proaches and those needed <strong>for</strong> a reliable exposure-based approach. The exposurecomplement to the update to EPA’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening <strong>Program</strong> (EDSP-21) will also be discussed.W1-F.4 Valverde LJ, Convertino M, Dokukin D, Keisler J, Linkov I; igor.linkov@usace.army.milUS Army Engineer Researcha nd Development Center, University of MassachussetsPORTFOLIO OPTIMIZATION FOR ASSET MANAGEMENT: A USACECASE STUDYThe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers manages a diverse range of national assetsthrough different business lines, including navigation, flood response, hydropower,and others. An optimal allocation of asset management resources is difficult, giventhe breadth of the national asset portfolio, and the diversity of projects, goals andneeds between and within the organization’s business lines. This presentation introducesan asset management model that improves the traditional asset managementapproach considering the non-monetizable impacts, high-risk factors, and cognitivebiases that can hamper the decision-making process <strong>for</strong> resource allocation acrossmultiple business lines. The risk-based model evaluates the exogenous and endogenousfactors that can adversely impact — directly or indirectly — aspects or componentsof the asset types. The characterization and evaluation of critical events andprocesses (climatological and anthropological), of construction materials, of assetmonitoring, and inter- and intra-correlation of assets among business lines have beenconsidered as criteria of each business line-specific MCDA model. The criteria <strong>for</strong>the overall portfolio MCDA-based model are the value to the nation, the economicvalue, the safety and security, the environment impact, and the sustainability of eachasset that are broad fundamental objectives. The portfolio optimization that selectsthe most important asset-types among business lines is per<strong>for</strong>med by linear optimizationconstrained to the available resources. The model is flexible to consider differentlife cycle stages of asset-types, thus also the construction of new assets may bepotentially modeled. A case-study is presented <strong>for</strong> three business lines: bridges, dams,and recreational facilities. It is envisioned that this type of <strong>for</strong>mal asset managementtool can greatly enhance USACE’s ability to innovate and explore strategic optionsthat represent potential value-enhancing alternatives to the status quo.M4-E.4 Van Doren JM, Kleinmeier D, Ma Y, Blodgett R, Westerman A, ZiobroGC, Muckenfuss M, Gill V, Hammack T, Parish M, Neil KP, Mettee S, Nso<strong>for</strong> O,Gieraltowski L; jane.vandoren@fda.hhs.govFood and Drug Administration, Centers <strong>for</strong> Disease Control and PreventionSURVEILLANCE SAMPLING AT IMPORT: CHARACTERIZING RISKConsumption of Salmonella-contaminated food is one of the leading causes offoodborne illness in the United States. The 2008-2009 Salmonella Rissen outbreakattributed to contaminated white pepper and the 2009-2010 Salmonella Montevideo186and Senftenberg outbreaks attributed to contaminated black and red pepper highlightedthe potential <strong>for</strong> spices to contribute to foodborne illnesses. Since spicesare primarily supplied by way of imports to the United States, regulatory guidancesuch as import alerts and FDA surveillance sampling are tools used by the Food andDrug Administration to prevent contaminated spices from reaching the consumer.This talk will focus on surveillance sampling of FDA regulated imported productsas a means of characterizing the prevalence and level of contamination in importedspices. Data presented will explore the prevalence of Salmonella in spices as a functionof spice type, <strong>for</strong>m and country of origin. Enumeration data reveal typical levelsand distribution of Salmonella in spices. The impact of different sampling strategieson the efficacy of Salmonella detection in spices will also be explored.P.24 Villarraga Farfán EJ; julieth_villarraga@hotmail.comUniversidad de los AndesPRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF THE CARBON FOOTPRINT INTHE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY IN THE FIELD OF BASIC CHEMISTRYGHG emissions are part of the environmental risks that affect the Earth today.The emission of these gases produces adverse effects on living organisms and theenvironment. Among the most notable effects is the alteration of the hydrologicalcycle, as having a higher temperature in the Earth’s surface increases the evaporationof water, causing as latitude, increased rainfall or drought periods. The first step toreduce GHG emissions is to quantify it. To measure the amount emitted, organizationsuse the carbon registry protocols, such as the GHG Protocol. I per<strong>for</strong>med thestudy and quantification of GHG emissions in a Colombian chemical industry leaderin salt and chlorine production. For quantification of GHG emissions, environmentalinput and output analysis method was used, including emissions from stationary pointsources (boilers, reactor and energy consumption) and mobile sources (lifts, transportof raw materials and products) which resulted a carbon footprint of 341175 tons ofCO2 eq. Quantifying the carbon footprint <strong>for</strong> the organization can establish practicesto mitigate GHG emissions, reducing environmental impact and atmospheric effectsassociated with them. Emissions reduction is focused on identifying the main sourcesof emissions, because from this industries can define best practices in a productionprocess, such as the reduction in product delivery times, programs <strong>for</strong> the maintenanceor renewal of equipment, among others. The first possibility of reducing thecarbon footprint comes from chemical industry, increasing productivity, ie, emits thesame amount with more manufacturing. Thus, reducing the carbon footprint is aninitiative to encourage programs to increase production and efficiency of available resourcesin the organization. Also, is important to quantify the carbon footprint fromdeveloping countries, because the majority of emissions come from energy consumption,land use and industrial processes.
W3-C.4 von Stackelberg KE; kvon@erisksciences.comE <strong>Risk</strong> Sciences, LLPWEIGHT OF EVIDENCE EVALUATION FOR ADVERSE HEALTH EF-FECTS OF SEVERAL PESTICIDES AT ENVIRONMENTALLY-RELE-VANT CONCENTRATIONSThere are many examples of epidemiological studies showing an associationbetween exposure to a compound and one or more adverse health outcomes that areonly weakly, if at all, supported by the available toxicological data. For example, epidemiologicalstudies have shown an association between exposure to chlorophenoxypesticides such as 2,4-D and MCPA and adverse health outcomes including Non-Hodgkins lymphoma, Hodgkins disease, and soft tissue sarcoma, while the toxicologicaldata, however, suggest that these compounds are not carcinogenic. Moreover,there is the question of biological plausibility. Given what we know about the etiologyof particular health outcomes, what is the evidence <strong>for</strong> the required steps in termsof pathways <strong>for</strong> these diseases to occur, and are those reasonable pathways with respectto mode of action of exposure to the constituents of interest (e.g., what is thehypothesized mode of action and how does that compare to what is known aboutdisease etiology). There is also the question of exposure, and what exposures wouldbe necessary or sufficient to lead to the particular health outcome. We develop aframework <strong>for</strong> evaluating the weight of evidence <strong>for</strong> adverse health effects followingexposure to 2,4-D, MCPA, and several other pesticides based on the epidemiologicaland toxicological data together with criteria related to biological plausibility. <strong>Final</strong>ly,we integrate in<strong>for</strong>mation on exposures, including a discussion of biomonitoring data,where available, to develop an integrated assessment of the weight of evidence <strong>for</strong>potential health effects.P.41 von Stackelberg KE, Williams PRD; kvon@erisksciences.comE <strong>Risk</strong> Sciences, LLPQUANTITATIVE MODEL EVALUATION: LESSONS LEARNED FROMSYMPOSIA ON GETTING THE NUMBERS RIGHTModels are often used to support environmental decision making, and the predictivepower of these models is typically based on or can be evaluated using a varietyof calibration metrics. At the 2008 Annual SRA Meeting, we chaired two symposiaon quantitative metrics <strong>for</strong> model evaluation in environmental and occupationalhealth settings. In this presentation, we will synthesize and further explore the keythemes that emerged from these symposia discussions. In particular, we will discussthe use and limitations of different metrics, such as biomarker specificity withrespect to validating exposure estimates, population biomarker and biomonitoringdatasets to support exposure model development, and model to model comparisonsto evaluate individual model per<strong>for</strong>mance. We will also discuss the difficulty of usingMonte Carlo and related probabilistic simulation techniques <strong>for</strong> exploring uncertaintyin complex, integrated models and recommended strategies <strong>for</strong> incorporating anddeveloping uncertainty analyses in this context. This in<strong>for</strong>mation will be useful <strong>for</strong>analysts, modelers, and decision makers to consider during model development andlife cycle model evaluation.W2-G.1 Vorhees D, Strauss H, Heiger-Bernays W, Gopinathan B, Oruchin E,Stirrett-Wood G, Igbara J, Cowell W, Chien J, Dong Z; dvorhees@post.harvard.eduBoston University School of Public HealthHEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT OF EXPOSURES ASSOCIATED WITHNIGERIAN OIL FIELDSPeople living in the Ogoniland region of Nigeria attribute a range of adversehealth effects to petroleum releases to the environment. In 2010 at the request ofthe Nigerian government, the United Nations Environment <strong>Program</strong>me (UNEP) assessedconditions at over 300 sites affected by the release of petroleum from oil fieldoperations in Ogoniland. As part of this study, we designed and conducted a pilothealth study in collaboration with UNEP staff and scientists from the Rivers StateUniversity of Science and Technology in Port Harcourt, Nigeria. The study focusedon some of the most highly contaminated communities where people work primarilyas farmers and fishermen and was designed to determine (1) how people are exposedto petroleum, (2) whether these exposures might have adversely affected the healthof people, (3) what records are available to investigate health effects and whetherthey suggest that adverse health effects have occurred, (4) whether immediate actionis warranted to protect public health, and (5) how exposure monitoring and medicalrecord-keeping protocols can be improved to facilitate more detailed study. Datacollection included measurement of petroleum hydrocarbons in outdoor air, drinkingwater, rain water, and other environmental media, a survey of local communitymembers administered in person to ascertain patterns of exposure and self-reportedsymptoms and health conditions, and collection and analysis of primary health carecenter records. Some significant exposures were measured, notably benzene concentrationsin drinking water that were 8000 to 9000 times higher than the USEPA drinkingwater standard, but medical records and self-reported health in<strong>for</strong>mation werenot sufficient to reach conclusions about effects on human health. There<strong>for</strong>e, the presentationconcludes with recommendations <strong>for</strong> a prospective epidemiological studyin selected communities that is designed to include essential in<strong>for</strong>mation unavailableduring UNEP’s pilot study.187
- Page 4 and 5:
Ballroom C1Monday10:30 AM-NoonM2-A
- Page 9 and 10:
US Environmental Protection Agency
- Page 11 and 12:
Workshops - Sunday, December 4Full
- Page 13 and 14:
WK9: Eliciting Judgments to Inform
- Page 15 and 16:
These freely available tools apply
- Page 17 and 18:
Plenary SessionsAll Plenary Session
- Page 19 and 20:
10:30 AM-NoonRoom 8/9M2-F Panel Dis
- Page 21 and 22:
1:30-3:00 PMRoom 8/9M3-F Symposium:
- Page 23 and 24:
4:50 pm M4-E.5Modeling of landscape
- Page 25 and 26:
P.35 Health risk assessment of meta
- Page 27 and 28:
Works-In-ProgressP.99 Assessing the
- Page 29 and 30:
10:30 AM-NoonRoom 8/9T2-F Error in
- Page 31 and 32:
1:30-3:00 PMRoom 8/9T3-F AppliedMet
- Page 34 and 35:
8:30-10:00 AMBallroom C1W1-A Sympos
- Page 36 and 37:
10:30 AM-NoonBallroom C1W2-A Commun
- Page 38:
1:30-3:00 PMBallroom C1W3-A Communi
- Page 41 and 42:
3:30-4:30 PMRoom 8/9W4-F Environmen
- Page 43 and 44:
oth recent advances, and ongoing ch
- Page 45 and 46:
M3-H Symposium: Analyzing and Manag
- Page 47 and 48:
Part 2, we consider the use of expe
- Page 49 and 50:
T4-E Symposium: Food Safety Risk Pr
- Page 51 and 52:
While integral to guiding the devel
- Page 53 and 54:
have contributed to past difficulti
- Page 55 and 56:
M2-C.1 Abraham IM, Henry S; abraham
- Page 58 and 59:
serious accident of the Tokyo Elect
- Page 60 and 61:
een found that independence assumpt
- Page 62 and 63:
W4-I.1 Beach RH, McCarl BA, Ohrel S
- Page 64 and 65:
M4-A.1 Berube DM; dmberube@ncsu.edu
- Page 66 and 67:
W4-A.1 Boerner FU, Jardine C, Dried
- Page 69 and 70:
M2-G.1 Brink SA, Davidson RA; rdavi
- Page 71 and 72:
M4-H.5 Buede DM, Ezell BC, Guikema
- Page 73 and 74:
same scientists’ environmental he
- Page 75 and 76:
periods of time. Successful adaptat
- Page 77 and 78:
P.123 Charnley G, Melnikov F, Beck
- Page 79 and 80:
derived from mouse and rat testes t
- Page 81 and 82:
esources under any circumstance in
- Page 83 and 84:
W4-B.3 Convertino M, Collier ZA, Va
- Page 85 and 86:
addition, over 10% thought that eve
- Page 87 and 88:
Reference Dose (RfD). The average e
- Page 89 and 90:
W2-H.2 Demuth JL, Morss RE, Morrow
- Page 91 and 92:
T4-H.4 Dingus CA, McMillan NJ, Born
- Page 93 and 94:
methods research priorities and pot
- Page 95 and 96:
W3-A.2 Eggers SL, Thorne SL, Sousa
- Page 97 and 98:
tions) were < 1 for sub-populations
- Page 99 and 100:
sociated with model error. Second,
- Page 101 and 102:
inter-donation interval to mitigate
- Page 103 and 104:
Fukushima nuclear accident coverage
- Page 105 and 106:
for growth inhibitor use and retail
- Page 107 and 108:
W1-C.1 Goble R, Hattis D; rgoble@cl
- Page 109 and 110:
stakeholders. The utility of this m
- Page 111 and 112:
T2-E.4 Guidotti TL; tee.guidotti@gm
- Page 113 and 114:
M4-C.2 Haines DA, Murray JL, Donald
- Page 115 and 116:
providing normative information of
- Page 117 and 118:
then allow both systems to operate
- Page 119 and 120:
tious disease outbreaks. Several cl
- Page 121 and 122:
P.122 Hosseinali Mirza V, de Marcel
- Page 123 and 124:
W2-B.1 Isukapalli SS, Brinkerhoff C
- Page 125 and 126:
M3-G.3 Jardine CG, Driedger SM, Fur
- Page 127 and 128:
P.88 Johnson BB, Cuite C, Hallman W
- Page 129 and 130:
metrics to provide risk management
- Page 131 and 132:
M4-C.1 Koch HM, Angerer J; koch@ipa
- Page 133 and 134:
certainty factors) and comparative
- Page 135 and 136:
T3-D.4 LaRocca S, Guikema SD, Cole
- Page 137 and 138: P.71 Lemus-Martinez C, Lemyre L, Pi
- Page 139 and 140: of excretion, and the increased che
- Page 141 and 142: M2-D.4 MacKenzie CA, Barker K; cmac
- Page 143 and 144: isk appetite and optimal risk mitig
- Page 145 and 146: ameters, and enabled a more robust
- Page 147 and 148: over the nature and format of infor
- Page 149 and 150: Analysis (PRA). Existing parametric
- Page 151 and 152: explosion of a bomb in a building,
- Page 153 and 154: T3-G.3 Nascarella MA; mnascarella@g
- Page 155 and 156: corresponding slowdown in container
- Page 157 and 158: ing the scope and usage of the cybe
- Page 159 and 160: dose for a variety of exposure scen
- Page 161 and 162: “nanofibers”) is relatively und
- Page 163 and 164: ment (CEA), which provides both a f
- Page 165 and 166: T3-D.2 Resurreccion JZ, Santos JR;
- Page 167 and 168: shore wind turbines have yet been b
- Page 169 and 170: T2-D.3 Rypinski AD, Cantral R; Arth
- Page 171 and 172: time and temperature, determining t
- Page 173 and 174: esponse to requests from the EC, th
- Page 175 and 176: ers and inspectors. Analysis examin
- Page 177 and 178: smoked salmon, and associated expos
- Page 179 and 180: and 95th percentiles). Increasing t
- Page 181 and 182: esponse relationship for B. anthrac
- Page 183 and 184: variation on Day 0. Results showed
- Page 185 and 186: sidered. The most significant resul
- Page 187: lived in a apartment (not including
- Page 191 and 192: P.12 Waller RR, Dinis MF; rw@protec
- Page 193 and 194: W2-B.6 Wang D, Collier Z, Mitchell-
- Page 195 and 196: iomonitoring “equivalent” level
- Page 197 and 198: T4-H.2 Winkel D, Good K, VonNiederh
- Page 199 and 200: mation insufficiency, risk percepti
- Page 201 and 202: choices. This work examines these s
- Page 203 and 204: sults and possible intended or unin
- Page 205 and 206: AAbadin HG.................... 36,
- Page 207 and 208: Gray GM............................
- Page 209 and 210: Peters E...........................
- Page 211 and 212: SECOND FLOOR Floor MapConvention Ce