Ticklist Layout in Hazards and Risk Assessment - Case Study Example

Hazards and Risk Assessment Student Name Tutor Institution Date Table of Contents Table of Figures 2 Table of Tables 3 1. Ticklist with Layout in Risk Assessment 4 2. SWOT Analysis, STEEPLE ANALYSIS and PEST Analysis 6 SWOT ANALYSIS 6 PEST Analysis 7 STEEPLE Analysis 9 3. Risk Ranking with FN-Diagram 10 4. PHA, FMEA, FMECA, HazOP, and HACCP 13 Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA) 13 Failure Mode, Effect & Criticality Analysis (FMECA) 14 FMEA 15 HAZARD & OPERABILITY STUDIES(HazOP) 15 Hazard Analysis & Critical Control Point Assessment(HACCP) 16 5. Fault Trees 16 6. Common Cause Analysis 19 7. Reliability Block Diagram 19 8. Event Trees 21 9. Cost Benefit Analysis 22 10. Utility Function 23 11. Business Continue Planning 24 12. The Pros & Cons of the Methods used in Risk Assessment 24 Quantitative Methods 25 Qualitative Methods 25 13. Allocation of a Fixed Budget in Response to the Assessed Risks 26 References 27 Table of Figures Figure 1: PEST analysis Proforma 9 Figure 2: Risk Ranking Matrix 11 Figure 3: FN Diagram 13 Figure 4: A Tree Diagram Representing a Circuit Notation 17 Figure 5: Fault Tree Representation in form of Circuit Notation 18 Figure 6: Reliability Block Diagram for Parallel System 20 Figure 7: Reliability Block Diagram for Series System 20 Figure 8: Reliability Block Diagram for both Parallel and Series Systems 21 Figure 9: An Event Tree Diagram Illustrating all Possibilities 22 Figure 10: The utility Curve 24 Figure 11: Business Continue Planning Process 24 Table of Tables Table 1: Ticklist Layout 6 Table 2: SWOT Analysis 7 Table 3: A Summary of PEST analysis Factors 7 Table 4: Representation of Fire Risk Ranking 12 Table 5: Numerical representation of a fire risk ranking 12 Table 6: A Table for hazards and effects (second stage of PHA analysis) 14 Table 7: Sample FMECA Form 15 1. Ticklist with Layout in Risk Assessment In order to carry out effective risk assessment, ticklists are essential. A typical ticklist for fire risk assessment is divided into the following six main stages (CLG, 2000), (Johnson, 2012) and (British Standards Institution, 2007). I. Identification of the fire hazards II. Identification of individual who are at risk III. Controlling, elimination or avoiding of fire hazards. IV. Performing analysis as to whether the available materials for fire safety and the regulations are adequate or if they need some modifications V. Making a record of the findings VI. Performing regular reviews on fire risk assessment Ticklist Layout incorporating all the six stages is shown in Table 1 Stage 1: Identification of the Fire Hazards 1 Are all the systems for controlling flammable gases and liquids kept within the work place? 2 Are systems in proper working conditions? 3 Are combustible and flammable materials properly kept? 4 Are there measures to ensure smoke to ensure smoke doesn’t spread quickly between the compartments? 5 Are portable equipments regularly inspected? 6 Are flexes operated where they can’t damage? 7 Are extension leads kept to a minimum? 8 Are heaters away from combustible & flammable materials and fitted with the right guards? 9 Does the smoking are have enough ashtrays? 10 Are different areas free from waste material & rubbish? 11 Is the entire upholstery proper working condition? 12 Are there measures to protect risks associated with risks? 13 Are wiring systems properly maintained? Stage 2: Identification of the individuals at risk 14 Are guard-ways free from obstructions? 15 Do all the exits direct to a direct place? 16 Are the stairs in good working condition or require some repair? 17 Are escape routes free from hazards and slipping 18 Are the exits of the appropriate width for large numbers during exit situation? 19 Is it easy to open the exit doors without the use of a key? 20 Are exit doors locked when there is a fire crisis? 21 Are doors on escape routes closed during normal conditions? 22 Are doors on escapes routes opening in travel direction? 23 Do all the self closers on escape routes work properly? 24 Are escape routes labeled? 25 Do all the escape routes have sufficient lighting? 26 What measures are put in place for disabled people and visitors’ evacuation during fire crisis? Stage 3: Controlling, elimination and avoiding the fire hazards 27 What mechanisms are available to avoid flammable and combustible materials? 28 What advice has been sought from insurers the safety of the premises? 29 Has staff been trained on how to use the fire-fighting equipments? 30 What measures are there to avoid cases of arson? Stage 4: Investigation of fire exit and fighting gadgets 31 Is the lighting on exit routes well maintained? 32 Have the alarm systems been tested? 33 Are the occupants informed on the existence and how to use the fire-fighting equipments? 34 Are the fire-fighting equipments in the right working conditions? 35 Are the fire-fighting equipments in the right positions? 36 Is the number of the fire fighting equipments sufficient? 37 Are fires fighting equipments serviced on a regular basis? 38 Are call points unobstructed? Stage 5: Recording the findings 39 Have you recorded the findings in a formal report after assessing the risk assessment? 40 Are the workers at different workplaces informed about the risks? 41 Does the entire workplace have clear notice or displays on fire warnings? 42 Are all the members aware about the identified fire risks, as per the findings? 43 Are the personnel who are directly responsible for fire safety at the workplace well notified about the findings? 44 Has any formal report about fire risk assessment be presented to the administrations or staff? 45 In case of severe fire, are the evacuation plans clear? 46 Are main copies for emergency plans located in more than a single workplace? Stage 6: Continous and period risk assessment 47 What are the available procedures for enhanced periodic fire risk assessment? Table 1: Ticklist Layout For a PC display screen, the risk assessment ticklist consists of three parts as discussed below: Part A for official use & for entries such as “assessor’s”, “workstation”, “Date”, and “Department”, and other details (Great Britain, 2003). Part B covering the desk, keyboard, screen, document holders, working environment, work routine, any maintenance routine, and information with regard to the end users. It also has information with regard to fire drills (employee observations). Part C covering departmental heads or faculties or their nominee. It also has a form with columns on “actions”, “the persons who performed the action” and “date of action completion” (Chief Fire Officers' Association, 2006). 2. SWOT Analysis, STEEPLE ANALYSIS and PEST Analysis SWOT ANALYSIS SWOT focus on Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, & Threats and these can be summarized in the table below Strengths Anything that adds values contributes to strengths. This can include the following: Distinctiveness Expertise Innovations A good catchment area Improved administration High quality brands Reputations Conveniences Weaknesses Anything that leads to loss of value contributes to weakness, such as: Disadvantaging location Bad reputation Inexperience Too wide business territory Opportunities This can include strategic alliances, joint ventures, mergers, Internet, access to local and global retailers. Threats Threats cover things such as new competitors, price wars, innovativeness, competitor, and even taxation. Table 2: SWOT Analysis PEST Analysis Billinton & Allan (1992) discusses on PEST analysis and it covers Political, Economic, and Socio-cultural & Technological factors. These factors can be summarized in Table 3. Political Factors These are factors that investigate the stability of a political environment, how taxation activities are affected by the politics, government position with regard to political sentiments, government policies economic growth, and also how the government is involved in trading agreements. Economic Factors Economic factors cover on industrial economy for long and short term, employment rate, unemployment rate, inflation, interest rates, and other economic plans. Socio-Cultural Factors These includes factors on religion, how culture affects industry, the leisure time customers have, their age, population wealth and the effect populations’ opinion has on real issues. Technological Factors These factors investigate how distribution is affected by technology and how it results to creation of a cheap & quality industry. Technology also offers mechanisms of communicating to bulk customers. Table 3: A Summary of PEST analysis Factors A Sample of a PEST Proforma Figure 1: PEST analysis Proforma STEEPLE Analysis STEEPLE analysis covers several factors on socio-culture, technology, economy, environment, politics, and legal factors (Sutton, 2003). Socio-cultural Factors include population demographics, income distribution, levels of education, lifestyle changes, and people’s attitude to leisure and work. Technological Factors include government expenditures on research, discoveries on technology transfer, and how industry has been affected by technology. Economic Factors covered under STEEPLE analysis include business cycles, trends, interest rates, inflation, and measure of disposable incomes, employment and unemployment. Further, environmental factors include environment protection policies and even those for Local Authority Policies (Wong, 2002). What is more we have political factors such as government stability, taxation policies, and foreign trade laws. Legal factors cover on monopoly legislations, discrimination laws, and employment laws. Finally, the E-business Factors entail video conferencing, email marketing, buying and selling of the Internet. 3. Risk Ranking with FN-Diagram The technique on risk ranking is essential in risk assessment because it assists in determining how tolerable or intolerable is a given risk, and highlights on what measures should be prioritized to mitigate the risk (Wells, 1996). During a risk assessment survey, hazards are classified according to their relative risks and a risk ranking matrix is applied to those risks. For instance, the use of a, or matrix, for recording the level of risk. There are two main dimensions considered in risk ranking, and they include likelihood and severity of the risk. Therefore, a risk is rated in relation to other risk as shown in the risk ranking matrix bellow. Likelihood SEVERITY Figure 2: Risk Ranking Matrix Illustration of a Risk Analysis According to Kreyszig (2004), a consequence can be low, medium or high. Low risk can be illness, minor injury, damage, or no lost time. Medium risk covers things such as injury, damage, and time is lost. Further, high risk entails serious injuries, death, or serious illness. Probability can also be low, medium or high, where low probability cover unlikely or remote events, medium covers events that will occur in due course unless measures are put in place to stop it and high probability covers events that are more likely to occur in the near future (KLEIN, 1997). A fire risk ranking can be represented by Table 3 below Ranking Frequency Severity Safeguards 1 Never been seen Negligible Invulnerability 2 rare event Cosmetic Secure 3 Some statistics exists Superficial Contained 4 Occasional event Peripheral Compensative 5 Sporadic event Significant event Suppressive 6 Probable event Structural Moderate 7 Periodic event Serious event Strategic 8 Regular event Permanent effect Minimal 9 Likely event Critical event Superficial 10 Constant event Catastrophic Prone Table 4: Representation of Fire Risk Ranking Numbers can also be used to represent risk ranking matrix as shown in Table 4 High 3 6 9 MEDIUM 2 4 6 LOW 1 2 3 SMALL MEDIUM LOSS LARGE Table 5: Numerical representation of a fire risk ranking Pickford (2001) argues that in a society where people’s aversion to several casualty accidents is strong, one accident that kills 1000 is more worrying than 1000 accident killing only one person. Therefore, an FN-diagram expressing the relation between an accident frequency and the total number of fatalities is as shown in Figure 3. Figure 3: FN Diagram 4. PHA, FMEA, FMECA, HazOP, and HACCP Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA) PHA is an assessment method normally applied after the first assessment on hazards has been conducted and it is intended to identify all hazards in relation to trigger mechanisms and the implications of those hazards (Ramachandran, 1998). The analysis starts during the early design stages and becomes detailed as the design develops. This analysis method has been outlined in the stages below. a) Data acquisition These stages involved specifying all the legislation, plans, hardware, rules, lists of materials, tests, layout, and processes and the scope of subsequent assessments decided at this stage. Errors are also considered in order to ensure the acquired data is as accurate as possible. b) Identification of the probable hazards Some of the probable hazards identified as this stage include explosives, flammables, corrosives, poison, narcotic, infections, natural catalysts, , cold, hot, magnetic, electrostatic, pressures, falling body, sprung, rotating parts, weapons, voltages, natural disasters, among others (VOSE & VOSE, 2000). c) Drawing a table to show hazards and effects A table for hazards and effects is drawn at this stage. Column Content 1 Hazard Reference no 2 Hazard source 3 Hazard location 4 Triggers 5 Likely accidents 6 Impacts 7 Warning Devices 8 The safeguards 9 Contingencies 10 Frequency 11 Criticality of ranking 12 Comments Table 6: A Table for hazards and effects (second stage of PHA analysis) Failure Mode, Effect & Criticality Analysis (FMECA) FMECA, although similar to PHA, it lays emphasis on failure modes as outlined in the following stages. Step 1: Specification of the limits of assessment. Step 2: Listing the components involved in assessment limits Step 3: Completely filling out FMECA form Step 4: Making a list of information sources Step 5: Preparing a report that has a conclusion and recommendations. Sample FMECA Form Column Content Example 1 Component reference number 51F322 2 Description Tire 3 Functionality Pulling car along 4 Component failure mode deflation 5 Component Trigger Glasses on the road 6 Component Effects Skid, or cars stopped 7 Detection None 8 Safety Belts, anti lock brake 9 Component Failure rates 5 10 Component Criticality Car wrecking 11 Comment Ensuring the spares are ready Table 7: Sample FMECA Form FMEA FMEA has the following four stages (Yung, 2008): Step 1: Description of the processes whose failure mode we are looking for. Step 2: Making a list of all the possible ways a process may fail. Step 3: Identifying failure symptoms that can be detected. Step 4: Analyzing the effect of every failure possibility HAZARD & OPERABILITY STUDIES(HazOP) The Five Steps employed under HazOP are outlined bellow Step 1: Defining an activity Step 2: Defining probable problems of interest like environmental issues and any safety and health concerns. Step 3: Subdividing the activities Step 4: Conducting HazOP review. Step 5: Implementing recommendations through the application of Cost-benefit analysis. Hazard Analysis & Critical Control Point Assessment(HACCP) HACCP is, to some extent, similar to FMEA and encompasses the following stages: Step 1: Listing the main points with regard to product fabrication and making an assessment of each point. Step 2: Identifying the control points that are sensitive Step 3: Identifying the acceptable standards of each control Step 4: Describing measures to be taken the deviation from the limit becomes critical. Step 5: Verifying the working mechanism of HACCP and making a description of its monitoring processes. Step 6: Preparing records for future audits 5. Fault Trees Fault trees help in breaking down the factors that contribute to failure and arrange them in a logical manner for examination. Fault trees are made of connected digraphs that have no cycles. If a fault tree is BINARY, it implies that its branching is in two parts when a tree is FOREST it means the trees are joined together with no cycles. The logic of false and truth is applied to fault trees, We use the logic of truth and false in the study of fault trees. For example, in the study of elephants and fish, the following Table shows the logic of question and answer. Question Answer A Are the elephants grey? True B Are elephants red? False A Do fish swim? True B Do fish laugh? False A tree diagram can also be represented by a circuit notation shown in Figure 4 below: Figure 4: A Tree Diagram Representing a Circuit Notation From this circuit notation, the following probabilities can be deduced “Backward logic” is used in developing fault tree diagrams and is normally drawn running from centre-top downwards as we add the contributing causes. Top events are normally regarded as “fault” and the events at the root of the tree have got end-points normally known as “leaves” or terminal events. The construction of a fault tree aims at answering the factors that contribute the hazards. The diagram in Figure 5 shows are representation of a fault tree in terms of circuit logic. Figure 5: Fault Tree Representation in form of Circuit Notation Fault trees apply when analyzing system failure and probability can be small numbers. For example, If and, P (A) = 3.5 X 10-4, Then, P(A & B) =4.2 x10-12 and P (A or B) = P(A) +P (B). 6. Common Cause Analysis Deductive analysis is one of the techniques use in common cause analysis and is aimed at identifying non-independence that lies between events that would be considered independent. It can make use of both qualitative and quantitative analyses as well as the design. Common cause analysis can be outlined by this diagram below. A diagram illustrating common cause analysis In common-cause analysis, different physical technologies are considered, as well as how failure in one technology leads to failure in the other technology. 7. Reliability Block Diagram We use reliability block diagrams in performing analysis on system reliability and availability, especially for large complex systems (Sutton, 2003). Various system relationships are represented with the aid of block diagrams, and the logical interactions between different failures is outlined by the entire block structure. Figure 6: Reliability Block Diagram for Parallel System Figure 7: Reliability Block Diagram for Series System Figure 8: Reliability Block Diagram for both Parallel and Series Systems In both parallel and series systems, the left hand side begin with input node whereas output is towards the right hand side. That means the reliability block diagrams consist of two nodes, input and output nodes. The diagram is generally useful in calculation of failure rate, reliability, availability, and MTBT for complex systems. Any change in diagram configuration will mean changing the results as well, and the diagram normally stands for components in real physical components. A parallel connection shows redundancy of the system. It is joined by several links or paths. The left hand side starts with the input node, and the parallel and series systems in the diagram conclude towards the right hand side where we have the output node. In other words, the diagrams consist of a single input node and a single output node. Once the blocks have been properly used to represent a complex system, the MTBT, failure rate, reliability and availability can be calculated. If the configuration changes, the result also changes. The block generally corresponds to the real physical arrangement of the components of a given system. 8. Event Trees Unlike fault trees where reverse logic by way of starting at the end and working towards the beginning, event trees use the forward logic. In other words, we start from the beginning and work towards the end. In most cases, the FMEA analysis is used hand in hand with the Event trees. For example, from the series system bellow, different probability or possibilities arise as shown in the event tree that follows. The Even Tree Figure 9: An Event Tree Diagram Illustrating all Possibilities 9. Cost Benefit Analysis We use cost benefit analysis in risk assessment to make a determination of social costs and benefits in their monetary terms, thus enabling the evaluation of different assessment plans and decision making on what plans has more benefits. There are different benefits covered under cost benefit analysis. This includes financial, individual comfort, ecological security, and social health, among other plans. PARETO IMPROVEMENT as used in cost-benefit analysis can be illustrated by the table bellow, where two plans are considered. Plan A (millions) Plan B (millions) Plan cost to the wealthy - - Plan Cost to the poor $ 0.1 - Plan benefit to the wealthy $1 $0.4 Benefit to the poor - $0.4 Net benefit $0.9 $0.8 From this illustration, it is clear that gross benefit to society exceeds when the poor are losing and the wealthier are gaining. Therefore, the preference in to keep the highest net profit, which is 0.9m dollars with the help of “state aid” to transfer some benefit to poor people from the wealthier people. In most cases, stage aid is in form of grants, subsidies, tax concessions, among other things. Thus, from the Pareto arrangement, everyone wills stand to benefit as shown in the table below Plan A (millions) The cost to the poor $0.1 but 0.5 is transferred in form of state aid, thus mapping to $0.4 The benefit to the wealthy $1 but $ 0.5 is taxed and maps to 0.5 Net benefit $0.9 10. Utility Function The well being of consumers can be illustrated with the aid of different products consumed. Other considerations can also be included, and people preferences can be represented by the use of utility function. The utility function can be illustrated with the aid of the utility curve that follows. Figure 10: The utility Curve 11. Business Continue Planning All the activities required for the process to run normally after interruptions or displacements is what constitutes business continue planning. Examples of interruptions include equipment failure, human errors, sabotage or strike, natural disasters and fire. Business continue planning is applicable because disasters are bound to occur at any particular time, thus the need to be prepared at all times and remain competitive even if there is a disaster. The process involved in Business Continue Planning is summarized in the table below. Stage Description 1 Identification of the main organization drivers. 2 Definition of the breaking points 3 Determination of the required options 4 Selection and evaluation of options 5 Business Continue Planning documentation 6 Testing, implementation and maintenance of the plan Figure 11: Business Continue Planning Process 12. The Pros & Cons of the Methods used in Risk Assessment Both quantitative and qualitative methods are used in risk assessment. Quantitative Methods Quantitative Method used in Risk Assessment have got the following advantages (Jordan-Cizelj, Mavko & Kljenak, 2001): a) The obtained results under these methods are objectively based on metrics and independent processes thus eliminating the subjectivity of a lot of guesswork. b) In this method, emphasis is laid on determining an asset’s value and mitigation the associated risk. c) Under this methods, cost benefit analysis technique can be used and the results obtained can be expressed is a language so specific to management, that is percentages or probabilities. Quantitative Method in Risk Assessment has the following disadvantages a) The methods use complex calculations that can consume more time b) The method works better in situations where there is an already identified knowledge base or automated tool. c) Since the method is output on a personal level, it is not easy to coach the participants. Qualitative Methods Qualitative Method in Risk Assessment has the following advantages (ČEpin & Mavko, 1997): a) The method does not involve complex calculations, thus making them simpler. b) An asset’s monetary value does not have to be determined. c) The threat frequency does not have to be determined. d) Both the non-security and non-technical staff can be engaged in this method. Disadvantages of the Qualitative Methods a. Qualitative methods are subjective b. The quality of the results obtained under this method depends on the expertise and quality of the staff employed in risk assessment process. c. Determination of the value of an asset is limited. d. The method does not provide a basis for cost benefit analysis. 13. Allocation of a Fixed Budget in Response to the Assessed Risks When the budget is fixed the situation becomes more challenging. Therefore, the basic calculation in this case starts with identifying all the expensed, both fixed expensed and variable expanses. All those components whose cost does not vary easily will constitute fixed costs whereas variable expenses cover those costs that vary from time to time. The first priority is to consider the desires and needs of the business before allocating the fixed budget. Therefore, if all the expenses, fixed and variable are listed, it will be hard to leave a crucial component. Further, risks are classified according to their severity level. If the budget is fixed, then risks that are of high priority should be met first, followed by those of medium priority and finally those of low priority. There are those priorities set by the government and are a mandatory. This should be allocated first because they fall under high priority areas. For instance, government tax should be given priority in order to avoid penalties. References BILLINTON, R., & ALLAN, R. N. (1992). Reliability evaluation of engineering systems: concepts and techniques. New York, Plenum Press. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. (2007). PAS 79 Fire risk assessment: guidance and a recommended methodology. London, BSI. BS9999 (2005). Probabilistic Risk Assessment. CENTRE OF CHEMICAL PROCESS SAFETY (2001). Layer of Protection Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, NY. ČEPIN, M., & MAVKO, B. (1997). Probabilistic safety assessment improves surveillance requirements in technical specifications. Reliability Engineering & Systems Safety. 56, 69-77. CHIEF FIRE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION. (2006). Regulatory reform (fire safety) order 2005: a short guide to making your premises safe from fire. Wetherby, UK, Communities and Local Government Publications. CLG (2000). Fire Safety Toolbox, Communities and Local Government. GREAT BRITAIN. (2003). Five steps to risk assessment. Sudbury, Health and Safety Executive. JOHNSON, P. F. (2012). Fire safety engineering education - part of a certification framework. FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEERING. http://magazine.sfpe.org/content/fire-safety-engineering-education-part-certification-framework. JORDAN-CIZELJ, R., MAVKO, B., & KLJENAK, I. (2001). Component reliability assessment using quantitative and qualitative data. Reliability Engineering & Systems Safety. 71, 81-95. KLEIN, R. A. (1997). Monograph on risk assessment for the emergency services. [Leicester], Institution of Fire Engineers. Fire Protection Association, Risk Assessment for the Emergency Services. KREYSZIG, E. E. (2004). Advanced Engineering Mathematics, 8th Ed., Wiley & Sons, NY. NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION. (1962). Fire protection handbook. Boston, Mass, National Fire Protection Association. NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION, & SOCIETY OF FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEERS. (2002). SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering. Quincy, Mass, National Fire Protection Association. PICKFORD, J. (2001). Mastering Risk. Prentice Hall. RAMACHANDRAN, G. (1998). The economics of fire protection. London, E & FN Spon. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10054780. SUTTON, I. (2003). Process Hazards Analysis, Sutton technical Books. VOSE, D., & VOSE, D. (2000). Risk analysis: a quantitative guide. Chichester, Wiley. WELLS, G. L. (1996). Hazard identification and risk assessment. Rugby, Warwickshire, UK, Institution of Chemical Engineers. WONG, W. (2002). How Did That Happen? Engineering Safety and Reliability. Professional Publishing Ltd. WONG, W. (2002). How did that happen? Engineering safety and reliability. London Professional Engineering. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=99991. YUNG, D. T. L. (2008). Principles of fire risk assessment in buildings. Chichester, U.K., Wiley. Read More