Risk assessment limits

Risk assessment limits the amount and source of information used in examining environmental and health hazards that may inhibit holistic understanding of complex systems and interactions. 

Risk assessments limit consideration of uncertainties, multiple exposures, cumulative effects, sensitive populations, or endpoints other than cancer. 

Hazard analysis (HAZAN) is a quantitative way of assessing the likelihood of failure. Other names associated with this technique are risk analysis, quantitative risk assessment (QRA), and probability risk assessment (PRA). Keltz [44] expressed the view that HAZAN is a selective technique while HAZOP can be readily applied to new design and major modification. Some limitations of HAZOP are its inability to detect every weakness in design such as in plant layout, or miss hazards due to leaks on lines that pass through or close to a unit but cany material that is not used on that unit. In any case, hazards should... 

Plant designs should be based on a risk assessment that considers the process and the site in detail as well as all of the principles of inherently safer operation. Earlier decisions may limit the options in... 

Many of the accidents considered in the investigation could occur without causing any significant public casualties. However, if the conditions at the time of the accident were sufficiently unfavorable, the number of deaths among the public could range from tens up to thousands (Table 11.4-1). Table 11.4-1 is the summarized population risk assessed by the study team. It is in frequency per 10,(XX) years of an accident at the indicated facility that causes casualties exceeding the indicated limit. Reference should be made to Canvey (1978) for details. 

When the exposure is well below the limit values and it is possible to be confident that on a long-term basis the probability of exceeding the limit value is very low, the risk assessment may conclude that the nature and extent of the risks related to those chemical agents make a further detailed risk assessment unnecessary unless work conditions are modified in a significant way. In these cases, however, it must be regularly checked w hether the assessment leading to that conclusion is still applicable. 

Because most research effort in the human reliability domain has focused on the quantification of error probabilities, a large number of techniques exist. However, a relatively small number of these techniques have actually been applied in practical risk assessments, and even fewer have been used in the CPI. For this reason, in this section only three techniques will be described in detail. More extensive reviews are available from other sources (e.g., Kirwan et al., 1988 Kirwan, 1990 Meister, 1984). Following a brief description of each technique, a case study will be provided to illustrate the application of the technique in practice. As emphasized in the early part of this chapter, quantification has to be preceded by a rigorous qualitative analysis in order to ensure that all errors with significant consequences are identified. If the qualitative analysis is incomplete, then quanhfication will be inaccurate. It is also important to be aware of the limitations of the accuracy of the data generally available... 

Thus, tlie focus of tliis subsection is on qualitative/semiquantitative approaches tliat can yield useful information to decision-makers for a limited resource investment. There are several categories of uncertainties associated with site risk assessments. One is tlie initial selection of substances used to characterize exposures and risk on tlie basis of the sampling data and available toxicity information. Oilier sources of uncertainty are inlierent in tlie toxicity values for each substance used to characterize risk. Additional micertainties are inlierent in tlie exposure assessment for individual substances and individual exposures. These uncertainties are usually driven by uncertainty in tlie chemical monitoring data and tlie models used to estimate exposure concentrations in tlie absence of monitoring data, but can also be driven by population intake parameters. As described earlier, additional micertainties are incorporated in tlie risk assessment when exposures to several substances across multiple patliways are suimned. 

Lack of exposure data for most organotins together with limited toxicity information for marine organisms preclude the calculation of risk factors for the marine environment. For dibutyltin, measured concentrations in seawater reflect the use of tributyltin as a marine anti-foulant rather than the use of dibutyltin in plastics. It is therefore not possible to conduct a reliable risk assessment for the current uses of the compormd. 

Ecotoxicology is primarily concerned with effects of chemicals on populations, communities, and ecosystems, but the trouble is that field studies are expensive and difficult to perform and can only be employed to a limited extent. In the main, environmental risk assessment of pesticides and certain other chemicals has to be... 

Envlroiunental testing Is a critical element In this process since It enables the qualitative and quantitative determination of toxic chemicals In the environment and the definition of environmental pathways which may lead to human exposure This paper briefly reviews the overall process of health risk assessments and the particular role which environmental testing plays Recent efforts to assess environmental health risks In relation to Love Canal Illustrate both the usefulness and the limitations of environmental testing In risk assessment ... 

The definitions of method detection and quantification limits should be reliable and applicable to a variety of extraction procedures and analytical methods. The issue is of particular importance to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and also pesticide regulatory and health agencies around the world in risk assessment. The critical question central to risk assessment is assessing the risk posed to a human being from the consumption of foods treated with pesticides, when the amount of the residue present in the food product is reported nondetect (ND) or no detectable residues . 

Today, when a pesticide with no detectable residues is registered for use, a Tolerance or maximum residue limit (MRL) is established at the lowest concentration level at which the method was validated. However, for risk assessment purposes it would be wrong to use this number in calculating the risk posed to humans by exposure to the pesticide from the consumption of the food product. This would be assuming that the amount of the pesticide present in all food products treated with the pesticide and for which no detectable residues were found is just less than the lowest level of method validation (LLMV). The assumption is wrong, but there is no better way of performing a risk assessment calculation unless the limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantification (LOQ) of the method were clearly defined in a uniformly acceptable manner. 

---