Feasibility For Machine Guarding Is A Big Deal For Employers and Employees

By Jim Stanley, Steve Hawkins, and Mike Taubitz

 

INTRODUCTION

Have you ever attempted to guard the point of operation for a roll-forming machine, a spot welder, a saw blade, a vertical or horizontal lathe, or other machines where access was necessary to feed a part into the point of operation?  If you found it frustrating to the point where you finally gave up, welcome to the real world.  Maybe there was an injury, and you added a guard, but the guard made it difficult or impossible to unjam the equipment or operate the machine.  Finding safeguards for a specific task is challenging because a physical guard may not be feasible.  This article is intended to introduce you to a long-accepted concept recognized in OSHA and ANSI standards but is not well known or understood. 

OSHA AND FEASIBILITY

The OSH Act is the relevant law, and OSHA standards are the relevant regulations for most employers and employees in the United States. The 2020 OSHA Field Operations Manual found in CPL 02-00-164 cites OSH Review Commission and court precedent, stating in part, “There was a feasible and useful method to correct the hazard.”  Hence, to demonstrate both OSHA compliance and meet the standard of care in civil litigation, the issue of feasibility comes into play.

ANSI AND FEASIBILITY

The Foreword to ANSI B11.0 – 2023, Safety of Machinery, contains two important statements to set the foundation for understanding feasibility and its use in the application of the Hierarchy of Controls:

1. “Safe” is the state of being protected from recognized hazards that are likely to cause physical harm. There is no such thing as being absolutely safe, or in other words, a complete absence of risk. In turn, there is no machine that is absolutely safe. All machinery contains hazards, and some level of residual risk. However, the risk associated with those hazards should be reduced to an acceptable level.
2. “The writers of this standard recognize that zero risk does not exist and cannot be attained. However, a good faith approach to risk assessment and risk reduction should achieve an acceptable risk level.”

 Feasibility recognizes that principle and that achieving “acceptable risk” for a specific task may be the appropriate risk management goal.   ANSI B11.0 – 2023, Safety of Machinery, defines feasibility as “The practicability of implementing a risk reduction measure(s) in an actual application to reduce risk to an acceptable level.”  The Informative Note for the definition of “acceptable risk” includes, in part, “acceptable risk usually refers to the level at which further technologically, functionally and financially feasible risk reduction measures or additional expenditure of resources will not result in a significant reduction in risk.”

HIERARCHY OF CONTROLS

The Hierarchy of Controls is a method of identifying and ranking safeguards to protect workers from hazards. They are arranged from most to

least effective, and often, a combination is needed to achieve acceptable risk. OSHA, NIOSH, ANSI, and safety professionals recognize the hierarchy as an effective method of reducing risk.

A feasibility assessment usually takes less than an hour. It involves a cross-functional team of first-line employees, supervisors, and managers with experience performing the task or operation to be assessed.  It is the method used to establish effective measures to protect workers while assuring that the safeguards do not significantly impede the task or machine function. As an example, it is the results of a feasibility assessment that allows the use of Administrative Controls and PPE for the high-risk task of troubleshooting a live 480V panel, as Elimination, Substitution, and Engineering Controls are not feasible or even possible for such work.

OSHA CITATIONS  

It is particularly problematic when OSHA cites an employer and expects the employer to install safeguards that are not feasible.  In such cases, it is not a matter of cost or a minor impact on productivity but one where production is substantially impacted or cannot continue. Documentation of infeasibility is extremely important because the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) has recognized feasibility when ruling on contested cases. The good news is that the OSHA Field Operations Manual and several OSHRC rulings can help defend a position of the infeasibility of guarding methods. That defense is developed by completing the matrix below.  It is critical to utilize the concept of feasibility in situations where OSHA:

• Demands a point of operation guard on equipment where it is impossible to do so. (e.g., roll forming machines, spot welders, some saws, continuous flow production, etc.)
• Requires isolation and locking of a primary energy source when the task or troubleshooting requires power.
• Requires engineering controls be installed when such safeguarding significantly impedes the production process and does little to reduce risk.

CIVIL LITIGATION

Similar analysis and documentation are also important in civil litigation, where plaintiff experts may opine that any number of safeguards should have been used.

Documentation of infeasibility is an effective tool when a three-column matrix with both OSHA and ANSI B11 criteria is used.