Society For Risk Analysis Annual Meeting 2017

Session Schedule & Abstracts


* Disclaimer: All presentations represent the views of the authors, and not the organizations that support their research. Please apply the standard disclaimer that any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations in abstracts, posters, and presentations at the meeting are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other organization or agency. Meeting attendees and authors should be aware that this disclaimer is intended to apply to all abstracts contained in this document. Authors who wish to emphasize this disclaimer should do so in their presentation or poster. In an effort to make the abstracts as concise as possible and easy for meeting participants to read, the abstracts have been formatted such that they exclude references to papers, affiliations, and/or funding sources. Authors who wish to provide attendees with this information should do so in their presentation or poster.

Common abbreviations

W4-D
Looking Across Borders at Risk Assessment Policies

Room: Salon D   3:30 pm–5:00 pm

Chair(s): TBD

Sponsored by Risk Policy and Law Specialty Group



W4-D.1  3:30 pm  Comparing environmental risk regulations in China and the United states. Li Huanhong*, Xu J; Department of Environmental management, College of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Peking University   lihh0012@pku.edu.cn

Abstract: The relative stringency of environmental risk regulations between countries has great implications on foreign investment and international trade. The entrenched idea is that developed countries have more stringent environmental risk regulations than developing countries. However, there is no study validating this. Previous studies did find a different pattern in the relative stringency of risk regulations between EU and the United States than previously thought. This leads us to study the relative stringency of environmental risk regulations between China and the United States over the past 40 years. We intend to identify how and why the relative stringency of environmental risk regulations between China and the United States differ. By using a case-oriented quantitative approach, we compare the relative stringency of regulations on a broad range of environmental risks. These environmental risks include but not limited to climate change, air pollution, and toxic substances. We use a fuzzy set approach to code the value of relative stringency of specific risks in China and the United States. These values are then used as the outcome variable for our further explanation analysis. A preliminary explanation would be conducted to look inside political factors influencing the relative precautionary. Those factors are: pressure from the public, influence from interest groups, policy learning and international pressure, and characteristics of the risk, such as severity of outcome, controllability.

W4-D.2  3:50 pm  How command-and-control system works in China’s environmental protection: an empirical study of Two Control Zones policy of China. FAN SW*; Central University of Finance and Economics   fsw04.thu@gmail.com

Abstract: Over the past four decades, China has witnessed an unprecedented economic growth which comes at the cost of heavy environmental pollution. Due to excessive coal-burning, sulfur dioxide (SO2) becomes a major air pollutant which poses serious threats to public health and ecosystems. In order to mitigate the hazards caused by SO2, a policy named “Two Control Zones” (TCZ) characterized by the command-and-control system was established. According to the TCZ policy guideline, 162 out of 286 prefectural cities were assigned to be TCZ cities that were imposed stricter environmental regulations than the non-TCZ regions. The objective of this research is to evaluate the effect of TCZ policy and demystify the mechanisms behind it. My research is based on empirical work, conducting a DID (difference-in-difference) regression analysis to estimate the causal effect. The city-level data including the generated and emitted amounts of SO2, NOx and dust, social-economic as well as local governors’ statistics from 2011 to 2013 are collected. The preliminary results indicate that the emitted SO2 rather than generated SO2 were significantly curtailed in TCZ cities after 2012. The robustness checks find no similar patterns in terms of NOx and dust pollutants. The target-based performance evaluation is proved to be effective to facilitate local governments to invest more efforts on environment protection. Moreover, those local governors who had longer official tenure are found to have more incentives to exert stricter regulation on SO2 emissions. This research seeks to shed light on how command-and-control system works in environmental risk governance in China.

W4-D.3  4:10 pm  Radiation Risk in Evacuation and Reoccupation Decision Making. Braley GS*; Colorado State University   bralex@colostate.edu

Abstract: Abstract: Planners and emergency managers can turn to a large body of national and international guidance on evacuation, dose projection, and cleanup in order to prepare for a radiological or nuclear disaster. Relatively little guidance, however, addresses the net risk of evacuation, and little to no guidance exists integrating the risks of long-term displacement with the residual hazards of low-level radiological contamination. Examples of evacuation risks include increases in traffic fatalities and loss of life expectancy in nursing home and elderly communities, as well as hospital in-patients. Long-term displacement has been shown to increase negative health outcomes like depression and suicide, obesity and diabetes, along with economic harm at the individual and community level. Radiation has discernible and well-documented health effects at dose levels greater than 100 milli-Grays over a short time frame, and a wide array of policy guidance is in place to limit exposures to the general public. In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency suggests that “[e]xposure limits in a range of one in a population of ten thousand (10-4) to one in a population of one million (10-6) excess lifetime cancer incidence outcomes are generally considered protective.” Internationally, 20 milli-Sieverts per annum is a common “reference dose,” utilized by policymakers as an evacuation threshold. The author examines some of the assumptions underlying risk and dose calculations in evacuation decision making, along with recent research on the risks of long-term evacuation, with the objective of improving emergency response policy.

W4-D.4  4:30 pm  Lead Cleanups at Superfund Sites. Julias C*; CDM Smith   JuliasC@cdmsmith.com

Abstract: Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Directive 9355.4-12 issued a Soil Guidance in 1994 and a clarification to the guidance in 1998 for cleaning up lead-contaminated soil that present unacceptable human health and/or ecological risks from lead concentrations exceeding lead screening levels (SLs). The SL and the subsequent preliminary remediation goal (PRG) and cleanup level are calculated using the Adult Lead Methodology (ALM) and the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic (IEUBK) models for residential and non-residential scenarios, respectively, at Superfund sites. The United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM) released a memorandum on December 22, 2016 titled “Updated Scientific Considerations for Lead in Soil Cleanups,” which highlights recommendations for implementing the soil lead guidance. The recommendations include basis for deriving SLs, PRGs, and cleanup levels; variation of default parameters to the ALM and IEUBK models; and role of natural or anthropogenic background levels. In addition to the memorandum, there are three other directives released on August 2, 2016 that provide recommendations for parameters used in the ALM and IEUBK models based on current scientific literature and national public health recommendations. The previous default parameters and current recommended parameters used to calculate SLs, PRGs, and cleanup levels in the ALM and IEUBK models are presented. In addition, the impact of background levels on these values is presented to provide side-by-side comparison of final lead cleanup values recommendation.



[back to schedule]