l 1 I l l l 1 l l l 1 l l

/ 1990 Annual Meeting /

/

/

l

/

/

/

Technical Committee Documentation A compilation of the documented action on comments received by the technical committees whose reports have been published prior to consideration at the NFPA Annual Meeting

/

l

/

/

m

Please bring to the 1990 Annual Meeting San Antonio Convention Center San Antonio, TX May 21-24, 1990

/

l [ ~ National Fire Protection Association N F P A ® 1 BATTERYMARCH PARK, P.O. Box 9101, QUINCY, MA 02269-9101

R Copyright ~-', 1990 All Rights Reserved

SUPPLEMENTARY

Report of Committee on

Fire Service Protective Clothing and Equipment

Richard M. Duffy, Chairman I n t ' l Assn. of Fire Fighters, DC

Wayde B. Mi l ler , Secretary Mine Safety Appliances Co., PA

(Nonvoting)

Peter V. Ackerman, South Plainf ield, NJ Rep. NVFC

Donald Aldridge, Lion Apparel Inc., OH Glenn E. Alexander, Dayton Fire Dept., OH Joseph A. Bigler, Mine Safety Appliances Co., PA

Rep. CGA Donna P. Brehm, Virginia Beach Fire Dept., VA Dennis W. Browner, Scott Aviation, NY

Rep. ISEA Christopher E. Coombs, Cairns & Brother Inc., NJ Glen E. Gardner, US Occupational Safety & Health Admin., DC James E. Gauerke, Fyrepel Products, OH

Rep ISEA Ray L. Goad, Texas Comm on Fire Prot.

Personnel Standards & Education, TX Walter J. Good, Fort Worth Fire Dept., TX Edward T. Grohe, Western Fire Equipment Co., CA Cl i f f Haskell, IAFF Local 522, CA David A. Heywood. US Testing Co., CA Raymond J. Kelley Jr, RI State Assn. of Fire

Fighters, RI Rep. NFPA FSS

Jim Minx, IAFF Local 1524, OK Rep. IAFF

Sidney E. Oxenham, Ontario Fire Marshal's Office Noel B. Padden, Roy City Fire Dept., UT

Rep. IAFC Alexander W. Santora, New York City Fire Dept., NY Bradley J. Schmidt, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL J. Tom Smith, US Fire Administration, MD Charles C. Sores, Seattle Fire Dept., WA Jeffrey O. Stul l , Texas Research Inst. , Inc., TX Douglas W. Towle, Globe Manufacturing Co., NH Bruce H. Varner, Phoenix Fire Dept., AZ James H. Veghte, Biotherm Inc., OH Kay M. V i l la , Nat'l Inst. of Standards and

Technology, MD Steven H. Weinstein, Biomarine Inc., PA

Alternates

Roger L. Barker, N. Carolina State University, NC (Alternate to D. Towle)

Don R. Forrest, United Firefighters of LA City, CA (Alternate to C. Haskell)

William R. Hooper, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL (Alternate to B. J. Schmidt)

Cl i f f Jones, Tempe Fire Dept., AZ (Alternate to R. J. Kelley Jr.)

William T. Jones, Fire Dept. City of New York, NY (Alternate to A. Santora)

Robert T. McCarthy, US Fire Administation, MD (Alternate to J. T. Smith)

Tommy R. Milam, Dayton Fire Dept., OH (Alternate to G. Alexander)

Joseph Reyes, IAFF Local 34l, TX (Alternate to J. Minx)

Kenneth L. Simmons, Phoenix Fire Dept., AZ (Alternate to B. Varner)

Jeanne E. Slattery, Occupational Safety & Health Admin., DC

(Alternate to G. E. Gardner) Don J. Slee, Compressed Gas Assn. Inc., VA

(Alternate to J. A. Bigler) Daniel E. Vanover, US Testing Co., Inc., CA

(Alternate to D. A. Heywood)

Frank E. Wilcher Jr, Industrial Safety Equipment Assn. Inc., VA

(Alternate to J. Gauerke) James H. Winger, Nat'l Bureau of Standards

(Alternate to K. M. Vi l la)

Subcommittee on Hazardous Chemicals Protective Clothing

Jeffrey O. Stul l , Chairman Texas Research Inst i tute, Inc.

Jan Dunbar, Secretary Sacramento Fire Dept., CA

Robert Anderson, Milwaukee Fire Dept., WI James Bartasis, Chemron, Inc William A. Blackburn, Abandaco Meredith Conoley, Radian Corporation James L. Daneker, Los Angeles City Fire Dept, CA Mike Ferguson, Dew Chemical Company Joseph P. Gallagher, New York City Fire Dept., NY James E. Gauerke, Fyrepel Products Daniel Gohlke, W. L. Gore & Associates John Gramby, Lion Apparel John J. Hickey, San Francisco Fire Dept., CA Hank A. Howard, Benicia Fire Dept., CA James S. Johnson, Lawrence Livermore National Labs Christopher J. Kairys, Mine Safety Appliances John D. Langley, Kappler, Inc. Michael L inv i l le , Tulsa Fire Dept., OK Robert T. McCarthy, US Fire Admin. Jim Minx, IAFF Gregory G. Nell, Prince George's County Fire Dept., MD Richard Ronk, NIOSH Charles Salzenburg, E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. Inc. John Schramko, Chemical Fabrics Corp. Charles C Sores, Seattle Fire Dept., Seattle, WA Steven Storment, Phoenix Fire Dept., AZ James H. Veghte, Biotherm Joseph Vlta, IAFF Dennis Wheeler, City of Miami Fire Dept., FL Michael Ziskin, Field Safety Corp.

Nonvoting

Roger L. Barker, NC State University

Subcommittee on Fire Service Life Safety Rope

William T. Jones, Chairman Fire Department City of New York

Joseph Vita, Secretary IAFF

Glenn E. Alexander, Dayton Fire Dept., OH Michael Brown, Southpaw Enterprises Edward O. Farrel l , Harrison Steel Casting Co. Glen E. Gardner, US Occupational Safety & Health Admin. W. Steven Lirakis, Lirakis Safety Harness, Inc. Carl Liss, City of Chicago Fire Department, IL Keith Mann, Dade County Fire Dept., Miami, FL J. Gordon Routley, Phoenix Fire Dept., AZ

Subcommittee on Station/Work Uniforms

Charles C. Sores, Chairman Seattle Fire Dept., WA

Jim Minx, Secretary IAFF

Donald Aldr idge, Lion Apparel Inc. Glenn E. Alexander, Dayton Fire Dept., OH Wil l iam F. Ba l t inger , Chicago, IL Robert H. Chiosterg i , Southern M i l l s Corp. C l i f f Haskell, IAFF William T. Jones, Fire Department City of New York Joseph Reyes, IAFF

58

David Rubin, Rubln Brothers Kenneth Spendola, Navy Clothing Textile Research Faci l i ty Bruce H. Varner, Phoenix Fire Department, AZ Kay M. V i l la , National Inst i tute of Standards and Technology Tom Wollan, Underwriters Laborator ies, Inc.

Staff Liaison: Bruce W. Teele

This l i s t represents the membership at the time the Committee was balloted on the text of this edit ion. Since that time, changes in the membership may have occurred.

The Supplementary Report of the Committee on Fire Service Protective Clothing and Equipment is presented for adoption in 3 parts.

Part I of this Supplementary Report was prepared by the Technical Committee on Fire Service Protective Clothing and Equipment, and proposes for adoption a Supplementary Report which documents i ts action on the public comments received on i ts Report on NFPA 1975, Standard on Station/Work Uniforms for Fire Fighters, 1985 Edition, published in the Technical Committee Reports for the 1990 Annual Meeting.

Part I of this Supplementary Report has been submitted to le t te r bal lot of the Technlcal Committee on Fire Service Protective Clothing and Equipment which consists of 29 voting members; a l l of whom voted aff i rmatively.

Part I I of this Supplementary Report was prepared by the Technical Committee on Fire Service Protective Clothing and Equipment, and proposes for adoption a Supplementary Report which documents i ts action on the public comments received on i ts Report on NFPA 1983, Standard on Fire Service Life Safety Rope, Harness, and Hardware, 1985 Edi t ion , publ4shed in the Technical Committee Reports for the 1990 Annual Meeting.

Part I I of th is Supplementary Report has been submitted to l e t t e r b a l l o t of the Technical Committee on Fire Service Protect ive Clothing and Equipment which consists of 29 vot ing members; a l l of whom voted aff i rmatively.

Part I I I of th is Supplementary Report was prepared by the Technical Committee on Fire Service Protect ive Clothing and Equipment, and proposes for adoption a Supplementary Report which documents i t s act ion on the publ ic comments received on i t s Report on NFPA 1993, Standard on Support Function Protect ive Garments fo r Hazardous Chemical Operations, 1990 Edi t ion , published in the Technical Committee Reports fo r the 1990 Annual Meeting.

Part I I I of th is Supplementary Report has been submitted to l e t t e r b a l l o t of the Technical Committee on Fire Service Protect ive Clothing and Equipment which consists of 29 vot ing members; a l l of whom voted a f f i r m a t i v e l y .

59

PART I

(Log #13) 1975- I - ( I -3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Nicholas J. Curtis, Lion Apparel, Inc. COMMENT~PROPOSAL NO.: 1975-I RECOMMENDATION: Revise def in i t ion "components." All material used in construction of station/work uniforms except tex t i l e fabric and interfacing, including but not limited to thread, trim (delete, facing) bindings, zippers, buttons and labels. SUBSTANTIATION: "Interfacing," i f categorized as a component, is not subject to Method 59D3 Flame Testing. "Facings" are always tex t i l e fabrics, not components, and the use of the term "Facing" could be confusing to someone who does not understand the difference between "Facing" and "Interfacing." "Buttons" are important components and should be included in this def in i t ion. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise the def in i t ion of "component" to read: "All materials used in the construction of

station/work uniforms such as thread, trim, bindings, zippers, buttons, and labels but excluding tex t i l e fabrics, inter l in ings, and emblems."

Add new A-I-3 Components to read: "Emblems affixed to garments by a manufacturer are

not components of construction. As such, users should be aware that unless these items have been designed to meet the same minimum requirements as other components specified in this standard, emblems might reduce performance properties of the garment and might contribute to in jury . " COMMITTEE ~TATEMEN_~: The submitter's intended changes were addressed by adding "buttons" and " in ter l in ing" to the defini t ions of "components." See also action taken on Public Con~ent 1975-2 (Log #11).

(Log #II) 1975- 2 - ( I -3): Accept in Principle S_VBMITTER: Fred J. Pinkus, Crown Text i le Co. CQMI4.~ENTON_PROPOSAL NO~: 1975-1 I RECOMMENDATION: Per the enclosed ruling, dated I September 1987; "Does the category "Text i les" include the collar/pant in ter l in ing fabric?", answer "YES."

Tile def in i t ion should read: "except fabric and in te r l in ing . "

NOfE: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.

SUBSTANTIATION: The term "tr im" as included as a Component, is-frequently used as a reference for " in te r l in ing . " Therefore, not specifying in ter l in ing as a "Fabric" rather than a component could cause confusion.

Further, and more important, the original concept for this ruling was that a t ru ly safe garment would have I al l broad area tex t i l e materials, such as inter l in ing,

J considered and tested as a Text i le fabric. This consideration was based on the potential that a

col lar or pant waste band l in ing could tear or snag during a f i re service; with the next level of protection being the inter l in ing. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Add a new def in i t ion for " in ter l in ing" to read: "Any tex t i l e that is intended for incorporation into

any ar t ic le of wearing apparel as a layer between an outer shell and inner l in ing . " COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See also action taken on Public Comment 1975-I (Log #13).

The def in i t ion Dr . " in ter l in ing" was added for additional c la r i f i ca t ion and was taken from ASTM D123, Standard Terminology Relating of Texti les.

(Log #14) 1975- 3 - ( I -3): Accept SVBMITTER: Nicholas J. Curtis, Lion Apparel, Inc. ~MMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 1975-I RECOMMENDATION: Delete def in i t ion "Composite. Any combination of components as they appear in f inal garment construction."

SUBSTANTIATION: "Composite" does not appear in body or appendix of text, therefore no need exists for def in i t ion. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #12) 1975- 4 - ( I -3): Reject ~UBMITTER: Nicholas J. Curtis, Lion Apparel Inc. COMMENT ON pROPOSAL NO.: 1975-I RECOMMENDATION: Add def in i t ion of "Interfacing."

"A planar structure produced by interlacing yarns, fibers or filaments which is sewn, fused or otherwise bonded to a t ex t i l e to assist in shape retention; sometimes referred to as an in te r l in ing . " SUBSTANTIATION: Facing, intefacing, ITning and in ter l in ing are words which are often improperly used as interchangeable terms. Interfacings serve as integral adjuncts of the garment outer shell and deserve clear def in i t ion for the user/authority having jur isd ic t ion. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE ~TATEMENT: Term not used in the document. " In ter l in ing" was defined; see action taken on Public Comment 1975-2 (Log #11).

(Log #3) 1975- 5 - (2-1.2): Accept in Principle ~UBMITTER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 1975-I RECOMMENDATION: Revise paragraph as follows:

2-I.2 At1 cer t i f icat ions shall be promulgated by an organization acceptable to the authorit ies having jur isd ic t ion and satisfying the program requirements set down in Section 2-2 of this Chapter. SVB~TANTIATION: This wi l l strengthen and define the wording of 2-1.2 thus making i t more effective. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise 2-1.2 to read: "All cert i f icat ions shall be performed by an approved

cer t i f icat ion organization." COMMITTEE ~TATEMENT: The term "approved" is the correct term and the o f f i c ia l NFPA def in i t ion.

(Log #4) 1975- 6 - (2-2.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 1975-I RECOMMENDATION: Revise paragraph as follows:

2-2.2 The ce r t i f i ca t i on organization shall refuse to cer t i fy products to this standard that do not comply with al l applicable requirements of this standard. SUBSTANTIATION: Clar i f ies the intent that cert i f ied products are required to meet al l applicable requirements of the standard. For example, thread does not have to meet a l l t ex t i l e requirements. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #5) 1975- 7 - (2-2.3): Reject ~ : Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 1975-I RECOMMENDATION: Delete second sentenc~ of 2-2.3 worded:

"There shall be no conditional temporary, or part ial cer t i f i ca t ions. " SUBSTANTIATION: This sentence is unnecessary in view of revised paragraph 2-2.2. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.

60

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The existing text in the TCR does not affect "component" cer t i f icat ion but is intended to restr ic t par t ia l , conditional, or temporary cert i f icat ions.

(Log #I) 1975- 8 - (2-2.5 and 2-2.7): Accept in Part SUBMITTER: Charles C. Soros, Seattle Fire Department COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 1975-I RE_(~Q_MM_ENDT_DAT]~_N: Provide an asterisk after each of these numerical designators 2-2.5 and 2-2.7.

Tensile Strength Grab Table A-I- I .1. SUBSTANTIATION: There is information provided in the appendix of the document on both of these sections and there is no asterisk in the main text denoting this.

The word is Grab not Grap. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Part.

The spelling correction wi l l be made to "grab." Asterisk not needed for 2-2.5 as their is no appendix

material. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The change answers the submitter's concerns.

(Log #6) 1975- 9 - (2-2.6): Reject ~ : Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 1975-I RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read:

2-Z.6 Any changes in the cert i f ied product which might affect i ts continued compliance with this standard, shall be evaluated by the manufacturer and the cert i f icat ion organization. SUBSTANTIATION: The terms "Form Fit and Function" do not adequately identi fy factors which might affect continued compliance and cert i f icat ion. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The proposed revision is more restr ic t ive and should be addressed in the contractual agreement between the cer t i f icat ion organization and the product manufacturer.

The text in the TCR is intended to be a minimum objective that can be more specif ical ly stated by ind~vldual cer t i f icat ion organizations.

(Log #7) 1975- 10 - (2 -2 .9) : Reject B~M_ILTTER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwri ters Laborator ies Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 1975-I RECOMMENDATIO_N: Revise the f i r s t sentence to read:

2-2.9 The operating procedures for the cert i f icate organization shall provide a mechanism for the manufacture of the product to appeal decisions.

Second sentence to remain as is. SUBSTANTXATION: This c lar i f ies the intent that the appeal process shall be open to the manufacturer of the cert i f ied product (or being considered for cer t i f icat ion) , but not necessarily other parties with other in terests COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEME__~I: The Committee feels that the intent is clear; i t is "the" manufacturer, not "any" manufacturer.

(Log #8) 1975- 11 - (2-2.10): Reject I SUBMITTER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories J Inc. COMHENT ON PROPOSAL NO,: 1975-1 R E ~ O M M ~ : Revise second sentence to read as follows:

"The cert i f icat ion organization's mark shall be Federally registered as a cert i f icat ion mark."

First sentence to remain as is. SUBSTANTIATION: Federal (versus State) registration as a cert i f icat ion mark strengthens the requirement and is the cer t i f icat ion 's defense against i ts misuse. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Local regulations would control how registration should take place in specific jur isdict ions both in and out of the United States.

(Log #9) 1975- 12 - (2-3.1): Reject SUBMITTER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO,: 1975-I RECOMMENDATION: Revise paragraph to read as follows:

2-3.1 Sampling levels for manufacturers production inspection and third party audit shall be established by the cert i f icat ion organization to assure cowq~llance to thls standard. This information may be included with the manufacturer's technical data package. SUBSTANTIATION: The terminology "reasonable and acceptable r e l i a b i l i t y at reasonable and acceptable confidence level" is ambiguous. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee feels that this more specific language should be addressed in the contractual agreement between cer t i f icat ion organization and the manufacturer.

(Log #20) 1975- 13 - (2-4 .1) : Accept ~ : Bruce Varner, Phoenix Fire Department COHHENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 1975-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise warning as fo l lows:

WARNING This garment worn as a s ta t lon/work uniform alone does not provide p ro tec t ion fo r f i r e f i gh t i ng .

For any f i re f ighting operations, protective clothing appropriate for the type of f i re fighting operation must be worn for limb/torso protection. Failure to comply with this warning may result in serious injury or death.

Add Appendix A-2-4.1 as follows: "For example, for structural f i re f ighting,

protective coal and protective trousers meeting the requirements of NFPA 1971 are required. For hazardous materlals operations, protective garments meeting the requirements of NFPA 199), NFPA 1992, or NFPA 1993 are required. As of the writ ing of thls document, standards are under development for wildland f i re f ighting protective clothing and proximity f i re f ighting protective clothing." SUBSTANTIATION: The current language could be interpreted as l imi t ing station uniforms to only being ut i l ized for structural f i re f ighting with 1971 garments station uniforms meeting this standard may also be ut i l ized in conjunction with Haz Chem protective clothing, Wildland protective clothing, Proximity clothing and others. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #15) 1975- 14 - (3-1 .1) : Accept in P r lnc lp le ~ : Nicholas J. Cur t is , Lion Apparel Inc. COHHENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 1975-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revised t e x t :

" T e x t i l e fabr ics and in te r fac ings shal l be i n d i v i d u a l l y tested fo r flame resistance and shal l have • . . e tc . o

StfBSTANTIAT]LO_N: In te r fac ings , when sewn or fused in to pos i t i on in the garment, e f f e c t i v e l y become as one with the t e x t i l e fab r i c and should be subject to the same tes t ( s ) as t e x t i l e fab r i cs . Tests using DuPont's

61

lhermo-man indicate extended burn times and increased 2nd and 3rd degree burns due to suspension of combustible interfacings within otherwise compliant text i le fabrics. C O M M I T T ~ : Accept in Principle.

Change the term "interfacing" to "interl inings" and add proposed wording to 3-1.1. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Change in poposed revision was made to be consistent with the chosen term. See also action taken on Public Comments 1975-1 and 1975-2 (Log #13 and Log #11).

(Log #17) 1975- 15 - (3-1.1): Reject SVBMITTER: Michael R. Steed, Regis Management Corporation CQMMENT_ON PROPOSAL NO~: 1975-] RECOMMENDATION: After the f i r s t sentence, ends on line 6, add:

"All fabrics shall also meet the FAA Criteria for Fabrics when tested in accordance with ASTM E5-906-83 "Heat and Visible Smoke Release Rates for Materials and Products" and have a 40 percent or higher limited oxygen index value when tested in accordance with ASTM D-2863." SUB~TANTIATIIQ_N: The ASTM E5-906-83 test and the ASTM D-2863 test wi l l establish a higher standard of performance than currently required, but the market already established by the demand for high performance fabrics in al l aircraft and other f i re protection uses, both new and existing, wi l l assure a ready supply at l i t t l e or no additional cost for the extra protection for f ire fighting personnel. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. ~gMMITTEE STATEMENT: This test method is an extreme test designed for upholstered furniture and aircraft interior panels to measure the rate of heat release and is not relevant to this document.

(Log #16) ]975- ]6 - (3-1.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Nicholas J. Curtis, Lion Apparel, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 1975-I RE~MMENDATION: Revised text:

"Textile fabrics, interfacings, components and any other material used in the construction of station~work uniforms shall be individually tested for heat resistance in their original form and shall not melt, drip, separate or ignite when tested as specified in Section 4-3 of this standard." SUBSTANTIATION: I. Individual components are defined elsewhere in the standard. The l is t ing shown is different than the definition.

2. Emblems, since they are applied on top of a finished garment, should not be subject to the oven test. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Change the term "interfacings" to "interl inings" and revise 3-].2 as submitted. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Change to proposed revision was made to be consistent with the chosen term.

(Log #2) 1975- 17 - (4-5 (New)): Accept B,S_U_~_~![U_£_~: Charles C. Soros, Seattle Fire Department COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 1975-I RECOMMENDATION: New text:

4-5 Label Requirement. 4-5.1 Samples to be tested shall be preconditioned

as specified in Section 4-I of this chapter. 4-5.2 Labels shall be subjected to 50 cycles of

washing and drying in accordance with the procedure specified in Section 5 of AATCC 135; 3, I I , B. Dimensional Changes in Automatic Home Laundering of Woven and Knit Fabric or Labels in station/work uniforms specified to be dry cleaned, labels not meeting specimen size requirements for the procedure l isted above shall be sewn to a support fabric of required size. ~TIATI!~9_~: Paragraph 3-l.4 states labels have to be tested according to Section 4-5 of the standard, however, there is no Section 4-5 in the document. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #18) ]975- 18 - (A-2-5.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Gordon M. Sachs, United States Fire Administration COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO~: 1975-I RECOMMENDATION: Revise the wording by reversing the order of the two paragraphs in this section. SUBSTANTIATION: The corresponding section in the body of the standard deals with cleaning; thus, the prime thrust of the appendix note should address this same topic before providing ancillary information. The current wording may cause the reader to look toward the l is t ing organizations, rather than the manufacturer, for guidance on cleaning instructions. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #19) ]g75- 19 - (A-2-5.1): Accept ~ : Gordon M. Sachs, United States Fire Administration COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: I975-1 RECOMMENDATION: Add "The United States Fire Administration" to the l i s t of organizations to contact for information relevant to the prevention and transmission of infectious diseases. SUBSTANTIATION: The U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) has information on this subject, and is deeply involved in disseminating such information throughout the f ire service. USFA has sponsored two forums on Communicable Disease and an international teleconference on "Infectious Disease and the Emergency Responder," and has plans to develop a model Infection Control Program for Fire Departments. USFA has also established an "Infectious Disease Resource Center" so that information on the subject can be readily available when requested. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #10) 1975- 20 - (A-3-I.3): Accept in Principle ~ : Phi]l ip L. Hicks, Threads USA, Div. of Dixie Yarns, Inc. COMMENT ON P ~ N O . : 1975-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise Thread Selection Table to read:

FABRIC THREAD BREAKING WEIGHT SIZE STRENGTH

SHIRT WEIGHT Light Tex-27 ].50 Ibs Medium/Heavy Tex-40 2.35 Ibs

TROUSER WEIGHT Light Tex-60 3.60 Ibs Medium Tex-70 4.25 lbs Heavy Tex-105 6.45 Ibs

MAXIMUM YARDAGE/LB. ELONGATION MINIMUM MAXIMUM

25% 16,535 -- 18,372 30% ]1,024 -- 12,401

35% 7,087 -- 8,267 35% 6,201 -- ?,086 35% 4,134 -- 4,?24

62

SUBSTANTIATe: The physical characteristics, e.g., strength and elongation, for the Nomex sewing threads presently reflected in the Thread Selection Appendix of NFPA 1975 apply only to a single source, specialized type of spun Nomex. The above data is representative of that which is more commonly and readily available from domestic thread manufacturers. Note the attached le t te r from the Thread Inst i tute (to which al l major U.S, thread manufacturers belong) and the excerpt from proposed Mi l i tary Specifications MIL-T-83193B in which Table l ref lect this same position.

NOTE: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.

COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise the table to read: (table shown below)

~OMMITTEE STATEMENT: The numerical values were changed to agree with the revised mi l i tary specification.

FABRIC THREAD BREAKING MAXIMUM WEIGHT SIZE STRENGTH ELONGATION

SHIRT WEIGHT Light Tex 27-35 2.00 Ibs 30% Medium/Heavy Tex 40-60 2.35/3.60 Ibs 30/35%

TROUSER WEIGHT Light Tex 80-90 4.90-5.50 Ibs 35% Medium/Heavy Tex 90-I05 5.50/6.45 Ibs 35%

YARDAGE/LB. MINIMUM MAXIMUM

12,402 - - 18,372 7,087 m 12,401

4,725 - - 6,200 4 , 1 3 4 - - 4 , 7 2 5

63

PART II

(Log #I) 1983- 1 - (2-1.2): Accept in Principle S~BMITTER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories Inc. ~ N T ON PROPOSAL NO.: 1983-I RECOMMENDATION: Revise paragraph as follows:

2-1.2 All certif ications shall be promulgated by an organization acceptable to the authorities having jurisdiction and satisfying the program requirements set down in Section 2-2 of this Chapter. SUBSTANTIATION: This wi l l strengthen and define the wording oF 2-1.2 thus making i t more effective. C O ~ ~ : Accept in Principle.

Revise 2-1.2 to read: "All cer t i f i ca t ions shall be performed by an approved

certi f ication organization." COMMITTEE ~TATEMENT: The term "approved" is the correct term and the o f f i c i a l NFPA definition.

(Log #2) 1983- 2 - (2-2.2): Accept ~BMITTER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories Inc. C_~_MMENT_QN PR~L___NO_~.: 1983-I ~E_C~M~_E_ND_~T_Ig_~: Revise paragraph as follows:

2-2.2 The cert i f ication organization shall refuse to certify products to this standard that do not comply with al l applicable requirements of this standard. SUBSTANTIATION: Clarifies the intent that certi f ied products a~e required to meet al l applicable requirements of the standard. For example, thread does not have to meet al l text i le requirements. C~_I~.ITTEEACTIgN: Accept,

(Log #3) 1983- 3 - (2-2.3): Reject ~ : Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories Inc. ~OMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 1983-I ~OMMENDATION: Delete second sentence of 2-2.3 worded:

"There shall be no conditional temporary, or partial certif ications." SUBSTANTIATION: This sentence is unnecessary in view of revised paragraph 2-2.2. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE ~TATEMENT: The existing text in the TCR does not affect "component" cert i f icat ion but is intended to r e s t r i c t p a r t i a l , cond i t iona l or temporary certif ications.

(Log #4) 1983- 4 - (2-2.6): Reject SUBMITTER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories Inc. ¢OMHENT ,ON PROPQSAL NQ.: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read:

2-2.6 Any changes in the certi f ied product which might affect i ts continued compliance with this standard, shall be evaluated by the manufacturer and certi f ication organization. SUBSTANTIATION: The terms "Form Fit and Function" do not adequately identify factors which might affect continued compliance and cert i f icat ion. COMMITTEE ACTIQ_~: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The proposed revision is more restrictive and should be addressed in the contractual agreement between the cert i f icat ion organization and the product manufacturer.

The text in the TCR is intended to be a minimum objective that can be more specifically stated by individual cert i f icat ion organizations.

(Log #S) 1983- 5 - (2-2.9): Reject ~ : Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories Inc. CO MI~.~_T.~N_ P R ~ P ~ ~: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise the f i r s t sentence to read:

2-2.9 The operating procedures for the cert i f icate organization shall provide a mechanism for the manufacturer of the product to appeal decisions.

Second sentence to remain as is.

SUBSTANTIATION: This clari f ies the intent that the appeal process shall be open to the manufacturer of the certi f ied product (or being considered for cert i f icat ion), but not necessarily other parties with other interests. qOM~IITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE ~TATEMENT: The Committee feels that the intent is clear; i t is "the" manufacturer, not "any" manufacturer.

(Log #6) 1983- 6 - (2-2.10): Reject SUBMITTER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories Inc. ~OMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 1983-I RECOMMENDATION: Revise second sentence to read as follows:

"The cert i f icat ion organization's mark shall be Federally registered as a certi f ication mark."

First sentence to remain as is. SUBSTANTIATION: Federal (versus State) registration as a cert i f ication mark strengthens the requirement and is the cert i f ication organization's defense against i ts misuse. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATE_I~_E~IT: Local regulations would control how registration should take place in specific jurisdictions both in and out of the United States.

(Log #7) 1983- 7 - (2-3.1): Reject MI~_U.~_~_T_!F,I~: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories Inc. ~J~4~_~NT_ON_PROPOSAL NQ~: 1983-I RECOMMENDATION: Revise paragraph to read as follows:

2-3.1 Sampling levels for manufacturers production inspection and 3rd party audit shall be established by the cert i f ication organization to assure compliance to this standard. This information may be included with the manufacturer's technical data package. SUBSTANTIATION: The terminology "reasonable and acceptable re l i ab i l i t y at reasonable and acceptable confidence level" is ambiguous. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee feels that this more specific language should be addressed in the contractual agreement between cert i f ication organization and the manufacturer.

(Log #8) 1983- 8 - (A-2-4.1 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Gordon M. Sachs, United States Fire Administration COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO~: 1983-I RECOMMENDATION: Add a new section A-2-4.1 which should read:

"To avoid possible damage, and possible reduction and loss of strength of the l i f e safety rope or harness, contact the manufacturers prior to disinfecting or cleaning by a method not prescribed in the label on the rope or harness." ~LU_B_~LIT_~J.I_O_N: This wording is basically the same as that in proposed NFPA 1975 Section A-2-5.I, and is necessary due to the possibi l i ty of the need to decontaminate the rope i f i t is ut i l ized at a hazardous material or emergency medical incident. I f the rope is exposed to a chemical, body fluids, or other toxin (whether or not i t is actually ut i l ized as a l i fe safety rope), i t may need to be decontaminated along with PPE and other equipment. As the possibi l i ty exists that a decontamination agent (s) may be routinely used by a f l re department, this appendix note wi l l serve to advise the department involved to contact the manufacturer prior to using such an agent on the rope or harness. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Add the proposed appendix material but change the phrase "label on the rope or harness" to "maintenance procedures and retirement cr i ter ia." COMMITTEE STATEMN~_ff!: The maintenance procedures and retirement cr i ter ia section is the appropriate location for their material.

B4

PART I l l (Log #8)

1993- I - (T i t le) : Accept ~ : Gordon M. Sachs, United States Fire Administration COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 1993-I ~MMENQATA_TI~_FF: Change the t i t l e to read:

"Standard on Support Function Protective Garments for Hazardous Chemical Operations." ~UBSTANTIATION: This new t i t l e is more consistent in wording with the t i t l es of NFPA 1991 and 1992. In addit ion, i t seems to more c lear ly iden t i f y the scope and purpose of the standard based upon the de f in i t i on of "Support Function Protective Garment" in Section I-3, Definitions, within the standard. The original t i t l e of the standard seems to relate to functions at a hazardous ~aterial operation, rather than the c r i te r ia for specific garments. The proposed change in the t i t l e more clearly and consistently reflects the intent of the standard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #12) 1993- 2 - ( I - I . I ) : Accept in Principle SJ/BJ~tU_I_ER: Daniel Gohlke, W. L. Gore & Assoc. ~_ENT ON PROPOSAL NO. : T993-I RECOMMENDATION: Replace I-1.1 with:

I-1.1 This standard specifies minimum documentation design c r i t e r i a , performance c r i t e r i a and test methods for protective garments used by personnel supporting f i r s t entry responders to a hazardous chemical emergency. These personnel should be separated from the point of hazardous chemical release by distance and/or time so that a d i rec t exposure is un l ike ly . SUBSTANTIATION: This statement provides the scope for use of these garments. The old scope did not give one. Without such a clear statement of use, no sol id rationale for the development of performance requlrements exlst. COMHITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise I-1.1 and A- I - I . I to read: I-1.1" This standard specifies minimum

documentation, design cr i te r ia , performance cr i ter ia , and test methods for protective garments used by personnel in support functions during hazardous chemical operations.

A-1-I.1 This standard differs from NFPA 1992, Standard on Liquid Splash-Protective Suits for Hazardous Chemical Emergencies, in that primary suit materials may not meet the flame resistance requirements and have reduced or different physlcal properties. This standard dif fers from NFPA 1991, Standard on Vapor-Protective Suits for Hazardous Chemical Emergencies, in that primary suit materials are not tested for and may not meet the permeation resl stance requl rements. ~MMITTEE STATEMENT: The revised scope statement provides better detail of the intended limited level of protect ion afforded by garments designed to meet this standard. This is made clear by rewsing I-1.1 and A-I - I . I.

(Log #13) 1993- 3 - ( I -1.3): Accept in Principle ~ : Daniel Gohlke, W. L. Gore & Assoc. COMHENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 1993-I RECOMMENOATI_O_N: Delete "substances in IDLH concentrations."

Replace with: "chemical vapor challenges." S ~ N T I A T ~ : From a user point of view i t wi l l be imposslble to identi fy substances in IDLH concentrations, where as every day f i re service personnel decide whether they need vapor protection or not. Furthermore, these garments most often wi l l not provide protect ion from any vapors, whether IDLH or not. COMMITTEE ACTIOn: Accept in Pr inc ip le.

Revise paragraph 1-1.3 to read: "This standard does not provide c r i te r ia for

protection from radiological, biological, or cryogenic agents; immersion in l iquid chemicals; or flammable, explosive, or hazardous chemical vapor atmospheres."

~(~ITTEE STATEME~: The Committee agrees that the IDLH concept is an inappropriate guide for the scope of these garments. IDLH is a vapor c r i t e r i a used pr imar i ly in respiratory protect ion. These garments may not provide vapor protection, because there is no performance cr i te r ia for vapor protection included in this standard. Therefore, defining the intended level of protection of these garments in terms of a vapor c r i t e r i a is not appropriate. This logic is consistent with the approach taken with NFPA 1992. The Committee contends that NFPA 1993 has different applications from NFPA 1992 with respect to physical properties and flame resistance only. Based on the i r intended use outside the hot zone, the Committee does not want to confuse users with IDLH vapor exposure references.

(Log #14) 1993- 4 - (1-2.1): Accept in Prtnclple SUBMITTER: Daniel Gohlke, g. L. Gore & Assoc. COMMENT ON pROPOSAL NO.: 1993-1 RECOMMENDATION: Replace 1-2.1 with:

1-2.1 The purpose of th is standard is to provide minimum requirements for protect ive garments used by personnel supporting f i r s t entry responders to a hazardous chemical emergency. Because these personnel are only i nd i rec t l y involved with the emergency, the strength and protect ion requirements are low and no flammable, abrasion res istant , f lex fat igue or seam requirements have been included. SUBSTANTIATION: I think i t s important to state what we are providing and not providing in th is document. This t ies into the scope statement which provides a rat |onale for those inclusions and delet lon. The old purpose statement was unworkable by using expressions l tke "known, non-IDLH nonflammable. Again, these ambiguous descript ions leave a user without a way to implement these garments. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Pr inc ip le.

Revise paragraph 1-2.1 to read: 1-2.1 ~ The purpose of th is standard is to provide

minimum requlrements for protect ive garments used by personnel outside the hot zone in support functions.

Also add de f in i t i on for Hot Zone and appendix paragraph A-1-2.1:

I-3 Hot Zone. The area immediately surrounding a hazardous material incident that extends far enough to prevent adverse effects from hazardous materials releases to personnel outside the zone. This zone is also referred to as the exclusion zone or restr ic ted zone in other documents.

A-1-2.1 Because these garments are intended for use by personnel that are only i nd i rec t l y involved with the emergency, the physical property requirements are lower than those requirements for protective garments intended for use in the hot zone and therefore no flame resistance, abrasion resistance, or f lex fatigue performance requirements have been included. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee agrees with the submltter in concept and has only modified the submitter's proposed wording to better define the area of support functions, and has added the def ini t ion for "hot zone" for emphasis. See also the actions taken on Public Comments 1993-2 and 1993-3 (Log #'s 12 and 13).

(Log #15) 1993- 5 - (1-2.2): Accept in Pr incip le ~BU~MI_I]_T_ER: Daniel Gohlke, W. L. Gore & Assoc. CQHHENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 1993-1 RECOMMENDATION: Replace 1-2.2 with:

I-2.2 It is not the purpose of this standard to

~ rovtde c r i t e r i a for protect ion from d i rect vapor or iquld assaults. Protection c r i t e r i a from vapor

challenges are specif ied in NFPA 1991, Standard on Vapor Protective Suits for Hazardous Chemical Emergencies. Protection c r i t e r i a for l l qu id splash challenges are specif ied in NFPA 1992, Standard on Liquid Splash Protective Suits for Hazardous Chemical Emergencies. SUBSTANTIATION: I think the IDLH concept is an inappropriate guide for the use of these garments. These garments are not tested for any vapor challenge of any kind, IDLH or not. The IDLH concept presumes a

65

user can te l l what concentration he is facing and he cannot know this in a dynamic situation. He either needs vapor protection or not~ This is a decision he can make. ~QMMITTEE ACTIOn: Accept in Principle.

Revise paragraph I-2.2 to read: I-2.2 I t is not the purpose of this standard to

provide cr i ter ia for protection from hazardous chemical vapor atmospheres, or l iquid contact in the hot zone at hazardous chemical emergencies. Protection from hazardous chemical vapor atmospheres is specified in NFPA 1991, Standard on Vapor-Protective Suits for Hazardous Chemical Emergencies. Protection for l iquid splash contact in hot zone is specified in NFPA 1992, Standard on Liquid Splash-Protective Suits for Hazardous Chemical Emergencies. COM~ITTEE~A!EM__M~_~T: See actions taken on Comments 1993-2, 1993-3 and 1993-4 (Log #'s 12, 13, and 14).

(Log #18) 1993- 10 - (2-1.5 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Daniel Gohlke, W. L. Gore & Assoc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 1993-I RECOMMENDATIQ_FF: New text:

2-1.5 Support function protective garments shall not be certi f ied for chemicals or specific chemical mixtures with known or suspected carcinogenicity as indicated by any one of the following documents:

(a) N. Irving Sax, Dangerous Properties of Industrial Chemicals

(b) NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards (c) U.S. Coast Guard Chemical Hazard Response

Information System (CHRIS), Volumes I-3, Hazardous Chemical Data SUBSTANTIATION: This language is from NFPA 1992, and makes the application guide for these garments, consistent with that used in 1992. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #17) 1993- 6 - (I-3): Accept SUBMITTER: Daniel Gohlke, W. L. Gore & Assoc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 1993-I RECOMMENDATION: New definition:

Chemical Protective Clothing Material. Any material or combination of materials used in an item of clothing for the purpose of isolating parts of the wearer's body from chemical or physical hazards. SUBSTANTIATION: This language comes from NFPA 1992 and I think we should follow that format here. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #35) 1993- 7 - (I-3): Accept SUBMITTER: Jeffrey O. Stu11, Texas Research Institute COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO,: 1993-I RECOMMENDATION: Change definition of Chemical Protective Clothing Material to:

"Any material or combination of materials used in an item of clothing for the purpose of isolating parts of the wearer's body from chemical or physical hazards." SUBSTANTIATION: Definition is now consistent with both NFPA 1991 and 1992. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #16) 1993- 8 - (I-3): Accept ~V~_M.IJ_T_FJ~: Daniel Gohlke, W. L. Gore & Assoc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 1993-I RECOMMENDATION: Delete definit ion of IDLH. SUBSTANTIATION: No longer needed. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #I) 1993- 9 - (2-1.2): Accept in Principle ~BMITTER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories Inc. COMMENT ON PROPJ~SALNO,: 1993-I RECOMMENDATION: Revise paragraph as follows:

2-1.2 All certif ications shall be promulgated by an orgatlization acceptable to the authorities having jurisdiction and satisfying the program requirements set down in Section 2-2 of this Chapter. ~UBSTANTIATION: This wi l l strengthen and define the wording of 2-I.2 thus making i t more effective. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise 2-1.2 to read: "All certif ications shall be performed by an approved

certi f ication organization." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The term "approved" is the correct term and the of f ic ia l NFPA definition.

(Log #19) 1993- 11 - (2-1.6 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Daniel Gohlke, W. L. Gore & Assoc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 1993-I R{CQMMENDATIQN: New text:

2-1.6 Support function protective garments shall not be certif ied for chemicals or specific chemical mixtures with skin toxic i ty notations as indicated by the following reference:

(a) American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, Threshold Limit Values and Biological Exposure Indices for 1988-1989 SUBSTANTIATION: This language is from NFPA 1992, and makes the application guide for these garments consistent with that used in 1992. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #2) 1993- 12 - (2-2.2): Accept ~JJDJ~I.T_T_~R.: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. ~OMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 1993-I RECOMMENDATION: Revise paragraph as follows:

2-2.2 The cert i f icat ion organization shall refuse to cert i fy products to this standard that do not comply with a11 applicable requirements of this standard. SUBSTANTIATION: Clarifies the intent that certified products are required to meet al l applicable requirements of the standard. For example, thread does not have to meet al l tex t i t le requirements. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept,

(Log #3) 1993- 13 - (2-2.3): Reject SUBMITTER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 1993-I RECOMMENDATI_Q_~: Delete second sentence of 2-2.3 worded:

"There shall be no conditional, temporary, or partial cert i f ications." ~UBSTANTIATION: This sentence is unnecessary in view of revised paragraph 2-2.2. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. ~OMMITTEE STATEMENT: The existing text in the TCR does not affect "component" cert i f ication but is intended to restr ict part ial, conditional or temporary certif ications.

(Log #4) 1993- 14 - (2-2.6): Reject SUBMITTER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 1993-I RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read: 2-2.6 Any changes in the certif ied product which

might affect i ts continued compliance with this standard, shall be evaluated by the manufacturer and the cert i f ication organization.

66

~_UBSJAN_TIATION: The terms "Form Fit and Function" do not adequately identify factors which might affect continued compliances and cert i f icat ion. CO_MMLTTEEA_~_F~[I~_~: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The proposed revision is more restrict ive and should be addressed in the contractual agreement between the cert i f ication organization and the product manufacturer.

The text in the TCR is intended to be a minimum objective that can be more specifically stated by individual cert i f ication organizations.

"Any combination of materials or multi-piece garment that is needed to meet any of the performance requirements specified in Chapter 4 of this standard, shall also be required to meet al l requirements for that particular segment of the support function protective garment." SUBSTANTIATION: Any combination of materials that is needed to meet one requirement, must be tested to meet al l requirements. This paragraph provides consistency with both NFPA 1991 and 1992. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #5) 1993- 15 - (2-2.9): Reject ~ : Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL_~.: 1993-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise the f i rs t sentence to read:

2-2.9 The operating procedures for the cert i f icate organization shall provide a mechanism for the manufacturer of the product to appeal decisions.

Second sentence to remain as ~s. ~UBSTANTIATIQN: This clari f ies the intent that the appeal process shall be open to the manufacturer of the certif ied product (or being considered for cert i f icat ion), but not necessarily other parties with other interests. COMMITTEE ACS_IIQ~: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee feels that the intent is clear; i t is "the" manufacturer, not "any" manufacturer.

(Log #6) 1993- 16 - (2-2.10): Reject ~_VBMITTER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories Inc. ~ T O N P R Q ~ Q ~ . : 1993-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise second sentence to read as follows:

"The cert i f icat ion organization's mark shall be Federally registered as a cert i f ication mark."

First sentence to remain as is. ~ N T I ~ : Federal (versus State) registration as a cert i f ication mark strengthens the requirement and is the cert i f icat ion organization's defense against i ts misuse. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Local regulations would control how registration should take place in specific jurisdictions both in and out of the United States.

(Log #7) 1993- 17 - (2-.3.1): Reject ~ : Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO,: 1993-I RECOMMENDATION: Revise paragraph to read as follows:

2-3.1 Sampling levels for manufacturers production inspection and third party audit shall be established by the cert i f icat ion orDanization to assure compliance to this standard. This information may be included with the manufacturer's technical data package. ~UBSTANTIATIQ_N: The terminology "reasonable and acceptable re l i ab i l i t y at reasonable and acceptable confidence level" is ambiguous. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee feels that this more specific language should be addressed in the contractual agreement between cert i f icat ion organization and the manufacturer.

(Log #36) 1993- 18 - (2-3.3 (New)): Accept ~ : Jeffrey O. Stull, Texas Research Institute COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 1993-I RECOMMENDATION: Add new paragraph 2-3.3:

(Log #20) 1993- 19 - (2-3.3 (New)): Accept ~ : Daniel Gohlke, W. L. Gore & Assoc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 1993-I RECOMMENDATION: New text:

2-3.3 Any combination of materials or multi-plece garment that is needed to meet any of the performance requirements specified in Chapter 4 of this standard, shall also be required to meet al l the requirements for that particular segment of the support function suit. SUBSTANTIATION: This statement makes i t clear that i f a combination of materials is needed to meet one requirement, that combination must meet al l requirements. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #21) 1993- 20 - (2-4.1): Accept in Principle ~ : Daniel Gohlke, W. L. Gore & Assoc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 1993-I RECOMMENDATION: Delete "in known, non IDLH, nonflammable environments only."

Replace with "where direct exposure is unlikely." SUBSTANTIATIQN: The replacement language gives a better guide for a user to know where to use these garments. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise the warning portion of the label in 2-4.1 to read:

WARNING DO NOT USE THIS GARMENT IN ANY HOT ZONE OF A HAZARDOUS CHEMICAL EMERGENCY, FOR FIRE FIGHTING APPLICATIONS, OR FOR PROTECTION FROM RADIOLOGICAL, BIOLOGICAL, OR CRYOGENIC AGENTS; OR FROM FLAMMABLE OR EXPLOSIVE ATMOSPHERES, OR FROM HAZARDOUS CHEMICAL VAPOR ATMOSPHERES. THIS GARMENT CAN BURN. IT HAS NOT BEEN REQUIRED TO MEET A FLAMMABLE PERFORMANCE TEST. USE THIS GARMENT FOR SUPPORT FUNCTIONS OUTSIDE THE HOT ZONE. LIQUIDS GIVE OFF VAPORS AND THIS GARMENT MAY NOT PROTECT YOU FROM CONTACT WITH THESE VAPORS. NO PROTECTIVE CLOTHING CAN PROVIDE PROTECTION FROM ALL CONDITIONS. THE USER MUST CONSULT THE TECHNICAL DATA PACKAGE, MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS, AND MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS BEFORE USE. CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION OF THIS GARMENT MAY WARRANT ITS DISPOSAL. MAINTENANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THESE INSTRUCTIONS CAN RESULT IN SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH."

~OMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee revised the warning portion of the label to reflect the submitter's changes stated in this comment [number ]993-20 (Log #21)] and Public Comment 1993-2] (Log #22). Also the order of the label wording was changed for added emphasis. See also action taken on Public Comment 1993-3 (Log #13).

(Log #22) 1993- 21 - (2-4.1): Accept in Pr inciple SUBRITTER: Daniel Gohlke, W. L. Gore & Assoc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 1993-1 RECOMMENDATION: Delete "or from substances in concentrations that are immediately dangerous to l i f e and health" replace with "or from chemical vapor challenges." SUBSTANTIATION: The replacement language gives a better guide for a user to know where to use these garments. A user, in a dynamic situation, cannot know what concentration he is facing. He can know when he needs vapor protection. These garments wil l probably not offer any vapor protection, IDLH or not.

67

COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See action taken on Public Comment 1993-20 (Log #21).

(Log #37) lq93- 22 - (2-4.1): Reject ~ ITTER: Jeffrey O. Stull, Texas Research Institute COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 1993-I RECOMMENDATION: Add following chemicals to l i s t of chemicals in label:

Carbon Disulfide Dichloromethane Diethylamine Nitrobenzene Tetrachlorethylene Tetrahydrofuran

SUBSTANTIATION: NFPA battery of chemicals for this standard includes al l 15 l iquid ASTM F]O01 chemicals as defined in Section 5-2.1. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The suggested l i s t of chemicals does not meet the cr i ter ia established in new paragraph Z-I.5 and 2-1.6. See Comments 1993-10 and 1993-II (Log #'s 18 and #19).

(Log #23) 1993- 23 - (2-4.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Daniel Gohlke, W. L. Gore & Assoc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 1993-I RECOMMENDATION: The l i s t of chemicals should be changed to:

Acetone Sodium Hydroxide Diethylamine Sulfuric Acid Ethyl Actate Tetrahydrofuran Hexane Toluene

SUBSTANTIATION: This is the l i s t now appearing in NFPA 1992 based on the new criterion of carcinogenicity and skin toxic i ty used in NFPA 1992. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #11) 1993- 24 - (4-3, 4-4 and 4-5): Reject S U B ~ : John D. Langley, Kappler Safety Group, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 1993-I RECOMMENDATION: In determining the acceptability of specimens during physical property testing, where values are provided in both the machine and transverse directions, should the average of those values be used? SUBSTANTIATION: This comment is provided in question form for clar i f icat ion. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. ~O_MMLT_~EE_5~: The commentor does not provide a recommendation. Performance requirements where measurements are made in both machine and transverse directions, require reporting or both values and not the average.

(Log #38) 1993- 25 - (4-3.4): Accept SUBMITTER: Jeffrey O. Stull, Texas Research Institute COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 1993-I RECOMMENDAT~N: Revise paragraph 4-3.4 as follows:

"Garment material samples shall be tested for tear strength and have a tear strength of not less than 8.0 Ibs (3.6 kg) when tested as specified in Section 5-5 of this standard." SUBSTANTIATION: ASTH D751 does not provide a procedure for trapezoidal tear testing. I recommend the procedure described in Section 5-5 of NFPA 1971 (on which round robin testing was based).

The metric equivalent for the requirement was omitted. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #9) 1993- 26 - (4-3.4): Reject SU~J~I_TT_T~F~R: 3ohn D. Langley, Kappler Safety Group, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 1993-] RECOMMENDATION: Revised text:

"Garment material samples shall be tested for tear strength and have a tear strength of not less than 8.0 pounds in accordance with ASTH D 751, Methods of Testing Coated Fabrics, Using the Trapezoid Tearing Strength Technique." SUBSTANTIATION: The performance of this test is not necessary due to the redundancy relative to paragraph 4-3.3 which requires testin~ in accordance with ASTM D 2582, Standard Test Method for Puncture Propagation Tear Resistance of Plastic Film and Thin Sheeting. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Trapezoidal tear testing does discriminate material strength properties differently than the puncture propagation tear test, which is also required, and should be retained as a separate measure of material resistance to physical hazards. See also action taken on Comment 1993-25 (Log #38).

(Log #24) 1993- 27 - (4-4,1): Accept SUBMITTER: Daniel Gohlke, W. L. Gore & Assoc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO,: 1993-I R~qOMMENDATION: The requirement of 15 Ibs should be changed to "15 Ibs/ 2in. (1.44 kN/m)." SUBSTANTIATION: The reporting units for this requirement were not accurately carried forward. The original intent of the subcommittee and all supporting data is reported in these units, as well as called for by the method i tse l f . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #25) 1993- 28 - (4-5.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Daniel Gohlke, W. L. Gore & Assoc. ~_OMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO,: 1993-I RECOMMENDATION: The requirement of ]5 lbs should be changed to:

"]5 Ibs/2 in. (1.44 kN/m)." SUBSTANTIATION: The reporting units for this requirement were not accurately carried forward. The original intent of the subcommittee and all supporting data is reported in these units, as well as called for by the method i tse l f . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #39) 1993- 29 - (5-I): Accept ~z~L~t[J_T_F=~: Jeffrey O. Stul], Texas Research Institute COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 1993-I RECOMMENDATION: Change/revlse following paragraphs:

5-1.4" An inner garment shall cover al l areas of the mannequin as an aid to observe water penetration. The inner garment shall be constructed from a fabric that is easily watermarked.

A-5-1.4 An example of an inner garment ~abric is a lightweight, t ight ly woven (e.g. 2.2 oz/yd ~, 92 x 88), medium or dark colored, 100 percent polyester fabric without surface treatment.

5-I.5 Five nozzles shall be oriented with respect to the mannequin as specified in Figure 5-1.5.

5-1.6" The nozzles shall conform to the specifications in Figure 5-1.6.

5-1.7 The water distribution system shall deliver a minimum of 3 I/min through each nozzle.

Renumber 5-1.6 through 5-].9 as 5-I.8 through 5-11. R6number A-5-].5 to A-5-I,6. Renumber A-5-1.6 to A-5.1.8. 5-I.I0 Water shall be sprayed at the suited

mannequin for a duration of ]5 minutes for each of the suit orientations specified in Figure 5-1.5. SUBSTANTIATION: Above changes reflect procedures proposed for both NFPA 199] and ]992. COMHITTEE ACTION: Accept.

68

FIGURE 5-1.6

DIA. (BRASS)

~ - - ~ ~ . 0 3 1 DIA. HOLETHRU .834 DIA -.-...~ / / .-'k'-~',, 3.-~ 10 PLACES EQ., SPACED

• ~ O N A .359 DIA. B.C.

- -~ .994

RUBBER GASKETS

\ -STAINLESS STEEL

69

(Log #26) 1993- 30 - (5 - I .4 ) : Accept in Principle 5UBMITTER: Daniel Gohlke, W. L. Gore & Assoc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 1993-I RECOMMENDATION: Replace 5-1.4 with:

5-1.4" An inner garment shall cover a l l areas of the mannequin as an aid to observe water penetration. The inner garment shall be constructed from a fabr ic that is easi ly watermarked. The inner garment shall conform to and intimately contact the test garment as much as possible. SUBSTANTIAT_I_QN: This makes the description of the inner garment less specif ied and more performance oriented. I t makes i t consistent with NFPA 1992. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

See action taken on Comment 1993-29 (Log #39). The submitters th i rd sentence is vague and not

included in the revised text .

(Log #27) 1993- 31 - (5-1.5 thru 5- l . lO) : Accept SVBHkT!EB: Daniel Gohlke, W. L. Gore & Assoc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 1993-I RECOMMENDATION: Revised text :

5-1.5 Five nozzles shall be oriented with respect to the mannequin as specif ied in Figure 5-1.5.

5-I .6" The nozzles shall conform to the specif icat ions in Figure 5-1.6.

5-1.7 The water d is t r ibu t ion system shall del iver a minimum of 3 I/min through each nozzle.

Renumber 5-1.6 through 5-I .9 as 5- I .8 through 5-11. Renumber A-5-I.5 to A-5-I.6. Renumber A-5-1.6 to A-5-1.8. 5 - I . I0 Water shall be sprayed at the suited

mannequin for a duration of 15 minutes fo r each of the suit or ientat ions specif ied in Figure 5-1.5. ~ U B $ ! A ~ N : These changes make this test procedure consistent with NFPA 1992. These changes specify flow rate and nozzle design and remove the need to specify pressure. COMMITTEE ACTIOn: Accept. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See action taken on Comment 1993-29 (Log #39).

(Log #40) 1993- 32 - (5-2.1): Reject ~ B : Jeffrey O. Stu l l , Texas Research Ins t i tu te COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: lg93-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text in Section 5-2.1 as follows:

" . . . shall consist of the l iqu id chemicals specified in ASTM F1001 . . ." SUBSTANTIATION: ASTM F1001 has been revised to include 6 gas chemicals as well as the or ig inal 15 l iquids specified in the 1986 edi t ion of this standard. NFPA 1993 is intended pr imari ly for l iqu id protection. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STA!EMENT: The suggested l i s t of chemicals does not meet the c r i t e r i a established in new paragraph 2-I .5 and 2-I .6. See actions taken on Comments 1993-10 and 1993-II (Log #'s 18 and 19).

(Log #28) 1993- 33 - (5-2.1): Accept ~ : Daniel Gohlke, W. L. Gore & Assoc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 1993-I RECOMMENDATION: Delete 5-2.1 and replace with:

5-2.1 For the purpose of this standard, the NFPA battery of chemicals shall consist of the l iquids specified in ASTM F fOOl, Standard Guide for Chemicals to Evaluate Protective Clothing Material that are not constrained by 2-1.5 or 2-1.6 of this standard. SUBSTANTIATION: This statement does not make you test chemicals which cannot be ce r t i f i ed . I t avoids a potential source of confusion. I t is consistent with NFPA 1992. COMMITTEE A_A~CTION: Accept.

(Log #10) 1993- 34 - (5-2.2(c)) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: John D. Langley, Kappler Safety Group, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 1993-I RECOMMENDATION: Revised text :

"Each sui t material or seam specimen to be tested shall be contacted with test chemicals for 5 minutes at atmospheric pressure, l minute at l psi, and then 54 minutes at atmospheric pressure." ~BT_B,S!_A~_TA~B~_QN: Performance of a penetration resistance test is less e f fec t ive without the application of pressure against the specimen. Inclusion of pressure in the test wi l l provide more meaningful results, as i t w i l l better simulate splash condi t ions. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in P r inc ip le .

Revise paragraph 5-2.2(c) to read: "Each su i t mater ia l or seam specimen to be tested

shall be contacted with test chemicals in the following manner:

I. 5 minutes at atmospheric pressure; 2. I minute at 2 psi gauge (0.141 kg/cm 2) 3. 54 minutes at atmospheric pressure."

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee agrees with the submitter that a penetration test without a pressure pulse does not readi ly discriminate l iqu id hold out properties among materials. Laboratory testing has demonstrated that a 2 psi pulse is sat is factory for determining the l iqu id hold out performance of protect ive garment materials. Submitter's text e d i t o r i a l l y revised for format.

(Log #41) 1993- 35 - (5-5 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Jef f rey O. Stu l l , Texas Research Inst i tu te COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 1993-I RECOMMENDATION: Add new section 5-5 (Section 5-4 from NFPA 1971).

5-5 Tear Resistance Testing. 5-5.1 The specimen shall be a 3 X 6 in. (76.2 X

152.4 mm) rectangle. The long dimension shall be paral le l to the warp for warp tests and paral le l to the f i l l i n g for f i l l i n g tests. No two specimens for warp tests shall contain the same warp yarns, nor shall any two specimens for f i l l i n g tests contain the same f i l l i n g yarns. The specimen shall be taken no nearer the selvage than one-tenth of the width of the cloth. An isosceles trapezoid having an a l t i tude of 3 in. (76.2 mm) and bases of I and 4 in. (25.4 and 101.6 mm) in length, respectively, shall be marked on each specimen, with the aid of a template. A cut 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) in length shall then be made in the center of a l ine perpendicular to the l - i n . (25.4-mm) edge.

5-5.2 Apparatus shall consist of a straining mechanism, two clamps fo r holding specimens, and load and elongation recording mechanisms, wherein the specimen is held between two clamps and strained by a uniform movement of the pul l ing clamp.

5-5.2.1 Straining mechanism shall be of such capacity that the maximum load required to break the specimen shall be not greater than 85 percent or less than 15 percent of the manufacturer's rated capacity.

5-5.2.2 Clamps shall be designed such that the six ounces (170 g) of weight are distr ibuted evenly across the complete width of the sample. The clamps shall have two jaws on each clamp. The design of the clamps shall be such that one gripping surface or jaw may be an integral part of the r ig id frame of the clamp or be fastened to allow a s l ight ver t ica l movement, while the other gripping surface or jaw shall be completely moveable. The dimensions of the immovable jaw of each clamp para l le l to the application of the load shall measure I in. (25.4 mm), and the dimension of the jaw perpendicular to this direct ion shall measure 3 in. (76.2 mm) or more. The face of the movable jaw of each clamp shall measure I in. X 3 in. (25.4 X 76.2 mm). Each jaw face shall have a f l a t , smooth gripping surface. All edges that might cause a cutt ing action shall be rounded to a radius of not more than 1/64 in. (0.4 mm). In cases where a cloth tends to s l ip when being tested, the jaws shall be faced with rubber or other material to prevent slippage. The distance between the jaws shall be I in. (25.4 mm) at the start of the test.

70

5-5.2.3 Recorder shall consist of calibrated dial, scale, or chart used to indicate applied load and elongation. Error shall not exceed 2 percent up to and including a 50--pound (22.7-kg) load and 1 percent over a 50-pound (22.7-kg) load at any reading within i ts loading range. All machine attachments for determining maximum loads shall be disengaged during test.

5-5.3 The specimen shall be clamped along the nonparallel sides of the trapezoid so that these sides l ie along the "lower edge of the upper clamp and the upper edge of the lower clamp with the cut halfway between the clamps. The short trapezoid base shall be held taut and the long trapezoid base shall l ie in the folds. The strain mechanism shall be started and the force necessarv to tear the cloth shall be observed by means of the r~)cording device. Five specimens in each of the warp and f i l l i n g directions shall be tested from each sample unit. I f a specimen slips between the jaws, breaks in or at the edges of the jaws, or, i f for any reason attributable to faulty technique, an individual measurement fal ls markedly below the average test results for the sample unit, such result shall be discarded and another specimen shall be tested.

5-5.4 The tear strength shall be the average of the five highest peak loads of resistance registered for inches of separation of the tear. The tear strength shall be reported to the nearest 0.1 Ib (45.4 g). SUBSTANTIATION: Paragraph 4-3.4 specifies tear testing in accordance with ASTM F751, but method does not provide procedure for trapezoidal tear testing. COMMITTEE ACTIO_N: Accept.

(Log #42) 1993- 36 - (6- I . I ) : Accept S UBMITTER: Jeffrey O. Stull, Texas Research Institute ~OMMENT p_N PR_Rp_PQ_S_A_L N_NQ~. : 1993-1 RECOMMENDATION: Change edition of ASTM FlO01 from 1986 to IgBg. S_UB~T_6NTIA!IpN: Standard has recently been modified. Modification has no impact on standard. My comment on section 5-E.I i=urther resolve change in this standard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #29) 1993- 37 - (A- I - I . I ) : Reject SUBMITTER: Daniel Gohlke, W. L. Gore & Assoc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 1993-I RECOMMENDATION:: Delete f i r s t sentence and replace with:

A - l - l . l Users of this standard should recognize that suits that are compliant with this standard are designed to protect the user from contact to the specified chemircals. Suits that are compliant with this standard may not be designed to protect the user from chemical exposure by vapors. Use of a suit certif ied as compliant to this standard presumes chemical exposure by vapor contact is acceptable. However vapor contact with certain chemical exposure is not acceptable Therefore, this suit wi l l not be certif ied for these certain chemicals which for the purpose of this; standard are characterized by known or suspected carcl, nogenicity and/or by skin-toxicity notations in tile specified references.. .

SUBSTANTIATION: This statement is more informative and more consistent with the use of these garments and is consistent with other revisions I have proposed and is consistent with NFPA 1992. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The information contained in the proposed new appendix is contained elsewhere in the document.

(Log #30) 1993- 38 - (A-1-2.2): Accept ~ T E R : Daniel Gohlke, W. L. Gore & Assoc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 1993-I RECOMMENDATION: Delete. SUBSTANTIATION: No longer needed. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

{Log #31) 1993- 39 - (A-2-4.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Daniel Gohlke, W. L. Gore & Assoc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 1993-I RECOMMENDATION: Renumber A-2-4.1 to A-2-5.1. SUBSTANTIATION: Numbering mistake. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #32) 1993- 40 - (A-5-I.4): Accept SUBMITTER: Daniel Gohlke, W. L. Gore & Assoc. ~O_~PIFJ~TON~P~QP~: 1993-I RECOMMENDATION: Delete A-5-1.4 and replace with:

A-5-I.4 An example of an inner garment ~abric is a lightweight, t ight ly woven (e.g. 2.2 oz/yd °, 92 x 88), medium or dark colored, lO0 percent polyester fabric without surface treatment. SUBSTANTIATION: This gives a more complete description of the inner garment fabric and is consistent with the revision to 5-I.4 and with NFPA 1992. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See action taken on Comment 1983-29 (Log #39).

(Log #33) 1993- 41 - (A-5-2.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Daniel Gohlke, W. L. Gore & Assoc. COMMENT ONPROPOSAL NO.: 1993-I RECOMMENDATION: Delete text. SUBSTANTIATION: No longer needed due to revision to 5-2.1 . COMMITTEE A~TIQN: Accept.

71