The establishment of emergency preparedness and response capabilities involves the development of plans and the allocation of means to ensure the

effectiveness of the national regulatory authority and other relevant organizations in dealing with different radiological emergency scenarios.

Implementation

In the workplans, the obligations and responsibilities of both the recipient country and the IAEA were specified for effective implementation of the project within the planned time frame. With that, it was assumed that governments and national authorities would be better prepared to comply with their obligations. For this reason, firm commitments were obtained from all participating countries, and workplans were discussed, approved and signed by relevant counterparts and national authorities. The infrastructure to be established was the minimum considered appropriate to provide an adequate margin of protection and safety for the level of activities carried out in each country.

For many participating countries, implementation started with essential activities such as the drafting of laws, regulations and procedures, and the recruitment for the first time of personnel for training. These activities consumed most of the first two years and few countries have not yet overcome this initial step. Establishing a national inventory of radiation sources was a high priority issue from the beginning.

Also, from the beginning it was realized that training personnel should receive high priority.

Hence, training needs were identified for each country in individual action plans, and planned to be met through national, regional and interregional courses and workshops, fellowships,

124

scientific visits, and on-the-job training during expert missions. Starting in 1999, long term (one year) postgraduate courses, leading to a diploma in radiation protection, have been established at the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg (South Africa), and at the High Institute for Applied Science and Technology in Damascus (Syria). A nine-week Basic Training Course on Radiation Protection was held in Germany in 1997 and in Russia in 1999. This is in addition to the traditional regional postgraduate course on radiation protection and nuclear safety offered by the University of Buenos Aires in conjunction with the Argentinean Nuclear Regulatory Authority and the Ministry of Health, which have been co-operating with the IAEA for many years. The training carried out under this project is summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. Human resource development

Project Scientific visits Fellows Training course participants*

INT/9/143 38 114 – RAF/9/024 14 75 149 RAS/9/021 25 130 660 RAW/9006 32 173 495 RER/9/056 37 29 850 RLA/9/030 4 34 224

TOTAL 150 555 2278

* Regional and national training courses.

Table 3.Number and origin of experts

Project IAEA staff International experts

National consultants

Participants in management meetings

INT/9/143 253 165 1 171 RAF/9/024 43 42 14 54 RAS/9/021 59 87 12 25 RAW/9006 39 64 3 32 RER/9/056 72 74 5 65 RLA/9/030 39 73 4 10

TOTAL 505 505 39 357

In addition to the extensive training of national staff, the projects provided continued support to the national authorities through the work of experts in the various tasks under the milestones. Table 3 details the number and origin of the experts fielded through the project.

The current status of project implementation is presented in Table 4 for milestone 1 and in Table 5 for milestones 2–5.

Table 4. Summary of the implementation ofmilestone 1 by activities in action plans Activity REGION

1 Law

2 Regulations

3 Regulatory Authority

4 System of Notification, Authorization, Inspection and Enforcement abcdabcdababcd AFRICA (17) 12 3 2 – 7 7 2 1 9 8 5 3 2 7 EUROPE (11) 9 2 – – 6 1 2 2 9 2 6 1 1 3 LATIN AMERICA (10)8 1 1 – 6 3 1 – 8 2 6 2 1 1 EAST ASIA (5) 4 1 – – 3 2 – – 5 0 2 1 2 – WEST ASIA (9) 4 5 – – 2 4 3 1 8 1 3 3 3 – 1a: Promulgated 2a: Enacted 3a: Established 4a: In place 1b: In final stage of promulgation 2b: In final stage of enactment 3b: Not established 4b: Being implemented 1c: In drafting form 2c: In drafting form 4c: At initial stage of implementation 1d: No action taken 2d: No action taken 4d: Not established

125

Table 5.Summary of the implementation ofmilestones 2–5 by activities in action plans (number of participating countries)2 Milestone 2 Milestone 3 Milestone 4 Milestone 5 REGION

Occupational Exposure ControlMedical Exposure Control Public Exposure Control Emergency Response Plan Individual MonitoringWorkplace MonitoringDR* RT** NM*** Environmental MonitoringWaste Management a b c a b c a b c a b c a b c a b c a b c a b c AFRICA (17) 9 4 4 5 2 10 1 6 10 4 1 12 1 1 15 3 6 8 2 5 10 – 1 16 EUROPE (11) 7 2 2 6 2 3 5 3 3 6 5 – 4 4 3 5 3 3 4 4 3 6 2 3 LATIN AMERICA (10)8 2 0 4 4 2 3 4 3 4 4 2 2 2 6 5 2 3 1 2 7 1 4 5 EAST ASIA (5) 4 1 – 5 – – 3 2 – 5 – – 1 – 4 – – 5 – – 5 – – 5 WEST ASIA (9) 8 – – 8 – – 9 – – 6 – 1 9 – – – – 9 – – 9 – – 9 a: National programme in place & operational * Diagnostic radiology b: National programme being established ** Radiotherapy c: National programme not established *** Nuclear medicine * 2 Estimation based on the currently available information.

126

127 Activities related to milestone 1 (Table 4) were implemented with varying degrees of success.

At present:

§ more than 71% have promulgated laws;

§ about 75% have a established a regulatory authority;

§ nearly 46% have adopted regulations; and

§ more than 42% have an operational system of notification, authorization and control of radiation sources.

On the basis of the above figures, it can be concluded that about 42% have achieved the level of compliance presumed in the Preamble to the BSS by completing all activities foreseen under milestone 1. This level of achievement is much lower than originally expected for five years of implementation. In fact, the time necessary to overcome some of the difficulties already identified at the time of project preparation was underestimated. The reasons for not meeting milestone 1 include time-consuming legislative procedures; unfocused regulatory structure (overlapping responsibilities); limited regulatory independence and empowerment;

inadequate supplementary documentation (implementing regulations, authorization and inspection procedures and regulatory guides); insufficient financial and technical resources, trained staff and support services (e.g. individual monitoring); and incomplete and unclear registry of radiation practices and sources.

In order to further expedite the implementation of the Model Project, activities related to other milestones, particularly milestone 2, were initiated despite the fact that in many participating countries milestone 1 had not been attained.

Activities of milestones 2–5 (Table 5) can be summarized as follows:

· programmes for occupational exposure control (milestone 2) have been successfully implemented in many participating countries, with 70% having individual monitoring and about 54% having workplace monitoring established and operational; and

· substantial parts of activities relating to milestones 3–5 have yet to be implemented by most of the countries (it should be noted that the numbers given in Table 5 for these milestones are indicative and can only be validated when the system for regulatory control of radiation sources is fully operational).

In addition to continuous monitoring of project activities, annual appraisal meetings and seminars have been organized in each of the five regions. These seminars have provided opportunities for direct contact with persons with political responsibilities (ministers, deputy ministers, members of parliament, permanent secretaries, etc.) and executive responsibilities (chairmen of atomic energy commissions, directors of regulatory bodies, project counterparts, etc.) in their countries.

Progress has also been evaluated through peer review teams sent to 29 of the participating countries. Each team, consisting of two IAEA staff members and one or two external consultants, provided an independent assessment of the project achievements. The main emphasis was on evaluating the adequacy of the regulatory infrastructures in the countries visited.

128

Lastly, the establishment of adequate infrastructure requires the provision of equipment and a total of about US $6 million worth of radiation detection and measuring instrumentation:

dosimeters; complete dosimetry systems; counting equipment for alpha, beta and gamma analysis to more sophisticated spectrometry analysis; and accessory equipment was provided to the participating countries during these five years. This sum should be added to an equivalent amount provided earlier under individual national projects.