E S & H news

ENVIRONMENTAL, SAFETY & HEALTH COMMUNICATION SPCIAL INTEREST GROUP

Volume 5 - number 1 Spring 1999

The Environmental, Safety & Health Special Interest Group promotes high standards of professional communication and provides a forum for information on environmental science and protection, occupational safety, and public health.

Editor's Request

Please send us the URLs for web sites of interest to environmental, health, and safety communicators. Send to the editor, Hillary Hart, at this address:

Department of Civil Engineering University of Texas Austin, Texas 78712 or hart@mail.utexas.edu

[top] / [back to SIG home]

And as the new Interim Manager, I guess I should introduce myself properly. I teach technical communication courses, graduate and undergraduate, within the College of Engineering here at the University of Texas in Austin, and I do research in environmental and risk communication. A few of those research projects are described on my web site, referenced above. Unfortunately, I cannot be at the Annual Conference this year, so I won't get to meet you all (until next year). But I have a good excuse: my own wedding on May 15.

I certainly plan on being a responsive Manager, and I really do want to know your ideas and comments on the SIG and on the newsletter, but I'm about to go non-communicative for a month and a half or so. If you contact me before the end of April, I'll reply promptly; otherwise I'll get back to you after June 9, when I'm back from a honeymoon.

[top] / [back to SIG home]

Like all organizations, STC SIGs try to get together and meet in person at least once a year. That meeting will happen this year at the Annual Conference in Cincinnati.

This meeting offers the first chance for SIG members to meet and greet and find each other at the Conference. We will discuss accomplishments of the past year, recruit folks for the transition to an expanded leadership team, and cover any topics of interest to the members present. This is a great chance to let your SIG leaders know what you would like the SIG to do for you and also how you can contribute to this entirely volunteer organization.

Gene Holden will chair this meeting - please contact her with any questions or pre-Conference comments:

[top] / [back to SIG home]

published by the ES&H Special Interest Group of the Society for Technical Communication

ES&H news is published twice a year by the Environmental, Safety, and Health Communication Special Interest Group (ES&H SIG) of the Society for Technical Communication. The ES&H SIG assists members in the effective communication of the broad aspects of environmental quality, and safety and health aspects of occupational and outdoor environments. The ES&H SIG allows technical communicators to stay current on developments in this growing area of the profession. The Society for Technical Communication assumes no responsibility for the statements and opinions advanced by the contributors to the Society's publications. Editorial views do not necessarily represent the official position of STC. © 1997 by the Society of Technical Communication.

[top] / [back to SIG home]

Are You Going to the. Annual Conference?

If you will be attending this year's conference in Cincinnati, and like to eat lunch with interesting colleagues, perhaps you would enjoy hosting a table for the Environmental Health and Safety SIG.

The SIG luncheons take place on Tuesday, May 18.

The duties are not onerous - just be there a little early (so you're first!), introduce yourself to everyone who comes and help them meet each other, and help ensure that conversation (preferably relevant to SIG-type issues) remains lively throughout the lunch.

If you would like to host a table, please contact Carla Salvador at carfax@idirect.com, or telephone (416) 463-8479.

[top] / [back to SIG home]

From Away

by David Adams - Past Manager, ES&H SIG

Since my term as SIG Manager has ended, Hillary Hart asked me to contribute a few words to the newsletter.

Every quarter when SIG managers prepare a report to the STC Board, we are asked to rate the overall health of the SIG. I have always found that difficult. When I stepped into that position this SIG was on the verge of folding, but in the last couple years the membership has tripled, more as a result of the abiding interest in our subject areas than any decisions I have made. For the last ten months or so, the associate managers have done most of the work of keeping things going. Finding those folks may be the best thing I was able to do for the SIG.

Nonetheless, we now have about 400 members, with most of the volunteer work of keeping the SIG going falling on about three or four people. I don't think that circumstance can continue indefinitely. We need more folks involved in order to carry out some of the activities and services that people expect. Web sites, career advice, more extended discussion of issues (such as the dialogue on risk in the last few newsletters), resource listings– all of these things require some level of commitment from members.

As I move to a new place (Michigan) and a new job (teaching technical writing in the Civil & Environmental Engineering Dept. at Michigan State) I hope to stay involved with the SIG. But having sat in the manager's seat, I know that the ultimate health of our group depends on greater involvement of the members. I hope a goodly number of those members will step forward soon, contact Hillary Hart, and lend your talents and expertise to the ES&H SIG.

[top] / [back to SIG home]

Editor's Note: This article marks the third in what has become an ongoing series on risk assessment and risk-based decision-making, each piece adding a new twist to the debate on how to decide what is acceptable environmental risk. This sort of intellectual ferment is exactly what this SIG encourages - only through continuing and impassioned discussion can we reach toward sustainable solutions. Keep the counter-arguments coming!

Safety and Risk -Who Decides?

by Robert S. Dixon

Introduction

In the Spring 1997 issue of ES&H News, an article by P. Montague, originally published in Rachel's Environment and Health Weekly, severely criticized risk assessment in decision making as practised today. This elicited a vigorous defence of risk assessment by J.E. Till, J.R. Rocco and L.H. Wilson in the fall 1997 issue of ES&H News. Both articles contain statements and ideas that are worthy of discussion.

Risk assessment is a vital part of the decision-making process, whether we are dealing with one alternative or several. However, it may not be the only important factor. Furthermore, the role and contribution of the public in the decision-making process continues to evolve and is not always clear. In the Spring of 1998, an interesting report relating to safety and risk was submitted by a federal environmental assessment panel in Canada. Some of the conclusions in the report may cause confusion and concern to environmental assessment practitioners, but may be acceptable to those who find fault with current practises.

Background

The subject of the report was a controversial one - the disposal of nuclear fuel waste, one form of which is used (spent) fuel from nuclear power reactors.

Many countries are currently developing methods to manage used nuclear fuel in a way that will protect the public far into the future. The most common method being explored is deep geological disposal. Unlike other countries with used nuclear fuel, Canada decided initially to investigate a disposal concept; no siting activities were to be undertaken until the disposal concept was found to be safe and acceptable. The concept proposed to dispose of nuclear fuel waste deep underground in the rock of the Canadian Shield. A number of engineered and natural barriers would protect society from both radioactive and chemically toxic contaminants in the waste. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and supporting documentation, which presents the evidence to support the safety and acceptability of the disposal concept, was submitted in October 1994 (Ref 1). It was based on more than 15 years of research and development by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and Ontario Hydro. The EIS concluded that public health and the natural environment would be protected throughout all stages of disposal - siting, construction, operation, decommissioning, closure and postclosure.

The Review Process

The environmental review was unusual in that it was a review of a concept rather than a specific project at a specific site, and no implementing agency was identified. It was conducted by an independent environmental assessment panel, appointed by the federal Minister of the Environment. The eight-member panel included representatives with technical and social science expertise, and was supported by a 15-member scientific advisory group.

The panel conducted an exhaustive review in the five provinces with a direct interest in nuclear energy, because of their involvement in nuclear electricity production, nuclear research or uranium mining. These provinces comprise over 70% of Canada's population. The panel report (Ref 2) was released to the public in March 1998.

The Panel Report

Among other things the panel examined the criteria by which the safety and acceptability of a concept for long-term waste management should be evaluated, and arrived at the following key conclusions:

• Broad public support is necessary in Canada to ensure the acceptability of a concept for managing nuclear fuel wastes.

• Safety is a key part, but only one part, of acceptability. Safety must be viewed from two complementary perspectives: technical and social.

After applying these criteria to the proposed disposal concept, the panel arrived at the following conclusions:

• From a technical perspective, safety of the proposed concept has been, on balance, adequately demonstrated for a conceptual stage of development, but from a social perspective it has not.

• As it stands, the proposed concept for deep geological disposal has not been demonstrated to have broad pubic support. The concept in its current form does not have the required level of acceptability to be adopted as Canada's approach for managing nuclear fuel wastes.

In another part of the report, the panel stated that, while non-nuclear wastes may pose a greater risk to human health and the environment than nuclear wastes, nuclear wastes may require more stringent standards if public concerns are to be met, because of the "dread factor."

Discussion

It is not the intent of this article to comment on the complete panel report; only the statements and conclusions that are most contentious are discussed here.

Safety is, indeed, only one part of acceptability, but the panel adds that safety must be viewed from both a technical and a social perspective. In making this statement, the panel has essentially redefined safety for the purpose of this assessment. Safety can normally be considered to be freedom from harm or danger, which is distinct from the perception of safety or risk. The debate on risk (as defined by experts) and risk perception is ongoing. The public's perception of and attitudes towards safety and risk, which are often based on its values, experience and risk-benefit considerations, are extremely important. This aspect is normally covered by the word "acceptability", in that society, and the individuals within it, can and do accept or reject activities irrespective of the risk assigned to them by experts. The panel has added another dimension to the debate by inferring that additional or different evidence may be required to demonstrate safety from a social perspective than that required to demonstrate safety from a technical perspective. In effect, this leads to some overlap between safety and acceptability, and may make public opinion the last word on both. This could be a confusing precedent for future safety assessments and risk analyses.

Having defined the general public as a major stakeholder during the conceptual stage, the panel states that the concept has not been demonstrated to have broad public support and therefore does not have the required level of acceptability to be adopted by Canada. This level of acceptability, however, does not appear to have been proved or disproved. In an attempt to measure public support, the review was carried out in provinces measure public support, the review was carried out in provinces containing more than 70% of Canada's population. Nevertheless, the conclusion appears to be based largely on the submissions to the panel, which were made primarily by pro- or anti-nuclear advocates. The panel recognized the difficulty of determining whether participants in hearings were representative of the general public, and of gauging the extent of support or opposition to the concept. The panel also stated that an appropriate process for determining the acceptability of the concept has not been developed, yet it made a definitive statement about public acceptability. Assessment of public support (or opposition) and acceptability is difficult, and there may be a need for more clarity and, perhaps, specific requirements and standards when addressing this issue.

The panel has suggested that nuclear safety may require more stringent standards than other industries because of the so-called dread factor. Application of different standards would add confusion to the science of risk analysis and lead to inconsistencies in safety assessments. In addition, it may lead to unwarranted time and human and financial resources being devoted to achieving minor incremental increases in safety, resources which could be used more effectively in decreasing the risks associated with other activities. Furthermore, more stringent standards are not likely to affect the dread factor, if it exists. Changes in radiation exposure standards appear to have had little effect on public perception and attitudes.

Conclusions

In its review and assessment of the proposed concept for the disposal of Canada's nuclear fuel waste, the review panel has arrived at conclusions that could seriously affect our understanding and assessment of safety and risk. These conclusions should be thoroughly analysed and debated before they are used as precedents for future reviews. The panel's conclusions also point to the need for more clarity and definition when attempting to assess public support and acceptability.

References

1. Environmental Impact Statement on the Concept for Disposal of Canada's Nuclear Fuel Waste, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Report AECL-10711, COG-93-1, Chalk River, Ontario, September 1994.

2. Report of the Nuclear Fuel Waste Management and Disposal Concept Environmental Assessment Panel, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Public Works and Government Services Canada, Ottawa, February 1998.

About the author Robert S. Dixon, Ph.D., President, Parallax Communications, is a communications consultant specializing in science writing, editing and research. He has extensive research and management experience in the nuclear industry, and is a former member of Canada's Nuclear Fuel Waste Management Program communications team.

[top] / [back to SIG home]

Report from the Health Communication Front

by Sherri Bowen, Associate Manager for Science Communication

Here's what's happening lately in the world of health, medical, and science writing:

The Council of Biology Editors (CBE), which is about to change its name to the Council of Science Editors (to reflect its ever-diversifying membership), will have its annual meeting May 21-25, 1999 at the Queen Elizabeth Hotel in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. In conjunction with this conference, the CBE's Authorship Task Force will be meeting. You may recall that I previously wrote in this newsletter about the renewed controversies and discussions about scientific/medical journal article authorship and about proposed changes in journal authorship guidelines. To recap briefly, after decades of "nonconformance" to or "abuses" of standard authorship guidelines, including guest, gift, and ghost authorship, a movement has begun calling for a "contributorship" system, where all contributors would list exactly what they did in the research and in the preparation of the paper. This would be somewhat similar to the credits you see at the movies, and yes, there would be plans to publish all contributor names and descriptions of their respective contributions.

After a CBE-sponsored retreat on authorship issues in February 1998, the task force was formed to further explore these issues and controversies. CBE's website, www.cbe.org, has a link to the Authorship Task Force, which now contains a forum setup, so that you can participate in discussions about journal article authorship. The website also contains information on the upcoming annual meeting and an interesting link (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/318/7177/DC1) to the British Medical Journal's compilation of responses and articles condemning the firing of George Lundberg, M.D. as the editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association. Lundberg was apparently fired for planning to publish an article reporting an 8-year old study of college students' beliefs about oral sex, which was newly relevant because of President Clinton's impeachment proceedings. The survey, which was apparently due to be published in the 20 January 1999 issue, found that 59% of student did not believe that oral sex constituted "having sex." The AMA's position was that Lundberg was fired for "inappropriately and inexcusably interjecting JAMA into a major political debate that has nothing to do with science or medicine." There has been an outcry in the medical publishing community that this action constituted egregious and dangerous censorship. What do you think? Check it out!

The annual meeting of the Board of Editors in the Life Sciences (BELS) will also be meeting in conjunction with the CBE meeting (on May 22 in Montreal). BELS was founded in 1991 to evaluate the proficiency of manuscript editors in the life sciences and to award credentials similar to those obtainable in other professions. This is one of the few certifications you can achieve in the scientific/medical writing profession and is mostly geared toward proficiency in editing. As explained in their website (www.bels.org), BELS administers two examinations--one for certification and one for diplomate status. The examinations, written by senior life-science editors assisted by testing experts, focus on the principles and practices of scientific editing in English. Candidates who pass the first examination are designated Editors in the Life Sciences and may use the initials ELS after their names. Those who then demonstrate more advanced mastery by passing the second examination are designated Diplomate Editors and may use ELS(D) after their names. I took the examination (which was quite difficult) shortly after it was first offered and passed. I'm still explaining to people what ELS stands for, and I have very mixed feelings about certification programs in general (see the April 1998 issue of STC's InterCom for my letter to STC about this and for other responses on possible certification of STC members).

Certification of medical writers was also discussed in a paper presentation I attended at the annual meeting of the American Medical Writers Association in October 1998. As you can imagine, there are many difficulties in establishing a certification program, not the least of which are determining what should be tested/certified and the liability of granting, not granting, and maintaining or policing certification (what if someone sues because you did not grant them certification or because you had to take away their certification–and how would you defend your reasons or policies behind either of those scenarios?) I'd be interested in hearing your feelings on certification programs. What would STC certify if it could? Undoubtedly, STC members are very diverse in their job assignments. The members of this SIG might have difficulty in passing an exam geared toward writers of computer software documentation (unless that is what you do!). I could not pass an exam that dealt with how to write a safety regulation or an environmental impact statement.

The American Medical Writers Association (AMWA) meeting in October offered its usual slate of curriculum workshops as well as some new ones, as it does every year. I took the Advanced Grammar class, which was new this year. Let me assure you, there are still many things we can learn about grammar! For more information on AMWA's curriculum program, visit their website at www.amwa.org. I am slightly biased (being president-elect of the Southwest Chapter of AMWA), but AMWA offers some of the best continuing education for science and medical writers. Luckily, AMWA's course offerings are not limited to those at the annual meeting; regional meetings with workshop courses are presented throughout the year at various locations throughout the country. The next annual conference meeting will be October 27-30, 1999 in Philadelphia.

For more information on any of these organizations, please feel free to contact me by e-mail at sbowen@austin.rr.com.

[top] / [back to SIG home]

Editor's Note: Carla Salvador, the SlGs Associate Manager for Safety, sent in this brief description of a self-instigated R&D project that she and several other independent contractors have begun developing. She asks that you contact her if their idea interests you. This is not in any way a solicitation for funds.

Supplementing MSDSs

by Ray Kosan, Anne Monteath, Carla Salvador, Bruce Thomson

In many of the workplaces our clients serve, the workers have little formal education or do not read English easily. As a result, they cannot effectively use the material safety data sheets (MSDSs) for the chemicals they are working with.

We (the authors) think we have found a way to present the information needed to handle, store, use and dispose of chemicals very simply and effectively. It involves a relatively new kind of computer program called an expert system, which questions the user about the situation, then displays authoritative guidance for that situation.

As it happens, many of the workplaces are appropriate for the use of expert systems: they have both a limited number of chemicals to manage and computer terminals suitable for running an expert system.

We found it is not difficult to develop a small, extremely user-friendly expert system that any computer novice can then use to find out exactly what to do when confronted with any of a dozen or so common chemicals. Typically the computer asks five or six simple questions, and then displays the advice or procedure. These expert systems can also be put onto intranets and the internet for everyone to use.

Now we need to find a way to fund further development of this project and then implement a pilot. While each individual system is not difficult to create, it does require expertise in industrial hygiene, technical writing or editing using plain language, and the expert system software. In addition, we probably need a large number of expert systems, and we also need to develop and fund logistical support to ensure that a system is updated every time an MSDS changes.

If you have any suggestions for how we can expand our work, or any other advice for us, we'll be pleased to hear from you.

Contact Carla Salvador at carfax@idirect.com or tel. (416) 463-8479.

[top] / [back to SIG home]

Award-Winning Environmental Web Site

Check out "Envirofacts Warehouse, a website for which EPA won a 1998 information technology award: http://www.epa.gov/enviro/. The site maps environmental data about more than 700,000 sites that handle potentially dangerous chemicals and identifies their harmful substances.

[top] / [back to SIG home]