From the Rolls-Royce experimental archive: a quarter of a million communications from Rolls-Royce, 1906 to 1960's. Documents from the Sir Henry Royce Memorial Foundation (SHRMF).
Industrial accident prevention bulletin detailing recent prosecutions, safety incentives, and best practices.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 143\2\ scan0215 | |
| Date | 1st May 1941 | |
| Page 33: 1209. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION BULLETIN VOLUME 9, Number 97 MAY 1941 Issued by the Ministry of Labour & National Service Produced by The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (formerly the NSFA) 52, Grosvenor Gardens, London, S.W.1 Editor: H.{Arthur M. Hanbury - Head Complaints} G.{Mr Griffiths - Chief Accountant / Mr Gnapp} Winbolt IN THIS ISSUE The Law ... ... ... ... ... ... 33 Current Literature ... ... ... ... 35 Unusual Accidents ... ... ... ... 36 Pay Envelope Slips ... ... ... ... 36 Benzene (Benzol) Poisoning ... ... 37 Ideas for Action ... ... ... ... 40 N.B. The Bulletin is intended for use partly as a reference work and should therefore be filed. THE LAW Recent Prosecutions Shaft and torn clothes—A foreman stood on a ladder and tried to replace a belt on a pulley on a revolving overhead shaft. His attempt failed, so a workman who had been refused permission to try because of his torn clothes, suddenly rushed up the ladder, was caught on the shaft by his clothing, and so seriously injured that he died the next day. A prosecution (Sections 13 and 133) followed. So did a conviction and a fine of £25. The process carried on in these works was one scheduled in the Operations at Unfenced Machinery Regulations, and it was not therefore for even a Machinery Attendant to approach the shaft in motion for the purpose of replacing a belt. The belt should have been replaced either by hand after the shafting had been stopped, or by means of a belt pole from floor level while the shafting was running. Hair caught on driving shaft—The penalty to the firm was £50. The penalty to the worker was worse. A length of shaft 1¼ in. diameter, 3 ft. long, running at 430 r.p.m., drove a cable-braiding machine. This shaft was mounted on the machine only 5 ft. 6 in. above the floor. The striking gear was placed between it and the mechanism, and therefore it continued to run after the machine was struck off. This group of conditions should have made the need for secure fencing immediately apparent. The legal requirement of course was absolute. To make matters even worse a fairly close approach to the shaft was necessary in the course of work (sometimes as often as every thirty minutes), and the victim had “frizzy” hair. On the one hand, there was no possible excuse for leaving this length of shaft unguarded. It has been guarded since the event. On the other hand, workers near machines must be educated and persuaded, rather than taught by ugly experience, to keep their hair, all their hair, under caps. It cannot be too strongly or too often stressed among foremen and workers that human hair will entwine in moving, especially in rotating, machine parts and there will stay till it is dragged out by the roots or brings the scalp along with it. Horizontal Milling Machines—A boy of 16 was using a horizontal milling machine to mill the surface of a small piece of metal. He placed a 2-foot steel rule on the edge of the metal to measure it. The rule tilted and brought his hand into contact with the cutter; he lost part of his left index finger. There was no guard on the machine, and action was taken against the firm under the Horizontal Milling Machines Regulations. The Inspector told the Court that, though the firm had a great deal to worry them during war-time, they must not for that reason expose workers to unnecessary dangers such as those from an unfenced milling cutter. The defendants, pleading guilty, stated (1) that the machine had only been brought into use again a few months before the accident, that the guard had been mislaid and that there 33 Page 40: INDUSTRIAL BULLETIN—MAY, 1941 VOLUME NINE—NUMBER NINETY-SEVEN MARGIN FOR NOTES IDEAS FOR ACTION Milling Explosive Materials — The Association of British Chemical Manufacturers have pointed out (Q.S.S. 1936, 8 (29) 3), that when milling materials of an explosive nature it is usual to use magnetic separators to remove particles of metal which may cause sparks. They add, however, that when a firm was milling a somewhat inflammable material, a small explosion occurred which was eventually traced to a steel nut that had somehow passed the somewhat complicated magnetic separator. It was only on careful investigation that it was discovered that the nut in question was made of stainless steel which was used in certain parts of the plant, and which was not affected by the magnetic device. It has, therefore, been found necessary to introduce a system of gauges into the milling circuit to arrest any particles of stainless steel which may pass the magnetic separator. Workman Investigations of Accidents— A firm in Canada has not only the usual investigation of all accidents by the management and Accident Prevention Officer. It also has what it calls “workman investigations.” A speaker, reported in the Proceedings of the 1938 All-Quebec Safety Conference, summarised their methods as follows :— “We have a weekly investigation of all minor and major accidents that occurred during the week. “The employee chosen for this investigation is chosen for the following reasons : (1) Performed a careless accident himself. (2) New employee. (3) Accident problem — repeatedly having accidents. (4) General “accident conscious” education. “This workman has to interview each and every employee throughout the factory who has had a minor accident. He must decide if the accident is carelessness on the part of the management or the employee. He reports every Thursday morning to the Foremen’s Meeting, where each individual accident is discussed. “We are convinced that this practical method of accident investigation is the major reason for our healthy non-accident record. The two outstanding principles that are practical and work are : (1) The worker investigating and the worker who has been injured ‘talk the same language.’ They are on common ground in their discussion. (2) The foreman, before he attends the Foremen’s Meeting, has investigated each accident himself, in order to be ready for the discussion with the workman investigator. “Hence, employees and foremen, over a period of time, have become in a practical manner, ‘safety conscious.’” An Incentive to Safety—At the Tokod and Durog Collieries in Hungary a novel safety incentive has been used. Men who have been injured in accidents through their own fault are not promoted until they have completed a certain period of probation. There is sound common sense at the back of this idea. Unfortunately, it is not stated in the article from which this note is taken (Industrial Safety Survey, 1939, 15, (4), 97) what means are used for deciding whether a man has been himself at fault in suffering an accident. Careful thought would have to be devoted to the choice of a method of assessing blame to avoid any chance of individuals feeling that they had been victimised. With suitable safeguards the idea might be very useful. Foreman’s Responsibility—The foreman’s responsibilities in the matter of accident prevention have never been laid down in very precise terms, but the following notes, based on some suggestions about the responsibility of overseers in textile mills, may be found suggestive. The foreman is responsible for all accidents caused by failure to give precise instruction about the safe way to do a job. He is also responsible whenever an accident is due to conditions coming directly under his control, or conditions which are within the control of another Department, but have not been reported by him to the proper quarter. He is responsible when accidents happen as a consequence of employees under his supervision violating works rules. He must also take a share of responsibility when accidents are due to the action of employees from another department working in his Department, because everything that goes on in his part of the works is his particular concern. Confined Spaces—The fact that certain specific precautions must be taken (see Sec. 27(1) and Chemical Works Regulations (7)) before persons enter a confined space in which dangerous fumes, e.g. benzene vapour, nitrous fumes, sulphuretted hydrogen, etc., are liable to be present is now fairly well recognised. What may not be fully appreciated is that this term “dangerous fumes” has a very wide meaning, embraces atmospheres which are not poisonous, toxic or anaesthetic according to the usual meaning of these words, and covers any atmosphere which is deficient in oxygen to an extent which makes it hazardous to life. Such conditions are frequently found where there is an evolution of carbon dioxide. 40 Wm. H Taylor & Sons, Dukes Road, London, W.3 | ||