H. Landfermann - Occupational Radiation Protection: Protecting Workers Against Exposure to Ioni

related to special compensation arrangements, female employees, the split in responsibilities between employees and licensees, the movement of workers amongst countries with different national regulations and the value of alpha in the optimization.

I. Othman highlighted problems that are experienced in developing countries.

These included:

(a) Problems that result from the fact that practices started operating before standards were introduced, e.g. resistance to change.

(b) Standards that do not reflect the real situation in the country.

(c) Problems related to the preparation of standards, e.g. availability of radiation experts knowledgeable about the country situation and vice versa.

(d) Unavailability or vagueness of standards.

(e) Lack of task specific training for operators, regulators and inspectors, resulting in misunderstanding of responsibilities.

(f) Lack of revision of standards after accidents or based on feedback from applicants.

During the discussion, a number of participants from developing coun-tries highlighted the value of the IAEA model project, the benefits received through other means such as its regional agreements and the importance of strengthening co-operation among international organizations such as the IAEA, the International Labour Organization and the World Health Organization.

The following problem areas related to the implementation of standards were identified over and above those mentioned by the panellists:

(a) Training of final decision makers, e.g. legislators;

(b) Illicit trafficking of material;

(d) Clarification of the responsibilities of the regulator, operator, licensee (line management) and appointed radiation protection managers;

(e) Dose recording of contract workers;

(f) Exposure of female workers;

(g) The need to convert the IAEA safety standards into country specific regulations and guidance;

(h) The need for stability in IAEA safety standards;

(i) The need for commitment from the highest level in government and registrant/licensee management.

The IAEA has explained its initiatives in respect of a number of the above problem areas, for example, securing the commitment of governments as a pre-requisite for participation in the model project, improving the understanding of radiation protection by final decision makers and providing the right persons with the right guidance.

A number of recurring themes were observed, such as:

(a) The importance of safety culture,

(b) Inadequate technical competence of regulators and operators,

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xli

Several recommendations are presented for consideration by the IAEA:

(a) In the context of occupational radiation protection, the IAEA should develop, implement and evaluate performance indicators related to:

(i) Regulatory performance,

(ii) Effectiveness of IAEA sponsored training, (iii) Safety standards development programme.

(b) Data provided by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation are used extensively for a variety of reasons, e.g. to evaluate the implementation of international occupational exposure standards, to facilitate information exchange and to determine future priorities. The IAEA should, as part of its co-operation with other international organizations, investigate mechanisms to improve the availability, consistency and reliability of the data provided by its Member States.

(c) The IAEA should develop guidance on effective ways of securing the highest level of commitment within organizations that require occupational radiation protection programmes.

(d) The IAEA should prioritize the resolution of issues related to the exposure of female workers.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

xlii

ROUND TABLE 5

IS THERE A NEED FOR A MAJOR CHANGE IN ICRP RECOMMENDATIONS INVOLVING OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE?

Chairperson’s Summary A. Sugier

France

In the latest paper published by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) concerning the evolution of its recommendations, the main commission indicates that the objectives of these new recommendations will be “to simplify and unify” the present system, and “to focus on real problems”.

As far as occupational exposures are concerned, major modifications do not seem necessary and there was a general recognition during this Conference that the present system is working rather well.

However, the Conference has identified three real problems that any future recommendations of the ICRP should address:

(1) Particular attention should be given to the most exposed workers (transient workers, medical professionals, decommissioning workers, natural exposures are dealt with in item 2). In this respect, a key question for the ICRP is to recommend adequate tools to control these exposures. Two main approaches have been discussed during the various sessions: establishment of minimum standards of protection and implementation of optimization. A worldwide agreed standard level of protection is considered essential for the credibility of the system (be it called dose limit or protective action level). It should correspond to a risk comparable to other industries. The quantified value, which was debated, should be kept under review, recognizing that any changes in the numerical value would have a major impact. Optimization is seen as the main tool for efficient dose reduction. Concern has been raised that being ‘number 2’ in the hierarchy of the new system might weaken this important principle. One way to strengthen its implementation would be to define case specific dose targets or reference dose levels. In any case, stakeholder involvement at an early stage is now recognized as important to improving further the control of exposures by active participation of involved stakeholders in the decision framing and decision making processes related to radiological protection.

(2) The management of occupational exposure to natural radiations deserves careful attention in the future system of the ICRP. Data presented during the

xliii

Conference show that the number of concerned workers is certainly much higher than the present estimates. There is a clear need to define procedures on how to enter into the system — the main issue being amenability to control. But once in the system, all parties emphasized that the treatment should be consistent with the general system. The application of optimization will have to take account of social and economic factors, particularly in developing countries. In this context, the role of exclusion levels should be addressed.

(3) The clarification of the terminology appears necessary, particularly as regards detriment. Following the same line of thought, the ICRP sees a need to reconsider the definition of detriment. However, this should not be done without carefully considering that the appreciation of risk is an important and complex issue, which should not be oversimplified. In its reconsideration, the ICRP should clarify the following issues: characterization, quantification, comparison with other hazards and attributable risks. In this respect, concern has been raised that stability with the use of the present units and quantities be maintained.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

xliv

OPENING SESSION

OPENING ADDRESS

T. Zeltner

Swiss Federal Office of Public Health, Berne, Switzerland

On behalf of the Government of Switzerland, the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, I am very pleased to welcome all of you to the International Conference on Occupational Radiation Protection: Protecting Workers against Exposure to Ionizing Radiation.

The Government of Switzerland is very happy to host this Conference, which is:

(a) Organized by the IAEA,

(b) Convened jointly with the International Labour Organization (ILO), (c) Co-sponsored by the European Commission, and

(d) Held in co-operation with the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency and the World Health Organization (WHO).

We are very grateful to the ILO in Geneva for having made its headquarters available to us and also for permitting us use of its excellent infrastructure. We also think it a good sign for the workers that the first International Conference on Occupational Radiation Protection takes place on the premises of the ILO, the house of workers and employers, and in the neighbourhood of the WHO.

As host city to many international organizations, Geneva has become known as

‘international Geneva’. It is home to a very wide range of international organizations active in areas as varied as humanitarian action, human rights, trade, environment and sustainable development, education and training, peacekeeping and security, meteo-rology, intellectual property, nuclear research, telecommunications and, last but not least, health and labour.

Switzerland has been an observer at the United Nations since 1948. After a long period of fruitful collaboration with many United Nations organizations, Switzerland is — finally — looking forward to becoming a full member of the United Nations in the course of this Autumn. On 3 March 2002, the people and the cantons of Switzerland authorized the Federal Council, on the basis of a referendum, to submit a request for admission to the United Nations to Secretary General Annan.

T. Taniguchi

International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna

It is my honour and pleasure to welcome you on behalf of the Director General of the IAEA to this International Conference on Occupational Radiation Protection.

Occupational protection is the oldest branch of radiation protection. The very first radiation protection measures were introduced to prevent early researchers and medical practitioners from suffering deterministic health effects due to radiation exposure incurred in the course of their work. The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) grew out of radiologists’ concern to protect themselves and their colleagues (as well as their patients). The IAEA, following on from the recommendations of the ICRP, established the first international radiation protection standards, and many of the IAEA’s earliest safety standards dealt wholly or in part with the protection of workers.

Turning to the present, I think it true to say that occupational radiation protection is an international success story. Although the number of occupationally exposed workers has risen continuously, there has for many years now been a clear downward trend worldwide in the doses that workers receive in the course of their work. This trend can clearly be attributed to the widespread practical application of basic radiation protection principles, particularly the principle of optimization of protection, through radiation protection programmes, information exchange and work management.

This success story is an accumulation of the efforts of many individuals and teams at the local level as well as national authorities. But I think the international organizations represented here can take at least some credit, and I would like to mention three examples:

(1) The International Basic Safety Standards for Protection against Ionizing Radiation and for the Safety of Radiation Sources (BSS), sponsored jointly by the IAEA, the International Labour Organisation (ILO), the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (OECD/NEA) and the World Health Organization (as well as the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the Pan American Health Organization), have provided a common international basis for translating the principles of the ICRP into actions by the operators of facilities, the users of radiation sources, individual workers and their regulators.

(2) In developing more detailed guidance on the application of the BSS, the IAEA’s expertise in radiation protection, and its unique statutory function within the UN system to establish standards for occupational radiation protection, has been complemented tremendously by the ILO’s ability to bring workers and

OPENING ADDRESS

employers to the same table. It is well recognized that optimized radiation protection in workplaces can only be achieved if there is a strong commitment throughout the entire organization, from the top management to the workers.

(3) The Information System on Occupational Exposure (ISOE), operated jointly by the IAEA and the OECD/NEA, is emerging as a very valuable tool for improving occupational protection worldwide, by giving ready access to information on what can be achieved and how. Indeed, if I might briefly refer to issues beyond occupational radiation protection, one of my priorities as regards the IAEA’s work is to enhance the global networking of safety knowledge and experience through more strategic application of IT based knowledge management. In this regard, I think the ISOE offers an example that may be followed and built upon in other areas of safety.

Having described occupational radiation protection as an international success story, I must add that there is no room for complacency. Not only do we need to continue with the measures that have brought such reductions in occupational exposure, but there are issues where there may be room for further improvement, and I would like to mention a few of them here.

The first issue is that there remain differences from country to country in the implementation of the current standards. These differences are individually small — for example, slight variations in quantities and units, or subtly different understandings of the allocation of responsibilities and obligations, for example between employers and licensees. However, if not addressed or at least better understood, the cumulative effect of these small differences could cause significant variations in the application of standards.

The second issue, and perhaps a more obvious one, is that of exposure to natural radiation sources in the workplace. There is a general understanding that employers must be expected to control such exposures when it is feasible for them to do so, and in some cases it has been defined more precisely what this means.

However, the solutions to date have been somewhat ad hoc and piecemeal, and it may be that we need to find a deeper, more coherent policy for addressing this issue over a wide range of situations.

The third issue is that of probability of causation. Technically, of course, this is a very complex matter, but perhaps a policy issue can be more simply expressed. A number of countries have developed national compensation schemes that take account, in one way or another, of assessments of individual probability of causation.

But is there anything that should be done at the international level to assist other countries in addressing the matter?

Finally, we may soon begin to see some exceptions in certain fields to the overall downward trend in occupational exposure. For example, although collective doses to workers at nuclear power plants are decreasing overall, relatively high doses

TANIGUCHI

have been incurred in some refurbishment and backfitting operations in some countries. If such operations were to become more common as the average age of reactors increases, this might start to affect the overall picture. We would also expect that the increasing need to decommission facilities and terminate practices would introduce more collective dose to workers. Of course, any increases that might occur would not necessarily indicate deficiencies in occupational radiation protection in these areas; they might simply be examples of more work meaning more dose. The ISOE should help us to follow developments on this issue.

I would like to add one further observation on the topic of decommissioning.

The regulatory experience relating to occupational radiation protection during the termination of practices is much less extensive than that for the initiation and operation of such activities. The IAEA is planning to help fill this gap. In October, we are organizing an international conference in Berlin on decommissioning and the safe termination of practices, and the findings from that conference will influence our future work in this field. I anticipate that the discussions during the coming week on the occupational exposure of workers involved in decommissioning will be an important input to the deliberations of the Berlin conference.

Clearly, there is plenty for you to discuss this week. As has become the custom with the IAEA’s radiation safety conferences, I would expect that we will use your findings and recommendations to develop an international action plan to strengthen occupational radiation protection, particularly through more integrated approaches to our assistance, and to our advisory and education and training programmes. I will therefore close by wishing you well in your deliberations, and I look forward to seeing the findings and recommendations to be presented by the Conference President.

OPENING ADDRESS 7

J. Takala

International Labour Office, Geneva

On behalf of the Director General of the International Labour Organization (ILO), J. Somavia, I welcome you all most warmly. The ILO is extremely pleased to co-convene this important international conference.

This Conference is the result of close co-operation between the IAEA, the Swiss Government, the ILO and the co-sponsoring and collaborating organizations.

We need co-operation because the protection of workers against exposure to ionizing radiation requires an integrated approach and the participation of all the stakeholders.

I thank the IAEA for its commitment to interagency co-operation. I also thank the host country of the Conference — Switzerland. Without the Swiss Government’s generous support and co-operation, it would have been impossible to have the Conference here today. I should like to thank as well the World Health Organization, the European Commission and the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency for their co-operation in organizing this event.

I am very happy that we have chosen the ILO as the venue of this Conference.

As you all know, the ILO has a tripartite structure unique in the United Nations, in which employers’ and workers’ representatives — the ‘social partners’ of the economy — have an equal voice with those of the governments in shaping its policies and programmes. The Declaration of Philadelphia, which spells out the aims and purposes of the ILO, recognizes the obligation of the ILO to further, among the nations of the world, programmes which will achieve, amongst other things, the extension of social protection, the provision of comprehensive medical care and the adequate protection of the life and health of workers. Protection of the worker against sickness, disease or injury arising out of employment is a key task assigned to the ILO in the preamble of its constitution.

The ILO has generated such hallmarks of industrial society as the eight hour working day, maternity protection, child labour laws and a range of policies which promote workplace safety and peaceful industrial relations. The ILO is the interna-tional instituinterna-tional framework which makes it possible to address such issues — and to find solutions which allow working conditions to improve everywhere. The objec-tive is to provide a ‘level playing field’ for employers and workers alike. Absence of such measures in one country is an obstacle to others in their development.

Although much has been done to improve working conditions and environ-ment, there is virtually no job or occupation that is wholly devoid of risks to the 9

OPENING ADDRESS

health and safety of workers. A recent ILO estimate indicates that two million workers die each year through work related accidents and diseases — more than 5000 every day — and for every fatal accident there are another 500–2000 injuries, depending on the type of job.

Protection of workers against exposure to radiation falls naturally within the scope of the ILO’s programme of action on occupational safety and health. In June 1960, the International Labour Conference adopted the Convention concerned with the Protection of Workers against Ionizing Radiation (No. 115) and its accompanying Recommendation (No. 114). The Convention applies to all activities involving expo-sure of workers to ionizing radiations in the course of their work and provides that each Member of the ILO that ratifies it shall give effect to its provisions by means of laws or regulations, codes of practice or other appropriate measures. The ILO–OSH 2001 Guidelines of Occupational Safety and Health Management Systems and the ILO Encyclopaedia of Occupational Health and Safety are good examples of such

Dans le document Occupational Radiation Protection: Protecting Workers Against Exposure to Ionizing Radiation | IAEA (Page 53-136)