Qualification of Formal Safety Assessment: An exploratory study

Safety Science

Volumn 42, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 99-120

  Rosqvist, Tony ^a   Tuominen, Risto ^a  

^a VTT TECHNICAL RESEARCH CENTRE OF FINLAND   (Finland)

Author keywords

Expert judgement; Formal safety assessment; FSA; FSA qualification; Precautionary decision making; Risk informed decision making

Indexed keywords

FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION; LAWS AND LEGISLATION; SAFETY FACTOR;

FORMAL SAFETY ASSESSMENT (FSA);

ACCIDENT PREVENTION;

ACCIDENT PREVENTION; ACCURACY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; HAZARD ASSESSMENT; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; ORGANIZATION; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; RISK MANAGEMENT; SAFETY; SHIPPING;

EID: 0345293327     PISSN: 09257535     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0925-7535(03)00005-5     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Anderson, E.L., Hattis, D., 1999. Uncertainty and variability. In: Haimes, Y.Y., Lambert, J.H. (Eds.), When and How Can You Specify a Probability Distribution When You Don't Know Much? Part II. Risk Analysis 19(1), 47-49.
2. Bier, V.M., 2001. On the state of art: risk commmunication to decision-makers. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 71(2), 151-157.
3. Budnitz, R., Apostolakis, G., Boore, D., Cluff, L., Coppersmith, K., Cornell, A., Morris., P. 1998. Use of technical panels: applications to probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. Risk Analysis, 18(4), 463-469.
4. Chhibber, S., Apostolakis, G., Okrent, D. 1992. A taxonomy of issues related to the use of expert judgments in probabilistic safety studies. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 38(), 27-45.
5. Conrad, S., Ferson, S., 1999. Decision Making. In: Haimes, Y.Y., Lambert, J.H. (Eds.), When and How Can You Specify a Probability Distribution When You Don't Know Much? Part II. Risk Analysis 19(1), 63-68.
6. Cooke R.M. Experts in Uncertainty. 1991;Oxford University Press, Oxford.
7. Cooke, R.M., 1995. Unicorn: Methods and Code for Uncertainty Analysis. Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Mathematics, Delft, Netherlands.
8. Cooke, R.M., Goossens, L.J.H., 2000. Procedures Guide for Structured Expert Judgment. European Commission, Nuclear Science and Technology, EURATOM, EUR 18820, Luxembourg.
9. Cost-benefit analysis of existing bulk carriers: a case study on application of Formal Safety Assessment techniques. DNV Paper series No. 97-P008. 1997;DNV, Oslo.
10. Formal Safety Assessment of Helicopter Landing Area on Passenger Ships as a Safety Measure (DNV Report No. 97-2053). 1997;DNV, Oslo.
11. Donaldson T., Preston L. The stakeholder theory of corporation. concepts, evidence and implications Academy of Management Review. 20(1):1995;65-91.
12. French, S., Bedford, T., Atherton, E., 2001. Supporting ALARP decision-making by Cost Benefit Analysis and Multi-Attribute Utility Theory. Management Science. (Research paper no. 2001/15). Available from http://www.managementscience.org/research/ab0115.asp.
13. Gilfillan, A. 2002. Stakeholder Analysis - the key to defining who pays for legislation. In: Proc. of the Intl. Conf. on Formal Safety Assessment - Royal Institution of Naval Arcitects, London, 18-19 September.
14. Guida, G., Baroni, P.,Cojazzi,G.Pinola, L. Sardella, R. 1996. Preliminary requirements for a knowledge engineering approach to expert judgement elicitation in probabilistic safety assessment. In: Cacciabue, P.C., Papazoglou, I.A. (Eds.), Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management - Esrel 96 & PSAM III, 24-28 June, Crete, Greece.
15. Quantified Risk Assessment: Its Input to Decision Making. 1989;HMSO Books, London.
16. Holmberg J.-E., Pulkkinen U. Experience from the comparison of two PSA-studies. 2001;Nordic Nuclear Safety Research, NKS-36, Roskilde, Denmark.
17. Holmberg, J.-E., Pulkkinen, U., Rosqvist, T. Simola, K. 2002. Analysis of decision criteria in PSA applications. In: Bonano, E.J., Camp, A.L., Majors, M.J., Thompson, R.A. (Eds.), Probabilistic Safety assessment and Management - PSAM6, 23-28 June, Puerto Rico, USA.
18. Formal Safety Assessment: interim guidelines for FSA application to the IMO rule-making process (MEPC 40/16). 1997;IMO, London.
19. Formal Safety Assessment: trial application to high speed catamaran vessels (DE 41/INF,7). 1997;IMO, London.
20. An interim report on FSA study on bulk carrier safety (MSC 72/INF,7&8). 2000;International Maritime Organization, London.
21. Safety of Bulk Carriers - basis of the international collaborative Formal Safety Assessment study (MSC 72/INF,18). 2000;IMO, London.
22. Keeney R., von Winterfeldt D. Eliciting probabilities from experts in complex technical problems, IEEE Trans. Engineering Management. 38(3):1991;191-201.
23. Kuo, C., 2002. Proposing an Enhanced FSA with a Management System. In: Proc. of the Intl. Conf. on Formal Safety Assessment - Royal Institution of Naval Arcitects, London, 18-19 September.
24. Kristiansen, S., Soma, T., 2001. Formal Safety Assessment of Commercial Ships - status and unresolved problems. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Safety and Reliability - ESREL 2001, Politecnico di Torino, Italy, 16-20 September, vol. 3, pp. 1651-1658.
25. Mankamo T., Pörn K., Holmberg J. Uses of Risk Importance Measures, VTT Technical Report: Research Notes 1245. 1991;VTT, Espoo, Finland.
26. Matalas, N., Bier, V., 1999. Extremes, extrapolation, and surprise. In: Haimes, Y.Y., Lambert, J.H. (Eds.), When and How Can You Specify a Probability Distribution When You Don't Know Much? Part II. Risk Analysis 19(1), 49-54.
27. Melchers R.E. On the ALARP approach to risk management. Reliability Engineering & System Safety. 71(2):2001;201-208.
28. Mosleh A., Apostolakis G. Models for the use of expert opinions. Waller R.A., Covello V.T. Low Probability High Consequence Risk Analysis. 1984;Plenum Press, New York.
29. Formal Safety Assessment (MSC 66/14). 1993;IMO, London.
30. Nielsen T., Aven T. Models and model uncertainty in the context of risk analysis. Reliability Engineering and System Safety. 79(3):2003;309-317.
31. Nyman T., Sonninen S., Hänninen S., Rytkönen J., Tuominen R., Rosqvist T., Riska K., Juva M., Palonen A. The Implementation of the VTMIS-system for the Gulf of Finland (Research Report VAL34-013153). 2002;VTT Industrial Systems, Espoo, Finland.
32. Øien K., Hokstad P.R. Handbook for Performing Expert Judgement (Report STF38 A98419). 1999;SINTEF Industrial Management, Trondheim, Norway.
33. Okstad, E., Hokstad, P., 2001. Risk assesment and use of acceptance criteria for the regulation of dangerous substances. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Safety and Reliability - ESREL 2001, Politecnico di Torino, Italy, 16-20 September, vol. 1, pp. 117-124.
34. Peachey J. Formal Safety Assessment for Shipping: Developing its Potential at the IMO. 1997;MSA, Southampton.
35. Peachey, J., 2002. FSA: five small steps, but whither the leap. In: Proc. of the Intl. Conf. on Formal Safety Assessment - Royal Institution of Naval Arcitects, London, 18-19 September.
36. Phillips L., Phillips M. Facilitated work groups. theory and practice J. Opl. Res. Soc. 44(6):1993;533-549.
37. Pulkkinen U. Methods for combination of expert judgements. Reliability Engineering and System Safety. 40:1993;111-118.
38. Rosqvist T., Tuominen R., Jalonen J., Salmikuukka J., Reunanen M. Formal Safety Assessment: Trial Application of FSA to the Transportation of Dangerous Goods on Passenger/ro-ro Cargo Vessels (Report VAL B353). 1998;VTT Automation, Tampere, Finland.
39. Rosqvist T., Tuominen R., Reunanen M., Laaksonen R., Rintala S., Sukselainen J. FSA Study on Transportation of Iron Ore Concentrate by Pusher-barges on the Luleå-Raahe route (Report RIS C130). 2001;VTT Automation, Tampere, Finland.
40. Stirling, A., Renn, O., Rip, A., Salo, A., 1999. On Science and Precaution in the Management of Technological Risk. Final Report for the WC Forward Studies, Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Sussex.
41. Suokas J., Rouhiainen V. Quality Management of Safety and Risk Analysis. 1993;Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
42. Tversky A., Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty. heuristics and biases Science. 185:1974;124-1131.
43. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC), 1998. An Approach for Plant-specific, Risk-Informed Decisions on Plant-specific Changes to the Licensing Basis (Regulatory Guide 1.174). Washington, DC.
44. Wang J. The current status and future aspects in formal ship safety assessment. Safety Science. 38:2001;19-30.
45. Zio E., Apostolakis G. Two methods for the structured assessment of model uncertainty by experts in performance assessments of radioactive waste repositories. Reliability Engineering and System Safety. 54(2-3):1996;225-241.