Original Research
DOI: 10.31557/apjec.2019.2.1.63-68
Submitted: 2019-05-06
Published: 2019-09-09

Health and Safety Risk Assessment Using a Combined FMEA and JSA Method in a Manufacturing Company

Expert in Industrial Engineering, Industrial Safety Tendency, Qazvin Labor University.
School of Health Science, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
MSc of Environmental Management (HSE), Islamic Azad University of Tehran, West Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran.
Safety and Health Risk Assessment, FMEA, JSA, AHA, JHA, THA, Executive Procedure, Guidelines.

Abstract

Background: Occupational accidents cause three to four times as many deaths in developing countries as industrialized countries. There are about 14,000 accidents in Iran every year, most of them involving workers in industries, To reduce these accidents, it is necessary to use risk assessment, which is a rational approach to hazard assessment and to identify hazards and potential consequences, on individuals, materials, equipment and the environment to reduce the risks of workplace accidents and consequently work-related accidents.

Methods: This study was carried out in 1998 as an analytical-applied study in a manufacturing company. The Risk Assessment process, first with the formation of the relevant team, is selected from technical and production specialists who are more familiar with the concept of safety and risk assessment and again how to perform the Risk Assessment and Identify the risks involved, using the JSA Integrated Method for the analysis of business components and associated risks and FMEA method was trained and targeted to determine system failure states as well as assign risk priority number (RPN).

Results: Risk assessment was carried out in 4 aspects, locations, equipment, main and sub-units and activities leading to the preparation of tables related to the risk assessment guide of locations, equipment, activities, RPN calculation, risk level classification and identification forms.

Conclusions: In this study, 166 hazards were identified and, through follow-up and collaboration with senior management of the organization from 38 risks of fluids production hall, 22 corrective action (57.89%), from 46 risks of solids production hall, 37 corrective action (80.43%), from 33 risks of product warehouse, 28 corrective actions (84.84%), from 30 risks of raw materials warehouse, 21 corrective actions (70%), from 19 risk of incendiary materials, 10 corrective actions (52.63%) were performed. The overall results of the study showed that the major risk in the studied units was related to the dangers of inadequate cabling and placement of people in these work situations.

key words: Safety and Health Risk Assessment, FMEA, JSA, AHA, JHA, THA, Executive Procedure, Guidelines.

Introduction

The increasing development of industries and the creation of new workplaces have increased the need to improve safety and prevent accidents [1]. Risk assessment is one of the key pillars of the HSE's health, safety and environmental management system, and its purpose is to identify evaluation and control the risk factors that affect the health and safety of employees in the industry [2][3]. Risk assessment is a rational approach to assessing risks and identifying the potential risks and consequences for individuals, materials, equipment and the environment. In fact, it provides valuable data for decision making on risk reduction, emergency planning, acceptable risk level, inspection and maintenance policies in industrial installations and more [4]. According to the International Labor Organization, occupational accidents create the greatest human suffering and economic reparations [5]. Occupational accidents that lead to death are in developing countries 3-4 times as high as in industrialized countries, and in Iran there are about 14,000 accidents annually, most of which are for industrial workers [6]. The direct and indirect costs of accidents impose financial damages employers millions of dollars annually. As estimated by the European Agency for Occupational Safety and Health, 4.6 million accidents occur in EU member states annually, resulting in the loss of 146 million working hours. In Iran too, large sums are paid directly and indirectly due to the loss of active labor and lost working days [3, 7]. Accidents occur due to unsafe conditions or the unsafe practices of individuals and sometimes their combinations. Today, more than one hundred scientific and applied methods are available to evaluate and enhance the various aspects of accident safety and health and accident prevention. One of These methods is Job Safety Analysis (JSA) Technique (Other names for this method are: Job Hazard Analysis(JHA) or Activity Hazard Analysis(AHA) or Task-Specific Questions Hazards Analysis(THA) [4, 6, 8]. This method is very simple and is the least applicable [8], This method accurately and systematically identifies and evaluates potential risks of jobs, first, the job is broken down into stages, and then the risks of each step are identified and at the end of the calculation of the risk number, control action is presented [9, 10]. This approach is an important element in the risk management system. This technique involves analyzing key tasks in the job and identifying risks and identifying safe ways to perform those tasks [11]. The most commonly used method of risk assessment is failure mode and impact analysis, or FMEA that has been implemented in various industries [3, 12-20]. This method examines the effects of malfunctions on the system and is best utilized in the design phase [21]. This method increases the level of safety and reliability of the process level of by early detection and elimination of failures, in addition to substantially reducing the amount of potential damage [22].This method is used to assess system safety hazards, maintenance and repair activities, identify design changes, and corrective actions to reduce the effects of failure on a system [23]. In this way, risk prioritization is done by taking into multiplication the intensity, probability, and discovery that is known as the Risk Priority Number (RPN), which has been confirmed in various studies [24-30]. In a number of studies the calculation of RPN in FMEA risk assessment has been reviewed and confirmed [31-33].The calculation of the RPN makes the risk understandable and reduces it to a tolerable level [34].On the other hand, due to the increasing trend of implementation of health safety and environment system in different industries and current requirements in this field to improve the level of standards. Therefore, the present study was conducted to establish this system, based on safety performance monitoring indices using risk assessment by Innovative and integrated JSA and FMEA methods and calculate the amount of RPN.

Materials and Methods

This study was conducted in a manufacturing company in 1989, as risk assessment requires the use of different specialties side by side (Includes the staff of maintenance and repair units, production, quality control, engineering, research & development, production planning & materials) [20, 35-38], so the risk assessment team was formed and because of the non-random selection of specialists, the target people were selected non-random, based on their expertise, the main criterion for selecting individuals in this study is familiarity with the concept of safety and risk assessment. Therefore, the team was first taught how to conduct risk assessment and risk identification using the combined JSA and FMEA methods and the study objectives were described for them.

Aims of this study

1) Preparing daily checklists including safety of machinery, electricity, fire and ...

2) Preparing safe working guidelines

Overall Objectives of this Study

1) Identify, evaluate and control the existing hazards at workplace and provide applicable control strategies to eliminate or reduce the hazards according to the level of risk accepted by the company management.

2) Given that risk assessments in industries are often limited to remaining documentation and staff who are exposed to risks every day do not have sufficient knowledge of control measures, increased staff understanding of how to implement control measures and operational risk assessment plans.

3) Coverage of Section 4 Components of Occupational Safety and Health (OH&S management system elements) Section 1-3-4OHSAS 18001: 2007 Planning for Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment and Risk Control [39], that complies with clauses 1-1-6, 3-2-1-6-, 4-1-6 and 2-2-1-6 of ISO45001: 2018 standard [40].

Then, using the JSA method risk assessment matrix (presented in Table 1) and the decision criteria for the control measures based on the above matrix (Tables 2 and 3), the risk assessment process was initiated.

The risk assessment matrix of the JSA method derived from multiplying the probability of risk intensity is presented in Tab 1 [41].

Probability Severity
Disastrous (1) Critical (2) Frontier (3) Minor (4)
Repeated(A) A1 A1 A3 A4
Likely(B) B1 B1 B3 B3
Occasionally(C) C1 C1 C3 C3
Very little(D) D1 D1 D3 D4
Unlikely(E) E1 E1 E3 E4
Table 1: Risk Assessment Matrix.

The decision criteria for control measures based on the risk assessment matrix are presented in Tables 2 and 3 [42].

Risk Criterion Risk Classification
Unacceptable A1-B1-C1-A2-B2-A3
Undesirable D1-C2-D2-B3-C3
Acceptable with the need for revision E1-E2-D3-E3-A4-B4
Minor C4-D4-E4
Table 2: Decision Criteria for Control Measures.

Level of risk Actions and timeframe for doing them
Minor A No action needed.
Tolerable B No additional control is required, protection of the source of risk is mandatory.
Medium C Efforts to reduce and risk control are essential.
Important D The activity must be stopped to reduce risk and prompt action taken to eliminate the risk.
Intolerable E The activity must be stopped to reduce risk and if risk reduction is not possible, the risk source should be restricted and the device banned
Table 3: Decision Criteria for Control Measures.

Results

The risk assessment was performed in 4 aspects and as described below:

1- Location: A list of locations was prepared and recorded in the Location Hazard Inventory file, then each location was individually defined in the Location file and its risks were analyzed separately in the file and based on 4 parameters according to Tables 4, 6 and 7, the risk level was calculated based on the probability, severity, recurrence and the people involved.

2- Main Equipment and Equipment: A list of all the main equipment and devices was provided and recorded in the Equipment Hazard Inventory file, then each of the main equipment and devices was individually included in the Equipment file, The risks were separately calculated based on 4 parameters according to Tables 4, 6 and 7, the probability, severity, repetition, and risk factors involved.

3- Auxiliary equipment and devices: A list of all auxiliary equipment and devices was provided and recorded in the auxiliary Hazard Inventory file, then each auxiliary equipment was individually included in the auxiliary file, The risks were separately calculated based on 4 parameters according to Tables 4, 6 and 7, the probability, severity, repetition, and risk factors involved.

Risk preference number or RPN was used to determine the risk of failure in each of the three areas. The RPN is the result of multiplying the four risk factors of probability, repetition, severity, and the people involved.

4- Task: A list of all activities was first compiled and recorded in the Task Hazard Inventory, then each activity was individually included in the Task file. The risks were analyzed separately by the description of the activity written in the file and based on 2 parameters according to Tables 5, 6 and 7, the probability and severity, the level of risk were calculated.

JSA method was used to identify and analyze the hazards in the activities and the RPN was calculated from the probability and intensity multiplication. The Equipment and Location Risk Assessment Guide is presented in Table 4 and the Activity Risk Assessment Guide in Table 5.

Probability Repetition Severity People involved
impossible 0 Low / Rare 0.1 Scratches / contusions 0.1 1-2 persons 1
Almost impossible 0.5 yearly 0.2 Tear / little effect on health 0.5 3-7 persons 2
medium 1 monthly 1 Break / Temporary Impact on Health 1 8-15 persons 4
Likely 5 Weekly 1.5 Break / permanent impact on health 2 16-50 persons 8
Very likely 10 Daily 2.5 Disconnect one member 4 More than 50 persons 12
Forever 15 Hour 4 Disconnect multiple members 8
always 5 Death 15
Table 4: Equipment and locations risk assessment guide.

Severity
Low loss Superficial injury, low incision and contusion, eye irritation, poor health
medium Rupture, burns, severe sprains, minor fractures, skin discomfort, shortness of breath, partial health disability
Harmful Amputation, fracture, fatal injury, occupational cancer
Probability
Very unlikely Rarely occur / damage, almost never
Unlikely May cause damage
Likely The occurrence of injury / damage is likely
Table 5: Risk Assessment Guide for Activities.

The calculated RPN numbers were calculated according to Table 6.

Risk Minor / insignificant very little Low medium Much very much Infinitely many
RPN 0-1 1-5 5-10 10-50 50-100 100-500 500-1000
Table 6: Calculates the RPN.

The control measures required to prevent accidents and illnesses caused by hazardous workplace environments were determined and implemented according to Table 7 according to the type of risk and risk level (figure 1) (figure 2).

Risk Minor / insignificant very little Low medium Much very much Infinitely many
Time to do Acceptable Less than a year Less than 3 months Less than a month Less than a week Less than a day Quickly
Table 7: Risk Level Classification.

Figure 1: Frequency distribution of identified risks in different halls.

Figure 2: Number of corrective actions taken.

Discussion

In this study, 166 hazards were identified, and through follow-up and collaboration with senior management of the organization from 38 hazards of liquid production hall, 22 hazards of corrective actions (57.89%), from 46 hazards of solids production hall, 37 corrective actions (80.43%), from 33 hazards product warehouse, 28 corrective actions (84.84%), from 30 hazards of raw materials warehouses 21 corrective actions (70%), from 19 hazards of flammable materials 10 corrective actions (52.63%) were performed. The levels of risks obtained are presented in Charts 1 and 2, respectively.

The outputs from the risk assessment carried out are as follows:

a. Control measures needed to prevent accidents and illnesses caused by workplace harmful factors.

b. Develop working guidelines to increase employee awareness.

c. Reduce staff exposure to hazardous factors in the workplace by defining workflow.

d. Define the hours of work and overtime in different parts, especially the difficult parts.

e. Safety training for managers, bosses, supervisors and workers to improve work performance and identify and understand workplace hazards.

f. Preparation of HSE Action Map for control measures.

g. Preparation of guidelines and regulations for allocating the number and types of personal protective equipment to the personnel of the target units.

h. Developing safety and hygiene and information discipline rules and regulations at the organization level for implementation by all staff.

Due to the combination of the JSA and FMEA risk assessment methods and the basic characteristic of the JSA method that provides detailed job analysis that identifies and assesses work hazards as a result of the staffing process [43].Then, with FMEA method and RPN risk priority calculation, risk assessment was more accurate. Comparison of the risk level results showed that the major risk in the studied units was related to the dangers of inadequate cabling and placement of people in these work situations, which is consistent with similar studies [44]. The results of this study showed that educating workers will greatly reduce risk and is consistent with similar studies [38, 45, 46].The simultaneous use of training and work instructions, which is one of the outcomes and outputs of the Risk Assessment Operational Program (b, e and g), is one of the most important ways of controlling and reducing risks and enhancing staff safety knowledge and is consistent with similar studies [47-52].

References

References

  1. Jozi S, Atabi F, Honarmand H. Management of the Health, Safety and Environmental Risks of the Shomal Cement Factory using the William Fine Technique. Environmental Research. 2014; 5(10):23-34.
  2. Yari Saeed, Asadi Ayda Fallah, Varmazyar Sakineh. Assessment of Semi-Quantitative Health Risks of Exposure to Harmful Chemical Agents in the Context of Carcinogenesis in the Latex Glove Manufacturing Industry. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention. 2016; 17(sup3)DOI
  3. Yari S. Assessment of potential risk by the failure mode and effects analysis in an air conditioning equipment manufacturing company. Journal of Safety Promotion and Injury Prevention. 2017; 5(2)
  4. Nivolianitou Z.. Risk analysis and risk management: a European insight. Law, Probability and Risk. 2002; 1(2)DOI
  5. Kim Eun-A, Kang Seong-Kyu. Historical review of the List of Occupational Diseases recommended by the International Labour organization (ILO). Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2013; 25(1)DOI
  6. Ericson CA. Hazard analysis techniques for system safety: John Wiley & Sons; 2015.
  7. Kouhnavard B, Aghanasab M, SAFAEI R, FAZLI Z. RiskIdentification and Assessment, UsingJob Safety Analysis, in anAffiliated AgencytoIran KhodroCompany, 2014. 2015.
  8. Shahraki A, Moradi M. Risk evaluation in the workplace using fuzzy multi-criteria model. Iran Occupational Health. 2013; 10(4):43-54.
  9. Rothstein MA. Occupational safety and health law: West Group; 1990.
  10. Rozenfeld Ophir, Sacks Rafael, Rosenfeld Yehiel, Baum Hadassa. Construction Job Safety Analysis. Safety Science. 2010; 48(4)DOI
  11. mohammad fam I. Safety techniques job safety analysis: fanavaran 2006..
  12. Sayyadi Tooranloo Hossein, Ayatollah Arezoo sadat. A model for failure mode and effects analysis based on intuitionistic fuzzy approach. Applied Soft Computing. 2016; 49DOI
  13. Chai Kok Chin, Jong Chian Haur, Tay Kai Meng, Lim Chee Peng. A perceptual computing-based method to prioritize failure modes in failure mode and effect analysis and its application to edible bird nest farming. Applied Soft Computing. 2016; 49DOI
  14. Wang Weizhong, Liu Xinwang, Qin Yong, Fu Yong. A risk evaluation and prioritization method for FMEA with prospect theory and Choquet integral. Safety Science. 2018; 110DOI
  15. Liu H-C, Li Z, Song W, Su Q. Failure mode and effect analysis using cloud model theory and PROMETHEE method. IEEE Transactions on Reliability. 2017; 66(4):1058-1072.
  16. Certa Antonella, Hopps Fabrizio, Inghilleri Roberta, La Fata Concetta Manuela. A Dempster-Shafer Theory-based approach to the Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) under epistemic uncertainty: application to the propulsion system of a fishing vessel. Reliability Engineering & System Safety. 2017; 159DOI
  17. Tsai Sang-Bing, Yu Jian, Ma Li, Luo Feng, Zhou Jie, Chen Quan, Xu Lei. A study on solving the production process problems of the photovoltaic cell industry. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2018; 82DOI
  18. Deng Yongliang, Li Qiming, Lu Ying. A research on subway physical vulnerability based on network theory and FMECA. Safety Science. 2015; 80DOI
  19. Mohsen Omidvar, Fereshteh Nirumand. An extended VIKOR method based on entropy measure for the failure modes risk assessment – A case study of the geothermal power plant (GPP). Safety Science. 2017; 92DOI
  20. Normohammadi Mohammad, Kakooei Hossein, Omidi Leila, Yari Saeed, Alimi Rasul. Risk Assessment of Exposure to Silica Dust in Building Demolition Sites. Safety and Health at Work. 2016; 7(3)DOI
  21. Mikulak RJ, McDermott R, Beauregard M. The basics of FMEA: Productivity Press; 2008.
  22. ARP S. Recommended Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) Practices for Non-Automobile Applications. Warrendale: Society of Automotive Engineers. 2001.
  23. Mode PF. Effects analysis in design (design FMEA) and potential failure mode and effects analysis in manufacturing and assembly processes (process fmea) reference manual. Society of Automotive Engineers, Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice J. 2002;1739.
  24. Liu Hu-Chen, Liu Long, Liu Nan, Mao Ling-Xiang. Risk evaluation in failure mode and effects analysis with extended VIKOR method under fuzzy environment. Expert Systems with Applications. 2012; 39(17)DOI
  25. Chang Kuei-Hu, Chang Yung-Chia, Tsai I-Tien. Enhancing FMEA assessment by integrating grey relational analysis and the decision making trial and evaluation laboratory approach. Engineering Failure Analysis. 2013; 31DOI
  26. Zhang Zaifang, Chu Xuening. Risk prioritization in failure mode and effects analysis under uncertainty. Expert Systems with Applications. 2011; 38(1)DOI
  27. Liu Hu-Chen, Liu Long, Liu Nan. Risk evaluation approaches in failure mode and effects analysis: A literature review. Expert Systems with Applications. 2013; 40(2)DOI
  28. Yang Zaili, Wang Jin. Use of fuzzy risk assessment in FMEA of offshore engineering systems. Ocean Engineering. 2015; 95DOI
  29. Liu Hu-Chen, You Jian-Xin, Shan Meng-Meng, Shao Lu-Ning. Failure mode and effects analysis using intuitionistic fuzzy hybrid TOPSIS approach. Soft Computing. 2014; 19(4)DOI
  30. Chang Kuei-Hu. Generalized multi-attribute failure mode analysis. Neurocomputing. 2016; 175DOI
  31. Wang Z, Gao J-M, Wang R-X, Chen K, Gao Z-Y, Zheng W. Failure mode and effects analysis by using the house of reliability-based rough VIKOR approach. IEEE Transactions on Reliability. 2017; 67(1):230-248.
  32. Safari H, Faraji Z, Majidian S. Identifying and evaluating enterprise architecture risks using FMEA and fuzzy VIKOR. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing. 2016; 27(2):475-486.
  33. Fattahi Reza, Khalilzadeh Mohammad. Risk evaluation using a novel hybrid method based on FMEA, extended MULTIMOORA, and AHP methods under fuzzy environment. Safety Science. 2018; 102DOI
  34. Health GB, Executive S. The tolerability of risk from nuclear power stations: HMSO; 1992.
  35. Roughton J, Crutchfield N. Job hazard analysis: A guide for voluntary compliance and beyond: Butterworth-Heinemann; 2011.
  36. Luxhoj JT. Probabilistic causal analysis for system safety risk assessments in commercial air transport. 2003.
  37. Yari S, Saeidabadi H. Simulation the Probability of Liberalizing Chlorin Gas from Urban Water Chlorination System in Alborz: With the Cancer Approach.2019.
  38. Madarsara TJ, Yari S, Saeidabadi H. Assessment and evaluation of occupational stress among safety authorities: By possibility of cancer. Asian Pacific Journal of Environment and Cancer. 2019; 2(2)
  39. Kausek J. OHSAS 18001: Designing and implementing an effective health and safety management system: Government Institutes; 2007.
  40. Jordan T. The ISO 45001: 2018 Implementation Handbook: Guidance on Building an Occupational Health and Safety Management System. Quality Progress. 2019; 52(1):54.
  41. M J, MA NC. Risk assessment & management: Fanavaran 2016.
  42. AH A. Techniques of safety management: Fanavaran 2010.
  43. Albrechtsen Eirik, Solberg Ingvild, Svensli Eva. The application and benefits of job safety analysis. Safety Science. 2019; 113DOI
  44. Ebrahimzadeh M, Halvani G, Mortazavi M, Soltani R. Assessment of potential hazards by failure modes and effect analysis (FMEA) method in Shiraz oil refinery. Occupational Medicine Quarterly Journal. 2011; 3(2):16-23.
  45. Mortazavi SB, Mahdavi S, Asilian H, Arghami S, Gholamnia R. Identification and assessment of human errors in srp unit of control room of tehran oil refinery using heist technique (2007). 2008.
  46. HALVANI G, RADPOUR J, SHOJA E, GHOLAMI S, KHALIFEH Y. THE EFFECT OF TRAINING ON RISK ASSESSMENT CODE WITH THE METHOD OF QUANTIFIED JOB SAFETY ANALYSIS IN ONE OF THE UNITS OF ABYEK CEMENT PRODUCTION PLANT. 2016.
  47. Yari S. Inherent safety design in compose of urban gas station. Safety Promotion and Injury Prevention. 2015; 3(2):135-140.
  48. Yari Saeed, Akbari Hesam, Gholami Fesharaki Mohammad, Khosravizadeh Omid, Ghasemi Mohammad, Barsam Yalda, Akbari Hamed. Developing a model for hospital inherent safety assessment: Conceptualization and validation. International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine. 2018; 29(3-4)DOI
  49. Yari Saeed, Naseri Mohammad Hassan, Akbari Hamed, Shahsavari Saeed, Akbari Hesam. Interaction of Safety Climate and Safety Culture: A Model for Cancer Treatment Centers. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention. 2019; 20(3)DOI
  50. Normohammadi M, Asadi AF. Job Stress and Safety Climate in Cancer Treatment Centers: Upgraded Model for Dimensions. Asian Pacific Journal of Environment and Cancer. 2018; 1(2)
  51. Maher Ali, Monfared Mohammad, Jafari Mehrnoosh. The relationship between safety management and patient safety culture in Cancer Treatment Centers. Asian Pacific Journal of Environment and Cancer. 2019; 2(1)DOI
  52. Maher Ali, Monfared Mohammad, Jafari Mehrnoosh. The relationship between safety management and patient safety culture in Cancer Treatment Centers. Asian Pacific Journal of Environment and Cancer. 2019; 2(1)DOI