Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Jason911
Within half our buildings in UK we have LEV's over forklift battery chargers. The Company has now globally decided that these are not necessary as the charging area is sufficiently ventilated, so LEV's are no longer installed in new buildings.
The original ones remain running however and inspected in line with COSHH regs but are breaking down and not being repaired and having defects listed when inspected. These defects are going unrepaired as the according to the dept responsible the equipment is redundant anyway but they have not backed this up with any paperwork.
My concern is that at some stage the hazard has been indentified and if no longer exists we must have concrete proof of this. Also in the event of an accident we would be asked to explain why we had the things switched on if they are not required.
I have advised the company to have them ripped out if they can prove the hazard does not actually exist, but this will be expensive.
My question is how would we stand if the evidence of them not being required is presented to me and we therefore take the decision to simply keep them there but switched off and therefore remove the need for inspection and repair?
Thanks. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Stupendous Man
Would isolation be a less costly option than full removal?
I agree that if the LEV is no longer required and is falling into a state of disrepair, then it should rendered inoperative (safely of course!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By phil_s
In my limited experience, I've never seen LEV over a forklift battery charging area. I've worked 20+ years in manufacturing factories which operate flts and the areas have always been deemed to be adequately ventilated.
I suppose an LEV is only classed as an LEV when being used as one (if that makes sense). So if it isn't been used as one because its not needed then it can just be left in place na dnot tested.
I do agree that it is good practice to electrically isolate equipment not being used.
Do you need evidence that there is no longer a hazard? Personally I would only do that if you have evidence that there was a hazard that required LEV originally - air monitoring results, for example.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By gham
LEV?
I thought the risk was from flammable explosive gas, are the LEV's Ex marked, what about the dump location for the extracted gas is forced ventilation not the preferred method.
Any was if the assessment says you don't need them then don't worry nothing will go wrong... will it
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ian G Hutchings
Jason
My understanding is also that the hazard is from gas (hydrogen) amd metal fume release during charging. This will obviously depend on type and age of batteries being charged and the condition of the equipment.
You may need to examine the relevant MSDS' and talk to the suppliers. I am not familiar with how you test the atmosphere during charging, but would imagine that there is a technique out there to do this. You will also need to consider the specific areas in each location and variants on ventilation and charging methods/equipment.
All the best
Ian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By PRH
Hi Jason,
you say company has "globally decided" which suggests something in writing-modified standard etc?
I would check with the initiator of this changed standard as to whether it can be applied to EXISTING installations without further local assessment. I do not wish to enter the technical debate about whether they are required or not, someone in your company has already done that and made a decision, best to check with them on the extent and reasons.
Once confirmed that the new standard can/should be applied to existing installations then the best way, as you say, would be to remove the kit to avoid any future misunderstandings and prevent any further waste of resources maintaining redundant kit. But as already said that can be costly. A more cost effective solution might be to isolate or otherwise make inoperative to a position that does not create any new hazards.
If leaving in place, I would further post warning notices (of suitably durable materials etc) outlining the reason for de-commissioning, "not to be used" warning and with a contact(postholder or dept not a name) for further information.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
While acknowledging the need for "adequate" LEV at a battery charging station, I have never encountered one in which a build-up of hydrogen was likely to be significant. Most seem to be placed on the edge of a work area or a stores where free flow of air is normal. I very rarely encounter "closed" charging rooms but these have been equipped with LEV.
This said I have been told of an incident where the battery exploded and blew through the roof. It was in an enormous warehouse in Amsterdam and the charging station was totally unenclosed. Middle of a 10m high building.
Without technical evidence I would suggest that this was an internal problem with the battery and nothing to do with LEV.
If you are not talking about "confined spaces" (your judgement) then rip 'em out or just pull the plugs.
Um, for those who might question this, I know that hydrogen is extremely explosive with a Lower Explosive Limit (LEL) of 1% and an Upper Explosive Limit (UEL) of 90% (?)
Now, who can tell me how many gMols of H are generated during the charging of a typical FLT battery. (you have to relate this to the volume of the charging area and the number of air changes per hour)
Will it go BANG ?
I have much more difficulty persuading people not to stack batteries or chargers on wooden pallets. Sulphuric acid, H2SO4, spilt on wood can cause, because of the exothermic reaction with moisture, spontaneous combustion. (rem: think of what that can do to an eyeball)
Merv
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ken Taylor
I have seen batteries being charged in some rather small and relatively confined areas (with LEV) - but never when located on an FLT.
Whoever is the competent person responsible for the COSHH and risk assesments should do them and, if LEV is not necesary, record this and arrange for the existing LEV to be removed or made inoperative (eg locked off and indicated by signage).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Adrian Watson
Jason,
If you do not intend to use the LEV carry out air test and remove it. Once it has been provided it must be maintained in an efficient state and in good repair. If it is not efficiently maintained and in good repair, even if not used, you commit an offence under Reg 9(1) of COSHH.
Regards Adrian Watson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Adrian Watson
Jason,
If you do not intend to use the LEV carry out an air test to provide evidence that it is not needed and remove it. Once provided it must be maintained in an efficient state and in good repair, even if not used, otherwise you commit an offence under Reg 9(1) of COSHH.
Regards Adrian Watson
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.