Risks to the public

This issue of public perception has been the focus of numerous studies, including studies by the League of Women Voters in 1979, the National Research Council, and Individual scientists and psychologists. My colleagues and I have also conducted similar studies of undergraduates, graduate students in science and other 

In the Lec e of Women Voters study, the general members, active league members, students, and scientific experts were asked to rcmk thirty activities or agents in order of their risk of dying. The results were very different for these different groups  

In unofficial studies conducted by myself cmd colleagues, the public rcmked stratospheric ozone depletion, worker exposure to chemicals, hcizcu dous waste, industrial pollution accidents, and oil spills as of high concern. However, experts only agreed 

Water fluoridation Saccharin Water chlorination Oral contraceptives  

Not fatal, easily reduced, voluntary, local scale, low risk to future generations, no dread feelings, risks fairly distributed 

---

Hazards that pose a risk to the public. Complete redundancy is normally required. 

The operation of existing facility imposes an unacceptable social risk to the public based on criteria used in the Netherlands and Denmark. 

If the containment holds, nuclear power plants present no risk to the public. Overpressurization of the containment is the failure mode that could allow direct release of radioactivity to the public. Design a risk reduction investigation of the benefits of releasing the gas pressure through an offgas processing system that removes the particulates. 

This study investigated risks to the public from serious accidents which could occur at the industrial facilities in this part of Essex, U.K. Results are expressed as risk to an individual and societal risk from both existing and proposed installations. Risk indices were also determined for modified versions of the facilities to quantify the risk reduction from recommendations in the report. Nine industrial plants were analyzed along with hazardous material transport by water, road, rail and pipeline. The potential toxic, fire and explosion hazards were assessed for flammable liquids, ammonia, LPG, LNG, and hydrogen fluoride (HE). The 24 appendices to the report cover various aspects of the risk analysis. These include causes and effects of unconfined... 

FATE will not knowingly pose a greater health risk to the public than it docs to its own employees. 

Except for large scale accidental releases (e.g. nuclear explosions or catastrophic accidents at nuclear plants), water will be the main transport medium of plutonium to man. Therefore the size and location of plutonium sources, its pathways to man and its behaviour in natural waters are essential knowledge required for the evaluation of its ecological impact. That information, combined with radiological health standards, allows an assessment of the overall risk to the public from plutonium e.g. from a waste repository for spent unreprocessed reactor fuel elements in deep granite bedrock (8, 9). ... 

The Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) had reached similar conclusions about a year ago and filed a petition with EPA suggesting that there was a strong case to be made for exemptive relief under Section 5 (h)(4) of TSCA for many polymers, site-limited intermediates, and chemicals produced in volumes of less than 25,000 pounds per year. (An examination of the effect of PMN costs at various prices and levels of production reveals that the PMN cost, as a percentage of total cost per pound of product, generally rises most rapidly as output falls below 25,000 pounds. See the Appendix for a more detailed discussion.) It is CMA s firm belief that exemption could be granted in terms that would operate to assure "no unreasonable risk" to the public in terms of either health or the environment. 

There have been attempts by companies to assign quantitative risk numbers to these regions. It is important to note that different values should be considered for workers vs. for the public near the facility. Generally, the risk to the public is one order of magnitude lower than for workers. The workers accept the risk, whereas the public wants a lower risk. Each company should establish their own risk tolerance values. This may be used to assess financial and business risk. 

In the case of JACADS, there will be no risk to the public or environment other than those already identified in the operational quantitative risk assessment and health risk assessment. This may not be the case for the other eight sites. The JACADS experience will provide information on which assessments for the remaining sites can be based. 

All these assessments will provide information for comparing the risks associated with the modified baseline process with those associated with other alternatives. The Stockpile Committee previously recommended that the primary criterion for the selection of technology should be the minimization of cumulative adverse consequences from all relevant risks (NRC, 1994). Cumulative risks include risks to the public and workers, as well as the economic and sched-... 

Finding 4-1. A Phase 1 QRA for using a baseline incineration system at Pueblo has been completed, and the point estimation of the impact on public health indicates that the risk to the public due to accidental releases would be extremely low. The HRA for Pueblo has not yet been completed. Several additional analyses are being conducted to support operational and design decisions for a modified baseline process. It is not clear how the Army is going to use the collective risk information it has or is seeking and in what framework this information will be used. 

The TOCDF QRA estimates the risk to the public and workers from accidental releases of chemical agent associated with all activities during storage at DCD and throughout the disposal process at the TOCDF. The HRA, which was conducted by the Utah Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste (Department of Environmental Quality), is a screening analysis to estimate possible off-site human health risks associated with exposure to airborne emissions from the TOCDF under normal and upset conditions. The HRA also estimates risks to wildlife and the environment. 

Finding 1. Consistent with the Stockpile Committee s prior recommendation that the CSDP use technology that will minimize overall risk to the public and to the workers at each site, protecting the health and wellbeing of the workforce at chemical agent disposal facilities is an overarching priority, on a par with protection of the public health and safety. 

Second, waste that contains hazardous substances is classified based on considerations of health risks to the public that arise from waste disposal. The existing classification systems for radioactive and chemical wastes in the United States are not based primarily on considerations of health risks to the public. Rather, classification of hazardous wastes has been based primarily on the source of the waste or the presence of particular hazardous substances. The absence of risk-based waste classifications has had a number of undesirable ramifications ... 

The primary purpose of this Report is to present NCRP s recommendations on classification of hazardous wastes. The Report is directed at a multidisciplinary audience with different levels of technical understanding in the fields of radiation and chemical risk assessment and radioactive and chemical waste management. Anew hazardous waste classification system is proposed that differs from the existing classification systems for radioactive and hazardous chemical wastes in two fundamental respects. First, hazardous waste would be classified based on considerations of health risks to the public that arise from disposal of waste. Hazardous waste would not be classified based, for example, on its source. Second, the classification system would apply to any hazardous waste, and separate classification systems for radioactive and hazardous chemical wastes would not be retained. In the proposed system, waste would be classified based only on its properties, and the same rules would apply in classifying all hazardous wastes. 

Most low-level waste, except high-activity, longer-lived waste that is anticipated to be produced in small volumes, is intended for disposal in a near-surface facility. The acceptability of near-surface disposal for most low-level waste is based primarily on assessments of the long-term performance of such facilities, which indicate that the health risks to the public, including future inadvertent intruders, should be acceptable. 

Thus, assessments of long-term health risks to the public, including future inadvertent intruders at near-surface disposal sites, are important in selecting disposal technologies for radioactive wastes... 

Thus, NCRP intends that exempt waste could be used or disposed of in any manner allowed by laws and regulations addressing disposition of nonhazardous materials. However, waste that would be exempt for purposes of disposal would not necessarily be exempt for purposes of beneficial use as well. Exemption of materials that contain hazardous substances to allow beneficial use also should be based on considerations of health risks to the public. However, limits on the amounts of hazardous substances that could be present in exempt materials intended for a particular beneficial use could be substantially lower than the limits for disposal as exempt waste, due to differences in exposure scenarios for the two dispositions, and disposal may be the only allowable disposition of some exempt materials based on considerations of risk. In addition, exempt materials may consist of trash, rubble, and residues from industrial processes that have no beneficial uses and must be managed as waste. 

The waste classification system should be based on the distinct concepts of negligible and acceptable ii.e., barely tolerable) risks to the public that arise from waste disposal. Precedents for specifying negligible or acceptable risks that could be used in classifying waste, such as other NCRP recommendations, would be cited, but specific recommendations would not be presented in this Report. 

Development of a waste classification system based on considerations of risks to the public requires assumptions about generic exposure scenarios (i.e., exposure scenarios that are generally applicable at any disposal site). 

For the purpose of developing the waste classification system described in Section 1.4.1, a simple method of evaluating risks to the public posed by radionuclides and hazardous chemicals in waste is needed. The term risk generally refers to the probability of harm, combined with the potential severity of that harm. In the context of hazardous waste disposal, risk is the probability of a response in an individual or the frequency of a response in a population taking into... 

---