Risk to ecological resources following remediation can be due mainly to increased resource value of successful restoration: A case study from the Department of Energy's Hanford Site.

Many nations are faced with the need to remediate large contaminated sites following World War II, the Cold War, and abandoned industrial sites, and to return them to productive land uses. In the United States, the Department of Energy (DOE) has the largest cleanup challenge, and its Hanford Site in the state of Washington has the most extensive and most expensive cleanup task. Ideally, the risk to ecological resources on remediation sites is evaluated before, during, and after remediation, and the risk from, or damage to, ecological resources from contaminants should be lower following remediation. In this paper, we report the risk to ecological resources before, during, and as a consequence of remediation on contaminated units requiring cleanup, and then examine the causes for changes in risk by evaluating 56 cleanup evaluation units (EUs) at the Hanford Site. In this case, remediation includes a restoration phase. In general, the risk to ecological and eco-cultural resources is currently not discernible or low at most contaminated units, increases during remediation, and decreases thereafter. Remediation often causes physical disruption to ecosystems as it reduces the risk from exposure to contaminants. Most new remediation projects at the Hanford Site include ecological restoration. Ecological restoration results in the potential for the presence of higher quality resources after remediation than currently exists on these contaminated lands and facilities. Although counter-intuitive, our evaluation of the risk to ecological resources following remediation indicated that a significant percentage of units (61%) will be at increased risk in the post-remediation period. This increased risk is due to DOE's successful remediation and restoration that results in a higher percent of native vegetation and higher ecological value on the sites in the post-remediation period than before. These newly-created resources can then be at risk from post-remediation activities. Risks to these new higher quality resources include the potential for spread of invasive species and of noxious grasses used in previous cleanup actions, disruption of ecosystems (including those with state or federally listed species and unique ecosystems), compaction of soil, use of pesticides to control invasive species, and the eventual need for continued monitoring activities. Thus, by greatly improving the existing habitat and health of eco-receptors, and maintaining habitat corridors between high quality habitats, the ecological resources in the post-remediated units are at risk unless care is taken to protect them. Many of the negative effects of both remediation and future monitoring (or other future land uses) can be avoided by planning and management early in the remediation process. We suggest DOE and other agencies convene a panel of managers, remediation scientists, regulators, environmental and ecological scientists, Native Americans, economists, and the public to develop a generic list of performance metrics for the restoration phase of remediation, including evaluation of success, which could be applied across the DOE complex.

Evaluation of ecological resources at operating facilities at contaminated sites: The Department of Energy's Hanford Site as a case study.

The U.S. and other developed nations are faced with many contaminated sites remaining from World War II, the Cold War, and abandoned industries, that require remediation and restoration to allow future land uses with minimum acceptable risk to humans and ecological resources. For large Department of Energy (DOE) sites with massive remediation tasks remaining, it is important for managers to be able to assure regulators, Tribal Nations, and the public that human and ecological health are protected. Hanford Site has the largest and most expensive cleanup task within the DOE complex; cleanup will continue beyond 2090. Cleanup involves the use of operating facilities, which also may present a risk to humans or ecological resources. We present a brief description of a methodology to evaluate risks to ecological receptors at the Hanford Site from remaining remediation tasks, and evaluate the risk to ecological resources that operating facilities present currently, during active cleanup of these facilities, and during the post cleanup period. Operating facilities include current, active operations that are located on the site and aid in site cleanup, including both storage and treatment operations. At the Hanford Site, they include waste treatment plants, sludge basins, waste trenches, Central Waste Complex, storage facilities, and disposal facilities, among others. Risk ratings for ecological resources are highest during the remediation phase. Risk ratings for the operating facilities at the Hanford Site range from not discernible to medium currently, from not discernible (ND) to high during active cleanup, and from not discernible to medium following cleanup. The highest ratings are for the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant that is being constructed to stabilize radioactive and chemical wastes, and the Liquid Effluent Retention and Treatment Facility that removes and deactivates hazardous contaminants from waste water. Higher ratings in the post-cleanup period are largely due to restoration of ecological resources during cleanup, which increases the potential for injury (if these resources are harmed) because a site will then have higher quality resources after cleanup than it did before. Assessing the value of ecological resources, and determining potential consequences during active remediation and after remediation is essential for compliance with state and federal laws. Understanding the risks to ecological resources from now until clean-up is completed at these facilities is important because of the potential for ecological resources of high value to be degraded, and because cleanup completion is not expected until 2090 or later. The methodology can be applied to any contaminated site requiring a rapid method of assessing potential damages to ecological resources from proposed management actions.

The costs of delaying remediation on human, ecological, and eco-cultural resources: Considerations for the Department of Energy: A methodological framework.

Remediation and restoration of the Nation's nuclear legacy of radiological and chemical contaminated areas is an ongoing and costly challenge for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). For large sites, such as the Hanford and Savannah River Sites, successful remediation involves complex decisions related to remedies, end-states, timing, and sequencing of cleanup of separate and related contaminated units within a site. Hanford Site cannot clean up every unit simultaneously due to limits in funding, personnel, and technology. This paper addresses one of the major considerations - the consequences of delaying remediation of a unit on different receptors (e.g. people, ecological, and eco-cultural resources), using the DOE Hanford Site as a case study. We develop a list of attributes that managers should consider for successful remediation, examine how delaying remediation could affect workers, the public and ecological resources (including water resources), and use some examples to illustrate potential effects of delays. The factors to consider when deciding whether and how long to delay remediation of a unit include personnel, information and data, funding, equipment, structural integrity, contaminant source, and resource vulnerability. Each of these factors affects receptors differently. Any remediation task may be dependent on other remediation projects, on the availability of transport, containers, interim storage and ultimate disposition decisions, or the availability of trained personnel. Delaying remediation may have consequences for people (e.g. workers, site neighbors), plants, animals, ecosystems, and eco-cultural resources (i.e. those cultural values that depend upon ecological resources). The risks, benefits, and uncertainties for evaluating the consequences of delaying remediation are described and discussed. Assessing the advantages and disadvantages of delaying remediation is important for health professionals, ecologists, resource trustees, regulators, Tribal members, recreationists, fishermen, hunters, conservationists, and a wide range of other stakeholders.