Regional economic benefits of environmental management at the US Department of Energy's major nuclear weapons sites

We examined site-specific advisory board (SSAB) INTRODUCTIONRemediation and other environmental management projects (REMPs) are monitored by responsible parties, government agencies, and sometimes by those who live and work nearby. Few REMPs draw the attention of the media and have citizen advisory panels. Those that do attract the local media and have citizen advisory panels are major facilities operated and/or managed by the Department of Energy (US DOE), Department of Defense, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (Superfund sites), and, less frequently, states and local governments (brownfield and selected Superfund sites).The US DOE has been remediating and has closed scores of the smaller sites. This article focuses on US DOE REMPs that are sufficiently newsworthy and of concern to warrant media attention and have had site-specific advisory boards (SSABs). Over 50 years of nuclear weapons and energy production, development, and testing has resulted in the accumulation of nuclear and chemical hazardous waste and materials stored around the

Section: Media Coveragementioning

confidence: 99%

Citizen board issues and local newspaper coverage of risk, remediation, and environmental management: Six U.S. nuclear weapons facilities

Greenberg

Lowrie

Hollander

et al. 2008

“…Protecting ecological resources or ecosystem health was not initially part of the process, even though DOE lands were extensive and ecologically valuable. Initial cost estimates for cleanup were astronomical (Frisch et al, 1998), worker health and safety risks were great, and suitable technologies for safe and permanent-not to mention cost-effective-remediation were not available.Developing technologies for environmental cleanup emerged as one of DOE's top priorities (DOE, 1999). Since 1994, EM's budget has averaged $6 billion a year in constant 1992 dollars (DOD, 2001;Frisch et al, 1998); however, much of this is expended on maintaining failing containers and structures rather than on definitive remediation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Initial cost estimates for cleanup were astronomical (Frisch et al, 1998), worker health and safety risks were great, and suitable technologies for safe and permanent-not to mention cost-effective-remediation were not available.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A framework for analysis of contamination on human and ecological receptors at DOE hazardous waste site buffer lands

Burger

2007

This article discusses a framework and tools for evaluating ecological resources and the effects of cleanup on hazardous waste sites, particularly those with ecological buffer lands. Environmental professionals are faced with assessing the risks of contamination to humans and ecological receptors (organisms and ecosystems) at hazardous waste sites. While exposure assessment has focused largely on human receptors, environmental managers have recently taken a broader view, recognizing the intrinsic value and aesthetic importance of ecological resources and services, and of including a range of stakeholders in remediation decisions. The assessment process involves understanding exposure pathways from source to receptor, and determining how best to interdict these pathways. Environmental characterization and exposure assessment, indicator and biomarker identification, and biomonitoring and surveillance are the major components of ecological assessments. Using the Department of Energy as a case study, this article offers a framework for ecological exposure assessment, recognizing that humans are important components of ecosystems and, like other biota, are exposed to contaminants that move through environmental media. O c 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. INTRODUCTIONIncreasingly, the public has become concerned about environmental contamination from industrial, utility, urban, and agricultural sources. Governmental agencies and private industries that own contaminated lands face the often costly burden of remediating these lands to reduce current or future risk and to render the land usable. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is faced with the task of cleaning up contamination left from the Cold War and the production of nuclear weapons. This daunting task involves some 113 sites in 34 states that contain chemical and radiological wastes (Crowley & Ahearne, 2002; DOE, 2001). DOE and other federal agencies are relinquishing some land that is no longer required for the agency's mission to other uses, and protecting the ecological resources on others. Many hazardous waste facilities have extensive buffer lands that hold important ecological resources. For example, approximately 79 percent of DOE land has been undisturbed for over 50 years because it served to buffer the nuclear production facilities 71A Framework for Analysis of Contamination on Human and Ecological Receptors at DOE Hazardous Waste Site Buffer Lands (DOE, 2001). The approaches and tools needed to examine the human and ecological risks, particularly on buffer lands, are varied and range from qualitative assessments to sophisticated geographical information system (GIS) models with predictive value.The objectives of this article are (1) to present the context for incorporating ecosystem exposure and ecological risk into future land-use planning, (2) to review tools and approaches needed to select appropriate future land uses, and (3) to weigh options at DOE sites for important buffer lands. Although human health risk considerations (both public and occupati...

“…Significant sums of money have been spent on evaluating the waste inventory, on refurbishing leaking waste containers, and on demolishing some buildings, but the actual cleanup task has been slow, partly because options for moving and ultimately disposing of container contents, soil, and sludges, especially those that contain long-lived radionuclides, are few. Since 1994, EM's budget has averaged $6 billion a year in constant 1992 dollars (Frisch et al, 1998;Greenberg et al, 2003b). This is more than ten times the annual amount collected from industries for Superfund under CERCLA (US EPA, 2003 3 National Research Council "red book" (NRC, 1983).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Approaches for assessing hazards and risks to workers and the public from contaminated land

Gochfeld

Burger

Friedlander

et al. 2007

Many public agencies and private entities are faced with assessing the risks to humans from contamination on their lands. The United States Department of Energy (US DOE) and Department of Defense are responsible for large holdings of contaminated land and face a long-term and costly challenge to assure sustainable protectiveness. With increasing interest in the conversion of brownfields to productive uses, many former industrial properties must also be assessed to determine compatible future land uses. In the United States, many cleanup plans or actions are based on the Comprehensive Environmental Responsibility, Compensation, and Liability Act, which provides important but incomplete coverage of these issues, although many applications have tried to involve stakeholders at multiple steps. Where there is the potential for exposure to workers, the public, and the environment from either cleanup or leaving residual contamination in place, there is a need for a more comprehensive approach to evaluate and balance the present and future risk(s) from existing contamination, from remediation actions, as well as from postremediation residual contamination.This article focuses on the US DOE, the agency with the largest hazardous waste remediation task in the world. Presented is a framework extending from preliminary assessment, risk assessment and balancing, epidemiology, monitoring, communication, and stakeholder involvement useful for assessing risk to workers and site neighbors. Provided are examples of those who eat fish, meat, or fruit from contaminated habitats. The US DOE's contaminated sites are unique in a number of ways:(1) huge physical footprint size, (2) types of waste (mixed radiation/chemical), and (3) quantities of waste. Proposed future land uses provide goals for remediation, but since some contamination is of a type or magnitude that cannot be cleaned up with existing technology, this in turn constrains future land use options, requiring an iterative approach. The risk approaches must fit a range of future land uses and end-states from leave-in-place to complete cleanup. This will include not only traditional risk methodologies, but also the assessment and surveillance necessary for stewards for long-term monitoring of risk from historic and future exposure to maintain sustainable protective- 29Approaches for Assessing Hazards and Risks to Workers and the Public from Contaminated Land entities to focus on realistic remediation goals constrained by technologic feasibility and costs as well as future land uses and values. At the end of the Cold War in 1989, the United States Department of Energy (US DOE) faced the daunting task of remediating chemical and radioactive waste from weapons production, storage, and testing (US DOE, 1996a). Contaminated soil, lakes, rivers, buildings, tanks, drums, and other containers in various states of repair require study and remediation-or at least containment and maintenance-at great cost (US DOE, 1995). There are at least 100 US DOE waste sites that cannot be cleaned ...