Vehicle exhaust

[ex-commish 490]

I am seeking information on vehicle exhaust in firehouses. What exactly are the laws and to what laws do they fall under? Are there specific types of exhuast systemt that must be used? Thanks.

[38ff 250]

Im in the middle of researching this for my FD. There is no "state law" or such. There is NFPA 1500, which lays down the "standard". It was recently changed. NFPA USED to say that Source Capture (a hose on the end of the exhuast pipe venting outside the station) was THE ONLY way to go. However, it is the most expensive. Lots of little depts that didnt have the $ for a source captaure system said "what are we gonna do?" NFPA now says that the dept must do the (am I dont remember the exact verbage) "best way possisible" that the dept can do. Meaning that if you are in a dept that has little/no money to spend, the best possible thing you can do is open the bay doors or the like. If you dept has some $, then perhaps a hanging exhuast "sucker/cleaner" is the best you can do. If your dept has $, then in my opinion, the best way is Source Capture. Source Capture for my 5 bay station is approximatly 50K, and we have the $ to spend on it, so thats looking like the way we will go after all the research is done and presented to the BOFC.

There is no specific type that is spec'ed out by NFPA.

Hope that helps.

[WAS967 97]

Doesn't source capture only work half the time? Works great when leaving, but when backing in (from what I have seen) it is not used & not hooked up until the vehicle is parked.

PS....why is this in the EMS forum?

Edited December 9, 2009 by WAS967

[jack10562 414]

PS....why is this in the EMS forum?

Maybe it's for an ambulance....

[38ff 250]

Source capture works just as good going out the door as it does backing in. All thats required is the people to connect it, which boils down to a "leadership enforcing the rules" issue.

[antiquefirelt 994]

We have a source capture system and do not allow our members to connect returning apparatus until it is stopped and shutdown. There are two reasons for this. First, the danger of attempting to slip the boot on while the truck is moving, you never know what can happen, the less members in close proximity to a moving truck with reduced visibility the better. The second reason is the need. A hot diesel engine emits very limit "dirty exhaust" compared to the start up. Now if you have a bunch of gas jobs, it may be another story. We can run a diesel in the bays for an hour and not set off the CO alarms, the Chief's buggy takes about 3 minutes to trip all the CO alarms in three other apparatus. If the system is connected there is no alarms or issues, and 5 years later our walls are far cleaner than ever before, as I suspect are our lungs.

We had the hanging "scrubbers" for 6-7 years when I started and they were a pain in the a$$. A lot of filter changing and little noticeable effect, we'd still set off the CO alarms in the separated "house" section of the station.

Edited December 10, 2009 by antiquefirelt

[Guest alsfirefighter]

HFD:

Source capture is the way to go but do your research as there has been some recent issues in regard to new diesel engines and the temperature of the exhaust not being compatible to some hoses. I'm sure the manufacturers can assist with this.

As far as laws or regulations I cannot recall what I had heard in regard to OSHA regulations that pertain to the removal of exhaust. I do know that it has been said that it can fall under the general duty clause as diesel emissions has been labeled a carcinogen by I believe the EPA. Irregardless, it is addressed in NFPA standards which need to be followed. And that's right gang..you have to follow them...as you do already with many other aspects of the fire service and established by case law in NY.

[antiquefirelt 994]

As far as laws or regulations I cannot recall what I had heard in regard to OSHA regulations that pertain to the removal of exhaust. I do know that it has been said that it can fall under the general duty clause as diesel emissions has been labeled a carcinogen by I believe the EPA. Irregardless, it is addressed in NFPA standards which need to be followed. And that's right gang..you have to follow them...as you do already with many other aspects of the fire service and established by case law in NY.

Are these adopted by the State of NY as law? If not, why do you have to follow them? Not that I disagree with choosing to use them as partial justification for better working conditions, but why do we hold ourselves to one standard while ignoring the one that will have the most positive impact on all firefighters and civilians alike: NFPA 1710?

[FFFORD 27]

I know bridgeport hospital was running Source capture for a while, installed when they renovated the ED. it lasted for a while until people started driving away with the unit still on the exhaust. My firehouse does not have anything like this, but there is a constant fan on in the bay's which blows air directly outside. how effective it is, well i dont know, but i guess better than nothing.

[Guest alsfirefighter]

The problem with NY is that the NFPA is like the FAA...nothing ever is accomplished until something goes wrong. Most municipalities fight tooth and nail when you bring up NFPA standards even when there is no cost when it brings the requirements to a higher level. I don't know what some of the exact thinking is...but if you don't you are rolling the dice and as I stated in my previous post...Alan Baird was convicted in criminal court and found liable in civil court with his involvement of the death of an 18 year old in a live fire training incident. In both cases NFPA 1403 was cited in proving negligence on his part involved in the death of the member (who had no training) and violations of the standard in conducting the burn and the fuels involved. If a department has an incident and someone either sues and/or criminal proceedings are brought..you are going to see NFPA standards cited. They are the national consensus of the fire service. And beleive me..I agree when it comes to the picking and choosing part...but its the world many of us operate in and do our best to navigate and get things as best we can. We fall under numerous NFPA standards as you cannot purchase turnout gear, a fire apparatus, and so forth unless it meets the standard. NFPA 1500 which is one of the most well writting documents on firefighter health and safety, is a good document to start with in regard to establishing policies/proceures/guidelines...yet I'm willing to bet..most couldn't state what's even in it.

Edited December 10, 2009 by alsfirefighter

[LFD34 12]

I know bridgeport hospital was running Source capture for a while, installed when they renovated the ED. it lasted for a while until people started driving away with the unit still on the exhaust. My firehouse does not have anything like this, but there is a constant fan on in the bay's which blows air directly outside. how effective it is, well i dont know, but i guess better than nothing.

There are many different exhaust systems that can be used. The advantage of the exhaust system is that the exhaust does not enter the fire house, avoiding both the gas and particulates in the exhaust. There are many health reasons for avoiding this exposure.

I'm most familiar with the Niederman system. The system is designed to automatically disengage from the apparatus as it rolls out the door. The apparatus are re-connected as they enter the firehouse. This has worked well, and is very reliable.

This is an item that will last many years and can be capitalized. As such the annualized cost is more reasonable. This capitalization can be incorporated into other changes.