The need for environmental cleanup is influenced by (1) whether the released chemicals are found in air, soil or water; and, (2) if they have the potential to reach human or ecological receptors. However, regardless of the toxicity of a chemical no injury can occur unless there is exposure. Thus, when a chemical is released to the environment, an assessment has to be conducted to determine whether humans or animals have the potential to be exposed to potentially toxic substances.

If exposure if feasible, the magnitude of the exposure must be assessed in order to predict the magnitude of the risk. The determination of potential toxicity, magnitude of exposure and quantification of risks is known as Risk Assessment.

Benefits

For most environmental restoration projects, the most tangible benefit of a risk assessment is its ability to increase contaminant cleanup levels and hence reduce remediation costs. There are, however, other cost-saving advantages to using risk assessment in your project. For example, environmental cleanup costs can be reduced by:

• Eliminating from consideration areas that do not represent a risk.
• Prioritizing areas or sites for remediation. Resources can and should be dedicated to high-risk areas, while low risk areas should be remediated using low-cost technologies (i.g., natural attenuation).
• Closing low-risk sites with only minimal or no regulatory restrictions.
• Reducing remediation equipment inventory, rental fees, and down time.
• Immediately addressing areas of greatest concern, thereby preventing the spread of contamination.
• Reducing potential liabilities by targeting resources to those areas that actually represent a threat to human health and the environment.
• Reducing waste production and disposal costs.
• Maximizing land value after remediation by assuring owners or prospective buyers that the remediated site does not represent a risk to human health and the environment.
• Reducing data collection to only that which is required for proper evaluation of risks.
• Finding alternate corrective actions that can be used to reduce risk. Some of the alternate solutions may include alternate points of compliance, institutional controls, or natural attenuation.
• Reducing regulatory agency oversight and, possibly, litigation costs.
• Accelerating the regulatory agency approval and site closure process.
• Minimizing the potential for future corrective action or litigation.

In addition to these benefits, risk assessment can also be used to:

• Develop emergency contingency plans,
• Evaluate potential health risks associated with accidental releases,
• Develop public information packages,
• Request air emission source permits and variances,
• Comply with federal, state and local air toxics regulations, and
• Evaluate the applicability of Best Available Control Technology for your site(s).

To put it succinctly, a risk assessment can help you stretch your environmental dollar by demonstrating that you don't have to cleanup to 110 percent, you don't have to go the "extra mile" (i.e., dig down an extra 20 feet), and you don't have to finish it by yesterday.

Not all the benefits of a properly executed risk assessment can be quantified in terms of cost savings. A risk assessment can show that, in some cases:

• Corrective action can be more hazardous and carry a greater risk than no remediation.
• Active remediation is not necessary to achieve compliance.

Risk Communication

ETSI's risk assessments are designed to meet current federal, state and local risk assessment guidance and requirements. In addition, our risk assessments incorporate scientific advances in toxicology and environmental sciences. For this reason ETSI routinely produce technically sound documents that meet regulatory requirements and provide a strong negotiating position with regulatory agencies. ETSI risk assessments can also be written in a simplified format. These risk assessments can be used as risk communication tools that effectively communicate risk and risk-based strategies to management and the general public.

Under federal, and most state regulatory programs, environmental cleanups are required only if a contaminated site represents a current or future health risk. Risk may be defined as the probability and severity of loss. Loss may be economic, personal, societal or to well-being and the environment. In most cases, the risks to human health and the environment will determine the need and urgency for cleanup and site remediation.