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 bulletin detailing factory accident case law and safety recommendations for benzene poisoning.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 143\2\ scan0216 | |
| Date | 1st May 1941 | |
| INDUSTRIAL BULLETIN—MAY 1941 VOLUME NINE—NUMBER NINETY-SEVEN PAGE 34 MARGIN FOR NOTES The Law—continued had been no time to think about it; (2) that the machine was not dangerous; (3) that the cutter only ran at 60 r.p.m.; (4) that it was unnecessary for the boy’s hand to have come within inches of the cutter; (5) that there was no need for the boy to measure as the machine was accurately set; and (6) that in any case the boy should have stopped the machine if he wished to take measurements. On the conviction, the Chairman of the Bench said: “**In days when people are being killed in hundreds, there may be a temptation to think little of accidents in factories, but, in my opinion, the proper view is that it is more than ever important to prevent avoidable accidents. I hope the lesson will not be lost on other firms.**” A glance at the firm’s excuses for failure to fence is interesting. Number one will not hold water, because the machine should not have been used at all until proper guards had been fitted. Neither will number two, seeing that the machine is classed as dangerous both in the Regulations for Dangerous Trades and also in the Dangerous Machines (Training of Young Persons) Order. The low speed mentioned in number three has no bearing on the danger. It is the shape of the tool which makes the cutters dangerous at all speeds. Numbers four, five and six hardly bear serious examination, unless an inference is to be drawn that the worker had not been instructed what he was and was not to do, or that he had been instructed (see F.A. Sec. 21) and the firm had failed to ensure that the instructions were properly observed. **Failure to Replace Guard**—A lad of 17 was cutting blanks from a rod he was feeding from front to back of a power press. The front of the press was fitted with an automatic guard, and the back was fenced by wire netting in a frame. When a piece of metal stuck in the die, the lad got a spanner and removed the back guard in order to clear the press. Instead of replacing the guard he asked a boy of 14 to help him by taking off the blanks at the back. He then went to the front of the press and started to operate it. As he pressed the pedal he noticed that the boy’s hand was in the back of the press, which came down and severed it two inches above the wrist. Proceedings were taken against the firm under Sections 14 and 133, whereupon the firm cross-summoned the press operator. Notice of the cross-summons was only given to the Inspector the day before the hearing (three days’ notice is required by Section 137(1)) but no objection was taken by the Inspector. Evidence was given for the prosecution that a hand could quite easily be passed into the dies from the back of the press, and that the boy had, without instruction in the danger involved, worked at the back of other presses besides the one concerned in this case. For the defence it was stated that one of the occupiers fully appreciated the danger of presses as he had been injured by one himself during the last war. He averred that the guard at the back of this press rendered it impossible for hands to be inserted. He also stated that the operator had instructions not to work the press without the guards, and had no authority to set the boy to help him. In answer to a question from the Inspector, he said that he had not actually tried to see if a hand could be inserted into this press, where-upon he was informed by the Bench that they had visited the factory and had themselves been able to reach the dies from the back. The foreman of the shop stated that the boy should not have been there at all, but admitted that “ we all help one another.” The firm was fined £30 and costs, and the cross-summons was dismissed. This report is particularly interesting, as it shows how the complexion of the case can be almost completely altered by a really thorough investigation. Incidentally, although the firm was only prosecuted under Sections 14 and 133, there appears also to have been a breach of Section 21 of the Act, and of the Dangerous Machinery (Training of Young Persons) Order. The boy had certainly not been fully instructed in the dangers of the machine, nor had he apparently received sufficient training. Moreover, he could scarcely be said to be working under the adequate supervision of the operator when the latter elected to run the machine without a secure guard at the back. **Painter Approaches Unfenced Shaft**—A painter was told to paint certain parts of a laundry, including a beam against a wall, and fairly close to an overhead shaft. He was told by the works foreman not to go near the shaft without asking to have it stopped. He did not ask, but climbed onto a plank 5½ feet above the floor where, in order to get at the beam, he either had to lean over the shaft or get into a narrow space between it and the wall. Which course he chose is not known as he was caught on the shaft and fatally injured. The firm was fined £25 and costs for having an unfenced shaft (F.A., Sections 13 and 133). The duty of seeing that the shaft was stopped, before the painter approached it, was on the occupiers, and not on the painter, who was not even a “ person employed ” (and therefore likely to have some knowledge of the danger of the shaft), but merely a “ person working.” PAGE 39 Benzene Poisoning—continued to cause danger to anyone. (See Factories Act Section 47 and the Indiarubber Regs., Clause 5. The latter allows exemption from exhaust when 30 changes of air an hour are maintained in a workroom.) 4. Provide adequate general ventilation, in addition to exhaust hoods and so arranged as not to counter the effects of the forced draught, for all workrooms in which benzene is being handled. 5. Ensure that ventilating equipment is operating satisfactorily by having the workroom air periodically tested for benzene vapour; seventy-five p.p.m. is given in Canada as a maximum safe concentration for prolonged exposure.† 6. Provide protective clothing for workers who have to use the liquid. (See also Chemical Works Regs., Clauses 25 (a) (1) and (b) (1).) 7. Provide, as a minimum, proper manholes for places where fumes may be present, and which may have to be entered. Such manholes are standardised in F.A. Section 27 (1) (a). 8. Ensure that no worker may enter a tank or enclosed space until it has been examined by a responsible person appointed by the management, and certified either as free from danger and sealed off from all sources of fume, or the reverse. In the latter event no person shall enter without a proper breathing apparatus, a belt of the prescribed type, and a life-line; the line should be held by a man outside whose sole duty is to watch the man inside and haul him out if necessary. (This is only a generalised abstract of Clause 7 of the Chemical Works Regulations, 1922, which needs detailed study. For works not scheduled under the Regulations there are substantially similar requirements under F.A. Section 27 (1) (b)). 9. Provide and maintain in an accessible position and in good repair, the required breathing and reviving apparatus and life-lines; provide a sufficient number of persons trained and practised in the use of such apparatus. (This is a condensation of parts of F.A. Section 27 and Chemical Works Regulation No. 7 into one suggestion. The relevant legal requirements are more extensive and should be studied by those affected.) 10. Ensure frequent periodic medical examination of all workers exposed to benzene. Such examination should be carried out by a physician familiar with benzene poisoning, and should include a blood examination. Health records should be kept, and medical advice as to transfer of an affected worker to more innocuous duties should be acted upon promptly. (At works under the India-rubber Regulations 1922, monthly medical examinations are actually required; as also at certain works under the Chemical Works Regs., Part II.) 11. Ensure that both employer and employee know when benzene is being handled. Benzene is frequently contained in materials that are distributed under a trade name. An assurance that they do not contain benzene or other harmful solvent should be obtained in writing from the manufacturers. 12. Ensure that all those connected with the manipulation of benzene are made aware of its toxicity. Note.—Under the Cellulose Solutions Regs., no persons under 16 may work where solutions containing more than 15 per cent. of benzene are used (Clause 2) ; vessels of such liquids must be legibly marked as containing benzene (Clause 13). **Suggestions for Workers** 1. Carry out, in detail, all safety measures which are advised in connexion with the use of benzene. 2. Make use of ventilating equipment, breathing apparatus, life lines and protective clothing supplied and report when this equipment is not in good order. (See F.A. Section 119 and Chem. Works Reg. No. 17.) 3. Report physical complaints early. Benzene poisoning is insidious in its onset. When a physician is consulted he should always be told if benzol or benzene is being handled since such information may assist in a diagnosis. N.B.—As these notes deal only with poisoning no mention is made of other requirements called for on account of the inflammability of benzene and the explosive nature of its fumes when mixed with air, e.g., Factories Act, Section 28 (3) and (4) or of dermatitis. † See “ Methods for the detection of Toxic Gases in Industry.” Leaflet No. 4; Benzene Vapour. H.M.S.O. Price 3d. net. * Other figures are as follows : the Bureau of Standards, U.S. Dept. of Labor, give 100 p.p.m. as dangerous; Russian authorities give figures from 15 to 55 p.p.m. as the allowable maximum; the American Standards Association, in a recent publication, give 100 p.p.m. as the maximum allowable for 8 hours exposure. In any event the question is much complicated by the fact that individual reactions to benzene vapour vary enormously. Moreover, the onset of ill-effects may be delayed for some time. **QUEER CORNER** Passing from one Whitechapel factory to another, five minutes walk away, an inspector found a defective First Aid box, at the first but now at the second. Challenged to produce, the second occupier excused himself for a few moments. By the time the Inspector had looked at the General Register the occupier, triumphant but a little breathless, was now provided with the required box. Examination disclosed defects precisely the same as those noted at the works he had just left. | ||