56
5 What the Public Wants; Public Reactions
If a risk assessment procedure bypasses all the above pitfalls and follows the
standardized procedure that we will discuss in this book, then we consider it a rational
risk assessment.
5.2 Public Hearing in the NWT: Environmental
Rehabilitation of the Giant Mine
There is a remarkable coherence in the societal requirements for better risk assessments, world-wide.
The text below was extracted from the MacKenzie Valley Review Board’s “Report
of Environmental Assessment and Reasons for Decision” (MVRB 2013: Appendix
D, Specific Risk Assessment Requirements) and we reproduce it below with minor
editorial changes.
It is expected a rational and societally acceptable risk assessment will include:
• The compilation of a proper glossary containing a description of all the terms used
in the Project and its development, especially those that might have a common use
which differs from the technical meaning (such as “risk”, “crisis”, “hazard”) in
compliance with ISO 31000.
1
• The definition of the Project context in compliance with ISO 31000, including all
the assumptions on the Project environment, chronology etc.
• A properly defined hazard and risk register.
• A clearly-defined system of macro and subsystems/elements and their functional
and interdependent links describing for each one of them:
– expected performances;
– possible failure modes and quantification of the related ranges (to include uncertainties) of probabilities
2 evaluated as numbers in the range 0–1 (mathematical
characterization) with a clear explanation of the assumptions underlying their
determination;
– associated magnitude of the hazards and related scenarios.
• An independent analysis of failure/success objectives.
3
1 In order to avoid any confusion, this text complies with the freely available glossary Riskope has
produced. The glossary is now at his third edition (https://www.riskope.com/knowledge-centre/
tool-box/glossary/).
2 For the determination of the probabilities the assessors will use a selection of methods taken from
ISO 31010 international code.
3 For example, see NASA’s Fault Tree Handbook with Aerospace Applications (NASA 2002). This
should model success and failure with various pre-selected criteria.
5 What the Public Wants; Public Reactions
If a risk assessment procedure bypasses all the above pitfalls and follows the
standardized procedure that we will discuss in this book, then we consider it a rational
risk assessment.
5.2 Public Hearing in the NWT: Environmental
Rehabilitation of the Giant Mine
There is a remarkable coherence in the societal requirements for better risk assessments, world-wide.
The text below was extracted from the MacKenzie Valley Review Board’s “Report
of Environmental Assessment and Reasons for Decision” (MVRB 2013: Appendix
D, Specific Risk Assessment Requirements) and we reproduce it below with minor
editorial changes.
It is expected a rational and societally acceptable risk assessment will include:
• The compilation of a proper glossary containing a description of all the terms used
in the Project and its development, especially those that might have a common use
which differs from the technical meaning (such as “risk”, “crisis”, “hazard”) in
compliance with ISO 31000.
1
• The definition of the Project context in compliance with ISO 31000, including all
the assumptions on the Project environment, chronology etc.
• A properly defined hazard and risk register.
• A clearly-defined system of macro and subsystems/elements and their functional
and interdependent links describing for each one of them:
– expected performances;
– possible failure modes and quantification of the related ranges (to include uncertainties) of probabilities
2 evaluated as numbers in the range 0–1 (mathematical
characterization) with a clear explanation of the assumptions underlying their
determination;
– associated magnitude of the hazards and related scenarios.
• An independent analysis of failure/success objectives.
3
1 In order to avoid any confusion, this text complies with the freely available glossary Riskope has
produced. The glossary is now at his third edition (https://www.riskope.com/knowledge-centre/
tool-box/glossary/).
2 For the determination of the probabilities the assessors will use a selection of methods taken from
ISO 31010 international code.
3 For example, see NASA’s Fault Tree Handbook with Aerospace Applications (NASA 2002). This
should model success and failure with various pre-selected criteria.