National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Process for Performing Risk Assessments
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Workshop Agenda." National Research Council. 1994. Building Consensus Through Risk Assesment and Management of the Department of Energy's Environmental Remediation Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9480.
×

Appendix A

Workshop Agenda

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Workshop Agenda." National Research Council. 1994. Building Consensus Through Risk Assesment and Management of the Department of Energy's Environmental Remediation Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9480.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Workshop Agenda." National Research Council. 1994. Building Consensus Through Risk Assesment and Management of the Department of Energy's Environmental Remediation Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9480.
×

Appendix A

Workshop Agenda

This appendix includes the workshop agenda and the list of workshop participants. The workshop began with a speech by Thomas Grumbly (see Appendix D) and was followed by a set of presentations as listed on the agenda. The members of each panel of presenters was asked to address the corresponding list of questions as shown below:

Panel 1: DOE Site Activity Description

  1. What major decisions affecting public, worker, and environmental health do you now make or will you need to make in the future?

  2. How are the stakeholders (federal and state regulators, Native American groups, environmental groups, unions, etc.) involved in your decision process for your environmental-management activities?

  3. What scientific information on environmental and health risk do you use in your decision-making? Could you improve the process with better information?

  4. What would be your ideal decision-making process?

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Workshop Agenda." National Research Council. 1994. Building Consensus Through Risk Assesment and Management of the Department of Energy's Environmental Remediation Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9480.
×
  1. What are the barriers to implementing the current and ideal processes today?

Panel 2: Stakeholder Perspectives

  1. How are you now involved in DOE's environmental-management program?

  2. What important factors do you feel should be considered when DOE makes major decisions about a site?

  3. What scientific information on environmental and health risk do you feel should be used in decision-making? What role do you feel your constituency should play in this process?

  4. What would be your ideal decision-making process?

  5. What are the barriers to implementing the current and ideal processes today?

Panel 3: Regulatory Perspectives

  1. How is your organization now involved in DOE's environmental-management program? What role, if any, does risk assessment play in your regulatory activities?

  2. As a regulator, what do you believe are the most important decisions facing DOE sites?

  3. What scientific information on environmental and health risk do you use in your decision-making? Could you improve the process with better information?

  4. What would be your ideal decision-making process?

  5. What are the barriers to implementing the current and ideal processes today?

These presentations were followed by a roundtable discussion that included the committee members, the speakers, and additional workshop participants that included additional members of various stakeholder groups. During the roundtable discussion, the following questions were addressed:

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Workshop Agenda." National Research Council. 1994. Building Consensus Through Risk Assesment and Management of the Department of Energy's Environmental Remediation Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9480.
×

Question 1: Can scientific information on environmental and health risks assist those setting priorities for remediation activities to reduce the risks to the public, workers, and environment?

Question 2: Can scientific information on environmental and health risks assist in ensuring that funds are so distributed as to reduce health and environmental risks at different sites in an equitable manner?

Question 3: Does DOE have sufficient data on site characterization, health effects, and exposure to develop scientific information on environmental and health risks?

Question 4: Does the scientific information on environmental and health risks permit DOE to improve and extend the application of risk assessment as a decision-making tool in setting remediation priorities?

Question 5: Can public participation in the development of DOE's risk assessment guidelines improve the credibility and value of risk assessment? If so, how can the public most effectively participate in the development of these guidelines and their eventual application at sites?

Question 6: Are there institutional, regulatory, statutory, or other impediments to the use of scientific information on environmental and health risks in managing the risks associated with remediation?

The workshop then ended and the committee began its deliberations.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Workshop Agenda." National Research Council. 1994. Building Consensus Through Risk Assesment and Management of the Department of Energy's Environmental Remediation Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9480.
×

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL WORKSHOP TO REVIEW RISK MANAGEMENT IN DOE 'S ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION PROGRAM

National Academy of Sciences Building

2101 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20418

November 3-4, 1993

Auditorium

Broadcast and Videotape Disclosure

This Workshop, sponsored by the National Research Council, has as its primary focus an important scientific and national issue: Risk Management in DOE's Environmental Remediation Program. Because of the significance of this issue, the Workshop will be broadcast live via satellite and videotaped for later use and dissemination. In order to provide continuity for program, it may be necessary as part of the broadcast of the program to record your voice and/or image. By registering as a participant, you agree to have your voice and image broadcast and videotaped as part of this Program without any claim or expectation of payment for said broadcast or videotaping.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Workshop Agenda." National Research Council. 1994. Building Consensus Through Risk Assesment and Management of the Department of Energy's Environmental Remediation Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9480.
×

Wednesday, November 3

4:00 pm

Welcome

Frank Parker, Chairman, Committee to Review Risk Management in DOE 's Environmental Remediation Program

Philip Smith, Executive Officer, National Research Council

4:10 pm

Thomas Grumbly, Assistant Secretary for Environmental Restoration and Remediation (EM), Department of Energy (DOE)

4:50 pm

Question and Answer

5:30 pm

Adjourn for day

Thursday, November 4

8:30 am

Registration

9:00

Welcome

Philip Smith, Executive Officer, National Research Council

Frank Parker, Chairman, National Research Council Committee to Review Risk Management in DOE's Environmental Remediation Program

9:05

Clyde Frank, Acting Principal Deputy Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Restoration and Remediation, Department of Energy

 
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Workshop Agenda." National Research Council. 1994. Building Consensus Through Risk Assesment and Management of the Department of Energy's Environmental Remediation Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9480.
×

9:15

Panel 1: DOE Site Activity Description

Questions to be addressed:

  1. What major decisions affecting public, worker, and environmental health do you now make or will you need to make in the future?

  2. How are the stakeholders (federal and state regulators, Native American groups, environmental groups, unions, etc.) involved in your decision process for your EM activities?

  3. What scientific information on environmental and health risk do you use in your decision-making? Could you improve the process with better information?

  4. What would be your ideal decision-making process?

  5. What are the barriers to implementing the current and ideal processes today?

Norman Boyter, Vice President, Solid Waste and Environmental Restoration, Westinghouse-Savannah River

Robert Benedetti, Assistant Manager, Environmental Restoration, EG &G-Rocky Flats

Jim Honeyman, Manager, Strategic Planning, Westinghouse-Hanford

10:00

Questions & Answers; Issue Identification

10:15

Panel 2: Stakeholder Perspectives

  1. How are you now involved in DOE's EM Program?

  2. What important factors do you feel should be considered when DOE makes major decisions about a site?

  3. What scientific information on environmental and health risk do you feel should be used in decision-making? What role do you feel your constituency should play in this process?

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Workshop Agenda." National Research Council. 1994. Building Consensus Through Risk Assesment and Management of the Department of Energy's Environmental Remediation Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9480.
×
 
  1. What would be your ideal decision-making process?

  2. What are the barriers to implementing the current and ideal processes today?

 

Marshall Drummond, Chair, Hanford Tank Waste Task Force and President, Eastern Washington University

Joe King, City Manager, Richland, Washington

Mildred McClain, Citizens for Environmental Justice

Merv Tano, General Counsel, Council of Energy Resource Tribes

John Moran, Director-Safety & Health, Laborers' Health and Safety Fund

Elizabeth Averill, Oil Chemical Atomic Workers Union

11:00

Question & Answers; Issue Identification

11:15

Break

11:30

Panel 3: Regulatory Perspectives

  1. How is your organization now involved in DOE's EM program? What role, if any, does risk assessment play in your regulatory activities?

  2. As a regulator, what do you believe are the most important decisions facing DOE sites?

  3. What scientific information on environmental and health risk do you use in your decision-making? Could you improve the process with better information?

  4. What would be your ideal decision-making process?

  5. What are the barriers to implementing the current and ideal processes today?

Randy Smith, EPA, Director-Hazardous Waste Division, Region X

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Workshop Agenda." National Research Council. 1994. Building Consensus Through Risk Assesment and Management of the Department of Energy's Environmental Remediation Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9480.
×
 

Mary Riveland, Director, Washington State Department of Ecology

Mark Bashor, Associate Administrator, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

Lance Nielsen, Remediation Branch Chief, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality

12:15

Questions & Answers; Issue Identification

12:30

Lunch (Available in Refectory in lower level)

Roundtable Discussion: committee, workshop participants, and speakers

1:30

Welcome: Frank Parker, Chairman

1:35

Overview: Victoria Tschinkel, Roundtable Moderator

1:40

Question 1: Can scientific information on environmental and health risks assist those setting priorities for remediation activities to reduce the risks to the public, workers, and environment?

2:00

Question 2: Can scientific information on environmental and health risks assist in ensuring that funds are so distributed as to reduce health and environmental risks at different sites in an equitable manner?

2:20

Question 3: Does DOE have sufficient data on site characterization, health effects, and exposure to develop scientific information on environmental and health risks?

2:40

Question 4: Does the scientific information on environmental and health risks permit DOE to improve and

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Workshop Agenda." National Research Council. 1994. Building Consensus Through Risk Assesment and Management of the Department of Energy's Environmental Remediation Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9480.
×
 

extend the application of risk assessment as a decision-making tool in setting remediation priorities?

3:00

Break

3:15

Question 5: Can public participation in the development of DOE's risk assessment guidelines improve the credibility and value of risk assessment? If so, how can the public most effectively participate in the development of these guidelines and their eventual application at sites?

3:35

Question 6: Are there institutional, regulatory, statutory, or other impediments to the use of scientific information on environmental and health risks in managing the risks associated with remediation?

3:55

Additional Questions and Issues

4:25

Closing: Victoria Tschinkel, Roundtable Moderator

Frank Parker, Chairman

4:30

Workshop ends

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Workshop Agenda." National Research Council. 1994. Building Consensus Through Risk Assesment and Management of the Department of Energy's Environmental Remediation Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9480.
×

WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS

Elizabeth Averill, Oil Chemical Atomic Workers, Columbia, Md.

Mark Bashor, Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry, Atlanta, Ga.

Lewis Bedenbaugh, South Carolina Department of Health Environment Control, Columbia, S.Car.

David Bennett, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

Robert Benedetti, EG&G Rocky Flats Plant, Golden, Colo.

Norman Boyter, Westinghouse-Savannah River, Aiken, S.Car.

Patricia Buffler, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, Calif.

Drew Caputo, National Resources Defense Council, Washington, D.C.

Mark Drummond, Eastern Washington University, Cheney, Wash.

Bernard Goldstein, UMDNJ - Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway, N.J.

Leonard Hamilton, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, N.Y.

Ralph Hutchinson, Oakridge Environmental Peace Alliance, Knoxville, Tenn.

Joseph King, City of Richland, Wash.

Mildred McClain, Citizens for Environmental Justice, Savannah, Ga.

James Honeyman, Westinghouse Hanford Plant, Richland, Wash.

Dan Miller, Office of the Colorado Attorney General's Office, Denver, Colo.

John Moran, Laborers Health and Safety Fund of North America, North, S.Car.

Robert Neill, New Mexico Environmental Evaluation Group, Albuquerque, N.Mex.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Workshop Agenda." National Research Council. 1994. Building Consensus Through Risk Assesment and Management of the Department of Energy's Environmental Remediation Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9480.
×

Lance Nielsen, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Boise, Idaho

Gilbert Omenn, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash.

Glenn Paulson, Illinois institute of Technology, Chicago, Ill.

Mary Riveland, Washington Department of Ecology, Lacey, Wash.

Randy Smith, Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle, Wash.

Merv Tano, Council of Energy Resources Tribes, Denver, Colo.

Robert Thomas, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Ill.

Curtis Travis, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn.

Victoria Tschinkel, Landers and Parsons, Tallahassee, Fla.

Chris Whipple, ICF/Kaiser Environmental Group, Oakland, Calif.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Workshop Agenda." National Research Council. 1994. Building Consensus Through Risk Assesment and Management of the Department of Energy's Environmental Remediation Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9480.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Workshop Agenda." National Research Council. 1994. Building Consensus Through Risk Assesment and Management of the Department of Energy's Environmental Remediation Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9480.
×
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Workshop Agenda." National Research Council. 1994. Building Consensus Through Risk Assesment and Management of the Department of Energy's Environmental Remediation Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9480.
×
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Workshop Agenda." National Research Council. 1994. Building Consensus Through Risk Assesment and Management of the Department of Energy's Environmental Remediation Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9480.
×
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Workshop Agenda." National Research Council. 1994. Building Consensus Through Risk Assesment and Management of the Department of Energy's Environmental Remediation Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9480.
×
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Workshop Agenda." National Research Council. 1994. Building Consensus Through Risk Assesment and Management of the Department of Energy's Environmental Remediation Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9480.
×
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Workshop Agenda." National Research Council. 1994. Building Consensus Through Risk Assesment and Management of the Department of Energy's Environmental Remediation Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9480.
×
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Workshop Agenda." National Research Council. 1994. Building Consensus Through Risk Assesment and Management of the Department of Energy's Environmental Remediation Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9480.
×
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Workshop Agenda." National Research Council. 1994. Building Consensus Through Risk Assesment and Management of the Department of Energy's Environmental Remediation Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9480.
×
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Workshop Agenda." National Research Council. 1994. Building Consensus Through Risk Assesment and Management of the Department of Energy's Environmental Remediation Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9480.
×
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Workshop Agenda." National Research Council. 1994. Building Consensus Through Risk Assesment and Management of the Department of Energy's Environmental Remediation Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9480.
×
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Workshop Agenda." National Research Council. 1994. Building Consensus Through Risk Assesment and Management of the Department of Energy's Environmental Remediation Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9480.
×
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Workshop Agenda." National Research Council. 1994. Building Consensus Through Risk Assesment and Management of the Department of Energy's Environmental Remediation Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9480.
×
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Workshop Agenda." National Research Council. 1994. Building Consensus Through Risk Assesment and Management of the Department of Energy's Environmental Remediation Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9480.
×
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Workshop Agenda." National Research Council. 1994. Building Consensus Through Risk Assesment and Management of the Department of Energy's Environmental Remediation Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9480.
×
Page 56
Next: Appendix B: Committee and Staff Biographical Information »
Building Consensus Through Risk Assesment and Management of the Department of Energy's Environmental Remediation Program Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!