WHAT IS A PLANT RISK ASSESSMENT (PRA)?

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 info@assessor.com.au
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 info@assessor.com.au
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