Final Program - Society for Risk Analysis

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 Risk Assessment (CTRA) and Chemical InfrastructureRisk 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 for 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 informed 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 forwhich 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 for managing & financing projects) and engineers(responsible for 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 for 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 for 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 Risk Assessment Forum report “Recommendationsfor Improvements to the RfD/RfC Process,” and proposed changes in boththe Integrated Science Assessments (ISAs) for the “priority” pollutants covered bythe National Ambient Air Quality Standards, and for the assessments in the IntegratedRisk Information 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 for exposure-response arrayswas developed based on experience in all of these programs. The current projectseeks to capture the lessons learned from the efforts across the EPA, and the broadergroup both inside and external to the Agency, to craft helpful advice and instructionalmaterials for 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 for 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) formatting options - what works and what doesn’t; (3)how arrays can help in determining and communicating risk; (4) seeking consistencywithout sacrificing flexibility for 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