Anda di halaman 1dari 8

NOT Restricted to FERIC Members and Partners Vol. 3 No.

36 August 2002

Contents Assessing the need for footwear with


1
1
Introduction
Objectives
protective toecaps for wildland fire
2
3
Methods
Results
operations in Alberta
7 Recommenda-
tions and
Abstract
conclusions This study identified footwear appropriate for Alberta wildland firefighters and assessed
8 References the need for protective toecaps on their footwear. Hazard and risk of foot injuries were
8 Acknowledge- assessed, and recommendations are made.
ments
Keywords
Firefighters, Wildfire, Safety, Footwear, Boots, Protective toecaps, Alberta.

Author Introduction exposure to corrosive substances, and frequent


Ray Ault, immersion in water. These boots must also
Wildland Fire Operations
In the past 20 years, advances have been
provide ankle and foot support. Recognizable
Research Centre made in the design and manufacture of foot-
hazards include uneven terrain, slippery
wear in response to consumer demand for high
footing, obstacles and tripping hazards, and
performance, task specific footwear. The re-
slips, twists, cuts and abrasions are common
sult is an array of lightweight, comfortable,
injuries.
durable, and functional products. When these
The primary performance requirement of
new products are compared to protective
footwear meeting the CAN/CSA -Z195-M92
footwear certified by the Canadian Standards
standard is a protective toecap: “3.1.1 All
Association (CSA), the results from a wildland
protective footwear covered by this standard
firefighter perspective are disappointing.
shall provide toe protection and may provide
Changes in safety footwear have focused on
sole, metatarsal, electric shock or other specific
developing electric shock resistant and static
types of protection” (CSA 1992). In essence,
dissipative soles for the industrial market
toe protection is the only requirement and it
(Figure 1). These hazard conditions rarely
is usually provided by a steel toecap. Fire-
occur in the wildland firefighter’s work
fighters believe impact and cut injuries to the
environment.
toes are a minor hazard and question the
The wildland fire environment is severe
appropriateness of safety toe footwear for
and footwear must withstand contact with
general fireline tasks.
embers with temperatures up to 400°C,1

Objectives
Figure 1. Example
This study identified footwear appropriate
of CSA-compliant
leather boot used
for Alberta wildland firefighters and assessed
by firefighters. the need for CAN/CSA-Z195-M92 protective
footwear on the fireline. To achieve these
objectives, FERIC:
• Assessed hazard and risk.

1
J. Beck, formerly of the Wildland Fire Operations
Research Centre, field trials in Jasper, Alberta,
temperature of burning forest fuels, summer 2001.
Unpublished data.
• Identified appropriate footwear. reviewed to determine specific cause of the
• Reviewed CSA footwear design and accident and the injury description. This
performance requirements. information was summarized and compared
• Examined issues related to safety-toe to the risk analysis for footwear.
footwear on the fireline. The foot injury data for Alberta—which
• Investigated future developments in requires firefighters to wear safety toe foot-
footwear for wildland firefighters. wear—was compared to data from B.C.—
which does not.
Methods Using the AEP Fire Information Resource
System (FIRES) database, the payroll time for
SRD firefighters was calculated and compared
Hazard and risk
to foot injury data to establish the ratio of
Appropriate personal protective equipment
foot injuries per thousand work hours. This
for an occupation is determined by conducting
ratio is a useful measurement of risk.
a job task analysis, a hazard assessment, and a
risk analysis. This process was applied to
Appropriate footwear
wildland firefighters in Alberta to determine if
A description of footwear needs, based
toe protection is required for this occupation.
on wildland fire conditions in Alberta, was
The job task analysis is a comprehensive
developed from fireline activities observed by
listing of the significant work performed.
FERIC researchers and discussions with fire-
The tasks identified for the Ontario Ministry
fighters. Boot manufacturers were provided
of Natural Resources (OMNR 1996) are
with this summary, and were asked to identify
consistent with those of Alberta firefighters
boots that would best meet the fireline
and therefore this listing was used.
conditions observed.
Hazard assessment determines specific
FERIC conducted two surveys of Alberta
hazards associated with a specific task. Risk
firefighters to determine the CSA footwear worn,
analysis determines the potential frequency of
their purchasing habits, and the suitability of
exposure to the hazard, accident probability,
their footwear for the fireline. In the first
and severity of consequences.
survey, 94 firefighters were asked a series of
Hazard assessment and risk analysis for
questions, and the condition of each respond-
fireline construction had been completed in 1999
ent’s boot upper and outsole was examined.
by Fireline Safety Officers at the Environ-
In the second survey, 25 Sector Boss trainees
mental Training Centre in Hinton. These
completed a written questionnaire similar to
documents were used to identify the degree
the first survey. The experience level of fire-
of risk for specific hazards. FERIC also
fighters ranged from one to twenty-three
contracted Safety Environment Assurance
seasons and averaged 6.5 seasons.
Leaders International (SEAL) of Calgary to
perform a hazard analysis to determine
CSA footwear design and
potential firefighter foot injuries.
To identify the frequency of fireline inju- performance requirements
ries, annual Alberta Environmental Protection The design and performance requirements
(AEP) accident summaries for 1996–2000 of CAN/CSA-Z195-M92 were compared to
were reviewed, with the assistance of AEP, the primary hazards and work environment
Sustainable Resource Development (SRD), faced by Alberta firefighters to determine the
Occupational Health and Safety. Each file was suitability of the standard.

Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada (FERIC)


Eastern Division and Head Office Western Division Disclaimer
580 boul. St-Jean 2601 East Mall Advantage is published solely to disseminate information to FERIC’s mem-
Pointe-Claire, QC, H9R 3J9 Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4 bers and partners. It is not intended as an endorsement or approval of any
product or service to the exclusion of others that may be suitable.
(514) 694-1140 (604) 228-1555
(514) 694-4351 (604) 228-0999  Copyright 2002. Printed in Canada on recycled paper.
admin@mtl.feric.ca admin@vcr.feric.ca
Vol. 3 No. 36
2 Advantage
August 2002
ISSN 1493-3381
Safety toe footwear on the blisters, foam irritation, slips, trips, and falls.
fireline Only slips, trips, and falls were identified as
Other agencies involved in wildland being of significant risk of injury.
firefighting, or with similar tasks in the forest The SEAL analysis also determined that
environment, were asked about their footwear the primary hazards related to footwear are a
requirements, advances in boot technology, consequence of slips, trips, and falls. Impact
pertinent footwear standards, and medical injuries to the toes were identified as a minor
issues involving footwear. hazard.
The two hazard analyses are further
Future developments supported by the SRD accident data for the
Canadian and international organizations period 1996–2000 (Table 1). The frequency
with an interest in wildland fire footwear were and severity of impact injuries to the toe are
contacted to learn what advancements are on minimal, with only 5 of the 689 reported
the horizon. Manufacturers selling composite injuries involving an impact to the foot (0.7%).
toecaps were contacted and a field evaluation These five injuries accounted for 47 of the
of moldable composite toecaps was conducted. 9205 days of lost work, a factor of only 0.5%.
Most wildland fire agencies in Canada
require a CSA-compliant boot. B.C. is an
Results exception where firefighters are required to
wear substantial footwear, defined as “ heavy
Hazard and risk work boots with 15–20 cm tops and composite
The work performed by firefighters centers soles.”2 A comparison of foot injuries in B.C.
on locating, controlling, and suppressing fire in (does not require safety toe) and Alberta (requires
a forest environment. Hiking with tools, oper- safety toe) indicates both have low incidence
ating water delivery systems, removing forest of impact injuries to the foot (Table 1). Impact
fuels, and patrolling fireline are the primary injuries to the foot represents 0.6% of all
tasks of firefighters. Alberta firefighters can injuries in B.C. fire operations and 0.5% of
be expected to work up to 14 h/day, for up to
19 consecutive days.
The hazard assessment and risk analysis 2
File 735-05 Protective Clothing, File note: Safety
of fireline construction, completed by Alberta footwear for BCFS wildland fire fighting, November
19, 1999. Phil Taudin-Chabot, Training and Safety
Fireline Safety Officers, determined foot Team Leader, B.C. Ministry of Forests, Forest
hazards include being struck or cut by a tool, Protection Branch, Victoria, B.C.

Table 1. Comparison of foot injuries for Alberta (steel toes) and B.C.
(non steel toes) wildland firefighters 1996–2000 a
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Totals
Reported injuries, all causes
Alberta 73 88 236 174 118 689
British Columbia 390 346 435 314 302 1787
Firefighter days lost, all causes
Alberta 1 060 379 3 412 2 804 1 550 9 205
British Columbia 834 552 3 038 963 816 6 203
Impact injuries involving foot or toes
Alberta 0 1 4 0 0 5
British Columbia 4 1 2 2 1 10
Days involving lost foot or toes
Alberta 0 17 30 0 0 47
British Columbia 13 0 16 0 0 29
a
Lorraine Methot, Occupational Health & Accident Prevention, Human Resources Branch, B.C. Ministry of Forests,
Victoria, B.C., personal communication by e-mail, July 19, 2001.

Vol. 3 No. 36
Advantage August 2002 3
time loss due to injury. The infrequent inci- temperatures and rough surfaces found on the
dence of impact injury to the foot in B.C. fireline.
where firefighters do not wear safety toe boots As indicated in the assessment of hazard
suggests the benefit of this protection is low. and risk, slips, trips, and falls account for 16%
While impact injuries are few, 16% of all of all reported injuries. The two surveys
reported injuries in Alberta were caused by conducted by FERIC indicate sole design and
slips, trips, and falls, accounting for 25% of composition may be a contributing factor in
time loss due to injury (Table 2). these accidents.
Slip, trip, and fall data for B.C. were not FERIC’s surveys identified the CSA-
available for 1996–2000. However, B.C. compliant footwear worn on the fireline, and
Accident Prevention Branch data for 1989 showed a wide range of manufacturers, sole
and 1990 indicated slip accidents alone design, and sole composition. In the first
accounted for 18% of firefighter injury.3 survey, 65% of firefighters wore leather
The FIRES database for 1995–2000 footwear and 35% wore rubber-type water
showed that 5 836 0234 work hours were resistant footwear.
recorded in fireline occupations. Fourteen Twenty percent of the boots were
impact injuries to the foot occurred in the considered a poor choice for the fireline due
corresponding period, or 0.002 per thousand- to outsole material or design. Some CSA-
work hours. This indicates that the risk of approved footwear was being used in an
impact injury is minor. environment outside its design purpose
(Figure 1). The design of the sole tread will
Appropriate footwear influence the grip or traction of a boot for a
Manufacturers or their representatives5 particular surface condition. Seventeen percent
were asked to identify footwear suited to the of the boots used a Vibram trademark
wildland fire environment. Rubber or rubber composite rubber sole with an aggressive lug
composites outsoles were recommended by all, design which manufacturers had identified as
with most suggesting an aggressive outdoor appropriate for the fireline (Figure 2).
tread design. The outsole material influences Ninety-two percent of the boots on the
its durability and manufacturers suggested fireline had less than four seasons of use (with
some materials are better suited to the higher 38% having one season or less, 34% having
two seasons, and 30% having three seasons).
Figure 2. Boot with Over 50% of the firefighters purchased their
a rubber footwear from Marks Work Warehouse or its
composite sole affiliate Work World. Five percent of those
and aggressive
lug tread, 3
Lorraine Methot, Occupational Health & Accident
suitable for use in Prevention, Human Resources Branch, B.C. Ministry
forest conditions. of Forests, Victoria, B.C., personal communication by
e-mail, July 19, 2001.
4
K. Brooks and B. Bereska, SRD, Edmonton, Alberta,
personal communication, January 2002.
5
Edmonton Boot Show, Western Shoe Travellers
Association, February 2, 2002.

Table 2. Slip, trip, and fall accidents for Alberta 1996–2000

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Total


Lost days of work, all causes 1 060 379 3 412 2 804 1 550 9 205
Lost days of work, footwear 349 47 839 656 389 2 280
Reported injury, all causes 73 88 236 174 118 689
Reported injury, footwear 2 7 56 24 20 109

Vol. 3 No. 36
4 August 2002 Advantage
interviewed on the fireline wore borrowed foot- Figure 3. Water
wear. There was a low incidence of excessive wear resistant, natural
of the boot uppers, and some models showed rubber, chainsaw
a poor fit or minimal ankle support. protective boots.
Rubber footwear was either water resistant
chainsaw protection footwear or injection
molded PVC boots. Fifty-seven percent of those
wearing rubber footwear were using chainsaw
protection footwear (Figure 3). Although
twice the cost, firefighters told us that these
boots are popular because they can be used
for winter employment.
Chainsaw protection boots have several general industry needs and do not address the
advantages compared to the injection-molded specific conditions firefighters face on the Note:
type. First, the outsoles are lugged for better fireline. In essence the CSA standard only The hazards that the
traction. Many of the injection-molded boots requires toe impact protection. As indicated CSA standard
addresses are
have sole tread designs that offer poor traction in the risk analysis, impact injuries are a
generally faced by
in a forest environment. Second, the rubber minor risk in wildfire operations. The CSA building trades and
material in the chainsaw boots has better standard states that puncture resistance, manufacturing
flame-resistant characteristics. Finally, the metatarsal protection, electric shock resistant workers and are not
chainsaw boots offer cut protection. soles, and static dissipative properties may be common hazards to
Of the eight recorded cases of impact included only when this protection is the wildland
injuries to firefighters from a hand tool between incorporated in footwear. However, these firefighter.
1994 and 2000, CSA rubber boots were specific types of protection are not required,
specifically identified in half; the remaining and are only provided if the manufacturers
cases did not identify the type of footwear. incorporates them in the boot.
The written questionnaire given to Sector A comparison of CAN/CSA -Z195-M92
Boss trainees indicated this group was willing and the National Fire Protection Association
to pay $165 for footwear for the fireline. (NFPA) 1977 Standard on Protective
Thirty percent wear both leather and rubber Clothing and Equipment for Wildland Fire
boots for fireline duties. Surprisingly, 20% Fighting (NFPA 1998) is useful in identifying
indicated they wear cotton socks, and another the design and performance requirements
36% wear a combination of cotton with either relevant to the hazards facing wildland fire-
wool or synthetics while firefighting. Cotton fighters. As the name implies, this NFPA
socks are generally considered to cause blisters standard reflects wildland firefighting
when damp. operations and includes test methods for
footwear including cut resistance, puncture
CSA footwear design and resistance, corrosion resistance, conductive
performance requirements heat resistance, and abrasion and flame
The foundation of a standard is the design resistance. The NFPA standard also requires
and performance requirements. The design that manufacturers provide footwear in half
requirements establish the physical character- sizes and three widths which improves fit.
istics of the product, and are based on the
specific functions or the intended use. afety toe footwear on the
Safety
Performance requirements are published fireline
methods to test and rate the physical char- Some firefighters believe the safety toe is
acteristics to a specified level. To be appropriate, uncomfortable and can be a source of
design requirements must relate fundamentally blisters. Research identifying negative
to the intended application or task. impacts of safety toe footwear could not be
The CAN/CSA-Z195-M92 standard located. Organizations operating in wildland
design and performance requirements reflect conditions, and not using safety toe footwear,
Vol. 3 No. 36
Advantage August 2002 5
were contacted but could not provide research from the steel toe is a central issue. Minor
documentation to support their policies. irritations in foot comfort can compound over
However, they did provide comments on the a period of days to affect individual safety and
issue. performance. Protective toecaps are manufac-
The USDA Forest Service (USFS) employed tured of steel.6 For manufacturing efficiency,
over 25 000 firefighters during the 2000 fire boot manufactures will use one of two toecap
season. The organization does not require toe widths (E and triple E) and a toecap of the
protection. Federal firefighters are required to same dimensions is used for multiple sizes.
wear footwear meeting the NFPA standard. The # 10 toecap, for example, is used for size
According to George Jackson, a recognized 9, 9.5, 10 and 10.5 boots. A study of the
authority on protective clothing and equipment relationship between foot size and combat
in the U.S., the incidence of impact and cut boot size in the Canadian Forces found most
injuries to the foot are infrequent on the individuals fit boot width D, E or F (Dyck
fireline. The USFS does not specifically collect 2000). The D width boots account for 18.5%
foot injury data, but the organization provides of the individuals, E width for 58% and F
training on the choice, care, and maintenance width for 22.5%. These military boot widths
of boots, and on can not be directly compared to CSA work
“Some trades in the army do require steel toed boots, techniques for boots widths, and fit for width is further
typically where lifting and carrying heavy loads is con- walking in the complicated by foot circumference. However
cerned. But the numbers are few compared to the total. woods. it is reasonable to conclude that approximately
The dismounted infantry make up the majority of army The Canadian 20% of a population will not find a boot with
personnel. They march. It has been found that steel toes Armed Forces gen- a good fit for toe width.
move the center of gravity forward on the foot, and it
erally do not wear The most common injury caused by poor
doesn’t take long before tibialis anterior fatigues. At that
point, the toe is not lifted as high as the foot is swung
safety toe footwear. fit is blisters. The occurrence of blisters is most
forward, and stumbles occur. The added weight of the Contacts with De- pronounced when working on uneven terrain.
steel toes significantly reduces the foot’s range of motion. partment of Na- Lifeview Emergency Services documented first
The possible benefit of protecting the toes against impact tional Defence aid treatment related to foot problems at a
is far outweighed by the detriment of too much weight (DND) to identify fire near Blairmore, Alberta in 2000.7 Seven-
positioned in the wrong place.” (Walter Dyck of Defence pertinent research teen percent of all first aid visits related to the
and Civil Institute of Environmental Medicine, DND, studies on footwear foot, with 40% of these injuries being
personal communication, 2002.)
highlighted some blisters. This fire in rough terrain had almost
of the important 5 times the provincial average for reported foot
issues in selection of footwear for those trav- injury. In another study, U.S. Marine Corps
elling on foot in difficult terrain. Factors in recruits participated in initial physical
footwear selection include comfort, biome- training in San Diego, California. Recruits
chanics of the foot, and issues around job task. with blisters were 50% more likely to
Toe protection is thought to reduce the march- experience an additional training related
ing performance of the soldier and is consid- injury (Bush et al. 2000). Blisters are often
ered unnecessary. viewed as a minor ir-
As the worker “It is well known that additional mass in the shoe has ritant but they can
tires, changing the a large influence in energy expenditure due to the fact lead to more serious
center of balance can that the foot is constantly being accelerated and injuries.
increase the potential decelerated. Also, the additional mass in the toe
for trip-caused inju- region would require increased tibialis anterior activity 6
Dave Sullivan,
and the tibialis anterior is not a large muscle so would
ries. As the tibialis President, American Steel
be prone to fatigue.” (Darren Stefanyshyn, Ph.D. Toe Cap Company,
fatigues, the natural Human Performance Laboratory, Faculty of Kinesiol- personal communication,
response is to drop ogy at the University of Calgary, personal communi- November 26, 2001.
the toes, increasing cation, 2002.) 7
Foot injury/illness
stumbles. survey, July 23–31, 2000,
Gorge Fire P01-009-00.
For those firefighters who have difficulties Harold J. Nikipelo, Lifeview Emergency Services Ltd.
in finding boots with a proper fit, discomfort Unpublished report to the SRD.

Vol. 3 No. 36
6 August 2002 Advantage
In August of 2000, Alberta and Ontario weather. No composite toecaps are currently
firefighters assisted fire control operations in available in Canada.
Montana. One hundred Canadian firefighters CSA released a new edition of Protective
worked alongside 60 U.S. firefighters. During Footwear (Z195-02) in early 2002. In this
a 19-day period, 56% of Canadians firefighters standard, firefighters’ footwear is identified as
received treatment for blisters to the toe and one of the tasks not specifically addressed.
49% received treatment for blisters to the heel.
None of the American firefighters reported toe
Recommendations and
blisters and 23% reported heel blisters, half
of the incidence of injury to Canadian crews.
conclusions
During the Montana deployment, Ontario Alberta General Safety Regulations, Part 5
fire staff issued an interim policy to allow Personal Protective Equipment, Foot Protection
firefighters to use NFPA footwear while in 88 (1) reads as follows: “Where a danger of
Montana. “The injuries to the tops of the feet injury to a worker’s foot exists or may exist,
are caused from steep terrain – the steel toe his employer shall ensure that the worker wears
cutting into the top of the foot.... The injuries safety footwear that is appropriate to the
were evidence that if we did not do something, nature of the hazard associated with the
our Fire Rangers would have to return particular work process and is approved under
home. They would not be able to complete the CSA Standard CAN/CSA-Z195-M92,
their assignment.”8 Protective Footwear.”
Although inconclusive, indications are Under this regulation, if a danger of injury
that the added impact and cut protection to a worker’s foot is minor, the worker is not
provided by the safety toe boot is offset by required to wear CAN/CSA-Z195-M92 foot-
the increased discomfort and blisters caused wear. Hazard assessment and risk analysis of
by the steel toe. fireline tasks performed by Alberta wildland
firefighters indicate a minor danger of impact
Future developments and cut injuries to the foot, therefore CSA-
compliant footwear is not required.
Internationally, the European Committee
for Standardization 9 is developing a new Further, this study found the CAN/CSA-
Z195-M92 standard design and performance
footwear standard for firefighters. The draft
requirements are unrelated to the conditions
standard includes provision for a type-1-boot
found in the wildland fire environment where
classification without toe protection. Australia
and New Zealand, as members of subcom- slips, trips, and falls are the primary hazards.
Research indicated boot fit for a number of
mittee 14, are involved in this standard de-
firefighters can be compromised by the
velopment as is a representative of the
selection of steel toecaps. Proper fitting
Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre
(CIFFC). The CIFFC—Resource Management footwear is more important on the fireline
than toe protection. Footwear appropriate for
Working Group has identified appropriate
the fireline should be designed to provide
protective footwear as a high priority.
traction in a forest environment, should allow
In the future, the use of moldable com-
posite materials instead of steel for toe the foot the fullest range of movement while
providing stability for the ankle, and should
protection promises to reduce the weight and
be constructed of materials that are flame
heat conductivity of safety toes. FERIC
sponsored a field evaluation of seven pairs of a
composite-toe boot, and the results indicated 8
Howard Dupuis, Fire Operations Program Officer,
they may overcome some of the difficulties Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Sault Ste.
found in steel toecaps. However, the manu- Marie, Ontario, personal communication by e-mail,
April 16, 2001.
facturer withdrew these boots from the 9
European Committee for Standardization, CEN/
market in the fall of 2001 after being unable Technical Committee 161, Working Groups 1-2.
to meet impact requirements in cold Brussels, Belgium.

Vol. 3 No. 36
Advantage August 2002 7
resistant. Suitable footwear for the wildland ance, fireline-specific footwear to minimize the
environment can be found in both CSA- overall number of fireline injuries.
compliant and non-compliant footwear. This
study recommends that the Alberta Forest
References
Protection Division clarify its Wildfire and
Bush, R.A.; Brodine, S.K.; Shaffer, R.A. 2000.
Aviation - Protective Clothing Policy FPD
The association of blisters with muscu-
4.2 to require footwear on the fireline to
loskeletal injuries in male marine recruits.
include the following:
Journal of American Podiatric Medical As-
• soles designed with an aggressive/lug
sociation 90(2): 194–198.
tread pattern.
• soles manufactured of rubber or compos- Canadian Standards Association (CSA). 1992.
ite rubber compounds. CAN/CSA Z195-M92 Protective Footwear
• boots of a minimum height of 20 cm Occupational Health and Safety, A National
(eight inches). Standard of Canada, Design requirements
The policy should be specific in its re- 3.1.1. Toronto, Ontario.
quirements for both leather and water resistant Dyck, W. 2000. A study of the relationship
boots. Leather boots must provide ankle between foot size and combat boot size in
support and a proper fit. the Canadian Forces. Defence and Civil
The use of water-resistant footwear on the Institute of Environmental Medicine,
fireline should include a requirement that only Technical Report DCIEM TR2000-137.
footwear manufactured of flame-resistant 18 pp.
materials be allowed (Figure 3). National Fire Protection Association (NFPA).
In the absence of a Canadian standard 1998. NFPA 1977 standard on protective
specifying minimum design, performance, clothing and equipment for wildland fire
testing, and certification requirements for fighting. Quincey, Maine.
wildland fire footwear, the Protection Division
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
should provide its firefighters guidance in the
(OMNR). 1996. Development of physical
selection of appropriate footwear.
performance standards for OMNR initial
The NFPA 1977 standard of a suitable
attack forest fire fighters. Report prepared
leather boot should be considered for Alberta
by Shaw Consulting. Volume 2: 105-131.
firefighters (Figure 4). This standard allows
each agency to specify boot outsole requirements
to reflect terrain features. Acknowledgements
Manufacturers have indicated an interest The author wishes to thank the many
in working with Alberta Protection Division firefighters and managers who contributed to
in the design and production of footwear to this study including Dennis Driscoll, Leo
meet the needs of wildland firefighters. This Drapeau and Norm Gratton of Alberta Sus-
is an opportunity for the Protection Division tainable Resource Development; Bob Dalby,
to advance the development of high perform- Collin Effa and Phil Taudin-Chabot of the
B.C. Ministry of Forests. Several footwear
Figure 4. The manufacturers also provided information in
leather boot on the the completion of this report including Barry
right meets the Borkowski of the Total Fire Group, Doug
NFPA standard. Henschel of Red Wing Shoes, Paul Moorby
Neither boot has a
of Canada West Shoe and Ron Iwamoto of
CSA-compliant
steel toecap. Mark’s Work Wearhouse. Special thanks to
reviewers Dr. Walter Dyck, Defence and Civil
Institute of Environmental Medicine and Bill
Mawdsley, Government of the NWT. Also,
thanks to Ingrid Hedin and Shelley Ker in
the preparation of this report.
Vol. 3 No. 36
8 August 2002 Advantage

Anda mungkin juga menyukai