Key Issues and Assessment of Opportunities

This section presents an overview of key issues as raised by some industry executives . It is an initial assessment of opportunities for this technology within their industry sectors.

In assessing the opportunity (or otherwise), it should be noted that at this stage the assessment is indicative only, and should be considered for the purposes of refining the focus of future market research.

• High potential.
• Complex, dangerous equipment and processes within meat processing plant.
• Workplace accidents commonplace. (operators and cleaners)
• WorkCover insurance premiums significant. ($250,000 p.a. per site)
• Civil litigation in relation to injuries a growing risk.
• Hazards include conveyors, various carcass cutting tools and equipment. (beef hock cutters, beef splitting saws)
• Equipment is manufactured domestically and overseas.
• Safety measures include ‘locked power supply cut off switches’, ‘double handed’ tools with ‘anti-tie down devices attached’

• Extensive potential applications of this technology, because production processes involve close human contact with production outputs and machinery.
• Moving parts in the extrusion process present a high risk of injury
• In these situations, laser/light barriers are not effective
• Relevance identified by management of BP-Amoco.
• Interest expressed in taking part in R&D and field trials.

• Applications in violation risk mitigation, particularly in rollers
• Laser/light barrier technologies in use; substitution possible
• Cost issues of direct concern
• Issues relate to workers having to wear tags.
• Inertia of production equipment raised as an implementation concern
• High-level awareness of legislative and insurance environments

• Interest in safety enhancements is evident amongst OH&S personnel at various steel plants
• Applications with rollers and presses
• Substitute for laser curtains
• Indsafe innovation received with ‘open mind’
• Issues about applicability raised
• Speed of machinery is an issue; can it be stopped?
• Impact of shut down on ‘wear and tear’
• No evidence of ‘management inertia’ in relation to OH&S.

• Significant safety risks and hazards within the industry
• Industry perception that Indsafe concept may have application to reduce safety risk associated with specific equipment and processes
• Jaw crushers, cone crushers
• Feeders
• Hydraulic scrap shredders
• Metal crushers
• Briquetting presses
• Scrap baling presses
• Strong interest apparent in ‘automated’ aspect of the technology i.e., no operator intervention required
• Cost pressures and competition in industry will inhibit further investment in safety technology - perception that the industry is extremely price sensitive (this needs to be confirmed through research of manufacturer strategies)
• Concern with impact on warranties etc. of installing technology, leading to a preference for equipment to be ‘pre-installed’
• Opportunity exists, with focus directed towards equipment manufacturers (instead of end-users).

• A direct and immediate application in the battering manufacturing process has been identified
• Lead oxide paste hoppers used in the battery manufacturing process have a mixing mechanism inside
• A history of accidents with this equipment with hands being caught in the mechanism
• No effective guarding because operators need to feed the hopper
• Additional requirement to access ‘reclaimed’ product means operators must be able to access the hopper
• Preferred approach would be for technology to be incorporated in the design of the hopper (key manufacturer MAC Engineering, Sovema and a number of Swiss firms)
• Concerns relate to response time, need to retrofit the breaking system to deal with the inertia of the mixing mechanism, the placement of the wristbands given the 200mm depth of the hopper

• The Indsafe technology could be an effective replacement of existing ‘red eye’ technology, and more generally for machine guarding
• The types of equipment where the technology would suit include lathes, milling machines, presses.
• The key consideration is cost: “depends on the cost”, said the respondent.

Key issues for companies include

• The application of the technology to old equipment
• Ability to be an effective safety device in the context of large hydraulic systems that are not easy to stop.
• The ‘red eye’ fails in one particular area, namely in a process where steel plates are put through a roller. In this situation, a ‘red eye’ detector has been placed on a set of rollers, but to minimize stoppages operators are either “turning off the ‘red eye’” or are “reaching over it”.
• Also indicated concern about how one would ensure that workers wear the safety bands, though acknowledges that ultimately that is a management/disciplinary issue.
• ‘Red eye’ implementations vary depending on situation. Recently installed a ‘red eye’ on a press and cost approximately $3,000. Rollers were installed with ‘red eyes’ last year at a cost of about $13,000-14,000.
• Key drivers of decisions to invest in safety are “dollar based” – workers’ compensation, insurance premiums, with far less emphasis on OH&S per se.