Rank Risks

The amount and type of hazards will determine the performance standard specified in site-specific control plans. This includes the content, detail, and formality of review. The approval of the plans is based on risk and hazard potential. Using the hazard-based approach, levels of risk or methods to rank risk (degree) are standardized. 

Risk Indices - A risk index is a single-number measure of tlie risk associated with a facility. Some risk indices are qualitative or semi-quantitative, ranking risks in various general categories. Risk indices may also be quantitative averages or bencluiiarks based on otlier risk measures. 

Qualitative frequency evaluation can be used to screen out events that are extremely unlikely to occur (i.e., have such a remote chance of occurring that further evaluation is unnecessary). This method is particularly appropriate for use in conjunction with qualitative consequence evaluation as a means of ranking risks. 

B. Hileman, Panel Ranks Risks of Common Phthalate, Chemical and Engineering News, 2005, 83, 46, p.32. 

See also Chemical Hazard Communication and Material Safety Data Sheets Hazard Identification Hazard Ranking Risk Assessment, Human Health. 

Having an accepted and well-understood risk assessment matrix makes reaching consensus easier to assess the severity of consequences, determine event probability, define the risk, and rank risks in priority order. 

Risk is used here in the broad sense of a multiattribute quantity expressing hazard, danger or chance of harmful or injurious consequences associated with actual or potential exposures. It relates to quantities such as the probabihty that sf>ecific deleterious consequences may arise and the magnitude and character of such consequences. In ranking risks, D values have been used as the normalizing factor as they are based on deterministic health effects — and are therefore apphcable for all States. In the interests of international harmonization, no account was taken of the possible cleanup costs following the dispersion of a source, since these will vary from State to State. 

Estimate and compare cost effectiveness of each option, in terms of cost per unit risk reduction, keeping in mind a life cyxle perspective Rank risk control options on their cost effectiveness Estimate and compare cost effectivmess of each option, in terms espected benefit of vulnerabilirt reduction versus bnplememation cost, keeping in mind a life cycle perspective Rank vulnerability control options on their cost effectiveness Benefits of mitigating measures can also include benefits to normal operation (e.g increased fexibility). -Issess wfticA stakeholders pa and which would incur loss... 

The amount or degree of potential hazard perceived by a given set of parameters and operating conditions. Risk assessment provides a means to identify and rank risks and to obtain information on their extent and nature. By performing a risk assessment suitable risk control measures can be identified and assessed for adequacy. In... 

An REI value for each impact should be determined and multiplied by the IP value for that impact. The product of each of the four is added together to determine IMPACT (IMP). The IMP is then added to the product of P and OS. Thus, the Risk Assessment Value (RAV) allows for ranking the hazard. The higher the score, the higher the risk. The highest risk assessment value would be 70 (Highest Risk) to a low of 11 (No Risk). Ranking risk is not an exact science but it is an approximation of the potential risk. A summary formula for the RAV is... 

Risk assessment and ranking (risk matrix) based on remaining life... 

M.G. Morgan, H.K. Florig, M.L. Dekay, P. Fischbeck, Categorization of risk for risk ranking. Risk Analysis 20 (1) (2000). 

The goal of risk assessment is to reduce all residual risks to as low a level as reasonably practicable. In a relatively complex workplace, this will take time so that a system of ranking risk is required - the higher the risk level the sooner it must be addressed and controlled. 

This paper puts forward a multidimensional (multiattribute) assessment of the risk from vaults in underground electricity distribution systems, by generating a decision tool, which ranks risk values in a risk hierarchy. 

Risk Perception Experimental results indicate people s subjective risk estimates differ from objective estimates Slovic and Fischloff Survey results indicate that people are good at ranking risks associated with traffic Hammerton et al... 

The traditional FMEA has been a well-accepted safety analysis method, however, it suffers from several weaknesses. One of the critically debated weaknesses, is the method that the traditional FMEA employs to achieve a risk ranking. The purpose of ranking risk in order of importance is to assign the limited resources to the most serious risk items. Traditional FMEA uses an RPN to evaluate the risk level of a component or process. The RPN is obtained by finding the multiplication of three factors, which are the probability of failure (5/), the severity of the failure S) and the probability of not detecting the failure (Sj). Representing this mathematically will give ... 

The aim of this method is to develop a method that does not require a utility function to define the probability of occurrence (5/), severity (5) and detectability Sfi considered for the analysis and to avoid the use of the traditional RPN. This is achieved by using information gathered from experts and integrating them in a formal way to reflect a subjective method of ranking risk. 

---