1

MINUTES OF THE MEETING

CORRELATING COMMITTEE ON FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES

PROTECTIVE CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT

1977, 1984, & 1991 CC FIRST DRAFT MEETING Bloomington, MN

24-25 June 2014

24 June 2014 Agenda Items 1, 2 and 3: Call to Order, Roll Call of Members and Guests, Chairman’s Remarks Correlating Committee Chairman Bill Haskell called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. and a roll call of members was conducted. Guests were asked to identify themselves. The following members and guests were present: Principal Members, Alternates (A), and Non-voting (NV) members present:

Bill Haskell, Chairman NIOSH-NPPTL Ben Mauti, Acting Secretary MSA Safety / Compressed Gas Association David Trebisacci, Staff Liaison NFPA Christina Baxter (NV) TC on Hazardous Materials PC&E James Brinkley IAFF Brandi Chestang (A) US Dept. of the Navy Steve Corrado Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. Cristine Fargo ISEA Robert Freese Globe Manufacturing Company Tim Gardner (A) 3M Company Beverly Gulledge (Telephone) Tyco/Scott David Haston USDA Kim Henry (A) PBI Performance Products Thomas Hosea US Dept. of the Navy Stephen King (NV) (Telephone) TC on Structural and Proximity Fire PC&E Karen Lehtonen (Telephone) Lion Apparel, Inc. Mike McKenna Michael McKenna & Associates, LLC Brian Montgomery (NV) TC on Nonstructural Fire Fighting SCBA Amanda Newsom (A) Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. Anthony Petrilli (A) U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service Dan Rossos (NV) TC on Respiratory Protection Equipment Jeff Stull International Personal Protection, Inc. Rick Swan (NV) TC on Wildland Fire Fighting PC&E Tim Tomlinson Addison Fire Department Robert Tutterow FIERO / NFPA Fire Service Section William Van Lent FEMSA Harry Winer HIP Consulting LLC

2

Guests Present: James Cliver Milliken & Company Ben Mauti MSA Safety Marni Schmid Fortunes Collide Marketing Steven Weinstein Honeywell Safety Products

Chairman Haskell welcomed the committee and thanked them for their service. Bill updated the committee on NIOSH’s ongoing activities, including commentary on the NFPA 1981 June 30 expiration date and the upcoming August 20 NIOSH Firefighter Fatality Investigation stakeholder webmeeting.

Agenda Item 4: Approval of the Previous CC Conference Call Minutes The Minutes of the conference call held on March 26, 2014 were approved without changes by unanimous consent.

MOTION BY KIM HENRY, SECOND BY TIM TOMLINSON

To approve the minutes of the 14 May 2014 Web Conference Meeting Minutes.

MOTION CARRIED

Agenda Item 5: NFPA Staff Liaison Report David Trebisacci then provided the NFPA Staff Liaison report. David reviewed NFPA operating procedures and updated on the schedule of upcoming NFPA meetings.

Agenda Item 6: Review of Draft Correlating Committee Note for Test Method Validation The Correlating Committee will distribute the Test Method Validation Flowchart and the Correlating Committee Note and (attachments 1 and 2) to all Technical Committees and advise that they be used throughout the standards development process. The Correlating Committee will also work to hold new test methods accountable to the CC Note during the first draft and second draft review processes.

Agenda Item 7: Requirements for Task Group Reports / Documentation The Committee had a discussion regarding task group reporting and documentation. This is considered an important topic due to all the standards development work that is conducted by the task groups. All task group work will be formally documented (i.e., date and time of task group meeting, web conference or conference call; list of attendees; and any data and research presented) and provided as substantiation to used by the Technical Committee if changes are proposed to a standard. Additionally, the Correlating Committee reminds the Technical Committees to ensure that all relevant task group work be is recorded in the respective Technical Committee meeting minutes.

3

Agenda Item 8: NFPA 1977, Standard on Protective Clothing and Equipment for Wildland Fire Fighting First Draft Report Technical Committee Chair Rick Swan updated the Correlating Committee on the First Draft of NFPA 1977. 102 public inputs were received, with the majority of the changes being related to language, test methods, and correlation updates. NFPA 1971 and 1951 alignment to footwear and glove testing methodologies were some of the most urgent changes. Test method validation was completed as part of the other standards. The Correlating Committee provided 18 CC Notes to provide guidance for creating or modifying performance requirements and test methods in Chapters 7 and 8 (see the First Draft Report at www.nfpa.org/1977). Chairman Swan reported that the TC is investigating undergarments and heat dissipation requirements, and TC discussions on fire shelters.

Agenda Item 9: NFPA 1984, Standard on Respirators for Wildland Fire Fighting Operations First Draft Report Technical Committee Chair Dan Rossos updated the Correlating Committee on the First Draft of NFPA 1984. The First Draft mainly focused on not having a dedicated NIOSH approval related to a wildland respirator, as was written in the first edition. The Technical Committee will continue to update the standard and keep it active, although there are no currently available compliant products. There were no First Correlating Revisions or CC Notes to NFPA 1984 (see First Draft Report at www.nfpa.org/1984).

Agenda Item 10: NFPA 1991, Standard on Vapor-Protective Ensembles for Hazardous Materials Emergencies First Draft Report Technical Committee Chair Christina Baxter updated the Correlating Committee on the First Draft of NFPA 1991. There were many test method improvements made, along with several more significant changes. The Correlating Committee provided 14 CC Notes to provide guidance for creating or modifying performance requirements and test methods in Chapters 7 and 8 (see the First Draft Report at www.nfpa.org/1991).

Agenda Item 11: Update on Fire Shelters: Tony Petrilli Tony Petrilli presented an overview of fire shelters. Tony’s presentation is attached to these minutes (see attachment 3).

Agenda Item 12: Certification Data Ownership The Correlating Committee discussed ownership of certification data. The test lab representatives present indicated that each manufacturer owned its own certification data, and is responsible for any subsequent publication.

4

Agenda Item 13: Minimum Qualifications for Certification Listing and Accessibility Chairman Haskell led a discussion regarding this topic. The CC’s direction was that the individual Technical Committees should define the listing requirements in Chapter 4 of their respective standards.

Agenda Item 14: Task Group Reports: 1. Future Project Organization, Rick Swan Rick Swan updated the Committee on the task group work to date, via a Powerpoint presentation that is attached to these minutes (see attachment 4). The Correlating Committee discussed the various options and recommendations, and will continue work on this topic.

Agenda Item 15: Technical Committee Chair Reports

TC on ELS: R. Athanas: Work ongoing on the new radio standard. The next meeting will be in St. Louis in September to review this new standard, as well as the next revision for NFPA 1801.

TC on EMS: T. Hock: NFPA 1999 Pre-First Draft conference call will be on September 9.

TC on HAZ: C. Baxter: NFPA 1991 key areas were noted above in the First Draft. Task Group looking at test methods is the largest activity, with weekly meetings ongoing for the past year. NFPA 1991 changes will drive corresponding changes to NFPA 1992 and NFPA 1994. This will likely lead to major changes in these two standards. This is primarily due to test methods that may not be working as designed. The TC has been scheduling educational sessions around their meetings to increase the activity levels of the committee memberships.

TC on RPE: D. Rossos: TC met in New Orleans in February for the NFPA 1984 First Draft meeting, the results of which were reported at this CC meeting. A future CBRN testing Task Group was formed, with Jon Szalajda appointed as chair. Scope includes alternate testing locations as well as surrogate testing. Task Groups for the next edition of NFPA 1981 include thermal impact lens performance, EBSS, SCBA Communication, 2nd stage regulator retention, CBRN testing options and pneumatic data logging. Pressure, volume, and alarm activation are some key metrics that have been discussed for data logging. Dan also met with the chairs of the NFPA 1500 and Training Technical Committees to discuss issues that affect all of the standards. They will maintain communication and work to attend each other’s meetings to proactively manage issues that affect the respective standards. Next meeting will be a Second Draft meeting for NFPA 1984 on December 9-11 in Ft. Lauderdale.

TC on SCE: J. Metz: TC met in April on NFPA 1953, Second Draft meeting. Acted on Public Input, TC notes, and CC notes. Discussed possible TIAs for NFPA 1952 to address the thermal insulation test and the liquid penetration test, which is also affected by the hydraulic oil issue. NFPA 1983 re-organization was also discussed. Sections 5-8 would be revised so that the document will be easier to use. The NFPA 1983 First Draft meeting will be in early February, 2015.

TC on SPF: S. King: Pre-first draft meeting was conducted in San Diego in March. Next meeting will be in the Fall in San Antonio. Public input on NFPA 1971 does not close until July 5, 2015. The March meeting resulted in the creation of task groups and focused on their work. The Glove Thermal Shrinkage Task Group was changed to the Glove Task Group to focus on broader issues for gloves and is chaired by Mike McKenna. A Helmet Task Group was also formed, and is chaired by Dan Melia. They are considering 4 point chin straps, and a Formal Interpretation on heat resistance requirements for items shipped on the helmet but not part of the protection. A Hood Task Group was appointed and is chaired by Jim Reidy. A DRD Task Group was also appointed and is investigating how it is being used and how it can be improved, and is chaired by Rick Edinger. Earl Hayden is chairing a Risk Assessment Task Group, which is focusing on clarifying the risk assessment. Robert Tutterow is chairing an Annexes Task Group to increase understanding of the test methods and what they are used for. Tricia Hock and Steve Corrado will be proposing a Tentative Interim Amendment to change the composition of the hydraulic fluid used in testing to reflect the types of fluids being used on today’s fireground.

TC on TTO: B. Montgomery: NFPA 1986 is the only standard associated with this TC. The TC is developing a standard on SCBA for tactical and technical operations. The committee met in February, and will meet again in July to continue the draft development work. The committee is also seeking new

5

members, particularly in the User category, and individuals involved in HAZMAT and search and rescue.

TC on WFF: R. Swan: The Second Draft meeting for NFPA 1977 will be held in San Antonio in December.

Agenda Items 16 and 17: Old Business and New Business The Correlating Committee discussed the idea of defining the first failure mode on the PPE ensemble, and overall ensemble thermal protection. The Correlating Committee should keep this idea in mind as it develops standards across products, to prevent the lowest piece of protection being something that is the most important. Risk assessment and training are two additional tools that should prepare firefighters to the expectation of their PPE performance. Education and spreading awareness is one tactic that will help more end users know the limits of various components of their PPE. Chairman Haskell also offered to meet with Ken Willette on the possible educational materials that the NFPA can produce regarding the limits of PPE There was no new business. The Correlating Committee will have a web meeting in the January 2015 timeframe to address the Second Draft of NFPA 1953 as well as other business. The next face to face meeting will likely be in April 2015, with a 2-3 day agenda based on the workload. The agenda will include review of the Second Draft for NFPA 1991 and 1977, and the First Draft for NFPA 1986, 1992, and 1994.

Agenda Item 18: Adjournment Having no further business, the Chairman sought a motion to adjourn.

MOTION BY DAVE HASTON, SECOND BY HARRY WINER

To Adjourn

MOTION CARRIED Chairman Haskell adjourned the meeting at 1345 on 25 June 2014. Respectfully submitted, Benjamin A. Mauti, Acting Secretary CC on FESPCE

CORRELATING COMMITTEE NOTE

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. Drawings(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.

Test Method Validation – How to include criteria within the NFPA Process.

Correlating Committee (CC) First Draft meeting

CC may provide guidance through Correlating Notes (CNs), including test

method validation requirements.

Test Method Validation Requirements[Technical Committee (TC) creates First

Revisions on a new test method]

TC Second Draft meeting

CC Second Draft meetingCC may develop changes/revise Second

Revisions (SRs) through Second Correlating Revisions (SCRs). This can be

based on test method validation requirements.

Note:Based on the findings of the Task Group Report on Test Method Validation. 3/18/2014

Wildland Fire ShelterHistory and Development of the New Generation

Fire ShelterAnd

The Next Shelter

October 29, 1804, Clark.

“The Prarie got on fire and went with Such Violenc & Speed as to Catch a man & woman & burn them to Death, Several escapd. among other a Small boy who was Saved by getting under a green Buffalow skin….They say the grass was not burnt where the boy sat”

Shelter History

► 1958-59 - Fire shelter design work begins Prototypes used in July 22, 1964 – 36 Lives Saved

► 1967 - Shelters available to firefighters► 1995 – Began limited testing of new shelters

Old-Style Fire Shelter►Designed to reflect radiant

heat and trap breathable air

► Laminate of fiberglass and aluminum foil

►Adhesive selected to withstand high temperatures without being toxic

►Rapidly damaged by flames

Old-Style Shelter Stats

►About 1,100 deployments►Half precautionary► Estimated 275 prevented moderate to serious

burns► Estimated 275 saved

lives of occupants► 20 fatalities in

deployed or partially deployed shelters

December 1998: Shelter Testing Meeting

Participants: Underwriters Laboratories Storm King Mountain Technologies SGS-US Testing University of Alberta USFS Missoula Fire Sciences Lab USFS-NIFC BLM-NIFC USFS MTDC

1997-1999: International Crown Fire Modeling Experiments

►MTDC tested prototype and old-style fire shelters and gathered: Temperature and heat flux data Video using insulated camera boxes

►Video from inside one old-style sheltershowed ignition

July 1999: Determining the Cause of Ignition

►Contract with University of Alberta to determine the cause of ignition: Adhesive from laminate

produces gasses when heated Gasses can ignite if

heated to ignition temperature Most likely in flame

contact

September 1999: Response to Ignition

► Emergency meeting with USFS Fire Leadership ►Decision: Based on the knowledge that:

►The shelter had saved many lives ►No new shelter had been adequately tested

Action:►Share new information with field as soon as

possible

Actions Directed by FAM Leadership

► September 1999: Safety alert released

►October 1999: MTDC asked to produce “Avoid the Flames” brochure, and update training booklet and video.

► January 2000: FAM Leadership directs MTDC to pursue development of new fire shelter.

Project Organization

►MTDC Project Leader Mechanical Engineer Design Specialist Support (photo, publications, shop, etc.)

►Outside contacts Private industry Military Academia Forest Service/ Federal Research

Project Organization (cont.)

►Outside expertise–contracts: Development of thermal, strength,

durability, and toxicity Oversight and analysis of toxicity tests Peer review of testing procedures

Project Goals

►Maintain protection in radiant heat►Improve protection in flames►Maintain the requirement that the

occupant not be exposed to dangerous toxic compounds from the shelter

►Acceptably strong and durable►Prevent flammable gasses from

collecting inside shelter►Consider weight, bulk, and cost

Project Process

►Develop lab-based tests►Find/develop promising materials and

designs for testing►Test promising materials and designs ►Test old-style shelter as a baseline►Compare results ►Offer options to decisionmakers

Test Development

►Winter 1999-2000: Contract for:

Development of lab-based small- and full-scale performance tests Development of toxicity tests Expert oversight of toxicity test development

Performance Tests

►Strength►Thermal protection►Durability►Flammability►Toxicity

Materials

►Fall ’00 - Spring ’01:MTDC collected materials for testing, conducted preliminary tests

►Summer ‘01: 40 most promising materials were tested in small-scale tests at the University of Alberta

MTDC Shelter Design

►More efficient use of material►Shape to minimize absorption of radiant

heat (low surface-area-to- volume-ratio)►Allows occupant

to lie prone►No flat surface on

ends of the shelter

► Storm King Mountain Technologies (SKM) shelters were tested as designed

Full-scale tests►November ‘01: Full-scale tests at the University

of Alberta: Shelters without foil on the outside

performed poorly in radiant heat tests

November/December ’01:► MTDC identified new material

combinations, and built new shelters for further tests.

► After SKM was notified of radiant heat tests problems, the company redesigns shelters for further testing.

► All new material combinations performed well in full-scale tests.

► MTDC submitted all materials under consideration for toxicity testing.

► January ‘02: MTDC tests best shelters to failure in floor furnace at a Texas testing lab

Test to Failure

February ’02: 10 shelter options presented to Interagency Fire Directors

6 MTDC designs, 4 SKM designs Council selects four designs for further

testing and analysis: 2 MTDC, 2 SKM Council requests peer reviews of test

methods Firefighters to receive new shelter by

June 2003

Selection of ShelterSpring ’02:► Final intensive round of

testing carried out on four final options

►Test methods peer reviewed

► Fire Directors unanimously select new shelter design on June 2, 2002

Selected Design► Two layers of laminated material: Outer layer of woven silica and foil

►Foil reflects radiant heat►Silica slows heat transfer

Inner layer of fiberglass and foil ►Foil prevents reradiation of radiant heat and

acts as barrier to flammable gasses► Seams add support and

impede damage to foil layer ► Shake handles for quick

deployment

New Generation Fire Shelter

►Weight (without case): New shelter: 4.6 lbs. Old-style shelter: 3.4 lbs.

► Folded size (without case): New shelter: 240 cubic

inches Old-style shelter: 145 cubic

inches

Performance in Radiant Heat Internal Temperatures in Full-Scale Radiant Heat

Tests

020406080

100120140160180

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Time (s)

Ris

e in

Tem

pera

ture

(o F) New Generation Fire ShelterOld-Style Fire Shelter

Performance in Radiant Heat Internal Heat Flux in Full-Scale Radiant Heat Tests

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Time (s)

Hea

t Flu

x (k

W/m

2 )

New Generation Fire Shelter

Old-Style Fire Shelter

Performance in Flame Tests Internal Temperatures in Full-Scale Direct Flame

Tests

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Time (s)

Ris

e in

Tem

pera

ture

(o F)

New Generation Fire ShelterOld-Style Fire Shelter

Burners extinguished @ 20 seconds

Performance in Flame Tests Internal Heat flux in Full-Scale Convective Tests

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 10 20 30 40Time (s)

Hea

t Flu

x (k

W/m

2 )

New Generation FireShelterOld-Style Fire Shelter

Burners extinguished @ 20 seconds

2002►MTDC finalizes specifications►GSA contracts for manufacture of shelters►MTDC produces training video and booklet

2003►MTDC worked with shelter manufacturers to

ensure specifications were met► First shelters available from GSA in June ’03►Cloth Improvement – Tests of silica cloth with

Silane treatment

2004

►Tears discovered in the floor material near shake handles during practice deployments

►Production shut down ►Recall►Retrofit designed and implemented►Additional strength test in specification

Large Fire Shelter

►Direction initially to have new shelter only in one size

► Size initially based on military data and trials with firefighters of different sizes

► Large shelter released in 2005

2005

►I-90 Shelter Deployment 3 New Generation Shelters – burn injury

prevented

►Improvements – Changes in shake handles, floor, pull strap, and

stitching Fire shelter sleeve on fireline pack has been

redesigned to lessen the amount of dirt and debris that enters the sleeve, thus reducing the amount of wear on the fire shelters

Pull Strap► Design brought forward

from old-style shelter. ► No reports of strap

detachments from the old-style shelter

► Strap on New Generation Fire Shelter can detach if jerked abruptly

► MTDC Tech Tip 0651-2322-MTDC What’s New With the New Generation Fire Shelter? Retrofit information included.

► All bags since June 2005 made with reinforced design

Shelter Durability►Shelters are designed for one-time use Most rips or tears happen after multiple

deployments of the same shelter►MTDC has received reports of: Two open seams and four floor material tears

discovered during the first practice deployments One missing hold-down strap

►MTDC has inspected more than 325 shelters. No open seams or missing hold-down straps have been found.

►GSA and MTDC inspect shelters from each manufacturer’s production lot.

Air Space Inside Shelter

►New Generation Fire Shelter is narrower than old-style shelter.

►Old-style shelter protected by reflecting radiant heat and trapping breathable air.

►New Generation Fire Shelter uses more heat-resistant materials and has a better shape

►Testing shows that even with less air space, the New Generation Fire Shelter offers more protection than the old-style shelter.

Material Temperatures►Concerns about cloth touching the occupant in the

New Generation shelter►One-minute test on the New Generation shelter

showed: Temperatures remain

much cooler on the inner surface than outer surface

material remained intact throughout the test

►Old-style shelter burned through in 15 seconds.

2006

► “I never thought that I would ever need it.” ► Little Venus Shelter Deployment -10 Lives saved

5 old-style 5 New Generation

19 Firefighters deploy fire shelters on 7 fires

NWCG Fire Shelter Committee

►Formed from Fire Shelter Program Review►Guide the Fire Shelter Program into the future►Ensure MTDC technical specialists receive

needed support and direction from leadership►Ensure stakeholders have an avenue to share

opinions on management of shelter►www.nifc.gov/fireShelt/fshelt_main.html

2007

►DVD of May 5, 2006 - Fire Shelter Field Test –Comparison of the old-style and New Generation Shelters.

► 26 Firefighters deploy fire shelters on 6 different fires in US.

Evaluation of In-Service Fire Shelters

► 2007 – Collected fire shelters that have been carried by firefighters to evaluate and document condition of each shelter

► 2008 additional shelters to be evaluated

► Results will be used to improve inspection criteria

2008►Inspection Criteria

Developed►Update – specifications,

carry case

►Indians Fire 3 Lives Saved

►Panther Fire, Klamath NF, California – deployed fire shelter – one fatality

Practice Fire Shelter Refolding Instructions

►3 Minute Video► Instructional Flyer

Alternate Folding & Packaging

► Wear test of alternate folding of fire shelter

►Favorable for vehicle-based firefighters

► Idea will carry forward to next revision

Fire Shelter Library – CD/DVD

►Reprints needed, so created “1 Stop Shop” Refolding Practice Shelter – Video Shelter Test – Video Training – Video

All 4 Tech Tips – .pdf History and Development – .ppt Fire Shelter Use Instructions – .pdf Refolding Practice Shelter Instructions – .pdf

2009►Highway 31 Fire, Myrtle Beach, S Carolina Two lives saved

►Camp 16, LA County Station Fire 72 burn injury prevented

►Inspection Criteria

Transition to New Generation

► Agencies are transitioning to the New Generation Fire Shelter

► GSA stock – Large size, stock available Regular size, stock available

► Transition Target Dates Federal firefighters – January 1, 2009 All firefighters – January 1, 2010

2010

►NO FIRE SHELTERS DEPLOYED!!

2011►Coal Canyon – S Dakota 2 ffs deploy shelter inside engine 1 escaped – life saved, 1 fatality

►Pagami – Superior NF, Boundary Waters 2 lives saved – in the lake 4 injury prevented

2012

►DVD – Fire Shelter Deployment Stories and Common Insights

►Holloway Fire One life saved

2013Yarnell Hill

►19 Firefighter Deaths – 7 inside fully deployed shelters

2014►FS Management Decision to move

scheduled Fire Shelter Project Review from 2015 to 2014. Material Search - RFI posted at FedBizOpps Firefighter Physiological Stress Test – Fireline

Pack 35 vs. 55 pounds. Firefighter Survey – input for consideration Material Testing – September/October

►Follow Fire Shelter Test Protocol

2015►Second Round of Testing►Select Shelter Finalist(s)►Prototypes for field burn tests and

firefighter wear tests

2016►Perform field burn tests►Firefighter wear tests►Select Final Shelter(s)►Create Specs and Technical Drawings►Create Training Guide

Further Information►Remember, fire shelters are not fail safe,

carrying a fire shelter should never be considered as an alternative to safe firefighting.

► If you have questions about the information in this presentation, please contact MTDC equipment specialist Tony Petrilli:

apetrilli@fs.fed.us