MANAGING RISK

Questions about risk and risk management are foundational to cleanup decisions as federal facilities are not remediated to pre-contamination levels (commonly referred to as “background”). Addressing risk requires the parties to address both technical risks and perceptions of risk, and to understand and acknowledge the level of uncertainty. It also requires the parties to understand the fundamentals of risk communication.

Conversations about risk involve:

1. What is the risk level now and what will it be following the completion of cleanup activities?

2. What risk is one willing to assume?

3. How should the parties manage the risk, especially where there is a delta of uncertainty?

4. Does the public trust or accept the calculable risk?

Answers about risk do not necessarily lead to support for the same action.

Too often, risk is presented as a technical question, but rarely are issues resolved based solely on risk. Compounding the challenge is that the first thing a community is often presented with is risk, and it should not be. Federal facilities are not islands; they are connected to host and frontline communities, and in many cases are the economic foundations of those communities. For that reason, examining environmental cleanups too narrowly through the lens of risk can be limiting. Learn more: Appendix C, Politics of Cleanup.

Federal sites rarely are remediated to natural background levels; consequently, contamination is usually left in place when cleanup is “complete.” The definition of what is means for a site to be “clean” is argued by communities, federal agencies and regulators regularly.

In environmental cleanups, not all of the issues are known at the beginning. The process at DOE sites can be one of action and investigation at the same time, thus it necessitates a degree of flexibility. Successful cleanups require consistent communication while integrating changes and improvements into the planning process.

The parties must agree on the cleanup purpose and long-term vision for the site. These visions create the frameworks from which expectations flow and cleanups are completed, so it is critical for the parties to come together early in the process and agree on a conceptual vision. To be effective, however, the cleanup and future use visions must move beyond the conceptual level, and specific cleanup goals also must be identified, defined and agreed to by the parties. This way, cleanup enables the future use of the site. For example, the latter stages of cleanup at Mound were clouded by a disagreement over the status of a site landfill. The Rocky Flats cleanup was marked by seven years of debate over soil cleanup levels that DOE and the regulators adopted but that the affected communities and their residents opposed. In both cases, the conceptual vision was largely shared, but the detailed cleanup levels, which again in both cases necessitated long-term controls, were vigorously debated.

Further, the process of cleanup must recognize that ongoing management of the remaining contamination will be required. In order for cleanup projects to remain assets for an affected community, the stewards must be identified and agreed to by all of the parties. They must also have the funds necessary to implement long-term stewardship activities. Ideally, as cleanup actions are designed, any long-term funding management requirements and funding needs will be identified as well.