Thinking Safety

Safety experts attribute some of the decrease in injuries and fatalities in the past decade partly to stringent regulation and reporting by the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Contributing factors also include modern safety-conscious equipment designs and operators addressing the root causes of injuries in mining environments, rather than treating the symptoms.

According to industry expert R. Todd Swinderman, there are five root causes of conveyor injuries: a ‘production first’ culture, ‘low bid’ purchasing, overly complex designs, too many rules, and understaffed or undertrained personnel. He has stated that companies who truly focus on safety are more productive, operate cleaner and safer facilities than their competitors, and have a higher share price.

Examining three preventable conveyor injuries

Reduced workplace injuries and fatalities is a positive trend, but there are still predictable and preventable injuries happening. The goal of Martin Engineering’s ‘Production Done Safely’ philosophy is to help mine operators achieve the greatest amount of production at the lowest cost of operation, with the least number of injuries possible. This is accomplished through awareness, extensive training, and safety-conscious equipment design.

The following examples display common injuries that could have been prevented through several established safety methods. Beyond the tragic loss for the workers and their loved ones, the companies in which the fatalities occurred were heavily fined. Consequently, some are also enduring ongoing litigation, serious morale issues, and higher than normal turnover.

An unfortunate beginning

The first fatality is a common one. On a January morning in 2020, a 33-year-old worker was cleaning spillage around a running conveyor system at a facility in New Jersey. Listed as a temporary non-union worker, he got too close to the moving belt, and a piece of loose clothing came in contact with the belt, dragging him into a pinch point. He was strangled with the fabric before aid could be administered or the system shut down. This incident resulted in US$36 500 in fines from OSHA.

There were several details left out of the public report. One is the presence of guarding around the belt, which prevents limbs and objects from ‘breaking the plane’ of the system. The ‘plane’ is the line (generally indicated by the outside of the stringer) that, once crossed, becomes a hazard for this type of incident. Guarding is designed with mesh that prevents incidental contact but allows for inspection. Often, there is a procedure required to remove guarding, and in some cases, removal triggers an automatic shutdown of the system.

It was not revealed in the report how much training the individual had received, but a trained worker would have been aware of the hazards around a moving belt with regards to loose-fitting clothing or long hair. Moreover, the presence of a buddy or supervisor is unknown, but the implementation of work teams might have allowed a faster response to shut off the system or free the worker before asphyxiation occurred.

Enjoyed what you've read so far? Read the rest of the article and the April Issue of Global Mining Review by registering today for free!

Read the article online at: https://www.globalminingreview.com/mining/29042024/thinking-safety/