Comments on Hazards and Risks

In Chapter 13, Comments on Hazards and Risks, I discussed the unlikelihood of having accurate numbers representing the probability of incident occurrence and the severity of their consequences in making hazards analyses and risk assessments. I suggested that safety professionals be wary of numerologists, and of scoring systems whose creators suggest that they are to be the ultimate factor on which decisions are based. 

In the first edition, there were separate chapters offering comments on hazards and risks. They have been combined into one chapter titled Comments on Hazards and Risks. ... 

Let us comment on the case where a safety specification is not available. Generally speaking, the lawgiver demands that the hazards and risks of the system are acceptable for all stakeholders. He requires that new systems should use state-of-practice technologies for achieving acceptable risks. Based on these principles often safety requirements are specified in standards. If standards are not available, necessary risk reduction measures can be derived from system analysis and quantitative or quahtative hazard and risk analysis (see e.g. lEC 61508). The hazard and risk analysis should consider all potential hazards, for instance, all stakeholders brainstorm on the basis of sufficient system knowledge. 

Lean Concepts Opportunities for Safety Professionals Applied lean concepts are to eliminate waste, improve efficiency, and lower production costs. Elements of waste that should be addressed in the lean process are the direct and ancillary costs of accidents. This chapter Discusses the origin of lean concepts and how broadly they are being applied Gives examples of lean applications in which hazards and risks were not addressed Comments on the opportunity for effective involvement in lean initiatives by safety professionals and Outlines a unique merging of lean and safety through design concepts. An Addendum offers A Simplified Initial Value Stream Map To Identify Waste (Muda) and Opportunities for Continuous Improvement (Kaizen). 

This chapter comments on the Management Review elements pertaining to Hazard identification Risk assessment and prioritization Progress made in risk reduction The effectiveness of procedures to eliminate or control identified hazards and risks Actions taken on the recommendations made in safety and health audits and The extent to which set objectives have been met. 

Comments on how some safety professionals are engaged in activities that lessen the probability of hazards and risks being brought into the woriqtlace... 

To obtain information on how safety professionals are involved in activities to avoid bringing hazards and risks into the workplace, a request for comments on the subject was made through an Internet safety server. Here are some of the responses, the most unfortunate listed first. As they are reviewed, safety professionals may want to assess their place in the design process and look for hints on how they can improve their positions. 

Comment on lean implementations in which hazards and risks were not addressed, the result being greater risks of injury and illness. 

Obtain comments from line operating personnel on their views on how the hazards and risks can be ameliorated, and their concerns. 

I will outline very briefly for you the guidelines, process and procedures used at Shell for risk assessment and risk response (30, (2 ). I will focus my comments on how we are beginning to deal, for example, with decisions concerning the acceptability of operating existing hazardous waste disposal facilities or when considering new waste handling facilities. 

The NRC document calls for hazard identification, dose-response assessment, exposure assessment, and risk characterization. In an effort to place descriptive experimental toxicity results in a clearer perspective and place more emphasis on evaluation, this outline deviates slightly from the NRC document and calls for hazard evaluation, hazard extrapolation, exposure assessment and risk characterization. In addition, a few comments on risk acceptability are given. Exposure assessments have been adequately discussed elsewhere in this symposium and will be discussed here only as they relate to hazard identification, evaluation, extrapolation and risk characterization. 

In spite of the above comments, the hazards analysis team will usually be asked to provide guidance on follow-up and the implementation of solutions. Proposed solutions must reduce the identified risk to an acceptable level, and they should be within the control of the persons involved. Solutions should also be cost effective. 

A communication accompanies the analysis, explaining the assumptions made and the rationale for them. Comment would be made on the assignment of responsibilities for the remedial actions to be taken, and when. An example of a preliminary hazard analysis worksheet appears as Addendum A in this chapter, courtesy of Sverdrup Technologies, Inc. This form requires entry of severity, probability, and risks codes before and after countermeasures are taken. 

In the six years since the second edition of On the Practice of Safety was published, several developments have taken place that require or propose that hazards be recognized and analyzed in the design process and that risk assessments be made toward achieving an acceptable risk level. Safety practitioners—pay attention. Comments on some of those developments follow. 

There are several software products available that assist in making hazards analyses and risk assessments. Comments follow on a select few. 

Comment more thoroughly on the hazard analysis and risk assessment provisions in several standards and guidelines. 

In that text, the discussion of each step is extensive. Comments will be made here on the first two only. The remaining steps are addressed in Chapter 12, Hierarchy of Controls The Safety Decision Hierarchy. For Step 1,—Identify the hazards—the hazard analysis and risk assessment methodologies are as shown in Table 2. 

In ANSI/ASSE Z590.3—2011, the Prevention through Design standard, Addendum G comments on only eight hazard analysis and risk assessment techniques, intentionally. They are Preliminary Hazard Analysis, What-If Analysis, Checklist Analysis, What-If Checklist Analysis, Hazard and Operability Analysis, Failure Mode and Effects Analysis, Fault Tree Analysis, and Management Oversight and Risk Tree (MORT). It was also said in Z590.3 that ... 

An expert panel at MF.P reviews the report and comments on suitable risk control measures. The expert panel also classifies new chemical substances as general new chemical substances or hazardous new chemical substances. The criteria for these classifications are not readily apparent, although hazardous substances reportedly include PBT substances [143]. Once a new substance is registered, the amended Provisions require that local environmental protection authorities supervise and inspect the manufacture, processing, and use of the chemical substances and report any problems to a higher authority [143,146). 

This report was chartered to provide DHS with guidance in making science and technology investments, especially research investments, aimed at protecting the nation from risk or hazard due to its chemical infrastructure. Because of this, the report focuses on answering the first of these three questions and provides limited comments on the other two. 

---