Literature DB >> 30030638

Risk valuation of ecological resources at contaminated deactivation and decommissioning facilities: methodology and a case study at the Department of Energy's Hanford site.

Joanna Burger1, Michael Gochfeld2, Christian Jeitner3.   

Abstract

Many countries are faced with monumental cleanup tasks remaining from World War II and the Cold War and consistent methodologies are essential to assess the risk from pollutants and the risk from cleanup. In the USA, the Department of Energy (DOE), and other federal and state agencies need to be able to rapidly evaluate the risk to ecological resources for remediation projects. While ecological risk assessments for radionuclides and other contaminants can be performed for different species, evaluations of species assemblages, communities, and ecosystems is more difficult. We summarize an evaluation method for ecological resources on individual remediation units that will allow comparison among a large number of units and that can be modified and applied to the DOE complex-wide. We evaluated the deactivation and decommissioning (D & D) facilities at the Hanford site as case studies. Remediation of these sites has the potential to provide harm to, or increase the value of, ecological resources during and after the process. The evaluation method includes three categories: (1) general steps, (2) ecological descriptions, and (3) ecological ratings. The general steps include identifying the categories of resources (level of resource value), identifying the units to be evaluated (e.g., remediation units), identifying a reasonable ecological buffer around the evaluation units, identifying the remediation options (from milestones or other agreements), and developing a rating scale. Ecological descriptions include identifying previous ecological values of specific areas on the evaluation unit, conducting field studies to assess the current conditions, and summarizing the percent of each resource value on the evaluation unit and buffer area. The ecological risk of harm is determined by using the rating scale to evaluate the potential harm to the ecological (and eco-cultural) resources on each evaluation unit currently, during remediation, and in the post-remediation phase. Currently, the risks (potential harm) to ecological resources on the D & D facilities at the Hanford site are non-discernible, but they increase to very high (for reactors) during remediation when there is physical disruption, increased traffic and personnel, and possible increased contamination. Following remediation, the potential harm to ecological resources is low, and the value may be increased due to restoration of native vegetation on sites that were largely industrial prior to remediation. These methods provide managers, regulators, tribes, and the general public with assurance that ecological and eco-cultural resources and the environment are being protected during and following remediation.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Contaminated demolition sites; Contaminated sites; Nuclear facilities; Plant communities; Polluted sites; Valuation ecological resources

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30030638     DOI: 10.1007/s10661-018-6866-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Monit Assess        ISSN: 0167-6369            Impact factor:   2.513


  9 in total

1.  Assessing ecological resources for remediation and future land uses on contaminated lands.

Authors:  Joanna Burger; Mary Anne Carletta; Karen Lowrie; K Tyler Miller; Michael Greenberg
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2004-06-29       Impact factor: 3.266

2.  Environment. Avoiding destructive remediation at DOE sites.

Authors:  F W Whicker; T G Hinton; M M MacDonell; J E Pinder; L J Habegger
Journal:  Science       Date:  2004-03-12       Impact factor: 47.728

Review 3.  Integrating long-term stewardship goals into the remediation process: natural resource damages and the Department of Energy.

Authors:  Joanna Burger; Michael Gochfeld; Charles W Powers
Journal:  J Environ Manage       Date:  2006-03-22       Impact factor: 6.789

4.  A possible approach for setting a mercury risk-based action level based on tribal fish ingestion rates.

Authors:  Barbara L Harper; Stuart G Harris
Journal:  Environ Res       Date:  2007-07-13       Impact factor: 6.498

5.  A Methodology to Evaluate Ecological Resources and Risk Using Two Case Studies at the Department of Energy's Hanford Site.

Authors:  Joanna Burger; Michael Gochfeld; Amoret Bunn; Janelle Downs; Christian Jeitner; Taryn Pittfield; Jennifer Salisbury; David Kosson
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2016-11-30       Impact factor: 3.266

6.  Functional remediation components: A conceptual method of evaluating the effects of remediation on risks to ecological receptors.

Authors:  Joanna Burger; Michael Gochfeld; Amoret Bunn; Janelle Downs; Christian Jeitner; Taryn Pittfield; Jennifer Salisbury
Journal:  J Toxicol Environ Health A       Date:  2016-08-30

7.  Ecological information needs for environmental justice.

Authors:  Joanna Burger; Stuart Harris; Barbara Harper; Michael Gochfeld
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  2010-04-08       Impact factor: 4.000

8.  Inclusion of social indicators in decision support tools for the selection of sustainable site remediation options.

Authors:  Valérie Cappuyns
Journal:  J Environ Manage       Date:  2016-07-21       Impact factor: 6.789

9.  Ecocultural attributes: evaluating ecological degradation in terms of ecological goods and services versus subsistence and tribal values.

Authors:  Joanna Burger; Michael Gochfeld; Karen Pletnikoff; Ronald Snigaroff; Daniel Snigaroff; Tim Stamm
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  2008-07-24       Impact factor: 4.000

  9 in total
  2 in total

1.  A paradigm for protecting ecological resources following remediation as a function of future land use designations: a case study for the Department of Energy's Hanford Site.

Authors:  Joanna Burger; Michael Gochfeld; David S Kosson; Kevin G Brown; Jennifer Salisbury; Christian Jeitner
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2020-02-17       Impact factor: 2.513

2.  Combining ecological, eco-cultural, and environmental justice parameters to create Eco-EJ indicators to monitor cultural and environmental justices for diverse communities around contaminated sites.

Authors:  Joanna Burger; Michael Gochfeld; David S Kosson; Kevin G Brown; Jennifer Salisbury; Michael Greenberg; Christian Jeitner
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2022-02-12       Impact factor: 3.307

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.