NEW OPPORTUNITIES in SAFETY Lessons from a Risk Assessment Journey by Bruce W
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
RISK MANAGEMENT Peer-Reviewed NEW OPPORTUNITIES IN SAFETY Lessons From a Risk Assessment Journey By Bruce W. Main PERFORMING SAFETY FIXES ON BRAND NEW MACHINERY to team realized that the chute ended in the center of the machine correct unsafe situations is often necessary, usually not very with no available access. Had this machine been built at that effective or efficient, and often stressful and accompanied by time, the operators would have had to lockout the machine, blame and finger-pointing. The risk assessment process is the remove guards and crawl under the machine to remove the re- vehicle for safety professionals to affect the safety of machinery jected lenses, or, more likely, the guard would be removed and and equipment before it is built or installed. Getting it right the not reinstalled. Identifying this task and associated hazards first time can have positive effects for many years. Unfortunate- with the 3D model allowed redirecting the reject chute in a way Ply, few safety professionals become engaged in new machinery that enabled lens removal without having to stop operations. purchases until late in the process, often not until the equip- Small differences can have big impacts. ment is on the factory floor. Another interesting aspect of this risk assessment was the Safety professionals have new opportunities to make signif- engineers’ reaction and nervous laughter when this situation icant contributions in keeping people from harm. This article was identified. Since the issue was identified before the machine shares a perspective on some exciting opportunities available was built, it was a funny oversight that everyone enjoyed. No and how safety professionals can get involved. harm, no foul, no blame. Had this machine been built and the problem identified on the factory floor, there would have been 3D Modeling little humor, as safety professionals well know. One interesting and exciting advance in conducting risk as- Safety professionals do not need to be adept at creating or sessments is working with 3D software models of machinery, manipulating the 3D models; engineers can do that. Safety pro- equipment and processes before the physical systems are actu- fessionals can offer safety perspectives and insights to identify ally built. Solidworks, Autocad and similar software 3D mod- tasks and hazards using the 3D models, just as they can with eling tools provide a rendering of the finished product that can equipment after it is built and on the factory floor. be viewed from any perspective with different layers or parts Lesson: Risk assessments can be and increasingly are being exposed or hidden. A sample 3D model for a machine is shown conducted on 3D models of machines, equipment and pro- in Photos 1 to 3. cesses before the designs are finalized. This allows changes to Conducting risk assessments on 3D models allows analy- be made to the design for safety considerations rather than ses of the systems to be conducted when changes are easy trying to fix safety problems after the systems are built. This is and inexpensive to make, and the positive impacts can be the essence of prevention through design (PTD). Make use of significant. Retrofitting is difficult, expensive and some- the technology available. times impossible. For example, on a risk assessment of a prototype eyeglass lens Alternative Methods: The Future of Lockout coating machine, the engineers had developed a 3D model that Controlling hazardous energy is critical to worker safety. included the lenses entering the machine, exiting the machine OSHA has required lockout as its preferred/only method and a chute for rejected lenses. During the risk assessment, the to control energy under 29 CFR 1910.147 since it was first published in 1989. Lockout is effective in this regard, but KEY TAKEAWAYS some tasks cannot be performed under lockout. OSHA is •Safety professionals need to learn the risk assessment process and considering modifying its requirements for the control of become capable in applying it to workplaces, machinery, equipment hazardous energy, and this standard is currently on the and processes; those who do will add value to any organization and regulatory agenda. However, the process will take years. help move safety into design, which is the essence of prevention Until OSHA decides what to do and implements its re- through design. sponse according to the rulemaking process, employers •Lessons learned from a risk assessment journey provide important and OSHA must deal with the current requirements under guidance for safety professionals seeking the ability to influence 29 CFR 1910.147. safety in the workplace. Conversely, new technology offers options that allow for the •Risk assessment presents an opportunity for growth and improved control of hazardous energy in lieu of lockout. This situation understanding to become a better safety professional. is termed alternative methods in the industry standard ANSI/ PLUS IMAGES ZMICIERKAVABATA/ISTOCK/GETTY 36 PSJ PROFESSIONAL SAFETY APRIL 2020 assp.org RISK MANAGEMENT Peer-Reviewed NEW OPPORTUNITIES IN SAFETY Lessons From a Risk Assessment Journey By Bruce W. Main ASSP Z244.1, The Control of Hazardous Energy Lockout, Taking advantage of alternative methods requires complet- Tagout and Alternative Methods. ing a documented risk assessment as required under ANSI/ Alternative methods are means of controlling hazardous en- ASSP Z244.1. In addition, using alternative methods may run ergy other than energy isolation to reduce risk to an acceptable counter to OSHA’s requirements now and for the foreseeable level. Alternative methods tend to use engineering controls that future. Being able to demonstrate compliance with ANSI/ are more reliable than administrative procedures such as lock- ASSP Z244.1 will be helpful if OSHA conducts an inspection out (Table 3 of ANSI, 2020). of a workplace and takes issue with an alternative method be- Typically, alternative methods include multiple engineered ing used in lieu of locking out. controls and procedural steps to ensure that no unexpected Lesson: Significant opportunities for improvements exist in motion occurs when performing a task. Examples of alternative using alternative methods to control hazardous energy versus methods used in industry include: lockout. Making use of these methods requires a documented •interlocked guard door panels on many machines for clear- risk assessment. Safety practitioners skilled in risk assessment ing jams (prevents motion when door is open); will be able to add value in this regard. This is a major area of •interlocked access gates surrounding robotic systems for growth going forward. setup tasks (prevents motion); •hold-to-run control devices for clean- ing and sanitizing food or bottling pro- cessing lines (enables safe motion); •light curtains on presses used for jam clearing (prevents motion); •safety-rated valves for hydraulic or pneumatic applications (prevents flow or motion). If properly designed, alternative meth- ods can provide workers with better, safer, faster, more productive, more reliable and easier means to complete tasks as com- pared with lockout. At one manufacturing facility, the day shift supervisor shared that about 85% of the lockout violations were simple human errors, such as not locking out all (Clockwise from top left) Photo 1: Machine energy sources, failing to verify or not with guard package shown. documenting procedures properly. Most Photo 2: 3D model of machine with robot lockout violations were not intentional and machine structure (guard package and acts to circumvent or defeat lockout above structure hidden). requirements. This speaks to the impor- Photo 3: Machine with robot and ventila- tance and potential advantages of using tion system highlighted (guard package properly designed and implemented en- hidden). gineering controls rather than relying on administrative procedures. However, improperly designed control systems can be hazardous. Alternative methods must be done correctly in accor- dance with ANSI/ASSP Z244.1. assp.org APRIL 2020 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY PSJ 37 Existing/Legacy Machinery Risk Assessments Table 1 shows the requirements for new and existing machin- Risk assessments are most easily conducted on existing ery stipulated by ANSI B11.0-2020. machinery and equipment on the plant floor. For example, Unfortunately, the ability to make changes when machinery Photos 4 to 6 depict hazards that are readily identifiable. or equipment is already on the floor is the most challenging. The risk assessment process must be both practical and Since safety improvements and enhancements often result scalable. Risk assessments can be conducted for a single from the risk assessment effort, usually with potential produc- hazard on one machine or for all hazards on all equipment tivity improvements, the risk assessment process is naturally in a facility. The hazards can be identified, and appropriate driven further upstream in product design before construc- risk reduction measures developed. This same methodology tion even begins. can be scaled up to an entire facility with the appropriate For example, a risk assessment was conducted for a ma- staffing and tools. chine user on a machine that was being built by the supplier. The risk assessment process should apply to both new and The machine was still being constructed at the time. One existing or legacy machinery, equipment and processes. ANSI result of the risk assessment identified the need for Category B11.0, Safety of Machinery, states