(solution) Assess the priority of the five control techniques. Give an

(solution) Assess the priority of the five control techniques. Give an

Assess the priority of the five control techniques. Give an example for each of the five control techniques for an operation you are familiar with. If you are not familiar with an operation that contains hazards, give an example for each of the five techniques using an operation involving hand grinding of large metal parts.

I have attached a pdf for reference.

Your response should be at least 200 words in length. All sources used, including the textbook, must be referenced; paraphrased and quoted material must have accompanying citations.

cHAprER 3 RrcocNrrroN AND CoNTRoL oF HAZARDS . 39 The broad goal of MORT is to provide management with a self-analysis
from which it can recognize a wide range of errors and see how they are related.
This produces a pattern from which management can recognize cause and
effect. Once the basic parts of the technique are learned, they can be applied
to many aspecs o[ managing an enterprise.
Several comments are in order regarding the use of either a failure
mode and effect analysis or a fauit tree analysis. The accuracy and value of
the finished chart or diagram will be directly proportional to the care taken
in making it. If quick identification is all that is needed, a simple analysis will
su{fice. If the study is to be used to establish acceptable risk, a more thorough
analysis is needed. Establishing acceptable risk must involve at least an estimate of probability and severity. Knowledge ofjust what evens are most likely
to cause what injuries and what properry damage must be obtained before risk
can be controlled.
When it comes to providing safeguards to assure that the established risk
is met, one can turn to the probabiliry figures generated in the FMEA or FTA.
For example, if the acceptable risk for a certain failure is set at one chance
in one million, the safeguards built into that system must provide a fail-safe
reliability at least as good as one failure per one million operations. Priorities in Controlling Hazards
{}ren causes of accidents have been determined and their importance has
been evaluated, there are several ways to proceed to achieve an established
goal. It has been seen that accidents can be caused by people or things. {hen
things-machinery, tools, the workplace environment-are identified as potential
causes ofaccidents, these things or cerlain characteristics they possess are labeled
hazards. People are not referred to as hazards, but perhaps they should be.
After all, people design the machinery, the tools, and the conditions in the
environment that become hazards, and people misuse all the things that cause
the accidents. In one way or another, people are the primary cause of nearly
all accidents.
It is frequently valid to ask, "Did the worker cause the machine or tool to
malfunction, or did the poor design of the machine or tool cause the worker
to malfunction?" Many studies have shown that poorly designed equipment
and work environments can cause workers to per{orm poorly. System safety
engineering should have initial input to the system design requirements.
Most of the phlaical and mental capabilities ofpeople are inherent qualities
that can be developed to some extent but not changed very much. We cannot
alter the design of people to satisry a particular job requirement, although we
car select those whose abilities and chamcteristics best suit them to certain tasks.
A machine or a tool or an environment, however, can be designed. It can
be altered to suit the needs of the task and/or the people involved. In fact,
the task iself can be designed or redesigned more easily than people can be
altered.
It makes more sense, then, to correct the hazards or, better still, to design
things properly in the first place. It is always much faster and less expensive to
design and build things properly the first time than it is to redesign and alter
things that are already made. 40 . SAFETY ENCINEERINC Once hazards have been identified, there are measures that can be taken
to mitigate the hazard. 1. Design for minimum hazard (eliminate or reduce) 2.
3.
4.
5. . Provide safety devices.
Provide warning devices.
Provide special procedures.
Terminate system. The priority, or precedence, of these corrective measures is important. Only
the first measure can prevent the accident from happening, and only if the hazard
is designed oul Providing safety devices lessens the probabiliry ofan accident but
does not reduce or eliminate the hazard itself. Each step is to be used only if the
step above it cannot be accomplished; therefore, step 2 will be utilized only if step
I cannot be accomplished. Step 5 is always a management decision.
Let us look at an example. The operator of a grinding machine has been
given training, is well supervised, and wears safety glasses. In addition, the machine includes guarding adequate to isolate the grinding wheel. {rtrat is
the hazard? There may be several: the wheel may burst; the workpiece may
be thrown from its mounting; certainly there will be particles flying from the
wheel and/or the workpiece. Could the hazard be eliminated or reduced? Possibly, if another qpe of operation could be found that would be as effective as
the grinding operation. In fact, even a less-effective method miEht be acceptable
if it eliminated the hazards inherent in grinding. In this example, an acceptable
substitute has not been found, and prioriry 2 has been attempted' Again, isolation cannot be complete or entirely dependable: complete isolation would
prohibit the operation. Finally, priorities 3 and 4 have been applied because
the first two priorities were found unfeasible.
Another set of terms is sometimes used to distinguish the first two priorities from the last three. Since the first two involve design of the machine, tool,
or environment, they are called engineering measures. The last three, involving people, are called management measures. Engineering measures should
be attempted first, and then, if they lail to solve the problem satisfactorily,
management measures should be undertaken. The fact that employees are
using personal protective equipment does not necessarily mean that management has bJpassed engineering measures, but it does mean that engineering
measures have not solved the problem. ( [tI
QUESTTONS
2007 the Company A employed an average of 543 people who
worked a total of 1,086,000 hours and experienced the following:
5 burns (15 workdays, 19 calendar days, lost)
4 hand and finger cuts (14 workdays, 20 calendar days, lost)
1 eye injury (12 workdays, 18 calendar days, lost)
26 recordable cases involving no lost days
31 first aid cases
Determine the incidence rate and the alternate incidence rate. 1. In