Decide on Need for Action - DOE-HDBK-1100-20040034

DOE-HDBK-1100-2004

3.2.8 Decide on Need for Action

Regardless of the PrHA methodology, the team evaluates each accident scenario to determine

whether design and/or operating changes are needed to further protect onsite workers. These

judgments are usually based on risk rather than on either likelihood of occurrence or severity of

consequences. For example, an event such as a seal water leak may be quite likely, but if the

consequences are negligible, no safety-improvement recommendations are warranted.

Similarly, if the consequences of a given accident are severe but the likelihood of occurrence is

remote, then no safety-improvement recommendations may be warranted.

Qualitative evaluation often places the risk associated with each accident scenario into one of

three categories: (a) the risk is too high, or a code violation is uncovered, such that design

and/or operating changes are clearly warranted; (b) the risk is trivial or negligible, such that

changes are clearly not warranted; or (c) the risk is borderline, and the decision is not clear-cut.

In the last case, closer examination is needed to better define the accident scenario itself, its

likelihood of occurrence, or the severity of its consequences. This closer examination can take

the form of field inspections, examination of historical records, operator interviews, material

testing, consequence modeling, and/or the use of more rigorous analysis methods, such as

quantitative FTA

3.3

Presentation of Results

The critical results of a PrHA are a list of action items. Action items are written by the PrHA

team any time additional effort is warranted to further analyze a specific accident scenario,

eliminate the hazard, or reduce risks. Action items are not usually specific corrective actions.

Rather, they alert management to potential problems that require action. Sometimes, action

items suggest alternatives or recommend safety improvements. However, if a problem is

simple, if a PrHA team is quite experienced, or if there is only one solution, an action item may

recommend a specific corrective action.

All action items are presented to management for review and evaluation, and for determination

of what, if any, corrective actions should be taken to eliminate hazards or reduce risks. Because

many action items may be generated during a PrHA, the team may choose to rank the items

according to the probability of occurrence and/or the severity of the consequences of their

corresponding accident scenarios.

If the PrHA team is quite experienced, they may rank the action items according to the

anticipated time and resources needed to implement changes. Or the team may make safety

improvement and implementation recommendations. Ranking of action items or safety

improvement recommendations may be valuable to management in several ways. It shows the

significance that the PrHA team places on each item. It also allows management to prioritize

the immediate efforts of corrective action and resolution. If resources are scarce, the ranking

may affect the implementation schedule.