The IMAS are the UN’s International Mine Action Standards
The IMAS on Safety and Occupation Health PPE was formally revised in April 2009 and updated in 2013. Some significant changes were made and all organisations seeking to be IMAS compliant should read it carefully.
Changes to IMAS 10.30 S&OH PPE
The IMAS use the words "shall", "should" and "may" to indicate different levels of obligation.
If a demining group claims to work to the IMAS, it must comply with all the statements that are preceded by "shall". Statements preceded by "should" are IMAS preferences and indicate a requirement that should only be varied with a reason. Statements preceded by "may" are options that can be considered, but do not have to be.
The April 2009 revision of IMAS 10.30 made significant changes based on field experience and the demining accident record. One change was of particular relevance to the provision of PPE. The relevant text is reproduced below for reference.
The most significant change is the removal of the requirement for a full-face visor to be worn at all times. While a full-face visor is still preferred (a "should"), the minimum requirement (a "shall") is now eye protection "held over the eyes in a frame that prevents blast ingress from
beneath". This allows purpose made goggles and various blast-masks to be used.
Another significant change is the removal of the requirement for body armour to have a collar that overlaps the outside of the visor. With no visor, this makes sense, but the change was partly made because the need for it has not been proven. Some armour designs include a nominal collar that provides no protection, but the accident record does not indicate that its use has resulted in any increase in neck injuries.
The guidance on the use of blast-resistant handtools remains the same, and demining groups should use them unless that have a good reason not to. The accident record indicates that severe hand and arm injuries occur most often when inappropriate tools are used.
IMAS 10.30 (4th June 2013 amendment)
4.3. Minimum PPE requirement
PPE shall be capable of protecting the parts of the body that are covered against the blast
effects of 240 gm of TNT at distances appropriate to the wearer’s activity.
The amount of PPE provided shall be determined as a result of a field risk assessment and
management decision. The minimum PPE inside the safety distance of a suspected hazardous
area or when engaged in any activity that involves being close to mines and ERW, shall be:
a) Body armour capable of satisfying the ballistic test outlined in STANAG 2920,
achieving a V50 rating (dry) of 450m/s for 1.102g fragments. It shall also be capable of
protecting the chest, abdomen and groin area against the blast effects of 240 gm of
TNT at 60 cm from the closest part of the body; and
b) Eye protection that is held over the eyes in a frame that prevents blast ingress from
beneath. The eye protection shall be capable of retaining integrity against the blast
effects of 240 gm of TNT at 60 cm and shall provide protection equivalent to not less
than 5 mm of untreated polycarbonate. However, it is recommended that eye
protection should be a part of frontal head protection capable of protecting against the
blast effects of 240 gm of TNT at 60 cm and providing full frontal coverage of face and
Note: Commonly available industrial safety spectacles do not meet the minimum requirement of
this standard and shall not be used as demining PPE.
4.4. Fragmentation protection
The fragmentation danger from most fragmentation mines cannot be protected against with
lightweight and practical PPE. This emphasises the need to minimise risk through the use of
inherently safe procedures. Although the level of protection may not be sufficient, PPE
provided to reduce the risk from fragmentation mines shall be at least that used as protection against a blast threat described under Clause 4.3 above.
4.5. Hand tools
Hand tools should be constructed in such a way that their separation or fragmentation resulting
from the detonation of an AP blast-mine incident is reduced to a minimum. Hand tools should
be designed to be used at a low angle to the ground and should provide adequate stand-off
from an anticipated point of detonation. The use of gloves can provide protection against non
explosive injury and should be considered.