Transcript Understanding Risk Assessment

Understanding Risk
Assessment
Dennis Bullock
Senior Quality Analyst
ATS Systems, Oregon
2003 incidents
“The Bureau of Labor Statistics says that 5,500
deaths and 4,700,000 reportable injuries occurred
on the job in 2003 (out of approximately
126,000,000 U.S. workers). Although the number
of incidents has dropped dramatically over the
past 30 years, the cost-per-incident today has
sky-rocketed into the tens of billions of dollars.
Financial consequences of an injury can go well
beyond immediate plant downtime and medical
expenses.”
Source: “Safety in the Automated World”
Control Engineering -- November 1, 2004 – Dick Johnson
NATIONAL CENSUS OF FATAL
OCCUPATIONAL INJURIES IN 2007

A total of 5,488 fatal work injuries were recorded
in the United States in 2007, a decrease of 6
percent from the revised total of 5,840 fatal work
injuries reported for 2006. While these results are
considered preliminary, this figure represents the
smallest annual preliminary total since the
Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI)
program was first conducted in 1992. Final
results for 2007 will be released in April 2009.
Retrieved from the Bureau of Labor Statistics website 1/18/09
Bureau of Labor Statistics News release
Oct 20, 2011
Nearly 3.1 million nonfatal workplace injuries
and illnesses were reported among private
industry employers in 2010, resulting in an
incidence rate of 3.5 cases per 100 equivalent
full-time workers—down from 3.6 cases in 2009,
the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported
today.
Preliminary 2011 fatal incidents

A preliminary total of 4,547 fatal work injuries were
recorded in the United States in 2010, about the same as
the final count of 4,551 fatal work injuries in 2009,
according to results from the Census of Fatal
Occupational Injuries (CFOI) program conducted by the
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The rate of fatal work
injury for U.S. workers in 2010 was 3.5 per 100,000 fulltime equivalent (FTE) workers, the same as the final rate
for 2009. Over the last 3 years, increases in the published
counts based on information received after the release of
preliminary data have averaged 174 fatalities per year or
about 3 percent of the revised totals. Final 2010 CFOI
data will be released in Spring 2012

BLS news Release August 25, 2011
Injuries in private industry

Injuries. Approximately 2.9 million (94.9 percent) of
the 3.1 million nonfatal occupational injuries and
illnesses in 2010 were injuries. Of these, 2.2 million
(75.8 percent) occurred in service-providing
industries, which employed 82.4 percent of the
private industry workforce covered by this survey.
The remaining 0.7 million injuries (24.2 percent)
occurred in goods-producing industries, which
accounted for 17.6 percent of private industry
employment in 2010.
Mid-sized companies account for most
injuries

The total recordable cases injury and illness
incidence rate was highest in 2010 among
mid-size private industry establishments
(those employing between 50 and 249
workers) and lowest among small
establishments (those employing fewer than
11 workers) compared to establishments of
other sizes.
Manufacturing sector

Manufacturing was the sole private industry
sector to experience an increase in the
incidence rate of injuries and illnesses in
2010—rising to 4.4 cases per 100 full-time
workers from 4.3 cases the year earlier. The
increased rate resulted from a larger decline
in hours worked than the decline in the
number of reported cases in the industry
sector.
What is the cost to an employer due to
injuries?

The National Safety Council has developed a generic
formula to allow companies to estimate cost impact to
their company.





Direct Cost of the injury
Indirect Cost of the injury (3-4 times direct is a good rule of
thumb, some have used 10 to 20 times) varies with
industries and insurance carriers
Profit Margin on job where injury occurred
Added revenue company must generate to cover injury cost
(Direct cost + Indirect cost)/Profit margin = revenue
required
The costs of a work related injury go far beyond
hospital stays and medical bills incurred to treat the
injury

Production Downtime
 Workers Compensation Benefits
 Loss of Experienced Operator
 Placement & Training of New Operator
 Major Fines From Regulatory Agencies
 Possible Damage to Equipment or Tooling
 Internal and External Investigation (Regulatory
Agency)
 Increased Insurance Rates
Costs continued






Expenditures to Bring Machinery Into Safety
Compliance
Management Time to Review, Resolve Problems
and Implement Changes
Emotional impact / Drop in Co-workers Morale
Probability of Major Lawsuit
Tarnished Business & Public Image
Long-term Physical and Emotional impact on
Injured Employee
Some examples

How costly is all of this? The National Safety
Council estimates that the lost time
associated with the average injury costs
nearly $30,000
 $30,000/.05= $600,000 to the employer
 The most disabling work-related injuries cost
this country $53 billion in direct workers’
compensation costs in 2008, averaging more
than one billion dollars per week.
Source: 2010 Liberty Mutual Workplace Safety Index
The big picture
The Standards Smorgasbord
Considering Two Concepts
 Hazard:
the product (tool) under
consideration etc. and
 Risk: the probability of someone being
harmed by the hazard.
Machines by their function have hazards and
must be assessed prior to introduction into the
workplace
Generic requirements in the US

The US has no generic risk assessment
standard and
 OSHA is the federal authority for work place
safety and the minimum requirements for
safety.
 Therefore either:


An international standard like ISO-14121 Safety of
Machinery – Principles for Risk Assessment or,
A technical standard recognized by OSHA
Agency Technical Standards recognized
by OSHA as either a technical standard or
a voluntary guideline:
 NFPA79
- 2007, Industrial Machinery
 ANSI/RIA 15.06 1999; Robotics Industry
 ANSI B11.TR-3; Machine Tools Industry
 SEMI S10 Semiconductor Industry.
 Each of the above either references
performing a risk assessment or is a
guide to perform a risk assessment
Why perform risk assessments?
By performing a comprehensive risk
assessment we are trying to achieve the
following:
1. Measure the likelihood of a person being
injured if risk reduction measures are not
employed.
2. Measure the impact of risk reduction
measures (design changes, guarding or
administrative) on the original risk
estimation.
Why perform risk assessments?
3.
4.
5.
Measure the likelihood of a machine control
system failing to perform a safety function.
Measure the overall performance of all risk
reduction measures.
Compare the residual risk to the risk level
that exists on machines that present similar
hazards.
Why perform risk assessments?
6.
7.
Determine the allowable lowest risk for the
situation.
The demonstration of due diligence.
Due diligence is the key to a safer
design.
Machine Safety
“Laws, regulations, and guidelines provide
protection. Training, procedures, and
personal responsibility can reduce risk and
financial, civil, and even criminal liability.
Good designs help as well. In general,
machinery-related hazards can be enclosed,
passively or actively locked out, or intrusion
can be sensed and the process stopped in
time to avoid injury.”
Source: “Reach for Machine Safety” – Nov 1, 2003 Mark T.
Hoske
Basics of performing a risk
Assessment

Determine the limits of the machinery or
product in question.
 List the tasks and associate the hazard to the
task.
 Estimate the risk



How tolerable is the risk?
Do other tasks or hazard combinations exist?
Can the risk be eliminated?
Determine the level of risk

Review Table 1- Hazard
Severity/Exposure/Avoidance Categories
Risk Reduction Determination
2 – Risk reduction decision matrix
prior to safeguard selection
 Table
Continue the Risk
Assessment
 How
can the risk be eliminated?
 By
design?
 By safeguarding?
 By administrative methods?
Procedures?
 Training?
 Signs?
 Protective measures? (Clothing?)

Safeguard Selection
 Table
3 – Safeguard Selection matrix
Selection Validation
4 – Safeguard selection validation
matrix with safeguard installed
 Table
Evaluate if the measures taken
reduces the risk to a tolerable level.
 What
 No

is considered tolerable?
hazard?
Design or safeguarding has eliminated the
hazard
 Low

hazard? Or Allowable risk
The measures taken have not eliminated the
hazard, but have made the levels tolerable.
Questions?
Contact information:
Dennis Bullock
Email: [email protected]