Latest Entry
Chainsaw safety
Jan 17, 2012 Awards, Cleaning, Company News, Employees, Fire Expo, How to, Industry News, Multimedia, NFPA 1851, On Sale, Sponsorships Leave a comment
Chainsaw safety is the job of every saw operator, and proper PPE should always be used when handling or working around chainsaws.
These include:
•Eye protection- approved goggles or safety glasses (no sunglasses).
•Chainsaw Chaps — proper size and length.
•Proper-sized gloves.
•Long sleeve shirt.
•Leather boots — no loose boot laces.
Take the time to inspect the chainsaw before operating the saw.
•Check the chain and bar — sharpness of chain, bar seated correctly.
•Check the bolts and screws all around the saw — no missing screws or bolts.
•Check the casing of the saw — no cracked or missing plastic.
Make sure you’re aware of your surroundings while operating the chainsaw.
•Look for people working in your area — advise all personnel you’re operating the saw.
•Look for any snags or hazards in your area — look up for power lines, widow makers, etc.
•Make sure you always have a spotter or swamper to use for communications.
•Always watch your footing while operating the saw — loose, rocky, steep terrain can cause you to slip while the chainsaw is running.
Always make sure you are comfortable doing the task at hand.
•Proper training for personnel running saws.
•While falling trees, know your escape route.
•If you are not comfortable falling the tree, walk away. Notify your supervisor and mitigate the safety issues or turn down the assignment.
We hope you found this information of some assistance if you have any questions regarding the clean and repair process of your fire turnout ensemble please contact us toll free at 866-370-7800 or visit us online.
Recent Entries
Visit us on Facebook!!
Sep 7, 2010 Awards, Cleaning, Company News, Employees, Fire Expo, How to, Industry News, Multimedia, NFPA 1851, On Sale, rental, Sponsorships, Uncategorized 9 Comments
‘Gear Down, Cool Down’
Jan 11, 2012 Awards, Cleaning, Company News, Employees, Fire Expo, How to, Industry News, Multimedia, NFPA 1851, On Sale, rental, Sponsorships Comments Off
Often, when firefighters are in rehab, the one repeated mistake is that they are still wearing their turn-out gear. Whether it is your bunker pants or an open turn-out coat or your lid, it is all preventing you from cooling down efficiently and quickly.
Once you have entered the rehab area (hopefully you have one designated) one of the first orders of business should be removing full turn-outs and helmets. If your rehab area is outside consider ambient temperatures when doing this. Otherwise the sooner these items are removed the sooner you can start cooling the core areas that hold in so much heat.
We hope you found this information of some assistance if you have any questions regarding the clean and repair process of your fire turnout ensemble please contact us toll free at 866-370-7800 or visit us online.
Firefighter PPE: Understanding limitations of government regulations
Jan 5, 2012 Awards, Cleaning, Company News, Employees, Fire Expo, How to, Industry News, Multimedia, NFPA 1851, On Sale, rental, Sponsorships Comments Off
We are all affected by government regulations. The fire service is no exception. There are a number of regulations from both the federal government and state governments that affect firefighter personal protective equipment.
Included in these regulations are general requirements for fire departments (employers) to provide PPE for their firefighter employees. These requirements extend to not only providing the PPE but also caring and maintaining it, and providing training on the use and limitations of protective clothing and equipment.
These regulations are found in OSHA 29 CFR Part 1910.132. The regulations, sometimes also known as a “general duty clause” or Subpart I, further prescribe fire departments conduct hazard assessments and select the appropriate personal tech equipment based on the identification of hazards.
Well understood
For the most part, these regulations are well understood and, in fact, NFPA 1971 requires that manufacturers include a reference to these regulations in the user information provided for their clothing and equipment products that are certified to the standard.
There are also government regulations that pertain to minimum requirements for personal protective clothing and equipment. One example is OSHA 29 CFR Part 1910.156. These regulations are titled “fire brigades” and specify minimum requirements for personal protective clothing and equipment used by firefighters.
The regulations were first enacted in the early 1980s and unfortunately have not been updated in the past 30 years. Consequently, in specifying protective garment minimum requirements, the federal regulations indicate that garments should comply with the 1975 edition of NFPA 1971, even though there have been a total of six revisions that have followed, with increasing numbers of performance requirements for firefighter clothing.
The OSHA regulations allows the tear strength of outer shell materials to be lower than was required in the NFPA standard and exempts outer shell materials from having to resist charring when exposed to high heat if suitable flame resistance can be demonstrated.
These regulations become problematic because they are the law yet at the same time they do not come anywhere close to specifying the levels of performance that are found in the newer editions of NFPA 1971 since 1975.
When further examined, similar requirements for protective helmets, gloves, and footwear are equally out of date with modern criteria. Protective hoods are not even addressed.
Respective NFPA editions
No competent manufacturer still fabricates their clothing (garments) strictly to these older standards. Occasionally, one may find a reference to the OSHA regulations as part of the label or claims for a particular product, but this information is generally accompanied by the appropriate certification to the then respective edition of NFPA 1971.
Some jurisdictions may require the reference to the OSHA regulations because it is the law, but it should be understood that these federal regulations are woefully inadequate and provide an unsafe basis for specifying firefighter protective clothing performance on their own.
Nonetheless, there are some products where federal or state regulations are basis for the sole representation of firefighter personal protective equipment.
This is most commonly observed for protective gloves because some departments consider gloves to be a commodity given their lower price compared to other parts of the firefighter protective ensemble.
At the time they were prepared, the OSHA regulations did not have the benefit of an existing NFPA standard on firefighter gloves. The first NFPA standard on gloves (numbered 1973) did not become available until 1983.
Therefore, OSHA made reference to a study performed by Arthur D. Little, performed under contract to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
That study set out to develop specific criteria and test methods for demonstrating the protective qualities of firefighter gloves, which were to become the basis for future requirements for gloves in the NFPA 1973 standard.
Certain portions
For whatever reason, the government only chose to implement certain portions of the government study for gloves. In contrast, the NFPA 1973 standard on gloves accepted nearly all the requirements directly from the Arthur D. Little study.
According to the OSHA Act, the individual states are allowed to develop their own regulations for occupational safety and health as long as those regulations as a minimum meet the existing federal requirements.
In the state of California, for example, regulations have been promulgated for structural fire fighting protective clothing and equipment under Title 8 of the California code of regulations and are found in Article 10.1.
Specific requirements for hand and wrist protection are provided in Section 3407. These regulations specify a few tests for gloves that include conductive heat resistance, radiant heat resistance, flame resistance, dexterity, and grip.
These regulations contrast with the federal regulations in some respects; however, like 29 CFR 1910.156, they deviate substantially from the current requirements provided by NFPA 1971 as well as earlier embodiments of the glove performance standard since its initial release in 1983.
There are substantial differences in the performance requirements for firefighter gloves that exist in both the federal and California state regulations as compared to the NFPA standards.
These include a number of specific performance areas that are simply not addressed as part of the federal or state regulations. For example, there are no regulations for the gloves performance against wet heat transfer, or for that matter, any specific requirement for moisture barrier and the ensuing liquid protection provided by the moisture barrier.
Glove regs
The California state regulations do indicate that “protective gloves for firefighters shall be made of durable outer material designed to withstand the effects of flame, heat, vapor, liquids, sharp objects and other hazards that are encountered in firefighting.”
Yet, criteria are not provided in these regulations that address each performance area though it can be argued that gloves should demonstrate these specific qualities by some means.
In the current edition of NFPA 1971, there are several areas of performance which have been developed over the years to address firefighter concerns for protection of their hands.
It has long been recognized that the hands are very vulnerable to burn injury because of the relative large surface area to volume ratio of the hands as compared to other parts of the body.
Developments that are taking place in the creation of requirements for firefighter hand protection have attempted to address these concerns as well as take into consideration new material and design technologies available for gloves.
Neither the federal regulations, nor the California state regulations are able to keep pace with emerging glove technology or set requirements for the improvements of firefighter health and safety in response to fire service needs.
Cannot be responsive
The respective portions of the government simply cannot be responsive in a timely and periodic manner. For that matter, it is uncertain as to what resources the federal or state government can draw upon for setting requirements. The NFPA process uses balanced membership interests combined with several forums for public input.
The specific problems that ensue from relying only on the federal or California state regulations for firefighter conformity arise in many other forms.
Other than the fact that the regulations are clearly deficient in addressing all protection concerns for firefighters, there is also the absence of requirements for the certification of products, the provision of user information, and appropriate product labeling.
The NFPA standards are relatively robust in covering all parts of the manufacturing process to ensure that products meet the requirements in the standard.
These include that the manufacturer employs quality assurance procedures that ensure that all manufactured products meet the same level of performance as those products that are tested under the standard.
Self-certify
Government regulations do not address certification at all. Manufacturers can self-certify their product to the government regulations and not be subject to independent review, nor any of the other benefits that third party certification provides.
There are no requirements for quality assurance programs to be in place or for independent audits to ensure that quality practices are being followed. Manufacturers are further not required by the government regulations to provide any user information and can label their product however they choose.
These practices put the fire service in a dangerous position and compromise the safety of their members. Unfortunately, fire departments and individual firefighters may not realize how deficient these regulations are.
They assume that because there is some indication of meeting a regulation, the product is acceptable. After all, they cannot be experts in PPE — they are relying on the manufacturers to provide that expertise and any apparent endorsement gives rise to the legitimacy of the product.
It is our opinion that where accepted industry standards exist, products should at least comply with those standards. We do not believe that either the federal or state government regulations alone are a sufficient basis for qualifying the protective product as acceptable.
Sometimes, there may be exceptions but only if coupled to appropriate standards. In our state of Texas, there are state statutes that require career firefighters to wear structural firefighting protective clothing and equipment to meet the current edition of NFPA 1971.
Similar practices exist in some but not all states. Certainly, NFPA standards are voluntary, but they represent the base minimum for what the industry considers acceptable levels of protection and provide a rigorous basis for demonstrating compliance — the same cannot be said for many federal and state regulations that are not regularly updated and lack requirements for conformity assessment.
We hope you found this information of some assistance if you have any questions regarding the clean and repair process of your fire turnout ensemble please contact us toll free at 866-370-7800 or visit us online.
Safety tips during overhaul
Dec 31, 2011 Awards, Cleaning, Company News, Employees, Fire Expo, How to, Industry News, Multimedia, NFPA 1851, On Sale, rental, Sponsorships, Uncategorized Comments Off
By Vincent Dunn
1. Do not throw objects from a window during overhaul unless the area is clear, and you have been signaled to do so by another freighter acting as a guide.
2. When trimming broken glass from windows, knock the glass shard inside, not outside.
3. When assigned to operate around the perimeter of a burning building, be aware of the danger of falling objects and wear proper protective clothing. A well-fitted helmet, gloves and an eye-shield in the down position can protect you.
4. When venting windows from inside, attempt to open the window before breaking glass. Double paned windows in new and renovated buildings can be more quickly and fully opened manually then by breaking glass.
We hope you found this information of some assistance if you have any questions regarding the clean and repair process of your fire turnout ensemble please contact us toll free at 866-370-7800 or visit us online.
Firefighter protective clothing: Who should be cleaning it?
Dec 20, 2011 Awards, Cleaning, Company News, Employees, Fire Expo, How to, Industry News, Multimedia, NFPA 1851, On Sale, rental, Sponsorships Comments Off
Over the past 15 years, the fire service has increasingly embraced the fact that when it comes to health and safety, keeping protective clothing clean is as important as wearing the appropriate PPE on the emergency scene.
Numerous studies have shown that firefighter protective clothing picks up a range of highly toxic contaminants, some of which are known to cause long-term health disorders.
Further studies are attempting to understand the nature of these contaminants, but the conclusion from existing research shows it’s important that turnouts be frequently cleaned and maintained in a clean condition.
Dirty clothing is no longer perceived as a sign of experience but rather the fact that the department or individual firefighters are simply not properly taking care of their gear.
The fire service created much of the early input for how firefighter protective coating equipment should be cared for and used. Groups such as CAFER, NAFER, SAFER, and FIERO pioneered some the original guidelines that became the basis for existing practices for properly cleaning firefighter clothing.
This work, supplemented by periodic research, has shown in greater detail how proper laundering can remove many contaminants.
The combination of this knowledge and fire service efforts resulted in the development of an NFPA standard for the selection care and maintenance of firefighter protective clothing (NFPA 1851). This standard continues to represent the embodiment of minimum practices for keeping clothing clean.
NFPA 1851 requires that firefighters routinely clean their clothing following structural fires or other emergencies where the clothing has become soiled.
Soiling can include a range of contaminants, such as soot and other substances that are encountered during the fire response.
Routine cleaning, as defined in NFPA 1851, involves the spot cleaning of turnout clothing in a utility sink.
These procedures essentially involve brushing off the debris deposited on clothing and scrubbing those sections of the clothing with a soft brush in warm water with a mild detergent.
Although this process may be effective in removing much of the soils, it not a complete cleaning of the clothing and, therefore, machine cleaning under certain conditions is recommended when the soiling is more widespread.
The responsibility for routine cleaning falls with the individual firefighter, but some departments have implemented in-house procedures where firefighters can either get their gear cleaned in department-based facilities or request that their gear be cleaned.
NFPA 1851 also establishes requirements for what is called advanced cleaning. Advanced cleaning is a more thorough and complete cleaning that is to be conducted using a washing machine unless specifically prohibited by the manufacturer.
Advanced cleaning is specified on an annual basis in the 2008 edition of the standard, but originally it was specified at a twice-a-year frequency when the standard first came out in 2001.
The change to single cleaning each year was apparently based on the fact that NFPA 1851 is a minimum standard and that for some departments one thorough cleaning was considered suitable.
However, NFPA 1851 also mandates an advanced cleaning following soiling prior to use.
Clearly, the advanced cleaning is a departmental responsibility. It is also a mandated practice through federal occupational safety and health regulations, because employers (fire departments) are required to provide and maintain PPE in a safe and usable condition for their employees (firefighters).
NFPA 1851 provides the framework for the execution of these requirements by establishing minimum requirements for how thorough cleaning is carried out, including who is qualified to conduct these cleanings.
NFPA 1851 dictates that the advanced cleaning be carried out by either a verified independent service provider (ISP) or by trained individuals of the fire department.
Independent service providers are outside companies that provide advanced cleaning as well as inspection and, often, repair services.
Verification is a process defined in the NFPA 1851 standard that involves a check of the organization’s ability to conduct repairs and successfully pass an audit of their procedures.
If the fire department conducts its own cleanings, then it is supposed to have individuals that have been trained by the respective manufacturer of the clothing to carry out the advanced cleaning of turnout gear.
The choice of deciding who cleans the protective clothing is not always straightforward. Several factors go into making this selection.
ISPs offer turnkey services, some with pick up and delivery of the clothing to the respective department’s locations.
There are many organizations that have extensive expertise and experience in providing these services. On the other hand, in-house services may be more convenient, but they require resources for their proper management.
Both approaches require some accountability, which ultimately rests with the department. If advanced cleaning occurs more than one time annually, which it often does for any department that faces frequent fire calls, then provisions are needed to ensure that cleaning of clothing is provided in a timely fashion.
Ultimately, the clothing manufacturer has significant input into this decision because they have the responsibility for providing the training to the fire department, if that approach is chosen, but the manufacturer also makes recommendations for which ISPs are qualified for cleaning their clothing.
Some departments argue that they should have the final decision on who cleans their clothing, but manufacturers can claim that clothing warranties can be affected if clothing is not cleaned according to their specifications, which in fact NFPA 1851 indicates as an overriding consideration in this decision.
The right decision for which organization should provide advanced cleaning of turnout clothing must be based on the department choosing an organization that provides the best combination of proper qualifications with demonstrated capabilities for conducting that cleaning.
Right now, the committee responsible for NFPA 1851 is considering how these choices are made and what properly qualifies an organization — whether fire department or ISP — in conducting advanced cleaning in addition to other services related to the care of firefighter protective clothing.
There are debates on the freedom of fire departments making this choice, tempered with the responsibility that manufacturers have in making sure that the gear they sell is properly taken care of for ensuring its intended service life as based on warranty and liability issues.
Current practices for stating that manufacturers can provide whatever level of training they deem appropriate versus what some believe to be weak verifications procedures for qualify ISPs are being discussed in order to provide an equitable, but more importantly consistent approach in ensuring clothing is properly cleaned.
The good news is that firefighter clothing is being cleaned more frequently than once was the practice, and that there are options for how this cleaning can be carried out responsibly and effectively.
Yet the further development of fire service practices in qualifying which organizations provide this cleaning will only help the fire service practices advance for keeping gear cleaner and minimizing continued firefighter exposure to contaminants through their clothing.
I hope you found this information of some assistance if you have any questions regarding the clean and repair process of your fire turnout ensemble please contact us toll free at 866-370-7800 or visit us online.
Proper PPE use protects firefighter health
Dec 14, 2011 Awards, Cleaning, Company News, Employees, Fire Expo, How to, Industry News, Multimedia, NFPA 1851, On Sale, rental, Sponsorships, Uncategorized Comments Off
One of the NVFC’s Firefighter Health and Safety Priorities for departments is: Provide and require the proper use of full personal protective equipment (PPE).
There are obvious safety reasons for wearing full PPE correctly every time, but there are also important health reasons. Proper use of PPE protects you from inhaling potentially dangerous smoke, debris, and toxins, which could otherwise cause significant harm to your lungs, respiratory system, and general health. PPE also protects your skin so that you don’t absorb harmful particles and toxins through your skin. Protecting your head with a helmet can prevent head injuries that could lead to acute or chronic health conditions.
The benefits of wearing PPE fully and properly when responding to incidents or participating in certain training activities are numerous. So are the dangers that come with not protecting yourself with PPE. In addition to wearing PPE correctly, you must make sure the PPE is in good condition and properly maintained.
Use this day of National Firefighter Health Week to focus on the benefits of PPE, and impart to department members the critical nature of fully wearing and properly maintaining PPE. Create a culture within your department where proper and full use of PPE is standard and anything less is unacceptable. Make sure the leaders of the department lead by example. Take responsibility for your health and safety and Respond Strong.
What you can do today
•
Adopt the NVFC’s Health and Safety Priorities in your department, and use this day of Health Week to focus on the Equipment B.E.S.T. Practices: “Provide and require the proper use of full personal protective equipment” and “Maintain all equipment based on established safety recommendations.”
•
Let your members know that they must use their SCBA fully and properly every time. Safety equipment doesn’t work if it’s not being used. Hang flyers, signs, or posters at the station to remind members that this is the policy of the department.
•
Hold a drill on donning your PPE to make sure everyone knows exactly what needs to happen when the next call comes in.
•
Conduct an inspection of all of your station’s equipment and determine which items need to be replaced sooner rather than later. It may not be possible to upgrade everything right now, but make a plan for securing the most needed equipment now and develop a schedule for equipment that will need to be replaced in the future. Ensuring every piece of equipment is working effectively keeps you safer.
•
Review with all members how to properly maintain, clean, and store each piece of PPE and remind them they need to follow these procedures every time.
•
Encourage every member of your department to take advantage of free online PPE trainings and webinars, some of which are listed in the resource section of this page.
•
Make sure all of your respirators are clean and in working order.
I hope you found this information of some assistance if you have any questions regarding the clean and repair process of your fire turnout ensemble please contact us toll free at 866-370-7800 or visit us online.
Recognize Risk Factors
Dec 6, 2011 Awards, Cleaning, Company News, Fire Expo, How to, Industry News, Multimedia, NFPA 1851, On Sale, Sponsorships, Uncategorized Comments Off
Exposures occur in several forms and by several routes. Respiratory exposures occur because firefighters remove breathing apparatus without knowing airborne hazards exist. Many departments use carbon monoxide levels as an indicator of the need for respiratory protection.
Tests for other contaminants are not normally carried out at fire scenes. The report further states that firefighters are exposed to “particulates, gasses and mists, heavy metals, carcinogenic chemicals, asbestos, and other substances with toxic effects.” Particulate matter includes pulverized concrete, fiberglass and soot. Diesel soot is a common contaminant found in stations that do not have exhaust removal systems.
All skin cancers, melanoma, leukemia, and cancer of the brain, rectum, buccal cavity and oral pharynx, stomach and colon are all possibly associated with firefighting, according to the study.
The recommendations on risk reduction include the increased use of breathing apparatus, and reducing exposure to skin contaminants, such as soot, by showering thoroughly after fires. The report also suggests decontamination of turnout gear after incidents.
I hope you found this information of some assistance if you have any questions regarding the clean and repair process of your fire turnout ensemble please contact us toll free at 866-370-7800 or visit us online.
New study shows chemical exposure dangers to firefighters
Nov 30, 2011 Awards, Cleaning, Company News, Fire Expo, How to, Industry News, Multimedia, NFPA 1851, On Sale, Sponsorships, Uncategorized Comments Off
We have written other articles in the past that address the topic of chemical exposure to firefighter skin during structural fires. These articles have examined the integrity of turnout clothing in protecting the firefighter’s skin from a variety of different hazardous chemicals.
New research being conducted by the Technical Support Working Group (TSWG) in Australia suggests that these concerns should be taken even more seriously and is also recommending certain practices to be undertaken during different types of structural fires.
The work in Australia uniquely involves the measurement of chemicals not only in the fireground environment but also the concentrations of these chemicals that accumulate in the firefighter clothing and on the firefighter’s skin.
Different types of fire exposure are being assessed. These include ordinary house fires, larger scale structural fires, car fires, and industrial fires. The types of chemicals that evolve during these events vary dramatically.
For example, large-scale structural fires often show a greater variety of different chemical contaminants. It is well known that the burning of modern materials produces a cocktail of various hazardous chemicals compared with the combustion of normal construction materials.
These chemicals range from highly volatile substances such as formaldehyde and benzene to more persistent contaminants that are larger chemical molecules, and are equally dangerous for continued exposure.
The TSWG studies show that the amounts of these chemicals that stay in the clothing or reach the firefighter skin change with the nature of the chemical.
As would be expected, chemicals that evaporate easily dissipate rapidly and do not generally result in clothing contamination or skin absorption. However, the research does show these chemicals do reach the firefighter’s skin.
On the other hand, there are many chemicals produced in fires that are not very volatile but can still permeate into firefighter clothing and skin.
As we have reported before, these chemicals often adsorb onto the soot particles that in turn get trapped in clothing materials and deposit on the firefighter’s skin. Some of these chemicals are highly toxic and are known carcinogens.
The principal chemicals of concern are known as poly aromatic hydrocarbons, often abbreviated as PAHs. These chemicals include substances such as naphthalene, chrysene, and benzopyrene.
As contaminants, these chemicals are generally persistent in remaining in the environment, in clothing, and on surfaces. Unlike the more familiar chemicals, these PAHs do not easily evaporate.
The TSWG research shows that significant levels of PAHs reside in clothing and get onto firefighter skin during certain types of fires. The levels of exposure change with the type of fire, activity of the firefighter, length of exposure, and several other factors.
The findings from this work also show that certain areas of the body are more likely to be contaminated such as the chest and the face and neck area.
This may have to do with the penetration of chemical vapors and particulates (soot) through interface areas of the clothing, such as the coat front closure and the coat to the hood interface part of the ensemble that is not protected by the wearer’s SCBA face piece.
While the research in this area is still ongoing, certain recommendations are starting to be made about how firefighters can reduce their skin exposures to hazardous contaminants.
Like many contaminants, it is important to reduce the overall exposure time. This can be accomplished by two different practices. First, contaminated clothing can be washed to remove many contaminants or to at least significantly reduce their concentrations.
However, it is important that the cleaning be done each and every time the clothing is exposed on the fireground environment. This raises questions about potentially cleaning clothing at a rate more frequent than is commonplace or recommended.
The other approach simply involves good hygiene. Very specifically, is important for firefighters to take a shower after they’ve been exposed to fireground contaminants.
Ideally, such showers should be taken at facilities brought to the scene. Yet, this may also prove to be impractical. It has been suggested that the mass decontamination showers that were purchased in response to 9/11 concerns might have an adequate use as a post-scene, on-site decontamination facility for major structural fires.
TSWG has categorized the recommendations for applying these practices based on the nature of the fire. For example, it is suggested that protective clothing always be cleaned following major structural fires and that firefighters wash their bodies immediately after the fire.
For some other types of fires, such as vehicle fires which are generally in open areas where there is better ventilation, the recommendation for showering can occur after the firefighters returned to the station.
Some types of incidents may not warrant as much attention to cleaning clothing and showering. TSWG is continuing their research and plans to release a report with specific findings and recommendations sometime next year. This work will be subject to a thorough review before any specific conclusions are provided.
The suggestion of these practices is nothing new. However, this research has been able to quantify the types of skin exposure firefighters have to fireground chemicals and how contamination of both their clothing and skin occurs. Tests have shown how these exposures can be mitigated by applying good hygiene in combination with more frequent cleaning of gear.
Currently, NFPA 1851 is being revised. This standard addresses the selection, care, and maintenance of both structural and proximity firefighter protective ensembles. This standard has been controversial in certain respects.
For example, one of the highly contested issues has been mandatory retirement of clothing and helmets 10 years following the manufacture date. On the subject of cleaning, the existing edition of NFPA 1851 specifies that firefighters subject their gear to what’s called an advanced cleaning once a year.
The standard further requires that clothing be subjected to routine cleaning by the firefighter, but is somewhat ambiguous as to when to apply this type of cleaning.
Routine cleaning typically involves brushing away debris from the clothing exterior and handwashing it in a utility sink. However, is unknown how effective routine cleaning would be in removing many contaminants that might be considered long-term exposure hazards to firefighters.
In fact, there are very few studies that have been conducted in this area since the work we performed for the U.S. Fire Administration that is now more than 12 years old.
The place to address firefighter hygiene is NFPA 1500, the industry standard on fire department occupational safety and health programs. Yet that standard is nearing the completion of its revision process and is unlikely that any new information will be added that addresses the topic of recommending firefighters shower following exposures on the fireground.
Fire departments do not have to be limited by standards. The practices suggested in this article can be implemented now. They are too many studies and case histories suggesting that chronic exposure to certain chemicals provides the potential for long-term health problems, including certain types of cancer.
Firefighters already face serious hazards without having to be further exposed unnecessarily to fireground chemicals.
I hope you found this information of some assistance if you have any questions regarding the clean and repair process of your fire turnout ensemble please contact us toll free at 866-370-7800 or visit us online.
Grants help Fla. firefighters buy PPE
Nov 22, 2011 Uncategorized Comments Off
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — A total of $15,000 in grants will allow the city’s Fire Department to purchase eight new sets of fire turnouts, the safety pants and coats firefighters wear in emergency situations.
The Robert and Francis Chaney Family Foundation of Jacksonville has awarded the department $10,000 over two years for the equipment. Volunteer Engine Company No. 1, a charitable group in town that aids the department, will donate $5,000 next year toward the sets. The sets of turnouts cost $1,700 each.
The funds will allow the department to keep its equipment up to date and lower concerns if the turnouts are damaged, said Fire Chief Devin Hull, who secured the Chaney grant.
I hope you found this information of some assistance if you have any questions regarding the clean and repair process of your fire turnout ensemble please contact us toll free at 866-370-7800 or visit us online.
Improving protection levels for hazmat gear
Nov 14, 2011 Uncategorized Comments Off
Cumulative permeation is already used for the determination of permeation resistance for NFPA 1991 suit materials from chemical warfare agents. It is similarly applied to clothing materials specified in NFPA 1951 (CBRN technical rescue operations protective ensembles), NFPA 1971 (CBRN option for structural fire fighting protective ensembles), and NFPA 1994 (CBRN terrorism protective ensembles) for specialized forms of chemical barrier protection.
Specific levels of acceptable performance have been set at 1.25 μg/cm2 for nerve agents (Sarin or Soman) and 4.0 μg/cm2for blister agents (distilled mustard). Nerve and blister agents are by far some of the most skin toxic substance known to man.
Yet, the vast majority of industrial chemicals have skin toxicity levels that do not come close to approaching the low levels for chemical warfare agents, which are designed to be lethal through skin absorption.
Furthermore, the NFPA committee has already accepted the use of cumulative permeation for certain toxic industrial chemicals, including acrolien, acrylonitrile, ammonia, chlorine, and dimethyl sulfate.
The acceptable level for cumulative permeation has been set at 6.0 μg/cm2 for these chemicals. So the question one should really ask is if cumulative permeation is already being used now for the really toxic chemicals and the level being proposed for NFPA 1991 is about the same for chemical warfare agents, why is it being questioned.
Cumulative permeation is a better measurement of material barrier performance because it accounts for problems in how permeation is determined using breakthrough time and it provides the future opportunity to refine limits with the prospects of promoting better protective ensembles.
Without going into the detail, standard test techniques for determining breakthrough time can miss spurious peaks in chemical permeating the material because only periodic sampling is used in testing.
Comparatively, the measurement of cumulative permeation means that the laboratory has to capture all chemical going through the material. This makes cumulative permeation a more reproducible and accurate measurement.
It is impossible to relate breakthrough time directly to safe limits of exposure for hazardous chemicals. Chemical exposure limits are based on the acceptable exposure limits, which in turn require an understanding of the dose and the length of time for which exposure occurs at a specific chemical concentration.
The use of cumulative permeation offers a means for relating acceptable dose to experimental determinations of material permeation performance.
Even when the criteria based on cumulative permeation use extremely conservative limits as has been proposed, it is possible to make adjustments in the future to link acceptable exposure limits to corresponding levels of cumulative permeation.
The recommendation for switching from the non-meaningful breakthrough time to a toxicity-based cumulative permeation mass (dose) for measurement of permeation resistance affords a safe, reasonable, and conservative criterion.
It is the first logical step for the NFPA committee responsible for encapsulating chemical protective suit standards to take in moving toward vapor-protective ensembles that are potentially form-fitting, more comfortable, and safer to wear, without any loss of protection or safety for the end user.
Just as the structural firefighting clothing industry made its transition to TPP many years ago, it is now time to shift the chemical protective clothing industry to a way of qualifying chemical barrier materials that targets useful information that can be related to exposure effects.
The use of breakthough time cannot accomplish this change and is akin to the use of thickness as the yardstick for assessing bunker clothing effectiveness.
As we have reported many times in the past, a test is only appropriate if it can be properly validated through science and field observations. That science has gone into the development of cumulative permeation as a measurement technique whereas the determination of breakthrough time is simply arbitrary assessment.
As breakthrough time defines the current chemical protective clothing industry, it is like the tail wagging the dog, instead of the other way around.
