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

SRA 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
M3-I.1 Locke, MS; Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration; michael.locke@dot.gov
A case study in estimating mitigated risk for safety
regulators: Hazardous materials transportation
Government oversight of industrial hazards is focused on the
prevention and diminution of negative consequences (chiefly
harm to humans, as well as environmental and property
damage or loss), at times evaluating systemic performance only
up to the point of judging whether the total magnitude of said
consequences was greater or less than the previous year. In
fields such as commercial transportation of dangerous goods, it
can be difficult to assess how much of this annual variation
would be preventable with further investment versus what is
simply attributable to the inherent, residual risk of a
multimodal, human-designed and human–run system.
Presenting this data relative to trends in economic activity
provides more context but is complicated by the
often-fragmentary nature of exposure data, with volumes of
material shipped being broadly surveyed only once every five
years. Altogether, however, this information only gives part of
the picture: failures of risk management. The U.S. Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, in the continual
process of self-assessment, is developing methods for capturing
estimates of successfully mitigated risk—that is, the potential
consequences averted through purposeful intervention. This
initiative intends to explore questions including: How or from
when do we determine baseline risk? Can we decompose or
partition the effects of government interventions such as
regulations, outreach, and enforcement? What is the return on
investment of a dollar spent on safety oversight? and How do
we avoid double-counting benefits, i.e., saving the same life
over again with every new regulation?
T2-K.1 Lofstedt, R; Kings College London;
ragnar.lofstedt@kcl.ac.uk
The substitution principle in chemical regulation: A
constructive critique
The substitution principle is one of the building blocks of
modern day chemical regulation as highlighted in the
Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of
Chemicals (REACH) regulation. But what is the substitution
principle, what is the history of its use and how do relevant
authorities and regulatory actors view it? This article addresses
these questions and is based on a grey literature review and 90
in-depth face-to-face formal and informal interviews with
leading policy makers in Europe, with a specific focus on
Scandinavia. The paper shows that the substitution principle is
a surprisingly under researched topic and that there is no clear
consensus on how to best apply the principle. The penultimate
section puts forward a series of recommendations with regard
to the use of the substitution principle which European policy
makers and regulators may wish to adop
W4-C.4 Long, KL; Nielsen, JM; Ramacciotti, FC*; Sandvig, RM;
Song, S; ENVIRON International Corporation;
framacciotti@environcorp.com
A Risk Assessment Approach that Facilitates Site
Redevelopment and Remediation When Future Site Uses
are Uncertain
Traditional approaches to site risk assessments are often not
capable of supporting cleanup decisions for sites where future
uses are still being decided because these approaches are
based on defined exposure scenarios and exposure units that
correspond to the future uses. At the same time, site owners or
developers are often reluctant to make decisions about future
uses without knowing the potential health risks and
remediation costs associated with different future use options.
This presentation describes a risk assessment approach that we
have developed and applied at a number of sites to overcome
these barriers to site redevelopment and remediation decisions.
Our approach facilitates site decisions by conceptualizing every
sample location as a potential exposure unit and evaluating the
health risks and remediation costs for all future site uses under
consideration at every potential exposure unit. The massive
amounts of risk and remediation estimates generated from this
approach are mapped in GIS to help stakeholders visualize the
spatial distribution of health risks and the areas that would
need remediation under all possible future use scenarios under
consideration. By making the key consequences of future use
options accessible to stakeholders, this approach not only
overcomes barriers to decisions but also helps stakeholder
optimize between site redevelopment benefits and remediation
costs.
W4-A.2 Loomis, D*; Straif, K; International Agency for
Research on Cancer; loomisd@iarc.fr
Evaluation of Causality in the IARC Monographs
The IARC Monographs identify causes of cancer in the human
environment. Since 1971 over 900 agents have been evaluated,
with more than 100 classified as carcinogenic to humans and
over 300 as probably or possibly carcinogenic. Initially the
Monographs focused on environmental and occupational
exposures to chemicals, but have expanded to other types of
agents, such as personal habits, drugs and infections. The
process of causal inference used for IARC’s evaluations is laid
out in the Preamble to the Monographs. Working groups of
invited experts evaluate human, animal and mechanistic
evidence and reach a consensus evaluation of carcinogenicity.
Human and animal cancer data are first assessed separately
according to criteria established in the Preamble. The strength
of the evidence for causation is categorised as Sufficient,
Limited, Inadequate, or Suggesting lack of carcinogenicity. To
arrive at an overall evaluation, the Working Group considers
the totality of the evidence and assigns agents to one of 4
causal groups: 1 Carcinogenic to Humans; 2A Probably
carcinogenic to humans; 2B Possibly carcinogenic to humans; 3
Not classifiable as to carcinogenicity to humans, or 4 Probably
not carcinogenic to humans. The evaluation criteria reflect the
Precautionary Principle in that sufficient evidence of
carcinogenicity in animals can be used to classify an agent as
possibly carcinogenic to humans when human data are
inadequate. Mechanistic evidence can be also invoked to
upgrade an evaluation in the absence of adequate human
cancer data. Alternatively, strong evidence that a relevant
mechanism is absent in humans can downgrade an evaluation
based on animal cancer data. Comprehensive assessment of the
evidence according to established causal criteria has made the
Monographs an authoritative source for agencies and
researchers worldwide. While the process described here is one
of hazard identification, the Preamble also has scope for
characterising risk quantitatively.
December 8-11, 2013 - Baltimore, MD