ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL DOSE REGISTER AND A DOSIMETRY SERVICE APPROVAL SYSTEM IN IRELAND

Until the end of 2012, the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland (RPII) operated a personal dosimetry service for workers in the medical, industrial, education and research sectors in Ireland. The data recorded by the RPII service were used to generate national dose statistics and as such acted as a National Dose Register (NDR). In preparation for the closure of the RPII dosimetry service in 2012, a formal NDR was introduced for the first time in Ireland and data on all monitored workers are now supplied to it annually by Approved Dosimetry Services. A new system for approving dosimetry services operating in Ireland was also introduced in 2012. The criteria for approval are based on the recommendations given in the European Commission's publication, 'Radiation Protection No. 160'. This paper describes the steps involved and the operational experience gained in establishing both the NDR and the system for approval of dosimetry services.

Outdoor Exposure to Solar Ultraviolet Radiation and Legislation in Brazil

The total ozone column of 265 ± 11 Dobson Units in the tropical-equatorial zones and 283 ± 16 Dobson Units in the subtropics of Brazil are among the lowest on Earth, and as a result, the prevalence of skin cancer due to solar ultraviolet radiation is among the highest. Daily erythemal doses in Brazil can be over 7,500 J m. Erythemal dose rates on cloudless days of winter and summer are typically about 0.147 W m and 0.332 W m, respectively. However, radiation enhancement events yielded by clouds have been reported with erythemal dose rates of 0.486 W m. Daily doses of the diffuse component of erythemal radiation have been determined with values of 5,053 J m and diffuse erythemal dose rates of 0.312 W m. Unfortunately, Brazilians still behave in ways that lead to overexposure to the sun. The annual personal ultraviolet radiation ambient dose among Brazilian youths can be about 5.3%. Skin cancer in Brazil is prevalent, with annual rates of 31.6% (non-melanoma) and 1.0% (melanoma). Governmental and non-governmental initiatives have been taken to increase public awareness of photoprotection behaviors. Resolution #56 by the Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária has banned tanning devices in Brazil. In addition, Projects of Law (PL), like PL 3730/2004, propose that the Sistema Único de Saúde should distribute sunscreen to members of the public, while PL 4027/2012 proposes that employers should provide outdoor workers with sunscreen during professional outdoor activities. Similar laws have already been passed in some municipalities. These are presented and discussed in this study.

Future of Radiation Protection Regulations

THERE IS considerable disagreement in the scientific community regarding the carcinogenicity of low-dose radiation (LDR), with publications supporting opposing points of view. However, major flaws have been identified in many of the publications claiming increased cancer risk from LDR. The data generally recognized as the most important for assessing radiation effects in humans, the atomic bomb survivor data, are often cited to raise LDR cancer concerns. However, these data no longer support the linear no-threshold (LNT) model after the 2012 update but are consistent with radiation hormesis. Thus, a resolution of the controversy regarding the carcinogenicity of LDR appears to be imminent, with the rejection of the LNT model and acceptance of radiation hormesis. Hence, for setting radiation protection regulations, an alternative approach to the present one based on the LNT model is needed. One approach would be to determine the threshold dose for the carcinogenic effect of radiation from existing data and establish regulations to ensure radiation doses are kept well below the threshold dose. This can be done by setting dose guidelines specifying safe levels of radiation doses, with the requirement that these safe levels, referred to as guidance levels, not be exceeded significantly. Using this approach, a dose guidance level of 10 cGy for acute radiation exposures and 10 cGy y for exposures over extended periods of time are recommended. The concept of keeping doses as low as reasonably achievable, known as ALARA, would no longer be required for low-level radiation exposures not expected to exceed the dose guidance levels significantly. These regulations would facilitate studies using LDR for prevention and treatment of diseases. Results from such studies would be helpful in refining dose guidance levels. The dose guidance levels would be the same for the public and radiation workers to ensure everyone's safety.

Urgent Change Needed to Radiation Protection Policy

Although almost 120 y of medical experience and data exist on human exposure to ionizing radiation, advisory bodies and regulators claim there are still significant uncertainties about radiation health risks that require extreme precautions be taken. Decades of evidence led to recommendations in the 1920s for protecting radiologists by limiting their daily exposure. These were shown in later studies to decrease both their overall mortality and cancer mortality below those of unexposed groups. In the 1950s, without scientific evidence, the National Academy of Sciences Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation (BEAR) Committee and the NCRP recommended that the linear no-threshold (LNT) model be used to assess the risk of radiation-induced mutations in germ cells and the risk of cancer in somatic cells. This policy change was accepted by the regulators of every country without a thorough review of its basis. Because use of the LNT model has created extreme public fear of radiation, which impairs vital medical applications of low-dose radiation in diagnostics and therapy and blocks nuclear energy projects, it is time to change radiation protection policy back into line with the data.

Health Risks From Low Doses and Low Dose-Rates of Ionizing Radiation. Session 5: Future of Radiation Protection Regulations

The system of radiological protection is a prospective approach to protection of individuals in all exposure situations. It must be applied equitably across all age groups and all populations. This is a very different circumstance from dose assessment for a particular individual where the unique characteristics of the individual and the exposure can be taken into account. Notwithstanding the ongoing discussions on the possible shape of the dose response at low doses and dose rates, the prospective system of protection has therefore historically used a linear assumption as a pragmatic, prudent and protective approach. These radiation protection criteria are not intended to be a demarcation between "safe" and "unsafe" and are the product of a risk-informed judgement that includes inputs from science, ethics, and experience. There are significant implications for different dose response relationships. A linear model allows for equal treatment of an exposure, irrespective of the previously accumulated exposure. In contrast, other models would predict different implications. Great care is therefore needed in separating the thinking around risk assessment from risk management, and prospective protection for all age groups and genders from retrospective assessment for a particular individual. In the United States, the prospective regulatory structure functions effectively because of assumptions that facilitate independent treatment of different types of exposures, and which provide pragmatic and prudent protection. While the a linear assumption may, in fact, not be consistent with the biological reality, the implications of a different regulatory model must be considered carefully.

Federal Directions in Radiation Regulations: Making the "Old" New Again

The radiation regulatory scheme in the United States must periodically evolve and adapt to ensure that public health, workers, and the environment are properly protected in view of accepted societal values and the advance of science, technology, and medical practices. Federal regulators must use best judgment in weighing a multitude of factors and considerations. In the early 21st century, a few dependable but tired and antiquated "workhorses" of regulation have been reworked already--but many more remain that likely need reworking. Three primary points of discussion on current directional influences on federal radiation regulation merit examination: • In 2015, what are the stressors driving societal and policy changes and how might these dynamics be forcing reexamination of old regulations? • What are the things that make a "good" regulation and an effective rule? • What are the thorny issues that the federal government is wrestling with and what are some of the notable activities in federal radiation regulations and guidance that are underway? This journal article was presented at the 2015 Annual Meeting of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements and served as a broad overview of federal regulatory actions and issues.

History and Organizations for Radiological Protection

International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), an independent international organization established in 1925, develops, maintains, and elaborates radiological protection standards, legislation, and guidelines. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) provides scientific evidence. World Health Organization (WHO) and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) utilise the ICRP recommendations to implement radiation protection in practice. Finally, radiation protection agencies in each country adopt the policies, and adapt them to each situation. In Korea, Nuclear Safety and Security Commission is the governmental body for nuclear safety regulation and Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety is a public organization for technical support and R&D in nuclear safety and radiation protection.

Twelfth Annual Warren K. Sinclair Keynote Address--the Influence of the NCRP on Radiation Protection in the United States: Guidance and Regulation

The Warren K. Sinclair Keynote Address for the 2015 Annual Meeting of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) describes the Council's influence in the development of radiation protection guidance in the United States since its founding in 1929 as the U.S. Advisory Committee on X-Ray and Radium Protection. The National Bureau of Standards (NBS) was the coordinating agency for the Advisory Committee, and its reports were published as NBS handbooks. In 1946, the Advisory Committee was renamed the National Committee on Radiation Protection and remained so until NCRP was chartered by the U.S. Congress in 1964. In 1931, the U.S. Advisory Committee on X-Ray and Radium Protection proposed the first formal standard for protecting people from radiation sources as NBS Handbook 15 and issued the first handbook on radium protection, NBS Handbook 18. Revised recommendations for external exposure were issued in 1936 and for radium protection in 1938 and remained in force until 1948. Throughout its 86 y history, the Council and its predecessors have functioned as effective advisors to the nation on radiation protection issues and have provided the fundamental guidance and recommendations necessary for the regulatory basis of the control of radiation exposure, radiation-producing devices, and radioactive materials in the United States.

Regulation of X-Ray Security Scanners in Michigan

In January of 2013 the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) ordered the removal of x-ray security scanners from airports by June of 2013. Since that time several of these scanners have been purchased at a reduced cost by various state and county governments for use in screening individuals entering or leaving their facilities. To address this issue the Radiation Safety Section of the State of Michigan drafted a set of registration conditions for facilities to follow when using these security scanners. Inspection procedures and measurement protocols were developed to estimate the dose to screened individuals. Inspections were performed on nine of the 16 registered backscatter scanners in the state and the one transmission scanner. The average estimated effective dose to screened individuals was ∼11 nSv for a two view scan from a backscatter system. The effective dose was 0.446 μSv, 0.330 μSv, and 0.150 μSv for a transmission system operated in the high, medium, and low dose modes, respectively. The limit suggested in the new registration condition is 0.25 μSv for a general use system and 10 μSv for a limited use system.

Revision of Suggested State Regulations

It is the mission of the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (CRCPD) to promote radiological health in all aspects and phases of implementation and to create a seamless and coherent regulatory structure across the United States. CRCPD currently has 25 committees charged with the development of Suggested State Regulations (SSRs) for everything from transportation and waste disposal to tanning and medical therapy. The SR-F Committee is responsible for the suggested regulations of the equipment and processes used in medical diagnostic and interventional x-ray procedures. Several states are required by law to adopt the SSR verbatim, making it vital that they are kept current. The current revision of SR-F brought together representatives from the state radiation control programs, the Food and Drug Administration, the American Association of Physicists in Medicine, American College of Radiology, and industry. Through the course of two meetings and multiple conference calls, the Committee finalized an updated draft. The CRCPD process for the development of SSR is well established and includes internal and external peer review, review by the state Director Members, approval by the Board of Directors, and concurrence from relevant federal agencies. Once final, an SSR allows a state radiation control program to proceed through the state's own regulatory process with a vetted set of regulations, making this difficult process more efficient and effective.

["Epistemic Negotiations" and the Pluralism of the Radiation Protection Regime: The Determination of Radiation Protection Standards for the General Population in the Early Years After World War II]

Radiation protection standards for the general population have constituted one of the most controversial subjects in the history of atomic energy uses. This paper reexamines the process in which the first such standards evolved in the early postwar period. While the existing literature has emphasized a "collusion" between the standard-setters and users, the paper seeks to examine the horizontal relationship among the standard-setters. It first examines a series of expert consultations between the United States and the United Kingdom. Representing a different configuration of power and interest, the two failed to agree on the assessment of genetic damage and cancer induction whose occurrence might have no threshold and therefore be dependent on the population size. This stalemate prevented the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), established in 1950, from formulating separate guidelines for the general public. Situations radically changed when the Bikini incident in 1954 led to the creation of more scientific panels. One such panel under the U.S. Academy of Sciences enabled the geneticists to bridge their internal divide, unanimously naming 100 mSv as the genetically permissible dose for the general population. Not to be outdone, ICRP publicized its own guidelines for the same purpose. The case examined in this paper shows that the standard-setting process is best understood as a series of "epistemic negotiations" among and within the standard-setters, whose agendas were determined from the outset but whose outcomes were not.

Radiation safety during remediation of the SevRAO facilities: 10 years of regulatory experience

In compliance with the fundamentals of the government's policy in the field of nuclear and radiation safety approved by the President of the Russian Federation, Russia has developed a national program for decommissioning of its nuclear legacy. Under this program, the State Atomic Energy Corporation 'Rosatom' is carrying out remediation of a Site for Temporary Storage of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and radioactive waste (RW) at Andreeva Bay located in Northwest Russia. The short term plan includes implementation of the most critical stage of remediation, which involves the recovery of SNF from what have historically been poorly maintained storage facilities. SNF and RW are stored in non-standard conditions in tanks designed in some cases for other purposes. It is planned to transport recovered SNF to PA 'Mayak' in the southern Urals. This article analyses the current state of the radiation safety supervision of workers and the public in terms of the regulatory preparedness to implement effective supervision of radiation safety during radiation-hazardous operations. It presents the results of long-term radiation monitoring, which serve as informative indicators of the effectiveness of the site remediation and describes the evolving radiation situation. The state of radiation protection and health care service support for emergency preparedness is characterized by the need to further study the issues of the regulator-operator interactions to prevent and mitigate consequences of a radiological accident at the facility. Having in mind the continuing intensification of practical management activities related to SNF and RW in the whole of northwest Russia, it is reasonable to coordinate the activities of the supervision bodies within a strategic master plan. Arrangements for this master plan are discussed, including a proposed programme of actions to enhance the regulatory supervision in order to support accelerated mitigation of threats related to the nuclear legacy in the area.

Evaluating the Radiation From Accidental Exposure During a Nondestructive Testing Event

Industrial radiography is a common nondestructive testing (NDT) method used in various industries. An investigation was conducted for a 1999 incident in Taiwan where two workers (Operators A and B) were accidently exposed to an unshielded Ir source while conducting industrial radiography. Operators A and B experienced acute close-range radiation exposure to a source of Ir for 3 h at a strength of 2.33 × 10 Bq. The health of mammary glands, bone marrow, thyroid glands, eyes, and genital organs of these two workers after radiation exposure was examined. Subsequently, Operator A experienced severe radiation injury, including tissue necrosis and keratinization in the fingers, chromosomal abnormalities, reduced blood cell count, diffuse hyperplasia of the thyroid gland, opaque spots in the crystalline lens, and related radiation effects. The results showed that the left index finger and thumb, eyes, and gonads of Operator A were exposed to a radiation dose of about 369-1,070, 23.1-67.4, 2.4-5.3, and 4.2-11.6 Gy, respectively. Effective dose for Operator A was estimated to range from 6.9 to 18.9 Sv. The left fingers, thumb, eyes, and gonads of Operator B were exposed to a radiation dose of 184.9-646.2, 11.8-40.7, 0.49-3.33, and 0.72-7.18 Gy, respectively, and his effective dose was between 2.5 and 11.5 Sv. This accident indicated a major flaw in the control and regulation of radiation safety for conducting NDT industrial radiography in 1999; however, similar problems still exist. Modifications of the Ionizing Radiation Protection Act in Taiwan are suggested in this study to regulate the management of NDT industries, continually educate the NDT workers in radiation safety, and enact notification provisions for medical care systems toward acute radiation exposure events.

European activities in radiation protection in medicine

The recently published Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom ('new European Basic Safety Standards', EU BSS) modernises and consolidates the European radiation protection legislation by taking into account the latest scientific knowledge, technological progress and experience with implementing the current legislation and by merging five existing Directives into a single piece of legislation. The new European BSS repeal previous European legislation on which the national systems for radiation protection in medicine of the 28 European Union (EU) Member States are based, including the 96/29/Euratom 'BSS' and the 97/43/Euratom 'Medical Exposure' Directives. While most of the elements of the previous legislation have been kept, there are several legal changes that will have important influence over the regulation and practice in the field all over Europe-these include, among others: (i) strengthening the implementation of the justification principle and expanding it to medically exposed asymptomatic individuals, (ii) more attention to interventional radiology, (iii) new requirements for dose recording and reporting, (iv) increased role of the medical physics expert in imaging, (v) new set of requirements for preventing and following up on accidents and (vi) new set of requirements for procedures where radiological equipment is used on people for non-medical purposes (non-medical imaging exposure). The EU Member States have to enforce the new EU BSS before January 2018 and bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with it. The European Commission has certain legal obligations and powers to verify the compliance of the national measures with the EU laws and, wherever necessary, issue recommendations to, or open infringement cases against, national governments. In order to ensure timely and coordinated implementation of the new European legal requirements for radiation protection, the Commission is launching several actions including promotion and dissemination activities, exchange and discussion fora and provision of guidance. These actions will be based on previous experiences and will rely on the results of recent and ongoing EU-funded projects. Important stakeholders including the Euratom Article 31 Group, the association of the Heads of European Radiological protection Competent Authorities (HERCA) and different European professional and specialty organisations will be involved.

Comparison of state dental radiography safety regulations

The aim of this study was to compare and provide an overview of state policies on occupational exposure, dosimetry, collimation, patient protection, and the use of portable handheld X-ray machines in dentistry. State government webpages containing radiation protection rules and regulations were scanned. The contents were compared against current federal regulations established by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). They were further evaluated in light of current recommendations from the National Council on Radiation Protection & Measurements (NCRP) and the American Dental Association (ADA). Most states' regulations mirror the exposure limits set forth by the NRC and FDA. Nonregulatory recommendations regarding use of dental radiography are periodically put forth by the NCRP and the ADA. State and federal agencies often follow recommendations from these scientific organizations when creating regulations. Clinicians must be aware of their state's radiation protection rules, as variations among states exist. In addition, recommendations published by organizations such as the NCRP and the ADA, while not legally binding, contribute significantly to the reduction of radiation risks for operators and patients alike.

International Commission on Radiological Protection Committee 1: current status and future directions

Commission 1 of the International Commission on Radiological Protection considers the risk of induction of cancer and heritable disease (stochastic effects) together with the underlying mechanisms of radiation action. Committee 1 also considers the risks, severity, and mechanisms of induction of tissue/organ damage and developmental defects (deterministic effects). The Committee was significantly revamped in 2013 and last met in Abu Dhabi in October 2013. Committee 1 evaluated progress on two ongoing task groups: Task Group 64 'Cancer Risk from Alpha Emitters' and Task Group 75 'Stem Cell Radiobiology'. Following approval from the Main Commission, Committee 1 established two new task groups: Task Group 91 'Radiation Risk Inference at Low Dose and Low Dose Rate Exposure for Radiological Protection Purposes' and Task Group 92 'Terminology and Definitions'. This article presents a synopsis of the current status of Committee 1 and outlines the tasks that Committee 1 may undertake in the future.

Regulating the path from legacy recognition, through recovery to release from regulatory control

Past development of processes and technologies using radioactive material led to construction of many facilities worldwide. Some of these facilities were built and operated before the regulatory infrastructure was in place to ensure adequate control of radioactive material during operation and decommissioning. In other cases, controls were in place but did not meet modern standards, leading to what is now considered to have been inadequate control. Accidents and other events have occurred resulting in loss of control of radioactive material and unplanned releases to the environment. The legacy from these circumstances is that many countries have areas or facilities at which abnormal radiation conditions exist at levels that give rise to concerns about environmental and human health of potential interest to regulatory authorities. Regulation of these legacy situations is complex. This paper examines the regulatory challenges associated with such legacy management and brings forward suggestions for finding the path from: legacy recognition; implementation, as necessary, of urgent mitigation measures; development of a longer-term management strategy, through to release from regulatory control.

Modernisation and consolidation of the European radiation protection legislation: the new Euratom Basic Safety Standards Directive

With the publication of new basic safety standards for the protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation, foreseen in Article 2 and Article 30 of the Euratom Treaty, the European Commission modernises and consolidates the European radiation protection legislation. A revision of the Basic Safety Standards was needed in order (1) to take account of the scientific and technological progress since 1996 and (2) to consolidate the existing set of Euratom radiation protection legislation, merging five Directives and upgrading a recommendation to become legally binding. The new Directive offers in a single coherent document basics safety standards for radiation protection, which take account of the most recent advances in science and technology, cover all relevant radiation sources, including natural radiation sources, integrate protection of workers, members of the public, patients and the environment, cover all exposure situations, planned, existing, emergency, and harmonise numerical values with international standards. After the publication of the Directive in the beginning of 2014, Member States have 4 y to transpose the Directive into national legislation and to implement the requirements therein.

Implementation of the new international standards in Swiss legislation on radon protection in dwellings

The current revision of the Swiss Radiological Protection Ordinance aims to bring Swiss legislation in line with new international standards. In future, the control of radon exposure in dwellings will be based on a reference level of 300 Bq m(-3). Since this value is exceeded in >10 % of the buildings so far investigated nationwide, the new strategy requires the development of efficient measures to reduce radon-related health risks at an acceptable cost. The minimisation of radon concentrations in new buildings is therefore of great importance. This can be achieved, for example, through the enforcement of building regulations and the education of construction professionals. With regard to radon mitigation in existing buildings, synergies with the ongoing renewal of the building stock should be exploited. In addition, the dissemination of knowledge about radon and its risks needs to be focused on specific target groups, e.g. notaries, who play an important information role in real estate transactions.

Radionuclides in drinking water: the recent legislative requirements of the European Union

In November 2013, a new EURATOM Directive was issued on the protection of public health from the radionuclide content in drinking water. After introducing the contents of the Directive, the paper analyses the hypotheses about drinking water ingestion adopted in documents of international and national organizations and the data obtained from national/regional surveys. Starting from the Directive's parametric value for the Indicative Dose, some examples of derived activity concentrations of radionuclides in drinking water are reported for some age classes and three exposure situations, namely, (i) artificial radionuclides due to routine water release from nuclear power facilities, (ii) artificial radionuclides from nuclear medicine procedures, and (iii) naturally occurring radionuclides in drinking water or resulting from existing or past NORM industrial activities.

U.S. radiation protection: role of national and international recommendations and opportunities for collaboration (harmony, not dissonance)

For much of the 20th century, U.S. radiation protection policies were similar to those elsewhere in the world, in large part because the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) were closely aligned. In the 1970s, several U.S. regulations were released at about the same time as the 1977 recommendations from ICRP. The regulatory development process in the United States can be lengthy with ample opportunities for public involvement. While such deliberation is essential and beneficial, the rulemaking process does not lend itself to making frequent technical updates to rules. For this reason, many of the current radiation protection regulations in the United States are out of step with current recommendations of the ICRP and NCRP. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are considering updates to important radiation protection regulations. These regulatory development actions could present the United States with an opportunity for incorporating the latest science into the U.S. system of radiation protection and provide for consideration of the latest recommendations of ICRP and NCRP. In particular, a revision of the recommendations in NCRP Report No. 116 (Limitation of Exposure to Ionizing Radiation) could provide U.S. agencies with useful advice to be considered in these rulemakings.