Health and safety in the prep lab: a step-by-step guide to installing an efficient and cost effective dust collecting and ventilation system

1
Health and safety in the prep lab a
step-by-step guide to installing an efficient and
cost effective dust collecting and ventilation
system

• Heather C. Finlayson and Steven D. Sroka, Utah
  Field House of Natural History State Park Museum,
  Vernal, UT
• Thomas Nelsen, Buffalo, NY.

2
Alternate title

• Our dust collector doesnt suck!!!

3
Main Topics

• Background
• Evaluation
• Comparisons and recommendations
• Design
• Materials and cost
• Installation
• Testing the system
• Discussion
• Conclusions

4
Background

• Why do we need dust control?
• Health hazards
• - Occupational respiratory diseases (radon,
  silica dust)
•   - Irritation to eyes, ears, nose, skin,
  throat 
• Risk of dust explosions and fire
• Equipment damage
• Impaired visibility
• Unpleasant odors
• Public nuisance

5

• Attended First Annual Fossil Preparation and
  Collections Symposium at PEFO (April, 2008)
• Presentations by S. Madsen and G. McCullough
  addressed the following
• 1. The importance of promptly addressing safety
  hazards in the lab, particularly exposure to rock
  dust.
• Long term exposure can cause silicosis and
  lung cancer!
• 2. Radon gas particles from rocks and fossils
  can attach to dust and be inhaled.
• Long term exposure can cause lung cancer!

6
Evaluation of work environment at the UFH

• Measuring radioactivity
• Radon gas product of Radium and Uranium decay
• 1 pCi 1 trillionth of a Curie
• 1 pCi/L 2.2 radioactive disintegrations each
  minute in 1 L air
• Ex 4 pCi/L 12,672 radioactive disintegrations
  in 1 L air in 24 hour period

7

• Tested for radon in lab and collection storage
• Results and observations
• - our measurements 1.5 - 1.6 pCi/L
• - EPA states that there is little short-term
  risk with
• readings between 0.6 1.9 pCi/L
• - measurements above 4 pCi/L EPA action level
• (4 pCi/L 200 chest x-rays!)

8
Radon test recommendations by EPA - test in
closed building conditions - keep test kit away
from drafts, fans, blowers - do not test in high
humidity (over 55 RH) - do not place near heat
- levels fluctuate daily and seasonally, do
follow up testing! - test whenever you bring in
hot rocks and fossils (Last radon test done at
UFH in 1997 16.8 pCi/L and 32.5 pCi/L,
deaccessioned hot rocks and minerals to
NMBOM)

9

• Performed airflow tests on existing system
• Results and observations
• - a smoke test showed inefficient airflow
  patterns
• - thermoanemometer read 90 cfm airflow
• - accumulation of dust on work surfaces,
  equipment
• - rock dust remains suspended

10
Dust on lab equipment
11

• Examined old dust collecting system
• Results and observations
• - 1.5 hp unit designed for saw dust removal,
  not rock dust
• - several 90 degree bends in duct work reduced
  air flow, less efficient
• - short intake hoses with limited flexibility
• - 2.5 diameter of intake hoses, decreased
  volume
• - location of unit not easily accessible
• - only 2 blast gates for adjustment of
  airflow

12
Old dust collecting system
13
Close-ups of old equipment
14
We need a new system!!!
15
Comparisons and recommendations

• Consulted now retired DNM preparator
• S. Madsen and volunteer D. Gray
• - DNMs old system tested in early 90s by
  industrial hygienist
• - results serious radon and dust issues
• - they did research, contacted other facilities
  to compare
• - DNM got new system in 1996
• - larger system, evacs to outside, more remote
• - 400 cfm at hose works great!
• - cost 34,000

16

• Standards ?
• - no formal standards specific to fossil prep
• What can we do?
• - use dust collecting unit specific for rock
  dust
• - find some guidelines to design an efficient
  system
• - use OSHA and NIOSH recommendations for
  transport velocities of particulates

17

• OSHA and NIOSH recommendations and guidelines
• To prevent most industrial dust (granite,
  silica, limestone, clay, etc.) from settling and
  blocking ductwork
• - minimum 3,500 - 4000 fpm (304 - 400 cfm) at
  hose opening
• - branches should enter main duct at low angles
  decrease drag
• - circular ducts instead of rectangular
  uniform velocity and distribution

18
Design

• Things to consider
• - budget
• - size of room
• - appropriate size/type of unit to create cfm
  needed (OSHA and NIOSH recommendations)
• - type, length, diameter of ductwork
• - city ordinances (noise, dust evac. to
  outside)
• - amount, frequency of heavy prep work
• - of work stations

19

• UFH specific considerations and needs
• - low budget
• - more powerful, affordable unit with easy
  access
• - dont own the building, minimize renovations
• - temp. occupancy, minimize the cost
• - have small lab space
• - chose closed system (no evac.) to avoid
  nuisance, health hazards to public
• - put unit in separate room for less noise
• - drew up preferred design

20
Engineering

• We called a mechanical engineer!
• - provided a drawing and system specs
• - he did the calculations to make sure our specs
  met industry standards for safe operation
• - he made some spec adjustments and provided us
  with a final design

21
Final Design
22
Materials and Cost

• Item Company Amount
• Engineering WHW Engineering 440.00
• Dust Collector Grainger 3,639.60
• Electrical (3 phase) BHI 2,055.84
• Duct work T.S. Heating 2,900.00
• Hoses (50 ft.) Grainger 312.76
• Clamps Turner Lumber 23.51
• Barrels (4) Western Petroleum 192.00
• Lift rental Basin Rental 30.00
• Blast gates (4) Industrial Accessories 78.00
• Hangers for hoses Ace Hardware 55.00
• 9,726.71

23
Installation
24
(No Transcript)
25
6 hoses, 4 blast gates
Screen covering
26
Testing the airflow of our new system
27

• Comparing length and flex of hose with
• average airflow (cfm) 
• flexed straightened
• Short hose (6 ft.) 509 cfm 543 cfm
• Long hose (12 ft.) 423 cfm 517 cfm
• Controls
• thermoanemometer distance 4 inches
• all 4 blast gates were open
• used the same short hose and long hose for all
  tests
• average airflow was taken from 10 readings

28
Comparing length of and distance from the hose
with average airflow (cfm)

• 2 4 6
• Short hose 1189 cfm 509 cfm 239 cfm 
• Long hose 1078 cfm 423 cfm 226 cfm
• Controls
• hoses were flexed for all tests
• used the same short hose and long hose for all
  tests
• all 4 blast gates were open
• average airflow was taken from 10 readings
•  

29
Comparing airflow (cfm) with the number of blast
gates open

• Average airflow
•  
• All 4 gates open 509 cfm
•   1 short hose gate closed 582 cfm
•   2 short hose gates closed 680 cfm
•   2 long hose gates closed 667 cfm
•   1 short, 1 long hose gate closed 680 cfm
•   1 short, 2 long hose gates closed 753 cfm
•   1 long, 2 short hose gates closed 766 cfm
•    All 4 gates closed 860 cfm
• Controls
• thermoanemometer distance 4 inches
• used the same short hose at the station with
  no blast gates for tests
• all 6 hoses in system were flexed

30
Discussion

• Interpretation of airflow test results
• 1. gt hose length lt airflow
• 2. gt hose flex lt airflow
• 3. gt distance lt airflow
• 4. gt blast gates open lt airflow
• 5. Little change in airflow when any combo of
  two gates are closed
• 6. Little change in airflow when any combo of
  three gates are closed
• 7. Optimal working distance from hose 4to 5

31

• Final Comparisons

• Old Unit
• designed for saw dust
• 1.5 hp motor, 1200 cfm max.
• two 2.5 diam. inflexible hoses
• PVC pipes at 90 degree bends
• avg. air flow 90 cfm
• Inefficient!
• did not meet OSHA and NIOSH recommendations

• New Unit
• designed for rock particles
• 10 hp motor, 3200 cfm max.
• six 4 diameter flexible hoses
• metal ductwork with 45 degree bends
• avg. airflow exceeds minimum recommendation of
  400 cfm
• Efficient!
• meets OSHA and NIOSH recommendations

32
Important contacts and websites
National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH) http//www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/s
ilica Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) www.osha.gov/SLTC/silicacr
ystalline/dust/dust_control_handbook.html
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
www.epa.gov/radon Industrial Hygiene
Specialist Consulting Engineer
33
Conclusions

• tested well below EPA limits for radon exposure
• able to install efficient, affordable system
• new system meets/exceeds OSHA/NIOSH
  recommendations for dust control
• project can be used as design template for
  smaller systems specifically for fossil prep.
• Dont take chances! Test for health and safety
  hazards and dont wait to take action. This is
  your life!

34
Alternate Conclusion Our new dust collector
really sucks!!!
Source NOAA photo library, NOAA central library
OAR/ERL/National Severe Storms Laboratory (NSSL).
35
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the following for their
help and support BHI electrical, BLM of Utah,
Craig Brown, Craig Gerber, Dale Gray, Scott
Madsen, Utah State Parks and Recreation, Steve
Wadsworth at WHW Engineering.