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

The importance of recognizing Buffer Zones to lands being developed, restored, or remediated: on planning for protection of ecological resources

Environmental management relies on many types of information before making decisions regarding remediation, restoration, or other land use decisions, including ecological data, such as risks to species, populations, communities, and ecosystems. The aim of this investigation was to describe the ecological information required within the context of making environmental decisions and providing visual communication tools for regulators, conservationists, and the public to understand the risk to ecological resources on- and off-site. It is suggested that ecological information used in environmental decisions is required to be transparent throughout the planning and execution of a project, which needs to include: 1) ecological information and evaluations within development areas or units (in this case, watersheds), and 2) resources in adjacent areas (Buffer Zones) that might be affected. The Melton Valley administrative watershed (Oak Ridge Reservation, TN) is used as a case study because this site still has active facility development and environmental remediation, and there are important ecological resources on and off-site. Data indicate that although there are important resources on Melton Valley administrative watershed, there are also significant resources in the Buffer Zone around the watershed. Compared to the Melton Valley administrative watershed, the Buffer Zone contains more Interior (and Buffer) Forest and greater value resources. The point is made that when remediation, restoration, or development occurs, it is equally important to consider resources that are adjacent to the site in a Buffer Zone, particularly when remediation and development might continue for many years or decades.

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.

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

Since the late 1980s, there has been a US federal mandate to clean up contaminated sites remaining from the Second World War, the Cold War, and abandoned industries. One determinant of cleanup standards for remediation is future land use-how will the land be used and by whom? Land use decisions may be consensus documents developed by site owners, state and federal agencies, and local stakeholders. Often there are competing views and/or claims on how remediated sites should be used, including as open or green space. Large sites are likely to have more ecological heterogeneity within similar land use designations because of differences in climate, geology, topography, and history of human use. This paper uses the Department of Energy's (DOE) Hanford Site as a case study to examine how and whether future land use designations will protect species, species diversity, heterogeneity, and ecosystems once remediation is complete. The objective of this paper is to describe "future land use designations" on a large, complex site (DOE's Hanford Site) and to examine the following: (1) how future land use designations were made and have changed over time, (2) how land use designations included the value of ecological resources, (3) how risk evaluations of ecological resources from remediation were made, and (4) how future land use may affect the health and well-being of ecological resources on site in the post-remediation period. The paper provides a paradigm for integrating ecological protection into future land use designations such that rare and sensitive resources are protected throughout the process. The paradigm includes the following: (1) developing future land use designations, (2) defining resource levels (values), (3) relating resource levels to land use designations and management, (4) defining risk evaluations, (5) determining the likelihood that valuable resources will occur on each land use type after remediation, and (6) evaluating the potential risk to those resources that results from activities allowed under future land use designations. The paper discusses the importance of each step, the implications for protection of ecological resources, and the importance of land use designations in the assessment of risk to ecological resources from both continued monitoring and maintenance by DOE (or other land owners) and the activities permitted by the established future land use designations.

Importance of buffer lands to determining risk to ecological resources at legacy contaminated sites: A case study for the Department of Energy's Hanford Site, Washington, USA

Contaminated lands remain from World War II, the Cold War, and industrial development. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) faces the largest cleanup task, with Hanford Site having the biggest challenge. DOE is committed to protection of human health and the environment during remediation. The Hanford Site has extensive ecological resources and unique ecosystems that require protection. The aims of this study were to: 1) describe a rapid evaluation method for ecological resources, 2) examine the relationship between the resource values on evaluation units (EU) and associated buffer lands for legacy waste sites, 3) discuss risk ratings for ecological resources during remediation, and 4) determine why the relationship may differ among different types of waste sites. For legacy sites, the risk rating for ecological resources was largely a function of % of valued resources on EUs and their buffer (in a 1:1 ratio). This ratio differs from that on operating facilities considered previously, where the relationship between high-quality resources was 1:4. The differences are unusual because both types of facilities are located on the Hanford Central Plateau where active waste management occurs. Differences may be due to 1) location of legacy sites close to the edge of waste area, 2) size of legacy site EUs, which indicates that buffers are large and extend into shrub-steppe habitat, and 3) less human activities on legacy sites. Considering risk from cleanup on ecological resources before the planning and during execution of a remediation strategy may reduce damages to ecological resources and remediation costs.

A framework for increasing sustainability and reducing risk to ecological resources through integration of remediation planning and implementation

Remediation of lands contaminated with radionuclides and hazardous chemicals provides an ongoing challenge for many countries. It is particularly problematic for remediation of old industrial sites remaining from World War II and the Cold War. Remediating and restoring large sites is often costly, time-consuming, and involves complex planning and sequencing, as well as consideration of future land use policies. The goal of remediation is to reduce contamination, reduce risk to humans and the environment, and restore land to productive land uses, and ultimately, to sustainability. Often reducing risk to people takes precedence over protecting ecological resources in overall planning, characterization, and execution of remediation strategies. This paper examines when and how stakeholders, including anyone interested and affected by remediation on ecological resources, can become involved in the planning, decision-making, and implementation of remediation. There is a formal process under federal law (e.g. CERCLA) in the US for examining risk to resources, including indicator species. However, there are other informal points during the cleanup process when managers should consider the value of ecological resources, the public may express their concerns for particular ecological resources, and ecologists may provide data and expert advice early in the process as critical decisions are being made about remediation that impact ecological resources. The framework presented in this paper for increasing sustainability of ecological resources has three periods of intervention 1) major decision points, 2) process interdiction points, and 3) remediation action points. Major decision points include site and problem identification, regional ecological resource and local land use practice determination, remediation goals and options determination, and other local issues. Interdiction points include examining remediation options, and in-depth assessments of ecological resources on-site. Remediation action points are aimed at reducing risk to ecological resources during remediation, and include defining the remediation site and buffer, understanding the effects of timing and sequencing of remediation, education of all remediation personnel, and specific suggestions for reducing risk during active remediation. While this framework was developed for Department of Energy remediation sites, it is applicable to brownfields and other contaminated lands world-wide. The overall goal is to provide interested and affected parties with a framework for protecting and enhancing ecological resources during the planning and execution of remediation on contaminated lands.

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.

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

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.