The Peconic River: Concerns associated with different risk evaluations for fish consumption

Risk evaluation and assessment have been used as tools to regulate and manage the risks to consumers of eating self-caught fish that have high levels of contaminants. Armed with these risk assessments, health agencies issue consumption advisories, and in some cases, close some waters to fishing. Recently, regulatory agencies have used contaminant levels in fish as a benchmark for remedial action on contaminated sites, using human health risk assessment as the justification. The US Environmental Protection Agency's new surface water criterion for mercury is based on mercury levels in fish tissue. When multiple regulatory agencies have jurisdiction over the same waters or remediation site there is the potential for differing risk evaluations. Using the Peconic River on Long Island, New York as a case study, the paper examines how and why county, state, and federal health risk evaluations for fish contaminated with mercury differed. While the same risk methodology was applied by all agencies, the assessments were conducted for different purposes, applied different consumption and fish biomass assumptions, and arrived at different conclusions. The risk evaluations invoked to design fish consumption advisories use mercury levels currently in fish, and are designed to prevent current exposure. However, the risk assessments that provide a basis for remediation consider many different pathways of exposure (not just ingestion), and deal with long-term exposure. The risk evaluations, and recommendations promulgated by those agencies, differ because they have different goals, use different assumptions, and often fail to communicate among agencies. It is suggested that it is valuable to have these different levels of risk evaluations to adequately address health issues. However, there are policy implications, which include making the distinctions between the types of risk assessments, their methods and assumptions, and the rationale for these assumptions. Further, assessors and managers should involve all interested stakeholders (including regulators and state health officials) in discussions about the use of risk, the assumptions of risk assessment, and the goals of those evaluations. The difficulties in the case of the Peconic were not due to differences in the original data, but rather in the goals and type of risk assessments performed. If all deliberations had been transparent during all phases of the decision-making and management process, the conflicts within the minds of the public, regulators and other agencies might have been avoided. This case study suggests that more reliability, circumspection and transparency should be built into the process where multiple agencies and multiple objectives are involved.     

Regulatory requirements and tools for environmental assessment of hazardous wastes: Understanding tribal and stakeholder concerns using Department of Energy sites

Many US governmental and Tribal Nation agencies, as well as state and local entities, deal with hazardous wastes within regulatory frameworks that require specific environmental assessments. In this paper we use Department of Energy (DOE) sites as examples to examine the relationship between regulatory requirements and environmental assessments for hazardous waste sites and give special attention to how assessment tools differ. We consider federal laws associated with environmental protection include the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), as well as regulations promulgated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Tribal Nations and state agencies. These regulatory regimes require different types of environmental assessments and remedial investigations, dose assessments and contaminant pathways. The DOE case studies illustrate the following points: 1) there is often understandable confusion about what regulatory requirements apply to the site resources, and what environmental assessments are required by each, 2) the messages sent on site safety issued by different regulatory agencies are sometimes contradictory or confusing (e.g. Oak Ridge Reservation), 3) the regulatory frameworks being used to examine the same question can be different, leading to different conclusions (e.g. Brookhaven National Laboratory), 4) computer models used in support of groundwater models or risk assessments are not necessarily successful in convincing Native Americans and others that there is no possibility of risk from contaminants (e.g. Amchitka Island), 5) when given the opportunity to choose between relying on a screening risk assessments or waiting for a full site-specific analysis of contaminants in biota, the screening risk assessment option is rarely selected (e.g. Amchitka, Hanford Site), and finally, 6) there needs to be agreement on whether there has been adequate characterization to support the risk assessment (e.g. Hanford). The assessments need to be transparent and to accommodate different opinions about the relationship between characterizations and risk assessments. This paper illustrates how many of the problems at DOE sites, and potentially at other sites in the U.S. and elsewhere, derive from a lack of either understanding of, or consensus about, the regulatory process, including the timing and types of required characterizations and data in support of site characterizations and risk assessments.     

Due diligence assessment of non-financial risk: Prophylaxis for the purchaser

Most large mining companies grow by acquisition and conduct due diligence assessments in order to identify the opportunities and risks associated with potential acquisitions.Due diligence assessment is usually restricted to considering the financial aspects of an asset, and often overlooks the non-financial risks that may compromise the economic viability or operability of a project. However, experience has shown that neglecting non-financial risk areas such as environmental, socio-economic and sustainability performance may be problematic and, under extreme circumstances, potentially disastrous, particularly in a developing world context.This paper examines the due diligence process and identifies the limitations of conventional assessments based solely on financial risk. It presents practical recommendations on structuring due diligence assessments to consider non-financial risk so that the full risk profile of an asset can be identified.     

How to evaluate raw material supply risks—an overview

Some strategic raw materials do have an extremely unsecure supply situation. Several working groups around the world have made criticality assessments for metallic raw materials to analyze the driving impact factors for this instability. However, the influences on raw material availability are manifold and therefore criticality assessment methods are very heterogeneous. Here we give an overview about the differences and similarities of supply risk evaluation in 15 criticality assessment methods. We take the example of Indium, which has been rated in 60% of these criticality studies, and show which data base is used for supply risk evaluation. Our results show a lack of consensus about which indicators give reliable information for raw material supply risk and how these indicators should be aggregated. We anticipate our essay to be a starting point for more justified indicator selection and weighting in criticality assessments.     

Applying Ecological Risk Principles to Watershed Assessment and Management

Considerable progress in addressing point source (end of pipe) pollution problems has been made, but it is now recognized that further substantial environmental improvements depend on controlling nonpoint source pollution. A watershed approach is being used more frequently to address these problems because traditional regulatory approaches do not focus on nonpoint sources. The watershed approach is organized around the guiding principles of partnerships, geographic focus, and management based on sound science and data. This helps to focus efforts on the highest priority problems within hydrologically-defined geographic areas. Ecological risk assessment is a process to collect, organize, analyze, and present scientific information to improve decision making. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sponsored three watershed assessments and found that integrating the watershed approach with ecological risk assessment increases the use of environmental monitoring and assessment data in decision making. This paper describes the basics of the watershed approach, the ecological risk assessment process, and how these two frameworks can be integrated. The three major principles of watershed ecological risk assessment found to be most useful for increasing the use of science in decision making are (1) using assessment endpoints and conceptual models, (2) holding regular interactions between scientists and managers, and (3) developing a focus for multiple stressor analysis. Examples are provided illustrating how these principles were implemented in these assessments.     

The Role of Community Participation in Climate Change Assessment and Research

There is currently a gap between assessment and intervention in the literature concerned with climate change and food. While intervention is local and context dependent, current assessments are usually global and abstract. Available assessments are useful for understanding the scale of the effects of climate change and they are ideal for motivating arguments in favor of mitigation and adaptation. However, adaptation projects need assessments that can provide data to support their efforts. This requires the adoption of a more local and context-sensitive approach to assessments. I suggest that Community-Based Participatory Research has the potential to be a tool for such an approach.     

Science and values in risk assessment: The case of deliberate release of genetically engineered organisms

To make more responsible decisions regarding risk and to understand disagreements and controversies in risk assessments, it is important to know how and where values are infused into risk assessment and how they are embedded in the conclusions. In this article an attempt is made to disentangle the relationship of science and values in decision-making concerning the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into the environment. This exercise in applied philosophy of science is based on Helen Longino's contextual empiricism which attempts to reconcile the objectivity of science with its social and cultural construction. Longino distinguishes different levels of research on which values apparently contextual with respect to a given research program can shape the knowledge emerging from that program. Her scheme is applied for locating and identifying the values that affect environment risk assessments of the field experiments with GMOs. The article concludes with some provisional suggestions for the decision process and the role of scientists in it.     

Reinsurer Opinions of Environmental Management Systems Concerning Insurance for Pollution

Despite an increasing interest in reinsurance and environmental manage ment systems (EMSs) concerning pollution, little research has been conducted on the subject. This paper presents the findings from a survey of reinsurers' views on this issue. Reinsurers give EMSs a cursory consideration in their pollution risk assessments because they inadequately appraise pollution liability, have no explicit requirements regarding risk management and there is little evidence to show that they are effective at reducing environmental risks. Reinsurers' underwriting assessments and post-loss investigations are poorly developed concerning public liability insurance. Reinsurance and EMSs are currently weak methods to prevent and control pollution risks.     

Treatment of risk in environmental impact assessment

Risk assessment and environmental impact assessment have developed as separate traditions. While environmental impact assessment is a broad field that includes all activities that attempt to analyze and evaluate the effects of human and related actions on the environment, risk assessment has been concerned with the relatively well-defined regulatory problems and employs formal quantitative analysis of the probability of specific undesired events, such as cancer. Risk analytic approaches, particularly the explicit treatment of uncertainty, can significantly contribute to environmental assessments. This article discusses the type and sources of uncertainty in environmental assessments, techniques for their quantification, and ways to use uncertainty estimates to calculate probabilities of effects or probabilities of exceeding environmental standards and to determine the need for mitigation or additional research.This article was presented at the International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis, Task Force Meeting on Risk and Policy Analysis under Conditions of Uncertainty, Laxenburg, Austria, November 1985.     

A Framework for Fully Integrating Environmental Assessment

A new framework for environmental assessment is needed because no existing framework explicitly includes all types of environmental assessments. We propose a framework that focuses on resolving environmental problems by integrating different types of assessments. Four general types of assessments are included: (1) condition assessments to detect chemical, physical, and biological impairments; (2) causal pathway assessments to determine causes and identify their sources; (3) predictive assessments to estimate environmental, economic, and societal risks, and benefits associated with different possible management actions; and (4) outcome assessments to evaluate the results of the decisions of an integrative assessment. The four types of assessments can be neatly arrayed in a two-by-two matrix based on the direction of analysis of causal relationships (rows) and whether the assessment identifies problems or solves them (columns). We suggest that all assessments have a common structure of planning, analysis, and synthesis, thus simplifying terminology and facilitating communication between types of assessments and environmental programs. The linkage between assessments is based on intermediate decisions that initiate another assessment or a final decision signaling the resolution of the problem. The framework is applied to three cases: management of a biologically impaired river, remediation of a contaminated site, and reregistration of a pesticide. We believe that this framework clarifies the relationships among the various types of assessment processes and their links to specific decisions.     

Risk management: Time for innovative approaches

Risk management practices under the current environmental regulations is a long, complex process that considers scientific, technologic, and management factors to develop various regulatory standards and pollution control measures. Using the mandatory enforcement approach, sometimes referred to as “command-and-control”, a set of preliminary environmental goals, such as better air and water qualities, were achieved. However, the information-intensive nature of the risk management process and the lack of flexibility in conventional regulatory methods to changing economic and technologic realities of the decade has created interest among risk managers to examine some innovative management approaches. Above all, environmental problems of a global scale require novel management methods while striving to achieve the desired environmental goals. As the principal analytical tool in risk management, quantitative risk assessment exerts considerable influence on the risk management process. Therefore, advances in risk management are closely associated with scientific developments that enhance the risk assessment process, particularly those efforts aimed at improving human exposure and toxicity assessments. Market incentives, information dissemination, creative enforcement practices, and interagency and intergovernmental interactions were identified as the key elements of innovative environmental risk management practices. This paper will present an overview of the emerging innovative risk management approaches.     

Uncertainty and risk in wildland fire management: a review

Wildland fire management is subject to manifold sources of uncertainty. Beyond the unpredictability of wildfire behavior, uncertainty stems from inaccurate/missing data, limited resource value measures to guide prioritization across fires and resources at risk, and an incomplete scientific understanding of ecological response to fire, of fire behavior response to treatments, and of spatiotemporal dynamics involving disturbance regimes and climate change. This work attempts to systematically align sources of uncertainty with the most appropriate decision support methodologies, in order to facilitate cost-effective, risk-based wildfire planning efforts. We review the state of wildfire risk assessment and management, with a specific focus on uncertainties challenging implementation of integrated risk assessments that consider a suite of human and ecological values. Recent advances in wildfire simulation and geospatial mapping of highly valued resources have enabled robust risk-based analyses to inform planning across a variety of scales, although improvements are needed in fire behavior and ignition occurrence models. A key remaining challenge is a better characterization of non-market resources at risk, both in terms of their response to fire and how society values those resources. Our findings echo earlier literature identifying wildfire effects analysis and value uncertainty as the primary challenges to integrated wildfire risk assessment and wildfire management. We stress the importance of identifying and characterizing uncertainties in order to better quantify and manage them. Leveraging the most appropriate decision support tools can facilitate wildfire risk assessment and ideally improve decision-making.     

From concept to practice: Implementing cumulative impact assessment in New Zealand

In 1991, provisions for environmental impact assessment in New Zealand were changed significantly with the enactment of the Resource Management Act. Among other provisions, this act requires consideration of cumulative impacts in environmental assessment activities undertaken by planners in newly created regional authorities and district and city councils. The institutional context in which the act is being implemented offers both opportunities and constraints to cumulative impact assessment. A lack of methods for CIA is a recognized problem. However, methods that have been developed for environmental impact assessments can be modified to incorporate second-, third-, and fourth-order impacts as well as to identify the direction and magnitude of additive and synergistic impacts. Layered matrices and combined networks are examples of such methods. While they do not allow for scientific prediction, they do provide the practitioner with the ability to consider the cumulative impacts of decisions. This is crucial in New Zealand, where statutory requirements are ahead of established methodologies.     

The evolving science of chemical risk assessment for land-applied biosolids

Biosolids, effluents, and manures are widely applied to agricultural land and other land with varying degrees of pretreatment or control. Regulations governing land application of biosolids take several broad forms in different countries, including limitations based on rates that do not lead to increases in background chemical concentrations or risk assessment approaches such as those used in the United States. Risk assessment is a process that is inherently limited by currently available information and practices, and consequently, risk-based land application limits must be reevaluated periodically. For complex mixtures such as biosolids, three principal categories of information will be affected by changing practices and scientific advances: (i) chemical constituents present in the material, (ii) the nature of expected exposures, and (iii) toxicity of the chemical constituents. New analytical methods and lower detection limits will affect chemical identification in wastes. Approaches to exposure assessment, such as increasing emphasis on probabilistic analyses, will continue to evolve, and exposure assumptions will change as new studies provide better data on factors such as soil ingestion, plant uptake of chemicals, and bioavailability of chemicals in soil. Similarly, toxicity assessments will be updated as new studies are conducted. The evolving science over the past decade is illustrated by comparing approaches used by the USEPA to assess human health and ecological risks for the Part 503 rule compared with the more recent evaluation of dioxins and related compounds in biosolids. While risks of chemicals in land-applied biosolids and other residuals need to be periodically re-evaluated, such re-evaluations may take forms other than full risk assessments.     

Closure of Disputes in Assessments of Climate Change in The Netherlands

2 greenhouse gases in assessment studies. For the cases studied, we identify variability in the assessment reports in the Netherlands during the pre-IPCC period. In the Netherlands arena, the assessments in this period can be seen as exponents of two different lines, a Netherlands line and an international line. We seek to identify what factors were decisive in the selection processes that resulted in the closure of visible disputes (visible in or across the assessment reports) for both cases. Our analysis reveals a remarkable difference in the adoption behavior of two Dutch assessment groups despite a large overlap in membership. We provide evidence that it is not the paradigmatic predisposition of the experts in the committee that was decisive for the closure of visible disputes, but it was the context in which the experts operated and the commitments they had made in each setting.     

A Framework for Assessing Climate Change Impacts on Water and Watershed Systems

In this article we present a framework for assessing climate change impacts on water and watershed systems to support management decision-making. The framework addresses three issues complicating assessments of climate change impacts—linkages across spatial scales, linkages across temporal scales, and linkages across scientific and management disciplines. A major theme underlying the framework is that, due to current limitations in modeling capabilities, assessing and responding to climate change should be approached from the perspective of risk assessment and management rather than as a prediction problem. The framework is based generally on ecological risk assessment and similar approaches. A second theme underlying the framework is the need for close collaboration among climate scientists, scientists interested in assessing impacts, and resource managers and decision makers. A case study illustrating an application of the framework is also presented that provides a specific, practical example of how the framework was used to assess the impacts of climate change on water quality in a mid-Atlantic, U.S., watershed.     

Using Wildlife as Receptor Species: A Landscape Approach to Ecological Risk Assessment

To assist risk assessors at the Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site (SRS), a Geographic Information System (GIS) application was developed to provide relevant information about specific receptor species of resident wildlife that can be used for ecological risk assessment. Information was obtained from an extensive literature review of publications and reports on vertebrate- and contaminant-related research since 1954 and linked to a GIS. Although this GIS is a useful tool for risk assessors because the data quality is high, it does not describe the species’ site-wide spatial distribution or life history, which may be crucial when developing a risk assessment. Specific receptor species on the SRS were modeled to provide an estimate of an overall distribution (probability of being in an area). Each model is a stand-alone tool consisting of algorithms independent of the GIS data layers to which it is applied and therefore is dynamic and will respond to changes such as habitat disturbances and natural succession. This paper describes this modeling process and demonstrates how these resource selection models can then be used to produce spatially explicit exposure estimates. This approach is a template for other large federal facilities to establish a framework for site-specific risk assessments that use wildlife species as endpoints.Current address: Biology Department, University of South Dakota, Vermillion, SD 57069     

Risk assessment methodologies for biotechnology impact assessment

Summary By combining hazard assessment of effects of a potential biotechnology product with exposure assessments based on study of the genetically engineered organism's fate, conclusions may be reached about the risk involved in release of the product to the environment. In order to make this risk assessment, criteria (including regulatory endpoints) must be established and then developed further against a data base from well-accepted tests. Other aspects requiring research and development include test evaluation, quality assurance, statistical procedures, and methods of identifying and monitoring not only the nominal organism(s) in the products, but also any contaminating material or organisms to which the genetically engineered components may be transferred in the environment.Application of microcosm technology to testing of genetically engineered organisms is expected to be important, since these systems may be used safely to understand fate and effects prior to (or in place of) testing the product in the environment. Limitations in the use of microcosms may be offset by the cost-effectiveness and incisiveness of results, as has been shown for other pollutants.Risk management for biotechnology products currently lacks an adequate background, but components of the process exist or can be developed. New resources, in terms of personnel, training, facilities, and funding, will be needed in order to apply the risk assessment paradigm used for toxic chemicals and pesticides. We will need to know:     

ECOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCE ASSESSMENT: EFFECTS OF BIOENGINEERED ORGANISMS1

ABSTRACT: The introduction of genetically altered microorganisms into natural ecosystems presents fundamentally new problems in risk assessment and ecological effect evaluation. Novel microorganisms, produced by any of several new methods, have the ability to survive and reproduce in the environment. Since most of these organisms are bacteria, they have the potential to interfere with natural processes, displace natural populations, infect new hosts, move between ecosystems, and cause far-reaching ecological disturbanes. This paper reviews currently available methods in ecological research that might be used in evaluating the ecological effects of releasing genetically altered microorganisms. Both structural and functional evaluations are critically reviewed. Microcosm, mesocosm, and field tests should provide valuable predictions concerning the potential ecological impact of genetically altered organisms. Ecosystem assessments will also be useful in post-release studies such as those currently used to evaluate toxic impacts. The present problem does not require the development of new testing methods but rather the creation of adequate predictive models (both conceptual and systems-based) to predict the potential for adverse effect of genetically altered organisms.