The science and superstition of quantitative risk assessment

11th International Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management Conference and the Annual European Safety and Reliability Conference 2012, PSAM11 ESREL 2012

Volumn 3, Issue , 2012, Pages 2292-2301

  Rae, Andrew ^a   McDermid, John ^a   Alexander, Rob ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

PRA; QRA; Research validation; System safety

Indexed keywords

EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE; FINANCIAL REGULATIONS; HUMAN REASONING; IF THERE ARE; LOGICAL REASONING; PRA; PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT; QRA; QUANTITATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT; RESEARCH VALIDATION; SYSTEM SAFETY;

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS; RISK ASSESSMENT;

ACCIDENT PREVENTION;

EID: 84873178412     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (46)

1. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth ed. Houghton Mifflin, 2000.
2. Committee on the Institutional Means for Assessment of Risks to Public Health, National Research Council, Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 1983.
3. Health and Safety Executive, Reducing Risk Protecting People. HSEBooks, 2001.
4. C. A. Cornell, 'Bayesian Statistical Decision Theory and Reliability-Based Design', Structural Safety and Reliability, no. 254, 1972.
5. N. Siu and Dorothy Collins, 'PRA Research and the Development of Risk Informed Regulation at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commision', Nuclear Energy and Technology, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 349-364, Aug. 2008.
6. G. O. Robinson, 'Probabilistic Causation and Compensation for Tortious Risk', J. Legal Stud., vol. 14, p. 779, 1985.
7. W. Rochelle, J. Marichalar, and N. Johnson, 'Analysis of reentry survivability of UARS spacecraft', Advances in Space Research, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 1049-1054, 2004.
8. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 'Reactor Safety Study: An Assessment of Accident Risks in U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants'. Oct-1975.
9. Environmental Protection Agency, 'Organophosphorous Cumulative Risk Assessment'. 31-Jul-2006.
10. G. M. H. Department for Transport, 'European Railway Safety Directive', 23-Oct-2007. [Online]. Available:http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/Safety/ ersd[Accessed: 06-Apr-2011].
11. ISO - International Organization for Standardization, 'Safety Aspects: Guidelines for their Inclusion in Standards', ISO/IEC Guide 51, 1999.
12. A. Rae and R. Hawkins, 'Risk Assessment in the Wild', presented at the Australian Safety Critical Systems (submitted), Brisbane, 2012.
13. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, 'Severe Accident Risks: An Assessment for Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants - Final Summary Report', United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1150, Dec. 1990.
14. M Levenson and F Rahn, 'Realistic Risk Estimates', IAEA Bulletin, vol. 23, no. 4, 1981.
15. European Chemicals Bureau, 'Risk Assessment Report - 4-nonylphenol (branched) and nonylphenol'. European Communities, 2002.
16. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 'Determining the Technical Adequacy of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Results for Risk-Informed Activities (NUREG-0800, Chapter 19.1)'. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Nov-2002.
17. T. Aven, Misconceptions of Risk. Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.
18. S. O. Hansson, 'Seven Myths of Risk', Risk Management, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 7-17, Jan. 2005.
19. R. D. Alexander and T. P. Kelly, 'Escaping the Non-Quantitative Trap', in Proceedings of the 27th International System Safety Conference, 2009.
20. S. R. Watson, 'The meaning of probability in probabilistic safety analysis', Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 261-269, 1994.
21. G. E. Apostolakis, 'How Useful Is Quantitative Risk Assessment?', Risk Analysis, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 515-520, Jun. 2004.
22. A. J. Rae, M. Nicholson, and R. . Alexander, 'The State of Practice in System Safety Research Evaluation', presented at the IET System Safety, Manchester, 2010.
23. M. Manion, 'The epistemology of fault tree analysis: an ethical critique', International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management, vol. 7, no. 3, 2007.
24. G. Mauri, 'Integrating Safety Analysis Techniques, Supporting Identification of Common Cause Failures', PhD, University of York, York, 2000.
25. Jon Danielsson, 'Blame the Models', Journal of Financial Stablity, Jun. 2008.
26. E. K. Silbergeld, 'Risk assessment: the perspective and experience of U.S. environmentalists', Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 101, pp. 100-104, Jun. 1993.
27. M. Peter, 'Reducing the harms associated with risk assessments', Environmental Impact Assessment Review, vol. 24, no. 7-8, pp. 733-748, Oct. 2004.
28. B. Fischhoff, P. Slovic, and S. Lichtenstein, Fault Trees: Sensitivity of Estimated Failure Probabilities to Problem Representation. Defense Technical Information Center, 1977.
29. C. R. Fox and R. T. Clemen, 'Subjective Probability Assessment in Decision Analysis: Partition Dependence and Bias toward the Ignorance Prior', Management Science, vol. 51, no. 9, pp. 1417- 1432, 2005.
30. J. A. List, 'Do Explicit Warnings Eliminate the Hypothetical Bias in Elicitation Procedures? Evidence from Field Auctions for Sportscards', The American Economic Review, vol. 91, no. 5, pp. 1498-1507, Dec. 2001.
31. K. Bawn, 'Political Control Versus Expertise: Congressional Choices about Administrative Procedures', The American Political Science Review, vol. 89, no. 1, pp. 62-73, Mar. 1995.
32. C. A. Catino and L. H. Ungar, 'Model-based approach to automated hazard identification of chemical plants', AIChE Journal, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 97-109, Jan. 1995.
33. G. Carter and S. D. Smith, 'Safety Hazard Identification on Construction Projects', Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, vol. 132, no. 2, pp. 197-205, Feb. 2006.
34. J. Suokas and P. Pyy, 'Evaluation of the validity of four hazard identification methods with event descriptions', 1988.
35. J. A. Beer, 'The True Significance of Common Cause Failures in Accidents', Masters Thesis, University of York, United Kingdom, 2011.
36. J. Joyce and K. Wong, 'Hazard-Driven Testing of Safety-Related Software', presented at the 21st International System Safety Conference, Ottawa, 2003.
37. Leveson, 'A new accident model for engineering safer systems', Safety Science, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 237-270, 2004.
38. C. Perrow, 'Fukushima, risk, and probability: Expect the unexpected', Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 01-Apr-2011.
39. D. Reinhardt, 'TBD', Draft PhD Thesis, University of York, 2012.
40. J. Rasmussen, 'Risk Management in a Dynamic Society: a Modelling Problem', Safety Science, vol. 27, no. 2-3, pp. 183-213, 1997.
41. Hanea, Ale, Jagtman, Safety Science Group, and TU Delft, 'Human Risk of Fire: Building a decision support tool using Bayesian networks'. 27-Nov-2009.
42. A. Mosleh, V. M. Bier, and G. Apostolakis, 'A critique of current practice for the use of expert opinions in probabilistic risk assessment', Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 63-85, 1988.
43. A. J. Rae and M. Nicholson, 'Making robust ALARP decisions for in-service systems', 2009, p. 1A2- 1A2.
44. M. D. Watkins and M. Bazerman, 'Predictable Surprises: The Disasters You Should Have Seen Coming', Harvard Business Review, Mar. 2003.
45. H. W. Lewis, R. J. Budnitz, W. D. Rowe, H. J. C. Kouts, F. von Hippel, W. B. Loewenstein, and F. Zachariasen, 'Risk Assessment Review Group Report to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission', IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 4686-4690, 1979.
46. C. Perrow, Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies, Updated. Princeton University Press, 1999.