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

SRA 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
M3-J.3 Gilmore, EA*; Hendrickson, P; University of Maryland;
gilmore@umd.edu
Evaluating Proliferation Resistance of Small Modular
Nuclear Reactors
Nuclear energy can make an important contribution to reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. Small modular reactors (SMRs),
defined as units with a generating capacity of less than 300 MW
that are delivered to the site fully assembled, may represent a
viable alternative to large reactors since they require smaller
initial capitalization, better match existing demand for energy
and capacity requirements, may be easier to site and may
engender less public opposition. Thus, this configuration opens
new opportunities for nuclear energy use, especially in
developing countries. However, there has been little effort to
evaluate SMR designs, manufacturing arrangements and fuel
cycle practices on the risks for proliferation. Here, we evaluate
the designs and fuel cycle arrangements, manufacturing and
delivery systems, and policy regimes are most likely to result in
proliferation resistant SMRs. We start by reviewing the
characteristics of existing SMRs. We compare this to a notional
SMR with sealed fuel compartment that would not give users
access to nuclear materials. In addition, these SMRs would be
produced in a “hub and spoke” arrangement with a small
number of manufacturing facilities worldwide and end of life
recovery of the modules for recycling and disposal. We then
apply and adapt a number of existing methods used to evaluate
the proliferation resistance for conventional light water
reactors to assess the SMRs. Adapting these models, we find
that the technological features of SMR systems can reduce the
proliferation risks compared to light water reactors, although
strong international regimes are required to support this
outcome.
P.10 Gilmore, J*; Martinez, C; Pagliarulo, M; Ontario Ministry
of Environment; James.Gilmore@Ontario.ca
Interim action values for management of contaminants in
soils for protection of human health risks
The Ontario Ministry of the Environment has developed interim
action value (IAVs) for several contaminants as part of its Soil
Assessment Protocol, which informs investigation, analysis and
risk reduction measures (RRMs) to address contaminated soil.
An IAV represents the upper limit beyond which interim risk
reduction measures should be considered. As the name implies,
IAVs are intended to inform short-term risk management and
mitigation decisions, which may need to be reconsidered over
time as more information becomes available on the exposure
conditions or on the science underpinning the IAV. IAVs can be
developed for various media including soil, groundwater, soil
vapour and indoor air, as needed. Interim action values are
generally developed from generic soil standards (GSS) by: a)
Reviewing the relevant human health component values
(HHCVs) underpinning the GSS (e.g., direct contact for
incidental ingestion and dermal contact); b) Adjusting the
target risk levels for non-cancer and cancer effects to the
selected range for risk management; c) Selecting the more
stringent effect and ensure that risks posed by other effects
(e.g., acute effects) are not exceeded. The IAV may be also
refined by reviewing available data from biomonitoring or other
studies, if available. Using arsenic as an example, an IAV of 200
µg/g was developed. This value is within the range of soil
concentrations studied that showed no significant elevated
arsenic exposure, reflects a 2 in 10,000 (or 1 in 5,000)
incremental cancer risk and is within the range of risks posed
from total inorganic arsenic exposure in the general Canadian
population (1 in 1,000 to 1 in 10,000), and is equivalent to
approximately ten times an upper estimate of background soil
concentrations of arsenic at 18 µg/g.
P.36 Glynn, ME*; Pierce, JS; Williams, B; Johns, LE; Adhikari,
R; Finley, BL; Cardno ChemRisk; Meghan.Glynn@cardno.com
Residential and occupational exposure to wood treating
operations and bladder cancer: A meta-analysis
The wood treating industry has operated for over 100 years in
the United States, with sites commonly operating for more than
decades. Over time, concerns have been raised regarding the
potential chronic health effects associated with wood
treating-related exposures. In at least one case it has been
suggested that there might be an association between risk of
bladder cancer and exposure to chemicals associated with
historical wood treating operations (e.g., creosote, coal tar and
associated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [PAHs], and
pentachlorophenol [PCP]). A literature search was conducted to
identify all published and unpublished analyses that reported
risk estimates for bladder cancer in (1) residents of
communities surrounding wood treating operations, (2) wood
treating workers, and (3) non-wood treating workers who were
exposed to chemicals associated with wood treating operations
(e.g., creosote/coal tar/PAHs and PCP). A total of 18 studies,
including independent cohort, record-linkage, and case-control
studies, were included in the meta-analysis. Using a random
effects model, meta-relative risks (meta-RRs) were calculated
for each exposure group. The summary relative risk (meta-RR)
for bladder cancer overall was 1.04 (95% confidence interval
[CI]: 0.93, 1.17). No statistically significant meta-RRs were
observed among residents of communities in the vicinity of
wood treating operations (meta-RR=0.99; 95% CI: 0.73, 1.34);
wood treating workers (meta-RR=1.11; 95% CI: 0.53, 2.04);
workers exposed to coal tar, creosote, and associated PAHs
(meta-RR=1.04; 95% CI: 0.86, 1.27); and workers exposed to
PCP (meta-RR=1.00; 95% CI: 0.82, 1.23). In conclusion, the
studies reviewed provided no evidence of an association
between residential and occupational exposure to wood
treating operations and an increased risk of bladder cancer.
M4-D.2 Gombas, D; United Fresh; dgombas@unitedfresh.org
Produce Industry Perspective: Predicting the
Unpredictable
Protecting consumers is the top priority of the fresh produce
industry. But, without a “kill step”, produce food safety must
rely on prevention of contamination at every point in the supply
chain, from field to fork. Good Agricultural Practices(GAPs)
have been successfully used to prevent large scale
contamination events in the field. Yet recalls and outbreaks
linked to fresh produce demonstrate that GAPs cannot be the
entire answer. So how does the industry proceed? This session
will explore the industry’s current path, how speculations can
divert food safety resources from more effective practices, and
how opportunities have been missed in developing better
approaches to predict, prevent and detect sporadic
contamination events.
December 8-11, 2013 - Baltimore, MD