110 likes | 318 Views
Environmental Decision-Making. The Past is Prologue to the Future. What is a Comparative Risk Analysis?. A methodology which uses science, policy, and economic analysis as well as stakeholder participation to identify and address the areas of greatest environmental risks.
E N D
Environmental Decision-Making The Past is Prologue to the Future
What is a Comparative Risk Analysis? • A methodology which uses science, policy, and economic analysis as well as stakeholder participation to identify and address the areas of greatest environmental risks. • Provides a framework for prioritizing environmental problems. • Results can be used to provide a technical basis for targeting activities and managing priorities and resources.
USEPA’s Comparative Risk Project • 1970: Traditional role of the USEPA was “reactive”. • 1986: USEPA established and Agency task force to asses and compare the risks associated with a range of environmental problems. • 1987: Results of this assessment were presented in a report entitled Unfinished Business: A Comparative Assessment of Environmental Problems.
Methodology • 75 senior career managers and staff formed the comparative risk assessment team. • Organized and limited the work in 4 ways. • Divided the universe into 31 environmental problem areas. • Considered 4 different types of risk for each problem area: • Human cancer risk; • Human non-cancer health risk; • Ecological risk; • Welfare risk. • Determined what would not be considered: • Economic or technical controllability of the risks; • The qualitative aspects of the risks; • The benefits to society of the activities that cause the environmental problems; • The statutory and public mandate (or lack thereof) for EPA to deal with the risks as some of the 31 areas are primarily within the purview of other agencies. • Assess the risks as they are now – given the level of controls that were in currently in place. The project did not aim to assess risks that had been abated.
Methodology • Risks were compared using systematically generated informed judgments among the experts on the team. • Team completed the assessment in 9 months. • Team assembled and analyzed masses of existing data on pollutants, exposures, and effects. • There were substantive data gaps in available data – professional judgment was used to fill in the gaps.
Results • Produced relative rankings of the 31 problem areas for each of the four types of risk. • Rankings did not correspond closely with EPAs statutory authorities as EPA shares jurisdiction with other agencies that may have more direct authority (i.e., OSHA and worker exposure to toxic chemicals). • Rankings did not correspond well with EPAs program priorities established at the time of the report. • However, EPAs priorities appear more closely aligned with public opinion about risk than with the assessment’s estimate of risks.
Results • Created a new agenda for USEPA to improve data and methods for performing environmental risk assessments. • The study stimulated discussion among policy makers and the public as to what EPAs priorities should be. • Generated a collective resolve that the debate about environmental policy should include more scientific information and data.
EPA Reviews the Results ofUnfinished Business • 1989: EPA asked the Science Advisory Board (SAB) to review the 1987 report and to: • Evaluate its findings; and, • Develop strategic options for reducing risk. • SAB formed a special committee: Relative Risk Reduction Strategies Committee (RRRSC). • Divided itself into 3 subcommittees: • Ecology and Welfare; • Human Health; • Strategic Options. • RRRSC comprised of 39 nationally recognized scientists, engineers, and managers with broad experience in addressing environmental and health issues.
EPA Reviews the Results ofUnfinished Business • Methodology • 12 public meetings • 3 working sessions • Conducted a lengthy review of the data and methodologies used in the 1987 assessment.
Results of SAB Review of Unfinished Business • The RRRSC and the 3 subcommittees prepared an overview report and 3 appendices (one for each subcommittee). • Overview report presented 10 findings and was derived from the 3 appendices. • The overview report and 3 appendices contain 10 policy-oriented findings and recommendations: • Approaches for risk management; • Future direction of national environmental policy.
CRS -- Other Applications • USEPA Regions 3, 5, 10 • 30 U.S. States • International • Bangkok • Cairo • Quito (USAID 1993) • Silesia region, Czech Republic and Poland • Others