Training for Industrial Safety

Here's an interesting release I just received. It concerns a study on the value of training.

According to the recent study, more labor accidents could be prevented if workers received additional interactive, engaging training. The researchers found that when it comes to acquiring safety knowledge and demonstrating safe work behaviors in hazardous work environments, interactive training techniques like hands-on simulations play a critical role.

The study’s findings qualify the conclusions of a team of researchers from Canada’s Institute for Work & Health and the U.S.’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) which reported that there was insufficient evidence for recommending the adoption of more interactive training techniques. According to lead author, Michael J. Burke of Tulane University, “Our research is the most comprehensive to date to examine the question of how important training engagement is for informing workers about hazards and how to avoid them, and motivating workers to practice safe work behaviors.”

The research paper, which appeared in the February issue of the Journal of Applied Psychology, discusses how engaging and simulating training triggers a psychological response referred to as the “dread factor”. This response, particularly when workers are being prepared to deal with ominous hazards, enhances the ability to learn. For example, the considerable practice and social interaction involved in high engagement training in handling ominous hazards instills dread in workers. This realization of injury/illness vulnerability plays a primary role in motivating individuals to learn about how to avoid exposure to such hazards.

“From a practical viewpoint, this study shows that engaging training does make a difference for workers in highly hazardous conditions,” says a senior author on the study, Kristin Smith-Crowe of the University of Utah. “And recent disasters, like the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the Upper Big Branch mine explosion in West Virginia, remind us that the stakes can be very high.”

The investigation statistically integrated the results from 113 safety training studies (conducted since the passage of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Act in 1971) with a total sample size of 24,694 workers from 16 countries.

The paper’s other co-authors include Rommel O. Salvador of the University of Washington in Tacoma, Suzanne Chan-Serafin of the University of New South Wales, and Alexis Smith and Shirley Sonesh of Tulane University.

Intrinsic Safety Now Available without Power Limits

Another announcement at the ARC Forum in Orlando.

Pepperl+Fuchs introduces the Dynamic Arc Recognition and Termination System (DART). DART is a dynamic power supply and control system for intrinsically safe fieldbus installations that dramatically increases the power available to field devices in explosion hazardous areas, while maintaining intrinsically safe energy levels. The product development took about 5 million euros investment and 10 years to accomplish.

“The DART system supplies enough power to support nearly as many devices as is typically supplied in non-hazardous areas, and can also power field instruments that previously required more power than intrinsically safe solutions could offer,” says David Hohenstein, Department Manager, Pepperl+Fuchs. “What makes DART so unique is that it enables process users to fully benefit from the advantages of fieldbus technology in hazardous area applications such as ensuring system availability and lowering total cost of ownership.”

Early intrinsic safety solutions included the entity concept and FISCO. These enabled users to connect multiple devices to a single power supply on a fieldbus segment, but the low available power limited the number of devices per segment and reachable cable distance, forcing users to design complex bus topologies with many branches, and making fieldbus more difficult to cost-justify. More recently, the High-Power Trunk Concept (HPTC) provided users with safe installation in explosive environments, with more power supplied to the fieldbus segment while maintaining intrinsic safety at the device connection. According to the company, DART represents a revolutionary next step in the evolution of intrinsic safety.

“DART is an exciting and superior option because it eliminates the power problem of intrinsic safety with a completely new approach to energy limitation. It allows for considerable higher direct power, while maintaining limitations on intrinsically safe energy via rapid disconnection,” explains Hohenstein. “Rather than taking a traditional approach to explosion prevention by limiting the available power to field devices, the DART system detects a fault condition by its characteristic rate of current change, and disconnects power before sparking can start.”

During normal operation, a DART power supply feeds full nominal power of 8 to 50 watts – exponentially more power than the approximately two watts that is normally permissible in intrinsic safety environments. Should a fault occur the potential spark remains non-incendive, and DART detects the resulting change in current and immediately switches off the power supply. In microseconds energy from the electrical system is reduced to a safe level, robbing a spark of the energy needed to ignite hazardous gases.

DART applied to fieldbus provides a much higher intrinsically safe power allowance to the trunk so that the segment can support up to about 32 devices per segment – the maximum permitted per segment. This reduces capital costs by eliminating excessive fieldbus infrastructure. Moreover, cable lengths as long as 1000 meters are possible, opening up many application areas to fieldbus technology while maintaining intrinsic safety requirements for all devices and cables, including the trunk line. The higher device count per segment eliminates the problem of having to design complex network topologies with many sub-segments, each requiring its own power supply, junction boxes, and barriers.

DART technology also offers advanced diagnostics to help users rectify problems quickly and ensure system availability. And because DART Fieldbus is designed as a fieldbus infrastructure for existing IS field devices and DCS systems, or for any installation in which an intrinsically safe fieldbus segment is required, it is suitable for both green- and brown field sites.

Safety in Process Automation

We are still living with the ramifications of the blowout and destruction of the Deepwater Horizon offshore rig. The Obama administration, caught between environmentalists and the need for additional domestic oil production, has begun to approve additional drilling again. But the questions remain--will they be safe, will they pollute again?

The New York Times conducted an analysis of the second part of the Deepwater Horizon disaster. The first part was the blowout. The second was the destruction of the rig. Based on interviews of people who survived plus recorded testimony of most of the survivors, the Times asked why the disaster happened when the rig had very sophisticated safety systems with up-to-date training.

The Times concluded, "The paralysis had two main sources, the examination by The Times shows. The first was a failure to train for the worst. The Horizon was like a Gulf Coast town that regularly rehearsed for Category 1 hurricanes but never contemplated the hundred-year storm. The crew members, though expert in responding to the usual range of well problems, were unprepared for a major blowout followed by explosions, fires and a total loss of power."

"They were also frozen by the sheer complexity of the Horizon’s defenses, and by the policies that explained when they were to be deployed. One emergency system alone was controlled by 30 buttons."

These are certainly lessons for us all to consider as we evaluate our safety systems. I know that technology developers and users have been studying the problem for a long time. We have the Center for Operator Performance, Abnormal Situation Consortium and Human-Centered Design. We have improved simulation and training. Are these enough? Are we implementing them smartly? What else do we need to do?

MESA, Change, Manufacturing, Food Safety

I'm sitting in the Swiss Air lounge in Zurich before continuing to Nuremberg and the SPS/Drives show. Yes, my life seems to be one airport lounge after another--well, not really.

MESA International, the association that promotes manufacturing enterprise solutions (MES or MOM), has elected a new slate of officers for 2011. You can read all the information at its blog. True to a promised change of direction when Rockwell Automation, Wonderware, GE Intelligent Platforms and Siemens entered the space, members from the user/integrator community are assuming more input and leadership.

I hope that most everyone who reads this blog is a change agent. Have you run into obstacles or backlash from attempted changes? Feel lonely? Well, Michael Hyatt's recent blog post offered some suggestions to help you prevent or overcome backlash while effecting change.

Lean guru Bill Waddell wonders if everyone's crazy these days. Instead of dealing with root causes to prevent complaints--or ignoring them by sending complainers through an endless overseas telephone loop, there is now a software application that helps companies "manage" complaints. Whatever that is.

The GreenTech blog discusses a new food safety bill under consideration in the US Senate. If passed, could this be an opportunity for automation software providers?

Interview with Emerson's Mike Boudreaux

I interview Emerson Process Management DeltaV SIS brand manager Mike Boudreaux about what's happening at Emerson Exchange 2010 in San Antonio


Automation Minutes 98