Document gaObyNBVgqzE74JvbRLmXvQm3

(conoco) Interoffice Communication To From Oats subject Safety Contacts C. H. Klunick - Safety - Houston May 7, 1979 Check of Fresh Air Breathing Equipment Three firefighters died recently fighting a fire in Lubbock, Texas. They were wearing self-contained breathing apparatus, and although not in the immediate area, it is supposed the regulator diaphrams were split or punctured. MESA and NIOSH certify this equipment. No death reports confirming the cause of death have been issued to date. The accident emphasizes the need to check this type of equipment on a regular basis. We strongly recommend that all Conoco sel/contained breathing equipment be inspected in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. AiT pack equipment should be checked before and after each use, in addition to the manufac turer's recommended scheduled check. Employee lives depend on the reliability of self-contained breathing apparatus. Over the years these units have provided personnel protection to employees that have had to carry out work assignments in potentially hazardous atmospheres. The design and construction have improved considerably over the years. Use of this type of apparatus has never resulted in a Conoco fatality, however, experiences of others emphasizes the contin uing requirement of adequate training and proper maintenance. Information available indicates the equipment used by the fire men was Scott Air, series 900014 or 900000. The 900014 is a demand type unit. This data has not been confirmed. Training programs are available for inspection, maintenance and use of this type of equipment from both Scott and MSA. C. H. Klunick Manager of Safety ad SPECIAL NOTE The cylinders used in these tests are the property of NIOSH. The Lubbock, Texas cylinders were not useable due to extreme leakage i.e., on 2 out of 3 of the Lubbock cylinders, duration was reduced to 2 to 3 minutes. TESTS-OF SELF CONTAINED BREATHING APPARATUS RECEIVED FROM LUBBOCK, TEXAS FIRE DEPARTMENT APRIL 1979 rj Division of Safety Research National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Center for Disease^Control Department of Health, Education, and Welfare ; I lA-J IL_ o :x I SUMMARY The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Heal ih (N'LOSH) tested three Scott self-contained breathing apparatus (models II and 1TA AirPaks and Presur-Paks) and a regulator from a fourth Scott self-contained breathing apparatus, to determine thc;ir Bureau of Hines (BOH) or Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)/NIOSH approval status. These apparatus and the regulator were sent to NIOSH at Morgantown, West Virginia, by Chief Foster of the Lubbock, Texas Fire Department. The apparatus were identified as having been v.'orn at a fire scene by three fire fighters v'ho died at that fire scene on March 25, 1979. The regulator was taken from an inservice piece of fire apfiarqtus winch may not have been on the fire scene. NIOSH examined the apparatus and regulator, as received, and found that critical parts were missing, damaged, and/or defective. The apparatus and regulator v:ere tested and failed to meet several applicable requirements of BOM and MSHA/NIOSH respirator approval regulations (Title 30 Code of Federal Regulations: BOM Schedule 13E and MSHA/NIOSH Part 11). The apparatus as received by NIOSH were considered to be in an unapproved condition. In each case, several repairs, replacements, and/or adjustments would be required to meet the applicable conditions of BOM or MSHA/NIOSH approval. r-, ] NTKUUUCTION Throe Lubbock, Texas, fire fighters died at a fire scene on March 25, 1979. Those fire fighters were equipped with Scott Model II and 1IA Air-Pak and Presur-Pak self-contained breathing apparatus, approved by the Bureau of Mines (BOM) or by the Mine Safety and llealLh Administration (KSHA)/National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Chief Foster of the Lubbock, Texas, Fire Department asked NIOSH, on April 13, 1979, to examine and test the subject apparatus. The apparatus were received by NIOSH on April 23 and April 24, 1979, together with the separate regulator. They were tested for conformance with applicable BOM and MSRA/NIOSH respirator, approval requirements. DESCRIPTION OF APPARATUS The apparatus and regulator consisted of the following axrc-mblies (identified by NIOSH assigned numbers) : NIOSH Assigned Number Description 1 This apparatus assembly bore a TC-13F-39 KSHA/NIOSH approval label on the backplate/harness subassembly. It was also equipped with a P/N 800212-00 pressure-demand regulator (S/N 57-10 1183), a cylinder (72621 BV HT 2-54, 1-63, 9-73 3AA-1800/ stenciled ' ''LUBBOCK FD") and valve subassembly, and a facepiece (EM 13-E08) . 2 This apparatus assembly bore a TC-13F-40 MSRA/NIOSH approval label on the backplate/harness subassembly and was marked "47". It was also equipped with a P/N 800212-00 pressure-demand regulator (S/N 87-30 065S/marked "47"), a cylinder (T79535 HT 276 SP 6498 2216/ stenciled "LFD" and "LUBBOCK FIRE DEPT" and valve subassembly, and a facepiece.(1Q7S/ marked "47"). 3 This apparatus assembly bore a BM-13E-08 BOM approval label on the backplate/harness subassembly (stenciled "LTD"). It was also equipped with a demand regulator (S/N 55201 marked BM-13E-0S), a cylinder (35641 DF NT 7-68+ 3AA 2015/ stenciled "LFD") and valve subassembly, and a facepiece (BM-13E-0S/ stenciled "LFD" and marked "21"). 4 This regulator subassembly consisted of a P/N 800212-00 pressuredemand regulator (S/N 47-21 0663) with diaphragm in place. This 2 ooon regulator r.oy be part of the MSHA/NIOSH TC-13F-A0 approved assembly. A separate regulator diaphragm was in an envelope enclosed in the bag with the separate regulator. Each of the above apparatus assemblies 1, 2, and 3 were found upon examination to differ from the .applicable POM and MSHA/NIOSH approved assembly in one or more aspects. The variations from approved status are detailed in Table 1. In addition, each of the apparatus assemblies and regulator subassembly vere found upon examination to have missing, damaged, and/or defective parts vhen compared with BOM and MSKA/NIOSH record materia,}. These discrepancies and defects and other observations concerning the apparatus and subassembly are detailed in Table 2. Tn summary, the three apparatus vere expected to be demand and pressuredemand units of types approved by the Bureau of Mines and the Mine Safety and Health Administration/Kntional Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The apparatus identified by NISOH Number 1 bore a MSRA/HIOSH TC-13F-39 approval label. This approval was issued for a demand-type 30 minute compressed-air self-contained breathing apparatus. NIOSH Number 1 apparatus, however, was equipped with a pressure-demand instead of a regular demand regulator and a pressure demand instead of a regular demand facepiece. It also had a low capacity cylinder (1000 psig/AO cubic fc-et) instead of the higher capacity cylinder (2216 psig/A5 cubic fret) approved for use with the TC-13F-39 apparatus. The apparatus identified by NIOSH Number 2 bore a MSHA/NIOSH TC-13F-A0 approval label. This approval was issued for a pressure-demand type 30minute compressed-air self-contained breathing apparatus. The apparatus identified by NJOSH Number 3 bore a BOM BM-13E-0S approval label. This approval was issued for both a demand type end a pressure demand type 30-minute compressed-air self-contained breathing apparatus. Except for variations in subassembly markings, both NIOSH Number 2 apparatus and NIOSH Number 3 apparatus wore assembled v;ith the correct subassemblies. The variations listed in Table 1 and the discrepancies and defects listed in Table 2 were cause for a NIOSH decision that none of the apparatus, as received from Lubbock, Texas, were in an approved condition. APPARATUS TESTS To further evaluate r lie ensenb1ios and the subassembly regulator received from Lubbock, Texas, NiOidI personnel of the Division of Safety Research, Testing and Certification Branch, Respirator Section, conducted u .scries of performance lesLs. These tents were directed by Richard Ron!;, Chief, Respirator Section, assisted by Samuel Terry, Thillip Arnett, Thomas .John, and Nancy Carlock. NIOSH tests were begun 3 SAL. 000< Table 1. -Variations of Lubbock, Texas, Apparatus from BOM or 'MSHA/N10SH Approved Appar atus Assembly. NIOSH Assigned number Subassembly BOM or MSHA/NIOSH Approved Apparatus Subassembly __ Lubbock, Texas Apparatus Subassembly 1 BacV.p] nle/ 8U0020-04 TC-13F-39 harness TC-13F-39 Regu]ntor Cylinder and valve Facepiece 800013-00/(demand) 800010-00, -10, -02, or -12 (2216 psi) 801450-13 or 17042 800012-00 (pressure-demand)~ ,' a/ 1800 psi)~ a/ BM-13E-0S- 2 Bnckplatc/ S00020-04 TC-J3F-40 harness TC-13F-40 Regulator 800212-00 or 8C0212-03 800212-00 Cylinder and valve 800010-00, -10, -02, or -12 (2216 psi) (2216 psi) Facepiece 801500-15 or 40577 3 Backplate/ BM-13E-QS harness (not marked) RM-13E-08 Regulator BM-13E-08 BM-13E-06 Cylinder and valve (2015 psi) (2015 psi) Fncepiecc I3M-13E-08 BM-130S 4 o0005^`-: Table 2.--Discrepancies and Defects Found on and Observations Concerning Lubbock, Texas, Apparatus Compared with BOM and MSllA/NIOSH Record Material. NIOSH Assigned Number Sub assembly 1 Bnckplnto/harness Rcgulator Cylinder and valve assembly Facepiece 2 Backplate/hn rness Regulator Cylinder and valve Discrepancies, Defects and Observations Rivet torn through belt at buckle end. Frayed strap. Holes through belt material Waist strap missing. Diaphragm has 1/2 inch by 1/8 inch hole at 10 o'clock.l/ Regulator cover stained at 10 o'clock. Regulator spring stained. Diaphragm stained at vents and at hole. Regulator cover stained at vents Retaining ring exterior stained. High-pressure ring seal to cylinder con nection is cracked and leaks. Material protruding from male coupling at threads of cylinder gage. Gage bezel cracked. Cylinder valve chain lock missing. Cylinder gage screws loose. Material extruding from safety relief on cylinder. Cylinder gage at 0 psig. Dirt covering inside facepiece surface. Wire support broken inside breathing tube. Two screws missing from exhalation valve housing. Waist strap missing. Screw holding mainline valve lock is loose. Top screw of front housing cover of regulator at breathing lube connection is bent and 1 oor.c . Diaphragm and regulator cover shoves staining at vent s. lligh-pressure cylinder seal screw and gasket are loose. High-pressure leak at cylinder connection. Cylinder pressure gage guard missing. Cylinder gage at 0 psig. Table 2 :---Centinucd. Facepiece 3 Backplate/harness Regula Lor Cylinder and valve Facepicce 4 Regulator Facepiece lens surface inside dirty. Breathing Lube inner wire support broken in two places* Chin seal portion of fncepice is dirty. Waist strap missing. Strap tearing at buckle. Rubber sleeve at clamp of breathing tube to regulator connection bps cracks. Screw for mainline valve lock is loose, rendering lock ineffective. Bottom screw of regulator housing cover missing at breathing tube connection side Regulator gage bezel and lens missing. Top screw of regulator housing cover at breathing tube connection side is bent. Diaphragm has 3 inch by 1/16 inch hole and is pulled away from retaining ring at 5:45 and 7:30. Diaphragm is stained at vent. Cover is stained at 5:45 and 7:30. One cover screw is missing. One cover screw is bent. High-pressure ring seal to cylinder connection is missing. Cylinder knob locking pin is unlocked. Cylinder gage at 800 psig. Inside lens surface dirty. Lens retaining ring dented in several place. Exhalation valve dirty on both sides. Facepiece rubber tearing at left head strap molded retainer support. Facepiece rubber is cracking at right bead strap molded retainer support. Mainline valve lock inoperable. High-pressure hose cut and gouged. Ring seal missing from high pressure cvlinder seal connection. 6 9A'.~ 000097::9: Table 2.--Continued. Screws holding back cover housing of regulator are loose. Cage bezel is cracked. High-pressure leak at cylinder connection. Regulator cover shows staining at vents. Diaphragm regulator not stained. Diaphragm in envelope shows staining around 3/16 inch by 1/6 inch hole and tu'O additional spots at 30 degrees and 60 degrees from hole. Regulator plate spring, shows staining at vents .and about 30 degrees from vent. Demand valve deflector cracked. 1/ Clock locations observed vith regulator outlet at top and regulator cover toward viewer. on April 23, 1979, and wore completed on May 31, 1979. Except for the sodium chloride penetration tests, all tests were conducted as prescribed in BOM Schedule 13E for the EM-13E-08 type of apparatus and as prescribed in MSHA/NICSH 30 CFR Part 31 for the TC-13F-39 and TC-13F40 types of apparatus. For the sodium chloride penetration test, the regulators were placed in the center of a test hood which is approximately 36 inches high and 36 inches in circular diameter. The regulators were challenged with a sodium chloride aerosol of approximately 0.6 micrometer mass median aerodynamic diameter at a conoentrntion of approximately 15 mg NnCl/cubic meter. The aerosol was generated by a Frontier Enterprises, J.nc., FE 560A nebulizer and measured by a flame photometer. The method is discussed further in "A Guide to Industrial Respiratory Protection" (NIOSH 76-189). Because of the condition of the apparatus as received from Lubbock, texas, and the desire to not disturb the contents of the Lubbock cylinders, the following tests vere performed using the indicated parts. The NIOSH parts wore taken from laboratory stock used for approval and check testing of Scott apparatus and were pre-tested for satisfactory operation. Bedplate/ harness Regulator Cylinder and valve Facepiece Sodium chloride panet ration NIOSH Lubbock NIOSH NIOSH T noamyl acetate penetration NIOSH Lubbock NIOSH NIOSH Exhnl Resist. NIOSH Lubbock NIOSH Lubbock Inhal resist. NIOSH Lubbock NIOSH Lubbock Static press. NIOSH Lubbock NIOSH Lubbock Gas flow NIOSH Lubbock NIOSH N/A Servico time NIOSH Lubbock NIOSH NIOSH Pemnining sorvi ce t iir.e indiealor NIOSH Lubbock NIOSH NIOSH A lint of all tin' tests performed by NJ0S1I, the BOM Schedule 13E and NSl!.\/N10S)i 30 CIT. Part. 11 reference';, t he applicable: perfoimncc level requirements, ami the observed performance, levels, are shown in Table 3. The perfonrnnee failures arc marked (*) in Tabic 3. 6 o v0 Table 3. -~1ViTormance Tc-sting by NLOSH from 4-23-79 to 5-11-79, of Lubbock, Texas, Self-Contained Breathing Appa ra ton, Demand (d) and Fi'i'ssurcDei.T.md (pd). Type of test NaCl penetration NIOSII Ansigned *!ir:be r 1 BOM or MSHA/NIOSH Reference* MSHA/NIOSH special Required Performance Level <0.002% oxpoet ed Ob sc* ived Performance Level " 14% (d) <0.002% (pd) 2 3 h Isoamyl acetate penetration 1 2 3 4 Exhalation resistance 85 1pm I 2 3 h do . do. do . MSHA/NIOSH 11.85-19 do. BOM 11.32 MSHA/NIOSH 11.85-19 MSHA/NIOSH 1] .85-6 do. BOM ]J . 21 (d)(2) MS HA /N10SII 11.8.6 do. 0.0039t (d) <0.002% (pd) do. 7.77% (d) do. <0.002% (d and pd asroc oived) 7.69% (d with diaphragm fvenvelope) 0.0052 3%(pd vit'h diaphragm from envelope) No detectable leakage largo leak (d)* do. Test not per fotried . do. Very large leaks (d)5': do . Test not performed because diaphragm was not orj ginal. <1" H?0 (d) <2" H?0 above static/ <3.5" HjO total (pd) Too high for test equipment (pd) do. A. 85" I120 (pd) * do . 0.65" 1120 (d) do , 3.15" H o 0 as received* 2.1" 11 - .0 v / cl t nphvngrr. fri'in rnvidopc (pd) a i i... 0 0 0 0 M' 7Q 7 F.nhilal.ion 1 l't-si stance at breathing r-a chine airflows 2 3 4 Inhalation resi stance 1 2 3 4 Static pressure 1 2 3 4 MSUA/N10SH 11.85-5 N/A 14.1" H20 (d) 14.1" H^O (pd) do. BOM 11.21 (d)(2) MSHA/NIOSH 11.85-5 MSI!A/NIOSH 11.85-5 do. BOM 11.21 (d)(2) KSIJA/NIOSH 11.85-5 MSHA/NIOSH 11.85-6 do. N/A do. N/A N/A 6.44" h2o (d) 5.82" H20 (pd) 1.16" 112 Cd) N/A 1.04" h2o (d) as received 2.6" H?0 (pd) as received 1" H20 (d) with diaphragm ^frora envelope 3m H20 (pd) with diaphragm from envelope <1.25" H20 (d) -2.91" H20 (d)* >0" ]|20 (pd) 0.83" H20 spike (pd) do. 3.95" H20 (d)* -1.45" H20 (pd)* do. 1.12" H20 (d) do. 1.95 " HO (d) as received -0.42" H^O spike (pd) as received * 2" 11^0 (d) * with diaphragm from envelope >0" H20 (pd) with diaphragm from envelope >0< 1.5 H20 (pd) 1.37" h2o (pd) do. 1.04" H20 (pd) N/A N/A do. 0.91" H,,0 (pd) as rcc'd 1.05" H20 (pd) with d i aphrap.m from envelope Jabl e 3.--Continued. Cos flow 1 NSNA/NIOSH >200 lp:n at 14 2 1 pm fill. 1* 11.85-8 full pro r> sure 310 1 pin 500 psi (pd) and 500 psi 2 do. do. 110 1pm full* 112 1pm 500 ps.i*(pd) 3 BOM 11.21 do. (d)(3) 182 1pm full* 200 1pm 500 psi (d) 4 MSHA/N1OSH do. 11.85-8 118 1pm full * 180 1pm 500 psi (pd)* Service ii:v 1 MSHA/NJOSH 13.85-10 30 ni nut es 20.3 minutes * 2 do. do. 30.9 mi mi tos 3 BOM do. 11.21(d)(4) NoL measured because decrease in service Line would not be expected for demand unit. 4 MSHA/NIOSH do, H. 85-10 31.9 minutes F.oni ni ng service t ime indicolor 1 MSHA/NIOSH 11.82 Operates be tween 22.5 and 24 minutes 16.3 minutes** 2 do. do. 23.2 minutes 3 BOM do. 11.21(c)(6) not measured 4 MSHA/N JOSH do. 11.82 25.3 minut es* * Ind j coics fail are Lo meet applir able BOM or MSHA/N10S11 performance requirement ** Rena in i up. service ( ir;c ind j cal ox- operated at 80% of observed service time (20.3 nin 1! . 1 ] *$1 89 During the tests described in Table 3, NIOSH personnel made the following general observations: 1. Apparatus and regulator with damaged or displaced diaphragms, i.e., NTOSH numbers 1, 3, and 4 (with diaphragm in envelope), showed excessive penetration when operated in the demand mode. 2. All apparatus had airflow less than 200 1pm required at full cylinder pressure. 3. Apparatus with dirt in facepiece, i.e. NIOSH number 1 and 2 showed excessive exhalation resistance. 4. Excessive inhalation resistances of NIOSH numbers 1 and 2 indicated possible regulator interior misadjustment, dirt, or damage. 5. Operation of remaining service time indicators was outside HSHA/NIOSH specifications on NIOSH numbers 1 and 4, indicating misad j us'ted , dirty, or damaged alarm. CONCLUSIONS On the basis of the physical examination and performance testing of the three self-contained breathing apparatus and one regulator, as received from the Lubbock, Texas, Fire Department on April. 23 and 24, 1979, NIOSH has determined that the subject apparatus do not meet the applicable requirements of ROM Schedule 13E or MSHA/NIOSH 30 CFR Tart 11. In each instance, several repairs, replacements, and/or adjustments would be required to meet the requirements of ECM or liSHA/h'IOSH approval. However, it must be stated that NIOSH has no information concerning the exact condition of the apparatus before or at the time use at the fire scene on March 25, 1979. All NIOSH observations are limited to the condition of the apparatus as received by NIOSH. of 12 BAL 0000