1

REPORT ON HAZARD AND RISK MANAGEMENT

ON OBSTACLE COURSE TRAINING IN MY WORKPLACE

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Organization Profile

The Malaysian Armed Forces is divided into 3 services; Army, Navy and Air Force.

Officers in the Army itself are categorized into General Duty (GD) and Professional Duty (PD).

GD officers are given various appointments and posts throughout their carrier as they progress in

rank and carrier. So does PD officers but appointments and posts are focused on their expertise

in their subject matter. I ‘am lucky enough to be commissioned into the Army as a GD officer.

After holding various posts for several years, my current appointment is Training and Program

Officer of the Training Department in the Malaysian Army College (Kolej Tentera Darat - KTD)

situated at Port Dickson.

KTD is responsible to produce Army officers from graduates from the various plethoras

of tertiary education institutions. Several courses are run within a year to accommodate the

various categories of Army Officers for the Malaysian Army. The organization structure is

shown in Figure 1.1A. Basically, KTD is divided into 4 departments which is Administration,

Training & program, Logistic Support and Examination & Validation. Being part of the

Training and Program Department, one of the primary job specification and role of the

department is to plan and execute training for the Cadets into competent Army Officers.

2

Figure 1.1A – KTD Organization Structure

1.2 Obstacle Course Training

One of the basic physical training conducted for the cadets in KTD is obstacle course

training. The obstacle course comprises a series of obstacles that the cadets have to go through

as part of the obstacle course training. One of the obstacle that I will focus and use in this report

is the monkey rack obstacle as shown in Figure 1.2A.

Figure 1.2A - Monkey Rack

HQ

AdminTraining & Program

Logistic Support

Examination & Validation

3

2.0 Objective

The objective of this report is to recommend a systematic and objective approach to

assessing hazards in conducting obstacle course training and their associated risks that will

provide an objective measure of an identified hazard as well as provide a method to control the

risk. This is very important because it is one of the general duties as prescribed under the

Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994 (Act 514) for the employer to provide a safe

workplace to their employees (in this case, cadets) and other related person.

3.0 Methodology

Methodology is the manner, method, procedure, way or approach that will be used to

attain, achieve, and accomplish the objective of this report. The method used is analytical by using

risk and hazard identification tools that are already available. These tools will be analyzed to make a

critical evaluation and recommendation of the preferred tool. The tools involved are:

(i) HIRARC.

(ii) HAZOP.

(iii) Ergonomic Risk Factors.

(iv) Failure Mode Effect Analysis.

(v) Event Tree Analysis.

(vi) Fault Tree Analysis.

(viii) Job Safety Analysis.

(ix) Checklist.

4

4.0 Hazard and Risk Identification

The purpose of hazard identification is to highlight the critical operations of tasks, that is,

those tasks posing significant risks to the health and safety of employees as well as highlighting

those hazards pertaining to certain equipment, working conditions or activities performed.

Hazards can be divided into health hazard, safety hazard and five different environmental agents;

physical, chemical, biological, ergonomic and strain. The types of hazard mentioned above will

be fit accordingly to the related activity in the hazard and risk identification tools used.

4.1 HIRARC (Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment and Risk Control)

In order to conduct HIRARC, it is important to use a risk rating guideline. For the

purpose of this report the risk rating guideline will use likelihood rating as Table 4.1A, severity

rating as Table 4.1B, risk matrix as Table 4.1C and prioritize action towards risk as Table 4.1D.

The process of HIRARC using a form requires 4 steps:

(i) Classify work activities.

(ii) Identify hazard.

(iii) Conduct risk assessment (analyze and estimate risk from each hazard), by

calculating or estimating the likelihood of occurrence and severity of hazard.

(iv) Decide if risk is tolerable and apply control measures (if necessary).

5

Table 4.1A – Likelihood Rating

Table 4.1B – Severity Rating

Table 4.1C – Risk Matrix

6

Table 4.1D – Prioritize Action Towards Risk

7

4.2 HAZOP (Hazard and Operability)

Hazard and Operability (HAZOP) Analysis is the systematic identification of every

credible deviation in a system or process, usually in a chemical manufacturing process (for the

purpose of this report, I will try to apply HAZOP in the scenario of my workplace). The purpose

of HAZOP is to review a process or operation systematically to identify whether deviations from

the desired practices could lead to undesirable consequences. Guidewords are used to look for

deviations from the plant design. Those guidewords are than applied to the relevant plant

operating parameters under review such as flow, pressure, temperature, materials, etc. The

causes and consequences of those deviations are then assessed and the need for added risk

controls is determined. The analysis is systematic and includes the use of the following:

(i) Nodes - Piping and instrument diagrams (P&ID).

(ii) Deviations - Departures uncovered by applying guidewords to the parameters.

(iii) Intention - How the plant is expected to operate.

(iv) Causes - Reasons why deviations from intentions may occur.

(v) Consequences - Results if deviation occur.

(vi) Risk - The likelihood of the deviation occurring and the severity.

(vii) Guidewords - Used to discover or derive deviations.

8

4.2.1 Applying HAZOP.

4.2.1.1 Select a Line or Vessel Node (P&ID) – Diagram 4.2.1.1A.

Diagram 4.2.1.1A

9

4.2.1.2 Describe intention of the node

The intention of this node is to give cadets balance and upper body strength. Upon

arriving to the obstacle, cadets will grab hold onto the first monkey rack bar. The cadet will then

erect their body above the ground by use of arm muscle and strength by pulling on the bar and

leaving them hanging ala monkey hangs and swings on tree branches. Next, they will swing

their bodies forth and back while grabbing onto the following monkey rack bar until the final

monkey rack bar. They will then land their foot on the ground and let go of the last monkey rack

bar.

4.2.1.3 Select appropriate process parameters and guidewords

The process parameters selected are:

(i) Grab.

(ii) Pull.

(iii) Hang.

(iv) Swing.

The guidewords selected are:

(i) More.

(ii) Less.

10

4.2.1.4 HAZOP analysis

Parameter Guide Word

Deviation

Possible

Cause

Consequence Risk Recommended

Action

Grab More Human

Factor

Muscle

Sprain or

Strain - Injury

Low Admin

Control

– Stretching

and warm up

before training

Less Fatigue Accident –

fall to surface

Low Engineering

Control -

Absorption

Pull More Human

Factor

Muscle

Sprain or

Strain –

Injury

Low Admin

Control

– Stretching

and warm up

before training

Less Fatigue Accident –

fall to below

Low Engineering

Control –

Absorption

Hang More Human

Factor

Muscle

Sprain or

Strain –

Injury

Low Admin

Control

– Stretching

and warm up

before training

Less Fatigue Accident –

fall to below

Low Engineering

Control –

Absorption

Swing More Human

Factor

Muscle

Sprain or

Strain - Injury

Low Admin

Control

– Stretching

and warm up

before training

Less Fatigue Accident –

fall to below

Low Engineering

Control -

Absorption

Example recommended action for accident (fall to surface or fall to below) as shown in

Figure 4.2.1.4A and Figure 4.2.1.4B. As shown in the picture, previously the bottom of the

monkey rack obstacle is empty; engineering control taken is by putting water in the empty space

for absorption.

11

Figure 4.2.1A - Empty Monkey Rack

Figure 4.2.1B - Monkey Rack after engineering control

12

4.3 Ergonomic Risk Factor

Ergonomic risk factors are the aspects of a job that impose a biomechanical stress on the

worker. There are internal and external ergonomics risk factors which contribute to MSD.

These risk factors are applied accordingly for my report as per Table 4.3A. It is important to

recognize when the cadet maybe at risk. Early signs or clues to be considered are:

(i) Modification to the job situation.

(ii) Complaint and comments from the cadets.

(iii) Discomfort showed by the cadets from observation.

ERGO RISK FACTOR REASON OF ERF COMMENTS /

IMPROVEMENTS

Awkward Posture Reaching and swinging

from bar to bar

Admin Control

– Stretching and warm up

before training.

– Refresher training on

safest method to erect body

above ground

Excessive Force Pulling and hanging weight

of own body

Admin Control

– Stretching and warm up

before training. – Refresher training on

safest method to erect body

above ground

Static Postures / Sustained Exertions - -

Repetition - -

Contact Stress - -

External Factors - -

Table 4.3A – Ergonomic Risk Factor

13

4.4 Failure Mode Effect Analysis

FMEA is a simple tool used to identify and classify potential failure modes based upon

their severity and probability of detection. FMEA can be used to avoid engineering defects from

the very small to major disasters. The general process of FMEA is the process of identifying

failure modes, determining the effect and causes for these modes, assigning severity (SEV),

occurrence (Occur), detection (det) ratings and calculating the risk priority number (RPN).

Below is the severity scale Table 4.1A, probability of occurrence Table 4.1B, likelihood of

detection Table 4.1C and FMEA form. The risk priority number (RPN) is based on the formula

RPN = SEV * Occur * Det.

Severity of Effect

10 May result in safety issue or regulatory violation without warning

9 May result in safety issue or regulatory violation with warning

8 Primary function is lost or seriously degraded

7 Primary function is reduced and customer is impacted

6 Secondary function is lost or seriously degraded

5 Secondary function is reduced and customer is impacted

4 Loss of function or appearance such that most customers would return product or stop

using service

3 Loss of function or appearance that is noticed by customers but would not result in a return

or loss of service

2 Loss of function or appearance that is unlikely to be noticed by customers and would not

result in a return or loss of service

1 Little to no impact

Table 4.1A – Severity Scale

14

Probability of Occurrence

10 1 in 2

9 1 in 10

8 1 in 50

7 1 in 250

6 1 in 1,000

5 1 in 5,000

4 1 in 10,000

3 1 in 50,000

2 1 in 250,000

1 1 in 1,000,000

Table 4.1B – Probability of Occurrence

Likelihood of Detection

10 Absolutely uncertain that failure will be detected

9 Very remote chance that failure will be detected

8 Remote chance that failure will be detected

7 Very low chance that failure will be detected

6 Low chance that failure will be detected

5 Moderate chance that failure will be detected

4 Moderately high chance that failure will be detected

3 High chance that failure will be detected

2 Very high chance that failure will be detected

1 Almost certainty that failure will be detected

Table 4.1C – Likelihood of Detection

FMEA

Function / Requirement

Potential failure mode

Potential effect of failure

SEV Class of

Effect

Current Process Controls

Potential Cause

Occur Prevention Detection Det R.P.N.

Monkey Rack Bars

Rusty Possible tetanus / gangrene infection

7 3 Corrosion 3 -New paint coatings - Install rubber grips

Visual 1 21

Landing Ground Area

Uneven ground surface

Tripping may cause injury

7 3 Nature of ground to change shape after used as landing area many times

3 - Even out ground - Install platform for landing

Visual 1 21

15

4.5 Event Tree Analysis

An Event Tree Analysis (ETA) is an inductive procedure that shows all possible

outcomes resulting from an accidental event, taking into account whether installed safety

precautions are functioning or not. By studying all relevant accidental events, the ETA can be

used to identify all potential accident scenarios and sequences in a complex system. Design and

procedural weaknesses can be identified and probabilities of the various outcomes from an

accident event can be determined. A simplified event tree analysis has been used as Figure

4.5A.

Figure 4.5A – Simplified Event Tree Analysis

16

4.6 Fault Tree Analysis

A fault tree analysis is a top down deductive logic model that traces the failure pathways

for predetermined, undesirable condition or event called the top event. The strength of FTA is its

ability to identify combinations of basic equipment and human failures that can lead to an

accident. All the possibilities that can contribute to that event are described in the form of a tree.

The branches of the tree are continued until independent initiating events are reached. An FTA

of monkey rack training injury as per Figure 4.6A.

Figure 4.6A – Fault Tree Analysis

17

4.7 Job Safety Analysis

Job Safety / Hazard Analysis (JSA/JHA) breaks a job or task into specific steps, analyzes

each step for specific hazards, develop safe work procedures to eliminate or reduce those hazards

and integrate safe work procedures into safety and health programs. JSAs are developed for each

job or task. In this case Table 4.7A is a worked example JSA specifically for the monkey rack

obstacle. Procedure wise, JSA is broken down into 6 major steps:

(i) Select job task to be analyzed.

(ii) Identify the major sequence of steps for each step.

(iii) Identify the potential hazards for each step.

(iv) Determine preventative measures to protect against the hazards.

(v) Develop a worker-training program.

(vi) Re-evaluation.

STEP

HAZARD REQUIREMENTS

Grab hold onto monkey rack

bar

Chemical - Rusty monkey rack

bar

Engineering Control - Install

rubber grips on the bars or

new paint coatings.

PPE - Use leather hand gloves.

Erect body above ground Ergonomic – excessive force

(pulling weight of own body)

Admin Control – Refresher

training on safest method to

erect body above ground.

– Stretching and warm up

before training.

Swing body and grab on to

following monkey rack bars

until final monkey rack bar

Ergonomic – awkward posture

(reaching and swinging from

bar to bar)

Admin Control – Refresher

training on safest method to

erect body above ground.

– Stretching and warm up

before training.

Place foot and land on ground.

Let go of monkey rack bar

Physical – uneven ground

(may cause tripping)

Engineering Control –

Redesign ground to be even.

Table 4.7A – Worked Example Job Safety Analysis

18

4.8 Checklist Analysis

Check list are primarily used when published standards, codes and industry practices

exist. Consist of list of questions pertaining to the applicable standards and practices usually

with a yes, no or not applicable response. Its purpose is to identify deviations from the expected

and thus possible hazards. A checklist analysis requires a walk-through of the area to be

surveyed. Easy to use and provide cost effective way to identify customarily recognized hazard.

Quality of checklist depends on the experience of the person who developed it. If checklist is not

complete, the analysis may not identify some hazardous situations. A checklist analysis for

monkey rack obstacle may look like the statements below.

Figure 4.8A – Inspection of Monkey Rack

Inspection of monkey rack structural integrity and rust (Figure 4.8A).

Instructor qualified with certificate to train and monitor obstacle course training.

Preparation exercises (warm up) before commencing obstacle course training.

Muscular strength/muscle physical training have not been conducted within 12 hours prior.

Landing/fall areas under obstacle filled with water for dampening / absorption.

Recovery exercises upon completion of obstacle course training.

Inspection of an even landing area of the obstacle course.

Instructors to demonstrate obstacle course training before allowing cadets to undergo training.

A sign posted at each obstacle detailing exact procedures to be used.

A maintenance and inspection log that is maintained by instructor.

19

5.0 Proposed Recommendation

All together, 8 different risk and hazard identification tools have been analyzed. From

the findings, not all of the tools were suitable to use in the obstacle course training. This is due

to the nature of some tools are catered for a specific working environment (for example;

engineering, manufacturing, etc.). The tools that are suitable are HIRARC, Ergonomics Risk

Factor and Checklist Analysis. With this, I highly recommend the use of all 3 tools for the

obstacle course training. There is no specific safety committee in the organization to ensure the

application of the tools but I also recommend educating and training the instructors on how to

use the tools mentioned above.

6.0 Conclusion

A lot of elements in the report are based on logic and assumptions. This is due to the nature of

the military that is not obliged to OSHA. The only problem is in finding data on incidents or

accidents regarding the monkey rack obstacle. Although some cases of injuries have been known

to occur in the past, none have been recorded due to very minimal severity of the cases.

Therefore, I’m unable to produce any statistics of injuries due to hazards that have happened in

the past. But from word of mouth, the majority of incidents are caused by ergonomic hazards.

Thus the importance of frequent training; “Practice Makes Perfect”.

20

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Occupational Safety And Health Act and Regulations, 1994

HIRARC Guidelines, DOSH, Ministry of Human Resources

Pembangunan Budaya Keselamatan di Tempat Kerja, Mohd Saidin Misnan (UTM)

Innovation Safety Management, Fred A Manuele

Occupational Safety and Health, David L. Goethsch

Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, Frank P.Lees

Occupational Health Risk Assessment and Management, Steven S. Sandhra

Fundamentals of Occupational Safety & Health, Dr James P.Kohn

Safety Systems and People, Sue Cox & Tom Cox

Chemical Process Safety, Daniel Crowl & Joseph Louvar