Objectives of risk assessment

A special assessment procedure that aims at tackling uncertain consequences of human activities is called risk assessment (RA). The main objective of risk assessment is to use the best available information and knowledge for identifying hazards, estimating the risks and making recommendations for risk management (World Bank, 1997). 

Risk assessment uses the resuits of the hazard identification and vuinerabiiity anaiysis to determine the probabiiity of a specified outcome from a given hazard that affects a community with known vuinerabiiities and coping mechanisms (risk equais hazard times vuinerabiiity). The probabiiity may be presented as a numericai range (i.e., 30% to 40% probabiiity) or in reiative terms (i.e., iow, moderate, or high risk). Major objectives of risk assessment inciude... 

The main objective of risk assessment is to determine the measures required by the organization to comply with relevant health and safety legislation and, thereby, reduce the level of occupational injuries and ill-health. The purpose is to help the employer or self-employed person to determine the measures required to comply with their legal statutory duty under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 or its associated Regulations. The risk assessment will need to cover all those who may be at risk, such as customers, contractors and members of the public. In the case of shared workplaces, an overall risk assessment may be needed in partnership with other employers. 

Figure 1 is the sketch of the arrangement of Increased Type according to Rules for Natural Gas Fuelled Ships (2013), merely showing the portside, which is set as the object of risk assessment. 

While the objectives of risk assessment are common to both gene therapy products and products for other therapies, the methods used may differ greatly. Those for gene therapy frequently will require both the development of techniques and the assessment of endpoints unique to the particular therapy under evaluation. It is... 

The Rijnmond area is that part of the Rhine delta between Rotterdam and the North Sea. The Commission for the Safety of the Population at large (COVO) commissioned the study for six chemicals and the operations associated with them acrylonitrile, liquid ammonia, liquid chlorine, LNG, propylene, and part of a separation process (diethanolamine stripper of a hydrodesulfurizer). The study objectives were to evaluate methods of risk assessment and obtain experience with practical applications of these methods. The results were to be used to decide to what extent such methods can be used in formulating safety policy. The study was not concerned with the acceptability of risk or the acceptability of risk reducing measures. 

Risk characterization, the final stage of risk assessment, sets out to provide a qualitative and/or quantitative estimate, given the uncertainties of assessment, the probability of occurrence, and the severity of known or potential adverse health effects in a given population based on hazard identification, hazard characterization, and exposure assessment. The aim is to characterize the risks to the consumer from residues possibly present in animal products on the basis of use of the substance and particularly the withdrawal period, given that the period of administration and the dosage are predetermined by the objective of effectiveness. 

Extrapolation methods are used for various types of risk assessment. Methods may be used in the process of deriving environmental quality objectives, in the registration of new substances, and in the process of site-specific risk assessment. Suter (1993) called these approaches prospective (the former 2) and retrospective (the latter) risk assessments. The specific process in which extrapolation methods are used has implications for the concepts to be applied and the data to be used as input in extrapolation. Strictly described approaches are in place for the derivation of environmental quality criteria (EQCs) and the registration of pesticides and newly developed substances. The prescribed approaches for deriving EQCs can differ between jurisdictions. The approaches for retrospective investigations have more degrees of freedom. A characteristic of the latter approach is that the methods can make use of measured local exposure levels and can estimate local risk with known precision (or known uncertainty ). The latter is uncommon for EQCs. 

Occasionally the qualitative and intuitive methods of risk assessment fail, and something better is required. For example, a designer may have taken steps to address some hazard, but be unsure whether these are sufficient. There is also the possibility of failure of equipment, control systems or operating procedures which may reduce margins of safety. In these circumstances, quantitative risk assessment may be considered. This is an attempt to put numbers to the risks so that we can judge them objectively. 

A discussion of the recovery potential may be an integral part of risk description, although the need for such an evaluation will depend on the objective of the assessment and the assessment endpoints. An evaluation of the recovery potential may require additional analyses, as discussed in Section 3.1, and will depend on the nature, duration, and extent of the stressor. 

As might be expected, such checks and balances upon industrial practice are viewed as either an unbridled abuse of power (by industiy), or a necessary evil (by environmentalists). Where does truth lie Certainly, not as the media usually portray it Rather, the truth is often hidden in scientific terminology that is difficult for the public to understand. It is hoped however, that the fledgling Science of Risk Assessment and Risk Communication will sometime advanee to the point where objective truth in safety, health and environmental issues impaet-ing dyes and pigments no longer need an interpreter. 

The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations already require risk assessments of work activities to be carried out to identify risks arising from the use of lifting equipment and the appropriate precautions required to deal with these risks. The level of precaution will depend on the degree of risk assessed, and should reduce the risk to as low a level as is reasonably practicable. Particular hazards to be considered are equipment striking a person or object and the consequences of equipment failing. 

In step 0, the objective of the assessment is determined, as well as the safety context, the scope and the level of detail of the assessment. The actual safety assessment starts by determining the operation that is assessed (step I). Next, hazards associated with the operation are identified (step 2), and aggregated into safety relevant scenarios (step 3). Using severity and frequency assessments (steps 4 and S), the safety risk associated with each safety relevant scenario is classified (step 6). For each safety relevant scenario with a (possibly) unacceptable safety risk, the main sources contributing to unsafety (safety bottlenecks) are identified (step 7), which help operational concept developers to learn for which safety issues they should... 

---