The superfund remedial action decision process: a review of fifty records of decision.

C B Doty, C C Travis
{"title":"The superfund remedial action decision process: a review of fifty records of decision.","authors":"C B Doty,&nbsp;C C Travis","doi":"10.1080/08940630.1989.10466646","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Although the Superfund remedial action decision process is a complex process involving a variety of technical, political, and public health issues, the primary goal of remedial action is the protection of public health. We performed an in-depth analysis of 50 post-SARA Records of Decision in order to characterize the role of risk assessment in the decision-making process and determine whether decisions are being made in an effective and environmentally protective manner. Our findings indicate that the majority of decisions to remediate Superfund sites are based on the existence of contamination per se and not on actual public health risk. Although hypothetical risk is an essential consideration, this gray area is not well-defined in the current decision-making process. The lack of assessment of the degree of risk reduction associated with the remedial alternatives evaluated and the lack of support indicating the effectiveness of the remedial alternatives selected also constitute major weaknesses in the majority of decisions. These inadequacies undermine rationales regarding the protectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the remedial alternatives selected. The fact that objectives beyond addressing public health risk are often unclear in the decision-making process also weakens rationales for cost-effectiveness.</p>","PeriodicalId":77731,"journal":{"name":"JAPCA","volume":"39 12","pages":"1535-43"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1989-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08940630.1989.10466646","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAPCA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08940630.1989.10466646","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

Abstract

Although the Superfund remedial action decision process is a complex process involving a variety of technical, political, and public health issues, the primary goal of remedial action is the protection of public health. We performed an in-depth analysis of 50 post-SARA Records of Decision in order to characterize the role of risk assessment in the decision-making process and determine whether decisions are being made in an effective and environmentally protective manner. Our findings indicate that the majority of decisions to remediate Superfund sites are based on the existence of contamination per se and not on actual public health risk. Although hypothetical risk is an essential consideration, this gray area is not well-defined in the current decision-making process. The lack of assessment of the degree of risk reduction associated with the remedial alternatives evaluated and the lack of support indicating the effectiveness of the remedial alternatives selected also constitute major weaknesses in the majority of decisions. These inadequacies undermine rationales regarding the protectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the remedial alternatives selected. The fact that objectives beyond addressing public health risk are often unclear in the decision-making process also weakens rationales for cost-effectiveness.

超级基金补救行动决策过程:五十份决策记录的审查。
虽然超级基金补救行动的决定过程是一个复杂的过程,涉及各种技术、政治和公共卫生问题,但补救行动的主要目标是保护公众健康。我们对50份sara后的决策记录进行了深入分析,以确定风险评估在决策过程中的作用,并确定决策是否以有效和保护环境的方式做出。我们的研究结果表明,大多数修复超级基金场址的决定是基于污染本身的存在,而不是基于实际的公共健康风险。虽然假设的风险是一个必要的考虑因素,但在当前的决策过程中,这个灰色地带并没有明确定义。缺乏对与所评价的补救办法有关的降低风险程度的评估,以及缺乏表明所选补救办法有效性的支持,也构成了大多数决定的主要弱点。这些不足之处破坏了所选补救办法的保护性和成本效益方面的理由。在决策过程中,除应对公共卫生风险之外的目标往往不明确,这一事实也削弱了成本效益的理由。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信