Risk Assessment Code - Eppley...

Risk Assessment Code User Guide

Tim Harvey Facility Management Officer WASO-PFMD National Park Service

Jeri Mihalic FMP Training Coordinator

WASO-PFMD National Park Service

Elizabeth Dodson FMP Training Manager

WASO-PFMD National Park Service

August 2010

Completed in accordance with Task 3 of the National Park Service- Indiana University Contract C2420100173.

Stephen A. Wolter Executive Director

Christy McCormick Deputy Director

Nona Capps Project Manager

Eppley Institute for Parks & Public Lands Indiana University Research Park 501 N. Morton Street, Suite 101

Bloomington, IN 47404 812.855.3095

Acknowledgments NPS Contributors Elizabeth Dodson Jeri Mihalic Ray Cozby Sunshine Goodmorning Tim Hudson Mike May Paul Ritz – US Public Health Booz Allen Hamilton Consultants DIT Consultants Eppley Institute Contributors Stephen A. Wolter Nona Capps Stacey Doyle Allene Lowrey Christy McCormick Matt Wolf Matthew Berry This publication may not be duplicated without the permission of the Eppley Institute for Parks and Public Lands,

acting on behalf of Indiana University. The National Park Service and federal agencies may duplicate it for training and administrative purposes, provided that appropriate written acknowledgement is given. No other state or local

agency, university, contractor, or individual shall duplicate this publication without the permission of Indiana University.

Copyright 2010, the Trustees of Indiana University on behalf of the Eppley Institute for Parks and Public Lands

TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1

Criteria for Health, Life and Safety (HLS) ............................................................................... 2 Risk Assessment Code .............................................................................................................. 4

Severity ................................................................................................................................... 5

Probability ............................................................................................................................... 6 Exposure ............................................................................................................................. 6

RAC Definitions ...................................................................................................................... 7 RAC in the FMSS ....................................................................................................................... 8

Reports ................................................................................................................................. 12 APPENDIX A: Administering HLS Work Orders ...................................................................... 14

APPENDIX B: Quick Guide to the NPS Risk Assessment System .......................................... 16

Table of Figures Figure 1. The RAC Matrix .......................................................................................................... 4

Figure 2. Severity Codes ........................................................................................................... 5 Figure 3. Probability Codes ........................................................................................................ 6 Figure 4. RAC Definitions .......................................................................................................... 7 Figure 5. Road Washout ............................................................................................................ 8 Figure 6. Originating Work Order ............................................................................................... 9

Figure 7: Sub-work type of ICM (Interim Control Measure) ........................................................ 9 Figure 8: Work Order Health, Life and Safety (HLS) Fields ..................................................... 10 Figure 9. Severity Pop-up ........................................................................................................ 10 Figure 10. Probability Pop-up ................................................................................................... 11 Figure 11. Identifying the Appropriate Severity and Probability................................................ 11

Figure 12. Follow-up Work Order ............................................................................................. 12


August 2010 1

Introduction Through the implementation of the Risk Assessment Code (RAC) process, the NPS seeks to lessen the probability and severity of facility-type hazards that could result in injury or asset loss. Use of the RAC in the Facility Management Software System (FMSS) enables the NPS to better identify and prioritize funding requests for those projects with a Health, Life and Safety component. The use of the RAC is one part of the NPS Risk Management Program to implement a multi-tiered approach to increasing safety in the parks. Another part of the Risk Management Program is to reduce risks to NPS employees and to provide workplaces that are free from serious, recognized hazards. At-risk behaviors and human error are addressed by the application and integration of the Operational Leadership principles, which seek to instill risk awareness, so all employees can actively apply risk controls in their daily operations. Training on Operational Leadership is separate and not included in this document. Facility health and safety concerns are physical deficiencies of a facility or site that pose a realistic threat to the health and safety of the public and/or staff. The goals of a risk management system using RACs are to identify hazards, determine risk, and prioritize work to eliminate or mitigate identified hazards. This user guide will instruct employees on how to generate a Risk Assessment Code in the FMSS. The application of RACs to work orders is a new practice. It is important to understand that the RAC is the assessment of a physical health, life, and safety hazard, not the work response. The RAC is assigned before any interim control measures are considered or implemented. The RAC is based on the original hazard identified. The most important part of entering the RAC information on an FMSS work order is the thought that goes into identifying a hazard, determining what the actual risk and exposure are, and performing the emergency or interim control measure. Entering the information into the FMSS is the easy part. A Risk Assessment System involves: --Identify a hazard --Characterize hazard exposure --Evaluate the risk for severity and probability, and react if necessary

--Record the necessary work to correct hazard and any needed interim control measures

--Prepare mitigation plan for RAC levels 1, 2, or 3 --Review and update assessment of hazards periodically


August 2010 2

Criteria for Health, Life and Safety (HLS) The criteria for defining a Work Order as HLS are:

Infrastructure improvements and system repairs that, if not done, would pose a threat to the health and safety of public or staff.

Corrective action that is necessary to prevent a deficiency from rapidly degrading to an emergency.

Work task that corrects a realistic threat to the health or safety of staff or the public.


August 2010 3


August 2010 4

Risk Assessment Code A Risk Assessment Code is a numerical expression of risk determined by evaluating the probability that a hazard will result in injury/illness to personnel and/or damage to equipment and the resulting severity of the injury/illness. It is essentially made up of two parts: how severe a problem, accident, or injury could be and how likely it is to happen. In the past, simply checking the Health, Life, Safety (HLS) box on an FMSS work order did not provide enough information for managers to prioritize the repair of safety related hazards. Risk Assessment Codes are standard means of classifying hazards. They are assigned to facilities and equipment hazards, not operational hazards. For example, severe corrosion on a tower requires a RAC, but the risk involved with a worker climbing a serviceable tower does not. That is an operational leadership condition. The RAC is for things, not people. Severity and probability must each be determined in order to generate a RAC.

Figure 1. The RAC Matrix

Frequent

A

Likely

B

Occasional

C

Rarely

D

Catastrophic IRAC

1

RAC

1

RAC

2

RAC

3

Critical IIRAC

1

RAC

2

RAC

3

RAC

4

Significant IIIRAC

2

RAC

3

RAC

4

RAC

5

Minor IVRAC

3

RAC

4

RAC

5

RAC

5

Probability

Severity


August 2010 5

Severity Severity refers to the primary health effect that could result from the exposure to the chemical or physical cause (e.g., minor cut, electrical shock, death, etc.). There are four categories for determining severity. It is important to consider all likely scenarios and use the definitions of the categories when determining severity. Determine the category individually and then compare with someone else to ensure that a logical determination was made. Consult your park’s safety officer when in doubt; this person is a great resource in the process.

Catastrophic I Immediate and imminent danger of death or permanent disability, chronic or irreversible illness, major property or resource damage

Critical II Permanent partial disability, temporary total disability greater than 3 months, significant property or resource damage.

Significant III Hospitalized minor injury, reversible illness, period of disability 3 months or less, loss or restricted workday accident, compensable injury illness, minor property or resource damage.

Minor IV First aid or minor medical treatment. Presents minimal threat to human safety and health, property or resources, but is still in violation of a standard.

Figure 2. Severity Codes


August 2010 6

Probability Probability refers to the likelihood that an incident will occur and lead to failure and injury. Part of the evaluation of probability is the determination of the number of people or the size of the area exposed to the hazard. The exposure should be part of the consideration in assessing the probability to reflect the risk to people. Widespread exposure (such as a high-use visitor facility) increases the risk that an injury or illness occurs from the hazard. There are also four categories for determining probability. Again, it is important to consider all likely scenarios and use the definitions of the categories when determining probability. It is also important to determine probability separate from severity. Determine the category individually and then compare with someone else to ensure that a logical determination was made. Consult your park’s safety officer when in doubt; this person is a great resource in the process.

Frequent A Immediate danger to health and safety of public, staff, or property and resources; occurs frequently or continuously.

Likely B Probably will occur in time if not corrected, or probably will occur one or more times during the life of the system.

Occasional C Possible to occur in time if not corrected. Rarely D Unlikely to occur; may assume exposure will not

occur.

Figure 3. Probability Codes

Exposure Part of the evaluation of probability is the determination of the number of people or the size of the area exposed to the hazard. Widespread exposure (such as at a high visitor use facility) increases the probability that an injury or illness occurs from the hazard. An isolated exposure (such as a backcountry trail) decreases the probability that an injury or illness will occur. Exposure can be thought of as visitors’ or staffs’ interaction with the hazard. Park Managers should gauge the exposure based on park usage and how many or how often people will come into contact with the hazard. Example: 10 people coming into contact with the hazard over a year is less dangerous than 10 people per hour coming into contact with the hazard. Exposure of more than one person at least once per day is pervasive enough that concentrated response is warranted – you must deal with the hazard, even if only doing a temporary fix – which is called an “Interim Control Measure”.


August 2010 7

RAC Definitions When you enter the severity and probability ratings into the FMSS, a RAC will be automatically generated for you. See the definitions in the table below.

RAC (FMSS field)

Usage Work Order Priority (FMSS field)

Response Time Frame

RAC 1 (Critical)

Immediate danger to life, health, property, or infrastructure. Requires emergency correction or hazard controlled to a lower level of risk.

Critical (9) Immediate

RAC 2 (Serious)

High level of risk to life, health, property, or infrastructure. Requires hazard correction or hazard controlled to a lower level of risk as soon as possible.

Critical (9) 15 days

RAC 3 (Moderate)

Medium level of risk to life, health, property, or infrastructure. Correction planned and completed, or hazard controlled to a lower level of risk.

Critical (9) 12 months

RAC 4 (Minor)

Low-level risk. Correction planned and completed, or hazard controlled to a lower level of risk.

Serious (5) 2 years

RAC 5 (Negligible)

Lowest level risk. Correction of these risks can be planned in the out-years.

Minor (1) 5 years

Figure 4. RAC Definitions


August 2010 8

RAC in the FMSS This section explains step-by-step how to generate a RAC in the FMSS.

Figure 5. Road Washout

The initial work order is to place barricades around a road washout. The location of the washout is on the Main Park Road in Great National Park (GREA). The washout occurred 2.5 miles from the Entrance Station. The washout is approximately 30 feet long, 8 feet wide, and 6 feet deep, which is enough to do serious damage to both people and the car if a vehicle ran into it. The washout was caused by the flooded river caving in the embankment. However, since the road is 24 feet wide, excluding the shoulders, it should be easy to barricade off so visitors and staff do not drive into it. The measurements and scope of work of the interim solution of barricading the road should be entered in the long description of the work order and will be helpful in completing the scope of work statement for the follow up work order for the permanent fix – stabilizing the river embankment, filling in the washout, and then re-surfacing that section. This work will be done as a project with either emergency storm damage funds or repair/rehab funds. The initial work order documenting that the temporary barricades/cones were put into place can be done after the fact also.


August 2010 9

Figure 6. Originating Work Order

The originating work order should describe the emergency response to the hazard of the road washout, along with the long description detailing the size of the washout (hazard).

Figure 7: Sub-work type of ICM (Interim Control Measure)

Notice that the new sub-work type of ICM is selected. This new sub-work type can be found under all three work types. Ensure you have selected the right work type for the work that is being done. In this case it is FO, because setting barricades does not affect the condition of the road asset. Also note the Health, Life and Safety (HLS) box has not yet been checked, so the Severity and Probability boxes are “grayed out” – not available to use. When the Health,


August 2010 10

Life and Safety (HLS) box is checked, then the Severity and Probability boxes show up in white and are available to use. NOTE: The HLS box can be marked without using the ICM sub-work type. Minor hazards (RAC 4 or 5) can be corrected without doing any interim control measures, just doing a permanent fix.

Figure 8: Work Order Health, Life and Safety (HLS) Fields

The Severity and Probability boxes are now required fields, as indicated by the red asterisk.

Figure 9. Severity Pop-up

Select value menus are available for both the Severity and the Probability field. They do not provide the complete definitions for each value, so you must reference this user guide to confirm the definitions before you select one.

Always use the Select Value menu instead of typing in the Roman numerals. Doing the latter may show an error message, since the software search considers that an I could be a I, II, III, or IV. You should also reference the definitions before making a selection.


August 2010 11

Figure 10. Probability Pop-up

This is the select value menu when the select value icon for the Probability field is clicked.

Refer to the definitions for each probability value when making your selection.

Figure 11. Identifying the Appropriate Severity and Probability

Using the definitions for each, the hazard is identified as being Catastrophic (immediate and imminent danger of death or permanent disability) and Frequent (it is the main park road). As soon as the Severity and Probability decisions have been entered in their boxes, then the software computes the RAC and enters it in the box. In the case of the road washout, it is a RAC-1, Critical. Notice that the WO Priority field has been auto-populated with a “9” – Critical, so it matches the RAC rating.

NOTE: In most cases the RAC rating and the auto-populated WO Priority rating will be matched. However, occasionally a lower RAC may not be equivalent to the work order priority rating based on factors other than HLS. In such cases the work order priority can be changed to reflect the other priority. This change will not affect the RAC designations.


August 2010 12

Figure 12. Follow-up Work Order

A follow-up work order will need to be created to document the work necessary to permanently fix the road washout. A follow-up work order is created by going to the “Select Actions” drop-down menu and selecting “Create.” Notice that the “Originating Record” field in the follow-up work order now contains the original ICM work order number. The work type has been changed to “FM,” and the sub-work type has been changed to “EM,” as the park is hoping to receive storm damage funds this fiscal year to fix the washout.

Any follow-up work order(s) MUST have the same RAC rating as the original ICM work order. If the ICM work order has a RAC rating of a 1, 2, or 3 then a follow up work order must be created. If any project funds are requested, then the ICM work order must be closed to document that emergency or interim control measures have been taken to mitigate the hazard until a permanent repair can be made.

If a work order with a RAC rating is going to be part of a request for project funding to perform the permanent mitigation of the hazard, then it will follow the standard procedure of being put through the Project Scoping Tool (PST) and into PMIS. A work order with a RAC-5 level rating will not carry any points in the DOI Scorecard, since it does not qualify as a “critical” health, life, or safety issue. It is expected that most RAC-5 rated work orders will be corrected using base funding.

Reports Once the RAC has been applied to work orders, then the Work Order Information report in the Asset Management Reporting System (AMRS) can be run. The new version of this report contains additional columns for the RAC-related fields of HLS, Severity, Probability, RAC, and Follow-up Work Order #. Filters can be set on the Excel report format to show specific RAC ratings, locations, supervisors, or any other data the user wants to sort on.


August 2010 13


August 2010 14

APPENDIX A: Administering HLS Work Orders

Administering Legacy Health Life Safety Work Orders DATE: July 9, 2010

ISSUE The NPS PFMD leadership, the Director of Occupational Safety and Health, and funding managers opted to assign parks the responsibility of updating their Health Life Safety (HLS) work orders in the Facility Management Software System (FMSS) that were created prior to deployment of the risk assessment codes (RACs) on September 2, 2010. The “legacy” work orders (WOs) specific to this policy pertain only to the correction of legitimate and realistic HLS concerns and the incorporation of RAC into the FMSS. BACKGROUND The checking of the HLS box on an FMSS work order indicates that the work pertains to a health and safety corrective action. The checking of this box also initiates the requirement for the RAC. The HLS checkbox was deployed in the FMSS in 2009. The enhancement of the HLS designation by the RAC will occur on September 2, 2010. As a result of this timeline the following types of legacy work order situations exist:

1) Work orders in FMSS that were created prior to the 2009 deployment of the HLS checkbox that pertain to health and safety hazards, where the HLS box has not yet been checked

2) HLS-identified work orders in FMSS 3) HLS-identified work orders in PST projects, queued or not queued but not yet in PMIS 4) HLS-identified work orders in PMIS projects (at varying stages) 5) HLS-identified work orders in completed projects (both FMSS and PMIS projects)

There is no mandated requirement for parks to audit their legacy work orders. However, the following section provides details on actions that should be undertaken based upon the specific legacy work order situation. This information is meant to assist the parks in determining when and if they need to update their work orders to include the new RAC information. PROCESS FOR HANDLING EXISTING WORK ORDERS AND PROJECTS

1) Pre-2009 work orders in FMSS pertaining to HLS, but not marked For existing work orders in the FMSS that do not have the HLS checked, but pertain to health and safety hazards, users should identify the work with HLS, conduct an assessment of the hazard, and provide the relevant RAC fields on these work orders whenever edited or saved. Leaving the HLS checkbox blank indicates a non-HLS issue and requires no action.

2) Existing work orders in the FMSS that are not yet in PST or PMIS projects For existing work orders that have HLS checked in the FMSS, users should complete the relevant RAC fields on these WOs whenever edited/saved.

3) HLS work orders in PST projects that are either queued or not queued but are not yet in the PMIS For these existing WOs, parks should de-queue and edit these projects to include RAC information in the FMSS, similar to #1 above.

4) HLS work orders in existing PMIS projects (and at various stages of review and at various funding stages) For PMIS projects that are PST-generated and contain HLS WOs, but are not yet formulated or funded, either WASO or the region will need to release these projects to the parks to perform a “Request PST


August 2010 15

Edit.” Users should de-queue these projects in the PST, edit them to follow the new RAC rules, and re-queue and return the projects to the PMIS.

5) HLS work orders in region-reviewed, DOI-reviewed, or WASO-reviewed formulated/funded projects RAC impacts the Total Project Score. All scores will be recalculated. For projects containing HLS WOs, but with no RAC rating, the PST will display the error message “Cannot calculate,” beginning with the 2010 release of the Project Scoping Tool (PST) on October 1, 2010. Once this release occurs, the Total Project Score will include RAC information. In PMIS, such scores, without the RAC included, would show up as blank on the PMIS detail screen as well as on any reports, including the Project Data Sheet (PDS), which display the Total Project Score. Completed projects will also display blank Total Project Scores if the RAC has not been completed.

The following pros and cons are included with the decision to leave the responsibility of updating HLS work orders to the park: PRO:

Requires additional consideration by the park on the hazards being corrected by work orders

Validates the work as being related to a legitimate and realistic HLS threat

Supports the business practice that all hazards should be evaluated individually and by someone knowledgeable of the situation, the facility, and the RAC process

Keeps the rules applied to PST and FMSS work orders universal and consistent

Simplifies FMSS and PST programming

Eliminates either the over- or the under-assessment of a hazard that may have resulted from auto-translation

Lessens the need for providing training and guidance on multiple types of work orders based upon the rules that were in place when the work order was entered

Easier for fund managers to review projects because of a single set of rules

Greater control for HLS auditing

Promotes communication between the PMIS project developer and the FMSS user, which ultimately will make better projects

Administration of single DOI scoring calculation and not multiple calculations based on set of project criteria

CON:

Increases time in FMSS through added responsibility on park to update legacy work orders

Requires the de-queuing of projects, which results in extra steps and time

Results in incomplete data–auto-translation would have instantly updated all HLS work orders and not left an open timeline for incorporation of RAC

Results in varying status for HLS and RAC process maturity across the service

Encounter “rubber stamping” of ICM requirement for RAC-1, RAC-2, RAC-3 to resubmit projects

The PMIS and the PST score may not match due to differing scoring applied at time of project submittal to PMIS and the real-time calculation in the PST


August 2010 16

APPENDIX B: Quick Guide to the NPS Risk Assessment System


August 2010 17

Risk Assessment Code - Eppley...

Documents

Transcript of Risk Assessment Code - Eppley...