While the Cold War and its legacy shaped the management of radiological risks, chemical risk management was largely spawned in the 1970s and 1980s in an era of increasing concern about the environmental hazards and an expanding public role in decisionmaking. Separate treatment of these two fields by the scientific and regulatory communities led to the evolution of two “cultures”, and the emergence of distinct chemical and radiation risk management strategies. The Environmental Law Institute® in conjunction with Johns Hopkins Risk Sciences and Public Policy Institute has just published the report Chemical and Radiation Environmental Risk Management at the Crossroads: Case Studies, that examines the environmental risk management challenges facing this nation today and recommends how we must break down the barriers that separate the chemical and radiation risk approaches.
The report evaluates six case studies Teledyne Wah Chang Albany (Millersburg, Oregon), Chemical Waste Management and Niagara Falls Storage Site (both in upstate New York), Fernald Environmental Management Project (Fernald, Ohio) Maxey Flats Disposal Site (Fleming County, Kentucky) and Sequoyah Fuels Corporation (Gore, Oklahoma). These case studies provide examples of how chemical and radiation risks are managed and offer the opportunity to examine similarities and differences in approach and decisionmaking. Ultimately, site specific choices indicate where and how risk management harmonization is occurring.
“The criteria for site selection included sites capturing the majority of issues being considered for analysis, readily available information and public access to site data, sites collectively covering a variety of geographical conditions, and sites capturing a variety of statutes,” states Dr. Nga Tran, Assistant Scientist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and principal investigator of the study.
The report is presented in five sections. The first section reviews the development of the two risk cultures and describes the results of a workshop held in 1998 that was the preliminary step in the harmonization process. The second section identifies the case study selection methodology. The third section outlines the analytical framework of the study and sources of information. The fourth section provides research findings, and the fifth section offers conclusions.
“The lessons learned from these case studies are clear,” said Dr. Paul Locke, Director of ELI’s Center for Public Health and Law and the study’s project manager. “There is much common ground in the management of chemical and radiation risks. Despite the differences in approach, the protection of public health is the fundamental goal at all of these sites.”
Copies of Chemical and Radiation Environmental Risk Management at the Crossroads: Case Studies can be downloaded for free from the Institute’s Web site at http://www.eli.org. Printed copies are available by calling 1-800-433-5120 or at http://www.eli.org. For more information about this report or the Environmental Law Institute, please contact ELI’s Director of Communications, Kim Goldberg at 202-939-3833 or visit our website at http://www.eli.org.