• Thank you for visiting HeavyEquipmentForums.com! Our objective is to provide industry professionals a place to gather to exchange questions, answers and ideas. We welcome you to register using the "Register" icon at the top of the page. We'd appreciate any help you can offer in spreading the word of our new site. The more members that join, the bigger resource for all to enjoy. Thank you!

Carbon Monoxide content of diesel exhaust

digger242j

Administrator
Joined
Oct 31, 2003
Messages
6,628
Location
Southwestern PA
Occupation
Self employed excavator
In a discussion related to workplace safety (unrelated to anything I'm doing), the subject of diesel exhaust entering a building and effecting the people inside, came up.

The people involved were quite upset at having been exposed to CO, to the point of threatening legal action. My recollection, backed up by some stuff I turned up on Google, is that the CO content of diesel exhaust is relatively low. Certainly, breathing it will make you feel ill, but it's the other components that are responsible for that, not a terribly high CO content, as you'd have in gasoline engine exhaust.

I know we have a few firefighters on the board, as well as a number of others who have good credentials on the question of what's hazardous to breath. Anybody care to expand on the issues involved, and what the victims of this incident should be focusing on?
 

atgreene

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
508
Location
Sebago, Maine
The other components of the exhaust is just as bad as the co. Diesel exhaust is a known carcinigen.

OSHA's limit is 50 ppm for an 8 hours.
NIOSH limit is 35 ppm for 8 hours.
ACGIH's limit is 25 ppm for 8 hours.


True story, the PFD where I work, the union fought for plymovent systems to keep the exhaust out to save fire fighters from breathing the crap that would give them cancer, city said no. When computers were introduced to the fire houses here, they quickly failed due to the soot destroying the electronics. City spent the money for plymovents to save the computers. They could care less about the ff's, when they got cancer after they retired it didn't cost the city anything. When computers kept burning out and costing money, then it was an issue. :Banghead
 

atgreene

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
508
Location
Sebago, Maine
This should help. They say 1200 ppm is IDLH, but from experience, we pulled 2 people from a house with a generator running in the basement with levels of 700 ppm and climbing and they were both unconcious.:pointhead One ended up in a hyperbaric chamber for a while, both survived.

Most calls we get about co are actually related to exhaust odors confused for co. The particulate matter and the by-products of combustion are what people see and smell. CO is not detectable by humans, you can't smell, taste or feel it. The odor from exhaust is what warns most people that they are being exposed. It may be worth investing in a small digital home co meter. They aren't great, but will work in a pinch.

Good luck.

Workplace/Industry
The current Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) permissible exposure limit (PEL) for CO is 50 ppm as an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) [29 CFR 1910.1000*]. The NIOSH recommended exposure limit (REL) for CO is 35 ppm as an 8-hour TWA and a ceiling limit (CL) of 200 ppm [NIOSH 1992]. The NIOSH recommended immediately dangerous to life and health concentration (IDLH) for CO is 1,200 ppm. The IDLH is the concentration that could result in death or irreversible health effects, or prevent escape from the contaminated environment within 30 minutes. The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) has adopted a threshold limit value (TLV) for CO of 25 ppm as an 8-hour TWA [ACGIH 1992a].
-------------------
**Code of Federal Regulations. See CFR in references.


Ambient Air/Residential Settings
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established an ambient (outdoor) CO air quality Federal standard of 9 ppm for an 8-hour exposure and 25 ppm for a short-term (1-hr) exposure [EPA 1991a]. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) staff recommends that long-term exposures to CO in indoor environments be limited to less than 15 ppm as an 8-hour TWA and 25 ppm for 1 hour, but product-specific recommendations for CO may vary depending on expected usage patterns and exposure.
 

surfer-joe

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2007
Messages
1,403
Location
Arizona
Carbon Monoxide content

Folks that suffer from asthma should avoid diesel exhaust, and certain sufferers have a very low tolerance level for it. This is one thing that actually shows up in people almost immediately, sometimes within minutes, unlike cancers that may take years to manifest. I haven't heard of anyone dying from exposure to diesel exhaust, but a good asthma flare induced by the fumes will make you think you are going to expire. Very miserable.

It won't be so prevalent now with ULSD, but many people have an intolerance to the smell of sulphur fumes in diesel exhaust. Symptoms include runny nose, watery eyes, or burning sensation in eyes. Some people have major intolerance to sulphur. I myself can't be in the vicinity of anything that burns bunker fuels (Lots of sulphur) for more than a very few minutes. Severe headache and nausea follows exposure quickly. My wife can not be in vicinity of any diesel or JP fuel exhaust at all. Major migraine headache almost immediately is result.

The 8.2L Detroit's and Cat 3208's used in class 7 trucks for years would, at idle, make almost everybody standing close by sick. When you had to have truck running for air compressor and crane use, well, it was bad. Cummins engines with the old PT fuel systems would slobber and stink real bad at temperatures below zero. Bringing one of them into a shop from outside on a frosty morning meant you would cough and have runny eyes for an hour and stink for the rest of the day from the raw unburnt fuel impregnated into your clothes. Combination of cold damp air and nasty exhaust made everybody miserable.

We older chaps have worked in enclosed spaces full of diesel smoke for years. Mines, buildings, and equipment cabs are all examples. Can't believe that all the soot and fumes we breathed was good for us. Mining machinery at least usually had scrubbers mounted that helped some.

When cleaning sediments out of large oil tanks in California, all our operators had to use supplied air systems, though this was as much due to the heavy oil fumes inside as much as anything else. But even with massive ventilation, diesel exhaust was still bad inside and many operators could not stay in the seat of those machines very long before being sickened.

I'm a little surprised that anyone would run a diesel in a building with people present these days, or, upon re-reading your post, was the equipment outside in close proximity? Natural gas or propane powered equipment would be a far better choice and electric power better yet in either situation. But maybe just closing doors and windows would have taken care of the problem.

These folks you mention are likely responding to all the recent hype in the media about carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. They may have smelled some odor and it may have sickened some for a bit. In all likelihood, they need to raise a stink of their own with whomever is working with the diesels in or by the building and get those people to switch to some other power sourced equipment if possible.

If no alternative, building management should remove affected people to another building for duration of work.
 

digger242j

Administrator
Joined
Oct 31, 2003
Messages
6,628
Location
Southwestern PA
Occupation
Self employed excavator
Thanks for the replies.

In answer to the questions raised by Surfer-Joe, this was an incident a week ago at the New York TRACON, the FAA radar facility that controls air traffic in the New york area. The backup electrical generator was being tested, and exhaust found its way into the ventilation system of the building. Controllers were feeling sick, and the supervisor refused to relieve them, and further, refused their requests to call the fire department to test the CO levels in the air.

As reported in the stories below, several of them went to the hospital later, and were found to have elevated levels of CO in their systems. My understanding, from some information I've read, is that a properly running diesel engine will put out relatively little in the way of CO, however, the CO output will rise dramatically if the engine is not running perfectly.

Two news stories, out of NY:

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=local&id=5266493


http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=local&id=5271014
 

surfer-joe

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2007
Messages
1,403
Location
Arizona
Wow! Somebodies butt is in a sling. Very bad deal to have leaking exhaust of any kind in an enclosed building.
 

atgreene

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
508
Location
Sebago, Maine
I hope this is corrected. It's too bad it takes the media to get involved to fix some of these issues.

At the risk of pulling this thread off-topic, I will say, the Air Traffic Controlers Union should be all over this. Obviously, the FAA can't be trusted to watch out for the flying public. I've seen similar issues when assigned to the air rescue station with the control tower next door. Some of these government supervisors haven't a lick of common scence and the only thing saving the passengers was the union.

Pretty sad if you ask me.
 
Last edited:

digger242j

Administrator
Joined
Oct 31, 2003
Messages
6,628
Location
Southwestern PA
Occupation
Self employed excavator
Wow! Somebodies butt is in a sling.

I wouldn't bet the ranch on that. It's the federal government against their own workers.

I initially didn't name describe the details of the incident because I'd heard about it only through discussions that were taking place on the NATCA union bulletin board. Since it's in the media now, I didn't see any harm in filling in the blanks.

Whether you're a believer or a non-believer in unions, you probably travel by air, or know somebody that does. That means you have a stake in how safely air traffic controllers are able to do their work. The management behavior that this incident characterizes is only the tip of a really large and ugly iceberg.

Obviously, the FAA can't be trusted to watch out for the flying public.

Part of my daily ritual, (right after HEF;) ) is to read The FAA Follies, and former NATCA President John Carr's blog, The Main Bang.

How many of you would run your business that way, or stay working for a business that treated you like that? :rolleyes:
 

Countryboy

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2006
Messages
3,276
Location
Georgia
Occupation
Load Out Tech. / Heavy Equipment Operator / Locomo
Missed this one some how........:beatsme

The CO content of diesel exhaust would be an immediate concern when inhaled in an enclosed area but there are many other harmful substances, that can cause conditions down the road, which may not show symptoms for some time.

IIRC, in the early 70's there was a group of Railroad Engineers that filed a class action lawsuit against the FRA for the chronic problems they obtained from longterm exposure to exhaust gasses from the locomotives. They won this suit and the construction of the engineer's compartment was changed to provide better sealing from the engine compartment.

Now this did deal with long term exposure but they did develop recurring conditions which were not addressed until after the suit. Goes to show that there are things in regular exhaust that can cause problems.

The occasional instances when we come into contact with diesel exhaust shouldn't be of too much concern but if symptoms like nausea and headaches presented themselves then I would consider this long term exposure. Although the symptoms might go away, I'd be doubtful of anyone that told me that some long term damage wasn't done whether minor or severe.

As far as the amount of CO compared to the performence of the engine, you would be correct. The potency of the exhaust will be more with any engine if it is not operating at its best.
 

digger242j

Administrator
Joined
Oct 31, 2003
Messages
6,628
Location
Southwestern PA
Occupation
Self employed excavator
OSHA's getting involved now.

Eyewitness News Exclusive
Eyewitness News
(New York - WABC, May 10, 2007) - Investigators from the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) descended on TRACON Thursday morning to investigate the carbon monoxide incident on April 25 that left several air traffic controllers physically ill.

The visit was reportedly was unannounced....

And, in answer to the question of how the fumes get into the building when the engine is running:

The diesel generator was reportedly being tested when it released the potentially deadly fumes. It is intended to be used in the event of a power failure in the facility, but was installed in direct proximity to the center's outside air intake vents. Ironically, according to the controllers, when the wind blows from the northeast, the fumes get sucked directly into the air vents. Of course, among the likeliest scenarios under which the generator would be used is during a 'Noreaster.
 

atgreene

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
508
Location
Sebago, Maine
That's pathetic. One huge government agency investigating another because some peon moron didn't do their job. What is so wrong about doing it right the first time, and why do these agencies get such idiots to make their decisions? :beatsme

I still say it's patently wrong that the union is the only group watching out for us, the flying public. How screwed-up is that?
 

Countryboy

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2006
Messages
3,276
Location
Georgia
Occupation
Load Out Tech. / Heavy Equipment Operator / Locomo
Welcome to HEF Crude! :drinkup
 

Crude

Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
6
Location
Dallas, TX
I hope this is corrected. It's too bad it takes the media to get involved to fix some of these issues.

Trust me on this one ... do not hold your breath. Breathe deeply! Suck in some more of that CO!

At the risk of pulling this thread off-topic, I will say, the Air Traffic Controlers Union should be all over this. Obviously, the FAA can't be trusted to watch out for the flying public. I've seen similar issues when assigned to the air rescue station with the control tower next door. Some of these government supervisors haven't a lick of common scence and the only thing saving the passengers was the union.

NATCA is, but with the current administration of both the FAA and the national government, things are near impossible to change. We controllers are concerned about the flying public's safety above all else ... the higher skill set (their own words - not ours) are only interested in what makes them look good. Trust me, I can provide many examples of this.

Pretty sad if you ask me.

Nope, not pretty sad ... damn sad sight to see, but with the FAA trying to run like any other corporation in the US (and failing miserably at it BTW) they do not care about their employees or their customers. How can we cut costs, maximize returns? Granted, air traffic control is not about making widgets but providing a service to the public, but that is just how things are looked at today.

Crude - formerly CG@D10
 

Crude

Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
6
Location
Dallas, TX
The management behavior that this incident characterizes is only the tip of a really large and ugly iceberg

Anybody heard about the AAL489 incident?

http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa070220_kd_flight489.1c5a88e4.html

Talk about management behavior, incompetence and outright lying. From the story:

"The FAA also said a supervisor did not order the controller to handle the flight differently."

Why would the FAA even come out to say this if it were true? Cause it weren't, the supervisor ordered the controller to take that aircraft to that runway, despite the pilot request, so that OTHER AIRCRAFT WERE NOT DELAYED!

I know this, I was there that day.

Crude - formerly CG@D10
 

digger242j

Administrator
Joined
Oct 31, 2003
Messages
6,628
Location
Southwestern PA
Occupation
Self employed excavator
Crude - formerly CG@D10

So, I take it you got out while the gettin' was good? I can't blame you a bit.

Reference American 489, I heard the quote from the phlegm at DFW was "Tell them UNABLE. We're not going to turn around a major airport for one aircraft."

It's a sad, sick agency, and it's only a matter of time before they kill somebody, or several planeloads of somebodies...
 

Crude

Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
6
Location
Dallas, TX
So, I take it you got out while the gettin' was good? I can't blame you a bit.

Mmmn, not quite, kinda forced out against my will, working on that.

Reference American 489, I heard the quote from the phlegm at DFW was "Tell them UNABLE. We're not going to turn around a major airport for one aircraft."

There was no reason to turn around anything, all that had to be done was to stop the departures for a few minutes.

It's a sad, sick agency, and it's only a matter of time before they kill somebody, or several planeloads of somebodies...

I have a bad feeling about this, cause I believe that it will happen soon and it will be a major incident with much more bodies than what happened with DAL191 or AAL191.

Crude - used to be CG @ D10
 
Top