Photo shows the baler machine where the incident happened |
Older equipment is commonplace in our
industry. Most lack the current safety mechanisms common on new equipment. When
plants shutdown the equipment is sold by auction to the highest bidder. Buyer
beware! This equipment can be shipped nearby or around the world. Wherever it
ends up new workers will begin to operate machinery without the training that
normally is be stilled to them at the time of purchase. Nor will the new owner
know the maintenance history of the equipment. The Aluminium Plant Safety Blog
has a recent story involving an incident with an older machine.
A recycling firm in England has been
sentenced for serious safety breaches after a worker had both hands severed
while cutting metal strips on an industrial baler.
The worker had been employed as an
operative for seven months by the recycling firm when the incident happened earlier
this year.
The Magistrates’ Court stated the
worker’s hands were severed at the wrists when they got caught in the shear
point as a hydraulic-powered baler lid lowered and met the corner of the baler.
The lid had a maximum shear force of 76 tonnes.
The worker was taken to a local
hospital and later transferred to another hospital where surgeons successfully
reattached both hands. The injured worker, who has since returned home in
a foreign country, will need further treatment but will never regain full use
of his hands.
The incident, along with a
second incident involving lead contamination, was investigated by the Health
and Safety Executive (HSE), which the recycling firm for safety failings. HSE
served an immediate enforcement notice on the company after the incident stopping
any more hand-feeding of the metal for shearing on the baler by the
workforce.
The court heard that the injured
worker and a co-worker operated the baler between them to cut the strips on the
shear point, but the system used was fundamentally flawed despite it being
regularly used. Crucially, there was no direct line of sight between the
operator who closed the baler lid and the hands of the worker loading the metal
strips.
HSE said it had been a routine task
at the recycling plant and, although the injured worker had been shown what to do by practical
demonstration and supervision, he had not seen or read the operating manual
which says that baling machines should only be operated by one employee.
HSE found recycling firm was unable
to produce evidence it had carried out a proper assessment of the risks
involved in the use of the baler for cutting metal strips.
The court heard that a month later
there was a second incident at the company involving a different hazard.
The Aluminium Plant Safety Blog prays
that the injured worker whose hands were severed is given the necessary physical
and mental rehabilitation to continue on with his life. The physical scars that
the worker suffered may last for the rest of his life. It is our hope that the
mental scars that he suffered through this dramatic experience lessen overtime.
We also wish that the physical and mental injuries that the second worker
suffered heal over time too.
This incident is another example of a
false safety belief. Where a worker(s) performs a task repeatedly and assumes
that because no incident occurs that they are performing the procedure
correctly. The APSB editors were saddened to read in the news media article
that the machinery operating instructions stated that this machine was operated
by one person. It is unknown how long the recycling company was operating this
machine with two workers, versus the one worker as per the equipment manufactures
instructions. The recycling firm’s workers were operating under a false safety
belief that they were safe. It was only when the incident occurred and subsequent
investigation did they realize that they were unsafe all along.
Does your plant have older equipment?
When was the last time that your plant
reviewed the operating manual of its older equipment?
The APSB hopes that all plants will begin
a process of reviewing the operating instructions of older machinery on a
regular basis and compare them to the current operating practices.
Please comment.
UK legislation has specific requirements for equipment use, even second hand equipment has to meet the requirements (there are no Grandfathered rights). In this instance, Regulation 4(3) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 was breached. The regulations state: Every employer shall ensure that work equipment is used only for operations for which, and under conditions for which, it is suitable. Appears that was not done here. Another avoidable incident.
ReplyDelete