Choosing remediation and waste management options at hazardous and radioactive waste sites

Michael Greenberg; Joanna Burger; Charles Powers; Thomas Leschine; Karen Lowrie; Barry Friedlander; Elaine Faustman; William Griffith; David Kosson

doi:10.1002/rem.10053

Choosing remediation and waste management options at hazardous and radioactive waste sites

Michael Greenberg, Joanna Burger, Charles Powers, Thomas Leschine, Karen Lowrie, Barry Friedlander, Elaine Faustman, William Griffith, David Kosson

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

9 Scopus citations

Abstract

This article discusses a process for finding insights that will allow federal agencies and environmental professionals to more effectively manage contaminated sites. The process is built around what Etzioni (1968) called mixed-scanning, that is, perpetually doing both comprehensive and detailed analyses and periodically re-scanning for new circumstances that change the decision-making environment. The article offers a checklist of 127 items, which is one part of the multiple-stage scanning process. The checklist includes questions about technology; public, worker, and ecological health; economic cost and benefits; social impacts; and legal issues. While developed for a DOE high-level radioactive waste application, the decision-making framework and specific questions can be used for other large-scale remediation and management projects.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	39-58
Number of pages	20
Journal	Remediation
Volume	13
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1002/rem.10053
State	Published - 2002

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

Environmental Engineering
Waste Management and Disposal
Pollution

Access to Document

10.1002/rem.10053

Cite this

@article{96f229f269ae46709c433c6f979393e4,

title = "Choosing remediation and waste management options at hazardous and radioactive waste sites",

abstract = "This article discusses a process for finding insights that will allow federal agencies and environmental professionals to more effectively manage contaminated sites. The process is built around what Etzioni (1968) called mixed-scanning, that is, perpetually doing both comprehensive and detailed analyses and periodically re-scanning for new circumstances that change the decision-making environment. The article offers a checklist of 127 items, which is one part of the multiple-stage scanning process. The checklist includes questions about technology; public, worker, and ecological health; economic cost and benefits; social impacts; and legal issues. While developed for a DOE high-level radioactive waste application, the decision-making framework and specific questions can be used for other large-scale remediation and management projects.",

author = "Michael Greenberg and Joanna Burger and Charles Powers and Thomas Leschine and Karen Lowrie and Barry Friedlander and Elaine Faustman and William Griffith and David Kosson",

year = "2002",

doi = "10.1002/rem.10053",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "13",

pages = "39--58",

journal = "Remediation",

issn = "1051-5658",

publisher = "John Wiley & Sons Inc.",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Choosing remediation and waste management options at hazardous and radioactive waste sites

AU - Greenberg, Michael

AU - Burger, Joanna

AU - Powers, Charles

AU - Leschine, Thomas

AU - Lowrie, Karen

AU - Friedlander, Barry

AU - Faustman, Elaine

AU - Griffith, William

AU - Kosson, David

PY - 2002

Y1 - 2002

N2 - This article discusses a process for finding insights that will allow federal agencies and environmental professionals to more effectively manage contaminated sites. The process is built around what Etzioni (1968) called mixed-scanning, that is, perpetually doing both comprehensive and detailed analyses and periodically re-scanning for new circumstances that change the decision-making environment. The article offers a checklist of 127 items, which is one part of the multiple-stage scanning process. The checklist includes questions about technology; public, worker, and ecological health; economic cost and benefits; social impacts; and legal issues. While developed for a DOE high-level radioactive waste application, the decision-making framework and specific questions can be used for other large-scale remediation and management projects.

AB - This article discusses a process for finding insights that will allow federal agencies and environmental professionals to more effectively manage contaminated sites. The process is built around what Etzioni (1968) called mixed-scanning, that is, perpetually doing both comprehensive and detailed analyses and periodically re-scanning for new circumstances that change the decision-making environment. The article offers a checklist of 127 items, which is one part of the multiple-stage scanning process. The checklist includes questions about technology; public, worker, and ecological health; economic cost and benefits; social impacts; and legal issues. While developed for a DOE high-level radioactive waste application, the decision-making framework and specific questions can be used for other large-scale remediation and management projects.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=2442575382&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=2442575382&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/rem.10053

DO - 10.1002/rem.10053

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:2442575382

SN - 1051-5658

VL - 13

SP - 39

EP - 58

JO - Remediation

JF - Remediation

IS - 1

ER -

Choosing remediation and waste management options at hazardous and radioactive waste sites

Abstract

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this