1. #51
    MembersZone Subscriber

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

    Default

    Originally posted by Resq14


    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.
    Another person who does not understand.

    This is not a matter of having a genie in a bottle in the unlikely event that you "run out of air". This is a question of common sense. I'll try to make this as elementary as possible.

    The atmosphere deep inside a fire building is oxygen deficient and superheated. These are two factors that this thing, or any other APR
    CANNOT protect against. The salesman admitted as much. This thing cannot help you.

    Putting this thing in your pocket is dangerous simply because it is there. It provides a false sense of security. This thing cannot help you.

    Allowing a FF to have this thing with him violates the OSHA Respiratory Protection Regs because they know that this thing cannot help you.

    If there was a piece of equipment that could be used to help escape the atmosphere in a fire that was approved and that worked, I'll buy some and donate them to my department. But this thing is not it.

    Notice Old Des has not come back on to refute anything that was written.

  2. #52
    MembersZone Subscriber

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

    Default

    At the risk of beating a dying horse, I have compiled the following references to the OSHA and NFPA standards that apply to this issue. It must be realized that each of these standards was developed from real life situations where people have died or been seriously injured. They were not developed in a vacuum. There is a reason why OSHA and NFPA say that respiratory protection must be NIOSH certified and chosen based what environments the respirator will be used as protection in.

    OSH Act 0f 1970 SEC. 5. Duties
    (a)Each employer –
    (1) shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees;
    (2) shall comply with occupational safety and health standards promulgated under this Act.
    (b) Each employee shall comply with occupational safety and health standards and all rules, regulations, and orders issued pursuant to this Act which are applicable to his own actions and conduct.

    From 29 CFR 1910.134 OSHA’s Respiratory Protection Standard
    1910.134(d)(1) General requirements.
    1910.134(d)(1)(i)
    The employer shall select and provide an appropriate respirator based on the respiratory hazard(s) to which the worker is exposed and workplace and user factors that affect respirator performance and reliability.

    1910.134(d)(1)(ii)
    The employer shall select a NIOSH-certified respirator. The respirator shall be used in compliance with the conditions of its certification.

    1910.134(d)(1)(iii)
    The employer shall identify and evaluate the respiratory hazard(s) in the workplace; this evaluation shall include a reasonable estimate of employee exposures to respiratory hazard(s) and an identification of the contaminant's chemical state and physical form. Where the employer cannot identify or reasonably estimate the employee exposure, the employer shall consider the atmosphere to be IDLH.

    1910.134(d)(2)(i)
    The employer shall provide the following respirators for employee use in IDLH atmospheres:

    1910.134(d)(2)(i)(A)
    A full facepiece pressure demand SCBA certified by NIOSH for a minimum service life of thirty minutes, or

    1910.134(d)(2)(i)(B)
    A combination full facepiece pressure demand supplied-air respirator (SAR) with auxiliary self-contained air supply.

    1910.134(d)(2)(ii)
    Respirators provided only for escape from IDLH atmospheres shall be NIOSH-certified for escape from the atmosphere in which they will be used.

    1910.134(d)(2)(iii)
    All oxygen-deficient atmospheres shall be considered IDLH. Exception: If the employer demonstrates that, under all foreseeable conditions, the oxygen concentration can be maintained within the ranges specified in Table II of this section (i.e., for the altitudes set out in the table), then any atmosphere-supplying respirator may be used.

    From NFPA 1500 Fire Department Occupational Safety and Health

    7.8 Respiratory Protection Program

    7.8.7 When engaged in any operation where they could encounter atmospheres that are immediately dangerous to life or health (IDLH) or potentially IDLH or where the atmosphere is unknown, the fire department shall provide and require all members to use SCBA that has been certified as being compliant NFPA 1981, Standard on Open-Circuit Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus for the Fire Service.

    7.8.8 Members using SCBA shall not compromise the protective integrity of the SCBA for any reason when operating in IDLH, potentially IDLH, or unknown atmospheres by removing the facepiece or disconnecting any portion of the SCBA that would allow the ambient atmosphere to be breathed.

    7.10 Respiratory Protection Equipment

    7.10.3.1 Full facepiece air-purifying respirators shall be used only in non-IDLH atmospheres for those contaminants that NIOSH certifies them against.

    7.10.3.2 The authority having jurisdiction shall provide NIOSH-certified respirators that protect the user and ensure compliance with all other OSHA requirements.

    BTW The Dupont Rep glossed over the fact that there is no NIOSH certification for these devices and talked about how long it took and how hard it is to get certification, but said nothing about them pursuing this certification. He did reference EN-304 as the testing protocol used. This European Standard refers to filtering deviceswith a hood for personal escape from particulate matter, carbon monoxide and other toxic gases produced by fire. It does not cover devices designed for use in circumstances where there is or might be an oxygen deficiency (oxygen less than 17 % by volume). I won’t go as far as saying you will die using one of these, but I will say that they are not suitable PPE and should not be used by Firefighters.

  3. #53
    dazed and confused
    Resq14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    1,993

    Default George...

    In the incredibly rare chance you found yourself out of air, you're telling me you wouldn't use this if you had it in your pocket?

    OSHA doesn't want you in an IDLH environment without air, either! At this point, you're violating the law.

    Not all IDLH atmospheres are superheated -- I'm sure you'll concede that much.

    Ladder bails were frowned upon because they were dangerous to practice, people didn't do them safely in training, etc. Does that mean they shouldn't be given to firefighters for them to place in their toolboxes as an option? Shoving the elephant trunk of the older SCBAs under coats was not OSHA-approved either. But it acknowledged that there might be times when you'll get caught with your pants down.

    That is what this is -- an option -- that has very VERY real limitations. I agreed with you that it is not "the panacea", so let me again agree with you that it is not a "genie in a bottle." I'm not arguing its limitations, or its lack of OSHA compliance. You've already sold me on that.

    I'm just curious what you recommend as a course of action when you're out of air, you can't immediately escape, and RIT hasn't gotten to you yet.

    I'd probably be getting low and improvising a filter (non-OSHA approved, of course) while trying to escape. Hopefully I would've sounded PASS and given a Mayday well prior.

    (I'm not trying to anger you... I'm asking serious and honest questions)
    Last edited by Resq14; 01-13-2005 at 01:37 PM.
    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!

  4. #54
    MembersZone Subscriber

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

    Default

    In the incredibly rare chance you found yourself out of air, you're telling me you wouldn't use this if you had it in your pocket?

    It is an irrelevant question because it would never be in my pocket.
    OSHA doesn't want you in an IDLH environment without air, either! At this point, you're violating the law.
    That's a complete micharacterization of the OSHA RP Regs. Read above.Not all IDLH atmospheres are superheated -- I'm sure you'll concede that much.
    Of course not. But this discussion is generally focused on fires.Ladder bails were frowned upon because they were dangerous to practice, people didn't do them safely in training, etc. Does that mean they shouldn't be given to firefighters for them to place in their toolboxes as an option?
    Yes
    Shoving the elephant trunk of the older SCBAs under coats was not OSHA-approved either. But it acknowledged that there might be times when you'll get caught with your pants down.
    It is no longer an accepted practice, should not be taught and should not be in an OSHA compliant RPP.
    I'm just curious what you recommend as a course of action when you're out of air, you can't immediately escape, and RIT hasn't gotten to you yet.
    I recommend keeping your wits about you, staying calm, evaluating your options, remember your training and take the course of action that has the most chance of success. Panic in this situation is a sure death sentence. Praying to God for guidance will not hurt.
    (I'm not trying to anger you... I'm asking serious and honest questions)
    Honest questions from someone interested in learning something never angered me.

  5. #55
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Rural Iowa
    Posts
    3,106

    Default

    Originally posted by dabman

    BTW The Dupont Rep glossed over the fact that there is no NIOSH certification for these devices and talked about how long it took and how hard it is to get certification, but said nothing about them pursuing this certification.
    Uh, no. His quote is 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.

    With George/your reference I googled and found info I requested (a challenge is not a slap in the face). So NIOSH sets certification standard. http://www2.cdc.gov/drds/cel/cl.htm#84A_1
    And as the Dupont guy said, does not look like the wrote an evacpro device into their standards. Perhaps no such item existed when the gov't wrote the paperwork (IE they were not interested). 21C - Particulate Respirators and 84A - Non-Powered Air-Purifying Particulate Filter Respirators only address a minor part of the devices function. 23C - Chemical Cartridges does not apply though it discusses limitations that pertain to "Other Gases and Vapors" in Special Limitations, Does not address "Other Gases and Vapors" in applications other than "Not for use in atmospheres containing less than 19.5 percent oxygen" "Not for use in atmospheres immediately dangerous to life or health". Which is clear the intended application of the evacpro.

    Dabman quotes 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.” also quotes NFPA 1700 7.10.3.1 does not apply as the only air-purifying respirators is NIOSH 84A - Non-Powered Air-Purifying Particulate Filter Respirators which does not apply to the intent/function of evacpro.

    So looks to me like the Dupont guy spoke correctly. OSHA says have to conform to NIOSH standard. NIOSH apaprently does not have a standard that applys. So age old question? Does gov't tell you what you can't do or only what you can do? Is it "unlawful" to do something that has not yet been (or perhaps may ever be) outlawed regulated)?

    As George points out the atmosphere inside a fire building is oxygen deficient and superheated. Obviously, to varying "degree". Evacpro is not going add O2, obviously; and is not going to cool the air, presumable?. Fireman is out of air, for what ever reason. Having, I think, established/answered my original question; that the Evacpro works to filter out toxic gasses and particulars out of the atmosphere leaving a breathable "atmosphere" containing whatever 02 concentration that exists.

    We still are left with 3 questions (other than questions if we have idiots in the loop); 1). Does Evacpro meet CURRENT OHSA standards. standards which reference NIOSH certification. 2). Does sufficient O2 exist in an involved structure that will reasonably allow the Evacpro to provide benefit commensurate with the cost of the device (vs other options). 3.) What is your alternative equipment/plan for immediate firefighter backup when things go to hell and he is out of air (for whatever reason)?

    1.) I'm now somewhat interested/pulled into some interest in the OSHA view of PPE. And we certainly meet much of their "requirements" which will have to remain in the "oh well" category. I say, yes Evacpro meets current OHSA standards 1910.134(d)(2)(ii) as NIOSH does not have restricting regulations that would prohibit the device. Apparently (by their inaction) have no interest in promulgating such a regulation (this device was not dreamed up last week). If not prohibited it is permitted (or ask for forgiveness not for permission). If NIOSH/OSHA or OSHA/NIOSH wants to prohibit (outlaw) the device they need/have to write a reg that pertains.

    2.) I'm still not sure. Who has reference to O2 concentrations in "typical" structure fire. I'm pretty sure that if I can breath 15% minus toxic gases/particulates my body is going to be happyier than breathing in save +toxic gases/particulates.

    3.) Carry a "bailout bottle" with each interior team? Possible I suppose. May answer George/dabman concerns. But changing air tanks in a structure violate NFPA1500 7.8.8? You guys are doing so? Or a RIT? We're purchasing a RIT pack with our new SCBA but a long way from immediate backup for an interior attack team. Has additional "issues" for a small rural vol. dept as very likely may not have a RIT standing by for immediate entry. Again bad but fact. When mutual aid dept #3 or 4 arrives on scene RIT stands up.

    Are there idiots that may put themselves at risk by using an evacpro as a primary "source" of air? That is a subject for a different discussion on stupidity.

    I'll email the Dupont guy and ask him to return. Anyone call the telephone # toa sk your questions?

  6. #56
    MembersZone Subscriber

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

    Default

    Originally posted by neiowa


    Uh, no. His quote is 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.

    With George/your reference I googled and found info I requested (a challenge is not a slap in the face). So NIOSH sets certification standard. http://www2.cdc.gov/drds/cel/cl.htm#84A_1
    And as the Dupont guy said, does not look like the wrote an evacpro device into their standards. Perhaps no such item existed when the gov't wrote the paperwork (IE they were not interested). 21C - Particulate Respirators and 84A - Non-Powered Air-Purifying Particulate Filter Respirators only address a minor part of the devices function. 23C - Chemical Cartridges does not apply though it discusses limitations that pertain to "Other Gases and Vapors" in Special Limitations, Does not address "Other Gases and Vapors" in applications other than "Not for use in atmospheres containing less than 19.5 percent oxygen" "Not for use in atmospheres immediately dangerous to life or health". Which is clear the intended application of the evacpro.

    Dabman quotes 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.” also quotes NFPA 1700 7.10.3.1 does not apply as the only air-purifying respirators is NIOSH 84A - Non-Powered Air-Purifying Particulate Filter Respirators which does not apply to the intent/function of evacpro.

    So looks to me like the Dupont guy spoke correctly. OSHA says have to conform to NIOSH standard. NIOSH apaprently does not have a standard that applys. So age old question? Does gov't tell you what you can't do or only what you can do? Is it "unlawful" to do something that has not yet been (or perhaps may ever be) outlawed regulated)?

    As George points out the atmosphere inside a fire building is oxygen deficient and superheated. Obviously, to varying "degree". Evacpro is not going add O2, obviously; and is not going to cool the air, presumable?. Fireman is out of air, for what ever reason. Having, I think, established/answered my original question; that the Evacpro works to filter out toxic gasses and particulars out of the atmosphere leaving a breathable "atmosphere" containing whatever 02 concentration that exists.

    We still are left with 3 questions (other than questions if we have idiots in the loop); 1). Does Evacpro meet CURRENT OHSA standards. standards which reference NIOSH certification. 2). Does sufficient O2 exist in an involved structure that will reasonably allow the Evacpro to provide benefit commensurate with the cost of the device (vs other options). 3.) What is your alternative equipment/plan for immediate firefighter backup when things go to hell and he is out of air (for whatever reason)?

    1.) I'm now somewhat interested/pulled into some interest in the OSHA view of PPE. And we certainly meet much of their "requirements" which will have to remain in the "oh well" category. I say, yes Evacpro meets current OHSA standards 1910.134(d)(2)(ii) as NIOSH does not have restricting regulations that would prohibit the device. Apparently (by their inaction) have no interest in promulgating such a regulation (this device was not dreamed up last week). If not prohibited it is permitted (or ask for forgiveness not for permission). If NIOSH/OSHA or OSHA/NIOSH wants to prohibit (outlaw) the device they need/have to write a reg that pertains.

    2.) I'm still not sure. Who has reference to O2 concentrations in "typical" structure fire. I'm pretty sure that if I can breath 15% minus toxic gases/particulates my body is going to be happyier than breathing in save +toxic gases/particulates.

    3.) Carry a "bailout bottle" with each interior team? Possible I suppose. May answer George/dabman concerns. But changing air tanks in a structure violate NFPA1500 7.8.8? You guys are doing so? Or a RIT? We're purchasing a RIT pack with our new SCBA but a long way from immediate backup for an interior attack team. Has additional "issues" for a small rural vol. dept as very likely may not have a RIT standing by for immediate entry. Again bad but fact. When mutual aid dept #3 or 4 arrives on scene RIT stands up.

    Are there idiots that may put themselves at risk by using an evacpro as a primary "source" of air? That is a subject for a different discussion on stupidity.

    I'll email the Dupont guy and ask him to return. Anyone call the telephone # toa sk your questions?
    After reading your post twice, and after carefully evaluating the information in it, I have come to the thoughtful conclusion that you have no idea what you are talking about.

    There is no NIOSH cert for a sock shoved up your nostrils wither, but you would not be able to use this in a fire. OSHA doesn't state that you must use certified equipment, unless you can find non-certified equipment that might work. It clearly and simply says you must use certified equipment. The powers to be at DuPont are smart enough to know this and if there was any possible way to get the unit certified, it would be certified already.

    Case in point. When NIOSH came out with new certification standards for SCBA to be used in CBRN applications, it only took a matter ow weeks for the first units to be certified. Not years.

    Those of us who consider ourselves professionals in the field of fire safety spend considerable effort to get people to put in smoke detectors, CO detectors and sprinklers because they are "code". But there is a faction of the fire service that believes that rules apply to everybody but us.

  7. #57
    MembersZone Subscriber

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

    Default

    neiowa,

    My day job is Industrial Hygiene. I am a former OSHA Compliance Officer, and continue to work closely with OSHA, both Federal and State Plan States. I have a working knowledge of the standards and how they apply to this situation. I don't want to get into an argument with you over this, but I believe in operating in a safe manner.

    I would strongly encourage you or someone on your department to contact IOSHA. Their web site is http://www.state.ia.us/iwd/labor/index.html [/URL] . They will be happy to answer any questions(You don't have to give them your name if you are worried about them 'visiting' you) and they have many free resources available to assist with developing required programs such as the Respiratory Protection Program. I would also be more than willing to give you any help that I can.

    Dave Blessman

  8. #58
    dazed and confused
    Resq14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    1,993

    Default

    Originally posted by GeorgeWendtCFI
    I recommend keeping your wits about you, staying calm, evaluating your options, remember your training and take the course of action that has the most chance of success. Panic in this situation is a sure death sentence. Praying to God for guidance will not hurt.
    It's hard to keep your wits about you when you're inhaling CO. It does not take long for an altered mental status to develop, to the point where you fight off your RIT rescuers, then become unconscious.

    Was it wrong for the elephant trunks to go in the coats? Or was it making-do with what you had available? I think it's the latter. Along those lines, I think it's wrong to hide training on ladder bails and emergency egress techniques. No one should want to use their coat as a "filter", nor should they want to come out a window onto a ladder head-first. Neither is safe. But are they better than their alternatives???

    So you're out of SCBA air in a CO-laden environment. OSHA probably doesn't want you to disconnect your regulator or remove your mask (so you don't suffocate immediately)... but are you going to? When does common sense and survival kick in? A sock/hood in the SCBA mask isn't approved... is it wrong to do it? And more importantly, if you do it, who the heck cares? If you have a chance to use a sock that sucks up SOME nasties from the air, isn't that better than nothing? OBVIOUSLY THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE PART OF AN APPROVED RPP. I'm intimately familiar with our own, and of course this stuff would not appear in it. That doesn't mean it's junk information though. The regulations fail to address emergency out-of-air scenarios.

    So in my example, you said it was irrelevant because you'd never carry one to begin with. To me, that's kind of skirting the question. New scenario: you are in your local DuPont Outlet Store (hehe) and it is burning. You experience an out-of-air situation, have issued Mayday, sounded PASS, etc. You can barely make out a stack of EvacPRO's to your left on the floor. You wouldn't use one? I would. It's not cool when you can't breath... kind of like running out of air while SCUBA diving.

    These are last resort, do-or-die maneuvers. I'll probably never in my FF experiences have to use any of these techniques/equipment, compared with some of the rest of you that are far busier. I just don't agree with eliminating last resort options on the premise that IFSTA/OSHA/NFPA/NIOSH will always prevent you from getting hurt/killed, and to just stick it out by the book.

    I agree with many of your points, but I'm having a hard time buying that these are completely worthless and have no use when, essentially, you've got nothing else.
    Last edited by Resq14; 01-13-2005 at 08:15 PM.
    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!

  9. #59
    MembersZone Subscriber

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

    Default

    I have only two comments for your post.

    1. "Keeping your wits" starts way before you run out of air.

    2. In your last posts, you honestly sounded like you wanted to learn something. Now I see that you have the same stupid ridiculous Bakcdraft attitude that gets people hurt. Go ahead and buy 10 of them. Use them in good health.

  10. #60
    dazed and confused
    Resq14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    1,993

    Default You're out of air, you have no immediate help, and you can't get out.

    Sorry if it sounded like that, GW. I'm just looking for your specific take on a specific situation. You're out of air, you have no immediate help, and you can't get out. Sure, this should never happen. But failing to acknowledge that it does, and failing to consider adjuncts that, at the very least, might buy precious minutes, is shortsighted imho.

    If you reverse your logic, it would seem that ff's who have found themselves out-of-air weren't "keeping their wits," and I disagree with that generalization. I've read through many RPP's recently, all various flavors of the standard. Nowhere do I see emergency escape protection discussed for firefighters. Do we pretend it never happens?

    Back in your original post, you were looking for something in addition to "it's better than nothing." What more do you need?

    I don't even know why I'm stating my opinion... I'm not gonna buy one, and I'm not trying to argue just for the sake of it. I just think that if they're of value to someone as a last-resort option, why not?

    (I'm always trying to learn something... the Backdraft line stung. I'm not sure what attitude you're referring to since I'm just trying to clarify things.)
    Last edited by Resq14; 01-14-2005 at 01:20 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!

  11. #61
    MembersZone Subscriber

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

    Default

    Who has reference to O2 concentrations in "typical" structure fire.

    First, there is no such thing as a typical structure fire.

    Second, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Building and Fire Research Laboratory, has for years conducted studies of fire science topics such as oxygen concentrations in compartment fires. It would be quite enlightening for you to research this site and educate yourself about fire. If you did, you would delete your last couple of posts.

    The link is: http://fire.nist.gov. Then search the publications section under BFRL Publications Online.

    For an example, they conducted an extensive fire model of the Happyland Social Club fire. The predicted oxygen concentrations fell to about 3% in the first five minutes and never went above 15% until after the fire was out. The upper layer temperatures were anywhere between 200 and 600 C for an extended time period in the incident. It doesn't matter what the O2 concentration is, you're not breathing that atmosphere more than once.

  12. #62
    Junior Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3

    Default EVACpro

    Hello All:

    I just checked in again. I'm headin out for the weekend but am really looking forward to joining in next week. I have a few things for the members to consider and am looking forward to posting them. You guys have a great deal of experience and this is a great forum to understand the concerns (and learn a bit from my side).

    Thanks

    Des

  13. #63
    MembersZone Subscriber

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

    Default Re: EVACpro

    Originally posted by Desmond
    Hello All:

    I just checked in again. I'm headin out for the weekend but am really looking forward to joining in next week. I have a few things for the members to consider and am looking forward to posting them. You guys have a great deal of experience and this is a great forum to understand the concerns (and learn a bit from my side).

    Thanks

    Des
    Lookin' forward to it, Des.

  14. #64
    MembersZone Subscriber

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

    Default

    Hello?

  15. #65
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Rural Iowa
    Posts
    3,106

    Default

    George you said several times now you don't think the evacpro works, is "legal", don't like it. So get past that. I don't like broccoli.

    To keep it simple.
    1). Does Evacpro meet CURRENT OHSA standards? Standards which reference NIOSH certification. You apparently think not. Which NIOSH standard do you say the evacpro device falls under and under which it should be certified? Are you of the opinion that you (individually or as a department) can do nothing without the express written approval of OSHA?
    2). Does sufficient O2 exist in an involved structure that will reasonably allow the Evacpro to provide benefit commensurate with the cost of the device (vs other options). You would say no? Does not work at all?
    3.) What is your alternative equipment/plan for immediate firefighter backup when things go to hell and he is out of air (for whatever reason)?Snuffy is in a structure, out of air what is you plan for him? Your backup equipment related solution to the problem. Training/organizion solution has failed, as it does several time per year in the US, what does Chief George's intent?
    4.) Is it your opinion, personal or professional, that Dupont and Survivair (Survivair includes a evacpro with ever SCBA they sell)have developed a product which is illegal (or immoral) to use, and which is ineffective at least and more likely will harm or kill the user?

  16. #66
    dazed and confused
    Resq14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    1,993

    Default

    *ducks*

    (that's a "looks up from under the table", not "rolls eyes")

    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. #67
    MembersZone Subscriber

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

    Default

    Originally posted by neiowa
    George you said several times now you don't think the evacpro works, is "legal", don't like it. So get past that. I don't like broccoli.

    To keep it simple.
    1). Does Evacpro meet CURRENT OHSA standards? Standards which reference NIOSH certification. You apparently think not. Which NIOSH standard do you say the evacpro device falls under and under which it should be certified? Are you of the opinion that you (individually or as a department) can do nothing without the express written approval of OSHA?
    2). Does sufficient O2 exist in an involved structure that will reasonably allow the Evacpro to provide benefit commensurate with the cost of the device (vs other options). You would say no? Does not work at all?
    3.) What is your alternative equipment/plan for immediate firefighter backup when things go to hell and he is out of air (for whatever reason)?Snuffy is in a structure, out of air what is you plan for him? Your backup equipment related solution to the problem. Training/organizion solution has failed, as it does several time per year in the US, what does Chief George's intent?
    4.) Is it your opinion, personal or professional, that Dupont and Survivair (Survivair includes a evacpro with ever SCBA they sell)have developed a product which is illegal (or immoral) to use, and which is ineffective at least and more likely will harm or kill the user?
    I think you will find that I dealt with every single one of your questions in previous posts, but because respiratory protection is so important, and although you don't realize it, I have a desire to keep you alive, so I'll answer them again.

    1a. Despite whatever mumbo-jumbo salesman lingo he wants to use, the EVAC PRO is an air purifying respirator (APR) and, to be used in an OSHA compliant Repiratory Protection Plan, it must meet those certifications. In the OSHA Respiratory Protection Standards, it is very clear that there are certain atmospheres in which an APR cannot be used. Those are: a potential IDLH atmosphere, a potential oxygen deficient atmosphere (less than 19.5%) or a super heated atmosphere. In those atmospheres, the OSHA Respiratory Protection Regulations state that you must use an air supplied respirator.

    1b. OSHA doesn't supply written approval for anything. They are a regulatory agency. They write regulations and, if they apply to you, you must follow them. That is a simple concept.

    2. The only way to know for certain if an atmosphere is oxygen deficient is to conduct proper air monitoring. At a fire scene, there is no such thing. So we proceed on the basis that the atmosphere contains less than 19.5% oxygen. The regulations are quite clear that you will not wear an APR in an oxygen deficient atmosphere. I have no opinion on whether it would work. It simply does not meet the regulations we, as a professional emergency service, are bound by.

    3. This question has now been asked and answered three times. I know what you want me to say and I am not going to say it because the basic premise of your question is flawed.

    4. It is my opinion that an APR is not permitted to be used in a hazardous atmosphere. It is my further opinion that a fire administrator cannot supply, or cannot allow to be carried or used, any respiratory protective device that does not fit within his written, OSHA compliant, Respiratory Protection Plan.

    4a. It is my further opinion that I'm glad that this device costs $250.00. Because it disuades stupid volly buff morons from going out and buying one of these devices just in case in that one working fire they have a year, they do something stupid that causes them to run out of air.

  18. #68
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Borderstate
    Posts
    900

    Talking

    I total agree George, beside SOME us career guys couldn't stretch the device over our big heads!

    JUST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT!
    Last edited by coldfront; 01-18-2005 at 11:50 PM.
    Always a day late and a dollar short!

    Hillbilly Irish!

  19. #69
    MembersZone Subscriber

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

    Default

    Originally posted by coldfront
    I total agree George, beside SOME us career guys couldn't stretch the device over our big heads!

    JUST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT!
    I'm not a career guy. I have been a volunteer for over 25 years. I have a big head, but it is hereditary.

  20. #70
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    61

    Default

    Here is how I see this. You can breath through this, but if you burn your lungs, or inhale alot of the gasses that it does not filter, you may make it out, but you also may not survive due to the gasses already being in your blood or your lungs burnt. by "sucking a vaccume" on your SCBA you will have about 30-60 seconds until you pass out, and then about 4-6 minuts from there to get your breating again. I would hope the RIT team is already on their way and will have fresh air and get you out. I would rather take my chanced with the 6 minuts than live longer knowing that I am going to die.

    David Larson

  21. #71
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,703

    Default

    Survivair includes a evacpro with ever SCBA they sell
    I have 26 Survivair SCBA's and 0 of their "Evac-pro like" devices.
    "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?

  22. #72
    MembersZone Subscriber

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

    Default

    Gee, Des, where are you, buddy?
    Last edited by GeorgeWendtCFI; 01-20-2005 at 11:20 PM.

  23. #73
    MembersZone Subscriber

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

    Default

    Hello?

  24. #74
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    Sitting in my chair, listening to the scanner while the young kids respond
    Posts
    375

    Exclamation Bump

    Me thinks that maybe the higher ups at duPont put the clamps on Desmond. Probably the corporate lawyers got wind of this thread.

    Stay safe,

    Pete
    Pete Sinclair
    Hartford, MI
    IACOJ (Retired Division)

  25. #75
    MembersZone Subscriber

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

    Default

    Surely not.

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