Advance HIRARC

1. REPORT ON HAZARD AND RISK MANAGEMENT
ON OBSTACLE COURSE TRAINING IN MY WORKPLACE
1
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Organization Profile
The Malaysian Armed Forces is divided into 3 services; Army, Navy and Air Force.
Officers in the Army itself are categorized into General Duty (GD) and Professional Duty (PD).
GD officers are given various appointments and posts throughout their carrier as they progress in
rank and carrier. So does PD officers but appointments and posts are focused on their expertise
in their subject matter. I ‘am lucky enough to be commissioned into the Army as a GD officer.
After holding various posts for several years, my current appointment is Training and Program
Officer of the Training Department in the Malaysian Army College (Kolej Tentera Darat - KTD)
situated at Port Dickson.
KTD is responsible to produce Army officers from graduates from the various plethoras
of tertiary education institutions. Several courses are run within a year to accommodate the
various categories of Army Officers for the Malaysian Army. The organization structure is
shown in Figure 1.1A. Basically, KTD is divided into 4 departments which is Administration,
Training & program, Logistic Support and Examination & Validation. Being part of the
Training and Program Department, one of the primary job specification and role of the
department is to plan and execute training for the Cadets into competent Army Officers.

2. HQ
Figure 1.1A – KTD Organization Structure
2
1.2 Obstacle Course Training
One of the basic physical training conducted for the cadets in KTD is obstacle course
training. The obstacle course comprises a series of obstacles that the cadets have to go through
as part of the obstacle course training. One of the obstacle that I will focus and use in this report
is the monkey rack obstacle as shown in Figure 1.2A.
Figure 1.2A - Monkey Rack
Admin
Training &
Program
Logistic
Support
Examination
& Validation

3. 3
2.0 Objective
The objective of this report is to recommend a systematic and objective approach to
assessing hazards in conducting obstacle course training and their associated risks that will
provide an objective measure of an identified hazard as well as provide a method to control the
risk. This is very important because it is one of the general duties as prescribed under the
Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994 (Act 514) for the employer to provide a safe
workplace to their employees (in this case, cadets) and other related person.
3.0 Methodology
Methodology is the manner, method, procedure, way or approach that will be used to
attain, achieve, and accomplish the objective of this report. The method used is analytical by using
risk and hazard identification tools that are already available. These tools will be analyzed to make a
critical evaluation and recommendation of the preferred tool. The tools involved are:
(i) HIRARC.
(ii) HAZOP.
(iii) Ergonomic Risk Factors.
(iv) Failure Mode Effect Analysis.
(v) Event Tree Analysis.
(vi) Fault Tree Analysis.
(viii) Job Safety Analysis.
(ix) Checklist.

4. 4
4.0 Hazard and Risk Identification
The purpose of hazard identification is to highlight the critical operations of tasks, that is,
those tasks posing significant risks to the health and safety of employees as well as highlighting
those hazards pertaining to certain equipment, working conditions or activities performed.
Hazards can be divided into health hazard, safety hazard and five different environmental agents;
physical, chemical, biological, ergonomic and strain. The types of hazard mentioned above will
be fit accordingly to the related activity in the hazard and risk identification tools used.
4.1 HIRARC (Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment and Risk Control)
In order to conduct HIRARC, it is important to use a risk rating guideline. For the
purpose of this report the risk rating guideline will use likelihood rating as Table 4.1A, severity
rating as Table 4.1B, risk matrix as Table 4.1C and prioritize action towards risk as Table 4.1D.
The process of HIRARC using a form requires 4 steps:
(i) Classify work activities.
(ii) Identify hazard.
(iii) Conduct risk assessment (analyze and estimate risk from each hazard), by
calculating or estimating the likelihood of occurrence and severity of hazard.
(iv) Decide if risk is tolerable and apply control measures (if necessary).

5. Table 4.1A – Likelihood Rating
Table 4.1B – Severity Rating
Table 4.1C – Risk Matrix
5

6. Table 4.1D – Prioritize Action Towards Risk
6

7. 7
4.2 HAZOP (Hazard and Operability)
Hazard and Operability (HAZOP) Analysis is the systematic identification of every
credible deviation in a system or process, usually in a chemical manufacturing process (for the
purpose of this report, I will try to apply HAZOP in the scenario of my workplace). The purpose
of HAZOP is to review a process or operation systematically to identify whether deviations from
the desired practices could lead to undesirable consequences. Guidewords are used to look for
deviations from the plant design. Those guidewords are than applied to the relevant plant
operating parameters under review such as flow, pressure, temperature, materials, etc. The
causes and consequences of those deviations are then assessed and the need for added risk
controls is determined. The analysis is systematic and includes the use of the following:
(i) Nodes - Piping and instrument diagrams (P&ID).
(ii) Deviations - Departures uncovered by applying guidewords to the parameters.
(iii) Intention - How the plant is expected to operate.
(iv) Causes - Reasons why deviations from intentions may occur.
(v) Consequences - Results if deviation occur.
(vi) Risk - The likelihood of the deviation occurring and the severity.
(vii) Guidewords - Used to discover or derive deviations.

8. 8
4.2.1 Applying HAZOP.
4.2.1.1 Select a Line or Vessel Node (P&ID) – Diagram 4.2.1.1A.
Diagram 4.2.1.1A

9. 9
4.2.1.2 Describe intention of the node
The intention of this node is to give cadets balance and upper body strength. Upon
arriving to the obstacle, cadets will grab hold onto the first monkey rack bar. The cadet will then
erect their body above the ground by use of arm muscle and strength by pulling on the bar and
leaving them hanging ala monkey hangs and swings on tree branches. Next, they will swing
their bodies forth and back while grabbing onto the following monkey rack bar until the final
monkey rack bar. They will then land their foot on the ground and let go of the last monkey rack
bar.
4.2.1.3 Select appropriate process parameters and guidewords
The process parameters selected are:
(i) Grab.
(ii) Pull.
(iii) Hang.
(iv) Swing.
The guidewords selected are:
(i) More.
(ii) Less.

10. 10
4.2.1.4 HAZOP analysis
Parameter Guide Word
Deviation
Possible
Cause
Consequence Risk Recommended
Action
Grab More Human
Factor
Muscle
Sprain or
Strain - Injury
Low Admin
Control
– Stretching
and warm up
before training
Less Fatigue Accident –
fall to surface
Low Engineering
Control -
Absorption
Pull More Human
Factor
Muscle
Sprain or
Strain –
Injury
Low Admin
Control
– Stretching
and warm up
before training
Less Fatigue Accident –
fall to below
Low Engineering
Control –
Absorption
Hang More Human
Factor
Muscle
Sprain or
Strain –
Injury
Low Admin
Control
– Stretching
and warm up
before training
Less Fatigue Accident –
fall to below
Low Engineering
Control –
Absorption
Swing More Human
Factor
Muscle
Sprain or
Strain - Injury
Low Admin
Control
– Stretching
and warm up
before training
Less Fatigue Accident –
fall to below
Low Engineering
Control -
Absorption
Example recommended action for accident (fall to surface or fall to below) as shown in
Figure 4.2.1.4A and Figure 4.2.1.4B. As shown in the picture, previously the bottom of the
monkey rack obstacle is empty; engineering control taken is by putting water in the empty space
for absorption.

11. Figure 4.2.1A - Empty Monkey Rack
Figure 4.2.1B - Monkey Rack after engineering control
11

12. 12
4.3 Ergonomic Risk Factor
Ergonomic risk factors are the aspects of a job that impose a biomechanical stress on the
worker. There are internal and external ergonomics risk factors which contribute to MSD.
These risk factors are applied accordingly for my report as per Table 4.3A. It is important to
recognize when the cadet maybe at risk. Early signs or clues to be considered are:
(i) Modification to the job situation.
(ii) Complaint and comments from the cadets.
(iii) Discomfort showed by the cadets from observation.
ERGO RISK FACTOR REASON OF ERF COMMENTS /
IMPROVEMENTS
Awkward Posture Reaching and swinging
from bar to bar
Admin Control
– Stretching and warm up
before training.
– Refresher training on
safest method to erect body
above ground
Excessive Force Pulling and hanging weight
of own body
Admin Control
– Stretching and warm up
before training.
– Refresher training on
safest method to erect body
above ground
Static Postures / Sustained Exertions - -
Repetition - -
Contact Stress - -
External Factors - -
Table 4.3A – Ergonomic Risk Factor

13. 13
4.4 Failure Mode Effect Analysis
FMEA is a simple tool used to identify and classify potential failure modes based upon
their severity and probability of detection. FMEA can be used to avoid engineering defects from
the very small to major disasters. The general process of FMEA is the process of identifying
failure modes, determining the effect and causes for these modes, assigning severity (SEV),
occurrence (Occur), detection (det) ratings and calculating the risk priority number (RPN).
Below is the severity scale Table 4.1A, probability of occurrence Table 4.1B, likelihood of
detection Table 4.1C and FMEA form. The risk priority number (RPN) is based on the formula
RPN = SEV * Occur * Det.
Severity of Effect
10 May result in safety issue or regulatory violation without warning
9 May result in safety issue or regulatory violation with warning
8 Primary function is lost or seriously degraded
7 Primary function is reduced and customer is impacted
6 Secondary function is lost or seriously degraded
5 Secondary function is reduced and customer is impacted
4 Loss of function or appearance such that most customers would return product or stop
using service
3 Loss of function or appearance that is noticed by customers but would not result in a return
or loss of service
2 Loss of function or appearance that is unlikely to be noticed by customers and would not
result in a return or loss of service
1 Little to no impact
Table 4.1A – Severity Scale

14. Probability of Occurrence
10 1 in 2
9 1 in 10
8 1 in 50
7 1 in 250
6 1 in 1,000
5 1 in 5,000
4 1 in 10,000
3 1 in 50,000
2 1 in 250,000
1 1 in 1,000,000
Table 4.1B – Probability of Occurrence
Likelihood of Detection
10 Absolutely uncertain that failure will be detected
9 Very remote chance that failure will be detected
8 Remote chance that failure will be detected
7 Very low chance that failure will be detected
6 Low chance that failure will be detected
5 Moderate chance that failure will be detected
4 Moderately high chance that failure will be detected
3 High chance that failure will be detected
2 Very high chance that failure will be detected
1 Almost certainty that failure will be detected
Table 4.1C – Likelihood of Detection
FMEA
14
Function /
Requirement
Potential
failure
mode
Potential
effect of
failure
SEV Class
of
Effect
Current Process Controls
Potential
Cause
Occur Prevention Detection Det R.P.N.
Monkey
Rack Bars
Rusty Possible
tetanus /
gangrene
infection
7 3 Corrosion 3 -New paint
coatings
- Install
rubber
grips
Visual 1 21
Landing
Ground Area
Uneven
ground
surface
Tripping
may
cause
injury
7 3 Nature of
ground to
change
shape
after used
as landing
area many
times
3 - Even out
ground
- Install
platform
for landing
Visual 1 21

15. 15
4.5 Event Tree Analysis
An Event Tree Analysis (ETA) is an inductive procedure that shows all possible
outcomes resulting from an accidental event, taking into account whether installed safety
precautions are functioning or not. By studying all relevant accidental events, the ETA can be
used to identify all potential accident scenarios and sequences in a complex system. Design and
procedural weaknesses can be identified and probabilities of the various outcomes from an
accident event can be determined. A simplified event tree analysis has been used as Figure
4.5A.
Figure 4.5A – Simplified Event Tree Analysis

16. 16
4.6 Fault Tree Analysis
A fault tree analysis is a top down deductive logic model that traces the failure pathways
for predetermined, undesirable condition or event called the top event. The strength of FTA is its
ability to identify combinations of basic equipment and human failures that can lead to an
accident. All the possibilities that can contribute to that event are described in the form of a tree.
The branches of the tree are continued until independent initiating events are reached. An FTA
of monkey rack training injury as per Figure 4.6A.
Figure 4.6A – Fault Tree Analysis

17. 17
4.7 Job Safety Analysis
Job Safety / Hazard Analysis (JSA/JHA) breaks a job or task into specific steps, analyzes
each step for specific hazards, develop safe work procedures to eliminate or reduce those hazards
and integrate safe work procedures into safety and health programs. JSAs are developed for each
job or task. In this case Table 4.7A is a worked example JSA specifically for the monkey rack
obstacle. Procedure wise, JSA is broken down into 6 major steps:
(i) Select job task to be analyzed.
(ii) Identify the major sequence of steps for each step.
(iii) Identify the potential hazards for each step.
(iv) Determine preventative measures to protect against the hazards.
(v) Develop a worker-training program.
(vi) Re-evaluation.
STEP
HAZARD REQUIREMENTS
Grab hold onto monkey rack
bar
Chemical - Rusty monkey rack
bar
Engineering Control - Install
rubber grips on the bars or
new paint coatings.
PPE - Use leather hand gloves.
Erect body above ground Ergonomic – excessive force
(pulling weight of own body)
Admin Control – Refresher
training on safest method to
erect body above ground.
– Stretching and warm up
before training.
Swing body and grab on to
following monkey rack bars
until final monkey rack bar
Ergonomic – awkward posture
(reaching and swinging from
bar to bar)
Admin Control – Refresher
training on safest method to
erect body above ground.
– Stretching and warm up
before training.
Place foot and land on ground.
Let go of monkey rack bar
Physical – uneven ground
(may cause tripping)
Engineering Control –
Redesign ground to be even.
Table 4.7A – Worked Example Job Safety Analysis

18. 18
4.8 Checklist Analysis
Check list are primarily used when published standards, codes and industry practices
exist. Consist of list of questions pertaining to the applicable standards and practices usually
with a yes, no or not applicable response. Its purpose is to identify deviations from the expected
and thus possible hazards. A checklist analysis requires a walk-through of the area to be
surveyed. Easy to use and provide cost effective way to identify customarily recognized hazard.
Quality of checklist depends on the experience of the person who developed it. If checklist is not
complete, the analysis may not identify some hazardous situations. A checklist analysis for
monkey rack obstacle may look like the statements below.
Figure 4.8A – Inspection of Monkey Rack
 Inspection of monkey rack structural integrity and rust (Figure 4.8A).
 Instructor qualified with certificate to train and monitor obstacle course training.
 Preparation exercises (warm up) before commencing obstacle course training.
 Muscular strength/muscle physical training have not been conducted within 12 hours prior.
 Landing/fall areas under obstacle filled with water for dampening / absorption.
 Recovery exercises upon completion of obstacle course training.
 Inspection of an even landing area of the obstacle course.
 Instructors to demonstrate obstacle course training before allowing cadets to undergo training.
 A sign posted at each obstacle detailing exact procedures to be used.
 A maintenance and inspection log that is maintained by instructor.

19. 19
5.0 Proposed Recommendation
All together, 8 different risk and hazard identification tools have been analyzed. From
the findings, not all of the tools were suitable to use in the obstacle course training. This is due
to the nature of some tools are catered for a specific working environment (for example;
engineering, manufacturing, etc.). The tools that are suitable are HIRARC, Ergonomics Risk
Factor and Checklist Analysis. With this, I highly recommend the use of all 3 tools for the
obstacle course training. There is no specific safety committee in the organization to ensure the
application of the tools but I also recommend educating and training the instructors on how to
use the tools mentioned above.
6.0 Conclusion
A lot of elements in the report are based on logic and assumptions. This is due to the nature of
the military that is not obliged to OSHA. The only problem is in finding data on incidents or
accidents regarding the monkey rack obstacle. Although some cases of injuries have been known
to occur in the past, none have been recorded due to very minimal severity of the cases.
Therefore, I’m unable to produce any statistics of injuries due to hazards that have happened in
the past. But from word of mouth, the majority of incidents are caused by ergonomic hazards.
Thus the importance of frequent training; “Practice Makes Perfect”.

20. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Occupational Safety And Health Act and Regulations, 1994
HIRARC Guidelines, DOSH, Ministry of Human Resources
Pembangunan Budaya Keselamatan di Tempat Kerja, Mohd Saidin Misnan (UTM)
Innovation Safety Management, Fred A Manuele
Occupational Safety and Health, David L. Goethsch
Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, Frank P.Lees
Occupational Health Risk Assessment and Management, Steven S. Sandhra
Fundamentals of Occupational Safety & Health, Dr James P.Kohn
Safety Systems and People, Sue Cox & Tom Cox
Chemical Process Safety, Daniel Crowl & Joseph Louvar
20