✍ Scribed by Matthew K. Antes; Mahdi F. Miri; Stephanie A. Flamberg
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
With the need to juggle design requirements, recommendations, personal opinions, and company preferences, how does one determine a safe, cost‐effective risk reduction design? A quick solution may be to incorporate all potential safeguards, but that is neither practical nor cost‐effective. Companies have turned to various methods to evaluate their mitigation options for fire, explosion, and reactivity hazards. Most methods simply identify the high‐risk issues; they do not determine the most cost‐effective risk reduction options.
Whether it is for a capital project, regulatory compliance, or to define standards, cost‐benefit analysis (CBA) is a proven method for cost‐effective risk management. Three case studies are presented in this paper to illustrate the flexibility and benefits of this approach.
📜 SIMILAR VOLUMES
Testing and maintenance (T&M) improve the reliability of safety systems and components in nuclear power plants, which is of special importance for standby systems. Early optimizations of single component test intervals were based on minimizing the risk, e.g. the time-average unavailability, without
Traditionally, the performance of a distributed system or a telecommunication network is taken into account only in the last step of its design and is seen as a final improvement. Recent attempts to incorporate performance considerations in the mainstream design rely on the development of a function