The demand for training
It has been recognised for many years that effective training in
radiological protection is a key component in safe work with radiation
and radioactive material. A requirement for the provision of appropriate
training is incorporated in the legislation of many countries and a wide
range of radiological protection training courses is currently available.
The provision of training is costly to the employer both in terms of
money and time away from the job. These considerations will inevitably
influence the employer in choosing a suitable course, although there
will also be interest in other factors, including the relevance of any
application. Inevitably, these factors will also influence the design of
the courses offered by the provider, who will endeavour to provide
courses that satisfy regulatory requirements, but are also concise and
practically relevant. There will be little value in offering courses
that are too in-depth or go much further than legislation requires,
since such courses are unlikely to be taken up by the employer.
However, market forces alone will not result in suitable and
well-constructed training courses. While the factors discussed above
will influence and shape the range of courses provided this will not
always be to optimum effect with regard to either the appropriateness of
the training provided, or looking at the wider dimension, with regard to
international compatibility. The latter is perhaps particularly
important in the European context.
The setting of training standards
The European Basic Safety Standards Directive 1 mandates Member States
to require undertakings to arrange for "relevant training in the
field of radiation protection". While on first sight the
specification in national legislation of minimum levels of training may
appear to be the appropriate mechanism for ensuring "relevant"
training and for setting and controlling standards, such an approach can
be problematic. Legislative prescription may restrict the ability of
training providers to tailor courses to the application of the attendees
and is likely to hamper, if not prevent, the continuous development of
training material.
An alternative approach, as in that taken in the UK for example, is to
reflect the goal-setting requirement of the Directive. The UK Ionising
Radiations Regulations 1999 2 merely requires that:
employees who are engaged in work with ionising radiation are
given appropriate training in the field of radiation protection
and receive such information and instruction as is suitable and
sufficient for them to know -
(i) the risks to health created by exposure to ionising
radiation;
(ii) the precautions which should be taken; and
(iii) the importance of complying with the medical, technical
and administrative requirements of these Regulations.
Regulation 14, The Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999
With this approach is the responsibility of the employer
to determine the level of training that is appropriate and adequate. In
doing this, he will look to the accepted training standards in his
industry. Training standards for a particular work sector may be
determined by an accreditation body, but this standard setting process
needs to be carried out in consultation with industry groups, with an
input from the regulatory authority and other appropriate experts for
the training to be meaningful. This process is illustrated by the
following review carried out by NRPB of the training standards for
industrial radiographers in the UK
Training standards for industrial radiographers
Industrial radiography is an occupation that can give rise to some of
the highest radiation doses to workers. In addition, there is the
potential for substantial exposures if clearly defined working practices
are not strictly followed and understood. Hence a sound knowledge of
radiological protection requirements is essential in the training of
radiographers.
Over the last 15 years, there has been a significant reduction in the
annual doses to radiation workers, as workers and employers have strived
to comply with the principle of keeping doses as low as reasonably
achievable (ALARA). An exception to this trend had been observed in the
field of industrial radiography, where doses have reduced only slightly,
and where annual doses in excess of 5 mSv are not uncommon 3. This fact
coupled with general concern over working practices in the industry,
prompted a review by NRPB of radiological protection standards, levels
of training and the adequacy of the industrial radiography certification
schemes.
Two major schemes exist in the UK for the certification of persons in
non-destructive testing, the ASNT (American Society of Non-destructive
Testing) scheme and the PCN (Personnel Certification in Non-destructive
Testing) scheme. The ASNT scheme, which is administered in the UK by the
North Atlantic Section of ASNT, provides certification to the
internationally accepted ANSI standard. It is an employer-based scheme
in which the employer determines the level of training required, taking
into account the specific radiation application in the company, provides
the training and sets and marks the examination. The certification
awarded to the worker in this scheme only remains valid while he is
working for the employer. ASNT provides guidelines to employers on the
establishment and conducting of NDT personnel certification programmes.
This scheme tends to be the more popular one with radiographers working
with fixed installations.
PCN in contrast provides a certification scheme that is individual
rather than employer based, with the certification remaining valid when
the radiographer changes employers. The scheme complies with the
European standard for certification bodies 4 and offers examinations
covering the main NDT methods and radiation safety in accordance with
the relevant European and international standards for NDT personnel
qualification and certification 5,6. The examination papers are set and
marked centrally and the examinations are carried out at accredited PCN
test centres. Approximately 3,000 radiographers have been certificated
under the PCN scheme, which tends to be more popular with radiographers
who work on site and those who regularly change employers.
Meetings with the administrators of the PCN and ASNT schemes revealed
significant weaknesses in the radiation safety training components of
both schemes. While PCN specified a standard syllabus for training
courses in radiation protection, some aspects of the syllabus were very
out of date and referenced items such as "maximum permissible
doses" and "safe" dose rates without mentioning
optimisation and ALARA. The ASNT scheme, while giving some limited
guidance in radiological protection training, did not require
radiographers to attend a course in radiation safety or pass an
examination in the subject. These weaknesses were reflected in the
attitudes of some radiographers visited by NRPB on site. They were
unaware of many of the modern concepts of radiological protection, had
no feeling for the practical relevance of the principle of optimisation,
and clearly felt that everything was satisfactory provided doses were
kept below the dose limits.
A review of the standards of training provided in accordance with the
schemes also revealed significant differences in the way radiological
protection courses were constructed and presented. Radiological
protection is only a small component of the subjects covered by the
certification schemes, and persons working to obtain aqualification in
radiography are required to attend courses and pass exams in a range of
radiographic techniques. This had resulted in some training providers
mixing the radiological protection training requirements amongst other
subject matter in one long course, while others provided separate
radiological protection courses in durations varying from 2 to 5 days.
The standard syllabuses also gave insufficient guidance on the required
depth of training and hence the content of courses varied considerably.
Concern on radiological protection standards prompted the UK Health and
Safety Executive (HSE) to conduct a high profile campaign with NDT
companies, with seminars on safe working practices in the industry, more
frequent inspections, advice to doctors recommending annual medical
examinations rather than medical reviews and guidance on the use of
compounds wherever practicable. At the same time, NRPB provided
assistance to PCN on the revision of the radiation safety syllabuses
specifying course content and duration, pre-course and pre-examination
qualification requirements. This assistance was provided within a
working group that also contained representatives from HSE, the NDT
companies and major client organisations. Revised syllabuses were
produced for the two PCN radiation safety qualifications, Basic
Radiation Safety and Radiation Safety to Radiation Protection Supervisor
Level 7,8. Guidance was also provided to ASNT who subsequently issued
guidelines for radiation safety training, based on the PCN syllabuses.
NRPB is continuing to provide assistance to both organisations, and is
currently reviewing the standard of training material provided on the
courses.
Feedback from radiation accidents and analysis of the events that lead
to the accident occurring can also provide a useful input to training.
With this as one of the objectives in mind in mind, NRPB, HSE and the
Environment Agency (EA) have collaborated in the development of the
Ionising Radiations Incident Database (IRID). This database is used for
the collation of non-attributable information on accidents and incidents
involving sources of radiation in the non-nuclear sector. A review of
this information will be published at regular intervals, and the first
IRID report9 was published in 1999. It contains information on 84
accidents, 34 of which concern industrial radiography. It is hoped that
trainers will use this data to illustrate and reinforce the practical
protection aspects of radiological protection courses. The publication
has been referenced as recommended reading in the PCN syllabuses.
Conclusions
The content of radiological protection training courses should always be
practically relevant to the work, pitched at the appropriate technical
level and be scientifically and technically correct. The setting of
training standards can beneficially be achieved through an industry
working group with a wide range of expertise.
As illustrated in the discussions above an in-depth review of radiation
protection training standards for a specific industry sector has
resulted in the production of modern training syllabuses that provide
guidance to training establishments on the required content and duration
of training courses. The process has proved successful not only in
developing national standards but also by creating a sense of ownership
amongst the various stakeholders.
Although this was a constructive exercise from a national point of view
to date there has been little consideration of the wider European
perspective. However, prompted by a recommendation from the 5th European
ALARA Workshop " Industrial Radiography-Improvements in Radiation
Protection" there is now a European initiative in place to develop
a unified approach to training in this sector. The UK experience in
developing national standards should prove to be a useful contribution
to this work, and any outcome perhaps a useful model for other industry
sectors
References
1 Council Directive 96/29/EURATOM
2 The Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999. SI 1999/3232.
Stationary Office 1999. IBSN 0 11 085614 7.
3 Analysis of doses reported to the Health and Safety Executive's
Central Index of Dose Information.
(a) Occupational exposure to ionising radiation
1986-1991. HSE Books 1993
(b) Occupational exposure to
ionising radiation 1990-1996. HSE Books 1998.
4 General criteria for certification bodies operating
certification of personnel. EN 45013. The Joint European Standards
Institution, CEN/CENELEC (1989)
5 General principles for qualification and certification of NDT
personnel. EN 473. The Joint European Standards Institution, CEN/CENELEC
(1993)
6 Non-destructive testing - Qualification and certification of
personnel. ISO 9712. International Organisation for Standardisation
(1997)
7 Specific requirements for certification of personnel in
radiation safety. PCN/GEN Appendix E3.1, Issue 4 (2000)
8 PCN examination syllabus for certification of personnel in
radiation safety. PCN/GEN Appendix E3.2 Issue 4 (2000)
9 IRID: Ionising Radiations Incident Database, First Review of
Cases Reported and Operation of the Database. NRPB 1999. ISBN 0 85951
436 6.
Address
for correspondence:
R. A. Paynter and J.E. Stewart
National Radiological Protection Board
Hospital Lane
Cookridge
Leeds LS16 6RW
United Kingdom
Phone: +44 (0)113 267 9041
Fax: +44 (0)113 261 3190
e-mail: richard.paynter@nrpb.org
or joanne.stewart@nrpb.org
Newsletter
editor
pascal.pihet@irsn.fr
|
