A Matrix-Based Approach to Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis for Fault Trees1

System unavailabilities for large complex systems such as nuclear power plants are often evaluated through use of fault tree analysis. The system unavailability is obtained from a Boolean representation of a system fault tree. Even after truncation of higher order terms these expressions can be quite large, involving thousands of terms. A general matrix notation is proposed for the representation of Boolean expressions which facilitates uncertainty and sensitivity analysis calculations.     

Exploring the Uncertainties in Cancer Risk Assessment Using the Integrated Probabilistic Risk Assessment (IPRA) Approach

Current methods for cancer risk assessment result in single values, without any quantitative information on the uncertainties in these values. Therefore, single risk values could easily be overinterpreted. In this study, we discuss a full probabilistic cancer risk assessment approach in which all the generally recognized uncertainties in both exposure and hazard assessment are quantitatively characterized and probabilistically evaluated, resulting in a confidence interval for the final risk estimate. The methodology is applied to three example chemicals (aflatoxin, N‐nitrosodimethylamine, and methyleugenol). These examples illustrate that the uncertainty in a cancer risk estimate may be huge, making single value estimates of cancer risk meaningless. Further, a risk based on linear extrapolation tends to be lower than the upper 95% confidence limit of a probabilistic risk estimate, and in that sense it is not conservative. Our conceptual analysis showed that there are two possible basic approaches for cancer risk assessment, depending on the interpretation of the dose‐incidence data measured in animals. However, it remains unclear which of the two interpretations is the more adequate one, adding an additional uncertainty to the already huge confidence intervals for cancer risk estimates.     

Fault and Event Tree Analyses for Process Systems Risk Analysis: Uncertainty Handling Formulations

Quantitative risk analysis (QRA) is a systematic approach for evaluating likelihood, consequences, and risk of adverse events. QRA based on event (ETA) and fault tree analyses (FTA) employs two basic assumptions. The first assumption is related to likelihood values of input events, and the second assumption is regarding interdependence among the events (for ETA) or basic events (for FTA). Traditionally, FTA and ETA both use crisp probabilities; however, to deal with uncertainties, the probability distributions of input event likelihoods are assumed. These probability distributions are often hard to come by and even if available, they are subject to incompleteness (partial ignorance) and imprecision. Furthermore, both FTA and ETA assume that events (or basic events) are independent. In practice, these two assumptions are often unrealistic. This article focuses on handling uncertainty in a QRA framework of a process system. Fuzzy set theory and evidence theory are used to describe the uncertainties in the input event likelihoods. A method based on a dependency coefficient is used to express interdependencies of events (or basic events) in ETA and FTA. To demonstrate the approach, two case studies are discussed.     

The Effect of Neglecting Correlations When Propagating Uncertainty and Estimating the Population Distribution of Risk

Interest in examining both the uncertainty and variability in environmental health risk assessments has led to increased use of methods for propagating uncertainty. While a variety of approaches have been described, the advent of both powerful personal computers and commercially available simulation software have led to increased use of Monte Carlo simulation. Although most analysts and regulators are encouraged by these developments, some are concerned that Monte Carlo analysis is being applied uncritically. The validity of any analysis is contingent on the validity of the inputs to the analysis. In the propagation of uncertainty or variability, it is essential that the statistical distribution of input variables are properly specified. Furthermore, any dependencies among the input variables must be considered in the analysis. In light of the potential difficulty in specifying dependencies among input variables, it is useful to consider whether there exist rules of thumb as to when correlations can be safely ignored (i.e., when little overall precision is gained by an additional effort to improve upon an estimation of correlation). We make use of well-known error propagation formulas to develop expressions intended to aid the analyst in situations wherein normally and lognormally distributed variables are linearly correlated.     

Expert Judgment-Based Risk Assessment Using Statistical Scenario Analysis: A Case Study—Running the Bulls in Pamplona (Spain)

In this article, we present a methodology to assess the risk incurred by a participant in an activity involving danger of injury. The lack of high-quality historical data for the case considered prevented us from constructing a sufficiently detailed statistical model. It was therefore decided to generate a risk assessment model based on expert judgment. The methodology is illustrated in a real case context: the assessment of risk to participants in a San Fermin bull-run in Pamplona (Spain). The members of the panel of "experts on the bull-run" represented very different perspectives on the phenomenon: runners, surgeons and other health care personnel, journalists, civil defense workers, security staff, organizers, herdsmen, authors of books on the bull-run, etc. We consulted 55 experts. Our methodology includes the design of a survey instrument to elicit the experts' views and the statistical and mathematical procedures used to aggregate their subjective opinions.     

Uncertainties in the Link Between Global Climate Change and Predicted Health Risks from Pollution: Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) Case Study Using a Fugacity Model

Industrial societies have altered the earth's environment in ways that could have important, long-term ecological, economic, and health implications. In this paper, we examine the extent to which uncertainty about global climate change could impact the precision of predictions of secondary outcomes such as health impacts of pollution. Using a model that links global climate change with predictions of chemical exposure and human health risk in the Western region of the United States of America (U.S.), we define parameter variabilities and uncertainties and we characterize the resulting outcome variance. As a case study, we consider the public health consequences from releases of hexachlorobenzene (HCB), a ubiquitous multimedia pollutant. By constructing a matrix that links global environmental change both directly and indirectly to potential human-health effects attributable to HCB released into air, soil, and water, we define critical parameter variances in the health risk estimation process. We employ a combined uncertainty/sensitivity analysis to investigate how HCB releases are affected by increasing atmospheric temperature and the accompanying climate alterations that are anticipated. We examine how such uncertainty impacts both the expected magnitude and calculational precision of potential human exposures and health effects. This assessment reveals that uncertain temperature increases of up to 5°C have little impact on either the magnitude or precision of the public-health consequences estimated under existing climate variations for HCB released into air and water in the Western region of the U.S.     

Symmetry, Identifiability, and Prediction Uncertainties in Multistage Clonal Expansion (MSCE) Models of Carcinogenesis

Many models of exposure-related carcinogenesis, including traditional linearized multistage models and more recent two-stage clonal expansion (TSCE) models, belong to a family of models in which cells progress between successive stages-possibly undergoing proliferation at some stages-at rates that may depend (usually linearly) on biologically effective doses. Biologically effective doses, in turn, may depend nonlinearly on administered doses, due to PBPK nonlinearities. This article provides an exact mathematical analysis of the expected number of cells in the last ("malignant") stage of such a "multistage clonal expansion" (MSCE) model as a function of dose rate and age. The solution displays symmetries such that several distinct sets of parameter values provide identical fits to all epidemiological data, make identical predictions about the effects on risk of changes in exposure levels or timing, and yet make significantly different predictions about the effects on risk of changes in the composition of exposure that affect the pharmacodynamic dose-response relation. Several different predictions for the effects of such an intervention (such as reducing carcinogenic constituents of an exposure) that acts on only one or a few stages of the carcinogenic process may be equally consistent with all preintervention epidemiological data. This is an example of nonunique identifiability of model parameters and predictions from data. The new results on nonunique model identifiability presented here show that the effects of an intervention on changing age-specific cancer risks in an MSCE model can be either large or small, but that which is the case cannot be predicted from preintervention epidemiological data and knowledge of biological effects of the intervention alone. Rather, biological data that identify which rate parameters hold for which specific stages are required to obtain unambiguous predictions. From epidemiological data alone, only a set of equally likely alternative predictions can be made for the effects on risk of such interventions.     

Major Accidents (Gray Swans) Likelihood Modeling Using Accident Precursors and Approximate Reasoning

Compared to the remarkable progress in risk analysis of normal accidents, the risk analysis of major accidents has not been so well‐established, partly due to the complexity of such accidents and partly due to low probabilities involved. The issue of low probabilities normally arises from the scarcity of major accidents’ relevant data since such accidents are few and far between. In this work, knowing that major accidents are frequently preceded by accident precursors, a novel precursor‐based methodology has been developed for likelihood modeling of major accidents in critical infrastructures based on a unique combination of accident precursor data, information theory, and approximate reasoning. For this purpose, we have introduced an innovative application of information analysis to identify the most informative near accident of a major accident. The observed data of the near accident were then used to establish predictive scenarios to foresee the occurrence of the major accident. We verified the methodology using offshore blowouts in the Gulf of Mexico, and then demonstrated its application to dam breaches in the United Sates.     

An Integrated Physical Dispersion and Behavioral Response Model for Risk Assessment of Radiological Dispersion Device (RDD) Events

A radiological dispersion device (RDD) or "dirty" bomb is a conventional explosive wrapped in radiological material. Terrorists may use an RDD to disperse radioactive material across a populated area, causing casualties and/or economic damage. Nearly all risk assessment models for RDDs make unrealistic assumptions about public behavior in their health assessments, including assumptions that the public would stand outside in a single location indefinitely. In this article, we describe an approach for assessing the risks of RDD events incorporating both physical dispersion and behavioral response variables. The general approach is tested using the City of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania as a case study. Atmospheric models simulate an RDD attack and its likely fallout, while radiation exposure models assess fatal cancer risk. We model different geographical distributions of the population based on time of day. We evaluate aggregate health impacts for different public responses (i.e., sheltering-in-place, evacuating). We find that current RDD models in use can be improved with the integration of behavioral components. Using the results from the model, we show how risk varies across several behavioral and physical variables. We show that the best policy to recommend to the public depends on many different variables, such as the amount of trauma at ground zero, the capability of emergency responders to get trauma victims to local hospitals quickly and efficiently, how quickly evacuations can take place in the city, and the amount of shielding available for shelterers. Using a parametric analysis, we develop behaviorally realistic risk assessments, we identify variables that can affect an optimal risk reduction policy, and we find that decision making can be improved by evaluating the tradeoff between trauma and cancer fatalities for various RDD scenarios before they occur.     

A Deliberative Method for Ranking Risks (II): Evaluation of Validity and Agreement among Risk Managers

A deliberative method for ranking risks was evaluated in a study involving 218 risk managers. Both holistic and multiattribute procedures were used to assess individual and group rankings of health and safety risks facing students at a fictitious middle school. Consistency between the rankings that emerged from these two procedures was reasonably high for individuals and for groups, suggesting that these procedures capture an underlying construct of riskiness. Participants reported high levels of satisfaction with their groups' decision-making processes and the resulting rankings, and these reports were corroborated by regression analyses. Risk rankings were similar across individuals and groups, even though individuals and groups did not always agree on the relative importance of risk attributes. Lower consistency between the risk rankings from the holistic and multiattribute procedures and lower agreement among individuals and groups regarding these rankings were observed for a set of high-variance risks. Nonetheless, the generally high levels of consistency, satisfaction, and agreement suggest that this deliberative method is capable of producing risk rankings that can serve as informative inputs to public risk-management decision making.