2017 Visions Conference Presentation Presented by Andrea Rowe

1. “Zero Access”
A Zero Harm Program for
Machine Safeguarding
Case study of an international
program.
Andrea Rowe, Safety Action Pty Ltd
andrea@safetyaction.com.au

2. Overview
• Background
• Case Study:
– Zero Access Pilot Program
– Rollout
– Monitoring
– Sustaining
• Findings and lessons.

3. Case Study #1:
Pharmaceutical Manufacturer
• Several serious machinery injuries (world-wide) 2004-2009;
• 90% injuries involved operators;
• Class-room training & risk assessments;
• Personnel did not understand the extent and integrity of
guarding required;
• Risk assessments and inspections continually failed to detect
the deficiencies;
• Company vision of Zero Harm.

4. Why don’t checklists work?
• Not systematic;
• Do not consider all access points;
• Form not designed to document many hazards;
• Unclear documentation;
• Difficult to implement solutions.
More info: See my ZERO ACCESS paper online

5. Qld Manufacturing fixed plant tool

6. International company tool
• Single line for each equipment

7. Local assessment tool

8. Zero Access Program- Pilot
➢ Safety Action developed 5-day program;
➢ 10 sites across 9 countries
➢ Skill users in Zero Access standards &
RA process.
Note: Photos from various
international manufacturers.
Not from GSK.

9. No
Access
Required
Work, but
No
Energy
Required
Reach-In
Interlock
Guard
Whole
Body
Entry
(some energy)
Work, but
Some
Energy
Required
Zero
Access
Guarding
LOTO
Isolation
Procedure
Interlocks
Stop &
Lock to
Prevent
Re-Start
Non-
LOTO
Procedure
Overview of Machinery Safeguarding
PrimarySafetySystem
Normal
Operation
Machinery Intervention Required
0 1 2 43

10. Zero Access Principles
1. No operator can touch harmful machine
parts. (Intentionally or Unintentionally)
2. To find all problems you have to assume
they are there, until proven safe
3. Rules and behaviour do not give zero access
4. To be a guard it must require a tool to
remove it or be interlocked

11. Zero Access Principles
6. Interlocks must be adjusted to prevent access
until safe
7. Physical access is a bigger problem than
interlock category
7. Interlock maintenance & adjustment is more
important than interlock category
8. Not all moving parts, holes or unsecured
doors pose a hazard.

12. Zero Access Method:
Documenting
Hazards

13. Method
• Blank page/ simple record form;
• Systematic approach, start to end production
line/ machine;
• Find access points;
• Measure gap- finger, hand, arm, body?
• Distance to hazard?
• Summary AS4024 guidance.

14. Company, site Zero Access Assessment Worksheet
Department: Plant ID / Line: Date Assessed:
Item
No.
Hazard
Initial Risk
Existing Controls
Existing
Controls
OK
Yes / No
Action Plan
(if No)
Final
Risk
Level
Photo
Ref.
Likeli-
hood
Seve
rity
Risk
Level
Assessed By: Consulted with: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . & local personnel as available on day Note: Risk levels per agreed Risk Matrix (supplied)
Zero Access Assessment - Worksheet

15. Principles- Based on AS4024
Key Principles for Machine Guarding
1. Unguarded hazards on top of machinery must be out of reach e.g. at least 2.7m from floor.
2. Safety fences to be at least 1.6m high (no foot holds), or RA to prove lower is safe. At least
900mm if electronic curtain or eye beams.
3. Gaps under safety fences or barriers to be < 180mm to prevent person access. If electronic
curtain or eye beams, gap under < 300mm.
4. If aperture capable of (e.g. per EN and ISO and AS 4024.1801&2);



a) Finger-tip entry (gap 2mm to 6mm) then hazards must be > 10mm away. 
b) Finger access (gap 6mm to 12mm) then hazards must be > 100mm away. 
c) Hand access (gap 12mm to 20mm) then hazard must be > 120mm away. 
d) Arm entry (gap 20mm to 120mm) then hazards must be > 850mm away e.g. arms reach. 
e) Leg entry (gap 95mm to 180mm) then hazards must be > 1.1m away. 
f) Person gaining entry (gap > 180mm) then reduce gap < 180mm or install tunnel e.g.
provide tunnel over in-feed or out-feed conveyors.


16. Zero Access tools

17. What/ where
could this
hazard be?

18. Long shot showing
location of hazard.
Close up photo of
specific hazard

19. Key Findings
1. There are usually deficiencies in;
a) Machine guarding
e.g. 40+ hazards per typical packaging line.
b) Machine intervention practices.
Types of Hazards Identified Percentages
(rounded off)
Guard or panel not secured in place or unlocked
20%
Access around, under or over or hazard not guarded
50%
Interlock deficiencies
10%
Other including; labelling of controls, fall off machine, electrical
hazard etc
20%

20. 3. Maintenance & inspection important to
sustain;
4. Don’t rely on CE Mark;
5. New equipment safer but not fully compliant -
installation & change management important.
Key Findings

21. 6. Physical access is a bigger problem than
interlock category;
7. Interlock adjustment more important than
category level;
8. Cultural differences (1.5 meter rule)
Key Findings

22. 0
1
2
3
4
People and
resources
Leadership and
Governance
Risk assessment
Controls
Management
Responding to
problems
Site Machinery Safety Maturity Level
Site
27
19
8
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Total # of LOTO
exceptions
LOTO exceptions
controlled with
SSoW
LOTO exceptions
controlled with
PTW
Site LOTO Exceptions
8
11
43
Site MS Open Risks
Red
Amber
Green
Monitoring Zero Access

23. Sustaining Zero Access
Re-assessment
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percentages 2016 (%)
Percentages 2009 (%)
Machinery Safety Risk Assessments 2009 vs. 2016
Melbourne, Australia
Green
Low
Amber
Medium
Orange/ red
High/ very high

24. How to design an effective MS
training program?
• Simple tools;
• Min. 2 days practical shop-floor training &
recording;
• LOTO, interlocks etc, non-LOTO;
• Solutions guidance e.g. common problems,
workshop equipment;
• Monitor and sustain.

25. Further information- Contact me
Ask for Key Principles Card or
“monkey finger”
Andrea Rowe Tassioulas
General Manager
Safety Action Pty Ltd ®
T. 03 9690 6311
M. 0411 703 906
International: +61 3 9690 6311
E. andrea@safetyaction.com.au