Asian Regional Conference on Evolution of the System of Radiological Protection (Tokyo, 24-25 October 2002)

The conference was organised by OECD/NEA and hosted by the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. Around 130 delegates attended, from Japan, China, Korea, Australia, USA, Canada and European countries. The conference aims were to discuss how the current system of RP is implemented in Asia, identify area where the present system could be improved, present the views of expert groups of the NEA Committee on Radiation Protection and Public Health (CRPPH), and in particular engage with the chairman of ICRP, Roger Clarke on developing future ICRP recommendations. Proceedings of the meeting will be published by NEA. In the first session I presented a review of the present RP system by NEA/CRPPH groups and suggested that aspects of exclusion, exemption and clearance could better be addressed through a simplified process of 'authorisation'. Recognising that modern decision making on health risks increasingly involves stakeholder participation, it would help to identify the circumstances where involvement of 'stakeholders' in decisions would assist and characterise the sources and doses which would require stakeholder involvement. Frank Turvey and Richard Osborne, as NEA consultants, had 'road tested' these ideas. Frank set out an empirical scoring system for deciding whether particular subject areas would benefit from stakeholder participation. There was considerable interest in his methodology. Richard had developed the ideas for the process of 'authorisation' and its use to screen sources and exposures into those which could be 'excused from protective actions' and those which would be subject to some form of conditional control, i.e. 'authorised'. Test cases were presented on cosmic ray exposures of pilots, radioactive releases from nuclear facilities, radon in homes and scrap metal. They tentatively concluded that this novel approach helped to remove confusing terminology, and could find use in triggering stakeholder involvement in appropriate cases, but needed refinement and tuning. In a session on stakeholder involvement in decisions, Jacques Lochard reviewed the two Villigen workshops which had focused on lessons learnt in NEA countries in different regional contexts. Sadayoshi Kobayashi presented Japanese experience of public hearings on nuclear projects, open symposia, etc, using as an example plans for distributing stable iodine following an accident. He drew attention to the Japanese societal system which emphasises loyalty and where whisteblowing is unusual. The concept of stakeholder involvement as understood in the West seems not as developed in Japan. John Paterson discussed the ETHOS project for rehabilitation of areas of Belarus contaminated from Chernobyl. French radiologists had significant success building trust in local communities, enabling locals to take radiation measurements, practical exercises in school lessons, developing maps showing contaminated and clean areas, producing children's dose charts, and micro analyses of land identifying where it was safe to plant crops. The previous top down approach by the authorities was ineffective; engaging with the locals involved them in solutions and they became more positive and optimistic. Tim Earle gave a presentation on the remediation of plutonium contamination at Rocky Flats where the DoE soil remedial action level was regarded suspiciously by local groups, who felt that it was too high, compared to other sites. In collaboration with technical consultants, the issues were discussed by community representatives and derived a slightly lower value. However, even with well educated communities, probabilistic models were difficult to communicate. Takao Numakunai gave a presentation of experience in amending radiation regulations in Japan, including discussion of workplace classification, dose limits for female workers and limits on exposures in emergencies. Radiation safety standards previously decided by experts now took account of comments from interested parties. The discussion period highlighted that Decide-Announce-Defend (DAD) approaches are no longer appropriate; i.e. DAD is dead! Roger Clarke introduced MUM - Meet, Understand and Modify - which some considered to be better. The word 'stakeholder', well recognised in the West, does not easily translate and needs to be used carefully. On the second day, Roger Clarke presented ICRP's latest developments towards new recommendations which the main Commission will publish in draft on their website in April 2003. Roger's presentations have evolved since his initial 'controllable dose' paper was published in this journal in 1999 (p 107), for example some elements of the 'Clarke scale' have been dropped. Optimisation should be based on common sense rather than a differential cost-benefit methodology. Roger issued a challenge to simplify the system, which currently has about 20 numerical criteria constraints; in future he proposes that it should be based around three values i.e. 20 mSv/year worker dose limits, 0.3 mSv/year public dose constraint, and 0.01 mSv/year trivial dose level. Roger commented that there was too much emphasis on ICRP 60 recommendations. ICRP had published many documents since ICRP 60 and the totality of its work was much broader - does this mean that the next recommendations will be an update and compilation of all statements and publications since 1990? He said that the new ICRP proposals are deliberately related to natural background - since the current recommendations are based on risk which is not well understood by the public. Some issues raised by presenters from Japan, Korea, China and Australia in a session on implementation of ICRP recommendations were that better understanding of Justification and Optimisation was necessary, dose limits should be derived using a risk-related approach, there should be better arrangements for patient protection, for exposure to natural radiation and protection of the environment. Traditionalists wanted to retain the present system essentially unchanged; the modernists were pressing for improvements. The former emphasised the need for stability and better guidance while the latter recognised societal pressures for more inclusive approaches, greater efficiencies and legal sustainability. The meeting agreed that the system must evolve but implementation must be flexible to accommodate regional/cultural differences. The language and terminology needed to be simplified and some terms had different connotations in Asia. It would help to involve social scientists and others, if the future RP system were to command greater confidence. The NEA/CRPPH and ICRP would work together in regional fora (the next meeting is scheduled for Lanzarote in April) to pursue these goals.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.