Chris Whipple

Dealing with Uncertainty about Risk in Risk Management

Conservative assumptions in risk analysis are shown to be protective of human health when the social costs of misestimation are highly asymmetrical, when risk management actions do not incur significant opportunity costs, when risk management actions do not lead to the substitution of significant new risks, and when risk managers do not compensate for perceived conservatisms when setting standards or making other risk management decisions. An issue central to the effect of systematically conservative assumptions is the ability of risk analyses to distinguish large risk from small risk; here it is argued that conservative assessments can fail to make adequate distinctions. The influence of these factors on the protectiveness of conservative analytical methods is examined.

Nuclear Power Safety Goals in Light of the Chernobyl Accident

The recently adopted Nuclear Regulatory Commission safety goals include a proposed plant performance guideline limiting the frequency of large releases of radioactive materials. Analysis here indicates that the proposed plant guideline is potentially far more restrictive than the health objectives and goes well beyond previously established health objectives. The Chernobyl accident, which caused no off-site prompt fatalities, raised concerns that the health objectives do not limit the frequency of accidents sufficiently.

The Energy Impacts of Solar Heating

The energy required to build and install solar space- and water-heating equipment is compared to the energy it saves under two solar growth paths corresponding to high and low rates of implementation projected by the Domestic Policy Review of Solar Energy. For the rapid growth case, the cumulative energy invested to the year 2000 is calculated to be � to 1� times the amount saved. An impact of rapid solar heating implementation is to shift energy demand from premium heating fuels (natural gas and oil) to coal and nuclear power use in the industries that provide materials for solar equipment.

Application of the De Minimis Concept in Risk Management

In risk regulation and management, de minimis refers to the general theme that some risks are too small to be of societal concern. It is easy to show that all organizations with risk management responsibilities use some type of de minimis approach, since risk management resources are always finite, and the supply of very small risks virtually inexhaustible. To cite just one example, the prohibition of carcinogenic food additives under both the Delaney Clause and earlier food safety laws is commonly cited as a “zero risk” policy statement that is as protective as any risk policy on the federal level. Even so, no serious consideration has ever been given to the idea that the Food and Drug Administration should ban food additives that contain a radioactive molecule or two, since that would include virtually all substances. While all organizations with risk management responsibility follow some pragmatic de minimis approach, there has been a series of proposals (see Chapter 13 and Davis1 for a general review of the issue) for explicit adoption of the de minimis concept by regulatory agencies.

Opportunities for the Social Sciences in Risk Analysis—An Engineer’s Viewpoint

The approach taken by engineers to manage technological risks has been changing in recent years. In the past, engineers dealt with risk as an engineering problem. Engineering safety factors were and still are a basic feature of the design of any structure, and these safety factors were institutionalized into codes and standards. Those risks which remained inherent in engineering designs were considered to be tolerable residuals, and were not explicitly analyzed. The question, “How safe is safe enough?,” was dealt with implicitly through the use of safety factors, and over time, trial-and-error experience provided feedback for the adjustment of safety factors and for the recognition and correction of failure-prone designs.

Acceptable Risk in Regulation: The Impact of Recent Court Decisions on Public Policy for Risk Management

The Court of Appeals, DC Circuit, has ruled that the consideration of costs by regulatory agencies in their decisions of whether or not to regulate is inconsistent with the relevant law in two important recent cases. As a consequence of these decisions, the EPA and NRC are required to base their policies and standards on acceptable risks levels rather than on the costs of risk reductions. These decisions are leading agencies toward policies involving increasingly explicit definitions of acceptable risk. This paper describes the significance of these judicial decisions for regulatory decision making and their implications for risk analysis and offers suggestions on how to approach the definition of acceptable risk. The effect on regulation of these changes also is discussed.

Insurance and Nuclear Power

The Price—Anderson Act, which establishes procedures for insuring nuclear facilities (including nuclear power plants), was enacted with the dual purpose of protecting the public and encouraging the development of a private nuclear energy industry. As with most aspects of commercial nuclear power, this insurance system has become a target of criticism in recent years, criticisms that can generally be grouped into four categories: that the Price—Anderson Act provides a federal subsidy to the nuclear power industry [1], that the public would be inadequately compensated in the event of a nuclear accident [2–4], that the exclusion from coverage of damage caused by nuclear accidents from all homeowners insurance policies represents a lack of confidence in nuclear power by private insurers [1], and that the Price—Anderson Act removes incentives for safe operation of nuclear power plants [5]. These criticisms have been reviewed in several publications [6–8], and a brief synopsis of these reviews, coupled with the most recent and authoritative review available, that of the Supreme Court (see Note 4), will be given following a description of nuclear insurance as practiced under the Price—Anderson Act.