Hazard Ranking Methodology for Assessing Health Impacts of Unconventional Natural Gas Development and Production: The Maryland Case Study
Hazard Ranking Methodology for Assessing Health Impacts of Unconventional Natural Gas Development and Production: The Maryland Case Study
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pone.0145368
复制
发表时间：
2016-01-04
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Sapkota, Amir
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Boyle, Meleah D.;Payne-Sturges, Devon C.;Sapkota, Amir
非常规天然气开发和生产（UNGDP）的增长速度超过了对该过程潜在健康影响的研究。马里兰州马塞勒斯页岩公共卫生研究的目的是向马里兰州马塞勒斯页岩安全钻井倡议咨询委员会、州立法者和州长通报与UNGDP相关的潜在公共卫生影响，以便他们能够做出考虑马里兰人健康和福祉的明智决定。在本文中，我们描述了一个影响评估和危害排名的方法，我们用来评估潜在的公共卫生影响的8个危险与UNGDP的过程。危害等级包括七个指标：1）脆弱人群（如5岁以下儿童、65岁以上的个人、地面所有者）的存在，2）接触持续时间，3）接触频率，4）健康影响的可能性，5）健康影响的幅度/严重程度，6）地理范围，7）挫折的有效性。通过颜色编码的排名系统（低、中等高和高）确定总体公共卫生问题，该排名系统是根据每种危害的评分总和生成的。我们提供了三个说明性的例子，应用我们的方法，空气质量和医疗保健基础设施被列为高度关注和水质被列为中度高度关注。危险等级是一个有价值的工具，使我们能够系统地评估每一种危险，并提供建议，以尽量减少危险。
The recent growth of unconventional natural gas development and production (UNGDP) has outpaced research on the potential health impacts associated with the process. The Maryland Marcellus Shale Public Health Study was conducted to inform the Maryland Marcellus Shale Safe Drilling Initiative Advisory Commission, State legislators and the Governor about potential public health impacts associated with UNGDP so they could make an informed decision that considers the health and well-being of Marylanders. In this paper, we describe an impact assessment and hazard ranking methodology we used to assess the potential public health impacts for eight hazards associated with the UNGDP process. The hazard ranking included seven metrics: 1) presence of vulnerable populations (e.g. children under the age of 5, individuals over the age of 65, surface owners), 2) duration of exposure, 3) frequency of exposure, 4) likelihood of health effects, 5) magnitude/severity of health effects, 6) geographic extent, and 7) effectiveness of setbacks. Overall public health concern was determined by a color-coded ranking system (low, moderately high, and high) that was generated based on the overall sum of the scores for each hazard. We provide three illustrative examples of applying our methodology for air quality and health care infrastructure which were ranked as high concern and for water quality which was ranked moderately high concern. The hazard ranking was a valuable tool that allowed us to systematically evaluate each of the hazards and provide recommendations to minimize the hazards.