IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v17y2014i9p1109-1124.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mercury at Oak Ridge: outcomes from risk evaluations can differ depending upon objectives and methodologies

Author

Listed:
  • Joanna Burger
  • Michael Gocheld
  • Charles W. Powers
  • David Kosson
  • James Clarke
  • Kevin Brown

Abstract

Risk evaluations play an important role in environmental management, remediation and restoration. Yet when different agencies and groups evaluate risk, the objectives and methods may differ, leading to different conclusions, which can confuse managers, policy-makers and the public. In this paper, we examine two evaluations of the potential risk from mercury contamination deriving from the Y-12 facility at the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge Reservation (Tennessee, USA). The US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) examined the past and present risks from mercury to humans, using data provided in government reports and publications. The Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP) used a risk-informed prioritization model, developed for managers to evaluate different remediation projects. The CRESP prioritization model considered both human and ecological receptors, as well as future potential risks. Risk was an important component of both evaluations, and both evaluations found that there was a completed pathway of mercury from the source on the Oak Ridge Reservation to offsite human receptors, although the evaluations differed in their final conclusions. CRESP evaluated the risk as 'high', while the ATSDR noted that the risk was 'moderate' for people consuming fish from East Fork Poplar Creek. In both cases, the pathway to off-site human exposure was through fish consumption. The two evaluations are compared with respect to purpose, specific goals, target audience, receptors, assumptions, time frames, evaluation criteria and conclusions. When these aspects are considered, the risk evaluations are congruent, although the risk communication messages differ. We conclude that there are many different possible risk evaluations, and the aforementioned variables must be carefully considered when making management decisions, determining remediation goals, and communicating with regulators, managers, public policy-makers and the public.

Suggested Citation

  • Joanna Burger & Michael Gocheld & Charles W. Powers & David Kosson & James Clarke & Kevin Brown, 2014. "Mercury at Oak Ridge: outcomes from risk evaluations can differ depending upon objectives and methodologies," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(9), pages 1109-1124, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:17:y:2014:i:9:p:1109-1124
    DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2013.841731
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13669877.2013.841731
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13669877.2013.841731?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Qiqi Chen & Junbiao Zhang & Lu Zhang, 2015. "Risk Assessment, Partition and Economic Loss Estimation of Rice Production in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-21, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:17:y:2014:i:9:p:1109-1124. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.