Shifting priorities at the Department of Energy's bomb factories: Protecting human and ecological health

Joanna Burger, Thomas M. Leschine, Michael Greenberg, James R. Karr, Michael Gochfeld, Charles W. Powers

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

43 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

More than 50 years of research, development, manufacture, and testing of nuclear weapons at Department of Energy (DOE) sites has left a legacy of on-site contamination that often spreads to surrounding areas. Despite substantial cleanup budgets in the last decade, the DOE's top-to-bottom review team concluded that relatively little actual cleanup has been accomplished, although milestones have been met and work packages completed. Rather than solely use regulatory constraints to direct cleanup, many people have suggested that human and ecological health should guide long-term stewardship goals of DOE-managed sites. The main questions are how ecological and human health considerations should be applied in deciding the extent of cleanup that contaminated sites should receive and how near-term and longer run considerations of costs and benefits should be balanced as cleanup decisions are made. One effort to protect ecological integrity is the designation of the largest sites as National Environmental Research Parks (NERPs). Recently, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) suggested isolating and conserving DOE sites as a policy priority because of their rich ecological diversity. A more effective long-term stewardship approach for former nuclear weapons complex sites may emerge if the guiding principles are to (1) reduce risks to human and ecological health, (2) protect cultural traditions, and (3) lower short- and long-term cleanup and remediation costs. A "net benefits" perspective that takes both near- and longer-term costs and consequences into account can help illuminate the trade-offs between expensive cleanup in the near term and the need to assure long-term protection of human health, cultural values, and high levels of biodiversity and ecological integrity that currently exist at many DOE sites.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)157-167
Number of pages11
JournalEnvironmental Management
Volume31
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2003

Fingerprint

cleanup
Industrial plants
Health
Nuclear weapons
energy
nuclear weapon
Costs
Biodiversity
Remediation
cost
Contamination
cultural tradition
environmental research
health
Testing
remediation
Industry
biodiversity

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Global and Planetary Change
  • Ecology
  • Pollution

Keywords

  • Cleanup
  • Department of Energy
  • Priorities
  • Trade-offs

Cite this

Burger, Joanna ; Leschine, Thomas M. ; Greenberg, Michael ; Karr, James R. ; Gochfeld, Michael ; Powers, Charles W. / Shifting priorities at the Department of Energy's bomb factories : Protecting human and ecological health. In: Environmental Management. 2003 ; Vol. 31, No. 2. pp. 157-167.
@article{70786b62cd334900b47f1c51cafd7c31,
title = "Shifting priorities at the Department of Energy's bomb factories: Protecting human and ecological health",
abstract = "More than 50 years of research, development, manufacture, and testing of nuclear weapons at Department of Energy (DOE) sites has left a legacy of on-site contamination that often spreads to surrounding areas. Despite substantial cleanup budgets in the last decade, the DOE's top-to-bottom review team concluded that relatively little actual cleanup has been accomplished, although milestones have been met and work packages completed. Rather than solely use regulatory constraints to direct cleanup, many people have suggested that human and ecological health should guide long-term stewardship goals of DOE-managed sites. The main questions are how ecological and human health considerations should be applied in deciding the extent of cleanup that contaminated sites should receive and how near-term and longer run considerations of costs and benefits should be balanced as cleanup decisions are made. One effort to protect ecological integrity is the designation of the largest sites as National Environmental Research Parks (NERPs). Recently, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) suggested isolating and conserving DOE sites as a policy priority because of their rich ecological diversity. A more effective long-term stewardship approach for former nuclear weapons complex sites may emerge if the guiding principles are to (1) reduce risks to human and ecological health, (2) protect cultural traditions, and (3) lower short- and long-term cleanup and remediation costs. A {"}net benefits{"} perspective that takes both near- and longer-term costs and consequences into account can help illuminate the trade-offs between expensive cleanup in the near term and the need to assure long-term protection of human health, cultural values, and high levels of biodiversity and ecological integrity that currently exist at many DOE sites.",
keywords = "Cleanup, Department of Energy, Priorities, Trade-offs",
author = "Joanna Burger and Leschine, {Thomas M.} and Michael Greenberg and Karr, {James R.} and Michael Gochfeld and Powers, {Charles W.}",
year = "2003",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s00267-002-2778-4",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "31",
pages = "157--167",
journal = "Environmental Management",
issn = "0364-152X",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "2",

}

Shifting priorities at the Department of Energy's bomb factories : Protecting human and ecological health. / Burger, Joanna; Leschine, Thomas M.; Greenberg, Michael; Karr, James R.; Gochfeld, Michael; Powers, Charles W.

In: Environmental Management, Vol. 31, No. 2, 01.02.2003, p. 157-167.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Shifting priorities at the Department of Energy's bomb factories

T2 - Protecting human and ecological health

AU - Burger, Joanna

AU - Leschine, Thomas M.

AU - Greenberg, Michael

AU - Karr, James R.

AU - Gochfeld, Michael

AU - Powers, Charles W.

PY - 2003/2/1

Y1 - 2003/2/1

N2 - More than 50 years of research, development, manufacture, and testing of nuclear weapons at Department of Energy (DOE) sites has left a legacy of on-site contamination that often spreads to surrounding areas. Despite substantial cleanup budgets in the last decade, the DOE's top-to-bottom review team concluded that relatively little actual cleanup has been accomplished, although milestones have been met and work packages completed. Rather than solely use regulatory constraints to direct cleanup, many people have suggested that human and ecological health should guide long-term stewardship goals of DOE-managed sites. The main questions are how ecological and human health considerations should be applied in deciding the extent of cleanup that contaminated sites should receive and how near-term and longer run considerations of costs and benefits should be balanced as cleanup decisions are made. One effort to protect ecological integrity is the designation of the largest sites as National Environmental Research Parks (NERPs). Recently, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) suggested isolating and conserving DOE sites as a policy priority because of their rich ecological diversity. A more effective long-term stewardship approach for former nuclear weapons complex sites may emerge if the guiding principles are to (1) reduce risks to human and ecological health, (2) protect cultural traditions, and (3) lower short- and long-term cleanup and remediation costs. A "net benefits" perspective that takes both near- and longer-term costs and consequences into account can help illuminate the trade-offs between expensive cleanup in the near term and the need to assure long-term protection of human health, cultural values, and high levels of biodiversity and ecological integrity that currently exist at many DOE sites.

AB - More than 50 years of research, development, manufacture, and testing of nuclear weapons at Department of Energy (DOE) sites has left a legacy of on-site contamination that often spreads to surrounding areas. Despite substantial cleanup budgets in the last decade, the DOE's top-to-bottom review team concluded that relatively little actual cleanup has been accomplished, although milestones have been met and work packages completed. Rather than solely use regulatory constraints to direct cleanup, many people have suggested that human and ecological health should guide long-term stewardship goals of DOE-managed sites. The main questions are how ecological and human health considerations should be applied in deciding the extent of cleanup that contaminated sites should receive and how near-term and longer run considerations of costs and benefits should be balanced as cleanup decisions are made. One effort to protect ecological integrity is the designation of the largest sites as National Environmental Research Parks (NERPs). Recently, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) suggested isolating and conserving DOE sites as a policy priority because of their rich ecological diversity. A more effective long-term stewardship approach for former nuclear weapons complex sites may emerge if the guiding principles are to (1) reduce risks to human and ecological health, (2) protect cultural traditions, and (3) lower short- and long-term cleanup and remediation costs. A "net benefits" perspective that takes both near- and longer-term costs and consequences into account can help illuminate the trade-offs between expensive cleanup in the near term and the need to assure long-term protection of human health, cultural values, and high levels of biodiversity and ecological integrity that currently exist at many DOE sites.

KW - Cleanup

KW - Department of Energy

KW - Priorities

KW - Trade-offs

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0038137410&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0038137410&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00267-002-2778-4

DO - 10.1007/s00267-002-2778-4

M3 - Review article

C2 - 12520373

AN - SCOPUS:0038137410

VL - 31

SP - 157

EP - 167

JO - Environmental Management

JF - Environmental Management

SN - 0364-152X

IS - 2

ER -