Optimization of Safety Efforts Using Accident Avoidance & Other Analysis Techniques International HEP Technical Safety Forum Jack J. Hahn SLAC Today’s Talk Provide overview of some SLAC “Safety Excellence” analysis methods Describe three Safety Analysis approaches Accident Avoidance Analysis technique Work associated with most common accidents Work associated with most serious accidents (Department of Energy Laboratories) Show some analysis information shared with all laboratory staff Challenges/Issues for safety progress through Safety Analysis “Safety Excellence” vs “Compliance” Analysis for “Safety Excellence” (topic today) Goal to Reduce: Goal to Prevent Most common injuries and illnesses Most serious injuries and illnesses Methods not necessarily required by Safety regulations (U.S. OSHA 1910, OSHA 1926), may exceed them Optimization of safety effort Compliance (important also, not today’s topic) Goal to comply with regulatory requirements Thousands of pages of regulations Must do it all Use supervision, audits and self-inspection techniques for “analysis” How is Safety Analysis Used? One part of a multi-part safety program You have opportunity to talk to entire staff about safety You have 10 minutes You want to provide the potential to make a difference Something that everyone can relate to? Results right away? Tool for improvement teams at the lab Tool for defense of safety capital investment decisions Building/Accelerator/Walkway design? What is “Accident Avoidance Analysis”? Based on consideration of a number of historical near-miss incidents or accident events Thought experiment by safety professional (s). (credits to John Turek, Ishwar Garg) Semi-quantitative evaluation of relative merits of techniques in preventing the incident or injury. Benefit of additional steps Accident Avoidance Points (AAP’s) Would have prevented accident/incident/injury - 1 point May have prevented accident/incident - .5 point Would not have prevented accident/incident - 0 points Accident Avoidance Examples Employee moving equipment, splinter embedded under nail- Use of Gloves = 1 Pointwould have prevented injury/accident. Employee was crawling on hands and knees under beamline, stood up and hit head on magnet- Use of Hardhat = 1 Point, Sufficient workspace to perform task .5 points (may have prevented accident) Remedy ye nin gA va s/ bl e tur e g en ak rrie rs dT Ba an or pin tr u c Inf ras sk sk es ea ts Ta Ta Cl ee ek ho e rds ila or m erf orm erf Ho us tS oP oP rS ho d tin g rce igh nfo eo Gl ov sE AM ift ho ol Sc dL ck an tic e tG ua ist an Re s eT ac uip me n eT r ai Eq an Ti m eT r th -sp Wo rk en t fS lip en t eo Us ffic i ffic i oth e Pr ac thw ay Ba JH s n es on L Tw oP er s fG l ov r ci se tio ne d lec Ex e eo Us ram efi Se sD ate ria l Pr og Pa ss /M tic e Pr ac 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Em plo Su Su ne To ol fe Wo rk PP E Sa Fit ct fe Wo rk Co r re Sa Accident Avoidance Points Accident Avoidance Points vs Remedy- SLAC Injury/Ilnesses N = 113 (four years) Most Efficient Remedies to Prevent Common Accidents Lab-Wide? # of Accident Avoidance Points/Cost of Remedy Rough relative value - Precise cost estimates not suggested nor required. May point out fixes that can be accomplished in short to medium term. Information recently developed- Not used Limitations Order of magnitude of cost effectiveness of solutions, not precise Decision making should seldom be based only on cost effectiveness Costs based on prevention of only those events observed- Could be refined, not done in this example e To $ per Accident Avoidance Point PP E Pe rf o rm ot he H Ta rt ou sk ha se n k ee G lo pi ve ng or Sh U se oe s of G Tw l ov o Sa es Jo Pe fe b U r s se H W on az or Li ar k Em of S ft d Pr lip An pl a oy ct Re al ic ee ys si es st is Tr E a ai nt nf ni o Sh rc ng ed oe Av s ai / C la le bl at e S C s a a nd or fe re W T ct ak Ba T o ork en ck Pr ol S a /M ch ct ic oo at e er l s Pa i D a th l e S f w in el ay ed ec an tio d nFi Li 1. tn g 8K ht es I n Su i ng s Eq f r P as f fi -3 ui ci tru pm rog .0 en ra ct K en tW m u re tG Ex or -4 ua ker .1 sp ci rd K se ac s o s e rB 4. To 7K a r Pe rie rfo rs -6 rm .5 Ta K sk -3 0. K Su f fi ci en tT im $ per Accident Avoidance Point vs Remedy (SLAC accidents N= 113, Four Years) 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 744 378 164 91 12 18 19 23 167 92 31 Remedy? Analysis of Work Associated with Most Common Accidents Original Laboratory Approach “Analysis of Work” method By Type - Stains/strains/slips, trips, falls By Division & Department Welding related injuries? Material handling related injuries? Similar “Analysis of Work for Common Accidents” info from today’s talk presented site-wide in August 2004 What Types of Work are Associated with SLAC’s Most Common Recordable Injuries/Illnesses? (2003/2004 partial) Computer Work Chemical Use Construction Ladder Use Cut/Saw/Drill Machining Lifting What Types of Work are Associated with SLAC’s Most Common Recordable Injuries/Illnesses? (2003/2004 partial) cont. Moving Body Material Handling All Other Stair Use Wrench Use Welding Walking at e ria l W al ki ng H an dl St ing ai r M ov Us e in g Bo dy C om O p u th e r te rW La o dd rk er C us ut e /S aw /D ril l Li C fti he ng m ic al U se M ac hi C on nin g st ru ct W io re nc n h U s W e el di ng M # Cases # SLAC Recordable Injury/Illness Cases vs Type of Activity 2003-2004 partial (N=55) 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 WALKING - 11 Accidents - What could be done? Watch where we are going- 6 Poor footing- 1 Jobsite housekeeping- 1 Rate- 1 Facility condition- 1 Walking Design/Mitigation Ideas Minimize sudden change of elevations - curbs Pathway clearance from objects Don’t exclude walking in Job Hazard Analysis and Mitigation (JHAM) MATERIAL HANDLING - 11 Accidents What could be done? Excess manual force- 4? No gloves- 3 Proper cart / hand trucks- 2 Unstable body position- 1 Avoid falling objects- 1 Material Handling Design/Mitigation Ideas Long term plan- decrease manual/increase powered lifting Job Planning- Safety meetings discuss options STAIR USE - 5 Accidents - What could be done? No handrail use- 3 Rate- 2 No handtruck-1 Splinter from handrail- 1 Design/Mitigation Establish culture of using handrails Avoid carrying items that prevent you from using handrail/seeing Design OSHA compliant handrails Safety meetings/Job Hazard Analysis Stair Use Preventing Some of the Most Serious Accidents - Ladder Safety Pick the right ladder Don’t use a ladder that is too short Inspect the ladder Climb with both hands free Include ladder safety in JHAM Preventing Some of the Most Serious Accidents- Electrical Safety Work de-energized whenever possible If not, approach the situation with redundant controls Electrical Gloves Mats Hard hat in keeping with the rules Appropriate Clothing Of course include electrical work in safety planning Analysis of Work Associated with Most Serious Accidents Review/Summarize 28 Selected Department of Energy (DOE) Type A & B Investigations Apr 1997- Oct 2001 Look Nationally over a number of years, to obtain reasonable sample size for analysis What Qualifies as a Department of Energy (DOE) Type A or B Accident/Incident? Type A & B precisely defined in DOE order Type A’s (Worst) includes injury, chemical or biological exposure resulting in 1 or more fatalities 3 or more persons with “serious” injuries Property Accidents > 2.5M Type B’s (Bad) includes Injury, chemical or biological exposure resulting in 1 or more persons having “serious” injuries Property Accidents > 1 M Review/Summarize Relevant DOE Type A & B Incident Investigative Reports GENERAL WORK TYPE - # OF INVESTIGATIONS Construction- 9 Maintenance- 8 No Activity- 3 Environmental Work- 2 Transportation- 2 Demolition- 1 Research- 1 Material Handling- 1 Helicopter- 1 Total- 28 Review/Summarize Relevant DOE Type A & B Incident Investigative Reports (cont.) Detailed Work Categories- # incidents Electrical- 8 working in substations- 3 working on power lines- 1 switchgear- 1 motor control center- 1 jackhammer- 1 microwave, student taking measurements- 1 Review/Summarize Relevant DOE Type A & B Incident Investigative Reports (cont.) Detailed Work Categories- # incidents Tree Falling Under Power Lines- 2 Heavy Equipment - Material snagged - 2 DOE Fatalities for Work Relevant to SLAC, as Reported in Type A Reports Tree Falling- Power Line Maintenance-1 Electrical- De-energized Power Line- Induced Current - 1 Grading- Run Over By Equipment - 1 Heating and Air Conditioning Work- Fall From Height - 1 List of Detailed Work Type A’s or B’s Electrical- Substation 3 Tree Falling- Power Line 2 Heavy Equipment- Material snagged 2 Leaking Fluid 2 HVAC 2 Painting 1 Electrical- Motor Control Center 1 Asbestos Work 1 Drilling Rig 1 Electrical- Power Line 1 Grading 1 Helicopter- Bad Weather 1 Hoisting and Rigging 1 Jackhammer 1 Janitorial 1 Hauling 1 Microwave 1 Rooftop Work 1 Switchgear 1 Environmental Sampling 1 Traffic accident on public road starts fire 1 Waste 1 TOTAL 28 Conclusions Regarding Hazardous from DOE Data, and Judgment Hazardous Work- In order of certainty? Conventional construction Building very large high energy physics facilities Conventional maintenance Electrical work- Especially high voltage work, substation work. Tree falling? Maintenance of Power Lines? Heavy Equipment Snagging Material? Research - Not much type A or B activity seen Exotic Experimental Equipment - Not much type A or B activity Challenges/Issues for Safety Progress Through Safety Analysis People don’t always listen or agree One-time communication not likely to change ingrained behaviors- need follow-on communication Need to have programs that generate “habit strength”? Uniform Hazard Analysis? Behavior Based Safety? Establish requirements in HEP labs for common behaviors such as hand rail usage, or watching where we are going? Is this going too far? Why?