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
Jason Allen
George Berger
Steven Corrado
Paul Curtis
Tim Durby
Richard Edinger
David Fanning
Patricia Freeman
Richard Granger, Jr
William Haskell
Earl Hayden
John Karban
Kim Klaren
Steve Lakey
Karen Lehtonen
Michael McKenna
Daniel Melia
Andrew Oliver
Louis Ott
Chair
Intertek Testing Services
USMC/Marine Corps Systems Command
Underwriters Laboratories, Inc
L.N. Curtis & Sons
Prescott Fire Department
International Association of Fire Chiefs
E.D. Bullard Company
Globe Manufacturing COMPANY, LLC
Charlotte Fire Department
NIOSH-NPPTL
International Association of Fire Fighters
FireDex, LLC
Fairfax County Fire & Rescue Department
Verified Independent Service Providers Association
Lion Apparel, Inc.
Michael McKenna & Associates, LLC
Fire Department City of New York
Gear Wash, LLC
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
Alternate Members Present:
Eric Buzard
Brandi Chestang
Nicholas Curtis
Matthew Elmore
Jonathan Fesik
Tom Hamma
Tricia Hock
Rickey Johnson, Jr.
Michael Laton
Amanda Newsom
Marni Schmid (Secretary)
Jeff Sedivec
Patrick Woods
Mine Safety Appliances Company
US Department of the Navy
Technical/Creative Resource Group
E.D. Bullard Company
Fire Industry Repair Maintenance Inc.
Heartland Fire & Rescue
Safety Equipment Institute (SEI)
Addison Fire Department
Honeywell First Responder Products
Underwriters Laboratories Inc.
Fortunes Collide Marketing/Alt. for F.I.E.R.O.
L.N. Curtis & Sons (Curtis)
Fire Department City of New York
Staff Liaison
David Trebisacci
National Fire Protection Association
Guests Present:
Joey Underwood
Jamie Martin
Chris Parkinson
Jim Hanley
Ray Russell
Nicole Clescen
Shaun Russell
Angel Sanchez, Jr.
Tim Gardner
Scott Cheek
Jennifer Wise
Joe Xiras
Jennifer Brust
Safety Components
Safety Components
Lion
RTI
Phenix Fire Helmets
Phenix Technology
Phenix Technology
Phenix Technology, Inc
Texas Commission on Fire Protection
Honeywell
W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc
Minerva Bunker Gear Cleaners
Honeywell
Guests Present (cont’d):
Jim Walter
Brian Marenco
Bob Keys
Kirk Owen
Charles Dunn
Matt Colatrylie
Robert Self
Steve Tull
Kevin Groppe
Allen Rom
Travis Walden
Ronald Krusleski
Timothy Neal
John Gillette
Pat Ekiss
Tim Rutland
Mike Wisko
Harrish Lilani
Jessie Gentry
Tim Gardner
Kevin Roche
Christian Jaehrling
Bill VanLent
Tim Porch
Bill Brooks
Laura Pritchard
Doug Bailey
Mark Williams
Holly Blake
Stephane Rousse
Diane Hess
Brian Shiels
Donald Holman
Tyler Griffith
Mike Allen
Chris Gaudette
Rich McNeely
Ron Bove
Frank Masley
John Ashley
David Eskew
Ed MacDonald
Stephen Asthalter
Dick Howard
Jian Xiang
Jim Podolske (phone)
Pete Dickerson (phone)
Allen Maples
Jim Baker
Honeywell
Honeywell
FDNY Consulting, LLC
TenCate Protective Fabrics
TenCate Protective Fabrics
TenCate Protective Fabrics
TenCate Protective Fabrics
Texas Commission on Fire Protection
Waco Fire
Fire-Dex
Austin Fire Department
Houston Fire Department
Houston Fire Department
Texas Commission on Fire Protection / Frisco FD
Texas Commission on Fire Protection / City of Taylor Fire
Texas Commission on Fire Protection
Galveston Fire/Texas Fire Chief Association
NORFAB Corp
DFW Airport
3M Personal Safety Division
Facets Consulting
Haix North America Inc
Veridian-FEMSA
3M PSD
UniMac Laundry Systems
Newtex Industries, Inc
Newtex, Inc
W.L. Gore
W.L. Gore
Innotex
PBI Performance Products
PBI Performance Products
Marine Corps
Sturges Manufacturing
Sturges Manufacturing
Orafol Americas
Orafol Americas
W.L. Gore & Associates
Masley Enterprises, Inc
Springfield, LLC
Springfield, LLC
Stanfield’s Limited
Stanfield Limited
NorFab Corporation
DuPont
United States Air Force
United States Air Force
W.L. Gore & Associates
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
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.
1
11/25/2014
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.
2
11/25/2014
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.
3
Modeling Results: Male Population
• 97% of Males are fit by the XSmall to XLarge NFPA 1971
sizes
• Note the wide and overlapping sizing ranges
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
W. L. Gore &
Associates
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 & Care
Task 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
– Detergents
2
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 fireground
contaminants
– 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-butylphthalate, butylbenzylphthalate, di-2ethylhexyladipate, di-2-ethylhexylphthalate, di-n-octyl phthalate, phenol, 2methylphenol, 4-methylphenol, 2,4dimethylphenol, and 4-chloro-3methylphenol
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 panel
12
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 regulations
13
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
Soiling
Inorganic
Contamination
Organic
Contamination
Biological fluid
contamination
Microbial
contamination
Test Description
Total petrochemical hydrocarbons analysis (per
sample)
Analyses using sample digestion and inductively
coupled plasma spectroscopy – multiple metals
Analyses using sample extraction and gas
chromatography/mass spectroscopy
Protein and carbohydrate analysis (per sample)
Rinsing of sample with sterile media, culturing media,
and microbiological counting of microorganisms
Test Price Range
$100-$200
$200-$300
$450-$600
$150-$200
$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
I
1
2
3
4
----II
--III
---
Activity
Identification of sampling and test procedures
Evaluation of contaminated clothing
Development of contamination procedures
Creation of Phase II test plan
Preparation of Phase I report/recommendations
Detailed review of Phase I findings by FPRF*
Evaluate chemical contamination removal on
selected materials using selected processes
Evaluate biological contamination removal on
selected material using selected processes
Start
--Week 8
Week 16
Week 24
Week 24
Week 32
Week 36
Completion
Week 8
Week 20
Week 24
Week 32
Week 32
Week 36
Week 52
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
GARMENT TASK GROUP MEETING
Oct. 7, 2014
Chair: Tim Durby
Members & Guests:
Tim Durby
Pat Freeman
Michael Laton
Jim Hanley
Joey Underwood
Rich McNeely
Chris Gaudette
John Karban
Jian Xing
Brian Shiels
Diane Hess
Holly Blake
Jamie Martin
Pat Woods
Stephane Rousse
Tim Gardner
Bill VanLent
Prescott Fire
timdurby@yahoo.com
Globe Mfg. Co.
patf@globefiresuits.com
Honeywell
Michael.laton@honeywell.com
RTI
HANLEY@RTI.ORG
Safety Components
Orafol
rich.mcneely@orafol.com
Orafol
chris.gaudette@orafol.com
FireDex
john@firedex.com
DuPont
jian.xiange@DuPont.com
PBI Performance
brian.shiels@pbiproducts.com
PBI Performance
diane.hess@pbiproducts.com
W.L. Gore
hblake@wlgore.com
Safety Components
FDNY
woodsp@fdny.nyc.gov
Innotex
stephane.rousse@innotexprotctioncom
3M
tjgardner@mmm.com
Veridian
bvl@veridian.net
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.
1
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.
2
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.
3