Situated within a sprawling industrial precinct lies an extensive, systematically planned warehouse. This particular facility is occupied by a leading entity in the field of printing roller manufacturing, adept at the careful extraction and replacement of worn rubber material on aging rollers. The operation denotes a cycle of rejuvenation, a testament to the company's intricate and efficient manufacturing process.
Our role, as industrial hygienists, is of paramount importance. We have been commissioned to evaluate the potential health hazards linked with the manufacturing process, primarily focusing on worker exposure to rubber fumes and dust. Our objective is to conduct a meticulous analysis of the operative environment, scrutinize the incumbent processes, and evaluate the protective measures implemented to safeguard the wellbeing of the personnel operating within this dynamic industrial landscape.
The manufacturing entity is utilising progressive technology which has spawned the development of superior rubber compounds, possessing exceptional surface properties that enhance the efficiency and environmental sustainability of the printing process. Nevertheless, such technological progress does not obfuscate the critical importance of maintaining a safe working environment. Consequently, this case study will provide a detailed report on our comprehensive assessment of occupational safety, proffering valuable insights into exposure mitigation and suggestions to improve occupational health standards.
In the Stripping Area, we identified two operatives involved in the removal and preparation of old rollers. While the dust generation here was relatively low, the major concern was exposure to volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from the inks, paint, and bonding agent used. Though Local Exhaust Ventilation (LEV) systems were in place for sanding dust, they were not used when applying bonding agent, which might lead to VOC exposure.
The Covering Area, where stripped rollers receive new rubber layers, posed a significant exposure risk to rubber dust and fumes, especially during the trimming process. No LEV systems were in operation in this area, potentially leading to the accumulation of fumes.
The Grinding and Facing Up Area, with its rubber grinding processes, was another area of considerable rubber dust and fume generation. Though LEV systems were in place near the grinding wheels, not all lathes were enclosed, potentially impacting their efficiency in capturing the generated dust.
Finally, in the Polishing Area, operatives were likely exposed to inhalable and respirable dust from the chalk used in the polishing process and VOCs associated with the thinners used for cleaning. Although an LEV system was in place, it only partially captured the visible chalk dust.
Despite the availability of Respiratory Protective Equipment (RPE), we observed that none of the employees wore them during the assessment, indicating potential ignorance or disregard for safety measures. Furthermore, none of the employees were enrolled in regular health surveillance, which could lead to unnoticed health issues due to prolonged exposure to rubber dust and fumes.
In conclusion, while some areas had measures to reduce dust and fume exposure, several areas require substantial improvement. Furthermore, the apparent underutilization of available safety equipment highlights the need for improved training and enforcement of safety protocols. The risk of exposure to rubber fumes and dust, which could lead to respiratory issues and other health risks, remains high under current conditions.
Paul Howlet
0800 433 7914