Incident Commander

Train, Train, Train

2012-01-16T11:26:00.000-08:00

I was talking to a salesman a while back who just got drafted to participate in Emergecy Response training. Good guy. Smart. Never been in a HAZMAT suit before and wanted to know if he'd need to wear a tie with it. Thought SCBA was a government agencies. Claustrophobic so he couldn't go into a confined space without having a panic attack.

So I kind of wrote him off.

Funny thing is, after the last several months, I've seen a difference in him. He's sold emergency response equipment for years, but he never really understood it. Now that he has to wear it and use it during his training, he's actually starting to know what it's for.

He comes and asks me questions, real questions for a change.

Every now and then it hits me how greatful I should be for all the training I've received. It's both saved and changed my life. Sometimes I forget that I didn't used to know anything about toxic gas. Now I occasionally take that knowledge for granted.

That's a mistake.

We're never to old to train. Never.

What do you think?

Add 'em Up and They Can Take You Down

2011-10-28T09:55:00.000-07:00

How many of you have seen this?

An air sample is taken for a potentially hazardous environment. Five or ten or twenty toxins show up in the analysis, but each one of them is below the level you should be concerned with according to the MSDS. No problem, right?

Wrong.

Let's say it is the scene of a hazardous waste hauler where all sorts of chemicals were being transported, but each below the threshhold of concern. Is it safe.

Nope.

Look, virtually no studies do in depth analysis of the health and safety exposure of mixtures of chemicals. Try looking up the MSDS sheet for a mixture of styrene, toluene, and benzene. Good luck finding one.

And according to Dennis Patrick, noted Industrial Hygienist and Safety Expert and founder of EPG Ltd., the real problem is the synergistic effects.

The problem to be addressed by the community of experts is how to rate cominbation of chemicals. I have my own way of doing this- I add up the totals of all the toxins, and if the aggregated number is higher than the lowest IDLH, then the whole mess is hazardous until proven otherwise. Not everyone likes this approach, but they aren't the ones who have to be around it, either.

HAZMAT Transport and Medical Conditions

2011-09-08T05:10:00.000-07:00

I received a call yesterday asking my opinion on medical conditions and HAZMAT drivers. Here's the issue I was asked about: should a driver with a medical condition that elevates their possibility of a stroke still be allowed to drive hazardous materials tankers if doctors say the patient is currently healthy? Keep in mind that although no one can predict when a stroke can occur, if the driver has had a mini-stroke, they have an elevated chance of having another.

My opinion is that they shouldn't be allowed to drive if there is an increase in the possibility of having a stroke. This didn't make anyone happy. "You can't say that," I was told, "because there are other health conditions such as diabetes, etc. that also increase the possibility of a diminished capacity event for that individual."

Also, they continued, "It violates their rights by restricting their employment possibilities based on only 'statistics.'" Sorry, but that won't bring anyone back who's been injured or killed by a hazardous materials release.

Look- hazardous materials are hazardous materials. What's the use of strict DOT regulations if we aren't also strict when it comes to regulating drivers? Personally, I wouldn't let anyone get behind the wheel of a truck carrying HAZMAT if they hadn't had a breathalyzer test before getting into the vehicle.

That's not a popular idea, either.

But I like it.

Looking Down the Barrel of an Infrared- Part Two

2011-08-22T11:38:00.000-07:00

Last week I talked about some of the potential issues for Emergency Responders re build up on the Fresnel lens system in an infrared temperature gun. Smoke & ash from fires are one set of issues, and chemical extinguishing agents are another. Chemical vapor residues from a chemical leak (say methyl bromide, for example) can cause problems, too. There's a fourth category for all detection & measurement equipment, but I'll address that next posting.

But how often should you clean a top notch temperature gun (say our Top Temp Gun or the Flash Point Temp Gun)? Here's the answer from our techs:

*****

If the following procedure is not followed, there will be an error of accuracy from 10 degrees F to 40 degrees F minimum for the readings.
1]   EVERY unit we supply should be cleaned weekly to eliminate dust, girt and grime that will build up on the lens system.

        1a. This can be done using a soft cloth or cotton swab with alcohol.

2] The advantage of the IR100_2 and the TN425 is the low temperature range of -76 to check accuracy of the unit.

       2a. Simply fill a vessel with ice and water : check the temperature: reading should be between 27F to 35 F.

       2b. There should be only a drift from 32F .. 27 low and 35 high

       These readings should be within our stated accuracy.

   3] Finally, let's go beyond the lens issue...

        Sometimes dust and particulates from emergency response scenarios can be blown beyond the outer Fresnel lens, and even beyond the hard glass lens and right into the microprocessor.
         THIS event will cause an additional error in accuracy of 10 -20 degrees of the reading.

         There is NO WAY to take the unit apart and blow out the dust without destroying the guts of the unit.

If the unit is too far out of whack as determined by ice water test... then we will need to replace it ASAP.

Remember that high end infrared temperature guns are precision instruments. Treat them like they are and they can help keep you and your team safe.

Looking Down the Barrel of an Infrared- Part One

2011-08-15T16:25:00.000-07:00

You're looking at a Fresnel lens sysem that we use for our infrared temperature guns. Notice the ridges along the tapering cone that lead down the barrel to the lens.

I've been hammering this theme home for a while as regards photoionization detectors, but I promised to bring it around to our infrared temperature guns and today I will,

Even though we handle 100:1 distance to spot infrared temperature guns with Class III laser sights, the situations that hazmat responders have to deal with can involve lots of smoke, dust, chemical leaks and or extinguishants. If you're not using our Top Temp Gun, it means you'll have to be even closer. With somebody else's infrared temp gun, say a 50:1 distance to spot ratio, you'll have to be twice as close to get a decent reading.

What is distance to spot ratio? For a 100:1 infrared temperature gun, it means that at one hundred feet you will be measuring a circle with a 1 foot radius. That's a tight spec. It's a real instrument that can save lives.

But what if, during an emergency run, you use your temperature gun in a smokey environment, or while your using it, extinguisher fumes blow your way. Or chemical fumes from a factory?

The answer is that you have to clean it, just like in the case of the PID. Swab the ridges and the lens with isopropyl alcohol. Most people forget to clean the ridges that lead up to the main lens. That's a cricital mistake. A bad mistake. Those ridges aren't there for nothing. They're part of the instrument's operative principle. So clean them as often as you clean the lens.

Clean them after every emergency you take the infrared gun to. That way you'll be sure to get more accurate readings. How inaccurate can the readings be if the unit's lens package (including the ridges)isn't cleaned?

I'll fill you in on that next time.

Smoke- A PID Gas Detector's Worst Enemy?

2011-07-18T08:09:00.000-07:00

PID (photoionization detectors) are generally used for the detection of volatile compounds and certain classes of toxics. They've been around for awhile, and are generally included in every HAZMAT team's toolkit.

There has been some controversy over the impact that humidity has on their readings, with one company- Ion Science- claiming that humidity variations have a significant effect on detection suppression. In high humidity environments that claim this suppression could be in excess of 50%, which makes humidity and serious consideration when trying to get an accurate reading out of a PID. However, there are rumors of a new study showing that improvements in PID technology have knocked that down to the range of only 10%.

Of more concern to me is the effect of smoke on PID readings at the time of an emergency event and residual contamination on the detector cell because of the smoke and/or chemical extinguisher vapors. In earlier postings I have stressed the importance of cleaning PID cells after a chemical event. Now I raise the question of how much smoke or other particulate and/or condensate fumes have on the accuracy of a PID's readout.

To my knowledge, there have been no studies conducted on this issue by any of the gas detection companies or sensor manufactuerers. I'm going to keep pushing them to look at this problem, and hope you'll push for the same. This problem shouldn't be ignored. After all, the responders actually are at risk in the field. Gas detector salesman typically don't tend to show up at emergency events where toxic gases are involved.

Technical Support That Actually Helps? A Review of BW Technologies Technical Support

2011-07-08T12:12:00.000-07:00

It seems every week I have a new experience with gas detector technical support, and for the first time on this blog, it's time to give a gas detector technical support department a gold star.

That happy smile is my face after I got off the phone.

Lets lay out my experience so other gas detector companies can learn how the pros do it.

1. When I called, a person answered the phone. Not just a person asking who do I want to be connected to, but an extremely friendly woman who sounded like she'd been waiting for my call just so she could have the joy of directing me to the correct department. I know that may sound hokey, but call the BW Technologies customer support line and hear for yourself : 888-749-8878.

2. When I mentioned I needed technical support, she told me it may be a few minutes on hold while I wait. No problem, I'm a savant when it comes to holding for tech support, I've called Microsoft and actually gotten a person before. What really impressed me about the holding, of all things, was that every minute or two, the woman who originally answered my call actually picked up the line to make sure I was still there and to apologize for the wait. To my knowledge, BW Technologies is the only company on the planet that does this. At this point, as far as I'm concerned, this woman is a saint. Which put me in a much better mood by the time I got tech support.

3. My issue had to deal with the eeprom sensor firmware going bad. Specifically, on startup, you get a Code 11 Sensor Eeprom Error. The only option is to press a button to turn it off with a message that says contact your local vendor. On my first call, I got a guy named Pete (his actual name according to the email is Pedro, in case any of his bosses read this). He looked up the issue in the computer, and the solution was to update the firmware on my Quattro. He walked me through a few attempts, and then we hit the snag point, I had an old IR connector and would need a new one. At this point, Pete said that he wanted to try a few places and look for a workaround and would then get back to me. Later that day, I had an email from Pete explaining what I'd need to do and what equipment I'd need.

4. The next day, I emailed Pete asking when he'd be available to walk me through something I still had a question on. He actually called me back within a half hour, while I was in a meeting, but left me a detailed message as to how I could get hold of him specifically when I called back. Lesson to all the other companies out there: Getting a personal bond between a technical service guy and a customer is a great thing for your business and causes blog posts like this to show up on the internet. I happened to call back while Pete was at lunch, but a guy named Mike was available to help me out. Here's where I assumed it would go bad, and that I'd get a jerk who I'd have to explain the whole problem again to.

5. Wrong. Mike was awesome too, and we spent about half an hour on the phone trying different methods of getting my detector back in running shape. What's the key here? When the first tries failed, MIKE KEPT TRYING. He worked with me, he asked me questions, he was involved and CARED that my gas detector got back up and running without needing it to be sent in. We ended the phone call with his giving me both his and Pete's direct lines in case I had any problems in the future.

Wow. Just wow. I was blown away. After the experiences I had a week ago, I was to the point that I thought all gas detector support departments were full of jerks. When Honeywell first bought BW Technologies, I was worried that they'd can all of the support staff and put in cheap people reading from a book. I couldn't have been more wrong. The BW Technical support staff does a phenomenal job, and I'd really like to commend them for all the help they've given me.

As an aside, if you have a GasAlert Quattro giving you the Code 11 Sensor Eeprom error. Call me, I'll walk you through everything we worked through and how to set it back up. 734-956-0539.

Industrial Scientific Drops the Ball

2011-07-01T11:32:00.000-07:00

Who's Ever Had this Experience?

"Now you're throwing too many big words at me, and because I don't understand them I'm going to take them as disrespect. Watch your mouth, and help me with the sale." -Kevin Hart in The 40 Year Old Virgin

How many times have you wanted to say that on the phone with a gas detection company? Customer service reps who don't actually know anything about the product line because they haven't actually ever used the product. Technical support guys who don't actually listen to what your problem is before bulling you over with technical terms they don't really understand in an effort to get you off the phone?

Why can't gas detection companies operate in plain English?

Now, of course this doesn't apply to all companies, and I'm going to single one out in particular for their complete lack of respect for the customer over the phone. Why? Because they're the largest gas detection company on the planet and they should know better. Yes Industrial Scientific, I'm talking about you.

My family has been in the gas business for over 40 years, in a variety of positions including emergency response and class A poison blending, as well as certifications for gas detector repair from all the major manufacturers. So when I call up with a question, I'm not asking how to turn the monitor on in most cases, it means I have a serious problem and I'm looking for some help. Now, some companies I know of (MSA, GfG Instrumentation, RAE Systems to name a few) have great technical support. When they don't have an answer, they go looking for it or forward you on to someone who does. They HELP. However, in my experience, Industrial Scientific technical support people shut you down and move on to the next call. Then you get a nice email explaining how they enjoyed solving your problem and look forward to serving you again.

Sorry guys, no amount of emails make up for the fact that your technical support guy basically told me to shove off.

Last week, I had to order an extra pump for an MX6 unit. So as usual, we called up, got the PN, and then ordered it through a local distributor. On the call, ISC told me they had the parts in stock and ready to ship. A week later, when I call to ask how the order is coming, I'm told that the PN I gave was for a sensor, not a pump, and was then told it in an exasperated tone that it would be 5-7 days, sorry. No suggestions on distributors to call, even though my need was urgent. No apology for giving me the wrong part number. No consoling tone, just a desire to get off the phone and move on to the next call.

This is unacceptable.

As an example of bad technical support, here's my favorite emailed reply from an Industrial Scientific Technical Support Representative regarding how reproducible readings are on their gas monitors with regards to different cylinders of calibration gas with the same value on the label:

-----Original Message-----

From: James Moore

Hey Matt,

Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you here, but I do have a

question:

"If you use it to detect concentrations in another bottle the readings may be off because of the fact the monitor was given set points based off of another bottle of gas thus the reason it is a detector and NOT an analyzer."

Are you saying that the other bottle of gas would be inaccurate in that case or that your monitors/sensors have a low degree reproducibility?

Best regards,

James Moore

------------------

James,

Our equipment has ZERO "reproducibility". Our equipment is to be used for detection of gas for personal safety. It is not an analyzer which is what you are trying to use it for.

Our equipment has a tolerance of -+ 5%, that is also why it is a detector and not an analyzer.

The way the MX6 gives you readings is this,

1: You Zero the unit which basically tells the unit there is zero gas present, it doesn't know otherwise because it is a detector not an analyzer.

2: You apply a known concentration of gas, It is not an analyzer, therefore it doesn't know what you are really applying but whatever you tell it, it bases its readings off of that zero point and that told concentration of gas.

If you are using ISC bottles of gas, they come with NIST traceable analysist reports.

All of Industrial Scientifics equipment is for personal safety. It is not meant or designed to be used as an analyzer.

Best Regards,

Matt

Technical Support Specialist

-----

Wow. Thanks Matt. I appreciate knowing that your monitors aren't analyzers, and your putting that in the email 5 times really answers my question. He does actually answer my question with the -/+ 5% answer, but he does so while making numerous other errors and just generally being unhelpful. Instead of realizing that we had a misunderstanding about what the word reproducibility means, he launches onto the offensive. Humorously, Matt doesn't realize that GCMS and TCD analyzers have tolerances and are calibrated just like portable gas detectors.

Thanks Matt, for bludgeoning me on that point 5x.

Now I'm not saying Industrial Scientific makes bad instruments or that Industrial Scientific doesn't have brilliant people working for them. I love the ISC MX6 gas detector. I think Dave Wagner over at ISC is a genius for how he presents advice on gas detectors and teaches people in a common sense fashion. I think ISC gives the best calibration and bump test advice in the industry (bump daily, calibrate monthly). But their technical support department needs to check itself, and quickly, because until this changes, I won't be recommending Industrial Scientific to anyone I know, regardless of how great their instruments are.

Gas Detection Mythbuster!

2011-06-27T12:52:00.000-07:00

So what about cleaning the lamps in your PID gas detector?

First, I asked the question I raised in the last post: the one where I've used my 5 gas detector (H2S, CO, CH4, LEL, O2, and PID)- is the lamp compromised and how would I user know. I already know the answer to this, but it was interesting to see how many gas technical support people did not. They were all well meaning and helpful, but not field experienced.

Here's the first response I received and you wouldn't believe what gas detection company it was from- "Well, if you want to know if it's still good, just run a 100 ppm isobutylene calibration gas standard and if it comes up any where within 30 - 40 ppm of where it's supposed to be, it's still okay."

Really? Does that mean it can still tell the difference between air freshner and horseshit?

Here's the right answer: after you've been in a hazardous gas detection event that involves smoke or chemical fog, take the lamp out and clean it. Don't leave chemical fog or smoke on your lamp. Then calibrate the unit. If it doesn't meet the normal specs- get a new lamp. Don't risk your health.

Mythbuster of the Day: Only RAE Systems PID lamps can be cleaned by the user. WRONG. Ask Bob Henderson of GFG or Joe Glorioso of MSA and they'll tell you straight. Their lamps can be clearned, too. That's why their companies sell lamp cleaning kits to their customers.

Don't let the anyone tell you otherwise. Talk to a gas detector calibration expert.

PID Detectors, Humidity, and Smoke

2011-06-22T17:33:00.000-07:00

To clarify the incident that first led me to the questions I posted in the last blog, a few months back I was called to a building fire that really made me think about PID's. Here's the layout- a big storage room with a floor sump cover that collected all the fluids from drains in a laboratory. No solvents were supposed to go down the drain. Supposed is always a bad word when dealing with flammables.

In the same room for some incomprehensible reason was also a hot water heater. Although all the chemists claimed they were innocent of pouring solvent down the drain, one fine sunny day the equation of chemical sump reservoir and hot water equaled a flash fire.

And the overhead exhaust fan that was supposed to eliminate any possible buildup? It burned out a while before and no one knew. The suspect solvent was hexane, and that closed door storage room really could have used a functioning overhead exhaust system.

Two quick deflagrations (explosions) in the below ground pipe. Dust clouds shooting up to the ceiling alerted the personnel of a problem. Then smoke pouring out from the door to the storage room.

Knowing the nature of the business, I brought in a 5 gas monitor. After the initial response, we started scanning all drain openings looking for either LEL levels or solvents. Flammable gas detector for the first reading and the PID for elevated VOC concentrations.

Smoke and a foggy haze filled the environment. PID is short for Photoionization detector- using a lamp in layman terms to measure variations in absorbance from those in pure air. Not a specific detector unless coupled with a GC, but sure to pick up solvents like hexane.

So how much did the smoke and chemical extinguisher haze limit my readings?

In checking with companies that sell PID's I was told a variety of answers including "...sure there would be some interference but probably not much," to "... tell you the truth, we just don't know."

Great.

When I asked for any research data they had on the topic, no one had any that specifically addressed smoke and/or chemical extinguisher interference with a PID detector.

I don't think they want to tell us. How about you?

So this week I'm calling the head research guys at Honeywell Analytics (Sperion Biosystems), RAE Systems, GFG, Industrial Scientific, MSA and Ion Science to see what they have to say. The two smartest and most straight-up guys I've talked in the gas detection business are Jeff Emonds of Honeywell Analytics and Bob Henderson of GFG.

Time to get some industry pressure in play to get some answers.

I'll report back next week on what I find.

Smoke, Fog, and Why Your Measurements Are Off

2011-06-10T07:07:00.000-07:00

Here's something to ask the companies that manufacture your hazards detection equipment- what is the effect of smoke or fog on their measurements?

Let me give you an example.

Let's say you're depending on a RAE Systems PID to measure your surroundings for VOC's such as benzenes on a foggy day. How much does the fog affect your reading if at all? Humidity and PID readings don't mix well, although Ion Science, Inc. seems to have a PID technology that is less affected by humidity.

Or here's my favorite: we were involved in putting out a chemical fire some months ago and there was the possibility of hexane exposure.

Of course, we pulled out the PID, this time one from Industrial Scientific. But there was smoke in the air. How much did the smoke affect our readings?

Ever wonder how much of an affect humidity has on long distance (say 300 feet) temperature measurement with an IR gun? Say you're trying to keep your distance from a rail car that might be suspect. If the humidity is 90%, will it affect your reading?

Next posting we'll see what the manufacturers say about it, then after that will do a reality check.

This Gas Dectector Lied to Me

2011-05-29T10:18:00.000-07:00

So I Invented Filter Check Gas

If you can't trust your Hazardous Gas Detector, what can you trust?

I zeroed this monitor. I calibrated the CO sensor. Everything working perfectly. According to the monitor.

Then I used it an environment with other gases present and no carbon monoxide whatsoever. Guess what? It gave high carbon monoxide reading.

No CO present, yet it read high CO. According to the manufacturer, it was not sensitive to these other gases. What they didn't say was that the CO sensor was sensitive to these other gases, but that they had a carbon filter in place to absorb them before they got to the sensor.

When that carbon filter is saturated, it doesn't absorb the interferent gases, and they go straight through and give you either falsely high or falsely low readings. Not good. Not good at all.

So how do you know if your sensor's filter is no good?

I invented a family of gas mixtures to do just that. We call it Filter Check Gas. Run it to your monitor or detector and it will tell you instantly if the carbon filter is still working or not. The first Filter Check Gas is for electochemical CO detectors. The rest of the Filter Check Gases for other sensors will be released in the next two months.

They're for sale at Ideal Gases. I use them myself now because I need my CO detector to tell me the truth, and it can't do that if its carbon filter is compromised.

Olfactory Fatigue

2011-04-08T19:20:00.000-07:00

Not Everything Smells as Good as a Rose

Most of us in the hazardous materials are familiar with the concept of "olfactory fatigue." In general terms what it means is that by prolonged or concentrated exposure to certain odorous chemicals, we lose the ability to detect them by our sense of smell.

Hydrogen sulfide, for example, can be detected at roughly 1 ppm. However, for concentrations above 100 ppm, most people lose the ability to smell the characteristic "rotten egg" odor. This can also be precipitated by long term exposure to lower concentrations. This phenomena is well documented.

However, there is another form of olfactory fatigue that is not so well known among responders and safety workers.

I can tell you from personal experience that stressful environments can bring on a form of olfactory fatigue relatively quickly. For example, when I have been around situations where an explosion is possible, my ability to smell hydrogen sulfide dropped dramatically.

This is because there are two components to smell- the chemicals interaction with olfactory receptors and the brain's process of this information. When the brain is on overload because of an intensely stressful situation in progress, the olfactory data can be reduced.

Hazardous gas detectors are therefore our first line of defense, but these are not always available to the first person on the scene and, like all equipment, they too can fail.

So before you count too much on your sense of smell, just remember that stress, too, can bring on olfactory fatigue.

Mercury Hangs Around

2010-12-19T20:22:00.000-08:00

Photo Courtesy of

The National Atmospheric Release Advisory Center (NARAC)

at Livermore Laboratory

*****

It doesn't take much in the way of common sense to know that dense gases hang low to the ground. We've all seen gas dispersion models like the one above, etc., and we're all grateful to be able to use them.

However, there is something I'd like you to think about as it relates to gas releases and particularly to very dense gases. What I'd like you to think about is the rate and pattern of mixing that occurs for such gases. This is important when evaluating environments with flammable, oxidizing gases and/or toxic gases. It is particularly important when we're planning for hazardous response strategies when we are dealing with mercury.

In general, two gases with molecular weight values close to each other will tend to mix more quickly than two gases where the molecular weight values are far apart. For example, in a compressed gas cylinder (all other things being equal) I have found over the years that nitrogen and carbon monoxide will mix more quickly together than carbon dioxide and nitrogen. There are, of course some limits on this generality- including the concentrations involved and the area of mixing interface.

The molecular weight of air is 28.996. The molecular weight of mercury is 200.59. Kind of a large differential, so even as it enters the air it's going to mix slowly.

Next, there's the vapor pressure. Gases with liquid/vapor phases where the liquid has a high vapor phase such as carbon dioxide (830 PSIG), will enter gas phase quickly when released. Mercery, on the other hand, has a vapor pressure of .0017 torr (not much of a vapor pressure at all, really) at 25 degrees C. In other words, it will enter the vapor phase very slowly. Other things being equal, heat will increase the vapor pressure.

The quicker the gas enters the vapor phase, the more quickly it will disperse unless there are outside factors working against it such as an inversion, the release occurring in a valley or in a confined space. A hot day, of course, will accelerate this process.

Mercury, at normal temperature and pressure, will release slowly, continually over a long period of time, so it needs to be thought of differently than most of the dense gases. There are similarities, of course, but the gasification of mercury, I think, is a little bit different animal than most.

Refrigerant gases have high molecular weights like mercury does, but they have higher vapor pressures.

So although we're used to thinking of dense gases (liquified gases shipped under their own vapor pressure) as somewhat similar, we need to give some serious thought whenwe're calculating the gasification of mercury because of its unusual combination of extraordinarily low vapor pressure and high molecular weight.

I truly think it needs its own dispersion chart.

We Used to Play with this Stuff

2010-12-01T10:44:00.000-08:00

We Just Do it a Little Differently Now

It looks a little like overkill, doesn't it? Some of us used to play with it as kids. But Mercury (Hg) is not a good toy. Here's what JT Baker Chemical company says about it in their MSDS:

"DANGER! CORROSIVE. CAUSES BURNS TO SKIN, EYES, AND RESPIRATORY TRACT. MAY BE FATAL IF SWALLOWED OR INHALED. HARMFUL IF ABSORBED THROUGH SKIN. AFFECTS THE KIDNEYS AND CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM. MAY CAUSE ALLERGIC SKIN REACTION."

What many don't understand is that Mercury is most dangerous in its gaseous state because concentrations of it can then be inhaled. Or as JT Baker's MSDS says:

"Mercury vapor is highly toxic via this route. Causes severe respiratory tract damage. Symptoms include sore throat, coughing, pain, tightness in chest, breathing difficulties, shortness of breath, headache, muscle weakness, anorexia, gastrointestinal disturbance, ringing in the ear, liver changes, fever, bronchitis and pneumonitis. Can be absorbed through inhalation with symptoms similar to ingestion."

But it is still a underappreciated danger.

As far back as 1926, Alfred Stock of the Kaiser-Wilhem Chemistry Institute wrote:

"The insidious horror of mercury is not nearly sufficiently well known and is being taken note of too little in those places where one is particularly threatened by it, in chemical and physical laboratories."

And this is still true today.

Many emergency responders understand the dangers of contact with liquid mercury, but do not yet understand that 1) mercury readily vaporizes, and that 2) it is a terrible danger in the gas state. Many teams do not have readily available vaporized mercury detectors.

Three companies that I know of make fine mercury vapor detectors: Arizona Instruments, Lumex of Ohio, and Ion Sciences.

An article from MedicalNewsToday back in 2004 reported:

"All mercury spills, regardless of quantity, should be treated seriously. Metallic mercury slowly evaporates when exposed to the air. The air in a room can reach contamination levels just from the mercury in a broken thermometer - just a few drops.

When liquid mercury is spilled, it forms droplets that can accumulate in the tiniest of spaces and then emit vapors. Health problems caused by mercury depend on how much has entered your body, how it entered your body, how long you have been exposed to it, and how your body responds to it."

Mercury may be the densest liquid known, but it still has a vapor pressure of .2729 mmHg, which is still sufficient for it to vaporize into the air to the level that it can harm you. Like all liquids with a vapor head, the quantity of gaesous fumes that enter the air is temperature dependent. So the hotter the day, the faster the gasification occurs.

More on this next week.

Distant Measurement and Responder Psychology- Part Three of Three

2010-11-22T18:51:00.000-08:00

How Close Would You Like to Be to This?

Responders need to reduce unnecessary job stress so they can think clearly during the performance of their already stressful jobs. Training is critical toward that end, of course, and so is having the right equipment. These two concerns are discussed a lot in the industry. But today I'd like to deal with an issue that is too seldom discussed, and that is the distance factor in hazards detection and its effect on a responder's psychology.

In general, the further removed we are from physical danger, the more clearly we are able to think about the issues involved. Sound too vague? Let me give you a specific.

You're approaching a rail car where you suspect that a polymerization reaction might be occurring. One way to see if that is going on is with an infrared temperature gun. With most of today's IR guns, you have to get uncomfortably close to see if an exothermic reaction is in progress. That's because the aspect ratio of most guns is 50 or 65:1. Also, their laser targeting dots are difficult to see in daylight, so you have to get close enough to see that they are on what you're aiming at. Having to get close to a potential hazard before you can tell how bad it is makes for a serious stress multiplier.

After the folks at Hazmat IQ alerted me to this situation, I went to work with a few researchers to develop an IR temperature gun that has a 100:1 aspect ratio, and uses two DayBrite laser (Class III laser) targeting dots that are much, much easier to see from a distance in daylight.

What I noticed in discussing this new product with various responders was the obvious relief they experienced. Obviously, they could use this new IR gun from a greater distance and would therefore be safer, but I think that the other benefit is in the impact on responder psychology.

Here's what I'm thinking- the greater the distance from a potential safety hazard that a responder knows what's going on, the more time they have to clear their mind and concentrate on other issues. Knowing what's going on as earlier as possible reduces the stress of not knowing and we can think more clearly.

When I hear responders say they think more clearly under stress, I know they don't understand responder psychology. Stress might get us on edge, but it doesn't make for clear thinking. And the earlier we know about potential dangers, the better chance we have to calm down and make good decisions.

Confined Spaces and Responder Psychology- Part Two of Three

2010-11-14T18:58:00.000-08:00

- P

Maintenance Workers and Contractors

Are Not the Only Ones

Who Should be Afraid of Confined Spaces

*****

Confined spaces are dangerous for maintenance workers and contracters. That's why a Michigan Company called Bharat Forge America out of Lansing was fined $126,000 for confined space entry violations. OSHA has very specific strictures regarding the gas detection equipment required to enter confined spaces. They don't take kindly to people who are not properly outfitted for gas detection. But a group of contractors that I was training last week tipped me to another hazard- anxiety attacks and the confused thinking that results from them.

Estimates vary, but most psychologists are comfortable with assessments that 5-10% of the world's population suffers from claustrophia. Claustrophobia is essentially a fear of being trapped in a confined space.

What the construction workers pointed out to me was that even with proper safety equipment, the anxiety some of them experienced made it occasionally difficult to properly use that equipment. Although I was at first skeptical, as they continued to talk about the effects of claustrophobic feelings (constant dread of suffocation and the need to flee), I remembered a worker I've mentioned before who when faced with an emergency ran roughly a quarter mile to ask a co-worker the phone number for 911.

Later, I spoke to other people who have entered confined spaces in emergency scenarios that required portable gas detectors. One confessed to having been in such dread of entering a sewer emitting an awful smell that he forgot to turn the detector on.

That's a recipe for disaster.

The ability to process information is diminshed. Memory and training can be clouded for even the most experienced responder. There is an inability to focus. Not the proper mindset for a responder.
Have you had experiences with this particular issue? Have you ever thought about the effects of Confined Space Entry on the psychology and functionality of yourself or your team? Do you routinely screen your responders for claustrophobia?

It's worth thinking about.

Hazardous Gas Releases and Responder Psychology- Part One of Three

2010-11-07T08:32:00.000-08:00

Gases are Risky Business

There are a number of reasons why hazardous gas scenarios are among the most psychologically difficult of all hazmat situations (other variables as equal as we can get them). And the psychological state of a responder is just as important as their equipment.

First, many- in fact most- gases are invisible. Without the use of proper gas detection (and that always has a few variables), a hazmat responder is walking in blind to these situations. And this was a factor when I dealt with emergency situations with flammable or toxic gas. Even oxidizers and inert gases- when I was young and naive I used to think of these as "safe" gases- can affect our psychological state. There's just something about facing off with an "invisible enemy."

A friend of mine who served in Vietnam described how difficult it was to be plagued by guerilla attacks from Viet Cong who seemed to appear from nowhere, attack and then disappear again. This before he and many others came to grip with the tunnel systems in use. In fact, he told me that the psychological damage they infected was worse than the actual physical damage.

When gases leak, they disperses to cover a wide area. So, when I was in such a situation, in my mind I used to feel "surrounded" by invisible hazards. If it was a flammable gas, where would the spark come from that would cause my last day on earth? If it was a heavy oxidizing gas, as it dispersed would it come in contact with grease or a fuel source?

So, the first two challenges a responder has to deal with in regard to gas hazards are that most times the gas is invisible, and that it disperses quickly so that the responder will literally and mentally be "surrounded" quickly.

Hazmat Suicides

2010-08-15T18:44:00.000-07:00

Emergency Responders Beware!

People with a desire to off themselves are putting Emergency Responders at risk. To find out how, read the story at below by James Moore, President of Ideal Calibrations, LLC:

http://ohsonline.com/articles/2010/07/01/the-hazmat-suicides.aspx

Calibration- Who Needs It?

2010-07-01T08:58:00.000-07:00

No Sense Wearing it

if it Isn't Calibrated

*****

Here's a link to an article written by my son James Moore about the importance of calibrating your gas detector. Dan Shipp, President of the International Safety Equipment Association, called the article “timely and informative.”

http://ohsonline.com/articles/2010/05/01/calibration.aspx

Calibration of gas detection equipment is a critical element of being prepared. Why is it that we spend so much time making sure our vehicles can get us to the incident, but not enough time making sure our instruments are calibrated before we get there?

RAE Systems QRAE II Calibration

2010-02-23T08:25:00.000-08:00

The QRAE II is a popular portable 4 gas detector, so we've added to our list of videoes for you to enjoy.

Meantime, I've been finishing up the work on my stable calibration gas coating andtesting an Infrared Meter suitable for HAZMAT situations for distances of up to 300 feet. Sor far the results look great! I'll be back with more on this and another calibration video after the next round of calibration gas testing is done.

Our New BW GasAlert MicroClip Calibration Video

2010-01-12T18:03:00.000-08:00

BW GasAlert MicroClip Calibration Video

Because we believe that hazardous gas detection issues are some of the most important that can affect Emergency Responders, we present the next in our series of "How to Videos" for portable gas detection equipment.

Calibrating the MSA Solaris Portable Gas Detector

2010-01-04T07:20:00.000-08:00

In our continuing effort to provide information on the proper calibration of portable gas detection, our Ideal Calibrations division has prepared another video for you. This is for one of the industry standards, the MSA Solaris.

Calibrating Your Gas Monitor Video Series

2009-12-29T18:21:00.000-08:00

James is creating a series of videos regarding how to calibrate portable hazardous gas detectors. He will be doing these for all the major brands of gas monitors because we believe that it is so important for responders to check that their monitors are working properly before taking them into the field. Let us know if you have a brand and model you'd like to see.

Know Your Curves

2009-12-10T09:05:00.000-08:00

Know Your Curves-

Calibration That Is...

*****

Been a while since I've posted since I've been continuing my research into calibration gas stability with our new coating for both aluminum and steel cylinders. Easy to get carried away with this kind of research after having been involved in this field for forty years!

*****

So you're trying to keep your people safe and you've bought a new hazarardous gas detector or two or three or twelve. No doubt you've got a combustible (LEL) sensor in whatever you bought since you're likely to run into a flammable gas or two. But just what flammable gas

was your monitor calibrated to at the factory? Some instrument companies, such as Industrial Scientific, prefer pentane. Others use methane. And there are those companies that prefer to send out their combustible monitors calibrated to propane. Are they all equal? More important, what's the difference to you?

There's a world of difference is the simple answer.

First, why is it that gas detector manufacturers use different gases to calibrate their combustible sensors at the factory?

Let's start with the basics. When you're buying a portable gas detector with a combustible gas capability, chances are the combustible gas sensor in your unit has no idea what the gas being detected actually is. It responds to any combustible gas.

Surprised?

You mean you actually thought your portable combustible gas detector actually knew the difference between methane and pentane? Well it doesn't. It's technically what's called a dumb sensor. It's not like it can identify separated components by molecular weight.

But when you're called to an indicident site where potentially flammable liquids and/or gases have been released, wouldn't you like to be able to have your portable four-gas detector tell you which gases you were being exposed to? Sure, we all would, but it's not going to happen unless there's a major technology change.

So, knowing this, the portable four gas detector manufacturers have to also realize that neither their customers are not always going to know what type of flammable gases they're going to encounter in the field. Some do. Say you work for a propane delivery company, or are part of the Hazmat response team for a propane company. You're most likely to see propane. But that's not always a given, since propane delivery companies typical have storage depots full of diesel fuels for their trucking fleet. So you see the problem.

Because of this, some detector companies factory calibrate their combustible sensors with methane since this is a likely gas to encounter, and if a sensor is comprised, it will lose the ability to calibrate quicker than it will with the other gases. In other words, by calibrating to methane, so the thinking goes, you'll be able to detect a compromised sensor more quickly. This is a smart idea.

Other companies factory calibrate their portable combustible detectors to pentane so that they will be more sensitive to methane, i.e., they'll go off more quickly. This also has some good points.

Factory calibrating with propane like some portable gas detector companies do has less to recommend it, and is kind of the bottom curve on the good idea chart.

And all combustible gas detectors have cross-sensitivity factors that you need to be aware of- and you should be aware that they're not always accurate. More on that next time.

Calibration Creep

2009-09-20T17:52:00.000-07:00

He Bought a Bad Calgas for his Monitor

*****

Sorry for the lag in posting, but I've been involved in a research project finishing up coating calibration gas cylinders to make them more stable. Knowing the problems that you all face in the field with reactive gases such as hydrogen sulfide and nitrogen dioxide, for the last twenty years I've been developing a solution to this tricky problem. As an emergency responder, I've had to deal with it, too.

When I order a replacement calgas of 10 ppm hydrogen sulfide in air, I expect that it will show up the same on my monitor as did the last cylinder of the same mix. It doesn't always happen that way. Usually, the new mix shows higher than the last calgas cylinder. What's the problem here?

Reactive mixtures can react with a variety of chemicals, such as residual lithium stearates used to extrude the cyinders when they're manufactured. In theory, this lubricant is totally cleaned from the cylinder. That doesn't always happen. Even a slight residual can affect the new mixture.

Also, there are impurities in the aluminum to boot. Iron and copper are the worst actors. Again, in theory, these active sites are all neutralized by the gas mixture manufacturer so that there is no fade. That doesn't always happen, either.

We've all had the experience. H2S mixes and NO2 mixes fade after the first few months, no matter what the calgas manufacturers tell us. I've got to much experieince in this field to doubt the responders. Nine time out of ten, t's the manufacturers fault.

So if I calibrate with mixes that are continually fading, what's the impact on the gas detector? It gets progressively worse! Its calibration gas points begin to creep away from the true calibration.

That's what my research is all about- improving calgas cylinder integrity to the point that there is NO interaction with either residual lubricants or copper/iron impurities in the cylinders.

I've had great success so far, but this week should tell me for sure if it works.

I'll let you know.

The Science of Gas Detection

2009-08-03T17:44:00.000-07:00

Gas Detection Scientist at Work

In response to a question regarding cross sensitivity of H2S sensors to carbon monoxide when dealing with the four gas mixture of 10 ppm H2S/ 300 ppm CO/ 2.5% methane/ 17% oxygen/ balance nitrogen we mentioned in the last post, here is what one technical expert had to say:

"It’s possible for an instrument to adjust for the amount of CO it is seeing. But in reality, there are variations from time to time and from sensor to sensor, which means 100% accuracy is difficult to achieve and maintain. A simple way to improve accuracy is to use a lower concentration of CO and a higher concentration of H2S in the 4 gas mixture. For example, we specify 50 or 100 ppm CO and 25 ppm H2S for our mixture."

You're going to ask me what this means, aren't you? And it is kind of important to remember that H2S is, after all, a poison.

Well, it's simple, gas detector manufacturers know that for most of their four gas instruments, the presence of CO in the calibration gas or the environment falsely drives up the H2S reading. My son asked if this could be dealt with by re-writing the calibration software which would eliminate the bias via a suppression calculation. The gas detection scientist responded that, although it was a good idea, it would basically be work, so instead his company preferred to use a calibration mix that kept the H2S and CO concentrations closer so whoever was using the instrument wouldn't notice the bias during the calibration.

Let's just say that this is helpful information, except that when the responder goes into a situation where the carbon monoxide is in fact higher that the range the instrument is calibrated to, then the H2S reading will still be high for the environment because the H2S sensor is still sensitive to carbon monoxide (CO).

I asked another gas detection expert about this, and he said, "Look, if it reads falsely high, the responder will leave sooner."

After considering this response, I said, "Hey, we're the ones that might end up breathing this stuff. Why not just compensate for the bias and give us an accurate reading?"

"No one," he said, "ever asked me to look into it."

There are potential dangers associated with cross sensitivities for sensors. Do you know what gases your sensors are cross sensitive to? I'll post a few later this week for you to get a look at.

Meantime I won't talk to any gas detection scientists, because it's a lot like talking to pigeons who read German.

Concentrate on the Concentration

2009-07-29T22:14:00.000-07:00

Here's how it starts: you're a hazmat responder and you have a four gas detector from one of the major manufacturers. Let's say that manufacturer recommends the following calibration gas mixture: 10 ppm hydrogen sulfide / 250 ppm carbon monoxide/ 2.5% methane/ 17% oxygen/ balance nitrogen. So you purchase that mixture from a calibration gas vendor. The gas vendor doesn't use the same monitor that you're using to analyze and certify your mixture. Perhaps they use a flame photometric gas chromatograph or an FTIR for the H2S . Their analysis is accurate because there are no cross sensitivities involved in their analysis of the other gases.

You, on the other hand, are using a quad gas detector whose H2S cell has a cross sensitivity to high concentrations of carbon monoxide. The H2S may read a few parts per million high because of this. Does your instrument compensate for that cross sensitivity or do you have to take take that into account manually?

Do you know the answer?

What other cross sensitivities does your gas detection equipment have? You might be surprised. Our next posting will fill in a few of these answers for you.

The Fear Factor

2009-07-14T19:51:00.000-07:00

Sometimes You Get Lucky with Hydrogen,

But Mostly Not

*****

I was in the front office of a 10 acre compressed gas production and transfilling facilty when an agitated man burst in the front door screaming, "What's the number for 911?"

The man was a production technologist with a Master's Degree in Chemistry. He was a trained emergency responder with special training emphasis on the handling of toxic, corrosive, oxidizing, and/or flammable materials. He had just run from the back building at the furtherest perimeter line past four other buildings to get to the front office. Each of these buildings had a phone. In fact, he had a radio phone clipped to his belt. He could have called at the office and/or emergency number at any time. Yet he sprinted to the front of the complex to ask his bizarre question.

What happened to drive this otherwise intelligent and responsible man over the brink?

A jumbo tube trailer of hydrogen was stored at the back of the facility, and it developed a leak. If not properly grounded, such a situation can result in a static ignition- and that's exactly what happened.

For those of you who haven't had the experience, a hydrogen flame is odorless and virtually invisible, and such a flame can result in serious consequences.

The individual we're discussing had been slightly burned by that flame as he approached the tube trailer to try and determine the location of the leak was that was causing the hissing noise. In a facility loaded with gas detection equipment, posted with safety warnings, safety equipment, and properly boundaried, he approached the situation hot zone without so much as a gas monitor. Why would an educated, highly trained individual do such a thing?

When he realilzed that he was dealing with a hydrogen fire and potential explosion, all of his training flew straight out his mental window and he was reduced to the status of a frightened amateur. How could this have happened? Could it have been anticipated?

We train, and train, and train. Why is it that sometimes it just doesn't hold?

I consulted with psychiatrist Dr. Michel Farivar, MD, who told me that, although that it is a complex issue with many facets to be discussed, he did wish to emphasize one thing of particular importance: that psychological screening should be required and enforced for emergency responders. He also pointed out that emergency responder training should anticipate and preemptively prepare the trainees for those areas of potential "fear-freeze" that could prevent them from performing well under pressure.

In our next posting, we'll explore these issues in greater depth with Dr. Farivar and also ask for input and direction from one of the most well respected Hazmat trainers in the business.

Residential Carbon Monoxide Regulations Improving.

2009-07-08T20:49:00.000-07:00

CO Detector Placement Recommendation

"The International Association of Fire Chiefs recommend a carbon monoxide detector on every floor of your home, including the basement. A detector should be located within 10 feet of each bedroom door and there should be one near or over any attached garage. Each detector should be replaced every five to six years." homesafe.com (an interesting site that I recommend)

According to a New York Times story run on September 11, 1997, "Many carbon monoxide detectors sold in hardware stores sound their alarms for no reason, or fail to sound an alarm even when high concentrations of the deadly gas are present, according to recent laboratory tests. Industry officials, prodded by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, are drafting tougher standards that may make obsolete the tens of millions currently in use."

That was two years ago. What's happening now? Let's read what Jack McNamara, Director of Industry Affairs, Bosch Security Systems, had to say in a recent issue of ISC West Show Daily FIRE/LIFE SAFETY article. (I've added occasional commentary between paragraphs in blue. The rest is pure Jack:

*****

"Life safety measures in homes and residential facilities got a huge boost in late 2008, as a new national standard governing the installation and usage of carbon monoxide detection devices was released. The standard’s primary goal is to signiﬁantly reduce the thousands of preventable illnesses and deaths each year as a result of carbon monoxide (CO) exposure. But the new regulations surrounding CO detection also will undoubtedly spur new areas of opportunity for security and ﬁe alarm installers and manufacturers."

(This was long overdue in my opinion, but it's clear that Jack has the right goal in mind as he hones in on the preventable illnesses and deaths at stake-RM)

"Carbon monoxide poisoning, which kills more than 500 people each year and sickens 15,000, is a hidden danger in any building that uses fuel-burning appliances or other equipment. If inhaled, the odorless, colorless, invisible gas is absorbed into the bloodstream, replacing the oxygen needed by vital organs throughout the body. Exposure to CO can cause symptoms such as headaches, dizziness, and vomiting; as contact with the gas grows in length or severity, death can occur quickly."

(One point here- although these are classicly cited symptoms from the literature, here's my actual experience- unconsciousness hits you so quickly as concentrations of CO build that you're on the ground before you know it. I've seen three guys drop and had it happen to me twice, and none of us even knew we had any symptoms. It takes you out that quickly with almost no warning. That's why carbon monoxide detection equipment is critical. RM)

"Although consumer awareness of carbon monoxide poisoning has increased dramatically over the past decade, it’s estimated that only 15 percent of U.S. homes, and even fewer commercial properties, have CO detectors in use. By comparison, about 96 percent of U.S. homes have smoke detectors. Because NFPA 720-2009, the governing CO detection code from the National Fire Protection Association, was not available until late last year, many states and local jurisdictions developed their own regulations. These differed by state, county, or municipality, resulting in a piecemeal approach that caused confusion for security and ﬁre alarm dealers
operating in multiple areas."

(I believe the statistics that Jack cites here make the case beyond dispute. In talking with Norm Miller- a design engineer at Cochrane Supplies in Madison Heights, MI and one of the most gas detector savy guys I have ever known- he showed me the list of agencies, regulations and rulings he investigated before each design he develops, and it was a little much for my head. NFPA 720-2009 was a critical achievment in this regard. RM)

"The publication of NFPA 720-2009 has the potential to change many of the existing circumstances surrounding carbon monoxide detection. It will allow authorities having jurisdiction to develop their local and state codes based on the new standard. The 2009 version expands the types of facilities, such as nursing homes, schools, hotels, and other commercial establishments, where detection is required. The previous version of NFPA 720, published in 2005, addressed only dwelling units.

The New Rules
"Under the new rules, carbon monoxide detectors are now subject to the same life safety standards as smoke detectors in many respects, such as power supply and the detector’s electrical connection to an alarm system. Some major ﬁre alarm control panel manufacturers are beginning to offer panels with integrated CO and gas detection capabilities to ensure compliance for installers. Panels with combination ﬁre and gas detection capabilities have the ability to send separate signals to the central station as well as to sound separate signal patterns for ﬁe and gas. These features also satisfy the UL 9th edition of the UL864 standard, which governs all ﬁre
alarm control panels and ancillary equipment.

"Speciﬁc requirements for the placement of carbon monoxide detectors are also outlined in NFPA 720-2009. In commercial applications, a detector must be mounted on or near the ceiling in the same room as a permanently installed fuelburning appliance, as well as centrally located on every habitable level and HVAC zone in the building. For household applications, a detector should be installed outside of each separate sleeping area near the bedrooms and on every occupied level of the dwelling."

(As Dennis Patrick of the Environmental Planning Group, Ltd, observes, "What people need to be concerned with is the source. A fuel rich and improperly burning LPG or Natural Gas furnace can produce literally thousands of part per million of carbon monoxide and once it is emitted into the air it immediately starts the blending process to mix evenly with the air. People are at risk if they think they can initially predict the concentration of CO at a given point or place in the room, because the air is always moving (even in a still room) and the concentration is going to vary based on where in the room. The best place for Carbon Monoxide detectors is close and above the source, because since the Carbon Monoxide is produced from a combustion source, it is heated and as it leaks from the combustion chamber the air is also heated around the source point, together they rise and the mixing begins."

"Installation on the ceiling of a room – or at least ﬁve feet from the ﬂoor – is recommended because carbon monoxide tends to rise with warm air, particularly if the source of the deadly gas is an appliance such as a leaky forced hot air furnace. This will also ensure that the detector remains out of reach of tampering by occupants, children, and pets."

(This idea is a bit of an urban scientific myth. Parts per million mixtures of carbon monoxide have a gas density almost identical to air- and that's exactly what CO in air is- a mixture. The CO mixture in a room only rises as the air in the room rises; it doesn't rise independently. So the point is valid for ceiling placement in spite of that as the source of CO in the room is almost always from a "hot" source that will result in the mixture rising. RM)

Differentiating alarm signals
"To differentiate itself from other ﬁre alarm, trouble, or supervisory signals at the panel level, a carbon monoxide alarm signal must be distinct and 'descriptively annunciated.' The new combination ﬁre panels will also enable the signals to automatically take priority over other trouble or supervisory signals. To protect against device failure, CO detectors must also send their own trouble signals, such as a sensor failure or end of life signal, to the control panel. The CO alarm and trouble signals must also be able to be displayed by central station operators monitoring the system.

"Devices that notify occupants of a carbon monoxide alarm, such as a horn, must also conform to the new standard. For instance, audible alarms must now be a temporal 4 pattern, designed to alert occupants who are often sleeping or already experiencing the sleep-like effects of carbon monoxide exposure."

*****

With professionals like Jack McNamara out there educating the public, we can all sleep a little better.

An Industry Icon Talks Tier II

2009-07-01T12:42:00.000-07:00

As a follow-up to an earlier post, I asked Dennis M. Patrick, M.S., CIH, CSP, CHMM and principal of the Environmental Planning Group, Ltd. out of Ashley, Michigan to fill us in on the uses of EPA Tier II forms by emergency personnel. Mr. Patrick is a Board Certified Industrial Hygienist and Hazardous Materials Consultant, and is well known and well established enough to even work from the front porch of his own log home when he's not out traveling the country providing insight to people in the hazardous materials industry.

My over-riding reason to interview him on this was to explore regulatory filings containing information helpful to emergency responders. Here's what he had to say:

*****

Tier II Reporting and what Firefighters Need to Know Too!

from an interview with Dennis Patrick, , M.S., CIH, CSP, CHMM

Most people are familiar with the term Right to Know (called the Hazard Communication Standard) which in a nutshell says that employees in the workplace need to be advised of the hazards they encounter while working on the job for 40 hours a week. However, many are not familiar with the Community Right to Know Law and associated reporting referred to as Tier II, whose aim is to protect the community from chemical leaks, fires, explosions, incidents and the emergency response personnel who respond to these chemical and gases incidents. Tier II Reporting provides the facility specific hazard information needed by local hazardous materials responders such as police, fire and hazardous materials teams to protect the community in which the facility is located.

In the event of a chemical emergency at a facility, it is very important for the emergency responders to know what is on the inside, however unless you are a trained firefighter, most people would not know why this is the case and have a difficult time in understanding the risk that firefighters walk into everyday as part of their job.

The firefighter needs two things from the facility owner, the first is the Tier II form which is an inventory of chemicals on site and a Material Data Sheet from the manufacturer, which lists key physical, chemical aspects of the chemical and recommends appropriate personal protective equipment .

The Emergency Response Guidebook is used by the First Responders during the initial phase of a dangerous goods or hazardous materials transportation incident. This book relies on a couple of facts to decrease the amount of risk associated with such a response, first because of DOT designations such as flammable, oxidizers, inhalation hazards, toxic gases----the emergency responders can look at the containers long distance and decide on the best way of dealing with the incident and, secondly they (if it is available, consult the Hazardous Materials Manifest for the shipment. In an attempt to reduce risk as much as possible our firefighters rely on information found on Tier II forms for this vital information.

Currently there are over 1 million different chemicals that have come from the minds of men, if you stop to think about it---- how does a fire fighter or the Incident Commander know what he or she is dealing with when approaching a chemical incident or release? The answer is they need accurate information that is to be filled out on the Tier II form, with the following guidelines.

The physical and chemical characteristics of the chemicals are essential information that needs to be on the form, in my experience, facility owners do not always give a 100% effort when completing this form which can place the firefighters and community at risk. For instance it is very important that the firefighter know if the chemical is a flammable, an oxidizer, a corrosive, or a reactive; or if it a pure product, a gas, a liquid or a solid, or if can constitute a threat such as a fire hazard, a sudden release of pressure, or if it is immediately acute.

Add to this the potential for which portions of the body may be affected by exposure to a chemical such as the skin, the eyes or the respiratory system and you can appreciate the challenge facing every firefighter daily that is sent in to contain and extinguish a fire.
The Tier II submission must include required information on the form for each hazardous chemical present at your facility in quantities equal to or greater than established threshold quantities. For most states the following amounts are utilized; however some state have lower reporting thresholds for EHS and MSDS chemicals.

Notes

1.0 Extremely Hazardous Substances as designated under Section 302 of Title II, the reporting threshold is 500 lbs or the Threshold Planning Quantity whichever is lower.
2.0 MSDS chemicals, which includes all other chemicals for which facilities are required to have or to prepare an MSDS, with the minimum reporting threshold of 10,000 lbs.

*****

If you have, questions, Mr. Patrick can be reached at EPG, Ltd. 989-838-2331. His email address is: dennis@epglimited.com

This Gas Burns through Stainless Steel

2009-06-29T17:42:00.000-07:00

What Caused This?

Fluorine gas is very, very dangerous. Here's a sampling of the chemical dangers cited on the intox.org database:

"CHEMICAL DANGERS: The substance is a strong oxidant and reacts violently with combustible and reducing materials. Reacts violently with water producing toxic and corrosive vapours: ozone (see ICSC0068) and hydrogen fluoride (see ICSC0283). Reacts violently with ammonia, metals, oxidants, and many other materials, causing fire and explosion hazard."

I used to run a fluorination facility, and am well familiar with just how deadly fluorine gas can be. The valve in the picture above was part of a small system to transfer a few cylinders of fluorine. Everything was going fine until right up to the end, when something caused an ignition. the valve and all piping had been meticulously degreased prior to the operation. All piping, valves, cylinders, etc, were gradually exposed to increased level of fluorine mixtures to insure that nothing was left to react.

But with fluorine gas, there is always something left to react.

Years ago, a fluorine expert advised me that even the flow rate of fluorine gas through a high quality stainless steel system was enough to generate an exothermic reaction that would vaporize the metal. I never believed him.

But I've seen it happen.

Move the flow rate up too quickly in a fluorine system at your own peril.

But there is a fluorine gas compound that's an even more vigorous oxidizer: chlorine trifluoried.

Read what Derek Lowe has to say about it on his blog:

"In a comment to my post on putting out fires last week, one commenter mentioned the utility of the good old sand bucket, and wondered if there was anything that would go on to set the sand on fire. Thanks to a note from reader Robert L., I can report that there is indeed such a reagent: chlorine trifluoride.

"I (Derek Lowe) have not encountered this fine substance myself, but reading up on its properties immediately gives it a spot on my “no way, no how” list. Let's put it this way: during World War II, the Germans were very interested in using it in self-igniting flamethrowers, but found it too nasty to work with. It is apparently about the most vigorous fluorinating agent known, and is much more difficult to handle than fluorine gas. That’s one of those statements you don’t get to hear very often, and it should be enough to make any sensible chemist turn around smartly and head down the hall in the other direction.

"The compound is also a stronger oxidizing agent than oxygen itself, which also puts it into rare territory. That means that it can potentially go on to “burn” things that you would normally consider already burnt to hell and gone, and a practical consequence of that is that it’ll start roaring reactions with things like bricks and asbestos tile."

I've had the pleasure of working with chlorine trifluoride myself. A co-worker and myself were looking at using it in ppm range as a replacement for ethylene oxide in medical sterilizer applications. Talk about stress.

But here's my point in bringing this topic up: most university research labs and industrial research labs can use small amounts of these materials for their research projects and either aren't required due to the quantities or just plain don't report them to the HAZMAT teams responsible for the area region that they're operating in. It's a serious, serious problem. Some of these small amounts- such as lecture bottle quantities- can cause very big problems.

Midnight Devils

2009-06-23T19:41:00.000-07:00

A Bad Place to Lose Your Mask

In what amounts to an out and out war with emergency responders and civilians, an underground army of toxic thugs litter our countryside with discarded piles of unlabeled toxic materials in glass bottles, cylinders, leaking crates, and 55 gallon drums.

Imagine firemen, police, or HAZMAT personnel entering an abandoned warehouse that has caught fire. Abandoned is the key word here. It's supposed to be empty, but instead is stacked full with 55 gallon drums filled with mutagenic chemicals that are also "skin permeable," or that can eat through protective clothing. How about rooms filled with illegaly dumped glass bottles of laboratory grade sulfuric acid in a burning building. Hot sulfuric acid burns through a lot of things. It's a nightmare scenario.

Try this- imagine going into a supposedly empty burning building that you suddenly discover is filled with discarded acetylene cylinders left by an illegal dumper who showed up in the middle of the night with cylinders filled with highly dangerous gas and simply unloaded them into the building without instead properly disposing of the gas.

In Detroit, we have a big problem with this sort of thing as there are a lot of "empty" buildings. Fortunately, in Michigan (as in an ever-increasing number of states) they take this very seriously. We have an active participation in the EPA's Illegal Dumping Prevention Project.

On their EPA website it says, "Illegal dumping is a major problem that raises significant concerns with regard to safety, property values, and quality of life in our communities. In addition, it is a major economic burden on local government, which is typically responsible for cleaning up dump sites.

"The Region 5 Illegal Dumping Prevention Project was established to exchange information and establish partnerships to develop and implement strategies to combat illegal dumping. The overall goal of this effort is to add value to local efforts to prevent and mitigate illegal dumping."

My question is this- how is an emergency responder supposed to deal with dangerous chemicals they don't even know are there?

For example, I know of a facility with 200 pounds of toxic chemicals they didn't declare because they were shipped to their building by a company that said they'd be right there to pick them up but went out of business the next week. Those chemicals were there for 10 years before the owner had the money to get them out. Damned good thing there wasn't a fire before he took care of it.

How Does a Responder Handle Something Like This if They Don't Even Know it's in the Building?

Don't Underestimate Acetylene

2009-06-22T12:19:00.000-07:00

Think Twice Before You Take This Exit

You'd have a little more respect for the potential dangers of working with acetylene if you'd been in Dallas on July 25, 2007. At nine thirty in the morning that day, Southwest Industrial Gases went up in an exploding fireball. Opinions vary as to the cause of the accident- valve failure, misuse of a practice called "pigtailing," or negligence. The company supplying Southwest with acetylene at that time (Western International Gas & Cylinders), according to STEVE THOMPSON, MICHAEL GRABELL and RANDY LEE LOFTIS of The Dallas Morning News, "...has won industry safety awards. But federal regulators have repeatedly cited it for safety violations."

I remember being told once that "It isn't if an acetylene plant will explode- it's when." Scary thought, isnt' it?" Of course, that was years ago, but even though industry safety spokespersons for the compressed gas industry will tell you things have changed dramatically for the good in the safety levels for acetylene production, let me tell you that it's never good to be overconfident around acetylene.

Here are a few points courtesy of the Bureau of Deep Mine Safety:

Acetylene
-Acetylene is a compound of Hydrogen and Carbon (C 2 H 2 )
-Explosive range is 3% -93%
-Needs only 10% oxygen to ignite
-Produced when calcium carbide is mixed with water
-Unstable gas, will violently decompose when pure state above 15 psi
-Has a burning temperature of 4,600 degrees F when burned in air, and 5,700 degrees F when burned in pure oxygen
-Auto-ignition temperature is 763 - 824 degrees F

Acetylene Cylinders
-Usually are steel construction
-Filled with a porous material to allow the acetylene to dissolve - -Comes in various sizes
-Must always be stored upright
-Should not be stored below freezing
-Never allow a tank to go empty

What is interesting to me now about acetylene and other stored compressed gas issues is not so much the mechanisms of ignition and other catastrophic events, it is that responders are called to respond to emergency situations where compressed gases are stored. I wonder if they are fully aware of what they're getting into.

Many years ago I was visiting a compressed gas production facility when a fire broke out. The fire department was called to put out the fire. People in the facility, including myself, were herded outside to the far edge of the park lot. When the fire truck pulled in, I watched it make a beeline for the plant, then suddenly turn around and drive away from the building. The driver had apparently noticed the "Acetylene Production" sign.

I was told recently by a friend involved with emergency response that fire departments regularly review Tier II filings from the companies in the areas to get a heads up on what hazardous chemicals are stored at their facilities so that there are no surpises.

To further explore how this works over the next week, I will be contacting and reporting on interviews with two experts. The first is Dennis Patrick, President of the Environmental Planning Group out of Ashley, MI. Mr. Patrick is a CIH, CHHM, and CSP. He is also a compressed gas industry professional with over thirty years of operational and management experience. A special area of expertise for him is Tier II filings and RMP plans. I'll ask him just how helpful the information contained on the Tier II forms required by EPA can be to Emergency Responders. Second, I'll be talking to a well respected local Fire Chief to ask him for his take on this as soon as he gives me his permission to publish the interview.

See you Thursday. And by the way, the picture below shows why not to transport acetylene in a car.

Sniff Testing for Toxic Gases

2009-06-16T15:31:00.000-07:00

Never Sniff Test for Ammonia

Photo courtesy of KTLA-TV

I was talking to a new friend at Wyatt Refrigeration out of Everitt, WA. He is a recognized expert in ammonia leak detection, and Wyatt Refrigeration is a a world class company working with Ammonia installation and service issues. The question we were discussing was one that I have dealt with over the years as a manufacturer of calibration gas mixtures for Ammonia detection. He asked me this: "Can you smell Ammonia?"

It's a curious question, and one that those not intimately involved with making calibration gas standards for gas detectors might find surprising. Who in the world smells toxic gases? We all know that carbon monoxide is odorless, but there are a great many gases that are extremely toxic that are described in industry literature as having a variety of smells. Phosphine (PH3), for example, is described as having a "fishy" smell. The BOC Gases MSDS sheet has this Emergency Overview of this fine chemical:

"Irritating to the eyes, skin and mucous membranes. Inhalation may result in pulmonary edema. Phosphine is a central nervous system depressant and toxic to the kidneys. Highly Flammable. This product may spontaneously combust in air."

Lovely. What moron would sniff test phosphine for the industry?

But back to Ammonia. Here's what the Airgas Specialty Products MSDS sheet has to say about it:

"POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECT ROUTES OF ENTRY: Inhalation, Skin Contact, Eye Contact, Ingestion. EYE CONTACT: Exposure to liquid or high concentrations of vapor to tissue such as conjunctiva, cornea and lens. SKIN CONTACT: tissue damage, frostbite and serious chemical burns. INHALATION: can vary from none or only mild irritation, to obstruction of breathing severe damage to mucous membranes of the respiratory tract with in pulmonary function may occur. INGESTION: Tissue damage, chemical gas under normal atmospheric conditions and ingestion is unlikely."

And as regards to odor? It says that Ammonia is a: "Colorless gas or compressed liquid with a pungent, suffocating odor."

So why would the question of whether Ammonia has an odor ever come up? The answer is that the parts per million ammonia calibration standards provided by certain manufacturers to calibrate ammonia monitors have proven so unreliable over the years that many people (including myself when I was younger) actually were sniff testing the gas from their cylinders to see if there was any odor at all. Not a good practice, but when Ammonia calibration standards failed to get a response from a detector, technicians tried the obvious- turn the valve slowly and see if they dectected a faint, acrid smell. Upon calling calgas manufacturers and explaining that they couldn't smell anything, they were sometimes told that "Ammonia doesn't have an odor."

Wrong. Even at 300 ppm NH3/ balance air, it is strong enough to "bite" the nasal passages.

The problem has been that manufacturers- even today- have struggled to produce a stable Ammonia standard. For years, certain manufacturers packaged their ammonia mixtures in "Bernzomatic" type propane cylinders (sometimes known as 17 liter cylinders) that were and are entirely unsuitable as a container for ammonia mixtures. What is the sense in having a sophisticated ammonia detection system if it is calibrated with an unstable gas mixture?

And pity the poor fireman or other emergency responder who goes into the field responding to an emergency leak situation with an ammonia detector calibrated with an unreliable ammonia gas mixture. I've spent forty years developing stable gas mixtures and here's why- there's always someone whose life depends on the calibration gas standard being reliable.

Ammonia can Cause Quite the Traffic Back-Up

Doing the Right Thing Includes Putting Carbon Monoxide Detectors in Schools

2009-06-12T21:18:00.000-07:00

With Fire Chief George Farrell at left, Mayor David N. Cicilline urges residents to install carbon monoxide detectors in their homes. Met School ninth-grade classmates of Ryan Aleman, 14, look on.

Journal photo / Andrew Dickerman Thu, Jan 10, 2008 Providence Journal

*****

Too bad the people in Peace Dale, RI weren't there to hear what they said in Providence. The dangers of carbon monoxide are still not brought forcibly enough to public awareness. Superintendent Robert Hicks found out this for himself and decided to make some changes. Look at this excerpt from the The Narragansett Times by Aimee Coutree on January 28,2009:

"PEACE DALE - Carbon monoxide detectors aren't mandatory in schools, but after high levels of the lethal gas caused the evacuation of Peace Dale Elementary School, that might change, Superintendent Robert Hicks said Thursday. Tuesday morning, 520 students were taken to the high school when a heating exhaust vent that was clogged with snow backed high carbon monoxide levels into the school...

"Around 10 am Tuesday, the Union Fire District was called to the school after a smell (not carbon monoxide, which is odorless) was detected emanating from a vent in one of the first floor classrooms. Students were brought upstairs, Hicks said, and then to the gymnasium while the firemen tested for the carbon monoxide levels. Officials evacuated the school after high levels of the odorless, colorless, tasteless gas were found. When inhaled, the gas can cause lack of oxygen in the bloodstream, and is lethal if the victim is not assisted."

It's been nearly a year and a half, and we're curious here at Incident Commander if the Peace Dale Elementary School now has carbon monoxide detectors. Many resolutions are talked about and proposed after an incident such as this, but they're usually forgotten after the fear dies down.

"No one became ill, according to Hicks, but some students and teachers did complain of headaches, which were alleviated once they stepped outside for fresh air...."

Everything okay again? We'll find out. Every school needs a carbon monoxide detector. They're cheap and they save lives. Ask any fireman or policeman.

So this week I'll call over to Peace Dale and see if they now have carbon monoxide detectors in place and let you know what I find out by the end of the week. I'm hoping for the best. If they don't have any, I'll offer to find some for them.

Bureaucrats Can be Dangerous

2009-06-11T17:57:00.000-07:00

Subways Aren't Always Safe

This excerpt from a New York Times article of June 11, 2009 is another example of why beaurocrats should never have final responsibility for decisions involving emergency respone issues:

"A dedicated emergency response team for the subway — trained to help police officers and firefighters confront transit emergencies — was eliminated this spring by New York City Transit, despite concerns of the agency’s safety experts.

The agency’s leaders, including its president, Howard H. Roberts Jr., had deemed the response team unnecessary, even comparing the unit’s officers to Maytag repairmen, suggesting they were seldom used. "

Comparing response team members to Maytag repair people is as low as it gets. Howard H. Roberts needs a reality check.

Emergency response personnel ought to be at the top of any responsible city's list for Most Valuable People. Bureaucrats are, well, bureaucrats. Bureaucrats rarely learn.

Consider: same city (NYC), different date: January 12, 1991, a quote from the same newspaper in a story written by Felicia R. Lee:

"The head of the Transit Authority said yesterday that passengers who suffered smoke inhalation during a fatal fire in a Brooklyn subway tunnel last month may have been exposed to dangerous levels of toxic substances. He promised that the Transit Authority would contact the riders after the completion of a toxicological analysis to determine the extent of the danger posed by the smoke.

The Transit Authority president, Alan F. Kiepper, made his remarks after a transit official testified at a City Council hearing that the exposed piece of cable that is believed to have caused a short circuit and started the fire was encased in polyvinyl chloride, or PVC. The smoke that poured through the IRT tunnel after the short circuit and explosion came from the burning PVC that insulated the cable, the cable itself and the wooden cover over the subway line's third rail.

The official, Thomas Prendergast, an acting senior vice president at the agency, said that when PVC burns it emits two substances, hydrogen chloride and carbon monoxide, that can have serious effects. Health authorities have said that PVC fumes can cause irritation of the lungs and eyes, and in extreme cases, death....

"In 1982, City Council President Carol Bellamy sought to have the material removed from subway stations, citing its potential to emit deadly fumes during a fire. At the time, an environmental physiologist, Deborah N. Wallace, warned that the combination of PVC, the increasing number of track fires and problems with subway doors 'renders the public unsuspecting sitting ducks.'

"The Transit Authority declined to follow Ms. Bellamy's suggestion..."

When it comes to respect, don't waste it on Bureaucrats, save it for Emergency Response Personnel.

Hurricane Video Deaths

2009-06-11T09:40:00.000-07:00

Recalls & Advisories!

Maple Chase Co. Recalls Carbon Monoxide and Carbon Monoxide/Smoke Combo Alarms Due to Alarm Malfunction

To read more about the Maple Chase Co. recall, go to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission website.

===========================================================

Hurrican Video Deaths

The following is excerpted from Science Daly News, May 28, 2009:

Hours after Hurricane Ike roared ashore in Texas, more than two million homes were without power, which left some scrambling to preserve food and others looking for ways to entertain children, a move that proved to be, in some instances, poisonous. Researchers at The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston found that 75 percent of children treated for carbon monoxide poisoning caused by gasoline-powered electrical generators were playing video games."

When I read this headline, I almost knocked over my coffee cup. Even after working with carbon monoxide systems for over 30 years, I'd never heard of video games emitting carbon monoxide fumes. Of course, for most of those 20 years, video games as we know them now didn't reall exist. So what was the story?

"When interviewed by researchers, families reported using the generators, which they placed inside the home or an attached garage, to power televisions and video game systems.

'This was a new experience for us. We usually have patients arriving in the emergency department with carbon monoxide poisoning because they tried to keep food fresh, run a fan or home air conditioner, but not power electronic gadgets,” said Caroline Fife, M.D., associate professor of medicine at the UT Health Science Center at Houston. “We were also targeting messages about generator safety to adults. Text messages were sent out through a cell phone provider with safety tips. Next time, we are going to have to consider reaching out to children. Many of them now have their own cell phones.'

Of the 37 individuals treated for carbon monoxide poisoning after the storm, 20 were under the age of 20. In nine of those cases, researchers were able to speak with families to determine why a generator was being used. In 75 percent of those cases, the generator was used to run video games. The data are published in the June 1 issue of the Journal of Pediatrics.
All of the patients were treated at Memorial Hermann-Texas Medical Center, the only hospital in Houston with a hyperbaric oxygen treatment center that is capable of treating patients with carbon monoxide poisoning. "

Something has gone very wrong with society when emergency workers are tasked with saving the lives of children who can't live without video games during a hurricane. I'm going to leave that aside, though, and target the overwhelming education problem faced by toxic gas experts and public servants who have to get out the word that carbon monoxide is a dangerous gas. The average citizen does not understand the sources of carbon monoxide. It's a big job and one that we can't slow down on, as this story shows.

"Carbon monoxide is a product of combustion of organic matter with an insufficient oxygen supply. When kept inside the home generators give off carbon monoxide and people can begin breathing it in causing symptoms such as headaches, nausea and flu-like effects. If exposed for a longer length of time, death can occur. Carbon monoxide poisoning is the most common cause of poisoning death in the United States. A hyperbaric chamber is used to give 100 percent oxygen under increased atmospheric pressure to patients exposed to carbon monoxide."

“Discovering that generators are so frequently used to power entertainment devices for children suggests that school programs should be considered in states at risk for hurricane-related power outages,” Fife said. “We also learned that using cell phone providers to send out text messages might be effective. If a future storms approaches, we hope to enlist the help of more providers and send out messages to the most vulnerable populations, our children.”

(Co-authors of the article from Science Daily was drawn from the UT Health Science Center include: Latisha A. Smith, M.D., associate professor of medicine; Erik A. Maus, M.D., assistant professor of medicine; James J. McCarthy, M.D., assistant professor of emergency medicine; Michelle Koehler, UT Medical School student and Trina Hawkins, M.S.N.)

Carbon Monoxide is Not Forgiving

2009-06-04T19:10:00.000-07:00

You Know it's a Bad Day When...

Thirty years ago, I was filling compressed gas cylinders with pure carbon monoxide for a customer. Although many people aren't aware of it, pure CO (carbon monoxide) is sold for many different applications to qualified customers. At the manufacturing level, highly trained specialty gas fillers and blenders package this chemical and others like it to insure that it is properly handled as only a small leak is necessary when dealing with the pure stuff to result in sickness or death in a relatively short period of time.

No time to be scared or act like a hero. You don't know it's taking you down.

It was proper procedure for us to spray leak detection solution around the neck ring of the cylinder to check for leaks at top of the cylinder where the valve was screwed in. If the valve wasn't properly seated or torqued into place, we would see bubbles foaming up around the base of the valve. I didn't see any foam after a close inspection, and thought that I was safe.

I was filling my third cylinder when a co-worker saw me "weaving" in place. He ran over, thinking I was fainting. Something he saw when he got there caused him to scream at me. Seeing that I was about to fall over, he propped me up, flipped the Emergency Vent Valve on the manifold to dump the pressure, grabbed my hair with his free hand and violently pulled me away from the manifold. Within a few seconds he had me outside on the cylinder dock and breathing a shot of medical oxygen. The cold (it was winter) and the oxygen brought me back to reality.

Here's what happened: although there was no leak between the valve and cylinder interface, my co-worker saw a line of bubbles along the side of the cylinder. Gas was leaking along a vertical line on the cylinder side because the cylinder itself was starting to split in two!

I might have seen the danger myself, but the leaking gas was causing me to fade so quickly that I couldn't pay attention. That's the way carbon monoxide is- there's no smell, no taste, no sense of impaired breathing or functioning. You just fade away.

That co-worker saved my life. If he hadn't released the cylinder pressure, it would have continued to increase until the cylinder simply split in two. It was a cylinder manufactured in World War I and should have been taken out of service a long time ago. Back then we were filling carbon monoxide to 2000 PSIG. Nowdays the top end you'll see allowed is 1650 PSIG.

This is one example of the danger carbon monoxide poses in an industrial setting. How about in the everyday world where lay people are sometimes exposed due to faulty furnaces, etc?

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Carbon Monoxide poisoning caused on average 439 deaths and more than 15,000 visits to hospital emergency departments per year from 1999-2005." Several other studies indicate that the numers might actually be much higher, but that CO poisoning is too often not recognized as the source of the emergency.

A 2009 Bulletin from the EPA pointed out that people over 65 years of age are especially vulnerable to unintentional CO poisoning due to their high frequency of pre-existing medical conditions. However, infants are also much more vulnerable than healthy middle-aged adults because of their low body weight and other factors. CO poisoning can also be highly dangerous for unborn children, greatly increasing the risk of fetal death and developmental disorders.

Not a nice gas. Next week we'll take a look at a few examples from death by accidental CO poisoning, and I'll interview an expert in the field to give us a credentialed look at how serious a problem it can be and how we can protect ourselves.

Incident Commander

2009-06-03T17:15:00.000-07:00

The Purpose of this Site

I have over 30 years experience working in the hazardous materials industry, and I'm creating this blog to share experiences, learn from visitors, evaluate products and approaches that can help those of us that work in either difficult situations or with difficult materials to keep our survival rates high.

To keep this site relevant to both industry professionals and everyday people, I'll work in everyday emergencies and try to involve comments of the people who are afflicted and the professionals who respond to these situations.

So, for the next posting, I'll start by taking a look at one of the most dangerous gases to professionals and lay people alike- carbon monoxide.

I'm open to any and all input to make this a better platform for sharing safety and emergency response information.