Qualitative Risk Assessment in Water Bottling Production: A Case Study of Maan Nestlé

Pure Life Factory

Diana Rbeht* , Mohammed S. El-Ali Al-Waqfi , Jawdat Al-Jarrah

Fire and Safety Engineering Department, Prince Al-Hussein Bin Abdullah II Academy of Civil Protection, Al-Balqa Applied

University, P.O. Box 206, Al Salt 19117, Jordan

Corresponding Author Email: [email protected]

Copyright: ©2023 IIETA. This article is published by IIETA and is licensed under the CC BY 4.0 license

(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

https://doi.org/10.18280/ijsse.130605 ABSTRACT

Received: 27 August 2023

Revised: 8 October 2023

Accepted: 31 October 2023

Available online: 25 December 2023

A comprehensive qualitative risk assessment (QRA) was conducted at the Maan Nestlé

Pure Life factory, encompassing its production, storage, and bottling sections. Through a

meticulous review of records, analysis of activities, and examination of work procedures,

potential hazards within the factory were identified and subsequently categorized using

the risk matrix technique. In total, seventeen hazards were identified, of which seven were

deemed high risk, eight medium, and two low. This assessment underscores the

imperative for measures aimed at risk control, reduction, or elimination. The QRA's

qualitative approach, while effective in broad hazard identification, may have led to an

incomplete hazard inventory. Nonetheless, it proved instrumental in pinpointing safety

hazards and informing the development of robust safety policies. These policies integrate

considerations of human behavior and equipment failure, focusing on preserving product

quality while safeguarding the business and its operators. Despite the presence of an

unsafe workplace, the study revealed that the need for new infrastructure is non-essential.

Instead, a series of modifications are recommended, including the replacement of

defective roofs, installation of electrical rolls and lifts, segregation of chemical storage,

personnel training, and various ergonomic and procedural adjustments. The study further

advocates for a subsequent phase of analysis utilizing quantitative techniques such as fault

tree analysis. This is particularly pertinent for hazards requiring specific root cause

identification, enabling the determination of necessary safety controls to address these

root causes and prevent hazard occurrence.

Keywords:

hazard, risk, risk matrix, QRA, risk rating

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Basics and definitions

In industrial facilities, safety is a paramount concern,

primarily due to the risks of workplace fatalities and injuries

resulting from inadequate safety measures and the absence of

robust Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems.

In the Jordanian labor market, as reported by Jordan Labor

Watch, occupational injuries are recorded every 25 minutes,

with a work-related death occurring every two days. Estimates

from the Social Security Corporation indicate approximately

20,000 work accidents annually, equating to a rate of 11.7

injuries per 1,000 individuals. The industrial sector accounts

for approximately 25.3% of all work-related fatalities, with the

wholesale and retail trade sector contributing to 17.7%.

Furthermore, the industrial sector experiences 31.6% of total

work injuries, followed by the health and social work sector at

22.0%. Notably, almost half of all occupational injuries befall

workers under 30 years of age, underscoring the imperative for

heightened awareness and specialized training to safeguard the

health and safety of younger workers [1].

Safety, as a discipline, aims to minimize the loss of life and

property attributable to accidents as much as possible [2].

Workplace incidents not only affect workers but also have

adverse financial implications for employers. The costs

associated with an accident can manifest in various forms,

including salary expenditures, productivity losses, retraining,

compensation payments, repairs, and medical expenses.

Like any industrial sector, the water bottling industry faces

occupational hazards at various stages, including production,

storage, and distribution. The industry predominantly employs

automated processes, supplemented by some manual handling

and repetitive tasks performed by workers. Consequently, this

environment presents multiple workplace hazards, including

ergonomic challenges, mechanical design issues, physical

activity demands, chemical exposures, and psychosocial

stressors. As a result, factory workers in this sector are more

vulnerable to occupational morbidities and fatalities due to

these heightened workplace risks.

Globally, the International Labor Organization (ILO)

estimates that approximately 2.78 million individuals

succumb annually to occupational diseases or job-related

accidents. Furthermore, around 374 million non-fatal injuries

occur each year, leading to a minimum of four days of work

missed per injury. The economic implications of substandard

workplace safety and health practices account for about 3.94

percent of the global gross domestic product annually [2]. Yet,

International Journal of Safety and Security Engineering Vol. 13, No. 6, December, 2023, pp. 1025-1038

Journal homepage: http://iieta.org/journals/ijsse

1025

the human toll of this frequent adversity is incalculable.

Risk, in this context, is the possibility or likelihood of harm

resulting from exposure to a hazard. However, Kaplan and

Garrick [3] describe risk as uncertainty coupled with potential

damage or loss, while safety is defined as being protected from

possible harm. The Society for Risk Analysis (SRA) [4]

characterizes risk as “The potential for realization of unwanted,

adverse consequences to human life, health, property, or the

environment”. Conversely, risk assessment involves the

identification, analysis, and evaluation of hazards [3].

The risk assessment process is integral to occupational

health and safety management plans, serving to heighten

employee awareness of potential workplace hazards and risks

[5]. This process is methodical and recurring, commencing

with the identification of risks and risk factors capable of

causing harm. It then progresses to the analysis and assessment

of the risks associated with these identified hazards,

culminating in the determination of appropriate measures for

risk elimination or control. The selection of strategies to

minimize or eradicate these risks is contingent upon the nature

of the risk in question [6].

Effective risk management begins with risk assessment.

When a company employs five or more individuals,

conducting and documenting a risk assessment becomes a

legal obligation [7]. In response to this requirement,

companies often develop informative tools to facilitate risk

assessments. According to HSE [8], the fundamental

components of successful risk management systems include

policy, organization, planning and implementation,

performance measurement, and review. The techniques

employed in risk assessment are pivotal in establishing

priorities and setting objectives for the elimination of hazards

and the reduction and control of risks in health and safety

management [9].

1.2 More on the concepts

Comprehending risk assessment necessitates a clear

understanding of the concepts of hazard, risk, and safety. A

hazard is defined as any potential source of harm; it may pose

a threat to people, organizations, or the environment. For

instance, a wet floor constitutes a hazard. Hazards are diverse

and can encompass physical hazards, which are factors

capable of causing harm (like a spill on the floor or constant

loud noise), and chemical hazards, which include harmful

chemical substances in any form (such as cleaning products or

asbestos) [8]. When conducting risk assessment, various

methods are employed to identify hazards and assess their

potential effects [3]. Statistics from social security reveal that

falls constitute the most common type of work injury,

accounting for 28.03 percent of total injuries. This is followed

by incidents involving manual labor tools, which represent

11.9 percent of injuries, and injuries resulting from falling

objects at 9.68 percent. Additionally, the data indicate that

road accidents are the leading cause of injury-related deaths,

responsible for 46.8 percent of total fatalities, followed by

incidents involving explosions, fires, and falls [1].

Risk is defined as the likelihood of the occurrence of a

harmful event and the severity of the resultant harm. For

example, the risk associated with slipping on a wet floor

encompasses both the probability of the slip occurring and the

potential consequences of such an event [9]. The interplay

between probability and consequences can significantly

impact individuals' daily activities, as well as their

professional and personal decision-making processes [10]. An

alternate perspective on risk considers it as the probability that

a hazard will adversely affect individuals, organizations, or the

environment, coupled with the potential outcomes of the

hazard’s occurrence. A risk is deemed low when the likelihood

of the event happening is minimal, and its impact is considered

mild. Conversely, the risk is considered high if there is a high

probability of the event occurring and the potential effects are

severe. It is important to note that while a hazard is a

prerequisite for risk, the presence of a hazard invariably

implies some level of risk [9].

Safety involves determining whether a risk is sufficiently

low to be considered safe or high enough to be deemed

harmful. Safety assessments, which may vary in their

conclusions, can be conducted either individually or by

governmental organizations [9]. Risk assessment, therefore, is

a process enabling safety teams to identify hazards, assess the

likelihood and severity of hazardous events, and then

determine necessary actions. As a distinct concept, risk

management is a dynamic, continuous process encompassing

hazard identification, analysis, mitigation measures, and

response to risk factors. While risk assessment is focused on

detecting hazards and analyzing all potential hazards and risks

in the workplace, it is a component of risk management.

Essentially, risk assessment involves hazard identification,

analysis, and evaluation. The responsibility for hazard

identification typically lies with managers and senior

employees who possess knowledge about various workplace

hazards and risks. These hazards might include fires, chemical

exposures, data breaches, and other incidents capable of

harming people and property. The associated risks could

pertain to health, safety, or quality. Risk analysis, a crucial part

of risk assessment, delves into the consequences of identified

hazards and their impact on work sustainability. Following this,

risk evaluation involves categorizing risks based on their

severity and likelihood. To facilitate this, risks can be ranked

using a risk assessment matrix.

1.3 Types of risk assessments

In any workplace, the types of risk assessments conducted

should be proportionate to and aligned with the operational

activities being carried out. The choice of risk assessment

method depends on the frequency of occurrence and the

factors that trigger the need for such assessments [7].

Generally, risk assessments can be categorized into two

primary types based on these considerations [4]. The first type

is the standard risk assessment, which is routinely conducted

at regular intervals. This form of assessment is a foundational

element of ongoing safety management, providing a consistent

review of potential risks within the workplace. The second

type, known as dynamic risk assessment, serves to address any

gaps identified in the standard risk assessment. It is typically

implemented when new hazards are introduced or identified in

the workplace, ensuring that emerging risks are promptly and

effectively managed [11].

Standard risk assessment encompasses five prevalent types.

The first is a fire risk assessment, which systematically

evaluates factors related to fire hazards, the likelihood of a fire

occurring, and the potential consequences should one arise

[12]. Manual handling assessments are crucial in sectors like

healthcare, agriculture, manufacturing, and construction,

recognized for high-risk manual handling activities due to

their frequency and nature. Display Screen Equipment (DSE)

1026

assessments are required in workplaces where employees use

computers, LCDs, etc. [5], and are also applicable to tablets,

smartphones, and laptops [7]. COSHH (Control of Substances

Hazardous to Health) assessments focus on hazards and risks

from hazardous substances in the workplace. Lastly, complex

risk assessments are necessary for larger-scale systems, such

as nuclear power plants or meteorological systems, which

involve intricate interactions between mechanical, electronic,

nuclear, and human elements [11]. In contrast, dynamic risk

assessment is utilized to address any gaps left by standard risk

assessments or in response to the introduction of new hazards

in the workplace [11]. Dynamic risk assessment involves

analyzing workplace risks and hazards and implementing

controls to reduce or eliminate them. However, sudden

changes in the work environment, such as the introduction of

new hazards, necessitate this form of assessment [12].

Dynamic Risk Assessments enable safety professionals to

quickly evaluate risks in changing environments, ensuring

continued safe work practices. While standard risk

assessments are prepared in advance, recorded, and regularly

monitored, dynamic risk assessments are conducted on the

spot by individuals as they encounter new environments or

changes within them.

Furthermore, the implementation of a dynamic risk

assessment does not negate the necessity for a standard risk

assessment. Rather, the dynamic risk assessment serves as a

complement to the standard risk assessment, addressing any

unforeseen gaps or nuances that the latter may not have

anticipated [11]. It is incumbent upon those responsible for

safety to conduct a dynamic risk assessment prior to

encountering any new situation or environment. Essentially, as

circumstances evolve, it is imperative for the safety team to

continually reassess risks and hazards, adapting their approach

to ensure the utmost safety and hazard mitigation.

1.4 The implementation of risk assessment

The risk assessment process is designed to evaluate the

likelihood and severity of potential harm. This process

encompasses five sub-processes: hazard identification, risk

analysis, risk evaluation, risk control, and assessment review,

with the provision for reassessment if necessary. Hazard

identification involves scrutinizing processes and work

procedures to identify conditions that could potentially harm

people. In the stages of risk analysis and risk evaluation,

assessors determine the probability of each hazard occurring

and the severity of its potential consequences. Risk evaluation

also facilitates the ranking of hazards based on their risk

ratings. Risk control, on the other hand, focuses on identifying

measures to eliminate hazards, either by preventing their

occurrence or, if that is not feasible, by controlling the risk.

This stage includes documenting the findings of the

assessment. The final stage involves revising control plans,

making improvements, and implementing administrative

actions to ensure a healthy and safe working environment [6].

The ISO-IEC 31010:2019 standard outlines the steps involved

in hazard identification and risk assessment. Published as a

dual-logo standard with ISO, it offers guidance on the

selection and application of various techniques for assessing

risk in diverse situations. These techniques aid decision-

making in scenarios with uncertainty, provide insights about

specific risks, and are part of a broader risk management

process. The standard provides a framework for organizations

to identify, assess, and manage risk, applying to various

contexts and industries. It aims to assist organizations in

making informed decisions about risk management and in

developing risk management strategies tailored to their unique

needs and circumstances [12].

Several categories of risk evaluation methods exist to

estimate individual components of risk accurately, aiming to

reflect reality more effectively. These categories include

qualitative, quantitative, and semi-quantitative risk

assessments. The choice among these types depends on the

specific circumstances and the availability of data. In certain

situations, it is feasible to implement more than one type of

assessment.

QRA is the most prevalent among these types. In QRA,

either an individual or a team can collect the necessary

information to conduct the assessment. This method is

particularly useful when numerical data are scarce or when

resources and records are limited.

QRA is primarily utilized for workplace risk assessments.

In this approach, the experience and knowledge of the assessor

play a pivotal role. The process involves not only reviewing

relevant data but also consulting employees and laborers who

are directly involved in the work activities. This consultation

is critical for making informed decisions about the potential

and severity of risks, followed by categorizing these risks into

levels such as high, medium, or low. A key feature of QRA is

its assignment of numerical values to different levels of risk,

enabling the computation of a risk rating. This rating is

typically calculated as the product of the severity and

likelihood of a given risk. Consequently, QRA is particularly

suited for workplace environments, where it aims to determine

the likelihood of someone being at high, medium, or low risk

of injury. The assessment involves an evaluation of the

severity of potential consequences and the probability of their

occurrence, without relying on quantitative tools. QRA is a

systematic examination of workplace factors that may cause

harm. It facilitates decision-making regarding the adequacy of

existing precautions and controls, and whether additional

measures are necessary to mitigate identified risks [13].

QRA does not inherently involve numerical data, qualitative

expressions are often quantified to estimate the Risk Rating

(RR), which represents the product of severity and potential.

In QRA, numbers are typically assigned to the severity and

likelihood or potential of a consequence, ranging from 1 to 5.

The five levels of severity are categorized as insignificant,

minor, moderate, major, and catastrophic. Similarly, the

likelihood of consequences is classified into five categories:

rare, unlikely, possible, likely, and certain [8].

Constructing a risk assessment matrix involves placing the

likelihood or potential on the abscissa and the severity on the

ordinate. This yields a 5×5 matrix, with each element

representing the product of severity and likelihood. The

magnitude of these elements reflects the risk rating. The

ratings are classified into three categories: low (RR ranging

from 1 to 5), medium (RR ranging from 6 to 12), and high (RR

ranging from 15 to 25). Risks with a high rating necessitate

immediate action, while those with a medium rating may allow

for delayed measures, and a low rating might not require

further action. Ultimately, QRA is descriptive and heavily

relies on the competency and experience of the assessors.

Their expertise is crucial in accurately interpreting and

applying the qualitative data to the risk assessment process,

ensuring that the assessments are reflective of the actual

workplace risks.

Semi-quantitative risk assessment employs a methodology

1027

that combines qualitative and quantitative elements to

articulate the relative scale of risks. This approach utilizes

numerical values, primarily in the form of frequency ranges or

levels of consequence, to provide a more defined assessment

of risk. The use of consequences-likelihood matrices, with

consequences plotted on the x-axis and likelihood on the y-

axis, enables the classification of risks. This classification

leverages expert knowledge, often in scenarios where

quantitative data is limited [13]. The foundational aspect of

semi-quantitative risk assessment is categorical labeling. This

process involves describing the probability, impact, and/or

severity of a risk as Very Low, Low, Medium, High, or Very

High. Alternatively, a scaling system such as A-F may be used,

with each term having a clear and distinct definition [14].

In the semi-quantitative risk assessment approach, various

scales are employed to characterize the likelihood of events

and their consequences or severities. This method does not

necessitate precise mathematical data for analyzing

probabilities and their outcomes. Instead, the goal is to

establish a hierarchy of risks relative to their quantification,

identifying which risks require further review without

implying a direct relationship between them.

Conversely, quantitative risk assessment assigns numerical

values to risks based on realistic and measurable data. Rather

than categorizing risks as high, medium, or low, they are

assigned specific numerical values, such as 3, 2, and 1,

although the scale can be broader. This type of risk assessment

is particularly applicable to industries with significant hazards,

such as aviation, chemicals, and nuclear power plants.

Quantitative measurements may encompass a variety of

factors, including hazards associated with equipment,

chemicals, design, and modeling techniques.

Quantitative risk assessment necessitates specialized

instruments and procedures for hazard identification, severity

consequence estimation, and likelihood determination of

hazard actualization. These tools include event trees,

sensitivity analysis, simulation software, and others. The use

of these tools enables a more detailed and precise assessment

of risks, especially in scenarios where high-risk factors are

present.

Based on the aforementioned discussion, it can be

concluded that each category of risk assessment—qualitative,

quantitative, and semi-quantitative—has its own set of

advantages and disadvantages. QRA is advantageous in its

speed and ease of implementation, as it does not rely on

numerical measurements. This simplicity allows for prompt

execution. However, it is inherently descriptive and heavily

reliant on the competency and experience of the assessors. As

a result, there is a degree of subjectivity involved, with the

potential for variability in determining probabilities and

consequences.

In contrast, QRA is more objective and offers detailed

decision-making. However, this method is time-intensive and

can be complex, as quantitative data are often challenging to

Our website has a team of professional writers who can help you write any of your homework. They will write your papers from scratch. We also have a team of editors just to make sure all papers are of HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE. To make an Order you only need to click Ask A Question and we will direct you to our Order Page at WriteDemy. Then fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.