Welcome to Tiger-Vac's Resource Center

This page has been set up on Tiger-Vac's web site to provide information to existing and prospective customers, engineers and so forth, about the use of vacuum cleaners in potentially explosive or hazardous atmospheres.

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.

Videos on the risks associated to combustible dusts

Press Gallery

Links of interest

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.

(top)

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.

(top)

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

(top)