Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CONTROL
Edwin Peterson, CEO, Dust Control Technology; Mark Shaurette, Ph.D.,
Assistant Professor, Building Construction Management Dept., Purdue University;
David Clarke, Managing Director of CDC Demolition, Past President and
Honorary Life Vice President of NFDC
In a recent survey of owners responsible for facility construction and
maintenance, the Construction Management Association of America (CMAA)
outlined a set of seven challenges likely to cause construction markets to change
direction in the near future. First on the list was the observation that “Aging
infrastructure in nearly every market segment is at or beyond its current useful
life… represent(ing) trillions of dollars in necessary spending over the next 10 to
20 years to upgrade and replace these assets.”[1]
The statement could be made about many developed nations, and as the built
infrastructure in Europe and the U.S. continues to age, demolition and
reconstruction firms are likely to see a growing number of business opportunities.
At the same time, contractors and engineers are facing a complex set of
challenges, some of which have not been a major concern on outdoor projects
until recent years.
One such challenge is the hazard posed by dust that arises during demolition and
debris recycling. In the past, these airborne particles have been treated largely as
a nuisance, causing more of an inconvenience than a health or environmental
risk. The fact is, the hazards posed by stone and concrete dust in construction
applications were detailed more than half a century ago by Marion Trice, an
industrial hygienist for the state of North Carolina.[2] And Trice wasn’t the first to
recognize the problems. As far back as 1700, Bernardino Ramazzini talked about
dust that “would gradually prove fatal to stonecutters who took no precautions” in
De Morbis Artificum Diatriba (Diseases of Workers).[3]
Dust is a generic term for minute solid particles, typically less than 500 microns in
diameter. In construction and demolition projects, dust particles are created in a
wide range of sizes. Larger, heavier particles tend to settle out of the air, while
smaller, lighter solids may hang indefinitely. For occupational health purposes,
airborne solids are categorized by size as either respirable or inhalable.
Respirable dust is small enough to penetrate deep into the lungs, usually
identified as particles under 10 microns in size (PM-10). These tiny solids that
migrate far into the respiratory system are generally beyond the body’s natural
cleaning mechanisms such as cilia and mucous membranes, and are likely to be
retained. In contrast, the larger particles in the inhalable dust classification are
typically trapped in the nose, throat or upper respiratory tract. To put that in
perspective, a human hair typically ranges from 50-75 microns in diameter,
illustrating that the most hazardous dust particles in most situations are the ones
too small to see.
Other than crushing operations, which must be properly registered and equipped
with some form of dust suppression at the material entrance and exit, there is
currently not much legislation in the U.K. that specifically addresses dust control
in outdoor construction applications.
The issue has taken on increased importance for regulating bodies in the U.S.,
however, and many contracts in both regions now require dust control. On some
projects (such as work for many state DOTs), dust suppression is a mandatory
component of all planning and execution, subject to inspection. In both European
and U.S. markets, contractors aiming to protect the health of employees and
surrounding communities, while preserving the environment and reducing
potential liability, would be well served to consider dust suppression a priority in
urban and suburban locations. Demolition firms seeking to differentiate
themselves from the competition and reinforce a positive environmental image will
be likely to view the challenge as an opportunity.
SILICOSIS
A far greater concern to workers and local communities is the risk of exposure to
crystalline silica contained in airborne dust. The term “silica” is a generic
reference to the mineral compound silicon dioxide (SiO2), which can be found in
either amorphous or crystalline form. Crystalline silica is significantly more
hazardous, cited as a cause of the disabling and irreversible lung condition known
as silicosis, one of the oldest known occupational diseases. The compound has
also been classified as a Group I carcinogen (Carcinogenic to Humans) by the
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC, 1997).[7]
Chronic silicosis can remain undetected for years or even decades. It is a
cumulative and often fatal condition, and as it progresses, symptoms typically
include shortness of breath, cough and weakness. Over time, the body’s ability to
fight infection is compromised and victims become susceptible to other illnesses,
such as tuberculosis. Affected individuals frequently experience fever, weight
loss, chest pains and eventually respiratory failure. Exposure to crystalline silica
has also been linked to lung cancer, kidney disease, reduced lung function and
other disorders. Despite such recognition as a significant health hazard, it’s been
estimated that 15,000 people have died from the effects of silicosis over the last
two decades in the U.S. alone, and hundreds more continue to be afflicted each
year. At least 1.7 million workers are thought to be potentially exposed to
respirable crystalline silica, many in concentrations that exceed limits defined by
current regulations and standards.[8]
MITIGATION TECHNIQUES
The most common methods for controlling demolition dust are surface wetting and
airborne capture. With surface suppression, the goal is to prevent dust problems
by wetting the source before particles can become airborne, usually with hand-
held hoses or movable sprinklers. (See Figure 1.) While these tactics can help
reduce the amount of migratory dust, they tend to saturate target surfaces, often
creating standing water that can become an additional safety concern or
environmental hazard. In addition, their reach is generally limited, and either
approach frequently requires significant staff time to man the hoses or reposition
sprinkler heads. Neither technique delivers a meaningful effect on airborne
particles, and both add unnecessary weight and moisture content to the debris.
Figure 1: Surface wetting can prevent dust on surfaces from becoming
airborne; however, once the wetted material is broken during demolition,
dry surfaces are exposed, again creating the potential for airborne dust.
Airborne dust capture techniques usually fall into one of two groups:
electrostatically charged fog or atomized spray. With an electrostatic fog system,
the goal is to produce extremely small water droplets with an opposite electrical
charge from the airborne dust, resulting in greater attraction and particle control.
Unfortunately, the method is far better suited to permanent indoor locations than
constantly changing outdoor job sites. Fog systems generally do not perform well
in windy or turbulent conditions and typically achieve very little surface wetting.
Atomized spray techniques also rely on the principle of creating very small water
droplets, but in contrast to fogging systems, they are launched from a powerful
fan at moderate to high velocity, facilitating a collision with airborne dust particles
to drive them to the ground. The method has proven very effective in demolition
applications, one of the few technologies capable of delivering dust control by
surface wetting AND airborne particle capture.
EQUIPMENT DESIGN
Achieving effective dust suppression with an atomized spray requires that each
component be engineered to work in concert with all the others to deliver the right
combination of droplet size, water pressure, air flow and velocity. As airborne dust
particles and water droplets approach each other, the greatest attraction is
created when the particles and droplets are roughly the same size, avoiding a
slipstream effect that allows droplets and particles to drift past each other without
contact. (See Figure 2.) Not surprisingly, there is a tradeoff: Larger droplets will
travel farther before losing their momentum, while smaller droplets are more
effective at trapping airborne dust. Testing and experience have shown that the
most efficient droplet size range is roughly 50-200 microns, given the apparently
conflicting goals of maximizing both particle capture and coverage area.
Some contractors have taken versatility to a new level in order to more effectively
address demolition dust, custom-modifying standard equipment to serve specific
applications. At least one inventive firm has designed a completely self-contained,
truck-mounted dust control system that matches high-efficiency, fan-driven
equipment with its own generator and water source. (See photo 1.) The 4,000
gallon tanker incorporates a fully functional, oscillating dust suppression unit
mounted on the back, complete with booster pump and adjustable elevation. The
dust management truck has a custom 3-phase, 480V generator on the front, with
the winding driven by a power take-off from the vehicle’s engine. The system’s
designers report that remote control capability for the unit is now under
development.
References
1. D’Agostino, B., Mikulis, M., & Bridgers, M. (2007): FMI & CMAA Eighth
Annual Survey of Owners; Raleigh, NC: FMI.
2. Safeguarding Health in Construction Work, by M.R. Trice, Industrial
Hygienist, Division on Industrial Hygiene of the NC State Board of Health
and the NC Industrial Commission, Presented at the annual meeting of the
NC Section, American Society of Civil Engineers, January 10, 1942, Duke
University, Durham, NC, 11 pages, typewritten.
3. “The More We Learn, the More Things Stay the Same: Notes On a Pioneer
In Occupational Safety and Health,” Jane L. Seegal and John C. Lumsden,
downloaded from www.cdc.gov/elcosh/docs/d0100/d000015/d000015.html
on 8/15/08.
4. From interview with Lou Gherlone, Spring Street Recycling, West Haven,
CT, November 19, 2007.
5. Heymann DL, ed. (2004). Control of communicable diseases manual. 18th
ed. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association, pp. 273-275.
6. Lenhart, S., Schafer, M., Singal, M., & Hajjeh, R. (2004): Histoplasmosis:
Protecting workers at risk; Cincinnati, OH; National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health.
7. OSHA Instruction (Directive CPL 03-00-007, National Emphasis Program –
Crystalline Silica, effective January 24th, 2008.
8. NIOSH Hazard Review: Health effects of occupational exposure to
respirable crystalline silica; Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHSS Publication No. 2002-
129.