Prioritization INDEX

After a few steps the results became quite stable and the fuzzy rules were frozen. The resulting prioritization indexes for the forty test units is shown in Fig. 6. 

The so-called Q7 tools and techniques, Cause and Effect Diagrams, Pareto Analysis, etc. (Bicheno, 1994 Dale and McQuater, 1998 Straker, 1995), are applicable to any stage of the product development process. Indeed they support the working of some of the techniques mentioned, for example using a Pareto chart for prioritizing the potential risks in terms of the RPN index for a design as determined in FMEA (see Appendix III). 

Other techniques that take into account some site-specific conditions, such as the Dow Fire and Explosion Index (Ref. 34) and the Mond Index (Ref. 39), have been used to prioritize buildings for evaluation. The results of these indices should be used in conjunction with consideration of other factors, rather than as stand-alone criteria. These other factors might include an evaluation of the effects of confinement and/or congestion-induced turbulence on the potential for blast. 

Chemical Exposure Index (CEI) (Chemical Exposure Index, 1994 Mannan, 2005, pp. 8/22-8/26.) The CEI provides a method of rating the relative potential of acute health hazard to people from possible chemical release incidents. It may be used for prioritizing initial process hazard analysis and establishing the degree of further analysis needed. The CEI also may be used as part of the site review process. The system provides a method of ranking one risk relative to another. It is not intended to define a particular containment system as safe or unsafe, but provides a way of comparing toxic hazards. It deals with acute, not chronic, releases. Flammability and explosion hazards are not included in this index. To develop a CEI, information needs include... 

Environment Canada recently developed an evaluation system based on effluent toxicity testing, capable of ranking the environmental hazards of industrial effluents [185]. This so-called Potential Ecotoxic Effects Probe (PEEP) incorporates the results of a variety of small-scale toxicity tests into one relative toxicity index to prioritize effluents for sanitation. In the index no allowance has been made for in-stream dilution, therefore the acmal risk for environmental effects is not modeled. The tests performed on each effluent are the following bacterial assay [V.fisheri (P. phosphoreum), Microtox], microalgal assay S. capricornutum) crustacean assay (C. dubiay, and bacterial genotoxicity test E. coli, SOS-test). 

It is important to point out that when examining small fragments and trying to prioritize them, scientists will often utilize simple metrics such as binding efficiency index (BEI)[3] and ligand efficiency (LE).141 The BEI is calculated using the equation... 

In brief, the PEEP index is a useful HAS to apply in comparative studies of wastewater effluents to assess their ecotoxicity and toxic loading. Some of its advantages include the fact that it considers results from different toxicity tests and endpoints, while integrating all possible antagonistic, additive or synergistic interactions that can occur between toxicants in a complex liquid sample. Furthermore, the use of a single PEEP value becomes very useful for decisionmakers who are then able to take science-based decisions to prioritize corrective actions on industries whose effluents are the most toxic for the aquatic environment. It is also noteworthy to point out that the PEEP index can be applied anywhere with any number or type of tests and endpoints to suit the needs and expertise of laboratories internationally. 

The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) provides guidelines to improve Superfund enforcement methods and criteria. SARA also refines the Hazardous Rankings System, and by OSTRI prioritizes remediation activities. Rules and regulations under the Superfund and its SARA amendment are accessible at http //www.epa.gov/superfund/action/index.htm. 

Myers W, Bishop J, Brooks R and Patil GP (2001) Composite spatial indexing of regional habitat importance. Community Ecology 2(2) 213-220 Patil GP and Taillie C (2004) Multiple indicators, partially ordered sets, and linear extensions Multi-criterion ranking and prioritization. Environmental and Ecological Statistics 11 199-228... 

Additionally, the combination of exploratory tools, such as PCA of more end-points and QSAR models of the obtained cumulative index, allows a more focused investigation into chemicals of higher concern (virtual screening for prioritization), directing the next investigative steps or suggesting the synthesis of other safer alternatives. 

As far as repair policies are considered, two of them will be investigated. According to the first poUcy, failed components are chosen for repair in the reverse order , i.e. the one with the largest index is selected first. If Gi = 0,1 < i < N, then for each linear subset of components (i.e. all components located between Co and a leaf node) this is the FIFO policy. Indeed, as only the components connected to eo can fail, ey located below ex (yielding x < y) can only fail if ex is operable, i.e. ey can only fail prior to ex. As x < y, ey is selected for repair before ex, i.e. the FIFO policy is in place. The second policy consists in prioritizing the components with smaller indexes, i.e. the one with the smallest index is first selected for repair. If Gi = 0, 1 < i < N, then for each linear subset of components this is the LIFO policy. Indeed, if ex is located above ex (yielding x < y) then ex can only fail after ey. As x < y, ex is selected for repair before ey, i.e. the LIFO policy is in place. 

To find a crisp value for prioritizing its security level, Eq. (5) is used to calculate the ranking index of the event Cargo as follows. 

From a study of literature, it has been found that scientists from Okayama University, Japan developed a dynamic model to utilize FTA for batch process. According to the paper [6], batch processes are divided into several safety objects linked to operation level. Dynamic simulation and fault propagation models are generated to evaluate safety objects. With the help of this model, FTA method using house event-time, an event expected to happen, can be developed for calculating the probability of failures. The time-dependent failures can be considered as unavailability of safety objects that can lead to accidents in plants. The rank of safety object performance index (PI) can be estimated using importance measures. PI shows the prioritization of safety objects that should be investigated for safety improvement in the plants. 

A hazard index is a checklist method of identifying hazards and ranking the degree of the hazard posed by the situation. This ranking helps prioritize resources in the form of manpower and capital expenditure. 

The next entry is HRI. This is the severity and probability as taken from Table 5.4. You have to analyze the hazard and make an assessment of its risk. This risk index is particularly useful in database managonent. You can sort and print out all HRIs that are 1A to IC, for example. This then allows you to prioritize which hazards will be rectified first and also help track those hazard closures. 

Table 14.4 is very similar to the qualitative risk management (hazard risk index) in Chapter 5. Note the risk management criteria at the bottom of the table. It is very important to define when action must be taken and when it can wait. This is really just prioritizing the risk. 

The analysis of the Criticality index provides organization with ability to prioritize action in order to reduce the effect of the failure modes on the equipment. The principle followed by the company is that analysis has to be continued for influence values are identified in the given range (S or E > 2) or (P or Q = 3) or criticality C > 7, for the other cases it is necessary to examine whether performance standards are satisfactory and keep... 

The resulting risk prioritization and safety index values 4 and their evaluation are given in Table 8 and 9. 

---