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 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 Final results for 2007 will be released in April 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 full- time equivalent (FTE) workers, the same as the final rate for 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 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 workpl ace

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 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:  NFPA , Industrial Machinery  ANSI/RIA ; 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. Measure the likelihood of a machine control system failing to perform a safety function. 4. Measure the overall performance of all risk reduction measures. 5. Compare the residual risk to the risk level that exists on machines that present similar hazards.

Why perform risk assessments? 6. Determine the allowable lowest risk for the situation. 7. 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  Table 2 – Risk reduction decision matrix prior to safeguard selection

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  Table 4 – Safeguard selection validation matrix with safeguard installed

Evaluate if the measures taken reduces the risk to a tolerable level.  What is considered tolerable?  No 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