Diesel Ambulance Shuts Down Due to EPA Regs While Victim Dies

[ericher69]

[QUOTE=". I know that fire truck engines will not shut down even if all power is removed they cant run the risk of stopping the pumps with fire fighters at the end of the line relying on a water supply. More to this story for sure.[/QUOTE]

Not so!

Just watched the video last week from Cummins for our new DPF equipped pumper and the engine will not power down if the regen is not done or bypassed...

But it WILL power down significantly if the DF runs dry!

Although it won't stop (I hope) going from 600hp/1800ft/lbs of torque to 1/4 of that would greatly affect drivability and fire pump performance.

In the DC issue I believe it was operator error; but only an educated guess as I wasn't there.

See it all the time operators that cannot rotate tires on their own vehicle never mind understand or comprehend somewhat difficult and numerous engine lights!

 

[Midniteoyl]

The problem that I see with the EPA waiving emissions rules for Fire Engines.and Ambulances is. I don't believe any of the engine builders have an emissions complaint and a non emissions complaint engine.The same engine you get in a truck is the same engine that's in a Rescue Truck/Ambulance..So it's really a mute point isn't it ? My son's a Paramedic here, and the Ford Dealer has had the cab off the Ford Rescue/ Ambulance so many times they say the mechainc at the Ford dealer can remove it with his eyes closed

What I would think is it would simply be a program change. It would be really simple to have the ECU give the warnings but NOT disable the engine until the next start. That way something like what happened in the story wouldn't happen, but the ambulance company would still need to follow through with the maintenance. Simple common sense.

 

[aczlan]

What I would think is it would simply be a program change. It would be really simple to have the ECU give the warnings but NOT disable the engine until the next start. That way something like what happened in the story wouldn't happen, but the ambulance company would still need to follow through with the maintenance. Simple common sense.

From what was posted earlier, it appears that there is a way to set the "shutdown power level" to be different than the stock 3-5% and set it to 90% or something. I wouldn't do any kind of a shutdown on the "next start" because there are reasons why they might need to shutdown and restart the engine (ie: many hospitals prohibit idling and having an ambulance stuck at the hospital when there is another call would be a "Bad Thing" (TM))

Aaron Z

 

[Midniteoyl]

From what was posted earlier, it appears that there is a way to set the "shutdown power level" to be different than the stock 3-5% and set it to 90% or something. I wouldn't do any kind of a shutdown on the "next start" because there are reasons why they might need to shutdown and restart the engine (ie: many hospitals prohibit idling and having an ambulance stuck at the hospital when there is another call would be a "Bad Thing" (TM))

Aaron Z

True..

I do believe that the previous poster was modifying the programming however, and that would be against the EPA. Besides, having the power reduced to 90% would hardly be a deterrent against abuse and incentive to do the maintenance. Having an ambulance at 10%-20% power stuck at a hospital would

 

[jagyzf]

The EPA waiver isn't a waiver for no emissions equipment, or to remove equipment. The trucks still have to have the stuff on the engine, and the engine still have to meet the standard. My understanding of the waiver is that they can apply for a waiver and add more equipment to the emissions controls and bypass some of it to delay regen, or the need for DEF fluid. That the bypass can only be used to delay power loss, and at some point it needs to go back to using the emissions system.

Maybe it already came up. I wonder how old the vehicle in question was because the DEF fluid is only a couple of years old, before that it was EGR only and regens had to happen more often.

I would also think that to modify the programming would only last so long. If the soot filter is plugged without a bypass I would think the engine wouldn't run.

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/highway-diesel/regs/420f12025.pdf

What Revisions is EPA Proposing?
EPA is proposing revisions that would allow manufacturers to request and EPA to approve
modifications to emissions control systems on new and in-use emergency vehicles so they can be
operated as intended, without reduced performance during emergency situations. For new engine
or vehicle certifications, these improved controls or settings would generally be approved as
auxiliary emission control devices (AECD痴). For in-use engines and vehicles, EPA is proposing
to allow engine and vehicle manufacturers to submit requests for EPA approval of Emergency
Vehicle Field Modifications.

 

[jagyzf]

Here is another source on the EPA rules.

Emergency Vehicles and the EPA - Fire Apparatus

Emissions Control Changes
The biggest misconception with both the DFR and NPRM is that emergency vehicles will now be exempt from having to meet current emissions standards. This may be a result of a regulatory announcement that carried a misleading title. Contrary to the general perception, 2007 and 2010 emissions components such as diesel particulate filters (DPFs) and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) components cannot be removed. Although the EPA is committed to allowing engine manufacturers some flexibility, emergency vehicles are still required to meet the emissions standards in place at the time the engine was produced.

What the new rules do allow for is for engine manufacturers to apply for the use of auxiliary emissions control devices (AECDs) that could be applied to an engine in an emergency vehicle. In most cases, and AECD is a modification to the engine control computer program that may allow the engine to operate outside the normal emission limits under very specific circumstances. The caveat is that the AECDs will only be allowed when the vehicle is responding to an emergency situation. The EPA wants to minimize any situations where the emissions control system on an emergency vehicle would adversely affect the performance of its mission.

 

[Dr_Zinj]

Since this was a "mandate from the Environmental Protection Agency" and the patient being transported died, I'd call this a case of murder (the regulation was premeditated) and malicious criminal negligence on the part of the EPA officials. Due to the severity of their crime, this should mandate the death penalty for those officials. (Regardless of the guilt or innocence of the victim being transported.)

 

[Midniteoyl]

Since this was a "mandate from the Environmental Protection Agency" and the patient being transported died, I'd call this a case of murder (the regulation was premeditated) and malicious criminal negligence on the part of the EPA officials. Due to the severity of their crime, this should mandate the death penalty for those officials. (Regardless of the guilt or innocence of the victim being transported.)

Um... ok.

So the EMTs, ambulance company and Ford are not culpable at all? Only the 'bad evil EPA'?

 

[kenmac]

Its the same thing as the various tuners do with a DPF delete. Just pull the components and flash a different program into the ECU/BCM.

Aaron Z

A delete kit/ turner would probably work on some of the older stuff. Not so sure about some of the newer stuff.I read somewhere(don't know if it's true) that the newer diesels had a harder program code to crack to keep people from deleting the emissions garb.. Maybe the code would be given out for emergency vechiles . I'm in favor of the epa waiving all this crap for diesels

 

[Midniteoyl]

Eagle Products got slapped with a $500,000 fine and must offer to buy back and restore all trucks using its delete kit... Edge Products LLC Settlement | Enforcement | US EPA