March 31, 1995
EPA-SAB-RAC-95-006
Honorable Carol M. Browner
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401M 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:
-------
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 attached report analyzes the present-day situation on many significant technical issues
in environmental radiation, and defines those which the Subcommittee felt would be most likely to
require the attention of the Agency to plan, prepare and manage for the future. This report
attempts to establish a foundation upon which the Agency can continue its own short- and long-
term scans of those future environmental 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 systematic 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
examination 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
exposures, 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 unnecessary 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
agencies, to promote reduction of population exposure in medical uses of radiation.
8) Continue efforts to focus on characterizing 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
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 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 electromagnetic field (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 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 Dr. Raymond C. Loehr
Chair, Executive Committee Chair, Environmental Futures Committee
Science Advisory Board Science Advisory Board
Dr. James E. Watson, Jr. Dr. Ricardo Gonzalez-Mendez
Chair, Radiation Advisory Chair, Radiation Environmental Futures
Committee Subcommittee
Science Advisory Board Science Advisory Board
-------
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 exposures
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 needed 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, Department 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 Environmental Science and Engineering,
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC
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
m
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
1.1 The Charge to the Radiation Environmental Futures Subcommittee 1
1.2 Process for the Identification of Maj or Issues for the Future in Environmental
Radiation 1
1.3 Summary and Recommendations 3
2. INTRODUCTION 6
3. RESPONSE TO THE CHARGE AND PROCESS FOR THE
IDENTIFICATION OF MAJOR ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE
IN ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION 9
3.1 The Charge and the Process for the Report 9
3.2 Response to the Charge 10
3.2.1 To conduct short-term and long-term scans of future developments in
its field of expertise 10
3.2.2 To conduct an in-depth examination of future developments using an
approach chosen by the Subcommittee 12
3.2.3 To identify baseline information and trends that may be
expected to have future impacts on human health and the environment ... 15
3.2.4 To focus on one or more case studies relevant to their
expertise 20
3.2.5 To suggest a procedure by which future environmental
concerns can be recognized at an early stage 21
4. ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 23
4.1 Introduction and Overview 23
4.2 Scenario 1: Electrical Generation that Includes Nuclear Power 27
4.3 Scenario 2: Decline of Nuclear Power 28
4.4 Discussion and Recommendations 29
5. CHANGING PATTERNS OF EXPOSURE TO IONIZING RADIATION 32
5.1 Key Drivers 32
5.1.1 Medical Exposures 32
5.1.2 Occupational Exposures 34
5.1.3 Exposure to Radon (see also Section 9) 34
5.2 Recommendations 35
6. RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT 36
6.1 Introduction and Overview 36
6.2 Scenario 1: Continued Stalemate on Radioactive Waste Issues 37
6.3 Scenario 2: Early and Effective Resolution of Radioactive Waste Issues 38
6.4 Implications for EPA 39
IV
-------
6.5 Recommendations 40
TABLE OF CONTENTS: CONTINUED:
7. NON-IONIZING RADIATION 42
7.1 Introduction and Overview 42
7.2 Societal Trends 43
7.3 Issues 45
7.3.1 Hazard and Exposure Identification 45
7.3.2 Potential Effects on Ecological Systems 46
7.4 Implications for EPA 46
7.5 Recommendations 47
8. EXPOSURES, DOSE-RESPONSE MODELS, AND POPULATION
SUSCEPTIBILITY 48
8.1 Introduction and Overview 48
8.2 Key Issues 49
8.2.1 Significant Changes in Our Understanding of Models for
Dose-Response 49
8.2.2 Differences in Radiation Susceptibility 51
8.3 Recommendations 52
9. RADON AND THE INDOOR ENVIRONMENT 54
9.1 Key Drivers 54
9.2 Trends and Assumptions 55
9.3 Implications for EPA 56
9.4 Recommendations 57
10. CONTROL OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS 58
10.1 Key Issues 58
10.2 Recommendations 59
11. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS: FOCUS FOR THE FUTURE 61
11.1 Summary of Recommendations 61
11.1.1 Energy production, radioactive waste management, and
nuclear weapons materials issues 61
11.1.2 Population exposures, dose-response models, and genetic
susceptibilities to radiation risks 62
11.1.3 Exposure to Non-Ionizing Radiation 63
11.1.4 Radon 64
11.2 Focus for the Future 64
11.2.1 Becoming the Source of Choice for Information on
Environmental Radiation 65
-------
11.2.2 Developing a Foresight Capability 65
11.3 Conclusions 66
TABLE OF CONTENTS: CONTINUED:
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 3.1 - ENVIRONMENTAL FUTURE INPUT DRIVERS 11
FIGURE 4.1 - ELECTRICITY DEMAND AND THE ECONOMY HAVE GROWN
TOGETHER WHILE NON-ELECTRIC ENERGY DEMAND HAS
DECLINED 24
LIST OF APPENDIX FIGURES
FIGURE 1 - EVOLUTION OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES . C-3
FIGURE 2 - THE LIFE CYCLE OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL
ISSUES; APPLYING ISSUES MANAGEMENT
TECHNIQUES C-4
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 3.1 - ISSUES IN ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION RELEVANT TO
THE FUTURE 13
TABLE 3.2 - CRITERIA FOR THE ANALYSIS OF FUTURE ISSUES
IN ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION 14
TABLE 3.3 - SUMMARY OF THE REFS DISCUSSION ON ITS SCAN OF FUTURE
DEVELOPMENTS IN ENVIRONMENTAL
RADIATION 15
TABLE 4.1 - TRENDS IN ENERGY AND THE ECONOMY IN THE U.S.
(data from EIA, 1993) 25
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - THE CHARGE TO THE SAB A-l
VI
-------
APPENDIX B - THINKING ABOUT THE YEAR 2025 B-l
APPENDIX C - A PROCESS FOR SCANNING FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
IN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES C-l
APPENDIX D - REFERENCES CITED D-l
APPENDIX E - GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS E-l
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
accepted 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 subcommittee, the Radiation
Environmental Futures Subcommittee (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. 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 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 environmental radiation. This scan was conducted 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 Office of
Policy Planning and Evaluation (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 according to five
criteria: present situation, current trend, future situation, concerns, and EPA role.
After a careful analysis of that matrix, the Subcommittee eliminated those issues which 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 regulations in
radiation. The issue categories are as follows, with each topic expanded upon in the referenced
section of the main report:
1. 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 susceptibility. This category of issues
concerns occupational 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-Occurring
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 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 ultraviolet (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 improvements 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). Diversion 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 coordinated 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 provided by the Subcommittee in a separate memorandum
submitted 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 reliance on strictly regulatory approaches to risk management would
more likely lead to overall enhancement of the environment from society's activities, 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 production 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 national energy policies, focusing on an
examination of the overall environmental consequences of energy production options, the
roles of alternative energy sources including nuclear electricity generation in curtailing
greenhouse gases, possible increases in ultra violet (UV) radiation and other harmful effects,
radioactive waste management issues, and potential release of radioactive materials 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 materials 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 radioactive wastes by issuing generally
applicable standards for radioactive waste disposal and residual radioactivity; and
b) formulating clear policies for both naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM)
and mixed hazardous/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 relationship of exposures to risks, and how and why different people may
respond differently to radiation. EPA will be faced with the need to incorporate new
important 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 enhanced susceptibility of individuals to radiation damage.
7) EPA should continue efforts to focus on characterizing 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
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 extent warranted by future developments, the Agency
should ensure that key research 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 technologies to limit EMF exposures 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 increased
electrification and technological developments such as magnetic resonance imaging in
medicine, magnetic levitation in transportation, and the explosion in information processing
and telecommunication technologies.
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 environmental radiation policies.
The REFS is unanimous in recommending this, given the fact that with a few exceptions, the
research, the regulatory practices, and the paradigms 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 important 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
expectation 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 Environmental Protection Agency (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 decisions. A deliberate balancing of
environmental, economic, and national security factors was envisioned to achieve environmental
quality. Public recognition of the pollution consequence of the modern 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 designed to restore environmental
quality, the focus of environmental efforts is shifting toward empowerment of all the stakeholders
in both sustained economic strength and environmental quality. Empowerment of these
stakeholders requires 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 prevent environmental degradation which
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 radiation 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.
1. 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 susceptibility (Sections 5 and 8). This
category of issues concerns occupational 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 NARM; waste
generated from the clean-up of DOE and military facilities 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 ultraviolet (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 improvements 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). Diversion 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 coordinated 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 Drinking Water Act, and the Clean Water Act—which grant regulatory authority to the
Agency to issue standards for radionuclides — 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
statutes 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 agencies 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 regulatory
agencies must prove that their regulations are at least as protective of the environment as are
those of the EPA standards, 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 agencies, and having
the best science available. It is within the context of this framework that the analysis and
recommendations 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 mentioned
in this report, that 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
components 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 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 has been named
the Environmental Futures Project. This request was made by Mr. David Gardiner, Assistant
Administrator for the Office of Policy Planning and Evaluation (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 Executive Committee of the SAB considered and accepted this request.
The SAB then established an ad-hoc committee, the Environmental Futures Committee (EFC), to
undertake this effort.
The Radiation Advisory Committee (RAC) formed a subcommittee, the Radiation
Environmental Futures Subcommittee (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:
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 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:
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 radiation.
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 Office of Policy Planning and Evaluation (OPPE).
The two Offices presented very different expectations and outlooks. On the one hand, OPPE
desired the Subcommittee 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 System 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) biotechnology in many
cases requires the use of radioactively labeled nucleic acids for gene cloning and signal
transduction work, and may provide significant understanding of genetic susceptibility to
radiation; b) communications technology involves electromagnetic fields; c) energy has nuclear
power and radioactive waste issues; d) exposure assessment is an integral part of environmental
radiation issues; and e) infrastructure will have electrification, transmission antennas, and energy
production facilities as radiation-related issues.
10
-------
11
-------
FIGURE 3.1
ENVIRONMENTAL FUTURE INPUT DRIVERS
12
-------
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 environment 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 Appendix 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 Subcommittee 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 galvanize 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.
13
-------
TABLE 3.1
ISSUES IN ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION
RELEVANT TO THE FUTURE
1. High-Level Radioactive Waste (HLW)
a. Civilian
b. Military
2. 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)
3. Clean-up
a. DOE Sites
b. Military Sites
4. Decommissioning
a. Civilian Sites
b. Military Sites
5. Mixed Hazardous/Radioactive Waste
6. Control of Nuclear Materials
7. Accidents
8. Routine Emissions
9. New Energy Sources (Including nuclear power)
10. Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) Electric and Magnetic Fields
11. Radiofrequency (RF) Electric and Magnetic Fields
12. Static and Quasi-Static Magnetic Fields
13. Radon in Indoor Air
14. Ultraviolet (UV) Radiation
15. Terrestrial Radiation
16. Cosmic Radiation
17. Occupational Exposures
18. Medical Use of Radiation
19. Population Susceptibility
20. Exposure - Dose Response - Health Outcome Information
21. Risk Communication Paradigm (mortality vs. morbidity, effectiveness)
14
-------
TABLE 3.2
CRITERIA FOR THE ANALYSIS OF FUTURE ISSUES
IN ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION
Present
Situation
V" - Existent
? - Unknown
Trend
t
1
/»
Time to
crystallizing
event
Now (today)
through }20
years, or ?
Concerns
Tech. - Technical
Pol. -Political
Sci. - Scientific
• - Major
o - Minor
EPA Role
R - Regulatory
A - Advisory
G - Guidance
E - Exploratory
P - Potential
S - Seminal
R&D - Research
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 (1)] 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 "guesstimate" by the REFS using its
collective judgment and expertise 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 loss 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 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:
15
-------
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 "crystallizing 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.
TABLE 3.3
SUMMARY OF THE REFS DISCUSSION
ON ITS SCAN OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
IN ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION
Issue
la.
Ib.
2a.
2b.
3a.
HLW, civilian
HLW, military
LLW, managed
LLW, unmanaged
Clean-up, DOE
Present
Situation
/
/
/
/
/
Trend
t
/
t
/
1 as
issue
Time to
Crystallizing
Event
5-10yrs
<5yrs
<5yrs
<5yrs
<7
Concerns
Tech.
0
o
•
•
Pol.
•
•
•
Sci.
0
o
0
EPA
Role
R+?
R
A/R
A/R
R
16
-------
3b.
4a.
4b.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
Clean-up, military
Decommissioning, civilian
Decommissioning, military
Mixed hazardous/ radioactive
waste
Control of nuclear materials
Accidents
Routine emissions
New energy sources (includes
nuclear)
ELF fields
RF electromagnetic fields
Static/quasi-static magnetic
fields
Radon in indoor air
UV radiation
Terrestrial radiation
Cosmic radiation
Occupational exposures
Medical use of radiation
Population susceptibility
Exposure/dose-response
/outcome
Risk communication
/
/
/
/
/
/
Not an issue
New
/
/
/
/
Not an issue
Not an issue
/
/
<7
?
/
1 as
issue
t
t
t
t
/
-t
t
tin
/
-
t
-
/
/
—
/
?
5-10yrs
5-10yrs
today
any time
any time
> lOyrs
> lOyrs?
< lOyrs
> lOyrs
—
> 20 yrs?
<7
any time
—
—
<7
•
•
•
•
•
0
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
0
•
0
•
•
o
•
•
0
0
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
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
17
-------
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 magnitude of the military problem, and as we approach the time to start
decommissioning civilian nuclear power plants. The dominant concerns are of a political nature,
particularly public fears about radiation 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.
2. 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 crystallizing event for many institutions needing a place for disposal of their wastes
(The Barnwell, S.C. facility 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.
3. Clean-up of radioactively-contaminated sites is an issue of increasing concern to the public.
The situation remains poorly defined, as the assessment of the problem is still in the early stages.
Technical, political and scientific concerns are all dominant issues. For example, basic research is
being conducted at the national laboratories on the interactions of microorganisms with radiation
and chemical wastes, and on the potential for genetic alteration of microorganisms to increase
their ability to scavenge radioactive materials from soils. EPA's role is regulatory.
4. Decommissioning of radioactively contaminated sites is a problem of high priority and large
magnitude. 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 contaminated sites is the lack
of low level waste disposal sites.
18
-------
5. Mixed hazardous and radioactive waste is a major radioactive waste disposal problem that is
continuing to get worse, with a high awareness in the user communities. There are limited
storage and disposal alternatives, mostly incineration followed by management as radioactive
waste. Political concerns dominate discussions on this issue but knowledge 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 regulatory because Agency actions could set the
course for the solution to this issue.
6. The control of nuclear materials from dismantled warheads is potentially a large problem. A
crystallizing 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. Significant policy research is being
done on the issue in the United States, and EPA hopes to be given some authority to participate in
the U.S. involvement in international efforts to address this issue.
7. Accidents involving radiation are an issue of medium 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.
8. 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.
9. 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. Extremely low frequency (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 priority. 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 concerns are scientific and political, because technical
solutions exist but may place large economic burdens on the public. The EPA has not given this
issue a very high priority at the present time, and its role is advisory.
11. Radiofrequency (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
19
-------
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 scientific and political. The EPA's role will be seminal, 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 problem. 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 cancer 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 potentially important issue for ecosystems, e.g.,
through its effects on microplankton populations. There 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 considered to be significant issues for the future.
Although 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
or discovery, a crystallizing event is not foreseen for this issue. Technical aspects are the
dominant factor in the problem, although there are some political problems. Existing guidance
and regulations are adequate 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 Federal government on the subject.
EPA's role could be in research and guidance.
19, 2Q.Population susceptibility and information on exposure, 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
20
-------
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 politics, 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
environmental 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 environmental radiation issues with the most
impact in the future are as follows:
1. Energy and environmental quality (Section 4): Excluding 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 susceptibility (Sections 5 and 8): This category of
issues concerns occupational exposures, exposure/dose/outcome information as reflected by
differences in radiation susceptibility, 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; disposal 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,
21
-------
because the proposal of a standard often becomes a rallying point for various groups in
society.
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 ultraviolet (UV) radiation. In the latter case, ecological exposures are
particularly of concern. In general, a crystallizing 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 improvements 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 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.
6. Loss of control of nuclear materials (Section 10): Diversion 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 coordinated 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 Subcommittee 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 offices 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 consider and
integrate all aspects of the issues involved: societal and value judgments, economic concerns,
22
-------
human health concerns, environmental aspects of remediation programs, cost-effectiveness and
cost-benefit analyses of the various alternatives, and, finally, the best science available. The
Subcommittee is unanimous in recommending the above and notes that, with few exceptions, the
research, regulatory practices, and paradigms used today as the basis for setting radiation
standards may not be effective or efficient in resolving the issues of the future.
23
-------
4. ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
4.1 Introduction and Overview
Energy supply and use are inextricably linked to environmental quality. Fuel use is a major
source of environmental aerosols and greenhouse gases. Inefficiencies in energy conversion and
end use produce thermal effluents, and resource extraction, processing and shipment also have
environmental consequences. Energy-related waste products require environmentally sound
disposal or reuse (e.g., fly- and bottom ash, spent nuclear fuel, hydrocarbon wastes from
petroleum refining). 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 consequences.
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 decisions are
made by state and local authorities. National environmental 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
conservation 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 relative 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 refrigerators, furnaces, and air
conditioners in homes and office buildings. These changes, along with slow but continuous
changes in the industrial infrastructure, have resulted in a nearly continuous decline in the amount
of energy consumed per unit of economic activity between 1973 and 1992 (Table 4.1). These
energy savings undoubtedly minimized
24
-------
25
-------
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
26
-------
TABLE 4.1
TRENDS IN ENERGY AND THE ECONOMY IN THE U.S.
(data from EIA, 1993)
ENERGY MEASURE
1 . Primary energy use (quadrillion Btu)
2. Gross domestic product (GDP)
(billion 1987 dollars)
3. Energy/GDP ratio (Btu/1987 dollar)
4. Energy use projected from 1973
Energy/GDP ratio (quadrillion Btu)
5. 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)
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 radiation 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 exposures 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.
27
-------
b) Increasing attention to naturally-occurring radioactive materials (NORM) associated
with oil and gas extraction and the coal fuel cycle. NORM is recognized 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 versus other energy sources. The most important
determinants for trends in nuclear energy use are the general demand for electricity,
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 suggest that electricity use will increase
as the overall economy grows (Figure 4.1). In the past, the economic welfare of the
United States has clearly benefitted from increasing energy use per capita, but this
coupling may no longer be necessary and certainly is not desirable considering the many
adverse environmental impacts of energy production and use. In particular, the
combustion of fossil fuels is the principal contributor to greenhouse gases and the
potential for significant global warming over the next decades. Nuclear power does not
produce greenhouse gases and is environmentally desirable 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 Subcommittee 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 warming 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 politically dominant viewpoints held about nuclear power in the United
States. As will be explained further in the next two Sub-Sections, both scenarios lead to
similar conclusions about the implications for EPA: a) barring an unforeseen
breakthrough in technology, government actions and policies, along with market 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.
28
-------
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 economic 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 environmental problems.
International concerns about global climate changes may also affect future policies on energy
production and use.
While this scenario acknowledges that opportunities for further 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 increased use of fossil fuels in this
scenario would bring increases 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
1970's. Use of solar energy currently requires decentralized 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 renewable 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
computers, energy-saving devices, transportation), the use of non-renewable energy supplies
will also increase in this scenario.
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 economic growth, the assumed
continuation of reliance on non-renewable sources of energy, and the assumed national
commitment to reducing greenhouse gases and other conventional pollutants, this scenario
29
-------
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 generating 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 environmental 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 primary 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 associated with waste disposal.
Because energy savings can have important environmental benefits, this scenario assumes
that future policies will encourage 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.
As does 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
concerns. With the projected decline in nuclear power, alternative—mostly
30
-------
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 electricity 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
technological 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 because 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 renewable resources vis-a-vis non-
renewable resources has not properly 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 adequately 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 incrementally, 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 generation because nuclear plants are running near capacity. However,
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, decentralization
of generation with alternative energy technologies (e.g., photovoltaic solar energy) is
assumed not to degrade the reliability of electrical supply.
31
-------
Scenario 2 therefore projects that the need for the development 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 increasingly 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 promulgate low-level radioactive
waste disposal standards.
The REFS also considered a future in which energy production by nuclear fusion would
be both technically as well economically feasible within the next 30 years. The Subcommittee
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
generation of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels and biomass combustion under control.
First, the prospects for commercially available fusion energy still depend upon a number of
major scientific and technical breakthroughs (Appendix D, Anderson 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 weapons.
Fusion-generated energy is not expected to become available within the next 30 years,
and so will not be a feasible alternative 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 radioactive wastes, and, if components in these
reactors are carefully controlled, neutron-activated byproducts will generally consist of
relatively short half-life radionuclides.
Despite differences in assumptions about sociopolitical issues, technological capabilities,
and economic pressures, the two scenarios involving greenhouse gases and potential roles of
nuclear energy generation suggest a role for EPA in providing national and international
leadership on energy production and use and their environmental implications. The EPA
could provide such leadership by undertaking an in-depth examination of the environmental
consequences of alternative energy production and use policies, particularly with regard to
generation of greenhouse gases. It is evident that carbon combustion 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 increased reliance on renewable energy sources into the
32
-------
U.S. energy economy, or else to allow for continued or expanded use of other alternatives,
including nuclear-generated electricity.
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
recommends that EPA consider taking the following actions:
a) Participate positively in the j oint development of energy and environmental policies
at the national level, taking into due consideration the interests and activities of
state and local authorities and focusing on examination of the impacts of alternative
energy production and use policies on the environment, particularly with regard 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 Mountain) 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 radioactive
waste disposal and that regulatory proposals for residual radioactivity may be published by
early 1995.
33
-------
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 population exposures to NORM, radioactive
wastes, and radioactively 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 considered 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 undergoes in a lifetime. The incidence of cancer also increases 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 (although 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
34
-------
diagnostic tests involving radiation, thereby increasing 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 previous
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
effects. Such decreases will probably offset the increase in population exposure driven by
population growth. EPA could influence patient exposure by an aggressive program of
Federal guidance. It could also use this authority to issue occupational radiation guides that
could influence the radiation dose received by radiologists, technicians, and personnel
involved with other medical radiation procedures with x-rays and radioactive 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 and 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 coverage 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 containment 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 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 radionuclides is that many users are
presently shifting their source material from reactor byproduct materials regulated by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), to naturally-occurring 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
regulation or perhaps under EPA regulation through RCRA or TSCA.
35
-------
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 radiology, radiotherapy, and nuclear medicine, but also in site
restoration activities in the Federal Complex Clean-up, decommissioning 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 fraction of their allowable dose each,
thereby increasing population 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 occupational standards by evaluating the impact of different
approaches: keeping the current system of upper limits with As Low As Reasonably
Achievable (ALARA) levels (Appendix D, U.S. EPA, Federal Register. 1987), versus 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
incorporating 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 applied 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.
36
-------
5.2 Recommendations
EPA should continue efforts to focus on characterizing 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 stakeholders by dissemination of all available scientific information.
EPA should consider the establishment of stronger collaborative agreements with other
Federal agencies to monitor the changing patterns of exposure to ionizing radiation by the
general population. This collaboration could provide the Agency with more of the data
necessary to make better informed choices when exercising its authority 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 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 that 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.
37
-------
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) naturally-occurring radioactive material (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 enterprises, and commercial reactor sites;
e) radioactive materials commingled with hazardous substances (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 manufacturing and dismantling of nuclear
weapons;
h) stored high-level radioactive wastes from the defense program; and
i) stored spent commercial reactor fuel and highly radioactive 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 (Appendix 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 numerous setbacks, for any form of wastes. On-site
storage of high-level radioactive waste is reaching capacity at some locations, and the risks of
38
-------
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
management (Appendix D, U.S. EPA, 1992). This situation could be of great importance to
issues in the management of naturally-occurring radioactive materials (NORM) (Appendix D,
U.S. EPA/SAB, 1994a), the management of wastes from the Federal Complex Clean-Up
Program (Appendix D, OTA, 199 la), and many small amounts of wastes from research and
development 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 storage rooms and buildings, comingled with various types of
hazardous materials; and on reactor sites. Most of these locations 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 contamination 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, particularly 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 believes 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 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
management of the existing inventory of radioactive waste. For example, it has been
estimated by the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) of the U.S. Congress that the
Federal Complex Clean-Up Program costs alone may exceed 300 billion dollars (Appendix
D, OTA, 199la, OTA, 1991b).
In this scenario, protracted litigation becomes the order of the day, with various public
groups suing the government agencies at every attempt to issue standards or regulations for
39
-------
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 resource, 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 clean-up.
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 environmental
approach to energy management. Over the next 50-100 years, the inventory of radioactive
waste would increase significantly, but probably less than an order of magnitude, for both
low-level and high-level radioactive waste. These figures, 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 beneficial 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 action; and
40
-------
b) to advocate to Congress the permanent setting aside of large tracts of public lands where
all types of radioactive 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
disposal 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 national 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 for EPA
Issues attendant to waste management clearly pose circumstances with huge economic
and social consequences. Because of existing polarization on radioactive waste issues, there
is a compelling need for credible leadership on managing 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
congressionally 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 leadership 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 research 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;
41
-------
c) managing residual radioactivity, and harmonizing radiological 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 management of these
materials; and
e) dealing with mixed radioactive and hazardous wastes to break the bureaucratic deadlock
among Federal regulatory 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 government 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
regarding 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 continuously evaluates the policies
and alternatives implemented will be crucial given the fact that these wastes will be around
for the next millennium and beyond.
42
-------
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 information 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 relationship, it is very difficult to determine whether any
significant 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
effects have been demonstrated, however, especially when the flux of energy is sufficient to
raise tissue temperatures ("thermal 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,
membrane proteins which may affect cellular proliferation and/or signaling (Appendix D,
Tsong, 1990).
All frequencies of electromagnetic radiation from the ultraviolet downward are
considered non-ionizing, including visible 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 mechanical 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
43
-------
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 the 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, population growth patterns differ considerably among the
various sub-populations. Increasing population size occurs among the poor and minorities
(who are often the same group), especially those living in large cities. Changes in population
growth patterns cannot be expected to occur rapidly. Therefore, 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 economic climate in many states 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 various 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 generated 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 magnitudes 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 technologies increasingly achievable over the next decade or
two. Over a much longer time frame, NANOBOTS (nanometer-scale self-actuated robots)
may be developed and implanted in the human body for medical and other purposes. The
types of electromagnetic field 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
44
-------
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 radiation usually above ground.
This has led to questions about the impact of such activities on the aesthetics, ecology and
possibly the safety and health effects that result. The siting of these transmission facilities
require land clearance in localized areas. 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 technologies. The cellular telephone has already been
questioned as a potential health threat, and electromagnetic radiation from radio to
microwave frequencies is transmitting information 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
benefits, its risks are likely to be overlooked. However, with the identification of breaks in
the stratospheric ozone layer, increased exposures to sunlight, especially its ultraviolet light
(UV) component, may present environmental problems that require attention. At higher
frequencies, UV has been associated with human skin cancer, with immune dysfunction, and
with a variety of adverse effects on non-human biota, especially with microplankton at the
surface of the sea. Although 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 increasing concern; the UV from
45
-------
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 microwave 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
radiation.
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
environment 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
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 frequencies, power levels, deposition patterns, and modulations
suggests 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
46
-------
health outcome 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 hazardous effects.
7.3.2 Potential Effects on Ecological Systems
The impacts of exposures to non-ionizing radiation on ecological systems are not well
known. Clearly, if effects can be shown in humans, other living creatures would also be
expected 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 in the future if UV exposures of ecosystems increase (Appendix D,
Bothwell et. al.. 1994). Consequences may range from none to drastic evolutionary changes
in the food chains of the Earth's ecosystems. What will happen is impossible 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 dangerous, 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 intervention. 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 undoubtedly be asked by Congress and other parties to study various
types of non-ionizing radiation and provide conclusions 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 voluntary measures to reduce exposures.
7.5 Recommendations
""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 et. al.. 1986).
47
-------
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 radiofrequency
EMF, quasi-static magnetic fields, ultrasound, possibly other forms of non-ionizing radiation,
and their interactions with related agents. If EPA is to be perceived as the primary source of
advice on these environmental 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.
48
-------
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 different 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 exposures (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 knowledge 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 generally considered to be more damaging than lower rates.
For radiations that deposit energy very locally (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 relationship is essentially linear
at low doses or departs from linearity at higher doses; whether saturation of response occurs
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 different types of radiation exposure or
between radiation and other agents, for example as exposures to radiation and tobacco
49
-------
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 susceptibility. 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 exposures), 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 protected from
radiation effects as the result of consuming antioxidants. 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 threshold question unequivocally. Some
scientists believe that the existence of robust DNA repair mechanisms 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 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
differences in effectiveness per unit dose and the influence of dose-rate for low-LET and
high-LET ionizing radiation. Advances 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.
50
-------
Other mechanistic findings would also influence our perception 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 influence 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 component, 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 knowledge 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 management. Risk reduction for maximally exposed individuals has
become more important than reduction in aggregate population 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 effectiveness criterion, general regulation of radiation might be relaxed while
ensuring that the susceptible group could avoid excessive 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
significance 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 subgroups 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
51
-------
given level of exposure to radiation (or some other carcinogen) 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 accommodate this knowledge?
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 allowable 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 hazardous 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 paradigm being followed with
indoor radon. Instead of regulating the source of radiation directly, EPA would inform
people of the existence of specific 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 susceptibility class (e.g., genetic screening), and would outline self-
protective behaviors (e.g., stop smoking, relocate residence, avoid certain jobs or products,
make dietary changes, stay out of the sun, use sunscreen).
Many issues arise in radiation risk management for susceptible 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 "reasonable
accommodation" with respect to disabled persons in the work force?
b) Which susceptibilities are beyond the individual's control and which are his or her simple
choice (genetics versus poverty versus residence location versus smoking)? Would EPA's
52
-------
attitude change if a genetic basis of tobacco addiction is discovered, or an inexpensive
genetic engineering 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 exposures necessary for cancer development (say, for instance,
radiation and a specific chemical exposure), which is the susceptibility factor and which
the environmental 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
susceptibilities 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 directly 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 research programs, become the source-of-choice for information 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 populations
by the National Cancer Institute and other organizations, and studies of miners exposed to
radon.
53
-------
54
-------
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 radiation
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 United States, 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 guidance.
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 influence 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 extremely low or extremely high exposures. Therefore, a decrease in
population mobility would increase the number of extremely high and low exposures, while
an increase in mobility 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 features such as basement, slab-on-grade, or crawl space, number
of floors, pathways for entry from the soil (e.g., utility penetrations, drains, cracks), designs
55
-------
that influence inside/outside pressure gradients, and building operation practices such as
heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems or open versus 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 exposures across the population.
Changes might occur through considerations other than radon (e.g., energy efficiency,
housing 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 smokers are at much higher risk of lung cancer
than are non-smokers exposed to the same levels of radon; this difference is estimated 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 subgroups
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 assumes 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 for persons exposed to low levels of indoor radon, the
bulk of radon-related cancers will occur in the low-exposure population. 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:
56
-------
a) No fundamental changes in major building techniques and practices will occur in the next
5 years, nor probably 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 mechanical systems
for HVAC in non-residential buildings. Increases in efficiency of HVAC systems may
also make them more attractive to builders and designers.
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 differences 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
(Appendix 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 effectiveness and, if
necessary, modification.
57
-------
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.
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 potential" 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.
58
-------
10. CONTROL OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS
Recent thaws in cold war activities and the breakup of the Soviet Bloc call for increasing
attention to potential environmental 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 contamination from poor management.
10.1 Key Issues
The world's stockpile of nuclear materials is enormous, representing tens of billions of
dollars in invested resources, and contains energy that has the potential to be extremely
dangerous 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 blueprint 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 reasonable 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 management policies will be required
whether the materials remain 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 stockpile.
Under most reasonable scenarios, excess materials exist beyond those that might be put aside
for national security. Both the mix of radionuclides 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.
59
-------
To pursue an aggressive effort to develop international controls, the U.S. might even
solicit—under international controls—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 stability 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 magnitude 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 leadership and coordinated action by
several Federal and international 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 actions—positive or negative—on such efforts
before committing to a course of action in the waste disposal issue.
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 institutional 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.
60
-------
By these approaches, EPA could catalyze U.S. and international 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.
61
-------
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 appeared 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 susceptibility to radiation risks among subpopulations could require new
regulatory paradigms for environmental radiation; and
c) EPA will continue to require technically strong programs 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 production. 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 energy 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 economics 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 industries that produce large quantities of these wastes can plan for
proper management of these materials.
62
-------
Issues attendant to radioactive waste management clearly pose circumstances with huge
economic and social consequences. Because of existing polarization on radioactive waste
issues, there is a compelling need for credible leadership on managing these materials to
minimize environmental degradation, assure economic vitality, promote environmental
equity, 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
regarding 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
development of a comprehensive national plan to deal with the radioactive waste disposal
issue. A process to develop foresight 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 international
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 technology 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 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
63
-------
necessary to make better informed choices when exercising its authority 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 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.
b) EPA could 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. 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 identification of genetic and other susceptibilities may be commonplace.
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
electromagnetic fields (EMF). To the extent warranted by future developments, the
Agency should ensure that key research 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 technologies to limit EMF exposures 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 increased electrification and technological developments such as
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in medicine, magnetic levitation (MagLev) in
transportation, and the explosion in information processing and telecommunication
technologies.
b) EPA should track and help stimulate research conducted by other agencies on the health
and environmental 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
electromagnetic radiation, quasi-static magnetic fields, ultrasound, 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 regulatory initiatives (e.g., guidance) for known hazards (thermal effects, shock) and
any new significant hazard that may be identified in the future.
11.1.4 Radon
64
-------
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 guidance to smokers and non-smokers. Any discovery about
genetic 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 stakeholders by dissemination of all available scientific information.
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 concentration to
acceptable levels.
e) Continue to track—and possibly encourage, support or even conduct research to
elucidate the relationship between 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.
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 science. EPA is undergoing a massive
re-structuring of its research organization, and is streamlining its operational arm throughout
the Agency.
11.2.1 Becoming the Source of Choice for Information on Environmental Radiation
65
-------
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 summarized as one of giving advice,
providing guidance, and issuing generally applicable standards on which other agencies 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 radiation 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 agencies. 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 proactive
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 implement 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 resources in the most efficient
and cost-effective manner possible. 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 stimulating research through
extramural grants and 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 research, 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. (Appendix
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.,
EMAP). Foresight is the process of creating an understanding of information generated by
looking ahead (Appendix B 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
66
-------
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 information. It must be a public process, and the data, assumptions, and
information used must be available for independent analyses. 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 stronger, 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 information 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 principles for environmental protection (Appendix D, U.S. EPA,
1994a) in the following manner:
a) An ecosystem approach to environmental protection, as opposed to an approach
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 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 information and guidance on
key radiation-related issues.
c) Pollution prevention and environmental justice and equity for citizens of the United
States and the rest of the world were seen to provide fundamental perspectives for issues
related to radon, radon exposure trends, management 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 efforts:
67
-------
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 activities, 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 production 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
national energy policies, focusing on an examination of the overall environmental
consequences of energy production 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 management issues, and
potential release of radioactive materials 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 materials 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 radioactive wastes by issuing generally
applicable standards for radioactive waste disposal and residual radioactivity; and
b) formulating clear policies for both naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM)
and mixed hazardous/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 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.
68
-------
6) Advances will likely be made in understanding the significance of different measures of
exposure, the relationship of exposures to risks, and how and why different people may
respond differently to radiation. EPA will be faced with the need to incorporate new
important 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 damage with the damage
from other agents, is done in a world in which identification of genetic and other
susceptibilities is commonplace.
7) EPA should 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 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
EMF. To the extent warranted by future developments, the Agency should ensure that
key research 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 technologies to limit EMF exposures 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 increased electrification and technological developments such as MRI in medicine,
MagLev in transportation, and the explosion in information processing and
telecommunication technologies. Specifically, 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 environmental
radiation policies. The REFS is unanimous in recommending this, given the fact that with
a few exceptions, the research, the regulatory practices, and the paradigms used today as
the basis for setting radiation standards may not be effective or efficient in resolving the
issues of the future.
69
-------
Many of these issues analyzed, and recommendations presented, 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 addition, it is hoped by the REFS that the Agency will consider its
degree of institutional readiness and what is necessary to achieve its desired golas in light of
the future issues and challenges involved in environmental radiation identified in this report.
70
-------
APPENDIX A - THE CHARGE TO THE SAB
The SAB was asked to take on an initative on environmental futures, in a memo dated
July 16, 1993 ogininally 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
Committee (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 identify important future developments
and environmental consequences.
C. Choose a limited number of short- and long-term future developments for in-depth
evaluation of their environmental consequences.
D. Develop appropriate procedures for conducting in-depth examination of those future
developments and consequences.
E. Apply procedures described in D.
F. Draw implications for EPA from the in-depth examination of future developments.
G. Recommend possible actions for addressing the developments and consequences.
H. Propose possible approaches for continuing EPA programs 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 appropriate professionals in EPA (added by the SAB).
A-l
-------
APPENDIX B
THINKING ABOUT THE YEAR 20252
2Copyright Coates and Jarratt, Inc. (1993); used with
permission from Coates and Jarratt, Inc.
-------
B-2
-------
THINKING ABOUT THE YEAR 20253'4
What follows is a presentation of highly reliable statements about the year 2025. Their
origins are in Project 2025: Anticipating 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 statements from which consequences can be derived with
mathematical 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 supporting 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,
3. 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.
4. Copyright Coates & Jarratt, Inc., 1992
B-3
-------
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
alternatives affect any other thoughts, concepts, beliefs, or conclusions about the future.
What follows is an inventory of high probability statements about the year 2025 in two
categories:
• Scientific discoveries and research, and technological 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 convergence 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 exactly the same meaning for each reader. We suggest that when the
B-4
-------
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, this set of statements forms the background 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.
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 environment. Finally, the more traditional
business and industrial 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 understanding 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 microprocessors 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 electromagnetic fields.
3. All human diseases and disorders will have their linkages, if any, to the human
genome identified.
For many diseases and disorders, the intermediate biochemical 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.
B-5
-------
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 genetics.
5. The genome of prototypical plants and animals, including 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 networks 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
communication will be available to any place, at any time, from anywhere.
7. The chemical, physiological, and genetic bases of human 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 influence
emotions, learning, sensory acuity, memory and other psychological states will be
available and in widespread 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 function
in other non-medical areas.
9. Robots and other automated machinery will be commonplace 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.
11. 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.
13. Foods for human consumption will be more diverse as a result of agricultural
genetics.
B-6
-------
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 automated control and make
continuing performance monitoring and evaluations of physical systems routine.
16. Manipulation at the molecular or atomic level will customize materials designed for
highly specific functions.
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.
19. Custom designed drugs such as hormones and neurotransmitters, 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 improvements in the status of people who are injured,
deteriorated, or for natural or environmental reasons have otherwise degraded
physical or physiological capabilities.
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 effective for restricted but practically significant vocabularies.
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.
B-7
-------
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, reclamation, and remanufacturing
will be routine in all advanced 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 commerce, 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 widespread with tens of thousands of
miles of highway either so equipped or about to be. This will not necessarily
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
B-8
-------
involving the economic value of information. A Nobel prize will be granted an
economist for a new theory of the economics of information.
38. There will be routine genetic programs for animal enhancement, 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 living in destitution.
• a broader cut living comfortably in the context of their culture.
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 metropolitan, including people living
in satellite cities clustered around metropolitan centers.
6. Family size in advanced nations will be below replacement 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 dominant business form,
economically.
B-9
-------
11. Economic blocs will be a prominent part of the international 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 violence, 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 instabilities will deter business
involvement in specific countries.
16. Despite technological advances, epidemics and mass starvation will be common
occurrences.
17. Global environmental management issues will be institutionalized.
18. Quality, service, and reliability will be a routine, global business criteria.
19. Global government will become prominent and effective but not complete with
regard to environmental issues, war, narcotics, design and location of business
facilities, regulation of global business, disease prevention, workers' rights, and
business practices.
20. There will be substantial, radical changes in the U.S. government. The period of
computer assisted gerrymandering 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 computer literate and computer
dependent.
23. Global currency will be in use.
B-10
-------
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, employment, and other activity and work. These new
metrics will become important factors in governmental planning.
26. In the advanced nations lifelong learning will be effectively
institutionalized.
27. There will be a worldwide popular culture. The elements 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 commitments 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 incentives.
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 descendants of RU486.
34. The absolute cost of energy will rise, affecting the cost of
transportation and goods movement, leading to reallocations in the use of terrain
and physical space.
3 5. 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, and rituals for a substantial portion of the population of the advanced
nations and the global middle class.
38. Identification cards will be universal.
B-ll
-------
39. Global migration will be regulated under new international 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 transactions on a national and
international basis will prevail.
44. GNP and other macroeconomic measures and accounts will include new variables
such as environmental quality, accidents and disasters, and hours of true labor.
45. Sustainability will be the central concept and organizing principle in environmental
management, while ecology will be its central science.
B-12
-------
APPENDIX C
A PROCESS FOR SCANNING FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
IN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
C-l
-------
A Process for Scanning the 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 programs,
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 2.
Figure 2 presents an alternative to the life cycle of health and environmental issues
presented in the Charter for the Environmental Futures Project (Figure 1). 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
environmental issues.
The objective of a process such as that depicted in Figure 2 is the early identification of
emerging problems, and translating 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 process. Scanning will involve a mechanism for broadly
sweeping 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
procedure in terms of the information provided which incorporates the fact that the scanning
and analytical functions have already 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 horizons) and policy
implementation (short term time horizons). Priority setting also feeds back into the
monitoring function. The strategic planning and the policy implementation processes interact
with each other and feed back into the monitoring 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 1 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 et. al.. 1986).
C-2
-------
FIGURE 1
EVOLUTION OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
C-3
-------
FIGURE 2
THE LIFE CYCLE OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
APPLYING ISSUES MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES
C-4
-------
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 information 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 them 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 information. It must be a public process and the data,
assumptions, and information used must be available for independent analyses. 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 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, legislative, and regulatory responses to problems (for a more detailed
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 economic
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 government
into a reactive mode with very limited alternatives.
Reference:
Coates JF, Coates VT, Jarratt J, Heinz L. Issues Management: How You Can Plan,
Organize, And Manage For The Future, Lomond Publications, MD, 1986.
C-5
-------
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., Ecosystem 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., Issues 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, D.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
10) Foster K.R., Health Effects of Low-Level Electromagnetic 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., Wilkerson A., Low-Level Radioactive Waste:
From Cradle to Grave, Van Nostrand Reinhold, NY, 1990
13) Gonzalez-Mendez, Ricardo, Chair, Radiation Environmental Futures Subcommittee,
Memorandum to the Science Advisory Board's Environmental Futures Committee
(EFC), entitled "Model Process for Scanning Developments in Environmental Issues,"
July 28, 1994, 8 pages
D-l
-------
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 International Commission on Radiological
Protection (ICRP) Publication Number 60, Pergammon Press, 1991
16) Moerner W.E., Examining Nanoenvironments in Solids on the Scale of a Single,
Isolated Impurity Molecule, Science, Vol. 265, pages 46-53, 1994
17) OTA, 1989, Partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level
Radioactive Waste, Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), Congress of the United
States, 1989
18) OTA, 199 la, Complex Clean-Up: The Environmental 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, Office of Technology
Assessment, Congress of the United States, 1991
20) Polk C., Postow E. (eds.), Handbook of Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields,
CRC Press, Boca Raton, 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, 1993
23) Tsong T.Y., Electrical Modulation of Membrane Proteins: Enforced Conformational
Oscillations and Biological Energy and Signal Transductions, Annual Reviews of
Biophysics and Biophysical Chemistry, pages 83-106, 1990
24) U. S. DOE, 1993, Energy Information Administration (EIA), Annual Energy Review
1992, Report DOE/EIA-03 84(92), U.S. Department of Energy, EIA, Washington, DC,
June 1993
25) U.S. DOE, 1994, Energy Information Administration (EIA), Monthly Energy Review,
June 1994
26) U.S. EPA, 1987, Federal Register. Guidance to Federal Agencies for Occupational
Radiation Protection, Federal Register Vol 52, No. 17, pages 2822 - 2834, 1987
(EPA's Federal Guidance on Occupational Exposures.)
D-2
-------
27) U.S. EPA, 1990, Guidance on the definition and identification of commercial mixed
low-level radioactive 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 (transmitted to Mr. William
K. Reilly, Administrator, U.S. EPA by Drs. Raymond C. Loehr, Bernard D. Goldstein,
Anil Nerode, and Paul G. Riser on January 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 Environmental 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 Strategies for the 1990's," EPA-SAB-
EC-88-040, September 1, 1988
31) U.S. EPA/SAB, 1990, "Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for
Environmental Protection," EPA-SAB-EC-90-021, September 25, 1990
32) U.S. EPA/SAB, 1993a "Multi-Media Risk Assessment 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 Multimedia 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, 1994d, "A Retrospective Review of SAB/RAC Activities," draft dated
September 1994
[NOTE: The final report is EPA-SAB-RAC-95-009, dated March 1995.]
D-3
-------
38) U.S. EPA/SAB, 1995a, "Beyond the Horizon: Protecting the Future with Foresight,"
Prepared by the Environmental Futures Committee (EFC) of the Science Advisory
Board's (SAB's) Executive Committee, 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," Prepared 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 Regulatory Commission: Standards for
Protection Against Radiation: Final Rule, Federal Register 56: 23360-23474, 1991
(specifically Section 1, subsection I, on p 23363, "ICRP 1990 - recommendations")
41) U.S. NRC, 1992, Radioactive Waste Repository Licensing: Synopsis of a Symposium
sponsored by the Board on Radioactive Waste Management, National Research
Council, National Academy Press, Wash. DC, 1992
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.]
D-4
-------
5) Environmental Engineering Committee EPA-SAB-EEC-95-004
[Title: "Review of Environmental Engineering Futures Issues," Prepared by the
Environmental Engineering Committee, 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-5
-------
APPENDIX E - GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS
AAAS American Association for the Advancement of Science
ALARA As Low As Reasonably Achievable (EPA's Federal Guidance on
Population Exposure)
BEIR Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
CFC Chloro Fluoro Carbons
CIRRPC Committee for Interagency Radiation Research Policy and Coordination
CIS Commonwealth of Independent States
Ci Curie (3.7xl010 disintegrations per second)
CSTP Council on Science and Technology Policy
DNA DeoxyriboNucleic Acid (The genetic material in higher organisms)
DOD U.S. Department of Defense
DOE U.S. Department of Energy
EC Executive Committee of the SAB
EFC Environmental Futures Committee (a Ad Hoc Subcommittee of the U.S.
EPA/SAB/Executive Committee)
EIA Energy Information Administration (U.S. DOE)
ELF Extremely Low Frequency (30 -300 Hz)
EMAP Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
EMF Electro Magnetic Field
EMR Electromagnetic Radiation
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Also known as U.S. EPA, or "the
Agency")
EPRI Electric Power Research Institute
ETS Environmental Tobacco Smoke
FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
FY Fiscal Year
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GNP Gross National Product
HVAC Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning
Hz Hertz ( a unit of frequency of a periodic process equal to one cycle per
second)
ICRP International Commission on Radiation Protection
INTERNET Inter-Connection of Networks
L Liter
LET Linear Energy Transfer
LTR Letter Report (Refers to SAB Letter Reports)
MagLev Magnetic Levitation
MRI Magnetic Resonance Imaging
E-l
-------
APPENDIX E - GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS: CONTINUED:
NANOBOTS Nanometer-Scale Self-Actuated Robots
NARM Naturally-Occurring or Accelerator-Produced Radioactive Materials
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NORM Naturally-Occurring Radioactive Material
NRC U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
NSF National Science Foundation
NIMBY Not in My Back Yard
OPEC Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries
OPPE Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation (U.S. EPA)
ORD Office of Research and Development (U. S. EPA)
OTA U.S. Congressional Office of Technology Assessment
p Pico (one trillionith, IxlO"12)
RAC Radiation Advisory Committee (U. S. EPA/SAB/RAC)
REFS Radiation Environmental Futures Subcommittee of the RAC (U.S.
EPA/S AB/RAC/REF S)
RF Radio Frequency Radiation (an electromagnetic wave frequency
intermediate between audio and infrared frequencies used in radio and
television transmission)
R & D Research and Development
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
SAB Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA)
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
U.S. United States
U. S. A. United States of America
U.S.S.R. United Soviet Socialist Republic
UV Ultra-Violet (radiation)
UVR Ultra-Violet Radiation (a wavelength shorter than visible light and longer
than those of X rays)
vs Versus
W Watt (a unit of power equal to one j oule per second)
WIPP Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
E-2
-------
E-3
-------
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
------- |