Ecological Risk Assessment at the Department of Energy: An Evolving Process

Functional remediation components: A conceptual method of evaluating the effects of remediation on risks to ecological receptors

Governmental agencies, regulators, health professionals, tribal leaders, and the public are faced with understanding and evaluating the effects of cleanup activities on species, populations, and ecosystems. While engineers and managers understand the processes involved in different remediation types such as capping, pump and treat, and natural attenuation, there is often a disconnect between (1) how ecologists view the influence of different types of remediation, (2) how the public perceives them, and (3) how engineers understand them. The overall goal of the present investigation was to define the components of remediation types (= functional remediation). Objectives were to (1) define and describe functional components of remediation, regardless of the remediation type, (2) provide examples of each functional remediation component, and (3) explore potential effects of functional remediation components in the post-cleanup phase that may involve continued monitoring and assessment. Functional remediation components include types, numbers, and intensity of people, trucks, heavy equipment, pipes, and drill holes, among others. Several components may be involved in each remediation type, and each results in ecological effects, ranging from trampling of plants, to spreading invasive species, to disturbing rare species, and to creating fragmented habitats. In some cases remediation may exert a greater effect on ecological receptors than leaving the limited contamination in place. A goal of this conceptualization is to break down functional components of remediation such that managers, regulators, and the public might assess the effects of timing, extent, and duration of different remediation options on ecological systems.

Conceptual site models as a tool in evaluating ecological health: the case of the Department of Energy's Amchitka Island nuclear test site

Managers of contaminated sites are faced with options ranging from monitoring natural attenuation to complete removal of contaminants to meet residential health standards. Conceptual site models (CSMs) are one tool used by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and other environmental managers to understand, track, help with decisions, and communicate with the public about the risk from contamination. CSMs are simplified graphical representations of the sources, releases, transport and exposure pathways, and receptors, along with possible barriers to interdict pathways and reduce exposure. In this article, three CSMs are created using Amchitka Island, where the remaining contamination is from underground nuclear test shot cavities containing large quantities of numerous radionuclides in various physical and chemical forms: (1) a typical underground nuclear test shot CSM (modeled after other sites), (2) an expanded CSM with more complex receptors, and (3) a regional CSM that takes into account contaminant pathways from sources other than Amchitka. The objective was to expand the CSM used by DOE to be more responsive to different types of receptors. Amchitka Island differs from other DOE test shot sites because it is surrounded by a marine environment that is highly productive and has a high biodiversity, and the source of contamination is underground, not on the surface. The surrounding waters of the Bering Sea and North Pacific Ocean are heavily exploited by commercial fisheries and provide the United States and other countries with a significant proportion of its seafood. It is proposed that the CSMs on Amchitka Island should focus more on the pathways of exposure and critical receptors, rather than sources and blocks. Further, CSMs should be incorporated within a larger regional model because of the potentially rapid transport within ocean ecosystems. The large number of migratory or highly mobile species that pass by Amchitka provide the potential for a direct pathway to the local human population, known as Aleut, and commercial fisheries, which are remote from the island itself. The exposure matrix for receptors requires expansion for the Amchitka Island ecosystem because of the valuable marine and seafood resources in the region. CSMs with an expanded exposure/receptor matrix can be used effectively to clarify the conceptualization of the problem for scientists, regulators, and the general public.

Landscapes, tourism, and conservation

One key aspect of global change is a decrease in ecological integrity as more and more landscapes are developed, leaving a mosaic of intact refuges and degraded patches that may not be sufficient for conserving biodiversity. While increases in human population and shifts in the distribution of people affect land use, the temporary movement of people can have major implications for conservation and biodiversity. Three examples are presented where recreation/tourism can enhance the conservation of land on a landscape scale, leading to habitat protection and biodiversity preservation: (1) Shorebirds often require a matrix of different habitat types during migratory stopovers, and ecotourism can serve as a catalyst for landscape scale protection of habitat. (2) Riparian habitats can serve as corridors to link diverse habitat patches, as well as serving as biodiversity hotspots. (3) Remediation and rehabilitation of contaminated lands, such as those of the US Department of Energy, aimed at developing recreational activities on the uncontaminated portions, can be the most economical form of re-development with no increase in human or ecological risk. Since large areas on many DOE sites have been undisturbed since the Second World War, when they were acquired, they contain unique or valuable ecosystems that serve an important role within their regional landscapes. In all three cases the judicious development of recreational/tourist interests can encourage both the conservation of habitats and the wise management of habitats on a landscape scale. While some species or habitats are too fragile for sustained tourism, many can be managed so that species, ecosystems and ecotourists flourish. By contributing to the economic base of regions, ecotourists/recreationists can influence the protection of land and biodiversity on a landscape scale, contributing to ecosystem management. The human dimensions of land preservation and biodiversity protection are key to long-term sustainability, and ecotourists/recreationists can be one management option.