Risks ranking

Each near miss incident should be risk ranked as to its loss severity potential and probability of recurrence. Only those with high potential should be investigated initially. Once an organization has control over the high potential near miss events, it can then direct its efforts to investigating the lower potential events. 

---

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. 

Each cell in tlie matrix (Table 18.4.2) is assigned a risk ranking as indicated by the letters. In this approach, an A level risk corresponds to a very severe consequence with a high likelihood of occurrence. Action must be taken, and it must be taken promptly. At tlie other end of the scale, a E level risk is of little or no consequence witli a low likelihood of occurrence, and no action is needed or justified. For example, a level C risk might warrant mitigation witli engineering and/or administrative controls or may represent risks tliat are acceptable with controls and procedures. 

Using a tool such as a qualitative risk ranking matrix can be very useful in identifying low-risk buildings. For those events that have potentially major or catastrophic consequences to buildings and their occupants, however, a qualitative risk matrix may not always be an appropriate final evaluation. For events that are potentially major or catastrophic, regardless... 

I Intolerable Should be mitigated with engineering and/or administrative I controls to a risk ranking of III or less within a specified time period such as six months I... 

Use of absolute risk estimates (i.e., comparison against a target risk value) is more sensitive to uncertainty than is relative use (i.e., risk ranking) (Ref. 4). The reason for this is that, with relative applications, the same methodology and assumptions are usually used to evaluate the various alternatives. As a result, comparative risk estimates are subject to similar uncertainties. 

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. 

By mitigating the consequences, the risk ranking for the maintenance and stores building was reduced to III. 

Administration Building. To reduce the risk from the potential blast that could occur from either gas compression/reaction or feed purification/vaporization, safety film was installed over the windows, a catch system was provided to capture flying window fragments, and overhead fixtures were secured. This reduced the risk ranking for the administration building to IV. 

As a result of the above, Scenario 1 (the most severe scenario for the cycle gas compression facility) received a risk ranking of II (undesirable). 

Qualitative findings of ecosystem risk assessments are of low utility for risk management. They cannot be compared with quantitative estimates of other risks this compromises the ability of risk ranking to provide insights to setting priorities. It is particularly difficult to convert them into a format applicable for cost-benefit analysis, which is a key tool that any proponent uses in decision-making on a proposed project. 

The current situation with regard to risk assessment in the use of a wide range of different types of flame retardant is reviewed with respect to EEC council regulation No.793/93. The countries responsible for risk assessment on particular materials are listed and tonnages of materials used are noted. Three methods of prioritisation are used based on quantity used, environmental hazard potential and environmental risk ranking. 6 refs. 

An ongoing risk analysis and risk ranking system that focuses and supports maintenance program needs. 

Risk indices are single numbers or a tabulation of numbers that are correlated to the magnitude of the risk to people. Some risk indices are relative values with no specific units. The limitations on the use of indices are that they may not be an absolute criteria for accepting or rejecting the risk. Risk indices also do not communicate the same information as individual or societal risk measures. An example of risk indices is a risk ranking matrix. Table 6-4 (modified from CCPS, 1992) shows how severity and likelihood are combined to obtain risk indices. An example risk matrix is shown in Figure 6-3 (RRS, 2002). 

As an aid to priority determination, it is often helpful to risk rank each recommendation. Several CCPS publications provide guidance on the use of a variety of risk ranking techniques. C,s)... 

Risk Ranking— A decision making aid that ranks items, such as scenarios or proposed recommendations, in order of their potential associated risk exposure. 

FIGURE 8 Schematic of FDA s pilot risk-ranking model for calculation of site risk potential. 

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. 

A number of sources provide information about various country risks. In this paper, sources consulted are [5,6,7,8,9]. Some indices were not available for all countries on the list. Wherever available, most recent value of index is used. Risk ranks in each category... 

The ABC News Special provides a Risk Ranking table that displays relative risks an individual living in the United States faces based on various exposures. The study measures anticipated loss of days, weeks, or years of life when exposed to risks of plane crashes, crime, driving, and air pollution. 

ABC News experts developed a Risk Ranking table (see Table 1—1) based upon three years of research with risk management experts. The assumption is that each of these activities are measured as independent variables and each has a detrimental effect on your life span. 

The Project Manager should generally first confirm the risk ranking of the recommendations received from review report. The most important recommendations should receive the most attention. He may then desire to indicate which... 

In this particular risk ranking matrix, the risk level is not inversely equal, i.e. C4 PI do not carry the same risk as P4 Cl. Generally it is considered the risk is higher when the consequences are more severe rather than when frequency is greater). 

Suter (1990) emphasized that at our current level of knowledge, the detrimental effects of hazardous chemicals on ecosystems cannot be adequately predicted. The current methods can only assess risks in a simplified manner by providing a relative ranking of risk—from chemical-to-chemical or site-to-site. Nonetheless, such relative-risk ranking provides a useful basis for prioritizing environmental hazards, particularly if data are analyzed by qualified risk assessors. 

Several authors have provided comparative summaries of hazard and risk ranking tools. One publication organized examples of related hazard ranking tools according to a hierarchy based on the complexity of hazard and risk assessment decisions being supported. This relationship is shown in Figure 1. 

Ranking based on regional and global exposure estimations and qualitative human health and ecological toxicity assessment - European Union Risk Ranking Method. 

Hansen BG, van Haelst AG, van Leeuwen K, and van der Zandt P (1999) Priority setting for existing chemicals European Union risk ranking method. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 18 772-779. 

---