• Take an inventory of risk related activities at the UC Campuses and laboratories; e.g. research, development, teaching, consulting and outreach, applications, etc.
• Develop an inventory of outstanding risk issues, where the University (Campuses/Laboratories), through research, development, teaching, and application can make significant contributions, and where collaboration can provide synergy.
• Develop an inventory of potential funding sources.
• Develop a strategy for possible next steps: White Paper University Conference (annually) University Journal (quarterly) World Wide Web Page(s) Individual Collaboration(s) University-Wide Center, Institute, etc.

1. Health Risk Assessment. In addition to DOE funded research at the three national laboratories, there is considerable activity throughout the UC campuses (there are two Schools of Public Health, and several Medical Schools) in toxicology, epidemiology, biochemistry, and medicine.
2. Exposure Assessment. There is considerable activity in the exposure assessment arena at the UC national laboratories, and on many of the campuses. This activity covers both public and occupational exposure assessment, primarily regarding chronic exposures at low dose levels.
3. Risk Assessment. This aspect of risk takes two forms: Probabilistic Safety Assessment or PSA (failure of engineered systems), and Environmental Risk Assessment or ERA (chronic exposures at low dose). There is considerable activity in the PSA arena at LANL, LLNL UCB, UCLA and UCSB. There is considerable activity in the ERA arena at all the national laboratories and on many of the campuses.
4. Ecological Risk Assessment. There exists considerable activity in the ecological impact arena on the campuses and at the laboratories, but not necessarily from a risk perspective. UCD appears to have a particular strength in the integration of ecological impacts into the risk assessment domain.
5. Risk Management. There is considerable activity in the risk management arena, from research to applications in such diverse areas as construction management, agricultural pest management, energy efficiency for global climate change mitagation, nuclear reactor safety, priority setting for cleanup activities at the national laboratories, electric utility pricing and radioactive waste disposal.
6. Institutional, Policy and Social Issues. There are a few individuals on the campuses who are working on issues directly related to risk such as risk perception, risk communication, ethical and moral values, etc. These include Carl Cranor at UCR, Elaine Vaughn at UCI, and others. There are other faculty working on related issues in Public Policy, Political Science, Economics and Business (e.g. Rakesh Sarin at the UCLA Graduate School of Management/ Todd LaPorte in the Political Science Department at UCB).
7. There are numerous course offerings at the various Campuses which reflect the above, many of which even have the word "Risk" in the title. These are offered by a variety of Departments, Colleges and Schools.

• Global warming (greenhouse gas emissions)
• Resistance to antibiotics
• Persistent chemical and physical agents
• Drug use (the drug trade)
• Cigarette smoking
• Population growth
• Imbalanced and/or insufficient diet

• Experiments (lab and field) might answer more fundamental questions about exposure and dose response. In ecological risk, one could explore areas such as the effects of pollutants on species.
• Researchers in Economics, Public Policy, Health Policy, Sociology, and Anthropology (and others) could all make valuable contributions to the thinking on risk issues, particularly in collaboration with the Scientific and Technical community.

• Indirect "causes" of risk can be the most important factors in risks to human health and yet the structure of our thinking on risk does not capture these risks. For example, there are strong indications that one could increase DALYs, (see "indices" below) in a "cost-effective" manner by improving education of women worldwide. Education is a remedy for a host of problems, therefore poor education is an indirect cause of ill health.
• Paper cup vs. Styro cup. We still can not determine which is environmentally preferable, a paper cup or a Styrofoam cup. This class of problem demands development of new methods and illustrates the need for more informative risk indicies.
• Assessments need boundaries. When examining problems such as those that fit in the two classes mentioned above, one can get the impression that one must model the whole world (both physical and social) to get a true read on the impacts. The group thought that impression would be wrong, and that one could, and should explore where the boundaries lie.
• The community needs better indices. Better here means informative, relevant, and reliable. Indices are needed for both human and ecological health impact and might complement or replace metrics such as toxicity. An example of a reasonably good index is the DALY (disability-adjusted life year).
• Alternatives to using the upper-bound estimates of impacts for calculation of indices and assessment of risks are also needed. When multiple upper bounds are folded together we can get nonsense output.
• A consistent clearinghouse for a risk data base that includes everything from micro risks to macro risks, and that permits prioritization, would be a great contribution. By consistent, the group means that the probability of death is exactly one, and that contributing factors do not exceed 100%.

• For seed money there are foundations and the UCOP (i.e. CLC) and even LDRD funds.
• For extended funding, we have some of the usual suspects: DOE, NSF (highly competitive grant program on global change).
• For globally pervasive problems affecting human health, one might turn to the WHO, (World Health Organization) or to the World Bank.
• In general, all of these will require a focused program rather than a plan to create a center of excellence.

• Another workshop that sharpens the focus (perhaps by beginning with a set of proposals that can be examined, criticized, improved, replaced, etc.) would be valuable and might lead to a unifying mission that would be the basis for large-scale collaborations.
• Future workshops should draw on a broader range of fields and intellectual resources, i.e. the social sciences, humanities (e.g. ethics), and so on.
• Future workshops should have groups that encourage identification of linkages between different kinds and scales of risk.

Definition of problem scale:

Regional risk issues are those which act upon society and the environment at a regional scale. This includes not only regional scale issues but also the cumulative effect of local scale issues and the external action of super-regional issues. Population pressure internally and externally drives risk

The Information Issue

What is the nature and quality of the data (accuracy, precision, uncertainty)?
What questions can the available data base be capable of answering?
Are the reasonable questions worth answering?
Can the answers help to prioritize actions in order to efficiently allocate scarce resources?
If there isn't enough quality data, how do we make decisions?

Quantifying multiple risk Endpoints

Balancing the quality of our health and the environment with economic issues Ecological Endpoint - What is the ecological goal of risk minimization

(a) total restoration to prior conditions

(b) current preservation and conservation with a goal of a sustainable environment (diversity/functionality)

c) aesthetic vs. scientific priorities

Effectiveness of Policy Implementation.

How do we deal with institutional failure due to both the lack of regional institutions (i.e.. CARB - California Air Resources Board) and the inability of regional institutions to cross boundaries. We need to consider cross regional, cross compartmental management of environmental problems. This may prevent gridlock in risk management as occured with Superfund.

Conceptual model is multidimensional considering: biosphere, hydrosphere, soils, health, economies, policy, action, decision systems forecasting, analytical methods, modeling, statistics

1. Multidisciplinary/approach elicits collaboration
2. Forecasting tool to test hypothetical scenarios to aid decision making

Question 3.
What are potential funding sources pertaining to your Group?

The general thought was once we had a plan, the funding source would be obvious, and thus not much time was spent on this question. However, one point was that there would be multiple funding sources for each of the different phases of the project. In the early phases possible sources of funding would be foundations, UC, UC Toxics Program, and management fees for research lab. These sources would fund scoping and proposal development. Once the proposel and plan were well developed, the project would move on to the midphase with sources of funding such as NSF or State agencies.

Question 4.
What are the next steps both pertaining to you Group and for the Group at large?

The group would need to create environment for proposal development. Ideas included:

• Determine regional concerns, stake holders.
• Build partnerships with regulatory agencies, media, interest groups, regional boards
• Management and leadership needs to follow an inclusive structure. The best place for the management core would be at the National Labs
• Incentives for collaboration include public service and funding

Once the proper framework has been set up, funding sources should become apparent and funding should follow

Group 3:

Participants:
David Ashley (UCB)
Mike Johnson (UCD)
David Layton (LLNL)
Pete Richerdson (UCD)

Facilitators:
Reed Maxwell (UCB)
Louise Wells (UCB)

Question 1.
What are risk related activities at the UC Campuses and laboratories; e.g. research, development, teaching, consulting and outreach, applications, etc. pertaining to your Group?

This question was addressed in the morning talks, and therefore we did not discuss it in our Group.

Question 2.
What are the outstanding risk issues, where the University (Campuses/Laboratories), through research development, teaching, and application can make significant contributions, and where collaboration can provide synergy pertaining to your Group?

Our group began with a focus on environmental issues, but in the second day expanded to other fields, such as fire and seismic risk. There was significant discussion that the local scale issues very rapidly extend out of a local area and become regional issues. Therefore the discussion strayed from strictly local scale issues. The issues that were discussed roughly fell into the following list of topics. The topics range from very specific to outstanding issues that are common in many areas of risk-related work. The list of outstanding risk issues that Group 3 identified are as follows:

1. Sediments
   1. transport of contaminants
   2. partitioning of contaminants
   3. chemical analyses
   4. toxicological effects
   5. Risk assessment and management
2. Risk Communication
   1. Among scientists
   2. Between scientist and the public
   3. Between managers and risk assessors
   4. Public involvement
3. Uncertainty and variability
   1. Assumptions
   2. Unknown endpoints
   3. Process uncertainty
   4. Diversity of systems
   5. Effect on management of a risk
4. Harmonization of processes/organizations
   1. EPA, DOE, DOA, DTSC, OEHHA: duplication of efforts
5. Fire risk
   1. modeling
   2. infrastructure/safety systems
   3. cost analysis
   4. local investment
6. Seismic risk
   1. visualization
   2. site specificity
   3. performance-based design:
      1. infrastructure
      2. emergency services
      3. local dependence on regional

   Question 3.
   What are potential funding sources pertaining to your Group?

   The participants in Group 3 did not think that discussion of question 3 would provide useful information besides a list of agencies and organizations, and therefore chose to rework the question. The question as it was discussed is: How do we coordinate research needs and funding sources? Further, how do we shape the research agenda and generate funds?

   The discussion focused on the need for communication between the scientific community and the technical community, as well as the need for a consortia involving the public and private sectors. There was further discussion on the need to harmonize the processes that are occurring within organizations.

   Question 4.
   What are the next steps, both pertaining to your Group and for the Group at large?

   The main point of discussion on the topic of next steps was the formation of a center, based on either UC Toxics, or IGCC as a model. Agencies, including, but not limited to, the National Science Foundation and the EPA were proposed as possible funding sources. There was a strong emphasis that if a center were to form, the focus of the center should extend beyond the boundaries of the breakout groups at this workshop, as the issues extend beyond these divisions. Another idea that was proposed was the use of Laboratory discretionary funds to focus on issues that would foster collaboration. Group 3 emphasized that the next steps need to recognize the interdisciplinary nature of work in the area of risk-related issues.

   Group 4 & 5:

   Micro Scale Issues. e.g. industrial safety, occupational health and safety, indoor environments, waste management, etc. Engineered Systems/Safety/Infrastructure Issues. e.g. process plant safety (chemical, manufacturing, nuclear,etc., natural hazards, transportation systems, critical structures (bridges, hospitals, airports, schools, etc.), regulation, land use planning, etc.

   Participants:
   Harry Ettinger (LANL)
   Joan Daisey (LBNL)
   Desmond Stack (LANL)
   Ed Jones (LLNL)
   Theo Theofonous (UCSB)
   Carl Cranor (UCR)
   Facilitators:
   Sue Pelmulder (UCD/UCB)
   Maureen Coveney (UCB)
   Sigrida Reinis (UCB)
   Brendan Dooher (UCLA)
   Question 1.
   What are the risk related activities at the UC Campuses and laboratories; e.g. research, development, teaching, consulting and outreach, applications, etc., pertaining to your Group?

   Modified to be a list of competitors and a list of areas of strength and uniqueness for the UC System/Labs

   Competition:

   Lockheed-Martin, including Sandia National Lab Harvard/MIT
   CRESP (U.W. and EOHSI)
   CMU
   DOE @ Chicago

   UC Expertise

   Pesticides - fate and transport, health effects
   Air Pollution - including Indoor Air
   Modeling - including multimedia
   Seismic Analysis
   Groundwater - modeling, chemistry, policy
   Probabilistic Risk Analysis
   Education
   California and Western States Issues
   Multiple Perspectives
   

   Risk Assessment
   Risk Management
   Risk Communication
   

   Public Health - toxicology, epidemiology, cell and molecular biology
   Weapons Related Risks

   Question 2.
   What are the outstanding risk issues, where the University (Campuses/Laboratories), through research, development, teaching, and application can make significant contributions, and where collaboration can provide synergy pertaining to your Group?

   Education of Risk Decision Makers - better training of students who become our future decision makers, integrated risk education within and between campuses.

   Uncertainty - Understanding, accurately assessing, and communicating uncertainty in risk quantification. What methods can be used to make decisions when the uncertainty is too high to use formal risk assessment methods.

   Integration of Multiple Disciplines for Holistic Risk Management. Take advantage of the diverse expertise in the UC/Labs system to look at the whole problem in an integrated manner.

   Develop a Practical Framework for Prioritization of Risks for Management.

   The framework would include consideration of various types of risk and identify areas where further data would significantly reduce uncertainty.
   

   Develop Case Studies to Demonstrate the Previous Three Topics

   Population Dynamics - effects of population movements on ecological risk and evaluation of risks to populations of people.

   Silicon Valley System - consideration of Si Valley "ecology" (material and waste streams, environmental health risk, economic viability). Possible funding from State, computer companies, local regulatory agencies. How could a new regulatory paradigm be developed to reduce risks with minimum effort.

   Sierra Nevada and Foothills Regions - ecological and human health risk.

   Develop Strategies for Exposure Analysis - Better exposure analysis can have a large effect on policy. Aspects to be addressed might include uncertainty, better estimation of exposure frequencies noting that human activities are the driver of exposure, and consideration of various sources such bioaerosols, natural and industrial chemicals.

   The issues listed above were selected by the group as the ones they thought a UC/Labs risk center should focus on first; however, there were several other topics or details of issues suggested. These are listed below.

   Inconsistencies in Risk Assessment: Assumptions in various components of the RA, combining the approaches specified by different regulatory agencies. In particular, combining weapons risks, and environmental health and safety risks for activities such as weapons disassembly.

   Risk Communication and Education: Better communication with public officials, regulators, and the general public is needed to facilitate risk based decisions on both public and private issues.

   Combining Risks: mixtures of chemicals, radiological and chemical mixtures, toxicity and cancer risks. How do you model the mixtures as a group, when are the risks additive, when do they have synergistic effects, and when do they act to cancel each other?

   Identifying and Managing the People at Greatest Risk: How do you locate the people who are in the tail of the curve and how do you manage their risk?

   What are potential funding sources pertaining to your Group?

   UC-Labs Agreement Funds

   International Sources

   Other Countries - Brazil, Venezuela
   World Bank
   United Nations
   International Foundations
   
   

   National

   US Foundations (NSF and private non-profits)
   Corporations
   Federal Agencies - EPA, FDA, DOD, DOE, DOJ, DOA
   
   

   State

   State Agencies
   CA and Western States based Non-profits - incl. Western States Governors Assoc.
   Local & State Corporations
   

   Question 4.
   What are the next steps, both pertaining to your Group and for the Group at large?
   1. Address U.C. accounting process and money transfer problems to enable partnering/collaboration.
      
   2. Create a database inventory of UC/Lab researchers' areas of expertise and interests.
      
   3. Form Steering Group to work on future organization of the UC/Labs risk collective.
      
   4. Involve stakeholders - Approach agencies and foundations with ideas for a risk center to determine what aspects they are most excited about and what would helpful to them.
      
   5. Look for Seed Money
      1. UCOP
      2. UC Contract with Labs
      3. Look at how other universities have set up similar centers.
   6. Broaden the UC risk circle - check the SRA roster for UC faculty we may not have known were interested in risk.

   Conclusions and Recommendations

   Following the presentations from the Breakout Groups, there was a general discussion of "Next Steps". The discussion ran along the following lines:

   1. There needed to be an exploration of major problem areas or impediments regarding collaborative research. This included discussion of fund transfers between the campuses and the laboratories, the difficulty of laboratory personnel charging their time against contracts and grants on the campuses, questions regarding intellectual property rights, and the potential impact on junior faculty regarding the peer review process.
   2. There was general agreement that collaborative efforts should focus on cross-cutting issues with bridges to the social sciences, political sciences and public policy arenas. One focus area should be the generation of, and the impact of, scientific and technological information on policy making.
   3. It was stated that we needed to a) develop educational programs in the risk area, b) develop a constituency and c) make best use of our strengths as a University. Discussion centered on constituency, and there seemed to be general support for research and educational programs suited to the needs of California. California is a microcosm of the Country, and has all of the same problems: infrastructure issues regarding environment, safety, natural hazards, resources, population growth, energy demand, etc. Some discussion focused on Federal issues.

   As a result of this general discussion it was concluded that a short term Steering Committee be established to plan the next event (either a follow-on workshop or an all University Conference). It was recommended that the Steering Committee prepare:

   1. a vision statement/set of objectives
   2. alternatives for facilitation of collaboration
   3. a broader list of potential participants.

   It was also recommended that World Wide Web pages be set up at each campus and laboratory, with the address:

   risk.berkeley.edu or risk.ucla.edu or risk.lanl.gov

   all linked together from a home page at: risk.ucop.edu Each home page would be linked to the various activities on that campus or laboratory.

   The following either agreed, or were volunteered, to serve on the short term Steering Committee: Harry Ettinger, LANL
   Dave Layton, LLNL
   Joan Daisey, LBNL
   Rakesh Sarin, UCLA
   Carl Cranor, UCR
   Theo Theofanous, UCSB
   Ted Huller, UCD
   Bill Kastenberg, UCB (Chair)
   

   List of Attendees and Addresses
   Ashley, David B.
   UCBerkeley
   Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering
   760 Davis Hall, MC 1710
   Berkeley, CA 94720
   510 / 643-8739
   FAX: 510 / 643-5264
   ashley@ce.berkeley.edu
   
   Browne, Don
   UCLA
   School of Engineering and Applied Science
   48-121 Engineering IV
   Los Angeles, CA 90095-1597
   310 / 825-9610
   browne@seas.ucla.edu
   
   Chiu, Peter
   Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management
   58 Morton Street
   Palo Alto, CA 94303
   408 / 945-2635
   
   Carl Cranor
   UCR, Associate Dean
   College of Humanities, Arts & Social Sciences
   UCRiverside
   Riverside, CA 92521
   909 / 787-3572
   FAX: 909 / 787-4537
   carl@chss.ucr.edu
   
   Daisey, Joan M.
   LBNL
   Ms 90-3058
   Indoor Environment Program
   Berkeley, CA 94720
   510 / 486-7491
   FAX: 510 / 486-7202
   jmdaisey@lbl.gov
   
   Duke, L. Donald
   UCLA
   Environmental Science and Engineering Program
   UCLA School of Public Health
   Los Angeles, CA 90095-1772
   310 / 794-2164
   FAX: 310 / 206-3358
   ldduke@ucla.edu
   
   Ettinger, Harry
   Los Alamos National Laboratory ESH Division
   P.O. Box 1663
   Mail Stop K491
   Los Alamos, NM 85745
   505 / 665-2467
   FAX: 505 / 665-3811
   hettinger@lanl.gov
   
   Felton, Jim
   LLNL
   L-452
   P.O. Box 808
   LLNL
   Livermore, CA 94551
   510 / 422-5656
   FAX: 510 / 433-2282
   felton1@llnl.gov
   
   Gold, Lois
   UCBerkeley
   (secondary affiliation) LBNL
   401 Barker Hall
   U. C. Berkeley
   Berkeley, CA 94720
   
   Hansen, Wayne R.
   Los Alamos National Lab
   MS J495
   P.O. Box 1663
   Los Alamos, NM 85745
   505 / 667-3331
   FAX: 505 / 665-3866
   hansen_wayne_r@lanl.gov
   
   Hsieh, Dennis P.H.
   UCDavis
   Dept. of Environmental Toxicology
   Davis, CA 95616-8588
   916 / 752-4522
   FAX: 916 / 752-3394
   dphsieh@ucdavis.edu
   
   Hullar, Theodore L.
   UCDavis
   Department of Environmental Toxicology
   Davis, CA 95616-8588
   916 / 754-9288
   FAX: 916 / 752-3394
   tlhullar@ucdavis.edu
   
   Johnson, Michael L.
   UCDavis
   Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering
   Davis, CA 95616
   916 / 752-8837
   FAX: 916 / 752-7872
   
   Jones, Ed
   LLNL / (secondary affiliation) UCB
   P.O. Box 808, L-634
   Livermore, CA 94551
   510 / 422-8259
   FAX: 510 / 422-5497
   jones37@llnl.gov
   
   Kastenberg, William E.
   UCBerkeley
   Dept. of Nuclear Engineering
   Berkeley, CA 94720-1730
   510 / 643-0574
   FAX: 510 / 643-9685
   kastenbe@nuc.berkeley.edu
   
   Last, Jerold
   UCDavis
   UC Toxic Substances Research and Teaching Program
   Davis, CA 95616
   916 / 752-6230
   FAX: 752-2880
   jalast@ucdavis.edu
   
   Layton, Dave
   LLNL
   Health and Ecological Assessment Division
   7000 East Ave. (L-286)
   Livermore, CA 94550
   510 / 422-0918
   FAX: 510 / 423-6785
   layton1@llnl.gov
   
   Matsumura, Fumio
   UCDavis
   Dept. of Environmental Toxicology
   Davis, CA 95616
   916 / 752-4251
   FAX: 916 / 752-3394
   fmatsumura@ucdavis.edu
   
   McKone, Tom
   UCBerkeley
   (secondary affiliation) LBNL
   140 Warren Hall #7360
   Berkeley, CA 94720
   510 / 642-8771
   FAX: 510 / 642-5815
   temckone@lbl.gov
   
   Okrent, Dave
   UCLA
   48-121A Engineering IV Building
   UCLA MAE Dept.
   Los Angeles, CA 90095-1597
   310 / 825-3259
   FAX: 310 / 206-4830
   okrent@seas.ucla.edu
   
   Pease, William
   UCBerkeley
   Center for Occupational and Environmental Health
   School of Public Health
   UCB
   140 Warren Hall
   Berkeley, CA 94720-7360
   510 / 642-8853
   FAX: 510 / 642-5815
   pease@uclink4.berkeley.edu
   
   Pelmulder, Sue
   UCDavis
   (secondary affiliation) UCBerkeley
   LAWR -Veihmeyer Hall
   Davis, CA 95616
   916 / 752-2410 or
   (secondary affiliation) 510 / 643-1147
   FAX: 916 / 752-5262
   sdpelmulder@ucdavis.edu
   
   Poppe, Carl H.
   UC Office of the President
   300 Lakeside Drive
   18th Floor
   Oakland, CA 94612-3550
   510 / 987-9405
   FAX: 510 / 987-9456
   carl@poppe.ucop.edu
   
   Richerson, Peter
   UCDavis
   Division of Environmental Studies
   UCD
   Davis, CA 95616
   916 / 752-2781
   FAX: 916 / 752-3350
   pjricherson@ucdavis.edu
   
   Sarin, Rakesh
   UCLA
   Anderson School of Management
   Los Angeles, CA 95095
   310 / 825-3930
   rakesh.sarin@anderson.ucla.edu
   
   Smith, Kirk R.
   UCBerkeley
   School of Public Health
   Center for Occupational and Environmental Health
   140 Warren Hall
   Berkeley, CA 94720-7360
   510 / 643-0973
   FAX: 510 / 642-5815
   krksmith@uclink4.berkeley.edu
   
   Stack, Desmond
   Los Alamos National Laboratory
   MS-K557
   Los Alamos, NM 87544
   505 / 667-4613
   FAX: 505 / 667-5531
   dstack@lanl.gov
   
   Theofanous, Theo
   UCSB
   Dept. of Chemical & Nuclear Engr.
   Director: Center for Risk Studies & Safety
   1018 Engineering Research Center
   6740 Cortona Drive
   Santa Barbara, CA 93106
   805 - 893-4900
   FAX: 805 / 8934927
   tgtheofa@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu
   
   Zilberman, David
   UCBerkeley
   Dept. of Agricultural and Res. Econ.
   Center of Sustainable Resource Development
   207 Giannini Hall
   Berkeley, CA 94720
   510 / 849-9605
   FAX: 510 / 643-8911
   zilber@are.berkeley.edu
   
   Students of UC Berkeley
   
   Edwin Beckenbach
   Jessica Booher
   Maureen Coveney
   Brendan Dooher
   Luca Gratton
   Deborah Hall
   Micah Lowenthal
   Reed Maxwell
   Sue Pelmulder
   Sigrida Reinis
   Louise Wells