Dust Fires or Explosions can be devastating to an Industrial Facility

Combustible dust fires and explosions are not a new hazard. The first written record of an explosion caused by dust was in 1765, when a bakery in Italy exploded after accumulated flour dust ignited and destroyed the entire building. Since then the hazard has been present in most industries where dust is created as a byproduct. By 1987, after a series of catastrophic incidents in the grain industry, OSHA and the NFPA took action to create standards to protect employees from the risk of dust explosions and fires. These laws are specific to the grain industry while other industries, without a specific standard to govern the hazard of combustible dust, have been required to adhere to the Housekeeping standards for protection of employees and assets. More recent events have brought the hazard of combustible dust in industrial facilities to the forefront. OSHA has already begun inspections based on the NEP and in 2006 the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) released a study that showed over 280 dust fires and explosions occurred in U.S. facilities over the past 25 years, resulting in 119 fatalities and 700 serious injuries. The straw that broke the camel’s back was the Imperial Sugar plant explosion that killed 13 people and injured numerous others in February 2008.

Dust is defined as fine, dry particles of matter. Combustible dust is defined in NFPA 654 as “Any finely divided solid material that is 420 microns or smaller in diameter (material passing a U.S. No. 40 Standard Sieve) and presents a fire or explosion hazard when dispersed and ignited in air.” For more information on this issue, please give us a call at 502-241-4100 or 800-493-1117.

Certain types of dust, such as aluminum, sugar, paper, flour and many more, can be extremely explosive under certain conditions. In 2008, under intense pressure from Congress, OSHA re-issued a National Emphasis Program in which OSHA applies the Housekeeping standard, 29 CFR 1910.22, for enforcement of Comdust safety in the workplace. Currently, Congress has proposed a Bill, HR 849, which would require OSHA to establish a standard specifically addressing the hazards of combustible dust.

Is your facility safe? Will your facility pass OSHA inspection?

Here is a pertinent link:

CBS 60 minutes report http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4162555n

From article written by Paul Nelson, Rutledge Environmental

No tags

Previously published in the National Facilities Journal of the NSPMA

Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) has been ranked by the U.S. Environmental Protection agency (EPA) as one of the five most important environmental issues in America. The National Energy Management Institute (NEMI) has stated up 80 percent of all commercial buildings do not consistently achieve compliance with ASHRAE standards for acceptable indoor air. And, law suits are proliferating at an unprecedented pace by the occupants of buildings whose health has been affected by poor Indoor Air Quality.

Yet most property owners and property managers tend to deal with Indoor Air Quality issues on a “knee jerk” basis….after the complaint, or even worse. threatened litigation. When asked Why??, the response tends to be…”We can’t afford it”…”We’ll try to fit it into next year’s budget.”…or something similar.

One response to these reactions tend to be that of a contrarian’s view point. Projects designed to improve Indoor Air Quality in buildings should be considered investments with a projected return on investments, not expenditures. We often prepare documentation calculating the anticipated improvement of productivity and the associated dollar gains that can be reasonably associated with such projects; based on studies performed by NEMI, that stated — making well-designed and time-tested improvements to buildings or mechanical systems, IAQ caused productivity losses could be eliminated.

With schools however, these projections become even more profound when you introduce the element of State support to a school district based on student attendance. With schools, we don’t estimate productivity losses or gains, we calculate increased State revenues, based on student attendance in buildings with improved Indoor Air Quality.

Of all of the causes of poor Indoor Air Quality in buildings the EPA has attributed over 50% to the mechanical systems that serve a building. Therefore, I will use improvement to the operation of the heating and air conditioning system in a school to illustrate the investment return referenced above.

The spread sheet model illustrated above shows what the pay back, or return on investment, will be when ABC School invests $15,000 to have their air conveyance system cleaned and sanitized, including the air handler units and reheat coils. We are calculating our percentage of improved student attendance based again on studies conducted by NEMI in their “Productivity and Indoor Environmental Quality Study,” in which it is stated that even in “generally healthy” buildings, a 1.5 productivity (absenteeism) gain is positive, and in “sick” buildings a 6 percent gain is achievable. NEMI considers the 1.5 percent figure to be conservative, saying gains of 5 or 10 percent are possible. In addition, the U.S. Department of Energy in the publication titled Causes of Indoor Air Quality Problems in Schools, states, “schools can save a minimum of $236 per student by improving IAQ”. So when we use the extremely low figure of 0.5% of the reduced absenteeism due to improved Indoor Air Quality in our Model, we are doing so to emphasize that even the slightest improvement in IAQ means money in the bank.

In our model, the expenditure of the moneys to improve the conditions and cleanliness of ABC School’s air conveyance system results in a reduction of 630 days of absenteeism which translates into an increased state funding of $10,080. Carrying the scenario further, the “return on investment” is 67.2% with a “pay back” in 1.49 years, or approximately 18 months.

Of course cleaning of a building’s air conveyance systems in by no means the only solution when IAQ complaints abound. Mechanical modification or replacements…improved filtration maintenace…. systems balancing, etc., may be necessary to solve problems. But, a professional cleaning and sanitizing of the mechanical systems is recommended as the first step in order to best ascertain what additional steps if any, should be employed. Calculation of static drops, CFM distributions and even assessments of airborne microbial contamination is enhanced with cleaned systems.

People have tended to not spend money on mechanical systems unless they are forced to because of obsolescence, failure, or in the case of schools, student or staff complaints. However, it is not only cheaper to solve problems before they result in such complaints, but as we have illustrated, it pays dividends.

So when asked how much it costs your school to maintain good Indoor Air Quality, tell them it doesn’t cost, it pays!

No tags

Indoor Environmental Services for
Operating Rooms, ISO Rooms and Clean Utility Rooms

In order to maintain required pressure differentials and required air exchange you need to have a Cleaning Maintenance Program for:

• Exhaust Duct System
• Return Air System
• AHU Primary Coils
• Terminal Boxes (VAV, CAV, Reheats)

Hire a company like Rutledge Environmental with the experience and knowledge to -

• Document air flow measurements via supply air and return/exhaust air grills before and after cleaning
• Document, via digital photos, the “before/after” condition of the components cleaned; make sure to get a Post Project Report.
• Complete work in sufficient time for terminal clean by hospital staff, before next day cases
• Perform work using KSHE Certified Healthcare Technicians

Call me with questions about how you can improve your indoor air quality - 800-493-1117 or email me.

No tags