If you are an Emergency Services Responder – especially if you are affiliated with the fire service – here’s a little something you might be interested in knowing about. Actually, it’s more than a “little” thing, its more like 237 pages worth of a big thing!

Up to now, if you were interested in an NFPA standard you might have purchased a standard that was somewhere around 40 pages long, and it would contain requirements, test methods, labeling, and other standards-speak.

Last year PMI shared a message to make you aware that NFPA was going through a process of consolidating related standards into volumes. Now, the volume pertaining to Operations and Training for Technical Search and Rescue Incidents and Life Safety Rope and Equipment for Emergency Services has just been released. It’s been given a new number, NFPA 2500.

You can get your very own copy by reaching out to the National Fire Protection association in Quincy Massachusetts – by phone, 800-344-3555 or order it online at catalog.nfpa.org.

This standard combines what used to be three separate documents… NFPA 1983 (which was equipment focused); NFPA 1858 (which provided selection use and care information) and NFPA 1670 (which outlines team competency for Technical Rescue.)   This new consolidated standard, now known as NFPA 2500, actually contains the substance of all three of those documents.

NFPA 1006 – Professional Qualifications for Technical Rescuers – is still a separate document, but the 1006 and 1670 committees have worked VERY hard to try to harmonize the Professional Qualifications requirements with Organizational Training requirements.

In any case, if you’re a professional rescuer, the NFPA 2500 document is something you will want to become familiar with.

PMI is a manufacturer of life safety rope and equipment for professionals, and our CEO Loui McCurley has been personally involved with these NFPA standards since the early 1990’s.  We consider it to be part of our mission to help make sure that industry professionals working rescue and work at height are familiar with the information, technical knowledge, and standards that could impact their work.

If you would like to review the NFPA 2500 standard on Operations and Training and Life Safety Rope and Equipment for Rescue, you can access it free of charge at NFPA.org. Just type NFPA 2500 in the Search box, and click on Free Access!

We’ve come a long way with these documents in the last thirty years, but most people will agree that standards just don’t change fast enough to keep up with our constantly evolving industry – so its likely that you might find some things in these new documents that you might not agree with.

If that’s the case – NFPA invites you to submit input through the online submission process at NFPA.ORG. These committees love having input and participation in this work, especially from folks like you who actually have to USE the standards in various ways!

One of the most confusing things about the new standard may be that instead of referring to the old standards numbers (1983, 1858 and 1670), as an industry we will now be referring to the new standard number, 2500.

This will probably have the greatest impact on equipment that you use, as you are probably accustomed to looking for markings that say NFPA 1983. In an effort to try to minimize confusion, NFPA has decided to include the old standard reference numbers along with the new ones on marked equipment – so, for example, where certified equipment previously might have been marked something like

NFPA 1983(2017) (G)

It will now look more like this

NFPA 2500 (1983) 2022 ED (T)

Depending on the item of equipment, there should be a G, T or E on the label to indicate whether it is intended for General Use, Technical Use or Escape.

In order to be compliant with the standard, equipment has to be third party tested by a qualified laboratory, like Underwriters Laboratories, or Intertek Laboratories. But these test labs couldn’t actually start testing to the standard until it was published – and, that just happened.

So, it’s still going to be awhile before you start seeing equipment with the NFPA 2500 label on it.

The next logical question then is, how soon do users have to start using equipment that meets the new edition? When must we stop using equipment just because it is marked to the old standard?

The simple answer is, we don’t.

There are no NFPA requirements, no law, that says you have to use equipment meeting the most current version of any standard. There are no requirements for when you have to start using equipment marked to the new standard.

There IS however a deadline for when we MANUFACTURERS have to stop SELLING equipment marked to the old standard. That deadline is 12 months from the effective date of the new standard.

In this case, even though the new standard wasn’t actually PRINTED until just a few weeks ago, the EFFECTIVE DATE was SEPTEMBER 2021. If that sounds confusing, it is because it is… the standard really did go into effect before it was printed.

In any case, what that means is that you will still be able to buy equipment that is marked to NFPA 1983-2017 Edition until SEPTEMBER 2022.

The GOOD NEWS here is that there weren’t a whole lot of significant technical changes to the standard, so most all the equipment that was properly certified to the 2017 standard will still also meet the 2022 standard.

There was a whole big team of folks who worked on these standards, and they ALL deserve a big shout-out…  but most notably we would like to acknowledge the incredible efforts of Jeremy Metz from West Metro Fire Department, who is chairman of the Technical Committee on Special Operations Protective Clothing and Equipment and amazing Committee Secretary, Karen Lehtonen from Lion Group. We’d also like to recognize Ben Waller, Tennessee Association of Rescue Squads, who is chairman of the NFPA 1670 Technical Committee on Technical Search and Rescue.

These three provided extraordinary leadership and facilitated amazing collaboration through the entire process – which wasn’t easy!

Although we didn’t create it, PMI is – as always – going to do our level best to walk with you, support you, and assist you in navigating this change with as little impact as possible on your organization.

We’d love to hear your comments and questions here, and will try to answer any specific questions you might have along the way.

<< Back to Part 2

“Unless you are a fire department, NFPA is probably not the right resource to guide you”

On the topic of standards and regulation, sometimes people look to NFPA 1983 for guidance in selecting a harness for rescue. Unless you are a fire department, NFPA is probably not the right resource to guide you, but let’s start there anyway.

NFPA 1983 is a manufacturing standard, and acknowledges two types of harnesses: Class II and Class III – the former being a Seat Harness style, and the latter being a Full Body harness style. This standard is largely written by and for urban/municipal fire department personnel, with the result being that many rescuers in the large, urban fire departments do wear Class 3 full body harnesses. Even so, the standard does still allow for seat harnesses – primarily for the benefit of the large proportion of rural or small town fire departments that do not see the frequency of industrial accidents and who may not need full body harnesses.

NFPA 1858 is the user-companion document to NFPA 1983; it is intended to help address some of these kinds of questions and can be viewed here.  The bit of this standard that deals with harnesses is section 5.4. It explains that the organization shall consider its needs for performance or features – and then has an appendix dialog (A5.4) which says (among other things): Specialized harnesses might be required for different types of operations and then goes on to describe the differences between Class II and Class III, finishing with the statement that “While both types of harnesses are capable of fall arrest, the most commonly used industrial fall protection attachment points are sternal or dorsal, which requires a full body harness. NFPA 1983 requires that both the Class 2 and Class 3 harnesses pass a head-down drop test to verify the harness will not allow the user to fall out of it.” Again, you can see here, both harnesses are considered appropriate for vertical work, and the main reason for using a Class 3 harness would be to accommodate industrial fall protection connections such as are common to fire departments in urban environments – which, again, is the primary population served by this NFPA equipment standard.

NFPA 1983 can also be viewed online, free of charge, here. If you look at paragraph 1.1.5, you will see that it specifically states that “this standard shall not specify requirements for any rope or associated equipment designed for mountain rescue, cave rescue, lead climbing operations, or where hazards and situations dictate other performance requirements.” So, what this says is that, according to the NFPA 1983 standard, the NFPA 1983 standard doesn’t apply to you if you are engaging in mountain rescue operations.

“what are your criteria for choosing a harness?”

A more applicable standard relative to Mountain Rescue activities is ASTM F1772, Standard Specification for Harnesses for Rescue and Sport Activities. This standard is promulgated by the ASTM F32 Committee on Search and Rescue, which is written by and for members of mountain rescue teams, rather than the fire service.

The ASTM F1772 standard “covers harnesses for human use in technical rope rescue and climbing, mountaineering, caving, canyoneering, and other rope-based sport activities” (para 1.1) and further clarifies that “Due to the diverse requirements of various rescue activities and environments, any of the included harness types may be suitable for rescue, including those marketed principally for climbing” (para. 5.3).  The standard specifications and test methods found in this standard are essentially analogous to those found in the UIAA 105 harness standard and the European EN 12277 standard.

So, what are your criteria for choosing a harness? As a mountain rescuer, I would suggest

• Wide enough waistbelt and leg loops to allow the harness to be comfortably worn in suspension for a reasonable period of time
• A low enough ventral attachment point to be able to lead climb if you need to
• A high enough ventral attachment point to allow the wearer to sit reasonably upright
• Lightweight enough to be able to comfortably carry and use in the backcountry
• Low profile enough to permit the kinds of agility usually required in mountain and wilderness environments
• Not a lot of metallic parts to conflict with mountaineering gear
• Highly adjustable for different weather/clothing situations

If you are a fire department or an industrial rescue team doing mostly industrial/urban operations, NFPA Class III would be a very appropriate standard for you to use as a reference.

If you are a fire department that does mostly urban-interface operations, an NFPA 1983 Class II harness would be a very appropriate standard for you to use as a reference; or, if you want extra weight to carry, an NFPA Class III harness would work also.

If you are a mountain, wilderness, or cave rescue team, an ASTM F1772 harness – or a European equivalent – makes a lot more sense for you.

Hopefully, this information will help provide at least some guidance that will result in the most appropriate harness choice for your application, and will also help purchasing agents to realize how a “more-is-better” approach could actually result in increased risk to rescuers.

This will enable you to better utilize the same sorts of industrial fall protection equipment used in these types of workplaces.  This, incidentally, is why you see many urban municipal fire departments using full-body, industrial-type harnesses for rescue – most of their responses are to those kinds of workplaces, and they generally can drive their truck to within a short distance of the subject. We will talk about standards in a moment, but typically this is what we refer to as an NFPA Class III harness. These will typically weigh somewhere in the neighborhood of 6 pounds, and cost around $300-500 and upward, depending on features.
On the other hand, if you are a fire department with relatively few industrial callouts, but mainly working in the urban-interface of parks with cliff faces, car-over-the-edge, or similar areas, a full body harness is probably overkill – especially if you need greater agility. In this case you might more appropriately consider a Seat Harness, such as an NFPA Class II or an ASTM 1772 harness. You’ll find these weighing in at 2-4 pounds and at a cost around $200-300, again depending on features.

However, if the majority of your rescue operations are in a mountain or wilderness environment, you are likely much better served to consider choosing something akin to a climbing harness, but with more padding and adjustability. Most importantly, you will probably want to avoid metal D rings (and the alignment challenges they present) so that you can better utilize the same sorts of mountaineering equipment used in such environments and so that it is not too heavy. This is why you see so many rural, wilderness, or backcountry rescue teams using climbing style seat harnesses for safety – because most of their responses are to mountain environments where this type of gear is most appropriate – and they often have to carry gear a great distance. These might meet ASTM 1772 or a European equivalent standard will weigh around 1 pound, and can often be purchased for under $100.

Each of these types of harnesses is perfectly safe and appropriate for working at height, in suspension, but their different features make them more appropriate to different applications. Kind of the same reason we don’t wear turnout boots or bunker gear in the backcountry. Trying to use industrial rescue equipment in wilderness environments would make about as much sense as trying to use wilderness rescue equipment in industrial environments. Although there may be some crossover with a limited range of equipment, the criteria for choosing is quite different.

”Beginning”

To begin with, OSHA regulation does not address harnesses other than those used for Industrial Fall Protection and Construction Fall Protection (including those used in confined spaces.) The regulatory language in these standards describe harnesses as being part of a fall arrest system that permits up to 6’ fall on a dorsal attachment – something that is generally not acceptable in rigging for vertical rescue operations, due to the increased hazards that would be imposed on rescuers.

“Harnesses for work at height and harnesses for rescue are two very different things”

Sometimes those who are trying to make decisions without the full scope of information can misunderstand this… Harnesses for work at height and harnesses for rescue are two very different things… just as shoes for industrial safety and shoes for mountaineering are two very different things.

Outside of Confined Space operations, OSHA does not actually address rescue, other than to say that a worker who has fallen into fall protection must be rescued promptly. Even in the realm of confined space, which is the only place they really talk about rescue in any detail, OSHA does not address rescue equipment (see interpretation letter which states there are no specifications for rescue equipment.)

OSHA may someday address rulemaking for emergency services responders, but as of now, the few references smattered throughout regulation are inconsistent and out of date (see link). As rescuers we should defer to their own acknowledgment of this and look elsewhere for guidance.

“Best Practice can be a bit subjective”

At present, we are best served to consider Industry Standards (ASTM, NFPA) and Industry Best Practice (what you see happening in real life) as a guide for how to best equip emergency services responders for rope rescue. Industry Best Practice can be a bit subjective and specific to application, environment, or even local custom, so here we will focus on decision-making processes and related standards.

To establish some background for this post, I (the author) have been a member of an active mountain rescue team in the front range of Colorado since 1985. I have also served with two fire departments over the course of my career (plus the Yellow Jackets wildland crew, which doesn’t really apply here…) and have been involved in research, testing, and standards development related to rescue since 1987. I presently serve with NFPA 1983, ASTM F32, and ANSI Z359 standards committees (among others) and am CEO of PMI. We manufacture and distribute life safety rope and equipment, and offer related training through our Vertical Rescue Solutions training arm, for a wide range of work and rescue applications, ranging from Fire-Rescue to Industrial Fall Protection, Mountain Rescue, Caving, and more.

In short, the general approach taken by most responding agencies (and standards developers, for that matter) is that emergency responders should be protected to at least the same level of protection as would be appropriate for the person(s) whom they might be called to rescue. If responding to a confined space emergency, they should be equipped with appropriate confined space PPE and equipment.  If responding to a cave emergency, they should be equipped with appropriate caving PPE and equipment. If responding to an industrial fall protection emergency, they should be equipped with appropriate emergency fall protection PPE and equipment. If responding to a mountaineering or climbing emergency, they should be equipped with appropriate mountaineering or climbing PPE and equipment… the list goes on, but you get the idea.

You will notice the phrase above, should be protected to at least the same level of protection… Let’s expound on that a little bit because there is a tendency in our society to lean toward a philosophy that “more is better” – which could erroneously lead to the idea that a full-body harness is better than a seat harness because there is more material there.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

“a very limited range of features that are unique to each type of harness”

Harnesses are designed for different applications with much, much more than just the “seat vs full body” question as consideration. For example:

• some of the more robust rescue harnesses will have a large, supportive waistbelt and a high front-waist attachment, to facilitate greater comfort in suspended operations.
• A caving harness, on the other hand, has a thinner, lighter waistbelt and a VERY low front-waist attachment, so that it adds minimal girth to the caver and works well with a chest harness to facilitate a range of ascending systems.
• A climbing harness will be somewhere between the two, with a front-waist attachment somewhere at or below belly-button level so that the body rotates around the center of gravity in the event of a lead-climbing fall.
• Industrial fall arrest harnesses have as their primary connection point a Dorsal D ring, for compliance with fall protection regulations, and a great deal of heavy metallic D rings for connection…
• and the list goes on.

So far we have addressed only a very limited range of features that are unique to each type of harness, but again I’m sure you get the idea.  I hope that you are also beginning to see that what is good for one application is, very specifically, often contraindicated for another.

So, depending on what the rescuer is doing, different types of rescue harnesses might be most appropriate.

>> Read Next Part

Here at PMI we are committed to safety and compliance in equipment for work at height. In fact, we participate in several professional standards development efforts related to ropes, equipment, and training for high angle work and rescue.

In 1992 I was operating a research and testing lab called Alpine Center for Rescue Studies when Steve Hudson approached me and asked if I would represent PMI to the NFPA 1983 committee. Since then I have participated in this and several other NFPA committees including as chairman of NFPA 1958 and as an inaugural member of NFPA 1670.

Those of you who use, or are subject to, NFPA standards for rescue equipment, operations, and training should be aware of some upcoming changes to the NFPA standards that may impact your world.

—Watch the video or keep reading—

“Familiar documents”

A meeting was recently held to discuss the first draft of what will become an NFPA Consolidated Technical Rescue document, soon to be known as NFPA 2500. The official title of NFPA 2500 is: Standards for Operations and Training for Technical Search and Rescue Incidents and Life Safety Rope and Equipment for Emergency Services. Don’t let the fancy title throw you, though. This NFPA 2500 is nothing more than a bundled package containing three documents with which you are probably already familiar:

NFPA 1983 – Standard on Life Safety Rope and Equipment for Emergency Services

NFPA 1858 – Standard on Selection, Care, and Maintenance of Life Safety Rope and Equipment for Emergency Services

And

NFPA 1670 – Standard on Operations and Training for Technical Search and Rescue Incidents

The first, most obvious question is WHY is NFPA doing this?!

“NFPA 2500 is nothing more than a bundled package”

NFPA’s theory in all of this is simple. They want to make the standards more user-friendly while at the same time making them less expensive and time consuming to develop. According to the NFPA website, they’ve got over 250 committees managing more than three hundred standards documents…  with requests on the table for at least a hundred more! By bundling like-documents related PPE and Pro Qual, they’ll be taking 116 separate documents and consolidating them down to 48 –  theoretically reducing the time investment and travel for meeting required by the more than 9,000 committee members who write them.

In implementing these changes, NFPA has acknowledged that there are two things firefighters hate:

1. change, and
2. when things stay the same.

So, with this in mind, they are going to accommodate all of us:

First, by changing the way the standards are packaged, and

Second, by keeping the existing reference numbers the same,

so if someone wants to implement just one of the standards in a group you can still do that.

“Combination of the three”

Chapter 1 of the new NFPA 2500 will be kind of an umbrella, outlining the scope of the entire document.  In chapter 1,  each of the existing standards: NFPA 1983, NFPA 1858, and NFPA 1670, will still be called out and identified by name, so your AHJ will be able to continue to adopt whatever it is you already use without having to change any terminology or numerical references. You can choose to adopt just NFPA 1983, just NFPA 1858,  just NFPA 1670, or some combination of the three.

“The meat of the document begins”

The way the new NFPA 2500 is organized you’ll find Chapters 1-3 just to be administrative oversite information. The new chapter 1 is just that high-level overview we talked about, explaining how the documents are bundled. Chapter 2 is nothing more than a list of references – same as it is now – and Chapter 3 is definitions. Then the meat of the document begins. Chapters 4-23 will be the content that you presently know as NFPA 1670.  It will still be called NFPA 1670, so if you presently use 1670 for Training and Operations you will still be able to do that. Chapters 24-28 will be the content that you presently know as NFPA 1983. Again, it will still carry the numerical designator NFPA 1983, so the equipment you’re buying will still have that reference number on it.

And, finally, Chapters 29-35 will be the content that you presently know as NFPA 1858.

“NFPA 1858 just released a year or so ago”

You might not even be familiar with this 1858 document yet, because it was just released a couple of years ago. It is designed to provide guidance for Selection, Care and Maintenance of NFPA 1983 Rope Rescue Equipment.

After this, you will find all of the Annexes and Reference Materials for all three of these documents.

Now, there’s just one thing we want to add, and that is: DON’T SHOOT THE MESSENGER!!!

Rest assured, this was not PMI’s idea! Although Loui McCurley from PMI has sat on the committee for more than 20 years, she is just one of many members. This action was mandated by the NFPA, not chosen by the committee… so committee members are just doing the best they can to try to catch NFPA’s VISION for this and carry it out in time for a GOOD standard to be produced in 2020. Although we didn’t create it, PMI is – as always – going to do our level best to walk with you, support you, and assist you in navigating this change with as little impact as possible on your organization.

We’d love to hear your comments and questions here, and will try to answer any specific questions you might have along the way.

Presenter: Steve Hudson | Webinar | 
The 2012 edition of NFPA 1983 Standard on Life Safety Rope and Equipment for Emergency Services is out! All manufacturers of these products will soon be required to certify their products to this new version of NFPA 1983. This webinar is a quick review of the major product additions and other changes to the previous edition published in 2006. Steve Hudson has been actively involved with the NFPA Technical Committee responsible for the creation of this and the previous four editions of NFPA 1983.

Presenter: Loui McCurley | Webinar | 
Although fall prevention and protection has been repeatedly addressed by OSHA, which has suggested methods such as elimination or substitution of work, use of engineering controls, administrative controls, and the appropriate use of personal protective equipment (PPE) to control hazards, falls continue to be a leading cause of death and injury in the workplace.

In developing a Managed Fall Protection Program, one thing is clear: Adequate preparation, systems thinking, and adhering to appropriate safety practices are more likely to have a positive influence on safety at height than complex, rigid work systems and adherance to “product standards”.

This presentation, given by Loui McCurley, will explore integration of Rope Access into the employers Managed Fall Protection Program, and the potential benefits of versatility and capability that can be realized by the employer as a result. We will discover how Professional Rope Access fits in as a work method combining trained technicians with a proven system of work and equipment to achieve complete system of work, and how it is recognized by US and International standards, including ANSI, ISO, and others.

Presenter: Loui McCurley | Webinar | 
ANSI Z359.2 outlines a Comprehensive Managed Fall Protection Program for industry. One component of this involves preparing for rescue in the event of an accident. This presentation will provide an overview and guidelines for equipment and training to ensure “prompt care” as mandated by OSHA.

Presenter: Loui McCurley | Webinar | 
FEMA is in the process of developing criteria for a National Emergency Responder Credentialing System that will provide guidance for personnel and equipment responding to large scale incidents and/or disasters. This system will help to ensure that responders and equipment meet certain minimum criteria, and hopefully increase safety on the ground. This free webinar, by PMI’s Vice President Loui McCurley, will offer an overview of the criteria as it currently stands and will provide guidance on where to find additional information regarding compliant equipment and training information.

Presenter: Loui McCurley | Presentation | 
This presentation was given at the SPRAT 2010 annual conference held January 14-16, 2010 in New Orleans, Louisiana.