Re: OEPA testimony

[Ruth Weiner <rfweine@sandia.gov>]

Great testimony!! I hope it did some good.



Ruth 

Ruth F. Weiner
Transportation Systems Department
Sandia National Laboratories
Mail Stop 0718
P. O. Box 5800
Albuquerque, NM 87185-0718
505-844-4791
505-844-0244 (fax)
rfweine@sandia.gov

Only my own opinion.

______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: OEPA testimony
Author:  karam.1@osu.edu at hubsmtp
Date:    1/9/98 11:49 AM


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/yearà". 
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:
     
À 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.
     
À Burning natural gas for home heating, building heating, power generation, 
or water heating (natural gas contains radon).
     
À 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).
     
À Farming (cultivating fields generates dust, fertilizers contain elevated 
levels of uranium, thorium, radium, and other radionuclides).
     
À 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:
     
À Breathing the air in any building for about 90 minutes
     
À Eating one banana per month
     
À Taking potassium supplements
     
À Sharing a bed with your spouse (or significant other) for one month
     
À Flying from Columbus to Chicago
     
À Spending one day in Denver
     
À Living in the vicinity of a coal mine, coal-burning power plant, or 
natural gas-burning power plant
     
À Watching television for 2 hours daily at a distance of 5 feet
     
À Smoking one cigarette
     
À 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 "àfor 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 
speculativeà.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
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)