Risk Assessment Using Different Assessment Methods - Case Study Example

FV3103 Assignment: Risks Assessment Table of Contents Contents 1 Introduction 3 2 Sample Building for Assessment 4 3 Ticklist Assessment Method 5 3.1 SWOT ANALYSIS DIAGRAM 7 3.2 Risk Ranking and F-N Table 7 3.3 FMEA – Failure Mode and Effect Analysis 9 3.4 Fault Tree Analysis 9 3.5 Common Cause Analysis 10 3.6 Reliability Block Diagram (RBD) 11 3.7 Event Tree 12 3.8 Cost Benefit Analysis 12 4 Reflective Comparison of Different Risks Assessment Methods 15 5 Fixed Budget Allocation for School Building’s Risks 17 6 References 18 1 Introduction According to , the safety requirements in the United Kingdom must be demonstrated through installation of safety management system, identification of all major hazards and associated risks, and reduction of those risks in acceptable level. Moreover, the most important technique being considered to identify major hazards is quantitative risks assessment and those that are available to show that risks have been reduced. For instance, although regulations do not specify the risk assessment methodologies, it requires specific actions in preventing or controlling exposure, monitoring, health surveillance, and providing instruction and training . For this reason, the following sections include a risks assessment using different assessment methods, comparisons and evaluation of each methods effectiveness, and reflection on the most appropriate method for fire risks assessment. These include methodologies such as SWOT, TICKLIST, FMEA, RISK RANKING, FAULT TREE, COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS, AND CCA or Common Cause Analysis. 2 Sample Building for Assessment The subject of this risk assessment is small school building with 10 classrooms. The school consist of 6 teachers, a principal, 2 utility personnel, a librarian, and 2 security personnel. There are around 300 students on regular school days.. Figure 1- Sample School Building 3 Ticklist Assessment Method Using Ticklist form, this assignment conducted hazards identification, evaluation of fire safety procedures, people vulnerable to hazards found, and mitigation necessary to reduce risks. Table 1 – Ticklist Part One No. List Findings 1 System for controlling combustible materials and flammable liquids There is documented system for controlling these materials. 2 System operation None 3 Safe storage for combustible materials and flammable liquids There is a small storage outside the building (not shown in the plan) 4 Heater guards and location of heater Heater located away from combustible materials and with heater guards 5 Portable electrical equipment inspection and fuses Fuses installed inspected and in proper specifications. There is existing document indicating date of replacement and other maintenance details. 6 Electrical wiring inspection Regularly inspected by contractor 7 Extension leads and multi-point adapter Not often used 8 Flexes location Located in secured location 9 Furniture upholstery In good condition 10 Rubbish and combustible waste materials Mostly paper and classroom materials 11 Smoking area with adequate ashtray No smoking 12 Measures against arson Security check at entrance / random inspection 13 Measures to prevent smoke and flames spread Fire rated doors and walls Part Two No. List Findings 14 Sufficient number of exits and width for the number of occupants Four possible fire exits 15 Exits leading to place of safety All four exits leading to open area 16 Obstructions on escape routes and gangways Free of obstruction 17 Tripping and Slipping Hazards in Escape Route Non-slip tiles installed 18 Steps and stairs Stairs not in use/upper floor not in use 19 Final exit Unlocked on school days 20 Devices securing final exit No key required from inside 21 Internal Fire Doors Labelled with automatic closer 22 Self closers on Fire Doors Tested and in good working order 23 Door opening direction Directed to final exit 24 Signs in Escape Routes Adequate signage installed 25 Lighting in Escape Routes Available and in correct location 26 Evacuation plan for assisting disabled staff and visitors There is documented evacuation plan Part Three No. List Findings 27 Procedures and Practices for Use of Combustible Materials and Processes that use and produce heat Document procedures and practices 28 Consideration of cost-effective measures in preventing arson Random inspection / proposal for CCTV and sprinkler 29 Staff Training in terms of fire safety Regular drills / Knowledge of portable extinguishers use/ alarm/ notification/ 30 Advice from insurer regarding fire safety Received by school administrator Part Four No. List Findings 31 Escape lighting order and maintenance Service contractor / in good condition 32 Fire alarm condition Service contractor / in good condition 33 Fire alarm testing Service contractor / in good condition 34 Fire alarm raising safety No problem observed 35 Fire Alarm Call Points Visibility and Location Visible / No obstruction 36 Number of Fire Extinguishers 14 units in different location 37 Fire Extinguisher and Fire Blankets Condition and Location Accessible near administrator office 38 Fire Extinguisher Servicing Annually by service contractor 39 Fire Fighting Installation and Automatic Fire Detection System No Smoke detector Part Five No. List Findings 40 Recording Findings of Fire Risk Assessment Available with school administrator 41 Informing staff or representatives about the findings of Risk Assessment Posted near main entrance and admin office 42 Preparation of Formal Report Admin and key personnel 43 Informing others about the risk identified Posted near main entrance and all classrooms 44 Informing the building owner about the findings of a fire risk assessment Owner actively participating in fire risk assessment 45 Display of Fire Action Notices Available in all classrooms 46 Existence of Emergency Plan Plan for both major and minor fire incident 47 Safekeeping of Emergency Plan School Administrator Office 3.1 SWOT ANALYSIS DIAGRAM STRENGHT WEAKNESS Smoking not allowed Fire alarm Call Points Multiple fire exits Fire extinguishers Automatic fire doors Properly lighted escape route With procedure for combustible materials Easy accessible emergency equipments Regular inspection and maintenance Records kept securely No CCTV for Arson Detection No Smoke Alarm OPPORTUNITIES THREATS CCTV and smoke alarm installation still possible Arson Figure 2- SWOT (Strenght, Weakness, Opportunities, Threats) Diagram 3.2 Risk Ranking and F-N Table Table 2 –Risk Ranking Matrix High Arson – very likely to occur in school with 300 students and other people going in out of the building Medium Fire damage due to absence of smoke alarm / delayed detection/ Low Small Medium Large Table 3 –F-N Table Ranking Frequency Severity Safeguards 1 Never yet observed Negligible Invulnerability 2 Rare event Cosmetic Secure 3 Statistic exist Superficial Contained 4 Occasional Peripheral Compensative 5 Sporadic Significant Suppressive 6 Probable Structural Moderative 7 Periodic Serious Strategic 8 Regular Permanent effect Minimal 9 Likely Critical Superficial 10 Constant Catastrophic Prone . 3.3 FMEA – Failure Mode and Effect Analysis Item Description Function Failure Mode Failure Cause Failure Effect on Failure detection method Building People Business Smoke alarm Early fire detection Not installed / not working Management disregard to importance of early detection Fire damage Injuries /Death Property damaged / decreased students population Installation of approved smoke alarm Arson detection / prevention Prevent arson & consequences of fire CCTV not installed or not working Security personnel neglect Fire damage Injuries/ Deaths Damages reputation / decreased student population CCTV installation Figure 3 – FMEA Risks Analysis Method 3.4 Fault Tree Analysis 3.5 Common Cause Analysis 3.6 Reliability Block Diagram (RBD) 3.7 Event Tree Figure 7 Event Tree 3.8 Cost Benefit Analysis Table 4 – School Data for CBA Cost if room unavailable (£/day) Premises no. rooms typ. area (sq.m) mean inaccuracy (%) Classrooms 10 400 £100 50% Laboratory 1 25 £50 50% Corridor 1 40 £1,000 50% Cloak room 1 20 £1,000 50% Main hall 1 40 £50 50% Kitchen 1 10 £100 50% Office 2 20 £100 50% Total area (sq.m) 4175 £3,400 Other data value No. Students 300 No. Staff 10 No. other staff 3 Location West York Rel. no. of fires 1.0 Table 5 – Sample Fire Risks Summary Baseline Risks (per year) Reduced Risks (per year) cost (£) inaccuracy (%) uncertainty (£) cost (£) inaccuracy (%) uncertainty (£) Total Risks (£, per year) £3,316 41% £1,369 £548 64% £351 Room fires £1,115 75% £832 £120 115% £138 cloakroom fires £1,102 75% £825 £125 110% £137 corridor fires £111 90% £100 £9 102% £9 lab fires £22 66% £15 £4 123% £5 main hall fires £832 84% £697 £275 106% £292 office fires £78 78% £61 £11 110% £12 store room fires £55 84% £46 £5 102% £5 Total no. of fires (1/yr) 2.65E-02 1.09E-02 Table 6 Cost Benefit Analysis for CCTV Installation Reliability mean inaccuracy(%) uncertainty System reliability 98% 3% 3% System lifetime (years) 15 20% 3 Costs mean inaccuracy(%) uncertainty One-off costs (eg. installation) (£) £130,000 10% £13,000 Capital Recovery Factor 8.7% 15% Annual discounted costs (£) £11,287 18% £2,061 Annual costs (eg. maintenance) (£) £0 0% £0 Total annual costs (£) £11,287 18% £2,061 Benefits mean inaccuracy(%) uncertainty One-off benefits (besides risk reduction) (£) £0 0% £0 Capital Recovery Factor 8.7% 15% Annual discounted benefit (besides risk reduction) (£) £0 15% £0 Annual additional benefit (besides risk reduction) (£) £10,000 10% £1,000 Total annual benefit (besides risk reduction) (£) £10,000 10% £1,000 Table 7 – Cost Benefit Analysis for Smoke Alarm         Reliability mean inaccuracy(%) uncertainty System reliability 95% 3% 3% System lifetime (years) 10 10% 1         Costs mean inaccuracy(%) uncertainty One-off costs (eg. installation) (£) £63,000 10% £6,300 Capital Recovery Factor 12.0% 8%   Annual discounted costs (£) £7,575 13% £988 Annual costs (eg. maintenance) (£) £534 9% £50 Total annual costs (£) £8,109 12% £990         Benefits mean inaccuracy(%) uncertainty One-off benefits (besides risk reduction) (£) £0 0% £0 Capital Recovery Factor 12.0% 8% Annual discounted benefit (besides risk reduction) (£) £0 8% £0 Annual additional benefit (besides risk reduction) (£) £0 0% £0 Total annual benefit (besides risk reduction) (£) £0 0% £0 Figure 8- Baseline cost and reduced risks cost 4 Reflective Comparison of Different Risks Assessment Methods As mentioned in the introduction, this risk assessment employed different risks assessment methods to identify risks in the sample school building. All assessment methods were found helpful in identify risks but some of them are too complex while others are not informative enough to allow determination of possible treatment and control. The TICKLIST is very informative compared to other risks assessment methods and it appears very relevant to fire safety assessment in buildings. Compared to SWOT and Fault Tree analysis that seems intended for business and manufacturing industry respectively , TICKLIST contains specific description of what to look for in a building in relation to fire safety. Although SWOT and Fault Tree are logical methods and widely used, they are not fit for fire risk assessment tasks that requires a more detailed result. The advantage of Risk Ranking over TICKLIST, SWOT, and FAULT TREE is its emphasis on probability of risks and severity of associated consequences . For instance, Risk Ranking Matrix can show the probability of each identified risks and the severity of the consequences for each risk found in sample school building . Risk Ranking in this study’s opinion is well-suited for assessments that are interested in likelihood and extent of damage rather than information about the risk. FMEA on the other hand is like TICKLIST in table format. It is quite informative and complete with treatment and control information. However, it requires expertise or complete knowledge of the system and therefore not useful for everyone . Compared to SWOT and Risk Ranking, FMEA requires more work and possibly engineering background and experience similar to Fault Tree. CCA or Common Cause Analysis as shown earlier can provide a more detailed risks assessment but it involves numerous risks assessment methods . For instance, it analysed the similarities and differences between each assessment results and create a pool of knowledge to determine which risks is more likely to occur. By analysis, CCA is the most laborious of all methods presented in this risk assessment. The Reliability Block Diagram is useful when identifying effects of system component on the overall performance of the system but although it looks simple the process of creating an RBD is complex particularly those with no engineering background . Similarly, although limited to one event at a time, a logic diagram like the Event Tree can identify events rather than faults thus fire safety failure events and associated property damage can be detected earlier . Overall, as shown above, Cost Benefit Analysis is more realistic but definitely complex and requires accounting background in most part . Ticklist and FMEA is more relevant for fire risks assessment in terms of information and facilitating treatment and control. 5 Fixed Budget Allocation for School Building’s Risks Reduction of risks and its impact is the objective of this risk assessment thus information contained in TICKLIST, FMEA, and Cost-Benefit Analysis may be use to justify the budget for additional fire safety measures. Management can decide which risk is more probable and has more damaging effect. They can also decide on the most economical risk mitigating measures and allocate a fixed budget for those risks. These decisions may be more accurate if management consider the result of CBA presented earlier as it balances the cost and benefits of installing a fire prevention system. For instance, the CBA presented earlier recommend installation of CCTV to further improve arson prevention strategy in school. Similarly, the CBA also demonstrated in terms of economics, the cost and benefit of smoke alarm which in reality is very important in preventing spread of fire and significant property damage. In general, a fixed budget may be allocated in terms of probability, consequence, cost, and benefit of fire prevention system. 6 References Anderson, E. L. & Albert, R. E. (1998). Risk Assessment and Indoor Air Quality, Taylor & Francis Böhm, A. (2009). The SWOT Analysis, GRIN Verlag Graham, T. (2012). The Absolute Basics of Risk Assessment, UCLAN.UK Haimes, Y. Y. (2011). Risk Modeling, Assessment, and Management, Wiley Hamada, M. S., Wilson, A., Reese, C. S. & Martz, H. (2008). Bayesian Reliability, Springer Hester, R. E. & Harrison, R. M. (1998). Risk Assessment and Risk Management, Royal Society of Chemistry Høyland, A. & Rausand, M. (2009). System Reliability Theory: Models and Statistical Methods, Wiley Lewis, T. G. (2006). Critical Infrastructure Protection in Homeland Security: Defending a Networked Nation, Wiley McIntosh, E., Clarke, P. & Frew, E. (2010). Applied Methods of Cost-Benefit Analysis in Health Care, OUP Oxford Mikulak, R. J., McDermott, R. & Beauregard, M. (2011). The Basics of FMEA, 2nd Edition, Taylor & Francis Rausand, M. (2013). Risk Assessment: Theory, Methods, and Applications, Wiley Taylor, J. R. (2003). Risk Analysis for Process Plant, Pipelines and Transport, Taylor & Francis  Read More