data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/dfc2a/dfc2a1bebad9e9b433d22fdd330c41fef00c0400" alt=""
High Energy: Controlling the Uncontrollable
Controls save lives. But what makes a control adequate? Leveraging principles of energy-based safety and human performance, a control is now considered adequate if it: (1) effectively mitigates a high-energy hazard; (2) is installed, verified, and used properly; and (2) is immune to unintentional human error. When these criteria are met, a control is labeled a Direct Control. Although a clear definition now exists, initial site testing revealed that Direct Controls are often infeasible, even in common work scenarios.
This project will explore why Direct Controls are sometimes challenging; how to determine if an alternative work plan is sufficient; and how to continuously monitor the state of high-energy when workers are exposed. In pursuit of a future where all high-energy hazards have Direct Controls, this project will also create a long-term roadmap that includes a technological, engineering, psychological, and managerial solutions.
-
If our vision is the elimination of SIFs, we need to eliminate SIF conditions.​
-
Thus, every high-energy hazard should have a corresponding direct control.​
-
If a direct control is not feasible, we should have an alternative controls.
Peer-Reviewed Publications
Raheemy, Y., Sherratt, F. and Hallowell, M.R., 2025. What is safety? contemporary definitions and interpretations across North America. Safety Science, 185, p.106798. [ACCESS HERE]