vxEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Science Advisory
Board (1400F)
EPA-SAB-RAC-95-006
March 1995
An SAB Report:
Issues in Environmental
Radiation
Report on Future Issues and
Challenges in the Study of
Environmental Radiation, with a
Focus Toward Future
Institutional Readiness by the
Environmental Protection
Agency
-------
-------
March 31, 1995
EPA-SAB-RAC-95-006
Honorable Carol M. Browner
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Re: Future Issues in Environmental Radiation
Dear Ms. Browner:
This report was developed by the Radiation Environmental Futures Subcommittee (REFS), an ad hoc
subcommittee formed by the Radiation Advisory Committee (RAC) as part of the Environmental Futures
Project of the Science Advisory Board (SAB), which you requested that the SAB undertake in Fiscal
Year 1994. The intent of the REFS report is (1) to provide you and the Agency with a forward-looking
and broad-based perspective on future issues in environmental radiation that are likely to have significant
impact on society, and particularly on the Agency's activities in a 5-30 year time horizon; and (2) to
make recommendations to position the Agency in a proactive stance toward recognizing and effectively
managing those future issues.
Specifically, the charge given to the Standing Committees of the SAB, and delegated by the RAC to
the REFS, was
|-
a) to conduct both a short-term scan and a long-term scan of future developments in its field of
expertise; and
b) to conduct an in-depth examination of future developments using an approach chosen by the
Subcommittee.
Furthermore, the Environmental Futures Committee (formed by the Executive Committee of the SAB)
also charged the Subcommittees as follows:
i
c) to identify baseline information and trends that may be expected to have future impacts on
human health and the environment;
d) to focus on one or more case studies relevant to their expertise; and
!
e) to suggest a procedure by which future environmental concerns can be recognized at an early
stage.
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
The attached report analyzes the present-day situation on many significant technical issues in environ-
mental radiation and defines those which the Subcommittee felt would be most likely to require the atten-
tion of the Agency to plan, prepare, and manage for the future. This report attempts to establish a founda-
tion upon which the Agency can continue its own short- and long-term scans of those future environmen-
tal issues and presents suggestions pertaining to the technical aspects of policy choices that may lead to a
desirable future outcome in each of the issue areas.
Having gone through this exercise, we sincerely believe that there is much to be gained from a system-
atic and periodic exploration of the future. This type of exercise may help the Agency to focus proactively
as a driver toward a more healthy environment in the future, as opposed to the more limited, and less
effective, role of a regulator reacting to events under circumstances that limit its ability to act effectively.
The Subcommittee believes that EPA should consider the following in its long-term efforts for the
environment:
1) Place a greater emphasis on providing scientifically credible information in order to assure
overall enhancement of the environment's health from society's activities - the original vision
which accompanied the Agency's formation.
2) Participate positively in the joint development of national energy policies, focusing on an exami-
nation of the overall environmental consequences of different energy production options; such as
the roles of alternative energy sources, including nuclear electricity generation, in curtailing
greenhouse gases; potential releases of radioactive materials to the environment; radioactive
waste management issues; and possible increases in ultra violet (UV) radiation and other harmful
effects.
3) Incorporate into its program activities important research findings related to radiation expo-
sures, dose-response models, and radiation effects, and be prepared to provide leadership on
how to deal with a world in which differences in individual susceptibility to radiation and
other hazards are understood and in which the technology exists for identifying individuals
with heightened or decreased susceptibility. ;
4) Provide an environmental perspective to assure control of nuclear weapons materials through
conversion to energy use and/or secure disposal.
5) Stimulate and track research on the potential health effects of exposure to non-ionizing radiation
and provide non-regulatory Federal guidance and advice on the prudent avoidance of unneces-
sary risks from potential sources of exposure, if such risks are shown to exist.
6) Assume a Federal leadership role in activities involving pollution prevention, the management
and disposal of radioactive wastes, and the development of criteria and standards for cleanup of
sites containing radioactive and mixed wastes.
7) Exercise its Federal radiation guidance role, in collaboration with other Federal and state agen-
cies, to promote reduction of population exposure in medical uses of radiation.
8) Continue efforts to focus on characterizing high-risk radon potential regions, improving knowl-
edge about radon risks, and developing more accurate methods of measuring and mitigating
radon in buildings. Particular emphasis should be placed on empowerment of stakeholders by
dissemination of all available scientific information.
9) Become the source of choice for information on environmental radiation by providing advice,
guidance, and standards, where appropriate, on the scientific basis for risk management decisions
and by identifying research needs in radiation-related areas. The continued existence and funding
-------
of the Radiation Effects Research Foundation, and its work with the A-bomb survivors will be
crucial to these efforts.
10) Use a process of foresight to develop a systematic capability for scanning the future in order to
be proactive, rather than reactive, in shaping environmental radiation policies.
During the past year, EPA has undertaken several very important actions that pertain to the recommen-
dations presented in this report: a) the generally applicable standard for high-level radioactive waste has
been promulgated, although its potential applicability to Yucca Mountain is under external review; b) the
Agency has formed a group charged with developing a program to address the issue of harmonizing
chemical and radiation risks; c) work is in progress on developing generally applicable standards for
residual radioactivity and low-level radioactive waste; and d) work has resumed on electromagnetic field
(EMF) issues. The RAC has been involved in consultations and briefings on these issues and has sched-
uled reviews for some of them in Fiscal Year 95.
It is hoped by the Radiation Environmental Futures Subcommittee that the Agency will consider its
degree of institutional readiness and what is necessary to achieve its desired goals in light of the future
issues and challenges in environmental radiation identified in this report.
The RAC appreciates the opportunity to provide this report to you. It is our hope that you will find our
analysis to be useful in focusing priorities and in setting the course for the future goals and activities of the
Agency in the radiation area. We look forward to receiving your reaction to our exploration of the future,
and particularly to our specific projections and recommendations highlighted in this letter to you.
Sincerely,
Dr. Genevieve M. Matanoski
Chair, Executive Committee
Science Advisory Board
Dr. Raymond C. Loehr
Chair, Environmental Futures Committee
Science Advisory Board
Dr. James E. Watson, Jr.
Chair, Radiation Advisory Committee
Science Advisory Board
Dr. Ricardo Gonzalez-Mendez
Chair, Radiation Environmental Futures
Subcommittee
Science Advisory Board
-------
-------
EPA-SAB-RAC-95-006
March 1995
An SAB Report: Future Issues in
Environmental Radiation
i
Report on Future Issues and Challenges in the
Study of Environmental Radiation, with a Focus
Toward Future Institutional Readiness by the
Environmental Protection Agency
Science Advisory Board
Washington, DC 20460
-------
Notice
This report has been written as a part of the activities of the Science Advisory Board, a public
advisory group providing extramural scientific information and advice to the Administrator and
other officials of the Environmental Protection Agency. The Board is structured to provide a
balanced, expert assessment of scientific matters related to problems facing the Agency, This
report has not been reviewed for approval by the Agency; hence, the comments of this report do
not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency or of other
Federal agencies. Any mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
Abstract
The Radiation Environmental Futures Subcommittee (REFS) of the Radiation Advisory
Committee (RAC) of the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) has prepared a report on future
issues and challenges in the study, management, and regulation of environmental radiation. The
REFS developed a process by which it scanned baseline data and trends that would give an
overview of future developments related to environmental radiation. The result of that process
and hence the focus of the report was seven major topics that included energy production and
environmental quality, radioactive waste management, non-ionizing radiation, dose-response
models and population susceptibility, radon in indoor air, control of nuclear materials from
dismantled warheads, and institutional readiness to deal with future issues in environmental
radiation.
.
It was the consensus of the Subcommittee that these issues will be the ones that will occupy
the EPA's study, management, and regulation of environmental radiation in the foreseeable
future, both in the short (3-5 yr) and long (5-30 yr) time frames. Most issues were found to be
closely related to the future of energy production and distribution, and to the perspective, policies,
and practices of dealing with nuclear and radioactive materials. New and emerging knowledge of
population genetic susceptibilities may make current regulatory paradigms for radiation expo-
sures inadequate in the future. Societal concerns and individual value judgments may play a
major role in any new paradigm that would be adopted. An expansion of the EPA's foresight and
issues management capabilities for scanning the future may be necessary for the development of
a proactive role in shaping environmental policies. This capability will be nieeded to address some
of these future issues before a crystallizing event limits the Agency's ability to ensure that the best
science is brought to bear on environmental problems. Development and/or maintenance of
technically strong programs and policies will also be required in order for the Agency to maintain
its leadership role.
Key Words: Environmental Futures Project, Environmental Radiation, Radiation Futures,
Future Radiation Issues and Challenges, Energy Production, Energy Distribution, Environmental
Quality, Dose-Response Models and Population Susceptibility (
-------
Science Advisory Board
Radiation Advisory Committee
Radiation Environmental Futures Subcommittee
Chair
Dr. Ricardo Gonzalez-Mendez, Associate Professor, De-
partment of Radiological Sciences, University of Puerto Rico
School of Medicine, San Juan, Puerto Rico
Members and Consultants
Dr. Stephen L. Brown, Director, R2C2 (Risks of Radiation
and Chemical Compounds), Oakland, California
Mr. Joseph F. Coates, President (and invited futurist), Coates
& Jarratt, Inc., Washington, D.C.
Dr. James E. Martin, Associate Professor of Radiological
Health, University of Michigan, School of Public Health, Ann
Arbor, Michigan .
Dr. Genevieve M. Matanoski, Professor of Epidemiology, the
Johns Hopkins University, School of Hygiene and Public Health,
Department of Epidemiology, Baltimore, Maryland
Dr. Oddvar F. Nygaard, Professor Emeritus, Division of
Radiation Biology, Department of Radiology, Case Western
Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio
Dr. Richard G. Sextro, Staff Scientist, Indoor Environment
Program, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, California
Chair, Radiation Advisory Committee
Dr. James E. Watson, Jr., Professor, Department of Envi-
ronmental Science and Engineering, University of North Caro-
lina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Science Advisory Board Staff
Dr. K. Jack Kooyoomjian, Designated Federal Official, U.S.
EPA, Science Advisory Board (1400F), 401 M Street, SW,
Washington, D.C. 20460
Mrs. Diana L. Pozun, Staff Secretary
Dr. Donald G. Barnes, Staff Director, Science Advisory Board
-------
Contents
1. Executive Summary ; 1
1.1 The Charge to the Radiation Environmental Futures Subcommittee 1
1.2 Process for the Identification of Major Issues for the Future in
Environmental Radiation i. 1
1.3 Summary and Recommendations 2
2. Introduction i. : 4
3. Response to the Charge and Process for the Identification of Major Issues
for The Future in Environmental Radiation 6
3.1 The Charge and the Process for the Report | 6
3.2 Response to the Charge 6
3.2.1 To Conduct Short-Term and Long-Term Scans of Future Developments in Its
Field of Expertise 6
3.2.2 To Conduct an In-Depth Examination of Future Developments Using an
Approach Chosen by the Subcommittee 7
3.2.3 To Identify Baseline Information and Trends that May Be Expected
to Have Future Impacts on Human Health and the Environment ...8
3.2.4 To Focus on One or More Case Studies Relevant to Their Expertise 11
3.2.5 To Suggest a Procedure by Which Future Environmental Concerns Can Be
Recognized at an Early Stage 12
4. Energy And Environmental Quality 13
4.1 Introduction and Overview 13
4.2 Scenario 1: Electrical Generation that Includes Nuclear Power ...\ 15
I
4.3 Scenario 2: Decline of Nuclear Power ,, 15
4.4 Discussion and Recommendations < 16
5. Changing Patterns of Exposure to Ionizing Radiation '. 18
5.1 Key Drivers 18
5.1.1 Medical Exposures i 18
5.1.2 Occupational Exposures , 19
5.1.3 Exposure to Radon (See Also Section 9) i 19
5.2 Recommendations 19
iv I
-------
Contents (continued)
6. Radioactive Waste Management 20
6.1 Introduction and Overview 20
6.2 Scenario 1: Continued Stalemate on Radioactive Waste Issues.
6.3 Scenario 2: Early and Effective Resolution of Radioactive Waste Issues
.21
21
6.4 Implications for EPA 21
6.5 Recommendations I 22
7. Non-ionizing Radiation 23
7.1 Introduction and Overview 23
7.2 Societal Trends I.... 23
7.3 Issues 24
7.3.1 Hazard and Exposure Identification 24
7.3.2 Potential Effects on Ecological Systems 25
7.4 Implications for EPA : 25
7.5 Recommendations 25
8. Exposures, Dose-response Models, And Population Susceptibility.. ; 26
8.1 Introduction and Overview 26
8.2 Key Issues ..;.... 26
8.2.1 Significant Changes in Our Understanding of Models for Dose-Response...;.... 26
8.2.2 Differences in Radiation Susceptibility 27
8.3 Recommendations 28
9. Radon and the Indoor Environment :.... 29
9.1 Key Drivers 29
9.2 Trends and Assumptions 30
9.3 Implications for EPA .....30
9.4 Recommendations .....30
10. Control Of Nuclear Materials 31
10.1 Key Issues .....31
10.2 Recommendations ;.... 31
-------
Contents (continued)
11. Summary and Conclusions: Focus for the Future 33
11.1 Summary of Recommendations 33
11.1.1 Energy Production, Radioactive Waste Management, ;
and Nuclear Weapons Materials Issues L 33
11.1.2 Population Exposures, Dose-Response Models, and Genetic
Susceptibilities to Radiation Risks ..........................; 34
11.1.3 Exposure to Non-Ionizing Radiation ........ 34
11.1.4 Radon i 34
1
11.2 Focus for the Future i 35
11.2.1 Becoming the Source of Choice for Information on Environmental Radiation ... 35
11.2.2 Developing a Foresight Capability i 35
11.3 Conclusions ;..... ......; .........I 35
Appendices
A The Charge to the SAB ; A-1
B Thinking About the Year 2025 B-1
I
C A Process for Scanning Future Developments in Environmental Issues C-1
D References Cited i D-1
E Glossary of Terms and Acronyms I E-1
VI
-------
Figures
3.1 Environmental future input drivers 7
4.1 Electricity demand and the economy have grown together while
non-electric energy demand has declined ....14
C-1 Evolution of health and environmental issues C-1
C-2 The life cycle of health and environmental issues; '
applying issues management techniques C-2
Tables
3.1 Issues in Environmental Radiation Relevant to the Future 7
3.2 Criteria for the Analysis of Future Issues in Environmental Radiation 8
3.3 Summary of the REFS Discussion on Its Scan of Future Development in
Environmental Radiation , 9
4.1 Trends in Energy and the Economy in the U.S 14
VII
-------
1. Executive Summary
1.1 The Charge to the Radiation
Environmental Futures
Subcommittee
On July 16, 1993, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) was
asked by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
develop a procedure for conducting a periodic scan of the
"future horizon" and to choose a few of the many possible
future public and corporate developments and issues for
in-depth examination of potential environmental impacts. This
initiative was named the Environmental Futures Project. The
Executive Committee (EC) of the SAB considered and ac-
cepted this request. The SAB EC then established an ad-hoc
committee, the Environmental Futures Committee (EFC), to
coordinate this effort.
The Radiation Advisory Committee (RAC) formed a subcom-
mittee, the Radiation Environmental Futures Subcommittee
(REFS), to address this topic from the perspective of environ-
mental radiation. The REFS met in publicly advertised meet-
ings on December 2 and 3, 1993, February 22, 1994, May 6,
1994 and July 11, 1994 to develop this report. Additional
meetings occurred in the form of publicly advertised two-hour
teleconference editing sessions. The teleconferences were
held on January 21, 1994, June 20, 1994, August 29, 1994,
and September 26, 1994. The charge given to the Standing
Committees of the SAB, and delegated by the RAC to the
REFS, was
a) to conduct both a short-term scan and a long-term scan
of future developments in its field of expertise; and
b) to conduct an in-depth examination of future develop-
ments using an approach chosen by the Subcommittee.
Furthermore, the EFC also charged the Subcommittees as
follows:
c) to identify baseline information and trends that may be
expected to have future impacts on human health and
the environment;
d) to focus on one or more case studies relevant to their
expertise; and
e) to suggest a procedure by which future environmental
concerns can be recognized at an early stage.
1.2 Process for the identification of
Major Issues for the Future in
Environmental Radiation
The REFS carried out a scan of future developments in the
field of radiation, particularly as they pertained to environ-
mental radiation. This scan was conducted after receiving
short briefings about the expectations and ideas regarding the
Environmental Futures Project from various staff representa-
tives from the EPA Office of Radiation and Indoor Air
(ORIA) and the EPA Office of Policy Planning and Evalua-
tion (OPPE). The Subcommittee reached consensus on a list
of 21 issues that it considered to be the most relevant ones in
environmental radiation over the 5-30 year time frame. The
REFS then created a matrix that evaluated these issues ac-
cording to five criteria: present situation, current trend, future
situation, concerns, and EPA role.
I
After a careful analysis of that matrix, the Subcommittee
eliminated those issues that it felt would have at most a minor
impact in the future and grouped the remaining issues in
environmental radiation into seven major topics that might
have a significant impact in the future of our environment.
The selection also took into account that EPA's principal role
in the management of radiation risks is to give advice, provide
guidance, and issue generally applicable standards on which
other agencies in government must base their rules and regu-
lations in radiation. The issue categories are as follows, with
each topic expanded upon in the referenced section of the
main report:
/. Energy and environmental quality (Section 4). Most
radiation issues are ^directly or indirectly related to
energy production and distribution, and particularly to
policies and actions related to the nuclear energy fuel
cycle.
2. Exposures, dose-response models, and population sus-
ceptibility. This category of issues concerns occupa-
tional exposures, exposure/dose/outcome information
as reflected by differences in radiation susceptibility,
and medical use of radiation. These issues are dealt with
in Section 5 (changing patterns of exposure to ionizing
radiation), and in Section 8 (exposures, dose-response
models, and population susceptibility).
3. Management of radioactive waste material (Section 6).
This group of issues includes civilian and military
high-level radioactive; waste; managed low-level waste
(e.g., from nuclear, medical, and research activities)
-------
and currently unmanaged waste such as Naturally Oc-
curring or Accelerator-Produced Radioactive Materials
(NARM); waste generated from the clean-up of U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) and military facilities and
from decommissioning of civilian and military facili-
ties; disposal of nuclear materials from warheads; acci-
dents; and mixed hazardous/radioactive waste.
4. Non-ionizing radiation (Section 7). Included in this
category are exposures to extremely low frequency
(ELF) and radiofrequency (RF) electric and magnetic
fields, static and quasi-static magnetic fields, and ultra-
violet (UV) radiation. In the latter case, ecological
exposures are particularly of concern..
5. Radon and the indoor environment (Section 9). The
principal issue of concern in this category is improve-
ments in methods to identify and protect that part of the
population with the highest risks from radon exposure.
6. Loss of control of nuclear materials (Section 10). Di-
version of fissile weapons material and/or its use in
terrorist activities, or an accident with these materials,
may happen at any time unless aggressive and coordi-
nated action is taken by many agencies within the U.S.
as well as governments of other nations.
7. How does the EPA become the source of choice for
environmental radiation information (Section 11), such
that it is perceived as a leader on these issues? In the
area of environmental radiation, the REFS believes that
EPA has the potential to substantially influence the
future direction and magnitude of the above radiation
issues through use of its authority to provide guidance
and to set definitive, generally applicable standards,
both based on sound science. In addition to tracking
pertinent research, the Agency could also identify and
promote research needed in support of its regulatory
activities.
Finally, recommendations regarding a process for scanning
future issues and emerging environmental concerns were pro-
vided by the Subcommittee in a separate memorandum sub-
mitted to the EFC (See Appendix D, Gonzalez-Mendez, 1994,
as well as Appendix C on more details of the process).
1.3 Summary and Recommendations
The Subcommittee believes that it would be worthwhile for
EPA to explore the following in its long-range planning
efforts:
1) A decreased reliance on strictly regulatory approaches
to risk management would more likely lead to overall
enhancement of the environment from society's activi-
ties, the original vision which accompanied the Agency's
formation. This renewed role would focus on providing
scientifically credible information to stakeholders as
participants in resolution of environmental questions
consistent with the SAB's Future Risk and Reducing
Risk reports, as well as the Safeguarding the Future
report (see Appendix D: U.S. EPA/SAB, 1988; U.S.
EPA/SAB, 1990; and U.S. EPA, 1992).
2) This report presents arguments for EPA attention and
focus, particularly on issues related to energy produc-
tion and use, insofar as they are linked and interwoven
into issues of radiation exposures and waste disposal.
Based on our analysis of the future and the strong
linkages of environmental quality issues to the Nation's
energy issues, the Subcommittee recommends that EPA
participate positively in the joint development of na-
tional energy policies, focusing on an examination of
the overall environmental consequences of energy pro-
duction options, the roles of alternative energy sources
including nuclear electricity generation in curtailing
greenhouse gases, possible increases in ultraviolet (UV)
radiation and other harmful effects, radioactive waste
management issues, and potential release of radioactive
materials to die environment.
3) Working with other Federal, state and local agencies, as
well with as other national governments, in order to
resolve problems in the management of radioactive
waste materials. Appropriate and coordinated action is
necessary in order to allow for a) proper choices in
nuclear energy production; b) control of nuclear materi-
als from disassembled warheads; c) site restoration
activities in Federal facilities and Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) licensees; and d) continued use of
radioactive materials in medicine and research. EPA
could assume a proactive leadership role by
a) expediting the resolution of the;problem of radio-
active wastes by issuing generally applicable stan-
dards for radioactive waste disposal and residual
radioactivity; and ,, 7
b) formulating clear-policies for both naturally occur-
ring radioactive material (NORM) and mixed' haz-
ardous/radioactive wastes. :
4) Assuring control of nuclear materials from disassembled
warheads through conversion to energy use, burn-up in
reactors, and/or secure disposal is vital to a safe and
clean environment. EPA could provide leadership in
resolving environmental issues necessary to incorporate
this assurance .into national programs.
5) The largest potential for reducing population exposure
to radiation (inasmuch as they are controllable) could
occur in the areas of medical care and radon in indoor
air. EPA guidance on public radiation exposures could
influence reductions in radiation doses from these
sources.
6) Advances will likely be made in understanding the
significance of different measures of exposure, the rela-
tionship of exposures to risks, and how and why differ-
ent people may respond differently to radiation. EPA
will be faced with the need to incorporate new impor-
tant findings in radiation research into its guidance and
regulatory postures regardless of whether the findings
-------
point to greater or lesser health and environmental risks
than previously thought. For example, information from
the Human Genome Project and molecular biology
research could allow for identification of individuals
with genetic or other susceptibilities to radiation health
effects, which may require major changes in regulatory
approaches for radiation protection. EPA should begin
to consider what kinds of policies will be pertinent for a
future in which it becomes commonplace to identify
genetic, chemical, and other factors that lead to en-
hanced susceptibility of individuals to radiation dam-
age.
7) EPA should continue efforts to focus on characterizing
high-risk radon potential regions, improving knowl-
edge about radon risks, and developing more accurate
methods of measuring and mitigating radon in build-
ings. Particular emphasis should be placed on empow-
erment of stakeholders by dissemination of all available
scientific information.
8) Working collaboratively with other agencies, EPA
should continue to assess the state of science regarding
potential health effects associated with environmental
exposures to electromagnetic fields (EMF). To the ex-
tent warranted by future developments, the Agency
should ensure that key research is pursued. In the mean-
time, in the absence of solid evidence demonstrating or
refuting the hypothesis that exposure of some type to
such fields causes cancer or other effects, EPA could
provide practical guidance that will aid those who de-
velop and apply EMF technologies to limit EMF expo-
sures consistent with current knowledge. These actions
will permit EPA to position itself to deal with the
increases in environmental exposures to EMF that are
likely to occur in the future as a consequence of in-
creased electrification and technological developments
such as magnetic resonance imaging in medicine, mag-
netic levitation in transportation, and the explosion in
information processing and telecommunication tech-
nologies.
9) The development of a capability for scanning the future
through a process of foresight may be necessary for the
development of a proactive role in shaping environmen-
tal radiation policies. The REFS is unanimous in recom-
mending this, given the fact that with a few exceptions,
the research, the regulatory practices, and the para-
digms used today as the basis for setting radiation
standards may not be effective or efficient in resolving
the issues of the future.
During the past year, EPA has undertaken several very impor-
tant actions that pertain to the recommendations presented in
this report: a) the generally applicable standard for high-level
radioactive waste has been drafted and is under external
review; b) the Agency is beginning to address the issue of
harmonizing chemical and radiation risks; c) work is in progress
on developing generally applicable standards for residual
radioactivity and low-level radioactive waste; and d) work has
resumed on EMF issues. The RAC has been involved in
consultations and briefings on these issues and has scheduled
reviews for some of them in Fiscal Year 95. It is our expecta-
tion that some of the desirable outcomes envisioned in this
report will be assisted by the above initiatives.
-------
2. Introduction
Environmental protection is embedded within the fabric of
American life as it continues to evolve. The EPA came into
being a quarter of a century ago in the spirit of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its philosophy that the
environment should weigh heavily in society's major deci-
sions. A deliberate balancing of environmental, economic,
and national security factors was envisioned to achieve envi-
ronmental quality. Public recognition of the pollution conse-
quence of the modem technological growth after World War
II led to bold and definitive programs to impose control
principally on point sources of environmental pollution, and
to restore the environment from polluting activities of the
past.
After more than 20 years of intense regulatory efforts de-
signed to restore environmental quality, the focus of environ-
mental efforts is shifting toward empowerment of all the
stakeholders in both sustained economic strength and envi-
ronmental quality. Empowerment of these stakeholders re-
quires recognition of the environmental consequences of
technological change and the enunciation of broad policies
pertaining to those consequences. The role of government is
evolving toward the design of policies and programs to pre-
vent environmental degradation that will provide stakeholders
with ample opportunity to participate in these efforts. This
contrasts with the largely regulatory approach of the past.
As part of the Environmental Futures Project, the REFS
developed a list of seven broad issues in environmental radia-
tion that it felt would be most likely to have a significant
impact on the future quality of our environment (see Section 3
for details about the process). Each of these issues is expanded
upon in a separate section in the main body of the report.
/. Energy and environmental quality (Section 4). Most
radiation issues are directly or indirectly related to
energy production and distribution, and particularly to
policies and actions related to the nuclear energy fuel
cycle.
2. Exposures, dose-response models, and population sus-
ceptibility (Sections 5 and 8). This category of issues
concerns occupational exposures, exposure/dose/ out-
come information as reflected by differences in radia-
tion susceptibility, and medical use of radiation. These
issues are dealt with in Section 5 (changing patterns of
exposure to ionizing radiation), and in Section 8 (expo-
sures, dose-response models, and population suscepti-
bility).
3. Management of radioactive waste material (Section 6).
This group of issues includes civilian and military
high-level radioactive waste; managed low-level waste
(e.g., from nuclear, medical, and research activities)
and currently unmanaged waste such as NARM; waste
generated from the clean-up of DOE and military facili-
ties and from decommissioning of civilian and military
facilities; disposal of nuclear materials from warheads;
accidents; and mixed hazardous/radioactive waste.
4. Non-ionizing radiation (Section 7). Included in this
category are exposures to extremely low frequency
(ELF) and radiofrequency (RF) electric and magnetic
fields, static and quasi-static magnetic fields, and ultra-
violet (UV) radiation. In the latter case, ecological
exposures are particularly of concern.
5. Radon and the indoor environment (Section 9). The
principal issue of concern in this category is improve-
ments in methods to identify and protect that part of the
population with the highest risks from radon exposure.
6. Loss of control of nuclear materials (Section 10). Di-
version of fissile weapons material and/or its use in
terrorist activities, or an accident with these materials,
may happen at any time unless aggressive and coordi-
nated action is taken by many agencies within the U.S.
as well as governments of other nations.
7. How does the EPA become the source of choice for
environmental radiation information (Section 11), such
that it is perceived as a leader on these issues? In the
area of environmental radiation, the REFS believes that
EPA has the potential to substantially influence the
future direction and magnitude of the above radiation
issues through use of its authority .to provide guidance
and to set definitive, generally applicable standards,
both based on sound science. In addition to tracking
pertinent research, the Agency could also identify and
promote research needed in support of its regulatory
activities.
In its analysis of these issues and their implications for the
EPA, the REFS took into account that EPA's authority in
radiation issues is, in general, different from its authority in
most other regulatory programs. With the exception of a few
regulatory mandates under the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drink-
ing Water Act, and the Clean Water Act—which grant regula-
tory authority to the Agency to issue standards for radionuclides
4
-------
— EPA's mandates are limited to the issuance of guidance to
other government agencies on radiation issues, and to the
issuance of generally applicable standards for radioactive
waste disposal and residual radioactivity under various stat-
utes such as the Atomic Energy Act, the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act, the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act, and the
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). Thus, its role can be
summarized as one of advising, providing guidance, and
issuing generally applicable standards on which other agen-
cies in government must base their rules and regulations in
radiation. Such a role by definition involves a position of
leadership within the government inasmuch as other regula-
tory agencies must prove that their regulations are at least as
protective of the environment as are those of the EPA stan-
dards, or must justify their rules when compared against the
radiation guidance issued by the EPA. Credible and effective
leadership by the EPA in environmental protection involves
the forging of partnerships with other Federal and state agen-
cies, and having the best science available. It is within the
context of this framework that the analysis and recommenda-
tions presented in this report must be taken.
Given the limitations on time, space, and resources, the REFS
focused on the above seven issue categories. Therefore, if a
particular issue is not within those categories, or is not men-
tioned in this report, mat should not be taken to imply the
issue is neither important nor meritorious. It should also be
pointed out that other issues related to those categories are
covered by other SAB committees in their futures reports,
e.g., the increase in used batteries containing toxic compo-
nents if there is a sharp increase in the usage of electric cars,
etc. Finally, the order of discussion of the categories reflects
the "historical build-up" of the development of the report, and
not any assignment of importance or merit.
-------
3. Response to the Charge and Process for the Identification of
Major Issues for the Future in Environmental Radiation
3.1 The Charge and the Process for the
Report
On July 16, 1993, the SAB was asked by the EPA to develop
a procedure for conducting a periodic scan of the "future
horizon" and to choose a few of the many possible future
public and corporate developments and issues for in-depth
examination of potential environmental impacts. This initia-
tive has been named the Environmental Futures Project. This
request was made by Mr. David Gardiner, Assistant Adminis-
trator for the OPPE at EPA, and by EPA Administrator Carol
Browner. (Appendix A lists in very brief form the charter that
evolved from the original request.) The project is considered
to be a logical extension of the SAB report on Reducing Risk
(Appendix D, U.S. EPA/SAB, 1990), in which the SAB
indicated that it was important to increase the Agency's
ability to identify the future potential risks to human health
and the environment. The EC of the SAB considered and
accepted this request. The SAB then established an ad-hoc
committee, the EFC, to undertake this effort.
The RAC formed a subcommittee, the REFS, to address this
topic from the perspective of environmental radiation. The
REFS met in publicly advertised meetings on December 2 and
3, 1993, February 22, 1994, May 6, 1994, and July 11, 1994,
to develop this report. Additional meetings occurred in the
form of publicly advertised two-hour teleconference editing
sessions. The teleconferences were held on January 21, 1994,
June 20, 1994, August 29, 1994, and September 26, 1994.
It is the intent of the SAB to focus on the scientific and
technical aspects that may allow EPA and other interested
agencies and organizations to better recognize, understand,
and influence future events so that these developments may
have (as much as possible) a positive effect on human health
and the environment. It is hoped by the REFS that the Agency
will consider its degree of institutional readiness and what is
necessary to achieve its desired goals in light of the future
issues and challenges in environmental radiation identified in
this Subcommittee report.
The charge given to the Standing Committees of the SAB, and
delegated by the RAC to the REFS, was as follows:
a) to conduct both short-term and long-term scans of
future developments in its field of expertise, and
b) to conduct an in-depth examination of future develop-
ments using an approach chosen by the Subcommittee.
Furthermore, the EFC (formed by the EC of the SAB) also
charged the Subcommittees as follows: •
c) to identify baseline information and trends that may be
expected to have future impacts on human health and
the environment,
d) to focus on one or more case studies relevant to their
expertise, and
e) to suggest a procedure by which future environmental
concerns can be recognized at an early stage.
The Standing Committees and subcommittees involved in the
project were instructed by the EFC to develop their own
approaches.
3.2 Response to the Charge
3.2.1 To Conduct Short-Term and
Long-Term Scans of Future
Developments in Its Field of
Expertise
On the meeting held in December 2 and 3, 1993, the REFS
carried out a scan of future developments in the field of
radiation, particularly as they pertained to environmental ra-
diation. This scan was done after receiving short briefings
about the expectations and ideas regarding the Environmental
Futures Project from various staff representatives from the
EPA Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA), and the EPA
OPPE. The two offices presented very different expectations
and outlooks. On the one hand, OPPE desired the Subcommit-
tee to look at issues in the long view and to focus on processes
that incorporated long-range planning in science and policy
within a holistic view of the environment as presented in
Figure 3.1. On the other hand, ORIA was interested in a 3- to
5-year time frame that would help it address some very
significant regulatory issues in radiation that its program
offices might tackle in the short view of the future.
In Figure 3.1, which was presented to the REFS by the staff of
OPPE, the environment is presented as encompassing all
aspects of the Earth's ecosystems, in which the Human Sys-
tem is only a single component. Furthermore, all five major
input drivers for the future involve or include radiation in
some way. A few examples of that connection are a) biotech-
nology in many cases requires the use of radioactively labeled
nucleic acids for gene cloning and signal transduction work,
-------
Infrastructure
Exposure
Assessment
Communications
Technology
Table 3.1
Issues in Environmental Radiation Relevant to the
Future
Energy
Figure 3.1
Biotechnology
Environmental future input drivers.
and may provide significant understanding of genetic suscep-
tibility to radiation; b) communications technology involves
EMFs; c) energy has nuclear power and radioactive waste
issues; d) exposure assessment is an integral part of environ-
mental radiation issues; and e) infrastructure will have electri-
fication, transmission antennas, and energy production facilities
as radiation-related issues.
The REFS responded to this first item of the charge by
compiling a list of radiation issues (Table 3.1) that it felt
would be most likely to impact human health and the environ-
ment both in the short term (3 to 5 years) as well as over the
long term (5 to 30 years).
3.2.2 To Conduct an In-Depth
Examination of Future
Developments Using an Approach
Chosen by the Subcommittee
In response to the second item of the charge, the REFS had to
select an approach for scanning the future. The Subcommittee
was briefed by one of its members, a futurist, Mr. Joseph F.
Coates, on a similar project he had organized called Project
2025. He presented the REFS with a summary of the results of
that project titled Thinking About the Year 2025 (see Appen-
dix B). It lists a set of 83 assumptions about the year 2025 that
the REFS reviewed and found to be a useful set of examples
or guides of what might be included in constructing scenarios
for the future on which it could base some of its analyses
These assumptions of what the year 2025 will be like are a
robust set, that is, one can throw out those with which one
disagrees and still have a complete and reasonable scenario
for the future.
The REFS then created a matrix that rated each of the issues
listed in Table 3.1 according to five criteria. The Subcommit-
tee approached the issues from the perspective of whether or
not the Federal government is ready to tackle the issue if a
"crystallizing event" were to occur today and were to galva-
nize both the public and government into action and what
EPA's role would be in each case. The criteria used are listed
in Table 3.2 and are defined below.
High-level Radioactive Waste (HLW) ~~
a. Civilian
b. Military
Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLW)
a. "Managed" (e:g., from medical, nuclear power and
research activities)
b. "Not currently managed" by EPA (e.g., NORM)
Clean-up
a. DOE Sites
b. Military Sites
Decommissioning
a. Civilian Sites
b. Military Sites
Mixed Hazardous/Radioactive Waste
Control of Nuclear Materials
Accidents
Routine Emissions,.
New Energy Sources (Including nuclear power)
Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) Electric and Magnetic
Fields
Radiofrequency (RF) Electric and Magnetic Fields
Static and Quasi-Static Magnetic Fields
Radon in Indoor Air
Ultraviolet (UV) Radiation
Terrestrial Radiation
Cosmic Radiation
Occupational Exposures
Medical Use of Radiation
Population Susceptibility
Exposure - Dose Response - Health Outcome Information
Risk Communication Paradigm (mortality vs. morbidity
effectiveness) :
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
Present Situation: Indicates whether the issue already exists
and if there is already public awareness on the issue.
Trend: The projected trend is not only from the scientific
perspective, but also with respect to public awareness or
concern on the issue. The direction of the arrow indicates
whether the issue is expected to remain unchanged [horizontal
arrow (-»)], or become more [up arrow (T )] or less [down
arrow (I)] important, and at what rate [a vertical arrow is
more rapid than one at an angle (*»)]. A dash (—) indicates
that the trend is either not an issue or not known at this time.
Time-to-Crystallizing Event: The time presented is a "guessti-
mate" by the REFS using its collective judgment and exper-
tise of when the "crystallizing event" might happen. It is the
consensus of the Subcommittee that in many cases the date or
time given can be replaced with "as soon as an Agency issues
a regulation" without any Iqss of value in the table, insofar as
Agency action in issuing a standard may become the rallying
point for various groups in demanding political or legal action
for or against the standard. A question mark (?) indicates that
there may not be a crystallizing event for this issue in the
future. !
Concerns: This criterion indicates whether the concerns are of
a political, scientific, or technological (engineering) nature
-------
Table 3.2 Criteria for the Analysis of Future Issues in Environmental Radiation
Present
Situation
• - Existent
? - Unknown
Trend
t
l
Time to
Crystallizing
Event
Now (today)
through
>20 years, or
Concerns
EPA Role
and whether the concern is a major or minor one. Economic
concerns are included under political concerns, given the
REFS view that the allocation of funds and resources is a
policy and/or political decision.
EPA Role: This criterion indicates what the role of the EPA
could be in the government's handling of the issue. Three of
the classifications in this item bear explanation:
a) Exploratory: The EPA may choose to provide a leading
role in exploring whether an issue should be pursued for
intervention. This exploration may be conducted through
some futures scanning process.
b) Seminal: The EPA role may be that of a leader who lays
the groundwork for intervening in a particular issue,
and for defining the manner in which the issue is to be
addressed. •
c) Potential: The EPA has a potentially significant role in
dealing with the issue, preferably before the "crystalliz-
ing event" occurs.
The above describes the process used by the REFS to scan
future developments. The results of this scanning exercise are
summarized in Table 3.3, which is also the basis for the
response to the third item of the charge.
3.2.3 To Identify Baseline Information and
Trends That May Be Expected to
Have Future Impacts on Human
Health and the Environment
The third item of the charge was addressed by implementing
the process described above, resulting in the construction of
the matrix shown in Table 3.3. The matrix represents the
collective judgment and expertise of REFS members, and
includes, in most cases, input from the EPA representatives
from OPPE and ORIA present throughout the discussion. The
value of Table 3.3 is in the following annotation of the items.
1. The first two pairs of issues listed in the matrix
concern civilian and military high-level radioactive
waste. The issue exists at this time, and the trend is
for high priority and public awareness on it. A
crystallizing event may occur toward the end of the
decade, as more becomes known about the magni-
tude of the military problem, and as we approach
the time to start decommissioning civilian nuclear
Tech. -
Technical
Pol. - Political
Sci. - Scientific
»- Major
.3-Minor
R - Regulatory
A - Advisory
G - Guidance
E - Exploratory
P - Potential
S - Seminal
R&D - Research
power plants. The dominant concerns are of a
political nature, particularly public fears about ra-
diation and radioactivity, although many technical
issues need to be resolved. Today, the Federal
government is not ready to cope with the high-level
waste problem, insofar as the site selection and
licensing of a repository are continually delayed,
and because the magnitude of the military waste
problem is not yet well-characterized. The role of
the EPA is largely a regulatory :one. In the case of
the WIPP program, Congress has also assigned
EPA an advisory role (through its position on the
National Advisory Committee on Environmental
Policy and Technology) as well as a policing role
in the certification of various parts of the process of
bringing WIPP on-line as a waste disposal facility.
The second pair of issues in the matrix is that of
low-level radioactive waste, both "managed" as
well as "unmanaged." The issues exist at this time,
and the trends are for high priority and increasing
public awareness on them. A crystallizing event
may occur sometime toward the end of the decade,
as we approach the time to start decommissioning
civilian nuclear power plants, although the closing
of the low-level disposal site in Barnwell, S.C., to
"out of region" shipments has become a crystalliz-
ing event for many institutions needing a place for
disposal of their wastes (The Barnwell, S.C., facil-
ity is scheduled to close to the South East Compact
state members in 1995.). The dominant concerns
are of a political nature, particularly public fears
about radiation, although technical issues remain
for regulated wastes; technical issues dominate the
concerns for "unmanaged wastes." Today some
regions are not ready to cope with the low-level
waste problem, site selection and licensing of
waste-disposal sites are continually delayed, the
magnitude of the "unmanaged" waste is not well
characterized, and it is unclear who if anybody has
the authority to manage these wastes at the national
level. The role of the EPA is both advisory and
regulatory.
Clean-up of radioactively contaminated sites is an
issue of increasing concern to the public. The situ-
ation remains poorly defined,, as the assessment of
the problem is still in the early stages. Technical,
political, and scientific concerns are all dominant
-------
Table 3.3 Summary of the REFS Discussion on Its Scan on Future Developments in Environmental Radiation
18.
1b.
2a.
2b.
3a.
3b.
4a.
4b.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
Present
Issue Situation
HLW, civilian i/
HLW, military V
LLW, managed •
LLW, unmanaged •
Clean-up, DOE •
Clean-up, military •
Decommissioning, civilian •
Decommissioning, military •
Mixed hazardous/ radioactive waste •
Control of nuclear materials •
Accidents •
Routine emissions Not an issue
New energy sources (includes nuclear) New
ELF fields
RF electromagnetic fields •
Static/quasi-static magnetic fields •
Radon in indoor air •
UV radiation •
Terrestrial radiation Not an issue
Cosmic radiation Not an issue
Occupational exposures •
Medical use of radiation •
Population susceptibility ?
Exposure/dose-response /outcome ?
Risk communication •
Time to Concerns
Crystallizing '
Trend Event Tech. Pol. Sci.
I 5-10 yrs > : .-> ~
s <5 yrs > ! . >
I <5 yrs , .
/ <5 yrs •
t as ? • . > • •
I
issue
t as ? • . ^
•i
issue
t 5-10 yrs • •
t 5-10 yrs . !".
t today • i • •
t any time . . •
s anytime ••> : • ,>
i
-> t > 10 yrs • . o
t > 1 0 yrs? • .
t I t J < 10 yrs . | .
/» > 1 0 yrs . i • •
.
t > 20 yrs? • • •
- ''-•
?
* any time • i •
— — • o •
I
?
EPA
Role
R+?
R
A/R
A/R
R
R
A/R
A/R
S/R
P
A
G
R?
A
S
S/R
A
A/S '
G
R&D/G
G
R/A/G
R&D/A
-------
9.
issues. For example, basic research is being con-
ducted at the national laboratories on the interac-
tions of microorganisms with radiation and chemical
wastes, and on the potential for genetic alteration
of microorganisms to increase their ability to scav-
enge radioactive materials from soils. EPA's role is
regulatory.
Decommissioning of radioactively contaminated
sites is a problem of high priority and large magni-
tude. A crystallizing event will happen within the
next decade. There are significant technical and
political concerns, and insufficient data to properly
address the issue. EPA's role is regulatory. A major
concern for decommissioning of radioactively con-
taminated sites is the lack of low level waste dis-
posal sites.
Mixed hazardous and radioactive waste is a major
radioactive waste disposal problem that is continu-
ing to get worse, with a high awareness in the user
communities. There are limited storage and dis-
posal alternatives, mostly incineration followed by
management as radioactive waste. Political con-
cerns dominate discussions on this issue but knowl-
edge is greatly lacking about the combined effects
of exposures to radiation and toxic chemicals on
human and environmental health. Various agencies
and groups keep passing the problem from one to
another. The EPA's role is both seminal and regu-
latory because Agency actions could set the course
for the solution to this issue.
The control of nuclear materials from dismantled
warheads is potentially a large problem. A crystal-
lizing event, such as a major accident or a nuclear
incident involving terrorist use, could happen at
any time in any nation that has engaged in nuclear
weapons programs. Many technical and political
concerns need to be explored and addressed. Sig-
nificant policy research is being done on the issue
in the U.S., and EPA hopes to be given some
authority to participate in the U.S. involvement in
international efforts to address this issue.
Accidents involving radiation are an issue of me-
dium magnitude, with increasing public awareness
of the issue. Such accidents may happen at any
time and are by definition crystallizing events.
Technological and political concerns are dominant.
The plan currently in place for a radiation accident
is untested with regard to a major accident (e.g.,
greater or equal in magnitude than Chernobyl).
EPA's role is advisory.
Routine emissions of radionuclides from various
sources were not considered to have a significant
impact in the future. EPA's role could be one of
guidance.
New energy production facilities (including nuclear)
could become an emerging issue. The trend for
nuclear energy is flat at this time but may become
high in the future as new reactor designs—such as
those for fusion—are put forth. The time horizon
for a crystallizing event is beyond the next decade.
There are both technical and political concerns.
Existing programs and regulations should be able
to handle new nuclear energy programs. EPA's
role is difficult to define, but could be a regulatory
one through its authority for issuing standards for
air and water emissions, and for issuing generally
applicable standards for radioactive waste disposal.
10. ELF electric and magnetic fields are an issue for
which public concern is high, and the lack of
definitive scientific knowledge give it a high prior-
ity. A crystallizing event, if any, may lie well
beyond the next decade, and only if continued
research on the scientific questions that exist today
provides unambiguous evidence for a health effect
from some form of exposure. The dominating con-
cerns are scientific and political, because technical
solutions exist but may place large economic bur-
dens on the public. The EPA has not given this
issue a very high priority at the present time, and its
role is advisory.
11. Radio frequency (RF) electric and magnetic fields
have been an issue for over a decade. The trend of
the issue will see up and down swings as new
technologies bring public awareness on the subject.
The time horizon for a crystallizing event may be
within the next decade. Significant technical and
political concerns need to be resolved, but the
development of knowledge about the interactions
of electric and magnetic fields with living systems
(tissues) is especially critical. The Agency could
have a seminal role in the issue, given that its
guidance on the issue could have a large future
impact on many public and private organizations.
12. There is an increasing concern about exposures to
static and quasi-static magnetic fields. The time
horizon is greater than 5 years for any kind of a
crystallizing event. The dominant concerns are sci-
entific and political. The EPA's role will be semi-
nal, with its guidance setting the tone for future
events.
13. Radon in indoor air is a continuing problem. The
trend here is flat, without major .increases in the
problem or in the public's perception of the prob-
lem. We do not foresee a crystallizing event in the
future. The issues are dominated by technological
and risk communication concerns as well as by
research on the mechanism of radon-induced can-
cer induction and the combined effects of exposure
to cigarette smoke and indoor air pollutants. The
EPA role is advisory.
14. Ultraviolet (UV) radiation is deemed to be a poten-
tially important issue for ecosystems, e.g., through
its effects on microplankton populations. There
10
-------
will be increased awareness of the issue in the
future. The time horizon may be greater than 20
years, because effects may not be noticeable for a
very long period of time. The concerns are largely
scientific and technical. Other concerns such as
skin cancer, immune system problems, and risk
communication issues were considered to be well
handled by the agencies concerned. The EPA's role
will be advisory and seminal.
15, 16. Terrestrial and cosmic radiation were not consid-
ered to be significant issues for the future. Al-
though they are significant contributors to risk,
they are widely viewed as being beyond control.
17. Occupational exposures are generally an issue of
low concern. Barring an unexpected event of dis-
covery, a crystallizing event is not foreseen for this
issue. Technical aspects are the dominant factor in
the problem, although there are some political prob-
lems. Existing guidance and regulations are .ad-
equate to address the issue at this time. The role for
EPA is to issue guidance on the subject.
18. Medical use of radiation was considered as an
issue for the future, with increasing magnitude in
the near future. A crystallizing event may occur at
any time. The concerns are political and technical,
but there is good institutional readiness in the Fed-
eral government on the subject. EPA's role could
be in research and guidance.
19, 20. Population susceptibility and information on expo-
sure, dose-response, and health outcome are not
major issues at this time but may become so in the
future. Information from the Human Genome
Project may trigger new awareness on these items.
The concerns have scientific as well as political
and technical aspects. The EPA role is one of
guidance, with advisory or regulatory mandates on
exposure-outcome problems pertaining to some of
the above issues.
21. Risk communication paradigms were seen as an
existent issue for the future, particularly as new
endpoints (morbidity) beyond the standard body
count (mortality) are sought. There may not be a
crystallizing event for this issue in the future. The
concerns are mostly scientific"and political, with a
. poor-to-moderate institutional success. EPA roles
are research and advisory.
3.2.4 To Focus on One or More Case
Studies Relevant to Their Expertise
After a careful analysis of Table 3.3, the REFS categorized the
issues listed into seven major topics to be discussed in the
sections that follow. It is the consensus of the REFS that,
processes to deal, with these issues that incorporate the best
scientific knowledge should be in place before crystallizing
events occur. If these processes are not in place, then the
science might be "steamrollered" by public opinion and poli-
tics, in which case the best outcome one could hope for might
be actions to satisfy public and political concerns, and which
are based on reasonable science, but not necessarily on the
best science. By achieving a position of leadership in environ-
mental sciences and information, the EPA could influence
positive outcomes and forestall the crystallizing events that
may take away the Agency's ability to bring the best science
to bear on environmental problems.
It was the consensus of the REFS that the major environmen-
tal radiation issues with the most impact in the future are as
follows:
1. Energy and environmental quality (Section 4): Exclud-
ing the weapons program, most radiation issues are
directly or indirectly linked to energy production and
distribution, and particularly to policies and actions
related to the nuclear energy fuel cycle.
2. Exposures, dose-response, and population susceptibil-
ity (Sections 5 and 8): This category of issues concerns
occupational exposures, exposure/dose/outcome infor-
mation as reflected by differences in radiation suscepti-
bility, and medical use of radiation. These are longer
term future issues, but require action in order for EPA
not to be surprised by developments. These issues are
dealt with in Section 5, changing patterns of exposure to
ionizing radiation; and in Section 8, exposures,
dose-response models, and population susceptibility.
3. Management of radioactive waste material (Section 6):
This group of issues includes civilian and military
high-level radioactive waste; managed low-level waste
(e.g., from nuclear, medical, and research activities)
and unmanaged waste such as NARM; waste generated
from the clean-up of DOE and military sites and from
decommissioning of civilian and military facilities; dis-
posal of nuclear materials from warheads; accidents;
and mixed hazardous/radioactive waste. The consensus
was that in many cases the crystallizing event may be
the issuance by the EPA of generally applicable clean-up
and disposal standards, because the proposal of a stan-
dard often becomes a rallying point for various groups
in society.
4. Non-ionizing radiation (Section 7): Included in this
category are exposures to ELF and RF electric and
magnetic fields, static and quasi-static magnetic fields,
and UV radiation. In the latter case, ecological expo-
sures are particularly of concern. In general, a crystal-
lizing event may not occur until far into the future,
unless EPA issues guidance on the subject, or unless a
dose-response relationship and mechanism of action are
found.
5, Radon and the indoor environment (Section 9): The
principal issue of concern in this category is improve-
ments in methods to identify and protect that part of the
population with the highest risks from radon exposure.
In particular, the Agency should continue efforts to
focus on characterization of high-risk radon potential
regions, improving, knowledge about radon risks, and
11
-------
developing more accurate methods of measuring and
mitigating radon in buildings. Particular emphasis should
be placed on empowerment of stakeholders by dissemi-
nation of all available scientific information.
6. Loss of control of nuclear materials (Section 10): Di-
version of fissile weapons material and/or its use in.
terrorist activities, or an accident with these materials,
may happen at any time unless aggressive and coordi-
nated action is taken by many agencies within the U.S.
as well as governments of other nations.
7. How does the EPA become the source of choice for
environmental radiation information (Section 11), such
that it is perceived as a leader on these issues? In the
area of environmental radiation, the REFS believes that
EPA has the potential to substantially influence the
future direction and magnitude of the above radiation
issues through use of its authority to provide guidance
and to set definitive, generally applicable standards,
both based on sound science. In addition to tracking
pertinent research, the Agency could also identify and
promote research needed in support of its regulatory
activities.
3.2.5 To Suggest a Procedure by Which
Future Environmental Concerns Can
Be Recognized at an Early Stage
The final item of the charge was addressed by the Subcommit-
tee in a separate memorandum to the EFC in which the REFS
proposed a series of recommendations regarding a process for
scanning future issues and environmental concerns (Appendix
C). A good starting point for the EPA would be to strengthen
and expand its existing issues management capabilities and
processes, such as those in place at OPPE and the EPA Office
of Research and Development (ORD), into the program of-
fices throughout the Agency. Such a step presupposes that the
Agency will be able to maintain technically strong programs
and policies in all areas of critical concern. To be efficient and
effective, the issues management process will have to con-
sider and integrate all aspects of the issues involved societal
and value judgments, economic concerns, human health con-
cerns, environmental aspects of remediation programs,
cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses of foe various
alternatives, and, finally, the best science available. The Sub-
committee is unanimous in recommending the above and
notes that, with few exceptions, the research, regulatory prac-
tices, and paradigms used today as the basis for setting radia-
tion standards may not be effective or efficient in resolving
the issues of the future.
12
-------
4. Energy and Environmental Quality
4.1 Introduction and Overview
Energy supply and use are inextricably linked to environmen-
tal quality. Fuel use is a major source of environmental
aerosols and greenhouse gases. Inefficiencies in energy con-
version and end use produce thermal effluents, and resource
extraction, processing and shipment also have environmental
consequences. Energy-related waste products require envi-
ronmentally sound disposal or reuse (e.g., fly- and bottom ash,
spent nuclear fuel, hydrocarbon wastes from petroleum refin-
ing). Energy availability and use—more precisely, the costs of
energy—are embedded in decisions about resource extraction
(i.e., recycling and reuse), land use planning and policies
(urban sprawl vs. infilling), and many other choices affecting
economic development which can have environmental conse-
quences.
The achievement of environmental improvements, both in the
short as well as the long term, will depend in a large part on
energy policies. In many cases, critical energy policy deci-
sions are made by state and local authorities. National envi-
ronmental policies must be cognizant of those decisions and
in some cases must accommodate them. Many states have
adopted a variety of energy efficiency codes for buildings and
appliances, and in some cases have incorporated energy con-
servation and energy-efficient technologies as part of utility
rate structures. Some state and local authorities have adopted
policies that require dramatic reductions in mobile source
emissions, leading to a demand for technologies heading
toward zero-emission vehicles.
Significant changes have occurred in energy use and the
economy since the 1973 oil embargo, as shown in Figure 4.1.
Although overall energy use has decreased significantly rela-
tive to economic growth, electricity growth has continued to
increase with economic growth, although at a much slower
rate than before 1973 (Appendix D: U.S. DOE/EIA, Monthly
Energy Review, June 1994). Improvements in overall energy
use efficiency are largely a result of increases in fleet average
automobile fuel efficiency and of energy savings in refrigera-
tors, furnaces, and air conditioners in homes and office build-
ings. These changes, along with slow but continuous changes
in the industrial infrastructure, have resulted in a nearly con-
tinuous decline in the amount of energy consumed per unit of
economic activity between 1973 and 1992 (Table 4.1). These
energy savings undoubtedly minimized significant (further)
environmental degradation over this 20-year time span.
Changes in the patterns of energy production and use are
integral to any consideration of future environmental radia-
tion issues in that they directly and indirectly affect the
potential for occupational and general population exposures
to both ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. Three of the most
important energy-related drivers for environmental radiation
issues are ;
a) Trends in the electrification of energy use. Increased
electrification of energy use (for example, the use of
electric vehicles as a means of reducing combustion
engine emissions) has the potential to increase expo-
sures to low frequency electric and magnetic fields and
the possibility of adverse health effects. The EFC report
(Appendix D, references U.S. EPA/SAB, 1995a and
U.S. EPA/SAB, 1995b; also see these same futures
reports listed at the end of Appendix D, as
EPA-SAB-EC-95-007 and EPA-SAB-EC-95-007a) also
expresses concern for another aspect associated with
increased electrification, that is, the large-scale use of
batteries containing toxic metals, and their dispersal in
the environment. The issue of non-ionizing radiation
exposures is explored in detail in Section 7 of this report
and will not be treated in depth in this Section.
b) Increasing attention to NORM associated with oil and
gas extraction and the coal fuel cycle. NORM is recog-
nized as a potentially significant issue for fossil fuel
production and use (Appendix D, EPA/SAB, 1994a)
but has not yet received much regulatory attention at the
Federal level. This issue is discussed in detail in Section
6.
The major focus of the remainder of this section is on the third
energy-related driver for environmental radiation issues:
c) Trends in nuclear power generation vs. other energy
sources. The most important determinants for trends in
nuclear energy use are the general demand for electric-
ity, recognition of the impacts of fossil fuel energy
production on the environment, and problems regarding
radioactive waste disposal. All three factors have social,
economic, scientific, and political aspects that are very
important in any analysis undertaken on this subject.
Over the next 30 years, projected population growth
implies pressure for increasing energy demand. While it
is less clear whether total energy use per capita will
increase, level off, or even decline, current trends sug-
gest that electricity use will increase as the overall
13
-------
60 n
50-
40-
-10
-20
61%
48%
10%
f
Total Energy , '
v§—' ' .•x~ \ *"x /' ~ —""
'V'/Nln-ElectricX ""-'' X ' 6%
Energy \ /
1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991
Figure 4.1 Electricity demand and the economy have grown together while non-electric energy demand has declined.
Data sources: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)/Energy Information Administration (EIA), Annual Energy Review,
Washington, D.C., 1993; and Edison Electric Institute, Capacity and Generation of Non-Utility Sources of Energy, Washing-
ton, D.C., 1992
Table 4.1 Trends In Energy and the Economy in the U.S.
(data from EIA, 1993)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Energy Measure
Primary energy use (quadrillion Btu)
Gross domestic product (GDP)
(billion 1987 dollars)
Energy/GDP ratio (Btu/1987 dollar)
Energy use projected from 1973
Energy/GDP ratio (quadrillion Btu)
Energy "savings" (quadrillion Btu)
(difference between rows 4 and 1)
1973
74.3
3,270
22,720
—
—
1992
82.4
4,920
16,750
112
30
(40% of 1973
actual)
economy grows (Figure 4.1). In the past, the economic
welfare of the U.S. has clearly benefitted from increas-
ing energy use per capita, but this coupling may no
longer be necessary and certainly is not desirable con-
sidering the many adverse environmental impacts of
energy production and use. In particular," the combus-
tion of fossil fuels is the principal contributor to green-
house gases and the potential for significant global
warming over the next decades. Nuclear power does not
produce greenhouse gases and is environmentally desir-
able in that respect, but it produces radioactive wastes
that must be properly managed to avoid endangering
human health and the environment.. Nuclear energy
production has also been curtailed by fears of accidents
and by concerns over the potential use of reactor
byproducts for nuclear weapons (see Section 10 for
discussion on the control of nuclear warhead materials).
Recognition of these conflicting pressures led the Subcom-
mittee to construct two very different scenarios regarding the
future use of nuclear power plants for the generation of
electricity. In the first scenario, concerns about global warm-
ing and a belief in the .economic benefits of energy use
outweigh concerns about radioactive waste, nuclear accidents,
and nuclear materials and foster continued reliance on nuclear
power plants. In the second scenario, other solutions to the
problems caused by greenhouse gases can be found, and
public opposition to nuclear power continues, such that nuclear
power fills an ever-decreasing role in the energy equation.
These two scenarios represent the two most vocal and politi-
cally dominant viewpoints held about nuclear power in the
U.S.. As will be explained further in the next two sub-sections,
both scenarios lead to similar conclusions about the implica-
14
-------
tions for EPA: a) barring an unforeseen breakthrough in
technology, government actions and policies, along with mar-
ket forces, will determine the future mix of energy sources;
and b) radioactive waste disposal issues will continue to be
important over the next few decades or even longer.
4.2 Scenario 1: Electrical Generation
that Includes Nuclear Power
In this scenario, U.S. economic growth over the next two or
three decades will be closely linked to electricity use as
suggested by current trends (Figure 4.1). Provision of the
electrical energy assumed to be needed for sustained eco-
nomic vitality of the. Nation without increased pollution will
therefore require both greater efficiency of use in the current
supply and more use of renewable resources, or else will
require that we manage our traditional non-renewable energy
resources in such a way as to minimize potential environmen-
tal problems. International concerns about global climate
changes may also affect future policies on energy production
and use.
While this scenario acknowledges that opportunities for fur-
ther improvements in energy efficiency and use still exist, it
assumes that they are not sufficient to offset the need for
additional energy supplies over the next 25 years. Any in-
creased use of fossil fuels in this scenario would bring in-
creases in greenhouse gases and other pollution. Therefore,
the Nation will either accept increased atmospheric levels of
greenhouse gases or will seek alternatives to fossil fuels, e.g.,
solar energy, other renewable sources, or nuclear power.
Renewable resources such as solar and geothermal energy
currently provide only a small percentage of energy use
despite tax credits and governmental promotion policies since
the 1970s. Use of solar energy currently requires decentral-
ized individual efforts because of the costs and reliability
problems associated with its use in centralized generation. In
this scenario, these facts are interpreted to mean that renew-
able resources cannot gain a significant share of the energy
mix over the next 20-30 years (Appendix D: Energy Daily,
July 28,1994; San Francisco Chronicle, July 25,1994; Faruqui
et al., August 1994) and that non-renewable resources will
continue to dominate energy supply over that period. Given
that renewable resources cannot meet the energy needs arising
from continued economic growth assumed to result from
population growth and technological change (such as comput-
ers, energy-saving devices, transportation), the use of
non-renewable energy supplies will also increase in this sce-
nario.
As urban areas increasingly demand non-polluting vehicles,
energy use will shift from petroleum to natural gas and
electricity. If electric vehicles become common, international
trade imbalances attributable to U.S. dependency on foreign
oil will decrease, but growth in electric power generation will
need to increase beyond the 2-3% per year forecast by most
energy analysts. This reorientation and growth will be met, in
this scenario, by centralized power stations serving electricity
grids and will be supplied principally by fossil fuels (oil, coal,
natural gas, and possible future use of oil shale) and nuclear
energy, with some wind energy facilities.
With the assumed increase in electricity demand tied to eco-
nomic growth, the assumed continuation of reliance on
non-renewable sources of energy, and the assumed national
commitment to reducing greenhouse gases and other conven-
tional pollutants, this scenario leads to an increased reliance
on nuclear power. Such a policy will also have the economic
and national security benefit of lowering the U.S. dependency
on imported oil. However, it will require prompt action to
remove a major deterrent to expanded nuclear power, that is,
the lack of a permanent solution to the problem of radioactive
waste disposal, especially high-level waste. Final disposal of
high-level radioactive waste in this scenario is found to be
straightforward technologically but difficult to implement
because of political opposition. The Nation is then faced with
the difficult choice between (a) dealing with greenhouse gases
and other pollutants from an expanding fossil-fueled generat-
ing capacity, or else (b) removing some of the deterrents to the
expansion of nuclear power. EPA could establish an historic
milestone for the planet by educating the public on the envi-
ronmental consequences of increased reliance on fossil fuels,
and by convincing it of the need for policies to reduce the use
of such fuels. If the Nation decides to continue to meet its
increased electrical needs through the use of nuclear power
plants, then EPA could play a role in assuring that safety
controls are dependable, especially in the management of
radioactive wastes. Issuance of generally applicable standards
for residual radioactivity, radioactive waste clean-up, and
disposal (see Section 6) would be important to continued use
of nuclear power plants.
4.3 Scenario 2: Decline of Nuclear
Power
In this scenario, a decoupling between total energy use and
economic activity is found to be sufficiently feasible to offset
increases in electricity use as the economy grows. Combining
a mix of technological options (none of which are new or
untested) and assumed policy choices, it projects essentially
no increase in net primiary energy demand and an overall
reduction in carbon emissions Over the next 15 years or more.
(See Appendix D, Geller et al., 1991, for a detailed scenario
on which Scenario 2 was based.) With no energy growth and
with further penetration of the market by renewable resources,
this scenario projects no need for expanded nuclear energy
and in fact predicts that the energy supplied from nuclear
power plants has already peaked. The absence of orders for
new nuclear power plants and the cancellation of several
plants are seen as evidence that the obstacles limiting the
growth of nuclear power include more than just those associ-
ated with waste disposal.
Because energy savings can have important environmental
benefits, this scenario assumes that future policies will en-
courage the development and adoption of methods to reduce
further the ratio of energy use to economic welfare (Table
4.1). To some extent, the success of such policies will depend
on marketplace acceptance of energy-saving technologies and
the political climate for those policies. They may need to
mandate an energy pricing scheme that gives more credit for
the pollution-prevention aspects of energy conservation.
15
-------
As docs Scenario 1, Scenario 2 projects changes in the sources
of energy supply and in the forms of energy delivered for final
use. Oil production is assumed to continue its decline both in
Alaska, where it has only recently begun to decline, and in the
lower 48 states, where it has declined since 1970. Coal-based
energy is also assumed to be limited by environmental con-
cerns. With the projected decline in nuclear power, alterna-
tive—mostly renewable—energy sources will need to be
developed faster than in Scenario 1 in order to replace the
22% of current electricity generation provided by nuclear
power plants and to offset the 2-3% annual growth of electric-
ity forecast by most analysts (Appendix D, Edison Electric
Journal, June 1993).
The availability of alternative energy sources, either for direct
primary use or for energy conversion, will depend much more
on government policies and/or incentives than on technologi-
cal readiness or traditional economics (with the exception of
nuclear fusion energy, which is neither technologically nor
politically ready). This scenario accepts the argument that
renewable resources have not gained greater acceptance be-
cause the government has provided substantial direct and
indirect subsidies to coal, oil, and gas industries as well as to
the nuclear industry in the past, and because pricing of renew-
able resources vis-a-vis non-renewable resources has not prop-
erly accounted for their economic and social benefits in terms
of minimizing or preventing pollution and avoiding the costs
of waste disposal, site remediation, and health impacts.
The composite price of fossil energy in 1992 (a weighted
average of crude oil, coal, and natural gas prices) was $1.41
(1987 dollars) per million Btu, the lowest since 1973. Because
U.S. resources have difficulties being profitable at this price,
U.S. reliance on imported oil has increased by about 30%
since 1973, such that imported oil supplies about 54% of the
total U.S. oil needs at the present time, with the Organization
of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) supplying about
half the imports (Appendix D, U.S. DOE, Energy Information
Administration (EIA), 1993). These facts are interpreted in
this scenario as evidence that the marketplace does not ad-
equately capture concerns about sources of energy supply or
environmental effects such as carbon emissions.
4.4 Discussion and Recommendations
Regardless of the scenario, changes in the energy supply mix
are not likely to occur quickly; yet energy policies, to the
extent they currently exist, have not always been developed
with long-term objectives in mind. Any desired reduction in
the reliance on fossil fuels will have to take place incremen-
tally and will not occur without government intervention in
the short term. Efforts to reduce environmental impacts in
some sectors of energy supply and use may increase impacts
in other sectors. For example, introduction of electric vehicles
as a means of achieving a "zero emissions" goal will demand
more conversion of energy resources to electricity and, at least
in the short run, more use of fossil fuels for electrical genera-
tion because nuclear plants are running near capacity. How-
ever, this scenario projects an overall net reduction in carbon
emissions from the use of electric vehicles when reduced
emissions from the vehicles are credited. Similarly, decen-
tralization of generation with alternative energy technologies
(e.g., photovoltaic solar energy) is assumed not to degrade the
reliability of electrical supply.
Scenario 2 therefore projects that the need for the develop-
ment of an integrated approach to energy and environmental
policy will be just as important as in Scenario 1. With respect
to radiation, the decline of the nuclear power industry will
make in-facility storage of high-level radioactive waste in-
creasingly less secure, thereby again arguing for the Federal
government, including EPA, to find ways to expedite the
approval of a high-level waste repository. Similarly, the need
for safe disposal of materials from decommissioned nuclear
power plants implies that EPA should move rapidly to pro-
mulgate low-level radioactive waste disposal standards.
The REFS also considered a future in which energy produc-
tion by nuclear fusion would be both technically as well
economically feasible within the next 30 years. The Subcom-
mittee believes that this scenario is substantially less likely
than the one in which energy conservation and greater use of
non-nuclear renewable resources are used to keep the genera-
tion of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels and biomass com-
bustion under control. First, the prospects for commercially
available fusion energy still depend upon a number of major
scientific and technical breakthroughs (Appendix D, Ander-
son 1994). Second, although fuel costs would be relatively
low, the costs of facilities and infrastructure are unlikely to
make fusion power cheap within our 30-year time horizon.
Third, nuclear fusion shares with nuclear fission power the
need for control by large institutions (viewed with suspicion
by some) and the potential for confusion with nuclear weap-
ons.
Fusion-generated energy is not expected to become available
within the next 30 years and so will not be a feasible alterna-
tive source of electric power to offset production by power
facilities responsible for producing greenhouse gases. If and
when fusion power does prove feasible, then the Nation and
EPA would face a new set of environmental radiation issues:
concern about neutron-activated waste materials, and the need
to ensure a large and reliable supply of tritium (hydrogen-3), a
fuel that would require production in target material placed in
fusion or fission reactors. Except at decommissioning, fusion
reactors are not expected to generate large quantities of radio-
active wastes, and, if components in these reactors are care-
fully controlled, neutron-activated byproducts will generally
consist of relatively short half-life radionuclides.
Despite differences in assumptions about sociopolitical is-
sues, technological capabilities, and economic pressures, the
two scenarios involving greenhouse gases and potential roles
of nuclear energy generation suggest a role for EPA in provid-
ing national and international leadership on energy production
and use and their environmental implications. The EPA could
provide such leadership by undertaking an in-depth examina-
tion of the environmental consequences of alternative energy
production and use policies, particularly with regard to gen-
eration of greenhouse gases. It is evident that carbon combus-
tion will need to be curtailed if world emissions are to be kept
within current levels. Avoiding further buildup of greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere is likely to require incentives and
other actions either to incorporate energy efficiency and in-
16
-------
creased reliance on renewable energy sources into the U.S.
energy economy, or else to allow for continued or expanded
use of other alternatives, including nuclear-generated electric-
ity.
This report presents arguments for EPA attention and focus,
particularly on issues related to energy production and use,
insofar as they are linked and interwoven into issues of
radiation exposures and waste disposal. Based on its analysis
of the future and the strong linkages of environmental quality
issues to the Nation's energy issues, the Subcommittee rec-
ommends that EPA consider taking the following actions:
a) Participate positively in the joint development of en-
ergy and environmental policies at the national level,
taking into due consideration the interests and activities
of state and local authorities and focusing on examina-
tion of the impacts of alternative energy production and
use policies on the environment, particularly with re-
gard to those alternatives that preclude generation of
greenhouse gases;
b) Expedite resolution of the problem of radioactive wastes
by issuing final standards for high level (Yucca Moun-
tain) and low level radioactive waste disposal; and
c) Adopt policies and incentives that factor the economies
of pollution prevention and control for all kinds of
energy production and use into the overall energy and
environment equation.
It should be noted that, since the start of the Environmental
Futures Project, the EPA has taken significant steps in the
direction of issuing the aforementioned standards for radioac-
tive waste disposal and that regulatory proposals for residual
radioactivity may be published by early 1995.
17
-------
5. Changing Patterns of Exposure to Ionizing Radiation
A number of trends suggest changing patterns of radiation
exposure of the public. Some are in the direction of reducing
population exposures to ionizing radiation, and some in the
direction of new or increased exposures. EPA can influence
how these exposure patterns change through its authority to
issue guidance to the Federal government regarding exposure
to radiation.
The most important exposures that will be faced by the
general population, inasmuch as they are controllable, will
continue to be medical exposures, occupational exposures,
and exposures to radon in indoor air. There are also popula-
tion exposures to NORM, radioactive wastes, and radioac-
tivcly contaminated sites; but it is the opinion of the REFS
that these exposures are small for the general population
(although possibly significant for critical population groups or
maximally exposed individuals), and are not expected to
increase in significance, when compared to the first three
types of exposures. However, although they are not consid-
ered in this section, they are discussed elsewhere in this
report.
5.1 Key Drivers
5.1.1 Medical Exposures
A major source of current population exposure is medical uses
of radiation and radioactive materials. The following forces
may affect population exposure:
a) Population growth will increase the demand for medical
procedures that could involve radiation.
b) Aging of the population will likely increase the number
of radio-diagnostic procedures a typical person under-
goes in a lifetime. The incidence of cancer also in-
creases with age, but the increase in cumulative dose
(for an individual) with radiotherapy is not likely to be
important in the case of the patient, but may increase
the potential exposure to medical personnel.
c) Continued advances in x-ray technology will maintain
the trend toward lower patient and technician exposures
during any particular procedure.
d) Clinical diagnosis will increasingly rely on techniques
such as ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and
plethysmography, that do not entail the use of ionizing
radiation, thereby reducing population exposures (al-
though increasing exposure to other types of radiation;
see Section 8).
e) Pressure from the threat of malpractice lawsuits and
increasing dependence on reimbursements from health
insurance plans may encourage physicians to order
more diagnostic tests involving radiation, thereby in-
creasing individual and population exposures.
f) Pressure to contain health care costs, whether or not tied
to a comprehensive national health care system, could
counter the pressure for more tests detailed in the previ-
ous item.
Overall, individual exposures will probably decrease except
for the older segment of the population, in which exposures
are less likely to result in clinically important radiation ef-
fects. Such decreases will probably offset the increase in
population exposure driven by population growth. EPA could
influence patient exposure by an aggressive program of Fed-
eral guidance. It could also use this authority to issue occupa-
tional radiation guides that could influence the radiation dose
received by radiologists, technicians, and personnel involved
with other medical radiation procedures with x-rays and ra-
dioactive materials. Whether EPA's influence would result in
better technology, fewer procedures, or more radiologists
doing fewer procedures each, is not clear at this time. If EPA
does not take any actions in this area, then changes will occur
largely as a result of changes in diagnostic procedures and
medical practices.
Nuclear medicine procedures involving the administration of
radioactively labeled Pharmaceuticals for diagnosis of disease
continue to increase, requiring production arid use of more
radioactive materials (mostly from nuclear reactors and some
from accelerators). Many of these radionuclides are relatively
short-lived, and in general these procedures involve smaller
doses than a typical radiograph. Universal health care cover-
age could increase these uses further, because of their role in
preventing disease and/or its severity by early diagnosis and
treatment. It could also decrease them through cost contain-
ment pressures. Assistance in stating medical goals, provision
of clear policies on reducing patient doses, encouragement on
research and development of more sensitive radioanalytical
techniques, and of new, more specific radiopharmaceuticals
for diagnosis, and programs to allow wise management of
mixed biomedical/radioactive wastes can foster beneficial
uses of nuclear medicine materials. It should be noted that
continued use of radioisotopes in the medical sciences will
18
-------
require the continued existence of operational production
facilities—in particular, nuclear reactors and accelerators—
which will also involve occupational exposures.
A potential issue in both medical and other uses of radionu-
clides is that many users are presently shifting their source
material from reactor byproduct materials regulated by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), to naturally occur-
ring or accelerator-produced radioactive materials (NARM),
which in many states are not regulated as thoroughly (if at all).
This change in the source of radioactive material may or may
not pose risks to health and the environment, because they
will surely be managed to varying degrees under state regula-
tion or perhaps under EPA regulation through the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act. (RCRA) or the Toxic Sub-
stances Control Act (TSCA).
Whether nuclear medicine needs are supplied from reactors or
from NARM, a significant future radiological issue is the state
of the waste management system for medical radionuclides in
the years to come (see Section 6). The current practice of
incineration of mixed wastes from this source may generate
exposures to the public from isotopes whose health effects
may not be adequately understood.
5.1.2 Occupational Exposures
Recognizable trends may also change patterns of occupational
radiation exposure. Not only may more people work in radiol-
ogy, radiotherapy, and nuclear medicine, but also in site
restoration activities in the Federal Complex Clean-up, de-
commissioning of NRC licensees, and Superfund sites. The
International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) has
recommended an effective reduction of the basic occupational
exposure standard by a factor of 2.5 (Appendix D, U.S. NRC,
Federal Register, 1991; ICRP, 1990). This tightening of
worker standards, while clearly desirable in terms of reducing
maximum individual exposures, may be less successful or
even counter-productive in reducing population exposures. A
larger workforce might have individuals incur a greater frac-
tion of their allowable dose each, thereby increasing popula-
tion risks. Using more workers to accomplish the same amount
of work could also have an adverse impact on health care
costs. EPA could contribute to an informed decision on occu-
pational standards by evaluating the impact of different ap-
proaches: keeping the current system of upper limits with As
Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) levels (Appendix
D, U.S. EPA, Federal Register, 1987), vs. a lower overall
limit with less room to practice ALARA.
5.1.3 Exposure to Radon
(See Also Section 9)
Radon is the largest source of ionizing radiation exposure for
members of the general population. There are currently no
trends that would tend to consistently alter indoor radon
concentrations significantly, either in terms of interstate or
interregional population migration, choice of housing, or
lifestyle. To the extent that smoking is declining among the
general population, the absolute health risks associated with
exposure to radon decay products will also decline due to the
synergism between smoking and health effects of radon decay
products.
-
Construction of radon-resistant homes in certain regions of
the country will reduce overall radon exposures, although
such reductions will occur slowly as new buildings incorpo-
rating these features become part of the housing stock. Even
then, more than half of the total population risk arising, from
radon exposure occurs in houses with average concentrations
below 2 pCi/L air. Current radon reduction methods, as ap-
plied in either existing or new houses, do not consistently
reduce concentrations below this level. These reductions are
nonetheless important and should be one part of the Agency's
efforts to limit radon-related health risks.
5.2 Recommentdaltions
EPA should continue efforts to focus on characterizing
high-risk radon potential regions, improving knowledge about
radon risks, and developing more accurate methods of mea-
suring and mitigating radon in buildings. Particular emphasis
should be placed on empowerment of stakeholders by dis-
semination of all available scientific information.
EPA should consider the establishment of stronger collabora-
tive agreements with other Federal agencies to monitor the
changing patterns of exposure to ionizing radiation by the
general population. Th'is collaboration could provide the
Agency with more of the data necessary to make better
informed choices when exercising its authority to issue guid-
ance on exposures to radiation. A research program that
explores the implication:; of the social, economic, and health
issues that drive changes in exposures by the population may
be desirable at a time when large numbers of individuals may
be exposed to low amounts of radiation in site restoration
activities as part of the Federal Complex Clean-Up Program
that is scheduled for the next decade. Similar consideration
applies to health care issues related to the use and disposal of
radioactive material. The; radiation protection community and
DOE might not agree lhat clean-up activities will lead to
greater collective dose than occurred during the weapons
production days. However, what is being called for is more
than the typical Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), given that
it involves societal concerns, cost-effectiveness, and probably
a futures exercise of narrow scope, which looks only at
individual and population exposures. Social value judgments
would play a big role in this analysis.
19
-------
6. Radioactive Waste Management
6.1 Introduction and Overview
Opportunities for prevention of environmental pollution exist
in managing several categories of low-level and high-level
radioactive wastes. The major categories are as follows:
a) waste byproducts of medical applications and research;
b) low-level radioactive wastes from nuclear power and
industrial facilities;
c) NORM contained in waste byproducts, e.g. oil and gas
production, phosphate production, and mining and
beneficiation processes;
d) contaminated buildings, equipment, and site media on
DOE and DOD facilities, old radium and uranium en-
terprises, and commercial reactor sites;
e) radioactive materials commingled with hazardous sub-
stances (as defined in RCRA or TSCA), i.e. "mixed
waste," (Appendix D, U.S. EPA, 1990);
f) transuranic wastes and byproducts associated with
nuclear weapons production;
g) plutonium, uranium, and tritium from the manufactur-
ing and dismantling of nuclear weapons;
h) stored high-level radioactive wastes from the defense
program; and
i) stored spent commercial reactor fuel and highly radio-
active reactor components.
The first five categories are generally considered as "low-level"
radioactive wastes because nuclear fuel and highly irradiated
compounds have been removed or are not present. The latter
four generally require management as "high-level" wastes
because they are highly radioactive and/or have long-lived
toxicity, i.e., their safe disposal requires extreme isolation and
security. Regardless of their categorization, radioactive wastes
and the solutions proposed for the disposal problem are feared
by many members of the public. This creates a challenging
dilemma: on the one hand, the public's perception of the risk
of the materials argues strongly for ultimate disposal (Appen-
dix D, U.S. NRC, 1992); on the other, potential risks of the
disposal itself are used by opponents to argue against these
efforts (Appendix D, Shrader-Frechette, 1993). As a result of
this conflict, disposal is in a stalemate. Although a majority of
the public indicate that radioactive wastes should be disposed
of permanently, progress toward this goal is slow, with nu-
merous setbacks, for any form of wastes. On-site storage of
high-level radioactive waste is reaching capacity at some
locations, and the risks of such storage can only increase as
these wastes accumulate. The closing to "out of region"
shipments of the low-level waste disposal site at Barnwell,
SC, in 1994 has increased the pressure to find a low-level
waste solution.
The absence of an integrated procedure for dealing with
mixed hazardous/ radioactive wastes will increasingly lead to
institutional paralysis and suboptimal solutions for its man-
agement (Appendix D, U.S. EPA, 1992). This situation could
be of great importance to issues in the management of NORM
(Appendix D, U.S. EPA/SAB, 1994a), the management of
wastes from the Federal Complex Clean-Up Program [Appen-
dix D, Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), 199la], and
many small amounts of wastes from research and develop-
ment laboratories in the USA (Appendix D, OTA 1989,
Gershey et. al, 1990). As the stalemate continues, waste
material inventories continue to accumulate on-site in
less-than-optimal places such as hospitals, comingled with
biologic/pathogenic wastes; in laboratory and university stor-
age rooms and buildings, comingled with various types of
hazardous materials; and on reactor sites. Most of these loca-
tions were selected for features other than isolation of waste
materials, such that continued reliance on their use increases
the likelihood of the development of radioactive contamina-
tion on these sites, and/or release to the environment. Current
strategies for the disposal of mixed waste, such as incineration
(followed by storage as radioactive waste if needed), are
increasingly encountering difficulties of their own, particu-
larly as more strict air quality regulations come on-line through
the Clean Air Act.
Proper disposal of radioactive wastes should contribute to a
policy of pollution prevention. The scientific community be-
lieves that feasible disposal options exist to ensure the long-term
isolation of most forms of radioactive wastes; what is lacking
is the requisite public support for applying the technologies
(Appendix D, U.S. NRC, 1992).
Two future scenarios are possible. In the first scenario, there
is a continuation of the present-day stalemate for radioactive
waste disposal; in the second scenario, early and effective
actions are found and implemented to resolve the obstacles to
20
-------
radioactive waste disposal. These two scenarios are presented
below.
6.2 Scenario 1: Continued Stalemate on
Radioactive Waste Issues
Even if all nuclear plants and nuclear energy uses, including
weapons, are to stop generating additional wastes today,
major actions would still be necessary to ensure proper man-
agement of the existing inventory of radioactive waste. For
example, it has been estimated by the OTA of the U.S.
Congress that the Federal Complex Clean-Up Program costs
alone may exceed 300 billion dollars (Appendix D OTA
1991a,OTA, 19915).
In this scenario, protracted litigation becomes the order of the
day, with various public groups suing the government agen-
cies at every attempt to issue standards or regulations for
radioactive waste disposal. Some groups would sue to have
standards issued, other groups because they disagree with the
standard issued. Local governments and the public that reside
in the areas selected as repositories would litigate to prevent
those sites from being used for disposal because of fears of
radiation and loss of property values. Good science would not
be given high priority in any decision-making, as political
pressures would overwhelm scientific issues. Final resolution
would not be attained until a crisis ensued. Some examples of
possible crises could be a nuclear waste accident; discovery of
widespread contamination within a major environmental re-
source, such as a major waterway; or as illegal dumping of
radioactive wastes into isolated areas becomes an issue. At
this point, political pressure to resolve the waste problem
would surpass all other concerns, but the costs of solving the
problem would be in the higher end predicted.
OTA 1989 (Appendix D) estimates the costs of low-level
waste disposal to vary between ~$50/ft3 to =$500/ft3. These
figures translate to «$l,750/m3 to «$17,500/m3. EPA/ORIA
briefings to the RAC in July 1994 showed an actual cost today
of «$8,000/m3. They also estimated the volumes at 20X106 m3
to 80X106 m3 in the U.S., with a central estimate of «30-40X106
m3. Using these values we can calculate a gross estimate of the
waste disposal costs associated with low-level waste disposal
between 35 billion dollars at the very low-end, to 1.4 trillion
dollars at the high end, with a central estimate of 320 billion
dollars. This does not include high-level waste, transuranics,
weapons materials, or cleanup.
6.3 Scenario 2: Early and Effective
Resolution of Radioactive Waste
issues
Under a scenario in which early and definitive actions are
taken to control and dispose of both low- and high-level
radioactive wastes, Federal policy and social concerns are
likely to play a dominant role, with the marketplace playing a
less dominant role, in determining whether nuclear energy
would continue to be a significant component of the nation's
energy supply in the future. A firm policy toward greenhouse
gases may also influence the relevance of nuclear energy as
the Nation moves towards a more comprehensive environ-
mental approach to energy management. Over the next 50-100
years, the inventory of radioactive waste would,increase sig-
nificantly, but probably less than an order of magnitude, for
both low-level and high-level radioactive waste. These fig-
ures, although inexact, appear to be of this limited magnitude
and would not require a, major deviation from any policy
implemented to manage existing and near-future inventories.
In the long-term future, as the feasibility and safety of proper
disposal were demonstrated in the new disposal sites, societal
fears about radiation are likely to lessen, such that its benefi-
cial uses in society could proceed without undue restrictions
because of those fears. Furthermore, risks from managed
radioactive wastes could then be dealt with in the context of
the recommendations of the Reducing Risk report (Appendix
D, EPA/SAB, 1990). Two potential actions (among many)
that could be taken by the Federal government (or EPA) in
this scenario are >.
a) to commission national forums, as was done by EPA in
1978, to bring all viewpoints into open dialogue and
publish findings and national recommendations for ac-
tion; and
b) to advocate to Congress the permanent setting aside of
large tracts of public lands where all types of radioac-
tive wastes can be managed in harmony with other
sensitive environmental values and the protection of
valued species of plants and wildlife.
The first of these actions could help regain the public's trust in
the solutions available to the waste disposal problem and
achieve a national consensus on policies, standards, rules, and
regulations for the disposal of radioactive wastes. The second
action could minimize the problems of distrust and loss of
property value that are often faced when searching for dis-
posal sites. Most of the contentious political issues would
disappear (except in the states selected for these sites). This
second option would also achieve economies of scale not
available within the currently projected system of regional
compacts. Furthermore, no state or territory would face an
embargo for the disposal of its radioactive waste, as is the case
today.
Under these advantageous conditions, a comprehensive na-
tional plan for radioactive waste clean-up and disposal would
be drafted, and the process of disposal would proceed smoothly
and safely. The economic impact under this scenario would be
in the middle range of projected costs (See the last paragraph
in Section 6.2 for a discussion on the cost estimates of
low-level waste disposal).
6.4 Implications Ifor EPA
Issues attendant to waste management clearly pose circum-
stances with huge economic and social consequences. Be- •
cause of existing polarization on radioactive waste issues,
there is a compelling need lor credible leadership on manag-
ing these materials to minimize environmental degradation,
assure economic vitality, promote environmental equity, and
involve all stakeholders in national policies. Although EPA's
primary role thus far has been to promulgate guidance and/or
generally applicable radiation standards, recent congression-
21
-------
ally mandated activities under the WIPP legislation make it
clear that the Nation has chosen the EPA as the governmental
entity to provide the impartial leadership that the public trust
requires on this issue. EPA could assume a leadership role in
five major areas related to radioactive waste materials:
low-level radioactive wastes, high-level radioactive wastes,
residual radioactivity, NORM, and mixed wastes. Such lead-
ership is needed for
a) low-level radioactive waste disposal where issuance of
generally applicable environmental protection standards
for the disposal of these materials will remove a major
obstacle to the continued use of radionuclides in re-
search and medicine and the permanent disposal of
byproduct materials and waste from nuclear energy
production;
b) achieving permanent disposal of high-level commercial
and defense radioactive wastes, assuring control of
nuclear materials from disassembled warheads, and for
balanced decisions on nuclear energy if this alternative
continues as part of the Nation's energy strategy;
c) managing residual radioactivity, and harmonizing ra-
diological and chemical risks for levels of residual
materials related to site restoration activities, through
definitive policies, approaches, and standards;
d) stating a clear policy for NORM, including guidelines
by which industries that produce large quantities of
wastes containing NORM can plan for proper manage-
ment of these materials; and
e) dealing with mixed radioactive and hazardous wastes to
break the bureaucratic deadlock among Federal regula-
tory agencies by lobbying for the authority to issue a set
of standards specifically for such wastes or alternative
standards that allow the use of existing regulations
where possible or applicable.
Regardless of which specific actions are taken by the govern-
ment or EPA, assuring the proper management of radioactive
wastes affects major environmental futures issues discussed
elsewhere in this report relative to prevention of pollution
from the materials, a balanced perspective in national energy
policy, and assuring control of nuclear weapons materials.
The future health of the planet with respect to radioactive
wastes requires a mechanism through the democratic process
to balance the larger common good and the interests of small
numbers of individuals vis-a-vis consideration of economic
vitality, and other different perspectives on these materials.
6.5 Recommendations
It is crucial that Congress provides the budgetary and fiscal
resources needed by EPA in order for the Agency to develop
and maintain technically strong programs and policies regard-
ing the problem of radioactive waste disposal, in all of its
aspects or categorizations (high-level, low-level, mixed,
NORM, NARM, etc.). This allocation could be part of the
development of a comprehensive national plan to deal with
the radioactive waste disposal issue. That approach would
consider all aspects of the issues involved it needs to bring
into consideration societal and value judgments, economic
concerns, human health concerns, environmental aspects of
remediation, and cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit aspects
of the various remediation and disposal alternatives.
A process to develop foresight about the future that continu-
ously evaluates the policies and alternatives implemented will
be crucial given the fact that these wastes will be around for
the next millennium and beyond.
22
-------
7. Non-ionizing Radiation
7.1 Introduction and Overview
An increase in population exposures to electric and magnetic
fields is likely to occur in the future as a consequence of
technological developments in many areas, such as magnetic
resonance imaging (MRI) in medicine, magnetic levitation
(MagLev) in transportation, and the explosive growth in in-
formation processing and telecommunication technologies that
involve electromagnetic radiation. A high research priority is
to obtain solid evidence supporting or refuting the hypothesis
that exposure to electric and/or magnetic fields (EMF) can
cause cancer, especially in the power frequency (50-60 Hz)
range (Appendix D, Hendee et. al, 1994). If the hypothesis
were proven correct, then the magnitudes of the associated
risks would need to be established, that is, we would need an
understanding of a dose-response relationship. Essentially the
entire U.S. population has the potential to be exposed to some
type of EMF at some level. However, at this time, given the
lack of an exposure metric(s) and of the dose-response rela-
tionship, it is very difficult to determine whether any signifi-
cant exposures—as defined in risk assessment—exist at all
(Appendix D, Foster, 1992).
Non-ionizing radiation is not sufficiently energetic to strip
electrons and produce free radicals and may not be able to
produce alterations in genetic materials. Other biological ef-
fects have been demonstrated, however, especially when the
flux of energy is sufficient to raise tissue temperatures ("ther-
mal effects"), or cause discharges ("shock"). Furthermore,
there is significant molecular evidence that EMF couple to,
and affect reaction rates in, metalloproteins, and that electric
fields couple to, and induce conformational changes in, mem-
brane proteins which may affect cellular proliferation and/or
signaling (Appendix D, Tsong, 1990).
All frequencies of electromagnetic radiation from the ultra-
violet downward are considered non-ionizing, including vis-
ible light, infrared, microwave, radio frequency, and power
line frequency radiation. Although not technically radiation,
near-field EMF from power lines and electrical appliances is
also included in this discussion. Currently, power frequency
fields are under intense scrutiny as potentially carcinogenic,
but the evidence for this effect is controversial, and no firm
conclusions have yet been reached. Higher frequencies may
also carry health risks, especially if modulated or pulsed at
frequencies near the 50-60 Hz power frequency range. For
example, the experimental literature has shown that radio
frequencies (RF) that are either modulated or pulsed (a burst
every 1/50 to 1/60 second) may have similar biological effects
as RF in the 50 to 60 Hz power frequency range.
Non-electromagnetic radiation, in particular sound, can also
be included as non-ionizing. Ultrasound (high frequency me-
chanical vibrations beyond the hearing range) is extensively
used in medicine and is the focus of continuing investigations
regarding safety. Although ultrasound is presently associated
mostly with medical diagnosis and treatment (and therefore
largely beyond EPA's area of concern), it is finding increasing
use in other areas, such as pest repulsion. If research were
later to show a relationship between low-level exposure to
ultrasound and any health effect, EPA would need to become
involved.
7.2 Societal Trends
Basic characteristics of the population, lifestyles and other
trends such as changes in the economy will have impact on the
environment of the Nation. Some trends are predictable, such
as the size and makeup of line population, whereas others may
not be readily predictable over a period of 30 years or more.
However, within the span of the next ten years, barring a
major catastrophe, many characteristics will remain much as
they are today. :
-
The overall population growth has slowed down in the U.S.
and today is just slightly above replacement. However, popu-
lation growth patterns differ considerably among the various
sub-populations. Increasing population size occurs among the
poor and minorities (who are often the same group), espe-
cially those living in large cities. Changes in population
growth patterns cannot be expected to occur rapidly. There-
fore, the growth of low-income populations in the inner cities
will continue, together with increased deterioration in the
condition of physical facilities. The long period of poor eco-
nomic climate in many stales and cities makes it unlikely that
this situation will be turned around very rapidly. Therefore,
our environmental picture will have to include planning for
large cities. These cities will require large power supplies and
have increasing need for communication and transportation.
Many service industries will locate in the suburbs, requiring
that the labor group employed in the industry travel to the
suburbs to work. However, these industries will also be able
to allow many in middle and upper level management to work
at home and communicate with their businesses through vari-
ous electronic media, which will put special demands on the
need for electric power, radio, microwave and other forms of
non-ionizing radiation. Some of these sources can be gener-
23
-------
atcd locally, whereas other sources will need to be generated
outside the area and require the same types of transmission
across lines to the point of use as is employed today.
Exposures to magnetic fields of various frequencies and mag-
nitudes will likely increase because of increased use of MRI
in medicine and other areas and through the introduction of
MagLev in transportation. Advances in superconductors that
can operate near ambient temperatures will make these tech-
nologies increasingly achievable over the next decade or two.
Over a much longer time frame, NANOBOTS (nano-
meter-scale self-actuated robots') may be developed and im-
planted in the human body for medical and other purposes.
The types of EMF exposures associated with these latter
devices cannot be predicted at present.
The need for electric and even magnetic energy for power will
increase in the future. The use of electric equipment has
continued to increase. The use of electric cars may solve some
of the ground transportation problems, particularly at the local
level, and MagLev trains may solve some of the power costs.
The technology for these transportation devices exists, and
there will be continued pressure to utilize these forms of
energy in areas with high population density because of the
perception that this will lead to a cleaner environment.
The current power and communication grids transmit radia-
tion usually above ground. This has led to questions about the
impact of such activities on the aesthetics, ecology and possi-
bly the safety and health effects that result. The siting of these
transmission facilities require land clearance in localized ar-
eas. Public reaction to these sitings has led to mounting
problems in regard to approval.
The general increase in energy consumption per capita carries
the potential for more exposure to power line frequencies
from generation, transmission, distribution, and use of 60-Hz
alternating currents. More electrically operated appliances are
available than ever before. However, concerns about health
effects from EMF are, causing both utilities and appliance
manufacturers to consider low-field designs in pursuit of
"prudent avoidance." Furthermore, some advanced energy
technologies such as photovoltaic generation and fuel cells
could, over the long run, cause less centralized generation and
less need for long runs of higher voltage transmission and
distribution lines.
A potentially more significant trend is the explosion in use of
electrically powered communications and information tech-
nologies. The cellular telephone has already been questioned
as a potential health threat, and electromagnetic radiation
from radio to microwave frequencies is transmitting informa-
tion across the U.S. and around the world. Computers, from
mainframes to personal computers to automobile controllers,
are becoming pervasive. If low power, mid-frequency
non-ionizing radiation carries health risks, EPA will need to
become involved in its regulation.
Technology will be a major driver for the increased use of
non-ionizing radiation. Therefore, we need not postulate a
sudden breakthrough in technology to recognize that the
increase in use will persist. However, the possibility exists
that new uses and new technologies will develop. With the
increase in use will come greater demands for methods of
transmitting non-ionizing radiation to the users.
In considering the full range of non-ionizing radiation, it is
important to determine the influence of the visible spectrum
on the environment. Because sunlight provides natural ben-
efits, its risks are likely to be overlooked. However, with the
identification of breaks in the stratospheric ozone layer, in-
creased exposures to sunlight, especially its ultraviolet light
(UV) component, may present environmental problems that
require attention. At higher frequencies, UV has been associ-
ated with human skin cancer, with immune dysfunction, and
with a variety of adverse effects on non-human biota, espe-
cially with microplankton at the surface of the sea. Although
chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) ozone depleters have largely been
removed from use except in closed systems, other depleters
may yet be identified and will need to be controlled. UV
radiation from terrestrial sources could also become an in-
creasing concern; the UV from unfiltered fluorescent lights
has already been suggested as a potential hazard for humans.
Furthermore, increased migration to the Sunbelt of the U.S.
may continue to contribute to the increase in skin cancer rates.
Visible light is usually not considered a threat at low energy
density, yet visible-light lasers can generate enough power to
burn or blind. However, lasers will probably remain largely an
occupational safety issue (although, lasers are available for
hobbyists and others) as long as the beams from lasers in
consumer products (printers, laser discs, etc.) and in medical
equipment are contained.
In summary, current trends in demographic, technological,
and economic development suggest that the present uses of all
types of non-ionizing radiation will continue to increase.
There will be enhanced demand for electricity and it .will
continue to be transmitted to the large cities. Outlying areas
where businesses may be located will also need the resources.
Not only will the use increase at the very low frequency end of
the electromagnetic spectrum, but also in the radio and micro-
wave wavelengths, as will the attendant exposures of both
humans and the environment. As a consequence, EPA will
continue to face current and new questions with respect to the
health, safety, and environmental effects of non-ionizing ra-
diation.
7.3 Issues
The issues that attend the use of non-ionizing radiation fall
into the areas of hazard and exposure identification, potential
effects on ecological systems, impact on the general environ-
ment from production at the source of non-ionizing radiation
and building of systems for transmission, and the method of
regulating the environmental impact of these agents. The
current situation differs for each of these, depending on the
specific type of non-ionizing radiation involved.
7.3.1 Hazard and Exposure Identification
Certain types of non-ionizing radiation are clearly associated
with risks. UV is known to be associated with cancer and
immune dysfunction in humans. The effects on the immune
24
-------
system differ, depending on the intensity and duration of the
exposure. If changes in the ozone layer subject populations to
persistent high UV exposure, or if the components of UV
radiation are changed by atmospheric alteration, the human
race could be permanently affected. The controversy over
whether extremely low frequency EMF act alone or interact
with other agents to cause cancer is being debated. The
scientific evidence to answer this question will not likely be
available in the near future so, in the interim, steps must be
developed to answer public demands for preventive action.
The complexity of response vs. exposure at different frequen-
cies, power levels, deposition patterns, and modulations sug-
gests that exposure scenarios related to risk will not be identified
until a better understanding of the underlying processes is
obtained. Tying a specific exposure to a human health out-
come may take a decade or more. Exposure to other
non-ionizing radiations, such as radar and microwave, are
known to produce heating effects, but little is known about
long-term outcomes. Recent data suggest possible effects on
the retina in animals, and questions have been raised about
cancers from exposures to radar and telephone equipment.
The problem again is one of identifying the effects and the
specific types of exposures which may be related to these
effects. Lacking this type of information makes it difficult to
decide on the long-term actions which might be needed to
protect the public and ecological systems from potential haz-
ardous effects.
7.3.2 Potential Effects on Ecological
Systems
The impacts of exposures to non-ionizing radiation on eco-
logical systems are not well known. Clearly, if effects can be
shown in humans, other living creatures would also be ex-
pected to be at risk1. Several issues are likely to be important
in creatures other than humans. Many animals navigate via
magnetic fields; thus, exposure to EMF could produce special
problems for these creatures. In addition, the production of
heat by these non-ionizing radiation sources could influence
the life patterns of ecological systems. Also, new evidence has
surfaced about the detrimental effects of UV radiation on
phytoplankton and zooplankton, which are poorly understood,
and may present fundamental changes at the base of the food
chain iff the future if UV exposures of ecosystems increase
(Appendix D, Bothwell et. a!., 1994). Consequences may
range from none to drastic evolutionary changes in the food
chains of the Earth's ecosystems. What will happen is impos-
sible to predict with existing information.
7.4 Implications for EPA
If power frequency EMF exposures and other non-ionizing
radiation exposures come to be generally perceived as danger-
ous, even if not proven so, then the public will demand lower
exposures and the utilities and communications industries will
likely adjust in that direction even without government inter-
vention. The nearly paradoxical result is that non-ionizing
radiation may never need to be addressed by EPA no matter
whether it is dangerous or not. Nevertheless, EPA will un-
doubtedly be asked by Congress and other parties to study
various types of non-ionizing radiation and provide conclu-
sions regarding their degree of hazard. Whether or not any
hazards exist at current or reasonably anticipated levels of
exposure, EPA may need to move forward with guidance and/
or regulatory initiatives even while industries are taking vol-
untary measures to reduce exposures.
7.5 Recommendations
EPA should at least track and help stimulate the research
conducted by other agencies on the health and environmental
risks of exposure to non-ionizing radiation, such as through
official interactions with other agencies and by authorizing -
studies by the National Academy of Science and National
Research Council (e.g., the BEIR reports). It should not limit
its attention to power frequency EMF but should also follow
the research on radiofrequeney EMF, quasi-static magnetic
fields, ultrasound, possibly other forms of non-ionizing radia-
tion, and their interactions with related agents. If EPA is to be
perceived as the primary source of advice on these environ-
mental radiation issues, it will need greater internal resources
including a research program, together with a contingency
plan for regulatory initiatives (e.g., guidance) for known
hazards (thermal effects, shock) and any new significant
hazards that may be identified in the future.
Indeed, EMF, UV, RF and other radiation/magnetic induced or promoted
effects have been reported in plants and animals, particularly in work in
the former USSR. Most of this work is 40-60 years old and difficult to
replicate in terms of exposures (Appendix D, Polk el, al., 1986).
25
-------
8. Exposures, Dose-Response Models, and Population Susceptibility
8.1 Introduction and Overview
EPA must be prepared to incorporate important findings in
radiation research into its regulatory and guidance postures,
regardless whether the findings point to greater or lesser
health and environmental risks than previously thought. The
future of health and environmental concerns for both ionizing
and non-ionizing radiation could be critically influenced by
advances in scientific knowledge. Advances in three areas are
potentially relevant: measurement and modeling of exposures
to radiation, knowledge of the relationship of response to
exposure (dose), and differences in susceptibility among dif-
ferent segments of the exposed population.
Significant improvements in the detection limits of analytical
techniques (e.g., identification of a single molecule of a
substance; see Appendix D, Moerner, 1994) could lead to
public demands for stricter regulatory limits in radiation expo-
sures (e.g., radon or plutonium in ground water) as long as
stated public policy is that there is no threshold for radiation
health hazards. In fact, laws such as the Delaney Clause of the
Food and Drug Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act, require
that carcinogen concentrations in food and drinking water be
as close to zero as is practically achievable. Because radiation
is a carcinogen, indiscriminate application of this policy has
led to many controversies such as the limits for radon in
drinking water [Appendix D, U.S. EPA/SAB, 1993a, and U.S.
EPA/SAB, 1993b].
It is widely assumed that risks can be predicted from knowl-
edge of the total doses to various organ systems, that is, the
amounts of energy deposited per unit mass of tissue. Some
assessment systems also consider dose-rate effects (the time
over which the dose is delivered), with high dose rates gener-
ally considered to be more damaging than lower rates. For
radiations that deposit energy very locally [high-linear energy
transfer (high-LET) radiation], however, biological damage is
greater for the same dose than for low-LET radiation, and
empirical adjustments are made by defining a
"dose-equivalent." The effects of high-LET radiation also do
not show the same variation with dose rate as for low-LET
radiation. Many scientists are not satisfied that either the form
or the magnitude of the adjustments used to deal with dose-rate
or type of radiation are entirely justified.
The shape of the dose-response relationship will still be an
issue, particularly as to whether there is a real or perceived
threshold of exposure below which effects are for all intents
and purposes non-existent; whether the dose-response rela-
tionship is essentially linear at low doses or departs from
linearity at higher doses; whether saturation of response oc-
curs below 100% incidence; and whether dose rate and type of
radiation influence only the magnitude of the response or also
the shape of the dose-response relationship. Of particular
interest is whether important interactions exist among differ-
ent types of radiation exposure or between radiation and other
agents, for example as exposures to radiation and tobacco
smoke appear to interact to produce increased incidence of
lung cancers, especially in the case of radon exposures.
Related to the last question is the issue of population suscepti-
bility. Are there identifiable subpopulations who are more
susceptible to either ionizing or non-ionizing radiation than
are other groups? Does the differential susceptibility depend
on age at exposure, genetic factors, co-factors (other expo-
sures), general health status, or other factors? Of particular
interest is whether some people are essentially immune to
radiation carcinogenesis in some tissues because they do not
carry a specific oncogene, or whether some people are pro-
tected from radiation effects as the result of consuming anti-
oxidants. Scientific advances in these areas could profoundly
affect how EPA views the risks of radiation and how risk
reduction is best accomplished.
8.2 Key Issues
8.2.1 Significant Changes in Our
Understanding of Models for
Dose-Response
Risk assessment and management of exposures to ionizing
radiation would be completely restructured if a threshold for
the dose-response relationship were established. Although
some scientists believe that the radium dial painter and bone
cancer studies may support a threshold, .there is in actuality
little chance of achieving a consensus from observational
studies alone. Neither epidemiology nor experimentation with
laboratory animals is capable of rejecting the no-threshold
hypothesis, because of statistical limitations. On the other
hand, mechanistic studies may eventually resolve the thresh-
old question unequivocally. Some scientists believe that the
existence of robust deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) repair mecha-
nisms implies a threshold. However, it can easily be argued
that repair will sometimes fail and that unavoidable exposure
to other agents may provide the defect needed for radiation
mutagenesis and carcinogenesis. Continuing research into the
mechanisms of ionizing radiation !mutagenesis and
carcinogenesis may yield convincing proof for or against a
26
-------
threshold, or at least a different model for the shape of the
dose-response relationship, including the possibility that some
effects have a dose-response curve that has a greater slope in
the low-dose region, as would be expected in the case of a
more sensitive subpopulation.
One promising area of research is molecular biology, in which
the specific DNA loci for radiation-inducible mutations are
being identified. At the same time, mechanistic research may
also be able to identify important dose metrics other than total
dose, such as dose rate or range in tissue. A fuller mechanistic
biological explanation might be found for the observed differ-
ences in effectiveness per unit dose and the influence of
dose-rate for low-LET and high-LET ionizing radiation. Ad-
vances in the identification of oncogenes, tumor suppressor
genes, and the processes that affect them are being reported at
an astounding rate. New information in these areas could well
affect how EPA manages risks from radiation, hazardous
chemicals and mixed waste.
Other mechanistic findings would also influence our percep-
tion of the susceptibility of different age groups or those with
different life styles. For example, dietary factors (such as
consumption of antioxidants in large quantities) might influ-
ence susceptibility to radiation, such that dietary interventions
might be at least as effective in reducing radiation-induced
health effects as small reductions in radiation exposure. For
any radiation-related condition that also has a genetic compo-
nent, the prospect of genetic engineering could influence our
management of radiation risks. While most of these remarks
are directed at the risk of cancer from ionizing radiation, they
could apply equally well to other endpoints and to the risks of
exposure to non-ionizing radiation as we gain more knowl-
edge about the latter.
The condition, configuration and values of future society can
vastly affect both the search for, and the use of, scientific
findings in the assessment and management of radiation risks.
At present, society seems to place more value on equity and
"rights" than on efficiency or effectiveness in risk manage-
ment. Risk reduction for maximally exposed individuals has
become more important than reduction in aggregate popula-
tion risks; thus, a finding that a small group of people is
especially susceptible to radiation may currently be seen as a
call for more stringent regulation of radiation in general.
However, in a world dominated by an efficiency or effective-
ness criterion, general regulation of radiation might be relaxed
while ensuring that the susceptible group could avoid exces-
sive exposure, say, by identifying "hot" environments. The
latter view would also be more favorable to the concept of
involving stakeholders through dissemination of information.
Obviously, a society stretched by resource shortages may be
somewhat more tolerant of efficient approaches to radiation
risk management and may welcome the research results that
would allow that choice.
A dose threshold or a strong dose-rate effect could alleviate
concerns about very low levels or low-dose rates of exposure
and provide a basis for a practical approach of not controlling
situations when the estimated risks do not justify action.
However, the existence of background radiation exposures
negates this argument if the threshold is below background
and the dose-response is linear in the region of background.
Advances in the molecular and genetic biology of cancer and
other radiation-related diseases and environmental stresses
will undoubtedly produce information of vast potential sig-
nificance for EPA's regulatory mission. Whether or not EPA
decides to directly support such research, it needs to monitor
and guide it so that appropriate information can be gained and
incorporated into decisions. It may be advisable for EPA to
conduct policy research on the proper use of information
about radiation-susceptible populations.
8.2.2 Differences in Radiation
Susceptibility
New approaches to risk management will be required if
greater susceptibilities can be established for various sub-
groups relative to that of the general population, as now
appears likely from the human genome research. It may soon
be possible to demonstrate that people with a specific gene are
substantially more likely to develop a certain type of cancer at
a given level of exposure to radiation (or some other carcino-
gen) than are other members of the population. These people
are therefore at greater risk from that level of exposure than
previously thought, while the remainder of the population is at
lesser risk. How should risk management change to accom-
modate this knowledge?
f
One approach would be to invoke "environmental .equity" in a
regulatory framework. This approach could involve setting
standards to reduce the allowable level of exposure for all
people, with the goal of achieving the same targeted risk level
for the more susceptible group as had previously been found
appropriate for the population as a whole. If the number of
people with the susceptibility gene is large and the difference
in risk is relatively small, then such an approach would
probably be widely viewed as appropriate. However, if the
number of people with the susceptibility is relatively small,
reduction of exposure standards would probably not be viewed
as appropriate. For members of the small subpopulation, the
risk reduction could be significant; however, for the vast
majority of the population, the cost of the reduction in allow-
able exposure might not be considered justified. At some
point, the cost of protection of a few people with an unusual
gene (or an increased susceptibility) could become an issue.
One approach for managing (controlling) risks for such
radio-sensitive persons is the current approach used for haz-
ardous air pollutants, in which the target risk level may be less
stringent if the size of the population potentially exposed to
that level is relatively small. EPA would probably allow the
target risk level to rise less rapidly than the risk per unit
exposure, thereby reducing population impacts in comparison
to the case in which susceptibility differences are not yet
recognized.
Another approach could be to involve persons as stakeholders
in decisions about their own health. One example is the
information and guidance pjlradigm being followed with in-
door radon. Instead of regulating the source of radiation
directly, EPA would inform people of the existence of specific
27
-------
susceptibility factors (genetic or otherwise), would explain
the significance of the factors and their influence on risk,
would indicate the possibilities for self-identification of sus-
ceptibility class (e.g., genetic screening), and would outline
self-protective behaviors (e.g., stop smoking, relocate resi-
dence, avoid certain jobs or products, make dietary changes,
stay out of the sun, use sunscreen).
Many issues arise in radiation risk management for suscep-
tible individuals, such as the following:
a) Where does society's obligation to protect individuals
leave off and where does the individual's obligation
begin? What is the environmental equivalent of "rea-
sonable accommodation" with respect to disabled per-
sons in the work force?
b) Which susceptibilities are beyond the individual's con-
trol and which are his or her simple choice (genetics vs.
poverty vs. residence location vs. smoking)? Would
EPA's attitude change if a genetic basis of tobacco
addiction is discovered, or an inexpensive genetic engi-
neering capability surfaces?
c) Does identification as a member of a susceptible group
represent a stigmatization?
d) Does a person's refusal to get a genetic screen waive
rights for claims of damage from radiation exposures
that do not exceed the regulatory limits for the general
population?
e) If knowledge of cancer etiology improves to the point at
which it is possible to identify two environmental expo-
sures necessary for cancer development (say, for in-
stance, radiation and a specific chemical exposure),
which is the susceptibility factor and which the environ-
mental insult? Does it matter if one of the factors is
"natural" and the other is "anthropogenic"?
f) Are there similar susceptibility issues in the non-human
environment that cannot be managed with information
and guidance?
In any case, policies will need to be developed for dealing
with carcinogenic and other risks of radiation and other agents
in a world where identification of genetic'and other suscepti-
bilities may become commonplace.
8.3 Recommendations
EPA should identify radiation research issues fundamental to
further work in the molecular and genetic biology of cancer
and other diseases resulting from exposure to radiation and
environmental stresses. Whether or not EPA decides to di-
rectly support such research, it needs to identify, monitor, and
stimulate this work so that the Agency can benefit when
making radiation protection policy and decisions.
At the least, EPA needs to monitor closely all research on
exposure, dose-response, and susceptibility in order to use
such research findings in its radiation programs, to inform
stakeholders in radiation issues, and to the extent possible
through leadership in internal and extramural radiation re-
search programs, become the source-of-choice for informa-
tion about the effects of radiation on health and the
environment. EPA also needs to work with other Federal
agencies to ensure continuation with adequate funding of
those studies that have the potential for making significant
contributions to our knowledge of dose-effect relationships;
this includes, but is not limited to, the study of the Japanese
atomic bomb survivors by the Radiation Effects Research
Foundation, the several studies of Chernobyl exposed popula-
tions by the National Cancer Institute and other organizations,
and studies of miners exposed to radon.
28
-------
9. Radon and the Indoor Environment
Radon gas and its immediate radioactive decay products—
themselves radioactive and the principal causes of health
risks—constitute the largest single source of ionizing radia-
tion exposure for members of the general population. Most of
these exposures occur indoors in residential environments,
where EPA's statutory authority is limited to a guidance
function rather than direct regulation. However, if current
estimates of exposure levels and corresponding risks are
correct, radon causes more cancers than any other agent with
which EPA is concerned, and EPA actions with respect to
indoor radon can have a very large impact on public health.
Consequently, any future development that would change our
estimates of radon exposures, radon risks, or the effectiveness
of radon control measures could be very important to EPA's
radon program.
Although radon is in many ways better understood than other
environmental hazards, important questions remain about the
geographic distribution of residential exposure across the
U.S., about the risks of a given exposure to radon in different.
subgroups of the population, and about the effectiveness of
various proposed radon mitigation methods (Appendix D,
U.S. EPA/SAB, 1994c). Any future findings that substantially
modify our current understanding of radon risks and controls
should generate appropriate changes in EPA's radon guid-
ance.
9.1 Key Drivers
The distribution of exposure to indoor radon is influenced
principally by the geographical distribution of residences and
the types of residential construction. Changes in actual radon
exposures will therefore occur if population migration changes
the distribution of the population with respect to geographical
features that correlate with the capacity to produce radon—the
"radon potential." Key elements that fnfluence indoor radon
concentrations in similar buildings are the radium content of
the soils, other soil characteristics such as permeability, and
climate. As those characteristics vary by region, even within
state boundaries, net migration from regions with high radon
potential to ones with lower potential (or vice versa) could
change not only the shape of the exposure distribution but also
its mean. Population mobility without net migration does not
affect mean exposures but does reduce the number of ex-
tremely low or extremely high exposures. Therefore, a de-
crease in population mobility would increase the number of
extremely high'and low exposures, while an increase in mo-
bility would tend to make exposures more uniform across the
population. The Subcommittee was unable to identify any
clear trends that suggest major population migration with
respect to radon potential or any major changes in population
mobility. !
The features of residential construction that can influence
indoor radon levels include basic structural and design fea-
tures such as basement, slab-on-grade, or crawl space, number
of floors, pathways for entry from the soil (e.g., utility pen-
etrations, drains, cracks), designs that influence inside/outside
pressure gradients, and building operation practices such as
heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems or
open vs. closed windows and doors. Any trend that would
modify the mix of these features in the Nation's building
stock could therefore also change the distribution of expo-
sures across the population. Changes might occur through
considerations other than radon (e.g., energy efficiency, hous-
ing economics, regional migration, personal preferences) or
through deliberate efforts to reduce radon exposures (retrofits
and new buildings codes). Any changes effected through new
construction (whether or not incorporating radon-resistant
features) will occur relatively slowly, because only about 1%
of the housing stock is replaced annually (1 million out of 100
million residential units, 70 million of which are single-family
dwellings). Therefore, only 20 to 25% of the housing stock
will be replaced within 30 years, taking into account growth in
the total stock.
For a given radon exposure, the distribution of risks depends
principally on the distribution of individuals' susceptibility to
radon-induced lung cancer and how it varies with the level of
exposure, time of exposure, exposure to co-pollutants, and so
forth. For example, existing information suggests that smok-
ers are at much higher risk of lung cancer than are non-smokers
exposed to the same levels of radon; this difference is esti-
mated to range from a factor of 3 to perhaps more than 20, but
the exact nature of the increased risk to smokers has not been
settled. Resolution of this issue, or discovery that some sub-
groups of the population may be genetically more prone to
radon-induced cancers, could change our understanding of the
distribution of sensitivities.
Although available information on radon-induced lung cancer
(principally from studies of uranium and other hard-rock
miners) provides methods for assessing time-varying radon
exposures and suggests that low exposure rates may pose a
greater risk for the same total exposure, EPA currently as-
sumes that the lifetime risk of cancer is proportional to the
lifetime cumulative exposure to radon decay products. This
assumption implies that, although individual risks may be low
29
-------
for persons exposed to low levels of indoor radon, the bulk of
radon-related cancers will occur in the low-exposure popula-
tion. Because of uncertainties in projecting high-exposure
observations to low exposures and from mine environments to
the home, the estimates of annual radon-related cancers could
be substantially in error. Any elucidation of the low exposure
risks to persons exposed indoors to radon, including the
potential discovery of a threshold for cancer induction, could
make important changes for EPA estimates of population-wide
risks.
9.2 Trends and Assumptions
The following are reasonable assumptions for the future of
indoor radon risk assessment and control:
a) No fundamental changes in major building techniques
and practices will occur in the next 5 years, nor prob-
ably in the next 30 years. Any significant changes will
occur through the incorporation of radon considerations
in building codes, a complicated political process.
b) Unless there are significant and/or sudden changes in
the price of energy, no important shift will occur in the
current trend toward increased use of extensive me-
chanical systems for HVAC in non-residential build-
ings. Increases in efficiency of HVAC systems may
also make them more attractive to builders and design-
ers.
c) Regional characteristics will continue to dominate the
methods of building design and construction (this will
be especially true for residential buildings).
d) Single-family or low-rise multi-family dwellings (e.g.,
townhouses) will be the predominant type of suburban
residential construction.
e) The overall risk assessment methods for radon will
remain fundamentally unchanged, although the differ-
ences among risks for smokers, former smokers, and
nonsmokers will become more clear.
9.3 Implications for EPA
Several issues are likely to affect the position of radon as a
continuing problem (risk), given the assumptions above. To
some extent, the outcomes depend upon research results (Ap-
pendix D, U.S. EPA/SAB, 1994c); in other cases, they depend
upon government policy choices. Assuming that EPA's role
in radon control remains restricted to one of guidance, EPA
will likely be faced with the following issues:
a) EPA will be solicited to provide the scientific basis for
identifying high "radon potential" homes (on the basis
of both regional location and building design).
b) EPA will be challenged to recommend radon testing
methods that are more reliable and accurate indicators
of actual exposures than are currently popular short-term
tests, even for the purposes of real estate transactions.
c) EPA should verify that its recommendations for the
design and implementation of methods to reduce radon
entry into new buildings will yield average indoor
concentrations below guideline levels, and the Agency
should modify its guidance as necessary.
d) EPA has also provided guidance for. retrofit of radon
reduction techniques on existing buildings. These too
could benefit from follow-up evaluations of effective-
ness and, if necessary, modification.
e) Clarification of the link between smoking and the risks
of indoor radon will put pressure on EPA to consider
different strategies or guidance for smokers and
non-smokers.
f) Any discovery about genetic susceptibility to
radon-induced cancer (see Section 8) will raise an issue
similar to that for smokers.
i • , . i
g) Any substantial revision in the estimates of risks from
low exposures to radon could require EPA to re-evaluate
its guidance.
9.4 Recommendations
The following recommendations flow directly from the issues
identified above:
a) EPA should continue to foster the development of
methods that will reliably characterize the "radon po-
tential" of regions and house designs.
b) EPA should continue to investigate and encourage the
development of more accurate testing methods, more
energy-efficient and effective retrofit equipment, and
more radon-resistant building designs.
c) EPA should plan to conduct a survey of housing built to
its model codes in order to verify that the codes are
achieving their intended purpose of reducing indoor
radon concentration to acceptable levels.
d) EPA should track—and possibly encourage, support, or
even conduct—research to elucidate the relationship
between exposure, susceptibility factors, and radon risk.
In any case, EPA should be prepared to adopt new
risk-reduction strategies, depending on the results of
such research.
30
-------
10. Control of Nuclear Materials
Recent thaws in cold war activities and the breakup of the
Soviet Bloc call for increasing attention to potential environ-
mental impacts of excess nuclear materials, especially
weapons-grade uranium and plutonium. It is essential to the
health of the planet that these materials receive the greatest
possible control and management because loss of control
could lead to massive contamination of the environment from
terrorist or unauthorized weapon use and/or similar contami-
nation from poor management.
10.1 Key Issues
The world's stockpile of nuclear materials is enormous, repre-
senting tens of billions of dollars in invested resources, and
contains energy that has the potential to be extremely danger-
ous to health and the environment but also of to be of value if
used properly. As components of weapons, nuclear materials
pose a dilemma: in this form they are most stable for isolation
from the environment, but they are also most attractive for
unauthorized diversion because they could be used as a blue-
print for weapons production in addition to their potential for
direct use as weapons. Keeping these materials in stable form
by remaining contained in weapons parts could be a reason-
able approach only to the extent that security can be provided.
Unfortunately, this form of storage would require a national
will not to use these weapons, nor to exchange weapons for
hard currency in times of economic need, a prerequisite that in
the past has not always been successfully met on a worldwide
basis. Furthermore, the possibility of components being stolen
and used by terrorists makes this option untenable for many in
the international community.
Another alternative would be to use the materials beneficially
as fuel for nuclear power plants. The advantages include
"burning up" the material so as to make it unavailable to
anyone and meeting future energy needs without generating
more greenhouse gases. The deterrents to this option are all
those that would argue for a limited role of nuclear power in
the future energy supply of the world. Effective waste man-
agement policies will be required whether the materials re-
main in their current state or are converted to other wastes
during their use as fuel.
Even though the potential for a Superpower confrontation is
diminished at present, theft or diversion of nuclear materials
will continue to be a threat if these materials remain in their
current form. This problem puts considerable pressure on the
need to find a permanent (or at least irreversible) disposal
method, especially for materials in excess of a prudent stock-
pile. Under most reasonable scenarios, excess materials exist
beyond those that might be put aside for national security.
Both the mix of radionucliides and the weapons-grade nature
of the material make it significantly different from radioactive
waste generated by most parts of the civilian nuclear fuel
cycle—at least as practiced in this country.
To pursue an aggressive effort to develop international con-
trols, the U.S. might even solicit—under international con-
trols—the importation of materials to this country for "burning
up" in reactors. The technology and institutions necessary to
handle such imports under internationally accepted methods
appears to require a degree of commitment and internal stabil-
ity that only a few countries can provide in the foreseeable
future.
A third aspect of this issue: is the disposal of defense-related
materials over and above production reactor wastes. Fuel-cycle
waste disposal from and decommissioning of military (mostly
naval) reactors also represent problems to be dealt with. The
WIPP plan does not currently anticipate accepting these wastes
or decommissioning wastes. Most importantly, this issue is
international; notably, what should be done about military
reactors from the nations that constituted the former Soviet
Union and other Eastern European states? Obviously, the
Russian approach of sinking some submarine reactors in the
Baltic Sea or the Arctic Ocean needs to be halted. The U.S.
interest in assuring that these disposal methods are not used is
vital, and international controls and methods are required.
Finally, there is the issue of cleanup and remediation of the
contamination and environmental degradation from uranium
mining, and fuel and weapons production facilities in the
nations of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. What
little is known indicates that these problems are of a magni-
tude unheard of in the U.S. The potential for further spread of
these radioactive contaminants is huge (Appendix D, Feshbach
et. al, 1992). '
10.2 Recommendations
Assuring control of nuclear materials would require leader-
ship and coordinated action by several Federal and interna-
tional agencies on nuclear waste disposal. Regardless of
whether or not EPA chooses to be a catalyst in the
government-wide efforts to control nuclear materials, it should
consider the impact of its iactions—positive or negative—on
such efforts before committing to a course of action in the
waste disposal issue.
31
-------
The EPA roles may be threefold:
a) being an active part of any international efforts to
control nuclear materials (as has been the case in other
environmental issues with an international flavor, such
as global climate change);
b) vigorously working to push for the development of
domestic nuclear waste disposal technology and institu-
tional readiness so that it becomes available if needed
for the safe disposal of these materials; and, finally,
c) advising other countries on the cleanup and remediation
of their environment that resulted from uranium mining
and weapons-related activities.
By these approaches, EPA could catalyze U.S. and interna-
tional efforts, that is, it could "lead the charge" by clearly and
persuasively enunciating the national environmental interest
in controlling, and hopefully reversing, any further spread of
nuclear, materials. However, without a clear, unambiguous
policy to obtain secure disposal sites for such materials, the
benefits of isolation and security that could be provided by
permanent storage will tend to be supplanted by the less
desirable but more expedient solution of on-site storage.
32
-------
11. Summary and Conclusions: Focus for the Future
11.1 Summary of Recommendations
This report has analyzed seven major topics in environmental
radiation which the REFS selected through a process for
scanning the future and which the Subcommittee believes will
be the most important issues to confront EPA in the 5-30 year
time horizon considered. Three recurring themes have ap-
peared throughout the main body of this report, as listed
below and discussed in the following subsections:
a) waste management to prevent pollution will be very
important in the future of environmental radiation;
b) new understanding of population exposures,
dose-response models, and genetically linked suscepti-
bility to radiation risks among subpopulations could
require new regulatory paradigms for environmental
radiation; and
c) EPA will continue to require technically strong pro-
grams and policies in place to be in a position to deal
with the issues coming under its purview in the future.
11.1.1 Energy Production, Radioactive
Waste Management, and Nuclear
Weapons Materials Issues
The previous sections have presented arguments for EPA
attention to energy issues as they are linked to radiation
exposures and waste disposal. The Subcommittee analyzed
two very different scenarios for the future of energy produc-
tion. Based on its analysis of the linked futures of energy and
the environment, the Subcommittee recommends that EPA
consider the following:
a) Participate positively in the joint development of en-
ergy and environmental policies at the national level,
taking into due consideration the interests and activities
of state and local authorities.
b) Adopt policies and incentives that factor in the econom-
ics of pollution prevention and control of all kinds in the
overall energy and environment equation.
c) Take steps to expedite the resolution of the problem of
radioactive waste by issuing the generally applicable
standards for radioactive waste disposal and residual
radioactivity.
d) State a clear policy for NORM and mixed hazardous/
radioactive wastes, including guidelines by which in-
dustries that produce large quantities of these wastes
can plan for proper management of these materials.
Issues attendant to radioactive waste management clearly
pose circumstances with huge economic and social conse-
quences. Because of existing polarization on radioactive waste
issues, there is a compelling need for credible leadership on
managing these materials to minimize environmental degra-
dation, assure economic vitality, promote environmental eq-
uity, and involve all stakeholders in national policies. EPA
could assume a leadership role in five major areas related to
radioactive waste materials: low-level radioactive wastes,
high-level radioactive wastes, residual radioactivity, NORM,
and mixed hazardous/radioactive wastes. In particular, there
is a need to harmonize radiological and chemical risks in order
to deal with mixed hazardous/radioactive wastes so that the
bureaucratic deadlock among Federal regulatory agencies can
be broken. This harmonization could be accomplished by
seeking authority to issue a set of standards specifically for
such wastes or a set of alternative standards that would allow
the use of existing regulations where-possible or applicable.
It is crucial that Congress provide the budgetary and fiscal
resources needed by EPA in order for the Agency to develop
and maintain technically strong programs and policies regard-
ing the problem of radioactive waste disposal in all its aspects
or categorizations (high-level, low-level, mixed, NORM,
NARM, etc.). This allocation could be part of the develop-
ment of a comprehensive national plan to deal with the
radioactive waste disposal issue. A process to develop fore-
sight about the future that continuously evaluates the policies
and alternatives implemented will be very important given the
fact that these wastes will be around for the next millennium
and even longer.
Assuring control of nuclear materials could require EPA
action and leadership on nuclear waste disposal. The EPA
roles may be threefold: being an active part of any interna-
tional efforts to control nuclear materials (as has been the case
in other environmental issues with an international flavor,
such as global climate change); vigorously working to push
for the development of domestic nuclear waste disposal tech-
nology and institutional readiness so that it becomes available
if needed for the safe disposal of these materials; and, finally,
advising other countries on the cleanup and remediation of
their environment that resulted from uranium mining and
weapons-related activities. Without a clear, unambiguous
33
-------
policy to obtain secure disposal sites for such materials,
providing this essential element of environmental protection
will be much more difficult because long-term storage will
supplant the isolation and security that permanent disposal
would achieve.
11.1.2 Population Exposures,
Dose-Response Models, and
Genetic Susceptibilities to Radiation
Risks
REFS recommendations pertaining to the second theme—
population exposures, dose response, and susceptibility to
radiation—are as follows:
a) The EPA could consider the establishment of stronger
collaborative agreements with other Federal agencies to
monitor the changing patterns of exposure to ionizing
radiation by the population. This collaboration would
provide the Agency with more of the data necessary to
make better informed choices when exercising its au-
thority to issue guidance on exposures to radiation. A
research program that explores the implications of the
social, economic, and health issues that drive changes
in exposures by the population may be desirable at a
time when large numbers of individuals may be ex-
posed to low amounts of radiation in site restoration
activities as part of the Federal Complex Clean-Up
Program that is scheduled for the next decade.
b) EPA could identify radiation research issues fundamen-
tal to further work in the molecular and genetic biology
of cancer and other diseases resulting from exposure to
radiation and environmental stresses. In any case, EPA
will probably be faced with the need to develop policies
for dealing with the carcinogenic and other risks of
radiation and other agents in a world where identifica-
tion of genetic and other susceptibilities may be com-
monplace.
11.1.3 Exposure to Non-ionizing Radiation
REFS recommendations pertaining to exposure to non-ionizing
radiation are as follows:
a) Working collaboratively with other agencies, EPA
should continue to assess the state of science regarding
potential health effects associated with environmental
exposures to EMFs. To the extent warranted by future
developments, the Agency should ensure that key re-
search is pursued. In the meantime, in the absence of
solid evidence demonstrating or refuting the hypothesis
that exposure of some type to such fields causes cancer
or other effects, EPA could provide practical guidance
that will aid those who develop and apply EMF tech-
nologies to limit EMF exposures consistent with current
knowledge. These actions will permit EPA to position
itself to deal with the increases in environmental expo-
sures to EMF that are likely to occur in the future as a
consequence of increased electrification and techno-
logical developments such as MRI in medicine, MagLev
in transportation, and the explosion in information pro-
cessing and telecommunication technologies.
b) EPA should track and help stimulate research con-
ducted by other agencies on the health and environmen-
tal risks of exposure to non-ionizing radiation. It should
not limit its attention to power-frequency EMF but
should also monitor research on radio-frequency elec-
tromagnetic radiation, quasi-static magnetic fields, ul-
trasound, possibly other forms of non-ionizing radiation,
and their interactions with related agents. EPA will
need greater internal resources including a research
program, together with a contingency plan for regula-
tory initiatives (e.g., guidance) for known hazards (ther-
mal effects, shock) and any new significant hazard that
may be identified in the future.
11.1.4 Radon
Radon in indoor air is a prime example of the issue of
population exposure, dose-response models, and enhanced
susceptibility of a subpopulation. Clarification of the link
between smoking and the risks of indoor radon will raise the
issue of whether the Agency should provide differential guid-
ance to smokers and non-smokers. Any discovery about ge-
netic susceptibility to radon-induced cancer will raise similar
issues. Any substantial revision in the estimates of risks from
low exposures to radon will require EPA to re-evaluate its
guidance.
Several actions may be worthwhile to ensure that the EPA's
radon program continues to be founded on the best available
science. The Agency should
a) Continue efforts to focus on characterization of high-risk
radon potential regions, improving knowledge about
radon risks, and developing more accurate methods of
measuring and mitigating radon in buildings. Particular
emphasis should be placed on empowerment of stake-
holders by dissemination of all available scientific in-
formation.
b) Continue to foster the development of methods that will
reliably characterize the "radon potential" of regions
and house designs. , '
c) Continue to investigate and encourage the development
of more accurate testing methods, more energy-efficient
and effective retrofit equipment, and more radon-resistant
building designs.
d) Plan to conduct a survey of housing built to its model
codes in order to verify that the codes are meeting their
intended purpose of reducing indoor radon concentra-
tion to acceptable levels.
e) Continue to track—and possibly encourage, support or
even conduct research to elucidate the relationship be-
tween exposure, susceptibility factors, and radon risk.
In any case, the Agency should be prepared to adopt
new risk-reduction strategies, depending on the results
of such research.
34
-------
11.2 Focus for the Future
Many of the recommendations in this report deal with EPA's
need for a strong in-house scientific staff that will approach
the issues in environmental radiation from the perspective of
pollution prevention, ecosystems protection, and good sci-
ence. EPA is undergoing a massive re-structuring of its re-
search organization, and is streamlining its operational arm
throughout the Agency.
11.2.1 Becoming the Source of Choice for
Information on Environmental
Radiation
This is a crucial moment for EPA, and it is a particularly
important one when viewed from the perspective of EPA's
mission with regard to radiation-related issues. The role of
EPA in radiation within the Federal government can be sum-
marized as one of giving advice, providing guidance, and
issuing generally applicable standards on which other agen-
cies in government must base their rules and regulations
pertaining to radiation. Such a role by definition involves a
position of leadership within the government inasmuch that
other agencies must prove that their regulations are at least as
protective of the environment as are those of the EPA radia-
tion standards, or must justify their rules when compared
against the radiation guidance issued by the EPA. It involves
the forging of partnerships with other Federal and state agen-
cies. It involves having the best science available in order to
provide credible leadership. This reorganization presents an
opportunity to shift the reactive and strictly regulatory focus
of the radiation programs in the Agency toward one of proac-
tive leadership and recognition as the source of choice for
information and guidance on key radiation-related issues.
It will be crucial for EPA to obtain fiscal resources to imple-
ment the strong programs required to achieve and maintain
such a position of leadership. This budgetary authority should
contain within it the flexibility needed to allocate those re-
sources in the most efficient and cost-effective manner pos-
sible. EPA should at least track and help guide the research
conducted by other agencies on the health and environmental
risks of exposure to radiation. Guidance could take the form
of identifying and stimulating research in support of the
Agency's regulatory functions, not only by carrying out the
research itself, but also by persuading other agencies—through
existing or new interagency partnerships—to allocate some of
their research efforts in the desired directions, or by stimulat-
ing research through extramural grants arrd contracts. Through
such direct involvement, the Agency will be in the best
position to effectively use research results in its radiation
protection policy and decisions, especially in policy research
on the proper use of information about populations that are
genetically susceptible to radiation risks. EPA could also
request that Congress clarify the responsibilities of the various
Federal government agencies with regard to radiation re-
search, given that many areas of relevance are falling through
the cracks.
11.2.2 Developing a Foresight Capability
One approach that may be particularly useful in gaining this
leadership role is a process of looking at the future called
foresight, which is described in detail in Coates et. al. (Appen-
dix D: Coates et. al., 1986) and which is also proposed in the
EFC report, Beyond the Horizon: Protecting the Future with
Foresight (Appendix D: U.S. EPA/SAB, 1995a and U.S.
EPA/SAB, 1995b). A version of this process may already
exist within OPPE or ORD [e.g., the Environmental Monitor-
ing and Assessment Program (EMAP)]. Foresight is the pro-
cess of creating an understanding of information generated by
looking ahead (Appendix E! for Coates, 1993; also Appendix
D, Coates et. al., 1986, pp. 7-13, and Coates, 1993). It
includes qualitative and quantitative means for monitoring
indicators of evolving trends, and is most useful when linked
to the analysis of policy implications. Foresight cannot define
policies but can ensure that they are sufficiently flexible and
robust so as to take into account changes in circumstance. The
process of foresight must be systematic and comprehensive. It
should accommodate a wide variety of viewpoints and infor-
mation. It must be a public process, and the data, assumptions,
and information used must be available for independent analy-
ses. It avoids predictions, that is, conclusive or probabilistic
statements that particular events will occur. It tries to fan out
all the possible and/or available alternatives compatible with
the assumptions and the quality of the data. Foresight is not
forecasting or modeling, although it uses both as techniques.
It also uses consultative processes and aggressively seeks
feedback. It works in the service of the decision-maker to
clarify choices. Therefore it must feed information effectively
to the decision-makers. The Environmental Futures Project
falls within the scope of what would be considered a foresight
process. '
. |.
Instituting a process such as that described in the previous
paragraph will make the Agency's radiation programs stron-
ger, more ready to tackle new issues, and more able to identify
new issues before a crystallizing event occurs and limits the
options and alternatives that may be available to handle the
issue. Following such a new direction will go a long way
toward establishing EPA as the source of choice for informa-
tion and guidance on environmental radiation issues.
11.3 Conclusions
This report on future issues in environmental radiation is
consistent-with the EPA Administrator's fundamental prin-
ciples for environmental protection (Appendix D, U.S. EPA,
1994a) in the following maimer:
a) An ecosystem approach to environmental protection, as
opposed to an approa.ch considering only human health
impacts, was used by the Subcommittee to elucidate
significant energy use and trends relative to various
environmental stresses related to radiation.
b) Good science, improved management, and interagency
partnerships would form the building blocks for shifting
35
-------
EPA's approach to environmental protection from a
reactive mode toward one of increasingly proactive
leadership. The Agency would then secure its role in the
future as the source of choice for environmental infor-
mation and guidance on key radiation-related issues.
c) Pollution prevention and environmental justice and eq-
uity for citizens of the U.S. and the rest of the world
were seen to provide fundamental perspectives for is-
sues related to radon, radon exposure trends, manage-
ment of waste materials, and control of nuclear materials.
The Subcommittee believes that it would be worthwhile for
EPA to explore the following in its long-term planning ef-
forts:
1) Pursuing efforts to achieve less reliance on a regulatory
role in risk management, in favor of assuring overall
enhancement of the environment from society's activi-
ties, the original vision which accompanied the Agency's
formation. This renewed role would focus on providing
scientifically credible information to stakeholders as
participants in resolution of environmental questions
consistent with the SAB's Future Risk and Reducing
Risk reports, as well as the Safeguarding the Future
report (See Appendix D: U.S. EPA/SAB, 1988; U.S.
EPA/SAB, 1990; and U.S. EPA, 1992, respectively.)
2) This report presents arguments for EPA attention and
focus, particularly on issues related to energy produc-
tion and use, insofar as they are linked and interwoven
into issues of radiation exposures and waste disposal.
Based on our analysis of the future and the strong
linkages of environmental quality issues to the Nation's
energy issues, the Subcommittee recommends that EPA
participate positively in the joint development of na-
tional energy policies, focusing on an examination of
the overall environmental consequences of energy pro-
duction options, the roles of alternative energy sources,
including nuclear electricity generation in curtailing
greenhouse gases, possible increases in UV radiation
and other harmful effects, radioactive waste manage-
ment issues, and potential release of radioactive materi-
als to the environment.
3) Working with other Federal, state and local agencies, as
well with as other national governments, in order to
resolve problems in the management of radioactive
waste materials. Appropriate and coordinated action is
necessary in order to allow for a) proper choices in
nuclear energy production; b) control of nuclear materi-
als from disassembled warheads; c) site restoration
activities in Federal facilities and Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) licensees; and d) continued use of
radioactive materials in medicine and research. EPA
could assume a proactive leadership role by
a) expediting the resolution of the problem of radio-
active wastes by issuing generally applicable stan-
dards for radioactive waste disposal and residual
radioactivity; and
b) formulating clear policies for both naturally occur-
ring radioactive material (NORM) and mixed haz-
ardous/radioactive wastes.
4) Assuring control of nuclear materials from disassembled
warheads through conversion to energy use, burn-up in
reactors, and/or secure disposal is vital to a safe and
clean environment. EPA could provide leadership in
resolving environmental issues necessary to incorporate
this assurance into national programs.
5) The largest potential for reducing U.S. population expo-
sure to radiation (inasmuch as they are controllable)
could occur in the areas of medical, care and radon in
indoor air. EPA guidance on public radiation exposures
could influence reductions in radiation doses from these
sources.
6) Advances will likely be made in understanding the
significance of different measures of exposure, the rela-
tionship of exposures to risks, and how and why differ-
ent people may respond differently, to radiation. EPA
will be faced with the need to incorporate new impor-
tant findings in radiation research into its guidance and
regulatory postures regardless of whether the findings
point to greater or lesser health and environmental risks
than previously thought. For example, information from
the Human Genome Project and molecular biology
research could allow for identification of individuals
with genetic or other susceptibilities to radiation health
effects, which may require major changes in regulatory
approaches for radiation protection. EPA should begin
to consider what kinds of policies will be pertinent for a
future in which dealing with carcinogenic and other
risks of radiation, and the interaction of radiation dam-
age with the damage from other agents, is done in a
world in which identification of genetic and other sus-
ceptibilities is commonplace.
7) EPA should continue efforts to focus on characteriza-
tion of high-risk radon potential regions, improving
knowledge about radon risks, and developing more
accurate methods of measuring and mitigating radon in
buildings. Particular emphasis should be placed on em-
powerment of stakeholders by dissemination of all avail-
able scientific information.
8) Working collaboratively with other agencies, EPA
should continue to assess the state of science regarding
potential health effects associated with environmental
exposures to EMF. To the extent warranted by future
developments, the Agency should ensure that key re-
search is pursued. In the meantime, in the absence of
solid evidence demonstrating or refuting the hypothesis
that exposure of some type to such fields causes cancer
or other effects, EPA could provide practical guidance
that will aid those who develop and apply EMF.tech-
nologies to limit EMF exposures consistent with current
knowledge. These actions will permit EPA to position
itself to deal with the increases in environmental expo-
sures to EMF that are likely to occur in the future as a
consequence of increased electrification and techno-
36
-------
logical developments such as MRI in medicine, MagLev
in transportation, and the explosion in information pro-
cessing and telecommunication technologies. Specifi-
cally, EPA should prepare to deal with a world in which
differences in individual susceptibility to radiation and
other hazards is understood and the technology exists
for identifying individuals with heightened or decreased
susceptibility.
9) The development of a capability for scanning the future
through a process of foresight may be necessary for the
development of a proactive role in shaping environmen-
tal radiation policies. The REFS is unanimous in recom-
mending this, given the fact that with a few exceptions,
the research, the regulatory practices, and the para-
digms used today as the basis for setting radiation
standards may not be effective or efficient in resolving
the issues of the future.
Many of these issues analyzed, and recommendations pre-
sented, are a logical extension of previous SAB/RAC review
activities. These issues are, and will continue to be, a concern
for EPA today and in the future. This continuity is especially
evident when one reads this "futures report" in the context of
the background presented in the RAC's Retrospective Review
Report (Appendix D, U.S. EPA/SAB, 1994d). During the past
year, EPA has undertaken several very important actions that
pertain to the recommendations presented in this report: a) the
generally applicable standard for high-level radioactive waste
has been promulgated, although its potential applicability to
Yucca Mountain is under external review; b) the Agency has
formed a group charged with developing a program to address
the issue of harmonizing chemical and radiation risks; c) work
is in progress on developing generally applicable standards
for residual radioactivity and low-level radioactive waste; and
d) work has resumed on EMF issues. The RAC has been
involved in consultations and briefings on these issues and has
scheduled reviews for some of them in Fiscal Year 95. It is our
expectation that some of the desirable outcomes envisioned in
this report will be assisted by the above initiatives. In addi-
tion, it is hoped by the REFS mat the Agency will consider its
degree of institutional readiness and what is necessary to
achieve its desired goals in light of the future issues and
challenges involved in environmental radiation identified in
this report.
37
-------
Appendix A—The Charge to the SAB
The SAB was asked to take on an initiative on environmental
futures, in a memo dated July 16, 1993, originally sent from
David Gardiner, Assistant Administrator to Carol M. Browner,
Administrator of EPA. The Executive Committee (EC) of the
SAB considered and accepted this request and established an
ad-hoc SAB committee, the Environmental Futures Commit-
tee (EFC) to undertake this effort. The EFC refined a charge
with the Agency personnel and the standing committees of the
SAB that wished to undertake this exercise. The EFC, in the
course of its monthly meetings, also developed a procedure
for conducting a periodic scan of the future horizon and to
choose a few of the many possible future developments for
in-depth examination of potential environmental impacts.
The SAB EC accepted the following specific goals for this
project:
A. Develop procedures for conducting a short (five to
ten-year horizon) and long-term (20-year horizon or
longer) scan of future developments that will affect
environmental quality and the nation's ability to protect
the environment over a medium to long term time
frame.
B. Conduct as comprehensive a scan as practical to iden-
tify important future developments and environmental
consequences.
C. Choose a limited number of short- and long-term future
developments for in-depth evaluation of their environ-
mental consequences.
D. Develop appropriate procedures for conducting in-depth
examination of those future developments and conse-
quences.
E. Apply procedures described in D.
F. Draw implications for EPA from the in-depth examina-
tion of future developments.
G. Recommend possible actions for addressing the devel-
opments and consequences.
H. Propose possible approaches for continuing EPA pro-
grams that address evaluation of future developments
and environmental consequences.
I. Develop a method for communicating the results of the
Futures study so that it will have an impact on appropri-
ate professionals in EPA (added by the SAB).
A-l
-------
Appendix B—Thinking About the Year 2Ci25:>>3'4
What follows is a presentation of highly reliable statements
about the year 2025. Their origins are in Project 2025: Antici-
pating Developments in Science and Technology and their
Implications for the Corporation which is sponsored by 18
large organizations in the U.S. and Europe.
The goal of Project 2025 is to explore how science and
technology are likely to reshape U.S. and global society from
now to that time. Consequently, it is important to identify our
most solid conclusions in the complex of forecasts.
Assumptions about the year 2025 are not like assumptions in a
geometry exercise. These are not presented as abstract state-
ments from which consequences can be derived with math-
ematical precision. Their origins lie in many different places.
Some are conclusions drawn from the project. Others, such as
the estimates of future population, come from public or highly
credible private statistical and mathematical analyses of trends.
Others are the integration of a wide range of material, such as
the assumption that we will be moving toward a totally
managed globe. To present the underlying arguments support-
ing each of the highly reliable statements which amount to
forecasts would require a massive report. We have, therefore,
presented these statements about the future as simply and in as
straightforward a manner as possible.
A few of the assumptions have more of a normative, that is,
goal-oriented, aspect to them than others. The assumption, for
example, that per capita energy consumption in the advanced
nations will fall to 66% of the 1990 level is definitely not a
trend extrapolation but a judgment about the confluence of
social, political, economic, environmental, technological, and
other concerns. In a key statement of this sort the reader is not
only invited but urged to review his or her alternatives that
might characterize that period and to test how those alterna-
tives affect any other thoughts, concepts, beliefs, or conclu-
sions about the future.
What follows is an inventory of high probability statements
about the year 2025 in two categories:
Scientific discoveries and research, and technologi-
cal developments and applications.
Contextual, that is, those factors forming the social,
economic, political, military, environmental, and
other factors which will shape or influence scientific
and technological developments. These contextual
areas form the environment for the introduction and
maturation of new products, processes, and services
in society.
These high probability assumptions are the underpinnings to
understanding how any particular area may develop under the
influence of new scientific, technological, social, political or
economic developments.
It would be convenient to claim 98% probability for all the
statements, but that does not fit all the cases. It would also be
nice to suggest that these developments are inevitable. But
few developments are inevitable. Nonetheless, the conver-
gence of evidence indicates that these developments are of
such high likelihood that they are an intellectual sub-structure
for thinking about the year 2025. The 83 statements are
intended to be robust. They are not a house of cards where one
failing causes them all to fail.
Few of these statements; can be taken as perfect, that is,
beyond question or representing the best formulation of the
subject. Vocabulary is a/continuing and insoluble problem.
Readers will come from many backgrounds and have a wide
range of preconceptions; hence, the words cannot have ex-
actly the same meaning for each reader. We suggest that when
the reader faces a problem of uncertainty, ambiguity, or basic
disagreement, that the statement be reexamined for alternative •
meanings, that is, alternatives to those the reader brings to the
statement. In summary, mis set of statements forms the back-
ground for more detailed, analysis and speculation about the
year 2025 and the intervening period.
The numbering of the Assumptions is not significant. The
items are in "more,or less random order in sets A and B,
pushing the reader to think about each one on its own merits.
Copyright Coates and Jarratt, Inc.(1993); used with permission from
Coates and Jarratt, Inc. >
We appreciate the willingness of the sponsors of Project 2025:
Anticipating Developments in Science and Technology and their
Implications for the Corporation to allow us to use this material.
Copyright Coates & Jarratt, Inc., 1992
B-l
-------
A. Scientific and Technological
Assumptions About the Year 2025
1. Movement toward a totally managed environment will
have proceeded substantially at the national and global
level.
Oceans, forests, grasslands and water supplies comprise
major areas of the managed environment.
Macroengineering, or planetary scale civil works will
comprise another element of that managed environ-
ment. Finally, the more traditional business and indus-
trial infrastructure: telecommunications, manufacturing
facilities, chemical plants, electric generating facilities,
and so on, will be a part of managed systems and
subsystems.
Note that total management does not imply full under-
standing of what is managed. But expanding knowledge
will make this management practical. Management also
does not imply control.
2. Everything will be smart, that is, responsive to its
external or internal environment.
This will be achieved by two strategies alone or in
combination. The first will be the inclusion of micro-
processors and associated sensors in physical devices.
The second strategy will involve materials which are
responsive to physical variables such as light, heat,
noise, odors, and EMFs.
3. All human diseases and disorders will have their link-
ages, if any, to the human genome identified.
For many diseases and disorders, the intermediate bio-
chemical processes that lead to the expression of the
disease or disorder and its interactions with a person's
environment and personal history, will also have been
explicated.
4. In several parts of the world explicit programs will have
begun for the aggregate enhancement of populations'
physical and mental abilities (as opposed to disease
prevention) based on the understanding of human ge-
netics.
5. The genome of prototypical plants and animals, includ-
ing insects, will have been worked out. This will lead to
more refined management, control, and manipulation of
their health, propagation, or elimination.
6. There will be a worldwide, broadband network of net-
works based on fiber optics, with other techniques such
as communications satellites, cellular, and microwave
as ancillary.
Throughout the advanced nations and the middle class/
prosperous crust in the Third World, face-to-face,
voice-to-voice, person-to-data, and data-to-data com-
munication will be available to any place, at any time,
from anywhere.
7. The chemical, physiological, and genetic bases of hu-
man behavior will be generally understood.
Direct, targeted interventions for disease control and
individual human enhancement will be commonplace.
Brain/mind manipulation technologies to control or in-
fluence emotions, learning, sensory acuity, memory and
other psychological states will be available and in wide-
spread use.
8. In-depth personal medical histories will be on record
and under full control of the individual in some form of
a medical smart card, or disk. Similar cards will func-
tion in other non-medical areas.
9. Robots and other automated machinery will be com-
monplace inside and outside the factory in agriculture,
building and construction, undersea ^activities, space,
mining, and elsewhere.
10. There will be universal, on-line, surveys and voting in
all the advanced nations. In some jurisdictions this will
include political voting.
1.1. Per capita energy consumption in the advanced nations
will be at 66% of per capita consumption in 1990.
12. Per capita energy consumption in the rest of the world
will be at 160% of per capita consumption in 1990.
i •
13. Foods for human consumption will be more diverse as a
result of agricultural genetics. '
There will be substantially less animal protein in the
advanced nations' diets, compared to the present.
14. More people will be living to the middle of their ninth
decades (approximately 85) while enjoying a healthier,
fuller life. There will be a notable "squaring off of the
natural death curve.
15. Ubiquitous availability of computers will facilitate au-
tomated control and make continuing performance moni-
toring and evaluations of physical systems routine.
16. Manipulation at the molecular or atomic level will
customize materials designed for highly specific func-
tions, i
17. Totally automated factories will be common but not
universal.
18. Remote sensing of the earth will lead to monitoring,
assessment, and analysis of events and resources, at and
below the surface of the earth and the ocean. In many.
places, in situ sensor networks will assist in monitoring
the environment.
Worldwide weather reporting will be routine and more
reliable. r
B-2
-------
19. Custom designed drugs such as hormones and neu-
rotransmitters, will be as good or better than those
produced naturally within humans or other animals.
20. Synthetic and manipulated food will fit the individual
consumers' taste, nutritional needs, and medical status.
21. Prostheses (synthetic parts or replacements) with more
targeted drug treatments will lead to radical improve-
ments in the status of people who are injured, deterio-
rated, or for natural or environmental reasons have
otherwise degraded physical or physiological capabili-
ties.
22. Virtual reality will be commonplace for training and
recreation, and will be a routine part of simulation for
all kinds of physical planning and product design.
23. In printed and, to a lesser extent, in voice-to-voice
telecommunication, language translation will be effec-
tive for restricted but practically significant vocabular-
ies.
24. Expert systems will be developed to the point where the
learning of machines, systems, and devices will mimic
or surpass human learning. Certain low level learning
will evolve out of situations and experiences, as it does
for infants.
25. Synthetic soils, designed to specification, will be used
for terrain restoration and to enhance indoor or outdoor
agriculture.
26. Genetically engineered microorganisms will do many
things. In particular, they will be used in production of
some commodity chemicals as well as highly complex
chemicals and medicinals, vaccines, and drugs. They
will be widely used in agriculture, mining, resource
upgrading, waste management and environmental clean
up.
27. The fusion of telecommunications and computation
will be complete. There will be a new vocabulary of
communication.
28. Many natural disasters, such as floods, earthquakes and
landslides, will be managed, mitigated, controlled, or
prevented.
29. Factory manufactured housing will be the norm in the
advanced nations.
30. Resource recovery along the lines of recycling, recla-
mation, and remanufacturing will be routine in all ad-
vanced nations.
31. New life forms in microorganisms, plants, and animals
will be commonplace.
32. In the design of many commercial products such as
homes, furnishings, vehicles, and other articles of com-
merce, the customer will participate directly with the
specialist in design.
33. New infrastructures throughout the world will be
self-monitoring.
34. An interactive vehicle-highway system will be wide-
spread with tens of thousands of miles of highway
either so equipped or about to be. This will not neces-
sarily require complete reconstruction of highways. It
may be done with retrofit technologies.
35. Robotized devices will be a routine part of the space
program, effectively integrating with people.
36. Restorative agriculture will be routine with crop design
and greater sophistication in optimizing climate, soil
treatments, and plant types.
37. Applied economics will lead to a greater dependency on
models. •
These models will have expanded capabilities and will
routinely integrate environmental and quality factors
into economic calculations as well as calculus involving
the economic value of information. A Nobel prize will
be granted an economist for a new theory of the eco-
nomics of information.
38. There will be routine genetic programs for animal en-
hancement, directed at food production, recreation and
household pets; and in less developed countries, for
work.
B. Social, Demographic, Political,
Military, and Other Contextual
Assumptions About the Year 2025
1. World population will be about 8.4 billion.
2. World population will divide into three distinct tiers.
• advanced nations and middle class around the world
living in the relative prosperity of Germany, the
U.S., and Japan.
• a bottom cut Hying in destitution.
• a broader cut living comfortably in the context of
their culture, -j
3. The population of advanced nations will be older, with
an average age of 41.
4. The less developed world will be substantially younger
and will have made spotty but significant progress in
reducing birth rates.
5. The majority of the world's population will be metro-
politan, including people living in satellite cities clus-
tered around metropolitan centers.
B-3
-------
6. Family size in advanced nations will be below replace-
ment rates but well above replacement rates in the less
developed world.
7. A worldwide middle class will emerge.
8. There will be worldwide unrest reflecting internal strife,
border conflicts, and irredentist movements. They will
have settled down substantially from the peak period of
1995 to 2010.
9. Under international pressures, the United Nations will
effectively take on a peacemaking role to complement
its historic peacekeeping role.
10. The multinational corporation will be the world's domi-
nant business form, economically.
11. Economic blocs will be a prominent part of the interna-
tional economy, with many products and commodities
moving among and between blocs. Principal blocs will
be
• Europe
• East Asia
• The Americas
12. Widespread contamination by a nuclear device will
have occurred either as an act of political/military vio-
lence, or an accident. On a scale of 1 to 10, with
Chernobyl being a 3, and Three Mile Island a 0.5, this
event will be a 5 or higher.
13. English will still be the global common language in
business, science, technology, and entertainment.
14. Schooling on a worldwide basis will be at a higher level
than it is today.
15. Increasing Third World economic and political insta-
bilities will deter business involvement in specific coun-
tries.
16. Despite technological advances, epidemics and mass
starvation will be common occurrences.
j
17. Global environmental management issues will be insti-
tutionalized.
18. Quality, service, and reliability will be a routine, global
business criteria.
19. Global government will become prominent and effec-
tive but not complete with regard to environmental
issues, war, narcotics, design and location of business
facilities, regulation of global business, disease preven-
tion, workers' rights, and business practices.
20. There will be substantial, radical changes in the U.S.
government. The period of computer assisted gerry-
mandering will pass and will move to electronically
assisted referenda.
21. World wide there will be countless virtual communities
based on electronic linkages. ' ........
22. Throughout the advanced nations people will be com-
puter literate and computer dependent.
23. Global currency will be in use.
24. Tax filing, reporting, and collecting will be computer
managed.
25. There will be new metrics of economic health involving
considerations of environment, quality of life, employ-
ment, and other activity and work. These new metrics
will become important factors in governmental plan-
ning.
26. In the advanced nations lifelong learning will be effec-
tively institutionalized. ,
... i_ *
27. There will be a worldwide popular culture. The ele-
ments of that culture will flow in all directions, from
country to country.
28. There will be substantial environmental degradation,
especially to the Third World, with budgetary commit-
ments to amelioration and correction. .
29. Within the U.S, there will be a national, universal
healthcare system.
30. There will be shifts in the pattern of world debtor and
creditor countries.
31. Genetic screening and counseling will be universally
available and its use encouraged by economic incen-
tives.
32. There will be more recreation and leisure time in the
advanced nations for the middle class.:
33. Birth control technologies will be universally accepted
and widely employed, including a market for descen-
dants of RU486.
. 34. The absolute cost of energy will rise, affecting the cost
of transportation and goods movement, leading to real-
locations in the use of terrain and physical space.
35. NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) will be a global scale
problem.
36. In the U.S. the collapse of the Federal Social Security
system will have led to a new form of old age security.
37. There will be a rise in secular substitutes for traditional
religious beliefs, practices, institutions,1 and rituals for a
substantial portion of the population bf the advanced
nations and the global middle class.
38. Identification cards will be universal.
B-4
-------
39. Global migration will be regulated under new interna-
tional law.
40. Transborder terrorism will continue to be a problem.
41. Customized products will dominate large parts of the
manufacturing market.
42. Socially significant crime in the advanced nations will
be increasingly economic and computer based.
43. Universal monitoring of financial and business transac-
tigns on a national arid international basis will prevail.
44. GNP and other macroeconomic measures and accounts
will include new variables such as environmental qual-
ity, accidents and disasters, and hours of true labor.
45. Sustainability will be the central concept and organiz-
ing principle in environmental management, while ecol-
ogy will be its central science.
B-5
-------
Appendix C—A Process for Scanning Future
Developments in Environmental Issues
The consensus of the REFS was that the EPA needs to
strengthen and expand the "issues management" capabilities
and processes, such as those in place at OPPE and ORD, into
the program offices throughout the Agency. In order to achieve
this, the EPA must ensure that technically strong programs
and policies are developed and maintained at all times. The
approach needs to consider all aspects of the issues involved:
societal and value judgments, economic concerns, human
health concerns, environmental aspects of remediation pro-
grams, cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses of the
various alternatives, and finally the best science available. A
scheme of how such a process might function is presented as
an alternative in Figure C-2.
Figure C-2 presents an alternative to the life cycle of health
and environmental issues presented in the Charter for the
Environmental Futures Project (Figure C-l). It involves a
dynamic process of foresight and issues management at the
top of the cycle, and it .aggressively looks for feedback at all
times to maintain optimal policies to address the environmen-
tal issues.
The objective of a process such as that depicted in Figure C-2
is the early identification of emerging problems, and translat-
ing that information into effective strategies to deal with those
emerging issues in both the short and long term. One of the
most important items is the implementation of a scanning
[(Scientific) Observations/Knowledge/Monitoring|-
Broader Recognition
'
EFC
Focus
Crystallizing Event
X
Public Knowledge
Public Debate
Policy Developed
Public Action |
Figure C-1. Evolution of health and environmental issues.
process. Scanning will involve a mechanism for broadly sweep-
ing all available information about issues and forces that may
affect the organization. This should go hand in hand with a
monitoring process—a more sophisticated and detailed proce-
dure in terms of the information provided which incorporates
the fact that the scanning and analytical functions have al-
ready identified issues as potentially important. The analytical
function is one that defines (or redefines) the implications for
the organization of the information gathered. Furthermore, it
focuses sharply on what is to be monitored. It then feeds into
a mechanism for setting priorities in terms>of probabilities of
trends for the emerging issues evolving into significant issues.
The priority setting process then feeds forward into two
functions: strategic planning (looks at long term time hori-
zons) and policy implementation (short term time horizons).
Priority setting also feeds back into the monitoring function.
The strategic planning and the policy implementation pro-
cesses interact with each other and feed back into the monitor-
ing process. This cyclic process is always scanning, monitoring,
and refining information in order to produce flexible yet
robust policy alternatives in a continuous way (Coates et. al,
1986). The process described above would be a possible
implementation of the recommendations of the Reducing Risk
report into the regulatory arena. The implementation of a
scheme such as that shown in Figure C-l will require that
future scanning processes be in place. Two alternatives are: 1)
a process of foresight; and 2) a process on issues management
(Coates ef. al., 1986). ;
Some small version of these processes may exist already
within OPPE, or ORD (e.g., EMAP), but they need to be
expanded and have the support of the middle and upper
echelons of management in the EPA in order for them to be
taken seriously and be successful. :
Foresight is the process of creating an understanding of infor-
mation generated by looking ahead. It includes qualitative and
quantitative means for monitoring indicators of evolving trends
and is most useful when linked to the analysis of policy
implications. Foresight cannot define policy but can make it
more flexible and robust to take into account changes in
circumstance. It must be systematic and comprehensive. It
should accommodate a wide variety of viewpoints and infor-
mation. It must be a public process and the data, assumptions,
and information used must be available for independent analy-
ses. It avoids prediction, that is conclusive or probabilistic
statements that particular events will occur. It tries to fan out
all the possible and/or available alternatives compatible with
the assumptions and the quality of the data. Foresight is not
C-l
-------
Policy Implementation
Path 0-4 yrs
1
Public Action
Strategic Planning Path
5-10 yrs (or longer)
Broader Recognition
I
Public Knowledge
and Debate
Figure C-2. The life cycle of health and environmental issues; applying issues management techniques.
forecasting or modeling, although it uses both as techniques.
It also uses consultative processes and aggressively seeks
feedback. It works in the service of the decision maker to
clarify choices. Therefore it must feed information effectively
to the decision makers (for a more detailed discussion see
Coates et. al, 1986, pp. 7-13, from which the above borrows
heavily).
Issues management is a tool used to come to an earlier
understanding of the issues an organization such as the EPA
may face in the next few years. It can make the EPA an active
participant in shaping its future and that of the environment,
rather than be a reactive victim of various political, legisla-
tive, and regulatory responses to problems (for a more de-
tailed discussion see Coates et al., 1986, Chapter 2). It is a
process that does three things: 1) identifies, monitors, and
analyzes social, technological, scientific, political and eco-
nomic forces and trends which will affect the future; 2) it
defines implications and options; and 3) it sets in motion short
and long term strategic actions to deal with the situation. In
looking at the environment, it includes social and attitudinal
values, technical and scientific developments, political and
administrative trends, markets, trade, and any other forces that
may affect the Agency or its functions.
These processes could become extremely valuable tools to
explore future environmental issues, and help forestall the
occurrence of crystallizing events that will put the govern-
ment into a reactive mode with very limited alternatives.
i
Reference:
Coates J.F., Coates V.T., Jarratt J., Heinz L. Issues Manage-
ment: How You Can Plan, Organize, And Manage For The
Future, Lomond Publications, MD, 1986.
C-2
-------
Appendix D—References Cited
1) Anderson C., Fusion Research at the Crossroads,
Science, 264:648-651, 1994
2) Bothwell M.L., Sherbot, D.M.J., Pollock C.M., Eco-
system Response to Solar Ultraviolet-B Radiation:
Influence of Trophic-Level Interactions, Science
265:97-100, 1994
3) Coates, J.F., "Thinking About the Year 2025," Coates
& Jarratt, Inc., Washington, DC, 1993
4) Coates, J.F., Coates, V.T., Jarratt, J., Heinz, L., Is-
sues Management: How You Can Plan, Organize,
and Manage for the Future, Prepared by J.F. Coates,
Inc. for the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI),
Lomond Publications, Inc., MD, 1986
5) Edison Electric Institute, Capacity and Generation of
Non-Utility Sources of Energy, Washington, B.C.,
1992
6) Edison Electric Journal, June 1993
7) Energy Daily, McGraw-Hill, New York, N.Y., July
28,1994
8) Faruqui et al., Electricity Journal, August 1994
9) Feshbach M., Friendly, Jr. A., Ecocide in the USSR:
Health and Nature Under Siege, Basic Books, NY,
1992
tares Committee (EFC), entitled "Model Process for
Scanning Developments in Environmental Issues,"
July 28, 1994, 8 pages :
14) Hendee W.R., Boteler, J.C., The Question of Health
Effects From Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields,
Health Physics, Vol. 66, pages 127-136,1994
15) ICRP, 1990, 1990 Recommendations of the Interna-
tional Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP)
Publication Number 60, Pergammon Press, 1991
16) Moerner W.E., Examining Nanoenvironments in Sol-
ids on the Scale of a Single, Isolated Impurity Mol-
ecule, Science, Vol. 265, pages 46-53, 1994
17) OTAj 1989, Partnerships Under Pressure: Managing
Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste, Office
of Technology Assessment (OTA), Congress of the
United States, 1989
18) OTA, 199la, Complex Clean-Up: The Environmen-
tal Legacy of Nuclear Weapons Production, Office
of Technology Assessment, Congress of the United
States, 1991
19) OTA, 1991b, Long-Lived Legacy: Managing
High-Level and Transuranic Waste at the DOE
Nuclear Weapons Complex, Background Paper, Of-
fice of Technology Assessment, Congress of the
United States, 1991
10) Foster K.R., Health Effects of Low-Level Electro- 20)
magnetic Fields: Phantom or not so Phantom Risk?,
Health Physics Vol. 62, pages 429-435,1992.
11) Geller, H.S., Hirst, E., Mills, E., Rosenfeld, A.H.,
and Ross, M., Getting America Back on the Energy
Efficient Track: No-Regrets Policies for Slowing
Climate Change, American Council for an Energy
Efficient Economy, Washington, DC, October 1991
12) Gershey E.L., Klein R.C., Party E., Wilkersori A.,
Low-Level Radioactive Waste: From Cradle to Grave,
Van Nostrand Reinhold, NY, 1990
13) Gonzalez-M6ndez, Ricardo, Chair, Radiation Envi-
ronmental Futures Subcommittee, Memorandum to
the Science Advisory Board's Environmental Fu-
Polk C., Postow E. (eds.), Handbook of Biological
Effects of Electromagnetic Fields, CRC Press, Boca
Rat6n,Fla., 1986
21) San Francisco Chronicle, July 25, 1994
22)' Shrader-Frechette K.S., Burying Uncertainty: Risk
and the Case Against Geological Disposal of Nuclear
Waste, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1.993
23) Tseng T.Yi; Electrical Modulation of Membrane Pro-
teins: Enforced Conformational Oscillations and Bio-
logical Energy and Signal Transductions, Annual
Reviews of Biophysics and Biophysical Chemistry,
pages 83-106,1990
D-l
-------
24) U.S. DOE, 1993, Energy Information Administra-
tion (EIA), Annual Energy Review 1992, Report
DOE/EIA-0384(92), U.S. Department of Energy,
EIA, Washington, DC, June 1993
25) U.S. DOE, 1994, Energy Information Administra-
tion (EIA), Monthly Energy Review, June 1994
26) U.S. EPA, 1987, Federal Register, Guidance to Fed-
eral Agencies for Occupational Radiation Protection,
Federal Register Vol 52, No. 17, pages 2822 - 2834,
1987 (EPA's Federal Guidance on Occupational Ex-
posures.)
27) U.S. EPA, 1990, Guidance on the definition and
identification of commercial mixed low-level radio-
active and hazardous waste, EPA 530/SW-90-016,
1990 .
28) U.S. EPA, 1992, "Safeguarding the Future: Credible
Science, Credible Decisions," The Report of the
Expert Panel on the Role of Science at EPA (trans-
mitted to Mr. William K. Reilly, Administrator, U.S.
EPA by Drs. Raymond C. Loehr, Bernard D.
Goldstein, Anil Nerode, and Paul G. Riser on Janu-
ary 8, 1992), U.S. EPA, EPA/600/9-91/050, March
1992
29) U.S. EPA, 1994a, Administrator Carol Browner's
Report Entitled, "The New Generation of Environ-
mental Protection, A Summary of EPA's Five-Year
Strategic Plan," (This Contains the Administrator's
High-Priority Issues for Environmental Protection),
U.S. EPA, Office of the Administrator, EPA
200-2-94-001, July 1994
30) U.S. EPA/SAB, 1988, "Future Risk: Research Strat-
egies for the 1990's," EPA-SAB-EC-88-040, Sep-
tember 1, 1988
31) U.S. EPA/SAB, 1990, "Reducing Risk: Setting Pri-
orities and Strategies for Environmental Protection,"
EPA-SAB-EC-90-021, September 25, 1990
32) ' U.S. EPA/SAB, 1993a "Multi-Media Risk Assess-
ment for Radon: Review of Uncertainty Analysis of
Risks Associated with Exposure to Radon,"
(EPA-SAB-RAC-;93-014), July 9, 1993
33) U.S. EPA/SAB, 1993b, "SAB Review of Multime-
dia Risk and Cost Assessment of Radon in Drinking
Water," (EPA-SAB-EC-LTR-93-010), July 30,1993
34) U.S. EPA/SAB, 1994a, "Review of Diffuse NORM
Draft Scoping Document," EPA-SAB-RAC-94-013,
May 16, 1994 ,
35) U.S. EPA/SAB, 1994b, Briefings provided by the
EPA Office of Indoor Air and Radiation to the SAB
Radiation Advisory Committee, May and July 1994
36) U.S. EPA/SAB, 1994c, "Radon Science Initiative,"
draft dated September 1994
37) U.S. EPA/SAB, l:994d,"A Retrospective Review of
SAB/RAC Activities," draft dated September 1994
[NOTE: The final report is EPA-SAB-RAC-95-009,
dated March 1995]
38) U.S. EPA/SAB, 1995a, "Beyond the Horizon: Pro-
tecting the Future with Foresight," Prepared by the
Environmental Futures Committee (EFC) of the Sci-
ence Advisory Board's (SAB's) Executive Commit-
tee, EPA-SAB-EC-95-007, January 1995
39) U.S. EPA/SAB, 1995b, Futures Methods and Issues,
Technical Annex to the Report entitled "Beyond the
Horizon: Protecting the Future with Foresight," Pre-
pared by the Environmental Futures Committee (EFC)
of the Science Advisory Board's (SAB's) Executive
Committee, EPA-:SAB-EC-95-007a, January 1995
40) U.S. NRC, 1991, Federal Register Nuclear Regula-
tory Commission: Standards for Protection Against
Radiation: Final Rule, Federal Register 56:
23360-23474, 1991 (specifically Section 1, subsec-
tion I, on p 23363, "ICRP 1990 - recommendations")
41) U.S. NRC, 1992,^Radioactive Waste Repository Li-
censing: Synopsis of a Symposium sponsored by the
Board on Radioactive Waste Management, National
Research Council, National Academy Press, Wash.
DC, 1992
D-2
-------
NOTE: The entire set of Futures Reports, of which this is a part, are listed below as follows:
1) Environmental Futures Committee EPA-SAB-EC-95-007
[Title: "Beyond the Horizon: Protecting the Future with Foresight," Prepared by the Environmental Futures
Committee of the Science Advisory Board's Executive Committee.]
2) Environmental Futures Committee EPA-SAB-EC-95-007a
[Title: Futures Methods and Issues, Technical Annex to the Report entitled "Beyond the Horizon: Protecting the
Future with Foresight," Prepared by the Environmental Futures Committee of the Science Advisory Board's
Executive Committee.]
3) Drinking Water Committee EPA-SAB-DWC-95-002
[Title: " Safe Drinking Water: Future Trends and Challenges," Prepared by the Drinking Water Committee, Science
Advisory Board.]
4) Ecological Processes and Effects Committee EPA-SAB-EPEC-95-003
[Title: "Ecosystem Management: Imperative for a Dynamic World," Prepared by the Ecological Processes and Effects
Committee, Science Advisory Board.]
5) Environmental Engineering Committee EPA-SAB-EEC-95-004
[Title: "Review of Environmental Engineering Futures Issues," Prepared by the Environmental Engineering Commit-
tee, Science Advisory Board.]
6) Indoor Air and Total Human Exposure Committee EPA-SAB-IAQ-95-005
[Title: "Human Exposure Assessment: A Guide to Risk Ranking, Risk Reduction and Research Planning," Prepared
by the Indoor Air and Total Human Exposure Committee, Science Advisory Board.]
7) Radiation Advisory Committee EPA-SAB-RAC-95-006
[Title: "Report on Future Issues and Challenges in the Study of Environmental Radiation, with a Focus Toward Future
Institutional Readiness by the Environmental Protection Agency," Prepared by the Radiation Environmental Futures
Subcommittee of the Radiation Advisory Committee, Science Advisory Board.]
D-3
-------
Appendix E—Glossary of Terms and Acronyms
AAAS
ALARA
BEIR
CERCLA
CFC
CIRRPC
CIS
Ci
CSTP
DNA
DOD
DOE
EC
EFC
EIA
ELF
EMAP
EMF
EMR
EPA
EPRI
ETS
FIFRA
FY
GDP
GNP
HVAC
Hz
ICRP
INTERNET
L
LET
American Association for the Advancement of Science j
As Low As Reasonably Achievable (EPA's Federal Guidance on Population Exposure)
Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
Chloro Fluoro Carbons
Committee for Interagency Radiation Research Policy and Coordination
Commonwealth of Independent States
Curie (3.7x1010 disintegrations per second)
Council on Science and Technology Policy
DeoxyriboNucleic Acid (The genetic material in higher organisms)
U.S. Department of Defense
U.S. Department of Energy
Executive Committee of the SAB
Environmental Futures Committee (an ad hoc Subcommittee of the U.S. EPA/SAB/Executive
Committee)
Energy Information Administration (U.S. DOE) j
Extremely Low Frequency (30 -300 Hz)
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program !
Electro Magnetic Field,
Electromagnetic Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Also known as U.S. EPA, or "the Agency")
Electric Power Research Institute
Environmental Tobacco Smoke
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
Fiscal Year !
Gross Domestic Product
Gross National Product '
Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning
Hertz ( a unit of frequency of a periodic process equal to one cycle per second)
International Commission on Radiation Protection
'
Inter-Connection of Networks
Liter
Linear Energy Transfer
E-l
-------
Appendix E—Continued
LTR
MagLcv
MRI
NANOBOTS
HARM
NEPA
NIEHS
NOAA
NRC
NSF
NIMBY
NORM
OPEC
OPPE
ORD
ORIA
OTA
P
RAG
REFS
RF
R&D
RCRA
RIA
SAB
SARA
TSCA
U.S.
U.S.A.
U.S.S.R.
UV
UVR
vs
W
W1PP
Letter Report (Refers to SAB Letter Reports)
Magnetic Levitation
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Nanometer-Scale Self-Actuated Robots
Naturally-Occurring or Accelerator-Produced Radioactive Materials
National Environmental Policy Act
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
National Science Foundation
Not in My Back Yard
Naturally-Occurring Radioactive Material ;
Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation (U.S. EPA)
Office of Research and Development (U.S. EPA)
Office of Radiation and Indoor Air ,
U.S. Congressional Office of Technology Assessment
Pico (one trillionith, IxlO-'2)
Radiation Advisory Committee (U.S. EPA/SAB/RAC)
Radiation Environmental Futures Subcommittee of the RAC (U.S. EPA/SAB/RAC/REFS)
Radio Frequency Radiation (an electromagnetic wave frequency intermediate between audio and
infrared frequencies used in radio and television transmission)
Research and Development
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA)
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
Toxic Substances Control Act
United States
United States of America
United Soviet Socialist Republic
Ultra-Violet (radiation)
Ultra-Violet Radiation (a wavelength shorter than visible light and longer than those of X rays)
Versus .'...;
Watt (a unit of power equal to one joule per second)
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
E-2
-------
Distribution List
Deputy Administrator
Assistant Administrators
EPA Regional Administrators
EPA Laboratory Directors
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
Director, Office of Strategic Planning and Environmental Data
Director, Office of Policy Analysis
Director, Office of Regulatory Management and Evaluation
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation
Director, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air
Director, Office of Radiation Programs
Director, Center for Environmental Research Information (CERI)
EPA Headquarter Libraries
EPA Regional Libraries
EPA Laboratory Libraries
National Technical Information Service
Congressional Research Service
Library of Congress
*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1995-650-006/22024
-------
-------
-------
m
"D
CD
do
CO
Ol
o
o
c>
CO
O
3- CD
< CO
S* M
(D
c
CO
CD
O O m c
3' T i -•
2. 3 ^' CD
i 3.1 £
-^ ? § ff
- ms ~
3 a
CO
11
*2 = a
0)
o'
Si 3
3D >
CD (O
CO CD
CD 3
O
o
SS-
o
•3- to »
fas
Q. O g
S 8
IS
55 5
(D
"
•o
W
rj
>ro
•
g SSI
OI "D
------- |