Chemical and radiation environmental risk management: Differences, commonalities, and challenges

Nga L. Tran, Paul Locke, Thomas Burke

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Driven by differing statutory mandates and programmatic separation of regulatory responsibilities between federal, state, and tribal agencies, distinct chemical and radiation risk management strategies have evolved. In the field this separation poses real challenges since many of the major environmental risk management decisions we face today require the evaluation of both types of risks. Over the last decade, federal, state, and tribal agencies have continued to discuss their different approaches and explore areas where their activities could be harmonized. The current framework for managing public exposures to chemical carcinogens has been referred to as a 'bottom up approach.' Risk between 10-4 and 10-6 is established as an upper bound goal. In contrast, a 'top down' approach that sets an upper bound dose limit and couples with site specific As Low As Reasonably Achievable Principle (ALARA), is in place to manage individual exposure to radiation. While radiation risk are typically managed on a cumulative basis, exposure to chemicals is generally managed on a chemical-by-chemical, medium-by-medium basis. There are also differences in the nature and size of sites where chemical and radiation contamination is found. Such differences result in divergent management concerns. In spite of these differences, there are several common and practical concerns among radiation and chemical risk managers. They include 1) the issue of cost for site redevelopment and long- term stewardship, 2) public acceptance and involvement, and 3) the need for flexible risk management framework to address the first two issues. This article attempts to synthesize key differences, opportunities for harmonization, and challenges ahead.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)163-172
Number of pages10
JournalRisk Analysis
Volume20
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2000

Fingerprint

Environmental management
Risk Management
Risk management
environmental management
risk management
Radiation
federal state
management decision
redevelopment
harmonization
environmental pollution
Carcinogens
acceptance
manager
Costs and Cost Analysis
responsibility
costs
evaluation
management
Contamination

Keywords

  • ALARA
  • Institutional controls
  • Performance based risk standards
  • Risk harmonization
  • Risk management
  • Stakeholder involvement

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
  • Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality

Cite this

Chemical and radiation environmental risk management : Differences, commonalities, and challenges. / Tran, Nga L.; Locke, Paul; Burke, Thomas.

In: Risk Analysis, Vol. 20, No. 2, 04.2000, p. 163-172.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{10efcf8082844b7888fa60e4f191a3a3,
title = "Chemical and radiation environmental risk management: Differences, commonalities, and challenges",
abstract = "Driven by differing statutory mandates and programmatic separation of regulatory responsibilities between federal, state, and tribal agencies, distinct chemical and radiation risk management strategies have evolved. In the field this separation poses real challenges since many of the major environmental risk management decisions we face today require the evaluation of both types of risks. Over the last decade, federal, state, and tribal agencies have continued to discuss their different approaches and explore areas where their activities could be harmonized. The current framework for managing public exposures to chemical carcinogens has been referred to as a 'bottom up approach.' Risk between 10-4 and 10-6 is established as an upper bound goal. In contrast, a 'top down' approach that sets an upper bound dose limit and couples with site specific As Low As Reasonably Achievable Principle (ALARA), is in place to manage individual exposure to radiation. While radiation risk are typically managed on a cumulative basis, exposure to chemicals is generally managed on a chemical-by-chemical, medium-by-medium basis. There are also differences in the nature and size of sites where chemical and radiation contamination is found. Such differences result in divergent management concerns. In spite of these differences, there are several common and practical concerns among radiation and chemical risk managers. They include 1) the issue of cost for site redevelopment and long- term stewardship, 2) public acceptance and involvement, and 3) the need for flexible risk management framework to address the first two issues. This article attempts to synthesize key differences, opportunities for harmonization, and challenges ahead.",
keywords = "ALARA, Institutional controls, Performance based risk standards, Risk harmonization, Risk management, Stakeholder involvement",
author = "Tran, {Nga L.} and Paul Locke and Thomas Burke",
year = "2000",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1111/0272-4332.202017",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "20",
pages = "163--172",
journal = "Risk Analysis",
issn = "0272-4332",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Chemical and radiation environmental risk management

T2 - Differences, commonalities, and challenges

AU - Tran, Nga L.

AU - Locke, Paul

AU - Burke, Thomas

PY - 2000/4

Y1 - 2000/4

N2 - Driven by differing statutory mandates and programmatic separation of regulatory responsibilities between federal, state, and tribal agencies, distinct chemical and radiation risk management strategies have evolved. In the field this separation poses real challenges since many of the major environmental risk management decisions we face today require the evaluation of both types of risks. Over the last decade, federal, state, and tribal agencies have continued to discuss their different approaches and explore areas where their activities could be harmonized. The current framework for managing public exposures to chemical carcinogens has been referred to as a 'bottom up approach.' Risk between 10-4 and 10-6 is established as an upper bound goal. In contrast, a 'top down' approach that sets an upper bound dose limit and couples with site specific As Low As Reasonably Achievable Principle (ALARA), is in place to manage individual exposure to radiation. While radiation risk are typically managed on a cumulative basis, exposure to chemicals is generally managed on a chemical-by-chemical, medium-by-medium basis. There are also differences in the nature and size of sites where chemical and radiation contamination is found. Such differences result in divergent management concerns. In spite of these differences, there are several common and practical concerns among radiation and chemical risk managers. They include 1) the issue of cost for site redevelopment and long- term stewardship, 2) public acceptance and involvement, and 3) the need for flexible risk management framework to address the first two issues. This article attempts to synthesize key differences, opportunities for harmonization, and challenges ahead.

AB - Driven by differing statutory mandates and programmatic separation of regulatory responsibilities between federal, state, and tribal agencies, distinct chemical and radiation risk management strategies have evolved. In the field this separation poses real challenges since many of the major environmental risk management decisions we face today require the evaluation of both types of risks. Over the last decade, federal, state, and tribal agencies have continued to discuss their different approaches and explore areas where their activities could be harmonized. The current framework for managing public exposures to chemical carcinogens has been referred to as a 'bottom up approach.' Risk between 10-4 and 10-6 is established as an upper bound goal. In contrast, a 'top down' approach that sets an upper bound dose limit and couples with site specific As Low As Reasonably Achievable Principle (ALARA), is in place to manage individual exposure to radiation. While radiation risk are typically managed on a cumulative basis, exposure to chemicals is generally managed on a chemical-by-chemical, medium-by-medium basis. There are also differences in the nature and size of sites where chemical and radiation contamination is found. Such differences result in divergent management concerns. In spite of these differences, there are several common and practical concerns among radiation and chemical risk managers. They include 1) the issue of cost for site redevelopment and long- term stewardship, 2) public acceptance and involvement, and 3) the need for flexible risk management framework to address the first two issues. This article attempts to synthesize key differences, opportunities for harmonization, and challenges ahead.

KW - ALARA

KW - Institutional controls

KW - Performance based risk standards

KW - Risk harmonization

KW - Risk management

KW - Stakeholder involvement

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0034046309&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0034046309&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/0272-4332.202017

DO - 10.1111/0272-4332.202017

M3 - Article

C2 - 10859777

AN - SCOPUS:0034046309

VL - 20

SP - 163

EP - 172

JO - Risk Analysis

JF - Risk Analysis

SN - 0272-4332

IS - 2

ER -