1 / 7

Disclaimer

Explore South Australia's radiation involvement, from historic mining to modern regulations. Can regulators adopt an alternative dose-response paradigm effectively? This Australian perspective dives into the challenges and opportunities of risk-based regulation, highlighting the need for uniformity and public acceptance.

fergusond
Download Presentation

Disclaimer

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Disclaimer Some of the views and observations expressed in this session are my own and may not represent those of my employer, the South Australian govt.

  2. South Australia's involvement with radiation • Radium/uranium first mined in SA in 1906 at Radium Hill and Mt Painter • Olympic Dam • largest uranium deposit in world • 4th largest copper • also mines gold/silver • Maralinga British atomic test site • 1956 – 1963 • 7 nuclear tests • Approx 700 sub-critical tests • Intensive clean-up undertaken • Proton therapy • Will be first in southern hemisphere

  3. Can Regulators Accommodate an Alternative Dose-Response Paradigm? An Australian perspective. Short answer = YES…..but • We already decide what we want to regulate and how, primarily based on resource issues (and to a small extent radiation risk), however it is not uniformly implemented across jurisdictions and often modality specific. • Leads to non-uniformity and confusion on actual risks of radiation • eg IAEA GSR Part 7 Preparedness and Response for a Nuclear or Radiological Emergency • Communication disaster waiting to happen??

  4. Risk based regulation • “The aim of risk-based approaches for regulators is to reduce the cost, to the regulator and the businesses they regulate, of ensuring compliance.” • Regulator Audit Framework, Productivity Commission, March 2014 • “Adopting an appropriate risk-based approach can assist a regulator in minimising compliance costs for regulated entities, streamlining interactions between them and regulated entities, and enhancing the benefits derived for the community.” • Regulator Performance Framework, 29th October 2014 We talk about radiation regulation based on ALARA, but in most instances we do not take social and economic factors into consideration when making regulations

  5. Govt owns the legislation and they decide on the legislative reform program – not the regulator Would take a brave politician to move away from “international best practice” No votes here if it goes wrong! Any change would need to be driven by ICRP, NCRP, IAEA, UNSCEAR Or by the public?? Votes here!! Needs to be publically acceptable!! This requires a lot of communication

  6. May 2016 – November 2016 http://nuclear.yoursay.sa.gov.au/ March 2015 – May 2016 http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/

More Related