Thoughts on an SCBA grant?

[DFCFFEMT14]

I just thought I would throw this out here. My hometown department (not where I'm living right now) is looking at the possibility of putting in for a grant for and upgrade of our Scott packs from 2.2s to 4.5s. Our packs are currently AirPak Fiftys with integrated pass device. Saying that, I understand that would not make it a high priority. However the reason why we are looking into it is because two of the area departments which we work closely with have gone to 4.5s and this obviously poses an interoperability issue when working incidents together. There is also a good possibility of departments merging in the not too distant future so the more we are on the same page the better.

Along with this we would want to include a RIT pack as well as formal RIT/Self-Rescue training. This year our departments were involved in a firefighter down incident (I assume most of you have read the story in this and last months magazine). Our feeling is that while the equipment is important, the formal training on how to keep yourself safe and what to do in the event of a downed firefighter is just as important.

In addition, we are also looking at including a Portacount fit tester that could be used by any area agencies in order to make fit testing more consistent and reliable.

Any comments or suggestions on how best to go about a narrative for the best chance of success would be greatly appreciated.

[onebugle]

What edition of NFPA 1981 do the current SCBA meet? The following from the PG will have a significant impact on the ability to recieve an award for SCBA.

For departments replacing SCBA, the specific edition of NFPA 1981 to which the existing equipment is compliant (2007 edition, 2002 edition, 1997edition, etc.) will be factored into the score with a higher priority given to replacing equipment that is older. For departments replacing old or damaged equipment, departments with the oldest or most worn-out equipment will get the highest priority, and departments with the newest most functional equipment will get a low priority.

The criteria development panel recommended that, due to the limited funding available for grants and the recent change in SCBA standards (the 2007 Edition of NFPA 1981), DHS will not consider requests for regional projects that involve wholesale replacement of SCBA within a region. The criteria development panel recommended that DHS only consider replacing old, inoperable SCBA, and/or upgrading older SCBAs to the new standard within a region if proper justification was provided. Additionally, they recommended that DHS not consider replacement of SCBA that is compliant to the 1997 Edition of NFPA 1981 nor the 2002 Edition of NFPA 1981.

[ktb9780]

As onebugle pointed out, the issue will not be interoperability so much as the compliance edition factor. If they are pre-1997 then you are good to go and the interoperability issue will be a germane factor then, that you should mention.;)

[Catch22]

Here's something I've wondered that kind of fits into this kind of situation. What kind of priority do they put on upgrading packs to meet, or at least come closer to meeting the current standard? Maybe throw in converting from the 2.2 to 4.5 for interoperability while you're at it.

[ktb9780]

Here's something I've wondered that kind of fits into this kind of situation. What kind of priority do they put on upgrading packs to meet, or at least come closer to meeting the current standard? Maybe throw in converting from the 2.2 to 4.5 for interoperability while you're at it.
Well catch22, the key there is it would have to MEET the standard, otherwise it won't fly. I don't know if under the current standard anyone can upgrade to NFPA1981 2007 edition standard or not. Cost would also be a factor to consider as well.:rolleyes:

[onebugle]

Well catch22, the key there is it would have to MEET the standard, otherwise it won't fly. I don't know if under the current standard anyone can upgrade to NFPA1981 2007 edition standard or not. Cost would also be a factor to consider as well.:rolleyes:

Scott will upgrade 1997 & 2002 editions to the current standard. I will have to agree that upgrading probably will not be cost effective now. An example on their website shows upgrading a fifty was over $2,000 and the NXg2 was over $2,600. This does not include additonal costs such as testing the SCBA (required) and any additional costs to make repairs to certify the SCBA. Older SCBA will cost more since they have to go through 2 updates.

[ktb9780]

Scott will upgrade 1997 & 2002 editions to the current standard. I will have to agree that upgrading probably will not be cost effective now. An example on their website shows upgrading a fifty was over $2,000 and the NXg2 was over $2,600. This does not include additonal costs such as testing the SCBA (required) and any additional costs to make repairs to certify the SCBA. Older SCBA will cost more since they have to go through 2 updates.
Thanks Andy, I was not sure if they could even be upgraded and I was fearful that the cost would outweigh the value here.;)

[onebugle]

Thanks Andy, I was not sure if they could even be upgraded and I was fearful that the cost would outweigh the value here.;)

The upgrade is to bring existing SCBA up to the current standard. This does not include converting from 2.2 to 4.5 which may not even be feasible mechanically or financially.

If the SCBA can be converted, now you have to add in the additonal cost of new cylinders (2/per SCBA) to complete the project. IMHO it would make more sense to purchase new.

[islandfire03]

As bugle has stated there are limits to what makes sense to upgrade. By the time you go 2 levels of standards you will be approaching the cost of new.
We based our 07 app on upgrading several vintages of airpacks to meet the 07 standard. When we wrote the grant this was a doable option according to our sales rep. When the time came to accomplish it however, we found the cost to be higher than expected due to many variables. It can be easy to go over 3k in upgrades to bring older packs into compliance

{now that we have completed our grant I'll share our secret}

We worked a deal with our rep to purchase all new 4.5 NFPA 07 compliant packs that had been used for salesman"s demos at trade shows and department demonstrations. We were able to purchase them for a substantially reduced price that was right around what upgrading our 2.2's would have been. We are selling our carbon fiber 2.2 cylinders that are fairly new in order to buy extra 4.5 cylinders.
When we approached our regional AFG rep with the proposal for an amendment , He was flabbergasted and commended us for a little Yankee ingenuity in accomplishing far more for less $$$$

[Catch22]

The upgrade is to bring existing SCBA up to the current standard. This does not include converting from 2.2 to 4.5 which may not even be feasible mechanically or financially.

If the SCBA can be converted, now you have to add in the additonal cost of new cylinders (2/per SCBA) to complete the project. IMHO it would make more sense to purchase new.

I hadn't thought of the cylinder part, but for Scott that's around $800 each if I remember right.

Mechanically, all it should take to convert a 2.2 to a 4.5 is a couple of components inside the pressure reducer, the part where the cylinder-to-reducer hose screws into the bottle, and new decals for the pressure reducer. And of course, a function test afterward. Shouldn't take but about an hour, hour and a half plus a good 24 hours for the Loc-Tite to cure. At least that's if my memory serves me correctly from my Scott tech class (my memory has been known to fail in the past ;) ). I might have to look at my notes and such, now that my curiosity has been piqued.

Like I say, just something I've wondered about in the past.

[DFCFFEMT14]

I figured that this would not really be a viable option for a successful grant due to the need factor, but was just looking for some input, so thank you.
The packs were purchased in 1998 with integrated PASS devices, nothing else. So I believe without looking into it further, they should meet the 1997 standard. 13 packs, with 26-30 bottles.

[tvfd1103]

Despite the competive issue, I am aware of rural department whom makes roughly 200 runs a year with SCBA that were 2002 compliant but were just awarded funds for replacements. So I would say go for it.

[Ranburne]

Quick question. A department asked me if they could get funded to replace air packs purchased in 2001. They said the packs do not have the integrated pass devices. I don't know the brand or any other information. What is everyones oppinion? They also need ldh and equipment the outfit a second engine.

[SLY4420]

Packs purchased in 2001 have little to no chance of being replaced.

[Limeforever]

I agree with Sly, little chance for new packs, maybe a shot at upgrades if that is possible.

[Ranburne]

That was my thought, just wanted to run it by someone else, Thanks

[BC79er_OLDDELETE]

Actually the packs purchased in 2001 will only show as 1997 compliant just like packs bought in 1997-2000. AFG in the stats doesn't ask age of packs, just compliance level on the computer side. Now on the Peer side, reviewers will want to see an age and 7 will get them booted quick on anything but upgrades.

[Fighting41NY]

Actually the packs purchased in 2001 will only show as 1997 compliant just like packs bought in 1997-2000. AFG in the stats doesn't ask age of packs, just compliance level on the computer side. Now on the Peer side, reviewers will want to see an age and 7 will get them booted quick on anything but upgrades.

Other then reading the NFPA tags on the SCBA, is there a quick visual way to tell the NFPA compliance on Scott packs? I'm not real sure prior to 1997? I think most everyone I know has at least 1992 compliant packs. I'm trying to determine how many of each version a neighboring dept has for an 09 app.

NFPA 1981 - 1987 - ?? Scott 2A's ??
NFPA 1981 - 1992 - ?? Scott 2.2's wire frames, no PASS??
NFPA 1981 - 1997 - Scott Pack 50 with integrated PASS
NFPA 1981 - 2002 - +RIT connection, +Heads-up Display
NFPA 1981 - 2007 - + CBRNE compliant

[BC79er_OLDDELETE]

That's pretty much it as far as I remember. Only need to know that they're pre-1997 for AFG but if you can verify date even better for the argument.

[onebugle]

Other then reading the NFPA tags on the SCBA, is there a quick visual way to tell the NFPA compliance on Scott packs? I'm not real sure prior to 1997? I think most everyone I know has at least 1992 compliant packs. I'm trying to determine how many of each version a neighboring dept has for an 09 app.

NFPA 1981 - 1987 - ?? Scott 2A's ??
NFPA 1981 - 1992 - ?? Scott 2.2's wire frames, no PASS??
NFPA 1981 - 1997 - Scott Pack 50 with integrated PASS
NFPA 1981 - 2002 - +RIT connection, +Heads-up Display
NFPA 1981 - 2007 - + CBRNE compliant

If you can not determine by the tag on the SCBA; I have attached a document from Scott on how to determine the date of manufacture. With the date of manufacture you should be able to make an educated decision on the compliance year.

[Casco18]

Andy,

Thanks for the serial number information. It is not easy to find, even from the salesman.

[onebugle]

Andy,

Thanks for the serial number information. It is not easy to find, even from the salesman.

The best place to check for the SN is on the reducer (by the person that gave me the info). The same info might be on the reports supplied by the technician when the SCBA have been serviced/tested, usually tracked by SN.