Transcript ภาพนิ่ง 1 - Prince of Songkla University

ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT
Session 8
RISK MANAGEMENT
Parichart Visuthismajarn, Dr. phil., Asst.Prof.
Faculty of Environmental Management
Prince of Songkla University
Objectives
Risk management definition
Approaches to risk management
Aspects of risk management
Principles & challenges of risk management
Risk Tradeoffs
Impact of perception
Urban air pollution
Remedial action risk management process
Use of risk management in the military
Labeling systems for risk management (DOT, NFPA)
Management systems – ISO 14001
Environmental audit process
Qualitative risk management systems, several examples
Risk management
Risk Management is reducing risks to an
acceptable level, which is?
– Zero risk? – no risk is acceptable – unrealistic
– Acceptable risk? – who defines what is acceptable
– De Minimus and De “Manifestis” Risks
de minimus, that is trivial risks
– Often considered less than 1 in 1,000,000 risk
de “manifestis” that is obnoxious risk
– Controlled without regard to cost; risk greater than 1 in 1000
Risk Assessment complicates management by
exposing
– Uncertainty and variability
– Differences in stakeholder understanding and
perceptions
Depiction of risk vs. regulatory
acceptability
Autenreith, Risk Assessment
European Commission
Definition
Risk management is the process of weighing
policy alternatives in the light of the result of a
risk assessment(s) and of other relevant
evaluations, and, if required, of selecting and
implementing appropriate control options
(including, where appropriate,
monitoring/surveillance activities).
Source: EC Commission on Harmonization, 2000
How Risk Management fits into
the process
: www.fao.org/WAICENT/faoinfo/economic/ esn/risk/risktext.htm
source: www.iupac.org/publications/ ci/2001/march/
Why assess if not to manage
Risk Assessment calls for decision
making
– Action with uncertainty, but this calls for
answers to
What is an acceptable risk
How clean is clean
What controls should be used
Which receptors and resources should be
protected
Risk Management, to be effective
should include:
– Benefits and costs
Risk management allows use
while preventing unfavorable
effects
: www.aist.go.jp/NIRE/eco_tec_e/ hyouka_e.htm
Company wide
Rohm & Haas
• One purpose of
performing a risk
assessment in
an industrial
setting is to
understand how
to better
management the
risks
http://www.rohmhaas.com/rhcis/environmental/images/flowchart.jpg
Using a simple matrix allows
priority setting for risk
management
By ordering risks
into logical and
consistent zones
managers can
identify high risks
Higher risks should
require more
attention in the form
of re-engineering to
reduce risk
components
: www.capcis.co.uk/maininfo/ news102.html
Risk management
In the U.S., many agencies are responsible for managing risk
– Environmental Protection Agency
– Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Agency
– Occupational Safety and Health Administration
– Departments of Transportation, Agriculture, Energy, Defense
– Consumer Product Safety Commission
– Nuclear Regulatory Commission
– Federal Emergency Management Agency
Risk Management involves evaluating and controlling either the
hazard or sources of exposure with input from:
– Science, Politics, Economics
– Competing risks
– Social norms such as equity
Environmental management
methods
Economic
Instruments
Indirect Regulation
Direct
Regulation
Emissions
trading
Deposit-refund
Consumption
fees
Performance
bonds
Grants, loans
Tax relief
Subsidy Removal
Government spending
Information
Publicizing behavior
Reporting
performance
Education
Standards
Regulations
Inspections
Penalties
The hazard pathway can help
identify risk management
opportunities
Traditional Hazards
Modern Hazards
Human activities, natural events
Development activities
Emissions
Dispersion and Transformation
Environmental Concentration
Air
Water Soil
Food
Exposure
Health Effects
Dose and Target Organ Dose
Subclinical effects, Morbidity, Mortality
Adapted from Briggs et al, 1996
Transition of Modern vs.
Traditional hazards
http://globe.lead.org/lead/session/okinawa/pres/gurinder/index.htm
Risk = Hazard x Exposure
If this is true, then risk management is a
function of reducing or eliminating:
– Hazards
– Exposure
– Consequences (harm) of expsoure
Risk management must be formulated in
the context of the culture
– Socio-economic
– Socio-political
Exposure reduction is a
management option
http://www.mmr.org/irp/genprog/riskinfo/undexpos.htm
A pathway must
exist for
exposure to
occur, traveling
through air,
water, soil, food
The pathway
allows
contaminants to
go from the
source to the
receptor
Risk Management
Involves decision-making
that incorporates:
– Prioritizing risks
– Determining acceptable level
of risk
– Determining resources to
reduce risks to an acceptable
level
– Determining the greatest
benefit for the resources to be
expended
– Planning
– Implementing
Management systems approach
may help
Align business objectives and risk goals
– This requires defining them first
Identify and assess risks
– These may be resources (human, physical
assets, ecological, etc.
Develop alternatives to reduce or avoid
risk
Set priorities of alternatives
– Prepare cost benefit analyses
Implement chosen alternatives
Check effectiveness,
Risk assessment &
management integrated
systems
framework
Identify
Develop
risk
Implement &
Define
Prioritize
Objectives
Resources,
Assess Risk
Corporate
objectives
EHS
policies
Site
specific
goals
Driving
forces
Analytical
boundaries
Adapted from Autenrieth
Worker
Public
Ecologic
al
Consume
r
Financial
Reduction &
Opportunities
Avoidance Alt.
Likelihood
Magnitude
Eliminate
Reduce
Respond
Communica
te
Threshol
d criteria
Benefit
estimatio
n
Cost
estimatio
n
Time
sensitivit
y
Benefit
to cost
ratio
Review
Results
Resource
allocation
Schedule
milestones
Independen
t review
Continuous
improveme
nt
Approaches to risk
management
Probability Severity Matrix
Avoidance
Measures:
Fatalities avoided
Injuries avoided
Illnesses avoided
Ecological Damage
avoided
Property Loss
avertied
Adapted from Autenreith, Risk Assessment
Approaches to risk
management
Adapted from Autenreith, Risk Assessment
Approaches to risk
management
Hierarchy
of industrial controls
Control at the source
– Substitution
– Elimination
– Engineering controls
– Process change
Control the pathway
– Exhaust ventilation at the point of emissions
– Protective barriers
Control at the level of the person
– Personal protective equipment
– Training
– Administrative controls (shift rotation, limited hours of exposure)
Risk Management
Considerations
Technical practicability of options
– Availability of technology,
– Practical feasibility of relevant production or
processing methods,
– Legal or regulatory constraints,
– Potential difficulties involved in control, inspection
and/or compliance determinations,
The economic and social costs and benefits
– cost of available or alternative technology,
– expected benefits/effectiveness,
– distribution of benefits and costs,
Source: EC Commission on Harmonization, 2000
– preferences expressed by stakeholders.
Management considerations
A number of tools may be used for considering
these factors and specific emphasis has been
placed on economic analyses
– cost-benefit analysis
– cost-effectiveness analysis
Economic and social analyses have strengths
and limitations, and discussing their value goes
far beyond the scope of this document.
Suffice it to say that the risk assessment results
should provide an essential input into economic
analyses
– And these analyses should be conducted with the
Source: EC Commission on Harmonization, 2000
same rigour as risk assessments
The optimal decision
Based on the best available scientific and
technical information;
Determined primarily by human health and
environment quality considerations,
– With sensitivity to social, cultural, legal and political
considerations;
Give priority to preventing avoidable risks
– not just controlling them;
Select options that are feasible
– with benefits reasonably related to their costs;
If appropriate, apply the Precautionary Principle;
Incorporate
built-in2000
monitoring, surveillance
Source:
EC Commission ona
Harmonization,
Cost-Benefit Analysis
It was stated earlier that
– Without benefits no risk is worth taking
– With benefits risk may be worth taking
How can CBA be used to evaluate
environmental policies, for a given project:
– Determine all impacts
– Determine the value of impacts
– Calculate net benefit
Concerns with Cost-Benefit Analysis
– Not everything can be valued in economic
Cost Benefit Analysis
Schools of thought differ on CBA’s applicability
– Economic growth is essential to environmental quality
improvement
Compare eastern and western Europe
Economic and environmental well-being are mutually
reinforcing
– Others are philosophically opposed to costing the
environment
One reason is the matter of Externalities
– Expenses related to a product that
are borne by
External
someone other than the individualsIndirect
producing a
product or using the resource
Conventional
Commons such as air, water, land
Costs considerations as part of risk
management
Risk Assessment Tutorial - National Library of Medicine Toxicology Tutor 1 - Basic Principles
http://sis.nlm.nih.gov/toxtutor1/a61.htm
Risk Management
Risk management may
involve:
– educational solutions
– economic incentives,
disincentives
– regulatory approaches
Often involves comparing
– risk to another factor
such as the cost
or reducing
the
risk is
ornot always the one that reduces
The–“best”
course of
action
improving the benefit
just risk
rather, from
is the the
most
economically feasible option
gained
risk
reducing the greatest amount of risk per dollar spent
$$ per year of life saved
Program
Cost
Uncertainty
Childhood measles
saves $
Lead Phaseout
saves $
Underground safety rules 52,234
Hemodialysis at dialysis ctr.
56,076
low
Coronary artery bypass
67,579
low
Front-seat
airbags
108,593
Adapted
from Moeller, 1997
low
low
low
Common Property Resource
Problems
Common ownership (everyone owns)
means essentially that no one owns
Common ownership makes it virtually
cost-free to use the resource as a
– Sink for pollution, or
– Free resource
Garret Hardin - Tragedy of the Commons
– livestock grazing on public lands, with no
owner resource becomes depleted
Principles for Risk
Management
Principles have been proposed to guide
risk management decision-making
Hattis suggested that RM
– Should be aspirational, not prescriptive,
requiring flexibility and judgment
– Is a balancing process among competing
interests and concerns
– Decisions must balance competing priorities
– May require that tradeoffs between conflicting
principles maybe necessary
Hattis, D. 1996. Drawing the line. Environment 38(6): 11-15, 35-39
Principles for Risk Management
Do more good than harm
– The goal of risk management should be to
prevent or minimize risk, or to “do good” as
much as possible
– Zero risk is not achievable, so it is difficult to
attempt to “Do no harm” but it may be
possible to not make matters worse
Fair process of decision-making
– Risk management should be just, equitable,
impartial, unbiased, dispassionate, and
Hattis, D. 1996. Drawing the line. Environment 38(6): 11-15, 35-39
objective as much as possible given the
Principles for Risk Management
Ensure an equitable distribution of risk
– To ensure fair outcomes and equal
treatment of affected parties through an
equal distribution of benefits and burdens
– This should be based on an open process
that provides equal opportunities for
affected parties
– Watch for risk transference or
transformation
Seek optimal use of limited resources
– Optimal use of limited resources seeks to
Hattis, D. 1996. Drawing the line. Environment 38(6): 11-15, 35-39
Principles for Risk Management
Promise what can and will be delivered
– Honest and candid public accounting of what
is known and not known about risk and what
can be done about it.
Impose no more risk than what would be
tolerated yourself
– The Golden Rule of risk management brings
decision-makers to understand the
perspectives of those affected
Be cautious in the face of uncertainty
– A cautious approach is warranted when faced
with a risk of serious, irreversible damage,
Hattis, D. 1996. Drawing the line. Environment 38(6): 11-15, 35-39
Principles for Risk Management
Foster informed risk decision-making for
stakeholders
– This involves both providing the opportunity to
participate, and disclosure of the information
required for informed decisions
Recognize its flexible and evolutionary
aspects
– To be open to new knowledge and
understanding
Evaluation start at the beginning and
Hattis, D. 1996. Drawing the line. Environment 38(6): 11-15, 35-39
continue throughout the process
Risk Assessment in the
Federal Government in 1983
Research
Laboratory
and field
observations
Information on
extrapolation
methods
Risk Assessment
Hazard
Identification
Development
of regulatory
options
Dose
Response
Risk
Characterization
Field
measurements
Risk Management
Evaluation of
public health,
economic, social,
political
consequences of
regulatory options
Exposure
Assessment
Agency decisions
and actions
(U.S. National Research Council 1983, from Hrudey, 1996)
New Framework for Risk
Management
(U.S. Presidential/Congressional
Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk
Management 1997)
Problem/
Context
Evaluation
Risks
Engage
Stakeholders
Actions
Options
Decisions
Engage the Stakeholders, Risk Communication
and Community Consultation
Issue
Identification
Hazard Assessment
Hazard
Identification
Review
and
reality
check
DoseResponse
Assessment
Exposure
Assessment
Risk Characterization
Risk Management
Review
and
reality
check
Australian
enHealth
Risk
Assessme
nt Model
(2000)
Source: Hrudey
Common Elements that form
a
Comprehensive
Framework
Problem
and Context Stage
is key – the right
problem, time, place
Stakeholder involvement throughout
Communication – often and open
Full Risk Characterization Assessment,
Uncertainty, Assumptions
Open Decision-making
Implementation
Iteration and Evaluation
Informed Decision-Making
Flexibility
Caveats that apply to risk
management
Define risk upfront
– what is meant by risk
Identify how risk will be used
– for example, priority-setting and mitigation
rather than hazard, probability or
consequence analysis alone
Risk is a policy construct
– cannot be the sole determinative decisionmaking factor
Be wary of risk management decisions
Caveat: Real and Perceived
Risks
The frequency and severity of sensational causes
of death are often overestimated (airline disasters),
while familiar risks are underestimate (automobile
accidents)
Tendency for policy to call for elimination of all risk
– Which is impossible
This leads to a policy making dilemma
– Either fund the greatest real risk reduction
projects
– Or, where the most people perceive the risk to
be?
Deaths per million hours of exposure
– Mountain Climbing
40,000
Perspective and Scale
For risk assessment, what is BIG and
what is SMALL is relative
– absolute numbers are of limited value
– yet we think and act according to arithmetic
(linear) scales of numbers
Note:
– the absence of zero on the log scale is
indicative about the meaning of zero in
environmental health and risk issues
– zero risk is unattainable, even “undefined”
– we cannot equate safety with zero risk
The Challenge of Risk
Management
Making decisions in the face of uncertainty
– If there was no uncertainty and all evidence of
impending danger was available and understood
then decision-making would be straightforward.
However this ideal does not exist in the real world
Two types of failure can arise from such
uncertainties
– Type I failure is the decision to act as if danger
was imminent when this assessment is NOT
correct – FALSE POSITIVE
– Type II failure is the decision not to act when
danger IS TRULY imminent – FALSE NEGATIVE
Uncertainty failures in risk
management
Since there is no fail safe decision, both types
of failure have consequences
– However, statistical uncertainty analysis tells us
that it is fundamentally impossible to
simultaneously eliminate the chances of a false
negative without increasing the chances of a false
positive and vice versa.
Could the Precautionary Principle be the
answer?
– The Rio Declaration 1992 stated “In order to protect
the environment, the precautionary approach shall
be widely applied by States according to their
abilities.
Some have argued that
precautionary approaches
should be used
http://www.sehn.org/pppractc.html
Precautionary principle as a
risk management answer
In consideration of the interrelationship of
false negatives and false positives, it
appears the Precautionary Principle offers
a false choice.
– Eliminate false negative failures, then the rate
of false positive failures will increase.
Repeated Type I failures might lead
consumers to eventually disregard risk
advisories when they are actually
warranted, the “Cry Wolf” scenario
– Creating the opposite effect
Precautionary principle as a
risk management challange
The challenge is to finding the balance
between avoiding Type II errors without
creating an unacceptable increase in
Type I errors
While the optimum balance will not
always be clear risk management
decisions must be made with the
flexibility to adjust as new information
becomes known.
Typology of Risk Tradeoffs
Compared to the Target Risk, the Countervailing Risk
is:
Compared to
the Target Risk
the
Countervailing
Risk Affects:
Same Type
Different Type
Same
Population
Risk Offset
Risk Substitution
Different
Population
Risk Transfer
Risk
Transformation
Source: Graham & Weiner, 1995
Examples of Risk Tradeoffs
Decision
Context
Decision
maker
Eating
Fish
Governm Heart
ent
Disease
Consume
rs
Governm Cancer
ent
Environ’li
sts
Chlorine
in Drink.
Water
Target
Risk
Registeri Governm Cancer
ng from Grahament
Adapted
& Weiner, 1995
CounterRisk
vailing
Tradeoff
Risk
Cancer
Substituti
on
Infection
Substituti
on
Cancer
Repro.
Offset
Substituti
Risk vs. Risk
Not all risks are equal
– Factors such as severity, likelihood, magnitude, etc.
Nor are choices risk free
We are confronted with such choices
– Pain vs. Surgery
– Transportation by car or train or plane or ship
Risk management is therefore choosing among risks, important
aspects risk – risk decisions include:
– Magnitude of the risk
– Population at risk
– Certainty
– Type of outcome
– Distribution and Timing
Magnitude of the risk
Target and countervailing risks often
differ in their magnitude of probability
When similar outcomes are presented
such as cancer risk vs. cancer risk the
relative magnitude becomes important
– 1 in 100 risk vs. 1 in 10,000 might lead to a
straightforward decision
When different outcomes are present
such as heart disease vs. cancer the
relative magnitude is also important
– The risk of cancer from fish is much
smaller than heart disease from not eating
The importance of size
If the probability of an adverse outcome is held
constant then relative size of an affected population
becomes important
– Let’s say the the incremental lifetime risk of a
cancerous agent is 1 in 100,000
– Let’s also say the total exposed population is no
more than 100 people
Then the incremental lifetime population risk is
about 0.001 (100 x 1/100,000) cases of cancer
– very small
– However, if the same incremental cancer risk is
applied to a population of 100,000,000
Then the incremental lifetime population risk is
about 1000 (100,000,000 x 1/100,000) case of
cancer – very large
Certainty of the risk
We have spoken at length about how
uncertainty is part of a risk estimate and
the importance of characterizing it
Often however, uncertainty is difficult to
quantify
In any event, for risk vs. risk comparisons
the same “metric” should be used, for
example:
– If worst case estimates are used for one
target risk the same should be used for
countervailing
Distribution and Timing
Even in the case when risk tradeoffs result in the same outcome and
uncertainty of either is equivalent, who incurs the risk remains critical
– Unequally distributed risks may be perceived as worse than equally
distributed
Risks incurred by disadvantaged groups may be seen as less fair
because they may be poor, less powerful, lower social standing
– In addition, ethical concerns will be raised by risk transfers and
transformations as a new population is put at risk
Politics may enter into this risk shift as we have seen in
Transboundary pollution concerns
Timing of when the risk outcome will be realized will affect choices and
perception of the risk
Type of outcome
The nature of risk vs. risk is that often the risk outcomes differ,
that is they are transformed.
– Some people who quit smoking will gain weight
– Some women who take estrogen therapy to reduce
osteoporosis increase the risk of cancer
– Reducing risk of terrorist attacks will reduce freedom
Comparing dissimilar risks is difficult, not only because
calculations differ,
– More importantly views (subjective attitudes and
perceptions) about risks differ
Perceptions may drive the management decision
Some dimensions of risk and their
effect on perception
Dimension
Conditions – Higher Risk
Conditions – Lower Risk
Voluntarism
Involuntary Exposures – air
pollution
Risk taken by choice – skiing,
smoking
Attribution of blame
Risk caused by human failure
– explosion at industrial plant
Risk caused by nature –
lightning, alfatoxin in peanuts
Familiarity
Unfamiliar – ozone depletion
Familiar – household
accidents
Understanding
Lack of – nuclear power
Understanding – falling on ice
Media Attention
News – airline crash, accident
Little attention – work injuries
Dread
Fear evoking – hazardous site
Not feared – food poisoning
Catastrophic
potential
Risks uncertain – nuclear
power
Well known – auto accident
Personal control
Little control – traveling as air
passenger
Some control – driving an
automobile
Equity
No benefit – living near waste
Equitable distribution vaccine
Impact on Children
At risk – birth defects
Only adult risk – occupational
Adapted from Yassi, et al, 2002 from Sandman 1986, Covello, 1989
Some dimensions of risk and
their effect on perception
Dimension
Strategy to Manage
Voluntarism
Make risk more voluntary by empowering community;
negotiate conditions of acceptability
Attribution of blame
Don’t compare natural risks with anthropogenic risks
Familiarity
Conduct open meetings and tours, keep talking about
the risks until they are better understood
Understanding
Educate, build trust in technical experts
Media Attention
Recognize the media attention and address it openly
Dread
Legitimize the dread and agree with the disgust
Catastrophic potential
Acknowledge range of risk to minimize the debate
Personal control
Empower community board, offer community audits
Equity
Share the benefits in proportion to risks – ask
community
Impact on Children
Characterize risk in terms of the whole family or
community
Adapted from Yassi, et al, 2002 from Sandman 1986, Covello, 1989
Qualitative factors affecting risk
perception and evaluation
Factor
Conditions associated with
increased public concern
Conditions associated with
decreased public concern
______________________________________________________________________________________________
________
Fatalities and injuries grouped in time and
Fatalities and injuries scattered and
Catastrophic potential
space
random
Familiarity
Unfamiliar
Familiar
Understanding
Mechanisms or process not understood
Mechanisms or process understood
Controllability (personal)
Uncontrollable
Controllable
Voluntariness of exposure Involuntary
Voluntary
Effects on children
Children specifically at risk
Children not specifically at risk
Effects manifestation
Delayed effects
Immediate effects
Effects on future
Risk to future generations
No risk to future generations
generations
Victim identity
Identifiable victims
Statistical victims
Dread
Effects dreaded
Effects not dreaded
Trust in institutions
Lack of trust in responsible institutions
Trust in responsible institutions
Media attention
Much media attention
Little media attention
Accident history
Major and sometimes minor accidents
No major or minor accidents
Inequitable distributions of risks and
Equity
No major or minor accidents
benefits
Benefits
Unclear benefits
Clear benefits
Reversibility
Effects irreversible
Effects reversible
Origin
Caused by human actions or failures
Caused by acts of nature or God
______________________________________________________________________________________________
________
US NRC, 1989
Summary of “Typical” Risk
Perceptions
“Acceptable” if:
Voluntary
Proximate Benefit
Known
Workplace
Natural
Self
Organ Damage
Distant (time, place)
“Unacceptable” if:
Involuntary
No Benefit
Unknown
Residential
Anthropogenic
Children
Cancer
Near
Examples of how risk management
has been applied
Risk Assessment Tutorial - National Library of Medicine Toxicology Tutor 1 – Basic
Principles
Urban air pollution:
key environmental concerns
Human health impacts
– Highest risk: lead, particulates
– Other pollutants of concern: carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide,
nitrogen oxides, ozone, toxic chemicals
Other environmental externalities
– damage to natural and physical capital, amenity losses,
noise, climate change
~ 40,000 excess deaths/yr and $6 billion annually in the Newly
Independent States
Average 3 - 6 IQ points loss in children in some cities
$1.1 -$4 billion annually in large cities of Asia
Lovei, World Bank 1997
Sources of the environmental
damage of air pollution
Note: non-health impacts include visibility impacts, soiling and material damages
Sector contribution to 'local' and 'global' damages:
average for six cities
Power 1400
plants
Damage. USD million
Large boilers
1200
Vehicles
Small furnances
Local damage
Global damage
30
284
231
352
979
101
1026
132
1000
Global
damage
800
600
Local
damage
400
200
0
Power plants
Large boilers
Vehicles
Note: Average for 6 developing cities, Source: Lvovsky et al.
Small furnances
Increasing problem in
developing countries
Rapidly growing vehicle fleet with high
pollution
–
–
–
–
inefficient and old vehicle fleet
poor maintenance
lack of proper emission control
poor fuel quality
Large roadside population exposed
– street vendors, pedestrians
The leaded gasoline phase out case
Lovei, World Bank 1997
Blood lead levels worldwide
(average of sampled populations, 1980s-1990s)
30
20
Lovei, World Bank 1997
Mexico
City
Manila
Jakarta
Damascus
Cairo
Budapest
Bangkok
0
Banglore
10
U.S.
Average
Micrograms per deciliter
40
Lead in gasoline and human
exposures: close links
9
40
6
20
3
0
0
Vehicular Lead Emissions
1990
60
1987
12
1984
80
1981
15
1978
100
Blood Lead Levels
(ug/dl)
18
United States
1975
Vehicular Lead
Emissions (1,000
tons)
120
Median Blood Lead Levels
Impact of phase out: No serious
technical constraints, U.S. advantage
Million US$
Vehicles can run on unleaded gasoline
– Catalytic converters are not needed
– Valve seat recession only affects few old cars
– Lubricating additives are available to protect
Refineries can adjust to produce unleaded gasoline
Benefits – Costs
– Clear advantage
20000
Policy
– Political will
10000
– Make unleaded cheaper
– Public information
0
Benefits
Costs
Progress in the global
phase-out of lead
Lovei, World Bank 1997
Global Trend in Gasoline Production
1000
Million Metric Tons
Total phase-out in
25+ countries
Decline in the
amount of lead in
gasoline
Around 80% of
gasoline is unleaded
world-wide
Improvements in
ambient air quality
and human health
800
600
Unleaded Unleaded Unleaded Unleaded
Unleaded Unleaded UnleadedUnleaded
Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline
Gasoline Gasoline GasolineGasoline
400
200
0
1990
Leaded Gasoline
1991
1992
Leaded Gasoline
1993
1994
1995
Unleaded Gasoline
1996
1997
Rapid Phase-out in a Small
Country: El Salvador
Market Share of Unleaded
Gasoline
100
80
Percent
Completed in 1 year
Fast decline in airborne
lead (from 1.5 ug/m3 to
0)
Enabling conditions:
– Private ownership of
petroleum sector
– Liberalized
petroleum prices
– Significant imports
Cost: 1 U.S. cent/liter
60
40
20
0
1995
Lovei, World Bank 1997
1996
From health concerns to total
phase-out in Thailand
Retail price of leaded and
unleaded gasoline
9.8
9.7
9.6
9.5
9.3
Premium
unleaded
9.4
Premium
leaded
Risk assessment study:
lead exposure is priority
problem
Political commitment
Price and market
liberalization
Strengthened
environmental
regulations, institutions
Differentiated taxation
Clean fuels program and
refinery adjustment
Increasing community
Lovei, awareness
World Bank 1997
Remedial Action Risk
Management
Site
Discovery
Federal
Facilities
Docket
Listing
Removal
Action
Required?
Yes
No
Preliminary
Assessment
Site
Inspection
Removal
Action
Site
Discovery
Site Assessment
Adapted from Bell, 1997
HRS
Score at or
Above
28.50?
Yes
NPL
Listing
No
Cleanup
Under
CERCLA?
Yes
No
Possible
Action
Under Other
Authorities
Federal
Facilities
Agreement
Remedial Action Process
Site
Characterization
Scoping
the RI/FS
Treatability
Investigations
Data Shared
Development &
Detailed Analysis
Screening of Alternatives of Alternatives
Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study
Adapted from Bell, 1997
Remedial
Design
Proposed
Plan
Record
of
Decision
Remedy
Selection
Remedial
Action
Delete
from
NPL
Five-Year
Reviews
Operation
and
Maintenance
Remedial Design/Remedial Action
73
Purpose of RI/FS Process
Used to characterize extent, nature, risk, & cleanup alternatives of
hazardous substance releases
– Leads to informed risk management (cleanup) decision
Scoping/Planning the RI/FS
– Review existing information
– Establish remedial objectives and determine remedial options
– Assess need for treatability studies
Bench or pilot scale to determine effectiveness of technology
– Identify preliminary regulatory standards
Adapted from Bell, 1997
The RI/FS: Site
Characterization
Site Characterization
– Investigate physical characteristics
– Define sources of contamination
– Determine nature/extent of contamination
– Analyze contaminant fate & transport
– Using characterization data, conduct baseline risk
assessment
– Develop preliminary remedial goals (PRGs), based on
the risk assessment data and chemical-specific
standards
– Develop documentation of chemical- and locationspecific regulations
Adapted from Bell, 1997
Risk Assessment in Remedial
Investigation
Risk Assessment plays a major role in RI
– Risks to human health and ecological resources are
quantified
Uddameri, 2001
The RI/FS: Development &
Screening of Alternatives
Develop remedial action objectives (RAOs)
based on PRGs developed in the RI
Identify potential treatment technologies, &
containment disposal requirements for untreated
waste and residuals
Screen technologies
Identify action-specific standards
Assemble technologies into alternatives
Screen alternatives as necessary
Adapted from Bell, 1997
The RI/FS: Detailed Analysis of
Alternatives
Analyze each alternative
against nine evaluation
criteria
Compare alternatives
against each other
Using RI and treatability
studies findings,
determine which
alternatives provide
greatest benefits while
maximizing use of
available resources,
including funding
Adapted from Bell, 1997
Threshold criteria
– Overall protection of human
health and the environment
– Compliance with standards
Primary balancing criteria
– Long-term effectiveness and
permanence
– Reduction of toxicity,
mobility, or volume of waste
through treatment
– Short-term effectiveness
– Implementability
– Cost
Modifying criteria
– State acceptance
– Community acceptance
Risk Assessment in the FS
Risk Assessment in Feasibility Study
– Screening of alternatives
– Record of decisions is driven by risk assessment
– Remedial action – protect workers health
Uddameri, 2001
Proposed Plan and Record of
Decision
Selects preferred alternative & solicits public involvement &
acceptance, is based on FS findings
– Nature/extent of contamination
– Alternatives evaluated
– Preferred approach
ROD selects remedy and sets bounds for RD and RA
– Remedial action must start within 15 months of signed ROD
Types of RODs
– No Action
– Interim Action
– Contingent Action
– Final Action
Adapted from Bell, 1997
80
Basic Elements of the ROD
Declaration
– Formal statement signed by EPA that
identifies selected remedy
– Includes a Statutory Determinations section
stating that the selected remedy complies with
ARARs or states that a waiver is justified and
is cost-effective
Decision Summary
Responsiveness Summary
Adapted from Bell, 1997
ROD Decision &
Responsiveness Summary
ROD Decision Summary
– Presents overview of site problems,
remedial alternatives, and analysis of
alternatives
– Explains rationale for remedy selection
– Statutory Determinations section
explains how selected remedy satisfies
statutory requirements
ROD Responsiveness Summary
– Provides decision-makers with
Adapted from Bell, 1997
information about community
82
Remedial Design and
Construction
Purpose - develop remedial
design/remedial action (RD/RA) Work Plan
and implement remedial action
Design/action must criteria listed in signed
ROD
Verify protectiveness of remedy if
significant new ARARs are promulgated or
identified
Review ARARs if remedial action is
significantly different from ROD
Adapted from Bell, 1997
Any changes to preferred alternative after
83
Risk Based Corrective Action
(RBCA)
ASTM has developed a “risk” based
approach for closure assessment of
waste sites
– Many states have adopted this approach
as a screening technique for sites such as
underground storage tanks
– Private parties often use RBCA for due
diligence
Tiered approach
– 1 – risk based screen levels (tables)
Use of Risk Management in the
Military
The use of risk
assessment methods
in the military varies
– Quantitative Health
Risk Assessment
follows generally
accepted principles
– Qualitative methods
are also used for
decision-making
Six Steps of Risk Management
in Military
Step 1
– IDENTIFY HAZARDS DURING MISSION ANALYSIS
CONDITIONS THAT HAVE THE POTENTIAL OF
POLLUTING THE AIR, SOIL, WATER, OR DEGRADE
NATURAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Step 2
– ASSESS THE PROBABILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE
AND VIOLATIONS
ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT MATRICES
Step 3
– MAKE DECISIONS AND DEVELOP MEASURES TO REDUCE
HIGH RISKS
http://155.217.58.58/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/gta/5-8-2/050802_top.htm
Six Steps of Risk Management
in Military
Step 4
– BRIEF THE CHAIN OF COMMAND AND APPROPRIATE
DECISION MAKERS
PROPOSED PLANS AND RESIDUAL RISKS
Step 5
– IMPLEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES
INTEGRATE THEM INTO PLANS, ORDERS, SOPs,
TRAINING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, AND
REHEARSALS
Step 6
– SUPERVISE AND ENFORCE ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS
TRAIN TO THESE STANDARDS
http://155.217.58.58/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/gta/5-8-2/050802_top.htm
7 Areas of Environmental
Concern
Air Pollution
Archaeological & Historical Sites
Hazardous Material & Hazardous Waste
Noise Pollution
Threatened & Endangered Species
Water Pollution
Wetland Protection
Risk Impact Values are used in matrices (scale of 0 to 5)
– 5 = greatest risk
– An estimate of operating conditions
– They indicate a severity of environmental degradation
http://155.217.58.58/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/gta/5-8-2/050802_top.htm
ENVIRONMENTAL AREA: Air
Pollution
UNIT OPERATIONS
Movement of heavy vehicles and
systems
Movement of personnel and light
vehicles/ systems
Assembly Area activities
Field maintenance of equipment
Garrison maintenance of equipment
TOTAL RATING:
RISK-IMPACT
VALUE
5 4 3 2 1 0
5 4 3 2 1 0
5 4 3 2 1 0
5 4 3 2 1 0
5 4 3 2 1 0
http://155.217.58.58/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/gta/5-8-2/050802_top.htm
Training Event:
_________
Movement of Heavy
MovementVehicles/Systems
of Personnel and
Light Vehicles/Systems
Assembly Area Activities
Field Maintenance of Equipment
Garrison Maintenance of
Equipment
Risk Rating
Air Pollution
Archaeological and
Historical Sites
Low
0-58
Hazardous Material
and Hazardous Waste
Med.
Noise Pollution
59-117
Threatened and
Endangered Species
High
Water Pollution
Wetland Protection
Risk Value Totals
118-149
Ex High
150-175
Air Pollution Contributing
Factors
Value = 0 NO RISK/NOT APPLICABLE
Value = 1
– OPERATING AREAS ARE NOT SUSCEPTIBLE TO RANGE
FIRES.
– FIRES ARE LIMITED, CONTROLLED, AND ALLOWED ONLY
IN AUTHORIZED AREAS (powder burn areas and incinerators).
– USE OF AND TRAINING WITH RIOT CONTROL CHEMICAL
AGENT (CS) AND SMOKE ARE STRICTLY CONTROLLED.
– VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT ARE WELL MAINTAINED AND
IN GOOD OPERATING ORDER.
– SOLDIERS ARE ENVIRONMENTALLY CONSCIOUS.
– SOLDIERS ARE THOROUGHLY FAMILIAR WITH RANGE
FIRE RESTRICTIONS.
– COMMAND AND CONTROL OR SUPERVISION IS
http://155.217.58.58/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/gta/5-8-2/050802_top.htm
Air Pollution Contributing
Factors
Value = 2
–
–
–
–
OPERATING AREA IS SAFE FROM RANGE FIRES.
STANDBY FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT IS AVAILABLE.
SOLDIERS ARE ENVIRONMENTALLY CONSCIOUS.
SOLDIERS ARE BRIEFED ON THE HAZARDS OF RANGE
FIRES AND RANGE FIRE RESTRICTIONS.
– COMMAND AND CONTROL OR SUPERVISION IS GOOD.
Value = 3
– WEATHER IS FAVORABLE FOR TRAINING; WINDS AND RANGE
CONDITIONS ARE WITHIN SAFE OPERATING LIMITS.
– OPERATING AREA IS SAFE FROM RANGE FIRES.
– SOLDIERS ARE BRIEFED ON THE HAZARDS OF RANGE FIRES
AND RANGE RESTRICTIONS.
http://155.217.58.58/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/gta/5-8-2/050802_top.htm
– COMMAND AND CONTROL OR SUPERVISION IS ADEQUATE.
Air Pollution Contributing
Factors
Value = 4
– CURRENT OR FORECASTED WEATHER CONDITIONS COULD
CONTRIBUTE TO RANGE FIRES.
– OPERATING AREA IS SUSCEPTIBLE TO RANGE FIRES.
– SOME HIGH-TEMPO OPERATIONS ARE PLANNED (up to 36 hours).
– SOLDIERS ARE NOT ENVIRONMENTALLY CONSCIOUS.
– COMMAND AND CONTROL OR SUPERVISION IS MARGINAL.
– SOME USE OF EXPLOSIVES IS PLANNED.
Value = 5
– CURRENT OR FORECASTED WEATHER CONDITIONS (dry and
windy) WILL CONTRIBUTE TO RANGE FIRES.
– OPERATING AREA IS SUSCEPTIBLE TO RANGE FIRES.
– VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT ARE NOT RELIABLE OR WELL
MAINTAINED.
– SOLDIERS ARE NOT PROFICIENT/EXPERIENCED.
– COMMAND AND CONTROL OR SUPERVISION IS MARGINAL.
http://155.217.58.58/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/gta/5-8-2/050802_top.htm
– SUSTAINED HIGH-TEMPO OPERATIONS ARE PLANNED (36 hours
Delegating decision roles
Environmental Risk Decision-maker
matrix
Category
Risk Value
Low
0 – 58
Medium
59 – 117
High
118 – 149
150 – 175
http://155.217.58.58/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/gta/5-8-2/050802_top.htm
Extremely
Decisionmaker
Squad /
Platoon
Company /
Battalion
Installation /
Division
Major Army
US DOT Risk Management
Approach
Information
– Labels for Containers
– Placards for Vehicles
– Shipping papers for
each shipment
Standards for
Shipping Containers
Inspections
Penalties for noncompliance
US DOT Risk Management
Approach
C Type
l
.1
.2
.3
Flamma
ble
Non Flammable
Poison
4 Fl. Solids
Flam
Solid
Spont.
Combustible
Danger
wet
5 Oxidizers
Oxidizer
s
Organic
Peroxide
6 Poisons
Poisons
Keep away from
food
1 Explosives
2 Gases
3 Fl. Liquids
7 Radioactiv
e
8 Corrosives
Infectiou
s
Symbols
NFPA Risk Information
National Fire Protection
Association labeling
system
Containers, storage
rooms
For emergency
responders
Local (permits) &
insurance (premiums)
enforcement
http://www.parish-supply.com/software/safe_labels/safe_labels.htm
http://www.hclco.com/software/trainbook/nfpaimage/vc-49vh.jpg
General Rating Summary
Flammability (Red)
4) Danger - Flammable gas or extremely flammable liquid
3) Warning - Flammable liquid flash point below 100° F
2) Caution - Combustible liquid flash point of 100° to 200° F
1) Combustible if heated
0) Not combustible
Health (Blue)
4) Danger - May be fatal on short exposure. Specialized protective equipment
required
3) Warning - Corrosive or toxic. Avoid skin contact or inhalation Special Notice Key (White)
2) Warning - May be harmful if inhaled or absorbed
W - Water Reactive
1) Caution - May be irritating
OX - Oxidizing Agent
0) No unusual hazard
Reactivity (Yellow)
4) Danger - Explosive material at room temperature
3) Danger - May be explosive if shocked, heated under confinement or mixed with water
2) Warning - Unstable or may react violently if mixed with water
1) Caution - May react if heated or mixed with water but not violently
0) Stable - Not reactive when mixed with water
Management Systems
Plan
Act
Do
Check
Environmental Management
System
4.2
Environmental
policy
4.6
Management
review
4.5
Checking and
corrective action
4.3
Planning
4.4
Implementation
and operation
Environmental Management
System
Appropriate to ...
4.2
Environmental
policy
4.6
Management
review
4.5
Checking and
corrective action
Commit to continual
improvement and P2
4.3
Planning
4.4
Implementation and
operation
Commitment to compliance
Framework for setting and
reviewing environmental
objectives and targets
Documented, implemented
and maintained and
communicated to employees
Available to the public
Environmental Management
System
4.2
Environmental
policy
4.6
Management
review
Environmental aspects
4.3
Planning
Legal and Other
requirements
Objectives and targets
Environmental
management program(s)
4.5
Checking and
corrective action
4.4
Implementation and
operation
Environmental Management
System
4.2
Environmental
policy
4.6
Management
review
Structure and responsibility
Training, awareness and
competence
4.3
Planning
Communications
Environmental management
system documentation
Document control
4.5
Checking and
corrective action
4.4
Implementation
and operation
Operational control
Emergency preparedness and
response
Environmental Management
System
4.2
Environmental
policy
4.6
Management
review
Monitoring and measurement
4.3
Planning
Nonconformance and
corrective and preventive
action
Records
Environmental management
system audit
4.5
Checking and
corrective action
4.4
Implementation and
operation
Environmental Management
System
4.2
Environmental
policy
4.6
Management
review
4.5
Checking and
corrective action
Review the environmental
management system
4.3
Planning
Necessary information is
collected
Review shall be
documented
4.4
Implementation and
operation
The Road Map
Activities,
Products,
Services
Evaluate Impacts
to Determine
Significance
Environmental
Management
Program
Environmental
Aspects of ...
Identify
Significant
Aspects
Track
Performance
Identify
Impacts of
Aspects
Objectives
& Targets
ISO 9000 Series & ISO 14001
Similarities in Structure
in Scope
Differences
Potential Integration opportunity
Similarities
Both have specifications
and guidelines
Management
Commitment
Policies and
objectives
Well defined
assignment of
responsibilities
Employee Training
Continual
Improvement
Documentation
and control
Operational
Control
Corrective Action
Measures
Management
Reviews
Audits
ISO 9001
Quality Systems
Quality Policy
Included in Legal
Requirements and
Quality Policy
ISO 14001
General
Requirements
Environmental
Policy
Environmental
Aspects
Legal & Other
Requirements
Objectives &
ISO 9001
Organization
Training
General
Document & Data
Control
ISO 14001
Structure &
Responsibility
Training, Awareness
…
Communication
Environmental
Documentation
ISO 9001
Quality system
procedures
Contract review
Design control
Purchasing
Control customersupplied product
Process control
Handling, storage, …
Servicing
ISO 14001
Operation control
Emergency
preparedness
ISO 9001
Inspection & testing
Control of inspection, …
ISO 14001
Monitoring & measurement
Control of non-conforming
product
Corrective & preventive
action
Control of quality records
Internal quality audits
Non-conformance &
corrective & preventive action
Management Review
Management Review
Records
Environmental management
system audit
Effectiveness
Intent
Implementation
Developmental Focus
Implementation Occurs in
Stages
• All Elements
Developed
• Working to
Fully Implement
All Elements
• Some Refining
Effectiveness
• All Elements
Implemented
• Refining
Effectiveness
• Elements Under
Development
• Some Fully
Implemented
Early
Developing
Mature
Stage of Management System Development
HSE (risk) Audit Process
Objectives
Functional Areas
Frequency
Typical Site Events, Audit Week
Sequence
Report, Distribution, Follow-up
Facility Classification Methodology
HSE Audit Process
Combined HSE Audit to verify compliance with:
• Federal/State/Local rules
• Company policies
Primary Customer flow: Leadership to Enterprise
• Leadership authorizes audits
• Enterprise implements findings
Leadership establishes Policy
– Corporate HS&EA Process Owner
Risk Based Frequency
Rating -- Focus on improvement
A Compliance Overview
– NOT an In-depth review of each function
HSE Audit Process - Functional
Areas
Air Quality
Waste Water
Hazardous Waste
Solid Waste
Clean Air Act Title V
Drinking Water
Underground Tanks
Oil & Petroleum
Emission Inventories
Special Pollutants
Emergency Preparedness
General Safety & Health
Process Safety
Recordkeeping
Chemical Exposures
Hazard Communication
Personal Protective
Equip.
Confined Space
Lockout & Tagout
HAZWOPER
Welding & Cutting
HSE Audit Process - Frequency
Use of “Risk” Based Approach for
Frequency
• Semi-quantitative method covering
Compliance History, Internal Program,
Potential Risk, Performance, Regulatory
Environment
Use of Previous Audits as Initial Base
Period
5 Year Plan with a Frequency of 2 to 4
years
HSE Audit Process - Site
Events
Pre-audit preparation: questionnaire, documentation, etc.
1st Day
2nd to 4th Day
Last Day
Travel
Documentation
Review
Field Verification
Verification,
Feedback
Reconciliation
Field Verification
Close-out &
Final Findings
Begin Draft
Preparation
Opening Meeting
& Objectives
Initial Tour
Documentation
Review
Feedback
HSE Audit Process - Facility
Classification
Functional Areas are checked
• Each finding is assigned severity
Major, Moderate, Minor
• Overall Functional Area assigned severity
• Overall Functional Area degree of compliance
Functional Area is Classified by using severity and compliance
• e.g., If a functional area is judged to be Major for severity
or if it is judged to have minimal compliance, then it will
be assigned “Requires Significant Improvement”
• Major Items to be elevated to Leadership Team
Severity Classifications Findings
Major
• Potential for catastrophic or severe HSE impact
• Requiring top-level management intervention
Moderate
•
•
•
•
Serious adverse HSE impact
Company reputation would be adversely impacted
Likely to result in enforcement action or penalty
Represents absence of a key required program
Minor
• No potential for environmental damage or employee
injury
• Programs or minor gaps in need of fine tuning
HSE Audit Compliance Grid
Major
Severity
Moderate
Minor
Requires Significant Improvement
Requires Significant
Improvement
Meets
Require
ments
Generally Meets
Requirements
Requires
Significa
nt
Improvement
Requires
Improvement
Generally
Meets
Requirements
Substantial
ly Meets
Requirements
Minimal
Limited
General
Substantial
Level of Compliance
Full
HSE Audit Process - 5 Possible
Facility Classifications
Meets Requirements (MR)
• At least 75% of Functional Areas = MR or better
• No Functional Areas below SMR
Substantially Meets Requirements (SMR)
• At least 75% of Functional Areas = SMR or better
• No Functional Areas below GMR
General Meets Requirements (GMR)
• At least 75% of Functional Areas = GMR or better
Requires Improvement (RI)
• More than 25% of Functional Areas = RI
Requires Significant Improvement (RSI)
• More than 25% of Functional Areas = RSI
Facility Classification Grid
Functional Classification
Facility Classification
MR
MR*
> 75%
SMR
< 25%
GR
SMR*
> 75%
GR*
> 75%
RI*
> 50%
< 25%
> 25%
RSI
< 75%
< 25%
0
RI
0
RSI
< 25%
> 25%
* Provided no other relevant information suggests a lower classification
Compliance & Management Systems
(adding context)
Compliance Status
High
Good Performance But
Not Sustainable
Sustainable
Zone
Weak Systems &
Poor Performance
Ineffective
Systems
Low
Early
Mature
Management Systems Development
Qualitative Risk Management
Systems – Severity based
Challenge to find a method that would
account for differing hazard data types
– Degree of Hazard such as Toxicity
– Quantity at risk
and intangible aspects
– Impact of regulation
– Sensitivity of the environment
– Degree of control
To help set priorities for capital
spending
Qualitative Risk Management
Systems – Severity based
RiskMan
Use of expert (internal to the organization) panel
– assess risk related qualitative components
– given quantitative values
– through a consensus approach
Values are scored and plotted
The values that are plotted in three ranges
– Acceptable
– Needs Improvement
– Undesirable
Values in each range should agree with funding priorities
budgeted for the next fiscal year
Qualitative severity to identify risk
management opportunities
Challenge was to identify an environmental measure
that could be used across many different types of
industrial operations and sectors
– Unit processes & operations
– Pharmaceuticals, agrochemicals, fine organics,
and commodity chemicals
to capture “emergency” events and
– Allow managers to distinguish the serious from
incidental
– Allow executives to compare facility behavior
Social Risk Management Framework:
Basic thrusts:
The poor are typically most exposed to diverse risks
– traditional and modern
The poor least equipped to deal with these risks
– The poor are most vulnerable
– High vulnerability makes them risk averse and thus unable or
unwilling to engage in higher risk/high return activities
SRM seeks to account for multiple sources of risk and their
characteristics to address vulnerability
– Operates with multiple strategies (prevention, mitigation, coping)
and arrangements (informal, market-based, public) to deal with
risk
– Attempts to match the multiple suppliers of risk management
instruments (such as households, communities, NGOs, and
governments) with key demand groups (formal, informal-urban
and informal-rural workers)
Adapted from Holzmann, 1998
Sources and Forms of Social Risk
Micro
(idiosyncratic)
variant)
Natural
Meso
Macro
(co-
Rainfall
Earthquake
Landslide
Volcanic eruption
winds
Health
Illness
Injury
Disability
Birth
Old-age
Death
Crime
Domestic violence
Unemployment
Life-cycle
Social
Economic
collapse
Floods
Drought
Strong
Epidemic
Terrorism
Gangs
Resettlement
Harvest failure
Business failure
Civil strife
War
Output
Financial
or currency
crisis
Technology
Political
social prog.
Environmental
Ethnic discrimination
Adapted from Holzmann, 1998
Riots
Pollution
Deforestation
Nuclear disaster
Default on
Risk Management Strategies
Prevention Strategies - to reduce the
probability of down-side risk
Mitigation Strategies - to decrease the
impact of a future down-side risk
– Portfolio diversification
– Insurance
– Hedging/Risk exchange
Coping Strategies - to relieve the impact
once the risk (the event) has occurred
Adapted from Holzmann, 1998
Risk Management Arrangements
Informal arrangements, e.g.
– marriage, real assets, mutual community
support
Market-based arrangements, e.g.
– cash, bank deposits, bonds and shares,
insurance contracts
Publicly provided or mandated
arrangements
– social insurance, transfers in cash and
Adapted from Holzmann, 1998
Arrangements/
Strategies
Risk reduction
Matrix of Social Risk Management
(examples)
Informal/personal
Formal/ financial
Formal/publicly-mandated/provided
market-based
Less risky production
Migration
Labor standards
VET
Labor market policies
Disability policies
Risk mitigation
Portfolio
Insurance
Hedging
Risk coping
Multiple jobs
Investment in human, physical
and real assets
Marriage/family
Community arrangements
Share tenancy
Tied labor
Investment in
multiple financial
assets
Old-age annuities
Disability/Accident
Multi-pillar pension systems
Social Funds
Selling of financial
assets
Borrowing from
banks
Transfers/Social assistance
Subsidies
Public works
Mandated/provided for
unemployment, old-age, disability,
survivorship, sickness, etc.
Extended family
Some labor contracts
Selling of physical and real
assets
Borrowing from neighbors
Intra-community transfers/charity
Sending children to work
Adapted from Holzmann, 1998
Framework for studying vulnerable population
Policy
Social and
Ethical norms
Perspective
economic policy
and values Community
Community resources
Community-oriented
(-)
People
Ties between
people
Neighborhoods
Individual
Resources
Social status
Social capital
human capital
(+)
At-risk
Resource
availability
(+)
Individual
health policy
Vulnerable
Populations
Relative
risk
(+)
(-)
Community and
Individual WellBeing
Individual
Health Needs
(+)
Level
public health policy
of analysis
Community
health Needs
Common Good
Statistical
Physical
Reciprocity
(aggregate)
Psychological
Interdependence
lives
Social
Health
status
(+)
Vulnerable
Individuals
Susceptible to:
harm
or neglect
Medical care and
Physical
Psychological
Social
Individual
(identifiable)
lives
Individual Rights
Autonomy
Independence
Note: (+) indicates direct relationship (likelihood of outcome increases as predictor increases; (-) indicates inverse
relationship (likelihood of outcome decreases as predictor increases)
Source: Aday (1994)