January 6th, 2012 Baghouse.com News | The Chemical Safety Board has issued its final report regarding a series of deadly industrial dust explosions accidents that occurred at the Hoeganaes powdered metals plant in Gallatin, Tennessee in 2011. The main cause of these three deadly explosions and fires that claimed five lives and injured many others was determined to be negligence regarding combustible dust hazards. The CSB further noted that a main factor in these accidents was the constant neglect of the plant’s dust collection system.

All three of the incidents occurred when large amounts of accumulated highly combustible iron dust where dispersed into the air and then ignited. The plant manufactures various metal powders for industrial use, the most produced of which is iron powder.

Picture of combustible dust accumulations near a bucket elevator that killed 2 workers when the dust was ignited by the motor.

The CSB investigation found that iron dust was present in high enough concentrations in the air to be clearly visible, and had accumulated on nearly all surfaces including elevated ledges, rafters, and other overhead spaces in amounts of 4 inches or greater. In addition the CSB clearly documented through photos and videos how dust handling equipment such as bucket elevators, conveyor belts, etc.  were not adequately sealed, regularly leaking large amounts of dust into the air when in operation, and were not connected to the plant’s dust collection system. Additionally, plant workers told investigators that the dust collection system was regularly out of service due to maintenance.

Three Combustible Dust Incidents At One Plant In Six Months

The CSB investigation begin after the first of the three incidents occurred on January 31st, 2011 when fine iron dust particles coming from a broken bucket elevator were ignited while two maintenance personnel were performing repairs. The airborne particles were ignited by a spark from the bucket elevator’s electrical motor when it engaged. The resulting explosion and fire severely burned both workers, and eventually proved fatal for both men.

Just two months later, while the CSB was still conducting an investigation into the first incident, another flash fire occurred on March 29th when a maintenance worker used a hammer while reconnecting a gas line on the side of one of the plant’s furnaces. When he struck the side of the furnace with the hammer it lofted accumulated iron dust into the air, which then ignited, severely burning him, and causing him to fall from elevated working position further injuring him.  According to CSB officials, “the build up of so much iron dust near a furnace with open flames and hot surfaces was a recipe for disaster. A fire was basically inevitable the moment the dust was dispersed into the air.”

March 29, 2011 Combustible dust fire in Gallatin, Te Hoeganaes powdered metals plant. The second of two serious dust fires/explosions in six months at the plant

Even with two such incidents within two months of each other, Hoeganaes management and its parent company still failed to take action to address the combustible dust safety issues at the Gallatin, Tennessee plant.

This failure proved to be catastrophic as just a few months later on May 27th when the an even deadlier third incident took place. Workers were repairing a corroded furnace pipe containing extremely flammable hydrogen gas caught fire when workers used a forklift to raise a metal floorplate to access the pipe. Workers has assumed the leaking gas was non-flammable nitrogen. After the initial explosion, the leaking gas continued to burn as a continues jet fire. The force of the initial explosion shook loose largeamounts of accumulated iron dust from overhead rafters. As the large plumes of iron dust fell they were ignited by the jet fire causing massive explosions further injuring workers and damaging the plant. One worker stated that so much iron dust was lofted into air, that even with a flashlight he was only able to see two to three feet in front of him as he tried to escape.

The aftermath of the third Hoeganaes combustible dust explosion in 2011. Notice the dislodged metal floor grating.

Evidence of Danger Present Well Before

All of these incidents were easily preventable. However plant management refused to take appropriate action to improve dust collection at the plant.

Even before the series of incidents, the plant had twice tested its dusts for combustibility. They ever were warned of the potential for a dust explosion after an insurance audit, which cited the potential for a such an accident due to the plant’s poor dust collection system policies, and housekeeping.

In addition to these warnings, the plant had firsthand knowledge of the combustibility hazards present in the plant, when on several occasions flash fires had occurred when workers performed maintenance using welding torches on dust covered conveyor belts. In fact the Gallatin Fire Department Hoeganaes facility in the last 12 years. These included one in June of 1999 where an iron dust fire in the baghouse lead to the hospitalization of one worker for smoke inhalation.

The CSB found that part of the core problem was that the plant, which was built over thirty years ago, was not designed according to good practice guidelines for combustible dust hazards, such as those set forth by the NFPA (National Fire Protection Association). “During its decades of operation, [the plant] was never redesigned to address the serious dust hazards” states CSB investigator Johnnie Banks.

Accumulated combustible iron dust on rafters at the Hoeganaes plant lead to several deaths when a series of dust fires and explosions occurred in 2011.

The plant has numerous flat elevated surfaces that easily accumulate large amounts of dust, and are difficult or impossible to clean with regularity. NFPA 484, which covers combustible metals safety, recommends that “floors elevated platforms, and gratings be designed to prevent dust accumulations and facilitate cleaning.” The same standard also requires that any machinery that emits combustible dust be connected to a dust collection system. Both of these recommendations were not followed by the Hoeganaes plant.

Many have asked how is it that these accidents were allowed to happen, even when plant management had all of these warnings and was in clear violation of best industry standards?

The city of Gallatin requires industrial facilities, including the Hoeganaes plant, to comply with the International Fire Code, which includes a brief chapter on combustible dust standards and references the more detailed NFPA standards. However the code does not require compliance with the more stringent NFPA standards. As a result the plant was not directly in violation of the International Fire Code that it was mandated to follow.

CSB Recommendations Based On Its Investigation

As a result of the CSB investigation, the CSB has proposed several actions be taken to reduce the risk of more combustible dust incidents from occurring elsewhere.

First, the CSB recommended that the International Code Counsel “revise the International Fire Code to mandate compliance with the combustible dust safety standards set forth by the NFPA.”

Secondly, in its 2006 report on the dangers of combustible dust hazards in industry, the CSB recommended that OSHA (Occupational Health and Safety Administration) issue a comprehensive combustible dust safety standard for general industry. As a result in 2007 OSHA instituted a national emphasis program for combustible dust, with the stated goal of eventually issuing a comprehensive combustible dust standard in the near future. In 2009 OSHA announced that it would begin the rule making process for combustible dust hazards. However, in 2011 at the time of these accidents, no standard had yet been proposed, or completed.

As a result, in its final report on the incidents, the CSB recommended that OSHA issue its long awaited combustible dust standards “within one year”, and that the standard include combustible iron and steel powders.  In the meantime, the CSB recommended that plants that manufacture steel and iron powders be included in the national emphasis program. for combustible dust.

 What This Means For Facilities With Combustible Dust Hazards

The continued loss of life due to combustible dust hazards is no longer being ignored by the CSB, OSHA, or other governmental agencies. The only way to prevent the loss of additional lives is for industry to begin following best industry standards as set forth by the NFPA and eventually the comprehensive standard by OSHA.

In the meantime, plant mangers and operators can educate themselves on the dangers of combustible dusts by reviewing educational articles on the subject such as those published here on Baghouse.com (http://www.baghouse.com/2011/01/19/the-potential-for-dust-explosions-in-dust-collection-systems/). They can also seek the assistance of experts in the dust collection industry to identify areas where improvement can be made, and make suggestions of ways to increase dust collection efficiency at their facilities.

For more information about the dangers of combustible dusts, please see the following links:

The CSB video reports on the Hoeganes incidents:

The following LinkedIn groups work specifically to raise awareness of combustible dust hazards, and lobby for comprehensive standards for general industry:

http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1184577&goback=%2Egmp_1184577

http://www.linkedin.com/groupRegistration?gid=2076996&csrfToken=ajax%3A2562522142432018780&goback=%2Eanb_2076996_*2

Dominick DalSanto is an Author & Environmental Technologies Expert, specializing in Dust Collection Systems. With nearly a decade of hands-on working experience in the industry, Dominick’s knowledge of the industry goes beyond a mere classroom education. He is currently serving as Online Marketing Director & Content Manager at Baghouse.com. His articles have been published not only on Baghouse.com , but also on other industry related blogs and sites. In his spare time, Dominick writes about travel and life abroad for various travel sites and blogs. Born in San Bernardino county California, raised in Chicago Illinois, he currently resides in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

December 30th, 2011 Baghouse.com News | After years of being derided for its views on air pollution by international and domestic environmentalists, as well as its own people, the Chinese government has conceded to change the way it measures particulate matter pollution (the amount of dust particle pollution in the air) to a stricter standard known as PM 2.5.

The PM 2.5 standard, which is used by most industrialized countries including the U.S. and the E.U., measures airbourne dust particles that are 2.5 microns in size or larger. Currently, China uses the older PM 10 standard that only measures particles larger than 10 microns in size.

Research has shown that the smaller particles are the ones that pose the greatest danger to humans, since their small size allows them to penetrate deep into the lungs.

Particulate matter is generated in many ways, the largest of which are from automobile exhaust and heavy industrial sites.

In the U.S. large industrial sources of PM 2.85 such as coal-fired power plants are required to install and maintain dust collection systems such as baghouses to capture dust pollution before it escapes into the atmosphere.

China, ever the target of environmental criticism, has regularly been attacked by environmental NGOs, as well as foreign governments for allegedly underreporting its air quality situation. The difference is highlighted in its capital of Beijing by the stark contrast between the official government reports, and the regular readings taken by the U.S. embassy which, it then publishes daily on Twitter. The official government air quality reports are consistently orders of magnitude lower than the readings issued by the U.S. embassy. At times the government reports the air pollution as being only “slight” while the U.S. embassy reports readings  of “very hazardous” or “beyond index” on the same day. Needless to say, this is somewhat of a sore spot between the two countries, one that might see improvement once the Chinese government adopts the new measurement standards.

Is Changing To The PM 2.5 Standard The First Step?

While the change to PM 2.5 is encouraging, it alone does not signal a new environmental resolve on behalf of the government. The new measurement system will only be used in large cities, and then the entire country starting in 2015 stated Environment Minister Zhou Shengxian in state owned the People’s Daily. The environmental ministry claims the timeframe is required to prepare for new equipment and personnel.

So while this step is encouraging, and does signal a acknowledgment of the complaints of residents and environmental activists alike, until China adopts stricter air pollution control policies, and pushes for the adoption of pollution control equipment such as dust collection systems in its factories, the amount of particulate pollution in China, no matter how its measured, will continue to adversely affect the lives of all who reside there.

Dominick DalSanto is an Author & Environmental Technologies Expert, specializing in Dust Collection Systems. With nearly a decade of hands-on working experience in the industry, Dominick’s knowledge of the industry goes beyond a mere classroom education. He is currently serving as Online Marketing Director & Content Manager at Baghouse.com. His articles have been published not only on Baghouse.com , but also on other industry related blogs and sites. In his spare time, Dominick writes about travel and life abroad for various travel sites and blogs. Born in San Bernardino county California, raised in Chicago Illinois, he currently resides in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

December 23, 2011 Baghouse.com News – The Environmental Protection Agency proposed several revisions to its emissions standards for boilers and solid waste incinerators. The EPA rules set emissions limits for several different hazardous air pollutants, including mercury, particulate matter 2.5 (PM2.5) dioxins, cadmium, nitrogen dioxide and lead among others.

The rules, The Air Toxics Standards For Industrial Commercial and Institutional Boilers (Major and Source Facilities) and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and Emissions Guidelines (EG) for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators (CISWI), were originally proposed back in March 2011. The reason for the revisions according to the EPA was to address concerns raised by the public, and owners/operators during the public comment period. According to the EPA the proposed changes will still result in significant reductions in most pollutants, and even larger reductions in some, while limiting the financial burden from implementation as much as possible.

The revised rules will require only a small percentage of the total boilers in the U.S. to install pollution control equipment such as dust collection systems. The vast majority (86%) of boilers will not be covered by the rules at all, others (13%) will only be required to perform regular maintenance, and tune-ups to stay in compliance (also termed “workplace practices”). The remaining less than 1% of boilers are responsible for the vast majority of air pollution in this sector. They are mainly found in chemical processing, oil refineries, and other heavy industries. By retooling the rules to focus only on the largest emitters, the EPA hopes to improve flexibility in reaching compliance for smaller institutions.

The new regulations will result in over 8,100 premature deaths, 5,100 heart attacks, and 52,000 asthma attacks being avoided each year starting by 2015. The EPA estimates that for every $1 spent complying with these new regulations, the public will see $12 to $30 in health benefits. These results will be realized by reducing emission levels of compounds like mercury and lead, which are proven to cause developmental problems in young children and nervous system damage in adults and children, as well as by reducing particulate matter i.e. dust pollution, which is a severe asthma aggravator.

Existing major source boilers will have three years to come into compliance with the new regulations, with an additional year if needed technologies cannot be installed by then. CISWI units will have five years to comply.

The estimated annualized cost of the rule, as amended based on the reconsideration proposal, would be $1.49 billion, compared with $1.40 billion for the final rule. The estimated annualized cost would increase by about $90 million due to the addition of approximately 300 affected units to the revised inventory of units. This is the case even with a decrease in the stringency of some emission limits and less stringent PM control requirements for biomass units in the proposal.

Different Regulations For “Area Source” and “Major Source” Boilers

Boilers which only produce small amounts of air pollution are classified as “area source” boilers, and are mainly found in places like churches, hospitals, and commercial buildings. The majority of these burn natural gas (1.3 million), as such they are not covered by this rule. The remaining 187,000 area source burners that do not use natural gas would be covered by the new rules, of these only approximately 2% would have emissions limits, the other 98% would only need to follow workplace practices to stay in compliance.

Boilers that create large amounts of air pollution are classified as “major source” boilers. Of these approximately 14,00 boilers, most of which are found at heavy industrial sites such as refineries, and chemical processing plants, an estimated 88% (about 12,300) would only need to follow best work place practices, while the remaining 12% (about 1,750) will be required to reduce emissions, as well as increased monitoring, and record keeping.

Revisions Based On Public Comments

After allowing several months for public and industry comments regarding the original proposal, the EPA has included several of these suggestions into its revised proposal. Many of these are in response to claims that the original proposal was to restrictive in requiring the same standards across many different types of boilers in many different locations, applications, and that use different fuel sources. Among the proposed changes to make compliance easier, and fairer are the following:

Major Source Boilers:

• Subcategories for different types of light and heavy liquid fuels
• To reflect the real world differences in operating standards and requirements between the fuels
• Different limits for PM 2.5 for different fuels
• Different limits for boilers using biomass, coal, etc.
• Revised limits for carbon monoxide
• Subsequent studies have been provided that show that CO emissions vary greatly between boilers, and one universal limit is not practical
• Allow for a alternative total selective metals emissions limit for select air toxics
• To ease compliance costs, and improve flexibility
• Remove dioxin limits and replace with work place practice requirements
• Based on subsequent analysis showing dioxin levels in boilers are often well below accurately detectible levels
• Increased flexibility in compliance monitoring requirements
• Allow for monitoring from stack or continuous monitoring, and remove continuous monitoring requirement for biomass boilers
• Remove emissions limits for units outside continental United States
• To deal with unique operating circumstances and requirements for these units
• Allow “clean gas” boilers to continue to be exempt from new standards
• To improve flexibility and ease of compliance

Area Source Boilers:

• Alter Initial tuneup schedule
• Change compliance timeframe to two years, instead of one, create new categories of boilers and increase overall flexibility in compliance requirements
• Alter tuneup schedule/requirements for seasonal units
• Change from every other year to every five years for these infrequently employed units

Revisions To Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators (CISWI) Standards

A CISWI unit is any device that is used to burn solid waste at a commercial or industrial facility. Examples of CISWI units include incinirators used to burn solid waste (i.e. garbage), energy recovery units designed to recover heat that combust solid waste; and kilns designed to manufacture products and also combust solid waste.

The revised CISWI standards provide for stricter emissions limits on nine major air pollutants regulated by the EPA (mercury, PM 2.5, lead, etc.). In addition, the new standards provide for new definitions of what exactly qualifies as solid waste, hazardous waste, etc. Many of the revisions for the new standards requested increased clarification in these areas. The subsequently revised standards have increased clarification on what materials are categorized as, allow for certain “non-hazardous secondary materials” to not be classified as solid waste when used as a fuel (e.g. certain wood products that are used as part of biomass fuel sources) and allow for plant operators to request the EPA to clarify, and reclassify certain materials based on site specific considerations.

The EPA estimates that, for some units, it would be more cost-effective to use an alternative disposal option. If those units use alternative disposal options, and the remainder use add-on controls, the total nationwide cost would be approximately $270 million. If all 95 CISWI units currently in operation use add-on controls, the total nationwide cost for complying with the rule, as amended, would be approximately $284 million per year.

What This Means For The Future

The EPA believes these newly revised standards will provide both added health benefits, and environmental protection while still not creating an unbearable burden for operators. “With this action, EPA is applying the right standards to the right boilers,” said Gina McCarthy, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation. “Gathering the latest and best real-world information is leading to practical, affordable air pollution safeguards that will provide the vital and overdue health protection that Americans deserve.”

WIth these new standards set to take effect in the near future, dust collection systems, baghouses, baghouse filters, etc. will be in high demand as many existing plants require extensive upgrades in order to reach compliance. In addition to these standards, the EPA’s newly issued mercury rule will also in many technologies (such as activated carbon injection) require upgrades to existing dust collection systems, or at minimum investments in more efficient baghouse filters or system tuneups.

Dominick DalSanto is an Author & Environmental Technologies Expert, specializing in Dust Collection Systems. With nearly a decade of hands-on working experience in the industry, Dominick’s knowledge of the industry goes beyond a mere classroom education. He is currently serving as Online Marketing Director & Content Manager at Baghouse.com. His articles have been published not only on Baghouse.com , but also on other industry related blogs and sites. In his spare time, Dominick writes about travel and life abroad for various travel sites and blogs. Born in San Bernardino county California, raised in Chicago Illinois, he currently resides in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Concentrations of particulate matter pollution (dust pollution) in New Delhi, India on Monday reached dangerously high levels, with levels of particulate matter 2.5 (PM 2.5) over 10 times the level deemed "Very Unhealthy" by the EPA. Levels this high in the US are considered a public health emergency, with warnings for elderly ones, infirm, and children to avoid exposure by going outside.

November 25, 2011 | Baghouse.com – The 16 million inhabitants of New Delhi, India on a normal day can raise their eyes to look over their beautiful city, only to have it obscured by a think layer of smog and haze that hangs over the city. With a rapidly industrializing economy, increasing numbers of cars on its roads, and extensive construction taking place within its borders, the city’s air quality has become so polluted that it is now classified from hazardous to so severe that a public health emergency needs to be declared.

According to measurements taken by US and Indian governmental agencies, the AQI (Air Quality Index) for Particulate Matter 2.5 was over 300 on Monday. According to US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) anything 201 on the scale, which rates pollution concentrations on a scale of 0 to 500, is termed “very unhealthy” and should be considered dangerous for older persons, and children to be outside. In India the levels found on Monday of over 300 are currently classified only as “very poor” as opposed to “hazardous” by the standards of most other countries.

The main troublesome pollutant in the city (and throughout the country) is PM 2.5, a term for small dust particles that measure less than 2.5 microns in size. These particles have been proven to have a detrimental effect on the health of those exposed to them, due to their ability to penetrate deep into the lungs. Depending on the exact source material (coal-fired power plants, metals, plastics, chemicals, etc.) a myriad of illnesses such as cancers, asthma, brain and neurological damage can result.

At a time when the United States, and most other developed countries are tightening clean air regulations and mandating large investments in newer pollution control technologies such as newer PTFE membrane dust collector filter technology, countries like China and India are making only minimal investments in such areas.

With lower environmental clean air standards than other industrialized nations, China and India both are suffering the effects. Most nations enforce tough regulations for PM 2.5, requiring extensive pollution control equipment known as dust collection systems to be installed and maintained at most facilities that generate even small amounts of dust pollution. A common dust collection system, known as a baghouse, works by passing the dirty exhaust (or dirty air collected from various points throughout the facility) through a series of fabric dust collector filters that capture the dust particles down to the sub-micron level. The now dust free air is then exhausted into the atmosphere.

On average Beijing, China has the worst air quality of any national capital in the world. Recently, this dubious honor is being challenged by New Delhi, India. Both cities' air quality problems such as smog, and haze are due to excessive dust pollution from increasing industrial presence, and limited dust control regulations, little to no regulatory process, and insufficient investment in dust collection systems i.e. Baghouses.

Until recently, China’s capital of Beijing held the dubious title of world’s most polluted capital, with regular pm 2.5 concentrations in the hazardous range. Monday marks the first time that Beijing has been surpassed by New Delhi in AQI levels. However, unlike India, which publishes figures for PM2.5 regularly, and whose numbers are trusted by most international sources, China still measures its air quality on the outdated PM 10 (particles 10 microns in size) standard, and their reported levels are often questions by locals and others alike. This has lead the US embassy in Beijing to install a monitoring station on the roof of ht embassy. It maintains a Twitter feed with its readings (which are PM 2.5) for the public to view.

Whether or not the famously polluted air in Beijing is only going to earn the city the number 2 spot on the list, or if this is merely a one time occurrence will depend upon the resolve of these respective cities’/nations’ to take the necessary steps to improve air quality.

About The Author

Dominick DalSanto is an Author & Environmental Technologies Expert, specializing in Dust Collection Systems. With nearly a decade of hands-on working experience in the industry, Dominick’s knowledge of the industry goes beyond a mere classroom education. He is currently serving as Online Marketing Director & Content Manager at Baghouse.com. His articles have been published not only on Baghouse.com , but also on other industry related blogs and sites. In his spare time, Dominick writes about travel and life abroad for various travel sites and blogs. Born in San Bernardino county California, raised in Chicago Illinois, he currently resides in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

October 26th 2011 | Baghouse.com – Corporate executives are looking for any conceivable way to lower operating costs in our struggling economy, plant operators are being pushed by the corporate brass to find someway of doing more with less, and maintenance managers are trying to make sure all of these cutbacks do not compromise process operation. One area that many industrial plants can easily increase efficiency, and therefore lower operating costs is to look to their pulse jet baghouse dust collection systems.

Here are three small tweaks for your pulse jet dust collection system to increase operating efficiency without a major overhaul or great expense.

1. Ensure Filter Bags Are Installed Correctly
2. Install a Clean-On-Demand System
3. Integrate All System Controls (Clean-on-Demand, timer boards, manometers, etc.)

1. Correctly Install Filter Bags

Filter Bags are the heart and soul of a baghouse. If they are not installed correctly the entire system will suffer, efficiency will go down, filters will fail prematurely, system downtime will ensue and affect the entire process. Check that filters with flanges and cuff are folded over and smooth and not wrinkled around the cage to prevent leakage, and premature failure due to bag abrasion. Bottom-loading filters should be installed with seams 180° from the cage collar gap.

An example of how a snapband filter bag should be installed to maximize your dust collection system efficiency.

Additionally, there are several specific issues to watch out for depending on the exact design of filter bags being used. For snapband construction, check that the seams are set properly in the tubesheet. This can be done running your fingers along the edge of each bag during installation/maintenance checking that each one is smooth, with no wrinkles, gaps, or binds in the snapband. For designs with gaskets or rubber o-rings make sure these are not pinched by the clamps in a way that will allow leaks, or cause accelerated wear.

Additionally, with all bag types, all seams should be at a 45° angle from the aisle to minimize fraying due to increased can velocity, all clamps should be set 90° from the seams, and all filters need to be set properly in the cage groves.*

*Additional Tip: Have everything as uniform (clamps, seams, etc. all set in the same direction) as possible to make it easier to diagnose and remedy problems.

2. Clean-On-Demand System

Manually having a technician initiate the cleaning cycle for your dust collection systems can consume a large amount of time, and lead to less than desirable results such as over/under cleaning, operating at higher differential pressure (raising system resistance, and fan load), and lower collection efficiency. Simplify the process and remove the need to be a industrial filtration expert out of the equation by installing a clean-on-demand system.

Using a clean-on-demand timer board for your baghouse will simplify the cleaning process, and result in more effective cleaning of your dust collection system.

These systems are comprised of a differential pressure gauge, and a control board. The DP gauge monitors the difference in pressure between the clean-air and dirty-air sections of the baghouse (thus giving you the pressure drop over the filters at any given time). DP gauge is connected to the control board, which has a high and low pressure setting which serve as the start and stop markers for the system. When the DP in the baghouse rises past your high setting (indicating the bags need to be cleaned), the controller starts the pulse-jet cleaning cycle, once the pressure reaches the preset low, the pulse-jet system is disengaged.

For a relatively small capital investment clean-on-demand systems can dramatically improve your system efficiency by ensuring the minimum amount of cleaning cycles necessary are initiated, which in turn leads to lower compressed air usage, lower operating differential pressures, and less filter wear. These benefits will lower system operating maintenance costs, while seeing improvement in collection efficiency, and extended filter bag life.

3. Integrate Dust Collection System Controls

Maintaining the correct amount of dustcake on your filters is essential to achieve the maximum collection potential of your filter bags. In fact it is the dustcake itself that does the filtering in a baghouse, not the filter bags! * When the pulse-jet cleaning system engages, it removes the excess dust from the filter surface. Essentially what this does is rearrange the dustcake on the filters, removing a portion of it, and leaving behind the minimum amount needed to reform the dustcake for optimum efficiency. When cleaning cycles are carried out, if each row is pulsed one after another in sequential order, high internal air velocities between the filters (can velocity) can cause the recently dislodged dust to be redeposited on the recently cleaned bags in the previous rows. Since the dust is carried at higher than normal velocities, it can penetrate the fabric (instead of settling on top and forming part of the dustcake) and embed itself therein. This will eventually lead to filter blinding, and a reduction of filter service life.

Installing a sequential controller can help you avoid this problem. This device controls the order in which the bags are cleaned, staggering the cleaning pulse pattern between non-adjacent rows. For example, in a baghouse with 10 rows of bags, you can set the cleaning pattern to first clean rows 1,4,7,10 then 2,5,8, and finally, 3,6,9. You can also set the controller to only fire when the pressure in the compressed air header is at full, providing a consistent pulse force that will properly clean the bags every time. Additionally, to further promote longer filter life, see that each pulse duration is set as short as possible, generally around 0.1 sec.

If you do not currently have a DP clean-on-demand system, an alternative is to use a timer control to regulate system cleaning. When using a timer board setup, it is vital to set the intervals to match your system parameters, ensuring that the filters are neither over, or under cleaned. Maintaining a sufficient level of dustcake is vital to achieving a high system efficiency.

Finally, it is possible to integrate all of these different systems into one unified control panel for operator convenience. You can have all of your controllers relayed to a central LED controller, which then is connected to an external PLC controller or computer for remote monitoring, and recording of all system activity. From here it is then possible to configure all control parameters e.g. timer settings, clean-on-demand DP points, pulse-jet firing order, etc. Additionally, having all operating data in one convenient location will allow for quickly pinpointing problems before they become major issues.

*This does not apply to filter bags with membrane such as ePTFE. In that case, the membrane itself acts as a sort of permeant filter cake while surface dust provides no additional filtering.

Save Money By Increasing Dust Collection System Efficiency

These three tips are just a few of the many ways to increase the operating efficiency of your baghouse dust collection systems with only limited investment of time, material, and capital. Without a doubt, these improvements will pay for themselves many times over throughout the life of the system. At a time when new environmental regulations are requiring pollution control equipment to function at higher and higher efficiencies, not only will turing your attention to improving your dust collection systems lower your operating expenses, but it will also ensure that facilities stay in compliance and avoid costly fines and forced closures.

Dominick DalSanto is an Author & Environmental Technologies Expert, specializing in dust collection systems. With nearly a decade of hands-on working experience in the industry, Dominick’s knowledge of the industry goes beyond a mere classroom education. His articles have been published not only on Baghouse.com, but also on other industry related blogs and sites. He is currently serving as Online Marketing Director & Content Manager at Baghouse.com. In his spare time, Dominick writes about travel and life abroad for various travel sites and blogs. Born in San Bernardino County California, raised in Chicago Illinois, he currently resides in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Upon further investigation, the EPA ordered the company to install additional baghouses and other air pollution controls at several of its locations throughout California. All together the settlement will cost the company over $3 million, $2.9 million to upgrade the various facilities, and over $690,000 for fines and other costs.

For more information, see the article here: http://eponline.com/Blogs/Environmental-Protection-Blog/2011/10/Air-Pollution-Control-Technology-or-EPA-Fines-You-Decide.aspx

Dominick DalSanto is an Author & Environmental Technologies Expert, specializing in Dust Collection Systems. With nearly a decade of hands-on working experience in the industry, Dominick’s knowledge of the industry goes beyond a mere classroom education. He is currently serving as Online Marketing Director & Content Manager at Baghouse.com. His articles have been published not only on Baghouse.com , but also on other industry related blogs and sites. In his spare time, Dominick writes about travel and life abroad for various travel sites and blogs. Born in San Bernardino county California, raised in Chicago Illinois, he currently resides in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

A new article authored by Baghouse.com that has been published on a leading environmental and safety magazine EHSToday.com that offers 5 often overlooked baghouse safety proceedures for performing any type of work on dust collection systems. You can read the article here: 5 Essential Baghouse Maintenance Safety Precautions I encourage all of our readers to take a moment and read this article and consider how well are you doing regarding baghouse safety.

Direct URL: http://ehstoday.com/industrial_hygiene/news/baghouse-safety-precautions/

Rawhide Energy Station in Fort Collins, CO is a coal-fired power plant with some of the nations lowest emissions due to modern bag house, mercury capture, and SO2 scrubbers.

At a time when most power plants are worried about meeting new EPA regulations, one Colorado coal-fired power plant that boasts about being top ten lowest emissions in the nation due to modern dust collection systems (or baghouse) looks to improve even more; claims other plants give coal a bad name.

Baghouse.com – September 31st, 2011, Forth Colins, Colorado - Rawhide Energy Station located 26 miles north of Fort Collins, CO is held in high esteem as an example of what a 21st century coal-fired power plants should be. The plant that is owned by four local municipalities through the Platte River Power Authority (PRPA), currently ranks in the top ten in the country for lowest emissions despite being a 280 megawatt facility.

What has led enabled Rawhide Energy Station to stand out among its fellow coal-fired plants by maintaining such high environmental standards, while still proving to be a profitable enterprise? Plant staff believe its the dedication they take to environmental responsibility that is echoed throughout the entire operation.

“The whole coal industry gets a bad name when there’s a big difference between a facility like this and a facility that doesn’t even spray or have a bag house,” stated plant manager Jason Frisbie. “These are existing technologies that would make all these plants much cleaner than they are right now. Proven.” The plant staff count a history of always investing in new technologies to attain even lower emissions than required by current regulations.

Rawhide Energy Station’s Extensive Pollution Control Systems

Rawhide Energy Station currently averages SO₂ emissions of .081 pounds per million BTUs (British Thermal Units), about one tenth of the average of .765 PPM. The plant currently operates several pollution control systems concurrently too handle the various pollutates generated by the coal combustion process. The most extensive of these is the boiler itself which, is a Combustion Engineering (now Alstom Power) tangentially fired (T-fired) boiler equipped with a new low-NO_x burner system in fall of 2005. For additional NO_x collection, the plant operates a dry spray absorber. For SO₂  collection the plant uses a Joy Niro dry scrubber system, and an activated carbon injection system for mercury (Hg) control. Two bag houses with approximately 6,500 PTFE membrane 34 foot filter bags are used to achieve particulate matter (PM_2.5) collection efficiencies. The bag house collectors also assist in the collection of excess dry scrubbing product from the scrubbers, and are integral in the operation of the activated carbon injection system used for mercury (Hg) collection.

The plant uses a lot of coal – about 1.25 million tons a year -brought in by rail from Wyoming.They also maintain a 60 day reserve in case supply is ever interrupted. The main type of coal used to operate the plant’s main boiler is Powder River Basin (PRB) coal, a sub-bituminous type of coal that is mined from large deposits in Wyoming and Montana. This type of coal, while producing less BTUs per ton than other types, is highly valued due its substantially low sulfur content, which aids in keeping SO₂ emissions low.

However, there is a trade off with using low sulfur coal. Sub-bituminous coal leads to increased difficulty in collecting mercury emissions, which recently have become regulated by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). The  PRPA has taken steps to reach compliance with these new regulations even before they come into effect, by installing a activated carbon injection system for mercury control. The system works by injecting activated carbon, which absorbs the hard to collect  elemental forms of mercury (Whereas bituminous coal creates mainly oxidized forms that are easier to collect). The mercury-ladden carbon is then collected in the bag house on the surface of the ePTFE (Teflon) membrane filter bags, which in turn when cleaned allows for the collection and disposal of the mercury along with other collected particles such as fly-ash. This technology represents the newest environmental focus of the industry with the new EPA regulations coming into effect in the near future. However as we can see, the Rawhide Energy Station already prepared well in advance for the coming regulations, in line with the plants self-motivated philosophy of striving to operate more environmentally-friendly.

WIth all of these APC (air pollution control) technology, surely, the plant must suffer from extensive downtime for system install and additional maintenance. However is that the case?

“We Focus on Preventive…and Predicted Maintenance “

By placing a high value on preventive maintenance, the plant has been able to achieve a relatively high average capacity factor (how much the plant puts out compared its full potential). The plant currently have a lifetime equivalent availability factor of around 98%with its capacity factor about 88.8%. ”A lot of plants manage about 70 percent,” say Doug Adair maintenance manager for the plant. This has not come about without a lot of forethought and planning. The plant usually plans for a full-scale shut down ever three to five years. This enables the plant to prevent small problems (such as replacing filters in the bag house) from becoming larger ones (damage to plant systems from higher emissions due to lower bag house performance).

In addition to the main coal-fired boiler, the plant also fields four GE Frame 7EA natural gas-fired turbines totaling 260 MW (three installed in 2002 and a fourth added in 2004). These are used to provide additional power during peak hours.

“We focus a lot on preventive maintenance and predicted maintenance,”

- Doug Adair Maintenance Manager

Company Mindset Contributes to Stellar Record

It all starts with the people and a teamwork culture that shares ownership of the facility. Jason Frisbie, the division manager of Power Production at Rawhide, noted that, “while the operating statistics and utilization of technology continues to pay off, the primary reason for Rawhide’s success can be attributed directly to the dedicated and professional staff at the station.”Here is an example of Rawhide’s unique management culture. Each employee, including the plant manager, is assigned a cleaning area that requires that person’s attention for an hour a week. Individuals feel a sense of accomplishment when they’re done, and everyone has a facility that all are proud of. Another benefit of a good clean, safe work environment is that it’s easier to spot problems with the equipment and easier to fix those problems as well.

Despite seeing demand drop substantially from its peak two years ago, during which time the plant ran all its gas turbine units in addition to the coal-fired unit, the plant continues to provide plenty of work for over one hundred full-time employees.

The peak position may be the control room — no one gets in there until they’ve had at least 15 years experience. Many have 25, almost as long as the plant’s been up and running.”So Homer Simpson couldn’t work here,” City Councilwoman Sarah Levison joked during a recent plant tour.”You are correct,” Adair said. “Homer Simpson couldn’t work here.”

“Homer Simpson couldn’t work here.”

- Maintenance Manager Doug Adair commenting on the level of experience required of the plant’s operators

Unique Environmental View Leads to Unconventional Success

Following the pattern of the unique environmental philosophy, the plant in addition to its extensive pollution control equipment, also takes a more symbolic approach to build its environmentally-friendly image. In the early days of the area now know as Fort Collins, thousands of wild Bison roamed this area, and called it home. According to Albert Hamilton, Platte River Power Authority’s first general manager, “Bison should be returned to the grasslands to symbolize the ruggedness of the American West and to demonstrate that power plants can coexist in harmony with native plants and wildlife.”

The plant established a program called “Adopt-a-Buffalo” in 1983 to bring back some of that sense of oneness with nature to the plant. From the first twenty bison, the herd has produced numerous award winning animals. Profits from sales offset the cost of the program. Plant staff help take care of the herd, providing water and feed for the herd.

The program’s success is satisfying proof for plant management that they efforts to protect the environment are working. ”Any corporation, any company, doesn’t have to destroy what’s around them to be successful,” says spokeswoman Rae Todd.

More About The Rawhide Energy station:

In 1973, the cities of Longmont, Fort Collins, Loveland and Estes Park joined to create Platte River Power Authority. The PRPA operates the Rawhide Energy Station north of Fort Collins provides for all the previously mentioned municipalities. Each municipality sets the rates for its own jurisdiction.

Dominick DalSanto is an Author & Environmental Technologies Expert, specializing in Dust Collection Systems. With nearly a decade of hands-on working experience in the industry, Dominick’s knowledge of the industry goes beyond a mere classroom education. He is currently serving as Online Marketing Director & Content Manager at Baghouse.com. His articles have been published not only on Baghouse.com , but also on other industry related blogs and sites. In his spare time, Dominick writes about travel and life abroad for various travel sites and blogs. Born in San Bernardino county California, raised in Chicago Illinois, he currently resides in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

http://air-quality-testing.blogspot.com/2011/05/epa-admits-error-in-proposed-mercury.html

Here is an interesting article about the EPA’s new mercury standards from our good friend Ron McCulloch the “blue collar MBA” with Golden Specialty Inc. Ron and his firm are among the most trusted names in stack testing services in the nation.

This posts comments on a recently discovered error in the EPA Mercury MACT rule. After initially being discovered by the non-profit trade organization Utility Air Regulation Group (UARG), the EPA has finally admitted the there was indeed an error in the way they calculated the limits for the MACT (maximum achievable control technology) floor for both the mercury and air toxics standards (MATS) rules.

An EPA official admitted that the error was indeed present. But she claimed that it had not had a substantial effect on the final rule. She further stated that the EPA had corrected the mistake and apologized for the error.

The error deals with the formula used for converting measurements reported in terms of lb/GWh to lb/MWh is “incorrect by a factor of 1,000″ claims the UARG.

For the whole story please continue to Ron’s blog: Air Quality Testing.

About the Author:

Dominick DalSanto is an Author & Environmental Technologies Expert, specializing in Dust Collection Systems. With nearly a decade of hands-on working experience in the industry, Dominick’s knowledge of the industry goes beyond a mere classroom education. He is currently serving as Online Marketing Director & Content Manager at Baghouse.com. His articles have been published not only on Baghouse.com , but also on other industry related blogs and sites. In his spare time, Dominick writes about travel and life abroad for various travel sites and blogs. Born in San Bernardino county California, raised in Chicago Illinois, he currently resides in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

(Baghouse.com – September 10th, 2011) – Governmental environmental regulations are often praised for the role they play in helping to keep our planet clean, and protecting us from hazardous by-products of our modern industrialized world. However, as these regulatory bodies increase in size, and influence, many claim that they have become inefficient, bogged down due to their overly bureaucratic organization, and even as “corrupt” as the big business polluters they are charged with protecting the public against.

We can see this in a recent article from Ethanol Producers Magazine; the article highlights the plight of a group of ethanol plant operators, and their constant struggles to understand and comply with needlessly complex environmental regulations, and permits issues by state and federal agencies. The article explains how sometimes permitting agencies require certain standards to be met in their permit proposals, that do not have any regulation behind them. These unnecessary requirements are simply confusing are not are not fair and are the result of over-regulating, states Jessica Karras-Bailey, an associate with RTP Environmental Associates Inc.

While certain states may have stricter emissions standards that others, in general the problem lies with permit issuing agencies, and officials going above and beyond what is required by federal and state legislation. In one cited example, an ethanol plant permit proposal would have required truck with grain shipments to follow a specific pattern within the site (taking a right turn, drive in a counterclockwise direction, and then leave by taking a left turn). Failure to enact this provision would have left the plant in non-compliance with the permit, leading to heavy fines and possibly forced closures. Provisions such as this obviously left management confused, wondering why such a requirement was mandated by existing regulations, as well as how they could possibly implement such a thing in a practical way.

Instances such as this highlight the almost “Mystic Elements” that these permits can sometimes require of plant operators. Often times companies are simply at a loss, not knowing what action to take, all the while fearing the repercussions that might come from not complying with these regulations.

In the instance cited above, the plant management turned to a consulting firm that specializes in helping facilities come into compliance with pollution control regulations, and with negotiating with permitting agencies. They were able to learn why the state’s permitting officials had placed this peculiar requirement in the permit (air dispersion modeling reasons). After that, the firm was able to negotiate with the agency, explaining that from a practical standpoint, it simply was not possible, and find a more flexible solution that was acceptable to both parties. “But it’s not always easy,” stated the consultant, and we tend to agree with that conclusion.

Air Permitting Compliance Help & Advice

Do governmental pollution regulations have you feeling like this at times? EPA clean air regulations (NAAQS, NESHAP, etc...) for particulate matter (PM2.5), mercury, and other VOCs can be easily met by operating a proper dust collection system at your facility.

In researching this article, Baghouse.com contacted several consulting firms that specialize in helping facilities with the environmental permitting process, and advise them on ways to bring their sites into compliance with said regulations. We managed to speak with Brian Burdorf at Trinity Consultants, Inc. based in Dallas, Tx. about some of the more common issues that companies encounter during the permitting process, and what actions these firms can take to ensure compliance. We asked for some specific standards that among the hardest for companies to meet, and which ones can be affected by dust collection system performance the most.

Burdorf, mentioned that most difficult sections of current U.S. clean air regulations for companies to come into compliance with are the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), and associated U.S. EPA dispersion modeling requirements for demonstrating compliance with nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). In addition, with regards to dust collection systems, he adds that the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), Maximum Achievable Control Technologies (MACT), and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)for industrial-commercial-institutional steam generators (boilers), electric utility steam generating units (utilities), portland cement manufacturing, and similar industrial processes are particularly challenging for companies to meet.

Theses standards, many of which have been updated, or otherwise expanded in recent years, require higher emissions standards that are increasingly complex, and difficult to achieve with existing or antiquated dust collection systems.

What Can You Do to Ensure Your Dust Collection System Reaches Compliance?

The role of dust collection systems in controlling pollution is growing more vital with each passing year. With tougher limits being proposed/adopted by regulatory bodies for particulate matter within the NAAQS, NESHAP, MACT, and NSPS, many formerly compliant sites are being forced to upgrade their existing systems, or install completely new equipment (such as replacing ESPs with Baghouse technology). With so many industries being affected by these rules, naturally the rules are complex, and often apply differently to different industries, and require different tactics for different industries and processes to reach compliance.

If you are confused and intimidated by the seemingly insurmountable challenge presented by the air permitting process for your facility, fear not for you have several options available to help you overcome these challenges. This topic will be covered in of our next article in this series here on Baghouse.com. We will discuss which exact regulations apply for different industries, what part certain technologies (Baghouse, filters, mercury capture systems etc.) will play in meeting the standards of tomorrow, and how you can plan to meet these standards not only for the present, but also for the future as well. If you have any specific questions that cannot wait until then, feel free to contact us here at Baghouse.com for assistance and we will be glad to help.

Dominick DalSanto is an Author & Environmental Technologies Expert, specializing in Dust Collection Systems. With nearly a decade of hands-on working experience in the industry, Dominick’s knowledge of the industry goes beyond a mere classroom education. He is currently serving as Online Marketing Director & Content Manager at Baghouse.com. His articles have been published not only on Baghouse.com , but also on other industry related blogs and sites. In his spare time, Dominick writes about travel and life abroad for various travel sites and blogs. Born in San Bernardino county California, raised in Chicago Illinois, he currently resides in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

References:

http://www.ethanolproducer.com/articles/7566/permitting-a-big-ticket-item