Workshop Proceedings - Europa · Workshop Proceedings “Radon Prevention and Remediation Workshop Proceedings” Deliverable 17 This publication arises from the project Radon Prevention

Workshop Proceedings

“Radon Prevention and Remediation

Workshop Proceedings”

Deliverable 17

This publication arises from the project Radon Prevention and Remediation (RADPAR) which has

received funding from the European Union, in the framework of the Health Programme.

2012

RADPAR Workshop Radon Prevention and Remediation

Brussels, 23 February 2012

Proceedings

RADPAR Workshop – Radon Prevention and Remediation 2

Proceedings of the RADPAR Workshop

on Radon Prevention and Remediation

Brussels, Belgium, 23 February 2012

Editors:

John G. Bartzis, Krystallia K. Kalimeri

Department of Mechanical Engineering,

University of Western Macedonia, Greece


Organization responsible for the project: University of Western Macedonia

(UOWM), Kozani, Greece

Project Coordinator: Prof. John G. Bartzis, UOWM

Funding: Executive Agency for Health and Consumers (EAHC) of EU Directorate

General SANCO in the framework of the Health Programme 2008 – 2013

Work Package Leaders:

John G. Bartzis, University of Western Macedonia, Greece (WP1: Coordination of

the project, WP2: Dissemination of the results)

Hajo Zeeb, BIPS ‒ Institute for Epidemiology and Prevention Research GmbH,

Germany (WP3: Evaluation of the project)

Francesco Bochicchio, Instituto Superiore di Sanità, Italy (WP4: Improving policies

and strategies to promote effective radon prevention and remediation)

James Mc Laughlin, University of Western Macedonia, Greece (WP5: Improving

radon risk communication strategies in the EU)

Bernard Collignan, Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment, France (WP6:

Assessment and standardization of radon control technologies)

Alastair Gray, University of Oxford, UK (WP7: Analysis of cost effectiveness and

health benefits of radon control strategies)

Associated Partners:

University of Western Macedonia (UOWM), Greece

Bundesamt fur Strahlenschutz (BfS), Germany

Bremen Institute for Prevention Research and Social Medicine (BIPS, University

of Bremen), Germany

The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford (University of

Oxford), UK

Centre Scientifique et Technique du Batiment (CSTB), France

Institute Superiore di Sanita (ISS), Italy

Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety (AGES), Austria

Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority (NRPA), Norway

Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK), Finland

International Bureau for Environmental Studies (IBES), Belgium

National Radiation Protection Institute (SURO), Czech Republic

Sub-contractors:

European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Health and Consumer

Protection, Physical and Chemical Exposure Unit, Ispra, Italy (JRC/IHCP/PCE)

Collaborative Partners:

Ferid Shannoun, United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic

Radiation, Austria

Martha Gruson, Federal Office of Public Health, Switzerland

Jane Bradley, Health Protection Agency Chilton, UK

Ollie Seppanen, Technical University of Helsinki, Finland

Luis Quindos Poncela, University of Cantabria, Spain

David Fenton, Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland, Ireland

Eduardo Oliveira Fernandes, University of Porto, Portugal


Foreword Radon (222Rn) is a naturally occurring radioactive gas. It constitutes the most important natural radiation exposure in many homes, schools, working places and contributes a great deal to the total natural ionizing radiation dose to world population. IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) classifies it as a Group 1 human carcinogen, while WHO (World Health Organization) considers it to be the second cause of lung cancer after cigarette smoking.

The RADPAR (Radon Prevention and Remediation) project is part of the Second Programme of Community Action in the Field of Health and within the aegis of the Executive Agency for Health and Consumers (EAHC), of Directorate General SANCO. It is focused on a number of issues related to indoor radon exposure as a public health problem within the framework of EU Member States (MS). The aim of the RADPAR project is to assist in reducing the significant public health burden of radon related lung cancers in EU MS.

There are many aspects of radon such as: radon risk communication; policies and strategies to promote effective radon prevention and remediation; assessment and harmonization of radon control technologies; analysis of cost – effectiveness and health benefits of radon control strategies. Such issues that are common to all EU MS are in focus at the RADPAR Workshop on Radon Prevention and Remediation. The objectives of this workshop were:

- To gain a better understanding of the health risk related to radon existing in the indoor environment and play a key role towards the radon prevention and remediation; - To disseminate the results and the merits of methodology tools of the RADPAR project; - To identify the opportunities for exploitation and dissemination, after the formal completion of the project, by policy makers, health professionals and relevant stakeholders, as well as to receive feedback from them.

This workshop had participants from 16 countries and invited speakers from Japan, Germany, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium and France. The participants were from National Radiation Protection Agencies, from the Academic Community, from Radon and Building Companies, and from National Authorities. During the workshop, presentations on the RADPAR Project were made by the members of the RADPAR Consortium, while after that presentations were made by distinguished invited speakers from the Hirosaki University, the Federal Office for Radiation Protection of Germany, the DG ENER, the World Health Organization (WHO), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Federal Agency for Nuclear Control of Belgium and the Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety of France.

On behalf of the RADPAR Partners I would like to thank all invited speakers and participants for their participation in the Workshop and contribution to the constructive discussions.


We would like to thank the European Commission, for giving us the opportunity through its funding, to work on a European scale on such an important issue that is directly related to the European citizen health and well being.

We would like also to thank the Federal Agency for Nuclear Control (FANC) of Belgium and particularly Dr. Andre Poffijn for their kindness to host this meeting.

Finally I would like to thank the staff of the Environmental Technology Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University Of Western Macedonia for their help in preparing this Workshop.

John G. Bartzis RADPAR Project Coordinator


Contents

PART 1: THE RADPAR PROJECT ............................................................................. 7

1.1. The RADPAR (Radon Prevention and Remediation) Project, John G. Bartzis,

University of Western Macedonia, Greece. ............................................................... 8

1.2. Improving policies and strategies to promote effective radon prevention and

remediation, Francesco Bochicchio, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Italy. .................. 21

1.3. Improving Radon Risk Communication Strategies in the EU, James Mc

Laughlin, University College Dublin, Ireland/University of Western Macedonia,

Greece. ..................................................................................................................... 36

1.4. Assessment of radon control technologies, Bernard Collignan, Centre

Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment, France. ...................................................... 50

1.5. Analysis of cost-effectiveness and health benefits of radon control strategies,

Alastair Gray, University of Oxford, UK. ............................................................... 59

PART 2: PRESENTATIONS FROM INVITED SPEAKERS .................................... 68

2.1. Construction of natural radiation exposure study network, Shinji Tokonami,

Hirosaki University, Japan. ...................................................................................... 69

2.2. Health effects of indoor radon, Michaela Kreuzer, Bundesamt fur

Strahlenschutz, Germany. ........................................................................................ 82

2.3. Requirements on radon in dwellings and workplaces in the proposed new

Euratom Basic Safety Standards, Stéphane Calpena, European Commission, DG-

ENER-D4, Louxembourg. ....................................................................................... 93

2.4. WHO’s activities on Radon, Emilie Van Deventer, World Health Organization,

Switzerland. ........................................................................................................... 103

2.5. IAEA Programmes on Reducing Risks from Indoor Radon, Tony Colgan,

International Atomic Energy Agency, Austria. ..................................................... 116

2.6. Novelties in the Belgian radon policy, André Poffijn, Federal Agency for

Nuclear Control, Belgium. ..................................................................................... 127

2.7. Radon Measurement Standardization (ISO 11665), Roselyn Ameon, Institut de

Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire, France. ................................................... 137


PART 1: THE RADPAR

PROJECT


1.1. The RADPAR (Radon Prevention and Remediation) Project, John G.

Bartzis, University of Western Macedonia, Greece.

Radon is a major contributor to the ionizing radiation dose received by the general

population. Soil gas infiltration is recognized as the most important source of

residential radon. Epidemiological studies confirm that radon in homes increases the

risk of lung cancer in the general population. The proportion of all lung cancers linked

to radon is estimated to lie between 3% and 14% .The majority of radon-induced lung

cancers are caused by low and moderate radon concentrations rather than by high

radon concentrations, because in general less people are exposed to high indoor radon

concentrations (WHO, Handbook on Indoor Radon, 2009).

There is a need to reduce the overall population risk as well as the individual risk for

people living with high radon concentrations. On the other hand, the present study has

shown that radon prevention and remediation is quite limited in the European scale

The RADPAR project (2009-2012) is part of the Second Program of the European

Community Action in the Field of Health and within the aegis of the Executive

Agency for Health and Consumers (EAHC), of Directorate General SANCO. It

commenced in May 2009 and is coordinated by the University of Western Macedonia,

Kozani, Greece. Its partners are from health, radiation protection and related

institutions, in 15 European countries.

Its main objectives are the following:

1. Improvement of strategies to reduce the EU public health burden from radon.

2. Development of radon risk communication strategies and the creation of an EU

radon information web site (http://web.jrc.ec.europa.eu/radpar/).

3. Assessment of cost-effectiveness of radon control strategies in the EU.

4. Design of training courses in radon measurement, prevention, remediation and cost-

effectiveness.

5. Assessment of potential conflicts between energy conservation in buildings and

radon exposure reduction.

An account is given of the progress to date towards achieving these objectives.

By means of its Deliverables and Recommendations it is expected that the RADPAR

project is expected to:

– heighten awareness both of the public and of decision makers of the health

burden of radon in the EU and of the technical means available to control radon.

– transfer information to new and accession MS where radon control strategies are

presently almost non-existent.

It is clear that only a joint European effort can provide the necessary experience and

diversity of circumstances to provide an insight into the complex radon problem and

in how to deal effectively with it.

http://web.jrc.ec.europa.eu/radpar/


The RADPAR Workshop, Brussels, 23 February 2012

The RADPAR (Radon Prevention And Remediation) Project :

An Overview

J. G. Bartzis

Project Coordinator

University of Western Macedonia

Greece


Executive Agency for Health and Consumers (EAHC)

of Directorate General SANCO

Health and Consumers

RADPAR is funded by :



THE PARTNERSHIP 1. University of Western Macedonia (UOWM), Greece

2. Bundesamt fur Strahlenschutz (BfS), Germany

3. Universitat Bremen (Uni-Bremen), Germany

4. The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford (University of Oxford), UK

5. Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment (CSTB), France

6. Institute Superiore di Sanita (ISS), Italy

7. Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety (AGES), Austria

8. Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority (NRPA), Norway

9. Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK), Finland

10. International Bureau for Environmental Studies (IBES), Belgium

11. National Radiation Protection Institute (SURO), Czech Republic

12. Joint Research Centre (JRC), Italy


THE ADVISORY GROUP

i.e. The Collaborating Partners

a/a Name Organization Country

1 Ferid Shannoun United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation

Austria

2 Martha Gruson Federal Office of Public Health Switzerland

3 Jane Bradley Health Protection Agency UK

4 Ollie Seppanen Technical University of Helsinki Finland

5 Luis Quindos University of Cantabria Spain

6 David Fenton Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland

Ireland

7 Eduardo de Oliveira Fernandes

University of Porto Portugal



Background

• Radon is a major contributor to the ionizing radiation dose received by the general population

• Soil gas infiltration is recognized as the most important source of residential radon

• Epidemiological studies confirm that radon in homes increases the risk of lung cancer in the general population. The proportion of all lung cancers linked to radon is estimated to lie between 3% and 14%

• The majority of radon-induced lung cancers are caused by low and moderate radon concentrations rather than by high radon concentrations , because in general less people are exposed to high indoor radon concentrations

SOURCE: WHO HANDBOOK ON INDOOR RADON, A PUBLICHEALTH PERSPECTIVE (2009)


Radon levels and Remediation in EU Countries

Source: RADPAR

Deliverable 13.1



Aim of the RADPAR Project

The RADPAR project aims to assist inreducing the significant public healthburden of radon related lung cancers inEU Member States (MS).


Project Specific Objectives

• Help improve the strategies that are currently in place and reduce the health burden from radon to the EU population;

• Develop radon risk communication strategies and approaches for different population target groups in the EU;

• Establish measurement procedures for radon control technologies and sources;

• Assess the cost-effectiveness of existing and potential radon prevention and remediation strategies in the EU;

• Design training courses for radon measurement, prevention, remediation, and cost effectiveness analysis;

• Assess the potential conflicts between energy conservation in buildings and radon exposure reduction.



RADPAR Tasks & Activities (1)

Assessment of the significance of the health burden from radonto the EU population

Review and analyses of existing radon control policies andstrategies in EU MS

Recommendations for the improvement of existing standards,building codes and guidelines for the control of radon in newbuildings in MS


Assessment of current radon risk awareness in the EUpopulation

Development of communication approaches fordifferent target groups




Assessment of potential conflicts between energyconservation in buildings and radon exposurereduction.

Establishment of measurement protocols for radoncontrol technologies.

Design of training courses for radon measurement,prevention and remediation.

Cost effectiveness and health benefits of radoncontrol strategies



Master Questionnaire (MQ)• A MQ was designed and distributed to a wide range of radiationprotection authorities and other relevant bodies. Its purpose wasto gather information on existing strategies and policies in EU MS;

• The MQ, which is a most important information gathering tool,has primarily been sent to relevant contact persons in all 27 EU MS;

• In order to compare EU approaches with internationalapproaches to radon control, the MQ was also distributed toauthorities outside of Europe;

• The IAEA collaboration also used the RADPAR MQ to gatherradon information from a number of non EU countries.

Responses have been received from 22 EU MS and 7 othercountries




Contents of the MQ

• Indoor Radon Surveys

• National Policies on Indoor Radon Control

• Radon Risk Communication Strategies

• Training and Education

• References, Contacts and Any Other Comments


Creation of an EU Radon information web site linkedto the DGSANCO Indoor Air Quality web site

that will include a database consisting of radon concentrations,health burden on population, existing standards and controlpolicies

http://web.jrc.ec.europa.eu/radpar/




RADPAR website


The main dissemination channels that have so far been used are:

• the RADPAR website ;

• 6 - monthly project newsletters: All newsletters produced aremade available in electronic form at the project’s website;

• printed material: leaflets and flyers distributed at a number ofmeetings and conferences;

• results published in journals, forums and conferences;

• participation in international conferences;

• the RADPAR workshop;

• a mailing list of relevant stakeholders.

Dissemination of the project results



Project Work PlanWP1: Coordination of the project.

WP2: Dissemination of the results.

WP3: Evaluation of the project.

WP4: Developing policies and strategies to promote effective radon prevention and remediation.

WP5: Establishment of an EU radon risk communication network.

WP6: Assessment and harmonization of radon control technologies in MS.

WP7: Analyses of cost – effectiveness and health benefits of radon control strategies.


RADPAR RecommendationsRecommendations on:

1. Radon Policy and Strategy

2. Protocols for Indoor Radon Concentration Measurements

3. Improving Radon Risk Communication

4. Assessment of potential conflicts between energy conservation in buildings and radon exposure reduction

5. Establishment of measurement protocols for radon control technologies

6. Design of training courses for radon measurement, prevention, remediation

7. Analysis of cost effectiveness and health benefits of radon control strategies



Recommendations Questionnaire

• A Recommendations questionnaire has been sent to the National Authorities of the EU MS and other European countries

• The whole process is under way

• 11 responses have received so far

• The responses are under assessment


Summary Remarks• Radon Prevention and Remediation is quite limited in the European scale

• There is a need to reduce the overall population risk as well as theindividual risk for people living with high radon concentrations.

• It is clear that only a joint European effort can provide the necessaryexperience and diversity of circumstances to provide an insight into thecomplex radon problem and in how to deal effectively with it.

• By means of its deliverables and Recommendations it is expected that theRADPAR project will:

– heighten awareness both of the public and of decision makers of thehealth burden of radon in the EU and of the technical means availableto control radon.

– transfer information to new and accession EU MS as well as othercountries (in collaboration with IAEA and WHO) where radon controlstrategies are presently almost non-existent.



RADPAR Project has already an impact !

• Unified method for the determination of the radon diffusion coefficient prepared in the framework of RADPAR activities :

Currently submitted at ISO level for standardisation (ISO/WD 11665-10 standard);

• Irish Government is developing a National Radon Strategy for Ireland. RADPAR Project Conclusion and Recommendations is an important input to this strategy;


• RADPAR has established a fruitfulcollaboration with the IAEA TechnicalCooperation Program. Already experts fromRADPAR have participated in IAEA missions toa number of countries, to assist them inestablishing National Radon Strategies.

RADPAR Project has already an impact !



Thank you for your attention


1.2. Improving policies and strategies to promote effective radon

prevention and remediation, Francesco Bochicchio, Istituto Superiore di

Sanità, Italy. Objectives

This work package had two main specific objectives:

A) assessing the radon health burden for population of all the EU Member States, on

the basis of results of recent epidemiological studies and taking into account

smoking habits;

B) reviewing the current policies and strategies on radon and prepare

recommendations aimed to improve them in order to obtain effective prevention

and remediation of radon related risks.

Methods

A) The health burden from radon was estimated in terms of attributable risk, i.e. the

fraction of lung cancers attributable to radon exposure, and the corresponding lung

cancer rate. These quantities were calculated for all the 27 EU Member States (and

few other European countries) on the basis of the following data: i) representative

average radon concentration in dwellings, as evaluated by an ad-hoc review of papers

and information collected through questionnaires; ii) Excess Relative Risk evaluated

by the European pooling of 13 case-control studies on lung cancer and residential

radon; iii) total lung cancer rate in WHO database; iv) smoking habits available in

Eurostat database.

The combined effect of radon and smoking was evaluated by calculating attributable

fraction and lung cancer rate separately for current smokers, former smokers, and

never smokers.

B) Data on radon policies and strategy were collected through questionnaires (both

the RADPAR Master Questionnaire and three specific WP4 questionnaires);

moreover, all recent (including drafts) recommendations, regulations and other reports

of international organizations (WHO, IAEA, ICRP, European Commission, Nordic

Countries) were considered. This information was reviewed and discussed both in

general and specific meetings, in order to prepare RADPAR recommendations, which

are the results of the collaboration of all RADPAR and collaborating partners.

Results and conclusions

A) Both the fraction and the annual number of lung cancers attributable to radon were

calculated for all the 27 EU Member States and other two European countries. The

attributable fraction ranges from 3% to 16% of all the lung cancers. Most of the lung

cancers attributable to radon are expected to occur among current and former

smokers, due to the combined effects of radon and smoking. This has to be taken into

account by coordinating policies against radon and those against smoking.

B) A total of specific 66 recommendations on radon policies and strategy were

prepared, covering 33 issues groped in 11 arguments. These recommendations take

into account the previous experience and evaluation of effectiveness and should be

useful for all European countries, regardless their experience on radon. However, a

further collaborating effort is needed to provide all EU countries, especially the above

mentioned ones, with specific guidelines and protocols to implement these

recommendations. The final goal is to reduce the health burden from radon.



Improving policies and strategies to promote effective radon

prevention and remediation Francesco Bochicchio

(Italian National Institute of Health)

on behalf of RADPAR-WP4 and collaborating partners

RADPAR – Radon prevention and Remediation


Improving policies and strategies to promote effective radon prevention and remediation

Outline

1. Health burden for all EU Member States

2. Recommendations on radon policy and strategy

3. Recommendations on measuring radon concentration indoors

4. Next and future activities




Outline






Health burden for all EU MS



Health burden for all EU MS

• AM of Rn conc. for all the 27 EU MS (+ other 3 European countries) were an ad hoc reviewed (MQ, previous reviews, literature) , with particular attention to representativeness

• ERR (100 Bq/m3)=0.16 (0.05–0.31) was taken from the Eur. pooling of residential case-control studies, and scaled for AM of each country

• The attributable fraction (i.e. the fraction of lung cancers attributable to radon) was calculated for 27+3 countries (AF= 8%, range 3%–16%)

• The lung cancer rate attributable to radon was calculated for each country (for male and females) using the mortality data from WHO, averaging over the last available 5 years

• The correction for year-to-year variations of Rn conc.(to be applied) will have a small impact (a relative reduction of few % of the AF)


Health burden for all EU MS (cont.)

• AFs and LCRs for different smoker categories (current smokers, ex-smokers, never smokers) were also calculated for 27+2 countries, on thebasis of

• prevalence data of smoker categories as available in Eurostat

• relative risk for smoking as evaluated in Europen pooled analysis ofepidemiological studies on smoking and lung cancer

• The greater part of lung cancers attributable to radon will occouramong smokers (and, to a minor extent, among former smokers) due tothe combined effects of radon and smoking. This is particularly true formales (AF=67%–89% for CS, 10%–29% for ES, 1%–7% for NS).

• These results are strongly affected by smoking prevalence changes,which occurred over the years, especially in connection with nationalregulations limiting smoking.




Outline






Recommendations on radon policy and strategy

Methods

1. Analysis of relevant documents produced by

international organisations

2. Review of national information collected through RADPAR questionnaires

3. Discussions during general and specific

meetings among experts from several European countries




Relevant documents1. WHO Handbook on Indoor Radon: A Public Health Perspective (2009)

2. Radiat. Prot. Authorities of the Nordic Countries - Recommendations for radon in dwellings in the Nordic Countries (2009)

3. Euratom Basic Safety Standards (version 29 Sep 2011)

4. International Basic Safety Standards (version 12 Sep 2011)

5. Protection of the public against exposure to ionizing radiation from natural sources (IAEA DS421, draft open for comments on 29-09-2011)

6. ICRP, Radiological protection against radon exposure (draft open for comments on 7-12-2011)



RADPAR Questionnaires

1. RADPAR Master Questionnaire, Section 2 on “National policies on indoor radon control”

2. RADPAR WP4 Questionnaire Part A on “Strategy of radon concentration measurements”

3. RADPAR WP4 Questionnaire Part C on “Radon policy/strategy”




Review of collected data



Summary• Section 1 of the RADPAR recommendations

• 65 recommendations dealing with 33 issues grouped in11 main items

1.0 - Objective of a radon policy (1 recommendation)1.1 - Overall Strategy (7)1.2 - National Action Plan (NAP) (7)1.3 - Preventive measures and remedial actions (16)1.4 – Reference Levels for existing and future dwellings and other buildings (6)1.5 - Surveys and radon concentration distribution (6)1.6 - National Radon Database (NRD) (6)1.7 - Use of radon maps (4)1.8 - Radon-prone areas and radon-prone buildings (5)1.9 - Type of regulations (mandatory or recommendatory?) (4)1.10 - Promoting tools to increase the number of remedial actions (3)




Some main recommendations 1.0 - Objective of a radon policy (1 recommendation)

• Reduction of both individual risk (i.e. reduce/avoid high Rn levels) andglobal risk (i.e. reduce average Rn) and finally the number of lung cancersattributable to radon

1.1 - Overall Strategy (7)

• A comprehensive strategy (developed with all stakeholders), to beimplemented by means of National Action Plans (Nat. Radon Programs),involving also local authorities and expertise

• Coordination with other related programs/activities (cigarette smoking,IAQ, energy saving)

1.2 - National Action Plan (NAP) (7)

• Roles and responsabilities clearly defined. A single authority acting ascoordinator and linkage with other programs would improve effectiveness

• Effectiveness of each action should be evaluated and verified


1.3 - Preventive measures and remedial actions (16)

•Preventive measures in all new buildings (considerable renovations, extensions), unless demonstration that it is not cost-effective:

• very cheap in order to be cost effective for large scaleapplication• easy to install (i.e. not requiring specialists)• should be properly installed

•Verification of implementation and of effectiveness, by (mandatory) measuring Rn conc. 1-2 years after construction

•Verification of long-term effectiveness of preventive/remedial measures

•Guarante adequate number of trained “remediators” at local level

•Standards and protocols for preventive/remedial measures


Some main recommendations (2)



1.4 – Ref. Lev. for existing and new dwellings and other buildings (6)

•Ref. Levels for new buildings should be lower than those for existing ones, thanks to compulsory preventive measure

•New buildings should be considered those constructed after introduction of compulsory preventive measures

•New ICRP proposal of a graded approach for workplaces, where as first step the Ref. Levels for workplaces = RL dwellings

1.5 - Surveys and radon concentration distribution (6)

•Surveys should be generally designed to be representative

•Check of representativeness should be done on the final sample

•Radon distribution and maps should be base on representative data only.




1.6 - National Radon Database (NRD) (6)

• A NRD (or archive) is an important tool to support the National Action Plan, aiming to evaluate/verify effectiveness of actions and the overall reduction of risk

• It should collect all relevant information (on measurements, preventive measures, remedial actions, etc.)

1.7 - Use of radon maps (4)

• Radon maps are recommended to be used mainly to support authorities in planning actions for existing dwellings/buildings (and for existing buildings if different preventive measures are implemented for different potential Rn level)

• Avoid misuse of radon maps in communication with the general population by applying appropriate warnings close to every map





1.8 - Radon-prone areas and radon-prone buildings (5)

• Radon-prone area can be a useful tool to optimize/prioritize the search for radon levels to be reduced

• However the final goal is not to find radon-prone areas, but to reduce lung cancers

• Protection from radon should not be restricted to Rn-prone areas only, especially they contains a small fraction of population

1.9 - Type of regulations (4)• Both mandatory and recommendatory approaches should be considered for

regulations and other actions of NAP, selecting case-by-case the most effective and cost-effective one

• Although regulations for dwellings are usually recommendatory, a mandatory approach seems to be more effective, feasibile and appropriate for several situations (e.g. rent houses, public buildings, new buildings)




Recommendations on radon policies and strategy

Preliminar evaluations

• Evaluations and comments on RADPAR received from11 countries (up to now)

• Agreement (5=strong agree, 4=agree, 3=partly agree,2=disagree, 1=strongly disagree):

average (over 65 rec.) = 4.5 (range=1–5)

• Consideration: (6=already included in nat.policy,5=strong agree, 4=agree, 3=partly agree, 2=disagree,1=strongly disagree)

• average (over 64 rec.) = 4.3 (range=1–6)




Outline






Recommendations on protocols for

indoor radon concentration measurements

RADPAR Questionnaires1. RADPAR WP4 Questionnaire Part A on “Strategy of radon

concentration measurements”

2. RADPAR WP4 Questionnaire Part B on “Protocols for radon concentration measurements”



Recommendations on protocols for indoor radon concentration measurements

Summary

• Section 2 of the RADPAR recommendations

• A total of 17 recommendations, dealing with 10 issuesgrouped in 2 main items

2.1 - Indoor Radon concentration measurements for assessing the long-termaverage and comparing with reference levels (14)

2.2 - Other measurements for different purposes (3)


Recommendations on protocols forindoor radon concentration measurements

List of issues2.1 - Indoor Radon concentration measurements for assessing the

long-term average and comparing with reference levels (14)

2.1.1. Aim2.1.2. Situations2.1.3. Measurement duration and period (5)2.1.4. Rooms to be monitored2.1.5. Detector position in the room2.1.6. Detector response (2)2.1.7. Measurement result evaluation and reporting (2)2.1.8. Metrology and accreditation systems and QA/QC procedures

2.2 - Other measurements for different purposes (3)2.2.1. Indicative measurements (2)2.2.2. Radon diagnosis for remedial actions




Some considerations

• Recommendations cover issues generally not included in ISOstandards

• Attention to variability related to measurements duration andperiod

• QA/QC require detailed protocols (EU guidelines?) andcollaboration among countries



Preliminar evaluations

• Evaluations and comments on RADPAR received from11 countries (up to now)

• Agreement (5=strong agree, 4=agree, 3=partly agree,2=disagree, 1=strongly disagree):

average (over 17 rec.) = 4.4 (range=1–5)

• Consideration: (6=already included in nat.policy,5=strong agree, 4=agree, 3=partly agree, 2=disagree,1=strongly disagree)

• average (over 17 rec.) = 4.7 (range=1–6)




Outline






Next and future activities

1. Health burden: publication of evaluations for all EU MS

2. Radon policies and strategies (proposals):

• Coordinated action in the next few months during thelast development phase of Euratom Directive on BSS,aimed to harmonize BSS with the new ICRPrecommendation on Radiological protection againstradon exposure radon

• Collaboration with (support to) IAEA, WHO, EC toprepare guidelines to implement these recom-mendations as well as the forthcoming Eur. Dir. on BSS(particularly on preparing and implementing a NationalRadon Plan)



Improving policies and strategies to promote

effective radon prevention and remediation

Contributors WP4 partners

•AGES (Austria): Wolfgang Ringer

•BfS (Germany): Michaela Kreuzer, Bernd Grosche

•ISS (Italy): Francesco Bochicchio, Gennaro Venoso, Sara Antignani

•SURO (Czech Rep): Jiri Hulka, Ivana Fojtikova, Katerina Rovenska, Ladislav Tomášek, Josef Thomas

•UOWM (Greece): John Bartzis, Krystallia Kalimeri, James McLaughlin

Other RADPAR partners, including

•BIPS (Germany): Hajo Zeeb

•STUK (Finland): Hannu Arvela, Olli Holmgren

Collaborating partners, including

•HPA (UK): Jane Bradley

•NPII (Ireland): David Fenton

•OFSP (Switzerland): Martha Gruson

Last (but not least): all responders to questionnaires




1.3. Improving Radon Risk Communication Strategies in the EU, James

Mc Laughlin, University College Dublin, Ireland/University of Western

Macedonia, Greece.

It has been estimated that exposure to radon, which is a Group 1 human carcinogen,

is implicated in approximately 20000 deaths from lung cancer each year in EU

Member States. To reduce the EU public health burden from radon an integrated

radon policy and strategy is required. An important component of such a strategy

should be a radon risk communication strategy directed both at the public and also at

decision makers at local and national level. The main objectives of this

communication strategy are to raise awareness of radon health effects, to stimulate

radon testing and where necessary remediation of existing dwelling and to encourage

the introduction of preventative measures in future dwellings.

Work Package 5 (WP5) of the RADPAR project gathered and analysed information

on existing radon risk communication activities in both EU and in two non-EU

European countries. It was also involved in a number of radon awareness surveys.

Based on this work and on the principles of risk communication WP5 developed a

number of recommendations aimed at improving the effectiveness of radon risk

communication. In this presentation these recommendations are described.



“Improving Radon Risk Communication Strategies in the EU”

Presented on behalf of RADPAR WP 5 by : James Mc Laughlin

University College Dublin /University of West Macedonia

WP 5 Working Group :

Dieter Schlesinger and Bernd Grosche, BfS , Neuherberg.

Jean Klerkx , IBES, Brussels .

Francesco Bochicchio , ISS, Roma.

Jiri Hulka, Ivana Fojtikova and Katerina Rovenska , SURO, Praha.

John Bartzis, Krystallia Kalimeri and James Mc Laughlin, University of Western Macedonia, Kozani.


SEVEN CARDINAL RULES FOR EFFECTIVE

RISK COMMUNICATION (Corvello 2011)

1. People have the right to have a voice and participate in decisions that affect their lives.

2. Plan and tailor Risk Communication strategies to goals, audiences and channels.

3. Listen to your audience.

4. Be honest and transparent.

5. Coordinate and collaborate with credible sources of information and trusted voices.

6. Plan for media influence.

7. Speak clearly and with compassion.



Nota bene

“Your audience will want to know that you care before they care about what you know.”


STAGES IN RISK REDUCTION FOR EXISTING HOMES

RISK COMMUNICATION

TESTING OF HOMES

REMEDIATION

RISK REDUCTION



MAIN OBJECTIVES OF RADON RISK COMMUNICATION

•RAISE STAKEHOLDER AWARENESS

•ENCOURAGE HOME TESTING AND REMEDIATION

• STIMULATE SUPPORT FROM DECISION MAKERS


BARRIERS EXIST AT EACH STAGE OF THOUGHT PROCESS *

No Experience

No Urgency No ProofCredibility

Issue

Full cost oftotal process

(test &remediation)

Lack ofgovernmentbacking ordeclaration

Low Awareness

• Know a

little• Don’t knowenough to beworried too much

LOWRISK

HIGHRISK

(* Source : RPII )

• Personal orotherwise• But awareof local issues

• Long term risk

• No public health risk(governmentIssue)

• Any decisioncan be put off

• No direct linkwith lung cancer• Who is affected?

• Money makingscam

• Not overtly backed by government/officials

• Full implications of test ?

• Cost /disruption of remediation

• Who will payfor it?

• If this is serious • Official outcry/

warning?• TV campaigns?• Free tests

1

2

3

4

5

6

7



Recommendation No. 1

Radon Awareness Surveys (RAS) should be an essential component of

a risk communication strategy


57%

28%

17%

14%

29%

79%

52%

37%

43%

65%

79%

59%

38%

30%

72%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

lung cancer skin problems heart disease diarrhoea migraine

Germany Czech Republic Switzerland

What health problems do you expect to be induced by radon?




Identify target audiences and

tailor communication information accordingly


TARGET AUDIENCES

PUBLIC DECISION MAKERS

TRUSTEDSOURCES

INDUSTRY

`R

GENERAL PUBLICSCHOOLSCOLLEGES

NGOS

POLITICANSLOCAL GOVT.CENTRAL GOVT.FINANCIAL ORGS.

PHYSICIANSPHARMACISTSTEACHERSMEDIA

BUILDING PROFESSIONALS.MANUFACTURERSREMEDIATORS



RADON INFORMATION MESSAGES SHOULD STRESS ADVANTAGES TO THE TARGET AUDIENCES

TO THE PUBLIC : Testing may identify that your family is at risk. This health risk can be easily reduced.

TO ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES/POLITICIANS AND

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES : Reduction in the public health burden associated with radon may be cost-effective

TO INDUSTRY : There are employment and profit opportunites in radon prevention and remediation.

TO FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS : The value of homes can be adversely affected by high radon levels. Prevention and remediation is cost-effective.



Keep messages simple but accuratein particular when communicating with the public



“Radon Causes Lung Cancer”

“Radon is a Radioactive Gas present in Homes”

“Radon is easy to measure”

“You can easily protect your family from radon”

Source : WHO Radon Handbook 2009

Examples of Effective Radon Messages


Recommendation No.4

Appropriate communication channels should be used to communicate information



COMMUNICATION CHANNELS

MEDIA : Newspapers , Magazines, Radio, TV, Food packaging.

TRUSTED SOURCES : Physicians, Pharmacists, Educationalists

MEETINGS/EVENTS : Radon Forums, Focus Groups, Trade Fairs, Public Events

PROFESSIONAL LITERATURE : For Builders, Architects, Engineers,

Manufacturers.

:


content without concerning the filed of radiation protection

general description of radon

radon warning and call to get a radon test done

information concerning upcoming radon events

information concerning radon testing kits

information concerning radon in building materials

regional radon examples

information concerning lung cancer

Information concerning medical treatments

Content of Twitter News concerning the term „Radon“

N= 438; 18.01. bis 24.01.2010

26%

13%

12%12%

11%

11%

10%

4% 1%

Radon and Social Media



Recommendation No.5

Radon Focus Groups and attention to regional characteristics should be used

to assess and improve communication effectiveness



Dissemination of radon risk information should be endorsed by well known national and local health and environmental agencies.




If possible radon information campaigns should be linked to other health or environmental campaigns.


Recommendation No.8

The services of a good professionalmarketing company should be considered in the design and execution of radon communication campaigns



Recommendation No.9

Educate health officials, professional groups and the media regarding radon,

its risks and its control.



Regular assessment of information campaigns on radon




Stakeholders should be integratedinto communication campaigns.



A health marketing approach shouldbe part of risk communication campaigns.



Go raibh maith agaibh



1.4. Assessment of radon control technologies, Bernard Collignan, Centre

Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment, France.

Context and objectives

The main source of indoor radon in buildings is the subjacent soil gas with building

materials in most cases making a smaller contribution. The level of radon in a

building is, however, to a large extent influenced by the building characteristics and

its usage. Critical building parameters are, for example, coupling to the ground,

leakage distribution of the building envelope, type of heating/ventilation systems and

occupant living comfort preferences.

Present methods for radon reduction in existing buildings and radon prevention in

new buildings have been developed over the last twenty years in particular for

standard houses. While most techniques using sumps and barriers should work in

principle, the limited evidence presently available has shown there is considerable

variability in their effectiveness. Bad installation and poor adherence to the relevant

building code guidelines are major contributors to this problem in some MS. In recent

years, rising ecological awareness and rising energy costs have stimulated the

development of so-called low energy and passive houses. It can be expected that these

types of houses will represent an ever increasing proportion of the new housing stock.

However, certain construction, heating and ventilation techniques used in these

houses have the potential to lead to high indoor radon levels. On the other hand,

remediation techniques such as enhance air renewal or using fans could have a

negative impact on energy consumption. Since the prevention of high radon levels in

new buildings is an important component of any national radon strategy, it is essential

to thoroughly evaluate the effect of new construction methods on the indoor radon

level. Examples of potential problematic construction features, with respect to radon

exposure are reduction in air renewal by new thermal regulations, heat exchange

systems, permeable construction materials etc.

In order to evaluate the above problems with radon control, to reduce potential

conflicts between energy saving construction and radon reduction and to form

building professionals, the following objectives were carried out in this work package.

1. Assessment of potential conflicts between energy conservation in buildings and

radon exposure reduction.

2. Establishment of measurement protocols for radon control technologies.

3. Design of training courses for radon measurement, prevention, remediation, and

cost effectiveness analysis.

To reach these objectives, the work undertaken had been at first to elaborate a specific

questionnaire, sent to RADPAR partners and other European countries to state on

current practices. Bibliography on each topic had also been realized associated with

some specific studies. Analysis of all this material had been conducted. At the end,

recommendations on each topic had been proposed.



WP 6Assessment of radon control

technologiesBernard Collignan

(CSTB, France)

Working Group:

- Olli Holmgren and Hannu Arvela ( STUK, Finland)

- Martin Jiranek ( CTU, Czech republic)

- Wolfgang Ringer (AGES, Austria)

And other partners of RADPAR program

RADPAR – Radon prevention and Remediation

Bernard Collignan – CSTB, France


RADPAR, WP 6.Assessment of radon control technologies

Context:

• Main source of indoor radon: the subjacent soil gas

• Level of radon in a building influenced by its characteristics and usage.

• Considerable variability in the effectiveness of building radon protection: bad

installation and poor adherence to the relevant guidelines

• Development of low energy and passive houses: potential to lead to high indoor

radon levels.

• Remediation techniques: could have a negative impact on energy consumption.

Essential:

To evaluate the effect of new construction methods on the indoor radon level,

To characterise products used for building protection,

To train building professionals





Objectives:

WP 6.1: Assessment of potential conflicts between energy conservation in

buildings and radon exposure reduction.

WP 6.1.1: Analysis and assessment of current technologies

(Hannu Arvela, Olli Holmgren - STUK)

WP 6.1.2: Potential conflicts between radon protection and energy

(Wolfgang Ringer - AGES)

WP 6.2: Establishment of measurement procedures for radon control

technologies

(Martin Jiránek - CTU)

WP 6.3: Design of training courses for radon measurement, prevention,

remediation (Bernard Collignan - CSTB).




Method for each objective:

Elaboration of a specific Questionnaire, sent to RADPAR partners and other

european countries to state on current practices

Bibliography

Specific studies

Elaboration of recommendations





WP 6.1: Potential conflicts between energy conservation and radon control

(Deliverable 13)

Seven documents associated to this deliverable:

D13/1. Assessment of current techniques used for reduction of indoor concentration in existing

and new houses

D13/2. Energy saving construction (low energy / passive houses) and indoor radon exposure –

Compilation and assessment

D13/3. Survey of Construction Technologies in Low Energy and Passive Houses in Europe

D13/4. Heating and Ventilation Systems in Low Energy and Passive Houses in Europe

D13/5. Measurement and Analysis of Radon in Selected Passive Houses in Austria

D13/6. Review of Low Energy Construction, Pressure Conditions and Indoor Radon in Finnish

Residential Buildings

D13/7. Radon and Energy Efficient Construction: Assessment and Recommendations





Main conclusions

Assessment of current techniques used for reduction of indoor concentration in existing and

new houses:

• Active sub-slab depressurization (SSD) most efficient remediation and prevention method

reduction of radon concentration by 60 - 95 %

• Passive system: up to 50 % reduction

• Other methods less efficient, typically < 60 %

improving ventilation and sealing

Qualitative impact on energy consumption

• Active SSD: increases energy consumption (electrical fan & cooling of foundation)

• Improving ventilation: increases energy consumption due to increasing of air exchange unless a heat

recovery is used

• Sealing entry routes: decreases energy consumption through reduction of cold air leakage from ground

synergetic goals with low and passive energy construction






Main conclusions (followed)

Low energy and passive houses

• Increasing importance in new construction and in renovation market.

• Main characteristics: highly airtight building envelope, mechanical ventilation systems, and high quality

insulation

• Combination of a highly airtight building envelope (including foundations) and a controlled mechanical

ventilation system low indoor radon levels.

Attention should be paid to a successful implementation

Certain features may cause high radon levels:

• untight earth tubes of a ground-coupled heat exchanger,

• deterioration of the air tightness of penetrations through the foundations,

• pressure misbalances due to ventilation system

• bad design of air intakes (e.g. air wells).






Verification of the indoor radon concentration with radon measurements should be undertaken:

- In new construction,

- After substantial modifications of the building or ventilation system,

particularly in radon prone areas

Next step:

To develop information for consultants, manufacturers, building professionals and public

for a relevant appropriation.






technologies (Deliverable 15)

Main conclusions

• No international standard for testing of materials used in radon reduction systems.

• First priority for European standardization:

Determination of radon diffusion coefficient of radon barrier materials (membranes, sealants)

• In five European countries (Ireland, Czech Republic, Germany, Norway and Sweden):

existence of national standards or test methods

• Around five laboratories in Europe able to measure radon diffusion coefficient using different

test methods different values can be found for the same material.

• Elaboration of a uniform European method or standard helpful to ensure reproducibility and

repeatability of results.

Unified method for the determination of the radon diffusion coefficient prepared in the

framework of RADPAR activities.

Currently submitted at ISO level (ISO/WD 11665-10 standard)





technologies (Deliverable 15)


A proper implementation of membranes and sealants is a key factor of their efficiency

Other properties of membranes should also be assessed

Existence of international standards to test these properties

Other components used in building protection (fans, air cleaners, ducts, pipes) not especially

designed for this use.

Existing tests sufficient to assess their performances.

Property Standard

Tensile strength EN ISO 527-3/5, EN 12311-1, 2 Elongation at break EN ISO 527-3/5, EN 12311-1, 2 Shear resistance of transversal joint EN 12316-1, 2 Tear resistance EN 12310-1, 2 Impact strength EN 12691 Dead load resistance EN 12730-1, 2 Low temperature flexibility EN 495-5, EN 1109 Influence of artificial ageing on flexibility EN 1296 Thermal stability EN 1110 Root resistance prEN 13948 Resistance to microorganisms EN ISO 846 (640780) Water vapour transmission EN 1931 Water tightness EN 1928






remediation for professionals (Deliverable 8)

Main conclusions for Questionnaire analysis

• Most of countries involved in RADPAR program propose courses for professionals

• Organisation could be very different depending on countries and their progress in legislation

• Sometimes linked with professional accreditation, content is more consistent and duration is

longer, with better attendance and efficiency

• Difficult to mix courses with specialised radon measurement techniques (beyond screening

knowledge) and building protection techniques: different target and competences

• Seems to be more efficient to have separate courses with overview on other topic

• Difficulties to convince building professionals to follow up courses (weak marketing incentives)

• Improvement of professional practices is observed in countries where courses are well running

• Few countries propose courses integrated to student education

• Generally integrated to more global session like indoor air quality course

• should be accentuated to have future building professionals aware on radon prevention and control






Main conclusions for frame of professional courses

To give global frame which could be adapted depending on advancement of radon

management.

Choice to separate courses for radon measurement and for building protection

Different options could be chosen: - Global course

- Shorter duration

- Separate days

- Inclusion of theoretical and practical exercises

- Using courses for accreditation of actors

- Adequate knowledge for authorities who have to verify

the application of regulation

For building protection, technical solutions should be adapted to local construction specificities

List of course material available provided







Basic frame for radon measurement courses (2/3 days)

Generalities on radon: Basics of radioprotection, link with radon

geology, mapping ...

Health effect of radon

Exposition of population to radon

Legislation related to the radon issue

Transport of radon into building

Basics of building protection

Measurement principles, devices and techniques

Passive measurements for screening into buildings

Other measurements in air, in water, in building materials

Objectives and Protocols for different measurements into buildings

Protocol writing, methodology of results evaluation

Theoretical and practical exercises: working group for case studies, measurements in buildings

Examination






Basic frame for building protection courses (2/3 days)

Generalities on radon: geology, mapping ...

Health effect of radon

Exposition of population to radon

Legislation related to the radon issue

Basics of radon measurements into buildings

Radon into buildings: general points, sources and entry routes of radon, causes of radon entry.

Generalities on building:

Presentation of building types, basement typologies

Air permeability of building and stack effect

Ventilation of building and Indoor Air Quality

Heating and ventilation systems

Principles of building protection

Prevention for new buildings: Legal prescription, Conception of prevention, Examples of integration, Products and systems

Remediation for existing buildings: Legal prescription, Building diagnosis, Adaptation and integration of remediation,

Examples of building remediation, Dealing with difficult buildings

Theoretical and practical exercises for new and existing buildings: working group for case studies, visit of

buildings

Examination







Main conclusions

For a successful development of public protection against radon, three following topics should be

developed jointly:

Training course for professional: key point to develop practices, should be linked with professional

improvement and more generally the development of regulation and communication to public.

Regulation Communication to public

Professional improvement







1.5. Analysis of cost-effectiveness and health benefits of radon control

strategies, Alastair Gray, University of Oxford, UK.

Introduction and methods: The objective of work package 7 was to assess the cost-

effectiveness of existing and potential radon prevention and remediation strategies in

the EU. The analyses followed the methods widely accepted as appropriate for the

evaluation of health interventions: that is, cost-effectiveness analysis. Two main

questions were addressed: 1) the cost-effectiveness of incorporating basic radon

prevention measures in all new houses, and in targeted areas with high radon levels?

2) the cost-effectiveness of remediation programmes in existing houses in targeted

areas. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using an updated version of a previously

published spreadsheet-based model.

Data: Parameter estimates for the model were obtained for Finland, Ireland, Norway

and the UK. These included data on age/sex structure, smoking rates, life tables,

radon levels, the costs of preventive and remedial actions, and uptake rates.

Results: For basic measures in all new homes, the cost per Quality Adjusted Life

Year (QALY) gained was €34,110 in Finland, €38,308 in Norway, €9,382 in Ireland,

and €23,727 in the UK. The cost per QALY gained of targeted remediation policies

was €31,873 in Finland, €33,200 in Ireland, €23,353 in Norway and €56,160 in the

UK. Cost-effectiveness was better by a factor of approximately 10 for smokers

compared to non-smokers, due to their higher lung cancer risk.

Conclusions: Radon prevention & remediation policies should be developed and

evaluated with reference to cost-effectiveness evidence. Basic measures in all new

homes are probably cost-effective, and these could be incorporated in national

building codes. Policies on more elaborate measures in new homes need guidance

from cost-effectiveness evidence. It is often expensive to find existing homes with

high radon levels and persuade owners to act. Lifetime remediation costs can also be

quite high, particularly if active measures such as fans are required. As a result the

cost-effectiveness of such policies are often borderline, and they should be carefully

targeted. Smoking status is a key influence on cost-effectiveness, and radon

remediation policies need to acknowledge this and link to smoking cessation

campaigns.



Radon Prevention and Remediation – RADPAR

Work package 7:cost-effectiveness

Alastair Gray

University of Oxford, UK

on behalf of the WP7 partners


WP7: main objective

• To assess the cost-effectiveness of existing and potential radon prevention and remediation strategies in the EU

• To improve the effectiveness of radon control strategies by

– Development of a cost-effectiveness model

– Design of training course/manual for using model to evaluate cost-effectiveness of radon policies



Economic evaluation of radon prevention and remediation

• Rationale: radon prevention and remediation mainly about health risks / benefits – lung cancer

• Wide consensus on methodology for evaluation of health interventions: cost-effectiveness analysis– Quantify additional costs of policy compared to alternative

– Quantify additional health benefits in common units –• Lung cancer cases, life years, quality adjusted life years (QALYs)

– Calculate cost of the health benefits …….good value?

• Radon programmes suitable for application of same methods


The cost-effectiveness plane

Existing policy

dominates

Intervention

dominates

C

Intervention

more costly

Intervention

more effective

Intervention

less effective

Intervention

less costly

NENW

SW SE

Intervention more effective

but more costly

Intervention less effective

but less costly

Maximum acceptable incremental

cost-effectiveness ratio ICER…..?



What is viewed as cost-effective?

• Depends on level of national wealth, size of budget, and willingness to pay of decision makers

• US: c. € 37,500 per QALY gained gained

• UK: c. €25,000/QALY

• Finland, Norway, Ireland: c. €30-35,000/QALY?

• Note: decisions not just about cost-effectiveness. Also need to consider fairness/equity, etc


Process: spreadsheet-based modelOutcomes Costs

Calculate lifetime lung cancer risk

before & after action, from age/sex

specific rates, adjusted for smoking

status and competing risks

Estimate QALYs gained, using:

- average no. in home

- mean age at lung cancer death,

adjusted for sex, smoking status

- age/sex specific quality of life

Calculate radon level in homes before

& after action

Calculate costs of finding homes,

using radon level, test acceptance

& remediation rates

Calculate costs of prevention /

remediation measures

Calculate costs / savings of

averted lung cancer cases, added

life expectancy

Calculate cost-effectiveness

One-way (and probabilistic) sensitivity analyses



2 main questions agreed

1. What is cost-effectiveness of incorporating basic radon prevention measures in all new houses?

a) & what if basic radon prevention measures are targeted in areas with high radon levels?

2. What is the cost-effectiveness of remediation programmes in existing houses in targeted areas?


Illustrate model using cost-effectiveness results from:

– Finland: Tuomas Valmari

– Norway: William Standring and Terje Strand

– Ireland: David Fenton and David Pollard

– UK: Alastair Gray



Parameter inputs: basic prevention strategy in new homes

Whole country High radon areas

Finland Norway Ireland UK Finland Norway Ireland UKReference level, Bq/M3 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200Arithmetic mean radon level

in area of interest in Bq/M3,

adjusted for measurement

error

117 77 79 21 228 226 135 52

Percent of homes over

Reference Level17.2% 8.38% 8.46% 0.44% 48.3% 36.42% 20.60% 3.00%

Percentage reduction in radon

from prevention measures57% 50% 50% 50% 57% 50% 50% 50%

Average household size 2.59 2.12 2.81 2.40 2.54 2.12 2.81 2.40Cost of installing

membrane/other basic

measures

€ 1,000 € 900 € 220 € 120 € 1,000 € 900 € 220 € 120

Health Service annual per

capita expenditure on all

other health care during

added life expectancy

€ 7,817 € 7,817 € 4,000 € 7,817 € 7,817 € 7,817 € 4,000 € 7,817

Mean Health Service/hospice

treatment cost per lung cancer

case

€ 16,840 € 16,840 € 20,200 € 16,840 € 16,840 € 16,840 € 20,200 € 16,840


Baseline results: basic prevention measures in new homes


Finland Norway Ireland UK Finland Norway Ireland UK

Lifetime cumulative lung

cancer risk (%)

Initial 4.46 6.53 6.15 6.10 4.22 7.87 6.62 6.38

Post-prevention 4.07 6.18 5.81 6.00 3.59 6.85 6.05 6.14

Lung cancer cases

averted per 1000 houses

10.1 7.4 9.4 2.3 16.0 21.5 16.1 5.7

Total life years gained 151.3 117.6 140.8 30.7 236.0 342.4 240.4 76.2

Total QALYs gained 119.8 92.9 111.8 24.0 186.4 270.6 190.9 59.6

Radon prevention cost € 1,000 € 900 € 220 € 120 € 1,000 € 900 € 220 € 120

Lung cancer treatment

costs averted

€ 171 € 124 € 191 € 39 € 270 € 362 € 325 € 97

Health care costs of

added life expectancy

€ 385 € 299 € 183 € 78 € 601 € 871 € 313 € 194

Incremental cost per

QALY gained

€34,110 €38,308 €9,382 €23,727 €24,935 €18,772 €6,876 €14,546



Basic prevention measures in new homes: by smoking status


Finland Norway Ireland UK Finland Norway Ireland UK

Lifetime cumulative

lung cancer risk (%):

Initial

Never smokers only 0.96 0.96 0.86 0.80 1.10 1.16 0.93 0.84

Current smokers only 26.30 27.03 24.17 24.83 26.42 31.79 25.84 25.87

Post-prevention



Lung cancer cases

averted per 1000

homes:




QALY gained

Never smokers only €117,728 €198,659 €40,987 €112,335 €65,725 €72,354 €25,056 €49,964

Current smokers only €13,037 €17,511 €4,029 €12,926 €10,447 €10,131 €3,108 €9,467


Basic prevention measures in new homes: sensitivity analysis (Finland)



Parameter inputs: remediation of existing homes


Norway Ireland Finland Norway Ireland UK

Reference level, Bq/M3 200 200 400 200 200 200

% of homes over Reference Level 8.4% 8.4% 23.2% 36.42% 20.6% 5.0%

% of homes accepting invite to test 67% 2% 4% 67% 2% 30%

Proportion of homes found over

action level that decide to remediate

25% 25% 55% 25% 25% 20%

Percentage reduction obtained by

remediation measures

80% 92% 52% 80% 92% 85%

Unit cost of radon test € 45 € 54 € 33 € 45 € 54 € 42

Full remediation cost per household € 2,568 € 4,232 € 2,921 € 2,568 € 4,232 € 1,545


Baseline results: remediation of existing homes




QALY gained

€ 45,270 € 59,800 € 31,873 € 23,353 € 33,200 € 56,160




QALY gained

Never smokers only € 243,238 € 358,685 € 89,472 € 101,761 € 190,639 € 329,931

Current smokers only € 20,579 € 23,268 € 12,677 € 12,050 € 13,230 € 25,880

And by smoking status……



Conclusions and recommendations:New homes

• Radon prevention & remediation policies should make reference to cost-effectiveness evidence

• RADPAR analyses suggest that basic measures in all new homes probably cost-effective

– could be incorporated in national building codes

– Policies on more elaborate measures: need guidance from cost-effectiveness evidence


Conclusions and recommendations:Existing homes

• Often expensive to find homes & persuade owners to act. Lifetime remediation costs quite high.

• So cost-effectiveness often borderline:

– Need careful targeting

– Need to find ways of improving uptake

– Smoking status a key influence on cost-effectiveness

• Radon remediation policies need to acknowledge this, and link to smoking cessation campaigns

Thank you!


PART 2:

PRESENTATIONS

FROM INVITED

SPEAKERS


2.1. Construction of natural radiation exposure study network, Shinji

Tokonami, Hirosaki University, Japan.

A new project entitled “Construction of natural radiation exposure study network”

was adopted in the Program of Promotion of International Joint Research under the

Special Coordination Funds for Promoting Science and Technology operated by the

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan in 2009.

Eight institutions are being involved in this project and the project will continue until

March, 2012.

The aims of the project are to assess the dose for natural radiation exposures using

state-of-the-art measurement techniques in four Asian countries (China, India, Korea

and Thailand) and their outcomes will be distributed worldwide.

Conventional measurement techniques will be improved and be optimized. More

scientific data and results will be obtained throughout this project.

In particular, the following advanced technologies for inhalation exposures will be

introduced: (1) Discriminative measurements of radon (222

Rn) and thoron (220

Rn)

gases1), 2)

, (2) Evaluation of thoron decay products concentration3)

, (3) Simple but

effective particle size distribution measurements.


Construction of Natural Radiation Exposure Study Network

Shinji Tokonami

Hirosaki University

Circumstances in Asia

China: Many people live in cave dwellings at Chinese loess plateau. Possibility of high radon exposure

Korea: National radon survey is being carried out. Understanding of radon and thoron exposure aspects

(radon and thoron prone area)

Thailand: Social problems on Natural Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM) in mineral processing plants.

India: High background radiation areas Monazite and zircon sands (major contributors) Feasibility study of health effects among population

exposed to thorium and other NORMs


Aims of the project

Dose assessment for natural radiation exposures using state-of-the-art measurement techniques in four Asian countries (China, India, Korea and Thailand)

Health effects will be considered

Outcomes will be distributed to the world.

Appeal for measurement technologies

Contribution to international standard

(6) Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety, South

Korea

(7) Chulalongkorn University, Thailand

(8) H.N.B. Garhwal University, India

(5) National Institute of Radiological

Protection, China

(1) National Institute of Radiological Sciences (&

Hirosaki University)

(3) University of Ryukyus

(4) Kagoshima University

(2) Nagoya University

【Construction of natural radiation exposure study network】

Structure of NRE network


Advanced technologies for inhalation exposures

Discriminative measurements of radon(222Rn) and thoron(220Rn) gases Control of air exchange rate of the monitor

Evaluation of thoron decay products concentration Deposition rate measurements

Particle size distribution measurements Such information needed for accurate dose

assessment Improvement of present technique for field

use

Expected Outcomes

New scientific findings on －Level and behavior of thoron in the environment

－Actual situation of exposures due to NORM

Revision of lung cancer risk associated with radon

－Radiation protection system to be reconsidered

Standardization of exposure assessment of NORM for future epidemiological studies

－Precise risk assessment on the basis of precise dosimetry


Functions of domestic participants

Standardization of measurement techniques National Institute of Radiological

Sciences/Hirosaki University Calibration exercises and detector performance

tests using radon/thoron reference chambers

Internal exposure assessment Nagoya University

External exposure assessment University of Ryukyus

Health effects/Epidemiology Kagoshima University

Research programsunder the project

China: Epidemiological survey at Chinese loess plateau and other high background radiation areas

Korea: Radon and thoron survey in the central part of South Korea

Thailand: NORM survey in Thailand

India: Environmental radioactivity and feasibility study of health effects among inhabitants in high background radiation areas


Actions performed in FY2009

Month Action

July Discussion and Preliminary survey in Korea

August Discussion and Preliminary survey in Thailand

September IEC meeting in Yokohama, Japan

October 1st Project meeting at NIRS, Japan

November Intercalibration at PTB in Germany

December Discussion and Preliminary survey in India

January Field survey in Thailand (Bangkok)

February Field survey in Thailand (Phuket)Field survey in India

March IEC intermediate meeting in Saclay, FranceISO intermediate meeting in Paris, FranceSetup of radon/thoron chamber in Thailand (Bangkok)

Actions performed in FY2010Month Action

April Field survey in India

May International thoron workshop in Japan

June ISO meeting in Korea

July Field survey in IndiaField survey in China

August

September Setup of reference chamber in Thailand

October IEC meeting in USA

November 2nd Project meeting in India (７HLNRRA)

December ISO intermediate meeting in Paris

January Field survey in Thailand (cosmic radiation)

February

March


Planned schedule in FY2011Month Action

April (ISO meeting in Canada: planned)

May (IEC intermediate meeting in Italy)

June

July

August

September

October (3rd Project meeting in Thailand: planned)

November

December Field work in China

January

February ISO meeting in FranceIEC meeting in Germany3rd Project meeting in Japan

March International symposium on Natural Radiation Exposure and low dose radiation epidemiology in Japan

International Thoron Workshop

INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP

on the"ENVIRONMENTAL THORON

AND RELATED ISSUES"and

"Thoron Intercomparison of Active Methods"

May 19th – 22nd, 2010NIRS, Chiba, Japan

70 participants from 17 countries


International Thoron Workshop

SUMMARY:8 Invited papers28 Regular papers

Studies in 8 papers havebeen partialy supported by the grant-in-aid “Construction of Natural Radiation Exposure Study Network” from the Special Coordination Funds for Promoting Science and Technology of Minsirty of Educatrion, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology.

Development of simplified reference radon/ thoron chambers for calibration of passive detectors in Thailand

Radon/Thoron chambers Inner volume: Tn:50 L ; Rn:100 L

Chamber Material: Stainless steel

Thoron gas source: lantern mantle

Radon gas source: a dry powder ofRadium-226 (it is a reference sourceof Pylon company)

Temperature: 30 C

Relative humidity: 50 %

Calibration conditions:

Low conc. 500 kBq m-3 h

Medium conc. 1000 kBq m-3 h

High conc. 1500 kBq m-3 h


China survey-Measurement data-

The high value of 800 Bq m-3 Radon concentration was measured in the cave using RAD7 and AlphaGUARD

Thoron concentration of 700 Bq m-3 was observed in the cave using RAD7

EERC of 700 Bq m-3 was registered using PIPS monitor

China survey - Time variation of EERC-

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

0

200

400

600

800

26/0

7/20

10 0

0:00

26/0

7/20

10 1

2:00

27/0

7/20

10 0

0:00

27/0

7/20

10 1

2:00

28/0

7/20

10 0

0:00

28/0

7/20

10 1

2:00

29/0

7/20

10 0

0:00

29/0

7/20

10 1

2:00

30/0

7/20

10 0

0:00

30/0

7/20

10 1

2:00

31/0

7/20

10 0

0:00

out-

in t

emp

℃

EER

C B

q/m

3

time

EERC out-in temp


Case control study for radon in China

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0-

20-

40-

60-

80-

100-

120-

140-

160-

180-

200-

220-

240-

260-

280-

Radon concentration [Bq m-3]

Fre

quen

cyCase (n=70)

Control (n=106)

Cont_indiv (n=166)

Ave.: 60.9, 58.8, 59.0S.D.: 36.9, 38.7, 36.3Median: 55.5, 48.6, 48.7

Korea survey

MISSION under JST Project

Rn/Tn Survey at high Rn/Tn Survey Rn/Tn in central part of Korea

Survey Rn/Tn around registered uranium mining lot area

Preliminary study of Rn Epidemiology

Results – survey I Concentration distribution of Radon in room is almost uniform within

4% standard deviation

Concentration distribution of Thoron in room is not uniform, need to study more

Concentration distribution of Thoron-P in room is not uniform, need to study more


Korea survey

Results of Preliminary study (winter season) – survey II

Areas

Preliminary results (winter)

Radon Thoron

Goesan-Kun (15), Chungbuk province

48 - 2,440 ND - 1,860

Yeongdong-Kun (1),Chungbuk province

55 - 123 ND - 294

Dong-Ku (3), Daejeon 64 - 2,220 ND - 96.4

Keumsan-Kun (7),Chungnam province

53 - 1,080 ND - 251

( ) : Number of Measurement point

Intercomparisons for standardization

Brazil6%

Canada3% China

3%

Czech Rep.3%

France3%

Germany6%

Hungary3%

India6%

Ireland3%

Italy15%

Japan15%

Luxembourg3%

Malaysia3%

Poland15%

Portugal3%

Romania3%

Spain3%

Vietnam3%

Countries: 18

Laboratories: 33

Rn part: 33 labs

Tn part: 17 labs


Intercomparison and standardization experiments

A B1 B2 C D E F G1 G2 H I J K L1 L2 M N O P1 P2 Q R T1 T2 T3 S U V W X Y Z AA BBCC

1

CC

2DD EE FF1 FF2 GG HH II

Rn Low 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 2, 1, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,

Rn High 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0,

Tn Low 0, 0, 0, 1, 1 1 1, 1,

Tn High 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1

0,00

0,50

1,00

1,50

2,00

2,50

3,00

RE

F

Summary of International Intercomparsion 2010

ISO/IEC international standard

Revision of IEC standard

IEC 61577-2: Specific requirements for 222Rn and 220Rn measuring instruments

New Work Item Proposal of ISO standard

ISO 16641: Thoron(220Rn) measurement methodogy


Goals and future directions

Based on our outcomes,

Present and publish more scientific data and results to international communities

Contribution to UNSCEAR and ICRP

Proposal of International standard (ISO/IEC)

Expansion of the network


2.2. Health effects of indoor radon, Michaela Kreuzer, Bundesamt fur

Strahlenschutz, Germany. Based on the results of miner studies, the IARC classified radon as human lung

carcinogen already in 1988. Since then a series of epidemiological studies on

residential radon and lung cancer have been carried out in Europe, North America and

China to directly assess the radon-related lung cancer risk. These studies provided

convincing evidence of an increased lung cancer risk causally associated with radon,

even at levels commonly found in buildings. The risk of lung cancer increases

proportionally with the radon concentration with no evidence of a threshold. Even at

radon concentrations below 200 Bq/m3 a statistically significant relationship is

present. Radon is the second most important cause of lung cancer after smoking in

many countries. The absolute risk for lung cancer due to radon is much higher in

people who smoke, or who have smoked in the past, than in lifelong non-smokers. It

is estimated that radon in homes accounts for about 3 to 15% of all lung cancer deaths

in European member states, depending on the average radon concentration in the

country and the method of calculation. The majority of radon-induced lung cancer

deaths occur at low and moderate radon levels rather at high radon levels, because in

general only few people were exposed to high indoor radon concentrations. Other

health effects than lung cancer have not consistently be demonstrated. There is only

suggestive evidence for an increased risk of some cancers, in particular the extra-

thoracic airways and leukemia.


RADPAR Meeting, Brussels, 24.02.2012, Dr. Michaela Kreuzer 1

Health effects of indoor radon

Dr. Michaela Kreuzer

Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS)

Neuherberg, Germany

e-mail: [email protected]

1556 Unusually high mortality from respiratory

disease among underground miners

in Central Europe observed

1960 First epidemiological studies of miners

1988 Radon classified as human carcinogen

by IARC, Lyon

1994 Joint analyses of 11 miner studies

published by Lubin et al.

Evidence on health effects



Relative risk of death from lung cancer

by cum. radon exposure in miners

• Linear trend without

threshold

• Is there an increased risk

in the general population

at the much lower radon

levels at home ?

• Extrapolation from miner

studies to general

population is difficult

Lubin et al. 1994

Indoor range (Lifelong 100 Bq/m3 40 WLM)


• Need for direct evidence from residential studies

• In the 1980s and 1990s various case-control studies were

conducted in Europe, North America and China

• Retrospective assessment of the radon concentration in

homes occupied 5-35 years prior to diagnose or interview

• Collection of detailed information on smoking and other

potential confounders

Studies on indoor radon and

lung cancer



Excess Relative Risk per 100 Bq/m3

in published single studies

-0,2

0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8C

an

ad

a

Sh

en

yan

g

Germ

an

y-W

es

t

Co

nn

ec

ticu

t

Uta

h

Fra

nce

Mis

so

uri

I

Mis

so

uri

II

UK

Germ

an

y-E

ast

Czech

Re

pub

lic

Sw

ed

en

I

Fin

lan

d

Italy

Iow

a

Gan

su

Au

str

ia

Ne

w J

ers

ey

Sw

ed

en

II

Italy

II

Sw

ed

en

III

Fin

lan

d I

I

Sp

ain

1,5


Pooling of individual

residential radon studies

• Europe (Darby et al. 2005, 2006):

7.148 cases, 14.208 controls

• North America (Krewski et al. 2005, 2006)

3.662 cases, 4.966 controls

• China (Lubin et al. 2004)

1.050 cases, 1.995 controlsn



7

Scand J Work Environ Health 2006; 32 suppl 1: 1-80

British Medical Journal 2005; 330: 223-227


0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Radon (Bq/m³)

Rela

tive R

isk (

95%

CI)

RR = 1

ERR per 100 Bq/m3 = 8.4 %

95% CI = 3% - 16%

Risk of lung cancer according to

measured radon

Relationship approximately

linear without evidence for

threshold


Risk of lung cancer according to radon

below recommended action levels ?

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Radon (Bq/m³)

Re

lati

ve

s R

isik

o (

95%

CI)

RR = 1

< 200 Bq/m3

?


Risk of lung cancer according to radon

Restriction of data to individuals with radon

concentration below 200 Bq/m3

NumberRadon inBq/m3

Cases Controls

RR 95 % CI

< 100 5,183 10,412 1.00 1

100 - 199 1,296 2,247 1.20 1.03 - 1.30

Total 6,479 12,659

ERR per 100 Bq/m3

= 14 %

95 % CI: 0.4%- 30%



Is there an increased risk of lung

cancer among lifetime never-smokers ?

Does it differ from that of current

smokers or ex-smokers ?


Risk of lung cancer according to

radon by smoking status

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

0 200 400 600 800

Lifelong non-smoker Ex-smoker Current smoker

ERR = 11 %

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

0 200 400 600 800

ERR = 8 %

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

0 200 400 600 800

ERR = 7 %



What is the effect of uncertainty

in the assessment of past radon

concentration ?


- Year-to-year variation in radon concentrations

- Missing radon concentrations

- Measurement error of detectors, etc..

Underestimation of the true risk

Risk with and without adjustment

for uncertainties in exposure

Study ERR/ 100Bq/m

3

95% CI.

EUROPE (without) 0.08 0.03 – 0.16

Regression calibration 0.16 0.03 – 0.31

NORTH AMERICA (without) 0.11 0.00 – 0.28

> 25 years covered by measurement 0.21 0.03 – 0.52

CHINA (without) 0.13 0.01 – 0.36

> 30 ys in current residence 0.32 0.07 – 0.91



Cumulative risk of lung cancer death by 75

years by radon for current smokers and

lifelong non-smokers (Darby et al. 2005)

Radon concentrationin Bq/m3

Deaths per 1000lifelong non-

smokers

Deaths per 1000current smokers

0 4.1 101

100 4.7 116

200 5.4 130

400 6.7 160

800 9.3 216

A smoker of 15-24 cig/day has 25fold higher risk of lung cancer

than a lifelong nonsmoker; ERR per 100 Bq/m3 = 16%

5 115

80 % risk for

ex-smokers (< 10 ys)


Radon accounts for 3% to 15% of all lung

cancer deaths in EU member states (RADPAR)

The majority of them occur below 200 Bq/m3


Health burden from radon


• Doses from radon to the lung and respiratory tract are by

a factor of 100 to 1000 higher than for other organs

WHO Guidelines for indoor air quality (2010):

“There is suggestive evidence of an association with other

cancers, particular for extra thoracic airways (larynx,

pharynx, nose) and leukemia”


Radon and diseases other than

lung cancer

Summary - I

• Epi-studies confirm that radon in homes increases

the risk of lung cancer in the general population.

• The proportion of all lung cancers linked to radon is

estimated to lie between 3% and 14%

• Radon is the second most important cause of lung

cancer after smoking in many countries.

• Radon is much more likely to cause lung cancer in

people who smoke, or who have smoked in the past,

than in lifelong non-smokers.


WHO Handbook on indoor radon 2009


• There is no known threshold concentration below which

radon exposure presents no risk

• Even low concentrations can result in a small increase in

risk of lung cancer

• The majority of radon-induced lung cancers are caused

by low and moderate radon concentrations rather than

by high radon concentrations


Summary - II

WHO Handbook on indoor radon 2009


2.3. Requirements on radon in dwellings and workplaces in the proposed

new Euratom Basic Safety Standards, Stéphane Calpena, European

Commission, DG-ENER-D4, Louxembourg.

The 1996 EU directive did mention radon in workplaces but disregarded radon

exposure in dwellings, for which there already was a Commission Recommendation.

Since then, the European Commission has decided to review these standards. New

requirements regarding Radon will enter into force, probably in 2013, with the

adoption of a revised version of the EU-BSS. One of the main requirements dealing

with radon will be that Member states are to establish an action plan to manage long-

term risks from radon exposure in dwellings and at workplaces for any source of

radon ingress including soil, building materials and drinking water (new EU BSS

article 103). This action plan shall include the following:

1. Strategy for conducting surveys of indoor radon concentrations, for the

management of measurement data (national radon database) and for the

establishment of other parameters (soil and rock types, soil gas

concentration, permeability and radium-226 content of rock or soil).

2. Available data and criteria used for the delineation of radon-prone areas or

for the identification of radon-prone buildings.

3. Identification of types of buildings with public access and workplaces, e.g.

schools, underground workplaces or spas, where measurements are needed,

based on a risk assessment including occupancy hours.

4. The basis for the establishment of reference levels for existing dwellings,

workplaces, buildings with public access and for new buildings.

5. Assignment of responsibilities (governmental and non-governmental),

coordination mechanisms and available resources for implementation of the

action plan.

6. Strategy for reducing radon exposure in dwellings, particularly in radon-

prone areas.

7. Strategy, including methods and tools, for preventing radon ingress in new

buildings, including identification of building materials with significant

radon exhalation.

8. Schedules for audits and reviews of the action plan.

9. Strategy for communication to increase public awareness and inform local

decision makers of the risks of radon in relation to smoking.

10. Where appropriate, guidance on methods and tools for measurements and

remedial actions. Criteria for the accreditation of measurement and

remediation services shall also be considered.

11. Where appropriate, provision of financial support for radon surveys and for

remedial action, in particular for private dwellings with very high radon

concentrations.

12. Long-term goals in terms of reducing lung cancer risk attributable to radon

exposure (for smokers and non-smokers).

National authorities will have to establish reference levels taking into account

prevailing economic and societal circumstances and apply the process of optimisation

of protection in their country. The new BSS proposes to establish national reference

levels not exceeding:


200 Bq/m3 for new dwellings and new public buildings.

300 Bq/m3 for existing dwellings and public buildings.

1000 Bq/m3 for workplaces and low occupancy public buildings.

In workplaces, if such national reference levels are still exceeded despite remedial

actions to reduce Radon, appropriate requirements for occupational exposure shall

apply.


EC-DG-ENER-D4Stéphane Calpéna

Requirements on Radon in dwellings and workplaces.

Euratom Basic Safety Standards

European CommissionRadiation ProtectionParticipation in RADPARBrussels, 23/02/2012

EC-DG-ENER-D4

Stéphane Calpéna

Indoor exposure to radonin existing BSS was to be improved

Exposure to radon in dwellings is not included in the scope

Radon in workplaces is rather poor…

Title VII (Natural Radiation Sources) deals only with an identification of “work activities” of concern…

No specific requirements on building materials


EC-DG-ENER-D4

Stéphane Calpéna

EC Recommendation on indoor exposureto radon (90/143/Euratom – 21/02/1990)

To develop criteria for identifying regions, sites and building characteristics likely to cause high indoor radon levels

To inform the population on the radon risk

To ensure quality and reliability of annually-averaged measurements of Radon

To establish a system for reducing any exposure to indoor radon concentrations and to apply principle of optimisation

EC-DG-ENER-D4

Stéphane Calpéna

Reference level for existing buildings

• 400 Bq/m3(equivalent to 20 mSv / year according to 90/143)

Design level for the construction of new buildings

• 200 Bq/m3

Remedial or preventive actions if reference levels are exceeded.

EC Recommendation on indoor exposureto radon (90/143/Euratom – 21/02/1990)


EC-DG-ENER-D4

Stéphane Calpéna

EC Recommendations for the implementationof title VII of the EU BSS (RP 88 - 1997)

Concentrate on highest exposures, and where actions are most likely to be effective.

Surveys of radon exposure in different types of workplaces

Action Levels for radon: 500 – 1000 Bq/m3

When radon concentrations remain above the Action Level the principles of BSS should apply (controlled areas, monitoring and dose limits)

Information and advice to employers on remedial actions

•

EC-DG-ENER-D4

Stéphane Calpéna

EC radiological protection principles concerning the natural radioactivity of building materials

(RP 112 - 1999)

Calculation of the following index and industrial activities to notify to the regulatory authority when I > 1

I = C226Ra /300 + C232Th /200 + C40K /3000

Radon exhalation: ”When gamma doses are limited to levels below 1mSv/y, the 226Ra concentration in the materials is limited, in practice, to a level which is unlikely to cause indoor radon concentrations exceeding … (200 Bq/m3).”


EC-DG-ENER-D4

Stéphane Calpéna

BSS RECAST

Several EU Directives were merged and consolidated:

• Basic Safety Standards (workers, general public): 1996

• Patients/Medical Directive: 1997

• Informing the public on measures in the event of a radiological emergency: 1989

• Outside Workers: 1990

• High Activity Sealed Sources: 2003

AND RADON RECOMMENDATION 90/143/EURATOM was added

EC-DG-ENER-D4

Stéphane Calpéna

BSS RECAST

…Was a great opportunity to take on board natural radiation sources and especially:

Planned exposure from new sources or new pathways of exposure resulting from: industrial activities processing naturally occurring radioactive materials

(NORM) operation of aircraft

Existing exposure:

INDOOR RADON (ingress from soil)

building materials and its index (gamma exposure, RADON EXHALATION)


EC-DG-ENER-D4

Stéphane Calpéna

New BSS: Radon action plan(art. 103)

”Member States shall establish an action plan to manage long-term risks from radon exposures in dwellings, buildings with public access and workplaces for any source of radon ingress, whether from soil, building materials and water. The action plan shall take into account the issues specified set out in Annex XVI”

EC-DG-ENER-D4

Stéphane Calpéna

Radon action plan’s content(New BSS Annex XVI)

1. Surveys and national radon database…

2. Criteria for the identification of radon-prone buildings

3. Identification of types of buildings with public access and workplaces where measurements are needed

4. Establishment of reference levels for existing dwellings, workplaces, buildings with public access and for new buildings.

5. Assignment of national responsibilities, coordination mechanisms and available resources for implementation of the action plan.

6. Strategy for reducing radon exposure in dwellings, particularly in radon-prone areas.

7. Strategy, including methods and tools, for preventing radon ingressin new buildings, including identification of building materials with significant radon exhalation.


EC-DG-ENER-D4

Stéphane Calpéna

Radon action plan’s content(New BSS Annex XVI)

8. Schedules for audits and reviews of the action plan.

9. Strategy for communication to increase public awareness and inform local decision makers of the risks of radon in relation to smoking.

10. Where appropriate, guidance on methods and tools for measurements and remedial actions. Criteria for the accreditation of measurement and remediation services shall also be considered.

11. Where appropriate, provision of financial support for radon surveys and for remedial action, in particular for private dwellings with very high radon concentrations.

12. Establishment of long-term goals in terms of reducing lung cancer risk attributable to radon exposure (for smokers and non-smokers).

EC-DG-ENER-D4

Stéphane Calpéna

Radon in workplaces

Art.37.1.c“Radiological surveillance of the working environment shall comprise, where appropriate… the measurement of Radon concentrations in workplaces.”

Art.41.5To remove background external radiation or Radon ingress from soil for industries processing NORM.


EC-DG-ENER-D4

Stéphane Calpéna

Radon in workplaces

Art. 53.1 (reference level)The national reference level (NRL) not to exceed1000 Bq/m³ at work

Art. 53.2 (measurement)Radon measurement at ground floor or at basement level for identified workplaces and in radon-prone areas

Art. 53.3 (optimisation)Remedial action if the NRL is exceeded

Art. 53.4 (if Radon > NRL)All planned exposure requirements to be applied… And occupational dose < 20 mSV a year

EC-DG-ENER-D4

Stéphane Calpéna

Radon in dwellings and public buildings

Art. 74.1NRLs shall not exceed:200 Bq/m³ for new dwellings and public buildings300 Bq/m³ for existing dwellings300 Bq/m³ for public buildings or 1000 Bq/m³

if occupancy time is low.

Art. 74.2If NRLs are exceeded then to encourage radon-reducing measures

Art. 74.3Building codes to prevent Radon ingress from soil and building materials


EC-DG-ENER-D4

Stéphane Calpéna

MERCI


2.4. WHO’s activities on Radon, Emilie Van Deventer, World Health

Organization, Switzerland.

| RADPAR Workshop, 23 Feb 2012, Brussels

Ferid Shannoun

Department of Public Health and Environment

WHO's Activities on Radon

Dr Emilie van Deventer

Team Leader, Radiation Programme

Department of Public Health and Environment

RADPAR Workshop Radon Prevention and Remediation

Federal Agency for Nuclear Control, BrusselsFebruary 23, 2012

RADPAR Workshop, 23 Feb 2012, Brussels |

World Health Organization

Function: act as the UN directing and

coordinating authority on international

health work

Objective: attainment by all peoples of

the highest possible level of health

Definition: "HEALTH is a state of

COMPLETE physical, mental and

social well-being and not merely the

ABSENCE of disease or infirmity"

(Constitution, 1948)



6 regional offices

147 country offices

IARC (Lyon)

Ministries of Health

(193 Member States)


WHO's core functions

1. Articulate ethical and evidence-based policy positions

2. Setting norms and standards, and promoting and monitoring their implementation

3. Shaping the research agenda, and stimulating the generation, translation and dissemination of valuable knowledge

4. Providing technical support, catalysing change and developing sustainable institutional capacity

5. Monitoring the health situation and assessing health trends

6. Providing leadership on matters critical to health and engaging in

partnerships where joint action is needed



These core functions encompass

Radiation Protection

1. Articulate ethical and evidence-based policy positions

2. Setting norms and standards, and promoting and monitoring their implementation

3. Shaping the research agenda, and stimulating the generation, translation and dissemination of valuable knowledge

4. Providing technical support, catalysing change and developing sustainable institutional capacity

5. Monitoring the health situation and assessing health trends

6. Providing leadership on matters critical to health and engaging in

partnerships where joint action is needed


Natural existing

exposures – e.g.

radon

Planned

exposures –

medical,

occupational

Chronic exposures

from past

accidents/conflicts –

Chernobyl, DU

Emergency prep.

& response

(accidents,

deliberate events)

Radiation and environmental health

Non-Ionizing

(EMF, UV)



International

OrganizationsNational

Authorities

NGOs

Collaborating

Centres

WHO Partners in Radiation Protection


Chronology of WHO Actions

on Radon ….

1979: A WHO/EURO working group on indoor air quality first drew attention to the health effects from residential radon exposures

1988: IARC classified Radon as a human carcinogen

1993: An international workshop on indoor radon, organized by WHO, considered for the first time a unified approach to control radon exposures and advised on communication of associated health risks.

2005: WHO established the International Radon Project to identify effective strategies for reducing the health impact of radon and raise awareness about the consequences of radon exposures



Established in 2005: launch and first expert meeting in

Geneva

Scope: A global project, with key international and

national partners

Purpose:

– To reduce the population disease burden due to indoor radon

Forum for international scientific and policy

exchange:

– Several meetings with ~ 100 scientists and radon experts

WHO International Radon Project (IRP)


• Albania

• Argentina

• Austria

• Belgium

• Brazil

• Bulgaria

• Canada

• China

• Czech Republic

• Finland

• France

• Romania

• Russian Federation

• Serbia

• Slovenia

• South Korea

• Spain

• Sweden

• Switzerland

• Turkey

• USA

• Ukraine

• United Kingdom

• Georgia

• Germany

• Greece

• Hungary

• India

• Ireland

• Italy

• Japan

• Lithuania

• Luxembourg

• Norway

• Poland

WHO IRP Partners



http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/env/radon


WHO Handbook on Indoor Radon (2009)

Structure

Introduction

1. Health Effects of Radon

2. Radon Measurements

3. Prevention and Mitigation

4. Cost-Effectiveness

5. Radon Risk Communication

6. National Radon Programmes

Key messages for each chapter



WHO Handbook on Indoor Radon (2009)(cont'd)

Does NOT aim to replace international radiation

protection standards or regulations

Conduct national radon surveys

– Trying to get a representative overview of radon in a

country, not only from high-radon areas

Link with tobacco control and indoor air quality activities

Implement building regulations (New buildings)

Set national reference level


Since then …



IARC Monograph

Vol. 100, Part D (2011)

"The Working Group reaffirmed the conclusion

reached in the earlier IARC evaluations

that radon contributes to the increased lung cancer risk…"


Working with Partners

ICRP TG 81 Report in setting recommendations for the

protection of public and workers against radon exposure

IAEA Safety Guide DS421 (Protection of the public

against indoor exposure to natural sources of radiation)

IAEA Regional Workshop on Reducing Risks from

Indoor Radon (Nov. 2010, Geneva)

EC RADPAR Project

International Basic Safety Standards (2011)



International Basic Safety Standards

(BSS)

The BSS mark the culmination of efforts

towards global harmonization of radiation

safety requirements


Chapter 5: Existing Exposure Situations

(BSS 2011)

Indoor radon

Requirement 50: Public exposure due to radon indoors

– The government shall provide information on levels of radon

indoors and the associated health risks and, if appropriate, shall

establish and implement an action plan for controlling public

exposure due to radon indoors.

Requirement 52: Exposure in workplaces

– The regulatory body shall establish and enforce requirements for

the protection of workers in existing exposure situations.

– Exposure due to radon in workplaces



WHO to support implementation of BSS

in Member States

The completion of the

revision process of BSS

was announced during

the World Health

Assembly held at

Geneva in May 2011.

"WHO will continue

supporting Member

States for the

implementation of

BSS, to improve

protection of patients,

workers and general

public".

Technical

Briefing on

Fukushima NPP

accident at the

64th WHA,

Geneva, 17 May

2011


Communication on Radon

using WHO channels …

WHO Guidelines

– Indoor Radon

– Indoor Air Quality

– Dampness and Mould

– Guidelines for Drinking-

water Quality

– Selected pollutants



Communication on RadonBuilding Professionals

Appropriate communication

to raise awareness on

radon exposures

– with focus on the building

sector

Better training and

education of building

professionals

– Development of training

tools with the involvement

of building professionals for

better mitigation and

prevention


Communication on RadonBuilding Professionals

WHO meeting, Nov 2010, Geneva

To take stock of national experiences

– consolidate information received from the different countries into workable interventions for both technical and communication best practices.

To identify and involve representatives of building professionals

What next?



New Opportunities to Disseminate

Radon Messages

Changing the perception– Radon is a nuisance

– Radon is an opportunity

Energy Conservation vs. Radon Control

– Different channels and stakeholders for communicating about radon

• Different ministries

• Different private sectors


Conclusion

WHO aims to inform and raise public and political awareness

about the risks of exposure to radon and to emphasize primary

prevention

The IRP has provided multiple opportunities for cooperation with

European countries on topics related to radon

Collaboration with national and international partners, in

particular the EC, is key to better use resources and to avoid

duplication

Increased involvement of building professionals is essential,

through better communication, training and education


WHO has welcomed the EC project on Radon Prevention and Remediation (RADPAR), and is keen to contribute to dissemination of its results

These will hopefully provide a new opportunity to expand these achievements to a global dimension


2.5. IAEA Programmes on Reducing Risks from Indoor Radon, Tony

Colgan, International Atomic Energy Agency, Austria.

The fifth edition of the Basic Safety Standards (BSS) has recently been established as

Part 3 of the General Safety Requirements of the IAEA Safety Standards Series. The

BSS are relevant to all facilities and activities which may give rise to exposure to

ionizing radiation, as well as to existing or unregulated radiation risks, such as risks

due to radiation of essentially natural origin, including exposure due to radon in

dwellings and workplaces.

With regard to public exposure due to radon indoors, the BSS require that general

information on radon, including information on health risks and the synergy with

smoking, be made available to the public and other interested parties. Countries are

also required to determine whether an action plan for controlling exposure due to

radon indoors is necessary, and, if so, to establish and implement such an action plan.

Guidance material to assist with the implementation of these requirements is currently

being developed.

The IAEA assists its Member States with the implementation of the BSS through its

Technical Cooperation Programme. Support for work on radon has recently been

provided through regional projects aimed at reducing public exposure. There is an

increasing interest among Member States in reducing risks from indoor radon and the

IAEA works closely with both the WHO and RADPAR in meeting these needs.


IAEAInternational Atomic Energy Agency

RADPAR Brussels

23 February 2012

IAEA Programmes

on

Reducing Risks from Indoor Radon

Tony Colgan

Head, Radiation Protection Unit

IAEA

Contents

IAEA Safety Standards

Basic Safety Standards

Requirements and Guidance on Radon

Assistance to Member States

RADPAR, Brussels, February 2012


IAEA



Safety Fundamentals

Safety Requirements

Safety Guides

high level underlying principles

specify obligations and responsibilities

(“shall” statements)

recommendations to support

requirements (“should” statements)

based on international best practices

IAEA


IAEA Safety Standards are developed in close consultation with

Member States and with representatives of relevant international

organizations

• 4 Safety Standards Committees:

- waste, radiation protection, transport & nuclear safety

• Consultants meetings and technical meetings

• Consultation with Member States (120 days)

• Approval by Commission on Safety Standards and Board of

Governors



IAEA RADPAR, Brussels, February 2012

Development of safety standards

Outline and work planPreparation by the Secretariat

Review by the committees and the Commission on Safety Standards

Drafting and revision ofsafety standard

by the Secretariat and consultants

Reviewby the safety standards

committee(s)

Endorsementby the Commission on Safety Standards

MemberStates

• SF and SRs: approval by Board

• SGs: approval by DG

PublicationEstablishmentby the IAEA Director General or the Board

IAEA

IAEA Safety Standards – the BSS

Regulatory infrastructure

Occupational and public exposure

from practices

Safety of sources

Safety of radioactive waste

Medical exposure

Existing exposure

Emergency preparedness

Rehabilitation

Basis for safe transport


The essential protection and safety requirements of the

BSS underpin all circumstances of exposure to radiation


IAEA

Developing BSS Requirements on Radon

December 2009, IAEA Headquarters, Vienna

IAEA Technical Meeting: Newest Recommendations on

Health Effects from Radon – The Impact on Regulatory

Requirements

Chair: Mr Abel Gonzalez, Argentina

Participants: approx. 80 experts and national representatives


IAEA

Per Caput Annual Dose – UNSCEAR 2008

Natural Sources

2.4 mSv (79%)

Medical Exposures

0.64 mSv (21%)

Fallout

0.005 mSv (<1%)



IAEA

Per Caput Annual Doses from Natural

Sources – UNSCEAR 2008

Radon Inhalation

1.15 mSv (48%)

Cosmic Radiation

0.39 mSv (16%)Ingestion 0.29 mSv (12%)

Thoron Inhalation

0.1 mSv (4%)

External Gamma

Radiation

0.48 mSv (20%)


IAEA

BSS Requirements on Radon

Requirement 50: Public Exposure due to radon indoors

The government shall provide information on levels of radon indoors

and the associated health risks and, if appropriate, shall establish

and implement an action plan for controlling public exposure due to

radon indoors.

Key components

• Information requirements apply regardless of national situation

• Measurement programme is required (not specifically a national

radon survey)

• Action plan is required if high concentrations are identified/present



IAEA



As part of its responsibilities as required in para. 5.3, the

government shall ensure that:

(a) information is gathered on activity concentrations of radon in

dwellings and other buildings with high occupancy factors for

members of the public through appropriate means such as

representative radon surveys;

(b) relevant information on exposure due to radon and the

associated health risks, including the increased risks relating to

smoking, is provided to members of the public and other

interested parties.

IAEA



Where significant radon levels are identified from the information

gathered……..the government shall ensure that an action plan comprising

coordinated actions to reduce such levels in both existing and future

buildings is established, which include……..

The establishment of an appropriate reference level for dwellings……not

exceeding 300 Bq/m3;

The establishment of an appropriate reference level for workplaces……not exceeding 1000 Bq/m3;

Making all reasonable efforts to reduce radon concentrations and exposures to a level where protection can be considered optimized;

Giving priority to reducing radon concentrations in those situations where such action is likely to be most effective;

Inclusion of appropriate radon prevention and mitigation measures in building codes to prevent radon ingress and to facilitate potential remediation actions wherever necessary.


IAEA

Guidance on Implementation


Safety Guide: Protection of the Public from Indoor Exposure to

Natural Sources of Radiation (DS421)

• Covers radon, thoron and gamma radiation

• Discusses responsibilities of the “national authority”

• Develops approach to controlling natural radioactivity in building

materials (reference level of 1 mSv)

• Addresses radon control from three perspectives: radiation

protection, public health and indoor air quality

• Cross-references and consistency with WHO Guidelines

To be sent to Member States for comment in April 2012

IAEA


The Technical Cooperation Department of the International Atomic

Energy Agency helps to transfer nuclear and related technologies for

peaceful uses to countries throughout the world.

• Training courses

• Expert missions

• Fellowships

• Scientific visits

• Equipment disbursement

The Technical Cooperation Programme provides the necessary

skills and equipment to establish sustainable technology in the

counterpart country or region.



IAEA


The TC Programme disburses more than US $70 million worth of

equipment, services, and training per year in approximately 100

countries and territories which are grouped into four geographic

regions:

• Africa

• Asia & Pacific

• Europe

• Latin America

Work on radon is supported through TC projects on the

reduction of public exposure.


IAEA


Example: Bulgaria

Nov. 2009: Training course on Setting up and Implementing a National

Programme to Reduce Exposure to Radon in Homes.

March 2010: Meeting to discuss key components of a national radon

survey.

May 2011: Meeting of the Interdepartmental Committee of Bulgaria

on establishing a National Radon Strategy.

Nov. 2011: National Workshop on Reducing Risks from Indoor

Radon: the Role of Building Professionals.

RADPAR and WHO were involved in all 4 missions to Bulgaria



IAEA

Previous Workshop

November 2010, WHO Headquarters, Geneva

Regional Workshop on Reducing Risks from Indoor Radon

A Joint IAEA-WHO Indoor Radon Meeting in cooperation with

the EC, the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health and UNSCEAR

Participants: Armenia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan,

Lithuania, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Malta,

Montenegro, Moldova, Serbia, Tajikistan, Ukraine.

Topics: - the national radon survey

- other radon measurement techniques

- reducing radon exposure

- large scale radon measurement campaigns

- communication: public, professionals, decision-makers


IAEA

Planned Workshops 2012


Europe

Asia


IAEA



[email protected]


2.6. Novelties in the Belgian radon policy, André Poffijn, Federal Agency

for Nuclear Control, Belgium. In the past the radon programme in Belgium focussed mainly on private buildings and

on remediation of the high exposed category (> 800 Bq/m³).

In the near future prevention and control of radon exposure at work will become

priority items.

For the control of radon exposure at work the notion of radon risk area has been

described in detail and has been extended to be applicable to radon exposure due to

former and current NORM activities.

For the realisation of the protection against radon in all new dwellings, the Walloon

government - competent for the building code - has developed a specific action

programme that puts the general objectives for radon as described in the general

programme Environment and Health, into practice.

As part of the research on the role of radon in the prevalence of other diseases than

lung cancer, an etiological study on radon and thyroid cancer has been performed in

close collaboration with the Scientific Institute of Public Health and the Belgian

Cancer Register.

The outcome, a statistically significant correlation, will be investigated as to its

biological plausibility.


Novelties in the radon policy in Belgium

André Poffijn

Radpar workshop Brussels February 23 2012

Overview

At the federal level

• Geogenic and androgenic risk areas

• Monitoring in workplaces• Completion of geological

radon mapping study• Study on diseases other

than LC• Low energy constructions

At the regional level

• Radon action plan• Set-up of a radon lab in

Wallonia


At the federal level

Geogenic and antrogenic

radon risk areas

Radon and non LC diseases

Geogenic and antrogenic radon risk areas

• The notion of radon risk area is powerfull tool for controlling all radon exposure situations

At home At work

regional & federal competence federal competence

… was not clearly defined in regulation


Geogenic and antrogenic radon risk areas

• Detailed study and description of radon risk areas by the FANC in period 2010-2011

• Published in the Belgian Official Journal of 09-09-2011

• The notion extended from geogenic radon risk area to antropogenic radon risk area to include radon exposure situations from industrial origin (e.a. old phosphogypsum dump sites)

• Some antropogenic radon risk areas defined at cadastral parcel level

Radon and non LC diseases

• Radon and thyroid cancer and leukemia

• Collaboration with Institute for Public Health and Cancer Register


Rn & thyroid cancer incidence in Belgium

Study design

• Ecological study (radon & thyroid data at commune level)

• Study area : 120 communes (> 20 long term measurements per commune)

• Reference population: Wallonia

• Study period: 2004 – 2008

• Total population:~ 400000

• Total number of thyroid cancers in study area: 800

(M: 195 & F:605) is about 51% of total in Wallonia


Results

Pearson correlations

Spearman correlations

Thyroid p Thyroid p

ln(Rn) 0,26978 0,0029 0,20867 0,0222

sd[ln(Rn)] 0,26039 0,0041 0,24699 0,0065

var[ln(Rn)] 0,24999 0,0059 0,24699 0,0065

[ln(Rn)]² 0,28225 0,0018 0,22471 0,0136

Pearson correlations

Spearman correlations

Leukemia p Leukemia p

ln(Rn) -0,06454 0,4837 -0,16535 0,0711

sd[ln(Rn)] -0,02453 0,7903 -0,12623 0,1695

var[ln(Rn)] -0,0287 0,7557 -0,12623 0,1695

[ln(Rn)]² -0,06636 0,4715 -0,1699 0,0636

Discussion

Statistical evidence for relation Rn-Thyroid cancer

• Necessity for biological plausibility

• High amounts of classical & Berkson error


At the regional level

Radon action Plan

Radon lab

Radon action plan

Action programme “environment-health”(PARES)

Radon = priority action 10

General objectives: – Prevention for new constructions and renovations

– Remediation support for low income category

In 2011 CPES stimulated and coordinated (participants

from federal, regional, provincial institutes, BBRI, building

confederation, association of architects) the transposition of these objectives in operational action plan

Document submitted to Walloon government end 2011


Major points

• Site certification for radon (radon potential)

• Obligation for prevention in all new buildings (technical details to include in building logbook)

• Training (professionals, …)

• Improved radon mapping (karst, hydrogeology,...)

• Extended financial support for remediation

• Testing of all workplaces belonging to the Walloon government (also e.a. archeological mining sites)

• Information and sensibilisation

Radon lab

• In the past measurements (majorly) done by NRC Mol and University Gent (Makrofol)

• Need to set-up a (sustainable) radon lab in Wallonia

• Realised end 2010 at the institute Hainaut Vigileance Sanitaire (HVS) in Mons (CR-39)


Quality tests

Quality control tests (2011)

• Side by side tests in 40 houses

• Laboratory intercomparison in Japan

• Field intercomparison in Spain

Fully operational!!

The Belgian Radon family



2.7. Radon Measurement Standardization (ISO 11665), Roselyn Ameon,

Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire, France.

International Standardization Work on the

Measurement of Radon in the air

Roselyne AMÉON

RADPAR Workshop - Radon Prevention and Remediation –Brussels 2012

RADPAR Workshop - Radon Prevention and Remediation – Brussels – February 2012

Context

Due to the universal presence of Rn and as the Rn exposure is estimated to

contribute up to 52% of the total natural internal dose, environmental assessment

studies are regularly commissioned to assess the Rn exposure of the public/workers

The credibility of such studies relies on the quality and reliability of Rn analysis

as well as the sample representativity of the radiological situation. Measurement

results has to be comparable to similar measurements performed in other parts of

the world

Two WG of the International Standardization Organization (ISO) are presently

drafting standards on the measurement of Rn and its decay products in air and in

waters as well as its release into indoor and outdoor environments.

The standard-setting approach, based on consensus at the international level,

seemed to lend itself to a settlement of technical aspects of potential comparison


International Standardization Organizations

Dealing with Radon Measurement


International Standardization Organization (ISO)

International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)

Organization of standardization

Equipment standardization

Measurement methods standardization

IEC 61577 : instrumentation of measurement of Rn and its decay products (published)

ISO 11665 : measurement of Rn and its decay products in air (under way)

ISO 13664 : measurement of Rn and its decay products in water (under way)



ISO

TC…TC85

Nuclear EnergyTC 147 (35P, 52O)

Water Quality

SCSC SC SC2 (24P, 6O)

Radiological Protection

WG….

WG ….

WG 17

Radioactivity measurement

SC

WG 4

Radiological Measurement

International Standardization Organization


Stages of the development of ISO Standards

Stage 1: Proposal stage New work item

Stage 2: Preparatory stage Working draft

Stage 3: Committee stage Committee Draft

Stage 7: ReviewRevised

International Standard

Stage 5: Approval stage Final Draft

Int. Standard

Stage 4: Enquiry stage Draft Int. Standard

Stage 6: Publication stage International Standard


Standardization Work on Radon-222

Measurement in Air

D. Calmet, R. Améon, T. Beck, S. Brun, P. De Jong, J.M. Duda, M. Herranz, M. Jiranek, A. Klett, R. Michel, T. Richards, K. Rovenska, C. Schuler, S. Tokonami and M. Woods

TC85-SC2-WG17


Measurement of Rn in Air

Concerning the risk linked to Rn exposure, as stated by the World Health

Organization (WHO), the greatest exposure is due to the inhalation of indoor Rn

The standard-setting work of the TC85/SC2/WG17 on Rn measurement in air is

intended for persons in charge for the initial characterization of a site with

respect to the natural radiation burden as well as to those performing the

routine surveillance of Rn activity levels, which includes systematic and

periodic inspection of specific sites, such as those in the Rn prone areas

13 States participate in the drafting of the Rn standards in TC85/WG17



Structure of ISO – 11665 Generic Standard

11665-1

MEASUREMENT

11665-4

Rn Integrated measurement

method

11665-5

Rn Continuous measurement

method

11665-6

Rn Spot measurement

method

11665-2

RnDP Integrated

Measurement method

11665-3

RnDP Spot measurement

method 11665-9

Exhalation rate of materials

11665-7

Surface exhalation rate

11665-8

Rn-222 in buildings

11665-10

Diffusion coefficient in

waterproof materials

2012

2012

2012

2012

2012

2012

2012

2012

2014

2013

APPLICATION


Conclusion and perspectives

The 8 first parts of the ISO Standard 11665 on Rn measurement in air

(including indoor air) will be published in 2012

In the near future, the drafting of a new standard on Rn measurement in soil

will be launched by ISO TC85

The draft of the ISO 11665-10 (Radpar project) will be published in 2014

The drafting of these ISO Standards on Rn measurement was an opportunity

of extensive exchanges of views on various practices that permitted to reach

consensus on Rn measurement procedures to promote at the international level

ISO 16641 on Thoron measurement in air is underway

Documents

Workshop Proceedings - Europa · Workshop Proceedings “Radon Prevention and Remediation Workshop Proceedings” Deliverable 17 This publication arises from the project Radon Prevention