Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Azerrad, J. M., Divens, K. A., Livingston, M. F., Teske, M. S., Ferguson, H. L., & Davis, J. L. (2011). Site-specific management: how to avoid and minimize impacts of development to shrub-steppe. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01335/wdfw01335.pdf. Accessed 11 Feb 2018.

  • Becker, J. M., & Chamness, M. A. (2012). Annual ecological survey: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Site, PNNL-21164. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA. Available: http://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-21164.pdf. Accessed 11 Feb 2018.

  • Bingham, G., Bishop, R., Brody, M., Bromley, D., Clark, E. T., Cooper, W., Costanza, R., Hale, T., Hayden, G., Kellert, S., & Norgaard, R. (1995). Issues in ecosystem valuation: Improving information for decision making. Ecological Economics, 14, 73–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohnee, G., Mathews, J. P., Pinkham, J., Smith, A., & Stanfill, J. (2011). Nez Perce involvement with solving environmental problems: history, perspectives, treaty rights, and obligations. In J. Burger (Ed.), Stakeholders and scientists: achieving implementable solutions to energy and environmental issues (pp. 149–184). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Boiko, P. E., Morrill, R. L., Flynn, J., Faustman, E. M., van Belle, G., & Omen, G. S. (1996). Who holds the stakes? A case study of stakeholder identification at two nuclear weapons sites. Risk Analysis, 16, 237–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bottom, D. L., Simenstad, C. A., Burke, J., Baptista, A. M., Jay, D. A., Jones, K. K., Casillas, E., & Schiewe, M. H. (2005). Salmon at rivers’s end: the role of the estuary in the decline and recovery of Columbia River Salmon. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-68. Seattle, Washington.

  • Brown, K. S. (1998). The great DOE land rush. Science, 282, 616–617.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Burger, J. (2002). Incorporating ecology and ecological risk into long-term stewardship on contaminated sites. Remediation Journal, 13, 107–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burger, J. (2011). Stakeholders and scientists: achieving implementable solutions to energy and environmental issues. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Burger, J., Carletta, M. A., Lowrie, K., Miller, K. T., & Greenberg, M. (2004). Assessing ecological resources for remediation and future land uses on contaminated lands. Environmental Management, 34, 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burger, J., Gochfeld, M., & Powers, C. W. (2007). Integrating long-term stewardship goals into the remediation process: natural resource damages and the Department of Energy. Journal of Environmental Management, 82, 189–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burger, J., Gochfeld, M., Pletnikoff, K., Snigaroff, R., Snigaroff, D., & Stamm, T. (2008). Ecocultural attributes: evaluating ecological degradation in terms of ecological goods and services versus subsistence and tribal values. Risk Analysis, 28, 1261–1272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burger, J., Harris, S., Harper, B., & Gochfeld, M. (2010). Ecological information needs for environmental justice. Risk Analysis, 30, 893–905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burger, J., Gochfeld, M., Powers, C. W., Brown, K., & Clarke, J. (2015). Using salmon as a bioindicator of the health of the Columbia River at Hanford. Waste Management Symposium, Phoenix, AZ, March 15-19, 2015.

  • Burger, J., Gochfeld, M., Bunn, A., Downs, J., Jeitner, C., Pittfield, T., & Salisbury, J. (2016a). Application of field evaluations of ecological resources at Hanford and other DOE sites for consistency of resources and sustainability. Waste Management Symposium, Phoenix, Arizona. March 6–10, 2016.

  • Burger, J., Gochfeld, M., Bunn, A., Downs, J., Jeitner, C., Pittfield, T., & Salisbury, J. (2016b). Functional remediation components: a conceptual method of evaluating the effects of remediation on risks to ecological receptors. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A, 79, 957–968.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Burger, J., Gochfeld, M., Bunn, A., Downs, J., Jeitner, C., Pittfield, T., Salisbury, J., & Kosson, D. (2017a). A methodology to evaluate ecological resources and risk using two case studies at the Department of Energy’s Hanford site. Environmental Management, 59, 357–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burger, J., Gochfeld, M., Bunn, A., Downs, J., Kosson, D., Pittfield, T., Jeitner, C., & Salisbury, J. (2017b). Ecological resource value, remediation options, and impacts: functional remediation at Hanford Site. Waste Management Symposium, Phoenix, Az 17: 14 pgs.

  • Butler, V. L., & O’Connor, J. E. (2004). 9000 years of salmon fishing on the Columbia River, North America. Quartenary Research, 62, 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cappupyns, V. (2016). Inclusion of social indicators in decision support tools for the selection of sustainable site remediation options. Journal of Environmental Management, 184, 45–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) (2013). We are salmon people CRITFC. http://critfc.org/salmon-culture/columbia-river-salmon/columbia-river-salmon-species.

  • Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP). (2015). Final methodology for the Hanford site-wide risk review project. Nashville: CRESP, Vanderbilt University http://www.cresp.org/hanford/methodology. Accessed 11 Feb 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., Limburg, K., Grasso, M., de Groot, R., Faber, S., O'Neill, R. V., Van den Belt, M., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R. G., & Hannon, B. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387, 253–260.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Costanza, R. R., d Groot, R., Sutton, P., van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S. J., Kubiszewski, I., Farber, S., & Turner, R. K. (2014). Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change, 26, 152–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowley, K. D., & Ahearn, J. F. (2002). Managing the environmental legacy of U.S. nuclear-weapons production. American Science, 90, 514–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dale, V. H., & Parr, P. D. (1998). Preserving DOE’s research parks. Issues in Science & Technology, 14, 73–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dauble, D. D., & Watson, D. G. (1997). Status of fall Chinook salmon populations in the mid-Columbia River, 1948-1992. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 17, 283–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Energy (DOE). (1994a). Stewards of a national resources. Washington: Department of Energy, Office of Energy Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Energy (DOE). (1994b). National Environmental Research Parks. Washington: Department of Energy, Office of Energy Research, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Energy (DOE) (2000). Status report on paths to closure. DOE/EM-0526 Washington, DC: Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management. Available at: http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f8/StatusReportOnPathsToClosure_2000.pdf.

  • Department of Energy (DOE) (2001a). Hanford Site biological resources management plan, Appendix D: Hanford’s biological resources: geographic information system-based resource maps, species of concern data tables, and their technical basis. DOE/RL 96–32. Richland, WA: Department of Energy, Richland Operations The Office.

  • Department of Energy (DOE) (2001b). DOE/RL 96-32. Hanford site biological resources management plan, Appendix C: Hanford biological resources in a regional context. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, WA.

  • Department of Energy (DOE). (2002). A review of the environmental management program. Washington, D.C: Department of energy, Office of Environmental Management.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Energy (DOE). (2012). Environmental assessment: integrated vegetation management on the Hanford Site. Richland: DOE, Richland Operations Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Energy (DOE) (2013a) Hanford Site biological resources management plan, Revision 0. DOE/RL-96-32. Richland, WA: Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office. Available at: http://www.hanford.gov/files.cfm/DOE-RL-96-32-01.pdf. Accessed 11 Mar 2018.

  • Department of Energy (DOE) (2013b). Ecological monitoring. http://hanford.gov/page.cfm/ecological monitoring. Accessed 1 Mar 2018.

  • Department of Energy (DOE) (2017) 2017 year in review: outline of EM’s cleanup achievements. https://energy.gov/em/downloads/department-energy-office-environmental-manaement-2017-year-review.

  • Department of Energy (DOE-RL) (2017a). 324 building. http://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/324building. Accessed 1 Mar 2018.

  • Department of Energy (DOE-RL) (2017b). K-reactors. http://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/Kreactors. Accessed 1 Mar 2018.

  • Department of Energy (DOE-RL) (2017c). Surplus reactors final disposition engineering evaluation. http://www.hanford.gov/?page=56&parent=6. Accessed 1 Mar 2018.

  • Department of Energy (DOE-RL) (2017d). Fast flux test facility. http://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/400 area_fftf. Accessed 1 Mar 2018.

  • Department of Energy (DOE-RL) (2017e). Plutonium uranium extraction plant. http://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/purex. Accessed 1 Mar 2018.

  • Department of Energy (DOE-RL) (2017f). B plant. http://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/Bplant. Accessed 1 Mar 2018.

  • Department of Energy (DOE-RL) (2017g). Plutonium uranium extraction plant. http://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/Uplant. Accessed 1 Mar 2018.

  • Department of Energy (DOE-RL) (2017h). Reduction-oxidation plant. http://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/Redox. Accessed 1 Mar 2018.

  • Department of Energy (DOE-RL) (2017i). Plutonium finishing plant. http://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/PFP. Accessed 1 Mar 2018.

  • Downs, J. L., Rickard, W. H., & Brandt, C. A. (1993). Habitat types on the Hanford site: wildlife and plant species of concern. Richland: PNL-8942, UC-702. Pacific Northwest national Laboratory.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, J. P., Burk, K. W., Chamness, M. A., Fowler, R. A., Fritz, B. G., Hendrickson, P. L., Kennedy, E. P., Last, G. L., Poston, T. M., & Sackschewsk, M. R. (2007). Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) characterization. Richland: PNNL-6415. Rev. 18, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J. R., Lih, M. P., Dunwiddie, P. W., Caplow, F. E., Easterly, R., Landholt, P. J., McIntosh, T. T., Meisel, J. K., Newell, R. L., & Nugent, J. J. (2003). Biodiversity studies of the Hanford site (pp. 2002–2003). Seattle: The Nature Conservancy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig, L. (2003). Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Evolutionary Systematics, 34, 487–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, J., & Lindenmayer, D. B. (2007). Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: a synthesis. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 16, 265–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fulton, LA. (1968). Spawning areas and abundance of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Columbia River basin—past and present. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Special Scientific Report, Fisheries No. 571, Washington, D.C.

  • Greenberg, M., & Lowrie, K. (2001). A proposed model for community participation and risk communication for a DOE-led stewardship program. Federal Facilities Environmental Journal Spring, 2001, 125–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harper, B. L., & Harris, S. G. (2008). A possible approach for setting a mercury risk-based action level based on tribal fish ingestion rates. Environmental Research, 107, 60–68.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Landeen, D., & Pinkham, A. (1999). Salmon and his people. Lewiston: Confluence Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leitao, A. B., & Ahern, J. (2002). Applying landscape ecological concepts and metrics in sustainable landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 59, 65–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, J. G. (2011). Use of underground facilities by bats at the Hanford site in shrub-steppe habitats in Washington. MS thesis, Washington State University, Pullman, WA.

  • McAllister, C., Beckert, H., Abrams, C., Bilyard, G., Cadwell, K., Friant, S., Glantz, C., Maziaka, R., & Miller, K. (1996). Survey of ecological resources at selected U.S. Department of Energy sites. DOE/EH-0534. Pacific northwest National Laboratory, Richland Washington. Available: http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/29/015/29015260.pdf. Accessed 11 Feb 2018.

  • National Research Council (NRC). (1983). Risk assessment in the federal government. Washington: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). (1993). Issues in risk assessment. Washington D.C: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). (1995). Improving the environment: an evaluation of DOE’s environmental management program. Washington D.C: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). (1996). Upstream: salmon and society in the Pacific Northwest. Washington: National Research Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). (2000). Long-term institutional management of US Department of Energy legacy waste sites. National Academy Press, Washington D.C.

  • Nez Perce Tribe. (2003). Treaties: Nez Perce perspectives. Richland: US DOE and Confluence Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Omernik, J. M. (2004). Perspectives on the nature and definition of ecological regions. Environmental Management, 34, 527–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Opperman, J. J., Apse, C., Ayer, F., Banks, J., Day, L. R., Royte, J., & Seebach, J. (2011). Hydropower, salmon and the Penobscot River (Maine, USA): pursuing improved environment and energy outcomes through participatory decision-making and basin-scale decision context. In J. Burger (Ed.), Stakeholders and scientists: achieving implementable solutions to energy and environmental issues (pp. 311–336). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Oregon Biodiversity Information Center (OBIC). (2013). Rare, threatened, and endangered species of Oregon. Portland: Institute of Natural Resources, Portland State University 111 pgs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pak, R., Houston, D., Potter, R. F. (2000). D & D of Hanford’s retired production reactors: an opportunity to demonstrate best commercial procurement practices. Waste management symposium, 2000, Tucson, AZ.

  • Rodrick, E., & Milner, R. (1991). Management recommendations for Washington’s priority habitats and species. Olympia: Washington Department of Wildlife Available http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00029/.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sackschewsky, M. R., & Downs, J. L. (2001). Vascular plants of the Hanford site. Richland: PNNL-13688, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soll, J., Hall, J., Pabst, R., & Soper, C. (1999). Biodiversity inventory and analysis of the Hanford site—final report 1994–1999. Seattle: The Nature Conservancy of Washington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, M. G., & Gardner, R. H. (2015). Landscape ecology in theory and practice: pattern and process. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (2008). Hanford reach national monument: comprehensive conservation plan and environmental impact statement. U.S. Fish And Wildlife Service. 2008 Available: http://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/Region_1/NWRS/Zone_2/Mid-Columbia_River_Complex/Hanford_Reach_National_Monument/Documents/final-ccp.pdf. Accessed 16 Feb 2018.

  • United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (2014). Rare, threatened, or endangered species: Hanford reach. http://www.fws.gov/refuge/Hanford_Reach/Wildlife_Habitat/Rare_Species.html Accessed 16 Feb 2018.

  • Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) (2008). Washington State Priority Habitats and Species List. Olympia Washington. 174 pp. http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/. Accessed 1 Mar 2018.

  • Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) (2014) Species of concern in Washington. http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/endangered/ Accessed 13 Feb 2018.

  • Washington Noxious Weed Control Board (WNWCB) (2014). Noxious weed list. http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/. Accessed 1 Mar 2018.

  • Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WSDNR) (2014). Washington natural heritage program plant ranks. http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/lists/plantrnk.html. Accessed 1 Mar 2018.

  • Whicker, F., Hinton, T., MacDonnell, M., Pinder III, J., & Haberger, L. (2004). Avoiding destructive remediation at DOE sites. Science, 303, 1615–1616.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, R. N. (2006). Return to the river: restoring salmon to the Columbia River. New York: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the help of other members of CRESP and PNNL for valuable discussions about risk, exposure assessments, and ecological evaluations, including A. Bunn, D. Kosson, L. Bliss, K. Browne, J. Salisbury, J. Clarke, E. Golovich, and K Hand.

Funding

This research was funded by the Consortium for Risk Evaluation through the Department of Energy (DE-FC01-95EW55084). PNNL’s funding was provided by the US Department of Energy Office of River Protection and Richland Operations Office. PNNL is operated by Battelle Memorial Institute for the US Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Life Sciences, Rutgers University, 604 Allison Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA

    Joanna Burger & Christian Jeitner

  2. Environmental and Occupational Medicine, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA

    Michael Gochfeld

Authors
  1. Joanna Burger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Gochfeld
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christian Jeitner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joanna Burger.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Burger, J., Gochfeld, M. & Jeitner, C. Risk valuation of ecological resources at contaminated deactivation and decommissioning facilities: methodology and a case study at the Department of Energy’s Hanford site. Environ Monit Assess 190, 478 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-018-6866-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-018-6866-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation