Assessment assessors

The period between quality system assessments - assessors may wish to see evidence that corrective actions from the last assessment were taken. If the period of assessment is three years and you dispose of the evidence after two years, you will have some difficulty in convincing the assessor that you corrected the deficiency. 

Define functional activity (desired effect), and justify timing and frequency of assessments (assessors should be blinded to treatment groups). 

Frequenoy of use - Reguiar use/Irreguiar use Date of Assessment Assessor... 

Locations Personnel Involved Date of assessment Date by which action Is to be taken Date of assessment Assessor s name Signature ... 

The confidential nature of individual records must be respected. During the site visit, the assessor may have to rely on the assurance of the toller s personnel manager to make a selection judgment. Some questions to ask when assessing a toller s personnel capabilities follow ... 

Answers to each question on this sample assessment form should be noted when appropriate. Each question also includes two subsequent questions is a system (S) in place, which addresses the specific question and does documentation (D) exist for that system. In those instances where one or the other does not apply, the assessor will mark N/A for not applicable and no points will apply. 

The assessor will summarize the results for each component (percentage S D) in the Evaluation Summary table. A score will be awarded for the entire assessment and will be recorded average percentage. In the following tables, S = System D = Documentation. 

Exposure assessment, step three, allows a risk assessor to estimate the significance of the effects induced by high doses of a chemical in experimental animals in a human situation. Exposure assessment is, in fact, a prerequisite for quantitative risk assessment because it allows a comparison between effects induced by high dose with those induced by low doses, and also allows... 

In the Intoduction to ISO 9001 it states that the quality assurance models represent three distinct forms of quality system suitable for the purpose of a supplier demonstrating its capability and for the assessment of such capability by external parties. In other words, the standard is suitable for contractual as well as for assessment purposes, but it does not actually require demonstration of capability to the assessor or purchaser unless required by the contract. 

The assessor s skills and outlook affect results. Personnel conducting baseline PSM assessments should have the skills and experience that promote a bcdance between objectivity and familiarity with the programs and processes under scrutiny. 

Regardless of which assessment method you choose, assessors and auditors should take detailed notes using a common format to help capture maximum information in a consistent manner. Forms for questionnaires, topical outlines, and audit protocols (as shown in the exhibits) can perform double duty by providing interviewers with a format for notes as well as reporting. 

Encourage auditors and assessors to review and organize their notes as soon as possible after completing an interview or site visit. It s easy to lose track of insights and observations if too much time elapses, particulady when an assessment involves multiple sites. 

Regardless of how the assessment is conducted, your assessors should take detailed notes using a common format to capture the maximum amount of information in a consistent manner. In addition to recording quantitative information, assessors should record observations and opinions for future use. It is important, however, to make sure that these observations and opinions are clearly marked to distinguish them from information obtained from the interviewee. 

In tlie risk characterization, conclusions about hazard and dose response are integrated witli those from the exposure assessment. In addition, confidence about tliese conclusions, including information about tlie micertainties associated with each aspect of the assessment in the final risk sununary. should be higlilighted. In tlie previous assessment steps and in tlie risk characterization, tlie risk assessor should also distinguish between variability and uncertainty. 

Notice that in comparisons such as these sometimes slight inconsistencies in the results can be obtained. In two cases A was considered better than B, and B better than C, yet C was judged superior to A This inconsistency or non-transitivity is known as Simpson s or de Condorcet s paradox. In this particular case it can perfectly well be attributed to random variation. Assessors who are not sure about their conclusion are forced to make a choice, which then can only be a random guess. It is possible, however, to obtain results which are conflicting and statistically significant at the same time A < B and B < C, but C < A. This situation may occur when the attribute to be assessed in the comparisons is open to different interpretations. Actually, this is a case of multicriteria decision making (see Chapter 26) and it may be impossible to rank the three products unambiguously... 

In a qualitative evaluation, the inherent properties of the materials are assessed for explosion potential, in combination with a review of site conditions. An assessment is then made as to the potential for explosion, based on the experience level and judgment of the assessor. 

Exposure assessments have become an essential element of contemporary risk assessment (NAS/NRC, 1983). The primary purpose of exposure assessment is to qualitatively and/or quantitatively determine exposure and absorbed dose associated with a particular use practice or human activity. Contemporary exposure assessors and risk managers place a high premium on accurate data obtained by monitoring chemical exposure scenarios and critical human activities or work tasks. 

It is difficult to define unequivocally the quality of fabric handle or softness/firmness differences, since this involves many factors. It is often linked with lubrication, especially as similar products are often used for softening and lubrication. Whilst experienced assessors can be quite remarkable in the extent to which they can grade and assess softeners simply by means of a highly developed tactile sense, more objective methods are clearly desirable for scientific investigations. Since many factors combine in producing an overall sense of softness, it is not surprising that objective determination of softness involves more than one parameter of measurement. The details of assessment are outside the scope of this chapter, but descriptions and discussions are available elsewhere [478-481]. Suffice it to say here that the Kawabata system has acquired considerable importance in quantifying various aspects of fabric handle. 

A laboratory where the measurement takes place must be free from odor and is typically air-conditioned with air filtration. The odor sample is placed in an olfactometer that basically is a device for dilution of the sample. Typically, the meter has two outlet ports diluted odorous air flows from one, and clean odor-free air flows from the other. In dynamic olfactometry, panel members assess the two ports of the olfactometer. The assessors indicate from which of the ports the diluted sample is flowing. The measurement starts with a dilution that is large enough to make the odor concentration beyond the panelists threshold. This concentration is normally increased by a factor of two in each successive presentation. Only when the correct port is chosen and the assessor is certain that the choice is correct and not just a guess, is the response considered a true value. 

As a result, an EIA practitioner faces considerable difficulties while assessing impacts on ecosystems. On one hand, there are legal requirements to assess fully ecological effects and best practice recommendations to undertake quantitative assessments where possible. On the other hand, many assessors lack tools and techniques to undertake estimations with a high degree of confidence and prove them to be scientifically defensive. Of importance, there are formal RA techniques for tackling the uncertainty1 (first, data uncertainty) in a clear and explicit manner and its quantification, to increase impact predictability. 

However, applicability of the bottom-up approach is limited primarily by cost implications to conduct ecosystem risk assessment following accurately the formal U.S. EPA procedure, an assessor must spent huge amounts of time and money on collecting necessary input data, data processing and interpreting the outputs. Of importance, very specific data are often required that cannot be easily obtained with the help of standard environmental monitoring studies. 

The inquiry into the presence of hazards is also part of the preliminary assessment for the EIA. It is by the explicit identification of significant uncertainties that the need to extend an EIA to include the ERA is determined. Of course, if uncertainties can be resolved by readily acquiring more information, then the assessor should proceed to do so. 

ISO has two important functions in analytical chemistry. The first is to publish descriptions of accepted methods. These are effectively industry standard methods for particular protocols. The second is in laboratory accreditation. For a laboratory to be ISO accredited, compliance with international QA standards must be confirmed by an initial assessment and subsequently from repeated audits by an independent assessor. Since ISO has no legal or regulatory powers, the standards are voluntary. It is unlikely, however, that a forensic analysis which did not conform to an ISO standard would be upheld in court, for example. Most commercial laboratories need to be accredited to remain competitive and to deal with regulatory authorities. Most university labs are not accredited, mainly due to the time and costs involved, and also to the nonroutine nature of much university research. However, university accreditation may become a requirement in the near future, especially for publicly funded research in the UK. The details of laboratory accreditation are discussed by Christie et al. (1999) and Dobb (2004). 

Risk assessment for any given environmental compartment is a comparison of the PEC with the PNEC, i.e., the PEC PNEC ratio. If this ratio is below 1, there is no immediate concern. If the ratio is above 1, the assessor decides on the basis of its value and other relevant factors what conclusions apply. If it has not been possible to derive a PEC/PNEC ratio, the risk assessment is a qualitative evaluation of the likelihood that an adverse effect will occur. 

---