Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Regulating radiation at levels where no harmful effect is observed baldry
Regulating radiation at levels where no harmful effect is observed baldry
Regulating radiation at levels where no harmful effect is observed baldry
Regulating radiation at levels where no harmful effect is observed baldry
Regulating radiation at levels where no harmful effect is observed baldry
Regulating radiation at levels where no harmful effect is observed baldry
Regulating radiation at levels where no harmful effect is observed baldry
Regulating radiation at levels where no harmful effect is observed baldry
Regulating radiation at levels where no harmful effect is observed baldry
Regulating radiation at levels where no harmful effect is observed baldry
Regulating radiation at levels where no harmful effect is observed baldry
Regulating radiation at levels where no harmful effect is observed baldry
Regulating radiation at levels where no harmful effect is observed baldry
Regulating radiation at levels where no harmful effect is observed baldry
Regulating radiation at levels where no harmful effect is observed baldry
Regulating radiation at levels where no harmful effect is observed baldry
Regulating radiation at levels where no harmful effect is observed baldry
Regulating radiation at levels where no harmful effect is observed baldry
Regulating radiation at levels where no harmful effect is observed baldry
Regulating radiation at levels where no harmful effect is observed baldry
Regulating radiation at levels where no harmful effect is observed baldry
Regulating radiation at levels where no harmful effect is observed baldry
Regulating radiation at levels where no harmful effect is observed baldry
Regulating radiation at levels where no harmful effect is observed baldry
Regulating radiation at levels where no harmful effect is observed baldry
Regulating radiation at levels where no harmful effect is observed baldry
Regulating radiation at levels where no harmful effect is observed baldry
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Regulating radiation at levels where no harmful effect is observed baldry

235

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
235
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. South Australia’s Environment Protection Authority Regulating radiation at levels where  no harmful effect is observed Keith Baldry Director Regulation and Compliance October 2010
  • 2. The standard regulatory approach DosesCompliance Good Poor Optimised Not optimised
  • 3. Risks and models risk dose risk dose risk dose
  • 4. Risks and models UNSCEAR 2008, Sources and effects of ionizing radiation Monitored Workers Average Effective dose (mSv) Mining  12000 1.9 Milling 3000 1.1 Enrichment 18000 0.1 Fuel Fabrication 20000 1.6 Reactor Operation 437000 1.0 Reprocessing 76000 0.9 Research 90000 0.4 Aircrew 900 3.0 Nuclear Fuel Cycle 660 1.0 Medical Uses 7440 0.5 Industrial Uses 869 0.3 Military Activity  331 0.1 Natural Radiation 13050 2.9 Average 0.8
  • 5. Risks and models risk dose risk dose risk dose Low dose = Low risk and this is where we mostly regulate
  • 6. What do we get in practice? Risk Low High Business impact Burdened Public  concern Reassured Outraged Supported
  • 7. Regulatory burden • UNSCEAR data shows that in all sectors in almost all countries the  majority of occupational exposures are less than 1 millisievert • How many non‐radiological hazards have entire branches devoted  to regulating them? • Every regulatory clause and guidance note written and then read  by thousands; every report written and read; every dosemeter  issued to every individual with an annual dose of less than a  millisievert: someone pays for these things.  • A nuclear power plant costs a bazillion dollars to build* * $8bn rather than $2bn [Brook, Switkowski 18/10/10]
  • 8. What’s wrong with being conservative? Letter to the Editor
  • 9. Community outrage
  • 10. ‘No-one can tell you that this is safe’ ‘Sir William Stewart, head of  the NRPB and the Health  Protection Agency,  recommends “a precautionary  approach to the use of mobile  phone technologies be  adopted…” ’
  • 11. Community outrage • Attitudes can take a generation  to change • If we do not change public  attitudes now, we will be in the  same place in a generation
  • 12. Government confidence • It doesn’t matter how  technically correct the  solution is • Government decisions  depend on confidence • Railing against the  government for indecision  is of no value
  • 13. It’s ALARA’s fault • We are fixated on the three principles • It is an excuse to avoid prioritisation of risks • It drives the wrong behaviour • It sends the wrong messages • Nobody (except us) understands it or values it
  • 14. OK, so what • International standards are not going to change in any  way that will help in the short to medium term • However: we can use LNT effectively now, by properly  appreciating that a low dose = a low risk • With that appreciation, we can look around and see what  might be more worthwhile
  • 15. Identifying value • In any given situation, regulating ALARA is probably not  the most valuable thing • Value is not determined by the seller, it is determined by  the buyer • The questions are: what are the more important things,  and how does this change the regulatory approach • Also: what do we do with the unintended by‐products of  dose optimisation?
  • 16. Identifying value Stakeholder Value Public Workers Patients Licensee Government Science community
  • 17. Turning values into a purpose Science Influential Ignored Workers Trusting Distrust Public  Reassured Outraged Government  Confident Nervous mSv Low High Patients  Well Sick Business Supported Burdened
  • 18. Turning public outrage into reassurance  • Reduce doses • More compliance  • Increase transparency • Be honest • Demonstrate control, be authoritative • If it’s safe, say so* • Address the community directly (may  require expertise in being able to talk  to people) * Using the word ‘safe’
  • 19. Turning business burden into support  • Fit in with existing systems • If the dose is below regulatory interest, don’t be interested* • Use the right tools • Aim for outcome based regulation • Mandate the minimum and encourage best practice • National uniformity *Really, don’t be interested
  • 20.  • Sound policy work • Iconic achievements • Public reassurance = government confidence Gaining government confidence
  • 21. Making the  science influential  • Advocacy • Relationships   • Transparency  – e.g. a national dose database Gaining workers’ trust
  • 22. Reducing the radiation risk  • Prioritise the significant risks • You can have a regulatory de facto threshold, even if you  don’t have a risk threshold • Get in at the front end
  • 23. Outcome based regulation • At ARPS 2006, I proposed that the outcome we sought was:  maximum millisieverts measured and saved • A question that always bothered me was: if you’ve spent a  lifetime regulating and saving millisieverts, what if you then  found out that it’s not bad for you? • The answer is: we need outcomes, just more important ones
  • 24. Measuring outcomes • Assurance • Reassurance • Confidence • Advice • Business certainty  • Fairness • Relationships • Dose optimisation
  • 25. Capabilities required for effective  regulation • Policy • Communication • Community engagement • Political networking • Understanding of regulatory best practice • Effective tools • …and some radiation protection
  • 26. A purpose in life In regulating low doses, where there is a benefit, there are  often many things that are more important than a  theoretical, relative risk reduction so small it can never be  detected. People‐related things are more important, the things that  affect people and concern them much more than  compliance or radiation doses. The regulator should find out what these things are. This  gives the regulator a purpose in life.

×