Download - sfra article final draft.doc
-
8/13/2019 sfra article final draft.doc
1/55
Solution-Focused Risk Assessment: A Proposal for
The Fusion of Environmental Analysis and Action
Adam ! Finkel" Sc!#!Fello$ and E%ecutive #irectorPenn Pro&ram on Re&ulation
'niversity of Pennsylvania (a$ School
#RAFT) #ecem*er +,,.currently under&oin& peer revie$/
-
8/13/2019 sfra article final draft.doc
2/55
Abstract:
Rethinkin& risk assessment as a method for helpin& to solve environmental pro*lems"rather than .merely/ understandin& environmental ha0ards" may provide three ma1orclasses of *enefits over the status 2uo! First" it can help *reak the endless cycle of
analysis: $hen the &oal is to kno$ enou&h to decide" rather than to kno$ everythin&"natural stoppin& points emer&e! Secondly" it can lead to more true decisions a*out ho$ toachieve risk reduction" rather than mere pronouncements a*out ho$ much risk reduction$ould *e optimal! As much as a&encies ri&htly value performance-oriented interventions"settin& a permissi*le e%posure limit or a national am*ient air 2uality standard is oftenmore a conclusion a*out $hat level of risk $ould *e accepta*le than any kind of&uarantee that such a level $ill *e achieved" let alone a decision a*out $hich actual*ehaviors $ill chan&e and ho$! Third" it can promote e%pansive thou&ht a*out optimaldecisions" ones that resolve multiple risks simultaneously" avoid needless and tra&ic risk-risk tradeoffs" and involve affected stakeholders in de*atin& $hat should *e done!Ar&ua*ly" the lon&er the disem*odied analysis of risk information is allo$ed to proceed
*efore solutions are proposed and evaluated" the more likely it is that the pro*lem $ill*e defined in a $ay that constrains the free-$heelin& discussion of solutions" to thedetriment of human health" the environment" and the economy! Therefore" 3 propose ane$ solution-focused risk assessment paradi&m" in $hich the tentative arrayin& ofcontrol decisions $ouldprecedeand &uide the assessment of e%posures" potencies" andrisks!
4ey$ords: risk mana&ement" standard-settin&" decision theory" pu*lic involvement"technolo&y options
+
-
8/13/2019 sfra article final draft.doc
3/55
1. Introduction:
5e have steadily allo$ed the analysis of risks to health" safety" and the
environment to drift apart6conceptually" *ureaucratically" functionally6from the
actions $e take .or fail to take/ to reduce these risks! 3t is time" this am*itious proposal
asserts" to repudiate *oth of the e%tremes6headstron& actions uninformed *y careful
analysis" or endless analysis leadin& only to more understandin& rather than to any
tan&i*le *enefits6in favor of a ne$ paradi&m" one in $hich scientific and economic
kno$led&e is harnessed in service of identifyin& relia*le" creative" and e2uita*le solutions
to health" safety" and environmental pro*lems!
To assert that $e need to *alance the resources devoted to dissectin& pro*lems
and the resources devoted to implementin& *eneficial policies may seem trite" *ut 3 $ill
ar&ue that the steady rise of 2uantitative risk assessment .7RA/ and cost-*enefit analysis
.89A/ t$o developments 3 other$ise enthusiastically $elcome has cro$ded out
improvements in ho$ $e solve pro*lems" and has even *e&un to lull us into a false sense
that $e are doin& anythingto improve health and the environment! This $as not an
inevita*le conse2uence of more ri&orous analysis" and it therefore can *e reversed$ithout compromisin& that ri&or *y one iota!
3n or&ani0ed attempts to protect pu*lic health and the environment" the
relationship *et$een analysis and action is the interplay of risk assessment and risk
mana&ement" and hence the interactions amon& risk assessors and decision-makers" $ho
1ockey *oth on *ehalf of their disciplines .science and economics" la$ and politics"
respectively/ and as individuals seekin& influence! 3n addition to the amount of effort
devoted to either assessment or mana&ement" ho$ever" the se2uencin& and content of the
interactions is of paramount importance! This proposal seeks not only to focus relatively
more attention on risk mana&ement .*y makin& risk assessment directly relevant to
identifyin& sound decisions/" but to change the nature of the questions risk assessors are
directed to answer. 3n a sense .see Section + *elo$/" this reverses the process first
;
-
8/13/2019 sfra article final draft.doc
4/55
codified in the ve &ot a pro*lem!!! is
commonly an overture to !!! and 3 don>t kno$ $hat to do a*out it! ?nly in the
psychiatrist>s office" and perhaps in the environmental" health" and safety re&ulatory
a&encies" is it instead an overture to !!! and 3 don>t kno$ ho$ to think a*out it! As a
risk assessor" 3 kno$ that the e%pertise my collea&ues *rin& can help decision-makers
think" *ut as a citi0en" 3 $onder if instead that e%pertise should help them decide $hat to
do! Someho$" our environmental protection apparatus has evolved to the point $here
our *est minds are occupied helpin& society think a*out risks" not helpin& society reduce
risks e%peditiously and efficiently!
This proposal is *oth" and e2ually" aimed at improvin& risk mana&ement and risk
assessment *ut rather than addin& any ma1or ideas to the litany of admira*le technical
improvements to risk assessment offered *y many others .+-@/" 3 aspire to increase the
usefulness of the analyses and" perhaps selfishly" even to make the assessors> 1o*s more
interestin&! We assessors can answer narrow, obscure, and deflating questions well, but
we can also answer broad, momentous, even lofty questions well, if we are empowered
-
8/13/2019 sfra article final draft.doc
5/55
or assert the power! to consider them! 5ith respect to improvin& risk mana&ement" 3
start from the vie$" firmly rooted in conse2uentialist ethics" that streams of harms .to
health" safety" the environment" or to $ealth and economic &ro$th/ and *enefits .to the
same/ constantly flo$ from our actions and from our failures to act! Therefore" every act
$e fail to take that $ould increase *enefits net of harms+ or every act $e take that fails
to do as $ell on this score as a feasi*le alternative $ould may *e a defeat! This
proposal aspires not merely to help us declare more missions accomplished" *ut to
accomplish them!
2. Summary of Proposal:
Solution-focused risk assessment .SFRA/" as 3 define it" must chan&e the timin&
of $hen risk assessors consider risk mana&ement solutions" and maychan&e the nature of
the solutions considered! 5ithout the mandatory process chan&e" there is no SFRA"
*ut it is possi*le to re1ect the optional rethinkin& of the kinds of risk mana&ement
options $e contemplate and still transform the paradi&m! Therefore" 3 $ill occaisionally
refer to the more am*itious SFRA +!, $hen discussin& the pros and cons of chan&in&
*oth the $hen and the $hat to a solution-focused approach!
"he most basic definition of any form of #$RA is that it occurs when alternative
risk management pathways are arrayed before detailed scientific analyses of e%posures,
potencies and risks begin & in order that these analyses can focus on the risks and costs!
of specific actions. Fi&ure < sho$s simplified process maps *oth for the current
.traditional/ paradi&m and for SFRA! 3 ackno$led&e that various a&encies have added all
manner of *ells and $histles to the
-
8/13/2019 sfra article final draft.doc
6/55
assessment culminates $hen it provides a $ay to convert chan&es in emissions .or
concentrations/ to chan&es in *enefit!
Beither in traditional nor solution-focused assessment should .or do/ detailed risk
assessments sno$*all on their o$n a*sent a si&nal of harm .&enerally" adverse findin&s
from one or more *ioassays or epidemiolo&ic investi&ations/! 3n either case" relia*le
conclusions that there is no pro*lem for e%ample" that human e%posures are non-
e%istent or ne&li&i*le" andor that the si&nal of harm $as a false positive can and should
end the e%ercise! Risk mana&ement is not a*out fine-tunin& solutions to trivial pro*lems"
and nothin& a*out SFRA encoura&es such $asted effort! There may also *e situations in
$hich the pro*lems are clearly non-trivial *ut no conceiva*le risk-reduction options e%ist
.this may tend to occur" for e%ample" $ith naturally-occurrin& contaminants u*i2uitous in
soil or other environmental media/) here too further efforts to analy0e $ould *e $asteful!
o$ever" in all other kinds of cases6$here $e analy0e risks under the
reasona*le e%pectation that there e%ist various optimal" sensi*le .*ut su*-optimal/"
ineffectual" and perverse .net-risk-increasin&/ $ays to reduce them63 assert that there
can *e enormous differences *et$een the outcomes of an assessment-first process and a
solution-focused process!
8onsider the likely results of a traditional versus a solution-focused approach
applied to the very *asic task of controllin& a particular su*stance present in am*ient or
$orkplace air! At EPA" *oth the Bational Am*ient Air 7uality Standards .BAA7S/
process for criteria air pollutants and the residual risk process for to%iccarcino&enic air
pollutants;em*ody the assessment-first approach: risk assessors $ork to esta*lish an
am*ient concentration that either .in the former case/ is re2uisite to protect the pu*lic
health!!! allo$in& an ample mar&in of safety" or .in the latter case/ $ould assure that
the individual most e%posed to emissions from a source of a &iven su*stanceG does not
face a lifetime e%cess cancer risk &reater than
-
8/13/2019 sfra article final draft.doc
7/55
esta*lish an occupational e%posure concentration .the Permissi*le E%posure (imit" or
PE(/ that comports $ith the
-
8/13/2019 sfra article final draft.doc
8/55
the desired concentration! 3 also appreciate that failure to enforce .$hich can involve
insufficient efforts to find violators" inefficient tar&etin& of those inspection resources
that are deployed" insufficient penalties to deter repeated or similar conduct" insufficient
follo$-throu&h to verify a*atement" and other lapses/ is distinct from the failure to
choose a sensi*le course of action! 3 simply o*serve that there are some fundamental"
thou&h remedia*le" deficiencies $ith the very idea of settin& risk-*ased &oals:
5e may for&et to ever move *eyond articulatin& the &oal" to$ards furtherin&
the &oalK 3 $orry that even the use of the term decision to announce the
culmination of the limit-settin& step of processes like the BAA7S and PE(s
.for e%ample" EPA ./e%plained in +,,= that the Administrator has decidedto
revised the level of the primary =-hour ?; standard to ,!,H@ ppm/ .emphasis
added/ puts us on a slope to$ards *elievin& that intonin& a num*er is in any
$ay tantamount to decidin& somethin&!
)ost *risk+based goals are in fact e%posure+based goals" $ith an implicit
*ut perhaps &rossly fla$ed e2uation made *et$een e%posure reduction and
risk reduction! Even if every esta*lishment that had a $orkplace
concentration a*ove a ne$ ?SA PE( immediately ended all e%cursions
a*ove that concentration" $orker risk mi&ht rise rather than fall" if the
compliance *ehavior entailed su*stitutin& a more to%ic su*stance for the
re&ulated one! The &ro$in& literature on risk-risk trade-offs .
-
8/13/2019 sfra article final draft.doc
9/55
any other endpoint dictated *y la$ or policy/! A ma-or aim of this article will
be to argue that not only will a *solution focus produce different results, but
superior results to the traditional paradigm.
For all three reasons the traditional process can end $ith no risk-reduction actions at all"
$ith actions that increase net risk" or actions that are less efficient than other$ise
attaina*le a decision process that thinks its $ay from solutions to pro*lems" rather than
from pro*lems to solutions" may *e $ell $orth adoptin&! 8onsider t$o styli0ed
e%amples of a solution-focused process" one from outside and one from inside the
environmental" health" and safety realm:
+!< A lonely +,-year-old colle&e student $ants to find a compati*le &irlfriend for a
lon&-term relationship! Alon& each of several dimensions that vary &reatly amon&
$omen his a&e .e!&!" physical *eauty" intelli&ence/" his preferences are for more
rather than less6*ut he also *elieves that the odds he $ill *e a*le to strike up a
conversation and ultimately sustain a relationship are less favora*le the more
desira*le the potential companion is! e can certainly try to solve this
risk*enefit pro*lem *y estimatin& the point $here the properly-$ei&hted utility
function crosses the pro*a*ility-of-success function) such an e%ercise $ould provide
him $ith the &oal and an abstract&uide to $hat to do .don>t approach $omen
su*stantially more or less desira*le than the *est estimate of the most desira*le
person $ith $hom he stands a chance/! e could instead tackle the situation *y
clearin& his mind of the a*stract ideal and focusin& on the attri*utes of $omen he
actually kno$s and could approach! Althou&h the former process has the virtue of
keepin& an infinite num*er of possi*le outcomes in play" the latter strate&y is of
course much more practical" and 3 $ould ar&ue is ho$ $e intuitively approach
personal decision pro*lems *y evaluatin& choices" not *y dissectin& the pro*lem in
a vacuum and then tryin& to map reality onto the a*stract conclusion!
+!+ After
-
8/13/2019 sfra article final draft.doc
10/55
3ntake .A#3/ in p&k&day! A Bational Academy of Sciences committee then rank-
orders various *road anthropo&enic sources of T8## .e!&!" coal com*ustion" pulp
and paper effluent/ *y the fraction of total environmental loadin& they contri*ute" and
various a&encies set priorities amon& the sources $ithin their purvie$! Toðer"
their &oal is to steadily reduce entry of T8## into the environment until everyone>s
uptake falls *elo$ the A#3! 9ut suppose instead that early into the scientific
assessment phase" EPA and F#A colla*orated to e%amine the various products
availa*le to filter coffee .similarly" to *re$ hot tea/ in residential and commercial use
the most common of $hich rely on chlorine-*leached paper and add trace amounts
of T8## to the diets of tens of millions of Americans! ?ther means e%ist to *leach
coffee filters $hite" un*leached paper filters or metal mesh filters could *e produced"
and some methods do not rely on mechanical filtration at all! Each alternative has
implications for the price" taste" and risk level of the finished *evera&e" and these
factors can *e evaluated comparatively in a multi-attri*ute decision-makin&
frame$ork) the results could drive policies ran&in& from information disclosure to ta%
incentives to su*sidi0ed RL# to outri&ht *ans on products deemed needlessly risky!
The steps taken $ould not solve the T8## pro*lem" *ut mi&ht solve the portion of
it attri*uta*le to these particular sources!
So $ith reference to Fi&ure
-
8/13/2019 sfra article final draft.doc
11/55
information $ill help discriminate amon& feasi*le alternatives" rather than *e packa&ed
first and only later re-opened in the .vainM/ hope that it $ill help &uide action!
As 3 $ill emphasi0e later" the first key step of the alternative process is not
pro*lem formulation" *ut solution formulation! 3 $ill ar&ue that $hile it is certainlysmarter to think creatively a*out $hat the real pro*lem is .the sources of e%posure" not
the su*stance per se/" the hi&hest use of risk-*ased decision-makin& is to mana&e
opportunities" not simply to mana&e risks!
The t$o e%amples a*ove also place into sharp relief the ma1or differences
*et$een pro*lem-centered and solution-centered processes:
The former sets up an e%pandin& $ork increases to e%haust the allotted
time dynamic" $hereas the latter already starts from an e%pansive vie$
and narro$s the analysts> si&hts to conver&e upon a conclusion! 5hen the
&oal is to understand the pro*lem" the finish line can recede faster than the
movement to$ard it" $hereas $hen the &oal is to identify the *est
availa*le solution" the analysis has a natural and hard-to-miss stoppin&
point $hen further analytic refinement $ould not chan&e the decision!H
A series of solutions to components of a pro*lem can provide incremental
*enefits" and perhaps can ameliorate the entire pro*lem" $ithout havin& to
$ait for full understandin&! This is an especially dramatic contrast
*et$een the t$o approaches $hen $e misconstrue the pro*lem as a sin&le
issue $hen in fact is an a&&lomeration of issues .ar&ua*ly" $e don>t face a
dio%in pro*lem" *ut a series of dio%in e%posures that each form part of
an industrial policy pro*lem or an environmental desi&n pro*lem/!
ost importantly" real choices are all a*out navi&atin& a sea of constraintsand opportunities" and the t$o-step process .assessors opine a*out a
desira*le a*stract &oal" leavin& mana&ers to pu00le out a $ay to achieve it
Hore precisely" value of information theory .see Section @ *elo$/ specifies that $hen the cost .inresources andor delay/ of o*tainin& additional information e%ceeds the e%pected reduction in thepro*a*ility times conse2uenceG of makin& a su*-optimal decision in the a*sence of that information" theadditional analysis should not *e pursued!
-
8/13/2019 sfra article final draft.doc
12/55
6or to not achieve it/ neither e%ploits real opportunities nor is tethered to
real constraints! This applies to environmental risk mana&ement in part
*ecause $e can measure and model *oth risks and costs as continuous
varia*les" *ut the real-$orld interventions $e mi&ht undertake tend
over$helmin&ly to *e discrete and &ranular! 5e apply a mental model of
pollution control .or food safety" or natural ha0ard mana&ement/ that
posits a visi*le hand controllin& a dial to reduce e%posures until the
remainin& risk reaches a level of accepta*ility or cost-effectiveness" *ut in
reality there is no dial *ut rather a series of s$itches that provide only
particulari0ed increments of e%posure reduction! 3t may *e interestin& to
kno$ $here $e $ould cease turnin& the dial if $e had one" *ut our first
priority should *e to assess the performance .*enefits conferred and costs
associated/ of the s$itches $e actually could choose to flip" in order to
decide $hich one.s/ to en&a&e! Bote that considerin& real solutions is not
the same as the practice .common at ?SA" and not uncommon at EPA/
of analy0in& multiple a*stract &oals" such as the desired e%posure
concentration alon& $ith half and t$ice that concentration!= The optimal
solution may turn out to *e closer to one of these permutations than it is to
the initial pronouncement" *ut that $ill only occur *y coincidence" not
*ecause &ettin& to t$ice the ori&inal proposed limit is a $ell-specified
means to an end!
Bone of this enthusiasm for analy0in& solutions rather than pro*lems $ill strike
anyone trained in decision theory as novel *ut perhaps that says somethin& a*out ho$
althou&h $e tend to think of risk assessment and decision theory as emer&in& from the
same intellectual ferment" the t$o fields have drifted apart!
The other important attri*ute of real decisions involves the interplay *et$een the
timin& of $hen solutions are first raised and the *readth of solutions considered! 3n
addition to the lack of &roundin& in opportunities and constraints" the other ma1or fla$ in
=For e%ample" the +,,D BAA7S for fine particles proposed three decisions6the current *aseline" a ne$limit of
-
8/13/2019 sfra article final draft.doc
13/55
a pro*lem-centered approach is that as soon as the mind *e&ins to formulate in terms of a
pro*lem" it closes the book on some solutions that can and will never even be considered,
because they appear to fall outside the boundaries of acceptable deliberation. The ada&e
that $hen all you have is a hammer" everythin& starts to look like a nail may *e more
instructive $hen turned on its head: once you call $hat you>ve tripped over a nail" you
immediately stop thinkin& a*out lookin& for any tool other than a hammer! The most
*asic innovation of SFRA +!, is that it starts *y lookin& not at su*stances or ha0ards or
risks as pro*lems" *ut as opportunities for change! Risks arise *ecause sources of risk
e%ist" and ar&ua*ly the 1o* of the risk mana&er is to see thin&s that never $ere and ask
O$hy not>M to &o *ack to the source and ask ho$ chan&in& it can create a future $ith
su*stantial and varied increases in net social *enefit!
Therefore" the ne$ risk mana&ement paradi&m presented here challen&es
decision-makers to take the first step6to envision possi*le interventions that mi&ht
achieve an array of social &oals and then to turn risk scientists and economists loose to
amass information on the pros and cons of each possi*le intervention! The process does
not stop there" and it contains many elements that $ill strike critics as familiar and
uncontroversial" *ut this *asic insistence that .tentative/ solutions should precede
conceptually the detailed dissection of pro*lems 2uestions the $isdom of much of the
effort" time" e%pense" and accomplishments of risk assessors and mana&ers in the +@ years
since the Red 9ook launched the era of risk-*ased &overnance!
3. Objections that Do ot Apply to this Proposal:
9efore discussin& .in Section H *elo$/ various thou&htful and so*erin& criticisms
3 have heard raised a*out these ideas" it may help to clarify several of the possi*le
o*1ections that do not apply" *ecause they presuppose a vision for SFRA that 3 a&ree
$ould *e un$orka*le or un$ise! There are enou&h o*stacles to creatin& a solution-first
mindset" $here appropriate" $ithout addin& concerns *ased on a misperception of the
concept:
-
8/13/2019 sfra article final draft.doc
14/55
#$RA is not intended to displace the traditional problem+centered approach,
but to complement it in some settings and defer to it in others. There $ill
al$ays the need for untethered risk assessments desi&ned to increase our
understandin& of potencies" e%posures" and risks" and there $ill al$ays e%ist
a&encies such as B3ES $hose missions do not include implementin&
solutions .a&encies $hose names do not include $ords like protection and
safety" su&&estin& a mission that ou&ht to &o *eyond pro*lem
formulation/! Even in the re&ulatory a&encies" some activities are *etter
suited to .or currently constrained *y statute to follo$/ pro*lem-focused
thinkin&! And even if an a&ency em*races SFRA for a particular activity"
thinkin& a*out solutions should occur in parallel $ith thinkin& a*out
pro*lems: doin& the latter should help refine or e%pand the ran&e of solutions
contemplated" and doin& the former should help refine the areas of uncertainty
that need to *e resolved in the risk or cost analyses! 3 think it is a useful
metaphor to consider the t$o approaches in terms of a &estalt dia&ram like
the one in Fi&ure +: it takes mental discipline .especially if you>ve *een
lookin& only at one part of the picture for too lon&/ to *e a*le to s$itch
*et$een perspectives at $ill and reco&ni0e that the risks $e study are *oth
pro*lems and opportunities!
/dentifying an optimal solution does not imply that the risk manager should or
can require anyone to implement the solution. any critics of &overnment
re&ulation reserve special ire for rules that specify the means of compliance
.althou&h as 3 $ill discuss *elo$" there is an element of strate&ic *ehavior in
this o*1ection/! o$ever" &overnment certainly can determine $hich solution
$ould ma%imi0e net *enefit and yet not have the authority to force its
adoption" or choose not to e%ercise such authority! This $ould not at all make
solution-focused analysis a $aste of effort" *ut mi&ht reflect a reasoned *elief
that more &ood could *e done via a voluntary re&ime or throu&h market forces
actin& $ith ne$ information on risks and costs! 9ut if merely discussinga
preferred solution can *e attacked as coercive" then *oth SFRA and the
-
8/13/2019 sfra article final draft.doc
15/55
traditional process $ill dra$ fire) *oth decision-makin& paradi&ms are
intended for societies that have evolved *eyond anarchy!
#$RA does not presuppose a single *right answer. The term options-
focused mi&ht *e more palata*le as a $ay to convey that the mana&ement
interventions are *ein& contrasted relative to each other rather than to some
a*solute standard" *ut to many risk assessors" options implies modelin&
options .defaults and model uncertainty/! There is admittedly some arro&ance
even in strivin& for the relatively *est approach to a dilemma" *ut solution is
meant here in the sense of many $ays to ameliorate a situation" not the
conclusion that must supplant all others .as in the usa&e of that $ord in
su*marine $arfare" $here the task is to plot asolution to &uide $eapons
fire/! oreover" even the relatively *est idea at one point in time may need to
*e reevaluated and refined" *oth durin& the analysis phase and after
implementation! A $ell-desi&ned SFRA process should admit proposed
solutions into the mi% durin& the analysis .informed *y an improved
understandin& of risk/ and should look *ack to ensure that the intervention
chosen is deliverin& the *enefits e%pected" and that ne$ $ays of doin& even
*etter have not sprun& up in the meantime!
#$RA only makes sense in situations where risks and0or costs matter. 3f a
&iven decision must *e made *y random chance" *y an uninformed po$er
stru&&le" or *y 8on&ressional earmark" then SFRA $ill *e a $aste of time6
*ut then so $ould any form of risk assessment!
#$RA e%plicitly allows for *leaving well enough alone. The $ord solution
is intended to encompass situations $here doin& nothin& is the *est
alternative! o$ever" there is a $orld of difference *et$een doin& nothin&out of procrastination or denial" versus doin& nothin& *ecause any other
alternative $as found to have smaller net *enefit or lar&er net cost!
Regulatory agencies can and do! promote solutions other than regulatory
ones. Emphasi0in& risk reduction over risk understandin& does not imply any
-
8/13/2019 sfra article final draft.doc
16/55
particular method of risk reduction and if ta% incentives" or ri&ht-to-kno$
campai&ns" or voluntary pro&rams reco&ni0in& e%cellence" or the like make
more sense than re&ulation" SFRA can and should *e a*le to accommodate
this!
There are also some o*1ections to SFRA that $ould *e fatal to it" could they not *e
anticipated and corrected! Foremost amon& these is the concern that puttin& decisions
first in a se2uential process is tantamount to puttin& decision+makersin char&e of the
analysis" $hich of course is the $ell-founded fear that drove the Red 9ook>s committee>s
deli*erations +@ years a&o! There is no 2uestion that a corrupt SFRA process could yield
corrupt results: it $ould *e farcical or $orse if risk mana&ers $ere allo$ed to instruct
assessors to evaluate the pros and cons of options A" 9" and 8" *ut you had *etter make
sure 8 comes out on top! 'ut there is nothing about asking the question this way that
increases the risk of corruption over the current process,in $hich mana&ers could
instruct .and certainly have instructed/ assessors to assess the risk of su*stance I" *ut
you had *etter make sure to conclude the risk is trivial .or failin& that" at least to Olo$*all>
it as much as possi*le/! The conceptual separation of analysis and mana&ement" and
the safe&uards needed to keep mana&ers from pollutin& the analysis" are crucial $hether
the mana&ers re2uest o*1ective information a*out risks or a*out risk-reduction
alternatives! ?n the other hand" $hile mana&ers should keep a hands-off posture durin&
the analysis itself" they should never have *een encoura&ed .as the Red 9ook or its
misinterpretation may have done/ to a*sent themselves $hen the reasons for the analysis
are articulated!
Some may also o*1ect to puttin& the *rakes on risk assessment $hen uncertainty has *een
reduced enou&h to confidently make a control decision! 3 respond that settlin& for lessthan e%haustive kno$led&e a*out risk in no $ay dum*s do$n the assessment! To the
contrary" $hen the &oal is to kno$ enou&h a*out risk-reduction *enefits to choose $isely"
it $ill no lon&er *e accepta*le to e%haustively pinpoint a non-risk measure such as the
Rf# or the mar&in of e%posure6risk assessment $ill have to &ro$ smarter in order to
e%press the science in metrics that relate to e%pected improvements in human health or
-
8/13/2019 sfra article final draft.doc
17/55
the environment .
-
8/13/2019 sfra article final draft.doc
18/55
is su*optimal" as is focusin& on mar&inal increments of e%posure $ithout considerin& the
cumulative *urden" SFRA should comforta*ly fit alon& $ith those related ideas for
increasin& the comple%ity and usefulness of risk assessments!
Aficionados of the re&ulatory desi&n literature and o*servers of re&ulatory
policies should also reco&ni0e SFRA as continuin& the lon&-standin& tu&-of-$ar *et$een
performance-*ased standards versus desi&n- or technolo&y-*ased ones .$ith
technolo&y here intended to cover the various means of effectin& risk reduction"
includin& su*stitution" personal protective e2uipment" lifestyle chan&es" etc!" not
necessarily end-of-pipe hard$are/! 'ut it is crucial to understanding #$RA to recogni(e
that while it does view pure performance standards with suspicion, it also aspires to
reform technology+based standards as they have come to be developed!
To conclude as 3 have a*ove that a BAA7S or a PE( is not a true decision at all
certainly displays a mistrust of performance standards e%pressed as sin&le-su*stance
e%posure limits! 3ndustry has typically advocated for performance standards over desi&n
standards" on the &rounds that central planners .implicitly or e%plicitly" they mean
planners $ho likely have no first-hand kno$led&e of the industrial sectors they have
po$er to re&ulate/ cannot possi*ly desi&n methods of compliance to achieve a &iven level
of risk reduction at the lo$est cost" and should therefore satisfy themselves $ith settin&
the *ar and lettin& companies reach the performance &oal in the efficient $ays only they
can devise .s er&onomics role in +,,s share of opposition centered on its near absence of specific desi&n
re2uirementsK.+ also re2uires the employer to *e an e%pert on er&onomicin1uries!
-
8/13/2019 sfra article final draft.doc
19/55
could meet them! So the spectrum from the va&uest performance &oals to the most
detailed specifications does not necessarily correspond to the ran&e from least to most
intrusive and un$elcome to industry!
9y its very nature" SFRA develops and compares desi&n outcomes! 3n that sense"
SFRA $ould definitely shift the *alance to$ard specifyin& the means of compliance!
o$ever" 3 personally endorse the idea of craftin& hy*rid re&ulations $henever practical:
the SFRA could identify the optimal desi&n" $hich $ould then have a risk reduction level
.a performance &oal/ associated $ith it" and the rule could &ive the re&ulated parties the
option of either follo$in& the specified desi&n .the safe har*or option/ orchan&in&
products" processes" or uses to yield e2uivalent or &reater net risk reduction!
3 also recommend a different and even more important synthesis of performance
and desi&n orientation" for $hich the 8lean Air Act Amendments of
-
8/13/2019 sfra article final draft.doc
20/55
as 3 have ar&ued a*ove" in $hy $ithout the ho$ aspirational statements! What is
missing here is the logical marriage of the risk+based and technology+based ways of
thinking1namely" a risk+based technology options analysis .+C/! SFRA asks the
re&ulatory a&ency to pro*e into the risk-reducin& capacity of various specific control
options" and to produce a rule that ans$ers *oth the $hy and the ho$ .*ut a&ain" possi*ly
allo$in& case-specific innovations that meet the risk &oal in different $ays than the safe
har*or can/! 3f the *est availa*le technolo&y is simply insufficient to reduce risks to
accepta*le levels" SFRA reveals this in one step rather than the 8lean Air Act model of a
decade>s $orth of 9AT follo$ed eventually *y residual risk analysis! 3f a less e%pensive
control is ample to eliminate or minimi0e risk" SFRA can stop here" avoidin& technolo&y
overkill!
9ecause some of the pioneerin& advocates of technolo&y options analysis have
e%pressed disdain or contempt for risk assessment .+@/" 3 hasten to emphasi0e that SFRA
does not presuppose that a 0ero-risk control option is desira*le or even e%ists! This is not
an idle o*servation" *ecause $hen vie$ed throu&h the .proper/ lens of cumulative risk"
even a total *an on a su*stance or product mi&ht increase net risk despite its superficial
appeal! 9ut the central para*le of ?>9rien>s *ook that you should not *e advised to
$ade across an icy river" even if the risks are trivial" $hen there is a foot*rid&e near*y
tells an important halfof the story SFRA seeks to tell! Jes" look at the alternatives" *ut
look throu&h the lens of risk assessment" not the lens of natural is *etter or any other
do&ma! SFRA demands $e open our eyes to $in$in options that some may hope $e
i&nore" *ut it doesn>t e%pect to find .or to concoct/ such escapes $hen they are not truly
availa*le!
A re&ulatory paradi&m that harnesses risk assessment in the service of evaluatin&
solutions challen&es the conventional $isdom in the same $ay that critics of risk-*ased
priority-settin& have tried to focus planners> attention on allocatin& limited resources to
specific actions rather than to disem*odied pro*lem areas! Soon after EPA em*arked
upon risk-*ased priority-settin& $ith its 'nfinished 9usiness.+D/and Reducin& Risk.+H/
reports" several scholars proposed $holly different $ays to set a *road environmental
+,
-
8/13/2019 sfra article final draft.doc
21/55
a&enda that did not treat comparative risk rankin& as an end in itself .+=/! The advice that
EPA could instead identify promisin& pollution prevention opportunities.+/" or focus on
localities $here residents faced multiple threats from overlappin& hot spots of pollution
.;,/" or develop technolo&y-forcin& re&ulations for industrial sectors that had resisted
innovation a$ay from to%ic and ener&y-inefficient processes .;
-
8/13/2019 sfra article final draft.doc
22/55
SFRA also aspires to *e part of a tradition" datin& *ack at least as far as 9ernard
oldstein>s t have to $ait
states of nature and ho$ you mi&ht value them!
++
-
8/13/2019 sfra article final draft.doc
23/55
passively for the miracle to occur! The parallels to environmental decision-
makin& should *e o*vious thinkin& a*out a *etter future can point to$ards
attaina*le $ays to &et there" and small improvements *e&et lar&er ones
.$hereas $aitin& until the omni*us solution has *een pinpointed invites
paralysis/!
Amon& the various *usiness mana&ement and 2uality control theories that
have sprun& up over the past half-century" one that ori&inated in the former
Soviet 'nion points the $ay to a very different approach to environmental
risk mana&ement" much as SFRA aspires to do! TR3Q" $hich is the
acronym for the Russian Theory of 3nventive Pro*lem-Solvin& .Teoriya
Resheniya Izobretatelskikh Zadatch/" is descri*ed *y its current
populari0ers as a science of creativity that relies on the study of the patterns
of pro*lems and solutions" not on the spontaneous and intuitive creativity of
individuals or &roups! TR3Q emphasi0es lookin& for solutions have already
*een applied to similar pro*lems" and adaptin& them to the current situation!
5ith particular resonance to the &ro$in& pro*lem of risk-risk trade-offs in
environmental protection" TR3Q reco&ni0es that many pro*lems pose inherent
conundrums .3 $ant to kno$ everythin& my teena&er is doin&" *ut 3 don>t$ant to kno$/" as do some conventional solutions .the product needs to *e
stron&er" *ut should not $ei&h any more/! So TR3Q stresses the notion of the
ideal final result as a $ay to open the mind to ne$ solutions that may
sidestep the trade-offs entirely: the ideal final result seeks to fulfill the
function" not to fine-tune the e%istin& means of minimi0in& e%ternalities! For
e%ample" #om* .C,/descri*es the la$nmo$er as a noisy" pollutin&" potentially
unsafe" and maintenance-heavy solution to the pro*lem of unruly la$ns!
Rather than continuin& to optimi0e the chosen means" she su&&ests one ideal
final result mi&ht *e the development of smart &rass seed &rass that is
&enetically en&ineered to &ro$ only to the desired len&th!
-
8/13/2019 sfra article final draft.doc
24/55
The ecolo&ical tradition also has currents $ithin it that emphasi0e movin&
conceptually from solutions to pro*lems rather than e%clusively in the
opposite direction! A&rarian 5endell 9erry calls this solvin& for pattern .C
-
8/13/2019 sfra article final draft.doc
25/55
open discussion of the pros and cons of contrastin& solutions to the pro*lem at hand!
Althou&h the particular solution that many of the participants $ere comin& to favor
$as made moot *y other forces" one model for a solution-focused e%ercise in civic
discovery.C+/$as already pioneered at EPA" in the form of the Tacoma process
championed *y administrator 5illiam Ruckelshaus in
-
8/13/2019 sfra article final draft.doc
26/55
evaluate the *enefits of e%posure reductions that move some individuals from
a*ove the Rf8 .or *elo$ an ?E of
-
8/13/2019 sfra article final draft.doc
27/55
comparin& alternatives that SFRA impels! 3nattention to cost can lead either
to over-re&ulation or to under-re&ulation" $ith the latter occurrin& *oth across-
the-*oard .throu&h the $ell-documented tendency to e%a&&erate costs/ and in
important aspects of re&ulatory scope .$here tacit consideration of costs
results in e%emptions" variances" and la% treatment for sectors of industry that
sometimes impose hi&h risks $hose reductions $ould *e costly to them/! 3n
an on&oin& series of pro1ects" collea&ues and 3 are documentin& the lack of
attention in re&ulatory analysis to uncertainty and interindividual varia*ility
.in the sense of the share of total cost *orne *y individuals and su*populations
of consumers and producers/ in cost" especially as compared to the increasin&
ri&or $ith $hich risk scientists no$ routinely estimate uncertainty and
varia*ility in risk.CD"CH/! Even if SFRA does not add *ack into the solution set
various options e%cluded *efore their lar&e costs $ere ever compared to their
hu&e *enefits" the act of startin& the cost estimation process earlier should
improve it" to the e%tent that the lack of ri&or is due to the
-
8/13/2019 sfra article final draft.doc
28/55
current morass of confusion it has created around this issue.
-
8/13/2019 sfra article final draft.doc
29/55
from puttin& research money into interestin& 2uestions" or into the lar&est uncertainties"
$hich is the thou&ht process that often passes for systematic these days! ?3 theory
insists that seekin& information that could potentially chan&e the rank orderin& of
solutions is the most valua*le6indeed" the only valua*le6$ay of spendin& one>s time
short of decidin&! And of course" one can>t even *e&in to think a*out ho$ much money
and time should *e spent on research rather than on control" and $hich research pro1ects
mi&ht *e the most valua*le" unless one is $illin& to moneti0e *y ho$ much the choice
amon& solutions suffers due to the e%istin& uncertainty!
6. Advances in Decision-Making Processes that Do Not Constitute SFRA.
Althou&h o*servers have raised various serious concerns a*out the $isdom of SFRA .see
Section H *elo$/" it may actually face more o*stacles to ever *ein& tried out from
assertions that is already *ein& done or that it has already *een proposed else$here!
Several recent sets of recommendations for chan&in& risk-*ased decision-makin& are
creative" visionary" and responsi*le for openin& doors to solution-focused ideas and
each may $ell *e superior to SFRA in some or all respects *ut they do notpropose
SFRA as 3 descri*e it here" and some cases may in fact *e its antithesis:
The
-
8/13/2019 sfra article final draft.doc
30/55
decision makers) SFRA asserts that $hat need they most of all are
assessments that compare the risks and costs of different decisions" $hereas
these and other reports seem to leave it up to decision makers to determine
their o$n needs!
Soon thereafter" the Presidential8on&ressional 8ommission on Risk
Assessment and Risk ana&ement .P88RA/ released its t$o-volume
report.@;/" a centerpiece of $hich $as its Frame$ork for Environmental
ealth Risk ana&ement! This frame$ork sou&ht to &reatly improve the
usefulness and relevance of risk assessment *y emphasi0in& the need to
consider multiple sources of e%posure" multimedia transfers" risk-risk
tradeoffs" and cumulative e%posures to ha0ards affectin& common *iolo&ical
path$ays" and it did carve out a place in its si%-phase he%a&on for the risk-
*ased evaluation of decision options! All these advances reflected cuttin&-
ed&e thinkin&" *ut the 8ommission clearly did not envision anythin& like
SFRA! 3ndeed" the Frame$ork takes pains to mention .p! s emphasis on
puttin& risks in conte%t! SFRA ur&es decision makers and the pu*lic to look
for opportunities to broadentheir si&hts and reduce multiple risks! The
recurrin& e%ample in the e%planation of the Frame$ork" in contrast" is that of
a refinery that e%poses near*y residents to to%ic air pollutants) every
additional reference in the e%ample to other sources of the same or different
;,
-
8/13/2019 sfra article final draft.doc
31/55
to%icants reinforces and leads up to the su&&estion .p!
-
8/13/2019 sfra article final draft.doc
32/55
ha0ards or e%posures that have *een identifiedM *efore the risk assessment
*e&ins .p! +C+/" and it concludes that risk assessment is of little usefulness
if it is not oriented to help discriminate amon& risk-mana&ement options!
This represents a &iant step to$ards insistin& that solutions need to *e arrayed
early in the process" and the report reinforces this $ith an up*eat tone a*out
the increasedimportance of risk assessment in the ne$ paradi&m and a*out
the readiness of risk assessors to deliver on the raisedG e%pectations for $hat
risk assessments can provide! 9ut on the other hand" the key Fi&ure
descri*in& the Frame$ork .Fi&! =-< in the report/ does not fully track this
narrative description" in that the activities prior to the risk assessment phase
are called pro*lem formulation and scopin&" and start $ith the 2uestion
$hat pro*lems are associated $ith e%istin& environmental conditionsM
*efore movin& on to considerin& options to address these pro*lems!
To the e%tent that this initial phase is meant to endorse and su*sume the
concepts of Pro*lem Formulation .PF/ and Plannin& and Scopin& .PLS/
in EPA>s uidelines for Ecolo&ical Risk Assessment" Air To%ics (i*rary" and
else$here" the Frame$ork ends up *ein& decision-driven .as in the ?ran&e
9ook
-
8/13/2019 sfra article final draft.doc
33/55
a*out the pro*lem is valua*le" *ut it is actually the oppositeof seein& the
situation as an opportunity to e%plore solutions!
The 8ommittee>s description .p! +CH/ of Phase 3 reveals ho$ the ne$
Frame$ork stops far short of endorsin& SFRA! The &oal of Phase 3 is clearlyto shape the risk assessment to the pro*lem" *ecause in the e%ample used of
premarket approval of ne$ pesticides" there are $ell-esta*lished &uidelines
for risk assessments $hich alreadyG constitute Phase 3 plannin& in this type
of decision! 3n other $ords" if you kno$ $hat analysis is needed to provide
the decision-maker $ith ample information of the type s0he believes is needed,
the pro*lem is properly formulated and the assessment properly scoped!
'ut that is e%actly the mold #$RA seeks to break. Even a narro$ solution
formulation e%ercise $ould look *eyond the simple yesno 2uestion of
$hether or not the ne$ pesticide is safe and effective for specific crops .and
further *eyond the 2uantitative e%ercise of settin& an accepta*le application
rate or field re-entry interval/" and $ould consider supplementin& the $ell-
esta*lished &uidelines to consider different accepta*le e%posures dependin&
on cumulative and a&&re&ate risk and other factors! To truly open the door to
opportunities $ould further re2uire all participants to consider the decision the
$ay 4eeney ur&es $e think of the prover*ial une%pected 1o* offer: not
should $e add one more pesticide to the arsenalM" *ut ho$ can $e
encoura&e the safer and more efficient production of the foodstuffs this
pesticide mi&ht *e used onM That is a different decision than the one EPA
normally contemplates" $hich is precisely the point and precisely the door the
Science and Decisionsreport apparently did not $ish to open!
-
8/13/2019 sfra article final draft.doc
34/55
The steps that Science and Decisions made to$ards earlier consideration of risk
mana&ement options have already aroused criticism.@@/" and the more e%pansive concepts
of SFRA have prompted these and other o*1ections in several pu*lic forums over the past
year! 3 offer here a partial catalo& of the more portentous concerns that have *een raised"
includin& some others that $ere raised durin& the Science and Decisions8ommittee>s
deli*erations" alon& $ith the *e&innin&s of some attempts at re*uttal and synthesis! The
*reath and intensity of these concerns has convinced me that SFRA should not *e
implemented on other than a demonstration *asis $ithout much more discussion of its
possi*le fla$s" *ut also that pilot pro1ects are $ell $orth undertakin& in order to see
$hich of these o*1ections are truly clear-headed!
H!< #$RA will e%acerbate the e%isting *inappropriate over+involvement on the part of
political risk managers .Peter Preuss" 2uoted in .@@//, perhaps leading to the kind of
corruption the Red 'ook committee worked so hard to identify and minimi(e.As 3
discussed a*ove" 3 a&ree that this could *e a fatal fla$ of SFRA" *ut 3 do not a&ree that a
discussion of solutions could *e hi1acked any more readily than could any discussion of
ha0ards and risks! ?ne also needs to $ei&h *oth $orst-cases the effectin& of risk
mana&ement decisions that reflect the political $ill of elected or appointed officials"
a&ainst the other e%treme" $hich $ould *e the .eventual/ completion of pristine
assessments that may lead to no risk reduction activities at all!
H!+Agencies are forbidden by statute from analy(ing the risks and costs! of defined
options, but must study risks in isolation before contemplating solutions. The universe of
situations $here an a&ency does not conduct a particular analysis is much *roader than
situations $here la$s or court decisions actually have for*idden it from doin& so.C@/" and
in still other cases" the a&ency does not pu*lish the analysis *ut nevertheless conducts one
for internal use or to satisfy the ?ffice of 3nformation and Re&ulatory Affairs! Even
$here an a&ency is re2uired to produce a free-form risk estimate" as in the BAA7S
process" it could still do so after thinkin& e%pansively a*out solutions" in effect
conductin& *oth a solution-focused e%ercise and a &eneric .risk per unit e%posure/
analysis in parallel" and shuntin& the former into a pu*lic-information e%ercise!
'ltimately" some statutes may need to *e amended for SFRA to make ma1or inroads" *ut
;C
-
8/13/2019 sfra article final draft.doc
35/55
some of us see that as a *rid&e that may need to *e *uilt for other reasons".@D/not as a
chasm that must necessarily remain uncrossed!
H!;'ecause *he who controls the options controls the outcome, #$RA further! skews
the power structure away from the affected citi(ens and their public+interest guardians,
and towards the regulated industries. This criticism has si&nificant merit" as some of the
crucial information a*out solutions .their very e%istence" as $ell as their costs and
efficacies/ may *e closely held *y the re&ulated community" and in1ected into the process
strate&ically .and perhaps not in a verifia*le $ay/! Some of the same concerns have
al$ays applied to risk information" *ut in theory independent replication of to%icolo&y
testin& or e%posure monitorin& could *e undertaken! 3n the spirit of a $in$in response"
a sensi*le reaction to this pro*lem mi&ht *e for the a&encies to su*sidi0e participation in
solution-&eneratin& e%ercises *y representatives of the pu*lic! 3 also note that some of
the une2ual distri*ution of po$er ar&ument is reminiscent of similar concerns
environmental &roups have raised a*out risk assessment itself" and that it is possi*le some
of this asymmetry is deli*erate and self-fulfillin& on their part.@H"@=/!
H!C "he e%plicit choice of a solution and the re-ection of others! in a regulatory
proceeding is fodder for litigation challenging the decision. ere the .more/ perfect is
the enemy of the &ood" assumin& reasona*ly than a va&ue performance-oriented standard
that survives 1udicial and 8on&ressional challen&e is *etter than nothin&! ?n *alance in
my e%perience" the risk-aversion of a&ency la$yers has stymied sensi*le attempts to
make re&ulations more strin&ent" participatory" and transparent" *ut despite a &eneral
tendency to$ards 1udicial deference" the la$yers> 1o* does remain that of reducin& the
risk of endin& up $ith no standard at all! The same sorts of o*1ections" thou&h" have *een
raised a*out the efforts *y risk analysts to *e more honest a*out uncertainty" and courts
increasin&ly no$ seem to appreciate that ackno$led&in& uncertainty is not a si&n of
$eakness in the analysis6so sho$in& more of the lo&ic *ehind a choice amon& solutions
may create a virtuous circle that increases 1udicial and pu*lic tolerance for am*i&uity
and for optimi0ation in the face of it!
H!@ #$RA makes risk assessment harder to do. Former EPA Assistant Administrator
eor&e ray made this point at the SRA annual meetin& session on SFRA in #ecem*er
;@
-
8/13/2019 sfra article final draft.doc
36/55
+,,=.@@/" su&&estin& that once decisions are compared" deficiencies in ho$ uncertainty
.especially model uncertainty/ is 2uantified *ecome more apparent and more de*ilitatin&!
3 a&ree" *ut see this as a stren&th of SFRA" *othper seand for ho$ it mi&ht help lessen
the lon&-standin& mismatch *et$een the enormous financial and human stakes of makin&
sound risk mana&ement decisions relative to the mea&er resources $e devote to
conductin& and improvin& analysis.@/!
H!DAssessments performed for an #$RA may be useless for other purposes, leading to
widespread and wasteful duplication of efforts. Accordin& to risk reporter Steve i**.D,/"
$hen risk assessments are tailored to specific pro*lem sets and circumstances" the
immediate decision may *e served e%tremely $ell" *ut there may *e a tradeoff that erodes
the common applications of these types of assessments else$here! 3 a&ree" and ur&e that
the science a&encies .B3ES" B3?S" etc!/ *e e%panded to provide more ra$ materials
.dose-response assessments for su*stances and mi%tures" e%posure assessments for
industrial processes and products/ that can *e adapted to 1ump-start solution-focused
assessments the re&ulatory a&encies $ill undertake! #uplicate risk assessments are
already a &ro$in& pro*lem in the current environment" of course" in $hich disparate
a&encies .and even pro&rams $ithin a sin&le a&ency/ seem reluctant to take advanta&e of
$ork performed else$here!
H!H/t makes no sense to array any solutions before you know what the problem is.
9ecause 3 *elieve the *alance is currently tipped so much in favor of dissectin& pro*lems
and considerin& solutions too late in the &ame or not at all" 3 have emphasi0ed the inverse
of this process! 3 do not a&ree that it is nonsensical to *e&in *y mappin& the si&nal of
harm *ack onto the products and process from $hich it emer&es" and considerin&
tentative $ays to improve these processes in risk-reducin& $ays! 9ut the initial step
.after you have thou&ht carefully a*out $hat the si&nal of harm represents/ of e%pansive
thinkin& a*out solutions should promptly return to re-&roundin& the endeavor in
traditional pro*lem-focused thinkin&6and thence to a recursive process in $hich more
information a*out risk refines the solution set" and more information a*out solutions
directs the analysis to$ards specific kno$led&e &aps and uncertainties! 3f either strain of
thinkin& proceeds for too lon& $ithout the other" the process $ill suffer" *ut $hile too
;D
-
8/13/2019 sfra article final draft.doc
37/55
much thinkin& a*out solutions may turn into idle daydreamin&" too much fi%ation on
pro*lems" 3 $arn" may foreclose opportunities to desi&n the interventions that $ill in fact
yield the &reatest net *enefit" a more unfortunate outcome!
H!= #pecifying the means of compliance free(es technology, leading to less risk reductionin the long run. 3n theory" this dra$*ack of SFRA concerns me more any of the others
mentioned so far) the literature contains many criticisms of technolo&y-*ased standards
for inherently decidin& that the *est $e can do no$ is more important than continuous
improvement .D
-
8/13/2019 sfra article final draft.doc
38/55
do not encoura&e fle%i*ility amon& means of compliance *y firms and sectors $ith
very different economic characteristics.D;/! 3 a&ree $ith the latter o*1ection" and support a
*rand of SFRA that considers marketa*le permits" hy*rid performance-specification
standards .see Section C a*ove/" and other many si0es fit all approaches amon&
solutions that should *e evaluated! As to the ineptness or effrontery of &overnment
assessin& technolo&ies" 3 can only point out .$ithout implyin& any preference for the
status 2uo or for radical chan&e/ that society picks $inners and losers all the time in
other arenas of social policy! Amon& the su*stances that can produce mild euphoria" $e
allo$ .and su*sidi0e some of the in&redients of/ *evera&e alcohol" *ut $e criminali0e
mari1uana! Amon& the products of the firearms industry" $e dra$ a line $ith hand&uns
and huntin& rifles on one side" and machine &uns on the other! 5e do all this without
conductin& any cost-*enefit analyses .considerin& neither the consumer and producer
surplus if *anned products $ere decriminali0ed" nor the health risks of le&al products/6
so $hat $ould *e so odd a*out promotin& .or re&ulatin&/ one type of li&ht*ul* over
another" $ith the helpof risk and cost informationM SFRA may *e re1ected on the
&rounds it is too intrusive" *ut my o$n opinion is that $ould *e reasona*le *ut naive
considerin& the de&ree of intrusion" for &ood or ill" in today>s marketplace!
H!t *roken! There is ample support for this
proposition" especially $hen one looks at the variety of key environmental indicators that
have moved steadily in the ri&ht direction since
-
8/13/2019 sfra article final draft.doc
39/55
Althou&h a full analysis of these trends and the many countervailin& ones is far *eyond
the scope of this article" 3 think there is room for serious de*ate $hether sufficient
pro&ress has indeed *een made" not$ithstandin& the o*vious retort that no matter ho$
no*le the track record" $e mi&ht al$ays *e a*le to do *etter still! ere are some areas
$here lack of pro&ress su&&ests a role for a ne$ decision-makin& paradi&m:
?ther trends in environmental concentration are not so favora*le: some of the
other criteria pollutants have fallen sli&htly on avera&e" *ut less so at the upper
ends of the distri*ution .the ,thpercentile of P
-
8/13/2019 sfra article final draft.doc
40/55
-
8/13/2019 sfra article final draft.doc
41/55
surveillance" emphasi0ed the a*ility of such an or&ani0ation to re&ulate products .as
opposed to su*stancesper se" $hich may make less and less sense as ne$ nanomaterials
emer&e $hose risks depend completely on ho$ they are incorporated into finished
products/ and to produce social impact statements of the impacts of technolo&ies!
3n addition to *old ideas such as those #avies has put for$ard" 3 ur&e serious
thou&ht *e &iven to a some$hat less s$eepin& or&ani0ational chan&e: the creation of a
true intera&ency risk mana&ement colla*oration mechanism" either under the auspices of
?9?3RA or .prefera*ly" in my vie$/ under an e%panded 5hite ouse ?ffice of
Science and Technolo&y Policy! So many of the solutions one a&ency impels can affect
risks in other a&encies> purvie$ andor can put society on a path that makes
opportunities for future risk reduction in another area more e%pensive or impossi*le
that it seems *i0arre for the environmental" occupational" transportation" ener&y" housin&"
a&riculture" and other functions of &overnment to pursue separate re&ulatory and
informational a&endas! Past ?3RA administrators have claimed intera&ency colla*oration
amon& their priorities and achievements.DD/" *ut in my limited e%perience .as ?SA>s
representative to several of these &roups *et$een
-
8/13/2019 sfra article final draft.doc
42/55
not to comment on another a&ency>s rule" althou&h 9reyer did not envision a solution-
focused approach to risk mana&ement or a central role for the pu*lic in technolo&y
options analysis .D/!
&. A S%eci'ic ()a%le
Althou&h they $ere not included in the main *ody of the report" the Science and
Decisions8ommittee pu*lished three short case studies of ho$ risk-*ased decision-
makin& could involve" as Appendi% F of its report! 3n addition to a hypothetical
discussion of the sitin& of a ne$ po$er plant in a lo$-income nei&h*orhood .in $hich the
&overnment" the community" and the utility company mi&ht discuss the risks and *enefits
of the proposal as $ell as alternative desi&ns and locations/ Appendi% F contained a *rief
discussion of continuous improvement in maintainin& a community drinkin& $ater
system!
-
8/13/2019 sfra article final draft.doc
43/55
repaintin&/ $as the one that had the most difficulty meetin& the one-si0e-fits-all PE( for
8" the a&ency mi&ht have to ensure that the technolo&y to achieve the PE( $as
economically feasi*le for this sector! The imposition of the e%posure-limit solution could
result in ade2uate compliance .$hich $ould have to *e verified *y chemical samplin&
and analysis/" or in non-compliance" or in any of at least three kinds of unfortunate risk-
risk trade-offs: .s 8 re&ulation $as promul&ated in
-
8/13/2019 sfra article final draft.doc
44/55
result.C,/on its o$n accord some years a&o" and no$ saves H million &allons of 1et fuel
per year *y coatin& the *are metal rather than paintin& it!
There is no reason that &overnment" industry" and the affected pu*lic couldn>t
convene and ask even more pro*in& 2uestions a*out the function of air travel: to thee%tent that some portion of it serves to *rin& people toðer for face-to-face meetin&s"
aidin& innovation in the sector that provides virtual su*stitutes for in-person meetin&s
mi&ht derive still more net *enefit *y reducin& ener&y use and the other e%ternalities of
air travel!
The solution focused 2uestion can *e as am*itious as the participants desire: the
point of this e%ample" re&ardless of $here the reader *alks at the *readth of the solution"
is that no innovation beyond *less )< e%posure to some or all of the affected persons
would be part of a decision process that defined the problem before considering the
opportunities.4= ie$ed this $ay" 3 hope it is clear that the traditional paradi&m can do
no *etter than to provide an optimal ans$er to a su*-optimal 2uestion!
*+. Conclusions
Risk assessment for its o$n sake is an inherently valua*le activity" *ut at *est" arisk assessment can illuminate $hat $e shouldfear $hereas a &ood solution-focused
analysis can illuminate $hat $e should do! 3n the same vein" the search for an accepta*le
level of risk is motivated *y the no*le desire to do less harm" *ut there is a different &oal
possi*le6to do more &ood! This latter orientation re2uires us to see opportunities $here
$e are tempted to see only ha0ards to a*ate! A&ain" 3 have never *elieved that risk
assessment is or must *e that $hich keeps the death camp trains runnin& on time.HC/" so
3 think $e need to *e a$are that there are alternative visions that take risk assessment out
of the e2uation in the vain hope that precaution or *est availa*le technolo&y alone can
make the choices facin& us less tra&ic .H@" HD/!
-
8/13/2019 sfra article final draft.doc
45/55
The notion that analysts and decision makers must interact is no lon&er
controversial! And in a steady manner" others have moved the center of &ravity of our
field &radually to$ards the conclusion that decision options .solutions/ should *e
arrayed earlier and earlier in the process than the Red .or the is-read.HH// *ook
ori&inally intended! Science and Decisionsis to date the culmination of this for$ard
motion to turn risk assessors loose to evaluate solutions rather than ha0ards" and so this
proposal for SFRA is incremental in that it moves the initial enumeration of possi*le
solutions to the very *e&innin& .after the si&nal of harm is deemed si&nificant/ rather than
closer to the *e&innin& as in Science and Decisions! 3t is much more than incremental"
thou&h" if 3 am correct that it is much more difficult to see the situations $e confront in
risk mana&ement as *oth pro*lems and opportunities unless $e formulate and scope in
a $ay that initially keeps all opportunities open" until such time as analysis finds them to
*e impermissi*le or clearly dominated *y other availa*le responses!
3 offer this proposal out of concern for human health and the environment" *ut
also out of concern" misplaced or le&itimate" for our shared profession of risk analysis! 3
look around at our unfinished risk-reduction *usiness and *elieve that *older solutions
are $orth contemplatin&" and that &overnment in the sense of officials actin& in concert
$ith the re&ulated and the affected6must play a &reater role in envisionin& specific
technolo&ies and lifestyle chan&es than it has in the past! 9ut 3 also look around and see
others $ho share the sense of ur&ency a*out &oals *ut $ho are contemptuous of risk
analysis as a means! The marria&e of technolo&y options analysis and risk analysis is
especially compellin&" 3 *elieve" $hen vie$ed $ith eyes open as an alternative to
technolo&y-*ased interventions withoutrisk analysis" or precaution $ithout assessment"
or e%posure limits $ithout considerin& $hether too much or too little cost accompanies
them! Perhaps a train is comin& do$n the track $herein some ne$ $ays $ill *e
promoted for protectin& human health and the environment6some $ise" others less so"and still others counter-productive or $orse! 3f so" $e risk assessors should *e on *oard
that train" prefera*ly .in my vie$/ in the lead car alon& $ith the conductor and the
en&ineer" not $atchin& it &o *y $hile $e display our erudition and understandin& of
ha0ards! And if that train is not already on the track" perhaps $e risk assessors should put
it there!
C@
-
8/13/2019 sfra article final draft.doc
46/55
Ackno$led&ements:
3 &ratefully ackno$led&e the research assistance provided *y Alison 9onelli" and themany informative conversations 3 had $ith mem*ers of the Science and Decisionscommittee durin& +,,D-+,,=!
CD
-
8/13/2019 sfra article final draft.doc
47/55
$"#"$"("S
+! Bational Research 8ouncil .
-
8/13/2019 sfra article final draft.doc
48/55
Assessent. 8ommittee on 3mprovin& Risk Analysis Approaches 'sed *y the '!S!EPA" Bational Academy Press" 5ashin&ton" #8" 3S9B H=-,-;,-s Er&onomicsRulemakin&! 6ublic Administration Review, 67314 D==-H,
+;! '!S! Environmental Protection A&ency .+,,@/! Bational Emission Standards for8oke ?ven 9atteries) Final Rule! $ederal Register, 7+37/4
-
8/13/2019 sfra article final draft.doc
49/55
;,! 9ullard" Ro*ert #! .
;D! 8lemen" R!T!
C+! 8ivic Practices Bet$ork" 9randeis 'niversity .undated/! The Tacoma Smelter andEPA! Accessed at http:$$$!cpn!or&topicsenvironmenttacoma!html
C;! Bational Research 8ouncil .
-
8/13/2019 sfra article final draft.doc
50/55
CD! Finkel" Adam !" Eldar Shafir" Scott Ferson" 5inston arrin&ton" et al! .+,,D/!"ransferring to Regulatory Economics the Risk+Analysis Approaches to @ncertainty,
/nterindividual Bariability, and Cther 6henomena. Bational Science Foundation&rant W,H@D@;" #ecision" Risk" and 'ncertainty pro&ram .uman and Social#ynamics of 8han&e competition/!
CH! Finkel" Adam ! .+,,/! #o Risk Assessors and Re&ulatory Economists Approach'ncertainty And aria*ility #ifferentlyM Presentation at the Society for RiskAnalysis annual meetin&" #ecem*er H" 9altimore" #!
C=! Evans" V!S!" V!#! raham" !! ray" and R!(! Sielken!
@C! Bational Research 8ouncil .+,,@/! Risk and Decisions a;out Dis%osal o'ransuranic and 2igh-evel Radioactive
-
8/13/2019 sfra article final draft.doc
51/55
-
8/13/2019 sfra article final draft.doc
52/55
H+! 8enters for #isease 8ontrol and Prevention .+,,=/! Beurolo&ic 3llness Associated $ith?ccupational E%posure to the Solvent
-
8/13/2019 sfra article final draft.doc
53/55
F3'RE