Richard E. Toohey

Dose Reconstruction for the Million Worker Study: Status and Guidelines

The primary aim of the epidemiologic study of one million U.S. radiation workers and veterans [the Million Worker Study (MWS)] is to provide scientifically valid information on the level of radiation risk when exposures are received gradually over time and not within seconds, as was the case for Japanese atomic bomb survivors. The primary outcome of the epidemiologic study is cancer mortality, but other causes of death such as cardiovascular disease and cerebrovascular disease will be evaluated. The success of the study is tied to the validity of the dose reconstruction approaches to provide realistic estimates of organ-specific radiation absorbed doses that are as accurate and precise as possible and to properly evaluate their accompanying uncertainties. The dosimetry aspects for the MWS are challenging in that they address diverse exposure scenarios for diverse occupational groups being studied over a period of up to 70 y. The dosimetric issues differ among the varied exposed populations that are considered: atomic veterans, U.S. Department of Energy workers exposed to both penetrating radiation and intakes of radionuclides, nuclear power plant workers, medical radiation workers, and industrial radiographers. While a major source of radiation exposure to the study population comes from external gamma- or x-ray sources, for some of the study groups, there is a meaningful component of radionuclide intakes that requires internal radiation dosimetry assessments. Scientific Committee 6-9 has been established by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) to produce a report on the comprehensive organ dose assessment (including uncertainty analysis) for the MWS. The NCRP dosimetry report will cover the specifics of practical dose reconstruction for the ongoing epidemiologic studies with uncertainty analysis discussions and will be a specific application of the guidance provided in NCRP Report Nos. 158, 163, 164, and 171. The main role of the Committee is to provide guidelines to the various groups of dosimetrists involved in the MWS to ensure that certain dosimetry criteria are considered: calculation of annual absorbed doses in the organs of interest, separation of low and high linear-energy transfer components, evaluation of uncertainties, and quality assurance and quality control. It is recognized that the MWS and its approaches to dosimetry are a work in progress and that there will be flexibility and changes in direction as new information is obtained with regard to both dosimetry and the epidemiologic features of the study components. This paper focuses on the description of the various components of the MWS, the available dosimetry results, and the challenges that have been encountered. It is expected that the Committee will complete its report in 2016.

Scientific issues in radiation dose reconstruction.

Stakeholders have raised numerous issues regarding the scientific basis of radiation dose reconstruction for compensation. These issues can be grouped into three broad categories: data issues, dosimetry issues, and compensation issues. Data issues include demographic data of the worker, changes in site operations over time (both production and exposure control), characterization of episodic vs. chronic exposures, and the use of coworker data. Dosimetry issues include methods for assessment of ambient exposures, missed dose, unmonitored dose, and medical x-ray dose incurred as a condition of employment. Specific issues related to external dose include the sensitivity, angular and energy dependence of personal monitors, exposure geometries, and the accompanying uncertainties. Those related to internal dose include sensitivity of bioassay methods, uncertainties in biokinetic models, appropriate dose coefficients, and modeling uncertainties. Compensation issues include uncertainties in the risk models and use of the 99th percentile of the distribution of probability of causation for awarding compensation. A review of the scientific literature and analysis of each of these issues distinguishes factors that play a major role in the compensation decision from those that do not.

Correlation of lung dose with Rn concentration, potential alpha-energy concentration and daughter surface deposition: A Monte Carlo analysis

In the evaluation of lung cancer risk from Rn daughters in the home environment, measurements of Rn concentration or potential alpha-energy concentration (PAEC) have served as proxies for actual radiation dose to the lungs. This paper uses a single-compartment room model, model parameters from a number of recent studies, and Monte Carlo analysis to explore the relative value of Rn concentration, PAEC, and room surface deposition, or plate-out, as estimators of lung dose. Results indicate that Rn concentration and PAEC are fairly good estimators, explaining roughly 50-70% of the variation in dose for the conditions studied, over the range of Rn concentrations considered (74-555 Bq m 3). The relative advantage of one measure over the other depends upon the variability in a number of factors across the houses being evaluated. Room surface activity deposition was not found to be superior to the traditional measures of Rn concentration and PAEC. Significant room for improvement remains in the development of simple home monitors providing an improved estimation of lung dose.

Rapid internal dose magnitude estimation in emergency situations using annual limits on intake (ALI) comparisons.

It is crucial to integrate health physics into the medical management of radiation illness or injury. The key to early medical management is not necessarily radiation dose calculation and assignment, but radiation dose magnitude estimation. The magnitude of the dose can be used to predict potential biological consequences and the corresponding need for medical intervention. It is, therefore, imperative that physicians and health physicists have the necessary tools to help guide this decision making process. All internal radiation doses should be assigned using proper dosimetry techniques, but the formal internal dosimetry process often takes time that may delay treatment, thus reducing the efficacy of some medical countermeasures. Magnitudes of inhalation or ingestion intakes or intakes associated with contaminated wounds can be estimated by applying simple rules of thumb to sample results or direct measurements and comparing the outcome to known limits for a projection of dose magnitude. Although a United States regulatory unit, the annual limit on intake (ALI) is based on committed dose, and can therefore be used as a comparison point. For example, internal dose magnitudes associated with contaminated wounds can be estimated by comparing a direct wound measurement taken soon after the injury to the product of the ingestion ALI and the associated f1 value (the fractional uptake from the small intestine to the blood). International Commission on Radiation Protection Publication 96, as well as other resources, recommends treatment based on ALI determination. Often, treatment decisions have to be made with limited information. However, one can still perform dose magnitude estimations in order to help effectively guide the need for medical treatment by properly assessing the situation and appropriately applying basic rules of thumb.

Dose coefficients for intakes of radionuclides via contaminated wounds.

The NCRP Wound Model, which describes the retention of selected radionuclides at the site of a contaminated wound and their uptake into the transfer compartment, has been combined with the ICRP element-specific systemic models for those radionuclides to derive dose coefficients for intakes via contaminated wounds. These coefficients can be used to generate derived regulatory guidance (i.e., the activity in a wound that would result in an effective dose of 20 or 50 mSv, or in some cases, a organ-equivalent dose of 500 mSv) and clinical decision guidance (i.e., activity levels that would indicate the need for consideration of medical intervention to remove activity from the wound site, administration of decorporation therapy or both). Data are provided for 38 radionuclides commonly encountered in various activities such as nuclear weapons, fuel fabrication or recycling, waste disposal, medicine, research, and nuclear power. These include 3H, 14C, 32P, 35S, 59Fe, 57,58,60Co, 85,89,90Sr, 99mTc, 106Ru, 125,129,131I, 134,137Cs, 192Ir, 201Tl, 210Po, 226,228Ra, 228,230,232Th, 234,235,238U, 237Np, 238,239,240,241Pu, 241Am, 242,244Cm, and 252Cf.

Thirteenth Annual Warren K. Sinclair Keynote Address: Where Are the Radiation Professionals (WARP)?

Abstract In July 2013, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements convened a workshop for representatives from government, professional organizations, academia, and the private sector to discuss a potential shortage of radiation protection professionals in the not-too-distant future. This shortage manifests itself in declining membership of professional societies, decreasing enrollment in university programs in the radiological sciences, and perhaps most importantly, the imminent retirement of the largest birth cohort in American history, the so-called “baby boomer” generation. Consensus emerged that shortages already are, or soon will be, felt in government agencies (including state radiation control programs); membership in professional societies is declining precipitously; and student enrollments and university support for radiological disciplines are decreasing with no reversals expected. The supply of medical physicists appears to be adequate at least in the near term, although a shortage of available slots in accredited clinical training programs looms large. In general, the private sector appears stable, due in part to retirees joining the consultant ranks. However, it is clear that a severe problem exists with the lack of an adequate surge capacity to respond to a large-scale reactor accident or radiological terrorism attack in the United States. The workshop produced a number of recommendations, including increased funding of both fellowships and research in the radiological sciences, as well as creation of internships, practicums, and post-doctoral positions. A federal joint program support office that would more efficiently manage the careers of radiological professionals in the civil service would enhance recruiting and development, and increase the flexibility of the various agencies to manage their staffing needs.