Risk Assessment all risks approach

1
Risk Assessment all risks approach

• John F. Ring
• BE, Dip.OSH, Dip.SHWW ,Dip.Env.Eng., MIITD, MIFS,
  MIOSH, Eur Ing C.Eng.MIEI.
• College Safety Officer, UCC

2
Application of Risk Assessment

• EU/ IRL Legislative Requirement
• Safety Management
• Risk Management

3
The Law Risk Assessment

• A Safety Statement must be based on a completed
  risk assessment
• Risk Assessments must be maintained and up-dated.

• HSA Inspectors in Cork require to see Risk
  Assessments as follows
• Job, room, area, equipment, activity, process
  basis

4
Application of Risk Assessment

• Safety Management
• Prioritise safety action programme.
• Rank and prioritise safety audit findings.
• Evaluate benefit of accident prevention measures
  costings.

• Risk Management
• Relative ranking of various types of risks (
  all potential losses)
• Prioritise actions.
• Prioritise expenditure (via risk and risk
  reduction benefits)

5
Types of Risk Assessment

• Quantitative
• Scientific studies measurements
• Comparison of results with limit values
• Occ. Hygiene, Noise, Structural design,
  Ergonomics etc.

• Qualitative
• Semi-scientific or non scientific
• Judgement decisions
• Professional and personal experiences/ biases.
• Codes of Practice

6
Qualitative Risk Assessment (1)

• Decide on risk level using judgement,
  experience and technical knowledge
• Low or Medium
• High or Very High

• Extremely Subjective
• Personal and individual variations!
• May not be bought in to by any medium to large
  scale organisation

7
Qualitative Risk Assessment (2)

• Use a numerical model to assess risk.
• Probability and consequence models
• Judgement, technical knowledge and experience
  required.

• Subjectivity remains
• A good model reduces personal individual
  biases/ variations !!
• Could be bought in to by any medium to large
  scale company

8
Problems with Numerical Models

• Every risk is either Very High or Low!
• Assessments often do not relate to reality!
• Results are easily rubbished!
• Not seen to be very scientific!
• Users may not be considered professional
• Non- life risks are generally not covered.
• How can other risk priorities be compared?

9
Risk Nomogram in use at UCC

• Semi-scientific
• Easy to Use
• Well received
• Risk Assessment by Dept. (devolved)
• Little variations in use
• Good spread of results

• Source Dr. Hani Raafat of Aston Univ.
• Economic, Life and Environment Risk Types (on 1
  model)
• Graded Consequences
• Probability /Frequency
• Exposure duration

10
Risk Nomogram Dr. Hani Raafat

• Four Types of Risk Consequences
• Economic (6 categories)
• Personnel (6 categories)
• Public and Reaction (6 categories)
• Environment (6 categories)

11
Risk Nomogram Dr. Hani Raafat Risk Consequence
1 Economic

• Category I lt 1 k
• Category II lt 10 k
• Category III lt 100 k
• Category IV lt 1 m
• Category V gt 1 m
• Category VI Total Loss

12
Risk Nomogram Dr. Hani Raafat Risk Consequence 2
Personnel

• Category I Insignificant
• Category II Minor
• Category III Major
• Category IV Severe
• Category V Fatality
• Category VI Multiple Fatalities

13
Definitions Effects on Personnel

• Insignificant No human injury expected or lt 3
  days lost time
• Minor Injury/ Illness, 3 28 or 56 days lost
  time, full recovery expected.
• Major Injury/Illness, 28 or 56 days lost
  time, or permanent slight incapacity
• Severe Permanent incapacitating injury/ illness.

14
Risk Nomogram Dr. Hani Raafat Risk Consequence
3 Public and Reaction

• Category I Nuisance ( Mild reaction)
• Category II Complaints ( Minor local outcry)
• Category III GP attendances /Complaints .)
• Category IV Hospitalisation or Local Media attn
  
• Category V Serious Injury or National Media
  attn
• Category VI Fatality or Govt Media attn

15
Risk Nomogram Dr. Hani Raafat Risk Consequence
4 Environment

• Category I Insignificant
• Category II Temp. Short Term Damage
• Category III Major Pollution
• Category IV Severe Pollution
• Category V Widespread Damage
• Category VI Catastrophic Damage

16
Risk Nomogram Dr. Hani Raafat Probability
(Likelihood) Ratings/Experiences

• 1 in 10 or 10 -1 (Frequent)
• 1 in 100 or 10 -2 (Probable)
• 1 in 1,000 or 10 -3 (Occasional.)
• 1 in 10,000 or 10 -4 (Remote)
• 1 in 100,000 or 10 -5 (Improbable)
• 1 in 1,000,000 or 10 -6 (Extremely remote)

17
Risk Nomogram Dr. Hani Raafat Exposure to
Hazard Time ( of 24 hr day)

• lt 1 (very rare)
• 1 (rare)
• 25
• 50
• 75
• 100 (continuous)

18
Tie Line

• Frequency

Risk Level

• Risk Conseq.

• Frequent (10 -1 )

• Exposure ( time)

• High (D)

• Probable (10 -2 )

• VI

• lt1
• 1

• V

• Substantial (C)

• 25

• iv

• Occasional (10 -3 )

• 50

• III

• 75

• Remote (10 - 4 )

• Moderate (B)

• II

100

• I

• ( 24 hr day)

• Improbable (10 -5 )

• Low (A)

• Risk types1 to 4

• Extremely Remote (10 -6 )

Risk Calculator
19
Life Risk Case Study A ( Risk Type Staff safety)

• Unguarded machine potential for limb amputation
• Regular breakdowns and clogging
• untrained operators
• No maintenance procedures
• 6 hours operation /day 25 of 24 hr day
• Regular accidents

20
1
1
Tie Line

• Frequency

Risk Level

• Risk Conseq.

• Frequent (10 -1 )

• Exposure ( time)

• High (D)

• Probable (10 -2 )

• VI

• lt1
• 1

• V

• Substantial (C)

• 25

• iv

• Occasional (10 -3 )

• 50

• III

• 75

• Remote (10 - 4 )

• Moderate (B)

• II

100

• I

• ( 24 hr day)

• Improbable (10 -5 )

• Low (A)

• Risk types1 to 4

• Extremely Remote (10 -6 )

Risk Calculator
21
Improvement Option 1

• Train staff and provide PPE ( traditional
  response!)
• Same operating hours machine set up

22
Tie Line

• Frequency

Risk Level

• Risk Conseq.

• Frequent (10 -1 )

• Exposure ( time)

• High (D)

• Probable (10 -2 )

• VI

• lt1
• 1

1

• V

1

• Substantial (C)

• 25

• iv

• Occasional (10 -3 )

• 50

• III

• 75

• Remote (10 - 4 )

• Moderate (B)

• II

100

• I

• ( 24 hr day)

• Improbable (10 -5 )

• Low (A)

• Risk types1 to 4

• Extremely Remote (10 -6 )

Risk Calculator
23
Improvement Option 2

• Train staff and provide PPE has been tried
• Consider reducing operating hours to 3 hours per
  day 12.5 of a 24 hour day
• Retain machine set up ( un-guarded)

24
Tie Line

• Frequency

Risk Level

• Risk Conseq.

• Frequent (10 -1 )

• Exposure ( time)

• High (D)

• Probable (10 -2 )

• VI

• lt1
• 1

• V

• Substantial (C)

• 25

• iv

• Occasional (10 -3 )

2

• 50

• III

• 75

• Remote (10 - 4 )

• Moderate (B)

• II

100

• I

2

• ( 24 hr day)

• Improbable (10 -5 )

• Low (A)

• Risk types1 to 4

• Extremely Remote (10 -6 )

Risk Calculator
25
Improvement Option 3

• Guard the machine / provide appropriate
  interlocks, emergency shut off devices, power
  isolation facilities
• Introduce maintenance lock off systems and permit
  to work
• Train staff, resume normal hours
• Maintain the equipment

26
Tie Line

• Frequency

Risk Level

• Risk Conseq.

• Frequent (10 -1 )

• Exposure ( time)

• High (D)

• Probable (10 -2 )

• VI

• lt1
• 1

• V

• Substantial (C)

• 25

• iv

• Occasional (10 -3 )

• 50

• III

• 75

• Remote (10 - 4 )

• Moderate (B)

• II

100

• I

• ( 24 hr day)

• Improbable (10 -5 )

• Low (A)

• Risk types1 to 4

• Extremely Remote (10 -6 )

3
3
Risk Calculator