Rank: New forum user 
|
Help: I've got a client who's proposing to work a small diesel engined excavator inside a factory unit, the work will be carried out during the xmas shut down so there will only be the construction work force present. I have seen a system in the past where the exhaust has flexible trunking installed to take the CO fumes out side. Can anybody assist with where such a system can be obtained. From research I have carried out so far I think such equipment could damage or impair the working of the machine.
I'm also looking into personal gas detection and the last resort RPE but it would be favourable to remove the fumes at source if at all possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Hi
I would suggest you have a read of HSG187 on Diesel Fumes in the Workplace before you make your decisions. There is good information and a good assessment tool.
Here is a link. http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/hsg187.pdf
Ian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
If they need to use a diesel machine then they can have an exhaust scrubber fitted to it. This consists of a hose that attaches to the exhaust and a filter attached to that. The plant hire company they are using should be able to supply this but there will no doubt be a cost involved. I have done this many times when customers were using diesel mewps inside.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
From experience of working in factories with diesel powered lift trucks, I can point-out that there are going to be other problems. Everything inside, assuming you have inadequate ventilation, is going to be covered in a fine film of unburnt fuel and black soot. Any clothing/fabrics/food is going to smell of diesel exhaust.
Construction workers don't do rpe.....they tend to avoid h&s as much as possible!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
JohnMurray wrote:
Construction workers don't do rpe.....they tend to avoid h&s as much as possible!
That's a bit of a scathing generalisation don't you think?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
¨scathing generalisation¨
No. Given a half chance they´ll not bother with any.
As I sat at a traffic light, watching a dump-truck driving slowly, and erratically, down the road, with the driver trying to both drive and light a cigarette, while not wearing the provided seat belt, I considered the possibility that the government are right and it is all a waste of time....this at the same site that featured a guy lugging a steel beam off the forks of a telescopic forklift some 15 metres high, without wearing any sort of fall restraint, on the front page of the local free rag...
No, it is not a generalisation. It´s a truism.
Unless you enforce it, either by education or penalty, even paint shop personnel will not wear RPE!
What hope with macho super-beings like construction workers?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I have to disagree John, i'm guessing you don't work in the construction industry?
You are !00% correct but 15 years out of date. Modern, well run sites, in my experience, are much better than those not in the industry think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I wasn't driving that route 15 years ago because it wasn't there then. I was driving it a few days ago. Dream-on about things improving, if the guys are not trained and watched, they'll take the mick every time. Contrast my post above by those working on an iconic hangar refurb some few miles away, full ppe...every day....working on a roof/doors/ at heights on over 30 metres.
I've no doubt that things have improved in 15 years....ladders have all but gone....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I don't get your point in the previous post.
All it says is that some sites are well run with operatives not "taking the mick" while others are the polar opposite. hence my scathing generalisation comment.
The same can be said for any walk of life, there those that will and those that won't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Gittins
Fresh off the presses.....
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1306880/
Study of data from US and UK estimating that 4.8% of deaths from lung cancer attributable to occupational exposure to diesel exhaust and a further 1.3% due to environmental exposure.
Occupational exposure would then be responsible for nearly 1700 deaths in the UK per year, compared to HSE estimate of only 605 (1.84%).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
peter gotch wrote:Gittins
Fresh off the presses.....
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1306880/
Study of data from US and UK estimating that 4.8% of deaths from lung cancer attributable to occupational exposure to diesel exhaust and a further 1.3% due to environmental exposure.
Occupational exposure would then be responsible for nearly 1700 deaths in the UK per year, compared to HSE estimate of only 605 (1.84%).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Yes. Wrong click. No edit function?
Anyway, not responsible for 1700 deaths.
Read the paper: http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov...s/121/11/ehp.1306880.pdf
Modelled stats.
¨We estimated that approximately 1.3% and 4.8% of annual lung cancer deaths at age 70 in the US and the UK are due to past occupational and environmental DEE exposures, respectively. These estimates are ##far## from precise, and depend on broad assumptions about proportions exposed to different levels of DEE, and the duration of occupational exposures¨
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
John is right, the research does not support Peter's statement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
So - did the operatives follow any rules imposed?
Was there a management system to prove it?
Frank Hallett
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.