Since 1996, the participation to the network has grown continuously, as well as the topics covered and the types of products and deliverables.

Transcription

1 oral presentation IRPA Madrid 2004 THE EUROPEAN ALARA NETWORK (EAN) FROM THE EXPERTISE TO THE STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVEMENT ID 145 Dr C.Lefaure*; P.Crouail*; P. Shaw** *Centre d Etudes sur l Evaluation de la Protection dans le domaine Nucléaire (CEPN, Fontenay aux roses, BP Cedex France) ; lefaure@cepn.asso.fr, crouail@cepn.asso.fr ** National Radiological protection Board, Northern Center, Hospital Lane, Cookridge, Leeds, UK ; peter.shaw@nrpb.org ABSTRACT: On January 1996 the European Commission established the European ALARA Network (EAN). The main objective of the Network is to carry on promoting the effective application of the ALARA principle through European cooperation and hence ensuring better protection of workers from ionising radiation throughout the Member States and applicant countries. After 7 years, EAN appears now as a mature network. During a first period ( ) the participants to EAN activities were mainly experts in radiological protection from the regulatory bodies, research centres in radiological protection, and major utilities. During a second period ( ) many other categories of participants have been progressively integrated into the network (National and European societies for Non Destructive Testing, Medical Radiographers, Medical Physicians, Medical Physicists, Manufacturers, Trainers ). The scope of the EAN has been progressively enlarged, starting from occupational radiological protection in industry and research and including now the medical and NORMs areas. It is clear that, besides some sector s specificities, it is possible and worthwhile to develop a global approach for better protecting all workers from ionising radiations. EAN has had an impact through its recommendations, as different actors following previous EAN recommendations have undertaken several actions (research project, international feedback system ). Furthermore, EAN has demonstrated that networking is an efficient modern concept. EAN is now considered as a model to be exported by international institutions such as IAEA or IRPA and by national representatives from different continents. The paper will discuss EAN results, both in terms of contents, deliverables and impact. Discussing and promoting new ways of involving the workers themselves into their occupational risks management should be one of the new challenges for EAN in the future. Introduction On the 1 January 1996 the European Commission established the European ALARA Network (EAN). The main objective of the Network has been, and still is, to carry on promoting the efficient and effective application of the ALARA principle through European co-operation and hence ensuring better protection of workers from ionising radiation throughout the Member States and applicant countries. The Network is coordinated by the CEPN and managed by a Steering Committee. Initially 8 countries were represented at the EAN Steering Group; they are now 18: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK. 1 Results and evolution from 1996 to 2003 Since 1996, the participation to the network has grown continuously, as well as the topics covered and the types of products and deliverables. 1.1 Participation Countries represented at the Steering Committee participate quite regularly to EAN Activities. Furthermore, representatives from the US, Israel, Syria, Lithuania, Croatia, Slovenia, Canada, Sudan, Iran have also participated actively on at least one occasion to EAN workshops and other activities. During the first period ( ), the participants to EAN activities were mainly experts in radiological protection from the regulatory bodies, research centres in radiological protection, and major utilities concerned by the use of ionising radiations. This reflected the composition of the Steering Committee itself. However it was then noted that many problems needed the participation of other types of participants. Consequently during a second period ( ) many other types of participants were invited and most of them have actually been integrated into the network. This is particularly the case of:

2 2 - representatives of professional bodies such as national and European societies for Non Destructive Testing, Medical Radiographers Associations, Medical Physicians Associations, Medical Physicists Associations - representatives of manufacturers of devices using ionising radiations - representatives of manufacturers of radiation monitoring devices - representatives of international organisations such as ILO, IAEA - representatives of trainers in radiological protection Table I. Members of the steering committee, by country, date of first participation and status Country EAN SG member since status Initial members BELGIUM 1996 Research Centre FRANCE 1996 Research centre in radiological protection GERMANY 1996 Regulatory body ITALY 1996 Regulatory body SPAIN 1996 Regulatory body SWEDEN 1996 Regulatory body SWITZERLAND 1996 Regulatory body UNITED KINGDOM 1996 Research centre in radiological protection New members THE NETHERLANDS 1998 Research centre NORWAY 1998 Regulatory body FINLAND 1999 Utility DENMARK 2000 Research Centre AUSTRIA 2001 Research Centre CZECH REPUBLIC 2001 Regulatory body CROATIA 2003 Utility IRELAND 2003 Regulatory body GREECE 2003 Regulatory body PORTUGAL 2003 Research centre in radiological protection 1.2 Topics covered by the Network The initial objective of the Network was to cover occupational radiological protection in industry and research. The medical sector was excluded. During the first period ( ), the topics of the workshops were focussed on industry and research problems and mainly devoted to cross topics of general interest (decommissioning, good radiological practices, managing internal exposure, radiological and non radiological risks; see Table 2). During that period most articles of the Newsletter were devoted either to ALARA experiences and tools in the Nuclear Industry, or to lessons learned from incidents in the non-nuclear industry. During the second period the topics of the articles are much more diversified (the number of pages per issue is therefore increasing), and devoted for example to European EAN surveys on regulations, problems with NORM, air flights and industrial radiography sectors, categorisation of sources In addition, while some Workshops have re-visited previous topics (decommissioning), others have been devoted to more specific sectors (industrial radiography) or totally new sectors such as the medical area (see Table 2). This is the main reason for the involvement of totally new participants (see 1.1) in the network activities during that period. The medical sector problems are now part of the network s goals.

3 Table II. Characteristics of the annual Workshops 3 Subject ALARA and decommissioning Good radiation practices in industry and research Managing internal exposure Management of occupational radiological and non-radiological risks: lessons to be learned Industrial radiography, improvements in radiation protection Occupational exposure optimisation in the medical and radio-pharmaceutical sectors Location and date Number of Participants (deliberately limited to persons) Saclay, France, 1997 Number of countries 70 9 Oxford, UK Munich, Germany, 1999 Antwerp, Belgium, 2000 Rome, Italy, 2001 Madrid, Spain, 2002 Decommissioning and site remediation Arnhem, The Netherlands, 2003 Occupational radiological protection Uppsala, Sweden control through inspection and self 2004 assessment In preparation In preparation 1.3 Deliverables In terms of deliverables the initial goals were to produce a newsletter and to organise some European Workshops. The ALARA newsletter Since the beginning EAN has published the ALARA Newsletter twice a year (14 issues up to February 2004) to provide a link between all those concerned with ALARA. This has allowed the issuing of: - 30 main articles, of which 7 devoted to ALARA experiences - 5 to EAN workshops conclusions and recommendations - 2 on European surveys - 15 incidents reports from 5 countries plus 3 articles on incident feedback management - Several ALARA news (new regulations, congresses, courses ) per issue The newsletter is distributed through various channels, including national contacts, national radiation protection societies and the EC. All the newsletters are downloadable from the website, the last three issues have been downloaded more than 1000 times each. Feedback from different sources indicates that the Newsletter reaches several thousand individuals or institutions, mainly in Europe. The Recommendations from the workshops EAN is responsible for initiating and organising annual scientific European ALARA Workshops. These are forum to: exchange feedback experience, identify problems that need further research or development, aid the implementation of ALARA in practice. Therefore the main objective of these workshops is to provide the different stakeholders, and particularly the Commission, with recommendations concerning regulatory, managerial, research and development issues.

4 4 About 10 recommendations per workshop have been issued during the six first workshops. Table 3 show to which stakeholder they were addressed. Table III Recommendations by types of addressees Recommendations Nat Utili Rad.Pr Manu Other Prof. EAN Mon. Trai to Reg EC ties Res. -fact. Inter Bod. labs -ners Workshops bod. Cent. Bod. ALARA and decommissioning Good radiation practices in industry and research Managing internal exposure Industrial radiography, improvements in radiation protection Occupational exposure optimisation in the medical and radiopharmaceutical sectors Decommissioning and site remediation TOTAL The same recommendation may be addressed to several different stakeholders. It is therefore not appropriate to add all the numbers. About five specific recommendations per workshop have been addressed to the regulatory bodies and EC, one to the managers of utilities, devices manufacturers, radiological protection research centres, professional bodies or international bodies. More recently some recommendations have been addressed to the EAN itself, the monitoring laboratories and trainers. Table IV : Common-theme recommendations from the six first annual workshops W1 decomm W2 Industry W3 Internal W4 Rad & W5 Indust W6 medical W7 Decomm2 research exposure non rad Radiogr To improve safety (ALARA, X X X X X radiological protection) ) culture To harmonise and develop good X X X X X training standards To favour internal exposure management X X X X X To involve workers in their radiological X X X x risk management To set up adequate system for feedback X X X from incidents and accidents It is interesting to note that many recommendations are similar whatever the area covered by the Workshop (see Table 4). They are mainly dealing with the lack of safety culture, the need for better training, the development of procedures and tools for internal exposure management and incidents or accidents feedback. During the last four workshops, the involvement of the workers themselves into their risk management has also appeared fundamental. Since it creation EAN has developed two new types of deliverables: the website and the sub-networks or working groups.

5 5 The website Since 1997, access to the Network has also been possible through the EAN Internet site ( All the issues of the Newsletter, most of the presentations from the Workshops as well as the conclusions and recommendations from these Workshops are available on the Web site. In 2001, 30 individuals per day have accessed the EAN website; in 2002 that number reached more than 130 individuals per day. Around 200 different documents have been downloaded from the site (Newsletters and workshops presentations mainly). Between five and ten presentations from each workshop have been downloaded more than 400 times and some (from the Workshops 3 and 4 on internal exposure and balancing radiological and no radiological risks ) more than 1000 times. Most visitors come from Europe and North America, but a small percentage comes also from Asia, Oceania and even Africa. New pages are expected to be open quite soon on the website: for example, following a recommendation from the last Workshop it is expected to be able soon to provide addresses and links with all national guidance documents referring to occupational and patient exposures management and optimisation in the medical area. Sub-networks Since 2001 a European ALARA Sub Network on Nuclear Research Reactors has been set up under the leadership of RISO from Denmark and SCK CEN from Belgium, to promote within the nuclear research reactors the improvement of radiological safety by comparison with practices of others, using an international forum. The number of participants to that sub-network is increasing (five countries in 2002, seven countries in 2003). They also use the network to promote a process of peer review when visiting each other s facilities. Since 2002 a joint working group has been set up under the co leadership of the European Federation of Non Destructive Testing (EFNDT) and NRPB from the UK as EAN representative. This sub-network, in connection with EC DGTREN, aims to develop and maintain Codes of Practice for NDT Operators, and for NDT clients. The Group intends to promote good radiation protection practice and the achievement of ALARA, as well as to develop initiatives to improve and support appropriate radiation protection training, particularly in respect of learning the lessons from accidents and incidents. This group met for the first time in December Finally in 2003, the Swedish Radiation Protection Authority (SSI) has started to co-ordinate the elaboration of a web page for providing European partners with references for existing guidance documents concerning good practices in radiological protection for both workers in the medical area and patients. 1.4 Impacts of EAN 1.41 In Europe During the second period of EAN s life, different stakeholders have implemented several recommendations from the EAN workshops. For example, these include: International level - The European Commission (DG RESEARCH) has supported and financed a new research project dealing with the management of internal exposure, the SMOPIE project(strategies and Methods for Optimisation of Internal Exposure of workers from industrial natural sources) This project is co-ordinated by NRG from the Netherlands and the results are discussed at the EAN Steering Group. It deals with a totally new area for the Network: the NORM sector (naturally occurring radioactive materials). - European Commission (DGENV) has decided to support EURAIDE (European Accident and Incident Data Exchange), a pilot study co-ordinated by the NRPB (UK). This pilot study will propose a management scheme for a radiation accident and incident data exchange system at the European level. - European Commission radiation protection has supported financially the third, fourth and fifth workshops after recommendations from the first and second workshops National levels - After the first Workshop (ALARA and Decommissioning), in Belgium, a working group for decommissioning of accelerators has been set up at the level of universities to take care of the

6 6 recommendations. In Sweden several ideas from that Workshop were used when writing "Regulations on Planning for and during Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities. - After the second Workshop (Good Radiation Practices in Industry and Research), the French society of Radiological Protection has set up a network to provide lessons learned from occupational radiological incidents (RELIR), a new regulatory system to follow up incidents have been set up in Norway. Since then, the regulatory bodies in Austria, Switzerland and the Netherlands, as well as AVN in Belgium, are investigating solutions to create such systems. The Workshop also provided the impetus for the continuation of the IRID system in the UK, and the wider dissemination of the lessons learned from accidents via the NRPB website. A number of other issues raised at the second workshop, relating to good radiation practices, were taken into account in the subsequent revision of UK regulations. It is also noticeable that the French regulatory body has asked the new RELIR network to provide comments and advices on its new communication scale on radiological incidents and accidents. - After the third Workshop (management of internal exposure), in Germany parts of the recommendations from the third Workshop have been introduced into regulatory guidelines (for example, the Draft guideline on the Physical radiation protection control-incorporation monitoring ). The improvement of the management of internal exposure is also considered as an issue in the Netherlands since that Workshop. In the UK, the regulatory authorities have commissioned further studies into the dosimetric data applied to intakes of NORM, with the eventual aim of incorporating this into regulatory guidance. - The fifth and sixth Workshops (respectively on Industrial Radiography and on Medical occupational exposure) have had an impact on many stakeholders behaviour in several countries. The regulatory body in Czech Republic organises now seminars with Non Destructive Testing companies, using the material from the fifth Workshop, this has led to an improvement of co-operation between these partners. That Workshop has also influenced the discussion of the authorities with the Dutch radiographers. The regulatory body in the Netherlands intends to integrate some recommendations from both workshops into guidance. In Italy, the medical health physicists often refer to the sixth Workshop and in Sweden an analysis of the doses taken by personnel in the medical field is scheduled following that Workshop. In Germany, the Rome Workshop has intensified the co-operation between the German Society of Nondestructive Testing and the ALARA Network; this is considered as very important for harmonisation concerning safety of equipment and development of practical requirements; it is expected to lead sooner or later to the development of specific German guideline on "Safety in Technical Radiography". - Furthermore, the new regulations in Norway now address more clearly the need for competence in radiological protection, following recommendations from several workshops Outside Western Europe Looking at the format and results of the EAN, the International Atomic Energy Agency of the United Nations, has started a process to set up similar networks in other regions in the world. The first of these other networks is the CEEAN (Central and Eastern European ALARA Network), which has been established in April 2002 with the participations of Armenia, Estonia, Belarus, Latvia and Lithuania. IAEA supports a member of the EAN Steering Committee to participate to CEEAN meetings and vice versa. The EAN is mentioned more and more frequently in international meeting (IAEA, Geneva August 2002 and Rabat September 2003; Regional African IRPA meeting Johannesburg, May 2003) as a modern and effective means of facilitating radiological protection improvement in many countries. This is particularly the case where there are limited resources and infrastructures: sharing resources and experience via a Network helps ensure that topics can be addressed in a detailed and balanced way.. Therefore EAN has been contacted several times by representatives from Middle East, Africa or South America It should be noted that the development of Networking, and particularly ALARA Networks, is now integrated into the action plans from IAEA and ILO that have been approved by the Board of Governors in September 2003.

7 1.5 Appraisal of EAN situation after seven years 7 After 7 years, EAN is a mature network. EAN size has progressively increased from 8 countries to the 18 now represented in the Steering Committee. Only one Member State is not represented: Luxembourg. For the applicant countries the situation is quite complex: two countries belongs to EAN (Czech Republic and Croatia), several others to CEEAN (Baltic countries). All the others do not belong to any network, although some representatives have participated to EAN activities (Slovenia ). Many different categories of participants have been progressively integrated into the network, but it appeared quite difficult to involve directly industrial workers/trade unions and representatives of small firms. For financial and practical reasons it is not easy to convince a manager to allow a worker to spend his work time in a workshop. Similarly it is not easy to convince the manager of a small firm to participate directly in such events. The scope of the EAN has been progressively enlarged, starting from occupational radiological protection in industry and research only, and now including the medical and NORM areas. One major conclusion from this evolution is that there are general common issues to all sectors; it is possible and worthwhile to develop a global approach for protecting all workers from ionising radiations. Some recommendations are common to EAN workshops: to improve training and education in occupational radiological protection; to favour the emergence of a real radiological risk culture among the workers and their hierarchy; and more recently to support workers involvement into their radiological risk management The expected deliverables were initially restricted to newsletters and workshops. They proved very useful in providing information, and efficient in disseminating many practical recommendations. A new deliverable was introduced quite early in EANs life without new financing: the website. It has rapidly become very important in facilitating a very broad and efficient dissemination of presentations, articles, lessons learned all over the world The last type of deliverable introduced is the sub-network. Several sub-networks have been set up to deal with specific topics or sectors. Their roles are to provide documents, guidance or data and correspond to needs that have been pointed out by EAN participants. The participation to these sub-networks implies more effort and time than the participation to EAN itself. One is financially supported the other two are not. Relying only on self-funding individuals or institutions is not considered a practical long-term solution. There is actually a need for a support to keep them alive. Finally, EAN has had an impact through its recommendations, as different stakeholders have undertaken several actions (research project, international feedback system ). Furthermore, EAN has demonstrated that networking is an efficient modern concept. EAN is now considered as a model to be exported by international institutions such as IAEA or IRPA and by national representatives from different continents. 2 EAN future evolution From the previous appraisal, the EAN Steering Committee considers that there is a need for continuing such a network at the European level, and that there is a strong case for expanding certain roles and activities. It should remain an efficient and lively independent network. Its flexibility is a guarantee for the future. However, new actions should be envisaged and new partners should be involved. The Network is considered dynamic, allowing all countries and participants to benefit easily from each other. The network is not very costly and provides a lot of outputs to participating individuals or institutions (information, brain storming together, paper or electronic documents ). Some countries have developed training standards, monitoring systems or techniques, schemes for control and inspection, feedback systems on incidents, research projects on ALARA implementation, while some others do not. Therefore there are still

8 8 progress to be done to reach more coherence, homogeneity and to harmonise policies and practices. In that context, the network remains very useful. All partners, both within the Steering Committee and from other origins, commit themselves to continue to work within or with EAN. This is for example the case of the European Association of Medical Radiographers that has recently (February 2003) written in its journal as a conclusion it is of interest for us to continue to work with the European ALARA Network. The following statements describe potential objectives for the future. 2.1 To facilitate the setting up of other networks in the world There is a need from other regions in the world that similar networks be created. It is not the scope of EAN to create these other networks. However EAN members should be ready to help in providing advices and exchanging experiences with the support of IAEA and EC. 2.2 To pursue and consolidate existing actions The issuing of Newsletters should be continued. The organisation of Workshops remains essential; it should be continued and may be diversified. The success of the Website demonstrates that it is now fundamental to the aims of EAN. It is suggested that in the future it could evolve into a kind of portal of occupational radiological protection in Europe, where it should be possible to find national regulations, statistics The use of the website to create forums for on-line discussions on radiation protection topics may also be envisaged. The Sub-networks have demonstrated their interest; however there should be a pool of resources available at the beginning of each period to support new sub-networks or working groups that will be decided by the Steering Group following some recommendations. 2.3 To introduce new projects The EAN should complete its set of projects through the creation of stakeholders panels on specific topics identified within the Network. These panels should be organised by elected network members following recommendations from workshops or proposals from the Steering Committee. Such groups should meet twice a year during two or three years. It may be worthwhile to have the national societies for radiological protection or the professional associations (in areas such as NORM), as partners in organising such panels. The ICRP will propose in 2005 a new set of recommendations. The EAN should, after that publication, provide all stakeholders, and particularly the workers, with opportunities to become familiar with these new recommendations and their practical implications. This should be done not only using the web, the newsletter and the workshops but also using new methods of communication to be identified and defined by the EAN. 2.4 To favour workers involvement One very important evolution of the research and development in the future EC program will be the stakeholders involvement. The EAN activity should therefore be expanded to identifying and promoting new ways of involving the workers themselves into their occupational risks management. This should be one of the new targets of the next EAN life-cycle as it has been noticed that during the last three workshops there was a recommendation to favour the involvement of the workers in their radiological risk management.