Risk-Based Ranking

This risk-based ranking is fairly straightforward. Risk will be assessed for the activities associated with the trigger event or installing the change, introducing chemicals to the changed equipment, the startup period, as well as the equipment s operation after startup. 

Using a risk-based ranking system to plan workload and resource requirements for pre-startup safety reviews is an excellent tool, but even the PSSRs for trigger events with lesser risk values have things in common with more complex trigger events. 

In Tables 14.9 and 14.10, the last column reports the environmental impact points (EIPs) for typical applications of organic and conventional pesticides derived from the Pesticide Environmental Assessment System, or PEAS. This model produces relative rankings of risks based on defined use rates and use patterns (the formulation used to apply a pesticide, timing, target of the application, spray equipment used, etc). PEAS scores reflect an equal balancing of acute pesticide risks to farm workers, chronic risks via dietary exposure and exposures to birds, Daphnia and bees. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2004), Risk-based method for prioritizing cGMP inspections of pharmaceutical manufacturing sites—A pilot risk ranking model, Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD. 

Although one cannot say whether the ranked chemical exposures are likely to be of major or minor importance in human cancer, it is not prudent to focus attention on risks at the bottom of a ranking if the same methodology identifies numerous, common human exposures that pose much greater possible risks. Our rankings are based on the human exposure/rodent potency (HERP) index, which is the ratio between the average human exposure to a chemical and the dose that caused cancer in 50 percent of exposed rodents. 

Hence risk assessment criteria must be established so that there can be developed a national priority list of the hazardous sites that require remedial action. EPA has adopted the Mitre Model for assessing the risks and ranking waste sites. There is some criticism of this model, and there are a number of as yet unanswered questions about its application. Formal cost/benefit analysis will not be used, and risk assessment will be on a case-by-case basis. EPA will thus be developing its knowledge base and procedures as it carries out the program. 

Ranking The qualitative estimation of risk from severity and likelihood levels, in order to provide a prioritizing of risk based it s magnitude (refer to corporate risk matrix for ranking based on severity and likelihood levels). 

Risk Management Analysis. Evaluate program data to establish risk-based priority ranking for all program sites, measure overall risk reduction... 

XYZ Chemical has similar operations consisting primarily of pesticide and herbicide manufacturing operations in the United States, Europe, Asia, and South America. Since the operations are similar, the prioritization process (illustrated in Table 3.4) consists of cataloging all chemicals in transit (in and out of their facilities), modes of transport, qnantities, and nnmber of annual shipments. Specifically, the prioritization process is a combination of the hazards- and consequence-based prioritization processes illnstrated in Figure 3.4. If this process were expanded to a likelihood- or risk-based process, then additional factors (e.g., the number of shipment, length of shipment) may have been included in the prioritization. With this data collected, the hazards of each chemical and the potential impacts are docnmented based on the chemical physical properties and quantities in transit. With all of the information collected, the following qualitative ranking is nsed to prioritize issnes for escalation and identification of countries and operations that will need to condnct more detailed risk analyses ... 

For risk assessment, a DSS (Lopes et al, 2009) is used that incorporates a decision model proposed by Brito Almeida (2009). This DSS is a system designed to assess risk levels of each pipeline section with its characteristics, ranking all sections in a multidimensional hierarchy of risk, based on Multi Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT). 

Develop a list of known hazardous jobs The inventory is reviewed for content and the nature of each job. Jobs with hazards that present high risks are ranked based on which are most likely to occur and with the most severe consequences of a loss-producing event. These jobs are the first priority for further analysis. 

The expansion of aquatic animal risk analysis into other areas is a distinct possibility in the future. For instance, the current European legislation (e.g. Directive 2006/88) is driving a risk-based approach for characterizing aquaculture farms through risk ranking exercises, with improved identification... 

Now that you have determined the likely savings in terms of annual process and waste-treatment operating costs associated with each option, consider the necessary investment required to implement each option. Investment can be assessed by looking at the payback period for each option that is, the time taken for a project to recover its financial outlay. A more detailed investment analysis may involve an assessment of the internal rate of return (IRR) and net present value (NPV) of the investment based on discounted cash flows. An analysis of investment risk allows you to rank the options identified. 

A number of vendors offer software based hazard assessment tools that help determine the magnitude of the hazards involved. With this software, calculations can be made to reflect the hazard for various failures. Some risk ranking software combines hazard assessment with probabilities of occurrence so that the relative risk levels can be assessed. 

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. 

Each occupied building was qualitatively ranked according to frequency and consequence per Table 5.2 and Table 5.4. Consequence ratings were based upon the results of the previously conducted consequence assessments. Frequency estimates were based upon consensus estimates of the HAZOP team. Risk rankings were then determined per Figure 5.1. 

The order in which the initial PrHAs are performed is based on the level of perceived risk. Initial PrHAs must be completed, at least, in increments of 25 percent, as shown in Table 7.1. A 5-year review schedule should be based on the initial rankings. Following this schedule means that PrHA updates are completed annually for at least one-fourth of the processes. 

---