Posted By Zoe Barnett Good afternoon, I've been contacted by a colleague who is revising emergency procedures at the swimming pool where he works. At present the system is that in the event of a chlorine gas leak a trained member of staff dons BA and goes to investigate. However high staff turnover means that they keep losing the staff who've been trained in its use. They are looking at alternatives to the BA that may require less intensive training, such as any suitable respirators or similar. As this is frankly a closed book to me I'd be grateful if anyone could give us some ideas...please reply either to this post or to jim.farren@leisure.serco.com Many thanks in advance for all the help the users of this forum always provide, it is very much appreciated. Regards, Zoe

Posted By Robert K Lewis I have to say that in my time with Local Authorities, which was some years ago, we would never consider respirators for a task like this. Just take a step back - You are sending someone into an area to investigate a leak of unknown size and uncertain about how it may grow as other equipment may fail. This alone needs the operative(s) to have self contained air supplies of some description. There are some pieces of kit that are easier to use than others but I would talk to the manufacturers. It is a fallacy that respirators are easier to use as the critical area is still the face seal, the weight is obviously less though. I find that there is a psychological tendency to regard the hazard as lower if a respirator is used and it is less likely to be used properly - You still also have the maintenance problems although costs are lower. On balance therefore stick with a self contained air supply or better still why not evacuate and bring in experienced personnel from elsewhere. But I would urge again don't consider respirators for this task - they are for emergency escape only not work Bob Bob

Posted By Robert K Lewis Zoe Just as an afterthought and putting my contractual hat on - the running and maintenance of the pools was let as part of the outsource contract and included this requirement for such trained staff. I think your legal people would be unhappy to see a revision to a potentially lower cost option which may involve increased risk in some form. The outsource contractor you have is very strong in its committments to H&S training etc and I think they need to look more at why the turnover of labour is high rather than changing a good robust process. Bob