Machine Safety: Only engineers can lead the Risk Assessment process?

An incremental documented process called “Risk Assessment” is required in many updated standards. And, a new standard, ANSI B11.0 – 2010, Safety of Machinery – General Requirements and Risk Assessment, is dedicated to this topic. With all this attention folks still are not clear regarding whether an engineer is essential to lead the risk assessment process.


Over the past 10 years significant focus has been spotlighted on machine safety. Simultaneously, an incremental documented process called “Risk Assessment” has been introduced to industry. In fact, many updated standards  require that risk assessments be performed. And, a new standard, ANSI B11.0 – 2010, Safety of Machinery – General Requirements and Risk Assessment, is dedicated to this topic. With all this attention folks still are not clear regarding whether an engineer is essential to lead the risk assessment process.


ANSI B11.0 provides the following two definitions:


“3.69 risk assessment: The process by which the intended use of the machine, the tasks and hazards, and the level of risk are determined.”

“3.70 risk assessment process: The entire process of identifying hazards, assessing risk, reducing risk, and documenting the results.




Industry experts recommend that a team concept be utilized for conducting risk assessments. The team leader should have prior experience and be very familiar with the risk assessment process. Any mix of the following skills and expertise within the team are also recommended:

•       Environment, health and safety

•       Management

•       Engineering

•       Maintenance and/or field service

•       Operator

•       OEM, system integrator, or supplier(s) with backgrounds in safety/engineering.


The risk assessment process should be carried out by this team for each machine to identify all hazards in order to implement risk reduction(s) using the five mitigation steps as follows:

1)      Eliminate the hazard – design it out

2)      Isolate the hazard with hard guarding

3)      Add additional engineering, guards, devices, or layers of safety (controls or systems)

4)      Administrative controls like – training, signage, assessments, etc.

5)      Personal protective equipment (PPE) like - goggles, gloves, outer clothing, shields, etc.

Steps 4 and 5 probably don’t need any engineering expertise and most often the maintenance cadre can apply hard guards in Step 2. Engineering skill sets are likely to be helpful for Steps 1 and 3 as part of the team. The reason for this position is - as hazard levels are determined and mitigation steps are evaluated, it’s helpful for someone to potentially evaluate the application issues when the mitigation option involves the control system. It could also be possible that an engineer could evaluate a mechanical modification to the machine hazard as a mitigation option. However, timing wise, these two evaluation steps could also occur following the risk assessment report. 


In another case example it might be helpful to have an engineer on the team in order to help determine an existing guarding level for a given hazard. Establishing existing Category levels for each hazard is one of the first steps in the risk assessment process. It is from that hazard level that mitigation options are considered in order to reach an “acceptable” (reduced) hazard level for each identified hazard. For example, it may not be obvious to a team if the current design includes control reliable wiring, safety rated components, and other functional safety provisions. Yet, in most cases an engineering skill set is not required to help answer (for each hazard) the three questions; how serious, frequency of exposure, and possibility of avoidance?

In practice, we do frequently find an engineer leading the risk assessment process because someone has made that decision. However, in my opinion and according to current industry standards, it is not required that an engineer lead the risk assessment process. Having access to an engineering skill set can be helpful to the process. 


Your comments or suggestion are always welcome so please let us know your thoughts. Submit your ideas, experiences, and challenges on this subject in the comments section below. Click on the following text if you don't see a comments box, then scroll down: Machine Safety: only engineers can lead the Risk Assessment process?


J.B. Titus, CFSERelated articles:

Machine Safety – does a risk assessment need to be updated for a minor modification to a machine?

Machine Guarding & The Hierarchy of Measures for Hazard Mitigation

Machine Safety – does OSHA reference consensus standards for compliance?

Machine Safety: Is OSHA okay with my 'acceptable' risk mitigation?


Contact: for “Solutions for Machine Safety”.

No comments
The Top Plant program honors outstanding manufacturing facilities in North America. View the 2013 Top Plant.
The Product of the Year program recognizes products newly released in the manufacturing industries.
The Engineering Leaders Under 40 program identifies and gives recognition to young engineers who...
A cool solution: Collaboration, chemistry leads to foundry coat product development; See the 2015 Product of the Year Finalists
Raising the standard: What's new with NFPA 70E; A global view of manufacturing; Maintenance data; Fit bearings properly
Sister act: Building on their father's legacy, a new generation moves Bales Metal Surface Solutions forward; Meet the 2015 Engineering Leaders Under 40
Cyber security cost-efficient for industrial control systems; Extracting full value from operational data; Managing cyber security risks
Drilling for Big Data: Managing the flow of information; Big data drilldown series: Challenge and opportunity; OT to IT: Creating a circle of improvement; Industry loses best workers, again
Pipeline vulnerabilities? Securing hydrocarbon transit; Predictive analytics hit the mainstream; Dirty pipelines decrease flow, production—pig your line; Ensuring pipeline physical and cyber security
Upgrading secondary control systems; Keeping enclosures conditioned; Diagnostics increase equipment uptime; Mechatronics simplifies machine design
Designing positive-energy buildings; Ensuring power quality; Complying with NFPA 110; Minimizing arc flash hazards
Building high availability into industrial computers; Of key metrics and myth busting; The truth about five common VFD myths

Annual Salary Survey

After almost a decade of uncertainty, the confidence of plant floor managers is soaring. Even with a number of challenges and while implementing new technologies, there is a renewed sense of optimism among plant managers about their business and their future.

The respondents to the 2014 Plant Engineering Salary Survey come from throughout the U.S. and serve a variety of industries, but they are uniform in their optimism about manufacturing. This year’s survey found 79% consider manufacturing a secure career. That’s up from 75% in 2013 and significantly higher than the 63% figure when Plant Engineering first started asking that question a decade ago.

Read more: 2014 Salary Survey: Confidence rises amid the challenges

Maintenance and reliability tips and best practices from the maintenance and reliability coaches at Allied Reliability Group.
The One Voice for Manufacturing blog reports on federal public policy issues impacting the manufacturing sector. One Voice is a joint effort by the National Tooling and Machining...
The Society for Maintenance and Reliability Professionals an organization devoted...
Join this ongoing discussion of machine guarding topics, including solutions assessments, regulatory compliance, gap analysis...
IMS Research, recently acquired by IHS Inc., is a leading independent supplier of market research and consultancy to the global electronics industry.
Maintenance is not optional in manufacturing. It’s a profit center, driving productivity and uptime while reducing overall repair costs.
The Lachance on CMMS blog is about current maintenance topics. Blogger Paul Lachance is president and chief technology officer for Smartware Group.