Twelve Accident-Free Years, Three Needle Injuries and a Blocked Exit
A ready-made garment unit in an industrial estate runs two shifts with 60 lockstitch machines, four overlock machines and one fusing press, employing 74 workers. In the last six weeks the overlock line has had three needle-break incidents, and a new trainee punctured her index finger while lifting the presser foot to pull the work back. During a walk-through you also record: a 5-litre can of machine oil standing on the floor beside the electrical distribution board; a trolley of fabric rolls parked across the width of the only emergency exit; and two fusing operators complaining of burning eyes and throat, the press being installed in the same hall with no exhaust hood. The owner says the unit has run for twelve years 'without a single accident' and does not want production disturbed. A buyer's social-compliance audit is scheduled in three weeks, and 5,000 pieces are due in nine days.
1. Rank the four hazards you have recorded and state which of them require work to stop today rather than be scheduled for correction. Justify the ranking method.
Read the worked answer
Use risk = severity × likelihood, then apply the hierarchy of control (eliminate → substitute → engineering → administrative → PPE).
- Blocked emergency exit - severity fatal (a fire in a garment hall with fabric and lint can trap 74 people), likelihood moderate. Unacceptable: correct during the shift, at zero cost, by marking a keep-clear zone and re-siting the trolley.
- Oil can beside the distribution board - severity high (fire and slip), likelihood moderate. Correct today: dedicated oil store with drip tray, away from electrical panels and ignition sources.
- Fusing fumes without exhaust - severity high (chronic respiratory/eye damage), likelihood high because exposure is continuous every shift. Interim control today (reduce exposure, move the press, restrict access); engineering control within two weeks.
- Needle-point injury on the overlock line - severity moderate to high (permanent finger disability), likelihood high on that line. Needs a guard within days; interim administrative controls now.
Note the difference between ranking by risk and ordering by urgency: a lower-ranked hazard can still demand an immediate stop-work order when it threatens life safety in a single event, which is why the exit and the oil come first even though needle injuries are more frequent. The owner's 'twelve accident-free years' is evidence of luck, not control - the three needle breaks and one injury show the controls have already failed.
2. The owner refuses to buy needle guards for the four overlock machines, saying they cost money and slow the operators. How do you argue the case, and what interim controls would you put in place while the guards are procured?
Read the worked answer
Reframe the argument in cost and legal terms, not in sentiment.
- Cost comparison: four guards are a small one-off purchase. Set against that: compensation and medical cost for one finger injury, lost operator days, the compliance-audit non-conformity (most buyer codes of conduct require needle guards on all sewing machines), and the risk of losing the order - on 5,000 pieces this dwarfs the guard price.
- Legal duty: under the Factories Act 1948 the dangerous parts of machinery must be securely fenced (s.21), and the needle point is a dangerous part; a needle guard is the accepted engineering solution, not an optional extra.
- Production argument: a guard does not reduce cycle time if the operator is trained to trim and turn the work under the guard. The real slowdown is the machine stoppage after each injury.
Interim administrative controls (they reduce, but do not remove, the risk):
- Retrain the backing-out technique - stop the machine, lift the presser foot with the knee lifter, remove the work with tweezers, never with fingers.
- No trainee on the overlock line unsupervised; post a warning at the machine.
- Investigate why the needles break (wrong needle size or point for the fabric, bent needle left in service, pulling the work, needle striking the plate) and correct the cause.
- Issue finger protection as a last resort only; PPE protects the individual and leaves the hazard in place.
3. Two fusing operators report burning eyes and throat. The supervisor proposes issuing masks and continuing. What is the correct investigation and control sequence, and why is the mask not the answer?
Read the worked answer
PPE is the last line of defence: a mask filters what has already escaped into the breathing zone, it depends on fit and wearing discipline, and it does nothing about the fume spreading to the other 72 workers in the same hall. The hazard must be captured at source.
Investigate first:
- Identify the interlining and its adhesive type and obtain the safety data sheet; note the decomposition products at fusing temperature.
- Check the actual platen temperature against the interlining supplier's specification (typically 130–160 °C with defined time and pressure). Overheating is a common cause of fume and also ruins the bond.
- Verify dwell time, pressure and whether the press thermostat is out of calibration.
- Record symptoms, exposure hours and the operators concerned; arrange a medical check and record it.
Control, in order:
- Eliminate/substitute: move the fusing press out of the sewing hall into a separate, ventilated fusing room.
- Engineering: local exhaust ventilation - a hood or enclosure connected to an extract fan discharging outdoors, sized to capture at the source. A general ceiling fan only dilutes and spreads the fume.
- Administrative: keep the press closed except when loading, rotate operators, keep the interlining roll covered, restrict access.
- PPE: appropriate respiratory protection and eye protection as an interim measure until the extraction is commissioned, not as the permanent solution.
Document the corrective action - the compliance audit will ask for the risk assessment, the SDS and evidence that the control was verified working.