1 / 35

Draft ICRP Recommendations Peter Burns ARPANSA

Draft ICRP Recommendations Peter Burns ARPANSA. 15 th PBNC - October 2006. ICRP 2006 Recommendations. ICRP Publication 60 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, 1990. Widely adopted internationally - Basis for the IAEA BSS

avani
Download Presentation

Draft ICRP Recommendations Peter Burns ARPANSA

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Draft ICRP RecommendationsPeter BurnsARPANSA 15th PBNC - October 2006

  2. ICRP 2006 Recommendations ICRP Publication 60 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, 1990. Widely adopted internationally - Basis for the IAEA BSS Draft Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection - 02/276/06 - 5 June 2006.

  3. ICRP 2006 Recommendations The ICRP has decided to issue revised recommendations having three primary aims in mind: • To take account of new biological and physical information and of trends in the setting of radiation safety standards; • To improve and streamline the presentation of the recommendations; and • To maintain as much stability in the recommendations as is consistent with the new scientific information.

  4. ICRP 2006 Recommendations Foundation documents: • Biological and Epidemiological Information on Health Risks Attributable to Ionising Radiation (C1) • Basis for Dosimetric Quantities Used in Radiological Protection (C2) Building blocks: • Low-Dose Extrapolation of Radiation-Related Cancer Risk (C1) • Radiological Protection in Medicine (C3) • Optimisation of Protection (C4) • Assessing Dose to the Representative Individual (C4) • The Scope of Radiological Protection Regulations: Exclusion and Exemption (MC)

  5. ICRP RP 06 - Major Features • Maintaining the fundamental principles of radiological protection, and clarifying how they apply to sources and the individual; • Updating the weighting factors and the radiation detriment; • Maintaining the dose limits; • Extending the concept of constraints in the source-related protection to all situations.

  6. Why the need for change? • The Commission emphasises that it is not a change but a clarification of the existing system, which has its origin over 50 years ago • In London in 1950 ICRP recognised that the world of radiation protection had changing

  7. Changes in radiation protection • Development of nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons in the 1940s led to: • Atmospheric weapons tests • Nuclear power • Artificial radioisotopes for medicine and industry • These developments meant a greater potential for wide scale exposures of populations

  8. Changes in radiation protection By 1950 there was clear evidence that • cumulative doses from chronic exposure had caused leukaemia in radiologists • hereditary effects had been demonstrated in animals

  9. Changes in radiation protection • Long term cumulative exposures were significant for carcinogenic and hereditary effects • The probability of developing these effects was proportional to cumulative doses • Previously limits had been designed to prevent superficial effects by keeping exposures below a rate of 1 R per week

  10. ICRP - London 1950 ICRP lowered exposure rate from 1R w-1 to 0.3R w-1 "While the values proposed for the maximum permissible exposures are such as to involve a risk that is small compared to the other hazards of life, nevertheless in view of the unsatisfactory nature of much of the evidence on which judgements are based, coupled with knowledge that certain radiation effects are irreversible and cumulative, it is strongly recommended that every effort be made to reduce exposures to all types of ionizing radiations to the lowest possible level."

  11. Evolution of recommendations 1950 “as low as possible” 1958 “as low as practicable” 1966 “……readily achievable, economic and social considerations….” 1973 “……reasonably achievable……” 1976 “……economic and social factors…”

  12. ICRP 60 - 1990 • In 1960 the Commission introduced the concept of Optimisation to sit with Justification and Limitation as the main principles for radiation protection • Dose Constraints were introduced as benchmarks in the Optimisation Process • There has been much confusion about what Dose Constraints are and how to apply them and the new recommendations are attempting to address this

  13. DRAFT ICRP Recommendations The General System of Radiological Protection • The probabilistic nature of stochastic effects means a clear distinction between 'safe' and 'dangerous‘ is impossible. • Fundamental principles are: Justification, Limitation and Optimisation. • Dose Constraints in the Optimisation Process are the primary tool in managing radiation safety.

  14. Additional Radiation Dose and Risk UNACCEPTABLE RISK DOSE LIMIT TOLERABLE RISK DOSE CONSTRAINT Optimisation Protection optimized ACCEPTABLE RISK TRIVIAL RISK

  15. DRAFT ICRP Recommendations The General System of Radiological Protection • Strong radiation safety culture through a cycle of continuous review and assessment to optimise doses for practices using a single source. • Optimisation involves evaluating and incorporating measures that tend to lower doses to the public and workers. • It also entails consideration of avoidance of accidents and other potential exposures.

  16. DRAFT ICRP Recommendations • Dose constraints are used as an integral part of the process of prospectively optimising radiological protection at the source. • If an assessment shows a relevant constraints was not complied with, further consideration of protection options in an optimisation procedure is required, this should not necessarily be regarded as a failure of protection.

  17. DRAFT ICRP Recommendations • It is the process of prospectively optimising radiological protection that is important • Constraints should be set according to well managed practices and should be monitored and modified if necessary • Reference or Action Levels - Level of Ambition • It is not about compliance with a number

  18. Application of Dose Constraints The optimisation of protection is a forward looking iterative process aimed at preventing exposures before they occur. • Operators and the appropriate national authorities have responsibilities for applying the optimisation principle. • Optimisation of protection is the responsibility of the operating management, subject to the requirements of the authority. • An active safety culture supports the successful application of optimisation by both the operational management and by the authority.

  19. Application of Dose Constraints • All aspects of optimisation cannot be codified; optimisation is more an obligation of means than of results. • The authority should focus on processes, procedures and judgements rather than specific outcomes. • An open dialogue must be established between the authority and the operating management to ensure a successful optimisation process.

  20. DRAFT ICRP Recommendations Three exposure situations are identified: • Planned Situations are everyday situations involving the planned operation of practices. • Emergency Situations are unexpected situations that occur during the operation of a practice requiring urgent action. • Existing Situations are exposure situations that already exist when a decision on control has to be taken, including natural background radiation and residues from past practices.

  21. DRAFT ICRP Recommendations • For planned situations: constraints represent a basic level of protection • In emergency or existing controllable exposure situations: constraints represent a level of dose or risk where action to reduce that dose or risk is almost always warranted.

  22. Band of Projected Effective Dose0.01 - 1 mSv - Acute or Annual

  23. Band of Projected Effective Dose1 to 20 mSv - Acute or Annual

  24. Band of Projected Effective Dose20 to 100 mSv - Acute or Annual

  25. ICRP Radiation Protection 06 • Minor changes to: • Radiation weighting factors • Tissue weighting factors • Risk coefficients • Caution on the use of: • Effective Dose • Collective dose

  26. Main Conclusions on Biology Dose-response for stochastic effects: A simple proportionate relationship between dose and risk at low doses. DDREF: 2. Genomic instability, bystander effects, adaptive response: Still insufficient knowledge for protection purposes. Genetic susceptibility: Known disorders too rare to distort risk estimates; impact of weak genetic determinants cannot be judged. In-utero cancer risk: Life time risk similar to that of young children (a few times higher than that of the whole population).

  27. Main Conclusions on Biology Nominal probability coefficients for cancer: Based on incidence and not mortality. Nominal probability coefficients for heritable diseases: Based on UNSCEAR 2001 - up to 2nd generation Tissue reactions in adults: Revised judgements but no major changes. Risks of non-cancer diseases (A-bomb LSS): Great uncertainty on dose response below 1 Sv; no judgement on low dose risk possible.

  28. Radiation Weighting Factors, wR

  29. Tissue Weighting Factors • Determine lifetime cancer incidence risk for radiation associated cancers. • Apply DDREF. • Transfer risk estimates across populations (ERR:EAR weights). • Apply weighted risk estimates to and average across seven Western and Asian populations to provide nominal risk coefficients. • Adjust for lethality, quality of life and for years of life lost to obtain the radiation detriment for each type of cancer. • Normalize to unity and obtain the relative radiation detriments. • Group into four categories broadly reflecting the relative detriments, i.e. the tissue weighting factors.

  30. Tissue Weighting Factors, wT 1 Nominal wT divided equally between 14 tissues.

  31. Nominal Risk Coefficients for Stochastic Effects(% Sv-1)

  32. Use of Effective Dose (E) • E is calculated by using reference values for a reference person or group. Weighting factors are averaged over age and gender. • E should be used only for compliance of constraints and dose limits to control stochastic effects. • E should mainly be used for planning in prospective situations. • E should not be used for more detailed retrospective dose and risk assessments on exposure of individuals. • E should not be used for epidemiological studies.

  33. Use of Collective Dose • Is an instrument for optimisation, for comparing radiological technologies and protection procedures. • Is not intended as a tool for epidemiologic risk assessment. It is therefore inappropriate to use it in risk projections based on epidemiological studies. • The computation of cancer deaths based on collective doses involving trivial exposures to large populations is not reasonable and should be avoided. Such a use was never intended and is an incorrect use of the collective dose.

  34. UNSCEAR 2006 Report United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation • 2006 Report to be submitted to the General Assembly on 25 October

  35. UNSCEAR 2006 • 5 Annexes on biological effects of radiation • Sources-to-effects assessment for radon in homes and workplaces • Epidemiological studies of radiation and cancer • Epidemiological evaluation of cardiovascular disease and other non-cancer diseases following radiation exposure • Effects of ionizing radiation on the immune system • Non-targeted and delayed effects of exposure to ionizing radiation

More Related