Firefighter Hood

Research Foundation webinar on “Traditional and Particulate-Blocking Firefighter Hoods: Pros, Cons, and Trade-Offs”

The next Fire Protection Research Foundation webinar, as part of its 2021 webinar series, will feature the findings from a DHS FEMA Assistance to Firefighters Grant funded research study, led by North Carolina State University’s Textile Protection and Comfort Center (TPACC). The webinar will focus on developing a system-level methodology for evaluating protective hood materials and designs for trade-offs between protection (particulate and flashfire), comfort, durability, and situational awareness. Heads, faces, and necks are among the most vulnerable body areas for firefighter chemical exposure. Prior to 2016, protective hood variations were mainly based on different designs, bib lengths, fiber types, and blends, and were traditionally two-layer knit hoods or three-layer options designed for instructors. Particulate-blocking hoods were first introduced as a direct response to the heightened awareness of carcinogenic soot deposition on the head, face, and neck of firefighters when wearing on a traditional knit hood. This research project was conducted to further the understanding of this vulnerability and the performance trade-offs between traditional hoods and the new particulate-blocking alternatives. This webinar will present the findings from this study.  Register for this free webinar today. Visit for more upcoming NFPA & FPRF webinars and archives.  When: Wednesday, August 4, 2021, 12:30 – 2:00 P.M. Eastern Time.  Presenter: Bryan Ormond, Ph.D., North Carolina State University.   
Craig 1300 NFPA

NFPA officially launches CRAIG 1300™, an all-new Community Risk Assessment Insight Generator that helps identify, assess, and mitigate public safety risks

 This week, NFPA announced the official launch of CRAIG 1300™, an innovative community risk assessment (CRA) dashboard powered by mySidewalk, a leading technology company that specializes in community data. CRAIG 1300 helps fire departments and safety officials collect community data, enabling them to identify, assess and share local demographic, geographic and economic needs. Community risk reduction (CRR) has continued to gain recognition in recent years as an effective approach to mitigating community risks; conducting a CRA that utilizes community data is a critical first step in the CRR process. CRAIG 1300 was developed to give fire departments, prevention advocates, and safety officials the tools and data resources to successfully execute these efforts. Uniquely aligned with NFPA 1300, Standard on Community Risk Assessment and Community Risk Reduction Plan Development, CRAIG 1300 features a user-friendly dashboard with customized maps, graphs, and charts. Community leaders can use CRAIG 1300 to: Learn about the people, places, and conditions that are at-risk in the community. Shave months of human resources typically needed for data analysis and refocus resources on CRR plan development to drive enhanced community safety.     Activate teams in the development and management of CRR initiatives informed by NFPA 1300 with regularly updated data sources. Engage stakeholders, grantors, and partners in cross-community initiatives with easy-to-use visualization tools. Communicate the effectiveness of initiatives with stakeholders, grantors, and partners. Over the past two years, NFPA has worked in collaboration with mySidewalk and more than 300 communities who pilot-tested the digital platform, providing insights that helped maximize its usability and value. CRAIG 1300 is available as a product suite with three dashboard options: CRAIG 1300 PRO, CRAIG 1300 PLUS, and CRAIG 1300 FLEX. To learn more about CRAIG 1300 and its offerings, visit Follow NFPA’s CRR efforts on social media using #itstartswithinsights.

Determining Current Carrying Capacity of Conductors

The purpose of NFPA 70®, National Electrical Code® (NEC®) is the practical safeguarding of persons and property from the hazards that arise due to the use of electricity. Typically, this means protecting people from hazards like shock and arc flash, as well as property from fire. Fires resulting from improper wiring have historically been a significant threat ever since electrical systems have been installed within buildings. The NEC has established a long history of installation requirements to help prevent fires from occurring within the electrical system. One such requirement is to determine how much electrical current a conductor can carry continuously without exceeding the temperature rating of its insulation, or as the NEC refers to it, a conductor’s ampacity. However, determining ampacity requires the understanding of a number of other factors that come into play based on how a conductor is used and installed. This involves navigating charts, tables, and a number of other requirements to make sure that we calculate the correct ampacity. Depending on which conditions of installation and use exist, we find ourselves using a number of tables found throughout the NEC, but in particular, many of them are located in Article 310. There are a multitude of tables that spell out items such as conductor ampacity, temperature correction factors, and adjustment factors. So, let’s take a look at how these ampacity charts and tables can be used to ensure we select the appropriate conductor for the installation. There are a few questions we must ask ourselves before we begin. First, we need to know what the conductor insulation is rated for since ampacity is a function of the temperature rating of the insulation. Once we have established if we are using 60-, 75-, or 90-degree Celsius rated insulation, we can determine which column from the appropriate ampacity chart we need to be in. For conductors rated up to 2000V, ampacities can be found in Tables 310.16 through 310.21 based on how they are installed and other specific installation criteria. For the purpose of this blog, we will be using Table 310.16 for conductors installed in a raceway or cable with not more than 3 current carrying conductors total and in an ambient temperature of 30⁰C (86⁰F). These parameters are important to know since any deviation will necessitate a modification of the ampacity value in the tables. Once we know the insulation temperature rating, we can then find the corresponding ampacity in the appropriate column of Table 310.16 for the given conductor size (Note: certain types of insulation carry multiple ratings based on the location type, see Table 310.4 for conductor properties). After we have the ampacity value from Table 310.16, then we can apply adjustment and correction factors, if needed. Let’s start off with adjustment factors. First ask, are there more than three current carrying conductors in the raceway or cable, or are multiple cables installed without maintaining spacing for a distance greater than 24 inches? This count applies to total number of ungrounded (hot) conductors, even spares, and grounded (neutral) conductors on a 3 phase, 4-wire WYE system where: the circuit is single phase or, if the major part of the load consists of nonlinear loads [see 310.15(E)]. If the total current carrying conductor count exceeds three, then the ampacity from Table 310.16 must be adjusted in accordance with Table 310.15(C)(1) based on the total number of current carrying conductors. Next, we must look at the ambient temperature of where the conductor will be installed. If the ambient is anything other than what the starting ampacity is in Table 310.16, then we will find temperature correction factors in 310.15 based on deviations from the original chart’s ambient temperature. There are two temperature correction tables: Table 310.15(B)(1) for tables that are based on an ambient temperature of 30⁰C (86⁰F). Table 310.15(B)(2) for tables that are based on an ambient temperature of 40⁰C (104⁰F).     Because this blog is written based on Table 310.16, multipliers for temperature correction from Table 310.15(B)(1) should be used, since both charts are based on 30⁰C (86⁰F) ambient temperature. Table 310.15(B)(1) is also divided up by the temperature rating of the conductor insulation. Having already established this, simply find the corresponding multiplier based on the actual ambient temperature of the installation. Once all necessary adjustment and correction factors have been applied, there is still one more component that affects the ability of the conductors to safely carry electrical current continuously without exceeding the temperature rating of the insulation. This final factor is the termination of the conductor to any equipment. Termination points can be a limiting factor as these are common points on the electrical system for heat build up and rely on the conductor material to act as a heat sink to dissipate any build up of heat where the termination is made. For these requirements, we must consult section 110.14(C) for termination temperature limitations. These requirements help us determine the final current carrying capacity of our conductors so that they can safely handle the circuit current without damage to the insulation from excess heat. Section 110.14(C)(1) is split up into two scenarios. The first group is for circuits 100 amps or less or that are marked for the termination of conductor sizes 14 AWG through 1 AWG. The second group is for circuits with above 100 amps or terminations marked for larger than 1 AWG. The requirements for the first group limit the conductor use to conductors with a 60⁰C insulation rating or if conductors with a higher temperature rating are used, the final adjusted ampacity must not exceed that found in the 60⁰C column for the same size conductor, unless the terminations are also rated for a higher temperature in which case the final ampacity shall not exceed the value in the corresponding column. For the second group, above 100A or 1 AWG, the rules simplify a bit. The conductors must be rated for 75⁰C or higher and if the conductor is rated for higher than 75⁰C, the final ampacity must not exceed the corresponding ampacity in the 75⁰C column unless the terminations are identified as being rated for such higher temperatures. When we follow these requirements, the conductors that we install will be less likely to overheat and become a hazard, provided that the conditions of use remain the same. We’ve developed a free flow chart on this topic, including the tables mentioned above, to help you in your next installation. Be sure to download it here.   
Workers looking at plans

A Better Understanding of NFPA 70E: Job Safety Planning and Job Briefing

Before starting each job that involves exposure to electrical hazards, the employee in charge must complete a job safety plan and conduct a job briefing with the employees involved. That is the NFPA 70E®, Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace® requirement. It makes sense for the occasional need to justifiably expose an employee an electrical hazard but what about tasks that expose an employee to an electrical hazard daily? The short answer is yes; the requirement applies to those. The requirements apply just as written, the briefing and planning must be conducted before each job that exposes any employee to an electrical hazard.  What if it is a multistory printing press that has several problems every day? The answer is still yes. The primary method of protecting an employee from electrical hazards must be establishing an electrically safe work condition. Any exposure must be properly justified regardless of its nature. Documented procedures are necessary whether it is troubleshooting that exposes an employee to hazards or justified energized work that does. There is difference between troubleshooting and repair as I have pointed out many times. There are exclusions to requiring an energized work permit but that does not remove the need for a planning and briefing. How a facility’s electric safety program (ESP) is written plays a big part on how this is handled. A well written ESP should not allow any employee to decide on their own when or why they will be exposed to an electrical hazard. The ESP should not allow an employee to make up a work procedure on the fly or guess at the hazards or protective equipment (PPE) necessary to perform the task even if the task is perceived as routine. If an employee is exposed daily to an electrical hazard because of the same issue it would be better to fix the problem rather than expose them to the hazard daily. Maybe the problem cannot be fixed because of the nature of the equipment’s use, but it might be possible to use the hierarchy of risk controls to reduce the hazard or risk while performing that daily task. Either way, each day you will find a way to justify exposing the employee to the hazard. A safety procedure and energized work permit could be written for that specific repetitive task. NFPA 70E does not prohibit such a permit but there are many safety issues that should be addressed before doing so. There may be no such thing as routine when it comes to electrical safety. For example, the need to enter an enclosure because of a thermal trip does not mean that the cause of the thermal trip is the same every time. A different hazard or risk could be lurking inside and, if the employee is not prepared for it, could lead to an injury.  An energized work permit may not be required if the task is limited to troubleshooting. However, the documented procedure, proper protective equipment, planning and briefing must still be used.  All of this is true whether it is a single recurring issue or tens of recurring issues. Section 110.5(I)(1) covers the minimum requirements for the planning stage and one requirement is that it be documented.  Any task must be planned in detail for there to be an effective job briefing. If the task is being conducted for the first time, work procedures must be developed before work begins. If the planning reveals shortcomings in the established ESP or work procedure, these must be addressed before the task is performed. The planning stage is when the specific hazards associated with the specific task are identified. It should be verified that necessary equipment will be available to perform the task. The job planning section does not address the energized work permit, but the permit could be used to gather the necessary information. Section 110.5(I)(2) addresses the job briefing. This is when the employee in charge goes over the plan and discusses the energized work permit with the employee assigned to the task. The job briefing needs to be performed before the work tasks are started. However, it should not be performed so far ahead that the employees involved might forget what was covered. The briefing should include a discussion of the work procedure so that all parties fully understand the procedure. The briefing also gives employees the opportunity to express any concerns they have about the task, the procedure, their qualifications, or their safety. The employee should affirm that they will not deviate from the plan or task scope. They should also acknowledge that any deviation from the specific assigned task must be discussed before being implemented and modified in the work plan or procedure. It should be confirmed that the appropriate and necessary equipment and current procedures have been given to the employee. NFPA 70E does not require that the briefing be documented since the documented plan and work permit cover the issues discussed. As the employee in charge, I would add briefing notes to the documented plan especially if there were issues raised during the briefing. I would also have the employee sign the plan or permit as acknowledgement that the briefing was conducted. The job briefing also serves a purpose to the employee in charge and the employer. The briefing is the time to verify that the energized work permit is properly authorized or that the task is limited to troubleshooting. The employee in charge is responsible for assuring the employee is qualified not only for the task on the specific equipment but they are the right employee for the assigned task. They should assess if the employee is impaired in some manner. They may have to apply for a new work permit before the task is started based on the briefing. They need to address any issues raised by the employee before permitting them to begin the task. They will be the point of contact if the assigned task evolves into something else. There nothing prohibiting the employee in charge from being the employee assigned the task. It might seem excessive for them to establish a plan and hold a briefing for themselves. Their self-briefing allows them to verify that everything for their safety has been considered. It also gives them time to question their own qualification for the task and equipment. They should not be up to their elbows in energized equipment then realize that the work procedure has not been updated for new equipment that had recently replaced the old equipment. This is all to protect an employee from becoming an injury or fatality. An employer should know who, when, why, and where an employee may need to be rescued after an incident. Every employee should know what is expected of them before they are put at risk of an injury. Any employee assigned energized work or exposed to electrical hazards is at risk of a potential injury even if they are wearing PPE. Skipping the required planning and job briefing may seem convenient until an employee is injured. An investigator might consider that nothing was done leading up to the injury without a record of a job safety planning and briefing regardless of the employer’s documented ESP. Did you know that the first program in the NFPA 125th Conference Series, “Empowering Electrical Design, Installation and Safety,” is now available on demand? Get additional insights about electrical safety in the workplace and NFPA 70E through a series of engaging presentations from industry experts. Topics include a look at electrical shock injuries and the effect on both the mind and body, electrical incident data and the importance of safety training, electric shock hazards and the relationship to new technology, and how OSHA uses 70E. A special roundtable discussion also features questions and answers about staying safe on the job. Register today and earn CEU credits for participating. The program is available on demand through May 18, 2022.
Fire truck responding to a call

Research shows progress and problems since "America Burning"

"The striking aspect of the Nation’s fire problem is the indifference with which Americans confront the subject. Destructive fire takes a huge toll in lives, injuries, and property losses, yet there is no need to accept those losses with resignation. There are many measures--often very simple precautions-that can be taken to reduce those losses significantly.” Nearly 50 years ago, these salient words were reflected in the opening pages of America Burning, the historic report written in 1973 and revisited in 1980. Over the decades since the landmark account was published, I have heard countless people cite America Burning findings, point to the recommendations within, and talk about what the findings did for fire protection, fire prevention, and responder safety. I whole-heartedly agree that America Burning was a groundbreaking tool in our arsenal and yet, today, in arguably the most advanced nation in the world – nearly 3,000 people still succumb to house fires, not to mention in other occupancies. On the same page of that report, the authors wrote, “These statistics are impressive in their size, though perhaps not scary enough to jar the average American from his confidence that “It will never happen to me.” And therein lies the problem. Complacency. It’s a killer of people, of property, of perspective, and of progress. But as has often been said, knowledge is power. NFPA has spent the last 125 years, believing this tenet to be true and furthering understanding in the interest of safety. Our vision of eliminating death, injury, property, and economic loss due to fire, electrical, and related hazards is not merely a cliché, it is at the core of everything we do, everything that the America Burning report touched on back in the 70s and 80s, and served as the impetus for a new seminal report from NFPA and the Fire Protection Research Foundation, our research affiliate. The Fire in the United States Since 1980, Through the Lens of the NFPA Fire & Life Safety Ecosystem Report shows the progress we have achieved in reducing loss in certain structures; the strides we’ve made with fire protection technologies such as smoke alarms and sprinklers; the success that we have achieved through public education; and the positive effect that mandated codes and standards have played in altering the fire experience in our country. Today, we rarely see people perish in healthcare settings or hotels. Children are less likely to die from playing with fire. Fires in apartment buildings and hi-rise buildings have decreased. Our schools and the children, educators, and staff that occupy them are significantly safer. These are all positives that, in many ways, point to the components of the Ecosystem that we have been talking about for three years now. Yes, at NFPA, we look at safety through the lens of the Ecosystem – not because we developed this framework a few years back but - because after more than a century of championing safety, two America Burning studies and this new research from NFPA – it is abundantly clear that fire safety requires a holistic, purposeful approach, and unwavering accountability. That holistic, purposeful approach and unwavering accountability is what it’s going to take for us to move the needle on the most pressing fire safety issues of today. The new research reminds us: We need all the elements of the Ecosystem working together on Community Risk Reduction (CRR) strategies so that we can decrease the number of elderly dying in home fires. With roughly one of every three fatal home fire victims being 65 or older, more research and resources are needed to protect our most vulnerable citizens. That’s why our Data, Analytics and Research team and the Research Foundation work to inform our Remembering When program which educates communities on older adult fire and fall prevention. States with higher fire death rates have larger percentages of people who have a disability; have incomes below the poverty line; live in rural areas; or are populated by African Americans, Blacks, Native Americans, or Alaskan Natives. There is more work to do to reach those at greatest risk. We must stem the trend of wildfire-caused human and property losses. Wildfire is becoming the dominant type of fire that causes catastrophic multiple deaths and property destruction in our country. In fact, 7 of the 10 costliest fires in the US were fires in the wildland/urban interface. We launched our new Outthink Wildfire™ policy campaign to advocate change around where and how we build and to bring together policy-makers, the fire service, and the public to work with all elements of the Ecosystem, so that we can redraft history and change the narrative. “Each one of us must become aware – not for a single time, but for all the year – of what he or she can do to prevent fires,” President Richard Nixon said in 1972. (The quote can be heard in the latest NFPA Learn Something New video about the new research.)   I urge you to use the knowledge in this new report to power your fire prevention and protection steps so, together, we can rewrite history.
Fire extinguisher on the wall

Fire Extinguisher Types

In the hands of a trained person, portable fire extinguishers are great tools to protect people and property from fire during early stages. When using an extinguisher or selecting an extinguisher to install, it’s important to know the characteristics of different fire extinguishers. This blog will address the different types of fire extinguishers by breaking them down by their extinguishing agent, which is the material inside the extinguisher that gets applied to the fire. Class of Fire Description Class A Fires Fires in ordinary combustible materials, such as wood, cloth, paper, rubber, and many plastics. Class B Fires Fires in flammable liquids, combustible liquids, petroleum greases, tars, oils, oil-based paints, solvents, lacquers, alcohols, and flammable gases. Class C Fires Fires that involve energized electrical equipment. Class D Fires Fires in combustible metals, such as magnesium, titanium, zirconium, sodium, lithium, and potassium. Class K Fires Fires in cooking appliances that involve combustible cooking media (vegetable or animal oils and fats). Water Water is the primary liquid used in these extinguishers, although sometimes other additives are also included. A drawback for pure water fire extinguishers is that it is not suitable for use in freezing conditions since the water inside will freeze and render the extinguisher unusable. Certain types of water fire extinguishers contain antifreeze which will allow the extinguisher to be used in freezing conditions. Water type fire extinguishers can also sometimes contain wetting agents which are designed to help increase its effectiveness against fire. These extinguishers are intended primarily for use on Class A fires.  Water mist extinguishers are a type of water fire extinguisher that uses distilled water and discharges it as a fine spray instead of a solid stream. Water mist extinguishers are used where contaminants in unregulated water sources can cause excessive damage to personnel or equipment. Typical applications include operating rooms, museums, and book collections. Film-forming foam type AFFF (aqueous film-forming foam) and FFFP (film-forming fluoroprotein) fire extinguishers are rated for use on both Class A and Class B fires. As the name implies, they discharge a foam material rather than a liquid or powder. They are not suitable for use in freezing temperatures. An advantage of this type of extinguisher when used on Class B flammable liquid fires of appreciable depth is the ability of the agent to float on and secure the liquid surface, which helps to prevent reignition. Carbon Dioxide type The principal advantage of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) fire extinguishers is that the agent does not leave a residue after use. This can be a significant factor where protection is needed for delicate and costly electronic equipment. Other typical applications are food preparation areas, laboratories, and printing or duplicating areas. Carbon dioxide extinguishers are listed for use on Class B and Class C fires. Because the agent is discharged in the form of a gas/snow cloud, it has a relatively short range of 3 ft to 8 ft (1 m to 2.4 m). This type of fire extinguisher is not recommended for outdoor use where windy conditions prevail or for indoor use in locations that are subject to strong air currents, because the agent can rapidly dissipate and prevent extinguishment. The concentration needed for fire extinguishment reduces the amount of oxygen in the vicinity of the fire and should be used with caution when discharged in confined spaces. Halogenated agent types Halon The bromochlorodifluoromethane (Halon 1211) fire extinguisher has an agent that is similar to carbon dioxide in that it is suitable for cold weather installation and leaves no residue. It is important to note that the production of Halon has been phased out because of the environmental damage it causes to the earth’s ozone.  Some larger models of Halon 1211 fire extinguishers are listed for use on Class A as well as Class B and Class C fires. Compared to carbon dioxide on a weight-of-agent basis, bromochlorodifluoromethane (Halon 1211) is at least twice as effective. When discharged, the agent is in the combined form of a gas/mist with about twice the range of carbon dioxide. To some extent, windy conditions or strong air currents could make extinguishment difficult by causing the rapid dispersal of the agent. Halon Alternative Clean Agents There are several clean agents that are similar to halon agents in that they are nonconductive, noncorrosive, and evaporate after use, leaving no residue. Larger models of these fire extinguishers are listed for Class A as well as Class B and Class C fires, which makes them quite suitable for use on fires in electronic equipment. When discharged, these agents are in the combined form of a gas/mist or a liquid, which rapidly evaporates after discharge with about twice the range of carbon dioxide. To some extent, windy conditions or strong air currents could make extinguishing difficult by causing a rapid dispersal of agent. Clean agent type extinguishers don’t have a detrimental effect on the earth’s ozone so these are more widely available than Halon type extinguishers. Dry chemical types Ordinary Dry Chemical The fire extinguishing agent used in these devices is a powder composed of very small particulates. Types of agents available include sodium bicarbonate base and potassium bicarbonate base. Dry chemical type extinguishers have special treatments that ensure proper flow capabilities by providing resistance to packing and moisture absorption (caking). Multipurpose Dry Chemical Fire extinguishers of this type contain an ammonium phosphate base agent. Multipurpose agents are used in exactly the same manner as ordinary dry chemical agents on Class B fires. For use on Class A fires, the multipurpose agent has the additional characteristic of softening and sticking when in contact with hot surfaces. In this way, it adheres to burning materials and forms a coating that smothers and isolates the fuel from air. The agent itself has little cooling effect, and, because of its surface coating characteristic, it cannot penetrate below the burning surface. For this reason, extinguishment of deep-seated fires might not be accomplished unless the agent is discharged below the surface or the material is broken apart and spread out. Wet chemical The extinguishing agent can be comprised of, but is not limited to, solutions of water and potassium acetate, potassium carbonate, potassium citrate, or a combination of these chemicals (which are conductors of electricity). The liquid agent typically has a pH of 9.0 or less. On Class A fires, the agent works as a coolant. On Class K fires (cooking oil fires), the agent forms a foam blanket to prevent reignition. The water content of the agent aids in cooling and reducing the temperature of the hot oils and fats below their autoignition point. The agent, when discharged as a fine spray directly at cooking appliances, reduces the possibility of splashing hot grease and does not present a shock hazard to the operator. Wet chemical extinguishers also offer improved visibility during firefighting as well as minimizing cleanup afterward. Dry powder types These fire extinguishers and agents are intended for use on Class D fires and specific metals, following special techniques and manufacturer’s recommendations for use. The extinguishing agent can be applied from a fire extinguisher or by scoop and shovel. Using a scoop or shovel is often referred to as a hand propelled fire extinguisher. Conclusion & resources While there are many different types of fire extinguishers used for different applications it is also important to know the rating of each extinguisher which will let you know the types of fires it is meant to be applied to. For more information on portable fire extinguishers take a look at the following blogs, as well as our portable fire extinguisher fact sheet. Related blogs Guide to Extinguisher ITM Guide to Extinguisher Placement
Chevy Bolt

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety warning about Chevy Bolt

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued a warning to owners of 2017-2019 Chevrolet Bolts, urging them not to park in garages or near structures and to refrain from overnight charging. In November, General Motors recalled more than 50,000 Chevy Bolts due to potential fire risks posed by high-voltage batteries underneath the back seat. Battery packs can smoke and ignite – regardless of whether the vehicle has gone through the recall repair process or not. In the most recent alert, NHTSA reported that two Chevy Bolt fires occurred in vehicles that had gone through the recall remedy. NFPA and organizations like the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) have been working to educate audiences about electric vehicles (EV), particularly first responders.  Over the last twelve years, NFPA has worked with every auto/truck/bus manufacturer who sells EVs and hybrids in this country and has received pre-market safety information so that responders have the most up-to-date training, tools, and resources. The NFPA EV Safety Training website is the most accessed repository in the U.S. for EV responder safety information. NTSB also investigated four unrelated EV incidents and released a thorough report in November on hazards and gaps. Earlier this year, NFPA covered this topic when two occupants of a Tesla were killed in a fiery crash in Texas. Then right before the high-travel Memorial Day holiday weekend, NFPA collaborated with major fire organizations to get the word out about the unique challenges associated with EVs. To keep pace with an influx of energy-efficient cars on the roadways, NFPA applied for and secured two new Department of Energy (DOE) grants. The first, entitled NFPA Spurs the Safe Adoption of EVs through Education and Outreach, will allow NFPA to develop free EV awareness training for utilities, code officials, charging station installers, EV fleet owners, tow and salvage responders, crash reconstruction teams, manufacturers, dealerships, garage maintenance workers, insurance companies, and EV owners. A second effort calls for enhancing and promoting an NFPA Distributed Energy Resources Safety Training program. NFPA will update its current EV Safety classroom training for the fire service and develop an online gamification version of the distributed energy resource including how to respond to electric vehicle fires. To learn more about EV safety, visit
1 2 ... 78

Latest Articles