Designing a quantitative safety
checklist for the construction phase of ongoing projects in petrochemical
plants
Zaranejad A, PhD1, Ahmadi O, PhD 1*, Yahyaei E, MSc2
1- PhD in Occupational
Health Engineering, Dept.
of Occupational Engineering, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Tarbiat Modares
University, Tehran, Iran. 2- MSc in Occupational Health Engineering, Dept. of Occupational Engineering,
Faculty of Medical Sciences, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract
Received: May 2016,
Accepted: November 2016
Background: One of the challenges in
construction is the occurrence of numerous accidents. In this regard, risk
assessment can play an important role in reducing accidents. The aim of this
study was to prepare comprehensive and quantitative checklists to determine the
potential hazards in the construction phase. Materials and Methods: The present descriptive and
analytical study was carried out on petrochemical projects in the south of
Iran in 2014. After the inspection of more than 50 construction projects, two
types of technical and managerial checklists were designed. The managerial
and technical checklists were designed with seven and 32 major subjects,
respectively. Finally prepared checklist and ET&BA method were compared in term of their risk
identification capability. Results: The
checklist and ET&BA methods, respectively, identified 300, 75, 125, and 48, and 107, 25, 12, and
0 risks related to hardware, design, mismanagement, and human error. Conclusions: The checklist method can identify and assess human errors, while the
ET&BA method cannot. Moreover, this method was more efficient than the
ET&BA technique in identification and assessment of hardware-related,
design-related, and managerial risks. Moreover, the duration and cost of implementation of checklist method were
significantly lower than ET&BA method. This technique can be introduced as a quantitative
risk assessment method in construction phases of projects and its weaknesses
can be improved by future studies. |
Keywords: Accidents, Checklist, Construction, Risk
Assessment.
Introduction
The construction phase of a project
is one of the intermediate phases of the development of its plan and design, and
supply and commissioning services. The initial phase of a new project is
important because decisions made in the early stages of the project affect its
final costs. In this regard, risk management can play an important role in
controlling and reducing the related risks (1). The occurrence rate of work accidents
in construction sectors is always higher than other sectors (2, 3). The construction sector employs
about 7% of the world’s employees, but is also responsible for 30–40% of work-related
fatalities (4) .The Iranian construction industry encompasses only 29% of
industrial workers; however, it causes approximately 40% of workplace accidents
(5). The exposure of workers to
potentially severe hazards is an important concern in the* construction
industry (6). For the same reason and due to the
recurrence of accidents, a strong need is sensed for the development of an appropriate
strategy to reduce the rate of accidents in these projects. To prevent
incidents, safety experts must recognize, assess, and reduce or control potentially small, large,
visible, and invisible hazards using risk assessment and management techniques.
The importance of risk assessment is to facilitate decision-making regarding
the selection of good solutions and to convince managers to spend resources for
safety solution (7). Without a structured identification
system, hazards can be overlooked, thus, resulting in incomplete
risk-evaluations and potential losses (8). The use of a checklist is one of the risk assessment methods.
Checklist analysis is a
systematic evaluation with a pre-established content which consists of
questions about any area of installation safety concern and is the simplest
method used for hazard identification (9).
Checklists have many objectives, including memory recall, and standardization
and regulation of processes or methodologies, which provide a framework for
evaluations or as a diagnostic tool. Several studies have been carried out on the designing of checklists
(10-15). Checklists should be prepared in
the form of small sentences and should be designed with a complete link to the goal.
The most important advantages and shortcomings of checklists are mentioned in table
1 (17).
Table 1: The most important advantages and
disadvantages of checklists
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
The checklist is the simplest technique for
recognition of hazards. |
It has the least possible compatibility with the
adopted standards. |
Although designing a checklist requires accurate information
and knowledge, its completion does not require skilled and specialized
personnel. |
If the checklist is studied independently, it may overlook
the potential hazards that have not been identified due to some eliminated subjects. |
It is applicable in all stages of the implementation
of the project. |
It use brainstorming and it is not the product of
collective wisdom. |
It is a swift and easy method for studying hazards. |
A checklist provides simple documents about the
condition and status of a particular subject. |
The items can go into detail based on the need and
the necessity. |
A checklist limits the imagination of the individual. |
The application of the instructions and the
philosophy of utilization can take place in the form of questions within the
framework of this method. |
Checklists are only designed based on the abilities
and experiences of those who prepared them. |
Although the designing of a checklist requires accurate
information and knowledge, one can reach effective results by preparation of
written instructions and a minimum amount of training. |
The items should be prepared by very experienced individual
and/or individuals who have knowledge of the standards and are completely
skilled in designing, and utilization. |
Checklists can be considered as a very conducive
method in the hazard identification phase. |
A checklist that has been prepared by people other
than experts, neglects the sensitive and critical subjects. |
The results of this method can be used in other safety
assessment techniques. |
A checklist can only focus on one particular subject
at a particular time, and therefore, hazards resulting from the relations and
connection of the interactions, which exist between processes, cannot be
identified by it. |
Based on the classification of checklist
items, checklists are divided into three major groups; the first group is yes/no
and positive/negative, the second group is weak/relatively medium/good/excellent,
and the third group is the scoring method. The first group is a qualitative
method, and it is not comprehensive and precise, since they do not specify the
level of appropriateness and inappropriateness of the safety. The second group is
also a qualitative method that can specify the quality, and the level of
appropriateness and inappropriateness of the safety; however the safety status
of the organization cannot be judged through this method. Hence, it is not
precise and comprehensive. In the third group, the table of scoring assessment
is taken into consideration based on the importance of the subject from a
safety perspective (18). In this method, the checklist
subjects receive an independent score based on their importance in terms of safety.
Hence, it is a suitable method for the assessment of the safety of an organization.
Evidently, the best checklist assessment method is the scoring technique. Nevertheless,
it is better to use this method concurrently with the first and second methods,
since the level of appropriateness of each subject is unclear in relation to
itself in this method. In addition, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE;
Liverpool, UK) recommends the use of a combination of scoring method and weak/relative
medium/good/excellent method. This institute has considered the same rate for
each of the checklist subjects, which does not seem to be logical with regards
to the nature of different industries and their related hazards. On the other
hand, this technique has not been taken into consideration since one of the
fundamental principles in designing a checklist is to consider a “yes/no”
response in it. In the present study, a hybrid scoring and yes/no techniques were
incorporated. This method has also been proposed by the U.S. Safety Department (19).
One of the major studies conducted in
Iran in this regard is the thesis of Parvin Shafiee Moqadam (March 2000). In
this project, 44 important safety, hygiene, and environment related topics were
considered in terms of their educational level, equipment, policy, methods,
rules, conducts, documents, and etc. Different checklists were drafted for
safety assessment and the checklists were scored for the quantitative and
qualitative assessment. The results showed the safety score and the safety
percentage were, respectively, 0.5 and 38%. This means the safety conditions in
the workshop was at an average level and it is necessary to draft a fundamental
and comprehensive plan to promote the safety conditions.
The aim of the present study was to design
comprehensive and quantitative checklists to determine potential hazards in the
construction phase of ongoing projects.
Material and Methods
The
present descriptive and analytical study was carried
out on petrochemical projects in the south of Iran in 2014. First, two types of technical and
managerial checklists were designed after inspection and field study of more
than 50 construction projects.
The
managerial checklists were designed with seven major criteria and in 32
important and major subjects for technical inspection and qualitative control.
Evidently,
the topic of safety should be included in all organizational structures, goals,
policies, ideals, and other processes necessary for continuation of the
company’s activities. In other words, the company should pay attention to safety
promotion to an extent that every individual realizes that the company considers
safety topics a serious issue. Therefore, the managerial checklist should be designed
with the seven major subjects of managerial commitments and requirements,
identification and control of hazards, professional rules and instructions,
education, communications, reporting and coverage of the accidents and
incidents, and assessment within the site. In this checklist, the three methods
including interview with the operational personnel and managers, observance of
the site of installations and personnel performance conditions and review of documentation
were incorporated in order to answer the questions. Moreover, related documents
were studied and a particular score was considered for each of them (the
scoring method). In addition, the yes/no method was used to judge the studied
case. In the technical checklist, after interviewing the construction engineers
and studying related technical documents, 32 important and major subjects were
selected in the unit construction operations and were assessed by a combination
of the scoring and yes/no methods (20). These subjects include scaffoldings,
excavation, protection against fall, ropes, machinery barrier, tools and
equipment, welding, electrical hazards, equipment and personal protective
clothes, concrete constructions, destruction, protection against and prevention
of fire, lifters, traffic control, limited closed environment, explosion,
erection of steel structures, cranes, vehicle, guard rails, open areas of the
wall and the floor, stairs and stair railing, construction of concrete block of
walls, fixed ladders, mobile ladders, workshop discipline, methods to stop the
locking and labeling operations, sanding machines, lathe and other abrasive
machines, hazard communication, personnel platforms, asbestos, and contact with
silica and radiation. The importance of the studied subjects was determined
based on the study of accidents in the construction phase of the industries by
the experts committee that was composed of engineers and
qualified specialists and consultants in the fields of civil, mechanical,
chemical, and safety engineering. All of the experts had at least 15 years job
experience. The maximum score (acceptable status in the safety viewpoint) was
considered for every single question in each checklist. After studying the
considered subject, it was scored. If the maximum score was equal to or more
than 85%, a positive response was
given otherwise negative. It was classified as a contract. After calculation of
the ratio of total scores to the maximum possible scores, the appropriateness of
subjects were studied based on four criteria to judge the checklist in a
general way. For this reason, the decision-making process provided by the
MIL-STD-882C (Military-Standard-882C) standard was used (20). Moreover, the safety score of the studied system was calculated
according to the following equation (1) to judge the studied system (21).
(1) |
Table 2: Standard indices
for judging a checklist
Hazard risk index |
Decision-making standard (based on the ratio of the
gained score to the maximum score in percentage, X) |
Acceptable
without revision |
X > 85 |
Acceptable
with revision |
X = 50-85 |
Inappropriate |
X = 41-49 |
Unacceptable |
X < 40 |
In this
equation, A is the level of priority of the stated subjects in relation to each
other (Table 3), B is the gained score in each subject, and SS is the safety
score. Following the calculation of the safety score, a comment was made on the
safety status of the site via applying the standard of judgment presented in table
2. By establishing the experts committee comprised of
experts in all fields, the checklist was transformed from a product of individual
thought to the product of collective wisdom after the multilateral study of the
subjects from different viewpoints. Therefore, the role of personal preference would
fall to the minimum possible level (21). The priority of different
subjects in the checklist was determined by the experts (their selection was previously
explained). To compare the potentials of this method with other methods of risk
assessment, different techniques were studied by a committee comprised of
civil, mechanical, electrical, and chemical, and safety engineers. Finally, the
experts committee presented the energy trace and barrier analysis (ET&BA)
method as the only rival to the checklist technique for identification of
hazards and their assessment in construction projects. Although different risk
assessment methods are used for projects under construction, according to the experts'
proposal, ET&BA method is more efficient than other methods. Bagher Mortazavi
et al., in their study in 2007, stated that ET&BA method is a good method
for risk assessment in construction projects (22). Jamshidi et al. in 2013
pointed out that methods such as ET & BA can evaluate the risks in various
industries especially in construction industries (23). Therefore, the results of
this study were compared with those of ET&BA method. The rates and levels of risks at one of the construction phases of
petrochemical sites, where many incidents had occurred in the previous year, was assessed
by application of both designed checklists and ET&BA method. The ET&BA
is a system-based analysis developed to assist the identification of hazards by
focusing on the presence of energy and the barriers that may influence energy
control in the system (24). ET&BA is implemented
in the following stages:
· Identification of the energy
types
· Determination of barriers in the
energy pathways
· Determination of vulnerable
targets including personnel and equipment
· Determination of the risk levels
of hazards and effectiveness of control methods
·
Definition of the
controls to reduce the risk
·
Re-determination
of hazards’ risk levels (7)
Results
In present
study 39 completed checklists was designed. Priority of different subjects in
the checklist determined by the experts is presented in table 3.
Table 3: Priority
of the different sections presented in the checklist method
Topic |
Priority ranking (A) |
Topic |
Priority ranking (A) |
Topic |
Priority ranking (A) |
Management commitments and requirements |
1 |
Confined spaces |
14 |
Fixed ladders |
27 |
Hazards identification and control |
2 |
Personal protection equipment (PPE) |
15 |
Mobile ladders |
28 |
Working rules and instructions |
3 |
Open areas |
16 |
Radiation |
29 |
Education |
4 |
Workshop discipline |
17 |
Exposure to Sio2 |
30 |
Communications |
5 |
Sanding and cutting machines and other abrasive machines |
18 |
Asbestos |
31 |
Accidents and events report |
6 |
Traffic control |
19 |
Platforms |
32 |
Within site control |
7 |
Erection of steel structures |
20 |
Hazard communication |
33 |
Scaffolding |
8 |
Cranes |
21 |
Tag out / lag out |
34 |
Excavation |
9 |
Transportations |
22 |
Explosion |
35 |
Working at height |
10 |
Stairs and their railings |
23 |
Ropes |
36 |
Electrical hazards |
11 |
Construction of walls |
24 |
Concrete Constructions |
37 |
Welding |
12 |
Guard rails |
25 |
Destruction |
38 |
Fire fighting |
13 |
Aerial lifters |
26 |
Table 4: Comparison of the results obtained,
the number of sessions held, and the time spent in the two designed checklists
and ET&BA methods
Method |
DETAIL |
|
ET&BA |
Checklists |
|
6 |
3 |
Number of experts in
the team |
15 |
5 |
Number of meetings held |
270 |
30 |
Time spent
(person/hour) |
144 |
548 |
Identified risks |
141 |
500 |
Unacceptable risks |
201 |
505 |
Proposals for
reformation |
The
results of the comparison of the designed checklists and ET&BA method are
presented in tables 4-6 and figures 1-3. The results of this comparison showed that
the quantity of 548 and 144 risks were identified using the checklists and
ET&BA method, respectively. ET&BA method did not have the ability to
identify human errors, while the checklist method identified 48 human errors.
Based on
the results, it was observed that the checklist method only requires
Table 5: Comparison of the designed
checklists and ET&BA methods from the viewpoint of the type and Number of
risks identified
Checklists |
ET&BA |
Risk type |
300 |
107 |
Hardware |
75 |
25 |
Design |
125 |
12 |
Mismanagement |
48 |
0 |
Human error |
548 |
144 |
Total |
Table 6: Comparison of the capabilities of
the designed checklists with ET&BA method
Checklist |
ET&BA |
Detail |
It has |
It has not |
The ability to judge each of the
studied disciplines in a quantitative manner |
Ineffective safety measures Defective protective equipment Unsafe machinery and equipment Unsafe and defective equipment,
tools, and machinery |
It has not |
The ability to judge the studied
site qualitatively |
It has |
It has not |
The ability to judge deviation from
the standard |
Discussion
In this
study, a new risk assessment method was proposed and utilized as a one case
study in the construction phase of petrochemical sites. To compare the potentials of this method with other methods of risk
assessment, the experts committee presented the ET&BA method as the only
rival to the checklist technique for identification of hazards and their
assessment in construction projects. Many researchers believe that the
ET&BA method of hazard identification and risk assessment is efficient and
powerful (22, 23).
The results and
findings of this study showed that although the designing of the proposed
method requires comprehensive information, its use does not require skilled
personnel. This is a great benefit because many construction workers that are
seasonal workers and indigenous, do not have enough literacy and are unfamiliar with the hazards of working
in phases of construction.
On the other
hand, this method is used at all stages of a project. It is a very easy and quick method of hazard
identification and risk assessment. This method can also enter the technical
and operational details that other risk assessment methods are not capable of.
This method can
be very useful guidance for the documentation of work instructions and designing
of educational programs. In compared with other methods, checklist is powerful
in identification of unsafe behavior and human errors.
A limitation of
the checklists method is that it can only focus on one particular subject at a particular
time, and therefore, hazards resulting from the relations and connection of the
reactions, which exist between processes and methods, cannot be identified by
it.
The designed checklist method which
considers different types of hardware-related, managerial, design-related, and
human error risks was an efficient method in analyzing such systems by spending
the minimum possible time and money in compared with ET&BA method. It may not only be a rival to the ET&BA
technique, but can also replace the ET&BA method as a more efficient method.
As mentioned by Marhavilas et al., another advantage of checklists may be their
applicability to any activity or system, generally. Furthermore, this method
ensures that organizations comply with standard practices if it is performed by
an individual that has been trained to understand the checklist items. In
addition to its simple application, this technique can answer more complicated
risk-related questions only if some degree of quantification is added with a
relative ranking approach for equipment and human factors. One weakness of this method was its qualitative
approach (16).
In the present
study, this kind of weakness was resolved by quantifying the checklist. An advantage
of the checklist method was its flexibility for each organization with regard to
the nature of the work; it was applicable in all stages of the project implementation.
Tam et al. noted that different companies tend to have different scales of
safety management systems because of inadequate data or imprecise information
available on construction sites (25). However, risk analysis
and hazard assessment is at the core of safety practices in any case. Thus, the
checklist method was the best option for risk assessment in these cases.
The limitation
of this research was lack of a regular, developed, and standard system for
construction projects’ management that resulted in the wasting of much time and
energy by the research team.
Conclusion
The designed checklists method was an
efficient technique in analysis of systems and considered different risks
related to hardware, management, and design, and human errors in the least amount
of time and with the least costs. Hence, it can be a potential alternative to
other risk assessment methods. Therefore, this technique can be introduced as
one of the strongest risk assessment methods in construction phases of
projects.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the
experts who participated in this project and assisted in its performance.
Conflict
of interest: None declared
References
5.
Iran. Department of Labour Inspection, Construction
Accident Report in 2011. Tehran: Labour
Inspection Department of the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs; 2011.
6.
Chi N-W, Lin K-Y, El-Gohary N, Hsieh S-H. Evaluating
the strength of text classification categories for supporting construction
field inspection. Automation in Construction 2016; 64(4):78-88.
17. Roland HE, Moriarty
B. System safety engineering and management. 2nd ed. New York, United States: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 1990.
18. Vincoli JW. Basic
guide to system safety. 2nd ed. New York, United States: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2006.
20. Allen E, Iano J.
Fundamentals of building construction: materials and methods. 5th ed.
New York, United States: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2008.
22. Zarranezhad A, Mortazavi
SB, Asilian Mahabadi H, Khavanin A. Identification and safety assessment of the
hazardous zones (unwanted energy flows) in an construction project at the
national petrochemical company by application of ET& BA method. J Appl Sci
2007; 7(19):2769-75.
* Corresponding
author: Omran Ahmadi, Dept. of Occupational Engineering, Faculty of Medical
Sciences, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.
E-mail: o.ahmadi@modares.ac.ir