Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Burger, Joanna

Publications and source records attributed to Burger, Joanna.

7 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2022

Trust and consequences: Role of community science, perceptions, values, and environmental justice in risk communication

Risk communication is often viewed as imparting information and perhaps as a two-way dialogue. Risk communication inadequacies on the part of both “communicator” and “community members” can lead to adverse consequences and amplify environmental justice disparities. The paper suggests a transformational approach where risk communicators must learn to trust community experts and their knowledge base (and act upon it), where risk information imparted by risk communicators addresses what communities are most concerned about (as well as risk from specific chemicals or radionuclides), and where risk information and assessments address underlying issues and disparities, as well as cultural traditions (among others). Providing risk probabilities is no longer sufficient; western science may not be enough, and community and native scientific knowledge is needed. Risk communication (or information transfer) for environmental risks that are ongoing usually applies to low-income, minority communities—people living in dense inner cities, rural communities, Native American communities—or to people living near a risky facility. Communication within this context requires mutual trust, listening and respect, as well as acceptance of indigenous and community knowledge as equally valuable. Examples are given to illustrate a community perspective.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2022

Ecological information and approaches needed for risk communication dialogs for acute or chronic environmental crises

Scientists, social scientists, risk communicators, and many others are often thrust into a crisis situation where they need to interact with a range of stakeholders, including governmental personnel (tribal, U.S. federal, state, local), local residents, and other publics, as well as other scientists and other risk communicators in situations where information is incomplete and evolving. This paper provides: (1) an overall framework for thinking about communication during crises, from acute to chronic, and local to widespread, (2) a template for the types of ecological information needed to address public and environmental concerns, and (3) examples to illustrate how this information will aid risk communicators. The main goal is providing an approach to the knowledge needed by communicators to address the challenges of protecting ecological resources during an environmental crisis, or for an on-going, chronic environmental issue. To understand the risk to these ecological resources, it is important to identify the type of event, whether it is acute or chronic (or some combination of these), what receptors are at risk, and what stressors are involved (natural, biological, chemical, radiological). For ecological resources, the key information a communicator needs for a crisis is whether any of the following are present: threatened or endangered species, species of special concern, species groups of concern (e.g., neotropical bird migrants, breeding frogs in vernal ponds, rare plant assemblages), unique or rare habitats, species of commercial and recreational interest, and species/habitats of especial interest for medicinal, cultural, or religious activities. Communication among stakeholders is complicated with respect to risk to ecological receptors because of differences in trust, credibility, empathy, perceptions, world view valuation of the resources, and in many cases, a history of misinformation, disinformation, or no information. Exposure of salmon spawning in the Columbia River to hexavalent chromium from the Hanford Site is used as an example of communication challenges with different stakeholders, including Native Americans with Tribal Treaty rights to the land.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Role of uncertainties in protecting ecological resources during remediation and restoration

Cleanup of contaminated waste sites is a National priority to protect human health and the environment, while restoring land to productive uses. While there are uncertainties with under standing risk to individuals from exposure, the aim of this study was to focus on uncertainties and complexities for ecological systems, complicated by hundreds of species occupying any remediation site which participate in multiple-interacting food webs. The ability to better predict the effectiveness of remediation in fostering future ecosystems might facilitate remedy selection and improve strategic environmental management. This investigation examined (1) uncertainties in ecosystem processes, (2) uncertainties in exposure from contamination before remediation, and (3) uncertainties during remediation. Two Department of Energy sites Hanford Site and Savannah River Site were used as case studies to illustrate how the uncertainties affect eco-receptors. Several types of ecological, physical, and human dimension uncertainties are defined. Ecological uncertainties include temporal, spatial, individual, developmental, and exogenous types. Physical uncertainties are weather-related, watershed variations, slope/aspect, soil/sediment structure and form, unforeseen events, and temporal patterns. Human dimension uncertainties include current land use, future land use, extractive and non-extractive recreation. The effects of remedial strategies varied between the two sites because Hanford is a primarily arid shrub-steppe ecotype, while Savannah River is a wet forest ecotype. Defining the associated ecological sensitivities and uncertainties and providing examples might help policy-makers, managers, planners, and contractors to be aware of issues to consider throughout planning, remediation, and restoration. Adding ecological uncertainty analysis to risk evaluations and remediation planning is analogous to using safety factors in human health risk assessment.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

Risk to Ecological Resources on Burial Waste Sites on the Hanford Site, Washington - 20248

The US and other nations have a large nuclear and chemical waste remediation task remaining from World War II, the Cold War, and industrial activities. The US Department of Energy (DOE) has the largest task in the U.S., with Hanford (Washington State) being the most contaminated site, with the longest and most costly cleanup program projected to extend to the end of the century. One of the greatest remediation problems at Hanford are the burial waste facilities, some of which are inside the 200 Areas on the Central Plateau, while others are outside the 200 Areas. These areas are associated with waste sites, pipes, and contaminated trenches, posing technical cleanup challenges to meet DoE's remediation goals, including protection of human health and the environment commensurate with Tri- Party Agreement and current regulatory requirements. In this paper we select one of the legacy waste sites (the BC Cribs and Trenches) as a case study to explore how risk to ecological resources varies during and as a consequence of remediation on sites primarily considered legacy waste sites. We used the risk methodology developed by the Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP) during the Hanford Site-wide Risk Review. The CRESP methodology included evaluating the risk to receptors, including human health, the Columbia River, groundwater, and ecological and cultural resources. The risk evaluation process for ecological receptors included defining the boundaries of each evaluation unit (EU) to be remediated, definition of a suitable buffer area that might be affected, and consideration of the known resource value based on field work. This information, coupled with known remediation options or strategies, allowed us to develop a risk rating for ecological resources. Site risks were evaluated on a scale of 'not discernible' to 'very high' risk. Consideration of the risks at the buried waste sites was complicated by uncertainties in remediation methods and the degree of restoration that would occur as part of the remediation process. We use the BC Cribs and Trenches as a case study to explore why the risks are low currently but increase during remediation. The current 'not discernible to low' risk rating is due to the lack of high quality ecological resources on the BC Cribs and Trenches EU, except for edge areas (with some state-listed species). During remediation the risks increase to 'medium', mainly due to high quality resources on adjacent buffer lands, which could be disrupted during active remediation. Medium and high quality resources on the edge of the site are continuous with higher quality native shrub-steppe habitat on the buffer. Ecological resources on some of the areas surrounding the 200 East and West Areas are some of the highest quality shrub-steppe areas on the Hanford Site, and risk to these resources could be prevented by planning before and during remediation to minimize disruption. For example, lay down areas for the BC Cribs and Trenches can be minimized by careful planning. Heavy truck and other vehicular traffic can be minimized. Spread of the noxious weeds now on some of the site can be prevented, and the spread of invasive species into the site (particularly near undisturbed shrub-steppe habitat) can be reduced. Further, the areas around and between the 200 East and West Areas have been largely undisturbed and can serve as a source of seeds and propagules for any revegetation that occurs as part of the remediation process. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

Risk to ecological resources following remediation can be due mainly to increased resource value of successful restoration: A case study from the Department of Energy's Hanford Site

Several nations are faced with the need to remediate large contaminated sites following World War II, the Cold War, and abandoned industrial sites, and to return them to productive land uses. In the United States, the Department of Energy (DOE) has the largest cleanup challenge, and its Hanford Site in the state of Washington has the most extensive and most expensive cleanup task. Ideally, the risk to ecological resources on remediation sites is evaluated before, during, and after remediation, and the risk from, or damage to, ecological resources from contaminants should be lower following remediation. In this paper, we report the risk to ecological resources before, during, and as a consequence of remediation on contaminated units requiring cleanup, and then examine the causes for changes in risk by evaluating 56 cleanup evaluation units (EUs) at the Hanford Site. In this case, remediation includes a restoration phase. In general, the risk to ecological and eco-cultural resources is currently not discernible or low at most contaminated units, increases during remediation, and decreases thereafter. Remediation often causes physical disruption to ecosystems as it reduces the risk from exposure to contaminants. Most new remediation projects at the Hanford Site include ecological restoration. Ecological restoration results in the potential for the presence of higher quality resources after remediation than currently exists on these contaminated lands and facilities. Although counter-intuitive, our evaluation of the risk to ecological resources following remediation indicated that a significant percentage of units (61%) will be at increased risk in the post-remediation period. This increased risk is due to DOE's successful remediation and restoration that results in a higher percent of native vegetation and higher ecological value on the sites in the post-remediation period than before. These newly-created resources can then be at risk from post-remediation activities. Risks to these new higher quality resources include the potential for spread of invasive species and of noxious grasses used in previous cleanup actions, disruption of ecosystems (including those with state or federally listed species and unique ecosystems), compaction of soil, use of pesticides to control invasive species, and the eventual need for continued monitoring activities. Thus, by greatly improving the existing habitat and health of eco-receptors, and maintaining habitat corridors between high quality habitats, the ecological resources in the post-remediated units are at risk unless care is taken to protect them. Many of the negative effects of both remediation and future monitoring (or other future land uses) can be avoided by planning and management early in the remediation process. We suggest DOE and other agencies convene a panel of managers, remediation scientists, regulators, environmental and ecological scientists, Native Americans, economists, and the public to develop a generic list of performance metrics for the restoration phase of remediation, including evaluation of success, which could be applied across the DOE complex.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗