Risk, general considerations definition

Allowing for exemption of waste materials that contain sufficiently small amounts of hazardous substances is a potentially important means of balancing the resources required to manage waste and the benefits in health risks averted. As a consequence of the discussion in Section 5.1, it is desirable that the definition of waste that can be exempted and, thus, managed as if it were nonhazardous should be risk-based. Furthermore, waste should be exempted based on the consideration that the associated risks should not exceed levels generally regarded as negligible. 

The basic framework for the waste classification system developed in this Report is depicted in Figure 6.1. Starting with the objectives that the classification system should apply to any waste that contains radionuclides or hazardous chemicals and that all such waste should be classified based on risks to the public posed by its hazardous constituents, the fundamental principle of the proposed system is that hazardous waste should be classified in relation to disposal systems (technologies) that are expected to be generally acceptable in protecting public health. This principle leads to the definitions of three classes of waste, and to quantification of the boundaries of the different waste classes based on considerations of risks that arise from different methods of disposal. The boundaries normally would be specified in terms of limits on concentrations of hazardous substances. At the present time, nearly all hazardous and nonhazardous wastes are intended for disposal in a near-surface facility or a geologic repository, and these are the two types of disposal systems assumed in classifying waste. The three waste classes and their relationship to acceptable disposal systems are described in more detail in Section 6.2. 

The obvious advantage of this construction is that the complexity of authentication and disputes is independent of the number of risk bearers. The disadvantage is that a general suitable key-generation protocol is very inefficient however, see the last subsection for more efficient special cases. (Moreover, due to problems with definitions of multi-party function evaluation protocols, I did not even dare to call the security considerations below a proof sketch.)... 

In the past, three criteria for risk acceptance were developed (a) the personal acceptance of risks, (b) the social acceptance, and (c) the economic criterion. The personally accepted risk level is defined as the frequency of suffering a certain degree of injury as a result of an event, accepted by an individual. The social risk concerns the risks for the total population. Society looks at the total consequence of an event, including the number of casualties, material and economic damage, and the loss of immaterial [matters]. Generally, the consideration of social consequences in the case of safety problems is limited to the number of casualties as a result of an event. More often, the social consequence is considered the total material damage. This definition is more suitable for an economic optimization of the risk level to be... 

Generally by the very nature of their inductive development process, systems developed asing AI techniques tend to show excellent performance against the particular data model used during the problem definition activity. Moreover, this performance can often be achieved for the expenditure of very low levels of effort n compared with conventional software systems [4]. For example, some estimates have placed the cost of development of AI type systems at perhaps one tenth to one hundredth of that associated with conventional systems to achieve the same purpose, moreover the maintenance effort assodated with the deployment of AI technology can also be very low, indicating a considerable level of user satisfaction with such systems once deployed. Where there are significant safety risks associated... 

The first approach is in line with common practice in many fields of business research such as finance. Here, the fluctuations aroimd the expected value (mean) of a performance measure are used as proxy for risk, where risk is equated with variance and covers both a downside and an upside potential. Following these considerations and in analogy to the general definition of March and Shapira... 

---