Health and safety in the prep lab: a step-by-step guide to installing an efficient and cost effective dust collecting and ventilation system Heather C. Finlayson and Steven D. Sroka, Utah Field House of Natural History State Park Museum, Vernal, UT Thomas Nelsen, Buffalo, NY.
35
Embed
Health and safety in the prep lab: a step-by-step guide to installing an efficient and cost effective dust collecting and ventilation system Heather C.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Health and safety in the prep lab: a step-by-step guide to installing an efficient and cost effective dust
collecting and ventilation system
Heather C. Finlayson and Steven D. Sroka, Utah Field House of Natural History State Park Museum, Vernal, UT
Thomas Nelsen, Buffalo, NY.
Alternate title:
Our dust collector doesn’t suck!!!
Main Topics
• Background• Evaluation• Comparisons and recommendations• Design• Materials and cost• Installation• Testing the system• Discussion• Conclusions
Background
• Why do we need dust control?
Health hazards - Occupational respiratory diseases
- branches should enter main duct at low angles = decrease drag
- circular ducts instead of rectangular = uniform velocity and distribution
Design
• Things to consider
- budget
- size of room- appropriate size/type of unit to create cfm
needed (OSHA and NIOSH recommendations)- type, length, diameter of ductwork - city ordinances (noise, dust evac. to outside) - amount, frequency of heavy prep work - # of work stations
• UFH specific considerations and needs
- low budget
- more powerful, affordable unit with easy access
- don’t own the building, minimize renovations
- temp. occupancy, minimize the cost
- have small lab space
- chose closed system (no evac.) to avoid nuisance, health hazards to public
- put unit in separate room for less noise
- drew up preferred design
• We called a mechanical engineer!
- provided a drawing and system specs
- he did the calculations to make sure our specs met industry standards for safe operation
- he made some spec adjustments and provided us with a final design
Engineering
Final Design
Materials and Cost
Item Company AmountEngineering WHW Engineering $440.00Dust Collector Grainger $3,639.60Electrical (3 phase) BHI $2,055.84Duct work T.S. Heating $2,900.00Hoses (50 ft.) Grainger $312.76Clamps Turner Lumber $23.51Barrels (4) Western Petroleum $192.00Lift rental Basin Rental $30.00Blast gates (4) Industrial Accessories $78.00Hangers for hoses Ace Hardware $55.00
Controls: • thermoanemometer distance = 4 inches• all 4 blast gates were open• used the same short hose and long hose for all tests• average airflow was taken from 10 readings
Comparing length of and distance from the hose with average airflow (cfm)
2 “ 4” 6”
Short hose 1189 cfm 509 cfm 239 cfm
Long hose 1078 cfm 423 cfm 226 cfm
Controls: • hoses were flexed for all tests• used the same short hose and long hose for all tests • all 4 blast gates were open• average airflow was taken from 10 readings
Average airflow
All 4 gates open 509 cfm 1 short hose gate closed 582 cfm 2 short hose gates closed 680 cfm 2 long hose gates closed 667 cfm 1 short, 1 long hose gate closed 680 cfm 1 short, 2 long hose gates closed 753 cfm 1 long, 2 short hose gates closed 766 cfm All 4 gates closed 860 cfm
Controls: • thermoanemometer distance = 4 inches• used the same short hose at the station with no blast gates for tests• all 6 hoses in system were flexed• average airflow was taken from 10 readings
Comparing airflow (cfm) with the number of blast gates open
Discussion
• Interpretation of airflow test results
1. > hose length < airflow2. > hose flex < airflow3. > distance < airflow4. > # blast gates open < airflow5. Little change in airflow when any combo of two gates are closed6. Little change in airflow when any combo of three
gates are closed7. Optimal working distance from hose 4”to 5”
Old Unit1. designed for saw dust
2. 1.5 hp motor, 1200 cfm max.
3. two 2.5 “ diam. inflexible hoses
4. PVC pipes at 90 degree bends
5. avg. air flow 90 cfm
6. Inefficient!
7. did not meet OSHA and NIOSH recommendations
New Unit1. designed for rock particles
2. 10 hp motor, 3200 cfm max.
3. six 4 “ diameter flexible hoses
4. metal ductwork with 45 degree bends
5. avg. airflow exceeds minimum recommendation of 400 cfm
6. Efficient!
7. meets OSHA and NIOSH recommendations
• Final Comparisons
Important contacts and websites National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/silica
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
• new system meets/exceeds OSHA/NIOSH recommendations for dust control
• project can be used as design template for smaller systems specifically for fossil prep.
Don’t take chances! Test for health and safety hazards and don’t wait to take action. This is your life!
Alternate Conclusion: Our new dust collector really sucks!!!
Source: NOAA photo library, NOAA central library; OAR/ERL/National Severe Storms Laboratory (NSSL).
We would like to thank the following for their help and support: BHI electrical, BLM of Utah, Craig Brown, Craig Gerber, Dale Gray, Scott Madsen, Utah State Parks and Recreation, Steve Wadsworth at WHW Engineering.