Risk assessment additional control measure

Risk assessment and safety audit A risk assessment result can be used to predict whether the facility is safe or not. If it is not acceptable then additional control measures must be used to keep the facility safe. A safety audit is a process by which such safety claim is verified for consistency in results. Each case-by-case validation is done. 

The result of risk assessment/analysis is used for decision making regarding additional control measures and may be required to provide specific information demanded by regulation. 

As a part of control measure assessment it is necessary to demonstrate all control measures such as physical control (say barrier), engineering control (say process control, relief valve), and administrative control such as defined procedure, etc. During demonstration the operator needs to challenge the control measure to improvise the process. In this way, alternative controls could be taken into account, especially in those cases where all risks are not in SFARP. Helpful guidance toward both additional control measures and past disaster issues are highlighted in the following ... 

Under CCSHH, an employer is required to carry out a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to the health of their employees created by work involving hazardous substances. The assessment must be kept under review and any necessary changes made following the review. In addition, control measures to reduce the risks posed by the substances must also be subject to maintenance, e.g. local exhaust ventilation systems (LEV) for the removal of flammable mixtures from the atmosphere. 

Applying (where necessary) additional control measures that may be required to reduce the risk to the lowest level reasonably practicable Recording the significant findings of the assessment, which is a legal requirement when five or more persons are employed... 

Having analysed the risks taking into account any existing control measures, the next stage in the risk assessment process is to consider the effectiveness of the controls and additional control measures that will be required to reduce the risk as low as is reasonably practicable. 

It is important that the experience of the adverse effects and the knowledge developed by the investigation are not lost to the organisation. Therefore it is crucial to develop an action plan for implementing the additional control measures. The action plan should reflect the format developed following a risk assessment (see Chapter 14). 

However, where local containment is not provided, or the fire risk assessment indicates that additional control measures are required, for example to contain firewater run-off, which may amount to thousands of cubic metres, remote containment systems may be appropriate. Remote containment systems may be used by themselves, or in combination with on-site containment arrangements. They may be required to protect both surface and foul water drainage systems. 

All the risk assessments undertaken suggested that not only was the breasting option no worse than the conventional method, a convincing argument could be made that it was potentially less risky. Despite this, the team recognised that additional control measures wotrld be required in order to ensure safe operation, given that a ntrmber of assirmptions had been implicit in the risk assessments. 

The estimations of risk, in terms of severity, likelihood or both, could either have been over- or underestimated by the assessment team. This would have affected the decision regarding additional control measures. 

A particular basis of the targets relates to the fact that existing EU risk assessment procedures do not consider the persistence and accumulation of chemicals in the marine environment. To control these potential risks, the UBA identifies the need to adopt a comprehensive strategy for the protection of the marine environment. In addition to action specifically aimed at protecting the marine environment and establishing an authorisation procedure, the UBA proposes a combination of the following measures. 

Positive effects seen in either humans or animals will normally justify classification. Evidence from animal studies is usually much more reliable than evidence from human exposure. However, in cases where evidence is available from both sources, and there is conflict between the results, the quality and reliability of the evidence from both sources must be assessed in order to resolve the question of classification on a case-by-case basis. Normally, human data are not generated in controlled experiments with volunteers for the purpose of hazard classification but rather as part of risk assessment to confirm lack of effects seen in animal tests. Consequently, positive human data on contact sensitization are usually derived from case-control or other, less defined studies. Evaluation of human data must therefore be carried out with caution as the frequency of cases reflect, in addition to the inherent properties of the substances, factors such as the exposure situation, bioavailability, individual predisposition and preventive measures taken. Negative human data should not normally be used to negate positive results from animal studies. 

Technical exposure control. Additional necessary exposure control measures which are not noted in heading 7 have to be noted. The described measures are important for the risk assessment in the workplace, and these have to be done by the employer in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 98/24/EC [4-15]. The design of appropriate work processes and engineering controls, the use of adequate equipment and materials, and the application of collective protection measures at source are required. 

---