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

Application of Risk Assessment
 EU/ IRL Legislative Requirement

 Safety Management

 Risk Management
The Law & Risk Assessment
 A Safety Statement  HSA Inspectors in
must be based on a Cork require to see
completed risk Risk Assessments as
assessment follows:
 Risk Assessments  Job, room, area,
must be maintained equipment, activity,
and up-dated. process basis
 Application of Risk Assessment
 Safety Management  Risk Management
 Prioritise safety action  Relative ranking of
programme. various types of risks
 Rank and prioritise safety ( all potential losses)
audit findings.  Prioritise actions.
 Evaluate benefit of  Prioritise expenditure
accident prevention (via risk and risk
measures & costings. reduction benefits)
 Types of Risk Assessment

1. Quantitative 2. Qualitative
 Scientific studies &  Semi-scientific or
measurements non scientific
 Comparison of results  Judgement decisions
with limit values  Professional and
 Occ. Hygiene, Noise, personal experiences/
Structural design, biases.
Ergonomics etc.  Codes of Practice
 Qualitative Risk Assessment (1)
 ‘Decide’ on risk level  Extremely Subjective
using judgement,  Personal and individual
experience and variations!
technical knowledge  May not be ‘bought in
 Low or Medium
to’ by any medium to
 High or Very High large scale organisation
Qualitative Risk Assessment (2)
 Use a numerical  Subjectivity remains
model to assess risk.  A good model reduces
 Probability and personal & individual
consequence models biases/ variations !!
 Judgement, technical  Could be ‘bought in to’
knowledge and by any medium to
experience required. large scale company
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?
 Risk Nomogram in use at UCC
 Source: Dr. Hani Raafat  Semi-scientific
of Aston Univ.  Easy to Use
 Economic, Life and  Well received
Environment Risk Types  Risk Assessment by
(on 1 model) Dept. (devolved)
 Graded Consequences  Little variations in use
 Probability /Frequency  Good spread of results
 Exposure duration
Risk Nomogram Dr. Hani Raafat

 Four Types of Risk Consequences

1. Economic (6 categories)
2. Personnel (6 categories)
3. Public and Reaction (6 categories)
4. Environment (6 categories)
Risk Nomogram Dr. Hani Raafat
Risk Consequence 1: Economic

 Category I < €1 k
 Category II < €10 k
 Category III < €100 k
 Category IV < €1 m
 Category V > €1 m
 Category VI Total Loss
 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
 Definitions: Effects on Personnel
 Insignificant: No human injury expected or < 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.
 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
 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
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)
 Risk Nomogram Dr. Hani Raafat
Exposure to Hazard: Time (% of 24 hr day)

 < 1 % (very rare)

 1 % (rare)
 25 %
 50 %
 75 %
 100 % (continuous)
 Tie Line
Frequency
Risk
Conseq.
Risk Level
Frequent (10 -1 ) Exposure
( % time)
• High (D)
Probable (10 -2 ) <1% VI
1% V
• Substantial (C)
Occasional (10 -3
) 25% iv
50% III
75%
Remote (10 - 4 ) 100% II • Moderate (B)

( 24 hr day) I
Improbable (10 -5 )
Risk • Low (A)
types
Extremely Remote (10 -6 ) 1 to 4

Risk Calculator
 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
 1 1
Tie Line
Frequency

Frequent (10 -1 )
Risk
Conseq. Risk Level
Exposure
( % time)
• High (D)
Probable (10 -2 ) <1% VI
1% V
• Substantial (C)
Occasional (10 -3
) 25% iv
50% III
75%
Remote (10 - 4 ) 100% II • Moderate (B)

( 24 hr day) I
Improbable (10 -5 )
Risk • Low (A)
types
Extremely Remote (10 -6 ) 1 to 4

Risk Calculator
 Improvement Option 1

 Train staff and provide PPE ( traditional

response!)
 Same operating hours & machine set up
 Tie Line
Frequency

Frequent (10 -1 )
Risk
Conseq. Risk Level
Exposure
( % time)
• High (D)
Probable (10 -2 ) <1% VI
1% V #1
#1 • Substantial (C)
Occasional (10 -3
) 25% iv
50% III
75%
Remote (10 - 4 ) 100% II • Moderate (B)

( 24 hr day) I
Improbable (10 -5 )
Risk • Low (A)
types
Extremely Remote (10 -6 ) 1 to 4

Risk Calculator
 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)
 Tie Line
Frequency

Frequent (10 -1 )
Risk
Conseq. Risk Level
Exposure
( % time)
• High (D)
Probable (10 -2 ) <1% VI
1% V
• Substantial (C)
Occasional (10 -3
) 25% iv

#2 50% III
75%
Remote (10 - 4 ) 100% II • Moderate (B)

( 24 hr day) I
Improbable (10 -5 ) #2
Risk • Low (A)
types
Extremely Remote (10 -6 ) 1 to 4

Risk Calculator
 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
 Tie Line
Frequency

Frequent (10 -1 )
Risk
Conseq. Risk Level
Exposure
( % time)
• High (D)
Probable (10 -2 ) <1% VI
1% V
• Substantial (C)
Occasional (10 -3
) 25% iv
50% III
75%
Remote (10 - 4 ) 100% II • Moderate (B)

( 24 hr day) I
Improbable (10 -5 )
Risk • Low (A)
types
Extremely Remote (10 -6 ) 1 to 4

#3
#3 Risk Calculator