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     

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.     

Integrating long-term stewardship goals into the remediation process: natural resource damages and the Department of Energy

The United States and other developed countries are faced with restoring and managing degraded ecosystems. Evaluations of the degradation of ecological resources can be used for determining ecological risk, making remediation or restoration decisions, aiding stakeholders with future land use decisions, and assessing natural resource damages. Department of Energy (DOE) lands provide a useful case study for examining degradation of ecological resources in light of past or present land uses and natural resource damage assessment (NRDA). We suggest that past site history should be incorporated into the cleanup and restoration phase to reduce the ultimate NRDA costs, and hasten resource recovery. The lands that DOE purchased over 50 years ago ranged from relatively undisturbed to heavily impacted farmland, and the impact that occurred from DOE occupation varies from regeneration of natural ecosystems (benefits) to increased exposure to several stressors (negative effects). During the time of the DOE releases, other changes occurred on the lands, including recovery from the disturbance effects of farming, grazing, and residential occupation, and the cessation of human disturbance. Thus, the injury to natural resources that occurred as a result of chemical and radiological releases occurred on top of recovery of already degraded systems. Both spatial (size and dispersion of patch types) and temporal (past/present/future land use and ecological condition) components are critical aspects of resource evaluation, restoration, and NRDA. For many DOE sites, integrating natural resource restoration with remediation to reduce or eliminate the need for NRDA could be a win-win situation for both responsible parties and natural resource trustees by eliminating costly NRDAs by both sides, and by restoring natural resources to a level that satisfies the trustees, while being cost-effective for the responsible parties. It requires integration of remediation, restoration, and end-state planning to a greater degree than is currently done at most DOE sites.     

Optimal Environmental Management Strategy and Implementation for Groundwater Contamination Prevention and Restoration

An innovative management strategy is proposed for optimized and integrated environmental management for regional or national groundwater contamination prevention and restoration allied with consideration of sustainable development. This management strategy accounts for availability of limited resources, human health and ecological risks from groundwater contamination, costs for groundwater protection measures, beneficial uses and values from groundwater protection, and sustainable development. Six different categories of costs are identified with regard to groundwater prevention and restoration. In addition, different environmental impacts from groundwater contamination including human health and ecological risks are individually taken into account. System optimization principles are implemented to accomplish decision-makings on the optimal resources allocations of the available resources or budgets to different existing contaminated sites and projected contamination sites for a maximal risk reduction. Established management constraints such as budget limitations under different categories of costs are satisfied at the optimal solution. A stepwise optimization process is proposed in which the first step is to select optimally a limited number of sites where remediation or prevention measures will be taken, from all the existing contaminated and projected contamination sites, based on a total regionally or nationally available budget in a certain time frame such as 10 years. Then, several optimization steps determined year-by-year optimal distributions of the available yearly budgets for those selected sites. A hypothetical case study is presented to demonstrate a practical implementation of the management strategy. Several issues pertaining to groundwater contamination exposure and risk assessments and remediation cost evaluations are briefly discussed for adequately understanding implementations of the management strategy.     

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.     

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

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.*Published online Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; Joanna Burger     

对加快推进我国矿山生态修复的思考

绿色矿山建设是矿业领域践行"绿水青山就是金山银山"的重要体现。本文从矿山生态修复的内涵到外延，从问题识别到任务措施，从单一治理修复目标到生态系统功能修复目标，从矿山生态修复系统到与经济社会发展系统相结合等多个方面，系统地梳理矿山生态修复的解决路径，围绕矿业绿色发展提出一系列建议。     

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.     

Restoration,stewardship, environmental health,and policy: understanding stakeholders' perceptions

In recent years there has been considerable interest in the health of humans and the environment, restoration of contaminated or otherwise degraded lands, and in long-term stewardship of public lands. Unfortunately, it is unclear whether governmental agencies and the public hold similar views about the meanings of these concepts, making policy decisions about restoration and stewardship difficult. In this paper, I explore how the public conceptualizes restoration and stewardship by examining the relative rating of several attributes of restoration, stewardship, environmental health, ecological health, environmental restoration, and ecological restoration. People were interviewed in Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA, near the Department of Energy's Los Alamos National Laboratory. The ratings of attributes of environmental health and ecological health reported in this paper can be used to understand how the public understands these concepts. The attributes rated most highly by the subjects were more similar to definitions in the scientific literature for these terms than they were to those used by the Department of Energy. For environmental health, the highest rating related to human sanitation, while for ecological health the highest rating was for maintaining functioning ecosystems. Reduction of exposure to hazardous substances was rated the second highest for both environmental and ecological health. The wise use of natural resources, preservation of natural resources, and hazardous waste site cleanup were rated the highest attributes of stewardship. These data suggest that both expert and nonexpert perceptions about restoration and stewardship should be incorporated into environmental management decisions.     

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

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.     

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.     

A Paradigm of International Environmental Law: The Case for Controlling the Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes

The production of large quantities of wastes globally has created a commercial activity involving the transfrontier shipments of hazardous wastes, intended to be managed at economically attractive waste-handling facilities located elsewhere. In fact, huge quantities of hazardous wastes apparently travel the world in search of “acceptable” waste management facilities. For instance, within the industrialized countries alone, millions of tonnes of potentially hazardous waste cross national frontiers each year on their way for recycling or to treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) because there is no local disposal capacity for these wastes, or because legal disposal or reuse in a foreign country may be more environmentally sound, or managing the wastes in the foreign country may be less expensive than at home. The cross-boundary traffic in hazardous wastes has lately been under close public scrutiny, however, resulting in the accession of several international agreements and laws to regulate such activities. This paper discusses and analyzes the most significant control measures and major agreements in this new commercial activity involving hazardous wastes. In particular, the discussion recognizes the difficulties with trying to implement the relevant international agreements among countries of vastly different socioeconomic backgrounds. Nonetheless, it is also noted that global environmental agreements will generally be a necessary component of ensuring adequate environmental protection for the world community—and thus a need for the careful implementation of such agreements and regulations.     

污染场地风险管控环境经济政策体系：国外经验与本土实践

快速城市化和工业化给我国带来了大量的场地污染问题,污染场地修复和风险管控成为国土资源可持续利用的重要领域,创新土壤污染防治经济政策,充分发挥市场调节作用是土壤污染防治的内在要求,是破解土壤生态环境问题、推进土壤污染防治管理转型的重要支撑。本文从经济政策的体系、投融资模式与机制等方面展开,对美国、德国、荷兰等发达国家的污染场地风险管控环境经济政策进行了梳理分析,总结其可借鉴的成功经验;介绍了我国污染场地风险管控环境经济政策实施现状,最终从完善调控体系、明晰权责归属、拓宽资金来源、规范资金运营、丰富投融资模式、探索费用效益分析机制等方面提出我国污染场地风险管控环境经济政策体系的改进建议。     

Creating False Images: Stream Restoration in an Urban Setting

Stream restoration has become a multibillion dollar business with mixed results as to its efficacy. This case study utilizes pre‐ and post‐monitoring data from restoration projects on an urban stream to assess how well stream conditions, publicly stated project goals, and project implementation align. Our research confirms previous studies showing little communication among academic researchers and restoration practitioners as well as provides further evidence that restoration efforts tend to focus on small‐scale, specific sites without considering broader land use patterns. This study advances our understanding of restoration by documenting that although improving ecological conditions is a stated goal for restoration projects, the implemented measures are not always focused on those issues that are the most ecologically salient. What these projects have accomplished is to protect the built environment and promote positive public perception. We argue that these disconnects among publicized goals for restoration, the implemented features, and actual stream conditions may create a false image of what an ecologically stable stream looks like and therefore perpetuate a false sense of optimism about the feasibility of restoring urban streams.     

Rethinking remediation: mine reclamation,environmental justice,and relations of care

ABSTRACT

To date, research on mine remediation in North America has focused primarily on technical management; relatively less is known about the historical, political and social dimensions of remediation. Remediation, as a continuation of the mining process, alters local landscapes and economies and can be both dangerous and beneficial for surrounding communities. Because remediation projects tend to focus on the technical aspects of clean-up, such projects risk overlooking the environmental injustices associated with past development and obscuring blame or responsibility from industry and government for environmental degradation. Insofar as it is understood as cleaning up or repairing environmental damage, remediation is generally seen as “doing the good” and is less amenable to political or ethical challenges based on community concerns or values. This paper argues that greater attention needs to be paid to public participation and justice concerns associated with cleaning up mine sites. Drawing from the literatures on ecological restoration, environmental justice, reconciliation, discard studies, and matters of care, we highlight critical, yet overlooked issues in the remediation of post-mining landscapes. We argue that remediation projects present a unique opportunity for the negotiation and articulation of morals, values, histories, and physical experiences associated with mine sites and we seek to re-frame remediation as an ongoing, creative process of community healing.     

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.     

浅谈风力发电项目生态恢复环境监理

低山丘陵区风力发电场项目建设对生态的破坏日益明显,开展风电场施工期环境监理具有重要意义。通过对低山丘陵区风电项目施工期环境监理经验的总结,阐述了铁岭市风电场生态恢复的现状及开展生态恢复环境监理的重要作用,并对施工期的合理安排、原生植被的保护与利用、监理关键技术及环境监理人员的素质要求等相关生态恢复环境监理问题进行了探讨。     

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT EVALUATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL IN LAND1

Since the publication of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring in 1962 there has been a rapidly growing public concern over widespread contamination of the environment with hazardous wastes. In recent years scientific findings on the ecological effects of various hazardous substances have posed several important questions. What exactly are hazardous wastes? Can these substances be disposed of in a technically feasible, economical, and safe way with assurance that they have been permanently eliminated from the ecosystem? What compositional alterations or movements of the hazardous wastes occur in water, soil, or air systems? What effect will these wastes have on the water, soil, or air systems? What effect will these wastes have on the water, soil, or air properties? Consequently, a University of Louisville study has developed a relevant definition of hazardous wastes for the Environmental Engineering profession together with priority of concern rating systems to delineate the degree of environmental impact imposed on a total ecosystem by a hazardous waste and the feasibility of disposing of hazardous substances at specific landfill sites. It is felt that refinements of the priority of concern rating systems offered here may provide a sound basis from which procedural decisions may be structured to establish future national hazardous waste disposal sites.     

Recreational Rates and Future Land Use Preferences for Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory Facility

To manage ecosystems it is essential to understand physical properties and biological function, as well as the ecological services and social/cultural perceptions of a variety of stakeholders. Where land managers are required to make decisions about restoration, remediation and future land use, understanding attitudes and future land use preferences is essential. In this paper I synthesize data on five surveys of recreational rates and preferences for future land use for the Department of Energy's Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). Subjects were interviewed at several well-attended events at different distances from INEEL, representing local and regional views. Between 24 and 59% of the subjects hunted, between 55 and 71% fished, and up to 87% camped, indicating potential for exposure if INEEL were open for recreation. Average recreational rates varied by location, with the Shoshone-Bannock Indians having higher hunting, fishing, hiking and camping rates than all others. There were significant differences in future land use preferences; subjects living close to the site rated nuclear material processing very high, while those living farther away ranked it intermediate. Indians ranked this use the lowest. Using the land as a National Environmental Research Park (NERP) was rated the highest (or nearly the highest) for all groups. Industrial uses were generally rated low by all groups. These data can be used by local planners and policy makers in decision making regarding levels of clean-up, future land use, future end-states and long-term protection and stewardship of these contaminated lands. The relative unanimity in future land use preferences for NERP and recreation, rather than new industrial purposes, provides guidance for remediation, suggesting that residential clean-up standards may be more stringent than required. Further, the relative approval of continued nuclear reprocessing (but not nuclear storage) also provides guidance for risk-based end-state planning.