Risk Analysis, Vol. 14, No. 5, 1994 zyxwvutsrqp Opportunities and Impediments for Risk-Based Standards: Some Views from a Workshop Regina L. Hunter,’ David W. Layton: and Lynn R. Anspaugh2 Received February 5, 1993; revised March I, 1994 zyxwvu Techniques for performing scientific risk assessments for a wide variety of chemical and radiolog- ical hazards present in the environment and workplace are available. Speakers at a workshop sponsored by the Environmental and Public/Occupational Health Standard’s Steering Group ad- dressed both the state-of-the-art in risk assessment and areas of difficulty that require further research. The Steering Group concluded that within the limits of the available data, risk-assessment techniques are a useful tool in decision-making. In the past, many government agencies have not been effective either in listening to public concerns or in communicating technical or scientific information about risks. This has been true at all levels of government. Workshop speakers dis- cussed some ways that government agencies can more effectively communicate with the public. The Steering Group concluded that major efforts must be made to ensure that two-way commu- nication takes place. Thus the results of the workshop show that effective management of risk requires both a scientific assessment of risk and a responsive consideration of the public’s percep- tion of risk. Intensive efforts must be made to ensure that effective two-way communication takes place between members of the public and the appropriate government agencies. KEY zyxwvutsr WORDS: Risk-based standards; Department of Energy; cleanup; risk. 1. INTRODUCTION years.(1z) More recent cost estimates are even higher. Funding for cleanup efforts comes directly from the American taxpayers; ironically, many sites that will be remediated seem to present a very small risk to public health or the environment. The DOE laboratories would benefit financially, both through research funding and through direct cleanup expenditures, from remediating all sites. Nevertheless, many scientists and engineers at the laboratories are not convinced that such a compre- hensive remediation is in the national interest: Many contaminated sites present an insignificant risk to the public health or the environment, but their remediation would be expensive and has the potential to divert funds from other pressing national needs. In fact, remediation efforts themselves could pose more risk, in some cases, than a nonremediation strategy. zyx A third issue facing the DOE in its quest for environmental restoration is tech- nical. If the completeness of remediation is based on The directors of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) laboratories and sites are concerned about the financial and technical requirements of the planned cleanup of the DOE complex. Many Americans are keenly aware of the environmental and financial issues facing the DOE complex and the nation. On the one hand, there is widespread agreement that the DOE is responsible for numerous sites so contaminated that they would present a risk to public health or the environment if not remediated or kept under institutional control. On the other hand, the General Accounting Office estimated that cleanup costs for DOE facilities will be $160B and that the overall cleanup effort will take more than 30 zyxwv ’ Sandia National Laboratories. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. 863 0272-4332/94/1MxH)863S07.00~1 zyxw 0 1994 Society for Risk A~lyJis