| Society for Radiological Protection
Journal of Radiological Protection
J. Radiol. Prot. 34 (2014) 275–278
doi:10.1088/0952-4746/34/1/M02
Meeting report SRP 50th Anniversary Conference Harrogate, UK, 21–23 May 2013 The text below is compiled from separate reports written by the three authors listed at the end. As a member of the rising generations group (RGG) and employee of Public Health England (PHE) my first opportunity to attend an SRP annual meeting was the 50th anniversary conference in May 2013. Being a member of RGG gave me the opportunity to present at the conference in the session put aside for newer members. I was impressed at the interest shown by all members of SRP in this session, especially as other sessions were running in parallel. My impression of the meeting was that there was a strong emphasis on inclusion of all members and the development of newer members. It appeared that as a consequence of looking back on the last 50 years SRP was motivated to look to the next 50 years and how the society would maintain itself. Refresher sessions before the start of the first session and a schools event were open to those attending the meeting. I would like to thank Elisabeth Reeves for her comments on the first session, which are reproduced below. Following the President’s Welcome and Introduction presentation there were four presentations given as part of session 1. The John Dunster Lecture started session 1. Here Roger Cox was invited to discuss the notable developments in scientific support to the central estimates of low dose radiation risk (1990 to 2010). Geoff Webb’s presentation on the Society from 1963 to 2013 gave a comprehensive overview of why and how SRP evolved over the past 50 years. John Faith presented a very interesting oversight of the life and works of Frederick Soddy, the founder of ‘the isotope’ and how Glasgow University managed his legacy radioactive items that are also of scientific interest. John Croft completed session 1 with a personal account of accidents he had known and been involved in, providing a good overview of how accidents and their management have helped to develop arrangements we currently have in place today. Following on from session 1 the audience were able to put their own questions to the presenters. Discussion topics included the subjects of whether any dose estimates had been undertaken 0952-4746/14/010275+04$33.00
© 2014 IOP Publishing Ltd
to determine what doses Frederick Soddy and his associates may have received during his experimental work or whether they had developed any ill effects that could have been associated to their work with radiation. The presenter was unsure if any such data existed or had been investigated specific to dose rates and it was decided that this would be a good project for a student to undertake. However, John Faith had investigated what age Fredrick Soddy and some of his known associates had lived to; they had mostly lived relatively long lives into their 70s and 80s. Comparisons were then made by the audience to other prominent scientists such as Madame Curie, Wilhelm Röntgen and Rosalind Franklin. The second day consisted of parallel sessions. Session 2.1 was chaired by John Croft and session 2.2 by Chris Englefield. Unfortunately I am unable to provide a report on all of the presenters. Session 2.1 started with the Young Persons Award (YPA) presentations. These were short presentations, around 8 minutes, which were given by people new to radiation protection, with the winner of the award being given the opportunity to give their presentation at the next IRPA meeting. Elizabeth Chaloner started off proceedings with ‘Patient size: implications for staff radiation dose’. She was followed by Eva Dougeni with ‘Neonatal radiography: Incubator x-ray imaging tray and the impact on radiation dose’. Amanda Fender spoke on ‘Effectiveness of lead-free aprons in interventional radiology’ with Nicola MacDonald presenting on ‘Reduction in rejected x-ray rates at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh’. Stuart Wilson concluded this YPA grouping with ‘Shielding design for the Extreme Light Infrastructure Facility. The session then moved onto standard presentations, led by Colyn Nichols of Panasonic speaking on ‘The myths and legends surrounding passive dosimetry systems to this day’, followed by David Kirkland speaking on ‘Dose, alpha irradiation and lung cancer risk’. Tony Riddell spoke on ‘The past, present and future of the assessment of plutonium exposure risks’, discussing the available measurement techniques for assessment of internal exposures and the selection of test subjects in the past. Collette Jeffrey finished the session by speaking on ‘What makes radiation detection and monitoring equipment usable’.
Printed in the UK
275
276
Session 2.2 stared with Mike Wood discussing ‘Environmental radiation protection: what, how and why?’ He spoke on the need to take an approach that would satisfy public concerns and concluded with improvements in monitoring. Pete Burgess then gave a spirited presentation on ‘Environmental gamma dose rate (mis?)measurement’ which was followed by John Hunt’s ‘The spectre of radionuclides in the Irish Sea discharged from Sellafield over 50+ years: past, present and future’. John Lambley discussed the issues surrounding the ‘Ongoing management of NORM in the oil and gas industries’. Further YPA lectures followed, starting with ‘The opening of a new waste route for the Magnox fleet’ by Steph Bloomer and then ‘Decontamination of personnel: A fit for purpose training programme’ presented by Emma Chapman. Heather Hale spoke on ‘Nuclear new build—Radiation protection challenges’ with Chris Jones presenting on ‘Challenges of implementing a new waste regime in an actinide processing facility’. Jamie Townes concluded the YPA presentations with ‘Radiation protection and risk communication at the international level’. The afternoon was split into three sessions with Richard Wilkins, Stan Batchelor and Jennifer Humphries chairing. Session 3.1 was started off by Duncan Jackson presented on ‘Clearance and radiological sentencing: Principles, processes and practices for use by the nuclear industry’ and Shelly Mobbs spoke on ‘How clean is clean: Dismantling the past and visions of the future. Alan Fisher followed with ‘Risk management of contamination and crosscontamination in a nuclear facility’. Phil Fahey then brought ‘Decommissioning in the non-nuclear sector’ to the session. Following tea, Mike Jones and Michelle Skelland reported on ‘Removal of the primary heat exchangers from the Dragon reactor, Winfrith’ and Pete Burgess closed the session with ‘Planning the decommissioning of ductwork in a radiochemistry facility’. Session 3.2 had a medical theme and this started with ‘Computing patient specific radiation risks in CT’ by Walter Huda and ‘The impact of the proposed dose limit for the lens of the eye on the nuclear and medical sectors’ by Hani El-Sabbahy. ‘Patient size: Implications for staff radiation dose’ was discussed by Elizabeth Chaloner with ‘Radiation shielding design: PET/CT department 150 gas lines pneumatic transport systems and hot lab shielding’ presented by David Gallacher. Peter Cole presented ‘Radiation protection in veterinary practice’ and Sarah Allen closed the session with ‘Targeted radionuclide therapy—What benefits the patient?’. I would like to extend my thanks to Heather Hale for her notes on the RGG session and the first
Meeting report
part of session 4, which are presented below. Session 3.3 featured presentations from the SRP Rising Generation Group Competition. The first presentation was given by Dan Clifton-Climas of Nuvia, and was entitled ‘When I heard the words ‘contamination and ‘instrument’ this is not what I had in mind’. In this presentation, Dan gave us an enthusiastic overview of his work in response through Project Cyclamen to an airport call-out from the UK board force following the return of some musical instruments to the UK from Japan, after the incident at Fukushima Daiichi in March 2011. The second presentation was given by Sarah Clifton-Climas of PHE and was entitled ‘First source loading of a new irradiator facility’. Sarah presented her work in undertaking a critical examination to support a client who was installing a new source in an irradiator. The discussion after the presentation asked what type of instruments were used, and the use of scintillation probes versus ion chambers or PM tubes followed. Clarification was given about how shine paths were looked for and how they were detected. An audience member asked what type of emergency plans the irradiator has and what testing is done for contingency arrangements; the response given was that tabletop exercises are undertaken. The third presentation was given by Nicky Kay of AWE and was entitled ‘Heath physics support to emergency response exercises’. Nicky gave a presentation describing the work undertaken to support the development of emergency exercise scenarios for exercises on and off site (including for the police). She described a staged approach to the development, assessing the exercise impacts and injections. Nicky described the investigation into future developments including virtual reality and the use of live scenarios with short-lived radioisotopes as demonstrated in the US. During the discussion, Nicky was asked whether any live scenarios had been used in the UK and how they were justified. The answer was no and the discussion led to the fact that users must consider how likely it is that the participants are to really encounter radiation and that there is an obvious advantage if the first time participants see real radiation is in an exercise and not a real situation. A question was asked about how the US control the contamination and an audience member said that they use isotopes with a half-life of two hours. Another audience member commented that as the nuclear industry gets ‘cleaner’ there could be more justification for ensuring that more life-situation based experience was gained during training. Another audience member stated that the training department of their organisation had justified the use of real isotopes.
Meeting report
A further question was asked as to whether the exercises involved other emergency services, whether they dealt with the possibility of conflicting advice either through inputs or work with them. Nicky said it was considered through table-top exercises. An audience member commented that a very good injection into scenarios was to give the participants defective equipment and see how they coped. The fourth presentation was given by Tom Clarke of Magnox and was entitled ‘Decommissioning of magnox fuel cooling ponds—An RP perspective’. Tom’s presentation described the work he has been doing with project teams on the decommissioning of the Magnox ponds (using the Gruffalo and the mouse!). He described the main challenges of irradiated ponds furniture, beta doses and the new eye dose limit. He outlined the RP approach to helping the project management to discover ‘What’s in it for them’ and then showing how RP delivery can improve confidence and hence delivery. He talked about the RP in the field and reminded us that ‘You get what you inspect rather than what you expect’. Tom outlined that one of the keys to the successful delivery of his project was that Magnox moved people around the sites and around roles, to ensure good proliferation of skills and experience and ability to learn from experiences. He said that the RP engineer’s working group had been a big advantage. In his project, RP has now got the backing of their ‘Gruffalo’ and asked ‘How do you engage your Guffalo? (Remember money, money, cash!)” Tom was asked what the project had done to ensure that the RP staff didn’t ‘go native’ in terms of working so closely with the project teams as to compromise standards. Tom said that people who are professionals and treated as professionals don’t compromise, and they build and keep good relationships. The fifth presentation was given by Emma Chapman of Babcock and entitled ‘The influence of radiation protection on good design’. Emma’s presentation was about ensuring that Assurance and Regulatory compliance was part of the whole life of a project including design. She gave an example of how that was assured during a lab refurbishment project, incorporating elements like low background requirements for measurement equipment. Emma was asked how the project made the ALARP decisions, in terms of the options and choices. She said that it was through optioneering each part, iteratively and then at the end of the studies. The sixth presentation was given by Sarah Hunak of AMEC and was entitled ‘A little of what you fancy does you good’—A radioadaptive response’. Sarah took us through the history of dose accrual and the suggestion of a benefit
277
of low levels of dose, for example to British radiologists and to American shipyard workers. The radioadaptive approach was described, which is the suggestion that there is a reduced damaging effect of a challenging dose when it follows a previous lower ‘priming’ dose. The third day of the conference started with Session 4, which opened with the ‘Incoming President’s address’, given by Peter Marsden of UCL Hospitals NHS Trust. Peter introduced who the SRP council are and their strategic plan for the future. He explained the path of CRadP and the importance of continuing professional development (CPD). There then followed a presentation by Jack Valentin of the ICRP entitled ‘ICRP and the two sets of Basic Safety Standards—Incoherence or co-evolution?’. Jack presented the ICRP timeline and the information about the progress of safety standards, regulations and directives. He looked at the differences between the BSS and the ICRP etc, and what the future plan is to approach these. The second presentation of the session was entitled ‘Revision of the European BSS and other radiation directives’ and was given by Gareth Thomas of HSE. Gareth discussed the background to the IRRs, the work ongoing on BSS and European safety standards that are under negotiation and those which may be coming (new), including orphan sources and non-medical imaging. He also discussed the ongoing work around the definition of the ‘outside worker’. Gareth showed how changes could be implemented into regulation in the UK within four years, so changes would be in by 2017. The third presentation was entitled ‘Fukushima – Lessons learnt in the UK – Radiological protection and emergency preparedness’ and was given by Charles Temple of ONR. Charles talked about the UK’s response to the events in 2011 in Japan, including the Weightman report and recommendations. He gave an overview of the response by site licenses and the regulator, including the potential for further future changes (e.g. ERLs being reviewed). The fourth presentation, ‘Radioactive waste & decommissioning—Practice makes perfect’? was given by Cathy Griffiths OBE of the SRP. Cathy presented the history of the decommissioning activities in the UK, including hospital incinerators, sea dumping, tumble tipping and spent fuel ponds. She described the road to improvement and what drives the improvements, including reference to the Radioactive Waste Advisor (RWA) role. Cathy talked about the progress towards a safety standard for decommissioning. The fifth presentation was entitled ‘IRPA— The international voice of the RP profession’ and was given by Roger Coates of IRPA. Roger gave an
278
IRPA update on numbers (up to 18 000 members, through 48 societies, covering 61 countries). He showed how the role of the IRPA fits in with the work of UNSCEAR, the ICRP and the IAEA. Roger discussed the importance of an RP culture and the current work of the ICRP to write some guidance for this for members. There then followed a Panel Discussion Session that posed five questions. The first question was: ‘Due to the BSS being merged from other BSS, should the UK also merge legislation’?. Gareth Thomas responded first to say that in the UK there are historical embedded reasons for the legislation and the benefits may not been worth the upheaval, but that it was worth considering. Peter Marsden said that IPEM currently has a lot of ‘qualifications’ which would be difficult to merge. Jack Valentin said that all European countries are different, and probably just as complex. Roger Coates said that the IRPA had in the past pushed for joined-up legislation, but it is more important to focus on constructive cooperation between regulators and identifying a ‘lead regulator’ in situations of multiple regulator involvement. Charles Temple said that cooperation is occurring, including through HERCA (Heads of European Radiological protection Competent Authorities) for example, on outside workers. The regulators are working to support the UK against unnecessary red-tape and excessive regulation. The second question was about improving the availability and visibility of contact information for members of the SRP to facilitate advice or support for schools programmes, information exchange, specialist groups and public interactions (information had been published in the past). Peter suggested use of the ‘My SRP’ area of the SRP website. Sheila and Alan stated that the SRP office has access to this information, and will support requests, but cannot publish it for data protection reasons. The third question was in reference to Charles Temple’s presentation and asked him to expand on what was implied by the ‘extendibility requirements of the off-site plans’. Charles said that they have limited regulator options for judging ‘acceptability’ and that the REPPIR review may make some changes to this, but that in the short term it will be difficult to implement although this may happen in the future. The duty holder is the local authorities and communication with them is the key. The fourth question was a suggestion that IRPA could be using its vast membership to support the assurance of Wikipedia. Roger said that it had not been considered yet and that following on from the previous day’s discussions it was something that they could consider, but that there are some contentious issues that would be difficult. The
Meeting report
IRPA publications director commented that IRPA are currently reviewing the website and looking at all social media opportunities and that there was scope for more, but IRPA are also working to ensure that communication between societies is improved and please could the audience look out for requests to help support this; the SRP (in his experience) have already done very well at this. The last (slightly rhetorical) question was posed by Peter Marsden to ask which social media would work the best and a discussion followed about the pros and cons of the various options. Unfortunately, but perhaps understandably, many people left before the final session started and I felt that this meant that the final four speakers were left with a very empty auditorium lacking atmosphere. After the lunch break, the sixth presentation ‘Nuclear new build—Radiation protection challenges’ was given by Heather Hale of EDF Energy. Heather gave an interesting presentation on the new build, with descriptions of the build time and working life, optimisation and safety culture/human factors and ALARP approach before setting out the future challenges. The seventh presentation ‘RPA support to radiation screening at the London Olympics’ was given by Dan Clifton-Climas of Nuvia. Dan gave some insight into the approach taken by Nuvia to the role of RPA in radiation security screening at the Olympics. He explained the different phases of the project and how they fulfilled the RPA function. The eighth presentation was entitled ‘Radiation detection—What are we doing wrong and where must future equipment improve’?, and was given by Ian Napier of DSTL. The usability of instruments formed the basis of Ian’s presentation, especially in his own area of expertise. He made some very valid points about weight, size, display and controls of monitors. The ninth presentation, ‘Radiation protection at LHC: Past, present and future’, was given by Graham Stevenson of CERN. Graham concluded the day’s presentations with an introduction to the LHC and the radiation protection issues experienced. He also discussed the use of software tools to improve protection. To conclude, I thought that the quality of the RGG presentations was easily comparable to the quality of the more experienced presenters and feel that the RGG should be allowed continue to have input into further meetings. Sarah Clifton-Climas1 , Heather Hale2 and Elizabeth Reeves3 1 Public Health England, UK 2 EDF Energy, UK 3 RPA/RWA, UK
Copyright of Journal of Radiological Protection is the property of IOP Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Journal of Radiological Protection
J. Radiol. Prot. 34 (2014) 275–278
doi:10.1088/0952-4746/34/1/M02
Meeting report SRP 50th Anniversary Conference Harrogate, UK, 21–23 May 2013 The text below is compiled from separate reports written by the three authors listed at the end. As a member of the rising generations group (RGG) and employee of Public Health England (PHE) my first opportunity to attend an SRP annual meeting was the 50th anniversary conference in May 2013. Being a member of RGG gave me the opportunity to present at the conference in the session put aside for newer members. I was impressed at the interest shown by all members of SRP in this session, especially as other sessions were running in parallel. My impression of the meeting was that there was a strong emphasis on inclusion of all members and the development of newer members. It appeared that as a consequence of looking back on the last 50 years SRP was motivated to look to the next 50 years and how the society would maintain itself. Refresher sessions before the start of the first session and a schools event were open to those attending the meeting. I would like to thank Elisabeth Reeves for her comments on the first session, which are reproduced below. Following the President’s Welcome and Introduction presentation there were four presentations given as part of session 1. The John Dunster Lecture started session 1. Here Roger Cox was invited to discuss the notable developments in scientific support to the central estimates of low dose radiation risk (1990 to 2010). Geoff Webb’s presentation on the Society from 1963 to 2013 gave a comprehensive overview of why and how SRP evolved over the past 50 years. John Faith presented a very interesting oversight of the life and works of Frederick Soddy, the founder of ‘the isotope’ and how Glasgow University managed his legacy radioactive items that are also of scientific interest. John Croft completed session 1 with a personal account of accidents he had known and been involved in, providing a good overview of how accidents and their management have helped to develop arrangements we currently have in place today. Following on from session 1 the audience were able to put their own questions to the presenters. Discussion topics included the subjects of whether any dose estimates had been undertaken 0952-4746/14/010275+04$33.00
© 2014 IOP Publishing Ltd
to determine what doses Frederick Soddy and his associates may have received during his experimental work or whether they had developed any ill effects that could have been associated to their work with radiation. The presenter was unsure if any such data existed or had been investigated specific to dose rates and it was decided that this would be a good project for a student to undertake. However, John Faith had investigated what age Fredrick Soddy and some of his known associates had lived to; they had mostly lived relatively long lives into their 70s and 80s. Comparisons were then made by the audience to other prominent scientists such as Madame Curie, Wilhelm Röntgen and Rosalind Franklin. The second day consisted of parallel sessions. Session 2.1 was chaired by John Croft and session 2.2 by Chris Englefield. Unfortunately I am unable to provide a report on all of the presenters. Session 2.1 started with the Young Persons Award (YPA) presentations. These were short presentations, around 8 minutes, which were given by people new to radiation protection, with the winner of the award being given the opportunity to give their presentation at the next IRPA meeting. Elizabeth Chaloner started off proceedings with ‘Patient size: implications for staff radiation dose’. She was followed by Eva Dougeni with ‘Neonatal radiography: Incubator x-ray imaging tray and the impact on radiation dose’. Amanda Fender spoke on ‘Effectiveness of lead-free aprons in interventional radiology’ with Nicola MacDonald presenting on ‘Reduction in rejected x-ray rates at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh’. Stuart Wilson concluded this YPA grouping with ‘Shielding design for the Extreme Light Infrastructure Facility. The session then moved onto standard presentations, led by Colyn Nichols of Panasonic speaking on ‘The myths and legends surrounding passive dosimetry systems to this day’, followed by David Kirkland speaking on ‘Dose, alpha irradiation and lung cancer risk’. Tony Riddell spoke on ‘The past, present and future of the assessment of plutonium exposure risks’, discussing the available measurement techniques for assessment of internal exposures and the selection of test subjects in the past. Collette Jeffrey finished the session by speaking on ‘What makes radiation detection and monitoring equipment usable’.
Printed in the UK
275
276
Session 2.2 stared with Mike Wood discussing ‘Environmental radiation protection: what, how and why?’ He spoke on the need to take an approach that would satisfy public concerns and concluded with improvements in monitoring. Pete Burgess then gave a spirited presentation on ‘Environmental gamma dose rate (mis?)measurement’ which was followed by John Hunt’s ‘The spectre of radionuclides in the Irish Sea discharged from Sellafield over 50+ years: past, present and future’. John Lambley discussed the issues surrounding the ‘Ongoing management of NORM in the oil and gas industries’. Further YPA lectures followed, starting with ‘The opening of a new waste route for the Magnox fleet’ by Steph Bloomer and then ‘Decontamination of personnel: A fit for purpose training programme’ presented by Emma Chapman. Heather Hale spoke on ‘Nuclear new build—Radiation protection challenges’ with Chris Jones presenting on ‘Challenges of implementing a new waste regime in an actinide processing facility’. Jamie Townes concluded the YPA presentations with ‘Radiation protection and risk communication at the international level’. The afternoon was split into three sessions with Richard Wilkins, Stan Batchelor and Jennifer Humphries chairing. Session 3.1 was started off by Duncan Jackson presented on ‘Clearance and radiological sentencing: Principles, processes and practices for use by the nuclear industry’ and Shelly Mobbs spoke on ‘How clean is clean: Dismantling the past and visions of the future. Alan Fisher followed with ‘Risk management of contamination and crosscontamination in a nuclear facility’. Phil Fahey then brought ‘Decommissioning in the non-nuclear sector’ to the session. Following tea, Mike Jones and Michelle Skelland reported on ‘Removal of the primary heat exchangers from the Dragon reactor, Winfrith’ and Pete Burgess closed the session with ‘Planning the decommissioning of ductwork in a radiochemistry facility’. Session 3.2 had a medical theme and this started with ‘Computing patient specific radiation risks in CT’ by Walter Huda and ‘The impact of the proposed dose limit for the lens of the eye on the nuclear and medical sectors’ by Hani El-Sabbahy. ‘Patient size: Implications for staff radiation dose’ was discussed by Elizabeth Chaloner with ‘Radiation shielding design: PET/CT department 150 gas lines pneumatic transport systems and hot lab shielding’ presented by David Gallacher. Peter Cole presented ‘Radiation protection in veterinary practice’ and Sarah Allen closed the session with ‘Targeted radionuclide therapy—What benefits the patient?’. I would like to extend my thanks to Heather Hale for her notes on the RGG session and the first
Meeting report
part of session 4, which are presented below. Session 3.3 featured presentations from the SRP Rising Generation Group Competition. The first presentation was given by Dan Clifton-Climas of Nuvia, and was entitled ‘When I heard the words ‘contamination and ‘instrument’ this is not what I had in mind’. In this presentation, Dan gave us an enthusiastic overview of his work in response through Project Cyclamen to an airport call-out from the UK board force following the return of some musical instruments to the UK from Japan, after the incident at Fukushima Daiichi in March 2011. The second presentation was given by Sarah Clifton-Climas of PHE and was entitled ‘First source loading of a new irradiator facility’. Sarah presented her work in undertaking a critical examination to support a client who was installing a new source in an irradiator. The discussion after the presentation asked what type of instruments were used, and the use of scintillation probes versus ion chambers or PM tubes followed. Clarification was given about how shine paths were looked for and how they were detected. An audience member asked what type of emergency plans the irradiator has and what testing is done for contingency arrangements; the response given was that tabletop exercises are undertaken. The third presentation was given by Nicky Kay of AWE and was entitled ‘Heath physics support to emergency response exercises’. Nicky gave a presentation describing the work undertaken to support the development of emergency exercise scenarios for exercises on and off site (including for the police). She described a staged approach to the development, assessing the exercise impacts and injections. Nicky described the investigation into future developments including virtual reality and the use of live scenarios with short-lived radioisotopes as demonstrated in the US. During the discussion, Nicky was asked whether any live scenarios had been used in the UK and how they were justified. The answer was no and the discussion led to the fact that users must consider how likely it is that the participants are to really encounter radiation and that there is an obvious advantage if the first time participants see real radiation is in an exercise and not a real situation. A question was asked about how the US control the contamination and an audience member said that they use isotopes with a half-life of two hours. Another audience member commented that as the nuclear industry gets ‘cleaner’ there could be more justification for ensuring that more life-situation based experience was gained during training. Another audience member stated that the training department of their organisation had justified the use of real isotopes.
Meeting report
A further question was asked as to whether the exercises involved other emergency services, whether they dealt with the possibility of conflicting advice either through inputs or work with them. Nicky said it was considered through table-top exercises. An audience member commented that a very good injection into scenarios was to give the participants defective equipment and see how they coped. The fourth presentation was given by Tom Clarke of Magnox and was entitled ‘Decommissioning of magnox fuel cooling ponds—An RP perspective’. Tom’s presentation described the work he has been doing with project teams on the decommissioning of the Magnox ponds (using the Gruffalo and the mouse!). He described the main challenges of irradiated ponds furniture, beta doses and the new eye dose limit. He outlined the RP approach to helping the project management to discover ‘What’s in it for them’ and then showing how RP delivery can improve confidence and hence delivery. He talked about the RP in the field and reminded us that ‘You get what you inspect rather than what you expect’. Tom outlined that one of the keys to the successful delivery of his project was that Magnox moved people around the sites and around roles, to ensure good proliferation of skills and experience and ability to learn from experiences. He said that the RP engineer’s working group had been a big advantage. In his project, RP has now got the backing of their ‘Gruffalo’ and asked ‘How do you engage your Guffalo? (Remember money, money, cash!)” Tom was asked what the project had done to ensure that the RP staff didn’t ‘go native’ in terms of working so closely with the project teams as to compromise standards. Tom said that people who are professionals and treated as professionals don’t compromise, and they build and keep good relationships. The fifth presentation was given by Emma Chapman of Babcock and entitled ‘The influence of radiation protection on good design’. Emma’s presentation was about ensuring that Assurance and Regulatory compliance was part of the whole life of a project including design. She gave an example of how that was assured during a lab refurbishment project, incorporating elements like low background requirements for measurement equipment. Emma was asked how the project made the ALARP decisions, in terms of the options and choices. She said that it was through optioneering each part, iteratively and then at the end of the studies. The sixth presentation was given by Sarah Hunak of AMEC and was entitled ‘A little of what you fancy does you good’—A radioadaptive response’. Sarah took us through the history of dose accrual and the suggestion of a benefit
277
of low levels of dose, for example to British radiologists and to American shipyard workers. The radioadaptive approach was described, which is the suggestion that there is a reduced damaging effect of a challenging dose when it follows a previous lower ‘priming’ dose. The third day of the conference started with Session 4, which opened with the ‘Incoming President’s address’, given by Peter Marsden of UCL Hospitals NHS Trust. Peter introduced who the SRP council are and their strategic plan for the future. He explained the path of CRadP and the importance of continuing professional development (CPD). There then followed a presentation by Jack Valentin of the ICRP entitled ‘ICRP and the two sets of Basic Safety Standards—Incoherence or co-evolution?’. Jack presented the ICRP timeline and the information about the progress of safety standards, regulations and directives. He looked at the differences between the BSS and the ICRP etc, and what the future plan is to approach these. The second presentation of the session was entitled ‘Revision of the European BSS and other radiation directives’ and was given by Gareth Thomas of HSE. Gareth discussed the background to the IRRs, the work ongoing on BSS and European safety standards that are under negotiation and those which may be coming (new), including orphan sources and non-medical imaging. He also discussed the ongoing work around the definition of the ‘outside worker’. Gareth showed how changes could be implemented into regulation in the UK within four years, so changes would be in by 2017. The third presentation was entitled ‘Fukushima – Lessons learnt in the UK – Radiological protection and emergency preparedness’ and was given by Charles Temple of ONR. Charles talked about the UK’s response to the events in 2011 in Japan, including the Weightman report and recommendations. He gave an overview of the response by site licenses and the regulator, including the potential for further future changes (e.g. ERLs being reviewed). The fourth presentation, ‘Radioactive waste & decommissioning—Practice makes perfect’? was given by Cathy Griffiths OBE of the SRP. Cathy presented the history of the decommissioning activities in the UK, including hospital incinerators, sea dumping, tumble tipping and spent fuel ponds. She described the road to improvement and what drives the improvements, including reference to the Radioactive Waste Advisor (RWA) role. Cathy talked about the progress towards a safety standard for decommissioning. The fifth presentation was entitled ‘IRPA— The international voice of the RP profession’ and was given by Roger Coates of IRPA. Roger gave an
278
IRPA update on numbers (up to 18 000 members, through 48 societies, covering 61 countries). He showed how the role of the IRPA fits in with the work of UNSCEAR, the ICRP and the IAEA. Roger discussed the importance of an RP culture and the current work of the ICRP to write some guidance for this for members. There then followed a Panel Discussion Session that posed five questions. The first question was: ‘Due to the BSS being merged from other BSS, should the UK also merge legislation’?. Gareth Thomas responded first to say that in the UK there are historical embedded reasons for the legislation and the benefits may not been worth the upheaval, but that it was worth considering. Peter Marsden said that IPEM currently has a lot of ‘qualifications’ which would be difficult to merge. Jack Valentin said that all European countries are different, and probably just as complex. Roger Coates said that the IRPA had in the past pushed for joined-up legislation, but it is more important to focus on constructive cooperation between regulators and identifying a ‘lead regulator’ in situations of multiple regulator involvement. Charles Temple said that cooperation is occurring, including through HERCA (Heads of European Radiological protection Competent Authorities) for example, on outside workers. The regulators are working to support the UK against unnecessary red-tape and excessive regulation. The second question was about improving the availability and visibility of contact information for members of the SRP to facilitate advice or support for schools programmes, information exchange, specialist groups and public interactions (information had been published in the past). Peter suggested use of the ‘My SRP’ area of the SRP website. Sheila and Alan stated that the SRP office has access to this information, and will support requests, but cannot publish it for data protection reasons. The third question was in reference to Charles Temple’s presentation and asked him to expand on what was implied by the ‘extendibility requirements of the off-site plans’. Charles said that they have limited regulator options for judging ‘acceptability’ and that the REPPIR review may make some changes to this, but that in the short term it will be difficult to implement although this may happen in the future. The duty holder is the local authorities and communication with them is the key. The fourth question was a suggestion that IRPA could be using its vast membership to support the assurance of Wikipedia. Roger said that it had not been considered yet and that following on from the previous day’s discussions it was something that they could consider, but that there are some contentious issues that would be difficult. The
Meeting report
IRPA publications director commented that IRPA are currently reviewing the website and looking at all social media opportunities and that there was scope for more, but IRPA are also working to ensure that communication between societies is improved and please could the audience look out for requests to help support this; the SRP (in his experience) have already done very well at this. The last (slightly rhetorical) question was posed by Peter Marsden to ask which social media would work the best and a discussion followed about the pros and cons of the various options. Unfortunately, but perhaps understandably, many people left before the final session started and I felt that this meant that the final four speakers were left with a very empty auditorium lacking atmosphere. After the lunch break, the sixth presentation ‘Nuclear new build—Radiation protection challenges’ was given by Heather Hale of EDF Energy. Heather gave an interesting presentation on the new build, with descriptions of the build time and working life, optimisation and safety culture/human factors and ALARP approach before setting out the future challenges. The seventh presentation ‘RPA support to radiation screening at the London Olympics’ was given by Dan Clifton-Climas of Nuvia. Dan gave some insight into the approach taken by Nuvia to the role of RPA in radiation security screening at the Olympics. He explained the different phases of the project and how they fulfilled the RPA function. The eighth presentation was entitled ‘Radiation detection—What are we doing wrong and where must future equipment improve’?, and was given by Ian Napier of DSTL. The usability of instruments formed the basis of Ian’s presentation, especially in his own area of expertise. He made some very valid points about weight, size, display and controls of monitors. The ninth presentation, ‘Radiation protection at LHC: Past, present and future’, was given by Graham Stevenson of CERN. Graham concluded the day’s presentations with an introduction to the LHC and the radiation protection issues experienced. He also discussed the use of software tools to improve protection. To conclude, I thought that the quality of the RGG presentations was easily comparable to the quality of the more experienced presenters and feel that the RGG should be allowed continue to have input into further meetings. Sarah Clifton-Climas1 , Heather Hale2 and Elizabeth Reeves3 1 Public Health England, UK 2 EDF Energy, UK 3 RPA/RWA, UK
Copyright of Journal of Radiological Protection is the property of IOP Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
