Process deviations risk assessment

Thus, the risk analysis must be well prepared, meaning that the scope of the analysis must be clearly defined data must be available and evaluated, to define the safe process conditions and the critical limits. Then, and only then, the systematic search for process deviations from the safe conditions can be started. The identified deviations lead to the definition of scenarios, which can be assessed in terms of severity and probability of occurrence. This work can advantageously be summarized in a risk profile, enhancing the major risks that are beyond the accepted limits. For these risks, reduction measures can then be defined. The residual risk, that is, the risk remaining after implementation of the measures, can be assessed as before and documented in a residual risk profile showing the progress of the analysis and the risk improvement. These steps are reviewed in the next sections. 

Another typical source of uncertainty in mixture assessment is the potential interaction between substances. Interactions may occur in the environment (e.g., precipitation after emission in water), during absorption, transportation, and transformation in the organism, or at the site of toxic action. Interactions can be either direct, for example, a chemical reaction between 2 or more mixture components, or indirect, for example, if 1 mixture component blocks an enzyme that metabolizes another mixture component (see Chapters 1 and 2). Direct interactions between mixture components are relatively easy to predict based on physical-chemical data, but prediction of indirect interactions is much more difficult because it requires detailed information about the processes involved in the toxic mechanisms of action. One of the main challenges in mixture risk assessment is the development of a method to predict mixture interactions. A first step toward such a method could be the setup of a database, which contains the results of mixture toxicity tests. Provided such a database would contain sufficient data, it could be used to predict the likelihood and magnitude of potential interaction effects, that is, deviations for CA and RA. This information could subsequently be used to decide whether application of an extra safety factor for potential interaction effects is warranted, and to determine the size of such a factor. The mixture toxicity database could also support the search for predictive parameters of interaction effects, for example, determine which modes of action are involved in typical interactions. 

Processes used to determine functional criticality, such as FMEA, have already been discussed within this chapter. Similarly, FMEA and other risk assessment tools can be used to determine the scope of validation. The risk of failure increases as information systems supporting the EMS strategy deviates from a standardized solution that is, the level of tailored development increases. In addition, the extent to which a product is utilized within industry, in particular pharmaceuticals, must be taken into consideration when determining the scope of validation. 

The Hazardous OperabUties (or HazOp) is a risk assessment tool developed to deal with the deviations in any process plant or unit that works with flowing fluids, since the method cut the flowchart in sections. 

May be said that is a mistake call HazOp a safety assessment tool, since it is much more than that. Because of its method, HazOp goes beyond risks and process deviations to maintenance and quality as well. The HazOp method is, in short terms ... 

A survey of several European nations, (Wharton and Bagley 2004), revealed only one - Switzerland - uses an full quantitative risk assessment (QRA) approach for explosive storage applications. Other respondents relied on quantity-distance (QD) rules for the majority of stores and only use QRA when wanting to deviate from the QD rules. Consequently, the Swiss framework, which we follow here, is different to that applied in other nations. In the Swiss model (Bienz 2003), incidents occur as a result of a sequence of events, beginning with precursors and imdergoing initiation and escalation processes. 

A risk assessment can be performed retrospectively or prospectively. If an adverse event - whether a complaint, a deviation or adverse effect - happens it will be analysed retrospectively. Staff will be convinced about the necessity for any action. When staff do not report incidents however or do not qualify them as important the improvement process may be missed. For risk assessment a blame-free culture in the organisation is very important. 

Process validation aims to show that the producer controls (the critical steps of) the process so the preparation method consistently leads to the intended result [11]. The structure and the critical steps of the process have to be determined using process analysis and risk assessment (see Chap. 21). The effects of small or large deviations in the preparation process have to be determined in order to define the necessary limits during routine production, the so-called design space (see Sect. 17.6). 

The nuclear industry could benefit from HAZOP studies. A nuclear power plant is conceptually very similar to a chemical plant. Because HAZOP looks carefully at process deviations, it would help identify hazards that might go unnoticed in a traditional probabilistic risk assessment. 

All safety activities refer to an item . An item in terms of ISO 26262 is defined as a system or array of systems to implement a function at the vehicle level, to which ISO 26262 is applied . The Item Definition marks the scope of the Safety Considerations on an overview level and is the starting point of all furflier safety activities. It is, in particular, a necessary preparation for the Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment (HARA), because in order to identify malfunctions that may lead to scenarios that bear the risk of an accident (called hazards), the interfaces of the investigated system to its environment must be known, as well as the specified behavior at these interfaces. Deviations from this specified behavior constitute the item s failures, a subset of these constituting the hazardous failures. As explained above, CMSs are well-suited to be regarded as an item according to the definition in ISO 26262. So the Item Definition usually depicts the entire CMS with camera(s), processing unit(s) and display(s). 

The deviation scenarios found in the previous step of the risk analysis must be assessed in terms of risk, which consists of assigning a level of severity and probability of occurrence to each scenario. This assessment is qualitative or semi-quantitative, but rarely quantitative, since a quantitative assessment requires a statistical database on failure frequency, which is difficult to obtain for the fine chemicals industry with such a huge diversity of processes. The severity is clearly linked to the consequences of the scenario or to the extent of possible damage. It may be assessed using different points of view, such as the impact on humans, the environment, property, the business continuity, or the company s reputation. Table 1.4 gives an example of such a set of criteria. In order to allow for a correct assessment, it is essential to describe the scenarios with all their consequences. This is often a demanding task for the team, which must interpret the available data in order to work out the consequences of a scenario, together with its chain of events. 

ESTABLISH THE RISK TO BE ADDRESSED by means of techniques such as formal hazard identification or HAZOP whereby failures and deviations within a process (or equipment) are studied to assess outcomes. From this process one or more hazardous events may be revealed which will lead to death or serous injury. 

Standard deviation (or volatility) of the insurer s wealth related to non-catastrophic risks, respectively and Z(0 is a standard Brownian motion due to perturbation of non-catastrophic risk processes. In practical applications, the drift and volatility parameters a and p can be estimated from relevant insurance data (see Goda and Yoshikawa 2012). The stochastic process shown in Eq. 4 can be evaluated using Monte Carlo simulation, and thus many realizations can be generated to assess the temporal evolution of the insurer s asset. 

---