BY JERRY KNAPP
Recently, the West Haverstraw (NY) Fire Depart- ment responded to an unusual extrication call. Dispatch reported an employee at the local supermarket had his hand stuck in the soda can recycling machine. On arrival, we found an 18-year-old male in extreme distress with his arm shoulder-deep in the machine.
These machines execute thousands of safe transactions each day for customers. People, being creative, can find ways to misuse and make almost anything dangerous. In this case, several built-in safety features appeared to have been bypassed. We did think it unusual that the victim had opened the front cover of the machine and then stuck his hand in. Our job was to extricate him; the police would do the investigation. At this point in the extrication, we did not know the extent of the injury or the exact mechanism of his entrapment.
Paramedics on the scene conducted an initial assessment and assisted in stabilization by standing the victim on a chair and administering anesthetic to reduce pain during the extrication.
THE RECYCLING MACHINE
The machine was a typical customer-use machine you may find in any supermarket recycling center. Cans are inserted one at a time in the round hole at the upper right of the machine. This particular model represents about 50 percent of all can recycling machines in the northeastern United States (photo 1). Other models are significantly different in design.
 1. Photos by author. |
The process in the machine is as follows: The can is drawn in by two rubber counter rotating wheels onto two rollers that spin the can as the laser bar code reader confirms the can is recyclable. The can is then directed into the reject chute or the intake chute. Once in the intake chute, cans fall down into the crusher bin, where a large ram squeezes the can flat. This mechanism is surprisingly strong, considering only aluminum cans are being crushed. A mechanical arm under the crusher assembly holds the can up in the correct area. This arm then folds away to allow the crushed can to fall into the plastic bin under the unit. You have probably seen store employees emptying these bins full of crushed cans or shredded plastic bottles.
 2 |
null
Photo 2 shows the entire assembly with the cover removed. No. 1 shows the can entry point. No. 2 shows the rollers where the can is spun so the bar code can be read. No. 3 shows the intake chute that leads to the crushing mechanism. No. 4 shows the reject chute. Note the large warning sign that clearly tells you not to put hands in the machine.
 3 |
Photo 3 shows the can insertion point with counter rotating wheels and the intake chute removed (lines drawn in to show its position) for clarity. No. 5 indicates the arm that sends the can to be crushed or rejected based on the determination of the scanner bar code reader (No. 6). No. 7 is the crushing mechanism.
 4 |
In photo 4, it is easy to see the mass of the machine’s metal components. The arrows indicate the one-inch-thick steel plate used as the main structural elements for the crusher assembly. The ram, with its angled cut on the top, shows how thick this part is as well. The mass of these components made our standard extrication tools ineffective.
 5 |
Photo 5 is a recreation of the entrapment. For clarity, the intake chute was removed. The victim was a tall young man and was able to reach all the way down, through the intake chute, into the crushing assembly. He disregarded three large warning signs that clearly indicated not to put hands in the machine. The victim’s hand was pinned between the ram and the side of the crushing box. He was caught up to his knuckles, causing him considerable pain.
THE RESCUE
Initial size-up on the scene revealed a young male store employee had opened the cover of the aluminum can recycling machine and became entrapped. The machine was located in a cramped room 9 feet wide by 15 feet long. The cover to the machine was hinged at the top and open, with keys still in the lock. Store employees, although familiar with the machine, were unable to provide any specific assistance in the rescue.
 6 |
Photo 6 shows some of the initial rescue attempts. The intake chute was opened with an electric saw. Because of the lack of space in and around the victim’s hand, it was impossible to use hydraulic rescue tools.
The cover was removed from the mechanism in the front of the mach-ine, and the connecting rod from the gear was cut. This still did not provide relief from the entrapment.
While one crew was working to free the victim using standard rescue tools, a second crew noted the lack of progress and began to disassemble a similar machine at the opposite end of the recycling room. This effort proved very valuable to the rescue.
The intake chute that holds the cans to be crushed was held on with four thumbscrews. The crew removed this chute, which provided excellent visual access to the crushing mechanism. Removal of the lower part of the unit and the container of crushed cans provided access and a clear view and understanding of how the machine worked.
Communication with crew 1 made it clear there was no room to work from above, near the victim’s hand. Crew 2 attempted to move the ram on the second machine by inserting a halligan tool and applying leverage from below. Despite the three feet of leverage and a good effort on the halligan bar, the ram did not move at all and appeared to be tightly fixed into position, probably held by the very sturdy machinery.
We were well into this rescue by now—approximately 20 minutes—and it was clear that forcing and cutting were not successful. It was obvious from the rescue work and the exploratory and experimental work on the second machine that forcing the mechanism to provide room for victim removal was not working.
We then changed our strategy from force to finesse. Crew 2 carefully reviewed the workings of the machine and found the motor and belt drive unit in the far left side of the unit. Rotating the pulley and belt a few turns moved the crushing ram. We tested this quickly to determine which way the ram moved when the pulley was moved. This information was relayed to the crew performing the rescue. With a few turns of the pulley, the victim was quickly and successfully extricated.
 7 |
In photo 7, the arrow shows the pulley that was moved, which was directly connected to the ram. Moving the pulley moved the ram and freed the victim quickly and effectively.
LESSONS LEARNED
The value of developing two concurrent operational plans cannot be overstated. As crew 1 worked to extricate the victim, crew 2 took the initiative to disassemble a second machine to better understand its mechanics and ultimately successfully complete the rescue. Often we focus on single-option solutions. When staffing permits, use a second crew to seek, develop, test, or plan an alternate solution. The stakes were quite high in this case. A rapid and successful rescue meant the difference between a functional hand and a limited-use and a severely handicapped hand for this young man.
These recycling machines are much more heavily designed than one would think. Because of the tight spaces and the design of the machine, regular rescue equipment may be useless or overly time consuming.
One thing we did not do but could have done was call the manufacturer of the machine. The number is posted very conspicuously on the front of the machine. A cell phone call from the scene may have sped up this rescue. As rescue personnel, we tend to think of how we can cut, pry, bend, or otherwise force a mechanism to effect a rescue. We must never forget that with mechanical equipment like this, the best rescue method may be to quickly figure out how the machine works and use the mechanism itself to free the victim.
JERRY KNAPP is a training officer at the Rockland County Fire Training Center in Pomona, New York, and a 28-year veteran firefighter/EMT with the West Haverstraw (NY) Fire Department. He has an associate’s degree in fire protection technology, is a former paramedic, and is the emergency management officer at the United States Military Academy in West Point, New York.
The Importance of Having a Plan A, B, and Even C During Complicated Rescue Calls
BY MICHAEL G. BROWN
Experienced and disciplined rescue teams know that the initial plan often goes sour and they must resort to alternative methods to accomplish the mission. A good operational officer always has several plans working in tandem when someone is trapped where they don’t want to be. This can be looked at as a decision tree. A decision tree branches out chronologically, where the trunk represents arrival on-scene with all of your people, ideas, skill sets, and equipment. As you progress up the tree (time), ideas branch out from many sources. The rescue officer then decides which branches or “plans” to use. Running Plan A, Plan B, and Plan C simultaneously greatly enhances your opportunities for success.
How you determine which plan should be prioritized and exercised first depends on experience and a logical analysis of all of the factors, but there are some pointers that can help you prioritize the better choices first and the not-so-good choices later.
- Have an open-idea policy that encourages your teammates to offer plans for analysis. As smart as you think you are, some of the best ideas in a pinch can come from the most unlikely people; don’t shut them out.
- Sometimes time makes the decision for you. When a victim’s airway is compromised or if he is severely bleeding, usually the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) principle applies and can be called Plan A. The KISS principle usually has the least number of moving parts, has a proven history of being successful, and can always be started while you’re firming up Plan B and Plan C.
- The “Law of Diminishing Returns” dovetails with the KISS principle and says that every organization, machine, and project has a point where it cannot be refined any further by adding more components. It just gets too complicated, too big, too expensive, or too heavy to be an efficient “machine.” You can build a pulley system with 12 pulleys making a 4096:1 theoretical mechanical advantage but, not including rope stretch and pulley friction coefficients, you would have to walk almost a mile to get the load to move a foot. This pulley system reached its point of diminishing returns somewhere around three or four pulleys. When studying several ideas (branches of the decision tree), look for plans that don’t seem to be approaching their point of diminishing returns.
- Do not be afraid to call on additional resources. Even if the resources have to be turned around en route, support your rescue mission with an adequate amount of equipment to make all of your plans operational. When Plan A and Plan B fall apart, having the equipment ready to immediately switch to Plan C is vital. And, if you find yourself already using Plan C, you need to have Plan D ready and Plan E being developed.
- When training on scenario-based rescues, your team will generally choose the path with which they are the most familiar. Stop them once they’re well on the way with Plan A and see if they are working on a parallel Plan B. See how quickly and smoothly they switch to Plan B. Once Plan B is going, find out what Plan C they have working.
- You have the resources because you were not afraid to call on them. Set up a group (Plans) to study alternative plans and organize methods of getting the equipment to you. Make the group responsible for keeping you several steps ahead of the game.
- If you have people standing around, and the victim has not been extricated, you are probably not managing very well.
- The West Haverstraw (NY) Fire Department could only devote a couple of people to the can-crushing machine; physically, there are only so many people who can get their hands on the machine. Some of the other rescuers, thinking outside the box, decided to disassemble a similar machine to see if anything could be learned about it to release that darn ram. Congratulations to the crews involved in this incident. This time, it seems Plan K worked!
MICHAEL G. BROWN is a program manager in the Technical Services Division of Applied Marine Technology Inc. He retired in May 2003 as a battalion chief in the Virginia Beach (VA) Fire Department after more than 27 years in the fire service. He is task force leader for FEMA’s USAR VA TF-2 and is operations chief on the IST-Blue Team. He continues to teach the technical rescue disciplines, particularly structure collapse technician and rope rescue. Brown is the author of the textbook Engineering Practical Rope Rescue Systems (Delmar, 2000).
