1. #1
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Post CO Monitoring during overhaul

    In my FD CO monitoring is not required prior to removal of SCBA on structure fires. I have been told there are no set limits to go by. Copies of policies with requirements and CO levels would be helpful. I don't want to "re-invent the wheel" on something someone is already using. Thanks


  2. #2
    Firehouse.com Guest


    On our department we have a policy that we can not remove our SCBA until a "Negative CO" reading is given. To get a negative CO, the Co level must be below 35ppm on a monitor.

    All front line equipment carries CO monitors. Our shift chief and haz-mat engine carries an AIM 3250.

    Our SOP's dictate that if anyone is not wearing an SCBA when there is CO present, we immediately get a 12 hour vacation for the first offense. There are other times besides structure fire when the SCBA rule is in effect such as confined space, below grade and others.

  3. #3
    Aerial 131
    Firehouse.com Guest


    In my volunteer department we have policy of 35PPM as well.

    Some local departments are saying that 100PPM is adequate, but we decided to go a step further.

    We also helped to define the issues of PPV and other related power equipment and how it might effect the CO reading.

    We are using an AIM CO detector, it is small and easy to use but I like the GT 2400 4 gas detector better which my career department uses. Better & more versatile.


  4. #4
    Firehouse.com Guest


    Awareness of CO is great, but remember, there are many other toxic products present during overhaul that the CO/4-gas and even PID cannot detect. Many such as HCN and Phosgene may be present at levels above the PEL/TLV and even the IDLH. Even though CO may be determined as "low", many of these other gases may be present. The best option is to wear the SCBA until overhaul is complete. APR's may be an option for investigators during the initial investigation phases. Good judgement should prevail. See the Phoenix FD study posted in the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA)Journal: Vol. 61, No. 5, pp. 636641.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register