Particular risk analysis

A DAL FTA is aimed at assessing systemic failures (see Section 1.3). It is always generated from an FHA so that Functional DALs (FDAL) and Item DALs (IDAL) (see Chapter 9) can be allocated to the engineering development process. When developing the DAL FTA we restrict its content to the boundaries of system architecture and the process which created it [i.e. we do not incorporate operational inputs such as crew or maintenance error or any Particular Risk Analysis (PRA) events]. With reference to Section 2.3.1, this FTA is typically aimed at proving compliance to CS25.1309(a)(1). 

Explicitly, by adding as a specific failure mode (e.g. maintenance error) into the FT. The CCF typically originate from the Common Mode Analysis (CMA) (see Chapter 6), the Particular Risk Analysis (PRA) (see Chapter 7) or the Zonal Safety Analysis (ZS A) (see Chapter 8). 

Particular Risk Analysis (PRA), which is discussed in Chapter 7 ... 

It is necessary, therefore, to conduct specific studies to ensure that systems are adequately protected against all foreseeable external events, and the FAA (FAR25.1309), EASA (CS25.1309) and SAE (ARP4761) refer to this study as a Particular Risk Analysis (PRA). 

This step involves the Safety Engineer highlighting to the Test Pilot and/or the HF Specialist all failure conditions identified via techniques such as the Functional Hazard Analysis (FHA) (Chapter 3), Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (EMEA) (Chapter 5), Common Mode Analysis (CMA) (Chapter 6), Particular Risk Analysis (PRA) (Chapter 7) and Zonal Safety Analysis (ZSA) (Chapter 8). 

Common Cause Analysis Generic term encompassing zonal safety analysis, particular risk analysis and common mode analysis [RTCA/1X)-178B/ED-12B]. 

The area of application The applicability of a dispersion model for a particular risk analysis problem depends on the actual conditions in the near and far field. 

Item characteristics (e.g. hazardous materials or working practices) if the aim in Step 2 required these to be addressed as well. These hazards could be identified via hazard identification tools/techniques such as the particular risk analysis, HAZOP, etc. (see Appendix A). Each hazard must then be allocated with either a numerical or a qualitative safety objective, which is agreed with the applicable airworthiness authority. 

In the simplest terms, a fault-tree for risk analysis requires the following information probabiUty of detection of a particular anomaly for an NDE system, repair or replacement decision for an item judged defective, probabiUty of failure of the anomaly, cost of failure, cost of inspection, and cost of repair. Implementation of a risk-based inspection system should lead to an overall improvement in the inspection costs as well as in the safety in operation for a plant, component, or a system. Unless the database is well estabUshed, however, costs may fluctuate considerably. 

Risk analysis is the process of gathering data and synthesizing information to develop an understanding of the risk of a particular enterprise. Risk analysis usually involves several of the five risk management activities shown in Figure 1. CPI companies have many possible applications... 

Figure 5 is an example of a decision tree you may find useful when considering QRA for particular process safety applications. The decision tree illustrates a flowchart of questions you can ask yourself (or others) to decide how far through the process of risk analysis to go to satisfy a need for increased risk understanding. 

The acronym for chemical process quantitative risk analysis. It is the process of hazard identification followed by numerical evaluation of incident consequences and frequencies, and their combination into an overall measure of risk when applied to the chemical process industry. It is particularly applied to episodic events. It differs from, but is related to, a probabilistic risk analysis (PRA), a quantitative tool used in the nuclear industry... 

Chemical Risk Analysis is a practical handbook of chemical hazard and risk assessment, and is aimed particularly (but not exclusively) at the practitioner level. Its main target audiences include ... 

Deciding which risk-reduction method to use maybe difficult. In many instances, appropriate decisions can be made without resorting to quantitative techniques. However, in some cases, particularly when the options are costly, quantitative risk analysis (QRA) and risk-based decision-making approaches may be an effective basis for measuring the improvement in safety arising from the proposed options. These approaches can also be used in prioritizing safety improvements and balancing cost and production issues. 

Our assignment for EPA was to apply quantitative risk analysis methods to the determination of risk for a particular chemical. The health risks for perchloroethylene turned out to be highly uncertain, but by using decision analysis concepts we were able to display this uncertainty in terms of alternative assumptions about the dose response relationship. Similar methods might be used to characterize uncertainties about human exposure to a chemical agent or about the costs to producers and consumers of a restriction on chemical use. 

Despite this clearly outlined procedure, scientific progress in the field has been slow, as very few authors have as yet attempted environmental risk assessment of PhCs in water, focussing their attention, furthermore, mainly on parent compounds rather than their metabolites, on the effects of individual substances rather than mixtures on target organisms and on acute rather than chronic toxicity. In particular, metabolite analysis tended to be disregarded as their exposure is very difficult to assess due to a lack of consensus in the literature regarding excreted metabolite fractions moreover, analysis has shown that their relative contribution to the overall risk is typically low [99]. 

Early risk evaluation often just looked at death as the main endpoint, asking if a particular action or exposure led to increases in death or reduced number of working years. Advances in the biological sciences have required that more complex risk analysis be undertaken to evaluate quality of life issues and not just death as an endpoint. The challenge for both risk assessment and risk management will be to take into consideration quality of life and individual values into the decisionmaking process. 

Gillette and Krier (1990) single out Zeckhauser as deserving particular scorn for his neoclassical risk analysis. For a concise statement of such an analysis, see Zeckhauser and Viscusi (1990). 

---