Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 1234 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 86
  1. #1
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    127

    Default EVACpro....anyone playing with this?

    http://evacpro.com/

    Anyone trying this out, or have plans to?

    It seems like a GREAT idea...


  2. #2
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    I'm confused. I couldn't find the answer to this question on the website.

    I think it is pretty clear in the OSHA regs that you cannot use a SAR in an oxygen deficient atmosphere. Not withstanding the argument that it is better than nothing, how do you reconcile this discrepency?

  3. #3
    55 Years & Still Rolling hwoods's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Glenn Dale Md, Heart of the P.G. County Fire Belt....
    Posts
    10,739

    Talking Sure.......................

    As long as it filters out the Carbon Monoxide..................
    Never use Force! Get a Bigger Hammer.
    In memory of
    Chief Earle W. Woods, 1912 - 1997
    Asst. Chief John R. Woods Sr. 1937 - 2006

    IACOJ Budget Analyst

    I Refuse to be a Spectator. If I come to the Game, I'm Playing.

    www.gdvfd18.com

  4. #4
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    127

    Default

    I agree, at first I was skeptical.

    But, it is made by Dupont, a trustworthy company. If you dig into the website, they review their testing procedures, and filter performance.


    Disregarding current standards and taking a common sense approach, I think this could be a reliable device when things don't go right. It's better than what we have now, no?

    How about 4 of these in a bag (offering an hour of breathing protection) instead of lugging a full airpack and respirator? Just brainstorming.

  5. #5
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    61

    Default

    EVACPRO's are ok as long as that are used in an atmosphere that has a sufficient oxygen level. Heat is another consideration when using them. Unless they find a way to cool the air then the air still isnt going to be to pleasant to breath. Not saying that they aren't a useful tool in the right situation.

  6. #6
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Originally posted by BFDENG51CAPT
    EVACPRO's are ok as long as that are used in an atmosphere that has a sufficient oxygen level. Heat is another consideration when using them. Unless they find a way to cool the air then the air still isnt going to be to pleasant to breath. Not saying that they aren't a useful tool in the right situation.
    Well, you can't "disregard current standards". It also really doesn't matter if the unit is manufactured by a reliable company if it is against OSHA regs to use it in a fire. I also understand that this thing is good in an atmosphere where oxygen is in sufficient supply. So is an APR.

    My question remains...if OSHA says you can't use an APR in an oxygen deificient atmosphere (and it does), how could a FD comply with their Respiratory Protection Plan and issue these to their fire fighters? I am not putting this down, I am trying to understand.

  7. #7
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    1,719

    Default

    George, I believe this would be classified as an emergency escape respirator:
    CFR 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.
    However, I couldn't find anything on their site regarding NIOSH certification for the EVACPro. They do have this disclaimer for the EVAC-U8 smoke hood:
    *U.S. Industrial / Occupational Users: The EVAC-U8™ Emergency Escape Smoke Hood is not NIOSH certified. Depending on circumstances of use, OSHA requirements may stipulate the use of a NIOSH-certified respirator.
    http://www.evacsafety.com/en/product...lications.html
    FTM-PTB-DTRT

  8. #8
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Rural Iowa
    Posts
    3,106

    Default

    Per the website listed.

    EVACpro™ can help to minimize injury resulting from an out-of-air situation, back-pack entrapment, or SCBA malfunction by facilitating self-rescue.

    So you run out of air. Pull an EVACpro™ out of your pocket.

    Using EVACpro™

    As the pictograms illustrate, cap is removed from the EVACpro™, if possible a breath is taken of the last supplied air, the regulator is removed from the facepiece and the EVACpro™ is fit in its place.

    EVACpro™ is a negative pressure filter, with some breathing resistance (less than 4 in. of water) unlike positive pressure supplied air.

    Exit must be immediate. This is not supplied air.


    Interesting idea, particularily if you are in fact out of air and still blunding around inside a structure. But practical? A bit into the relm of geewiz gimcracks. Anyone know the guys that provided the testimonials? Anyone tested this/use/carrying one?

    We just ordered new NxG2 SCBA thinking perhaps might be a opportune time to add these (just requested a price quote from Dupont so don't know the price).

  9. #9
    MembersZone Subscriber Halligan84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1999
    Location
    Blackwood NJ, USA
    Posts
    816

    Default

    I think the OSHA cite on escape only respirators is off. Escape respirators are designed for working around chemicals where a non IDLH condition could develop. Check out the section on structural firefighting. There is no way a filter respirator would be approved for an IDLH atmosphere, fire or not. To use a filter respirator you need sufficient oxygen and known contaminant levels. You have positive knowledge of neither in a fire. I'm with George, if you issue them they have to be in your respiratory protection plan, would Scott agree with their NIOSH approved mask being used with this? The only possibility I can see if a member chose to provide one for himself as a last resort OR if NIOSH/OSHA considers this a viable escape option.

  10. #10
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Originally posted by Halligan84
    I think the OSHA cite on escape only respirators is off. Escape respirators are designed for working around chemicals where a non IDLH condition could develop. Check out the section on structural firefighting. There is no way a filter respirator would be approved for an IDLH atmosphere, fire or not. To use a filter respirator you need sufficient oxygen and known contaminant levels. You have positive knowledge of neither in a fire. I'm with George, if you issue them they have to be in your respiratory protection plan, would Scott agree with their NIOSH approved mask being used with this? The only possibility I can see if a member chose to provide one for himself as a last resort OR if NIOSH/OSHA considers this a viable escape option.
    In order tom comply with a RPP, a member absolutely cannot "provide one for himself as a last resort". NIOSH/OSHA alreadu does not consider this a viable escape option for the simple reason that you absolutely cannot use an APR in an oxygen deficient atmosphere.

    There is no grey area here at all. Their website even says so.

  11. #11
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    710

    Default

    I have the training cannister on my desk. It is being pushed as "Scott Emergency Escape Respirator". It utilizes a chemical filter that offers protection from fire gases including carbon monoxide. No it wont work under water. This filter to the best of my knowledge scrubs out the bad so you can breath the good - as little as it may be. It gives you aproximatly 15 minutes of breathable air.
    From the testimonials and video it does not remove much heat so breathing can be difficult if used in steam or high heat.

    Pride373 - it has a warning right on the package "for emergency escape only.

    We have found it a cost prohibitive item. Aprox $250.00 with a 4year warranty and shelf life. If it is used in a documented fire (for escape purposes, scba failure, out of air emergency) it will be replaced for free.

    For more info and testimonials contact the company and they will send you a cd and information regarding the product.

    I believe it is a great idea but very costly (then again what is my life worth right).

    Would like to get one and test it but - thats an expensive test we cant afford!

  12. #12
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Originally posted by Dave404
    I have the training cannister on my desk. It is being pushed as "Scott Emergency Escape Respirator". It utilizes a chemical filter that offers protection from fire gases including carbon monoxide. No it wont work under water. This filter to the best of my knowledge scrubs out the bad so you can breath the good - as little as it may be. It gives you aproximatly 15 minutes of breathable air.
    From the testimonials and video it does not remove much heat so breathing can be difficult if used in steam or high heat.

    Pride373 - it has a warning right on the package "for emergency escape only.

    We have found it a cost prohibitive item. Aprox $250.00 with a 4year warranty and shelf life. If it is used in a documented fire (for escape purposes, scba failure, out of air emergency) it will be replaced for free.

    For more info and testimonials contact the company and they will send you a cd and information regarding the product.

    I believe it is a great idea but very costly (then again what is my life worth right).

    Would like to get one and test it but - thats an expensive test we cant afford!
    If it is so good, how does it fit into your respiratory protection program?

    You don't "scrub" CO from the air. CO is a by product of combustion that results when the fire uses the air. There is no "good" to breathe when you are in a fire situation/oxygen deficient atmosphere.

    If it doesn't get rid of much heat, do you have any idea what 500-600 degree air would do to your lungs?

  13. #13
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    *U.S. Industrial / Occupational Users: The EVAC-U8™ Emergency Escape Smoke Hood is not NIOSH certified. Depending on circumstances of use, OSHA requirements may stipulate the use of a NIOSH-certified respirator.

    That is from their website. Does any FD's RPP state that you can use non-NIOSH approved respirators in ANY situation?

  14. #14
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    1,719

    Default

    Kinda suprised to see this thread pop back up...

    Here's some more info from their website:

    Test Results Summary

    Currently, there are no NFPA or NIOSH standards for filter respirators used for escaping smoke and fire gases.


    The EVACpro™ is based on the filter platform that has European certification.


    We are working toward a certification / standard for North America. That process is likely long term.


    The EVACpro™ is only to be used for escape in an emergency 'out-of-air' situation.
    http://www.evacsafety.com/en/product...echnology.html

    There may not be NFPA or NIOSH standards specifically for smoke & fire gases but it certainly would fall under the OSHA RPP for IDLH atmospheres.

    $250 each? That money could certainly go toward a training program on SCBA air management to train firefighters not to get into situations where this product would be needed and/or some physical fitness equipment so they're healthier and make their SCBA bottle last a little longer couldn't it?
    FTM-PTB-DTRT

  15. #15
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    You're right. But I think that the OSHA RPP regs make reference to NIOSH approved APR's.

    I was surprised too. But, if anyone is thinking about falling for this scam, I am glad it did.

  16. #16
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    18

    Default

    in my opinion it's worth every penny of 250. Yes its terribly expensive but it is your life. While OSHA does say you can't use them in a structural fire fighting situation, I don't think theres a flashlight bright enough for me to read an OSHA manual in a fire if you get my drift. There is a time and place for these, and while it's no guarantee out, and steam, excessive heat and low oxygen will still be large factors, it just may make the difference and would certainly give me a slight peace of mind.

  17. #17
    MembersZone Subscriber Halligan84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1999
    Location
    Blackwood NJ, USA
    Posts
    816

    Default

    What I meant to imply was that a member would be illegally maintaining for his own personal safety. Kind of like keeping a bail out rope in a department that does not approve one. I can see no way you could work into a legit RPP

  18. #18
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Originally posted by LadiesLoveaFF
    in my opinion it's worth every penny of 250. Yes its terribly expensive but it is your life. While OSHA does say you can't use them in a structural fire fighting situation, I don't think theres a flashlight bright enough for me to read an OSHA manual in a fire if you get my drift. There is a time and place for these, and while it's no guarantee out, and steam, excessive heat and low oxygen will still be large factors, it just may make the difference and would certainly give me a slight peace of mind.
    Pay attention...

    IF YOU USE ONE OF THESE IN AN OXYGEN DEFICIENT, SUPER HEATED OR IDKH ATMOSPHERE YOU WILL DIE! IF YOU GET MY DRIFT.

  19. #19
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    I can see no way you could work into a legit RPP
    Exactly. And as fire service professionals, we should not be advocating anything less than compliance with a legit RPP.

  20. #20
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    44

    Default

    If it can't do anything about the heat, its useless, regardless of the OSHA/NIOSH recommendations. Someone mentioned this earlier but I think I would rather spend the money on training to help avoid the situation altogether. But even when you look at information for all of the thousands of chemicals you could encounter in smoke, they require a variety of different types of respiratory protection...But lo and behold, two very common (and very toxic) components of smoke (aside from CO) require supplied air or SCBA at ALL concentrations. There is a reason these recommendations are made, and it is because of the toxicity of the products. SPEND THE MONEY ON TRAINING!!! SPEND THE MONEY ON UPDATED SCBA AND GEAR!!!

    For hydrogen cyanide:

    HCN: NIOSH RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HYDROGEN CYANIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN AIR (49):

    UP TO 47 ppm: SAR

    UP TO 50 ppm: full-facepiece SAR; or SAR operated in a
    continuous-flow mode; or full-facepiece SCBA

    For phosgene:

    RESPIRATORY PROTECTION GUIDELINES :
    NIOSH RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PHOSGENE CONCENTRATIONS IN AIR (17):

    UP TO 1 ppm: SAR.

    UP TO 2 ppm: Full-facepiece SCBA; or full-facepiece SAR.

    Now I realize they did breakthrough tests for HCN, but look at the parameters for that particular test:

    Gas Test Conditions: Air Flow: 30 lpm Constant Flow / Temperature: 25°C / Relative Humidity: 90%

    Not likely to find those conditions in a fire. They did not show any data for phosgene...IDLH for phosgene is 2 ppm.

    The above statement is my own personal opinion only!
    Last edited by nsideff; 01-05-2005 at 03:32 AM.

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