Report 5 of the Council on Science and Public Health (A-07)

Radioactive/Chemical Waste and Radiation in the Environment

Read full text

Summary

Objective. To review the storage, management, and transportation of radioactive waste and the monitoring and regulation of nuclear facilities, with regard to their potential impact on the environment and the people living near these facilities and the availability of relevant information to the public.

Methods. English-language articles and resources were identified by Google Scholar and MEDLINE searches for 1967 through January 2007 using the key words nuclear monitoring, environmental monitoring, environmental radiation, and chemical waste.  Articles were chosen based on their ability to describe the extent and frequency of health and environmental monitoring around nuclear waste facilities, superfund sites, or other hazardous or chemical waste disposal or storage facilities. Additional resources on regulations and guidelines for monitoring and oversight of radioactive waste were obtained from the Web sites of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and the Departments of Energy (DOE) and Defense.

Results. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 provides a plan and guidance for high level nuclear waste, but guidelines for the storage and disposal of low level nuclear waste are less clear. Currently, stakeholder forums are in existence. Several organized programs coordinate the regulation of what are considered “Atomic Energy Act materials,” and promote communication between the states and the NRC. Most of these organizations hold annual meetings and also participate in one another’s annual meetings. These include: the National Materials Program, Office of State and Tribal Programs, Conference of Radiation Control Protection Officers, Organization of Agreement States. It appears that, while not coordinated under one agency, the reporting guidelines for reporting of spills, leakages, and airborne emissions of radioactive materials to the appropriate federal and state environmental protection agencies are in place.

Conclusions. Given the fragmentation of the oversight system among several different agencies, and the separation of oversight between NRC- and DOE-managed sites, a comprehensive system is lacking. Although several independent federal and state organizations monitor environmental standards and radiation levels, there is no one comprehensive and consistent report on both health status and environmental quality nationally. Given the systems already in place, it is unclear if additional regulations would improve communications among federal agencies, commercial plants, and the states. However, efforts should be made to streamline existing processes while maintaining transparency to the general public.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The following statements, recommended by the Council on Science and Public Health, were adopted by the AMA House of Delegates as directives at the 2007 AMA Annual Meeting:
 
The AMA will:

1. Advocate for the development of a transparent, comprehensive national policy and plan for the disposition of US Department of Energy (DOE) radioactive and chemical waste. (Directive)
2. Support independent, comprehensive environmental testing at all nuclear facilities throughout the country and with the results of any testing made available to the public. (Directive)
3. Urge the appropriate federal and state agencies to monitor and/or evaluate the health status of residents in the area of leaking nuclear facilities to accurately determine any adverse impact on health status by leakage of radioactive materials, and make public these results. (Directive)
4. Support measures that strengthen the coordination and oversight of nuclear facilities. (Directive)
   

CSAPH home page
Reports by topic