Re: more on our risk and industry's benefit

[Ferdinand.Engelbeen@ping.be (Ferdinand Engelbeen)]

Mark,

That was a good story wich can tell you what happens when some interested
party does a risk assesment. But if the government and all parties together
can agree what the rules are and how the rules are applied and who and how
the figures are controlled, BEFORE the risk assesment is done, then you
have not an absolute risk, that will never be obtained, but at least you
can compare relative risks.

In The Netherlands and other European countries (I'm sorry, I have to give
you again an example from here), for all factories wich handle dangerous
goods, a risk assesment has to be done. The rules are the same for all
factories. The risk calculation is done on the (common) database of
experiences of the past: how big is the possibility that a line is broken,
that a valve is leaking, that a tank is leaking, that a train is
derailling, etc... The consequences of leakage of toxics or from an
explosion are all calculated with the same program, from the government.

Every factory where the calculated risk is lower than 1 to 1 million per
year that somebody outside the factory can be killed by an accident within
the factory, is considered to be safe enough. If the calculated risk is
higher, something must be done to reduce the risk to below that level. Only
then the risk is acceptable for the government. And because the calculation
method is the same for everybody, there are no under- or overestimates.

Of course, that is not a proof of total safety. Even with the lowest
calculated risk, something can happen tomorrow. But at least you can
compare safeties and you have a guideline to force factories to invest more
in safety when necessary, without overreacting on guessed or estimated
grounds.

Ferdinand Engelbeen

Ferdinand.Engelbeen@ping.be