Risk management cost-effectiveness

So, regarding the ecosystem acidification effect assessment, risk management is the evaluation of alternative emission reduction measures and implementation of those that appear cost-effective. Management concerns that arise because of substantial... 

Determine whether there are more cost-effective alternatives to additional data generation and risk assessment refinements. What-if analyses can be used to examine the savings in risk management that might result from additional data generation. Techniques that may be suitable for this include Bayesian Monte Carlo and expected value of information (EVOI) analysis (Dakins et al. 1996). 

Finally, through legislative and administrative action, health-protective and cost-effective risk-management decisions can be made, and regulatory actions implemented, that directly affect the starting point of our atmospheric system, that is, the primary emissions and their sources. 

Accidents in which care levels of both firms and customers affect damages are called bilateral accidents. Strict liability with contributory negligence will efficiently manage risks in bilateral accidents if customers are aware of the courts due-care standard. Under strict liability with contributory negligence, consumers must engage in precautions that the court determines are cost-effective. The damages that remain after that level of care is taken are the firm s responsibility. This increases product prices and reduces purchases, an important method of accident control (Shavell 1987, 54). 

In the case of biological contamination, the identification of risk became obvious by experience, the risk assessment was made unambiguous by epidemiology, and the immediate and obvious effectiveness of the risk management decisions demonstrated their wisdom in the absence of elegant quantitative risk extrapolation models and projections of costs per case averted. Costs of water treatment and distribution became trivial relative to almost all other essential commodities, and in the public expectation the biological safety of drinking water became axiomatic. 

NCRP reiterates that the risk-based waste classification system developed in this Report does not, and cannot, obviate the need to establish waste acceptance criteria at each hazardous waste disposal site based on the characteristics of the site, the particular disposal technology, and characteristics of the wastes that are intended for disposal at the site. NCRP expects that most waste that would be assigned to a particular class will be acceptable for disposal using the associated type of disposal technology indicated in Figure 6.1. However, the disposal capabilities of particular sites and engineered systems can vary substantially and can depend on the waste characteristics. The primary function of any waste classification system is to facilitate development of cost-effective approaches to waste management and disposal and effective communication on waste matters (see Section 2.1.2). 

The ALARA principle also has been used in decisions about risk management for chemicals that cause deterministic effects. RfDs often are used to define acceptable exposures to such substances. However, given the large safety and uncertainty factors often used in deriving RfDs from a NOAEL or LOAEL (see Section 3.2.1.2.4), RfDs generally correspond to doses considered negligible, and doses above an RfD may be permitted in particular situations if RfD is not achievable at a reasonable cost (see Section 3.3.2). 

NCRP notes that the modifying factor in the risk index should be applied independently of the requirement to achieve a negligible risk or dose for exempt waste or an acceptable (barely tolerable) risk or dose for nonexempt waste, in order to provide regulatory flexibility in classifying particular wastes. NCRP believes that such flexibility is highly desirable to promote cost-effective management and disposal of waste, provided it is applied in a transparent manner. 

---