INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION —————————————————————————————————————— ICRP’s 2005 Recommendations on Radiological Protection From a Quality Perspective NSFS Seminar "Quality in Radiation Protection” Malmö, 4 February 2004 ICRP’s 2005 Recommendations on Radiological Protection From a Quality Perspective Lars-Erik Holm Vice Chairman

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION —————————————————————————————————————— Quality Systems in Radiological Protection Purpose: to ensure high quality in the performance of tasks; to support the daily work, thereby helping to solve the tasks efficiently and in the right way – the first time as well as each time thereafter.

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION —————————————————————————————————————— Quality Systems in Radiological Protection A quality system should contain strategies for Quality Assurance, Quality Control, and Quality Inspection. The system should be designed so that it is understandable, implemented and applied; the production meets the needs and expectations of the customers; society’s needs are met and relevant environmental criteria complied with; the focus is on preventing problems rather that dealing with problems that have occurred.

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION —————————————————————————————————————— Value Judgements in Quality Systems focus on the customer; committed leadership; participation and involvement of all employees; collaboration between different competences; clear and distinct communication; good service; foresight, and planning; a culture that promotes creativity; and preparedness for change

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION —————————————————————————————————————— The Quality System of a Regulator Similar demands on QA are put on the regulator’s own activities as on those of the operators. The quality system is an important management and steering tool.

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION —————————————————————————————————————— Radiological Protection as a Quality System Structure of ICRP’s current system objectives and the scientific basis; concepts (practice, intervention) to distinguish between different types of situations; source-related and individual-related assessments; classification of different types of exposure; justification of a practice, optimisation of protection and dose limitation; justification of intervention and optimisation of the type and scale of intervention; potential exposure and accident prevention; emergency planning; quantities and units; and, implementation of the recommendations by operators and regulators.

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION —————————————————————————————————————— ICRP RECOMMENDATIONS ICRP’s advice is aimed at regulators and operators. General recommendations appeared in Additional recommendations have appeared in 9 other publications since then. The system of protection has become too complex. ICRP intends to make it more coherent and simplify its applications.

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION —————————————————————————————————————— RECOMMENDATIONS SINCE 1990 CONSTRAINTS. Are in terms of max. individual dose or risk, from single sources, which restrict the inequity in optimisation, i.e. CONSTRAINTS. CONSTRAINTS ARE ALWAYS NEEDED WHENEVER OPTIMISATION IS SPECIFIED

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION —————————————————————————————————————— CONSTRAINTS There exist nearly 30 different ‘constraints’ in current ICRP recommendations. They are justified in at least 6 ways. CAN FEWER CONSTRAINTS BE SET AND ON A SIMPLER BASIS?

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION —————————————————————————————————————— MAJOR CHANGES FROM THE 1990 RECOMMENDATIONS The aim is a single set of recommendations, consolidating the work since Primary emphasis continues to be on the protection of the individual. A set of fewer constraints to optimisation. Revision of the dosimetric quantities. Inclusion of a framework for protection of the environment.

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION —————————————————————————————————————— JUSTIFICATION The distribution of responsibilities for justification lies primarily with society at large. Radiological considerations are only one input. The recommendations apply to practices only when they have been declared justified. Justification of medical exposures is included.

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION —————————————————————————————————————— UNDERLYING POLICIES The system of protection applies to practices that have been justified. The recommendations apply to control of sources or to pathways leading to doses in individuals. Protection concerns - exposure to incremental doses to natural background, and - with risks at levels > a few mSv in a year.

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION —————————————————————————————————————— DOSIMETRIC QUANTITIES Effective dose is the principal quantity for radiological protection. Radiation-weighted absorbed dose will be used instead of the ‘equivalent dose’ to avoid confusion. Weighting factors, w R and w T, will be revised.

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION —————————————————————————————————————— RADIATION-WEIGHTING FACTOR, w R Type and energy range Publication 60Proposed Photons, all energies11 Electrons and muons, all energies 11 Protons52 NeutronsStepwise function Continuous function Alpha particles,20

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION —————————————————————————————————————— THE SYSTEM OF PROTECTION ICRP recommends two standards of protection: DOSE LIMITthe DOSE LIMIT provides a level of protection for individuals. DOSE CONSTRAINT the DOSE CONSTRAINT protects all individuals to planned exposures from an identified source. OPTIMISATION OF PROTECTION ALARA Further measures should be applied to each source, i.e. the OPTIMISATION OF PROTECTION, and ALARA.

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION —————————————————————————————————————— INDIVIDUAL DOSE LIMITS OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE: OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE: 20 mSv/ year 100 mSv in 5 years, and max. 50 mSv in any single year. PUBLIC EXPOSURE: PUBLIC EXPOSURE: 1 mSv in a year A higher dose could be allowed in a year, if the 5-year average does not exceed 1 mSv/year.

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION —————————————————————————————————————— THE 2005 CONSTRAINTS The starting point can be the annual dose from natural background. Constraints which achieves continuity. can be set using existing numerical values - which achieves continuity. which achieves simplicity can be explained in relation to background - which achieves simplicity. which requires optimisation are a necessary, but not sufficient, criterion for protection - which requires optimisation.

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION —————————————————————————————————————— YEAR 2005 CONSTRAINTS EFFECTIVE DOSE IN A YEAR 200 mSv Life-saving, relocation 20 mSv Occupational, radon, countermeasures 1 mSv Public 0.01 mSv Protection optimised ACTION MANDATORY ACTION UNNECESSARY

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION —————————————————————————————————————— NATURAL SOURCES Recommendations for radon will continue: (CONSTRAINT) A max. level of dose (CONSTRAINT) translated into an activity concentration and followed by optimisation to find a lower action level. EXCLUSION LEVEL This level will be the EXCLUSION LEVEL, and exposures below that level will be excluded from the system of protection.

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION —————————————————————————————————————— EXPOSURE OF PATIENTS Dose limitation to the individual patient may reduce the effectiveness of the diagnosis or treatment. The emphasis is on the justification of the medical procedures. Optimisation: keep the doses as low as is consistent with the medical objectives. DIAGNOSTIC REFERENCE LEVELSDIAGNOSTIC REFERENCE LEVELS are indicators of good practice.

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION —————————————————————————————————————— OPTIMISATION OF PROTECTION Optimisation applies to individuals and groups is restricted by the appropriate constraint is a frame of mind, ‘Protection Culture’. ICRP can give guidance, but it is a task for national authorities.

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION —————————————————————————————————————— ICRP AND THE ENVIRONMENT ICRP will develop a framework for assessment of radiation effects in non-human species. The approach is similar to that proposed for the protection of humans. Reference Animals and Plants. Derived Consideration Levels.

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION —————————————————————————————————————— POSSIBLE REFERENCE ANIMALS AND PLANTS Rodent (mouse/rat)Duck FrogSalmonid Flat fishGastropod mollusc BeeWorm Pine treeGrass Brown algae

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION —————————————————————————————————————— A COMMON APPROACH Practices Reference Man (look-up tables) Environmental radionuclide concentration(s) Reference Animals and Plants (look-up tables) Levels of Concern, Constraints Decision-Making with Regard to Public Health and Environment for the Same Environmental Situation Derived Consideration Levels for Fauna and Flora

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION —————————————————————————————————————— PROTECTION OF NON-HUMAN SPECIES A framework must be practical and simple. A set of ambient activity concentration levels would be the simplest tool. In order to transparently demonstrate the derivation of such levels, the use of Reference Animals and Plants would be helpful.

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION —————————————————————————————————————— EVOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATIONS Practice PracticeRetain Intervention InterventionReplace using constraints Justification Justification Responsibilities clarified, patient exposure added Constraints ConstraintsNumber to be reduced Optimisation (Formal CBA) Optimisation (Formal CBA)Stakeholder involvement Collective dose Collective doseDisaggregated - replaced by weighted matrix Limits LimitsRetain in Basic Safety Standards

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION —————————————————————————————————————— EVOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATIONS Effective dose Effective doseRevised w R and w T, simplified basis Nominal risk coefficient Nominal risk coefficient Cancer fatality similar, Hereditary - changed Definition of ‘individual’ Definition of ‘individual’ New consideration Exemption ExemptionExclusion Natural Sources Natural Sources Comprehensive, not just Rn-222 Non-human species Non-human speciesExplicitly addressed, not assumed

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION —————————————————————————————————————— CHANGES IN ICRP’S VALUE JUDGEMENTS DAD DAD: decide, announce and defend replaced by MUM: MUM: meet, understand and modify. SON (SON: Stakeholder Opinion Now!)