• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文学位 >How clean is clean? A comparative analysis of EPA's reliance on risk assessment in its contaminated site remediation programs.
【24h】

How clean is clean? A comparative analysis of EPA's reliance on risk assessment in its contaminated site remediation programs.

机译：干净多干净？对EPA在受污染的场地修复计划中依赖风险评估的比较分析。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Over the past 12 years, Congress has repeatedly attempted to mandate, legislatively, that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) use best science-based risk assessments. Risk assessment is an important tool to assist in the determination of how clean is clean at sites contaminated with hazardous waste and substances. The results of a risk assessment are fed into the decisionmaking process referred to as risk management. EPA has three site remediation programs: the Superfund Remedial Response Action Program, the RCRA Corrective Action Program, and the Underground Storage Tank (UST) Corrective Action Program. Each program was created within a few years of each other, resides in the same overall program office, has the same statutory cleanup goal of protection of human health and the environment, adopted an original cleanup goal of remediation to background levels, requires the same carcinogenic risk protection level—10 −4 to 10−6, requires the same non-carcinogenic risk protection level—Hazard Index of 1, addresses some similar contaminants (benzene), addresses the same environmental media, uses the same toxicological data, and uses the same default exposure assumptions. However, the three programs' reliance on risk assessment in determining how clean is clean have become different. This difference occurred in spite of EPA's agency-wide efforts to harmonize its use of risk assessment. Previous studies suggest that various social, technical, political, organizational, and economic factors can influence the reliance on risk assessment. The reliance on risk assessment by EPA's three site remediation programs has not been compared. Through a comparative case study analysis based on interviews, internal EPA documentation, and external documentation, this study examines the impact of various social, technical, political, organizational, and economic factors on each program's reliance on risk assessment. The study found that program resources, degree of federal control, the remediation funding source, the adoption of Action Levels, and public risk perception universally all had a major impact. However, these major factors had different outcomes. For example, all the major factors decreased reliance on risk assessment for both the RCRA and UST Corrective Action Programs. In contrast, these same factors increased reliance for the Superfund program. A primary cause for this inverse phenomenon is the public's risk perception, which is very high for Superfund and low for the RCRA and UST programs. The study found that interest group influence, congressional influence, and problem size had some impact on programmatic reliance. Scientific uncertainty was found to have no appreciable effect. The study's conclusions are that (1) risk assessment has become primarily an economic decision and (2) risk assessment is vulnerable to organizational biases. The policy recommendations are (1) do not mandate risk assessments, (2) increase the development of standardized, numerical health-based cleanup goals/levels, and (3) combine all site remediation programs into one program office.
机译：在过去的12年中，国会多次尝试通过立法授权美国环境保护署（EPA）使用基于科学的最佳风险评估。风险评估是一项重要工具，可帮助您确定受有害废物和物质污染的场所的清洁程度。风险评估的结果被输入到称为风险管理的决策过程中。 EPA有三个站点补救计划：超级基金补救响应行动计划，RCRA纠正行动计划和地下储罐（UST）纠正行动计划。每个程序都是在几年内创建的，位于相同的总体程序办公室中，具有相同的法定净化目标，以保护人类健康和环境，采用了原始净化目标，即将其修复到背景水平，需要相同的致癌性风险防护等级-10 -4 至10 -6 ，要求相同的非致癌风险防护等级-危险指数1，解决了一些相似的污染物（苯），相同的环境介质，相同的毒理学数据以及相同的默认暴露假设。但是，这三个计划在确定清洁程度方面对风险评估的依赖程度有所不同。尽管EPA在全机构范围内努力统一使用风险评估，但仍存在这种差异。先前的研究表明，各种社会，技术，政治，组织和经济因素均可影响对风险评估的依赖。 EPA的三个场地修复计划对风险评估的依赖程度尚未进行比较。通过基于访谈，美国环保署内部文件和外部文件的比较案例研究分析，本研究检查了各种社会，技术，政治，组织和经济因素对每个计划对风险评估的依赖的影响。研究发现，计划资源，联邦控制程度，补救资金来源，采取的行动水平以及对公共风险的认知普遍都具有重大影响。但是，这些主要因素有不同的结果。例如，所有主要因素都降低了RCRA和UST纠正措施计划对风险评估的依赖。相反，这些因素增加了对Superfund计划的依赖。造成这种反现象的主要原因是公众对风险的看法，这对于超级基金来说​​是很高的，而对于RCRA和UST计划却很低。研究发现，利益集团的影响力，国会的影响力和问题的规模对程序依赖性有一定影响。发现科学不确定性没有明显影响。该研究的结论是（1）风险评估主要已成为一项经济决策，（2）风险评估容易受到组织偏见的影响。该政策建议是（1）不要强制进行风险评估;（2）促进制定基于数字的，基于健康状况的清理目标/水平;以及（3）将所有现场补救计划合并到一个计划办公室。

著录项

  • 作者

    Wagner, Travis P.;

  • 作者单位

    The George Washington University.;

  • 授予单位 The George Washington University.;
  • 学科 Political Science General.; Environmental Sciences.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2003
  • 页码 p.4461
  • 总页数 315
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 政治理论;
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号