159:
For example, without specifying an uncertainty level, the
Japanese regulatory body, the Nuclear Safety Commission issued restrictive safety goal in terms of qualitative health objectives in 2003, such that individual fatality risks should not exceed 10/year. Then it was translated in a safety goal
82:
The spectrum of risks across classes of events are also of concern, and are usually controlled in licensing processes – it would be of concern if rare but high consequence events were found to dominate the overall risk, particularly as these risk assessments are very sensitive to assumptions (how
208:, contribute to undervaluate or completely ignore this type of remote safety risk-factors. Designers choose if the system has to be dimensioned and positioned at the mean or for the minimum level of probability-risk (with related costs of safety measures), for being
199:
The second point is a possible lack of design in order to prevent and mitigate the catastrophic events, which has the lowest probability of the event and biggest magnitude of the impact, and the lowest degree of uncertainty about their magnitude. A
93:
What and how severe are the potential detriments, or the adverse consequences that the technological entity (or the ecological system in the case of a PERA) may be eventually subjected to as a result of the occurrence of the
128:
while CCF deals with methods for evaluating the effect of inter-system and intra-system dependencies which tend to cause simultaneous failures and thus significant increase in overall risk.
90:
What can go wrong with the studied technological entity or stressor, or what are the initiators or initiating events (undesirable starting events) that lead to adverse consequence(s)?
136:
One point of possible objection interests the uncertainties associated with a PSA. The PSA (Probabilistic Safety
Assessment) has often no associated uncertainty, though in
67:
Consequences are expressed numerically (e.g., the number of people potentially hurt or killed) and their likelihoods of occurrence are expressed as
223:, including earth quake and tsunami, fire, and terrorist attacks, and are treated as a probabilistic argument. Changing historical context shall
17:
56:
Risk in a PRA is defined as a feasible detrimental outcome of an activity or action. In a PRA, risk is characterized by two quantities:
286:
209:
412:
475:
183:
166:
485:
480:
116:
In addition to the above methods, PRA studies require special but often very important analysis tools like
256:
201:
75:(i.e., the number of occurrences or the probability of occurrence per unit time). The total risk is the
224:
97:
How likely to occur are these undesirable consequences, or what are their probabilities or frequencies?
457:
145:
451:. International Congress on Environmental Modelling and Software. Vol. 40. pp. 144–9.
452:
153:
446:
276:
141:
406:
PRA Software used by the U.S. Department of Energy, Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, and NASA
320:
434:
8:
246:
121:
106:
102:
50:
46:
429:
324:
341:
308:
228:
110:
346:
281:
117:
419:
371:"Severe Accident Issues Raised by the Fukushima Accident and Improvements Suggested"
382:
336:
328:
205:
445:
Verdonck, F. A. M.; Jaworska, J.; Janssen, C. R.; Vanrolleghem, Peter A. (2002).
261:
149:
79:: the sum of the products of the consequences multiplied by their probabilities.
220:
213:
413:"Probabilistic Risk Assessment: What Is It And Why Is It Worth Performing It?"
469:
76:
387:
370:
350:
307:
Goussen, Benoit; Price, Oliver R.; Rendal, Cecilie; Ashauer, Roman (2016).
271:
241:
448:
Probabilistic
Ecological Risk Assessment Framework for Chemical Substances
266:
125:
72:
68:
332:
41:
associated with a complex engineered technological entity (such as an
251:
137:
86:
Probabilistic risk assessment usually answers three basic questions:
309:"Integrated presentation of ecological risk from multiple stressors"
60:
the magnitude (severity) of the possible adverse consequence(s), and
444:
42:
63:
the likelihood (probability) of occurrence of each consequence.
439:
37:) is a systematic and comprehensive methodology to evaluate
38:
405:
306:
53:(probabilistic environmental risk assessment, or PERA).
101:
Two common methods of answering this last question are
148:, and in the same way any mean frequency number for a
364:
362:
360:
124:
analysis (CCF). HRA deals with methods for modeling
357:
435:A collection of links to free publications on PRA
176:Containment Failure Frequency (CFF): 1.2 × 10 /yr
467:
131:
410:
173:Core Damage Frequency (CDF): 1.6 × 10 /year,
227:of those events, e.g. a nuclear program or
287:Transportation safety in the United States
456:
386:
340:
411:Stamatelatos, Michael (April 5, 2000).
368:
14:
468:
49:) or the effects of stressors on the
369:Song, Jin Ho; Kim, Tae Woon (2014).
83:rare is a high consequence event?).
24:
375:Nuclear Engineering and Technology
25:
497:
399:
109:– for explanations of these, see
216:in relation to the fixed value.
144:shall be related to a secondary
27:Methodology for evaluating risks
300:
13:
1:
430:Industry PRA software (CAFTA)
293:
31:Probabilistic risk assessment
18:Probabilistic Risk Assessment
219:Such external events may be
132:PSA for nuclear power plants
7:
476:Risk analysis methodologies
257:Reference class forecasting
234:
152:shall be examined with the
10:
502:
160:for nuclear power plants:
440:PRA software RiskSpectrum
225:condition the probability
190:CDF: 2.4 × 10 /year, and
156:inside the set of data.
388:10.5516/NET.03.2013.079
146:measurement uncertainty
486:Management cybernetics
481:Probability assessment
277:Risk management tools
193:CFF: 5.5 × 10 /yr for
181:for reactors of type
164:for reactors of type
122:common-cause-failure
325:2016NatSR...636004G
247:Common mode failure
120:analysis (HRA) and
107:fault tree analysis
103:event tree analysis
47:nuclear power plant
425:on March 14, 2006.
313:Scientific Reports
229:economic sanctions
111:safety engineering
333:10.1038/srep36004
282:Threat assessment
118:human reliability
16:(Redirected from
493:
462:
460:
426:
424:
418:. Archived from
417:
393:
392:
390:
366:
355:
354:
344:
304:
206:factor of safety
21:
501:
500:
496:
495:
494:
492:
491:
490:
466:
465:
458:10.1.1.112.1047
422:
415:
402:
397:
396:
367:
358:
305:
301:
296:
291:
262:Risk assessment
237:
150:random variable
134:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
499:
489:
488:
483:
478:
464:
463:
442:
437:
432:
427:
408:
401:
400:External links
398:
395:
394:
381:(2): 207–216.
356:
298:
297:
295:
292:
290:
289:
284:
279:
274:
269:
264:
259:
254:
249:
244:
238:
236:
233:
221:natural hazard
202:cost-effective
197:
196:
195:
194:
191:
179:
178:
177:
174:
133:
130:
99:
98:
95:
91:
65:
64:
61:
26:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
498:
487:
484:
482:
479:
477:
474:
473:
471:
459:
454:
450:
449:
443:
441:
438:
436:
433:
431:
428:
421:
414:
409:
407:
404:
403:
389:
384:
380:
376:
372:
365:
363:
361:
352:
348:
343:
338:
334:
330:
326:
322:
318:
314:
310:
303:
299:
288:
285:
283:
280:
278:
275:
273:
270:
268:
265:
263:
260:
258:
255:
253:
250:
248:
245:
243:
240:
239:
232:
230:
226:
222:
217:
215:
211:
207:
203:
192:
189:
188:
186:
185:
180:
175:
172:
171:
169:
168:
163:
162:
161:
157:
155:
151:
147:
143:
139:
129:
127:
123:
119:
114:
112:
108:
104:
96:
92:
89:
88:
87:
84:
80:
78:
77:expected loss
74:
70:
69:probabilities
62:
59:
58:
57:
54:
52:
48:
44:
40:
36:
32:
19:
447:
420:the original
378:
374:
316:
312:
302:
272:Extreme risk
242:Benefit risk
218:
198:
182:
165:
158:
135:
115:
100:
85:
81:
66:
55:
34:
30:
29:
267:Risk matrix
126:human error
73:frequencies
51:environment
470:Categories
294:References
154:dispersion
94:initiator?
453:CiteSeerX
319:: 36004.
252:Cost risk
210:resilient
138:metrology
351:27782171
235:See also
43:airliner
342:5080554
321:Bibcode
204:of the
142:measure
455:
349:
339:
214:robust
187:, in:
170:, in:
423:(PDF)
416:(PDF)
184:BWR-5
167:BWR-4
45:or a
39:risks
347:PMID
212:and
140:any
105:and
383:doi
337:PMC
329:doi
71:or
35:PRA
472::
379:46
377:.
373:.
359:^
345:.
335:.
327:.
315:.
311:.
231:.
113:.
461:.
391:.
385::
353:.
331::
323::
317:6
33:(
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.