Risk analysis for confined space entries: Critical analysis of four tools applied to three risk scenarios

ABSTRACT Investigation reports of fatal confined space accidents nearly always point to a problem of identifying or underestimating risks. This paper compares 4 different risk analysis tools developed for confined spaces by applying them to 3 hazardous scenarios. The tools were namely 1. a checklist without risk estimation (Tool A), 2. a checklist with a risk scale (Tool B), 3. a risk calculation without a formal hazard identification stage (Tool C), and 4. a questionnaire followed by a risk matrix (Tool D). Each tool's structure and practical application were studied. Tools A and B gave crude results comparable to those of more analytic tools in less time. Their main limitations were lack of contextual information for the identified hazards and greater dependency on the user's expertise and ability to tackle hazards of different nature. Tools C and D utilized more systematic approaches than tools A and B by supporting risk reduction based on the description of the risk factors. Tool D is distinctive because of 1. its comprehensive structure with respect to the steps suggested in risk management, 2. its dynamic approach to hazard identification, and 3. its use of data resulting from the risk analysis.

[1]  François Gauthier,et al.  Experimental Analysis of 31 Risk Estimation Tools Applied to Safety of Machinery , 2012, International journal of occupational safety and ergonomics : JOSE.

[2]  John M. Piampiano,et al.  Safe or Safe Enough?: Measuring Risk & Its Variables Objectively , 2012 .

[3]  Tracy Cooke,et al.  Prevention through design , 2013 .

[4]  Louis Anthony Cox,et al.  What's Wrong with Risk Matrices? , 2008, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[5]  Damien Burlet-Vienney,et al.  The Need for a Comprehensive Approach to Managing Confined Space Entry: Summary of the Literature and Recommendations for Next Steps , 2014, Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene.

[6]  Pat Clemens,et al.  Finding All the Hazards How Do We Know We Are Done , 2009 .

[7]  Nijs Jan Duijm,et al.  Recommendations on the use and design of risk matrices , 2015 .

[8]  Gary Eaton,et al.  Risk: Assessing & Mitigating to Deliver Sustainable Safety Performance , 2011 .

[9]  Michael P Wilson,et al.  Confined Space Emergency Response: Assessing Employer and Fire Department Practices , 2012, Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene.

[10]  Damien Burlet-Vienney,et al.  Design and application of a 5 step risk assessment tool for confined space entries , 2015 .

[11]  John F. Rekus,et al.  Complete Confined Spaces Handbook , 1994 .

[12]  H Landis Floyd,et al.  Prevention Through Design , 2010, IEEE Industry Applications Magazine.

[13]  Yuvin Chinniah,et al.  Occupational safety during interventions in confined spaces , 2015 .

[14]  Janet M. Carey,et al.  Linguistic Uncertainty in Qualitative Risk Analysis and How to Minimize It , 2008, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[15]  William E. Field,et al.  Estimation of the Frequency, Severity, and Primary Causative Factors Associated with Injuries and Fatalities Involving Confined Spaces in Agriculture , 2011 .

[16]  Anthony Patt,et al.  Using Specific Language to Describe Risk and Probability , 2003 .