Risk Management Components

The two main components of risk manag ent are physical risk management and risk financing. As indicated in Model 7.1, physical risk management consists of risk 

---

The legal regulation of nanomaterials (its risk management component) is characterized by a flexibihty and progressivity manifested by both voluntary measiues, teehnieal adaptations of legislations and non-technical modifications of sector regulations to eontrol the risks posed by nanoteehnology. ... 

As employed by regulators, PbB cutoff values are assumed to cover one or more unacceptable toxic endpoints and are chosen to minimize unacceptable frequencies of effects in the target population. However, this minimizing rarely permits the prospect of 100% avoidance of toxic health risk within some risk population, so the approach entails both risk assessment and risk management components. As illustration, the latter can take the form of the inclusion of a stated fraction of a targeted risk population to be protected. 

The project "Non-Invasive Inspection within an Asset Risk Management Strategy" is another joint industry project, funded by EC-THERMIE, representing the current trend towards onstream (non-invasive) inspection in combination with risk-based inspection philosophies to establish component condition. In this project, industry and authorities participate aiming at a beneficial use of today s NDT without sacrificing on safety. 

FIGURE 3-3. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Risk Management Program Components... 

In essence, the earlier components of this overall assessment process are mainly deterministic in character (albeit with some probabilistic elements), whereas the later stages are mainly probabilistic. Not all elements of the process are quantifiable (with any degree of confidence), however and the socicii-political-cultural context of any downstream decision-making process may be intensely uncertain. Such uncertainties make the process of risk communication and debate a complex and sometimes unpredictable undertaking. It is essential therefore that those elements of the risk management process that cein be objectively einalysed and evaluated (either qualitatively or quantitatively, as appropriate) are so assessed. 

Thus two components, exposure and hazard, must be evaluated together in determining the level of risk posed by a given colorant or other chemical. Risk management may therefore be regarded as a series of interdependent steps ... 

The Risk Analysis process consists of three components risk assessment, risk management, and risk communication. 

Risk analysis and risk management play an important role in public policy. These debates range from the development of environmental impact statements for the location of buildings to debates on household lead abatement and what chemicals can be allowed in the food supply. Quality of life issues such as asthma and/or loss of mental function are now recognized as important components of risk assessment. 

A formal risk management process consists of several components ... 

Establishing the boundaries in a risk-based waste classification system requires that one or more values of acceptable risk be specified. The values of acceptable risk are then used to establish the values of parameters that define the boundaries of the different waste classes. The process of establishing the value(s) of acceptable risk is part of risk management. Risk management is an essential aspect of establishing a waste classification system, but it has an important nontechnical component that reflects societal values. 

Risk assessment is frequently described as involving four components - hazard identification, exposure assessment, dose-response assessment, and risk characterization. Risk assessment may be an input to risk management. 

Why is a risk management program an important component of a progressive patient-oriented pharmacy practice ... 

It is important that both the qualitative and quantitative characterization be clearly communicated to the risk manager. The qualitative characterization includes the quality of the database, along with strengths and weaknesses, for both health and exposure evaluations the relevance of the database to humans the assumptions and judgements that were made in the evaluation and the level of confidence in the overall characterization. The quantitative characterization also includes information on the range of effective exposure levels, dose-response estimates (including the uncertainty factors applied), and the population exposure estimates. Kimmel et al. (2006) reviewed many of the components of the risk characterization for reproductive and developmental effects and provided a comprehensive list of issues to be considered for each of the components of the risk assessment. 

Sensitivity analysis should be an integral component of the uncertainty analysis in order to identify key sources of variability, uncertainty or both and to aid in iterative refinement of the exposure model. The results of sensitivity analysis should be used to identify key sources of uncertainty that should be the target of additional data collection or research, to identify key sources of controllable variability that can be the focus of risk management strategies and to evaluate model responses and the relative importance of various model inputs and model components to guide model development. 

The project enables risk assessments (or components thereof) to be performed using internationally accepted methods, and these assessments can then be shared to avoid duplication and optimize use of valuable resources for risk management. It also promotes sound science as a basis for risk management decisions, promotes transparency in risk assessment and reduces unnecessary testing of chemicals. Advances in scientific knowledge can be translated into new harmonized methods. 

Acknowledgment that mixtures may cause risks that are not fully covered by single compound evaluations does not automatically imply that mixture assessments should be performed for all potential mixture exposures. This depends on the problem at hand, the specific exposure situation, and the available information. If a regulator must make a decision about the remediation of 1 contaminated soil plot, and it is already known that one of the mixture components exceeds the remediation threshold, and this fact results in a need for remedial action itself, then a mixture assessment is redundant. Mixture assessment for contaminated soils (and other compartments and exposure routes) is useful if the known individual components do not exceed their respective thresholds, but if it is suspected that the overall mixture may still cause unacceptable adverse effects, and in case risk managers have a limited budget for a large number of contaminated sites, that is, when they have to prioritize the most hazardous sites to be remediated first, while other sites should possibly be subject to simple risk reduction measures. The situation is different for mixture emissions. Here, potential mixture effects should always be addressed because the aim was and is to establish an emission level that is lower than a certain (acceptable) effect level. 

---