Original Article

http://mjiri.iums.ac.ir Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran (MJIRI)

Iran University of Medical Sciences

Health, safety and environmental risk management in

laboratory fields

Rasoul Yarahmadi1, Parvin Moridi2, YarAllah Roumiani*3

Downloaded from mjiri.iums.ac.ir at 19:16 IRST on Tuesday January 22nd 2019

Received: 20 February 2015 Accepted: 29 June 2015 Published: 12 March 2016

Abstract
Background: Research project risks are uncertain contingent events or situations that, if transpire, will have
positive or negative effects on objectives of a project. The Management of Health and Safety at Work (MHSW)
Regulations 1999 require all employers and the self-employed persons to assess the risks from their work on
anyone who may be affected by their activities. Risk assessment is the first step in risk-management procedure,
and due to its importance, it has been deemed to be a vital process while having a unique place in the research-
based management systems.
Methods: In this research, a two-pronged study was carried out. Firstly, health and safety issues were studied
and analyzed by means of ISO 14121. Secondly, environmental issues were examined with the aid of Failure
Mode and Effect Analysis. Both processes were utilized to determine the risk level independently for each re-
search laboratory and corrective measure priorities in each field (laboratory).
Results: Data analysis showed that the total main and inherent risks in laboratory sites reduced by 38% to
86%. Upon comparing the average risk levels before and after implementing the control and protective actions
utilizing risk management approaches which were separate from health, safety and environmental aspects, a
highly effective significance (p<0.001) was obtained for inherent risk reduction. Analysis of health, safety and
environmental control priorities with the purpose of comparing the ratio of the number of engineering measures
to the amount of management ones showed a relatively significant increase.
Conclusion: The large number of engineering measures was attributed to the employment of a variety of time-
worn machinery (old technologies) along with using devices without basic protection components.

Keywords: Total risk, Laboratory site, Risk management.

Cite this article as: Yarahmadi R, Moridi P, Roumiani Y. Health, safety and environmental risk management in laboratory fields. Med J
Islam Repub Iran 2016 (12 March). Vol. 30:343.

Introduction on the distinction between aleatory and ep-

Quantitative risk analysis helps to lessen istemic uncertainty can be defined as: “risk
the likelihood of undesirable incidents and is a measurable uncertainty and uncertainty
to minimize the possible adverse conse- is an immeasurable risk” (2,3). As stated
quences. The use of Quantitative Risk previously, risk identification is the first
Analysis (QRA) in process systems is a dif- step in risk management. The definition of
ficult task as component failures and inci- each step is as follows:
dent consequences randomly vary from one 1. Identification: Denotes the threats to a
process to another. Since each process sys- project.
tem is made up of thousands of components 2. Analysis: Recognizes the manner of
and steps, it becomes very challenging to such threats to the project.
acquire the necessary quantitative infor- 3. Prioritization: Ranks the threats ac-
mation pertaining to all of them (1). cording to their impact.
According to Olsson and Hillson, at- 4. Mitigation: Identifies possible preven-
tempts to link risk with uncertainty based tive actions that reduce the effect of risk.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1
. Associate Professor of Occupational Health, Department of Occupational Health, Occupational Health Research Center, School of Public
Health, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. yarahmadi.r@iums.ac.ir
2
. PhD of Environmental Management, Member of Occupational Health Research Center, Tehran, Iran. moridi618@yahoo.com
3
. (Corresponding author) MSc of Educational Planning, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. romiani2001@yahoo.com
 HSE risk management in laboratory fields

5. Planning: Constructs a plan to be used vestigated using qualitative and semi-

for significant risks and is utilized prior to quantitative methods. The survey results
risks’ occurrence (4). showed the need for profile analysis of
6. Measuring and control: Manages, con- chemicals and nonmaterial within the risk
trols and traces the impact of risks to allow assessment procedure. On the other hand,
the goals of the project to be accomplished. the conducted investigation focused on en-
Risk ranking and filtering implements by vironmental aspects in addition to nonmate-
Downloaded from mjiri.iums.ac.ir at 19:16 IRST on Tuesday January 22nd 2019

breaking down the overall risk into risk rial quality and safety supervision including
components then evaluates them and their control by senior manager of the organiza-
individual contributions to the overall risk tion (10). Another study conducted by Mu-
(5). see further elaborated on the studied meth-
Such a human risk reduction is the main ods in order to control the hazardous as-
issue of the health, safety and environmen- pects of chemicals. Control priorities of
tal management system (6). Danger expo- potential causes of the studied chemicals as
sure or, in other words, risk is a process well as control and administrative strategies
that leads to ambiguous results in virtually were identified and proposed in the men-
all fields of research. However, risk or tioned study (11). The present study used
more appropriately termed ‘process’ always the risk assessment method to investigate
carries innovations that change the course machinery, process, situations and dangers
of human history. The discoveries mankind related to the working environment. The
has made in the field of science and tech- health and safety risk assessment method
nology are mainly a direct result of ‘spirit was used under the title of machinery risk.
of risk taking’ (7) .The present study was The employed technique was based on Eu-
conducted in an academic education center ropean standard requirements and approved
originally established to train postgraduate as an international standard ISO14121 (12-
students in Tehran. 14).
Risk assessment studies conducted by the Nowadays, both education and research
US Environmental Protection Agency processes face greater complexity in addi-
(EPA) and the Occupational Safety and tion to uncertainty. Rules and regulatory
Health Administration, have mainly used standards, in turn, impose stricter require-
standard methods that focus on effective ments (7).
factors such as chemical exposure levels,
type of exposure and duration of exposure Methods
to hazardous factors (8). Furthermore, in We selected a technical faculty of a post-
recent years, studies about the risks result- graduate university with 9 groups of re-
ing from laboratory hazards have focused search laboratories including electrical,
mainly on qualitative analysis of chemicals. mining, mechanical, hydraulic, nano, bio,
Sayre conducted a study using a team with chemistry, safety and computer labs.
expertise in chemistry, engineering, toxi- Health, safety and environmental risks
cology, exposure assessment and risk as- were first identified and studied inde-
sessment. Sayre’s research focused on the pendently for each research facility (labora-
behavior and probable risks of 100 different tory) using the hazard identification
types of nonmaterial. Risk management (HAZID). The adopted method by the US
exposure to such materials by employees EPA was limited in terms of complexity,
working at the studied research center was effects, consequences and result formula-
of importance as it led to the control and tion points of view (15,16).
modification of their workplace (9). In an- More complex processes such as labora-
other study by Musee aiming at nano- tory and research fields where there is a
material risk evaluation, challenges in both combination of chemical, physical, magnet-
risk assessment and management were in- ic, unsafe behaviors, fire hazards as well as

http://mjiri.iums.ac.ir 2 Med J Islam Repub Iran 2016 (12 March). Vol. 30:343.
 R. Yarahmadi, et al.

unsafe behaviors from the students; suffer lowed the evaluation to take place in a
from some limitations in choosing the men- timely manner. To perform EFMEA, the
tioned methods (17-19). This method can identified factors are divided into two
help to inform the personnel about the risk groups:
of exposure that can be made to prevent A. Environmental aspects that led to the
possible hazardous situations and health- emission or production of various types of
promoting behaviors to protect and control contaminants, waste and sewage into the
Downloaded from mjiri.iums.ac.ir at 19:16 IRST on Tuesday January 22nd 2019

a health leading health-promoting lifestyle environment, which is yielded according to

(HPL) (20). Structure of the method is the following relation:
based on HSE requirements. European
standards EN (PILZ) 1050 is considered to Environmental degradation rate= severity ×
be a new technology using an approach for probability of occurrence × contamination
the protection of humans, machines and the range (2)
environment.
B. Environmental aspects that led to the
Hazard Rating Number (HRN) calcula- reduction or loss of natural resources as a
tion result of using those resources, which is
The HRN results for the assessment of yielded according to the following relation:
risk levels in addition to risk mitigation ef-
fort prior to and post corrective actions Environmental degradation rate= severity ×
probability of occurrence × recycling possibil-
were calculated in two separate steps using ity
the following formula:
Making a decision when facing assessed
HRN= LO x FE x DPH x NP (1) risks
In this study, TLB method was used due
Environmental hazard assessment was to having access to PRN before and after
performed during the study using an induc- control proposals, the simplicity of the cal-
tive method (from specific to general) culation method as well as having the re-
called environmental failure mode and ef- quired accuracy (Eq. 4) (21).
fect analysis (EFMEA). In the fields where
risk assessment is performed, the method RPN Before  RPN After RPN
seeks to identify and score, as far as possi- TLB=  (4)
Fi Fi
ble, the potential risks in addition to their
related causes and effects. This method is Where RPN Before= Risk priority number pre-
used to prevent failure prior to occurring. corrective measures
Unlike many other quality optimization RPN After= Risk priority number post-corrective
methods, performing an FMEA does not measures
ΔRPN= Risk difference prior to and following
require complex statistics (16,17) corrective control measures
Risk priority number (RPN) is the prod- Fi= Feasibility of corrective measures, a variable
uct of three numeric scores: severity (S), in the range of 1-10.
occurrence (O) and detection (D). In calcu-
lations, the priority number is given as a Total Risk Estimation (TRE) within la-
number between 1 and 125. boratory fields
By using this index, besides estimating
Environmental degradation rate calcula- relative risk in each laboratory, we can also
tion compare the risk potentials resulting from
Risk identification and reduction are criti- identified hazards across the tested labora-
cal stages in successful project manage- tories (Eq. 5) (22).
ment. EFMEA was used to evaluate the
identified environmental aspects. This al-
Med J Islam Repub Iran 2016 (12 March). Vol. 30:343. 3 http://mjiri.iums.ac.ir
 HSE risk management in laboratory fields

Total Risk Estimation5= 

n
RPNi and Figures 1, 2, and 3. Table 1 shows the
i 1
  100 % (5)
n  MRN results of risk situation, considering
5different levels separately as well as two
Where RPNi= Risk priority number for each pos- situations before and after making an effort
sible hazard (cause) to reduce risk in 9 laboratory fields. The
N= Number of hazards (causes) in each project or
laboratory results from Table 2 shows that before and
MRN= Maximum risk number upon calculating after performing the control measures inde-
Downloaded from mjiri.iums.ac.ir at 19:16 IRST on Tuesday January 22nd 2019

risk. pendently for health, safety and environ-

mental criteria at 9 laboratory sites with a
A paired-samples t test was conducted to 95% confidence level, there was a signifi-
evaluate the impact of the intervention on cant difference among the average levels
laboratories' risk priority numbers. The test of risk (p=0.0001). The highest health and
was conducted using SPSS v. 18, as before safety residual risk of 4.7 (Figs. 1-3) was
and after performing the control measures related to research site 7, which was due to
independently for health, safety and envi- the usage in different projects of various
ronmental criteria at 9 laboratory sites with types of nonmaterial and carcinogenic sub-
a 95% confidence level. Powers are given stances which included A1 as well as A2.
for alpha values of 0.05. This was due to the discharge of a wide
range of chemical and oil materials into the
Results environment on top of the lack of perfor-
The results are shown in Tables 1, 2, 34 mance monitoring and waste control sys-

Fig. 1. Comparison of the total risk levels from different aspects of health, safety and environment before and after control
measures

http://mjiri.iums.ac.ir 4 Med J Islam Repub Iran 2016 (12 March). Vol. 30:343.
 R. Yarahmadi, et al.
Downloaded from mjiri.iums.ac.ir at 19:16 IRST on Tuesday January 22nd 2019

Fig. 2. Comparison of occupational safety and total health risk estimation, before and after mitigation effort

Fig. 3. Comparison of environmental overall risk estimation, prior to and following mitigation efforts (This figure shows
the comparison of total risk levels associated with hazard and environmental aspects in each laboratory field before and
after control measures.)

tems in the site outlet. The results of risk analysis showed the
maximum risk reduction within laboratory
Discussion field 8 (86%) and the minimum risk reduc-
Study of risk factors, hazard identification tion in research field 2 (38%). In laboratory
and accident-prone areas in an organization 2, due to the type of hazard potentials, the
is of particular importance in preventing minimum risk rate reduction was 38% and
accidents. Laboratory project risks are un- 62% of the initial risk remained at this
certain contingent events or situations that, site. Hazard potentials leading to poor re-
if occur, can have positive or negative ef- duction in risk rate were mainly as a result
fects on objectives of a given project. Table of unsafe designs pertaining to test devices,
1 shows the results of risk situation that af- unsafe process, elevators and lack of pro-
ter carrying out corrective actions at three tection related to technical and engineering
levels of high, very high and unacceptable, controls, complexity and high costs of car-
HSE hazard potentials were reduced to sub- rying out corrective actions and modifica-
stantial and lower levels. tions by accessible facilities.

Med J Islam Repub Iran 2016 (12 March). Vol. 30:343. 5 http://mjiri.iums.ac.ir
 HSE risk management in laboratory fields

Table 1. Comparison of risk levels (before and after effort) with residual and mitigated risk in 9 groups laboratory field
Laboratory Mitigation Risk levels (%) Initial Residual Mitigated
field effort Negligible Low Moderate Substantial High Very Unacceptable risk risk risk %
High
1 Before 8 11 17 47 15 0 2 92 --- 69
After 77 15 0 6 0 2 0 --- 23
2 Before 0 3 32 58 7 0 0 100 --- 38
After 38 16 32 14 0 0 0 --- 62
3 Before 1 5 30 37 26 1 0 99 --- 83
Downloaded from mjiri.iums.ac.ir at 19:16 IRST on Tuesday January 22nd 2019

After 1 84 6 1 9 0 0 0 --- 16
4 Before 2 9 8 44 27 8 2 98 --- 57
After 59 33 2 0 6 0 0 --- 41
5 Before 2 10 2 42 42 2 0 98 --- 54
After 56 25 12 0 0 7 0 --- 44
6 Before 6 12 24 45 10 3 0 94 --- 44
After 50 14 19 17 0 0 0 --- 50
7 Before 3 12 16 37 30 2 0 97 --- 75
After 78 14 2 6 0 0 0 --- 22
8 Before 1 10 12 39 30 5 0 99 --- 86
After 87 7 2 3 1 0 0 --- 13
9 Before 2 10 9 33 36 8 2 98 --- 81
After 83 10 2 4 1 0 0 --- 17

The evaluation and comparison of residu- the total risk post-intervention. Additional-
al and initial risks among the total health, ly, the residual risks associated with health,
safety and environmental hazards revealed safety and environmental issues were aver-
that the mitigated risk was equal to 65% of agely equal to 32% of the total initial and

Table 2. Comparison of statistical parameters (mean, SD, t test) in 9 groups laboratory fields (as total risk estimation)
before and after mitigation efforts with occupational health, safety and environmental approach
Laboratory field Total Risk Estimation
Occupational safety and health aspects Environment aspects
Before mitigation effort After mitigation effort Before mitigation effort After mitigation effort
1 6.85 2.00 22.08 4.80
2 8.55 1.80 15.80 4.80
3 10.06 1.00 13.44 5.10
4 12.89 0.90 20.90 6.30
5 14.80 0.80 14.48 6.10
6 15.55 2.00 14.7 5.10
7 16.38 4.70 13.44 5.10
8 19.82 0.70 17.76 4.60
9 21.11 0.90 18 5.92
Mean 14 1.64 16.73 5.31
SD 4.8 1.26 3.1 0.62
Paired –t test p<0.0001 p<0.0001

Table 5. Weight distribution of control priorities, independent engineering and management measures at laboratory sites,
by focusing on health-safety and the environment
Laboratory Priority of act
field Occupational safety and health Environment
Risk Administrative Engineering Risk Administrative Engineering
priority methods numbers methods numbers priority methods methods
numerals numerals numbers numbers
1 85 19 66 5 1 4
2 101 26 75 5 1 4
3 41 11 30 5 2 3
4 66 16 50 11 4 7
5 130 50 80 27 0 27
6 47 22 25 6 2 4
7 40 10 30 5 4 1
8 97 40 57 13 1 12
9 92 32 60 9 1 8
sum 699 226 473 86 16 70
Ratio (%) 100 32.3 67.7 100 18.6 81.4

http://mjiri.iums.ac.ir 6 Med J Islam Repub Iran 2016 (12 March). Vol. 30:343.
 R. Yarahmadi, et al.

inherent risks (in addition to 3% risk which included A1 as well as A2. Verification of
was deemed to be negligible) at the tested the findings of the present study was done
research complexes. by analyzing the results from a research
The results of the risk levels for health, conducted by Sayre, et al., (2001) in which
safety and environmental issues (Table 2), the persistent risks of toxicity and extreme
in both columns of "after mitigation effort" increases in levels of nonmaterial particles
were in an acceptable range. It can also be were found to be the main factors involved
Downloaded from mjiri.iums.ac.ir at 19:16 IRST on Tuesday January 22nd 2019

mentioned that in addition to the compo- in relative health risks (8).

nents of process and the environmental This was due to the discharge of a wide
damage and degradation, the possible caus- range of chemical and oil materials into the
es of human injuries were controlled in ad- environment on top of the lack of perfor-
dition to being reduced. Conversely, the mance monitoring and waste control sys-
low mean and dispersion levels pertaining tems in the site outlet (Figs. 1 and 3).
to the residual risk following control The results of the latest studies by re-
measures can confirm the effective conver- searchers regarding the poor ability of
gence and concentration of control waste management systems found that iso-
measures in this project. Figure 1 compares lation, transportation, treatment and dispos-
risk levels before and after the use of cor- al were the main areas of concern. These
rective control measures independently for findings confirm the fact that high residual
each tested laboratory site. risks at research sites are cause of the use
The results from the risk levels prior to of complex chemical substances and un-
the implementation of corrective measures controlled waste discharge into the envi-
showed that the most and least human inju- ronment (22).
ries as well as process damage (health and Study of corrective control measures in-
safety) occurred at locations 1 and 9, re- dependently using management and engi-
spectively. Environmental degradation was neering methods explained in Table 3,
observed to be most common at locations 1 shows that the sites with complex process
and 4 (maximum risk level). On the other systems and equipments including hazard-
hand, facilities 3 and 7 (minimum risk lev- ous and toxic substances are associated
el) exhibited the lowest amount of envi- with much more severe risk factors (such as
ronmental degradation among the sites ex- facilities 2, 5, 8 and 9). Accordingly, by
amined. Location 9 was found to possess using TLB method, more control and pro-
major factors that could lead to a high rate tective actions have been ranked and used
of injuries and damages including those within risk management programs. Moreo-
concerning humans as well as processes. ver, the increase in the amount of health
Some of the issues found to be the leading and safety measures (699 actions) as com-
cause of such injuries were abundance of pared to the environmental measures (86
research devices, variety plus variability in actions) at the studied research sites was
research tests and large number of re- found to be due to risk identification as
searchers working during the shift work. well as an increase in concentration of
Moreover, long term period tests and lim- health, safety and process risk causes and
ited number of tests per season can be con- factors in comparison to the environmental
sidered as effective solutions when seeking aspects. On the other hand, the study of
to lower the rate of damage at any particu- health, safety and environmental control
lar health and safety site. priorities based on engineering measures
The highest health and safety residual risk shows a relatively significant increase in
of 4.7 (Figs. 1 and 2) was related to re- comparison to management measures. In
search site 7, which was due to the usage in the two cases pertaining to health, safety
different projects of various types of non- and environmental measures, the reason for
material and carcinogenic substances which the large number of engineering measures
Med J Islam Repub Iran 2016 (12 March). Vol. 30:343. 7 http://mjiri.iums.ac.ir
 HSE risk management in laboratory fields

can be rooted in the large number and vari- tool in management projects to prevent
ety of machinery with a long working life probable events and damages, particularly
(press machine and elevators). Using the those occurring in research and laboratory
devices without basic protection compo- sites.
nents also further contributes to this prob-
lem as well (saw without guard, defects in Acknowledgement
the earth system, etc.). In the present study, The authors wish to extend their sincere
Downloaded from mjiri.iums.ac.ir at 19:16 IRST on Tuesday January 22nd 2019

however, while evaluating the total health, gratitude to faculty engineering of Tarbiat
safety and environmental risk, "not just Modares University who supported this
health-risk factors", control measure priori- work as a risk assessment project in winter
ties were determined using the TLB meth- 2012.
od. Though, it should be mentioned that
both of the studies emphasized the control
of risk factors including source, receiver, References
risk factor and work site, respectively. 1. Ferdous R, Khan F, Sadiq R, Amyotte P, Veitch
B. Fault and event tree analyses for process systems
risk analysis: uncertainty handling formulations.
Conclusion Risk Analysis 2011;31(1):86-107.
The first major practicable result of a risk 2. Olsson R. In search of opportunity manage-
assessment program is "risk rating". This ment: Is the risk management process enough? IJPM
was carried out independently for the hid- 2007;25(8):745–752.
den and evident causes of risk potentials 3. Hillson D. Effective opportunity management
for projects – exploiting positive risk. New York,
within processes in addition to working sit- Marcel Dekker 2004;pp.51-61.
uations and conditions. In each laboratory 4. Sotoudeh GA, Khanzadi M, Jalal M, Parchami
field, following the identification of haz- A. Fuzzy MCDM for evaluating risk of construction
ards and their related causes, RPN method- projects. AJBAS 2011;5(12):162-171.
ical calculation was performed. Control 5. http://www.directives.doe.gov,Office of Health,
Safety and Security, DOE G 414.1-1C.
measure priorities were calculated separate- 6. http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/trac/science/cum
ly for health, safety and environmental fac- ulative_guidance.pdf, 2002.
tors. This was considered to be a primary 7. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/air/out-ext/re
criterion for judgment. search-recherche-eng.php. 2012,
In the HSE management system, alloca- 8. Goyal RK. FMEA, the Alternative Process
Hazard Method". Hydrocarbon Processing, 1993;
tion of funds to study risk assessment has 72(5):95-99.
brought significant benefits to many organ- 9. Sayre P, Prothero S, Alwood J. Nanomaterial
izations. The results from risk assessments risk assessment and management experiences relat-
can help in selecting appropriate solutions, ed to worker health under the toxic substances con-
which is certainly the removal of main trol act, Journal of Occupational and Environmental
Medicine 2011;53(6):98-102.
threats. Furthermore, risk assessments can 10. U.S. EPA. Exposure Factors Handbook (1997
also be used to prepare and improve HSE Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agen-
policies. cy, Washington, DC, EPA/600/P-95/002F a-c, 1997.
In this study, estimation of the rate of 11. Musee N. Nanotechnology risk assessment
degradation, damage and injury to human from a waste management perspective: Are the cur-
rent tools adequate? Hum Exp Toxicol 2011;30:
and environment was carried out separately 820-835.
for each laboratory and provided as a coef- 12. Yousuf M. Risk assessment of hazardous
ficient of risk score arithmetic mean. This chemicals case study chemistry research laboratory
coefficient was used as the total risk esti- of USM, Thesis submitted in fulfillment of the re-
mation in comparing risk levels before and quirements for the degree of Master of Science,
school of chemical engineering, University of Sci-
after the implementation of corrective ence Malaysia 2008.
measures. 13. Moran L, Masciangioli T. Chemical Laborato-
It was also revealed that ISO 14121 can be ry Safety and Security, A Guide to Prudent Chemi-
used as a useful research and administrative cal Management, The National Academies Press

http://mjiri.iums.ac.ir 8 Med J Islam Repub Iran 2016 (12 March). Vol. 30:343.
 R. Yarahmadi, et al.

2010:215-225. unit using integrated top-eFMEA method. Pol. J.

14. Guide to the New Machinery Directive Environ. Stud 2012;21(1):95.
2006/42/EC, 6th. edition (http://www.machine build- 19. Mahdinia M, Yarahmadi R, Jafari MJ,
ing. net/n/n2306.htm ) Koohpaei AR. Presentation of a software method for
15. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Wash- use of Risk assessment in Building Fire Safety
ington, Guidance on Cumulative Risk Assessment. Measure Optimization. Iran Occupational Health,
Part 1. Planning and Scoping. Science Policy Coun- Spring 2012;9(1):9-16. (Persian)
cil, 20460 July 3, 1997. http://www.epa.gov/sites/ 20. Rezazadeh A, Solhi M, Azam K. Determinants
Downloaded from mjiri.iums.ac.ir at 19:16 IRST on Tuesday January 22nd 2019

production/files/2014- 11/documents/frmwrk_cum_ of responsibility for health, spiritual health and in-

risk_assmnt.pdf. terpersonal relationship based on theory of planned
16. Michael A, Callahan KS. Cumulative risk as- behavior in high school girl students. Med J Islam
sessment is the answer, what is the question? U.S. Repub Iran 2015 (21 April);29:204.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Dallas, 21. PFMEA, RAM Commander RAMC 7.2 New
Texas, USA; University of Texas School of Public Features, ALD WEB Site, www.aldservice.com
Health, Environmental Health Perspectives 2007; Download the latest version of RAM Commander
115:5. V8.5 (February 2015).
17. Thomas AT, Donald D. Project risk manage- 22. Bluvband Z, Grabov P. Failure analysis of
ment using the project risk FMEA, Engineering FMEA, Reliability and Maintainability Symposium,
Management Journal 2004;16:4.28-35. 2009:344-347.
18. Jozi SA, Saffarian S, Shafie M. Environmental
risk assessment of a gas power plant exploitation

Med J Islam Repub Iran 2016 (12 March). Vol. 30:343. 9 http://mjiri.iums.ac.ir