Introduction
To a certain extent it can be argued that a safety case is largely just a very complex form of one of the most maligned pieces of workplace literature, the risk assessment. Whilst this would be a rather flawed and limiting argument, it does hold some water and as such it is worth briefly looking at risk assessment, or more specifically hazards and how they affect what we do in the workplace.
In this section we will look not just at hazards, but also at risk assessment, why it is maligned, why they are often misused, and how they should be used properly.
By the end of this section you will be able to:
- Define and evaluate the terms hazard and risk
- Evaluate methods of classifying hazards
- Evaluate hazard identification methods
- Evaluate risk assessment techniques
Hazards and Risks
Put simply a hazard is something that can do harm. As can clearly be seen this is such a vague statement that it can include literally every item on (or off) the planet and every action that a human does or could undertake. In everyday life it is a word that tends to be able to be used interchangeably with the word risk. These are two reasons that can lead to the inappropriate use of risk assessments, which will be covered later in this section.
It is common to tend to think of hazards as something that is man-made, or caused by human activity, but natural hazards are just as important, if not more so. When undertaking any form of risk assessment, including writing safety cases, natural hazards must be considered as appropriate. For example, in the Tayside region of Scotland flooding is a natural hazard that should be considered in the safety case of a major infrastructure project, such as a building a road, due to its frequency. It would be inappropriate however to consider the risk of volcanic eruption (obviously) but equally it would not be necessary to consider the risk of flooding when writing the safety case for a new process that would be undertaken in factory that is located in an area of Tayside that has never been known to flood.
One thing that should be remembered when updating safety cases is that, since it was last checked, human activity may have increased, decreased or changed the character of a natural hazard. Tayside floods are again a useful example of this; the flood defences in Perth have reduced or removed the chance of Perth flooding, but have done so at the increased risk of flooding downstream in the Earn valley as shown in the image.
We must also remember that a hazard may not just do harm to a person but could cause harm to the environment or to property. As a slightly extreme example, chocolate is of not of harm to humans but is lethal to dogs, and so whilst it would not need to usually be considered, the presence of chocolate in a veterinary surgery is something that would need to be assessed and managed.
If this fairly effectively explains the definition of hazard, what then is a risk? Again, there is a simple definition here – risk is the chance that a hazard will cause harm, and in many ways, it is this that makes the risk more important.
Correctly controlled hazards should be of no concern, although it may still be necessary to discuss them within either the risk assessment or safety case (or both). Indeed, it is highly likely that a safety case will consider many hazards that are correctly controlled and as such carry no risk. In an ideal world, whatever the subject of the safety case, this would actually be the outcome for every risk, but of course this cannot be the case.
One thing that must be remembered when discussing risk is that it does not just refer to the chance of harm being done in some way to a human; risk can be in any one of several ways. From a business point of view, financial risk is often the major concern, but this cannot be the case when writing a safety case. If a task cannot be carried out profitably and safely then it is simply not a viable proposition and should not be carried out. There are other risks that should be considered though, the most obvious of which is environmental risk. As a worryingly common example, pouring used engine oil down a storm drain carries little or no immediate physical risk, but a significant environmental risk, and as such should not be carried out. A correct safety case should look not just at physical risk but also risks in the very broadest sense.
The difference between risk and hazard is helpfully discussed in this video from Scope Training:
EUFIC (the European Food Information Council) have also provided this handy infographic:
Categories of Hazard
Unsurprisingly, the very broad definition of what constitutes a hazard can make things a bit unwieldy, and it is useful to further breakdown hazards into a variety of categories or classifications. There are many different ways in which this can be done, and indeed are done, and it must be up to the writer of any document to decide which is the most appropriate method of categorisation.
In this subsection we will look at the most common method, which is probably also the most universally applicable method, but by no means is it the only method, nor is it the best. Other than the method we will look at in more depth, alternative options are:
- Natural/anthropogenic/technological
- Staff/visitors/public
- Minor/major/catastrophic
Each of these methods have their place, and it is a wise idea to select the most appropriate method for the case in hand. Of course, if no method seems to be appropriate it is possible to combine methods or even create a new method – it is more important to be correct than to stick to some notional plan, though the need for simplicity should also be borne in mind.
The method we will look at uses 6 classifications, each of which we will now look at in turn.
Biological
As would be expected, biological hazards are those hazards that come from things that are either living or have been alive in the past and have the ability to have a negative health impact.
The obvious example is viruses and bacteria, but this grouping also includes animals, vermin, blood or other bodily fluids.
It can include humans in certain specific contexts, but these are more commonly included in psychosocial hazards as described later.
This is the international Biohazard symbol, three crescents in a trefoil shape interlocked by a circle on a yellow background
Chemical
As would be expected a chemical hazard refers to a substance that is capable of causing harm. In the workplace we will tend to be referring to a synthetic substance, but a naturally occurring substance could be classified as a chemical hazard, for example crude oil is naturally occurring but is also a chemical hazard.
This is the EU approved symbol for toxic, a skull and crossbones on a white background in a red diamond square
Physical
Physical hazards are environmental hazards that can cause harm without necessarily being touched – for example excessive light or noise, radiation, pressure and so on.
They tend to be the group that are concentrated on the most as they tend to be the most obvious, but care should be taken when doing this as they are not necessarily the biggest hazard in the assessment zone. An obvious example here would be hospitals, where biological hazards would probably be more significant, but there are other less obvious examples.
For example, grave digging is a physical task that could easily cause musculoskeletal problems, but the greater danger to health, in terms of lethality, would be the biological hazard associated with graveyards.
A warning symbol meaning ensure guards are installed. A hand is reaching toward two interlocking gears and is prevented from doing so by a guard.
Safety
Note: Safety hazards can be included in the physical hazards category - it is down to the assessor to decide the most appropriate location.
Safety hazards are those that create unsafe working conditions, and are usually caused by wear and usage, for example damaged carpets or exposed wiring, but would also include items such as trailing compressed air lines or extension leads.
Image shows a trailing air line which is a classic trip hazard, it is protected by a sign intended to draw attention to the hazard thereby reducing the risk
Wikimedia / public domain
Ergonomic
These are hazards that stem from poor design or poor set up and tend to lead to musculoskeletal injuries. The classic examples are poor workstation set up, or poor manual handling technique.
These are an area of interest, as they are often the group that can be most easily designed out if picked up early enough, and if they cannot be they should (usually) be the group that can be most easily avoided by effective management, and yet they remain one of the largest causes of injury in the workplace.
Psychosocial
These are usually the most neglected group in the workplace, as there is a social stigma attached to their discussion, and in many workplaces they are felt to not be appropriate for risk assessment.
Unlike the other groups that tend to primarily affect physical health, this group tend to primarily affect mental health and well-being. Bullying and victimisation, sexual harassment and workplace violence – either physical or verbal – are all examples, but so is the much more commonly recognised stress.
One thing that should also be remembered is that stress is often caused by one of the other factors just mentioned, even if this is not recognised by the victim at the time (Martinelli 2019).
Risk Assessment
It is highly likely that the majority of us will have encountered some form of formalised risk assessments and may have even been responsible for the completion of them. It is certain that we have all undertaken some form of informal risk assessment – at its most extreme, simply deciding if it is safe to cross the road is a form of risk assessment. For this reason, this subsection will only very briefly look at risk assessment, primarily as a refresher. If further information is required, please contact your tutor who can point you in the direction of the appropriate UHI modules.
One area that is worth brief discussion however is why the phrase 'risk assessment' is one of the most maligned in the modern workplace; at least in the UK. There are a few possible reasons for this. Perhaps the most obvious is the fact that people who are tasked with carrying out formal risk assessment are usually not health and safety professionals, but more commonly those who are carrying out the work. In an engineering context this will often mean that the health and safety aspect is not considered the most interesting of the job. There is at least one very good reason for this, of course – namely the person carrying out the task is usually the best placed to identify the hazards and risks associated.
Another reason that is probably of greater import is the way in which risk assessments are used. Very often risk assessments are created because they have to be, not because they should be. This will can mean that they are written and then never – or rarely – looked at again. This feeds into the myth that they are simply a waste of time.
Finally, they can be used in an inappropriate way. A lack of understanding of the purpose of risk assessment can lead to risk assessments being written where no real hazard exists, and human nature will tend to mean that the person carrying out the risk assessment will find a spurious hazard as they feel they have to write something. Risk assessments are known to exist in the UK that declare the possibility of a computer key flying off and blinding the user, as a risk that needs to be genuinely considered and controlled. Statements of this sort also feed into the idea that they are a waste of time.
As such, risk assessment must be used properly to be effective and those who the risk assessment affects need to be given the opportunity to not just read and understand the risk assessment, but also feed into its creation and review it when they need to.
The HSE suggests 5 steps to risk assessment, namely:
- Identify the Hazards
- Identify who might be harmed and how
- Evaluate the risks and decide the appropriate precautions
- Record findings and implement them
- Review and update if necessary
These 5 stages are discussed in more depth by the RoSPA. Their discussion can be found here:
The HSE themselves also give significant advice on risk management which can be found by following this link:
Risk Matrix
A risk matrix is an extremely common tool used during the process of risk measurement to define the overall level of risk – usually on a numeric scale – by considering the likelihood of an event happening alongside the severity of the outcome. Standard risk matrices exist in certain specific contexts, but they tend to be created internally, although most are of a generic nature.
As a rule of thumb, the likelihood of an event is given a numeric value associated with one of 5 levels, and the severity of the outcome is also given a number based on one of 5 levels. These two values are then multiplied together to give an overall risk level of between 1 & 25. Possible likelihood levels along with their numeric value could be:
- Virtually impossible (1)
- Unlikely (2)
- May happen (3)
- Probable (4)
- Certain (5)
In terms of severity they could be:
- Minor (1)
- Insignificant (2)
- Significant (3)
- Severe (4)
- Catastrophic (5)
There are two common ways in which the matrix can be used. The first is to place each identified risk into the matrix and see what numeric value is associated with it. The other is to do the opposite and use a separate matrix for each risk. The first is more common due to its more streamlined nature, though using the second method can achieve a little more definition.
Risk matrices are extremely common, as they are fast and straightforward to use, and provide a clear and easily understood level of risk once completed.
However, they are not without their problems – some of which are rather severe and, as such, use of risk matrices should not be an automatic go to option when carrying out risk assessment. As with the majority of situations discussed in this course it is a matter of applying the most appropriate tool at the appropriate time.
Some significant problems that can be identified are:
- Poor resolution. It has been found that where risk matrices are used they only correctly and without ambiguity compare pairs of hazards 10% of the time, as they tend to assign the same numerical value to what are actual vastly different risks. This can be mitigated by extending the ranges beyond the usual 5 levels on each scale but cannot be removed.
- They have a tendency to assign higher ratings to what is a quantitatively smaller risk. If frequency and severity have negative correlation, then it is possible to end up with a worse than random allocation of risk value.
- Poor resource allocation. Because of the lack of granularity, allocation of risk-reducing resources can be assigned to reducing what is a qualitatively less significant risk, as it will apparently lower the overall risk of a plant or task by as large an amount as a more significant risk.
- As it is common to use risk matrices in situations where there is uncertainty around consequences, it is impossible to objectively categorise the severity in all situations. There is a significant amount of subjectivity required in both judgement of frequency and severity, which can lead to a risk being assigned a number that is significantly higher or lower than it should be. More worryingly, this can be done deliberately depending on the intention of the person carrying out the analysis.
- Arbitrary rankings. How risks are ranked depends on the design of the matrix, and the same risk can be assigned a different value depending on if an increasing or decreasing scale is used – which in theory should never happen.
Image shows a generic risk matrrix as recommended by the American Federal Aviation Authority. (click to enlarge)
Wikimedia / public domain
These significant problems show why it is necessary to use risk matrices with caution, and, if a risk is found that cannot be easily assigned to the matrix, then it would usually be better to assign a ranking to the risk based on the evidence and data available.
Methods of Hazard Identification
In 2000, the Health and Safety Laboratory (HSL) carried out a review of hazard identification techniques used by many organisations that would fall within the Control of Major Accident Hazards (COMAH) regulations of 1999, though it should always be remembered that COMAH has been updated since this time, for example in 2015. It is beyond the scope of this course to look at all of these in detail, but some of these will be looked at more carefully in the session entitled Fault Studies and Consequence Assessment, in particular Failure Modes and Effects Analysis and Failure Modes, Effects and Criticality Analysis.
However, a working knowledge of these other techniques is useful, and as such the full HSL document is can be found at the following link:
Finally, this 6-minute video from Optimal Safety Solutions in New Zealand explains a straightforward system that can be all that is needed in some situations and is more than adequate as a starting point in almost all others:
Summary
Having examined the differences between hazard and risk, the purpose, and some methods of risk assessment, and looked at methods of hazard identification, we are now in a position to look at some methods of hazard identification in more detail, and better placed to begin the process of writing a safety case, which will always start with identification of hazards and risks.
Risk assessment is a process that is undertaken on a regular basis – both formally and informally – and if done correctly is a powerful tool in the management of risk and in making the workplace safer, but if done incorrectly has the potential to either make no material difference, or more worryingly, make a task or plant appear safer than it actually is.
References
Martinelli, K., 2019. A Guide to the Most Common Workplace Hazards [online]. Available from https://www.highspeedtraining.co.uk/hub/hazards-in-the-workplace/ (25th February 2020)