Risk ranking table

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. 

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. 

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. 

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). 

Table 3.3-3 presents the risk ranking matrix used to compare all hazards and accident scenarios identified in the PHA and FMEA. A discussion of each risk measure is also provided. The risk ranking results serve as the basis for determining if a more detailed, quantitative analysis of specified hazards or accident scenarios is required. 

Table 3. Risk ranking of the pipeline sections after the multi-attribute risk assessment.

TABLE 10.3 Example risk-ranking Categories (CCPS, 1992). 

From these data a risk matrix as discussed in Chapter I (Table 1/3.3.2-5) is produced. The risks are ranked as detailed as in Chapter I. After risk ranking, safety measures as discussed in Clause 1.7.5 shall be applied. 

The column headings in bold are essential. However, in some cases, either a guide word or parameter is put as a subheading just above the table, as shown in Fig. IV/1.3.1-1A and B. It is always better to include the safeguard column in tabular format. Also all entries should be numbered for proper understanding as well as tefetencing. To facilitate risk matrix formation for risk ranking, frequency of occurrence, severity, etc., other columns may be added. 

The environment issues, concepts and strategies 873 Table 5.1.3 Risk ranking of hazards and technologies by four groups (Slovic)... 

The spikes in the risk contours are generated from elongated jet fire radiation zones. The risk ranking point is in an area which appears to be impacted by various outcomes. This can be confirmed by looking to the individual risk ranking results for the point. These are shown in Table 1. 

The risk ranking results of Table 1 show us that the majority of escalation risk comes from jet fires resulting from leaks from the two compressors. The percentage risk shows the relative contribution to risk at the risk ranking point from each source. 

Table 3. Risk ranking at escalation location after introduction of parallel compressors. 

Figure 2.37 presents the HRI matrix concept for establishing the level of potential mishap risk presented by a hazard. It can be seen from this figure that the HRI matrix concept essentially involves one matrix and three tables. The HRI matrix is the main component, which is based upon the combination of the hazard/mishap likelihood on one axis and hazard/mishap severity on the other axis. The hazard/mishap likelihood category is determined from the criteria stated in the Likelihood Table and the hazard/mishap severity category is determined from the criteria stated in the Severity Table. The Risk Level Table ranks each hazard into one of four risk levels (high, serious, medium, or low) based on the particular HRI matrix indices designated for the particular level. 

Table 7.2 Summary of risk ranking for one accident-likely scenario...

Table 5.5 Number of Occurrences of Risk Ranking Scores...

---