These are real case studies and show the consequences to employees if there is inadequate health and safety in place. They also show that once a solution has been found, in addition to controlling the risk there can be other significant benefits for a company.
A company used manually operated devices to turn and consolidate rubber components during tyre building. This was a repetitive task that caused work-related upper limb disorders and sickness absence. It also caused fatigue and lack of concentration amongst operators which reduced the product quality.
Training staff in manual handling led to a discussion of this problem and the company decided to replace the manual devices with mechanical aids. The new process used a more uniform force and positioning during the tyre building which resulted in a much higher quality product compared with the manual method.
Sickness absence reduced significantly and the morale of employees improved.
An employee suffered a fractured vertebra while lifting 25kg bags of chip material from floor level into a bin. This was positioned two metres away and one metre above the floor. There had been no assessment of the task or training in appropriate lifting techniques.
A machine making rubberised fabric required employees to load product reels weighing over 30kg. A hoist had been provided but was not used because it took longer. By altering the process slightly, it became possible to make much larger product rolls, with double the weight so mechanised lifting had to be used.
Employees were involved in trying out the different options available and chose a counterbalance hoist with a more user-friendly mechanism. This was then successfully introduced.
Transport managers in a large company were given health and safety training. This involved identifying an area of concern and devising ways of dealing with it.
The managers decided to design a new traffic management system, separating and directing forklift truck and pedestrian traffic wherever possible. Forklift truck drivers and other employees were then trained in the new system. This resulted in the transport flow in the factory being significantly improved. As well as reducing the risk of accidents the flow of components throughout the factory was quicker, contributing to more efficient production.
High dust levels from weighing and mixing operations were causing a major problem. The company’s COSHH assessment showed that employee exposures to dust were above the statutory control limits and employees were complaining.
A new system was introduced which reduced the escape of dust. This included using dust-suppressed forms of chemicals where possible and using new techniques which had been developed to reduce dust during:
An employee was mixing a caustic solution to clean rubber moulds. He suffered scalding and burns when he added pearl caustic to hot water and the contents of the mixing drum bubbled over. He had not been trained and so did not know that the pearl caustic should only be added to cold water.
A Supervisor was overcome by toluene fumes when he was sent to a new area to work. He had not received adequate training on the new work area, in particular on the hazards of toluene and the importance of switching on the extraction system before beginning work.
There had been problems with a moulding press and the engineer asked the operator to first purge the machine. To do this the operator had to work near to the top platen. The engineer then operated the bottom platen but did not realise this would cause the top platen to move sideways and trap the operators hand in the injection well. Neither of them had been properly trained in the safe maintenance procedures for the machine.
A new teenage employee was injured at a tyre buffing machine when his shirt became entangled around the rasp on the articulated head. The guard was open but failed to operate the safety interlock switch. This was because it had not been properly maintained. The employee did not have enough knowledge to realise that the guard was defective.
The mill had two rolls 650 mm diameter and 1525 mm in length with a gap of about 10 mm between them. It could be operated from either the front or back and had a safety bar (Lunn bar) fitted to both operating positions. When either of these bars, were pushed they operated a single interlocking switch via a mechanical linkage.
An employee was feeding cold uncured rubber onto the rotating rolls which was then taken through the gap to produce warm tacky rubber. His glove became stuck on the warm tacky rubber and was drawn into the nip between the two rolls, lifting him off the floor. He was pulled against the Lunn bar but if failed to operate the interlocking switch and stop the rolls. With his free hand he continued to push the Lunn bar which stopped the rolls several seconds later but by this time his hand was badly crushed. This resulted in the amputation of four fingers.
The Lunn bar failed to operate the interlocking switch because it hadn't been properly maintained. There was too much free-play in the mechanical linkage and a retaining pin in the linkage was not fully engaged.
Note: The single interlock did not meet the industry standard. There should have been two positively operated electrical interlocking switches fitted at each end of both of the Lunn bars.
An employee was working on a tyre grinding machine producing rubber crumb. A blockage occurred in a chute and he reached into it to clear it. A rotary valve controlling the flow of crumb into the collecting bags amputated three of his fingers. He was able to access the valve as the company, in an effort to prevent blockages, shortened the chute and removed the grill at the bottom.
The company were later fined £100,000.
Social media
Javascript is required to use HSE website social media functionality.
Follow HSE on Twitter:
Follow @H_S_E