Shifting Priorities at the Department of Energy's Bomb Factories: Protecting Human and Ecological Health

Abstract

More than 50 years of research, development, manufacture, and testing of nuclear weapons at Department of Energy (DOE) sites has left a legacy of on-site contamination that often spreads to surrounding areas. Despite substantial cleanup budgets in the last decade, the DOE's top-to-bottom review team concluded that relatively little actual cleanup has been accomplished, although milestones have been met and work packages completed. Rather than solely use regulatory constraints to direct cleanup, many people have suggested that human and ecological health should guide long-term stewardship goals of DOE-managed sites. The main questions are how ecological and human health considerations should be applied in deciding the extent of cleanup that contaminated sites should receive and how near-term and longer run considerations of costs and benefits should be balanced as cleanup decisions are made. One effort to protect ecological integrity is the designation of the largest sites as National Environmental Research Parks (NERPs). Recently, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) suggested isolating and conserving DOE sites as a policy priority because of their rich ecological diversity. A more effective long-term stewardship approach for former nuclear weapons complex sites may emerge if the guiding principles are to (1) reduce risks to human and ecological health, (2) protect cultural traditions, and (3) lower short- and long-term cleanup and remediation costs. A "net benefits" perspective that takes both near- and longer-term costs and consequences into account can help illuminate the trade-offs between expensive cleanup in the near term and the need to assure long-term protection of human health, cultural values, and high levels of biodiversity and ecological integrity that currently exist at many DOE sites.

End-state land uses, sustainably protective systems, and risk management: A challenge for remediation and multigenerational stewardship

“…Following the precautionary principle, a decision to specify an obvious protective low-risk end state for land contaminated with nuclear and chemical wastes is to exclude all unnecessary personnel, leaving land fallow to pursue its own ecologic destiny while providing ecological services such as aquifer recharge (Burger et al, 2003a(Burger et al, , 2003b. A less restrictive end state is low-intensity ecological uses that include research, hunting, fishing, camping, or some…”

“…But a conservative land-use plan surrounded by a buffer zone may not be appropriate at many sites where the contaminated land is otherwise a valuable asset.Whatever the land-use choices, the responsible organization needs an unambiguous mechanism that ties its land-use choices to risk through a sustainably protective system that can be operated as long as it is needed, in perpetuity if necessary. Such a sustainable plan rests on a sound remediation and monitoring program and then requires both engineered systems and human operations.A sustainable system is particularly critical during a period when the current owners and managers of federal government property are evaluating all federal properties as assets and where in some case they are shrinking their footprint by turning over, easing, and selling sites to other federal agencies, states, local governments, and private organizations (Baxa, 2004;Bush, 2004 The goal of efficient asset management is challenging at sites where contamination by long-lived radiological and chemical agents is a legacy (Burger et al, 2003b. At these sites, it is incumbent on site managers; natural resource damage committees; other federal, state, and local government officials; and other stakeholders to understand the risk implications while assessing these assets, whether it leads to reducing the footprint, or, alternatively, to keeping the land but optimizing/modifying its potential uses, or plans for its management (for example, considering different remediation approaches).…”

Sustainable urban redevelopment and shrinking the federal government's footprint

“…These sites, we believe, are destined to become ecological preserves, such as DOE's National Environmental Research Parks (NERPs), in which a combination of natural ecological systems and research flourish. 20 Some parts of the land may be locally desirable, in which case the federal government will need to cede control of some parts of the footprint and retain other parts. The massive former nuclear weapons sites at Hanford, Idaho Falls, and Savannah River are the most obvious examples, but smaller sites such as the Rocky Flats facility near Denver are likely to be devoted to open-space uses, such as for migratory birds and endangered species, and with limited or no access for fishing, camping, hunting, and hiking.…”

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

“…Thus, an unexpected benefit of the secrecy and restricted access DOE maintained for over 50 years has been the protection of a wide range of ecological and cultural resources in these buffer areas around the industrial sites devoted to nuclear weapons production (DOE, 1994a). As human populations have increased and agricultural use intensified, some of these buffer zones have the highest biodiversity remaining in their regions, and should these sites be fragmented, potential losses in valuable ecosystems will be borne by the entire nation, but most especially by local residents (Burger, 2002;Burger et al, 2003). The U.S. Congress and the public expect federal facilities to be turned over to the people when they are no longer required.…”

“…Individual sites may use future land-use preferences to guide cleanup decisions (DOE, 1996a). The preservation of some of the lands as ecological preserves or for recreational uses has received considerable attention (Brown, 1998;Burger et al, 2003;V. H. Dale & Parr, 1997), yet the preservation of ecological data sets derived from the 50 years of unintended ecological protection has received little attention.…”