TY - JOUR
T1 - Advancing Risk-Informed Decision Making in Managing Defense Nuclear Waste in the United States
T2 - Opportunities and Challenges for Risk Analysis
AU - Greenberg, Michael R.
AU - Apostolakis, George
AU - Fields, Timothy
AU - Goldstein, Bernard D.
AU - Kosson, David
AU - Krahn, Steven
AU - Matthews, R. Bruce
AU - Rispoli, James
AU - Stewart, Jane
AU - Stewart, Richard
N1 - Funding Information:
This study was carried out with the financial support of the U. S. Department of Energy, under Cooperative Agreement Number DE-FC01-06EW07053 entitled ‘The Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation III,’ awarded to Vanderbilt University, and included a subaward to Rutgers University (www.cresp.org). The opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily rep- resent the views of the Department of Energy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Rutgers University, Vanderbilt University, or any of the people acknowledged. This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the U.S. government. Neither the U.S. government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.
Funding Information:
The Review Committee gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Karen Lowrie, Associate Director, Environmental Assessment & Communications Group, Bloustein School, Rutgers University, and Managing Editor, Risk Analysis, An International Journal, and Harrison Pannella, independent consultant, former staff member, National Research Council in carrying out this study. The Review Committee thanks many managers and staff of the U.S. DOE, especially Mark Gilbertson and Matthew Duchesne, who hosted multiple visits, responded to many questions, and provided documents. Likewise, the Committee appreciates the assistance of Steven Stokes of the DNFSB and the efforts of Michele Indermark of the USEPA to organize meetings with the Review Committee, provide documents, and fact-check the Review Committee's notes. In addition to these specific individuals, the Review Committee thanks more than 100 people who were interviewed by the Committee and others who spoke with us over the phone or in the field. We appreciate comments from a peer-review committee. They provided important insights about many of the key points in the report. We thank staff of the DOE, DNFSB, EPA, and states of South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington for fact-checking the report. Several doubtless fact-checked the report both after our interviews and again after the initial draft was completed. While we may not have agreed with every point, we read and considered all of the comments. This study was carried out with the financial support of the U. S. Department of Energy, under Cooperative Agreement Number DE-FC01-06EW07053 entitled ‘The Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation III,’ awarded to Vanderbilt University, and included a subaward to Rutgers University (www.cresp.org). The opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Energy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Rutgers University, Vanderbilt University, or any of the people acknowledged. This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the U.S. government. Neither the U.S. government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 Society for Risk Analysis
PY - 2019/2/1
Y1 - 2019/2/1
N2 - An omnibus spending bill in 2014 directed the Department of Energy to analyze how effectively Department of Energy (DOE) identifies, programs, and executes its plans to address public health and safety risks that remain as part of DOE's remaining environmental cleanup liabilities. A committee identified two dozen issues and associated recommendations for the DOE, other federal agencies, and the U.S. Congress to consider, as well as other stakeholders such as states and tribal nations. In regard to risk assessment, the committee described a risk review process that uses available data, expert experience, identifies major data gaps, permits input from key stakeholders, and creates an ordered set of risks based on what is known. Probabilistic risk assessments could be a follow-up from these risk reviews. In regard to risk management, the states, in particular, have become major drivers of how resources are driven. States use different laws, different priorities, and challenge DOE's policies in different ways. Land use decisions vary, technology choices are different, and other notable variations are apparent. The cost differences associated with these differences are marked. The net result is that resources do not necessarily go to the most prominent human health and safety risks, as seen from the national level.
AB - An omnibus spending bill in 2014 directed the Department of Energy to analyze how effectively Department of Energy (DOE) identifies, programs, and executes its plans to address public health and safety risks that remain as part of DOE's remaining environmental cleanup liabilities. A committee identified two dozen issues and associated recommendations for the DOE, other federal agencies, and the U.S. Congress to consider, as well as other stakeholders such as states and tribal nations. In regard to risk assessment, the committee described a risk review process that uses available data, expert experience, identifies major data gaps, permits input from key stakeholders, and creates an ordered set of risks based on what is known. Probabilistic risk assessments could be a follow-up from these risk reviews. In regard to risk management, the states, in particular, have become major drivers of how resources are driven. States use different laws, different priorities, and challenge DOE's policies in different ways. Land use decisions vary, technology choices are different, and other notable variations are apparent. The cost differences associated with these differences are marked. The net result is that resources do not necessarily go to the most prominent human health and safety risks, as seen from the national level.
KW - DOE
KW - risk assessment
KW - risk management
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85061249702&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85061249702&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/risa.13135
DO - 10.1111/risa.13135
M3 - Review article
C2 - 29958320
AN - SCOPUS:85061249702
SN - 0272-4332
VL - 39
SP - 375
EP - 388
JO - Risk Analysis
JF - Risk Analysis
IS - 2
ER -