1. #26
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Rural Iowa
    Posts
    3,106

    Default

    We finally, thanks to fire grant, have $ to purchase modern SCBA. Nothing we have now meets anyones current standards so I'm sure OSHA would have a cow. However OSHA has seems to have a propensity for conniption fits over anything at anytime.

    The submarine service has been using absorbant materials since before WWII to reduce the level of dangerous gases to make atmosphere breathable. O2 is what it is but scrub out the crap to leave breathable air. This canister apparently works in the same manner but on an individual level.

    I found a review on line for these that mentions price of $190ea. Seems a bit high, like everything else for fire service. I'm more interested effectiveness. Dupont is a corp that has a high degree of equity with me. That's why I went looking for info. That Dupont developed a product with the objective of violating misc. government standard, regulation, opinions etc if a bit of a stretch.

    Unfortunately as late as 2004 I believe we still have guys running out of air while in a structure. We watch our air, exit at the appropriate time. But get lost on the way out? trapped? Whatever. Or has this problem/issue gone away? When I was in the infantry I carried an M16, I also carried an automatic. The .45 or M9 was not there to use and was not a substitute for a real weapon (or was the M16 for that matter). But smart guy/planner had a backup for when things went seriously wrong. I also carried a 10" pigsticker and a folder/hideaway. Who needs knife in the modern hightech Army? Things go wrong and a backup plan is in the smartguy's inventory.

    SCBA bottle goes dry today, you're lost/trapped what you gonna do? What is the backup plan? Die in place while holding breath? This EVACpro looks like a potential option.

    I emailed Dupont requesting they have someone tech savy on this subject come to this thread for Q/A. If someone shows up please just keep the "you're trying to sell something" stuff in your pocket and ask your questions.

  2. #27
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    That Dupont developed a product with the objective of violating misc. government standard, regulation, opinions etc if a bit of a stretch.
    You did the research. You tell me. How does this piece of equipment fit into an OSHA compliant Respiratory Protection Plan?

    Better question, with the problems that your department seems to having, does your department have an OSHA compliant Respiratory Protection Program?

    I will be shocked if anyone from DuPont shows up here. But, it will be interesting if they do.

  3. #28
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    44

    Default

    DuPont is actually a very fire-department/emergency response friendly corporation, at least in my dealings with them, which has been on the hazardous materials side. I was never questioning their corporate integrity. I just feel that given the information I have available about the test data and the specifications of the product, I think the money would be far better spent on something else (training, better PPE, SCBA etc.). It would not surprise me if DuPont did come on to answer some questions about the product.

  4. #29
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Rural Iowa
    Posts
    3,106

    Default

    Originally posted by GeorgeWendtCFI


    You did the research. You tell me. How does this piece of equipment fit into an OSHA compliant Respiratory Protection Plan?

    Better question, with the problems that your department seems to having, does your department have an OSHA compliant Respiratory Protection Program?

    I will be shocked if anyone from DuPont shows up here. But, it will be interesting if they do.
    Agreed

    George you have lots of great stuff to contribute. And your willingness to twist a knot in the knickers of some of the nannies here is appreciated. But tell me, do you thing a very ligitimate well respected corp. (with hordes of nanny lawyers looking over the shoulder of every engineer/marketing guy) is going to develop/intro/sell a such a product? Dupont? I'll give them the benfit of the doubt.

    OSHA is not even on the priority list for concerns. We are VERY pleased to have modern SCBA (coming) and turnout gear that meet current established standards. We did not verify AT ALL that each vendor did/does in fact please NFPA, OSHA or anyone else. We looked at the well know establish major brands. Picked features/prices that worked for our funds available. Ordered. We need SCBA fit test and training; a physical evaluation (and training) program; water supply - additional tanker capacity, water storage, dry hydrant and pressurized hydrant project; additional (2nd) pumper; larger/modern station; prevention/safety program; preplan program; FF1 completion; AND AN ISO RATING.

    OSHA anything is not on the radar screen. Do what a reasonable man would do. Outside the box projects using grant $/local raised $/DOD surplus, and $12000/yr budget. You know the story about the guy running with a tray full of eggs?

    You hold 3 or 4 very important eggs in your right hand to make sure they don't get dropped/broken. Carry on a tray in your other hand, all the other eggs some idiot gave you, as you run. Every so often some SOB reaches out and hits your hand as you go by. If he hits your right arm you'll likely not drop those very importand eggs because you're watching/holding on to them tightly. If he hits your left arm some of those misc eggs are going to fall off and break. It may turn out that the egg was actually REALLY important or may suddenly become important, and should have been in your right hand. Adjust and move out. Now the other option (not infrequently occurs) is to put ALL the eggs on the tray on your lap and sit down in a swivel chair (then wait for that SOB to come up and kick the hell out of bottom of your tray). If you have multiple full time paid guys taking care of things they may hold onto the tray (it's now a bucket) but if it is just a couple vol. you have to hold onto those important eggs. OSHA is an on the tray item.

  5. #30
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Originally posted by neiowa


    Agreed

    George you have lots of great stuff to contribute. And your willingness to twist a knot in the knickers of some of the nannies here is appreciated. But tell me, do you thing a very ligitimate well respected corp. (with hordes of nanny lawyers looking over the shoulder of every engineer/marketing guy) is going to develop/intro/sell a such a product? Dupont? I'll give them the benfit of the doubt.

    OSHA is not even on the priority list for concerns. We are VERY pleased to have modern SCBA (coming) and turnout gear that meet current established standards. We did not verify AT ALL that each vendor did/does in fact please NFPA, OSHA or anyone else. We looked at the well know establish major brands. Picked features/prices that worked for our funds available. Ordered. We need SCBA fit test and training; a physical evaluation (and training) program; water supply - additional tanker capacity, water storage, dry hydrant and pressurized hydrant project; additional (2nd) pumper; larger/modern station; prevention/safety program; preplan program; FF1 completion; AND AN ISO RATING.

    OSHA anything is not on the radar screen. Do what a reasonable man would do. Outside the box projects using grant $/local raised $/DOD surplus, and $12000/yr budget. You know the story about the guy running with a tray full of eggs?

    You hold 3 or 4 very important eggs in your right hand to make sure they don't get dropped/broken. Carry on a tray in your other hand, all the other eggs some idiot gave you, as you run. Every so often some SOB reaches out and hits your hand as you go by. If he hits your right arm you'll likely not drop those very importand eggs because you're watching/holding on to them tightly. If he hits your left arm some of those misc eggs are going to fall off and break. It may turn out that the egg was actually REALLY important or may suddenly become important, and should have been in your right hand. Adjust and move out. Now the other option (not infrequently occurs) is to put ALL the eggs on the tray on your lap and sit down in a swivel chair (then wait for that SOB to come up and kick the hell out of bottom of your tray). If you have multiple full time paid guys taking care of things they may hold onto the tray (it's now a bucket) but if it is just a couple vol. you have to hold onto those important eggs. OSHA is an on the tray item.
    I don't have time to answer this in detail right now. I just have a few things to say.

    1. I do not think DuPont is selling a product knowingly in violation of any regulations. But I have a hard time believing that this product is being marketed to any industry that MUST comply with OSHA regulations in terms of a RPP.

    2. You scare me. This may come as a shock, but fires burn just as hot in Rural Iowa as they do in Newark, NJ. OSHA not on the radar screen? Do you even read what you write? Every FD; paid, vol or whatever, has no choice but to comply with these regulations. You simply cannot be an agency that knowingly sends people into possible IDLH atmospheres and NOT COMPLY! "We don't have the money" is not a defense. If you get someone hurt or killed, or you are audited by whoever enforces Iowa's OSHA regs., you are done.

    3. If one of your members were to be killed, the fines that would be levied against your FD would far exceed any possible expenditure you could make in complying with the regs. The civil lawsuits alone may (repeat may) cost all of your members your homes.

    4. If you are advocating non-compliance with mandatory regulations because "We are only volunteer" or "We don't have the money", your credibility is shot, the credibility of your department is shot and you should know that, now that you have posted this for the world to see, you are in for a heap of trouble if the Iowa regulatory folks get wind of this.

    5. Before you ask the answer is YES. It would be better if you shut down the FD or didn't go inside. The lives of your memebers are far more important.

    Sometimes I cannot believe what I read on here. Honest to God. Not on the radar screen.

  6. #31
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,685

    Default

    AND AN ISO RATING.
    Just a personal note, I'd rather work on OSHA compliance than anything for ISO.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  7. #32
    Junior Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Hello, I'm a product manager from Brookdale (a DuPont company). We're the guys that developed and manufactured the EVACpro. I was sent an email by one of you guys about joining in. I am an ex-firefighter with the city and ex-rescue specialist (falling on a house fire can put you out of the job) Any one have a real problem with me helping to clear up some misconceptions about this technology?

    Des

  8. #33
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Originally posted by Desmond
    Hello, I'm a product manager from Brookdale (a DuPont company). We're the guys that developed and manufactured the EVACpro. I was sent an email by one of you guys about joining in. I am an ex-firefighter with the city and ex-rescue specialist (falling on a house fire can put you out of the job) Any one have a real problem with me helping to clear up some misconceptions about this technology?

    Des
    I certainly don't.

    But here are two questions that need no technologival answer.

    1. Is this unit designed for emergency services, hazardous materials, IDLH atmospheres or confined space entry?

    2. If it is, how does the use of an air-purifying respirator correlate with an OSHA compliant Respiratory Protection Plan.

    Two simple answers, no technological gobbledy-ggok.

    Thanks

  9. #34
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Originally posted by GeorgeWendtCFI


    I certainly don't.

    But here are two questions that need no technologival answer.

    1. Is this unit designed for emergency services, hazardous materials, IDLH atmospheres or confined space entry?

    2. If it is, how does the use of an air-purifying respirator correlate with an OSHA compliant Respiratory Protection Plan.

    Two simple answers, no technological gobbledy-ggok.

    Thanks
    Hello?

  10. #35
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    216

    Default OSHA

    Hey,

    I am with George on the OSHA thing. For years firefighters around here were taught the same thing. Because we are volunteers we don't have to follow OSHA. Well they realized now that since they have to carry workers comp insurance because it is state regulations. If anyone gets hurt and it is found out the following the OSHA and State guidlines could have prevented the injury the cliam will be denied. Just recently the state said from now on no more facial hair except mustache. This was a little problem that some are taking chances with. The best thing to do for safety, health and money is to get the correct stuff first instead of having to go back and get it. You can get all the right stuff if you just look. The department I am on got a grant a few years about and was able to equip us with 8 new Drager's with one spear each pack. 30 sets of NEW Quaker Fire Clothing(helmet, gloves, hood, boots, pants, coat), a new Engine, and hoses etc too. I think the two grants total were about 190,000. The 100,000 being for the engine and 80,000 for equipment.

    Also can someone tell me more about HOO (Helping Our Own). My chief would like to hear some information from peolle who have used them.

    thanks
    Thanks
    DM
    ___________
    "I am telling the truth, I was driving through the warehouse and the wall jumped in front of my fork lift. I honked the horn and it never listened."

  11. #36
    Junior Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3

    Default

    George:

    I will try and talk to the point but complex questions (like the ones asked) deserve more than the yes or no answers you may want, so here goes:

    Is it designed for emergency services? Yes it is. The filter pack is identical to the certified product used for mobile service in Europe and subject to rough handling testing by independent labs (ie. INSPEC) Not only that, and as an aside, as an ex firefighter I know how hard the guys and gals can be on equipment, (hey it’s a job that can be brutal on “stuff” sometimes) the filter element is double dampened and suspended to give it outstanding shock absorbency.

    Now on the confined space question: the EVACpro™ is not meant to replace supplied air, it is to be used in the event that, in a structural fire, the firefighter experiences an “out of air situation” and for escape only. Since it is not supplied air it is also not meant for confined space rescue.

    Now on to the question about regulatory standards. There are no NIOSH, OSHA or NFPA standards around filter based products used to escape from a fire. If you look at your options according to OSHA, if your supplied air respirator fails then it is another supplied air respirator you should use. The regulatory organizations simply do not discuss an option for escape from smoke and fire gas other than supplied air. This however does not address the real world problems and dangers that firefighters can find themselves in.

    On the other side of the equation though there is a European standard addressing fire escape filter respirators. This standard is EN 403 and we have based the testing protocol for the EVACpro™ on this standard. The EVACpro™ has been further validated in live fire tests done by two North American training centers. The Nassau County Fire Service Training Academy in New York and in Canada at the JIBC Fire Training Academy. Part of the gas testing protocol calls for a challenge of 10,000 ppm (parts per million) of CO (enough to kill you in minutes), Hydrogen Cyanide at 400ppm, Acrolein at 100 ppm, and Hydrogen Chloride at 1,000 ppm.. So the short answer is yes it has been tested to levels well past IDLH. The EVACpro™ will provide at least 15 minutes protection at these high concentrations.

    The EVACpro™ line of emergency escape respirators is a recently invented product and as such it can take years for standards to catch up to the technological advances in equipment. Many devices including the PASS and even helmets have been used in the fire service prior to standards development.

    I’ve used the EVACpro™ in several live burns: it works!

    If anyone would like to talk to me directly please feel free to call me on our toll free number at 1-800-459-3822 and press 6 in the automated system to get my extension.

    All the best

    Des

  12. #37
    dazed and confused
    Resq14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    1,993

    Default

    Some great points have been brought up here.

    One thing that is important to remember, that has been pointed out, is that if you are in an oxygen deficient atmosphere this will not magically generate oxygen. It might scrub some nasties from it, but it won't give you fresh air.

    Is there any value to having this on structural fire attack? I don't know. With the short shelf life, I just don't see it being remotely cost effective. Not to mention, do products like these encourage unsafe behavior?

    To me, it's more important to focus on getting out before you are in a no-air situation, OR calling for help the moment you realize you MIGHT not be able to get out. Bigger bottles, higher pressures, HUDs, RITs, safety/survival training, intimate knowledge of SCBA... I think these ideas have more merit for protecting FF's.

    To me, a product like this is better for civilians caught in a high-rise fire or something, not as a safety net for those intentionally entering IDLH environments.

    It's great to have an informative post from a product rep.
    God Bless America!Remember all have given some, but some have given all.
    Google Is Your Friend™Helpful forum tip - a "must see" if you're new here
    Click this to search FH Forums!

  13. #38
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    44

    Default

    Thanks for your input Desmond, again, agree with Resq14, but unless civilians are gonna be buying SCBA masks, I don't think they are gonna be able to use it.

  14. #39
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Originally posted by Desmond
    George:

    I will try and talk to the point but complex questions (like the ones asked) deserve more than the yes or no answers you may want, so here goes:

    Is it designed for emergency services? Yes it is. The filter pack is identical to the certified product used for mobile service in Europe and subject to rough handling testing by independent labs (ie. INSPEC) Not only that, and as an aside, as an ex firefighter I know how hard the guys and gals can be on equipment, (hey it’s a job that can be brutal on “stuff” sometimes) the filter element is double dampened and suspended to give it outstanding shock absorbency.

    Now on the confined space question: the EVACpro™ is not meant to replace supplied air, it is to be used in the event that, in a structural fire, the firefighter experiences an “out of air situation” and for escape only. Since it is not supplied air it is also not meant for confined space rescue.

    Now on to the question about regulatory standards. There are no NIOSH, OSHA or NFPA standards around filter based products used to escape from a fire. If you look at your options according to OSHA, if your supplied air respirator fails then it is another supplied air respirator you should use. The regulatory organizations simply do not discuss an option for escape from smoke and fire gas other than supplied air. This however does not address the real world problems and dangers that firefighters can find themselves in.

    On the other side of the equation though there is a European standard addressing fire escape filter respirators. This standard is EN 403 and we have based the testing protocol for the EVACpro™ on this standard. The EVACpro™ has been further validated in live fire tests done by two North American training centers. The Nassau County Fire Service Training Academy in New York and in Canada at the JIBC Fire Training Academy. Part of the gas testing protocol calls for a challenge of 10,000 ppm (parts per million) of CO (enough to kill you in minutes), Hydrogen Cyanide at 400ppm, Acrolein at 100 ppm, and Hydrogen Chloride at 1,000 ppm.. So the short answer is yes it has been tested to levels well past IDLH. The EVACpro™ will provide at least 15 minutes protection at these high concentrations.

    The EVACpro™ line of emergency escape respirators is a recently invented product and as such it can take years for standards to catch up to the technological advances in equipment. Many devices including the PASS and even helmets have been used in the fire service prior to standards development.

    I’ve used the EVACpro™ in several live burns: it works!

    If anyone would like to talk to me directly please feel free to call me on our toll free number at 1-800-459-3822 and press 6 in the automated system to get my extension.

    All the best

    Des
    I didn't ask complex questions. I asked two very simple questions.

    So what you said in a very long post is that the unit does not fit anywhere into a OSHA-compliant RPP.

    As a fire and safety professional, I do not care if the unit whistles Dixie while you have it on, it is plain and simple against OSHA regulations to wear this type of respirator in an oxygen deficient, potentially IDLH atmosphere. Therefore, as a responsible fire and safety professional, it is my job to ensure that every single piece of my equipment, my practices and my procedures mneet or exceed what is required by law. Therefore, I do not purchase, issue or allow a non-compliant piece of equipment. Period.

    Perhaps the fact that there is no NIOSH or OSHA standard for this type of unit is quite telling. Has DuPont attempted to have this unit listed or approved? Seems to me if this unit were the panacea you claim, it would be worth the financial investment to get ths unit approved.

    What they do in Europe is completely irrelevant to the United States.

    For those of you whoa re getting ready to bash me for this attitude, consider this scenario: Your FD issues these units, knowing full well that they are not permitted under an OSHA compliant RPP. A member is killed or seriously injured using one of these units. All of the requisite investigations are conducted and it is found that this unit was issued and permitted despite not being permitted by OSHA. Despite being placed n a very poor light in the NIOSH LODD report, what type of potential civil and criminal liability do you suppose you might be exposed for willfully violating the OSHA Respiratory Standards? And before you say it, I believe that in most jursidictions, a willful act is not protected under Tort Immunity Laws.

    Thank you for a very informative post.
    Last edited by GeorgeWendtCFI; 01-11-2005 at 08:44 AM.

  15. #40
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,685

    Default

    Thank you Desmond for providing more information on the product. Personally, I'd still be leary of breathing filtered 200+ degree air. And I'll ask again about the 15minute time, how much is that effected by the actions of the user meaning, a guy resting could/would get more than a guy working?
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  16. #41
    dazed and confused
    Resq14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    1,993

    Default

    Originally posted by nsideff
    Thanks for your input Desmond, again, agree with Resq14, but unless civilians are gonna be buying SCBA masks, I don't think they are gonna be able to use it.
    lol

    They make a version that has a "hood."


    Is it "the panacea" for out-of-air scenarios in IDLH conditions? No way. But is it wrong for a FF to go out and buy one for his/her own use, on the 1 in a million chance that s/he might be in such a predicament? I'm not going to condemn anyone who chooses to do this. We need to be informed consumers, and if anything, this has clearly demonstrated to everyone here that the product has serious limitations.

    I don't know if I care what OSHA has to say when I'm out of air somewhere and have one of these in my pocket. I don't think OSHA regulates these do-or-die scenarios, and that is the intended use for this product. You're already violating OSHA laws by being in an IDLH environment without air in your SCBA! If I had one with me, you better believe I'd try to use it. And that's part of the problem... would people rely on this as a safety device, versus obeying standard safety guidelines and laws that PREVENT this stuff from occurring in the first place?

    Personally, I don't see a need for people in the fire service to buy these, and I agree with George that FD's issuing these could bear significant liability.

    Now if I was an office worker on the 80th floor of a high-rise, I might consider some of the civilian versions "just in case." It's better than nothing.
    Last edited by Resq14; 01-11-2005 at 11:29 AM.
    God Bless America!Remember all have given some, but some have given all.
    Google Is Your Friend™Helpful forum tip - a "must see" if you're new here
    Click this to search FH Forums!

  17. #42
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Rural Iowa
    Posts
    3,106

    Default

    Originally posted by GeorgeWendtCFI

    OSHA regulations to wear this type of respirator in an oxygen deficient, potentially IDLH atmosphere. What is the reg/section/page you reference?

    Perhaps the fact that there is no NIOSH or OSHA standard for this type of unit is quite telling. Has DuPont attempted to have this unit listed or approved? Seems to me if this unit were the panacea you claim, it would be worth the financial investment to get ths unit approved.Get it "approved" by whom? If none of the safety nannies in the US/North American have written a regulation pertinante regulation or are not interested in the subject int is NOT possible to get an approval. Chicken/Egg

    What they do in Europe is completely irrelevant to the United States.Generally true, however the meddling nannies in the EU have their noses in every aspect of everything. They took an interest in the issue wrote a reg. and the evacpro apparently meets the reg.

    For those of you whoa re getting ready to bash me for this attitude, consider this scenario: Your FD issues these units, knowing full well that they are not permitted under an OSHA compliant RPP. [p]PERMITTED??[/B]A member is killed or seriously injured using one of these units. All of the requisite investigations are conducted and it is found that this unit was issued and permitted despite not being permitted by OSHA. Despite being placed n a very poor light in the NIOSH LODD report, what type of potential civil and criminal liability do you suppose you might be exposed for willfully violating the OSHA Respiratory Standards? And before you say it, I believe that in most jursidictions, a willful act is not protected under Tort Immunity Laws.Test is what a reasonable man do. Taking reasonable safety steps to protect life by issuing effective redundent/backup safety equipment.
    How hot do you suppose the breathing air is in a steel mill? Air may be seriously contaminated (as discussed by the Dupont guy) but it STILL contains O2. Filter out the junk and you are left with O2. I'm looking at a USFA flyer that says 21% is normal O2level, 19.5% minimum healthful, 15-19% decrease stamina & coord, 12-14% impaired coord/perception/judgement. It the evacpro can filter the air surrounding my noggin and pass thru 15% O2 and the alternative is me sucking a vacumn in my SCBA mask, I'm thinking the evacpro is going to help me get home. Not that Survivair believes in this equipment and includes one with every SCBA. Now you suppose they thought the issues thru before they took such a step?

    OHSA/IRS/EPA/ATF/nasty exwife can certainly mess up your life if they decide to stick their nose in your life. But you can't live in a kevlar bubble. Do what is reasonable and prudent and march on.

    My "concerns" are the somewhat short shelf life (I think 4yr?). And price is a bit on the high side for a cash strapped dept at nearly $200ea but $50/yr for such a piece of life safety equipment (vs other safety equipment options not presently on hand) is not that bad/expensive.

    Thanks to the Dupont guy for dropping in.

  18. #43
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    You see, ne, when you see one of my posts, you need to remember that I am not a high school age volly buff talking out of my butt. But you challenged me, so I will provide you with the answers you seek; although the post may be somewhat long.

    The OSHA Respiratory Protection Standards are located in the HAZWOPER section, 29 CFR 1910.134. It basically states that protection of the respiratory system is paramount. It lays out exposure limits around airborne contaminants and hostile atmospheres and mandates that an employer whose employees may be exposed to airborne contaminants or a hostile atmosphere must have a written respiratory protection program. The program must be written, must be available to the employee for review, and the employee must receive adequate training. Emergency response agencies are included under these guidelines.

    Interestingly, engineering controls are the first means of mitigation called for under the standards. However, for emergency response, this is impractical. In this case, the regs state that the employee must be provided with approved equipment and its use must be required as well.

    Under a RPP, there are several components. These include; proper selection of appropriate respiratory protection equipment, training program requirements, inspection, sanitation and maintenance procedures, storage procedures, medical surveillance, workplace monitoring procedures, fit testing and record keeping procedures.

    Let's look at the atmospheres one may encounter in a fire. First, there is oxygen deficiency. OSHA states that when the potential for the oxygen level to be below 19.5%, it is an oxygen deficient atmosphere and appropriate (key word) respiratory protection must be worn. Second there is extreme heat. Extreme heat can damage the tissue in the respiratory system, so if a superheated atmosphere is expected, the appropriate (key word) respiratory protective equipment must be worn. Thirdly, we have an IDLH atmosphere. IDLH is an acronym that stands for Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health. OSHA Standards list the IDLH for many substances, including most fire gases. It is indisputable that in a fire situation, those fire gases exist in quantities far in excess of IDLH levels. Fourth, we have an unknown atmosphere. We are never really certain in any fire what materials are burning. Therefore, we are never really certain what vapors may be present.

    So with that in mind, it is elementary that respiratory protection must be used in a fire situation.

    There are two basic types of respiratory protective equipment. The one most familiar to FF is the air supplied respirator. This is the family that includes the SCBA. The other type is the air purifying respirator (APR). An APR is defined as a piece of equipment with special filters designed to remove particulates (key word) from the air or that has canisters or chemical cartridges (OSHA words, not mine) designed to protect the wearer from gases and vapors. One of the types of APR that is discussed is a cartridge that uses an intermediate substance to adsorb or absorb contaminants and prevent them from entering the respiratory system (sounds an awful lot like the EVAC huh?). This action occurs as part of a chemical reaction within the cartridge. This type of APR is particularly effective when the oxygen levels are normal and the chemical contaminant present is known. But it must be remembered that an APR CANNOT and DOES NOT provide oxygen to the user!

    I thank Desmond for coming here, but it is painfully obvious he is a salesman and is offering the company line to get you to buy this unit. There are regulations that cover the EVAC PRO. The EVAC PRO has not been approved in this country because it falls under the category of an APR. OSHA regulations strictly prohibit the use of an APR in:
    1. Oxygen deficient atmospheres
    2. Superheated atmospheres
    3. IDLH atmosphers
    4. Unknown atmospheres

    Plain and simple. It cannot be included in an OSHA compliant RPP and its use cannot be approved, allowed or ignored by the employer-your FD.

    I certainly do not live in a "kevlar bubble". Look at my 3800+ past posts and you will find nothing that suggests that. But you will find that I am 100% in favor of doing things the right way. The right way is to make sure your FF do not get into a situation where they run out of air. That is accomplished through strict adherence to an OSHA compliant RPP. My sense is that many of you belong to FD's that do not have such a plan.

    The test in a civil case has nothing to do with what a reasonable man would do when there are prevailing federal regulations that address the subject on point. The reasonable safety steps are all addressed within an OSHA compliant RPP.

    My suggestion would be to scrap your attitude and actually do more research on this topic than looking at a USFA Flyer . I believe that is this "the fire is the devil" Backdraft attitude that gets peoplpe hurt, not the proper, sane and educated use of personal protective equipment.

    I hope this provides some insight on this piece of equipment from a non-salesman point of view. I thank Desmond for coming on here, and I invite him to tell me where I am wrong in regards to how this unit is classified in the US.

  19. #44
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Gordonsville, TN, USA
    Posts
    7

    Default

    As an Industrial Hygienist and former OSHA Compliance Officer, I wanted to put my two cents in on this subject, hopefully to clear up some of the misconceptions that seem to exist about OSHA, NIOSH and how they address the issue of the filtering media such as EVACpro.

    First of all, OSHA regulations are bare minimum rules for safe operation in an employer/employee relationship. Fire departments should not be struggling to attain these. If a department is not meeting the required standards, then they are failing to carry out their most basic charge, that is protecting lives (remember, that includes us firefighters).

    Desmonds says OSHA regulations do not cover escape from a fire.
    29 CFR 1910.134(d)(2) (ii) clearly states “Respirators provided only for escape from IDLH atmospheres shall be NIOSH certified for escape from the atmosphere in which they shall be used.” The EVACpro certainly meets the definition of a respirator being provided only for escape from an IDLH atmosphere.

    NIOSH was created by the same law as OSHA and was established to help assure safe and healthful working conditions for working men and women by providing research, information, education, and training in the field of occupational safety and health. Part of the research that they conduct is into the effectiveness of respirators, which they approve if they are in fact effective. It does not appear that NIOSH approval is being pursued, even though these devices have been in existence for some time. To me this implies that they are not capable of performing as described.

    There are many alternatives to addressing a fire fighter running out of air or SCBA malfunction. Train on the proper use and limitations of the SCBA. Maintain the SCBA in accordance with manufacturers recommendations. Inspect SCBA weekly and repair any defects found. Require a RIT team whenever interior operations are ongoing and an IDLH atmosphere exists.

  20. #45
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    1,719

    Default

    Originally posted by neiowa
    How hot do you suppose the breathing air is in a steel mill?
    Not even close to 200 degrees, I can tell you that (At least in the one I work at)

    I agree with what some others have basicly suggested...The chance that some goofball will think he can stay in the fire building and then pop on of these on when his air runs out is a good probablility.

    Desmond (if you're still here) is Dupont working on NIOSH certification for these as an escape respirator?
    FTM-PTB-DTRT

  21. #46
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Originally posted by dabman
    As an Industrial Hygienist and former OSHA Compliance Officer, I wanted to put my two cents in on this subject, hopefully to clear up some of the misconceptions that seem to exist about OSHA, NIOSH and how they address the issue of the filtering media such as EVACpro.

    First of all, OSHA regulations are bare minimum rules for safe operation in an employer/employee relationship. Fire departments should not be struggling to attain these. If a department is not meeting the required standards, then they are failing to carry out their most basic charge, that is protecting lives (remember, that includes us firefighters).

    Desmonds says OSHA regulations do not cover escape from a fire.
    29 CFR 1910.134(d)(2) (ii) clearly states “Respirators provided only for escape from IDLH atmospheres shall be NIOSH certified for escape from the atmosphere in which they shall be used.” The EVACpro certainly meets the definition of a respirator being provided only for escape from an IDLH atmosphere.

    NIOSH was created by the same law as OSHA and was established to help assure safe and healthful working conditions for working men and women by providing research, information, education, and training in the field of occupational safety and health. Part of the research that they conduct is into the effectiveness of respirators, which they approve if they are in fact effective. It does not appear that NIOSH approval is being pursued, even though these devices have been in existence for some time. To me this implies that they are not capable of performing as described.

    There are many alternatives to addressing a fire fighter running out of air or SCBA malfunction. Train on the proper use and limitations of the SCBA. Maintain the SCBA in accordance with manufacturers recommendations. Inspect SCBA weekly and repair any defects found. Require a RIT team whenever interior operations are ongoing and an IDLH atmosphere exists.
    Here! Here!

  22. #47
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    481

    Default

    Some time back I posted the question, "How many members have had a SCBA fail during a fire?" While several had failures during training, no one who responded had an SCBA fail in actual use. Could it happen? Sure. But this "filter" seems to answer a almost non-existant question.
    Running out of air? Always a possibility, particularly the way I suck air down. But if I can't manage my air, and ignore the bell, what the heck am I doing in a fire in the first place?
    Possibly for an entrapment. But the cost of these things would pay for a lot of training.

  23. #48
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,685

    Default

    "How many members have had a SCBA fail during a fire?"
    1, me.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  24. #49
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    44

    Default

    Originally posted by Resq14


    lol

    They make a version that has a "hood."


    Is it "the panacea" for out-of-air scenarios in IDLH conditions? No way. But is it wrong for a FF to go out and buy one for his/her own use, on the 1 in a million chance that s/he might be in such a predicament? I'm not going to condemn anyone who chooses to do this. We need to be informed consumers, and if anything, this has clearly demonstrated to everyone here that the product has serious limitations.

    I don't know if I care what OSHA has to say when I'm out of air somewhere and have one of these in my pocket.
    LOL at the hood. But you do bring up a good point, while I would not want to be a FD purchasing officer buying this product for an entire department, I don't think OSHA would be coming after you if you decided to purchase one on your own. I just wouldn't go running out of air on purpose to find out if it works. I would also like to to know why the breakthrough tests were not done in a heated environment (am I mistaken about this)? Maybe Desmond can help out.

  25. #50
    dazed and confused
    Resq14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    1,993

    Default

    Originally posted by Sleuth
    Some time back I posted the question, "How many members have had a SCBA fail during a fire?" While several had failures during training, no one who responded had an SCBA fail in actual use. Could it happen? Sure. But this "filter" seems to answer a almost non-existant question.
    Running out of air? Always a possibility, particularly the way I suck air down. But if I can't manage my air, and ignore the bell, what the heck am I doing in a fire in the first place?
    Possibly for an entrapment. But the cost of these things would pay for a lot of training.
    Many FF's have been killed after running out of air, usually secondary to becoming disoriented and lost. I'm sure none planned on staying in an IDLH without air. I agree 110%: efforts should be focused on accountability, crew integrity, ff safety/survival, RIT, etc... and NOT adjuncts such as the EVACpro. One concern I have even if Joe Firefighter goes out and gets one is: Will they ignore their reserve air, warning bells, alarms, HUDs, etc because they think they have an escape respirator in their pocket?

    I'm not saying this is in any way close to an approved emergency escape respirator cuz it ain't. But faced with an empty SCBA and sucking down 100% IDLH atmosphere, or using this and breathing something slightly less toxic, I'll take the latter. It will buy you at least some more time to be found, or to continue your attempts at escaping.

    I don't think FD's should be in the business of issuing these, for the many reasons already listed here. Is it acceptable for someone to carry, provided they understand its limitations and intended use? I say yes.

    I think it's shortsighted to assume that all the training in the world will prevent someone from needing one of these at some point, even if we all agree the focus should be on prevention.
    Last edited by Resq14; 01-13-2005 at 02:14 AM.
    God Bless America!Remember all have given some, but some have given all.
    Google Is Your Friend™Helpful forum tip - a "must see" if you're new here
    Click this to search FH Forums!

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