Abstracts (PDF file, 1.8MB) - Society for Risk Analysis

More documents

Recommendations

Info

SRA 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts M3-B.3 Ross, MA*; Owens, BO; Vandenberg, JM; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; ross.mary@epa.gov The EPA Causality Framework for Assessment of Air Pollution-Related Health Effects The periodic review of U.S. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for each of the six criteria air pollutants -- ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides and lead -- starts with the synthesis and evaluation of the most policy-relevant science in Integrated Science Assessments (ISAs). EPA has developed an approach for formal characterization of the strength of the scientific evidence and drawing conclusions on causality for exposure-effect relationships. The framework establishes uniform language concerning causality and brings greater consistency and specificity to the ISAs. EPA drew on relevant approaches for similar scientific decision-making processes by EPA and other organizations. In Findings from multiple lines of evidence -- controlled human exposure, epidemiologic and toxicological studies -- are evaluated and integrated to draw conclusions on health effects with regard to factors such as consistency, coherence and biological plausibility. The relative importance of different types of evidence varies by pollutant or assessment, as does the availability of different types of evidence for causality determination. The use of the framework is demonstrated with several examples of determinations for various health outcomes and pollutants, particularly drawing from the recently-completed ISA for Lead (Pb). Disclaimer: The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the US EPA. M2-H.3 Rothschild, C; McLay, LA*; Guikema, SD; University of Wisconsin-Madison; lmclay@wisc.edu Adversarial risk analysis with incomplete information: A level-k approach This paper proposes, develops, and illustrates the application of level-k game theory to adversarial risk analysis. Level¬-k reasoning, which assumes that players play strategically but have bounded rationality, is useful for operationalizing a Bayesian approach to adversarial risk analysis. It can be applied in a broad class of settings, including settings with asynchronous play and partial but incomplete revelation of early moves. Its computational and elicitation requirements are modest. We illustrate the approach with an application to a simple bioterrorism Defend-Attack model in which the defender’s countermeasures are revealed with a probability less than one to the attacker before he decides on how or whether to attack. T2-H.3 Rouse, J.F.; Arete Associates, Joint Staff; jnbeth@yahoo.com The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: Risk Assessment System The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) serves as the principal military advisor to the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the National Security Council. He is also required to annually submit to Congress his assessment of the strategic and military risks in executing the missions called for in the National Military Strategy. At the intersection of these two responsibilities lies the Chairman's Risk Assessment System; which incorporates the major tenets of the International Risk Governance Council’s 2003 White Paper- Risk Governance-an Integrative Approach. This framework has now been employed by three different Chairmen, with each focusing efforts on different components – highlighting the highly individual interaction of the senior leader with his supporting risk system. This paper describes the current system and how it has adapted to meet the needs of different Chairman and support strategic decision-making - with specific examples of national decisions that were impacted. Lessons learned have direct applicability to other government agencies and efforts to deal with highly qualitative risks arising from the strategic environment. T4-C.2 Sacks, JD*; Vinikoor-Imler, LC; Ross, M; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; sacks.jason@epa.gov Identifying populations at-risk of air pollution-induced health effects through the use of a novel classification scheme Under the U.S. Clean Air Act, the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are established that provide an adequate margin of safety requisite to protect the health of portions of the population at increased risk of an air pollution-induced health effect. It is, therefore, imperative that the available scientific evidence that examines factors that may result in certain populations being at increased risk is fully characterized to inform decisions made in risk and exposure assessments as part of the NAAQS review process. Investigators have often classified these “at-risk” populations as being either susceptible or vulnerable to air pollution. However, this dichotomous approach ignores the complexities involved in identifying these populations. It has been well characterized that risk to air pollution-induced health effects can be influenced by: (1) intrinsic factors, (2) extrinsic factors, (3) increased dose, and/or (4) increased exposure. The U.S. EPA in the development of Integrated Science Assessments characterizes populations that may be at increased risk of an air pollutant-induced health effect to support policy decisions made during the course of the NAAQS review process. The first step of this characterization consists of integrating evidence across scientific disciplines, i.e., epidemiologic, controlled human exposure, toxicological, and exposure sciences studies. To facilitate the identification of factors that contribute to increased risk we then developed an approach to evaluate the strength of evidence and determine the level of confidence that a specific factor affects risk of an air pollutant-induced health effect. The classification for a specific factor is based on whether: consistent effects are observed within a discipline; there is evidence for coherence of effects across disciplines; and there is evidence for biological plausibility. We will demonstrate the application of this framework using examples from recent NAAQS reviews. December 8-11, 2013 - Baltimore, MD
SRA 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts T3-A.4 Sadeghi, F*; Assadian, MS; Pardazesh Samaneh Farboud Consulting Co.; farzad.sadeghi.ie@gmail.com Risk management in international construction joint ventures: Lessons learned from a case study in Iran Construction industry is one of the challenging and rewarding industries which faces with different aspects of risks. These risks are resulted from broad variety of issues such as economic, political, social, and environmental. In recent decades, with the continued globalization of the world’s economies, international joint ventures (IJV) are commonly used by firms as an international strategy and as a means of competing within global competitive area. IJV provides stimulating advantages including international market development, technology transfer, enhancing partners’ capacities, and clarifying the local obscure and complex environment. IJVs are often thought to enhance corporate flexibility and thereby shift, share, or reduce risks. However, despite reducing the technological, financial, operational, and market risks, at the same time certain types of risks would be introduced into these settings. Based on the literature review, these risks can be categorized into: internal risks (e.g. policy misalignment, partner financial problems, allocation of work), project-specific (e.g. conditions of contracts, demands & variation by clients, incompetence of suppliers), and external risks (e.g. economic fluctuation, policies, laws and regulations, environmental concerns). This implies a vital need for IJVs to implement risk management as a policy making tool in order to lead them towards success. In this research, we aim at finding out the practical key points of risk management implementation. For this purpose, an IJV - Chinese and Iranian companies - in an Iranian construction project has been chosen as a case study. The case findings indicate firstly the effect of risk management in different stages of IJV life cycle and secondly necessity of external risk identification and mitigation in developing countries like Iran. It is hoped that proposed approach could be applicable for IJVs to determine better policies to speed up their movement towards success and sustainability. P.112 Sager, SL*; Locey, BJ; Schlekat, TH; ARCADIS U.S., Inc.; ssager@arcadis-us.com The Balance between Protection of Human Health and Compliance with Regulatory Standards Drinking water standards such as maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) are frequently selected as remedial goals for groundwater whether or not this resource is used as a potable water supply. Some states even go as far as promulgating groundwater standards based on MCLs. However, when toxicity values change, there can be a lag time between those changes and a revision to the drinking water standard. This lag time has vast implications for industrial sites. As examples, the changes in the toxicity values of 1,1-dichloroethene (1,1-DCE) and tetrachloroethene (PCE) recommended by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and their implications for setting groundwater standards and remedial goals will be discussed. The groundwater standard for 1,1-DCE in the State of North Carolina will be presented as a case study. Implications for the groundwater standard for PCE will also be discussed. North Carolina recently revised the groundwater standard for 1,1-DCE from the MCL of 7 micrograms per liter (µg/L) to a health-based concentration of 350 µg/L. In their economic analysis in support of the revision, the State of North Carolina reported cost savings of over $1,000,000 reflected by reduced sampling and analysis, reporting, and regulatory oversight. However, since compliance with the MCL is still required for public water supplies, these savings are primarily achieved for sites without potable water. A similar scenario is envisioned for PCE with broader economic impacts. The State of North Carolina groundwater standard is a health-based concentration of 0.7 µg/L based on an old toxicity value. However, a revised standard could be set equal to the current MCL of 5 µg/L or it could be recalculated to equal 16 µg/L if the latest toxicity information from USEPA is utilized. In addition this paper will discuss the cost of the time lag to update standards based on the latest science to both industry and the public. P.118 Sahmel, J; Devlin, KD; Hsu, EI*; Cardno Chemrisk; Elleen.Hsu@cardno.com Measurement of Hand to Mouth Lead Transfer Efficiency - A Simulation Study There are currently no known empirical data in the published literature that characterize hand-to-mouth transfer efficiencies for lead. The purpose of this study was to quantify the potential for the hand-to-mouth transfer of lead in adult volunteers using human saliva on a test surface as a surrogate for the mouth. Commercially available 100% lead fishing weights, confirmed by bulk analysis, were used as the source of dermal lead loading in this study. Volunteers were instructed to collect saliva in a vial prior to the study. A small amount of saliva was poured on to a sheet of wax paper placed on a balance. Volunteers were instructed to handle lead fishing weights with both hands for approximately 20 seconds and then press three fingers from the right hand, ten presses per finger, into the saliva with approximately one pound of pressure. The left hand remained as a control with no saliva contact to compare total dermal loading. Palintest® wipes were used to perform a series of wipes to collect lead from the saliva and skin surfaces. Samples were analyzed by the NIOSH 7300 method, modified for wipes. Quantitative analysis yielded a lead hand-to-mouth transfer efficiency that ranged from 12 to 34% (average 24%). A two-tailed paired t-test determined that the amount of lead loaded onto each hand was not statistically different (p-value: 0.867). These quantitative transfer data for lead from the skin surface to saliva are likely to be useful for the purposes of estimating exposures in exposure assessments, including those involving consumer products, and human health risk assessments. P.103 Sakata, N*; Kuroda, Y; Tsubono, K; Nakagawa, K; The University of Tokyo; sakatan-rad@h.u-tokyo.acjp Public response to information about the risk of cancer after the nuclear disaster in Fukushima The purpose of this study was to assess the response of residents in the affected area of Fukushima to a presentation on cancer risk that compared exposure to radiation and lifestyle choices. In March 2013, residents of Fukushima who had not been evacuated attended a lecture by an expert about cancer risks. After the lecture, a questionnaire about their response to the presentation was completed by 173 residents. The questionnaire concerned the perceived usefulness of or aversion toward the comparison of exposure to radiation and lifestyle choices. Residents responded on a 4-point Likert scale. In addition, the reason for any aversion was requested. Content analysis was performed for the qualitative data. Of the 173 residents (mean age ± SD = 59.53 ± 11.1), the expert’s information was rated useful or very useful by 85.5%, while 14.5% responded that the discussion was not very useful or not useful. Additionally, 59.3% responded that they did not feel any aversion toward the comparison of exposure to radiation and lifestyle and 40.7% responded they had feelings of aversion. Five categories and twelve codes were extracted from the residents’ responses, including “could not understand the methodology” “did not like the fact that the expert classified the risk of radiation as low,” “it was inappropriate to compare exposure to radiation and lifestyle choices,” “distrust of government and experts,” and “the risk assessment for children was incomplete.” Comparing exposure to radiation and lifestyle choices was considered helpful in understanding the risk of cancer by most residents, but feelings of aversion were also present. Reducing and addressing aversion engendered by information about cancer risks should be addressed in future presentations. December 8-11, 2013 - Baltimore, MD
Page 1 and 2:
SRA 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts W
Page 3 and 4:
SRA 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts P
Page 5 and 6:
SRA 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts T
Page 7 and 8:
SRA 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts M
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58: SRA 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts T
Page 61 and 62: SRA 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts M
Page 63 and 64: SRA 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts P
Page 79 and 80: SRA 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts W
Page 107: SRA 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts T
show all

Abstracts (PDF file, 1.8MB) - Society for Risk Analysis

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?