Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 86
  1. #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!


  2. #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.

  3. #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.

  4. #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.

  5. #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

  6. #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!

  7. #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.

  8. #48
    Forum Member Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,671

    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?

  9. #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.

  10. #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!

  11. #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.

  12. #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.

  13. #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 12:37 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!

  14. #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.

  15. #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?

  16. #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.

  17. #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

  18. #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 07:15 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!

  19. #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.

  20. #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 12:20 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!

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