At any given time, dozens of studies are underway to address specific issues in Earth & Life Studies that will lead to reports. These studies range in scope and length: some rapidly address questions to meet immediate decision making needs (for example, one report on why New Orleans' levees failed in Hurricane Katrina was absolutely necessary before the next hurricane season), while others deal with broader or ongoing issues and can span a number of years (as in the case of an ongoing review of efforts to restore the Everglades).
The National Research Council proposes to undertake a study to improve hazardous waste management at problematic sites where the presence of recalcitrant and/or poorly accessible contaminants is preventing site closure. Nationally, there are thousands of such sites that require long-term management, although the exact number, the rate at which that number is growing, and the percentage that threaten public water supplies is unknown. The following questions would lead the work of an NRC committee convened to study site closure issues at contaminated subsurface sites.
At how many sites does residual contamination remain such that site closure is not yet possible? At what percentage of these sites does residual contamination in groundwater threaten public water systems?
What is technically feasible in terms of removing a certain percentage of the total contaminant mass? What percent removal would be needed to reach unrestricted use at most sites or to be able to extract groundwater and treat it for potable reuse? What should be the definition of "to the extent practicable" when discussing removing contaminant mass from the subsurface?
How can progress of source remediation be measured to best correlate with the risks at a specific site? Recognizing the long term nature of many problems, what near-term endpoints for remediation might be established that would be beneficial and achievable? Are there regulatory barriers or inconsistencies that make it impossible to close sites even when the site-specific risk is negligible? How can they be overcome?
The intractable nature of subsurface contamination suggests the need to discourage future contaminant releases, encourage the use of innovative and multiple technologies, and clean up sites sustainably. What progress has been made in these areas and what additional research is needed? For example, should decisions on cleanup consider greenhouse gas issues? Can natural attenuation really be relied upon when residual contamination includes relatively recalcitrant and/or immobile chemicals? How effective are long-term containment strategies, especially for inorganic contaminants? Is point-of-use treatment an appropriate strategy for managing subsurface contamination?
How can limited financial resources be spent, while taking into consideration the concerns of stakeholders? Should life cycle assessment become a standard component of the decision process? How can a greater understanding of the limited current (but not necessarily future) potential to restore groundwater be communicated to the public? Are their lessons to be learned from the nation?s experience with long-term management of radionuclides that could be applied to sites with more common types of residual contamination?
Closed Session - 12/01/11
Future Options for Management in the Nation's Subsurface Remediation Effort - 09/13/10
Future Options for Management in the Nation's Subsurface Remediation Effort - 05/09/11
Future Options for Management in the Nation's Subsurface Remediation Effort - 01/24/11
Future Options for Management in the Nation's Subsurface Remediation Effort - 05/20/10
Closed Session: Future Options for Management in the Nation's Subsurface Remediation Effort - 09/13/11
Hover over a stage to see its description below
Call for Nominations:
At this stage in the process, staff solicit an extensive number of suggestions for potential committee members from a wide range of sources, then recommend a slate of nominees.
To nominate a committee member, please write to Laura Ehlers, lehlers@nas.edu no later than
Committee Published:
The provisional committee list is posted for public comment in the Current Projects System on the Web.
Study committees typically gather information through: 1) meetings that are open to the public and that are announced in advance through the National Academies Web site; 2) the submission of information by outside parties; 3) reviews of the scientific literature, and 4) the investigations of the committee members and staff. In all cases, efforts are made to solicit input from individuals who have been directly involved in, or who have special knowledge of, the problem under consideration.
In accordance with federal law and with few exceptions, information-gathering meetings of the committee are open to the public, and any written materials provided to the committee by individuals who are not officials, agents, or employees of the National Academies are maintained in a public access file that is available for examination.
The committee deliberates in meetings closed to the public in order to develop draft findings and recommendations free from outside influences. The public is provided with brief summaries of these meetings that include the list of committee members present. All analyses and drafts of the report remain confidential.
A citizen liaison, who reports directly to the Executive Director and who is independent of project staff, can be reached at citizen@nas.edu or (800) 842-8813.
Primary Board:
Water Science and Technology Board
Sponsor(s):
Department of Defense
; Department of Energy; EPA
Study Director:
Laura Ehlers
Contact:
lehlers@nas.edu