Comparing Ecological Risk between D and D Facilities and Operating Facilities at the Hanford Site - 19531
- Division of Life Sciences, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ 08854-8082 (United States)
- Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation - CRESP, Rutgers University and Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37235 (United States)
- Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA (United States)
- Civil and Environmental Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37235-1831 (United States)
Many countries are faced with a large remediation task resulting from World War II, the Cold War, and subsequent industrial development. In the U.S. the Department of Energy (DOE) faces the largest hazardous waste remediation tasks, with a commitment to protect human health and the environment during and following remediation. DoE's biggest challenge is remediation of the many remaining cleanup areas at the Hanford Site, Washington. Some Hanford sites have extensive ecological resources and ecosystems that require protection or restoration. We briefly 1) describe a rapid evaluation method for ecological resources on units slated for cleanup that allows comparison among the different areas at the Hanford Site, 2) examine some D4 (deactivation, decommissioning, decontamination and demolition) facilities and Operating facilities that require remediation, 3) describe potential ecological harm to resources on these sites, and 4) compare how risks from potential harm vary at the Hanford Site. The ecological evaluation includes three phases: 1) general steps (identify resource categories, identify cleanup areas), 2) ecological descriptions (describe resources on the site to be cleaned up), and 3) ecological ratings (rate the value of the resources on a scale that can be applied across remediation sites). After completion of these steps for the sites requiring cleanup, a comparison of potential risks can be made among types of facilities (e.g. D4 facilities, legacy waste sites, operating facilities). D4 facilities are those slated for deactivation, decommissioning, decontamination and demolition, while operating facilities at Hanford include waste treatment plants, sludge basins, waste trenches, Central Waste Complex, storage facilities, and disposal facilities, among others required to support the D4 and other remediation activities, before they too are remediated. Currently the potential harm to ecological (and eco-cultural) resources on the Hanford Site for remediation at D4 facilities is very low, but increases 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 increase due to restoration of native vegetation on sites that were largely industrial prior to remediation. In contrast, the potential harm to ecological resources at Operating Facilities was higher currently than for D4 facilities, but was low to medium following cleanup. The higher harm (risk) at D4 facilities partly derives from the location of the reactors near the Columbia River, a resource extremely important to Tribal Nations and to other peoples in the Northwestern United States, as well as for the iconic and threatened salmon populations. Methods described in this paper provide Congress, DOE 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. The analysis of specific sites provides managers, regulators and the public with information to make cost-effective decisions about remediation that continues to enhance ecological value while protecting human health. (authors)
- Research Organization:
- WM Symposia, Inc., PO Box 27646, 85285-7646 Tempe, AZ (United States)
- OSTI ID:
- 23005393
- Report Number(s):
- INIS-US-21-WM-19531; TRN: US21V1320045727
- Resource Relation:
- Conference: WM2019: 45. Annual Waste Management Conference, Phoenix, AZ (United States), 3-7 Mar 2019; Other Information: Country of input: France; 23 refs.; available online at: https://www.xcdsystem.com/wmsym/2019/index.html
- Country of Publication:
- United States
- Language:
- English
Similar Records
Overview and History of DOE's Hanford Site - 12502
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