View in EDS

Managing risks linked to machinery in sawmills by controlling hazardous energies: Theory and practice in eight sawmills.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Managing risks linked to machinery in sawmills by controlling hazardous energies: Theory and practice in eight sawmills.
Authors: Poisson, Pascal1 ppoisson@interventionprevention.com, Chinniah, Yuvin1
Source: Safety Science. Apr2016, Vol. 84, p117-130. 14p.
Subjects: Machinery, Sawmills, Work-related injuries, Task performance, Industrial safety, Occupational hazards, Hazards, Prevention
Abstract: Machines pose various types of hazards and exposure to these hazards can result in injury or death. Risks linked to machinery can be managed by controlling hazardous energies. Safety procedures are thus used to control hazardous energies on machinery when workers perform different tasks such as maintenance, unjamming, or repair work. These procedures are part of a safety management policy for hazardous energies. The policy is described in a document referred to as the lockout program, which includes activities and work targeted by lockout, audits, hazard identification, training, communication and so on. The objective of this paper is to understand how the lockout program is actually implemented. As such, seven lockout programs from eight sawmills were analyzed. Twenty-two interviews were conducted with machine operators, maintenance workers and managers to gain a better understanding of the actual application of lockout programs, identify weak points and propose improvements. Fifty-seven lockout procedures were also observed. It was found that (i) hazard identification was incomplete, (ii) lockout program signatures and dates were missing, (iii) actual lockout practices were better than the procedures described in the programs regarding lockout hardware, rules to observe when using lockout hardware (e.g. keeping keys in one’s possession at all times) and machinery design for facilitating lockout, (iv) locks were applied to control systems during minor unjamming contrary to lockout principles, and (v) permits were issued as alternatives to lockout for troubleshooting without risk assessment. In actual fact, risk assessment is needed for both interventions requiring lockout and those without lockout. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Safety Science is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Engineering Source
Description
Abstract:Machines pose various types of hazards and exposure to these hazards can result in injury or death. Risks linked to machinery can be managed by controlling hazardous energies. Safety procedures are thus used to control hazardous energies on machinery when workers perform different tasks such as maintenance, unjamming, or repair work. These procedures are part of a safety management policy for hazardous energies. The policy is described in a document referred to as the lockout program, which includes activities and work targeted by lockout, audits, hazard identification, training, communication and so on. The objective of this paper is to understand how the lockout program is actually implemented. As such, seven lockout programs from eight sawmills were analyzed. Twenty-two interviews were conducted with machine operators, maintenance workers and managers to gain a better understanding of the actual application of lockout programs, identify weak points and propose improvements. Fifty-seven lockout procedures were also observed. It was found that (i) hazard identification was incomplete, (ii) lockout program signatures and dates were missing, (iii) actual lockout practices were better than the procedures described in the programs regarding lockout hardware, rules to observe when using lockout hardware (e.g. keeping keys in one’s possession at all times) and machinery design for facilitating lockout, (iv) locks were applied to control systems during minor unjamming contrary to lockout principles, and (v) permits were issued as alternatives to lockout for troubleshooting without risk assessment. In actual fact, risk assessment is needed for both interventions requiring lockout and those without lockout. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:09257535
DOI:10.1016/j.ssci.2015.12.010