TIERED RISK ASSESSMENT OF CHEMICAL POLLUTION CAUSED BY MILITARY ACTIVITIES
 
More details
Hide details
Publish date: 2019-03-06
 
Security and Defence Quarterly 2016;13(4):51–79
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
The methodology of environmental risk is becoming more common to assess the impact of chemical pollution on human beings and the environment, providing information for making environmental remediation decisions. This article examines the impact on human health chemicals that penetrated into river water as a result of an accident at a military ammunition depot. The river is the source of drinking water for the population. Assessing the impact of chemicals on the health of adults, adolescents and children is carried out in stages (tiers), from simple to complex. Assessment is carried out both for carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic substances. The first tier is executed by a deterministic method – a method in which all biological, chemical, physical, and environmental parameters are assumed to be constant and can be accurately specified. Deterministic methods commonly apply to either a “most likely” value for a parameter, or a conservative value. When the obtained values are insufficient for making the decision, the second tier of a risk assessment begins. The values in this case have the form of probability distributions that determine their variability. Processing the risk model with the help of the one-dimensional Monte Carlo method gives more accurate data in the form of risk distribution. However, the method does not consider the lack of knowledge about the values of input variables, so, at the third tier of a risk assessment, the two-dimensional Monte Carlo method is used. In this case, the specifi ed values of risk look like trend charts and indicate the limits of probability of risk for a certain percentage of the population.
 
REFERENCES (12)
1.
Cancer Potency Values OEHHA 2009 http://oehha.ca.gov/risk/pdf/T....
 
2.
Cullen A. C. Probabilistic techniques in exposure assessment. A handbook for dealing with variability and uncertainty in models and inputs / Alison C. Cullen, H. Christopher Frey - New York, NY: Plenum, 1999. - 335 р.
 
3.
EPA 540-R-02-002. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Conducting Probabilistic Risk Assessment. Vol. III. Part A. Washington, DC, 2001. - http://www.epa.gov/superfund/R....
 
4.
EPA/100/B-04/001. An Examination of EPA Risk Assessment Principles And Practices. - Washington, DC: EPA, 2004. - 193 p.
 
5.
EPA/540/1-89/002. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Human Health Evaluation Manual. Part A. Interim Final. Washington, DC, 1989. -http://www.epa.gov/ower/riskas... ragsa/index.htm.
 
6.
EPA/600/R-09/052F. Exposure factors handbook. - Washington, DC, 2011. - http://www.epa.gov/ncea/efh.
 
7.
ЕPA/630/R-97/001. Guiding Principles for Monte Carlo Analysis. -Washington, DC, 1997. - http://www.epa.gov/raf/publica....
 
8.
Guidance for use of probabilistic analysis in human health risk assessments. Portland, Oreg. DEQ, 1998 158 рр.
 
9.
Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: Theory and Practice Dennis J. Paustenbach (Ed.). - New York, NY: Wiley, 2002. - 1586 p.
 
10.
J. Solarz Сhemical contamination – typology of threats. NDU Scientific Quarterly no 4(93) 2013 р. 207-223.
 
11.
S.I. Azarov, V.I. Palamarchuk, V.L. Sydorenko. Risk assessment for population, which uses drinkable water after accident on an ammunition depot. Transactions of Kremenchuk Mykhailo Ostrohradskyi national university No 5 (64) pt.1 2010 p. 141–144 (in Ukrainian).
 
12.
WHO human health risk assessment toolkit: chemical hazards. - Geneva: WHO Press, 2010. - 105 p.
 
eISSN:2544-994X
ISSN:2300-8741