Problem Statement: A hazard identification and risk assessment analysis are ones of the most important elements of an effective health and safety management system. Different standard specifications for management systems (including BS OHSAS 18001:2007, ANSI/AIHA Z10-2010, ISO 14001, BSEE SEMS, CORE Safety and others) require hazard and risk assessment to be performed on a regular basis. However, it has been observed that these traditional approaches do not necessarily facilitate appropriate prioritization of risks to manage and control adverse injuries and illnesses in the workplace. Considering the importance of developing effective approaches to hazard identification and risk characterization, potential ways for enhancing typical hazard and risk assessment procedures, involving numerous aspects of the safety culture paradigm, were investigated. Specifically, it was decided to develop a methodology of hazard and risk assessment that would be applicable to a specific industry (for example, petroleum industry), with testing first performed in a controlled environment.

Objectives and Scope of the Study: The objective of the article is to analyze a current hazard and risk assessment process in a medium-sized consulting firm, complaint and certified in accordance with OHSAS 18001 specifications, and to describe a methodological basis for continued improvement. Because traditionally occupational health and safety management systems use two-dimensional (likelihood (L)/severity (C)) risk assessment approach, an enhanced methodology was referred as the three-dimensional hazard and risk assessment method.

Method: Hazard identification and risk assessments were performed for all routine activities. After the hazards were identified for each working group, the hazard list was distributed to all members of the working groups and they were asked to rank their Perception (P) of how the hazards were being addressed by the company and to also rank how important it was for the company to address the hazards (Importance - I). Based on the analysis performed, new metrics for risk level were introduced, based on different combinations of observed parameters. For each new metric, a scale of risk levels was proposed, utilizing the Monte-Carlo simulation approach, with Crystal Ball software applied. The 25th, 50th and 75th percentiles of all possible values of risk level were chosen as ranking criteria.

Results and Observations: Importance (I) and Perception (P) introduced valuable information for hazard identification and risk assessment. New risk metric LCI/P was proposed instead on LC. Three-dimensional model of “risk profile” was proposed for implementation, to reflect various aspects of effectiveness of the management system.

Conclusions: Risk perception and employee's vision of importance of hazards should be considered as a significant element of an enhanced risk assessment procedure.

Applications: The proposed methodology can be used by oil and gas facilities’ managers to increase effectiveness and return on investments for their health and safety activities.

Innovations or Technical Contributions: New methodology of hazard and risk identification was proposed.

You can access this article if you purchase or spend a download.