AnsomMag.com |

Crime may be down this year, statistically speaking, but for law enforcement personnel, the world is not getting any safer. Last month’s near-miss car-bomb incident in Times Square serves as a reminder of the level of hazard that today’s public safety officer has to face. With situations that may range from riot control to a variety of chemical/biological/radiological/nuclear (CBRN) environments, the officer is a prime customer for protective apparel.

Just as the range of situations calling for protective gear is wide, so the category itself spans everything from helmets to eyewear, gloves to kneepads, body armor to shin guards. Customers for these products aren’t limited to police or military personnel, but may also include a variety of civilian users.

However, it’s law enforcement personnel that represent the primary market, and reaching them means keeping up with evolving standards. This past March, for instance, Safariland put out the MT21 Type II/Spike 2, an armor model that satisfies the requirements of the National Institute of Justice’s (NIJ) new Voluntary Body Armor Compliance Testing Program under NIJ Standard-0101.06.

The NIJ introduced the Ballistic Resistance of Body Armor NIJ Standard-0101.06 to establish minimum performance requirements and test methods for the ballistic resistance of personal body armor. The standard provides improved performance of body armor so that officers receive adequate protection against the threats they’re likely to face over the next decade.

According to the new NIJ-06 standard, body armor must now be designed to defend against increased velocities of ammunition calibers to better reflect current street threats and law enforcement duty weapons.

Chemical reaction

Bullets and blades aren’t the only potentially deadly objects that protective apparel must defend against in 2010. A variety of CBRN hazards may crop up, ranging from illegal drug manufacturing labs to acts of terror. The suits designed to protect against these situations previously were geared strictly toward firefighters or hazmat situations, not the needs of law officers—which, among other things, may include dealing with violent suspects. Making them work in a law-enforcement context was a tall order.

That’s why the NIJ last year introduced Standard-0116.00, which establishes minimum performance requirements for protective ensembles and test methods used to verify the apparel’s performance. It covers the ensemble overall along with the ensemble components such as gloves and foot protection.

“The new standard is important because the times have changed,” Debra Stoe, a physical scientist who manages the standards and testing program for the NIJ, told the institute’s TechBeat publication last summer. “Law enforcement officers have the potential to respond to different types of situations more often now than they did before the terrorist attacks of 9/11. They are truly sometimes the first responder on the scene and their needs and their responsibilities are different than previous users of CBRN ensembles.”

Protective apparel in this context “must address whatever situation an officer may encounter,” Noe added. “They don’t always know what they are walking or running into so their equipment must provide a minimal level of protection that will initially keep them safe from harm.”

Standard-0116.00 defines four Law Enforcement Response Levels (LERLs). These are defined as levels of ensemble protection based on mission requirements, expected mission duration, durability and CBRN threat environments. LERL-1 represents the highest level of threat, while LERL-4 is for the least threatening.

An example of a LERL-1 scenario is as follows, according to the NIJ: “an entry into a suspected clandestine drug lab or in a high-risk tactical warrant service entry into a building where chemical warfare agents or toxic industrial chemicals are present, and the level is unknown or known to be at or above immediately dangerous to life and health. This type of mission may require a stealth approach to the target and use of dynamic entry techniques employing speed, surprise and domination.” In this scenario, the potential risks may include explosions, fires, chemical burns and toxic fumes.