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.     

The Peconic River: Concerns associated with different risk evaluations for fish consumption

Risk evaluation and assessment have been used as tools to regulate and manage the risks to consumers of eating self-caught fish that have high levels of contaminants. Armed with these risk assessments, health agencies issue consumption advisories, and in some cases, close some waters to fishing. Recently, regulatory agencies have used contaminant levels in fish as a benchmark for remedial action on contaminated sites, using human health risk assessment as the justification. The US Environmental Protection Agency's new surface water criterion for mercury is based on mercury levels in fish tissue. When multiple regulatory agencies have jurisdiction over the same waters or remediation site there is the potential for differing risk evaluations. Using the Peconic River on Long Island, New York as a case study, the paper examines how and why county, state, and federal health risk evaluations for fish contaminated with mercury differed. While the same risk methodology was applied by all agencies, the assessments were conducted for different purposes, applied different consumption and fish biomass assumptions, and arrived at different conclusions. The risk evaluations invoked to design fish consumption advisories use mercury levels currently in fish, and are designed to prevent current exposure. However, the risk assessments that provide a basis for remediation consider many different pathways of exposure (not just ingestion), and deal with long-term exposure. The risk evaluations, and recommendations promulgated by those agencies, differ because they have different goals, use different assumptions, and often fail to communicate among agencies. It is suggested that it is valuable to have these different levels of risk evaluations to adequately address health issues. However, there are policy implications, which include making the distinctions between the types of risk assessments, their methods and assumptions, and the rationale for these assumptions. Further, assessors and managers should involve all interested stakeholders (including regulators and state health officials) in discussions about the use of risk, the assumptions of risk assessment, and the goals of those evaluations. The difficulties in the case of the Peconic were not due to differences in the original data, but rather in the goals and type of risk assessments performed. If all deliberations had been transparent during all phases of the decision-making and management process, the conflicts within the minds of the public, regulators and other agencies might have been avoided. This case study suggests that more reliability, circumspection and transparency should be built into the process where multiple agencies and multiple objectives are involved.     

Bottom-Up Risk Regulation? How Nanotechnology Risk Knowledge Gaps Challenge Federal and State Environmental Agencies

Nanotechnologies have been called the "Next Industrial Revolution." At the same time, scientists are raising concerns about the potential health and environmental risks related to the nano-sized materials used in nanotechnologies. Analyses suggest that current U.S. federal regulatory structures are not likely to adequately address these risks in a proactive manner. Given these trends, the premise of this paper is that state and local-level agencies will likely deal with many "end-of-pipe" issues as nanomaterials enter environmental media without prior toxicity testing, federal standards, or emissions controls. In this paper we (1) briefly describe potential environmental risks and benefits related to emerging nanotechnologies; (2) outline the capacities of the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act to address potential nanotechnology risks, and how risk data gaps challenge these regulations; (3) outline some of the key data gaps that challenge state-level regulatory capacities to address nanotechnologies' potential risks, using Wisconsin as a case study; and (4) discuss advantages and disadvantages of state versus federal approaches to nanotechnology risk regulation. In summary, we suggest some ways government agencies can be better prepared to address nanotechnology risk knowledge gaps and risk management.     

A Framework for Net Environmental Benefit Analysis for Remediation or Restoration of Contaminated Sites

Net environmental benefits are gains in value of environmental services or other ecological properties attained by remediation or ecological restoration minus the value of adverse environmental effects caused by those actions. Net environmental benefit analysis (NEBA) is a methodology for comparing and ranking net environmental benefits associated with multiple management alternatives. A NEBA for chemically contaminated sites typically involves comparison of several management alternatives: (1) leaving contamination in place; (2) physically, chemically, or biologically remediating the site through traditional means; (3) improving ecological value through onsite and offsite restoration alternatives that do not directly focus on removal of chemical contamination; or (4) a combination of those alternatives. NEBA involves activities that are common to remedial alternatives analysis for state regulations and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, post-closure and corrective action permits under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, evaluation of generic types of response actions pertinent to the Oil Pollution Act, and land management actions that are negotiated with regulatory agencies in flexible regulatory environments (i.e., valuing environmental services or other ecological properties, assessing adverse impacts, and evaluating remediation or restoration options). This article presents a high-level framework for NEBA at contaminated sites with subframeworks for natural attenuation (the contaminated reference state), remediation, and ecological restoration alternatives. Primary information gaps related to NEBA include nonmonetary valuation methods, exposure–response models for all stressors, the temporal dynamics of ecological recovery, and optimal strategies for ecological restoration.Published online     

Integrating Environmental Restoration and Ecological Restoration: Long-Term Stewardship at the Department of Energy

With the ending of the Cold War, several federal agencies are reclaiming land through remediation and restoration and are considering potential future land uses that are compatible with current uses and local needs. Some sites are sufficiently contaminated that it is likely that the responsible federal agency will retain control over the land for the foreseeable future, providing them with a stewardship mission. This is particularly true of some of the larger Department of Energy (DOE) facilities contaminated during the production of nuclear weapons. The use of the term “restoration” is explored in this paper because the word means different things to the public, ecologists, and environmental managers responsible for contaminated sites, such as Superfund sites and the DOE facilities. While environmental restoration usually refers to remediation and removal of hazardous wastes, ecological restoration refers to the broader process of repairing damaged ecosystems and enhancing their productivity and/or biodiversity. The goals of the two types of restoration can be melded by considering environmental restoration as a special case of ecological restoration, one that involves risk reduction from hazardous wastes, and by broadening environmental restoration to include a more extensive problem-formulation phase (both temporal and spatial), which includes the goal of reestablishing a functioning ecosystem after remediation. Further, evaluating options for the desired post remediation result will inform managers and policy-makers concerning the feasibility and efficacy of environmental restoration itself.     

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.     

Genetically Engineered Animals,Drugs, and Neoliberalism: The Need for a New Biotechnology Regulatory Policy Framework

Genetically engineered (GE) animals that are meant for release in the wild could significantly impact ecosystems given the interwoven or entangled existence of species. Therefore, among other things, it is all too important that regulatory agencies conduct entity appropriate, rigorous risk assessments that can be used for informed decision-making at the local, national and global levels about the release of those animals in the wild. In the United States (US), certain GE animals that are intended for release in the wild may be regulated as new animal drugs by the Food and Drug Administration. This paper argues that the decision to treat them as new animal drugs is attributable to the influence of neoliberalism on the US biotechnology regulatory policy framework. The case is made that there should be public democratic deliberations and decision-making about the values and concerns that should guide the nation’s biotechnology regulatory policy paradigm, including the risk assessment process for GE animals meant for release in the wild.     

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.     

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.     

Environmental cleanup: The challenge at the Hanford Site,Washington, USA

Numerous challenges face those involved with developing a coordinated and consistent approach to cleaning up the US Department of Energy’s (DOE) Hanford Site in southeastern Washington. These challenges are much greater than those encountered when the site was selected and the world’s first nuclear complex was developed almost 50 years ago. This article reviews Hanford’s history, operations, waste storage/disposal activities, environmental monitoring, and today’s approach to characterize and clean up Hanford under a Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, signed by DOE, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Washington Sate Department of Ecology. Although cleanup of defense-related waste at Hanford holds many positive benefits, negative features include high costs to the US taxpayer, numerous uncertainties concerning the technologies to be employed and the risks involved, and the high probability that special interest groups and activists at large will never be completely satisfied. Issues concerning future use of the site, whether to protect and preserve its natural features or open it to public exploitation, remain to be resolved.     

Defining an ecological baseline for restoration and natural resource damage assessment of contaminated sites: The case of the Department of Energy

Retrospective ecological risk assessment, restoration, natural resource damage assessment (NRDA) and managing ecosystems all require having a baseline. This policy and practice paper explores the factors that influence baseline selection, and it is suggested that ecological resources would best be served by: (1) integrating NRDA considerations into both future land-use planning and remediation/restoration; (2) selecting a baseline for NRDA that approximates the land-use conditions at the time of occupation (or a preferred ecosystem); and (3) integrating both the positive and negative aspects of industrial occupation into restoration decisions, baseline selection and NRDA. Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response and Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), natural resource damages are assessed for injuries incurred since 1980 due to releases, but the release itself may have occurred before 1980. The paper uses the Department of Energy as a case study to examine NRDA and the management of ecosystems. Releases occurred at many DOE sites from the 1950s to the 1980s during nuclear bomb production. It is suggested that the DOE has been responsible not only for injuries to natural resources that occurred as a result of releases, but for significant ecosystem recovery since DOE occupation, because some lands were previously farmed or industrialized. Natural resource injuries due to releases occurred simultaneously with ecosystem recovery that resulted from DOE occupation. While the 1980 date is codified in CERCLA law as the time after which damages can be assessed, baseline can be defined as the conditions the natural resources would have been in today, but for the release of the hazardous substance. It is also suggested that NRDA considerations should be incorporated into the remediation and restoration process at DOE sites, thereby negating the need for formal NRDA following restoration, and reducing the final NRDA costs.     

Modeling Protected Species Habitat and Assigning Risk to Inform Regulatory Decisions

In the United States, environmental regulatory agencies are required to use “best available” scientific information when making decisions on a variety of issues. However, agencies are often hindered by coarse or incomplete data, particularly as it pertains to threatened and endangered species protection. Stakeholders often agree that more resolute and integrated processes for decision-making are desirable. We demonstrate a process that uses species occurrence data for a federally endangered insect (Karner blue butterfly), a readily available habitat modeling tool, and spatially explicit information about an important Michigan commodity (tart cherries). This case study has characteristics of many protected species regulatory decisions in that species occurrence data were sparse and unequally distributed; regulatory decisions (on pesticide use) were required with potentially significant impacts on a viable agricultural industry; and stakeholder relations were diverse, misinformed, and, in some situations, unjustly contentious. Results from our process include a large-scale, empirically derived habitat suitability map for the focal species and a risk ranking of tart cherry orchards with risk based on the likelihood that pesticide applications will influence the focal protected species. Although the majority (77%) of pesticide-influence zones overlapped Karner blue butterfly habitat, risk scores associated with each orchard were low. Through our process we demonstrated that spatially explicit models can help stakeholders visualize and quantify potential protected species effects. In addition, model outputs can serve to guide field activities (e.g., species surveys and implementation of pesticide buffer zones) that help minimize future effects.     

Environmental monitoring at Hanford,Washington, USA: A brief site history and summary of recent results

Nuclear and nonnuclear industrial and research activities have been conducted on the Hanford reservation since 1943. Materials originating from these activities may enter the surrounding environment through releases of airborne and liquid effluents and solid wastes. Concern about the environmental effects of these releases has evolved over the past four decades into a comprehensive onsite and offsite monitoring program. Today, environmental monitoring to assess potential impacts of released materials includes field sampling and chemical and physical analyses of air, ground and surface water, fish and wildlife, soil, vegetation, and foodstuffs. This paper reviews the history of Hanford operations and summarizes the current environmental monitoring program and its major findings. Mathematical models based on monitoring data show that radiation doses to people living near the Hanford site are well below existing regulatory standards. Only trace amounts of radionuclides from Hanford have been detected in the offsite environment.     

Enhanced radionuclide immobilization and flow path modifications by dissolution and secondary precipitates

Caustic radioactive wastes that have leaked at Hanford Site (Richland, WA) induce mineral dissolution and subsequent secondary precipitation that influence the fate and transport of contaminants present in the waste solutions. The effects of secondary mineral precipitates, formed after contacting solids with simulated caustic wastes, on the flow path changes and radionuclide immobilization were investigated by reacting quartz, a mixture of quartz and biotite, and a Hanford sediment (Warden soil: coarse-silty, mixed, superactive, mesic Xeric Haplocambids) with simulated caustic tank waste solution. Continuous Si dissolution and concomitant secondary mineral precipitation were the principal reactions observed in both batch and flow-through tests. Nitrate-cancrinite was the dominant secondary precipitate on mineral surfaces after 3- to 10-d reaction times in batch experiments. X-ray microtomography images of a reacted quartz column revealed that secondary precipitates cemented quartz grains together and modified pore geometry in the center of the column. Along the circumference of the packed column, however, quartz dissolution continuously occurred, suggesting that wastes that leaked from buried tanks in the past likely did not migrate vertically as modeled in risk assessments but rather the pathways likely changed to be dominantly horizontal on precipitation of secondary precipitate phases in the Hanford vadose zone. Based on batch equilibrium sorption results on the reacted sediments, the dominant secondary precipitates (cancrinites) on the mineral surfaces enhanced the sorption capacity of typical Hanford sediment for radionuclides 129I(-I), 79Se(VI), 99Tc(VII), and 90Sr(II), all of which are of major concern at the Hanford Site.     

Using penalty functions to evaluate aggregation models for environmental indices

The purpose of indices is to summarize a large volume of information into a single number that is easy to understand and interpret. Environmental indices provide a composite picture of an environmental condition derived from a series of observed measurements and parameters. They are used as communication tools by regulatory agencies to characterize the state of a specific environmental system (air, water, and sediments) and to study the impact of regulatory policies on various environmental management practices. In the development of environmental indices, a few issues and problems have been encountered arising as a result of the abstraction of information and data. These problems are referred to as characteristic properties that include ambiguity, eclipsing, compensation and rigidity. These characteristic properties have long been identified and interpreted in Boolean (e.g., Yes/No) or qualitative (e.g., low, medium, high) terms. In this paper, we propose a new approach to describe the above stated characteristic properties on a continuous scale to evaluate and compare the behavior of various aggregation models. Our approach is based on developing penalty functions for each characteristic property. A water quality index example by Swamee and Tyagi (2000) is used to explain our approach. A detailed case study for a developing microbial risk index is also provided to show how the proposed approach can be extended to complex hierarchical systems. Results show that it is possible to improve aggregation models for index development. Future research directions to improve index development are also discussed.     

Local opposition against high-voltage grids: public responses to agency-caused science–policy trolls

High-voltage (hV) transmission grids are projects of societal importance that potentially have controversial social and environmental impacts. Former research shows that public opposition is sparked by the perception of negative local impacts and unjust concessionary processes. In this paper, we complement these perspectives by assessing the institutional practices of the regulatory agencies in dealing with scientific uncertainties. The regulatory agencies’ ‘ways of doing things’ are often designed to serve policy and management needs. A critical point is that the demarcation between scientifically based facts, values and assessments is often blurred in the decision-making process. This paper draws on two Norwegian case studies to investigate how the regulatory agencies dealt with (1) electromagnetic fields and health risks and (2) overhead lines versus sea cables. We argue that ambiguities and uncertainties that arise in the hV transmission line processes create ‘trolls’, and we explore how the local inhabitants and affected stakeholders in the two cases responded to these and how it triggered further opposition. By investigating how and why trolls appear and are handled, we conclude by discussing how public opposition related to hV transmission grids may be reduced – and how some ‘trolls’ may crack.     

Science, Policy, and Stakeholders: Developing a Consensus Science Plan for Amchitka Island, Aleutians, Alaska

With the ending of the Cold War, the US Department of Energy is responsible for the remediation of radioactive waste and disposal of land no longer needed for nuclear material production or related national security missions. The task of characterizing the hazards and risks from radionuclides is necessary for assuring the protection of health of humans and the environment. This is a particularly daunting task for those sites that had underground testing of nuclear weapons, where the radioactive contamination is currently inaccessible. Herein we report on the development of a Science Plan to characterize the physical and biological marine environment around Amchitka Island in the Aleutian chain of Alaska, where three underground nuclear tests were conducted (1965–1971). Information on the ecology, geology, and current radionuclide levels in biota, water, and sediment is necessary for evaluating possible current contamination and to serve as a baseline for developing a plan to ensure human and ecosystem health in perpetuity. Other information required includes identifying the location of the salt water/fresh water interface where migration to the ocean might occur in the future and determining groundwater recharge balances, as well as assessing other physical/geological features of Amchitka near the test sites. The Science Plan is needed to address the confusing and conflicting information available to the public about radionuclide risks from underground nuclear blasts in the late 1960s and early 1970s, as well as the potential for volcanic or seismic activity to disrupt shot cavities or accelerate migration of radionuclides into the sea. Developing a Science Plan involved agreement among regulators and other stakeholders, assignment of the task to the Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation, and development of a consensus Science Plan that dealt with contentious scientific issues. Involvement of the regulators (State of Alaska), resource trustees (U S Fish and Wildlife Service), representatives of the Aleut and Pribilof Island communities, and other stakeholders was essential for plan development and approval, although this created tensions because of the different objectives of each group. The complicated process of developing a Science Plan involved iterations and interactions with multiple agencies and organizations, scientists in several disciplines, regulators, and the participation of Aleut people in their home communities, as well as the general public. The importance of including all parties in all phases of the development of the Science Plan was critical to its acceptance by a broad range of regulators, agencies, resource trustees, Aleutian/Pribilof communities, and other stakeholders.     

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.     

Evaluating public participation in environmental decision-making: EPA's superfund community involvement program

This article discusses an 8-year, ongoing project that evaluates the Environmental Protection Agency's Superfund community involvement program. The project originated as a response to the Government Performance and Results Act, which requires federal agencies to articulate program goals, and evaluate and report their progress in meeting those goals. The evaluation project assesses how effective the Superfund community involvement program is in promoting public participation in decisions about how to clean up hazardous wastes at Superfund sites. We do three things in the article: (1) share our experience with evaluating an Agency public participation program, including lessons learned about methods of evaluation; (2) report evaluation results; and (3) address a number of issues pertaining to the evaluation of public participation in environmental decision-making. Our goal is to encourage more environmental managers to incorporate evaluation into their public participation programs as a tool for improving them. We found that written mail surveys were an effective and economical tool for obtaining feedback on EPA's community involvement program at Superfund sites. The evaluation focused on four criteria: citizen satisfaction with EPA information about the Superfund site, citizen understanding of environmental and human health risks associated with the site, citizen satisfaction with opportunities provided by EPA for community input, and citizen satisfaction with EPA's response to community input. While the evaluation results were mixed, in general, community members who were most informed about and involved in the cleanup process at Superfund sites generally were also the most satisfied with the community involvement process, and the job that EPA was doing cleaning up the site. We conclude that systematic evaluation provides meaningful and useful information that agencies can use to improve their public participation programs. However, there need to be institutionalized processes that ensure evaluation results are used to develop and implement strategies for improvement.