Risk-Based Assessment and Management Framework

Chapter

Abstract

This chapter reviews current risk assessment concepts and practices as they apply to risk-based, multipollutant air quality management. Key risk assessment elements are introduced. The use of risk and benefit analysis to inform air quality management decisions is described. The concept of accountability is introduced and its linkages to prospective and retrospective forms of risk assessment are discussed. Risk assessment can be applied in an accountability framework to improve air quality management decisions. The current use of risk assessment techniques related to air quality management is reviewed for Canada, Mexico, and the United States. The need to deal with multiple risk characterization metrics in multipollutant risk assessments is a key challenge, because there is not a common basis of quantification for all adverse outcomes. For human health outcomes, risk characterization often focuses on cancer versus non-cancer and individual versus population risk metrics. There are no standard metrics for comparing human health and ecosystem risks. Appropriately chosen and consistently applied metrics are needed for analysis and measurement under an accountability framework. The chapter concludes with a discussion of risk communication and the knowledge gaps limiting the use of risk assessment in multipollutant regulatory applications.

Keywords

Risk Assessment Risk Characterization Risk Metrics Criterion Pollutant Multiple Pollutant 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We like to acknowledge the following contributing authors: Veronique Bouchet, Timothy Folkins, Luis Miguel Galindo, Agustin Garcia, Carrie Lillyman, Gerardo Mejia, David Stieb.

References

  1. Bateman, I. J., Carson, R. T., Day, B., Hanemann, M., Hanley, N., Hett, T., Jones-Lee, M., Loomes, G., Mourato, S., Demiroglu, E., Pearce, D. W., Sugden, R., & Swanson, J. (2002). Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: A manual. Cheltenham: Elgar.Google Scholar
  2. Brook, J. R., Vega, E., & Watson, J. G. (2004). Receptor methods. In P. McMurry, M. Shepherd, & J. Vickery (Eds.), Particulate matter science for policy makers: A NARSTO assessment (Chap. 7). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Burnett, R. T., Cakmak, S., & Brook, J. R. (1998). The effect of the urban ambient air pollution mix on daily mortality rates in Canadian cities. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 89, 152–156.Google Scholar
  4. Carmona-Villavicencio, A. (2006). Evaluacion del riesgo de toxicos atmosfericos: Formaldehído en la Ciudad de Mexico. Unpublished thesis, Facultad de Estudios superiores Zaragoza (FESZ) Facultad de Quimica, Mexico.Google Scholar
  5. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2005). Particulate matter health risk assessment for selected urban areas. EPA452-R-05–007A, prepared by Abt Associates, Inc. for the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/data/PMrisk20051220.pdf.
  6. Environmental Protection Agency. (2006). Final regulatory impact analysis: 2006 national ambient air quality standards for particle pollution. Prepared by Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html.
  7. Environmental Protection Agency. (2007). Draft residual risk assessment for MACT I petroleum refining sources. Office of Air Quality and Planning. Research Triangle Park: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  8. Environmental Protection Agency. (2008). Final ozone NAAQS regulatory impact analysis. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division, Air Benefit and Cost Group. Research Triangle Park: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  9. Evans, J., Levy, J., Hammitt, J., Santos-Burgoa, C., Castillejos, M., Caballero-Ramirez, M., Hernandez-Avila, M., Riojas-Rodriguez, H., Rojas-Bracho, L., Serrano-Trespalacios, P., Spengler, J., & Suh, H. (2002). Health benefits of air pollution control. In L. T. Molina & M. J. Molina (Eds.), Air quality in the Mexico megacity: An integrated assessment (pp. 103–136). London: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  10. Galindo, L. M., & Caballero, K. (2007). Environmental pollution effects: Preliminary estimations. Working paper, Facultad de Economía, National University of Mexico (UNAM), Mexico City.Google Scholar
  11. Garcia-Reynoso, A., Grutter, M., Volkamer, R., & Molina, L. (2007). Risk assessment in two sites of Mexico city during the 2003 field campaign. In preparation.Google Scholar
  12. Grutter, M., & Flores, E. (2004). Air pollution monitoring with two optical remote sensing techniques in Mexico City. SPIE, 5571, 357–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hammitt, J. K., & Ibarrarán, M. E. (2006). The economic value of reducing fatal and non-fatal occupational risks in Mexico city using actuarial- and perceived-risk estimates. Health Economics Letters, 15, 1329–1335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hofstetter, P., & Hammitt, J. K. (2002). Selecting human health metrics for environmental decision-support tools. Risk Analysis, 22, 965–983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mejía, G., & Zavala, M. (2003). A GIS based methodology for chronic risk assessment to air pollutants exposure and its application to the monterrey metropolitan area. Proceedings de la 96ª, Air and Waste Management Association Annual Conference, San Diego California, June, ISBN: 0–923204-54–7.Google Scholar
  16. Mejía-Velázquez, G. M., Medina-Faz, P. O., Vela-Coiffier, M. P., Sánchez-Gutiérrez, J. R., & Meuzelaar, H. (2004). An evaluation of chronic risk assessment for PM10 exposure in the paso del norte region. Proceedings of the 97th Air and Waste Management Association, Annual Conference and Exhibition, Indianapolis, Indiana, June 22–25. ISBN: 0–923204-63–6.Google Scholar
  17. Miller, W., Robinson, L. A., & Lawrence, R. S. (Eds). (2007). Valuing health for regulatory cost-effectiveness analysis. Report of the committee to evaluate measures of health benefits for environmental, health and safety regulation, Board on Health Care Services, Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  18. NARSTO (2005). Improving emission inventories for effective air quality management across North America. Report NARSTO-05-001. Pasco, WA: NARSTO.Google Scholar
  19. National Research Council. (1983). Risk assessment in the federal government: Managing the process. Washington: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  20. National Research Council. (2004). Air quality management in the United States. Washington: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  21. Reyes-Cortes, L. D. (2006). Evaluación preliminar de beneficios ambientales por cambios en la concentración de ozono en la zona metropolitana de la Ciudad de México empleando BenMap. Unpublished thesis, Facultad de Estudios Superiores “Zaragoza” (FESZ).Google Scholar
  22. Science Advisory Board. (2007). Advice to EPA on advancing the science and application of ecological risk assessment in environmental decision making: A report of the U.S. EPA science advisory board, EPA-SAB-08–002, Office of the Administrator, Washington, DC, October 17.Google Scholar
  23. Shiohara, N., Fernández-Bremauntz, A., Jiménez, S., & Yanagisawa, Y. (2005). The commuters’ exposure to volatile chemicals and carcinogenic risk in Mexico city. Atmospheric Environment, 39, 3481–3489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2009). Risk and exposure assessment for the review of the secondary national ambient air quality standards for oxides of nitrogen and oxides of sulfur. EPA/452/R/09/008a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality planning and Standards, Health and Environmental impacts Division, Research Triangle Park, NC.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyResearch Triangle ParkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental EngineeringNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations