2020 Health Physics Society Midyear Meeting & ExhibitionWPM-B
|
| Chair(s): Ray Johnson |
|
WPM-B.1 14:00 Does Residential Radon Actually Cause Lung Cancer? Fellman Alan L*, NV5 Dade Moeller alan.fellman@nv5.com
For decades, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has claimed that residential radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer, resulting in approximately 21,000 lung cancer deaths per year. In making that case, EPA relies on the linear non-threshold hypothesis or LNT, extrapolating the risk observed in uranium miner studies into the low dose residential range. In doing so, EPA (and many State agencies) choose to ignore the abundance of scientific literature that refutes their conclusion linking residential radon with lung cancer incidence. Additionally, the EPA’s aggressive promotion of residential radon as a public health crisis has successfully contributed to the growth of the radon industry, which impacts all persons who own and/or live in a single family home. Relevant radon studies published over the past several decades are reviewed. They provide an accurate picture of what the science tells us about the impact of residential radon exposure on lung cancer risk and calls into question the “radon as a public health threat” message. |
|
WPM-B.2 14:15 Exempt Quantities of Alpha Radionuclides. Ribaudo Catherine*, National Institutes of Health cribaudo@nih.gov
NRC regulations in 10 CFR 30.70 Schedule A and 10 CFR 30.71 Schedule B list the corresponding concentrations and quantities, respectively, of a variety of radionuclides which may be possessed without the need for a license. These are commonly referred to as "Exempt Quantities". There is currently an absence of defined exempt quantities for alpha emitters, which creates a hardship for research institutions performing collaborations with a commercial lab for the analysis of samples containing trace quantities of alpha emitters such as Ra-223, Th-227, Ac-225 and others. These radionuclides are gaining in popularity in biomedical research and clinical programs. This presentation will present a proposal to define appropriate values for these alpha-emitting radionuclides. |
|
WPM-B.3 14:30 The National Materials Program – A 21st Century Federal-State Partnership. White A. Duncan*, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Cox W. Lee, North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services duncan.white@nrc.gov
The passage of Section 274 to the Atomic Energy Act in 1959 and the approval of the first Agreement in 1962 initiated a unique federal-state program where the federal government discontinues, and the State assumes regulatory authority over certain byproduct, source and special nuclear materials. The relationship between the Agreement States and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has evolved from a hierarchy where the NRC leads, and the Agreement States follow, to one where the NRC and the Agreement State operate as co-regulators. Today, the regulation of radioactive material in the U.S. by the 39 Agreement States and the NRC consists of federal regulations and compatible state regulations. Currently, the Agreement States regulate 88% of radioactive material licenses nationally. This federal-state partnership known as the National Materials Program (NMP) has always been successful in the protection of the safety and security of workers and the public, but the NMP lacked any formal structure or coordinating mechanisms among the regulatory agencies. Over the last two decades, the Agreement States and the NRC have increasingly collaborated on a number of regulatory activities due in large part to the increasing number of Agreement States, the expertise found in the States, and need for the NMP to efficiently use its resources. These factors contributed to the NRC and Agreement States formalizing an NMP oversight and coordination structure in the last few years. This presentation will look at how the Agreement State-NRC cooperative relationship evolved over the last two decades, the formal NMP oversight activities and what this means for the regulated community and the public. |
|
WPM-B.4 14:45 Update of the Department of Energy Standard STD-1196-2011, Derived Concentration Technical Standard. Corredor Carlos E.*, Department of Energy; Leggett Richard W., Center for Radiation Protection Knowledge; Eckerman Keith F., Center for Radiation Protection Knowledge; Samuels Caleigh E., Center for Radiation Protection Knowledge; Jokisch Derek W., Francis Marion University; Wallo Andrew , Department of Energy; Favret Derek J., Department of Energy carlos.corredor@hq.doe.gov
DOE is revising standard STD-1196-2011, Derived Concentration Technical Standard (DOE, 2011), to provide updated derived concentration standard (DCS) values and reference person effective dose coefficients, that reflect the current state of knowledge and practice in radiation protection, as well as the use of updated demographic data for the U.S. A DCS value is a radiological quantity used in the design and conduct of radiological environmental protection programs at DOE sites. These quantities provide reference values to control effluent releases from DOE facilities. They are criteria for determining if best available technology analyses are warranted and may be useful in implementing the ALARA process for environmental programs. A DCS for exposure to a radionuclide in a specified environmental medium (e.g., air, water) represents the concentration of the radionuclide in that medium that would result in an effective dose of 1 mSv (100 mrem) to a reference person based on continuous exposure for one year. DCS values are derived using age-specific effective dose coefficients for reference persons and age and gender dependent intake rates for ingestion of water and inhalation of air. The revision of the Standard includes updated DCSs for external dose from submersion in air, ingestion of water and milk, and inhalation of air. The update are based on several factors: 1) the distribution of the U.S. population by age and sex as indicated by U.S. Census 2010; 2) new age-specific effective dose coefficients for external exposure to airborne radionuclides, from FGR 15 (EPA, 2019a); 3) new age-specific committed effective dose coefficients for inhalation or ingestion of radionuclides based on updated biokinetic and dosimetric models of the ICRP, and tissue weighting factors recommended in ICRP 103 (2007); 4) reference age and sex-specific usage of environmental media by the U.S. population based on recent compilations; and 5) the nuclear decay data from ICRP 107 (2008). |
|
WPM-B.5 15:30 Radiation Litigation, Part I – Understanding the Legal Concepts . Johnson Raymond H*, Radiation Safety Counseling Institute ray@radiationcounseling.org
Plaintiffs in radiation litigation cases will normally file a lawsuit based on a claim of negligence on the part of a radioactive material licensee. To justify a negligence case the plaintiff must present four elements in a lawsuit. 1. Standard of Care – the plaintiff must establish that the licensee has a duty to protect workers. In other words, the licensee is legally bound not to cause an unreasonable risk of harm to workers or others. The question then is, “What is the duty owed?” Is it ALARA? Is it the federal (or state) dose limits? How much radiation can a worker receive? 2. Breach of Duty Owed – the plaintiff must show that the licensee failed to implement radiation safety practices for achieving the duty owed, which resulted in an unacceptable radiation exposure? 3. Proof of Causation - the plaintiff must prove that the breach of duty led directly to the damages claimed? This leads to questions, such as, does radiation cause the ailment claimed by the plaintiff? Was the dose sufficient? Was the time sequence proper (taking latency into account)? Could other factors have caused the ailment? Is the ailment more likely than not to have been caused by radiation, i.e. greater than 50% probability of causation? 4. Damages – legally recognized damages may include: physical pain, emotional distress, economic loss, medical expenses, and loss of consortium. The strategy of the plaintiff’s attorney will be to dramatically present the four elements for negligence and appeal to the juror’s fears (such as fear of cancer). Typically, both the plaintiff and attorney will rely upon popular radiation myths and junk science to justify their lawsuit. They may fail to distinguish between real and perceived risks. Both mythology and perceived risks will be addressed as well as other defense strategies and how to avoid radiation litigation. |
|
WPM-B.6 15:45 Radiation Litigation, Part II – Preparation as an Expert or Fact Witness . Johnson Raymond H.*, Radiation Safety Counseling Institute ray@radiationcounseling.org
As a specialist in radiation safety you may be called upon to provide testimony for either the plaintiff or defense in a radiation lawsuit. To qualify as an expert, you will need to meet the Daubert Criteria. Namely, your testimony must be grounded in defensible science, your hypotheses must be testable, subject to peer review, with a known error rate according to existing standards, and generally accepted within the scientific peer community. You will also be challenged on your credentials as an expert in terms of your education and experience directly relevant to the case. Having advanced degrees, such as a Ph.D, or certification as CHP, may not be adequate credentials relevant to a particular case. While someone may be an expert in some area, this does not necessarily qualify them as an expert for the elements of a particular lawsuit. Part of the professional ethics for CHPs is not to practice beyond their area of knowledge and expertise. Opposing attorneys will scrutinize every aspect of your credentials to identify weaknesses that may be used to discredit your expertise. If you do not meet the Daubert Criterial, the opposing counsel may ask the judge not to allow your testimony. As an expert you may be called upon to use tools for effective risk communication to explain radiation risks to attorneys, judges, and jurors. |
|
WPM-B.7 16:00 Radiation Litigation, Part III – Avoiding Litigation by Good Risk Communications. Johnson Raymond H, Radiation Safety Counseling Institute ray@radiationcounseling.org
Why do people file lawsuits? Usually lawsuits begin with a belief that someone has had an external or internal radiation exposure. Lawsuits are not always driven by actual facts. Cases are often driven by perceptions and misunderstandings fueled by radiation mythology. Plaintiff’s will argue that the incident could have been prevented. They will also argue that their alleged disease was caused by radiation exposure from a facility and not naturally occurring. They may also claim that they were treated unfairly, threatened, ridiculed, or unlawfully terminated. Therefore, avoiding litigation begins with using good relational skills. This means the attitude of health physicists and management is crucial. The genesis of many lawsuits is bad interactions with personnel. Workers should be treated with professional courtesy and respect. With each interaction professional staff should take the opportunity to: educate workers, demonstrate safe practices, answer questions honestly. And most importantly don’t belittle. If you don’t know the answer, tell workers you will find out and get back to them. The relationship you build with workers now may influence their response to incidents later. Handle fears and concerns with sensitivity. Remember what is routine to a health physicist may be confusing and frightening to workers or their families. Find out what their concerns are by active listening. Identify and address misperceptions that may be due to radiation mythology. Workers often associate internal radiation exposures as a death sentence, while external is OK. Check to see if the worker understands and be sure to provide emotional support. It is also good to document all conversations and meetings. |