Compressed Air Best Practices - February 2009 - (Page 36)

| 02/09 Focus Industry POWER PLANTS | THE PNEUMATIC ADVANTAGE Explosion-Proof vs. Intrinsically Safe In environments where electricity is unavailable or undesirable, air-operated vacuums for hazardous locations are excellent alternatives. It is important to note that only electric vacuums can be certified and deemed “explosion-proof,” but properly outfitted pneumatic vacuums referred to as “intrinsically-safe” can pack the same punch as their electric counterparts while still meeting the requirements for use in NFPA-classified environments. Plant managers should beware of vacuum companies that refer to their pneumatic models as “certified explosion-proof.” Explosion-proof certification for air-operated machines simply does not exist. Filtration Superior filtration does not have to be sacrificed on an explosion-proof model, especially when collecting potentially hazardous material like coal dust. For peak safety and operating efficiency, an EXP vacuum should have a multi-stage, graduated filtration system, which uses a series of progressively finer anti-static filters to trap and retain particles as they move through the vacuum. In order to eliminate combustible dust from being exhausted back into the ambient air, a HEPA or ULPA filter can be positioned after the motor to filter the exhaust stream. Quality HEPA filters offer an efficient, effective way to trap and retain the smallest dust particles, down to and including 0.3 microns. An ULPA filter captures even smaller particles, down to and including 0.12 microns. Nilfisk CFM A15 Intrinsically Safe Vacuum: Pneumatic intrinsically safe vacuums are a viable option when electricity isn’t available or desired but should still meet the requirements for use in your NFPA-classified environment. Photo courtesy of Nilfisk CFM. An ignitable material, an ignition source and oxygen — all it takes for a potential explosion at your facility. Most manufacturing plants have all three. In 2006, fatalities involving explosions and fires increased by 26% in the manufacturing sector according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries. In addition to injuries, explosions cost companies millions of dollars. Between 1992 and 2002, Factory Mutual Global’s pharmaceutical and chemical clients experienced dust explosions resulting in $32 million in losses. OSHA has estimated that there are approximately 30,000 U.S. facilities at risk for combustible dust explosions. Simply put, there’s a lot of stake. NFPA 654 (Standard for the Prevention of Fire and Dust Explosions from the Manufacturing, Processing and Handling of Combustible Particulate Solids) contains comprehensive guidance on the control of dusts to prevent explosions. The following are some of its recommendations: 36 www.airbestpractices.com http://www.airbestpractices.com

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Compressed Air Best Practices - February 2009

Compressed Air Best Practices - February 2009 Contents From the Editor Utility-Air News Compressed Air Audit of the Month Air Standards Instrument Air in Nuclear Power Plants Seven Sustainability Projects for Industrial Energy Savings The Pneumatic Advantage Personal Productivity Resources for Energy Engineers Wall Street Watch Advertiser Index Classifieds

Compressed Air Best Practices - February 2009

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.