Environmental security, critical infrastructure and risk assessment: Definitions and current trends

NATO Security through Science Series C: Environmental Security

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 3-17

  Belluck, D A ^a   Hull, R N ^b   Benjamin, S L ^c   Alcorn, J ^d   Linkov, I ^e  

^a FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION   (United States)

^b Cantox Environmental Inc   (Canada)

^c United States of America   (United States)

^d SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION   (United States)

^e Intertox Inc   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34249686976     PISSN: 18714668     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (41)

1. AC/UNU Millennium Project. No Date. Emerging International Definitions, Perceptions, and Policy Considerations. Environmental Security Study. http://www.acunu.org/millennium/es-2def.html.
2. Belluck DA, Hull RN, Benjamin SL, Alcorn J and Linkov I. 2005. Are Standard Risk Acceptability Criteria Applicable to Critical Infrastructure Based on Environmental Security Needs? In: Linkov, I., Morel, B., eds. Environmental Security and Risk Assessment. Kluwer Academic Publishers (this volume).
3. Bundesanstalt fur Arbeitsschutz und Abrbeitmedizin. 1998. Guidelines on Risk Management of the Hazardous Substances Committee Concerning Decisions with Far Reaching Consequences. November 15 1998. http://www.baua.de//prax/ags/ ags_guidelines_rm.pdf.
4. Chalecki, E. L. No Date. Environmental Security: A Case Study of Climate Change. Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security. http://www.pacinst.org/environment_and_security/ env_security_and_climate_change.pdf.
5. Cheremisinoff, N.P. 2002. Environmental Security: The Need for International Policies. Pollution Engineering. 5/1/2002. http://www. pollutionengineering.com/CDA/ ArticleInformation/features/BNP_Features_Item/0, 6649,103962,00.html.
6. Commission on Geosciences, Environment and Resources. 1999. Environmental Cleanup at Navy Facilities: Risk-Based Methods http://books.nap.edu/books/ 0309063434/html/37.html#page_bottom.
7. Commission on Life Sciences. 1983. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process. Committee on the Institutional Means for Assessment of Risks to Public Health, National Research Council. http://books.nap.edu/nap-cgi/chaphits.cgi?term=acceptable+risk&isbn= 0309033497.
8. Commission on Life Sciences. 1994. Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment. Committee on Risk Assessment of Hazardous Air Pollutants, National Research Council.
9. Duffus, J.H. 2001. Risk Assessment Terminology. Chemistry International 23(2). March 2001. http://www.iupac.org/publications/ci/2001/march/ risk_assessment.html.
10. European Environment Agency. No Date. Environmental Risk Assessment - Approaches, Experiences and Information Sources Environmental issue report No 4. http://reports.eea.eu.int/GH-07-97-595-EN-C2/en/riskindex.html.
11. European Environment Agency. 2003. Europe's Environment: The Third Assessment.
12. EXTOXNET. 1993. Toxicology Information Briefs. Cooperative Extension Offices of Cornell University, Oregon State University, the University of Idaho, and the University of California at Davis and the Institute for Environmental Toxicology, Michigan State University. September 1993. http://extoxnet.orst.edu/tibs/carcino.htm.
13. Glenn, J.C., Gordon, T.J., and R. Perelet. 1998. Defining Environmental Security: Implications for the U.S. Army. Editor: Molly Landholm. AEPI-IFP-1298
14. Army Environmental Policy Institute. December 1998. http://www.aepi.army. mil/Publications/-Defining%20Environmental%20Security%20- %20Implications%20for%20the%20US%20Army.pdf.
15. Haimes, Y.Y., Lambert, J.H., Horowitz, B.M., Kaplan,S., Pikus, I.M., Leung, M.F. and A.D. Mosenthal. 2004. Final Contract Report, Risk Assessment And Management Of Critical Highway Infrastructures: Executive Summary. February 2004. Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems. University of Virginia. Virginia Transportation Research Council (A Cooperative Organization Sponsored Jointly by the Virginia Department of Transportation and the University of Virginia) Charlottesville, Virginia. VTRC 04-CR16. http://www.virginiadot.org/ vtrc/main/online_reports/pdf/04-cr16.pdf.
16. Health Canada. 1998. Assessment And Management Of Cancer Risks From Radiological And Chemical Hazards. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecs-sesc/ccrpb/ publication/98ehd216/chapter4.htm.
17. Health Canada. 2000. Health Canada Decision-Making Framework for Identifying, Assessing, and Managing Health Risks. August 1, 2000. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hpfb-dgpsa/hcrisk_11_e.html.
18. Hobbs, R.J. and L.J. Kristjanson. 2003. Triage: How do we prioritize health care for landscapes? Ecological Management & Restoration 4(Suppl): S39-S45.
19. Hunter, P.R. and L. Fewtrell. 2001. Acceptable Risk. World Health Organization Water Quality Guidelines, Standards and Health. Chapter 10.
20. McNeil, F. 2000. Making Sense of Environmental Security. North-South Agenda. Paper. Thirty-Nine. http://www.miami.edu/nsc/publications/pub-ap-pdf/ 39AP.pdf
21. National Infrastructure Institute (NI2) Center for Infrastructure Expertise and the University of New Hampshire. 2004. The Center for Infrastructure Expertise Library. July 22, 2004 (accessed). http://www.ni2ciel. org/Glossary/a_glossary.htm.
22. National Intelligence Council. 2000. Global Trends 2015: A Dialogue about the Future With Nongovernment Experts. December 2000. http://www.odci.gov/nic/ PDF_GIF_global/globaltrend-2015.pdf.
23. Newman MC, Ownby DR, Me'Zin LCA, Powell DC, Christensen TRL, Lerberg SB, and B-A Anderson. 2000. Applying Species-Sensitivity Distributions in Ecological Risk Assessment: Assumptions of Distribution Type and Sufficient Numbers of Species. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 508-515.
24. NRC (National Research Council). 1983. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
25. Omenn, G.S. 2003. Assessment of the Impact of the 1983 Red Book. W5.1. Socieity for Risk Analysis Annual Meeting 2003. W5 - Symposium: Impacts on Risk Policy and Practice, Red Book, Risk Commission, Understanding Risk. http://www.birenheide.com/sra/2003AM/program/singlesession.php3?sessid=W5.
26. Oren, S. 2001. Market Based Risk Mitigation: Risk Management vs. Risk Avoidance. University of California at Berkeley, Presented at a White House OSTP/NSFWorkshop on Critical Infrastructure Interdependencies June 14-15, Washington DC. http://www.pserc.wisc.edu/ecow/get/publicatio/2001public/ marketbasdriskmitigation-v2-oren.pdf.
27. Owens, R., Broderick, P, Charters, D., Sprenger, M, and T. Bernhard. 1999. Ecological Risk Assessments. Powerpoint. http://enviro.nfesc.navy.mil/erb/ erb_a/support/rits/presentations/1999-5-era.pdf.
28. Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management. 1997. Framework for Environmental Health Risk Management. Final Report, Washington, DC. Volume 1. http://www.spea.indiana.edu:8000/ dhenshel/e311/EPAJAN.pdf.
29. Queensland Government. No Date. Securing Queensland's Critical Infrastructure: Guidelines for owners/operators. Department of the Premier and Cabinet. http://www.premiers.qld.gov.au/library/pdf/infopackweb.pdf.
30. Secretary of the Navy. 2002. Department of Navy (DON) Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP). Memorandum. June 16, 2002. http://neds.nebt. daps.mil/Directives/3501_1.pdf.
31. SERO (Southeast Region, Installation Management Agency). 2003. Sustainability 401: Part 1: Houston, we have a problem. Joint Services P2 & HWM Conference (14 August 2003). http://www.envquest.com/library-FORSCOM.asp.
32. Schwartz, P. and D. Randall. 2003. Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security (October 2003). GBN: Global Business Network. http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=26231.
33. Scottish Executive. No date. An Overview of Risk Guidance. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library3/government/riskguidance.pdf.
34. Suter, G.W. II, B.W. Cornaby, C.T. Hadden, R.N. Hull, M. Stack and F.A. Zafran. 1995. An approach for balancing health and ecological risks at hazardous waste sites. Risk Analysis 15: 221-231.
35. The White House. 2003. National Strategy for the Physical Protection of Critical Infrastructures and Key Assets. February 2003. http://www.whitehouse. gov/pcipb/physical.html.
36. U.K. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. 1999. Review of Technical Guidance on Environmental Appraisal A Report by EFTEC (Economics for the Environment Consultancy). April 30, 1999. http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/economics/rtgea/22.htm.
37. United States Department of Labor. No Date. Occupation Exposure to 1,3-Buradiene. Regulations (Preambles to Final Rules. Section 7 - VII. Significance of Risk. http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document? p_table=PREAMBLES&p_id=748.
38. United States Navy. 2001. U.S. Navy Human Health Risk Assessment Guidance. Chapter 12 - Risk Management. December 2001. http://www-nehc.med.navy. mil/HHRA/guidancedocuments/process/pdf/risk_mgmt.pdf.
39. United Kingdom Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (UK Defra). 2005. The Economic, Social and Ecological Value of Ecosystem Services: A Literature Review. Report prepared by eftec, London, UK. January.
40. Vrijling, J. K., van Gelder, P.H.A.J.M., Goossens, L.H.J., Voortman, H.G., and M. D. Pandey. 2004. A Framework for Risk criteria for critical infrastructures: Fundamentals and Case Studies in the Netherlands. Journal of Risk Research 7:569-679.
41. Vogel, D. 2003. The Politics of Risk Regulation in Europe and the United States. Prepared for publication in The Yearbook of European Environmental Law, Volume 3, 2003.