The Trade-off Between Expected Risk and the Potential for Large Accidents
Complex modern technologies often have the potential, though with very low probabilities, to cause accidents which could affect a large number of people at the same time. This is a topic of great concern to the public. Therefore, several authors have proposed safety goals which give different weights to such large consequences. However, it is difficult to decide which rules should be applied, and it is even more difficult to obtain the weighting factors. This paper proposes that such rules and weighting factors may be obtained from historical data analysis.
Generally, it can be observed that with time the expected value of the risks of technologies are reduced. However, this achievement often has to be paid for creating the potential for LP/HC accidents. Such a trend can, for example, be observed with airplane accidents. This study analyzed such accidents between 1947 to 1980. If the largest number of fatalities in a single accident in each year is plotted against the average number of fatalities per passenger-km (i. e., the expected value) in that year, it is found that an inverse exponential relationship exists.
EV = expected value of risk in a given year
Cmax = largest number of fatalities in a give year
a, b, c = constants obtained from the historical trend.
This paper presents the relevant data for airplane accidents and describes the methematical relationship obtained. These results are being discussed with regard to their implications for safety decisions.
KeywordsEnergy System Nuclear Regulatory Commission International Civil Aviation Organization Accident Data Expect Value
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.W. Häfele et al., Energy in a Finite World, A Global Systems Analysis, Ballinger Publ. Co., Massachusetts (1981).Google Scholar
- 2.A. V. Cohen and D. K. Pritchard, Comparative Risks of Electricity Production Systems: A Critical Survey of the Literature, Res. Paper No. 11, Health and Safety Executive.Google Scholar
- 3.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1975), Reactor Safety Study: An Assessment of Accident Risks in U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants, WASH-1400, NUREG-75/014 (October 1975).Google Scholar
- 4.Deutsche Risikostudie Kernkraftwerke, Eine Untersuchung zu dem durch Störfälle in Kernkraftwerken verursachten Risiko (TÜV Rheinland), IBSN 3-021059-67-4.Google Scholar
- 5.Canvey Island Study, Canvey: Summary of an Investigation of Potential Hazards from Operations in the Canvey Island/Thurrock Area, ISBN 0-11-883203-4, Health and Safety Executive, London (1978).Google Scholar
- 6.R. Wilson, The Costs of Safety, New Scientist, 68:274–275 (October 30, 1975).Google Scholar
- 7.F. R. Farmer, Siting Criteria-A New Approach, Proceedings of a Symposium on Containment and Siting of Nuclear Power Plants, IAEA-SM-89/34, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria (1967).Google Scholar
- 8.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, An Approach to Quantitative Safety Goals for Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG-0739 (October, 1980).Google Scholar
- 9.Civil Aviation Authority, London, World Airline Accident Summary.Google Scholar
- 10.International Civil Aviation Organization, Accident/Incident Data Reporting.Google Scholar
- 11.S. C. Black and F. Niehaus, Comparison of Risks and Benefits Among Different Energy Systems, in: Interactions of Energy and Climate (W. Bach et al., eds.), Proceedings of an International Workshop on “Energy/Climate Interactions,” held in Muenster, FRG, March 1980, Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrect.Google Scholar
- 12.Atomwissenschaft (June 1981).Google Scholar
- 13.E. Swaton, Attitudes toward Risk. A Cross-Cultural Comparison, Presented at the Status Seminar “Tasks, Methods, and Predictive Power of Risk Research,” organized by the University of Bielefeld, Bielefeld (November 24–25, 1980).Google Scholar