Conveyor Equipment Manufacturers Association - CEMA · the voice of the conveyor industry of the americas minutes of the cema engineering conferen ce unit handling safety committee

THE VOICE OF THE CONVEYOR INDUSTRY OF THE AMERICAS

MINUTES OF THE CEMA ENGINEERING CONFERENCE

UNIT HANDLING SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, June 26, 2017

1. Call to Order Committee Chair Dan Modzeleski (Dematic) called the meeting to order at 1:35pm.

2. Roll Call – a total of 41 attendees, 15 first time attendees, 5 new member companies were represented. (See attached attendee list)

3. Minutes from the June 20, 2016, UNIT HANDLING SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING were reviewed and approved after noting the corrected date and time.

4. Old Business a. Safety Guidelines for MDR conveyor and inherent safe design not requiring e-

stops - Updates. The adjunct group which was formed to investigate the appropriate safeguards on motorized driven roller (MDR) conveyor was asked to provide an update. During this update it was established that this investigation was still in-process and that the group will continue to gather data during the upcoming year. This group was assigned the task (due at the 2018 CEMA Engineering Conference) of determining which (if any) conditions might exist which are inherently safe and therefore, according to ASME B20.1, would not require the inclusion of E-Stops and protective guards. Sub-Committee: Ron Wagner, Intelligrated; Brandy Lloyd, Hytrol; Randall Carlson, Dematic; John Kuhn, Itoh Denki USA.

b. CEMA Unit Handling Safety Documents – New Video Discussion. The latest revision of updated Unit Handling Safety Video was reviewed. Two very minor concerns were noted and the task committee agreed to update those two scenes. All attendees agreed that the video is approved pending resolution of those two minor concerns. Once those changes are processed, the video will be ready to present to the OR’s for final approval and publication.

c. Safety Best Practices Guideline for Personnel Barriers Adjacent to Elevated Unit Handling Conveyor. It was reported that the Safety Best Practices Guideline for Personnel Barriers Adjacent to Elevated Unit Handling Conveyor (CEMA SBP-005) was published on September 21, 2016.

5. New Business

a. Discuss progress of color coding investigation. During the 2016 CEMA Engineering Conference a committee was formed to investigate the appropriate safety colors

Conveyor Equipment Manufacturers Association

THE VOICE OF THE CONVEYOR INDUSTRY OF THE AMERICAS

that should be applied to various safety related devices (such as cross overs and protective guards). This committee reported that a thorough investigation revealed that compliance to ANSI Z535.1 would also result in compliance to ISO 3684-4. Therefore, the task committee made the recommendation that CEMA should encourage compliance to ANSI Z535.1 for the selection of colors used on safety related devices. During the meeting it was requested that this technical committee publish a technical report which documents the findings and this recommendation (Due at or before the 2018 CEMA Engineering Conference) Sub-Committee: Bill Brungs, Intelligrated; Rodney Mishmash, Interroll; Don Suderman, Bunting Magnetics; Brandy Lloyd, Hytrol; Dan Modzeleski, Dematic.

b. Label Placement Survey. Provided a summary on a Label placement survey which was conducted back in February (see attached report for details). This survey was intended to identify if CEMA should revise the label placement guideline for label CHR930004 (prohibits Climbing, sitting, walking, or riding on conveyor) for conditions where the conveyor is guarded by location (installed at elevations above 8’-0”). The survey, which was distributed to the unit handling manufacturing members of CEMA revealed that an overwhelming percentage of the participants do not feel compelled to depart from the currently published guideline which states that this label shall be applied to both sides of the conveyor on increments which do not exceed 20’. Therefore, based on the results of this survey, the members in attendance at this meeting agreed that no changes in the guideline should be pursued at this time.

c. ANSI/ISO vs. CEMA Safety Labels Discussion. Continued discussion pertaining to

ISO compliant labels which was initiated in joint safety meeting. During this discussion it was agreed that that there should be a committee formed to establish a format for CEMA/ISO labels which would complement the existing CEMA/ANSI label portfolio. Volunteers were requested to engage in development of this new CEMA/ISO label format.

6. The next scheduled meeting will be on June 25, 2018 at La Playa Hotel, Naples, FL

7. Meeting was adjourned at 2:55 pm

Label Placement Survey


• How did this activity get initiated?



• What were the results?



• What were the results?

• Are any further actions necessary?


How did this activity get initiated?


• An inquiry from an installation group which prompted exploration




• While the label application guidelines within CEMA 201 do not specifically distinguish between accessible areas and areas where hazards are guarded by location, AMSE B20.1 does make an effort to proclaim that many hazards only need to be warned against when those hazards are not guarded by location.




• While the label application guidelines within CEMA 201 do not specifically distinguish between accessible areas and areas where hazards are guarded by location, AMSE B20.1 does make an effort to proclaim that many hazards only need to be warned against when those hazards are not guarded by location.

• It was the perception of this potentially “inconsistent approach” which essentially initiated the inquiry, thus leading to the poll.



What were the results?


• We drafted a poll and Phil Hannigan distributed that poll to the manufacturing members of the CEMA’s unit handling conveyor group on January 13, 2017.




• On February 8, 2017 Phil Hannigan compiled the results




• On February 8, 2017 Phil Hannigan compiled the results

• Of the 8 polls which were returned, 2 were in favor of revising the guideline, while 6 were opposed to any update.



Are any further actions necessary?


• With only 25% of the respondents in favor of an update, it does not appear to be in our interest to pursue a change in the application guideline for CHR930004.



• With only 25% of the respondents in favor of an update, it does not appear to be in our interest to pursue a change in the application guideline for CHR930004.

• Unless there is any opposition, my perception is that this activity can be closed with no further actions required.
