Comparative risk assessment methods and their applicability to dredged material management decision-making

Human and Ecological Risk Assessment

Volumn 10, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 485-503

  Cura, Jerome J ^a   Bridges, Todd S ^b   McArdle, Margaret E ^a  

^a Menzie Cura and Associates   (United States)

^b US Army Engineer R and D Center   (United States)

Author keywords

Comparative risk assessment; Dredged material; Risk evaluation methods; Risk based decisions

Indexed keywords

EID: 3242673489     PISSN: 10807039     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10807030490452160     Document Type: Review

References (46)

1. Accorsi R, Zio E, and Apostolakis GE. 1999. Developing utility functions for environmental decision-making. Progress in Nuclear Energy 34(4):387-411
2. Assmuth TW. 1996. Comparative risk analysis of waste site toxicants by indices based on concentration distributions, fluxes, environmental fate, and critical effects. J Hazardous Materials 48:121-35
3. Borys DS, Skrzinskas RD, and Green LD. 1996. Assessing cross-media impacts: A comparative risk approach. Risk Anal 16(5):683-92
4. Breyer S. 1993. Breaking the Vicious Cycle Toward Effective Risk Regulation. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA
5. Burgman MA, Keith DA, and Walshe TV. 1999. Uncertainty in comparative risk analysis for threatened Australian plant species. Risk Anal 19(4):585-98
6. Cura JJ, Gillmor R, Mariani G, et al. 1984. Site-selection criteria for the disposal of low-level radioactive wastes off the East Coast of North America. In: Champ M and Park K (eds), Oceanic Processes in Marine Pollution, Marine Waste Management: Science and Policy, vol 3, pp 177-85, Kreiger Publishing Co, Melbourne, FL, USA
7. Cura J, Heiger-Bernays W, Bridges TS, et al. 1999. Ecological and Human Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Aquatic Environments. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, USA
8. Ding GC, Woo YY, Sheu HJ, et al. 1996. An effective statistical approach for comparative risk assessment. Risk Anal 16(3):411-19
9. Finkel AM. 1995. Toward less misleading comparisons of uncertain risks: The example of aflatoxin and alar. Environ Health Persp 103(4):376-85
10. Finkel AM. 1996. Should we - and can we - reduce the worst risks first? In: Finkel AM and Golding D (eds). Worst Things First? The Debate Over Risk-Based National Environmental Priorities, pp 3-20, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, USA
11. Foster SA, Pearsall LJ, and Chrostowski PC. 1997. Comparative risk assessment of remedial alternatives for contaminated sludge. Presented at the Air & Waste Management Association's 90th Annual Meeting & Exhibition, June 8-13, 1997, Toronto, ON, Canada
12. Gheorghe AV. 1999. Integration and decision support systems for energy policy management and comparative assessment studies. Int J Global Energy Issues 12(1-6):33-59
13. Haddad S and Gheorghe A. 1992. Issues in comparative risk assessment of different energy sources. Int J Global Energy Issues 5(3):174-87
14. Hattis D and Goble RL. 1996. Current priority-setting methodology: Too little rationality or too much? In: Finkel AM and Golding D (eds). Worst Things First? The Debate Over Risk-Based National Environmental Priorities, pp 107-31, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, USA
15. Herrchen M, Kordel W, and Klein W. 1997. Assessment of the environmental behaviour of antioxidants in folios. Comparative risk analysis for the use of folios in agriculture. Chem 35(11):2627-44
16. Hirschberg S and Strupczewski A. 1999. Comparison of accident risks in different energy systems - how acceptable?, pp 25-30, IAEA Bulletin, March 1
17. Hornstein DT. 1992. Reclaiming environmental law: A normative critique of comparative risk analysis. Columbia Law Review 92:562-633
18. Jones K. 1997. A Retrospective on Ten Years of Comparative Risk. Prepared for American Industrial Health Council. Prepared by Green Mountain Institute for Environmental Democracy, Burlington, VT, USA
19. Kane Driscoll SB, Wickwire WT, Cura JJ, et al. 2002. A comparative screening-level ecological and human health risk assessment for dredged material management alternatives in New York/New Jersey Harbor. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 8(3):603-26
20. Lash J. 1996. Integrating Science, values, and democracy through comparative risk assessment. In: Finkel AM and Golding D (eds), Worst Things First? The Debate Over Risk-Based National Environmental Priorities, pp 69-86, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, USA
21. Linkov I, von Stackelberg K, Burmistrov D, et al. 2001. Uncertainty and variability in risk from trophic transfer of contaminants in dredged sediments. Sci Total Environ 274:255-69
22. Matsuki Y and Lee R. 1999. Comparing different energy risks: Methodology and issues - deciding the way, pp 10-3, IAEA Bulletin, April 1
23. Menzie CA, Hope Henning M, Cura, JJ, et al. 1996. Special report of the Massachusetts weight-of-evidence workgroup: A weight-of-evidence approach for evaluating ecological risks. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 2(2):277-304
24. Morgan MG, Florig HK, DeKay ML, et al. 2000. Categorizing risks for risk ranking. Risk Anal 20(1):49-58
25. Morganstern RD, Shih J, and Sessions SL. 2000. Comparative risk assessment: An international comparison of methodologies and results. J Haz Matrls 78:19-39
26. Power M and McCarty LS. 1998. A comparative analysis of environmental risk assessment/risk management frameworks. Environ Sci & Tech News 222A-31A
27. Shatkin JA, Linkov I, and Palma-Oliviera JM. 1999. Sensitivity analysis of ranked industrial waste streams in Portugal. Conference Proceedings from the 9th Annual Conference of Risk Analysis: Facing the New Millennium. October 10-13. Rotterdam, The Netherlands
28. Snyder M and Stewart A. 1999. A review of ecological assessments from five comparative risk projects. Western Center for Environmental Decision-Making. Downloaded on May 17, 1999. Available at http://wced.org/ publications/ReviewOfEcological Assess.htm
29. Strupczewski A. 1999. Comparative assessments of emissions from energy systems - benefits and burdens, pp 19-24. IAEA Bulletin. March 1
30. Swaney JA. 1996. Comparative risk analysis: Limitations and opportunities. J Econ Issues 30(2):463-73
31. Tetra Tech Inc. 1986. Framework for Comparative Risk Analysis of Dredged Material Disposal Options. TC3090-02. Prepared for Puget Sound Disposal Analysis, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. Seattle, Washington, USA
32. Thompson R, Templet PH, Gamman JK, et al. 1994. A process for incorporating comparative risk into environmental policy in Louisiana. Risk Anal 14(5):857-61
33. USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 1987. Unfinished Business. A Comparative Assessment of Environmental Problems. Office of Policy Analysis, Washington DC, USA
34. USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 1990. Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection. EPA-SAB-EC-90-021, Office of Science Advisory Board, Washington, DC, USA
35. USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). Region 2. 1991a. Risk Ranking Project, Region 2 Ecological Ranking and Problem Analysis. PB94-100351. Risk Ranking Working Group, New York, NY, USA
36. USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). Region 5. 1991b. Region 5 Comparative Risk Project. USEPA Region 5 (PL-12J)
37. USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 1993. A Guidebook to Comparing Risks and Setting Environmental Priorities. EPA 230-B-93-003. Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, Washington, DC, USA
38. USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). Risk Assessment Forum. 1996. Draft Document. Waquoit Bay Watershed, Ecological Risk Assessment, Planning and Problem Formulation. EPA/630/R-96/004A, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC, USA
39. USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 1997. Waste Management Prioritization Tool. Office of Solid Waste, Washington, DC, USA
40. USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 1999. Integrated Environmental Decision-Making in the 21st Century. Peer Review Draft, May 3, 1999. A report from the EPA Science Advisory Board's Integrated Risk Project
41. USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 2000. Toward Integrated Environmental Decision-Making. EPA-SAB-EC-00-011. Science Advisory Board, Washington, DC, USA
42. USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency)/USACE (US Army Corps of Engineers). 1992. Evaluating Environmental Effects of Dredged Material Management Alternatives - A Technical Framework. EPA842-B-92-008. Department of the Army, Washington, DC, USA
43. Vladu IF. 1999. An integrated framework for comparative assessment of electricity supply chains and strategies: The DECADES project. Int J Global Energy Issues 12(1-6):218-32
44. Von Stackelberg KE, Burmistrov D, Vorhees D, et al. 2002. Importance of uncertainty and variability to predicted risks from trophic transfer of PCBs in dredged sediments. Risk Anal 22(3):499-512
45. Vorhees DJ, Kane Driscoll SB, von Stackelberg K, et al. 2002. An evaluation of sources of uncertainty in a dredged material assessment. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 8(2):369-89
46. Wilson R, Holland MH, Rabl A, et al. 1999. Comparative risk assessment of energy options, the meaning of results. IAEA Bull 41:14-8