Machine Safety: Near-miss events and residual risk

Are near-miss events and residual risk related when it comes to machine safety? Is there a machine guarding requirement specified for near-miss events?

09/11/2013


For machine safety are there any commonalities between near-miss events and residual risk? Do near-miss events have a machine guarding requirement? There is nothing in common. In fact, residual risk is fully covered in standards. I cannot find any standards coverage for near-miss events.

I recently read an article in Professional Safety (May 2013) titled: Near-Miss Reporting, A Missing Link in Safety Culture by Mike Williamsen, Caterpillar Safety Services. Given my background in machine safety and standards this article caused me to think about near-miss accountability and machine guarding. As I look back over time and ask the question, what machine safety standard has provided any guidelines for prevention of near-miss events? In fact, what standard has even mentioned the words – “near-miss”? Due to this absence, does it mean that near-miss events must be considered too vague for machine safety standards or risk assessment standards to provide meaningful guidance? Is near-miss protection for employees totally left up to the mind set of management?

I have looked into this subject and it seems that near-miss protection is left to a company’s “safety culture” as to how well it’s developed and ingrained into the safety practice. So far, I’ve not found a standard that provides any coverage for near-miss events. OSHA, on the other hand, does provide a definition for near-miss events: An event that does not result in an injury or damage. It is important to record and investigate near-misses to identify weaknesses in the safety and SHMS [health management system] that could possibly lead to an injury or damage.

However, aside from calling out the need to have a reporting format to record and elevate near-miss events, there doesn’t seem to be an OSHA regulation establishing requirements or enforcement details.

So, is it correct to assume that a near-miss event practice is to be called out in a company’s safety policy manual for the protection of employees? Or, maybe it’s a requirement for some companies because it’s written into agreements with their union? Yet others may have a near-miss program because of an injury settlement. Is this sounding all too familiar to most of you? Is it only due-diligence?

Can anybody share with us an approved standard or regulation covering near-miss events? And, what about the reporting forms?

Has this presented you with any new perspectives? Add your comments or thoughts to the discussion by submitting your ideas, experiences, and challenges in the comments section below.

 

J.B. Titus, CFSE

Related articles:

ASSE - Professional Safety Journal- Near-Miss Reporting, May 2013

OSHA – search for near miss

Control Engineering article: Process risk assessment uses big data

Contact: http://www.jbtitus.com for “Solutions for Machine Safety”.

 



JON , NV, United States, 09/23/13 08:53 PM:

Our company has used Near-Miss reports for years now. They are filled out and then distributed to the other plants so that they can see if they might have a simular hazard. After the Near-Miss we discuss the potential it has to cause serious harm and create a short term and long term solution. A standard form is used to keep it simple, user friendly, and photos are always attached. But again, to your point, there is no official regulation. Just a strict company policy.
JB , GA, United States, 10/29/13 06:43 AM:

Jon - great to hear that best practices prevail at your Company's safety culture.
Consulting-Specifying Engineer's Product of the Year (POY) contest is the premier award for new products in the HVAC, fire, electrical, and...
Consulting-Specifying Engineer magazine is dedicated to encouraging and recognizing the most talented young individuals...
The MEP Giants program lists the top mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and fire protection engineering firms in the United States.
High-performance buildings; Building envelope and integration; Electrical, HVAC system integration; Smoke control systems; Using BAS for M&V
Pressure piping systems: Designing with ASME; Lab ventilation; Lighting controls; Reduce energy use with VFDs
Smoke control: Designing for proper ventilation; Smart Grid Standard 201P; Commissioning HVAC systems; Boilers and boiler systems
Case Study Database

Case Study Database

Get more exposure for your case study by uploading it to the Consulting-Specifying Engineer case study database, where end-users can identify relevant solutions and explore what the experts are doing to effectively implement a variety of technology and productivity related projects.

These case studies provide examples of how knowledgeable solution providers have used technology, processes and people to create effective and successful implementations in real-world situations. Case studies can be completed by filling out a simple online form where you can outline the project title, abstract, and full story in 1500 words or less; upload photos, videos and a logo.

Click here to visit the Case Study Database and upload your case study.

Protecting standby generators for mission critical facilities; Selecting energy-efficient transformers; Integrating power monitoring systems; Mitigating harmonics in electrical systems
Commissioning electrical systems in mission critical facilities; Anticipating the Smart Grid; Mitigating arc flash hazards in medium-voltage switchgear; Comparing generator sizing software
Integrating BAS, electrical systems; Electrical system flexibility; Hospital electrical distribution; Electrical system grounding
As brand protection manager for Eaton’s Electrical Sector, Tom Grace oversees counterfeit awareness...
Amara Rozgus is chief editor and content manager of Consulting-Specifier Engineer magazine.
IEEE power industry experts bring their combined experience in the electrical power industry...
Michael Heinsdorf, P.E., LEED AP, CDT is an Engineering Specification Writer at ARCOM MasterSpec.