Hazard Analysis

Job Hazard Analysis (JHA), also called Job Safety Analysis (JSA), examines individual jobs to identify hazards and develop controls. JHA provides systematic hazard identification at the task level.

Job Selection prioritizes jobs for analysis based on injury history, hazard severity, and change frequency. Jobs with serious injury potential or new and changing jobs warrant priority attention. Systematic coverage eventually addresses all jobs.

Job Breakdown divides jobs into component steps or tasks. Steps should describe observable actions in sequence. Appropriate step size captures distinct activities without excessive detail.

Hazard Identification examines each step for potential hazards. Analysis considers what could go wrong, contributing factors, and potential consequences. Multiple perspectives improve identification completeness.

Control Development establishes measures to eliminate or reduce identified hazards. Controls should follow the hierarchy: elimination, substitution, engineering controls, administrative controls, and PPE. Effective controls address hazard root causes.

Documentation records analysis results for reference and training. JHA forms capture job steps, hazards, and controls. Documentation enables review, updating, and communication.

Worker Involvement improves JHA quality and acceptance. Workers performing jobs understand practical hazards. Involvement builds ownership of safety measures.

Ongoing Review keeps JHAs current as jobs change. Scheduled review catches accumulated changes. Incident investigation may trigger immediate review. Living documents require maintenance.

Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) evaluates entire processes to identify hazards with potential for serious consequences. PHA is required for processes covered by OSHA's Process Safety Management standard (29 CFR 1910.119).

PHA Scope addresses processes involving highly hazardous chemicals above threshold quantities. Analysis covers equipment, instrumentation, human factors, and external factors. Comprehensive scope ensures thorough hazard identification.

PHA Methodologies include What-If, Checklist, HAZOP, FMEA, and Fault Tree Analysis. Method selection depends on process complexity and analysis purpose. Multiple methods may complement each other.

What-If Analysis poses questions about potential deviations and consequences. Teams brainstorm what could go wrong and evaluate results. This relatively simple method suits various applications.

HAZOP (Hazard and Operability Study) systematically examines process deviations using guide words (no, more, less, etc.). HAZOP teams evaluate causes and consequences of each deviation. This structured method thoroughly examines complex processes.

Team Composition brings together diverse expertise including process, operations, maintenance, and safety perspectives. Teams should include those with intimate process knowledge. External facilitation ensures effective analysis.

Documentation and Follow-up records findings and recommendations. Findings requiring action must be tracked to resolution. Documentation supports regulatory compliance and knowledge retention.

Periodic Review updates PHAs when processes change and at regular intervals. PSM requires PHA updates at least every five years. Reviews ensure continued relevance.

Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) systematically examines potential failure modes of equipment and systems to identify critical failures requiring controls. FMEA supports both design and process reliability improvement.

FMEA Types include Design FMEA (DFMEA) for product design, Process FMEA (PFMEA) for manufacturing processes, and Machine FMEA for equipment reliability. Each type focuses on different failure sources.

Failure Mode Identification lists ways that components or process steps could fail. Analysis considers all reasonably foreseeable failure modes. Component-level analysis ensures comprehensive coverage.

Effect Analysis evaluates consequences of each failure mode. Effects may include safety hazards, quality defects, or operational impacts. Severity ratings quantify consequence significance.

Cause Analysis identifies factors that could lead to each failure mode. Root cause understanding enables effective prevention. Occurrence ratings estimate failure likelihood.

Detection Analysis assesses ability to detect failures before consequences occur. Current controls may detect some failures. Detection ratings reflect control effectiveness.

Risk Priority Number (RPN) calculation multiplies severity, occurrence, and detection ratings. RPN prioritizes failures requiring attention. High RPNs indicate priority improvement needs.

Action Development addresses high-priority failure modes through design changes, process controls, or detection improvements. Actions should reduce occurrence, severity, or improve detection. FMEA updates reflect implemented changes.

Effective hazard analysis requires practical application skills beyond methodology knowledge. Understanding application enables meaningful analysis results.

Analysis Timing integrates hazard analysis into appropriate workflow stages. Design analysis should occur early enough to influence designs. Process analysis should precede operation of new or changed processes. Timing determines ability to act on findings.

Team Facilitation guides analysis teams through systematic processes. Effective facilitation keeps teams focused and productive. Facilitation skills significantly impact analysis quality.

Risk Assessment Integration evaluates identified hazards for risk significance. Not all hazards warrant equal attention. Risk-based prioritization focuses resources on most significant hazards.

Control Selection applies hierarchy of controls to identified hazards. Engineering controls generally provide more reliable protection than administrative controls. Selection considers feasibility, effectiveness, and sustainability.

Documentation Quality affects analysis value. Clear documentation communicates findings and rationale. Quality records support future reference, training, and regulatory compliance.

Follow-Through ensures analysis recommendations are implemented. Action tracking drives completion. Verification confirms that controls are effective.

Organizational Learning shares analysis insights across the organization. Lessons from one analysis may benefit other areas. Knowledge sharing multiplies analysis value.