Health, Safety and Environmental Management Risk Evaluation Strategy: Hazard Matrix Application Case Studies A. N. Haddad1, C.V. Morgado1, D. I. DeSouza2
1
2
Department of Construction Engineering, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Department of Production Engineering, North Fluminense State University, Campos dos Goytacazes, Brazil (
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected])
Abstract - This paper presents a risk evaluation and estimation methodology used for health, safety and environmental management prioritization strategies. Two case studies are presented and discussed throughout the usage of the Hazard Matrix. The Hazard Matrix is a risk management tool that promotes an organization’s global health and safety at work evaluation. Workers, plant sectors and the work flow are interrelated and the exposure to hazards and environmental agents are evaluated and estimated. Analysis and discussion of the application contribute to the risk management process and determine loss prevention investments. Two cases allow an enhanced comprehension of the model. Discussion on the model adequacy and comprehensiveness of a qualitative / quantitative approach to prioritize risk management investment are also addressed. Keywords - Hazard management, risk
matrix,
health
and
safety
I. INTRODUCTION The Health, Safety and Environmental - HSE Managers of any organization are constantly challenged to minimize the risks towards his productive processes Prioritization of actions is something always present. On the other hand shareholders need some form of guarantee showing their investments regarding health and safety at work are being effective. This is a difficult matter to verify, once this investmen’s expected result is something determined not to occur. Any event, accident or failure that as a consequence brings in return deaths, productivity losses or environmental accidents are undesired ones. In this management process one relates as necessary variable mapping and their relations, probabilistic parameters and classification of their impacts magnitude. The efficiency and efficacy of the implemented strategies should be evaluated in any company’s safety performance determination. The learning curve of this process of development of risk knowledge must followed by the company’s social body. Risk analysis most important techniques, like Preliminary Risk Analysis – PRA, Fault Tree Analysis – FTA, HAZOP and the Risk Matrix [1] are applied to discrete events to estimate parameters in a qualitative or quantitative form. Normally Health and Safety at Work aims at the identification of agents and factors of hazard in the workplace where one finds difficulties in the determination, as well as, low standardization for the
978-1-4244-2630-0/08/$25.00 ©2008 IEEE
1314
probabilistic factor and the gravity of consequences factor. With such a mixed pattern of hazards as noise, heat, ergonomic risks, fire and other accidents risk, environment risk, and their respective forms of estimation, comparison among them is a hard task. This becomes even worse inside a complex organization with several sectors and workers distributed around various production activities. It is necessary to consider that the level of exposition to each one of these agents and hazards has dimensions sufficiently differentiated. While the noise risk is the one that a worker is displayed depends on the intensity (gravity factor) and on the time of exposition (probability factor), that they are verified inside of the workplace; the fire risk, on the other hand, has its many causes originated in other processes and sectors and its impact reaches diverse other stages of the production flow throughout the company, being its probabilistic and gravity factors affected by dimensions of the extended accident. However, the HSE manager during the recognition phase, inspection or technical audit perceives, with his experience the weight of each estimate, which, if compared with a scale of normalized classification, will be able to analyze in a relative form the priority and convenience of each risk management strategy. This paper presents a methodology to approach this management activity regarding multiple hazards and agents of risks that operate in a production process. Two case studies of industrial plants in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil are presented and analyzed. II. HEALTH AND SAFETY MANAGEMENT According to [2], an international standard, occupational health and safety are “conditions and factors that affect the well-being of employees, temporary workers, contractor personnel, visitors and any other person in the workplace”. According to [3] and [4] risk management is “the culture, processes and structures that are directed towards realizing potential opportunities whilst managing adverse effects”. As we are dealing with Health and Safety at work and its risk management, this is going to be our main orientation towards this subject. Risk was always present in human activities. The perception of risk is something that is still evolving. From the primitive perception of risk came its understanding from its understanding comes its management. Workplace risks and hazards are, most of all, related to health and safety [5]. The Health and Safety Risk Management
Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE IEEM
Process uses several methodologies and a huge number of applicable tools. In this paper we will focus our attention in the Hazard Matrix application. For its appropriate usage it is mandatory to have a well structured database with all hazards identified, classified and ranked. Usually this is developed using Preliminary Hazard Analysis. In Brazil another methodology used to develop these databases is Hazard Mapping and Reporting. Both methodologies should lead to a very similar result. Differences are acceptable up to certain level.
exposition considering the contribution of all agents at a certain sector as: i= y
f Hj = ∑ M i ,1 ∗ N i , j , for 2 ≤ j ≤ x
(1)
i =1
j=x
f Si = ∑ M i ,1 ∗ N i , j , for 1 ≤ i ≤ y j =2
III. THE HAZARD MATRIX METHODOLOGY
1315
TABLE I HAZARD MATRIX Nr. of employees
The Hazard Matrix is a risk management tool that promotes an organization’s global evaluation in relation to health and safety at work. This methodology allows a general or global view of a company’s occupational risks. Determination of a Risk Ranking for all company’s sectors and their respective hazards is fundamental for a Health and Safety Action Plan development. The Hazard Matrix is developed by usage of a Risk Matrix as of in [6], [7] and [8] or a Hazard Mapping and Reporting, just like in [9], highlighting the relevant risks in a rank of critical order. Some of this works shows a very simple way of constructing the Risk Matrix some others develop a very complex development to achieve the matrix. In both cases the final usage of the matrix is quite similar. The Risk Matrix methodology ranks risks using factors such as probability of occurrence and the severity of the consequences. Risk is considered the multiplication of the values attributed to these factors. Normally these ranks determine classes for the severities of results and for the probabilities of occurrence, and their multiplication inside the Risk Matrix, will result in another boarding for the classes of risk. Hazard Mapping and Reporting methodology list physical, chemical, biological, ergonomics and accident hazards, or other classification adopted, and identify, rank and manage them, just like in [9]. All hazards listed are ranked as: no hazard, small hazard, medium hazard and high or elevated hazard. Determination of these factors is made by consensus among workers and specialists involved in this process. This work simulates several weights that will represent these factors inside the Relevance Matrix, resulting in different levels of prioritization when using the results of the methodology. The Hazard Matrix is constructed as a (i x j) table. Hazards are in columns and Sectors of the factory are in rows of the table. Each cell will have a graduation rank N according to the presence of a hazard agent in that sector. M is the number of workers present in each factory sector. Then we define mathematically the frequency of exposition to a determined risk as fAj, considering the contribution of all sectors and fSi as the frequency of
And the appropriate Hazard Matrix is presented as in the table below:
Sectors
A. The Hazard Matrix
(2)
S1 S2 S3 : : Sy
M1.1 M2.1 M3.1 : : My.1
Fh
. Ha
N1.2 N2.2 N3.2 : : Ny.2 Fh2
Hb
N1.3 N2.3 N3.3 : : Ny.3 Fh3
. ..
.... .... .... : : ....
Hx
N1.x N2.x N3.x
fs
fs1 fs2 fs3 : :
Ny.x Fhx
fsy
Hn: Hazard nr.
B. Hazard Classification Occupational hazards are classified in five main groups as: physical, chemical, biological, accidents and ergonomics. This is a relatively frequent classification in this field. And each group has several subgroups. TABLE II OCCUPATIONAL HAZARDS CLASSIFICATION Physical Chemical Biological Accidents Fall, Bacteria Dust, Heat, Crash, Virus Fumes, Cold, Unprotected Bacilli Gases, Abnormal tools and Protozoa Vapor, pressure, machines, Fungi Fog, Vibration, Fire, Mist, Noise, Explosion, Chemical Radiation, Inappropriate products. Humidity, equipment, Ionizing Inappropriate radiation, storage, Non ionizing Venom animals radiation.
Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE IEEM
TABLE IV HAZARD MATRIX – PHASE I
TABLE III HAZARD CONSEQUENCE CLASSIFICATION
Severity level
Description
G= 0
No agent found during evaluation period.
G= 1
Not a perceived action of the agent
G=3
Worker’s exposition to the agent below action level.
G=9
Worker’s exposition to the agent above action level.
1316
Physical
Chemical
Ergonomics
FS
%
S1
10
0
0
3
30
25.21
S2
5
3
0
9
60
50.42
S3
2
9
0
0
18
15.13
S4
1
1
9
1
11
9.24
FH
34
9
76
119
100
%
28.58
7.56
63.86
100
Sector
After the construction of the Hazard Matrix for one determined industry, plant, process or organization, the distribution of risks analysis for the diverse sectors and hazards proceed. The risk management strategy guides the investments to reduce the major risks of the organization. Table IV presents an example of Hazard Matrix of a company with four sectors and its distribution of employees Three hazards are identified and for the severity degree of each hazard, in each sector, is attributed a factor that evaluates the severity of the consequences, as none (G= 0), weak (G = 1), average (G = 3) or strong (G = 9) (see TABLE III). When the hazard comes from an agent who has a measureable intensity and it is possible to compare a regulatory rule of limit attributed by law or pertinent technique, we proceed as follows: The Matrix formed with the Myx elements (see TABLE I), constitutes in the distribution hazards and agents severity over the company’s sectors. TABLES IV and V are presented in different colors for the 9, 3 and 1 degrees. Calculating FH and FS according to previous equations (1) and (2) we will have the risk for each hazard and sector. Normalizing them, which means, dividing for the element fsy, we will have the parcel of percentile risks per hazard and sector. This distribution shows agents or hazards with higher weight, indicating or evidencing the programs (indicated for the greater agents rank) and projects (indicated for the greater sectors rank), that must be prioritized in its implementation throughout the organization. As an example, if the agent with higher percent of risks is noise, it means that actions aiming at the constitution of a Program of Auditory Protection, through interventions in the source of noise, adequate project of the Personal Protective Equipment, training and internal campaigns to sensitize for the importance of the auditory protection. These actions aim at reduction the intensity of this agent in more than a sector.
Nr of employees
C. Risk evaluation strategy
In the example of Table IV, the Hazard Matrix shows its concentration in Ergonomic agent (hazard), with a greater FH=76 (equivalent 63.86%) and in the S2 sector with a greater FS=60, (equivalent 50.42%). These percents of risks in each direction are accountable for more 50% of the associated risks of the organization. Strategies directed at these agents and sectors, investing in programs and projects, aim at the reduction of risks, least a not perceivable action of the agent with G=1, as it demonstrates Table V. Programs are directed to the whole organization, reaching diverse sectors with the focus in the reduction of the risk of a determined agent or danger. Projects are directed to sectors where different agents or hazards are displayed. Phase I of the Hazard Matrix finished (Table IV) with the implementation of related programs and projects a new scenario is devised as illustrated in TABLE V. In the new scenario the total percent of risks is distributed, where FH = FS, reduced from 119 to 49 due to the Programs and Projects carried through in Phase 1. In Phase 2, the focus of action, due to hazards, migrate for the physical agent, with 48.98%. Sectors S3 and S4 respectively with FS= 36.73 and FS=22.45, correspond to sectors that add more than 50% of the risks between the sectors. Considering that, as much for the criterion of greater percentile of agents (or hazards), or for the other criterion of greater percentile of risks per sectors, the risk management strategy, according to TABLE V, concentrates its focus in the S3 sector. After this strategy’s implementation the physical risks will be reduced. The third line of action will be the focused in the chemical risk concentrated in the S4 sector. These examples demonstrate how one can apply the Hazard Matrix to prioritize the risk management strategies and how investments in safety and health at work will be ranked in order to maximize the return of investment and
Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE IEEM
the perception of safety in organizations. V. CONCLUSION
Physical
Chemical
Ergonomics
FS
%
S1
10
0
0
1
10
20.41
S2
5
1
0
1
10
20.41
S3
2
9
0
0
18
36.73
S4
1
1
9
1
11
22.45
FH
24
9
16
49
100
%
48.98
18.37
32.65
100
Sector
Nr of employees
TABLE V HAZARD MATRIX – PHASE II
All examples and studies presented demonstrate how this simple qualitative management tool is capable of integrating hazards, agents and exposition factors in a single matrix. This method gives an overview of a company’s hazard load. Major risks’ mitigation strategies can be proposed throughout analysis of the Hazard Matrix, considering probabilistic factors, gravity of consequences factors and the differentiated nature of all hazards. These investments effectively contribute for companies’, as well as, governments, workers and society sustainability. ACKNOWLEDGMENT We wish to thank the State of Rio de Janeiro Research Foundation, Brazil – FAPERJ, for the financial support to this research. REFERENCES
IV. CASE STUDIES Two case studies are shown here, a Whitening Products Company and a Mechanic Precision Company. In a risk evaluation audit (Technical Audit) [5], [10] the Hazard Matrix had been constructed as TABLES VI and VII shows. Risk evaluation is based in qualitative methods, ambient conditions analysis (of all the sectors of the industry), the existing Risk Mapping [11] and interviews with the workers. Analysis of the Hazard Matrix (TABLE VI) the sectors, informed that sectors Plant of Bottles and Bottling have higher risks in relation to the other sectors. Heats, with 17.7%, Inadequate Noise with 16.8% and Position and Movement with 15.3% are, respectively, the programs with higher reach and effectiveness and the ones that will bring better results in the reduction of the total risks. The strategy to reduce the risks of Heat and Noise in the Plant of Bottles and Bottling and an Ergonomics Program for all the plant will bring a reduction in the total risk load of 332/1810 (18.3%). After the implementation of this strategy a new evaluation of risks, a new Hazard Matrix, will bring new indications of investment of health and safety at work. In the second case study, TABLE VII, the sectors of Precision Mechanics and Welding present the greatest load of risks in relation to the other sectors of the company. Noise (29.0%) and Fire and Explosion events (11.6%) are hazards with the greatest load of risks. The strategy to implement a Program of Auditory Protection and a Fire Protection System will be able to reduce the total load of risks of the industry in 80/310 (25.8%). In the first case study the severity degree distribution had greater relevance on the Matrix and in the second case study the sector with greater number of employees weighed more (Prec. Mech) in the total distribution of the risks in the Hazard Matrix.
1317
[1] G.L.L. Reniersa, W. Dullaertb, B.J.M. Alec,*, K. Soudana “Developing an external domino accident prevention framework: Hazwim,” in Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 18 (2005) 127–138 [2] British Standards Institution “Occupational health and safety management systems. Requirements: OHSAS 18001: 2007”, UK, 2007. [3] Institute of Risk Management “A Risk Management Standard”, AIRMIC; ALARM; IRM, UK, 2002. [4] Standards Australia AS/NZS 4360:2004 “Risk management”, Sydney, 2004. [5] A. N. Haddad, and D. I. De Souza, 2007, “An application of the Relevance Matrix methodology in occupational risk evaluation” Proc. of the IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, December 2-5, Singapore, 1873-1878. [6] A. N. Haddad, C. V. Morgado, and D. I. De Souza, 2007, “A case study on the integration of Safety, Environmental and Quality Management Systems” Proc. of the Industrial Engineering Research Conference, 2007, May 19-23, Nashville, Tennessee, 1190–1195. [7] A. N. Haddad and C. V. Morgado, “Relevance Matrix Methodology Application Discussion focused upon Decision Weights as an Enhanced Prioritization Model” Proc. of the Industrial Engineering Research Conference, 2008, May 1923, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 152–157. [8] A. S. Faia, A. G. Silva, D. M. Arruda F.P. Cardoso, K.R. A. [9]Nunes “Análise da gestão da função segurança em um industria de química fina”. Safety Engineering Monograph, Federal Univ. of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: 2000. [10 ]A. S. Gomes, E. D. S. Lourenço, E. V. Miranda, J. Santos, L. Maia Neto, R. C. Rezende “Análise dos aspectos relativos à segurança do trabalho de uma fábrica de produtos saneantes domissanitários, “água sanitária”e “Alvejante à base de cloro”. Safety Engineering Monograph, Federal Univ. of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: 2002. [11]A. E. M. Rosa, D. R. Lemes and J. J. Rodrigues Junior “Análise das condições de segurança e saúde da ZAMEC usinagem de precisão. Safety Engineering Monograph, Federal Univ. of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: 2004.
Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE IEEM
TABLE WHITENING PRODUCTS COMPANY HAZARD MATRIX Chem ical
Fire Risks
Environmental Risks
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
62
3,43
Bottling
19
3
3
3
3
3
3
9
1
589
32,54
Plant of Bottles
23
9
9
0
3
3
3
3
0
759
41,93
Distribution
32
1
1
0
3
1
0
0
1
224
12,38
Maintenance
8
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
176
9,72
Frequency
304
320
65
277
197
150
248
75
1810
100
%
16,8
17,7
15,3
10,9
8,3
13,7
4,1
100
34,4
100
34,5
26,2
%
Machines and Equipment
31
FS
Illumination
Administration
Sector
Hypochlorite
Position and Movement
Accidents
Heat
Ergonomics
Noise
Nr of employees
Physical
TABLE PRECISION MECHANICS COMPANY
Administration
3
3
1
0
0
1
Mechanics
7
9
1
1
1
3
Welding
1
9
3
3
3
3
Cleaning
1
3
1
0
1
1
CNC Project
2
3
1
0
1
1
90
16
10
14
29,0
5,2
3,2
4,5
Frequency %
30 9,7 19,4
34,2
1318
1 3 3 3 3 33 10,6
Fire and Explosion Risks
Electrical Installations
Dust and fumes
Welding fumes
Heat
Noise
Nr of employees
Sector
Accidents Ergonomics Illumination
Chemical
Physical
F S
%
1
24
7,74
3
203
65,48
9
39
12,58
1
14
4,52
1
30
9,68
36
310
100
11,6
100
32,2
100
