Enhanced recreational opportunities at U.S. DOE sites: Economic evaluation of an alternative land‐use scenario at the Savannah river site

Solitare, Laura; Lowrie, Karen; Frisch, Michael; Greenberg, Michael; Noah, J. Christopher; Burger, Joanna

doi:10.1002/ffej.3330100407

Cited by 8 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Burger et al, 1999, 2003, 2004a,b, 2005, 2006a,b, 2007a,b; Solitare et al, 2000; Snodgrass et al, 2000; Salazar et al, 2003; Gochfeld et al, 2006; Gochfeld and Mohr, 2007; see also www.CRESP.org), on the work of others at DOE sites (e.g. Malone, 1990; Kunreuther et al, 1990; Brown, 1998; Dale and Parr, 1997; Crowley and Ahearne, 2002; Greenberg et al, 2003a,b, 2005a,b; Whicker et al, 2004; Macfarlane and Ewing, 2006), and on DOE documents (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Regulatory requirements and tools for environmental assessment of hazardous wastes: Understanding tribal and stakeholder concerns using Department of Energy sites

Burger¹,

Powers²,

Gochfeld³

2010

Journal of Environmental Management

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many US governmental and Tribal Nation agencies, as well as state and local entities, deal with hazardous wastes within regulatory frameworks that require specific environmental assessments. In this paper we use Department of Energy (DOE) sites as examples to examine the relationship between regulatory requirements and environmental assessments for hazardous waste sites and give special attention to how assessment tools differ. We consider federal laws associated with environmental protection include the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), as well as regulations promulgated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Tribal Nations and state agencies. These regulatory regimes require different types of environmental assessments and remedial investigations, dose assessments and contaminant pathways. The DOE case studies illustrate the following points: 1) there is often understandable confusion about what regulatory requirements apply to the site resources, and what environmental assessments are required by each, 2) the messages sent on site safety issued by different regulatory agencies are sometimes contradictory or confusing (e.g. Oak Ridge Reservation), 3) the regulatory frameworks being used to examine the same question can be different, leading to different conclusions (e.g. Brookhaven National Laboratory), 4) computer models used in support of groundwater models or risk assessments are not necessarily successful in convincing Native Americans and others that there is no possibility of risk from contaminants (e.g. Amchitka Island), 5) when given the opportunity to choose between relying on a screening risk assessments or waiting for a full site-specific analysis of contaminants in biota, the screening risk assessment option is rarely selected (e.g. Amchitka, Hanford Site), and finally, 6) there needs to be agreement on whether there has been adequate characterization to support the risk assessment (e.g. Hanford). The assessments need to be transparent and to accommodate different opinions about the relationship between characterizations and risk assessments. This paper illustrates how many of the problems at DOE sites, and potentially at other sites in the U.S. and elsewhere, derive from a lack of either understanding of, or consensus about, the regulatory process, including the timing and types of required characterizations and data in support of site characterizations and risk assessments.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Regulatory requirements and tools for environmental assessment of hazardous wastes: Understanding tribal and stakeholder concerns using Department of Energy sites

Burger¹,

Powers²,

Gochfeld³

2010

Journal of Environmental Management

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similarly, many brownfields within urban and suburban areas are in the process of being converted to productive uses (Simmons, 1998;Powers et al, 2000;Greenberg et al, 1997Greenberg et al, , 2001aGreenberg et al, , 2001bMiller et al, 2001). Notably, some of the larger federally owned contaminated sites also contain land that is clean, or is lightly CONCEPTUAL SITE MODELS FOR EVALUATING ECOLOGICAL HEALTH 1219 contaminated, as well as areas currently used for recreational, agricultural, or industrial purposes (Greenberg et al, 1997;Solitare et al, 2000;Burger, 2000aBurger, , 2000bCarletta et al, 2004;Burger et al, 2004). While various agencies and stakeholders argue about how contaminated lands should be used, there is little disagreement about the importance of restoring damaged lands (Cairns, 1989;Harwell & Kelly, 1990;Cairns et al, 1992).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Conceptual Site Models as a Tool in Evaluating Ecological Health: The Case of the Department of Energy'S Amchitka Island Nuclear Test Site

Burger

Mayer

Greenberg

et al. 2006

Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Managers of contaminated sites are faced with options ranging from monitoring natural attenuation to complete removal of contaminants to meet residential health standards. Conceptual site models (CSMs) are one tool used by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and other environmental managers to understand, track, help with decisions, and communicate with the public about the risk from contamination. CSMs are simplified graphical representations of the sources, releases, transport and exposure pathways, and receptors, along with possible barriers to interdict pathways and reduce exposure. In this article, three CSMs are created using Amchitka Island, where the remaining contamination is from underground nuclear test shot cavities containing large quantities of numerous radionuclides in various physical and chemical forms: (1) a typical underground nuclear test shot CSM (modeled after other sites), (2) an expanded CSM with more complex receptors, and (3) a regional CSM that takes into account contaminant pathways from sources other than Amchitka. The objective was to expand the CSM used by DOE to be more responsive to different types of receptors. Amchitka Island differs from other DOE test shot sites because it is surrounded by a marine environment that is highly productive and has a high biodiversity, and the source of contamination is underground, not on the surface. The surrounding waters of the Bering Sea and North Pacific Ocean are heavily exploited by commercial fisheries and provide the United States and other countries with a significant proportion of its seafood. It is proposed that the CSMs on Amchitka Island should focus more on the pathways of exposure and critical receptors, rather than sources and blocks. Further, CSMs should be incorporated within a larger regional model because of the potentially rapid transport within ocean ecosystems. The large number of migratory or highly mobile species that pass by Amchitka provide the potential for a direct pathway to the local human population, known as Aleut, and commercial fisheries, which are remote from the island itself. The exposure matrix for receptors requires expansion for the Amchitka Island ecosystem because of the valuable marine and seafood resources in the region. CSMs with an expanded exposure/receptor matrix can be used effectively to clarify the conceptualization of the problem for scientists, regulators, and the general public.

show abstract

Assessing Ecological Resources for Remediation and Future Land Uses on Contaminated Lands

Burger

Carletta

Lowrie

et al. 2004

Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increasingly, the public and governmental agencies are concerned about remediating and reclaiming contaminated sites. Understanding the ecological resources on-site and valuing those resources in terms of future uses is important for determining suitable future land uses. In this article, we suggest the major categories of natural resource information required by managers, policy makers, and the general public for making initial future land-use determinations. We then use a dataset of 25 Department of Energy (DOE) sites slated for remediation to explore whether such data are readily available and whether the data can be used to assess natural resource value. Although information is available for almost all sites on federally endangered and threatened species, this information is less available for state-listed species. Biodiversity information is available only for some sites for birds ( N = 17), mammals ( N = 15), reptiles ( N = 14), amphibians ( N = 13), and plants ( N = 11) and is almost nonexistent for invertebrates ( N = 2). Some information is available for invasive species ( N = 9). The number of available habitats is directly related to total acres and nonindustrial acres. Biodiversity of birds, mammals, and reptiles (but not amphibians) is directly related to both total acres and total nonindustrial acres of sites. These data suggest that even over a wide geographical area (from eastern to western United States), biodiversity relates to habitat size and number of habitats available. This information will be useful not only to DOE managers but also to natural resource trustees, ecologists, state and federal regulators, and the general public in the discourse over future uses of these lands.

show abstract

Enhanced recreational opportunities at U.S. DOE sites: Economic evaluation of an alternative land‐use scenario at the Savannah river site

Abstract: The sites in our nation's nuclear weapons complex contain over 4

Cited by 8 publications

References 12 publications

Regulatory requirements and tools for environmental assessment of hazardous wastes: Understanding tribal and stakeholder concerns using Department of Energy sites

Regulatory requirements and tools for environmental assessment of hazardous wastes: Understanding tribal and stakeholder concerns using Department of Energy sites

Conceptual Site Models as a Tool in Evaluating Ecological Health: The Case of the Department of Energy'S Amchitka Island Nuclear Test Site

Assessing Ecological Resources for Remediation and Future Land Uses on Contaminated Lands

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About