Risk assessment process action plan

The control measures identified in the risk assessment and action plan could also be deemed inadequate if new evidence came to light that altered the risk that had previously been estimated in some way. For example, evidence may come to light that a bolting resin that had been used for years may have a chemical in it that is found to be carcinogenic or more risky as a carcinogen than was previously thought. As tliis new evidence had not been taken into account in the previous risk assessment, it should also be echoed back into the hazard identification process to see if the nature of the hazard has changed. 

Determine and Document Action Plan Identify supplementary work that can be undertaken to compensate for any concerns. This may be achieved through a Risk Assessment process. 

In conclusion, risk assessment helps to identify security gaps, supports security operation planning and management and helps to draw up adequate preventive actions and immediate responses. Furthermore, a risk assessment process can provide input to the improvement of the security policies and guidelines, as well as... 

Eastman Kodak has identified 10 core competencies and developed a process for their management and utilization within the company (29). Similarly, Eaton Corporation selected seven core technical competencies, ranked them in importance, assessed their importance vs the known state-of-the-art for the industry, and developed action plans to extend the life of each (30). Eaton subsequently found the company could bring to market products designed with proven building blocks, thus minimizing risk and the need for additional capital equipment. In addition, the competencies were found to be reservoirs of proprietary advantage that had not previously been put to work. 

According to Mussen et al. (2007), there are three key phases in the MCDA process problem identification and structuring, model building and use, and development of action plan. These phases are specified through the seven-step approach (Mussen et al. 2007). Steps 1-5 of MCDA are similar to those in the BRA frameworks discussed in Section 15.4. Therefore, MCDA is sometimes called a quantitative benefit-risk framework (IMI-PROTECT 2013). However, the MCDA process further stipulates the calculation of the weighted scores at each level and calculation of the overall weighted BR scores to facilitate a benefit-risk decision at step 6. MCDA also emphasizes sensitivity analysis to assess the impact of weights and other assumptions in the data at step 7. 

The proactive approach, on the other hand, endeavours to identify, evaluate and control hazards and risks before they develop to the stage of causing an accident. The technique is inherent in the process of risk management (Chapters 9 and 10). One of the more common methods employed to identify potential hazards before they manifest themselves is the safety inspection, or survey, carried out by the safety adviser, manager and safety representative, where the work area is inspected for any hazards which are noted. After the inspection the identified hazards are assessed and a plan of action to put them right is formulated. Variations on this theme include ... 

This generic method can be used in the field of urban security to assess processes and actions that are planned to mitigate risks, in particular after major disruptive events. 

Risk assessments, method statements, safety plans and the like should be checked as part of the inspection process. This is because it is important to be able to demonstrate not only good site conditions, but also a trail of action, through CDM, to the assessment process and the employer s definite commitment to taking the necessary actions to ensure safety. 

A failure modes and effects analysis is a systematic analytical technique for identifying potential failures in a design or a process, assessing the probability of occurrence and likely effect, and determining the measures needed to eliminate, contain, or control the effects. Action taken on the basis of an FMEA will improve safety, performance, reliability, maintainability and reduce costs. The outputs are essential to balanced and effective quality plans for both development and production as it will help focus the controls upon those products, processes, and characteristics that are at risk. It is not the intention here to give a full appreciation of the FMEA technique and readers are advised to consult other texts. 

The second main point of view is that, even if the planned inspection gives a false impression of the normal workplace conditions, at least once a month some action is taken to correct things. The view has a good deal of merit. However, if an assessment report indicates that conditions are good when workers and supervisors know otherwise, then distrust arises. The whole effort put into the inspection process can be discredited as a result of what the workers or supervisors see as the inability of the workplace inspection methods to identify, with reasonable accuracy, true measures of performance and risk. 

Of all the processes that affect the exposure of aquatic systems to contaminated sediments, the deposition and resuspension processes reviewed in this chapter are probably most important in assessing the long-term fate of contaminants in the surface sediments of a system. As a result, these processes are important in the determination of a remediation plan for a contaminated site, because of the need to understand the stability of bottom sediments and the associated stability of contaminants in those sediments. A quantitative understanding of sediment deposition and resuspension processes is needed to address such management questions as What are the expected rate and extent of risk reduction at a site under natural recovery (no additional actions), with additional source controls, and/or with in situ remedial actions (i.e., dredging and/or capping) and Are risk reductions permanent in response to extreme events (i.e., floods, wind storms, low water level conditions) ... 

---