cepn

ALARA AND PROFESSIONAL NETWORKS - PROMOTING OPTIMISATION OF RADIATION

PROTECTION

Caroline SCHIEBER

IRPA RC-10 , Buenos-Aires, 22 October 2008

2

Content of the presentation

Foundation of optimisation of radiation protection Historical evolution From ICRP 60 to ICRP 103

Optimisation in practice Optimisation process Elements supporting the ALARA approach

Role and interest of professional networking

Challenges for the future

3

The foundation of the principle of optimisation of

radiation protection

4

Historical evolution of the concept (1)

Until the 40's, radiation protection was based on protection against the deterministic effects of ionising radiation The individual dose limit, set up well below the threshold of

deterministic effects was a guaranty that such effects would not appear below the limit.

During the 1940s Recognition of 'stochastic effects' Impossibility to demonstrate the existence or non-existence of a

threshold for such effects Due to this uncertainty, the limit is no longer a guaranty of the

absence of risk

=> Prudent attitude of the ICRP with the recommendation"That every effort be made to reduce exposures to all types of ionising radiation to the lowest possible level" (1955)

5

Historical evolution of the concept (2)

To reduce exposure

to the lowest possible level

To keep exposure

as low as practicable Pub 1 - 1959

To keep exposure

as low as readily achievable

economic and social consideration being taken into account

Pub 9 -1966

To keep exposure

as low as reasonably achievable

economic and social consideration being taken into account

Pub 22 - 1973

To keep exposure

as low as reasonably achievable

economic and social factors being taken into account

Pub 26 - 1977

6

Historical evolution of the concept (3)

ICRP 60 (1990) Need to consider in the optimisation process :

"the magnitude of individual exposures, the number of people exposed and the likelihood of incurring exposures where these are not certain to be receivers

Emphasis on the equity issue : optimisation may introduce inequity between one individual and the other (uneven distribution of benefits and detriments through society)

=> Propose the use of dose constraint for practices:• a source-related value of individual dose used to limit

the range of options considered into the procedure of optimisation

7

Historical evolution of the concept (4)

ICRP 103 (2007)

'the likelihood of incurring exposures, the number of people exposed, and the magnitude of their individual doses should all be kept as low as reasonably achievable, taking into account economic and societal factors.

This means that the level of protection should be the best under the prevailing circumstances, maximising the margin of benefit over harm.

In order to avoid severely inequitable outcomes of this optimisation procedure, there should be restrictions on the doses or risks to individuals from a particular source (dose or risk constraints and reference levels)'

8

From ICRP 60 to ICRP 103 (1)

ICRP 60 Practices

• justification, optimisation, limitation (except for medical exposures)

• Dose limits• Individual dose constraint

Interventions• justification, optimisation• Intervention levels

9

From ICRP 60 to ICRP 103 (2)

The ICRP 60 approach

Interventions "generic" optimisation

Optimisation

Dose limit

Dose constraint Action/intervention level

Practices

10

From ICRP 60 to ICRP 103 (3)

ICRP 103 Planned exposure situations: situations involving the

deliberate introduction and operation of sources. • Justification, optimisation, limitation (except medical exposures)• Dose limits, dose constraint

Emergency exposure situations: situations that may occur during the operation of a planned situation, or from a malicious act, or from any other unexpected situation, and require urgent action in order to avoid or reduce undesirable consequences.

• Justification, optimisation• Reference levels

Existing exposure situations: exposure situations that already exist when a decision on control has to be taken, including prolonged exposure situations after emergencies

• Justification, optimisation• Reference levels

11

From ICRP 60 to ICRP 103 (4)

Planned exposure situations

Emergency and existing exposure situations

OptimisationOptimisation

Dose limit

Dose constraint

Reference level

The ICRP 103 approach

12

Levels of protection

Dose Limits Dose Constraints and Reference Levels

Protect individuals from public and occupational exposure…from all regulated sources,

in planned exposure situations

from a source, in all exposure situations

13

Dose range proposed by ICRP 103 for dose constraints and reference levels (1)

Band of constraint or

reference level(ICRP 103)

Characteristics

Greater than 20 to 100 mSv

Individuals exposed by sources that are not controllable, or where actions to reduce doses would be disproportionately disruptive. Exposures are usually controlled by action on the exposure pathways.

Greater than 1 to 20 mSv

Individuals will usually receive benefit from the exposure situation but not necessarily from the exposure itself. Exposures may be controlled at source or, alternatively, by action in the exposure pathways.

1 mSv or less

Individuals are exposed to a source that gives them little or no individual benefit but benefits to society in general. Exposures are usually controlled by action taken directly on the source for which radiological protection requirements can be planned in advance.

14

Dose range proposed by ICRP 103 for dose constraints and reference levels (2)

Band of constraint or

reference level(ICRP 103)

Examples

Greater than 20 to 100 mSv

• Reference level set for the highest planned residual dose from a radiological emergency

Greater than 1 to 20 mSv

• Constraints set for occupational exposure in planned situations• Constraints set for comforters and carers of patients treated with radiopharmaceuticals• Reference level for the highest planned residual dose from radon in dwellings• Reference level for existing situation resulting from accidents: between 1 and 5 mSv

1 mSv or less• Constraints set for public exposure in planned situations

15

Planned Exposure Situations

Occupational exposure Constraints usually set by operator Small operators may need guidance from regulator Transient/itinerant workers need special attention

Public exposure Constraints usually set by regulator About 0.3 mSv in a year appropriate

16

Emergency Exposure Situations

Optimisation recommended to and below Reference Levels The old intervention system implied optimisation to

intervention levels

Reference Level: An upper value of residual dose for all pathways combined The old system implied averted dose for single

countermeasures

Additional guidance is under preparation Existing guidance in ICRP P63 is extended, not replaced

17

Individual dose level

Reference level

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Existing Exposure Situations

Optimisation recommended to and below reference levels The 1990 system implied optimisation to intervention levels

Optimisation, an iterative process This does not mean a moving target – the reference level

stays

18

Optimisation in practice

19

Optimisation process

A source related process to keep the magnitude of individual exposures, the number of people exposed and the likelihood of potential exposure As Low As Reasonnably Achievable, taking into account economic and societal factors

An on-going, cyclical process: Evaluate exposure situation to identify the need for action Set up appropriate individual dose constraint or reference

level Identify possible protection options to obtain exposures below

the dose constraint Select best option under prevailing circumstances Implement the selected option Regular review of the exposure situation

20

Optimisation process (2)

Level of effort and formalisation has to be commensurate with the level of individual and collective exposures (level of risk)

Evolution from a strict consideration of "cost-benefit" decision making

processes (the 'economic and social factors' being integrated in the so-called 'alpha value - monetary unit of collective exposure)

to more flexible processes, integrating other considerations and based on quantitative as well as qualitative judgements

21

The elements supporting an ALARA approach (1)

A commitment of all stakeholders, eg: Authorities Operating managers All non-exposed individuals whose action can impact the

level of exposure of other individuals The exposed individuals…

All stakeholders involved have to know an agree with the basic assumption of radiation protection (any level of exposure can induce a risk)

22

The elements supporting an ALARA approach (2)

Commitment of Authorities Regulations and willingness to enforce it Guidelines: balance between dialogue and control.

Commitment of operating management Definition of Radiation Protection policy

• Set general goals,• Attribute responsibilities in ALARA implementation• Maintain independence of RP professionals from operation• Allocate means and resources for ALARA implementation,• Motivate (acknowledgment of efforts).

To set up a confident ambiance between all involved parties (stakeholders).

23

The elements supporting an ALARA approach (3)

Commitment of individuals Individual empowerment Produce and share information Vigilant attitude Adapted training to functions and responsibilities Retraining for keeping motivation Self-education and training

24

The elements supporting an ALARA approach (4)

Decision-making and coordination structures Organise dialogue between the professional disciplines

involved in an operation Favour the transparency of the optimisation process

• Identification of decision criteria• Traceability of the decision making process

Procedures, rules Clarify the responsibilities for the implementation of the optimisation

process

Tools Software (prediction of exposure, dose rate modelisation,…) Feed-back experience databases… ALARA check-list (design, preparation, operation, feed-back,..) Decision-aiding tools

25

Optimisation of protection and stakeholder involvement (1)

ICRP 101 - examples of stakeholder Decision maker Exposed individual or their representative Institutional and non-institutional technical support to DMP Representatives of the society (elected and NGOs)

Stakeholder involvement: A proven means to achieve incorporation of values into the decision-making process improvement of the quality of decisions resolution of conflicts among competing interests building of shared understanding with both workers and the

public (does not mean a consensus!) building trust in institutions

26

Optimisation of protection and stakeholder involvement (2)

Involving concerned parties reinforce the safety culture

Introduce flexibility in the management of radiological risk

Stakeholders may be particularly helpful for Identification of the attributes of exposure situations Identification of protective actions

Stakeholders involvement does not imply that the operating management/the authorities do not have the responsibility for the 'final decision' with respect to the adequacy of protection solutions

27

ALARA in summary

A behaviour and a frame of mind

A questioning attitude of 'individuals':

Have I done all I reasonably can to reduce individual doses and the number of people exposed ?

A necessity usually to work collectively to be able to answer to that question

28

Role and interest of professional networks

in promoting and implementing

optimisation of radiation protection

29

Different kind of 'professional' networks (1)

National, Regional, International level

Various fields: industrial, medical, nuclear,…

Authorities, professionals, members of the public, elected people,…

30

Different kind of 'professional' networks (2)

Professional societies• eg: medical physicists, industrial radiography, RP societies,…

Associations/NGO• eg: Patients association• eg: GMF- Group of EU Municipalities with Nuclear Facilities• eg: Local Liaison Committees• eg: ANCLI (French National Association of Local Commission of

Information)• …

Dedicated network (one sector or multi-sectorial)• eg: Occupational RP (ISOE for RP in nuclear power plants)• eg: ALARA Networks (all sectors), eg EAN, RECAN, ARAN,..• eg: Authority networks (ERPAN)• …

31

Activities / tools of such networks

Directory of contact persons

Web site

Newsletters

Discussion Forum

Workshops / congresses

Working groups

Centralisation of documentation

Production of specific guidelines

Participation to decision-making processes

….

32

Interests (1)

Members sharing the same objectives

Particular benefit for isolated professionals

Creation of individual relationships

Sharing of experience

Identification of 'good practices'

Creation of knowledge

33

Interests (2)

Training

Benchmarking

Harmonisation of practices

Spreading a professional culture RP culture but also sharing issues of other professionals For a better understanding and better collaboration

• eg: RP professionals working with patient association to spread RP culture or with agriculture professionals for preparation of post-accident situations

34

Difficulties of networking

Resources Financial resources "Human" resources (time to be spent in participating in

activities of the network/association)

How to sustain motivation?

How to renew activities?

How to reach new members?

35

The European ALARA Network (EAN)

1996 : EAN Founded and sponsored by EC (DG Research / DG Environment)

Self-sustainable since 2005

2007 : 8 20 countries are represented by at least one person. (13 in the Steering Committee)

Coordination : CEPN (France) - HPA (UK)

36

EAN Objectives

To maintain and develop competences in radiation protection, with special emphasis on ALARA for all types of exposures - occupational, public, patients - in routine operations as well as emergency situations

To contribute to the harmonisation of radiation protection policies and practices, particularly concerning ALARA, at regulatory and operational levels

To cover all types of practices within the different sectors (nuclear industry, other industries, medical, research, transport, etc )

To cover radiation protection themes relevant to all sectors (e.g. waste management), as well as themes specific to one or more sector(s) (e.g. industrial radiography)

37

EAN Activities 1996-2006 (1)

10 Workshops (700 participants)Decommissioning, NORMs, internal exposures, risks management, industrial radiography, medical sector and radiopharmaceuticals, site rehabilitation, inspection & control, waste management

38

EAN Activities 1996-2006 (1)

10 Workshops ~ 100 topical recommendations to:

EU, ICRP, IAEA, National Authorities, Operators, Workers trainers, etc.

21 ALARA Newsletters (2 issues/year)

1,000s addressees

1 Website & its Forumhttp://www.eu-alara.net/ 10,000s/y downloads

39

EAN Activities 1996-2006 (2)

Collaboration agreements signed with professional societies: EFNDT (Non Destructive Testing) ESR (Radiology) EFRS (Radiography) EFoMP (Medical Physics)

Co-operation with other existing networks: ISOE (Information System of Occupational Exposure) RECAN (Regional European & Central Asia ALARA Network)

40

EAN Challenges - Development of Networking

To involve various types of stakeholders which are not yet well represented in EAN: operators, workers, NGOs, Unions, citizens, etc.

To help in launching other international ALARA networks in Africa, South Pacific, South America... and to collaborate with them afterwards.

To become a place where differences and divergences between stakeholders can be discussed and compromises and consensuses worked out.

To become an active and recognised interlocutor in risk management decision processes, influencing international rules and regulations on the basis of the experiences sharing as well as the promotion of good practices and lessons learned from incidents and accidents.

41

Information System on Occupational Exposures (ISOE)

Created in 1992 by the Nuclear Energy Agency of OECD Joint secretariat with IAEA

Members: Nuclear power plant utilities (71 utilities in 29 countries) RP and/or Safety authorities (24 countries)

Objectives:to provide a forum for radiation protection professionals from nuclear electricity utilities and national regulatory authorities worldwide to share dose reduction information, operational experience and information to improve the optimisation of radiological protection at nuclear power plants.

42

ISOE products

International database on occupational exposures in NPPs Collective doses (annual outage, job) since 1992 from more

than 300 NPPs Possibilities to extract data for trend and benchmarking

analysis

Regional and international symposia North America, Europe, Asia

Web site – “www.isoe-network.net” Forum of discussion Availability of database for members Various RP documents

Organisation of experience sharing visits between utilities

43

Challenges for the future

44

In view of optimisation of radiation protection

Foster optimisation in some fields Optimisation for medical exposures (patients and workers) Optimisation for emergency situations Optimisation for workers exposed to NORMs Optimisation for public and workers in existing exposure

situations

Need to identify the stakeholders / professionals in each field

In some fields, need to create new networks

Create links and cooperation between networks/societies of RP professionals and other professional networks