A discussion of the acceptable risk problem

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(97)00061-6Get rights and content

Abstract

The petroleum activities on the Norwegian Continental Shelf are subject to regulations issued by the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate. One important issue in these regulations is the use of acceptance criteria, and this paper discusses some philosophical aspects of acceptance criteria for risk, and the role of statistical decision theory within safety management. Statistical decision theory has been applied in several studies within the nuclear industry, but has not been fully adopted within the petroleum activity. The discussion concludes by listing important measures to manage the acceptable risk problem.

References (36)

  • B. Fischhoff et al.

    Acceptable Risk

    (1981)
  • NPD

    Regulations concerning implementation and use of risk analyses in the petroleum activities

    (1991)
  • The Engineering Council

    Guidelines on Risk Issues

    (1993)
  • HSE Information Centre

    A guide to the Offshore Installations (Safety Case) Regulations 1992

    (1992)
  • IEC 1508

    Functional safety: safety-related systems

    (1994)
  • J. Holmberg et al.

    Risk decision making in operational safety management-experience from the Nordic benchmark study

    Risk Analysis

    (1994)
  • J. Vatn

    Maintenance optimization from a decision theoretical point of view

  • R.L. Keeney et al.

    Managing nuclear waste from power plants

    Risk Analysis

    (1994)
  • Cited by (31)

    • A structured approach to improved condition monitoring

      2012, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries
      Citation Excerpt :

      If a condition monitoring method may lead to improved probability of detecting degradation, and the equipment has the potential to cause hazardous consequences in case of failure, a reduction in risk implies a benefit by implementing that method. Risk costs are often not included in LCC because they may imply estimates of a price on human lives, which is challenging (Vatn, 1998). A challenge with calculating the risk costs when implementing new and/or improved condition monitoring methods is the ability and the uncertainty related to quantifying its impact on the accident frequency.

    • The risk concept-historical and recent development trends

      2012, Reliability Engineering and System Safety
      Citation Excerpt :

      We remember the well-known phrases used by Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), “Das Ding an sich” and “Das Ding fur mich”. Risk (and probability) can be viewed as both a “an sich” property of the world and a “fur mich” concept (see also [74]). However, to be able to meaningfully discuss this issue, we need to link these ideas to specific definitions with clear interpretations.

    • Design of marine structures with improved safety for environment

      2011, Reliability Engineering and System Safety
      Citation Excerpt :

      Based on their preferences, and accounting for the acceptance of risk, these conventions set the minimally acceptable levels of safety [3]. In that sense, an approach of ALARP (As Low As Reasonably Practical), fostering a band of cost-effective risk tolerance, has been established as a tool for effective risk management, Refs. [4–6]. Since increasing safety regularly demands investments or added expenses, most of the vessels are in the end designed only to satisfy the minimal safety requirements, and are thus on the boundary of unacceptable risk.

    • Life cycle cost (LCC) as a tool for improving sustainability in the Norwegian fishing fleet

      2009, Journal of Cleaner Production
      Citation Excerpt :

      Thus, sometimes loss of safety measures are calculated in addition to LCC, e.g., as accident frequency [37]. According to Vatn [50], there are at least two perspectives on the value of a human life; that of the individual and that of the decision-maker. In the Norwegian transportation sector, common values to use to evaluate the benefit of new efforts, are 21.5 million NOK per fatality and 2.4 million NOK per personal injury [49].

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text