Policy Issues Related to Worst Case Risk Analyses and the Establishment of Acceptable Standards of De Minimis Risk

Worst case analyses of risks become important whenever there are wide ranges of uncertainty surrounding estimated risks of technological applications, especially if environmental and societal impacts can reach catastrophic proportions. Risk may be defined as the possible consequences of a decision option times the probability of consequences materializing and special circumstances that may be involved.Increasingly severe magnitudes of consequences resulting from a technological option are sometimes accompanied by increasingly small probabilities that can reach de minimis, or insignificant, levels. Thus, a dilemma exists for policy development as to what the de minimislevel of probability is for those rare combinations of circumstances that can produce worst case consequences. One possible guide is the probability level of fatal accidents individuals routinely accept in their personal activities. Another is the establishment of safety-cost trade-off criteria that take into account equity considerations of the diverse opportunities for saving lives by the allocation of finite financial resources. On November 29, 1978, the Council on Environmental Quality issued implementing regulations for environmental impact statements (40 CFR 1502.22) requiring a worst case analysis, under certain conditions, and an indication of the probability of its occurrence. Difficulties and controversies in implementing the concept of worst case analysis have led the CEQ to reconsider this requirement (48 FR 36486, August 11, 1983). This paper explores a number of policy issues related to worst case analyses within a spectrum of high-consequence/low-probability events and the establishment of acceptable standards of de minimisrisk. Case material is used comparing the catastrophic risk of nuclear power plants with the chronic and accidental risks of using coal to generate electricity.

[1]  Joseph V. Rodricks,et al.  The Analysis of Actual Versus Perceived Risks , 1983, Advances in Risk Analysis.

[2]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[3]  Alvin M. Weinberg,et al.  Science and trans-science. , 1972 .

[4]  Miller B. Spangler.  A critique of methods in the quantification of risks, costs and benefits in the societal choice of energy options , 1983 .

[5]  Christoph Mandl,et al.  Risk Analysis and Decision Processes , 1983, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[6]  M. Spangler.  Heuristic Opinion and Preference Evaluation Research for Assessing Technological Options—A User’s View , 1985 .

[7]  H. Esser,et al.  European immigration policy: Federal Republic of Germany , 1985 .

[8]  B. Ames,et al.  Dietary carcinogens and anticarcinogens. Oxygen radicals and degenerative diseases. , 1983, Science.

[9]  Richard Wilson.  Commentary: Risks and Their Acceptability , 1984 .

[10]  Edward Eric Sir Pochin,et al.  Nuclear Radiation: Risks and Benefits , 1984 .

[11]  Baruch Fischhoff,et al.  Perceived risk: psychological factors and social implications , 1981, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences.

[12]  Kenneth A. Solomon,et al.  Risk-cost assessment methodology for toxic pollutants from fossil fuel power plants , 1983 .

[13]  M. Spangler.  The Role of Interdisciplinary Analysis in Bridging the Gap Between the Technical and Human Sides of Risk Assessment1 , 1982 .

[14]  P Slovic,et al.  The nature of technological hazard. , 1983, Science.

[15]  C. Starr,et al.  Philosophical Basis for Risk Analysis , 1976 .

[16]  C L Comar,et al.  Risk: a pragmatic de minimis approach. , 1979, Science.