National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 5 Best Practices
Suggested Citation:"6 Summary of the Workshop Series Goals." National Research Council. 2014. Best Practices for Risk-Informed Decision Making Regarding Contaminated Sites: Summary of a Workshop Series. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18747.
×

6


Summary of the Workshop Series Goals

To close the workshop, William (Bill) Levitan (Office of Environmental Management) re-introduced the goals and objectives of the workshop series and asked for perspectives from the attendees. The discussion was guided by the re-introduction of the topics outlined within the statement of task (see Figure 6-1). Participants were asked to comment on how well the topics were addressed by the workshop and whether best practices had been identified. Because a significant percentage of the participants had attended both workshops, these attendees were asked to tailor their comments to include both workshops.

The following comments are grouped by the bulleted topics in Figure 6-1.

TOPICS 1 AND 2

Planning committee member Patricia Culligan (Columbia University) noted that the first bullet shown in Figure 6-1 should include monitoring beyond environmental conditions—as Paul Black had suggested earlier. Economic and social considerations should also be monitored through new metrics.

Carol Eddy-Dilek (Savannah River National Laboratory) supported functional monitoring over compliance monitoring as a best practice for establishing in situ monitoring locations. Compliance monitoring will not provide the information that is needed to make decisions for complicated sites (e.g., sites with multiple contaminant sources).

Suggested Citation:"6 Summary of the Workshop Series Goals." National Research Council. 2014. Best Practices for Risk-Informed Decision Making Regarding Contaminated Sites: Summary of a Workshop Series. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18747.
×
images/p150.jpg

FIGURE 6-1 The four main topics of the workshops as outlined in the statement of task (see Appendix A).
SOURCE: Levitan 2014.

TOPIC 3

For the third bullet, Dr. Culligan noted that a clear and reasonable definition of “long-term” is needed. Fifty to 200 years is reasonable, but millions of years is not practical. Dr. Culligan suggested that EM should determine at what timescale sustainability approaches should be applied (e.g., life cycle analysis).

Dr. Culligan identified Dave Geiser’s example of continued public engagement after a site has been closed as a best practice. As a post-closure activity, one must be prepared to encourage public involvement in the site. For example, if the public actively uses the site for recreation, wildlife, or industry, then it must be comfortable with the effectiveness of the remedy.

Several workshop attendees noted that public perception is strongly affected when classified information is redacted from documents. Roger Petrie provided an example: the K25 project at Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR) had redacted information, which had very little impact on the final remedy but did impact how the deactivation and decommissioning took place, largely because of the public’s unease with missing information. Bill Levitan noted that from EM’s perspective, little information should be restricted from public access. Dave Geiser commented that LM does not store classified information, but several staff members hold clearances that allow access to classified nuclear test information, which is needed to confirm remedies are working.

Carol Eddy-Dilek highlighted DOE’s Legacy Management data man-

Suggested Citation:"6 Summary of the Workshop Series Goals." National Research Council. 2014. Best Practices for Risk-Informed Decision Making Regarding Contaminated Sites: Summary of a Workshop Series. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18747.
×

agement system, the Geospatial Environmental Mapping System (GEMS),1 as a best practice for data transparency and for assessing and monitoring long-term remedy performance. All Department of Energy (DOE) sites should save/release information in a similar way by moving remediation data to a more open, accessible system.

TOPIC 4

Craig Benson (University of Wisconsin) suggested that to include sustainability concepts into the broader context of EM’s decision-making process, the last bullet in Figure 6-1 should be moved to the top. A “reset” of regulations and regulatory approaches has been suggested as a way to adopt disruptive—as opposed to incremental—change. Rethinking the current regulatory strategy while balancing options in a transparent way (as suggested by the last bullet) may be needed as the nation becomes increasingly resource constrained.

Bill Levitan (DOE EM) supported the idea of moving this bullet to the top of the list because it would address a recent Executive Order directing agencies to identify additional risks that climate change introduces and to develop a suitable governmental response.2

______________

1 See http://gems.lm.doe.gov/imf/sites/gems_continental_us/jsp/launch.jsp.

2 See http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/11/01/executive-order-preparingunited-states-impacts-climate-change.

Suggested Citation:"6 Summary of the Workshop Series Goals." National Research Council. 2014. Best Practices for Risk-Informed Decision Making Regarding Contaminated Sites: Summary of a Workshop Series. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18747.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Suggested Citation:"6 Summary of the Workshop Series Goals." National Research Council. 2014. Best Practices for Risk-Informed Decision Making Regarding Contaminated Sites: Summary of a Workshop Series. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18747.
×
Page 149
Suggested Citation:"6 Summary of the Workshop Series Goals." National Research Council. 2014. Best Practices for Risk-Informed Decision Making Regarding Contaminated Sites: Summary of a Workshop Series. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18747.
×
Page 150
Suggested Citation:"6 Summary of the Workshop Series Goals." National Research Council. 2014. Best Practices for Risk-Informed Decision Making Regarding Contaminated Sites: Summary of a Workshop Series. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18747.
×
Page 151
Suggested Citation:"6 Summary of the Workshop Series Goals." National Research Council. 2014. Best Practices for Risk-Informed Decision Making Regarding Contaminated Sites: Summary of a Workshop Series. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18747.
×
Page 152
Next: References »
Best Practices for Risk-Informed Decision Making Regarding Contaminated Sites: Summary of a Workshop Series Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $50.00 Buy Ebook | $40.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management's (EM) mission is the safe cleanup of sites associated with the government-led development of nuclear weapons and nuclear energy. While many of these legacy sites have completed cleanup, the largest and most complex sites have not been fully remediated. The cleanup of these sites is proceeding under legally enforceable agreements with timelines for hundreds of milestones. EM is reviewing alternative approaches to increase effectiveness and improve cost efficiencies of its cleanup activities, especially for sites that will have residual contamination when active cleanup is complete.

This report is the summary of two workshops convened in October 2013 and January 2014 on best practices for risk-informed remedy selection, closure, and post-closure control of radioactive and chemically contaminated sites that present significant difficulty for remediation to unrestricted release. The workshop series aimed to explore best practices that promote effective, risk-informed decision making and future opportunities to improve remediation approaches and practices.In the Workshop #1 section of Best Practices for Risk-Informed Decision Making Regarding Contaminated Sites, the report examines holistic approaches for remediating sites with multiple contaminant sources and post-closure uses, and approaches for incorporating a sustainability framework into decision making regarding site remediation, closure, and post-closure control. In Workshop #2, the report focuses on post-closure controls, assessment of long-term performance of site remedies, and best practices for risk-based remediation decisions.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!