Bienvenue au Centre de ressources ATEX Zone 22 de Tiger-Vac
Cette page a été mis en place sur le site Tiger-Vac pour fournir des informations aux clients existants et potentiels, les ingénieurs et tous autre, sur l'utilisation d'aspirateurs dans des endroits potentiellement explosive ou des endroits ou il y a un atmospheres dangeureux.
Nous avons observé dans le passé, une certaine confusion sur quelle dispositif peut être utilisé dans un zone avec risque d'explosion ou d'atmosphères dangeureuse, ce que les normes de sécurité requises ainsi que le risque qui est en cause. De plus en plus de travailleurs risquent leur vie et leur santé en utilisant le mauvais équipement en zones potentiellement explosive ou des atmosphères dangereuses pendants qu'il récupér des poussières et des liquides.
C'est notre espoir que l'information sur cette page sera utiles dans votre achat. Pour plus d'informations sur ATEX, s'il vous plaît visiter les sites énumérés dans les "liens d'intérêt" de cette page.
Vidéos sur les risques associés à des poussières combustibles
Est-ce que mon aspirateur conçu pour récupérer des poussières combustibles?
ATEX Zone 21: définition et les commentaires officiels
ATEX Zone 22: définition et les commentaires officiels
Vidéos sur les risques associés à des poussières combustibles
Ci-dessous une sélection de vidéos sur diverses questions relatives à la question des poussières combustibles en milieu de travail. Bien que certaines de ces histoires pourrais être fixé en dehors de la zone d'influence ATEX, il est de notre conviction que les principes sous-jacents de poussières combustibles et la sécurité des travailleurs sont les mêmes partout. (en anglais seulment)
Is Enough Done To Stop Explosive Dust?American public affair television show "60 minutes" exposes the threat of combustible dusts and discusses the matter with safety officials and victims of workplace explosions. |
A clip on combustible dusts from the 1920sFurther demonstration.
|
Powdered milk.A demonstration recreating a cloud of combustible dusts.
|
(top)
Est-ce que mon aspirateur conçu pour récupérer des poussières combustibles?
ATEX zones où des poussières combustibles sont présents
L'annexe 1 de la directive ATEX 99/92/CE définit des lieux dangereux où des poussières combustibles sont présents en tant que:
Zone 20: un lieu dans lequel une atmosphère explosive sous la forme d'un nuage de poussières combustibles est présente dans l'air en permanence, pendant de longues périodes ou fréquemment.
Zone 21: emplacement où une atmosphère explosive sous forme de nuage de poussières combustibles dans l'air est susceptible de se présenter occasionnellement en fonctionnement normal.
Zone 22: un lieu dans lequel une atmosphère explosive sous forme de nuage de poussières combustibles dans l'air ne sont pas susceptibles de se produire en fonctionnement normal, mais si cela se produit, va persister pendant une courte période seulement.
ATEX zone 22
Si l'atmosphère dans une zone 22 n'est pas susceptible de devenir explosive dans les conditions normales d'opération ", mais si c'est le cas, va persister pendant un court laps de temps seulement», nous pouvons dire que des poussières combustibles dans une zone 22 ne sera pas présent lors d'un fonctionnement normal, mais si ils sont présents, il sera pour une courte période seulement.
Avez-vous prévu de récupérer des poussières combustibles régulièrement?
Selon l'annexe 1 de la directive ATEX 99/92/EC ATEX zones où les utilisateurs plan de récupérer régulièrement des poussières combustibles seront classées comme zones 21, où une atmosphère explosive due à la présence de poussières combustibles est susceptible de se présenter occasionnellement en fonctionnement normal " ou zones 20, où une atmosphère explosive due à la présence de poussières combustibles "est présent en permanence, pendant de longues périodes ou fréquemment.
Aspirateurs Type 22
Si la directive ATEX 99/92/CE définit des lieux dangereux où des poussières combustibles sont présents CC annexe de la norme IEC 60335-2-69 définir un aspirateur de type 22 comme:
Type 22 appliance
]Aspirateur, machine à balayage ou aspiration des poussières extracteur pour l'aspiration de poussières combustibles dans la zone 22. La partie interne de l'appareil où la poussière est collectée est considérée comme la zone 20
Note de la partie interne de tuyaux et les buses sont considérées comme la zone 22.
Is a type 22 vacuum cleaner designed to recover combustible dusts?
Annex CC of standard IEC 60335-2-69 made a lot of manufacturers of vacuum cleaners designed for use in zones 22 claim that their equipments can recover safely combustible dusts in zone 22 when this situation is unlikely to occur in normal operation but, if it does occur, will persist for a short period only as per ATEX directive 99/92/EC (Please see above).
Manufacturers of vacuum cleaners for use in zone 22 frequently avoid reminding users that the recovery of explosive dust is a safety hazard.
If users do not question further the applications for which type 22 vacuum cleaners have been designed they will assume that they can safely recover combustible dusts regularly.
The way type 22 vacuum cleaners are marketed and the fact that ATEX zones are usually not well determined by users create safety hazards for users that use this kind of vacuum cleaner to recover combustible dusts.
To avoid safety hazards due to the recovery of combustible dusts
To avoid safety hazards due to the recovery of combustible dusts users have to undertake the followings actions before purchasing an ATEX certified vacuum cleaner:
- Determine precisely the ATEX zones as per directive directive 99/92/EC where the vacuum cleaner will be used. The most reliable way to do it is to ask a recognized laboratory to perform the needed measurements.
- Determine for which applications the ATEX certified vacuum cleaner has been designed. This is written in the vacuum cleaner’s user manual.
Rule of thumb:
ATEX category 3, type 22 vacuum cleaners for use in ATEX zones 22 are not designed to recover regularly or a significant quantity of combustible dusts.
ATEX Zone 21: Official definition and comments
Official definition, as written in ATEX DIrective 99/92/EC:
A place in which an explosive atmosphere in the form of a cloud of combustible dust in air is likely to occur in normal operation occasionally.
Comments:
This definition describes a zone where the presence of combustible dust in the air is probable, if not certain, to occur during normal use of the space where the device is beeing used.
(top)
ATEX Zone 22: Official definition and comments
Official definition, as written in ATEX DIrective 99/92/EC Annex 1:
- "A place in which an explosive atmosphere in the form of a cloud of combustible dust in air is not likely to occur in normal operation but, if it does occur, will persist for a short period only."
Comments:
At Tiger-Vac, we feel that this definition uses ambiguous wording that may be beyond the reach or understanding of users and buyers. What is a "Cloud"? What defines a "short period" of time? Is this to say that combustible dust in the air takes more then a certain period of time to ignite and burst into flame? If so, is this value comparable for metal dust and flour?
Furthermore, the case of vacuum cleaners is specific, since the unit can be used in a potentially explosive atmospheres to pick up potentially explosive material. Hence the vacuum cleaner could induce an explosion by igniting the dust in the air OR by igniting the material it is picking up. This very important aspect of the material is not covered by any ATEX standards.
The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) warns that more then 1/32 of an inch (1mm) of dust over 5 percent of a room’s surface area presents a significant explosion hazard.
In the absence of a certification or should you have doubt or questions about the location where the vacuum cleaner will be used, contact your local Health and Safety inspector (or equivalent government body) or Fire department to have that location evaluated.
Hazard of dust explosions and dust explosion incidents have been known and reported for many, many years. Yet a common problem appears to be lack of awareness of the hazard, and therefore lack of precautions: inspection, housekeeping, work practices, maintenance, design of facilities and equipment.
(top)
ATEX Zones and categories.
Please click here to access a comprehensive presentation of the various zones for potentially explosive atmosphere (ATEX). You will remain within Tiger-Vac's web site.
(top)
Warnings pertaining to the use of vacuum cleaners in an ATEX Zone 22 classified work environment
- All ATEX Category 3 Vacuum Cleaner Systems for use in Zone 2 (Gas) and Zone 22 (Dust) must never be used in atmospheres where explosive dusts or flammable liquids are visible or easily detectable with the naked eye.
- Only Category 2 ATEX certified vacuum cleaners should be used in ATEX Zones in the presence of the following products:
-
- Conductive dust such as aluminum and metallic dust
- Solvents (Chemicals / Pharmaceuticals)
- Flour / Sugar / Grain dust
- Gunpowder
- Gas / Fuel / Petroleum
- Coal and Coke dusts
-
- For applications where you require an Explosion Proof / Dust Ignition Proof vacuum cleaner, please make sure to use ATEX Category 2 certified vacuum cleaner systems.
- Requesting a copy of an EC Type Examination Certificate provided by an ATEX notified body is an added security and a good practice when purchasing explosion proof / dust ignition proof vacuum cleaners. There is no better way to guarantee the safety of the user and surrounding personnel.
- In the absence of a certification or should you have doubt or questions about the location where the vacuum cleaner will be used, contact your local Health and Safety inspector (or equivalent government body) or Fire department to have that location evaluated.
(top)
Press Gallery
Below are some articles of use for customers interested in the purchase of an explosion proof/dust ignition proof vacuum cleaner system or wondering about combustible dust, hazardous work atmospheres and related topics.
What to do about combustible dust? (ISHN, March 2008): an explosion believed to be caused by combustible diusts inside a sugar refinery makes 12 victims.
Rumors fly over 787 delay (Seattle Times, January 2008) : The Boeing 787 "Dreamliner" suffers further production delays because of a fire caused smoldering metal shavings that burned through a vacuum-cleaner bag (external link).
What to do about combustible dust?
At press time, a twelfth victim of the February 7 Imperial Sugar Co. refinery blast in Port Wentworth, Georgia, had died. Eleven other explosion victims remained in critical condition and one more was in serious condition. Scores of other workers were also injured in the devastating blast.
The explosion destroyed the refinery's packaging area where workers poured sugar into bags sold under the Dixie Crystals brand. The refinery, used to turn raw sugar into consumer-ready crystals, remains closed. The blast is presumed to have been caused by combustible dust.
Not the first time
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board has been concerned about dust explosions for a number of years, said CSB Investigations Manager Stephen Selk, P.E., who provided an update February 17 on the CSB's ongoing investigation of the Port Wentworth blast.
In 2003 the CSB, an independent agency that makes safety recommendations to trade associations, professional organizations, companies, and even at times to OSHA, investigated three catastrophic dust explosions. One was at a North Carolina pharmaceutical plant, where plastic powder that had accumulated above a suspended ceiling exploded, killing six and injuring numerous others; another was at an acoustics facility in Kentucky where phenolic resin C another plastic powder C exploded, leaving seven dead and many injured; and one was at an Indiana automobile wheel plant, in which aluminum powder exploded and killed a worker.
After investigating these explosions, the CSB conducted a larger study of the extent of the industrial dust explosion problem, said Selk. The board identified 281 fires and explosions over a 25-year period that took 119 lives and caused 718 injuries. As a result, in 2006 the CSB recommended to OSHA that it put a general industry standard in place to prevent future combustible-dust hazards.
OSHA has so far only "partly acted on" the CSB recommendations, said Selk. Last October OSHA launched a National Emphasis Program to address the hazard. But the agency has not issued an industry-wide standard on combustible dust.
Not good enough
That's not satisfactory to U.S. Reps. George Miller, chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, and Lynn Woolsey, chairwoman of the Workforce Protections Subcommittee, both D-CA. The two lawmakers wrote a letter February 8 to Secretary of Labor Elaine L. Chao echoing CSB's 2006 recommendation, saying a mandatory combustible-dust standard should become a "high priority of OSHA."
Noting that voluntary standards were not enough, the legislators requested specifics on what actions OSHA has taken to combat the problem, including how many inspections are planned under the NEP, how many OSHA Training Institute classes have been conducted on explosive dust, and future outreach plans.
Unions are also up in arms over OSHA's lack of action. Reacting to the Imperial Sugar explosion,the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) and the International Brotherhood of Teamsterslast week filed a petition with the Department of Labor demanding that OSHA follow the recommendations of the CSB. Additional labor organizations representing workers at risk are also supporting the petition.
Profit trumps safety
So, why no combustible-dust standard? Les Leopold, director of the Labor Institute, writing recently in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, said the Imperial Sugar factory explosion shows that, in industrial facilities, the drive for profits undermines safety.
Consider this scenario, he wrote: One type of jet airliner explodes 281 times over a period of years, leading to 119 passenger deaths and 718 injuries. Imagine the National Transportation Safety Board recommends new mandatory safety standards to halt these explosions, but the airline industry and Federal Aviation Administration stall the process, and rely instead on voluntary measures. Imagine a year later, another explosion demolishes that exact type of airplane, killing another 12 passengers and injuring at least 100 more plus crew.
Obviously, the FAA and the airline industry would never allow that plane to fly, and no one would be willing to fly in it, claimed Leopold.
Leopold said the "double standard" follows the money. The airline industry depends on safety for profits. But in industrial facilities, the drive for profit often trumps safety, he wrote.
"While we would like to believe that safety and profits must proceed hand in hand, very few corporate safety managers have the budgetary discretion or the power to trump financial investment and operational decisions," he said.
In-house inspectors?
When it comes to combustible dust, deregulation and voluntary guidelines haven't work, Leopold declared. And it can't work, he added, because there just are far too few OSHA inspectors to go around.
He offered what he admits is a radical approach to improve safety: Train and deputize at least one worker in every U.S. facility to serve as an inspector checking for all types of hazards including combustible dust, legally empowered to order corrective action.
Such an approach, Leopold conceded, would be a tough sell to corporate leaders.
But as engineer Selk of the CSB noted, the tragic event in Port Wentworth demonstrates the problem of dust explosions in industry has yet to be solved. It's a problem demanding aggressive action, according to the CSB and safety activists.
This article originally appeared in Industrial Safety and Hygiene News (ISHN - www.ishn.com) and is used with permission.
Links of interest
BARTEC's Basic concepts for explosion protection
Author: Dr.-Ing. Hans-Jürgen Linström
STAHL's Basics of dust-explosion protection
04/2004
INRS - Explosion et lieu de travail
24/02/2006
ATEX references on the internet
ATEX Guidelines
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/atex/guide/index.htm
We've observed in the past some confusion about what device can be used in a potentially explosive or hazardous atmospheres, what safety standards are required as well as the risk that is involved. More and more workers are risking their lives and health using unproper equipment in potentially explosive or hazardous atmospheres and recovering dangerous dust and liquids.
It is our hope that the information on this page will prove useful in your purchase. For more information on ATEX, please visit the sites listed in the "Links of interest" section of this page.
Videos on the risks associated to combustible dusts
Is my vacuum cleaner designed to recover combustible dusts?
ATEX Zone 21: Official definition and comments
ATEX Zone 22: Official definition and comments
Warnings pertaining to the use of vacuum cleaners in an ATEX Zone 22 classified work environment
Videos on the risks associated to combustible dusts
Below is a selection of videos on various issues pertaining to the question of combustible dusts in the workplace. While some of these stories may be set outside of ATEX's zone of influence, it is our belief that the underlying principles of combustible dusts and worker safety are the same every where.
Is Enough Done To Stop Explosive Dust?American public affair television show "60 minutes" exposes the threat of combustible dusts and discusses the matter with safety officials and victims of workplace explosions. |
A clip on combustible dusts from the 1920sFurther demonstration.
|
Powdered milk.A demonstration recreating a cloud of combustible dusts.
|
(top)
Is my vacuum cleaner designed to recover combustible dusts?
ATEX zones when combustible dusts are present
Annex 1 of ATEX directive 99/92/EC defines hazardous places when combustible dusts are present as:
Zone 20: a place in which an explosive atmosphere in the form of a cloud of combustible dust in air is present continuously, or for long periods or frequently.
Zone 21:a place in which an explosive atmosphere in the form of a cloud of combustible dust in air is likely to occur in normal operation occasionally.
Zone 22:a place in which an explosive atmosphere in the form of a cloud of combustible dust in air is not likely to occur in normal operation but, if it does occur, will persist for a short period only.
ATEX zone 22
If the atmosphere in a zone 22 is not likely to become explosive in normal operation “but if it does, will persist for a short period only” we can say that combustible dusts in a zone 22 won’t be present during normal operation but if they are present it will be for a short period only.
Do you plan to recover combustible dusts regularly?
As per Annex 1 of ATEX Directive 99/92/EC ATEX zones where users plan to recover combustible dusts regularly will be classified as zones 21, where an explosive atmosphere due to the presence of combustible dusts “is likely to occur in normal operation occasionally” or zones 20 where an explosive atmosphere due to the presence of combustible dusts “is present continuously, or for long periods or frequently”.
Type 22 vacuum cleaners
While ATEX directive 99/92/EC defines hazardous places when combustible dusts are present Annex CC of standard IEC 60335-2-69 define a type 22 vacuum cleaner as
Type 22 appliance
Vacuum cleaner, suction sweeping machine or dust extractor suitable for suction of combustible dust in zone 22. The inner part of the appliance where the dust is collected is considered to be zone 20
Note the inner part of suction hoses and nozzles are considered to be zone 22.
Is a type 22 vacuum cleaner designed to recover combustible dusts?
Annex CC of standard IEC 60335-2-69 made a lot of manufacturers of vacuum cleaners designed for use in zones 22 claim that their equipments can recover safely combustible dusts in zone 22 when this situation is unlikely to occur in normal operation but, if it does occur, will persist for a short period only as per ATEX directive 99/92/EC (Please see above).
Manufacturers of vacuum cleaners for use in zone 22 frequently avoid reminding users that the recovery of explosive dust is a safety hazard.
If users do not question further the applications for which type 22 vacuum cleaners have been designed they will assume that they can safely recover combustible dusts regularly.
The way type 22 vacuum cleaners are marketed and the fact that ATEX zones are usually not well determined by users create safety hazards for users that use this kind of vacuum cleaner to recover combustible dusts.
To avoid safety hazards due to the recovery of combustible dusts
To avoid safety hazards due to the recovery of combustible dusts users have to undertake the followings actions before purchasing an ATEX certified vacuum cleaner:
- Determine precisely the ATEX zones as per directive directive 99/92/EC where the vacuum cleaner will be used. The most reliable way to do it is to ask a recognized laboratory to perform the needed measurements.
- Determine for which applications the ATEX certified vacuum cleaner has been designed. This is written in the vacuum cleaner’s user manual.
Rule of thumb:
ATEX category 3, type 22 vacuum cleaners for use in ATEX zones 22 are not designed to recover regularly or a significant quantity of combustible dusts.
ATEX Zone 21: Official definition and comments
Official definition, as written in ATEX DIrective 99/92/EC:
A place in which an explosive atmosphere in the form of a cloud of combustible dust in air is likely to occur in normal operation occasionally.
Comments:
This definition describes a zone where the presence of combustible dust in the air is probable, if not certain, to occur during normal use of the space where the device is beeing used.
(top)
ATEX Zone 22: Official definition and comments
Official definition, as written in ATEX DIrective 99/92/EC Annex 1:
- "A place in which an explosive atmosphere in the form of a cloud of combustible dust in air is not likely to occur in normal operation but, if it does occur, will persist for a short period only."
Comments:
At Tiger-Vac, we feel that this definition uses ambiguous wording that may be beyond the reach or understanding of users and buyers. What is a "Cloud"? What defines a "short period" of time? Is this to say that combustible dust in the air takes more then a certain period of time to ignite and burst into flame? If so, is this value comparable for metal dust and flour?
Furthermore, the case of vacuum cleaners is specific, since the unit can be used in a potentially explosive atmospheres to pick up potentially explosive material. Hence the vacuum cleaner could induce an explosion by igniting the dust in the air OR by igniting the material it is picking up. This very important aspect of the material is not covered by any ATEX standards.
The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) warns that more then 1/32 of an inch (1mm) of dust over 5 percent of a room’s surface area presents a significant explosion hazard.
In the absence of a certification or should you have doubt or questions about the location where the vacuum cleaner will be used, contact your local Health and Safety inspector (or equivalent government body) or Fire department to have that location evaluated.
Hazard of dust explosions and dust explosion incidents have been known and reported for many, many years. Yet a common problem appears to be lack of awareness of the hazard, and therefore lack of precautions: inspection, housekeeping, work practices, maintenance, design of facilities and equipment.
(top)
ATEX Zones and categories.
Please click here to access a comprehensive presentation of the various zones for potentially explosive atmosphere (ATEX). You will remain within Tiger-Vac's web site.
(top)
Warnings pertaining to the use of vacuum cleaners in an ATEX Zone 22 classified work environment
- All ATEX Category 3 Vacuum Cleaner Systems for use in Zone 2 (Gas) and Zone 22 (Dust) must never be used in atmospheres where explosive dusts or flammable liquids are visible or easily detectable with the naked eye.
- Only Category 2 ATEX certified vacuum cleaners should be used in ATEX Zones in the presence of the following products:
-
- Conductive dust such as aluminum and metallic dust
- Solvents (Chemicals / Pharmaceuticals)
- Flour / Sugar / Grain dust
- Gunpowder
- Gas / Fuel / Petroleum
- Coal and Coke dusts
-
- For applications where you require an Explosion Proof / Dust Ignition Proof vacuum cleaner, please make sure to use ATEX Category 2 certified vacuum cleaner systems.
- Requesting a copy of an EC Type Examination Certificate provided by an ATEX notified body is an added security and a good practice when purchasing explosion proof / dust ignition proof vacuum cleaners. There is no better way to guarantee the safety of the user and surrounding personnel.
- In the absence of a certification or should you have doubt or questions about the location where the vacuum cleaner will be used, contact your local Health and Safety inspector (or equivalent government body) or Fire department to have that location evaluated.
(top)
Press Gallery
Below are some articles of use for customers interested in the purchase of an explosion proof/dust ignition proof vacuum cleaner system or wondering about combustible dust, hazardous work atmospheres and related topics.
What to do about combustible dust? (ISHN, March 2008): an explosion believed to be caused by combustible diusts inside a sugar refinery makes 12 victims.
Rumors fly over 787 delay (Seattle Times, January 2008) : The Boeing 787 "Dreamliner" suffers further production delays because of a fire caused smoldering metal shavings that burned through a vacuum-cleaner bag (external link).
What to do about combustible dust?
At press time, a twelfth victim of the February 7 Imperial Sugar Co. refinery blast in Port Wentworth, Georgia, had died. Eleven other explosion victims remained in critical condition and one more was in serious condition. Scores of other workers were also injured in the devastating blast.
The explosion destroyed the refinery's packaging area where workers poured sugar into bags sold under the Dixie Crystals brand. The refinery, used to turn raw sugar into consumer-ready crystals, remains closed. The blast is presumed to have been caused by combustible dust.
Not the first time
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board has been concerned about dust explosions for a number of years, said CSB Investigations Manager Stephen Selk, P.E., who provided an update February 17 on the CSB's ongoing investigation of the Port Wentworth blast.
In 2003 the CSB, an independent agency that makes safety recommendations to trade associations, professional organizations, companies, and even at times to OSHA, investigated three catastrophic dust explosions. One was at a North Carolina pharmaceutical plant, where plastic powder that had accumulated above a suspended ceiling exploded, killing six and injuring numerous others; another was at an acoustics facility in Kentucky where phenolic resin C another plastic powder C exploded, leaving seven dead and many injured; and one was at an Indiana automobile wheel plant, in which aluminum powder exploded and killed a worker.
After investigating these explosions, the CSB conducted a larger study of the extent of the industrial dust explosion problem, said Selk. The board identified 281 fires and explosions over a 25-year period that took 119 lives and caused 718 injuries. As a result, in 2006 the CSB recommended to OSHA that it put a general industry standard in place to prevent future combustible-dust hazards.
OSHA has so far only "partly acted on" the CSB recommendations, said Selk. Last October OSHA launched a National Emphasis Program to address the hazard. But the agency has not issued an industry-wide standard on combustible dust.
Not good enough
That's not satisfactory to U.S. Reps. George Miller, chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, and Lynn Woolsey, chairwoman of the Workforce Protections Subcommittee, both D-CA. The two lawmakers wrote a letter February 8 to Secretary of Labor Elaine L. Chao echoing CSB's 2006 recommendation, saying a mandatory combustible-dust standard should become a "high priority of OSHA."
Noting that voluntary standards were not enough, the legislators requested specifics on what actions OSHA has taken to combat the problem, including how many inspections are planned under the NEP, how many OSHA Training Institute classes have been conducted on explosive dust, and future outreach plans.
Unions are also up in arms over OSHA's lack of action. Reacting to the Imperial Sugar explosion,the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) and the International Brotherhood of Teamsterslast week filed a petition with the Department of Labor demanding that OSHA follow the recommendations of the CSB. Additional labor organizations representing workers at risk are also supporting the petition.
Profit trumps safety
So, why no combustible-dust standard? Les Leopold, director of the Labor Institute, writing recently in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, said the Imperial Sugar factory explosion shows that, in industrial facilities, the drive for profits undermines safety.
Consider this scenario, he wrote: One type of jet airliner explodes 281 times over a period of years, leading to 119 passenger deaths and 718 injuries. Imagine the National Transportation Safety Board recommends new mandatory safety standards to halt these explosions, but the airline industry and Federal Aviation Administration stall the process, and rely instead on voluntary measures. Imagine a year later, another explosion demolishes that exact type of airplane, killing another 12 passengers and injuring at least 100 more plus crew.
Obviously, the FAA and the airline industry would never allow that plane to fly, and no one would be willing to fly in it, claimed Leopold.
Leopold said the "double standard" follows the money. The airline industry depends on safety for profits. But in industrial facilities, the drive for profit often trumps safety, he wrote.
"While we would like to believe that safety and profits must proceed hand in hand, very few corporate safety managers have the budgetary discretion or the power to trump financial investment and operational decisions," he said.
In-house inspectors?
When it comes to combustible dust, deregulation and voluntary guidelines haven't work, Leopold declared. And it can't work, he added, because there just are far too few OSHA inspectors to go around.
He offered what he admits is a radical approach to improve safety: Train and deputize at least one worker in every U.S. facility to serve as an inspector checking for all types of hazards including combustible dust, legally empowered to order corrective action.
Such an approach, Leopold conceded, would be a tough sell to corporate leaders.
But as engineer Selk of the CSB noted, the tragic event in Port Wentworth demonstrates the problem of dust explosions in industry has yet to be solved. It's a problem demanding aggressive action, according to the CSB and safety activists.
This article originally appeared in Industrial Safety and Hygiene News (ISHN - www.ishn.com) and is used with permission.
Links of interest
BARTEC's Basic concepts for explosion protection
Author: Dr.-Ing. Hans-Jürgen Linström
STAHL's Basics of dust-explosion protection
04/2004
INRS - Explosion et lieu de travail
24/02/2006
ATEX references on the internet
ATEX Guidelines
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/atex/guide/index.htm
