Experts frequently differ on their estimates of risk associated with accidents that have a low probability of occurrence. Those who stand to benefit from siting a new facility often perceive it as acceptably safe, using expert opinion to defend their argument. Potential losers find data to suggest that the new technology is too hazardous. This paper contrasts the role of risk assessments of low probability events in siting Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) terminals in the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany. In both cases the decision process was a rather lengthy one due to conflicts between interested stakeholders. The paper discusses the potential of compensation and insurance as policy tools for facilitating negotiation. Four criteria for improving the siting process in any country are also outlined.
[1]
L. Lave.
Quantitative risk assessment in regulation
,
1983
.
[2]
William R. Ahern,et al.
CALIFORNIA MEETS THE LNG TERMINAL
,
1980
.
[3]
Ralph L. Keeney,et al.
METHODOLOGIES FOR SITING ENERGY FACILITIES
,
1980
.
[4]
Howard Kunreuther,et al.
A Decision-Process Perspective on Risk and Policy Analysis
,
1984
.
[5]
Lester B. Lave,et al.
Specifying Risk Goals: Inherent Problems with Democratic Institutions
,
1983
.
[6]
Werner Pfennigstorf,et al.
Environment, Damages, and Compensation
,
1979
.
[7]
Alvin M. Weinberg,et al.
Science and trans-science.
,
1972
.