Experience of the European ALARA Network

1
Experience of the European ALARA Network

• C.Lefaure - EAN chairman

2
Early development of ALARA from 1973 to 1992

• 1973-1982 A theoretical approach ICRP 22,
  26, 37
• 1982-1987 A structured empirical approach the
  ALARA procedure
• 1987-1992 Development of more pragmatic
  approaches and tools ALARA Programmes, mainly
  in NPPs
• - ICRP 60
• - The book ALARA from theory towards
• practice 1991
• 1992-1995 Need to disseminate the ALARA
  concept, culture and tools outside the nuclear
  sector

3
11 Years Old

• 1996 EAN Founded and sponsored by EC (DG
  Research / DG Environment)
• Self-sustainable since 2005
• 2007 9 ? 21 countries are represented by at
  least one institution in SG.
• (13 in the Administrative Board)
• both nuclear and non nuclear.
• Coordination
• CEPN (France) - HPA (UK)

4
EAN Objectives

• To maintain and develop competences in radiation
  protection, with special emphasis on ALARA for
  all types of exposures in routine operations and
  emergency situations
• To contribute to harmonisation of radiation
  protection policies and practices, particularly
  concerning ALARA, at regulatory and operational
  levels
• To cover all types of practices within the
  different sectors
• To cover radiation protection themes relevant to
  all sectors, as well as themes specific to one or
  more sector(s).

5
EAN Activities 1996-2006 (1)

• 10 Workshops (700 participants)
• (decommissioning, internal exposures, risks
  management, industrial radioagraphy, medical
  sector and radiopharmaceuticals, site
  rehabilitation, inspection control), NORM
  industry,

6
EAN Activities 1996-2006 (2)

• The annual Workshops
• Topics where improvements are possible
• Few tens of participants
• Conclusions and recommendations in
• newsletters
• Web site
• National journals
• 10 Workshops
• ? 100 topical recommendations to
• EU, ICRP, IAEA, National Authorities,
• Operators, Workers trainers, etc.

7
EAN Activities 1996-2006 (3)

• 21 ALARA Newsletters (2 issues/year)
• ? 1,000s addressees
• 1 Website its Forum
• / http//www.eu-alara.net
• ? 10,000s/y downloads
• Several sub-networks or brother network
• RR NDT NORM EMAN

8
Site Web EAN - www.eu-alara.net
9
EAN Activities 1996-2006 (4)

• EAN a vehicle to support European surveys
• European regulation (BSS) implementation (2000)
  (2006)
• Exchange on incidents (2000-2002) (W2)
• Outside workers Directive (2004-2005)
• In areas where in depth developments are needed
  EAN to favour working groups and sub networks
• Research reactors (EASN since 2002) (W1 to 3)
• NDT with EFNDT (WG 2003) (W5)
• Regulatory bodies ( ERPAN since 2005) (W8)
• working group on ALARA training (2006)

10
A DECADE OF EUROPEAN ALARA NETWORK

• First period (1996-2000), experts from
  regulatory bodies, research centres, major
  nuclear utilities and EC
• Second period (2001-2007) other types of
  participants
• ??representatives of professional bodies such as
  EFNDT, ECRRT, EFOMP, ESR
• ??representatives of manufacturers of devices
  using ionising radiations or of radiation
  monitoring devices
• ??representatives of international organisations
  other than EC
• ??representatives of radiological protection
  training centres,
• ??a few representatives of trade unions or of
  NORM industries

11
A DECADE OF EUROPEAN ALARA NETWORK

• A network of individuals with expertise and
  enthusiasm from contacts in training courses.
• Core on which to build a more structured network
• More on individual interactions than
  organisational ones
• But organisations provided time and effort of
  their staff
• and EC provided funding.

12
Impacts examples (1)

• A research project on optimisation of
  radiological protection of internal exposure (W1
  3)
• A european survey for the setting up of a new
  European system dealing with radiological
  incidents follow up (W2)
• Following a W9 recommendation . ICRP RP06
  paragraph 133 is directly related to the results
  of the research project ( dose coefficients and
  low radon emanation).
• All sub networks have been set up (or will be)
  after W recommendations.

13
Impacts examples (2)

• One of the most interesting impact has been the
  setting up by the Norwegian regulatory body of a
  long term national plan for improving
  radiological protection in implementing the
  recommendations from the previous EAN workshops.
• Many countries have set up working groups
  between regulatory bodies and other stakeholders
  after W5 and W6 workshops
• After W5, EDF, the French nuclear utility has
  promoted the development of an alarm device
  called sentinelle for advising worker when the
  source is not back in the container.

14
Lessons learned from EAN a success story

• EAN has been and is still successful, and growing
  
• number of countries participating, (last Romania
  in 2007)
• number of topics addressed, (EMAN in 2008)
• number of recommendations implemented,
• new international European projects
• modifications of national regulations and/or
  regulatory procedures,
• - organisation of specific working groups between
  regulatory bodies and other stakeholders,
• - development of specific monitoring devices,
• What are the reasons of that success?

15
a dialogue structure between stakeholders (1)
EAN is a forum for discussions between
stakeholders who otherwise would have little or
no opportunity to interact. Example the Rome
workshop on Industrial Radiography. Which
brought together experts in radiological
protection from international organisations,
national regulatory bodies and research centres,
representatives of non-destructive testing
companies and of their clients, representatives
of monitoring device manufacturers, training
companies and trade unions.
16
a dialogue structure between stakeholders (2)
EAN is an arena where no binding decision has to
be taken and where participants do not represent
officially the interest of the institutions and
countries they belong to (no institutional
stake is directly at work), Each stakeholder
can listen to the free speeches of the others.
As they all agree that the main objective is to
reduce radiological risks for human beings, they
try to reach consensual recommendations and
generally succeed in doing so
17
Lessons learned from EAN

• Personal links and Communication
• Opportunities for communication between
  individuals, not institutions
• Many bypasses,
• Enthusiasm
• A real keyword
• To put forward for discussion the real problems
• To try to find together solutions
• Through actions favouring a bottom-up approach

18
Lessons learned from EAN

• Flexibility
• Much more than any other type of organisation
  between institutions
• No permission has to be requested
• No formal rules have to be followed.
• Initiatives are easily taken
• Collective efficiency
• Differences lead to solutions more generic
• Solutions with more chance of sustainability

19
Lessons learned from EAN

• Favouring Team work
• A very efficient way of producing recommendations
• that are discussed in plenary sessions is the
  work in
• small groups
• Making use of the existing network
• An efficient network is a good support for
  European
• Surveys, studies and seminars (outside workers)
• Much more easy to be done when relying on ad hoc
• Partners, participating to the same network.

20
- 11th Workshop

• ALARA in Waste Management
• Focus on the implementation of the ALARA
  principle with regard to occupational and public
  exposures arising from the management of
  radioactive waste.
• This includes waste from the nuclear, medical,
  NORM, industrial, education and research sectors.

21
Evolution of EAN organisation

• When self-sustainable,
• a co-operation charter (in June 2005)
• describing objectives, activities, organisation,
  financing
• 13 countries financially support its
  coordination while others support specific EAN
  actions such as workshops.
• A legal entity, not for profit organisation
  under the French law, has been set up in July
  2005.
• Members of Steering group selected by the
  stakeholders in each country.

22
Challenges for EAN, EAN NORM and other Networks

• To involve more and more stakeholders
  (authorities, operators, workers, NGO, Trade
  Unions,...) dealing with radiological protection
  (prevention, precaution, vigilance)
• To become increasingly places where divergences
  between stakeholders can be discussed and
  compromises can be worked out
• To become active and recognised interlocutors
  in risk management decision processes by sharing
  experiences, promoting good practices,
  influencing international rules and regulations.
• To help in launching other networks in other
  world regions... and collaborate with them
  afterwards.