Risk analysis ratings

Figure 2.42 shows the variability risks analysis based on the toleranees assigned to meet the 0.2 mm toleranee for the assembly. Given that an FMEA Severity Rating (S) = 5 has been determined, whieh relates to a definite return to manufaeturer , both impaet extruded eomponents are in the unaeeeptable design region, as well as the bobbin and plunger end seal as shown on the Conformability Matrix in Figure 2.43. The toleranee for the brass tube base thiekness has no risk and is an aeeeptable design.

When using failure rate data for a CPQRA, the ideal situation is to have valid historical data from the identical equipment in the same application. In most cases, plant-specific data are unavailable or may carry a level of confidence that is too low to allow those data to be used without corroborating data. Risk analysts often overcome these problems by using generic failure rate data as surrogates for or supplements to plant-specific data. Because of the uncertainties inherent in risk analysis methodology, generic failure rate data are frequently adequate to identify the major risk contributors in a process or plant. 

This report presents a set of failure rate and time-to-restore data for typical components of a coal gasification combined cycle power generation unit. The data was used to examine the reliability and availability of a generic power generation unit using risk analysis models. 

LaGoy P. 1987. Estimated soil ingestion rates for use in risk assessment. Risk Analysis 7 355-359. 

Failure rate data generated from collecting information on equipment failure experience at a facility are referred to as facility-specific or field failure rate data. Facility-specific data contain failure rates specific to equipment (e.g., a certain valve or pump in use at a facility by manufacturer, make, model, and serial number) and are cataloged accordingly. The collection of facility-specific data from internal operations for use in a risk analysis is desirable because such data reflect the practices, environmental factors, and other reliability influences specific to the equipment under study. The ideal situation is to have valid historical data from identical equipment, in the identical application, functioning under the identical operating and maintenance conditions. Where these are not available, but data on similar equipment are, then they may be used with appropriate judgment. 

The material factor (MF) is the basic starting value in computation of the F EI and other risk analysis values. It is a measure of the intrinsic rate of potential energy release from fire or explosion produced by combustion or other chemical reaction. The MF is obtained from Ns and Nr, NPFA signals expressing flammability and reactivity (or instability), respectively. The values for many materials are found in NFPA 325M or NFPA 49. Dow has developed values for additional materials and published them as an appendix of the F EI Guide. ... 

Identifying the key sources of uncertainties in food consumption rates and dietary residue data during a dietary exposure and risk analysis, and subsequently examining their respective influence on model predictions. 

Levitan N, Dowlati A, Remick SC, et al. Rates of initial and recurrent thromboembolic disease among patients with malignancy versus those without malignancy Risk analysis using Medicare claims data. Medicine 1999 78 285-291. 

To scale up a chemical process to pilot or commercial-scale operations, a significant laboratory effort is required to define the operating ranges of the critical process parameters. A critical process parameter is any process variable that may potentially affect the product quality or yield. This information is required to prepare a Process Risk Analysis, which is an FDA prerequisite for process validation. Process parameters that are often evaluated as part of the risk analysis include reaction temperature, solvent systems, reaction time, raw material and reagent ratios, rate and orders of addition, agitation, and reaction concentration. If catalysts are employed as part of the process, additional laboratory evaluation may also be required to further define the process limits. Experimental design is often used for the evaluation of critical process parameters to minimize the total laboratory effort (4). 

Development of an Emissions Control Strategy. There are two major components to the emissions control need. One is directed toward determination of the emission control requirements based on the projected emission rates and composition of the emission streams. In the case of criteria or regulated pollutants, systems must be engineered to maintain ambient air quality within the region. In addition, modification of available technology and development of new systems may be required if risk analysis indicates that unique substances in the emission stream required removal. 

As illustrated in Figure 3.4, the different techrriques can be used alone or in combination to escalate an issue requiring additiorral analysis. For example, a company may always require a detailed risk analysis for a specific chemical based solely on its hazard rating, whereas another comparer may orrly reqtrire additional analysis if the chemical is shipped by a specific mode and/or in large specified qitantities. 

Table 5.1 sutmnarizes a number of risk measures defined in the Guidelines for Chemical Process Quantitative Risk Analysis, Second Edition (CCPS, 1989) and illustrates the advantages and disadvantages when used for transportation risk analyses. Since measures such as the fatal accident rate (FAR) are geared toward estimating risk to employees at fixed facilities, this measure has not been included as it does not generally apply to transportation risk analysis. 

Hattis D, White P, Marmorstein L, et al. 1990. Uncertainties in pharmacokinetic modeling for perchloroethylene. I. Comparison of model structure, parameters, and predictions for low-dose metabolism rates for models derived by different authors. Risk Analysis 10(3) 449-458. 

The risk analysis for CDOs performed by potential investors is necessarily different to that undertaken for other securitised asset classes. For CDOs, the three main factors to consider are default probabilities, default correlations and recovery rates. Analysts make assumptions about each of these with regard to individual reference assets, usually with recourse to historical data. We introduce each factor in turn. 

In other branches of technology such criticisms would be taken as being so serious that there could be little confidence in the predicted results. However, with regard to risk analysis, high precision is not needed to obtain usable and credible results, again because of the Pareto Principle. Even if the results of the analysis are quite weak as a result of poor quality data, the result is the same certain items are the major contributors to unreliability, and they are the ones that should be addressed. Even if the real failure rate distribution is, say, 70/30 rather than 80/20, the analysts recommendations will not change. 

Establishing and implementing techniques that involve risk analysis, cost, cost-benefit analysis, work sampling, loss rate, and similar methodologies, for periodic and systematic evaluation of hazard control and hazard control program effectiveness. 

---