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

Abstract

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

Information needs for siting new, and evaluating current, nuclear facilities: ecology, fate and transport, and human health

“…The controversies occur over the definition of the problem, alternative land use interests, characterization data, remediation decisions, restoration options, and the long-term protection of both human and ecological health around existing and proposed facilities Burger 2007a, b). Environmental assessment (or evaluation) of potential sites for energyproducing facilities is critical for protecting human health and the environment around such facilities, as well as providing peace of mind to site neighbors (Cairns 1994;NRC 1986;Bartell et al 1992;Cairns and Niederlehner 1996;Cairns et al 1992;Barnthouse 1994;Suter 2001;Burger 2007c;Burger et al 2007a, b). Environmental assessment includes characterization and evaluation of the physical, biological, and contamination aspects of the site.…”

Managing environmental problems during transitions: The department of energy as a case study

“…The remediation and restoration task at US DOE sites is one of the nation's most pressing and costly environmental problems (Crowley & Ahearne, 2002; National Research Council [NRC], 1995;Sink & Frank, 1996; US DOE, 1994a; cleanup is projected to go on until the middle of this century for some sites, although the US DOE retains responsibility for radionuclide wastes for the foreseeable future. Hence, the US DOE needs mechanisms to deal with the uncertainty caused by many transitions to come.This analysis is based on the 14 years each of the authors has worked with more than a dozen US DOE sites, including the Savannah River Site (SRS), Oak Ridge, Hanford, Los Alamos, Idaho National Laboratory, Brookhaven, and some of the small US DOE sites (e.g., Burger, 1997Burger, , 1999Burger, , 2004Burger, , 2006Burger, , 2007aBurger, , 2007bBurger et al, 2004bBurger et al, , 2007aBurger et al, , 2007bGochfeld & Mohr, 2007;Gochfeld et al, 2006;Goldstein et al, 2000;Greenberg et al, 1997Greenberg et al, , 2007aMayer et al, 2005; see also www.CRESP.org). Our experience with US DOE headquarters in Washington, D.C., and with the individual sites has provided a The challenge began over a half-century ago, when the United States initiated development of nuclear weapons at hundreds of sites across the country.…”

“…Similarly, the US DOE and other agencies set up monitoring plans, which have regular scheduled activities that result in the ability to determine status and trends (Cairns, 1990;Carignan & Villard, 2001). Further, considerable attention has been devoted to future land use, both across the nuclear waste complex and at individual sites (US DOE, 1996a, 1996b.Stability also requires the maintenance of information about the US DOE's remediation, restoration, future land use, NRDA, and other aspects of the EM program (Burger, 2007a(Burger, , 2007bGreenberg et al, 2005). The information itself, and relevant documents that provide plans for the future, will ensure protective sustainability of human health and the environment, especially where multigenerational stewardship is required.…”

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

“…Thus, there remains disconnect between risk and current cleanup goals, risk and final end-states, and cleanup levels and subsequent land use. A CRESP review (Burger, 2007;Burger et al, 2004) identified a need for a range of technical, economic, sociological, and public policy tools and protocols to address the issues. The framework we provide addresses these different types of tools.…”

“…It is a companion piece to Burger (2007), which mainly emphasized ecological methods. For any contaminated site, occupational exposures involve a broad range of remediation workers as well as future site workers.…”