Quantification of occupational risk owing to contact with moving parts of machines O.N. Aneziris a,⇑ , I.A. Papazoglou a , M. Konstandinidou a , H. Baksteen b , M. Mud c , M. Damen d , L.J. Bellamy e , J. Oh f a Systems Reliability and Industrial Safety Laboratory, National Center for Scientific Research ‘‘DEMOKRITOS’’, Aghia Paraskevi 15310, Greece b Baksteen Safety, Rondasburg 6, 3437 RX Nieuwegein, Netherlands c RPS Netherlands, Elektronicaweg 2, 2628 XG Delft, Netherlands d RIGO, Postbus 2805, 1000 CV Amsterdam, Netherlands e WhiteQueen, NL-2130 AS Hoofddorp, Netherlands f Ministry Social Affairs & Employment, NL-2509 LV The Hague, Netherlands article info Article history: Received 5 December 2011 Received in revised form 22 June 2012 Accepted 25 August 2012 Available online 5 October 2012 Keywords: Occupational risk Moving parts Machine Logical model Quantification Importance analysis WORM abstract Working population is often exposed to risks associated with moving parts of machines. In this paper a methodology for managing occupational risk owing to contact with moving parts while working with machines is presented. The methodology is based on the principles of quantified risk assessment. A logic model for contact with moving parts while working with machines has been developed under the Work- group Occupational Model (WORM) project, financed by the Dutch government and is presented in this paper. Sixty-three other models have been developed to cover different hazards in all working activities. These models allow the delineation of accidents into sequences of events describing measures (technical and/or procedural) in place to prevent them or to mitigate their consequences. Identification of these sequences enables the identification of specific root causes of such accidents and hence the determina- tion of specific and practical actions that can influence the probability of an accident. Quantification of these models provides, furthermore, a way for assessing the relative value of such measures and hence a basis for supporting decisions aiming at reducing the consequences of accidents in the work fields. Risk has been quantified for different working situations with machines such as operating, maintaining, clean- ing and clearing a machine. Qualitative information on the safety functions, measures and barriers have been derived from the analysis of 766 actual accidents occurred and reported under the Dutch law over a period of 2 years (1998–2000). A sensitivity analysis assessing the relative importance of measures affecting risk is presented and risk increase and risk decrease indices are assessed. Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Occupational risk, owing to contact with moving parts of machines, has very high rates in all industry sectors and among different working activities. According to Gardner et al. (1999) mechanical equipment injuries account for 28% of all compensa- tion injuries while Gerberich et al. (1998) report that agricultural machinery has been identified as a principal source of non-fatal injuries in the rural sector. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) supports that amputations are among the most severe and disabling injuries in the workplace, often resulting in permanent disability. These injuries result from the use and care of machines such as saws, presses, conveyors, and bending, rolling or shaping machines as well as from forklifts, doors, trash compac- tors and during material handling activities (OSHA, 2007a,b). Re- sults from the above mentioned analyses highlight that printing presses and grinding machines have higher accident rates, while lathes are the most commonly cited equipment in accident reports (Gardner et al., 1999). Many accidents in the rural sector have oc- curred during adjustment, repair or cleaning of the agricultural machinery (Gerberich et al., 1998). Analyses of accidents in the UK report that 50% of accident related to moving parts of machines occurred in printing presses and conveyors, while 75% of all con- tact with moving parts accidents occurred during interventions on machines (HSE, 2006). NIOSH analyses report up to 18,000 amputations and more than 800 fatalities per year in the US (Etherton and Myers, 1990). The incident rate according to US Bureau of Labour Statistics 0925-7535/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2012.08.009 Abbreviations: CE, Center Event; DZ, Danger Zone; FB, Functional Block; FBD, Functional Block Diagram; GISAI, Geintegreerd Informatie Systeem Arbeids Inspec- tie; LHS, Left Hand Side; OSHA, Occupational Safety and Health Administration; PPE, Personal Protective Equipment; PIE, Probability Influencing Entity; PSB, Primary Safety Barrier; RIE, Risk Inventory and Evaluation; RHS, Right Hand Side; SSB, Support Safety Barrier; SZ, safe zone; WORM, Workgroup Occupational Model. ⇑ Corresponding author. E-mail address: olga@ipta.demokritos.gr (O.N. Aneziris). Safety Science 51 (2013) 382–396 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Safety Science journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ssci