Risk evaluation framework

Marginal cases can be resolved, either by improving risk estimation, by collecting more or better information, or by reviewing the risk evaluation framework. 

The general scheme for the technical evaluation is to take each receptor and to describe the level of risk that is presented to it by sources within the site. This leads to a set of key pollutant linkages that drive the overall risk from the site. By reviewing the criteria for identification of unacceptable risk for these key linkages—in terms of the certainty of threshold values, the impact of wrong risk assessment decisions on costs and the quality of site-specific information—a robust risk evaluation framework can be set for identifying unacceptable risk. 

Within the risk evaluation framework, the results from the previous risk estimation can be judged as indicating acceptable or non-acceptable risks. However, careful review is needed, to check that the quality of information on which decisions have been made is sufficient. 

ABSTRACT Risk has been a topic of interest for many years, however the majority of studies avoid considering multiple risk dimensions, in most of the cases there is multiple risk dimensions and it s evaluated through different indexe s that are difficult to aggregate into a j oint evaluation. There have been used in the literature risk evaluation frameworks fiwm NORSOK and ISO to evaluate risk in an oil and gas context, however, these approaches do not provide a multiple dimension evaluation, only seeks to achieve tolerable risk levels, disregarding decision maker s judgment about the relation between different risk dimension levels and the level difference in each risk dimension. Thus is presented a framework based on well established risk evaluation framework in the hterature (NORSOK and ISO). 

Decision Analysis. An alternative to making assumptions that select single estimates and suppress uncertainties is to use decision analysis methods, which make the uncertainties explicit in risk assessment and risk evaluation. Judgmental probabilities can be used to characterize uncertainties in the dose response relationship, the extent of human exposure, and the economic costs associated with control policies. Decision analysis provides a conceptual framework to separate the questions of information, what will happen as a consequence of control policy choice, from value judgments on how much conservatism is appropriate in decisions involving human health. 

As one of her first initiatives after being sworn in as FDA Commissioner, Dr. Jane Henney established a Task Force to evaluate the system for managing risks of FDA-approved medical products. The Task Force assessed risk-management practices within the overall healthcare-delivery system, focusing on the roles and responsibilities of each participant. The Task Force s report Managing the Risks from Medical Product Use Creating a Risk Management Framework found that a systems framework for medical product risk... 

Technical Guidance Document and Water Framework Directive approaches EU member state, North American, and other international approaches) and the way in which they are implemented (e.g., mandatory pass or fail probabilistic, e.g., 95th percentiles or tiered risk assessment frameworks). Soil and water standards were considered, as were values for the protection of human health and the natural environment. The focus was on European regulatory frameworks, although expert input was sought from other jurisdictions internationally. Chemical standards for aquatic (water and sediment) and terrestrial (soil and groundwater) systems were the main focus for the meeting. This workshop built on, and included some participants from, a 1998 SETAC workshop Re-evaluation of the State of the Science for Water-Quality Criteria Development (Reiley et al. 2003). 

Risk evaluation is conducted within a framework. That framework depends on societal and political considerations. Nevertheless, some general approaches can be identified, although specific details will depend on circumstances. 

It q)pears that implementation of these quite major chan in fee orientation of the system has not entirely liv up to exp tations. According to trade union sources,no risk assessments have bmi performed in more than two thirds of enterprises, especially in SMEs, In this context it is also of int st to note feat Germany is currently facing an infringement proceeding regarding its transposition of the obligation imposed by fee Framework Directive for risk evaluation to be available in documentary form at all The Law on Safety... 

JB Rose, CN Haas. A risk assessment framework for the evaluation of skin infections and the potential impact of antibacterial soap washing. Am J Infect Control 27 S26-S33, 1999. 

Evaluation Methodology for Environmental Impact Assessment of Industrial Wastes Used as Highway Materials An Overview with Respect to U.S. EPA s Environmental Risk Assessment Framework... 

Unforfunafely, fhere currenfly is no generally accepted formal approach as to how to assess fhe benefif-risk balance in a quantitative manner. Medical judgment has been the method of choice by regulatory bodies in the past. More recently, the need to switch from implicit to more explicit decisions has been demanded by Eichler et al. (2009) in Europe. This, however, calls for more quanfifafive approaches to risk assessment. Major initiatives were found to systematically evaluate fhese approaches, for example, fhe IMI-Protect project Chapter 15 discusses benefif-risk assessment in depth. Noteworthy, the FDA continues to not support these approaches for the time being (U.S. Food and Drug Administration 2013). There is consensus, though, on the value of fhe use of a formal framework for benefit-risk evaluation. 

To assist in performing an appropriate risk assessment, the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) has posted a Risk Management Self-Evaluation Framework on their website (http //hazmat.dot.gov). 

Although the different frameworks discussed in this paper target different audiences and differ considerably when it comes to jargon and definitions, they are broadly similar when it comes to basic underlying ideas. Considerable agreement for instance exists on the steps needed for proper risk management from the definition of critical functions to risk assessment, risk evaluation, and risk control. 

All frameworks are based on the idea that professional analysts estimate risks independently from how assessors, decision-makers or other stakeholders value the risks. This distinction between (scientific, value-free) assessments and value judgments is well articulated by ISO (2002) Risk analysis describes risk whereas risk evaluation broadens the picture to include aspects such as cost-benefit balances, pohtical priorities, potential for conflict resolution and social mobilisation potential. The difficulties in separating facts from values have been discussed extensively in literature, in particular by social scientists, see... 

Traditional cost-effectiveness indices such as expected cost per expected number of lives saved provide useful insight, but as pointed out by many analysts and researchers, cost-effectiveness indices based on expected values are not sufficient for evaluating cost-effectiveness. Uncertainty must be considered beyond the cost-effectiveness indices. The main problem is that the expected values are conditional on specific background knowledge, and the expected values could produce poor predictions. Surprises may occur, and by just addressing expected values such surprises may be overlooked (Aven 2007, 2008). We also find similar ideas underpinning approaches such as the risk governance framework (Renn 2008) and the risk framework used by the UK Cabinet Office (Cabinet Office 2002). 

Based in the literature a framework is proposed to structure decision problems in amulti dimensional risk evaluation context, which includes decision problems regarding risk reduction and safety improvements in an oil and gas structure. These kinds of decision problems can refer to a choice, ranking, sorting or a portfo-ho decision problem and depending on the type of problematic (ROY, 1996) a specific methodology shall be used to aggregate the decision maker preferences amongst its objectives. 

Pipeline gas transport is connected with creation of cover ruptures and accidental gas ignitions. To minimize impacts of breakdowns it is necessary to have a pipeline safely zone, which size determines the Czech act No. 458/2000. In some cases it is possible to decrease this zone, but in other cases it is necessary to increase this zone (parallel pipelines, gas reservoir, etc.). New safety zone range should be estimated with due regard for acceptable risk level. Safety zones evaluation framework consists of all risk category tasks except societal risk modelling. Thus we consider 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th task category. In some cases we don t include economic damages. 

---