A template of information needs for decision-making about delaying remediation on contaminated lands to protect human health

ABSTRACT

The contamination legacy of industrialization, militarization, and nuclear arms race poses current or future risks to populations and the environment. Responsible parties and regulators make decisions regarding which sites to clean up, how, how much, and when. This study aimed to provide an information needs template to evaluate and reduce risks to human health when considering whether to initiate or delay remediation. This investigation focused on four aspects of timing and prioritization: 1) management, planning and implementation, 2) source terms, pathways, and exposures, 3) risks and receptors, and 4) external drivers. Within each type, issues were identified and described. Management class included personnel, health and safety data, funding, equipment, and structural integrity. Source term included contaminant sources, pathways, initiating events, and barriers to exposure. Risk included types and exposures to workers and general public. External drivers included regulatory framework, stakeholders, Congressional mandates, and economic and social contexts. Risk may increase over time as contamination spreads, enters aquifers, and reaches receptors, and may decline as radionuclides decay, and plumes dissipate. The overall objective was to provide a template of information that is useful to managers and regulators, and might be used by the public to understand the risks and benefits of re-prioritization cleanup.

KEYWORDS:

• Human health risk
• delaying remediation
• prioritization
• chemicals
• radionuclides
• environmental management

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy (DE-FC01-06EW07053) through the Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP), Rutgers University, and Vanderbilt University. We thank many colleagues who have discussed ecological resources, legacy wastes, contaminant migration, exposure, and risk assessment, ecological risk and evaluations, and the values Native Americans and stakeholders hold for the Hanford Site. This includes people from CRESP, DOE, the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, managers and scientists from EPA, the State of Washington, the Tribes, and others. The opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. DOE, Rutgers University and Vanderbilt University.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture [HATCH 1008906 and W3045]; Rutgers University; US Department of Energy [DE-FC01-06EW07053].