December 1998

• Minutes of the Academy's Annual Business Meeting
  July 14, 1998
  • President's Report
  • Report of the President-elect
  • Report of the Secretary
  • Report of the Treasurer
  • Report of the ABHP Chair
• William B. McAdams Outstanding Service Award
• THE 1998 CHP SALARY SURVEY
• From The Editor:A Personal Perspective on Computer-Based Certification Exams
  
• AAHP CONTINUING EDUCATION COURSES
  • AAHP COURSE 1 PERSONNEL DOSIMETRY IN PERSPECTIVE
  • AAHP COURSE 2 Health Physics Applications Using the Monte Carlo Program MCNP
• More From the Board
• Exam Site Selection Committee

Contributions to the CHP News and the "CHP Corner" should be sent to Gary Kephart or Steve Rima. (See AAHP Administrative Roster, for address & phone numbers.)

President Kathren summarized some activities in which he had been involved. These included: 1) misuse of the AAHP name by an organization that had applied for continuing education credits and was involved in training physicians; action had been taken to discourage such misuse, and the Academy had affirmed through the President that we are not sponsors of the organization; 2) the vote by the AAHP Executive Committee to sponsor the ABMP with respect to the examination given in Medical Health Physics by that Board; 3) the fact that the ABHP had joined the Council of Engineering and Scientific Specialty Boards; 4) the review by the Committee of Professional Standards and Ethics of an ethics complaint with the result that the named CHP will receive a cautionary letter.

President Kathren acknowledged Dale Denham, this year’s recipient of the William McAdams Award. He also expressed some dismay at some scheduling conflicts that had arisen between planned activities of the AAHP and those of the HPS at the Minneapolis meeting. Action was being taken to avoid such conflicts in the future. President Kathren also proposed , to the HPS Board and to boards of other societies, the idea of a national radiation protection conference that would be sponsored by the HPS, the AAHP, the NRRPT, the CRCPD, and possibly other groups.

Frank Masse is the liaison between the HPS and the AAHP, and President Kathren challenged Masse to take the lead in exploring the feasibility of such a conference.

President-elect Herman Cember reviewed the activities that had taken place at the recent meeting in Las Vegas that dealt with the topic of academic program accreditation. He stated that many opinions were expressed, but no firm conclusions were reached. Participants felt that accreditation was important and desirable, for one reason because of legislative considerations -- e.g., action by states to license professionals and possibly stipulating that such individuals must have graduated from accredited programs in health physics. There was much diversity among existing academic programs, and there were concerns expressed in the Las Vegas meeting that the accreditation process may not properly consider such differences. There was a consensus that while specific course requirements may not be appropriate, there should be certain common areas of required knowledge that are specified. There was also a concern expressed that some presently small but viable programs may be threatened by the accreditation process.

Secretary George Chabot reported the results of the [then] recent election:
President-elect: Chuck Roessler
Treasurer: Tom Buhl
Director: Joe Alvarez

Report of the Treasurer

Treasurer Jean St. Germain noted that as of May 31, 1998, the Academy was only about $2000 short of the strategic plan goal of having 1.5 times the AAHP operating capital as long term reserves. She noted that the very strong performance of the stock market had been responsible for our being so close to the goals in a shorter time than expected.

Jean explained the sources of Academy income to those present, stating that about 39% comes from examination fees. This income has been decreasing as numbers of applicants have declined. She also explained expenditures, noting that about 51% of expenses are for the Secretariat; work is being done to attempt to better define fixed and variable costs. The operating budget is almost $200,000 and will have a small deficit for the coming year, primarily due to a recent allocation associated with planned activities to improve the Part II Examination.

Report of the ABHP Chair

Chairman George Vargo summarized the activities of the Board. For 1998 there were 454 exam applicants, 386 were approved to take the exam, 216 were admitted to Part I and 233 were admitted to Part II. There were 20% fewer applicants than last year. The 1998 exam was given at 20 sites. We have 1087 active CHPs, 188 emeritus CHPs, and 267 inactive CHPs.

The Board is pursuing action to stabilize performance on Part II. Fundamental changes are necessary to make Part II perform more like Part I. Proposals are being solicited to reengineer the Part II examination. We will likely move towards a closed bank of secure exam questions. It will take some time and perhaps be 2002 or 2003 before the new exam is ready. Some changes have been made to the application process to better guarantee that applicants do not misrepresent their qualifications/credentials. The results of the 1998 exam will be posted on the web site. The Board will attempt to increase the number of Part II examinations that are available on the web site.

Vargo confirmed that the ABHP certification program is now a member of the Council of Engineering and Scientific Specialty Boards; this should strengthen the ABHP certification. It was also requested that the National Environmental Trainers’ Association grant reciprocity for ABHP certification for the Radiation Protection Specialty. In response to questions from the floor regarding changes to the Part II exam, Vargo noted that consideration was being given to expanding the present radiation protection report requirement in order to ensure that the entire process continues to validate the professional level of performance by applicants.

Other Academy Business

President Kathren acknowledged that nine of the twelve recently appointed Fellows of the HPS are Academy members. He also observed that the Society’s Distinguished Scientific Achievement Award and the Founder’s Award would be presented to academy members Bruce Boecker and Frank Masse, respectively. President Kathren also commented that Herman Cember was putting together committee memberships for the upcoming year.

Any Academy members interested in participating on committees

should contact Herman. Ron also noted that although there would not be a formal report from the Academy’s Past President, Jerry Martin had completed an outstanding effort in organizing the special session -- summarizing the Wingspread Conference -- held at the annual HPS meeting.

Clarification of Academy Sponsorship/Involvement in the American Board of Medical Physics

At the direction of the Executive Committee in Mobile, President Kathren had agreed to appoint two members of the Academy as AAHP designates on the American Board of Medical Physics [ABMP]; those two individuals are Ken Miller and Dick Vetter.

At the Minneapolis meeting of the Executive Committee, one of our CHP colleagues from the medical community asked to address the Executive Committee and was invited to do so. He noted that an announcement in an AAPM publication stated that the ABMP had a new sponsor, namely the AAHP. Nowhere in the article did it state that the AAHP was sponsoring the medical health physics examination of the ABMP. The individual CHP questioned 1) why the AAHP would sponsor an examination by a group that competes with the ABHP; 2) why the AAHP would agree to allocate$5000 in support of the ABMP; 3) why would the Executive Committee feel comfortable approving the $5000 without consulting members of the AAHP, and 4) why did he (the individual CHP) become aware of the AAHP’s action by reading of it in a publication of another organization?

Our colleague went on to suggest that the action by the AAHP has been misinterpreted by the ABMP as full sponsorship of the ABMP, not as sponsorship of a specific, and rather small part of the ABMP examination. Of the candidates who take the examinations of the ABMP, only a small number (estimated at about 5% in 1998) sit for the examination in Medical Health Physics. Our colleague’s stated concern was not so much that the AAHP is sponsoring the examination for a few individuals, but that the interpretation in the medical physics community is that the AAHP is providing general sponsorship of the ABMP.

This [mis]interpretation would have AAHP sponsorship including the examinations in Radiation Oncology Physics and Diagnostic Imaging Physics.

It was explained to those present that there is another issue involving the fact that there are two certifying groups in the medical physics community, one being the ABMP and the second being the (older) American Board of Radiology (ABR). Both examine in Medical Therapy Physics and Medical Diagnostic Physics, but the ABR does not examine in Medical Health Physics. Most currently practicing medical physicists were said to be certified by the ABR. Members of the medical physics community have been trying for several years to resolve differences between the two boards, preferably to have a single, unified board. Negotiations, towards this end, between the two boards failed. The AAPM established an ad hoc committee that made several recommendations that were generally accepted by the ABR; the ABMP ultimately rejected the proposal. The issue remains unresolved and contentious, and our colleague questioned why the AAHP would want to get involved in such controversy.

The Academy member felt it was important that the AAHP make it clear to the ABMP that, in any communications involving the AAHP sponsorship, the ABMP should make it clear that the sponsorship is only for the Medical Health Physics portion of the examination. There followed considerable additional discussion by the Executive Committee, lead by Treasurer and medical CHP Jean St. Germain. It was agreed that it must be made clear to the ABMP and its chairman, the medical physics community, and the health physics community that the ABMP sponsorship by the AAHP was only of the Medical Health Physics portion of the ABMP examination process.

To that end the discussion, as reported by the Academy Secretary, George Chabot, has been summarized here for the full AAHP membership.

Acceptance Remarks

Thank you Nancy. I was elated and very pleased to have received your call, letting me know of my selection for this award. As Nancy pointed out in her citation, I was blessed or cursed, which ever you choose, to have served during the formative years of the Academy and at a time when a number of changes to the certification process were being developed. However, as with all Board/Academy activities, their success was a function of the Board and Panel members supporting those activities. My being named for the award was a direct result of the support I received from the Board and Panel members with whom I served for nearly a decade. Many Panel members provided support during development of the Panel Procedures Manual, which was really a joint effort by Larry Cross and myself, including Larry, who served as chair the year before me, and Roger Brown, who served as chair the year following my chairmanship. I am also indebted to former McAdams Award winners and Panel/Board chairmen Bob Casey, Frazier Bronson, Les Slaback, and Lee Booth who greatly influenced my efforts while serving on the Board. Also I am grateful to my employer, Bechtel Hanford, who made it possible for me to attend this meeting and awards luncheon.

I would be remiss also if I didn't recognize the supportive efforts of our spouses (Larry's, Roger's and mine) who provided space for us to spread out our materials on the dining room tables and for my mother who helped collate and staple candidates' responses to questions for mailing. Thanks, too, to Scott Medling who prepared and has maintained the electronic versions of the procedures, enabling them to be more readily available for Panel and Board member use.

While I did not personally meet Bill McAdams, I was involved in the selection and presentation of the first two McAdams Outstanding Service Awards to Jack Healy and Wade Patterson, two of the senior health physicists who have influenced the course of my career. Thanks also to fellow Panel and Board members Ron Kathren, my career lifetime associate and co-worker, and to Nancy Kirner for providing me the opportunity to say thanks for this award. It is also fitting that I receive this award here in the vicinity of where my ancestry resided (Hennepin, Goodhue, and Wabasha counties in Minnesota, and Pierce County in Wisconsin) from the mid 1860s to the mid 1880s.

In conclusion, I'd like to congratulate the recently certified health physicists whose names were read at this awards luncheon and encourage them to get involved in the certification process. It is not only an opportunity to earn continuing education credits to maintain your certification, but also to interact with peers and to be challenged in other areas of health physics.

THE 1998 CHP SALARY SURVEY

Gary Lautenschlager

Introduction

The 1998 CHP Salary Survey was conducted with the assistance of the American Academy of Health Physics. The survey form was included with the annual AAHP maintenance fee notice, which was mailed near the end of August. The response was very good, with more than 400 surveys returned by mid October. Newsletter publication deadlines made it necessary to use only the data received through October 23, 1998. Data received after this date will be included in the AAHP website version at a future date: http://www.aahp-abhp.org

Questions about this survey should be directed to Gary Lautenschlager, via email: glauten@hotmail.com Telephone: (630) 840-8360 (W) or (815) 748-4539 (H). You may also post your questions and comments on the AAHP Bulletin Board at the AAHP website: http://www.aahp-abhp.org

Data Analysis

The salary ranges marked by CHPs on the completed survey forms were rounded to the midpoints of those ranges before statistical analyses were performed. For example, if a CHP marked the salary range $50,000 to $54,999, their salary was rounded to the midpoint value of $52,500.

One CHP indicated he earned $260,000 per year. This data point was excluded from the data analysis as an outlier.

Responses from CHPs who were either part time or retired were not analyzed, since the data did not appear to allow meaningful comparisons to be made.

Data Presentation

In an effort to make the results of the survey as interesting and useful as possible, CHPs were grouped in several ways by education, primary job responsibility, years of experience, and combinations of these groups. Readers are cautioned that for statistical validity, results are usually given only if there were 10 or more CHPs within that group. Data presented for one group of CHPs may not be possible for another group. However, some exceptions were made for general interest.

Tables

Tables show results for full-time CHPs who received health, vacation, and retirement benefits from their primary employer unless otherwise noted. A histogram of Table 1 data is included as Figure 1.

Table 1: All CHPs

Table 2: CHPs by Education and Field

Table 3: CHPs by Education and 10-15 Years Experience

Table 4: CHPs by Education and 15-25 Years Experience

Table 5: CHPs by Education and NRRPT

Table 6: CHPs by Education and PE

Table 7: Bachelors Other Field and Primary Employer

Table 8: Masters Health Physics and Primary Employer

Table 9: Masters Other Field and Primary Employer

Table 10: Masters Health Physics and Primary Job Responsibility

Table 11: Ph.D. Health Physics and Primary Job Responsibility

Table 12: Self-Employed CHPs (without regard to responses on whether benefits received)

Table 13: CHPs with Medical Physics as Primary Job Responsibility

The Optional Question

I was unable to include a discussion of the many replies received for this question at this writing. However, it will be included in a future CHP Newsletter issue and the AAHP website: http://www.aahp-abhp.org In closing I would like to thank all of you who provided your input.

From The Editor:

A Personal Perspective on Computer-Based Certification Exams

The day before I sat down to write this article, your Associate Editor had the unique experience (I’m being nice here) of taking a computer-based certification exam. I took the Comprehensive portion of the Board of Certified Safety Professionals (BCSP) exam to get the Certified Safety Professional (CSP) credential. Fortunately I passed; I might be reluctant to write this article had the outcome been different. I don’t particularly look back on the day I took both parts of the CHP Exam with fondness, and I’m sure that yesterday won’t stick in my mind as a fun day either.

Recently, the ABHP has discussed computer -based exams as one option of administering the CHP exam sometime in the future. Before this happens, many things must be considered and the pros and cons of such a move evaluated. After experiencing this firsthand, I’m quite honestly not sure if it would be a good move or a bad one.

The BCSP has chosen to have their exams administered by the Sylvan Learning Center people. To schedule an exam date after you’re accepted by the BCSP, you have to call a national Sylvan number and register for the exam location, date and time you want. Unfortunately, I found out that not every Sylvan Learning Center, which seem to be located everywhere, is a Sylvan Testing Center. Even though there is a learning center here in town, the nearest testing center is 250 miles away!

With my exam scheduled, I showed up at the testing center, presented my BCSP authorization letter and a picture I.D., and was shown how to use the computer. To Sylvan’s credit, the actual process on the computer is simple enough that anyone somewhat familiar with using a mouse can easily take the exam. This is good; nobody should have to worry about how to use the computer while taking a certification exam. There is even an option for a short tutorial and practice session prior to beginning the exam; I looked at it and it seemed quite user friendly.

Once the exam was underway, it was much like any other multiple-choice exam. A clock kept track of the time remaining in the upper right corner of the screen; unfortunately there was no way to stop it even for bathroom breaks. Graphics were available for a number of questions; these were easily displayed on the screen. It was also easy to “mark” a question to come back to later. Unfortunately, 3.5 hours into the exam, to my complete and utter horror, the power went out! I was quickly assured that this has happened before and that everything I had done so far was saved. When the power was regained almost two hours later, I found this to be true and continued to complete the exam. I have no idea what would have happened if the power was out for any extended time but this is certainly a possibility that must be considered.

At the conclusion of this seven hour marathon, (with no food or drink; Sylvan doesn’t allow it in the testing room) I told the computer that I was finished. Within a few seconds it told me that I had passed and gave a final percentage score. It’s certainly gratifying to get a passing score instantly; I’m not sure how those not passing feel about the instant scoring though.

Based on my experience, there are certainly pros and cons to the computer based format, and some potential problems that must be considered and solutions developed prior to going to a computer based CHP exam. It’s a viable option for multiple choice exams, but for other exam formats I’m not sure it would work as well. For example, typing skills or the lack thereof should not be a factor in passing an exam or finishing an exam in the allotted time. Obviously, essay-type questions with calculations, as is the case with the present Part II Exam, are not a candidate for a computer-based format.

As an aside, I was surprised to find a small number of health physics questions on the exam. The only decay question on it provided the third-life of the isotope rather than the half-life!

- Steve Rima

AAHP CONTINUING EDUCATION COURSES

Saturday, January 23, 1999

8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m., Each Course is Worth 16 CECs

AAHP COURSE 1
PERSONNEL DOSIMETRY IN PERSPECTIVE.

Michael Lantz, CHP, Palo Verde Nuclear Plant

This course presents a practical approach to personnel dosimetry, exploring both internal and external dosimetry topics. This course is a must for any health physicist, no matter the specicality area. Mr. Lantz will use his 25 years in dosimetry and 10 years of experience as a NVLAP assessor to integrate all of the aspects.

Practical examples are used to explore the following areas: Why, what, and how do you evaluate high and low dose TLDs; Comparison of TLD and ED results; Making sense of multiple chip dosimeters; TLD QA; Neutron dosimetry with cadmium and without cadmium; Neutron calibration standards for nuclear power; Hot particle doses and limitations; Noble gas dosimetry; Near contact dosimetry; Usefulness of passive whole body monitors; Invitro and Invivo Bioassay programs and ALIs (Making sense of those IRFs); In vivo counting; internal versus fixed external contamination; QA checks for individual counts; Air sampling and bioassay; Radon and air sampling; Dose based, not intake based monitoring; Respirable versus non-respirable; Particle sizing (why is it important in most cases); First day counts; Effective DAC calculations for alphas with Pu-241 added; Revised ALI/DAC calculations.

Bring your questions, including those you’ve always been afraid to ask, and be prepared to pull it all together. The emphasis is on the practical.

AAHP COURSE 2
Health Physics Applications Using the Monte Carlo Program MCNP.

Dick Olsher, CHP and David Seagraves of the Health Physics Measurements Group, Los Alamos National Laboratory

Monte Carlo type calculations are now encountered in a variety of HP areas. This course provides the HP with the opportunity to become familiar with the concepts of one of the more widely used codes, MCNP. The concepts covered in this course are useful to those who will be users of the results of Monte Carlo calculations as well as those who will actually perform the calculations.

MCNP is ideally suited to the needs of the HP interested in performing radiation shielding and skyshine calculations, detector simulation studies, in situ geometries, or dosimetry. With a little coaching and study of the examples, many HPs will find they are able to solve problems that have, in the past, been out of reach. Problems that involve a complex geometry can be easily solved using MCNP (e.g., designing a maze entrance to a radiation room). The calculations in MCNP are based on detailed physics models and very accurate cross section tables that require no energy group compromises to be made.

This course introduces the basic concepts of Monte Carlo, demonstrates how to put together a MCNP input file, and illustrates some health physics applications of the code. No prior knowledge of Monte Carlo is assumed. The course will not attempt to overwhelm the student with all of the details necessary to independently perform useful calculations. Instead, the focus of the lectures and demonstrations will be on providing a practical boost toward learning the program and guiding the student toward further study.

The Los Alamos MCNP program is a general and powerful Monte Carlo transport code for photons, neutrons, and electrons. MCNP can be safely described as the “industry standard” with more than 600 person-years of development effort behind it. The code is supported on a variety of platforms and is now accessible to HPs using desktop or laptop personal computers.

Lectures will include: Overview of the MCNP code and the Monte Carlo method, basic concepts; input file preparation, geometry, source definition, data cards; discussion of standard MCNP tallys; and methods of dose and exposure calculation. Demonstrations include: Point Source, fluence calculation; Area Source, fluence calculation; Calculation of Cs-137 Gamma Ray Constant. Each demonstration will include a discussion of input and output files.

The course will provide information on how to obtain a copy of MCNP and its data libraries from the Radiation Safety Information Computational Center (RSICC) at Oak Ridge. Only RSICC is authorized to distribute licensed copies of the MCNP code package. All of the input and output files for the class demonstrations will be provided for self-study on a diskette. Additional training opportunities will be described and a bibliography will be included in the course notes.

More From the Board

George J. Vargo, Chair ABHP

With the January 15, 1999 application deadline looming ever closer this is one of the busiest times of year for our Nancy Johnson, our Program Director at Burke & Associates. In order to avoid needless frustration and delays or possible rejection of applications I would like to remind all applicants of our basic requirements and review the most common problems encountered in processing applications for Certification:

Incomplete application forms – A few applicants still don’t feel that it is necessary to complete the application form and merely attach a resume with a reference to “see attached.” Some applications appear to be hastily completed and are almost illegible. An important purpose of the application form is to assure the collection and objective evaluation of the basic minimum qualifications for certification. The Board has invested considerable effort in developing an application form that is as convenient to both the applicant and reviewers as possible. Incomplete or illegible applications will be returned, possibly resulting in a lengthy processing delay or rejection.

Missing application fee – Application forms submitted without the required application fee (not the actual examination fees) cannot be processed and will be returned.

Missing original signatures – Original signatures are required on the Application for Certification, Immediate Supervisor Reference Form, and Confidential Professional Reference Form. Fax copies are not acceptable. Forms without original signatures will be considered to be incomplete and returned.

Inadequate or unacceptable Radiation Protection Report – Applicants for Part II should also carefully review the instructions for submitting the required Radiation Protection Report. A majority of the applicants initially rejected and referred for Board Chair review involved an inadequate or unacceptable report

In addition to these, there are two new requirements that applicants for the 1999 examination must satisfy:

Original English language transcripts or certified translations on non-English transcripts are required for all degrees claimed – Original transcripts must be issued by the educational institution and bear the raised seal of the originating official (e.g., Registrar) or be printed on tamper-indicating security paper. Candidates from non-English speaking institutions must also submit a certified translation along with the original transcript. These documents are part of the application and cannot be returned. Transcripts marked “Issued to Student” are acceptable as long as they meet the above requirements.

One Professional Reference must be a CHP – At least one of the applicant’s professional references must be a CHP. Application packages lacking a reference from a CHP will be considered incomplete.

The number of candidates for Certification has declined in the last two years. There is a similar trend in Health Physics Society membership that probably reflects a contraction in the job market in the both the nuclear power and DOE sectors. Despite this, the number of Active CHPs remains at an all-time high – a testimony to the value of certification. In 1998 we made significant progress toward accreditation by the Council of Engineering and Scientific Specialty Boards (CESB). The Board completed an assessment of the Part II process and has contracted with an examination consultant to undertake a comprehensive job-task analysis and reassessment of our examination processes. Overall, I believe our program is strong and will only improve with the new initiatives underway.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the many volunteers whose ongoing effort maintains the Certification program and the continuing value of Certification. Please join me in thanking Nancy Kirner, Vice Chair, Ed Maher, Secretary, and Bob Miltenberger, Parliamentarian for their work throughout the year. Also, I would like to extend a special thanks to fellow outgoing Board Member David Gooden for his wisdom and guidance over the last five years. Both of our Panel Chairs – Les Aldrich for Part I and Jack Higginbotham for Part II both did a fine job in managing the huge volunteer effort involved in administering the examination program. Thanks also to all of the offgoing Part I and Part II Panel members for their dedication. Finally, please join me in welcoming new Board members Rich Vetter and Ed Bailey and wishing Nancy Kirner and the 1999 Board every success in the coming year.

The Exam Site Selection Committee (William Kirk, Chair, Harvey Goldberg and Don Honey) arranged for the following exam sites and proctors. The Board appreciates all of the work done by the Committee and the proctors who donated their time to assist with the exam.

1998 Exam Sites and Proctors

Who have you challenged to seek certification? Applications are due 1/15/99.