Introduction to Draft 2005 Recommendations from ICRP

1. Introduction to Draft 2005 Recommendations from ICRP Ching-Pang Lu Kuosheng Nuclear Power Plant, Taiwan Power Company 18/10/2004 email: u807711@taipower.com.tw

2. Historyof the ICRP ecommendations ‧Recommendations of ICXRP(1928－1950) ‧ICRP-1（1959） ‧ICRP-6（1964） ‧ICRP-9（1966） ‧ICRP-26（1977） ‧ICRP-60（1991） ‧ICRP-？？（2005）

3. ICRP-60回顧（A review of ICRP-60） The 1990 system of protection, set out in Publication 60 (ICRP 1991), was developed over some 30 y. During this period, the system became increasingly complex as the Commission sought to reflect the many situations to which the system applied . －Roger H. Clarke (Health Phys. 87(3):306 –311; 2004)

4. Major reasons for the change of the recommendations addressed by ICRP The complexity of ICRP-60 is logical but not easy to explain the variations between different applications . Confusion between dose limits and action levels. The cost-benefit analysis procedures for ALARA and optimization (ICRP-37＆55) have been never adopted. The concept of “constraint” has not been clearly explained. Themisuse of collective dose－ widely used over world population and all time. LNT controversy and confusion. The new biological data.

5. Development of the new ICRP recommendations－essential milestones Critical review on current system by Clarke（HPS） 1998 Initial proposal promulgated through IRPA and JRP for discussion. 1999 2000 Comments from IRPA-10 /Began to develop the new recommendations. 2001 Continual debates with iteration of ideas at the international forums or workshops held by OECD/NEA, etc. 2002 2003 Presentation atIRPA-11/Draft text of the 2005 ICRP recommendations for consultation. 2004 2005 The new recommendations will be issued.

6. Main features of the new recommendations The need for stability in international and national regulations has been taken into account. Reflecting both the scientific understanding of the biological effects and the social and ethical standards. Simpler approach based on “individual oriented” philosophy rather than current “society oriented” criteria. Quantifying themost basic level of protection from single source in all situations－ Maximum dose constraints. Complementing the constraints and limits with the requirements for the optimization of protection from a source. Emphasizing that procedure of diagnostic or therapeutic should be justified with clinical benefit for the patient dose. Incorporating a policy for radiological protection for non-human species in the new system.

7. Essential changes in the new recommendations（Summarized by Roger H. Clarke, 2004） Linearity Current New Clarify concept and applicable range, i.e., above a few mSv /y Linear non-threshold, i.e., proportionality The LNT controversy: Academically interesting but practically meaningless!! Abel J. González

8. △D1＝ △D2 △p1＝ △p2 低劑量下的劑量回應關係（The dose-response relationship at low-doses） 資料來源；Abel J. González, Radiation safety and their application: International policies and current issues, Health Physics: Volume 87(3) September 2004 p262.

9. Essential changes in the new recommendations（summarized by Roger H. Clarke, 2004） Radiation weighting factor Current New ICRP-60 Revised values for protons and neutrons(ICRP-92)

11. Essential changes in the new recommendations（summarized by Roger H. Clarke, 2004） Tissue weighting factor Current New ICRP-60 New values based on revised risk factors and a simplified basis/individual organs changed

13. Essential changes in the new recommendations（summarized by Roger H. Clarke, 2004） Nominal risk coefficient Current New ICRP-60 Risk coefficientsforTotal cancer fatality slightly modified /Hereditary use UNSCEAR (2001)

14. May be typing error

15. Caveat on effective dose and nominal risk coefficients • Don’t use Nominal riskcoefficient or effective dose for: • －Estimating risks retrospectively for • individuals. • －Epidemiological purposes with • populations.

16. Essential changes in the new recommendations（summarized by Roger H. Clarke, 2004） Dose limits New Current Worker and public in ICRP-60 Incorporated into revised constraints /only applied to all sources in normal situation.

17. Essential changes in the new recommendations（summarized by Roger H. Clarke, 2004） Constraints Current New Number and complexity to be reduced 30 numerical values for constraint in the 10 ICRP reports, level of concern Effective dose

18. Major Concepts of the new ICRP recommendations ‧Factor influencing the choice of individual dose constraints Annual effective dose from natural radiation sources 1msv/a to which rounded from 1.2msv with a range 0.8 to 2.4msv quoted in UNSCEAR 2000 by ICRP Excluding radon The need for action vs. individual effective dose

19. Emergencies, evacuations, no justification above 100 Incremental dose mSv in a year 20 Some benefits to exposed individuals Societal rather than individual benefit 1 0.01 Natural background~ (1 mSv/a) Minimum value Recommended maximum values for dose constraints on single sources from : Richard V. Osborne, 2004

20. INDIVIDUAL- AND SOURCE-RELATED CONCEPTS資料來源： Ches Mason, International Conference on National Infrastructures for Radiation SafetyRabat, Morocco 1-5 September 2003 INDIVIDUALS ARE PROTECTED FROMALLREGULATED SOURCES BY THEDOSE LIMITS INDIVIDUALS ARE PROTECTED FROM ASINGLESOURCE BY THEDOSE CONSTRAINT

21. Dose Limit from : Richard V. Osborne, 2004

22. Dose Constraint from : Richard V. Osborne, 2004

23. Essential changes in the new recommendations（summarized by Roger H. Clarke, 2004） Collective dose Current New ICRP-60 Disaggregated and replaced by weighted dose matrix

24. Essential changes in the new recommendations（summarized by Roger H. Clarke, 2004） Justification Current New ICRP-60 Retained, extended for patient exposure

25. Essential changes in the new recommendations（summarized by Roger H. Clarke, 2004） Optimization Current New Cost-benefit analysis Stakeholder involvement

26. Major Concepts of the new ICRP recommendations ‧ Stakeholder involvement One ofthe major achievements of ICRP for developing the new recommendations istherole that is now recognized to “stakeholder involvement” in the optimization process as a mean to improve the quality of the decision aiding process for identifying and selecting protection actions considered as being accepted by all those involved.

27. Roger Clarke noted that cultural differences make it difficult for stakeholders from different parts of the world to participate equally in developing international regulatory guidance such as that offered by ICRP.

28. Essential changes in the new recommendations（summarized by Roger H. Clarke, 2004） Exemption Current New ICRP-60 Replaced by exclusion

29. Exclusion

30. Essential changes in the new recommendations（summarized by Roger H. Clarke, 2004） Definition of ‘individual’ Current New New consideration ICRP-29 age-weighted approach Characterising the individual Time frames and spatial distributions Uncertainty

31. Essential changes in the new recommendations（summarized by Roger H. Clarke, 2004） Practice Current New ICRP-60 Retained

32. Essential changes in the new recommendations（summarized by Roger H. Clarke, 2004） Intervention Current New ICRP-60 Incorporated into constraints

33. Essential changes in the new recommendations（summarized by Roger H. Clarke, 2004） Natural radiation sources Current New Comprehensive treatment Radon-222 only

34. Essential changes in the new recommendations（summarized by Roger H. Clarke, 2004） Environment (nonhuman) Current New Assumed protected in ICRP-60 Explicitly addressed

35. 人類與其他物種輻射防護系統共同架構示意圖（Developing a common approach for the radiological protection of humans and non-human organisms ）資料來源：Annals of ICRP Volume 33, issue 3, A framework for assessing the impact of ionising radiation on non-human species, ICRP Publication 91, September 2003, p.254.

36. References 1.ICRP, 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 60. Annals of the ICRP 21 (1-3), Pergamon Press, 1991. 2.Summary excerpted from the draft ICRP Recommendations that will be subjected to public consultation from June 2004. 3.IRPA 11Daily Newsletter 25th of May 2004. 4.The Future Policy for the Radiological Protection Workshop Proceedings, OECD/NEA, Lanzarote, Spain, 2-4 April, 2003. 5.ICRP Publication 91, A framework for assessing the impact of ionising radiation on non-human species , Annals of the ICRP Volume 33, Issue 3, Pergamon Press, 2003 .

37. References 6.ICRP Publication 92, Relative biological effectiveness (RBE), quality factor (Q), and radiation weighting factor ( wR ), Annals of the ICRP Volume 33, Issue 4, Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK, 2003 7.2005 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (Draft for Consultation), 21 June 2004. 8.Abel J. González, Radiation safety and their application: International policies and current issues, Health Physics: Volume 87(3) September 2004. 9.Ches Mason,International Conference on National Infrastructures for Radiation Safety Rabat, Morocco 1-5 September 2003, IAEA.

38. References 10.Roger H. Clarke, Draft recommendations from ICRP at the start of the 21ST century, Health Physics: Volume 87(3) September 2004. 11.Richard V. Osborne, Are the Proposed Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection Taking Us in the Right Direction? Robert S. Landauer, Sr. Lecture, 49th Annual Meeting of the Health Physics Society, Washington, DC, 2004 July 11-15. 12.Stakeholder Participation in Radiological Decision Making- Processes and Implications-Third Villigen Workshop , OECD/NEA, Villigen, Switzerland - 21-23 October 2003.