Preferences for alternative risk management policies at the United States major nuclear weapons legacy sites

A survey of 1351 people who lived within 50 miles of one of six US Department of Energy nuclear weapon sites showed that the vast majority of residents prefer strong public health surveillance and land use controls. The sample was stratified so that the same number of responses was obtained at each site. The strongest correlates of wanting the DOE to restrict on-site activities and maintain and expand its surveillance programs were worries about DOE activities on the site, as well as how those activities could damage the off-site environment. Notably, the exceptions, that is, those who demanded less from the DOE and were not particularly worried about the DOE's activities, tended to live near the site, many worked there or knew people who did, and had high socio-economic status, and trusted the DOE. The findings are mostly, but not entirely, consistent with expectations drawn from the risk perception and organizational trust literatures. The challenge is how to establish a stewardship program that represents a consensus among state and local government, community advisory boards and the public that remediation can go on at the same time that some waste is managed on-site until suitable technologies can be safely deployed, which at some sites means 100 years or in perpetuity.     

Risk perception, future land use and stewardship: comparison of attitudes about Hanford Site and Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

With the ending of the Cold War, the Department of Energy (DOE) is evaluating mission, future land use and stewardship of departmental facilities. This paper compares the environmental concerns and future use preferences of 351 people interviewed at Lewiston, Idaho, about the Hanford Site and Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), two of DOE's largest sites. Although most subjects lived closer to Hanford than INEEL, most resided in the same state as INEEL. Therefore their economic interests might be more closely allied with INEEL, while their health concerns might be more related to Hanford. Few lived close enough to either site to be directly affected economically. We test the null hypotheses that there are no differences in environmental concerns and future land-use preferences as a function of DOE site, sex, age and education. When asked to list their major concerns about the sites, more people listed human health and safety, and environmental concerns about Hanford compared to INEEL. When asked to list their preferred future land uses, 49% of subjects did not have any for INEEL, whereas only 35% did not know for Hanford. The highest preferred land uses for both sites were as a National Environmental Research Park (NERP), and for camping, hunting, hiking, and fishing. Except for returning the land to the tribes and increased nuclear storage, subjects rated all future uses as more preferred at INEEL than Hanford. Taken together, these data suggest that the people interviewed know more about Hanford, are more concerned about Hanford, rate recreational uses and NERP as their highest preferred land use, and feel that INEEL is more suited for most land uses than Handford. Overall rankings for future land uses were remarkably similar between the sites, indicating that for these stakeholders, DOE lands should be preserved for research and recreation. These preferences should be taken into account when planning for long-term stewardship at these two DOE sites.     

Modeling Long-Term Risk to Environmental and Human Systems at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Scope and Findings from the Initial Model

The Groundwater Protection Project at the US Department of Energy Hanford Site in Washington State is currently developing the means to assess the cumulative impact to human and ecological health and the regional economy and cultures from radioactive and chemical waste that will remain at the Hanford Site after the site closes. This integrated system is known as the System Assessment Capability (SAC). The SAC Risk/Impact Module discussed in the article uses media- and time-specific concentrations of contaminants estimated by the transport models of the integrated system to project potential impacts on the ecology of the Columbia River corridor, the health of persons who might live in or use the corridor or the upland Hanford environment, the local economy, and cultural resources. Preliminary Monte Carlo realizations from the SAC modeling system demonstrate the feasibility of large-scale uncertainty analysis of the complex relationships in the environmental transport of contaminants on the one hand and ecological, human, cultural, and economic risk on the other. Initial impact results show very small long-term risks for the 10 radionuclides and chemicals evaluated. The analysis also helps determine science priorities to reduce uncertainty and suggests what actions matter to reduce risks.     

Monitoring the dispersal of contaminants by wildlife at nuclear weapons production and waste storage facilities

Professor of wildlife biology in the department of biological sciences, California State University. Dr K. Shawn Smallwood is a systems ecologist and may be contacted at 109 Luz Place, Davis, CA 95616, USA. Dr Jan Beyea is a physical scientist with Consulting in the Public Interest, 53 Clinton Street, Lambertville, NJ 08530, USA. The US Government produced and acquired approximately 111 t of plutonium in support of its nuclear weapons programme. Verified reports of the loss of nuclear material into the environment, including loss by animals, has raised questions regarding the monitoring programmes in place on the nuclear facilities. Given these concerns regarding the fate of stored nuclear waste, the authors conducted a review of the wildlife monitoring programme used at nuclear weapons and storage facilities by (1) reviewing the key facets of the monitoring used at the facilities, (2) evaluating published and unpublished data from the facilities and (3) incorporating data from personal site visits. The study concentrated on the Department of Energy's Hanford Reservation in rural south–central Washington and the Rocky Flats Plant in central Colorado. Based on the review, it is concluded that an improved and rigorous environmental surveillance and monitoring programme is needed at both locations. The site surveys identified frequent instances of intrusion into burial sites by animals, most of which had gone unreported by Hanford and Rocky Flats personnel. It was apparent that a significant source of potential contamination was not being adequately monitored at the nuclear waste sites. It is recommended that the development of a systematic, well-planned programme of monitoring animal intrusion on burial sites be considered, coupled with improved training for responsible personnel.     

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

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.     

Implications of environmental program planning for siting a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain,Nevada, USA

The US Department of Energy (DOE) plans to conduct site characterization studies at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, to determine if the location is a suitable site for a nuclear waste repository. In lieu of traditional environmental review in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the DOE is relying on an environmental assessment (EA) mandated by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 as the cornerstone of its environmental program for the Yucca Mountain Project. Because of statutory restrictions, the EA is not based on comprehensive baseline information. Neither does it address fundamentals of environmental analysis such as ecological integrity and assessment of cumulative impacts. Consequently, the present environmental program for Yucca Mountain reflects decisions made without complete information and integrated environmental review. The shortcomings of the program risk compromising the natural integrity of Yucca Mountain and invalidating future assessment of the ability of a nuclear waste repository located at the site to protect the environment. Significant improvements are needed in the repository siting program before it can serve as a model of how society can evaluate the long-term environmental consequences of advanced technologies, as has been suggested.     

The US’ Food and Drug Administration, Normativity of Risk Assessment, GMOs, and American Democracy

The process of risk assessment of biotechnologies, such as genetically modified organisms (GMOs), has normative dimensions. However, the US’ Food and Drug Administration (FDA) seems committed to the idea that such evaluations are objective. This essay makes the case that the agency’s regulatory approach should be changed such that the public is involved in deciding any ethical or social questions that might arise during risk assessment of GMOs. It is argued that, in the US, neither aggregative nor deliberative (representative) democracy ought to be used to make such determinations. Instead, participatory (deliberative) democracy should be the means by which members of the polity decide which normative concerns ought to underlie FDA’s assessment of GMOs. This paper uses a hypothetical case involving a new GM seed to make that argument.     

A national critical loads framework for atmospheric deposition effects assessment: I. Method summary

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with the assistance of the US Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is examining the utility of a critical loads approach for evaluating atmospheric pollutant effects on sensitive ecosystems. A critical load has been defined as, “a quantitative estimate of an exposure to one or more pollutants below which significant harmful effects on specified sensitive elements of the environment do not occur according to present knowledge.” Working in cooperation with the United Nations Economic Community for Europe’s (UN-ECE) Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP) Convention, the EPA has developed a flexible, six-step approach for setting critical loads for a range of ecosystem types. The framework is based on regional population characteristics of the ecosystem(s) of concern. The six steps of the approach are: (1) selection of ecosystem components, indicators, and characterization of the resource; (2) definition of functional subregions; (3) characterization of deposition within each of the subregions; (4) definition of an assessment end point; (5) selection and application of models; and (6) mapping projected ecosystem responses. The approach allows for variable ecosystem characteristics and data availability. Specific recognition of data and model uncertainties is an integral part of the process, and the use of multiple models to obtain ranges of critical loads estimates for each ecosystem component in a region is encouraged. Through this intercomparison process uncertainties in critical loads projections can be estimated. The research described in this article has been funded by the US Environmental Protection Agency. This document has been prepared at the EPA Environmental Research Laboratory in Corvallis, Oregon, through contract #68-C8-0006 with Man Tech Environmental Technology, Inc. It has been subjected to the agency’s peer and administrative review and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorse ment or recommendation for use.     

Exponential Growth, Animal Welfare, Environmental and Food Safety Impact: The Case of China’s Livestock Production

Developmental states are criticized for rapid “industrialization without enlightenment.” In the last 30 years, China’s breathtaking growth has been achieved at a high environmental and food safety cost. This article, utilizing a recent survey of China’s livestock industry, illustrates the initiating role of China’s developmental state in the exponential expansion of the country’s livestock production. The enthusiastic response of the livestock industry to the many state policy incentives has made China the world’s biggest animal farming nation. Shortage of meat and dairy supply is history. Yet, the Chinese government is facing new challenges of no less a threat to political stability. Production intensification has created a welfare crisis impacting the world’s biggest number of farm animals. The resulting food safety incidents are affecting consumer confidence and health. Untreated waste contributes to the nation’s environmental degradation. Developmental states may have a proud record of growth in the initial stage of industrialization. Their prospects for sustained development have long been questioned. China has come to an important juncture to march towards a sustained development.     

Introduction to the Biological Monitoring and Abatement Program

This paper provides an introduction to a long-term biological monitoring program and the Environmental Management special issue titled Long-term Biological Monitoring of an Impaired Stream: Implications for Environmental Management. The Biological Monitoring and Abatement Program, or BMAP, was implemented to assess biological impairment downstream of U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) facilities in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, beginning in 1985. Several of the unique aspects of the program include its long-term consistent sampling, a focus on evaluating the effectiveness of specific facility abatement and remedial actions, and the use of quantitative sampling protocols using a multidisciplinary approach. This paper describes the need and importance of long-term watershed-based biological monitoring strategies, in particular for addressing long-term stewardship goals at DOE sites, and provides a summary of the BMAP’s objectives, spatial and temporal extent, and overall focus. The primary components of the biological monitoring program for East Fork Poplar Creek in Oak Ridge, Tennessee are introduced, as are the additional 9 papers in this Environmental Management special issue.     

A national critical loads framework for atmospheric deposition effects assessment: IV. Model selection,applications, and critical loads mapping

The critical loads approach is emerging as an attractive means for evaluating the effects of atmospheric deposition on sensitive terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Various approaches are available for modeling ecosystem responses to deposition and for estimating critical load values. These approaches include empirical and statistical relationships, steady-state and simple process models, and integrated-effects models. For any given ecosystem, the most technically sophisticated approach will not necessarily be the most appropriate for all applications; identification of the most useful approach depends upon the degree of accuracy needed and upon data and computational requirements, biogeochemical processes being modeled, approaches used for representing model results on regional bases, and desired degree of spatial and temporal resolution. Different approaches are characterized by different levels of uncertainty. If the limitations of individual approaches are known, the user can determine whether an approach provides a reasonable basis for decision making. Several options, including point maps, grid maps, and ecoregional maps, are available for presenting model results in a regional context. These are discussed using hypothetical examples for choosing populations and damage limits. The research described in this article has been funded by the US Environmental Protection Agency. This document has been prepared at the EPA Environmental Research Laboratory in Corvallis, Oregon, through contract #68-C8-0006 with ManTech Environmental Technology, Inc., and Interagency Agreement #1824-B014-A7 with the U.S. Department of Energy and at Oak Ridge National Laboratory managed by Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc., under Contract DE-AC05-84OR21400 with the US Department of Energy. Environmental Sciences Division Publication No. 3904. It has been subjected to the agency’s peer and administrative review and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.     

A national critical loads framework for atmospheric deposition effects assessment: II. Defining assessment end points,indicators, and functional subregions

The United States Environmental Protection Agency, with support from the US Department of Energy and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, has been evaluating the feasibility of an effects-based (critical loads) approach to atmospheric pollutant regulation and abatement. The rationale used to develop three of the six steps in a flexible assessment framework (Strickland and others, 1992) is presented along with a discussion of a variety of implementation approaches and their ramifications. The rationale proposes that it is necessary to provide an explicit statement of the condition of the resource that is considered valuable (assessment end point) because: (1) individual ecosystem components may be more or less sensitive to deposition, (2) it is necessary to select indicators of ecosystem condition that can be objectively measured and that reflect changes in the quality of the assessment end point, and (3) acceptable status (i.e., value of indicator and quality of assessment end point at critical load) must be defined. The rationale also stresses the importance of defining the assessment regions and subregions to improve the analysis and understanding of the indicator response to deposition. Subregional definition can be based on a variety of criteria, including informed judgment or quantitative procedures. It also depends on the geographic scale at which exposure and effects models are accurate and on data availability, resolution, and quality. The research described in this article has been funded by the US Environmental Protection Agency. This document has been prepared at the EPA Environmental Research Laboratory in Corvallis, Oregon, through contract #68-C8-0006 with ManTech Environmental Technology, Inc., and Interagency Agreement #1824-B014-A7 with the US Department of Energy and at Oak Ridge National Laboratory managed by Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc., under Contract DE-AC05-84OR21400 with the US Department of Energy. Environmental Sciences Division Publication No. 3903. It has been subjected to the agency’s peer and administrative review and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.     

A Nationally Consistent NHDPlus Framework for Identifying Interstate Waters: Implications for Integrated Assessments and Interjurisdictional TMDLs

The US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) program promotes nationally consistent approaches for documenting the progress in restoring impaired waters. EPA’s TMDL program provides tracking systems comprising both database and geographic information systems (GIS) mapping components. The GIS mapping is implemented using the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). The EPA and the US Geological Survey have developed an enhanced NHD product (NHDPlus) that is applied in this study to define an interstate waters framework for the conterminous United States. This NHDPlus-based framework provides an efficient watershed-oriented approach for selecting interstate waters. Greater consistency in approaches for interstate waters is essential for providing improved techniques for integrated assessment and management programs. Improved analysis tools for interstate waters are clearly important from a federal perspective. Insights based on tools for federal interstate waters are also of interest for state water quality agencies when they deal with complicated interjurisdictional challenges that can require leveraging support from a wide range of stakeholders. Summaries are provided on the degree of consistency documented for inland waters where states have provided TMDL listing GIS information for shared interstate NHD reaches, and summaries are provided on the patterns for interstate assessments organized according to the ecoregions developed for EPA’s Wadeable Streams Assessment. The relevance of this interstate waters framework in leveraging the TMDL program to provide enhanced support for watershed oriented management approaches is also explored.     

Local impacts of US nuclear weapons facilities: a survey of planners

This research examines the perceptions of planners in communities around the largest US Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear weapons sites. Surveys and interviews revealed that planners are often unclear about DOE intentions, concerned about jobs and environmental contamination, and desire more involvement with future site use decisions. Planners' ratings of residents' trust of the DOE were also low, and low trust was most strongly associated with places where local officials have not been invited to future use meetings. Recommendations include improving coordination of on-site planning with local land use plans and increasing trust with a Federal-local government partnership that recognizes local concerns about the clean-up, closure and disposition of the sites.     

Agricultural land evaluation and site assessment in the United States: An introduction

The US Soil Conservation Service has developed an agricultural land evaluation and site assessment (LESA) system. The LESA system is being used by the US Department of Agriculture and other federal agencies to implement the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981. The LESA system and three case studies from the Pacific North-west are introduced in this article.Scientific Paper no. 7166, College of Agriculture and Home Economics Research Paper. Washington State University, Pullman, Washington. Project no. 0010.     

China’s Classification-Based Forest Management: Procedures,Problems, and Prospects

China’s new Classification-Based Forest Management (CFM) is a two-class system, including Commodity Forest (CoF) and Ecological Welfare Forest (EWF) lands, so named according to differences in their distinct functions and services. The purposes of CFM are to improve forestry economic systems, strengthen resource management in a market economy, ease the conflicts between wood demands and public welfare, and meet the diversified needs for forest services in China. The formative process of China’s CFM has involved a series of trials and revisions. China’s central government accelerated the reform of CFM in the year 2000 and completed the final version in 2003. CFM was implemented at the provincial level with the aid of subsidies from the central government. About a quarter of the forestland in China was approved as National EWF lands by the State Forestry Administration in 2006 and 2007. Logging is prohibited on National EWF lands, and their landowners or managers receive subsidies of about 70 RMB (US$10) per hectare from the central government. CFM represents a new forestry strategy in China and its implementation inevitably faces challenges in promoting the understanding of forest ecological services, generalizing nationwide criteria for identifying EWF and CoF lands, setting up forest-specific compensation mechanisms for ecological benefits, enhancing the knowledge of administrators and the general public about CFM, and sustaining EWF lands under China’s current forestland tenure system. CFM does, however, offer a viable pathway toward sustainable forest management in China.     

Converging worlds

Summary Converging Worlds delineates how environmental events in the developing world can lead to economic and political instability—two major liabilities for US national security and economic interests abroad. Increasingly, US foreign policy analysis will have to include a close scrutiny of environmental events and a country’s natural resource profile to adequately anticipate global hot spots. A closer look at environmental events in the global context may also provide a sense of new options for foreign policy and private sector initiatives. Senior Liaison Officer United Nations Environment Programme Washington Representative and Senior Liaison Officer for the United Nations Environment Programme. Formerly National Director for Public Affairs of the US Environmental Protection Agency; Senior Coordinator for the American Petroleum Institute; and founder and President of the Bolton Institute. Major initiattives include Global Connections/Environment Conference (1980); City Care Conference (1979); and UN Habitat community assemblies (1975).     

ANSI/ASQC E4: A unified management standard for quality assurance of environmental programs

The need for a national consensus standard for quality assurance (QA) for environmental programs emerged from efforts to clean up sites contaminated by hazardous chemical and/or radioactive wastes. The waste management community has been using several different standards or sets of requirements for establishing the QA and quality control (QC) procedures for use during the cleanup of contaminated sites. Some of these requirements have been imposed by federal agencies, including the Department of Energy (DOE), the Department of Defense (DOD), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Often, requirements have been chosen to fit a particular mission or regulatory requirements. The remediation and restoration of federally owned or operated hazardous waste sites has created a situation in which multiple organizations (including federal and state regulators, site operators, and remedial contractors) are overseeing or addressing the same technical problem, often at the same site, and using different QA requirements. The occurrence of multiple QA/QC requirements has resulted in costly and time-consuming duplication of effort. In addition, the perception of inconsistent and often conflicting requirements has created confusion and frustration. The need for a single set of QA/QC criteria to bring order and consistency to the application of QA in the environmental waste management area became increasingly clear, and led to the development of ANSI/ASQC E4, which may be approved and issued by this year.     

Onsite Sewage System Regulation Along the Great Lakes and the US EPA “Homeowner Awareness” Model

According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), a significant percentage of residential onsite sewage systems (OSSs) are failing at any given time. The US EPA has therefore issued a set of recommended guidelines for OSS regulatory programs aimed at reducing overall failure rates. We conducted a survey of OSS regulatory program administrators with jurisdictions bordering a Great Lake. Our goal was to determine their programs’ capacities to meet the US EPA’s recommendations. We found that although some local programs meet the US EPA’s recommendations, most do not. In this article, we present our findings and conclusions for one of the US EPA’s models, the baseline “Homeowner Awareness” model. Most areas do not have recommended requirements that systems be inspected when properties transfer between owners. A majority do not track changes in ownership within the computerized databases they use to record information about systems. Although most provide at least “one-time” information to homeowners regarding proper OSS maintenance, most do not contact them periodically with reminders of needed maintenance. We include recommendations for resolving some of the issues that our research identified.     

Can David and Goliath Get Along? Federal Land in Local Places

It is often unclear what the role of a local jurisdiction is with regard to land use management on nearby federal properties. Yet federal lands clearly impact nearby local communities. The US Department of Energy (DOE), with over 100 sites across the United States with varying degrees of environmental contamination, may be in a very difficult position with regard to relationships with local government about land use. Yet few, if any, studies have examined DOE land use issues. This study asks: (1) In general, how do local planners feel about federal government relationships with them? (2) Do local planners feel differently about the DOE than they do about other federal agencies? (3) What reasons explain any differences observed in answer to the second question? To answer these questions, local planners were interviewed from communities adjacent to non-DOE federal properties, and their responses compared to those of planners located near DOE facilities in the same regions. Findings showed that compared to other federal agencies that own land in the same regions, the DOE is relatively poorer at actively involving local officials in land use decisions at its sites. Primary reasons are the historic legacy of a culture of secrecy, focus on mission, and especially the lack of experience, training, or mandates in local planning cooperation. Findings also suggest that this attitude is markedly stronger in areas west of the Rocky Mountains. Recommendations for improved federal–local communications include the development of a vision for local government involvement that is supported by top levels of management and filtered effectively to the site level.