Precast Inc. - July/August 2008 - (Page 26) S A F E T Y & H E A LT H dreamstime.com Performance Safety When safety influences an employee’s choices during production, everyone wins. By Randy DeVaul P erformance Safety is an ongoing review of practices, procedures and processes through observation, workplace examinations and task analysis. It ensures proactive, continuous improvement in safe production at all levels. Three phases make up the Performance Safety process: practices (employee chooses how to perform assigned tasks); procedures (the established method to perform the task); and processes (the overall end result in operations and production with equipment, products and quality control. Let’s illustrate with two real-world examples. A company identified an unsafe condition in the installation of new equipment prior to start-up. The plant manager, engineering, a production foreman, a production crew member, the safety professional and the construction foreman responsible for the installation at the site gathered together. They voiced concerns and began to brainstorm solutions: How would the task have to be performed (procedures)? How would the task actually or most likely be performed by the employee (practices)? How would the outcome of this task affect the overall product and tasks down the line (process)? They started the discussion with a $15,000 engineering fix to remove the hazard. Then they identified what would happen if JULY/AUGUST 2008 | PRECAST INC. that engineering solution didn’t hold up within the work environment. After a few more ideas, the light bulb switched on. The hazard was corrected with a $200 part that is easily handled by one person performing the task, and provides the employee with a way to follow the procedures without risk and without need to take a shortcut. The procedure was developed with the newly implemented part, and the employee was able to easily follow the procedures logically and safely, ensuring he followed safe practices to perform the task. Had they not taken the overall process with the key people in the process to address this issue, they most likely would have ended up with a $15,000 fix that wouldn’t work and probably wouldn’t have corrected the hazard. In the second example, an employee had to enter a surge tunnel with a sledge hammer to unclog material getting stuck at a transfer point on a conveyor line. The safety specialist was asked what could be done to minimize the hazards and exposures when performing that task. After analyzing the overall process, it was discovered that the material was getting stuck because it was too large for the engineered design of the transfer point. The material was supposed to be broken down to a designated size before it reached this point, but the material was too large for the transfer because the process had been 26 http://dreamstime.com
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.