Environmental Health and Safety Management Article Review
Rico79
bos_3591_safety_article.pdf
© IS
T O
C K
P H
O T
O .C
O M
/B E
R N
A R
D A
S V
P rev en tio n T h ro u g h Design
Preve
For Hazards in Construction By Bruce K. Lyon, Georgi Popov and Elyce Biddle
Fa t a l i t i e s a n d s e r i o u s i n c i d e n t s t h a t o c c u r in c o n s t r u c t i o n w o r k can be directly linked to th e level of prevention incorporated into the planning and design of the project. Studies have show n that m ore than 40% of fatalities that occur in construction w ork are connected to the design aspect (Behm, 2005). Therefore, decisions m ade by designers and engineers greatly influence the safety of construction activities.
O SH practitioners and researchers have suggest ed th at one of the best ways to prevent and control occupational injuries, illnesses and fatalities is to design out or minimize hazards and risks early in the design process. The m ost current dem onstra tion of this belief lies in the developm ent and a p proval of a voluntary national consensus standard, ANSI/ASSE Z590.3-2011 (R2016), Prevention T hrough Design G uidelines for A ddressing O ccu pational H azards and Risks in Design and Rede sign Processes. The standard has incorporated key concepts from prior efforts, such as N SC 's Institute
Bruce K. Lyon, P.E., CSP, ARM, CHMM, is director of risk control with Hays Cos., a commercial insurance brokerage firm. He holds a B.S. in Industrial Safety and an M.S. in Occupational Safety Manage- ment/Fire Science from University of Central Missouri. Lyon is an ASSE professional member and past president of the Society's Heart of America Chapter, and recipient of the ASSE Region V Safety Professional of the Year Award. He is advisory board chair to the University of Central Missouri's safety sciences program and coauthor of Risk Assessment: A Practical Guide for Assessing Operational Risk.
Georgi Popov, Ph.D., QEP, CMC, is an assistant professor in the School of Environmental Physical and Applied Sciences at University of Central Missouri. He holds a Ph.D. in Chemistry from National Sci entific Board (Bulgaria) and an M.S. in Nuclear Instrumentation Build-
IN BRIEF • A s in d ic a t e d in t h e p r e v e n tio n th ro u g h d e s ig n (P T D ) h ie r a r c h y o f c o n t r o ls m o d e l,
t h e m o s t e f f e c t iv e m e a n s o f p r e v e n t in g a n d
c o n t r o llin g o c c u p a t io n a l in ju r ie s , illn e s s e s a n d f a t a li t i e s in c o n s tr u c tio n is to a v o id ,
e lim in a t e o r m in im iz e h a z a r d s a n d ris k s
e a r ly in t h e p la n n in g a n d d e s ig n p ro c e s s .
• A p p l y i n g P T D c o n c e p t s in t h e c o n s t r u c
t io n p r o c e s s in b o th t h e s y s t e m ’s p h y s i
c a l d e s ig n a n d t h e m e a n s a n d m e t h o d s
o f e x e c u t i n g t h e c o n s t r u c t io n t a s k s a r e
v i t a l in e l i m i n a t i n g a n d r e d u c in g r is k to
c o n s t r u c t o r s a n d u s e r s .
• D e s p it e t h e r e c e n t a t t e n t io n g iv e n to P T D
in c o n s t r u c t io n , m a n y p r o m is in g c o n tro l
t e c h n o lo g ie s h a v e n o t b e e n tr a n s f e r r e d fr o m r e s e a r c h in to p r a c t ic e . A s ig n if ic a n t
h u r d le to P T D a d o p tio n a n d im p le m e n t a t io n
is th e a v a i l a b il i t y o f c o m m o n m e t h o d o l
o g y a n d r is k a s s e s s m e n t to o ls . T h is a r t ic l e
p r e s e n ts a P T D r is k a s s e s s m e n t to o l m e t h
o d o lo g y a s a w a y to a d d r e s s t h a t c h a lle n g e .
ing/Engineering Physics from Defense University (Bulgaria). Popov is a member of ASSE's Heart of America Chapter and recipient of the chapter's 2015 Safety Professional of the Year Award. He is coauthor of Risk Assessment: A Practical Guide for Assessing Operational Risk.
Elyce Biddle, Ph.D., is an associate professor at West Virginia Uni versity, following a 20-year career as a senior research economist for NIOSH. Biddle is recognized as an international expert in business costs of occupational injury and illness, and has published extensively in related fields on topics such as prevention through design, safety, business economics, workers' compensation, the impact of occupa tional injury on national indices, and organizational motivation to adopt OSH interventions and solutions.
for Safety by Design and other existing standards.
Despite recent attention to the safety and health of con struction workers through the application of prevention through design (PTD) con cepts, many promising con trol technologies have yet to be transferred from research into practice. This leads to the question, why?
Preventing occupational injuries, illnesses or fa talities in construction has often driven industry to make changes. Construc tion companies continually face increased competition, rapidly changing technol ogy and reduced access to
w w w .asse.org SEPTEMBER 2016 P ro fe s s io n a lS a fe ty 37
Figure 1
Hazard Analysis & Risk Assessment Process
N ote. From Prevention Through Design: Guidelines for Addressing Occu pational Hazards and Risks in Design and Redesign Processes (A N SI/A SSE Z590.3-20U ), by A N SI/A SSE , 2011. Des Plaines, IL: ASSE. Reprinted with permission.
limited resources. Under these conditions, OSH efforts to ensure a safe and healthy work envi ronment must compete with other organizational needs. Without clear risk communication about the value of OSH efforts to the organization, manage ment may view these programs and activities as a lower priority. Thus, the challenge for OSH profes sionals is to communicate the value of OSH efforts in terms that are understood and accepted within the C-suite. To meet such challenges, a fundamen tal methodology for assessing risk at the design and redesign stage is required. This article presents such a methodology.
38 P ro fe s s io n a lS a fe ty SEPTEMBER 2016 w w w . a s s e . o r g
The Development of PTD Although earlier efforts have been made to es
tablish PTD concepts, a significant milestone was the release of a position paper by ASSE (1994) to promote gathering of knowledge and application of designing-for-safety concepts. This was fol lowed by NSC's 1995 establishment of its Institute for Safety Through Design, whose mission was to integrate hazard analysis and risk assessment into the early stages of the design process so that haz ards and risks could be avoided and minimized to an acceptable level. In 1999, the institute published the book Safety Through Design, which was com posed of examples of efforts now known as PTD from various industries and the benefits derived (Christensen & Manuele, 1999).
More recently, NIOSH launched a national ini tiative in 2007 to promote the use of PTD concepts. Its goal is to prevent or reduce occupational injuries, illnesses and fatalities by incorporating prevention considerations into all designs that affect workers. The focus is on those who develop and execute the designs, or who work with the products of the design.
One of its goals is to help educate and enable designers, engineers, manufacturers, OSH profes sionals, business leaders and other stakeholders in the application of PTD principles in the design and redesign phases of facilities, processes, equip ment, tools and organization of work. These efforts and the research developed were instrumental in the current PTD concepts and the creation of the Z590.3 standard. Central to the PTD standard is a hazard analysis and risk assessment methodology that can be applied to the design phase, as well as other life-cycle phases of a system.
Current PTD Initiatives Aimed at Designers & Architects Several key efforts are taking place to further the
practice of PTD by designers, engineers and archi tects of construction. The Design for Construction Safety website (Toole, 2016) provides an excellent source of information on such efforts, including initiatives such as:
•formation of an ANSI/ASSE A10 PTD work group with the goal of producing a technical report on PTD in construction;
•four education modules consisting of an in structor's manual and slide deck outlining PTD, worker safety and health considerations, and spe cific hazards in the constaiction design process; one module is specifically dedicated to architec tural design and construction (NIOSH, 2013);
•the SliDeRulE (Safety in Design Risk Evaluator) for Buildings tool developed by John Gambatese at Oregon State University to help building designers assess the construction safety risks associated with their designs during the design phase;
•a short course on designing for construction safe ty by the OSHA Construction Alliance Roundtable;
•presentation to American Bar Association in construction law;
•the inclusion of PTD to the LEED rating system. According to the NIOSH PTD initiative, strides
are being made in research, education, practice
r Figure 2
M a jo r C o m p o n e n ts o f t h e P T D R is k A s s e s s m e n t T o o l
PtD Risk Assessm ent Process
ID New Controls
Ide ntifyT asks and Hazards
Assess Risk - Reduce Risk - Hazard ID Controls Intial risk
scoringsystem | Control Hierarchy:
▼ PtD HoC
RAM
| Bow-Tie CS Bow-Tie FSl
J Mod PHA FS
RAM FS
Assess Risk - Residual Risk
Scoring System
B RAM n B RAM FS N ote. Mod PH A = modified preliminary hazard analysis; CS = current state; FS = fu tu re state; R A M = risk assessment matrix; B R A M = business risk assessment matrix; HoC = hierarchy o f controls; IR = initial risk; RR = residual risk.
and policy making. PTD principles are becoming more prominent in safety management and engineering text books, and are beginning to appear in architectural, civil and construction engineering degrees (NIOSH, 2014b).
However, significant opportunity remains for OSH professionals to prom ote and advance PTD concepts at the design phase within their o r ganizations. Toole and Gambatese (2014) suggest several ways safety can be designed into new construc tion, including increased use of p re fabrication; the use of less hazardous materials and methods; the applica tion of construction engineering; and deeper communication between de signers and contractors during the design phase. Their PTD program guidelines contains a list of recom m ended practices that owners can use to incorporate PTD into the con struction design process (Toole & Gambatese, 2014).
The greatest impact OSH profes sionals can have on reducing risk in construction is to influence those with design responsibilities. As agents of change and knowledge leaders, OSH professionals should take the lead in championing PTD concepts within their organizations. To be successful, safety profession als must become more knowledgeable and pro ficient in PTD concepts, risk assessment and risk reduction methods related to construction.
PTD R isk A s s e s s m e n t M e th o d o lo g y Identifying potential hazards and risks before
materials and activities begin to take shape is a key benefit associated with PTD initiatives. One way to develop a PTD risk assessment tool is to follow the methodology depicted in Figure 1. Any PTD risk as sessment tool should include at least the following:
Figure 3
E x a m p le R is k A s s e s s m e n t M a t r ix : N u m e r ic a l G ra d in g & S c o rin g
C o n s t r u c t io n R is k A s s e s s e m e n t
__________________________ A ssess R isk A s s o c ia t e d w i t h H azard
Risk AssessmentMatrix (RAM): Numerical Grading and Scoring H a zard # 1 s 2 H A V 3 N
Severity Ranking: Probability Ranking: |
5 5 4 4 3 3 3 3
Total 15 12 12
M PHA Form
Example: Numerical
Values
C onse rva tive P tD S ta n d a rd S c o rin g Very high risk: 15 or greater H igh risk: 9 - 1 4 M oderate risk: 4 - 8 Low risk: U n de r 4
N ote. 1 S = silicosis; 2 H A V = hand/arm vibration; 3 N = noise; R A M = risk assessment matrix; M PHA = modified preliminary hazard analysis.
•task and hazard identification; •identification of current controls; •initial risk assessment; •risk reduction based on the hierarchy of controls; •a measure of residual risk with the additional
control measures in place.
M e th o d o lo g y
The PTD risk assessment tool presented in this ar ticle was designed to help OSH professionals make decisions or deliver presentations to the organiza tional managers charged with resource allocations. The tool can be used to select among alternative solutions or demonstrate the benefits of a solution already selected. The information provided by the
w w w .a sse.o rg S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 6 P ro fe s s io n a lS a fe ty 39
tool is expressed in the language understood by all management, not just those in OSH.
The tool consists of four main steps. Before this, as in any risk assessment endeavor, stakeholders should take three steps: 1) gather data; 2) establish the scope and risk criteria; and 3) develop a risk assessment team. For the purposes of this article, only steps four through seven from the PTD standard risk assess ment process (from Figure 1, p. 38) are included.
Table 1
Definitions of the Risk Levels for Severity & Probability In c id e n t o r e x p o su re s e v e rity d e sc rip tio n s 5 C atastrophic O ne o r m o re fa ta litie s , t o t a l s y s te m loss, c h e m ic a l re le a s e
w ith la s tin g e n v ir o n m e n ta l o r p u b lic h e a lth im p a c t.
4 Critical D is a b lin g in ju r y o r illn e ss, m a jo r p r o p e r ty d a m a g e and b usin e ss d o w n tim e , c h e m ic a l re le a s e w it h te m p o r a r y
e n v ir o n m e n ta l o r p u b lic h e a lth im p a c t.
3 M a rg in a l M e d ic a l t r e a t m e n t o r re s tric te d w o rk , m in o r s u b s y s te m loss o r d a m a g e , c h e m ic a l re le a s e tr ig g e r in g e x te rn a l r e p o rtin g
r e q u ir e m e n ts .
2 N e glig ible F irst a id o r m in o r m e d ic a l tr e a t m e n t o r m in o r m e d ic a l t r e a t m e n t o n ly , n o n -s e rio u s e q u ip m e n t o r fa c ility d a m a g e ,
c h e m ic a l re le a s e r e q u ir in g r o u tin e c le a n u p w it h o u t re p o rtin g .
1 Insig n ific a n t In c o n s e q u e n tia l w it h re s p e c t t o in ju rie s o r illn e sse s, sy s te m
loss o r d o w n tim e , o r e n v ir o n m e n ta l c h e m ic a l re le ase .
In c id e n t o r e x p o su re p ro b a b ility d e sc rip tio n s 5 F re q u e n t L ike ly t o o c c u r re p e a te d ly .
4 Likely P ro b a b ly w ill o c c u r s e v e ra l tim e s .
Occasional C o uld o c c u r in t e r m it t e n t ly .
2 Seldom C o uld o c c u r, b u t h a r d ly e ve r.
n U K S M Im p ro b a b le , m a y a ssu m e in c id e n t o r e x p o s u re w ill n o t o ccu r.
Steps one and two include individual descrip tive, analytic tools, or risk assessment methodolo gies, described in the PTD standard. For example, a modified preliminary hazard analysis (PHA) is used to identify hazards (Addendum G, Z590.3). In order to establish the initial scoring system, uti lization of well-established PTD practices may be suggested. Addendum F of Z590.3 offers several examples of risk assessment matrixes and defini tions of terms. The matrix provides "a method to categorize combinations of probability of occur rence and severity of harm, thus establishing risk levels" (ANSI/ASSE, 2016). Figure 2 (p. 39) illus trates the major components of the tool.
PTD R is k A s s e s s m e n t P rocess Steps Let's review the PTD risk assessment process
steps (steps 4 through 7).
Step 4: Identify Tasks, Hazards & Existing Controls This step involves identifying the OSH-related
problems; describing control measures that are cur rently in place to address the problems; and deter mining the business unit where the operation takes place. Understanding the current situation is neces sary to develop critical baseline information needed to identify interventions and controls that can be implemented or refined to further reduce risk.
Step 5: Assess Initial Risk A scoring system is used to estimate the initial risk.
More specifically, after the hazards are identified, the risks arising from those hazards can be evaluated us ing a modified risk assessment matrix from the PTD standard. It should be noted that the numbers in the
T .Figure 4
Modified PHA Form Construction Risk Assessement
I d e n tify Tasks a n d H azards A s s o c ia te d W it h th e P ro b le m | M a i n |
Potential Effect # and a short
nam e H a z a r d
P o t e n t ia l
e ffe c t s P ro ce s s
Risk
F a c t o r
B u s in es s
U n i t / D e p a r t m e n t
D e s c r ip tio n o f C u r r e n t
C o n t r o ls
A N S I/A S S E Z 5 9 0 .3 - 2011: P re v e n tio n T h ro u g h D esign.
H ie ra rc h v o f C o n tro ls
I S C h e m ic a l/
P articles Silicosis C o n c re te g rin d in g 15 Civil C o n s tru c tio n None None
2 HAV HAV HAVS C o n c re te g rin d in g 12 Civil C o n s tru c tio n N one N one
3 N N oise H e a rin g loss C o n c re te g rin d in g 12 Civil C o n s tru c tio n PPE PPE
N o te. 1 S = silicosis; 2 H A V = hand!arm vibration; 3 N = noise; H A V S = hand!arm vibration syndrome; R A M = risk assessment matrix. Photo courtesy University o f Washington, as cited in “Controlling Silica Exposures in Construction" (O SH A Publication No. 3362-05), by O SH A, 2009, retrieved from ivimv.osha.gov/Publications/3362silica-exposures.pdf.
4 0 P rofe s sio n alS a fe ty SEPTEMBER 2016 w w w .a sse.o rg
exam ple risk a ssessm en t m atrix (Figure 3, p. 39) w ere subjectively d eterm in ed an d are sem i-quantitative in nature. Table 1 provides definitions for each risk level for severity an d probability.
Next, a risk level is calculated. This typically takes the form of a simple multiplication of severity (S) x probabil ity (P). It should be noted that suggested FTD standard rating includes 1 through 5 low-risk rating. However, tire authors believe that a more conservative approach may be necessary. For example, a high severity (5) but low probability (1) hazard will result in a low-risk rating.
M an u ele (2008) issu ed a call for a n e w focus o n p re v e n tio n a n d la ter p re s e n te d m ajo r in n o v a tio n s o n h o w to red u ce se rio u s injuries a n d fatalities (M anuele, 2014). A n o th e r reso u rce can be fo u n d in a series of v id eo s offered b y A SSE's Risk A s s e s s m e n t In stitu te (w w w . o s h r i s k . o r g / v i d e o s ). T he video "F atal a n d S erious In jury P re v en tio n " defines fatal a n d se rio u s injury p recu rso rs an d identifies th e role o f le ad e rsh ip in fatal an d se ri o u s in ju ry p re v e n tio n (ASSE Risk A sse ssm e n t I n stitu te, 2014). M artin a n d Black (2015) also su g g est th a t th e goal is to "red u c e a n d elim in ate every type of injury, b u t co n s id eratio n sh o u ld be given to th e allocation o f safety reso u rces specifically ta rg e ted to th e re d u c tio n of p o te n tia l for serio u s an d fatal ev en ts." T herefore, a m o re conservative risk ratin g is co n s id ered in th is article.
Similar risk a ssessm en t m atrixes could be u sed to evaluate bu sin ess h azard s an d risks. To p resen t a 30,000-ft view of th e cu rren t state, h azards an d co n seq u en ces are p rese n ted utilizing a m odified b o w -tie risk a ssessm en t m ethodology. The bow - tie risk as sess m en t m e th o d o lo g y is well described in ISO 31010/ANSI/ASSE Z690.3-2011 Risk M a n ag e m e n t S tan d a rd (ANSI/ASSE, 2011a). T he risk level n u m b e rs are tran sferred to th e m odified bow -
tie risk assessm en t diagram . A lthough, th e b o w - tie risk a ssessm en t m e th o d o lo g y is n o t specifically m e n tio n e d in th e PTD stan d ard , th e a u th o rs believe it is im p o rta n t to include th e b ig -p ictu re overview of h az ard s an d co n seq u en ces (Popov & Zey, 2012).
Step 6: Reduce Risk This step b eg in s b y id entifying th e so lu tio n s to
h a z a rd s reco g n ized in prev io u s steps. C o n sid er-
F ig u r e 5
D e te r m in in g R is k L e v e l f o r P o te n tia l E ffe c ts o f Id e n t if ie d H a z a r d s
Hazard no. Severity ranking:
Probability ranking: Total
IS 2 HAV 3 N 5 5 4 4 3 3 3 3
15 12 12 N o te . 1 S = silicosis; 2 H A V = handlarm vibration; 3 N = noise.
F ig u r e 6
R is k t o B u sin ess O p e r a tio n s C o n tin u ity
O utcom es E— ► C o rp o ra te
im age Ethical issu e s
Legal issu e s
In te n s ity ra tin g : 1 5 4 3 5 L ik elihood ra tin g : | 5 4 4 4
T otal i ---- I> 16 12 20
r ----------- F ig u r e 7
C u r r e n t S ta te : B o w -T ie R is k A s s e s s m e n t D ia g r a m ................ _ C o n s tru c tio n R isk A sse sse m e n t
Hazard and Consequences Relationship Assessment - Current State M a i n
rfi e HazardousW orknviro n m e r 1« i L ^ j
R e cove ry/ M itig a tiv e M easures
NFB Business losses fro m hazardous
w o rk e n v iro n m e n t
Insurance w high
deducta ble
C orporate image
Risk Factor (L*E)
Risk Factor (L*E)
jes
TmH Some Health & Safety
plans Legal Issues
Risk Factor (L*E) |
N o te . 1 S = silicosis; 2 H A V = hand!arm vibration; 3 N = noise; S = severity; P = probability; E = extent o f impact; L = likelihood.
w w w .a s s e .o rg SEPTEMBER 2016 P ro fe s s io n a lS a fe ty 4 1
c \ I
F ig u r e 8
P T D H ie r a r c h y o f C o n tro ls C o n s tru c tio n Risk A ssessem ent
U S I N G H i e r a r c h y o f C o n t r o l s T O S E L E C T S O L U T I O N
L e a s t
P r e f e r r e d
R i s k A v o i d a n c e : P r e v e n t e n t r y o f h a z a r d s i n t o a w o r k p l a c e b y
s e l e c t i n g a n d i n c o r p o r a t i n g a p p r o p r i a t e t e c h n o l o g y a n d w o r k
m e t h o d s c r i t e r i a d u r i n g t h e d e s i g n p r o c e s s e s .
E l i m i n a t e : E l i m i n a t e w o r k p l a c e a n d w o r k m e t h o d s r i s k s t h a t h a v e
b e e n d i s c o v e r e d .
S u b s t i t u t i o n : R e d u c e r i s k s b y s u b s t i t u t i n g le s s h a z a r d o u s m e t h o d s
o r m a t e r i a l s .
E n g i n e e r i n g C o n t r o l s : I n c o r p o r a t e e n g i n e e r i n g c o n t r o l s / s a f e t y
d e v i c e s .
W a r n i n g : P r o v i d e w a r n i n g s y s t e m s .
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o n t r o l s : A p p l y a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o n t r o l s ( t h e
o r g a n i z a t i o n o f w o r k , t r a i n i n g , s c h e d u l i n g , s u p e r v i s i o n , e t c . ) .
P e r s o n a l P r o t e c t i v e E q u i p m e n t : P r o v i d e P e r s o n a l P r o t e c t i v e
E q u i p m e n t ( P P E ) .
Vacuum Collection Systems
Calculations
HAV - Engineering Control
Grinder with attached VDC system. {Photo courtesy o f the t University of Washington.)
Use of ergonomic aid HAV - Substitution/Eng.
Use of a vibration damped grinder
HAV - Administrative Control i/ork Scheduling -10 min break per hou
Training: Tool Grasp / Handling Ensuring Proper Maintenance
NOISE - Substitution Grinder
Vibration links: NIOSH Vibration
Consensus Standards: Comment
NIOSH: http://www.cdc.qovfniosh/topics/buyquiet/ NIOSH: http://www.cdc.qo\z/niosh/topics/noisecontrol/
Risk Reduction Hierarchy o f Controls reprinted w ith permission from ANSI/ASSE Z590.3 (Courtesy of the American Society of Safety Engineers)
NIOSH DB: hUp://w wwn.cdc.qo'/niosh-sound-vibration/
For more information qo to: http://www.cdc.qov/niosh/topics/hierarchv/
N o te. H A V = hand!arm vibration.
f F ig u r e 9F u tu r e S ta te : B o w -T ie R is k A s s e s s m e n t D ia g r a m C o n s tru c tio n R isk A s s e s s e m e n t j
IHBHBHHEBB Hazard and Consequences Relationship A s s e ssm e n t- with Proposed SH&E Intervention
Risks from unm itigated hazards
Preventive Barriers o r Controls
IS ___ *___ Risk Factor (S*P) I 5 Eng. Controls
Risk Factor (S*P) 1 4
Eng. Admin
Eng. Sub. 3 N
Risk Factor (S*P) | 2
Business losses from hazardous work environm ent
Recovery/ M itigative Measures
Corporate image
Risk Factor (L*E)
Ethical Issues
Risk Factor (L*E) B 3 [
SH&E plans; Controls Legal Issues
Risk Factor (L*E) | 4
N o te. 1 S = silicosis; 2 H A V = hand/arm vibration; 3 N = noise; S = severity; P = probability; E = extent o f impact; L = likelihood.
ation of PTD concepts, including the hierarchy of controls, is used to evaluate and select possible solutions for continued analysis. The processes/ operations identified in Step 4 are revisited to de termine what changes to those, processes/opera tions result from the intervention or solution being
4 2 P ro fe s s io n a lS a fe ty SEPTEMBER 2016 www .asse.org
considered. These changes again include both the risk of business loss or interruption and the risk of adverse worker safety and health outcomes.
A second risk analysis is performed considering the effect of implementing the intervention op tions. The relationship of hazard and consequenc-
f............ ............ Figure 10
R esidual Risk & Risk R eduction Construction Risk Assessement
Health and Safety Risk Reduction A s s e s s R e s id u a l R is k a n d R isk R e d u c tio n
H a z a rd s R isk F a c to r CS Risk F a c to r FS % Risk
R e d u c tio n
% Residual
Risk I S 1 5 5 6 6 .6 7 % 3 3 .3 3 % 2 H A V 12 4 6 6 .6 7 % 3 3 .3 3 % 3 N 12 I 2 8 3 .3 3 % 1 6 .6 7 % T o t a l . . 3 9 11 7 1 .7 9 % 2 8 .2 1 %
I Is t h is a n a c c e p t a b le le v e l o f H e a lt h a n d S a fe ty R isk? Y e s
BUSINESS Risk Reduction B u s in e s s lo s s e s f r o m h a z a r d o u s w o r k
e n v ir o n m e n t R isk F a c to r CS Risk F a c to r FS
% Risk
R e d u c tio n
% Residual
Risk C o r p o r a t e im a g e 1 6 6 6 2 .5 0 % 3 7 .5 0 % E th ic a l Is s u e s I f f l W 1 II— 3 7 5 .0 0 % 2 5 .0 0 % L e g a l Is s u e s 2 0 4 8 0 .0 0 % 2 0 .0 0 % T o t a l 13 7 2 .9 2 % 2 7 .0 8 %
|ls t h is a n a c c e p t a b le le v e l o f B u s in e s s R isk? Y e s
R isk F a c to r CS v s . FS
Risk F a c to r CS
■ Risk F a c to r FS
Note. CS = current state; FS = fu tu re state; 1 S = silicosis; 2 H A V = hand!arm vibration; 3 N = noise.
es is evaluated using tools recom m ended in ANSI/ ASSE Z590.3 and ISO 31010/ANSI/ASSE Z690.3. A nother bow -tie risk assessm ent could be included at the end of this step to present possible risk re duction in hazards and consequences.
Step 7; Assess Residual Risk Assessing residual risks is considered a critical step.
It integrates all previous steps and provides risk re duction calculations, providing a final risk measure— one that calculates the remaining business and OSH risk. This enables decision makers to make better de cisions concerning risk reduction measures and their effects on risk to achieve an acceptable level.
As these select steps dem onstrate, the tool is flex ible enough and can be used in various situations or u nder various conditions. It can be used in any of the stages of im plem enting solutions—preopera- tional, operational, post-operational or post-inci dent— defined in ANSI/ASSE Z590.3.
Case Study References The following case study examples help illustrate
the im portance of risk assessm ents and the b e n efits they provide w hen fully utilized.
1) Control of H azardous D ust W hen G rinding Concrete (NIOSH, 2009).
2) Vibration Syndrome (NIOSH, 1983). 3) Controls for Noise Exposure (NIOSH, 2014a).
PTD for Hazards in Construction Tool Applicability Current research presents opportunities for the
OSH professional to explore alternatives with the goal of reducing occupational injury and illnesses associ ated with grinding concrete. Following is a description of the steps included in the PTD risk assessment tool.
The first step is to identify the main safety and health hazards. OSH professionals are encouraged to identify and list (document) all of the hazards associated w ith the process/operation. The form provides options to evaluate m any different h a z
ards. However, it is com m on practice to start with the top three ranked hazards. Three hazards are identified and recorded in Figure 4 (p. 40).
W ith the hazards identified, the next step involves determ ining the risk level for each of the three p o tential effects. Risk level could be defined as a com bination of severity and a probability of the potential effects based on the identified hazards. Several risk assessm ent m ethods exist, but for this project the process was conducted using the simple risk assess m ent matrix described in the PTD standard. The risk to hum an safety and health is not the only risk asso ciated with workplace hazards. The risk to business operations continuity should also be considered. A similar risk assessm ent matrix was used to estimate that risk. Figures 5 and 6 (p. 41) present the risk as sessm ent results for both types of risk.
To present a big-picture overview of the current state, hazards and consequences are presented utilizing a modified bow -tie risk assessm ent m e th odology. The risk level num bers are transferred to the modified bow -tie risk assessm ent diagram p re sented in Figure 7 (p. 41).
After evaluating hazards associated w ith the cur ren t process/operation, PTD concepts are consid ered using the hierarchy of controls model, then are discussed and docum ented. A simple form was developed to present current state hazards and proposed solutions (Figure 8).
The sam e risk assessm ent m ethodology can be applied to evaluate hazards and consequences after the new controls are im plem ented. H azards and consequences for the new controls are p re sented using a modified bow -tie risk assessm ent m ethodology (Figure 9).
Notice that below the preventive barriers or controls, layers of protection could be added as needed. Layers of protection analysis (LOPA) and bow -tie m ethod integration can be considered a barrier-based approach to risk. It follows Reason's Swiss cheese model of defenses (EEC, 2006).
w ww .asse.org SEPTEMBER 2016 P ro fe s s io n a lS a fe ty 4 3
Calculating the residual risk and risk reduction scores is among the final steps in the risk assessment process (Via tor & Spencer, 2010). After implementing all identified control measures, a 71.79% risk reduction can be poten tially achieved (Figure 10).
To help communicate the value to decision makers, the financial benefits of the proposed changes are calcu lated. To be effective, OSH professionals should be able to determine and commu nicate the potential impacts on workers, business op erations (both upstream and downstream) and risk m an agement. Changes in risk
measurements will serve as the basis to derive the financial and nonfinancial benefits of modifying the work process by implementing all proposed control measures that can be included in a business case (Biddle & Popov, 2014).
Conclusion Following the hierarchy of controls model, haz
ards and risk that can be eliminated, avoided or minimized are the first choice in managing work place and construction risks. OSH professionals agree that PTD concepts should be employed early in the design and planning stages of construction projects and associated tasks.
Effectively communicating the value of PTD interventions can be challenging for OSH profes sionals who lack the expertise or experience in such efforts. The PTD risk assessment methodology and tools demonstrated in this article provide an ex ample of how safety professionals can successfully incorporate PTD in construction-related tasks and the overall risk management process. Remember, the output of the PTD risk assessment is a valuable input to the decision-making process. PS
To be successful, safety professionals must become more
knowledgeable and proficient in
PTD concepts, risk assessment and risk
reduction methods related to construction.
References
ANSI/ASSE. (2011a). Risk assessment techniques (ANSI/ASSE Z690.3-2011). Des Plaines, IL: ASSE.
ANSI/ASSE. (2011b). Risk management principles and guidelines (ANSI/ASSE Z690.2-2011). Des Plaines, IL: ASSE.
ANSI/ASSE. (2016). Prevention through design: Guidelines for addressing occupational hazards and risks in design and redesign processes [ANSI/ASSE Z590.3-2011 (R2016)]. Des Plaines, IL: ASSE.
ASSE. (1994). Designing for safety (Position paper). Des Plaines, IL: ASSE. Retrieved from www.asse.org/ professionalaffairs/action/designing-for-safety
ASSE Risk Assessment Institute. (2014, Dec. 5). Fatal and serious injury (FSI) prevention. Retrieved from https://vimeo.com/113721543
Behm, M. (2005). Linking construction fatalities to the design for construction safety concept. Safety Sci ence, 43(8), 589-611. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2005.04.002
44 P ro fe s s io n a lS a fe ty S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 6 w w w . a s s e . o r g
Biddle, E.A. & Popov, G.I. (2014). Supporting preven tion through design (PTD) solutions using a business case. Proceedings of ASSE's Safety 2014 Professional Development Conference, Orlando, PL.
Christensen, W.C. & Manuele, F.A. (1999). Safety through design. Itasca, IL: NSC.
EUROCONTROL Experimental Center (EEC). (2006, Oct.). Revisiting the "Swiss cheese" model of accidents (EEC Note No. 13/06). Retrieved from www.eurocontrol .int/eec/gallery/content/public/document/eec/report/ 2006/017_Swiss_Cheese_Model.pdf
European Agency for Health and Safety at Work (EU-OSHA). (2002, June 25). Directive 2002/44/EC— Vibration. Retrieved from https://osha.europa.eu/en/ legislation/directives/exposure-to-physical-hazards/ osh-directives/19
Health and Safety Executive (HSE). (2016a). Expo sure points system and ready-reckoner. Retrieved from www.hse.gov.uk/vibration/hav/readyreckoner.htm
HSE. (2016b). Guide to using the online hand-arm vibration exposure calculator. Retrieved from www.hse .gov.uk/vibration/hav/calcinst.htm
HSE. (2016c). Hand-arm vibration exposure calcula tor. Retrieved from www.hse.gov.uk/vibration/hav/ vibrationcalc.htm
Manuele, F.A. (2008, Dec.). Serious injuries and fatalities: A call for a new focus on their prevention. Professional Safety, 53(12), 32-39.
Manuele, F.A. (2014). Advanced safety management focusing on Z 10 and serious injury prevention (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Martin, D.K. & Black, A. (2015, Sept.) Preventing serious injuries and fatalities: Study reveals precursors and paradigms. Professional Safety, 60(9), 35-43.
NIOSH. (1983). Vibration syndrome—Current intel ligence bulletin 38 (NIOSH Publication No. 83-110). Retrieved from www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/83-110
NIOSH. (2009). Control of hazardous dust when grinding concrete (NIOSH Publication No. 2009- 115). Workplace Solutions. Retrieved from www.cdc.gov/ niosh/docs/wp-solutions/2009-115/pdfs/2009-115.pdf
NIOSH. (2013). Architectural design and construc tion: Instructor's manual (NIOSH Publication No. 2013- 133). Retrieved from www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2013-133
NIOSH. (2014a). Controls for noise exposure. Re trieved from www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/noisecontrol
NIOSH. (2014b). The state of the National Initiative on Prevention Through Design: Progress report 2014 (NIOSH Publication No. 2014-123). Retrieved from www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2014-123
Popov, G., Lyon, B.K. & Hollcroft, B. (2016). Risk as sessment: A practical guide to assessing operational risks. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Popov, G. & Zey J.N. (2012). Prevention through design: Combining risk assessment, productivity and sustainability. Proceedings of ASSE's Safety 2012 Profes sional Development Conference, Denver, CO.
Toole, M. (2016). Prevention through design: Design for construction safety. Retrieved from www.designfor constructionsafety.org
Toole, M. & Gambatese, J. (2014). PTD program guidelines. Retrieved from www.designforconstruction safety.org/Documents/PtD%20Guidelines.docx
Viator, D. & Spencer, T. (2010, April). Risk assess ment tool: Residual risk reduction (R3). Retrieved from www.scribd.com/document/41666917/Residual-Risk -Reduction-R3
© IS
T O
C K
P H
O T
O .C
O M
/B E
R N
A R
D A
S V
Copyright of Professional Safety is the property of American Society of Safety Engineers 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.
