Ranking Hazardous-Waste Sites for Remedial Action (1994) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Pages 267-278
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 267... ...
10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDS TIONS 267 NEED FOR PRIOR1(Y-SETrING PROCESS Me enormous costs and technical limits to cleaning up hazardous waste sites highlight the need for a more comprehen sine, explicit, and system a tic approach to setting cleanup priorities. From a review of the hazardous waste cleanup problem in the United States, and the technologi cat limits and enormous costs to reaching the origi nal goals for cleanup s tip ulated by Congress, it is apparent that the original assumption of a few sites neecling remectiation was incorrect.
|
From page 268... ...
ranking models of specific agencies are presented in earlier chapters. CURRENT PRIOR1rY-SETTING The current priority-setting processes for hazardous waste site cleanup are not well defined and appear to lack adequate evalua lion, sufficient consistency, and effective oversight.
|
From page 269... ...
None of the agencies have developed its overall pr~or~ty-setting process in a manner that is explicit, adequately documented, and sufficiently open to scientific and public scrutiny. The overall process for setting priorities for remecliation of hazhazarclous ardous waste sites was found generally to involve three major tiers of activity: (1)
|
From page 270... ...
. IMPROVING THE PRIORITY SElrING PROCESS To the maximum extent possible, the overall priority setting processes, including the mathematical models used, should be similar across the various federal agencies.
|
From page 271... ...
that not only ensures use of funds on a consistent basis and a proper return to the nation from this investment but also engenders confidence within the scientific community and the public. This uniform national priority setting process should be more scientifically based, explicit, and open ant!
|
From page 272... ...
technical transfer for the federal, state, private, and public sectors. CURRENT RANKING MODELS USED IN PRIORITY SETTING The formal mathematical models developed to aid in the priority-set~ng process play little role in determining which sites are ultimately comedic tea.
|
From page 273... ...
The mathematical models used by EPA, DOE, and DOD as aids to setting priorities differ widely. The three agencies' mathematical models examined by the com mittee have forms traceable to these agencies inclividual mandates ant]
|
From page 274... ...
The different weightings provided often reflect differ ences in value judgments, but the process by which these value judgments were obtained is not often clear. Because the model results have an effect on the expenditure of vast amounts of public funds, a more consistent and better clocumentec!
|
From page 275... ...
For this reason, similar questions of appropriate ness of the logic for combining various scores within the ranking methods applies to states' approaches as well as to approaches of federal agencies. States not using formal ranking models often tent!
|
From page 276... ...
The additional informa lion would include inctiviclual environmental pathway scores, whether site contaminants pose acute or chronic risks, ant! how the model's value weights affect the overall score.
|
From page 277... ...
The approach wouicI be useful for checking whether revised algorithms are performing as expected or whether the models can discriminate, in a numerical sense, among various degrees of potential site hazards in the range of high to low.
|
From page 278... ...
include explicit considerations not only of human health and the environment, but also of socioeco nomic impacts on the surrounding community. Such consider ations are probably always part of the priority setting process, but they generally are not made explicitly, and so are not open to pub kc scrutiny ant!
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.