How to avoid the common pitfalls when conducting plant risk assessments. WHAT IS A PLANT RISK ASSESSMENT (PRA)? HOW DO I DO A PLANT RISK ASSESSMENT? A PRA involves a comprehensive inspection of a piece of plant or equipment to ensure it is safe for use. Traditionally, Plant Risk Assessments are conducted using a 4 step process: Step 1: Identify Hazards EXAMPLE: ROLL OVER PROTECTION EXAMPLE Identify hazard Crush hazard due to roll over Likelihood: possible 2 Assess the risk of an incident related to the hazard 3 Specify and implement risk controls 4 Monitor and review Step 4: Monitor & Review Plant Assessor Risk Assessment Process Consequence: potential fatality Step 2: Assess Risks Risk rating: high 22 (from risk matrix) Fit ROPS to AS 2294 Manage residual risks Step 3: Specifiy & Implement Controls Periodically reassess If an error or oversight is made in Steps 1 to 3, this is likely to lead to fundamental flaws in the Plant Risk Assessment. Risk Analysis Consequence > Poor knowledge of the plant being assessed & its functions > Poor understanding of hazards present > Poor understanding of the risk analysis/evaluation process > Poor understanding of the controls required on particular types of plant > Inconsistently identifying hazards, assessing risks and specifying controls > Failure to implement controls required by the PRA > PRAs incomprehensible, misunderstood and unusable in the field Likelihood WHAT ARE THE PITFALLS WHEN CONDUCTING PLANT RISK ASSESSMENTS? 1 Insignificant Dealt with by in House first aid 2 Minor Treated by medical professionals, Hospital out patients A Almost certain to occur in most circumstances MEDIUM 8 HIGH 16 B Likely to occur frequently MEDIUM 7 C Possible & likely to occur at sometime 3 Moderate Significant non permanent injury, overnight hospital stay 4 Major Extensive permanent Injury, e.g. Loss of fingers, extended hospital stay 5 Catastrophic Death, permanent disabling injury e.g. Loss of hand, quadriplegic HIGH 18 CRITICAL 23 CRITICAL 25 MEDIUM 10 HIGH 17 HIGH 20 CRITICAL 24 LOW 3 MEDIUM 9 MEDIUM 12 HIGH 19 HIGH 22 D Unlikely to occur but could happen LOW 2 LOW 5 MEDIUM 11 MEDIUM 14 HIGH 21 E May occur but only in rare circumstances LOW 1 LOW 4 LOW 6 MEDIUM 13 MEDIUM 15 Contact : t 1300 728 852 e [email protected] WHITE DISCUSSION PAPER JANUARY 2013 1 STAGE How to avoid the common pitfalls when conducting plant risk assessments. HOW TO AVOID THE PITFALLS OF PLANT RISK ASSESSMENT THE SHOW STOPPER: PLANT KNOWLEDGE The most fundamental knowledge requirement is knowledge of the plant itself. In simple terms, if an assessor does not have a comprehensive knowledge of the plant and how it works, there is no way they will be able to competently undertake a Plant Risk Assessment. There is no way around this requirement. If you don’t know the plant, you should not attempt to conduct a Plant Risk Assessment. MANAGEABLE PITFALLS: SYSTEMISING THE PLANT RISK ASSESSMENT PROCESS The balance of the pitfalls can be managed by following a systematic approach to the Plant Risk Assessment process. A systematic approach must aim to institutionalise the knowledge required to consistently and thoroughly follow the risk assessment process for plant. This is achieved by providing a structured process which includes sufficient guidance to assessors to reduce subjectivity, inconsistency and incompleteness. Further information on the critical elements of a structured Plant Risk Assessment process is included in the table below “Addressing the Pitfalls”. Suppliers and owners of plant can develop their own structured risk assessment process; however the cost of doing so is often prohibitive for all except the largest of organisations. Plant Assessor provides this systemisation, and spreads the cost over many users. The main aim of Plant Assessor is to allow users to conduct speedy, thorough and consistent PRAs, without the need for extensive knowledge of legislation, risk assessment and general safety principles. Plant Assessor contains the results of comprehensive analysis of tens of thousands of different types, makes and models of plant & equipment. These assessments are then de-constructed into comprehensive & specific control questionnaires. Plant Assessor empowers the assessor with over 70,000 make and model specific plant safety inspection questionnaires, which focus on checking controls rather than the difficult four stage risk assessment process. The table below summarises how the Plant Assessor system addresses PRA pitfalls. TABLE: ADDRESSING THE PITFALLS DETAILS Poor understanding of hazards present Poor understanding of the risk analysis/evaluation process Poor understanding of the controls required on particular types of plant Inconsistency in of risks and of hazards, evaluation of controls Failure to implement controls required by the PRA Plant Risk Assessments incomprehensible, misunderstood and unusable in the Failure to identify all hazards of irrelevant hazards HOW PLANT ASSESSOR ADDRESSES THE PITFALL Comprehensive hazard each Risk ratings are included and have been determined by experts Failure to accurately or consistently estimate the likelihood and consequence related to hazards Risk ratings are consistent and transparent References and explanations of all relevant authorities built in to every inspection Requires knowledge of legislation, Australian and International Standards, Codes of Practice etc. Inconsistency between different assessors Inconsistency from the same assessor over time is included in inspection References are constantly updated as changes occur Questionnaires address all hazards and risks every time, helping to ensure consistency and thoroughness Corrective actions get lost to dynamically track and manage completion Inconsistent formats and incomplete information Use of jargon and acronyms Often just focus on corrective actions Contact : t 1300 728 852 e [email protected] Built-in corrective action management system Filter, sort and report outstanding actions Consistent and comprehensive format Contains details of all controls required, along with residual risks requiring management WHITE DISCUSSION PAPER JANUARY 2013 PITFALL