Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
KJTNZ  
#1 Posted : 05 April 2012 02:26:14(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
KJTNZ

I am currently researching a high hazard task, involving the use of reciprocating pneumatic tools, inside a confined space. (Essentially a small silo through which production materials transit). During maintenance, the operator has to break out build up of old material for removal with a jack hammer. I am researching the exposure of the operator to vibration and noise. Vibration is reasonably straightforward but noise exposure is harder to assess. Can anybody help me please with some pointers to research material on the effect of a confined space on noise generation? The tools generate 100dB in the open, so what happens when you use them in a confined space? What level of hearing protection will be required and what will be the effects on limits of exposure duration? Has anyone independently researched / tested this?
leadbelly  
#2 Posted : 05 April 2012 08:46:35(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
leadbelly

Can't you just measure the noise inside the confined space? LB
HeO2  
#3 Posted : 05 April 2012 11:04:11(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
HeO2

Or use the Cardox system and clear it from outside the silo without any risk. We use it extensively in Commercial diving for underwater demolition, but it started life as a product for clearing silos of blockages and for maintenance. PM me if you need any more details. Phil
David Bannister  
#4 Posted : 05 April 2012 14:18:59(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
David Bannister

HeO2, thanks for the pointer. I'd never heard of this system and it will be of interest to at least one client. A great benefit of reading a thread that at first sight was only marginal interest (to me).
David Bannister  
#5 Posted : 05 April 2012 14:20:35(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
David Bannister

Also meant to add: it was the thread title that attracted me. A simple "noise" title may have failed.
HeO2  
#6 Posted : 05 April 2012 14:57:11(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
HeO2

David, If you need any more info just let me know. They are based in manchester too!! Phil
KJTNZ  
#7 Posted : 06 April 2012 03:07:43(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
KJTNZ

Thanks for the feedback everyone. We can't just measure the noise because the silo has material running through it at hunderds of degrees C and takes days to cool down. It's only accessible twice a year during a planned maintenance shutdown. So we need a riask management plan ready to go before the next shutdown in five months time, so that we don't hold up the contractors. Hence I am looking to see if there are any research papers or other test results available comparing external and internal noise levels for pneumatic tools, this way we can make an initial plan for risk management and then measure and monitor the ongoing risk during the job, and change the plan as necessary. Cheers, KJT.
Richard Rose  
#8 Posted : 16 April 2012 15:27:37(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Richard Rose

Simplest way in temr sof the noise is assume worst case scenario, i.e. over 120db, so you would need to have high cancelling ear protection, i.e. proper defenders, or made to measure ear plugs etc. That way you will reduce the exposure to noise, but you would need to allow for the possibility of the worker basically losing one of their senses while working, so things like fire alarms etc may need to have visual monitor in the space, or work with a buddy outside etc. Hearing protection is pretty easy to get up to the highest required standard of reduction, so it may just be an idea to go for that. If it turns out to be quieter you can just use generic earplugs?
Quilter80097  
#9 Posted : 16 April 2012 16:18:46(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Quilter80097

Whilst I don't want to disrespect Cardox, as it has some great uses, but as an ex-user of Cardox, it is not risk free. One of the tubes we used fragmented and it was only by complete luck someone was not badly hurt. If you do use it make sure you use plenty of ignition cable so that every one is standing out of the line of fire. We never did find the ignition end of the tube, only the hole in the roof!! This was reportable to the HSE under RIDDOR "Pressure Vessels". If you are having to use a jack hammer to remove the build up from the inside, I doubt if Cardox would remove it. On the subject of Noise, use the best hearing protection you can and measure the db whilst the task is being done for a short time then change the protection if not enough. Using ear plugs inside ear defenders can reduce the noise a little more to be on the safe side. Paul
HeO2  
#10 Posted : 16 April 2012 16:19:47(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
HeO2

Or by using the hierarchy of control, don't enter the confined space at all, and eliminate both the HAV, confined space, and noise issue. If the Cardox system is used, it can all be done from the outside whilst the machine is still in operation. Phil
Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.