A framework for increasing sustainability and reducing risk to ecological resources through integration of remediation planning and implementation

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Remediation of lands contaminated with radionuclides and hazardous chemicals provides an ongoing challenge for many countries. It is particularly problematic for remediation of old industrial sites remaining from World War II and the Cold War. Remediating and restoring large sites is often costly, time-consuming, and involves complex planning and sequencing, as well as consideration of future land use policies. The goal of remediation is to reduce contamination, reduce risk to humans and the environment, and restore land to productive land uses, and ultimately, to sustainability. Often reducing risk to people takes precedence over protecting ecological resources in overall planning, characterization, and execution of remediation strategies. This paper examines when and how stakeholders, including anyone interested and affected by remediation on ecological resources, can become involved in the planning, decision-making, and implementation of remediation. There is a formal process under federal law (e.g. CERCLA) in the US for examining risk to resources, including indicator species. However, there are other informal points during the cleanup process when managers should consider the value of ecological resources, the public may express their concerns for particular ecological resources, and ecologists may provide data and expert advice early in the process as critical decisions are being made about remediation that impact ecological resources. The framework presented in this paper for increasing sustainability of ecological resources has three periods of intervention 1) major decision points, 2) process interdiction points, and 3) remediation action points. Major decision points include site and problem identification, regional ecological resource and local land use practice determination, remediation goals and options determination, and other local issues. Interdiction points include examining remediation options, and in-depth assessments of ecological resources on-site. Remediation action points are aimed at reducing risk to ecological resources during remediation, and include defining the remediation site and buffer, understanding the effects of timing and sequencing of remediation, education of all remediation personnel, and specific suggestions for reducing risk during active remediation. While this framework was developed for Department of Energy remediation sites, it is applicable to brownfields and other contaminated lands world-wide. The overall goal is to provide interested and affected parties with a framework for protecting and enhancing ecological resources during the planning and execution of remediation on contaminated lands.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)586-595
Number of pages10
JournalEnvironmental research
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2019

Fingerprint

Remediation
Sustainable development
remediation
sustainability
Planning
resource
Hazardous Substances
World War II
contaminated land
Radioisotopes
Land use
Decision Making
Buffers
planning
Education
land use
Cold War
ecological impact
Environmental Restoration and Remediation
cleanup

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Biochemistry
  • Environmental Science(all)

Cite this

@article{612f677ebd9e41bcbaee43300180e4cc,
title = "A framework for increasing sustainability and reducing risk to ecological resources through integration of remediation planning and implementation",
abstract = "Remediation of lands contaminated with radionuclides and hazardous chemicals provides an ongoing challenge for many countries. It is particularly problematic for remediation of old industrial sites remaining from World War II and the Cold War. Remediating and restoring large sites is often costly, time-consuming, and involves complex planning and sequencing, as well as consideration of future land use policies. The goal of remediation is to reduce contamination, reduce risk to humans and the environment, and restore land to productive land uses, and ultimately, to sustainability. Often reducing risk to people takes precedence over protecting ecological resources in overall planning, characterization, and execution of remediation strategies. This paper examines when and how stakeholders, including anyone interested and affected by remediation on ecological resources, can become involved in the planning, decision-making, and implementation of remediation. There is a formal process under federal law (e.g. CERCLA) in the US for examining risk to resources, including indicator species. However, there are other informal points during the cleanup process when managers should consider the value of ecological resources, the public may express their concerns for particular ecological resources, and ecologists may provide data and expert advice early in the process as critical decisions are being made about remediation that impact ecological resources. The framework presented in this paper for increasing sustainability of ecological resources has three periods of intervention 1) major decision points, 2) process interdiction points, and 3) remediation action points. Major decision points include site and problem identification, regional ecological resource and local land use practice determination, remediation goals and options determination, and other local issues. Interdiction points include examining remediation options, and in-depth assessments of ecological resources on-site. Remediation action points are aimed at reducing risk to ecological resources during remediation, and include defining the remediation site and buffer, understanding the effects of timing and sequencing of remediation, education of all remediation personnel, and specific suggestions for reducing risk during active remediation. While this framework was developed for Department of Energy remediation sites, it is applicable to brownfields and other contaminated lands world-wide. The overall goal is to provide interested and affected parties with a framework for protecting and enhancing ecological resources during the planning and execution of remediation on contaminated lands.",
author = "Joanna Burger",
year = "2019",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.envres.2019.02.036",
language = "English (US)",
pages = "586--595",
journal = "Environmental Research",
issn = "0013-9351",
publisher = "Academic Press Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A framework for increasing sustainability and reducing risk to ecological resources through integration of remediation planning and implementation

AU - Burger, Joanna

PY - 2019/5/1

Y1 - 2019/5/1

N2 - Remediation of lands contaminated with radionuclides and hazardous chemicals provides an ongoing challenge for many countries. It is particularly problematic for remediation of old industrial sites remaining from World War II and the Cold War. Remediating and restoring large sites is often costly, time-consuming, and involves complex planning and sequencing, as well as consideration of future land use policies. The goal of remediation is to reduce contamination, reduce risk to humans and the environment, and restore land to productive land uses, and ultimately, to sustainability. Often reducing risk to people takes precedence over protecting ecological resources in overall planning, characterization, and execution of remediation strategies. This paper examines when and how stakeholders, including anyone interested and affected by remediation on ecological resources, can become involved in the planning, decision-making, and implementation of remediation. There is a formal process under federal law (e.g. CERCLA) in the US for examining risk to resources, including indicator species. However, there are other informal points during the cleanup process when managers should consider the value of ecological resources, the public may express their concerns for particular ecological resources, and ecologists may provide data and expert advice early in the process as critical decisions are being made about remediation that impact ecological resources. The framework presented in this paper for increasing sustainability of ecological resources has three periods of intervention 1) major decision points, 2) process interdiction points, and 3) remediation action points. Major decision points include site and problem identification, regional ecological resource and local land use practice determination, remediation goals and options determination, and other local issues. Interdiction points include examining remediation options, and in-depth assessments of ecological resources on-site. Remediation action points are aimed at reducing risk to ecological resources during remediation, and include defining the remediation site and buffer, understanding the effects of timing and sequencing of remediation, education of all remediation personnel, and specific suggestions for reducing risk during active remediation. While this framework was developed for Department of Energy remediation sites, it is applicable to brownfields and other contaminated lands world-wide. The overall goal is to provide interested and affected parties with a framework for protecting and enhancing ecological resources during the planning and execution of remediation on contaminated lands.

AB - Remediation of lands contaminated with radionuclides and hazardous chemicals provides an ongoing challenge for many countries. It is particularly problematic for remediation of old industrial sites remaining from World War II and the Cold War. Remediating and restoring large sites is often costly, time-consuming, and involves complex planning and sequencing, as well as consideration of future land use policies. The goal of remediation is to reduce contamination, reduce risk to humans and the environment, and restore land to productive land uses, and ultimately, to sustainability. Often reducing risk to people takes precedence over protecting ecological resources in overall planning, characterization, and execution of remediation strategies. This paper examines when and how stakeholders, including anyone interested and affected by remediation on ecological resources, can become involved in the planning, decision-making, and implementation of remediation. There is a formal process under federal law (e.g. CERCLA) in the US for examining risk to resources, including indicator species. However, there are other informal points during the cleanup process when managers should consider the value of ecological resources, the public may express their concerns for particular ecological resources, and ecologists may provide data and expert advice early in the process as critical decisions are being made about remediation that impact ecological resources. The framework presented in this paper for increasing sustainability of ecological resources has three periods of intervention 1) major decision points, 2) process interdiction points, and 3) remediation action points. Major decision points include site and problem identification, regional ecological resource and local land use practice determination, remediation goals and options determination, and other local issues. Interdiction points include examining remediation options, and in-depth assessments of ecological resources on-site. Remediation action points are aimed at reducing risk to ecological resources during remediation, and include defining the remediation site and buffer, understanding the effects of timing and sequencing of remediation, education of all remediation personnel, and specific suggestions for reducing risk during active remediation. While this framework was developed for Department of Energy remediation sites, it is applicable to brownfields and other contaminated lands world-wide. The overall goal is to provide interested and affected parties with a framework for protecting and enhancing ecological resources during the planning and execution of remediation on contaminated lands.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85062842510&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85062842510&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.envres.2019.02.036

DO - 10.1016/j.envres.2019.02.036

M3 - Article

SP - 586

EP - 595

JO - Environmental Research

JF - Environmental Research

SN - 0013-9351

ER -