ALARA Newsletter Issue 32 - February 2013
Download the 32nd issue in PDF format: ALARA Newsletter 32
- Existing Exposure Situations Intervention in Practice
- Experiences from a high radon area in Norway
- Health economics evaluations of radon intervention strategies in Ireland
- Stakeholders input
- Dublin WS Summary and recommandations
- Building ALARA culture as a tool for effective risk communication
14th EAN Workshop on "ALARA in existing exposure situations"
14th European ALARA Network Workshop, Ireland 4-6 September 2012
"ALARA IN EXISTING EXPOSURE SITUATIONS"
The concept of “existing exposure situations” was introduced by ICRP in Publication No. 103 (2007), and is included in the revised European Basic Safety Standards Directive. It is defined as exposure situations that already exist when a decision on control has to be taken, such as those caused by natural background radiation and radioactive residues from past practices or events. Examples include radon in dwellings and buildings with public access, building materials and management of contaminated areas from past practices and post-accidents. Other situations such as exposure from cosmic rays and NORMs may also be included.
Optimisation is the key radiation protection principle for existing exposure situations, although it is not always clear how to apply this in practice. Consequently, the aim of the 14th EAN workshop is to focus on how the ALARA principle can be applied to the whole range of existing exposure situations. The Workshop will consider the wider principles and strategies that might be adopted, as well as the specific methods for implementing ALARA in practice.
This workshop will consist of presentations intended to highlight the main issues, and a significant part of the programme will be devoted to discussions within working groups. From these discussions, participants will be expected to produce recommendations on ALARA in existing exposure situations addressed to relevant local, national and international stakeholders.
Working Group Topics
- ALARA challenges and practicalities at the national and regional levels
- Considerations in choosing reference levels
- Economical, technical factors and endpoints of optimisation
- Societal factors and stakeholders engagement
Radiation protection of aircraft crew
Between December 2010 and January 2012, EAN performed a survey about radiation protection of aircraft crew. The following questions were sent to the members of the network.
- What are the main requirements?
- What are the means and tools used to assess aircrew's exposure?
- Is there a specific dose criteria defined for aircraft crew?
3. Could you provide data on the number of aircrew exposed, maximum annual level of exposure, average annual level of exposure, etc.?
14 countries answered the request about radiation protection of aircraft crew: Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Slovenia, Sweden, the Netherlands and the UK. There is not a regulation concerning radiation protection requirements for aircraft crew in Norway.
Download the results of the survey: Aircraft crew
ERPAN (European Radiation Protection Authorities Network) carried out a survey in April 2010 on how dose constraints, as defined in the EU Directive are applied in the non-nuclear energy sector across Europe. The following questions were sent to the participants to the network.
- Does your country use dose constraints in the context of occupational exposures (non-nuclear sector)
- If so what are they called?
- Are occupational dose constraints mentioned in national legislation/regulations?
- If so, please provide a reference to the relevant regulations?
- Please provide (in English) the actual wording used in the regulations?
- For what industries, processes, tasks, types of workers – all workers? the most exposed workers? specific categories of workers? etc. – are dose constraints used?
- How are dose constraints used in practice?
- Why are dose constraints introduced?
- What are the benefits of introducing dose constraints?
- Who sets dose constraint (utilities or authorities)?
- How are dose constraints set e.g. for a set of sources or for individual sources?
- Are dose constraints “misused”, for example implicitly or explicitly as secondary limits (to dose limits)?
- Are dose constraints used as a regulatory instrument?
- Who manages performance against dose constraints and other occupational radiation protection criteria?
- In what context are dose constraints set: for sites (refers to design) or for tasks (refers to operation)?
- How are dose constraints fixed, implemented, and controlled in each of these cases?
- In practice, has enforcing (individual) dose constraints resulted in negative consequences (e.g. higher collective doses, increased costs, etc.)?
- What approaches have proven successful in discussing dose constraints between regulatory authorities and licensees?
- Have you any experience in balancing occupational radiation protection dose constraints with the management of other risks (e.g. industrial, chemical/biological safety issues)?
Answers from 11 countries were received: Belgium, France, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, Norway, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK. The detailed answers can be found in the Appendix 1 of the EGOE (Expert Group on Occupational Exposure of the CRPPH - Committee on Radiation Protection and Public Health) report on dose constraints. EGOE case study 2
A presentation was made of this survey in the ICRP symposium on the International System of Radiological Protection held at Bethesda on October 26th to 28th. ICRP presentation on dose constraints
EAN Strategic Plan 2010-2015
For 1.5 years, the EAN Steering Group has worked on a 2010-2015 Strategic Plan for the network. This document describes the expected work of EAN during this period taking into account the future challenges for ALARA in Europe.
RELIR/OTHEA - Lessons learned from radiological incidents
HPA (the UK) and CEPN (France) have launched the RELIR-OTHEA mirror-website. RELIR/OTHEA is provided by a network of French and English radiation protection stakeholders, who have a joint interest in sharing feedback and experience from radiological incidents, in order to improve the protection of persons working with similar radiation sources. More generally, the aim is to encourage good practices (especially the implementation of the ALARA/ALARP principle) within different sectors - medical and veterinary, industrial, research and education sectors, etc.
The incidents reports are anonymous and have been selected on the basis of those which provide interesting and useful lessons, to help others prevent such incidents and/or mitigate the consequences.