http://www.ncrp.com
The 40th Annual Meeting of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) was held at the Crystal Forum, Crystal City Marriott, Arlington, Virginia on April 14 & 15. The topic was quite timely, Advances in Consequence Management for Radiological Terrorism Events, with a number of nationally and internationally recognized presenters.
As was noted in the meeting announcement, the meeting was a series of presentations on recent advances in managing the immediate and long-term consequences of terrorism involving radiation exposure and the release of radioactive materials. The stated focus was on advances in counteracting the threat to human life created by acts of radiological terrorism. Experts involved in planning for this form of terrorism discussed the current threat and state of preparedness in both the United States and worldwide. Advances in preparing for acts of radiological terrorism were described, including new radiation detection technologies, biological dosimetry, advances in chemical protectants and therapeutic agents for mitigating radiation health effects, and strategies for identifying and managing the psychological impacts of a radiological terrorism event. Presentations focused on the practical and scientifically-based approaches for efficiently cleaning up and restoring sites contaminated as a result of terrorist actions involving the release of radioactive materials.
I have some 12 pages of notes, and will attempt to give a few highlights as follows. NCRP President Tenforde opened the meeting noting this was the 75th anniversary of the original US Advisory Committee on X Ray and Radium Protection, and the 40th since Congress chartered the NCRP in 1964 (PL 88-376). John Poston (TX A&M) then gave the first “Warren K. Sinclair Keynote Address” with an excellent overview of the history and challenges of modern terrorism. John noted by definition, terrorism is the targeting of civilians to undermine the political establishment, with unlawful use of force against civilians. In addition to an overview of NCRP Report No. 138 on the same subject and the challenge of dealing with the “worried well” during an event, I think he made an excellent point that we need to understand the motivations of terrorists and improve the economic and educational problems that allow such organizations to flourish.
Craig Conklin (DHS) gave a presentation on the Federal Response Plan (under revision) and an unclassified US radiological threat assessment and gap analysis. He noted a WMD or an IND was a low probability but with obvious high impact, RDDs are the largest threat, and described the work at the federal level to improve training, monitoring, and response capability at the federal level. Alan Remick (DOE) gave an overview of the Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan (FRERP), agency roles and responsibilities, and the DOE assets, e.g., RAP Teams, FRMAC, AMS, etc. Michael Unterweger (NIST) presented the work being done on advanced radiation detection instrumentation and the four new related ANSI standards. Fred Mettler (Univ. NM) reviewed the medical resources and requirements in a radiological terrorism event, the human and informational resources available nationally, i.e., CDC, REAC/TS, AFRRI, etc. He noted hospitals need to be prepared with instruments, and use an all hazards approach. William Blakely (AFRRI) outlined the current and future of biological dosimetry, including the assessment of exposed / suspected exposed individual monitoring of onset time of vomiting, blood cell counting, and new biomarker techniques. It appears there are not many labs equipped to perform some of these advanced analyses. Similarly, Ronald Goans (Tulane Univ.) presented some of the current and new methods for medical treatment for radiological casualties, depending on the individual’s estimated dose. James Smith (CDC) continued this session’s theme with a review of how hospitals need to prepare for mass radiological casualties, how staff concern of contamination may cripple a hospital, and that for most cases, patient medical treatment should not be delayed for decon.
Steven Becker (Univ. AL) gave an interesting overview of the findings and follow-up of the work done with NCRP Report No. 138, in particular what the psychological impact on the public would be. Specifically, when the public was surveyed, there was confusion on the meaning of “shelter in place.” Also, the local TV weather reporter appears to be the most trusted individual, not having any political affiliation, is well recognized, and understands science. These individuals might be someone to contact should one need to communicate on an RDD. Thomas Seed (Catholic Univ.) gave an update on radioprotectant research (e.g., on vitamin E), with Thomas MacVittie (Univ. MD) presenting on supportive care post-radiation accident. The first day was wrapped-up by Abel Gonzalez (IAEA) giving the 28th Lauriston Taylor Lecture on Radiation Protection in the Aftermath of a Terrorist Attack Involving Ionizing Radiation. As usual, Abel’s talks are very well prepared and thought-out. He discussed source security, scenarios, benchmark cases such as Goiania, Brazil, international dose standards for responders, waste, and detectability and follow-up on possible effects.
On the second day of the meeting, Brian Dodd (having just left the IAEA) gave an update on the international efforts to counter radiological terrorism. Friedrich Steinhausier (Univ. Salzburg) discussed what benchmarks and standards might be considered for cleanup and restoration after a RDD, and how important it is that we define those dose constraints soon. Craig Conklin (DHS) presented again on the same subject, and how the EPA “post-plume” reactor accident scenario dose guidance may be used for access control, relocation, protecting critical infrastructure, etc. CRCPD Chair-elect Debra McBaugh and John Till were the final speakers, also presenting on the practical and scientifically-based approaches to cleanup and site restoration. Debra discussed WA state’s experience with the “TOPOFF 2” exercise, the need for pre-determined protective action recommendations (PARs), fact sheets and practical cleanup actions, while John noted that should a RDD happen, the transport of radionuclides in the environment, modeling, etc. could be assessed by using NCRP Report No. 123.
Overall, this writer thought the meeting was quite good, giving an overview of what research, planning and discussions are occurring on a national and international level for a WMD, IND or RDD. However, the one area I thought needed more discussion was, how well are the states and local government responders prepared for response, for in fact they will be having to deal with such events in the early phase. Bill Dornsife also spoke up, noting that just 25 years ago, the TMI Unit 2 accident provides an excellent US benchmark on what the communication and psychological stress on the public would be with a RDD.
Lastly, every year the Health Physics journal publishes the papers of the NRCP meeting. The proceedings of the 2003 meeting are due shortly, and these presentations should appear this time next year.
Phone: (301) 657-2652
Fax: (301) 907-8768
Website:
http://www.ncrp.com
For the program and information see –
http://www.ncrp.com/dates.html
For a
complete set of presentation abstracts see -
http://www.ncrp.com/Prog2004.html