Risk Assessment Conference

[Dan Carrillo <dcarrillo@wmsym.org>]

http://www.wmsym.org/risk/

Risk Assessment WorkShop, December 12-13, 1996

The Role of Risk Assessment in Developing Reasonable Policy and Regulation

BACKGROUND—Risk assessment has been applied increasingly over the last two
decades to make environmental decisions and, more currently, budget
decisions. Unfortunately, in practice, the final criteria for the cleanup of
many contaminated sites may be unrealistic and overly conservative. Although
sound risk assessment processes are applied to derive numbers, an arbitrary
criterion is frequently imposed rendering the derived numbers useless.
Overstating risk also leads to costly regulations without corresponding
benefits. Risk reduction should provide a benefit worth at least as much as
the cost of implementation. Remediating perceived risks or over-regulated
risks make nuclear energy and cleanup not cost-effective. Given the current
climate of deficit reduction and the realization of the massive task and
cost of cleaning up the nuclear weapons complex legacy, difficult questions
are being asked by the public and the Congress. Are we using available
resources in the most effective ways to protect the public health and the
environment? Is cleaning up the environment to background level, or reducing
risk to a negligible level, realistic? What is a reasonably acceptable level
of risk? 

The U.S. Congress and federal agencies, such as the DOE, are increasingly
focusing on the issue of risk reduction versus cost. The future of Superfund
reauthorization is in limbo because of cost considerations and the lack of
progress in actual cleanup. The DOE is developing a risk-based approach to
the Hanford site cleanup. Other agencies including the EPA and DoD are also
applying risk-based cleanup standards. 

The use of realistic risk assessments with public input in the decision
making process is difficult but essential to obtain the greatest public
benefit for the available resources. Worst case assumptions, focussing on
local interests and future risks while neglecting national interests and
present risk can be expected to generate excessively costly programs that
seem to never get done. 

Jurisdiction of standards among the various regulatory agencies is based on
law and is complex. Since the agencies must base their standards and
regulations on the authority assigned by different laws, there are frequent
inconsistencies in protection criteria and cleanup standards. This lack of
consistent standards, or at least a consistent approach, extends to the
international community as well, particularly with regard to terminology and
classifications. The roles of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
and the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) are of
vital importance and will be discussed in the Workshop. In the U.S., the
Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards (ISCORS), was formed
in April 1995, and has subcommittees on risk, and cleanup standards.
Preparation of MARSSIM, the Multi-Agency Radiological Site Survey and
Investigation Manual is another important development.
Dan Carrillo
Technical Director
Laser Options, Inc.
V-520-624-7008
F-520-624-9312
http://www.laser-options.com