Congress may soon face a decision about what agency will take responsibility for worker and facility safety at Department of Energy (DOE) sites as the DOE moves to external regulation. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) occupies a prominent place on the short list of candidates. Thus, an examination of the NRC's historical record on health and safety, in particular, its record in protecting workers, is warranted. This look at the record shows that the NRC does not adopt a strong regulatory stance; exposure standards for workers have not changed despite evidence of harmful effects at low doses of radiation exposure; record-keeping and worker monitoring are lax; the NRC is blind to internal cultural problems; it appears more concerned about its public image than about entrenched problems; it is too lenient to the industry it is supposed to regulate. The NRC's history of recent problems has caused some critics to call for Congressional hearings or additional oversight of the agency.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Improving the Environment, An Evaluation of DOE's Environmental Management Program, by the Committee to Evaluate the Science, Engineering, and Health Basis of the Department of Energy's Environmental Management Program, National Academy of Sciences, 1995. Available on the World Wide Web.
2.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Strategic Assessment Issue (SAI) No. 2, Oversight of the Department of Energy, Sept. 16, 1996, Available on the World Wide Web at www.nrc.gov. See also SAI 11, Operating Reactor Program Oversight; and 23, Enhancing Regulatory Excellence. Also, Issues Papers on The Role of Industry, March 7, 1997; Materials/Medical Oversight, March 20, 1997; Operating Reactor Program Oversight, March 25, 1997; Enhancing Regulatory Oversight, March 27, 1997; Oversight of the Department of Energy, March 28, 1997; Decommissioning—Power Reactors, April 3, 1997; and Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Regulation, April 15, 1997.
3.
ZuckA. M., Ensuring Worker Safety and Health Across the DOE Complex, National Academy of Public Administration, January 1997. (Contact NAPA, 1120 G Street, NW, Suite 850, Washington, D.C. 20005; 202-347-3190.)
4.
DOE Moving Slowly on External Regulation Issue, Clearinghouse Newsbrief, 9:6, pp. 7–8, June 1998.
5.
OSHA May Need to Revise Standards If DOE Transfers Safety, Health Authority, Bureau of National Affairs, Occupational Safety & Health, 28:32, January 20, 1999.
6.
Nuclear Regulation, Preventing Problem Plants Requires More Effective NRC Action, Government Accounting Office, May 1997.
7.
PooleyE., Blowing the Whistle on Nuclear Safety, Time Magazine, p. 47, March 4, 1996.
8.
Public Citizen, Comments of Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy Project at NRC's Strategic Assessment and Re-Baselining Project, 1997.
9.
Telephone interview with Maine activist Ray Shadis, August 5, 1997.
10.
NRC Annual Report, 1994-FY1995, 1996.
11.
ManuelC. A.BossongK.BeckerJ.BorsonD.DavisG.RaderN., Glowing on the Job, Worker Exposure to Radiation at Nuclear Power Plants (3rd Edition), Public Citizen, April 1990.
12.
Nuclear Lemons, An Assessment of America's Worst Commercial Nuclear Power Plants, J. Riccio with L. Brooks, Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy Project, 1996.
13.
LochbaumD., The Good, the Bad and the Ugly/A Report on Safety in America's Nuclear Power Industry, Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, Massachusetts, June 1998.
14.
Telephone interview with Jim Riccio of Public Citizen in Atlanta, July 1997.
15.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission World Wide Web Site at www.nrc.gov.
16.
Nuclear Information and Resource Service, World Wide Web site at www.nirs.org.
17.
Telephone interview with Diane D'Arrigo of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service in Washington, D.C., August 7, 1997. Also, NIRS Briefing Paper on U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1990 Radiation Standards, December 11, 1990.
18.
NRC to Increase Allowable Radiation Levels/U.S. Moving Backwards While Other Nations Reduce Risks, Nuclear Information and Resource Service Media Advisory, December 11, 1990.
AroraS.GardnerF., Gofman on the Health Effects of Radiation: There is No Safe Threshold, University of San Francisco, Synapse, 38:16.
21.
Health Effects of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation:, or BEIR V, National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1990.
22.
Telephone interview with Maine activist Maria Holt, August 6, 1997.
23.
Nuclear Wastelands, A Global Guide to Nuclear Weapons Production and Its Health and Environmental Effects, MakhijaniA.HuH.YihK. (eds.), The MIT Press, Cambridge and London, 1995.
Cardis, Effects of Low Doses and Low Dose Rates of External Ionizing Radiation: Cancer Mortality among Nuclear Industry Workers in Three Countries, Radiation Research, 142, pp. 117–132, 1995.
26.
WassermanH.SolomonN., Killing Our Own, The Disaster of America's Experience with Atomic Radiation, A Delta Book, 1982. Available on the World Wide Web at www.ratical.org/radiation/killingourown/index.html.
27.
WingS., Mortality Among Workers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Journal of the American Medical Association, 265:11, p. 1397, March 20, 1991.
28.
BertellR., Estimates of Uranium and Nuclear Radiation Casualties Attributable to Activities Since 1945, Medicine and War, 4, pp. 27–36, 1988.
29.
Summary of Health Effects of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiations: Time for Reassessment?National Academy Press, on the National Academy of Sciences World Wide Web site at www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/ionizing/.
30.
AllenS., Trio Refute Conclusions on '79 Disaster, The Boston Globe, March 28, 1999.
31.
UptonA., Ionizing Radiation, in Occupational Health, Recognizing and Preventing Work-Related Disease (2nd Edition), LevyB. S.WegmanD. H. (eds.), Little, Brown and Company, Boston and Toronto, 1988.
32.
Nuclear Regulation, Weaknesses in NRC's Inspection Program at a South Texas Nuclear Power Plant, Government Accounting Office, October 1995.
33.
Millstone's New Employee Program Brings Forth More Concerns, Associated Press, May 12, 1997.
34.
RabinovitzJ., Nuclear Regulatory Panel Votes to Restart Millstone Reactor, The New York Times, June 16, 1998.
35.
BestM. H., Power to Compete, A Study of the Electric Power Industry and Industrial Competitiveness in America and New England, University of Massachusetts Lowell, 1997.
36.
Telephone interview with Will Paul of the IBEW, Washington, D.C., July 1997.
37.
HoweP. J., Maine Yankee owners vote to close plant, The Boston Globe, p. B4, August 7, 1997.
38.
RogersK. C., The Future of NRC Regulation, presentation to the Westinghouse Operating Reactors Symposium, Turnberry Isle, Aventura, Florida, June 5, 1996.
39.
A Time Report Shook Up the NRC, Which Closed Plants for Repairs. But Can It Fix Itself?Time Magazine, Spring 1997.
40.
Telephone interview with Paul Blanch, Millstone whistleblower and consultant, August 7, 1997.
41.
FreedmanM.RiccioJ., What the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Won't Tell You: Aging Reactors, Poorly Trained Workers, Spent Fuel, Summary of Leaked INPO Papers, Public Citizen, December 1993. Available on the World Wide Web at www.citizen.org/CMEP/nuclearsafety/nuclearsafetycurrent.html.
42.
Failure of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission/Whistleblowers are Doing the NRC's Job, Natural Resources Defense Council, April 12, 1996.
43.
RussellW. T., Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206 in the matter of Boston Edison Company (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), Docket No. 50-293, License No. DRP-35.
44.
Telephone interview with David Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists, Washington, D.C., August 7, 1997.
45.
Three Mile Island's Puzzling Legacy/Report Finds Lessons from Partial Meltdown Forgotten, Ignored, Union of Concerned Scientists press release, March 22, 1999.
46.
ColvinJ. F., Sharing in a Competitive Environment, address at the Nuclear Industry's Fifth Annual Strategic Planning Conference, Williamsburg, Virginia, April 20, 1997.
47.
NickersonC., Canadian Utility Shuts 7 Nuclear Reactors, The Boston Globe, p. 3, August 15, 1997.
48.
WaldM. L., U.S. Atomic Tests in '50's Exposed Millions to Risk, The New York Times, p. A10, July 29, 1997.
49.
WaldM. L., Thousands Have Thyroid Cancer from Atomic Tests, The New York Times, p. 6, August 2, 1997.
50.
BrookeJ., In Idaho, Anger Over 1950's Nuclear Tests, The New York Times, p. A12, August 13, 1997.
