National Fire Protection Association Standards Research Articles

Examining Behaviors Related to Retirement, Cleaning, and Storage of Turnout Gear Among Rural Firefighters.

Background: Although the increased occupational exposures among career firefighters are well documented, there are gaps in research related to exposures among volunteer firefighters. This study was completed in a state where the majority of firefighters are volunteers. We aimed to examine if differences existed in career versus volunteer firefighters' behaviors related to the retirement, cleaning, and storage of turnout gear which may increase occupational exposures. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was administered to a convenience sample of 300 firefighters during a training event for both volunteer and career firefighters from one fire district in Kentucky. We measured factors that may affect behaviors related to retirement, cleaning, and storage of turnout gear, such as age of turnout gear at retirement, frequency of cleaning, and location of storage. Results: Two hundred and seventy-five firefighters out of 300 invited participants completed the survey, for a response rate of 92%. The majority of the participants were compliant with National Fire Protection Association Standards with most reporting cleaning their gear as needed, storing gear at the fire station, and retiring gear within 10 years of the manufactured date. Most of the participants (88%) were concerned about job-related exposures and felt susceptible to diseases like cancer and respiratory illness. The structural issues of cost and accessibility were identified as the primary barriers to the proper retirement and cleaning of turnout gear, especially among volunteer firefighters. Conclusions/Application to Practice: Most participants retired, cleaned, and stored turnout as recommended. The majority of participants were concerned with job-related exposures. The structural issues of cost and accessibility were identified as the primary barriers to the proper retirement and cleaning of turnout gear, especially among volunteer firefighters. By identifying differences, tailored trainings could be aimed at volunteer firefighters to help reduce their exposures.

A Survey of Structural Firefighter Station Wear in the United States

Structural turnout gear is essential for the safety of firefighters. The station wear, or clothing worn underneath the structural turnout suit, contributes to the thermal protection and performance of the overall ensemble. Depending on the fiber content and material fabrication, base layer garments may increase the risk of potential burn injuries. The purpose of this research was to evaluate National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1975 certified, certified flame resistant, and non-certified station wear garments in relation to firefighter burn injuries while worn under a NFPA 1971 structural firefighting ensemble. An information-gathering questionnaire was distributed nationwide with over 1800 active-duty United States firefighting personnel responding to questions regarding the selection and use of their station wear. Responses concerning the thermoplastic nature of base layer materials, the design and configuration of how base layers are worn, and the overall satisfaction with the performance of certified versus non-certified station wear were gathered. Questionnaire responses determined 80% of participants were aware of the overall risk of wearing non-certified base layer garments (i.e. synthetics that will melt or drip); however, 45% of career firefighters indicated they were not required to wear certified or flame resistant station wear. Regional analysis of the responses was performed. Findings of this research will educate the fire service and inform NFPA standards committees. Further, this study supports the need for future research to develop station wear garments with improved burn injury protection, thermal comfort, and ergonomic mobility.

THE ANALYSIS OF FIRE ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL AT BUILDING X UNIVERSITY Y YEAR 2018

Jakarta Provincial Fire and Rescue Agency mentioned that the capital approximately has 900 high building, however only 20 % of them possessed adequate safety precaution. Data from the Jakarta Provincial Fire and Rescue Agency show that in 2018, 1,106 fire cases caused economic loss worth around Rp 151,498,186,111. Building X University Y is used every day with more than 500 occupants for education purpose. The aim of this study was to analyze fire engineering and administrative controls in the building according to the standards (National Fire Protection Association standards and the Regulation of Minister of Public Works No. 26/PRT/M/2008). This study used analytical descriptive design with direct observation as study method. The study was conducted in July 2018. The study found that the building has not met the adequate standards yet, such as active and passive protection systems, and the means of the evacuation system. There were no active protection systems. The only implemented passive protection system was a compartmentation system which divided the building into cells designed to resist the fire spread when it happens. There were no other passive protection systems found in the structure. All doors and windows were made of woods and glasses. There were no means of evacuation in the building. There were no administrative controls in the building. Appropriate controls are required in the building, involving fire engineering and administrative controls because the building lack of fire protective and precaution systems.Keywords: evacuation system, fire control, protection system

Procedures for development and revision of codes and standards associated with fire safety in the USA

SummaryThe process of codes and standards development, and subsequent regulation, in the USA is very different from that in most other countries: it is managed by private (not‐for‐profit) companies and is via a consensus process. With regards to codes, primary code development occurs through International Code Council (ICC), for building, fire, and mechanical codes, and National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), for electrical and life safety codes. With regards to standards, the key fire test standards used in codes are also developed by companies, primarily American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International and NFPA. All meetings at which codes and standards are developed are open to interested parties and/or observers. This study describes the way the major codes and standards are developed and amended, by the organizations referenced. Participation by all stakeholders is strongly encouraged, and the opinions of any interested parties are an essential component of the process. However, producers (or manufacturers) cannot represent more than a fraction of voting members in the committees and, in fact, in the case of ICC, only public officials are permitted to vote on the final action. At ASTM, technical committees are created by the organization and anyone can become a member. However, voting is restricted and balanced to ensure that producers cannot be a majority. No codes are developed by ASTM. Each committee chooses its projects to develop standards, within an overall scope; committee membership is not limited. The technical committee handling fire issues is ASTM E05, but other committees also develop fire test standards and specifications, including fire tests. At NFPA, technical committees are formed, and its members appointed, by the NFPA Standards Council, and committees are kept small. Appointments are made based on technical expertise and interest categories (one of which is manufacturers). Members in none of the interest categories can exceed one third of the committee membership. Every committee decision can be appealed (commented on), and the committee must consider the comments. The committee decisions can be appealed again, and the issues are debated in front of the general membership at meetings. Fire tests are issued by the technical committee on fire tests, while other committees deal with various codes and standards that can be adopted for regulation, including the National Electrical Code (NEC) (NFPA 70) and the Life Safety Code (NFPA 101). Most technical committees deal with a single document, but the technical committee on fire tests deals with all the fire test methods. In contrast, multiple committees handle separate sections of the major codes. Virtually, the entire country adopts the NEC and many states (as well as the healthcare industry) adopt NFPA 101. Almost all of the major codes with fire implications are developed at ICC. This includes the International Building Code, International Fire Code, International Mechanical Code, International Residential Code, International Existing Building Code, and International Wildland Urban Interface Code. Codes are revised on a 3‐year basis, with code development committees appointed for each cycle, on the basis of expertise, interest category, and geographical location, to ensure full balance. Stakeholders are invited to argue for or against code proposals in front of the committees. Committee decisions can be appealed (commented on) by the public, and the comments are argued in front of code officials who are members of ICC, without a committee present. The only ICC members who are allowed to vote on this final action are those public officials present, including code and fire officials. The final action must be upheld (or not) by an online vote where the only voters are public officials who are ICC members. Codes incorporate standards (including fire test standards) and contain the pass/fail requirements for the various test methods (since such criteria are normally absent from the test method standards). In some cases, codes may also include some detailed clarifications of ways to conduct or modify the test methods, if such clarity is needed. Once the new edition of any code is finalized (by ICC or NFPA), each of the states in the United States is entitled to adopt one or more code as regulation or to modify any code to incorporate local needs or special considerations. In many states, cities or jurisdictions are also entitled to modify any state code but they would not be allowed to have a local regulation that is less severe than the state regulation.

Assessment of the ARFF-related NFPA standards development process

Purpose The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) develops standards for fire and emergency services through a consensus standard process, which includes a revisionary cycle. The paper aims to discuss these issue. Design/methodology/approach The present study employs a qualitative case study method to examine the NFPA’s development process for standards specific to aircraft rescue and firefighting (ARFF). The revisionary cycle of this process serves as an important tool to maintain currency in the industry. Findings As a result of the qualitative analyses, researchers identified processes and procedures that were supported by NFPA ARFF Technical Committee members. Further, members delineated factors that could be enhanced to ensure greater success with the standards development process. Initially, the research was to examine the revisionary cycle process of the NFPA ARFF standards. While this was achieved other items were identified: desire of all committee members interviewed to see these standards be widely accepted, to have more of those in the fire and emergency services industry and the general public involved, and to continue to enhance a revisionary cycle that these members believe to assist in public safety. Originality/value This study is novel in that it is one of a few studies that directly addresses the ARFF area of firefighting. This paper adds to the limited literature available in this area and provides guidance with ways to enhance the overall standards development process for NFPA ARFF-related consensus standards.

On‐going developments in addressing combustible dust hazards

The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) continues to play an important role in creating guidance for identifying and controlling hazards associated with combustible dusts. Five separate standards address hazards associated with wood‐related materials, metals, agricultural products and foodstuffs, sulfur, and all other combustible dusts (e.g., paper, plastics, chemicals, pharmaceuticals). This article will address a number of developments in NFPA's initiatives addressing combustible dust hazards. Topics to be addressed include: The status of, and recent revisions to, NFPA's combustible dust standards; NFPA's plans for a new combustible dust standard, which will address the common issues associated with controlling combustible dust hazards, leaving the commodity‐specific standards to address the issues unique to their scope; A new technical correlating committee, which will help ensure greater consistency between the approaches addressed in the various combustible dust standards; The increasing inclusion of process safety management (PSM) principles in the combustible dust standards; and The increasing allowance provided to users of NFPA standards for the use of risk‐based decision‐making in the selection of combustible dust hazard control options. Options exist for AIChE to provide technical support to a number of the above areas. The article will also preview a new Center for Chemical Process Safety project for providing tools for addressing combustible dust hazards. © 2014 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Process Saf Prog 34: 24–30, 2015

An Explanation and Comparison of Sweating Hot Plate Standards

Abstract There are several standards that require the use of a hot plate apparatus for measuring the dry thermal resistance (insulation) and the evaporative resistance of fabrics: ASTM D 1518, ASTM F 1868, and ISO 11092. In addition, several National Fire Protection Association standards for protective clothing (NFPA 1951, 1971, 1977, and 1999) specify the use of this method. All of these methods measure the total resistance (i.e., the resistance of the fabric and the resistance of the surface air layer). The resistance of the air layer alone is determined by conducting a “bare plate” test. This air layer resistance is often subtracted from the total resistance to determine the fabric resistance values. Different standards use different terms for these resistances (Ret or Ref), and they report the resistances in different units (m2 · kPa/W or m2 · Pa/W). In addition, some methods call for guarded plates, whereas others use smaller plates, for which the experimenter must adjust the data for thick specimens to compensate for the lack of a guard. Some methods control the air velocity over the specimen, while others allow any air speed, as long as the calibration requirements on standard fabrics are met. This paper discusses the differences in test instruments, conditions, measured parameters, and units so that data from different labs can be compared and understood. In addition, data from an ASTM interlaboratory study is presented so that the repeatability and reproducibility of the different test protocols on a variety of materials can be discussed.

Impact of a modern firefighting protective uniform on the incidence and severity of burn injuries in New York City firefighters.

The New York City Fire Department (FDNY) is the largest fire department in the United States, with over 11,000 firefighters. In 1994, FDNY changed to a modern firefighting protective uniform. The major difference between traditional and modern uniforms is that modern uniforms include both protective over-coat and over-pant, whereas traditional uniforms include only the over-coat. Furthermore, modern uniforms are manufactured using improved thermal protective textiles that meet or exceed current National Fire Protection Association standards for structural firefighting. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of the modern uniform on the incidence and severity of FDNY burn injuries. We also evaluated the incidence and severity of other non-burn injuries to determine whether there was serious adverse impact. The number of lower-extremity burns decreased by 85% when 2 years' experience while wearing the modern uniform was compared with 2 years while wearing the traditional uniform. Upper-extremity burns and head burns decreased by 65% and 40%, respectively. Severity indicators (days lost to medical leave, hospital admissions, and skin grafts) for lower- and upper-extremity burn injuries were all substantially reduced. This occurred without significant change in the incidence or severity of trunk burns, heat exhaustion, inhalation injuries (actually decreased), or cardiac events. The reduction in the incidence and severity of burn injuries, the major occupational injury affecting this workforce, has been so dramatic and without untoward effects that the introduction of the modern uniform must be characterized as a sentinel event in the history of firefighter health and safety.

Performance Standards for Improving Chemical Protective Suits

This paper describes the basis and requirements of various standards for the manufacture of chemical protective suits currently under development by the Ameri can Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). Standards of both groups are aimed at improving product doc umentation to allow end users to have better information for selecting chemical pro tective suits for their respective applications. NFPA standards will also establish minimum performance requirements judged necessary to provide acceptable levels of protection for end users involved in hazardous chemical response and operations. These standards cover the full range of chemical protective suits ranging from dis posable coveralls to totally-encapsulating protective ensembles. Documentation and performance requirements apply to suit materials and components as well as to the total suit. ASTM and NFPA expect to complete and promulgate each of the standards by late 1989