Appendix A

Workshop Agenda



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 43
Building Consensus Through Risk Assessment and Management of the Department of Energy's Environmental Remediation Program Appendix A Workshop Agenda

OCR for page 43
Building Consensus Through Risk Assessment and Management of the Department of Energy's Environmental Remediation Program This page in the original is blank.

OCR for page 43
Building Consensus Through Risk Assessment and Management of the Department of Energy's Environmental Remediation Program Appendix A Workshop Agenda This appendix includes the workshop agenda and the list of workshop participants. The workshop began with a speech by Thomas Grumbly (see Appendix D) and was followed by a set of presentations as listed on the agenda. The members of each panel of presenters was asked to address the corresponding list of questions as shown below: Panel 1: DOE Site Activity Description What major decisions affecting public, worker, and environmental health do you now make or will you need to make in the future? How are the stakeholders (federal and state regulators, Native American groups, environmental groups, unions, etc.) involved in your decision process for your environmental-management activities? What scientific information on environmental and health risk do you use in your decision-making? Could you improve the process with better information? What would be your ideal decision-making process?

OCR for page 43
Building Consensus Through Risk Assessment and Management of the Department of Energy's Environmental Remediation Program What are the barriers to implementing the current and ideal processes today? Panel 2: Stakeholder Perspectives How are you now involved in DOE's environmental-management program? What important factors do you feel should be considered when DOE makes major decisions about a site? What scientific information on environmental and health risk do you feel should be used in decision-making? What role do you feel your constituency should play in this process? What would be your ideal decision-making process? What are the barriers to implementing the current and ideal processes today? Panel 3: Regulatory Perspectives How is your organization now involved in DOE's environmental-management program? What role, if any, does risk assessment play in your regulatory activities? As a regulator, what do you believe are the most important decisions facing DOE sites? What scientific information on environmental and health risk do you use in your decision-making? Could you improve the process with better information? What would be your ideal decision-making process? What are the barriers to implementing the current and ideal processes today? These presentations were followed by a roundtable discussion that included the committee members, the speakers, and additional workshop participants that included additional members of various stakeholder groups. During the roundtable discussion, the following questions were addressed:

OCR for page 43
Building Consensus Through Risk Assessment and Management of the Department of Energy's Environmental Remediation Program Question 1: Can scientific information on environmental and health risks assist those setting priorities for remediation activities to reduce the risks to the public, workers, and environment? Question 2: Can scientific information on environmental and health risks assist in ensuring that funds are so distributed as to reduce health and environmental risks at different sites in an equitable manner? Question 3: Does DOE have sufficient data on site characterization, health effects, and exposure to develop scientific information on environmental and health risks? Question 4: Does the scientific information on environmental and health risks permit DOE to improve and extend the application of risk assessment as a decision-making tool in setting remediation priorities? Question 5: Can public participation in the development of DOE's risk assessment guidelines improve the credibility and value of risk assessment? If so, how can the public most effectively participate in the development of these guidelines and their eventual application at sites? Question 6: Are there institutional, regulatory, statutory, or other impediments to the use of scientific information on environmental and health risks in managing the risks associated with remediation? The workshop then ended and the committee began its deliberations.

OCR for page 43
Building Consensus Through Risk Assessment and Management of the Department of Energy's Environmental Remediation Program NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL WORKSHOP TO REVIEW RISK MANAGEMENT IN DOE 'S ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION PROGRAM National Academy of Sciences Building 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20418 November 3-4, 1993 Auditorium Broadcast and Videotape Disclosure This Workshop, sponsored by the National Research Council, has as its primary focus an important scientific and national issue: Risk Management in DOE's Environmental Remediation Program. Because of the significance of this issue, the Workshop will be broadcast live via satellite and videotaped for later use and dissemination. In order to provide continuity for program, it may be necessary as part of the broadcast of the program to record your voice and/or image. By registering as a participant, you agree to have your voice and image broadcast and videotaped as part of this Program without any claim or expectation of payment for said broadcast or videotaping.

OCR for page 43
Building Consensus Through Risk Assessment and Management of the Department of Energy's Environmental Remediation Program Wednesday, November 3 4:00 pm Welcome Frank Parker, Chairman, Committee to Review Risk Management in DOE 's Environmental Remediation Program Philip Smith, Executive Officer, National Research Council 4:10 pm Thomas Grumbly, Assistant Secretary for Environmental Restoration and Remediation (EM), Department of Energy (DOE) 4:50 pm Question and Answer 5:30 pm Adjourn for day Thursday, November 4 8:30 am Registration 9:00 Welcome Philip Smith, Executive Officer, National Research Council Frank Parker, Chairman, National Research Council Committee to Review Risk Management in DOE's Environmental Remediation Program 9:05 Clyde Frank, Acting Principal Deputy Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Restoration and Remediation, Department of Energy  

OCR for page 43
Building Consensus Through Risk Assessment and Management of the Department of Energy's Environmental Remediation Program 9:15 Panel 1: DOE Site Activity Description Questions to be addressed: What major decisions affecting public, worker, and environmental health do you now make or will you need to make in the future? How are the stakeholders (federal and state regulators, Native American groups, environmental groups, unions, etc.) involved in your decision process for your EM activities? What scientific information on environmental and health risk do you use in your decision-making? Could you improve the process with better information? What would be your ideal decision-making process? What are the barriers to implementing the current and ideal processes today? Norman Boyter, Vice President, Solid Waste and Environmental Restoration, Westinghouse-Savannah River Robert Benedetti, Assistant Manager, Environmental Restoration, EG &G-Rocky Flats Jim Honeyman, Manager, Strategic Planning, Westinghouse-Hanford 10:00 Questions & Answers; Issue Identification 10:15 Panel 2: Stakeholder Perspectives How are you now involved in DOE's EM Program? What important factors do you feel should be considered when DOE makes major decisions about a site? What scientific information on environmental and health risk do you feel should be used in decision-making? What role do you feel your constituency should play in this process?

OCR for page 43
Building Consensus Through Risk Assessment and Management of the Department of Energy's Environmental Remediation Program   What would be your ideal decision-making process? What are the barriers to implementing the current and ideal processes today?   Marshall Drummond, Chair, Hanford Tank Waste Task Force and President, Eastern Washington University Joe King, City Manager, Richland, Washington Mildred McClain, Citizens for Environmental Justice Merv Tano, General Counsel, Council of Energy Resource Tribes John Moran, Director-Safety & Health, Laborers' Health and Safety Fund Elizabeth Averill, Oil Chemical Atomic Workers Union 11:00 Question & Answers; Issue Identification 11:15 Break 11:30 Panel 3: Regulatory Perspectives How is your organization now involved in DOE's EM program? What role, if any, does risk assessment play in your regulatory activities? As a regulator, what do you believe are the most important decisions facing DOE sites? What scientific information on environmental and health risk do you use in your decision-making? Could you improve the process with better information? What would be your ideal decision-making process? What are the barriers to implementing the current and ideal processes today? Randy Smith, EPA, Director-Hazardous Waste Division, Region X

OCR for page 43
Building Consensus Through Risk Assessment and Management of the Department of Energy's Environmental Remediation Program   Mary Riveland, Director, Washington State Department of Ecology Mark Bashor, Associate Administrator, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Lance Nielsen, Remediation Branch Chief, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 12:15 Questions & Answers; Issue Identification 12:30 Lunch (Available in Refectory in lower level) Roundtable Discussion: committee, workshop participants, and speakers 1:30 Welcome: Frank Parker, Chairman 1:35 Overview: Victoria Tschinkel, Roundtable Moderator 1:40 Question 1: Can scientific information on environmental and health risks assist those setting priorities for remediation activities to reduce the risks to the public, workers, and environment? 2:00 Question 2: Can scientific information on environmental and health risks assist in ensuring that funds are so distributed as to reduce health and environmental risks at different sites in an equitable manner? 2:20 Question 3: Does DOE have sufficient data on site characterization, health effects, and exposure to develop scientific information on environmental and health risks? 2:40 Question 4: Does the scientific information on environmental and health risks permit DOE to improve and

OCR for page 43
Building Consensus Through Risk Assessment and Management of the Department of Energy's Environmental Remediation Program   extend the application of risk assessment as a decision-making tool in setting remediation priorities? 3:00 Break 3:15 Question 5: Can public participation in the development of DOE's risk assessment guidelines improve the credibility and value of risk assessment? If so, how can the public most effectively participate in the development of these guidelines and their eventual application at sites? 3:35 Question 6: Are there institutional, regulatory, statutory, or other impediments to the use of scientific information on environmental and health risks in managing the risks associated with remediation? 3:55 Additional Questions and Issues 4:25 Closing: Victoria Tschinkel, Roundtable Moderator Frank Parker, Chairman 4:30 Workshop ends

OCR for page 43
Building Consensus Through Risk Assessment and Management of the Department of Energy's Environmental Remediation Program WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS Elizabeth Averill, Oil Chemical Atomic Workers, Columbia, Md. Mark Bashor, Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry, Atlanta, Ga. Lewis Bedenbaugh, South Carolina Department of Health Environment Control, Columbia, S.Car. David Bennett, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Robert Benedetti, EG&G Rocky Flats Plant, Golden, Colo. Norman Boyter, Westinghouse-Savannah River, Aiken, S.Car. Patricia Buffler, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, Calif. Drew Caputo, National Resources Defense Council, Washington, D.C. Mark Drummond, Eastern Washington University, Cheney, Wash. Bernard Goldstein, UMDNJ - Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway, N.J. Leonard Hamilton, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, N.Y. Ralph Hutchinson, Oakridge Environmental Peace Alliance, Knoxville, Tenn. Joseph King, City of Richland, Wash. Mildred McClain, Citizens for Environmental Justice, Savannah, Ga. James Honeyman, Westinghouse Hanford Plant, Richland, Wash. Dan Miller, Office of the Colorado Attorney General's Office, Denver, Colo. John Moran, Laborers Health and Safety Fund of North America, North, S.Car. Robert Neill, New Mexico Environmental Evaluation Group, Albuquerque, N.Mex.

OCR for page 43
Building Consensus Through Risk Assessment and Management of the Department of Energy's Environmental Remediation Program Lance Nielsen, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Boise, Idaho Gilbert Omenn, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash. Glenn Paulson, Illinois institute of Technology, Chicago, Ill. Mary Riveland, Washington Department of Ecology, Lacey, Wash. Randy Smith, Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle, Wash. Merv Tano, Council of Energy Resources Tribes, Denver, Colo. Robert Thomas, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Ill. Curtis Travis, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn. Victoria Tschinkel, Landers and Parsons, Tallahassee, Fla. Chris Whipple, ICF/Kaiser Environmental Group, Oakland, Calif.

OCR for page 43
Building Consensus Through Risk Assessment and Management of the Department of Energy's Environmental Remediation Program This page in the original is blank.