Advancing Risk‐Informed Decision Making in Managing Defense Nuclear Waste in the United States: Opportunities and Challenges for Risk Analysis

An omnibus spending bill in 2014 directed the Department of Energy to analyze how effectively Department of Energy (DOE) identifies, programs, and executes its plans to address public health and safety risks that remain as part of DOE's remaining environmental cleanup liabilities. A committee i...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Risk analysis 2019-02, Vol.39 (2), p.375-388
Hauptverfasser: Greenberg, Michael R., Apostolakis, George, Fields, Timothy, Goldstein, Bernard D., Kosson, David, Krahn, Steven, Matthews, R. Bruce, Rispoli, James, Stewart, Jane, Stewart, Richard
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 388
container_issue 2
container_start_page 375
container_title Risk analysis
container_volume 39
creator Greenberg, Michael R.
Apostolakis, George
Fields, Timothy
Goldstein, Bernard D.
Kosson, David
Krahn, Steven
Matthews, R. Bruce
Rispoli, James
Stewart, Jane
Stewart, Richard
description An omnibus spending bill in 2014 directed the Department of Energy to analyze how effectively Department of Energy (DOE) identifies, programs, and executes its plans to address public health and safety risks that remain as part of DOE's remaining environmental cleanup liabilities. A committee identified two dozen issues and associated recommendations for the DOE, other federal agencies, and the U.S. Congress to consider, as well as other stakeholders such as states and tribal nations. In regard to risk assessment, the committee described a risk review process that uses available data, expert experience, identifies major data gaps, permits input from key stakeholders, and creates an ordered set of risks based on what is known. Probabilistic risk assessments could be a follow‐up from these risk reviews. In regard to risk management, the states, in particular, have become major drivers of how resources are driven. States use different laws, different priorities, and challenge DOE's policies in different ways. Land use decisions vary, technology choices are different, and other notable variations are apparent. The cost differences associated with these differences are marked. The net result is that resources do not necessarily go to the most prominent human health and safety risks, as seen from the national level.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/risa.13135
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2062834577</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2176788949</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3575-6e94c7d8822973d90953f97c27a66d5a8cabc765b15bfca8a070064f43e67beb3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc9u1DAQxi1ERbeFCw-ALHFBldL6TxzH3FZboCu1VGqpOEYTZ7J1m3UWOwHtjUfoM_IkON3CgQNz8YznN99Y_gh5zdkxT3ESXIRjLrlUz8iMK2mywoj8OZkxoUWWSyn2yUGMd4xxxpR-QfaFMaqUgs3Iw7z5Dt46v6JXLt7_-vmw9G0f1tjQU7Quut7TC7if-m7KPKym_BRb9BHp59F2CIF-hTjgRAy3SG-8G9L89QADxvf0crPpwzCmS4eRgm_o4ha6Dv0qlWnX42I699Bto4svyV4LXcRXT-chufn44cviLDu__LRczM8zK5VWWYEmt7opSyGMlo1hRsnWaCs0FEWjoLRQW12omqu6tVAC04wVeZtLLHSNtTwk73a6m9B_GzEO1dpFi10HHvsxVoIVopS50jqhb_9B7_oxpPcmiutCl6XJTaKOdpQNfYwB22oT3BrCtuKsmnyqJp-qR58S_OZJcqzTX_9F_xiTAL4DfrgOt_-Rqq6W1_Od6G8-Y58k</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2176788949</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Advancing Risk‐Informed Decision Making in Managing Defense Nuclear Waste in the United States: Opportunities and Challenges for Risk Analysis</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>PAIS Index</source><source>Business Source Complete</source><creator>Greenberg, Michael R. ; Apostolakis, George ; Fields, Timothy ; Goldstein, Bernard D. ; Kosson, David ; Krahn, Steven ; Matthews, R. Bruce ; Rispoli, James ; Stewart, Jane ; Stewart, Richard</creator><creatorcontrib>Greenberg, Michael R. ; Apostolakis, George ; Fields, Timothy ; Goldstein, Bernard D. ; Kosson, David ; Krahn, Steven ; Matthews, R. Bruce ; Rispoli, James ; Stewart, Jane ; Stewart, Richard</creatorcontrib><description>An omnibus spending bill in 2014 directed the Department of Energy to analyze how effectively Department of Energy (DOE) identifies, programs, and executes its plans to address public health and safety risks that remain as part of DOE's remaining environmental cleanup liabilities. A committee identified two dozen issues and associated recommendations for the DOE, other federal agencies, and the U.S. Congress to consider, as well as other stakeholders such as states and tribal nations. In regard to risk assessment, the committee described a risk review process that uses available data, expert experience, identifies major data gaps, permits input from key stakeholders, and creates an ordered set of risks based on what is known. Probabilistic risk assessments could be a follow‐up from these risk reviews. In regard to risk management, the states, in particular, have become major drivers of how resources are driven. States use different laws, different priorities, and challenge DOE's policies in different ways. Land use decisions vary, technology choices are different, and other notable variations are apparent. The cost differences associated with these differences are marked. The net result is that resources do not necessarily go to the most prominent human health and safety risks, as seen from the national level.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0272-4332</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1539-6924</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/risa.13135</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29958320</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Decision making ; DOE ; Energy ; Energy policy ; Environmental cleanup ; Environmental liability ; Expenditures ; Government agencies ; Land use ; Liabilities ; Nuclear safety ; Probabilistic risk assessment ; Public health ; Radioactive wastes ; Resource management ; Risk analysis ; Risk assessment ; Risk management ; Safety ; Stakeholders ; Technology</subject><ispartof>Risk analysis, 2019-02, Vol.39 (2), p.375-388</ispartof><rights>2018 Society for Risk Analysis</rights><rights>2018 Society for Risk Analysis.</rights><rights>2019 Society for Risk Analysis</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3575-6e94c7d8822973d90953f97c27a66d5a8cabc765b15bfca8a070064f43e67beb3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3575-6e94c7d8822973d90953f97c27a66d5a8cabc765b15bfca8a070064f43e67beb3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Frisa.13135$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Frisa.13135$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27843,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29958320$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Greenberg, Michael R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Apostolakis, George</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fields, Timothy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goldstein, Bernard D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kosson, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Krahn, Steven</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Matthews, R. Bruce</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rispoli, James</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stewart, Jane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stewart, Richard</creatorcontrib><title>Advancing Risk‐Informed Decision Making in Managing Defense Nuclear Waste in the United States: Opportunities and Challenges for Risk Analysis</title><title>Risk analysis</title><addtitle>Risk Anal</addtitle><description>An omnibus spending bill in 2014 directed the Department of Energy to analyze how effectively Department of Energy (DOE) identifies, programs, and executes its plans to address public health and safety risks that remain as part of DOE's remaining environmental cleanup liabilities. A committee identified two dozen issues and associated recommendations for the DOE, other federal agencies, and the U.S. Congress to consider, as well as other stakeholders such as states and tribal nations. In regard to risk assessment, the committee described a risk review process that uses available data, expert experience, identifies major data gaps, permits input from key stakeholders, and creates an ordered set of risks based on what is known. Probabilistic risk assessments could be a follow‐up from these risk reviews. In regard to risk management, the states, in particular, have become major drivers of how resources are driven. States use different laws, different priorities, and challenge DOE's policies in different ways. Land use decisions vary, technology choices are different, and other notable variations are apparent. The cost differences associated with these differences are marked. The net result is that resources do not necessarily go to the most prominent human health and safety risks, as seen from the national level.</description><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>DOE</subject><subject>Energy</subject><subject>Energy policy</subject><subject>Environmental cleanup</subject><subject>Environmental liability</subject><subject>Expenditures</subject><subject>Government agencies</subject><subject>Land use</subject><subject>Liabilities</subject><subject>Nuclear safety</subject><subject>Probabilistic risk assessment</subject><subject>Public health</subject><subject>Radioactive wastes</subject><subject>Resource management</subject><subject>Risk analysis</subject><subject>Risk assessment</subject><subject>Risk management</subject><subject>Safety</subject><subject>Stakeholders</subject><subject>Technology</subject><issn>0272-4332</issn><issn>1539-6924</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kc9u1DAQxi1ERbeFCw-ALHFBldL6TxzH3FZboCu1VGqpOEYTZ7J1m3UWOwHtjUfoM_IkON3CgQNz8YznN99Y_gh5zdkxT3ESXIRjLrlUz8iMK2mywoj8OZkxoUWWSyn2yUGMd4xxxpR-QfaFMaqUgs3Iw7z5Dt46v6JXLt7_-vmw9G0f1tjQU7Quut7TC7if-m7KPKym_BRb9BHp59F2CIF-hTjgRAy3SG-8G9L89QADxvf0crPpwzCmS4eRgm_o4ha6Dv0qlWnX42I699Bto4svyV4LXcRXT-chufn44cviLDu__LRczM8zK5VWWYEmt7opSyGMlo1hRsnWaCs0FEWjoLRQW12omqu6tVAC04wVeZtLLHSNtTwk73a6m9B_GzEO1dpFi10HHvsxVoIVopS50jqhb_9B7_oxpPcmiutCl6XJTaKOdpQNfYwB22oT3BrCtuKsmnyqJp-qR58S_OZJcqzTX_9F_xiTAL4DfrgOt_-Rqq6W1_Od6G8-Y58k</recordid><startdate>201902</startdate><enddate>201902</enddate><creator>Greenberg, Michael R.</creator><creator>Apostolakis, George</creator><creator>Fields, Timothy</creator><creator>Goldstein, Bernard D.</creator><creator>Kosson, David</creator><creator>Krahn, Steven</creator><creator>Matthews, R. Bruce</creator><creator>Rispoli, James</creator><creator>Stewart, Jane</creator><creator>Stewart, Richard</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201902</creationdate><title>Advancing Risk‐Informed Decision Making in Managing Defense Nuclear Waste in the United States: Opportunities and Challenges for Risk Analysis</title><author>Greenberg, Michael R. ; Apostolakis, George ; Fields, Timothy ; Goldstein, Bernard D. ; Kosson, David ; Krahn, Steven ; Matthews, R. Bruce ; Rispoli, James ; Stewart, Jane ; Stewart, Richard</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3575-6e94c7d8822973d90953f97c27a66d5a8cabc765b15bfca8a070064f43e67beb3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>DOE</topic><topic>Energy</topic><topic>Energy policy</topic><topic>Environmental cleanup</topic><topic>Environmental liability</topic><topic>Expenditures</topic><topic>Government agencies</topic><topic>Land use</topic><topic>Liabilities</topic><topic>Nuclear safety</topic><topic>Probabilistic risk assessment</topic><topic>Public health</topic><topic>Radioactive wastes</topic><topic>Resource management</topic><topic>Risk analysis</topic><topic>Risk assessment</topic><topic>Risk management</topic><topic>Safety</topic><topic>Stakeholders</topic><topic>Technology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Greenberg, Michael R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Apostolakis, George</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fields, Timothy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goldstein, Bernard D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kosson, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Krahn, Steven</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Matthews, R. Bruce</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rispoli, James</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stewart, Jane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stewart, Richard</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Risk analysis</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Greenberg, Michael R.</au><au>Apostolakis, George</au><au>Fields, Timothy</au><au>Goldstein, Bernard D.</au><au>Kosson, David</au><au>Krahn, Steven</au><au>Matthews, R. Bruce</au><au>Rispoli, James</au><au>Stewart, Jane</au><au>Stewart, Richard</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Advancing Risk‐Informed Decision Making in Managing Defense Nuclear Waste in the United States: Opportunities and Challenges for Risk Analysis</atitle><jtitle>Risk analysis</jtitle><addtitle>Risk Anal</addtitle><date>2019-02</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>39</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>375</spage><epage>388</epage><pages>375-388</pages><issn>0272-4332</issn><eissn>1539-6924</eissn><abstract>An omnibus spending bill in 2014 directed the Department of Energy to analyze how effectively Department of Energy (DOE) identifies, programs, and executes its plans to address public health and safety risks that remain as part of DOE's remaining environmental cleanup liabilities. A committee identified two dozen issues and associated recommendations for the DOE, other federal agencies, and the U.S. Congress to consider, as well as other stakeholders such as states and tribal nations. In regard to risk assessment, the committee described a risk review process that uses available data, expert experience, identifies major data gaps, permits input from key stakeholders, and creates an ordered set of risks based on what is known. Probabilistic risk assessments could be a follow‐up from these risk reviews. In regard to risk management, the states, in particular, have become major drivers of how resources are driven. States use different laws, different priorities, and challenge DOE's policies in different ways. Land use decisions vary, technology choices are different, and other notable variations are apparent. The cost differences associated with these differences are marked. The net result is that resources do not necessarily go to the most prominent human health and safety risks, as seen from the national level.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>29958320</pmid><doi>10.1111/risa.13135</doi><tpages>14</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0272-4332
ispartof Risk analysis, 2019-02, Vol.39 (2), p.375-388
issn 0272-4332
1539-6924
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2062834577
source Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; PAIS Index; Business Source Complete
subjects Decision making
DOE
Energy
Energy policy
Environmental cleanup
Environmental liability
Expenditures
Government agencies
Land use
Liabilities
Nuclear safety
Probabilistic risk assessment
Public health
Radioactive wastes
Resource management
Risk analysis
Risk assessment
Risk management
Safety
Stakeholders
Technology
title Advancing Risk‐Informed Decision Making in Managing Defense Nuclear Waste in the United States: Opportunities and Challenges for Risk Analysis
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-10T11%3A17%3A45IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Advancing%20Risk%E2%80%90Informed%20Decision%20Making%20in%20Managing%20Defense%20Nuclear%20Waste%20in%20the%20United%20States:%20Opportunities%20and%20Challenges%20for%20Risk%20Analysis&rft.jtitle=Risk%20analysis&rft.au=Greenberg,%20Michael%20R.&rft.date=2019-02&rft.volume=39&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=375&rft.epage=388&rft.pages=375-388&rft.issn=0272-4332&rft.eissn=1539-6924&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/risa.13135&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2176788949%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2176788949&rft_id=info:pmid/29958320&rfr_iscdi=true