The Role of Risk and Future Land Use in Cleanup Decisions at the Department of Energy

As a result of the legacy of the Cold War, the Departments of Energy and Defense are involved in massive cleanup and remediation projects. While health risk to humans and ecological receptors is perceived to be the basis for remediation, this assumption is rarely examined. In this article, we examine the role of risk and future land-use designations in cleanup decisions, using the Department of Energy's self-assessment of 36 sites. We then discuss the risk-related tools that might be required to address the cleanup challenge. Much of the current cleanup program is driven by compliance with federal and state statutes and regulations, presumably to protect human health and the environment. Compliance, however, is not synonymous with cleanup. Although some of these laws and regulations take risk into account, the lack of site-specific data on exposures and risk scenarios, and the lack of attention to future land use or end states, has often resulted in disconnects between risk and cleanup goals, risk and final end states, and cleanup levels and end state or subsequent land use. Partly, these disconnects result from the need for a range of technical, economic, sociological, and public policy tools to address the issues. A better transfer of information among and within Department of Energy facilities, operations offices, and DOE headquarters is required. Further, linking cleanup decisions and goals with the final end state involves a number of risk tradeoffs, including (1) ecological versus human health, (2) worker versus public health, (3) among competing contaminated areas, (4) among temporal patterns of cleanup, (5) among different ecological receptors (plants vs. animals, one animal vs. another), and (6) among the sites across the DOE complex. For the nation, balancing among risks is essential within sites and among Department of Energy sites, as well as among other remediation sites (such as those of Department of Defense and Superfund sites).     

Safe-by-Design: Stakeholders’ Perceptions and Expectations of How to Deal with Uncertain Risks of Emerging Biotechnologies in the Netherlands

Advanced gene editing techniques such as Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeat (CRISPR)/Cas have increased the pace of developments in the field of industrial biotechnology. Such techniques imply new possibilities when working with living organisms, possibly leading to uncertain risks. In the Netherlands, current policy fails to address these uncertain risks because risk classification is determined process-wise (i.e., genetically modified organism [GMO] and non-GMO), there is a strong focus on quantifiable risks, and the linearity within current governance (science–policy–society) hinders iterative communication between stakeholders, leaving limited room to anticipate uncertainties at an early stage of development. A suggested concept to overcome these shortcomings is the Safe-by-Design (SbD) approach, which, theoretically, allows stakeholders to iteratively incorporate safety measures throughout a technology's development process, creating a dynamic environment for the anticipation of uncertain risks. Although this concept originates from chemical engineering and is already widely applied in nanotechnology, for the field of biotechnology, there is no agreed upon definition yet. To explore the possibilities of SbD for future governance of biotechnology, we should gain insight in how various stakeholders perceive notions of risk, safety, and inherent safety, and what this implies for the applicability of SbD for risk governance concerning industrial biotechnology. Our empirical research reveals three main themes: (1) diverging expectations with regard to safety and risks, and to establish an acceptable level of risk; (2) different applications of SbD and inherent safety, namely, product- and process-wise; and (3) unclarity in allocating responsibilities to stakeholders in the development process of a biotechnology and within society.     

The Rise and Fall of a Risk-Based Priority System: Lessons from DOE's Environmental Restoration Priority System

This paper presents the history of the Environmental Restoration Priority System (ERPS), a decision aid developed by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to help determine how to allocate funds for cleaning up hazardous waste sites. Although praised in technical peer review, the system was strongly criticized by stakeholders external to the DOE. Ultimately, and in the midst of a National Academy of Sciences review, DOE shelved the system. The rise and fall of ERPS provides useful lessons for analysts hoping to improve risk management in the public sector.     

Changes in Aleut Concerns Following the Stakeholder-Driven Amchitka Independent Science Assessment

There is widespread agreement that stakeholders should be included in the problem‐formulation phase of addressing environment problems and, more recently, there have been attempts to include stakeholders in other phases of environmental research. However, there are few studies that evaluate the effects of including stakeholders in all phases of research aimed at solving environmental problems. Three underground nuclear blasts were detonated on Amchitka Island from 1965 to 1971. Considerable controversy developed when the Department of Energy (DOE) decided to “close” Amchitka. Concerns were voiced by subsistence Aleuts living in the region, resource trustees, and the State of Alaska, among others. This article evaluates perceptions of residents of three Aleutian village before (2003) and after (2005) the Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation's (CRESP) Amchitka Independent Science Assessment (AISA). The CRESP AISA provided technical information on radionuclide levels in biota to inform questions of seafood safety and food chain health. CRESP used the questions asked at public meetings in the Aleut communities of Atka, Nikolski, and Unalaska to evaluate attitudes and perceptions before and after the AISA. Major concerns before the AISA were credibility/trust of CRESP and the DOE, and information about biological methodology of the study. Following the AISA, people were most concerned about health effects and risk reduction, and trust issues with CRESP declined while those for the DOE remained stable. People’s relative concerns about radionuclides declined, while their concerns about mercury (not addressed in the AISA) increased, and interest in ecological issues (population changes of local species) and the future (continued biomonitoring) increased from 2003 to 2005. These results suggest that questions posed at public meetings can be used to evaluate changes in attitudes and perceptions following environmental research, and the results are consistent with the hypothesis that the AISA answered questions about radionuclides, and lowered overall concern about radionuclides, but left unanswered concerns about the health effects of mercury.     

Multimedia Benchmarking Analysis for Three Risk Assessment Models: RESRAD, MMSOILS, and MEPAS

This paper is one in a series that describes results of a benchmarking analysis initiated by the Department of Energy (DOE) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). An overview of the study is provided in a companion paper by Laniak et al. presented in this journal issue. The three models used in the study—RESRAD (DOE), MMSOILS (EPA), and MEPAS (DOE)—represent analytically-based tools that are used by the respective agencies for performing human exposure and health risk assessments. Both single media and multimedia benchmarking scenarios were developed and executed. In this paper, the multimedia scenario is examined. That scenario consists of a hypothetical landfill that initially contained uranium-238 and methylene chloride. The multimedia models predict the fate of these contaminants, plus the progeny of uranium-238, through the unsaturated zone, saturated zone, surface water, and atmosphere. Carcinogenic risks are calculated from exposure to the contaminants via multiple pathways. Results of the tests show that differences in model endpoint estimates arise from both differences in the models' mathematical formulations and assumptions related to the implementation of the scenarios.     

Other Aspects of BSE Issues in East Asian Countries

Scientific risk estimates of BSE can be the same internationally; however, socioeconomic backgrounds, such as food supply (e.g., beef import status) and dietary life, are different between East Asian countries (i.e., in this article, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan) and Western countries, which may account for differences in risk perception of people. Since political and social backgrounds also differ among these East Asian countries, they will also influence people's attitudes toward food safety. Psychological factors such as “dread” and the “unknown” are considered to be important in risk perception, but socioeconomic, and in some cases political, situations (e.g., attitudes of politicians and political pressures in trade) may strongly influence the perception and acceptance of various risks by citizens. With regard to the BSE issues, latter aspects may contribute a lot to risk perception, but have not been examined in depth until now. Although protection of health is the key element to food safety, sometimes business factors can overwhelm safety issues in international trade. Appropriate risk governance in food safety issues, such as BSE, can be attained not only through application of outputs of scientific assessment, but also through deliberation of various aspects, that may have strong influence on people's risk perception, and improved communication among stakeholders and also among countries.     

Logic and Motivation in Risk Research: A Nuclear Waste Test Case

After two decades of massive investigation, federal approval of a nuclear waste site is drawing to a close. Large-scale research to assure that major hazards such as this one are socially acceptable is often highly inefficient, as here. A regulatory remedy would be to require not only that risk currently assessed be acceptable, but also that risk would remain acceptable given any new information. Research to test compliance with these rules has to be cost effective. Research activities should be managed according to an explicit discipline that can be imposed on powerful conflicting interests. They might be required to (1) set targets for the first- and second-order risk assessments, (2) allocate research resources to close any gap between current and target assessments cost effectively, and (3) reallocate resources, as evolving findings dictate. The interests of license applicant (Department of Energy, DOE) and society are distinguished: the former would want the application approved; the latter would want to reject an unacceptable facility.     

Using Integrated Geospatial Mapping and Conceptual Site Models to Guide Risk-Based Environmental Clean-Up Decisions

Government and private sector organizations are increasingly turning to the use of maps and other visual models to provide a depiction of environmental hazards and the potential risks they represent to humans and ecosystems. Frequently, the graphic presentation is tailored to address a specific contaminant, its location and possible exposure pathways, and potential receptors. Its format is usually driven by the data available, choice of graphics technology, and the audience being served. A format that is effective for displaying one contaminant at one scale at one site, however, may be ineffective in accurately portraying the circumstances surrounding a different contaminant at the same site, or the same contaminant at a different site, because of limitations in available data or the graphics technology being used. This is the daunting challenge facing the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), which is responsible for the nation's legacy wastes from nuclear weapons research, testing, and production at over 100 sites in the United States. In this article, we discuss the development and use of integrated geospatial mapping and conceptual site models to identify hazards and evaluate alternative long-term environmental clean-up strategies at DOE sites located across the United States. While the DOE probably has the greatest need for such information, the Department of Defense and other public and private responsible parties for many large and controversial National Priority List or Superfund sites would benefit from a similar approach.     

Health Risk Assessment for Planned Waste Incinerators: Getting the Right Science and the Science Right

Health risk assessment is widely advocated in the United Kingdom as the most comprehensive means of assessing the health risks posed by the emissions of a planned waste incinerator. Its main advantage over other methods of assessment, such as air quality impact assessment, is its ability to address explicitly the direct (inhalation) and indirect (ingestion and dermal contact) health risks posed by different chemicals, including those that are not thought to have a threshold below which no adverse effect will take place. This article examines the level and quality of the emissions assessments included in 61 waste incinerator environmental statements (ESs); in particular, it focuses on the quality of the exposure assessment and risk characterization stages of the health risk assessment process. The article concludes that the ES has not always provided interested stakeholders with the best available information upon which to determine the tolerability of the health risks posed by waste incinerator emissions Some recommendations are made as to how this problem might be addressed in future environmental impact assessment (EIA) processes.     

The Essential Elements of a Risk Governance Framework for Current and Future Nanotechnologies

Societies worldwide are investing considerable resources into the safe development and use of nanomaterials. Although each of these protective efforts is crucial for governing the risks of nanomaterials, they are insufficient in isolation. What is missing is a more integrative governance approach that goes beyond legislation. Development of this approach must be evidence based and involve key stakeholders to ensure acceptance by end users. The challenge is to develop a framework that coordinates the variety of actors involved in nanotechnology and civil society to facilitate consideration of the complex issues that occur in this rapidly evolving research and development area. Here, we propose three sets of essential elements required to generate an effective risk governance framework for nanomaterials. (1) Advanced tools to facilitate risk‐based decision making, including an assessment of the needs of users regarding risk assessment, mitigation, and transfer. (2) An integrated model of predicted human behavior and decision making concerning nanomaterial risks. (3) Legal and other (nano‐specific and general) regulatory requirements to ensure compliance and to stimulate proactive approaches to safety. The implementation of such an approach should facilitate and motivate good practice for the various stakeholders to allow the safe and sustainable future development of nanotechnology.     

An Analysis of the Portfolio of Sites to Characterize for Selecting a Nuclear Repository

The U.S. Department of Energy has selected three sites, from five nominated, to characterize for a nuclear repository to permanently dispose of nuclear waste. This decision was made without the benefit of an analysis of this "portfolio" problem. This paper analyzes different portfolios of three sites for simultaneous characterization and strategies for sequential characterization. Characterization of each site, which involves significant subsurface excavation, is now estimated to cost $1 billion. Mainly because of the high characterization costs, sequential characterization strategies are identified which are the equivalent of $1.7-2.0 billion less expensive than the selected DOE simultaneous characterization of the three sites. If three sites are simultaneously characterized, one portfolio is estimated to be the equivalent of $100-400 million better than the selected DOE portfolio. Because of these potential savings and several other complicating factors that may influence the relative desirability of characterization strategies, a thorough analysis of characterization strategies that addresses the likelihood of finding disqualifying conditions during site characterization, uncertainties, and dependencies in forecast site repository costs, preclosure and postclosure health and safety impacts, potential delays of both sequential and simultaneous characterization strategies, and the environmental, socioeconomic, and health and safety impacts of characterization activities is recommended.     

Life-Cycle Assessment in Relation to Risk Assessment: An Evolving Perspective

A life-cycle approach takes a cradle-to-grave perspective of a product's numerous activities from the raw material extraction to final disposal. There have been recent efforts to develop life-cycle assessment (LCA) to assess both environmental and human health issues. The question then arises: what are the capabilities of LCA, especially in relation to risk assessment? To address this question, this paper first describes the LCA mass-based accounting system and then analyzes the use of this approach for environmental and human health assessment. The key LCA limitations in this respect are loss of spatial, temporal, dose-response, and threshold information. These limitations affect LCA's capability to assess several environmental issues, and human health in particular. This leads to the conclusion that LCA impact assessment does not predict or measure actual effects, quantitate risks, or address safety. Instead, LCA uses mass loadings with simplifying assumptions and subjective judgments to add independent effects and exposures into an overall score. As a result, LCA identifies possible human health issues on a systemwide basis from a worst case, hypothetical hazard perspective. Ideally, the identified issues would then be addressed by more detailed assessment methods, such as risk assessment.     

“How Exposed Is Exposed Enough?” Lay Inferences About Chemical Exposure

The concept of exposure is central to chemical risk assessment and plays an important role in communicating to the public about the potential health risks of chemicals. Research on chemical risk perception has found some indication that the model lay people use to judge chemical exposure differs from that of toxicologists, thereby leading to different conclusions about chemical safety. This paper presents the results of a series of studies directed toward developing a model for understanding how lay people interpret the concept of chemical exposure. The results indicate that people's beliefs about chemical exposure (and its risks) are based on two broad categories of inferences. One category of inferences relates to the nature in which contact with a chemical has taken place, including the amount of a chemical involved and its potential health consequences. A second category of inferences about chemical exposure relates to the pragmatics of language interpretation, leading to beliefs about the motives and purposes behind chemical risk communication. Risk communicators are encouraged to consider how alternative models of exposure and language interpretation can lead to conflicting conclusions on the part of the public about chemical safety.     

Attitudes and Risk Perceptions of Stakeholders in a Nuclear Waste Siting Issue

Stakeholders are often regarded as a critically important group in such issues as the siting of nuclear facilities. In this article, stakeholders were identified on the basis of self-reported activities with regard to a nuclear waste siting issue under debate in four communities. Data were obtained in an extensive mailed survey from a total of 2,548 respondents, approximately an equal number from each community. The overall response rate was 43.9%. Some of the results and telephone interviews with a sample of the nonrespondents indicated that the data are reasonably representative of the respective populations. Stakeholder activities were measured by 20 questions and combined with an index of stakeholder activity level, dichotomized at the 90th percentile. Stakeholders were found to have a higher level of education than others, but otherwise they did not differ in demographics. They did not tend to see risks in general as high, but were quite interested and involved in the nuclear waste siting issue. The stakeholder activity level correlated with risk perception and attitudes in the waste siting issue, but with different signs for those who were for and those who were opposed: stakeholders of both types had more extreme views than others, but in different directions. In addition, stakeholder opponents were much more likely to strongly espouse extreme statements regarding the project than were supporters who also were stakeholders. Implications for risk management and communication are discussed.     

The Distinction Between Risk and Hazard: Understanding and Use in Stakeholder Communication

A major issue in all risk communication efforts is the distinction between the terms “risk” and “hazard.” The potential to harm a target such as human health or the environment is normally defined as a hazard, whereas risk also encompasses the probability of exposure and the extent of damage. What can be observed again and again in risk communication processes are misunderstandings and communication gaps related to these crucial terms. We asked a sample of 53 experts from public authorities, business and industry, and environmental and consumer organizations in Germany to outline their understanding and use of these terms using both the methods of expert interviews and focus groups. The empirical study made clear that the terms risk and hazard are perceived and used very differently in risk communication depending on the perspective of the stakeholders. Several factors can be identified, such as responsibility for hazard avoidance, economic interest, or a watchdog role. Thus, communication gaps can be reduced to a four‐fold problem matrix comprising a semantic, conceptual, strategic, and control problem. The empirical study made clear that risks and hazards are perceived very differently depending on the stakeholders’ perspective. Their own worldviews played a major role in their specific use of the two terms hazards and risks in communication.     

Improving Risk Management: From Lame Excuses to Principled Practice

The three classic pillars of risk analysis are risk assessment (how big is the risk and how sure can we be?), risk management (what shall we do about it?), and risk communication (what shall we say about it, to whom, when, and how?). We propose two complements as important parts of these three bases: risk attribution (who or what addressable conditions actually caused an accident or loss?) and learning from experience about risk reduction (what works, and how well?). Failures in complex systems usually evoke blame, often with insufficient attention to root causes of failure, including some aspects of the situation, design decisions, or social norms and culture. Focusing on blame, however, can inhibit effective learning, instead eliciting excuses to deflect attention and perceived culpability. Productive understanding of what went wrong, and how to do better, thus requires moving past recrimination and excuses. This article identifies common blame‐shifting “lame excuses” for poor risk management. These generally contribute little to effective improvements and may leave real risks and preventable causes unaddressed. We propose principles from risk and decision sciences and organizational design to improve results. These start with organizational leadership. More specifically, they include: deliberate testing and learning—especially from near‐misses and accident precursors; careful causal analysis of accidents; risk quantification; candid expression of uncertainties about costs and benefits of risk‐reduction options; optimization of tradeoffs between gathering additional information and immediate action; promotion of safety culture; and mindful allocation of people, responsibilities, and resources to reduce risks. We propose that these principles provide sound foundations for improving successful risk management.     

European Public Perceptions of Food Risk: Cross-National and Methodological Comparisons

This article presents a comparative study of public perceptions of food risk across 25 European member states. A secondary data analysis is conducted on a Eurobarometer survey fielded to nationally representative samples in 2005. The survey included closed questions as well as free associations to map risk perceptions. Taking a quantitative approach, we find that people in a majority of European countries express similar levels of concern about food risks. However, outside this majority a North-South divide is evident, with the Northern countries worrying less than the Southern countries. Multilevel modeling shows that cross-national differences in individual respondents' level of worry are in part attributable to shared country effects and to generalized risk sensitivity about a range of personal risks. On the underlying structure of food risk concerns, factor analysis points to three dimensions described by groupings of risks related to adulteration and contamination, health effects, and production and hygiene. A qualitative analysis of respondents' free associations about problems and risks with food identifies three major themes that are consistent with the quantitative results. However, the free associations also point toward greater cross-national diversity and to striking variations in the range and importance of food risks. Overall, the picture is of a public that frames food risks in a wider context of beliefs about the links between diet and health. We conclude with some implications for research on food risk perceptions in particular and risk perception studies in general.     

Appraisal of Individual Radiation Risk in the Context of Probabilistic Exposures

There exists a growing desire to base safety criteria in different fields on the same principles. The current approach by the international Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) to control radiation exposure touches many aspects such as social, psychological, or economic factors that are important for such principles. This paper attempts to further explore possible ways of defining a common basis for dealing with radiation risks and other safety problems. Specifically, it introduces the following issues: (1) different types of risk are judged differently. To account for this, the concept of risk categories is introduced. (2) The dimension of time may play an important role. There is a difference between an immediate death and a death occurring 20 years after exposure to radiation. Effects such as reduced quality of life after exposure and reduction of lifetime expectancy are discussed. The paper suggests to introduce an individual risk equivalent which allows to compare risks as defined in various fields. Furthermore, it suggests the use of risk acceptance criteria which depend on the different categories of risk.     

An Overview of a Multimedia Benchmarking Analysis for Three Risk Assessment Models: RESRAD, MMSOILS, and MEPAS

Multimedia modelers from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Department of Energy (DOE) collaborated to conduct a detailed and quantitative benchmarking analysis of three multimedia models. The three models—RESRAD (DOE), MMSOILS (EPA), and MEPAS (DOE)—represent analytically-based tools that are used by the respective agencies for performing human exposure and health risk assessments. The study is performed by individuals who participate directly in the ongoing design, development, and application of the models. Model form and function are compared by applying the models to a series of hypothetical problems, first isolating individual modules (e.g., atmospheric, surface water, groundwater) and then simulating multimedia-based risk resulting from contaminant release from a single source to multiple environmental media. Study results show that the models differ with respect to environmental processes included (i.e., model features) and the mathematical formulation and assumptions related to the implementation of solutions. Depending on the application, numerical estimates resulting from the models may vary over several orders-of-magnitude. On the other hand, two or more differences may offset each other such that model predictions are virtually equal. The conclusion from these results is that multimedia models are complex due to the integration of the many components of a risk assessment and this complexity must be fully appreciated during each step of the modeling process (i.e., model selection, problem conceptualization, model application, and interpretation of results).