Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Expert Opinion in Probabilistic Safety Assessment

  • Chapter
10th Advances in Reliability Technology Symposium

Abstract

Probabilistic Safety Assessment (PSA) is concerned with the quantification of the possible damages from hazardous materials releases and of the corresponding probabilities. Although expert judgment is expected to contribute substantially to improving the quality of probability assessments within PSA, it has become clear in recent years that a number of specific problems are associated with the use of expert opinions. Thus, the need exists for formalized procedures for expert opinion use. This paper is based on a research project that deals with the development of such procedures. To this end, three substantially different models for eliciting and combining expert opinions have been formulated: (a) a “classical” model, based on weighted averaging, (b) a Bayesian model, and (c) a psychological scaling model. These models have been made operational and are being tested and evaluated in experiments on real-world problems. The paper presents a discussion of expert opinion use in PSA and of the models mentioned above, and gives a first look at the experiments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Van der Horst, J., Technical support of safety studies. Report 84-015811, Division of Technology for Society TNO, Apeldoorn, Netherlands, 1984 (in Dutch).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Reactor Safety Study. NUREG 75/014 (WASH-1400), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, USA, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Apostolakis, G., On the use of judgment in probabilistic risk analysis. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 1986, 93, 161–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Apostolakis, G., Expert judgment in probabilistic safety assessment. Paper presented at the course “Accelerated life testing and experts’ opinions in reliability”. International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi”, S. Terenzo di Lerici (La Spezia), Italy, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Okrent, D., A survey of expert opinion on low probability earthquakes. Annals of Nuclear Energy, 1975, 2, 601–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Van Steen, J.F.J. and Oortman Gerlings, P.D., Expert opinion in probabilistic safety assessment, Vol. 1: Literature study. Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research TNO/Delft University of Technology, Apeldoorn/Delft, Netherlands, 1988 (in preparation).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Staël von Holstein, C.-A.S., Measurement of subjective probability. Acta Psychologica, 1970, 34, 146–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hampton, J.M., Moore, P.G. and Thomas, H., Subjective probability and its measurement. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A, 1973, 136, 21–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Huber, G.P., Methods for quantifying subjective probabilities and multi-attribute utilities. Decision Sciences, 1974, 5, 430–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hogarth, R.M., Cognitive processes and the assessment of subjective probability distributions. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1975, 70, 271–289.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Morgan, M.G., Henrion, M. and Morris, S.C., Expert judgments for policy analysis. Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York, USA, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Stillwell, W.G., Seaver, D.A. and Schwartz, J.P., Expert estimation of human error probabilities in nuclear power plant operations: A review of probability assessment and scaling. NUREG/CR-2255, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, USA, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Wallsten, T.S. and Budescu, D.V., Encoding subjective probabilities: a psychological and psychometric review. Management Science, 1983, 29, 151–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lichtenstein, S., Fischhoff, B. and Phillips, L.D., Calibration of probabilities: The state of the art to 1980. In (15), pp. 306–334.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A. (eds.). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Cambridge University Press, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Winkler, R.L. and Murphy, A.H., Experiments in the laboratory and the real world. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1973, 10, 252–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Murphy, A.H. and Winkler, R.L., Reliability of subjective probability forecasts of precipitation and temperature. Applied Statistics, 1977, 26, 41–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Spetzler, C.S. and Staël von Holstein, C.-A.S., Probability encoding in decision analysis. Management Science, 1975, 22, 340–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ludke, R.L., Stauss, F.F. and Gustafson, D.H., Comparison of five methods for estimating subjective probability distributions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1977, 19, 162–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Seaver, D.A., Von Winterfeldt, D. and Edwards, W., Eliciting subjective probability distributions on continuous variables. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1978, 21, 379–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Alpert, M. and Raiffa, H., A progress report on the training of probability assessors. In (15), pp. 294–305.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Schaefer, R.E. and Borcherding, K., The assessment of subjective probability distributions: A training experiment. Acta Psychologica, 1973, 37, 117–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Pickhardt, R.C. and Wallace, J.B., A study of the performance of subjective probability assessors. Decision Sciences, 1974, 5, 347–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lichtenstein, S. and Fischhoff, B., Training for calibration. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1980, 26, 149–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Genest, C. and Zidek, J.V., Combining probability distributions: A critique and an annotated bibliography. Statistical Science, 1986, 1, 114–148.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  26. Apostolakis, G., Kaplan, S., Garrick, B.J. and Duphily, R.J., Data specialization for plant specific risk studies. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 1980, 56, 321–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. IEEE guide to the collection and presentation of electrical, electronic and sensing component reliability data for nuclear power generating stations (IEEE Std-500). The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Minarick, J. and Kukielka, C., Precursors to potential severe core damage accidents; 1969–1979; A status report. NUREG/CR-2497, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Cooke, R.M., Subjective probability and expert opinion. Lecture notes gg2.3. Delft University of Technology, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hofer, E., Javeri, V., Löffler, H. and Struwe, D.F., A survey of expert opinion and its probabilistic evaluation for specific aspects of the SNR-300 risk study. Nuclear Technology, 1985, 68, 180–225.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Amendola, A., Uncertainties in systems reliability modelling: Insight gained through European benchmark exercises. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 1986, 93, 215–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Cummings, G.E., The use of data and judgment in determining seismic hazard and fragilities. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 1986, 93, 275–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Brune, R.L., Weinstein, M. and Fitzwater, M.E., Peer review study of the draft Handbook for Human Reliability Analysis. SAND82-7056, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Morgan, M.G., Morris, S.C., Henrion, M., Amaral, D.A.L. and Rish, W.R., Technical uncertainty in quantitative policy analysis — a sulphur air pollution example. Risk Analysis, 1984, 4, 201–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Cox, R.A. and Slater, D.H., State-of-the-art of risk assessment of chemical plants in Europe. In Low-Probability/High-Consequence Risk Analysis, eds. R.A. Waller and V.T. Covello, Plenum Press, 1984, pp. 257–283.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Health and Safety Executive, Canvey: An investigation of potential hazards from operations in the Canvey Island/Thurrock area. HM Stationery Office, London, England, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Health and Safety Executive, Canvey — A second report. HM Stationery Office, London, England, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Openbaar Lichaam Rijnmond/COVO, Risk analysis of six potentially hazardous industrial objects in the Rijnmond area, a pilot study, Reidel, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  39. TNO, LPG, A Study; A comparative analysis of the risks inherent in the storage, transshipment, transport and use of LPG and motor spirit, Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning and the Environment, The Hague, Netherlands, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Singpurwalla, N.D. and Soyer, R., The use of expert opinion in reliability: A survey. Paper presented at the course “Accelerated life testing and experts’ opinions in reliability”. International school of Physics “Enrico Fermi”, Italian Physical Society, S. Terenzo di Lerici (La Spezia), Italy, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Mosleh, A. and Apostolakis, G., The assessment of probability distributions from expert opinions with an application to seismic fragility curves. Risk Analysis, 1986, 6, 447–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Seaver, D.A. and Stillwell, W.G., Procedures for using expert judgment to estimate human error probabilities in nuclear power plant operations. NUREG/CR-2743, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, USA, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Comer, M.K., Seaver, D.A., Stillwell, W.G. and Gaddy, C.D., Generating human reliability estimates using expert judgment. NUREG/CR-3688, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, USA, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Embrey, D.E., Humphreys, P.C., Rosa, E.A., Kirwan, B. and Rea, K., SLIM-MAUD: An approach to assessing human error probabilities using structured expert judgment. NUREG/CR-3518, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, USA, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Cooke, R.M., Mendel, M.B. and Van Steen, J.F.J., Expert opinion in probabilistic safety assessment, Vol. 2: Operational description of basic models. Delft University of Technology/Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research TNO, Delft/Apeldoorn, Netherlands, 1988 (in preparation).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Cooke, R.M., Mendel, M. and Thijs, W., Calibration and information in expert resolution; a classical approach. To appear in Automatica, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Cooke, R.M., A theory of weights for combining expert opinion. Report 87-25, Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics/Computer Science, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Mendel, M.B. and Sheridan, T.B., Optimal combination of information from multiple sources. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Stobbelaar, M.F., Paired comparisons. Report 87-137, Division of Technology for Society TNO, Apeldoorn, Netherlands, 1987 (in Dutch).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Industrial Safety, Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research TNO, P.O. Box 342, 7300 AH, Apeldoorn, Netherlands

    Jacques F. J. Van Steen

Authors
  1. Jacques F. J. Van Steen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. National Centre of Systems Reliability, Culcheth, Warrington, Cheshire, UK

    G. P. Libberton

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1988 Elsevier Applied Science Publishers Ltd

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Van Steen, J.F.J. (1988). Expert Opinion in Probabilistic Safety Assessment. In: Libberton, G.P. (eds) 10th Advances in Reliability Technology Symposium. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-1355-4_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-1355-4_2

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-010-7103-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-009-1355-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation