LEV Inspection & Test Report
CLIENT:
XXXXXXX LTD
SITE: XXXXXXX
Report Reference: Flow Line Room-LEV
System Identification: SML Purex 1
Survey Conducted By:
Name: Position:
XXXXXX Environmental Consultant
Signed:
Visit Date: 8th December 2015
Issue Date:
December 2015
Assessment of Level of Control
Satisfactory
System: SML Purex 1
COSHH Reg. 9
Executive Summary:
At the request of Mr XXXX, Engineering Manager with XXXXX Ltd, XXXXXX Ltd were contracted to
conduct a thorough examination and test of the of the various Local Exhaust Ventilation (LEV) systems at
the XXXXX Ltd production facility at XXXXXX. Site works were undertaken on 7th & 8th December by
XXXXXX of XXXX Ltd without supervision. XXXXX is an Environmental Consultant with XXXXX Ltd.
This report covers the following system: SML Purex 1, located within the Flow Line Room in the Shop Floor
Assembly and Test area
The performance of the system was seen to be satisfactory. No improvement actions are recommended
this visit
System: SML Purex 1
COSHH Reg. 9
Introduction:
The site comprises a purpose built facility for the manufacture and testing of components to be used in the aerospace industry. The site was originally established in the 1940’s and has undergone extensive expansion and modernisation since opening. The LEV system is located in the shop floor assembly and test flow line room on the first floor of the building. The system is designed to remove the fume created from the manual soldering of parts onto printed circuit boards. Prior to soldering, the area of the board to be worked on is cleaned with Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK). The LEV is used during both the cleaning and soldering process with the captor hood positioned as close as is practice to the process (approximately 10-15cm). It is understood that the system is normally in use approximately 20 to 25 hours per week. System of Work: Site induction and walk round of the area was conducted with the engineering manager. The XXXXX Ltd LEV testing risk assessment document for the Flow Line Room was reviewed and seen not to require any amendments before works could start. A copy of this risk assessment is attached. It was not necessary to disable the fire alarm sounders during the survey. Findings and, recommendation resulting from the examination and test of the system were discussed with the engineering manager at the completion of the survey. Existing Records:
A LEV logbook for the system is located in the Engineering Department offices. This was reviewed and seen to contain a user manual for the system, initial examination and test report (dated November 2013), examination and test report (dated November 2014), Monthly system check sheets (signed off up to November 2015) and filter replacement records (filters currently replaced as and when required with last replacement dated October 2015)
System: SML Purex 1
COSHH Reg. 9
LOCAL EXHAUST VENTILATION PLANT – COSHH REG. 9 EXAMINATION AND TEST
1 Client:
XXXXX
2
System ID: SML Purex 1
Location: Shop Floor Assembly & Test
Flow Line Room
Process: Soldering of parts onto PCB
Initial thorough examination: No
3 Assessment of Level of Control: 4 Interval Between Routine Examinations:
Satisfactory At least once in 14 months
5 Date of Previous Examination and Test:
November 2014
6 Hazard(s) to be Controlled: * 7 Restrictions/Precautions: 8 Instruments Used & Ser. No.
Solder fumes Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK) Flux
Safety boots Testo 425 hot wire anemometer S/N 01425921 Safety glasses
9 Summary Action Plan
Item in LEV system
Action Required Priority* Person to take action
Target Date
Date Completed
Examiner name XXXXXX
Signature
Client name
Signature
Date: December 2015
I accept this report YES /NO
Date
*Priority – e.g. 1 = high, 2 = medium, 3 = routine Examiner: green boxes – Employer: yellow boxes
HOODS/ENCLOSURES System: SML Purex 1
COSHH Reg. 9
10(a)
Hood(s) Type/Description: Positionable captor hood (Circular hood face)
10(b)
Visual Examination Report: Hood in good condition with no visible damage. Hood seen to be clean with no
deposits observed
11 Hood
Open Area
Sash or Opening
ht.
Face Velocity Capture Distance Hood Static
Pressure
Volumetric Flow Rate Hood ID Actual Mean Measured Required
m2 m m/s m/s m m Pa m
3/h
SML
Purex 1
0.0079 5.10, 5.05,
5.90, 5.55,
5.00
5.32 0.26 0.10 to
0.15
151.3
Circular hood fitted with dimensions of – 0.10m diam.
Speed control is variable – test conducted on lowest speed
setting for unit
12 Date of Installation: November 2013 System Total Volume: m
3/h
13 No. of Hoods on System: 1 14 Process Conditions at Time of Test:
Max No. to be used at any time: 1 Not in process
15(a) Hood Static Pressure Gauges 15(b) Hood Pass/Fail Stickers
Fitted? No Fitted? Yes
16 Qualitative Containment Test Report: Method Used: Smoke Release Smoke test showed that up to a distance of 0.26m directly away from the hood face, capture of fume would be
achieved.
Whilst in use, the capture hood should be positioned as close as practicable to source, to ensure that
complete capture is achieved.
DUCTING System: SML Purex 1
COSHH Reg. 9
17(a) Type/Description: Stainless steel flexible duct arm 18 Visual Examination Report:
17(b) Air Temp in Ducts: - Ducting in good condition with no
damage noted. Ducting observed to
be clean with no deposits noted 17(c) Barometric Pressure:
19 Diameter/
Dimension Duct Area Static
Pressure Velocity
Pressures on
Traverse
Duct Velocity
Test Point ID
Actual Measured
Mean Transport Velocity
Duct Volume
Flow (mm) (m
2) (Pa) (Pa) (m/s) (m/s) (m
3/h)
Hood volume data
No test points in stainless steel positionable arm Total m3/h
20 Damper Settings: 21 Stack height (m) and Termination Type:
Damper fully open in normal during normal
operation
N/A
22 Fan Motor Data: 23 Filter/Air Cleaning Devices:
Make/Model Purex International Make/Model Purex F/Cube 1
Type Centrifugal Type
Volume Flow Volume Flow -
Static Pressure P Drop -
Motor 230v / 135W Filter Media HEPA / Chemical Filter
Rating / Current 50Hz / 0.6A Filter Cleaning As required
Function Check Monthly
Motor Speed Variable Monitoring Gauges etc. - Operational Check
No
Transmission Electrical
Rotation Direction Correct – anti-clockwise Recirculation of Filtered Air?
Yes
System: SML Purex 1
COSHH Reg. 9
24 Return of Exhaust Air to Workroom
Filter Efficiency Not assessed Measurement Technique
Static Pressure at Inlet, Pa Not assessed
Estimate of concentration of contaminant in returned air
Not assessed
Comments None
Recommendations and priority* None
* e.g. 1 = high, 2 = medium, 3 = routine
25 Make-up air
Adequate quantity Yes Measurement Technique
Induced draughts No
Comments None
Recommendations None
26 Alarms
Hood / enclosure No
Duct No
Air cleaner No
Air mover No
Returned air No
Comments None
Recommendations None
27 Statement of System Performance Specification:
Smoke test showed satisfactory capture of smoke up to 0.26m from hood face. Face velocities complied with
HSG 258 recommended 0.5-1.0m/s for welding, soldering and liquid transfer type processes. System is deemed
as providing satisfactory protection to operators.
The filter was examined and was seen to have light to moderate deposit build up. From discussions with staff it
is understood that the filter will be due to be changed in approximately 2 to 4 weeks,
Results were compared against the commissioning report and the November 2014 examination and test results.
Results were seen to be constant with results from prevouis reports
System: SML Purex 1
COSHH Reg. 9
28 Schematic Drawing of System
LEV Purex 1
Stainless steel
Coiled Spiral Duct
arm 0.04m Dia
Stainless steel
Cone circular Hood
0.10m Dia
Fan
Damper
Purex Filter Captor Hood
Filter
System: SML Purex 1
COSHH Reg. 9
29: Inspection Photographs
Inspection Photographs
SML Purex 1
Ductwork, seen to be in a satisfactory and clean condition
Capture hood, seen to be in a satisfactory and clean condition
Light to moderate build up on HEPA / Chemical filter
Approximate position of captor hood from process during normal operation of system
Motor confirmed running in correct direction (anticlockwise)
System: SML Purex 1
COSHH Reg. 9
30: Conclusions
Thorough examination and testing is currently undertaken a minimum of every fourteen months as required
Smoke release showed adequate contaminant capture for the system
Face velocities were seen to be above the recommended speed of 0.5-1.0m/s which ensures adequate contaminant capture for the system
The hood and duct work were inspected and were seen to be in a clean and satisfactory condition.
Light to moderate build up was observed to the HEPA / chemical filter.
The system logbook was available for inspection. This was reviewed and seen to contain all the relevant information necessary. All tasks seen to be completed and signed off by the relevant parties involved
31: Recommendations
Non arising from this visit
Pre Inspection Risk Assessment: XXXXX Ltd,
Client XXXXXX Ltd
Address XXXXXX
Department Flow Line Room
Hazard Applies Risk Control and Precautions Further Action Required Exposure to hazardous substances in Hinge Room
Yes Low risk. Client requested to ensure processes, where practicable, are not taking place during LEV examination and test Disposable overalls/PPE should be worn to protect normal clothing, where necessary. XXX Engineers fully trained in COSHH awareness procedures.
Follow procedures given in method statement and COSHH awareness guidelines.
Electrical hazards Yes Low Risk. Access not required to areas of equipment/machinery containing live electrics All testing equipment uses low voltage batteries.
None
Access and egress to working area
Yes Low Risk: XXXX Engineers made aware of client policy on access and egress during site induction.
If engineer deems access unsafe the task shall be halted and the Engineering Manager informed
Chemical hazards Yes Low Risk: No hazardous chemicals are used during survey but these may be present in the area of work. Appropriate PPE to be worn where necessary. XXX Engineers receive COSHH awareness training.
Check with client before commencing work if other activities in area create significant hazard. If so, follow specified precautions given in client’s COSHH assessment.
Noise Yes Low Risk: Process does not create significant noise level Noise created by survey activities is unlikely to be significant. Ear protection available if required to control noise exposure from plant activities. Noise meters and trained operators are available to carry out monitoring if required. XXXX Engineers receive noise awareness training
Check with client before commencing work if other activities in area create significant noise hazard. If so, follow specified precautions given in client’s noise assessment.
Manual handling Yes Low Risk: Survey tools and equipment are lightweight. Stepladders and ladders are suitable for carrying by one person unaided. Manual handling awareness training provided for XXX Engineers
Moving of plant or manufactured items to be undertaken by XXXXX Ltd employees
Mechanical
No Low Risk: Motor fan covered by guard. Guard does not need to be removed to check fan direction
None.
Fire Yes Low Risk: Follow site fire safety rules.
Check location of fire exits and escape routes before commencing work.
Cuts from sharp edges Yes Low Risk: Moving of plant or manufactured items to be undertaken by XXXXX Ltd employees Appropriate PPE to be worn where necessary.
Be aware of the risk of sharp edges, etc being present in survey area
Slips, Trips and Falls Yes Low Risk: XXXXX Ltd policy for all production areas to be kept clean and tidy
Engineering Manager to be informed if poor housekeeping observed
Assessment prepared by:
Name XXXXX Date: 08/12/15
Signature
Survey Team Name XXXXX
Date: 08/12/15
Signature
Before carrying out any task the engineer shall carry out a last minute risk assessment. Any hazards observed should be recorded overleaf
Top Related