RISK ASSESSMENT- Do we all agree?

Risk Assessment - Chapter 14-1, LaGreca (et all)
By Peter Lembessis
Risks! We are taking them every day and some times we don't even know. Since the Industrial Revolution, humans realized that certain areas of their every day living, work, environment, food, health involves some type of risk that needs a more precise assessment and calculation. Some might say the science of risk was developed to protect life, injuries to the public and to save money for the businesses. Not everything can be measured. Risk is based in the probability theory. Based on the risk assessment, business make important decisions with the outcome being profit or saving money where Governments look out for the good of the people. The need for risk-based standards was developed.
LaGreca uses the term quantitative to describe the process of using scientific principles to calculate quantitative estimates of risk. His four stages varies very little from other scientist based on the risk calculated. For examples William C. Blackman. Jr in his book "Basic Hazardous Waste Management" defines the four steps of risk assessment as; Toxicology Evaluation, Dose-response evaluation, Exposure assessment and risk characterization. There is no real difference between the two authors other than the Dose-response evaluation.
Where mostly scientists involved with Risk assessment agree generally on the principles, there are also some critics.
From the Internet site of Wikipedia on the article of Risk assessment I noticed some of the critics comments. " Barry Commoner and Brian Wynne as well as other critics have expressed concerns that risk assessment tends to be overly quantitative and reductive. They argue that risk assessments ignore qualitative differences among risks. Some charge that assessments may drop out important and non-quantifiable or inaccessible information, such as variations among the classes of people exposed to hazards. Furthermore , Commoner and O'Brien claim that quantitative approaches divert attention from precautionary measures. Others, like Nassim Nicholas Taleb consider risk managers little more that "blind users" of statistical tools and methods" The arguments on risk calculation and risk assessment exist since their inception and set the stage for government involvement. EPA and other regulatory agencies have , as it should , set risk -based standards based on legislature Acts. The standards are needed and used because of the court-imposed need to "show harm" when a standard is challenged and works as a referee between conflicting opinions on the subject.
Professor Blacman writes that "the courts can be expected to lend a sympathetic ear to pleas for rationality in standards, and risk-based standards, and some of the verdicts will be with us for years to come"
I agree
Peter Lembessis

References
LaGreca, MichaleD, Buckinham, Philip L., Evans, Jeffrey C. 2001. Hazardous Waste Management. chapter 14-1 Quantitative Risk Assesment
William C. Blackman. Jr. Basic Hazardous waste management, Second Edition, chapter 4, toxicology and the Standard -Setting Processes
Internet, Web site, Wikipedia, calculating risk
Commoner, Barry. O"Brien, Mary. Shrader-Frechette and Westra 1997
The Fourth Quadrant: Amap of the limits of Statistics (9.15.08) Nassim Taleb , an Edge Original Essay

RISK COMMUNICATION – UNDERSTANDING THE SCIENCE OR THE AFFECTED POPULATION?

The challenge that affects those who utilize risk communication is the ability to take technical information and present it to the non-technical public. While data that is wholly and completely objective would make sense to people that are scientifically incline, the public perceives it as information that is too complex for them to understand and comprehend. According to LaGrega, “[risk communication] enters the area of perception, and while not leaving the world of science, it is a much different world and one not relished by many scientists and engineers.”

“In the mid-1980’s, [risk communication] became recognized as a necessary component in risk management and community decision-making in environmental and occupational health issues” (US Public Health Service, 1995, p. 2). Many experts recognized that involving the public with technical papers and data can make the public comment process slow and cumbersome. However, the benefits of effective risk communication include a holistic approach of reaching a consensus among the stakeholders that includes solicitation of input from the public. In 1983, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission “provided the framework for improving risk assessment” (US Public Health Service, 1995, p. 2). The framework described the “methods for estimating risk to humans exposed to toxicants and in research directed to how individuals perceive risk” (US Public Health Service, 1995, p. 2).

In 2001, the Environmental Protection Agency published Stakeholder Involvement & Public Participation at the U.S. EPA. The document outlines various lessons and innovative methods to involve stakeholders and the public with decision and rule making. The process lists several lessons that were learned throughout the 1990’s which helped stakeholders and the public interject valuable input. The result was rules that were developed through consensus and more importantly decision ownership. Three lessons that were utilized and further refined were:

References

LaGrega, Michael D., Buckingham, Phillip L., Evans, Jeffrey C. 2001. Hazardous Waste Management. Chapter 14: Quantitative Risk Assessment.

US EPA. 2001. Stakeholder Involvement & Public Participation at the U.S. EPA. Retrieved September 7, 2010 from www.epa.gov/stakeholders

US Public Health Service. 1995. Risk Communication: Working with Individuals and Communities to Weigh the Odds. Retrieved September 7, 2010 from http://odphp.osophs.dhhs.gov/pubs/prevrpt/archives/95fm1.htm

Risk Communication

Risk Communication
BY
Robin Walker

All Humans have the ability to communicate either through speech or through gestures. Language is the system in which we communicate information and the inability of effective communication causes confusion and delay. (Havland, 1996)
The need to communicate effectively in order to use risk assessment results to educate the nontechnical audiences. This includes the general public, legislators, environmental groups and other risk managers. The ineffectiveness of communication can lead to bad policy decisions and regulatory decisions. (Wiliams, James, & Roberts, 2000) In general people have limited exposure to scientific communication which includes lectures, papers, language and culture of the scientific community. (Moriarty, 1997) When communicating to different groups of people the risk manager needs to tailor his statements to knowledge level of his group. (Rodricks, 2007) Everyone who listens or reads makes up his or her own personal audience and hears and reads everything based on their own personal experience. But every person can be categorized into groups based upon their familiar they are with the subject.
The lay audience’s expertise falls into the realm of general knowledge. They have no specialty knowledge on the subject. It would not be appropriate in a community meeting of laypeople to use specialized acronyms and phrases. Use examples, photographs, diagrams and straights forward graphs. (Moriarty, 1997) In short keep it simple.
An operator is a person who can ‘operate’ or has a very basic understanding about the subject an example of this is a driver’s license which is an operator’s license. Operators only need to know basic maintenance and the rules of the road, but lack more in depth knowledge of the subject. Some technical information can be given. (Moriarty, 1997)
The technician possesses more indebt theoretical knowledge than the operator and can understand a greater level of complexity. A mechanic knows how to work on your vehicle but would not design a computer exponent for the braking system. (Moriarty, 1997)
The expert has an extensive knowledge in the theoretical aspects as well as the ramifications of the subject. Has knowledge of the sophisticated language, culture and is able to decode complicated graphs and charts. (Moriarty, 1997)
The ability of communication effectively to the understanding of your audience is an important tool in Risk communication if you are talking over their heads it can lead to misunderstanding. Which misunderstanding can lead to bad policy decisions and regulatory decisions (Wiliams, James, & Roberts, 2000)

Bibilogerphy

Havland, W. A. (1996). Cultural Anthropopogy (8th edition ed.). Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Moriarty, M. F. (1997). Writing Science through Critical Thinking. Boston: jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Rodricks, J. V. (2007). Calculated Risks The toxicity and Human Health Risks of Chemicals in our Environment (2nd Edition ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge university Press.
Wiliams, P. L., James, R. C., & Roberts, S. M. (Eds.). (2000). Principles of Toxicology (2nd Edition ed.). New York: John Wileey & Sons, Inc.

Risk in the workplace- Safety

When you think of risk assesment, it is common to think of the actual job at hand and how the environment can be affected such as a landfill that leaches to the groundwater, chemiclas from a wastepile that volatize into the atmosphere or soil that becomes contaminated from a spill. All of these things affect the environemnt and they are usually the focal point when doing an ESA (Environmetnal Site Assessment). But something commonly overlooked is worker safety. This could be from becoming complacent in your duties, improper training, lack of knowledge or simply thinking "nothing will happen". Often, when tasked with the cleanup of a spill or a sampling procedure, the focus shifts to the job at hand and away from worker protection. For instance, if you were to visit a site and assess it for hazards are you prepared for what you may find? For example, do you have the proper PPE, respirator if needed, etc. Are you practicing the "buddy system"? Would you know what to do in the event of an accident? These are all questions to ask prior to beginnig a project.

The nature of environmental work can often include personal safety hazards. While intentions are good, sometimes people tend to "jump in" without first assessing all hazards and ultimately leading to delays in completing the task at hand or worse, someone getting hurt. A good practice is to perform a job safety analysis and risk assessment prior to each job being performed. All personnel should be aware of applicable OSHA standards as no job has a safety guarantee of 100%.

Risk Assessment involves several steps including identifying the hazard(s), assessing the toxicity and exposure levels, characterization and communication of the risk(s) and often an ecological assessment. Each step is equally important and must be given careful consideration.

Some common workplace hazards (defined as something that can cause harm) that need careful risk assesment (which is the combination of probablilty & severity of the hazards) are chemical and biological hazards, physical hazards and emotional hazards (stress, harrassment, ect.).

If you think about it, there is risk to basically everything you do, not just pertaining to the environment, site remediation and waste disposal. It is up to the worker to weigh the risks and arrive at a decision that is effective without compromising safety.

14.2 Hazard Identification

Hazard identification is the first step in risk assessment for waste regulatory. Hazard identification isn't confined to only waste regulatory, it is used in a whole variety of programs, but the purpose of this blog entry is to discuss its use in hazardous waste. Hazard identification is used to analyze whether there are foreign contaminants in a specific site. Investors need to know whether a plot of land is suitable for use.

So how is hazard identification used? A piece of land is surveyed, the soil, air, and water are measured to see what they are comprised of. Any containmanents identified will be noted, the most toxic or highest concentration elements usually presents the most risk. While many containminants maybe present, not all are hazardous due to their concentration or they do
not pose an imminent risk.

What do we do after we find unwanted stuff in the land? Many possibilities exist, but the most common solutions are to either treat it or leave it alone. Treatment is used to lessen the extent of the threat posed by the containment. A popular method is to use combustion or incineration to burn organic waste. Using treatment can be very expensive depending on the characteristic of the waste. Leaving it alone is not ideal but it is an option. Sometimes it is not worth the cost of removing the containment, it is easier to find another site to invest in.



References:

Superfund Risk Assessment
http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/superfund_toxicity.htm

EPA Treatment and Disposal
http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/tsd/td/index.htm

FEMA Disposing Waste
http://www.fema.gov/plan/ehp/regioniii/debris.shtm

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/waste/hazwaste/index.html

14 - 1 Risk

The understanding of risk is a valuable asset for any environmental manager. In order to understand risk it must be defined and measured. The measurement of risk is used to obtain accurate information that will allow environmental manager to make decisions. The decisions that environmental managers make affect many entities which includes the environment, the health and safety of the general population, and even the business community.
The defenition of risk is the probability of encounteringharm or loss. Another approach to the defenition of risk would be the weighing of costs and benifits of an action. Risk is all about tradeoffs. A decision that benefits one party may come as a cost to another. An example would be the opening of a new facility. The facility would bring newjobs to the community but at the cost of pollution to the environment. Risk can be measured by taking the product of the probaility of harm and the severity of harm. This formula can calculatethe quantifiable assets that can be lost. An example includes a company assets. There are other forms of risks that are not quantifiablesuch as death and illness. Risks that are not quantifiable can be measure by other methods such as population samples and surveys. This measurement of risk is known as the liklihood of harm occurring. If the benefits of harm occurring are acceptable then the risk is taken but if the costs are great then it will not be taken. There are two different kinds of risks. The first kind of risk is background risk. Background risk is defined as a nonspecific source of risk. Incremental risk is defined as risk that result from a specific source of risk. The total risk is known as the sum of the two kinds of risks and is necessary to calculate risk.
In order to understand the concept of risk it is necessary to distinguish it from a hazard. A hazard is a source of risk that is used to desecribe how harmful a risk can be based upon its charecteristics. Variables that describe risk are indicators of danger. An example would be the four charecteristics that classifyhazardous waste which includes toxicity, ignitability, corrositivity, and reactivity.
Once risk is defined and measured, it can be managed and controlled. The management of risk depends upon types of risk and what is being protected from these risks. The determination of the presence of risk can differ from protecting the health and safety of a poulation or ecosystem to protecting business assets that may result from a disaster. The basic steps for any risk assessment include:

1) Hazard or threat identification: Determination of what poses the greatest threat.
2) Asset identification: This step determines what is at risk. This includes ecosystems, populations, and company assets.
3) Vulnerabilities Assessment: This includes identifying who is at risk how they will be exposed and to what.
4) Risk Charecterization: This includes a determination of the magnitude of risk and gathering information to develop a solution. This is also the stage that risk is prioritized. Some risk poses a greater risk than othersa and some assets are more valuable than others.
5) Risk Management: Implementing a solution that will control risk.

References
1) Chater, Ian(2007). Risk Evaluation and control: practical guidelines for risk assessmentin The Defenitive Handbook of Business Continuity Management. Hiles, Andrew pp 137 - 145
2) Milton, Quantitaive Risk Assessment, Chp 14 pp 865 - 906
3) Suter, Glen. Ecological Risk Assessment 2nd Edition., Boca Raton, FL, CRC Press (2007), Print