osh assist

Qualitative Risk Assessment in Water Bottling Production: A Case Study of Maan Nestlé

Pure Life Factory

Diana Rbeht* , Mohammed S. El-Ali Al-Waqfi , Jawdat Al-Jarrah

Fire and Safety Engineering Department, Prince Al-Hussein Bin Abdullah II Academy of Civil Protection, Al-Balqa Applied

University, P.O. Box 206, Al Salt 19117, Jordan

Corresponding Author Email: [email protected]

Copyright: ©2023 IIETA. This article is published by IIETA and is licensed under the CC BY 4.0 license

(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

https://doi.org/10.18280/ijsse.130605 ABSTRACT

Received: 27 August 2023

Revised: 8 October 2023

Accepted: 31 October 2023

Available online: 25 December 2023

A comprehensive qualitative risk assessment (QRA) was conducted at the Maan Nestlé

Pure Life factory, encompassing its production, storage, and bottling sections. Through a

meticulous review of records, analysis of activities, and examination of work procedures,

potential hazards within the factory were identified and subsequently categorized using

the risk matrix technique. In total, seventeen hazards were identified, of which seven were

deemed high risk, eight medium, and two low. This assessment underscores the

imperative for measures aimed at risk control, reduction, or elimination. The QRA's

qualitative approach, while effective in broad hazard identification, may have led to an

incomplete hazard inventory. Nonetheless, it proved instrumental in pinpointing safety

hazards and informing the development of robust safety policies. These policies integrate

considerations of human behavior and equipment failure, focusing on preserving product

quality while safeguarding the business and its operators. Despite the presence of an

unsafe workplace, the study revealed that the need for new infrastructure is non-essential.

Instead, a series of modifications are recommended, including the replacement of

defective roofs, installation of electrical rolls and lifts, segregation of chemical storage,

personnel training, and various ergonomic and procedural adjustments. The study further

advocates for a subsequent phase of analysis utilizing quantitative techniques such as fault

tree analysis. This is particularly pertinent for hazards requiring specific root cause

identification, enabling the determination of necessary safety controls to address these

root causes and prevent hazard occurrence.

Keywords:

hazard, risk, risk matrix, QRA, risk rating

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Basics and definitions

In industrial facilities, safety is a paramount concern,

primarily due to the risks of workplace fatalities and injuries

resulting from inadequate safety measures and the absence of

robust Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems.

In the Jordanian labor market, as reported by Jordan Labor

Watch, occupational injuries are recorded every 25 minutes,

with a work-related death occurring every two days. Estimates

from the Social Security Corporation indicate approximately

20,000 work accidents annually, equating to a rate of 11.7

injuries per 1,000 individuals. The industrial sector accounts

for approximately 25.3% of all work-related fatalities, with the

wholesale and retail trade sector contributing to 17.7%.

Furthermore, the industrial sector experiences 31.6% of total

work injuries, followed by the health and social work sector at

22.0%. Notably, almost half of all occupational injuries befall

workers under 30 years of age, underscoring the imperative for

heightened awareness and specialized training to safeguard the

health and safety of younger workers [1].

Safety, as a discipline, aims to minimize the loss of life and

property attributable to accidents as much as possible [2].

Workplace incidents not only affect workers but also have

adverse financial implications for employers. The costs

associated with an accident can manifest in various forms,

including salary expenditures, productivity losses, retraining,

compensation payments, repairs, and medical expenses.

Like any industrial sector, the water bottling industry faces

occupational hazards at various stages, including production,

storage, and distribution. The industry predominantly employs

automated processes, supplemented by some manual handling

and repetitive tasks performed by workers. Consequently, this

environment presents multiple workplace hazards, including

ergonomic challenges, mechanical design issues, physical

activity demands, chemical exposures, and psychosocial

stressors. As a result, factory workers in this sector are more

vulnerable to occupational morbidities and fatalities due to

these heightened workplace risks.

Globally, the International Labor Organization (ILO)

estimates that approximately 2.78 million individuals

succumb annually to occupational diseases or job-related

accidents. Furthermore, around 374 million non-fatal injuries

occur each year, leading to a minimum of four days of work

missed per injury. The economic implications of substandard

workplace safety and health practices account for about 3.94

percent of the global gross domestic product annually [2]. Yet,

International Journal of Safety and Security Engineering Vol. 13, No. 6, December, 2023, pp. 1025-1038

Journal homepage: http://iieta.org/journals/ijsse

1025

the human toll of this frequent adversity is incalculable.

Risk, in this context, is the possibility or likelihood of harm

resulting from exposure to a hazard. However, Kaplan and

Garrick [3] describe risk as uncertainty coupled with potential

damage or loss, while safety is defined as being protected from

possible harm. The Society for Risk Analysis (SRA) [4]

characterizes risk as “The potential for realization of unwanted,

adverse consequences to human life, health, property, or the

environment”. Conversely, risk assessment involves the

identification, analysis, and evaluation of hazards [3].

The risk assessment process is integral to occupational

health and safety management plans, serving to heighten

employee awareness of potential workplace hazards and risks

[5]. This process is methodical and recurring, commencing

with the identification of risks and risk factors capable of

causing harm. It then progresses to the analysis and assessment

of the risks associated with these identified hazards,

culminating in the determination of appropriate measures for

risk elimination or control. The selection of strategies to

minimize or eradicate these risks is contingent upon the nature

of the risk in question [6].

Effective risk management begins with risk assessment.

When a company employs five or more individuals,

conducting and documenting a risk assessment becomes a

legal obligation [7]. In response to this requirement,

companies often develop informative tools to facilitate risk

assessments. According to HSE [8], the fundamental

components of successful risk management systems include

policy, organization, planning and implementation,

performance measurement, and review. The techniques

employed in risk assessment are pivotal in establishing

priorities and setting objectives for the elimination of hazards

and the reduction and control of risks in health and safety

management [9].

1.2 More on the concepts

Comprehending risk assessment necessitates a clear

understanding of the concepts of hazard, risk, and safety. A

hazard is defined as any potential source of harm; it may pose

a threat to people, organizations, or the environment. For

instance, a wet floor constitutes a hazard. Hazards are diverse

and can encompass physical hazards, which are factors

capable of causing harm (like a spill on the floor or constant

loud noise), and chemical hazards, which include harmful

chemical substances in any form (such as cleaning products or

asbestos) [8]. When conducting risk assessment, various

methods are employed to identify hazards and assess their

potential effects [3]. Statistics from social security reveal that

falls constitute the most common type of work injury,

accounting for 28.03 percent of total injuries. This is followed

by incidents involving manual labor tools, which represent

11.9 percent of injuries, and injuries resulting from falling

objects at 9.68 percent. Additionally, the data indicate that

road accidents are the leading cause of injury-related deaths,

responsible for 46.8 percent of total fatalities, followed by

incidents involving explosions, fires, and falls [1].

Risk is defined as the likelihood of the occurrence of a

harmful event and the severity of the resultant harm. For

example, the risk associated with slipping on a wet floor

encompasses both the probability of the slip occurring and the

potential consequences of such an event [9]. The interplay

between probability and consequences can significantly

impact individuals' daily activities, as well as their

professional and personal decision-making processes [10]. An

alternate perspective on risk considers it as the probability that

a hazard will adversely affect individuals, organizations, or the

environment, coupled with the potential outcomes of the

hazard’s occurrence. A risk is deemed low when the likelihood

of the event happening is minimal, and its impact is considered

mild. Conversely, the risk is considered high if there is a high

probability of the event occurring and the potential effects are

severe. It is important to note that while a hazard is a

prerequisite for risk, the presence of a hazard invariably

implies some level of risk [9].

Safety involves determining whether a risk is sufficiently

low to be considered safe or high enough to be deemed

harmful. Safety assessments, which may vary in their

conclusions, can be conducted either individually or by

governmental organizations [9]. Risk assessment, therefore, is

a process enabling safety teams to identify hazards, assess the

likelihood and severity of hazardous events, and then

determine necessary actions. As a distinct concept, risk

management is a dynamic, continuous process encompassing

hazard identification, analysis, mitigation measures, and

response to risk factors. While risk assessment is focused on

detecting hazards and analyzing all potential hazards and risks

in the workplace, it is a component of risk management.

Essentially, risk assessment involves hazard identification,

analysis, and evaluation. The responsibility for hazard

identification typically lies with managers and senior

employees who possess knowledge about various workplace

hazards and risks. These hazards might include fires, chemical

exposures, data breaches, and other incidents capable of

harming people and property. The associated risks could

pertain to health, safety, or quality. Risk analysis, a crucial part

of risk assessment, delves into the consequences of identified

hazards and their impact on work sustainability. Following this,

risk evaluation involves categorizing risks based on their

severity and likelihood. To facilitate this, risks can be ranked

using a risk assessment matrix.

1.3 Types of risk assessments

In any workplace, the types of risk assessments conducted

should be proportionate to and aligned with the operational

activities being carried out. The choice of risk assessment

method depends on the frequency of occurrence and the

factors that trigger the need for such assessments [7].

Generally, risk assessments can be categorized into two

primary types based on these considerations [4]. The first type

is the standard risk assessment, which is routinely conducted

at regular intervals. This form of assessment is a foundational

element of ongoing safety management, providing a consistent

review of potential risks within the workplace. The second

type, known as dynamic risk assessment, serves to address any

gaps identified in the standard risk assessment. It is typically

implemented when new hazards are introduced or identified in

the workplace, ensuring that emerging risks are promptly and

effectively managed [11].

Standard risk assessment encompasses five prevalent types.

The first is a fire risk assessment, which systematically

evaluates factors related to fire hazards, the likelihood of a fire

occurring, and the potential consequences should one arise

[12]. Manual handling assessments are crucial in sectors like

healthcare, agriculture, manufacturing, and construction,

recognized for high-risk manual handling activities due to

their frequency and nature. Display Screen Equipment (DSE)

1026

assessments are required in workplaces where employees use

computers, LCDs, etc. [5], and are also applicable to tablets,

smartphones, and laptops [7]. COSHH (Control of Substances

Hazardous to Health) assessments focus on hazards and risks

from hazardous substances in the workplace. Lastly, complex

risk assessments are necessary for larger-scale systems, such

as nuclear power plants or meteorological systems, which

involve intricate interactions between mechanical, electronic,

nuclear, and human elements [11]. In contrast, dynamic risk

assessment is utilized to address any gaps left by standard risk

assessments or in response to the introduction of new hazards

in the workplace [11]. Dynamic risk assessment involves

analyzing workplace risks and hazards and implementing

controls to reduce or eliminate them. However, sudden

changes in the work environment, such as the introduction of

new hazards, necessitate this form of assessment [12].

Dynamic Risk Assessments enable safety professionals to

quickly evaluate risks in changing environments, ensuring

continued safe work practices. While standard risk

assessments are prepared in advance, recorded, and regularly

monitored, dynamic risk assessments are conducted on the

spot by individuals as they encounter new environments or

changes within them.

Furthermore, the implementation of a dynamic risk

assessment does not negate the necessity for a standard risk

assessment. Rather, the dynamic risk assessment serves as a

complement to the standard risk assessment, addressing any

unforeseen gaps or nuances that the latter may not have

anticipated [11]. It is incumbent upon those responsible for

safety to conduct a dynamic risk assessment prior to

encountering any new situation or environment. Essentially, as

circumstances evolve, it is imperative for the safety team to

continually reassess risks and hazards, adapting their approach

to ensure the utmost safety and hazard mitigation.

1.4 The implementation of risk assessment

The risk assessment process is designed to evaluate the

likelihood and severity of potential harm. This process

encompasses five sub-processes: hazard identification, risk

analysis, risk evaluation, risk control, and assessment review,

with the provision for reassessment if necessary. Hazard

identification involves scrutinizing processes and work

procedures to identify conditions that could potentially harm

people. In the stages of risk analysis and risk evaluation,

assessors determine the probability of each hazard occurring

and the severity of its potential consequences. Risk evaluation

also facilitates the ranking of hazards based on their risk

ratings. Risk control, on the other hand, focuses on identifying

measures to eliminate hazards, either by preventing their

occurrence or, if that is not feasible, by controlling the risk.

This stage includes documenting the findings of the

assessment. The final stage involves revising control plans,

making improvements, and implementing administrative

actions to ensure a healthy and safe working environment [6].

The ISO-IEC 31010:2019 standard outlines the steps involved

in hazard identification and risk assessment. Published as a

dual-logo standard with ISO, it offers guidance on the

selection and application of various techniques for assessing

risk in diverse situations. These techniques aid decision-

making in scenarios with uncertainty, provide insights about

specific risks, and are part of a broader risk management

process. The standard provides a framework for organizations

to identify, assess, and manage risk, applying to various

contexts and industries. It aims to assist organizations in

making informed decisions about risk management and in

developing risk management strategies tailored to their unique

needs and circumstances [12].

Several categories of risk evaluation methods exist to

estimate individual components of risk accurately, aiming to

reflect reality more effectively. These categories include

qualitative, quantitative, and semi-quantitative risk

assessments. The choice among these types depends on the

specific circumstances and the availability of data. In certain

situations, it is feasible to implement more than one type of

assessment.

QRA is the most prevalent among these types. In QRA,

either an individual or a team can collect the necessary

information to conduct the assessment. This method is

particularly useful when numerical data are scarce or when

resources and records are limited.

QRA is primarily utilized for workplace risk assessments.

In this approach, the experience and knowledge of the assessor

play a pivotal role. The process involves not only reviewing

relevant data but also consulting employees and laborers who

are directly involved in the work activities. This consultation

is critical for making informed decisions about the potential

and severity of risks, followed by categorizing these risks into

levels such as high, medium, or low. A key feature of QRA is

its assignment of numerical values to different levels of risk,

enabling the computation of a risk rating. This rating is

typically calculated as the product of the severity and

likelihood of a given risk. Consequently, QRA is particularly

suited for workplace environments, where it aims to determine

the likelihood of someone being at high, medium, or low risk

of injury. The assessment involves an evaluation of the

severity of potential consequences and the probability of their

occurrence, without relying on quantitative tools. QRA is a

systematic examination of workplace factors that may cause

harm. It facilitates decision-making regarding the adequacy of

existing precautions and controls, and whether additional

measures are necessary to mitigate identified risks [13].

QRA does not inherently involve numerical data, qualitative

expressions are often quantified to estimate the Risk Rating

(RR), which represents the product of severity and potential.

In QRA, numbers are typically assigned to the severity and

likelihood or potential of a consequence, ranging from 1 to 5.

The five levels of severity are categorized as insignificant,

minor, moderate, major, and catastrophic. Similarly, the

likelihood of consequences is classified into five categories:

rare, unlikely, possible, likely, and certain [8].

Constructing a risk assessment matrix involves placing the

likelihood or potential on the abscissa and the severity on the

ordinate. This yields a 5×5 matrix, with each element

representing the product of severity and likelihood. The

magnitude of these elements reflects the risk rating. The

ratings are classified into three categories: low (RR ranging

from 1 to 5), medium (RR ranging from 6 to 12), and high (RR

ranging from 15 to 25). Risks with a high rating necessitate

immediate action, while those with a medium rating may allow

for delayed measures, and a low rating might not require

further action. Ultimately, QRA is descriptive and heavily

relies on the competency and experience of the assessors.

Their expertise is crucial in accurately interpreting and

applying the qualitative data to the risk assessment process,

ensuring that the assessments are reflective of the actual

workplace risks.

Semi-quantitative risk assessment employs a methodology

1027

that combines qualitative and quantitative elements to

articulate the relative scale of risks. This approach utilizes

numerical values, primarily in the form of frequency ranges or

levels of consequence, to provide a more defined assessment

of risk. The use of consequences-likelihood matrices, with

consequences plotted on the x-axis and likelihood on the y-

axis, enables the classification of risks. This classification

leverages expert knowledge, often in scenarios where

quantitative data is limited [13]. The foundational aspect of

semi-quantitative risk assessment is categorical labeling. This

process involves describing the probability, impact, and/or

severity of a risk as Very Low, Low, Medium, High, or Very

High. Alternatively, a scaling system such as A-F may be used,

with each term having a clear and distinct definition [14].

In the semi-quantitative risk assessment approach, various

scales are employed to characterize the likelihood of events

and their consequences or severities. This method does not

necessitate precise mathematical data for analyzing

probabilities and their outcomes. Instead, the goal is to

establish a hierarchy of risks relative to their quantification,

identifying which risks require further review without

implying a direct relationship between them.

Conversely, quantitative risk assessment assigns numerical

values to risks based on realistic and measurable data. Rather

than categorizing risks as high, medium, or low, they are

assigned specific numerical values, such as 3, 2, and 1,

although the scale can be broader. This type of risk assessment

is particularly applicable to industries with significant hazards,

such as aviation, chemicals, and nuclear power plants.

Quantitative measurements may encompass a variety of

factors, including hazards associated with equipment,

chemicals, design, and modeling techniques.

Quantitative risk assessment necessitates specialized

instruments and procedures for hazard identification, severity

consequence estimation, and likelihood determination of

hazard actualization. These tools include event trees,

sensitivity analysis, simulation software, and others. The use

of these tools enables a more detailed and precise assessment

of risks, especially in scenarios where high-risk factors are

present.

Based on the aforementioned discussion, it can be

concluded that each category of risk assessment—qualitative,

quantitative, and semi-quantitative—has its own set of

advantages and disadvantages. QRA is advantageous in its

speed and ease of implementation, as it does not rely on

numerical measurements. This simplicity allows for prompt

execution. However, it is inherently descriptive and heavily

reliant on the competency and experience of the assessors. As

a result, there is a degree of subjectivity involved, with the

potential for variability in determining probabilities and

consequences.

In contrast, QRA is more objective and offers detailed

decision-making. However, this method is time-intensive and

can be complex, as quantitative data are often challenging to

collect or measure. This complexity may limit its applicability

in certain situations.

Semi-quantitative risk assessment serves as an intermediary

approach, balancing the qualitative and quantitative methods.

By evaluating risks on a scale, it mitigates some of the

limitations found in purely qualitative or quantitative

assessments. This approach offers a more nuanced evaluation,

combining the ease of qualitative assessments with the

specificity of quantitative methods.

Ideally, a risk assessment should commence with a

straightforward qualitative evaluation, incorporating any

relevant and applicable good practices. In certain

circumstances, it may be necessary to supplement a qualitative

assessment with a more precise semi-quantitative or

quantitative evaluation [8]. This combined approach allows

for a comprehensive assessment that leverages the strengths of

each method while addressing their individual limitations.

In risk assessment, the analyst estimates the probability of

occurrence of identified hazards, which can be numerous and

complex, especially in scenarios involving novel processes

and operational parameters. For instance, in large chemical

process plants or nuclear installations, detailed and

sophisticated risk assessments are necessary. In such cases, it

is appropriate to conduct a detailed quantitative risk

assessment in addition to a simpler qualitative assessment [7].

Quantitative risk assessment involves obtaining a numerical

estimate of risk based on a quantitative analysis of event

probabilities and consequences. This process requires the use

of specialized quantitative tools and techniques for hazard

identification and to estimate the severity of potential

consequences as well as the likelihood of hazard realization

[7]. Given the complexity of these techniques, which are

sometimes supported by software, the assessments need to be

carried out by suitably qualified and experienced assessors.

These techniques are particularly relevant for assessing risks

related to business objectives and analyzing the adverse

financial effects of incidents on the company. The outcomes

of quantitative risk assessments are numerical estimates of risk,

which can then be compared to numerical risk criteria during

the risk evaluation stage. This quantitative approach provides

a measurable and objective basis for comparing and evaluating

risks, thereby facilitating informed decision-making in the

management of these risks.

In quantitative risk assessment, the focus is on estimating

the probability of occurrence of an undesirable top event. This

estimation is achieved by accurately sequencing the sub-

events that lead to the top event, which is responsible for

releasing the hazard. Each of these sub-events is assigned a

probability of occurrence. These probabilities are then

logically combined to derive the overall probability of the top

event occurring [8].

This quantitative risk assessment procedure is greatly aided

by the use of logic diagrams, which provide graphical

representations of the sequence of events. The most commonly

utilized diagrams in this context are the Event Tree Analysis

(ETA) and Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) techniques [15]. Fault

Tree Analysis is a method that seeks to identify the root causes

of a specified final event. It employs deductive reasoning,

working backward from the final event to trace its origins.

Event Tree Analysis, in contrast, uses inductive reasoning. It

starts with an initiating or primary event and works forward to

define the subsequent events and paths that result from this

initial occurrence [8]. Both these techniques are invaluable in

pinpointing specific events or parameters that should be

monitored or measured periodically. This regular monitoring

is crucial for the effective implementation of the quantitative

risk assessment method, as it provides ongoing data and

insights necessary for accurate risk estimation and

management.

Despite its significance, risk assessment in water bottling

factories often faces a dearth of resources. However, the

increasing concern over water scarcity and the quality of

drinking water is driving more investments towards water

treatment and bottling processes. Water-related risks, which

1028

can potentially impact production, health, safety, and income,

necessitate a tailored assessment to identify and effectively

address specific risks associated with drinking water

production [16].

In an effort to enhance the bottling process for spring waters,

a study team conducted a comprehensive analysis of

Monopolis SA’s adherence to environmental and occupational

health and safety standards. The team synthesized a risk

assessment focusing on occupational diseases and injuries

across all the company’s workplaces. This synthesis included

an array of control measures designed to either eliminate or

significantly reduce risks to an acceptable level for all

workplaces within the organization [17].

2. METHODOLOGY

The following sections discuss the methodology adopted for

this case study. Investigation of both quantitative and

qualitative aspects of occupational and health risks is essential

to this work because the workplace must be safe, and

employees must also believe it is secure.

2.1 The case study background

Nestlé Pure Life Jordan Factory in Maan City was chosen

as a case study to conduct a risk assessment. Jordan, which has

been ranked as the second water-scarce country in the world.

It is primarily arid. About half of its 11 million residents are

not Jordanians. Ma'an City is the home of Jordan's Nestle Pure

Life water bottling factory.

Ma'an City is located in the southern Jordanian desert, 218

kilometers from Amman, the country's capital. Ma'an City has

about 50,350 residents, according to Worldometer.

The city is an important transportation hub on the current

Desert Highway and the historical King's Highway. Most of

its population work in trade. Ma'an experiences long, hot

summers that are dry and clear, as well as chilly winters that

are typically clear. It is 1,000 meters above sea level. It serves

as Ma'an Governorate's administrative hub.

The objective of this study was to conduct a comprehensive

risk assessment of Nestlé's (Pure Life's) Jordan factory in

Maan city. Nestlé Pure Life brand started in 1860 when

pharmacist Henry Nestle developed specialized food for

infants whose mothers could not breastfeed. Soon, the recipe

he formulated was sold throughout Europe [18]. Nowadays, it

is one of the world’s largest food and beverage companies. It

has over 2000 brands ranging from global icons to local

favorites and is present in 187 countries worldwide [18]. In

1998, Nestle launched the Pure Life water brand to help meet

the global need for safe drinking water with a pleasant taste at

an affordable price. Currently, Pure Life bottled water is

available in more than 20 countries.

Nestle's Jordan factory was established in 1995 under the

name "Nestle Jordan Trading Company" in Ma'an, Al-

Husayniyah [18]. This factory specializes in water bottling

(Pure Life). The factory has 111 employees, with an area of

4683 m2.

The current study investigates the occupational health and

safety status at the Nestlé Pure Life Jordan Factory by

applying the semi-quantitative risk assessment. The facility

comprises three distinct areas; production, storage, and

bottling. The assessment followed the standard technique that

starts with identifying hazards and their causes, determining

how and who is affected, hazard evaluation, and determining

control measures. Identifying hazards involved their detailed

description. Further, risk evaluation and analysis aimed to

assign the identified hazards a risk rating based on their

likelihood and severity. Finally, a risk matrix constructed to

summarize the factory's safety status followed by the proposed

risk controls.

2.2 Risk assessment

In the current research, the ability to estimate the likelihood

and the severity of the impact of a hazard was a significant

drawback of the risk assessment process. The interviews with

workers and safety officers, incident records, and observations

formed the basis of this estimation. The associated

uncertainties of risk may lead to underestimates. Therefore,

the factory's safety department must continually validate and

update these estimates by comparing them to event logs and

considering new controls and modifications to processes. Data

verification, uncertainty analysis, and simulations may also

improve estimates. Furthermore, employee training can have

a profound effect on risk estimation. Identifying potential

hazards and assessing associated risks requires adequate

expertise and knowledge.

Figure 1. Risk management flowchart (adapted from ISO-

IEC 31010) [12]

A standard risk assessment began with hazard identification

using various techniques to identify the existing hazards and

their potential causes, then assessing them according to their

expected effects, and ending with developing a list of control

measures and precautions to eliminate or mitigate each

hazard's effects and reduce its risk. Usually flow charts are

used to standardize risk assessment, a flowchart adapted from

ISO-IEC 31010 [12] shown in Figure 1 illustrates the risk

management process used in the current study.

1029

The flow chart outlines the necessary steps that are required

to carry out the risk assessment properly. The five steps of risk

assessment are presented in this chart and can be performed in

three stages. The first stage includes hazard identification step,

in this stage several methods and ways can be conducted to

highlight and recognize the existed hazards. The second stage

is risk analyzing, in this stage the assessor should understand

the nature, sources and causes of the identified hazard then

determine the impacts and estimates the potentials of the risk

needed for evaluation step. The last stage includes risk

evaluation followed by proposing control plans,

administrative actions, incident resolution and risk mitigation

techniques required to recover the identified hazards then

revising these controls to ensure that safe environment is

achieved. Figure 2 represents a diagram explains the sequence

of how to perform each of these steps.

Figure 2. Steps of risk assessment

2.2.1 Hazard identification

Hazard Identification is a proactive process that aims to

identify hazards and eliminate or minimize/reduce the risk of

injury/illness to workers and damage to property, equipment,

and the environment. It also allows commitment and due

diligence to a healthy and safe workplace [9]. Because of that,

it is the first step of any risk assessment process which includes

observation, investigation, inspection, record examination and

process analysis. The assessor should carefully look around

the workplace and vigilantly observe what may cause harm.

One should verify how people work, operate the plant, use

equipment, what and handling chemicals and materials, and

work S.O.Ps and practices.

The factory's production, storage, and bottling areas all

underwent hazard identification. This technique is analogous

to safety or a loss prevention review [19, 20]. Table 1 describes

the methods used for hazard identification. The research team,

therefore, conducted walkthroughs, checks, and visits to

factory premises to look for any actions, circumstances, or

sources that could pose a risk. The inspections accompanied

by safety officers, discussions with department heads, and

verifying and listening to employee concerns revealed several

hazards. The implemented measures were documented and

considered when classifying risks and proposing further

controls.

Table 1. Methods for hazard identification

Method Description

1 Walkthroughs and visits of all factory premises

2 Inspections accompanied by safety officers

3 Examination and verification of worker's concerns

4 Discussions with heads of factory departments

5 Gathering information about the number of workers in the

factory and the nature of the works

6 Use brainstorming to decide whether the workers are more

likely to be exposed to a hazard

2.2.2 Risk evaluation

The development of risk tables for the recognized hazards

in the three areas was made possible by the use of a qualtitative

risk assessment. Once the risks have been prioritized and

arranged according to how hazardous they were,

recommendations for what should be controlled, corrected,

modified, or improved could be made.

Risk evaluation is not a random process. It must comply

with specified risk criteria to classify the consequences and

probabilities of the hazards in a qualtitative method, as per ISO

31000 and ISO 45001 [21, 22]. The risk criteria are terms of

reference used to evaluate the significance of an organization's

risks and determine their risk ratings [17, 19, 23].

Tables 2 and 3 summarize the risk criteria used as a guide

to help rank the risk of hazards. Depending on the severity, the

consequences are classified into five categories, from

"insignificant" to "catastrophic" for the greatest severity.

There are also five levels of likelihood, from "rare" to "almost

certain" for the highest probability.

Table 2. Severity-consequence levels

Level Level

Name Level Description

1 Insignificant Minor injury- First aid treatment, low

financial loss

2 Minor Minor injury- Medical treatment,

medium financial loss

3 Moderate Over 7-day injury, high financial loss

4 Major Significant injuries, loss of production,

major financial loss

5 Catastrophic Death, permanent disabilities, substantial

financial loss

Table 3. Probability (likelihood) levels

Level Level Name Level Description

1 Rare may occur only in exceptional

circumstances

2 Unlikely could occur at some time

3 Possible might occur at some time

4 Likely will probably occur in most

circumstances

5 Almost

certain

expected to occur in most

circumstances

•Hazard identification

Step 1

•Risk evaluation: establishing severity and likelihood tables

•Calaculating the risk rating for each hazard in the proposed area indicate who moght be harmed

Step 2

•Establishing risk matrix for each area

•Creating a risk assessment table for each area

Step 3

•Decision making according to the priority of the

hazard as assigned in the risk matrix

•Control measures are proposed to eliminate,

mitigate, isolate, or reduce the impact of the

hazard under control

Step 4

•Revise the control plans, actions for

improvement and administrative actions to

ensure healthy and safe environmnet of work is

reached

Step 5

1030

Based on interviews with workers and safety officers as

well as records’ examination and observations, a table of

likelihood and severity was developed. The likelihood and

severity of hazards were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5. A risk

rating (RR), which ranged from 1 to 25, was computed by

multiplying the hazard's severity by its likelihood. The hazards

were then ranked according to their risk rating using a 5×5 risk

matrix and grouped using a traffic light analogy (see Table 4).

The medium-risk (RR 6-12) hazards in the orange zone require

action soon, while those in the red zone (RR 15-25) demand

immediate action. The green area, however, contains low-risk

hazards (RR 1 to 5), which might allow for delayed control

actions [6].

Table 4. Proposed risk matrix

Rare Unlikely Possible Likely Certain

S 1 2 2 3 4 5

Insignificant 1 1 1 3 4 5

Minor 2 2 2 6 8 10

Moderate 3 3 3 9 12 15

Major 4 4 4 12 16 20

Catastrophic 5 5 5 15 20 25

3. RESULTS

This section presents, analyzes, and discusses the study's

findings about its goal of enhancing workplace health and

safety at the Nestle Pure Life water bottling plant. The risks

found in the factory areas are discussed in the first section,

followed by a risk assessment utilizing the risk matrix

technique and the derived risk ratings (i.e., risk quantification).

Risk rating (RR) is the multiplication of likelihood with the

severity. Assigning values to likelihood and severity has

considered the present safety controls. Each area is then

assigned a list of new safety measures. These safety controls

included both administrative and engineering ones.

3.1 Identified hazards

The hazard identification process took into account events,

incidents, and conditions that may introduce hazards into the

workplace. Therefore, this section aims to compile a thorough

list of all hazards, their assessment, severity, control measures,

and all factors or conditions that may cause harm. Upon the

completion of hazard identification, the implemented controls

were documented and considered when classifying the risk.

3.1.1 Hazards identified in the production area

In addition to the piping system, storage tanks, and

cleaning-in-place (CIP) tanks, the factory's production area

comprises several units, including (CIP), reverse osmosis

(R.O.), filtration, and U.V. Table 5 describes the identified

hazards in the production area.

3.1.2 Hazards identified in the storage area

The factory has three main stores: final products, chemicals,

and general stores (e.g., labels, packaging rolls, and cartoons).

Hazards identified in these areas are listed and described in

Table 6.

3.1.3 Hazards identified in the bottling area

This area consists of four main lines; bottles blowing line,

filling line, labeling line, and palletizing line. Hazards

identified in these lines are listed and described in Table 7

below.

Table 5. Hazards identified in the production area

Hazard Hazard Description

Water

spillage

Water is pumped from a well through a piping

system to different stages of the production

process. This high flow rate may experience

leaks and form slippery areas in many locations.

U.V.

radiation

Many U.V. points are distributed along the

production line; these points are used in the

disinfection of the micro-organisms. Over

exposure to UV can harm humans in many

ways, such as eye and skin damage. It also may

cause damage to materials.

Chemicals

usage

Some chemicals are used in the production

process, such as:

Chemical in R.O. unit: R.O. membrane cleaning

chemicals, detergents, scale inhibitors and

corrosion inhibitors, biocides, antifoulants, de-

chlorinators, and flocculants.

Chemicals in the CIP unit: Nitric acid,

phosphoric acid, sodium hydroxide, chlorine,

and hydrogen peroxide.

Hot water

The last stage of the CIP is to rinse the inside of

the pipe with hot water from the CIP process.

Cleaning storage tanks.

Pressure

build-up in

the piping

system

That could happen due to a closed valve,

blocked filter, or any clog in the pipes. That

could result in a pipe rupture and releasing of

high-pressure water, which poses many hazards

to the workers and property, such as exposure to

a high-pressure water jet, creating electrically-

conducting areas, and slipping. This hazard has

been experienced many times in the factory.

Pressurized

air

A high pressure exists in the pneumatic valve

system, which operates at 7 to 40 bar.

Work in

confined

spaces

The interior of storage tanks is cleaned regularly

to prevent the development of bacteria; this

cleaning is performed by the worker using hot

water and chlorine at low concentrations.

Table 6. Hazards identified in the storage area

Hazard Hazard Description

Tripping As a result of many obstructions in the storage

area.

Noise

High noise levels resulting from trucks'

engines, conveyor belts, and other equipment

could lead to hearing problems for workers

within the storage area.

Fragile roofs

The ceiling of the storage area is fragile

(metallic) and about to collapse, primarily

upon exposure to a strong wind.

Improper

chemical‟

storage areas

The team noticed some hazardous chemicals

being stored in an old, deserted workshop

containing sharp instruments and unused

equipment that fills the place.

Fire

Fire hazard is one of the major concerns.

Further analysis of this hazard, considering the

existing fire protection systems, is needed.

3.2 Risk assessment

In the current research, the ability to estimate the likelihood

and the severity of the impact of a hazard was a significant

drawback of the risk assessment process. The interviews with

workers and safety officers, incident records, and observations

formed the basis of this estimation. The associated

uncertainties of risk may lead to underestimates. Therefore,

1031

the factory's safety department must continually validate and

update these estimates by comparing them to event logs and

considering new controls and modifications to processes. Data

verification, uncertainty analysis, and simulations may also

improve estimates. Furthermore, employee training can have

a profound effect on risk estimation. Identifying potential

hazards and assessing associated risks requires adequate

expertise and knowledge.

Because of the lack of data, qualntitative risk matrix of

likelihood and severity was used to determine the proper

controls to eliminate or mitigate each safety hazard to an

acceptable level. Based on the risk matrices developed for the

three areas, risk evaluation tables were then created for each.

It allowed for classifying hazards as high, medium, or low risk.

3.2.1 Risk matrix for the production area

A risk matrix for the production area was created based on

the hazards identified in that area, as illustrated in Table 8. The

hazards were then arranged in descending order according to

their risk rating (R.R.), as exhibited in Table 9.

Table 7. Hazards identified in the bottling area

Hazard Hazard Description

Robotic palletizer

A robotic palletizer is a machine configuring pallets and warping the pallets by multiple layers of packaging roll. For

safety, the palletizer is isolated by a cage, but when the worker needs to reload a packaging roll, he must enter and

reload a new one. It looks safe, but the problem is that it depends on the worker's behaviour, as if the machine is

operated while the worker is still inside the cage, the worker could receive a stroke by the palletizer arm.

Heavy weights

lifting

The manual reloading of the packaging roll in the robotic palletizer requires lifting a roll weighing (50 Kg) and then

installing the packaging roll on the rolling cylinder.

Poor house

keeping

Obstructions are observed in this area, such as waste from the bottle formation process, deformed bottles, cartoon

boxes, and more. These could introduce a hazard.

Unreachable fire-

fighting systems

During the walk-through, team noticed that many fire extinguishers and hose reels were surrounded by different

obstacles that made them difficult to be reached in emergencies.

Noise Continuous exposure to high levels of sound results from machines, belts and equipment in the workplace during the

operation.

Table 8. Risk matrix for production area

Likelihood Rare Unlikely Possible Likely Certain

Severity 1 1 2 3 4 5

Insignificant 1

Minor 2

Moderate 3 Hot water

Major 4 Water Spillage chemicals

Catastrophic 5

U.V. radiation

Pressure build-up in the piping system Pressurized air

Work in confined spaces

Table 9. Hazards ranking for production area

Risk Hazard

1 High (15-25)

Chemicals use (R.R. 16)

Pressure build-up in the piping system (R.R. 15)

U.V. (R.R. 10)

2 Medium (6-12)

Pressurized air (R.R. 10)

Hot water (R.R. 9)

Water spillage (R.R. 8)

3 Low (1-5) -

Table 10. Risk matrix for storage area

Rare Unlikely Possible Likely Certain

S 1 1 2 3 4 5

Insignificant 1 Tripping

Minor 2

Moderate 3 Improper chemicals storage

Major 4 Noise

Catastrophic 5

Fragile roofs

Fire

Table 11. Hazards ranking for storage area

Risk Hazard

1 High (15-25)

Noise (R.R. 20) Pressure

Fragile roofs (R.R. 15)

Fire (R.R. 15)

2 Medium (6-12) Improper chemicals storage (R.R. 9)

3 Low (1-5) Tripping (R.R. 5)

1032

Table 12. Risk matrix for bottling area

Rare Unlikely Possible Likely Certain

S 1 1 2 3 4 5

Insignificant 1

Minor 2

Moderate 3 Poor house keeping Noise

Major 4 Heavy weights lifting

Catastrophic 5 Robotic palletizer Unreachable fire-fighting systems

Table 13. Hazards ranking for bottling area

Risk Hazard

1 High (15-25) heavy weights lifting (R.R. 16)

Noise (R.R. 15)

Poor housekeeping (R.R. 12)

2 Medium (6-12) Unreachable fire-fighting system (R.R. 10)

3 Low (1-5) Robotic palletizer (R.R. 5)

3.2.3 Risk matrix for the bottling area

The bottling area contains several hazards and shown in the

risk matrix presented in Table 12. The hazards were then

arranged in a descending order as per their R.R.s as exhibited

in Table 13.

The reviewed literature revealed the use of risk assessment

methods in the absence of data; this circumstance also

occurred in thses studies [24-30]. Factors that influenced the

approach used in the current risk assessment included time,

funds, human resources, and corporate perceptions of

occupational health and safety. Altenbach [30] made similar

observations. In addition, the number and competency of the

employees involved in the evaluation were crucial factors [8].

These factors may significantly affect the identification of

hazards and the associated risk rating (R.R.). As a result, other

methods for identifying hazards and evaluating risks may be

necessary. Hazard indices, HAZOP studies, fault tree analysis,

etc., are additional techniques for identifying hazards.

Most qualtitative assessments relate to water and food

industries [28, 29]. These assessments often use a 5×5 matrix

technique, with the likelihood at the y-axis and the

consequences on the x-axis [31, 32]. The risk assessment

matrix permits management and executives to make

operational decisions that mitigate or eliminate hazards.

Moreover, the quantitative approach may serve as a reliable

tool to reveal the potential occupational health and safety risks,

but only from an overall perspective [33-36]. However, the

demand for greater precision in risk assessment and hazard

identification necessitates the application of other approaches

as mentioned earlier. Besides, the qualtitative approach is

easier to use than the quantitative one and allows one to

compare and evaluate multiple scenarios at the same time [28].

Furthermore, it is easily interpreted.

3.3 Hazard risk ratings

Table 14 compares the percentages of the risk rating groups

for the three areas. As can be seen, most hazards are medium-

risk, followed by high- and low-risk hazards in the production

and bottling areas. The storage area is the most hazardous as

the high-risk hazards make about 60% of the identified ones.

As shown in Table 15, the high-risk hazards were about

41% of the identified hazards in the entire factory, implying

the existence of an unsafe situation that could lead to

catastrophic consequences of property damage, injuries, or

even fatalities. Therefore, the corporation’s top management

must take immediate action to reduce or eliminate such risks.

Likewise, the medium-risk hazards, which need solving soon,

were about 47% of the total hazards. However, low-risk

hazards were only about 12% of the identified hazards. In

storage and bottling areas, the noise risk rating (R.R.) was

high, with the storage area being the most hazardous. The

noise level was above the eight hours-permissible exposure

limits. Overall, occupational health and safety need great and

urgent attention. Similarly, earlier studies assert that water

industry workers are at risk of hot water, noise, chemical spills

and exposure, slippery walkways, working in confined spaces,

and other factors [37-39].

Table 14. Percentages of the risk rating (R.R.) groups for the

three areas

High-Risk

Hazards

Medium Risk

Hazards

Low-Risk

Hazards

Production 29% 71% 0%

Storage 60% 20% 20%

Bottling 40% 40% 20%

Table 15. The risk rating (R.R.) groups for the three areas

Area High-Risk

Hazards

Medium Risk

Hazards

Low-Risk

Hazards

Production 2 5 0

Storage 3 1 1

Bottling 2 2 1

Total 7 8 2

3.4 Risk control revise steps

Risk assessment tables have been created for the factory

sections, as shown in Tables 16, 17, and 18. A risk assessment

was conducted for each of the hazards identified in the

preliminary stages of the investigation. The tables include the

following details for each hazard: who might be harmed,

existing controls, a description of the impact, severity (S),

probability (P), risk score, and risk rating (R.R.). In addition

to identifying control measures based on risk ranking, the

hierarchy of controls was also considered [21].

The elimination of hazards from the workplace is the first

step in the control hierarchy. Then comes substitution,

mitigation (engineering and administrative controls), and

personal protective equipment. The administrative control, for

instance, training programs, policies, and regulations, provide

1033

the framework for a department's risk control program,

thereby ensuring workplace safety.

According to the hierarchy of control, personal protective

equipment (PPE), which includes clothing and equipment

worn by employees for protection against health and safety

hazards, is the lowest control measure [40].

The risk assessment tables for the studied areas include a

summary of the recommended controls for the identified

hazards. The proposed controls shown in Tables 15, 16, and

17 range from hazard elimination, isolation, and mitigation to

using personal protective equipment (PPE), while some

hazards (2 hazards) require further investigation. Exposure to

hot water in the production area, fragile roofs in the storage

area, and heavy weight lifting in the bottling area could all be

eliminated. Regular reviewing of control plans and

reevaluating existing controls are recommended for improved

safety.

In addition to implementing the new risk controls, the

factory's safety management department should continuously

analyze, monitor, and review risks since hazards change as

work circumstances and requirements change. Such

conditions may include adopting new technologies and S.O.Ps,

hiring new employees, etc. The safety management

department must continuously assess risks and evaluate

control measures to ensure that evolving hazards are mitigated

or eliminated.

Table 16. Risk assessment for the production area

Hazard Who Might

be Harmed

Current

Controls Impact S P

Risk

Score

Risk

Rating Needed Controls

Water

spillage

Production

line operators None

Slipping, exposure to water

containing acids or bases

which could cause bone

fracture, skin irritation.

4 2 8 Medium

risk

Enlarge the drainage manhole to

avoid flooding in case of spillage,

regular leak checks of tanks, pipes,

valves, joints, chemical supply

connections, corroded areas. Ensure

workers wear proper PPE including

safety shoes with non-skid soles,

googles, chemical resistant gloves,

chemical resistant coats. Warning

signs of potential hazards what type

of precautions must be taken. Safety

precautions in S.O.Ps

U.V.

radiation

Production

line operators

U.V.

units

casing

Long-term exposure could

cause cancer, hair-loss and

genital disorder

5 2 10 Medium

Risk

Trained workers should only operate

UV units. Restrict access of others

to avoid accidental exposure. Using

work shifts system. Operators

should keep a safe distance from any

U.V. point Use of appropriate PPE,

which include gloves, lab coat with

no gap between the cuff and the

glove, and a UV resistant face

shield. Work procedural safety

measures. Use of plastic shielding

and fail-safe interlocks. The distance

from which workers operate the

equipment must be assessed as well

as the duration of exposure. The area

is evacuated before starting

operation. No person in line of sight

of the device during operation.

There should be warning labels on

all UVC disinfection devices

accordance with the IEC 61549-310-

1. A. UV-resistant eyewear

(goggles/face shields/safety glasses).

Protective wear/clothing, which

covers exposed skin. Make sure the

UV device is shut off when the

protective enclosure is open.

Ventilation may be required to

exhaust ozone and other airborne

contaminants produced by UVC

radiation from nearby of UV device.

Chemicals

R.O. unit

Production

line operators

PIPE Severe irritations,

burns, …etc. 4 4 16

High

Risk

Trained workers should only operate

RO units. Follow the manufacturer’s

safety instructions and handling

procedures. Regularly inspect and

maintain the RO system to prevent

leaks. Chemicals should be dealt

with as in MSDSs. Train operators

on proper emergency response

1034

procedures in the event of a leak.

Follow the manufacturer’s safety

instructions and handling procedures

of RO units. Use proper PPE.

Hot water

Disinfection

(CIP)

operators

PIPE severe burns 3 3 9 Medium

Risk

Trained workers should only operate

(CIP). Use automated water nozzles

to clean the interior of tanks to

eliminate human exposure. Propper

PPE including face shields, aprons,

etc.

Pressure

build-up in

piping

system

Production

line operators None

High-pressure water jet

could push the operator on

a solid surface or energized

equipment, in worst case;

death and extensive

injuries could be expected

5 3 15 High

Risk

Regularly inspect and maintain all

high-pressure equipment to ensure

safe operation. Train operators on

the proper use and maintenance of

high-pressure equipment. Install

pressure relief valves to prevent

over-pressure incidents. Use proper

protective equipment, such as steel-

toed shoes, when working near high-

pressure equipment. Further analysis

is needed using one of the QRA

techniques.

Pressurized

air

Production

line

maintenance

operators

None

Could cause a severe eye

injury, hand penetration or

cut during maintenance

5 2 10 Medium

Risk

Regularly inspect and maintain all

high-pressure equipment to ensure

safe operation. Wear proper PPE

during operations near pneumatic

valves, shut off air valve, and vent

all accumulators and lines during

maintenance. Use proper protective

equipment, such as steel-toed shoes,

when working near high-pressure

equipment. Further analysis is

needed using one of the QRA

techniques.

Work in

confined

spaces

Disinfection

operators PIPE

Asphyxiation, excessive

heat, irritations, lack of

communication…etc.

5 2 10 Medium

Risk

Prevent working in a confined space

without permit-to-work procedure;

keep communications, properly

trained people. Keep space well-

ventilated. Use of respiratory

protective equipment beside other

PPE.

Table 17. Risk assessment for storage area

Hazard

Who

Might be

Harmed

Current

Controls Impact S P

Risk

Score

Risk

Rating Needed Controls

Tripping

Storage

area

operators

None Could cause

moderate injuries 1 5 5

Low

Risk

Remove the obstructions from the pathways,

increase lighting. Clear signs to alert to changes

in level, Regular and proper maintenance of

floor paving. Proper drain covers. Avoidance of

the use of extension cables. No loose clothing

is permitted. Use non-skid shoes.

Noise

Storage

area

operators

None

Tinnitus and noise-

induced hearing

loss on long-term

exposure

4 5 20 High

Risk

Lubricate the equipment regularly, wear

earplugs or alternative PPE. Warning signs of

high-level noise (above 85 dB). Appropriate

work schedules with adequate rest times.

Restrict access of other employees to high

noise level. Regular hearing medical check.

Fragile

roofs

Storage

area

operators

None

Falling roof parts

could cause in

severe injuries and

even death

5 3 15 High

Risk

Replace defected roofs. Wear resistant helmets

and safety shoes against falling objects.

Improper

chemicals

storage

areas

Storage

area

operators

None

Exposure to

chemicals and sharp

edges could result

in burns, irritations,

injuries…etc.

3 3 9 Medium

Risk

Isolate chemicals, handle and store as per the

related MSDSs, regular housekeeping. Proper

PPE.

Fire Storage

area

Sprinkler

system and

Could result in

asphyxiation, severe 5 3 15

High

Risk

Ensure designated smoking area is distant from

flammable materials. Flammable chemicals are

1035

operators smoke

extraction

system

burns, and death totally isolated. Proper housekeeping, such as

preventing materials and dust from

accumulation. Regular servicing of electrical

equipment and network to prevent sparks.

Proper electrical earthing to prevent static

sparks. Further analysis of this hazard is

recommended.

Table 18. Risk assessment for bottling area

Hazard Who Might

be Harmed

Current

Controls Impact S P

Risk

Score

Risk

Rating Needed Controls

Robotic

palletizer

Palletizer and

maintenance

operators

System's

safety

functions

(integrated

locks)

Robotic motion

and Palletizers

arm stoke could

cause in skull

crush and death.

Crushing due to

accidental

release or

expulsion of a

box.

5 1 5 Low

Risk

Provide operators, maintenance and

other key stakeholders with

comprehensive training on equipment

hazards, safety features, safe operation,

entry into the robot cell. Regular

training, use shift working system. Use

PPE. Regular check that system safety

features are functioning. Monitor robot

speed to avoid associated risks of robot

kinetic energy and of the pallet objects.

Area scanning system that will monitor

the presence of humans and slow or

stop the robot cell if someone is too

close. Signs to warn employees from

approaching robot area. Fences to

prevent the operator from entering a

dangerous area. A mechanism to stop

the palletizing robot when the

safeguard is opened.

Heavyweights

lifting

Palletizer

reloading

operators

None

Back injuries

and may lead to

permanent

disabilities

4 4 16 High

Risk Use of electrical roll lifting equipment

Poor

housekeeping

Bottling area

operators None

Could result in

several accidents

which lead to

severe injuries

3 4 12 Medium

Risk

Remove obstructions, set a specific

places to dispose the defected bottles

Unreachable

fire-fighting

systems

Bottling area

operators None

Could lead to

asphyxiation,

severe burns,

and death

5 2 10 Medium

Risk

Remove obstructions, ensure easy

access to any firefighting equipment

Noise Bottling area

operators None

Hearing

impairment,

hearing loss on

long-term

exposure

3 5 15 High

Risk

Regular lubrication of machines, use

ear muffs, ear plugs…etc.

4. CONCLUSIONS

The following conclusions are made based on the case

study's findings. A suggestion for future research also follows

these conclusions:

● By implementing a qualtitative risk assessment,

workplace hazards may be eliminated or mitigated.

The qualtitative risk assessment is a methodical

approach to examining and rating pre-identified

hazards, many of which were determined using a

purely qualitative approach that may have resulted in

an incomplete inventory of them. Based on that, it

may serve as a reliable tool to reveal the potential

occupational health and safety risks, but only from a

general perspective. Some hazards remain almost

concealed, making it difficult for the safety officer to

identify them.

● Nestlé Pure Life Jordan does not need new

infrastructure; instead, several modifications are

required, including the replacement of defective

roofs, the use of electrical roll and lifting, the

segregation of chemical storage, and personnel

training. It is also necessary to make quite a few

ergonomic and procedural changes.

● The risk assessment of the identified hazards revealed

the existence of an unsafe workplace that requires the

corporation’s top management to take immediate

action to reduce or eliminate the hazards.

● Nestlé Pure Life Jordan employees face many

physical, chemical, and ergonomic risks. The related

risks range from high (41%), moderate (47%), and

low (12%). Further, there is an association between

the working environment and exposure to risks and

hazards. Minimizing risk exposure may, therefore,

enhance the working environment.

● In addition to reviewing safety indicator records,

1036

other approaches, such as fault tree analysis and

HAZOP analyses, should be utilized to ensure that

the safety officer identifies every hazard.

As a future work, it is recommended to study and

investigate the potential psychological and social hazards, and

the impact they may have on workers of Nestlé Pure Life

Jordan factory.

REFERENCES

[1] https://jordantimes.com/news/local/workplace-injuries-

occur-once-every-25-minutes-jordan-report-reveals.

[2] ILO. Safety and Health at Work.

https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/safety-and-health-at-

work/lang--en/index.htm, accessed on Dec. 26, 2022.

[3] Kaplan, S., Garrick, B.J. (1981). On the quantitative

definition of risk. Risk Analysis, 1(1): 11-27.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1981.tb01350.x

[4] Society for Risk Analysis (RSA).

https://www.sra.org/risk-analysis-introduction/risk-

analysis-glossary/, accessed on Jan. 2 2023.

[5] HSA. (2013). Guide on Manual Handling Risk

Assessment in the Manufacturing Sector. Health and

Safety Authority, Dublin.

[6] BLS. (2002). Workplace Injuries and Illnesses in 2001,

USDL-02-687.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2002/dec/wk4/art01.htm.

[7] britsafe. Risk Assessments: What They Are, Why

They're Important and How to Complete Them. British

Safety Council. https://www.britsafe.org/training-and-

learning/find-the-right-course-for-you/informational-

resources/risk-assessment/, accessed on 25 Feb 2022.

[8] HSE. (1997). Successful health and safety management.

HSG65, second edition HSE 12/98. ISBN 0 7176 1276 7.

[9] HSE. (2003). Good practice and pitfalls in risk

assessment. Executive, Prepared by the Health & Safety

Laboratory for the Health and Safety.

https://www.hse.gov.uk, accessed on Dec. 7 2022.

[10] United States Fire Administration (USFA). (2018). Risk

management practices in the fire service.

https://docslib.org/doc/6213507/risk-management-

practices-in-the-fire-service-january-2018, accessed on

Nov. 26 2022.

[11] Raveendran, A., Renjith, V.R., Madhu, G. (2022). A

comprehensive review on dynamic risk analysis

methodologies. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process

Industries, 76: 104734.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2022.104734

[12] International Organization for Standardization. (2019).

ISO-IEC 31010 Risk Management-Risk Assessment

Techniques. Geneva, Switzerland.

https://www.iso.org/standard/72140.html.

[13] Dalezios, N.R. (2017). Environmental Hazards

Methodologies for Risk Assessment and Management.

IWA Publishing, London.

[14] Crowl, D., Louvar, J.F. (2011). Chemical Process Safety,

Third Edition. n.d. Pearson Education International,

London.

[15] Rasbash, D.J., Ramachandran, G., Kandola, B., Watts, J.,

Law, M. (2004). Evaluation of Fire Safety. John Wiley

& Sons Ltd, London.

[16] WHO. (2017). Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality:

Fourth Edition. World Health Organization, Switzerland.

[17] Glevitzky, I., Sârb, A., Popa, M. (2019). Study regarding

the improvement of bottling process for spring waters,

through the implementation of the occupational health

and food safety requirements. Safety, 5(2): 32.

https://doi.org/10.3390/safety5020032

[18] Nestlé. About us. https://www.nestle.com/aboutus,

accessed on Dec. 28 2022.

[19] Wells, G. (1997). Hazard Identification and Risk

Assessment. Institution of Chemical Engineers, Antony

Rowe Limited, Eastbourne, U.K.

[20] Wells, G., Wardman, M., Whetton, C. (1993).

Preliminary safety analysis. Journal of Loss Prevention

in the Process Industries, 6(1): 47-60.

https://doi.org/10.1016/0950-4230(93)80019-I

[21] International Organization for Standardization. (2018).

ISO 31000 Risk Management Guidelines. Geneva,

Switzerland. https://www.iso.org/standard/65694.html,

accessed on Nov. 25 2022.

[22] International Organization for Standardization. (2018).

ISO 45001 Occupational Health and Safety Management

Systems—Requirements with Guidance for Use. Geneva,

Switzerland. https://www.iso.org/standard/63787.html.

[23] Damikouka, I., Katsiri, A., Tzia, C. (2007). Application

of HACCP principles in drinking water treatment.

Desalination, 210(1-3): 138-145.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2006.05.039

[24] Boyle, T. (2019). Health and Safety: Risk Management.

5th ed. Routledge, London.

[25] Worsell, N., Wilday, J. (1997). The Application of Risk

Assessment to Machinery Safety—Review or Risk

Ranking and Risk Estimation Techniques. HSL Report,

RAS/97/12., Health and Safety Laboratory, Sheffield,

UK.

[26] Middleton, M., Franks, A. (2001). Using Risk Matrices.

The Chemical Engineer, September 34-37.

[27] Glossop, M., Ioannides, A., Gould, J. (2000). Review of

Hazard Identification Techniques HSL Report

RAS/00/02. Health and Safety Laboratory, Sheffield, UK.

[28] FAO/WHO. (2009). Risk characterization of

microbiological hazards in food: Guidelines. Microbiol.

Risk Assess. Ser. 17, 135.

[29] Sumner, J., Ross, T. (2002). A semi-quantitative seafood

safety risk assessment. International Journal of Food

Microbiology, 77(1-2): 55-59.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1605(02)00062-4

[30] Altenbach, T. (1995). A comparison of risk assessment

techniques from qualitative to quantitative. In

Conference: Joint American Society of Mechanical

Engineers (ASME)/Japan Society of Mechanical

Engineers (JSME) Pressure Vessels and Piping

Conference, Honolulu, HI (United States).

https://www.osti.gov/biblio/67753.

[31] Marques, F.R., Magri, M.E., Amoah, I.D., Stenström,

T.A., Paulo, P.L. (2021). Development of a semi-

quantitative approach for the assessment of microbial

health risk associated with wastewater reuse: A case

study at the household level. Environmental Challenges,

4: 100182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2021.100182

[32] Do, H.T.T., Ly, T.T.B., Do, T.T. (2020). Combining

semi-quantitative risk assessment, composite indicator

and fuzzy logic for evaluation of hazardous chemical

accidents. Scientific Reports, 10(1): 18544.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-75583-8

[33] Osikanmi, B.O., Mustapha, M., Sridhar, M.K.C., Coker,

1037

A.O. (2020). Hazard identification and risk assessment-

based water safety plan for packaged water production

companies in Abeokuta, south west Nigeria. Journal of

Environmental Protection, 11(1): 48-63.

https://doi.org/10.4236/jep.2020.111005

[34] Khachatryan, A., Khachatryan, E. (2019). Risk

management of water distribution system in Armenia.

E3S Web of Conferences, 97: 05020.

https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20199705020

[35] Domini, M., Langergraber, G., Rondi, L., Sorlini, S.,

Maswaga, S. (2017). Development of a Sanitation Safety

Plan for improving the sanitation system in peri-urban

areas of Iringa, Tanzania. Journal of Water, Sanitation

and Hygiene for Development, 7(2): 340-348.

https://doi.org/10.2166/washdev.2017.256

[36] Frattarola, A., Domini, M., Sorlini, S. (2019). The use of

a risk assessment tool based on the Sanitation Safety

Planning approach for the improvement of O&M

procedures of a wastewater treatment plant in Tanzania.

Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An

International Journal, 25(6): 1463-1472.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2018.1467748

[37] Vasović, D., Stanković, S., Vranjanac, Ž. (2018).

Working conditions at the water treatment plants:

Activities, hazards and protective measures. Safety

Engineering, 8(1): 27-32.

https://doi.org/10.7562/SE2018.8.01.05

[38] Falakh, F., Setiani, O. (2018). Hazard identification and

risk assessment in water treatment plant considering

environmental health and safety practice. E3S Web of

Conferences, 31: 06011.

https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20183106011

[39] Malakahmad, A., Downe, A.G., Fadzil, S.D.M. (2012).

Application of occupational health and safety

management system at sewage treatment plants. In 2012

IEEE Business, Engineering & Industrial Applications

Colloquium (BEIAC), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, pp.

347-350. https://doi.org/10.1109/BEIAC.2012.6226080

[40] Hasofer, A.M., Beck, V.R., Bennetts, I.D. (2006). Risk

Analysis in Building, Fire Safety Engineering. First ed.,

Routledge, Oxford.

1038

Copyright of International Journal of Safety & Security Engineering is the property of International Information & Engineering Technology Association (IIETA) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.