Risk management regulation success

To appreciate the regulatory problems this approach leads to, it is important to understand that risk assessment was developed as a tool for carrying out risk management, rather than a scientific process for understanding risk. Thus, both the selection of the data to be used and the way these data are extrapolated to the usual human exposure situation, reflect both scientific and policy considerations. As a result, risk assessment results do not represent the best scientific estimates of risk, estimates that are subject to scientific consensus, but rather prudent values that incorporate margins of safety. These margins of safety are included to increase the likelihood that regulations based on these risk assessments will successfully protect the public and the environment. 

Successful delivery is verified against the success criteria within the risk management plan. Several stakeholders may need to confirm this verification. The site owner or developer will wish to know that the proposed management of the site is acceptable and that any new site valuation can be supported. The regulator may have to confirm that residual risks fall below regulatory thresholds. Finally, but most importantly, site occupants need to know that any risks to them have been reduced adequately. 

How successful these new risk management techniques are is the subject of a critical literature. The trend to the greater quantification of risk, for example, is hotly debated. The mathematical basis of the quantified risk assessments (QRAs) is disputed, especially where there are small numbers involved or where there are no reliable data to work from (Cohen, 1996 Toft, 1996). The interpretation of the data may prove difficult in a variety of ways. For example, the causes of a risk may not be clear, and even where they are clear the decision about what is an acceptable risk needs to be taken and that is essentially a political decision. Indeed some claim that the procedures themselves are value laden (Hood and Jones, 1996). A more extreme position negates the whole attempt to produce an objective measure of risk, arguing that all assessments are inherently subjective (Slovic, 1992). Difficulties with these measures and approaches were recognized by industry representatives and regulators alike. One of the... 

Failures or weakening of barriers are frequent causes of undesirable incidents in the petroleum sector. The Petroleum Safety Authority in Norway therefore states in the Management Regulations that the relationship between risk assessments and barrier management must be clarified by the industry (PSA, 2010). This relationship is essential for the successful risk management of operations. 

FMEA/FMECA is an effective approach for risk assessment, risk management, and risk communication concerns. This analysis provides information that can be used in risk management decisions for system safety. FMEA has been used successfully within many different industries and has recently been applied in maritime regulations to address safety concerns with relatively new designs. While FMEA/FMECA is a useful tool for risk management, it also has qualities that limit its application as a complete system safety approach. This technique provides risk analysis for comparison of single component failures only. 

The involvement of farmers and their attitudes towards transgene confinement protocols and the risk associated with the production of GM crops has not commonly been considered by regulators, yet cooperation between neighbouring farmers may be a fundamental requirement for transgene confinement (Mauro and McLachlan 2003 Riddle, 2004 Tolstrup et al., 2003). The human or cultural element of coexistence management is difficult to characterize and control (Mauro and McLachlan, 2003) and this makes coexistence success difficult to predict. Open communication between neighbours, either formal or informal, is an essential element of a successful coexistence plan (Riddle, 2004). 

The key factor in the success of nuclear power in liberalized markets will be the ability of the power industry to engage with regulatory and safety authorities, plant vendors and consumers to allocate risks to parties that are best able to manage them. By shifting part of the pre-construction, construction, operating, and market risks to other parties (regulators, plant vendors, creditworthy consumers, and so on), electricity producers are in a better position to attract potential investors (lenders, and so on). 

---