Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30030638›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental monitoring and assessment2018

Risk valuation of ecological resources at contaminated deactivation and decommissioning facilities: methodology and a case study at the Department of Energy's Hanford site.

Joanna Burger, Michael Gochfeld, Christian Jeitner

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental monitoring and assessment, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Joanna BurgerDivision of Life Sciences, Rutgers University, 604 Allison Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA. burger@biology.rutgers.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8877-2966
Michael GochfeldEnvironmental and Occupational Medicine, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA.
Christian JeitnerDivision of Life Sciences, Rutgers University, 604 Allison Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA.

Funding

Consortium for Risk Evaluation through the Department of Energy DE-FC01-95EW55084
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many countries are faced with monumental cleanup tasks remaining from World War II and the Cold War and consistent methodologies are essential to assess the risk from pollutants and the risk from cleanup. In the USA, the Department of Energy (DOE), and other federal and state agencies need to be able to rapidly evaluate the risk to ecological resources for remediation projects. While ecological risk assessments for radionuclides and other contaminants can be performed for different species, evaluations of species assemblages, communities, and ecosystems is more difficult. We summarize an evaluation method for ecological resources on individual remediation units that will allow comparison among a large number of units and that can be modified and applied to the DOE complex-wide. We evaluated the deactivation and decommissioning (D & D) facilities at the Hanford site as case studies. Remediation of these sites has the potential to provide harm to, or increase the value of, ecological resources during and after the process. The evaluation method includes three categories: (1) general steps, (2) ecological descriptions, and (3) ecological ratings. The general steps include identifying the categories of resources (level of resource value), identifying the units to be evaluated (e.g., remediation units), identifying a reasonable ecological buffer around the evaluation units, identifying the remediation options (from milestones or other agreements), and developing a rating scale. Ecological descriptions include identifying previous ecological values of specific areas on the evaluation unit, conducting field studies to assess the current conditions, and summarizing the percent of each resource value on the evaluation unit and buffer area. The ecological risk of harm is determined by using the rating scale to evaluate the potential harm to the ecological (and eco-cultural) resources on each evaluation unit currently, during remediation, and in the post-remediation phase. Currently, the risks (potential harm) to ecological resources on the D & D facilities at the Hanford site are non-discernible, but they increase to very high (for reactors) during remediation when there is physical disruption, increased traffic and personnel, and possible increased contamination. Following remediation, the potential harm to ecological resources is low, and the value may be increased due to restoration of native vegetation on sites that were largely industrial prior to remediation. These methods provide managers, regulators, tribes, and the general public with assurance that ecological and eco-cultural resources and the environment are being protected during and following remediation.

Indexed as

AnimalsEcologyEcosystemEnvironmental MonitoringEnvironmental PollutantsEnvironmental PollutionEnvironmental Restoration and RemediationGovernment AgenciesHazardous SubstancesHazardous WasteRadioisotopesRisk AssessmentSwineEnvironmental PollutantsHazardous SubstancesHazardous WasteRadioisotopesContaminated demolition sitesContaminated sitesNuclear facilitiesPlant communitiesPolluted sitesValuation ecological resources

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.