Editor’s note: This is the second of a two-part article on PPE selection and modification. Part 1 ran in November 2007, p. 50.
Post-incident analyses of firefighter line-of-duty deaths and injuries consistently identify a lack of situational awareness as the underlying cause. The failure to establish and maintain a sufficient level of this basic operational necessity results in ill-advised decisions, flawed judgment and poor tactical/strategic choices. If errors in judgment and poor choices in the personal protective equipment (PPE) selection process were subject to the same intense after-the-fact scrutiny, deficiencies in situational awareness would surely be identified as a chief culprit in this venue as well. As a matter of fact, the need to continuously monitor and consider the characteristics of the prevailing operational environment is fundamental to virtually all spheres of decision making. The process of specifying, selecting, modifying and replacing PPE is no exception.
I previously demonstrated that the efficient and successful conduct of the PPE process mandates that it be a continuous one. The successful PPE decision-maker must constantly assess those environmental influences that recommend, if not compel, modifications or replacement of PPE and/or revisions in the related specifications. Two sets of virtually irresistible forces of change stand foremost among these external pressures, namely:
- The incessant flow of new or improved technologies and products developed through research and applied science; and
- The continuously evolving requirements of the relevant regulatory standards.
Benefits of Technology
In every aspect of daily life we are exposed to both the benefits and the detriments of advanced technology and engineering, and the fire service is certainly no exception. At times, the deluge of new products and technologies can be so mind-numbing that only the most noteworthy, or notorious, generate more than a collective yawn. Therein lies a very real concern for PPE decision-makers. Although benumbed by the numerous technological advances swirling about them, those charged with this weighty responsibility must consider virtually any movement in relevant technologies to be noteworthy.
In this environment of rapid and constant technological change, the savvy PPE manager must remain cognizant of, and attentive to, emerging and developing technologies in order to make informed and prudent decisions that maximize firefighter safety. Note: Shifts in technologies need not be terribly sophisticated or “cutting edge” to warrant attention. Slight or subtle movements in relevant technologies can have significant PPE-related consequences. As a matter of fact, pertinent and consequential advances can vary in any number of dimensions, and their impact can be direct or indirect. They can range from relatively low-tech to sophisticated high-tech or from the simple to the complex; and they can improve or build upon the foundation of existing technologies or create an entirely new or different technology.
Low-Tech Advances
Changes to PPE need not derive from major technological breakthroughs. The Philadelphia Fire Department (PFD) is presently evaluating a relatively low-tech approach to the common problem of leg fatigue experienced by firefighters while climbing in turnouts. This new concept consists of a deceptively simple set of straps applied just below the knees of the turnout pants (Figure 1). Albeit early in the evaluation process (unintended consequences have yet to be identified and assessed), the system has thus far proven to be surprisingly effective in reducing the effort required to climb stairs and ladders. This benefit has been especially noticeable during long climbs. The system has been well received, notwithstanding the rather unusual appearance it creates in the turnout pants when deployed.
Concerns over maintaining the traditional “firefighter look” may have assumed an exaggerated role in the PPE selection process of the fire service. Care must be taken to avoid the egregious mistake of placing disproportionate emphasis on this preference for a traditional look when it comes at the expense of potential improvements in firefighter safety.
High-Tech, Indirect Impact
Recommendations implemented by the PFD in the wake of a series of serious injuries included the repositioning of the “emergency declaration” or “mayday” button of our portable radios from the radio body to a more accessible position on the handset. This recently completed project resulted in the retrofit of all portable radios with a high-tech “next generation” portable hand-mic equipped with an integrated “emergency declaration” button. The different dimensions of these new, somewhat bulkier, handsets had an indirect impact on the department’s PPE–remember the concept of unintended consequences?
The increased size of the units rendered it impossible for our existing turnout coat mictabs to accommodate them. At the request of the Safety Office, our turnout manufacturer graciously, at no charge–it pays to cultivate a positive working relationship with vendors–produced a series of prototypes before the appropriate configuration was identified and specified. The selected version is slightly longer and includes an under-layer of leather as a stiffener. The increased length allows the additional girth of the new handset to fit under the mictab, while the increased stiffness keeps the hand-mic “sitting up” for ease of operation (Figure 2).
Remember: Even apparently irrelevant changes in technology can, and often will, have PPE-related ramifications. The effective PPE manager must remain watchful for such changes and mindful of potential unintended effects on PPE.
High-Tech Building Upon Existing Tech
The moisture barrier is an undeniably key layer of the thermal protection system of all turnout garments. It prevents water and many other fluids from reaching the wearer, while allowing for the dissipation of metabolic heat from inside the turnout. Maintaining the integrity of this breathable barrier is therefore essential to achieving the designed level of protection.
The fragile nature of breathable films used in moisture barriers necessitates laminating the film to a supporting substrate. A recent innovation developed by a major manufacturer of barriers incorporates the addition of a substrate layer on the normally exposed side of the breathable film. The resulting tri-laminate effectively sandwiches the breathable film between layers of protective woven material (Figure 3). The expectation is that the structure of the tri-laminate will increase the durability of the moisture barrier in turnouts.
Presently, my department is in the process of evaluating several sets of turnouts that include the tri-laminate configuration in the liner system. In addition to assessing the impact of this configuration on moisture barrier durability, our evaluation will also endeavor to determine possible effects on other factors, such as thermal protective performance (TPP), total heat loss (THL), barrier seam integrity, barrier seam durability and so forth. Once again, whenever contemplating modifications to PPE, evaluations must look beyond the obvious. The process should always seek to identify and assess the impact of subtle effects or unintended consequences.
High-Tech, New Tech
A major producer of artificial materials found in most modern turnouts is currently in the final development stages of an entirely new concept in thermal protection for firefighters. The company is on the verge of introducing a new thermal liner technology that incorporates its recently developed “smart” material into an active or “on demand” thermal liner. This material has been engineered to remain thin and breathable, while providing normal levels of thermal protection under ordinary or routine firefighting conditions. When thermally activated by exposure to heat levels in excess of those same routine firefighting conditions, the material expands, resulting in an estimated 20—30 percent increase in thermal protection (Figure 4).
The PFD Safety Office staff has witnessed thermal testing of the new material, and it did indeed perform as advertised when exposed to threshold temperatures established for testing purposes. You can be sure that our department will be evaluating this new technology as soon as it becomes available in a thermal liner system.
Regulatory Standards: Know the Rules
Although there are a multitude of standards impacting PPE design, testing, certification, selection, specification, performance, inspection, cleaning and maintenance, two National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards stand preeminent in issues pertaining to PPE. These are:
- NFPA 1971: Standard on Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting (current edition, 2007)
- NFPA 1851: Standard on Selection, Care, and Maintenance of Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting (current edition, 2008)
Essentially, these two standards comprise the regulatory backbone of the fire service PPE industry and in several states they have been enacted as the law. Keep in mind that for numerous reasons these standards exert tremendous influence, even in those states in which they are not the law.
As a general rule, most responsible PPE manufacturers will not produce or sell PPE elements that have not been NFPA certified. This is especially true of the larger ticket items (i.e. turnouts). Keep in mind, however, that this is more of a guideline than an inviolate rule. Ultimately, the rule is “buyer beware.” Therefore, the end-user should always remain on alert for the unscrupulous vendor who might, for example, attempt to sell an “NFPA-compliant” garment, which is generally a euphemism for “not NFPA certified.” Remember: “NFPA compliant” does not equal “NFPA certified.”
Another source of the practical power of these standards emanates from the litigious society in which we live and the operation of the civil law and civil courts.
In civil cases, when confronted with an absence of governing law, the civil courts will reference the prevailing industry standards for guidance in adjudication. With this in mind, it is perilous to disregard or overlook the provisions of these standards. Whether by commission or omission, to do so will likely compromise firefighter safety and in the process create a substantial liability exposure for the organization.
These standards also provide tremendous value and utility to the end-users. In many respects they virtually guarantee a minimal level of performance and quality. Within the confines of a given specification, the standards effectively ensure a similar level of expected performance regardless of the manufacturer. In essence, the existence and force of the standards function to level the fire-service PPE playing field.
This knowledge permits the PPE decision-maker to disregard the specious “your-people-are-going-to-die” sales approach employed by the less scrupulous manufacturers and distributors in the industry. This pervasive, nefarious scare tactic suggests that decisions to purchase PPE manufactured by any company but theirs will put firefighters at risk and lead to serious injuries or worse. The fact is, we are not injuring and losing firefighters due to deficiencies in certified PPE that stem from variations in product performance between manufacturers. It is simply dishonest and underhanded to suggest otherwise.
The reasonable assurance of quality and performance supported by the standards also permits increased scrutiny of two other major aspects of the customer-supplier business relationship: price and customer service/vendor responsiveness.
In light of the leverage and power PPE administrators can derive through knowledge of these standards, it is incumbent upon them to develop and maintain a comprehensive understanding of the relevant standards. This familiarity must extend beyond the limits of current editions to include an awareness of interim documents and potential modifications, additions and deletions on the horizon. Decision-makers should be aware that the continuous standards revision process employed by the NFPA essentially transforms these standards into dynamic “living documents.”
During the life cycle of a given edition, this revision process will include the Call for Proposals; the Report on Proposals (ROP), which will include a draft of the next edition of the standard; the Public Comment Period; the Report on Comments (ROC); and, finally, the new edition of the standard. During this entire cycle, one or more Tentative Interim Amendments (TIA) may also be issued by the relevant technical committee. Clearly, the PPE manager should be aware of the process and cognizant of any real or potential changes resulting from it.
A word of caution: In addition to the mandatory provisions embodied within each version of an NFPA standard, there are often several optional provisions as well. End-users should be aware that optional provisions in the current edition of a standard often evolve into mandatory provisions in the next edition. Obviously, it’s a good idea to become aware of these optional items and to track their progress through the revision process.
As if all of this was not enough, decision-makers should also keep in mind that NFPA standards are not the only pertinent regulatory documents. For example: Effective Nov. 24, 2008, U.S. Federal Regulation 23 CFR Part 634, which addresses worker visibility on federal highways, will require all workers–including emergency responders–to use American National Standards Institute 107 Class 2 or 3 garments when operating on or near the right-of-way of a federal highway. Despite NFPA 1971 retroflective and fluorescent trim prescriptions, firefighter turnouts do not comply with 23 CFR Part 634 worker visibility requirements, which mandate the use of fluorescent background materials. This is obviously a problematic issue for first responders and one that requires the immediate attention of PPE administrators in every jurisdiction.
A Real-World Example
By now it should be clear that the PPE selection process is complex and must include consideration of a multitude of interacting forces and influences from both internal and external sources.
For example, NFPA 1971 provisions addressing turnout gear breathability have become increasingly stringent with each new edition of the standard. The 2000 edition of NFPA 1971 mandated a minimum THL, the measure of garment breathability, of 135 watts/square meter, while the recently released 2007 edition requires a minimum THL of 205 watts/square meter. The standard also addresses concerns for firefighter visibility (during suppression operations) by requiring minimum levels of retroflective-fluorescent trim on all turnouts. To a degree, these respective provisions are somewhat irreconcilable in that the application of non-breathable trim must necessarily compromise garment breathability to some extent.
In response to this apparent incongruity, an analysis of PFD Safety Office injury data was conducted. The results of this in-depth examination tended to support our logic: Evidence of a pattern of thermal injuries, concentrated in trim-covered areas, was discerned. Follow-up conversations with peer groups and other PPE network associates only served to support this theory. These consultations also included our turnout gear provider and resulted in their development of a relatively low-tech solution in the form of the creation of a perforated trim (Figure 5). The PFD currently specifies this trim on all of its turnouts. This is a fairly recent development, so it remains too early to draw conclusions regarding the efficacy of the trim in reducing stored energy and related injuries in areas of trim application. It is, however, certainly a reasonable response to the issue and it is logical to expect this new trim to provide some amelioration of the problem.
None of this suggests that the frequency and severity of this type of injury experience was cause for serious concern. In point of fact, the number of such injuries was low, and they were actually fairly minor in nature. On the other hand, anything reasonable that can be done to improve firefighter safety is worth the effort and this case amply demonstrates the interaction and value of most of the PPE influences that have been discussed.
Conclusion
Hopefully, the point has been firmly established that the PPE selection and modification process is a “work in progress” that requires the cultivation of an elevated level of situational awareness on the part of the PPE decision-maker. The sophisticated PPE manager should:
- Possess a real-time appreciation of the organization’s PPE needs supported by a continuous risk assessment process;
- Establish, or have access to, a system of injury data collection, maintenance and analysis to identify PPE-related issues;
- Exploit the intrinsic value of information exchange by cultivating a diverse network of peer, industry, research and academic associates;
- Monitor relevant changing, developing and emerging technologies and participate as an evaluating agency whenever possible;
- Develop and maintain a comprehensive working knowledge of all relevant regulatory standards, ever mindful of the impact of the revision process.
In other words, an uncompromising sense of situational awareness with regard to PPE will ensure your department receives the best protection available. They deserve no less.
