Hazard Identification. Hazard And RiskAssessment For A Ship When Surviving

Framing effects in risk communication messages – Hazard identification vs. risk assessment

Wireless sensor networks have become widely used in industrial automation systems due to their ease of deployment, flexibility, and cost-effectiveness. They provide real-time monitoring, diagnostics, and control of technological processes without the need for complex cabling infrastructure. However, the operation of wireless sensor networks in production environments is accompanied by risks associated with limited energy resources of nodes, the impact of electromagnetic interference, data transmission delays, the inability to guarantee communication stability, and vulnerability to cyberattacks. These threats are exacerbated in complex environments where equipment is located in hard-to-reach places, and the network has limited bandwidth and variable topology. Such conditions require the construction of multi-level structures for network health analysis, risk assessment, and adaptive management. The aim of the research is to develop two functional modules of a multi-level ontology:a risk assessment module and a network description module,that allow for an integrated analysis of threats, vulnerabilities, and wireless sensor network parameters, taking into account their changing state. The research methodology is based on the construction of formalized mathematical models: the network description is implemented through a graph representation with the parameters of nodes, connections, and their dynamics, while the risk assessment is performed using a multifactor model that takes into account theprobability of threats, the level of their impact, the criticality of network components, and external risks. The article presents examples of the application of modules based on typical production scenarios that demonstrate the relationship between the structural description of the network and the dynamic assessment of threats. Information from the network description module is used to calculate risks in real time, while the results of the risk analysis affect the dynamic adjustment of network operation parameters. The scientific novelty of the research lies in the integration of two formalized models within a single ontological system of risk-oriented wireless sensor network management. The practical significance lies in the possibility of implementing the proposed approaches in real industrial conditions to increase the reliability, flexibility, adaptability and information security of sensor networks. The proposed system is the basis for building self-adjusting smart networks capable of independently responding to changes in technical condition, threats and environmental parameters.

Risk assessment provides a proactive and logical ground for many decision-making processes. Although the approach of risk assessment nowadays is well established, it remains a relatively new research area, with increasing interest in understanding the principles that underpin the practice. In the review of computer models and literature on environmental risk assessments in general and the risk analysis of waste disposal sites in particular, the authors have determined that a comprehensive risk assessment methodology covering all modules and sub-modules for landfill leachate does not exist. The same fact holds for landfill gas and degraded landfill waste (although these are both beyond the scope of this paper). A range of knowledge deficiencies is identified in the literature. One such deficiency is the development of a strategic procedure for carrying out Hazard Identification and Categorization for risk assessment of landfill leachate, assisted with a corresponding computer model. This study, with reference to the relevant literature, discusses the extent to which the Hazard Identification and Categorization procedure is absent in landfill risk analysis approaches. The elements, which should be added to such a procedure in order to more effectively underpin landfill risk assessments, are also indicated.

Development of a Korean offshore wind power HSE risk assessment module based on systems engineering approach

At least 25% of coronary patients have sudden death or nonfatal myocardial infarction without prior symptoms.1 Therefore, the search for coronary patients with subclinical disease who could potentially benefit from intensive primary prevention efforts is critically important. The American Heart Association’s (AHA) Prevention V Conference, “Beyond Secondary Prevention: Identifying the High Risk Patient for Primary Prevention,” addressed ways to identify more patients who are asymptomatic and clinically free of coronary heart disease (CHD) but at sufficiently high risk for a future coronary event to justify more intensive risk reduction efforts.2 In this report, we amplify on key findings and recommendations of the AHA Prevention V conference, highlight new research since the conference, and propose an approach to the use of office-based testing and additional noninvasive procedures in selected patients to better define their coronary event risk. The recommendations are concordant with the recently released approach to risk assessment and management from the third report of the Adult Treatment Panel of the National Cholesterol Education Program (ATP-III).3 Enthusiasm for primary prevention and risk assessment in asymptomatic people has been spurred by recent advances in prevention research. Lipid-lowering trials demonstrated that primary prevention of coronary events is feasible, evidenced by the West of Scotland Coronary Primary Prevention Study (WOSCOPS) trial4 of hypercholesterolemic men and by the Air Force/Texas Coronary Atherosclerosis Prevention Study (AFCAPS/TexCAPS) trial5 in average or typical risk men and women with only moderate lipid abnormalities. Aspirin6 or ACE inhibitors7 can also reduce risk in selected asymptomatic, high-risk people. Emerging coronary risk factors have been described including inflammatory, infectious, and thrombotic markers,8 and there has been a steady flow of reports that focus attention on potential new ways of predicting coronary risk.9 In addition, noninvasive tests for subclinical atherosclerotic disease are available …

The purpose of the IARC Monograph series is to identify compounds and substances that pose a carcinogenic risk and to classify the risk according to the risk level. Essentially this is hazard identification. Hazard identification is the first step in the development of a quantitative risk assessment, which may be developed for different scenarios. This chapter will discuss these distinctions and their implications. Generally, risk assessment establishes a quantitative measure of how much risk is involved from a given level of exposure, and, based on this, defines what is considered a safe level or safe range of exposure. While working from hazard identification, risk assessment considers other issues such as conditions of exposure, the duration of exposure, the make-up of the exposed population, as, for example, workplace exposure vs. continuous exposure, exposure to the general public as opposed to the workplace, and other factors such as the needs of vulnerable groups, or years of quality life that may be lost. As is true with hazard identification, risk assessments can be modified as new information becomes available. These processes and issues will be specifically discussed with respect to the compounds identified as probable or potential carcinogens by IARC and published in Monograph 112. The discussion will also address such questions as risk assessment for the general public vs. risk assessment for those who are occupationally exposed.

Summary Risk assessments submitted to support proposals for offshore operations mustbe audited to ensure conformance with regulating authorities' safetyrequirements. This paper outlines the approach adopted by RM Consultants (RMC)Ltd. for auditing recent submissions to the U.K. Dept. of Energy forsimultaneous drilling and production (SDP) with jackup rigs cantilevered overgas production platforms. The principles are valid for risk-assessment auditsof other offshore installations. "The probability of occurrence must be estimated for each hazardousevent that is likely to harm personnel, the environment, or the installation. This process involves developing the logical relationships among the initiatingevents and combining these to estimate the accident probability." Introduction Probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) to Probabilistic risk assessment (PRA)to evaluate the potential for major accidents in offshore operations isgenerally accepted in the U.K. and Norway as a powerful technique for improvingsafety. It involves an analysis of the proposed operations to identifypotentially hazardous situations and further detailed studies to quantify theprobability and consequences of each unwanted probability and consequences ofeach unwanted event. Based on the results, measures can generally be introducedto improve the safety of the installation substantially. SDP "SDP" refers to such operations as tubing workovers performedsimultaneously with production. The U.K. authorities have production. The U.K.authorities have always had reservations regarding SDP because two hazardousactivities performed concurrently and in proximity are potentially morehazardous than either activity performed alone. Nevertheless, operators ofperformed alone. Nevertheless, operators of integrated drilling and productioninstallations in the oil province practice SDP and have always convinced theauthorities that such operations are safe. In the gas province, however, theposition is different. On the older gas platforms, the integrated drillingfacilities have been removed; operators use temporary package rigs or jackupsto drill and repair gas wells. The work is generally concentrated in thelow-demand period, with the platform shut down and the wells plugged downhole. Newer gas platforms have been built without integrated drilling facilities, sooperators also use jackups for drilling and workover on these platforms. Inthese cases, the drilling rig is cantilevered over the main platform, anddrilling or workover occurs from platform, and drilling or workover occurs fromthe jackup through slots in the wellhead platform. platform. Neither platformnor jackup is designed with the other installation specifically in mind. Therefore, a range of special problemssuch as the complicated managementproblemssuch as the complicated management of two hazardous activities;temporary integration of power, control, and safety equipment; and thevulnerability of the twinned installation to a major hydrocarbon releaseneed tobe considered. Consequently, the Dept. of Energy requested a PRA with properlyconducted hazard and operability properly conducted hazard and operabilitystudies (HAZOP's) and a hazard analysis (HAZAN) to support any proposalinvolving such special operations as SDP. PRA PRA PRA involves identification of all possible PRA involvesidentification of all possible things that can go wrong on an installation andthe characterization of these events to quantify the risks. The assessmentresults are compared with target results based on past experience. If thepredicted risks are past experience. If the predicted risks are unacceptable, then efforts are directed toward risk reduction. This can be achieved byreducing the consequences of the major hazards or by reducing the probabilitiesof their occurrence. The two main risk-assessment techniques are HAZOP andHAZAN. These involve different phases of the risk-assessment process, whichtypically includes the following process, which typically includes thefollowing stages:identification and ranking of for hazards,evaluationof consequences of each potentially hazardous event,quantification ofprobability of each event,comparison of risks (consequences andprobabilities) against threshold of acceptability, andintroduction ofmeasures to reduce risks in areas where hazards are unacceptably high. Hazard Identification. Safety-related hazards are identified by use of checklists based on accidentstatistics, experience in the industry, and HAZOP's. Hazards can he eitherresults of external causes or process-related. A checklist of external hazardsnoted by the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate for offshore Petroleum Directoratefor offshore installations includes blowouts, fires and explosions, fallingobjects, ship and helicopter collisions, earthquakes, extreme weatherconditions, other possible relevant types of accident, and relevantcombinations of these accidents. These hazards clearly need consideration inany risk assessment of SDP. JPT P. 1241

Risk assessment, consisting of hazard identification and risk analysis, is an important process that can prevent costly incidents. However, due to operational pressures and lack of construction experience, risk assessments are frequently poorly conducted. In order to improve the quality of risk assessments in the construction industry, it is important to explore the use of artificial intelligence methods to ensure that the process is efficient and at the same time thorough. This paper describes the adaptation process of a case-based reasoning (CBR) approach for construction safety hazard identification. The CBR approach aims to utilize past knowledge in the form of past hazard identification and incident cases to improve the efficiency and quality of new hazard identification. The overall approach and retrieval mechanism are described in earlier papers. This paper is focused on the adaptation process for hazard identification. Using the proposed CBR approach, for a new work scenario (the input case), a most relevant hazard identification tree and a set of incident cases will be retrieved to facilitate hazard identification. However, not all information contained in these cases are relevant. Thus, less relevant information has to be pruned off and all the retrieved information has to be integrated into a hazard identification tree. The proposed adaptation is conducted in three steps: (1) pruning of the retrieved hazard identification tree; (2) pruning of the incident cases; and (3) insertion of incident cases into the hazard identification tree. The adaptation process is based on the calculation of similarity scores of indexes. A case study based on actual hazard identifications and incident cases is used to validate the feasibility of the proposed adaptation techniques.

Hospitals are complex places with a large number of employees, patients, furniture, equipment, etc. Healthcare workers (HCWs), patients, or the general public are vulnerable to injuries and illness due to unseen hazards at the workplace. This study aims to identify the hazards and assess the risks at a hospital to ensure safety for HCWs, patients, and the public and generate awareness about the same. It helps in reducing the financial obligation of the institution due to the treatment of illnesses of staff, absenteeism, and service disruption and slows down manpower turnover. Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (HIRA) helps reduce human errors and promote safe behavior. This study aims to identify and study the hazards in a hospital, assess the risks associated with the hazards, and recommend methods to reduce or eliminate the hazards based on the outcomes of the study. An observational study was conducted at a 1000-bed tertiary-level teaching public sector hospital in eastern India. A checklist was used for direct observation, conducting staff interviews, and document reviews. A risk scoring tool was used, and hazards were ranked as per the risk score. Thirty-eight hazards were identified in the study and classified under the categories of natural, physical, chemical, biological, ergonomic, psychological, and safety. The fire risk and occurrence of cyclones had the highest risk scores. The study identified hazards through direct observations, record reviews, and staff interviews. These findings can guide the prioritization of areas requiring necessary action in risk reduction, ensuring a safe workplace for healthcare workers (HCWs), patients, and the public. They can also help the institution shift from a reactive approach to a proactive method for HCW safety.

Chapter 11: Terrestrial vertebrates

Introduction In every working area, assets are exposed to risk of various harms. In the information technology area, there is risk of damaging or losing resources. Risk assessment is a process that determines what information resources require protection, and it documents potential risks from IT security failures that may cause loss of information confidentiality, integrity, or availability. The purpose of risk assessment is to help management create appropriate strategies and controls for the steering of information assets (BSI Standard 100-1,2,3), (ENISA Regulation). IT resources are tangible assets (such as hardware, equipment, buildings), data, documents, software, users, and intangible resources (reputation, confidence, etc.) Management of the information system (IS) is a component of the company management and makes its inherent part. The planning of the continuity of IS operation and development must be entirely coordinated with the same activities on the company level. Both short-term and long-term strategies must be harmonized within the framework of business, development, changes, and planning. Risk management and its maintenance on an acceptable level is part of the work process and its development. Its basic characteristic must be continuity (Nikolic, 2007). The chosen acceptable risk level after the implementation of particular measures also means a decision on balance referring to costs concerning the achievement of the selected risk level and benefits, i.e., profit of the company. Methodology The methodology of risk assessment implies recognized procedure (Macdonald, 2004), detailed system description, identification of hazards, defining causes of emphasized hazards, risk assessment, measures for risk reduction and mitigation, risk reassessment according to remaining hazards, and conducting measures for maintaining risk at an accepted level. Figure 1 displays the methodology of risk assessment with elements of the risk management system. Risk assessment in the IT area can be conducted by way of various methods. We use the method established and developed by our expert team (Nikolic & Laban 2008). The method was created for the occupational health and safety area, and is successfully applied in the IT area as described in Nikolic and Ruzic-Dimitrijevic (2009). This method enables the achievement of one of the main goals of risk assessment: risk assessment for every employee, workplace, and work environment, i.e., the assessment of all risks. The work environment can be a company, building, floor, or office. It can also be a plant, building site, park, field, or any system, as well as an information system and its components, such as hardware, communication equipment (network), and system software. The workplace in an information system is application software with data as final products, and it can be considered in the same way as in the occupational health and safety area. IT resources are buildings, hardware, communication equipment, software, data, and, of course, people who take part in IT processes. Risk assessment is carried out on more levels (items in the work environment). Software also has several levels--environmental software, operating system, program supported application, and finally a single application--as well as the data used and gained in application executing. Risk assessment of each level involves conducting appropriate protective measures in order to obtain the layered protection. Therefore, the risk assessment of an information system (IS) is conducted through the risk assessment of every application and through the evaluation of the system's state. Risk identification involves the knowledge about the organization (internal and external), as well as earlier experiences about risk issues. The evaluation of risk classifies risk in certain categories (quantitative and/or qualitative) according to which adequate measures are carried out. …

Risk assessment of the impact of the enterprise's activities on the environment includes risk assessment of the impact of the activity on the health of the population. Risk as the probability of undesirable events is an integral component of any person's life. Risk characterization integrates data on the danger of the analyzed chemical substances, the amount of exposure, parameters of "dose-response" dependence, with the aim of quantitative and qualitative assessment of risk, identification and assessment of the comparative significance of existing problems for the health of the population. In scientific terms, hazard identification is the process of establishing a causal relationship between the action of a chemical substance and the development of adverse effects on human health. The main goal of the hazard identification stage is the selection of priority, indicator chemical substances, the study of which allows to reliably characterize the sources of occurrence and the level of risk of public health impairment. Assessment of dose-response relationships is a process of quantitative characterization of toxicological information and establishment of a relationship between the likely influencing dose (concentration) of a pollutant and the incidence of adverse events in the exposed population. Characteristics of "dose-response" dependence, which are most often used to assess carcinogenic risk, have been sufficiently studied in epidemiological studies. Among them is the factor of carcinogenic potential (ICS), which reflects the probability of the development of a harmful reaction when the dose (concentration) increases by 1 mg/kg or 1 mg/m3 per exposure level, associated with a certain probability of effect (the indicators of this group are used for establishment of reference, i.e., reference doses and concentrations). The individual carcinogenic risk characterizes the upper limit of possible carcinogenic risk during the period corresponding to the average life expectancy of a person (70 years). Today, in the world, the classification and assessment of the acceptable risk to the health of the population caused by the chemical influence of chemical substances that pollute the environment is quite wide. the system of acceptance criteria recommended by WHO is used. In accordance with these criteria, the first range of risk (individual lifetime risk equal to or less than 1·10-6, which also corresponds to an additional case of serious illness or death per 1 million exposed persons) characterizes such levels of risk as are perceived by all strata population as quite small, which do not differ from ordinary everyday risks (De minimas level). Such risks do not require additional measures to reduce them and their levels are subject to periodic control. The second range (greater than 1·10-6 and less than 1·10-4) corresponds to the zone of conditionally accepted (acceptable) risk. It is at this level that most of the foreign and recommended by international organizations hygienic standards for the population as a whole are established. Levels of suitable risk belong to constant control. The third range (greater than 1·10-4 and less than 1·10-3) is suitable for professionals and unsuitable for the general population. The emergence of such a level of risk requires the development and implementation of planned health measures. The fourth range (equal to or greater than 1·10-3) is unsuitable neither for the population nor for professionals. This range is designated as De manifestis Risk, and when it is reached, it is necessary to carry out emergency health measures to reduce the risk on the part of the city authorities. During the assessment of the risk to the health of the population of Zaporizhzhia from the emissions of PJSC "Ukrgrafit", priority pollutants were identified: carbon oxides, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, substances in the form of suspended solid particles of undifferentiated composition. Hazard indices were determined for individual HQ substances (non-carcinogenic risks) and in the case of combined exposure to HI, individual carcinogenic risks (ICR) and combined exposure (CRa) were calculated. Assessment of long-term effects (at the level of average annual concentration) on human health of the investigated substances. allowing to assess the chronic inhalation effect of the occurrence of negative effects in the health of the exposed population during the lifetime for the assessment and characterization of multistage risk showed that the hazard indices (HQ) do not exceed the norms.

Number 677002 Oil spills from commercial vessels are low probability, high consequence events that threaten economic, ecological, cultural, and natural resources. Washington State Department of Ecology Spill's Program (Ecology) has a robust risk assessment program that focuses on identifying and reducing oil spill risks to Washington waters. In 2017-2018, Ecology developed and implemented a novel application of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) Formal Safety Assessment process to lead a collaborative Hazard Identification for oil spill risk in Grays Harbor, Washington. This use of the IMO Formal Safety Assessment Process to assess oil spill risk was a first for Washington State and appears to be unique among US state governments. Working with area tribes, government agencies, and stakeholders, Ecology modified the IMO Formal Safety Assessment process to focus on local factors that could contribute to oil spill risks. Ecology facilitated structured brainstorming discussions during two workshops to complete Hazard Identification. Focusing on local factors fostered collaborative discussion among workshop participants, and allowed the process to benefit from local expertise about the characteristics of waterway and operational practices. The workshops resulted in the identification of 43 local factors related to oil spill risks, 34 recommendations to reduce risks based on current vessel traffic, and 10 recommendations to consider if vessel traffic increases in the future. The recommendations from this assessment are directly informing operations in Grays Harbor; in 2019, the Grays Harbor Safety Committee voted to adopt the risk assessment final report as an addendum to their Harbor Safety Plan. Ecology is also working with area tribes, government agencies, and stakeholders to review and prioritize the risk assessment recommendations with a goal of developing implementation plans for selected measures. This application of the IMO Formal Safety Assessment process represents a repeatable, scalable, and defensible method for conducting oil spill risk assessments. Ecology plans to use this process in other state waterways, and invites other organizations to consider adopting these methods. The presentation will walk through how to apply this process for localized waterway risk assessments and discuss best practices for success. Additionally, Ecology will discuss new risk analysis initiatives directed by the Washington State Legislature, including development of a quantitative model for evaluating oil spill risk and the potential effect of risk reduction measures.

Chapter 29 - Risk Assessment

Shallow slope failures are one of the most frequent geological hazards in mountainous areas, which pose great danger to people and properties in affected areas. This paper presents a cell-based platform for quantitative risk assessment for shallow slope failures at a regional scale. There are five components in this platform; namely, a digital terrain module, a spatial rainfall distribution module, a slope stability and reliability evaluation module, a movement prediction module, and a risk assessment module. The locations and volumes of the slope failures are estimated using the slope stability and reliability evaluation module. The movement prediction module is used to predict the potential movement traces of the detached material, which moves along the steepest path. The risks of the slope failures are finally assessed using the risk assessment module, which can be used as an indicator for early warning. The vulnerability of a person to slope failure is determined by the volume of slope failure and angle of reach. The platform is applied to a 164.5 km2hilly terrain in the Wenchuan earthquake zone to test its performance in quantitative risk assessment for regional shallow slope failures. The platform evaluates the risks of shallow slope failures at a regional scale efficiently.