Environmental Risk Assessment: Hudson River - Case Study Example

Environmental Risk Assessment: Hudson River Name: Lecturer: Course: Date: Table of Contents Environmental Risk Assessment: Hudson River 1 Table of Contents 2 Introduction 3 Risk Assessment/ Evaluation 3 Risk reporting matrix 5 Importance to the final outcome of the project 7 Communication of the risks 9 Consultation and communication with the stakeholders 10 Ensuring the project team receives risk communication 10 Targeting stakeholders 11 Risk assessment training for the stakeholders 11 Conclusion and Recommendations 12 References 13 Introduction This paper presents a case analysis of dredging the Hudson River. The case study highlights the efforts to cleanup Hudson River. The cleanup follows uncontrolled discharge of PCBs into the river by General Electrical (GE). In particular, this paper views dredging in terms of its potential to affect water quality, including increased turbidity and reduced dissolution of oxygen within the water column. Based on risk identification process, three underlying risks are selected: PCB products are carcinogenic, river contamination and exposure to chronic disease by the surrounding population (Horn et al. 1979). The purpose of the risk identification in respect to dredging the Hudson River is to offer solution to what could possibly go wrong by assessing the likely shortfalls against expectations, monitoring the process, design and the test results. Risk Assessment/ Evaluation Kutzavitch (2010) defines risk assessment as a critical tool that presents a rational framework for evaluating the environmental effects of the risks. It seeks to balance the concerns of the stakeholders with scientific knowledge. It comprises a systematic approach for identifying and characterising the chemical, physical and biological risks to the humans and the ecosystem. For each risk assessment, the risk analysis and root cause identification methods are to be outlined. The potential hazards from the risks related to Hudson River cleanup include severe illnesses, including irreversible health implications, unfamiliar diseases, and contamination of the river and its estuaries. In this regards, risk assessment requires that attention be given to the most sever hazards, or which are most likely to happen, or those that have the potential to cause the worst environmental-related outcomes. From the Hudson River clean up case study, the perceived risk related to exposure to PCB products include: The PCB products are carcinogenic and will cause cancer to exposed human beings. This is likely in the event of (a) environmental concentration beyond the safe level, which will cause increased exposure to a larger population within the area. This will in turn cause an exacerbation of the adverse effects in the long run. Since the PCBs are proven to be carcinogenic, many people who will be exposed are likely to suffer. (b) The PCB products are also related to other health conditions such as thyroid disease, autoimmune disorders and skin diseases. Chronic exposure to the population may result to massive accumulation of the toxins inside the bodies of the affected. The chemicals have been linked with other diseases. (d) Contamination of the Hudson River and its estuaries is likely to increase the turbidity of the water affecting the aquatic life (McGraw-Hill Companies nd). Accumulation of the PCBs in the water may affect the aquatic life. Without any safety data on this ecosystem, there is a possibility that this accumulation may have negative effects on the aquatic life both physically and genetically through accumulation. In regards to the Hudson River cleanup case study, successful risk assessment provides many benefits. To the project members, having a distinct risk assessment within the workplace provides rational foundation for safe practices while implementing the project. To the citizens, it provides a succinct focus for assessing the protection of public welfare. For the regulators, in addition to other oversight agencies, it helps in monitoring compliance of the project and to the project managers, it provides targets for instituting exposure-prevention programs. Based on the present case scenario, the objective of this risk assessment is to determine the likelihood of the illnesses and hazards to the aquatic life. The assessment also comprises characterising the uncertainties intrinsic in the process of inferring risks. Risk reporting matrix Undesirable effects that are likely to affect the success of the programme schedule, performance and cost are identified and assessed based on their likelihood of occurrence and their consequences. The standard format for assessing and reporting the program risk assessment findings promotes an understanding of the risks of the programme at all stages of managing the environment at the Hudson River. The risk reporting matrix illustrated below is used in determining the degree of risks, identified in the clean-up projects. The risk levels for each of the root cause is reported as high (red), moderate (yellow) and low (green). Figure 1: Risk reporting matrix The potential of each root cause to happen is determined using specified criterion (Figure 3). For instance, if the root cause is approximated 50 percent probability of occurring, the resultant likelihood is Level 3. Figure 2: Likelihood level Criteria On the other hand, the level and the nature of the effects for each risk are determined using criteria in Figure 2. A single consequence scale is not effective for all programs. Using a single consequence scale is not effective for the entire programs. Using the root cause with a 50-percent probability of occurrence, when a similar root cause has no effect on the cost of performance, but may lead to a small schedule slippage that may not affect a major milestone, then the corresponding consequence becomes Level 3 for the risk (Schedule risk). Risks Likelihood Effects Level Consequences Products are carcinogenic 2 Minimal or no consequence to the environment 1 Cancerous infections Contamination of the rivers increases the turbidity of the water 3 Moderate consequence with limited impact on environment 3 Risk to pelagic and benthic aquatic ecosystem Chronic disease exposure to the population 2 Minor consequence, can be tolerated with little or no impact on environment 2 Massive accumulation of toxins inside human bodies Figure 3: Ranking of the risks The results for the three identified risks are afterwards plotted on a single square on the risk reporting matrix. Since the level of the consequence and likelihood are both 2 and 3, the resultant schedule risk is indicated as “green” as illustrated below by a display method that integrates the risk title [(S) shows the risk as the schedule risk] and the risk causal factor. Figure 4: Risk analysis reporting From the risk matrix reporting (Figure 4), contamination of the rivers is the most likely risk, followed by exposure to chronic diseases and exposure to carcinogenic products. Importance to the final outcome of the project The key importance of the final project would be improving the environmental quality of the Hudson River and enhancing the benefits it provides to human and plant use. This should however be achieved using risk management process that takes an ecosystem approach to the Hudson River. Mitigating the three identified risks will ensure that the anticipated cumulative benefits are met. Using the ecosystem approach to managing the valley and the estuary will, for instance, ensuring that the interests of the future generations, as well as the continuation of the rich collection of animals, plants and habitats are taken into consideration. Concerted efforts to mitigate the risks will ensure improved ecosystem for the whole Hudson River watershed, such as the quality of water in the streams, tributaries, estuary and groundwater recharge regions. Persistent decline in the likely exposure to the contaminants are expected as sources are identified and the cleanup and the likely sources are protected using environmentally sound management measures. An educational program will also create a pro-active community that is also more aware (Wilson & McWhinnie 2013). Additionally, protecting the river’s scenic resources will ensure preserved sense of place and protection of the habitats. In regards to the company, the dredging project will also reduce GE’s long-term liability for redressing the PCB discharges. As indicated in the case study, since GE is implementing dredging, which is a remedy selected by EPA, there would be no additional enduring liability linked to remedying the PCB discharges. Indeed, resolving the three identified risks will resolve GE’s remedial liabilities linked to the river. As indicated in the case, it is possible that if the risks identified have serious consequences on the ecosystem, the EPA would consider the dredging project a liability. From the risk matrix report, however, the three identified risks have low likelihood or averagely 30%. This shows that the dredging project is protection of environmental and human health. On the other hand, the adverse effects may include altered environmental conditions. For instance, managing some species may trigger conditions that are unfavourable to certain conditions for other species. Further, optimal human use due to improved access and environmental conditions at the Hudson River may result to the negative implications on the managed and conserved resources. Similarly, increased human activity along the river would increase the likelihood of the introduction of invasive species. To mitigate these adverse effects, an appropriate action plan that incorporates a range of best available management technologies and practices is essential. Communication of the risks As stated by Kutzavitch (2010), risk assessments consist of complex studies that employ scientific approaches that although unfamiliar to most members of the public, the environmental issues have to be communicated to the public otherwise they could cause distrust. Hence, in order to increase the potential of the risk assessment to be accepted by the public, the stakeholders need to be informed of and to understand the risk assessment process. In the case of the Hudson River and GE’s remedial process of dredging, the chances of the risk assessment being considered credible by the public include (a) ensuring the project team receives risk communication, (b) targeting all effected stakeholder (c) encouraging public participation in the project and (d) ensuring that interested persons and interests bodies receive training in risk assessment. Consultation and communication with the stakeholders In order to ensure the participation of the citizens in the implementation phase of the projects, there is a need to communicate to the stakeholders on the severity of the risks and their expected roles in mitigating the risks. GE should therefore prepare a notice that invites public to consultations on the environmental management programme. The notice could also be circulated through various media outlets in sufficient time to ensure the public gathers insight into the project and reviews the environmental management plan ahead of the consultation meeting. The notice should also proclaim the opportunity of the public to review it along with the project managers. It should also be sent to non-governmental organizations that are concerned with environmental protection near the Hudson River. Ensuring the project team receives risk communication Since sections of the stakeholders may wish to receive the information on the risks through the radio, television and newspaper, the project team should use integrative media to ensure coverage of the project. The project team may choose to use press releases that should be circulated to the media. The press releases can be followed up using paid advertisement. These paid advertisements may as well be used to publicise upcoming stakeholder training, solicit for comments from the public and provide critical information on the risks. The advertisement can be through the local newspapers, radio, and television. Additionally, television and radio talk shows can be leveraged to pass critical information on the risks to the community members. As an alternative, fact sheets on the risks should be produced and distributed. It is an effective way of passing detailed information through the newspapers, websites, or the magazine. In particular, they may be used to describe the risk assessment processes for the environmental pollutants, the methods the health risks have been estimated and the ongoing risk mitigation processed. The internet is also a powerful tool that can be used for communication with the public on GE’s Hudson River remedial project for addressing risks and cleaning up the river. A microsite should be developed in GE’s website to offer public messages with risk assessment results, status reports, action plans and fact sheets. Targeting stakeholders The potentially affected stakeholders have to be identified and targeted with the risk information. The stakeholders should be identified along with their needs. In the case study, the key stakeholders include: Local business owners; Community leaders Community residents Government agencies, Residents living at close proximity to the Hudson River Surrounding health, safety and educational communities. Non-governmental organisations. Risk assessment training for the stakeholders Effective partnering with stakeholders is likely when they have knowledge of the basics of undertaking risk assessment and using the outcome of the project based on the risk management decisions (Lucas 2009). The basic risk assessment training in regards to the case study should be aimed at ensuring the participation of the stakeholders in mitigating the risks. Additionally, it should be designed to assist the interested stakeholders to understand the documents and discussions on risk assessment undertaken at the Hudson River. The training should place emphasis on mitigating the three identified risks, starting with the most severe. Conclusion and Recommendations The three identified risks include: PCB products are carcinogenic, river contamination and exposure to chronic disease by the surrounding population. Each of the three risks (falling within the Red, Yellow and Green zones in figure 3) will be monitored and controlled to ensure that their environmental impacts are reduced or prevented. The objective of the risk mitigation planning in regards to the case study is to offer a solution for a program approach that can address the potential unfavourable consequences. Among the more likely mitigations include avoidance of risk by (a) eliminating the consequences or the root cause, (b) transferring risks (c) controlling the consequence or the root cause and lastly, (d) ignoring the risk level and continuing with the current cleanup program. For each of the three risks, one of the below four approaches (avoid, mitigate, transfer and accept) will be selected. For the three risks, risk mitigation is selected. The activities undertake as part of the dredging project should be implemented in the manners that reduce any adverse environmental impacts, as much as possible. The objective of the project is to attain substantially positive outcome for Hudson River and its surrounding uplands. To make sure that negative implications are reduced, several precautions need to be taken into perspective. The project leaders need to synchronize fieldwork and monitor activities at the project to reduce duplication of effort. Public education should be provided to promote long-term support of the project and to promote citizen stewardship and care for the resources related to the project. Training needs to be provided to the surrounding communities to promote best management practices that ensure conservation, as well as strengthen additional voluntary measures. The knowledge and experience of partnering agencies need to be invoked to address potential concerns during the planning. References Horn, E, Hetling, L, Tofflemire, T, 1979, The problem of PCBs in the Hudson River system, Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 320, 591–609 Kutzavitch, K 2010, Change Management Issues and Risk Mitigation Strategies for the Enterprise, Mastech, Pittsburgh Lucas, K 2009, Effective Risk Management, Measurement,  Monitoring Monitoring  &&  Control Control Project Management Focus, viewed 15 Jan 2013, http://www.pmibaltimore.org/pmi/events/attachments/Effective-Risk_23-Feb-09_presentation_Columbia.pdf McGraw-Hill Companies nd, Environmental Case Study: Dredging the Hudson River. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc, viewed 28 Sep 2014, Sheehan, D & Pataki, G 2005, The Hudson River Estuary Program, Department of Environmental Conservation, New York Wilson, R & McWhinnie, A 2013, “Putting the “Community” Back in Community Risk Management of Persons Who Have Sexually Abused,” International Journal Of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy vol. 8 no. 3, 72-79 Read More