Risk Assessment of JB-Firth Building - Essay Example

Risk Assessment of JB-Firth Building (Student Name) (Course No.) (Lecturer) (University) (Date) Risk Assessment of JB-Firth Building Introduction University of Central Lancashire constructed a new academic building meat to re-house the School of Forensic and Investigative Sciences known as JB Firth Building majorly comprising of the staff offices, research, and teaching laboratories with inclusion of fire laboratories. The aim of the paper is to develop a report on risk assessment processes, steps, and the significance of the report to the risk manager. Considering the activities within the building, it is susceptible to various fire incidences; therefore, it is critical to undertake a pre-analysis of the risks to assist in the reduction of risks magnitude should there be occurrences. The aim of the report is to ensure maximum protection of both the students and the working staff. A good management of the safety measures is critical to ensure that the hazards are unlikely to occur; should they occur, there is a need to control or contain them quickly, safely, and effectively. For example in cases of fire, people should be in a position to escape from the premises to places of total safety easily and quickly. This report on risk assessment would assist in ensuring that the building’s fire safety procedures, prevention measures, and precautions are in place and working effectively. The risk assessment would also assist in identifying the issues that require immediate attention. Risk Assessment Process Risk assessment involves organized and methodological processes that analyze the building’s activities to establish the likelihood of risk occurrence and the causes of harm to those within and around the building. The aim of risk assessment is assist in identification of the hazard, reduction of the risk of the hazards causing harm to as low as reasonably practicable, and deciding on the physical precautions and management arrangements considered critical to ensure the safety of the people within the premise. This risk assessment report will assist in the determination of the chances of risk occurrence and dangers associated with such on the people using the building and those in the immediate vicinity. The assessment method used for the JB-Firth Building shares similar approach used in the general health and safety legislations that can be carried as a general part of risk assessment or a separate exercise. While undertaking the risk assessment, the legislations encourage the use of checklists to ensure coverage of all the components (Akc̜akaya, Stark, & Bridges, 2008, 101). The assessment would involve practical and systematic method to ensure adequate allocation of time; it would cover the entire building with inclusion of the outdoor locations, the rooms, and the rarely used areas. The building is in multi-use complex; therefore, the information on hazard and risk reduction will be applicable. However, any alteration by the university would have to consider the overall safety arrangements within the building. Risk assessment involves a series of steps: Identification of the fire hazard For any fire hazard to occur, three important factors are critical: the source of ignition, fuel, and oxygen. If any of the factors misses, then fire cannot start. Therefore, while considering to reduce the risks associated with fire occurrences, risk managers need to take adequate of preventing the three factors from coming together which also reduce the chances of fire occurring. Identification of the ignition sources To identify the potential causes of ignition within the building, the risk manager should look for possible sources of heat, which could get hot enough to ignite the materials found within the building. Considering the fact that building would have laboratory room, it would have several flammable materials with the ability of causing the ignition. There are possible causes of ignition within the building. This may result from electrical or gas-fired heaters used in the rooms or laboratory for heating, hot processes such welding within the nearby workshops and utilization of the Bunsen burners, the cooking equipment, flues and filters, and hot ducting from the refectories, canteens, and food technology areas near the laboratory. Other possible causes of ignition that risk managers need to consider are the naked flames; such the gas or liquid-fuelled open-flame equipment, poor electrical installations and overloads and heating from the bunched cables, and misuse of electrical equipment and chemical agents within the laboratory (Dallas, 2006, 132). Light fittings and light equipment associated with halogen and display lighting, the central heating boilers, and hot surfaces and obstruction of the ventilation of equipment could as well be possible ignition sources. There are possible factors that might assist in identifying the hazards, which the risk managers would otherwise not notice. These factors involve indications of the near-misses including discolouring and charring of the electrical plugs and sockets, the scorch marks on the furniture, and burns from the cigarette. Identification of fuel sources Considering the nature of the building, there are several possible fuel sources that the risk managers need to consider. Anything that burns can cause fire. Therefore, the managers should look at the things that will burn reasonably easily and are in enough quantity of providing the fuel for fire or causing it to spread across the building through sources of fuel (Stamatis, 2014, 164). The possible fuel sources in the building include the flammable liquids used as solvents and adhesives used in the workshops and laboratories, flammable chemicals including the chemicals used within the laboratory, the cleaning products, and flammable gases used in the laboratories and serviced spaces including the liquefied petroleum gas. The risk manager needs to consider the displays of teaching materials, computer equipment, and decorations. Moreover, the materials used in lining the walls and ceilings also require considerations, as they are likely to contribute to the spread of fire. Identification of the sources of oxygen In most setups, the major source of oxygen that causes fire is the environmental air. Within an enclosed building, there is a need to sufficient ventilation systems in use, which fall into different categories: the natural flows through the doors, windows, and other openings and the mechanical air conditioning and handling systems. The building has a combination of both systems; therefore, the rooms are able to introduce and extract sufficient amount of air to and from the building. The additional oxygen sources can be found in the materials stored or used within the building. Since laboratory will be in one of the rooms, some chemicals, especially the oxidizing agents, are likely to be the sources of oxygen as they provide fire with additional oxygen and assist with the burn (Munns, Luong, Rew, & Great Britain, 2002, 154). The risk manager needs to identify such chemicals with the containers. Another source is the oxygen supply from the cylinders storages and piping systems used in the laboratory and other rooms for welding and chemical associated processes and pyrotechnics used in fireworks that contain oxygen containing materials and needs to be treated with proper care. Identification of the people at risk The aim of risk assessment is to assist in earlier identification of the hazards and develop the strategies of preventing the negative effects, especially on the people. Therefore, as part of the assessment, it is critical to determine the people at risk should there be an occurrence. To identify the people at risk, there is need to determine the locations of the staffs and students whenever they are within the building. There is also the need to consider that other people likely to be at risk such as the members of the public, constructors visiting the building, and place these people are likely to be. There is a need to consider the population in the building but pay attention to people who might be especially at risk. The include the students operating with unsupervised areas of the building, the students with language problems, the workers working in isolated areas such as security staffs and cleaners (MacDonald & United States, 2004, 178). The assessment also needs to consider the visitors and members of the public unfamiliar with the building, people with disabilities with inclusion of those with mobility, vision, and hearing impairment. Besides, people often have different reasons for not leaving the premises quickly if a hazard occurs. Others to consider are those near the building. While evaluating the risk to people with disabilities, it is critical to discuss their individual needs. Evaluation, removal, reduction, and protection from the risk The management of the building and the manner in which people use it might have a significant effect on evaluation. JB-Firth is a multi-occupied building; therefore, there is need to ensure adequate corporation of those using the premise and the need for consideration of the risks generated by the others using the building. Evaluation of the risk occurring Buildings with few ignition sources and combustible materials often have low chances of fire starting. Fire might start in different ways: accidentally and act or omission. Accidental causes involves poor extinguishing of the heat sources without the knowledge of the user while an omission act such improper maintenance of the office electrical equipment or accumulation of the wastes near the sources of heat or deliberate actions by the arsons attack which involves setting fire to an external rubbish bins which close to the building. Therefore, the risk managers need to critically look at the premise and identify the accidents waiting to happen or any act that could lead to the occurrence (Ludhra, 2014, 142). In most school setups, arson is the particular cause of fire on top of the list. Besides, 85% of the property losses in schools occur due to fire effects. Evaluation of the risk to the people Upon identification of the people at risk and the chances of fire occurring, it is unlikely to conclude that there is no chance of fire occurring within the building. Therefore, it is critical to evaluate the actual risk to the people should there be fire occurrence and spread across different locations identified by the risk manager. While determining the possible causes of the incidents, the assessor would have to consider the likelihood of any risk in particular; however, there is need to be aware that some risks very unlikely incidents, which could put many people at risk. To evaluate the risk to the people within the building, there is need to understand the manner in which the fire spread: convection, conduction, and radiation. Removing or reducing the hazards After identifying the fire hazards, there is, need to remove the identified hazards if reasonably practicable to do so. If the hazards are not removable, then the university needs to consider adequate steps of reducing them. This is a critical part of risk assessment, which requires prioritization before any other action. The assessors need to ensure that any actions taken to remove or reduce the risk are not substituted by other hazards. Removing or reducing the sources of ignition There are several methods of reducing the risks caused by the potential sources of ignition including replacement of the naked flames and radiant heaters within the laboratories and offices with fixed converter heaters or the central heating systems and strictly controlling the hot processes undertaken by the students in the laboratories. Whenever possible, there is need to replace the potential ignition sources with safer alternative. These include taking adequate precautions to prevent arsons, adequate maintenance of the electrical, mechanical, and gas equipment installed in the building, ensure efficient operation of smoking policy within designated areas, provision of sufficient ashtrays, and separating ignition hazards and combustible. Removing or reducing the sources of fuel There are various ways of reducing the risks associated with materials and substances, which burn. These methods include reduction of the stocks for the flammable materials and gases on display. The university needs to keep the remaining stock within the storage areas far from the public and keeping the minimum required for educational purpose (Joint Commission Resources, 2002, 97). Moreover, the university could reduce the amount of combustible display materials within the laboratory corridors and circulation spaces; removing, covering, and treating highly combustible ceiling linings to reduce the spread of the flames, avoid keeping the flammable solids, liquids, and gases together. Appropriate method for risk analysis Failure Mode Effect Analysis (FMEA) FMEA is a systematic and qualitative tool that utilizes spreadsheet programme to assist the practitioners to anticipate what might go wrong during product production or processes. Besides identifying how the product or process might fail of the effects of such failures, the tool also assists in finding the possible causes of the failures and the likelihood of detecting them before they occur (Flaus, 2013, 164). The university could use FMEA in analyzing the potentially reliable problems during the early development cycle, which makes it easy to take immediate action in mitigating the failures. While conducting an FMEA, the process commences with the description of the activity (analysis of JB-Firth Building), involved processes, and functions. Such understanding allows for simplification of the processes that require analysis by assisting the practitioners to identify the processes that fall within the required function and those that fall outside. It is crucial to mention both intentional and unintentional uses since most failures often end litigation, which to some extent might be costly and time-consuming. For every process input, it is significant to start with, the high-value inputs and determine the methods in which such inputs can go wrong the failure mode. Most practitioners at this stage prefer preparation of the block diagram of the identified products and processes. The diagram should show the major components or steps of the processes indicating their relationships and establish the structure around which the model is developed. The step also involves establishing the coding system to assist identify the elements of the system. For every failure mode, it is crucial to determine the effects. However, there has to be selection of a severity level for every determine effect. Upon identification of the effects, the practitioner should determine the potential causes of every failure. At this stage, it is also significant to select the occurrence level for every identified case. If the institution has the control measures, then it should list them against every identified case (Li, 2005, 122). For every control measure, there has to be a detection level against each cause before calculation of the Risk Priority Number (RPN). The next stage is the development of the recommended actions that would assist in mitigating the impacts and assign an effective and responsible person to ensure the implementation of the recommended actions. Since every identified cause has risk level, it is crucial to give priority to those with high RPNs. Nonetheless, the whole process must look at severities rated 10. The final stage involves assigning the predicted severity, occurrences, and detection level before making various comparisons of the RPNs. Figure 1: FMEA Process Results Structuring and Presentation Upon identification of the processes taking place in the building and associated potential risks, the results would be presented on FMEA spreadsheet, which offers an effective method of analyzing the risk. The spreadsheet requires extensive analysis of the risks, calculation of the RPN, and establishment of the actions that the university needs to consider to reduce the impact of the identified risks.                                     FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS       Item:   Responsibility:   FMEA number:   Model:   Prepared by:   Page :   Core Team:   FMEA Date (Orig):   Rev:                                     Process Function Potential Failure Mode Potential Effect(s) of Failure Sev Class Potential Cause(s)/ Mechanism(s) of Failure Occur Current Process Controls Detec RPN Recommended Action(s) Responsibility and Target Completion Date Action Results Actions Taken Sev Occ Det RPN                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Benefits of FMEA to the risk manager The report produced after the analysis of the report is critical to the risk managers, as it would assist in reducing the effect of potential hazards. FMEA is designated to assisting the risk mangers in improving the quality and reliability of the designs, which in this case would reduce fire-associated risks. Proper utilization of the report might assist the risk managers to reduce or eliminate the possible causes of fire. These benefits include improvements in reliability and quality of processes within the building, increment in the satisfaction of people using the building, earlier identification and elimination of the potential failure modes that might cause fire, and prioritization of the deficiency in processes. Moreover, FMEA encourages prevention of the problem, which might assist in reducing negative effect associated with risk occurrence, proper documentation and actions taken to reduce the risk, and minimization of the late changes that could be costly to the university. References Akc̜akaya, H. R., Stark, J. D., & Bridges, T. S. 2008. Demographic toxicity: Methods in ecological risk assessment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dallas, M. 2006. Value and risk management: A guide to best practice. Oxford: Blackwell Pub. Flaus, A. 2013. Risk Analysis: Socio-technical and Industrial Systems. Somerset: Wiley. Great Britain. 2006. Fire safety risk assessment. London: Dept. for Communities and Local Government. Joint Commission Resources, Inc. 2002. FMEA: A proactive approach to reducing errors. Oakbrook Terrace, IL: Joint Commission Resources. Li, W. 2005. Risk assessment of power systems: Models, methods, and applications. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press. Ludhra, S. 2014. Common sense guide to fire safety and management. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge/Taylor and Francis. MacDonald, G. J., & United States. 2004. Unexploded ordnance: A critical review of risk assessment methods. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Munns, P. A., Luong, Y., Rew, P. J., & Great Britain. 2002. Fire risk assessment for workplaces containing flammable substances. Great Britain: HSE. Stamatis, D. H. 2014. Introduction to risk and failures: Tools and methodologies. Boca Raton: CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group. Read More