58. Safety Applications
Chapter Editors: Kenneth Gerecke and Charles T. Pope
Systems Analysis
Manh Trung Ho
Hand and Portable Power Tool Safety
US Department of Labor—Occupational Safety and Health Administration; edited by Kenneth Gerecke
Moving Parts of Machines
Tomas Backström and Marianne Döös
Machine Safeguarding
US Department of Labor— Occupational Safety and Health Administration; edited by Kenneth Gerecke
Presence Detectors
Paul Schreiber
Devices for Controlling, Isolating and Switching Energy
René Troxler
Safety-Related Applications
Dietmar Reinert and Karlheinz Meffert
Software and Computers: Hybrid Automated Systems
Waldemar Karwowski and Jozef Zurada
Principles for the Design of Safe Control Systems
Georg Vondracek
Safety Principles for CNC Machine Tools
Toni Retsch, Guido Schmitter and Albert Marty
Safety Principles for Industrial Robots
Toni Retsch, Guido Schmitter and Albert Marty
Electrical, Electronic and Programmable Electronic Safety-Related Control Systems
Ron Bell
Technical Requirements for Safety-Related Systems Based on Electrical, Electronic and Programmable Electronic Devices
John Brazendale and Ron Bell
Rollover
Bengt Springfeldt
Falls from Elevations
Jean Arteau
Confined Spaces
Neil McManus
Principles of Prevention: Materials Handling and Internal Traffic
Kari Häkkinen
Click a link below to view table in article context.
1. Possible dysfunctions of a two-button control circuit
2. Machine guards
3. Devices
4. Feeding & ejection methods
5. Circuit structures’ combinations in machine controls
6. Safety integrity levels for protection systems
7. Software design & development
8. Safety integrity level: type B components
9. Integrity requirements: electronic system architectures
10. Falls from elevations: Quebec 1982-1987
11.Typical fall prevention & fall arrest systems
12. Differences between fall prevention & fall arrest
13. Sample form for assessment of hazardous conditions
14. A sample entry permit
Point to a thumbnail to see figure caption, click to see figure in article context.
Falls from elevations are severe accidents that occur in many industries and occupations. Falls from elevations result in injuries which are produced by contact between the falling person and the source of injury, under the following circumstances:
From this definition, it may be surmised that falls are unavoidable because gravity is always present. Falls are accidents, somehow predictable, occurring in all industrial sectors and occupations and having a high severity. Strategies to reduce the number of falls, or at least reduce the severity of the injuries if falls occur, are discussed in this article.
The Height of the Fall
The severity of injuries caused by falls is intrinsically related to the height of fall. But this is only partly true: the free-fall energy is the product of the falling mass times the height of the fall, and the severity of the injuries is directly proportional to the energy transferred during the impact. Statistics of fall accidents confirm this strong relationship, but show also that falls from a height of less than 3 m can be fatal. A detailed study of fatal falls in construction shows that 10% of the fatalities caused by falls occurred from a height less than 3 m (see figure 1). Two questions are to be discussed: the 3-m legal limit, and where and how a given fall was arrested.
Figure 1. Fatalities caused by falls and the height of fall in the US construction industry, 1985-1993
In many countries, regulations make fall protection mandatory when the worker is exposed to a fall of more than 3 m. The simplistic interpretation is that falls of less than 3 m are not dangerous. The 3-m limit is in fact the result of a social, political and practical consensus which says it is not mandatory to be protected against falls while working at the height of a single floor. Even if the 3-m legal limit for mandatory fall protection exists, fall protection should always be considered. The height of fall is not the sole factor explaining the severity of fall accidents and the fatalities due to falls; where and how the person falling came to rest must also be considered. This leads to analysis of the industrial sectors with higher incidence of falls from elevations.
Where Falls Occur
Falls from elevations are frequently associated with the construction industry because they account for a high percentage of all fatalities. For example, in the United States, 33% of all fatalities in construction are caused by falls from elevations; in the UK, the figure is 52%. Falls from elevations also occur in other industrial sectors. Mining and the manufacturing of transportation equipment have a high rate of falls from elevations. In Quebec, where many mines are steep, narrow-vein, underground mines, 20% of all accidents are falls from elevations. The manufacture, use and maintenance of transportation equipment such as airplanes, trucks and railroad cars are activities with a high rate of fall accidents (table 1). The ratio will vary from country to country depending on the level of industrialization, the climate, and so on; but falls from elevations do occur in all sectors with similar consequences.
Table 1. Falls from elevations: Quebec 1982-1987
Falls from elevations Falls from elevations in all accidents
per 1,000 workers
Construction 14.9 10.1%
Heavy industry 7.1 3.6%
Having taken into consideration the height of fall, the next important issue is how the fall is arrested. Falling into hot liquids, electrified rails or into a rock crusher could be fatal even if the height of fall is less than 3 m.
Causes of Falls
So far it has been shown that falls occur in all economic sectors, even if the height is less than 3 m. But why do humans fall? There are many human factors which can be involved in falling. A broad grouping of factors is both conceptually simple and useful in practice:
Opportunities to fall are determined by environmental factors and result in the most common type of fall, namely the tripping or slipping that result in falls from grade level. Other falling opportunities are related to activities above grade.
Liabilities to fall are one or more of the many acute and chronic diseases. The specific diseases associated with falling usually affect the nervous system, the circulatory system, the musculoskeletal system or a combination of these systems.
Tendencies to fall arise from the universal, intrinsic deteriorative changes that characterize normal ageing or senescence. In falling, the ability to maintain upright posture or postural stability is the function that fails as a result of combined tendencies, liabilities and opportunities.
Postural Stability
Falls are caused by the failure of postural stability to maintain a person in an upright position. Postural stability is a system consisting of many rapid adjustments to external, perturbing forces, especially gravity. These adjustments are largely reflex actions, subserved by a large number of reflex arcs, each with its sensory input, internal integrative connections, and motor output. Sensory inputs are: vision, the inner ear mechanisms that detect position in space, the somatosensory apparatus that detects pressure stimuli on the skin, and the position of the weight-bearing joints. It appears that visual perception plays a particularly important role. Very little is known about the normal, integrative structures and functions of the spinal cord or the brain. The motor output component of the reflex arc is muscular reaction.
Vision
The most important sensory input is vision. Two visual functions are related to postural stability and control of gait:
Two other visual functions are important:
Causes of postural instability
The three sensory inputs are interactive and interrelated. The absence of one input—and/or the existence of false inputs—results in postural instability and even in falls. What could cause instability?
Vision
Inner ear
Somatosensory apparatus (pressure stimuli on the skin and position of weight-bearing joints)
Motor output
Postural stability and gait control are very complex reflexes of the human being. Any perturbations of the inputs may cause falls. All perturbations described in this section are common in the workplace. Therefore, falling is somehow natural and prevention must therefore prevail.
Strategy for Fall Protection
As previously noted, the risks of falls are identifiable. Therefore, falls are preventable. Figure 2 shows a very common situation where a gauge must be read. The first illustration shows a traditional situation: a manometer is installed at the top of a tank without means of access In the second, the worker improvises a means of access by climbing on several boxes: a hazardous situation. In the third, the worker uses a ladder; this is an improvement. However, the ladder is not permanently fixed to the tank; it is therefore probable that the ladder may be in use elsewhere in the plant when a reading is required. A situation such as this is possible, with fall arrest equipment added to the ladder or the tank and with the worker wearing a full body harness and using a lanyard attached to an anchor. The fall-from-elevation hazard still exists.
Figure 2. Installations for reading a gauge
In the fourth illustration, an improved means of access is provided using a stairway, a platform and guardrails; the benefits are a reduction in the risk of falling and an increase in the ease of reading (comfort), thus reducing the duration of each reading and providing a stable work posture allowing for a more precise reading.
The correct solution is illustrated in the last illustration. During the design stage of the facilities, maintenance and operation activities were recognized. The gauge was installed so that it could be read at ground level. No falls from elevations are possible: therefore, the hazard is eliminated.
This strategy puts the emphasis on the prevention of falls by using the proper means of access (e.g., scaffolds, ladders, stairways) (Bouchard 1991). If the fall cannot be prevented, fall arrest systems must be used (figure 3). To be effective, fall arrest systems must be planned. The anchorage point is a key factor and must be pre-engineered. Fall arrest systems must be efficient, reliable and comfortable; two examples are given in Arteau, Lan and Corbeil (to be published) and Lan, Arteau and Corbeil (to be published). Examples of typical fall prevention and fall arrest systems are given in table 2. Fall arrest systems and components are detailed in Sulowski 1991.
Figure 3. Fall prevention strategy
Table 2. Typical fall prevention and fall arrest systems
Fall prevention systems |
Fall arrest systems |
|
Collective protection |
Guardrails Railings |
Safety net |
Individual protection |
Travel restricting system (TRS) |
Harness, lanyard, energy absorber anchorage, etc. |
The emphasis on prevention is not an ideological choice, but rather a practical choice. Table 3 shows the differences between fall prevention and fall arrest, the traditional PPE solution.
Table 3. Differences between fall prevention and fall arrest
Prevention |
Arrest |
|
Fall occurrence |
No |
Yes |
Typical equipment |
Guardrails |
Harness, lanyard, energy absorber and anchorage (fall arrest system) |
Design load (force) |
1 to 1.5 kN applied horizontally and 0.45 kN applied vertically—both at any point on the upper rail |
Minimum breaking strength of the anchorage point 18 to 22 kN |
Loading |
Static |
Dynamic |
For the employer and the designer, it is easier to build fall prevention systems because their minimum breaking strength requirements are 10 to 20 times less than those of fall arrest systems. For example, the minimum breaking strength requirement of a guard rail is around 1 kN, the weight of a large man, and the minimum breaking strength requirement of the anchorage point of an individual fall arrest system could be 20 kN, the weight of two small cars or 1 cubic metre of concrete. With prevention, the fall does not occur, so the risk of injury does not exist. With fall arrest, the fall does occur and even if arrested, a residual risk of injury exists.
Confined spaces are ubiquitous throughout industry as recurring sites of both fatal and nonfatal accidents. The term confined space traditionally has been used to label particular structures, such as tanks, vessels, pits, sewers, hoppers and so on. However, a definition based on description in this manner is overly restrictive and defies ready extrapolation to structures in which accidents have occurred. Potentially any structure in which people work could be or could become a confined space. Confined spaces can be very large or they can be very small. What the term actually describes is an environment in which a broad range of hazardous conditions can occur. These condition include personal confinement, as well as structural, process, mechanical, bulk or liquid material, atmospheric, physical, chemical, biological, safety and ergonomic hazards. Many of the conditions produced by these hazards are not unique to confined spaces but are exacerbated by involvement of the boundary surfaces of the confined space.
Confined spaces are considerably more hazardous than normal workspaces. Seemingly minor alterations in conditions can immediately change the status of these workspaces from innocuous to life-threatening. These conditions may be transient and subtle, and therefore are difficult to recognize and to address. Work involving confined spaces generally occurs during construction, inspection, maintenance, modification and rehabilitation. This work is nonroutine, short in duration, nonrepetitive and unpredictable (often occurring during off-shift hours or when the unit is out of service).
Confined Space Accidents
Accidents involving confined spaces differ from accidents that occur in normal workspaces. A seemingly minor error or oversight in preparation of the space, selection or maintenance of equipment or work activity can precipitate an accident. This is because the tolerance for error in these situations is smaller than for normal workplace activity.
The occupations of victims of confined space accidents span the occupational spectrum. While most are workers, as might be expected, victims also include engineering and technical people, supervisors and managers, and emergency response personnel. Safety and industrial hygiene personnel also have been involved in confined space accidents. The only data on accidents in confined spaces are available from the United States, and these cover only fatal accidents (NIOSH 1994). Worldwide, these accidents claim about 200 victims per year in industry, agriculture and the home (Reese and Mills 1986). This is at best a guess based on incomplete data, but it appears to be applicable today. About two-thirds of the accidents resulted from hazardous atmospheric conditions in the confined space. In about 70% of these the hazardous condition existed prior to entry and the start of work. Sometimes these accidents cause multiple fatalities, some of which are the result of the original incident and a subsequent attempt at rescue. The highly stressful conditions under which the rescue attempt occurs often subject the would-be rescuers to considerably greater risk than the initial victim.
The causes and outcomes of accidents involving work external to structures that confine hazardous atmospheres are similar to those occurring inside confined spaces. Explosion or fire involving a confined atmosphere caused about half of the fatal welding and cutting accidents in the United States. About 16% of these accidents involved “empty” 205 l (45 gal UK, 55 gal US) drums or containers (OSHA 1988).
Identification of Confined Spaces
A review of fatal accidents in confined spaces indicates that the best defences against unnecessary encounters are an informed and trained workforce and a programme for hazard recognition and management. Development of skills to enable supervisors and workers to recognize potentially hazardous conditions is also essential. One contributor to this programme is an accurate, up-to-date inventory of confined spaces. This includes type of space, location, characteristics, contents, hazardous conditions and so on. Confined spaces in many circumstances defy being inventoried because their number and type are constantly changing. On the other hand, confined spaces in process operations are readily identifiable, yet remain closed and inaccessible almost all of the time. Under certain conditions, a space may be considered a confined space one day and would not be considered a confined space the next.
A benefit from identifying confined spaces is the opportunity to label them. A label can enable workers to relate the term confined space to equipment and structures at their work location. The downside to the labelling process includes: (1) the label could disappear into a landscape filled with other warning labels; (2) organizations that have many confined spaces could experience great difficulty in labelling them; (3) labelling would produce little benefit in circumstances where the population of confined spaces is dynamic; and (4) reliance on labels for identification causes dependence. Confined spaces could be overlooked.
Hazard Assessment
The most complex and difficult aspect in the confined space process is hazard assessment. Hazard assessment identifies both hazardous and potentially hazardous conditions and assesses the level and acceptability of risk. The difficulty with hazard assessment occurs because many of the hazardous conditions can produce acute or traumatic injury, are difficult to recognize and assess, and often change with changing conditions. Hazard elimination or mitigation during preparation of the space for entry, therefore, is essential for minimizing the risk during work.
Hazard assessment can provide a qualitative estimate of the level of concern attached to a particular situation at a particular moment (table 1). The breadth of concern within each category ranges from minimal to some maximum. Comparison between categories is not appropriate, since the maximum level of concern can differ considerably.
Table 1. Sample form for assessment of hazardous conditions
Hazardous condition |
Real or potential consequence |
||
Low |
Moderate |
High |
|
Hot work |
|||
Atmospheric hazards |
|||
oxygen deficiency |
|||
oxygen enrichment |
|||
chemical |
|||
biological |
|||
fire/explosion |
|||
Ingestion/skin contact |
|||
Physical agents |
|||
noise/vibration |
|||
heat/cold stress |
|||
non/ionizing radiation |
|||
laser |
|||
Personal confinement |
|||
Mechanical hazard |
|||
Process hazard |
|||
Safety hazards |
|||
structural |
|||
engulfment/immersion |
|||
entanglement |
|||
electrical |
|||
fall |
|||
slip/trip |
|||
visibility/light level |
|||
explosive/implosive |
|||
hot/cold surfaces |
NA = not applicable. The meanings of certain terms such as toxic substance, oxygen deficiency, oxygen enrichment, mechanical hazard, and so on, require further specification according to standards that exist in a particular jurisdiction.
Each entry in table 1 can be expanded to provide detail about hazardous conditions where concern exists. Detail also can be provided to eliminate categories from further consideration where concern is non-existent.
Fundamental to the success of hazard recognition and assessment is the Qualified Person. The Qualified Person is deemed capable by experience, education and/or specialized training, of anticipating, recognizing and evaluating exposures to hazardous substances or other unsafe conditions and specifying control measures and/or protective actions. That is, the Qualified Person is expected to know what is required in the context of a particular situation involving work within a confined space.
A hazard assessment should be performed for each of the following segments in the operating cycle of the confined space (as appropriate): the undisturbed space, pre-entry preparation, pre-work inspection work activities (McManus, manuscript) and emergency response. Fatal accidents have occurred during each of these segments. The undisturbed space refers to the status quo established between closure following one entry and the start of preparation for the next. Pre-entry preparations are actions taken to render the space safe for entry and work. Pre-work inspection is the initial entry and examination of the space to ensure that it is safe for the start of work. (This practice is required in some jurisdictions.) Work activities are the individual tasks to be performed by entrants. Emergency response is the activity in the event rescue of workers is required, or other emergency occurs. Hazards that remain at the start of work activity or are generated by it dictate the nature of possible accidents for which emergency preparedness and response are required.
Performing the hazard assessment for each segment is essential because the focus changes continuously. For example, the level of concern about a specific condition could disappear following pre-entry preparation; however, the condition could reappear or a new one could develop as a result of an activity which occurs either inside or outside the confined space. For this reason, assessing a level of concern to a hazardous condition for all time based only on an appraisal of pre-opening or even opening conditions would be inappropriate.
Instrumental and other monitoring methods are used for determining the status of some of the physical, chemical and biological agents present in and around the confined space. Monitoring could be required prior to entry, during entry or during work activity. Lockout/tagout and other procedural techniques are used to deactivate energy sources. Isolation using blanks, plugs and caps, and double block and bleed or other valve configurations prevents entry of substances through piping. Ventilation, using fans and eductors, is often necessary to provide a safe environment for working both with and without approved respiratory protection. Assessment and control of other conditions relies on the judgement of the Qualified Person.
The last part of the process is the critical one. The Qualified Person must decide whether the risks associated with entry and work are acceptable. Safety can best be assured through control. If hazardous and potentially hazardous conditions can be controlled, the decision is not difficult to make. The less the level of perceived control, the greater the need for contingencies. The only other alternative is to prohibit the entry.
Entry Control
The traditional methods for managing on-site confined space activity are the entry permit and the on-site Qualified Person. Clear lines of authority, responsibility and accountability between the Qualified Person and entrants, standby personnel, emergency responders and on-site management are required under either system.
The function of an entry document is to inform and to document. Table 2 (below) provides a formal basis for performing the hazard assessment and documenting the results. When edited to include only information relevant to a particular circumstance, this becomes the basis for the entry permit or entry certificate. The entry permit is most effective as a summary that documents actions performed and indicates by exception, the need for further precautionary measures. The entry permit should be issued by a Qualified Person who also has the authority to cancel the permit should conditions change. The issuer of the permit should be independent of the supervisory hierarchy in order to avoid potential pressure to speed the performance of work. The permit specifies procedures to be followed as well as conditions under which entry and work can proceed, and records test results and other information. The signed permit is posted at the entry or portal to the space or as specified by the company or regulatory authority. It remains posted until it is either cancelled, replaced by a new permit or the work is completed. The entry permit becomes a record upon completion of the work and must be retained for recordkeeping according to requirements of the regulatory authority.
The permit system works best where hazardous conditions are known from previous experience and control measures have been tried and proven effective. The permit system enables expert resources to be apportioned in an efficient manner. The limitations of the permit arise where previously unrecognized hazards are present. If the Qualified Person is not readily available, these can remain unaddressed.
The entry certificate provides an alternative mechanism for entry control. This requires an onsite Qualified Person who provides hands-on expertise in the recognition, assessment and evaluation, and control of hazards. An added advantage is the ability to respond to concerns on short notice and to address unanticipated hazards. Some jurisdictions require the Qualified Person to perform a personal visual inspection of the space prior to the start of work. Following evaluation of the space and implementation of control measures, the Qualified Person issues a certificate describing the status of the space and conditions under which the work can proceed (NFPA 1993). This approach is ideally suited to operations that have numerous confined spaces or where conditions or the configuration of spaces can undergo rapid change.
Table 2. A sample entry permit
ABC COMPANY
CONFINED SPACE—ENTRY PERMIT
1. DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION
Department:
Location:
Building/Shop:
Equipment/Space:
Part:
Date: Assessor:
Duration: Qualification:
2. ADJACENT SPACES
Space:
Description:
Contents:
Process:
3. PRE-WORK CONDITIONS
Atmospheric Hazards
Oxygen Deficiency Yes No Controlled
Concentration: (Acceptable minimum: %)
Oxygen Enrichment Yes No Controlled
Concentration: (Acceptable maximum: %)
Chemical Yes No Controlled
Substance Concentration (Acceptable standard: )
Biological Yes No Controlled
Substance Concentration (Acceptable standard: )
Fire/Explosion Yes No Controlled
Substance Concentration (Acceptable maximum: % LFL)
Ingestion/Skin Contact Hazard Yes No Controlled
Physical Agents
Noise/Vibration Yes No Controlled
Level: (Acceptable maximum: dBA)
Heat/Cold Stress Yes No Controlled
Temperature: (Acceptable range: )
Non/Ionizing Radiation Yes No Controlled
Type Level (Acceptable maximum: )
Laser Yes No Controlled
Type Level (Acceptable maximum: )
Personal Confinement
(Refer to corrective action.) Yes No Controlled
Mechanical Hazard
(Refer to procedure.) Yes No Controlled
Process Hazard
(Refer to procedure.) Yes No Controlled
ABC COMPANY
CONFINED SPACE—ENTRY PERMIT
Safety Hazards
Structural Hazard
(Refer to corrective action.) Yes No Controlled
Engulfment/Immersion
(Refer to corrective action.) Yes No Controlled
Entanglement
(Refer to corrective action.) Yes No Controlled
Electrical
(Refer to procedure.) Yes No Controlled
Fall
(Refer to corrective action.) Yes No Controlled
Slip/Trip
(Refer to corrective action.) Yes No Controlled
Visibility/light level Yes No Controlled
Level: (Acceptable range: lux)
Explosive/Implosive
(Refer to corrective action.) Yes No Controlled
Hot/Cold Surfaces
(Refer to corrective action.) Yes No Controlled
For entries in highlighted boxes, Yes or Controlled, provide additional detail and refer to protective measures. For hazards for which tests can be made, refer to testing requirements. Provide date of most recent calibration. Acceptable maximum, minimum, range or standard depends on the jurisdiction.
4. Work Procedure
Description:
Hot Work
(Refer to protective measure.) Yes No Controlled
Atmospheric Hazard
Oxygen Deficiency
(Refer to requirement for additional testing. Record results.
Refer to requirement for protective measures.)
Concentration: Yes No Controlled
(Acceptable minimum: %)
Oxygen Enrichment
(Refer to requirement for additional testing. Record results.
Refer to requirement for protective measures.)
Concentration: Yes No Controlled
(Acceptable maximum: %)
Chemical
(Refer to requirement for additional testing. Record results. Refer to requirement
for protective measures.)
Substance Concentration Yes No Controlled
(Acceptable standard: )
Biological
(Refer to requirement for additional testing. Record results. Refer to requirement
for protective measures.)
Substance Concentration Yes No Controlled
(Acceptable standard: )
Fire/Explosion
(Refer to requirement for additional testing. Record results. Refer to requirement
for protective measures.)
Substance Concentration Yes No Controlled
(Acceptable standard: )
Ingestion/Skin Contact Hazard Yes No Controlled
(Refer to requirement for protective measures.)
ABC COMPANY
CONFINED SPACE—ENTRY PERMIT
Physical Agents
Noise/Vibration
(Refer to requirement for protective measures. Refer to requirement for
additional testing. Record results.)
Level: Yes No Controlled
(Acceptable maximum: dBA)
Heat/Cold Stress
(Refer to requirement for protective measures. Refer to requirement for
additional testing. Record results.)
Temperature: Yes No Controlled
(Acceptable range: )
Non/Ionizing Radiation
(Refer to requirement for protective measures. Refer to requirement for
additional testing. Record results.)
Type Level Yes No Controlled
(Acceptable maximum: )
Laser
(Refer to requirement for protective measures.) Yes No Controlled
Mechanical Hazard
(Refer to requirement for protective measures.) Yes No Controlled
Process Hazard
(Refer to requirement for protective measures.) Yes No Controlled
Safety Hazards
Structural Hazard
(Refer to requirement for protective measures.) Yes No Controlled
Engulfment/Immersion
(Refer to requirement for protective measures.) Yes No Controlled
Entanglement
(Refer to requirement for protective measures.) Yes No Controlled
Electrical
(Refer to requirement for protective measures.) Yes No Controlled
Fall
(Refer to requirement for protective measures.) Yes No Controlled
Slip/Trip
(Refer to requirement for protective measures.) Yes No Controlled
Visibility/light level
(Refer to requirement for protective measures.) Yes No Controlled
Explosive/Implosive
(Refer to requirement for protective measures.) Yes No Controlled
Hot/Cold Surfaces
(Refer to requirement for protective measures.) Yes No Controlled
For entries in highlighted boxes, Yes or Possible, provide additional detail and refer to protective
measures. For hazards for which tests can be made, refer to testing requirements. Provide date of
most recent calibration.
Protective Measures
Personal protective equipment (specify)
Communications equipment and procedure (specify)
Alarm systems (specify)
Rescue Equipment (specify)
Ventilation (specify)
Lighting (specify)
Other (specify)
(Continues on next page)
ABC COMPANY
CONFINED SPACE—ENTRY PERMIT
Testing Requirements
Specify testing requirements and frequency
Personnel
Entry Supervisor
Originating Supervisor
Authorized Entrants
Testing Personnel
Attendants
Materials handling and internal traffic are contributing factors in a major portion of accidents in many industries. Depending on the type of industry, the share of work accidents attributed to materials handling varies from 20 to 50%. The control of materials-handling risks is the foremost safety problem in dock work, the construction industry, warehousing, sawmills, shipbuilding and other similar heavy industries. In many process-type industries, such as the chemical products industry, the pulp and paper industry and the steel and foundry industries, many accidents still tend to occur during the handling of final products either manually or by fork-lift trucks and cranes.
This high accident potential in materials-handling activities is due to at least three basic characteristics:
Materials-Handling Accidents
Every time people or machines move loads, an accident risk is present. The magnitude of risk is determined by the technological and organizational characteristics of the system, the environment and the accident prevention measures implemented. For safety purposes, it is useful to depict materials handling as a system in which the various elements are interrelated (figure 1). When changes are introduced in any element of the system—equipment, goods, procedures, environment, people, management and organization—the risk of injuries is likely to change as well.
Figure 1. A materials-handling system
The most common materials-handling and internal traffic types involved in accidents are associated with manual handling, transport and moving by hand (carts, bicycles, etc.), lorries, fork-lift trucks, cranes and hoists, conveyors and rail transport.
Several types of accidents are commonly found in materials transport and handling at workplaces. The following list outlines the most frequent types:
Elements of Materials-Handling Systems
For each element in a materials-handling system, several design options are available, and the risk of accidents is affected accordingly. Several safety criteria must be considered for each element. It is important that the systems approach is used throughout the lifetime of the system—during the design of the new system, during the normal operation of the system and in following up on past accidents and disturbances in order to introduce improvements into the system.
General Principles of Prevention
Certain practical principles of prevention are generally regarded as applicable to safety in materials handling. These principles can be applied to both manual and mechanical materials-handling systems in a general sense and whenever a factory, warehouse or construction site is under consideration. Many different principles must be applied to the same project to achieve optimum safety results. Usually, no single measure can totally prevent accidents. Conversely, not all of these general principles are needed, and some of them may not work in a specific situation. Safety professionals and materials-handling specialists should consider the most relevant items to guide their work in each specific case. The most important issue is to manage the principles optimally to create safe and practicable materials-handling systems, rather than to settle upon any single technical principle to the exclusion of others.
The following 22 principles can be used for safety purposes in the development and assessment of materials-handling systems in their planned, present or historical stage. All of the principles are applicable in both pro-active and aftermath safety activities. No strict priority order is implied in the list that follows, but a rough division can be made: the first principles are more valid in the initial design of new plant layouts and materials-handling processes, whereas the last principles listed are more directed to the operation of existing materials-handling systems.
Twenty-two Principles of Prevention of Materials-Handling Accidents
" DISCLAIMER: The ILO does not take responsibility for content presented on this web portal that is presented in any language other than English, which is the language used for the initial production and peer-review of original content. Certain statistics have not been updated since the production of the 4th edition of the Encyclopaedia (1998)."