Building Consensus Through Risk Assessment and Management of the Department of Energy's Environmental R emediation Program

The Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for the restoration of the environment at the nation's nuclear-weapons complex. Over the last 5 years, DOE was allocated over $18 billion to identify and manage its waste and to assess the degree of remediat ion necessary for its various sites and facilities. In a letter to the National Academy of Sciences dated September 13, 1993, Thomas P. Grumbly, DOE Assistant Secretary for Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, indicated the need for a fundamen tal re-evaluation of the department's environmental-remediation program:

• The Department of Energy's Environmental Restoration and Waste Management program has been beset by public and Congressional concern over priorities, the pace of cleanup, and the total costs of the program. One of my highest priorities is to co nduct a fundamental re-evaluation of the program. As part of this effort, I intend to have the Department's major sites conduct a credible risk assessment of all the risks at the sites, with active participation of all the local participants: state and l ocal governments, local citizens, Indian Tribes, and other stakeholders. The overall process would be aimed at finding ways to identify and characterize the major risks, develop and use better technology and controls, and protect workers involved with th e cleanup programs.

In the same letter, he asked the Academy to help him implement that evaluation and in a more narrow sense to

• focus on whether a risk-based approach to evaluating the consequences of alternative actions is feasible and desirable.

In response, the Academy formed the Committee to Review Risk Management in the DOE's Environmental Remediation Program. The committee conducted a workshop on November 3-4, 1993, to solicit views as to how DOE's program has operated and should operate. Some 25 people provided input for the committee's deliberations. Their participation and the questions they were asked to address are discussed in Section 1. On the basis of the workshop, background reading, and the knowledge of the committee members, t he committee developed findings and recommendations concerning how DOE should assess and manage the risks at its environmental-remediation sites.

Although this report represents the work of the committee, it benefited greatly from the support of staff of the National Research Council, specifically, Paul Gilman, who helped the committee to refine the report, and Deborah Stine, who contributed to th e preparation and administrative organization of the study. Their intellectual contributions advanced the committee's efforts throughout the study, and their resumes are included with those of the committee members in Appendix B. Additional support came from the three Research Council boards that work in this fieldóspecifically, the Board on Radioactive Waste Management, the Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, and the Board on Radiation Effects Research, directed by Carl Anderson, James Reisa , and John Zimbrick, respectively. Ray Wassel of the Research Council staff also provided valuable input. The report was greatly improved by the diligent work of its editor, Norman Grossblatt. In addition, Kit Lee and Solveig Padilla provided invaluabl e support.

The committee appreciates as well the efforts of the University of New Mexico's National Environmental Training Network, especially the work of Connie Callen and Marcella Davis, and Skehan Televideo Service, Inc. who broadcast this event via satellite. Videotapes of the workshop are available for purchase by calling them at 1-800-292-7051.

The committee also acknowledges with appreciation presentations made at the workshop by the following persons:

Elizabeth Averill, Oil Chemical Atomic Workers
Mark Bashor, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Lewis Bedenbaugh, South Carolina Department of Health Environment Control
Robert Benedetti, EG&G Rocky Flats Plant
David Bennett, Environmental Protection Agency
Norman Boyter, Westinghouse-Savannah River
Patricia Buffler, University of California, Berkeley
Mark Drummond, Eastern Washington University
Clyde Frank, Department of Energy
Bernard Goldstein, UMDNJóRobert Wood Johnson Medical School
Thomas Grumbly, Department of Energy
Leonard Hamilton, Brookhaven National Laboratory
James Honeyman, Westinghouse Hanford Plant
Ralph Hutchinson, Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance
Joseph King, City of Richland, Washington
Mildred McClain, Citizens for Environmental Justice, Savannah, Georgia
Dan Miller, Office of the Attorney General, Colorado
John Moran, Laborers Health and Safety Fund of North America
Robert Neill, New Mexico Environmental Evaluation Group
Lance Nielsen, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
Gilbert Omenn, University of Washington
Glenn Paulson, Illinois Institute of Technology
Mary Riveland, Washington Department of Ecology
Randy Smith, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Merv Tano, Council of Energy Resources Tribes, Denver, Colorado
Robert Thomas, Argonne National Laboratory
Curtis Travis, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Victoria Tschinkel, Landers and Parsons, Tallahassee, Florida
Chris Whipple, ICF/Kaiser Environmental Group, Oakland, California

Frank L. Parker
Chairman

NAS Home Page | NAP Home Page | Reading Room | Report Home Page