search.noResults

search.searching

note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
management feature | Safe working practices


there could still be several sources of noise that require hearing protection. Extruder screws rotating within the barrel do not


make much sound, but some of the related auxiliary equipment often approaches or exceeds the 85 dB limit: high-speed and high-torque gearbox lube oil pumps and main drive motor cooling blowers are notoriously loud. In many cases, engineering controls via enclo- sures are not practical. Some of the machinery surrounding the extruder


Safe operating procedures can minimize worker exposure to increased risk when performing tasks requiring the removal of machine guarding – for example, operating procedures specify the wearing of a full face shield for cleaning out vacuum vents. Photo courtesy of PolyTech


slide-plate screen-changer. This equipment is inher- ently safe as long as the equipment is in continuous operation. It is the periodic screen-change that creates a situation where operators are exposed to a higher risk for a short period of time – in this case, to remove the fouled screen and replace it with a clean one. During this time, the machine guards need to be opened for access to the screens. This is where work practice controls take over from the engineering controls to minimize exposure. Proper training of operating staff, for example, should include an awareness of the risks involved when performing this task. Minimizing the risk of exposure to accidental release of pressure, in this example, would require persons performing the screen change to wear a full-face shield as part of the procedure for an additional level of protection. Similar heightened risk is also associated with the


Personal


protective equipment should be


provided when work practice


controls are not sufficient


manual cleaning out of vacuum ports, another task that must be performed when the machine is operating – the task is usually required as a result of an upset condition or could also be performed at some regular frequency. In this example, the task requires the removal of two levels of machine guarding – the vent port cover and fume extraction system. Therefore, there should be specific procedures for safely accessing the open vent. Operating procedures would require persons cleaning the vent to wear a full-face shield and possibly a respirator.


Sound – engineering controls for noise are accomplished with sound enclosures designed to keep environmental limits to less than 85 decibels (eight-hour, time-weighted average). However,


48 COMPOUNDING WORLD | November 2013 www.compoundingworld.com


often exceeds the 85 dB limit: strand pelletizers, vacuum conveying blowers, pellet classifiers, centrifu- gal spin dryers and so on. Work practice controls must then specify the wearing of proper hearing protection for safe operation of extrusion machinery.


Smell – when plastic resins are melted and heated to their processing temperatures, potentially harmful fumes and vapours are generated in the process. The specific volatiles that are generated are related to the raw materials and must be contained through a well designed fume extraction system. When entering the compounding area, a strong odour is a clear sign of inadequate engineering controls; requiring operating staff to wear respirators is not an acceptable solution.


Taste – aside from any specific PPE required for safe handling of noxious chemicals and raw materials (as specified in MSDS sheets), fugitive dust is an environ- mental hazard associated with most compounding applications. In the case of materials with known dust explosion potential, engineering controls are mandated by national electrical codes and insurance underwrit- ers. The problem is with more common materials that are not required by law to have such controls to be in place. As described previously for fumes and vapours, simply requiring operating staff to wear dust masks is not an acceptable solution.


s


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82