Advertisement

Role of Risk Assessment in Environmental Security Planning and Decision-Making

  • R. J. Wenning
  • S. Della Sala
  • V. Magar
Part of the NATO Security through Science Series book series (NASTC)

Abstract

This chapter explores the role of risk assessment in environmental security planning and decision-making at commercial shipping ports and harbors. Environmental risk assessment is a discipline that has matured over the past nearly 50 years, evolving from assessment of chemical exposures on human health and wildlife to comparative analysis of the net risks and benefits to the environment associated with the implementation of different remedy alternatives at contaminated land and sediment sites. In recent years, partly due to the events of 11 September 2001, escalating tensions in poor and under-developed countries, and increasing scarcity of natural resources, several countries and international organizations have raised concerns about environmental security. For commercial and industrial shipping ports, which are often located in heavily populated urban areas and sensitive coastal environments in both developed and developing countries, the application of risk assessment methods is an important first step towards protecting critical industrial, environmental and utility infrastructure and understanding environmental response and prevention requirements and capabilities. In the context of environmental risk assessment, there are at least three security challenges that must be overcome. First, quantitative prediction is needed, with a high degree of confidence, of the range of possible damages and potential threats posed to both human health and the environment. The nature of this work itself poses a security challenge because of the potential sensitivity of the information that must be compiled and evaluated. Second, the information and risk predictions generated by environmental risk assessment to describe the outcome of different possible disaster events and environmental scenarios must be realistic and plausible. And, third, the results of an environmental risk analysis must inform decision-makers of different disaster prevention/response action plans, their associated capital investments, and net impact on risk. Ultimately, the risk assessment process can provide port authorities and local or national government authorities the appropriate tools to prioritize prevention/response actions must be to minimize or prevent scenarios most likely to adversely impact the environment, cause injuries or fatalities to port workers and residents in surrounding communities, and result in short or long-term economic impacts.

Keywords

Risk Assessment Environmental Risk Assessment Critical Infrastructure International Maritime Organization Environmental Security 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Apostolakis, G.E., Lemon, D.M. 2005. A screening methodology for the identification and ranking of infrastructure vulnerabilities due to terrorism. Risk Anal. 25(2):361–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Belluck, D.A., Hull, R.N., Benjamin, S.L., Linkov I. 2005a. Environmental security, critical infrastructure and risk assessment: Definitions and current trends. In: Linkov, I., Kiker, G., eds. Environmental Security and Risk Assessment. Kluwer Academic Publishers (this volume).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Belluck, D.A., Hull, R.N., Benjamin, S.L., Alcorn, J., Linkov, I. 2005b. Are Standard Risk Acceptability Criteria Applicable to Critical Infrastructure Based on Environmental Security Needs? In: Linkov, I., Kiker, G., eds. Environmental Security and Risk Assessment. Kluwer Academic Publishers (this volume).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dalby, S. 2002. Environmental Security. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Efroymson, R.A., Nicolette, J.P., and Suter G.W. 2004. A framework for net environmental benefit analysis for remediation or restoration of contaminated sites. Environ Manage. 34(3):315–331.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gleditsch, N.P. 1998. Armed conflict and the environment: a critique of literature. Journal of Peace Research, 35/3 May: 381–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gleditsch, N.P. 1997. Conflict and the Environment. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Glenn, J.C., Gordon, T.J., Perelet, R. 1998. Defining Environmental Security: Implications for the U.S. Army. Editor: Molly Landholm. AEPI-IFP-1298Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Health and Safety Executive (HSE). 1992. Regulation 4 of the Offshore Installations (Safety Case) Regulations 1992 (SI 1992/2885) (SCR) United Kingdom, http://www.og.dti.gov.uk/regulation/-guidance/reg_offshore/appl0.htm. Accessed 25 July 2005.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hedden, K.F. 1984. Multimedia fate and transport models: an overview. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol 21(l–2):65–95.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hendrickson, R.G. 2005. Terrorist chemical releases: assessment of medical risk and implications for emergency preparadness. Hum Ecol Risk Assess. 11:487–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Heurgren-Carlstrom, G., Malmberg, E. 2003. Online information resources of toxicology in Sweden. Toxicology. 21;190(l–2):63–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hopper, L.D., Oehme, F.W. 1989. Chemical risk assessment: a review. Vet Hum Toxicol. 31 (6):543–554.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    International Maritime Organization (IMO). 2004. IMO’s global programme on maritime and port security – the work continues. http://www.imo.org/Newsroom/mainframe.asp?topic_id=848&doc_id= 3656. Accessed on 22 July 2005.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    International Maritime Organization (IMO). 2002. International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS). Conference of Contracting Governments to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974: 9–13 December 2002. http://www.imo.org/Newsroom/mainframe.asp? topic_id=583&doc_id=2689 Accessed 25 July 2005.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Johnson, B.B., Chess, C. 2003. How reassuring are risk comparisons to pollution standards and emission limits? Risk Anal. 23(5):999–1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Karam, P.A. 2005. Radiological terrorism. Hum Ecol Risk Assess. 11:501–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kiker, G.A., Bridges, T.S., Varghese, A., Seager, T.P., Linkov, I. 2005. Application of multicriteria decision analysis in environmental decision making. Integ Environ Assess Manage. 1(2):95–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Knapp, K.C., Weinberg, M., Howitt, R., Posnikoff, J.F. 2003. Water transfers, agriculture, and groundwater management: a dynamic economic analysis. J Environ Manage. 67(4):291–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Latora, V., Marchiori, M. 2005. Vulnerability and protection of infrastructure networks. Phys Rev E Stat Noniin Soft Matter Phys. 71(1 Pt 2):015103. Epub – January 20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lin, B.L., Tokai, A., Nakanishi, J. 2005. Approaches for establishing predicted-no-effect concentrations for population-level ecological risk assessment in the context of chemical substances management. Environ Sci Technol. 39(13):4833–4840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Leung, M., Lambert, J.H., Mosenthai, A. 2004. A risk-based approach to setting priorities in protecting bridges against terrorist attacks. Risk Anal. 24(4):963–984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    McNeil, F. 2000. Making Sense of Environmental Security. North-South Agenda. Paper. Thirty-Nine. http://www.miami.edu/nsc/publications/pub-ap-pdf/39AP.pdfGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Monosson, E. 2005. Chemical mixtures: considering the evolution of toxicology and chemical assessment. Environ Health Perspect. 113(4):383–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Paustenbach, D.J. 1989. Important recent advances in the practice of health risk assessment: implications for the 1990s. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 10(3):204–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pavlin, J.A. 2005 Medical surveillance for biological terrorism agents. Hum Ecol Risk Assess. 11:525–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rowe, W.D. 1988. An Anatomy of Risk. Robert E. Krieger Publishing Co., Malabar, FL.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Russom, C.L. 2002. Mining environmental toxicology information: web resources. Toxicology. 173(1–2):75–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schwela, D. and Häkkinen, P.J. 2004. Human exposure assessment resources on the World Wide Web. Toxicology. 198(1–3):169–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Swatuk, L.A. 2004. Environmental security in practice: Transboundary natural resources management in Southern Africa. Presentation in Section 31 of the Pan-European Conference on International Relations, The Hague, 9–11 September.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    United States Department of Homeland Security (USDHS). 2003. Vulnerability Assessment Methodologies Report. Phase I Final Report. Office for Domestic Preparedness, Washington, D.C. July.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1996. Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act, Section 112(r)(7); List of Regulated Substances and Thresholds for Accidental Release Prevention, Stay of Effectiveness; and Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under Section 112(r)(7) of the Clean Air Act as Amended, Guidelines; Final Rules and Notice. Federal Register 61(120):31667–31720. 20 June.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wenning, R.J., Sorensen, M., Magar, V. 2005. Importance of implementation and residual risk analyses in sediment remediation. Integ Environ Assess Manage. 2(1):in press.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wexler, P. 2004. The U.S. National Library of Medicine’s Toxicology and Environmental Health Information Program. Toxicology. 20:198(1–3):161–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zaidi, M. 2005. Risk assessment in detecting and preventing of terrorist attacks in harbors and coastal areas. In: Linkov, L, Kiker, G., eds. Environmental Security and Risk Assessment. Kluwer Academic Publishers (this volume).Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    American Shipping Bureau (ABS). 2000. Guidance Notes on Risk Assessment Applications for the Marine and Offshore Oil and Gas Industries. Houston, TX: ABS Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. J. Wenning
    • 1
  • S. Della Sala
    • 2
  • V. Magar
    • 3
  1. 1.ENVIRON International CorporationEmeryvilleUSA
  2. 2.Autorita Portuale di Venezia (Venice Port Authority)VeniceItaly
  3. 3.ENVIRON International CorporationChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations