74
6 Justifying the Need for New Approaches
tions. RIDM and RBDM are preparatory processes, not crisis-time reactions. Indeed,
they should rely on adaptive hazards and risk registers that can easily update.
More frequent physical inspections are not always sufficient to identify risks and
manage safety. The inclusion of the quantification of mitigation efficiency in the risk
landscape is paramount. That means performing residual risk assessments. The goal
is to define a rational risk reduction roadmap.
Periodic comprehensive reviews of original design and construction and subsequent performance are imperative. These reviews should be based on complete
records and need to be more in-depth than periodic general reviews (need for risk
repository/documents databases), such as the FERC-mandated five-year reviews at
the time of the incident.
As soon as conditions change (https://www.riskope.com/2017/08/08/10commandments-for-resilient-design/#_blank) the risk landscape should reflect those
changes. Qualified individuals must give attention to appurtenant structures associated with dams, such as spillways, outlet works, power plants, etc. This attention
should be commensurate with the risks that the facilities pose to the public, the environment. Efforts should include risks associated with high consequence events which
may not result in uncontrolled release of reservoirs.
Compliance with regulatory requirements is not sufficient to manage risk and
meet dam owners’ legal and ethical responsibilities. Some of these general lessons
are self-evident. Others noted them before the IFT’s investigation of this incident. Also, to maintain SLO and a good CSR, the mere following regulatory compliance criteria (https://www.riskope.com/2011/02/23/why-legal-negligence-test-isnot-a-critical-test-for-an-operation/#_blank) is inadequate. Fostering continuous
communication and consultation including explanations of necessary risk trade-off
is paramount.
6.5 Common Practice Balances and Checks
6.5.1 Audits, Assessments and Reviews
A survey of corporate sustainability reports, corporate websites and government
requirements has shown very little commonality regarding the use of such terms.
The use of the term audit is generally clear although some audits rely on the use
of judgment to a qualified extent while other instances an activity described as an
audit is more of a review. The terms assessments and reviews, and sometimes evaluations, are used interchangeably and sometimes together. Some companies refer to
formal reviews or periodic reviews, which sounds good but gives no evidence of the
substance of the activity suggested.
Audits are typically described as the independent, formal, systematic and documented examination of an organization’s or facility’s performance with explicit,
agreed, prescribed criteria. To be effective audits need detailed protocols that provide
6 Justifying the Need for New Approaches
tions. RIDM and RBDM are preparatory processes, not crisis-time reactions. Indeed,
they should rely on adaptive hazards and risk registers that can easily update.
More frequent physical inspections are not always sufficient to identify risks and
manage safety. The inclusion of the quantification of mitigation efficiency in the risk
landscape is paramount. That means performing residual risk assessments. The goal
is to define a rational risk reduction roadmap.
Periodic comprehensive reviews of original design and construction and subsequent performance are imperative. These reviews should be based on complete
records and need to be more in-depth than periodic general reviews (need for risk
repository/documents databases), such as the FERC-mandated five-year reviews at
the time of the incident.
As soon as conditions change (https://www.riskope.com/2017/08/08/10commandments-for-resilient-design/#_blank) the risk landscape should reflect those
changes. Qualified individuals must give attention to appurtenant structures associated with dams, such as spillways, outlet works, power plants, etc. This attention
should be commensurate with the risks that the facilities pose to the public, the environment. Efforts should include risks associated with high consequence events which
may not result in uncontrolled release of reservoirs.
Compliance with regulatory requirements is not sufficient to manage risk and
meet dam owners’ legal and ethical responsibilities. Some of these general lessons
are self-evident. Others noted them before the IFT’s investigation of this incident. Also, to maintain SLO and a good CSR, the mere following regulatory compliance criteria (https://www.riskope.com/2011/02/23/why-legal-negligence-test-isnot-a-critical-test-for-an-operation/#_blank) is inadequate. Fostering continuous
communication and consultation including explanations of necessary risk trade-off
is paramount.
6.5 Common Practice Balances and Checks
6.5.1 Audits, Assessments and Reviews
A survey of corporate sustainability reports, corporate websites and government
requirements has shown very little commonality regarding the use of such terms.
The use of the term audit is generally clear although some audits rely on the use
of judgment to a qualified extent while other instances an activity described as an
audit is more of a review. The terms assessments and reviews, and sometimes evaluations, are used interchangeably and sometimes together. Some companies refer to
formal reviews or periodic reviews, which sounds good but gives no evidence of the
substance of the activity suggested.
Audits are typically described as the independent, formal, systematic and documented examination of an organization’s or facility’s performance with explicit,
agreed, prescribed criteria. To be effective audits need detailed protocols that provide