TY - JOUR
T1 - The Peconic River
T2 - Concerns associated with different risk evaluations for fish consumption
AU - Burger, Joanna
AU - Gochfeld, Michael
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors wish to thank several people for providing them with the relevant risk assessment documents and correspondence: Vito Minei (Suffolk County Department of Health Services), Rebecca G. Mitchell (NY Department of Health), Lloyd Nelson (DOE, BNL), Gail Penny (DOE, field office), and Steve Golian (DOE, headquarters). Thanks are also due to S. Shukla, R. Ramos, C. Jeitner and C. Dixon for logistical and graphics help, and B. D. Goldstein, B. Friedlander, M. Greenberg and C.W. Powers, for comments on the research and manuscript. This research was funded by the Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP) under a Department of Energy grant (AI # DE-FC01-95EW55084, DE-FG 26-00NT 40938), and the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS ESO 5022). The results, conclusions, and interpretations reported herein are the sole responsibility of the authors, and should not in any way be interpreted as representing the views of the funding agencies.
PY - 2005/11
Y1 - 2005/11
N2 - Risk evaluation and assessment have been used as tools to regulate and manage the risks to consumers of eating self-caught fish that have high levels of contaminants. Armed with these risk assessments, health agencies issue consumption advisories, and in some cases, close some waters to fishing. Recently, regulatory agencies have used contaminant levels in fish as a benchmark for remedial action on contaminated sites, using human health risk assessment as the justification. The US Environmental Protection Agency's new surface water criterion for mercury is based on mercury levels in fish tissue. When multiple regulatory agencies have jurisdiction over the same waters or remediation site there is the potential for differing risk evaluations. Using the Peconic River on Long Island, New York as a case study, the paper examines how and why county, state, and federal health risk evaluations for fish contaminated with mercury differed. While the same risk methodology was applied by all agencies, the assessments were conducted for different purposes, applied different consumption and fish biomass assumptions, and arrived at different conclusions. The risk evaluations invoked to design fish consumption advisories use mercury levels currently in fish, and are designed to prevent current exposure. However, the risk assessments that provide a basis for remediation consider many different pathways of exposure (not just ingestion), and deal with long-term exposure. The risk evaluations, and recommendations promulgated by those agencies, differ because they have different goals, use different assumptions, and often fail to communicate among agencies. It is suggested that it is valuable to have these different levels of risk evaluations to adequately address health issues. However, there are policy implications, which include making the distinctions between the types of risk assessments, their methods and assumptions, and the rationale for these assumptions. Further, assessors and managers should involve all interested stakeholders (including regulators and state health officials) in discussions about the use of risk, the assumptions of risk assessment, and the goals of those evaluations. The difficulties in the case of the Peconic were not due to differences in the original data, but rather in the goals and type of risk assessments performed. If all deliberations had been transparent during all phases of the decision-making and management process, the conflicts within the minds of the public, regulators and other agencies might have been avoided. This case study suggests that more reliability, circumspection and transparency should be built into the process where multiple agencies and multiple objectives are involved.
AB - Risk evaluation and assessment have been used as tools to regulate and manage the risks to consumers of eating self-caught fish that have high levels of contaminants. Armed with these risk assessments, health agencies issue consumption advisories, and in some cases, close some waters to fishing. Recently, regulatory agencies have used contaminant levels in fish as a benchmark for remedial action on contaminated sites, using human health risk assessment as the justification. The US Environmental Protection Agency's new surface water criterion for mercury is based on mercury levels in fish tissue. When multiple regulatory agencies have jurisdiction over the same waters or remediation site there is the potential for differing risk evaluations. Using the Peconic River on Long Island, New York as a case study, the paper examines how and why county, state, and federal health risk evaluations for fish contaminated with mercury differed. While the same risk methodology was applied by all agencies, the assessments were conducted for different purposes, applied different consumption and fish biomass assumptions, and arrived at different conclusions. The risk evaluations invoked to design fish consumption advisories use mercury levels currently in fish, and are designed to prevent current exposure. However, the risk assessments that provide a basis for remediation consider many different pathways of exposure (not just ingestion), and deal with long-term exposure. The risk evaluations, and recommendations promulgated by those agencies, differ because they have different goals, use different assumptions, and often fail to communicate among agencies. It is suggested that it is valuable to have these different levels of risk evaluations to adequately address health issues. However, there are policy implications, which include making the distinctions between the types of risk assessments, their methods and assumptions, and the rationale for these assumptions. Further, assessors and managers should involve all interested stakeholders (including regulators and state health officials) in discussions about the use of risk, the assumptions of risk assessment, and the goals of those evaluations. The difficulties in the case of the Peconic were not due to differences in the original data, but rather in the goals and type of risk assessments performed. If all deliberations had been transparent during all phases of the decision-making and management process, the conflicts within the minds of the public, regulators and other agencies might have been avoided. This case study suggests that more reliability, circumspection and transparency should be built into the process where multiple agencies and multiple objectives are involved.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=29244477208&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=29244477208&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/09640560500294186
DO - 10.1080/09640560500294186
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:29244477208
VL - 48
SP - 789
EP - 808
JO - Journal of Environmental Planning and Management
JF - Journal of Environmental Planning and Management
SN - 0964-0568
IS - 6
ER -