CHAPTER 4

MANAGING TECHNOLOGICAL

HAZARDS

Attempting to plan a program / policy to manage risk is frequently an invitation to “civil war”

By its nature, risk management pits many special interest groups against one another

What Is a Management System?

Hazard management (1) informs about hazard(2) helps understanding on a course of action

(3) follows through implementation of

appropriate control or mitigation strategies(4) Implies some level of control of outcomes (5) Implies ability to differentiate between

accident-incident; acts of God; acts of nature; acts of Man

Components of Management Systems

Most hazard management systems have the components (text):

I(1) monitoring(2) research (risk estimation)(3) legislation

Components of Management Systems, cont

II(4) regulation(5) inspection(6) enforcement

III(7) emergency response(8) continual re-evaluation

Standard setting – related to both legislation and regulation - attempt to both codify and enforce acceptable levels of risk- level of exposure considered “safe” or “tolerable”- may be presented as a single value or a range- frequently enjoys little universal

appeal / agreement

Interesting

“What is unique and important about standards is that they are legally enforceable. Standards violations result in punitive fines, civil and criminal actions, or product recall.” (p. 61)

Three Approaches to Regulation

(1) Coercive(2) Cooperative(3) Regulatory Guidelines

Once in place, regulations and standards are in place, they must be enforced

Three Approaches to Regulation, cont

In cooperative and regulatory guidelines, the regulator can become more creative

--- Selective Enforcement Audit (SEA)

--- Production Line Testing (PLT)--- Cumulative Sum – “Cum Sum”

Mankind’s Inalienable Rights

Why do we attempt to manage/regulate hazard? (1) the right to eat well (2) the right to drink pure water (3) the right to breathe clean air (4) the right to decent, uncrowded

shelter (5) the right to enjoy natural beauty (6) the right to avoid regimentation

Mankind’s Inalienable Rights, cont

(7) the right to avoid pesticide poisoning (8) the right to freedom from thermonuclear war (9) the right to limit families(10) the right to educate our children(11) the right to have grandchildren

(Dr. Paul R. Ehrlich, Stanford University)

Risk Managers

- These are individuals and agencies that coordinate, assess, and regulate tasks and hazards (pp. 62-3)

- Text offers an interesting scheme of classification from Kates- --- classification from the differing

roles of individuals in the management process

Kates, cont--- classifications may be

variable as hazard/risk management issues change(1) hazard makers(2) risk-takers(3) guardians(4) risk assessors

Constraints on Management Systems

Cannot overlook presence of constraining factors in hazard management process

- Again, from Kates:… the surprise factor… cannot prevent all risk or reduce risk

levels to zero… social and political limitations… moral choices… inherent conflict between efficiency

and equity

Cutter offers us some additional constraints of her own… scientific uncertainty

*You know that I love to poke fun at bureaucrats and the Federal govt, in particular – I recommend pp. 64-6 discussion of EPA, Cancer and Pesticides*

The Commons and Transboundary Issues

Responsibility is a fundamental element in the hazards management process

Cutter, “ If the risk occurs in my jurisdiction, I will exercise control over it”[can be seen as an extension of the conservation concept, “Democracy in Action”]

Who, then, is responsible when the risk/hazard crosses jurisdictional boundaries?… an externality

National externalities are bad enough ex: 11/97 effect on TN of EPA regulations on O3 and PM10-to-PM2.5

Externalities, cont--- International externalities present

complicated problems assigning responsibility

Examples:Midwest produced acid rain into the NE and into CanadaTampico oil spillPetroleum pipeline leak into Pechora RiverChernobyl

Tragedy of the CommonsWho is responsible for management of

resources used by all?Garrett Hardin (1968) argued that

common property resources lend themselves to the most rapid exploitation… additionally, discrepancy between ownership and management allows their cost to be borne by all, while benefits are enjoyed by a select few

Tragedy of the Commons: ANCSA

Alaskan Federation of Natives (1966)--- Representatives of Alaskans native

populations: Indian, Aleut, Inuit--- initiated lawsuits claiming ownership over ¾ of state’s 375 million acres--- threatened building of Trans-Alaskan Pipeline (TAP)

Tragedy of the Commons: ANCSA, cont

Alaskan Native Claims Settlement Act (1971)--- 44 million acres; nearly $1 billion --- divided among 50,00 native Alaskans--- divided land and money into 12 regional corporations of common heritage and economics… a 13th

added for non-Alaska-living natives

Tragedy of the Commons: ANCSA, cont

--- land and money further sub-divided into 250 village corporations--- no land sales, or taxation till 1991

Village corporation – selected a unit of acreage near village prorated by population

Regional corporation – given vast acreage; economic and subsurface rights

Tragedy of the Commons: ANCSA, cont

- Ultimate goal of ANCSA is the assimilation of native Alaskans into wider national economy

- Settlement provides paternalistic opportunities for native Alaskans

- Settlement has had both successes and failures

Interesting

The ANCSA settlement amounted to more land than is held in trust for all other American Indians and four times the amount of money that all other Indian tribes have received from the U.S. Indian Claims Commission since it was founded

Canadian Native Claims- James Bay and Quebec Agreement, 1975 (and Northeastern Quebec Agreement,

1978)

- Western Arctic Claims Settlement Act, 1984

- Dene Nation / Metis Agreement, 1990

- Council for Yukon Indians, 1990

Tragedy of the Commons: ANWR

- Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) has been controversial for many years

- 1960: 8.9 million acres of the North Slope set

aside- 1980: expanded to 19.8 million

acres

Tragedy of the Commons: ANWR, cont

- Wilderness areas and migration areas of the North American Porcupine caribou--- migrate out of Yukon, Canada, so an international treaty obligation--- caribou “calving” area

Tragedy of the Commons: ANWR, cont

- Petroleum discovery pits:Federal govt State of AlaskaEnvironmentalistsPetroleum Co.sNative Alaskans (“+” & “-”)

- As early as 1996 drilling permission was sought

Prevention versus Response

- An additional complicating factor for management is issue of Prevention – or – Response

• Management of hazardous waste has always used a variation of this prevent-or-respond methodology*

Prevention versus Response, cont

What are your options going to be?(1) produce less waste(2) convert to less hazardous

substances(3) store permanently

Clearly, hazard prevention is BIG business in the U.S… look at how far we go to provide what we consider “safety” in our lives

Safety governs most every aspect of our lives

Prevention versus Response, cont

- Raises the observation that many feel we are over regulated/over obsessed with safety

- Raises a subsequent question“Are we better off preparing for hazard or waiting for the emergence of hazardous happenings.”

- And raises the fundamental question, What should be the role of management?

Prevention versus Response, cont

Borrowing from others, Cutter identifies six opportunities for intervention in the management process:--- modify technology--- prevent initiating events--- prevent outcomes--- prevent exposures--- prevent consequences--- mitigate consequences

We have Protective Legislative Practices that:

- Set aside or protect ecosystems, resources, and species from harm (Wilderness Act / Endangered Species Act)

- Encourage resource conservation (National Conservation and Recovery Act / National Energy Act)

- No unreasonable risk (Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act)

- No risk (Delaney Clause / CWA / Safe Drinking Water)

We have Protective Legislative Practices that:

- Standards based on best available technology (CAA / CWA / Safe Drinking Water Act)

- Risk-benefit balancing (Section 8.5)

- Cost-benefit balancing (Section 7.5, Toxic Substances Control Act)

We have Protective Legislative Practices that:

- Set standards for pollution levels or limiting emissions or effluents for classes of pollutants (Federal Water Pollution Control Act / Clean Air Act)

- Screen new substances for safety before they are widely used (Toxic Substances Act)

- Requiring comprehensive evaluation of the environmental impact of an activity before it is undertaken by a federal agency (NEPA)

Crisis Management

Emerged as the predominant tool used for reacting to, and managing, most technological hazards--- procedure treats each incident as separate and distinct--- stresses response appropriate for that crisis

Crisis Management, contCriticisms:

(1) tends to create perception of “knee-jerk” response to hazardous events(2) runs counter to a comprehensive or ”holistic” planning process(3) individualizing events may lead to a

myopic, reductionist perspective on the linkage of technological hazards

(4) approach frequently leads to “event overkill” as the media focuses on the “sound-bite event” and attempts to out-do

competitors for coverage

Crisis Management, cont

- Cutter tells us, “This crisis-management approach may lead to unsound decision-making that is burdensome, costly, later regretted, or some times reversed.”

Crisis Management, contVincent T. Covello’s (Columbia Un.) risk

communication comments are equally applicable to crisis management(1) disagreement among scientific experts(2) lack of resources for assessment and management(3) lack of adequate coordination among responsible authorities(4) lack of attention to and priority for risk

communication(5) insensitivity to the information needs and concerns of the public