There is a growing awareness for the significance of risk assessments with the development of standards, guidelines, and practices requiring or advocating formal risk assessments. The focus of this chapter is to provide the reader with an understanding of key standards and guidelines prescribing operational risk assessment for organizations, and their importance in shaping the safety, health, and environmental professional’s role in occupational safety and health. Key terms and definitions for risk assessment and management are reviewed and explained in context of the safety, health, and environmental professional’s responsibilities.
2.2 Risk Assessments and the Safety Professional
Fundamentally, the safety profession has long recognized the importance of managing hazards and risk through proper identification, assessment, and control. This is reflected in the standards, guidelines, and best practices found in various industries and business segments such as environmental, financial, medical, and nuclear, among others that require or recommend risk assessment. Some of these business segments are covered by regulatory compliance requirements, specific to their industry.
In the first chapter, an addendum can be found listing standards, guidelines, and initiatives that have been established since 2005, which require or promote the use of formal risk assessments. A review of these standards and guidelines reveals that there are similarities and differences in the approaches taken by their drafters. Some are industry specific, while others apply across all industries. The message they give is clear: risk assessment is important, and safety professionals are expected to be knowledgeable and skilled in their application.
To avoid professional liability risk, it is important for safety professionals to be knowledge of current applicable standards and best practices. In addition to regulatory standards, consensus standards such as ANSI/ASSP Z590.3, ANSI/ASSP/ISO 45001, and ANSI/ASSP/ISO 31000 considered best management practices (BMPs) should be used and recommended by safety professionals. In the event of an accident, compliance alone does not protect organizations or individuals from legal actions, especially if there is a known consensus standard available that could have prevented or reduced the risk. In such cases, “foreseeability” comes into play.
Foreseeability is a legal theory which states that someone is responsible for causing another person’s injuries if they were aware that their actions may have detrimental effects, did not change these actions or make the necessary adjustments, as well as causation between their action and the injury. For instance, a safety professional may be asked to testify in a legal case regarding their knowledge of current consensus standards that have relevance to the incident. The question might be “Are you aware of any standards related to this issue?” If the answer is “No,” the safety professional is discredited. However, if it is “Yes,” the very next question might be “Why didn't you apply the BMPs recommended by the standards?”
It has become clear that relying on a compliance‐based approach is no longer adequate. While being compliant is necessary and required by law, it only establishes the minimum level of acceptability. A risk‐based approach takes a deeper dive to truly understand the cause of injury/loss and encourages organizations to proactively assess their risks.
2.3 Key Standards Requiring Risk Assessments
In Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and other parts of the world, occupational risk assessments have become a common practice. This is largely due to the fact that these countries have national standards requiring risk assessments in the workplace. For instance, in the United Kingdom, the Health and Safety Executive (H&SE) has legally required all employers with five or more employees to perform risk assessments since 1999. Similar requirements are found in other countries such as Australia and New Zealand.
However, few risk assessments are mandated in the United States, with the exception of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 29 CFR 1910.119 Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals standard, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 40 CFR Part 68, Risk Management Plan standard. Other OSHA standards contain requirements for hazard determination, and interpretations that suggest analysis and in some cases, “assessment” such as 1910.132, Personal Protective Equipment and hazard assessments; 1910.178, Control of Hazardous Energy Sources; and 1910.146, Permit‐required Confined Space Entry.
2.4 OSHA Compliance and Risk Assessments
In the United States, the OSHA is the safety compliance standard minimum for employers. In 1970, the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) was formed, making employers responsible for providing a safe and healthful workplace. OSHA’s stated mission is to assure safe and healthful workplaces by setting and enforcing standards, and by providing training, outreach, education, and assistance. The following description is provided by the OSHA website:
The OSH Act covers most private sector employers and their workers, in addition to some public sector employers and workers in the 50 states and certain territories and jurisdictions under federal authority. OSHA covers most private sector employers and their workers in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and other U.S. jurisdictions either directly through Federal OSHA or through an OSHA‐approved state program. Workers at state and local government agencies are not covered by Federal OSHA, but have OSH Act protections if they work in those states that have an OSHA‐approved state program. Four additional states and one U.S. territory have OSHA‐approved plans that cover public sector workers only. State‐run health and safety programs must be at least as effective as the Federal OSHA program. OSHA standards are rules that describe the methods that employers must use to protect their employees from hazards.
There are OSHA standards for Construction work, Maritime operations, Agriculture, and General Industry, which is the set that applies to most worksites.
Employers must also comply with the General Duty Clause of the OSH Act, which requires employers to keep their workplace free of serious recognized hazards. This clause is generally cited when no OSHA standard applies to the hazard.
Before OSHA can issue a standard, it must go through an extensive and lengthy process that includes substantial public engagement, notice, and comment periods. This is known as OSHA's “rulemaking process.” According to the “OSHA Rulemaking Process” flowchart, the process begins with an identified health or safety hazard, and includes hazard analyses and risk assessments. In fact, many of the standards are in direct response to a serious accident or large loss such as the 1910.119, Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals standard and the Union Carbine Bhopal methylisocyanate (MIC) gas release tragedy of 1984.
2.4.1 1910.132, Personal Protective Equipment Standard
Hazard determination, analysis, and assessment are touched upon in some OSHA regulations but not formally referred to as “risk assessment.” The most basic is OSHA 29 CFR 1910.132, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) General Requirements. This requires employers to assess the workplace to determine if hazards are present, or likely to be present, which will necessitate the use of PPE. It applies to types of PPE that are not required by another specific OSHA regulation covering hazards such as noise or respiratory contaminants. This regulation requires employers to perform and document a Hazard Assessment of workplace hazards requiring personal protective equipment. Generally, it requires employers to identify types of hazards and select appropriate PPE as stated in 1910.132 (d) below:
Hazard assessment and equipment selection – The employer shall assess the workplace to determine if hazards are present, or are likely to be present, which necessitate the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). If such hazards are present, or likely to be present,