I.

Risk Analysis

Risk analysis allows us to estimate impacts on the environment and on human health when we
have not measured or cannot measure or directly observe those impacts. It also lets us compare
these impacts. In this chapter, we introduce the concept of risk analysis and risk management.
The former is the measurement and comparison of various forms of risk; the latter involves the
techniques used to reduce these risks.
1. RISK
Most pollution control and environmental laws were enacted in the early 1970s in order to
protect public health and welfare. 1 In these laws and throughout this text, a substance is
considered a pollutant if it has been perceived to have an adverse effect on human health. In
recent years, increasing numbers of substances appear to pose such threats; the Clean Air Act
listed seven hazardous substances between 1970 and 1989, and now lists approximately 300! The
environmental engineer thus has an additional job: to help determine the comparative risks from
various environmental pollutants and, further, to determine which risks are most important to
decrease or eliminate.
Risk analysts refer to these components as risk factors. In general, a risk factor should meet the
following conditions:
Exposure to the risk factor precedes appearance of the adverse effect.
The risk factor and the adverse effect are consistently associated. That is, the adverse
effect is not usually observed in the absence of the risk factor.
The more of the risk factor there is, or the greater its intensity, the greater the adverse
effect, although the functional relationship need not be linear or monotonic.
The occurrence or magnitude of the adverse effect is statistically significantly greater in the
presence of the risk factor than in its absence.
Risk is a combination of the probability, or frequency, of occurrence of a defined hazard and the
magnitude of the consequences of the occurrence.

Risk = Probability of Occurrence * Potential Negative Impact

Loss mitigation
Risks present in to two ways, strategic and operational risk

1
 Strategic risks are those which affect business survival, strategic goals or the long-term
sustainability of an operation. Strategic risks also relate to the interdependencies between
an operation’s activities and the broader business environment.
Climate change and the potential impact of carbon trading schemes or taxes is an
example of a strategic risk for an operation with significant greenhouse gas emissions.
Operational risks affect more systematic aspects of a process or operation. They are
those risks that can be readily identified as having one or more types of impact and which
affect an expected outcome.
A number of impacts risk such as:
 Economic risk
 Financial risk
 Insurance and health risk etc….
It is common to classify risks in to two main categories:
Involuntary risks: are not knowingly or willingly undertaken. where they relate to rare events
with catastrophe potential , the risk may be unknown to exposed person .if the risk is perceived ,
it may be seen as inevitable or uncontrollable ,as in case of earth quake .
Voluntary risks: are more willingly accepted. Such risks are like to be more common, have less
catastrophe potential and can capable have control. The scope of control is exercised either
through modification of individual behavior or by government action. Man made hazards,
including risk from technology, are usually placed in this group.

2. ASSESSMENT OF RISK
Risk assessment is a system of analysis that includes four tasks:
1. Identification of a substance (a toxicant) that may have adverse health effects
2. Scenarios for exposure to the toxicant
3. Characterization of health effects
4. An estimate of the probability (risk) of occurrence of these health effects
The decision that the concentration of a certain toxicant in air, water, or food is acceptable is
based on a risk assessment.
Toxicants are usually identified when an associated adverse health effect is noticed. In most
cases, the first intimation that a substance is toxic is its association with an unusual number of

2
deaths. Mortality risk, or risk of death, is easier to determine for populations, especially in the
developed countries, than morbidity risk (risk of illness) because all deaths and their apparent
causes are reported on death certificates, while recording of disease incidence, which began in
the relatively recent past, is done only for a very few diseases. Death certificate data may be
misleading: An individual who suffers from high blood pressure but is killed in an automobile
accident becomes an accident statistic rather than a cardiovascular disease statistic. In addition,
occupational mortality risks are well documented only for men; until the present generation, too
few women worked outside the home all their lives to form a good statistical base.
These particular uncertainties may be overcome in assessing risk from a particular cause or
exposure to a toxic substance by isolating the influence of that particular cause. Such isolation
requires studying two populations whose environment is virtually identical except that the risk
factor in question is present in the environment of one population but not in that of the other.
Such a study is called a cohort study and may be used to determine morbidity as well as
mortality risk. One cohort study, for example, showed that residents of copper smelting
communities, who were exposed to airborne arsenic, had a higher incidence of a certain type of
lung cancer than residents of similar industrial communities where there was no airborne arsenic.
Retrospective cohort studies are almost impossible to perform because of uncertainties on data,
habits, other exposures, and the like. Cohorts must be well matched in size, age distribution, life-
style, and other environmental exposures, and they must be large enough for an effect to be
distinguishable from the deaths or illnesses that occur anyway.
Environmental risk assessment and risk management typically involves answers being sought to
the following questions:
 ‘What environmental hazards are present and what are their properties?’
 ‘How might the receptors become exposed to the hazards and what is the probability
and scale of exposure?’
 ‘Given exposure occurs at the above probability and magnitude, what is the
probability and scale of harm?’
 ‘How significant is the risk and what are the uncertainties?’
 ‘What needs to be done to prevent, control or minimize the risks?’
Early risk screening and prioritization avoids unnecessary detail and allows the level of approach
to be matched to the needs of the problem. If the risk management decision cannot be made

3
based on an initial screening assessment, then more detailed approaches are used, focusing on the
key risks identified. The emphasis is on:
i) Understanding the environmental setting;
ii) Using simple, qualitative tools; and
iii) Applying greater levels of sophistication according to need.
However, it is important that all risk assessments, whether simple or complex, are carried out in
a robust, systematic and transparent manner.
The source-pathway-receptor concept as the basis for risk assessments
Fundamental to the good practice framework for risk assessment shown in Figure 1 is the source-
pathway-receptor approach. For a risk to exist there must be an identified or plausible
relationship between the three individual components of:
Source – is the hazardous substance or material.
Receptor – is the entity (e.g. human, water body, ecosystem, building, etc) that is vulnerable to
the adverse effects of the hazardous substance or material.
Pathway – is the mechanism by which the receptor and source can come into contact (e.g. by a
hazardous event or action on site giving rise to a release of the hazardous substance or material
to atmosphere or to ground).
All three factors must be present for a risk to exist.
The ‘source’ for waste management facilities is defined by the hazardous properties of the waste
types and operations to which they will be subjected on the proposed site. (It may also include
the events which lead to the hazards associated with those wastes and/or operations being
transferred into the environment, although, as used in this guidance, it is more appropriate to link
such ‘hazardous events’ with the ‘pathways’ by which the hazards are transferred.)
The environmental ‘receptors’ (or ‘targets’) are those entities which are liable to be adversely
affected by the identified hazards transferred from the defined ‘source’ into the environment by
the identified ‘pathways’. These include, but are not necessarily restricted to:
People outside the site boundary. (People within the site boundary are only considered
where they may be trespassers or others who have gained unauthorized access – ‘site
security’ requirements are imposed to prevent this situation occurring. People who are
legitimately on site - including site staff and other people who are authorized or doing

4
 other legitimate business - are covered specifically by the Health and Safety at Work Act
and are not considered in the environmental risk assessment);
Properties outside the site boundary, including public and private property and places
where the public have access – this may also include livestock or other animals which are
kept (rather than wild) outside the site boundary (or within the site boundary);
Ecosystems, especially habitats designated in accordance with the Habitats Directive, and
other designated sites;
Surface water in the vicinity of the site;
Groundwater in the vicinity of the site;
Atmosphere, which is a receptor in regard to the risk of global warming.
The ‘pathways’ for a defined source of environmental hazards are the means by which the
identified hazards are transferred into the environment, and thence to any defined ‘receptors’ in
the environment. ‘Hazardous events’ and the ‘pathways’ by which the resulting hazards are
transferred into the environment are intimately linked. They include the following environmental
pathways’:
 Direct emissions of heat and shock due to fire or explosion;
 Releases of polluting emissions by one or more of the following routes:
- Air (or atmosphere) as pathway (it may also be a receptor for certain risks);
- Ground (including via services);
- Water (surface water and groundwater are receptors in their own right);
 Other vectors for environmental hazards:
- Dust
- Pests;
- Scavengers;
- Litter;
- Noise.

5
 Fig 1.0 Three Factors for Risk to Occur
A risk assessment is a scientific process that looks at the environmental conditions of a property
to determine if there is undue concern to people or the environment as a result of contaminants
(i.e. chemicals) in the soil, sediment or groundwater. A risk assessment considers how the lands
are used today and how they may be used in the future. The estimated levels of risk are
compared to the levels accepted by the Province.
ERA is a support tool for policy evaluation, land use planning, and resource management
decision making. It is systematic, and can be applied in a variety of situations, ranging from
those with minimal available data and resources, to those with detailed inventories and complex
systems modeling.
ERA provides information for making reasoned decisions by defining the range of risks
associated with various options, but it does not dictate a specific outcome. ERA also provides a
mechanism for managers to communicate forecasted risks associated with decisions, such that
stakeholders and the public are informed of the implications for environmental values.

3. PROBABILITY
Extensive discussion of probability is beyond the scope of this text, and the reader is encouraged
to consult a statistics text. Some basic considerations are in order, however.
Probability is often confused with frequency, because frequencies are used to estimate
probabilities in risk assessment. One such use is the estimate of the risk of being in an
automobile accident. We have an excellent idea of the frequency in the United States of
automobile accidents of varying severity, and we use these frequencies to predict automobile

6
death risks: the consequence is death, and the probability is the frequency of fatal car accidents.
Frequency presents a more reliable estimate of probability than most other estimates. Estimates
of probabilities change as observed frequencies change.
Note that probability is a dimensionless number and is always less than unity.
A probability of 1 means that the event has a 100% chance of occurring, or is a certainty.
A frequency, on the other hand, has dimensions and can have a value larger than unity,
depending on how the frequency is defined.
4. DOSE-RESPONSE EVALUATION
Dose-response evaluation is required both in determining exposure scenarios for the pollutant in
question and in characterizing a health effect. The response of an organism to a pollutant always
depends in some way on the amount or dose of pollutant to the organism. The magnitude of the
dose, in turn, depends on the exposure pathway. The same substance may have a different effect
depending on whether it is inhaled, ingested, or absorbed through the skin, or whether the
exposure is external. The exposure pathway determines the biochemistry of the pollutant in the
organism. In general, the human body detoxifies an ingested pollutant more efficiently than an
inhaled pollutant.
5. POPULATION RESPONSES
Individual responses to a particular pollutant may differ widely; dose-response relationships
differ from one individual to another. In particular, thresholds differ; threshold values in a
population, however, generally follow a Gaussian distribution. Figure 2-2 shows the distribution
of odor thresholds for hydrogen sulfide in a typical population for example.
Individual responses and thresholds also depend on age, sex, and general state of physical and
emotional health. Healthy young adults are on the whole less sensitive to pollutants than are
elderly people, those who are chronically or acutely ill, and children. In theory, allowable
releases of pollutants are restricted to amounts that ensure protection of the health of the entire
population, including its most sensitive members. In many cases, however, such protection
would mean zero release.
The levels of release actually allowed take technical and economic control feasibility into
account, but even so are set below threshold level for 95% or more of the U.S. population. For
non threshold pollutants, however, no such determination can be made. In these instances, there

7
is no release level for which protection can be ensured for everyone, so a comparative risk
analysis is necessary.
Carcinogens are all considered to be in this category of non threshold pollutants.

6. EXPOSURE AND LATENCY

Characterization of some health risks can take a very long time. Many cancers grow very slowly
and are noticed (expressed) many years, or even decades, after exposure to the potentially
responsible carcinogen. Current medical thought suggests that some carcinogens act by
damaging a tumor-suppressing factor, and that expression occurs when the tumor-suppressing
factor is overwhelmed. The length of time between exposures to a risk factor and expression of
the adverse effect is called the latency period. Cancers in adults have apparent latency periods of
between 10 and 40 years. Relating a cancer to a particular exposure is fraught with inherent
inaccuracy; it is exceedingly difficult to isolate the effect of a single carcinogen when examining
thirty or forty years of a person’s life. Many carcinogenic effects are not identifiable in the
lifetime of a single individual. There are a few instances in which a particular cancer is found
only on exposure to a particular agent (e.g., a certain type of hemangioma is found only on
exposure to vinyl chloride monomer) but for most cases, the connection between exposure and
effect is far from clear. Many carcinogens are identified through animal studies, but one cannot
always extrapolate from animal results to human results. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) classifies known animal carcinogens for which there is inadequate evidence for
human carcinogenicity as probable human carcinogens. There is a growing tendency to regulate
any substance for which there is any evidence, even inconclusive evidence, of adverse health

8
effects. This is considered a conservative assumption, but may not be valid in all cases. Such a
conservative posture toward regulation and control is the result of the cumulative uncertainty
surrounding the epidemiology of pollutants.
7. EXPRESSION OF RISK
In order to use risks in determining pollution standards, as EPA does, it is necessary to develop
quantitative expressions for risk. The quantitative expressions reflect both the proportionality of
the risk factor to the adverse effect and the statistical significance of the effect.
Risk is defined as the product of probability and consequence, and is expressed as the probability
or frequency of occurrence of an undesirable event. For example, if 10% of the students in a
course were randomly given an “F,” the “risk” of getting “F’ is 0.1 “F’ per total number of
grades assigned. The probability is 0.1 and the consequence is “E” The units in which risk is
expressed incorporate both the probability and some measure of consequence. In discussing
human health or environmental risk, the consequences are adverse health effects or adverse
effects on some species of plant or animal. The frequency of Occurrence of adverse health
effects in a population is written as
F=X
N
Where:- F = frequency,
X = number of adverse health effects, and
N = number of individuals in the population.
8. RISK PERCEPTION
Since 1983, a great deal has been written about risk perception, and there has been considerable
research and speculation as to why risks are perceived very differently from their estimates. For
example, the risks attendant on transporting radioactive waste are perceived by some people as
far greater than the risks attendant on transporting gasoline in tank trucks, when in fact the latter
are considerably larger. In general, the factors that appear to influence risk perception are the
familiarity of the risk, knowledge about the risk, whether the risk is undertaken (or perceived as
undertaken) voluntarily, and the estimated and perceived benefits of the activity that offsets the
attendant risk. While engineers deal with mitigation of estimated risks, they must often take risk
perception into account.

9
 9. ECOSYSTEM RISK ASSESSMENT
Regulation of toxic or hazardous substances often requires an assessment of hazard or risk to
some living species other than homosapiens, or assessment of risk to an entire ecosystem.
Methods for ecosystem risk assessment are now being developed by Suter and others (Suter
1990). Ecosystem risk assessment is done in the same general way as human health risk
assessment, except that identification of the species at risk and the exposure pathway is a far
more complex process than in human health risk assessment. Assessment endpoints are values of
the ecosystem to be protected and are identified early in the analysis; these endpoints may
include numbers of different species, life-cycle stages for a given species, reproductive patterns,
or growth patterns. Identification of specific endpoints implies choices among potential target
species.

10
CONCLUSION
The best available control for non threshold pollutants will still entail a residual risk.
Our industrial society needs accurate quantitative risk assessment to evaluate the protection
afforded by various levels of pollution control. We must also remain aware that determination of
safe levels of pollutants based on risk analysis is a temporary measure until the mechanism of
the damage done by the pollutant is elucidated and understood.
At present, we can only identify apparent associations between most pollutants and a given
health effect. We should note that analysis of epidemiological data and determination of
significance of effects requires application of a test of statistical significance.
There are a number of such tests in general use. Almost all of our knowledge of adverse health
effects comes from occupational exposure, which is an order of magnitude higher than exposure
of the general public. Doses to the public are usually so low that excess mortality, and even
excess morbidity, is not identifiable. However, development of pollution control techniques
continues to reduce risk.

11