Pyrkilo – a modified risk assessment method

1. Pyrkilo – a modified risk assessment method Jouni Tuomisto National Public Health Institute (KTL) Kuopio, Finland

2. Pyrkilo risk assessment method • Developed in KTL and ERAC. • Designed for any kind of environmental health risk assessment. • Main areas of improvement: • Allows scientific and non-scientific (value-based) variables within the same system. • Enables (but does not require) broad stakeholder involvement throughout the process. • Facilitates the use of information in previous assessments. • Utilises Internet interfaces for both performing the work and disseminating outcomes.

3. Risk assessment (definition) • Risk assessment is a process of developing a rational and reasonable description of a particular risk, including the measures considered for affecting the outcome and the factors that mediate the impact from the measures to the outcome. The aim of the description is to increase understanding about what actions (if any) are needed before the risk is at an acceptable level, i.e., there is no longer a need to affect the outcome.

4. Properties of a good risk assessment • Ultimate goal: to provide a good description of reality in aim to improve societal decision-making • This goal leads to a set of good properties: • Preciseness of information • Relevance of content (internal and for the endusers) • Acceptability of the premises and the production process of the assessment for the stakeholders • Effective use of resources in producing the assessment • Usability of the assessment (availability and understandability)

5. RIVM: Environmental health planner/ Evaluation framework Indicators, appraisal and other panels, risk perception, DALYs KTL: pyrkilo Stakeholder involvement and acceptability Utilising previous assessments 1354.8 Causal chain Causal modelling Impact Resolving disputes USTUTT: Impact pathway approach Different parts of the risk assessment method

6. Research question for developing risk assessment method • What are the rules that enable an open (non-organised, non-fixed) group of rational actors to describe environmental health risks in a coherent way?

7. What is needed to guide a successful process? • Rules about participation • Anyone who accepts the rules can participate • Rules about the structure of the assessment • Variables and links are the basic building blocks • Rules about the assessment process • About editing, and validity of contributions • Rules about resolving disputes • About how to perform argumentation

8. Parts of a pyrkilo risk assessment process • Define the scope of the assessment (the question asked) • Describe the outcome indicators and possible actions • Describe the causal chain between actions and indicators • Describe all the issues above as variables • Collect data about the variables and their functional dependies of other variables • Include participant contributions at every step. (The width of participation may vary during the process.) • Based on everything above, build a coherent description about the answer to the scoping.

9. Finmerac: model outline for the Harjavalta case study

10. Make variables • Define each item in your causal diagram as a variable. • The structure of a variable: • Name: What is the name of the variable? • Scope: What is the question to which the variable answers? • Description: What do you need to know in order to understand the other attributes of the variable? • Definition: How can you derive or calculate the answer? • Unit: What is the unit of measurement? • Result: What is the answer to the question defined in the focus and scope?

11. Air exposure module (draft)

12. Stakeholder involvement • Can occur at any (or every) step of the assessment process. • Participants can make comments about any part of the assessment. • All contributions are archived as a part of the assessment. • All relevant contributions are structured and moved to the discussion of the appropriate variable. • Conflicting contributions will go through a systematic argumentation process. • The outcome of the argumentation is included in the substance of the varible. • In Finmerac, other researchers are the key stakeholders.

13. Ongoing risk assessment projects • Finmerac: human and ecological risks around three metal industry plants or mines in Finland • Piltti: exposures and health risks of fine particles from traffic and domestic wood combustion near the source • Beneris: benefits and risks of consuming fish: omega-3 oils versus persistent pollutants • Composite traffic: health and economical impacts of urban traffic and effects of trip aggregation

14. MERAG risk assessment • Environmental risk assessment method for metals. • Developed for administrative decision-making in the European Union. • Developed in collaboration with the EU administration and metal industry. • Another method, HERAG, is being developed for human risk assessment for metals.

15. Comparison of MERAG and pyrkilo • Similarities • Tiered approach from simple assumptions to more detailed examinations as necessary • Probabilistic modelling used when useful • Causality as the basis for modelling • Differences • Pyrkilo has more flexibility with outcome indicators and decisions considered (no risk/action needed) • In pyrkilo, model structure is intertwined with an open process

16. Links • http://heande.pyrkilo.fi an open access site for risk assessments (in English) • http://tyjak.pyrkilo.fi an open access site for risk assessment (in Finnish) • http://heande.pyrkilo.fi/Image:Pyrkilo_intro_presentation.ppt This presentation • http://www.euras.be/merag MERAG ecological risk assessment on metals • http://www.herag.net HERAG human risk assessment on metals