Limitations on the Usefulness of Risk Assessment

Quantitative risk assessment (QRA) is now regarded as an essential component in the analysis of risks arising from installations classified as major hazards. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the value of the results in decision‐making in practical situations. The use made of QRA in three contrasting cases which came to extensive public attention in the U.K. is examined. The first concerned an extension of domestic development near a chemical factory; the second an extension to a large petrochemical complex; and the third to a proposal to build a pressurized water reactor. The two public inquiries concerned with the chemical industry accepted standards of individual risk which were comparable to the risks from everyday accidents; the evidence of societal risk that could arise from major accidents at the petrochemical complex was compared with that of a local natural hazard — flooding. Higher standards of individual safety were set in the inquiry into the PWR proposal, and the definition of societal risk was debated at length. The QRA results were analyzed to show that risks arising from accidents were lower than those from normal operations, but they were used explicitly as a check on the overall safety of the design and of the operational and licensing organization. Such qualitative examination will always be required in addition to QRA. All these inquiries were faced with considerable technical argument. There is a need for the full details of risk calculations to be clear. The usefulness of QRA as an input to decision‐making would be much enhanced if the technical points at issue could be clarified outside a formal public inquiry. In addition, there are some technical questions which apply to many installations. There should be better mechanisms of technical debate to achieve a measure of agreement on the optimum methods of calculation in these cases, and some possibilities are explored.