FACILITY HAZARD ANALYSIS

Various extractions have been taken from the basic hazard analysis format. The SSHA looks only at hazards within a subsystem. Likewise, the SHA concentrates on system-level hazards. PHA looks only at the initial design of the system. Fault hazard analy-sis emphasizes faults in a system that can create hazards. As stated previously, these hazard analyses really are all the same thing.

There is one that is sufficiently different that it should be treated separately—

the facility hazard analysis. As the name implies, it focuses on hazards in a facility. The same hazard analysis procedure is used, but emphasizing facil-ities and the facility acquisition process. The purpose of the facility hazard analysis is to apply hazard analysis techniques to a facility and its operations for the entire facility life cycle—from concept through disposal. The facility is construed to mean actual buildings, the area around the buildings, and the operations into, out of, and inside the buildings. Specifically, it looks at items such as the following:

• The facilities themselves, including building structure electrical (power) systems, lighting, heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning

• Facility siting, including where the facility is located geographically, other facilities located near the facility of interest, and other outside environmen-tal or operational issues that could impact the facility

• Facility modifications

• Fire protection systems, including fire suppression; fire detection; alarms, monitoring, and communications; and fire department operations

• Facility operations, including manufacturing lines, office areas, and management

• Pressurized systems, such as pneumatic, hydraulic, and two-phase flow systems

• Materials handling, including storage; transfer, delivery, and movement;

disposal or waste; and bulk systems

• Handling of hazardous materials

• Unique operations, such as laboratories, computer rooms, and testing facilities

• Operator training (normal and emergency operations)

It is difficult to list all, or even the majority, of the items that fit into the description of a facility. The purpose of the preceding list is to give a flavor of what kinds of things you need to look at in a facility hazard analysis. Appendix C offers a very general outline of some of the items that should be considered in a facility hazard analysis.

Obviously, you should start with this list and expand it to include the unique features of your facility. The functional divisions in Appendix C also can help you set up your functional tree.

The facility hazard analysis follows the same path and sequence of order as the hazard analysis process (review Figure 5.2 to refresh your memory). As mentioned in Section 2.6, the safety management system in a facility should also use the haz-ard reduction precedence: design out the hazhaz-ard, use safety devices, use warning devices, and finally, use special procedures and training.

Again, a PHL is developed (use Appendix C as a starting point). The PHL is divided into hazard categories. The functional tree is created. Then the actual facil-ity hazard analysis is started. Each hazard is assigned a severfacil-ity and probabilfacil-ity level, and the other portions of the hazard analysis worksheet are completed. Then a system safety assessment is performed and the worksheet results are analyzed.

A few deviations from the hazard analysis procedure are unique to facility hazard analysis and need to be discussed.

The purpose of a facility hazard analysis is to identify and evaluate hazards and make recommendations for the elimination and control of hazards. The major safety concerns that facility managers should address are loss of life or serious injury to personnel, reportable (to the Environmental Protection Agency and/or state and local agencies) hazardous materials discharge to the environment, serious damage to facili-ties or equipment resulting in large dollar loss, and hazards that could have serious adverse effects on the plant or company mission capability, operability, or public opinion.

As with other safety analysis tools, the facility hazard analysis should be per-formed as early in the program as feasible. The same hazard analysis format can be used, with the columns filled in with preliminary or available information. The facility hazard analysis should be revisited at the 30%, 60%, 90%, and 100% design review stages, updating the worksheets as information becomes available. When the acceptance inspection and operations review is conducted, the facility hazard analysis should again be updated. The same holds for facilities that are modified or retrofitted.

Because the cost of constructing or modifying a facility is so great, it is critical to focus your energy only on what is important. NASA uses a very good system (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1998), the facility risk indicator (FRI). The FRI is different from the HRI on the worksheet in that it ranks the risk of individual facilities in relation to one another and the overall mission of the organization. Obviously, much more effort should be given to a laboratory that uses high-pressure hazardous gases than to an office building or guard shack. Briefly, the FRI definitions, per NASA, are as follows:

FRI 1 (high risk): There is a high probability that hazards in this facility can cause loss of life. Hazards may result in loss of life, permanent disability, or serious occupational illnesses to one or more persons, three or more lost-time injuries, loss of facility operational capability for 1 month or greater, or damage to equipment or property in excess of $500,000.

FRI 2 (medium risk): There is a medium probability that hazards in this facility can cause loss of life. Hazards may result in permanent disability to one or more persons, hospitalization (associated with illness or injury) of three or more persons, up to two lost-time injuries, loss of facility operational capability from 2 to 4 weeks, or damage to equipment or property from $250,000 to $500,000.

FRI 3 (low risk): There is a low probability that hazards in this facility can cause loss of life. Hazards may result in hospitalization of one or two persons, occupational injury or illness resulting in a lost workday or

restricted-duty case, loss of facility operational capability from 1 day to 2 weeks, or damage to equipment or property from $25,000 to $250,000.

There is a low probability that hazards in this facility can cause loss of life. Hazards may result in permanent disability to one or more persons, occupational injury or illness resulting in a lost workday or restricted-duty case, loss of facility operational capability for from 1 day to 2 weeks, or damage to equipment or property from $25,000 to $250,000.

FRI 4 (acceptable risk): Loss of life as a result of hazards in this facility is unlikely. Hazards may result in no lost workday injuries or no restricted-duty cases, loss of facility operational capability of less than 1 day, or dam-age to equipment or property less than $25,000.

Table 5.7 indicates how one company might rank its buildings. The ranking could be very different from one plant to another. Also, the current plant layout is very critical for ranking the buildings. In the example in Table 5.7, the day care center is fairly isolated from the rest of the plant operations. In other companies, the day care center might be located close to hazardous operations and therefore would receive an FRI of 1.

In Figure 5.5, you can clearly see that the functional tree is set up in exactly the same format as the passenger-carrying submersible. Also, Table 5.8 is almost the same as the passenger-carrying submersible SHA.

Table 5.8 shows what a typical worksheet might look like for a laboratory that handles hazardous gases. Note that this worksheet includes a position for the facil-ity risk index. As you can see, if the control is implemented, then the FRI changes.

Again, it is very important to include verification of control. This is what ensures that your control is adequate to control the hazard, and it is something that can be verified to be in place.

TABLE 5.7

Example FRIs for Various Buildings

Building FRI

Cafeteria 3

Research projects lab 1

Gas cylinder storage building 3

Day care center 4

Maintenance building 3

Heating and refrigeration plant 1

Microchip processing facility 1

Information management and computer facility 2

Shipping and receiving 3

Main administrative building 4

Security gate house 3

Plant operations building 1

Tool and equipment storage 3