New NFPA 1583 Task Group to be appointed
The National Fire Protection Association 1500 Technical Committee on Fire Service Occupational Safety & Health has voted unanimously to withdraw NFPA 1583, Standard on Recommended Practice for Fire Fighter Physical Performance and Conditioning Programs (originally entitled Recommended Practice for Fire Fighter Physical Performance Assessment), from the next revision cycle and, therefore, it will not be presented at the NFPA Fall Meeting to be held in Nashville, Tennessee, November 18-20, 1996. Stephen N. Foley, staff liaison for the Technical Committee on Fire Service Occupational Safety & Health programs, reported that John A. Sharry of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, chairman of the 1500 Technical Committee, will appoint a Task Group “from scratch” to address areas of concern raised by individuals and organizations who submitted comments on the proposal. Members of the 1500 Technical Committee asked that the Task Group chosen reflect as equally as possible a balance of interests, Foley adds. (As of press time, efforts to reach Sharry had been unsuccessful.)
The Task Group, Foley explains, specifically will be charged with incorporating into the new proposed version of 1583 the following issues not covered in the old document:
a total health enhancement program, including wellness and nutrition;
the qualifications and responsibilities of a health/fitness coordinator;
a section on physical fitness;
a section on physical performance related to duties and responsibilities of firefighters;
a section dealing with rehabilitation/ work-hardening/return-to-work status; and
a discussion of whether there should be a distinction between candidates and incumbent firefighters.
No deadline has been set for establishing the NFPA 1583 Task Group. In the meantime, Foley notes, public comments on 1500, Fire Department Occupational Safety and Health Program–1992; 1521, Fire Department Safety Officer–1992; and 1582, Medical Requirements for Fire Fighters, will be accepted until 5 p.m. EST on October 11, 1996. A copy of the 1997 Annual Meeting Report on Proposals may be obtained without charge by calling NFPA Customer Service at (800) 344-3555.
More than 300 submissions of comments on NFPA 1583 had been received. The Technical Committee had incorporated many of the suggestions into the proposal, and the revised draft was included in the NFPA 1996 Fall Meeting Report on Proposals for consideration at the Fall Meeting in Nashville.
Some committee members and other individuals and fire service organizations, including the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the International Association of Fire Fighters, and Women in the Fire Service, contended, however, that the proposal should be put out for public comment again since the document had been significantly changed.
The Technical Committee`s 30 voting members voted by mail on the revised proposal. Nineteen members voted affirmatively, four voted negatively, and one member abstained. Six ballots were not returned.
Committee members casting negative votes were Brenda Berkman, City of New York (NY) Fire Department, representing Women in the Fire Service; Don R. Forrest, United Fire Fighters of Los Angeles City, California; Curt T. Grieve, Florin (CA) Fire Protection District, representing the IAFC Western Fire Chiefs Association; and Richard A. Marinucci, Farmington Hills (MI) Fire Department, representing the IAFC.
The following (taken from the NFPA`s 1996 Fall Meeting Report on Proposals) were among the reasons committee members cited for opposing the proposed 1583–in addition to the fact that they believed it should be subjected to public comment because it has been significantly changed from the document on which the public originally commented. (Committee member Berkman noted, “The document that we are being asked to approve is a very different document from the one that the public was asked to comment upon, and fairness should dictate that the public be allowed to comment upon this very different material.” Committee Member Grieve, who originally had voted for 1583, changed his vote because he said it was “hardly recognizable from the draft submitted for public comment.”)
The final draft included or omitted sections that should have been changed or omitted in accordance with the committee`s actions on the comments received.
Inconsistencies were apparent between the changes made in the two drafts of the document, including the omission of Appendix C “Employment Test Validation.”
Local conditions prevail; therefore, no physical performance assessment can be validated on a national basis, including any of those presented in the proposed standard`s recommended practice.
Committee members universally were interested in considering testing mechanisms other than the Combat Challenge [a competition of mock firefighting operations offered to municipalities as a firefighter physical performance test]….The Task Group did not permit any other fitness or physical abilities options to be brought to the 1500 Committee`s attention.
The Committee rejected at least 32 comments criticizing the standard as a whole and the Combat Challenge specifically because opponents did not suggest alternative wording….The fire service would be better served if the Committee offered it another opportunity to suggest alternatives that are successfully being used to improve the fitness levels and physical abilities of firefighters. More options for consideration by the potential users of this Recommended Practice must be included if the document is to be of true value.
Rejection of IAFC and IAFF comments that the document focus more attention on fitness and health and to the diverse needs of the fire service is “very reckless.”
The draft does not answer the question, What happens to the incumbent firefighter who cannot “pass” the PPA (physical performance assessment)? Unless that question is answered in the document, it will have to be answered with a TIA (Tentative Interim Amendment) or in a lawsuit.
The proposed recommended practice is primarily designed as an entry level assessment program. Marinucci noted: “Its major components are not designed for the overall health and safety of firefighters. The document does not provide adequate help to fire departments and may further add confusion and potential problems. It still does not address the diverse needs of the fire service by offering adequate alternatives for a physical performance assessment program. Though its stated purposes include physical fitness, health enhancement, and rehabilitation, there is inadequate direction in these areas.”
The IAFF executive board recently voted to put on record that it is opposed to the use of firefighter “Combat Challenge” as a method to evaluate firefighter physical fitness. According to the IAFF, “these combat challenge tests have not been validated as a measurement of an appropriate level of firefighter physical fitness and in fact may cause actual physical harm to those participating in these tests.”
