Report on Comments (ROC) - National Fire Protection Association

1991-1

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 1991 Report of the Committee on

Fire and Emergency Services Protective Clothing and Equipment

Richard M. Duffy, ChairInternational Association of Fire Fighters, DC [L]

Rep. International Association of Fire Fighters

William M. Lambert, SecretaryMine Safety Appliances Company, PA [M]

Rep. Compressed Gas Association

Leslie Anderson, USDA Forest Service, MT [E]Roger L. Barker, North Carolina State University, NC [SE]Nicholas J. Curtis, Lion Apparel, Inc., OH [M]Robert A. Freese, Globe Manufacturing Company, NH [M]Andy Gbur, Intertek, OH [RT]Bill Grilliot, Morning Pride Manufacturing, LLC, OH [M] Rep. Fire and Emergency Manufacturers and Services Association Inc. William E. Haskell, III, Battelle Memorial Institute, MA [RT] Virgil Hathaway, San Diego Fire Department, CA [U] Rep. Southern Area Fire Equipment Research Kimberly M. Henry, Celanese Advanced Materials Inc., NC [M] James S. Johnson, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, CA [RT] Cy Long, Texas Commission on Fire Protection, TX [E] David G. Matthews, Fire & Industrial (P.P.E) Ltd., England [SE] Richard W. Metzler, US Department of Health & Human Services, PA [RT] Jim Minx, Oklahoma State Firefighters Association, OK [C] Rep. Oklahoma State Firefighters Association Stephen R. Sanders, Safety Equipment Institute (SEI), VA [RT] Denise N. Statham, Southern Mills, Inc., GA [M] Jeffrey O. Stull, International Personnel Protection, Inc., TX [SE] David Trivette, Tyco/Scott Health & Safety, NC [M] Rep. International Safety Equipment Association Robert D. Tutterow, Jr., Charlotte Fire Department, NC [U] Rep. Fire Industry Equipment Research Organization Harry P. Winer, US Department of the Navy, MA [RT] Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., NC [RT]

Alternates

Richard W. Blocker, Jr., The DuPont Company, VA [M] (Alt. to Kimberly M. Henry)Leslie F. Boord, US Department of Health & Human Services, PA [RT] (Alt. to Richard W. Metzler)Janice C. Bradley, International Safety Equipment Association, VA [M] (Alt. to David Trivette)Steven D. Corrado, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., NC [RT] (Alt. to Thomas L. Wollan)Patricia A. Freeman, Globe Manufacturing Company, NH [M] (Alt. to Robert A. Freese)Patricia A. Gleason, Safety Equipment Institute (SEI), VA [RT] (Alt. to Stephen R. Sanders)Mary I. Grilliot, TFG/Morning Pride Manufacturing LLC, OH [M] (Alt. to Bill Grilliot)Steven B. Lumry, Oklahoma City Fire Department, OK [C] (Alt. to Jim Minx)Frank P. Taylor, Lion Apparel, Inc., VA [M] (Alt. to Nicholas J. Curtis)

Nonvoting

Donna P. Brehm, Virginia Beach Fire Department, VA [U] Rep. TC on Emergency Medical Services PC&E Don R. Forrest, United Firefighters of Los Angeles City, CA [L] Rep. TC on Special Operations PC&E George M. Jackson, USDA Forest Service, MT [E] Rep. TC on Wildland Fire Fighting PC&E Glenn P. Jirka, Miami Township Fire & EMS Division, OH [E] Rep. TC on Hazardous Materials PC&E Kirk Owen, Plano Fire Department, TX [U] Rep. TC on Structural and Proximity Fire Fighting PC&E Ray F. Reed, Dallas Fire Department, TX [U] Rep. TC on Respiratory Protection Equipment Bruce H. Varner, Santa Rosa Fire Department, CA [E] Rep. TC on Electronic Safety Equipment

Staff Liaison: Bruce W. Teele

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on the design, performance, testing, and certification of protective clothing and protective equipment manufactured for fire and emergency services organizations and personnel, to protect against exposures encountered during emergency incident operations. This Committee shall also have the primary responsibility for documents on the selection, care, and maintenance of such protective clothing and protective equipment by fire and emergency services organizations and personnel.

Report of the Committee on Hazardous Materials Protective Clothing and Equipment

Glenn P. Jirka, ChairMiami Township Fire & EMS Division, OH [E] Rep. The InterAgency Board

Patricia A. Gleason, SecretarySafety Equipment Institute (SEI), VA [RT]

William Alexander, Onguard Industries, MD [M]Jeffrey B. Borkowski, Fire Department, City of New York, NY [U]Steven D. Corrado, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., NC [RT]Steven M. De Lisi, Virginia Air National Guard, VA [U]Wade G. DeHate, Hillsborough County Fire Rescue, FL [E]Jan Dunbar, El Dorado Hills, CA [E] Rep. International Association of Fire Chiefs Daniel Gohlke, W. L. Gore & Associates, MD [M] Kevin W. Klamser, US Navy Coastal Systems Station, FL [RT] Brett LaFrance, Intertek-ETL Semko, NY [RT] Karen E. Lehtonen , Lion Apparel, Inc., OH [M] Trudy J. Lewis, Battelle Memorial Institute, OH [RT] Ulf Nystrom, Trelleborg Protective Products AB, Sweden [M] Louis V. Ott, Gentex Corporation, PA [M] Rep. International Safety Equipment Association Kenneth A. Pever, Guardian Manufacturing Company, OH [M] Mel Seng, TFG/Norcross Safety Products, IL [M] Jeffrey O. Stull, International Personnel Protection, Inc., TX [SE] Jonathan V. Szalajda, US Department of Health & Human Services, PA [E] Robert West, Texas Instruments, TX [U] James P. Zeigler, DuPont Personal Protection, VA [M] Michael Ziskin, Field Safety Corporation, CT [RT]

Alternates

Dale Gregory Beggs, Texas Instruments, TX [U] (Alt. to Robert West)Nicholas J. Curtis, Lion Apparel, Inc., OH [M] (Alt. to Karen E. Lehtonen)Andy Gbur, Intertek, OH [RT] (Alt. to Brett LaFrance)Russell R. Greene, Battelle Memorial Institute, OH [RT] (Alt. to Trudy J. Lewis)A. Ira Harkness, US Department of the Navy, FL [RT] (Alt. to Kevin W. Klamser)Thomas M. Pease, Gentex Corporation, PA [M] (Alt. to Louis V. Ott)John Reilly, Total Fire Group, OH [M] (Alt. to Mel Seng)Angie M. Shepherd , Underwriters Laboratories Inc., NC [RT] (Alt. to Steven D. Corrado)


Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on protective clothing and protective equipment, except respiratory protective equipment, that provides hand, foot, torso, limb, and head protection for fire fighters and other emergency services responders during incidents that involve hazardous materials operations. These operations involve the activities of rescue; hazardous material confinement, containment, and mitigation; and property conservation where exposure to substances that present an unusual danger to responders are present or could occur due to toxicity, chemical reactivity, decomposition, corrosiveness, or similar reactions. Additionally, this committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on the selection, care, and maintenance of hazardous materials protective clothing and protective equipment by fire and emergency services organizations and personnel.

1991-2

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 1991 Report of the Committee on

Wildland Fire Fighting Protective Clothing and Equipment

George M. Jackson, ChairUSDA Forest Service, MT [E] Rep. United States Forest Service

Dennis K. Davis, Secretary USDA Forest Service, MT [RT]

(Alt. to Leslie Anderson)

Mark Y. Ackerman, University of Alberta, Canada [SE]Jason L. Allen, Intertek, NY [RT]Leslie Anderson, USDA Forest Service, MT [E] Rep. United States Forest Service James K. Byrnes, MSA/Mine Safety Appliances Company, PA [M] Christopher G. F. Corner, Southern Mills, Inc., GA [M] Steven D. Corrado, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., NC [RT] Tony W. Craven, USDA Forest Service, WA [L] Rep. NFFE/IAMAW Forest Service Council Vincent Diaz, Atlantic Thread & Supply Company Inc., MD [M] William A. Hicks, US General Services Administration, TX [U] Galen McCray, State of California, CA [E] Richard A. Oleson, E. D. Bullard Company, KY [M] James S. Olson, US Department of the Interior, MT [E] Louis V. Ott, Gentex Corporation, PA [M] Ruthalene Payne, Artech Footwear Testing Laboratory, VA [RT] Serge Poulin, Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre (CIFFC), Canada [U]Jeffrey O. Stull, International Personnel Protection, Inc., TX [SE]Rick L. Swan, IAFF Local 2881/CDF Fire Fighters, CA [L] Rep. International Association of Fire Fighters Gary C. Wood, North Carolina Division of Forest Resources, NC [C] George A. Yarns, Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry, PA [C]

Alternates

Stephen L. Derynck, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., NC [RT] (Alt. to Steven D. Corrado) Andy Gbur, Intertek, OH [RT] (Alt. to Jason L. Allen) Peggy S. Holcomb, Southern Mills, Inc., GA [M] (Alt. to Christopher G. F. Corner) Robert A. Sallavanti, Gentex Corporation, PA [M] (Alt. to Louis V. Ott)


Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on protective clothing and protective equipment, except respiratory protective equipment, that provides hand, foot, torso, limb and head protection, as well as interface protection for fire fighters or other emergency services responders during incidents involving wildland fire fighting operations. These operations include the activities of fire suppression and property conservation in forest, brush, grass, ground cover, and other such vegetation that is not within structures but that is involved in fire. Additionally, this committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on the selection, care, and maintenance of wildland fire fighting protective clothing and protective equipment by fire and emergency services organizations and personnel.

These lists represent the membership at the time each Committee was balloted on the text of this report. Since that time, changes in the membership may have occurred. A key to classifications is found at the front of the document.

The Committee on Fire and Emergency Services Protective Clothing and Equipment is presenting four Reports for adoption, as follows:

The Reports were prepared by the:

• Technical Correlating Committee on Fire and Emergency Services Protective Clothing and Equipment (FAE-ACC) • Technical Committee on Hazardous Materials Protective Clothing and Equipment (FAE-HAZ) • Technical Committee on Wildland Fire Fighting Protective Clothing and Equipment (FAE-WFF)

Report I of this Report on Comments was prepared by the Technical Committee on Hazardous Materials Protective Clothing and Equipment, and documents its action on the comments received on its Report on Proposals on NFPA 1991, Standard on Vapor-Protective Ensembles for Hazardous Materials Emergencies, 2000 edition, as published in the Report on Proposals for the 2004 November Meeting.

NFPA 1991 has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on Hazardous Materials Protective Clothing and Equipment, which consists of 22 voting members; of whom 15 voted affirmatively, and 7 ballots were not returned (Borkowski, De Lisi, De Hate, Dunbar, Pever, Ziegler, Ziskin).

Mr. Stull voted affirmatively with this comment: 1991-61, Log #65, Page 30: I have voted affirmative on the standard and believe that a substantial improvement has been made as part of a strategy for realigning NFPA 1991 and NFPA 1994 to provide more practical and appropriately based requirements. In this edition, the Class 1 requirements from NFPA 1994 have been moved to NFPA 1991 by making what was once the optional chemical and biological terrorism requirements mandatory. The result is a product that will deliver the upper end of protection to specialized response teams against a variety of vapor, liquid, and particulate hazards, including those that occur during terrorism agents. Regardless of the improvements that have been made in NFPA 1991, it is my opinion that there is one gnawing problem within the standard, which has manifested itself because of certain organizations within the protective clothing industry have seized the opportunity to justify their existence at incredible cost to the end user community. The specific problem is the continued use of actual chemical warfare agents in the testing and qualification of chemical protective clothing. Chemical warfare agent testing that is both tremendously expensive and can be relatively inaccessible to manufacturers of chemical protective clothing. I have recommended the use of simulants for these chemicals to help encourage industry into further compliance with a broader offering of products. The efforts of the Interagency Board and the recent Presidential Homeland Security Directive mandating use of products that comply with national standards have helped, but I feel that particularly in the case of NFPA 1991, where ensemble materials must already demonstrate an exceedingly high level of barrier performance, the use of simulants is clearly appropriate and justified. Consider that that chemical agents now specified in NFPA 1991, distilled mustard and sarin, have their origin in the World War I era nearly 85 years ago. The chemistry of these agents is well known and their permeation characteristics for plastic film and rubber based materials are well established. Specific simulants, 2-Chloroethyl Ethyl Sulfide for distilled mustard and Diisopropylmethylphosphonate for sarin, have been used for used for screening material performance prior to actual agent testing. As these specific simulants are slightly smaller in size, but yet have the same chemistry, they in fact can permeate even more aggressively than the actual agents. The use of simulants is no different than the practice that we employ in other standards, namely the use of Bacteriophage Phi-X174 as a surrogate or simulant for HIV and Hepatitis B virus for determining the penetration resistance of barrier materials. Certainly, there are those who feel that we have test the “real” thing in order to be assured that the demonstrated performance exists when needed, but we have already based industry testing for deadly bloodborne hazards on a testing model involving a surrogate. Perhaps the most compelling argument for the acceptance of using surrogates in testing NFPA 1991 ensemble materials comes from an understanding of the overall barrier performance, which has always been required as part of the standard. Each material used in the ensemble, including the base garment material, seams, visor material, visor seams, gloves and footwear are tested to 21 different chemical representing a range of industrial chemicals. This testing is done with the chemical at 100% contact with the material over duration of exposure and no chemical can show breakthrough within 1 hour since the beginning of the chemical exposure. Garment, glove, and visor materials are further subjected to abrasion and repeated flexing prior to permeation testing. Granted that the 21 chemicals, while dangerous, are no where near as toxic as sarin or mustard, these chemicals are significantly smaller and more aggressive in terms of their permeation characteristics. Chemicals such as carbon disulfide (molecular weight = 76), dichloromethane (molecular weight = 85), and tetrahydrofuran (molecular weight = 72) will more readily permeate materials than the bulky large molecules represented by the chemical warfare agents (sarin MW = 140; mustard MW = 137). Any material that demonstrates permeation resistance to the 21-chemical battery per the NFPA 1991 requirements has no problem with any of the chemical agents. I believe that if the committee were to substitute 2-Chloroethyl Ethyl Sulfide for distilled mustard and Diisopropylmethylphosphonate for sarin in the requirements for permeation testing that there would be absolutely no decrease in the health and safety levels for first responders using products that comply with the requirements of NFPA 1991, and that instead, there would be immediate benefits to industry in more efficient and cost-effective testing that will encourage the development of a larger number of choices for the end user community. The committee should not be dissuaded by statements from certain organizations that they are working on the problem (of defining simulants) or that the issue is more complex than it seems. These groups have had a sufficiently long enough time to work on this problem and should be ashamed of their progress towards resolving such matters. The industry needs to advance and this change offers that opportunity.

1991-3

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 1991

NFPA 1991 has also been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Correlating Committee on Fire Emergency Services Protective Clothing Equipment, which consists of 23 voting members of whom 15 voted affirmatively, and 8 ballots were not returned (Anderson, Lambert, Hathaway, Johnson, Long, Saunders, Stull, Trivette).

Report II of this Report on Comments was prepared by the Technical Committee on Hazardous Materials Protective Clothing and Equipment, and documents its action on the comments received on its Report on Proposals on NFPA 1992, Standard on Liquid Splash-Protective Clothing and Equipment for Wildland Fire Fighting, 2000 edition, as published in the Report on Proposals for the 2004 November Meeting.

NFPA 1992 has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on Hazardous Materials Protective Clothing and Equipment, which consists of 22 voting members; of whom 16 voted affirmatively, and 6 ballots were not returned (Borkowski, De Lisi, De Hate, Dunbar, Pever, Ziskin).

NFPA 1992 has also been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Correlating Committee on Fire Emergency Services Protective Clothing and Equipment, which consists of 23 voting members of whom 15 voted affirmatively, and 8 ballots were not returned (Anderson, Lambert, Long Saunders, Hathaway, Johnson, Stull, Trivette). Report III of this Report on Comments was prepared by the Technical Committee on Wildland Fire Fighting Protective Clothing and Equipment and documents its action on the comments received on its Report on Proposals on NFPA 1977, Standard on Protective Clothing and Equipment for Wildland Fire Fighting, 1998 edition, as published in the Report on Proposals for the 2004 November Meeting.

NFPA 1977 has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on Wildland Fire Fighting Protective Clothing and Equipment, which consists of 20 voting members; of whom 14 voted affirmatively, 1 negatively after circulation of negative ballots (Stull), and 5 ballots were not returned (Ackerman, Corner, Craven, J. Olsen, Wood).

Mr. Stull voted negatively stating: 1977-119, (Log #11, Pag3 58: Shame on the committee for reversing its direction during its ROC meeting for apparent product protectionism. The action taken on this comment is unacceptable. It is uncertain how the specific text originated, but clearly language that permits the protection the helmet suspension, particularly in view of the relative innocuous exposure temperature of 350°F, has no place in the standard. Certainly one would think that the portion of the helmet that contacts the wearerʼs head should not readily melt under the specified oven heat exposure conditions. If the committee simply wants a hardhat for wildland fire fighters, remove the requirements for wildland fire fighting helmets altogether from the standard and specify hardhats that meet ANSI Z89.1 in NFPA 1500. The submitters proposal to remove the clause that permits protecting the suspension further points to a deficiency in the NFPA 1977 ROP, in which no criteria are applied to the whole helmet other than deformation of the brim or peak. Paragraph 7.2.5 should also further specify that the helmet suspension shall not melt. 1977-106 (Log #62), Page 53: The action on the subject log is incorrect. At the meeting, the committee agreed to specify the heat conditioning of trim at a test temperature of 260°C. The action on this comment is inconsistent with the action taken on 1977-105 (Log #29), Page 52. 1977-65 (Log #118), Page 32; 1977-66 (Log #165) Page 32; and 1977-67 (Log #176) Page 33: I do not agree with the actions of the committee to reduce the total heat loss proposed in the ROP at 550 W/m2 to 450 W/m2. The committee failed to consider that the 1998 edition, while requiring a total heat loss of 450 W/m2, had these measurements conducted after 5 cycles of laundering. It is well known that laundering causes a decline of total heat loss for a material system. Therefore, by now moving back to a requirement of 450 W/m2 without laundering preconditioning, the committee is effectively

reducing the overall breathability of garments as afforded to wildland fire fighters. It is implausible that barrier clothing such as that specified in NFPA 1951 and NFPA 1999 must meet a total heat loss requirement of 450 W/m2 while single layer clothing, which is typically used over longer wearing periods, is expected to meet the same level of performance.

NFPA 1977 has also been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Correlating Committee on Fire and Emergency Services Protective Clothing and Equipment, which consists of 23 voting members of whom 13 voted affirmatively, 2 negatively (Grilliot, Stull), 1 abstained (Winer), and 7 ballots were not returned (Anderson, Lambert, Hathaway, Johnson, Long, Sanders, Trivette).

Mr. Stull voted negatively stating: The proposed 2005 Edition of NFPA 1977, through both the ROP draft and the handling of ROC, contains a serious safety hazard that should have been corrected at the recent TCC meeting. Helmet suspensions should be properly tested for heat resistance and should not melt under the conditions of the current test procedures. If not addressed in this ROC the issue must be brought before the Standard Council.

Mr. Grilliot voted negatively stating: I reviewed Mr. Stullʼs negative ballot and checked with our lab regarding this issue. Most of the NFPA 1977 helmet suspensions we tested did indeed achieve a passing review. However, there was one NFPA 1977 helmet suspension that, in our opinion did not. After reviewing the test procedure, its limited exposure challenge, and outcome of one candidate helmet, I must agree with Mr. Stull and I wish to change my vote to a negative.

1991-4


Mr. Winer abstained stating: I feel that the actions taken by the Technical Correlating Committee on the logs were technical changes and if these changes were necessary the standard should have been sent back to committee for reconsideration. Technical changes should only be made by the Technical Committees only.

Mr. Matthews voted affirmatively with this comment stating: In line with 2 resolutions covered by the Technical Correlating Committee on the 21/6/04.

Mr. Metzler voted affirmatively with comment stating: Affirmative vote is affirmatively with the understanding that the two Technical Correlating Committee motions made and approved apply with appropriate Technical Committee action.

1991-5

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 1991 _______________________________________________________________1991-1 Log #5 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(Title) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Glenn P. Jirka, Miami Township Division of Fire and EMSComment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Revise text as follows: NFPA 1991 Standard On Vapor-Protective Ensembles (Level A) For Hazardous Materials Emergencies 2005 Edition. Substantiation: Level A should be deleted from the title of the document because it implies that NFPA Hazardous Materials Protective Ensembles correspond directly with the EPA/OSHA/USCG/NIOSH Levels of protection described in the “Four Agency” HAZWOPER guidance document. These EPA/OSHA levels are loosely defined in the government regulations. An ensemble may indeed qualify as “Level A” while failing to meet the requirements of this standard. As a result, users may assume that Level A and 1991 Compliant ensembles are synonymous, which could lead to injury or death of a responder.Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-2 Log #3d FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept in Principle(Entire Document) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Correlating Committee on Fire and Emergency Services Protective Clothing and EquipmentComment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: The TCC directs the TC to reconcile how chemical warfare agents data and TIM data are used for pass/fail criteria, and to revise the text as necessary to resolve any discrepancies.Substantiation: The TCC feels that these CW agents and TIMS are similar agents and feels they should be addressed in the same manner. The TC should revise text to have continuity of requirements, or justify why they need to be addressed differently.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise text to read as follows: This standard shall also specify additional optional criteria for chemical agents, biological agents, and radioactive particulates encountered during terriorism incidents.Committee Statement: See Committee Action taken on Comment 1991-46 (Log #66). _______________________________________________________________1991-3 Log #3e FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(Entire Document) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Correlating Committee on Fire and Emergency Services Protective Clothing and EquipmentComment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: The TCC directs the TC to remove the term “Level A” from the title and any other place in the standard except as a possible advisory statement outlining the differences between vapor-protective ensemble protection and “level A” assembly of items of protection.Substantiation: The TCC believes using the term “Level A” in this fashion is incorrect and will add confusion within the fire and emergency response communities.Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-4 Log #37 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(1.1, 1.2, 5.1.2, 5.1.3, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8 and 7.9) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Jeffrey O. Stull, International Personnel Protection, Inc.Comment on Proposal No: 1991-1Recommendation: 1.1 Scope.

1.1.1* This standard shall specify minimum requirements for the design, performance, testing, documentation, and certification for vapor-protective ensembles and ensemble elements used by fire and emergency services personnel during hazardous materials incidents and chemical, biological, or radiological terrorism incidents.

1.1.2* This standard shall also specify additional optional criteria for vapor-protective ensembles and ensemble elements that provide protection from liquefied gases during hazardous materials incidents.

1.1.3* This standard shall also specify additional optional criteria for vapor-protective ensembles that provide escape protection from chemical flash fires encountered during hazardous materials incidents.

1.1.4 This standard shall shall specify requirements for new vapor-protective ensembles and new ensemble elements.

1.1.5* This standard shall not specify requirements for protective clothing for any fire fighting applications.

1.1.6 This standard shall not specify requirements for protection against ionizing radiation, cryogenic liquid hazards, or from explosive atmospheres.

1.1.7* This standard shall not specify requirements for the respiratory protection that is necessary for proper protection with the protective ensemble.

1.1.8 Certification of compliant vapor-protective ensembles and compliant elements to the requirements of this standard shall not preclude certification to additional appropriate standards where the ensemble or ensemble elements meet all the applicable requirements of each standard.

1.1.9 This standard shall not be construed as addressing all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use for the designing, manufacturing, testing, or certifying of product to meet the requirements of this standard. It shall be the responsibility of the persons and organizations that use this standard to establish safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use of this standard.

1.1.10 Nothing herein shall restrict any jurisdiction or manufacturer from exceeding these minimum requirements.

{current A1.1.4 becomes A.1.1.5}A.1.1.2 & A.1.1.3 Organizations responsible for specialized hazardous materials response functions including ionizing radiation, cryogenics, or fire fighting applications should use protective clothing and equipment specifically designed for protection for those operations.

A.1.1.7 The appropriate respiratory protection for this ensemble is a self-contained breathing apparatus that is certified to NFPA 1981, Standard on Open-Circuit Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus and the NIOSH Additional Criteria for CBRN protection.

1.2 Purpose.

1.2.1 The purpose of this standard shall be to establish a minimum level of protection for fire and emergency services personnel against adverse vapor, liquid-splash, and particulate environments during hazardous materials emergency incidents, and from specified chemical and biological terrorism agents in vapor, liquid splash, and particulate environments during chemical and biological terrorism incidents.

1.2.1.1 The purpose of this standard shall also be to establish a minimum level of liquefied gas protection as an option for compliant vapor-protective ensembles and compliant ensemble elements.

1.2.1.2 The purpose of this standard shall also be to establish a minimum level of limited chemical flash fire protection, for escape only in the event of a chemical flash fire, as an option for compliant vapor-protective ensembles and compliant ensemble elements.

1.2.1.3 The purpose of these options shall be to provide emergency response organizations the flexibility to specify none, one, or both of these options in their purchase specifications according to the anticipated exposure and expected needs or the emergency response organization.

1.2.2* Controlled laboratory tests used to determine compliance with the performance requirements of this standard shall not be deemed as establishing performance levels for all situations to which personnel can be exposed.

1.2.3 This standard is not intended to be utilized as a detailed manufacturing or purchase specification, but shall be permitted to be referenced in purchase specifications as minimum requirements

1.3 Application

1.3.1 This standard shall apply to the design, manufacturing, testing, and certification of new vapor-protective ensembles and new ensemble elements. This edition of NFPA 1991 shall not apply to vapor-protective ensembles and ensemble elements manufactured to previous editions of NFPA 1991, Standard on Vapor-Protective Suits for Hazardous Chemical Emergencies.

1.3.2* This standard shall not apply to protective clothing for any fire fighting applications.

1.3.3* This standard shall not apply to protective clothing for protection against ionizing radiation, cryogenic liquid hazards, or from explosive atmospheres.

1991-6

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 1991 1.3.4 This standard shall not apply to use requirements for vapor-protective ensembles or ensemble elements as these requirements are specified in NFPA 1500, Standard on Fire Department Occupational Safety and Health Program.

1.3.5 The requirements of this standard shall not apply to accessories that might be attached to a vapor-protective ensemble or an ensemble element.

5.1.2 Ensemble Compliance Statements.

5.1.2.1 Each vapor-protective ensemble shall have at least the following compliance statement and information on the product label.

“THIS VAPOR-PROTECTIVE ENSEMBLE MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OFNFPA 1991, STANDARD ON VAPOR-PROTECTIVE ENSEMBLES FORHAZARDOUS MATERIALS EMERGENCIES, 2005 EDITION,AND ANY ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS NOTED BELOW.

ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS YES NO

LIMITED CHEMICAL FLASH FIRE PROTECTION FOR ESCAPE ONLY IN THE EVENT OF A CHEMICAL FLASH FIRE

LIQUEFIED GAS PROTECTION

THE TECHNICAL DATA PACKAGE CONTAINS INFORMATION ON CHEMICALS AND SPECIFIC CHEMICAL MIXTURES FOR WHICH THIS ENSEMBLE IS CERTIFIED. CONSULT TECHNICAL DATA PACKAGE AND MANUFACTURERʼS INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE USE.

DO NOT REMOVE THIS LABEL.”

5.1.2.2 Where the ensemble provides the optional additional protection, the YES box shall be marked for the additional requirement.

5.1.2.3 Where the ensemble does not provide the optional additional protection, the NO box shall be marked.

5.1.3 Ensemble Element Compliance Statements.

5.1.3.1 Each element shall have at least the following compliance statement and information on the product label. The appropriate term “glove” or “footwear” shall be inserted where indicated in the label text.

“THIS (insert the element name ʻGLOVE ̓or ʻFOOTWEAR ̓here) INDIVIDUAL ELEMENT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF NFPA 1991, STANDARD ON VAPOR-PROTECTIVE ENSEMBLES FOR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS EMERGENCIES, 2005 EDITION, AND ANY ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AS NOTED BELOW.

ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS YES NO

LIMITED CHEMICAL FLASH FIRE PROTECTION FOR ESCAPE ONLY IN THE EVENT OF A CHEMICAL FLASH FIRE

LIQUEFIED GAS PROTECTION

THE TECHNICAL DATA PACKAGE CONTAINS INFORMATION ON CHEMICALS AND SPECIFIC CHEMICAL MIXTURES FOR WHICH THIS (insert the element name ʻGLOVE ̓or ʻFOOTWEAR ̓here) IS CERTIFIED. CONSULT THE TECHNICAL DATA PACKAGE AND MANUFACTURERʼS INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE USE.

DO NOT REMOVE THIS LABEL.”

5.1.3.2 Where the element provides the optional additional protection, the YES or NO box shall be marked as appropriate for the additional requirement.

5.1.3.3 Where the element does not provide any of the optional additional protection above the basic requirements of this standard, the NO boxes shall be marked the additional requirement.

7.6* Protection Requirements for Terrorism Incidents.

7.6.1 Primary suit, glove, and footwear materials and seams shall be tested for cyanogen chloride [CK (blood agent)] permeation resistance as specified in Section 8.6, Chemical Permeation Resistance Test, and shall not exhibit normalized breakthrough detection times of 60 minutes 1 houror less for the following list of industrial chemicals.: Cyanogen chloride (CK; 506-77-4) Carbonyl chloride (CG; 75-44-5) Dimethyl sulfate (DMA, sulfuric acid dimethyl ester), 77-78-1 Hydrogen cyanide (AC, HCN, CAS; 74-90-8)

7.6.2 7.9.2 Primary suit, glove, and footwear materials and seams shall be tested for permeation resistance for 60 minutes as specified in Section 8.6, Chemical Permeation Test, Method 2.2, Liquid Agent Contamination/ Vapor Penetration, of CRDC-SP-84010, Laboratory Methods for Evaluating Protective Clothing Systems Against Chemical Agents; at 32°C, ±2°C (90°F, ±4°F), closed top; at a contamination density of 100 g/m2; and shall not exceed a cumulative permeation of 1.25 μg/cm2 for the following chemical warfare agent: sSarin (GB, or isopropyl methyl phosphonofluoridate)

7.6.3 7.9.2.1 Primary suit and glove materials shall be tested for permeation resistance after both flexing and abrading, as specified in 8.1.3 and 8.1.4, respectively.7.9.2.2 Primary footwear materials shall be tested for permeation resistance after both flexing and abrading, as specified in 8.1.6 and 8.1.4, respectively.7.9.3 Primary suit, glove, and footwear materials and seams shall be tested for permeation resistance for 60 minutes as specified in Section 8.6, Chemical Permeation Test,Method 2.2, Liquid Agent Contamination/ Vapor Penetration, of CRDC-SP-84010, Laboratory Methods for Evaluating Protective Clothing Systems Against Chemical Agents; at 32°C, ±2°C (90°F, ±4°F); closed top; at a contamination density of 100 g/m2; and shall not exceed a cumulative permeation of 4 μg/cm2 for the following chemical warfare agent: sSulfur mustard, distilled [HD, or bis(2-chloroethyl)sulfide], and lewisite [L, or dichIoro(2-chlorovinyl)arsine]]

7.9.3.1 Primary suit and glove materials shall be tested for permeation resistance after both flexing and abrading, as specified in 8.1.3 and 8.1.4, respectively.7.9.3.2 Primary footwear materials shall be tested for permeation resistance after both flexing and abrading, as specified in 8.1.6 and 8.1.4, respectively.7.6.4 Vapor-protective ensembles shall be tested for inward leakage as specified in Section 8.8, Overall Ensemble Inward Leakage Test, and shall have no inward leakage greater than 0.02 percent.

7.7 Optional Liquefied Gas Protection Requirements.

7.7.1 Primary suit, glove, and footwear materials shall be tested for liquefied gas permeation resistance as specified in Section 8.6, Chemical Permeation Resistance Test, and shall not exhibit a normalized breakthrough detection time of 15 minutes or less for the following list of industrial chemicals. AmmoniaChlorineEthylene Oxide

7.7.1.1 Primary suit, glove, and footwear materials shall be tested for liquefied gas permeation resistance as specified in Section 8.6, Chemical Permeation Resistance Test, and shall not exhibit a normalized breakthrough detection time of 15 minutes or less and shall not exhibit a normalized breakthrough detection time of 15 minutes or less for each additional liquefied gas that the manufacturer is certifying the ensemble.

7.7.2 Primary suit, glove, and footwear materials shall be tested for liquefied gas permeation resistance as specified in Section 8.6, Chemical Permeation Resistance Test, and shall not exhibit a normalized breakthrough detection time of 15 minutes or less for the following list of gaseous industrial chemicals:AmmoniaChlorineEthylene oxide

7.7.2.1 Primary suit, glove, and footwear materials shall be tested for liquefied gas permeation resistance as specified in Section 8.6, Chemical Permeation Resistance Test, and shall not show signs of damage, and shall not exhibit a normalized breakthrough detection time of 15 minutes or less for each additional liquefied gas that the manufacturer is certifying the ensemble.

7.8 Optional Chemical Flash Fire Protection Requirements.

1991-7


7.8.1 Vapor-protective ensembles and elements that will be certified as compliant with the additional criteria for chemical flash fire protection for escape only shall also meet all applicable requirements in Section 7.1 through Section 7.5.

7.8.2 Vapor-protective ensembles and elements shall be tested for overall ensemble flash protection as specified by Section 8.27, Overall Ensemble Flash Test, shall not have any afterflame times of longer than 2 seconds, shall show an ending pressure of at least 13 mm (1/2 in.) water gauge in the subsequent gastight integrity testing, and shall permit visual acuity through the visor of 20/100 or better.

7.8.3 Primary suit, glove, and footwear materials shall be tested for thermal protective performance (TPP) as specified in Section 8.28, Thermal Protective Performance Test, and shall have an average TPP rating of not less than 12.

7.8.4 Primary suit, glove, and footwear materials shall be tested for resistance to flame impingement as specified in Section 8.7, Flammability Test, and shall not ignite during the initial 3-second exposure period, and shall not burn a distance of greater than 100 mm (4 in.), shall not sustain burning for more than 2 seconds, and shall not melt as evidenced by flowing or dripping during the subsequent 12-second exposure period.

7.8.6 Primary suit, glove, and footwear materials shall be tested for liquefied gas permeation resistance as specified in Section 8.6, Chemical Permeation Resistance Test, and shall not exhibit a normalized breakthrough detection time of 15 minutes or less for the following list of gaseous industrial chemicals:AmmoniaChlorineEthylene oxide

7.8.6.1 Primary suit, glove, and footwear materials shall be tested for liquefied gas permeation resistance as specified in Section 8.6, Chemical Permeation Resistance Test, and shall not show signs of damage, and shall not exhibit a normalized breakthrough detection time of 15 minutes or less for each additional liquefied gas that the manufacturer is certifying the ensemble.

[SECTION 8.6, CHANGES TO TEST METHOD]8.6.1.6 Modifications to this test for testing primary materials against liquefied gases shall be as specified in 8.6.12.

8.6.12 Specific Requirements for Testing Primary Materials Against Liquefied Gases.

8.6.12.1 Samples for conditioning shall be suit material, visor material, glove material from the glove gauntlet, and footwear material from the footwear upper.

8.6.12.2 Specimens shall be conditioned as specified in 8.1.8. Visor materials that are rigid and cannot be bent in the test apparatus shall be excluded from this conditioning.

8.6.12.3 Only one specimen for permeation resistance testing shall be taken from each sample subjected to embrittlement conditioning. The permeation test specimen shall be taken from the exact center of the folded sample so that the center of the permeation test and the center of the folded sample coincide.

8.6.12.4 The test cell and test chemical shall be maintained at a temperature sufficient to keep the test chemical as a liquid at ambient pressure such that a 13-mm (1/2-in.) liquid layer is maintained at all times during the test.

8.6.12.5 The permeation test shall be conducted for a minimum of 1 hour.

CHANGES TO SECTION 8.8, OVERALL ENSEMBLE INWARD LEAKAGE TEST8.8.4.4 One or more suit wall connectors shall be installed in the ensemble in such a manner that the fixtures do not interfere with the movement of test subject and that the installation does not adversely affect the integrity of the ensemble.

8.8.4.4.1 The one or more suit wall connectors shall permit the establishment of five separate airlines to pass into the suit.

8.8.4.4.2 One airline shall be designated as an air sample return port.

8.8.4.4.3 Each remaining airline shall consist of a 10-mm (3/8-in.) nominal outer diameter flexible tubing attached to the interior of the respective suit wall connector in such a manner as to allow the other

end of the tubing to be attached to the required sampling locations on the test subjectʼs body. Pinning tubing to the test subjectʼs body shall be permitted.8.8.4.5 Equal lengths of 3-mm (1/8-in.) nominal outer diameter flexible tubing shall be used to transfer air samples from sampling ports to sample pumps and back to the return port from the exhaust port of sample pump A.

8.8.4.5.2 One length of tubing shall be attached to the respective suit wall connector exterior sampling port with the other end attached to an inlet port on the gas stream selection valve on pump A.

8.8.4.5.3 One length of tubing shall be connected to the respective suit wall connector exterior and airline designated as the return port with the other end of the tubing attached to the exhaust port of pump A.

8.8.4.6 At least 23 gas-tight sample bags shall be used to collect air samples. An adapter shall be used to connect the inlet valve of the sample bags to the exhaust ports of the pumps to facilitate changing of sample bags. The adaptable shall not affect the integrity of the sampling system.

8.8.4.8 A syringe suitable for gas sampling and capable of delivering the required amount of sulfur hexafluoride into the chamber shall be placed in the test chamber with a sealed bag containing 10 percent v/v sulfur hexafluoride in nitrogen.

8.8.5.1 Interior sampling tubes shall be pinned to the test subject as follows:

Add new item (5) to read:

(5) Additional sampling locations shall be permitted if the testing apparatus allows such sampling.

Substantiation: Vapor-protective ensembles should offer the highest possible level of barrier and other hazard performance as the ensemble for selection during response to unknown or characterized environments. The proposed series of changes mandates specific requirements for ensemble performance against liquefied gases and CBRN hazards for all ensembles, while still permitting optional certification for chemical flash fire escape. These changes simplify the requirements for NFPA 1991-compliant ensembles.Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-5 Log #33 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(1.1.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Daniel Gohlke, W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc.Comment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Replace “individual elements from chemical vapor protection” with “elements that provide protection from chemical vapors, gases, liquids and particulates encountered during hazardous materials incidents.”Substantiation: Improved sentence structure. See 1.1.2 for an example of similar sentence structure. See 3.3.62 for content.Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-6 Log #25 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(1.1.1 , 1.1.2,1.1.6, 1.2.1.1, 1.2.1.2,1.2.1.3 1.3.1, 1.3.3, 1.3.4, 3.3.13, 3.3.17, 3.3.18, 3.3.39, 3.3.44, 3.3.45, 3.3.67. 3.3.68) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Daniel Gohlke, W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc.Comment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Delete “individual.”Substantiation: “Individual element” is redundant with “element.”Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-7 Log #31 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept in Principle(1.1.2) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Daniel Gohlke, W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc.Comment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Change “chemical and biological” to “CBRN” throughout the document.Substantiation: Provides consistency with 7.9 text.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Committee Statement: See Committee Action taken on Comment 1991-8 (Log #32).

1991-8

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 1991 _______________________________________________________________1991-8 Log #32 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept in Principle(1.1.2) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Daniel Gohlke, W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc.Comment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Replace “and biological terrorism agents” with “or biological agents encountered during terrorism incidents.” Change “chemical and biological” to “chemical or biological” throughout the document.Substantiation: More clear and precise wording. These incidents and agents are one or the other. They are not both. By continually lumping them together, we always design chemical protective suits.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise text to read as follows: This standard shall also specify additional optional criteria for chemical agents, biological agents, and radioactive particulates, encountered during terrorism incidents. Note: Change any reference to “radiological agents particulate matter” to “radioactive particulates”.Committee Statement: The committee agreed and also added “radioactive particulates” to the modified text. _______________________________________________________________1991-9 Log #64 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(1.1.2 and 1.3.2*) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Jan Dunbar El Dorado Hills, CAComment on Proposal No: 1991-1Recommendation: Modify paragraph 1.3.2* as follows: 1.3.2* In the first sentence, change the word “ radiological ” to “ionizing radiation” . Substantiation: With regard to the three standards documents #1991, 1992, and 1994, numerous different terms are used between these three documents, and within each document, regarding radiological substances and radiation. This is an attempt to create some standardization within each document, and between all three document. Standard #1991: In the Application (1.3.2) the term “radiological” is used, but is not defined. In the definitions section “Radiological Agent” is defined (3.3.50), but this term is not used in the document. Standard #1992: In the Scope (1.1.6) the term “radiological” is used, but is not defined. In the definitions section, “Radiological Agent” is defined (3.3.60), but this term is not used in the document. Further, int he Application section (1.3.3), the term “radiological” is used again. Standard #1994: In the Scope (1.1.6) the term “radiological” is used, but is not defined. In the definitions section “Radiological Agent” is defined (3.3.52). Furthermore, the existing definitions do not adequately define or differentiate between ionizing radiation, and radiological particulates. There is a definite distinction between the tow, and both issues must be addressed in the documents. The first, “ionizing radiation”, are the penetrating high energy rays that pass through stuff. The second, radiological particulates”, is simply solid material (matter) in particulate form which may be airborne. My proposal is to recommend the adoption of two terms, and use them uniformly in all three documents.Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-10 Log #30 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(1.1.3) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Daniel Gohlke, W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc.Comment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Replace “for chemical flash fire escape protection” with “for vapor-protective ensembles and elements that provide escape protection from chemical flash fires encountered during hazardous materials incidents.”Substantiation: More clear and precise wording. Improved sentence structure. Consistent sentence structures with 1.1.1 and 1.1.2.Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-11 Log #29 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept in Principle(1.1.4) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Daniel Gohlke, W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc.Comment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Replace “for liquefied gas protection” with “for vapor-protective ensembles and elements that will provide protection from liquefied gases during hazardous materials incidents.”Substantiation: More clear and precise wording. Improved sentence structure. Consistent sentence structure with 1.1.1; 1.1.2 and 1.1.3.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Committee Statement: See Committee Action taken on Comment 1991-4 (Log #37).

_______________________________________________________________1991-12 Log #38 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(1.1.5) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Jeffrey O. Stull, International Personnel Protection, Inc.Comment on Proposal No: 1991-1Recommendation: Add text to read as follows: 1.1.5 This standard shall not specify requirements for the respiratory protection that is necessary for proper protection with the protective ensemble. A.1.1.5 The appropriate respiratory protection for this ensemble is a self-contained breathing apparatus that is certified to NFPA 1981, Standard on Open-Circuit Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus and the NIOSH Additional Criteria for CBRN protection. Substantiation: There is nothing in the scope of the committee that prevents referencing respiratory protection; the scope only limits writing requirements for respiratory protection. It is important to indicate that compliant vapor protective ensembles should include an appropriately certified SCBA.Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-13 Log #62 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(1.2.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Jan Dunbar El Dorado Hills, CAComment on Proposal No: 1991-1Recommendation: Modify paragraph 1.2.1 as follows: 1.2.1 The purpose of this standard shall be to establish a minimum level of protection for fire and emergency services personnel against adverse vapor, liquid-splash, and particulate environments during hazardous materials emergency incidents. Substantiation: With regard to the three standards documents #1991, 1992, and 1994, there is currently no standardization in usage or definitions regarding the terms “Emergency Services Personnel”, “Emergency Response Personnel”, and “Fire and Emergency Services Personnel”. I propose several changes, ultimately affecting all three documents, to create a standardization. Standard #1991: The term “Emergency Services Personnel” is used in the Purpose (1.2.1), but is not defined. In the definitions section Emergency Response Personnel” is defined (3.3.22), but not used in the document. Standard #1992: The term “Emergency Services Personnel” is used in the Purpose (1.2.1), but is not defined. In the definitions section Emergency Response Personnel” is defined (3.3.20) but not used in the document. Standard #1994: The term “Fire and Emergency Services Personnel” is used in the Scope (1.1.1), the Purpose (1.2.1, 1.2.1.1, 1.2.1.2) and is defined (3.3.27), but the definition is vastly different than that as used in Standards #1991 and #1992. My proposal is to recommend the adoption of the term “Emergency Response Personnel” as found in the definitionʼs section of 1991 and 1992, and use it as the default term to be used in the Scope and Purpose of all three documents. Further, the definition for this term should be used as the default definition in all three documents. The definition found in Standard #1994 is overly wordy, and goes beyond a simple to-the-point definition. It incorporates too much in the way of additional descriptive wordage which tries to envelope some concepts of the Scope, and some concepts of the Purpose. Scope statements should focus on providing adequate explanation on design, performance, testing and certification of ensembles. When adequately included in Scope statements, they should not and need not be repeated in a definition. Additionally, Purpose statements should focus on providing adequate explanation on minimum levels of protection, the intended user audience, and the expected threat situations for which it will provide protection. When adequately included in Purpose statements, they should not and need not be repeated in a definition.Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-14 Log #28 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(1.2.1.4) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Daniel Gohlke, W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc.Comment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Delete “to specify these options in purchase specifications and provide” Replace “that match” with “in their purchase specifications according to.”Substantiation: Editorial - better sentence structure.Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-15 Log #3 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(1.3) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Correlating Committee on Fire and Emergency Services Protective Clothing and EquipmentComment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: . The TCC directs the TC to add or delete the following text, as indicated, in the document. Add the following text to Section 1.3, Application, to read: “1.3.X* The requirements of this standard shall not apply to any accessories that could be attached to the product but are not necessary for the product to meet the requirements of this standard.”

1991-9

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 1991 Add the following annex text as A.1.3.X, to read: “A.1.3.X Emergency response organizations are cautioned that accessories are not part of the certified product but could be attached to a certified product by a means not engineered, manufactured, or authorized by the certified product manufacturer.Emergency response organizations are cautioned that if an accessory or its means of attachment causes the structural integrity of the certified product to be compromised, the certified product might not be compliant with the standard that to which it was originally certified as compliant. Additionally, if an accessory or the accessoryʼs means of attachment are not designed and manufactured from suitable materials for the hazardous environments of emergency incidents, the failure of the accessory, or its means of attachment, could cause injury to the emergency responder.Because the aftermarket for accessories for certified product is so broad, emergency response organizations are advised to contact both the accessory manufacturer and the manufacturer of the certified product and verify that the accessory and its means of attachment are suitable for use in the intended emergency response environment. Emergency response organizations should seek and receive written documentation to validate the following information from the accessory manufacturer.1. Accessories for certified product, and the means of attachment, will not degrade the designed protection or performance of the certified product below the requirements of this standard to which it was designed, manufactured, tested, and certified.2. The accessory, when properly attached to the certified product, will not interfere with form, fit, or function of any of the certified product or with the form, fit, and function of any of the certified productʼs component parts.Users are also cautioned that the means of attachment for accessories that fail to safely and securely attach the accessory to a certified product can allow the accessory to become inadvertently dislodged from the certified product and could cause a risk to emergency response personnel in the vicinity.”In Section 3.3 , General Terms, delete 3.3.1, Accessories.Delete Section 6.9 , Accessory Design Requirements.Substantiation: The TCC is amending the existing text on accessories for all documents in the Project for consistency with each product standard. The standards should not address requirements for items that are not part of the minimum requirements of the standard.Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-16 Log #3b FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept in Principle(1.3, A.1.3, 4.5.2.1, 4.5.2.2) _______________________________________________________________TCC Action: Change action on 1991-16 (Log 3b) from “Hold” to “Accept in Principle” Revise definition of Manufacturer to read: 1.3.X Manufacturer. The entity that manages the design processes, manufacturing processes, quality assurance processes, assumes the liability for the product, and provides the warranty for the compliant product. Revise Section 4.5 to read: 4.5 ISO Registration for Manufacturers. 4.5.1 The manufacturer shall provide and operate a quality assurance program that meets the requirements of this section and that includes a product recall system as specified in 4.2.7.1, and Section 4.8, Manufacturers ̓Safety Alert and Product Recall Systems. 4.5.2 The operation of the quality assurance program shall evaluate and test compliant product production to the requirements of this standard to assure production remains in compliance. 4.5.3 The manufacturer shall be registered to ISO 9001, Quality management systems – requirements . 4.5.3.1 Registration to the requirements of ISO 9001 shall be conducted by a registrar that is accredited for personal protective equipment in accordance with ISO 62 , General requirements for bodies operating assessment and certification / registration of quality systems . The registrar shall affix the accreditation mark on the ISO registration certificate. 4.5.3.2 The scope of the ISO registration shall include at least the design and manufacturing systems management for the type of personal protective equipment being certified. 4.5.4* Any entity that meets the definition of manufacturer specified in Section 3.3, General Definitions, and therefore is considered the “manufacturer” but does not manufacture or assemble the compliant product, shall meet the requirements specified in this Section 4.5. 4.5.5 Where the manufacturer uses sub-contractors or component manufacturers in construction or assembly of the compliant product, the locations and names of all manufacturing facilities, all sub-contractor facilities, and all component manufacturer facilities shall be documented and the documentation shall be provided to the manufacturerʼs ISO registrar, and to the certification organization. 4.5.5.1 Component manufacturers shall be considered as sub-contractors. 4.5.5.2 Sub-contractors shall include but not be limited to a person or persons, or a company, firm, corporation, partnership, or other organization having an agreement with or under contract with the compliant product manufacturer to supply or assemble components of the compliant product, or to assemble portions of the compliant product. 4.5.5.3 The assembly portion of the manufacturing process shall include but not be limited to the sewing, gluing, laminating, tacking, or other means of attaching whereby materials or component parts are joined

together to form a portion, a component, or a complete compliant product. 4.5.6 All sub-contractors, where different from the manufacturer, shall also be registered to the requirements of ISO 9001, Quality management systems – requirements , for manufacturing, unless the provisions specified in 4.5.6.1 and 4.5.6.2 apply. 4.5.6.1 The manufacturer shall be permitted to include subcontractors in the manufacturerʼs ISO 9001 registration in lieu of requiring the sub-contractor to have their own ISO registration. 4.5.6.2 Where the manufacturer applies their ISO registration to sub-contractors, this action shall require the inclusion of the subcontractors ̓addresses and functions on the manufacturerʼs ISO 9001 registration certificate, and the manufacturer shall provide the certification organization with copies of the ISO 9001 registrarʼs reports showing acceptable inclusion of these locations for the functions they perform for the manufacturer. The TCC provided the current text being used throughout the Project for consistency regarding manufacturers ̓quality assurance programs.Submitter: Technical Correlating Committee on Fire and Emergency Services Protective Clothing and EquipmentComment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: The TCC directs the TC to incorporate the following revised text as indicated below into the applicable sections to address standardized text for ISO registration purposes.Add a new definition of “assembler” to read: “1.3.X.X Assembler. A person, or persons, company, firm, corporation, partnership, or other organization that uses materials and component parts in the assembly of the complete product, or portions of that product. The assembler can also be the manufacturer.” Add a new definition of “Assemble” to read: 1.3.X.X Assembly . Processes including, but not limited to, sewing, gluing, laminating, tacking, or other means of attaching, whereby materials or component parts are put together to form a portion of the compliant product, or the compliant product. Revise 1.3.3.15 and add new A.1.3.3.15 to read: “1.3.X.X Component(s)* . Any material, part, or subassembly used in the construction of the compliant product.” “A.1.3.X.X Component(s) . Components include items required for the design and construction of the product and are evaluated and tested individually, or are evaluated and tested as a part of the whole product.” Add a new definition of “manufacturer” to read: “1.3.X.X Manufacturer. The entity that assumes the liability, provides the warranty for the compliant product, or obtains the product certification.” Add new 4.5.2.1 and 4.5.2.2 to read:“4.5.2.1 The assembler, if different from the manufacturer, shall also be registered to ISO 9001, Quality management systems - requirements .” “4.5.2.2 Where multiple assemblers are used in the manufacture of the compliant product, each assembler shall be registered to ISO 9001, Quality management systems - requirements .”Substantiation: The TCC is revising text as necessary to assure standardized text is used regarding “follow-up programs” in all product documents within the Project.Committee Meeting Action: Hold Committee Statement: The TCC will provide the final text for use in all Project product standards. _______________________________________________________________1991-17 Log #90 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept in Principle(1.3.2 and A.1.3.2) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: James P. Zeigler, DuPont Personal ProtectionComment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Change wording of paragraph to reflect change in scope of document to include radioactive particles, but not ionizing radiation. Include additional wording regarding flammable atmospheres. Revise to read as follows: 1.3.2* This standard shall not apply to protective clothing for any firefighting applications and shall not provide criteria for protection from ionizing radiological or cryogenic liquid hazards, or from explosive atmospheres. This standard shall not apply to vapor protective ensembles for protection from biological hazards unless the ensemble is certified as compliant with the additional requirements for chemical and biological terrorism incidents. 1.3.X This standard shall not apply to vapor-protective ensembles for protection from biological hazards unless the ensemble is certified as compliant with the additional requirements for chemical and biological terrorism incidents. 1.3.X This standard shall not apply to vapor-protective ensembles for flash-fire escape protection in potentially flammable atmospheres unless the ensemble is certified as compliant with the additional requirements for flash fire escape protection. A.1.3.2 Organizations responsible for specialized chemical response functions including ionizing radiation radiological, biological, cryogenics, or firefighting applications hazards should use protective clothing and equipment specifically designed for those activities.Substantiation: End users needs additional clarification of intended use of this product and text needs to be changed to reflect updated scope of the standard.

1991-10

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 1991 Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Committee Statement: See Committee Actions on Comments 1991-4 (Log #37) and 1991-9 (Log #64). _______________________________________________________________1991-18 Log #60 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(2.3.3) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: William Alexander, Onguard Industries LLCComment on Proposal No: 1991-1Recommendation: Recommend deleting theis text: FIA Publication Footwear Industries of America and asopt the procedure into NFPA 1991. Substantiation: FIA Footwear Industries of America no longer exists.Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-19 Log #CC1 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(Chapter 3) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Hazardous Materials Protective Clothing and EquipmentComment on Proposal No: 1991-1Recommendation: Revise the following definitions to conform to the Definitions Glossary for the Project on Fire and Emergency Services Protective Clothing and Equipment: Boot See definition of: Vapor-Protective Footwear. Bootie A sock-like extension of the garment or suit leg that covers the entire foot. Care Procedures for cleaning, decontamination, and storage of protective clothing and equipment. Certification/Certified A system whereby a certification organization determines that a manufacturer has demononstrated the ability to produce a product that complies with the requirements of this standard, authorizes the manufacturer to use a label on listed products that comply with the requirements of this standard, and establishes a follow-up program conducted by the certification organization as a check on the methods the manufacturer uses to determine continued compliance of labeled and listed products with the requirements of this standard. Chemical and Biological Terrorism Agents Situations involving the release of chemical or biological warfare agents in civilian areas by terrorists. Chemical and Biological Terrorism Vapor-Protective Ensemble See definition of: Vapor-Protective Ensemble with Additional chemical and Biological Terrorism Protection. Chemical-Protective Layer* The material or composite used in an ensemble or clothing for the purpose of providing protection from chemical hazards. ANNEX: The chemical-protective layer is considered as “primary material” and can be configured as a separate layer or as composite with other primary materials. The chemical-protective layer can depend on the other primary material to provide the physical protection. Component(s)* Any material, part, or subassembly used in the construction of the compliant product. ANNEX : Components include items required for the design and construction of the product and are evaluated and tested individually, or are evaluated and tested as a part of the whole product. Composite The layer or layers of materials or components. Chemical-Protective Element(s)* See definition of: ensemble elements Cryogenic Liquid A refrigerated liquefied gas having a boiling point below -130oF (-90oC) at atmospheric pressure. Ensemble See definition of: Vapor-Protective Ensemble Ensemble Elements* The compliant products that provide protection to the upper and lower torso, arms, legs, head, hands, and feet. ANNEX : The vapor-protective ensemble is comprised of garments, helmet, gloves, and footwear (or other elements per the specific ensemble). Exhaust Valve One-way vent that releases exhaust to the outside environment and prevents entry of outside environment. External Fittings* Any component that allows the passage of gases, liquids, or electrical current from the outside to the inside of the element or item. Any fitting externally located on, and part of, the ensemble which is not part of the garment material, visor material, gloves, footwear, seams, or closure assembly. ANNEX : Airline, cooling device, and communications system connections or pass-throughs, and glove and boot interface materials are examples of external fittings. Flammable or Explosive Atmospheres Atmospheres containing solids, liquids, vapors or gases at concentrations that will burn or explode if ignited. Footwear See definition of: Vapor-Protective footwear. Footwear Upper That portion of the footwear element above the sole, heel and insole. Garment See definition of: Vapor-Protective garment. Glove See definition of: Vapor-Protective glove.

Hazardous Materials* A substance (solid, liquid, or gas) that when released is capable of creatng harm to people, the environment, and property. ANNEX : Hazardous materials are any solid, particulate, liquid, gas, aerosol, or mixture thereof that can cause harm to the human body through respiration, ingestion, skin absorption, injection, or contact. Hazardous Materials Emergencies Incidents involving the release of potential release of hazardous materials. Ladder Shank See definition of: Shank Liquid Splash-Protective Ensemble* Multiple elements of compliant protective clothing and equipment products that when worn together provide protection from some risks, but not all risks, of hazardous materials emergency incident operations involving liquids. ANNEX: Liquid splash-protective ensemble elements include, but are not limited to the garments, goves, and footwear. Manufacturer The entity that assumes the liability, provides the warranty for the compliant product, or obtains the product certification. Normalized Breakthrough Detection Time The time at which the permeation rate of a chemical through a material reaches 0.1 µg/cm2/min. Outer Boot A secondary boot worn over the footwear ensemble element or bootie for the purpose of providing physical protection in order to meet the requirements of this standard. Outer Garment A secondary garment worn over an the suit ensemble element for the purposes of providing physical protection in order to meet the requirements of this standard. Outer Glove A secondary glove worn over the glove ensemble element for the purposes of providing physical protection in order to meet the requirements of this standard. Particulates Solid matter that is dispersed in air as a mixture. For the purpose of this standard, particulates, do not include aerosol, or suspended liquid droplets in air. Aerosols are considered liquids. Product Label A label or marking affixed to each compliant vapor-protective ensemble and compliant individual elements by the manufacturer. Such labels contain compliance statements; certification statements; general information; care, maintenance, or similar data. The product label is not the certification organizationʼs label, symbol or identifying mark; however, the certification organizationʼs label, symbol, or identifying mark can be attached to or be part of the product label. See also Labeled. Protective Ensemble See definition of: Vapor-Protective ensemble. Protective Footwear See definition of: Vapor-Protective footwear. Protective Glove See definition of: Vapor-Protective Glove. Protective Suit See definition of: Vapor-Protective Suit. Recall System The action by which a manufacturer identifies an element, provides notice to the users, withdraws an element from the marketplace and distribution sites, and returns the element to the manufacturer or other acceptable location for corrective action. Shank The component of footwear that provides additional support to the instep. Suit See definition Vapor-Protective Suit. Suite Closure Assembly The combination of the suit closure and the seam attaching the suit closure to the suit garment, excluding any protective flap or cover. Vapor-Protective Ensemble* Multiple elements of compliant protective clothing and equipment products that when worn together provide protection from some risks, but not all risks, of hazardous materials emergency incident operations involving vapors. ANNEX : The Vapor-Protective Ensemble elements include, but are not limited to the suit, gloves, and footwear. Vapor Protective Ensemble With Optional chemical Flash Fire Escape and Liquefied Gas Protection A compliant vapor-protective ensemble that is also certified as compliant with the optional requirements for both limited protections against chemical flash fire for escape only and for protection against liquified gases. Vapor-Protective Ensemble With Optional Chemical Flash Fire Escape Protection A compliant vapor-protective ensemble that is also certified as compliant with the optional requirements for limited protection against chemical flash fire for escape only . Vapor-Protective Ensemble With Optional Liquefied Gas Protection A compliant vapor-protective ensemble that is also certified as compliant with the optional requirements for protection against liquefied gases. Vapor-Protective Ensemble With Optional chemical and Biological Terrorism Protection A compliant vapor-protective ensemble that is also certified as compliant with the optional requirements for protection against chemical and biological terrorism agents in vapor, gas, liquid, or particulate forms. Vapor-Protective Footwear* The element of the protective ensemble that provides chemical protection and physical protection to the feet, ankles, and lower legs.

1991-11

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 1991 ANNEX : Vapor-protective footwear includes boots, or outer boots in conjunction with booties. Vapor-Protective Gloves The element of the protective ensemble that provides chemical protection to the hands and wrists. Vapor-Protective Suit The element of the protective ensemble that provides chemical protection to upper and lower torso, head, arms, and legs. Visor Material The transparent chemical-protective material that allows the wearer to see outside the protective ensemble hood.Substantiation: To conform with the Glossary of Definitions for the Project.Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-20 Log #24 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept in Principle(3.3 Sample, Specimen) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Daniel Gohlke, W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc.Comment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Change Definitions: 3.3.53 Sample. An amount of material or product representative of production that is conditioned for the purpose of subsequent testing. 3.3.5 Specimen. An amount of material or product representative of production upon which a test is conducted. Specimens are taken from conditional specimens. In some cases the specimens and samples are the same.Substantiation: This provides some clarity and consistency for the use of these terms.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Committee Statement: The Technical Committee will use the definitions from the Project Glossary of Definitions. _______________________________________________________________1991-21 Log #27 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept in Principle(3.3.16) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Daniel Gohlke, W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc.Comment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: New text to read as follows: Component. One part of a multipart element. For example, an inner glove used with an outer glove or a bootie used with an outer boot.Substantiation: This new definition is consistent with the new text proposed for 5.1.1.9 in the committee minutes from February 6-7, 2004.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Committee Statement: The Technical Committee will use the definitions from the Project Glossary of Definitions. _______________________________________________________________1991-22 Log #26 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept in Principle in Part(3.3.21, 3.3.33) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Daniel Gohlke, W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc.Comment on Proposal No: 1991-1Recommendation: Replace “that provide vapor protection” with “that can be individually certified.” Delete 3.3.33.Substantiation: This captures the key meaning of element from 3.3.33 and makes 3.3.33 unnecessary.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle in Part Reject 3.3.21. Accept 3.3.33.Committee Statement: The Committee will use the Project Definitions. _______________________________________________________________1991-23 Log #4 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept in Principle(3.3.50, 1.3.2 and A.1.3.2) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Glenn P. Jirka, Miami Township Division of Fire and EMSComment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 3.3.50 Radiological Agents. Radiation associated with x-rays, alpha, beta, and gamma emissions from radioactive isotopes, or other materials in excess of normal background radiation levels. 3.3.50 Ionizing Radiation. Electromagnetic or particulate radiation of sufficient energy to alter the atomic or molecular structure of materials or cells with which it interacts. Replace radiological with ionizing radiation in 1.3.2 and A.1.3.2. Substantiation: The term “radiological agents” is not commonly used nor is it sufficiently descriptive to clearly communicate the nature of the hazard to the user. The term “ionizing radiation” should replace radiological in 1.1.6 and 1.3.3. Additionally, the current term “Radiological Agent” is not used in the document as it exists.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Committee Statement: See Committee Action taken on Comment 1991-24 (Log #63).

_______________________________________________________________1991-24 Log #63 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(3.3.60) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Jan Dunbar El Dorado Hills, CAComment on Proposal No: 1991-1Recommendation: Delete paragraph 3.3.60 the entire definition for Radiological Agents. Add definition to read as follows: Ionizing Radiation. Radiation of sufficient energy to alter the atomic structure of materials or cells with which it interacts, including electromagnetic radiation such as x-rays, gamma rays, and microwaves and particulate radiation such as alpha and beta particles. Radio active Particulate. Finely divided solids, such as powders and dusts, which emit ionizing radiation in excess of background radiation levels.Substantiation: With regard to the three standards documents #1991, 1992, and 1994, numerous different terms are used between these three documents, and within each document, regarding radiological substances and radiation. This is an attempt to create some standardization within each document, and between all three document. Standard #1991: In the Application (1.3.2) the term “radiological” is used, but is not defined. In the definitions section “Radiological Agent” is defined (3.3.50), but this term is not used in the documents. Standard #1992: In the Scope (1.1.6) the term “radiological” is used, but is not defined. In the definitions section, “Radiological Agent” is defined (3.3.60), but this term is not used in the document. Further, in the Application section (1.3.3), the term “radiological” is used again. Standard #1994: In the Scope (1.1.6) the term “radiological” is used, but is not defined. In the definitions section “Radiological Agent” is defined (3.3.52). Furthermore, the existing definitions do not adequately define or differentiate between ionizing radiation, and radiological particulates. There is a definite distinction between the tow, and both issues must be addressed in the documents. The first, “ionizing radiation”, are the penetrating high energy rays that pass through stuff. The second, radiological particulates”, is simply solid material (matter) in particulate form which may be airborne. My proposal is to recommend the adoption of two terms, and use them uniformly in all three documents.Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-25 Log #3a FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept in Principle(4.2.9, 4.2.9.2 & 4.2.9.3) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Correlating Committee on Fire and Emergency Services Protective Clothing and EquipmentComment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: The TCC directs the TC to revise the following text in Section 4.2, as follows. Revise 4.2.9 to read: “4.2.9 The certification organization shall have a follow-up inspection program of the manufacturing facilities of the compliant product with at least two random and unannounced visits per 12-month period to verify the productʼs continued compliance.” Revise 4.2.9.2 to read: “4.2.9.2 Sample product shall be inspected by the certification organization to verify the productʼs continued compliance by assuring that the materials, components, and methods of manufacture are consistent with the materials, components, and methods of manufacture tested by the certification organization during initial certification and recertification. The certification organization shall be permitted to conduct specific testing to verify the productʼs continued compliance.” Add new 4.2.9.3 to read: “4.2.9.3 For products, components, and materials where prior testing, judgment and experience of the certifying organization has shown results to be marginal, the certification organization shall conduct testing of sample products, components, and materials, as acquired in 4.2.9.1, against the applicable requirements of this standard.”Substantiation: The TCC is revising text as necessary to assure standardized text is used regarding “follow-up programs” in all product documents within the Project.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise 4.2.9 to read: 4.2.9* The certification organization shall have a follow-up inspection program of the manufacturerʼs facilities of the compliant product with at least two random and unannounced visits per 12-month period to verify the productʼs continued compliance. (4.2.9.1 remains as is) Revise 4.2.9.2 to read: 4.2.9.2 Sample product shall be evaluated by the certification organization to verify the productʼs continued compliance in order to assure that the materials, components, and manufacturing quality assurance systems are consistent with the materials, components, and manufacturing quality assurance that were inspected and tested by the certification organization during initial certification and recertification.

1991-12

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 1991 Add new 4.2.9.3 to read: 4.2.9.3 The certification organization shall be permitted to conduct specific testing to verify the productʼs continued compliance. Add new 4.2.9.4 to read: 4.2.9.4 For products, components, and materials where prior testing, judgment, and experience or the certification organization have shown results to be, in jeopardy of not complying with this standard, the certification organization shall conduct more frequent testing of sample product, components, and materials acquired in accordance with 4.2.9.1 against the applicable requirements of this standard. Committee Statement: The Committee used the revised text provided by the TCC. _______________________________________________________________1991-26 Log #3c FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(4.4) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Correlating Committee on Fire and Emergency Services Protective Clothing and EquipmentComment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: The TCC directs the TC to reevaluate Section 4.4, Recertification, to be sure annual recertification issues are properly addressed for the ensemble. Also, retitle Section 4.4 to read: “Annual Verification of Product Compliance” and change “annual recertification” to “annual verification” throughout. Substantiation: The TCC is directing each TC to readdress Section 4.4 to determine its need and relevance for the product covered by each document, and to revise as the TC deems necessary. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Committee Statement: The standard already has reviewed annual verification and finds them suitable. _______________________________________________________________1991-27 Log #39 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(4.6.1, 4.6.2, 4.6.11 and 4.6.13) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Karen E. Lehtonen, Lion ApparelComment on Proposal No: 1991-1Recommendation: Add * to 4.6.1 and the Annex information should be that in A.4.5.1 in NFPA 1975, 2004 Ed. Add * to 4.6.2 and the Annex information should be that in A.4.5.2 in NFPA 1975, 2004 Ed. Add * to 4.6.11 and the Annex information should be that in A.4.5.11 in NFPA 1975, 2004 Ed. Add * to 4.6.13 and the Annex information should be that in A.4.5.13 in NFPA 1975, 2004 Ed.Substantiation: Each of this paragraphs has explanatory materials. The explanatory materials were not included in this ROP. The language from NFPA 1975, 2004 Edition contains the most recent revision of this material and should be included in this document as well.Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-28 Log #23 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(5.1.1.7, 5.1.1.9, 5.1.3, 5.1.3.1, 5.1.3.2, 5.1.3.3, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3, 5.2.4, 5.2.5, 5.3.1.1, 5.3.1.3, 5.3.2.1, 5.3.2, 5.3.2.4) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Daniel Gohlke, W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc.Comment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Delete “individual”.Substantiation: “Individual element” is redundant with “element”Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-29 Log #40 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(5.1.1.9) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Karen E. Lehtonen, Lion ApparelComment on Proposal No: 1991-1Recommendation: Add text to read as follows: “FOR COMPLIANCE WITH NFPA 1991, THE FOLLOWING COMPONENTS MUST BE WORN IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS VAPOR-PROTECTIVE (Insert the term ʻEnsemble ̓or ʻadditional element ̓here:) Substantiation: Missing word.Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-30 Log #41 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(5.1.1.10) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Karen E. Lehtonen, Lion ApparelComment on Proposal No: 1991-1Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Detachable components specified in 5.1.1.8 5.1.1.9 shall meet the label requirements specified in ASTM F1301, Standard Practice for Labeling Chemical Protective Clothing. The label shall also meet the requirements of 5.1.1 through 5.1.1.5.

Substantiation: Incorrect reference.Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-31 Log #55 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Reject(6.2) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Karen E. Lehtonen, Lion ApparelComment on Proposal No: 1991-1Recommendation: Glove design requirements are not consistent between 1991 and 1992. 1991 glove design requirements should be reviewed along with those 1992 to see if consistent requirements can be developed.Substantiation: There are inconsistencies between the two standards for the glove design requirements. While not all design aspects should be the same there should be some similarities and consistencies between these two standards.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The requirements in NFPA 1991 are consistent for evaluating the protection of the glove element. _______________________________________________________________1991-32 Log #16 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(6.3.2) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Daniel Gohlke, W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc.Comment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Delete “for an area of”.Substantiation: Editorial.Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-33 Log #15 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept in Principle(6.3.8) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Daniel Gohlke, W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc.Comment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Add new 6.3.8 to read: 6.3.8 Metal parts shall not penetrate from the outside into the lining or insole at any point.Substantiation: Text brought over from NFPA 192, paragraph 6.3.4 as directed by TC minutes of February 6 - 7, 2004.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Committee Statement: See Committee Action taken on Comment 1991-34 (Log #61). _______________________________________________________________1991-34 Log #61 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(6.3.8) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: William Alexander, Onguard Industries LLCComment on Proposal No: 1991-1Recommendation: Insert text: 6.3.8 Metal parts shall not penetrate from the outside into the lining or insole at any point. 6.3.9 No metal parts, including but not limited to nails or screws, shall be present or utilized in the construction or attachment of the sole (with heel) to the puncture-resistant device, insole, or upper. Substantiation: Language consistent with NFPA 1992-04FM-ROP.Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-35 Log #14 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept in Principle(6.3.9) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Daniel Gohlke, W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc.Comment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Add 6.3.9 to read: 6.3.9 No metal parts, including but not limited to nails or screws, shall be present or utilized in the construction or attachment of the sole (with heel) to the puncture-resistant device, insole, or upper.Substantiation: Text brought over from NFPA 1992, paragraph 6.3.5 as directed by TC minutes of February 6 - 7, 2004.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Committee Statement: See Committee Action taken on Comment 1991-34 (Log #61). _______________________________________________________________1991-36 Log #22 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(6.4) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Daniel Gohlke, W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc.Comment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Delete 6.4, 6.4.1 and 6.4.2.Substantiation: Action needed to comply with TCC Note 1.Committee Meeting Action: Accept

1991-13

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 1991 _______________________________________________________________1991-37 Log #56 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept in Principle(6.4) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Karen E. Lehtonen, Lion ApparelComment on Proposal No: 1991-1Recommendation: Footwear design requirements are not consistent between 1991 and 1992. 1991 footwear design requirements should be reviewed along with those 1992 to see if consistent requirements can be developed.Substantiation: There are inconsistencies between the two standards for the footwear design requirements. While not all design aspects should be the same there should be some similarities and consistencies between these two standards.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Committee Statement: See Committee Actions taken on Comments 1991-35 (Log #14), 1991-32 (Log #16), and 1991-34 (Log #61). _______________________________________________________________1991-38 Log #89 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept in Principle(7.1.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: James P. Zeigler, DuPont Personal ProtectionComment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Revise text to read: 7.1.1 Vapor-protective ensembles shall be tested for liquidtight integrity as specified in Section 8.3, Liquidtight Integrity Test, and shall not allow any water penetration into the interior of the ensemble, between the layers of gloves and between the layer of foot protection. Substantiation: Performance requirements need to be clearly stated in Chapter 7.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise 7.1.1 to read: “7.1.1 Vapor-protective ensembles shall be tested for overall function as specified in Section, 8.3, Liquidtight Integrity Test, and ensembles shall allow no liquid penetration; where outer gloves are designed to be worn in conjunction with gloves attached to the ensemble, the outer gloves shall not collect liquid; and where outer boots are designed to be worn in conjunction with garment booties, the outer boots shall not collect liquid.”Committee Statement: The Committee agrees and provided the appropriate text. _______________________________________________________________1991-39 Log #21 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(7.1.2) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Daniel Gohlke, W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc.Comment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: “Heat” should be “head.”Substantiation: Spelling error. Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-40 Log #88 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(7.1.2) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: James P. Zeigler, DuPont Personal ProtectionComment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Revise text to read: 7.1.2 Vapor-protective ensembles shall be tested for overall function and integrity as specified in Section 8.4, Overall Ensemble Function and Integrity Test, and shall meet the following performance criteria: (1) Ensembles shall have an ending pressure of at least 80 mm (3 5/32 in.) water gauge pressure upon completion of the functional test. (2) Ensembles shall allow the test subject to complete all tasks while wearing a head protective device. (3) Ensembles shall accommodate heat protection devices meeting the requirements for Type I, Class G Helmets of ANSI Z89.1, Standard for Industrial Head Protection. (4) (3) Ensembles shall permit the test subject to see through the combination of respirator and ensemble visor with a visual acuity of 20/35 or better. (5) (4) Ensembles shall permit the test subject to remove and reinsert their hand into the glove system 5 times sequentially. Substantiation: Clarify when the inflation test is performed and how the hat hart requirements is incorporated into the requirements.Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-41 Log #59 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(7.1.2(3), 7.7.2.1, 7.8.6.1, 8.2.3.1, 8.6.2.1, 8.9.2.1 and 8.16.6.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Karen E. Lehtonen, Lion ApparelComment on Proposal No: 1991-1Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 7.1.2(3) Ensembles shall accommodate heat head protection devices meeting the requirements for Type 1, Class G helmets of ANSI Z89.1, Standard for Industrial Head Protection. 7.7.2.1 Primary suit, glove and footwear materials shall be tested for liquefied gas permeation resistance as specified in Section 8.6, Chemical Permeation Resistance Test, and shall not exhibit a normalized breakthrough

detection time of 15 minutes or less and shall not exhibit a normalized breakthrough time of 15 minutes or less for each additional liquefied gas that the manufacturer is certifying the ensemble. 7.8.6.1 Primary suit, glove and footwear materials shall be tested for liquefied gas permeation resistance as specified in Section 8.6, Chemical Permeation Resistance Test, and shall not exhibit a normalized breakthrough detection time of 15 minutes or less and shall not exhibit a normalized breakthrough time of 15 minutes or less for each additional liquefied gas that the manufacturer is certifying the ensemble. 8.2.3.1 Specimens shall be complete vapor-protective ensemble, indifidual individual glove elements as and footwear elements. 8.6.2.1 Samples shall be either vapor protective ensembles or suit materials, visor materials, gloves and footware footwear of the sizes specified in the modifications. 8.9.2.1 Samples shall be in exhaust-valve mounted into a piece of garment material having a minimum diamiter diameter of 200 mm (8 in.); the means of mounting the exhaust valve shall to representative of the construction practices used in the vapor protective suit. 8.16.6.1 For each specimen, the peak charge generated, the corresponding charge after 5 seconds and the time required for the charge to reach 10 percent or the maximum charge measured shall be recorded. Substantiation: Editorial changes.Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-42 Log #87 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Reject(7.1.3) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: James P. Zeigler, DuPont Personal ProtectionComment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Revise text to read: 7.1.3 Vapor-protective ensembles shall be tested for airflow capacity as specified in Section 8.5, Maximum Suit Ventilation Rate Test, and shall exhibit no internal pressures greater than 38 100 mm ( 1 1/2 4 6 in.) water gauge pressure, and shall show an ending pressure of at least 80 mm (3 5/32 in.) water gauge pressure after subsequent testing for gastight integrity as specified in Section 8.2, Gastight Integrity Test. Substantiation: During inflation pressure testing, the test subjects were able to perform all functions, including squeezing through a 30 inch X 30 inch square hole at in internal suit pressure of 6 inches. The current 4 inch requirement requires installation of additional exhaust valves that increase the risk on inward gas and liquid infiltration.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The Committee feels that suit internal pressure above 100 mm water gauge pressure reduces the mobility and effectiveness of the wearer. _______________________________________________________________1991-43 Log #20 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Hold(7.1.4 and 8.2) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Daniel Gohlke, W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc.Comment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Replace 7.1.4 and 8.2 with 7.9.4 and 8.8 everywhere.Substantiation: Inward leakage is more rationale as a measure of protection than inflation leakage. It also provides a mechanism for grading and comparing protection across a wider range of clothing. It allows users to make judgments about how much protection they need and have.Committee Meeting Action: Hold Committee Statement: In the abbreviated time the Committee has to process Comments, there was insufficient time to adequately address the complexity of the issued raised by this comment. _______________________________________________________________1991-44 Log #86 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(7.2.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: James P. Zeigler, DuPont Personal ProtectionComment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Revise text to add the word “industrial” before chemicals. 7.2.1 Vapor-protective suit materials shall be tested for permeation resistance after flexing and abrading as specified in Section 8.6, Chemical Permeation Resistance Test, and shall not exhibit a breakthrough detection time of 1 hour or less for the following list of industrial chemicals: (1) Acetone (2) Acetonitrile (3) Anhydrous ammonia (gas) (4) 1,3-Butadiene (gas) (5) Carbon disulfide (6) Chlorine (gas) (7) Dichloromethane (8) Diethyl amine (9) Dimethyl formamide (10) Ethyl acetate (11) Ethylene oxide (gas) (12) Hexane (13) Hydrogen chloride (gas) (14) Methanol

1991-14

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 1991 (15) Methyl chloride (gas) (16) Nitrobenzene (17) Sodium hydroxide (18) Sulfuric acid (19) Tetrachloroethylene (20) Tetrahydrofuran (21) TolueneSubstantiation: Additional qualification of the types of chemical required to clarify the permeation test method utilized for testing.Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-45 Log #58 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(7.2.1, 7.2.6, 7.2.8, 7.3.1, 7.3.6, 7.4.1 and 7.5.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Karen E. Lehtonen, Lion ApparelComment on Proposal No: 1991-1Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 7.2.1 Vapor-protective suit materials shall be tested for permeation resistance after flexing and abrading as specified in Section 8.6, Chemical Permeation Resistance Test, and shall not exhibit a breakthrough detection time of 1 hour or less for the following list of industrial chemicals: 7.2.6 Vapor-protective suit seams shall be tested for permeation resistance after flexing and abrading as specified in Section 8.6, Chemical Permeation Resistance Test, and shall not exhibit a breakthrough detection time of 1 hour or less for the following list of industrial chemicals: 7.2.8 Vapor-protective suit closure assemblies shall be tested for permeation resistance after flexing and abrading as specified in Section 8.6, Chemical Permeation Resistance Test, and shall not exhibit a breakthrough detection time of 1 hour or less for the following list of industrial chemicals: 7.3.1 Visor materials shall be tested for permeation resistance after flexing and abrading as specified in Section 8.6, Chemical Permeation Resistance Test, and shall not exhibit a breakthrough detection time of 1 hour or less for the following list of industrial chemicals: 7.3.6 Visor material seams shall be tested for permeation resistance after flexing and abrading as specified in Section 8.6, Chemical Permeation Resistance Test, and shall not exhibit a breakthrough detection time of 1 hour or less for the following list of industrial chemicals: 7.4.1 Vapor-protective glove materials shall be tested for permeation resistance after flexing and abrading as specified in Section 8.6, Chemical Permeation Resistance Test, and shall not exhibit a breakthrough detection time of 1 hour or less for the following list of industrial chemicals: 7.5.1 Vapor-protective footwear upper materials shall be tested for permeation resistance after flexing and abrading as specified in Section 8.6, Chemical Permeation Resistance Test, and shall not exhibit a breakthrough detection time of 1 hour or less for the following list of industrial chemicals. Substantiation: The test method in 8.6 calls out these chemicals as industrial chemicals. For clarity and consistency they should be called industrial chemicals in the performance requirements.Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-46 Log #66 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Hold(7.2.1, 7.2.6, 7.3.1, 7.3.6, 7.4.1,7.5.1, 7.7.2, & 8.6) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Jeffrey O. Stull, International Personnel Protection, Inc.Comment on Proposal No: 1991-1Recommendation: Wherever criteria are provided for the minimum permeation resistance of industrial chemicals, establish unique criteria for each chemical in terms of acceptable cumulative exposure based on toxicological information as is currently provided in the standard for chemical warfare agents. In the absence of skin dermal exposure criteria, use the conservation measures of respiratory exposure criteria.Substantiation: There is a disparity in the methodology that is applied to interpreting results from the permeation resistance testing of chemical agents as compared to industrial chemicals. This disparity results in a higher standard of performance for industrial chemicals than warranted by the relative exposure hazard of these chemicals. Acceptable skin exposure criteria should be established in the same manner as currently applied in the standard for chemical warfare agents, using the cumulative permeation mass as the basis for interpreting permeation resistance test results for the testing of industrial chemicals.Committee Meeting Action: Hold Committee Statement: The committee investigated the possibility for considering the use of cumulative permeation data as the basis for defining performance of materials against industrial chemicals. The committee agrees with the principle; however, a substantial amount of work is required to determine the respective maximum cumulative permeation masses for each chemical. Additionally, the absence of readily available dermal exposure limits for most industrial chemicals hinders the committeeʼs ability to make the change in permeation requirements at this time.

_______________________________________________________________1991-47 Log #91 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Reject(7.2.2, 7.3.2, 7.4.2, 7.5.2) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Terry Bindernagel, Cleveland Fire DeparmentComment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Delete paragraphs 7.2.2, 7.3.2, 7.4.2 and 7.5.2Substantiation: Flammability Testing - Drop all listed testing requirements and certifications for flammability testing. The Technical Committee is asked to review the Executive Fire Officer Program (EFOP) research paper entitled Comparative Effects of Thermal Energy to Personnel in Flash Fires While Wearing Various Level A Chemical Protective Clothing (CPC) Ensembles . This research was presented to the NFPA 1991 Technical Committee at the Kansas City meeting in 2003. The basic premise of the research was to measure the effects of chemical flash fires to personnel in terms of total body burns while wearing Limited Use Level A suits, with and without aluminized overcovers, and utilizing various undergarments. The research paper, the presentation to the technical committee, and this submission to the technical committee are being done by the same author. Flammability testing, as outlined in the proposed draft, is unrealistic in terms of potential, as outlined by the research document. Flammability testing, per the proposed draft, is designed to show exposure to a single source of heat such as a lighter. As shown by the research, even the ASTM F1001 test battery of chemicals, which are representative of the occurrences we as responders will encounter, consists of 11 Class I flammable liquids and 1 flammable gas. The research further suggests that 89 of 90 chemicals listed (pages 1-117, excluding solids) in the NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards are flammable Class I liquids (43), flammable gases (7), or combustible liquids (46). Therefore the true potential to an event is not the potential to be exposed to a flame, but rather a flammable vapor that can have a much larger flame impingement area than the current testing suggests. The committee is requested to change the true sense of flame impingement to more accurately assess the ability of personnel wearing 1991 garments or ensembles to escape an area where the conditions have changed because of a “dual-event chemical”, i.e. a substance with vapor contact and thermal concerns. The true potential of such an event is better addressed in the chemical flash fire (optional, not required) testing. The committee is aware that at this time, no manufacturer can meet the stated chemical flash fire requirement. Therefore, I turn the committees attention to numerous areas of personal concern in national publications (Time Magazine, March 29, 2004) with pictures showing apparent NFPA 1991 garments with the captions “protection against chemicals and flash fire”. The above is used to stress with the committee that efforts must reflect the concerns (and apparent misconceptions) of the response community. The committee is urged to drop all language stating flammability requirements, and reasonably attempt to identify the following: - The expectations of escape from a dual event chemical by representing total body burns expected wearing various ensembles and garments. This shall be a measured heat flux generation against the ensemble while worn by a mannequin similar to ThermoMan. This shall attempt comparative data of realistic potential to escape a flame and/or chemical flash event. - Such data shall be included in labeling information. - The effects of secondary pool fires creating by drip and flow characteristics of suit materials shall be explained in test data. The rate of drip and flow shall be measured in anticipated pool size fires created by varying the heat flux. This information would be similar to testing as per the ASTM F1001 battery of tests. This information would allow Incident Commanders and Safety Officers to better anticipate the true ability of personnel in CPC to escape thermal events.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: See Committee Action taken on Comment 1991-94 (Log #92). _______________________________________________________________1991-48 Log #85 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(7.2.6) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: James P. Zeigler, DuPont Personal ProtectionComment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Revise text to add the word “industrial” before chemicals. 7.2.6 Vapor-protective suit seams shall be tested for permeation resistance after flexing and abrading as specified in Section 8.6, Chemical Permeation Resistance Test, and shall not exhibit a breakthrough detection time of 1 hour or less for the following list of industrial chemicals: (1) Acetone (2) Acetonitrile (3) Anhydrous ammonia (gas) (4) 1,3-Butadiene (gas) (5) Carbon disulfide (6) Chlorine (gas) (7) Dichloromethane (8) Diethyl amine (9) Dimethyl formamide

1991-15

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 1991 (10) Ethyl acetate (11) Ethylene oxide (gas) (12) Hexane (13) Hydrogen chloride (gas) (14) Methanol (15) Methyl chloride (gas) (16) Nitrobenzene (17) Sodium hydroxide (18) Sulfuric acid (19) Tetrachloroethylene (20) Tetrahydrofuran (21) TolueneSubstantiation: Additional qualification of the types of chemical required to clairiy the permeation test method utilized for testing.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Committee Statement: See Committee Action taken on Comment 1991-45 (Log #58). _______________________________________________________________1991-49 Log #84 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(7.3.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: James P. Zeigler, DuPont Personal ProtectionComment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Revise text to add the word “industrial” before chemicals. 7.3.1 Visor materials shall be tested for permeation resistance after flexing and abrading as specified in Section 8.6, Chemical Permeation Resistance Test, and shall not exhibit a breakthrough detection time of 1 hour or less for the following list of industrial chemicals: (1) Acetone (2) Acetonitrile (3) Anhydrous ammonia (gas) (4) 1,3-Butadiene (gas) (5) Carbon disulfide (6) Chlorine (gas) (7) Dichloromethane (8) Diethyl amine (9) Dimethyl formamide (10) Ethyl acetate (11) Ethylene oxide (gas) (12) Hexane (13) Hydrogen chloride (gas) (14) Methanol (15) Methyl chloride (gas) (16) Nitrobenzene (17) Sodium hydroxide (18) Sulfuric acid (19) Tetrachloroethylene (20) Tetrahydrofuran (21) TolueneSubstantiation: Additional qualification of the types of chemical required to clarify the permeation test method utilized for testing.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Committee Statement: See Committee Action taken on Comment 1991-87 (Log #58). _______________________________________________________________1991-50 Log #83 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(7.3.6) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: James P. Zeigler, DuPont Personal ProtectionComment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Revise text to add the word “industrial” before chemicals. 7.3.6 Visor material seams shall be tested for permeation resistance after flexing and abrading as specified in Section 8.6, Chemical Permeation Resistance Test, and shall not exhibit a breakthrough detection time of 1 hour or less for the following list of industrial chemicals: (1) Acetone (2) Acetonitrile (3) Anhydrous ammonia (gas) (4) 1,3-Butadiene (gas) (5) Carbon disulfide (6) Chlorine (gas) (7) Dichloromethane (8) Diethyl amine (9) Dimethyl formamide (10) Ethyl acetate (11) Ethylene oxide (gas) (12) Hexane (13) Hydrogen chloride (gas) (14) Methanol (15) Methyl chloride (gas) (16) Nitrobenzene (17) Sodium hydroxide (18) Sulfuric acid (19) Tetrachloroethylene (20) Tetrahydrofuran

(21) TolueneSubstantiation: Additional qualification of the types of chemical required to clarify the permeation test method utilized for testing.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Committee Statement: See Committee Action taken on Comment 1991-45 (Log #58). _______________________________________________________________1991-51 Log #82 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(7.4.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: James P. Zeigler, DuPont Personal ProtectionComment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Revise text to add the word “industrial” before chemicals. 7.4.1 Vapor-protective glove materials shall be tested for permeation resistance after flexing and abrading as specified in Section 8.6, Chemical Permeation Resistance Test, and shall not exhibit a breakthrough detection time of 1 hour or less for the following list of industrial chemicals: (1) Acetone (2) Acetonitrile (3) Anhydrous ammonia (gas) (4) 1,3-Butadiene (gas) (5) Carbon disulfide (6) Chlorine (gas) (7) Dichloromethane (8) Diethyl amine (9) Dimethyl formamide (10) Ethyl acetate (11) Ethylene oxide (gas) (12) Hexane (13) Hydrogen chloride (gas) (14) Methanol (15) Methyl chloride (gas) (16) Nitrobenzene (17) Sodium hydroxide (18) Sulfuric acid (19) Tetrachloroethylene (20) Tetrahydrofuran (21) TolueneSubstantiation: Additional qualification of the types of chemical required to clarify the permeation test method utilized for testing.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Committee Statement: See Committee Action taken on Comment 1991-45 (Log #58). _______________________________________________________________1991-52 Log #81 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(7.5.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: James P. Zeigler, DuPont Personal ProtectionComment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Revise text to add the word “industrial” before chemicals. 7.5.1 Vapor-protective footwear upper materials shall be tested for permeation resistance after flexing and abrading as specified in Section 8.6, Chemical Permeation Resistance Test, and shall not exhibit a breakthrough detection time of 1 hour or less for the following list of industrial chemicals: (1) Acetone (2) Acetonitrile (3) Anhydrous ammonia (gas) (4) 1,3-Butadiene (gas) (5) Carbon disulfide (6) Chlorine (gas) (7) Dichloromethane (8) Diethyl amine (9) Dimethyl formamide (10) Ethyl acetate (11) Ethylene oxide (gas) (12) Hexane (13) Hydrogen chloride (gas) (14) Methanol (15) Methyl chloride (gas) (16) Nitrobenzene (17) Sodium hydroxide (18) Sulfuric acid (19) Tetrachloroethylene (20) Tetrahydrofuran (21) TolueneSubstantiation: Additional qualification of the types of chemical required to clarify the permeation test method utilized for testing.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Committee Statement: See Committee Action taken on Comment 1991-45 (Log #58).

1991-16

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 1991 _______________________________________________________________1991-53 Log #13 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(7.6.1, 7.6.2, 7.7.1, 7.7.2. 7.8.1 & 7.8.2) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Daniel Gohlke, W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc.Comment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Delete “individual”.Substantiation: “Individual element” is redundant with “element.”Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-54 Log #35 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(7.6.5, 7.8.5 and 8.18) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Jeffrey O. Stull, International Personnel Protection, Inc.Comment on Proposal No: 1991-1Recommendation: Delete static charge performance requirements in 7.6.5 and 7.8.5 and related test method in Section 8.18.Substantiation: Unfortunately, the existing static charge requirement does not evaluate the potential for static charge generation by the clothing in a meaningful way. The existing test, once used by NASA, is being retired by that organization because it does not provide the type of material discrimination desired. An alternative method is needed; however, no suitable whole ensemble method has been identified. Therefore, the requirement should be removed until such time a viable method becomes available.Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-55 Log #36 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept in Principle(7.7.2 and 7.8.6) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Jeffrey O. Stull, International Personnel Protection, Inc.Comment on Proposal No: 1991-1Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 7.7.2 Primary suit, glove, and footwear materials shall be tested for liquefied gas permeation resistance as specified in Section 8.6, Chemical Permeation Resistance Test, and shall not exhibit a normalized breakthrough detection time of 15 minutes, or less for ammonia and chlorine the following list of gaseous chemicals: Ammonia Butadiene Chlorine Ethylene oxide Hydrogen chloride Methyl chloride Make same change for Paragraph 7.8.6. Substantiation: Ammonia and chlorine permeation testing as liquefied gases is sufficient to demonstrate the resistance of vapor-protective ensemble materials to permeation by these gases in a liquefied state. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Committee Statement: See Committee Action taken on Comment 1991-4 (Log #37). _______________________________________________________________1991-56 Log #34 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept in Principle(7.7.3 and 7.8.7) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Jeffrey O. Stull, International Personnel Protection, Inc.Comment on Proposal No: 1991-1Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 7.7.3 Primary suit, glove, and footwear materials shall be tested for permeation resistance after cold temperature embrittlement exposure as specified in Section 8.6, Chemical Permeation Resistance Test, and shall not show signs of damage, and shall not exhibit a normalized breakthrough detection time of 60 minutes, or less for ammonia and chlorine the following list of gaseous chemicals: Ammonia Butadiene Chlorine Ethylene oxide Hydrogen chloride Methyl chloride Make same change for Paragraph 7.8.7. Substantiation: Ammonia and chlorine permeation testing following embrittlement exposure of the materials is sufficient to demonstrate the embrittlement resistance of vapor-protective ensemble materials.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Committee Statement: See Committee Action taken on Comment 1991-4 (Log #37). _______________________________________________________________1991-57 Log #80 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept in Principle(7.8.6) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: James P. Zeigler, DuPont Personal ProtectionComment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Revise text to add the word “industrial” before chemicals. 7.8.6 Primary suit, glove, and footwear materials shall be tested for liquefied gas permeation resistance as specified in Section 8.6, Chemical Permeation

Resistance Test, and shall not exhibit a normalized breakthrough detection time of 15 minutes or less for the following list of gaseous industrial chemicals at a temperature sufficient to keep the test chemical liquids during the duration of the test at ambient pressure: (1) Ammonia (2) Butadiene (3) Chlorine (4) Ethylene oxide (5) Hydrogen chloride (6) Methyl chlorideSubstantiation: Additional qualification of the types of chemical required to clarify the permeation test method utilized for testing and the temperature at which the test is conducted.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Committee Statement: See Committee Action taken on Comment 1991-4 (Log #37). _______________________________________________________________1991-58 Log #79 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept in Principle(7.8.7) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: James P. Zeigler, DuPont Personal ProtectionComment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Revise text to add the word “industrial” before chemicals. 7.8.7 Primary suit, glove, and footwear materials shall be tested for permeation resistance after cold temperature embrittlement exposure as specified in Section 8.6, Chemical Permeation Resistance Test, and shall not show signs of damage, and shall not exhibit a normalized breakthrough detection time of 60 minutes or less for the following list of gaseous industrial chemicals tested at 27 o C: (1) Ammonia (2) Butadiene (3) Chlorine (4) Ethylene oxide (5) Hydrogen chloride (6) Methyl chlorideSubstantiation: Additional qualification of the types of chemical required to clarify the permeation test method utilized for testing and the temperature at which the test is conducted.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Committee Statement: See Committee Action taken on Comment 1991-4 (Log #37). _______________________________________________________________1991-59 Log #42 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(7.9) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Karen E. Lehtonen, Lion ApparelComment on Proposal No: 1991-1Recommendation: This paragraph indicates there is an associated Annex item, however there is no information in the Annex relating to this paragraph. Annex information should be developed or the (*) should be deleted.Substantiation: No associated Annex information provided in the ROP.Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-60 Log #78 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept in Principle(7.9) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: James P. Zeigler, DuPont Personal ProtectionComment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Revise text to add the words “industrial” before chemicals. Revise text to read: 7.9 * Optional CBRN Protection Requirements for Terrorism incidents. 7.9.1 Primary suit, glove, and footwear materials and seams shall be tested for cyanogen chloride {CK (blood agent)} permeation resistance as specified in Section 8.6, Chemical Permeation Resistance Test, and shall not exhibit normalized breakthrough detection times of 60 minutes 1 hour or less for the following list of industrial chemicals : (1) Cyanogen chloride (CK; 506-77-4) (2) Carbonyl chloride (CG; 75-44-5) (3) Dimethyl sulfate (DMA, sulfuric acid dimethyl ester), 77-78-1 (4) Hydrogen cyanide (AC, HCN, CAS; 74-90-8)) 7.9.2 Primary suit, glove, and footwear materials and seams shall be tested for permeation resistance for 60 minutes as specified in Section 8.6, Chemical Permeation Test, Method 2.2, Liquid Agent Contamination/Vapor Penetration, of CRDC-SP 84010, Laboratory Methods for Evaluating Protective Clothing Systems Against Chemical Agents; at 32 o C, + 2 o C (90 o F, + 4 o F), closed top; at a contamination density of 100 g/m 2 and shall not exceed a cumulative permeation of 1.25 ug/cm 2 for chemical warfare agent Sarin (GB, or isopropyl methyl phosphonofluoridate). 7.9.2.1 Primary suit and glove materials shall be tested for permeation resistance after both flexing and abrading, as specified in 8.1.3 and 8.1.4, respectively. 7.9.2.2 Primary footwear materials shall be tested for permeation resistance after both flexing and abrading, as specified in 8.1.6 and 8.1.4, respectively. 7.9.3 Primary suit, glove, and footwear materials and seams shall be tested for permeation resistance for 60 minutes as specified in Section 8.6, Chemical

1991-17

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 1991 Permeation Test, Method 2.2, Liquid Agent Contamination/Vapor Penetration, of CRDC-SP 84010, Laboratory Methods for Evaluating Protective Clothing Systems Against Chemical Agents; at 32 o C, + 2 o C (90 o F, + 4 o F), closed top; at a contamination density of 100 g/m 2 and shall not exceed a cumulative permeation of 4 ug/cm2 for chemical warfare agent sulfur mustard, distilled ({HD, or bis(2-chloroethyl) sulfide}. 7.9.3.1 Primary suit and glove materials shall be tested for permeation resistance after both flexing and abrading, as specified in 8.1.3 and 8.1.4, respectively. 7.9.3.2 Primary footwear materials shall be tested for permeation resistance after both flexing and abrading, as specified in 8.1.6 and 8.1.4, respectively. Substantiation: Additional qualification of the types of chemical required to clarify the permeation test method utilized for testing.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Committee Statement: See Committee Action taken on Comment 1991-4 (Log #37). _______________________________________________________________1991-61 Log #65 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Hold(7.9.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Jeffrey O. Stull, International Personnel Protection, Inc.Comment on Proposal No: 1991-1Recommendation: Replace required permeation testing of protective clothing materials using Sarin (GB) and Distilled Mustard (HD) with surrogate chemicals, that are less expensive and dangerous to handle.Substantiation: The requirement to perform live chemical agent testing significantly increases the cost of compliance with this standard and makes access to testing laboratory very difficult. Suitable surrogate chemicals exist and have been extensively used by the military and its contractors for years in the assessment of barrier performance for impermeable chemical materials. The more appropriate of these chemicals should be specified in place of GB and HD.Committee Meeting Action: Hold Committee Statement: In the abbreviated time the Committee has to process Comments, there was insufficient time to adequately address the complexity of the issued raised by this comment. The comment proposes change for which sufficient debate or public review has not occurred. _______________________________________________________________1991-62 Log #43 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(8.1.9.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Karen E. Lehtonen, Lion ApparelComment on Proposal No: 1991-1Recommendation: Add text to read as follows: Samples shall be conditioned at a temperature of 24°C, ±3°C (75°F, ± 5°F) and a relative humidity of 45 percent, ±5 percent until equilibrium is reached, or at least 24 hours, whichever is shortest.Substantiation: Federal Test Methods are standards that are no longer being supported and references in this standard should be removed.Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-63 Log #8 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(8.2.4) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Glenn P. Jirka, Miami Township Division of Fire and EMSComment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Delete the entire section: 8.2.4 Preparation. 8.2.4.1 Samples for conditioning...” 8.2.4.2 Specimens shall be...” Substantiation: The requirements contained in this section are already contained in 8.2.2 Sample Preparation.Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-64 Log #19 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(8.2.4, 8.3.4, 8.4.4, 8.5.4, 8.6.4 & 8.12.4) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Daniel Gohlke, W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc.Comment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Delete.Substantiation: These paragraphs are redundant with the Sample Preparation paragraphs.Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-65 Log #77 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(8.2.7.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: James P. Zeigler, DuPont Personal ProtectionComment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Revise text as follows: 8.2.7.1 Where the ending pressure is less than 80 mm (3 5/32 in.), the specimen shall be recorded as failing. The pressure upon completion of the inflation test will be used to determine pass or fail.Substantiation: Performance criteria needs to be specified in Chapter 7 not

Chapter 8. Section 8.2.7.1 is incorrect with regards to the ending pressure after the whole garment flash fire simulation. After the flash fire escape simulation, the pass criteria is 0.5 inch water column pressure, not the 3.2 inch pressure stated here.Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-66 Log #7 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(8.3.4) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Glenn P. Jirka, Miami Township Division of Fire and EMSComment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Delete the entire section: 8.3.4 Preparation. 8.3.4.1 Samples for conditioning...” 8.3.4.2 Specimens shall be...” Substantiation: The requirements contained in this section are already contained in 8.3.2 Sample Preparation.Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-67 Log #44 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(8.3.5.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Karen E. Lehtonen, Lion ApparelComment on Proposal No: 1991-1Recommendation: This paragraph indicates there is an associated Annex item, however there is no information in the Annex relating to this paragraph. Annex information should be developed or the (*) should be deleted.Substantiation: No Annex language is provided in this ROP.Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-68 Log #72 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Reject(8.3.5.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: James P. Zeigler, DuPont Personal ProtectionComment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Revise text as follows: 8.3.5.1* 8.3.5.1 The apparatus and supplies for testing shall be those specified in ASTM F 1359, Standard Test Method for Measuring the Liquid Penetration Resistance of Protective Clothing or Protective Ensembles Using a Shower Spray While on a Mannequin , using the following modifications: (1) The surface tension of the water used in testing shall be 32 dynes/cm, + 2 dynes/cm (32 N/m, + 2N/m). (2) The mannequin used in testing shall have straight arms and legs, with arms positioned one arm bent at the elbow upward at a 45 degree angle and the other arm positioned straight down with at the mannequinʼs side. (3) The absorptive garment shall cover all portions of the mannequin that are covered by the test specimen. (4) The method used for mounting the mannequin in the spray chamber shall not interfere with the water spray. Substantiation: The shower test is utilized in several hazardous material protective clothing standards. This change makes the wording consistent with Liquid Tight Integrity testing in NFPA 1994, the most recent standard and in the ROP draft of NFPA 1992. Also, there is no Explanatory Material for this paragraph, therefore, the asterisk should be dropped. The method for mounting the mannequin is part of the apparatus (this section) not part of the procedure.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The integrity testing performed on vapor protective ensembles beyond this test provides additional checks on the liquidtight performance. _______________________________________________________________1991-69 Log #73 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Reject(8.3.6.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: James P. Zeigler, DuPont Personal ProtectionComment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Revise text as follows: 8.3.6.1 Liquidtight integrity testing of garments shall be conducted in accordance with ASTM F 1359, Standard Test Method for Measuring the Liquid Penetration Resistance of Protective Clothing or Protective Ensembles Using a Shower Spray While on a Mannequin , with the following modifications: (1) The method used for mounting the mannequin in the spray chamber shall not interfere with the water spray. (2) (1) The suited mannequin shall be exposed to the liquid spray for a total of 1 hour, 15 minutes in each of the four specified mannequin orientations. (3) (2) At the end of the liquid spray exposure period, excess liquid shall be removed from the surface of the specimen. (4) (3) The specimen shall be inspected within 5 minutes of the end of the liquid spray exposure period for evidence of liquid penetration.Substantiation: The method for mounting the mannequin is part of the apparatus (paragraph 8.3.5.1) not part of the procedure (this paragraph).

1991-18

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 1991 Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The (1) statement needs to remain as action taken on 1991-68 (Log #72) would have removed it. _______________________________________________________________1991-70 Log #74 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(8.3.8) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: James P. Zeigler, DuPont Personal ProtectionComment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Revise text as follows: 8.3.8 Interpretation. 8.3.8.1 Water penetration into the interior of the ensemble shall be based on any Any evidence of liquid inside the specimen or on the interior of the vapor-protective ensemble, as determined by visual, tactile, or absorbent toweling. , shall constitute failure of the specimen. 8.3.8.2 Water penetration between layers of the gloves will be determined if If outer gloves are to be worn in conjunction with chemical protective suit gloves and if the outer gloves partially or completely fill with liquid. or if outer boots are to be worn in conjunction with suit booties to meet the glove or foot protection requirement, these items shall not be permitted to fill with liquid. 8.3.8.3 Water penetration between layers of foot protection shall be determined if outer boots are to be worn in conjunction with suit booties to meet the foot protection requirements and if the outer boots partially or completely fill with liquid. Substantiation: Performance requirements need to be clearly stated in Chapter 7 not as part of the test method interpretation.

Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-71 Log #75 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(8.4) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: James P. Zeigler, DuPont Personal ProtectionComment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Revise text as follows: 8.4 Overall Ensemble Function and Integrity Test. 8.4.1 Application. This test method shall apply to vapor-protective ensembles. 8.4.2 Sample Preparation. 8.4.2.1 Samples shall be complete vapor-protective ensembles. 8.4.2.2 Samples shall be conditioned as specified in 8.1.2. 8.4.3 Specimens. 8.4.3.1 Specimens shall be complete vapor-protective ensembles. 8.4.3.2 At least one specimen shall be tested. 8.4.3.3 Where the vapor-protective ensemble consists of multiple separate layers, and outer layers are not considered gastight, then only the portion of the vapor-protective suit that is considered gastight shall be tested. 8.4.5 Procedure. 8.4.5.1 Suit overall function and integrity shall be measured in accordance with ASTM F 1154, Standard Practices for Qualitatively Evaluating the Comfort, Fit, Function, and Integrity of Chemical Protective Suit Ensembles, with the following parameters: (1) Both exercise Procedures A and B shall be used. (2) Ensembles tested shall meet the sizing range of the test subject as determined in 5.3.1.4. The suit shall be donned in accordance with the manufacturerʼs instructions. (3) Testing shall be conducted at 25oC, +7oC (77oF, +10oF) and relative humidity of 50 percent, +20 percent. (4) Gastight integrity shall be measured as specified in Section 8.2. (5) (4) A determination shall be made that the vapor protective suit is designed to at least accommodate Test subjects shall wear head protection meeting the dimensional requirements of Type I, Class G helmets of ANSI Z89.1, Standard for Industrial Head Protection while carrying out the exercise protocols. (6) The test subject shall have a minimum visual acuity of 20/20 in each eye, uncorrected or corrected with contact lenses, as determined in a visual acuity test or doctorʼs examination. (7) (5) Appropriate underclothing Test subjects will shall wear underclothing in accordance with the manufacturerʼs recommendations, or in lieu of a detailed recommendation, a full-body coverall and a self contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) shall be worn. For consistency in testing, the SCBA shall be compliant with NFPA 1981, Standard on Open-Circuit Self Contained Breathing Apparatus for the Fire Service. (6) Test subjects shall wear a self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) which is compliant with NFPA 1981, Standard on Open-Circuit Self Contained Breathing Apparatus for the Fire Service. 8.4.5.2 Visual acuity testing shall be conducted using a standard 20-foot eye chart, with a normal lighting range of 100-150 ft candles at the chart and with the test subject positions at a distance of 6.1 m (20 ft) from the chart. (1) the test subject shall have a minimum visual acuity of 20/20 in each eye, uncorrected or corrected with contact lenses, as determined in a visual acuity test or doctorʼs examination. (2) 8.4.5.3 The test subject shall then read the standard eye chart through the lens of the SCBA face piece and suit visor to determine the ensemble visor

impact on the test subjectʼs visual acuity. 8.4.5.4 8.4.5.3 At the end of all testing, the test subject shall be instructed to remove his or her hands from each of the gloves while still wearing the suit, touch the bypass valve on the SCBA, and then reinsert his or her hands into the gloves. This action shall be repeated a total of five times. 8.4.5.4 Gastight integrity shall be measured as specified in Section 8.2 upon completion of the exercise protocols. 8.4.6 Report. 8.4.6.1 The end suit pressure shall be reported. 8.4.6.2 The ability of the test subject to satisfactorily complete all exercises shall be reported. 8.4.6.3 The suit accommodation of while wearing head protection meeting the dimensional requirements of Type I, Class G helmets of ANSI Z89.1, Standard for Industrial Head Protection, shall be reported. 8.4.6.4 8.4.6.3 The visual acuity of the test subject when in and out of the suit shall be reported. 8.4.6.5 8.4.6.4 The ability of the test subject to repeatedly remove and reinsert his or her hands completely into the gloves 5 times sequentially shall be reported. 8.4.7 Interpretation. 8.4.7.1 Following the test subject exercises, an ending suit pressure of less than 80 mm (3 5/32 in) shall constitute failing performance after inflation testing shall be used to determine pass/fail performance. 8.4.7.2 The inability of the test subject to satisfactorily complete all exercises while wearing head protection meeting the dimensional requirements of Type I, Class G helmets of ANSI Z89.1, Standard for Industrial Head Protection, shall constitute failing performance be used to determine pass/fail performance. 8.4.7.3 The nonaccommodation of head protection meeting the dimensional requirements of Type I, Class G helmets of ANSI Z89.1, Standard for Industrial Head Protection, by the vapor protective suit shall constitute failing performance. 8.4.7.4 8.4.7.3 The visual acuity of the test subject when inside the suit shall be used for determining pass/fail performance.8.4.7.5 8.4.7.4 The inability of the test subject to repeatedly remove and reinsert his or her hands completely into the gloves 5 times sequentially shall constitute failing performance determine pass/fail performance.Substantiation: Clarify the steps of the test procedures, remove ambiguity as to the sequence of testing, clarify how the testing with hard hat is accomplished, and remove performance requirements that properly belong in Chapter 7.Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-72 Log #6 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(8.4.4) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Glenn P. Jirka, Miami Township Division of Fire and EMSComment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Delete the entire section: 8.4.4 Preparation. 8.4.4.1 Samples for conditioning...” 8.4.4.2 Specimens shall be...” Substantiation: The requirements contained in this section are already contained in 8.4.2 Sample Preparation.Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-73 Log #9 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Reject(8.5.4) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Glenn P. Jirka, Miami Township Division of Fire and EMSComment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Revise text as follows: 8.5.4 Sample Preparation. Substantiation: Change the name of the section to Sample Preparation to be consistent with other similar sections of the test method chapter.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: See Committee Action taken on Comment 1991-64 (Log #19). _______________________________________________________________1991-74 Log #45 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(8.5.5.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Karen E. Lehtonen, Lion ApparelComment on Proposal No: 1991-1Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: “A suit wall connector capable of accommodating the attachment of an airline hose from a pressurized air source shall be installed in the back mid-torso region of the vapor protective suit to be tested as indicated in Figure 8.5.4.2 8.5.5.1 . The connector and airline hose shall allow an airflow rate of 500 L/min...” Substantiation: Incorrect reference.Committee Meeting Action: Accept

1991-19

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 1991 _______________________________________________________________1991-75 Log #46 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(8.5.6.2) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Karen E. Lehtonen, Lion ApparelComment on Proposal No: 1991-1Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: “During the test, the pressure gauge specified in 8.5.4.7 8.5.5.3 shall be attached to one bulkhead connector; the other bulkhead connector shall be plugged...” Substantiation: Incorrect reference.Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-76 Log #76 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(8.5.8) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: James P. Zeigler, DuPont Personal ProtectionComment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Revise text as follows: 8.5.8 Interpretation. 8.5.8.1 A The maximum internal suit pressure of 38 100 mm (11/2 4 in.) water column gauge during the airflow period shall constitute failing performance shall be used to determine pass/fail performance. 8.5.8.2 Following the maximum airflow test, an ending suit pressure of less than 80 mm (3 5/32 in.) water column gauge shall constitute failing performance. The ending pressure after suit inflation testing subsequent to the maximum suit ventilation test shall be used to determine compliance. Substantiation: Remove performance requirements from Chapter 8.Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-77 Log #10 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(8.6.4) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Glenn P. Jirka, Miami Township Division of Fire and EMSComment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Delete text as follows: 8.6.4 Preparation Samples ...” Substantiation: The requirements of this section are already covered in Section 8.6.2 of this chapter. Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-78 Log #47 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(8.6.10.3) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Karen E. Lehtonen, Lion ApparelComment on Proposal No: 1991-1Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: “Samples shall first be conditioned by flexing as specified in 8.1.5 8.1.6. Following flexing, three samples for abrasion...” Substantiation: Incorrect reference.Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-79 Log #67 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(8.7) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: James P. Zeigler, DuPont Personal ProtectionComment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Revise text as follows: 8.7 Flammability Resistance Test. 8.7.1 Application. This test method shall be applied to suit, visor, glove, and footwear materials. 8.7.2 Sample Preparation. 8.7.2.1 Samples for conditioning shall be at least 1-m (1-yd) squares of material. 8.7.2.2 Samples shall be conditioned as specified in 8.1.2. 8.7.3 Specimens. 8.7.3.1 Specimens shall be the size specified in ASTM F 1358. 8.7.3.2 Five specimens in each of the warp direction, machine or coarse, and filling direction, cross-machine or wales, shall be tested. 8.7.3.3 Where the material is nonanisotropic isotropic , then 10 specimens shall be tested. 8.7.4 Procedure. Flame resistance testing shall be conducted in accordance with ASTM F 1358, Standard Test Method for Resistance of Protective Clothing Materials to Flame Impingement . 8.7.5 Report. 8.7.5.1 Afterflame times and burn distances results shall be reported for each specimen and as the average for each material direction. 8.7.5.2 Burn distances shall be reported for each specimen and as the average for each material direction. 8.7.5.3 Ignition during the initial 3-second exposure will be recorded for each specimen.

8.7.5.2 8.7.5.4 The burning behavior observations of each specimen shall be reported Evidence of dripping, melting or flowing during the 12 second exposure period shall be recorded and reported for each specimen. 8.7.6 Interpretation. 8.7.6.1 Failure of the material in any direction shall constitute failing performance Ignition of any individual specimen during the initial 3 second exposure shall be used to determine compliance with the ignition requirements. 8.7.6.2 The longest average afterflame time in any direction shall be used to determine compliance with the afterflame requirements. 8.7.6.3 The longest average burn distance in any direction shall be used to determine compliance with burn distance requirements. 8.7.6.2 8.7.6.4 Any specimen exhibiting melting as evidenced by dripping or flowing shall constitute failing performance. Evidence of melting, dripping, or flowing of any specimen shall be used to determine compliance with melting requirements. Substantiation: Remove performance requirements from Chapter 8 and clarify the criteria by which to interpret compliance the requirements of Chapter 7. Replace the “double-negative” anisotropic with isotropic.Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-80 Log #1 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept in Principle(8.8) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Andy Gbur, IntertekComment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Eliminate requirement that 5 holes be placed into garment for gas sampling.Substantiation: Other less obtrusive techniques can be employed which provide a much safer alternative in preventing possible testing errors.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise 8.8.4.4 to read: “ One or more suit wall connectors shall be installed in the ensemble in such a matter that the fixtures do not interfere with the movement of test subject or negatively affect suit integrity. ” Committee Statement: The Committee agrees with the submitter and provided modified text. _______________________________________________________________1991-81 Log #48 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(8.8.4.2.2) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Karen E. Lehtonen, Lion ApparelComment on Proposal No: 1991-1Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: The exact dimensions of the chamber shall be measured, and shall be used to calculate the total volume of the chamber in order to determine the amount of sulfur hexafluoride gas to be added to achieve the required concentration specified in 8.8.5.6 8.8.5.8 . Substantiation: Incorrect reference.Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-82 Log #2 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept in Principle(8.8.5.8, 8.8.5.15) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Andy Gbur, IntertekComment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Change “ppm” to “%”. This would correlate with the intent of the committee and with 1991-2000 requirements.Substantiation: Old requirement was 1000 ppm or .1%. I believe there has been an error in transcription.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle 1, Revise 8.8.5.8 to read: The test subject shall add sufficient sulfur hexafluoride to achieve a concentration of 1000 ppm, ±100 ppm on a volume basis. 2. Revise the second sentence of 8.8.5.15 to read: The sensitivity of the analytic technique chosen shall provide for a minimum detection limit of at least 0.2 pp in order to determine compliance with 7.9.4.Committee Statement: The Committee provided the corrected text. _______________________________________________________________1991-83 Log #54 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(8.9.3.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Karen E. Lehtonen, Lion ApparelComment on Proposal No: 1991-1Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Specimens shall be complete exhaust valve assemblies mounted into a piece of vapor protective ensembles materials. Substantiation: There is no need to have an entire garment for this test.Committee Meeting Action: Accept

1991-20

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 1991 _______________________________________________________________1991-84 Log #68 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(8.11.3.3) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: James P. Zeigler, DuPont Personal ProtectionComment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Revise text as follows: 8.11.3.3 If the material is nonanisotropic isotropic , then ten specimens shall be tested.Substantiation: Replace the “double-negative” anisotropic with isotropic.Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-85 Log #69 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(8.12.3.3) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: James P. Zeigler, DuPont Personal ProtectionComment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Revise text as follows: 8.12.3.3 If the material is nonanisotropic isotropic , then ten specimens shall be tested.Substantiation: Replace the “double-negative” anisotropic with isotropic.Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-86 Log #11 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(8.12.4) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Glenn P. Jirka, Miami Township Division of Fire and EMSComment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Delete the entire section: 8.12.4 Preparation. 8.12.4.1 Samples...” 8.12.4.2 Samples...” Substantiation: The requirements of this section are already covered in section 8.12.2 of this chapter. Additionally, two separate sections 8.12.3 exist; one that this comment suggest deleting and 8.12.3 Specimens.Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-87 Log #49 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(8.15.4) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Karen E. Lehtonen, Lion ApparelComment on Proposal No: 1991-1Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Specimens shall be evaluated in accordance with ASTM F1790, Standard Test Methods for Measuring Cut Resistance of Materials Used in Protective Clothing, with the modification that the specimens shall be tested to a specific load with the measurement of cut distance of blade travel . Substantiation: Cut distance is not what is being measured in this modified test, it is the distance of blade travel.Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-88 Log #50 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(8.15.5 and 8.15.6) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Karen E. Lehtonen, Lion ApparelComment on Proposal No: 1991-1Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 8.15.5.1 The cut distance of blade travel shall be reported to the nearest 1 mm (3/64 in.) for each sample specimen. 8.15.5.2 The average cut distance of blade travel in millimeters (in.) shall be reported for all specimens tested. 8.15.6 Interpretation. The average cut distance of blade travel shall be used to determine pass/fail performance. Substantiation: Cut distance is not what is being measured in this modified test, it is the distance of blade travel.Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-89 Log #51 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(8.16.5.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Karen E. Lehtonen, Lion ApparelComment on Proposal No: 1991-1Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: The puncture force shall be reported for each specimen to the nearest 0.05 kg (0.1 lb) 1N (0.1 lbf) of force . Substantiation: The proper unit of the force to be applied is Newtons.Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-90 Log #70 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Reject(8.18.7) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: James P. Zeigler, DuPont Personal ProtectionComment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Revise text as follows: 8.18.7 Interpretation .

8.18.7.1 The average measured voltage at 5 seconds for each surface tested shall be used individually to determine pass/fail compliance with the static discharge requirements. 8.18.7.2 Failure of any surface to meet the 5 second voltage requirements constitutes failure of the specimen. Substantiation: Clarify interpretive basis for compliance.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: See Committee Action on Comment 1991-54 (Log #35). _______________________________________________________________1991-91 Log #57 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(8.22.6.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Karen E. Lehtonen, Lion ApparelComment on Proposal No: 1991-1Recommendation: Revise test to read as follows: Deflection at 182 kg (400 lb) 1779 N (400 lbf) shall be reported to the nearest 1 mm (1/32 in). Substantiation: Proper units for load applications is Newtons.Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-92 Log #52 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(8.26.3.3) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Karen E. Lehtonen, Lion ApparelComment on Proposal No: 1991-1Recommendation: Delete paragraph.Substantiation: Requirements in this paragraph are already stated in the preconditioning requirements in 8.1.2.Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-93 Log #71 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(8.27) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: James P. Zeigler, DuPont Personal ProtectionComment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Revise text as follows: 8.27 Overall ensemble Flash test. 8.27.1 Application. This test method shall apply to vapor-protective ensembles. 8.27.2 Sample Preparation. 8.27.2.1 Samples shall be complete vapor-protective ensembles. 8.27.2.2 Samples shall include any additional protective clothing components and equipment that are necessary to provide full-body flash protection to the wearer, and shall be tested in conjunction with the vapor-protective suit ensemble. 8.27.2.3 Samples shall be conditioned as specified in 8.1.2. 8.27.3 Specimens. 8.27.3.1 Specimens shall be complete vapor-protective ensembles. 8.27.3.2 Samples Specimens shall include any additional protective clothing components and equipment that are necessary to provide full-body flash protection to the wearer, and shall be tested in conjunction with the vapor-protective suit ensemble. 8.27.3.3 At least one specimen shall be tested. 8.27.4 Apparatus. 8.27.4.1 A human form mannequin shall be used to support the protective suit during chemical flash fire testing. The mannequin shall be coated with a suitable flame-retardant coating. 8.27.4.2 A one-piece flame retardant coverall shall be placed over the mannequin. 8.27.4.3 The protective suit ensemble to be tested shall be placed on the mannequin, over the flame-resistant clothing, in accordance with the manufacturerʼs instructions. 8.27.4.4 A flash chamber shall be constructed as illustrated in Figure 8.27.4.4 and shall include the following: (1) It shall have an internal width and depth of 2 m, +100 mm (6.5 ft, +4 in.) and a height of 2.5 m, +200 mm (8 ft, +8 in). (2) It shall be constructed of 50 mm – 100 mm (2 in – 4 in) framing lumber or other suitable structural material. Fire wall, 20 mm (3.4 in.), or other suitable flame-resistant paneling, shall be used on the opposite two walls of the chamber. A piece of 13-mm (1/2 in.) heat-tempered safety glass shall be used on the remaining walls for multiple viewing points during testing. At least one of the glass walls shall be attached by a means that allows for easy removal of the mannequin. Both glass walls shall be configured to achieve gastight seals with the chamber. (3) All fire wall seams shall be taped and the interior walls of the chamber coated with a suitable flame-retardant material. (4) It shall have a port for filling the chamber with propane gas located as shown in Figure 8.27.4.4. The port shall allow isolation of the propane source through a valve. The port shall be leak free with respect to the outside environment. (5) It shall have two ports for electric ignitors located as showing in Figure 8.27.4.4. The port shall be leak free with respect to the outside environment. (6) It shall have a top that allows containment of propane gas within the chamber during filling and venting of flash pressure after ignition.

1991-21

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 1991 (7) A suitable stand that allows the mannequin to be positioned 305 mm, +25 mm (1 ft, +1 in.) above the chamber floor shall be constructed.

FIGURE 8.27.4.4 Overall Ensemble Chemical Flash Chamber.[Existing 6.27.4.4 (no change)]

8.27.5 Procedure. 8.27.5.1 Each protective suit ensemble selected shall be tested for gastight integrity in accordance with ASTM F 1052, Standard Test Methods for Pressure Testing of Vapor-Protective Ensembles. 8.27.5.2 The suited mannequin shall be placed on the stand in the center of the flash chamber in an upright stationary position. 8.27.5.3 Propane gas, at 99 percent purity or better, shall be metered into the chamber at a delivery pressure of 172.3, +13.8 kPa (25 psi, +2 psi) and rate of 0.16 m3/min, +0.01 m3/min (5.5 ft3/min, +1.2 ft3.in). The concentration of propane within the chamber shall be sufficient to produce a visible chemical flash fire lasting 7 seconds, + second. The concentration of the propane shall be permitted to be checked by a combustible gas meter or similar detector. 8.27.5.4 The flash chamber shall be viewed at both vantage points, front and back, throughout the test. Video documentation shall also be conducted from the front vantage point. 8.27.5.5 The chamber atmosphere shall be remotely ignited at 30 seconds, +5 seconds after the chamber has been filled with propane gas. 8.27.5.6 The suited mannequin shall not be removed until all surfaces have cooled to ambient temperature. 8.27.5.7 The protective suit ensemble shall be removed from the mannequin and examined visually for physical signs of damage from thermal exposure. 8.27.5.8 A gastight integrity test shall be performed on the suit ensemble in accordance with Section 8.2, Gastight Integrity Test, following the chemical flash fire exposure. 8.27.5.9 Following gastight integrity testing, the suit ensemble shall be donned by a test subject and evaluated for visual acuity. 8.27.5.9.1 The test subject shall have a minimum visual acuity of 20/20 in each eye, uncorrected or corrected with contact lenses, as determined in a visual acuity test or doctorʼs examination. 8.27.5.9.2 Visual acuity testing from within the suit ensemble shall be conducted using a standard 20-foot eye chart with a normal lighting range of 100- 150 ft-candles at the chart and with the test subject positions at a distance of 6.1 m (20 ft) from the chart. 8.27.5.9.3 The test subject shall then read the standard eye chart through the lens of the SCBA face piece and suit ensemble visor(s) to determine his or her visual acuity. 8.27.5.10 All testing shall be performed at a temperature of 24oC, +11oC (75o, +20oF) and a relative humidity of 70 percent, +25 percent. Tests shall not be conducted outdoors during precipitation. 8.27.6 Report. 8.27.6.1 The before and after gastight integrity test results, afteflame time, and visor clarity shall be reported for each test specimen. 8.27.6.2 An illustration of the protective suit ensemble, as shown in Figure 8.27.6.2, shall be prepared and the location of any damage shall be shown. Separate illustrations shall be prepared for over covers if tested with the protective suit ensemble. Damage shall include, but not be limited to, charring, blistering, evidence of material melting, delamination, or destruction of any suit components.

FIGURE 8.27.6.2 Suit Diagram (for Noting Damage Locations)[Existing Figure 6.27.6.2 (no change)]

8.27.7 Interpretation. 8.27.7.1 Any specimen with an afterflame time greater than 2 seconds shall constitute failing performance. The maximum of afterflame time among all specimens shall be used to determine compliance with the afterflame requirement. 8.27.7.2 If the ending pressure is less than 13 mm (1.2 in.), the specimen fails the test. The lowest ending inflation test pressure will be used to determine compliance to the post flash fire simulation inflation test requirements. 8.27.7.3 The visual acuity of the test subject inside the suit ensemble shall be used for determining pass/fail compliance with the post flash fire simulation visual acuity requirements.Substantiation: Remove performance requirements from Chapter 8 and clari-fy the criteria by which to interpret compliance the requirements of Chapter 7. Correct sample and specimen wording. Clarify that testing is performed on the ensemble, not the suit.Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-94 Log #92 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Reject(8.27) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Terry Bindernagel, Cleveland Fire DeparmentComment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Revise to read as follows: 8.27 Overall Ensemble Flash Test. 8.27.1 Application. This test method shall apply to vapor-protective ensem-bles. 8.27.2 Sample Preparation.

8.27.2.1 Samples for conditioning shall be complete vapor-protective ensem-bles. 8.27.2.2 Samples shall include any additional protective clothing components and equipment that are necessary to provide full-body flash protection to the wearer, and shall be tested in conjunction with the vapor-protective suit ensemble . 8.27.2.3 Samples shall be conditioned as specified in 8.1.2. 8.27.3 Specimens. 8.27.3.1 Specimens shall be complete vapor-protective ensembles. 8.27.3.2 Samples Specimens shall include any additional protective clothing components and equipment that are necessary to provide full-body flash protec-tion to the wearer, and shall be tested in conjunction with the vapor-protective suit ensemble . 8.27.3.3 Specimens shall be conditioned as specified in 8.1.2. 8.27.4 Apparatus. 8.27.4.1 A human form mannequin shall be used to support the protective suit ensemble during chemical flash fire testing. The mannequin shall be coat-ed with a suitable flame-retardant coating. 8.27.4.2 A one-piece flame retardant coverall shall be placed over the manne-quin. 8.27.4.3 The protective suit to be tested shall be placed on the mannequin, over the flame-resistant clothing, in accordance with the manufacturerʼs instructions. Delete all of Section 8.27.4.4. FIGURE 8.27.4.4 Overall Ensemble chemical Flash Chamber. [Existing 6.27.4.4 (no change)] Add a new section 8.27.4.4: 8.27.4.4 A flash fire chamber as described in ASTM F 1930, Standard Test Method for Evaluation of Flame Resistance Clothing for Protection Against Flash Fire Simulations Using an Instrumented Mannequin . Continue to revise text as follows: 8.27.5 Procedure. 8.27.5.1 Each protective suit ensemble selected shall be tested for gastight integrity in accordance with ASTM F 1052, Standard Test Method for Pressure Testing of Vapor-Protective Ensembles in accordance with Section 8.2, Gastight Integrity Test, following the chemical flash fire exposure and demon-strate an ending pressure greater than 80 (3 5/32 in) water gauge. 8.27.5.2 A uniform heat flux of 2 cal/cm 2 /sec shall be confirmed using the calibration procedures described in ASTM F 1930 . 8.27.5.3 8.27.5.2 The instrumented mannequin will be removed from the test chamber and The the mannequin with the ensemble shall be placed on the stand in the center of the flash chamber in an upright stationary position in the same location formerly occupied by the instrumented mannequin . 8.27.5.3 Propane gas, at 99 percent purity or better, shall be metered into the chamber at a delivery pressure of 172.3, + 13.8 kPa (25 psi, + 2 psi) and rate of 0.16 m 3 /min, + 0.01 m2/min(5 1/2 ft 3 /min, + 1/4 ft 3 /min). The concentration of propane within the chamber shall be sufficient to produce a visible chemical flash fire lasting 7 seconds, + 1 second. The concentration of the propane shall be permitted to be checked by a combustible gas meter or similar detector. 8.27.5.4 The flash chamber shall be viewed at both from a front vantage point s, front and back, for the test. Video documentation shall also be con-ducted from the vantage point. 8.27.5.5 The chamber atmosphere shall be remotely ignited at 30 seconds, + 5 seconds after the chamber has been filled with propane gas. 8.27.5.5 The ensemble shall be subject to 4-seconds flame exposure. Observation of the garment will continue for an additional one minute. 8.27.5.6 The suited mannequin shall not be removed until all surfaces have cooled to ambient temperature. 8.27.5.7 The protective suit ensemble shall be removed from the mannequin and examined visually for physical signs of damage from thermal exposure. 8.27.5.8 A gastight integrity test shall be performed on the suit ensemble in accordance with Section 8.2, Gastight Integrity Test, following the chemical flash fire exposure. 8.27.5.9 Following gastight integrity testing, the suit ensemble shall be donned by a test subject and evaluated for visual acuity. 8.27.5.9.1 The test subject shall have a minimum visual acuity of 20/20 in each eye, uncorrected or corrected with contact lenses, as determined in a visu-al acuity test or doctorʼs examination. 8.27.5.9.2 Visual acuity testing from within the suit ensemble shall be con-ducted using a standard 20-foot eye chart with a normal lighting range of 100-150 ft-candles at the chart and with the test subject positions at a distance of 6.1 m (20 ft) from the chart. 8.27.5.9.3 The test subject shall then read the standard eye chart through the lens of the SCBA face piece and suit ensemble visor (s) to determine his or her visual acuity. 8.27.5.10 All testing shall be performed at a temperature of 24 o C, + 11 o C (75 o F, + 20 o F) and a relative humidity of 70 percent, + 25 percent. Tests shall not be conducted outdoors during precipitation. 8.27.6 Report. 8.27.6.1 The before and after gastight integrity test results, afterflame time, and visor clarity shall be reported for each test specimen. 8.27.6.2 An illustration of the protective suit ensemble , as shown in Figure 8.27.6.2, shall be prepared and the location of any damage shall be shown. Separate illustrations shall be prepared for over covers if tested with the protec-tive suit f or each separable layer of the ensemble . Damage shall include, but

1991-22

Report on Comments — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 1991 not be limited to, charring, blistering, evidence of material melting, drip and flow of material creating secondary pool fires, delamination, or destruction of any suit ensemble components. FIGURE 8.27.6.2 Suit Diagram (for Noting Damage Locations). [Existing Figure 6.27.6.2 (no change)] 8.27.7 Interpretation. 8.27.7.1 Any specimen with an afterflame time greater than 2 seconds shall constitute failing performance. Pass/fail performance on the ensemble shall be based on the afterflame time, inflation test ending pressure and visual acuity after flame exposure. Failure of any one of these criteria constitutes failure of the specimen . 8.27.7.2 If the ending pressure is less than 13 mm (3/4 in.), the specimen fails the test. When the testing of multiple specimens is required, failure all specimens must pass all criteria of the testing. 8.27.7.3 The visual acuity of the test subject inside the suit ensemble shall be used for determining pass/fail. Substantiation: Flammability Testing - Drop all listed testing requirements and certifications for flammability test-ing. The Technical Committee is asked to review the Executive Fire Officer Program (EFOP) research paper entitled Comparative Effects of Thermal Energy to Personnel in Flash Fires While Wearing Various Level A Chemical Protective Clothing (CPC) Ensembles . This research was presented to the NFPA 1991 Technical Committee at the Kansas City meeting in 2003. The basic premise of the research was to measure the effects of chemical flash fires to personnel in terms of total body burns while wearing Limited Use Level A suits, with and without aluminized overcovers, and utilizing various undergar-ments. The research paper, the presentation to the technical committee, and this submission to the technical committee are being done by the same author. Flammability testing, as outlined in the proposed draft, is unrealistic in terms of potential, as outlined by the research document. Flammability testing, per the proposed draft, is designed to show exposure to a single source of heat such as a lighter. As shown by the research, even the ASTM F1001 test battery of chemicals, which are representative of the occurrences we as responders will encounter, consists of 11 Class I flammable liquids and 1 flammable gas. The research further suggests that 89 of 90 chemicals listed (pages 1-117, excluding solids) in the NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards are flammable Class I liquids (43), flammable gases (7), or combustible liquids (46). Therefore the true potential to an event is not the potential to be exposed to a flame, but rath-er a flammable vapor that can have a much larger flame impingement area than the current testing suggests. The committee is requested to change the true sense of flame impingement to more accurately assess the ability of personnel wearing 1991 garments or ensembles to escape an area where the conditions have changed because of a “dual-event chemical”, i.e. a substance with vapor contact and thermal con-cerns. The true potential of such an event is better addressed in the chemical flash fire (optional, not required) testing. The committee is aware that at this time, no manufacturer can meet the stated chemical flash fire requirement. Therefore, I turn the committees attention to numerous areas of personal con-cern in national publications (Time Magazine, March 29, 2004) with pictures showing apparent NFPA 1991 garments with the captions “protection against chemicals and flash fire”. The above is used to stress with the committee that efforts must reflect the concerns (and apparent misconceptions) of the response community. The com-mittee is urged to drop all language stating flammability requirements, and rea-sonably attempt to identify the following: - The expectations of escape from a dual event chemical by representing total body burns expected wearing various ensembles and garments. This shall be a measured heat flux generation against the ensemble while worn by a manne-quin similar to ThermoMan. This shall attempt comparative data of realistic potential to escape a flame and/or chemical flash event. - Such data shall be included in labeling information. - The effects of secondary pool fires creating by drip and flow characteristics of suit materials shall be explained in test data. The rate of drip and flow shall be measured in anticipated pool size fires created by varying the heat flux. This information would be similar to testing as per the ASTM F1001 battery of tests. This information would allow Incident Commanders and Safety Officers to better anticipate the true ability of personnel in CPC to escape thermal events.

Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The Committee agrees that improvements to the method for evaluating ensemble performance in chemical flash fires should be investigated and welcomes suggestions for changes to the method. However, the proposed test method is problematic for evaluating chemical protective ensembles because the ensemble has to be radically modified in order to place it on the instrumented manikin, making it impossible to conduct the necessary follow-on tests. Even if it were possible to use the recommended test, specific performance criteria would need to be developed, In addition, the committee disagrees with the submitter that the overall ensemble flash fire test should become the sole basis of the flame resistance test requirements in the standard. The overall ensemble flash fire test and the individual material flame resistance test are not intended for the same purposes. The base requirements involving the flame resistance test are to ensure that the ensemble does not create addi-tional hazards during any flame contact, not necessarily a chemical flash fire. The base requirement is not intended to connote any level of flame or fire pro-tection. A more rigorous flame resistance requirement is used for the optional flash fire escape criteria in addition to other tests, including the overall ensem-ble flash fire test. _______________________________________________________________1991-95 Log #18 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(8.27.3.2) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Daniel Gohlke, W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc.Comment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Change “samples” to “specimens”.Substantiation: Editorial.Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-96 Log #53 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(8.28.5) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Karen E. Lehtonen, Lion ApparelComment on Proposal No: 1991-1Recommendation: Add text to read as follows: (4) T-150 Quartz tubes shall be used. Substantiation: Currently there is a proposed errata for ISO 17492 but I am not aware of its issuance at this time. Therefore we should make the clarifica-tion in this standard until the errata is issued.Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-97 Log #17 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(A.1.2.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Daniel Gohlke, W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc.Comment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Add new A.1.2.1 to read: A.1.2.1 This standard does not include any specific design or performance requirement or test method that demonstrates protection from particulates such as radiological particulates or particulate toxins. Protection from particulates is predicated on the performance provided by the overall ensemble leakage required and test in 7.9.4 and 8.8.Substantiation: New text added as directed by TC minutes of February 6-7, 2004.Committee Meeting Action: Accept _______________________________________________________________1991-98 Log #12 FAE-HAZ Final Action: Accept(A.3.3.50) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Glenn P. Jirka, Miami Township Division of Fire and EMSComment on Proposal No: 1991-1aRecommendation: Add new text to read as follows: A.3.3.50 Ionizing radiation includes alpha particles, beta particles, x-rays, and gamma rays. Ionizing radiation derives its name from its ability to “ionize” atoms and molecules with which it interacts. In other words, ionizing particles and energy waves possess enough energy to literally knock apart the atomic structure of the material and break chemical bonds. This rearrangement of the atomic structure of a material results in a release of a great deal of energy in a very small area. When this occurs in living tissue, the tissue can be severely damaged or destroyed. Additionally, the atomic particles knocked loose by the radiation can themselves ionize other atoms, propagating the damage. Substantiation: Addition of this annex material (with a change to the term “ionizing radiation” proposed in an additional comment) will further clarify the hazards associated with ionizing radiation for the garment users.Committee Meeting Action: Accept

Documents

Report on Comments (ROC) - National Fire Protection Association