V.A. Kaptsov, Dr. Sci. (Med.), Prof. Head of the Department FGUP VNIIZHG, Moscow, Russia A.V. Chirkin, Office, email@example.com OOO «Beta-pro», Moscow, Russia
Abstract Self-contained self-rescuers are widely used to evacuate personnel in case of accidents related to possible lack of oxygen. However, their selection and organization of use are not regulated by the current legislation of the Russian Federation, and training of labor protection specialists, taking into account these specific features of using personal respiratory protective equipment, is not carried out. Requirements of Technical regulations of the Customs Union «On safety of personal protective equipment» do not provide for quality control after certification, which is not always carried out with sufficient responsibility. Issuance of even certified self-rescuers to employees can not compensate for errors at their initial selection (including identification of actual time of the protective action in conditions different from certification ones). Comparison of requirements for self-rescuers at certification in the Russian Federation and in the USA was made, the problems at their selection and application are considered. Differences have been identified, accounting for which can improve protection of the employees using self-rescuers.
Wide use by self-rescuers of self-contained breathing apparatus with the closed circuit (in which the exhaled air is purified from carbon dioxide, enriched with oxygen and re-inhaled) is explained by the long protective action time at relatively small mass. However, the design of these personal respiratory protective means does not always ensure maintenance of excessive pressure in the mask during inhalation, which increases the risk of excessive exposure to air pollution on the employees. Use of similar means of individual protection of the respiratory system by firefighters showed that some people are insufficiently protected, which can lead to both acute poisoning and increases the risk of developing chronic occupational diseases.
Possible ways of solving the identified problems, taking into account native and foreign experience and developments, are suggested in the article.
1. Labor Code of the Russian Federation of December 30, 2001 № 197-FZ (RF Labor Code). Available at: http://docs.cntd.ru/document/trudovoj-kodeks-rf-tk-rf (accessed: February 2, 2018). (In Russ.).
2. 42 CFR Part 84. Approval Tests and Standards for Closed-Circuit Escape Respirators. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/RespStandards/pdfs/ClosedCirbuitEscapeRespirators.pdf (accessed: February 8, 2018).
3. On safety of personal protective equipment (TR CU 019/2011): Technical regulations of the Customs Union. Available at: http://www.tsouz.ru/db/techreglam/documents/tp%20ts%20siz.pdf (accessed: January 28, 2018). (In Russ.).
4. 29 CFR 1910.134. Respiratory Protection. Available at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/1910.134 (accessed: February 1, 2018).
5. Bollinger N.J., Schutz R.H. NIOSH guide to industrial respiratory protection. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication № 87–116. — Cincinnati: National Institute for Occupation Safety and Health, 1987. 305 p.
6. On special assessment of working conditions: Federal Law of December 28, 2013 № 426-FZ. Available at: https://rosmintrud.ru/docs/laws/114 (accessed: January 30, 2018). (In Russ.).
7. Oguretskiy V.A., Egorov V.N. Reflections on the use of self- contained rescuers with chemically bound oxygen in the coal mines. Bezopasnost truda v promyshlennosti = Occupational Safety in Industry. 2012. № 4. pp. 54–60. (In Russ.).
8. DIN EN 529:2006. Atemschutzgeräte — Empfehlungen für Auswahl, Einsatz, Pflege und Instandhaltung — Leitfaden; Deutsche Fassung EN 529:2005. Brüssel: Europäische Komitee für Normung, 2005. 53 p.
9. BS EN 529:2005. Respiratory protective devices. Recommendations for selection, use, care and maintenance. Guidance document. London, British Standards Institution, 2005. 54 p.
10. Tannahill S.N., Willey R.J., Jackson M.H. Workplace protection factors of HSE approved negative pressure full-facepiece dust respirators during asbestos stripping: preliminary findings. The Annals of Occupational Hygiene. 1990. Vol. 34 (6). pp. 541–552. DOI:10.1093/annhyg/34.6.547
11. Hyatt E.C. Respirators: how well do they really protect? The Journal of the International Society for Respiratory Protection. 1984. Vol. 2 (1). pp. 6–19.
12. Nikulin V.V., Sidorchuk V.K., Andrianov S.N. Self-contained breathing apparatus. Vol. 1. Tula: Grif i K, 2008. 244 p. (In Russ.).
13. GOST 12.4.299—2015. Interstate standard. Occupational safety standards system. Self-contained breathing apparatus. Recommendations for selection, application and maintenance. Available at: http://docs.cntd.ru/document/1200121959 (accessed: January 30, 2018). (In Russ.).
14. On the state of sanitary and epidemiological welfare of the population in the Russian Federation in 2016: State report. Moscow: Federal Service for Supervision of Consumer Rights Protection and Human Wellbeing, 2017. Available at: http://rospotrebnadzor.ru/upload/iblock/0b3/gosudarstvennyy-doklad-2016.pdf (accessed: January 25, 2018). (In Russ.).
15. 30 CFR. Mineral Resources. Chapter I, Subchapter O. Coal mine safety and health. Available at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/30/part-75/subpart-R (accessed: February 6, 2018).
16. Gladyshev N.F., Gladysheva T.V., Dvoretskiy S.I., Putin S.B., Ulyanova M.A., Ferapontov Yu.A. Regenerative products of new generation: technology and hardware design. Moscow: Izd-vo Mashinostroenie-1, 2007. 156 p. (In Russ.).
17. Caretti D.M., Barker D.J., Coyne K.M. Simulated workplace protection evaluation of a dual cavity respirator concept. Journal of the International Society for Respiratory Protection. 2013. Vol. 30 (2). pp. 79–94.