Agenda - NFPA

Technical Committee on Fire Hose First Draft Meeting (NFPA 1961)

October 12-14, 2015

Hilton Garden Inn Atlanta Downtown

275 Baker Street

Atlanta, GA 30313

Web-conferencing available

Contact Daniel Gorham ([email protected])

Agenda Revised: 9-October-2015

1. Call to Order 8:00 AM Eastern Time 2. Introduction of Members and Guests 3. Chairs Remarks and Purpose of Meeting 4. Review of minutes from Pre-First Draft Meeting (NFPA 1961), April 2, 2015

[Attachment A]

5. Document processing and cycle information 6. Presentations

a. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) Monday October 12, 11:00 AM EST.

b. Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) Tuesday October 13, 8:00 AM EST. c. Kenneth Willette, Public Fire Protection Division Manager, NFPA Tuesday

October 13, 9:00 AM EST.

d. Kathy Crosby-Bell, President, Last Call Foundation Tuesday October 13, 9:15 AM EST. [Attachment B]

7. Review Public Inputs [Attachment C] 8. Task Groups [Attachment D]

a. Fire Hose Performance b. Fire Fighting Equipment Operational c. Fire Hose Test Procedures [Attachment E] d. Evaluation of Inspection and Service Test Results e. Combining of NFPA 1964 and 1965 [Attachment F]

9. Other business 10. Adjourn

mailto:[email protected]

ATTACHMENT A NFPA 1961 (A2017) Pre-First Draft

Meeting Minutes

Technical Committee on Fire Hose Pre-First Draft Meeting (NFPA 1961)

April 2, 2015

10:00 am Eastern Time

Adobe Connect Web-conference

Meeting Minutes

1. The meeting was called to order at 10:00 AM by Chair Carl Peterson.

2. Introduction of Members and Guests a. Committee Members Carl Peteron (Chair)

Michael Aubuchon North American Fire Hose

Jason Goodale Loveland Fire Rescue

James Glatts FireOne

Jeff Hebenstreit Underwriters Laboratories

Jayme Kahle Rincon Valley Fire District (AZ)

Paul R. Kaveler Ameren Services

Jonathan Larrabee Kochek Co

Duane Leonhardt Mercedes Textiles

Toby Mathews Key Fire Hose

John Stacey International Association of Fire Chiefs

Samuel Wu USDA Forest Service

Thomas Farruggia Illinois Fire and Safety

Gregory Kozey Kochek Co

b. Guests Andrew Ellison Exponent, Inc.

Bill Betz Fairfax County Fire Department (VA)

Brian Kazmierzak Penn Township (IN)

Paul Prevot Clearwater Regional Fire Rescue, Canada

David Walsh Boston Fire Department (MA)

David Quick Manchester Fire Department (NH)

Adam St. John ATF

Lisa Herb ATF

Jack Murphy WPI

Kathy Notarianni WPI

Raymond Ranellone WPI

Kathy Crosby-Bell Last Call Foundation

Mark Donovan Armored Textiles, Inc.

Jesse Edwards All American Hose

Bill Haskell NIOSH

Paul Moore NIOSH

Nicolas Nava Exponent, Inc.

Dennis LeGear LeGear Engineering F.D. Consulting

Dave Wilkins All American Hose

c. NFPA Staff Daniel Gorham Staff Liaison

Casey Grant Fire Protection Research Foundation

Bob Duval Regional Director, NE & Fire Investigator

Susan McKelvey Communications Manager

Kenneth Willette Division Manager, Public Fire Protection

3. The Chair stated there were several purposes for this meeting; to receive updates on fire hose research being conducted and to discuss upcoming revision of fire hose documents.

4. The minutes from February 12, 2013 and June 26, 2014 were accepted as written.

5. Bob Duval, NFPA provided a brief overview of the 2014 Back Bay Fire on Beacon Street. He discussed other incidents including a fire in Keokuk, Iowa.

6. Briefing on fire hose research projects.

a. Casey Grant from the Fire Protection Research Foundation (FPRF) provided a brief presentation on how that group can facilitate and participate in research. Slides from the

presentation are provided. [Attachment A]

b. Kathy Notarianni and Raymond Ranellone from Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) gave a briefing on their departments Center for First Responder Technology and their

current fire hose research project.

c. Adam St. John and Lisa Herb from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) gave a brief presentation on their fire hose research project. Slides

from the presentation are provides. [Attachment B]

d. Committee members and guests discussed the presentations and the need for further fire hose research.

e. Kathy Crosby-Bell addressed the committee and expressed her concerns over the standard. [Attachment C].

7. Dan Gorham reminded the committee that NFPA 1961 is in the Annual 2017 revision cycle. The closing date for Public Inputs is July 6, 2015 and the First Draft Meeting must occur before

December 14, 2015.

8. Discussion of NFPA 1961 revision topics

Carl Peterson raised possible issues for consideration for the next edition of the standard.

a. Friction loss research As the current edition of NFPA 1961 was being finalized, the FPRF report Determination of Fire Hose Friction Loss Characteristics was being

finalized. Does the standard need to address friction loss in fire hose more than it

currently does?

b. Is there a need for third party listing of fire hose? Some NFPA fire service product standards currently require third party testing.

c. Consider more requirements on resistance to heat and flame impingement based on outcome of current research.

9. Other Fire Hose Committee Documents: NFPA 1962, 1963, 1964, and 1965

Carl identified 3 pending items for the next editions of the other documents the committee is

responsible for.

a. Develop annex material for NFPA 1962 to help users understand what constitutes hose

and coupling failure

b. Combine NFPA 1964 and 1965 into a single document. January 5, 2016 is the first draft closing date for NFPA 1964 which is the cycle the combination needs to occur in.

c. Address the force to connect and disconnect hydrant caps raised by a proposed TIA to NFPA 1963

10. New or Other Business a. Dennis LeGear suggested developing a numerical rating system for fire hose to assist in

evaluation for purchasing.

11. The meeting adjourned at 11:58 AM.

ATTACHMENT A

NFPA Technical Committee on Fire Hose,

The Fire Protection Research Foundation

(Presentation)

WWW.NFPA.ORG/FOUNDATION

NFPA TECHNICAL COMMITTEEON FIRE HOSE

2 APRIL 2015

FACILITATING RESEARCH FOR EMERGENCY RESPONDERS

Independent charitable organization conducting research Formed by NFPA in 1982

Focus on facilitating credible research and disseminating results

Research funds come primarily from (1) private and public sector consortia; (2) grants and government sources; and (3) other sources

FPRF serves as the research affiliate for NFPA FPRF Mission: Plan, manage and communicate

research in support of the NFPA mission

NFPA (Natl Fire Prot Assoc) Mission: Make the world safer from fire and related hazards

Summary: Focus is Facilitating Research; (i.e., the role of the producer)

www.nfpa.org/Foundation

PREVIOUS RELATED FOUNDATION RESEARCH

Developing Friction Loss Coefficients for

Modern Fire Hose

Foundation Project Issued April 2012 (revised October 2013)

Available at www.nfpa.org/Foundation

Foundation Project of the Year in 2013

Funded via Code Fund and significant

in-kind donations

Developed baseline friction loss coefficients

for commonly used fire service hose

http://www.nfpa.org/Foundation

LOOKING TO THE FUTURE

FPRF Research Summary

for

Emergency Responders

www.nfpa.org/Foundation

www.nfpa.org/EmergencyResponderResearch

Contact Information:

One Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA USA 02169-7471

Phone: 617-984-7284 Email: [email protected] Website: www.nfpa.org/foundation

Casey Grant, P.E.

Fire Protection Research Foundation

mailto:[email protected]

ATTACHMENT B

Thermal Impact of Radiant Heat on Interior

Fire Attack Hose, ATF Fire Research

Laboratory and National Institute for

Occupational Safety and Health

(Presentation)

Thermal Impact of Radiant Heat on Interior Fire Attack Hose

1

ATF Fire Research Laboratoryand

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

1

Overview Referencing several LODD/near miss cases, NIOSH

requested ATF assistance Goal: Determine time to hose line rupture at various heat

flux (radiation) levels. Method: Utilize existing bench-scale ASTM testing

standards AND full-scale fire testing

2

Work Product Produced1. Provide hose line data/results via research

paper2. Document complete testing protocol utilizedATF/NIOSH will NOT develop industry recommendations based on results

3

Full-Scale Tests Completed in August 2014 in Indianapolis Determine real-world rupture times and associated heat

flux for Charged, Charged and flowing and Dry lines In both uni-directional AND bi-directional flow path

scenarios

4

Bench-Scale Testing (In Progress) Conduct approx. 100 bench scale tests on 1 and 2

inch hand lines. Multiple styles, manufactures and age of hose (provided by NIOSH)

5

Bench-Scale Testing (In Progress)Follow existing ASTM heat flux standard Filled to operating pressure, both dry and chargedTwo heat flux levels: High level=40 kW Low Level=30 kW

6

Video from Bench Scale Test Charged with water to @ 120 psi. Heat Flux= 30 kW/m^2

7

Testing Update (4/2/2015) 56 Bench-scale Laboratory Tests (5 types of

hose) and 12 Full-Scale Tests

8

Intermediate Tests w/ Large Radiant Panel

Place hoselines and average TPP turnout gear in front of large natural gas radiant panel

Compare threshold to burns VS. Rupture times

10

Additional Full-Scale Testing Construct two-story burn structure at the ATF

Fire Research Laboratory after completion of bench-scale testing

Multiple charged hose lines outfitted in structure with instrumentation

Likely to occur Fall 2015

11

Goal of ATF and NIOSH Tests Ultimately provide hose line data via research

paper Document complete testing protocol ATF/NIOSH will NOT develop industry

recommendations based on results

ATF Contacts: Lisa Herb, Special Agent/CFIC ([email protected])Adam St. John, P.E. Fire Protection Engineer ([email protected])

12

ATTACHMENT C

Letter from Kathleen Crosby-Bell, President,

Last Call Foundation

April 2, 2015

Public Input from the pre-first draft meeting for NFPA 1961 currently soliciting input to the 2017

revision cycle.

My understanding is that this revision is attempting to acknowledge and address fire hose integrity or

FAILURE due to thermal assault.

First and most importantly the information shared at the 4/2/15 conference call meeting regarding

experiments showing added protection of a wet outer jacket, - 3 X longer before burn thru occurs! This

simple step should be independently confirmed and immediately disseminated to the Fire Service.

1. The 1961 Standard Burst test, at over 50 years old is outdated, does not provide manufacturers with motivation for research and development, or the application of fire resistant and/or fire proofing technologies and materials to fire attack hose.

2. Flame, hot ember as well as radiant heat testing must be incorporated to create an updated testing standard for fire attack hose.

3. I am calling for a meaningful NFPA fire attack hose testing updating immediately.

At a minimum fire attack hose should be flame, ember and radiant heat time tested, charged and

uncharged, wet and dry. Filling the need for lighter weight fire hose by removing protective jacketing

materials is sacrificing fire fighter safety and may in fact have led to line of duty deaths

4. The failure to catalogue fire hose burn thrus as they occur, together with the resulting damage to property and life discredits NFPA Safety Standards.

5. The defensive public statement made by an NFPA Spokesperson following the Beacon Street fire, which resulted in the death of my son Michael Kennedy and Lt Ed Walsh was insulting, inaccurate and frankly indefensible.

of 3

6. Best practices at a minimum should dictate this committee be composed of equal parts researchers, firefighters, manufacturers. However that is accomplished it must be done.

7. The composition of this committee now or through the years does not appear to have been well balanced. The conflict of interest between manufacturings bottom line and fire protection safety should perhaps even relegate manufacturers to advisory capacity, rather than driving the codes and standards of their own product on this committee. The stagnation of testing standards and codes clearly speaks to this issue.

8. In conclusion I must point out and question why NFPA Compliant fire attack hose widely used in the US does not meet the codes and standards of the UK, Spain, Germany The question must be asked why is the US code 1961 sub-standard?

The NFPA began with, The purposes of the Association shall be to promote the science and improve the

safety methods of fire protection and prevention

I urge you to more closely align the NFPA with those driving innovation. The NFPA together with the

Fires Service, Scientists and Researchers must frequently update safety Codes and Standards to reflect

current and evolving science and technologies for development of application to fire attack hose, the

most important tool a firefighter is equipped with.

Submitted by Kathleen Crosby-Bell

ATTACHMENT B Public Comment submitted to NFPA

1961 Technical Committee by Kathy

Crosby Bell

October 13, 2015

Public Comment submitted to NFPA 1961 Technical Committee By Kathy Crosby Bell, President Last Call Foundation, mother of fallen firefighter Michael Kennedy. Im the mother of a Fallen Professional Firefighter who entered a burning building on March 26, 2014, holding an NFPA-compliant fire hose, that very quickly burned through. My son Michael and Lt. Ed Walsh, a married father of three young children, are dead today because that fire hose failed a hose that continues to meet the compliance standards of NFPA 1961. Make no mistake despite the -in my opinion misleading publication, of the 2014 Line of Duty Death Report by the NFPA which never once mentions hose failure playing any roll in the cause of death of these two firefighters, it was hose failure, which caused Michaels death. My son stood in the basement of a burning building, reliant on the hose he held in his arms, expecting any moment water would spurt toward the flames, and save their lives. I imagine with horror the dawning realization Michael and Ed endured You must consider that you are charged with protecting the lives of people. They are not statistics, numbers or names on a wall; they are real people what were their last thoughts? Water never reached them, these well-trained dedicated professional firefighters, whose lives ended that day. Because their hose failed. Please note- A researcher from WPI informed me that the people who came before you, member of this committee, did not think the compliance standard of NFPA 1961 required review revision and updating. We now know that this catastrophic hose burn through, and the resulting deaths were NOT an isolated incident. Yet Im told this committee is rigidly adhering to a method demanding time could be as much as five to seven years, to allow for further scientific research. This shows a lack of a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge things, shared by reasonable people Common Sense. Please, apply Common Sense to this, do not allow the NFPA to continue to publish such a glaringly irrelevant and inadequate safety compliance standard, as the current, heated metal block test of NFPA 1961. The NFPA has been unable to provide me with the requested science to support having established NFPA 1961 in the first place. As

of 3

was suggested by Mr. Ken Willett, of the NFPA, perhaps there was no science? I was recently shown photographs of Michaels gear. It wasnt burned; his Personal Protective Equipment did its job quiet well. If only the hose had met a standard similar to that gear, Michael, would almost certainly have survived that fire. His gear was fine, but for the fact that it was cut from his body. However, the fire attack hose, an integral part of every firefighters gear failed so catastrophically that entire sections were incinerated. PPE and fire attack hose are an integral protection package in firefighting. As improvements and innovation has been applied to PPE, offering far greater protection to firefighters, no corresponding innovation has been applied to fire hose Compliance standards for PPE have been revisited and revised to apply available emerging innovation and technology. Advances in PPE have reached the point that it virtually enables firefighters to enter flames. Yet the all-important integrated component and lifeline - Fire Attack Hose, has undergone no corresponding thermal improvements or protections. I urge NFPA 1961 be amended to require all fire hose failure be reported both to the manufacturer and NFPA and information relating to the method of failure be published and provided to the fire service to enable learning, as well as rational use and purchasing decision making. The voluntary reported anecdotal evidence currently being collected by WPI for some future data base, is not now available to members of the fires service and their purchasing agents. Nor is the fire service or the manufacturers required to report hose failure. For safety sake this needs to be addressed by NFPA and manufacturers and incorporated into the compliance standard.

I suggest as WPI researchers pointed out to us, perhaps the relevant thermal protective

test and standards now being applied to PPE, in particular firefighters footwear which

undergoes very similar conditions on the fire ground as fire attack hose, be visited for

realistic fire ground fire attack hose needs and standards. Clearly a far more rigorous

conductive heat test, as well as radiant heat and flame exposure testing is required of

fire attack hose. When a fire hose is brought on the fire ground, it is very often exposed

to heat radiating from the fire, hot embers, or even comes into direct contact with flames

thermal assault is a virtual guarantee. If in fact manufacturers cannot today produce an

of 3

attack hose that is compatible with currently available PPE, raising the standard by a

date certain will encourage and push the needed R & D and innovation.

Meanwhile ratings can be applied, documentation of failure will support informed

decision making, as well as drive innovation, research and development by

manufacturers. At the very least it will inform the fire service such that fire ground

command will be able to make rational informed decisions and hopefully prevent future

tragedy.

Finally I would like to share a just bit from the summary of findings from WPI regarding fire attack hose that I personally found remarkable. 1. The first problem identified is that there has been no improvement aimed at increasing fire resistance of fire hose for more than 100 years. 2. Researchers reported they were astonished to discover that 97% of burn through

reports were in hoses that were charged with water.

3. Burn throughs have been reported both interior and exterior to the fire building.

4. The primary mode leading to failure varies and have occurred in a wide variety of

hose types representing the field of what is available to firefighters.

I remind this committee that the need for a rigorous compliance-testing standard is indisputably necessary and is to the families of firefighters a moral imperative. You have a responsibility to firefighters both the living as well as the dead - It is time to bring NFPA 1961 into this century and require that fire attack hose actually and reliably represent the lifeline that it should be for firefighters. Last Call Foundation in memory of my son Michael Kennedy is so named to memorialize Michaels Last Call - for water. Its my personal mission to insure that no firefighters call for water be their last. To that end I will continue to advocate for reasonable and rational safety standards.

ATTACHMENT C NFPA 1961 (A2017) Public Inputs

Public Input No. 7-NFPA 1961-2014 [ Chapter 2 ]

Chapter 2 Referenced Publications2.1 General.

The documents or portions thereof listed in this chapter are referenced within this standard and shall beconsidered part of the requirements of this document.2.2 NFPA Publications.

National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471.

NFPA 1962, Standard for the Inspection, Care, and Use of Fire Hose, Couplings, and Nozzles and theService Testing of Fire Hose,2008 edition 2013 .

2.3 Other Publications.2.3.1 ASQ Publications.

American Society for Quality, 600 North Plankinton Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53203.

ASQ Z1.4, Sampling Procedures and Tables for Inspection by Attributes, 1993 2003, reapproved 2013 .

2.3.2 ASTM Publications.ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.

ASTM D 380 D380 , Standard Test Methods for Rubber Hose, 1994, reapproved 2012 .

ASTM D 412 D412 , Standard Test Methods for Vulcanized Rubber and Thermoplastic Elastomers Tension, 2002 2006a, reapproved 2013 .

ASTM D 518 D518 , Standard Test Method for Rubber Deterioration Surface Cracking, 1999,(Superseded by ASTM D1149) .

ASTM D 573 D573 , Standard Test Method for Rubber Deterioration in an Air Oven, 2004, reapproved2010 .

ASTM D 1149, Standard Test Methods for Rubber Deterioration - Cracking in Ozone ControlledEnvironment, 2007, reapproved 2012.

2.3.3 FM Publications.FM Global, 1301 Atwood 270 Central Avenue , P.O. Box 7500, Johnston, RI 02919-4923 .

FM Class Number FM Approval 2111, Factory Mutual Approval Standard for Fire Hose, 1999.

2.3.4 UL Publications.Underwriters Laboratories Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062.

ANSI/ UL 19, Lined Fire Hose and Hose Assemblies, 2001, including revisions through June 30, 20082013 .ANSI/

UL 219, Lined Fire Hose for Interior Standpipes, 2006, including revisions through June 30, 2008 2013 .

2.3.5 USDA Publications.USDA Forest Service, San Dimas Technology and Development Center, San Dimas, CA 91773.

USDA Specification 5100-186D, Forest Service Specification for Fire Hose, Cotton-Synthetic, Lined, WovenJacket, 1 inch and 1 12 inch, October 1996 May 2006 .

2.3.6 Other Publications.Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition, Merriam-Webster, Inc., Springfield, MA, 2003.2.4 References for Extracts in Mandatory Sections. (Reserved)

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

Referenced current addresses and editions.

Related Public Inputs for This Document

National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...

1 of 8 7/7/2015 8:53 AM

Related Input RelationshipPublic Input No. 8-NFPA 1961-2014 [Chapter B]

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Aaron AdamczykOrganization: [ Not Specified ]Street Address:City:State:Zip:Submittal Date: Sat Jun 28 18:42:36 EDT 2014


2 of 8 7/7/2015 8:53 AM

Public Input No. 9-NFPA 1961-2015 [ Section No. 2.3.4 ]

2.3.4 UL Publications.Underwriters Laboratories Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062.

ANSI/UL 19, Lined Fire Hose and Hose Assemblies, 2001, including revisions through June 30,2008 Revised 2013 .

ANSI/UL 219, Lined Fire Hose for Interior Standpipes, 2006, including revisions through June 30,2008 Revised 2013 .


Ul Standards were revised and updated.


Submitter Full Name: Ronald FarrOrganization: UL LLCStreet Address:City:State:Zip:Submittal Date: Thu Jan 01 14:04:08 EST 2015


3 of 8 7/7/2015 8:53 AM

Public Input No. 10-NFPA 1961-2015 [ New Section after 5.1 ]

TITLE OF NEW CONTENTType your content here ...

5.1.1 Fire hose shall have a Hazen-Wiliams coefficient of not less than 135.


Results of the FPRF fire hose friction loss research show that today's fire hose has low friction loss characteristics. Factory Mutual's fire hose approval standard 2111 uses the Hazen-Wiiliams constant of 135 in determining friction loss requirements. An interior roughness of 135 is equivalent in smoothness to a little less than polyethylene plastic pipe. Using 135 will be in line with the FM (and UL) approval standards for friction loss in fire hose and bring friction loss measurements of modern fire hose close to the actual friction loss experienced in fire ground operations. It should be noted that going back to 1967 the fire hose standard has never included a requirement for friction loss in the standards but discussed friction loss characteristics in general in the annex. I do not know when or why FM and UL included friction loss characteristics in their standards or where the 135 came from. Knowing FM, I assume they did testing to come up with 135. Regarding the use of the Hazen-Williams 135 in the field, it should be noted that pressure gauges on apparatus fire pumps are checked annually for accuracy and only have to be within 10 psi of calibration.


Submitter Full Name: JAMES GLATTSOrganization: FIREONEStreet Address:City:State:Zip:Submittal Date: Mon Jun 29 13:23:41 EDT 2015


4 of 8 7/7/2015 8:53 AM

Public Input No. 4-NFPA 1961-2013 [ Section No. 5.6.1 [Excluding any Sub-Sections] ]

Each length of fire hose shall be indelibly marked in letters and figures at least 1 in. (25 mm) high with themanufacturer's identification, the country of origin hose origin , the month and the year of manufacture,and the words service test to [the service test pressure] psi (bar) per NFPA 1962 [Standard for theInspection, Care, and Use of Fire Hose, Couplings, and Nozzles and the Service Testing of Fire Hose].

Additional Proposed Changes

File Name Description ApprovedTerraView_.webarchive Change wording to state Country of HOSE ORIGIN


Some manufacturers are importing hose, marking it "Made In USA" using the reasoning that the cost of the couplings and labor to attach such couplings exceeds the cost of the "hose" justifying the Made in USA markings. County of Origin would resolve this issue and clarify where the actual hose is made.


Submitter Full Name: PAUL FRASEROrganization: United Fire Equipment CompanyStreet Address:City:State:Zip:Submittal Date: Mon Aug 12 19:16:08 EDT 2013


5 of 8 7/7/2015 8:53 AM

Public Input No. 11-NFPA 1961-2015 [ Section No. A.5.1 ]

A.5.1.1 The friction loss characteristics of fire hoses are an important consideration in the selection of hose. Frictionloss varies considerably depending on the construction and design of the hose, the roughness of the lining,and its internal diameter, which may be different for different grades of hose. The type of couplings can alsoaffect the friction loss.

Where friction loss is important, side-by-side comparisons are recommended. The following test isrecommended.

All comparative tests should use 300 ft (90 m) of each type of hose to be tested laid side-by-side on a levelsurface. Commercially available line pressure gauges should be installed at the inlet and the outlet of thefirst 300 ft (90 m) of hose to be tested.

A smooth bore nozzle of the size shown in Table A.5.1 should be used for the tests. Pressurize the testhose while the nozzle is fully open until a pitot gauge reading of the discharge reads 50 psi (3.5 bar). Readthe pressure shown on the inlet and outlet line gauges. Subtract the outlet pressure from the inlet pressureand divide by 3 to determine the friction loss per 100 ft (30 m) of hose. Repeat the test for the next typehose to be tested. The hose with the lowest friction loss will flow the most amount of water for a given inletpressure.

Table A.5.1 Recommended Smooth Bore Nozzle Size for Testing Friction Loss in Fire Hose

Hose Size Recommended Smooth Bore Nozzle Size

in. mm in. mm

1 25 12 131 12 38 78 221 34 44 78 22

2 51 78 222 12 65 1 18 29

3 76 1 18 293 12 90 1 14 32

4 100 2 514 12 113 2 51

5 125 2 14 576 150 2 14 57


Move the comments about friction loss to 5.1.1 to be in line with new 5.1.1


Submitter Full Name: JAMES GLATTSOrganization: FIREONEStreet Address:City:State:Zip:Submittal Date: Mon Jun 29 14:07:20 EDT 2015


6 of 8 7/7/2015 8:53 AM

Public Input No. 8-NFPA 1961-2014 [ Chapter B ]

Annex B Informational ReferencesB.1 Referenced Publications.The documents or portions thereof listed in this annex are referenced within the informational sections ofthis standard and are not part of the requirements of this document unless also listed in Chapter 2 for otherreasons.B.1.1 NFPA Publications.

National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471.

NFPA 1962, Standard for the Inspection, Care, and Use of Fire Hose, Couplings, and Nozzles and theService Testing of Fire Hose, 2008 edition 2013 .

B.1.2 Other Publications.B.1.2.1 Military and Federal Specifications.

Naval Publications and Forms Center, 5801 Tabor Avenue, Attn: NPODS, Philadelphia, PA 19120-5094.

A-A 59226, Hose Assembly, Nonmetallic, Fire Fighting, with Couplings, June 11, 2003.

MIL-H-24606, Hose, Fire, Synthetic Fiber, Double Jacketed, Treated for Abrasion Resistance, withCouplings, Fire Fighting and Other Water Service, Revision B, August 12, 1994.

MIL-PRF53207 PRF - 53207 B , Hose Assembly, Rubber: Lightweight Collapsible, 6-inch; for Drinking(Potable) Water, Revision B, March 14, 1996.

B.1.2.2 NSF Publications.NSF International, 789 Dixboro Road, P.O. Box 130140, Ann Arbor, MI 48113-0140.

NSF 61, Drinking Water System Components Health Effects, October 22, 2003 2013 .

B.1.2.3 USDA Publications.USDA Forest Service, San Dimas Technology and Development Center, 444 East Bonita Avenue, SanDimas, CA 91773-3198.

USDA Specification 5100-186D, Forest Service Specification for Fire Hose, Cotton-Synthetic, Lined, WovenJacket, 1 inch and 1 12 inch, May 2006 .

USDA Specification 5100-187D, Forest Service Specification for Fire Hose, Lightweight Synthetic, Lined,Woven Jacket, 1 inch and 1 12 inch , 2006 .

B.1.2.4 U.S. Government Publications.U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402.

Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 177.2600, Rubber Articles Intended for Repeated Use.

B.2 Informational References. (Reserved)B.3 References for Extracts in Informational Sections. (Reserved)


Referenced current editions.

Related Public Inputs for This Document

Related Input RelationshipPublic Input No. 7-NFPA 1961-2014 [Chapter 2] Referenced current editions.


Submitter Full Name: Aaron AdamczykOrganization: [ Not Specified ]


7 of 8 7/7/2015 8:53 AM

Street Address:City:State:Zip:Submittal Date: Sat Jun 28 19:31:20 EDT 2014


8 of 8 7/7/2015 8:53 AM

ATTACHMENT D NFPA 1961 Task Groups

Fire Hose Performance Task Group

In 2010 through 2012, the Fire Protection Research Foundation conducted a research project on

the friction loss in modern fire hose. A report on that research was published in April 2012 with

revisions published in October, 2013. Currently NFPA 1961 has no requirements for maximum

friction loss in fire hose and only briefly discusses it in Annex A.5.1. While that annex states

Where friction loss is important, side-by-side comparisons are recommended, this is not

practical in many fire departments that purchase small amounts of hose each year and do not

have the capability to get standardized comparison data.

Friction loss in fire hose is a measure of performance but there are others. The Fire Hose

Performance Task Group should develop criteria that are useful to the purchaser of fire hose as

well as the user in the field in evaluating the expected differences in performance of fire hose,

review relevant research aimed at evaluating performance, and make recommendations on how

to measure and report such performance, whether through a grading system or some other

standardized manner.

Fire Fighter Equipment Operational Environment Task Group

The environment in which the fire service operates when extinguishing fires has changed

dramatically over the past several years due to new material of construction, contents of

buildings and more aggressive tactics. The firefighter and his or her tools are a system, the

weakest component of which is the limitation on the system. Fire fighters rely on water carried

through fire hose and discharged through nozzles as a component of their protection.

The Task Group on Fire Hose Operational Environment should review current research on

modern fire fighter operating environments to determine potential criteria for fire hose based on

expected operating conditions. This Task Group should work with other technical committees

responsible for equipment expected to operate in the modern firefighting environment. Initially

this task group should focus on the structural fire fighting environment.

Possible committees to collaborate with:

FAE-SPF: Structural and Proximity Fire Fighting Protective Clothing and Equipment

FAE-RPE: Respiratory Protection Equipment

FAE-ELS: Electronic Safety Equipment

Fire Hose Test Procedures Task Group

The Task Group on Fire Hose Test Procedures should review NFPA 1961 for compatibility with

the fire hose design, performance criteria, and test procedures in currently referenced test

standards ANSI/UL 19 Lined Fire Hose and Hose Assemblies and FM Class 2111 Lined Fire

Hose and Hose Assemblies as well as international standards including DIN 14811 Fire-

Fighting Hoses - Non-Percolating Layflat Delivery Hoses And Hose Assemblies For Pumps And

Vehicles and BS 6391 Specification for non-percolating layflat delivery hoses and hose

assemblies for fire fighting purposes. In addition this task group should monitor developing or

on-going research that could be used to evaluate fire hose performance to determine its

application to the requirements in NFPA 1961.

Evaluation of Inspection and Service Test Results Task Group

NFPA 1962 covers the inspection and service testing of fire hose, couplings, nozzles, and fire

hose appliances. The Task Group on Evaluation of Inspection and Service Test Results should

review the document for wording that appears to leave no leeway but for a literal interpretation

and develop guidance for the user if there is any tolerance permitted in interpretation of results.

For example, 4.5.1 states Physical inspection shall determine if the hose and couplings have

been vandalized, are free of debris, and exhibit no evidence of mildew, rot, or damage by

chemicals, burns, cuts, abrasion, and vermin. Paragraph 4.8.5.2.17.2 states If the hose

assembly shows any sign of coupling slippage, the hose assembly shall have failed the test.

Both of these can be subject to interpretation. Where appropriate, the task group should

recommend guidance including artwork or photographs for inclusion in the Annex to assist the

user in making an appropriate interpretation of the committees intent.

Task Group to guide the combining of NFPA 1964 and NFPA 1965

This task group should identify the common requirements and the unique requirements between

NFPA 1964 and 1965, determine if some of the unique requirements should be broadened to

apply to both spray nozzles and fire hose appliances, and make recommendations for

consideration by the full committee for any changes. The task group should also develop a title,

scope, and purpose for the combined document and propose a format for the combined

document. It will be the intent to merge NFPA 1965 into NFPA 1964 and withdraw NFPA 1965

once that is completed.

ATTACHMENT E Fire Hose Test Procedures Task Group

Report

NFPA1961 FIRE TASK GROUP

TEST PROCEDURES

COMPARING INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

OCTOBER 2015 INITIAL FINDINGS

1. NFPA ROLE IN COMPARING INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

a. The NFPA was tasked with reviewing the NFPA Fire Hose Standards and

compare with various International Standards. The Test Procedures Task

Group was formed and reviewed the documentation.

b. Last Call Foundation Founder Kathleen Crosby-Bell requested the review

in response to 2014 Beacon Street Fire in Boston. To date, the Last Call

Foundation has funded $75,000 to WPI Fire Protection Engineering to

fund the discovery phase of a project to develop a Next Generation Fire

Attack Hose that is fire resistant and meets the diverse needs of the fire

service during fire ground operations.

c. In review, the Test Procedures Task Group found many differences

between North American and European Hose manufacturing, firefighting

tactics and strategies, and testing criteria. The main difference being North

American manufactured hose is predominantly double jacketed used in

interior attack, whereas, European manufactured hose is predominantly

single jacketed used in exterior attack. Manufacturing and test method

reflect these differences accordingly.

i. Examples, not limited to the following:

1. Abrasion Resistance testing

2. Flame Impingement testing

3. End User testing requirements

4. Coupling Styles Expansion ring vs wired on couplings

2. REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS SPREADSHEET

a. Exceptional document outlining various standards including:

i. DIM 14811 Standard

ii. British Standard 6391

iii. FM Global

iv. USDA Forest Service

v. MSHA Standard

vi. UL 19 and UL C to be added to this spreadsheet

b. Other NFPA Task Groups are working on specific manufacturing and test

criteria that may impact NFPA1961.

i. Example, Heat/Flame resistance in being developed in the

Firefighting Equipment and Operational Environment Task Group

in conjunction with ATF and potentially other agencies.

3. PROSPECTIVE

This Task Group finds after review and careful consideration of the

documentation, to wait for other NFPA Task Groups to further their findings

before moving forward. This Task Group believes the value of the spreadsheet

will have a positive impact for the NFPA Fire Hose Standards.

cc: Vanderlip (Leader), Leonhardt, Aubuchon, Hebenstreit, Gorham

ATTACHMENT F Comparison of NFPA 1964 and NFPA 1965

Comparison of NFPA 1964 and NFPA 1965

A focus group was created in order to determine if NFPA 1964 and NFPA 1965 could be merged

into one document. To aid in this process, a comparison was done on the two documents in order to

solely determine the similarities between them. The bulk of the content in the two documents can be

found in Chapter 4 Operational Design Requirements, Chapter 5 Construction Materials, and Chapter 6

Test Methods. It is for this reason that only Chapters 4, 5, and 6 were compared between the two

documents. Only the itinerary in NFPA 1964 and NFPA 1965 that was comparable are discussed in this

document. Comparable items were given a degree of similarity of either High, or Medium. A High degree

of similarity means that the respective sections were almost 100% identical between the two

documents and a transition into one document should be simple. A Medium degree of similarity means

that the respective sections were comparable between the two documents and a transition into one

document should take mostly minor effort.

Chapter 4, Operational Design Requirements

The operational design requirements for NFPA 1964 and NFPA 1965 were compared to

determine if any of the items in Chapter 4, Operational Design Requirements of the two documents

were related. It was determined that Leakage, Rough Usage/Rough-Handling, and Markings were

comparable operational design requirements between NFPA 1964 and NFPA 1965. A description of the

comparable operational design requirements in both NFPA document can be found in Table 1 below,

along with their degree of similarity. The rest of the operational design requirements in both NFPA

documents were deemed incomparable and therefore are not discussed.

Chapter 5, Construction Materials

The construction materials for NFPA 1964 and NFPA 1965 were compared to determine if any of

the items in Chapter 5, Construction Materials of the two documents were related. It was determined

that the entire construction materials chapter of NFPA 1964 was comparable to the entire construction

materials chapter of NFPA 1965. A description of the comparable construction materials in both NFPA

document can be found in Table 2 below, along with their degree of similarity.

Chapter 6, Test Methods

The test methods for NFPA 1964 and NFPA 1965 were compared to determine if any of the

items in Chapter 6, Test Methods of the two documents were related. It was determined that the

Hydrostatic Test, High/Low Temperature Tests, Rough-Handling for Master Stream Nozzles/Rough Usage

Test, Salt Spray Test, UV Light and Water test, Air-Oven Aging Test, Moist Ammonia-Air Stress Cracking

Test, Tensile Strength Ultimate Elongation Tensile Set Test, Compression Set Test, and the Accelerated

Aging Tests have comparable test methods between NFPA 1964 and NFPA 1965. A description of the

comparable test methods in each NFPA document can be found in Table 3 below, along with their

degree of similarity. The rest of the test methods in both NFPA documents were deemed incomparable

and therefore are not discussed.

One important note is that although the Rough-Handling for Master Stream Nozzles (1964) and

the Rough Usage (1965) tests were comparable (as seen in Table 3), the Rough-Handling for Handline

Stream Nozzles (1964) consists of three individual tests, only one of which was comparable to the Rough

Usage test (1965), therefore it was not included in Table 3.

Table 1 - Comparison of Operational Design Requirements

Table 4 - Comparison of Construction Materials Table 3 - Comparison of Construction Materials

Table 2 - Comparison of Construction Materials

Table 3 - Comparison of Test Methods

Table 4 below shows the items in Chapter 4, 5, and 6 of both NFPA 1964 and 1965 that were

deemed incomparable. Each item in the table is found in the respective code, however they did not have

a corresponding item in the other code.

Table 4 - Incomparable Items

1961_A2017_FHS-AAA_Pre-FD_Minutes-rev2.pdfFire Hose Research Overview NFPA Version (Power Point) 05-2015.pdfThermal Impact of Radiant Heat on Interior Fire Attack HoseOverviewWork Product ProducedFull-Scale TestsBench-Scale Testing (In Progress)Bench-Scale Testing (In Progress)Video from Bench Scale TestTesting Update (4/2/2015) Intermediate Tests w/ Large Radiant PanelAdditional Full-Scale TestingGoal of ATF and NIOSH Tests

Attachment A, NFPA 1961 (A2017) Pre-First Draft Meeting MinutesAttachment B, Public Comment submitted to NFPA 1961 Technical Committee by Kathy Crosby BellAttachment C, NFPA 1961 (A2017) Public InputsAttachment D, NFPA 1961 Task GroupsAttachment E, Fire Hose Test Procedures Task Group ReportAttachment F, Comparison of NFPA 1964 and NFPA 1965