RISK REDUCTION PROCESS

1. Introduction

Generally speaking, all actions seeking to reduce risks begin with a risk assessment. The RISK
ASSESSMENT PROCESS document presents the first steps of the risk assessment and reduction
process used in the context of this course.

Systematically think of the tasks to execute,

List tasks
from beginning to end.

Think about possible accidents, then break

Identify hazards them down into component parts (hazards,
situations, events). Consider the harm
involved.

Estimate risks Determine the risk index.

Evaluate the risk: Decide on what is acceptable and what is not.

Yes Is the task safe?

End Establish action priorities.

No
Establish the measures required to bring risks
Reduce risks down to an acceptable level.
New hazards?

Figure 1: Risk assessment and reduction process used in this course

Therefore, after the tasks (or handling) have been listed, the related potential hazards have
been identified, and risks have been estimated and evaluated, the last step can begin: risk
reduction. This step is necessary when accident scenarios have been identified whose risk level
is deemed too high to be acceptable.

This document will first describe the different categories of means for risk reduction and then
discuss their effectiveness. The final section will highlight the iterative nature of the risk
assessment and reduction process.

Examples of risk assessment and reduction are also available in the COMPANION DOCUMENTS
section.

1 2012, Patrik Doucet, ing., Ph. D.

2. Description of means for risk reduction

When it is deemed necessary to reduce risks, the following categories of means can be
considered, respecting their order as much as possible.

Can the hazard be Yes Inherently safe

1
removed? design measures
No
Can the risk be Yes
2 Risk reduction
reduced?
No
Fixed guards
Yes
3 Can guards be used?
Guards and devices
No
Can protective devices Yes
4 Protective devices
be used?
No
Are warnings or signs Yes
5 Warnings, signs
possible?
No
Are working Yes
6 Working procedures
procedures useful?
No
Are PPE and CPE Yes
7 PPE and CPE
possible?
No
8 Training, information

Figure 2: Categories of means for risk reduction

2.1 Inherently safe design measures

The first category of means consists in removing the hazard. This represents the highest
attainable level of safety, since removing a hazard removes the fundamental element of an
accident process.

In other words, without a hazard, an accident cannot occur. This is why, when it comes to
safety, inherently safe design measures are the ultimate objective [1] [2] [4] [6].

2 2012, Patrik Doucet, ing., Ph. D.

In the case of operating a machine used for chemically treating sheet metal, several examples
were identified:
• Re-entrant angles (close to hands and feet)
• The effect of gravity (working on a foot-walk)
• Chemical products in use (vapour rising from basin)
Foot-walk
• Force of tension exerted on the sheet metal
• Machine elements that have become live
Treatment chamber

With regard to inherently safe design measures, the

following are examples of solutions that could have been found:
• The re-entrant angles (near hands and feet) could have been eliminated had a larger gap
been created between the sheet metal rolls
• The effects of gravity could have been reduced if the treatment chambers had been
placed in pits and the machine at ground level
• The damage associated with chemical products could have been avoided if the choice of
these products had been made with a view to a nil effect on health
• The force of tension on the sheet metal would have been significantly lessened if the
sheets had been drawn in by sheet metal rolls with an adherent surface, rather than by a
strong tension maintained between the sheet metal and smooth stainless steel sheet
metal rolls
• No machine element could have become live… if another source of energy were used to
drive it!

These sample solutions illustrate one of the first challenges associated with intrinsic prevention:
it is very difficult to implement after a machine, a piece of equipment, a process, or an
installation has been constructed. To create a gap between sheet metal rolls or to install
treatment chambers in pits would entail major and costly modifications. If these solutions had
been foreseen from the beginning, they would have been easier to implement.

A second difficulty concerns technical feasibility. For example, is it even possible to use sheet
metal rolls with an adherent surface (made of rubber, for instance) without causing a chemical
reaction between the products used for sheet metal treatment? Similarly, would it have been
possible to use other chemical products that allow the same quality of production and ensure
that their effects on health are negligible? In a similar vein, is it possible to design a machine
that is not driven by electrical motors?

Finally, a third difficulty associated with inherently safe design measures is their
implementation specifically for experimental tasks and handling, that is, those generally
performed in research laboratories. Removing hazards in laboratories is rarely possible. For
instance, how could chemical experimentation take place without acid or other hazardous
substances? How could destructive trials on concrete beams be conducted without involving
hazards associated with the pull of gravity? How could combustion engines be calibrated

3 2012, Patrik Doucet, ing., Ph. D.

without petrol or other fuels? How could one work for long hours at a computer without
making repetitive motions on the keyboard or with the mouse?

In short, while inherently safe design measures correspond to the highest attainable level of
safety, they are also the most difficult to implement, especially in research laboratories.

2.2 Risk reduction

The second category of means for reducing risks consists in looking for solutions that will
directly lower the risk index. To understand this idea, it is important to recall the graph used to
obtain this index.

Occurrence
Severity of harm Frequency and/or Possibility of
probability of Risk index
due to hazard duration of avoiding harm
hazardous event (1 to 6)
(S) exposure (F) (P)
(O)

S1 F1, F2 O1, O2 P1, P2 Index 1

O3
P1, P2 Index 2
Start O1 P1
F1 O2 P2 Index 3
O3 P1
S2 P2 Index 4
O1 P1
F2 O2 P2 Index 5
O3 P1
P2 Index 6

S1- minor injury F1- short/rare exp. O1- prob. very low P1- possible
S2- serious injury F2- long/freq. exp. O2- prob. low P2- impossible
O3 - prob high or
human error

Figure 3: Graph used to obtain a risk index

The graph reveals that even if it is not possible to remove a given hazard, safety can significantly
be improved by lowering the severity of harm resulting from a hazardous event. Maintaining the
other parameters at their highest level (F2-O3-S2), the risk index resulting from the passage
from S2 to S1 would be 2 instead of 6. This could for example be done by using less
concentrated acids, by reducing velocity and forces associated with moving parts, by installing
safety valves to limit pressure accumulation, etc.

4 2012, Patrik Doucet, ing., Ph. D.

If no solution for bringing S2 to S1 comes to mind, the frequency and duration of exposure
parameters will then be considered. Moving from S2-F2-O3-P2 to S2-F1-O3-P2 lowers the risk
index from 6 to 4. This could be done, for example, by automating certain tasks, by better
preparing an intervention so as to shorten its duration, etc.

If it is impossible to reduce the frequency or the duration of exposure, diminishing the

probability of occurrence of a hazardous event will next be considered (to reduce it from 03 to
02, or even to 01). An example that clearly illustrates this idea is anti-lock brakes, which have
been designed to lower chances of losing control of a vehicle (hazardous event) when an
emergency manoeuvre is required, or when the road is slippery.
Finally, when there is no solution for reducing the severity of harm, the frequency or duration of
exposure, or the probability of occurrence of a hazardous event, a means to avoid harm can be
considered. Moving from P2 to P1 reflects an increase in safety (decrease of 1 in the risk index
as illustrated in Figure 3). An example of this would be the existence of a fire alarm that warns
tenants to evacuate a building before they become the victims of harm resulting from fire or
from toxic fumes.

In short, the idea is to think of solutions that will lower the risk index. It should be remembered
that the greatest gains are obtained by attempting to move from S2 to S1, or from F2 to F1. In
actual practice, solutions aiming to reduce the probability of occurrence (O) or the possibility of
avoiding harm (A) are deemed less interesting. Section 3 will explain why.

2.3 Use of guards

The third category of means for risk reduction is to install a guard, that is, a machine part
designed to act as a physical barrier to provide protection [1]. Guards must be designed and
installed so as to make access to the hazardous zone impossible while the guards are in place.
ISO standard 13852 [5] provides a number of useful guidelines for their design, including the
size of the mesh and the required distances.

There are two broad categories of guards. The first category is fixed guards, whose removal
requires a tool. They should be favoured as much as possible, except when there is a frequent
need for access (for cleaning, alignment, or maintenance of a machine element, for example).

In this case, the second category of guards will be favoured, i.e. those associated with a
protective device. Essentially, these are guards that can be opened without the use of a tool (by
rotating or sliding, for example), but whose opening is detected by a device (electromagnetic,
key, magnetic, or optical switch). The following figure shows an example.

5 2012, Patrik Doucet, ing., Ph. D.

Figure 4: Example of a guard associated with a protective device

The Regulation Respecting Occupational Health and Safety states that a guard equipped with a
protective device must possess the following characteristics:

1. It brings the machine or the functioning of hazardous elements to a halt when it is

moved
2. It makes the start-up of the machine or the functioning of its hazardous elements
impossible for as long as it is being moved
3. It does not cause the machine or its hazardous elements to start when it is put back into
place [3]

2.4 Use of protective devices

When it is not possible to use a guard, protective devices can be used. Unlike guards, protective
devices are not physical barriers. They consist of various technologies that ensure a high level of
safety by detecting persons accessing a hazardous zone.

For example, a protective device can be a safety light curtain (a device that emits a series of
infra-red light beams that stop hazardous functions as soon as one or more light beams are
broken); two-hand controls (activation of hazardous movements following an operation
requiring the use of both hands); a pressure mat (a device that stops hazardous movements as
soon as weight variation on the ground is detected); validation devices (controls requiring that
an action be sustained prior to allowing hazardous movements); etc.

Protective devices are numerous, varied, and especially in constant evolution, thanks to
technological innovations of all kinds.

6 2012, Patrik Doucet, ing., Ph. D.

2.5 Warnings and signs

This category of means for risk reduction concerns all warnings, signs, and other approaches
that seek to warn the user of a hazard or the occurrence of a hazardous event.

Examples of such means include pictograms warning of re-entrant angles, high voltage, or hot
surfaces. They also include the labelling of chemical products to warn the user of the hazards
associated with a given product: toxicity, reactivity, corrosiveness, etc. In fact, the labelling of
chemical products is strictly regulated by Hazardous Materials Inventory Forms, commonly
called WHMIS (as needed, refer to the WHMIS Document).

Various alarms also belong to this category. As such, when smoke or other potentially hazardous
gases are detected, or when unusual heat is detected, an alarm sounds to warn people that a
hazard has occurred and that evacuation is necessary in order to avoid harm.

The importance of safeguarding the integrity and the effectiveness of protective devices, of
respecting evacuation guidelines, and, naturally, of avoiding the unnecessary sounding of alarms
for enjoyment become obvious.

2.6 Working procedures

Working procedures are often necessary to safely accomplish certain tasks or handling. For
example, handling lasers, performing work above ground level, using damp benches in clean
rooms, handling biological products, and using radioactive sources are all examples whose
working procedures are well known and must be respected to safeguard health and ensure user
safety. In fact, with regard to these specific examples, complementary training is generally
necessary to ensure proper understanding of their related working procedures (also see section
2.8).
Most of the Faculty of Engineering laboratories display the rules and working procedures to be
respected. If they are not displayed, the person responsible for the laboratory must be
consulted to this effect. If they have not yet been established, it then becomes important to get
to work and conduct a thorough risk assessment so that they may be put in place.

Finally, one working procedure applies to almost all Faculty of

Engineering laboratories: always work with someone else. In the
case of an accident, effective and prompt help could then be
provided.

© Benoît Leblanc

7 2012, Patrik Doucet, ing., Ph. D.

2.7 Protective equipment (personal and collective)

When the preceding categories of risk reduction do not lead to fully safe solutions and residual
risks remain, protective equipment, both individual and collective, needs to be considered.

Personal protective equipment (PPE) seeks to protect a person’s different body parts:
• head (safety helmet, hairnet)
• ears (plugs, ear shells)
• eyes (safety glasses)
• entire face (visor)
• hands (gloves)
• feet (safety footwear)
• entire body (laboratory coat, harness for work above ground, life jacket for work done
on or next to bodies of water)
• respiratory system (mask)

There exists a variety of PPE. For example, many specialized gloves have been designed to
safeguard against specific hazards. It would certainly be unadvisable to handle concentrated
acids with mere cotton gloves. To this effect, data description sheets associated with hazardous
products provide explanations on how to control exposure, and also give very precise guidelines
as to the required PPE needing to be worn.

However, as with any other solution for safety, solid risk assessment is certainly a prerequisite
for opting to wear PPE. For example, wearing gloves or a laboratory coat during the machining
of parts certainly protects against light burns and cuts from projected chips, but could also lead
to a far more severe accident. In the event of sudden contact between a glove or a laboratory
coat and a rotating cutting tool, winding could occur and result in fractures, amputations, or
even death.

In short, before wearing PPE, it is important to check whether the PPE is indeed well suited to
safeguard against potential hazards, and whether the wearing of PPE could itself become the
source of an accident.

Finally, collective protection equipment (CPE) corresponds to equipment installed in the

laboratories and seeks to safeguard persons from various hazards. CPE includes, for example,
extinguishers, eye-wash fountains, emergency showers, gas and heat detectors, chemical
product storage cabinets, and ventilation hoods for the handling of chemical products. It should
be noted that cabinets and ventilation hoods should never be used for personal storage! Their
surfaces must also be cleared after each work session, so as to minimize the occurrence of easily
avoidable hazardous events (knocking over a container, for example).

8 2012, Patrik Doucet, ing., Ph. D.

 Emergency shower Corrosive product Ventilation hood
and eye-wash fountain storage cabinet cleared of obstructions

Figure 5: Examples of collective protection equipment

2.8 Training and information

The last category of means for risk reduction is training and information. It includes all
information sources describing the use of hazardous products (data sheets, labelling); the
handling of tools, machines, and other equipment (instruction manuals); and radiation sources
(labelling). It also includes the various types of training in how to perform tasks and handling in
complete safety.

To illustrate, the Santé et sécurité en milieu de travail et d’études (SSMTE) [health and safety in
work and study environments] division of the Building Service at the University of Sherbrooke
offers the following types of training, some of which are required to work in the Faculty of
Engineering laboratories:

• Lasers • Confined spaces

• Work above ground • Padlocking
• Load handling • Self-contained breathing apparatus
• Asbestos • Hot work
• Radioprotection • Environment
• Ergonomic principles • Biosecurity
• Telescopic lifts • Lift trucks
• Bridge cranes • Scaffolding
• Drinking water systems • Chemical-cartridge respirators
• Construction sites • Arc flashes
• Power-actuated fasteners • Transportation of dangerous goods
regulations

9 2012, Patrik Doucet, ing., Ph. D.

In fact, as was illustrated in Figure 2, this particular category of means for risk reduction is
almost always necessary, though not when considering inherently safe design measures. It
simply would not be useful to inform persons that there are no hazards at hand! Similarly,
according to the information in Figure 2, the level of required training and information rises as
one moves away from safe design measures. This is normal, since little time is required to
explain why a guard has been installed in comparison to the time required to properly train and
make persons aware of work procedures, or of the necessity of wearing PPE, for example.

3. Efficiency of risk reduction means

In industrial work environments, it is understood that every possible means must be employed
to eliminate hazards or reduce risks either through design or through safety measures, before
turning to other preventive measures such as warnings, signs, work procedures, the wearing of
PPE, or the installation of CPE [1]. It is thus necessary to understand that while such measures
are often useful, they are nevertheless known to be less effective.

One way of illustrating this idea is to juxtapose the categories of the means for risk reduction to
the accident process, as in the following figure.

Can the hazard be

1 Hazard Person
removed?

Can the risk be

2
reduced? Hazardous
situation

3 Can guards be used?

Hazardous
Can protective devices situation
4
be used?

Factors for
Are warnings or signs avoiding harms
5
possible?
Harm
Are working
6
procedures useful?

Are PPE and CPE

7
possible?

8 Training, information

Figure 6: Juxtaposition of the categories of means for risk reduction and the accident process

10 2012, Patrik Doucet, ing., Ph. D.

In Figure 6, it can be seen that as one moves away from inherently safe design measures, means
for risk reduction are increasingly situated near the level of harm in the accident process. In
other words:

• The “Inherently safe design measures” category seeks to eliminate hazards, which is the
very basis of the accident process
• The “Risk reduction” category seeks to lower the severity of harm associated with
hazards (moving from S2 to S1), or to lower the frequency of hazardous situations
(moving from F2 to F1)
• The “Guards” and “Protective devices” categories propose means to prevent the
occurrence of a hazardous event (ensuring O1)
• The “Warning and signs” and “Work procedures” categories exist primarily to limit the
probability of hazard event occurrence (moving from O3 to O2)
• The “PPE or CPE” category recognizes that hazardous events will take place and seeks to
prevent them by avoiding or limiting harm (moving from P2 to P1)

In short, the more one chooses means for risk reduction among the categories found in the
lower portion of Figure 6, the closer one comes to harm in the accident process, and hence the
less effective the means for ensuring safety. The main reason for this is reliability: the reliability
of the means described in the categories featured in the lower portion of the figure rest on the
willingness of persons to respect these means, rather than on recognized principles and
technologies. Who has never forgotten to wear protective glasses (PPE), or never exceeded the
speed limit on a highway (signs)?

What can be said for most research laboratories? Considering that the work conducted in these
laboratories is very experimental, most means for risk reduction that can be put into place
belong to the categories in the lower portion of Figure 6. For example, in a laboratory requiring
the handling of powerful acids:

• Is the elimination of acids a possibility (inherently safe design measures)? No.

• Could less harmful acids be used (risk reduction, moving from S2 to S1)? The answer is
unclear…
• Could a fixed barrier (guard) be placed between an acid and a person? No.
• Could a technology be used to neutralize an acid as soon as sudden contact is imminent
(protective device)? No.
• Could a person be warned of exposure to acid by an alarm (warning)? No. Can the
person at least be informed that the product is hazardous (sign)? Yes (WHMIS labelling).
• Can a person be shown how to handle acids (work procedure)? Yes.
• Can protective equipment be made available to a person (PPE or CPE)? Yes.

11 2012, Patrik Doucet, ing., Ph. D.

It is important to remember that most means for risk reduction in research laboratories belong
to categories that have been recognized as being less effective, mainly because their reliability is
subject to the willingness of persons to respect them.

If each person working in a research laboratory has clearly understood this, then each person
should be even more inclined to respect the established regulations and work procedures.
Each person’s safety depends on it!

4. The iterative nature of the risk assessment and reduction process

The risk assessment and reduction process is iterative, as illustrated by the return arrow linking
the “Risk reduction” step to “Identify hazards” in Figure 1. Once the existing means for risk
reduction are identified, it must be ascertained that these means sufficiently reduce risk and
most importantly, that they do not lead to new hazards.

For example, in order to improve a situation in which a person is exposed to a posture

constraint, a footstool could be installed so that he or she is somewhat elevated and able to
work with more ease. However, introducing a footstool can result in a new hazard: by no longer
working on the ground, this person is subject to the pull of gravity and the possibility of falling.
The relevance of the chosen means (installation of a footstool) must be questioned, and
perhaps another solution sought (lowering the workstation, installing a larger platform with
railings).

Therefore, even with the best of intentions, implementing a means for safety can lead to new
hazards. Such is the objective of the iterative nature of the process: avoiding the occurrence of
perverse effects.

When, following an assessment, it can be concluded that the chosen means sufficiently reduce
the possibility of risks and that these means do not result in unacceptable risk hazards, the
process ends.

5. Conclusion

There are several means for risk reduction that are grouped into eight broad categories:

1) Remove hazards
2) Reduce risk (moving from S2 to S1, from F2 to F1)
3) Install guards (fixed, or associated with protective devices)
4) Install protective devices
5) Plan to display warnings and signs
6) Establish working procedures
7) Wear PPE or install CPE
8) Train and inform persons of residual risks

12 2012, Patrik Doucet, ing., Ph. D.

It is important to respect the hierarchy of these categories. As much as possible, the first four
need to be favoured because they are based on recognized principles and technologies. The last
four are known to be less efficient because they are less reliable: they rest on the willingness of
persons to respect the means that have been implemented for their own safety.

When the means put into place have been deemed sufficient and they do not lead to new
hazards, the risk assessment and reduction process comes to an end.

6. References

[1] CSA Z432-4, Safeguarding of Machinery Standard, Canadian Standards Association, 2005.
[2] Gouvernement du Québec, Loi sur la santé et la sécurité au travail (LSST, c.S-2.1),
http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?type=2&fil
e=/S_2_1/S2_1.html.
[3] Gouvernement du Québec, Règlement sur la santé et la sécurité du travail (RSST, c.S-2.1,
r. 13), http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?
type=3&file=/S_2_1/S2_1R13.HTM.
[4] ISO/CD 12100-1, Safety of machinery - Basic concepts, general principles for design – Part
1 : Basic terminology, methodology, International Norm Project, 1998.
[5] ISO/CD 13852, Safety of machinery – Safety distances to prevent danger zones being
reached by the upper limbs, International Norm Project, 1996.
[6] ISO/DIS 14121, Safety of machinery – Risk assessment, International Standard Project, 1998.

13 2012, Patrik Doucet, ing., Ph. D.