Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation II
ATTACHMENT C
|
Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation II
ATTACHMENT C |
The Amchitka Project This attachment contains the following reports: Amchitka Presentation February 8, 2006 Amchitka Science Plan Amchitka Report and Addendum Amchitka Biomonitoring Plan Amchitka Peer Review Reports Publications on Stakeholder Involvement |
CRESP was
asked by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) to
present the results of its work on Amchitka to the Amchitka Nuclear Test
Sites Update session of the 2006 Alaska Forum on the Environment held
in Anchorage on February 8, 2006. This presentation provides the single
best graphic summary of CRESP's total Amchitka work product and its implications. View Presentation
Amchitka Independent Assessment Science Plan The Amchitka Independent Assessment Science Plan has been completed in accordance with the Letter of Intent (LOI) for Amchitka Island signed in June of 2002 between the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation and the U.S. Department of Energy. That LOI required approval by four entities of the assessment science plan. This June 24, 2003 version is the approved version of that plan. Cover
Sheet View REVIEW
OF THE AMCHITKA INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT
On August
1 2005 CRESP, an independent consortium of university-based environmental
scientists, announced the results from three 2004 expeditions to Amchitka
Island in the western Aleutians to assess radionuclides in that marine
environment. Three nuclear test shots were set off under Amchitka by the
U.S. Government during a six-year period beginning in 1965. Peer Review of the Amchitka Report Before releasing the report, CRESP did, as it typically does with important studies, ask its distinguished peer review committee to review its draft report so it could improve the final version. Arthur Upton, former director of the National Cancer Institute and chair of the CRESP Review Committee on behalf of its sub-committee (John F. Ahearne, Melvin W. Carter, Charles Fairhurst, Ph.D., Morton Lippmann) on Amchitka said of that draft: "The methods were well conceived, expertly applied and have produced results that are definitive and thereby enable conclusions that should be meaningful to all concerned…. In view of the high quality of the studies reported, and their failure to find evidence of the release of radioactivity from the shot cavities into the surrounding environment, the results that are presented should be reassuring to concerned stakeholders." View Peer Review Committee Report Briefing
on CRESP Amchitka Report August 1, 2005 View
Presentation ADDENDUM
TO: January
11, 2006 CRESP Peer Review Committee Review of Addendum Report Biomonitoring
for Ecosystem and Human Health Protection The purpose of the present report is to provide CRESP's recommendations for a Biomonitoring Plan at Amchitka, particularly with respect to what radionuclides to examine, what species should serve as bioindicators, where to monitor, and when to monitor. The CRESP conclusions are based on the data presented in the full CRESP report (Powers et al. 2005) and addendum (Powers et al. 2006). The data and justifications used are presented in the present report. CRESP recommends the following components for biomonitoring as part of the Long-term Stewardship Plan for Amchitka: Radionuclides: Cs-137, Co-60, I-129, Tc-99, Am-241 and the Plutonium/Uranium series. Species: Fucus, Alaria fistulosa, Blue Mussel, Dolly Varden, Black Rockfish, Pacific Cod, Halibut, Glaucous-winged Gull. Tissues: Soft tissue of kelp and mussels (all isotopes), muscle for other species (Cs-137, Co-60, I-129, Tc-99). Location: All three test shots for kelp, mussels, Black Rockfish and gulls; two sides of Amchitka for halibut and cod; Airport Creek and Cannikin for Dolly Varden. Timing: Regular biomonitoring on a 5-year Plan. Plus: collection of expanded bioindicators following a significant geologic event or a significant increasea in radionuclide content in routine bioindicators. In the event that the collection has been triggered by an increase in radionuclide content in routine bioindicators, all expanded indicators should be analyzed for radionuclides. In the event the trigger has been a geologic event, analysis of the eight regular bioindicators should be sufficient unless the analysis reveals a significant increase in radionuclide content in these bioindicators. The Letter of Intent stipulates 5-year review of the long-term stewardship plan, making it reasonable to biomonitor on this schedule. 5-year biomonitoring might include either one sampling period, or two. All information provided by Regular Biomonitoring should be made available to relevant stakeholders for their consideration and to ensure continued stakeholder input into future biomonitoring. CRESP Peer Review Committee Review: o
Biomonitoring for Ecosystem and Human Health Protection at Amchitka Submitted
by Arthur C. Upton, M.D., Committee Chairman Publications On Stakeholder Involvement Burger, J., M. Gochfeld, D. S. Kosson, C. W. Powers, B. Friedlander, J. Eichelberger, D. Barnes, L. K. Duffy, S. C. Jewett, and C. D. Volz. 2005. Science, policy, and stakeholders: developing a consensus science plan for Amchitka Island, Laeutians, Alaska. Environmental Management 35:557-568. (View Full Text) Burger, J., M. Gochfeld, C. W. Powers, D. S. Kosson, J. Halverson, G. Siekaniec, A. Morkill, R. Patrick, and L. K. Duffy. Scientific research, stakeholders, and policy: continuing dialogue during research on radionuclides on Amchitka Island, Alaska. Environmental Management (in press). (DOEms 142) (View Full Text)
|
|
|
Consortium
for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation II
An Organization of the Institute for Responsible Management |
||
(Large file size 7.93MB) 
