OEPA testimony

[Andrew Karam <karam.1@osu.edu>]

Dear RADSAFers:

Following is the text of the testimony I presented today at our hearing.  I
have had sufficient requests that I just can't fill them all and still do
my job (and we have no easily-accessible WWW page).  I am posting this in
its entirety to avoid the likely scenario of posting it piecemeal over the
next week.  This way you can either read or ignore it all at once.  I
anticipate bowing out of this thread at this point because, after this, I
can't think of much more to say.  

Incidentally, my attachments were Bernard Cohen's paper "Catalog of risks
extended and updated (HP vol 61, #3, p 317), Ralph Keeney's commentary
"Decisions about Life-Threatening Risks" (NEJM vol 331 #3, p 193), my paper
"Is this remediation necessary?  Comparing cost versus risk abatement with
other risk reduction measures" (Proceedings of 1996 IRPA Congress, vol 4, p
4-708), and the HPS position paper "Radiation Risk in Perspective",
available at a WWW browser or HPS membership handbook near you.  This
posting should satisfy all requests for copies of my testimony; anyone
interested in copies of these attachments, please contact me and I will
provide them to you.  If demand is too high, I may ask for some space on
the Rad Safety Home Page for scanned images of them.

Andy
--------------------------------
Written Testimony of P. Andrew Karam, CHP on Proposed Rules OAC 3745-31-03
at the Public Hearing of January 9, 1998.

My name is Andrew Karam.  I am a Health Physicist with the Ohio State
University Radiation Safety Section.  I am certified in the comprehensive
practice of health physics by the American Board of Health Physics and have
over 16 years of experience in the field of Radiation Safety.  I have
worked as a health physicist in the Naval Nuclear Power Program, with the
Ohio Department of Health, with an environmental consulting firm, and in my
current position.  I am also a member of the Health Physics Society, a
scientific and professional association with over 6,000 members who
specialize in the field of radiation safety.  I am testifying on my own
behalf.

My testimony today is in regard to proposed rule OAC 3745-31-03(A)(4)(b),
and sections of Ohio Administrative Code related to it or referenced by it.
 Specifically, my testimony will address the proposal to require permits
for activities which may release radionuclides in amounts that may cause a
member of the public to receive an additional radiation exposure of 0.1
mrem annually above normal background levels.  I would like to discuss (1)
some sources that could result in radionuclide emissions equal to or in
excess of this exemption limit, (2) the anticipated health effects of
exposure to this level of radioactivity, and (3) the sensibility of
attempting to regulate to such a low standard.  My written testimony
contains a number of attachments that are referenced in my oral comments
and that will serve to confirm and illustrate the points I am about to
make.  In preparing this testimony I was assisted by the suggestions,
comments, and analysis of my professional colleagues across the country.
The opinions, suggestions, and viewpoints mentioned here reflect my best
professional judgement as a professional in the field of radiation safety.

Sources of Radiation and Radioactivity
I would like to begin by saying that the proposed standard is to small to
be either meaningful or practical  The proposed standard will require
submission of a Permit to Install for any activity resulting in the
emission of radionuclides at levels that "would cause any member of the
public to receive an effective dose equivalent of 0.1 millirem/year…".
This level of exposure is equal to less than one tenth of one percent of
normal background radiation.  Examples of activities that may require
permitting under this rule include the following:

· Ventilating the basement of a building constructed in Columbus, Toledo,
or other areas with high radon levels due to subsurface coal or black shale
deposits.

· Burning natural gas for home heating, building heating, power generation,
or water heating (natural gas contains radon).

· Activities such as excavating, farming, driving on dirt roads, and so
forth that suspend large amount of dust (dirt contains naturally-occurring
uranium, radium, thorium, potassium, and other radionuclides).

· Farming (cultivating fields generates dust, fertilizers contain elevated
levels of uranium, thorium, radium, and other radionuclides).

· Activities such as irrigation, public fountains, showering,
fire-fighting, and so forth resulting in spraying large amounts of
groundwater (groundwater may contain high radon levels).

There are many more such activities, probably hundreds or thousands more,
that cannot be listed due to a lack of space and time.  In addition, there
are a number of activities that will result in receiving a radiation dose
equal to or greater than the proposed standard of 0.1 mrem per year.  Some
of these activities include:

· Breathing the air in any building for about 90 minutes

· Eating one banana per month

· Taking potassium supplements 

· Sharing a bed with your spouse (or significant other) for one month

· Flying from Columbus to Chicago

· Spending one day in Denver

· Living in the vicinity of a coal mine, coal-burning power plant, or
natural gas-burning power plant

· Watching television for 2 hours daily at a distance of 5 feet

· Smoking one cigarette

· Using salt substitute

Again, many other activities come to mind; more than can or should be
regulated in this manner.

Expected health effects from 0.1 mrem/yr
I have attached a copy of a position paper released by the Health Physics
Society that describes the Society's stance on the effects of low levels of
radiation. The Health Physics Society, America's pre-eminent radiation
safety organization concluded that "…for a population in which all
individuals receive lifetime doses of less than 10,000 millirem above
background, collective dose is a highly speculative and uncertain measure
of risk and should not be quantified for the purposes of estimating
population health risks."  

This paper also reports that "Radiogenic health effects (primarily cancer)
are observed in humans only at doses in excess of 10 REM delivered at high
dose rates.  Below this dose, estimation of adverse health effect is
speculative….Epidemiological studies have not demonstrated adverse health
effects in individuals exposed to small doses (less than 10,000 millirem)
delivered in a period of many years."  (Incidentally, the standard proposed
in this regulation would result in a lifetime dose of about 7 millirem in
70 years.  It would require 100,000 years to accumulate a total radiation
dose of 10,000 millirem.)

The proposed standard sets a limit that is one hundred thousand times lower
than anything noted to have had any adverse effects in humans.  In short,
there is no anticipated benefit to society from this standard.
Unfortunately, there is a great potential cost to the State of Ohio, the
citizens of the State of Ohio, and virtually all Ohio businesses.

A paper by Dr. Ralph Keeney published in the New England Journal of
Medicine in 1994 indicates that every $5-12 million spent in complying with
and enforcing regulations results in the loss of one life.  A study I
performed recently found that money spent in well-intentioned attempts to
avoid trivial levels of radiation, if spent in other arenas instead, could
save hundreds or thousands of lives if invested, instead, into childhood
immunizations, traffic safety, smoking cessation programs, or other similar
activities.  Copies of both of these papers are included as attachments to
this testimony.  Another study by Dr. Bernard Cohen shows radionuclide
emissions at the level mentioned above cause less harm than eating broiled
meat, drinking chlorinated water, or drinking milk.

Sensibility of the proposed rule
I am a scientist by training and occupation.  All of my training and
experience requires me to give a quantitative evaluation of my objects of
study and to provide quantifiable reasons for my findings.  However, the
only word that comes to mind when I review this proposed standard is
"silly."  As shown above and in my attachments, there is no benefit to the
health and safety of Ohioans that will result from implementing this
standard.  The levels of radionuclide emissions that are proposed are
virtually impossible to monitor or enforce.  Practically everyone who lives
or works in Ohio will be affected by this standard.  In addition, it is my
understanding that the Ohio EPA may not have the regulatory authority to
implement this proposed standard.  

My understanding is that this proposed rule is a well-intentioned attempt
to institute a level of radionuclide emissions below which regulation is
clearly unnecessary in an attempt to provide a single organization with a
measure of regulatory relief.  Unfortunately, this threshold has been set
far too low to serve any practical purpose and the rule is written so
broadly that it will have an impact that far exceeds the original intent.
It is the equivalent of swatting a housefly with a bazooka.  We all agree
that lowering the speed limit from 65 to 55 miles per hour saved lives.
Should we lower it further to 10 miles per hour to save even more lives?
Should we require homeowners to ask for a regulatory exemption to heat
their homes, take showers, or water their lawns?

As a health physicist I am amused by the concept of trying to regulate so
trivial an amount of radiation.  I am also concerned about the possibility
of having to show compliance with these proposed standards, standards which
could result in several hundred permit applications from OSU alone.  As a
citizen of Ohio, I am appalled at the waste of government time and taxpayer
money that will be spent, should this proposed standard be put into effect.
 Finally, as a member of society, I am disappointed that, should this
standard be implemented, resources will be spent in an area that will show
absolutely no positive results and many negative ones to me and my fellow
Ohioans.

Society does not have the luxury of devoting unlimited sums of money to
address all perceived ills.  Do we not owe it to ourselves to make sure
that our money is spent wisely, to alleviate or mitigate those risks that
actually exist?  Does the State of Ohio not owe its citizens the assurance
that their tax money is well-spent in a manner that will provide them the
greatest service?

Suggested actions
I realize that the proposed rule I am addressing is only a small part of a
large rule change.  I cannot address the other portions of this proposed
change.  In this instance, I would like to make the following suggestions:

1. Remove all portions of this rule that address the emissions of
radionuclides that are not present in existing rules and regulations.  

2. Any regulation in the area of radiation protection should be requested
from the Ohio Department of Health, the state agency tasked with radiation
protection. 

3. Proposed regulations such as this should be carefully reviewed to ensure
that the proposing Agency has the legal and regulatory authority to issue
them, the institutional expertise to develop them, and the technical
expertise to explain, monitor, and enforce them.

4. The State of Ohio should inform the radiation safety community of any
future regulatory changes that deal with radiation safety, something that
did not occur with this rule change.

5. This, and other similar proposed regulatory changes, should be examined
in terms of scientific justification, feasibility of compliance and
enforcement, expected risk reduction, expected cost, and the degree of risk
reduction expected if that cost were directed into other risk abatement
measures.  Examples of these would include highway safety improvements,
childhood immunizations, smoking cessation programs, and so forth.  

(Note:  If the level of analysis suggested above were to be performed for
this proposed standard, I believe that we would find it to be unjustifiable
scientifically, not technically feasible, having little to no expected risk
abatement value at a high cost.  As many risk abatement programs are
relatively cost-effective, this suggests that these same resources could
save many lives in other arenas.  In other words, if implemented, this
proposed regulatory standard is likely to increase the overall level of
risk to the citizens of Ohio.)

Any radionuclide emission limits that are decided on must be protective of
human health and safety, but should also consider the risk actually posed
by a perceived risk and the cost of abating that risk.  We all put a high
value on human lives and health; this makes it even more vital that we
spend society's resources in areas that will save as many lives as
possible.  This proposed regulation is not such an area.

This ends my testimony.  Thank you for your time and consideration of my
remarks.


P. Andrew Karam, CHP

The opinions expressed are well-reasoned 			The mind is not a vessel to
and insightful.  Needless to say, they are		be filled but a fire to be 
not those of my employer. 					lighted (Plutarch)
(with apologies to Michael Feldman)		

Andrew Karam, CHP  (karam.1@osu.edu)
The Ohio State University Office of Radiation Safety
1314 Kinnear Road
Columbus, OH  43212
(614) 292-1284 (phone)
(614) 292-7002 (fax)