Using integrated geospatial mapping and conceptual site models to guide risk-based environmental clean-up decisions

Risk Analysis

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 429-446

  Mayer, Henry J ^a   Greenberg, Michael R ^a  

^a RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Conceptual site models; Department of energy; Geospatial mapping; Human and ecological risk; Risk based environmental clean up

Indexed keywords

DATA ACQUISITION; DECISION MAKING; GEOSTATIONARY SATELLITES; IMPURITIES; MAPPING; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; RADIOACTIVE WASTES; RISK MANAGEMENT;

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE); ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS; GEOSPATIAL MAPPING; GRAPHICS TECHNOLOGY;

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION;

CLEANUP; RISK ASSESSMENT; WASTE MANAGEMENT;

ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; MEDICAL ILLUSTRATION; POLLUTANT; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK MANAGEMENT; RISK REDUCTION; THEORETICAL MODEL; UNITED STATES;

NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES; WESTERN HEMISPHERE; WORLD;

EID: 18644368448     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00600.x     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. MacKenzie, D. (1994). Environmental risk analysis. Chapter 2: Risk assessment strategies. In Proceedings and Papers from the 1994 Risk Assessment Research Symposium. Available at http://www.isb.vt.edu/brarg/brasym94/mackenz. htm, December 2003.
2. Albert, D., Gessler, W., & Levergood, B. (Eds.). (2000). Spatial Analysis, GIS and Remote Sensing Applications in the Health Sciences. Chelsea, MI: Ann Arbor Press.
3. Cromley, E., & Lafferty, S. (2002). GIS and Public Health. New York: Guildford Press.
4. Monmonier, M.B., & Johnson, B. (1997). Design Guide for Environmental Maps. Trenton, NJ: State of New Jersey, Dep't of Environmental Protection, Division of Science and Research.
5. OEM. (1995). Closing the Circle on Splitting the Atom. Washington, DC: Office of Environmental Management, U.S. Dep't of Energy.
6. DOE. (1995). Estimating the Cold War Mortgage: The 1995 Baseline Environmental Management Report. Volume I. DOE/EM-0232. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management.
7. Groves, L.R. (1962). Now it Can Be Told: The Story of the Manhattan Project. New York: Harper and Row.
8. Gerber, M. (1992). On the Home Front: The Cold War Legacy of the Hanford Nuclear Site. Lincoln, NE and London, UK: University of Nebraska Press.
9. Mayer, H. (1999). The Environmental and Economic Impact: Nuclear Missions in Rural Communities. Doctoral Dissertation. Ann Arbor: UMI Dissertation Services.
10. DOE. (2002). A review of the Environmental Management Program: United States Department of Energy. Presented to the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management by the Top-to-Bottom Review Team. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC.
11. ASTM. (1995). Standard Guide for Developing Conceptual Site Models for Contaminated Sites, Designation E 1689-95. West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials.
12. DOE. (2003). Policy: DOE P 455.1; Use of Risk-Based End States. Washington, DC: U.S. Dep't of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, approved 7-15-03.
13. DOE. (2003). Guidance for Developing a Site-Specific Risk-Based End State Vision. Washington, DC: U.S. Dep't of Energy, Office of Environmental Management.
14. DOE. (2003). Implementation Plan: U.S. Department of Energy Policy 455.1: Use of Risk-Based End States. Predecisional Draft. Washington, DC: U.S. Dep't of Energy, Office of Environmental Management.
15. DOE. (2003). Risk Based End States Guidance Clarification: Memorandum for Distribution. Washington, DC: U.S. Dep't of Energy, Eugene C. Schmitt, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Cleanup and Acceleration, Office of Environmental Management.
16. DOE. (1999). From Cleanup to Stewardship, A Companion Report to "Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure." Washington, DC: U.S. Dep't of Energy, Office of Environmental Management.
17. Kwaku Kyem, P. A. (2004). Of intractable conflicts and participatory GIS applications: The search for consensus amidst competing claims and institutional demands. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 94(1), 37-57.
18. Haynes, R. G., Bentham, A. L. & Gale, S. (1999). Effects of distances to hospital and GP surgery on hospital inpatient episodes, controlling for needs and provisions. Social Science and Medicine, 49(3), 425-133.
19. Love, D., & Lundquist, P. (1995). Geographical accessibility of hospitals to the aged: A geographical information systems analysis with Illinois. Health Services Research, 29(6), 629-651.
20. Wallace, R., & Fullilove, M. (1991). AIDS deaths in the Bronx 1983-1988: Spatiotemporal analysis from a sociogeographic viewpoint. Environment and Planning, A23, 1701-1723.
21. Wartenberg, D., Greenberg, M., & Lathrop, R. (1993). Identification and characterization of populations living near high-voltage transmission lines: A pilot study. Environmental Health Perspectives, 101, 626-632.
22. U.S. Navy. (2001). U.S. Navy Human Health Risk Assessment Guidance: Chapter 5 - Planning/Scoping. Available at http://www-nehc.med.navy.mil/HHRA, December 2001.
23. Mayer, H., Keren, R., Danis, C., Greenberg, M., Vyas, V., Powers, C., Gochfeld, M., Burger, J., Kosson, D., & Lioy, P. (2003). Geospatial Mapping for End-State Use Applications at U.S. Department of Energy Sites. Draft Report to U.S. Dep't of Energy. New Brunswick, NJ.
24. Mayer, H., Keren, R., Danis, C., Greenberg; M., Vyas, V., Powers, C., Gochfeld, M., Burger, J., Kosson, D., & Lioy, P. (2003b). Risk-Based End State Guidance: Geospatial Mapping Tool - A Report Prepared for DOE, HQ. Appendix B. Report 82. New Brunswick, NJ: CRESP Social and Economic Center of Expertise.
25. Greenberg, M., Miller, K. T., Lowrie, K., Carletta, M. A., & Burger, J. (2003). An ecologically oriented database to guide remediation and reuse of contaminated sites. Remediation, 14(1), 69-83.
26. Burger, J. (2000). Integrating environmental restoration and ecological restoration: Long-term stewardship at the Department of Energy. Environmental Management, 26, 469-478.
27. Burger, J., Powers, C., Greenberg, M., & Gochfeld, M. (In press). Regulation, risk and the Department of Energy cleanup. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management.
28. Carletta, M.A., Lowrie, K., Miller, K. T., Greenberg, M., & Burger, J. (2004). Guidance for determining the best disposition of large tracts of decommissioned land. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 47(2), 243-268.
29. OMB. (1990). Coordination of Surveying, Mapping, and Related Spatial Data Activities. Circular A-016, Office of Management and the Budget. Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a016/a016.html.
30. FGDC. (1994). Coordinating Geographic Data Acquisition and Access: The National Spatial Data Infrastructure. Executive Order 12906. Available at http://www.fgdc.gov/publications/documents/geninfo/execord.html.
31. FGDC. (2003). Final Stage - FGDC Endorsed Standards. Status of FGD C Standards as of June 30, 2003. Available at http://www.fgdc.gov/standards/ status/textstatus.html.
32. USGS. (2001). United States Geological Survey National Land Cover Characterization Project. Available at http://landcover.usgs.gov/ nationallandcover.asp.
33. USGS. (1992). United States Geological Survey National Land Cover Data. Available at http://landcover.usgs.gov/prodescription.asp.
34. APA. (2003). Land-Based Classification Standards. American Planning Association. Available at http://www.planning.org/LBCS/GeneralInfo.
35. U.S. Army. (2003a). CADD/GIS Technology Center for Facilities, Infrastructure, and Environment. CADD and Geospatial Technologies. Available at http://tsc.wes.army.mil/products/TSSDS-TSFMS/tssds/html/.
36. APA. (2004). LBCS Training Options. American Planning Association. Available at http://www.planning.org/lbcs/Resources/lbcstrain.htm.
37. U.S. Army. (2002). Spatial Data Standards for Facilities, Infrastructure, & Environment (SDSFIE) and Facility Management Standards for Facilities, Infrastructure, & Environment (FMSFIE): History of Development and Benefits. The CADD/GIS Technology Center for Facilities, Infrastructure, and Environment, Information Technology Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi. June 2002. Available at http://tsc.wes.army.mil/ products/tssds-tsfms/tssds/articles/papers%5Cbenefits%5Csdsfmsb220.htm.
38. USGS. (2004). The National Map Seamless Data Distribution System. United States Geological Survey. Available at http://seamless.usgs.gov/.
39. Greenberg, M., Burger, J., Lowrie, K., & Keren, R. (2004). Factors Influencing Accurate Understanding of Radiological Risk Information at Former U.S. Nuclear Weapons Sites.Report 90. New Brunswick, N.J: CRESP Social and Economic Center of Expertise.
40. EPA. (1987). Data Quality Objectives for Remedial Response Activities. EPA/540/G-87/003, OSWER Directive 9335.0-7B. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
41. EPA. (1988). Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA: Interim Final. EPA/540/G-89/004, OSWER Directive 9335.3-01. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
42. EPA. (1991). Conducting Remedial Investigations/Feasibility Studies for CERCLA Municipal Landfill Sites. EPA/540/ P-91/001. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency Remedial Response.
43. EPA. (1992). Guidance for Data Usability in Risk Assessment (Part A): Final. Publication 9285.7-09A. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency Remedial Response.
44. EPA. (1997). Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments: Interim Final. EPA 540-R-97-006, OSWER 9285.7-25. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
45. EPA. (1997). Field Analytical and Site Characterization Technologies: Summary of Applications. Washington, DC: U.S. Envioronmental Protection Agency, EPA542-F-97-024.
46. EPA. (1998). Innovations in Site Characterization, Case Study: Hanscom Air Force Base EPA542-F-98-006. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
47. University of Texas. (1998). CIS Enviro98 - Site Conceptual Model. Center for Research in Water Resources. University of Texas at Austin. Available at http://www.crwr.utexas.edu/gis/gisenv98/sitecm/sitecm.html.
48. RAIS. (2002). Using the RAIS to Accomplish Your Goals. Module 3: Developing a Conceptual Site Model. Risk Assessment Information System, U.S. Dep't of Energy, Oak Ridge Operations Office. Available at http://rais.ornl.gov/ CRE/module3.shtml.
49. DOE. (1997). Site Conceptual Exposure Model Builder: User Manual. EH-413 Washington, DC: U.S. Dep't of Energy, Office of Environmental Policy and Assistance, RCRA/CERCLA Division.
50. Sims, J. (2002). State-of-the Science of Hazardous Waste Site Characterization Strategies and Technologies. Logan, UT: Utah Water Research Laboratory, Utah State University.
51. AFCEE. (2003). AFCEE Requirements for Development and Application of Conceptual Site Models: Initial Version March 2002; Current Version August 2003. AFCEE Guidance for Contract Deliverables, Appendix D: Risk Assessment Methods Version 2.1. San Antonio, TX: Air Force Center for Design Excellence, August 2003. Available at http://www.afcee.brooks.af.mil/er/ram/notes/3.2.1.pdf.
52. U.S. Army. (2003). USACE Engineering Manual for Conceptual Site Models for Ordinance and Explosives (OE) and Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste (HTRW) Projects. US Army Corps Manual (EM 1110-1-1200).
53. Brail, R., Gesler, W., & Levergood, B. (Eds.) (2000). Spatial Analysis, GIS, and Remote Sensing Applications in the Health Sciences. Chelsea, MI: Ann Arbor Press.
54. Johnson, B. (2003). Do reports on drinking water quality affect customers' concerns? Experiments in report content. Risk Analysis, 23(5), 995-998.
55. Johnson, B. (2003). Communicating air quality information: Experimental evaluation of alternative formats. Risk Analysis, 23(1), 91-103.
56. Loomis, J., & duVair, P. (1993). Evaluating the effect of alternative risk communications devices on willingness to pay: Results from a dichotomous choice contingent valuation experiment. Land Economics, 69(3), 287-298.
57. DOE. (2004). Draft: Risk-Based End State Vision for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore Site, Version2. U.S. Dep't of Energy, Livermore Site Office, February 2004. Available at http://www-envirinfo.llnl.gov/.
58. NRC. (1994). Ranking Hazardous Waste Sites for Remedial Action. Committee on Remedial Action Priorities for Hazardous Waste Sites, National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.