Roco Rescue's president and CEO, Kay Goodwyn was recognized at the 2012 Influential Women in Business Awards yesterday. The annual event, sponsored by the Greater Baton Rouge Business Report, recognizes female business leaders who demonstrate exemplary business accomplishments and a dedication to their work, their communities, and the world.

For the past 30 years, Roco Rescue has thrived under her leadership. Perhaps because Goodwyn truly lives the mission: providing the highest quality rescue training, equipment, and services –while treating customers with courtesy, honesty, and respect.

Goodwyn is dedicated to her staff, her associates, and the thousands of students that Roco Rescue has trained and equipped throughout her tenure.

The awards banquet was held at the Crown Plaza on June 5, 2012. In attendance were a core group of female friends and fans who consider Kay L. Goodwyn a mentor and friend. She was also featured in the Business Report's cover story, which can be read here.

From all of us who know and love her, a great big congratulations KG. It's about time the community took notice of your incredible strength, talent and heart. For all the lives that have been touched and SAVED because you are in the world, we thank you!

Here at Roco, we have recently discovered a minor issue when the SKED stretcher is updated with Cobra buckles. The Cobra buckle replacement system is attached by girth-hitching the components into the grommets. The girth hitch takes up more room in the grommets than the sewn loop that was previously used. This makes it more difficult to pass the vertical bridle rope through the grommet holes that we’re accustomed to using.

Skedco was contacted and has approved the following alternative method (see photo). After tying a square knot at the bottom of the SKED, bring the tail ends of the rope back up and pass them through the bottom grommet hole of the handles before tying the second square knot. Note: “Handle” holes may be used with the old style buckle system.

A study on the “reliance of municipal fire departments for confined space response” has been funded by a legal settlement following the deaths of two workers in a confined space incident in California.Research by the University of California, Berkeley, indicates that employers may be relying too heavily on local fire departments for confined space rescue.

These findings indicate that local fire departments may not have the resources to provide the specialized training needed for confined space rescue, especially when "response and rescue" times are such critical factors.

Key Points from Study

•  Confined space incidents represent a small but continuing source of fatal occupational injuries;

•  A sizeable portion of employers may be relying on public fire departments for permit-required confined space response; and,

•  With life-threatening emergencies, fire departments usually are not able to effect a confined space rescue in a timely manner.

Municipal Response Statistics

The study includes some very interesting statistics about fire department response times, rescue times, and capabilities. It also shows that rescue times increase dramatically when hazardous materials are present. For example, according to the report, fire department confined space rescue time estimates ranged from 48 to 123 min and increased to 70 and 173 min when hazardous materials were present.

According to the report, “estimates made by fire officers show that a worker who experiences cardiac arrest, deprivation of cerebral oxygen, or some other highly time-critical, life-threatening emergency during a confined space entry will almost certainly die if the employer’s emergency response plan relies solely on the fire department for rescue services.”

Researchers proposed that a more appropriate role for fire departments would be to support a properly trained and equipped on-site rescue team and to provide life support following a rescue.

Information excerpted from, “Confined Space Emergency Response: Assessing Employer and Fire Department Practices,” by Michael P. Wilson, Heather N. Madison & Stephen B. Healy (2012). This study was published in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene (Feb 2012) and is available for purchase from Taylor & Francis Online.

In this and upcoming articles, we want to give you an idea of the actual forces that are put on M/A systems versus theoretical forces that you may read about. What’s the difference?

With theoretical, we’re referring to the amount of force that is “supposed” to be produced, while the actual is just that…the actual amount of force that is produced when the system is built and operated.

For example, calculating the force if you built  a 3:1 mechanical advantage “on paper” (theoretically) versus physically building the system. With the actual system, you would have to consider the friction loss created by the system components, so the “actual M/A” may be 2.5:1 with the same 3:1 system.

We decided to do some informal testing out at the Roco Training Center with the assistance of some of our students. The systems were tested as they are generally used in the field. The numbers shown are an average of the tests we conducted. The average is from a random sample of 10 to 20 tests using the same equipment and set up. We used a Dillon 25,000 lbf dynamometer with an error factor of +/-20 lbf. Note: These test numbers are designed as a reference only and should not be used as exact force data.

Test #1: Straight-line Pull

Student Set-up: Students were asked to pull on the line in a horizontal plane and exhibit as much force as they could without tugging/jerking the line. They were then asked to maintain that tension and tug/jerk the line.

Equipment Set-up: 12-ft of 1⁄2” PMI rope tied with a Figure 8 knot and attached to the dynamometer by two 2-ft pieces of 1” basket-looped webbing and two auto-locking steel carabiners to a rigid anchor with another basket-looped webbing loop.

What the Numbers Mean

First of all, they will serve as a baseline for future informal tests when comparing different types of M/A systems. We will evaluate the efficiency of the different systems as well as the possible forces that are put on the components of the system when using typical rescue haul teams.

Grasping at Ropes

One interesting fact that we can take away from these numbers is that even though the vast majority of the persons involved in the testing (random rescue students) weighedin excess of 160 lbs, they were only able to generate a maximum of 160 pounds of force on the 1⁄2-inch rope. This is largely due to the student’s ability to grasp and hold onto the 1⁄2” line before it pulled through their hands.

Similar tests using 9mm rope had an average force of 120 lbf for a single-person pull. There was only a slight difference of about 2 lbf between the 1⁄2-inch rope and the 9mm rope. We had anticipated a greater disparity as the rope diameter decreased and the ability to grasp the smaller line was lessened. However, we did observe that with the smaller diameter rope, haulers had a tendency to twist their hands making a 90-degree turn in the rope. This added additional friction making it possible to put more force on the line before it slipped.

Stay tuned as we continue this informal, real-world testing in future blog posts. It should be interesting to see how the forces translate from 1,2,3, and 4-person Haul Teams when using these various Mechanical Advantage systems.

QUESTION: What is required for making multiple confined space entries, and can an Attendant/Hole Watch monitor more than one entry at a time?

ANSWER: Good question! And, the answer is YES according to OSHA 1910.146. However, each space must be evaluated on its own merits with all regulations and requirements applying to each individual entry. Here we will provide some tips when considering one Attendant for multiple entries. This is also where preparing comprehensive rescue preplans becomes essential, and we'll start there.

Suggestions for Writing Rescue Preplans

1.  One of the first things is to identify and categorize the space as “permit-required” or “non-permit required.” You’ll need to carefully consider the possible hazards based on the information gathered.

2.  Once you’ve identified the hazards, you’ll want to consider what actions might be taken to eliminate or control the hazard to allow for a safe entry. OSHA 1910.146 defines "acceptable entry conditions" as the conditions that must exist in a permit space to allow entry and to ensure that employees involved with a permit-required confined space entry can safely enter into and work within the space.

3.  Next, you would need to consider the type of work that is going to take place inside the space. A very important question to ask... could the work create its own hazard? (An example would include hot work being performed inside the space.) Then, what about rescue capabilities and requirements? Next, you’ll need to determine whether the entry should be considered “Rescue Available” or “Rescue Stand-by?”

Roco uses the terms “Rescue Available” or “Rescue Stand-by” to better prepare for safe entry operations and in determining more specific rescue needs for that particular entry. Here’s the way we use these distinctions...Rescue Available would be your normal entry that is NOT considered an IDLH (Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health)entry. In this case, a 10-15 minute response time for a rescue team would generally be sufficient to satisfy OSHA regulations and is typical during turnarounds where multiple entries are taking place.

On the other hand, we use Rescue Stand-by when a more immediate need is anticipated, such as with a hazardous atmosphere or potentially hazardous atmosphere. For example, with an IDLH entry, it may require the team to be standing by just outside the space in order to reach the patient in a timely manner (i.e., how long can you live without air...3 to 4 minutes?)  Or, how quickly can the entrant be engulfed where there is a potential engulfment hazard?  OSHA 1910.134 requires a standby person or persons capable of immediate action with IDLH atmospheres. (See reference below.)

OSHA Reference Note to Paragraph (k)(1)(i): What will be considered timely will vary according to the specific hazards involved in each entry. For example, §1910.134, Respiratory Protection, requires that employers provide a standby person or persons capable of immediate action to rescue employee(s) wearing respiratory protection while in work areas defined as IDLH atmospheres.

Regarding multiple entries, this Rescue Stand-by status could certainly limit the number of entries that could take place due to the availability of qualified responders and equipment. You must also consider that if you’re doing an entry that requires Rescue Stand-by and are called to respond to a rescue from a Rescue Available space, the entrants at the Rescue Stand-by entry must be evacuated before the team can respond. And, if there is only one rescue team, all other entries must stop during a rescue, as the team is no longer available.
Can an Attendant cover more than one confined space entry at the same time?

According to OSHA (see below), attendants can cover multiple spaces as long as they meet the responsibilities and duties at each entry site. If the spaces are “Rescue Available” and are in close proximity, this may be possible. However, without seeing the spaces and if they are on different levels as you mentioned, it could be very difficult for an Attendant to meet all of the requirements OSHA defines for Attendants.

OSHA Notes regarding Attendants and Multiple Entries...
NOTE to 1910.146(d)(6): Attendants may be assigned to monitor more than one permit space provided the duties described in paragraph (i) of this section can be effectively performed for each permit space that is monitored. Likewise, attendants may be stationed at any location outside the permit space to be monitored as long as the duties described in paragraph (i) of this section can be effectively performed for each permit space that is monitored.

1910.146(d)(7) If multiple spaces are to be monitored by a single attendant, include in the permit program the means and procedures to enable the attendant to respond to an emergency affecting one or more of the permit spaces being monitored without distraction from the attendant's responsibilities under paragraph (i) of this section;

Once all these critical factors have been reviewed, you will need to consider the following when writing a rescue plan for an identical space:

    Internal configuration
    Elevation
    Portal Size

For hazards and LOTO procedures, you may be able to use the same rescue plan to cover those spaces. An example would be in doing ten (10) ground-level entries into 6-ft deep manholes, each with a 24” round, horizontal portal with a valve at the bottom. The rescue plan may be identical for all of these entries with the same description and hazards. However, on the rescue plan, you would need to allow for any unexpected hazards such as a possible change in atmosphere. This would be needed to be detected and properly handled by the responders at the time of the incident.

So, these are some of the basics you need to consider when writing a rescue preplan for confined spaces and for determining if (and when) an Attendant can effectively monitor multiple spaces.

If you have questions concerning these topics, please feel free to contact Roco at 800-647-7626.