Abstract
The aerospace, nuclear power, and chemical processing industries are providing much of the incentive for the development and application of advanced risk analysis techniques to engineered systems. Risk analysis must answer three basic questions: (1) What can go wrong? (2) How likely is it? and (3) What are the consequences? The result of such analyses is not only a quantitative answer to the question “What is the risk?” but, more importantly, a framework for intelligent and visible risk management. Because of the societal importance of the subject industries and the amount of risk analysis activity involved in each, it is interesting to look for commonalities, differences, and, hopefully, a basis for some standardization. Each industry has its strengths: the solid experience base of the chemical industry, the extensive qualification and testing procedures of the space industry, and the integrative and quantitative risk and reliability methodologies developed for the nuclear power industry. In particular, most advances in data handling, systems interaction modeling, and uncertainty analysis have come from the probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) work in the nuclear safety field. In the final analysis, all three industries would greatly benefit from a more deliberate technology exchange program in the rapidly evolving discipline of quantitative risk analysis.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Garrick, B. J., “Lessons Learned from 21 Nuclear Plant PRAs,” International Topical Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Risk Management, Zurich, Switzerland, August 30-September 4, 1987.
Lees, F. P., Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, Volumes 1 and 2, Butterworth Co., Ltd., London, 1980.
Pickard, Lowe and Garrick, Inc., and McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company, “Engineering Services, Numerical Risk Assessment of the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) for the United States Space Shuttle,” prepared for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, December 1987.
Battelle Columbus Division, “Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation Procedures,” prepared for The Center for Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 1985.
Pickard, Lowe and Garrick, Inc., “Methodology for Probabilistic Risk Assessment of Nuclear Power Plants,” PLG-0209, June 1981.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, “Instructions for Preparation of Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and Critical Items List (CIL),” NSTS 22206, October 10, 1986.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, “Instructions for Preparation of Hazard Analysis for the Space Transportation System,” Preliminary, JSC 22254, November 1986.
U.S. Department of Defense, “Military Standard System Safety Program Requirements,” MIL-STD-882B, March 30, 1984.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, III (SARA III),” 1986.
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, “Investigation of the Challenger Accident,” Ninety-Ninth Congress, October 29, 1986.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1989 Plenum Press, New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Garrick, B.J. (1989). The Approach to Risk Analysis in Three Industries: Nuclear Power, Space Systems, and Chemical Process. In: Bonin, J.J., Stevenson, D.E. (eds) Risk Assessment in Setting National Priorities. Advances in Risk Analysis, vol 7. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-5682-0_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-5682-0_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4684-5684-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-4684-5682-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive