1 / 11

Environmental Decision-Making

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.

lewis
Download Presentation

Environmental Decision-Making

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Environmental Decision-Making The Past is Prologue to the Future

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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

More Related