Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Rhian Newton  
#1 Posted : 25 July 2017 08:58:11(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Rhian Newton

I have prevented equipment from being bought without the correct Local Exhaust Ventilation of something like a Purex Heppa Filter unit with a large box filter.

Enginneer wanted to buy a Heppa Filter Vacuum Cleaner as it said it delivered the same air quality on exit.

My contention was that a vacuum cleaner will either block, bind or reduce the volume of air face velocity as the bag fills and ages. A large filter block would be less likely to do this. I am accused of gold plating safety!

We do not have access to an LEV system like a Donaldson Torrit.

Am I right in my assumptions? Is there supporting evidence out there?

Hsquared14  
#2 Posted : 25 July 2017 11:17:41(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Hsquared14

I would go back to the COSHH regulations - to the guidance on design and selction of engineering controls.  There are lots of factors to consider not least the toxicity of the material you are dealing with and to my knowledge a vacuum cleaner is not the same thing at all as LEV.  LEV needs proper design and consideration and you are not gold plating anything by reminding people that due process and due diligence is needed not just going for the cheapest option.

pl53  
#3 Posted : 26 July 2017 06:40:18(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
pl53

What is the process you are trying to control? Unless you provide details of the contaminant, particle size, process conditions etc. no-one can answer your questions.

A Kurdziel  
#4 Posted : 26 July 2017 11:44:54(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

As other have written: Under COSHH the requirement is to reduce the level of exposure by workers to hazardous substances to as low as reasonably practical. Ideally this should be done by enclosing the process and taking the harmful substance away from the workers ie LEV.

Using vacuum cleaner may reduce the levels of hazardous in the atmosphere to below the WEL but it will not stop exposure of the workers to the hazardous substances in the first place (a bit like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted).

chris.packham  
#5 Posted : 26 July 2017 13:35:17(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris.packham

Actually regulation 7(1) of COSHH states: Every employer shall ensure that the exposure of his employees to substances hazardous to health is either prevented or, where this is not reasonably practicable, adequately controlled. Note that the phrase 'reasonably practicable' only applies to prevention; where prevention is not practicable exposure must be adequately controlled. Unfortunately, there are aspects of exposure where 'adequately controlled' is not well defined, skin exposure being the most significant.

With regard to LEV, design of the system is best left to someone who understands how LEV works. I come across many systems where, although they are working to the defined capacity, i.e. moving the quantity of air specified, they are failing to capture the contamination to the extent needed. A simple demonstration with a smoke tube will often provide graphic evidence of this. It is usually because no-one has correctly designed and installed the capture system. I doubt whether a vacuum cleaner would comply with this need.  Often the properly designed capture system would substantially reduce the amount of air movement needed and hence safe energy costs.

In addition one has to ask the questions: "What are we removing, how will we contain it and how will we dispose of it?" I doubt very much whether the person suggesting the vacuum cleaner is aware of how complex these can be and how important they are. 

LEV is best left to the expert.

Chris

chris42  
#6 Posted : 27 July 2017 08:33:48(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

Not only as other have noted, but is the vacuum cleaner designed to be operated for the length of time required. My home vacuum gets hot after a while! Perhaps the machine spec has info on max duty time.

Just a thought.

douglas.dick  
#7 Posted : 27 July 2017 13:45:46(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
douglas.dick

Without knowing what you are dealing with or trying to prevent, its difficult to suggest how to sort it. There are various LEV systems that are mobile and designed to be moved between jobs. I have attached a link for one type, although these are mainly for welding fumes / wood dust. I should point out that other manufacturers are available!

http://www.nederman.com/en-gb/products/family/?catalog=24&category=1705

chris.packham  
#8 Posted : 27 July 2017 15:04:10(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris.packham

Why not take a look at the HSE website and their guidance re local exhaust ventilation?

Chris

Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.