non-state actors to race to deploy SRM. Clearer understanding of regional distributionalimpacts may encourage actors to deploy SRM first, selecting the SRM projectthat most favors the deployer, and preempting (deterring) the deployment of otherSRM projects which might have superior regional distributional impacts but wouldyield excessive aggregate global cooling if deployed second or third. These tradeoffssuggest the need <strong>for</strong> careful attention to the strategic incentives, governance regimes,research programs, in<strong>for</strong>mation sharing, accountability and reversibility of SRM.T2-I.4 Williams RA; Rwilliav@gmu.eduMercatus Center at George Mason UniversityUTILITY OF REGULATIONS AND INSPECTION: FOOD SAFETY EX-AMPLEThe U.S. has been attempting to solve economic and social problems throughregulation and inspection <strong>for</strong> over 140 years and now has approximately 165,000 pagesof rules governing American life. This paper examines the possibilility that, whererisk regulations may be effective relatively early in the life of an agency, over time it istheoretically likely to be less effective as the agency tackles smaller, less certain riskswith fewer obvious solutions, larger more complex industries and become emeshedin more politically driven webs. FDA’s management of food safety will be discussedas an example of how new kinds of models may be needed to solve social problems.P.43 Williams E, Keenan J, Le M, Gaffney S; ewilliams@chemrisk.comChem<strong>Risk</strong> LLCPROPOSITION 65 DERMAL EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT FOR DEHP INCLOTHING WITH PLASTICIZED IMAGESA growing number of notices have been issued to apparel manufacturers anddistributors claiming levels of di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) in their productswould lead to an exceedance of the Maximum Allowable Dose Levels (MADLs) <strong>for</strong>male reproductive toxicity and the No Significant <strong>Risk</strong> Level (NSRL) <strong>for</strong> theoreticalcancer risk according to Proposition 65, <strong>for</strong>mally known as Cali<strong>for</strong>nia’s Safe DrinkingWater and Toxic En<strong>for</strong>cement Act of 1986. Referred to as Safe Harbor Levels(SHLs), these values <strong>for</strong> DEHP were derived assuming exposure occurred orally,however, a few animal studies have suggested that DEHP can migrate through theskin. There<strong>for</strong>e, the purpose of our study was to determine whether or not it is likelythat DEHP SHLs would be exceeded based on dermal exposure through normalproduct use. We per<strong>for</strong>med an exposure assessment to quantify the likely dermalexposure of DEHP from clothing. Our analysis assumed that DEHP was locatedwithin a plasticized image on shirts worn by various age groups: birth to 1 month, 1to 2 years, and adults. Based on the Consumer Product Safety and In<strong>for</strong>mation Act of2008 (CPSIA) and various state regulations <strong>for</strong> maximum allowable levels of DEHPin child care articles, such as pajamas, we assumed these images contained up to 1000ppm DEHP. Ranges of different exposure scenarios were analyzed, including 3 to19424-hour length-of-wear durations and direct skin contact area ranging between 10 and85% of the surface area of the shirt minus the sleeves. Our results indicate that dermalabsorption of DEHP from normal clothing use would not approach the MADLsin neonatal infants (20 µg/day), children (58 µg/day), or adults (410 µg/day), nor theNSRL (310 µg/day). Results suggest that it is unlikely that plasticized images on clothingthat con<strong>for</strong>m to CPSIA DEHP limits would result in exceedance of Proposition65 SHLs through dermal exposure under normal use situations.W1-H.4 Willis HH, Groves D, Fischbach J, Johnson DJ, Andrews L; hwillis@rand.orgRAND CorporationADAPTING TO FUTURE HURRICANE RISK IN NEW ORLEANS UN-DER CLIMATE CHANGE UNCERTAINTYAs the city of New Orleans recovers from the devastating hurricanes in 2005,government officials and individuals will continue to seek ways to reduce their risk tofuture hurricane storm surge beyond advocating <strong>for</strong> more storm-surge barriers. Climatechange and other uncertain factors make it difficult (1) to predict future stormsurge risk to New Orleans, (2) assess the benefits of locally-managed risk mitigationprograms, and (3) effectively communicate the benefits and tradeoffs of differentmitigation programs to the businesses and individuals that may choose to participatein them. This presentation describes an ef<strong>for</strong>t to develop and apply new approaches<strong>for</strong> incorporating state-of-the-art physical and social science in<strong>for</strong>mation into cityrisk-mitigation planning. Supported by the National Oceanographic and AtmosphericAdministration, we worked with the New Orleans Office of Homeland Security(OHS) to implement hurricane risk reduction programs and communicate hurricanerisk in<strong>for</strong>mation and mitigation options to New Orleans’ businesses and residents.This project is comprised of three interrelated activities: (1) Modeling storm surgerisk to New Orleans at the neighborhood level under a wide array of state- and citysupportedlocally-managed risk mitigation programs; (2) Developing the decisionsupportin<strong>for</strong>mation and tools needed by the New Orleans OHS to ensure that theirrisk mitigation programs achieve the desired goals; (3) Improving ways to communicatehurricane risk in<strong>for</strong>mation to the public to support individual choices regardingthe participation in government-supported risk mitigation measures. These ef<strong>for</strong>tsincreased understanding of how to in<strong>for</strong>m decision making under climate changeuncertainty.
T4-H.2 Winkel D, Good K, VonNiederhausern M, Hawkins B, Cox J, McGarveyD, Whitmire M; winkeld@battelle.orgBattelle Memorial Institute, DHS CSACASSESSING THE BENEFITS OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH RESPONSEIN THE EVENT OF A CHEMICAL TERRORISM ATTACKThe Chemical Terrorism <strong>Risk</strong> Assessment (CTRA) and Chemical Infrastructure<strong>Risk</strong> Assessment (CIRA) are DHS CSAC funded programs that estimate therisk of chemical terrorism attacks and assist in prioritizing mitigation strategies. Oneaspect of these programs is to model the public health response employed following achemical terrorism attack against the general public. Referred to as the CTRA/CIRAMedical Mitigation Model, the objective is to estimate the number of victims thatwould be saved by or benefit from the response. At the foundation of the model isthe concept of stock-and-flow modeling; “stocks” are states that individuals progressthrough during an event (e.g., “Exposed” or “Symptomatic”), while “flows” governmovement from one stock to another. This approach allows victims to be created atdifferent times, progress at different rates, and impede each others’ movement whenappropriate. The model simulates and tracks each victim as they progress from exposureto an end state (e.g., “Dead”, “Saved”, or “Benefited”). Some of the considerationsused in determining the appropriate end state <strong>for</strong> each victim include chemicalused in the attack, type of attack, route and severity of exposure, detailed treatmentregimens with efficacy defined as a function of time, and medical system capacity.Key features of the Medical Mitigation Model include the quantification of all modelparameters by subject matter experts from medical toxicology and emergency medicine,improved linkage between victim types and their corresponding toxicities, andmore clearly defined stockpile sources. By estimating the number of lives saved orbenefited, the model makes it possible to assess the effectiveness of the existing publichealth response system and to examine improvement strategies. Such a capabilitypermits policy makers to make in<strong>for</strong>med decisions on resource allocation and helpsresponders to better understand their ability to respond and areas of potential improvement.W1-H.2 Wood MD, Linkov I, Bridges T; mwood1@andrew.cmu.eduCarnegie Mellon University, US Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and DevelopmentCenter - Environmental LaboratoryEXPERT PERSPECTIVES FOR IMPROVING USACE FLOOD RISKMANAGEMENT AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENTThe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is the de facto leader in floodrisk management (FRM) because of the many natural and manmade waterways <strong>for</strong>which it is responsible, and its associated expertise. Hurricanes Katrina & Rita causedmany flood risk mitigation systems to fail in the Gulf Coast region, encouragingUSACE to improve its flood risk management (FRM) framework. To better understandcurrent beliefs about FRM within USACE, as well as differences between perceptionsof planners (responsible <strong>for</strong> managing & financing projects) and engineers(responsible <strong>for</strong> implementing projects), an Influence Diagram-based Mental Modelapproach was employed (Morgan, Fischhoff, Bostrom, & Atman, 2002). An ExpertModel workshop was conducted with USACE researchers, planners, and senior leadershipto identify key factors and develop an expert mental model of USACE FRM.This framework was then used as the analytical basis <strong>for</strong> follow-up Mental Modelsinterviews with USACE planners and engineers. Several influences on FRM wereidentified, including those affecting the flood risk levels; socio-economic, political,and internal drivers that; and the quality of collaboration, coordination and communicationboth internally and with external partners and stakeholders. Increasedintra- and interagency coordination and communication, as well as inclusion of localstakeholders, were seen as key areas to focus <strong>for</strong> FRM improvement, although differencesof opinion exist as to the best way to accomplish these goals. Other results andconsiderations will be discussed.W3-C.1 Woodall GM; woodall.george@epa.govUS Environmental Protection Agency, NCEAEXPOSURE RESPONSE ARRAY PROJECT AND SUMMARY OF ANOCTOBER WORKSHOPExposure-response arrays are increasingly being incorporated into assessmentsacross the U.S. EPA, based on the <strong>Risk</strong> Assessment Forum report “Recommendations<strong>for</strong> Improvements to the RfD/RfC Process,” and proposed changes in boththe Integrated Science Assessments (ISAs) <strong>for</strong> the “priority” pollutants covered bythe National Ambient Air Quality Standards, and <strong>for</strong> the assessments in the Integrated<strong>Risk</strong> In<strong>for</strong>mation System (IRIS). There are similar data presentations in theAcute Exposure Guideline Level (AEGL) Technical Support Documents, and in theToxicological Profiles developed by ATSDR. A template <strong>for</strong> exposure-response arrayswas developed based on experience in all of these programs. The current projectseeks to capture the lessons learned from the ef<strong>for</strong>ts across the EPA, and the broadergroup both inside and external to the Agency, to craft helpful advice and instructionalmaterials <strong>for</strong> creating effective exposure-response arrays. To meet this goal, a one-day,web-based workshop is to be held in October 2011. Prior to the workshop, a draftset of recommendations is being developed by an inter-agency work group to serveas a focal point <strong>for</strong> the workshop. In the workshop, we anticipate guided discussionsranging across a number of topics, including (but not limited to): (1) the various typesof arrays developed to-date; (2) <strong>for</strong>matting options - what works and what doesn’t; (3)how arrays can help in determining and communicating risk; (4) seeking consistencywithout sacrificing flexibility <strong>for</strong> effective presentation; and (5) consideration of thetarget audience (e.g., public vs. risk managers vs. scientists). This presentation willprovide an overview of the progress on the overall project, including the workshop,and the future of the project.195
- 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 and 188: lived in a apartment (not including
- Page 189 and 190: W3-C.4 von Stackelberg KE; kvon@eri
- 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: iomonitoring “equivalent” level
- 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