An Ecological Multidisciplinary Approach to Protecting Society, Human Health, and the Environment at Nuclear Facilities

As the United States and other countries move toward a greater reliance on nuclear energy, it becomes increasingly important to characterize the environment around such facilities to protect society, human health, and the environment. This article presents an ecological, multidisciplinary approach to gathering the information needed to establish baselines, site new nuclear facilities, protect existing nuclear facilities and nuclear wastes, improve the basis for emergency planning, devise suitable monitoring schemes to ensure continued protection, provide data to track local and regional response changes, and provide for mitigation, remediation, and decommissioning planning. We suggest that there are five categories of information or data needs: (1) geophysical, sources, fate and transport; (2) biological systems; (3) human health; (4) stakeholder and environmental justice; and (5) societal, economic, and political. All of these categories are influenced by temporal and spatial patterns, vulnerabilities, and global changes. These informational needs are more expansive than the traditional site characterization but encompass a suite of physical, biological, and societal needs to protect all aspects of human health and the environment, not just physical health. We suggest that technical teams be established for each of the major informational categories, with appropriate representation among teams and with a broad involvement of a range of governmental personnel, natural and social scientists, Native Americans, environmental justice communities, and other stakeholders. Although designed for nuclear facilities, the templates and information teams can be adapted for other hazardous facilities. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

[1]  Joanna Burger,et al.  Integrating long-term stewardship goals into the remediation process: natural resource damages and the Department of Energy. , 2007, Journal of environmental management.

[2]  J. Sheffield,et al.  World population growth and the role of annual energy use per capita. , 1998, Technological forecasting and social change.

[3]  Michael Greenberg,et al.  An ecologically oriented database to guide remediation and reuse of contaminated sites , 2003 .

[4]  Hung-Chih Hung,et al.  Determinants and Mapping of Collective Perceptions of Technological Risk: The Case of the Second Nuclear Power Plant in Taiwan , 2011, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[5]  Michael Greenberg,et al.  Preferences for alternative risk management policies at the United States major nuclear weapons legacy sites , 2007 .

[6]  Michael Greenberg,et al.  End‐state land uses, sustainably protective systems, and risk management: A challenge for remediation and multigenerational stewardship , 2005 .

[7]  Frances M. Lynn,et al.  Citizen Advisory Committees and Environmental Policy: What We Know, What's Left to Discover , 1995 .

[8]  Michael Gochfeld,et al.  Protecting contract workers: case study of the US Department of Energy's nuclear and chemical waste management. , 2007, American journal of public health.

[9]  J. Burger Stakeholders and scientists , 2011 .

[10]  J. Burger The effect on ecological systems of remediation to protect human health. , 2007, American Journal of Public Health.

[11]  E. Ron,et al.  Non-malignant Thyroid Diseases after a Wide Range of Radiation Exposures , 2010, Radiation research.

[12]  J. Burger Perceptions as indicators of potential risk from fish consumption and health of fish populations. , 2008 .

[13]  W. K. Roy,et al.  Investigating habitat value to inform contaminant remediation options: approach. , 2008, Journal of environmental management.

[14]  N. Meshkati Lessons of the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident for Sustainable Energy Generation: Creation of the Safety Culture in Nuclear Power Plants Around the World , 2007 .

[15]  Ç. Şekercioğlu,et al.  Conservation Biology: Predicting Birds' Responses to Forest Fragmentation , 2007, Current Biology.

[16]  Jaana Sorvari,et al.  A decision support tool to prioritize risk management options for contaminated sites. , 2010, The Science of the total environment.

[17]  Elaine M Faustman,et al.  Nuclear waste transportation: case studies of identifying stakeholder risk information needs. , 2003, Environmental health perspectives.

[18]  James H Clarke,et al.  Engineered containment and control systems: nurturing nature. , 2004, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[19]  J. Burger,et al.  Assessing Ecological Resources for Remediation and Future Land Uses on Contaminated Lands , 2004, Environmental management.

[20]  L. J. Habegger,et al.  Avoiding Destructive Remediation at DOE Sites , 2004, Science.

[21]  Richard Grenyer,et al.  Priority research areas for ecosystem services in a changing world , 2009 .

[22]  J. Burger Stakeholder Involvement in Indicator Selection: Case Studies and Levels of Participation , 2009 .

[23]  J. Burger Incorporating ecology and ecological risk into long‐term stewardship on contaminated sites , 2002 .

[24]  David Barnes,et al.  Scientific research, stakeholders, and policy: continuing dialogue during research on radionuclides on Amchitka Island, Alaska. , 2007, Journal of environmental management.

[25]  Daniel J. Fiorino Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: A Survey of Institutional Mechanisms , 1990 .

[26]  R. D. Groot,et al.  A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services , 2002 .

[27]  J. Burger,et al.  Guidance for determining the best disposition of large tracts of decommissioned land , 2004 .

[28]  J. Burger Protective Sustainability of Ecosystems Using Department of Energy Buffer Lands as a Case Study , 2007, Journal of toxicology and environmental health. Part A.

[29]  Thomas C. Beierle,et al.  The Quality of Stakeholder‐Based Decisions , 2002, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[30]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Intuitive Toxicology: Expert and Lay Judgments of Chemical Risks , 1992, Toxicologic pathology.

[31]  K. Arrow,et al.  The Value of Nature and the Nature of Value , 2000, Science.

[32]  A L Alm,et al.  Energy supply interruptions and national security. , 1981, Science.

[33]  Andre Botequilha Leitão,et al.  Applying landscape ecological concepts and metrics in sustainable landscape planning , 2002 .

[34]  P. Slovic Perception of risk. , 1987, Science.

[35]  Pamela Bridgen Protecting Native Americans Through the Risk Assessment Process: A Commentary on “An Examination of U.S. EPA Risk Assessment Principles and Practices” , 2005, Integrated environmental assessment and management.

[36]  Kenji Satake,et al.  Long-Term Perspectives on Giant Earthquakes and Tsunamis at Subduction , 2007 .

[37]  T. Sumerling,et al.  The transfer of strontium-90 and caesium-137 to milk in a dairy herd grazing near a major nuclear installation. , 1984, The Science of the total environment.

[38]  J. Glicken Getting stakeholder participation ‘right’: a discussion of participatory processes and possible pitfalls , 2000 .

[39]  J F Ahearne,et al.  Nuclear power after Chernobyl. , 1987, Science.

[40]  S. Arnstein,et al.  Ladder of Citizen Participation , 2020 .

[41]  Thomas Dietz,et al.  The Future of Nuclear Power: Value Orientations and Risk Perception , 2009, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[42]  J. Burger,et al.  The Role of Risk and Future Land Use in Cleanup Decisions at the Department of Energy , 2004, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[43]  Samuel D. Brody,et al.  Measuring the Effects of Stakeholder Participation on the Quality of Local Plans Based on the Principles of Collaborative Ecosystem Management , 2003 .

[44]  M. Portman Involving the public in the impact assessment of offshore renewable energy facilities , 2009 .

[45]  Joanna Burger,et al.  Information needs for siting new, and evaluating current, nuclear facilities: ecology, fate and transport, and human health , 2011, Environmental monitoring and assessment.

[46]  Joanna Burger,et al.  Ecocultural Attributes: Evaluating Ecological Degradation in Terms of Ecological Goods and Services Versus Subsistence and Tribal Values , 2008, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[47]  Carol L. Silva,et al.  Reversing Nuclear Opposition: Evolving Public Acceptance of a Permanent Nuclear Waste Disposal Facility , 2011, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[48]  Howard Kunreuther,et al.  Public Attitudes Toward Siting a High‐Level Nuclear Waste Repository in Nevada , 1990 .

[49]  Daniel J. Decker,et al.  Public Participation in Wildlife Management: What Do Stakeholders Want? , 2004 .

[50]  Anne Steinemann,et al.  Rethinking human health impact assessment , 2000 .

[51]  Henry J. Mayer,et al.  Using Integrated Geospatial Mapping and Conceptual Site Models to Guide Risk‐Based Environmental Clean‐Up Decisions , 2005, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[52]  K. Brown The Great DOE Land Rush? , 1998, Science.

[53]  Dale J. Blahna,et al.  Public involvement in resource planning: Toward bridging the gap between policy and implementation , 1989 .

[54]  Joanna Burger,et al.  Natural resource protection on buffer lands: integrating resource evaluation and economics , 2008, Environmental monitoring and assessment.

[55]  Eli Glatstein,et al.  Short-term and long-term health risks of nuclear-power-plant accidents. , 2011, The New England journal of medicine.

[56]  P. Strand,et al.  RADIATION-INDUCED EFFECTS ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS: FINDINGS OF THE UNITED NATIONS CHERNOBYL FORUM , 2007, Health physics.

[57]  Joanna Burger,et al.  Environmental management: integrating ecological evaluation, remediation, restoration, natural resource damage assessment and long-term stewardship on contaminated lands. , 2008, The Science of the total environment.