The making of a new standard
Published: 01 April, 2006
EN 469: 2005 took 10 years to come into life, and has wide reaching implications for thousands of firefighters across Europe. So how will the new standard affect the purchasing of firefighting gear? We speak to some of the movers and shakers who made it.
One thing nearly everybody agrees on is that this latest standard better reflects the day-to-day realities of modern firefighting, as Ivan Rich from manufacturing company Bristol Uniforms explains. ‘I think this standard is a major step forward in terms of what we had previously. Clothing has come a long way since the 1990s when the standard was first drawn up.’
The main change is that there are now two performance levels for firefighting ensembles. Level 2 is the higher performance level that should be used for clothing worn for fighting structural fires, while level 1, explains Ivan, is the lower requirement and is not intended for the clothing that provides protection during fire entrapment. However this level may be considered for associated activities e.g. rescue work, assistance during disasters, road traffic accidents and wildland firefighting. Level 2 provides, as a minimum, the equivalent protection of the previous standard, EN 469:1995. Dave Frodsham of WL Gore points to volunteer firefighters in parts of Europe as an example of those who could benefit from the two-level standard. ‘They are not qualified to enter a building while wearing breathing apparatus, so their activities are mainly on the ground, where a lower level of protection could be applicable.’
Sales director Ian Callaghan of UK garment manufacturer Cosalt:Ballyclare agrees that the standard is more realistic, especially with the new layered approach in the garment testing. ‘In some of the warmer climates, what might happen is that the firefighters wear a one-piece-suit for day-to-day operations, but if a situation requires it, they can put on an additional garment over the top, which then provides protection to level 2.’ The new standard calls for two levels of performance for each of the four different test methods: heat transfer – flame; heat transfer – radiant heat; resistance to water penetration; and water vapour resistance (breathability). The last two tests are new to the standard in a mandatory sense (they were optional before).
Potentially confusing is that because two performance levels are specified for selection, firefighting garments will have different combinations of levels; for example level 2 heat transfer – flame, and level 1 water penetration, etc. To simply call an ensemble a level 1 or level 2 would therefore not necessarily be accurate.
Just to muddy the waters even further, an overall classification on heat transfer (flame and radiation) is determined by the lower performance level. So, if a garment achieves a level 1 heat transfer – flame, and level 2 heat transfer – radiation, it is classed as level 1. This, however, does not apply to water penetration and vapour resistance, which are classed separately.
Fire product manager Johan Sabbe of Belgian manufacturer Sioen – which has a fully equipped laboratory for in-house testing of FR fabrics – explains some of the differences between level 1 and level 2, in terms of the heat transfer test. The heat transfer test measures how many seconds it would take for a wearer to reach the so-called ‘threshold of pain’, sometimes called the HTI12 test, when first degree burns would start developing, and how many seconds of escape time a firefighter has before developing second degree burns (HTI24-HTI12) – in a real situation, the so-
called ‘escape time’. ‘Under the new standard, the higher performance level 2 fabric has a minimum four-second period of escape time, while level 1 has three seconds.’
Johan also points out that the test method has been slightly amended to better reflect real life situations. ‘At the committee there was a discussion that the previous test did not represent real-life operations. The old test used a large aluminium block as a sensor, which reacted slowly to the temperature rise. The new test uses a copper plate which heats up faster.’ This may confuse buyers who are trying to compare test results under different standards. ‘The results of a material assembly tested under EN 469: 1995 may be different to the results of the same assembly tested to EN 469: 2005.’
Not everyone is 100 per cent behind the splitlevel standard. One UK Fire & Rescue PPE manager has some concerns, but wished to remain anonymous – let’s call him John Smith. He feels that there may be too much emphasis on reducing the weight of firefighting kit. Risk assessments are all very well, says John, but with all the good will in the world, firefighters are being put in dangerous situations, and the point of PPE is to give them enough time to escape when things go wrong. ‘And the only way to do that is to give them the best protection. Firefighters don’t go to many fires, but there is still a possibility of a backdraft.’
John says that he understands that the needs of a brigade in the north of Sweden are different to the south of Spain, but he points out that there is much misinformation on heat stress. ‘If you put guys in fire kit and make them run around for 45 minutes, then they will start feeling unwell. The secret isn’t in giving them a lighter garment, but in not making them run around for 45 minutes.’
New requirements:
Liquid penetration and water vapour resistance are now obligatory rather than informative, as Dave Frodsham of WL Gore explains. ‘The two tests are relatively low level, which means that they don’t really relate to what happens in reality. For example, if you are kneeling down or crawling on the ground, the amount of pressure put on a garment would be much higher than that stipulated in the test. But the main thing is that the test is easily reproducible and therefore the results are comparable.’
As for breathability, at the time of writing a legal challenge had been successfully made by the Swiss members of CEN, who did not want a minimum level of breathability to be introduced as a requirement for level 1 water vapour resistance. According to the convenor of the CEN committee, Dave Matthews, an amendment will now be put to a formal vote to allow for nonbreathable products to be used. This is causing anxiety amongst some members of CEN, who feel that this could lead to ‘boil-in-the-bag’ syndrome, when vapour within a garment is heated and cannot escape through the clothing.
One of the most problematic aspects of the new standard appears in annex ZA of EN 469: 2005. The problem, explains Dave Matthews, is the European Directive Annex II (Basic Health and Safety Requirements of the PPE Directive 89/686/EEC) that states that a manufacturer has to mark the age of obsolescence of PPE, either on the PPE itself or its packaging. ‘If it is known that the design performance of PPE may be significantly affected by age, then the date of manufacture and the age of obsolescence should be indelibly marked on the packaging. If not, to provide all of the information necessary for the user to establish an informed date, bearing in mind the material, storage and use.
‘Fire garments are subject to different types of use and contamination. It is not easy to say that a garment will last five years.’ To allow for an indication of a level of obsolescence, manufacturers are now duty-bound to decide the number of wash and drying cycles an ensemble must be subjected to, prior to undergoing laboratory tests for certification. ‘If I was a manufacturer, and I wanted to say that the garment should last for seven years, I may specify that a garment undergo 20 washes before testing.’
There are many problematic issues with this aspect of the standard, admits Dave, such as the fact that a wash and dry cycle does not, by any means, represent what firefighters’ protective clothing undergoes in service.
In the 1995 version of EN 469, the pretreatment of the fabric was simply five washes and five cycles. ‘The CEN consultant who rubber stamped the standard said it was up to the manufacturer to say how many machine washes and dries the garment should undergo prior to testing, so that if they wanted to claim a garment could undergo 50 washes, they had to carry out 50 washes before doing the tests.’ Dave, however, emphasises that it is still the employer’s responsibility to ensure that PPE is compliant, and therefore advises that fire brigades should carry out regular inspections.
Not everyone is in agreement with this aspect of Annex ZA. Although it was voted on and approved, as is often the case with European committees, when members returned to their home countries the response was different. In the UK, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister did not want to endorse it as a BS standard without further guidance, and discussions are ongoing.
Future developments:
Whole garment (‘manikin’) testing, which is included in the new standard as an optional requirement, is predicted to be a hot potato as the standard begins its journey to the next revision. Incidentally, while this latest revision took 10 years to develop, rules have now limited revisions to three year cycles. Firefighter John Smith would like to see further improvements and additions to EN 469. For example, he’d like a compressive conductive heat resistance test, as specificed by the NFPA. Such a test would replicate situations where a firefighter is, for example, crawling on a hot deck. The test determines the protection afforded by a fabric when compressed against a hot surface (the NFPA standard specifies a 13.5-second minimum performance for reinforced composites).
John Smith also notes that EN 469 does not have blood pathogen protection, an obligatory requirement in the US. ‘In today’s environment where there are more RTAs, we should have viral protection, especially as it can take 20 years until detected.’ Dave Frodsham of WL Gore adds that there is already an international test method for liquid penetration that includes viral penetration, and that it would just be a matter of agreeing the level of performance.
The ergonomic and physiological requirements presently being developed for inclusion in the revised standard may become obligatory in the future, explains convenor Dave Matthews. ‘It would be useful to have a tool to measure the different ensembles. A new physiological annex is currently being carried out by Ronald Heus from TNO Industrial Technologies in Holland. In the old standard, these tests were carried out only on males aged 18-40, so there are issues of equality and ageism.’ And, he adds, the two annexes may be merged into a single one.
Whatever new requirements and revisions are added in the next three years, John Smith has some words of advice. ‘When buying garments, the risk assessment comes first. Whatever the level of protection you want, if the testing is not as good as you want or you believe the standard should be higher, you should ask for more tests. The standard is good because it does not allow you to drop below a certain level, and it gives firefighters a good basic protection, but it may not be enough. What is an absolute fact is that if you are not switched on and you don’t understand textiles, combinations, and garment construction, it is possible to spend a lot of money and not get the garment you need.’
