Skip to main content

Best Practices for Risk-Informed Decision Making Regarding Contaminated Sites Summary of a Workshop Series (2014) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:

5 Best Practices
Pages 141-148

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 141...
... These statements reflect the viewpoints of the individual speakers, not the consensus views of the workshop participants or of the National Academy of Sciences. 5.1  SUMMARY OF BEST PRACTICES DISCUSSION SESSIONS Several themes emerged from the discussion of best practices over the course of the workshop: • Sustainability and Optimization, • Flexibility in Regulations and CERCLA, • Stakeholder Involvement and Communication, • Shared Lessons Learned, • Multiagency Decision-Making Processes, 141
Read the entire page →
From page 142...
... Several participants identified the use of sustainability principles to balance and optimize multiple objectives to guide remediation decisions as a best practice. Planning committee member Patricia Culligan (Columbia University)
Read the entire page →
From page 143...
... Mr. Walker cited historical, groundwater remedy selection data,1 which show how the types of remedies have changed since administrative reforms were introduced by EPA in 1995.2 Prior to 1995, the percentage of sites using pump-and-treat (P&T)
Read the entire page →
From page 144...
... The sharing of lessons learned between sites was repeatedly identified as a best practice. William Reckley (USNRC)
Read the entire page →
From page 145...
... With help from the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) , the decommissioning lessons learned were published and were very useful in establishing a unified approach, final status survey, decontamination, and site release.4 A workshop attendee identified regular meetings between DOE staff from different remediation sites as a best practice.
Read the entire page →
From page 146...
... Several workshop attendees mentioned functional monitoring to increase public confidence and improve modeling as a best practice. Craig Benson suggested that for situations in which the public and regulators are skeptical of a proposed remedy, the use of functional monitoring can increase confidence in remedy performance (e.g., recall the Monticello case study, see Chapter 3)
Read the entire page →
From page 147...
... Abu-Eid discussed the timeframes that USNRC uses in its risk calculations. The timeframe depends on the facility type: hundreds of years for nuclear power plants (waste confidence ruling)
Read the entire page →
From page 148...
... Paul Black stated that expert solicitation is part of the decision analysis tool. The skeleton of the decision analysis tool requires expert input through elicitation.
Read the entire page →

Key Terms

  • paul black
  • team process
  • savannah river
  • functional monitoring
  • remediation decisions

  • discussion sessions
  • monitoring program
  • decision analysis
  • sustainability principles
  • mary flora

  • sharing information
  • remediation analyses
  • risk analysis
  • shared lessons
  • black suggested

  • covanta energy
  • analysis tool
  • workshop attendee
  • craig benson
  • citizen advisory

  • paul gilman
  • petrie highlighted
  • black stated
  • foster interactions
  • ultimately results

  • life cycles
  • geiser suggested
  • river site
  • practice underlying
  • sensitivity analysis


    • This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
    More information on Chapter Skim is available.