An ecologically oriented database to guide remediation and reuse of contaminated sites

Abstract

INTRODUCTIONDuring the last three decades, globalization of the world economy has led to the closing of tens of thousands of manufacturing facilities in North America, Europe, and other parts of the world (Ayres, 1998). Massive steel mills, transportation, chemical, and electrical equipment complexes, once the breadwinners for their communities, have become unproductive eyesores waiting for remediation and reuse. In the United States, some are National Priority List (Superfund) sites, others are state equivalents of Superfund sites, and the vast majority are among hundreds of thousands of brownfields sites, some of which are seriously contaminated. Remediation and reuse is a common challenge facing the managers and owners of all these sites, as well as the mayors of the host and nearby communities (U.S. Conference of Mayors, 2000).Oil companies, electrical utilities, the U.S. Departments of Defense and Energy, and other private and public organizations would like to turn surplus land into productive uses.The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) arguably faces the most daunting challenge because it developed, tested, and built nuclear weapons.To accomplish its national security mission, over a hundred sites and 3,750 square miles of land (about the size of Rhode Island and Delaware combined) were used by the federal government and its contractors and have become an environmental legacy. Since 1989, this land has cost the national government over $60 billion to manage (U.S. Department of Energy [DOE], 1995;Top-to-Bottom, 2002).While many billions of additional dollars will be needed to manage the legacy, DOE has begun a process to reuse parcels of land that were not contaminated, have been remediated to the extent that they do not pose an unacceptable risk, or will be remediated.This process, which DOE calls "risk-based end-state plan- (DOE, 2002a). Given the size, location, and surrounding uses of many DOE sites, ecologically based activities, including wood harvesting, cattle grazing, boating, hunting, bird watching, hiking, and others are candidate end-state options at many sites. At some sites, ecologically based options may be the only possibility because of continuing national security concerns and fear of direct long-term human exposure to residual hazards. An important goal is to remediate appropriately for these residual hazards, but not to the point of being more destructive to ecosystems than leaving contaminants.Across the DOE complex of sites, an enormous amount of data has been gathered that can be used to help assess the advantages and disadvantages of ecologically based land uses and accompanying remediation strategies.The amount of information is voluminous, including the Baseline Environmental Management Report of 1995 and its follow-ups; the stewardship series; environmental impact statements; land management plans; the paths to closure series; environmental assessments; ecological reports;Web pages; and public affairs links (DOE, 1995(DOE, , 1996(DOE, , 2000(DOE, , 2001. Indeed, like many large...

Environmental management: Integrating ecological evaluation, remediation, restoration, natural resource damage assessment and long-term stewardship on contaminated lands

“…1). For example, ecological information essential for most environmental assessments of contaminated sites can be evaluated in the form of a checklist for managers (Burger et al, 2004b; Carletta et al, 2004; Greenberg et al, 2004). In this paper I consider humans as one ecological receptor, albeit one we are particularly interested in.…”

Using Integrated Geospatial Mapping and Conceptual Site Models to Guide Risk‐Based Environmental Clean‐Up Decisions

“…In contrast, the quality of ecological and other data sets is generally poor. ( 25–28 ) Without a standardized format that would permit integration of these different sources, the maps that could be developed from these data would vary in accuracy, resolution, projection, and scale.…”

An Ecological Multidisciplinary Approach to Protecting Society, Human Health, and the Environment at Nuclear Facilities

“…This article builds on previous literature (de Groot et al, 2002;Efroymson et al, 2008), and an earlier attempt to develop templates that included only fate and transport, ecology, and human health considerations (Burger et al, 2010), and broadens the approach and templates to encompass a wider range of informational needs for key issues surrounding nuclear facilities: baselines, siting, relicensing, remediation and decontamination, trend analysis, security, and emergency planning. Previous lists Carletta et al, 2004;Greenberg et al, 2004) were more restrictive, did not list the key indicators for societal systems, and were not as inclusive as the templates presented in this article. This article does not deal with design safety, operational safety, nuclear proliferation, terrorism vulnerability, or the back-end of the fuel cycle (Blue Ribbon Commission [BRC], 2011).…”