Optimization of Safety Efforts Using Accident Avoidance & Other Analysis Techniques

1. Optimization of Safety Efforts Using Accident Avoidance & Other Analysis Techniques International HEP Technical Safety Forum Jack J. Hahn SLAC

2. 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

3. “Safety Excellence” vs “Compliance” • Analysis for “Safety Excellence” (topic today) • Goal to Reduce: • Most common injuries and illnesses • Goal to Prevent • 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”

4. 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?

5. 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

6. 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

7. Accident Avoidance Examples • Employee moving equipment, splinter embedded under nail- Use of Gloves = 1 Point- would 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)

9. 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

11. Analysis of Work Associated with Most Common Accidents • Original Laboratory Approach- • By Type - Stains/strains/slips, trips, falls • By Division & Department • “Analysis of Work” method- • 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

12. 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

13. What Types of Work are Associated with SLAC’s Most Common Recordable Injuries/Illnesses? (2003/2004 partial) cont. Moving Body Material Handling All Other Walking Stair Use Wrench Use Welding

15. WALKING - 11 Accidents - What could be done? • Watch where we are going- 6 • Poor footing- 1 • Jobsite housekeeping- 1 • Rate- 1 • Facility condition- 1 • Design/Mitigation Ideas • Minimize sudden change of elevations - curbs • Pathway clearance from objects • Don’t exclude walking in Job Hazard Analysis and Mitigation (JHAM) Walking

16. 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 • Design/Mitigation Ideas • Long term plan- decrease manual/increase powered lifting • Job Planning- Safety meetings discuss options Material Handling

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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 List of Detailed Work Type A’s or B’s

27. 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

28. 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?