Risk assessment may be thought of as the process of determining the risks resulting from exposure to a particular substance or participation in a particular activity. Risk management is the process that deals with those risks. Unfortunately, in most cases, not all the information needed to make an absolutely certain assessment of risk is available. As a result, a choice must be made on how this gap is to be bridged (e.g., using data on health effects collected at high dose levels to determine health effects at low dose levels, or using data collected during animal experiments to determine potential health effects on humans). The "science policy decision point" is the point at which the information gap or uncertainty in scientific knowledge or data is reached. Science policy decisions are made by both scientists and nonscientists to fill the gaps and deal with the uncertainties.
Sandia examined the regulatory impacts (the costs and benefits) of science policy decisions in environmental risk assessment and risk-management processes and developed a risk assessment methodology that would include more factors than are traditionally considered, such as occupational risks and how social and cultural issues affect choices of regulatory options. Regulatory Impact Analysis Project, Inc. (RIAP), a Washington, D.C.-based regulatory and governmental affairs consulting firm, in conjunction with Sandia, developed a report that presented an industrial perspective on the regulatory impacts of some of the science policy decisions that have been made. Sandia used this perspective and that of government agencies to begin development of a methodology that expands the traditional risk analysis process into an expanded risk equation.
The expanded risk equation provides decision-makers with a broader perspective on environmental issues and publicly acceptable ways of dealing with them. The unique product of this study should help alleviate science policy disputes by recommending a strategy that will "(1) satisfy demands for a scientific basis for regulating risks; (2) arrive at politically responsive and acceptable policies; while (3) ensuring procedural fairness for those disputing the scientific basis and /or normative assumptions for regulation." (What Process is Due, D.M. O'Brien, 1987)
Even though individuals follow the same general risk assessment process, they frequently use different terms to describe the same ideas or the same terms to describe different ideas. Therefore the first phase of the project involved establishing the terminology used to describe various ideas and concepts. This phase also included obtaining information on the conflicting opinions about what should or should not be considered valid data or concepts and why those conflicts exist.
Sandia is collaborating with RAIP to conduct the information-gathering process and assist in synthesizing the acquired data. Once the information is collected and analyzed, several case studies will be assessed in detail to determine the costs of science-policy decisions and their impacts in regulatory decision-making processes. A framework for risk assessments will be developed; it will then be used to examine future regulatory/agency decisions that can benefit from an assessment of the costs of science-policy decisions. The framework will also assist the decision makers in their decisions by providing detailed cost-benefit information.
The information was divided into three major categories: risk assessment, risk management, and the environmental policy-making process. The risk assessment category is where what has been loosely defined as the "scientific" portion of risk assessment has been placed. The four risk assessment steps recommended by the National Academy of Sciences' National Research Council provide the structure. The risk management category consists of economic concepts that complement the risk analysis process and a compilation of risks to workers due to their occupations, and risks to plants and animals. The environmental policy-making category consists of the sets of rules, incentives, and behaviors of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the U.S. government; the risk perceptions held by individuals; and the cultural and ideological influences that help foster these perceptions.
Future Work
In phase 2 the three categories will be reassembled and incorporated into the expanded risk equation. While there is a great deal of information available on factors within these categories, there is little information on how these factors fit into the analysis process used today or any proof that their inclusion or exclusion would yield a change for the better. The expanded risk equation includes those factors considered the most important and uses several issues (such as asbestos and radon) to illustrate the usefulness of the expanded equation.
Sandia's Capabilities
The expanded risk equation can be applied to a wide variety of environmental issues that involve making decisions with both human health and safety ramifications and logistical, technical, regulatory, political, social, and economic ramifications. The methodology is also being applied to a project that is evaluating various disposition options for materials that have been determined to be no longer necessary.
For further information, contact:
Ken Sorenson
Sandia National Laboratories, MS-0720
Albuquerque, NM 87185-0720
Phone: (505) 844-0074
e-mail: kbsoren@sandia.gov
or
Teresa T. Sype
Sandia National Laboratories, MS-0720
Albuquerque, NM 87185-0720
Phone: (505) 845-9158
e-mail: ttsype@sandia.gov
Submitted October 1996 Layout design by Wanda Mar.
Submitted October 1996