LEV - eExtracting best practice
•Als PPTX, PDF herunterladen•
2 gefällt mir•382 views
Looks at industry best practice for local exhaust ventilation systems. First delivered at the Health & Safety Expo at Excel in 2016.
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Andere mochten auch
Andere mochten auch (17)
Ähnlich wie LEV - eExtracting best practice
Ähnlich wie LEV - eExtracting best practice (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
LEV - eExtracting best practice
- 2. LEV - EXTRACTING BEST PRACTICE INTRODUCTION ▸ Adrian Sims CEng MFOH(S) CoC Control MILEVE MIPLANTE ▸ MD Vent-Tech Ltd ▸ Vice Chair of CIBSE Institute of LEV Engineers ▸ Lecture BOHS P-Series course on LEV
- 3. REQUIR EMENT LEV - EXTRACTING BEST PRACTICE
- 4. 8,000 CANCER DEATHS AND 13,000 NEW CASES OF CANCER EACH YEAR HSE LEV - EXTRACTING BEST PRACTICE - REQUIREMENT
- 5. 13,000 DEATHS PER YEAR FROM RESPIRATORY DISEASE HSE LEV - EXTRACTING BEST PRACTICE - REQUIREMENT
- 7. IT IS ESTIMATED 13,000 NEW CASES OF BREATHING OR LUNG PROBLEMS CAUSED OR MADE WORSE BY WORK EACH YEAR AMONG THOSE IN, OR RECENTLY IN, WORK. HSE LEV - EXTRACTING BEST PRACTICE - REQUIREMENT
- 10. LEV - EXTRACTING BEST PRACTICE - REQUIREMENT FLOUR ▸ WEL 10mg/m3 8-hour period ▸ STEL 30mg/m3 15 minute period
- 11. PROV LEV - EXTRACTING BEST PRACTICE
- 12. I HAVE BEEN DOING THIS FOR YEARS, OF COURSE I KNOW WHAT I AM DOING! LEV - EXTRACTING BEST PRACTICE - PROVIDER
- 13. LEV - EXTRACTING BEST PRACTICE - PROVIDER RESPONSIBILITY ▸ The supplier? ▸ The end user? ▸ Maintenance? ▸ The employer?
- 14. “OR EMPLOY OR OBTAIN ADVICE FROM COMPETENT PEOPLE” HSG 258 LEV - EXTRACTING BEST PRACTICE - PROVIDER
- 15. LEV - EXTRACTING BEST PRACTICE - PROVIDER THE LAW SAY’S EMPLOYERS ENSURE ▸ has suitable and sufficient information, instruction and training; ▸ ensure whoever provides advice on the prevention or control of exposure is competent to do so ▸ appropriate knowledge, skills and experience ▸ anyone who checks on the effectiveness of any element of a control measure should be competent to do so
- 16. LEV - EXTRACTING BEST PRACTICE - PROVIDER COMPETENCE ▸Can they prove competence? ▸What is competence? ▸Web site? ▸Qualifications? ▸Experience?
- 17. HSE DOCUMEN T INDG408 A Simple Guide to Buying and Using
- 20. LEV - EXTRACTING BEST PRACTICE - PROVIDER QUESTIONS TO ASK ▸ Evidence of competency ▸ Experience - similar projects ▸ References from other clients ▸ Professional Indemnity Insurance Competency = qualification + relevant experience.
- 21. DESI LEV - EXTRACTING BEST PRACTICE
- 22. LEV - EXTRACTING BEST PRACTICE - DESIGN GUARANTEE ▸to reduce the hazardous substance to a safe level.
- 23. LEV - EXTRACTING BEST PRACTICE - DESIGN EXAMPLE - FLOUR DUST ▸Exposure in previous example was 100mg/m3 ▸WEL = 10mg/m3 ▸Control level 1/10th WEL = 1mg/m3 ▸Reduction factor = 100 / 1 = 100
- 24. LEV - EXTRACTING BEST PRACTICE - DESIGN EXAMPLE - FLOUR DUST
- 25. ACHIEVE CONTROL? down-flow via the open aperture
- 26. LEV - EXTRACTING BEST PRACTICE - DESIGN REST OF SYSTEM ▸ Ducting (inc. material type) can be sized and selected ▸ Filter plant can be selected ▸ Explosion non-return damper included + other ATEX features ▸ Discharge arrangement agreed ▸ Fan can be sized
- 27. INSTALL ATION LEV - EXTRACTING BEST PRACTICE
- 29. Members of the BESA are subject to regular third-party inspection and assessment of their technical competence and commercial capability their commercial and financial standing is independently evaluated. are able to demonstrate that they operate according to fair and reasonable commercial standards. are required to perform according to criteria established by a range of industry-recognised specifications and good practice guides. must adhere to robust health and safety policies and procedures, and must promote a positive safety culture throughout their organisation must comply fully with the mandatory health and safety requirements contained in the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations. must prove that they have controls in place to ensure that their work complies with all aspects of the Building Regulations. must have in place adequate employers’ and public liability and professional indemnity cover.
- 30. COMMISSI ONING LEV - EXTRACTING BEST PRACTICE
- 31. ‘Commissioning’ is proving that an LEV system is capable of providing adequate control. HSG258 LEV - EXTRACTING BEST PRACTICE - COMMISSIONING
- 32. LEV - EXTRACTING BEST PRACTICE - COMMISSIONING HOW DO WE CHECK CONTROL? ▸ Smoke release ▸ Dust lamp ▸ Air monitoring ▸ Static ▸ Personal
- 33. LEV - EXTRACTING BEST PRACTICE - COMMISSIONING THE REST OF THE SYSTEM? ▸ Leaks in the duct work system
- 34. LEV - EXTRACTING BEST PRACTICE - COMMISSIONING THE REST OF THE SYSTEM? ▸ Leaks in the duct work system ▸ Recirculation from discharge stacks
- 35. BENCHMA LEV - EXTRACTING BEST PRACTICE - COMMISSIONING
- 36. LEV - EXTRACTING BEST PRACTICE - COMMISSIONING HSG 258
- 37. PROVIDES ADEQUATE LEV - EXTRACTING BEST PRACTICE - COMMISSIONING
- 38. SERVI LEV - EXTRACTING BEST PRACTICE
- 39. LEGAL REQUIRE LEV - EXTRACTING BEST PRACTICE - SERVICING
- 40. • EFFICIENT STATE • EFFICIENT WORKING ORDER • GOOD REPAIR • CLEAN CONDITION THE LAW LEV - EXTRACTING BEST PRACTICE - SERVICING
- 41. TESTI LEV - EXTRACTING BEST PRACTICE
- 42. AT LEAST ONCE IN EVERY 14 MONTH PERIOD LEV - EXTRACTING BEST PRACTICE - TESTING
- 43. AT LEAST ONCE IN EVERY 14 MONTH PERIOD UNLESS IN LEV - EXTRACTING BEST PRACTICE - TESTING
- 44. LEV - EXTRACTING BEST PRACTICE - TESTING SCHEDULE 4
- 45. LEV - EXTRACTING BEST PRACTICE - TESTING SCHEDULE 4
- 46. LEV - EXTRACTING BEST PRACTICE - TESTING THOROUGH EXAMINATION AND TEST
- 47. LEV - EXTRACTING BEST PRACTICE - TESTING THOROUGH EXAMINATION AND TEST
- 48. RE- LEV - EXTRACTING BEST PRACTICE - TESTING
- 49. LEV - EXTRACTING BEST PRACTICE - TESTING THOROUGH EXAMINATION AND TEST ▸thorough visual examination ▸measuring and examining the technical performance to check with commissioning or other relevant sources ▸assessment to check the control of worker exposure is adequate
- 50. SIGNATURE OF PERSON LEV - EXTRACTING BEST PRACTICE - TESTING
- 51. THANK YOU FOR
- 52. ADRIAN SIMS CENG MFOH(S) MILEVE MIPLANTE LEV - EXTRACTING BEST PRACTICE www.VENT-TECH.co.uk
Hinweis der Redaktion
- Introduction
- Lets look at the requirement for LEV. Hierarchy of control says that engineering controls (LEV) should be employed prior to PPE. But what is the requirement?
- The statistics clearly show that there is a massive requirement for LEV within industry.
- The numbers of people being made ill in the UK each year from exposure to hazardous substances is staggering.
- Air crashes (world wide) 1.26 people per day in 2014 Deaths on UK roads 4.69 people per day in 2013 How about terrorism? This is the equivalent of a Brussels style attack every day.
- There are obvious processes where engineering controls are not implemented where they should be.
- Then there are the thousands that have completely inadequate LEV leading to operators AND employers be exposed both physically and legally. As we know some of the most hazardous substances are are not that exotic. Lets take a look at flour as an example.
- How much dust is 10mg/m3 (show sample’s - ask how much dust in first one (1g = 1000x WEL). What is the lady in photo’s exposure? Should engineering controls be in place? Her exposure levels were measured at 100mg/m3, for 8 hours a day, five days a week for years.
- Who are you going to go to ask to come up with a solution to your LEV? What do you look for? Good web site? Experience? Simular projects?
- How often have we heard this over the years? If everyone who says this actually knew what they were doing do you think we would be killing 36 people EVERY day?
- We need to clarify WHO is actually responsible for the effectiveness of an LEV system.
- HSG258 says: An employer should be competent for health and safety purposes or employ or obtain advice from competent people.
- The COSHH Regulations require that: employers ensure any person (whether or not their employee) who carries out work in connection with the employer’s duties under the COSHH Regulations has suitable and sufficient information, instruction and training; employers ensure whoever provides advice on the prevention or control of exposure is competent to do so whoever designs control measures needs appropriate knowledge, skills and experience; anyone who checks on the effectiveness of any element of a control measure should be competent to do so.
- So how does the employer - who is an expert in his field and probably not LEV - select a competent LEV provider?
- Use HSE Guidance documents
- Ask for proof of competency from an independent professional organisation such as ILEVE or
- Remember: Competency = qualification + relevant experience. A competent person will not mind you asking them to provide proof of competency.
- So what are you going to ask your chosen LEV provider to do for you? What guarantee do you want? Is it to: Move x amount of air? Supply a fan of xkW? A number of hoods or arms?
- Surely it is just to: To reduce the hazardous substance to a safe level.How do you prove this guarantee? Air monitoring before controls are put in place and again afterwards. With known levels of exposure, once we have agreed to the safe level of control (normally 1/10th of the WEL) then we can establish the type of hood required to reduce the hazardous substance to a safe level.
- Using Figure 9 from HSG258 we can see what type of hood will give us the level of control required to bring the hazardous substance down to the required level of control. In this instance to get a reduction factor of 100 we are looking at: Down flow, walk-in booth, partial enclosure or an almost full enclosure. Looking at the application we would be looking to install down flow through the lid of the mixer.
- This would pull the dust down away from her breathing zone.
- There are many features that need to be considered by the designer of an LEV system. Critical factors include: number & size of hoods on the system position of hoods length of ducting runs fan and filter plant location discharge arrangements make-up air arrangements A change in any of the above points will require a system re-design. It is important that you sit down with the designer AND the user of the LEV system at an early stage of the design process so that you can accurately specify what is required. This will eliminate expensive changes later in the process.
- LEV systems are not normally just a ducting exercise. They can be complex systems that if are installed incorrectly will not perform as designed and therefore will not provide the adequate control to provide the protection required to the user.
- Commissioning is often over looked. Usually due to the urgency of the customer to use the system or due to the provider not understanding why they need to do it. But what is commissioning, what does it involve and why do we do it?
- Once a system is installed it needs to be proven that it works and when we say works we mean CONTROLS THE HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE. As a client and end user we are not interested in how much air we move but is the system protecting us? Are we safe without RPE? There are four stages to LEV commissioning. First we check that the system was installed as designed.
- Secondly, probably the most important aspect, we check the control effectiveness – demonstrating adequate control of contaminant; We can use a variety of methods including: Smoke release Dust lamp Air monitoring, either static or personal
- We can also use smoke to check other components of the system including: Ductwork for leakages and…
- Discharge stacks to check for recirculation. Once we are happy with the control of the smoke. The third stage is we measure the velocities and pressures…
- And finally, the fourth element is to report the findings, both qualitative and quantitative, as benchmarks for management and maintenance of LEV performance and subsequent examinations and tests. The LEV commissioning report, together with the user manual, is the basis of the Statutory ‘annual’ thorough examination test. Many LEV systems will not have been commissioned or supplied with a user manual. In these cases, the employer will have little information on the required performance or how to maintain it.
- None of this is new. HSG258 has been detailing this since 2008. Together with the logbook and user manual the commissioning document forms part of the essential set of documents that should be provided with ALL LEV systems, even those bought off the shelf or internet.
- This is the statement the commissioning report should contain for ANY client to accept the LEV system AND the commissioning report which must be signed by the commissioning engineer.
- So you have your new system. It works, you have a piece of paper telling you so. Great! But….
- Regulation 9 of the COSHH Regulations says that every employer must ensure all controls are maintained in:-
- Often clients assume they are covered under warranty. Whilst this is true for components that fail due to poor manufacture but like any mechanical piece of equipment (for example a car), system need to be regularly checked and serviced inline with manufacturers instructions otherwise any warranty will become null and void. More importantly the system needs to be looked after to ensure control of the hazardous substance is maintained. A typical maintenance contract will involve 3 to 4 visit per year, mostly for basic checks but at least one for full system clean-down and overhaul of drive belts, filters etc.
- And finally, the testing of LEV system. Often referred to as ANUAL testing but this is not always the case. Again the legal requirement is clear…
- BUT…it also says…
- What is schedule 4?
- This is schedule 4. Most of these apply to work in foundries but…
- This one here refers to the use of angle grinders used to work metal. In our experience this is rarely applied.
- So you have selected your competent LEV tester and they are about to start work. But before they do they need to have from the employer: the LEV Commissioning Report the LEV User Manual the log book of the system any previous reports and…
- confirmation there has been no changes since the commissioning. If there have been any changes such as: additional ducting added or hoods changes to hoods new fan or motor Or changes to the process changes of hazardous substance being controlled then the system needs to be…
- so that control can be proven with the changes in place.
- When tests are carried out the big complaint is that they are rarely done THOROUGHLY. They should be done in THREE stages: A thorough visual examination to verify the LEV is in efficient working order, in good repair and in a clean condition. Measuring and examining the technical performance to check conformity with commissioning or other sources of relevant information. Assessment to check the control of worker exposure is adequate. The TExT requires a lot of information to be gathered and documented, a list of which can be found in HSG258. The report document will run to several pages and include diagrams of the system and photographs. I should also be accompanied with an executive summary for all those amongst us who dont have time to read these documents. But most important of all EVERY report should have…
- Without this the report is not worth the paper it is written on. It is a legal document and evidence of the employer providing a piece of safety equipment that prevents someone from potentially losing their life.