L. Gore
Stephane Rousse Innotex
Diane Hess PBI Performance Products
Brian Shiels PBI Performance Products
Donald Holman Marine Corps
Tyler Griffith Sturges Manufacturing
Mike Allen Sturges Manufacturing
Chris Gaudette Orafol Americas
Rich McNeely Orafol Americas
Ron Bove W.L. Gore & Associates
Frank Masley Masley Enterprises, Inc
John Ashley Springfield, LLC
David Eskew Springfield, LLC
Ed MacDonald Stanfield’s Limited
Stephen Asthalter Stanfield Limited
Dick Howard NorFab Corporation
Jian Xiang DuPont
Jim Podolske (phone) United States Air Force
Pete Dickerson (phone) United States Air Force
Allen Maples W.L. Gore & Associates
Jim Baker Lion Total Care
Agenda Item 3: Staff Liaison Report:
David Trebisacci provided the NFPA Staff Liaison report. Dave distributed the sign-in sheet,
reviewed the TC composition and balance and reviewed the NFPA procedures applicable to the
business of the Pre-First Draft meeting, outlined the timeline associated with the next editions of
NFPA 1971 and NFPA 1851 and related TIAs and discussed legal issues that the TC must be
aware of.
Agenda Item 4: Approval of the TC Minutes of San Diego, CA meeting March 4-6, 2014:
Bill Haskell moved to accept the minutes, Jim Reidy seconded. Committee voted to approve.
Agenda Item 5: Chairman’s Remarks:
Chairman King welcomed everyone to the meeting and outlined the day’s agenda. The chairman
noted that this meeting was a Pre-First Draft meeting.
Agenda Item 6: NFPA Risk Assessment – structural and proximity FF protective
ensembles:
The TC and guests discussed risk assessments and related TIA 1160. The task group covering
risk assessments will continue to work on this to address the issues that came up during this
discussion for the next edition of the standard.
Agenda Item 7: Flame and heat resistance testing of accessories – Dan Melia:
The TC and guests discussed flame and heat resistance testing of accessories and the task group
will continue to work to clarify the language in the standard.
Agenda Item 8: Task Group Reports:
Risk Assessment – Structural vs Proximity – Earl Hayden
o Chair Earl Hayden reported that the TG is reviewing TIA 1160 based on the
comments submitted and the related discussion and will continue to work on it so
that issues can be addressed during the current revision cycle.
Helmets – Dan Melia (see Attachment 1)
o Tricia Hock reported for Chair Dan Melia reported that the labs are on the same
page and policies will be updated as required. In addition, the TG will continue to
work to resolve the issues brought forward during the meeting.
Gloves – Michael McKenna (see Attachments 2 and 3)
o Chair Michael McKenna reported that the TG is making progress on glove sizing
and glove shrinkage. The TG is working on the sizing issue using
anthropomorphic data and readily available sizing systems. A study will be
conducted to address glove shrinkage and improved testing.
Hoods – Jim Reidy
o Chair Jim Reidy reported that the TG is making progress on hood sizing and
permeation.
Cleaning/Decontamination – Tim Tomlinson (see Attachments 4 and 5)
o Chair Tim Tomlinson presented the results of the TG work including the
prospectus that will be submitted to the NFPA Fire Protection Research
Foundation to complete the study. The estimated time to completion is 24
months.
DRD – Rick Edinger (see Attachment 6)
o Chair Rick Edinger reported that the TG continues to research DRD use and will
conduct an industry survey to determine if changes should be made to the
standard.
Annexes – Robert Tutterow
o Chair Robert Tutterow reported that the TG continues to work with graduate
students from University of Kentucky with a draft document to be completed by
the end of 2014.
Garments – Tim Durby (see Attachment 7)
o Chair Tim Durby reported that the TG is moving forward in their review of
related chapters/sections of the standard, making sure FI 8.1.4 is reflected in the
1851 standard and trim location issues related to wear marks. The TG is also
reviewing various test methods and reporting standards.
Agenda Item 9: Task Group Breakout Sessions as required
The task groups were in session beginning Tuesday, October 7 at 1400 with the TC reconvening
Wednesday, October 8 at 0900.
Agenda Item 10: Old Business
Robert Tutterow announce the F.I.E.R.O. Fire PPE Symposium coming up March 2015
The TC discussed the hydraulic fluid issue related to TIA 1159 and the Common
Chemical task group was formed to review the issue with a long-term focus.
o Common Chemical task group
Dick Weise, TG Chair
Jim Reidy
Jason Allen
Jim Reidy
Steve Corrado
Jonathan Fesick
Holly Blake
Rich Granger
Tricia Hock
Jeremy Metz (chair of NFPA 1951)
Agenda Item 11: New business
The next meeting is scheduled for May 5-6, 2015, location to be determined.
Agenda Item 12: Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned by Chairman King at 1328 CT on Wednesday, October 8, 2014 with
unanimous consent.
11/25/2014
1
NFPA 1971
Helmet Task Group
Formal Interpretation Submitted
Should items other than the components listed in paragraph 6.5.2 shipped on the helmet or with the helmet be subject to
the requirement in paragraph 7.4.4?”
Their Answer was NO
• In support of this response, I refer you to the list in Section 6.5.2 and then to Section 1.1.5 and Annex item A.1.1.5.
11/25/2014
2
6.5.2
Section 6.5.2 states that helmets shall consist of at least all of the following assembled components (list items 1 through 6 follow).
• Shell
• Energy absorbing system
• Retention system
• Fluorescent and retroreflective trim
• Ear covers
• Faceshield or goggles,or both
• The term “components” is defined in Chapter 3 as any material, part or subassembly used in the construction of the compliant product.
• If items such as flip down lenses, flashlights, edge trim/welting, etc. that accompany the helmet in a shipping box and are not used in the construction of the compliant product, they are not considered assembled components.
• Since these items also do not specifically appear in the list in Section 6.5.2, they are therefore not required to be tested for resistance to heat.
Further, Section 1.1.5 states that the standard shall not specify requirements for any accessories that could be attached to the certified product, but are not necessary for the certified product to meet the requirements of NFPA 1971.
11/25/2014
3
Annex A.1.1.5 also advises end users to contact the manufacturer of the accessory and the manufacturer of the certified product to verify that the accessory and any means of attachment are suitable for use in the intended emergency response environment. Fire and emergency response organizations should seek and receive written documentation from the accessory manufacturer and the compliant product manufacturer to validate that the accessory and its attachment method will not degrade the designed protection or performance of the certified product, or will not interfere with the operation or function of the certified product.
I then had a conference call with Steve, Bill Haskell and Dave and after discussion thought it was best to bring this back to the TC for guidance and possible re-submission
• I want to thank Trish and Robin for their help and guidance.
W. L. Gore & Associates
• 97% of Males are fit by the XSmall to XLarge NFPA 1971 sizes• Note the wide and overlapping sizing ranges
Modeling Results: Male Population
W. L. Gore & Associates
Glove Task Group topics discussed included
• Sizing
• Shrinkage
• Progress towards improved• wetting method
• back-of-hand radiant heat resistance test method
Task Group Report on Structural Firefighting Gloves
San Antonio, Texas
October 7, 2014
Members present:
Mike McKenna, Michael McKenna & Associates, LLC, Task Group Chair
Kelly Sisson, Heartland Fire
Rich Granger, Charlotte Fire
Jeff Stull, International Personnel Protection
Harry Winer, HIP Consulting, LLC
Mark Williams, WL Gore
Frank Masley, Masley Enterprises
The charge of the task group is to investigate:
1. Possible changes to the Heat and Thermal Shrinkage Test method
2. Glove sizing
3. Improved wetting method
4. Back of the hand radiant heat resistance test method development
Item #1 – Harry Winer introduced a draft of test parameters for a double blind test to
determine if any changes need to be made to the current test method. The Task Group
accepted Harry’s test procedures.
Item #2 – A review of the current hand sizing data and NFPA 1971 glove sizing was discussed
and there was a great deal of discussion about different methods to measure hands for a proper
fit. Information was presented that showed that narrowing the size ranges and developing two
new sizes to replace the two smallest existing sizes would provide for a better range for all
firefighters, especially women and men with narrow hand sizes. The task group agreed to take
this proposal forward.
In addition, the task group adopted a sizing method that would eliminate the traditional small,
medium, large, etc. hand sizes and replace that system with a numerical value based on the
length of the index finger. This method was developed for the military and would provide a
more standard way of measuring proper glove size.
Item #3 – 4 – Harry Winer, Jeff Stull and Mark Williams presented their preliminary finding on
the development of a radiant heat resistance test method for the back of the hand. Work is
under way to develop this test and replace the current CCHR for the back of the hand.
NFPA 1851 Cleaning & CareTask Group Report
Technical Committee on Structural and Proximity Firefighting Clothing
and Equipment
San Antonio, 7-8 October 2014
Tim Tomlinson
1
Overview of Task Group Activity
• Multiple teleconferences since March 2014– April 11, May 29, June 26, August 7, August 28
and September 8
• Working Groups separately met to provide input– Funding
– Sample gear
– Cleaning technologies
– Cleaning procedures
– Detergents2
To further define the goal of the cleaning and disinfecting prospectus, please choose 4 questions that are of the highest importance to you.
Development of Prospectus
• Task group effort aimed at refinement of prospectus to support research activity
• Title: Turnout Clothing Contamination and Validation of Cleaning Procedures
• Objectives:– Provide information and data to support
development of cleaning validation procedures
– Allow guidance to assist current and future cleaning technologies, products, and processes
4
Research Need
• NFPA 1851 parameters over past 15 years
– Limited in parameters address (pH, g-force, temp.)
– No demonstration of cleaning effectiveness
• Emerging concerns for increased exposure of firefighters through contaminated gear
– Studies show persistent contaminants
– Documented increases in firefighter cancer
– Relatively little understanding on what methods and agents work in removing contaminants
5
Technical Approach
• Research by qualified laboratory needed to provide data and procedures to evaluate gear contamination levels and cleaning procedure effectiveness
• Three phases:– Phase I: Identify persistent contaminants in gear
– Phase II: Evaluate cleaning procedure removal of chemical contaminants
– Phase III: Develop procedures for biocontaminants
6
Phase I Investigation
• Investigation will consist of four tasks:
– Task 1: Identify testing approaches to quantify target contaminants in gear
– Task 2: Evaluate used gear to determine levels of contaminants
– Task 3: Investigate methods to provide controlled exposures of gear samples to firegroundcontaminants
– Task 4: Establish Phase II test plan
7
Common Turnout Contaminants
Inorganic Chemicals (heavy metals):aluminum (Al), antimony (Sb), arsenic (As), silver (Ag), boron (B), barium (Ba), beryllium (Be), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), cobalt (Co), copper (Cu), mercury (Hg), lithium (Li), manganese (Mn), molybdenum (Mo), nickel (Ni), lead (Pb), selenium (Se), strontium (Sr), tin (Sn), thallium (Tl), thorium (Th), titanium (Ti), uranium (U), vanadium (V), and zinc (Zn)
Inorganic Chemicals: cyanide (CN-), general inorganic acids and bases
Volatile Organic Chemicals: acrolein, benzene, methanol, naphthalene, styrene, toluene
Complex Organic Chemical Mixtures: gasoline, hydraulic fluid, diesel oil
Semi-Volatile Organic Chemicals: 2-methyl-napthalene, acenaphthylene, acenaphthene, fluorene, phenathrene, anthracene, fluoranthrene, pyrene, benzo[a]anthracene, chrysene, benzo[b]-fluoranthracene, benzo[k]fluoranthracene, benzo[a]pyrene, indeno[1,2,3,cd]pyrene, dibenz[a,h]anthracene, benzo[g,h,i]-perylene, acetophenone, di-n-butyl-phthalate, butylbenzylphthalate, di-2-ethylhexyladipate, di-2-ethylhexyl-phthalate, di-n-octyl phthalate, phenol, 2-methylphenol, 4-methylphenol, 2,4-dimethylphenol, and 4-chloro-3-methylphenol
Other Substances: Total particulate matter, asbestos fibers
8
Phase II Contaminant Cleaning Efficacy
• Procedures in Phase I will be applied to evaluate selected clothing samples against selected cleaning processes/detergents
– Samples will include various common garment and hood materials
– Different cleaning parameters will be tested
• Effect of detergent
• Effect of cleaning agent (pH and composition)
• Effect of process (water temperature, machine type)
9
Phase III Biological Decon Efficacy
• Additional procedures will be developed to examine removal of biological contaminants (blood/body fluids, pathogen microorganisms)
– Surrogates may be used
• Testing in phase will focus on methods of disinfection or sanitization using different methods and agents
• EPA currently registers all disinfectants and sanitizers
10
Project Expected Output
• Understanding of persistent contaminant levels present in turnout clothing
• Determination of cleaning procedure effectiveness in removing contaminants
• Procedures to enable validating specific cleaning procedures and agents
• Guidance information to support fire department decisions on advanced/ specialized cleaning
11
Resources Needs
• Task group has:
– Already obtained XX sets of soiled gear
– Identified specific cleaning parameters for study
– Estimated that study will cost approx. $200K
• Engage Fire Protection Research Foundation:
– Independently oversee research product
– Select contractor to perform research study
– Raise funds to support project
– Establish review panel12
Research Foundation Oversight
• Project will be under direct control of foundation after work is transferred
• Foundation solicits bids for research contract
• Foundation will put together advisory group to review contractor progress and results
– Group to include task group and other individuals
– Frequent reviews to be held to critique and direct research effort
• Project subject to foundation regulations13
Updated 22 September 2014
Prospectus Turnout Clothing Contamination and
Validation of Cleaning Procedures Scope and Objectives: This specific project is intended to provide information and data that will help support the development of cleaning validation procedures and/or detailed guidance that can be used to assess the efficacy of specific laundering equipment, detergents, and other factors associated with the advanced or specialized cleaning of turnout clothing. The findings from this work may provide the basis for specific requirements and for appendix information to be incorporated into the future edition of NFPA 1851, Standard for the Selection, Care, and Maintenance of Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting. Background: Prior work of the Technical Committee on Structural and Proximity Fire Fighting Protective Clothing and Equipment included the establishment of specific laundering parameters as part of the requirements for conducting advanced cleaning. Many of these parameters were based on the recommendations of fabric and component suppliers or were learned through the experience of turnout clothing industry representatives involved in cleaning and servicing turnout gear. Current criteria are limited to the maximum wash temperature, range of detergent pH, and the highest permitted levels of acceleration for the washing machine. While information is provided in the appendix of the NFPA 1851 standard to address the effects of cleaning on turnout clothing, limited information is provided for determining the effectiveness of specific equipment, categories of supplies, and procedures for the adequate removal of fireground soils and contaminants. Increasing concerns for firefighter exposure to carcinogens and other detrimental impacts from accumulation of contamination in firefighter protective clothing have incented the committee to examine the efficacy of current laundering procedures. A specific task group has been established as part of the technical committee to investigate a variety of selection, care, and maintenance issues in NFPA 1851, specifically including cleaning validation as a priority. The task group requires specific test information and data to support recommendations for proposing changes to the NFPA 1851 standard. Technical Approach: A review will be carried out for evaluating levels of soiling/contamination in both used/unlaundered and used/cleaned turnout clothing to gain a better understanding of the types of persistent contaminants and the effectiveness of current laundering procedures. In addition, research will be undertaken and the results will be used to establish procedures that could become the basis of requirements that may be applied to determine if a specific laundering or cleaning approach can be validated for its soil and contamination removal effectiveness. For these purposes, the study is proposed in three phases:
1. Phase I involves the identification of contaminants and preparation of procedures for evaluating used, unprocessed turnout clothing for levels of soiling and contamination.
2. Phase II examines specific procedures for ascertaining the effectiveness of laundering in removing specific soils and contaminants.
3. Phase III entails specific procedures for evaluating the effectiveness of laundering or sanitization agents in removing or deactivating biologically-based contaminants.
1
Updated 22 September 2014
Phase I. For Phase I, the investigation will include four different tasks. These efforts are designed to provide the basis for later phases to evaluate cleaning procedure effectiveness in contaminant removal; specific tasks include:
• Task 1 – Identification of testing approaches to quantify contaminants in turnout clothing • Task 2 – Evaluation of sample turnout clothing that has been field contaminated to
identify which additional contaminants are present • Task 3 – Investigation of methods to expose clothing samples in a manner representing
normal forms of fireground contamination • Task 4 – Establishment of study materials, analysis procedures, and cleaning methods
The principal purpose of Task 1 is to determine the specific sampling and testing procedures that will be used to assess contaminant levels in turnout clothing materials. A list of recommended target contaminants and the rationale for their selection will be provided through a parallel government-sponsored project. This contaminant list has been developed by examining literature sources from prior contaminant analysis, studies and other information provided by industry in terms of commonly encountered contaminants. The selection of target contaminants has also taken into consideration substances identified in the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Monograph on Firefighting (Volume 9). The selected contractor will identify specific methods for sampling and analyzing turnout clothing for these contaminants. Task 2 will apply the Task 1 procedures for evaluating a number of protective clothing items representing different levels of contamination for analysis. The NFPA 1851 task group has already acquired a number of sets of contaminated turnout clothing from different departments throughout the country for the purpose of this evaluation. The turnout clothing that has been obtained by the task group is generally 5 to 10 years old, has a documented history for its use and care, and has not been recently subjected to cleaning. A number of used hoods have also been obtained. The selected contractor will select clothing items from these samples for testing and conduct the contaminant analyses. Unused and used/cleaned clothing may also be evaluated for comparison purposes. Task 3 will involve the identification of techniques that can be applied for consistently contaminating clothing samples in a manner representative of field exposure. Normally, decontamination studies involve placing fixed amounts of contaminants onto fabric samples; however, this approach does not account for the fact that most chemical exposure occurs through the deposition of soot with adsorbed contaminants onto clothing surfaces or direct gas/vapor contact with the clothing. One possible approach that will better represent fire ground contamination is to place clothing samples into a chamber where the samples can be exposed to controlled burns involving normal room contents that create semi-reproducible smoke, gas/vapor, and particulate conditions. Task 4 will entail establishing the specific approaches for carrying out the second phase of the study. This activity specifically includes selecting sample clothing for contamination, determining which cleaning procedures to be applied and selecting the exposure/analytical techniques to be applied. Input from the NFPA 1851 task group includes recommendations for evaluating the following types of clothing materials:
2
Updated 22 September 2014
• PBI/Kevlar and Nomex®/Kevlar® outer shells • Woven and nonwoven substrate based moisture barriers • Filament facecloth/spunlace insulation and woven/batting based thermal barriers • Nomex® and PBI/Lenzing hood materials
The NFPA 1851 task group has also investigated different cleaning processes and procedures, which at a minimum will include laundering and drying in accordance with current NFPA 1851 requirements. It is recommended that the contractor evaluate ranges of machine types, detergents, water temperature, and water hardness, to assess cleaning effectiveness. Suggestions have also been made by the NFPA 1851 task group to consider alternative cleaning technologies such as ultrasonic cleaning, enzyme-based cleaning agents, and ozone generation. The purpose of including these laundering variants in the test plan is to address whether changes should be made to the existing advanced cleaning requirements. The development of the test plan will include the specification of procedures used for soiling/contaminating clothing samples and how samples will be evaluated for the removal of contaminants on the selected materials as the result of different applied cleaning procedures. Phase II. Based on information from Part I, specific soiling and contamination procedures will be applied to new, unsoiled turnout clothing material samples to ascertain soiling and target contaminant removal. These procedures will be applied to a range of materials representing different types of industry products and general cleaning practices identified in Task 4 of Phase I for determining decontamination effectiveness. Some of the sample clothing obtained in Task 2 of Phase I may be used in Phase II. For example, one possible approach for using sampling clothing could be to take a given article of clothing and separate it into halves with one half evaluated for its initial levels of soiling and contamination and the other half subjected to a selected cleaning procedure with a similar assessment of soiling and contamination levels conducted after that procedure is complete. Additional research and testing will be carried out in Phase II to assess laboratory methods of contamination and decontamination assessment for comparison for realistically contaminated clothing to determine if the laboratory-based approach can be used for establishing a set of cleaning validation procedures. Phase III. A separate part of the study will be designed to address biological contamination using conventional microbial-based methods for ascertaining the sanitization effectiveness of specific cleaning agents and procedures. For example, AATCC 100 and ASTM E2149 are already specified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for evaluating the antimicrobial function of specific disinfectants and sanitization agents for fabrics. This phase is considered separate because the nature of biological contamination is significantly different than removal of soils and chemicals. For example, it is unlikely that blood-soaked clothing will be obtained for analysis. Instead, work in this phase will be based on using surrogate, non-lethal microorganisms to assess cleaning removal. Current work for the validation of healthcare textile removal of blood/body fluid and microbial sanitization will also be examined for its possible application for turnout clothing.
3
Updated 22 September 2014
Expected Output: The specific outputs from this project in Phase I will include proposed analytical procedures for target contaminants, results from the evaluation of contaminated turnout clothing, recommended cleaning validation test procedures, and the Phase II test plan. Phase II will provide test results for evaluating various turnout clothing materials subjected to selected cleaning procedures for assessing contaminant levels. It will also provide information to potentially validate proposed cleaning process effectiveness testing. Similarly, Phase III will provide test procedures and test results for the effectiveness of different sanitization procedures and agents for different materials and biological contamination, Reports will be provided for each phase with a description of the procedures, phase findings, and recommendations. These reports will be prepared in a format that can be used as justification for any specific recommendations that would be considered pertinent by the NFPA 1851 Task Group. Anticipated Resource Needs: The primary means for carrying out this project and addressing the resource needs for this project will be the engagement of the Fire Protection Research Foundation (FPRF). FPRF will act as a central coordinating organization for selecting a contractor, who will be tasked with undertaking the research and testing described above. Funding to support this work will be derived from a campaign to the fire service to solicit donations from fire departments, firefighters, various fire service organization, and other organizations. The solicitation of funds and their administration will be handled by FPRF. A large part of the project costs will be the funding for the contractor. FPRF also requires fees for the administration of the project. The overall study has a projected cost of approximately $200K; however, the actual funding amount will not be known exactly until FPRF solicits bids from prospective contractors. The principal costs for the contractor are labor and laboratory fees. The typical range of test costs for ordinary laboratory evaluations of contamination levels is shown in Table 1. Costs vary with the analysis type and degree of sample preparation. Table 1 – Possible Testing Approaches and their Respective Costs
Test Type Test Description Test Price Range Soiling Total petrochemical hydrocarbons analysis (per
sample) $100-$200
Inorganic Contamination
Analyses using sample digestion and inductively coupled plasma spectroscopy – multiple metals
$200-$300
Organic Contamination
Analyses using sample extraction and gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy
$450-$600
Biological fluid contamination
Protein and carbohydrate analysis (per sample) $150-$200
Microbial contamination
Rinsing of sample with sterile media, culturing media, and microbiological counting of microorganisms
$250-$300
Estimates for analyzing a single sample range from $1,200 to $1,600. These fees vary with the number of materials tested and cleaning processes evaluated. For example, evaluating 20 sets of contaminated clothing and testing a set of 6 materials against 10 processes for cleaning efficacy can cost from $96,000 to $128,000. Additional costs are expected for developing the test procedures, putting together sampling/test plans, and preparing reports.
4
Updated 22 September 2014
Schedule: Once the project is initiated, the following tasks and milestones are proposed over an 8-month period for Phase I and an additional 4 months each for Phase II and Phase III: Table 2 - Possible Project Schedule
Phase Task Activity Start Completion I 1 Identification of sampling and test procedures --- Week 8
2 Evaluation of contaminated clothing Week 8 Week 20 3 Development of contamination procedures Week 16 Week 24 4 Creation of Phase II test plan Week 24 Week 32 --- Preparation of Phase I report/recommendations Week 24 Week 32 --- Detailed review of Phase I findings by FPRF* Week 32 Week 36
II --- Evaluate chemical contamination removal on selected materials using selected processes
Week 36 Week 52
III --- Evaluate biological contamination removal on selected material using selected processes
TBD** TBD**
* Includes FPRF technical review panel; ** may be conducted in parallel with Phase II. Oversight: It is proposed that the study project be facilitated by the Fire Protection Research Foundation (FPRF), which frequently acts as a coordinating body for NFPA codes and standards based research. FPRF will act as the entity for executing all parts of the study and include the appointment of a review panel composed of subject matter experts considered to have expertise pertinent to the study. Initial direction will be provided to FPRF and the review panel as established in this prospectus and other input provided by the NFPA 1851 Task Group. FPRF will organize teleconference or face-to-face meetings at the onset of the project, after a specific study plan has been prepared, to review the results of the preliminary testing, at the conclusion of the project to assess study findings and recommendations, and as needed to provide technical guidance for the project. This project will be subject to the FPRF policies for the conduct for research projects (attached).
5
DRD TG Meeting of Oct. 7, 2014 (Edinger, Lakey, Fesik,
Griffith, Allen)
TG questions / observations:
Use - how often are these used on live rescue situations?
Is there any interest in making the DRD optional?
o Why?
o Is this a step backward?
o Can it be explained / justified to the fire service?
Should the device be in a different location (e.g. higher on
the garment?).
o Can this be done?
o What is the cost?
Is there benefit / detriment in standardizing the device
location across all manufacturers?
Is there benefit / detriment in standardizing the device
design (type) across all manufacturers?
Based on maintenance and inspection practices, how often
are these devices removed from PPE?
Are the new generation airpacks better or worse in terms of
deploying the DRD?
Should we develop a diagram or label to guide reloading
the DRD?
o There are different loading methods.
o Some departments have several different types
of structural PPE with different loading criteria.
Should the strap be a bright color and or have reflective
material?
o All or part of the strap?
Overall, is there a benefit to standardizing the DRD?
o Deployment - simpler training and deployment for
firefighters
o Maintenance - easier to maintain (both in house and
external ISPs)
o Manufacturers - what is the effect on the
manufacturing process if this is required in the
document?
How do we communicate with the full committee to answer
these questions?
These questions will be modified and developed for a short
survey instrument to be send to end users in the fire service.
From the committee and end user inputs, we will develop
recommendations for potential document change proposals for
the Spring 2015 TC meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Rick Edinger
Assistant Fire Chief
Chesterfield Fire & EMS
Chesterfield, VA. 23831
1
GARMENT TASK GROUP MEETING
Oct. 7, 2014
Chair: Tim Durby
Members & Guests:
Tim Durby Prescott Fire [email protected]
Pat Freeman Globe Mfg. Co. [email protected]
Michael Laton Honeywell [email protected]
Jim Hanley RTI [email protected]
Joey Underwood Safety Components
Rich McNeely Orafol [email protected]
Chris Gaudette Orafol [email protected]
John Karban FireDex [email protected]
Jian Xing DuPont [email protected]
Brian Shiels PBI Performance [email protected]
Diane Hess PBI Performance [email protected]
Holly Blake W.L. Gore [email protected]
Jamie Martin Safety Components
Pat Woods FDNY [email protected]
Stephane Rousse Innotex stephane.rousse@innotexprotctioncom
Tim Gardner 3M [email protected]
Bill VanLent Veridian [email protected]
Item #1
Chairman Durby began the meeting by instructing all members and guests to
review the following chapters, including relevant test methods (chapter 8) to see if
there are any issues that need to be addressed.
Chapter 5 5.1 5.2 5.3
Chapter 6 6.1 6.2 6.3
Chapter 7 7.1 7.2 7.3
Item #2
Chairman Durby asked if there were any thoughts on hook and loop,
reminding the group that in the 2013 edition of the standard we added specific
requirements for peel, shear, and cycle strength in an attempt to allow the
possibility for an aramid hook and loop. Prior to this, the only requirement for
hook and loop was that it not be aramid, because of short cycle life.
2
Item #3
With reference to 1851, he instructed the group to review the wording on the
FI which in essence said that it was the intent of the TC to NOT allow repairs to be
made with “used” material.
Item #4
Tim Gardner explained that there was not enough overlap with ANSI 107
concerning trim performance and amounts to impact the NFPA minimum trim
package requirements. It was also brought up that one very large fire dept. was
seeing “stress” or wear lines in the fabric between the trim around the sleeve and
the coat cuffs. Currently the standard requires the trim to be within 2” of the coat
cuff and discussion centered around moving this to allow a wider space between
these two points. The pant requirement, for example, is that the trim be located
between the pant cuff and the knee, allowing for more real estate as to where the
pant cuff trim is located. The group was charged with looking at language that
would allow more flexibility in this requirement.
Item #5
A question was asked concerning the shower test and work that was being
done to “fix” the test. This is an NFPA Research Foundation Project officially titled
“Improved Liquid Integrity Test”. Pat gave a brief synopsis of what was being
done using an alternative spray nozzle configuration where the manikin faces 3
nozzles set on a pole at different heights. One member asked if this work would
be completed in time for public input and Pat felt the answer was definitely yes, but
she deferred to Jeff Stull who was leading this work.
Item #6
The WICHER TEST was brought up. Although heavily discussed for the 2013
edition, the work was not completed in time and to date ASTM has not come up
with a test method. Michael Laton explained that Honeywell has the apparatus but
is stalled as a result of the electronics of the apparatus which basically needs a
computer programmer. Discussion centered around whether this test would
provide any more information than the CCHR test does and unfortunately, the only
way to determine this is to be able to design and run testing. Tim reminded the
group that this was to address the issue of knee burns and hot water. There was
much discussion over this test and the action item is for Michael Laton to reach
out to Doug Dale and Shawn Deaton of N. Carolina State to see if they could
somehow work together to get the existing apparatus up and running. This will
most likely include a price quote for the necessary computer programming.
3
Item #7
Discussion on the WICHER TEST lead to conversation about the CCHR testing
and if there was any interest in reverting back to having UL report numbers, as
opposed to pass/fail on base composites. There was also discussion on whether to
eliminate the dry testing, since the wet testing always seemed to yield the lowest
results. It was pointed out that the labs had over ten years of test data from which
to draw, which could help the committee make this decision. Other test issues that
were brought up for debate:
-TPP after wash is always higher; could this preconditioning be eliminated?
-UL reports values to two decimals and it was suggested that perhaps
rounding up would be less confusing.
-UL reports actual test values, but perhaps a range would be more realistic
and meaningful to the actual fire departments.
-Should the TPP and THL values be raised or lowered for any reason?
-Durability testing for outer shells and thermal liners. We currently have UV
testing of moisture barriers, but should we be doing something more for these
other layers? Even more preconditioning (laundering) might be more realistic
testing.
-It was pointed out several times that any changes to test methods,
requirements, and adding new tests would need to be heavily validated and
justified in accordance with edicts from Correlating Committee and the TC would
need to be mindful of this as we suggest changes.
