NIOSH Study Touts Behavioral Approach to Safety

T

TMW

Location
OH
http://www.riskandinsurance.com/story.jsp?storyId=187131450


Study aims to enhance behavioral approach to workplace health, safety

Behavioral-based approaches to addressing workplace health and safety can be critical components of any program to reduce injuries and accidents. However, several factors that impact these interventions need to be better understood.


Behavioral-based approaches to addressing workplace health and safety can be critical components of any program to reduce injuries and accidents. However, according to researchers from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, there are several factors impacting the effectiveness of behavioral-based interventions that need to be better understood.

The study, published in the National Safety Council's Journal of Safety Research, recommended using behavioral safety as part of holistic programs that address psychological, social, engineering and organizational factors. Researchers pinpointed areas where increased data can enhance behavior-based, injury prevention interventions and improve occupational safety and health.

Behavioral safety is the science of observing workers' behaviors to determine where a different behavior or set of behaviors may have prevented or lessened the severity of injury. The study defined behavioral safety as an approach to improve safety performance through peer observations, goal setting, feedback, and celebrations or incentives for reaching safety goals.

Areas recommended by the authors for research included:

· Impact of behavioral safety interventions on rates of injury, illness and fatalities.

· Appropriateness of the basic elements of behavioral safety across different industry sectors.

· Relationship between behavioral safety and a safety culture.

· Role of performance feedback in creating behavioral change.

· Effectiveness of tangible and nontangible rewards on behavioral change.
 
A simple policy stating that large hydraulically fed chippers SHALL be operated by atleast two qualified operators in close proximity to the machine at all times as an industry standard would be far more effective at saving lives in my opinion.

I have witnessed firsthand three separate occasions when a second man's quick reactions getting to the chipper safety bar on an 1800 vermeer was the only thing that saved a man trapped and being dragged into the chipper from being chipped alive.

Almost every chipper fatality in this industry has occurred when a single chipper operator became ensnared with no-one around to save them.

What's your company policy on operating big chippers?

jomoco
 
I agree with part of what you are saying: that there is a behavioral component to the chipper incidents.

Where my opinion diverges a bit from yours is that the primary issue is improper feeding. If the chippers are used properly (see previous discussions on this) there is a much smaller chance of a worker being pulled in and thus needing to be rescued.

To me, it is sort of like aerial rescue. I think that people should be trained in aerial rescue techniques and when it is safe to apply these techniques. What NIOSH, OSHA and some manufacturers are recommending; having one worker stand with their hands on the reverse bar, is not logical.

From the aerial rescue perspective, that is like saying that for every climber in a tree, you need another climber in the tree prepared to perform an aerial rescue. To quote John Turturro’s character in “O Brother, Where Art Though?” – ‘That don’t make no sense!”

The chipper injuries and fatalities are not because a second worker was not present, it is because the injured person put themselves into a position to be injured. Simply put; if you stick a body part into the infeed area or open up an access panel while the disk or drum is turning, you will likely be injured or killed.

I have yet to see/hear many credible reports where a person was seriously injured or killed while chipping safely. Most of the deaths are not witnessed and the reports guess at what happened: The worker may have become entangled or lost their balance.

What we do know of the ones that were witnessed is the victim was often last seen standing in the infeed area pushing material in with their feet or pushing small material in by hand.
 
I certainly disagree with you on a very fundamental basis.

Chainsaw operators doing something wrong is the PRIMARY cause of kickback!

Does that make sense?

It's why chainsaw brakes are now a mandatory industry standard.

Wait till one of your co-worker's has the audacity of making a mistake at the end of a grueling day and pays for it by being chipped alive my friend.

That people make mistakes is why things like safety equipment is engineered and mandatory guidelines written.

jomoco
 
I am fully aware of this. I have already had the experience of dealing with a chipper-related fatality while I was acting Safety Director for a large company. It is why I have spent so much of my time and energy researching chipper safety.

-I have visited manufacturers
-I have worked with OSHA and NIOSH on chipper safety
-I have written safety procedures for chippers that exceed what the manufacturers recommend and have provided it to them to use
-I have written articles and given safety talks on chipper safety

I understand that engineering is the first line of defense for safety. However, people will out-dumb safety features if given the opportunity. This is why we focus on behavioral safety.

There is less control over where the tip of a chain saw is than what occurs around the infeed area of a chipper. There have been many engineering features built into and added to chippers to make them safer. Like with anything else, they can all be bypassed.

I think that we are in more agreement than we realize. I concur about the engineering features, but we aren’t discussing that. I also concur about policies and guidelines; however, the divergence seems to be in who we are discussing. I want to train, supervise and mandate that the person feeding the chipper is doing it correctly.

With proper use of the tool, there will be less of a need for the second person to rescue them.

There is another side of the chipper discussion as well: what about 2-person crews? Does one person just stack brush all day and wait for the climber/cutter/bucket operator to assist with the chipping? Or do they chip safely throughout the workday?
 
[ QUOTE ]
Where my opinion diverges a bit from yours is that the primary issue is improper feeding. If the chippers are used properly (see previous discussions on this) there is a much smaller chance of a worker being pulled in and thus needing to be rescued.


[/ QUOTE ]

With the big (18 inch) chippers it's quite easy for the operator to get hit by brush that could render them unable to operate the feedwheel bar.

When feeding large pieces it's often difficult to have one hand on the feedbar....and the other pushing the large piece into the chipper. The operator must often use both hands on the pieces when they are large. Once the piece hits the rollers the operator only has a split second to get to the feedbar. If the operator gets tangled or struck by the piece and can't make the feedbar then there is your chipper accident.

I've seen way to many pieces of wood hit the feedwheels and then be waved about like a number 34 Louisville slugger. No doubt some operators have been struck and then pulled in.

On a slightly different note how many of us have seen or have been the one tugging hard dragging a limb...only to have the limb break and stumble towards a running chipper?

I've seen a lot of people that don't pay attention to where they are going to end up if the piece they are dragging should suddenly break.
 
The dirty little secret that no chipper manufacturer will admit, is that they have purposefully refused to incorporate either of the two chipper safety systems capable of keeping an incapacitated chipper operator from being chipped alive for over 10 years now.

Their rationale is simple, if a chipper operator gets chipped alive with one of their machines, they can and do invariably claim the gruesome tragedy was caused by operator error. And they have been successful in court using this lame excuse in every court trial to date.

They only have to pay the lawyer and litigation fees, put a few more safety stickers on their chippers, and claim operator error should be avoided, their liability is very limited and negligable, regardless of the fact that these chipper deaths have skyrocketed since the introduction of whole tree chippers onto the market.

The real reason a chipper safety system capable of keeping an incapacitated operator from being chipped alive is not acceptable to them, is that if the system ever failed and an operator was injured or killed, their liability in court goes way up.

Luckily such reptilian logic did not apply to other manufacturers like GM and Ford when they were forced to make seatbelts standard equipment in all their vehicles.

Morbark and Vermeers days of successfully using operator error as a valid defense for their lack of engineering talents and ethics are numbered, as well they should be.

I find it disgusting that they have to lose a few million bucks in a court decision before they get off their azzes and take chipper safety engineering seriously of their own accord.

jomoco
 
However, if you don't have a culture of safety in your workplace then adherence to company policy will be minimal to non-existent. I've seen that over and over. Look at the heated discussions over fundamental safety procedures on these and other boards. On the ISA's own board I got into it with a member over one-handed chainsaw use.

To use your own example of seatbelts, I've been a passenger in vehicles where the driver will not wear their belt unless of course they see a cop. This is purely behavioural.

One must decide to act in a safe manner and to follow known guidelines or policies despite the initial impact on productivity. Adapting that attitude and learning how to efficiently integrate safety overcomes the deficit and leads to better morale due to a recognition of the value of safety for the company's workers.
 
Absolutely! The idea behind PPE and safety gear is to minimize accidents. The fundamental danger is still present. Thus the behavioural approach. We must look at the risks and hazards and not only don ppe but follow a course of action that accounts for these.
 
Okay, If your own 18 year old son was learning the ropes and paying his dues by becoming a groundman on your jobs and feeding let's say an 1800 vermeer chipper, would you want peter mather's RFID chipper safety system on that chipper?

http://www.indsafe.com/story.htm

Would you pay an extra 5K for it?

jomoco
 
Dan makes some good points.

I'm looking at getting a Bandit Model 280xp with a grapple on it. This would greatly reduce risk around the hopper while feeding the chipper.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Okay, If your own 18 year old son was learning the ropes and paying his dues by becoming a groundman on your jobs and feeding let's say an 1800 vermeer chipper, would you want peter mather's RFID chipper safety system on that chipper?

http://www.indsafe.com/story.htm

Would you pay an extra 5K for it?

jomoco

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a third party add-on that if proven successful and profitable in the marketplace will eventually be bought by one the the big manufacturers. I'll bet if you had a look at the companies 5 year business plan that is the owners' exit strategy.

Many evolutions of products occur this way.


It would certainly be a device I'd seriously consider for a chipper. I'd want to see some history of it's use to see if it does work as billed in the real world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom