Public Comment No. 176-NFPA [ Global Input ] Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment. Submitter Information Verification

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Public Comment No. 176-NFPA [ Global Input ] Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment. Submitter Information Verification"

Transcription

1 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 176-NFPA [ Global Input ] Reinstate Test Methods 8.19, Puncture Resistance Two, and 8.21, Impact and Compression test, from NFPA Problems exist with the reference to ASTM F2413. The proposed changes for reinstating Section 8.19 and 8.21 from NFPA limit the performance properties to the test methods and criteria of interest. First Revision No. 46-NFPA [Chapter 7] Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 15:39:56 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected but see related SR Resolution: SR-65-NFPA Statement: The TC decided to reference the ASTM test methods and performance criteria instead of the specifications. The TC is also adding two tests, Puncture Resistance Test Two, and Impact and Compression Tests to the end of this Chapter.

2 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 177-NFPA [ Global Input ] Add new Annex C with a description of the performance criteria and test methods. A sample appendix table is provided for both performance and test methods. Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved Comparison_of_CPC_Performance_Criteria_Updated2.doc Sample table of performance requirements for Annex End users could benefit from description and rationale for both performance criteria and test methods. The sample table requires modification. First Revision No. 46-NFPA [Chapter 7] Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 15:43:52 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The TC is anticipating significant changes to NFPA 1994 which would invalidate this Annex text.

3 Comparison of NFPA 1991, NFPA 1992, and NFPA 1994 Performance Criteria Property Test Method Measurement Overall Ensemble, Suit, or Garment Performance Gas-tight integrity ASTM F 1052 Ending test pressure Inward gas leakage (SF6) Man-in-Simulant Test (MIST) Liquid-tight integrity (suits) Particle inward leakage NFPA Test Protocol NFPA Test Protocol ASTM F 1359 NFPA Test Protocol Percentage of leakage Average local physiological protective dosage factor (PPDFi) Average systemic physiological protective dosage factor (PPDFsys) Visible leakage inside suit and on inner liquidabsorptive garment Observed particle leakage on interior black garment NFPA mm water gauge pressure; tested as part of overall function test (7.1.2) 0.02% (7.6.4) None after 60 minutes; also no collection of liquid in outer gloves or outer boots (7.1.1) Performance Criteria in Standard (applicable paragraph) NFPA None after 20 minutes (7.1.1, 7.4.1, 7.5.1) NFPA Class 2 NFPA Class ( ) 120 ( ) 361 ( ) 76 ( ) NFPA Class 4 None ( ) 1

4 Property Test Method Measurement Overall function and gas-tight or liquidtight integrity ASTM F 1154/F 1052 or F 1359 Ending pressure following test NFPA mm water gauge pressure (7.1.2) Performance Criteria in Standard (applicable paragraph) NFPA NFPA Class 2 NFPA Class 3 NFPA Class 4 Detection of liquid inside suit or on liquid-absorptive garment None after 20 minutes (7.1.2) Same as NFPA 1992 ( ) None after 4 minutes ( ) Completion of specified tasks While wearing heat protective device (7.1.2) 15 minutes (7.1.2) 20 minutes ( ) Same as NFPA 1994 Class 2 ( ) Same as NFPA 1994 Class 2 ( ) Accommodation of ANSI Class G Type I helmet With hood ( ) Same as NFPA 1994 Class 2 ( ) Same as NFPA 1994 Class 2 ( ) Visual acuity through visor and respirator facepiece 20/35 or better (7.1.2) 20/35 or better (7.1.2) With hooded visor, 20/35 or better ( ) Same as NFPA 1994 Class 2 ( ) Same as NFPA 1994 Class 2 ( ) Subject ability to remove and reinsert hands into gloves Must be done 5 times after test (7.1.2) Closure integrity Closure flap stays closed ( ) Same as NFPA 1992 ( ) Same as NFPA 1992 ( ) Same as NFPA 1992 ( ) Maximum suit ventilation rate NFPA Test Protocol/ ASTM F 1052 Maximum internal suit pressure 100 mm water gauge (7.1.3) Ending suit pressure 80 mm water gauge (7.1.3) 2

5 Property Test Method Measurement Gas-tight integrity after external fitting installation External fitting pull out strength Exhaust value inward leakage Exhaust value mounting strength ASTM F 1052 NFPA Test Protocol NFPA Test Protocol NFPA Test Protocol Ending suit pressure NFPA mm water gauge (7.1.4) Force at failure 1000 N or 225 lbf (7.1.6) Flowrate during leakage Force required to separate valve from suit wall 30 m//min (7.1.7) 135 N or 30 lbf (7.1.5) Performance Criteria in Standard (applicable paragraph) NFPA NFPA Class 2 Same as NFPA 1991 ( ) Same as NFPA 1991 ( ) Same as NFPA 1991 ( ) NFPA Class 3 Same as NFPA 1991 ( ) Same as NFPA 1991 ( ) Same as NFPA 1991 ( ) NFPA Class 4 Same as NFPA 1991 ( ) Same as NFPA 1991 ( ) Same as NFPA 1991 ( ) Suit or Garment Material Performance Permeation resistance (industrial chemicals) ASTM F 739 Test temperature 27 o C (81 o F) Breakthrough detection time 1 hour against each chemical in List A (7.2.1); Liquids: 100 g/m 2 Gases: 100% Precondition 1 Permeation resistance (toxic industrial chemicals) ASTM F 739 for NFPA 1991 NFPA Test Protocol for NFPA 1994 Test temperature 32 o C (90 o F) Breakthrough detection time (NFPA 1991) Cumulative permeation in 1 hour (NFPA 1994) 1 hour against each chemical in List B (7.6.1); Liquids: 100 g/m 2 Gases: 100% Precondition g/cm 2 against each chemical in List G ( ); Liquids: 10 g/m 2 Gases: 350 ppm Closed top Precondition g/cm 2 against each chemical in List G ( ); Liquids: 10 g/m 2 Gases: 40 ppm Open top Precondition 11 3

6 Property Test Method Measurement Permeation resistance (chemical warfare agents) ASTM F 739 (modified) for NFPA 1991 NFPA Test Protocol for NFPA 1994 Test temperature 32 o C (90 o F) Cumulative permeation in 1-hour NFPA g/cm 2 against Sarin (GB) (7.6.2); 4.0 g/cm 2 against distilled Mustard (HD) (7.6.3); Liquids: 100 g/m 2 Gases: 100% Precondition 1 Performance Criteria in Standard (applicable paragraph) NFPA NFPA Class g/cm 2 against Soman (GD) ( ); 4.0 g/cm 2 against distilled Mustard (HD) ( ); Liquids: 10 g/m 2 Gases: 350 ppm Closed top Precondition 11 NFPA Class g/cm 2 against Soman (GD) ( ); 4.0 g/cm 2 against distilled Mustard (HD) ( ); Liquids: 10 g/m 2 Gases: 40 ppm Open top Precondition 11 NFPA Class 4 Chemical penetration resistance ASTM F 903 Procedure C Detection of visible penetration None against each chemical in list E (7.1.3); Precondition 6 Biopenetration resistance ASTM F 1671 Detection of virus in assay None ( ); Precondition 10 Same as NFPA 1994 Class 2 ( ) Same as NFPA 1994 Class 2 ( ) Flame resistance ASTM F 1358 *measured during 12-second exposure 3-second Ignition None (7.2.2) Afterflame time* Burn distance* 10 seconds (7.2.2) 100 mm (7.2.2) Burning behavior* No melting (7.2.2) 4

7 Property Test Method Measurement NFPA Burst strength ASTM D 751 Burst force 200 N or 45 lbf (7.2.3) Puncture propagation tear resistance Cold temperature performance ASTM D 2582 Tear force 49 N or 11 lbf (7.2.4) ASTM D 747 (modified) Bending moment at -25 o C (13 o F) N x m or 0.5 in.-lbf (7.2.5) Performance Criteria in Standard (applicable paragraph) NFPA N or 30 lbf (7.1.4) 25 N or 5.6 lbf (7.1.5) 0.68 N x m or 0.5 in.-lbf (7.1.6) NFPA Class N or 35 lbf ( ) 31 N or 7 lbf ( ) Same as NFPA 1991 ( ) NFPA Class 3 Same as NFPA 1992 ( ) Same as NFPA 1992 ( ) Same as NFPA 1991 ( ) Total heat loss ASTM F 1868 Total heat loss 200 W/m 2 Garment Seam Performance Permeation resistance (industrial chemicals) Permeation resistance (toxic industrial chemicals) ASTM F 739 Test temperature 27 o C (81 o F) ASTM F 739 for NFPA 1991 NFPA Test Protocol for NFPA 1994 Test temperature 32 o C (90 o F) Breakthrough detection time Breakthrough detection time (NFPA 1991) Cumulative permeation in 1 hour (NFPA 1994) 1 hour against chemicals in List A (7.2.6); Liquids: 100 g/m 2 Gases: 100% 1 hour against each chemical in List B (7.6.1); Liquids: 100 g/m 2 Gases: 100% 6.0 g/cm 2 against each chemical in List G ( ); Liquids: 10 g/m 2 Gases: 350 ppm Closed top ( ) 6.0 g/cm 2 against each chemical in List G ( ); Liquids: 10 g/m 2 Gases: 40 ppm Open top NFPA Class 4 Same as NFPA 1992 ( ) Same as NFPA 1992 ( ) Same as NFPA 1991 ( ) 450 W/m 2 ( ) 5

8 Property Test Method Measurement Permeation resistance (chemical warfare agents) Chemical Penetration resistance Biopenetration resistance ASTM F 739 (modified) for NFPA 1991 NFPA Test Protocol for NFPA 1994 Test temperature 32 o C (90 o F) ASTM F 903 Procedure C ASTM F 1671 Cumulative permeation in 1-hour Detection of visible penetration Detection of virus in assay Seam strength ASTM D 751 Force to separate seam Garment Closure Performance Chemical penetration resistance ASTM F 903 Detection of visible penetration Closure strength ASTM D 751 Force to separate closure Visor Material Performance NFPA g/cm 2 against Sarin (GB) (7.6.2); 4.0 g/cm 2 against distilled Mustard (HD) (7.6.3); Liquids: 100 g/m 2 Gases: 100% 2.88 kn/m or 30 lbf/2 in. (7.2.7) None against each chemical in List C (7.2.8); Precondition kn/m or 30 lbf/2 in. (7.2.9) Performance Criteria in Standard (applicable paragraph) NFPA None against each chemical in list F ( ) 1.31 kn/m or 15 lbf/2 in ( ) None against each chemical in list F ( ); Precondition kn/m or 15 lbf/2 in. ( ) NFPA Class g/cm 2 against Soman (GD) ( ); 4.0 g/cm 2 against distilled Mustard (HD) ( ); Liquids: 10 g/m 2 Gases: 350 ppm Closed top Same as NFPA 1992 ( ) Same as NFPA 1992 ( ) NFPA Class g/cm 2 against Soman (GD) ( ); 4.0 g/cm 2 against distilled Mustard (HD) ( ); Liquids: 10 g/m 2 Gases: 40 ppm Open top None ( ) Same as NFPA 1992 ( ) Same as NFPA 1992 ( ) NFPA Class 4 Same as NFPA 1994 Class 2 ( ) Same as NFPA 1992 ( ) Same as NFPA 1992 ( ) 6

9 Property Test Method Measurement Permeation resistance (industrial chemicals) Permeation resistance (toxic industrial chemicals) Permeation resistance (chemical warfare agents) Chemical penetration resistance Biopenetration resistance ASTM F 739 Test temperature 27 o C (81 o F) ASTM F 739 for NFPA 1991 NFPA Test Protocol for NFPA 1994 Test temperature 32 o C (90 o F) ASTM F 739 (modified) for NFPA 1991 NFPA Test Protocol for NFPA 1994 Test temperature 32 o C (90 o F) ASTM F 903 Procedure C ASTM F 1671 Breakthrough detection time Breakthrough detection time (NFPA 1991) Cumulative permeation in 1 hour (NFPA 1994) Cumulative permeation in 1-hour Detection of visible penetration Detection of virus in assay NFPA hour against each chemical in List A (7.3.1); Liquids: 100 g/m 2 Gases: 100% Precondition 1 1 hour against each chemical in List B (7.6.1); Liquids: 100 g/m 2 Gases: 100% Precondition g/cm 2 against Sarin (GB) (7.6.2); 4.0 g/cm 2 against distilled Mustard (HD) (7.6.3); Liquids: 100 g/m 2 Gases: 100% Precondition 1 Performance Criteria in Standard (applicable paragraph) NFPA None against each chemical in list E ( ) NFPA Class g/cm 2 against each chemical in List G ( ); Liquids: 10 g/m 2 Gases: 350 ppm Closed top 1.25 g/cm 2 against Soman (GD) ( ); 4.0 g/cm 2 against distilled Mustard (HD) ( ); Liquids: 10 g/m 2 Gases: 350 ppm Closed top None ( ) NFPA Class g/cm 2 against each chemical in List G ( ); Liquids: 10 g/m 2 Gases: 40 ppm Open top 1.25 g/cm 2 against Soman (GD) ( ); 4.0 g/cm 2 against distilled Mustard (HD) ( ); Liquids: 10 g/m 2 Gases: 40 ppm Open top Missing requirement NFPA Class 4 Same as NFPA 1994 Class 2 ( ) 7

10 Property Test Method Measurement Flame resistance ASTM F 1358 *measured during 12-second exposure NFPA second Ignition None (7.3.2) Afterflame time* Burn distance* 10 seconds (7.3.2) 100 mm (7.3.2) Performance Criteria in Standard (applicable paragraph) NFPA NFPA Class 2 NFPA Class 3 NFPA Class 4 Burning behavior* No melting (7.3.2) Burst strength ASTM D 751 Burst force 200 N or 45 lbf (7.3.3) 135 N or 30 lbf ( ) 156 N or 35 lbf ( ) Same as NFPA 1992 ( ) Same as NFPA 1992 ( ) Puncture propagation tear resistance ASTM D 2582 Tear force 49 N or 11 lbs force (7.3.4) 25 N or 5.5 lbf ( ) 36 N or 8 lbs force ( ) Same as NFPA 1992 ( ) Same as NFPA 1992 ( ) Cold temperature performance ASTM D 2136 (modified) Embrittlement behavior No cracking or evidence of visible damage (7.3.5) Same as NFPA 1991 ( ) Same as NFPA 1991 ( ) Same as NFPA 1991 ( ) Same as NFPA 1991 ( ) Visor Seam Performance Permeation resistance (industrial chemicals) ASTM F 739 Test temperature 27 o C (81 o F) Breakthrough detection time 1 hour against chemicals in List A (7.3.6); Liquids: 100 g/m 2 Gases: 100% 8

11 Property Test Method Measurement Permeation resistance (toxic industrial chemicals) Permeation resistance (chemical warfare agents) Chemical penetration resistance ASTM F 739 for NFPA 1991 NFPA Test Protocol for NFPA 1994 Test temperature 32 o C (90 o F) ASTM F 739 (modified) for NFPA 1991 NFPA Test Protocol for NFPA 1994 Test temperature 32 o C (90 o F) ASTM F 903 Procedure C Breakthrough detection time (NFPA 1991) Cumulative permeation in 1 hour (NFPA 1994) Cumulative permeation in 1-hour Detection of visible penetration Seam strength ASTM D 751 Force to separate seam Overall Glove Performance Liquid-tight integrity (gloves) ASTM D 5151 (modified) Visible leakage on inner liquidabsorptive cover NFPA hour against each chemical in List B (7.6.1); Liquids: 100 g/m 2 Gases: 100% 1.25 g/cm 2 against Sarin (GB) (7.6.2); 4.0 g/cm 2 against distilled Mustard (HD) (7.6.3); Liquids: 100 g/m 2 Gases: 100% 2.88 kn/m or 30 lbf/2 in. (7.3.7) Performance Criteria in Standard (applicable paragraph) NFPA None against each chemical in list F ( ) 67 N/50 mm or 30 lbf/2 in. ( ) None (7.2.1) Precondition 7 NFPA Class g/cm 2 each chemical in List G ( ); Liquids: 10 g/m 2 Gases: 350 ppm Closed top 1.25 g/cm 2 against Soman (GD) ( ); 4.0 g/cm 2 against distilled Mustard (HD) ( ); Liquids: 10 g/m 2 Gases: 350 ppm Closed top 1.31 kn/m or 15 lbf/2 in. ( ) Same as NFPA 1992 ( ) NFPA Class g/cm 2 against each chemical in List G ( ); Liquids: 10 g/m 2 Gases: 40 ppm Open top 1.25 g/cm 2 against Soman (GD) ( ); 4.0 g/cm 2 against distilled Mustard (HD) ( ); Liquids: 10 g/m 2 Gases: 40 ppm Open top Same as NFPA 1994 Class 2 ( ) Same as NFPA 1992 ( ) NFPA Class 4 Same as NFPA 1994 Class 2 ( ) Same as NFPA 1992 ( ) 9

12 Property Test Method Measurement Dexterity NFPA Test Protocol Glove Material Performance Permeation resistance (industrial chemicals) Permeation resistance (toxic industrial chemicals) Permeation resistance (chemical warfare agents) ASTM F 739 Test temperature 27 o C (81 o F) ASTM F 739 for NFPA 1991 NFPA Test Protocol for NFPA 1994 Test temperature 32 o C (90 o F) ASTM F 739 (modified) for NFPA 1991 NFPA Test Protocol for NFPA 1994 Test temperature 32 o C (90 o F) Percentage increase in test time over barehanded tests Breakthrough detection time Breakthrough detection time (NFPA 1991) Cumulative permeation in 1 hour (NFPA 1994) Cumulative permeation in 1-hour NFPA Performance Criteria in Standard (applicable paragraph) NFPA % (7.4.6) 200% (7.2.6) 1 hour against each chemical in List A (7.4.1); Liquids: 100 g/m 2 Gases: 100% Precondition 3 1 hour against each chemical in List B (7.6.1); Liquids: 100 g/m 2 Gases: 100% Precondition g/cm 2 against Sarin (GB) (7.6.2); 4.0 g/cm 2 against distilled Mustard (HD) (7.6.3); Liquids: 100 g/m 2 Gases: 100% Precondition 3 NFPA Class 2 300% ( ) 6.0 g/cm 2 against each chemical in List G ( ); Liquids: 10 g/m 2 Gases: 350 ppm Closed top Precondition g/cm 2 against Soman (GD) ( ); 4.0 g/cm 2 against distilled Mustard (HD) ( ); Liquids: 10 g/m 2 Gases: 350 ppm Closed top Precondition 7 NFPA Class 3 Same as NFPA 1992 ( ) 6.0 g/cm 2 against each chemical in List G ( ); Liquids: 10 g/m 2 Gases: 40 ppm Open top Precondition g/cm 2 against Soman (GD) ( ); 4.0 g/cm 2 against distilled Mustard (HD) ( ); Liquids: 10 g/m 2 Gases: 40 ppm Open top Precondition 7 NFPA Class 4 Same as NFPA 1992 ( ) 10

13 Property Test Method Measurement Chemical penetration resistance (material) Chemical penetration resistance (seams) Biopenetration resistance (material and seams) ASTM F 903 Procedure C ASTM F 903 Procedure C ASTM F 1671 Flame resistance ASTM F 1358 *measured during 12-second exposure Detection of visible penetration Detection of visible penetration Detection of virus in assay NFPA second Ignition None (7.4.2) Afterflame time* Burn distance* 10 seconds (7.4.2) 100 mm (7.4.2) Performance Criteria in Standard (applicable paragraph) NFPA None against each chemical in list E (7.2.2); Precondition 8 None against each chemicals in list F (7.2.7) NFPA Class 2 None ( ) Precondition 7 NFPA Class 3 Same as NFPA 1994 Class 2 ( ) NFPA Class 4 Same as NFPA 1994 Class 2 ( ) Burning behavior* No melting (7.4.2) Cut resistance ASTM F 1790 Distance of blade travel 25 mm or 1 in. under load of 200 grams (7.4.3) 20 under load of 50 grams (7.2.3) 20 mm. under load of 150 grams ( ) 20 mm under load of 75 grams ( ) Same as NFPA 1994 Class 3 ( ) Puncture resistance ASTM F 1342 Puncture force 22 N or 5 lbf (7.4.4) 11 N or 2.5 lbf (7.4.4) 15 N or 3.8 lbf ( ) Same as NFPA 1992 ( ) Same as NFPA 1992 ( ) Cold temperature performance ASTM D 747 (modified) Bending moment at -25 o C (13 o F) N x m or 0.5 in.-lbf (7.4.5) Same as NFPA 1991 (7.2.5) Same as NFPA 1991 ( ) Same as NFPA 1991 ( ) Same as NFPA 1991 ( ) 11

14 Property Test Method Measurement Overall Footwear Performance Liquid-tight integrity (footwear) ASTM D 5151 (modified) Footwear Material Performance Permeation resistance (industrial chemicals) Permeation resistance (toxic industrial chemicals) Permeation resistance (chemical warfare agents) ASTM F 739 Test temperature 27 o C (81 o F) ASTM F 739 for NFPA 1991 NFPA Test Protocol for NFPA 1994 Test temperature 32 o C (90 o F) ASTM F 739 (modified) for NFPA 1991 NFPA Test Protocol for NFPA 1994 Test temperature 32 o C (90 o F) Visible leakage on inner liquidabsorptive cover Breakthrough detection time Breakthrough detection time (NFPA 1991) Cumulative permeation in 1 hour (NFPA 1994) Cumulative permeation in 1-hour NFPA hour against each chemical in List A (7.4.1); Liquids: 100 g/m 2 Gases: 100% Precondition 4 1 hour against each chemical in List B (7.6.1); Liquids: 100 g/m 2 Gases: 100% Precondition g/cm 2 against Sarin (GB) (7.6.2); 4.0 g/cm 2 against distilled Mustard (HD) (7.6.3); Liquids: 100 g/m 2 Gases: 100% Precondition 4 Performance Criteria in Standard (applicable paragraph) NFPA None (7.3.1); Precondition 9 NFPA Class 2 None ( ); Precondition g/cm 2 against each chemical in List G ( ); Liquids: 10 g/m 2 Gases: 350 ppm Closed top Precondition g/cm 2 against Soman (GD) ( ); 4.0 g/cm 2 against distilled Mustard (HD) ( ); Liquids: 10 g/m 2 Gases: 350 ppm Closed top Precondition 12 NFPA Class 3 Same as NFPA 1994 Class 2 ( ) 6.0 g/cm 2 against each chemical in List G ( ); Liquids: 10 g/m 2 Gases: 40 ppm Open top Precondition g/cm 2 against Soman (GD) ( ); 4.0 g/cm 2 against distilled Mustard (HD) ( ); Liquids: 10 g/m 2 Gases: 40 ppm Open top Precondition 12 NFPA Class 4 Same as NFPA 1994 Class 2 ( ) 12

15 Property Test Method Measurement Chemical penetration resistance Biopenetration resistance (upper and seams) ASTM F 903 ASTM F 1671 Flame resistance ASTM F 1358 *measured during 12-second exposure Detection of visible penetration Detection of virus in assay NFPA second Ignition None (7.5.2) Afterflame time* Burn distance* 10 seconds (7.5.2) 100 mm (7.5.2) Performance Criteria in Standard (applicable paragraph) NFPA None against each chemical in list E (7.3.2); Precondition 10 NFPA Class 2 None ( ); Precondition 12 NFPA Class 3 Same as NFPA 1994 Class 2 ( ) NFPA Class 4 Same as NFPA 1994 Class 2 ( ) Burning behavior* No melting (7.5.2) Cut resistance (upper) ASTM F 1790 Distance of blade travel 25 mm or 1 in. under load of 400 grams (7.5.3) 20 mm under load of 350 grams (7.3.3) 20 mm under load of 550 grams ( ) Same as NFPA 1992 ( ) Same as NFPA 1992 ( ) Puncture resistance (upper) ASTM F 1342 Puncture force 36 N or 8 lbf force (7.5.4) Same as NFPA 1991 (7.3.4) Same as NFPA 1991 ( ) Same as NFPA 1991 ( ) Same as NFPA 1991 ( ) Impact and compression resistance (toe) ANSI Z41, Section 1.4 Impact resistance J or 75 ft-lbs (7.5.5) Same as NFPA 1991 (7.3.5) Compression resistance 11,121 N or 2,500 lbf (7.5.5) Same as NFPA 1991 (7.3.5) 13

16 Property Test Method Measurement Puncture resistance (sole) Abrasion resistance (sole) Abrasion resistance (footwear cover) Bending resistance (sole) ANSI Z41, Section 5 ASTM D 1630 ASTM D 3884 H-18 wheels 1000 gram load NFPA Test Protocol NFPA Puncture force 1210 N or 272 lbf (7.5.6) Abrasion resistance rating Cycles to wear through Deflection Slip resistance (sole) ASTM F 489 Static coefficient (NFPA 1991) Coefficient of friction (NFPA 1992 and 1994) 65 (7.5.7) Chemical Flash Fire Protection (NFPA 1991 and NFPA 1992 Only) Flash fire resistance (overall suit) NFPA Test Protocol Afterflame time Ending pressure Visible leakage inside suit and on inner liquidabsorptive garment 6 mm or ¼ in. (7.5.8) Performance Criteria in Standard (applicable paragraph) NFPA Same as NFPA 1991 (7.3.6) Same as NFPA 1991 (7.3.7) Same as NFPA 1991 (7.3.8) NFPA Class 2 Same as NFPA 1991 ( ) 3000 cycles ( ) 0.75 (7.5.9) 0.40 (7.3.9) Same as NFPA 1992 ( ) 2 seconds (7.8.2) 13 mm water gauge pressure (7.8.2) Same as NFPA 1991 (7.6.2) None detected after 20 minutes (7.6.2) NFPA Class 3 Same as NFPA 1991 ( ) Same as NFPA 1991 Class 2 ( ) Same as NFPA 1992 ( ) NFPA Class 4 Same as NFPA 1991 ( ) Same as NFPA 1991 Class 2 ( ) Same as NFPA 1992 ( ) 14

17 Property Test Method Measurement Thermal protective performance (suit, glove, and footwear materials) Flame resistance (suit, visor, glove, and footwear materials) ISO (NFPA 1991) ASTM F 2700 (NFPA 1992) ASTM F 1358 *measured during 12-second exposure Liquefied gas protection (NFPA 1991 only) Permeation and embrittlement resistance (liquefied gases against suit, visor, glove, and footwear materials) ASTM F 739 (modified) Visual acuity NFPA /100 or better (7.8.2) Performance Criteria in Standard (applicable paragraph) NFPA Same as NFPA 1991 (7.6.2) TPP Rating 12 (7.8.3) Same as NFPA 1991 (7.6.3) 3-second Ignition None (7.8.4) Same as NFPA 1991 (7.6.4) Afterflame time* Burn distance* Burning behavior* Breakthrough detection time; Evidence of damage 2.0 seconds (7.8.4) 100 mm (7.8.4) No melting (7.8.4) 15 minutes against each chemical in List D; no damage (7.7.2); Precondition 5 Same as NFPA 1991 (7.6.4) Same as NFPA 1991 (7.6.4) Same as NFPA 1991 (7.6.4) NFPA Class 2 NFPA Class 3 NFPA Class 4 Closed top testing involves no airflow on challenge side; collection side uses filtered air at 80% RH and 32 o C (90 o F) at 1 Liter per minute Open top testing involves air flow on both sides of material; challenge side uses filtered air at 80% RH and 32 o C (90 o F) at 0.3 Liter per minute for liquid chemical testing; collection side uses filtered air at 80% RH and 32 o C (90 o F) at 1 Liter per minute 15

18 16

19 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 107-NFPA [ New Section after ] TITLE OF NEW CONTENT 1.1.2* This standard shall permit the specification of both encapsulating and non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles. The proposed changes clarify the application of the standard to both encapsulating and non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles. Public Input No. 182-NFPA [Global Input] Submitter Full Name: Jeffrey Stull Organization: International Personnel Protection, Inc. Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 00:53:10 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The Technical Committee decided to address non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles to NFPA 1994 as Class 1.

20 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 145-NFPA [ New Section after ] Annex Language See setion reqqrding certification requirements for SCBN with NFPA 1991 compliant ensembles. Even though NFPA 1991 does not address the protection provided by respirator devices, it does require the use of devices compliant with NFPA Related Public Comments for This Document Related Comment Public Comment No. 139-NFPA [Section No [Excluding any Sub-Sections]] First Revision No. 3-NFPA [Section No ] Relationship Concurrent subject Submitter Full Name: James Zeigler Organization: J. P. Zeigler, LLC Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 11:27:06 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The TC is addressing this PC in the Annex by way of an SR.

21 Public Comment No. 18-NFPA [ Section No ] This standard shall not specify requirements for the respiratory protection that is necessary for proper protection with the protective ensemble. Respiratory protection for hazardous materials emergencies and CBRN terrorism incidents is a critical part of the overall protection and shall be specified and provided by the authority having jurisdiction. **Annex A was removed and should be added back in as the text is relevant to the intent of the standard.** The authority does not physically "provide" the respiratory protection. The Annex A is relevant to the intent of the standard and should be added back in. First Revision No. 3-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: Kristin Williamson Organization: The DuPont Company, Inc. Submittal Date: Thu Nov 06 14:27:11 EST 2014 Committee Action: Accepted Resolution: SR-1-NFPA The TC accepted the PC, but the Annex item will be addressed in the Annex and Chapter 6. Statement: The authority does not physically "provide" the respiratory protection. The Annex A is relevant to the intent of the standard and should be added back in. The Technical Committee accepted the Public Input and is adding the appropriate Annex text. of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

22 Public Comment No. 90-NFPA [ Section No ] (* ) This standard shall not specify requirements for the respiratory protection that is necessary for proper protection with the protective ensemble. Respiratory protection for hazardous materials emergencies and CBRN terrorism incidents is a critical part of the overall protection and shall be specified and provided by the authority having jurisdiction. Added asterisk (*) to be able to reinsert the original annex. The authority does not physically provide the respiratory protection. First Revision No. 3-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: Susan Lovasic Organization: The DuPont Company, Inc. Submittal Date: Thu Nov 13 18:13:09 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The asterisk has been added in SR 1. of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

23 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 19-NFPA [ Section No ] Manufacturer. The entity that directs and controls any of the following: compliant product design, compliant product manufacturing, or compliant product quality assurance; or the entity that assumes the liability or, provides the warranty for the compliant product, or obtains the product certification. As revised their could be up to 4 different entities that could qualify as the manufacturer. Go back to original definition. First Revision No. 13-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: Kristin Williamson Organization: The DuPont Company, Inc. Submittal Date: Thu Nov 06 14:45:31 EST 2014 Committee Action: Accepted Resolution: SR-2-NFPA Statement: As revised their could be up to 4 different entities that could qualify as the manufacturer. Go back to original definition. The TC is providing this change for consistency across the project documents.

24 Public Comment No. 109-NFPA [ Section No ] Nonencapsulating. A type of ensemble that provides liquid splash protection, but does not provide vapor- or gastight protection or liquidtight protection and does not does not cover the wearer s respiratory equipment and instead relies on the facepiece of the respiratory equipment to have an interface with the vapor-protective suits and complete the enclosure of the wearer. The proposed changes clarify the application of the standard to both encapsulating and non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles. This specific change corrects the definition of non-encapsulated. First Revision No. 77-NFPA [New Section after ] Submitter Full Name: Jeffrey Stull Organization: International Personnel Protection, Inc. Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 01:03:56 EST 2014 Committee Action: Accepted Resolution: SR-3-NFPA Statement: This SR deletes the definition of non-encapsulated.the Technical Committee decided to address non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles as a new Class 1 in the next edition of NFPA of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

25 Public Comment No. 140-NFPA [ Section No ] Nonencapsulating. A type of ensemble that provides liquid splash protection, but does not provide vapor- or gastight protection or liquidtight protection and does not cover the wearer s respiratory equipment. Basically I feel it is wrong to include non-encapsualting ensembles in this standard because they do not provide the same level of protection as encapsulating ensembles for all parts of the body and for the respiratory equipment worn by the user. Being fundamentally different in this as well other aspects they should not be included in this document in order to avoid confusion and to avoid users potentially being mislead and to maintain a logical structure of the series of hazmat protective ensembles standards. Related Public Comments for This Document Related Comment Public Comment No. 149-NFPA [Section No ] First Revision No. 77-NFPA [New Section after ] Relationship Submitter Full Name: Ulf Nystrom Organization: Ansell Protective Solutions Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 10:35:39 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: See SR 3. of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

26 Public Comment No. 20-NFPA [ Section No ] Respiratory Equipment. A positive-pressure, self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) or combination SCBA/supplied-air breathing apparatus apparatus certified by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and certified as compliant with NFPA 1981, Standard on Open-Circuit Self- Contained Breathing Apparatus for Fire and Emergency Services. The current text should be retained as it is relevant to the standard. First Revision No. 45-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: Kristin Williamson Organization: The DuPont Company, Inc. Submittal Date: Thu Nov 06 14:58:10 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The TC rejected the Public Comment, but will address compliance in Chapter 6. 0 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

27 Public Comment No. 149-NFPA [ Section No ] Suit Material. The principal material used in the construction of the vapor-protective suit. For non-encapsulating ensembles this includes the parts of the RPE that protects the face from chemical exposure, as applicable. Basically I feel it is wrong to include non-encapsualting ensembles in this standard because they do not provide the same level of protection as encapsulating ensembles for all parts of the body and for the respiratory equipment worn by the user. Being fundamentally different in this as well other aspects they should not be included in this document in order to avoid confusion and to avoid users potentially being mislead and to maintain a logical structure of the series of hazmat protective ensembles standards. If the committee still choses to allow non-encapsulating ensembles it is important the RPE component parts such as face piece body, face piece visor and whatever seals and seams that constitute the interface between the RPE and the garment be tested in the same way as other garment materials and be covered by the requirements for garment materials and seams. Related Public Comments for This Document Related Comment Relationship Public Comment No. 140-NFPA [Section No ] First Revision No. 77-NFPA [New Section after ] Submitter Full Name: Ulf Nystrom Organization: Ansell Protective Solutions Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 12:22:12 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The Technical Committee decided to address non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles to NFPA 1994 as Class 1. 1 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

28 Public Comment No. 126-NFPA [ Section No ] All suit, visor, glove, footwear, optional chemical flash fire protection, and optional liquefied gas protection performance requirements shall be evaluated as specified in Chapter 7 with the following modifications: (1) Chemical permeation and chemical penetration resistance testing shall be limited to the testing specified in 7.2.1, , 7.2.7, 7. (1) 3.1, 7.4.1, and and shall be limited to the following chemicals: (2) Carbon disulfide (3) Dichloromethane (4) Diethylamine (5) Methanol (6) Tetrahydrofuran (2) Chemical permeation resistance testing as specified in shall not be required. Chemical permeation resistance testing specified in shall be limited to ammonia. (3) If the number of specimens is greater than two in the initial testing, a total of two specimens shall be permitted for annual testing requirements. If the testing is specified for both directions of a material, a total of two specimens per material direction shall be permitted for testing requirements. matching annual recertification requirements with the new paragraphs referenced in chapter 7. First Revision No. 19-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: Amanda Newsom Organization: UL LLC Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 08:19:13 EST 2014 Committee Action: Accepted Resolution: SR-4-NFPA Statement: The TC with this SR is matching annual recertification requirements to the new paragraphs referenced in chapter 7. 2 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

29 Public Comment No. 111-NFPA [ New Section after ] TITLE OF NEW CONTENT Non-encapsulating, vapor-protective ensembles shall include the additional statement as part of the product label. All letters shall be at least 2.5 mm (3/32 in.) high. THIS VAPOR-PROTECTIVE ENSEMBLE IS NON-ENCAPSULATING. TO BE COMPLIANT WITH NFPA 1991, THE FOLLOWING OPEN CIRSUIT, SELF-CONTAINED BREATHING APPARATUS MUST BE WORN WITH VAPOR-PROTECTIVE ENSEMBLE: (List SCBA here.) THE SCBA HAS NOT BEEN EVALUATED TO THE SAME LEVEL OF CHEMICAL PROTECTIVE PERFORMANCE AS THE INDIVDIUAL MATERIALS USED IN THE VAPOR-PROTECTIVE SUIT. A HAZARD AND RISK ASSESSMENT MUST BE PERFORMED TO DETERMINE THE SUITABILITY OF THIS ENSEMBLE IN HAZARDOUS MATERIALS EMERGENCIES. The proposed changes clarify the application of the standard to both encapsulating and non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles. Public Input No. 182-NFPA [Global Input] Submitter Full Name: Jeffrey Stull Organization: International Personnel Protection, Inc. Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 01:21:24 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The Technical Committee decided to address non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles to NFPA 1994 as Class 1. 3 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

30 4 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 112-NFPA [ Section No ] The manufacturer shall provide at least the following instructions and information with each vapor-protective ensemble and each element: (1) Pre-use information as follows: (2) Safety considerations (3) Limitations of use (4) Marking recommendations and restrictions (5) A statement that most performance properties of the vapor-protective ensemble or ensemble element cannot be tested by the user in the field (6) Closure lubricants, if applicable (7) Suit visor antifog agents or procedures (8) Recommended undergarments (9) Storage life and storage conditions (10) Warranty information (11) A specific warning for non-encapsulated ensembles that the respiratory equipment has not been evaluated for chemical permeation resistance consistent with the other ensemble elements. (12) Preparation for use as follows: (13) Sizing/adjustment (14) Recommended storage practices (15) Inspection frequency and details (16) Don/doff information as follows: (17) Donning and doffing procedures (18) Sizing and adjustment procedures (19) Interface issues (20) Specific procedures for ensuring that the interface between the respiratory equipment and vapor-protective suits are maintained during use (21) Proper use consistent with NFPA 1500 and 29 CFR (22) Maintenance and cleaning information as follows: (23) Cleaning instructions and precautions with a statement advising users not to use garments that are not thoroughly cleaned and dried (24) Inspection details (25) Maintenance criteria and methods of repair, where applicable (26) Decontamination procedures for both chemical and biological contamination (27) Retirement and disposal criteria and consideration (28) Removal and reinsertion of hand from gloves (29) Removal and replacement of gloves and other user-replaceable components The proposed changes clarify the application of the standard to both encapsulating and non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles. Public Input No. 182-NFPA [Global Input] Submitter Full Name: Jeffrey Stull Organization: International Personnel Protection, Inc. Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 01:23:35 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The Technical Committee decided to address non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles to NFPA 1994 as Class 1.

31 5 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 146-NFPA [ Section No ] The manufacturer shall provide at least the following instructions and information with each vapor-protective ensemble and each element: (1) Pre-use information as follows: (2) Safety considerations (3) Limitations of use (4) Marking recommendations and restrictions (5) A statement that most performance properties of the vapor-protective ensemble or ensemble element cannot be tested by the user in the field (6) Closure lubricants, if applicable (7) Suit visor antifog agents or procedures (8) Recommended undergarments (9) Storage life and storage conditions. Storage life must be an unambiguous time value. (10) Warranty information (11) Preparation for use as follows: (12) Sizing/adjustment (13) Recommended storage practices (14) Inspection frequency and details (15) Don/doff information as follows: (16) Donning and doffing procedures (17) Sizing and adjustment procedures (18) Interface issues (19) Proper use consistent with NFPA 1500 and 29 CFR (20) Maintenance and cleaning information as follows: (21) Cleaning instructions and precautions with a statement advising users not to use garments that are not thoroughly cleaned and dried (22) Inspection details (23) Maintenance criteria and methods of repair, where applicable (24) Decontamination procedures for both chemical and biological contamination (25) Retirement and disposal criteria and consideration (26) Removal and reinsertion of hand from gloves (27) Removal and replacement of gloves and other user-replaceable components Storage life should be stated in terms of an unambiguous value of time. Statements like "unknown", "no value available", "unlimited" are not acceptable. First Revision No. 70-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: James Zeigler Organization: J. P. Zeigler, LLC Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 11:39:51 EST 2014 Committee Action: Accepted Resolution: SR-5-NFPA Statement: The TC believes that storage life should be stated in terms of an unambiguous value of time. Statements like "unknown", "no value available", "unlimited" are not acceptable. The TC accepted the Public Comment and added a new paragraph to define when the storage life begins and how it should be expressed on the label. The Technical Committee believes that end users should be aware that the current ensemble closures are not tested for permeation resistance and that some explanation for this inconsistency be provided as part of the standard (Annex item (11)).

32 6 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 147-NFPA [ Section No ] The manufacturer shall provide at least the following instructions and information with each vapor-protective ensemble and each element: (1) Pre-use information as follows: (2) Safety considerations (3) Limitations of use (4) Marking recommendations and restrictions (5) A statement that most performance properties of the vapor-protective ensemble or ensemble element cannot be tested by the user in the field (6) Closure lubricants, if applicable (7) Suit visor antifog agents or procedures (8) Recommended undergarments (9) Storage life and storage conditions (10) Warranty information (11) Preparation for use as follows: (12) Sizing/adjustment (13) Recommended storage practices (14) Inspection frequency and details (15) Don/doff information as follows: (16) Donning and doffing procedures (17) Sizing and adjustment procedures (18) Interface issues (19) Proper use consistent with NFPA 1500 and 29 CFR (20) Maintenance and cleaning information as follows: (21) Cleaning instructions and precautions with a statement advising users not to use garments that are not thoroughly cleaned and dried (22) Inspection details (23) Maintenance criteria and methods of repair, where applicable (24) Decontamination procedures for both chemical and biological contamination (25) Retirement and disposal criteria and consideration (26) Instructions on Removal and reinsertion of hand from gloves (27) Procedures for Removal and replacement of gloves and other user-replaceable components To clarify that the manufacturer must provide instructions on how to remove and reinsert the hands and procedures for replacing gloves, both of which are subject to requirements in the standard,. First Revision No. 70-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: James Zeigler Organization: J. P. Zeigler, LLC Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 11:47:56 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: See SR 5.

33 Public Comment No. 148-NFPA [ Section No ] The manufacturer shall provide at least the following instructions and information with each vapor-protective ensemble and each element: (1) Pre-use information as follows: (2) Safety considerations (3) Limitations of use (4) Marking recommendations and restrictions (5) A statement that most performance properties of the vapor-protective ensemble or ensemble element cannot be tested by the user in the field (6) Closure lubricants, if applicable (7) Suit visor antifog agents or procedures (8) Recommended undergarments (9) Storage life and storage conditions (10) Warranty information (11) Preparation for use as follows: (12) Sizing/adjustment (13) Recommended storage practices (14) Inspection frequency and details (15) Don/doff information as follows: (16) Donning and doffing procedures (17) Sizing and adjustment procedures (18) Interface issues (a) Procedures for completing interfaces with detachable components, including but not limited to: (19) detachable gloves (20) detachable boots (21) detachable overcovers (22) respirator facepieces with non-encapsulating ensembles (23) Proper use consistent with NFPA 1500 and 29 CFR (24) Maintenance and cleaning information as follows: (25) Cleaning instructions and precautions with a statement advising users not to use garments that are not thoroughly cleaned and dried (26) Inspection details (27) Maintenance criteria and methods of repair, where applicable (28) Decontamination procedures for both chemical and biological contamination (29) Retirement and disposal criteria and consideration (30) Removal and reinsertion of hand from gloves (31) Removal and replacement of gloves and other user-replaceable components The users should have explicit instructions from the manufacturer with regards to completing the interfacing of the garments with detachable components. This is especially true with non-encapsulating garment for which the seal with the respirator is a critical failure point in the ensemble to protect the wearers head and neck area from harmful chemical gases and vapors. First Revision No. 70-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: James Zeigler Organization: J. P. Zeigler, LLC Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 12:16:48 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: See SR 5. 7 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

34 8 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 23-NFPA [ Section No ] 5.2.7* The manufacturer shall state the model(s) of NFPA 1981 compliant, open-circuit SCBA worn during certification of the garment. If non-encapsulating suit designs are permitted to be included then each SCBA model certified as part of the ensemble must be tested and listed. First Revision No. 71-NFPA [New Section after 5.2.6] Submitter Full Name: Kristin Williamson Organization: The DuPont Company, Inc. Submittal Date: Thu Nov 06 15:28:48 EST 2014 Committee Action: Accepted Resolution: SR-6-NFPA Statement: The TC is adding cylinder size to the requirement.

35 Public Comment No. 4-NFPA [ Section No ] * The manufacturer shall state the model of NFPA 1981 compliant, open-circuit SCBA worn during certification of the garment JUSTIFICATION: For certification purposes this is not a valid prerequisite and in general the suit doesn't necessarily need to be worn with an SCBA. Moreover, this requirement unduly restricts the marketing of suits. As suit manufacturer without own NFPA-certified SCBA, we cannot specify NFPA-certified SCBA from other manufacturers, because we would neither be in control of nor be informed of any ongoing modifications of these products which would then invalidate the system certification. For certification purposes this is not a valid prerequisite and in general the suit doesn't necessarily need to be worn with an SCBA. Moreover, this requirement unduly restricts the marketing of suits. As suit manufacturer without own NFPA-certified SCBA, we cannot specify NFPA-certified SCBA from other manufacturers, because we would neither be in control of nor be informed of any ongoing modifications of these products which would then invalidate the system certification. Public Input No. 4-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: Thomas von Hoegen Organization: Drger Safety Co. Submittal Date: Wed Nov 05 02:15:57 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The TC rejected the Public Comment because it believes that information needs to be provided as to how it was tested, and is consistent with other project standards. 9 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

36 Public Comment No. 160-NFPA [ Section No ] * The technical data package shall contain all documentation required by this standard and the values obtained from the initial certification showing compliance with the requirements of Chapter 7 in the current edition of this standard. The physiological protective dosage factor (PPDF) values shall be included as part of the technical data package. This provides language consistent with NFPA All the PPDF factors (local and systemic) should be provided in the technical data package. First Revision No. 90-NFPA [Global Input] Submitter Full Name: James Zeigler Organization: J. P. Zeigler, LLC Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 14:09:28 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: See SR 7. 0 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

37 1 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 72-NFPA [ Section No ]

38 * 2 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

39 The technical data package shall contain all documentation required by this standard and the values obtained from the initial certification showing compliance with the requirements of Chapter 7 in the current edition of this standard using the reporting formats provided in Table (1) and (2). The technical data package information shall indicate Pass for those requirements where there is no quantitative value reported and Not applicable for specific requirements that do not apply to the vapor-protective ensemble. Table (1) Format for Reporting Certification Test Data in Technical Data Package Ensemble or Element Performance Requirement Test Method Requirement Result Base Requirements Ensemble Liquidtight integrity ASTM F1359 (Section 8.3) No liquid penetration No liquid accumulation in outer gloves No liquid accumulation in outer boots ASTM F1154/ Overall ensemble ASTM F1052 function and integrity (Section 8.4) Ending suit pressure 80 water gauge Test subject completes task Test subject has visual acuity through face piece lens and visor 20/35 or better Time to remove and reinsert hands in gloves 5 times 2 minutes Air flow capacity Section 8.5 Internal suit pressure 150 mm water gauge Ending suit pressure 80 water gauge Overall inward leakage Section 8.8 PPDF sys 1080 PPDF i (local) 1080 Indicate lowest average value and its location Exhaust valve Exhaust valve mounting strength Section 8.9 Strength 135 N Exhaust valve inward leakage Section 8.24 Leakage rate 30 ml/min External fitting External fitting installation effect on integrity ASTM F1052 (Section 8.2) Ending suit pressure 80 water gauge External fitting pull-out strength Section 8.13 Strength 1000 N Suit material Flame resistance ASTM F1358 (Section 8.7) Afterflame time 2 sec No melting Burst strength ASTM D3787 (Section 8.10) Strength 200 N Puncture propagation ASTM D2582 tear resistance (Section 8.11) Tear resistance 49 N Cold temperature performance ASTM D747 (Section 8.12) Bend moment Nm Suit seam Breaking strength ASTM D751 (Section 8.22) Strength 67 N/25 mm Suit closure Chemical penetration ASTM F903 resistance (Section 8.23) No penetration of 15 liquid chemicals Breaking strength ASTM D751 (Section 8.22) Strength 67 N/25 mm Visor material Flame resistance ASTM F1358 (Section 8.7) Afterflame time 2 sec No melting Burst strength ASTM D3787 (Section 8.10) Strength 200 N Puncture propagation ASTM D2582 tear resistance (Section 8.11) Tear resistance 49 N Cold temperature performance ASTM D2136 (Section 8.14) No cracking Visor seam Breaking strength ASTM D751 (Section 8.22) Strength 67 N/25 mm Glove material Flame resistance ASTM F1358 (Section 8.7) Afterflame time 2 sec No melting Cut resistance ASTM F1790 (Section 8.15) Blade travel distance 20 mm at XX grams Puncture resistance ASTM F1342 (Section 8.16) Puncture force 22 N Cold temperature performance ASTM D747 (Section 8.12) Bend moment Nm Gloves Dexterity ASTM F2010 (Section 8.16) Percent increase in bare handed control 600% Footwear upper material Flame resistance ASTM F1358 (Section 8.7) Afterflame time 2 sec No melting Cut resistance ASTM F1790 (Section 8.15) Blade travel distance 20 mm at XX grams Puncture resistance ASTM F1342 (Section 8.16) Puncture force 36 N Footwear soles and heels Abrasion resistance ISO 4649 (Section 8.20) Relative volume loss 250 mm 3 Slip resistance ISO (Section 8.19) Coefficient 0.40 Footwear soles or ladder Bending resistance Section 8.16 Deflection 6 mm shanks Optional Flash Fire Requirements Ensemble Overall flash fire protection Section 8.27 Afterflame time 2 sec Ending suit pressure 13 water gauge Test subject has visual acuity through face piece lens and visor 20/10035 or better Garment material Heat transfer performance ASTM F2700 (Section 8.18) HTP Rating 12 cal/cm 2 Flame resistance ASTM F1358 (Section 8.7) Afterflame time 2 sec Burn distance 100 mm No melting Overall heat transfer ASTM F1930 Predicted body burn rating performance (Section 8.18) 25 Visor material Heat transfer performance ASTM F2700 (Section 8.18) HTP Rating 12 cal/cm 2 Flame resistance ASTM F1358 (Section 8.7) Afterflame time 2 sec Burn distance 100 mm No melting Glove material Heat transfer performance ASTM F2700 (Section 8.18) HTP Rating 12 cal/cm 2 3 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

40 Flame resistance Ensemble or Element Performance Requirement Test Method Requirement Result ASTM F1358 (Section 8.7) Afterflame time 2 sec Burn distance 100 mm No melting Footwear material Heat transfer performance ASTM F2700 (Section 8.18) HTP Rating 12 cal/cm 2 Flame resistance ASTM F1358 (Section 8.7) Afterflame time 2 sec Burn distance 100 mm No melting Table (2) Format for Reporting Certification Permeation Test Data in Technical Data Package Chemical Minimum Requirement* Garment Material Visor Garment Material Seam Visor Glove Seam Material Footwear Upper Material Acetone 6.0 Acetonitrile 6.0 Acrolein 6.0 Acrylonitrile 6.0 Anhydrous ammonia (gas) 1,3-Butadiene (gas) Carbon disulfide 6.0 Chlorine (gas) 6.0 Dichloromethane 6.0 Diethyl amine 6.0 Dimethyl formamide 6.0 Dimethyl sulfate 6.0 Ethyl acetate 6.0 Ethylene oxide (gas) 6.0 Hexane 6.0 Hydrogen chloride (gas) 6.0 Methanol 6.0 Methyl chloride (gas) 6.0 Nitrobenzene 6.0 Sodium hydroxide, 50% w/w 6.0 Sulfuric acid, 96.1% w/w 6.0 Tetrachloroethylene 6.0 Tetrahydrofuran 6.0 Distilled Mustard 4.0 Soman 1.25 Ammonia (liquefied) 1.5 Chlorine (liquefied) 1.5 Ethylene oxide (liquefied) 1.5 * All values are cumulative permeation mass over 60 minutes reported values in μg/cm 2 with exception of values for liquefied gases which are over 15 minute period. Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved Table_5_3_1_2.docx Standard format for reporting certification data. A standardized format for reporting compliance information is need to permit end user organizations to easily understand/compare data from different vapor-protective suit manufacturers. First Revision No. 72-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: Beth Lancaster Organization: US Department of Defense Submittal Date: Thu Nov 13 10:26:50 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected but see related SR Resolution: SR-7-NFPA Statement: The TC is providing a standardized format for reporting compliance information to permit end user organizations to easily understand and compare data from different vapor-protective suit manufacturers. 4 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

41 Table (1) Format for Reporting Certification Test Data in Technical Data Package Ensemble Performance or Element Requirement Base Requirements Ensemble Liquidtight integrity Exhaust valve External fitting Suit material Overall ensemble function and integrity Test Method Requirement Result ASTM F1359 (Section 8.3) ASTM F1154/ ASTM F1052 (Section 8.4) No liquid penetration No liquid accumulation in outer gloves No liquid accumulation in outer boots Ending suit pressure 80 water gauge Test subject completes task Test subject has visual acuity through face piece lens and visor 20/35 or better Time to remove and reinsert hands in gloves 5 times 2 minutes Air flow capacity Section 8.5 Internal suit pressure 150 mm water gauge Ending suit pressure 80 water gauge Overall inward leakage Exhaust valve mounting strength Exhaust valve inward leakage External fitting installation effect on integrity External fitting pull-out strength Flame resistance Section 8.8 PPDF sys 1080 Section 8.9 PPDF i (local) 1080 Strength 135 N Section 8.24 Leakage rate 30 ml/min ASTM F1052 Ending suit pressure (Section 8.2) 80 water gauge Section 8.13 ASTM F1358 (Section 8.7) Strength 1000 N Afterflame time 2 sec No melting Indicate lowest average value and its location

42 Ensemble or Element Performance Requirement Burst strength Puncture propagation tear resistance Cold temperature performance Test Method Requirement Result ASTM D3787 (Section 8.10) ASTM D2582 (Section 8.11) ASTM D747 (Section 8.12) Suit seam Breaking strength ASTM D751 (Section 8.22) Suit closure Chemical ASTM F903 penetration (Section 8.23) resistance Visor material Breaking strength Flame resistance Burst strength Puncture propagation tear resistance Cold temperature performance ASTM D751 (Section 8.22) ASTM F1358 (Section 8.7) ASTM D3787 (Section 8.10) ASTM D2582 (Section 8.11) ASTM D2136 (Section 8.14) Visor seam Breaking strength ASTM D751 (Section 8.22) Glove Flame resistance ASTM F1358 material (Section 8.7) Cut resistance ASTM F1790 (Section 8.15) Puncture ASTM F1342 resistance (Section 8.16) Cold temperature ASTM D747 performance (Section 8.12) Gloves Dexterity ASTM F2010 (Section 8.16) Footwear Flame resistance ASTM F1358 upper (Section 8.7) material Cut resistance ASTM F1790 (Section 8.15) Strength 200 N Tear resistance 49 N Bend moment Nm Strength 67 N/25 mm No penetration of 15 liquid chemicals Strength 67 N/25 mm Afterflame time 2 sec No melting Strength 200 N Tear resistance 49 N No cracking Strength 67 N/25 mm Afterflame time 2 sec No melting Blade travel distance 20 mm at XX grams Puncture force 22 N Bend moment Nm Percent increase in bare handed control 600% Afterflame time 2 sec No melting Blade travel distance 20 mm at XX grams

43 Ensemble or Element Footwear soles and heels Footwear soles or ladder shanks Performance Requirement Puncture resistance Abrasion resistance Test Method Requirement Result ASTM F1342 (Section 8.16) ISO 4649 (Section 8.20) Slip resistance ISO (Section 8.19) Bending Section 8.16 resistance Optional Flash Fire Requirements Ensemble Overall flash fire protection Section 8.27 Garment material Visor material Glove material Heat transfer performance Flame resistance Overall heat transfer performance Heat transfer performance Flame resistance Heat transfer performance Flame resistance ASTM F2700 (Section 8.18) ASTM F1358 (Section 8.7) ASTM F1930 (Section 8.18) ASTM F2700 (Section 8.18) ASTM F1358 (Section 8.7) ASTM F2700 (Section 8.18) ASTM F1358 (Section 8.7) Puncture force 36 N Relative volume loss 250 mm 3 Coefficient 0.40 Deflection 6 mm Afterflame time 2 sec Ending suit pressure 13 water gauge Test subject has visual acuity through face piece lens and visor 20/10035 or better HTP Rating 12 cal/cm 2 Afterflame time 2 sec Burn distance 100 mm No melting Predicted body burn rating 25 HTP Rating 12 cal/cm 2 Afterflame time 2 sec Burn distance 100 mm No melting HTP Rating 12 cal/cm 2 Afterflame time 2 sec Burn distance 100 mm No melting

44 Ensemble or Element Footwear material Performance Requirement Heat transfer performance Flame resistance Test Method Requirement Result ASTM F2700 (Section 8.18) ASTM F1358 (Section 8.7) HTP Rating 12 cal/cm 2 Afterflame time 2 sec Burn distance 100 mm No melting Table (2) Format for Reporting Certification Permeation Test Data in Technical Data Package Minimum Requirement* Chemical Acetone 6.0 Acetonitrile 6.0 Acrolein 6.0 Acrylonitrile 6.0 Anhydrous ammonia (gas) 6.0 1,3-Butadiene (gas) 6.0 Carbon disulfide 6.0 Chlorine (gas) 6.0 Dichloromethane 6.0 Diethyl amine 6.0 Dimethyl formamide 6.0 Dimethyl sulfate 6.0 Ethyl acetate 6.0 Ethylene oxide (gas) 6.0 Hexane 6.0 Hydrogen chloride (gas) 6.0 Methanol 6.0 Methyl chloride (gas) 6.0 Nitrobenzene 6.0 Sodium hydroxide, 50% w/w 6.0 Sulfuric acid, 96.1% w/w 6.0 Tetrachloroethylene 6.0 Tetrahydrofuran 6.0 Distilled Mustard 4.0 Garment Material Garment Seam Visor Material Visor Seam Glove Material Footwear Upper Material

45 Minimum Requirement* Garment Material Garment Seam Visor Material Visor Seam Glove Material Footwear Upper Material Chemical Soman 1.25 Ammonia (liquefied) 1.5 Chlorine (liquefied) 1.5 Ethylene oxide (liquefied) 1.5 * All values are cumulative permeation mass over 60 minutes reported values in μg/cm 2 with exception of values for liquefied gases which are over 15 minute period

46 Public Comment No. 113-NFPA [ Section No ] In the technical data package, the manufacturer shall describe the vapor-protective ensemble or ensemble elements in terms of manufacturer trade name, model number, required respiratory equipment, manufacturer replaceable components and component parts, and available options such as accessories, testing devices, and sizes. The proposed changes clarify the application of the standard to both encapsulating and non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles. Public Input No. 182-NFPA [Global Input] Submitter Full Name: Jeffrey Stull Organization: International Personnel Protection, Inc. Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 01:26:41 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The Technical Committee decided to address non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles to NFPA 1994 as Class 1. 5 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

47 6 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 114-NFPA [ Section No ] The manufacturer shall provide, in the technical data package, the list and descriptions of the following ensemble or individual element materials and component parts, where applicable: (1) Suit material (2) Visor material (3) Glove material and type of attachment (4) Footwear material and type of attachment (5) Zipper/closure type and materials (6) Material seam types and composition (7) Exhaust valve types and material(s) (8) External fitting types and material(s) (9) External gasket types and material(s) (10) Outer suit, glove, or boot material(s) (11) Type or style of head protection accommodated within the suit (12) Required respiratory equipment, including the specific identification of respiratory equipment for which the ensemble is certified for non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles The proposed changes clarify the application of the standard to both encapsulating and non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles. Public Input No. 182-NFPA [Global Input] Submitter Full Name: Jeffrey Stull Organization: International Personnel Protection, Inc. Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 01:27:52 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The Technical Committee decided to address non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles to NFPA 1994 as Class 1.

48 7 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 115-NFPA [ Section No ] Where applicable, the descriptions of respective vapor-protective ensemble materials, element materials, and component part materials shall include the following information: (1) Visor material information such as the availability of any permanent detachable covers and films (2) Glove information as follows: (3) Type of linings or surface treatments (4) Available glove sizes and sizing information (5) Footwear information as follows: (6) Type of linings or surface treatments (7) Type of soles or special toe reinforcements (8) Available footwear sizes (9) Suit zipper or closure information as follows: (10) The material(s) of construction for the closure (including chain, slide, pull, and tape for zippers) (11) The location and the length of the completed closure assembly (12) A description of any protective covers for flaps (13) Suit exhaust valves or ports information as follows: (14) Type, such as flapper, pressure demand (15) Number and method of attachment to the suit (16) A description of any protective covers or pockets (17) Materials used for the interface between non-encapsulating vapor-protective suits and the specified respiratory equipment (18) Other clothing items (e.g., outer garments) information such as the type and how used with protective suit The proposed changes clarify the application of the standard to both encapsulating and non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles. Public Input No. 182-NFPA [Global Input] Submitter Full Name: Jeffrey Stull Organization: International Personnel Protection, Inc. Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 01:30:13 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The Technical Committee decided to address non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles to NFPA 1994 as Class 1.

49 8 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 116-NFPA [ Section No ] The manufacturer shall describe, in the technical data package, the type of seams or methods of attachment for the following ensemble material and component combinations: (1) Suit material suit material (2) Suit material visor (3) Suit material glove (4) Suit material footwear (5) Suit material suit closure (6) Suit material-interface with respiratory equipment (7) Outer cover outer cover The proposed changes clarify the application of the standard to both encapsulating and non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles. Public Input No. 182-NFPA [Global Input] Submitter Full Name: Jeffrey Stull Organization: International Personnel Protection, Inc. Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 01:32:22 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The Technical Committee decided to address non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles to NFPA 1994 as Class 1.

50 Public Comment No. 135-NFPA [ Section No ] * Vapor-protective ensembles shall be designed and configured to protect the wearer's torso, head, arms, legs, hands, and feet, and shall completely enclose the wearer anda the wearer's respiratory equipment. With nonencapsulating ensembles, there are no assurances and significant reason to be concerned that open-circuit, SCBA cannot provide chemical barrier comparable to the requirements that are otherwise mandated for the rest of the ensemble in NFPA Since its inception, NFPA 1991, Standard on Vapor-Protective Ensembles for Hazardous Materials Emergencies, has required that all ensemble components provide protection against a battery of chemicals. Originally, this battery consisted of 21 chemicals. This battery was selected for its wide range in chemical solubility and polymer diffusion characteristics, critical factors in the chemical permeation through protective materials. The chemicals were not chosen because their represent a specific threat, although the list includes some high volume, frequently encountered, toxic chemicals. The requirements that the ensembles protect against all of these chemicals provides a high probability that the NFPA 1991 compliant ensembles would protect against a high concentration of an unknown chemical, an unknown mixture mixture or a peculiar environmental condition. In contrast, military chemical protective equipment is tested against specific chemicals and specific concentrations, based on the assumption that both the identity and concentration of the chemical hazards can be determined beforehand. Along these lines, additional chemicals barrier requirements were added to NFPA 1991, first as options, and then mandated in the 2005 edition, in response the threat of chemical terrorism. These additional chemicals consisted of chemical warfare agents and industrial chemicals recognized as potential terrorism weapons. The latter are sometime described as dual-use chemical agents. The testing requirements in the NIOSH CBRN certification program only involve 2 chemicals sulfur mustard and sarin. The sarin challenge is only vapor and at a concentration about ½ that of saturated environment. There is no liquid challenge with sarin. Mustard barrier is determined against liquid and vapor challenges. The vapor challenge is about 1/3 saturated vapor concentration and the liquid challenge consists of ul droplets placed (total of 0.86 ml or 0.03 oz) around the facepiece and interfaces. There are no other chemicals used on the barrier testing of the respirator. By comparison, NFPA 1991 requires barrier testing of all ensemble components with exposure to 100% of the chemical (liquid or vapor) and complete coverage. Therefore, the testing requirements of the NIOSH CBRN certification are significantly lower than required for components of NFPA 1991 ensembles. Butyl rubber has become a common polymer for the construction of military facepieces. We do not have barrier data on the facepieces, but we do have generic data on butyl gloves. The data taken from the most recent edition of the Pocket Guide for Chemical Protective Clothing for the 26 chemicals in the proposed NFPA 1991 battery shows that butyl provides poor barrier (< 60 minutes) against 7 (Carbon Disulfide, Dichloromethane, Diethylamine, n-hexane, Tetrachloroethylene, Tetrahydrofura, Toluene) and marginal barrier (<4 hours) against 5 of 25 chemicals (Butadiene, Dimethyl Sulfate, Ethyl Acetate, Ethylene Oxide, Methyl Chloride). There is comparative data on the nerve agent. This is far from the high level of chemical performance mandated in NFPA Therefore if the committee choses to permit non-encapsulating garment, it is endorsing the use of respirators with unknown, but likely poorer barrier performance than mandated for the remainder of the garment. First Revision No. 81-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: James Zeigler Organization: J. P. Zeigler, LLC Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 10:06:42 EST 2014 Committee Action: Accepted Resolution: SR-8-NFPA Statement: With non-encapsulating ensembles, there are no assurances and significant reason to be concerned that open-circuit, SCBA cannot provide chemical barrier comparable to the requirements that are otherwise mandated for the rest of the ensemble in NFPA Since its inception, NFPA 1991, Standard on Vapor-Protective Ensembles for Hazardous Materials Emergencies, has required that all ensemble components provide protection against a battery of chemicals. Originally, this battery consisted of 21 chemicals. This battery was selected for its wide range in chemical solubility and polymer diffusion characteristics, critical factors in the chemical permeation through protective materials. The chemicals were not chosen because their represent a specific threat, although the list includes some high volume, frequently encountered, toxic chemicals. The requirements that the ensembles protect against all of these chemicals provides a high probability that the NFPA 1991 compliant ensembles would protect against a high concentration of an unknown chemical, an unknown mixture mixture or a peculiar environmental condition. In contrast, military chemical protective equipment is tested against specific chemicals and specific concentrations, based on the assumption that both the identity and concentration of the chemical hazards can be determined beforehand. Along these lines, additional chemicals barrier requirements were added to NFPA 1991, first as options, and then mandated in the 2005 edition, in response the threat of chemical terrorism. These additional chemicals consisted of chemical warfare agents and industrial chemicals recognized as potential terrorism weapons. The latter are sometime described as dual-use chemical agents. The testing requirements in the NIOSH CBRN certification program only involve 2 chemicals sulfur mustard and sarin. The sarin challenge is only vapor and at a concentration about ½ that of saturated environment. There is no liquid challenge with sarin. Mustard barrier is determined against liquid and vapor challenges. The vapor challenge is about 1/3 saturated vapor concentration and the liquid challenge consists of ul droplets placed (total of 0.86 ml or 0.03 oz) around the facepiece and interfaces. There are no other chemicals used on the barrier testing of the respirator. By comparison, NFPA 1991 requires barrier testing of all ensemble components with exposure to 100% of the chemical (liquid or vapor) and complete coverage. Therefore, the testing requirements of the NIOSH CBRN certification are significantly lower than required for components of NFPA 1991 ensembles. Butyl rubber has become a common polymer for the construction of military facepieces. We do not have barrier data on the facepieces, but we do have generic data on butyl gloves. The data taken from the most recent edition of the Pocket Guide for Chemical Protective Clothing for the 26 chemicals in the proposed NFPA 1991 battery shows that butyl provides poor barrier (< 60 minutes) against 7 (Carbon Disulfide, Dichloromethane, Diethylamine, n-hexane, Tetrachloroethylene, Tetrahydrofura, Toluene) and marginal barrier (<4 hours) against 5 of 25 chemicals (Butadiene, Dimethyl Sulfate, Ethyl Acetate, Ethylene Oxide, Methyl Chloride). There is comparative data on the nerve agent. This is far from the high level of chemical performance mandated in NFPA Therefore if the committee choses to permit non-encapsulating garment, it is endorsing the use of respirators with unknown, but likely poorer barrier performance than mandated for the remainder of the garment. 9 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

51 0 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 26-NFPA [ Section No ] The visor shall be permitted to be constructed of a transparent material that qualifies of an encapsulating suit or the respiratory face piece, gasket, seals and air supply hose of a non-encapsulating suit shall qualify as a chemical - protective layer. If non-encapsulating suit designs are permitted to be included then it is critical that all exposed parts of the breathing apparatus which replaces the traditional encapsulating suit's visor are evaluated in the testing regime. First Revision No. 83-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: Kristin Williamson Organization: The DuPont Company, Inc. Submittal Date: Thu Nov 06 15:49:15 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The Technical Committee decided to address non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles to NFPA 1994 as Class 1.

52 Public Comment No. 28-NFPA [ Section No ] * Vapor-protective ensembles shall only be permitted to be constructed using an outer garment designed to be worn over the suit element where such additional garments are necessary to meet the optional liquefied gas protection performance requirements specified in Section 7.8, or the optional chemical flash fire protection performance requirements specified in Section 7.9. Additionally, no detactable visor materials may be used to achieve base certification requirements. Use of detachable visor layers should not be permitted to be used to pass any of the base requirements for the visor material just as the full suit outer garment is no longer permitted. First Revision No. 40-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: Kristin Williamson Organization: The DuPont Company, Inc. Submittal Date: Thu Nov 06 16:00:04 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected but see related SR Resolution: SR-9-NFPA Statement: Use of detachable visor layers should not be permitted to be used to pass any of the base requirements for the visor material just as the full suit outer garment is no longer permitted. The TC is also making editorial corrections to reference the correct sections. 1 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

53 Public Comment No. 138-NFPA [ Section No ] Other than outer gloves and outer boots, vapor-protective ensembles shall be designed so that all separate components are securely attached and provided as a single and integrated unit.cold tack adhesive tape shall not be used to secure or to seam components of the ensemble in order to comply with the performance requirements of the standard. The purpose of this language is to clarify a long term recommendation of most committee members. Tape is not a substitute for properly designed seams and interfaces. While adhesive tape are commonly employed by hazardous materials responders, the use and application of tape to seal a garment does not achieve consistent results. Tape can not be applied consistently to achieve a reliable seal. Pockets and voids in the tape can trap liquids and particles that can contaminate the wearer during the doffing process. Tape cannot be reliably applied during rain and snow. The use of tape should to achieve barrier should be considered only in extreme cases where a garment of correct design in not available. Tape may be considered to reinforce interfaces or attachments but not as a replacement for a properly performing seal. Public Input No. 90-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: James Zeigler Organization: J. P. Zeigler, LLC Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 10:18:01 EST 2014 Committee Action: Accepted Resolution: SR-10-NFPA Statement: The purpose of this language is to clarify a long term recommendation of most committee members. Tape is not a substitute for properly designed seams and interfaces. While adhesive tape are commonly employed by hazardous materials responders, the use and application of tape to seal a garment does not achieve consistent results. Tape can not be applied consistently to achieve a reliable seal. Pockets and voids in the tape can trap liquids and particles that can contaminate the wearer during the doffing process. Tape cannot be reliably applied during rain and snow. The use of tape should to achieve barrier should be considered only in extreme cases where a garment of correct design in not available. Tape may be considered to reinforce interfaces or attachments but not as a replacement for a properly performing seal. 2 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

54 3 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 179-NFPA [ Section No ] Other than outer gloves and outer boots, vapor-protective ensembles shall be designed so that all separate components are securely attached and provided as a single and integrated unit. The new language harmonizes the standard per Public Comment 170. Related Public Comments for This Document Related Comment Public Comment No. 170-NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 98-NFPA [New Section after 6.2.5] Relationship Submitter Full Name: RYAN HIRSCHEY Organization: Saint-Gobain Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 15:48:44 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The TC is addressing this issue in Chapter 8.

55 Public Comment No. 139-NFPA [ Section No [Excluding any Sub-Sections] ] Respiratory equipment for hazardous materials emergencies and CBRN terrorism incidents is a critical part of overall protection and shall be specified and provided by the authority having jurisdiction. Only open-circuit SCBA that is certified to NFPA 1981shall 1981 shall be specified to be worn with NFPA 1991 compliant ensembles. Add annex language A NFPA 1981 compliant SCBA are certified to the NIOSH CBRN requirements. Those requierments require testing against 2 chemical agents. The exposure conditions are 320 ppm Sarin vapor, 42 ppm Sulfur Mustard Vapor and 43 drops (20 ul ea or 0.86 ml) distributed across the facepice. When selecting the respirator to be used with non-encapuslating NFPA 1991 compliant ensembles, the Agency Having Jurisdictioin will have to rely upon additional information to make the selection of a respirator with adquate protection against other hazardous. In addition, as this standard is for a single use, the Agency having Jurisdiction will have to rely upon other information to determine if an SCBA that is not enclosed in an NFPA 1991 ensemble and exposed during an hazarouds materials incident may be safely reused. CBRN respirators are only tested for chemical protection against 2 chemical vapors (320 ppm sarin and 42 ppm mustard) and against a total of 0.86 ml of mustard distributed in 40 droplets across the face piece. The Agency Having Jurisdiction should be aware of the chemical limited barrier testing of the CBRN compliant respirator facepiece. This level of testing is in no way equivalent to the level of chemical barrier testing required for the other components of NFPA 1991 compliant ensembles. In addition, SCBA assemblies worn that are not worn within encapsulating ensembles are exposed to chemical liquids and vapors. There is no testing of the performance of the units during chemical exposure. Nor is there guidance or testing on the re-use of these assemblies after exposure during hazardous material emergencies. Related Public Comments for This Document Related Comment Relationship Public Comment No. 145-NFPA [New Section after 1.1.6] First Revision No. 39-NFPA [New Section after 6.1] First Revision No. 3-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: James Zeigler Organization: J. P. Zeigler, LLC Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 10:35:16 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The Technical Committee decided to address non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles to NFPA 1994 as Class 1. 4 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

56 5 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 24-NFPA [ Section No [Excluding any Sub-Sections] ] Respiratory equipment for hazardous materials emergencies and CBRN terrorism incidents is a critical part of overall protection and shall be specified and provided by the authority having jurisdiction. Only open-circuit SCBA that is certified to NFPA 1981shall be specified to be worn with NFPA 1991 compliant ensembles. The authority having jurisdiction does not physically provide the respiratory equipment. First Revision No. 39-NFPA [New Section after 6.1] Submitter Full Name: Kristin Williamson Organization: The DuPont Company, Inc. Submittal Date: Thu Nov 06 15:35:50 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The TC is addressing this Public Comment via a SR to Chapter 6.

57 Public Comment No. 5-NFPA [ Section No [Excluding any Sub-Sections] ] Respiratory equipment for hazardous materials emergencies and CBRN terrorism incidents is a critical part of overall protection and shall be specified and provided by the authority having jurisdiction. Only open-circuit SCBA that is certified to NFPA 1981shall be specified to be worn with NFPA 1991 compliant ensembles JUSTIFICATION: This requirement unduly restricts the marketing of suits. As suit manufacturer without own NFPA-certified SCBA, we cannot specify NFPA-certified SCBA from other manufacturers, because we would neither be in control of nor be informed of any ongoing modifications of these products which would then invalidate the system certification. Only open-circuit SCBA that is certified to NFPA 1981shall be specified to be worn with NFPA 1991 compliant ensembles JUSTIFICATION: This requirement unduly restricts the marketing of suits. As suit manufacturer without own NFPA-certified SCBA, we cannot specify NFPA-certified SCBA from other manufacturers, because we would neither be in control of nor be informed of any ongoing modifications of these products which would then invalidate the system certification. Public Input No. 5-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: Thomas von Hoegen Organization: Drger Safety Co. Submittal Date: Wed Nov 05 02:50:59 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The TC rejected this Public Comment because it continues to require NFPA 1981 certification. 6 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

58 7 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 85-NFPA [ Section No [Excluding any Sub-Sections] ] Only open-circuit SCBA that is certified to NFPA 1981shall be specified to be worn with NFPA 1991 compliant ensembles. Move the first sentence to an Annex A Respiratory equipment for hazardous materials emergencies and CBRN terrorism incidents is a critical part of overall protection and shall be specified and provided by the authority having jurisdiction. Only open-circuit SCBA that is certified to NFPA 1981shall be specified to be worn with NFPA 1991 compliant ensembles This is a requirement for the AHJ so it cannot be mandatory language in a manufacturing product standard. Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved 1991_ docx Proposed text for NFPA The first sentence in is mandatory text related to the AHJ. NFPA 1991 is a manufacturing product standard so evaluation to this by the certification organizations is not possible. The sentence should be moved to the annex for reference material to the requirement. First Revision No. 39-NFPA [New Section after 6.1] Submitter Full Name: Karen Lehtonen Organization: Lion Apparel, Inc. Submittal Date: Thu Nov 13 15:50:41 EST 2014 Committee Action: Accepted Resolution: SR-11-NFPA Statement: The first sentence in is mandatory text related to the AHJ. NFPA 1991 is a manufacturing product standard so evaluation to this by the certification organizations is not possible. The sentence should be moved to the annex for reference material to the requirement. The TC is adding an explanatory paragraph for the provision of respiratory protection by the authority having jurisdiction.

59 Respiratory equipment for hazardous materials emergencies and CBRN terrorism incidents is a critical part of overall protection and shall be specified and provided by the authority having jurisdiction. Only open-circuit SCBA that is certified to NFPA 1981shall be specified to be worn with NFPA 1991 compliant ensembles. Add new Annex A Respiratory equipment for hazardous materials emergencies and CBRN terrorism incidents is a critical part of overall protection and is specified and provided by the authority having jurisdiction. The text moved to the annex is a requirement for the AHJ so it cannot be mandatory language in a manufacturing product standard.

60 8 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 86-NFPA [ Section No ] * The interface of and integration of the selected respirator respiratory equipment with the protective ensemble shall not invalidate the NIOSH certification of the respective respirator respective respiratory equipment. Changing the terminology from respirator to respiratory equipment to match those defined in this standard. First Revision No. 39-NFPA [New Section after 6.1] Submitter Full Name: Karen Lehtonen Organization: Lion Apparel, Inc. Submittal Date: Thu Nov 13 16:05:31 EST 2014 Committee Action: Accepted Resolution: SR-12-NFPA Statement: The TC is changing the terminology from respirator to respiratory equipment for consistency with those defined in this standard.

61 9 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 6-NFPA [ Section No ] Where a nonencapsulating vapor-protective suit is used as part of the vapor-protective ensemble, the manufacturer shall specify the specific respiratory equipment to be worn for the vapor-protective ensemble to be certified. JUSTIFICATION: Wording is difficult to understand. Definition defines non-encapsulating suits as non-vapor tight, how can this be a vapor protective suit? "Non-encapsulating suit" and vapoour tightness seems to be a contradiction in itself, the wording or the corresponding definition should be clarified. Definition defines non-encapsulating suits as non-vapor tight, how can this be a vapor protective suit? Public Input No. 6-NFPA [New Section after 7.1] Submitter Full Name: Thomas von Hoegen Organization: Drger Safety Co. Submittal Date: Wed Nov 05 03:09:29 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The Technical Committee decided to address non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles to NFPA 1994 as Class 1.

62 0 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 170-NFPA [ Section No ] Where the glove consists of multiple layers to meet the glove element requirements, all layers shall extend to at least the interface connection and be securely attached. The proposed language clarifies the requirement to ensure the glove element provides full protection to the user. The secure attachment of all layers in the glove element minimizes the opportunity for the product to be used in a non-compliant manner. Related Public Comments for This Document Related Comment Public Comment No. 179-NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 98-NFPA [New Section after 6.2.5] Relationship Submitter Full Name: RYAN HIRSCHEY Organization: Saint-Gobain Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 14:52:01 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The TC is addressing this issue in Chapter 8.

63 1 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 29-NFPA [ Section No ] Where the glove consists of multiple layers to meet the glove element requirements, all layers shall extend to at least the suit sleeve interface connection. The change is made for clarity of the intent. First Revision No. 41-NFPA [New Section after 6.2.5] Submitter Full Name: Kristin Williamson Organization: The DuPont Company, Inc. Submittal Date: Thu Nov 06 16:06:40 EST 2014 Committee Action: Accepted Resolution: SR-13-NFPA Statement: The TC is making this change for clarification.

64 2 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 87-NFPA [ Section No ] Footwear shall meet the performance requirements as specified in ASTM F 2413, Performance Requirements for Protective (Safety) Toe Cap Footwear, for impact-resistant, compression-resistant, and puncture-resistant footwear with the exception that flex resistance to cracking shall not be evaluated. Would it be clearer to add the section in ASTM F2413 that is excluded? First Revision No. 38-NFPA [New Section after 6.3.9] Submitter Full Name: Karen Lehtonen Organization: Lion Apparel, Inc. Submittal Date: Thu Nov 13 16:10:18 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The TC rejected the Public Comment for consistency with NFPA 1994.

65 Public Comment No. 196-NFPA [ Chapter 7 ] Chapter 7 Performance Requirements 7.1 Vapor-Protective Ensemble Performance Requirements Vapor-protective ensembles shall be tested for overall function as specified in Section 8.3, 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 Ensembles shall be tested for overall function and integrity as specified in Section 8.4 and shall meet the following performance criteria: (1) Ensembles shall have an ending pressure of at least 80 mm ( 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 permit the test subject to see through the combination of respiration and ensemble visor with a visual acuity of 20/35 or better. (4) Ensembles shall permit the test subject to remove and reinsert their hand into the glove system 5 times sequentially within a period of 2 minutes or less Ensembles shall be tested for airflow capacity as specified in Section 8.5and shall exhibit no internal pressures greater than 150 mm (6 in.) water gauge pressure, and shall show an ending pressure of at least 80 mm ( in.) water gauge pressure after subsequent testing for gastight integrity as specified in Section Ensembles on which external fittings are installed that penetrate any primary materials shall be tested for gastight integrity as specified in Section 8.2and show an ending pressure of at least 80 mm ( in.) water gauge Exhaust valves installed in vapor-protective ensembles shall be tested for mounting strength as specified in Section 8.9 and shall have a failure force greater than 135 N (30 lbf) External fittings installed in vapor-protective ensembles shall be tested for pull-out strength as specified in Section 8.13and shall have a failure force greater than 1000 N (225 lbf) Exhaust valves installed in vapor-protective ensembles shall be tested for inward leakage as specified in Section 8.24and shall not exhibit a leakage rate exceeding 30 ml/min (1.83 in. 3 /min) Vapor-protective ensembles shall be tested for overall inward leakage as specified in Section 8.8, and shall have an average local physiological protective dosage factor (PPDFi) value at each PAD location for the four ensembles tested of no less than and an average systemic physiological protective dosage factor (PPDFsys) value for each of the four tested ensembles of no less than Vapor-Protective Suit Element Performance Requirements Suit materials and seams shall be tested for permeation resistance as specified in Section 8.6 and shall not exceed a cumulative permeation of 6.0 μg/cm 2 for each chemical tested Suit materials and seams shall be tested for permeation resistance as specified in Section 8.6 and shall not exceed a cumulative permeation of 1.25 μg/cm 2 for the chemical warfare agent Soman (GD or O-Pinacolyl methylphosphonofluoridate) Suit materials and seams shall be tested for permeation resistance as specified in Section 8.6and shall not exceed a cumulative permeation of 6.0 μg/cm 2 for each additional chemical or specific chemical mixture for which the manufacturer is certifying the ensemble Suit materials shall be tested for resistance to flame impingement as specified in Section 8.7, and shall have an afterflame time of not greater than 2.0 seconds and shall not melt Suit material shall be tested for bursting strength as specified in Section 8.10 and shall have a bursting strength greater than 200 N (45 lbf) Suit materials shall be tested for puncture propagation tear resistance as specified in Section 8.11 and shall have a puncture propagation tear resistance greater than 49 N (11 lbf) Suit materials shall be tested for cold weather performance as specified in Section 8.12 and shall have a bending moment of less than N m (0.5 in.-lbf) at an angular deflection of 60 degrees at 25 C ( 13 F) Suit seams shall be tested for seam strength as specified in Section 8.22 and shall have a breaking strength greater than 67 N/25 mm (15 lbf/1 in.) Suit closure assemblies shall be tested for penetration resistance as specified in Section 8.23 and shall show no penetration of the test liquids for at least 1 hour Suit closure assemblies shall be tested for chemical penetration resistance as specified in Section 8.23 and shall show no penetration of the test liquids for at least 1 hour and for any additional chemicals or specific chemical mixtures for which the manufacturer is certifying the suit Suit closure assemblies shall be tested for closure strength as specified in Section 8.22 and shall have a breaking strength greater than 67 N/25 mm (15 lbf/1 in.). 7.3 Vapor-Protective Suit Element Visor Performance Requirements Visor materials and visor material seams shall be tested for permeation resistance as specified in Section 8.6 and shall not exceed a cumulative permeation of 6.0 μg/cm 2 for each chemical tested Visor materials and visor material seams shall be tested for permeation resistance as specified in Section 8.6 and shall not exceed a cumulative permeation of 1.25 μg/cm 2 for the chemical warfare agent Soman (GD or O-Pinacolyl methylphosphonofluoridate) Visor materials and visor material seams shall be tested for permeation resistance as specified in Section 8.6 and shall not exceed a cumulative permeation of 4 μg/cm 2 for the chemical warfare agent sulfur mustard, distilled [HD or bis (2-chloroethyl) sulfide] Visor materials and visor material seams shall be tested for permeation resistance as specified in Section 8.6, and shall not exhibit breakthrough detection time of 1 hour or less and shall not exceed a cumulative permeation of 6.0 μg/cm 2 for each additional chemical or specific chemical mixture for which the manufacturer is certifying the ensemble Visor materials shall be tested for resistance to flame impingement as specified in Section 8.7 and shall have an afterflame time of not greater than 2.0 seconds and shall not melt Visor materials shall be tested for bursting strength as specified in Section 8.10 and shall not have a full-thickness puncture or crack Visor materials shall be tested as specified in Section 8.11 and shall not have a full-thickness puncture or crack Visor materials shall be tested for puncture resistance as specified in Section 8.14 and shall not show evidence of a visible hole extending through all layers Visor material shall be tested for cold temperature bending as specified in Section 8.14 and shall not crack or show evidence of visible damage Visor material seams shall be tested for seam strength as specified in Section 8.22 and shall have a breaking strength of not less than 67 N/25 mm (15 lbf/1 in.). 7.4 Vapor-Protective Glove Element Performance Requirements Glove materials shall be tested for permeation resistance as specified in Section 8.6 and shall not exceed a cumulative permeation of 6.0 μg/cm 2 for each chemical tested Glove materials shall be tested for permeation resistance as specified in Section 8.6 and shall not exceed a cumulative permeation of 1.25 μg/cm 2 for the chemical warfare agent Soman (GD or O-Pinacolyl methylphosphonofluoridate) Glove materials shall be tested for permeation resistance as specified in Section 8.6 and shall not exceed a cumulative permeation of 4 μg/cm 2 for the chemical warfare agent sulfur mustard, distilled [HD or bis (2-chloroethyl) sulfide] Glove materials shall be tested for permeation resistance as specified in Section 8.6 and shall not exceed a cumulative permeation of 6.0 μg/cm 2 for each additional chemical or specific chemical mixture for which the manufacturer is certifying the ensemble Glove materials shall be tested for resistance to flame impingement as specified in Section 8.7 and shall have an afterflame time of not greater than 2.0 seconds and shall not melt Glove materials shall be tested for cut resistance as specified in Section 8.15 and shall have a blade travel distance of not less than 20 mm (0.8 in.) Glove materials shall be tested for puncture resistance as specified in Section 8.16 and shall have a puncture resistance of not less than 22 N (5 lbf) Glove materials shall be tested for cold weather performance as specified in Section 8.12 and shall have a bending moment of less than N - m ( 0.5 in.-lbf) at an angular deflection of 60 degrees and 25 C ( 13 F) * Gloves shall be tested for dexterity as specified in Section 8.17 and shall have an average percent increase of bare-hand control of less than 600 percent. 7.5 Vapor-Protective Footwear Element Performance Requirements Footwear upper materials shall be tested for permeation resistance as specified in Section 8.6 and shall not exceed a cumulative permeation of 6.0 μg/cm 2 for each chemical tested Footwear upper materials shall be tested for permeation resistance as specified in Section 8.6 and shall not exceed a cumulative permeation of 1.25 μg/cm 2 for the chemical warfare agent Soman (GD or O-Pinacolyl methylphosphonofluoridate) Footwear upper materials shall be tested for permeation resistance as specified in Section 8.6 and shall not exceed a cumulative permeation of 4 μg/cm 2 for the chemical warfare agent sulfur mustard, distilled [HD or bis (2-chloroethyl) sulfide] Footwear upper materials shall be tested for permeation resistance as specified in Section 8.6 and shall not exceed a cumulative permeation of 6.0 μg/cm 2 for each additional chemical or specific chemical mixture for which the manufacturer is certifying the ensemble Footwear upper materials shall be tested for resistance to flame impingement as specified in Section 8.7 and shall have an afterflame time of not greater than 2.0 seconds and shall not melt Footwear upper materials shall be tested for cut resistance as specified in Section 8.15 and have a blade travel distance of not less than 20 mm (0.8 in.) Footwear upper materials shall be tested for puncture resistance as specified in Section 8.16 and have a puncture resistance of not less than 36 N (8 lbf) Footwear heels shall be tested for abrasion resistance as specified in Section 8.20 and the relative volume loss shall not be greater than 250 mm Footwear soles or ladder shanks shall be tested for bending resistance as specified in Section 8.16 and shall not deflect more than 6 mm ( 1 4 in.) Footwear soles and heels shall be tested for slip resistance as specified in Section 8.19 and shall have a coefficient of 0.40 or greater. 7.6 Optional Liquefied Gas Protection Performance Requirements for Vapor-Protective Ensembles and Ensemble Elements. 3 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

66 7.6.1 Vapor-protective ensembles and ensemble elements that will be certified as compliant with the additional optional criteria for liquefied gas protection for escape only shall also meet all applicable requirements in Sections 7.1 through Primary suit, glove, and footwear element materials shall be tested for liquefied gas permeation resistance as specified in Section8.6, and shall not show signs of damage and shall not exceed a cumulative permeation of 6.0 μg/cm 2 for the following list of gaseous industrial chemicals: (1) Ammonia (2) Chlorine (3) Ethylene oxide 7.7 Optional Chemical Flash Fire Protection Performance Requirements for Vapor-Protective Ensembles and Ensemble Elements Vapor-protective ensembles and ensemble elements that will be certified as compliant with the additional optional criteria for chemical flash fire protection for escape only shall also meet all applicable requirements in Sections 7.1 through Vapor-protective ensembles and elements shall be tested for overall ensemble flash protection as specified by Section 8.2.7, and shall not have any afterflame times 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 Suit materials, visor materials, glove materials, and footwear upper materials shall be tested for heat transfer performance (HTP) as specified in Section 8.18 and shall have an average HTP rating of not less than 12 cal/cm Primary suit, glove, and footwear element materials shall be tested for resistance to flame impingement as specified in Section 8.7 and shall have afterflame time not greater than 2.0 seconds during the initial 3-second exposure period, 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 during the subsequent 12-second exposure period Vapor-protective ensembles and elements shall be tested for overall heat transfer performance as specified in Section 8.18 and shall have an average predicted body burn rating of not more than Optional Liquefied Gas Protection Performance Requirements for Vapor-Protective Ensembles and Ensemble Elements Vapor-protective ensembles and ensemble elements that will be certified as compliant with the additional optional criteria for liquefied gas protection for escape only shall also meet all applicable requirements in Sections 7.1 through Primary suit, glove, and footwear element materials shall be tested for liquefied gas permeation resistance as specified in Section, 8.6, and shall not show signs of damage, and shall not exhibit a normalized breakthrough detection time of 15 minutes or less for the following list of gaseous industrial chemicals: (1) Ammonia (2) Chlorine (3) Ethylene oxide 7.9 Optional Chemical Flash Fire Protection Performance Requirements for Vapor-Protective Ensembles and Ensemble Elements Vapor-protective ensembles and ensemble elements that will be certified as compliant with the additional optional criteria for chemical flash fire protection for escape only shall also meet all applicable requirements in Sections 7.1 through Vapor-protective ensembles and elements shall be tested for overall ensemble flash protection as specified by Section 8.25 shall not have any afterflame times 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 Primary suit, glove, and footwear element materials shall be tested for heat transfer performance (HTP) as specified in Section 8.18, and shall have an average HTP rating of not less than Primary suit, glove, and footwear element materials shall be tested for resistance to flame impingement as specified in Section 8.7, and shall not ignite during the initial 3-second exposure period, 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. Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved pdf CC Note No. 1 CC NOTE: The following CC Note No. 1 appeared in the First Draft Report as First Revision 46. The Correlating Committee directs the Technical Committee on Hazardous Materials Protective Clothing and Equipment to validate the new [or significantly revised] test method through the following: 1. Provide a rationale with supporting evidence that substantiates the need or the rationale for establishing new test methods or criteria or for revising existing test methods or criteria in terms of field relevance, fire service needs, safety concerns, recognition of new product technology, accounting for advances in testing technology, or accomplishing other clearly stated objectives. Examples of supporting evidence can include the documentation of specific safety issues that have been identified by end user or other groups, which may include statistics on the number of incidents or highlight specific cases where the issues have arisen. Other forms of supporting evidence can include aspects of existing requirements that unduly prevent the proper testing or consideration of new product technologies because the existing test methods or criteria are found to be design-restrictive, or information that shows that new test methods have become available that provide more reliable or relevant forms of evaluation for the specific product property or attribute under consideration. The provision of scientific papers, test data, or statistics provides a more robust justification for supporting evidence. 2. Conduct an assessment to determine the potential impact of the new or significantly revised test methods or criteria on products that have already been certified or fielded. The nature of this requirement is to have the TC assess what the anticipated impact of the new or modified requirements are relative to specific products. It is not the intent to identify specific products that might be excluded by a new or modified requirement, but rather for the submitter to provide an analysis for the types of products that might be affected, with an indication as to why the affected products do not provide adequate performance. 3. Establish Intra-laboratory repeatability and inter-laboratory reproducibility for new or significantly revised test methods. Where possible, test methods shall include procedures for their calibration. The principal certification organizations and their laboratories shall formally affirm to the TC that the tests can be conducted reliably as proposed at least by the time of the second draft. An essential part of the validation process is to include an assessment of the repeatability (intra-laboratory precision) and reproducibility (inter-laboratory precision) of any new test method or significant modification of an existing test method. This information is important for establishing the reliability of the test method and should, as a minimum, include those laboratories that provide certification services for the relevant product standard. This information may also be useful in setting specific criteria to account for expected test method variability. 4. Establish the relevance of test methods and any associated criteria through a determination of how proposed or significantly revised test methods identify meaningful differences in product performance consistent with field performance. Attempts should be made to determine the degree to which new or significantly revised test methods identify meaningful differences in product performance or relate to the field performance of products. One recommended approach is to identify product types that are considered to be unsuitable based on end user field experience and evaluate those products alongside other products to determine if the test method suitably identifies meaningful differences in performance consistent with observed field performance. Another approach is to demonstrate the impact and relevance of test results for products through carefully designed experiments carried out in the field. Lastly, one additional approach is to relate proposed criteria to specific safety levels that can be documented through scientific or other reasonably based field investigative work. 5. Provide test data and any other supporting documentation to the members of the respective TC and the CC, or any individuals who may request this information. Access to the information on which new or significantly revised test methods and criteria are based should be available to all parties seeking this information, including TC members, CC members, and individuals outside the committee process (through the NFPA). Supporting documentation that includes, but is not limited to, proposed new or modified methodology/criteria with justification statements, supporting evidence, test data, references to published papers or statistics, inter-laboratory test results, and other information should be maintained by the TC as part of meeting minutes or made available elsewhere on the NFPA TC website page. 6. Provide at least one of the following visual illustrations of the proposed test equipment and test material(s) to the respective TC and CC: a. Video(s) b. Photo(s) c. Drawing (s) The visual illustrations shall be provided along with the submittal. Visual illustrations help TC and CC members better understand the proposed new test or modified test. First Revision No. 46-NFPA [Chapter 7] Submitter Full Name: CC on FAE-AAC Organization: NFPA Submittal Date: Mon Nov 17 13:19:34 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The TC addressed the CC Notes within specific sections in Chapters 7 and 8. 4 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

67 Public Comment No. 61-NFPA [ Section No ] Vapor-protective ensembles shall be tested for overall function liquid integrity as specified in Section 8.3, 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. Clearly an editorial error as the ensemble is evaluated for liquid integrity First Revision No. 46-NFPA [Chapter 7] Submitter Full Name: Jeffrey Stull Organization: International Personnel Protection, Inc. Submittal Date: Thu Nov 13 07:13:06 EST 2014 Committee Action: Accepted Resolution: SR-14-NFPA Statement: The TC is providing an editorial correction, the ensemble is evaluated for liquid integrity 5 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

68 6 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 143-NFPA [ Section No ] Ensembles shall be tested for overall function and integrity as specified in Section 8.4 and shall meet the following performance criteria: (1) Ensembles shall have an ending pressure of at least 80 mm ( 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 permit the test subject to see through the combination of respiration and ensemble visor with a visual acuity of 20/35 or better. (4) Ensembles shall permit the test subject to remove and reinsert their hand into the glove system 5 times sequentially within a period of 2 minutes or less. (5) Ensembles shall permit the test subject to properly identify 3 out the 4 numbers on the NFPA 704 based placard at each of the following angles: Upwards- 36 ; Downward-30 ; Right and Left- 60 This comments attempts to satisfy a user request for Field of View improvement that was noted during the NFPA 1991 User Survey First Revision No. 85-NFPA [Section No. 8.4] Submitter Full Name: Jason Allen Organization: Intertek Testing Services Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 11:08:44 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: See SR 15.

69 7 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 44-NFPA [ Section No ] Ensembles shall be tested for overall function and integrity as specified in Section 8.4 and shall meet the following performance criteria: (1) Ensembles shall have an ending pressure of at least 80 mm ( 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 permit the test subject to see through the combination of respiration and ensemble visor with a visual acuity of 20/35 or better. (4) Ensembles shall permit the test subject to remove and reinsert their hand into the glove system 5 times sequentially within a period of 2 5 minutes or less. Having 5 minutes as the requirement is most appropriate to assess this performance parameter. First Revision No. 46-NFPA [Chapter 7] Submitter Full Name: Kristin Williamson Organization: The DuPont Company, Inc. Submittal Date: Mon Nov 10 09:08:00 EST 2014 Committee Action: Accepted Resolution: SR-15-NFPA Statement: The TC accepted the Public Input, but changed the time requirement to 2.5 minutes. The TC also added an additional requirement for ensembles overall function and integrity performance criteria.

70 Public Comment No. 117-NFPA [ Section No ] 7.1.3* Ensembles Encapsulating ensembles shall be tested for airflow capacity as specified in Section 8.5and shall exhibit no internal pressures greater than 150 mm (6 in.) water gauge pressure, and shall show an ending pressure of at least 80 mm ( in.) water gauge pressure after subsequent testing for gastight integrity as specified in Section 8.2. The proposed changes clarify the application of the standard to both encapsulating and non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles. Public Input No. 182-NFPA [Global Input] Submitter Full Name: Jeffrey Stull Organization: International Personnel Protection, Inc. Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 01:33:48 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The Technical Committee decided to address non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles to NFPA 1994 as Class 1. 8 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

71 9 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 43-NFPA [ New Section after ] Angular Field of Vision Ensembles shall be tested for angular field of vision as specified in section and shall have an average left and average right field of vision of xx degrees. There is a test method in that does not have a requirement in section 7. First Revision No. 85-NFPA [Section No. 8.4] Submitter Full Name: Kristin Williamson Organization: The DuPont Company, Inc. Submittal Date: Mon Nov 10 09:00:53 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The TC addressed this Public Comment in SR 15.

72 Public Comment No. 142-NFPA [ Section No ] Vapor-protective ensembles shall be tested for overall inward leakage as specified in Section 8.8, and shall have an average local physiological protective dosage factor (PPDFi) value at each PAD location for the four ensembles tested of no less than XXX and an average systemic physiological protective dosage factor (PPDFsys) value for each of the four tested ensembles of no less than 1080 XXX.0. Since the MIST test was introduced because committee was forced to delete the SF6 test due to an impending ban of said gas by environmental legislation, the MIST test requirement should be as high as possible not to reduce the requirement too much from the previous PF level and not to change what is an NFPA 1991 ensemble, what is NFPA 1991 protection level and its applicable scenarios of use too much. I am currently not competent to specify an exact value for XXX but it should be as high as possible while still achieving a reasonable repeatability and reproducibility of the test method. Public Input No. 152-NFPA [New Section after 7.1] Submitter Full Name: Ulf Nystrom Organization: Ansell Protective Solutions Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 11:06:41 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: See SR of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

73 Public Comment No. 45-NFPA [ Section No ] Vapor-protective ensembles shall be tested for overall inward leakage as specified in Section 8.8, Overall Ensemble Inward Leakage Test, and shall have an average local physiological protective dosage factor (PPDF i ) value at each PAD location for the four ensembles tested of no less than and an average systemic physiological protective dosage factor (PPDF sys ) value for each of the four tested ensembles of no less than no inward leakage greater than 0.02 percent. Additional Proposed Changes File Name Negative_-_Inward_Leakage_-_SF6_to_MIST.pdf Description Approved 1. MIST is not equivalent to SF6 MIST can t meet the current inward leakage requirement in of no inward leakage greater than 0.02 percent. The TC should not reduce the protection level for the 1991 ensembles. 2. Relevant protection factors for unknown hazards has been defined by OSHA First Revision No. 46-NFPA [Chapter 7] Submitter Full Name: Kristin Williamson Organization: The DuPont Company, Inc. Submittal Date: Mon Nov 10 09:10:24 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: See SR of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

74 Negative Inward Leakage: SF 6 Test Replaced with MIST Supporting statement from ballot The technical committee is proactively addressing the expected limited availability of SF6 for test implementation by replacing the inward leakage test with the MIST test. Negative based on the following reasons (explained further below): 1. EPA is not banning SF6 2. MIST is not equivalent to SF6 MIST can t meet the current inward leakage requirement in of no inward leakage greater than 0.02 percent. 3. Relevant protection factors for unknown hazards has been defined by OSHA 1) EPA is not banning SF6 Committed to reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Voluntary SF6 programs for the Electrical Power Systems and Magnesium Industries It appears that no mandates, restrictions, phase out plans exist at this time for SF6 Source: sf6/ sf6 THE PRESIDENT S CLIMATE ACTION PLAN (June 2013) does not mention SF6 Source: df Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs General Guidance Guidance: F Gas and Ozone Regulations Information Sheet GEN 3: Markets & Equipment April 2012 Laboratory and scientific applications. There are a number of minor uses of fluorinated (F) gases in specialized scientific applications. For example SF 6 is used as an atmospheric tracer gas. These applications are still allowed under the EU F gas Regulation. Source: 72/fgas gen3 markets equipment.pdf

75 2) MIST is not equivalent to SF6 MIST can t meet the current inward leakage requirement in of no inward leakage greater than 0.02 percent. SF6 (NFPA ) has a nearly 60 times higher external concentration level than MIST (NFPA 1994) Max protection factor: MIST is 1,350 or <0.10% inward leakage SF6 is 5,000 (currently used today) or <0.02% inward leakage MIST has sensitivity issues that would need to be resolved in order to reach the current capabilities of the SF6 test Source: Presentation from Meeting Minutes Feb , 2014 Incorporation of the Man In Simulant Test into the NFPA 1991 Standard as a Replacement for the Overall Ensemble Inward Leakage Test (SF6) 3) Relevant protection factors for unknown hazards has been defined by OSHA OSHA details a version of the inward leakage test that uses ammonia as the challenge vapor. The inward leakage detection capabilities were limited to a PF of 200. It clearly states multiple times in the section that any detectable ammonia in the suit interior indicates that the suit has failed the test. When other ammonia detectors are used a lower level of detection is possible, and it should be specified as the pass/fail criteria. In other words, no inward leakage of vapor is considered acceptable. OSHA: 29 CFR App A This appendix sets forth the non mandatory examples of tests which may be used to evaluate compliance with (g)(4)(ii) and (iii). Other tests and other challenge agents may be used to evaluate compliance. B. "Totally encapsulating chemical protective suit qualitative leak test" 1.0 Scope 1.1 This practice semi qualitatively tests gas tight totally encapsulating chemical protective suit integrity by detecting inward leakage of ammonia vapor. Since no modifications are made to the suit to carry out this test, the results from this practice provide a realistic test for the integrity of the entire suit. 2.4 "Intrusion Coefficient" means a number expressing the level of protection provided by a gas tight totally encapsulating chemical protective suit. The intrusion coefficient is calculated by dividing the test room challenge agent concentration by the concentration of challenge agent found inside the suit. The accuracy of the intrusion coefficient is dependent on the challenge agent monitoring methods. The larger the intrusion coefficient the greater the protection provided by the TECP suit. 6.6 After two minutes a determination of the ammonia concentration within the chamber should be made using the high range colorimetric detector tube. A concentration of 1000 ppm ammonia or greater shall be generated before the exercises are started. 6.7 To test the integrity of the suit the following four minute exercise protocol should be followed:

76 6.14 Any detectable ammonia in the suit interior (five ppm ammonia (NH(3)) or more for the length of stain detector tube) indicates that the suit has failed the test. When other ammonia detectors are used a lower level of detection is possible, and it should be specified as the pass/fail criteria By following this test method, an intrusion coefficient of approximately 200 or more can be measured with the suit in a completely operational condition. If the intrusion coefficient is 200 or more, then the suit is suitable for emergency response and field use. 8.2 The evaluation of the data shall be specified as "suit passed" or "suit failed," and the date of the test. Any detectable ammonia (five ppm or greater for the length of stain detector tube) in the suit interior indicates the suit has failed this test. When other ammonia detectors are used, a lower level of detection is possible and it should be specified as the pass fail criteria. Intrusion Coefficient = (1,000 ppm/5 ppm *limit*) = 200 Source: _id=10652 Using the same principles above, but applying to chemicals that are considered skin hazards, example Benzene: Benzene: 20,000 ppm levels quoted in Current OSHA PEL: 1 ppm TWA, 5 ppm STEL Intrusion Coefficient = (20,000 ppm / 5 ppm *STEL limit*) = 4,000 4,000 > MIST PF of 1,350 MIST would not be an adequate predictor of the inward leakage limit per the current STEL from OSHA IDLH Values for Other Chemicals can be found here:

77 Public Comment No. 74-NFPA [ Section No ] Vapor-protective ensembles shall be tested for overall inward leakage as specified in Section 8.8, and shall have an average local physiological protective dosage factor (PPDFi) value at each PAD location for the four ensembles tested of no less than and an average systemic physiological protective dosage factor (PPDFsys) value for each of the four tested ensembles of no less than Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved Justification_of_NFPA_1991_Performance_Requirements_for_MIST.pdf The document provides justification for the new MIST performance requirements for NFPA The proposed changes would provide new MIST performance requirements for NFPA 1991 ensembles. Both the local and systemic values are based on toxicological data that represent the exposure required to cause threshold or mild effects in 1% of the exposed population instead of the 10% value currently used for NFPA 1994 Class 2 and Class 3 ensembles. The minimum local physiological protective dosage factor (PPDFi) of 1071 for NFPA 1991 ensembles is based on the conditions used by NIOSH to certify the permeation performance of CBRN SCBA's to sulfur mustard. The maximum exposure value is 300 mg/m3 x 30 minutes = 9,000 mg.min/m3. This value is divided by the onset of symptoms exposure dosage (OSED) value that corresponds to an exposure that causes threshold mustard effects of blistering and ulceration in 1% of the population (ECt01). This OSED value is 8.4 mg.min/m3. The ratio of the 9,000 mg.min/m3 to the 8.4 mg.min/m3 results in the local PPDF of The systemic physiological protective dosage factor (PPDFsys) of 488 for NFPA 1991 ensembles is based on the conditions used by NIOSH to certify the permeation performance of CBRN SCBA's to nerve agent GB. The maximum exposure value is 2,000 mg/m3 x 30 minutes = 60,000 mg.min/m3 (For this calculation, nerve agent GD concentration is assumed to be equivalent to nerve agent GB concentration specified in the standard). This exposure dosage is divided by the systemic onset of symptoms exposure dosage (OSEDsys) that corresponds to an exposure of nerve agent GD that would cause threshold effects of twitching and localized sweating for 1% of the population (ECt01). This OSEDsys of 123 mg.min/m3 results in the systemic PPDF of 488. Public Input No. 175-NFPA [Section No. 8.8] First Revision No. 16-NFPA [Section No. 8.8] Submitter Full Name: R. Ormond Organization: North Carolina State University Submittal Date: Thu Nov 13 12:32:51 EST 2014 Committee Action: Accepted Resolution: SR-16-NFPA Statement: These changes provide new MIST performance requirements for NFPA 1991 ensembles. Both the local and systemic values are based on toxicological data that represent the exposure required to cause threshold or mild effects in 1% of the exposed population instead of the 10% value currently used for NFPA 1994 Class 2 and Class 3 ensembles. The minimum local physiological protective dosage factor (PPDFi) of 1071 for NFPA 1991 ensembles is based on the conditions used by NIOSH to certify the permeation performance of CBRN SCBA's to sulfur mustard. The maximum exposure value is 300 mg/m3 x 30 minutes = 9,000 mg.min/m3. This value is divided by the onset of symptoms exposure dosage (OSED) value that corresponds to an exposure that causes threshold mustard effects of blistering and ulceration in 1% of the population (ECt01). This OSED value is 8.4 mg.min/m3. The ratio of the 9,000 mg.min/m3 to the 8.4 mg.min/m3 results in the local PPDF of The systemic physiological protective dosage factor (PPDFsys) of 488 for NFPA 1991 ensembles is based on the conditions used by NIOSH to certify the permeation performance of CBRN SCBA's to nerve agent GB. The maximum exposure value is 2,000 mg/m3 x 30 minutes = 60,000 mg.min/m3 (For this calculation, nerve agent GD concentration is assumed to be equivalent to nerve agent GB concentration specified in the standard). This exposure dosage is divided by the systemic onset of symptoms exposure dosage (OSEDsys) that corresponds to an exposure of nerve agent GD that would cause threshold effects of twitching and localized sweating for 1% of the population (ECt01). This OSEDsys of 123 mg.min/m3 results in the systemic PPDF of of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

78 Public Comment No. 30-NFPA [ Section No [Excluding any Sub-Sections] ] Suit materials and seams shall be tested for permeation resistance as specified in Section 8.6 and shall not exceed a cumulative permeation of μg/cm 2 for each chemical tested. Additionally, cumulative permeation shall be determined at 15 minute intervals and the cumulative permeation in any of those intervals shall not exceed 0.6 μg/cm 2 for each chemical tested. As agreed in the October 2014 TC meeting, inclusion of 15 minute cumulative assessments will alleviate the risk of "spiking" phenomena going undetected. Setting the limit at 6.0 ug/cm2 will permit permeation at a much higher level than existing materials have demonstrated. Since the rational for cumulative is chemical warfare dosing, then the maximum cumulative mass permitted should match the majority of the CWAs tested in the standard. Setting the 15 minute interval limit at 1/2 of the total permitted is reasonable. First Revision No. 46-NFPA [Chapter 7] Submitter Full Name: Kristin Williamson Organization: The DuPont Company, Inc. Submittal Date: Thu Nov 06 16:14:07 EST 2014 Committee Action: Accepted Resolution: SR-17-NFPA Statement: The TC believes that the inclusion of 15 minute cumulative assessments will alleviate the risk of "spiking" phenomena going undetected. Setting the limit at 6.0 ug/cm2 will permit permeation at a much higher level than existing materials have demonstrated. Since the rational for cumulative is chemical warfare dosing, then the maximum cumulative mass permitted should match the majority of the CWAs tested in the standard. The TC believes that setting the 15 minute interval limit at 1/2 of the total permitted is reasonable. 3 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

79 4 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 125-NFPA [ New Section after ] Garment materials and seams shall be tested permeation resistance as specified in Section 8.6 and shall not exceed a cumlative permeation of 4 ug/cm2 for the chemical warfar agent suflur mustard, distilled [HD or bis (2-chloroethyl) sulfide]. maintaining consistency with all other chemical permeation sections. First Revision No. 46-NFPA [Chapter 7] Submitter Full Name: Amanda Newsom Organization: UL LLC Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 08:12:55 EST 2014 Committee Action: Accepted Resolution: SR-71-NFPA Statement: The TC is making this change for consistency with other chemical permeation sections.

80 5 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 88-NFPA [ New Section after ] Suit materials and seams shall be tested for permeation resistance as specified in Section 8.6 and shall not exceed a cumulative permeation of 4.0 μg/cm 2 for the chemical warfare agent sulfur mustard, distilled [HD or bis (2-chloroethyl) sulfide]. This requirement is included in the requirements for visors, gloves and footwear so I am assuming that it should have also been included in the suit material as well. Public Input No. 1-NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 2-NFPA [Sections 2.3.2, 2.3.3, 2.3.4] Submitter Full Name: Karen Lehtonen Organization: Lion Apparel, Inc. Submittal Date: Thu Nov 13 16:14:51 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: See SR 71.

81 Public Comment No. 31-NFPA [ Section No ] Suit materials shall be tested for resistance to flame impingement as specified in Section 8.7, and shall have an afterflame time of not greater than 2.0 seconds and shall not melt and drip. The current means for determining material melting during the flame resistance test is unclear. By relating this determination to observed dripping, clearer guidance is provided to the laboratory for interpreting the results of this test. A related proposal has been made to make changes in the test method for the interpretation of results. First Revision No. 46-NFPA [Chapter 7] Submitter Full Name: Jeffrey Stull Organization: International Personnel Protection, Inc. Submittal Date: Sun Nov 09 15:17:25 EST 2014 Committee Action: Accepted Resolution: SR-18-NFPA Statement: The current means for determining material melting during the flame resistance test is unclear. By relating this determination to observed dripping, clearer guidance is provided to the laboratory for interpreting the results of this test. A related revision is being provided to make changes in the test method for the interpretation of results. 6 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

82 Public Comment No. 186-NFPA [ Section No ] Suit closure assemblies shall be tested for chemical penetration permeation resistance as specified in Section 8.23 and shall show no penetration of the test liquids for at least 1 hour and for any additional chemicals or specific chemical mixtures for which the manufacturer is certifying the suit 8.6, Chemical Permeation Resistance Test One, and shall not exceed a cumulative permeation of 6.0 ug/cm2 for each chemical tested. All materials and components are not tested for permeation resistance with the exception of the zippers, which provide a fundamental potential failure mode of vapor-protective ensembles. First Revision No. 46-NFPA [Chapter 7] Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 16:05:20 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The TC rejected the Public Comment because there are no closure technologies currently capable of meeting the requirements. An Annex item will be added to explain the limitations of current closure technologies. 7 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

83 Public Comment No. 102-NFPA [ New Section after ] TITLE OF NEW CONTENT Suit materials shall be testing for flame break open resistance as specified in 8.31, Flame Break Open Resistance Test, and shall not show a pressure change of more than 100 Pa. An investigation of the flame resistance properties of chemical protective clothing materials revealed that the current flame resistance test was insufficient to evaluate the performance of chemical protective clothing materials exposed to short duration flame or high heat. Certain materials may shrink away from the flame and not present afterflame times. The proposed flame break open resistance test was found to correlate with to observed damage of selected chemical protective clothing resulting in a hole when clothing samples were exposed to short duration high radiant heat. Supporting information has been provided to NFPA. Public Input No. 176-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: Jeffrey Stull Organization: International Personnel Protection, Inc. Submittal Date: Thu Nov 13 23:55:08 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected but held Resolution: The TC decided to hold this Public Comment for cross-lab validation and further testing of certified products. 8 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

84 Public Comment No. 92-NFPA [ Section No [Excluding any Sub-Sections] ] Visor materials and visor material seams shall be tested for permeation resistance as specified in Section 8.6 and shall not exceed a cumulative permeation of 6 of μg/cm 2 for each chemical tested. Additionally, cumulative permeation shall be determined at 15 minute intervals and the cumulative permeation in any of those intervals shall not exceed 0.6 ug/cm2 for each chemical tested. As agreed in the October 2014 TC meeting, inclusion of 15 minute cumulative assessments will alleviate the risk of spiking phenomena going undetected. The proposal to set the 60 minute limit at 6.0 ug/cm2 will permit permeation at a much higher level than what the existing certified materials have actually demonstrated. Since the rationale made for cumulative is based on chemical warfare agent dose testing, then the limit for 60 minutes should match the majority of CWAs tested 1.25 ug/cm2. Setting the 15 minute interval limit at ½ the total permitted is reasonable. First Revision No. 46-NFPA [Chapter 7] Submitter Full Name: Susan Lovasic Organization: The DuPont Company, Inc. Submittal Date: Thu Nov 13 18:36:20 EST 2014 Committee Action: Accepted Resolution: SR-19-NFPA Statement: The TC believes that the inclusion of 15 minute cumulative assessments will alleviate the risk of spiking phenomena going undetected. The revision to set the 60 minute limit at 6.0 ug/cm2 will permit permeation at a much higher level than what the existing certified materials have actually demonstrated. Since the rationale made for cumulative is based on chemical warfare agent dose testing, then the limit for 60 minutes should match the majority of CWAs tested 1.25 ug/cm2. The TC believes that setting the 15 minute interval limit at ½ the total permitted is reasonable. 9 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

85 Public Comment No. 46-NFPA [ Sections 7.3.1, 7.3.2, 7.3.3, 7.3.4, 7.3.5, 7.3.6, ] Sections 7.3.1, 7.3.2, 7.3.3, 7.3.4, 7.3.5, 7.3.6, Visor materials and, visor material seams, and all exposed components (including face peice, gasket, and supply air line, etc.) of an external SCBA system (if used for a non-encapsulating suit design) shall be tested for permeation resistance as specified in Section 8.6 and shall not exceed a cumulative permeation of 6.0 μg/cm 2 for each chemical tested Visor materials and, visor material seams shall, and all exposed components (including face peice, gasket, and supply air line, etc.) of an external SCBA system (if used for a non-encapsulating suit design) shall be tested for permeation resistance as specified in Section 8.6 and shall not exceed a cumulative permeation of 1.25 μg/cm 2 for the chemical warfare agent Soman (GD or O-Pinacolyl methylphosphonofluoridate) Visor materials and visor material seams shall be tested for permeation resistance as specified in Section 8.6 and shall not exceed a cumulative permeation of 4 μg/cm 2 for the chemical warfare agent sulfur mustard, distilled [HD or bis (2-chloroethyl) sulfide] Visor materials and, visor material seams, and all exposed components (including face peice, gasket, and supply air line, etc.) of an external SCBA system (if used for a non-encapsulating suit design) shall be tested for permeation resistance as specified in Section 8.6, and shall not exhibit breakthrough detection time of 1 hour or less and shall not exceed a cumulative permeation of 6.0 μg/cm 2 for each additional chemical or specific chemical mixture for which the manufacturer is certifying the ensemble Visor materials and all exposed components (including face peice, gasket, and supply air line, etc.) of an external SCBA system (if used for a non-encapsulating suit design) shall be tested for resistance to flame impingement as specified in Section 8.7 and shall have an afterflame time of not greater than 2.0 seconds and shall not melt Visor materials and all exposed components (including face peice, gasket, and supply air line, etc.) of an external SCBA system (if used for a non-encapsulating suit design) shall be tested for bursting strength as specified in Section 8.10 and shall not have a full-thickness puncture or crack Visor materials and all exposed components (including face peice, gasket, and supply air line, etc.) of an external SCBA system (if used for a non-encapsulating suit design) shall be tested as specified in Section 8.11 and shall not have a full-thickness puncture or crack Visor materials shall be tested for puncture resistance as specified in Section 8.14 and shall not show evidence of a visible hole extending through all layers Visor material materials and all exposed components (including face peice, gasket, and supply air line, etc.) of an external SCBA system (if used for a non-encapsulating suit design) shall be tested for cold temperature bending as specified in Section 8.14 and shall not crack or show evidence of visible damage Visor material seams shall be tested for seam strength as specified in Section 8.22 and shall have a breaking strength of not less than 67 N/25 mm (15 lbf/1 in.). Additional Proposed Changes File Name Negative_-_Non-encapsulating.pdf Description Approved If the standard will permit non-encapsulating suit designs to be certified, then all "visor" requirements must be applied to all exposed components of the external SCBA system. First Revision No. 46-NFPA [Chapter 7] Submitter Full Name: Kristin Williamson Organization: The DuPont Company, Inc. Submittal Date: Mon Nov 10 09:21:21 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The Technical Committee decided to address non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles to NFPA 1994 as Class 1. 0 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

86 Negative Permitting Non Encapsulating Suit Designs Negative based on the following reasons: 1) Encapsulating and Non encapsulating definitions used in NFPA Standards (1992, 1994) Encapsulating A type of ensemble that provides vapor or gastight protection, or liquidtight protection, or both, and completely covers the wearer and the wearer's respirator (2012) Encapsulating A type of CBRN protective ensemble that provides vaportight or liquidtight protection to the upper and lower torso, head, hands, and feet and completely covers the wearer and the wearer's respirator. (See also , CBRN Terrorism Incident Protective Ensembles and Ensemble Elements, and , Non Encapsulating.) 1994 (2012) Non encapsulating A type of ensemble that provides liquid splash protection, but does not provide vapor or gastight protection or liquidtight protection and does not cover the wearer's respirator (2012) Non Encapsulating A type of CBRN protective ensemble and ensemble elements that provides liquid splash protection, but does not provide vaportight protection, or liquidtight protections, and does not cover the wearer's respirator (2012) Source: ms/glossary_of_terms_2013.pdf 2) Level A/NFPA 1991/Fully encapsulating definitions are heavily linked in OSHA, EPA and many other publications OSHA: 29 CFR App A A. "Totally encapsulating chemical protective suit pressure test" 1.0 Scope 1.1 This practice measures the ability of a gas tight totally encapsulating chemical protective suit material, seams, and closures to maintain a fixed positive pressure. The results of this practice allow the gas tight integrity of a totally encapsulating chemical protective suit to be evaluated. 1.2 Resistance of the suit materials to permeation, penetration, and degradation by specific hazardous substances is not determined by this test method.

87 2.0 Definition of terms 2.1 "Totally encapsulated chemical protective suit (TECP suit)" means a full body garment which is constructed of protective clothing materials; covers the wearer's torso, head, arms, legs and respirator; may cover the wearer's hands and feet with tightly attached gloves and boots; completely encloses the wearer and respirator by itself or in combination with the wearer's gloves and boots. 2.2 "Protective clothing material" means any material or combination of materials used in an item of clothing for the purpose of isolating parts of the body from direct contact with a potentially hazardous liquid or gaseous chemicals. 2.3 "Gas tight" means, for the purpose of this test method, the limited flow of a gas under pressure from the inside of a TECP suit to atmosphere at a prescribed pressure and time interval. Source: _id=10652 OSHA: 29 CFR App B Part A. Personal protective equipment is divided into four categories based on the degree of protection afforded. (See Part B of this appendix for further explanation of Levels A, B, C, and D hazards.) I. Level A To be selected when the greatest level of skin, respiratory, and eye protection is required. The following constitute Level A equipment; it may be used as appropriate; 1. Positive pressure, full face piece self contained breathing apparatus (SCBA), or positive pressure supplied air respirator with escape SCBA, approved by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 2. Totally encapsulating chemical protective suit. 3. Coveralls.(1) 4. Long underwear.(1) 5. Gloves, outer, chemical resistant. 6. Gloves, inner, chemical resistant. 7. Boots, chemical resistant, steel toe and shank.

88 8. Hard hat (under suit).(1) 9. Disposable protective suit, gloves and boots (depending on suit construction, may be worn over totally encapsulating suit). Footnote(1) Optional, as applicable. Part B. The types of hazards for which levels A, B, C, and D protection are appropriate are described below: I. Level A Level A protection should be used when: 1. The hazardous substance has been identified and requires the highest level of protection for skin, eyes, and the respiratory system based on either the measured (or potential for) high concentration of atmospheric vapors, gases, or particulates; or the site operations and work functions involve a high potential for splash, immersion, or exposure to unexpected vapors, gases, or particulates of materials that are harmful to skin or capable of being absorbed through the skin, 2. Substances with a high degree of hazard to the skin are known or suspected to be present, and skin contact is possible; or 3. Operations must be conducted in confined, poorly ventilated areas, and the absence of conditions requiring Level A have not yet been determined. Source: _id=9767 OSHA Technical Manual (OTM) Section VIII: Chapter 1 (See Section C, Table VIII: 1 1. EPA Levels of Protection) Level A: Vapor Protective suit (meets NFPA 1991) Source: EPA Level A Level A protection is required when the greatest potential for exposure to hazards exists, and when the greatest level of skin, respiratory, and eye protection is required. Examples of Level A clothing and equipment include: positive pressure, full face piece self contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) or positive pressure supplied air respirator with escape SCBA; totally encapsulated chemical and vapor protective suit; inner and outer chemical resistant gloves; and

89 disposable protective suit, gloves, and boots. Source: response/personal protective equipment Science and Technology of Terrorism and Counterterrorism, Second Edition By Mark A. Prelas, Dabir S. Viswanath, Sudarshan K. Loyalka Vapor protective clothing is designed to fully encapsulate the user and their respiratory protection within a vapor resistant envelope that provides vapor, liquid splash, and particulate protection from the hazardous chemicals that pose the risk. Selecting a liquid splash protective garment or a vapor protective garment can be difficult considering the vast option in the market place. The most widely utilized consensus documents for chemically protective clothing are those produced by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). The NFPA issues a number of standards that define minimum performance requirements for PPE utilized during emergency response The NFPA technical committees responsible for these standards have emphasized an ensemble concept that ensures that a PPE is designed and tested in such a way as to ensure protection The Complete Guide to OSHA Compliance Joel M. Cohen, Robert D. Peterson, p. 404 (Appendix 6B) The following constitute a Level A suit 2. Totally encapsulating chemical protective suit 3) Several other key performance requirements have been proposed to be changed in the First Revision of NFPA , is the goal to continue reducing requirements until a NFPA 1991 compliant and certified ensemble is found to be hazardous per section 4.6.1? Inward Leakage Requirements have gone from PF 5,000 to PF 1,000 Decrease by 5x Permeation Requirements have been decreased by changing to cumulative 6.0 μg/cm 2 4) What aspects of adding non encapsulating designs to NFPA 1991 are not already covered by NFPA 1994 Class 2? What is the advantage/need to now permit non encapsulating suits to be certified to NFPA 1991?

90 Public Comment No. 124-NFPA [ Section No ] Visor materials and visor material seams shall be tested for permeation resistance as specified in Section 8.6, and shall not exhibit breakthrough detection time of 1 hour or less and shall not exceed a cumulative permeation of 6.0 μg/cm 2 for each additional chemical or specific chemical mixture for which the manufacturer is certifying the ensemble. maintaining consistency with the other chemical permeation sections. First Revision No. 46-NFPA [Chapter 7] Submitter Full Name: Amanda Newsom Organization: UL LLC Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 08:00:06 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: See SR of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

91 Public Comment No. 93-NFPA [ Section No ] Visor materials and visor material seams shall be tested for permeation resistance as specified in Section 8.6, and shall not exhibit breakthrough detection time of 1 hour or less and shall not exceed a cumulative permeation of 6 of μg/cm 2 for each additional chemical or specific chemical mixture for which the manufacturer is certifying the ensemble. Additionally, cumulative permeation shall be determined at 15 minute intervals and the cumulative permeation in any of those intervals shall not exceed 0.6 ug/cm2 for each chemical tested. As agreed in the October 2014 TC meeting, inclusion of 15 minute cumulative assessments will alleviate the risk of spiking phenomena going undetected. The proposal to set the 60 minute limit at 6.0 ug/cm2 will permit permeation at a much higher level than what the existing certified materials have actually demonstrated. Since the rationale made for cumulative is based on chemical warfare agent dose testing, then the limit for 60 minutes should match the majority of CWAs tested 1.25 ug/cm2. Setting the 15 minute interval limit at ½ the total permitted is reasonable First Revision No. 46-NFPA [Chapter 7] Submitter Full Name: Susan Lovasic Organization: The DuPont Company, Inc. Submittal Date: Thu Nov 13 18:38:12 EST 2014 Committee Action: Accepted Resolution: SR-20-NFPA Statement: The TC believes that the inclusion of 15 minute cumulative assessments will alleviate the risk of spiking phenomena going undetected. The revision to set the 60 minute limit at 6.0 ug/cm2 will permit permeation at a much higher level than what the existing certified materials have actually demonstrated. Since the rationale made for cumulative is based on chemical warfare agent dose testing, then the limit for 60 minutes should match the majority of CWAs tested 1.25 ug/cm2. The TC believes that setting the 15 minute interval limit at ½ the total permitted is reasonable. 2 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

92 Public Comment No. 103-NFPA [ New Section after ] TITLE OF NEW CONTENT Suit materials shall be testing for flame break open resistance as specified in 8.31, Flame Break Open Resistance Test, and shall not show a pressure change of more than 100 Pa. An investigation of the flame resistance properties of chemical protective clothing materials revealed that the current flame resistance test was insufficient to evaluate the performance of chemical protective clothing materials exposed to short duration flame or high heat. Certain materials may shrink away from the flame and not present afterflame times. The proposed flame break open resistance test was found to correlate with to observed damage of selected chemical protective clothing resulting in a hole when clothing samples were exposed to short duration high radiant heat. Supporting information has been provided to NFPA. Public Input No. 176-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: Jeffrey Stull Organization: International Personnel Protection, Inc. Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 00:14:29 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected but held Resolution: The TC is holding this Public Comment to allow for cross-laboratory testing of certified products. 3 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

93 Public Comment No. 32-NFPA [ Section No ] Visor materials shall be tested for resistance to flame impingement as specified in Section 8.7 and shall have an afterflame time of not greater than 2.0 seconds and shall not melt and drip. The current means for determining material melting during the flame resistance test is unclear. By relating this determination to observed dripping, clearer guidance is provided to the laboratory for interpreting the results of this test. A related proposal has been made to make changes in the test method for the interpretation of results. First Revision No. 46-NFPA [Chapter 7] Submitter Full Name: Jeffrey Stull Organization: International Personnel Protection, Inc. Submittal Date: Sun Nov 09 15:28:38 EST 2014 Committee Action: Accepted Resolution: SR-21-NFPA Statement: The current means for determining material melting during the flame resistance test is unclear. By relating this determination to observed dripping, clearer guidance is provided to the laboratory for interpreting the results of this test. A related revision is being provided to make changes in the test method for the interpretation of results. 4 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

94 5 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 136-NFPA [ New Section after ] TITLE OF NEW CONTENT 7.3.X- Visor Materials shall be tested for High Mass Impact as specified in Section 8.X, Visor High Mass Impact, and shall not have full thickness cracks, holes, or fractures. Performance Requirement was missing for the Visor High Mass Impact test First Revision No. 88-NFPA [New Section after ] Submitter Full Name: Jason Allen Organization: Intertek Testing Services Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 10:06:54 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: See SR 22.

95 6 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 77-NFPA [ Section No ] Visor materials shall be tested for bursting strength as specified in Section 8.10 and shall not have a full-thickness puncture or crack. This test method is not appropriate for visors and an alternative visor impact test will be proposed First Revision No. 88-NFPA [New Section after ] Submitter Full Name: Jason Allen Organization: Intertek Testing Services Submittal Date: Thu Nov 13 13:37:50 EST 2014 Committee Action: Accepted Resolution: SR-22-NFPA Statement: The TC believes that this test method is not appropriate for visors and is providing an alternative visor impact test.

96 7 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 119-NFPA [ Sections 7.3.3, 7.3.4, ] Sections 7.3.3, 7.3.4, Visor or SCBA facepiece lens materials shall be tested for bursting strength as specified in Section 8.10 and shall not have a full-thickness puncture or crack Visor materials or SCBA facepiece lens materials shall be tested as specified in Section 8.11 and shall not have a full-thickness puncture or crack Visor or SCBA facepiece lens materials shall be tested for puncture resistance as specified in Section 8.14 and shall not show evidence of a visible hole extending through all layers. The proposed changes clarify the application of the standard to both encapsulating and non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles. Public Input No. 182-NFPA [Global Input] Submitter Full Name: Jeffrey Stull Organization: International Personnel Protection, Inc. Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 01:38:31 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The Technical Committee decided to address non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles to NFPA 1994 as Class 1.

97 8 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 79-NFPA [ Sections 7.3.3, 7.3.4, 7.3.5, ] Sections 7.3.3, 7.3.4, 7.3.5, Visor materials shall be tested for bursting strength as specified in Section 8.10 and shall not have a full-thickness puncture or crack Visor materials shall be tested as specified in Section 8.11 and shall not have a full-thickness puncture or crack Visor materials shall be tested for puncture resistance as specified in Section 8.14 and shall not show evidence of a visible hole extending through all layers Visor material shall be tested for cold temperature bending as specified in Section 8.14 and shall not crack or show evidence of visible damage. A more appropriate test is being proposed for the testing of visor materials using a high mass dart at -25C. First Revision No. 88-NFPA [New Section after ] Submitter Full Name: Jason Allen Organization: Intertek Testing Services Submittal Date: Thu Nov 13 15:18:09 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: See SR 22.

98 9 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 120-NFPA [ Section No [Excluding any Sub-Sections] ] Visor or facepiece lens material shall be tested for cold temperature bending as specified in Section 8.14 and shall not crack or show evidence of visible damage. The proposed changes clarify the application of the standard to both encapsulating and non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles. Public Input No. 182-NFPA [Global Input] Submitter Full Name: Jeffrey Stull Organization: International Personnel Protection, Inc. Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 01:40:35 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The Technical Committee decided to address non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles to NFPA 1994 as Class 1.

99 Public Comment No. 94-NFPA [ Section No [Excluding any Sub-Sections] ] Glove materials shall be tested for permeation resistance as specified in Section 8.6 and shall not exceed a cumulative permeation of 6 of μg/cm 2 for each chemical tested. Additionally, cumulative permeation shall be determined at 15 minute intervals and the cumulative permeation in any of those intervals shall not exceed 0.6 ug/cm2 for each chemical tested. As agreed in the October 2014 TC meeting, inclusion of 15 minute cumulative assessments will alleviate the risk of spiking phenomena going undetected. The proposal to set the 60 minute limit at 6.0 ug/cm2 will permit permeation at a much higher level than what the existing certified materials have actually demonstrated. Since the rationale made for cumulative is based on chemical warfare agent dose testing, then the limit for 60 minutes should match the majority of CWAs tested 1.25 ug/cm2. Setting the 15 minute interval limit at ½ the total permitted is reasonable. First Revision No. 46-NFPA [Chapter 7] Submitter Full Name: Susan Lovasic Organization: The DuPont Company, Inc. Submittal Date: Thu Nov 13 18:40:21 EST 2014 Committee Action: Accepted Resolution: SR-23-NFPA Statement: The TC believes that the iinclusion of 15 minute cumulative assessments will alleviate the risk of spiking phenomena going undetected. The revision to set the 60 minute limit at 6.0 ug/cm2 will permit permeation at a much higher level than what the existing certified materials have actually demonstrated. Since the rationale made for cumulative is based on chemical warfare agent dose testing, then the limit for 60 minutes should match the majority of CWAs tested 1.25 ug/cm2. The TC believes that setting the 15 minute interval limit at ½ the total permitted is reasonable. 0 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

100 Public Comment No. 95-NFPA [ Section No ] Glove materials shall be tested for permeation resistance as specified in Section 8.6 and shall not exceed a cumulative permeation of μg 25 μg/cm 2 for each additional chemical or specific chemical mixture for which the manufacturer is certifying the ensemble. Additionally, cumulative permeation shall be determined at 15 minute intervals and the cumulative permeation in any of those intervals shall not exceed 0.6 ug/cm2 for each chemical tested. As agreed in the October 2014 TC meeting, inclusion of 15 minute cumulative assessments will alleviate the risk of spiking phenomena going undetected. The proposal to set the 60 minute limit at 6.0 ug/cm2 will permit permeation at a much higher level than what the existing certified materials have actually demonstrated. Since the rationale made for cumulative is based on chemical warfare agent dose testing, then the limit for 60 minutes should match the majority of CWAs tested 1.25 ug/cm2. Setting the 15 minute interval limit at ½ the total permitted is reasonable. First Revision No. 46-NFPA [Chapter 7] Submitter Full Name: Susan Lovasic Organization: The DuPont Company, Inc. Submittal Date: Thu Nov 13 18:41:37 EST 2014 Committee Action: Accepted Resolution: SR-24-NFPA Statement: The TC believes that the inclusion of 15 minute cumulative assessments will alleviate the risk of spiking phenomena going undetected. The revision to set the 60 minute limit at 6.0 ug/cm2 will permit permeation at a much higher level than what the existing certified materials have actually demonstrated. Since the rationale made for cumulative is based on chemical warfare agent dose testing, then the limit for 60 minutes should match the majority of CWAs tested 1.25 ug/cm2. The TC believes that setting the 15 minute interval limit at ½ the total permitted is reasonable. 1 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

101 Public Comment No. 104-NFPA [ New Section after ] TITLE OF NEW CONTENT Glove materials shall be testing for flame break open resistance as specified in 8.31, Flame Break Open Resistance Test, and shall not show a pressure change of more than 100 Pa. An investigation of the flame resistance properties of chemical protective clothing materials revealed that the current flame resistance test was insufficient to evaluate the performance of chemical protective clothing materials exposed to short duration flame or high heat. Certain materials may shrink away from the flame and not present afterflame times. The proposed flame break open resistance test was found to correlate with to observed damage of selected chemical protective clothing resulting in a hole when clothing samples were exposed to short duration high radiant heat. Supporting information has been provided to NFPA. Public Input No. 176-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: Jeffrey Stull Organization: International Personnel Protection, Inc. Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 00:17:48 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected but held Resolution: The TC is holding this Public Comment for cross-laboratory testing of certified products. 2 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

102 Public Comment No. 33-NFPA [ Section No ] Glove materials shall be tested for resistance to flame impingement as specified in Section 8.7 and shall have an afterflame time of not greater than 2.0 seconds and shall not melt and drip. The current means for determining material melting during the flame resistance test is unclear. By relating this determination to observed dripping, clearer guidance is provided to the laboratory for interpreting the results of this test. A related proposal has been made to make changes in the test method for the interpretation of results. First Revision No. 46-NFPA [Chapter 7] Submitter Full Name: Jeffrey Stull Organization: International Personnel Protection, Inc. Submittal Date: Sun Nov 09 15:31:30 EST 2014 Committee Action: Accepted Resolution: SR-25-NFPA Statement: The current means for determining material melting during the flame resistance test is unclear. By relating this determination to observed dripping, clearer guidance is provided to the laboratory for interpreting the results of this test. A related revision is being provided to make changes in the test method for the interpretation of results. 3 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

103 4 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 175-NFPA [ New Section after 7.5 ] TITLE OF NEW CONTENT Footwear toes shall be tested for impact and compression resistance as specified in Section 8.21, Impact and Compression Test, and shall have an impact resistance of not less than J (75 ft-lb), and shall have a compression resistance of not less than 11,121 N (2500 lbf) Footwear soles and heels shall be tested for puncture resistance as specified in Section 8.19, Puncture Resistance Test Two, and shall have a puncture resistance of not less than 1210 N (272 lbf). The inclusion of these footwear requirements as a design requirement is problematic because performance criteria are contained in the design specification. First Revision No. 46-NFPA [Chapter 7] Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 15:33:06 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: See SR 33.

104 Public Comment No. 96-NFPA [ Section No [Excluding any Sub-Sections] ] Footwear upper materials shall be tested for permeation resistance as specified in Section 8.6 and shall not exceed a cumulative permeation of 6 of μg/cm 2 for each chemical tested. Additionally, cumulative permeation shall be determined at 15 minute intervals and the cumulative permeation in any of those intervals shall not exceed 0.6 ug/cm2 for each chemical tested. As agreed in the October 2014 TC meeting, inclusion of 15 minute cumulative assessments will alleviate the risk of spiking phenomena going undetected. The proposal to set the 60 minute limit at 6.0 ug/cm2 will permit permeation at a much higher level than what the existing certified materials have actually demonstrated. Since the rationale made for cumulative is based on chemical warfare agent dose testing, then the limit for 60 minutes should match the majority of CWAs tested 1.25 ug/cm2. Setting the 15 minute interval limit at ½ the total permitted is reasonable. First Revision No. 46-NFPA [Chapter 7] Submitter Full Name: Susan Lovasic Organization: The DuPont Company, Inc. Submittal Date: Thu Nov 13 18:43:00 EST 2014 Committee Action: Accepted Resolution: SR-26-NFPA Statement: The TC believes that the inclusion of 15 minute cumulative assessments will alleviate the risk of spiking phenomena going undetected. The revision to set the 60 minute limit at 6.0 ug/cm2 will permit permeation at a much higher level than what the existing certified materials have actually demonstrated. Since the rationale made for cumulative is based on chemical warfare agent dose testing, then the limit for 60 minutes should match the majority of CWAs tested 1.25 ug/cm2. The TC believes that setting the 15 minute interval limit at ½ the total permitted is reasonable. 5 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

105 Public Comment No. 97-NFPA [ Section No ] Footwear upper materials shall be tested for permeation resistance as specified in Section 8.6 and shall not exceed a cumulative permeation of 6 of μg/cm 2 for each additional chemical or specific chemical mixture for which the manufacturer is certifying the ensemble. Additionally, cumulative permeation shall be determined at 15 minute intervals and the cumulative permeation in any of those intervals shall not exceed 0.6 ug/cm2 for each chemical tested. As agreed in the October 2014 TC meeting, inclusion of 15 minute cumulative assessments will alleviate the risk of spiking phenomena going undetected. The proposal to set the 60 minute limit at 6.0 ug/cm2 will permit permeation at a much higher level than what the existing certified materials have actually demonstrated. Since the rationale made for cumulative is based on chemical warfare agent dose testing, then the limit for 60 minutes should match the majority of CWAs tested 1.25 ug/cm2. Setting the 15 minute interval limit at ½ the total permitted is reasonable. First Revision No. 46-NFPA [Chapter 7] Submitter Full Name: Susan Lovasic Organization: The DuPont Company, Inc. Submittal Date: Thu Nov 13 18:44:22 EST 2014 Committee Action: Accepted Resolution: SR-27-NFPA Statement: The TC believes that the inclusion of 15 minute cumulative assessments will alleviate the risk of spiking phenomena going undetected. The revision to set the 60 minute limit at 6.0 ug/cm2 will permit permeation at a much higher level than what the existing certified materials have actually demonstrated. Since the rationale made for cumulative is based on chemical warfare agent dose testing, then the limit for 60 minutes should match the majority of CWAs tested 1.25 ug/cm2. The TC believes that setting the 15 minute interval limit at ½ the total permitted is reasonable. 6 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

106 Public Comment No. 105-NFPA [ New Section after ] TITLE OF NEW CONTENT Footwear upper materials shall be testing for flame break open resistance as specified in 8.31, Flame Break Open Resistance Test, and shall not show a pressure change of more than 100 Pa. An investigation of the flame resistance properties of chemical protective clothing materials revealed that the current flame resistance test was insufficient to evaluate the performance of chemical protective clothing materials exposed to short duration flame or high heat. Certain materials may shrink away from the flame and not present afterflame times. The proposed flame break open resistance test was found to correlate with to observed damage of selected chemical protective clothing resulting in a hole when clothing samples were exposed to short duration high radiant heat. Supporting information has been provided to NFPA. Public Input No. 176-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: Jeffrey Stull Organization: International Personnel Protection, Inc. Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 00:21:00 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected but held Resolution: The TC is holding this Public Comment for cross-laboratory testing of certified products. 7 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

107 Public Comment No. 34-NFPA [ Section No ] Footwear upper materials shall be tested for resistance to flame impingement as specified in Section 8.7 and shall have an afterflame time of not greater than 2.0 seconds and shall not melt and drip. The current means for determining material melting during the flame resistance test is unclear. By relating this determination to observed dripping, clearer guidance is provided to the laboratory for interpreting the results of this test. A related proposal has been made to make changes in the test method for the interpretation of results. First Revision No. 46-NFPA [Chapter 7] Submitter Full Name: Jeffrey Stull Organization: International Personnel Protection, Inc. Submittal Date: Sun Nov 09 15:33:33 EST 2014 Committee Action: Accepted Resolution: SR-28-NFPA Statement: The current means for determining material melting during the flame resistance test is unclear. By relating this determination to observed dripping, clearer guidance is provided to the laboratory for interpreting the results of this test. A related revision is being provided to make changes in the test method for the interpretation of results. 8 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

108 9 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 49-NFPA [ Section No ] Footwear heels and soles shall be tested for abrasion resistance as specified in Section 8.20 and the relative volume loss shall not be greater than 250 mm 3. Abrasion resistance should be measured on entire bottom side of boot and not just the heel. First Revision No. 46-NFPA [Chapter 7] Submitter Full Name: Kristin Williamson Organization: The DuPont Company, Inc. Submittal Date: Mon Nov 10 09:37:00 EST 2014 Committee Action: Accepted Resolution: SR-29-NFPA Statement: The TC believes that abrasion resistance should be measured on entire bottom side of boot and not just the heel.

109 0 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 60-NFPA [ Section No ] Footwear soles and heels shall be tested for abrasion resistance as specified in Section 8.20 and the relative volume loss shall not be greater than 250 mm 3. Soles should be also subjected for the evaluation of abrasion resistance. It appears that there is a mistake in submitting making this change. First Revision No. 46-NFPA [Chapter 7] Submitter Full Name: Jeffrey Stull Organization: International Personnel Protection, Inc. Submittal Date: Thu Nov 13 07:09:04 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: See SR 29.

110 Public Comment No. 89-NFPA [ Sections 7.6, 7.7, 7.8, 7.9 ] Sections 7.6, 7.7, 7.8, Optional Liquefied Gas Protection Performance Requirements for Vapor-Protective Ensembles and Ensemble Elements Vapor-protective ensembles and ensemble elements that will be certified as compliant with the additional optional criteria for liquefied gas protection for escape only shall also meet all applicable requirements in Sections 7.1 through Primary suit, glove, and footwear element materials shall be tested for liquefied gas permeation resistance as specified in Section8.6, and shall not show signs of damage and shall not exceed a cumulative permeation of 6.0 μg/cm 2 for the following list of gaseous industrial chemicals: (1) Ammonia (2) Chlorine (3) Ethylene oxide 7.7 Optional Chemical Flash Fire Protection Performance Requirements for Vapor-Protective Ensembles and Ensemble Elements Vapor-protective ensembles and ensemble elements that will be certified as compliant with the additional optional criteria for chemical flash fire protection for escape only shall also meet all applicable requirements in Sections 7.1 through Vapor-protective ensembles and elements shall be tested for overall ensemble flash protection as specified by Section 8.2.7, and shall not have any afterflame times 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 Suit materials, visor materials, glove materials, and footwear upper materials shall be tested for heat transfer performance (HTP) as specified in Section 8.18 and shall have an average HTP rating of not less than 12 cal/cm Primary suit, glove, and footwear element materials shall be tested for resistance to flame impingement as specified in Section 8.7 and shall have afterflame time not greater than 2.0 seconds during the initial 3-second exposure period, 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 during the subsequent 12-second exposure period Vapor-protective ensembles and elements shall be tested for overall heat transfer performance as specified in Section 8.18 and shall have an average predicted body burn rating of not more than Optional Liquefied Gas Protection Performance Requirements for Vapor-Protective Ensembles and Ensemble Elements Vapor-protective ensembles and ensemble elements that will be certified as compliant with the additional optional criteria for liquefied gas protection for escape only shall also meet all applicable requirements in Sections 7.1 through Primary suit, glove, and footwear element materials shall be tested for liquefied gas permeation resistance as specified in Section, 8.6, and shall not show signs of damage, and shall not exhibit a normalized breakthrough detection time of 15 minutes or less for the following list of gaseous industrial chemicals: (1) Ammonia (2) Chlorine (3) Ethylene oxide 7.9 Optional Chemical Flash Fire Protection Performance Requirements for Vapor-Protective Ensembles and Ensemble Elements Vapor-protective ensembles and ensemble elements that will be certified as compliant with the additional optional criteria for chemical flash fire protection for escape only shall also meet all applicable requirements in Sections 7.1 through Vapor-protective ensembles and elements shall be tested for overall ensemble flash protection as specified by Section 8.25 shall not have any afterflame times 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 Primary suit, glove, and footwear element materials shall be tested for heat transfer performance (HTP) as specified in Section 8.18, and shall have an average HTP rating of not less than Primary suit, glove, and footwear element materials shall be tested for resistance to flame impingement as specified in Section 8.7, and shall not ignite during the initial 3-second exposure period, 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. Section 7.6 and 7.8 cover the same option (Liquefied Gas) Section 7.7 and 7.9 cover the same option (Chemical Flash Fire) Both are subtly different than the other. One section for each needs to be deleted but I am not sure which is the preference. First Revision No. 74-NFPA [Global Input] First Revision No. 90-NFPA [Global Input] Submitter Full Name: Karen Lehtonen Organization: Lion Apparel, Inc. Submittal Date: Thu Nov 13 16:22:31 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: See SR 34 and of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

111 2 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 178-NFPA [ Section No ] Suit Visor materials, visor materials, glove materials, and footwear upper materials shall be tested for heat transfer performance (HTP) as specified in Section 8.18 and shall have an average HTP rating of not less than 12 cal/cm 2. HTP testing is no longer necessary for suit materials if the suit material is evaluated as part of an overall heat transfer performance test. However, since visor, glove, and footwear materials are not incorporated into the overall heat transfer performance test, these materials are still recommended to be tested separately for HTP. First Revision No. 74-NFPA [Global Input] Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 15:48:07 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected but held Resolution: The TC is holding this Public Comment because sufficient data, cross-laboratory testing and test procedures do not exist for the incorporation of the manikin test. If a manikin test were incorporated, the HTP test would need to be done for visor, glove and footwear, but not necessarily ensembles.

112 3 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 47-NFPA [ Section No ] Suit materials, visor materials and all exposed components (including face peice, gasket, and supply air line, etc.) of an external SCBA system (if used for a non-encapsulating suit design), glove materials, and footwear upper materials shall be tested for heat transfer performance (HTP) as specified in Section 8.18 and shall have an average HTP rating of not less than 12 cal/cm 2. If the standard will permit non-encapsulating suit designs to be certified, then all "visor" requirements must be applied to all exposed components of the external SCBA system. First Revision No. 46-NFPA [Chapter 7] Submitter Full Name: Kristin Williamson Organization: The DuPont Company, Inc. Submittal Date: Mon Nov 10 09:29:48 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The Technical Committee decided to address non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles to NFPA 1994 as Class 1.

113 Public Comment No. 35-NFPA [ Section No ] Primary suit, glove, and footwear element materials shall be tested for resistance to flame impingement as specified in Section 8.7 and shall have afterflame time not greater than 2.0 seconds during the initial 3-second exposure period, 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 and drip during the subsequent 12-second exposure period. The current means for determining material melting during the flame resistance test is unclear. By relating this determination to observed dripping, clearer guidance is provided to the laboratory for interpreting the results of this test. A related proposal has been made to make changes in the test method for the interpretation of results. First Revision No. 46-NFPA [Chapter 7] Submitter Full Name: Jeffrey Stull Organization: International Personnel Protection, Inc. Submittal Date: Sun Nov 09 15:35:38 EST 2014 Committee Action: Accepted Resolution: SR-31-NFPA Statement: The current means for determining material melting during the flame resistance test is unclear. By relating this determination to observed dripping, clearer guidance is provided to the laboratory for interpreting the results of this test. A related revision is being provided to make changes to the test method for the interpretation of results. 4 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

114 Public Comment No. 173-NFPA [ Section No ] Vapor-protective ensembles and elements Specimen garments constructed of suit materials shall be tested for overall heat transfer performance as specified in Section and 26, Overall Heat Transfer Performance Test, and shall have an average predicted body burn rating of not more than 25 percent based on the total surface area covered by sensors, excluding hands and feet. The current overall ensemble flash test provides an assessment of the effects for overall ensemble exposure to a simulated flash fire but does not provide a prediction of the burn injury that may result as a result of heat transfer through the different materials. A separate standardized, instrumented thermal manikin test is recommended for determining insulation provided by the suit material that covers the majority of the wearer s body. The proposed test is not hampered by construction details that make it difficult to evaluate an actual vapor protective ensemble. Instead, the suit material is fashioned into a standard coverall which is fitted to the manikin for worst-case assessment of suit material thermal insulation for protecting the wearer against burn injury. Additional proposed procedures involve the use of standard vapor protective suit seams but with a modified simpler closure to permit ease of donning the standard garment onto the manikin. The proposed criteria are in line with current requirements for flash fire protective rainwear found in ASTM F2733. First Revision No. 74-NFPA [Global Input] Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 15:20:47 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected but held Resolution: The TC is holding this Public Comment because sufficient data, cross-laboratory studies and test designs are not available. The TC agrees that the concept of predicting body burn is valid, and will revisit the issue for the next edition of this standard. 5 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

115 6 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 51-NFPA [ Section No ] Vapor-protective ensembles and elements shall be tested for overall heat transfer performance as specified in Section and shall have an average predicted body burn rating of not more than 25. Wrong section referenced. First Revision No. 46-NFPA [Chapter 7] Submitter Full Name: Kristin Williamson Organization: The DuPont Company, Inc. Submittal Date: Mon Nov 10 09:52:24 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected but held Resolution: The TC is holding this Public Comment because sufficient data, cross-laboratory testing, and test procedures are not available.

116 Public Comment No. 48-NFPA [ Section No ] Primary suit including visor materials and all exposed components (including face peice, gasket, and supply air line, etc.) of an external SCBA system (if used for a non-encapsulating suit design), glove, and footwear element materials shall be tested for liquefied gas permeation resistance as specified in Section, 8.6, and shall not show signs of damage, and shall not exhibit a normalized breakthrough detection time of 15 minutes or less for the following list of gaseous industrial chemicals: (1) Ammonia (2) Chlorine (3) Ethylene oxide If the standard will permit non-encapsulating suit designs to be certified, then all "visor" requirements must be applied to all exposed components of the external SCBA system. First Revision No. 46-NFPA [Chapter 7] Submitter Full Name: Kristin Williamson Organization: The DuPont Company, Inc. Submittal Date: Mon Nov 10 09:34:49 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The Technical Committee decided to address non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles to NFPA 1994 as Class 1. 7 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

117 Public Comment No. 150-NFPA [ Section No. 8.1 ] 8.1 Sample Preparation Procedures Application The sample preparation procedures contained in this section shall apply to each test method in this chapter, as specifically referenced in the sample preparation section of each test method Only the specific sample preparation procedure or procedures referenced in the sample preparation section of each test method shall be applied to that test method Room Temperature Conditioning Procedure Samples or specimens shall be conditioned at a temperature of 21 C, ± 3 C (70 F,± 5 F) and a relative humidity of 65 percent, ± 5 percent until equilibrium is reached, as specified in ASTM D 1776, Standard Practice for Conditioning and Testing Textiles,Specimens shall be tested within 5 minutes after removal from conditioning Specimens shall be tested within 5 minutes after removal from conditioning Flexural Fatigue Procedure for Suit Materials Samples shall be subjected to flexural fatigue in accordance with ASTM F 392, Standard Test Method for Flex Durability of Flexible Barrier Materials, with the following modifications: (1) In lieu of Flexing Conditions A, B, C, D, or E, test specimens shall have a flex period of 100 cycles at 45 cycles per minute. A cycle shall be full flex and twisting action. (2) Anisotropic materials shall be tested in both machine and transverse directions The preconditioning shall be performed according to the sequence specified in the test methods of this chapter Abrasion Procedure for Suit Materials Samples shall be abraded in accordance with ASTM D 4157, Standard Test Method for Abrasion Resistance of Textile Fabrics (Oscillatory Cylinder Method), under the following conditions: (1) A 2.3 kg (5 lb) tension weight shall be used. (2) A 1.6 kg (3 1 2 lb) head weight shall be used. (3) If the ensemble does not employ a separable inner and outer layer, the outer surface shall be abraded with an 80 grit abradant trimite D-weight open coat #1A4180, or equivalent. (4) If the ensemble employs a separable inner and outer layer, in which the inner layer is the chemical barrier layer, the following shall apply: (a) The abradant of the outer surface of the inner suit shall be the inner surface of the outer layer. (b) The abradant of the outer surface of the outer layer shall be 80 grit trimite D-weight open coat #1A4180, or equivalent. (5) The specimen shall be abraded for 25 continuous cycles for (3) and (4)(b), and 200 continuous cycles for (4)(a) Flexural Fatigue Procedure for Gloves. Sample gloves shall be subjected to one full cycle of dexterity testing as specified in Section Flexural Fatigue Procedure for Footwear. Sample footwear shall be subjected to 100,000 flexes in accordance with Appendix B of FIA Standard 1209, Whole Shoe Flex, with the following modifications: (1) Water shall not be used. (2) The flex speed shall be 60 ± 2 cycles per minute. (3) Alternative flexing equipment shall be permitted to be used when the flexing equipment meets the following parameters: (a) The flexing equipment is capable of providing the angle of flex as described in FIA (b) The flexing equipment is capable of a flex speed of 60 ± 2 cycles per minute. (c) The flexing equipment provides a means of securing the footwear during flexing Fatigue Procedure for Suit Closure Assemblies. Sample suit closure assemblies shall be exercised a total of 50 openings and 50 closings Embrittlement Procedure for Suit, Visor and Faceshield, Glove, and Footwear Materials. Sample suit, visor and faceshield, glove, and footwear materials shall be embrittled in accordance with ASTM D 2136, Standard Test Method for Coated Fabrics Low Temperature Bend Test, with the following modifications: (1) Embrittlement shall be conducted in a freezer having a temperature no higher than -25 C (-13 F). (2) The material sample shall first be placed on a flat sheet of dry ice with outer surface of the material in contact with the dry ice for a period of 15 minutes under a pressure of 3.5 kpa ( 1 2 psi). (3) The material sample shall be removed from the dry ice after 15 minutes of contact and immediately placed in the test apparatus. (4) The bending action of the test apparatus shall be immediately activated while the sample is still in the freezer Elevated Temperature and Humidity Conditioning Procedure Samples or specimens shall be conditioned at a temperature of 32 C ± 2 C (90 F ± 4 F) and a relative humidity of 80 percent ± 5 percent until equilibrium is reached, as specified in ASTM D 1776, Standard Practice for Conditioning and Testing Textiles, or for at least 24 hours Specimens shall be tested within 5 minutes after removal from conditioning. 8.1.X Flexural Fatigue Procedure for Facepiece Sealing Assemblies 8.1.x.1 Respirator facepiece sealing assemblies shall be subjected to 3 repeated insertions and removals of each respirator facepiece with which the ensemble is to be certified prior to subsequent testing of the ensemble. 8.1.X.2 No added lubricants or liquids shall be used during this conditioning unless otherwise specified in the manufactured instructions The seal between the respirator face piece and non-encapsulating garment is a critical failure point. This seal should be flex conditioned by repeated insertion of the respirator facepiece. If the ensemble is to be certified with multiple facepieces, conditioning shuld involve the insertion of all facepieces. Unless otherwise specified by the manufacture in user instructions, no adjuvants should be permitted to aid insertion and removal. Related Public Comments for This Document Related Comment Public Comment No. 158-NFPA [New Section after ] Relationship Public Comment No. 152-NFPA [New Section after 8.2.7] Public Comment No. 153-NFPA [New Section after ] Public Comment No. 154-NFPA [New Section after ] Public Comment No. 155-NFPA [New Section after ] Public Comment No. 156-NFPA [New Section after 8.6.1] Public Comment No. 157-NFPA [New Section after 8.6] Public Comment No. 165-NFPA [New Section after ] First Revision No. 81-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: James Zeigler Organization: J. P. Zeigler, LLC Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 12:29:08 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The Technical Committee decided to address non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles to NFPA 1994 as Class 1. 8 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

118 9 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 39-NFPA [ Section No ] Samples shall be abraded in accordance with ASTM D 4157, Standard Test Method for Abrasion Resistance of Textile Fabrics (Oscillatory Cylinder Method), under the following conditions: (1) A 2.3 kg (5 lb) tension weight shall be used. (2) A 1.6 kg (3 1 2 lb) head weight shall be used. (3) If the ensemble does not employ a separable inner and outer layer, the outer surface shall be abraded with an 80 grit abradant trimite D-weight open coat #1A4180, or equivalent. (4) If the ensemble employs a separable inner and outer layer, in which the inner layer is the chemical barrier layer, the following shall apply: (a) The abradant of the outer surface of the inner suit shall be the inner surface of the outer layer. (b) The abradant of the outer surface of the outer layer shall be 80 grit trimite D-weight open coat #1A4180, or equivalent. (5) The specimen shall be abraded for 25 continuous cycles for (3) and (4)(b), and 200 continuous cycles for (4)(a). Under section (4), it is irrelevant whether the "inner layer is the chemical barrier layer" or not. If a two layer garment system is used in the 1991 ensemble, then the abrasion test should always abrade the outside of the inner suit with the inside of the outer suit. First Revision No. 48-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: Kristin Williamson Organization: The DuPont Company, Inc. Submittal Date: Mon Nov 10 08:42:08 EST 2014 Committee Action: Accepted Resolution: SR-36-NFPA Statement: The TC believes that it is irrelevant whether the "inner layer is the chemical barrier layer" or not. If a two layer garment system is used in the 1991 ensemble, then the abrasion test should always abrade the outside of the inner suit with the inside of the outer suit.

119 0 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 9-NFPA [ Section No ] Samples or specimens shall be conditioned at a temperature of 32 C ± 2 C (90 F ± 4 F) and a relative humidity of 80 percent ± 5 percent until equilibrium is reached, as specified in ASTM D 1776, Standard Practice for Conditioning and Testing Textiles, or for at least 24 hours. Comment: It is not clear which test is to be performed after conditioning acc. to 8.1.9? The conditioning as specified in seems to stand alone without ans related test method. It is not clear which test is to be performed after conditioning acc. to 8.1.9? Public Input No. 9-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: Thomas von Hoegen Organization: Draeger Safety Co. Submittal Date: Wed Nov 05 03:52:47 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The TC rejected the Public Comment because the test will point back to this paragraph.

120 1 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 121-NFPA [ Section No ] Application This test method shall apply to vapor-protective ensembles and to glove and footwear elements Modifications to this test method for testing encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles shall be as specified in Modifications to this test method for testing glove elements shall be as specified in Modifications to this test method for testing footwear elements shall be as specified in Modifications to this test method for testing non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles shall be as specified in The proposed changes clarify the application of the standard to both encapsulating and non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles. Public Input No. 182-NFPA [Global Input] Submitter Full Name: Jeffrey Stull Organization: International Personnel Protection, Inc. Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 01:42:16 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The Technical Committee decided to address non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles to NFPA 1994 as Class 1.

121 Public Comment No. 166-NFPA [ New Section after ] Z Where the ensemble utilizes the respirator facepiece as the ensemble visor, the ensemble shall be tested with each type and model of respirator specified by the manufacturer. Add a testing requirement specific to non-encapsulating garments. The facepiece seal is a critical interface in protecting the wearer s head and neck area from exposure to hazardous chemical gases or vapors. The performance of overall performance of the ensemble with each type of respirator with which the ensemble is to be certified must be evaluated. Related Public Comments for This Document Related Comment Public Comment No. 167-NFPA [New Section after 8.3.3] Relationship Public Comment No. 168-NFPA [New Section after 8.4.3] Public Comment No. 169-NFPA [New Section after 8.5.3] Public Comment No. 171-NFPA [New Section after ] First Revision No. 81-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: James Zeigler Organization: J. P. Zeigler, LLC Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 14:39:59 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The Technical Committee decided to address non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles to NFPA 1994 as Class 1. 2 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

122 3 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 99-NFPA [ New Section after ] x Where the vapor-protective suit is a nonencapsulated design, then the suit shall be tested for gastight integrity with all models of SCBA facepiece to which the ensemble is certified. As it is critical that these suit ensembles are gastight, it should be required that non-encapsulating suit designs be assessed for gastight performance to the same criteria as the encapsulated designs. Use of each SCBA model facepiece in this testing is critical to ensure adequate seal is maintained for all ensemble options. First Revision No. 85-NFPA [Section No. 8.4] Submitter Full Name: Susan Lovasic Organization: The DuPont Company, Inc. Submittal Date: Thu Nov 13 18:53:07 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The Technical Committee decided to address non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles to NFPA 1994 as Class 1.

123 4 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 152-NFPA [ New Section after ] X Nonencapsulating ensembles shall be subjected to Respirator Facepiece Seal Fatigue conditioning as specified in Section 8.1.X. Damage to the faceseal shall not be repaired. Adds a conditioning requirement applicable to non-encapsulating ensembles. Related Public Comments for This Document Related Comment Public Comment No. 150-NFPA [Section No. 8.1] Public Comment No. 159-NFPA [New Section after 8.27] Public Comment No. 156-NFPA [New Section after 8.6.1] Public Comment No. 157-NFPA [New Section after 8.6] Public Comment No. 158-NFPA [New Section after ] Public Comment No. 153-NFPA [New Section after ] Public Comment No. 154-NFPA [New Section after ] Public Comment No. 155-NFPA [New Section after ] Public Comment No. 165-NFPA [New Section after ] First Revision No. 81-NFPA [Section No ] Relationship Submitter Full Name: James Zeigler Organization: J. P. Zeigler, LLC Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 12:37:42 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The Technical Committee decided to address non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles to NFPA 1994 as Class 1.

124 5 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 122-NFPA [ Section No ] Specific Requirements for Testing Encapsulating Vapor-Protective Ensembles A minimum of one vapor-protective ensemble shall be tested Where the vapor-protective suit 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 Ensembles failing the test shall be permitted to be repaired. A report indicating the repairs made shall be provided by the manufacturer. The proposed changes clarify the application of the standard to both encapsulating and non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles. Public Input No. 182-NFPA [Global Input] Submitter Full Name: Jeffrey Stull Organization: International Personnel Protection, Inc. Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 01:44:46 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The Technical Committee decided to address non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles to NFPA 1994 as Class 1.

125 6 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 123-NFPA [ New Section after ] TITLE OF NEW CONTENT Specific Requirements for Testing Non-Encapsulating Vapor-Protective Ensembles A minimum of one vapor-protective ensemble shall be tested Where the vapor-protective suit 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 The open area of the vapor-protective suit intended to accommodate the interface with the SCBA facepiece shall be sealed with a gastight fixture or device in accordance with ASTM F 1052, Standard Test Method for Pressure Testing of Vapor-Protective Ensembles Ensembles failing the test shall be permitted to be repaired. A report indicating the repairs made shall be provided by the manufacturer. The proposed changes clarify the application of the standard to both encapsulating and non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles. Public Input No. 182-NFPA [Global Input] Submitter Full Name: Jeffrey Stull Organization: International Personnel Protection, Inc. Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 01:45:55 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The Technical Committee decided to address non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles to NFPA 1994 as Class 1.

126 7 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 153-NFPA [ New Section after ] X Nonencapsulating ensembles shall be subjeced to Respirator Face Pece Seal Fatigue conditing as specified in Section 8.1.X. Damage to the faceseal shall not be repaired. Add conditioning requirements for nonencapsulating garments. Related Public Comments for This Document Related Comment Public Comment No. 150-NFPA [Section No. 8.1] Public Comment No. 152-NFPA [New Section after 8.2.7] Public Comment No. 156-NFPA [New Section after 8.6.1] Public Comment No. 157-NFPA [New Section after 8.6] Public Comment No. 159-NFPA [New Section after 8.27] Public Comment No. 154-NFPA [New Section after ] Public Comment No. 155-NFPA [New Section after ] Public Comment No. 165-NFPA [New Section after ] First Revision No. 81-NFPA [Section No ] Relationship Submitter Full Name: James Zeigler Organization: J. P. Zeigler, LLC Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 12:42:32 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The Technical Committee decided to address non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles to NFPA 1994 as Class 1.

127 Public Comment No. 167-NFPA [ New Section after ] 8.3.X Where the ensemble utilizes the respirator facepiece as the ensemble visor, the ensemble shall be tested with each type and model of respirator specified by the manufacturer. Add a testing requirement specific to non-encapsulating garments. The facepiece seal is a critical interface in protecting the wearer s head and neck area from exposure to hazardous chemical gases or vapors. The performance of overall performance of the ensemble with each type of respirator with which the ensemble is to be certified must be evaluated. Related Public Comments for This Document Related Comment Public Comment No. 168-NFPA [New Section after 8.4.3] Relationship Public Comment No. 169-NFPA [New Section after 8.5.3] Public Comment No. 166-NFPA [New Section after 8.2.3] Public Comment No. 171-NFPA [New Section after ] First Revision No. 81-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: James Zeigler Organization: J. P. Zeigler, LLC Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 14:42:05 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The Technical Committee decided to address non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles to NFPA 1994 as Class 1. 8 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

128 9 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 128-NFPA [ New Section after ] TITLE OF NEW CONTENT Where a non-encapsulating ensemble is evaluated, the specimen shall include each type of SCBA for which the manufacturer is certifying the non-encapsulating ensemble. The proposed changes clarify the application of the standard to both encapsulating and non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles. Public Input No. 182-NFPA [Global Input] Submitter Full Name: Jeffrey Stull Organization: International Personnel Protection, Inc. Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 08:25:16 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The Technical Committee decided to address non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles to NFPA 1994 as Class 1.

129 Public Comment No. 141-NFPA [ Section No. 8.4 ] 8.4 Overall Ensemble Function and Integrity Test Application. This test method shall apply to vapor-protective ensembles Sample Preparation Samples shall be complete vapor-protective ensembles Samples shall be conditioned as specified in Specimens Specimens shall be complete vapor-protective ensembles At least threespecimens shall be tested using a different test subject for each specimen 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 Apparatus. The equipment and supplies specified in ASTM F 1154, Standard Practices for Qualitatively Evaluating the Comfort, Fit, Function, and Integrity of Chemical Protective Suit Ensembles, shall be used along with the following additional items: (1) A Snellen eye chart for a 6 m (20 ft) distance (2) A stopwatch or other timing device (3) Multiple cards on white card stock with four random capital letters printed in 10 mm high block-style font (4) A protractor or other device to measure the angle of a word card relative to the test subject (5) NFPA 704 based placard as seen in figure XXX Procedure 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 The suit shall be donned in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. (3) Testing shall be conducted at 25 C, ± 7 C (77 F, ± 10 F) and relative humidity of 50 percent, ± 20 percent. (4) 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. (5) Test subjects shall wear underclothing in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations, or in lieu of a detailed recommendation, a full-body coverall. (6) Test subjects shall wear a self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) that is compliant with NFPA Visual acuity testing shall be conducted using the eye chart, with a normal lighting range of 100 through 150 ft candles at the chart and with the test subject positions at a distance of 6.1 m (20 ft) from the chart 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 doctor's examination The test subject shall read the standard eye chart through the lens of the SCBA facepiece and suit visor to determine the ensemble visor's impact on the test subject's visual acuity The field of vision for the test subject shall be assessed by determining the angular degree to the left and right where the test subject can read four random 10 mm high letters from a distance of 6 m (20 ft) that is 2 m (6 ft) off of the ground for the up, down, left, right orientation angles using NFPA 704 based placard with random numbers between 0 and 4 in each of the quadrants. The placard shall be 2 m (6ft) /- 0.1m away from the eye of the test subject and perpendicular to Field of View line of sight being measured 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. The test subject shall perform this action in accordance with the manufacturer s instructions. This action shall be sequentially repeated a total of five times. The time for completing this action shall be timed using a stopwatch or other suitable timing device Gastight integrity shall be measured as specified in Section 8.2 upon completion of the exercise protocols Report The end suit pressure shall be recorded and reported The ability 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 be recorded and reported The visual acuity of the test subject when in and out of the suit shall be recorded and reported The angular degree for both the left and right defining the field of vision shall be measured and reported. The average angular degree for the left and right field of vision for all test subjects shall be calculated and reported The time for each test subject to repeatedly remove and reinsert his or her hands completely into the gloves five times sequentially shall be recorded and reported. The average time for all test subjects shall be calculated and reported Interpretation Following the test subject exercises, an ending suit pressure after inflation testing shall be used to determine pass or fail performance The ability 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 be used to determine pass or fail performance The visual acuity of the test subject when inside the suit shall be used for determining pass or fail performance The average left and average right angular field of vision shall be used to determine pass or fail performance The average time of all test subjects to repeatedly remove and reinsert their completely into the gloves five times sequentially shall determine pass or fail performance. Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved NFPA_704-_FOV_Placard.JPG NFPA 704 based Placard for NFPA 1991 FOV test This revision attempts to satisfy one of the larger complaints observed on the NFPA 1991 user survey. First Revision No. 85-NFPA [Section No. 8.4] Submitter Full Name: Jason Allen Organization: Intertek Testing Services Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 10:52:51 EST 2014 Committee Action: Accepted Resolution: SR-37-NFPA Statement: The TC is revising parts of the overall ensemble function and integrity test based on information provided via an NFPA 1991 user survey. 00 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

130 Public Comment No. 197-NFPA [ Section No. 8.4 ] 8.4 Overall Ensemble Function and Integrity Test Application. This test method shall apply to vapor-protective ensembles Sample Preparation Samples shall be complete vapor-protective ensembles Samples shall be conditioned as specified in Specimens Specimens shall be complete vapor-protective ensembles At least threespecimens shall be tested using a different test subject for each specimen 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 Apparatus. The equipment and supplies specified in ASTM F 1154, Standard Practices for Qualitatively Evaluating the Comfort, Fit, Function, and Integrity of Chemical Protective Suit Ensembles, shall be used along with the following additional items: (1) A Snellen eye chart for a 6 m (20 ft) distance (2) A stopwatch or other timing device (3) Multiple cards on white card stock with four random capital letters printed in 10 mm high block-style font (4) A protractor or other device to measure the angle of a word card relative to the test subject Procedure 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 The suit shall be donned in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. (3) Testing shall be conducted at 25 C, ± 7 C (77 F, ± 10 F) and relative humidity of 50 percent, ± 20 percent. (4) 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. (5) Test subjects shall wear underclothing in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations, or in lieu of a detailed recommendation, a full-body coverall. (6) Test subjects shall wear a self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) that is compliant with NFPA Visual acuity testing shall be conducted using the eye chart, with a normal lighting range of 100 through 150 ft candles at the chart and with the test subject positions at a distance of 6.1 m (20 ft) from the chart 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 doctor's examination The test subject shall read the standard eye chart through the lens of the SCBA facepiece and suit visor to determine the ensemble visor's impact on the test subject's visual acuity The field of vision for the test subject shall be assessed by determining the angular degree to the left and right where the test subject can read four random 10 mm high letters from a distance of 6 m (20 ft) that is 2 m (6 ft) off of the ground 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. The test subject shall perform this action in accordance with the manufacturer s instructions. This action shall be sequentially repeated a total of five times. The time for completing this action shall be timed using a stopwatch or other suitable timing device Gastight integrity shall be measured as specified in Section 8.2 upon completion of the exercise protocols Report The end suit pressure shall be recorded and reported The ability 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 be recorded and reported The visual acuity of the test subject when in and out of the suit shall be recorded and reported The angular degree for both the left and right defining the field of vision shall be measured and reported. The average angular degree for the left and right field of vision for all test subjects shall be calculated and reported The time for each test subject to repeatedly remove and reinsert his or her hands completely into the gloves five times sequentially shall be recorded and reported. The average time for all test subjects shall be calculated and reported Interpretation Following the test subject exercises, an ending suit pressure after inflation testing shall be used to determine pass or fail performance The ability 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 be used to determine pass or fail performance The visual acuity of the test subject when inside the suit shall be used for determining pass or fail performance The average left and average right angular field of vision shall be used to determine pass or fail performance The average time of all test subjects to repeatedly remove and reinsert their completely into the gloves five times sequentially shall determine pass or fail performance. Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved pdf CC Note No. 2 CC NOTE: The following CC Note No. 2 appeared in the First Draft Report as First Revision 85. The Correlating Committee directs the Technical Committee on Hazardous Materials Protective Clothing and Equipment to validate the new [or significantly revised] test method through the following: 1. Provide a rationale with supporting evidence that substantiates the need or the rationale for establishing new test methods or criteria or for revising existing test methods or criteria in terms of field relevance, fire service needs, safety concerns, recognition of new product technology, accounting for advances in testing technology, or accomplishing other clearly stated objectives. Examples of supporting evidence can include the documentation of specific safety issues that have been identified by end user or other groups, which may include statistics on the number of incidents or highlight specific cases where the issues have arisen. Other forms of supporting evidence can include aspects of existing requirements that unduly prevent the proper testing or consideration of new product technologies because the existing test methods or criteria are found to be design-restrictive, or information that shows that new test methods have become available that provide more reliable or relevant forms of evaluation for the specific product property or attribute under consideration. The provision of scientific papers, test data, or statistics provides a more robust justification for supporting evidence. 2. Conduct an assessment to determine the potential impact of the new or significantly revised test methods or criteria on products that have already been certified or fielded. The nature of this requirement is to have the TC assess what the anticipated impact of the new or modified requirements are relative to specific products. It is not the intent to identify specific products that might be excluded by a new or modified requirement, but rather for the submitter to provide an analysis for the types of products that might be affected, with an indication as to why the affected products do not provide adequate performance. 3. Establish Intra-laboratory repeatability and inter-laboratory reproducibility for new or significantly revised test methods. Where possible, test methods shall include procedures for their calibration. The principal certification organizations and their laboratories shall formally affirm to the TC that the tests can be conducted reliably as proposed at least by the time of the second draft. An essential part of the validation process is to include an assessment of the repeatability (intra-laboratory precision) and reproducibility (inter-laboratory precision) of any new test method or significant modification of an existing test method. This information is important for establishing the reliability of the test method and should, as a minimum, include those laboratories that provide certification services for the relevant product standard. This information may also be useful in setting specific criteria to account for expected test method variability. 4. Establish the relevance of test methods and any associated criteria through a determination of how proposed or significantly revised test methods identify meaningful differences in product performance consistent with field performance. Attempts should be made to determine the degree to which new or significantly revised test methods identify meaningful differences in product performance or relate to the field performance of products. One recommended approach is to identify product types that are considered to be unsuitable based on end user field experience and evaluate those products alongside other products to determine if the test method suitably identifies meaningful differences in performance consistent with observed field performance. Another approach is to demonstrate the impact and relevance of test results for products through carefully designed experiments carried out in the field. Lastly, one additional approach is to relate proposed criteria to specific safety levels that can be documented through scientific or other reasonably based field investigative work. 5. Provide test data and any other supporting documentation to the members of the respective TC and the CC, or any individuals who may request this information. Access to the information on which new or significantly revised test methods and criteria are based should be available to all parties seeking this information, including TC members, CC members, and individuals outside the committee process (through the NFPA). Supporting documentation that includes, but is not limited to, proposed new or modified methodology/criteria with justification statements, supporting evidence, test data, references to published papers or statistics, inter-laboratory test results, and other information should be maintained by the TC as part of meeting minutes or made available elsewhere on the NFPA TC website page. 6. Provide at least one of the following visual illustrations of the proposed test equipment and test material(s) to the respective TC and CC: a. Video(s) b. Photo(s) c. Drawing (s) The visual illustrations shall be provided along with the submittal. Visual illustrations help TC and CC members better understand the proposed new test or modified test. First Revision No. 85-NFPA [Section No. 8.4] Submitter Full Name: CC on FAE-AAC Organization: NFPA Submittal Date: Mon Nov 17 14:43:30 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The TC reviewed the Correlating Committee notes to this Public Comment and has addressed the questions in several sections of the standard. 01 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

131 02 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 154-NFPA [ New Section after ] X Nonencapsulating ensembles shall be subjected to Respirator Face Piece Seal Fatigue Condtioning as specified in Section 8.1.X. Damage to the faceseal shall not be repaired. Add a conditioning requirement specific to non-encapsulating garments. The facepiece seal is a critical interface in protecting the wearer s head and neck area from exposure to hazardous chemical gases or vapors. Related Public Comments for This Document Related Comment Public Comment No. 150-NFPA [Section No. 8.1] Public Comment No. 152-NFPA [New Section after 8.2.7] Public Comment No. 153-NFPA [New Section after ] Public Comment No. 155-NFPA [New Section after ] Public Comment No. 165-NFPA [New Section after ] First Revision No. 81-NFPA [Section No ] Relationship Submitter Full Name: James Zeigler Organization: J. P. Zeigler, LLC Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 12:46:14 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The Technical Committee decided to address non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles to NFPA 1994 as Class 1.

132 Public Comment No. 168-NFPA [ New Section after ] X Where the ensemble utilizes the respirator facepiece as the ensemble visor, the ensemble shall be tested with each type and model of respirator specified by the manufacturer. Add a testing requirement specific to non-encapsulating garments. The facepiece seal is a critical interface in protecting the wearer s head and neck area from exposure to hazardous chemical gases or vapors. The performance of overall performance of the ensemble with each type of respirator with which the ensemble is to be certified must be evaluated. Related Public Comments for This Document Related Comment Public Comment No. 169-NFPA [New Section after 8.5.3] Relationship Public Comment No. 166-NFPA [New Section after 8.2.3] Public Comment No. 167-NFPA [New Section after 8.3.3] Public Comment No. 171-NFPA [New Section after ] First Revision No. 81-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: James Zeigler Organization: J. P. Zeigler, LLC Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 14:47:12 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The Technical Committee decided to address non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles to NFPA 1994 as Class of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

133 04 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 129-NFPA [ Section No [Excluding any Sub-Sections] ] Visual For encapsulating ensembles, visual acuity testing shall be conducted using the eye chart, with a normal lighting range of 100 through 150 ft candles at the chart and with the test subject positions at a distance of 6.1 m (20 ft) from the chart. The proposed changes clarify the application of the standard to both encapsulating and non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles. Public Input No. 182-NFPA [Global Input] Submitter Full Name: Jeffrey Stull Organization: International Personnel Protection, Inc. Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 08:27:11 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The Technical Committee decided to address non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles to NFPA 1994 as Class 1.

134 05 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 40-NFPA [ Section No ] 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 doctor's examination. Is it intended that the wearer's vision can not be correct to 20/20 with glasses/goggles? First Revision No. 85-NFPA [Section No. 8.4] Submitter Full Name: Kristin Williamson Organization: The DuPont Company, Inc. Submittal Date: Mon Nov 10 08:46:14 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: See SR 37.

135 06 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 130-NFPA [ Section No ] The For encapsulating ensembles, the field of vision for the test subject shall be assessed by determining the angular degree to the left and right where the test subject can read four random 10 mm high letters from a distance of 6 m (20 ft) that is 2 m (6 ft) off of the ground. The proposed changes clarify the application of the standard to both encapsulating and non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles. Public Input No. 182-NFPA [Global Input] Submitter Full Name: Jeffrey Stull Organization: International Personnel Protection, Inc. Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 08:28:37 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The Technical Committee decided to address non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles to NFPA 1994 as Class 1.

136 07 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 8-NFPA [ Section No ] The field of vision for the test subject shall be assessed by determining the angular degree to the left and right where the test subject can read four random mm high high letters from a distance of 6 m (20 ft) that is 2 m (6 ft) off of the ground. JUSTIFICATION: 10 mm high letters are hardly visible at 6 m distance even without suit. 100 mm is more appropriate. Also, a minimum width of the letters should also be specified. 10 mm high letters are hardly visible at 6 m distance even without suit, i.e. just with naked eye. 100 mm is more appropriate. Also, a minimum width of the letters should also be specified, recognition of letters very much depends on the width of the letters. Public Input No. 8-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: Thomas von Hoegen Organization: Draeger Safety Co. Submittal Date: Wed Nov 05 03:47:47 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: See SR 37.

137 Public Comment No. 41-NFPA [ Sections , ] Sections , The field of vision for the test subject shall be assessed by determining the angular degree to the left and right where the test subject can read four random 10 mm high letters from a distance of 6 m (20 ft) that is 2 m (6 ft) off of the ground. **(need to add more details about the test method here)** The field of vision for the test subject shall be assessed by determining the angular degree to the left and right where the test subject can read four random 10 mm high letters from a distance of 6 m (20 ft) that is 2 m (6 ft) off of the ground. Not enough detail is provided to run this new test. How is "angular degree" determined? Are the large block letters place 90 degrees from the center vision point to begin the test and then moved slowly to the center until they come into view to the wearer? Is the wearer permitted to turn their head to try to see the letters or is this measuring the wear's peripheral vision? First Revision No. 85-NFPA [Section No. 8.4] Submitter Full Name: Kristin Williamson Organization: The DuPont Company, Inc. Submittal Date: Mon Nov 10 08:51:15 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: See SR of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

138 09 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 10-NFPA [ Section No ] The angular degree for both the left and right defining the field of vision shall be measured and reported. The average angular degree for the left and right field of vision for all test subjects shall be calculated and reported. COMMENT: There is no minimum requirement for the angular degree specified, so what is then the purpose of this test for certification? There is no minimum requirement for the angular degree specified, so what is then the purpose of this test for certification? What is the acceptance criteria for this test? Public Input No. 10-NFPA [Section No [Excluding any Sub-Sections]] Submitter Full Name: Thomas von Hoegen Organization: Draeger Safety Co. Submittal Date: Wed Nov 05 03:54:50 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: Endpoints are stated in Chapter 7.

139 10 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 42-NFPA [ Section No ] Following the test subject exercises, an ending suit pressure after inflation testing using ASTM F1052 shall be used to determine pass or fail performance. The specific test method should be listed. First Revision No. 85-NFPA [Section No. 8.4] Submitter Full Name: Kristin Williamson Organization: The DuPont Company, Inc. Submittal Date: Mon Nov 10 08:57:34 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: See SR 37.

140 11 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 155-NFPA [ New Section after ] X Nonencapsulating ensembles shall be subjected to Respirator Face Piece Seal Fatigue Condtioning as specified in Section 8.1.X. Damage to the faceseal shall not be repaired. Add a conditioning requirement specific to non-encapsulating garments. The facepiece seal is a critical interface in protecting the wearer s head and neck area from exposure to hazardous chemical gases or vapors. Related Public Comments for This Document Related Comment Public Comment No. 150-NFPA [Section No. 8.1] Public Comment No. 152-NFPA [New Section after 8.2.7] Public Comment No. 153-NFPA [New Section after ] Public Comment No. 154-NFPA [New Section after ] Public Comment No. 165-NFPA [New Section after ] First Revision No. 81-NFPA [Section No ] Relationship Submitter Full Name: James Zeigler Organization: J. P. Zeigler, LLC Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 12:51:33 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The Technical Committee decided to address non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles to NFPA 1994 as Class 1.

141 Public Comment No. 169-NFPA [ New Section after ] X Where the ensemble utilizes the respirator facepiece as the ensemble visor, the ensemble shall be tested with each type and model of respirator specified by the manufacturer. Add a testing requirement specific to non-encapsulating garments. The facepiece seal is a critical interface in protecting the wearer s head and neck area from exposure to hazardous chemical gases or vapors. The performance of overall performance of the ensemble with each type of respirator with which the ensemble is to be certified must be evaluated. Related Public Comments for This Document Related Comment Public Comment No. 166-NFPA [New Section after 8.2.3] Relationship Public Comment No. 167-NFPA [New Section after 8.3.3] Public Comment No. 168-NFPA [New Section after 8.4.3] Public Comment No. 171-NFPA [New Section after ] First Revision No. 81-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: James Zeigler Organization: J. P. Zeigler, LLC Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 14:49:25 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The Technical Committee decided to address non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles to NFPA 1994 as Class of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

142 13 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 157-NFPA [ New Section after 8.6 ] 8.6.x Specific Requirements for Testing Respirator Facepiece Seals Assemblies 8.6.X.1 The test shall apply to all respirator facepiece seal assemblies utilized with non-encapsulating garments in which the seal materials is different that the primary suit material or the sealing material is not backed by a separate layer of primary suit material. 8.6.X.2 Samples of flex conditioning shall be complete respirator facepiece seal assemblies attached to surrounding primary garment material in final assembly configuration. 8.6.X.3 Samples shall be conditioned as specified in Section 8.1.X. Damage to the facepiece seal shall not be repaired. 8.6.X.4 The permeation specimens shall be taken from sealing material. Multiple specimens may be taken from the same assembly. Add a conditioning requirement specific to non-encapsulating garments. The facepiece seal is a critical interface in protecting the wearer s head and neck area from exposure to hazardous chemical gases or vapors. Related Public Comments for This Document Related Comment Public Comment No. 156-NFPA [New Section after 8.6.1] Public Comment No. 150-NFPA [Section No. 8.1] Public Comment No. 152-NFPA [New Section after 8.2.7] Public Comment No. 153-NFPA [New Section after ] Public Comment No. 165-NFPA [New Section after ] First Revision No. 81-NFPA [Section No ] Relationship Submitter Full Name: James Zeigler Organization: J. P. Zeigler, LLC Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 13:00:41 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The Technical Committee decided to address non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles to NFPA 1994 as Class 1.

143 14 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 198-NFPA [ Section No. 8.6 ] 8.6 Chemical Permeation Resistance Test One Application This test method shall apply to suit, visor, glove, and footwear element materials, and shall apply to selected elements' seams Modifications to this test method for testing suit materials after flexing and abrading shall be as specified in Modifications to this test method for testing glove materials after abrading shall be as specified in Modifications to this test method for testing footwear materials after abrading shall be as specified in Modifications to this test method for testing seams shall be as specified in Modifications to this test for testing primary materials against liquefied gases shall be as specified in Sample Preparation Samples shall be either vapor-protective ensembles or suit materials, visor materials, gloves, and footwear of the sizes specified in the modifications Samples shall be conditioned as specified in after the conditioning specified in the modifications Specimens Specimens shall be the size specified in ASTM F 739, Standard Test Method for Resistance of Protective Clothing Materials to Permeation by Liquids and Gases At least three specimens shall be tested per chemical challenge For composite materials, only the chemical protection layer shall be the sample for testing for chemical permeation resistance Procedures Permeation resistance shall be measured in accordance with ASTM F 739, Standard Test Method for Resistance of Protective Clothing Materials to Permeation by Liquids and Gases, with the following modifications: (1) Cumulative permeation shall be measured for a period of 1 hour, +1 minute, - 0 minutes. (2) Testing shall be performed at a temperature of 32 C, ± 2 C (90 F, ± 4 F). (3) The minimum detectable cumulative permeation mass shall be determined for each chemical tested and shall be at least 0.6 µg/cm 2 or lower Permeation resistance shall be measured for each of the following chemicals at its normal laboratory-grade concentration, with gases at a concentration of 99.0% or greater, except as indicated: (1) Acetone (2) Acetonitrile (3) Acrolein (4) Acrylonitrile (5) Anhydrous ammonia (gas) (6) 1,3-Butadiene (gas) (7) Carbon disulfide (8) Chlorine (gas) (9) Dichloromethane (10) Diethyl amine (11) Dimethyl formamide (12) Dimethyl sulfate (13) Ethyl acetate (14) Ethylene oxide (gas) (15) Hexane (16) Hydrogen chloride (gas) (17) Methanol (18) Methyl chloride (gas) (19) Nitrobenzene (20) Sodium hydroxide, 50% w/w (21) Sulfuric acid, 96.1% w/w (22) Tetrachloroethylene (23) Tetrahydrofuran (24) Toluene Report The following information and results shall be recorded and reported: (1) Material type or name (2) Chemical or chemical mixture (volume composition of mixture) (3) Cumulative permeation mass (μg/cm 2 ) (4) Minimum detectable cumulative permeation mass (μg/cm 2 ) (5) Detection method (6) Date of test (7) Testing laboratory The average cumulative permeation mass shall be determined for each chemical If no chemical is detected for any replicate permeation resistance test, then the cumulative permeation mass used for that replicate shall be the minimum detectable cumulative permeation mass for purposes of calculating the average cumulative permeation mass If no chemical is detected for all replicates in a specific chemical test, then the average cumulative permeation mass shall be reported as a value less than the minimum detectable cumulative permeation mass The manufacturer shall report the average cumulative permeation masses in the technical data package Interpretation. The average cumulative permeation mass shall be used in determining compliance for the particular material/chemical combination Specific Requirements for Testing Suit Materials After Flexing and Abrading Samples for conditioning shall be 200 mm 280 mm (8 in. 11 in.) rectangles and shall consist of all layers as configured in the suit Two samples shall first be conditioned by flexing as specified in One sample shall be flexed with the longitudinal axis parallel to the machine direction of the material, and the second sample shall be flexed with the longitudinal axis parallel to the cross-machine direction of the material Following flexing, two samples for abrasion conditioning, each measuring 45 mm 230 mm (1 3 4 in. 9 in.), shall be cut from the center of the flexed samples At least one specimen for abrasion conditioning shall be taken from a sample flexed in the machine direction, and at least one specimen for abrasion conditioning shall be taken from a sample flexed in the cross-machine direction for each chemical tested These new samples for abrasion conditioning shall then be conditioned by abrading as specified in Following abrasion, only one specimen for permeation resistance testing shall be taken from each sample subjected to abrasion The permeation test specimen shall be taken from the exact center of the abraded sample so that the center of the permeation test and the center of the abraded sample coincide Specific Requirements for Testing Glove Materials After Abrading Samples for conditioning shall be whole glove components or whole glove individual elements Three samples for abrasion conditioning, each measuring 45 mm 230 mm (1 3 4 in. 9 in.), shall be cut from the gauntlet portion of the sample These new samples for abrasion conditioning shall then be conditioned by abrading as specified in Following abrasion, only one specimen for permeation resistance testing shall be taken from each sample subjected to abrasion The permeation test specimen shall be taken from the exact center of the abraded sample so that the center of the permeation test and the center of the abraded sample coincide Specific Requirements for Testing Footwear Materials After Abrading This test shall apply to all types of footwear configurations. Where the footwear incorporates a bootie constructed of suit material, the suit material flex fatigue resistance test shall be permitted to be substituted for this test Samples for conditioning shall be whole footwear components or whole footwear individual elements Samples for abrasion conditioning, each measuring 45 mm 230 mm (1 3 4 in. 9 in.), shall be cut from the center of the footwear upper The samples for abrasion conditioning shall then be conditioned by abrading as specified in Following abrasion, only one specimen for permeation resistance testing shall be taken from each sample subjected to abrasion The permeation test specimen shall be taken from the exact center of the abraded sample so that the center of the permeation test and the center of the abraded sample coincide Specific Requirements for Testing Seams Seam specimens shall be prepared from seam samples that have a minimum of 150 mm (6 in.) of material on each side of the seam center Permeation test specimens shall be cut such that the exact seam center divides the specimen in half Seam specimens shall be prepared representing each different seam or shall be taken from each different type of seam found in the vapor-protective suit, including as a minimum the suit-to-suit material seams and the suit-to-visor material seams Samples for conditioning shall be 600 mm ( in.) lengths of prepared seam or cut from vapor-protective ensembles Specific Requirements for Testing Primary Materials Against Liquefied Gases.

144 Samples for conditioning shall be suit material, visor material, glove material from the glove gauntlet, and footwear material from the footwear upper Glove material specimens shall include all layers used in construction of the glove system Where the footwear consists of a bootie and outer boot, the footwear specimens shall include all layers in the footwear system Specimens shall be conditioned as specified in Specimens shall be exposed on their normal outside surface Visor materials that are rigid and cannot be bent in the test apparatus shall be excluded from this conditioning 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 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. Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved pdf CC Note No. 3 CC NOTE: The following CC Note No. 3 appeared in the First Draft Report as First Revision 51. The Correlating Committee directs the Technical Committee on Hazardous Materials Protective Clothing and Equipment to validate the new [or significantly revised] test method through the following: 1. Provide a rationale with supporting evidence that substantiates the need or the rationale for establishing new test methods or criteria or for revising existing test methods or criteria in terms of field relevance, fire service needs, safety concerns, recognition of new product technology, accounting for advances in testing technology, or accomplishing other clearly stated objectives. Examples of supporting evidence can include the documentation of specific safety issues that have been identified by end user or other groups, which may include statistics on the number of incidents or highlight specific cases where the issues have arisen. Other forms of supporting evidence can include aspects of existing requirements that unduly prevent the proper testing or consideration of new product technologies because the existing test methods or criteria are found to be design-restrictive, or information that shows that new test methods have become available that provide more reliable or relevant forms of evaluation for the specific product property or attribute under consideration. The provision of scientific papers, test data, or statistics provides a more robust justification for supporting evidence. 2. Conduct an assessment to determine the potential impact of the new or significantly revised test methods or criteria on products that have already been certified or fielded. The nature of this requirement is to have the TC assess what the anticipated impact of the new or modified requirements are relative to specific products. It is not the intent to identify specific products that might be excluded by a new or modified requirement, but rather for the submitter to provide an analysis for the types of products that might be affected, with an indication as to why the affected products do not provide adequate performance. 3. Establish Intra-laboratory repeatability and inter-laboratory reproducibility for new or significantly revised test methods. Where possible, test methods shall include procedures for their calibration. The principal certification organizations and their laboratories shall formally affirm to the TC that the tests can be conducted reliably as proposed at least by the time of the second draft. An essential part of the validation process is to include an assessment of the repeatability (intra-laboratory precision) and reproducibility (inter-laboratory precision) of any new test method or significant modification of an existing test method. This information is important for establishing the reliability of the test method and should, as a minimum, include those laboratories that provide certification services for the relevant product standard. This information may also be useful in setting specific criteria to account for expected test method variability. 4. Establish the relevance of test methods and any associated criteria through a determination of how proposed or significantly revised test methods identify meaningful differences in product performance consistent with field performance. Attempts should be made to determine the degree to which new or significantly revised test methods identify meaningful differences in product performance or relate to the field performance of products. One recommended approach is to identify product types that are considered to be unsuitable based on end user field experience and evaluate those products alongside other products to determine if the test method suitably identifies meaningful differences in performance consistent with observed field performance. Another approach is to demonstrate the impact and relevance of test results for products through carefully designed experiments carried out in the field. Lastly, one additional approach is to relate proposed criteria to specific safety levels that can be documented through scientific or other reasonably based field investigative work. 5. Provide test data and any other supporting documentation to the members of the respective TC and the CC, or any individuals who may request this information. Access to the information on which new or significantly revised test methods and criteria are based should be available to all parties seeking this information, including TC members, CC members, and individuals outside the committee process (through the NFPA). Supporting documentation that includes, but is not limited to, proposed new or modified methodology/criteria with justification statements, supporting evidence, test data, references to published papers or statistics, inter-laboratory test results, and other information should be maintained by the TC as part of meeting minutes or made available elsewhere on the NFPA TC website page. 6. Provide at least one of the following visual illustrations of the proposed test equipment and test material(s) to the respective TC and CC: a. Video(s) b. Photo(s) c. Drawing (s) The visual illustrations shall be provided along with the submittal. Visual illustrations help TC and CC members better understand the proposed new test or modified test. First Revision No. 51-NFPA [Section No. 8.6] Submitter Full Name: CC on FAE-AAC Organization: NFPA Submittal Date: Mon Nov 17 14:45:56 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The TC reviewed the Correlating Committee notes to this Public Comment and has addressed the questions in several sections of the standard. 15 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

145 16 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 156-NFPA [ New Section after ] X Modifications to this test method for testing respirator facepiece seal assemblies in non-encapsulating ensembles shall be as specific in section 8.6.X Add a conditioning requirement specific to non-encapsulating garments. The facepiece seal is a critical interface in protecting the wearer s head and neck area from exposure to hazardous chemical gases or vapors. Related Public Comments for This Document Related Comment Public Comment No. 150-NFPA [Section No. 8.1] Public Comment No. 152-NFPA [New Section after 8.2.7] Public Comment No. 153-NFPA [New Section after ] Public Comment No. 157-NFPA [New Section after 8.6] Public Comment No. 165-NFPA [New Section after ] First Revision No. 81-NFPA [Section No ] Relationship Submitter Full Name: James Zeigler Organization: J. P. Zeigler, LLC Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 12:59:01 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The Technical Committee decided to address non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles to NFPA 1994 as Class 1.

146 17 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 52-NFPA [ Section No ] This test method shall apply to suit, visor materials and all exposed components (including face peice, gasket, and supply air line, etc.) of an external SCBA system (if used for a non-encapsulating suit design), glove, and footwear element materials, and shall apply to selected elements' seams. If the standard will permit non-encapsulating suit designs to be certified, then all "visor" requirements must be applied to all exposed components of the external SCBA system. First Revision No. 51-NFPA [Section No. 8.6] Submitter Full Name: Kristin Williamson Organization: The DuPont Company, Inc. Submittal Date: Mon Nov 10 09:54:29 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The Technical Committee decided to address non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles to NFPA 1994 as Class 1.

147 18 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 188-NFPA [ New Section after ] TITLE OF NEW CONTENT Modification for testing suit closures shall be as specified in All materials and components are not tested for permeation resistance with the exception of the zippers, which provide a fundamental potential failure mode of vapor-protective ensembles. First Revision No. 46-NFPA [Chapter 7] Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 16:10:00 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: State of the art does not currently allow this testing.

148 19 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 11-NFPA [ Section No ] Permeation resistance shall be measured in accordance with ASTM F 739, Standard Test Method for Resistance of Protective Clothing Materials to Permeation by Liquids and Gases, with the following modifications: (1) Cumulative permeation shall be measured for a period of 1 hour, + (1) 1 minute, - 0 minutes. (2) Testing shall be performed at a temperature of 32 C, ± 2 C (90 F, ± 4 F). (3) The minimum detectable cumulative permeation mass shall be determined for each chemical tested and shall be at least 0.6 µg/cm 2 or lower. COMMENT regarding (3): Why has the minimum detectable cumulative permeation mass been risen, when it was 0.1 microgam /cm2 before? Why has the minimum detectable cumulative permeation mass been risen, when it was 0.1 microgam /cm2 before? This appears to be a lower requirements than it was before. Is there any evidence that this will not lead to a reduction of the safety level for the user? Public Input No. 11-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: Thomas von Hoegen Organization: Draeger Safety Co. Submittal Date: Wed Nov 05 03:59:20 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: See SR 38.

149 20 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 181-NFPA [ Section No ] Permeation resistance shall be measured in accordance with ASTM F 739, Standard Test Method for Resistance of Protective Clothing Materials to Permeation by Liquids and Gases, with the following modifications: (1) Cumulative Total cumulative permeation shall be measured for a period of 1 hour, + 1 minute, - 0 minutes. and each 15-minute interval of the 1-hour exposure (2) Testing shall be performed at a temperature of 32 C, ± 2 C (90 F, ± 4 F). (3) The minimum detectable cumulative permeation mass shall be determined for each chemical tested and shall be at least 0.6 µg/cm 2 or lower. Measurement of cumulative permeation at 15 minute intervals is intended ensure that large amount of permeation do not occur at any one interval within the 1-hour test period. First Revision No. 51-NFPA [Section No. 8.6] Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 15:57:11 EST 2014 Committee Action: Accepted Resolution: SR-38-NFPA Statement: The TC believes that the measurement of cumulative permeation at 15 minute intervals is intended to ensure that large amount of permeation do not occur at any one interval within the 1-hour test period. The TC is adding explanatory text on cumulative permeation.

150 21 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 193-NFPA [ Section No ] * Permeation resistance shall be measured in accordance with ASTM F 739, Standard Test Method for Resistance of Protective Clothing Materials to Permeation by Liquids and Gases, with the following modifications: (1) Cumulative permeation shall be measured for a period of 1 hour, + 1 minute, - 0 minutes. (2) Testing shall be performed at a temperature of 32 C, ± 2 C (90 F, ± 4 F). (3) The minimum detectable cumulative permeation mass shall be determined for each chemical tested and shall be at least 0.6 µg/cm 2 or lower. An appendix section is needed to explain the use of cumulative permeation. First Revision No. 51-NFPA [Section No. 8.6] Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 16:45:13 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: See SR 38.

151 22 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 98-NFPA [ Section No ] Permeation resistance shall be measured in accordance with ASTM F 739, Standard Test Method for Resistance of Protective Clothing Materials to Permeation by Liquids and Gases, with the following modifications: (1) Cumulative permeation shall be measured for a period of 1 hour, + 1 minute, - 0 minutes. (2) Testing shall be performed at a temperature of 32 C, ± 2 C (90 F, ± 4 F). (3) The minimum detectable cumulative permeation mass shall be determined for each chemical tested and shall be at least µg/cm 2 or lower. The minimum detectable cumulative permeation mass must be lower than the 0.6 ug/cm2 requirement for the 15 minute intervals. First Revision No. 51-NFPA [Section No. 8.6] Submitter Full Name: Susan Lovasic Organization: The DuPont Company, Inc. Submittal Date: Thu Nov 13 18:48:26 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected but held Resolution: The TC is holding this Public Comment to investigate the limits of detection for the 24 chemical battery analytical methodologies. The TC's intent was to set the LODs at a minimum of 10% of the performance criteria.

152 23 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 12-NFPA [ Section No ] Permeation resistance shall be measured for each of the following chemicals at its normal laboratory-grade concentration, with gases at a concentration of 99.0% or greater, except as indicated: (1) Acetone (2) Acetonitrile (3) Acrolein Acrylonitrile (4) Why has this chemical been specified additionally? The range of 21 chemicals as it was before was previously found to be representative for industrial chemicals. What is the benefit of this additional test? (5) same comment as above (6) Anhydrous ammonia (gas) (7) 1,3-Butadiene (gas) (8) Carbon disulfide (9) Chlorine (gas) (10) Dichloromethane (11) Diethyl amine (12) Dimethyl formamide (13) Dimethyl sulfate same comment as above (14) Ethyl acetate (15) Ethylene oxide (gas) (16) Hexane (17) Hydrogen chloride (gas) (18) Methanol (19) Methyl chloride (gas) (20) Nitrobenzene (21) Sodium hydroxide, 50% w/w (22) Sulfuric acid, 96.1% w/w (23) Tetrachloroethylene (24) Tetrahydrofuran (25) Toluene 3 chemiclas have been added to the list of previously 21 chemicals. Why have these chemicals been specified additionally? The range of 21 chemicals as it was before was previously found to be representative for industrial chemicals. What is the benefit of this additional test? Public Input No. 12-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: Thomas von Hoegen Organization: Draeger Safety Co. Submittal Date: Wed Nov 05 04:02:04 EST 2014 Committee Action: Accepted Resolution: SR-39-NFPA Statement: The TC is providing more detailed specifications on the concentration of liquid chemicals. The 24 chemicals represent a combination of the original 21 chemicals plus 3 additional toxic industrial chemicals that were previously included for CBRN testing.

153 24 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 195-NFPA [ Section No ] * Permeation resistance shall be measured for each of the following chemicals at its normal laboratory-grade concentration, with gases at a concentration of 99.0% or greater, except as indicated: (1) Acetone (2) Acetonitrile (3) Acrolein (4) Acrylonitrile (5) Anhydrous ammonia (gas) (6) 1,3-Butadiene (gas) (7) Carbon disulfide (8) Chlorine (gas) (9) Dichloromethane (10) Diethyl amine (11) Dimethyl formamide (12) Dimethyl sulfate (13) Ethyl acetate (14) Ethylene oxide (gas) (15) Hexane (16) Hydrogen chloride (gas) (17) Methanol (18) Methyl chloride (gas) (19) Nitrobenzene (20) Sodium hydroxide, 50% w/w (21) Sulfuric acid, 96.1% w/w (22) Tetrachloroethylene (23) Tetrahydrofuran (24) Toluene An annex item is needed to provide additional detail for procedures for evaluating each chemical. First Revision No. 51-NFPA [Section No. 8.6] Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 16:51:03 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: See SR 39.

154 25 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 53-NFPA [ Section No ] Permeation resistance shall be measured for each of the following chemicals at its normal laboratory-grade concentration 95% concentration unless noted otherwise, with gases at a concentration of 99.0% or greater, except as indicated: (1) Acetone (2) Acetonitrile (3) Acrolein (4) Acrylonitrile (5) Anhydrous ammonia (gas) (6) 1,3-Butadiene (gas) (7) Carbon disulfide (8) Chlorine (gas) (9) Dichloromethane (10) Diethyl amine (11) Dimethyl formamide (12) Dimethyl sulfate (13) Ethyl acetate (14) Ethylene oxide (gas) (15) Hexane (16) Hydrogen chloride (gas) (17) Methanol (18) Methyl chloride (gas) (19) Nitrobenzene (20) Sodium hydroxide, 50% w/w (21) Sulfuric acid, 96.1% w/w (22) Tetrachloroethylene (23) Tetrahydrofuran (24) Toluene Requiring normal laboratory-grade concentration is not precise enough for the liquid chemicals. First Revision No. 51-NFPA [Section No. 8.6] Submitter Full Name: Kristin Williamson Organization: The DuPont Company, Inc. Submittal Date: Mon Nov 10 09:56:51 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: See SR 39.

155 Public Comment No. 100-NFPA [ New Section after ] The analytical test method used for each chemical shall be as specified in section x. As has been discussed in several TC meetings, the exact way that the test labs analyze for the permeant mass can impact the final results. At the October 2014 TC meeting it was decided that a common set of acceptable analytical techniques would be developed by the labs for each of the 27 chemicals and this information will be added to the NFPA 1991 standard to ensure consistency of permeation results. First Revision No. 46-NFPA [Chapter 7] Submitter Full Name: Susan Lovasic Organization: The DuPont Company, Inc. Submittal Date: Thu Nov 13 19:05:36 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected but held Resolution: The TC is holding this Public Comment, and the analytical labs will investigate further to provide additional information and data. 26 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

156 Public Comment No. 17-NFPA [ Section No ] The following information and results shall be recorded and reported: (1) Material type or name (2) Chemical or chemical mixture (volume composition of mixture) Cumulative permeation mass ( (1) for industrial chemicals Permeation normalized breakthrough detection time in minutes calculated at a system detectable permeation rate of 0.10 μg/cm 2 ) Minimum detectable cumulative permeation mass (1) (2) (3) /min for industrial chemicals Minimum detectable rate for test apparatus (μg/cm 2 / min ) Cumulative permeation mass (μg/cm for chemical warfare agents (4) Detection method (5) Date of test (6) Testing laboratory COMMENT: The draft standard requires that only the cumulative mass shall be reported, not the permeation normalized breakthrough detection time any more. Measuring the cumulative mass only would require to modify existing test setups and the results would not be comparable with existing results for permeation breakthrough rates, which means that we need to retest all our materials. The results of the cumulative permeation still are deemed to be usable for direct comparison of material performance, they cannot be used for determining the service time. In this section, several changes have been made. The draft standard requires that only the cumulative mass shall be reported, not the permeation normalized breakthrough detection time any more. Measuring the cumulative mass only would require to modify existing test setups and the results would not be comparable with existing results for permeation breakthrough rates, which means that we need to retest all our materials. The results of the cumulative permeation still are deemed to be usable for direct comparison of material performance, they cannot be used for determining the service time. Thus, we dont agree to these modifications. Public Input No. 17-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: Thomas von Hoegen Organization: Draeger Safety Co. Submittal Date: Wed Nov 05 07:49:36 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: See SR 40. The Technical Committee believes that the use of cumulative permeation along with 15 minute intervals is appropriate for this standard. 27 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

157 28 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 182-NFPA [ Section No ] The following information and results shall be recorded and reported: (1) Material type or name (2) Chemical or chemical mixture (volume composition of mixture) (3) Cumulative permeation mass (μg/cm 2 ) at each 15 minute-interval and over entire 1-hour test period (4) Minimum detectable cumulative permeation mass (μg/cm 2 ) (5) Detection method (6) Date of test (7) Testing laboratory Measurement of cumulative permeation at 15 minute intervals is intended ensure that large amount of permeation do not occur at any one interval within the 1-hour test period. First Revision No. 51-NFPA [Section No. 8.6] Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 15:59:52 EST 2014 Committee Action: Accepted Resolution: SR-40-NFPA Statement: The TC believes that the measurement of cumulative permeation at 15 minute intervals is intended to ensure that large amount of permeation do not occur at any one interval within the 1-hour test period.

158 29 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 183-NFPA [ Section No [Excluding any Sub-Sections] ] The average cumulative permeation mass shall be determined for each chemical for each 15-minute exposure interval and for the entire 1-hour test period. Measurement of cumulative permeation at 15 minute intervals is intended ensure that large amount of permeation do not occur at any one interval within the 1-hour test period. First Revision No. 51-NFPA [Section No. 8.6] Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 16:00:57 EST 2014 Committee Action: Accepted Resolution: SR-41-NFPA Statement: The TC believes that the measurement of cumulative permeation at 15 minute intervals is intended to ensure that large amount of permeation do not occur at any one interval within the 1-hour test period.

159 30 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 184-NFPA [ Section No ] The manufacturer shall report the average cumulative permeation masses for each 15-minute exposure interval and the entire 1-hour test period in the technical data package. Measurement of cumulative permeation at 15 minute intervals is intended ensure that large amount of permeation do not occur at any one interval within the 1-hour test period. First Revision No. 51-NFPA [Section No. 8.6] Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 16:02:21 EST 2014 Committee Action: Accepted Resolution: SR-42-NFPA Statement: The TC believes that the measurement of cumulative permeation at 15 minute intervals is intended to ensure that large amount of permeation do not occur at any one interval within the 1-hour test period.

160 31 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 185-NFPA [ Section No ] Interpretation. The average cumulative permeation mass for each 15-minute exposure interval and the total 1-hour exposure period shall be used in determining compliance for the particular material/chemical combination. Measurement of cumulative permeation at 15 minute intervals is intended ensure that large amount of permeation do not occur at any one interval within the 1-hour test period. First Revision No. 51-NFPA [Section No. 8.6] Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 16:03:29 EST 2014 Committee Action: Accepted Resolution: SR-43-NFPA Statement: The TC believes that the measurement of cumulative permeation at 15 minute intervals is intended to ensure that large amount of permeation do not occur at any one interval within the 1-hour test period.

161 Public Comment No. 54-NFPA [ Section No ] Visor materials that are rigid and cannot be bent in the test apparatus shall be excluded from this conditioning. All "visors" must be assessed to the same set of standards. Exclusions for "rigid" visors just because they can not be tested in a specific test apparatus is not acceptable. Some replacement test to assess the same performance property for rigid visors must be included. All visors should be held to a comparable performance standard. First Revision No. 51-NFPA [Section No. 8.6] Submitter Full Name: Kristin Williamson Organization: The DuPont Company, Inc. Submittal Date: Mon Nov 10 09:59:50 EST 2014 Committee Action: Accepted Resolution: SR-44-NFPA Statement: The TC is deleting this paragraph as it believes that all "visors" must be assessed to the same set of standards. Exclusions for "rigid" visors just because they can not be tested in a specific test apparatus is not acceptable. Some replacement test to assess the same performance property for rigid visors must be included. All visors should be held to a comparable performance standard. 32 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

162 33 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 180-NFPA [ New Section after ] TITLE OF NEW CONTENT C umulative permeation shall be measured for a period of 15 minutes, 1 minute, - 0 minutes. Modifications are required to limit this testing to 15 minutes as originally specified in the 2005 edition of NFPA First Revision No. 51-NFPA [Section No. 8.6] Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 15:50:51 EST 2014 Committee Action: Accepted Resolution: SR-45-NFPA Statement: The TC believes that modifications are required to limit this testing to 15 minutes as originally specified in the 2005 edition of NFPA 1991.

163 34 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 189-NFPA [ New Section after ] TITLE OF NEW CONTENT Specific Requirements for Testing Suit Closures Samples shall be complete closure assemblies that are prepared in the shortest possible length but include all features including in their construction such as sliders, and end stops Samples shall be conditioned as specified in A modified permeation test cell shall be used that accommodates and provides a seal to the complete closure assembly such that the entire closure assemble can be subject to the chemical exposure. Suit closures are the only suit component that is not evaluated for chemical permeation resistance. First Revision No. 51-NFPA [Section No. 8.6] Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 16:11:35 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The TC rejected the Public Comment because current state of the art is not capable of addressing this issue.

164 Public Comment No. 199-NFPA [ Section No. 8.7 ] 8.7 Flammability Resistance Test Application This test method shall be applied to suit, visor, glove, and footwear element materials Modifications to this test method for base ensemble performance shall be as specified in Modifications to this test method for optional chemical flash fire protection performance shall be as specified in Sample Preparation Samples for conditioning shall be at least 1 m (1 yd) squares of material Samples shall be conditioned as specified in Specimens Specimens shall be the size specified in ASTM F 1358, Standard Test Method for Effects of Flame Impingement on Materials Used in Protective Clothing Not Designated Primarily for Flame Resistance Five specimens in each of the warp directions, machine or coarse, and the filling directions, cross-machine or wale, shall be tested Where the material is isotropic, 10 specimens shall be tested Procedure. Flame resistance testing shall be conducted in accordance with ASTM F 1358, Standard Test Method for Effects of Flame Impingement on Materials Used in Protective Clothing Not Designated Primarily for Flame Resistance, with the following modifications: (1) The test apparatus shall include the test cabinet and accessories, burner, and gas regulation system, as specified in Sections 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 of ASTM D 6413, Standard Test Method for Flame Resistance of Textiles (Vertical Test). (2) A specimen shall have been considered to ignite during the 3-second exposure when the measured afterflame time exceeds 2.0 seconds Report Afterflame times shall be recorded and reported for each specimen and as the average for each material direction Burn distances shall be recorded and reported for each specimen and as the average for each material direction Ignition during the initial 3-second exposure shall be recorded and reported for each specimen Evidence of melting, during the 12-second exposure period shall be recorded and reported for each specimen Interpretation Ignition of any individual specimen during the initial 3-second exposure shall be used to determine compliance with the ignition requirements The longest average afterflame time in any direction shall be used to determine compliance with the afterflame requirements The longest average burn distance in any direction shall be used to determine compliance with burn distance requirements Evidence of melting of any specimen shall be used to determine compliance with melting requirements Specific Requirements for Testing Base Ensemble Materials Only the 3-second flame exposure shall be used Burn distances and afterflame times shall only be determined for the 3-second exposure Specific Requirements for Testing Optional Chemical Flash Fire Protection Ensemble Materials. The full procedures in ASTM F 1358, Standard Test Method for Effects of Flame Impingement on Materials Used in Protective Clothing Not Designated Primarily for Flame Resistance, shall be used including both the 3-second and 12-second exposures. Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved pdf CC Note No. 4 CC NOTE: The following CC Note No. 4 appeared in the First Draft Report as First Revision 53. The Correlating Committee directs the Technical Committee on Hazardous Materials Protective Clothing and Equipment to validate the new [or significantly revised] test method through the following: 1. Provide a rationale with supporting evidence that substantiates the need or the rationale for establishing new test methods or criteria or for revising existing test methods or criteria in terms of field relevance, fire service needs, safety concerns, recognition of new product technology, accounting for advances in testing technology, or accomplishing other clearly stated objectives. Examples of supporting evidence can include the documentation of specific safety issues that have been identified by end user or other groups, which may include statistics on the number of incidents or highlight specific cases where the issues have arisen. Other forms of supporting evidence can include aspects of existing requirements that unduly prevent the proper testing or consideration of new product technologies because the existing test methods or criteria are found to be design-restrictive, or information that shows that new test methods have become available that provide more reliable or relevant forms of evaluation for the specific product property or attribute under consideration. The provision of scientific papers, test data, or statistics provides a more robust justification for supporting evidence. 2. Conduct an assessment to determine the potential impact of the new or significantly revised test methods or criteria on products that have already been certified or fielded. The nature of this requirement is to have the TC assess what the anticipated impact of the new or modified requirements are relative to specific products. It is not the intent to identify specific products that might be excluded by a new or modified requirement, but rather for the submitter to provide an analysis for the types of products that might be affected, with an indication as to why the affected products do not provide adequate performance. 3. Establish Intra-laboratory repeatability and inter-laboratory reproducibility for new or significantly revised test methods. Where possible, test methods shall include procedures for their calibration. The principal certification organizations and their laboratories shall formally affirm to the TC that the tests can be conducted reliably as proposed at least by the time of the second draft. An essential part of the validation process is to include an assessment of the repeatability (intra-laboratory precision) and reproducibility (inter-laboratory precision) of any new test method or significant modification of an existing test method. This information is important for establishing the reliability of the test method and should, as a minimum, include those laboratories that provide certification services for the relevant product standard. This information may also be useful in setting specific criteria to account for expected test method variability. 4. Establish the relevance of test methods and any associated criteria through a determination of how proposed or significantly revised test methods identify meaningful differences in product performance consistent with field performance. Attempts should be made to determine the degree to which new or significantly revised test methods identify meaningful differences in product performance or relate to the field performance of products. One recommended approach is to identify product types that are considered to be unsuitable based on end user field experience and evaluate those products alongside other products to determine if the test method suitably identifies meaningful differences in performance consistent with observed field performance. Another approach is to demonstrate the impact and relevance of test results for products through carefully designed experiments carried out in the field. Lastly, one additional approach is to relate proposed criteria to specific safety levels that can be documented through scientific or other reasonably based field investigative work. 5. Provide test data and any other supporting documentation to the members of the respective TC and the CC, or any individuals who may request this information. Access to the information on which new or significantly revised test methods and criteria are based should be available to all parties seeking this information, including TC members, CC members, and individuals outside the committee process (through the NFPA). Supporting documentation that includes, but is not limited to, proposed new or modified methodology/criteria with justification statements, supporting evidence, test data, references to published papers or statistics, inter-laboratory test results, and other information should be maintained by the TC as part of meeting minutes or made available elsewhere on the NFPA TC website page. 6. Provide at least one of the following visual illustrations of the proposed test equipment and test material(s) to the respective TC and CC: a. Video(s) b. Photo(s) c. Drawing (s) The visual illustrations shall be provided along with the submittal. Visual illustrations help TC and CC members better understand the proposed new test or modified test. First Revision No. 53-NFPA [Section No. 8.7] Submitter Full Name: CC on FAE-AAC Organization: NFPA Submittal Date: Mon Nov 17 14:47:58 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The TC reviewed the Correlating Committee notes to this Public Comment and has addressed the questions in several sections of the standard. 35 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

165 36 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 55-NFPA [ Section No ] This test method shall be applied to suit, visor materials and all exposed components (including face piece, gasket, and supply air line, etc.) of an external SCBA system (if used for a non-encapsulating suit design), glove, and footwear element materials. If the standard will permit non-encapsulating suit designs to be certified, then all "visor" requirements must be applied to all exposed components of the external SCBA system. First Revision No. 53-NFPA [Section No. 8.7] Submitter Full Name: Kristin Williamson Organization: The DuPont Company, Inc. Submittal Date: Mon Nov 10 10:03:36 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The Technical Committee decided to address non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles to NFPA 1994 as Class 1.

166 37 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 36-NFPA [ Section No ] Procedure. Flame resistance testing shall be conducted in accordance with ASTM F 1358, Standard Test Method for Effects of Flame Impingement on Materials Used in Protective Clothing Not Designated Primarily for Flame Resistance, with the following modifications: (1) The test apparatus shall include the test cabinet and accessories, burner, and gas regulation system, as specified in Sections 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 of ASTM D 6413, Standard Test Method for Flame Resistance of Textiles (Vertical Test). (2) A specimen shall have been considered to ignite during the 3-second exposure when the measured afterflame time exceeds 2.0 seconds (3) Specimens shall be observed for the combination of both melting and dripping. The current means for determining material melting during the flame resistance test is unclear. By relating this determination to observed dripping, clearer guidance is provided to the laboratory for interpreting the results of this test. A related proposal has been made to make changes in the test method for the interpretation of results. Public Input No. 180-NFPA [Section No. 8.7] Submitter Full Name: Jeffrey Stull Organization: International Personnel Protection, Inc. Submittal Date: Sun Nov 09 15:39:37 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The TC rejected this Public Comment, but will the address the issue via SR in Section 8.7.

167 Public Comment No. 37-NFPA [ Section No ] Evidence of melting and dripping, during both the 3-second and 12-second exposure period shall be recorded and reported for each specimen. The current means for determining material melting during the flame resistance test is unclear. By relating this determination to observed dripping, clearer guidance is provided to the laboratory for interpreting the results of this test. A related proposal has been made to make changes in the test method for the interpretation of results. Additional clarification is needed to indicate that this determination during both flame exposure periods. Public Input No. 180-NFPA [Section No. 8.7] Submitter Full Name: Jeffrey Stull Organization: International Personnel Protection, Inc. Submittal Date: Sun Nov 09 15:52:51 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The TC rejected the Public Comment, and will address the issue via SR in Section of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

168 39 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 56-NFPA [ Section No ] The longest average afterflame time in any direction shall be used to determine compliance with the afterflame requirements. The average afterflame test should be used to determine pass/fail, not the longest afterflame time recorded. This is consistent with how flammability tests are handled in NFPA 1971, 1975 and First Revision No. 53-NFPA [Section No. 8.7] Submitter Full Name: Kristin Williamson Organization: The DuPont Company, Inc. Submittal Date: Mon Nov 10 10:05:00 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The Technical Committee decided to address non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles to NFPA 1994 as Class 1.

169 40 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 57-NFPA [ Section No ] The longest average burn distance in any direction shall be used to determine compliance with burn distance requirements. The average burn distance should be used to determine pass/fail. Not the longest distance recorded. The proposed change is consistent with flammability tests used in NFPA 1971, 1975, and First Revision No. 53-NFPA [Section No. 8.7] Submitter Full Name: Kristin Williamson Organization: The DuPont Company, Inc. Submittal Date: Mon Nov 10 10:07:45 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The TC rejected the Public Comment, and will address the issue via an SR in Section 8.7.

170 41 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 38-NFPA [ Section No ] Evidence of melting and dripping of any specimen shall be used to determine compliance with melting and dripping requirements. The current means for determining material melting during the flame resistance test is unclear. By relating this determination to observed dripping, clearer guidance is provided to the laboratory for interpreting the results of this test. A related proposal has been made to make changes in the test method for the interpretation of results. Public Input No. 180-NFPA [Section No. 8.7] Submitter Full Name: Jeffrey Stull Organization: International Personnel Protection, Inc. Submittal Date: Sun Nov 09 15:57:23 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The TC rejected the Public Comment, and will address the issue via an SR in Section 8.7.

171 Public Comment No. 13-NFPA [ Section No. 8.8 ] 8.8 Man-In-Simulant Test (MIST). COMMENT: We cannot agree to this new test method. The test procedure is difficult to understand. Are the test pads sensitive enough to achieve the same sensitivity as the SF6-test? Has the cross sensitivity against other substances been checked? Which test laboratories are able to perform this test? The test substance is a harmful chemical and needs special consideration by work protection. What about contamination of the test chamber, and the test subject? This is a vapor test substance and is not suitable for testing of gas tight suits Application. This test shall apply to complete vapor-protective ensembles Samples Samples for conditioning shall be complete ensembles and shall include the respirator where the ensemble utilizes the respirator facepiece as the ensemble visor Samples shall be conditioned as specified in Specimens The specimens shall be a complete ensemble with gloves and footwear and shall include the respirator where applicable Where the ensemble utilizes the respirator facepiece as the ensemble visor, the ensemble shall be tested with each type or model of the respirator specified by the manufacturer Where the respirator is completely encapsulated by the ensemble, the ensemble shall be tested with a respirator specified by the manufacturer A minimum of four specimens shall be tested. The specimens shall represent a minimum of two different ensemble sizes Where the ensemble has multiple types of external fittings, each type of external fitting shall be present on each specimen at the time of testing Specimens shall be provided to fit or be adjustable to fit the selected test subjects in accordance with the manufacturer s sizing provisions that are specific to each ensemble * None of the ensembles or components of the ensemble to be tested shall have been previously subjected to MIST testing unless it can be demonstrated that the ensemble or components are free of contamination Underclothing and socks shall be permitted to be reused, provided they have been laundered with a detergent that has been demonstrated not to cause interference with the analytical method Apparatus Test Facility The test facility shall include areas for dressing, a first stage undressing area adjacent and accessible to the chamber, and a second stage undressing area adjacent and accessible to the first stage undressing area The test shall be conducted in a test chamber with a minimum volume of sufficient dimensions to permit free movement of the test subject(s) when fully dressed in the ensemble and for the test subject(s) to carry out the physical exercise routine specified in More than one test subject shall be permitted in the chamber at the same time, provided that they can complete all tasks completely in the appropriate time period and that they have an unobstructed direct path to the wind stream The test chamber shall have a temperature of 25 C, ± 2 C, relative humidity of 55 percent, ± 10 percent, and a nominal wind speed of 0.9 to 2.2 m/sec (2 to 5 mph). The average wind speed shall be 1.6 m/sec, ± 0.2 m/sec (3.5 mph, ± 0.5 mph) Test Chemical and Analytical Equipment The test simulant shall be methyl salicylate (MeS; C8H8O3) CAS # , more commonly known as oil of wintergreen. The MeS minimum purity shall be 95 percent. Vapor doses shall be measured using Passive Adsorbent Dosimeters (PADs) * The standard concentration of MeS in the vapor chamber shall be 100 mg/m 3, ± 15 mg/m 3, as measured by a real-time infrared analysis of the chamber air or other validated real-time analytical technique Infrared readings shall be taken every 60 seconds to verify compliance with the concentration requirement, and an air sample shall be taken at least every 10 minutes for validation of infrared readings Every step shall be taken to avoid generation of liquid aerosol The sensitivity of the analytical technique used for the measurement of MeS in the PADs shall provide a detection limit of 30 ng MeS per PAD. The analytical technique shall have an upper limit of quantification of 31,500 ng * Passive Adsorbent Dosimeters (PADs). The test shall be conducted using PADs that affix directly to the skin of test subjects and that have the following characteristics: (1) The PADs shall be a foil packet, which contains an adsorbent material covered by a high-density polyethylene film that acts as a pseudo-skin barrier. (2) The PADs shall have an uptake rate of 3.0 cm/min or greater Test Subjects. 42 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

172 All test subjects shall be medically and physically suitable to perform these tests without danger to themselves. A medical certificate for each test subject shall have been issued within 12 months prior to testing Test subjects shall be familiar with the use of chemical-protective ensembles and with the selected CBRN SCBA Procedure Test subjects shall shall have followed pretrial procedures that include proper hydration and avoiding personal hygiene products that could contain MS PADs shall be placed on test subjects at the body region locations shown in Figure Figure Locations of PADs on Test Subjects All PADs shall be applied in a clean dressing area by personnel who have followed pretrial procedures to minimize contamination. Test subjects shall also follow pretrial procedures to minimize contamination Cheek PADs shall be located entirely within the respirator facepiece, and all other PADs shall be located entirely outside the seal of the respirator facepiece Three additional PADs shall be used to conduct background sampling and for quality control during the trial. These PADs shall be located in the dressing area, the stage 1 undress area, and the stage 2 undress area The test subject shall don the protective ensemble and respirator in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions in an area located away from the test chamber. The test subject shall wear clothing under the CBRN protective ensemble as specified by the manufacturer. If no undergarments are specified or required by the manufacturer as part of the certified ensemble, the test subject shall wear a short-sleeve cotton shirt and shorts or underwear After sealing the ensemble, the test subject shall enter the test chamber, and the test chamber shall be sealed The test duration will be 30 minutes in the chamber with a 5-minute decontamination period The start of the test, in which the test subject enters the MIST chamber, shall be initiated within 60 minutes after removal of the ensemble from the conditioning environment Physical Exercise Routine. 43 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

173 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Once the chamber concentration has been established, the test subject(s) shall perform the following physical activity protocol and the chamber concentration shall remain within acceptable limits during the exercise protocol: (1) Drag 70 kg (154 lb) human dummy using both hands a distance of 10 m (33 ft) over a 15-second period. Stop and rest for 15 seconds. Repeat exercise twice. (2) Duck squat, pivot right, pivot left, stand. Rotate orientation 90 degrees to wind stream between each repetition. Repeat exercise twice in each orientation for a total of 1 minute. (3) Stand erect. With arms at sides, bend body to left and return, bend body forward and return, bend body to right and return. Rotate orientation 90 degrees to wind stream between each repetition. Repeat exercise twice in each orientation for a total of 1 minute. (4) Stand erect. Extend arms overhead in the lateral direction, then bend elbows. Extend arms overhead in the frontal direction, then bend elbows. Rotate orientation 90 degrees to wind stream between each repetition. Repeat exercise twice in each orientation for a total of 1 minute. (5) Stand erect. Extend arms perpendicular to the sides of torso. Twist torso left and return, twist torso right and return. Rotate orientation 90 degrees to wind stream between each repetition. Repeat exercise twice in each orientation for a total of 1 minute. (6) Stand erect. Reach arms across chest completely to opposite sides. Rotate orientation 90 degrees to wind stream between each repetition. Repeat exercise twice in each orientation for a total of 1 minute. (7) Climb two steps of the ladder and touch the ceiling with one hand (use alternate hands each time). Climb down, squat, and touch the floor with both hands. Repeat exercise three times within 1 minute. (8) Crawl in place for 1 minute. Rotate orientation 90 degrees to wind stream every 15 seconds. (9) Sit on stool (facing wind) for 1 minute. (10) Sit on stool (back to wind) for 1 minute Physical activities and rest periods shall be performed in a chamber location that provides an unobstructed exposure of the protective ensemble to the required wind stream Each physical activity and rest cycle shall be 10 minutes. The cycle of exercise and rest shall be completed a total of three times, for a total chamber exposure of 30 minutes. Each exercise cycle shall consist of eight 1-minute activities followed by a 2-minute rest (sitting) period The test subject shall begin the first repetition of each activity facing the wind stream and shall rotate 90 degrees between each repetition until the time period for that exercise has ended For activities (7) (walking in place) and (8) (crawling in place), the test subject shall rotate 90 degrees on 15-second intervals during the 1-minute period All physical activities shall be a full range of motion and performed at a moderate speed Decontamination and Doffing.

174 After completion of the 30-minute MIST exposure, the test subjects shall move to a decontamination area, where they shall remain for at least 5 minutes. This area shall be well ventilated to assist in off-gassing of the outside of the ensemble In the decontamination area, all exposed ensemble surfaces, including such items as the respirator, boots, gloves, and helmets, shall be washed with a liquid soap solution If the garment is designed for wet decontamination, it shall be washed with the liquid soap solution as well Alternative decontamination methods, such as an air wash, shall be permitted if the selected decontamination method can be demonstrated to remove MeS to levels that do not result in contamination of the test subjects during the doffing of the protective ensemble The decontaminated test subject shall move to the first stage undressing room where all remaining items of clothing, except for underclothes, shall be doffed. The undress process shall not exceed 5 minutes As soon as the garment is unsealed and the PADs on the test subject s body are exposed to the ambient atmosphere in the first stage undressing room, three fresh PADs shall be placed near the test subject to detect background MeS concentrations As soon as all items of clothing, except the underwear, are removed, the decontaminated test subject shall proceed to the second stage undressing room and the background PADs shall be collected and handled as specified in The exposure time for the first stage undressing room background PADs shall be recorded When the test subject enters the second stage undressing room, three additional PADs shall be placed near the test subject and the exposure PADs shall be removed from the test subject s body. Both the second stage undressing room background PADs and the exposure PADs taken off the test subject s body shall be handled as specified in The exposure time for the second stage undressing room PADs shall be recorded Where an adhesive is used on the back of the PADs, each PAD shall be backed with aluminum foil, placed in individual sealed glass vials with a nonadsorbent lid liner, and shall remain at room temperature of 25 C, ±3 C (77 F, ± 5 F) for 30 min, ± 5 min, immediately after exposure PAD Qualification and Analysis. 45 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

175 The uptake rate for each lot of PADs shall be determined in accordance with using a minimum of seven PADs selected randomly from the lot * Measurement of PAD Uptake Rate PAD uptake rate shall be measured by exposing PADs in a small-scale chamber under the following conditions: (1) The concentration of MeS shall be 1 mg/m 3, ± 0.5 mg/m 3. (2) The temperature shall be 35 C, ± 2 C (94 F ± 4 F). (3) The relative humidity shall be 55 percent, ± 20 percent. (4) The flow of MeS in the humidified air or nitrogen shall be at a rate of 1 cm/sec, ± 0.2 cm/sec over the PAD. (5) The exposure shall be conducted for a period of 30 minutes, + 1/-0 minutes The PAD uptake rate shall be calculated in accordance with the procedures provided in The average of all PAD uptake rates shall be calculated and used in the calculation of MeS dosage on the test subject PADs After their initial 30 minutes at room temperature, the PADs shall be subjected to one of the following handling and analysis procedures: (1) The PADs shall be stored at a cold temperature sufficient to prevent the migration of MeS from the adhesive until extraction or analysis. (2) The PADS shall be extracted within 4 hours. (3) The adsorbent shall be removed and thermally desorbed within 4 hours The determination of a sufficiently low temperature that prevents migration of the MeS from the adhesive shall be made by exposing 12 pads simultaneously in the test chamber in a vertical position at a concentration of 100 mg/m 3 of MeS for 30 min, + 5 min, -0 min. After this exposure, the PADs shall be covered in foil and each placed in a sealed container and stored at 25 C, ±3 C (77 F, ± 5 F) for 30 min, ± 5 min. Four of these PADs shall be packed in dry ice for 24 hours, four placed in the proposed cold storage temperature for 24 hours, and four extracted or analyzed within 4 hours. The average mass absorbed on the four PADs stored at the proposed storage temperature shall equal with 95% confidence the after four PADs stored for 24 hour in dry ice and four PADs analyzed immediately after exposure Where liquid extraction of the PADs samples is performed, the liquid extracts shall be stored at 0 C to 4 C (32 F to 39 F) for up to 14 days following their exposure before analysis [ ] where: u = the uptake rate in cm/min m = the total mass of MeS measured on the PAD in mg A = the average active area of the PAD in cm 2 Ct = the exposure vapor dosage in mg/min/cm 3 The actual MeS vapor exposure concentration and the actual time of exposure shall be used to determine the uptake rate from the following equation: The range of the analytical technique shall be sufficient to measure the expected range of MeS dosage on the test subject PADs When liquid extraction is used as the analytical technique, the calibration curve used for determining the equipment response to MeS shall be established using at least 4 MeS concentration standards accounting for the proper density of the extraction solvent For the test results to be considered valid for a given ensemble, no more than one PAD from each of the body region locations tested (i.e., no more than one PAD out of the four replicates for any particular region) shall be permitted to be lost to analysis over the course of the four test subjects Calculations The dosage measured by each PAD (Ctinside,i ) shall be determined using the average uptake rate determined for the PAD lot used in the evaluation of a specific ensemble using the following equation: [ ] where: Ct inside.i = the MeS vapor dosage at the specific PAD in mg/min/cm 3 m i = the total mass of MeS measured on the specific PAD in mg u avg = the average uptake of the PAD lot in cm/min A = the average active area of the PA in cm The protection factor at each PAD location shall be calculated using the following equation: [ ] where the Ctoutside shall be determined from the measured chamber vapor dosage of the individual trial over the entire exposure. The value for Ctoutside shall be the average of the chamber MeS concentration readings taken during the course of the test subject exposure period Where the measured total mass of MeS for a given PAD falls below 30 ng, the value of 30 ng shall be used for that specific PAD All results for each PAD location shall be expressed in terms of the local physiological protective dosage factor (PPDF) value and shall be calculated according to the following equation: [ ] * The site-specific onset of symptoms exposure dosages OSED for each PAD shall be based on ECt10 values for mustard blistering/ulceration according to Table Table Site-Specific OSED by PAD Location Body Region PAD Location OSED (mg min m- 3 ) Head/neck 1, 1A, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 19, 19A 100 Torso/buttocks (excluding perineum) 11, 12, 13, 13A, 14, 14A, Arm/hand 7, 8, 9, 10, 10A, 20, 20A 50 Leg/foot 17, 17A, 18, 18A, Perineum 16, 16A The average local PPDF values at each PAD location for all specimens tested shall be calculated A systemic PPDF shall also be calculated from the PAD data. The systemic protection analysis shall use the systemic weighting body region hazard analysis values from the Defense Research Establishment Suffield Report and National Research Council Report to calculate the systemic physiological protective dosage factor for each ensemble test (PPDFsys ). The PPDFsys for each specimen is calculated as follows, where each of the terms is calculated using the information in Table Table ED 50 i Values by PAD and Body Location Body Region i for BRHA Model PADs Mapped to This Region (Average Dosage from Each PAD, Then Calculate PF i ) Area of Body Region ( dz i, cm 2 ) ED 50 i for Severe Effects (VX) for Body Region (mg/individual) Scalp 1,1A Ears 2, Face, cheeks, and neck 4,5,19,19A Chin and neck 4, Nape Abdomen 13A Back 11,12,14A Axillae Upper arm medial Upper arm lateral Elbow fold 8,9,10,10A Elbow 8,9,10,10A Forearm extensor 10,10A Forearm flexor 10,10A Hands dorsum 20,20A Hands palmar 20,20A Buttocks Groin 13, Scrotum 16,16A Thigh anterior 17,17A Thigh posterior 17,17A Knee 17,17A,18,18A Popliteal space (back of knees) 17,17A,18,18A Shins 18,18A Calves 18,18A Feet dorsum Feet plantar The average PPDF sys for all specimens tested shall be calculated Report The individual specimen and average local PPDF i values for each PAD location shall be recorded and reported The PPDFsys value for each specimen and the average PPDF sys value for the ensemble tested shall be recorded and reported A spreadsheet shall be prepared that shows all test measurements and calculations, including at least the following: (1) The MeS vapor exposure concentration for PAD lot qualification (2) The exposure time used for PAD lot qualification (3) The measured MeS mass on each PAD used for PAD lot qualification (4) Each individual and the average PAD uptake rate (5) The measured MeS mass on each PAD used in the dressing room, stage 1 undressing room, and stage 2 undressing room. (6) The measured MeS mass on each PAD placed on the test subject (7) The calculated vapor dosage for each PAD placed on the test subject Interpretation. The average local PPDF i values at each PAD location and the average PPDF sys value shall be used to determine pass or fail performance. We cannot agree to this new test method. The test procedure is difficult to understand. This test is new and there should be evidence given that it has the same sensitivity as the well established SF6 test or the NaCl-Test. A number of questions arise, some of which as as follows. Are the test pads sensitive enough to achieve the same sensitivity as the SF6-test? Has the cross sensitivity against other substances been checked? 46 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

176 Which test laboratories are able to perform this test? The test substance is a harmful chemical and needs special consideration by work protection. What about contamination of the test chamber, and the test subject? All this should be clarifed by the committee before such a technical change is introduced in the standard. Public Input No. 13-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: Thomas von Hoegen Organization: Drger Safety Co. Submittal Date: Wed Nov 05 04:09:08 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The TC rejected the Public Comment. Due to the anticipated ban of SF6, the TC was required to identify alternative methods for measuring ensemble inward leakage. While the TC recognizes that the sensitivity of the MIST test is not as high as the SF6 test, it was determined that the sensitivity of the MIST test when using 150 mg/m3 for 30 minutes was sufficient for NFPA Cross laboratory studies were performed to ensure repeatability. The MIST test is also used in other project standards. 47 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

177 48 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 200-NFPA [ Section No. 8.8 ] 8.8 Man-In-Simulant Test (MIST) Application. This test shall apply to complete vapor-protective ensembles Samples Samples for conditioning shall be complete ensembles and shall include the respirator where the ensemble utilizes the respirator facepiece as the ensemble visor Samples shall be conditioned as specified in Specimens The specimens shall be a complete ensemble with gloves and footwear and shall include the respirator where applicable Where the ensemble utilizes the respirator facepiece as the ensemble visor, the ensemble shall be tested with each type or model of the respirator specified by the manufacturer Where the respirator is completely encapsulated by the ensemble, the ensemble shall be tested with a respirator specified by the manufacturer A minimum of four specimens shall be tested. The specimens shall represent a minimum of two different ensemble sizes Where the ensemble has multiple types of external fittings, each type of external fitting shall be present on each specimen at the time of testing Specimens shall be provided to fit or be adjustable to fit the selected test subjects in accordance with the manufacturer s sizing provisions that are specific to each ensemble * None of the ensembles or components of the ensemble to be tested shall have been previously subjected to MIST testing unless it can be demonstrated that the ensemble or components are free of contamination Underclothing and socks shall be permitted to be reused, provided they have been laundered with a detergent that has been demonstrated not to cause interference with the analytical method Apparatus Test Facility The test facility shall include areas for dressing, a first stage undressing area adjacent and accessible to the chamber, and a second stage undressing area adjacent and accessible to the first stage undressing area The test shall be conducted in a test chamber with a minimum volume of sufficient dimensions to permit free movement of the test subject(s) when fully dressed in the ensemble and for the test subject(s) to carry out the physical exercise routine specified in More than one test subject shall be permitted in the chamber at the same time, provided that they can complete all tasks completely in the appropriate time period and that they have an unobstructed direct path to the wind stream The test chamber shall have a temperature of 25 C, ± 2 C, relative humidity of 55 percent, ± 10 percent, and a nominal wind speed of 0.9 to 2.2 m/sec (2 to 5 mph). The average wind speed shall be 1.6 m/sec, ± 0.2 m/sec (3.5 mph, ± 0.5 mph) Test Chemical and Analytical Equipment The test simulant shall be methyl salicylate (MeS; C8H8O3) CAS # , more commonly known as oil of wintergreen. The MeS minimum purity shall be 95 percent. Vapor doses shall be measured using Passive Adsorbent Dosimeters (PADs) * The standard concentration of MeS in the vapor chamber shall be 100 mg/m 3, ± 15 mg/m 3, as measured by a real-time infrared analysis of the chamber air or other validated real-time analytical technique Infrared readings shall be taken every 60 seconds to verify compliance with the concentration requirement, and an air sample shall be taken at least every 10 minutes for validation of infrared readings Every step shall be taken to avoid generation of liquid aerosol The sensitivity of the analytical technique used for the measurement of MeS in the PADs shall provide a detection limit of 30 ng MeS per PAD. The analytical technique shall have an upper limit of quantification of 31,500 ng * Passive Adsorbent Dosimeters (PADs). The test shall be conducted using PADs that affix directly to the skin of test subjects and that have the following characteristics: (1) The PADs shall be a foil packet, which contains an adsorbent material covered by a high-density polyethylene film that acts as a pseudo-skin barrier. (2) The PADs shall have an uptake rate of 3.0 cm/min or greater Test Subjects.

178 All test subjects shall be medically and physically suitable to perform these tests without danger to themselves. A medical certificate for each test subject shall have been issued within 12 months prior to testing Test subjects shall be familiar with the use of chemical-protective ensembles and with the selected CBRN SCBA Procedure Test subjects shall shall have followed pretrial procedures that include proper hydration and avoiding personal hygiene products that could contain MS PADs shall be placed on test subjects at the body region locations shown in Figure Figure Locations of PADs on Test Subjects All PADs shall be applied in a clean dressing area by personnel who have followed pretrial procedures to minimize contamination. Test subjects shall also follow pretrial procedures to minimize contamination Cheek PADs shall be located entirely within the respirator facepiece, and all other PADs shall be located entirely outside the seal of the respirator facepiece Three additional PADs shall be used to conduct background sampling and for quality control during the trial. These PADs shall be located in the dressing area, the stage 1 undress area, and the stage 2 undress area The test subject shall don the protective ensemble and respirator in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions in an area located away from the test chamber. The test subject shall wear clothing under the CBRN protective ensemble as specified by the manufacturer. If no undergarments are specified or required by the manufacturer as part of the certified ensemble, the test subject shall wear a short-sleeve cotton shirt and shorts or underwear After sealing the ensemble, the test subject shall enter the test chamber, and the test chamber shall be sealed The test duration will be 30 minutes in the chamber with a 5-minute decontamination period The start of the test, in which the test subject enters the MIST chamber, shall be initiated within 60 minutes after removal of the ensemble from the conditioning environment Physical Exercise Routine. 49 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

179 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Once the chamber concentration has been established, the test subject(s) shall perform the following physical activity protocol and the chamber concentration shall remain within acceptable limits during the exercise protocol: (1) Drag 70 kg (154 lb) human dummy using both hands a distance of 10 m (33 ft) over a 15-second period. Stop and rest for 15 seconds. Repeat exercise twice. (2) Duck squat, pivot right, pivot left, stand. Rotate orientation 90 degrees to wind stream between each repetition. Repeat exercise twice in each orientation for a total of 1 minute. (3) Stand erect. With arms at sides, bend body to left and return, bend body forward and return, bend body to right and return. Rotate orientation 90 degrees to wind stream between each repetition. Repeat exercise twice in each orientation for a total of 1 minute. (4) Stand erect. Extend arms overhead in the lateral direction, then bend elbows. Extend arms overhead in the frontal direction, then bend elbows. Rotate orientation 90 degrees to wind stream between each repetition. Repeat exercise twice in each orientation for a total of 1 minute. (5) Stand erect. Extend arms perpendicular to the sides of torso. Twist torso left and return, twist torso right and return. Rotate orientation 90 degrees to wind stream between each repetition. Repeat exercise twice in each orientation for a total of 1 minute. (6) Stand erect. Reach arms across chest completely to opposite sides. Rotate orientation 90 degrees to wind stream between each repetition. Repeat exercise twice in each orientation for a total of 1 minute. (7) Climb two steps of the ladder and touch the ceiling with one hand (use alternate hands each time). Climb down, squat, and touch the floor with both hands. Repeat exercise three times within 1 minute. (8) Crawl in place for 1 minute. Rotate orientation 90 degrees to wind stream every 15 seconds. (9) Sit on stool (facing wind) for 1 minute. (10) Sit on stool (back to wind) for 1 minute Physical activities and rest periods shall be performed in a chamber location that provides an unobstructed exposure of the protective ensemble to the required wind stream Each physical activity and rest cycle shall be 10 minutes. The cycle of exercise and rest shall be completed a total of three times, for a total chamber exposure of 30 minutes. Each exercise cycle shall consist of eight 1-minute activities followed by a 2-minute rest (sitting) period The test subject shall begin the first repetition of each activity facing the wind stream and shall rotate 90 degrees between each repetition until the time period for that exercise has ended For activities (7) (walking in place) and (8) (crawling in place), the test subject shall rotate 90 degrees on 15-second intervals during the 1-minute period All physical activities shall be a full range of motion and performed at a moderate speed Decontamination and Doffing.

180 After completion of the 30-minute MIST exposure, the test subjects shall move to a decontamination area, where they shall remain for at least 5 minutes. This area shall be well ventilated to assist in off-gassing of the outside of the ensemble In the decontamination area, all exposed ensemble surfaces, including such items as the respirator, boots, gloves, and helmets, shall be washed with a liquid soap solution If the garment is designed for wet decontamination, it shall be washed with the liquid soap solution as well Alternative decontamination methods, such as an air wash, shall be permitted if the selected decontamination method can be demonstrated to remove MeS to levels that do not result in contamination of the test subjects during the doffing of the protective ensemble The decontaminated test subject shall move to the first stage undressing room where all remaining items of clothing, except for underclothes, shall be doffed. The undress process shall not exceed 5 minutes As soon as the garment is unsealed and the PADs on the test subject s body are exposed to the ambient atmosphere in the first stage undressing room, three fresh PADs shall be placed near the test subject to detect background MeS concentrations As soon as all items of clothing, except the underwear, are removed, the decontaminated test subject shall proceed to the second stage undressing room and the background PADs shall be collected and handled as specified in The exposure time for the first stage undressing room background PADs shall be recorded When the test subject enters the second stage undressing room, three additional PADs shall be placed near the test subject and the exposure PADs shall be removed from the test subject s body. Both the second stage undressing room background PADs and the exposure PADs taken off the test subject s body shall be handled as specified in The exposure time for the second stage undressing room PADs shall be recorded Where an adhesive is used on the back of the PADs, each PAD shall be backed with aluminum foil, placed in individual sealed glass vials with a nonadsorbent lid liner, and shall remain at room temperature of 25 C, ±3 C (77 F, ± 5 F) for 30 min, ± 5 min, immediately after exposure PAD Qualification and Analysis. 51 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

181 The uptake rate for each lot of PADs shall be determined in accordance with using a minimum of seven PADs selected randomly from the lot * Measurement of PAD Uptake Rate PAD uptake rate shall be measured by exposing PADs in a small-scale chamber under the following conditions: (1) The concentration of MeS shall be 1 mg/m 3, ± 0.5 mg/m 3. (2) The temperature shall be 35 C, ± 2 C (94 F ± 4 F). (3) The relative humidity shall be 55 percent, ± 20 percent. (4) The flow of MeS in the humidified air or nitrogen shall be at a rate of 1 cm/sec, ± 0.2 cm/sec over the PAD. (5) The exposure shall be conducted for a period of 30 minutes, +1/-0 minutes The PAD uptake rate shall be calculated in accordance with the procedures provided in The average of all PAD uptake rates shall be calculated and used in the calculation of MeS dosage on the test subject PADs After their initial 30 minutes at room temperature, the PADs shall be subjected to one of the following handling and analysis procedures: (1) The PADs shall be stored at a cold temperature sufficient to prevent the migration of MeS from the adhesive until extraction or analysis. (2) The PADS shall be extracted within 4 hours. (3) The adsorbent shall be removed and thermally desorbed within 4 hours The determination of a sufficiently low temperature that prevents migration of the MeS from the adhesive shall be made by exposing 12 pads simultaneously in the test chamber in a vertical position at a concentration of 100 mg/m 3 of MeS for 30 min, +5 min, -0 min. After this exposure, the PADs shall be covered in foil and each placed in a sealed container and stored at 25 C, ±3 C (77 F, ± 5 F) for 30 min, ± 5 min. Four of these PADs shall be packed in dry ice for 24 hours, four placed in the proposed cold storage temperature for 24 hours, and four extracted or analyzed within 4 hours. The average mass absorbed on the four PADs stored at the proposed storage temperature shall equal with 95% confidence the after four PADs stored for 24 hour in dry ice and four PADs analyzed immediately after exposure Where liquid extraction of the PADs samples is performed, the liquid extracts shall be stored at 0 C to 4 C (32 F to 39 F) for up to 14 days following their exposure before analysis [ ] where: u = the uptake rate in cm/min m = the total mass of MeS measured on the PAD in mg A = the average active area of the PAD in cm 2 Ct = the exposure vapor dosage in mg/min/cm 3 The actual MeS vapor exposure concentration and the actual time of exposure shall be used to determine the uptake rate from the following equation: The range of the analytical technique shall be sufficient to measure the expected range of MeS dosage on the test subject PADs When liquid extraction is used as the analytical technique, the calibration curve used for determining the equipment response to MeS shall be established using at least 4 MeS concentration standards accounting for the proper density of the extraction solvent For the test results to be considered valid for a given ensemble, no more than one PAD from each of the body region locations tested (i.e., no more than one PAD out of the four replicates for any particular region) shall be permitted to be lost to analysis over the course of the four test subjects Calculations The dosage measured by each PAD (Ctinside,i ) shall be determined using the average uptake rate determined for the PAD lot used in the evaluation of a specific ensemble using the following equation: [ ] where: Ct inside.i = the MeS vapor dosage at the specific PAD in mg/min/cm 3 m i = the total mass of MeS measured on the specific PAD in mg u avg = the average uptake of the PAD lot in cm/min A = the average active area of the PA in cm The protection factor at each PAD location shall be calculated using the following equation: [ ] where the Ctoutside shall be determined from the measured chamber vapor dosage of the individual trial over the entire exposure. The value for Ctoutside shall be the average of the chamber MeS concentration readings taken during the course of the test subject exposure period Where the measured total mass of MeS for a given PAD falls below 30 ng, the value of 30 ng shall be used for that specific PAD All results for each PAD location shall be expressed in terms of the local physiological protective dosage factor (PPDF) value and shall be calculated according to the following equation: [ ] * The site-specific onset of symptoms exposure dosages OSED for each PAD shall be based on ECt10 values for mustard blistering/ulceration according to Table Table Site-Specific OSED by PAD Location Body Region PAD Location OSED (mg min m-3 ) Head/neck 1, 1A, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 19, 19A 100 Torso/buttocks (excluding perineum) 11, 12, 13, 13A, 14, 14A, Arm/hand 7, 8, 9, 10, 10A, 20, 20A 50 Leg/foot 17, 17A, 18, 18A, Perineum 16, 16A The average local PPDF values at each PAD location for all specimens tested shall be calculated A systemic PPDF shall also be calculated from the PAD data. The systemic protection analysis shall use the systemic weighting body region hazard analysis values from the Defense Research Establishment Suffield Report and National Research Council Report to calculate the systemic physiological protective dosage factor for each ensemble test (PPDFsys ). The PPDFsys for each specimen is calculated as follows, where each of the terms is calculated using the information in Table Table ED50i Values by PAD and Body Location Body Region i for BRHA Model PADs Mapped to This Region (Average Dosage from Each PAD, Then Calculate PF i ) Area of Body Region (dzi, cm 2 ) ED50i for Severe Effects (VX) for Body Region (mg/individual) Scalp 1,1A Ears 2, Face, cheeks, and neck 4,5,19,19A Chin and neck 4, Nape Abdomen 13A Back 11,12,14A Axillae Upper arm medial Upper arm lateral Elbow fold 8,9,10,10A Elbow 8,9,10,10A Forearm extensor 10,10A Forearm flexor 10,10A Hands dorsum 20,20A Hands palmar 20,20A Buttocks Groin 13, Scrotum 16,16A Thigh anterior 17,17A Thigh posterior 17,17A Knee 17,17A,18,18A Popliteal space (back of knees) 17,17A,18,18A Shins 18,18A Calves 18,18A Feet dorsum Feet plantar The average PPDFsys for all specimens tested shall be calculated Report The individual specimen and average local PPDF i values for each PAD location shall be recorded and reported The PPDFsys value for each specimen and the average PPDFsys value for the ensemble tested shall be recorded and reported A spreadsheet shall be prepared that shows all test measurements and calculations, including at least the following: (1) The MeS vapor exposure concentration for PAD lot qualification (2) The exposure time used for PAD lot qualification (3) The measured MeS mass on each PAD used for PAD lot qualification (4) Each individual and the average PAD uptake rate (5) The measured MeS mass on each PAD used in the dressing room, stage 1 undressing room, and stage 2 undressing room. (6) The measured MeS mass on each PAD placed on the test subject (7) The calculated vapor dosage for each PAD placed on the test subject Interpretation. The average local PPDF i values at each PAD location and the average PPDFsys value shall be used to determine pass or fail performance. Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved pdf CC Note No. 5 CC NOTE: The following CC Note No. 5 appeared in the First Draft Report as First Revision 16. The Correlating Committee directs the Technical Committee on Hazardous Materials Protective Clothing and Equipment to validate the new [or significantly revised] test method through the following: 52 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

182 1. Provide a rationale with supporting evidence that substantiates the need or the rationale for establishing new test methods or criteria or for revising existing test methods or criteria in terms of field relevance, fire service needs, safety concerns, recognition of new product technology, accounting for advances in testing technology, or accomplishing other clearly stated objectives. Examples of supporting evidence can include the documentation of specific safety issues that have been identified by end user or other groups, which may include statistics on the number of incidents or highlight specific cases where the issues have arisen. Other forms of supporting evidence can include aspects of existing requirements that unduly prevent the proper testing or consideration of new product technologies because the existing test methods or criteria are found to be design-restrictive, or information that shows that new test methods have become available that provide more reliable or relevant forms of evaluation for the specific product property or attribute under consideration. The provision of scientific papers, test data, or statistics provides a more robust justification for supporting evidence. 2. Conduct an assessment to determine the potential impact of the new or significantly revised test methods or criteria on products that have already been certified or fielded. The nature of this requirement is to have the TC assess what the anticipated impact of the new or modified requirements are relative to specific products. It is not the intent to identify specific products that might be excluded by a new or modified requirement, but rather for the submitter to provide an analysis for the types of products that might be affected, with an indication as to why the affected products do not provide adequate performance. 3. Establish Intra-laboratory repeatability and inter-laboratory reproducibility for new or significantly revised test methods. Where possible, test methods shall include procedures for their calibration. The principal certification organizations and their laboratories shall formally affirm to the TC that the tests can be conducted reliably as proposed at least by the time of the second draft. An essential part of the validation process is to include an assessment of the repeatability (intra-laboratory precision) and reproducibility (inter-laboratory precision) of any new test method or significant modification of an existing test method. This information is important for establishing the reliability of the test method and should, as a minimum, include those laboratories that provide certification services for the relevant product standard. This information may also be useful in setting specific criteria to account for expected test method variability. 4. Establish the relevance of test methods and any associated criteria through a determination of how proposed or significantly revised test methods identify meaningful differences in product performance consistent with field performance. Attempts should be made to determine the degree to which new or significantly revised test methods identify meaningful differences in product performance or relate to the field performance of products. One recommended approach is to identify product types that are considered to be unsuitable based on end user field experience and evaluate those products alongside other products to determine if the test method suitably identifies meaningful differences in performance consistent with observed field performance. Another approach is to demonstrate the impact and relevance of test results for products through carefully designed experiments carried out in the field. Lastly, one additional approach is to relate proposed criteria to specific safety levels that can be documented through scientific or other reasonably based field investigative work. 5. Provide test data and any other supporting documentation to the members of the respective TC and the CC, or any individuals who may request this information. Access to the information on which new or significantly revised test methods and criteria are based should be available to all parties seeking this information, including TC members, CC members, and individuals outside the committee process (through the NFPA). Supporting documentation that includes, but is not limited to, proposed new or modified methodology/criteria with justification statements, supporting evidence, test data, references to published papers or statistics, inter-laboratory test results, and other information should be maintained by the TC as part of meeting minutes or made available elsewhere on the NFPA TC website page. 6. Provide at least one of the following visual illustrations of the proposed test equipment and test material(s) to the respective TC and CC: a. Video(s) b. Photo(s) c. Drawing (s) The visual illustrations shall be provided along with the submittal. Visual illustrations help TC and CC members better understand the proposed new test or modified test. First Revision No. 16-NFPA [Section No. 8.8] Submitter Full Name: CC on FAE-AAC Organization: NFPA Submittal Date: Mon Nov 17 14:50:28 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The TC reviewed the Correlating Committee notes to this Public Comment and has addressed the questions in several sections of the standard. 53 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

183 54 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 58-NFPA [ Section No. 8.8 ]

184 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Man-In-Simulant Test (MIST) Overall Ensemble Inward Leakage Test Application. This test method shall apply to complete vapor-protective ensembles Samples Sample Preparation Samples for conditioning shall be complete ensembles and shall include the respirator where the ensemble utilizes the respirator facepiece as the ensemble visor vapor-protective ensembles Samples shall be conditioned as specified in Specimens Specimen The specimens Specimens shall be a complete ensemble with gloves and footwear and shall include the respirator where applicable complete vapor-protective ensembles Where the ensemble utilizes the respirator facepiece as the ensemble visor, the ensemble At least one specimen shall be tested with each type or model of the respirator specified by the manufacturer Apparatus. 3 Where the respirator is completely encapsulated by the ensemble, the ensemble shall be tested with a respirator specified by the manufacturer A minimum of four specimens shall be tested. The specimens shall represent a minimum of two different ensemble sizes Where the ensemble has multiple types of external fittings, each type of external fitting shall be present on each specimen at the time of testing 4.1 Sulfur hexafluoride, CAS No , with a minimum purity of 99.8 percent, shall be used as the test agent Specimens shall be provided to fit or be adjustable to fit the selected test subjects in accordance with the manufacturer s sizing provisions that are specific to each 4.2 The test shall be conducted in a sealed test chamber with minimum volume of sufficient dimensions to permit free movement of the test subject when fully dressed in the vaporprotective ensemble * None of the ensembles or components of the ensemble to be tested shall have been previously subjected to MIST testing unless it can be demonstrated that the ensemble or components are free of contamination The chamber shall have a circulation fan or other means to ensure uniform concentration of the test agent throughout the chamber during the test Underclothing and socks shall be permitted to be reused, provided they have been laundered with a detergent that has been demonstrated not to cause interference with the analytical method Apparatus 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 Test Facility. 3 Two calibrated portable pumps that are capable of maintaining a flow rate of 0.4 L/min, ±0.005 L/min, shall be provided The test facility shall include areas for dressing, a first stage undressing area adjacent and accessible to the chamber, and a second stage undressing area adjacent and accessible to the first stage undressing area Both pumps shall be placed outside the test chamber The test shall be conducted in a test chamber with a minimum volume of sufficient dimensions to permit free Pump A shall have a gas stream selection valve with a minimum of four isolated stream settings. A stream setting shall be provided for each ensemble interior sampling location 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 the test subject (s) when fully dressed in the ensemble and for the test subject(s) to carry out the physical exercise routine specified in and that the installation does not adversely affect the integrity of the ensemble The one or more suit wall connectors shall permit the establishment of five separate airlines to pass into the suit More than one test subject shall be permitted in the chamber at the same time, provided that they can complete all tasks completely in the appropriate time period and that they have an unobstructed direct path to the wind stream 4.2 One airline shall be designated as an air sample return port The test chamber shall have a temperature of 25 C, ± 2 C, relative humidity of 55 percent, ± 10 percent, and a nominal wind speed of 0.9 to 2.2 m/sec (2 to 5 mph). The average wind speed shall be 1.6 m/sec, ± 0.2 m/sec (3.5 mph, ± 0.5 mph) Test Chemical and Analytical Equipment 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 subject s body. Pinning tubing to the test subject s body shall be permitted 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 The test simulant shall be methyl salicylate (MeS; C 8 H 8 O 3 ) CAS # , more commonly known as oil of wintergreen. The MeS minimum purity shall be 95 percent. Vapor doses shall be measured using Passive Adsorbent Dosimeters (PADs). One length of tubing shall be attached to the test chamber ceiling in such a manner that one end of the tubing hangs as close as possible to the center of the test chamber and the other end is attached to the intake port of sample pump B. TEST METHODS Edition Copyright 2013 National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). Licensed, by agreement, for individual use and single download via NFCSS All Access on June 11, 2013 This document is for NFPA Committee use only by Kristin Williamson. No other reproduction or transmission in any form permitted without written permission of NFPA. For inquires or to report unauthorized use, contact licensing@nfpa.org. C25065A EED-AF81-73E5E843C4B * The standard concentration of MeS in the vapor chamber shall be 100 mg/m 3, ± 15 mg/m 3, as measured by a real-time infrared analysis of the chamber air or other validated real-time analytical technique 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.

185 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Infrared readings One length of tubing shall be taken every 60 seconds to verify compliance with the concentration requirement, and an air sample shall be taken at least every 10 minutes for validation of infrared readings 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 Every step Sample tubing shall be taken to avoid generation of liquid aerosol permitted to be joined together by means of hose clamps or taping in a manner that does not restrict airflow The sensitivity of the analytical technique used for the measurement of MeS in the PADs shall provide a detection limit of 30 ng MeS per PAD. The analytical technique shall have an upper limit of quantification of 31,500 ng Sample tubing shall be permitted to be taped to the exterior of the ensemble to permit the reduction of hanging weight stress and strain on the suit wall connectors by the employment of one piece of duct tape no greater in length than 305mm(12 in.). All tubing shall be taped together in no more than one location on the ensemble. The tape shall not cover any seams * Passive Adsorbent Dosimeters (PADs). The test shall be conducted using PADs that affix directly to the skin of test subjects and that have the following characteristics: (1) The PADs shall be a foil packet, which contains an adsorbent material covered by a high-density polyethylene film that acts as a pseudo-skin barrier. (2) The PADs shall have an uptake rate of 3.0 cm/min or greater Test Subjects 5.6 The total interior volume of each gas tubing sampling stream shall be determined for each sampling location At least 23 gastight 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 adapter shall not affect the integrity of the sampling system A thermometer sensor shall be placed in the test chamber in a manner allowing the test administrator to record the initial and final test chamber temperatures Asyringe 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 All test subjects shall be have a medical doctor s certificate that substantiates they are medically and physically suitable to perform these tests without danger to themselves. A The medical certificate for each test subject shall have been issued within 12 months prior to the testing Test subjects shall be familiar with the use of chemical-protective vaporprotective ensembles and with the selected CBRN SCBA Procedure. self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA). The test subject shall select the appropriate size of the vapor-protective ensemble from available sizes using the manufacturer s sizing chart Test subjects shall shall have followed pretrial procedures that include proper hydration and avoiding personal hygiene products that could contain MS

186 PADs shall be placed on test subjects at the body region locations shown in Figure of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Figure Locations of PADs on Test Subjects For consistency in testing, the SCBA used for all testing with the vapor-protective ensemble shall be certified as compliant with NFPA 1981, Standard on Open-Circuit Self- Contained Breathing Apparatus for Fire and Emergency Services, and shall be equipped with a fully charged 60-minute breathing air cylinder Procedure All PADs shall be applied in a clean dressing area by personnel who have followed pretrial procedures to minimize contamination. Test subjects shall also follow pretrial procedures to minimize contamination Cheek PADs shall be located entirely within the respirator facepiece, and all other PADs shall be located entirely outside the seal of the respirator facepiece. 1 Interior sampling tubes shall be pinned to the test subject as follows: (1) One tube attached to the middle of the subject s back directly under the shoulder (2) One tube attached to the sternum (3) One tube attached to an extremity location on the forearm or calf (4) One tube attached to the crotch Three additional PADs shall be used to conduct background sampling and for quality control during the trial. These PADs shall be located in the dressing area, the stage 1 undress area, and the stage 2 undress area 1.1 Additional sampling locations shall be permitted if the testing apparatus allows such sampling The test subject shall don the protective ensemble and respirator in accordance with the manufacturer's manufacturer s instructions in an area located away from the test chamber. The test subject shall wear clothing under the CBRN protective ensemble as specified by the manufacturer. If no undergarments are specified or required by the manufacturer as part of the certified ensemble, the test subject shall wear a short-sleeve cotton shirt and shorts or underwear

187 Donning shall be accomplished without causing the restriction of flow through interior sampling tubes. Adjustment of tube pathways shall be permitted to connect the sample tubes to the interior sampling ports Exterior sampling tubing and return tubing shall be attached to the exterior sampling ports and return port After sealing the ensemble, the test subject shall enter the test chamber, and the test chamber shall be sealed The test duration will be 30 minutes in the chamber with a 5-minute decontamination period The start of the test, in which the test subject enters the MIST chamber, shall be initiated within 60 minutes after removal of the ensemble from the conditioning environment Physical Exercise Routine. 5 Sample pumps A and B shall be turned on and function at a flow rate of 0.4 L/min. Each pump shall be placed on hold while not actively performing purging or sampling Once the chamber concentration has been established, the test subject(s) shall perform the following physical activity protocol and the chamber concentration shall remain within acceptable limits during the exercise protocol: (1) Drag 70 kg (154 lb) human dummy using both hands a distance of 10 m (33 ft) over a 15-second period. Stop and rest for 15 seconds. Repeat exercise twice. (2) Duck squat, pivot right, pivot left, stand. Rotate orientation 90 degrees to wind stream between each repetition. Repeat exercise twice in each orientation for a total of 1 minute. (3) Stand erect. With arms at sides, bend body to left and return, bend body forward and return, bend body to right and return. Rotate orientation 90 degrees to wind stream between each repetition. Repeat exercise twice in each orientation for a total of 1 minute. (4) Stand erect. Extend arms overhead in the lateral direction, then bend elbows. Extend arms overhead in the frontal direction, then bend elbows. Rotate orientation 90 degrees to wind stream between each repetition. Repeat exercise twice in each orientation for a total of 1 minute. (5) Stand erect. Extend arms perpendicular to the sides of torso. Twist torso left and return, twist torso right and return. Rotate orientation 90 degrees to wind stream between each repetition. Repeat exercise twice in each orientation for a total of 1 minute. (6) Stand erect. Reach arms across chest completely to opposite sides. Rotate orientation 90 degrees to wind stream between each repetition. Repeat exercise twice in each orientation for a total of 1 minute. (7) Climb two steps of the ladder and touch the ceiling with one hand (use alternate hands each time). Climb down, squat, and touch the floor with both hands. Repeat exercise three times within 1 minute. (8) Crawl in place for 1 minute. Rotate orientation 90 degrees to wind stream every 15 seconds. (9) Sit on stool (facing wind) for 1 minute. (10) Sit on stool (back to wind) for 1 minute Physical activities and rest periods shall be performed in a chamber location that provides an unobstructed exposure of the protective ensemble to the required wind stream Each physical activity and rest cycle shall be 10 minutes. The cycle of exercise and rest shall be completed a total of three times, for a total chamber exposure of 30 minutes. Each exercise cycle shall consist of eight 1-minute activities followed by a 2-minute rest (sitting) period. 6 At least one baseline sample set shall be taken prior to the addition of sulfur hexafluoride to the chamber A baseline sample shall consist of one test chamber air sample and one sample taken from each sampling location within the ensemble after sampling lines have been purged Sampling lines shall be purged for a duration of time that flushes the air volume completely out of the sampling lines twice. The gas sample return line to the ensemble shall be disconnected during this purge cycle. Ensemble air sampling shall be taken between purge cycles of each air sampling line. Purge cycles shall be employed for all inward leakage sampling The test subject shall begin the first repetition of each activity facing the wind stream and shall rotate 90 degrees between each repetition until the time period for that exercise has ended For activities (7) (walking in place) and (8) (crawling in place), the test subject shall rotate 90 degrees on 15-second intervals during the 1-minute period 6.3 Each air test sample shall be collected from the exhaust port of the sample pumps at a rate of 0.4 L/min, ±0.005 L/min for 1 minute, ±1 second All physical activities shall be a full range of motion and performed at a moderate speed 6.4 Test chamber and ensemble baseline air samples shall be permitted to be taken simultaneously Decontamination and Doffing After completion of the 30-minute MIST exposure, the test subjects shall move to a decontamination area, where they shall remain for at least 5 minutes. This area shall be well ventilated to assist in off-gassing of the outside of the ensemble In the decontamination area, all exposed ensemble surfaces, including such items as the respirator, boots, gloves, and helmets, shall be washed with a liquid soap solution If the garment is designed for wet decontamination, it shall be washed with the liquid soap solution as well Alternative decontamination methods, such as an air wash, shall be permitted if the selected decontamination method can be demonstrated to remove MeS to levels that do not result in contamination of the test subjects during the doffing of the protective ensemble 7 At the end of the baseline test chamber and ensemble air sampling periods, the sampling bags shall be removed from the pump, sealed, and stored. The gas sample return line shall be reconnected to the exhaust port of pump A. The removal of the gas sample return line from the exhaust port of pump A shall be permitted during sample acquisition The decontaminated test subject shall move to the first stage undressing room where all remaining items of clothing, except for underclothes, shall be doffed. The undress process shall not exceed 5 minutes As soon as the garment is unsealed and the PADs on the test subject s body are exposed to the ambient atmosphere in the first stage undressing room, three fresh PADs shall be placed near the test subject to detect background MeS concentrations add sufficient sulfur hexafluoride to achieve a concentration of 1000 ppm, ±100 ppm on a volume basis. The air inside the chamber shall be allowed to reach equilibrium for a period of 1 minute, ±1 second prior to performing inward leakage testing As soon as all items of clothing, except the underwear, are removed, the decontaminated test subject shall proceed to the second stage undressing room and the background PADs shall be collected and handled as specified in The exposure time for the first stage undressing room background PADs shall be recorded At least three full sets of air samples from each sampling location shall be taken, and at least three sets of two test chamber samples shall be taken for inward leakage detection testing When the test subject enters the second stage undressing room, three additional PADs shall be placed near the test subject and the exposure PADs shall be removed from the test subject s body. Both the second stage undressing room background PADs and the exposure PADs taken off the test subject s body shall be handled as specified in The exposure time for the second stage undressing room PADs shall be recorded Where an adhesive is used on the back of the PADs, each PAD shall be backed with aluminum foil, placed in individual sealed glass vials with a nonadsorbent lid liner, and shall remain at room temperature of 25 C, ±3 C (77 F, ± 5 F) for 30 min, ± 5 min, immediately after exposure PAD Qualification and Analysis The uptake rate for each lot of PADs shall be determined in accordance with using a minimum of seven PADs selected randomly from the lot * Measurement of PAD Uptake Rate PAD uptake rate shall be measured by exposing PADs in a small-scale chamber under the following conditions: (1) The concentration of MeS shall be 1 mg/m 3, ± 0.5 mg/m 3. (2) The temperature shall be 35 C, ± 2 C (94 F ± 4 F). (3) The relative humidity shall be 55 percent, ± 20 percent. (4) The flow of MeS in the humidified air or nitrogen shall be at a rate of 1 cm/sec, ± 0.2 cm/sec over the PAD. (5) The exposure shall be conducted for a period of 30 minutes, +1/-0 minutes The PAD uptake rate shall be calculated in accordance with the procedures provided in The average of all PAD uptake rates shall be calculated and used in the calculation of MeS dosage on the test subject PADs After their initial 30 minutes at room temperature, the PADs shall be subjected to one of the following handling and analysis procedures: (1) The PADs shall be stored at a cold temperature sufficient to prevent the migration of MeS from the adhesive until extraction or analysis. (2) The PADS shall be extracted within 4 hours. (3) The adsorbent shall be removed and thermally desorbed within 4 hours The determination of a sufficiently low temperature that prevents migration of the MeS from the adhesive shall be made by exposing 12 pads simultaneously in the test chamber in a vertical position at a concentration of 100 mg/m 3 of MeS for 30 min, +5 min, -0 min. After this exposure, the PADs shall be covered in foil and each placed in a sealed container and stored at 25 C, ±3 C (77 F, ± 5 F) for 30 min, ± 5 min. Four of these PADs shall be packed in dry ice for 24 hours, four placed in the proposed cold storage temperature for 24 hours, and four extracted or analyzed within 4 hours. The average mass absorbed on the four PADs stored at the proposed storage temperature shall equal with 95% confidence the after four PADs stored for 24 hour in dry ice and four PADs analyzed immediately after exposure Where liquid extraction of the PADs samples is performed, the liquid extracts shall be stored at 0 C to 4 C (32 F to 39 F) for up to 14 days following their exposure before analysis [ ] where: u = the uptake rate in cm/min m = the total mass of MeS measured on the PAD in mg A = the average active area of the PAD in cm 2 Ct = the exposure vapor dosage in mg/min/cm 3 The actual MeS vapor exposure concentration and the actual time of exposure shall be used to determine the uptake rate from the following equation: The range of the analytical technique shall be sufficient to measure the expected range of MeS dosage on the test subject PADs. 58 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

188 When liquid extraction is used as the analytical technique, the calibration curve used for determining the equipment response to MeS shall be established using at least 4 MeS concentration standards accounting for the proper density of the extraction solvent For the test results to be considered valid for a given ensemble, no more than one PAD from each of the body region locations tested (i.e., no more than one PAD out of the four replicates for any particular region) shall be permitted to be lost to analysis over the course of the four test subjects Calculations The dosage measured by each PAD (Ct inside,i ) shall be determined using the average uptake rate determined for the PAD lot used in the evaluation of a specific ensemble using the following equation: [ ] where: Ct inside.i = the MeS vapor dosage at the specific PAD in mg/min/cm 3 m i = the total mass of MeS measured on the specific PAD in mg u avg = the average uptake of the PAD lot in cm/min A = the average active area of the PA in cm The protection factor at each PAD location shall be calculated using the following equation: [ ] where the Ct outside shall be determined from the measured chamber vapor dosage of the individual trial over the entire exposure. The value for Ct outside shall be the average of the chamber MeS concentration readings taken during the course of the test subject exposure period Where the measured total mass of MeS for a given PAD falls below 30 ng, the value of 30 ng shall be used for that specific PAD All results for each PAD location shall be expressed in terms of the local physiological protective dosage factor (PPDF) value and shall be calculated according to the following equation: [ ] * The site-specific onset of symptoms exposure dosages OSED for each PAD shall be based on ECt 10 values for mustard blistering/ulceration according to Table Table Site-Specific OSED by PAD Location Body Region PAD Location OSED (mg min m- 3 ) Head/neck 1, 1A, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 19, 19A 100 Torso/buttocks (excluding perineum) 11, 12, 13, 13A, 14, 14A, Arm/hand 7, 8, 9, 10, 10A, 20, 20A 50 Leg/foot 17, 17A, 18, 18A, Perineum 16, 16A The average local PPDF values at each PAD location for all specimens tested shall be calculated A systemic PPDF shall also be calculated from the PAD data. The systemic protection analysis shall use the systemic weighting body region hazard analysis values from the Defense Research Establishment Suffield Report and National Research Council Report to calculate the systemic physiological protective dosage factor for each ensemble test (PPDF sys ). The PPDF sys for each specimen is calculated as follows, where each of the terms is calculated using the information in Table Table ED 50 i Values by PAD and Body Location Body Region i for BRHA Model PADs Mapped to This Region (Average Dosage from Each PAD, Then Calculate PF i ) Area of Body Region ( dz i, cm 2 ) ED 50 i for Severe Effects (VX) for Body Region (mg/individual) Scalp 1,1A Ears 2, Face, cheeks, and neck 4,5,19,19A Chin and neck 4, Nape Abdomen 13A Back 11,12,14A Axillae Upper arm medial Upper arm lateral Elbow fold 8,9,10,10A Elbow 8,9,10,10A Forearm extensor 10,10A Forearm flexor 10,10A Hands dorsum 20,20A Hands palmar 20,20A Buttocks Groin 13, Scrotum 16,16A Thigh anterior 17,17A Thigh posterior 17,17A Knee 17,17A,18,18A Popliteal space (back of knees) 17,17A,18,18A Shins 18,18A Calves 18,18A Feet dorsum Feet plantar The average PPDF sys for all specimens tested shall be calculated Report The individual specimen and average local PPDF i values for each PAD location shall be recorded and reported The PPDFsys value for each specimen and the average PPDF sys value for the ensemble tested shall be recorded and reported A spreadsheet shall be prepared that shows all test measurements and calculations, including at least the following: (1) The MeS vapor exposure concentration for PAD lot qualification (2) The exposure time used for PAD lot qualification (3) The measured MeS mass on each PAD used for PAD lot qualification (4) Each individual and the average PAD uptake rate (5) The measured MeS mass on each PAD used in the dressing room, stage 1 undressing room, and stage 2 undressing room. (6) The measured MeS mass on each PAD placed on the test subject (7) The calculated vapor dosage for each PAD placed on the test subject Interpretation. The average local PPDF i values at each PAD location and the average PPDF sys value shall be used to determine pass or fail performance 10 At the conclusion of the challenge agent equilibrium period, the test subject shall perform one series of stationary exercises for each of the three air test sample sets. The stationary exercise shall be as specified in Procedure A of ASTM F 1154, Standard Practice for Qualitatively Evaluating the Comfort, Fit, Function, and Integrity of Chemical Protective Suit Ensembles, as modified by The stationary exercises specified in Procedure A of ASTM F 1154, Standard Practice for Qualitatively Evaluating the VAPOR-PROTECTIVE ENSEMBLES FOR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS EMERGENCIES 2005 Edition Copyright 2013 National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). Licensed, by agreement, for individual use and single download via NFCSS All Access on June 11, 2013 This document is for NFPA Committee use only by Kristin Williamson. No other reproduction or transmission in any form permitted without written permission of NFPA. For inquires or to report unauthorized use, contact licensing@nfpa.org. C25065A EED-AF81-73E5E843C4B0 Comfort, Fit, Function, and Integrity of Chemical Protective Suit Ensembles, shall be performed with the following modifications: (1) At the conclusion of the duck squat exercise specified in ofastm F 1154, test subjects shall remain in a squatting position and exhaust as much of the internal volume of the suit as possible by placing their hands on top of their heads, tucking their arms in toward their bodies, and gathering as much of the excess ensemble material to the body as possible. (2) The test subject shall then resume the exercise protocol as specified in Procedure A of ASTM F For each exercise protocol, at least two test chamber air samples shall be collected while the test subject is performing the exercise protocol At least one sample from each ensemble sampling location shall be taken after the completion of each exercise protocol. The test subject shall be allowed to rest while the ensemble samples are acquired At the conclusion of the three exercise series and collection of chamber and ensemble air samples, the test subject exits the chamber and doffs the vapor-protective ensemble in an area well away from the chamber * All samples collected shall be analyzed using an appropriate analytical technique within 8 hours of collection. The sensitivity of the analytic technique chosen shall provide for a minimum detection limit of at least 0.2 ppm in order to determine compliance with Alternate plumbing of gastight sample tubing streams directly into analytical equipment shall be permitted if the device meets the criteria required in and each required measurement is able to be individually acquired Report. The percent inward leakage of sulfur hexafluoride into the ensemble shall be calculated, recorded, and reported based on the measured concentration inside the ensemble versus the average measured concentration in the test chamber for each sampling location using the following equation: percent concentration inside ensemble baseline inside en = ( ) semble inward leakage concentration in test chamber ( )??( ) ( )?? baseline in test chamber Interpretation. Failure at any sampling location shall constitute failure of the test. Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved Negative_-_Inward_Leakage_-_SF6_to_MIST.pdf 1. MIST is not equivalent to SF6 MIST can t meet the current inward leakage requirement in of no inward leakage greater than 0.02 percent. The TC should not reduce the protection level for the 1991 ensembles. 2. Relevant protection factors for unknown hazards has been defined by OSHA First Revision No. 16-NFPA [Section No. 8.8] Submitter Full Name: Kristin Williamson 59 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

189 Organization: 60 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM The DuPont Company, Inc. Submittal Date: Mon Nov 10 10:10:33 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The TC has determined that the MIST test is suitable for NFPA 1991 to determine inward leakage. The replacement of SF6 was due to anticipated product ban.

190 Negative Inward Leakage: SF 6 Test Replaced with MIST Supporting statement from ballot The technical committee is proactively addressing the expected limited availability of SF6 for test implementation by replacing the inward leakage test with the MIST test. Negative based on the following reasons (explained further below): 1. EPA is not banning SF6 2. MIST is not equivalent to SF6 MIST can t meet the current inward leakage requirement in of no inward leakage greater than 0.02 percent. 3. Relevant protection factors for unknown hazards has been defined by OSHA 1) EPA is not banning SF6 Committed to reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Voluntary SF6 programs for the Electrical Power Systems and Magnesium Industries It appears that no mandates, restrictions, phase out plans exist at this time for SF6 Source: sf6/ sf6 THE PRESIDENT S CLIMATE ACTION PLAN (June 2013) does not mention SF6 Source: df Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs General Guidance Guidance: F Gas and Ozone Regulations Information Sheet GEN 3: Markets & Equipment April 2012 Laboratory and scientific applications. There are a number of minor uses of fluorinated (F) gases in specialized scientific applications. For example SF 6 is used as an atmospheric tracer gas. These applications are still allowed under the EU F gas Regulation. Source: 72/fgas gen3 markets equipment.pdf

191 2) MIST is not equivalent to SF6 MIST can t meet the current inward leakage requirement in of no inward leakage greater than 0.02 percent. SF6 (NFPA ) has a nearly 60 times higher external concentration level than MIST (NFPA 1994) Max protection factor: MIST is 1,350 or <0.10% inward leakage SF6 is 5,000 (currently used today) or <0.02% inward leakage MIST has sensitivity issues that would need to be resolved in order to reach the current capabilities of the SF6 test Source: Presentation from Meeting Minutes Feb , 2014 Incorporation of the Man In Simulant Test into the NFPA 1991 Standard as a Replacement for the Overall Ensemble Inward Leakage Test (SF6) 3) Relevant protection factors for unknown hazards has been defined by OSHA OSHA details a version of the inward leakage test that uses ammonia as the challenge vapor. The inward leakage detection capabilities were limited to a PF of 200. It clearly states multiple times in the section that any detectable ammonia in the suit interior indicates that the suit has failed the test. When other ammonia detectors are used a lower level of detection is possible, and it should be specified as the pass/fail criteria. In other words, no inward leakage of vapor is considered acceptable. OSHA: 29 CFR App A This appendix sets forth the non mandatory examples of tests which may be used to evaluate compliance with (g)(4)(ii) and (iii). Other tests and other challenge agents may be used to evaluate compliance. B. "Totally encapsulating chemical protective suit qualitative leak test" 1.0 Scope 1.1 This practice semi qualitatively tests gas tight totally encapsulating chemical protective suit integrity by detecting inward leakage of ammonia vapor. Since no modifications are made to the suit to carry out this test, the results from this practice provide a realistic test for the integrity of the entire suit. 2.4 "Intrusion Coefficient" means a number expressing the level of protection provided by a gas tight totally encapsulating chemical protective suit. The intrusion coefficient is calculated by dividing the test room challenge agent concentration by the concentration of challenge agent found inside the suit. The accuracy of the intrusion coefficient is dependent on the challenge agent monitoring methods. The larger the intrusion coefficient the greater the protection provided by the TECP suit. 6.6 After two minutes a determination of the ammonia concentration within the chamber should be made using the high range colorimetric detector tube. A concentration of 1000 ppm ammonia or greater shall be generated before the exercises are started. 6.7 To test the integrity of the suit the following four minute exercise protocol should be followed:

192 6.14 Any detectable ammonia in the suit interior (five ppm ammonia (NH(3)) or more for the length of stain detector tube) indicates that the suit has failed the test. When other ammonia detectors are used a lower level of detection is possible, and it should be specified as the pass/fail criteria By following this test method, an intrusion coefficient of approximately 200 or more can be measured with the suit in a completely operational condition. If the intrusion coefficient is 200 or more, then the suit is suitable for emergency response and field use. 8.2 The evaluation of the data shall be specified as "suit passed" or "suit failed," and the date of the test. Any detectable ammonia (five ppm or greater for the length of stain detector tube) in the suit interior indicates the suit has failed this test. When other ammonia detectors are used, a lower level of detection is possible and it should be specified as the pass fail criteria. Intrusion Coefficient = (1,000 ppm/5 ppm *limit*) = 200 Source: _id=10652 Using the same principles above, but applying to chemicals that are considered skin hazards, example Benzene: Benzene: 20,000 ppm levels quoted in Current OSHA PEL: 1 ppm TWA, 5 ppm STEL Intrusion Coefficient = (20,000 ppm / 5 ppm *STEL limit*) = 4,000 4,000 > MIST PF of 1,350 MIST would not be an adequate predictor of the inward leakage limit per the current STEL from OSHA IDLH Values for Other Chemicals can be found here:

193 61 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 165-NFPA [ New Section after ] X Nonencapsulating ensembles shall be subjected to Respirator Face Piece Seal Fatigue Condtioning as specified in Section 8.1.X. Damage to the faceseal shall not be repaired. Add a conditioning requirement specific to non-encapsulating garments. The facepiece seal is a critical interface in protecting the wearer s head and neck area from exposure to hazardous chemical gases or vapors. Related Public Comments for This Document Related Comment Public Comment No. 150-NFPA [Section No. 8.1] Public Comment No. 152-NFPA [New Section after 8.2.7] Public Comment No. 153-NFPA [New Section after ] Public Comment No. 154-NFPA [New Section after ] Public Comment No. 155-NFPA [New Section after ] Public Comment No. 156-NFPA [New Section after 8.6.1] Public Comment No. 157-NFPA [New Section after 8.6] Public Comment No. 158-NFPA [New Section after ] Public Comment No. 159-NFPA [New Section after 8.27] First Revision No. 81-NFPA [Section No ] Relationship Submitter Full Name: James Zeigler Organization: J. P. Zeigler, LLC Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 14:30:00 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The Technical Committee decided to address non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles to NFPA 1994 as Class 1.

194 62 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 101-NFPA [ Section No ] * The standard concentration of MeS in the vapor chamber shall be 100 be 150 mg/m 3, ± 15 mg/m 3, as measured by a real-time infrared analysis of the chamber air or other validated real-time analytical technique. The MIST test has lower sensitivity than the SF6 test that it is replacing. The higher chamber concentration (150 vs 100) will improve the MIST sensitivity (but still not up to SF6 levels). Both ITS and NCSU have demonstrated test lab capabilities to run at 150. This prove-out testing was agreed to in the October 2014 TC meeting. First Revision No. 16-NFPA [Section No. 8.8] Submitter Full Name: Susan Lovasic Organization: The DuPont Company, Inc. Submittal Date: Thu Nov 13 19:20:32 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: See SR 46.

195 Public Comment No. 75-NFPA [ Section No ] * The standard concentration of MeS in the vapor chamber shall be mg/m 3, ± mg/m 3, as measured by a real-time infrared analysis of the chamber air or other validated real-time analytical technique. The change in challenge concentration from 100 mg/m3 +/- 15 mg/m3 to 150 mg/m3 +/- 10 mg/m3 allows for an increased sensitivity in the PAD analysis after the test is completed. This increase in sensitivity is required to adequately assess the high protection of the 1991 ensembles. Decreasing the tolerance to +/- 10 mg/m3 will require test labs to have more control over the test conditions and provide a more consistent challenge exposure. Public Input No. 175-NFPA [Section No. 8.8] First Revision No. 16-NFPA [Section No. 8.8] Submitter Full Name: R. Ormond Organization: North Carolina State University Submittal Date: Thu Nov 13 13:17:48 EST 2014 Committee Action: Accepted Resolution: SR-46-NFPA Statement: The TC believes that a change in challenge concentration from 100 mg/m3 +/- 15 mg/m3 to 150 mg/m3 +/- 10 mg/m3 allows for an increased sensitivity in the PAD analysis after the test is completed. This increase in sensitivity is required to adequately assess the high protection of the 1991 ensembles. Decreasing the tolerance to +/- 10 mg/m3 will require test labs to have more control over the test conditions and provide a more consistent challenge exposure. 63 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

196 64 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 187-NFPA [ Section No [Excluding any Sub-Sections] ] PADs shall be placed on test subjects at the body region locations shown in Figure Figure 8 2 Locations of PADs on Test Subjects. cfigure is incorrect - new file to upload Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved NFPA_Submission_Figure_8_8_5_2.doc Correct picture and tables for Figure The pictures and table in Figure are incorrect. Corrected figures have been uploaded. First Revision No. 16-NFPA [Section No. 8.8] Submitter Full Name: James Zeigler Organization: J. P. Zeigler, LLC Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 16:05:21 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: See SR 47.

197 FIGURE Location of PADS on Test Subject PAD LOCATIONS 1- scalp (SCA) 10- l. forearm (LFA) 16A crotch (RCR) 1A forehead (F) 10A- r. forearm (RFA) 17- l. inner thigh (LIT) 2- behind l. ear (LE) 11- mid. Back (MB) 17A r. inner thigh (RIT) 3- behind l. ear up. (LED) 12- mid. back. dup. (MBD) 18- l. inner shin (LIS) 4- neck left (NE) 13- abdomen (AB) 18A- r. inner shin (RIS) 5- neck right.(ned) 13A- chest (C) 19- cheek (RM) 6- nape (NA) 14- r.butt (RB) 19A cheek (LM) 7- l. armpit (LA) 14A- low.back (LB) 20- left hand (G) 8- l. inner up. Arm (LIU) 15- groin (GR) 20A- right hand (GD) 9- l. out.up.arm. (LOU) 16- crotch (LCR) 21- foot (B)

198 65 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 76-NFPA [ Section No ] * The site-specific onset of symptoms exposure dosages OSED for each PAD shall be based on ECt10 values for mustard blistering/ulceration according to Table Table Site-Specific OSED by PAD Location Body Region PAD Location OSED (mg min m-3) Head/neck 1, 1A, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 19 7, 19A 26, Torso/buttocks (excluding perineum) 11 13, 12 14, 13 15, 13A 16, 14 17, 14A 18, Arm/hand 7, 8, 9, 10, 10A 11, 20 12, 20A 28, Leg/foot 17 22, 17A 23, 18 24, 18A 25, Perineum 16 20, 16A The PAD locations in Table have been corrected to correspond to the appropriate numbers/locations provided in Figure Public Input No. 175-NFPA [Section No. 8.8] Submitter Full Name: R. Ormond Organization: North Carolina State University Submittal Date: Thu Nov 13 13:36:49 EST 2014 Committee Action: Accepted Resolution: SR-47-NFPA Statement: The PAD locations in Table have been corrected to correspond to the appropriate numbers/locations provided in Figure

199 66 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 172-NFPA [ New Section after ] X The protection factor, PF i used in the calculation of PPDF sys is the average PF of all PADS in a specific body region. The body regions and corresponding PADs used to comnpute the body region average protection factor, PFi, are listed in This additional further clarifies that the PF used to calculate the systemic PPDF is not the same as the PF used to calculate the local PPDF's. First Revision No. 16-NFPA [Section No. 8.8] Submitter Full Name: James Zeigler Organization: J. P. Zeigler, LLC Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 15:04:58 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: See SR 49.

200 Public Comment No. 78-NFPA [ Section No [Excluding any Sub-Sections] ] A systemic PPDF shall also be calculated from the PAD data. The systemic protection analysis shall use the systemic weighting body region hazard analysis values from the Defense Research Establishment Suffield Report and National Research Council Report to calculate the systemic physiological protective dosage factor for each ensemble test (PPDFsys). The PPDFsys for each specimen is calculated as follows, where each of the terms is calculated using the information in Table Table ED50i Values by PAD and Body Location Body Region i for BRHA Model PADs Mapped to This Region (Average Dosage from Each PAD, Then Calculate PF i ) Area of Body Region (dzi, cm 2 ) ED50i for Severe Effects (VX) for Body Region (mg/individual) Scalp 1, 1A Ears 2 3, Face, cheeks, and neck 4, 5, 19 6, 19A 26, Chin and neck 4 5, Nape Abdomen13A Back 11 13, 12 14, 14A Axillae Upper arm medial Upper arm lateral Elbow fold 8, 9, 10, 10A 11, Elbow 8, 9, 10, 10A 11, Forearm extensor 10 11, 10A Forearm flexor 10 11, 10A Hands dorsum 20 28, 20A Hands palmar 20 28, 20A Buttocks Groin 13 15, Scrotum 16 20, 16A Thigh anterior 17 22, 17A Thigh posterior 17 22, 17A Knee 17 22, 17A 23, 18 24, 18A Popliteal space (back of knees) 17 22, 17A 23, 18 24, 18A Shins 18 24, 18A Calves 18 24, 18A Feet dorsum Feet plantar The PAD locations that are listed in Table have been corrected to correspond to the appropriate numbers/locations provided in Figure Public Input No. 175-NFPA [Section No. 8.8] Submitter Full Name: R. Ormond Organization: North Carolina State University Submittal Date: Thu Nov 13 13:47:48 EST 2014 Committee Action: Accepted Resolution: SR-48-NFPA Statement: The PAD locations that are listed in Table have been corrected to correspond to the appropriate numbers/locations provided in Figure of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

201 68 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 137-NFPA [ Section No ] Procedure. Specimens shall be tested in accordance with ASTM D 747, Standard Test Method for Apparent Bending Modulus of Plastics by Means of a Cantilever Beam, with the following modifications: (1) The test temperature shall be -25 C (-13 F). (2) The bending moment shall be that applied when the specimen is bent to a 60 degree angular deflection and shall be calculated in inch-pounds as follows: [8.12.4] (3) Values may be obtained for materials which are too flexible to measure with this apparatus by laminating to a stiffening material that yields a valid test value and subtracting out the stiffening materials Bending Momement when tested alone. Permitted lamination techniques include fastenting of one or both ends of the specimens Some materials are not able to be tested using the apparatus specified. First Revision No. 90-NFPA [Global Input] Submitter Full Name: Jason Allen Organization: Intertek Testing Services Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 10:15:35 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The TC is not aware of any test method that can replace this method for evaluation of highly flexible materials at this time.

202 Public Comment No. 201-NFPA [ Section No ] Cut resistance testing shall be performed under a load of 150 g (5.5 oz). Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved pdf CC Note No. 6 CC NOTE: The following CC Note No. 6 appeared in the First Draft Report as First Revision 55. The Correlating Committee directs the Technical Committee on Hazardous Materials Protective Clothing and Equipment to validate the new [or significantly revised] test method through the following: 1. Provide a rationale with supporting evidence that substantiates the need or the rationale for establishing new test methods or criteria or for revising existing test methods or criteria in terms of field relevance, fire service needs, safety concerns, recognition of new product technology, accounting for advances in testing technology, or accomplishing other clearly stated objectives. Examples of supporting evidence can include the documentation of specific safety issues that have been identified by end user or other groups, which may include statistics on the number of incidents or highlight specific cases where the issues have arisen. Other forms of supporting evidence can include aspects of existing requirements that unduly prevent the proper testing or consideration of new product technologies because the existing test methods or criteria are found to be design-restrictive, or information that shows that new test methods have become available that provide more reliable or relevant forms of evaluation for the specific product property or attribute under consideration. The provision of scientific papers, test data, or statistics provides a more robust justification for supporting evidence. 2. Conduct an assessment to determine the potential impact of the new or significantly revised test methods or criteria on products that have already been certified or fielded. The nature of this requirement is to have the TC assess what the anticipated impact of the new or modified requirements are relative to specific products. It is not the intent to identify specific products that might be excluded by a new or modified requirement, but rather for the submitter to provide an analysis for the types of products that might be affected, with an indication as to why the affected products do not provide adequate performance. 3. Establish Intra-laboratory repeatability and inter-laboratory reproducibility for new or significantly revised test methods. Where possible, test methods shall include procedures for their calibration. The principal certification organizations and their laboratories shall formally affirm to the TC that the tests can be conducted reliably as proposed at least by the time of the second draft. An essential part of the validation process is to include an assessment of the repeatability (intra-laboratory precision) and reproducibility (inter-laboratory precision) of any new test method or significant modification of an existing test method. This information is important for establishing the reliability of the test method and should, as a minimum, include those laboratories that provide certification services for the relevant product standard. This information may also be useful in setting specific criteria to account for expected test method variability. 4. Establish the relevance of test methods and any associated criteria through a determination of how proposed or significantly revised test methods identify meaningful differences in product performance consistent with field performance. Attempts should be made to determine the degree to which new or significantly revised test methods identify meaningful differences in product performance or relate to the field performance of products. One recommended approach is to identify product types that are considered to be unsuitable based on end user field experience and evaluate those products alongside other products to determine if the test method suitably identifies meaningful differences in performance consistent with observed field performance. Another approach is to demonstrate the impact and relevance of test results for products through carefully designed experiments carried out in the field. Lastly, one additional approach is to relate proposed criteria to specific safety levels that can be documented through scientific or other reasonably based field investigative work. 5. Provide test data and any other supporting documentation to the members of the respective TC and the CC, or any individuals who may request this information. Access to the information on which new or significantly revised test methods and criteria are based should be available to all parties seeking this information, including TC members, CC members, and individuals outside the committee process (through the NFPA). Supporting documentation that includes, but is not limited to, proposed new or modified methodology/criteria with justification statements, supporting evidence, test data, references to published papers or statistics, inter-laboratory test results, and other information should be maintained by the TC as part of meeting minutes or made available elsewhere on the NFPA TC website page. 6. Provide at least one of the following visual illustrations of the proposed test equipment and test material(s) to the respective TC and CC: a. Video(s) b. Photo(s) c. Drawing (s) The visual illustrations shall be provided along with the submittal. Visual illustrations help TC and CC members better understand the proposed new test or modified test. First Revision No. 55-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: CC on FAE-AAC Organization: NFPA Submittal Date: Mon Nov 17 14:52:53 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The TC reviewed the Correlating Committee notes to this Public Comment and has addressed the questions in several sections of the standard. 69 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

203 Public Comment No. 202-NFPA [ Section No ] Cut resistance testing shall be performed under a load of 350 g (12.5 oz). Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved pdf CC Note No. 7 CC NOTE: The following CC Note No. 7 appeared in the First Draft Report as First Revision 56. The Correlating Committee directs the Technical Committee on Hazardous Materials Protective Clothing and Equipment to validate the new [or significantly revised] test method through the following: 1. Provide a rationale with supporting evidence that substantiates the need or the rationale for establishing new test methods or criteria or for revising existing test methods or criteria in terms of field relevance, fire service needs, safety concerns, recognition of new product technology, accounting for advances in testing technology, or accomplishing other clearly stated objectives. Examples of supporting evidence can include the documentation of specific safety issues that have been identified by end user or other groups, which may include statistics on the number of incidents or highlight specific cases where the issues have arisen. Other forms of supporting evidence can include aspects of existing requirements that unduly prevent the proper testing or consideration of new product technologies because the existing test methods or criteria are found to be design-restrictive, or information that shows that new test methods have become available that provide more reliable or relevant forms of evaluation for the specific product property or attribute under consideration. The provision of scientific papers, test data, or statistics provides a more robust justification for supporting evidence. 2. Conduct an assessment to determine the potential impact of the new or significantly revised test methods or criteria on products that have already been certified or fielded. The nature of this requirement is to have the TC assess what the anticipated impact of the new or modified requirements are relative to specific products. It is not the intent to identify specific products that might be excluded by a new or modified requirement, but rather for the submitter to provide an analysis for the types of products that might be affected, with an indication as to why the affected products do not provide adequate performance. 3. Establish Intra-laboratory repeatability and inter-laboratory reproducibility for new or significantly revised test methods. Where possible, test methods shall include procedures for their calibration. The principal certification organizations and their laboratories shall formally affirm to the TC that the tests can be conducted reliably as proposed at least by the time of the second draft. An essential part of the validation process is to include an assessment of the repeatability (intra-laboratory precision) and reproducibility (inter-laboratory precision) of any new test method or significant modification of an existing test method. This information is important for establishing the reliability of the test method and should, as a minimum, include those laboratories that provide certification services for the relevant product standard. This information may also be useful in setting specific criteria to account for expected test method variability. 4. Establish the relevance of test methods and any associated criteria through a determination of how proposed or significantly revised test methods identify meaningful differences in product performance consistent with field performance. Attempts should be made to determine the degree to which new or significantly revised test methods identify meaningful differences in product performance or relate to the field performance of products. One recommended approach is to identify product types that are considered to be unsuitable based on end user field experience and evaluate those products alongside other products to determine if the test method suitably identifies meaningful differences in performance consistent with observed field performance. Another approach is to demonstrate the impact and relevance of test results for products through carefully designed experiments carried out in the field. Lastly, one additional approach is to relate proposed criteria to specific safety levels that can be documented through scientific or other reasonably based field investigative work. 5. Provide test data and any other supporting documentation to the members of the respective TC and the CC, or any individuals who may request this information. Access to the information on which new or significantly revised test methods and criteria are based should be available to all parties seeking this information, including TC members, CC members, and individuals outside the committee process (through the NFPA). Supporting documentation that includes, but is not limited to, proposed new or modified methodology/criteria with justification statements, supporting evidence, test data, references to published papers or statistics, inter-laboratory test results, and other information should be maintained by the TC as part of meeting minutes or made available elsewhere on the NFPA TC website page. 6. Provide at least one of the following visual illustrations of the proposed test equipment and test material(s) to the respective TC and CC: a. Video(s) b. Photo(s) c. Drawing (s) The visual illustrations shall be provided along with the submittal. Visual illustrations help TC and CC members better understand the proposed new test or modified test. First Revision No. 56-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: CC on FAE-AAC Organization: NFPA Submittal Date: Mon Nov 17 14:54:54 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The TC reviewed the Correlating Committee notes to this Public Comment and has addressed the questions in several sections of the standard. 70 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

204 Public Comment No. 203-NFPA [ Section No ] Procedure. Specimens shall be tested in accordance with ASTM F 1342, Standard Test Method for Resistance of Protective Clothing Materials to Puncture. Test Method A, conducting three punctures per specimen with the modifications listed in through A mm (0.01 in.) thick, ultrahigh molecular weight, high-density polyethylene shall be used as a standard reference material Puncture probes shall be qualified first before use in testing by showing an average puncture resistance of 10.3 N (2.3 lbf) The compression load cell shall be capable of discerning 0.5 N (0.1 lbf) of force in the range suitable for the material being tested. The upper limit of the load cell shall not be more than 10 times the actual puncture resistance measured for the specimens. Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved pdf CC Note No. 8 CC NOTE: The following CC Note No. 8 appeared in the First Draft Report as First Revision 57. The Correlating Committee directs the Technical Committee on Hazardous Materials Protective Clothing and Equipment to validate the new [or significantly revised] test method through the following: 1. Provide a rationale with supporting evidence that substantiates the need or the rationale for establishing new test methods or criteria or for revising existing test methods or criteria in terms of field relevance, fire service needs, safety concerns, recognition of new product technology, accounting for advances in testing technology, or accomplishing other clearly stated objectives. Examples of supporting evidence can include the documentation of specific safety issues that have been identified by end user or other groups, which may include statistics on the number of incidents or highlight specific cases where the issues have arisen. Other forms of supporting evidence can include aspects of existing requirements that unduly prevent the proper testing or consideration of new product technologies because the existing test methods or criteria are found to be design-restrictive, or information that shows that new test methods have become available that provide more reliable or relevant forms of evaluation for the specific product property or attribute under consideration. The provision of scientific papers, test data, or statistics provides a more robust justification for supporting evidence. 2. Conduct an assessment to determine the potential impact of the new or significantly revised test methods or criteria on products that have already been certified or fielded. The nature of this requirement is to have the TC assess what the anticipated impact of the new or modified requirements are relative to specific products. It is not the intent to identify specific products that might be excluded by a new or modified requirement, but rather for the submitter to provide an analysis for the types of products that might be affected, with an indication as to why the affected products do not provide adequate performance. 3. Establish Intra-laboratory repeatability and inter-laboratory reproducibility for new or significantly revised test methods. Where possible, test methods shall include procedures for their calibration. The principal certification organizations and their laboratories shall formally affirm to the TC that the tests can be conducted reliably as proposed at least by the time of the second draft. An essential part of the validation process is to include an assessment of the repeatability (intra-laboratory precision) and reproducibility (inter-laboratory precision) of any new test method or significant modification of an existing test method. This information is important for establishing the reliability of the test method and should, as a minimum, include those laboratories that provide certification services for the relevant product standard. This information may also be useful in setting specific criteria to account for expected test method variability. 4. Establish the relevance of test methods and any associated criteria through a determination of how proposed or significantly revised test methods identify meaningful differences in product performance consistent with field performance. Attempts should be made to determine the degree to which new or significantly revised test methods identify meaningful differences in product performance or relate to the field performance of products. One recommended approach is to identify product types that are considered to be unsuitable based on end user field experience and evaluate those products alongside other products to determine if the test method suitably identifies meaningful differences in performance consistent with observed field performance. Another approach is to demonstrate the impact and relevance of test results for products through carefully designed experiments carried out in the field. Lastly, one additional approach is to relate proposed criteria to specific safety levels that can be documented through scientific or other reasonably based field investigative work. 5. Provide test data and any other supporting documentation to the members of the respective TC and the CC, or any individuals who may request this information. Access to the information on which new or significantly revised test methods and criteria are based should be available to all parties seeking this information, including TC members, CC members, and individuals outside the committee process (through the NFPA). Supporting documentation that includes, but is not limited to, proposed new or modified methodology/criteria with justification statements, supporting evidence, test data, references to published papers or statistics, inter-laboratory test results, and other information should be maintained by the TC as part of meeting minutes or made available elsewhere on the NFPA TC website page. 6. Provide at least one of the following visual illustrations of the proposed test equipment and test material(s) to the respective TC and CC: a. Video(s) b. Photo(s) c. Drawing (s) The visual illustrations shall be provided along with the submittal. Visual illustrations help TC and CC members better understand the proposed new test or modified test. First Revision No. 57-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: CC on FAE-AAC Organization: NFPA Submittal Date: Mon Nov 17 14:56:37 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The TC reviewed the Correlating Committee notes to this Public Comment and has addressed the questions in several sections of the standard. 71 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

205 72 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 59-NFPA [ Section No ] Procedure. Specimens shall be tested in accordance with ASTM F 1342, Standard Test Method for Resistance of Protective Clothing Materials to Puncture. Test Method A, conducting three punctures per specimen with the modifications listed in through A mm (0.01 in.) thick, ultrahigh molecular weight, high-density polyethylene shall be used as a standard reference material. **(more detailed specifications needed for reference material)** Puncture probes shall be qualified first before use in testing by showing an average puncture resistance of 10.3 N ± x (2.3 lbf ± y ) The compression load cell shall be capable of discerning 0.5 N (0.1 lbf) of force in the range suitable for the material being tested. The upper limit of the load cell shall not be more than 10 times the actual puncture resistance measured for the specimens. There is not enough specificity to determine if you have the correct reference standard. In section as written, the puncture resistance would have to have an exact level of performance. First Revision No. 57-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: Kristin Williamson Organization: The DuPont Company, Inc. Submittal Date: Mon Nov 10 10:16:04 EST 2014 Committee Action: Accepted Resolution: SR-50-NFPA Statement: The TC believes that there is not enough specificity to determine if you have the correct reference standard. In section as written, the puncture resistance would have to have an exact level of performance.

206 73 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 81-NFPA [ Section No ] Specimens shall be taken from the thinnest portion the parts of the footwear upper that provide a uniform thickness and are consistent with areas taken for the cut and permeation resistance test. Specimens taken from the area at the top part of the footwear will typically be designed with a thinner area and not representative of the overall thickness. The thinner area at the top provides more flexibility, comfort, and easier donning and doffing. Areas at the top of the boot are not susceptible to punctures, cuts, flex cracking, or abrasion. Those areas have typically been in the top of the foot, ankle, or side of the foot. First Revision No. 55-NFPA [Section No ] First Revision No. 56-NFPA [Section No ] First Revision No. 58-NFPA [Section No ] First Revision No. 57-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: William Alexander Organization: Onguard Industries Submittal Date: Thu Nov 13 15:31:43 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: See SR 54.

207 74 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 62-NFPA [ Section No ] Application. This test method shall apply to suit materials,visor materials and all exposed components (including face piece, gasket, and supply air line, etc.) of an external SCBA system (if used for a non-encapsulating suit design), glove materials, and footwear upper materials. If the standard will permit non-encapsulating suit designs to be certified, then all "visor" requirements must be applied to all exposed components of the external SCBA system. First Revision No. 58-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: Kristin Williamson Organization: The DuPont Company, Inc. Submittal Date: Thu Nov 13 08:50:00 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The Technical Committee decided to address non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles to NFPA 1994 as Class 1.

208 75 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 63-NFPA [ Section No ] Application. This test method shall apply to vapor-protective footwear element soles with and heels. The entire bottom of the footwear element should be evaluated. First Revision No. 63-NFPA [Section No. 8.20] Submitter Full Name: Kristin Williamson Organization: The DuPont Company, Inc. Submittal Date: Thu Nov 13 08:53:19 EST 2014 Committee Action: Accepted Resolution: SR-58-NFPA Statement: The TC believes that the entire bottom of the footwear element be evaluated.

209 76 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 190-NFPA [ Section No ] 8.23 Closure Penetration Resistance Test Application. This test method shall apply to vapor-protective ensemble closure assemblies Sample Preparation Samples shall be complete vapor-protective ensembles Samples shall be conditioned as specified in Specimens Specimens shall be the suit closure assembly consisting of the closure in combination with the seam attaching the closure to the suit At least three specimens shall be tested Procedure. Penetration resistance testing of suit closure assemblies shall be conducted in accordance with ASTM F 903, Standard Test Method for Resistance of Protective Clothing Materials to Penetration by Liquids, Procedure C, using the following modifications: (1) All tests shall be conducted at 25 C,±3 C (77 F, ±5 F). (2) The test cell shall be modified to accommodate the shape of the suit closure assembly without affecting other parts of the test procedure. The Plexiglas shield shall be omitted from the test cell. (3) Use of blotting paper at the end of the test shall be permitted to assist in the visual observation of liquid penetration. Visually observed chemical on the blotting paper shall constitute failure of this test. (4) An observation to determine specimen penetration shall be made at the end of the chemical contact period Report The pass or fail results for each chemical tested shall be recorded and reported The identification of the locations where penetration occurs, if discernible, shall be recorded and reported Interpretation. Observed liquid penetration at the end of the test for any specimen shall constitute failure of this test. Chemical permeation testing is proposed in lieu of chemical penetration resistance testing. First Revision No. 51-NFPA [Section No. 8.6] Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 16:18:29 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: Technology does not currently exist to allow for the permeation testing of closures.

210 Public Comment No. 171-NFPA [ New Section after ] X Where the ensemble utilizes the respirator facepiece as the ensemble visor, the ensemble shall be tested with each type and model of respirator specified by the manufacturer. Add a testing requirement specific to non-encapsulating garments. The facepiece seal is a critical interface in protecting the wearer s head and neck area from exposure to hazardous chemical gases or vapors. The performance of overall performance of the ensemble with each type of respirator with which the ensemble is to be certified must be evaluated. Related Public Comments for This Document Related Comment Public Comment No. 166-NFPA [New Section after 8.2.3] Relationship Public Comment No. 167-NFPA [New Section after 8.3.3] Public Comment No. 168-NFPA [New Section after 8.4.3] Public Comment No. 169-NFPA [New Section after 8.5.3] First Revision No. 81-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: James Zeigler Organization: J. P. Zeigler, LLC Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 14:52:51 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The Technical Committee decided to address non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles to NFPA 1994 as Class of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

211 78 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 132-NFPA [ New Section after ] TITLE OF NEW CONTENT Where a non-encapsulating ensemble is evaluated, the sample shall include each type of SCBA for which the manufacturer is certifying the non-encapsulating ensemble. The proposed changes clarify the application of the standard to both encapsulating and non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles. Public Input No. 182-NFPA [Global Input] Submitter Full Name: Jeffrey Stull Organization: International Personnel Protection, Inc. Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 08:30:07 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The Technical Committee decided to address non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles to NFPA 1994 as Class 1.

212 79 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 133-NFPA [ New Section after ] TITLE OF NEW CONTENT Where a non-encapsulating ensemble is evaluated, the specimen shall include each type of SCBA for which the manufacturer is certifying the non-encapsulating ensemble. The proposed changes clarify the application of the standard to both encapsulating and non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles. Public Input No. 182-NFPA [Global Input] Submitter Full Name: Jeffrey Stull Organization: International Personnel Protection, Inc. Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 08:32:30 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The Technical Committee decided to address non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles to NFPA 1994 as Class 1.

213 80 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 131-NFPA [ Section No ] At least one specimen least three specimens shall be tested. Based on committee and task group discussions, it was determined that 1 specimen is not sufficient to determine whether or not a product complies with this test. First Revision No. 68-NFPA [Sections , , ] Submitter Full Name: Amanda Newsom Organization: UL LLC Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 08:29:10 EST 2014 Committee Action: Accepted Resolution: SR-59-NFPA Statement: The TC believes that based on committee and task group discussions, it has been determined that one specimen is not sufficient to determine whether or not a product complies with this test.

214 Public Comment No. 64-NFPA [ Section No ] Propane gas, at 99 percent purity or better, shall be metered into the chamber at a delivery pressure of kpa, ± 13.8 kpa (25 psi, ±2 psi) and rate of 0.16 m 3 /min, ± 0.01 m 3 /min (5 1 2 ft 3 /min, ± 1 2 ft 3 /min) for 2 minutes ±1 minute. An initial calibration exposure shall be conducted to verify that the propane gas conditions produce a visible chemical flash fire lasting 7 seconds, ± 1 second. The exact If not achieved, then the fill time should be adjusted accordingly with a subsequent calibration exposure to verify performance. The exact fill time that it takes to produce a visible chemical flash fire lasting 7 seconds, ± 1 shall be recorded. The concentration of the propane shall be permitted to be checked by a combustible gas meter or similar detector. As initially written, it doesn't explain that adjustments may need to be made to achieve the 7 +/- 1 second visible flame requirement. First Revision No. 68-NFPA [Sections , , ] Submitter Full Name: Kristin Williamson Organization: The DuPont Company, Inc. Submittal Date: Thu Nov 13 09:04:33 EST 2014 Committee Action: Accepted Resolution: SR-60-NFPA Statement: The TC believes that as initially written, no explanation that adjustments may need to be made to achieve the 7 +/- 1 second visible flame requirement was provided. 81 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

215 Public Comment No. 65-NFPA [ Section No ] After determination of the adequate propane fill time to create a 7-second, ± 1 second flash fire exposure, the data collected from the thermocouples shall be evaluated to determine the maximum temperatures reached during the exposure at each height location. The maximum average temperature of all locations shall be within a temperature range of 650 C to 1150 C (1202 F to 2102 F). If flash fire exposure time and temperatures do not both fall into the required ranges, then xxxxx. Added propane fill time for clarity. As written, the lab could have a situation where they can not comply with both requirements. What is the suggested resolution? First Revision No. 68-NFPA [Sections , , ] Submitter Full Name: Kristin Williamson Organization: The DuPont Company, Inc. Submittal Date: Thu Nov 13 09:09:16 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The TC will address this issue via SR elsewhere in the document. 82 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

216 Public Comment No. 134-NFPA [ Section No ] Propane gas, at 99 percent purity or better, shall be metered into the chamber at a delivery pressure of kpa, ± 13.8 kpa (25 psi, ± 2 psi) and rate of 0.16 m 3 /min, ± 0.01 m 3 /min (5 1 2 ft 3 /min, ± 1 2 ft 3 /min). The concentration of propane within the chamber shall be sufficient for 2 minutes /- 1 minute to produce a visible chemical flash fire lasting 7 seconds, ±1 second. The exact time that it takes to produce a visible chemical flash fire lasting 7 seconds /- 1 second shall be recorded. The concentration of the propane shall be permitted to be checked by a combustible gas meter or similar detector. included wording so that the procedure for testing matches the verification procedure. First Revision No. 68-NFPA [Sections , , ] Submitter Full Name: Amanda Newsom Organization: UL LLC Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 08:36:02 EST 2014 Committee Action: Accepted Resolution: SR-61-NFPA Statement: The TC is revising the requirement to ensure that the procedure for testing matches the verification procedure. 83 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

217 Public Comment No. 66-NFPA [ Section No ] Propane gas, at 99 percent purity or better, shall be metered into the chamber at a delivery pressure of kpa, ± 13.8 kpa (25 psi, ± 2 psi) and rate of 0.16 m 3 /min, ± 0.01 m 3 /min (5 1 2 ft 3 /min, ± 1 2 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. Redundant to First Revision No. 68-NFPA [Sections , , ] Submitter Full Name: Kristin Williamson Organization: The DuPont Company, Inc. Submittal Date: Thu Nov 13 09:22:56 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: is verification and is testing. 84 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

218 85 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 67-NFPA [ Section No ] The before and after gastight integrity test results, afterflame time, and visor clarity, relative humidity and ambient temperature shall be recorded and reported for each test specimen. It's required to be measured during set up, so it should be required to be reported. First Revision No. 68-NFPA [Sections , , ] Submitter Full Name: Kristin Williamson Organization: The DuPont Company, Inc. Submittal Date: Thu Nov 13 09:29:27 EST 2014 Committee Action: Accepted Resolution: SR-62-NFPA Statement: The TC believes that if relative humidity and ambient temperature is required to be measured during set up, it should be required to be reported.

219 Public Comment No. 174-NFPA [ Section No ] 8.26 Manikin Overall Heat Transfer Performance Test Specimens. Application. This test method shall be applied to suit element materials Sample Preparation. 1 Three specimens shall be tested Fabrics to be tested shall be used to construct 2.1 Samples for conditioning shall be suit element materials prepared in the standard garment design specified in of ASTM F 1930 F1930, Test Method for Evaluation of Flame Resistant Clothing for Protection Against Flash Fire Simulations Using an Instrumented Manikin, sized for the specific manikin on which the testing is performed. The methods of seam construction shall be as employed by the manufacturer in the construction of vapor-protective suits. A non-vapor-tight cloth/metal or plastic zipper shall be used in the construction of the standard garment front closure, but shall be protective by a cover flap that extends 25 mm (1 in.) beyond the zipper chain Procedure..2 Samples shall be conditioned as specified in Specimens Specimens shall be the full standard garments prepared as specified in Three specimens shall be tested Procedure Specimens shall be tested in accordance with ASTM F 1930 F1930, Test Method for Evaluation of Flame Resistant Clothing for Protection Against Flash Fire Simulations Using an Instrumented Manikin, using an exposure heat flux of 84 kw/m 2 (2.02 cal/cm 2 -sec) with an exposure time of 6 5 seconds The manikin shall be dressed in g/m 2 ( oz/yd 2 ) (± 5 percent), jersey knit, 100 percent cotton underwear briefs and short-sleeved crew-neck T-shirts before the garment specimen is placed on the manikin Report The predicted percent body burn based on the total surface area covered by sensors, excluding hands and feet, for each specimen shall be reported The average predicted body burn rating of all specimens shall be calculated and reported Interpretation. The average predicted body burn rating shall be used to determine pass/fail performance for suit element materials. The current overall ensemble flash test provides an assessment of the effects for overall ensemble exposure to a simulated flash fire but does not provide a prediction of the burn injury that may result as a result of heat transfer through the different materials. A separate standardized, instrumented thermal manikin test is recommended for determining insulation provided by the suit material that covers the majority of the wearer s body. The proposed test is not hampered by construction details that make it difficult to evaluate an actual vapor protective ensemble. Instead, the suit material is fashioned into a standard coverall which is fitted to the manikin for worst-case assessment of suit material thermal insulation for protecting the wearer against burn injury. Additional proposed procedures involve the use of standard vapor protective suit seams but with a modified simpler closure to permit ease of donning the standard garment onto the manikin. The proposed criteria are in line with current requirements for flash fire protective rainwear found in ASTM F2733. First Revision No. 74-NFPA [Global Input] Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 15:30:34 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected but held Resolution: The TC is holding this Public Comment because sufficient is not available for the manikin test. 86 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

220 87 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 50-NFPA [ Section No ] 8.26 Manikin Test Specimens Three specimens shall be tested Fabrics to be tested shall be used to construct the standard garment design specified in of Complete ensembles shall be tested using ASTM F 1930, Test Method for Evaluation of Flame Resistant Clothing for Protection Against Flash Fire Simulations Using an Instrumented Manikin Procedure Specimens shall be tested in accordance with ASTM F 1930, Test Method for Evaluation of Flame Resistant Clothing for Protection Against Flash Fire Simulations Using an Instrumented Manikin, using an exposure heat flux of 84 kw/m 2 (2.02 cal/cm 2 -sec) with an exposure time of 6 x seconds The manikin shall be dressed in 150 g/m 2 (4.5 oz/yd 2 ) (± 5 percent), jersey knit, 100 percent cotton underwear briefs and short-sleeved crew-neck T-shirts before the garment specimen is placed on the manikin. Rather than just test the body fabric in a standard ASTM F1930 coverall, the full NFPA 1991 ensemble including visor or SCBA system should be tested including attached gloves. Except would not require boots due to testing capabilities. If the intent is to look at how the suit is to protect, then the full suit should be tested. The exposure time of 6 seconds is not appropriate. At the Oct TC meeting, it was decided that UL would correlate the existing flash over test exposure energy to determine the appropriate exposure time. First Revision No. 46-NFPA [Chapter 7] Submitter Full Name: Kristin Williamson Organization: The DuPont Company, Inc. Submittal Date: Mon Nov 10 09:41:07 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected but held Resolution: The TC is holding this Public Comment because sufficient is not available for the manikin test.

221 Public Comment No. 14-NFPA [ Section No ] Specimens shall be tested in accordance with ASTM F 1930 with ISO 13506, Test Method for Evaluation of Flame Resistant Clothing for Protection Against Flash Fire Simulations Using an Instrumented Manikin, using an exposure heat flux of 84 kw/m 2 (2.02 cal/cm 2 -sec) with an exposure time of 6 seconds. COMMENT and JUSITFICATION: Instead of referencing ASTM 1930, the International Standard ISO should be referenced, which is more known to the European manufacturers. Moreover, the introduction of this test causes tremendous additional costs, because this test is very expensive. No acceptance criteria is given and therefore we question why this additional test has been introduced, when it is only for information purposes. In general, NFPA should refer to ISO standards wherever possible. Instead of referencing ASTM 1930, the International Standard ISO should be referenced, which is more known to the European manufacturers. Moreover, the introduction of this test as such causes tremendous additional costs, because this test is very expensive. No acceptance criteria is given and therefore we question why this additional test has been introduced, when it is only for information purposes. Public Input No. 14-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: Thomas von Hoegen Organization: Draeger Safety Co. Submittal Date: Wed Nov 05 06:46:27 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected but held Resolution: The TC is holding this Public Comment because sufficient is not available for the manikin test. 88 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

222 89 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 159-NFPA [ New Section after 8.27 ] 8.27.x Specific Requirements for Testing Respirator Facepiece Seals Assemblies 8.27.X.1 The test shall apply to all respirator facepiece seal assemblies utilized with non-encapsulating garments in which the seal materials is different that the primary suit material or the sealing material is not backed by a separate layer of primary suit material X.2 Samples of flex conditioning shall be complete respirator facepiece seal assemblies attached to surrounding primary garment material in final assembly configuration X. Nonencapsulating ensembles shall be subjected to Respirator Face Piece Seal Fatigue Condtioning as specified in Section 8.1.X X.4 The permeation specimens shall be taken from the sealing material. Multiple specimens may be taken from the same assembly. Add a conditioning requirement specific to non-encapsulating garments. The facepiece seal is a critical interface in protecting the wearer s head and neck area from exposure to hazardous chemical gases or vapors Related Public Comments for This Document Related Comment Public Comment No. 152-NFPA [New Section after 8.2.7] Public Comment No. 153-NFPA [New Section after ] Public Comment No. 165-NFPA [New Section after ] First Revision No. 81-NFPA [Section No ] Relationship Submitter Full Name: James Zeigler Organization: J. P. Zeigler, LLC Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 13:14:38 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The Technical Committee decided to address non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles to NFPA 1994 as Class 1.

223 90 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 158-NFPA [ New Section after ] x Specific requirements for testing respirator facepiece seals in nonencapsulating garments shall be as specified in Section 8.27.X Add a conditioning requirement specific to non-encapsulating garments. The facepiece seal is a critical interface in protecting the wearer s head and neck area from exposure to hazardous chemical gases or vapors. Related Public Comments for This Document Related Comment Public Comment No. 150-NFPA [Section No. 8.1] Public Comment No. 152-NFPA [New Section after 8.2.7] Public Comment No. 165-NFPA [New Section after ] First Revision No. 81-NFPA [Section No ] Relationship Submitter Full Name: James Zeigler Organization: J. P. Zeigler, LLC Submittal Date: Fri Nov 14 13:08:57 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The Technical Committee decided to address non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles to NFPA 1994 as Class 1.

224 Public Comment No. 71-NFPA [ Section No ] This method shall apply to the suit, visor materials and all exposed components (including face piece, gasket, and supply air line, etc.) of an external SCBA system (if used for a non-encapsulating suit design), glove, and footwear element materials, and to the selected elements seams. If the standard will permit non-encapsulating suit designs to be certified, then all "visor" requirements must be applied to all exposed components of the external SCBA system. For chemical permeation resistance testing, it must be applied to all exposed components. It must be known if any of the external SCBA components might permit any hazardous chemicals to permeate into the breathing air system. Excluding the external SCBA system components from the base performance requirements is not appropriate. First Revision No. 89-NFPA [New Section after ] Submitter Full Name: Kristin Williamson Organization: The DuPont Company, Inc. Submittal Date: Thu Nov 13 09:44:06 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The Technical Committee decided to address non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles to NFPA 1994 as Class of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

225 Public Comment No. 205-NFPA [ Sections , , ] Sections , , Apparatus A controlled environmental chamber shall be used to maintain the test cell, air flow control system, and reagent chemicals within ± 2.0 C (± 4.0 F) of the test temperature and ± 5 percent of the test relative humidity. The controlled environment chamber shall be sized so that it can be used for conditioning test materials, to test cells when not in use, to challenge chemicals and other test apparatus prior to testing, as well as for holding the test cells horizontally during use while connected to the air delivery system manifold and to the effluent sampling mechanism. 92 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

226 * 93 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

227 The test cell shall be a two-chambered cell for contacting the specimen with the challenge chemical on the specimen s normal outside surface and for flowing a collection medium on the specimen s normal inside surface, consisting of parts shown in Figure (a) and individual part detail shown in Figure (b) 94 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM through Figure (f). Figure (a) Diffusion Test Cell Assembly. (Source: W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc.) Figure (b) Sample Support Plate. (Source: W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc.) Figure (c) Compression Plate. (Source: W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc.) Figure (d) Lower Body (Collection Side). (Source: W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc.)

228 Figure (e) Upper Body (Challenge Side). (Source: W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc.) Figure (f) Top Cap. (Source: W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc.) * An air delivery system and manifold shall be used to provide oil-free, conditioned air to the test cell/fixtures at a rate of 2 standard liters per minute (SLPM) per test cell/fixture with a temperature precision of ± 0.2 C and a relative humidity precision of ± 5 percent An analytical system shall be used to evaluate the amount of challenge chemical in the effluent air streams from the collection side of the test cell and shall be selected to provide the ability to measure the challenge chemical at 0.1 µg/cm 2 over the test exposure period. The analytical system shall be permitted to include a bubbler tube, solid sorbent, or real-time chemical analyzer. Effluent sampling shall be permitted to be taken discretely or cumulatively; however, the selected analytical system shall be able to determine all of the challenge chemical permeating through the specimen in 60 minutes * A vacuum pump capable of creating vacuum of at least 5 in. water column shall be used for testing the integrity of the assembled test cell * A manometer or pressure gage capable of measuring pressures or vacuums to 10 in. water column, with an accuracy of 5 percent of scale, shall be used for testing the integrity of the assembled test cell Supplies Syringes, capable of delivering the challenge chemical, shall be used for dispensing liquid challenge chemical onto the surface of the specimen in the test cell * Replacement O-rings shall be available for use in the permeation test cell * If unknown, the compatibility of the O-ring material with the challenge chemical shall be verified before use If an O-ring shows any signs of chemical degradation in the form of softening, hardening, swelling, deterioration, or loss of shape or function, an O-ring of different material shall be used that does not show chemical degradation * An inert impermeable surrogate material shall be used as a negative control during validation tests Chemicals The following challenge chemicals shall be tested as liquids: (1) Sulfur mustard, distilled [HD or bis (2-chloroethyl) sulfide, CAS ] (2) Soman [GD or O-Pinacolyl methylphosphonofluoridate, CAS ] Process for Determining the Mass of Liquid Chemical Challenge Applied Prior to assembling the test cell and conducting the test, the mass of the applied challenge chemical shall be determined using the procedure in through * The challenge chemical shall be applied to an inert impermeable surrogate specimen in the pattern described in * After application, the inert impermeable surrogate specimen shall be visually inspected to verify that the liquid chemical challenge was correctly applied The inert impermeable surrogate specimen with the applied liquid chemical challenge shall be placed in a closed large vial containing a known volume of solvent compatible with the analysis procedure in through The large vial with solvent and impermeable surrogate specimen with the applied liquid challenge chemical shall be agitated for at least 1 hour to ensure complete extraction of the challenge chemical After agitation, the solvent vial shall be removed and submitted for analysis of the liquid challenge chemical using a procedure capable of detecting 1.0 mg of the liquid challenge chemical Using the mass of the liquid challenge chemical detected in the extraction procedure and the exposed area of the test specimen defined by the test cell, the exposure concentration shall be 100 g/m 2 (+1.0/ 0.0 g/m 2 ). 95 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

229 Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved pdf CC Note No. 10 CC NOTE: The following CC Note No. 10 appeared in the First Draft Report as First Revision 89. The Correlating Committee directs the Technical Committee on Hazardous Materials Protective Clothing and Equipment to validate the new [or significantly revised] test method through the following: 1. Provide a rationale with supporting evidence that substantiates the need or the rationale for establishing new test methods or criteria or for revising existing test methods or criteria in terms of field relevance, fire service needs, safety concerns, recognition of new product technology, accounting for advances in testing technology, or accomplishing other clearly stated objectives. Examples of supporting evidence can include the documentation of specific safety issues that have been identified by end user or other groups, which may include statistics on the number of incidents or highlight specific cases where the issues have arisen. Other forms of supporting evidence can include aspects of existing requirements that unduly prevent the proper testing or consideration of new product technologies because the existing test methods or criteria are found to be design-restrictive, or information that shows that new test methods have become available that provide more reliable or relevant forms of evaluation for the specific product property or attribute under consideration. The provision of scientific papers, test data, or statistics provides a more robust justification for supporting evidence. 2. Conduct an assessment to determine the potential impact of the new or significantly revised test methods or criteria on products that have already been certified or fielded. The nature of this requirement is to have the TC assess what the anticipated impact of the new or modified requirements are relative to specific products. It is not the intent to identify specific products that might be excluded by a new or modified requirement, but rather for the submitter to provide an analysis for the types of products that might be affected, with an indication as to why the affected products do not provide adequate performance. 3. Establish Intra-laboratory repeatability and inter-laboratory reproducibility for new or significantly revised test methods. Where possible, test methods shall include procedures for their calibration. The principal certification organizations and their laboratories shall formally affirm to the TC that the tests can be conducted reliably as proposed at least by the time of the second draft. An essential part of the validation process is to include an assessment of the repeatability (intra-laboratory precision) and reproducibility (inter-laboratory precision) of any new test method or significant modification of an existing test method. This information is important for establishing the reliability of the test method and should, as a minimum, include those laboratories that provide certification services for the relevant product standard. This information may also be useful in setting specific criteria to account for expected test method variability. 4. Establish the relevance of test methods and any associated criteria through a determination of how proposed or significantly revised test methods identify meaningful differences in product performance consistent with field performance. Attempts should be made to determine the degree to which new or significantly revised test methods identify meaningful differences in product performance or relate to the field performance of products. One recommended approach is to identify product types that are considered to be unsuitable based on end user field experience and evaluate those products alongside other products to determine if the test method suitably identifies meaningful differences in performance consistent with observed field performance. Another approach is to demonstrate the impact and relevance of test results for products through carefully designed experiments carried out in the field. Lastly, one additional approach is to relate proposed criteria to specific safety levels that can be documented through scientific or other reasonably based field investigative work. 5. Provide test data and any other supporting documentation to the members of the respective TC and the CC, or any individuals who may request this information. Access to the information on which new or significantly revised test methods and criteria are based should be available to all parties seeking this information, including TC members, CC members, and individuals outside the committee process (through the NFPA). Supporting documentation that includes, but is not limited to, proposed new or modified methodology/criteria with justification statements, supporting evidence, test data, references to published papers or statistics, inter-laboratory test results, and other information should be maintained by the TC as part of meeting minutes or made available elsewhere on the NFPA TC website page. 6. Provide at least one of the following visual illustrations of the proposed test equipment and test material(s) to the respective TC and CC: a. Video(s) b. Photo(s) c. Drawing (s) The visual illustrations shall be provided along with the submittal. Visual illustrations help TC and CC members better understand the proposed new test or modified test. First Revision No. 89-NFPA [New Section after ] Submitter Full Name: CC on FAE-AAC Organization: NFPA Submittal Date: Mon Nov 17 15:12:19 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The TC reviewed the Correlating Committee notes to this Public Comment and has addressed the questions in several sections of the standard. 96 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

230 Public Comment No. 206-NFPA [ Section No ] Procedure for Liquid Chemical Challenge The test cell shall be mounted horizontally and connected to the air delivery system in the environmental chamber at 32 C, ±2 C (90 F, ± 4 F) and at a relative humidity of 80 percent, ±5 percent. All connections shall be secured The calibrated analytical detection system shall be assembled and initiated according to its instructions If bubblers are used, each bubbler shall be filled with the proper collection solvent using a calibrated pipette or equivalent device; the collection solvent shall incorporate an internal standard so adjustments can be made for solvent evaporation/water condensation during sampling If solid sorbent tubes are to be used, each sorbent tube shall be cleaned by heating and purging; the absence of any residual chemical shall be verified by the appropriate analysis technique The air delivery shall be flowing filtered air at a temperature of 32 C, ± 2 C (90 F, ± 4 F) and at a relative humidity of 80 percent, ±5 percent, to the collection side of the test cell at least 15 minutes prior to the application of the challenge chemical After placing the liquid challenge chemical on the specimen in the test cell, the cell top cap shall be sealed within 5 seconds Filtered air at a temperature of 32 C, ± 2 C (90 F, ± 4 F) and at a relative humidity of 80 percent, ±5 percent, shall be flowed only to the collection side of the test cell a rate of 1.0 LPM, ± 0.1 LPM. No air shall be flowed across the challenge side of the test cell The challenge chemical in the effluent air stream shall be collected, measured, and analyzed using either discrete or cumulative methods for 60 minutes, +1.0 / 0 minutes The collection media for the challenge chemical shall be analyzed using an appropriate analytical procedure At least one test shall be conducted with a specimen, but without the challenge chemical, as a negative control * At least one test shall be conducted with an inert impermeable surrogate specimen as a negative control The results from tests accompanied by unsuccessful negative controls shall not be used and the test shall be repeated. Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved pdf CC Note No. 11 CC NOTE: The following CC Note No. 11 appeared in the First Draft Report as First Revision 86. The Correlating Committee directs the Technical Committee on Hazardous Materials Protective Clothing and Equipment to validate the new [or significantly revised] test method through the following: 1. Provide a rationale with supporting evidence that substantiates the need or the rationale for establishing new test methods or criteria or for revising existing test methods or criteria in terms of field relevance, fire service needs, safety concerns, recognition of new product technology, accounting for advances in testing technology, or accomplishing other clearly stated objectives. Examples of supporting evidence can include the documentation of specific safety issues that have been identified by end user or other groups, which may include statistics on the number of incidents or highlight specific cases where the issues have arisen. Other forms of supporting evidence can include aspects of existing requirements that unduly prevent the proper testing or consideration of new product technologies because the existing test methods or criteria are found to be design-restrictive, or information that shows that new test methods have become available that provide more reliable or relevant forms of evaluation for the specific product property or attribute under consideration. The provision of scientific papers, test data, or statistics provides a more robust justification for supporting evidence. 2. Conduct an assessment to determine the potential impact of the new or significantly revised test methods or criteria on products that have already been certified or fielded. The nature of this requirement is to have the TC assess what the anticipated impact of the new or modified requirements are relative to specific products. It is not the intent to identify specific products that might be excluded by a new or modified requirement, but rather for the submitter to provide an analysis for the types of products that might be affected, with an indication as to why the affected products do not provide adequate performance. 3. Establish Intra-laboratory repeatability and inter-laboratory reproducibility for new or significantly revised test methods. Where possible, test methods shall include procedures for their calibration. The principal certification organizations and their laboratories shall formally affirm to the TC that the tests can be conducted reliably as proposed at least by the time of the second draft. An essential part of the validation process is to include an assessment of the repeatability (intra-laboratory precision) and reproducibility (inter-laboratory precision) of any new test method or significant modification of an existing test method. This information is important for establishing the reliability of the test method and should, as a minimum, include those laboratories that provide certification services for the relevant product standard. This information may also be useful in setting specific criteria to account for expected test method variability. 4. Establish the relevance of test methods and any associated criteria through a determination of how proposed or significantly revised test methods identify meaningful differences in product performance consistent with field performance. Attempts should be made to determine the degree to which new or significantly revised test methods identify meaningful differences in product performance or relate to the field performance of products. One recommended approach is to identify product types that are considered to be unsuitable based on end user field experience and evaluate those products alongside other products to determine if the test method suitably identifies meaningful differences in performance consistent with observed field performance. Another approach is to demonstrate the impact and relevance of test results for products through carefully designed experiments carried out in the field. Lastly, one additional approach is to relate proposed criteria to specific safety levels that can be documented through scientific or other reasonably based field investigative work. 5. Provide test data and any other supporting documentation to the members of the respective TC and the CC, or any individuals who may request this information. Access to the information on which new or significantly revised test methods and criteria are based should be available to all parties seeking this information, including TC members, CC members, and individuals outside the committee process (through the NFPA). Supporting documentation that includes, but is not limited to, proposed new or modified methodology/criteria with justification statements, supporting evidence, test data, references to published papers or statistics, inter-laboratory test results, and other information should be maintained by the TC as part of meeting minutes or made available elsewhere on the NFPA TC website page. 6. Provide at least one of the following visual illustrations of the proposed test equipment and test material(s) to the respective TC and CC: a. Video(s) b. Photo(s) c. Drawing (s) The visual illustrations shall be provided along with the submittal. Visual illustrations help TC and CC members better understand the proposed new test or modified test. First Revision No. 86-NFPA [New Section after ] Submitter Full Name: CC on FAE-AAC Organization: NFPA Submittal Date: Mon Nov 17 15:20:11 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The TC reviewed the Correlating Committee notes to this Public Comment and has addressed the questions in several sections of the standard. 97 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

231 Public Comment No. 207-NFPA [ Section No ] Procedure for Liquid Chemical Challenge The test cell shall be mounted horizontally and connected to the air delivery system in the environmental chamber at 32 C, ±2 C (90 F, ± 4 F) and at a relative humidity of 80 percent, ±5 percent. All connections shall be secured The calibrated analytical detection system shall be assembled and initiated according to its instructions If bubblers are used, each bubbler shall be filled with the proper collection solvent using a calibrated pipette or equivalent device; the collection solvent shall incorporate an internal standard so adjustments can be made for solvent evaporation/water condensation during sampling If solid sorbent tubes are to be used, each sorbent tube shall be cleaned by heating and purging; the absence of any residual chemical shall be verified by the appropriate analysis technique The air delivery shall be flowing filtered air at a temperature of 32 C, ± 2 C (90 F, ± 4 F) and at a relative humidity of 80 percent, ±5 percent, to the collection side of the test cell at least 15 minutes prior to the application of the challenge chemical After placing the liquid challenge chemical on the specimen in the test cell, the cell top cap shall be sealed within 5 seconds Filtered air at a temperature of 32 C, ± 2 C (90 F, ± 4 F) and at a relative humidity of 80 percent, ±5 percent, shall be flowed only to the collection side of the test cell a rate of 1.0 LPM, ± 0.1 LPM. No air shall be flowed across the challenge side of the test cell The challenge chemical in the effluent air stream shall be collected, measured, and analyzed using either discrete or cumulative methods for 60 minutes, +1.0 / 0 minutes The collection media for the challenge chemical shall be analyzed using an appropriate analytical procedure At least one test shall be conducted with a specimen, but without the challenge chemical, as a negative control * At least one test shall be conducted with an inert impermeable surrogate specimen as a negative control The results from tests accompanied by unsuccessful negative controls shall not be used and the test shall be repeated. Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved pdf CC Note No. 12 CC NOTE: The following CC Note No. 12 appeared in the First Draft Report as First Revision 87. The Correlating Committee directs the Technical Committee on Hazardous Materials Protective Clothing and Equipment to validate the new [or significantly revised] test method through the following: 1. Provide a rationale with supporting evidence that substantiates the need or the rationale for establishing new test methods or criteria or for revising existing test methods or criteria in terms of field relevance, fire service needs, safety concerns, recognition of new product technology, accounting for advances in testing technology, or accomplishing other clearly stated objectives. Examples of supporting evidence can include the documentation of specific safety issues that have been identified by end user or other groups, which may include statistics on the number of incidents or highlight specific cases where the issues have arisen. Other forms of supporting evidence can include aspects of existing requirements that unduly prevent the proper testing or consideration of new product technologies because the existing test methods or criteria are found to be design-restrictive, or information that shows that new test methods have become available that provide more reliable or relevant forms of evaluation for the specific product property or attribute under consideration. The provision of scientific papers, test data, or statistics provides a more robust justification for supporting evidence. 2. Conduct an assessment to determine the potential impact of the new or significantly revised test methods or criteria on products that have already been certified or fielded. The nature of this requirement is to have the TC assess what the anticipated impact of the new or modified requirements are relative to specific products. It is not the intent to identify specific products that might be excluded by a new or modified requirement, but rather for the submitter to provide an analysis for the types of products that might be affected, with an indication as to why the affected products do not provide adequate performance. 3. Establish Intra-laboratory repeatability and inter-laboratory reproducibility for new or significantly revised test methods. Where possible, test methods shall include procedures for their calibration. The principal certification organizations and their laboratories shall formally affirm to the TC that the tests can be conducted reliably as proposed at least by the time of the second draft. An essential part of the validation process is to include an assessment of the repeatability (intra-laboratory precision) and reproducibility (inter-laboratory precision) of any new test method or significant modification of an existing test method. This information is important for establishing the reliability of the test method and should, as a minimum, include those laboratories that provide certification services for the relevant product standard. This information may also be useful in setting specific criteria to account for expected test method variability. 4. Establish the relevance of test methods and any associated criteria through a determination of how proposed or significantly revised test methods identify meaningful differences in product performance consistent with field performance. Attempts should be made to determine the degree to which new or significantly revised test methods identify meaningful differences in product performance or relate to the field performance of products. One recommended approach is to identify product types that are considered to be unsuitable based on end user field experience and evaluate those products alongside other products to determine if the test method suitably identifies meaningful differences in performance consistent with observed field performance. Another approach is to demonstrate the impact and relevance of test results for products through carefully designed experiments carried out in the field. Lastly, one additional approach is to relate proposed criteria to specific safety levels that can be documented through scientific or other reasonably based field investigative work. 5. Provide test data and any other supporting documentation to the members of the respective TC and the CC, or any individuals who may request this information. Access to the information on which new or significantly revised test methods and criteria are based should be available to all parties seeking this information, including TC members, CC members, and individuals outside the committee process (through the NFPA). Supporting documentation that includes, but is not limited to, proposed new or modified methodology/criteria with justification statements, supporting evidence, test data, references to published papers or statistics, inter-laboratory test results, and other information should be maintained by the TC as part of meeting minutes or made available elsewhere on the NFPA TC website page. 6. Provide at least one of the following visual illustrations of the proposed test equipment and test material(s) to the respective TC and CC: a. Video(s) b. Photo(s) c. Drawing (s) The visual illustrations shall be provided along with the submittal. Visual illustrations help TC and CC members better understand the proposed new test or modified test. First Revision No. 87-NFPA [New Section after ] Submitter Full Name: CC on FAE-AAC Organization: NFPA Submittal Date: Mon Nov 17 15:23:33 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The TC reviewed the Correlating Committee notes to this Public Comment and has addressed the questions in several sections of the standard. 98 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

232 Public Comment No. 208-NFPA [ Section No ] Procedure for Liquid Chemical Challenge The test cell shall be mounted horizontally and connected to the air delivery system in the environmental chamber at 32 C, ±2 C (90 F, ± 4 F) and at a relative humidity of 80 percent, ±5 percent. All connections shall be secured The calibrated analytical detection system shall be assembled and initiated according to its instructions If bubblers are used, each bubbler shall be filled with the proper collection solvent using a calibrated pipette or equivalent device; the collection solvent shall incorporate an internal standard so adjustments can be made for solvent evaporation/water condensation during sampling If solid sorbent tubes are to be used, each sorbent tube shall be cleaned by heating and purging; the absence of any residual chemical shall be verified by the appropriate analysis technique The air delivery shall be flowing filtered air at a temperature of 32 C, ± 2 C (90 F, ± 4 F) and at a relative humidity of 80 percent, ±5 percent, to the collection side of the test cell at least 15 minutes prior to the application of the challenge chemical After placing the liquid challenge chemical on the specimen in the test cell, the cell top cap shall be sealed within 5 seconds Filtered air at a temperature of 32 C, ± 2 C (90 F, ± 4 F) and at a relative humidity of 80 percent, ±5 percent, shall be flowed only to the collection side of the test cell a rate of 1.0 LPM, ± 0.1 LPM. No air shall be flowed across the challenge side of the test cell The challenge chemical in the effluent air stream shall be collected, measured, and analyzed using either discrete or cumulative methods for 60 minutes, +1.0 / 0 minutes The collection media for the challenge chemical shall be analyzed using an appropriate analytical procedure At least one test shall be conducted with a specimen, but without the challenge chemical, as a negative control * At least one test shall be conducted with an inert impermeable surrogate specimen as a negative control The results from tests accompanied by unsuccessful negative controls shall not be used and the test shall be repeated. Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved pdf CC Note No. 13 CC NOTE: The following CC Note No. 13 appeared in the First Draft Report as First Revision 88. The Correlating Committee directs the Technical Committee on Hazardous Materials Protective Clothing and Equipment to validate the new [or significantly revised] test method through the following: 1. Provide a rationale with supporting evidence that substantiates the need or the rationale for establishing new test methods or criteria or for revising existing test methods or criteria in terms of field relevance, fire service needs, safety concerns, recognition of new product technology, accounting for advances in testing technology, or accomplishing other clearly stated objectives. Examples of supporting evidence can include the documentation of specific safety issues that have been identified by end user or other groups, which may include statistics on the number of incidents or highlight specific cases where the issues have arisen. Other forms of supporting evidence can include aspects of existing requirements that unduly prevent the proper testing or consideration of new product technologies because the existing test methods or criteria are found to be design-restrictive, or information that shows that new test methods have become available that provide more reliable or relevant forms of evaluation for the specific product property or attribute under consideration. The provision of scientific papers, test data, or statistics provides a more robust justification for supporting evidence. 2. Conduct an assessment to determine the potential impact of the new or significantly revised test methods or criteria on products that have already been certified or fielded. The nature of this requirement is to have the TC assess what the anticipated impact of the new or modified requirements are relative to specific products. It is not the intent to identify specific products that might be excluded by a new or modified requirement, but rather for the submitter to provide an analysis for the types of products that might be affected, with an indication as to why the affected products do not provide adequate performance. 3. Establish Intra-laboratory repeatability and inter-laboratory reproducibility for new or significantly revised test methods. Where possible, test methods shall include procedures for their calibration. The principal certification organizations and their laboratories shall formally affirm to the TC that the tests can be conducted reliably as proposed at least by the time of the second draft. An essential part of the validation process is to include an assessment of the repeatability (intra-laboratory precision) and reproducibility (inter-laboratory precision) of any new test method or significant modification of an existing test method. This information is important for establishing the reliability of the test method and should, as a minimum, include those laboratories that provide certification services for the relevant product standard. This information may also be useful in setting specific criteria to account for expected test method variability. 4. Establish the relevance of test methods and any associated criteria through a determination of how proposed or significantly revised test methods identify meaningful differences in product performance consistent with field performance. Attempts should be made to determine the degree to which new or significantly revised test methods identify meaningful differences in product performance or relate to the field performance of products. One recommended approach is to identify product types that are considered to be unsuitable based on end user field experience and evaluate those products alongside other products to determine if the test method suitably identifies meaningful differences in performance consistent with observed field performance. Another approach is to demonstrate the impact and relevance of test results for products through carefully designed experiments carried out in the field. Lastly, one additional approach is to relate proposed criteria to specific safety levels that can be documented through scientific or other reasonably based field investigative work. 5. Provide test data and any other supporting documentation to the members of the respective TC and the CC, or any individuals who may request this information. Access to the information on which new or significantly revised test methods and criteria are based should be available to all parties seeking this information, including TC members, CC members, and individuals outside the committee process (through the NFPA). Supporting documentation that includes, but is not limited to, proposed new or modified methodology/criteria with justification statements, supporting evidence, test data, references to published papers or statistics, inter-laboratory test results, and other information should be maintained by the TC as part of meeting minutes or made available elsewhere on the NFPA TC website page. 6. Provide at least one of the following visual illustrations of the proposed test equipment and test material(s) to the respective TC and CC: a. Video(s) b. Photo(s) c. Drawing (s) The visual illustrations shall be provided along with the submittal. Visual illustrations help TC and CC members better understand the proposed new test or modified test. First Revision No. 88-NFPA [New Section after ] Submitter Full Name: CC on FAE-AAC Organization: NFPA Submittal Date: Mon Nov 17 15:25:44 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The TC reviewed the Correlating Committee notes to this Public Comment and has addressed the questions in several sections of the standard. 99 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

233 Public Comment No. 209-NFPA [ Section No ] Procedure for Liquid Chemical Challenge The test cell shall be mounted horizontally and connected to the air delivery system in the environmental chamber at 32 C, ±2 C (90 F, ± 4 F) and at a relative humidity of 80 percent, ±5 percent. All connections shall be secured The calibrated analytical detection system shall be assembled and initiated according to its instructions If bubblers are used, each bubbler shall be filled with the proper collection solvent using a calibrated pipette or equivalent device; the collection solvent shall incorporate an internal standard so adjustments can be made for solvent evaporation/water condensation during sampling If solid sorbent tubes are to be used, each sorbent tube shall be cleaned by heating and purging; the absence of any residual chemical shall be verified by the appropriate analysis technique The air delivery shall be flowing filtered air at a temperature of 32 C, ± 2 C (90 F, ± 4 F) and at a relative humidity of 80 percent, ±5 percent, to the collection side of the test cell at least 15 minutes prior to the application of the challenge chemical After placing the liquid challenge chemical on the specimen in the test cell, the cell top cap shall be sealed within 5 seconds Filtered air at a temperature of 32 C, ± 2 C (90 F, ± 4 F) and at a relative humidity of 80 percent, ±5 percent, shall be flowed only to the collection side of the test cell a rate of 1.0 LPM, ± 0.1 LPM. No air shall be flowed across the challenge side of the test cell The challenge chemical in the effluent air stream shall be collected, measured, and analyzed using either discrete or cumulative methods for 60 minutes, +1.0 / 0 minutes The collection media for the challenge chemical shall be analyzed using an appropriate analytical procedure At least one test shall be conducted with a specimen, but without the challenge chemical, as a negative control * At least one test shall be conducted with an inert impermeable surrogate specimen as a negative control The results from tests accompanied by unsuccessful negative controls shall not be used and the test shall be repeated. Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved pdf CC Note No. 14 CC NOTE: The following CC Note No. 14 appeared in the First Draft Report as First Revision 89. The Correlating Committee directs the Technical Committee on Hazardous Materials Protective Clothing and Equipment to validate the new [or significantly revised] test method through the following: 1. Provide a rationale with supporting evidence that substantiates the need or the rationale for establishing new test methods or criteria or for revising existing test methods or criteria in terms of field relevance, fire service needs, safety concerns, recognition of new product technology, accounting for advances in testing technology, or accomplishing other clearly stated objectives. Examples of supporting evidence can include the documentation of specific safety issues that have been identified by end user or other groups, which may include statistics on the number of incidents or highlight specific cases where the issues have arisen. Other forms of supporting evidence can include aspects of existing requirements that unduly prevent the proper testing or consideration of new product technologies because the existing test methods or criteria are found to be design-restrictive, or information that shows that new test methods have become available that provide more reliable or relevant forms of evaluation for the specific product property or attribute under consideration. The provision of scientific papers, test data, or statistics provides a more robust justification for supporting evidence. 2. Conduct an assessment to determine the potential impact of the new or significantly revised test methods or criteria on products that have already been certified or fielded. The nature of this requirement is to have the TC assess what the anticipated impact of the new or modified requirements are relative to specific products. It is not the intent to identify specific products that might be excluded by a new or modified requirement, but rather for the submitter to provide an analysis for the types of products that might be affected, with an indication as to why the affected products do not provide adequate performance. 3. Establish Intra-laboratory repeatability and inter-laboratory reproducibility for new or significantly revised test methods. Where possible, test methods shall include procedures for their calibration. The principal certification organizations and their laboratories shall formally affirm to the TC that the tests can be conducted reliably as proposed at least by the time of the second draft. An essential part of the validation process is to include an assessment of the repeatability (intra-laboratory precision) and reproducibility (inter-laboratory precision) of any new test method or significant modification of an existing test method. This information is important for establishing the reliability of the test method and should, as a minimum, include those laboratories that provide certification services for the relevant product standard. This information may also be useful in setting specific criteria to account for expected test method variability. 4. Establish the relevance of test methods and any associated criteria through a determination of how proposed or significantly revised test methods identify meaningful differences in product performance consistent with field performance. Attempts should be made to determine the degree to which new or significantly revised test methods identify meaningful differences in product performance or relate to the field performance of products. One recommended approach is to identify product types that are considered to be unsuitable based on end user field experience and evaluate those products alongside other products to determine if the test method suitably identifies meaningful differences in performance consistent with observed field performance. Another approach is to demonstrate the impact and relevance of test results for products through carefully designed experiments carried out in the field. Lastly, one additional approach is to relate proposed criteria to specific safety levels that can be documented through scientific or other reasonably based field investigative work. 5. Provide test data and any other supporting documentation to the members of the respective TC and the CC, or any individuals who may request this information. Access to the information on which new or significantly revised test methods and criteria are based should be available to all parties seeking this information, including TC members, CC members, and individuals outside the committee process (through the NFPA). Supporting documentation that includes, but is not limited to, proposed new or modified methodology/criteria with justification statements, supporting evidence, test data, references to published papers or statistics, inter-laboratory test results, and other information should be maintained by the TC as part of meeting minutes or made available elsewhere on the NFPA TC website page. 6. Provide at least one of the following visual illustrations of the proposed test equipment and test material(s) to the respective TC and CC: a. Video(s) b. Photo(s) c. Drawing (s) The visual illustrations shall be provided along with the submittal. Visual illustrations help TC and CC members better understand the proposed new test or modified test. First Revision No. 89-NFPA [New Section after ] Submitter Full Name: CC on FAE-AAC Organization: NFPA Submittal Date: Mon Nov 17 15:27:19 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The TC reviewed the Correlating Committee notes to this Public Comment and has addressed the questions in several sections of the standard. 00 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

234 Public Comment No. 204-NFPA [ Section No ] 8.28 Visor Drop-Ball Impact Resistance Test Application This test shall apply to visor materials Where the visor is constructed of several layers, then all layers, assembled in the order in which they appear in the suit, shall be tested as a composite Sample Preparation Samples shall be at least 2 m 2 (2 yd 2 ) of material Samples shall be conditioned as specified in Specimens Specimens shall be 450 mm 305 mm A minimum of five specimens shall be tested Procedure. Specimens shall be tested in accordance with Section 9.6 of ANSI Z87.1, American National Standard for Occupational and Educational Personal Eye and Face Protective Devices, with the following modifications: (1) Visor material shall be securely mounted to the test fixture as shown in Figure (2) The sample number shall be indicated. (3) The impact location shall be in the center of the visor. Figure Test Fixture Report Visible penetration or full-thickness cracks shall be recorded and reported Interpretation Penetration or full-thickness cracking on any single impact shall be used to determine compliance. Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved pdf CC Note No. 9 CC NOTE: The following CC Note No. 9 appeared in the First Draft Report as First Revision 52. The Correlating Committee directs the Technical Committee on Hazardous Materials Protective Clothing and Equipment to validate the new [or significantly revised] test method through the following: 1. Provide a rationale with supporting evidence that substantiates the need or the rationale for establishing new test methods or criteria or for revising existing test methods or criteria in terms of field relevance, fire service needs, safety concerns, recognition of new product technology, accounting for advances in testing technology, or accomplishing other clearly stated objectives. Examples of supporting evidence can include the documentation of specific safety issues that have been identified by end user or other groups, which may include statistics on the number of incidents or highlight specific cases where the issues have arisen. Other forms of supporting evidence can include aspects of existing requirements that unduly prevent the proper testing or consideration of new product technologies because the existing test methods or criteria are found to be design-restrictive, or information that shows that new test methods have become available that provide more reliable or relevant forms of evaluation for the specific product property or attribute under consideration. The provision of scientific papers, test data, or statistics provides a more robust justification for supporting evidence. 2. Conduct an assessment to determine the potential impact of the new or significantly revised test methods or criteria on products that have already been certified or fielded. The nature of this requirement is to have the TC assess what the anticipated impact of the new or modified requirements are relative to specific products. It is not the intent to identify specific products that might be excluded by a new or modified requirement, but rather for the submitter to provide an analysis for the types of products that might be affected, with an indication as to why the affected products do not provide adequate performance. 3. Establish Intra-laboratory repeatability and inter-laboratory reproducibility for new or significantly revised test methods. Where possible, test methods shall include procedures for their calibration. The principal certification organizations and their laboratories shall formally affirm to the TC that the tests can be conducted reliably as proposed at least by the time of the second draft. An essential part of the validation process is to include an assessment of the repeatability (intra-laboratory precision) and reproducibility (inter-laboratory precision) of any new test method or significant modification of an existing test method. This information is important for establishing the reliability of the test method and should, as a minimum, include those laboratories that provide certification services for the relevant product standard. This information may also be useful in setting specific criteria to account for expected test method variability. 4. Establish the relevance of test methods and any associated criteria through a determination of how proposed or significantly revised test methods identify meaningful differences in product performance consistent with field performance. 01 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

235 Attempts should be made to determine the degree to which new or significantly revised test methods identify meaningful differences in product performance or relate to the field performance of products. One recommended approach is to identify product types that are considered to be unsuitable based on end user field experience and evaluate those products alongside other products to determine if the test method suitably identifies meaningful differences in performance consistent with observed field performance. Another approach is to demonstrate the impact and relevance of test results for products through carefully designed experiments carried out in the field. Lastly, one additional approach is to relate proposed criteria to specific safety levels that can be documented through scientific or other reasonably based field investigative work. 5. Provide test data and any other supporting documentation to the members of the respective TC and the CC, or any individuals who may request this information. Access to the information on which new or significantly revised test methods and criteria are based should be available to all parties seeking this information, including TC members, CC members, and individuals outside the committee process (through the NFPA). Supporting documentation that includes, but is not limited to, proposed new or modified methodology/criteria with justification statements, supporting evidence, test data, references to published papers or statistics, inter-laboratory test results, and other information should be maintained by the TC as part of meeting minutes or made available elsewhere on the NFPA TC website page. 6. Provide at least one of the following visual illustrations of the proposed test equipment and test material(s) to the respective TC and CC: a. Video(s) b. Photo(s) c. Drawing (s) The visual illustrations shall be provided along with the submittal. Visual illustrations help TC and CC members better understand the proposed new test or modified test. First Revision No. 52-NFPA [New Section after 8.27] Submitter Full Name: CC on FAE-AAC Organization: NFPA Submittal Date: Mon Nov 17 15:03:43 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The TC reviewed the Correlating Committee notes to this Public Comment and has addressed the questions in several sections of the standard. 02 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM

236 03 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 82-NFPA [ Section No ] 8.28 Visor Drop-Ball Impact Resistance Test Application This test shall apply to visor materials Where the visor is constructed of several layers, then all layers, assembled in the order in which they appear in the suit, shall be tested as a composite Sample Preparation Samples shall be at least 2 m 2 (2 yd 2 ) of material Samples shall be conditioned as specified in Specimens Specimens shall be 450 mm 305 mm A minimum of five specimens shall be tested Procedure. Specimens shall be tested in accordance with Section 9.6 of ANSI Z87.1, American National Standard for Occupational and Educational Personal Eye and Face Protective Devices, with the following modifications: (1) Visor material shall be securely mounted to the test fixture as shown in Figure (2) The sample number shall be indicated. (3) The impact location shall be in the center of the visor. Figure Test Fixture Report Visible penetration or full-thickness cracks shall be recorded and reported Interpretation Penetration or full-thickness cracking on any single impact shall be used to determine compliance. This test method fails to properly differentiate visor materials. First Revision No. 87-NFPA [New Section after ] Submitter Full Name: Jason Allen Organization: Intertek Testing Services Submittal Date: Thu Nov 13 15:36:24 EST 2014 Committee Action: Accepted Resolution: SR-63-NFPA Statement: The TC is deleting this test method because it fails to properly differentiate visor materials.

237 04 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 69-NFPA [ Section No ] This test shall apply to to visor materials and face piece of an external SCBA system (if used for a non-encapsulating suit design). If the standard will permit non-encapsulating suit designs to be certified, then all "visor" requirements must be applied to all applicable components of the external SCBA system. First Revision No. 87-NFPA [New Section after ] Submitter Full Name: Kristin Williamson Organization: The DuPont Company, Inc. Submittal Date: Thu Nov 13 09:40:19 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The Technical Committee decided to address non-encapsulating vapor-protective ensembles to NFPA 1994 as Class 1.

238 05 of 222 4/3/ :31 AM Public Comment No. 15-NFPA [ Section No ] Procedure. Specimens shall be tested in accordance with Section 9.6 of ANSI Z87.1, American National Standard for Occupational and Educational Personal Eye and Face Protective Devices, with the following modifications: (1) Visor material shall be securely mounted to the test fixture as shown in Figure (2) The sample number shall be indicated. (3) The impact location shall be in the center of the visor. COMMENT: We have no experience with the test procedure ANSI Z87.1, an explanation would be welcomed as to the differences between ANSI Z87.1 compared to European Standard EN 166 Figure Test Fixture. We have no experience with the test procedure ANSI Z87.1, an explanation would be welcomed, e.g. as a separate annex, as to the differences between ANSI Z87.1 compared to European Standard EN 166 Public Input No. 15-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: Thomas von Hoegen Organization: Draeger Safety Co. Submittal Date: Wed Nov 05 07:20:53 EST 2014 Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: ANSI standards are used in North America. Specifically, the ANSI Z87 standard is also used in all project standards.

Page 1 of 144 First Revision No. 73-NFPA 1991-2014 [ Global Input ] Change title to: "Standard on Vapor-Protective Ensembles for Hazardous Materials Emergencies and CBRN Terrorism Incidents" Also, make

More information

Technical Data Package

Technical Data Package Technical Data Package DuPont Tychem BR & Tychem LV BR611T & LV611T Compliant with Class 2 of NFPA 1994, 2007 Edition And NFPA 1992, 2005 Edition Consult the DuPont Tychem User Manual for Instructions

More information

Technical Data Package

Technical Data Package Technical Data Package DuPont Tychem CPF3 Coveralls C3198T & C3199T Compliant with NFPA 1992, 2012 Edition Consult the DuPont Tychem User Manual for Instructions on Use Revised December 2013 This information

More information

First Revision No. 16-NFPA [ Section No ]

First Revision No. 16-NFPA [ Section No ] Page 1 of 25 First Revision No. 16-NFPA 1952-2013 [ Section No. 2.3.2 ] 2.3.2 ASTM Publications. ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. ASTM B 117,

More information

Selection, Care and Use of Chemical Protective Clothing. Jason Cole Director of R&D Kappler, Inc.

Selection, Care and Use of Chemical Protective Clothing. Jason Cole Director of R&D Kappler, Inc. Selection, Care and Use of Chemical Protective Clothing Jason Cole Director of R&D Kappler, Inc. Introduction OSHA Low Hanging Fruit Top Violations of OSHA Regulations # 1 - Failure to Perform Hazard Assessment

More information

NFPA TECHNICAL COMMITTEE FOR Special Operations Clothing and Equipment

NFPA TECHNICAL COMMITTEE FOR Special Operations Clothing and Equipment NFPA TECHNICAL COMMITTEE FOR Special Operations Clothing and Equipment Hilton Hotel Marina Ft. Lauderdale, FL April 29-30, 2014 Agenda 1. Call to order at 8:00am April 29th 2. Introductions 3. Opening

More information

SPECIFICATION FOR ONESuit Pro NFPA 1991, 2005 ED. CERTIFIED VAPOR PROTECTIVE ENSEMBLE NFPA 1994 CLASS 2, 2007 ED. CERTIFIED FIRST RESPONDER ENSEMBLE

SPECIFICATION FOR ONESuit Pro NFPA 1991, 2005 ED. CERTIFIED VAPOR PROTECTIVE ENSEMBLE NFPA 1994 CLASS 2, 2007 ED. CERTIFIED FIRST RESPONDER ENSEMBLE March 25, 2009 SPECIFICATION FOR ONESuit Pro NFPA 1991, 2005 ED. CERTIFIED VAPOR PROTECTIVE ENSEMBLE NFPA 1994 CLASS 2, 2007 ED. CERTIFIED FIRST RESPONDER ENSEMBLE 1. SCOPE 1.1 Scope. This specification

More information

Classified by UL to NFPA 1994 Class 1, 2 and 2R (2018 Ed.) and NFPA 1992 (2018 Ed.)

Classified by UL to NFPA 1994 Class 1, 2 and 2R (2018 Ed.) and NFPA 1992 (2018 Ed.) Classified by UL to NFPA 1994 Class 1, 2 and 2R (2018 Ed.) and NFPA 1992 (2018 Ed.) 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Product Information Sizing Test Data Shelf Life Safety Considerations Limitations of Use Interface

More information

SEI Certification Program Manual

SEI Certification Program Manual Schedule of Initial s- Footwear Label Content (Structural) Label Content (Proximity) 5.1 & 5.2; Specific content and height. English. 5.1 & 5.3; Specific content and height. English. Checklist $35 1 copy

More information

SEI Certification Program Manual

SEI Certification Program Manual Schedule of Initial Fees- Gloves Paragraph; Pass/Fail Criteria Intertek NFPA 1977-2011 Preconditioning Procedure Cost Sample Needs Category of N/C Label Content 5.3; 2.5 mm high letters indicating compliance;

More information

LION ERS Glove System

LION ERS Glove System USER INSTRUCTION, SAFETY AND TRAINING GUIDE LION ERS Glove System 7200 POE AVE. DAYTON, OHIO 45414 www.lionprotects.com June 2018 IMPORTANT! You must register the warranty on your Gloves. Go to http://www.lionprotects.com/

More information

Page 1 of 59 Second Revision No. 29-NFPA 1952-2013 [ Section No. 2.2 ] 2.2 NFPA Publications. National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471. NFPA 1500, Standard on Fire

More information

Hazmat Glove. ONESUIT Hazmat Glove User Guide and Technical Manual. When It Comes to Safety, There s Only ONE Choice MH60350

Hazmat Glove. ONESUIT Hazmat Glove User Guide and Technical Manual. When It Comes to Safety, There s Only ONE Choice MH60350 Hazmat Glove When It Comes to Safety, There s Only ONE Choice ONESUIT Hazmat Glove User Guide and Technical Manual Classified by UL to NFPA 1994 Class 2 (2012 Ed.) Classified by UL to NFPA 1992 (2012 Ed.)

More information

A. Evaluation of the written program

A. Evaluation of the written program A. Evaluation of the written program Begin your audit with an evaluation of the written respiratory protection program. In addition to the operating procedures describing respirator selection and use in

More information

ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS:

ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS: Medtronic ENT Rev. C Ref. 9.0 Page 1 of 5 1.0 PURPOSE: 1.1. The personal protective equipment (PPE) program is provided to decrease exposure to job-related hazards. This program identifies responsibilities,

More information

HAZWOPER 8-Hr Refresher Aug. 20, 2012

HAZWOPER 8-Hr Refresher Aug. 20, 2012 Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals Tribal Lands and Environment: A National Forum on Solid Waste, Emergency Response, Contaminated Sites and USTs August 20-23, 2012 Coos Bay, Oregon HAZWOPER

More information

Respiratory Protective Equipment

Respiratory Protective Equipment Page 1 of 5 Health and Safety Fact File - Protective Clothing Respiratory Protective Equipment Respiratory protective equipment (RPE) selected for compliance with the COSHH regulations must conform to

More information

UGGED, DURABLE. HEM-BIO GARMENTS LION CBRN PPE for enhanced dexterity and superior protection.

UGGED, DURABLE. HEM-BIO GARMENTS LION CBRN PPE for enhanced dexterity and superior protection. UGGED, DURABLE HEM-BIO GARMENTS LION CBRN PPE for enhanced dexterity and superior protection. MT94 The MT94 (Multi-Threat) CBRN ensemble offers first responders advanced protection when facing some of

More information

Change "preconditioning" to "conditioning" in: , , , ,

Change preconditioning to conditioning in: , , , , of 178 10/7/2015 11:43 AM First Revision No. 44-NFPA 1951-2015 [ Global Input ] Change "preconditioning" to "conditioning" in: 8.1.14.7, 8.2.8.4, 8.2.9.3, 8.16.8.3, 8.17.8.3 Change "preconditioned" to

More information

TEST RESULTS OF PHASE 2 LEVEL B SUITS TO CHALLENGE BY CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE AGENTS AND SIMULANTS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

TEST RESULTS OF PHASE 2 LEVEL B SUITS TO CHALLENGE BY CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE AGENTS AND SIMULANTS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ECBC-TR- TEST RESULTS OF PHASE 2 LEVEL B SUITS TO CHALLENGE BY CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE AGENTS AND SIMULANTS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Robert S. Lindsay RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY DIRECTORATE February 2001

More information

TEST RESULTS OF PHASE 2 LEVEL A SUITS TO CHALLENGE BY CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE AGENTS AND SIMULANTS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

TEST RESULTS OF PHASE 2 LEVEL A SUITS TO CHALLENGE BY CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE AGENTS AND SIMULANTS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ECBC-TR- TEST RESULTS OF PHASE 2 LEVEL A SUITS TO CHALLENGE BY CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE AGENTS AND SIMULANTS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Robert S. Lindsay RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY DIRECTORATE February 2001

More information

Respiratory Protection Self-Inspection Checklist

Respiratory Protection Self-Inspection Checklist Respiratory Protection Self-Inspection Checklist Guidelines: This checklist applies to the use of either atmosphere-supplying or air-purifying respirators being worn, voluntarily or otherwise, for comfort

More information

DuPont Personal Protection

DuPont Personal Protection DuPont Personal Protection Revised June 2007 DuPont Tychem Garment User Manual Applies to: Tychem Vapor Protective Garments Tychem Liquid Splash Protective Garments NFPA Compliant Tychem Vapor Protective

More information

Phalanx Alpha Phalanx Beta and Ultra Elite

Phalanx Alpha Phalanx Beta and Ultra Elite Phalanx Alpha Phalanx Beta and Ultra Elite riot control agent gas masks instructions parts list NIOSH approved for respiratory protection in atmospheres containing CN and CS and particulates under the

More information

Respiratory Protection Self Inspection Checklist

Respiratory Protection Self Inspection Checklist Optional Information Name of School: Date of Inspection: Vocational Program/Course/Room: Signature of Inspector: Respiratory Protection Self Inspection Checklist Guidelines: This checklist covers some

More information

PPE Refresher- Levels of Protection

PPE Refresher- Levels of Protection PPE Refresher- Levels of Protection The combination of respiratory and chemical protective clothing is described as Levels of Protection A, B or C. Level D is work clothes; these provide no respiratory

More information

NIOSH Task Number 18388

NIOSH Task Number 18388 National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory Technology Evaluation Branch Certified Product Investigation Program Report of Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus Second Stage Regulators Submitted by

More information

TITLE: Hazmat-Personal Protective Equipment

TITLE: Hazmat-Personal Protective Equipment 3.4.2.1 Hazmat-Personal Protective Equipment YOUR ORGANIZATION STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES/GUIDELINES TITLE: Hazmat-Personal Protective Equipment NUMBER: 3.4.2.1 PREPARED BY: SECTION/TOPIC: Hazardous

More information

Dräger CPS 7900 Gas-Tight Suit

Dräger CPS 7900 Gas-Tight Suit Dräger CPS 7900 Gas-Tight Suit Tailor-made for use under extreme conditions: The gas-tight Dräger CPS 7900 provides excellent protection against industrial chemicals, biological agents, and other toxic

More information

When it comes to safety, there s only ONE choice

When it comes to safety, there s only ONE choice ONESuit Shield User Guide and Technical Manual When it comes to safety, there s only ONE choice Certified Model NFPA 1994 Class 2 (2012 ed.) Certified Model NFPA 1992 (2012 ed.) Table of Contents Section

More information

Sample Responses to NIJ Selection Guide Questions on Personal Protection Equipment NIJ Guide

Sample Responses to NIJ Selection Guide Questions on Personal Protection Equipment NIJ Guide Sample Responses to NIJ Selection Guide Questions on Personal Protection Equipment NIJ Guide 102-00 Buying detection, protection, decontamination, and communication equipment to respond to the threatened

More information

TEMPLE UNIVERSITY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND RADIATION SAFETY

TEMPLE UNIVERSITY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND RADIATION SAFETY Purpose In accordance with applicable regulations and Temple University, this policy was developed to minimize exposure to glutaraldehyde. Applicability This policy is applicable to all Temple University

More information

Northern Kentucky University Issue Date: 11/02/2018 Revised Date: Title: PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT PROCEDURE OBJECTIVE AND PURPOSE

Northern Kentucky University Issue Date: 11/02/2018 Revised Date: Title: PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT PROCEDURE OBJECTIVE AND PURPOSE Northern Kentucky University Issue Date: 11/02/2018 Revised Date: Policy Link: Occupational Safety Policy Title: PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT PROCEDURE OBJECTIVE AND PURPOSE The objective of this procedure

More information

C H E M I C A L P R O T E C T I V E C L O T H I N G.

C H E M I C A L P R O T E C T I V E C L O T H I N G. C H E M I C A L P R O T E C T I V E C L O T H I N G Tychem TK. Superior Chemical Protective Clothing from Lakeland. Tychem TK is the best protection you can wear in hazardous chemical environments. This

More information

EDGEWOOD CHEMICAL BIOLOGICAL CENTER U.S. ARMY SOLDIER AND BIOLOGICAL CHEMICAL COMMAND

EDGEWOOD CHEMICAL BIOLOGICAL CENTER U.S. ARMY SOLDIER AND BIOLOGICAL CHEMICAL COMMAND EDGEWOOD CHEMICAL BIOLOGICAL CENTER U.S. ARMY SOLDIER AND BIOLOGICAL CHEMICAL COMMAND TEST RESULTS OF PHASE 2 LEVEL A SUITS TO CHALLENGE BY CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE AGENTS AND SIMULANTS EXECUTIVE

More information

Garment User Manual. Applies to: DuPont Tychem Vapor Protective Level A Garments. DuPont Tychem Encapsulated Level B Garments

Garment User Manual. Applies to: DuPont Tychem Vapor Protective Level A Garments. DuPont Tychem Encapsulated Level B Garments Garment User Manual Applies to: DuPont Tychem Vapor Protective Level A Garments DuPont Tychem Encapsulated Level B Garments NFPA Compliant DuPont Tychem Garments Certified to NFPA 1991 or NFPA 1994, Class

More information

Fire Escape Hood OPERATION AND INSTRUCTIONS

Fire Escape Hood OPERATION AND INSTRUCTIONS TM Fire Escape Hood OPERATION AND INSTRUCTIONS THIS MANUAL MUST BE CAREFULLY READ AND FOLLOWED BY ALL PERSONS WHO HAVE, OR WILL HAVE, THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR USING THE S-CAP FIRE ESCAPE HOOD. THESE ESCAPE

More information

Unit 3.3 Personal Protective Equipment (Core)

Unit 3.3 Personal Protective Equipment (Core) INSTRUCTOR GUIDE Unit 3.3 Personal Protective Equipment (Core) INSTRUCTOR GUIDE TERMINAL OBJECTIVE Given incident scenarios, the participant will be able to identify the basic PPE requirements for operations

More information

PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT

PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT 0 PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT Supplement to Standard Training Module TRAINING REQUIREMENTS OVERVIEW This standard Vivid training module provides a general overview of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).

More information

Who Are Respirex? Some CBRN related references:

Who Are Respirex? Some CBRN related references: Who Are Respirex? We are a specialist UK manufacturer of chemical protective clothing and equipment, first founded in 1957. Offering a complete range of protective clothing covering government, petrochemical,

More information

TEMPLE UNIVERSITY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND RADIATION SAFETY

TEMPLE UNIVERSITY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND RADIATION SAFETY Page 1 of 9 ISSUED: 5/00 REVISED: 08/06 Introduction Purpose: In accordance with applicable regulations and Temple University, this policy was developed to minimize exposure to Ethylene Oxide. Applicability

More information

PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT GUIDANCE

PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT GUIDANCE Legislation requires a workplace to identify and assess significant hazards (via a risk assessment) associated with workplace activities. The purpose of the assessment is to enable a valid decision about

More information

Vision Painting Inc Safety Management System

Vision Painting Inc Safety Management System Abrasive Blasting 1. PURPOSE The purpose of this program is to provide training and qualification guidelines for the safe operation of Abrasive Blasting. The Safety Officer is responsible for facilitating

More information

75 Years of Health and Safety Guidance

75 Years of Health and Safety Guidance H&S Guide: 60 Working Risks Personal Protective Equipment Personal Protective Equipment (also known as PPE) Employers have duties concerning the provision and use of personal protective equipment at work.

More information

Turnout gear is comprised of boots, coat, pants, suspenders, hood, gloves, helmet, and SCBA Facepiece.

Turnout gear is comprised of boots, coat, pants, suspenders, hood, gloves, helmet, and SCBA Facepiece. Purpose: Turnout gear is a vital piece of personal protection for every member of the Fire Department. The City of Bryan Fire Department will provide its members with protective clothing and equipment

More information

Statement of Standard for Full Facepiece Air Purifying Respirators (APR)

Statement of Standard for Full Facepiece Air Purifying Respirators (APR) Statement of Standard for Full Facepiece Air Purifying Respirators (APR) 1.0 Purpose: March 7, 2003 Revision 1; March 17, 2003 Revision 2; April 4, 2003 Fig. 1 Updated; January 30, 2004 The purpose of

More information

Hazardous Materials Awareness & Operations

Hazardous Materials Awareness & Operations Hazardous Materials Awareness & Operations Skill Sheet Package Based on NFPA 472: Standard for Competence of Responders to Hazardous Materials/Weapons of Mass Destruction Incidents, 2013 edition. Alabama

More information

OFFICE OF STATE HUMAN RESOURCES

OFFICE OF STATE HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICE OF STATE HUMAN RESOURCES NUMBER: PPE-1 TOTAL PAGES: 8 SUBJECT: Personal Protective Equipment Program Effective Date: Revision Date: Revision #: RELATED LEGISLATION: The purpose of this program is

More information

NFPA TECHNICAL COMMITTEE FOR Special Operations Clothing and Equipment

NFPA TECHNICAL COMMITTEE FOR Special Operations Clothing and Equipment NFPA TECHNICAL COMMITTEE FOR Special Operations Clothing and Equipment Omni San Diego Hotel San Diego, CA December 10 12, 2013 Agenda 1. Call to order 2. Introduction and attendance 3. Opening remarks

More information

HazMat Awareness and Operations Study Guide.

HazMat Awareness and Operations Study Guide. HazMat Awareness and Operations Study Guide. 1. Define a hazardous material. 2. Describe the different levels of hazardous materials training: awareness, operations, technician, and specialist. 3. Understand

More information

RJS RESPIRATORY & CHEMICAL PROTECTIVE SUIT. For use with the 3M Jupiter Powered Respirator

RJS RESPIRATORY & CHEMICAL PROTECTIVE SUIT. For use with the 3M Jupiter Powered Respirator RJS RESPIRATORY & CHEMICAL PROTECTIVE SUIT For use with the 3M Jupiter Powered Respirator RJS Respiratory and Chemical Protective Suit The RJS 300 Chemical Respirator Suit is a one-piece Type 3 chemical

More information

FACILITIES MANAGEMENT OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY Respiratory Protection Policy 03/20/15 Last Revision

FACILITIES MANAGEMENT OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY Respiratory Protection Policy 03/20/15 Last Revision FACILITIES MANAGEMENT OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY Respiratory Protection Policy 03/20/15 Last Revision 1.0 Intent: 2.0 Scope: It is the intention of the University at Albany to provide a

More information

Scarborough Fire Department. Personnel Protection Equipment

Scarborough Fire Department. Personnel Protection Equipment Scarborough Fire Department Personnel Protection Equipment All personal protection equipment used in the Scarborough Fire Department meets or exceeds the required standards in NFPA 1500, Standard On Fire

More information

Title: Abrasive Blasting Effective Date: 11/17/2014 Control Number: THG_0034 Revision Number: 1 Date: 10/22/2015 Annual Review Completed: 5/13/2015

Title: Abrasive Blasting Effective Date: 11/17/2014 Control Number: THG_0034 Revision Number: 1 Date: 10/22/2015 Annual Review Completed: 5/13/2015 Title: Abrasive Blasting Effective Date: 11/17/2014 Control Number: THG_0034 Revision Number: 1 Date: 10/22/2015 Annual Review Completed: 5/13/2015 Abrasive Blasting CONTENTS I. PURPOSE II. SCOPE III.

More information

BS EN 14605: 2005 Type 3 or 4 Protective Clothing

BS EN 14605: 2005 Type 3 or 4 Protective Clothing BS EN 14605: 2005 Type 3 or 4 Protective Clothing Protective Clothing against liquid chemicals Performance requirements for clothing with liquid-tight (Type 3) or spray tight (Type 4) connections, including

More information

Protective device that covers the nose and mouth or the entire face or head to guard the wearer against hazardous atmospheres

Protective device that covers the nose and mouth or the entire face or head to guard the wearer against hazardous atmospheres Protective device that covers the nose and mouth or the entire face or head to guard the wearer against hazardous atmospheres Working in an area with insufficient oxygen Situations where harmful dusts,

More information

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AND TECHNICAL OPERATIONS RESPIRATORY PROTECTION EQUIPMENT. NFPA 1986 First Draft Meeting. March 3-4, 2015.

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AND TECHNICAL OPERATIONS RESPIRATORY PROTECTION EQUIPMENT. NFPA 1986 First Draft Meeting. March 3-4, 2015. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AND TECHNICAL OPERATIONS RESPIRATORY PROTECTION EQUIPMENT NFPA 1986 First Draft Meeting March 3-4, 2015 Orlando, FL AGENDA Meeting Start Time: March 3, 2015 at 0900 1. Self-introduction

More information

Half Facepiece Respirator Assembly 5000 Series, Dual Cartridge, Organic Vapor/P95, Disposable

Half Facepiece Respirator Assembly 5000 Series, Dual Cartridge, Organic Vapor/P95, Disposable Half Facepiece Respirator Assembly 5000 Series, Dual Cartridge, Organic Vapor/P95, Disposable User Instructions for 3M Organic Vapor Respirator, P95 Assembly 51P71/52P71/53P71 Important: Keep these User

More information

HAZARDOUS WASTE OPERATIONS AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN Kenyon College

HAZARDOUS WASTE OPERATIONS AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN Kenyon College HAZARDOUS WASTE OPERATIONS AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN Kenyon College PURPOSE The purpose of this Emergency Response Plan is to plan for and execute an organized response to hazardous waste spills or releases

More information

PremAire INSTRUCTIONS FOR VORTEX TUBE MODE OF OPERATION

PremAire INSTRUCTIONS FOR VORTEX TUBE MODE OF OPERATION DUAL SUPPLY REGULATOR ESCAPE CYLINDER VORTEX MAIN INLET PremAire INSTRUCTIONS FOR VORTEX TUBE MODE OF OPERATION WARNING THIS MANUAL MUST BE READ CAREFULLY BY ALL PERSONS WHO HAVE OR WILL HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY

More information

Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) BBK. Working together. Living in safety.

Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) BBK. Working together. Living in safety. (PPE) BBK. Working together. Living in safety. Different PPE and its usage! Pictures by Fun-E@mail-Arbeitsschutz Different areas of application Section II employer`s obligations Article 5 1. The employer

More information

Half Facepiece Respirator Assembly 5000 Series, Dual Cartridge, Disposable

Half Facepiece Respirator Assembly 5000 Series, Dual Cartridge, Disposable Half Facepiece Respirator Assembly 5000 Series, Dual Cartridge, Disposable User Instructions for 3M Organic Vapor Respirator Assembly 5101/5201/5301; 3M Organic Vapor/Acid Gas Respirator Assembly 5103/5203/5303;

More information

CHAPTER 4 PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT

CHAPTER 4 PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT CHAPTER 4 PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT Section 1. Head Protection. (a) An approved helmet (safety hard hat) shall be required to be worn by all employees while within working areas, with the exception

More information

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT Table of Contents A. Scope... 1 B. General Requirements... 1 C. Responsibility... 1 1. Supervisor... 1 2. Department

More information

ONESuit PRO User Guide and Technical Manual

ONESuit PRO User Guide and Technical Manual ONESuit PRO User Guide and Technical Manual This user information is to be removed ONLY by the end user A Singular Approach to Hazmat Protection Cert. Model NFPA 1991 (2005 ed.) Maximum Protection. Minimum

More information

Material Safety Data Sheet

Material Safety Data Sheet HD-3007 HD3007 Revised 27-MAY-2008 Printed 27-MAY-2008 CHEMICAL PRODUCT/COMPANY IDENTIFICATION Company Identification MANUFACTURER/DISTRIBUTOR HD MicroSystems(TM) Cheesequake Road Parlin New Jersey USA

More information

Personal Protective Equipment

Personal Protective Equipment Personal Protective Equipment General This section addresses eye, face, head, hand and foot protection. respiratory and hearing protection. Separate programs exist for Employees will be provided personal

More information

Evaluation of Consumer Personal Protective Equipment: EMERGENCY ESCAPE MASKS

Evaluation of Consumer Personal Protective Equipment: EMERGENCY ESCAPE MASKS Evaluation of Consumer Personal Protective Equipment: EMERGENCY ESCAPE MASKS October 2007 Rohit Khanna Division of Combustion and Fire Sciences Directorate for Engineering Sciences U.S. Consumer Product

More information

RESPIRATORY PROTECTION PROGRAM

RESPIRATORY PROTECTION PROGRAM RESPIRATORY PROTECTION PROGRAM Compliant to 29 CFR 1910.134 NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY Las Cruces, New Mexico Environmental, Health & Safety (EH&S) 505-646-3327 http://safety.nmsu.edu NMSU Respiratory

More information

ALBUQUERQUE PUBLIC SCHOOLS RESPIRATORY PROTECTION PROGRAM

ALBUQUERQUE PUBLIC SCHOOLS RESPIRATORY PROTECTION PROGRAM ALBUQUERQUE PUBLIC SCHOOLS RESPIRATORY PROTECTION PROGRAM Risk Management Department August, 2008 ALBUQUERQUE PUBLIC SCHOOLS RISK MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT RESPIRATORY PROTECTION PROGRAM TABLE OF CONTENTS

More information

PINE HILL FIRE DEPARTMENT

PINE HILL FIRE DEPARTMENT PINE HILL FIRE DEPARTMENT STANDARD OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES Operations-22 Subject: PPE (Turnout Gear) Effective Date: 3/1/2008 Revised 11/11/2014 Pages: 1 of 5 The environments in which firefighters perform

More information

National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory

National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory Robert Stein CV&SDB/NPPTL/NIOSH Respiratory Protection Let s Clear the Air Quality Partnerships Enhance Worker Safety and Health DISCLAIMER: The findings

More information

E3628 THE RESPIRATORY PROTECTION PROGRAM: EMPLOYEE TRAINING. Leader s Guide ERI Safety Videos EMPLOYEE TRAINING

E3628 THE RESPIRATORY PROTECTION PROGRAM: EMPLOYEE TRAINING. Leader s Guide ERI Safety Videos EMPLOYEE TRAINING E3628 THE RESPIRATORY PROTECTION PROGRAM: EMPLOYEE TRAINING Leader s Guide 2007 ERI Safety Videos THE RESPIRATORY PROTECTION PROGRAM: EMPLOYEE TRAINING This easy-to-use Leader s Guide is provided to assist

More information

Personnel Protective Equipment

Personnel Protective Equipment Personal Protective Equipment For Law Enforcement Personnel Protective Equipment Course Objectives 1. The participant will be able to choose which respiratory protection should be used for a given hazard.

More information

Respirator Fit Testing DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Information on the Requirements Types of Respirators & Filters

Respirator Fit Testing DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Information on the Requirements Types of Respirators & Filters UNITED STATES Respirator Fit Testing DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Information on the Requirements Types of Respirators & Filters This information is about the respirator fit testing requirements for any worker

More information

ANSI / ASSE Z88.2 American National Standard Practices for Respiratory Protection (1992 rev. versus 2015 rev.)

ANSI / ASSE Z88.2 American National Standard Practices for Respiratory Protection (1992 rev. versus 2015 rev.) ANSI / ASSE Z88.2 BACKGROUND: A substantial body of research has been published since the 1992 revision of Z88.2. This information related to the proper use and performance of respiratory protection in

More information

Standards of Practice Respiratory Protection: Appendix C

Standards of Practice Respiratory Protection: Appendix C Document Authority: EHS Coordinator Standards of Practice Respiratory Protection: Appendix C Document Custodian: EH&S Coordinator Effective Date: 09.01.15 Issuing Dept: College of Agriculture EH&S Next

More information

Material Safety Data Sheet

Material Safety Data Sheet Product Name Supplier Product use MSDS# Date of Preparation/Revision In case of emergency Material Safety Data Sheet Flammable Gas Mixture Argon 1-97.06% / Hydrogen.94-99% Section 1. Chemical product and

More information

This program shall contain, as a minimum, the following components:

This program shall contain, as a minimum, the following components: Section 1: Introduction 1.1 Policy It is the policy of the Pemberton Township Fire Department to maintain comprehensive safety and occupational health programs predicted upon sound engineering, education,

More information

SOUTH LYON FIRE DEPARTMENT Manual of Procedures 403

SOUTH LYON FIRE DEPARTMENT Manual of Procedures 403 PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT Issued: June 1, 2012 Revised: September 25, 2015 Approved: Chief Mike Kennedy I. SCOPE This procedure applies to all employees required to work in hazardous environments.

More information

THE ADVANTAGES OF USING A NEGATIVE PRESSURE RESPIRATOR HOOD

THE ADVANTAGES OF USING A NEGATIVE PRESSURE RESPIRATOR HOOD THE ADVANTAGES OF USING A NEGATIVE PRESSURE RESPIRATOR HOOD Guidance On The Use Of Hoods With Chemical Protective Respirators And Chemical Protective Suits Produced by the Chemical Weapons Improved Response

More information

Respiratory Protection Program

Respiratory Protection Program California State University, Chico Department of Environmental Health and Safety Table of Contents Section 1.0 Introduction... 1-1 2.0 Responsibilities... 2-1 2.1 Environmental Health and Safety Responsibilities...

More information

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TECHNICIAN

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TECHNICIAN , 6.4.3 PERFORMING CONTROL FUNCTIONS IDENTIFIED JPR - HMT #1a IN PLAN OF ACTION Revised 6/22/2006 STANDARD: 6-4.3(1) and 6-4.3.(2) TASK: 6-4.3(1) The candidate shall select the appropriate material or

More information

TEST RESULTS OF AIR-PERMEABLE CHARCOAL IMPREGNATED SUITS TO CHALLENGE BY CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICALWARFARE AGENTS AND SIMULANTS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

TEST RESULTS OF AIR-PERMEABLE CHARCOAL IMPREGNATED SUITS TO CHALLENGE BY CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICALWARFARE AGENTS AND SIMULANTS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ECBC-TR- TEST RESULTS OF AIR-PERMEABLE CHARCOAL IMPREGNATED SUITS TO CHALLENGE BY CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICALWARFARE AGENTS AND SIMULANTS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Robert S. Lindsay RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY DIRECTORATE

More information

SUBSTATION MAINTENANCE ELECTRICAL OPERATING PROCEDURE

SUBSTATION MAINTENANCE ELECTRICAL OPERATING PROCEDURE Page 1 of 6 A. PURPOSE AND SCOPE This procedure establishes safe working practices for handling sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6 ) gas and release minimization practices. This document also specifies methods

More information

COLUMBUS STATE COMMUNITY COLLEGE EMPLOYEE SAFETY MANUAL

COLUMBUS STATE COMMUNITY COLLEGE EMPLOYEE SAFETY MANUAL COLUMBUS STATE COMMUNITY COLLEGE EMPLOYEE SAFETY MANUAL (Hand, Eye, Face, Head, Foot, and Respiratory) Effective October 15, 1995 Page 1 of 15 Updated September 2010 A. At the request of the College Safety

More information

SAFETY DATA SHEET PRODUCT NAME Sulfur hexafluoride 1.2 RELEVANT IDENTIFIED USES OF THE SUBSTANCE OR MIXTURE AND USES ADVISED AGAINST :

SAFETY DATA SHEET PRODUCT NAME Sulfur hexafluoride 1.2 RELEVANT IDENTIFIED USES OF THE SUBSTANCE OR MIXTURE AND USES ADVISED AGAINST : SULFUR HEXAFLUORIDE PAGE NO. 1 of 10 1 PRODUCT AND COMPANY IDENTIFICATION 1.1 PRODUCT IDENTIFIER : 1.1.1 PRODUCT NAME Sulfur hexafluoride 1.1.2 SYNONYMS Sulfur fluoride (SF6), (OC-6-11)-; Sulfur fluoride

More information

LEATHER GOODS PPE. Personal Protective Equipment. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) WORK UNIFORMS AND PPE NJSP HMRU

LEATHER GOODS PPE. Personal Protective Equipment. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) WORK UNIFORMS AND PPE NJSP HMRU (PPE) Objectives PPE Module 4 CONTACT WITH MATERIAL OFFENSIVE ACTIONS CONTACT WITH MATERIAL MAY BE REQUIRED TECHNICIAN OR SPECIALIST TRAINED PERSONNEL ONLY WORK UNIFORMS AND PPE Does your work uniform

More information

PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT

PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT C H A P T E R 9 PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT 9.1. General Personal protective equipment (PPE) when properly used and maintained saves lives and reduces injury and illness. PPE includes equipment for eyes,

More information

RMM 311 Respiratory Protection Program Page 2 March 2013

RMM 311 Respiratory Protection Program Page 2 March 2013 RMM 311 Respiratory Protection Program Page 2 Z180.1-00 Compressed Breathing Air and Systems. 3.3 NIOSH Standard 42 CFR 84 (1995) for Non Powered Particulate Filtering Respirators 3.4 McMaster University

More information

MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET

MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE MATERIAL AND SUPPLIER PRODUCT NAME: PRODUCTNUMBER : DNA POLYMERASE 1753 (42 UL) F2025G3 KIT NAME: AMINO ALLYL MESSAGEAMP II ARNA AMPLIFICATION KIT KIT

More information

User Information for Zytron and Frontline Level A Garments THIS INFORMATION PACKET MAY NOT BE REMOVED EXCEPT BY THE END USER

User Information for Zytron and Frontline Level A Garments THIS INFORMATION PACKET MAY NOT BE REMOVED EXCEPT BY THE END USER User Information for Zytron and Frontline Level A Garments THIS INFORMATION PACKET MAY NOT BE REMOVED EXCEPT BY THE END USER Kappler, Inc. P.O. Box490 115 Grimes Drive Guntersville, AL 35976 256-505-4005

More information

RESPIRATORS & FIT TESTING

RESPIRATORS & FIT TESTING RESPIRATORS & FIT TESTING Presented By: Jamie Papian Licensed Lead & Asbestos Inspector Licensed Lead & Asbestos Abatement Supervisor HUD Housing Quality Standards Inspector State of Iowa, Illinois and

More information

Checklist for care of Respirators

Checklist for care of Respirators Checklist for care of Respirators Inspect the respirator before and after each use and during cleaning. Inspect equipment designated for "emergency use" at least monthly, and after each use. Replace all

More information

POLICY AND PROCEDURE DIVISION OF FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES

POLICY AND PROCEDURE DIVISION OF FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES Page 1 o Page 1 of 12 RESPIRATORY PROTECTION POLICY Issued by: Fire Chief Policy No. 26-06AM Authority: Code Section 21-2.(d)(4) Effective Date: April 15, 2005 SUMMARY: ADDRESS: STAFF: BACKGROUND: This

More information

Dräger CPS 7900 olive, beige NBC Suit

Dräger CPS 7900 olive, beige NBC Suit Dräger CPS 7900 olive, beige NBC Suit Tailor-made for use in CBRN hazard situations: The gas-tight Dräger CPS 7900 provides excellent protection against industrial chemicals, biological agents, and other

More information

Part 18 Personal Protective Equipment

Part 18 Personal Protective Equipment Part 18 Personal Protective Equipment Duty to use personal protective equipment 228(1) If the hazard assessment indicates the need for personal protective equipment, an employer must ensure that (a) workers

More information

Material Safety Data Sheet

Material Safety Data Sheet Product Name Supplier Product use MSDS# Date of Preparation/Revision In case of emergency Material Safety Data Sheet Section 1. Chemical product and company identification Physical state Emergency overview

More information

PPE PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT PROGRAM

PPE PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT PROGRAM PPE PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT PROGRAM April 2017 CONTENTS Section 1: Introduction... 1 Section 2: Purpose...1 Section 3: Roles and Responsibilities... 2 Section 4: Hazard Assessment and Equipment Selection...

More information

Dräger CPS 7900 Gas-Tight Suit

Dräger CPS 7900 Gas-Tight Suit Dräger CPS 7900 Gas-Tight Suit Tailor-made for use under extreme conditions: The gas-tight Dräger CPS 7900 provides excellent protection against industrial chemicals, biological agents, and other toxic

More information