Life-Cycle Assessment in Relation to Risk Assessment: An Evolving Perspective

A life-cycle approach takes a cradle-to-grave perspective of a product's numerous activities from the raw material extraction to final disposal. There have been recent efforts to develop life-cycle assessment (LCA) to assess both environmental and human health issues. The question then arises: what are the capabilities of LCA, especially in relation to risk assessment? To address this question, this paper first describes the LCA mass-based accounting system and then analyzes the use of this approach for environmental and human health assessment. The key LCA limitations in this respect are loss of spatial, temporal, dose-response, and threshold information. These limitations affect LCA's capability to assess several environmental issues, and human health in particular. This leads to the conclusion that LCA impact assessment does not predict or measure actual effects, quantitate risks, or address safety. Instead, LCA uses mass loadings with simplifying assumptions and subjective judgments to add independent effects and exposures into an overall score. As a result, LCA identifies possible human health issues on a systemwide basis from a worst case, hypothetical hazard perspective. Ideally, the identified issues would then be addressed by more detailed assessment methods, such as risk assessment.     

The quality and use of regulatory analysis in 2008

This article assesses the quality and apparent use of regulatory analysis for economically significant regulations proposed by federal agencies in 2008. A nine-member research team used a six-point (0-5) scale to evaluate regulatory analyses according to criteria drawn from Executive Order 12866 and Office of Management and Budget Circular A-4. Principal findings include: (1) the average quality of regulatory analysis, though not high, is somewhat better than previous regulatory scorecards have shown; (2) quality varies widely; (3) biggest strengths are accessibility and clarity; (4) biggest weaknesses are analysis of the systemic problem and retrospective analysis; (5) budget or "transfer" regulations usually receive low-quality analysis; (6) a minority of the regulations contain evidence that the agency used the analysis in significant decisions; (7) quality of analysis is positively correlated with the apparent use of the analysis in regulatory decisions; and (8) greater diffusion of best practices could significantly improve the overall quality of regulatory analysis.     

Historical Relationship Between Performance Assessment for Radioactive Waste Disposal and Other Types of Risk Assessment

This article describes the evolution of the process for assessing the hazards of a geologic disposal system for radioactive waste and, similarly, nuclear power reactors, and the relationship of this process with other assessments of risk, particularly assessments of hazards from manufactured carcinogenic chemicals during use and disposal. This perspective reviews the common history of scientific concepts for risk assessment developed until the 1950s. Computational tools and techniques developed in the late 1950s and early 1960s to analyze the reliability of nuclear weapon delivery systems were adopted in the early 1970s for probabilistic risk assessment of nuclear power reactors, a technology for which behavior was unknown. In turn, these analyses became an important foundation for performance assessment of nuclear waste disposal in the late 1970s. The evaluation of risk to human health and the environment from chemical hazards is built on methods for assessing the dose response of radionuclides in the 1950s. Despite a shared background, however, societal events, often in the form of legislation, have affected the development path for risk assessment for human health, producing dissimilarities between these risk assessments and those for nuclear facilities. An important difference is the regulator's interest in accounting for uncertainty.     

Behavioral Economics and Regulatory Analysis

Behavioral economics has captured the interest of scholars and the general public by demonstrating ways in which individuals make decisions that appear irrational. While increasing attention is being focused on the implications of this research for the design of risk‐reducing policies, less attention has been paid to how it affects the economic valuation of policy consequences. This article considers the latter issue, reviewing the behavioral economics literature and discussing its implications for the conduct of benefit‐cost analysis, particularly in the context of environmental, health, and safety regulations. We explore three concerns: using estimates of willingness to pay or willingness to accept compensation for valuation, considering the psychological aspects of risk when valuing mortality‐risk reductions, and discounting future consequences. In each case, we take the perspective that analysts should avoid making judgments about whether values are “rational” or “irrational.” Instead, they should make every effort to rely on well‐designed studies, using ranges, sensitivity analysis, or probabilistic modeling to reflect uncertainty. More generally, behavioral research has led some to argue for a more paternalistic approach to policy analysis. We argue instead for continued focus on describing the preferences of those affected, while working to ensure that these preferences are based on knowledge and careful reflection.     

The Role of Analysis on the 17 Most Political Acres on the Face of the Earth

Benefit‐cost and risk analyses associated with agency rule making are required by presidential order and are reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). This White House oversight of agency regulatory analysis means that OIRA's work, though primarily analytic, competes daily with the intense political pressures that characterize all work in the White House. Even in the face of the demands of politics, analysis is respected and utilized. A balance between politics and analysis is maintained in several ways. Several structural characteristics of the White House help protect analysis, such as a strong complement of offices whose role is primarily analytic (for example, the Council of Economic Advisors, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and OMB). OIRA's ability to successfully coordinate its regulatory review with White House officials ensures that it serves as an agent for presidential regulatory policy at the same time it champions higher quality benefit‐cost and risk analysis. This role as intermediary between analytic and political judgment also results from OIRA's expertise in such analysis and its reputation for the discretion necessary to maintain the trust of the president's upper level staff.     

Risk Modeling, Assessment, and Management of Lahar Flow Threat

The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines is considered one of the most violent and destructive volcanic activities in the 20th century. Lahar is the Indonesian term for volcanic ash, and lahar flows resulting from the massive amount of volcanic materials deposited on the mountain's slope posed continued post-eruption threats to the surrounding areas, destroying lives, homes, agricultural products, and infrastructures. Risks of lahar flows were identified immediately after the eruption, with scientific data provided by the Philippine Institute of Volcanology, the U.S. Geological Survey, and other research institutions. However, competing political, economic, and social agendas subordinated the importance of scientific information to policy making. Using systemic risk analysis and management, this article addresses the issues of multiple objectives and the effective integration of scientific techniques into the decision-making process. It provides a modeling framework for identifying, prioritizing, and evaluating policies for managing risk. The major considerations are: (1) applying a holistic approach to risk analysis through hierarchical holographic modeling, (2) applying statistical methods to gain insight into the problem of uncertainty in risk assessment, (3) using multiobjective trade-off analysis to address the issue of multiple decisionmakers and stakeholders in the decision-making process, (4) using the conditional expected value of extreme events to complement and supplement the expected value in quantifying risk, and (5) assessing the impacts of multistage decisions. Numerical examples based on ex post data are formulated to illustrate applications to various problems. The resulting framework from this study can serve as a general baseline model for assessing and managing risks of natural disasters, which the Philippines' lead agency-the National Disaster Coordinating Council (NDCC)-and other related organizations can use for their decision-making processes.     

Foundational Issues in Risk Assessment and Risk Management

This is a perspective article on foundational issues in risk assessment and management. The aim is to discuss the needs, obstacles, and challenges for the establishment of a renewed, strong scientific foundation for risk assessment and risk management suited for the current and future technological challenges. The focus is on (i) reviewing and discussing the present situation and (ii) identifying how to best proceed in the future, to develop the risk discipline in the directions needed. The article provides some reflections on the interpretation and understanding of the concept of “foundations of risk assessment and risk management” and the challenges therein. One main recommendation is that different arenas and moments for discussion are needed to specifically address foundational issues in a way that embraces the many disciplinary communities involved (from social scientists to engineers, from behavioral scientists to statisticians, from health physicists to lawyers, etc.). One such opportunity is sought in the constitution of a novel specialty group of the Society of Risk Analysis.     

The Role of Interdisciplinary Analysis in Bridging the Gap Between the Technical and Human Sides of Risk Assessment1

It is readily observable that there is a wide gulf between the manner by which the lay public and the manner by which technical experts assess the risks of complex technologies and assimilate these assessments in decisions regarding the acceptance or rejection of technological options. On the public side, this gap in methods and value assessments is a major source of distrust of technical experts and disaffection with the social management of technology. From the viewpoint of the technical experts who introduce or regulate technologies, this gap is both a cauldron of frustration and a perceived justification for paternalistic technocratic decision-making that further alienates important segments of the public. It is the author's belief that unless our society learns how to progress in bridging these gaps within the framework of a comparative mode of risk-cost-benefit analysis of options, the potential net benefits of certain technologies such as commercial nuclear power could well be lost to our society. Research on public risk perception, while potentially an important component in achieving this objective, needs to be restructured from its present static orientation to meet the needs of forward-looking decision-making that accommodates dynamic learning processes of both the public and technical experts as well as the “learning curves” of technological improvements historically accompanying successful innovations. Moreover, no less attention needs to be devoted to improved benefit assessment along with ethical and equity considerations in decision-making involving the reconciliation of conflict between individual and societal interests. This paper examines the vital importance of interdisciplinary analysis in fulfilling these needs.     

Cost‐Benefit Analysis for Optimization of Risk Protection Under Budget Constraints

Cost‐benefit analysis (CBA) is commonly applied as a tool for deciding on risk protection. With CBA, one can identify risk mitigation strategies that lead to an optimal tradeoff between the costs of the mitigation measures and the achieved risk reduction. In practical applications of CBA, the strategies are typically evaluated through efficiency indicators such as the benefit‐cost ratio (BCR) and the marginal cost (MC) criterion. In many of these applications, the BCR is not consistently defined, which, as we demonstrate in this article, can lead to the identification of suboptimal solutions. This is of particular relevance when the overall budget for risk reduction measures is limited and an optimal allocation of resources among different subsystems is necessary. We show that this problem can be formulated as a hierarchical decision problem, where the general rules and decisions on the available budget are made at a central level (e.g., central government agency, top management), whereas the decisions on the specific measures are made at the subsystem level (e.g., local communities, company division). It is shown that the MC criterion provides optimal solutions in such hierarchical optimization. Since most practical applications only include a discrete set of possible risk protection measures, the MC criterion is extended to this situation. The findings are illustrated through a hypothetical numerical example. This study was prepared as part of our work on the optimal management of natural hazard risks, but its conclusions also apply to other fields of risk management.     

Incorporating Risk Assessment and Benefit-Cost Analysis in Environmental Management1

Using data from interviews with a key set of individuals at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, this study examines intraagency views about the incorporation of risk assessment and benefit-cost analysis in environment management.     

The Role of Environmental Accidental Risk Assessment in the Process of Granting Development Consent

Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is a procedure that must be followed for certain types of development before they are granted development consent. The procedure requires the developer to compile an environmental impact report (EIR) describing the likely significant effects of the project on the environment. A regulatory requirement in Slovenia is that an accidental risk assessment for a new installation should be a part of an EIR. The article shows how risk assessment (RA) related to accidental release of methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) or a polyvalent alcohol mixture from a new planned unit of a chemical factory in the Alpine region of Slovenia was performed in the framework of an EIA for the purpose of obtaining a construction permit. Two accidental scenarios were considered: (a) a spill of 20 m³ of MDI or polyvalent alcohol mixture into the river Soča (the river runs close to the chemical factory) and (b) a fire in the warehouse storing the raw material, where emission of toxic gases HCN, NO_x, and CO is expected during combustion of MDI. One of the most important results of this case is the agreement among the developer, the competent authority, and a consultant in the field of EIA and RA to positively conclude the licensing process despite the absence of formal (regulatory) limit values for risk. It has been approved that transparent, reasonably uncertain, and semi-quantitative environmental risk assessment is an inevitable component of an EIA, and an essential factor in informed, licensing-related decision making.     

A Discussion of Findings and Their Possible Implications from a Workshop on Bioterrorism Threat Assessment and Risk Management

In November 2001, the Monterey Institute of International Studies convened a workshop on bioterrorism threat assessment and risk management. Risk assessment practitioners from various disciplines, but without specialized knowledge of terrorism, were brought together with security and intelligence threat analysts to stimulate an exchange that could be useful to both communities. This article, prepared by a subset of the participants, comments on the workshop's findings and their implications and makes three recommendations, two short term (use of threat assessment methodologies and vulnerability analysis) and one long term (application of quantitative risk assessment and modeling), regarding the practical application of risk assessment methods to bioterrorism issues.     

Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment

At the request of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Research Council (NRC) recently completed a major report, Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment, that is intended to strengthen the scientific basis, credibility, and effectiveness of risk assessment practices and subsequent risk management decisions. The report describes the challenges faced by risk assessment and the need to consider improvements in both the technical analyses of risk assessments (i.e., the development and use of scientific information to improve risk characterization) and the utility of risk assessments (i.e., making assessments more relevant and useful for risk management decisions). The report tackles a number of topics relating to improvements in the process, including the design and framing of risk assessments, uncertainty and variability characterization, selection and use of defaults, unification of cancer and noncancer dose‐response assessment, cumulative risk assessment, and the need to increase EPA's capacity to address these improvements. This article describes and summarizes the NRC report, with an eye toward its implications for risk assessment practices at EPA.     

Asteroid Risk Assessment: A Probabilistic Approach

Following the 2013 Chelyabinsk event, the risks posed by asteroids attracted renewed interest, from both the scientific and policy‐making communities. It reminded the world that impacts from near‐Earth objects (NEOs), while rare, have the potential to cause great damage to cities and populations. Point estimates of the risk (such as mean numbers of casualties) have been proposed, but because of the low‐probability, high‐consequence nature of asteroid impacts, these averages provide limited actionable information. While more work is needed to further refine its input distributions (e.g., NEO diameters), the probabilistic model presented in this article allows a more complete evaluation of the risk of NEO impacts because the results are distributions that cover the range of potential casualties. This model is based on a modularized simulation that uses probabilistic inputs to estimate probabilistic risk metrics, including those of rare asteroid impacts. Illustrative results of this analysis are presented for a period of 100 years. As part of this demonstration, we assess the effectiveness of civil defense measures in mitigating the risk of human casualties. We find that they are likely to be beneficial but not a panacea. We also compute the probability—but not the consequences—of an impact with global effects (“cataclysm”). We conclude that there is a continued need for NEO observation, and for analyses of the feasibility and risk‐reduction effectiveness of space missions designed to deflect or destroy asteroids that threaten the Earth.     

Ecological Risk Assessment,Prediction, and Assessing Risk Predictions

Ecological risk assessment embodied in an adaptive management framework is becoming the global standard approach for formally assessing and managing the ecological risks of technology and development. Ensuring the continual improvement of ecological risk assessment approaches is partly achieved through the dissemination of not only the types of risk assessment approaches used, but also their efficacy. While there is an increasing body of literature describing the results of general comparisons between alternate risk assessment methods and models, there is a paucity of literature that post hoc assesses the performance of specific predictions based on an assessment of risk and the effectiveness of the particular model used to predict the risk. This is especially the case where risk assessments have been used to grant consent or approval for the construction of major infrastructure projects. While postconstruction environmental monitoring is increasingly commonplace, it is not common for a postconstruction assessment of the accuracy and performance of the ecological risk assessment and underpinning model to be undertaken. Without this “assessment of the assessment,” it is difficult for other practitioners to gain insight into the performance of the approach and models used and therefore, as argued here, this limits the rate of improvement of risk assessment approaches.     

Multicriteria Decision Framework for Cybersecurity Risk Assessment and Management

Risk assessors and managers face many difficult challenges related to novel cyber systems. Among these challenges are the constantly changing nature of cyber systems caused by technical advances, their distribution across the physical, information, and sociocognitive domains, and the complex network structures often including thousands of nodes. Here, we review probabilistic and risk-based decision-making techniques applied to cyber systems and conclude that existing approaches typically do not address all components of the risk assessment triplet (threat, vulnerability, consequence) and lack the ability to integrate across multiple domains of cyber systems to provide guidance for enhancing cybersecurity. We present a decision-analysis-based approach that quantifies threat, vulnerability, and consequences through a set of criteria designed to assess the overall utility of cybersecurity management alternatives. The proposed framework bridges the gap between risk assessment and risk management, allowing an analyst to ensure a structured and transparent process of selecting risk management alternatives. The use of this technique is illustrated for a hypothetical, but realistic, case study exemplifying the process of evaluating and ranking five cybersecurity enhancement strategies. The approach presented does not necessarily eliminate biases and subjectivity necessary for selecting countermeasures, but provides justifiable methods for selecting risk management actions consistent with stakeholder and decisionmaker values and technical data.     

Risk Assessment and Alternatives Assessment: Comparing Two Methodologies

The selection and use of chemicals and materials with less hazardous profiles reflects a paradigm shift from reliance on risk minimization through exposure controls to hazard avoidance. This article introduces risk assessment and alternatives assessment frameworks in order to clarify a misconception that alternatives assessment is a less effective tool to guide decision making, discusses factors promoting the use of each framework, and also identifies how and when application of each framework is most effective. As part of an assessor's decision process to select one framework over the other, it is critical to recognize that each framework is intended to perform different functions. Although the two frameworks share a number of similarities (such as identifying hazards and assessing exposure), an alternatives assessment provides a more realistic framework with which to select environmentally preferable chemicals because of its primary reliance on assessing hazards and secondary reliance on exposure assessment. Relevant to other life cycle impacts, the hazard of a chemical is inherent, and although it may be possible to minimize exposure (and subsequently reduce risk), it is challenging to assess such exposures through a chemical's life cycle. Through increased use of alternatives assessments at the initial stage of material or product design, there will be less reliance on post facto risk‐based assessment techniques because the potential for harm is significantly reduced, if not avoided, negating the need for assessing risk in the first place.     

Issues in Ecological Risk Assessment: The CRAM Perspective

In 1989, a Committee on Risk Assessment Methodology (CRAM) was convened by the National Research Council (NRC) to identify and investigate important scientific issues in risk assessment. One of the first issues considered by the committee was the development of a conceptual framework for ecological risk assessment, defined as "the characterization of the adverse ecological effects of environmental exposures to hazards imposed by human activities." Adverse ecological effects include all biological and nonbiological environmental changes that society perceives as undesirable. The committee's opinion was that a general framework is needed to define the relationship of ecological risk assessment to environmental management and to facilitate the development of uniform technical guidelines. The framework for human health risk assessment proposed by the NRC in 1983 was adopted as a starting point for discussion. CRAM concluded that, although ecological risk assessment and human health risk assessment differ substantially in terms of scientific disciplines and technical problems, the underlying decision process is the same for both. Therefore, CRAM recommended that the 1983 risk assessment framework be modified to accommodate both human health and ecological risk assessment. CRAM defined an integrated health/ ecological risk assessment framework consisting of the four components: Hazard Identification, Exposure Assessment, Exposure-Response Assessment, and Risk Characterization. CRAM further provided recommendations on the scope of issues to be addressed in ecological risk assessment, critical research needs, and mechanisms for providing more detailed guidance on the scientific content of ecological risk assessments.     

Characterizing Environmental Harm: Developments in an Approach to Strategic Risk Assessment and Risk Management

Environmental policymakers and regulators are often in the position of having to prioritize their actions across a diverse range of environmental pressures to secure environmental protection and improvements. Information on environmental issues to inform this type of strategic analysis can be disparate; it may be too voluminous or even absent. Data on a range of issues are rarely presented in a common format that allows easy analysis and comparison. Nevertheless, judgments are required on the significance of various environmental pressures and on the inherent uncertainties to inform strategic assessments such as “state of the environment” reports. How can decisionmakers go about this type of strategic and comparative risk analysis? In an attempt to provide practical tools for the analysis of environmental risks at a strategic level, the Environment Agency of England and Wales has conducted a program of developmental research on strategic risk assessment since 1996. The tools developed under this program use the concept of “environmental harm” as a common metric, viewed from technical, social, and economic perspectives, to analyze impacts from a range of environmental pressures. Critical to an informed debate on the relative importance of these perspectives is an understanding and analysis of the various characteristics of harm (spatial and temporal extent, reversibility, latency, etc.) and of the social response to actual or potential environmental harm from a range of hazards. Recent developments in our approach, described herein, allow a presentation of the analysis in a structured fashion so as to better inform risk‐management decisions.