17-07-2009, 01:23 PM
(17-07-2009, 10:13 AM)mark bedford Wrote: Defining Hazard as a contribution towards the accident (rather than harm) leaves me pondering. The environment of the tunnel has to be a major consideration in the event of an accident and a consideration in the answer. Should further hazards after an accident has happened, i.e. fire, emergency access and egress, be in a separate risk assessment to the operations and staff safety? I hadn't considered that before but it opens another mind field of organising different hazard analysis to get to the final conclusions of the feasability study. I've no idea how this works in real life or what will be in the examiners mind! So I guess state some risks if a accident does occur but be aware not to over state these risks.
The main comment that I was going to make about your list was the fact that, as you have come to realise above, many of them were secondary events, assuming that some initial event had happened and hence may in fact affect the "severity" of the first event but not its likelihood. Hence in reality, more detailed analysis of which events are dependent on others needs to be assessed to work out the overall level of risk (way outside the scope of this question).
Peter