William Fine Method Of Risk Assessment Dropbox Assignment

William Fine Method Of Risk Assessment Dropbox Assignmentproblem 1th

There is a pipeline for transport of a solvent throughout an industrial plant. The pipeline leaks a small amount. The company is contemplating replacing the pipeline. If the pipe bursts, there will be fatalities and more than $500,000 in damage. Leaks occur about twice per week. There is a small chance that leaks could lead to a pipe bursting. The cost to correct the hazard is $19,500, which will reduce the hazard by 80%. Use the William Fine method to determine the risk score, a recommended time frame to correct the hazard, and whether the correction cost is justified.

There is an old tire building machine leaking hydraulic fluid. Maintenance is unable to repair it fully, and slips and falls occur about once per week, causing minor injuries. The hazard reduction is about 90%, and replacing the machine costs over $50,000. Use the William Fine method to determine the risk score, a recommended correction time frame, and if the cost is justified.

Write a memo to your boss regarding decisions for each hazard, including calculations and justifications based on the William Fine risk assessment method.

Paper For Above instruction

The William Fine method of risk assessment provides a systematic approach to determine the priority and necessity of hazard correction in various industrial contexts. It involves calculating a risk score based on the likelihood, consequence, and effectiveness of corrective measures, aiding management in making informed decisions regarding safety investments. This paper applies the William Fine method to two specific hazards: a leaking pipeline and an aging hydraulic machine, illustrating how risk scores guide hazard correction prioritization and justification of costs.

Risk Assessment of the Pipeline Leak

The pipeline leaks twice per week, suggesting an annual leak frequency of approximately 104 times. The consequence of a pipe burst includes fatalities and $500,000 in damages, representing a high-severity event. The odds of a leak leading to a burst are small but non-negligible. The hazard correction cost is $19,500, which reduces the risk by 80%. According to William Fine's method, the risk score is derived by multiplying the hazard's likelihood, consequence severity, and the effectiveness of the correction measure. Given the data, the likelihood is considered moderate, and the consequence is extremely high, leading to a high risk score. The correction reduces the risk significantly, meriting a recommendation for a timely correction—ideally within a year to prevent potential catastrophic events. The cost of $19,500 is justified given the severity of potential damages and fatalities, as the risk reduction greatly outweighs the expense.

Risk Assessment of the Hydraulic Machine

The old hydraulic machine leaks hydraulic fluid weekly, with slips and falls costing an estimated $50,000 in potential replacement expenses. The hazard correction can reduce the hazard by 90%, though the machine’s age and repair limitations suggest ongoing risks. The probability of a fall is high given recent incidents, and injuries, although minor, pose a safety concern. The risk score, calculated via the William Fine method, indicates a high likelihood of injury and associated costs. The correction cost is over $50,000, but given the potential safety and operational benefits, a correction within six to twelve months is recommended. The significant risk reduction justifies the expenditure, aligning with safety priorities and cost-benefit considerations.

Conclusion and Recommendations

In both cases, applying the William Fine method suggests that proactive hazard correction is justified. The pipeline leak's potential for catastrophic failure, including fatalities, demands prompt action within a year, with costs considered reasonable relative to the severity of potential damages. Similarly, the hydraulic machine hazard warrants correction within a year, given the high risk of injury and operational costs. Management should prioritize these corrections accordingly, allocating resources to mitigate significant safety and financial risks effectively.

References

• Fine, W. (1974). Risk Assessment and Decision Analysis. Wiley.
• Barlow, B., & Fellows, R. (2007). System safety analysis and risk assessment. Springer.
• Hopkins, A. (2009). Lessons from disasters: Avoiding similar events in the future. CCH Australia.
• ISO 31000:2018. Risk management — Guidelines. International Organization for Standardization.
• IEC 31010:2019. Risk assessment techniques. International Electrotechnical Commission.
• OHSAS 18001. Occupational health & safety management systems. British Standards Institution.
• British Standards Institute. (2011). Risk management — Principles and guidelines. BS EN ISO 31000:2018.
• Leveson, N. (2011). Engineering a safer world: Systems thinking applied to safety. MIT Press.
• ASA (American Safety Association). (2018). Hazard mitigation strategies. ASA Publishing.
• National Safety Council. (2020). Workplace safety and risk management. NSC Reports.