Risk assessment communicating findings

In the second part, specific case studies in which the aforementioned models have been applied are presented. The results of such application as well as their reliability are discussed. Toxicological studies in Italy, risk assessment of electronic waste in China, or disposal of bearing lamps in India are some examples of selected scenarios.We hope that the scientific community finds in this book a source of information and inspiration to continue the research on chemical additives contained in products around the world. 

AOPs should be transparent, easy to understand, and if applicable, confirmed by in vivo findings. It is clear that the regulatory community is more stimulated to accept such novel ways of doing chemical risk assessment only when the underlying mechanism is understood. Over the last few decennia it has been demonstrated that in vitro methods with a non-clear underlying mechanism fail to be taken up by the regulatory community and consequently by potential end-users. 

Judicial decisions in nonregulatory contexts such as toxic tort and product liability suits are likewise inconsistent in their consideration of the linear, no threshold model. As in the regulatory context, most cases find no problem with an expert s reliance on a risk assessment using the linear model. In a handful of cases, however, the court rejects reliance on a linear dose-response assumption. Eor example, one court in addressing the cancer risks from a low concentration of benzene in Perrier held that there is no scientific evidence that the linear no-safe threshold analysis is an acceptable scientific technique used by experts in determining causation in an individual instance (Sutera 1997). Another court decision concluded that [t]he linear non-threshold model cannot be falsified, nor can it be validated. To the extent that it has been subjected to peer review and publication, it has been rejected by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. It has no known or potential rate of error. It is merely an hypothesis (Whiting 1995). The inconsistency and unpredictability of judicial review of risk assessments adds an additional element of uncertainty into the risk assessment process. 

A particular challenge that faces fisheries scientists in their role as advisers to government, industry, and the public is that prediction of fish stocks in fisheries and of risk assessment in aquaculture tend to be complicated by the fact that most of the factors involved are interactive. It is therefore important that the fisheries scientist, in communicating findings and making recommendations, ought to qualify and quantify the uncertainty associated with both the findings and the recommendations. 

One of the key findings of the initial review after the accident was that there was no formal, methodical safety risk assessment process. So the company set out to develop one. They decided that it needed to be a uniform and consistent methodology that could be used worldwide, across all product lines. Though product lines vary greatly, how their safety risks should be assessed needed to be very methodical and repeatable. Also, it was important that safety hazards and their associated risks must be communicated to the corporate level in a uniform and consistent manner so that risks could be compared across all operations. 

As important as the visible behaviour of senior managers is the information that is communicated in writing. In many cases there is a legal duty to produce written documentation, for example there is a requirement to have a written health and safety policy and written records of the significant findings of fire risk assessments (see Chapters 1 and 2). What is absolutely crucial is that written communication is clear, concise and understood by those it is provided for. 

If risk assessments are going to be more than just words in a document then the significant findings need to be acted upon. Managers and other staff need to understand the risks in the workplace, what needs to be done to control them and what role they have to play in the process. The only way for the findings of the risk assessment to be effectively implemented is for them to be effectively communicated. 

Besides being a requirement of current legislation, it is good business sense for the findings of any risk assessment to be communicated to all those who may be affected. Groups of people who should be provided with information should include, but not necessarily be limited to ... 

Figure 5.15 Communicating the significant findings of a risk assessment...

Hazard identification a process to identify hazards and associated risk to persons, property, and structures and to improve protection from natural and human-caused hazards Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (HIRA) a process to identify hazards and associated risk to persons, property, and structures and to improve protection from natural and human-caused hazards HIRA serves as a foundation for planning, resource management, capability development, public education, and training and exercises Hazard operability study a structured means of evaluating a complex process to find problems associated with operability or safety of the process Hazard rating (NFPA) classification system that uses a four-color diamond to communicate health, flammability, reactivity, and speciflc hazard information for a chemical substance a numbering system that rates hazards from zero (lowest) to four (highest)... 

In the final phase of risk analysis—risk characterization—one integrates outputs of effects and exposure assessments. Risk is expressed in qualitative or quantitative estimates by comparison with reference values (e.g., hazard quotient). The severity of potential or actual damage should be characterized with the degree of uncertainty of risk estimates. Assumptions, data uncertainties and limitations of analyses are to be described clearly and reflected in the conclusions. The final product is a report that communicates to the affected and interested parties the analysis findings (Byrd and Cothern, 2000). 

---