Abstract
The SRP meeting on The Changing Role of the Radiation Protection Professional (RPP) was held at the National Museum in Cardiff.
The aim of the meeting was to examine the role of the RPP and identify future challenges for the profession.
The opening address by John Crofts (NRPB) set the scene for the meeting. He presented an interesting review of scientific and policy developments, which may have a future impact on the profession. This included:
• RPA and specialist demonstration of competency. Will we have enough RPP for the future and should we be actively raising the profile of the profession? • The non-ionising radiations (NIR) field with its rapidly changing technology and need for development of regulatory control means the new generation of RPP (particularly outside the nuclear sector) will need a level of competency in both IR and NIR. • There is a need to raise the credibility of the scientist by improving the quality of the science base (thorough peer review), provision of impartial advice, effective communications at all levels and an inclusive consultation process. • Control of occupational exposure is mostly pretty good (the challenge is to avoid complacency) with the exception of Industrial Radiographers. The focus here may need to be client power and getting them to take some responsibility. • Radon and medical exposures are currently the Cinderella of public exposure. CT is a high exposure examination responsible for 40% of the collective dose and radon levels in the workplace need to be assessed and action taken. • There is a continuing problem with orphan sources. A draft EU directive on High Activity Sealed Sources (dose rate greater than 1 mSv/h at 1 metre) is expected later in the year. It will address financial provision for disposal. • Following September 11th do we need to extend the range of the credible for emergency planing?
Roger Coates (BNFL) presented a thought provoking operational overview which started with Roger's starting salary back in the 1970's (even then BNFL RPPs were getting paid more then than rest of us!). The 1970's Health Physicist was expected to know all the technical stuff and get on with it. The role now demands a wider skill base with radiological protection being only one part of the hazard spectrum in environmental health and safety. An awareness of political and social issues and the importance of establishing credibility with wider stakeholders make for a complex and challenging job. The audience contribution on the job specification for a modern RPP included: 'must be able to walk-on-water and have the patience of Job' and the apt 'must spend 50% of time on CPD activities, 50% on regulatory issues, 50% on RP, 50% on other safety issues ... and prove it in a portfolio'. Further suggestions to Roger with free wine to the winner.
Judith Petts (University of Birmingham) presented the results of a study dealing with risk communication. This focused on use of the media (TV and newspapers) and public responses, seeking to understand why some hazards become a focus of concern and not others. Five risk issues were considered: GM foods; radon; rail accidents; the Millennium bug; air pollution and health. Public perception and response to these risk issues were then examined through discussion and interview. The findings were surprising and provide an insight to lay public media savvy and the tools of the media. The project report recommendations are invaluable for best practice risk communication. (Report: Petts, J; Horlick-Jones, T & Murdoch, G (2001) Social Amplification of Risk: The Media and the Public. HSE Contract Research Report, 329/01 is published on: www.hse.gov.uk/research.)
Lars Persson (retired, previously Swedish Radiation Protection Institute) presented a discussion paper addressing ethical problems in radiation protection. ICRP, the IAEA and EU documents as well as previous works on the ethics of radiation protection, professional ethics and the ethics of human radiation experiments were reviewed. Lars concluded that the insights of ethical theories could provide a number of ways in which current RP recommendations and standards could improve. They could be more equitable, more protective of human health and rights, including due process and consent, more cautious in recommending worker exposure standards that are more lenient than public standards and more protective of environmental welfare.
Geoff Webb (IRPA) presented an overview of the international scene relevant to the work of IAEA and IRPA. The IAEA, formed in 1957, is a technical UN organisation with a mandate to promote peaceful applications of radiation. The IRPA, formed in 1964, is a professional body with a mandate to promote international contacts. Both organisations are working to develop the safety infrastructure (basic legislation, independent regulatory authority, systems of notification, licensing, inspection and enforcement) and professionalism (establishment of radiation protection societies, support for international meetings, review of standards and encouragement of research, education and international publications) in developing countries.
Anil Koshti (Environment Agency) described his involvement with the public consultation process for a new RSA93 waste authorisation at the Devenport Royal Dockyard (DML) nuclear licensed site. The authorisation was required for a new facility for refitting the Vanguard class nuclear powered submarines. The DML application was initiated during May 2000 and the authorisation was finally issued by the Secretary of State for Health in February 2002. The EA formed a project team to aid public consultation. The consultation process involved two public meetings, several public surgeries and press briefings. This provided individuals with the opportunity to raise issues in person. The consultation document radiological assessment indicated an additional dose uptake of less than 1 microsievert from the proposed discharges. The estimated consultation period for any future large applications is 4 to 5 years.
Andrew Mackrell (UKAEA) presented an overview of the aims of the RPP and the skills necessary to successfully fulfil this role. As well as the technical and scientific knowledge, the importance of diplomacy, negotiating and communication skills and the ability to find practical solutions were highlighted.
Lessons learned from the recent decommissioning activities at Dounreay were discussed; this included early POCO of plutonium facilities due to the problems associated with loss of plant specific knowledge.
Ruth Anderson (Dstl) and Marie Dimaline (UKAEA) are both trainee Health Physicists. Their presentation entitled 'New Blood - Experiences/Expectations' summarised the different training schemes adopted by each organisation, initial perceptions of the profession with suggestions for increasing awareness of RP as a career.
The Keynote address presented by David Taylor, member of ICRP Committee 2 (retired, previously at the Institute for Genetics and Toxicology, Karlsruhe), addressed the 'Changing Face of Radiation Protection, 1953-2002'.
The major changes in RP philosophy during this period were highlighted. These included:
• An increasing awareness of the uncertainties of radiation dose-response relationships. The main uncertainties lie in the biokinetic data underlying the mathematical models used to describe radionuclide behaviour in humans. Specifically, lack of data, extrapolation from animals to humans and inter-subject variation in all its aspects, individual, gender, diet, climate etc. • Adoption of the LNT hypothesis. The hypothesis that radiation-induced multi-factorial effects, like cancer or genetic disorders, are related to dose below about 50 mSv is unprovable. Natural exposure to radiation provides a de facto practical threshold of about 10 mSv/year below which detriment cannot reliably be detected. • Increasing caution in recommendations for acceptably safe limits on exposure. • Protection extended to the general public of all ages. • Increasing complexity of internal dosimetry.
The opening presentation on the second day was by Ian Keyes, Secretary to the Assessment Panel, RPA 2000. This summarised the key requirements for RPA 2000 portfolio submission and gave an overview of the assessment procedure. There are 9 areas of competency. Items of evidence can claim several areas of competency e.g. one successful application had 12 items of evidence with each item claiming 6 or 7 competencies. Three assessors examine the application with one main assessor (appointed from the applicants area of expertise) examining the portfolio in detail. Competency requires the unanimous agreement of all assessors. A shortfall in one or more areas may require more evidence. Interview by panel may be required. By April 2002 a total of 110 applications had been received with 100 approved. The assessment process taking on average 5 months per portfolio. Portfolios must be submitted by the start of 2004 (at the latest) to guarantee completion as a rush of applications is expected during 2004.
Colin Partington (SRP) gave an update on the vocational qualification option to achieving the criteria of competence for RPA appointment. National Vocational Qualifications (NVQs) and their Scottish equivalent (SNVQs) were created with the Qualifications and Professional Standards Committee of the SRP. Radiological protection NVQs were available (from 1999) at levels 2, 3 and 4. The awards at level 3 and 4 were part of an Occupational Health and Safety NVQ. Nobody has completed an NVQ at any level. The level 2 and 3 NVQs have expired and there are no plans to re-write. A new level 4 NVQ in Radiological Protection has been created. The standard, which was agreed in January 2002, consists of 9 mandatory units (safety culture, radiation protection policy, hazards, risks, control measures, monitoring, learning from experience, contingency and review and auditing). Each unit has a number of elements with associated performance criteria and knowledge requirements. Assessment is based on evidence derived from performance in the workplace and external examination. An awarding body and assessment centres have yet to be identified.
AURPO (Association of Universities and Radiation Protection Officers) in collaboration with the University of Strathclyde offer a distance learning course. The course is Internet based and is split into three parts. Part one covers the HSE basic syllabus, part 2 aims to produce a portfolio to meet the RPA2000 criteria and part 3 will address suitability for different employers. The course will be available from October 2002 and will cost approximately £700.
Mark Bradley (HSE) discussed RPA competence and suitability since the introduction of the IRR99. The HSE specialist radiation inspectors have visited a large number of premises to assess compliance with the regulations. The presentation discussed the role of the inspector, practical experience from inspections and common findings.
Six cases were discussed, five from the university/medical establishments and one from the industrial sector. The effectiveness of the consultation between employers and their RPAs ranged from extremely good to non-existent. The cases included examples of failure to advise the employer on the requirement to monitor designated areas, the need for risk assessment and the changes following IRR99 introduction. RPAs in the line management chain found work pressures such that there was little advice given. In other cases the RPA did everything for the employer such that the employer effectively had no involvement.
In the majority of cases the RPA held a certificate of competence. Mark Bradley raised the issue of whether the portfolio was sufficient evidence to demonstrate competence. Certainly some of the cases indicated a lack of competence. The ability of the RPA to provide advice may need to be assessed, possibly by interview. It was highlighted that RPAs need to tread a thin line between being pro-active, yet not spoon feed the employer. The employer may not be doing enough to ensure the RPA is suitable and may require assistance from professional bodies.
Sam Harbison, Chairman of the Article 31 Working Group on Education and Training, presented an interesting overview of Radiation Experts in the European Union (EU). Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty obliges the European Commission (EC) to consult the group in the preparation of the basic safety standards, and other legal texts, in the field of RP. The Working Group (WG) was set up in 1995 to advise the Commission on producing recommendations on harmonisation and standardisation of the Qualified Expert (QE) in the EU. Research showed that there was not a unified approach. The WG produced guidance text on basic and additional training for QE, including a basic syllabus. The text and syllabus were adopted by the EC and published in 1998. This was used by the HSE for their syllabus of RPA basic competence.
In 1999 the WG was reactivated to assist the Commission on the establishment of a discussion platform for the Member States and accession countries, to allow them to discuss, inter alia, their responsibilities, training needs, continuing professional development and questions relating to mutual recognition.
Details have still to be finalised but the initial idea is to have a meeting later in the year to agree the format, followed by annual meetings thereafter. The numbers will need to be limited (50-60 individuals) to allow proper discussion of issues of importance e.g.\ common criteria for QE and specific issues such as industrial radiography.
Adoption of the 1998 syllabus was an important first step towards harmonisation. However, much still needs to be done to achieve harmonisation and mutual recognition of the QE. Hopefully the proposed discussion platform will help.
Jim Cochrane (SEPA) discussed the QE from a SEPA perspective. The QE (individual, group or body) provide advice on compliance with authorisations granted under Section 13 of the Radioactive Substances Act (RSA) 1993. SEPA require notification of the QE appointed for all RSA93 authorisations. By granting the authorisation, SEPA are not approving the QE or the adequacy of the advice. SEPA currently have 600 authorisations in force in Scotland (8 Nuclear Licensed Sites and the rest small users).
As yet there is no guidance on assessing QE competence. SEPA, the EA and EHS(NI) are working together to develop a UK-wide QE scheme (similar arrangement to RPA 2000). Core skills and experience will typically consist of a relevant degree, three years experience in a post related to RP, knowledge of the RSA and waste disposal issues.
For some authorisation holders the RPA and QE may be the same person. However, the basic syllabus will be different for each role. The QE will need the correct qualification and experience. It will not be enough to appoint on the basis that they are already an RPA.
Mark Ramsay, Imperial College of Science, Technology & Medicine, gave a university RPA perspective. The university is a small user, specifically in the research and medical field with 13 registrations and 10 authorisations under the RSA93.
The diverse range of facilities was an eye opener. They included a research reactor, an accelerator, numerous gloveboxes and fumecupboards, sealed sources, wind tunnels (blowing contamination over plants), delay tanks with actinides of unknown quantities and a large decommissioning legacy of assorted radionuclide waste.
Mark discussed the problems associated with a variety of users (academics, vets and medics) and described small decommissioning projects that have been successfully undertaken using specialist contractors.
This was a very interesting presentation, which demonstrated the broad range of RP issues that a small user can face. I certainly had not appreciated this and it put my ideas of 'small user = one sealed source' into perspective.
Paddy Copeland (RWE NUKEM Ltd) described some of the wide range of overseas health physics projects undertaken by RWE. The projects included ground remediation of a nuclear weapons test site in Maralinga (South Australia), Onterio Power Generation (Canada) station outage support and contaminated ground investigation, Kazakhstan seismic survey support and NORM (naturally occurring radioactive material) work in Lybia and Syria.
Paddy highlighted many problems such as equipment failures, differences in local customs and working practices, communication and language issues, hazardous driving conditions, snakes, isolation and food - hunting, killing and cooking your own! Many problems the RPP would not normally expect to encounter at work.
Experience gained from the diverse range of projects showed RP issues were generally straightforward if western standards were adopted.
Thierry Schneider, CEPN, France, presented experiences gained from the North-Cotentin Radio-Ecological Group and ETHOS project in Belarus.
Publication of epidemiological studies (1995 and 1997) suggested an excess of leukaemia around La Hague reprocessing plant in the North-Cotentin region. The French Ministries of Health and Environment set up the North-Cotentin Radio-Ecological group in 1997 to reconstruct doses and estimate the risk of leukaemia.
The group involved experts from French and foreign institutes, non-government organisations (especially those at a local level) and the nuclear industry. The rules of co-operation included regular contact with local stakeholders (lay people).
The main outcomes included mutual validation of the measurements, the design of exposure scenarios based on actual local behaviours and a radio-ecological model for the region validated by all participants. Broadening of the group beyond the traditional framework of discussions between operators and representatives of expert organisations (specifically the non-government organisations) contributed to improving the quality of the work, and undoubtedly its credibility.
The ETHOS project, implemented in Belarus (1996-2001) was aimed at improving the living conditions of the inhabitants of villages whose daily life had been affected by the long-lasting radioactive contamination resulting from the Chernobyl accident.
The project was implemented by a multidisciplinary research team (RP, agronomy, sociology and education) with the co-operation of the inhabitants, the local and national authorities and experts.
This gave a precise and reliable picture of the radiological situation within and around the villages. It allowed the development of a practical RP culture among the population and local professionals. A significant improvement in the quality of milk and meat and an average reduction in internal exposure of young children were observed.
Both projects have shown that to cope with complex situations involving different stakeholders the RPP needs to enlarge the traditional scope of their expertise, working in local context (e.g. shifting from models to case-by-case assessments), talking with non-experts and commiting to rules of co-operation adapted to each situation (e.g. one commitment of the ETHOS team was not to influence the decision of the population about leaving or not the village).
The final presentation was by Mike Marshall, the incoming president of the SRP. The talk highlighted the aims and objectives of the SRP. Issues covered included the possibility of Chartered Status, raising the profile of the SRP in providing advice to government and international organisations, a move towards being a source of reliable and timely information for the media/public and development of the structure of the society.
Overall the meeting presented the RPP with a number of thought provoking issues. It highlighted aspects of the legislative changes, scientific developments, wide ranging operational activities, public perception and media focus that make this a demanding profession with many challenges.