Acceptability of risk

The Rijnmond area is that part of the Rhine delta between Rotterdam and the North Sea. The Commission for the Safety of the Population at large (COVO) commissioned the study for six chemicals and the operations associated with them acrylonitrile, liquid ammonia, liquid chlorine, LNG, propylene, and part of a separation process (diethanolamine stripper of a hydrodesulfurizer). The study objectives were to evaluate methods of risk assessment and obtain experience with practical applications of these methods. The results were to be used to decide to what extent such methods can be used in formulating safety policy. The study was not concerned with the acceptability of risk or the acceptability of risk reducing measures. 

Once tlie system components and their failure modes have been identified, tlie acceptability of risks taken as a result of such failures must be determined. Tlie risk assessment process yields more comprehensive and better results when reliable statistical and probability data are available. In tlie absence of such data, tlie results are a strong function of tlie engineering judgment of tlie design team. The important issue is tliat both tlie severity and probability (frequency) of the accident must be taken into account. 

Table 18.4.1 smiinuuizes another inetliod of risk assessment tliat can be applied to an accident system failure. Both probability and consequence have been ranked on a scale of 0 to 1 witli table entries being the sum of probability and consequence. The acceptability of risk is a major decision and can be described by dividing tlie situations presented in Table 18.4.1 into unacceptable, marginally acceptable, and acceptable regions. Figiue 18.4.2 graphically represents tliis risk data. ... 

Hazard Tracking Log. In addition to the above analysis, a hazard tracking log (HTL) should be maintained. This log is to ensure all open loops are closed and ensures the appropriate level of management is identified as being involved in the acceptance of risk. 

But the landscapes we produce, cultural or otherwise, are not simply ideas, representations, or even exchanges of capital. Rather, they have concrete material characteristics and effects. In the case of lawn people, what is notable about the material nature of this aesthetic is that it is perceived as physically bad for water quality (and dogs, and children, as we shall see) by the people who maintain it. This raises questions about hazards and the accepting of risk. 

As a tool to make mutual acceptance of risk assessments possible, OECD has developed the concept of Good Laboratory Practice (GLP). The OECD Principles of GLP are an integral part of the 1981 OECD council decision on the Mutual Assessment of Data (MAD) in the Assessment of Chemicals (revised 1997, Section 2.2.2). MAD also harmonizes procedures of GLP compliance monitoring, ensuring that preclinical safety studies are carried out according to the principles of GLP and that countries can have conftdence in the quahty and rigor of safety tests. 

Table 2.2 Considerations that influence acceptability of risk...

Risk Management Judgements concerning the acceptability of risk. 

Acceptability of Risk from Radiation—Application to Human... 

Only in situations where cross-contamination is likely and/or when serious health risks are expected, may contain labeling should be adopted (Hefle et al. 2007). It is obvious that there is a need for more guidance on threshold levels and acceptability of risks. 

In Hodgkin s lymphoma life is greatly prolonged by chemotherapy, but in ovarian cancer it is not these aspects are plainly relevant to acceptance of risk of second tumours. 

Acceptability of Risk. Although risk has always been part of life, the acceptability of different kinds of risk has varied considerably. For instance, deadly outbreaks of infectious diseases were once a sign of God s displeasure and, therefore, acceptable. However, with the advent of modern public sanitation, vaccines, and other modern technologies, very limited outbreaks, such as that experienced with Legionnaire s Disease, which would have hardly been noticed in the recent past, are now considered national emer-... 

Promotion of Acceptance of Risk-Management Decisions. In a risk management decision, it is important to ask how to maximize acceptance of and compliance with a risk management decision, although this is often overlooked. Too often it is forgotten that a reasonable explanation can sometimes be more effective than police action. Examples of actions are below. 

This is acceptance of risk management decisions of other countries and of the risk assessment on which such decisions arc based. If accepted universally by developing countries, this concept will have a significant effect on the world chemical industry and hasten the harmonization of regulations. 

However, the above cash flow analysis is deterministic. Therefore, a more realistic treatment should include some elements of risk analysis. This consists of the Identification, quantification, evaluation and acceptance of risks. The subject concerns more the management of projects and therefore it is out of the scope of this book. More material about risk analysis can be found in specialised references, as in Haimes (1998). 

These considerations lead to the most problematic part of definitions and interpretation of terms the acceptable risk, sometimes also called limit risk. A totally risk free activity, also referred to as zero risk, is feasible only if the activity is not exercised If it has been decided to go for a quantitative risk statement, this is unavoidably accompanied by the request for a scale to enable the assessment of the result. The definition of such a scale presents a subjective decision on the acceptability of risk, which splits the scale into the regions dangerous or hazardous and safe . The value for the limit risk has to be fixed in such a way that it takes into account the acceptability for the damage facing party and at the same time the tolerability from a third parties point of view. With this background it becomes obvious that the definition of a limit risk comes close to a philosophical task on the political field with societal impact. 

Risk is an inevitable part of life. Indeed some personality types would argue that the very taking of risk itself enhances life and provides fun, excitement and opportunities. Remove the risk and the element of danger somehow lessens the experience. A decision to drive to the shops, eat a fatty meal, smoke a cigarette or even cross the road involves an acceptance of risk based on the perceived benefit the activity offers against the threat it poses. We may like to think that those decisions are rational and evidence based. 

The acceptability of risk determines the extent to which we are prepared to tolerate risk. This has been discussed in detail in Chap. 3. 

Safety Safety is the condition of being safe from danger, injury, or damage. It is judgment about the acceptability of risk in a specified situation (e.g., for a given medical problem) by a provider with specified training at a specified type of facility equipment. 

Council for Science and Society. 1977. The Acceptability of Risks (The Logic and Social Dynamics of Fair Decisions and Effective Controls). Chichester, UK Barry Rose Publishers Ltd. 

In sum, risk evaluation involves the deliberative effort to characterize risks in terms of acceptability and tolerability. Such contexts often imply that neither the risks nor the benefits can be clearly identified. Multiple dimensions and multiple values are at work and have to be considered. Finally, risk evaluations may shift over time. Notwithstanding large uncertainties, decisions need to be made. It may well be possible at a certain point in time to agree whether risks are acceptable, tolerable, or intolerable. When the tolerability or acceptability of risks is heavily contested, that too is highly relevant input to the decision-making process. 

We will define safety as a judgment of the acceptability of risk. A thing is safe if its risks are judged to be acceptable [p. 8]. 

Safety was defined as the freedom from unacceptable risk. Conversely, safety may be defined as that state for which the risks are judged to be acceptable. These definitions imply a determination of risk, as well as a judgment of the acceptability of risk. Often, when the term acceptable risk is used, the response of the uninformed may be. How dare you suggest that some risk is acceptable. 

Risk analysis and decision making under uncertainty are inherendy cross disciplinary. Risk is primarily concerned with measuring the probability and severity of potentially negative outcomes. Risk is a scientific concept that can be qualitative or quantitative or both. By contrast, decision making, which is about the acceptability of risk, has political, ethical, and personal dimensions (Lowrance, 1976). Some will argue that risk is primarily subjective, that the notion of risk is a response to the human need to cope with uncertainty and that we develop models whose structures and uses are riddled with subjective judgments (Slovic, 1999). We must acknowledge that all models have an element of subjectivity but the key difference between the scientific and subjective views of risk is the extent of this subjectivity. For the purposes of this paper, I... 

---