Advancing Risk-Informed Decision Making in Managing Defense Nuclear Waste in the United States: Opportunities and Challenges for Risk Analysis.

An omnibus spending bill in 2014 directed the Department of Energy to analyze how effectively Department of Energy (DOE) identifies, programs, and executes its plans to address public health and safety risks that remain as part of DOE's remaining environmental cleanup liabilities. A committee identified two dozen issues and associated recommendations for the DOE, other federal agencies, and the U.S. Congress to consider, as well as other stakeholders such as states and tribal nations. In regard to risk assessment, the committee described a risk review process that uses available data, expert experience, identifies major data gaps, permits input from key stakeholders, and creates an ordered set of risks based on what is known. Probabilistic risk assessments could be a follow-up from these risk reviews. In regard to risk management, the states, in particular, have become major drivers of how resources are driven. States use different laws, different priorities, and challenge DOE's policies in different ways. Land use decisions vary, technology choices are different, and other notable variations are apparent. The cost differences associated with these differences are marked. The net result is that resources do not necessarily go to the most prominent human health and safety risks, as seen from the national level.

Ranking the risks from multiple hazards in a small community.

Natural hazards, human-induced accidents, and malicious acts have caused great losses and disruptions to society. After September 11, 2001, critical infrastructure protection has become a national focus in the United States and is likely to remain one for the foreseeable future. Damage to the infrastructures and assets could be mitigated through predisaster planning and actions. A systematic methodology was developed to assess and rank the risks from these multiple hazards in a community of 20,000 people. It is an interdisciplinary study that includes probabilistic risk assessment (PRA), decision analysis, and expert judgment. Scenarios are constructed to show how the initiating events evolve into undesirable consequences. A value tree, based on multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT), is used to capture the decisionmaker's preferences about the impacts on the infrastructures and other assets. The risks from random failures are ranked according to their expected performance index (PI), which is the product of frequency, probabilities, and consequences of a scenario. Risks from malicious acts are ranked according to their PI as the frequency of attack is not available. A deliberative process is used to capture the factors that could not be addressed in the analysis and to scrutinize the results. This methodology provides a framework for the development of a risk-informed decision strategy. Although this study uses the Massachusetts Institute of Technology campus as a case study of a real project, it is a general methodology that could be used by other similar communities and municipalities.

A screening methodology for the identification and ranking of infrastructure vulnerabilities due to terrorism.

The extreme importance of critical infrastructures to modern society is widely recognized. These infrastructures are complex and interdependent. Protecting the critical infrastructures from terrorism presents an enormous challenge. Recognizing that society cannot afford the costs associated with absolute protection, it is necessary to identify and prioritize the vulnerabilities in these infrastructures. This article presents a methodology for the identification and prioritization of vulnerabilities in infrastructures. We model the infrastructures as interconnected digraphs and employ graph theory to identify the candidate vulnerable scenarios. These scenarios are screened for the susceptibility of their elements to a terrorist attack, and a prioritized list of vulnerabilities is produced. The prioritization methodology is based on multiattribute utility theory. The impact of losing infrastructure services is evaluated using a value tree that reflects the perceptions and values of the decisionmaker and the relevant stakeholders. These results, which are conditional on a specified threat, are provided to the decisionmaker for use in risk management. The methodology is illustrated through the presentation of a portion of the analysis conducted on the campus of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Exploration of a bayesian updating methodology to monitor the safety of interventional cardiovascular procedures.

Appropriate methods for monitoring of the safety of medical devices introduced into clinical practice have been elusive to develop and implement. A novel approach is the application of Bayesian updating, which incorporates existing knowledge regarding event rates into the estimation of risk. This framework has been shown in other domains to be data efficient and to address some of the limitations of conventional statistical methods. In this article, the authors propose a methodologic framework for developing initial prior probability distributions in risk-stratified patient groups and a mechanism for incorporating accumulating procedure safety experience. In addition, they use this methodology to retrospectively analyze the clinical outcomes of 309 patients undergoing an infrequent interventional cardiology procedure, rotational atherectomy. These exploratory analyses demonstrate the feasibility of Bayesian updating applied to medical device safety evaluation and indicate that the methodology is capable of generating stable estimates of risk in a variety of patient risk groups.

How useful is quantitative risk assessment?

This article discusses the use of quantitative risk assessment (QRA) in decision making regarding the safety of complex technological systems. The insights gained by QRA are compared with those from traditional safety methods and it is argued that the two approaches complement each other. It is argued that peer review is an essential part of the QRA process. The importance of risk-informed rather than risk-based decision making is emphasized. Engineering insights derived from QRAs are always used in combination with traditional safety requirements and it is in this context that they should be reviewed and critiqued. Examples from applications in nuclear power, space systems, and an incinerator of chemical agents are given to demonstrate the practical benefits of QRA. Finally, several common criticisms raised against QRA are addressed.