Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 16 June 2004 23:02:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Martin Taylor
We have had an incident today with an overhead fluoresent tube shattering and depositing shards of glass and coating dust from the fitting at a height of 4 m on the shop floor.

Studying the incident and looking at the array of some 100 tubes in the production floor I felt somewhat exposed to the risk of a recurrence that coould lead to a serious personal injury accident.

The fittings are what I would class as standard twin tube reflector fittings without diffusers.

I have searched google for guideance on circumstances where additional protection against this kind of occurence may be required but was only able to find material on protection in the food industry.

Is anybody aware of guideance on the installation of such fittings and risk assessment for the workplace where a risk of such failures may exist.

ta

Martin Taylor
Admin  
#2 Posted : 17 June 2004 06:09:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John Murgatroyd
Over 100 lamps ?
What procedures have you in place for disposing of them when their life is finished.
The coating contains mercury, one tube contains enough mercury to render 30,000 litres of water unsafe for consumption, or so they say !!
As for safety, they seem to be high enough to be safe, maybe you ought to look at how it got broken.
Admin  
#3 Posted : 17 June 2004 07:52:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Martin Taylor
Thanks John

We have an approved disposal route for end of life tubes (Lampcare)so I am not concerned about this. The fitting appears to have overheated at the tube connector. They are high enough to prevent mechanical impact but I guess there is always some kind of residual risk of failure and I am looking to find some guideance on fittings - locations around populated areas - maintenance schemes - fitting of protection to tube/fittings.

regards

Martin
Admin  
#4 Posted : 17 June 2004 07:59:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Daryl Whitby
Martin,
Firstly let me agree with John by stating the first instance is to investigate why and how the incident occurred. Secondly I have worked in the food industry for the past 20 years and spoken at the National Energy Management Exhibition on suitable, safe and environmentally friendly lighting. I would suggest speaking to a colleague of mine, Mike Hurford at Lighting Direct, he is a specialist with lighting issues and can advise on the best lighting for your workplace and the grants available to retrofit. The work Mike carried out for us back in 1997 saves us over £10,000pa just on electricity. Give him a ring on 01733-328328.
or to discuss further with myself - Daryl Whitby, tel- 01204-793446.
Admin  
#5 Posted : 17 June 2004 11:53:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Andy Petrie
The likliehood of this happening is very low and the severity very minor. It is therfore a very low risk. I would just write it off as one of those things.

If it does happen again however then you may have a problem and would need to do some investigation.
Admin  
#6 Posted : 17 June 2004 20:31:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Laurie
I had an instance of this too.

With several thousand tubes over six sites, and only the one instance in six years, even the most pessimistic risk assessment had to make it low risk on "reasonably practicable" guidelines, i.e. the cost of preventative action far outweighed the likelihood of a repetition

Laurie

Admin  
#7 Posted : 18 June 2004 11:09:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jimmy
Martin, I'm not teaching you to suck eggs but-----are the fittings switch start, and of "some age"? If they are,it is possible that the lamp / socket connections become worn and this can be an area of heat build up (wear and tear)due to frequent lamp changes and the switching nature of the starter.
This shattering incident is un-common.

If they are high frequency type there will be no "moving" parts hence an instant start, so may account for a faulty lamp base cap.

You might like to consider metal halide low bay lighting for your production area, with toughened glass. Cheaper to run and lamp / control gear life is better than that of fluorescent lamps.
Alternatively safety sleeves are available to fit over standard T8 tubes in manufacturing facilities, any electrical wholesaler will have the details and phone No of the manufacturer ( I've forgotten it)
Admin  
#8 Posted : 18 June 2004 11:32:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Geof
1. Consider air pistol, catapult, thrown object - are you sure none of these were involved?

2. Contact the manufacturers - ask how many lamps have been reported as shattering in use and possible causes and possible solutions.

Your next action will be based on this information and yours and others experience.

How mercury and other similar comments got in the equation beats me.





Admin  
#9 Posted : 18 June 2004 12:21:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jimmy
First point is good Geof,
the second point may be difficult unless there is one specific supplier of lamps,
your last comment is absolutely correct.
Maybe thats why no-one can find WMD 'cos they're all hidden in the lights!!!!
Admin  
#10 Posted : 18 June 2004 20:49:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John Murgatroyd
It got into the equation Geof because the title was : Safety of fluorescent lighting
And: Shards of glass and dust from the coating.
The "dust" was the tube lining which fluoresces when energised by the ultra violet radiation within the tube envelope, and which contains mercury.
I was thinking of the workforce who, presumably, would have inhaled the "dust", and then the disposal of the residue.
Tube failure of that type is rare, and is usually caused by undue strain when the tube is inserted into the holder, which is usually the "slide up and turn" type of holder.
Admin  
#11 Posted : 22 June 2004 17:12:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Marcus Pereira
Found this on the www - kind of related...
A ROSPA survey published in October 2000 revealed a high number of injuries from the most mundane everyday items in UK offices.
Number of Injuries Caused by Everyday Office Materials and Equipment in One Year
Items Causing Injuries - Number Injured
Pencils - 1,777
Staplers - 1,100
Erasers - 332
Calculators - 39
Telephones - 10,644
Paper (cut) - 2,500
Falling wall charts/notice boards - 100
Falling fluorescent lights - 352
Computer keyboards (RSI) - 100,000
Measuring tapes - 532

The falling tubes are quite high up the charts - more risky than using an eraser!

Marcus.


Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.