THAM-B - Special Session Homeland Security Part 2 Orlando V 10:00 - 12:00
|
| Chair(s): Brooke Buddemeier, Shraddha Rane
|
| |
THAM-B.1
10:00 RadResponder Network - A Quick Walkthrough With The Newest Updates G Chen, EPA
; B Palmer*, Chainbridge Tech, Inc
Abstract: In the past, there were tools that federal agencies used to input and share radiological data. However, the tools were not easy to use, and the output data were not easily shareable across the agencies. Most importantly, they were not available to all of the radiation emergency organizations at all levels (state, tribal and local). It is essential that, during a radiological emergency event, there is a common tool that is easy to use and accessible to all organizations nationwide to share radiological data. Together, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Nuclear Incident Response Team program, in conjunction with the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), created the RadResponder Network. The programing development of RadResponder Network began in 2012, and it is aiming to become the national standard and Whole Community solution for the management of radiological data.
Since the inception of the RadResponder Network, the radiological emergency response communities have gradually become aware of this unique tool, and it has grown from 300 registered organizations and 1000 registered users to 1480 organizations and over 6800 users today. RadResponder is an ongoing project, and it constantly improves itself by adding new functions and enhancement from the communities' input and suggestions. The purpose of this presentation is to inform the communities about the technical enhancement and new functions that have been added to the RadResponder Network since the 2018 Annual HPS meeting.
|
THAM-B.2
10:15 Myths about Protective Action Guides (PAGs) S Decair, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
; L Ralston, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; J Nagata, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; JS Wieder*, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; L Matakas, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; BR Buddemeier, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Abstract: Decision makers rely on PAGs to protect human health after accidental or intentional releases of radioactivity to the environment. Lessons learned from Japan's experiences during the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident in 2011 are leading to improvements in the preparedness guidance issued by national and international advisory agencies worldwide. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is particularly interested in addressing some of the myths, misapprehensions, and misconceptions about the application of PAGs that have emerged since the accident. For example, one myth perpetuated in mainstream media is that radiological guidelines for evacuation were responsible for the unnecessary deaths of 1,600 people in Japan. This presentation aims to evaluate the best information published to date on what caused deaths during and after the combined disasters and most importantly, discuss how judicious implementation of PAGs can best protect public health without causing undue psychological, societal and long-term stresses.
|
THAM-B.3
10:30 Risk Based Decision-making During a Radiation Incident AE Leek*, Iowa Department of Public Health
; Leek
Abstract: Radiation emergency response is supported by many guidelines and reference values that provide recommended action levels based on radiation risk to assist in decisions that responders and communities will be forced to make throughout an incident. These guidelines are vital in providing a foundation on which to make decisions to protect responders and the public that properly account for the radiation risk. However, it is important for responders, technical advisors and decision-makers to remember that there are many assumptions that go into these guidelines and not all recommendations in these documents provide for the proper risk balance in every situation. In addition, communities and responders may have other priorities that may drive decisions that allow for more or less risk acceptance than the assumptions given in common reference documents, depending on the public perception of the radiation risk as compared with the other competing risk priorities. This presentation will highlight several examples where decision-makers are forced to weigh the radiation risk alongside other political, economic, and public perception factors and outline how technical advisors can use the reference materials at hand to assist decision-makers in appropriately accounting for radiation risk and potentially adjusting reference values to more appropriately balance with the other risk factors and response priorities. This presentation is designed to align with the hypothetical radiation incident scenario that attendees will follow throughout the Homeland Security section, and allow attendees to consider their thoughts on how radiation risk for a given scenario can differ when other decision-making factors are introduced.
|
THAM-B.4
10:45 A Communication Tool for Use in Nuclear/Radiological Emergencies – Development and Testing A Ansari*, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
; A Salame-Alfie, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Abstract: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is collaborating with the Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to develop and test new data templates for disseminating and communicating environmental radiation exposure data using the CDC Radiation Hazard Scale communication tool (https://emergency.cdc.gov/radiation/radiationhazardscale.asp) The Radiation Hazard Scale is a tool for communicating the relative hazards of radiation exposure to the general public, community leaders, and decision makers in a radiation emergency. It is a simple numeric scale which has undergone an extensive amount of audience testing, and it is intended to help people better understand their risk for health effects from the emergency and encourage people to follow recommended protective actions if needed and reduce their risk. During an emergency, critical and timely radiation exposure data are generated using modeling projections, environmental radiation measurements and dose calculations, as appropriate, by the Interagency Modeling and Atmospheric Assessment Center (IMAAC) and Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Center (FRMAC). The present collaboration aims to communicate these complex data using the simple Radiation Hazard Scale. To ensure these new data products will be useful to stakeholders during a radiation emergency, these data products are pilot-tested with state and local stakeholders. This presentation will describe the tools and the feedback received to date from these stakeholders.
|
THAM-B.5
11:00 Implementation Guidance for Emergency Response Dosimetry A Salame-Alfie*, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
; SV Musolino, Brookhaven National Laboratory
Abstract: The presentation will describe the upcoming NCRP Commentary "Implementation Guidance for Emergency Response Dosimetry," a companion to NCRP Report No. 179, which defined the emergency worker and provided guidance to bridge the gap in managing dosimetry between trained, fully equipped emergency workers and the remainder community of responders during the early response period. The goals of the Commentary are to recommend practical operational guidance to help facilitate the tenets of Report 179 and to help emergency managers, planners, and responders adopt and implement the practical guidance and tools for monitoring and tracking radiation doses whenever dosimetry resources are limited. The Commentary promotes the use of these tools within the framework of the National Incident Management System (NIMS) - Incident Command System (ICS) by directly coupling NIMS-ICS procedures and standard forms to monitor and track dose in a manner that optimizes the use of limited instrumentation. Both Report No. 179 and this Commentary address the differences between dosimetry practices for routine occupational exposures of radiation workers and those practices where workers are not fully equipped to deal with the austere environment of emergency response. To that end, this Commentary assists responders in achieving a crisis standard of care that is consistent with that in their workplace but is quite different from the expectation in a regulated space. The primary audiences for the Commentary are emergency responders and radiation professionals, such as staff from radiation control programs, Radiological Operations Support Specialists (ROSS), and radiation response volunteers (e.g., from the Medical Reserve Corps), but the principles presented here can be used by planners and others responsible for managing response to a radiological or nuclear incident. The Commentary includes a brief appendix dedicated to a discussion of dosimetry issues for the canine members of the USAR teams, acknowledging that many of the same principles of radiation protection and dosimetry that apply to the handlers also apply to service dogs. The Commentary also includes a list of questions and answers on topics relevant to responders that could be used as a template or a guide to prepare event-specific messages for conveying such information.
|
THAM-B.6
11:15 The Use of PET/CT to Evaluate Internal and External Contamination on a Canine Exposed to a Contaminated Environment CM Marianno*, Texas A&M University
; KM Cook, Texas A&M University
Abstract: Victims could be trapped in radiologically contaminated collapsed structures following a natural disaster or terrorist event. Urban search and rescue (USAR) dogs are the most efficient way to locate and rescue trapped individuals, but they might not be used due to health concerns stemming from the contaminated environment. Little research has been conducted on the use of USAR dogs working in this type of scenario and a better understanding of potential health effects is needed. The objective of this research was to develop a method to observe the uptake of radioactive material by a canine under USAR working conditions. To produce a contaminated area cornstarch was lightly dusted over debris in a 3 m x 3 m area and sprayed with F-18 labeled fludeoxyglucose (FDG). After allowing 45 minutes to dry, a dog and handler were allowed to enter the area and conduct simulated search activities. Following 10 minutes of exposure the dog was removed and imaged using PET/CT to quantify internal and external contamination. Using PET/CT images contamination was isolated on the paws, around the mouth, esophagus, and stomach due to ingestion. There was minimal or no radioactivity observed in the lung or other breathing passages. This could indicate that inhalation is not a major dose pathway for USAR dogs under working conditions. It should be noted that this study only included a single test subject and a larger study with more canines is needed to produce statistically valid results.
|
THAM-B.7
11:30 Streamlining Public Health Planning for Radiation Emergencies:A Tool to Transform Point of Dispensing Plans into Community Reception Center Plans LR Finklea*, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
; L Cathcart, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; E Flanagan, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Abstract: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) created a tool and is designing an exercise series to help streamline public health planning for radiation emergencies. The tool helps state and local public health planners initiate the process of planning for radiation emergencies in their jurisdictions. Since many local and state jurisdictions have plans for Point of Dispensing (POD) sites for medical countermeasures, the tool walks planners through how to transform a POD plan into a community reception center (CRC) plan by emphasizing similarities and explaining how to account for key differences. The tool covers ten major topics involved in CRC planning. Within each topic there is: 1) a summary of CDC's guidance on CRC planning, 2) a checklist to help identify useful sections of existing POD plans, and 3) links to helpful resources.
This talk will provide an overview of the tool and exercise series as well as outline where radiation professionals can assist and help build robust and effective CRC plans in collaboration with public health, emergency management and other agencies.
|
