# Rapid Risk Assessment in Industry: Increasing Awareness of Worker Safety in Industrial Activities
## 3 Results and Discussion
### Steps in Applying the EL-PRAI Method  
The steps to be followed in such identification, estimation, evaluation, and control solutions are presented in the block diagram shown in Figure 4.  
Knowing the activity and observing the workers, the equipment they work with, and the working environment, the evaluation team will identify hazards: \"Q1--What can harm the workers?\"  
After identifying the hazards, the team will identify the risks that each hazard can generate (there may be multiple risks generated by the same hazard). Then, the evaluation team will identify possible hazardous situations in which workers may find themselves: \"Q2--How, where, and when can harm to workers occur?\" And in response to the question \"Q3--What could be the consequences?\" the team will be able to answer by understanding the nature of the hazard well. Based on the answers to these questions, for each identified risk, the maximum foreseeable consequence is established, which is determined by the nature of the hazard generating that particular risk. Establishing the maximum foreseeable consequence helps immediately estimate severity on the corresponding scale, presented in Table 1.  
When establishing the maximum foreseeable consequences, existing preventive and protective measures will not be taken into account since, for various reasons, these measures may not fulfill their protective function, and thus, harm can occur at the maximum foreseeable consequence. Usually, these preventive measures aim to reduce the probability of harm by keeping the hazard under control, but if the hazard escapes control, we must consider the maximum foreseeable consequence, meaning we go for the worst-case scenario. After estimating the maximum foreseeable severity of the harm, the evaluation team will identify preventive and protective measures for each identified risk and then assess the effectiveness of these measures in controlling the respective risk. The question \"Q4--What could go wrong?\" leads to identifying possible scenarios in which various triggering events can occur and can lead to the hazard escaping control. Figure 4: Block diagram representing the main steps in applying the EL-PRAI method. It will be analyzed whether existing preventive measures cover these scenarios and also if any deficiencies or vulnerabilities can facilitate triggering events to appear. The degree of influence of these deficiencies upon the hazard will be estimated according to Table 2. Once these elements are identified, Equation (2) is applied, and the occurrence probability is estimated. Knowing the severity and probability elements, the risk matrix estimates the risk level. The risk is assessed according to preestablished safety criteria. The results can be obtained automatically using software applications, as seen in Figure 5.  
Based on the results of the risk assessment, a decision is made regarding the implementation of preventive and protective measures. The effectiveness of reactive protection is analyzed while answering \"Q5--What happens if the danger gets out of control?\"  
It is possible to have some deficiencies in the system. These deficiencies need to be identified, as they have a significant contribution to the probability of the hazard escaping control. Deficiencies should not be confused with triggering events. The difference is that deficiencies exist and can be identified during the risk assessment, whereas triggering events, although identified in risk scenarios, are not always present and do not manifest at the time of assessment. Table 6 shows the impact that these deficiencies can have in situations involving hazards with catastrophic impact as well as medium impact. From Table 6, it can be observed that deficiencies can significantly contribute to the occurrence of an accident event. Moreover, deficiencies can affect workplace safety even when periodic controls are made.