Shifting priorities at the Department of Energy's bomb factories: Protecting human and ecological health

Environmental Management

Volumn 31, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 157-167

  Burger, Joanna ^a,b,c   Leschine, Thomas M ^d   Greenberg, Michael ^e   Karr, James R ^d   Gochfeld, Michael ^f   Powers, Charles W ^f  

^a RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute   (United States)

^c RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^e RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^f RUTGERS ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

Cleanup; Department of Energy; Priorities; Trade offs

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; COSTS; ECOLOGY; HEALTH;

BOMB FACTORIES;

BOMBSIGHTS;

CLEANUP; CONTAMINATED LAND; HAZARDOUS WASTE; WASTE MANAGEMENT; WEAPON;

AIR POLLUTION; ATOMIC BOMB; CHEMICAL INDUSTRY; DECISION MAKING; ECOLOGY; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOACTIVITY; FISH; GOVERNMENT; HEALTH HAZARD; HUMAN; NONHUMAN; NUCLEAR ENERGY; NUCLEAR WASTE; PLANT; POLITICS; REVIEW; RISK; SOIL POLLUTION; UNITED STATES; WATER CONTAMINATION; WILDLIFE; ARTICLE; ATOMIC WARFARE; ENVIRONMENT; HAZARDOUS WASTE; MANAGEMENT; POLLUTION; PUBLIC HEALTH; RISK ASSESSMENT;

DECISION MAKING; ECOLOGY; ENVIRONMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION; HAZARDOUS WASTE; HUMANS; NUCLEAR WARFARE; POLICY MAKING; PUBLIC HEALTH; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0038137410     PISSN: 0364152X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00267-002-2778-4     Document Type: Review

References (72)

1. Boice, L. P. 2001. Conserving the Department of Defense's natural and cultural resources: recent advances, new challenges. Environmental Practice 3:8-11.
2. Brown, K. S. 1998. The great DOE land rush? Science 282:616-617.
3. Burger, J. 1999. Environmental monitoring on Department of Energy lands: the need for a holistic plan. Strategic Environmental Management 1:351-367.
4. Burger, J. 2000. Integrating environmental restoration and ecological restoration: long-term stewardship at the Department of Energy. Journal of Environmental Management 26:469-478.
5. Burger, J., and M. Gochfeld. 2000. On developing bioindicators for human and ecological health. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 66:23-46.
6. Burger, J., and M. Gochfeld. 2001. Stewardship and the U.S. Department of Energy: encompassing ecosystem protection. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 44:437-454.
7. Burger, J., J. Sanchez, J. W. Gibbons, and M. Gochfeld. 1997. Risk perception, federal spending, and the Savannah River Site: attitudes of hunters and fishermen. Risk Analysis 17:313-320.
8. Burger, J., D. E. Roush, Jr., D. Wartenberg, and M. Gochfeld. 1999. Future land use and concerns about the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory: perceptions and concerns of urban dwellers. Journal of Environmental Management 24:541-551.
9. Burger, J., M. Gochfeld, C. W. Powers, L. Waishwell, C. Warren and B. D. Goldstein. 2001. Science, policy, stakeholders, and fish consumption advisories: developing a fish fact sheet for the Savannah River. Journal of Environmental Management 27:501-514.
10. Burger, J., O. Myers, C. S. Boring, C. Dixon, C. Lord, M. McMahon, R. Ramos, S. Shukla, and M. Gochfeld. 2002. Perceptions of environmental problems, future land use and concerns regarding the Los Alamos National Laboratory: Hispanics are more concerned. Environmental Research (in press).
11. Cohen, J. T., B. D. Beck, and R. Rudel. 1997. Life years lost at hazardous waste sites: remediation worker fatalities vs. cancer deaths to nearby residents. Risk Analysis 17:419-425.
12. Daisey, J. M. 1998. A report on the workshop on improving exposure analysis for DOE sites, September, 1996, San Francisco, CA. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 8:3-8.
13. Dale, V. H., and P. D. Parr. 1998. Preserving DOE's research parks. Issues in Science and Technology 14:73-77.
14. Department of Defense. 2001. Coming in from the cold: military heritage in the Cold War. Department of Defense (http://128.174.5.51/denix/public/ES-Programs/Conservation/ColdWar/ coldwar.html).
15. DOE (Dpartment of Energy). 1994a. Federal Facility Compliance Act 12-month progress report to Congress, October 1994. US Department of Energy (http://www.em.doe.gov/ rtc1994).
16. DOE (Department of Energy). 1994b. Stewards of national resources. DOE/FM-0002. Department of Energy, Washington, DC.
17. DOE (Department of Energy). 1994c. National environmental research parks. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Research, Washington, DC.
18. DOE (Department of Energy). 1995. Estimating the Cold War mortgage: the 1995 baseline environmental management report. DOE/EM-0232. Office of Environmental Management, Washington, DC.
19. DOE (Department of Energy). 1996a. Charting the course: the future use report. DOE/EM-0283. Department of Energy, Washington, DC.
20. DOE (Department of Energy). 1996b. Hanford Site: comprehensive facility and land use plan. DOE/EM-0283. Department of Energy, Washington, DC.
21. DOE (Department of Energy). 1996c. Idaho National Engineering Laboratory: comprehensive facility and land use plan. DOE/EM-0283. Department of Energy, Washington, DC.
22. DOE (Department of Energy). 1996c. The 1996 baseline environmental management report, Vol I. DOE/EM-0232. Office of Environmental Management, Washington, DC.
23. DOE (Department of Energy). 1997. Cross-cut guidance on environmental requirements for DOE real property transfers. October 1997, DOE/EH412/9712. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Policy and Assistance Washington, DC, p. 3-3.
24. DOE (Department of Energy). 1999a. Nuclear and environmental stewardship dominate DOE spending (http:// nmsnet.ilnl.gov/demo/demo/ndom.html).
25. DOE (Department of Energy). 1999b. From cleanup to stewardship: a companion report to accelerating cleanup: paths to closure. DOE/EM-0466. Office of Environmental Management, Washington, DC.
26. DOE (Department of Energy). 2000. Paths to closure: status report 2000. DOE-EM-0526. Office of Environmental Management, Washington, DC.
27. DOE (Department of Energy). 2001. Long-term stewardship report to Congress. Prepared to fulfill a requirement in the FY 2000 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
28. DOE (Department of Energy). 2002. A Review of the Environmental Management Program. A report to the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management by the top-to-bottom review team. 4 February 2002. Department of Energy, Washington, DC.
29. Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council. 1995 (and later years). 1995 status report. Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, Anchorage, Alaska.
30. Frisch, M., L. Solitare, M. Greenberg, and K. Lowrie. 1998. Regional economic benefits of environmental management at the US Department of Energy's major nuclear weapons sites. Journal of Environmental Management 54:23-37.
31. GAO (General Accounting Office). 1997. Superfund: trends in spending for site cleanups. GAO/RCED-97-211. Washington, DC.
32. Geist, D. R. 1995. The Hanford Reach: what do we stand to lose? Illahee 11:130-141.
33. Gephart, R. E., and R. E. Lundgren. 1995. Hanford Tank cleanup: a guide to understanding the technical issues. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
34. Gochfeld, M., and E. A. Favata. 1990. Hazardous Waste Workers. Hanley and Belfus, Philadelphia.
35. Greenberg, M., D. Lewis, and M. Frisch. 2001. Regional economic impacts of environmental management of radiological hazards an initial analysis of a complex problem. Journal of Environmental Management 44:377-390.
36. Hawke, M. A., and J. R. Karr. 2000. Ecological response and compensatory mechanisms: Using ecological knowledge to improve remediation efforts. Pages 31-56 in M. Swindoll, R. G. Stahl, Jr., and S.J. Ells (eds.), Natural remediation of environmental contaminants: its role in ecological risk assessment and risk management. SETAC Press, Pensacola, Florida.
37. Holden, C. 1998. Exxon's legacy. Science 280:1697-1698.
38. Holloway, M. 1991. Soiled shores. Scientific American October: 102-116.
39. Hoskin, A. F., J. P. Leigh, and T. W. Planek. 1994. Estimated risk of occupational fatalities associated with hazardous waste site remediation. Risk Analysis 14:1011-1017.
40. Jenni, K. E., M. W. Merkhover, and C. Williams. 1995. The rise and fall of a risk-based priority system: lessons from DOE's Environmental Restoration Priority System. Risk Analysis 15:397-410.
41. Karr, J. R. 1991. Biological integrity: a long-neglected aspect of water resource management. Ecological Applications 1:66-84.
42. Karr, J. R. 1993. Protection ecological integrity: an urgent societal goal. Yale Journal of International Law 18:287-306.
43. Karr, J. R. 2000. Health, integrity, and biological assessment: The importance of measuring whole things. Pages 209-226 in D. Pimentel, L. Westra, and R. F. Noss (eds.), Ecological integrity: integrating environment, conservation, and health. Island Press, Covelo, California.
44. Karr, J. R. 2002. Understanding the consequences of human actions: Indicators from GNP to IBI. Pp 98-110 in P. Miller and L. Westra (eds.), Just ecological integrity: the ethics of maintaining planetary life. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, Maryland.
45. Karr, J. R., and E. W. Chu. 1999. Restoring life in running waters: Better biological monitoring. Island Press, Washington, DC.
46. Karr, J. R., and E. M. Rossano. 2001. Applying public health lessons to protect river health. Ecology and Civil Engineering 4:3-18.
47. Kimberling, D. N., J. R. Karr, and L. S. Fore. 2001. Measuring human disturbance using terrestrial invertebrates in the shrub-steppe of eastern Washington (USA). Ecological Indicators 1:63-81.
48. Leslie, M., G. K. Meffe, J. L. Hardesty, and D. L. Adams. 1996. Conserving biodiversity on military lands: a handbook for natural resources managers. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia.
49. LANL (Los Alamos National Laboratory). 1998. Threatened and Endangered Species Habitat Management Plan Overview. LALP-98-112. Department of Energy, Los Alamos, New Mexico.
50. Lowrie, K., and M. Greenberg, M. 2000a. The meaning of stewardship: implications for DOE long-term stewardship planning. Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation, Social and Economic Center, Rutgers University. Unpublished. pp. 1-24.
51. Lowrie, K., and M. Greenberg. 2000b. Local impacts of US nuclear weapons facilities, a survey of planners. Environment 20:157-168.
52. Lowrie, K., M. Greenberg, and M. Frisch. 1999. Economic fallout. Forum of Applied Research in Public Policy Summer: 120-126.
53. Malone, C. R. 1998. Implications of resources management at the Nevada Test Site. Federal Facilities Environmental Journal 9:51-62.
54. McCammon, M. 1997. See no evil? BioScience 47:66-67.
55. NRC (National Research Council). 1995a. Improving the environment: an evaluation of DOE's environmental management program. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
56. NRC (National Research Council). 1995b. Technical bases for Yucca Mountain standards. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
57. NRC (National Research Council). 1995c. Safety of the high-level uranium ore residues at the Niagara Falls storage site, Lewiston, New York. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
58. NRC (National Research Council). 2000a. Long-term institutional management of US Department of Energy legacy waste sites. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
59. NRC (National Research Council). 2000b. Alternatives for high-level waste salt processing at the Savannah River Site. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
60. NRC (National Research Council). 2000c. Research needs in subsurface science. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
61. Nelson, R. H. 2001. From waste to wilderness: maintaining biodiversity on nuclear-bomb-building sites. Competitive Enterprise Institute (hhtp://www.cei.org/MonoReader.asp?ID=1411).
62. Office of Environmental Management. 1995. Estimating the Cold War mortgage, vol. I. March 1995. DOE/EM-0232. Department of Energy, Washington, DC.
63. Paine, R. T., J. L. Ruesink, A. Sun, E. L. Soulanille, M. J. Wonham, C. D. G. Harley, D. R. Brumbaugh, and D. L. Secord. 1996. Trouble on oiled waters: lessons from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 27:197-235.
64. Piatt, J. F., H. Norton, and J. A. Wiens. 1997. Alternative interpretation of oil spill data. BioScience 47:202-206.
65. Piper, E. 1993. The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: Final Report, State of Alaska's Response. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Anchorage.
66. Sink, C. H., and C. W. Frank. 1996. DOE forges partnerships for environmental cleanup. Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy 11:65-69.
67. Sugai, S. F., J. E. Lindstrom, and J. F. Braddock. 1997. Environmental influences on the microbial degradation of Exxon Valdez oil on the shoreline of Prince William Sound, Alaska. Environmental Science and Technology 31:1564-1572.
68. Swindoll, M., R. G. Stahl, Jr., and S.J. Ells (eds.). 2000. Natural remediation of environmental contaminants: its role in ecological risk assessment and risk management. SETAC Press, Pensacola, Florida.
69. US Coast Guard. 1993. Federal on scene coordinator's report. T/V Exxon Valdez Oil Spill, Vol I. Washington, DC. Prepared for the National Response Team and the Alaska Regional Response Team, 570 pp.
70. Wiens, J. A. 1996. Oil, seabirds, and science (the effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill). BioScience 46:587-597.
71. Williams, B., S. Brown, and M. Greenberg. 1999a. Determinants of trust perceptions among residents surrounding the Savannah River nuclear weapons site. Environment and Behavior 31:354-371.
72. Williams, B., S. Brown, M. Greenberg, and M. Kahn. 1999b. Risk perception in context: the Savannah River Site stakeholder study. Risk Analysis 19:1019-1035.