Page 11 - Occupational Health & Safety - eDITION, August 2017

RISK ASSESSMENT
DITION
The e-Hazard Safety CycleTM: Risk Assessment (RA)
Once the study is completed, consider getting an independent review of the study before finalizing labels. This can be done by an engineer or an electrician.
TBY HUGH HOAGLAND AND ZARHEER JOOMA
he e-Hazard Safety CycleTM requires a firm basis and under- standing of the risk assessment (RA) process. A good start- ing point would be the organization’s existing risk assess- ment system. We have found that using an existing system
harnesses the power of familiarity. If the company does not have a risk assessment system, it should consider adopting a standardized system. Typical systems may include a quantitative risk assessment (scoring based on the frequency of the exposure, probability, and consequence if the risk materialized) or BowTie risk assessments. See NFPA 70E®-2015 Annex F on the Risk Assessment Procedure.
Driving the concept of parallel processes is key to the e-Hazard Safety CycleTM. While the organization may be busy initiating a risk assessment program, there are two common hazards that have al- ready been identified through consensus standards: arc flash and shock hazards. These are risk assessed through an arc flash engi- neering study that will include a shock assessment.
Following is an in-depth look at the risk assessment element using the “Envision, Execute, Evaluate, and Evolve” cycle.
Envision:
1. Define one person who will be responsible for the program. En- sure that a diverse mix of skills is included in the process. An en- gineering manager, engineer, and electrician may suffice for most organizations.
2. Resource planning:
a. People—at a minimum, the program should include a manager, electrician, and an engineer.
b. One-line drawings, information on electrical equipment, labels on electrical equipment.
c. Software for the engineering study and an industrial printer and label stock.
3. It is recommended that the end goal be set, but the date for the end goal not be specified at this stage. Instead, focus on provid- ing dates that the resources will be secured. If you need to buy software or hire a consultant, approval processes and budgeting may be factors outside of the program manager’s control.
flash engineering study and shock risk assessment may begin.
5. Once the study is completed, consider getting an indepen- dent review of the study before finalizing labels. This can be done
by an engineer or an electrician.
Execute:
1. Engage in awareness of the arc flash engineering study and the electrical shock risk assessment. Safety meetings attended by management are a good forum to pitch this program. Try to in- clude facts—such as cost of arc flash or shock, pre-mitigation and post-mitigation risk numbers, the labelling of equipment, and en- gineering controls—to prevent unauthorized changes to protection settings.
2. At this stage, make the program immune to “people-chang- es.” That is, if any person has to be reassigned or leaves the com- pany, the program should be robust enough to continue unabated.1
3. Roll out labeling to address specific aspects of the arc flash and shock risk assessments. Labels should define the following (at minimum):
a. The system voltage
b. The arc flash protection boundary and shock boundary c. The arc rated protective gear
d. Protective gear used against shock
Evaluate:
1. Observe whether the intended mitigation has materialized. This can be done through job observations, interviews, or random audits. The number of near miss (near hit) incidents should have decreased.2
2. Also observe that the correct protective gear is used for the correct hazard exposure.
3. Observe for any changes to the electrical system that may warrant a revision of the arc flash study.
Evolve:
2. When deviations are observed through the checking process, define one person who will be responsible to address those. Bear
in mind that identifying a problem does not automatically propose a solution. At this stage, engage with the electricians in proposing remedial actions.
2. At this stage, your company’s Electrical Safety Program should be running autonomously to identify when protection settings or operating configurations change, electrical equipment is added/removed, and when the consensus five-year review is due.
In future literature pertaining to the RA in the e-Hazard Safety CycleTM, further discussion on the arc flash and shock assessment will be discussed.
Hugh Hoagland, senior managing partner of e-Hazard, is one of the most active trainers and researchers in electric arc protection. He has performed and developed testing (by original research and participa- tion in ASTM, NFPA, ANSI, CSA, IEC and ISO standards groups) for the electric arc since 1994. Zarheer Jooma joined e-Hazard after several years with Eskom Generation and the largest steel producer in Africa, ArcelorMittal. He has extensive experience in power system design and safe operating and maintenance practices. A registered Professional Electrical Engineer, he brings a unique perspective to the classroom having helped develop SANS 724—the South African National Standard for Protective Equipment against the Thermal Hazards of an Electrical Arc. He is a speaker and trainer throughout Africa and the Middle East and an active contributor to the South African Bureau of Standards. Zarheer is a member of the SABS SC67E committee and the IEC TC78 – Live Working Committee.
REFERENCES
1. See the “Electrical Safety Program” element for more guidance. 2. See the “Incident Investigation” element for more guidance.
4. If all approval and organizational support is in place, the arc
11 Occupational Health & Safety | AUGUST 2017 | www.ohsonline.com
E-HAZARD.COM