No abstract

One of the most important challenges facing risk mangers in the coming decades is the joint management of chemical and radiological wastes. Born out of different traditions, radiation and chemical risk approaches can differ sharply. Radiation protection generally focuses on establishing effective dose levels across media and utilizes an approach that incorporates the philosophy of ALARA. In contrast, chemical risk management strategies are medium specific and risk based. In practice these differences can complicate decision making and potentially lead to duplicative efforts. We have undertaken a series of case studies to determine the extent and nature of the barriers that exist with regard to the potential harmonization of risk management approaches. Built upon the results of an interactive workshop held in June 1998, these case studies examine how cleanup decisions were made at a series of contaminated sites around the United States. It is anticipated that these case studies will demonstrate (1) the areas of greatest discord among chemical and radiological risk management approaches, and (2) how gaps in approaches could be bridged. This presentation will review the important conclusions of these case studies and (if possible) offer suggestions about how chemical and radiation risk management can be harmonized. Health Phys. 80(4):390; 2001

This study evaluates the feasibility of conducting in situ burning (ISB) on past major oil spills (i.e., spills since 1967 over 10,000 barrels in North America and over 50,000 barrels in South America and Europe) using current technology. A diverse set of 141 spills representing various combinations of parameters affecting spill response (e.g., spill size, oil type, weather conditions, sea temperature, and geographic location) initially were evaluated using four “Phase I” criteria: distance to populated area, oil weathering, logistics, and weather conditions. In Phase I, a spill that failed to meet one of the four criteria was considered an “unsuccessful” candidate for ISB. Spills that met all four criteria were further evaluated using a “Phase II” analysis that applied additional criteria and considered individual spill circumstances to determine if the spill should be rated a “successful,” “marginal call,” or “unsuccessful” ISB candidate. In total, 47 of the 141 spills passed the Phase I analysis. Fourteen spills were ultimately determined successful in the Phase II analysis, and 12 were designated marginal calls. Proximity to populated areas was the most significant of the four Phase I criteria; 59 of the 141 spills did not pass Phase I because the incident occurred near a sizable city.