Real Kings of Logistics
Friday, June 18, 2010
Monday, June 14, 2010
How to Initiate Reliability Centered Maintenance
The road from a purely reactive program to a RCM program is not an easy one. The following is a list of some basic steps that will help to get moving down this path.
1. Develop a Master equipment list identifying the equipment in your facility.
2. Prioritize the listed components based on importance to process.
3. Assign components into logical groupings.
4. Determine the type and number of maintenance activities required and periodicity using:
a. Manufacturer technical manuals
b. Machinery history
c. Root cause analysis findings - Why did it fail?
d. Good engineering judgment
5. Assess the size of maintenance staff.
6. Identify tasks that may be performed by operations maintenance personnel.
7. Analyze equipment failure modes and effects.
8. Identify effective maintenance tasks or mitigation strategies.
From Operations & Maintenance Best Practices - A Guide to Operational Efficiency July 2004
1. Develop a Master equipment list identifying the equipment in your facility.
2. Prioritize the listed components based on importance to process.
3. Assign components into logical groupings.
4. Determine the type and number of maintenance activities required and periodicity using:
a. Manufacturer technical manuals
b. Machinery history
c. Root cause analysis findings - Why did it fail?
d. Good engineering judgment
5. Assess the size of maintenance staff.
6. Identify tasks that may be performed by operations maintenance personnel.
7. Analyze equipment failure modes and effects.
8. Identify effective maintenance tasks or mitigation strategies.
From Operations & Maintenance Best Practices - A Guide to Operational Efficiency July 2004
Reliability Centered Maintenance Program
This is the fourth in a series of post describing the various types of maintenance programs that are used for equipment, vehicles, and facilities. The fourth program is a reliability centered maintenance program.
Reliability centered maintenance (RCM) magazine provides the following definition of RCM: “a process used to determine the maintenance requirements of any physical asset in its operating context.” Basically, RCM methodology deals with some key issues not dealt with by other maintenance programs. It recognizes that all equipment in a facility is not of equal importance to either the process or facility safety. It recognizes that equipment design and operation differs and that different equipment will have a higher probability to undergo failures from different degradation mechanisms than others.
It also approaches the structuring of a maintenance program recognizing that a facility does not have unlimited financial and personnel resources and that the use of both need to be prioritized and optimized. In a nutshell, RCM is a systematic approach to evaluate a facility’s equipment and resources to best mate the two and result in a high degree of facility reliability and cost-effectiveness.
RCM is highly reliant on predictive maintenance but also recognizes that maintenance activities on equipment that is inexpensive and unimportant to facility reliability may best be left to a reactive maintenance approach.
The following maintenance program breakdowns of continually top-performing facilities would echo the RCM approach to utilize all available maintenance approaches with the predominant methodology being predictive.
• <10% Reactive
• 25% to 35% Preventive
• 45% to 55% Predictive.
Because RCM is so heavily weighted in utilization of predictive maintenance technologies, its program advantages and disadvantages mirror those of predictive maintenance. In addition to these advantages, RCM will allow a facility to more closely match resources to needs while improving reliability and decreasing cost.
Advantages
• Can be the most efficient maintenance program.
• Lower costs by eliminating unnecessary maintenance or overhauls.
• Minimize frequency of overhauls.
• Reduced probability of sudden equipment failures.
• Able to focus maintenance activities on critical components.
• Increased component reliability.
• Incorporates root cause analysis.
Disadvantages
• Can have significant startup cost, training, equipment, etc.
• Savings potential not readily seen by management.
From Operations & Maintenance Best Practices - A Guide to Operational Efficiency July 2004
Reliability centered maintenance (RCM) magazine provides the following definition of RCM: “a process used to determine the maintenance requirements of any physical asset in its operating context.” Basically, RCM methodology deals with some key issues not dealt with by other maintenance programs. It recognizes that all equipment in a facility is not of equal importance to either the process or facility safety. It recognizes that equipment design and operation differs and that different equipment will have a higher probability to undergo failures from different degradation mechanisms than others.
It also approaches the structuring of a maintenance program recognizing that a facility does not have unlimited financial and personnel resources and that the use of both need to be prioritized and optimized. In a nutshell, RCM is a systematic approach to evaluate a facility’s equipment and resources to best mate the two and result in a high degree of facility reliability and cost-effectiveness.
RCM is highly reliant on predictive maintenance but also recognizes that maintenance activities on equipment that is inexpensive and unimportant to facility reliability may best be left to a reactive maintenance approach.
The following maintenance program breakdowns of continually top-performing facilities would echo the RCM approach to utilize all available maintenance approaches with the predominant methodology being predictive.
• <10% Reactive
• 25% to 35% Preventive
• 45% to 55% Predictive.
Because RCM is so heavily weighted in utilization of predictive maintenance technologies, its program advantages and disadvantages mirror those of predictive maintenance. In addition to these advantages, RCM will allow a facility to more closely match resources to needs while improving reliability and decreasing cost.
Advantages
• Can be the most efficient maintenance program.
• Lower costs by eliminating unnecessary maintenance or overhauls.
• Minimize frequency of overhauls.
• Reduced probability of sudden equipment failures.
• Able to focus maintenance activities on critical components.
• Increased component reliability.
• Incorporates root cause analysis.
Disadvantages
• Can have significant startup cost, training, equipment, etc.
• Savings potential not readily seen by management.
From Operations & Maintenance Best Practices - A Guide to Operational Efficiency July 2004
Predictive Maintenance Program
This is the third in a series of post describing the various types of maintenance programs that are used for equipment, vehicles, and facilities. The third program is a predictive maintenance program.
Predictive maintenance can be defined as follows: Measurements that detect the onset of a degradation mechanism, thereby allowing causal stressors to be eliminated or controlled prior to any significant deterioration in the component physical state. Results indicate current and future functional capability.
Basically, predictive maintenance differs from preventive maintenance by basing maintenance need on the actual condition of the machine rather than on some preset schedule. You will recall that preventive maintenance is time-based. Activities such as changing lubricant are based on time, like calendar time or equipment run time. For example, most people change the oil in their vehicles every 3,000 to 5,000 miles traveled. This is effectively basing the oil change needs on equipment run time. No concern is given to the actual condition and performance capability of the oil. It is changed because it is time.
This methodology would be analogous to a preventive maintenance task. If, on the other hand, the operator of the car discounted the vehicle run time and had the oil analyzed at some periodicity to determine its actual condition and lubrication properties, he/she may be able to extend the oil change until the vehicle had traveled 10,000 miles. This is the fundamental difference between predictive maintenance and preventive maintenance, whereby predictive maintenance is used to define needed maintenance task based on quantified material/equipment condition.
The advantages of predictive maintenance are many. A well-orchestrated predictive maintenance program will all but eliminate catastrophic equipment failures. We will be able to schedule maintenance activities to minimize or delete overtime cost. We will be able to minimize inventory and order parts, as required, well ahead of time to support the downstream maintenance needs.
We can optimize the operation of the equipment, saving energy cost and increasing plant reliability. Past studies have estimated that a properly functioning predictive maintenance program can provide a savings of 8% to 12% over a program utilizing preventive maintenance alone. Depending on a facility’s reliance on reactive maintenance and material condition, it could easily recognize savings opportunities exceeding 30% to 40%.
In fact, independent surveys indicate the following industrial average savings resultant from initiation of a functional predictive maintenance program:
• Return on investment: 10 times
• Reduction in maintenance costs: 25% to 30%
• Elimination of breakdowns: 70% to 75%
• Reduction in downtime: 35% to 45%
• Increase in production: 20% to 25%.
On the down side, to initially start into the predictive maintenance world is not inexpensive. Much of the equipment requires cost in excess of $50,000. Training of in-plant personnel to effectively utilize predictive maintenance technologies will require considerable funding. Program development will require an understanding of predictive maintenance and a firm commitment to make the program work by all facility organizations and management.
Advantages
• Increased component operational life/availability.
• Allows for preemptive corrective actions.
• Decrease in equipment or process downtime.
• Decrease in costs for parts and labor.
• Better product quality.
• Improved worker and environmental safety.
• Improved worker moral.
• Energy savings.
• Estimated 8% to 12% cost savings over preventive maintenance program.
Disadvantages
• Increased investment in diagnostic equipment.
• Increased investment in staff training.
• Savings potential not readily seen by management.
From Operations & Maintenance Best Practices - A Guide to Operational Efficiency July 2004
Predictive maintenance can be defined as follows: Measurements that detect the onset of a degradation mechanism, thereby allowing causal stressors to be eliminated or controlled prior to any significant deterioration in the component physical state. Results indicate current and future functional capability.
Basically, predictive maintenance differs from preventive maintenance by basing maintenance need on the actual condition of the machine rather than on some preset schedule. You will recall that preventive maintenance is time-based. Activities such as changing lubricant are based on time, like calendar time or equipment run time. For example, most people change the oil in their vehicles every 3,000 to 5,000 miles traveled. This is effectively basing the oil change needs on equipment run time. No concern is given to the actual condition and performance capability of the oil. It is changed because it is time.
This methodology would be analogous to a preventive maintenance task. If, on the other hand, the operator of the car discounted the vehicle run time and had the oil analyzed at some periodicity to determine its actual condition and lubrication properties, he/she may be able to extend the oil change until the vehicle had traveled 10,000 miles. This is the fundamental difference between predictive maintenance and preventive maintenance, whereby predictive maintenance is used to define needed maintenance task based on quantified material/equipment condition.
The advantages of predictive maintenance are many. A well-orchestrated predictive maintenance program will all but eliminate catastrophic equipment failures. We will be able to schedule maintenance activities to minimize or delete overtime cost. We will be able to minimize inventory and order parts, as required, well ahead of time to support the downstream maintenance needs.
We can optimize the operation of the equipment, saving energy cost and increasing plant reliability. Past studies have estimated that a properly functioning predictive maintenance program can provide a savings of 8% to 12% over a program utilizing preventive maintenance alone. Depending on a facility’s reliance on reactive maintenance and material condition, it could easily recognize savings opportunities exceeding 30% to 40%.
In fact, independent surveys indicate the following industrial average savings resultant from initiation of a functional predictive maintenance program:
• Return on investment: 10 times
• Reduction in maintenance costs: 25% to 30%
• Elimination of breakdowns: 70% to 75%
• Reduction in downtime: 35% to 45%
• Increase in production: 20% to 25%.
On the down side, to initially start into the predictive maintenance world is not inexpensive. Much of the equipment requires cost in excess of $50,000. Training of in-plant personnel to effectively utilize predictive maintenance technologies will require considerable funding. Program development will require an understanding of predictive maintenance and a firm commitment to make the program work by all facility organizations and management.
Advantages
• Increased component operational life/availability.
• Allows for preemptive corrective actions.
• Decrease in equipment or process downtime.
• Decrease in costs for parts and labor.
• Better product quality.
• Improved worker and environmental safety.
• Improved worker moral.
• Energy savings.
• Estimated 8% to 12% cost savings over preventive maintenance program.
Disadvantages
• Increased investment in diagnostic equipment.
• Increased investment in staff training.
• Savings potential not readily seen by management.
From Operations & Maintenance Best Practices - A Guide to Operational Efficiency July 2004
Preventive Maintenance Programs
This is the second in a series of post describing the various types of maintenance programs that are used for equipment, vehicles, and facilities. The second program is a preventive maintenance program.
Preventive maintenance can be defined as follows: Actions performed on a time- or machine-run-based schedule that detect, preclude, or mitigate degradation of a component or system with the aim of sustaining or extending its useful life through controlling degradation to an acceptable level. The U.S. Navy pioneered preventive maintenance as a means to increase the reliability of their vessels. By simply expending the necessary resources to conduct maintenance activities intended by the equipment designer, equipment life is extended and its reliability is increased.
In addition to an increase in reliability, dollars are saved over that of a program just using reactive maintenance. Studies indicate that this savings can amount to as much as 12% to 18% on the average. Depending on the facilities current maintenance practices, present equipment reliability, and facility downtime, there is little doubt that many facilities purely reliant on reactive maintenance could save much more than 18% by instituting a proper preventive maintenance program.
While preventive maintenance is not the optimum maintenance program, it does have several advantages over that of a purely reactive program. By performing the preventive maintenance as the equipment designer envisioned, we will extend the life of the equipment closer to design. This translates into dollar savings. Preventive maintenance (lubrication, filter change, etc.) will generally run the equipment more efficiently resulting in dollar savings.
While we will not prevent equipment catastrophic failures, we will decrease the number of failures. Minimizing failures translate into maintenance and capitol cost savings.
Advantages
• Cost effective in many capital-intensive processes.
• Flexibility allows for the adjustment of maintenance periodicity.
• Increased component life cycle.
• Energy savings.
• Reduced equipment or process failure.
• Estimated 12% to 18% cost savings over reactive maintenance program.
Disadvantages
• Catastrophic failures still likely to occur.
• Labor intensive.
• Includes performance of unneeded maintenance.
• Potential for incidental damage to components in conducting unneeded maintenance.
From Operations & Maintenance Best Practices - A Guide to Operational Efficiency July 2004
Preventive maintenance can be defined as follows: Actions performed on a time- or machine-run-based schedule that detect, preclude, or mitigate degradation of a component or system with the aim of sustaining or extending its useful life through controlling degradation to an acceptable level. The U.S. Navy pioneered preventive maintenance as a means to increase the reliability of their vessels. By simply expending the necessary resources to conduct maintenance activities intended by the equipment designer, equipment life is extended and its reliability is increased.
In addition to an increase in reliability, dollars are saved over that of a program just using reactive maintenance. Studies indicate that this savings can amount to as much as 12% to 18% on the average. Depending on the facilities current maintenance practices, present equipment reliability, and facility downtime, there is little doubt that many facilities purely reliant on reactive maintenance could save much more than 18% by instituting a proper preventive maintenance program.
While preventive maintenance is not the optimum maintenance program, it does have several advantages over that of a purely reactive program. By performing the preventive maintenance as the equipment designer envisioned, we will extend the life of the equipment closer to design. This translates into dollar savings. Preventive maintenance (lubrication, filter change, etc.) will generally run the equipment more efficiently resulting in dollar savings.
While we will not prevent equipment catastrophic failures, we will decrease the number of failures. Minimizing failures translate into maintenance and capitol cost savings.
Advantages
• Cost effective in many capital-intensive processes.
• Flexibility allows for the adjustment of maintenance periodicity.
• Increased component life cycle.
• Energy savings.
• Reduced equipment or process failure.
• Estimated 12% to 18% cost savings over reactive maintenance program.
Disadvantages
• Catastrophic failures still likely to occur.
• Labor intensive.
• Includes performance of unneeded maintenance.
• Potential for incidental damage to components in conducting unneeded maintenance.
From Operations & Maintenance Best Practices - A Guide to Operational Efficiency July 2004
Reactive Maintenance
This is the first in a series of post describing the various types of maintenance programs that are used for equipment, vehicles, and facilities.
The first program is a reactive maintenance program. Reactive maintenance is basically the “run it till it breaks” maintenance mode. No actions or efforts are taken to maintain the equipment as the designer originally intended to ensure design life is reached. Studies as recent as the winter of 2000 indicate this is still the predominant mode of maintenance in the United States. The referenced study breaks down the average maintenance program as follows:
• >55% Reactive
• 31% Preventive
• 12% Predictive
• 2% Other.
Note that more than 55% of maintenance resources and activities of an average facility are still reactive. Advantages to reactive maintenance can be viewed as a double-edged sword. If we are dealing with new equipment, we can expect minimal incidents of failure. If our maintenance program is purely reactive, we will not expend manpower dollars or incur capitol cost until something breaks. Since we do not see any associated maintenance cost, we could view this period as saving money.
The downside is reality. In reality, during the time we believe we are saving maintenance and capital cost, we are really spending more dollars than we would have under a different maintenance approach. We are spending more dollars associated with capital cost because, while waiting for the equipment to break, we are shortening the life of the equipment resulting in more frequent replacement. We may incur cost upon failure of the primary device associated with its failure causing the failure of a secondary device. This is an increased cost we would not have experienced if our maintenance program was more proactive.
Our labor cost associated with repair will probably be higher than normal because the failure will most likely require more extensive repairs than would have been required if the piece of equipment had not been run to failure. Chances are the piece of equipment will fail during off hours or close to the end of the normal workday. If it is a critical piece of equipment that needs to be back on-line quickly, we will have to pay maintenance overtime cost. Since we expect to run equipment to failure, we will require a large material inventory of repair parts. This is a cost we could minimize under a different maintenance strategy.
Advantages
• Low cost.
• Less staff.
Disadvantages
• Increased cost due to unplanned downtime of equipment.
• Increased labor cost, especially if overtime is needed.
• Cost involved with repair or replacement of equipment.
• Possible secondary equipment or process damage from equipment failure.
• Inefficient use of staff resources.
From Operations & Maintenance Best Practices - A Guide to Operational Efficiency July 2004
The first program is a reactive maintenance program. Reactive maintenance is basically the “run it till it breaks” maintenance mode. No actions or efforts are taken to maintain the equipment as the designer originally intended to ensure design life is reached. Studies as recent as the winter of 2000 indicate this is still the predominant mode of maintenance in the United States. The referenced study breaks down the average maintenance program as follows:
• >55% Reactive
• 31% Preventive
• 12% Predictive
• 2% Other.
Note that more than 55% of maintenance resources and activities of an average facility are still reactive. Advantages to reactive maintenance can be viewed as a double-edged sword. If we are dealing with new equipment, we can expect minimal incidents of failure. If our maintenance program is purely reactive, we will not expend manpower dollars or incur capitol cost until something breaks. Since we do not see any associated maintenance cost, we could view this period as saving money.
The downside is reality. In reality, during the time we believe we are saving maintenance and capital cost, we are really spending more dollars than we would have under a different maintenance approach. We are spending more dollars associated with capital cost because, while waiting for the equipment to break, we are shortening the life of the equipment resulting in more frequent replacement. We may incur cost upon failure of the primary device associated with its failure causing the failure of a secondary device. This is an increased cost we would not have experienced if our maintenance program was more proactive.
Our labor cost associated with repair will probably be higher than normal because the failure will most likely require more extensive repairs than would have been required if the piece of equipment had not been run to failure. Chances are the piece of equipment will fail during off hours or close to the end of the normal workday. If it is a critical piece of equipment that needs to be back on-line quickly, we will have to pay maintenance overtime cost. Since we expect to run equipment to failure, we will require a large material inventory of repair parts. This is a cost we could minimize under a different maintenance strategy.
Advantages
• Low cost.
• Less staff.
Disadvantages
• Increased cost due to unplanned downtime of equipment.
• Increased labor cost, especially if overtime is needed.
• Cost involved with repair or replacement of equipment.
• Possible secondary equipment or process damage from equipment failure.
• Inefficient use of staff resources.
From Operations & Maintenance Best Practices - A Guide to Operational Efficiency July 2004
Federal Ruling on High Visibility Vests
November 24, 2008 By Cristi Laquer
FireRescue1 Staff
A much-anticipated and wide-reaching change aimed at first responder safety takes effect Monday. The Federal Highway Administration's Worker Visibility Rule (23CFR 634) now requires anyone — including firefighters, emergency medical workers and police — working on federal highways to wear vests that meet ANSI standards for high-visibility. But it also includes a change that exempts firefighters who are near flame, heat or hazardous materials.
Firefighters working on roadways outside the 'hot zone' are required to wear high-visibility vests. An exception to the rule The rule has stirred controversy in the fire service, primarily because most high-visibility vests are not flame resistant to NFPA standards. The interim rule exempting the fire service, announced by the FHWA on Friday, is in response to concerns voiced by the fire service. "The FHWA had received numerous comments from firefighters expressing safety concerns about the vests," according to Hari Kalla, team leader in the FHWA Office of Transportation Operations, which manages the updating and publishing of traffic rules. The FHWA has worked with departments and national fire service organizations to publicize the rule, which was published in 2006, and give those affected a chance to comment. "Based on the number of calls we have gotten, we think it's very well publicized," said Kalla, adding, "We're hoping to be able to continue to help people if they have questions or concerns."
Departments that buck the new rule may see financial repercussions. The FHWA has the authority to withhold funding from states that are found to be non-compliant with FHWA rules. Should a collision involving a firefighter occur, compliance also limits the risk of legal liability for departments. Kalla is quick to stress that the objective of the rule is not to penalize departments. "Most importantly, it's for worker safety," said Kalla.
Apparel Available
Apparel manufacturers have been quick to respond to the new rule, with Lion Apparel last weekend introducing the first flame resistant vest that meets the visibility standards set out by the FHWA. "If you do get into a hot situation, it's not going to melt like a lot of the vests," said Nick Curtis, vice president of global product development at Lion. He also said that many orders for the new vests had been cancelled following the FHWA's announcement of the exception for firefighters. The vest, which can be worn over turnout gear, is designed for firefighters with pockets and a break-away system for easy doffing and rehab. The company hopes it will provide a versatile option for firefighters working on roadways, despite the changed rule, according to Curtis. "If there's an extended incident where visibility is required but turnouts aren't because there's not a known assessed risk of fire, then the vest could be worn without turnout," Curtis said. "The reason to have it be flame resistant is that anything could happen."
From PPE101.com
FireRescue1 Staff
A much-anticipated and wide-reaching change aimed at first responder safety takes effect Monday. The Federal Highway Administration's Worker Visibility Rule (23CFR 634) now requires anyone — including firefighters, emergency medical workers and police — working on federal highways to wear vests that meet ANSI standards for high-visibility. But it also includes a change that exempts firefighters who are near flame, heat or hazardous materials.
Firefighters working on roadways outside the 'hot zone' are required to wear high-visibility vests. An exception to the rule The rule has stirred controversy in the fire service, primarily because most high-visibility vests are not flame resistant to NFPA standards. The interim rule exempting the fire service, announced by the FHWA on Friday, is in response to concerns voiced by the fire service. "The FHWA had received numerous comments from firefighters expressing safety concerns about the vests," according to Hari Kalla, team leader in the FHWA Office of Transportation Operations, which manages the updating and publishing of traffic rules. The FHWA has worked with departments and national fire service organizations to publicize the rule, which was published in 2006, and give those affected a chance to comment. "Based on the number of calls we have gotten, we think it's very well publicized," said Kalla, adding, "We're hoping to be able to continue to help people if they have questions or concerns."
Departments that buck the new rule may see financial repercussions. The FHWA has the authority to withhold funding from states that are found to be non-compliant with FHWA rules. Should a collision involving a firefighter occur, compliance also limits the risk of legal liability for departments. Kalla is quick to stress that the objective of the rule is not to penalize departments. "Most importantly, it's for worker safety," said Kalla.
Apparel Available
Apparel manufacturers have been quick to respond to the new rule, with Lion Apparel last weekend introducing the first flame resistant vest that meets the visibility standards set out by the FHWA. "If you do get into a hot situation, it's not going to melt like a lot of the vests," said Nick Curtis, vice president of global product development at Lion. He also said that many orders for the new vests had been cancelled following the FHWA's announcement of the exception for firefighters. The vest, which can be worn over turnout gear, is designed for firefighters with pockets and a break-away system for easy doffing and rehab. The company hopes it will provide a versatile option for firefighters working on roadways, despite the changed rule, according to Curtis. "If there's an extended incident where visibility is required but turnouts aren't because there's not a known assessed risk of fire, then the vest could be worn without turnout," Curtis said. "The reason to have it be flame resistant is that anything could happen."
From PPE101.com
Always Check your SCBA
One of the most important, if not most important, pieces of equipment used frequently by firefighters is the SCBA. There are some non-essential pieces of fire equipment; SCBA's are not among them.
You should always regularly check your own SCBA, so you can be safe in the knowledge that it’s going to work properly when you need it. Make sure you check the whole SCBA, especially the cylinder to ensure that it is full to maximize your operating time. A cylinder not full to the max with air means less operational time.
Make sure that all the straps, including the straps on your face piece, are correctly adjusted to suit your needs. And, open the cylinder valve fully whenever turning the mask on. Not having the cylinder fully opened can result in a sudden loss of air when operating.
From PPE101.com
You should always regularly check your own SCBA, so you can be safe in the knowledge that it’s going to work properly when you need it. Make sure you check the whole SCBA, especially the cylinder to ensure that it is full to maximize your operating time. A cylinder not full to the max with air means less operational time.
Make sure that all the straps, including the straps on your face piece, are correctly adjusted to suit your needs. And, open the cylinder valve fully whenever turning the mask on. Not having the cylinder fully opened can result in a sudden loss of air when operating.
From PPE101.com
Gear Down, Cool Down
Often, when firefighters are in rehab, the one repeated mistake is that they are still wearing their turn-out gear. Whether it is your bunker pants or an open turn-out coat or your lid, it is all preventing you from cooling down efficiently and quickly. Once you have entered the rehab area (hopefully you have one designated) one of the first orders of business should be removing full turn-outs and helmets. If your rehab area is outside consider ambient temperatures when doing this. Otherwise the sooner these items are removed the sooner you can start cooling the core areas that hold in so much heat.
From PPE101.com
From PPE101.com
Defibtech DBP-2800 Battery Packs used in Lifeline AED and ReviveR AED: Recall
A number of people have sent us this recall. We are checking our supply but do not believe that we use these battery packs and do not have Lifeline or ReviveR AED's in our system. Thanks for forwarding the information to Ground Support.
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm214916.htm
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm214916.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
