Societal risk defined

The hazard analysis of any industrial process impacts on risk assessment. Risk assessment involves the estimation of the frequency and consequences of a range of hazard scenarios and of individual and societal risk. The risk assessment process is shown in Figure 3.1. The risk criterion used in hazard analysis is the fatal accident rate (FAR). The FAR is defined as the number of fatalities per 108h exposure. The actual FAR in the U.K. was 3.5 in the chemical industry in 1975. No doubt the ideal FAR value should be zero, which is difficult to achieve in practice. 

When dealing with quantified risk assessment, these definitions need to be linked to some form of numerical value for a defined effect. It is also necessary to distinguish between individual risk and societal risk when drawing conclusions. 

Fig. 2. Regulatory Levels [1 ] and Detection Limits (Lj,). The upper portion of the figure traces a presumed relation between earthquake magnitude [abscissa] and cost to society [ordinate). The "Delaney amendment" viewpoint (not defined for earthquakes) might be interpreted as requiring zero societal risk and a corresponding Ij magnitude of zero, which of course is scientifically unattainable. Rather, an acceptable cost to society for undetected earthquakes, here imagined to be 0.1 M, is used to establish the requisite "regulatory" level. The lower part of the figure...

A risk acceptance criterion is a reference by which risk is assessed to be acceptable or unacceptable. For our situation it is common to define RAC both for individual risk and societal risk (F-N curves). In recent... 

The use of risk acceptance criteria is, despite the critique raised to this approach, one possible approach to ensure that safety is reasonable accounted for. Common practice in Norway is that the enterprises themselves define the RAC even in the case of societal risk. This practice has been questioned, and a broader principal discussion is on the way in Norway. The recent developments in the UK and the Netherlands in relation to land-use planning are believed to also improve the Norwegian thinking. 

The societal risk gives the relation between the prob-abdity and the number of fatalities resulting from an accident with hazardous substances. The societal risk is visualized by an FN curve, where F denotes the probability in one year of an accident with N or more deaths. For the societal risk, no risk limit is defined, but only a guidance value a probability of less than 10 per year for an accident with 10 or more fataUties, less than 10 per year for an accident with 100 or more fatahties and less than 10 per year for an accident with 1000 or more... 

Two measures are used in defining these policies the individual risk as a measure of the level of protection to each individual member of the public, and societal risk as a measure of the disaster potential for the society as a whole. The individual risk is expressed as the risk of fatality per year this is defined as the probability that an unprotected person residing permanently at a fixed location wiU be killed as aresult of an accident occmring at a hazardous source. The societal risk is defined as the probabilily that a certain number of victims wftl be exceeded during a single accident at a hazardous source it is expressed as the relationship between the mnnber of people killed (iV) and the frequency per year F) that this number wiU be exceeded. 

Acceptable risk is strongly related with the acceptable probability of failure and the acceptable amount of losses. There is general agreement in the literature and in regulatory circles that risk should at least be judged from two points of view in relation to inundation consequences. The first point of view concerns the risk assessment by society on a national level which relates to the number of casualties due to a certain hazardous event. Risk is defined as the relation between frequency and the number of people suffering from a specified level of harm in a given population from the realisation of specified hazards . If the specified level of harm is limited to loss of life, the societal risk may be modelled by the frequency of exceedance curve of the niunber of deaths, FN-curve. Secondly, the... 

The Dutch major hazards policy deals with the risks to those hving in the vicinity of major industrial hazards, such as chemical plants and LPG-fuelhng stations. The cornerstones of the Dutch major hazards policy are (i) quantitative risk analysis, (ii) individual and societal risk as risk-determining parameters and (iii) quantitative acceptability criteria for evaluating levels of individual and societal risk (Ale 1991, 2002 Bottelberghs 2000). Individual risk is defined as the probability of death of an average, unprotected person that is constantly present at a given location. 

ABSTRACT Loss of life is not explicitly considered in the current Dutch flood safety poUcy. This paper presents the results of a preliminary study in which the nationwide risks of loss of life were estimated. The risks of loss of life are ejqtressed as individual and societal risk. The first metric is defined as the annual probability of death of an average unprotected person at a predefined location, the second as the cumulative probability of the number of fatalities. This paper covers estimation of societal risks for all flood prone areas (so-called dike rings) in the Netherlands. 

The results of the societal risk estimates should be compared with the risk criteria where these have been defined for the plant... 

Societal risks are usually given as fatal accident frequency rates (FAFRs). The fatal accident frequency rate is defined as the number of fatal injury accidents in a group of 1000 in a working lifetime (10 hours). 

The output from Stage (c) may be expressed in the form of individual risk or of societal risk. Individual risk is tiie probability of death to an individual within a year (e.g. 1 in 10 per year). Societal risk is the probability of death to a group of people - either employees or members of the general public - within a year (e.g. a risk of 500 or more deaths of 10 per year). Societal risks are usually given as fatal accident frequency rates (FAFRs). The fatal accident frequency rate is defined as the number of fatal injury accidents in a group of 1000 in a working lifetime (10 hours). 

Figure 37.1 displays tolerability criteria developed independently by various authors over more than thirty years (Morgan and Lave 1990 Whitman 1984 ANCOLD 2003). ANCOLD (2003) acceptability criteria (Fig. 37.1) are compatible with Comar (1987), Wilson and Crouch (1982) and later criteria published in the field of chemical industry, such those from Renshaw (1990) who defined societal risk acceptability as fatality of one individual per year of risk exposure. Many reputable publications point at a probability (of a casualty per annum) of 10 " (similar to ANCOLD lower bound) as being the limit of safe , however with a lower limit of 10 for unwillingly exposed public. 

The United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) defines cleaner production as the conceptual and procedural approach to production that demands that all phases of the life-cycle of products must be addressed with the objective of the prevention or minimization of short- and long-term risks to humans and the environment. A total societal commitment is required for effecting this comprehensive approach to achieving the goal of sustainable societies. 9... 

The accepted risk is a risk inferior to a level defined in advance either by law, technical, economical, or ethical considerations. The risk analysis, as it will be described in the following sections, has essentially a technical orientation. The minimal requirement is that the process fulfils requirements by the local laws and that the risk analysis is carried out by an experienced team using recognized methods and risk-reducing measures that conform to the state of the art It is obvious that non-technical aspects may also be involved in the risk acceptation criteria. These aspects should also cover societal aspects, that is, a risk-benefit analysis should be performed... 

Establishing the boundaries in a risk-based waste classification system requires that one or more values of acceptable risk be specified. The values of acceptable risk are then used to establish the values of parameters that define the boundaries of the different waste classes. The process of establishing the value(s) of acceptable risk is part of risk management. Risk management is an essential aspect of establishing a waste classification system, but it has an important nontechnical component that reflects societal values. 

To classify risks, a system or framework for classification must be agreed upon. In a perfect world, a societal consensus on levels of "risk acceptability" would be at hand and be straightforward in how it would be applied in each situation being evaluated. However, in the real world there is no consensus, and we can only evaluate and then define the ranges of risks posed in actual situations and then judge them for their acceptability to society. 

Making the effort at this time to define boundaries between high, low and insignificant risks in risk assessment situations, is not preempting any ultimate societal judgement. Eventually governmental policy will likely define the risk boundary limits. 

Since 1970, virtually all federal health and safety statutes have adopted a general safety standard of "unreasonable risk," and have required consideration by regulatory agencies of the broad societal consequences of regulatory action. Such statutes as the Consumer Product Safety Act of 1972 ( ), the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972 ( ), and the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 ( ), adopt this approach. These statutes make no attempt to define the critical phrase "unreasonable risk," just as the earlier statutes made no attempt to define such terms as "injurious" or "safe." Some do contain a laundry list of factors to be considered in determining regulatory action, such as the effect on the... 

In preface, it is worthwhile to define "risk management" as it is understood to be used in this symposium. By "risk management" is meant the abatement of risk to a socially acceptable level, considering the elements of costs and benefits of the chances taken by individuals through exposure to potentially hazardous environments. Such abatement is achieved throu determination and evaluation of regulatory alternatives and selection of the alternative that offers the greatest benefits at the least societal costs.Q)... 

The term unreasonable risk is not defined in the statute, but... Congress intended EPA to balance the benefits derived from risk reduction against the social and economic costs incurred, taking into account such factors as the extent and magnitude of risk imposed the societal consequences of removing or restricting use of products availability and potential hazards of substitutes and impacts on industry, employment, and international trade. 50 Fed. Reg. 45825, 46826 (Nov. 13,1985). 

In the nuclear energy industry, the scope of risk criteria includes the whole range of risk criteria from societal and individual risk, off-site radioactive release, reactor core damage accident and lower level criteria to mnnerical criteria used in various risk-informed applications. Risk criteria have variable status in different coimtries strict regulatory limits are defined in few coimtries, while indicative target values are used in most coimtries. The ALARP principle is sometimes applied, involving a risk criterion with a limit and an objective. 

FN-curves show the probability distribution of the mnnber of fatalities and can be used for the evaluation of fatahty risks from a societal perspective. To facilitate the evaluation of FN-curves, criterion lines could be defined an FN-curve should, in principle, not exceed the criterion line. An FN-criterion is defined by three variables (i) its base point (the exceedance probability of 1 fatality), (ii) its slope, and (iii) its probability and/or consequence cut-off. Figure 9 shows the different constraints that together make up an FN-criterion. 

Defining the acceptability of risk with individual societal and economical risk levels for given risk levels. 

However, because they did not include societal factors in their efforts to define the term sustainable a significant risk emerges that their sustainable, value propositions may not endure without further refinements (39). 

In an exceptional situation the actual exposure can be determined (see Sect. 26.5.3), the hazards of the substance has been defined sufficiently (see Sect. 26.3.5) and above all, the exposure limit to the substance has been set by the competent authority. This may apply for instance to working with ethanol, see also Sect. 26.7.2. In such an ideal situation it is possible to claim completely safe working conditions or, in case of genotoxic and sensitising substances, safe with a societally accepted minor health risk (see Sect. 26.7.2). In practice for pharmacy preparation and reconstitution medicines hardly any exposure limits exist at the moment. In most situations risk mitigation means ... 

The concept of regulation is often discussed but not necessarily well defined. Regulation has of course been a fundamental way in which risks—scientific and societal—associated with certain activities or actions have been traditionally managed or controlled by governments (Little, 2004). This will be no different with respect to nanotechnologies. 

---