Risk-cost-benefit analysis

In many cases, various risk-reduction alternatives will result in a tolerable level of risk. Cost-benefit analysis can be a useful tool in evaluating alternative approaches. Costs are generally straightforward and easy to estimate however, estimating benefits may be more difficult, requiring assumptions that allow all benefits to be expressed using a common basis, usually monetary. 

Major development risks Cost-Benefit analysis... 

According to Hovden (2002), these proposals met some opposition in the industry, as they no longer allowed for justifying cost cutting based solely on (controversial) risk-cost-benefit analysis. 

In efforts to avoid or lower risks, we must always consider both the cost and the benefit of the efforts. This is done in risk-cost-benefit analysis. Everything has a price tag on it. 

Risk Cost-Benefit Analysis A combination of cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment. It is intended to assess the costs and benefits associated with prevention or reduction of risks to human health and the environment. 

Process Hazards Analysis. Analysis of processes for unrecogni2ed or inadequately controUed ha2ards (see Hazard analysis and risk assessment) is required by OSHA (36). The principal methods of analysis, in an approximate ascending order of intensity, are what-if checklist failure modes and effects ha2ard and operabiHty (HAZOP) and fault-tree analysis. Other complementary methods include human error prediction and cost/benefit analysis. The HAZOP method is the most popular as of 1995 because it can be used to identify ha2ards, pinpoint their causes and consequences, and disclose the need for protective systems. Fault-tree analysis is the method to be used if a quantitative evaluation of operational safety is needed to justify the implementation of process improvements. 

Covernment and regulatoi y decisions. Sometimes these decisions are based on some type of quantitative risk analysis, and they provide some guidance on society s expectations with regard to risk management. In some cases these decisions will also include some kind of cost-benefit analysis. The current political climate in the United States may encourage more extensive use of risk analysis in the establishment of future regulations. 

The Safety Goal Policy Statement was published to define acceptable radiological risk IVom nuclear power plant operation, and by implication provide a de minimus risk to be assured without cost considerations. Safety beyond the minimum requires cost-benefit analysis. Since being promulgated, bulletins and generic letters have been imposed to enhance safety, under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.109, the Backfit Rule. 

Consider the consequences of possible errors for risk assessment or for cost-benefit analysis when considering alternative ERS. 

A cost-benefit analysis of proposed changes that are expected to reduce risk to tolerable levels... 

Cost-benefit analysis also requires a determination of the costs incurred from incident-related fatalities. Reduction in individual risk (fatalities per year) is a key component in risk associated with buildings in process plants. One method of determining the cost of fatal accidents is to estimate the amount of money that society might perceive as reasonable compensation in the event of a fatal accident. 

Qualitative findings of ecosystem risk assessments are of low utility for risk management. They cannot be compared with quantitative estimates of other risks this compromises the ability of risk ranking to provide insights to setting priorities. It is particularly difficult to convert them into a format applicable for cost-benefit analysis, which is a key tool that any proponent uses in decision-making on a proposed project. 

This paper will summarize briefly some work my colleagues and I at Decision Focus Incorporated have carried out for EPA to show how decision analysis might be used to assist decision making under TSCA ( 5). I will first briefly review the concepts of quantitative risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis to show how decision analysis fits with these concepts and provides a natural way of extending them. Then I will illustrate the approach using a case study on a specific chemical, perchloroethylene. 

This long-term view of the costs and benefits of TSCA, why these cannot be quantified and how they may be managed better, characterizes the chapter by the Conservation Foundation s J.C. Davies. His critique of cost-benefit analysis contrasts that of D.W. North. Regardless, he lists separately some benefits and costs of TSCA. As to new chemicals, there is very limited evidence that unreasonable risks may have been averted from a few new chemicals. In general, aside from systems for defining new chemicals and monitoring these, if needed, he finds no significant benefits in this area of TSCA. 

A requirement to provide a Substitution Plan with all applications for an authorisation will prevent unnecessary requests for authorisation and focus attention on safer chemicals. If substitution is not currently feasible for a particular use, the use of an authorised chemical would be allowed under a strict risk management regime, providing social need could be demonstrated and a positive cost/benefit analysis provided. The authorisation would be time-limited to allow the development of safer substitutes, and manufacturers and/or users would be required to produce a substitution development plan to enable substitution to take place before the authorisation expires. 

The use of cost-benefit analysis plays an important role in the decision-making process for fire protection systems. A cost-benefit analysis sums the expected benefits and is divided by the sum of the expected costs. A challenge often lies in determining what "expected" means and estimating the value of money over the time period the fire protection is in use. In fire protection, the expected benefits can be defined as the difference between the cost of a loss without protection and the cost of a loss with protection. The exported costs include the initial costs of the fire protection as well as any annual testing and maintenance costs. The likelihood of an incident is factored in to obtain residual risk. This residual risk is compared to the benefit to determine what benefit is available each year versus the annualized cost. 

One useful tool of risk assessment is to compare the risk before and after prevention or mitigation to determine the difference in risk. A cost benefit analysis can be completed that determines the cost of the mitigation versus the amount of risk reduction. All costs need to be calculated to determine a cost per year. These costs would include fire damage, injury or fatality, insurance cost increases, loss of profits, etc. The cost of the mitigation, including capital and maintenance costs, needs to be determined. 

In the fire risk assessment, it is important to reevaluate the risk once options for mitigation are determined. The amount of risk reduction should be calculated for each option or combination of options. Often, the results indicate that some options do not provide much, if any, risk reduction. The use of cost benefit analysis can help management in deciding which option to select. Facilities that depend exclusively on the local fire department for fire protection should complete a fire hazard analysis to determine the appropriate fire protection. 

Methodically devised and established methods (and criteria) of substance and process assessment and evaluation like risk analysis, toxicological and ecotoxi-cological analyses, life-cycle-analysis and cost-benefit analysis . But also much simpler approaches, which in practice play an important role for assessing formulations and snbstance properties (e.g. the nse of negative and/or positive lists). 

Cost benefit analysis is not always easy or straightforward. One of the tasks is to accurately determine the risk if the recommendation is rejected. Cost benefit analysis is also used for comparing different actions (options) for addressing the recommendation. These determinations require examining a... 

For food safety purposes the overriding aim is that food contamination should be reduced to the lowest practicable level, bearing in mind the potential costs and benefits involved. Since it is difficult to establish cause and effect relationships following long-term (chronic) exposure at low concentrations, it may be necessary to base action on prudence rather than on proven harm to health. However, if this approach is to maintain the confidence of both consumers and producers of food, a rational evaluation of all relevant information is required so that the balance between the risks and benefits of veterinary drugs can be assessed. Information on the incidence of potentially harmful drug residues is fundamental to this cost-benefit analysis so too is the consumption of the commodities involved (particularly for susceptible consumers or those consumers who eat more). Account must also be taken of the potential fall in food production if a drug is controlled or prohibited, and also the animal health and welfare implications that may result from the restriction of an animal medicine for which there may be no effective alternative. 

Frey HC, Mokhtari A, Danish T (2003) Evaluation of selected sensitivity analysis methods based upon applications to two food safety process risk models. Prepared by North Carolina State University for Office of Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC (http //www.ce.ncsu.edu/risk/Phase2Final.pdf). 

The rationale behind the development of legislation based on surfactant biodegradability and potential risk is perfectly sound. Any concerns relate to the cost benefit analysis of the... 

Hence risk assessment criteria must be established so that there can be developed a national priority list of the hazardous sites that require remedial action. EPA has adopted the Mitre Model for assessing the risks and ranking waste sites. There is some criticism of this model, and there are a number of as yet unanswered questions about its application. Formal cost/benefit analysis will not be used, and risk assessment will be on a case-by-case basis. EPA will thus be developing its knowledge base and procedures as it carries out the program. 

---