Advancing Risk‐Informed Decision Making in Managing Defense Nuclear Waste in the United States: Opportunities and Challenges for Risk Analysis

An omnibus spending bill in 2014 directed the Department of Energy to analyze how effectively Department of Energy (DOE) identifies, programs, and executes its plans to address public health and safety risks that remain as part of DOE's remaining environmental cleanup liabilities. A committee identified two dozen issues and associated recommendations for the DOE, other federal agencies, and the U.S. Congress to consider, as well as other stakeholders such as states and tribal nations. In regard to risk assessment, the committee described a risk review process that uses available data, expert experience, identifies major data gaps, permits input from key stakeholders, and creates an ordered set of risks based on what is known. Probabilistic risk assessments could be a follow‐up from these risk reviews. In regard to risk management, the states, in particular, have become major drivers of how resources are driven. States use different laws, different priorities, and challenge DOE's policies in different ways. Land use decisions vary, technology choices are different, and other notable variations are apparent. The cost differences associated with these differences are marked. The net result is that resources do not necessarily go to the most prominent human health and safety risks, as seen from the national level.     

A Look at State‐Level Risk Assessment in the United States: Making Decisions in the Absence of Federal Risk Values

State environmental agencies in the United States are charged with making risk management decisions that protect public health and the environment while managing limited technical, financial, and human resources. Meanwhile, the federal risk assessment community that provides risk assessment guidance to state agencies is challenged by the rapid growth of the global chemical inventory. When chemical toxicity profiles are unavailable on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Integrated Risk Information System or other federal resources, each state agency must act independently to identify and select appropriate chemical risk values for application in human health risk assessment. This practice can lead to broad interstate variation in the toxicity values selected for any one chemical. Within this context, this article describes the decision‐making process and resources used by the federal government and individual U.S. states. The risk management of trichloroethylene (TCE) in the United States is presented as a case study to demonstrate the need for a collaborative approach among U.S. states toward identification and selection of chemical risk values while awaiting federal risk values to be set. The regulatory experience with TCE is contrasted with collaborative risk science models, such as the European Union's efforts in risk assessment harmonization. Finally, we introduce State Environmental Agency Risk Collaboration for Harmonization, a free online interactive tool designed to help to create a collaborative network among state agencies to provide a vehicle for efficiently sharing information and resources, and for the advancement of harmonization in risk values used among U.S. states when federal guidance is unavailable.     

Risk Preferences,Probability Weighting,and Strategy Tradeoffs in Wildfire Management

Wildfires present a complex applied risk management environment, but relatively little attention has been paid to behavioral and cognitive responses to risk among public agency wildfire managers. This study investigates responses to risk, including probability weighting and risk aversion, in a wildfire management context using a survey‐based experiment administered to federal wildfire managers. Respondents were presented with a multiattribute lottery‐choice experiment where each lottery is defined by three outcome attributes: expenditures for fire suppression, damage to private property, and exposure of firefighters to the risk of aviation‐related fatalities. Respondents choose one of two strategies, each of which includes “good” (low cost/low damage) and “bad” (high cost/high damage) outcomes that occur with varying probabilities. The choice task also incorporates an information framing experiment to test whether information about fatality risk to firefighters alters managers' responses to risk. Results suggest that managers exhibit risk aversion and nonlinear probability weighting, which can result in choices that do not minimize expected expenditures, property damage, or firefighter exposure. Information framing tends to result in choices that reduce the risk of aviation fatalities, but exacerbates nonlinear probability weighting.     

Opportunities and Impediments for Risk-Based Standards: Some Views from a Workshop

Techniques for performing scientific risk assessments for a wide variety of chemical and radiological hazards present in the environment and workplace are available. Speakers at a workshop sponsored by the Environmental and Public/Occupational Health Standard's Steering Group addressed both the state-of-the-art in risk assessment and areas of difficulty that require further research. The Steering Group concluded that within the limits of the available data, risk-assessment techniques are a useful tool in decision-making. In the past, many government agencies have not been effective either in listening to public concerns or in communicating technical or scientific information about risks. This has been true at all levels of government. Workshop speakers discussed some ways that government agencies can more effectively communicate with the public. The Steering Group concluded that major efforts must be made to ensure that two-way communication takes place. Thus the results of the workshop show that effective management of risk requires both a scientific assessment of risk and a responsive consideration of the public's perception of risk. Intensive efforts must be made to ensure that effective two-way communication takes place between members of the public and the appropriate government agencies.     

Risk Analysis for Environmental Health Triage

The Homeland Security Act mandates the development of a national, risk-based system to support planning for, response to, and recovery from emergency situations involving large-scale toxic exposures. To prepare for and manage consequences effectively, planners and responders need not only to identify zones of potentially elevated individual risk but also to predict expected casualties. Emergency response support systems now define "consequences" by mapping areas in which toxic chemical concentrations do or may exceed Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs) or similar guidelines. However, because AEGLs do not estimate expected risks, current unqualified claims that such maps support consequence management are misleading. Intentionally protective, AEGLs incorporate various safety/uncertainty factors depending on the scope and quality of chemical-specific toxicity data. Some of these factors are irrelevant, and others need to be modified, whenever resource constraints or exposure-scenario complexities require responders to make critical trade-off (triage) decisions in order to minimize expected casualties. AEGL-exceedance zones cannot consistently be aggregated, compared, or used to calculate expected casualties and so may seriously misguide emergency response triage decisions. Methods and tools well established and readily available to support environmental health protection are not yet developed for chemically-related environmental health triage. Effective triage decisions involving chemical risks require a new assessment approach that focuses on best estimates of likely casualties, rather than on upper plausible bounds of individual risk. If risk-based consequence management is to become a reality, federal agencies tasked with supporting emergency response must actively coordinate to foster new methods that can support effective environmental health triage.     

Quantitative Risk Assessment of the New York State Operated West Valley Radioactive Waste Disposal Area

This article is based on a quantitative risk assessment (QRA) that was performed on a radioactive waste disposal area within the Western New York Nuclear Service Center in western New York State. The QRA results were instrumental in the decision by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority to support a strategy of in‐place management of the disposal area for another decade. The QRA methodology adopted for this first of a kind application was a scenario‐based approach in the framework of the triplet definition of risk (scenarios, likelihoods, consequences). The measure of risk is the frequency of occurrence of different levels of radiation dose to humans at prescribed locations. The risk from each scenario is determined by (1) the frequency of disruptive events or natural processes that cause a release of radioactive materials from the disposal area; (2) the physical form, quantity, and radionuclide content of the material that is released during each scenario; (3) distribution, dilution, and deposition of the released materials throughout the environment surrounding the disposal area; and (4) public exposure to the distributed material and the accumulated radiation dose from that exposure. The risks of the individual scenarios are assembled into a representation of the risk from the disposal area. In addition to quantifying the total risk to the public, the analysis ranks the importance of each contributing scenario, which facilitates taking corrective actions and implementing effective risk management. Perhaps most importantly, quantification of the uncertainties is an intrinsic part of the risk results. This approach to safety analysis has demonstrated many advantages of applying QRA principles to assessing the risk of facilities involving hazardous materials.     

Does EPA Underestimate Cancer Risks by Ignoring Susceptibility Differences?

A 2009 report of the National Research Council (NRC) recommended that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) increase its estimates of increased cancer risk from exposure to environmental agents by ～7‐fold, due to an approximate ～25‐fold typical ratio between the median and upper 95th percentile persons’ cancer sensitivity assuming approximately lognormally distributed sensitivities. EPA inaction on this issue has raised concerns that cancer risks to environmentally exposed populations remain systematically underestimated. This concern is unwarranted, however, because EPA point estimates of cancer risk have always pertained to the average, not the median, person in each modeled exposure group. Nevertheless, EPA has yet to explain clearly how its risk characterization and risk management policies concerning individual risks from environmental chemical carcinogens do appropriately address broad variability in human cancer susceptibility that has been a focus of two major NRC reports to EPA concerning its risk assessment methods.     

Perceived Risks from Radiation and Nuclear Testing Near Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan: A Comparison Between Physicians, Scientists, and the Public

Determining the difference in perception of risk between experts, or more educated professionals, and laypeople is important so that a potential hazard can be effectively communicated to the public. Many surveys have been conducted to better understand the difference between expert and public opinions, and often laypeople exhibit higher perceptions of risk to hazards in comparison to experts. This is especially true when health risk is due to radiation, nuclear power, and nuclear waste. This article focuses on one section of a risk perception survey given to two groups of individuals with a more specialized education (scientists and physicians) and laypeople (villagers) in the Semipalatinsk region of Kazakhstan. All of these groups live near the former Soviet nuclear test site. Originally, it was expected that the scientists and physicians would have similar perceptions of radiation risk, while the public perceptions would be higher, but this was not always the case. For example, when perceptions of risk pertain to the health impacts of nuclear testing or the dose-response nature of radiation exposure, the physicians tend to agree with the laypeople, not the scientists. The villagers are always the most risk-averse group, followed by the physicians and then the scientists. These differences are likely due to different frames of reference for each of the populations.     

Risk Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants: A Pragmatic Proposal1

Criteria are proposed for both an acceptable upper bound of nuclear power plant risk and a lower bound as a design target. Recognizing that the public risk associated with a power plant can be estimated only by probabilistic analysis of the design features, the spread between the lower design target and the upper bound provides a margin for uncertainty in th probabilistic estimate. The combination of a low probabilistic design target and this margin provides a reasonable expectation that the overall performance will be in the domain of an acceptable risk level. Because the exposure to potential risk is chiefly in the locality of the nuclear station, it is also proposed that compensatory benefits should be provided locally and that these be included as a cost of operation. It is suggested that the upper bound be set at a risk level equivalent to those risks of routine living which are normally accepted, i.e., about 10^-4 deaths per year per person (100 deaths/yr/million). The proposed lower design target is 10^-8 (0.1 deaths/yr/million), about one-hundredth of the minimal risk from the natural hazards all people are exposed to.     

Politics and Scientific Expertise: Scientists, Risk Perception, and Nuclear Waste Policy

To study the homogeneity and influences on scientists'perspectives of environmental risks, we have examined similarities and differences in risk perceptions, particularly regarding nuclear wastes, and policy preferences among 1011 scientists and engineers. We found significant differences ( p 0.05)in the patterns of beliefs among scientists from different fields of research. In contrast to physicists, chemists, and engineers, life scientists tend to: (a)perceive the greatest risks from nuclear energy and nuclear waste management; (b)perceive higher levels of overall environmental risk; (c)strongly oppose imposing risks on unconsenting individuals; and (d)prefer stronger requirements for environmental management. On some issues related to priorities among public problems and calls for government action, there are significant variations among life scientists or physical scientists. We also found that–independently of field of research–perceptions of risk and its correlates are significantly associated with the type of institution in which the scientist is employed. Scientists in universities or state and local governments tend to see the risks of nuclear energy and wastes as greater than scientists who work as business consultants, for federal organizations, or for private research laboratories. Significant differences also are found in priority given to environmental risks, the perceived proximity of environmental disaster, willingness to impose risks on an unconsenting population, and the necessity of accepting risks and sacrifices.     

EPA Underestimates,Oversimplifies, Miscommunicates,and Mismanages Cancer Risks by Ignoring Human Susceptibility

If exposed to an identical concentration of a carcinogen, every human being would face a different level of risk, determined by his or her genetic, environmental, medical, and other uniquely individual characteristics. Various lines of evidence indicate that this susceptibility variable is distributed rather broadly in the human population, with perhaps a factor of 25‐ to 50‐fold between the center of this distribution and either of its tails, but cancer risk assessment at the EPA and elsewhere has always treated every (adult) human as identically susceptible. The National Academy of Sciences “Silver Book” concluded that EPA and the other agencies should fundamentally correct their mis‐computation of carcinogenic risk in two ways: (1) adjust individual risk estimates upward to provide information about the upper tail; and (2) adjust population risk estimates upward (by about sevenfold) to correct an underestimation due to a mathematical property of the interindividual distribution of human susceptibility, in which the susceptibility averaged over the entire (right‐skewed) population exceeds the median value for the typical human. In this issue of Risk Analysis, Kenneth Bogen disputes the second adjustment and endorses the first, though he also relegates the problem of underestimated individual risks to the realm of “equity concerns” that he says should have little if any bearing on risk management policy. In this article, I show why the basis for the population risk adjustment that the NAS recommended is correct—that current population cancer risk estimates, whether they are derived from animal bioassays or from human epidemiologic studies, likely provide estimates of the median with respect to human variation, which in turn must be an underestimate of the mean. If cancer risk estimates have larger “conservative” biases embedded in them, a premise I have disputed in many previous writings, such a defect would not excuse ignoring this additional bias in the direction of underestimation. I also demonstrate that sensible, legally appropriate, and ethical risk policy must not only inform the public when the tail of the individual risk distribution extends into the “high‐risk” range, but must alter benefit‐cost balancing to account for the need to try to reduce these tail risks preferentially.     

A Comparison of Organic and Conventional Fresh Produce Buyers in the Boston Area

Food safety concerns and the demand for organically grown produce have increased significantly in the United States over the last decade. Key differences in lifestyle characteristics, food safety attitudes and beliefs, perceived food safety risks, and valuation of health risk reductions between organic and conventional food buyers remain largely unknown, however. To better characterize how buyers of organic fresh produce differ from their conventional counterparts, over 700 food shoppers were sampled from ten major retail stores in the Boston area. Survey results show that self-reported organic buyers are more likely than conventional buyers to engage in a variety of health-promoting and environmentally friendly behaviors. Organic buyers are less trusting of federal food safety agencies than are conventional buyers, and perceive greater benefits associated with organically grown produce than do their conventional counterparts. Further, organic buyers have significantly higher risk perceptions than do conventional buyers for food safety hazards associated with conventionally grown produce. Compared to conventional buyers, organic produce buyers also perceive significant risk reductions associated with switching to organically grown produce and are willing to pay a higher price to reduce perceived food safety risks. Few sociodemographic differences between buyer types were observed, possibly due to how organic and conventional food stores were matched. Survey findings highlight the need for greater public education about a range of food safety issues and farming practices to ensure that consumers are making informed decisions in the marketplace.     

Risk Assessment for Carcinogens Under California''s Proposition 65

Risk assessments for carcinogens are being developed through an accelerated process in California as a part of the state's implementation of Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act. Estimates of carcinogenic potency made by the California Department of Health Services (CDHS) are generally similar to estimates made by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The largest differences are due to EPA's use of the maximum likelihood estimate instead of CDHS' use of the upper 95% confidence bounds on potencies derived from human data and to procedures used to correct for studies of short duration or with early mortality. Numerical limits derived from these potency estimates constitute "no significant risk" levels, which govern exemption from Proposition 65's discharge prohibition and warning requirements. Under Proposition 65 regulations, lifetime cancer risks less than 10(-5) are not significant and cumulative intake is not considered. Following these regulations, numerical limits for a number of Proposition 65 carcinogens that are applicable to the control of toxic discharges are less stringent than limits under existing federal water pollution control laws. Thus, existing federal limits will become the Proposition 65 levels for discharge. Chemicals currently not covered by federal and state controls will eventually be subject to discharge limitations under Proposition 65. "No significant risk" levels (expressed in terms of daily intake of carcinogens) also trigger warning requirements under Proposition 65 that are more extensive than existing state or federal requirements. A variety of chemical exposures from multiple sources are identified that exceed Proposition 65's "no significant risk" levels.     

Improving Health Risk Assessment as a Basis for Public Health Decisions in the 21st Century

One-fifth of the way through the 21st century, a commonality of factors with those of the last 50 years may offer the opportunity to address unfinished business and current challenges. The recommendations include: (1) Resisting the tendency to oversimplify scientific assessments by reliance on single disciplines in lieu of clear weight-of-evidence expressions, and on single quantitative point estimates of health protective values for policy decisions; (2) Improving the separation of science and judgment in risk assessment through the use of clear expressions of the range of judgments that bracket protective quantitative levels for public health protection; (3) Use of comparative risk to achieve the greatest gains in health and the environment; and (4) Where applicable, reversal of the risk assessment and risk management steps to facilitate timely and substantive improvements in public health and the environment. Lessons learned and improvements in the risk assessment process are applied to the unprecedented challenges of the 21st century such as, pandemics and climate change. The beneficial application of the risk assessment and risk management paradigm to ensure timely research with consistency and transparency of assessments is presented. Institutions with mandated stability and leadership roles at the national and international levels are essential to ensure timely interdisciplinary scientific assessment at the interface with public policy as a basis for organized policy decisions, to meet time sensitive goals, and to inform the public.     

Risk Analysis for Biological Hazards: What We Need to Know about Invasive Species

Risk analysis for biological invasions is similar to other types of natural and human hazards. For example, risk analysis for chemical spills requires the evaluation of basic information on where a spill occurs; exposure level and toxicity of the chemical agent; knowledge of the physical processes involved in its rate and direction of spread; and potential impacts to the environment, economy, and human health relative to containment costs. Unlike typical chemical spills, biological invasions can have long lag times from introduction and establishment to successful invasion, they reproduce, and they can spread rapidly by physical and biological processes. We use a risk analysis framework to suggest a general strategy for risk analysis for invasive species and invaded habitats. It requires: (1) problem formation (scoping the problem, defining assessment endpoints); (2) analysis (information on species traits, matching species traits to suitable habitats, estimating exposure, surveys of current distribution and abundance); (3) risk characterization (understanding of data completeness, estimates of the "potential" distribution and abundance; estimates of the potential rate of spread; and probable risks, impacts, and costs); and (4) risk management (containment potential, costs, and opportunity costs; legal mandates and social considerations and information science and technology needs).     

An Interagency Comparison of Screening-Level Risk Assessment Approaches

Approaches to risk assessment have been shown to vary among regulatory agencies and across jurisdictional boundaries according to the different assumptions and justifications used. Approaches to screening-level risk assessment from six international agencies were applied to an urban case study focusing on benzo[a]pyrene (B[a]P) exposure and compared in order to provide insight into the differences between agency methods, assumptions, and justifications. Exposure estimates ranged four-fold, with most of the dose stemming from exposure to animal products (8-73%) and plant products (24-88%). Total cancer risk across agencies varied by two orders of magnitude, with exposure to air and plant and animal products contributing most to total cancer risk, while the air contribution showed the greatest variability (1-99%). Variability in cancer risk of 100-fold was attributed to choices of toxicological reference values (TRVs), either based on a combination of epidemiological and animal data, or on animal data. The contribution and importance of the urban exposure pathway for cancer risk varied according to the TRV and, ultimately, according to differences in risk assessment assumptions and guidance. While all agency risk assessment methods are predicated on science, the study results suggest that the largest impact on the differential assessment of risk by international agencies comes from policy and judgment, rather than science.     

How Do People Evaluate Risk Reduction When They Are Told Zero Risk Is Impossible?

Two studies examined how people evaluate risk reduction when they believe zero risk to be impossible. Measures collected were willingness to pay (WTP) for risk reduction, and degree of trust in the risk management agency. The findings from the combined studies are: (1) participants were more willing to pay a higher amount for the same reduction in risk in the "zero risk possible" than in the "zero risk impossible" condition; and (2) people's trust in the risk management agency did not differ between the "zero risk impossible" and "zero risk possible" conditions. These results suggest that it might be viable for agencies to accurately communicate the unattainability of zero risk without suffering a loss in public faith or trust, and thus that excessive expenditure for risk reduction might be prevented.     

A Framework for Understanding Risk Perception,Explored from the Perspective of the Water Practitioner

Sustainable urban water systems are likely to be hybrids of centralized and decentralized infrastructure, managed as an integrated system in water‐sensitive cities. The technology for many of these systems is available. However, social and institutional barriers, which can be understood as deeply embedded risk perceptions, have impeded their implementation. Risk perceptions within the water sector are often unrecognized or unacknowledged, despite their role in risk management generally in informing value judgments and specifically in ranking risks to achieve management objectives. There has been very little examination of the role of these risk perceptions in advancing more sustainable water supply management through the adoption of alternative sources. To address this gap, this article presents a framework that can be used as a tool for understanding risk perceptions. The framework is built on the relational theory of risk and presents the range of human phenomena that might influence the perception of an “object at risk” in relation to a “risk object.” It has been synthesized from a critical review of theoretical, conceptual, and empirical studies of perception broadly and risk perception specifically, and interpreted in relation to water practitioners. For a water practitioner, the risk object might be an alternative water system, a component, a process, or a technology, and the object at risk could be public or environmental health, profitability, or professional reputation. This framework has two important functions: to allow practitioners to understand their own and others’ risk perceptions, which might differ, and to inform further empirical research.     

Assessing Transboundary Wildfire Exposure in the Southwestern United States

We assessed transboundary wildfire exposure among federal, state, and private lands and 447 communities in the state of Arizona, southwestern United States. The study quantified the relative magnitude of transboundary (incoming, outgoing) versus nontransboundary (i.e., self‐burning) wildfire exposure based on land tenure or community of the simulated ignition and the resulting fire perimeter. We developed and described several new metrics to quantify and map transboundary exposure. We found that incoming transboundary fire accounted for 37% of the total area burned on large parcels of federal and state lands, whereas 63% of the area burned was burned by ignitions within the parcel. However, substantial parcel to parcel variation was observed for all land tenures for all metrics. We found that incoming transboundary fire accounted for 66% of the total area burned within communities versus 34% of the area burned by self‐burning ignitions. Of the total area burned within communities, private lands contributed the largest proportion (36.7%), followed by national forests (19.5%), and state lands (15.4%). On average seven land tenures contributed wildfire to individual communities. Annual wildfire exposure to structures was highest for wildfires ignited on state and national forest land, followed by tribal, private, and BLM. We mapped community firesheds, that is, the area where ignitions can spawn fires that can burn into communities, and estimated that they covered 7.7 million ha, or 26% of the state of Arizona. Our methods address gaps in existing wildfire risk assessments, and their implementation can help reduce fragmentation in governance systems and inefficiencies in risk planning.