Operational Radiation Safety Training: Recommendations of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (Ncrp Report, No. 134)

NCRP REPORT No. 134

Operational Radiation Safety Training

Recommendations of the NATIONAL COUNCIL ON RADIATION PROTECTION AND MEASUREMENTS

Issued October 13, 2000

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement 7910 Woodmont Avenue / Bethesda, Maryland 20814-3095

LEGAL NOTICE This Report was prepared by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). The Council strives to provide accurate, complete and useful information in its documents. However, neither the NCRP, the members of NCRP, other persons contributing to or assisting in the preparation of this Report, nor any person acting on the behalf of any of these parties: (a) makes any warranty or representation, express or implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of the information contained in this Report, or that the use of any information, method or process disclosed in this Report may not infringe on privately owned rights; or (b) assumes any liability with respect to the use of, or for damages resulting from the use of any information, method or process disclosed in this Report, under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 701 et seq. as amended 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et seq. (Title VII) or any other statutory or common law theory governing liability.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Operational radiation safety training. p. cm. -- (NCRP report ; no. 134) “NCRP revision of report no. 71” Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-929600-67-3 1. Radiation--Safety measures. 2. Employees--Training of. I. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. II. Series TK9152.O64 2000 363.17’9972--dc21 00-046615

Copyright © National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements 2000 All rights reserved. This publication is protected by copyright. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means, including photocopying, or utilized by any information storage and retrieval system without written permission from the copyrightowner, except for brief quotation in critical articles or reviews.

For detailed information on the availability of NCRP documents see page 59.

Preface This Report emphasizes management’s responsibility in training employees, and presents criteria for identifying training requirements for different groups of employees. The type of personnel to be trained is treated and an extensive coverage of the design and development of radiation safety programs is provided. The learning environment and training aids are discussed and guidance on the audit of training programs is given. This Report supersedes NCRP Report No. 71 on Operational Radiation Safety - Training. It was prepared by Scientific Committee 46 on Operational Radiation Safety. Serving on Scientific Committee 46 were: Kenneth R. Kase, Chairman Stanford Linear Accelerator Center Menlo Park, California Members Mary L. Birch Duke Engineering & Services Charlotte, North Carolina

Susan M. Langhorst University of Missouri Columbia, Missouri

John R. Frazier Auxier & Associates, Inc. Knoxville, Tennessee

Joel O. Lubenau Consultant Lititz, Pennsylvania

Steven M. Garry Florida Power Corporation Crystal River, Florida

Kenneth L. Miller M.S. Hershey Medical Center Hershey, Pennsylvania

Duane C. Hall 3M Health Physics Services St. Paul, Minnesota

David S. Myers Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Livermore, California

Kathryn A. Higley Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon

John W. Poston, Sr. Texas A&M University College Station, Texas

iii

iv / PREFACE NCRP Secretariat Eric E. Kearsley, Staff Scientist (1998–1999) Lynne A. Fairobent, Staff Scientist (1999–2000) Cindy L. O’Brien, Managing Editor

The Council wishes to express its appreciation to the Committee members for the time and effort devoted to the preparation of this Report.

Charles B. Meinhold President

Contents

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2. Management’s Responsibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Qualification of Trainers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3 3 3 4 4

3. Factors to Consider When Identifying Training Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 The Potential for Radiation Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 The Complexity of the Task . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Regulatory Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Other Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6 6 6 6 7

4. Personnel to be Trained . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1 Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1.1 Radiation Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1.2 General Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1.3 Management and Supervisory Personnel . . . . . . . 9 4.1.4 Radiation Safety Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.2 Contractor Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.3 Females of Reproductive Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.4 Visitors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.5 Minors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.6 Emergency Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.6.1 Pre-Emergency Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.6.2 Post-Emergency Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.7 Special Situations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.8 Engineering Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 v

vi / CONTENTS 5. Design and Development of a Radiation Safety Training Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Step One: Job Task Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Step Two: Training Design and Development . . . . . . . . 5.3.1 Training Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.2 Testing Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.3 Course Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.4 Summary Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Step Three: Lesson Plan and Training Materials . . . . . 5.5 Step Four: Evaluation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6 Step Five: Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7 Step Six: Evaluation and Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.8 Retraining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15 15 15 16 16 16 17 17 17 18 19 19 19

6. Learning Environment and Training Aids . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Individual Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Group Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Mentoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 On-the-Job Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5 Training Aids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6 Training Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

21 21 22 22 22 23 23

7. Audit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Appendix A. Suggested Topics for Radiation Safety Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Appendix B. Examples of the Training Method . . . . . . . . B.1 Secretarial Support Staff in a Small Medical Facility . . B.1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B.1.2 Step One: Job Task Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B.1.3 Step Two: Training Design and Development . . . B.1.4 Step Three: Lesson Plan and Training Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B.1.5 Step Four: Evaluation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B.1.6 Step Five: Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B.1.7 Step Six: Evaluation and Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . B.2 Training for a Manufacturer’s Field Engineer in a Nuclear Power Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B.2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B.2.2 Step One: Job Task Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

28 28 28 28 29 30 30 32 32 32 32 33

CONTENTS

/ vii

B.2.3 Step Two: Training Design and Development . . . B.2.4 Step Three: Lesson Plan and Training Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B.2.5 Step Four: Evaluation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B.2.6 Step Five: Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B.2.7 Step Six: Evaluation and Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . B.3 Radiographer in a Construction Company . . . . . . . . . . . B.3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B.3.2 Step One: Job Task Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B.3.3 Step Two: Training Design and Development . . . B.3.4 Step Three: Lesson Plan and Training Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B.3.5 Step Four: Evaluation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B.3.6 Step Five: Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B.3.7 Step Six: Evaluation and Feedback . . . . . . . . . . .

35 36 38 39 39 40 40 41 42 42 43 43 43

Appendix C. Radiation Risk and Risk Management for Radiation Safety Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 C.1 Risks Associated with Radiation Exposure . . . . . . . . . . 45 C.2 Control of Total Risk through Integrated Risk Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 The NCRP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 NCRP Publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

1. Introduction Whenever radioactive materials or other radiation sources are used, appropriate training of the worker is required. NCRP Report No. 127, Operational Radiation Safety Program (NCRP, 1998), sets forth the basic elements of an ionizing radiation safety program. Training of employees who may be exposed to radiation in the course of their work was cited as a necessary part of such a program. All radiation hazards and the related training programs designed to control exposures to both ionizing and nonionizing radiation should be presented as part of the overall occupational health and safety program. Although this Report focuses on radiation safety training, it is important for a training program to include information about all occupational hazards that might be encountered. This will allow judgments regarding radiation hazards to be made in perspective with the other hazards that might be present. Training rather than education is the subject of this Report. As the term is employed herein, training is linked to the instruction and practice that are required to develop job-related skills or modes of behavior, while education, which may include training, implies achievement of a greater degree of understanding. Although one might consider it desirable to educate the worker, practical considerations limit the total number of workers who can be educated in the formal sense. On the other hand, scientists and engineers, whose work involves ionizing or nonionizing radiation, may have received such training as a part of their education; however, training for specific job requirements may also be necessary for these individuals. There are at least four important reasons for training. First, the development of worker skills through training enables the individual to perform tasks efficiently and with confidence. Second, when individuals are aware that there is some risk associated with their exposure, they can become active participants in the decision to accept and, where possible, to reduce such risk as part of their job. Third, the number and seriousness of accidents can be reduced through training. Fourth, workers, who are properly trained, will be aware of the regulatory requirements associated with their 1

2 / 1. INTRODUCTION activities that involve radiation or radioactive material. Thus, an employee trained for both routine and nonroutine situations is more likely to assist in maintaining all exposures as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). The scope and depth of radiation safety training will vary significantly with the job requirements and the responsibilities of the employee. For the radiologist's secretary, a brief description of the working environment, the risks and protective measures may be sufficient. In such uncomplicated situations, on-the-job training may be all that is necessary. For persons involved in reactor operations, fuel fabrication, or decommissioning, an extensive, structured training program will be required. However, the basic principles and practices of training are common to virtually all classes of employees. This Report emphasizes these principles and practices and provides guidance for the development of the total training program. Although it is not a detailed training manual, this Report is intended to provide senior management personnel with a useful summary of the needs and requirements of training programs. Professional health physicists and trainers will find useful information for the development, conduct and evaluation of their training programs. Professional trainers will find useful information in support of their programs. A private physician using a diagnostic x-ray machine, or an individual scientist working with small quantities of radioactive materials, may find this Report contains more information than required. Nevertheless, the general philosophy and specific training concepts will be useful.

2. Management’s Responsibility 2.1 Introduction Management has the responsibility to protect employees from unnecessary exposure to radiation. As a part of this responsibility, management must assure that each employee is adequately trained in radiation safety, is informed of the risks associated with exposure, and demonstrates an attitude of participation in the radiation safety program. An effective training program is an important tool for management to ensure that the working environment is safe, that the staff is productive and motivated, and that legal and regulatory needs are met. The success of a radiation safety training program depends to a large extent on management commitment. Employees can readily discern the degree of this commitment to the training program in many ways (e.g., organization of the training program, condition of training facilities, competence of training personnel, the priority given to the training, time allotted for training, expectations of employee involvement). It is important that management keep operational requirements from interfering with the training program and ensure that adequate funding and sufficient training time are provided and that the importance of training is conveyed to supervisors and staff.

2.2 Qualification of Trainers Qualification requires that trainers have a sound understanding of the radiation safety subjects that they teach. Trainers should have a combination of academic courses, on-the-job training, and practical experience in those subjects that is sufficient for them to confidently answer questions on theory, applications and rationale. If the material presented is to be directly applied by the trainee in such areas as operations, instrumentation, shipping, etc., the instructor should have appropriate experience in the specific 3

4 / 2. MANAGEMENT’S RESPONSIBILITY application. It is recommended that trainers themselves receive training in instructional methods. Competent trainers are essential if a training program is to lead to satisfactory performance by the trainees. In some organizations a single individual may be responsible for the overall training effort. Such an individual must have the respect and confidence of management and must be delegated adequate responsibility and authority to administer and manage the training program effectively. In these programs, it is vital that the responsible individual be dedicated to training and understanding of the various organizational needs that training can fulfill. Further, this person should be able to manage, plan and project future needs; select qualified staff; and utilize personnel effectively. The training organization should be versatile and flexible so that the emphasis can be changed easily and efficiently to meet the needs of the facility's operations. In other organizations, the training responsibility may be shared among responsible members of the radiation safety staff. In such organizations the qualification requirements should be met by each of the individual trainers. 2.3 Evaluation Management has the responsibility to evaluate the performance of the trainers and to provide feedback that will help to modify the training program as appropriate. Review of training objectives, evaluation of the learning environment, and funding are also part of this effort. This evaluation should determine the effectiveness of the training staff, its responsiveness to feedback, the costeffectiveness of the program, and areas requiring improvement. 2.4 Records A system for maintaining training information can be used to evaluate the adequacy of the program, establish an inventory of employee skills, and delineate the additional needs of the workers. Appropriate records should be kept to document classroom training, on-the-job training, demonstrations, and other training activities. They should include course descriptions, dates on which courses were given, attendance, and results of any examinations. Course materials should include sample copies of all lesson plans, worksheets, examinations, problem sets, etc., as well as results of

2.4 RECORDS

/ 5

audits and evaluations of all training activities. A record of each trainee’s performance should be retained and be available to that trainee. Student evaluations of the course and the instructor should be included in this collection. A repository for records may be necessary for a specified period depending on legal requirements. These records must be in order, complete, and easily retrievable. Further information on record requirements is found in NCRP Report No. 114 (NCRP, 1992).

3. Factors to Consider When Identifying Training Requirements In every facility, the training requirements of different groups of employees will vary depending on several factors. These factors are described in the following sections. 3.1 The Potential for Radiation Exposure Potential exposure of employees can usually be estimated before the work starts. The higher the potential exposure, the more detailed and comprehensive are the training requirements. The nature of the potential exposure, such as from airborne radioactive materials, surface contamination, devices, or sources, will also contribute to determining the content and depth of the training program. 3.2 The Complexity of the Task Some tasks are more complicated than others and require considerably more training to assure that the job can be completed safely and competently, and that the associated radiation exposure can be maintained ALARA. Other site-specific hazards associated with the radiation safety program (e.g., heat stress and anticontamination clothing use, handling infectious radioactive patients, obscured vision when wearing full-face respiratory protection, etc.) should be considered. 3.3 Regulatory Requirements There may be state or federal regulatory requirements which will influence the structure and content of training (e.g., females of reproductive age, training for radiographers, etc.). Managers and 6

3.4 OTHER FACTORS

/ 7

trainers should be aware of these requirements, e.g., DOE (1998), NRC (1999a; 1999b). 3.4 Other Factors Several other factors listed below may influence and modify training needs. • Some personnel may have extensive knowledge of the physics of radiation production and interaction or of the biological effects of radiation. For these individuals some of the more basic material can be omitted from the training. • Personnel who are directly and continuously supervised will normally need less training than those who work independently or who have infrequent supervision. • Individuals who are responsible for the supervision of others will usually require more training. • Individuals who have received previous training may require only site-specific additional training. Care must be taken to assure that the previous training is current and applicable to the needs of the employee's present position and has been retained. • Individuals who have personal concerns about radiation may need special attention. • The training program should be responsive to specific employee concerns.

4. Personnel to be Trained All individuals who, in the course of their occupation, are exposed to radiation levels above those of the general natural background at the surface of the earth should receive radiation safety training. This includes individuals who visit or work in a facility in which radioactive material is handled or radiation-producing devices are operated. It also includes individuals who may be exposed to enhanced radiation levels from sources that are generally considered to be natural, e.g., cosmic rays. Individuals associated with a radiological environment should be provided a level of training commensurate with the nature of their responsibilities, their potential exposure, and other potential hazards. Appendix A specifies the essentials that should be covered. Some workers have an increased potential for exposure due to their job assignments (e.g., they handle radioactive materials or operate radiation-producing equipment). Other workers may be only incidentally exposed to radioactive materials or radiation sources. Individuals should be classified based on their work assignments and responsibilities, potential for exposure, and relationship to the facility. 4.1 Employees 4.1.1

Radiation Workers

Radiation workers are individuals who: • have significant potential for exposure to radiation in the course of their work assignments, or • are directly responsible for or involved with the use and control of radiation sources or radioactive materials. These individuals generally are subject to routine personnel monitoring. Employees in this category will generally be required to have extensive training, which will vary depending upon the nature of their jobs. For example, one may want to distinguish 8

4.1 EMPLOYEES

/ 9

between individuals (a radiochemist or a radiographer) whose work assignments involve the use of radioactive material or radiation-producing devices and other individuals (skilled craftsmen or maintenance personnel, e.g., a person working on contaminated ductwork) whose work assignments may require their working in a radiation field. As a minimum, the subject matter presented in Appendix A should be considered in developing a training program. The time required to conduct the training program may range from a few hours to several days depending on the factors listed in Section 3 and, particularly, on the need for job-specific training.

4.1.2

General Employees

Some individuals can be identified who do not work routinely with radioactive material or other radiation sources, but whose duties may occasionally bring them into areas where radiation exposure can occur. These may include stockroom personnel, shipping clerks, secretaries, nurses, students, and housekeeping staff. However, where the involvement is more than sporadic, it is reasonable to classify such individuals as radiation workers. The classification must be based on frequency, duration, level of supervision, and the potential magnitude of exposure. Individuals categorized as “general employees” will normally need at least one, but less than four hours of radiation safety training. Many of the topics in Appendix A can be treated in less depth for this group than for radiation workers. However, a specific effort should be made to assure that individuals in this category are aware of the level of their radiation exposure, understand its relative importance, and learn how to control their own exposure. Individuals can be unduly concerned about low levels of exposure and be fearful of their work environment if an appropriate perspective is not established.

4.1.3

Management and Supervisory Personnel

Managers and supervisors should be classified in one of the two categories described in Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2. Radiation safety training is important for such individuals insofar as it may affect the activities, safety and training of personnel they supervise.

10 / 4. PERSONNEL TO BE TRAINED 4.1.4

Radiation Safety Personnel

The professional and technical radiation safety staff will generally be classified as radiation workers. They require additional academic education and practical training in order to direct, assess and train others in the implementation of the facility’s radiation safety program. Training for radiation safety technicians must be commensurate with the hazards and jobs performed at the specific facility. 4.2 Contractor Personnel Many facilities make use of individuals who are employed by contractors and who are assigned to a facility for a period of time to perform specific tasks. This category may include laborers, maintenance workers, craftsmen, technicians, security personnel, consultants, and others. Contractor personnel should be provided with training commensurate with the potential hazards. Their training should be similar to that for regular full-time employees working in the same conditions. Review of a contractor employee's training experience with current and previous employers should be considered in determining the training requirements for this individual.

4.3 Females of Reproductive Age Females of reproductive age can be allowed access to, and employed in facilities in which the potential exists for exposure to radiation, but they should be informed and made aware of the level of risk associated with their potential exposures. However, it should be noted that special regulatory limits may apply to this category (e.g., for ionizing radiation) (NRC, 1999c). Further information on recommendations for the protection of the embryo/fetus are contained in NCRP Report No. 116 (NCRP, 1993a) and NRC Regulatory Guide 8.13 (NRC, 1999c).

4.4 Visitors Visitors include individuals who enter a facility, usually briefly, as part of a tour group, personnel who service utilities and support

4.5 MINORS

/ 11

equipment, or as a representative of a delivery or messenger service. They could include individuals who are conferring with employees for either short or extended periods of time. Visitors who are under the constant supervision of escort personnel can be provided access after receiving training to meet the minimum requirements, which could include the following instructions: • they may be near radioactive material or radiationproducing equipment • they must follow the instructions of the escort personnel • they must wear the dosimetry device as required by the facility policy • they may choose to decline the opportunity to visit the facility In any case, the individual should be informed and made aware of the level of risk associated with the potential exposure. Individuals who enter a facility in a professional capacity (visiting scientists, experimenters from other research facilities, consultants, student trainees, etc.), who are assigned to the facility for an extended period of time, need to be classified and trained in a manner comparable to regular employees (Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2). In universities, government laboratories, and certain industrial facilities, students may be engaged in educational or training activities that can result in radiation exposure. Radiation training commensurate with the potential exposure should be provided to these individuals before they are permitted to work in areas where they may be exposed to radiation.

4.5 Minors Minors (under 18 y of age) may be permitted access to facilities in which the potential exists for exposure to radiation. However, it should be noted that special regulatory limits may apply to minors (NRC, 1999a). They and their parents or guardian should be informed and made aware of the level of risk associated with the potential exposure. In addition to these regulations, individual facilities may impose additional restrictions on minors. Further information on recommendations for the protection of minors is presented in NCRP Report No. 116 (NCRP, 1993a).

12 / 4. PERSONNEL TO BE TRAINED 4.6 Emergency Personnel Many facilities have procedures and plans dealing with the various types of emergencies specific for their facilities (fire, medical, chemical, natural disaster, radiological, etc.). Guidance for developing radiation emergency plans is presented in NCRP Report No. 111 (NCRP, 1991). Coordination and training of emergency response personnel enhances their effectiveness. Some facilities may have regulatory requirements to establish a radiological emergency response plan, which includes training requirements for emergency response personnel, both from within and from outside the facility. 4.6.1

Pre-Emergency Training

In emergency situations, a facility may need assistance from fire, police and medical personnel, who may be regular employees, contractor personnel, or simply “volunteers” available from a nearby location (city, hospital, etc.). Although these individuals are well trained in their specialty, they may not be familiar with performing those functions in areas where radioactive materials are routinely handled, or where radioactive contamination may be present. Also, they may not have experience with treating individuals potentially contaminated with radioactive materials or that have received a significant radiation exposure. To assist them in meeting their responsibilities in emergency situations the facility management should provide training specific to the radiation hazards they may encounter. In general this training should include a description of the types of radiation hazards at the facility, physical properties of the radioactive materials, inventories and quantities of radioactive material, existing contamination levels, the possible effects associated with potential accidents, and the use of emergency radiation detection equipment. The goal is to provide sufficient training to permit informed judgments in emergency situations. 4.6.2

Post-Emergency Training

It is acknowledged that there may be emergency situations that do not allow the training of emergency personnel prior to arriving at the facility. In these cases, emergency personnel should be allowed access under the supervision of radiation safety personnel in order to perform their responsibilities. This will allow for the

4.8 ENGINEERING PERSONNEL

/ 13

appropriate medical care to be given to injured individual(s) and allow for mitigation of loss of property. At the conclusion of the emergency, the radiation safety staff should initiate discussions with emergency personnel involved to ensure that they are informed and aware of the level of risk associated with their exposures. Additionally, training sessions should be scheduled to ensure that emergency personnel are aware of the full spectrum of the types of radiation hazards at the facility, the possible effects associated with potential future accidents involving the radioactive materials, and the use of radiation detection equipment. 4.7 Special Situations At times, special situations may arise in which certain individuals need additional training of a specific nature. Individuals in this category include: (1) workers who are required to enter unusually high radiation fields, (2) family members who are required to assist a patient during medical procedures, or (3) patients who are receiving radiation for a medical procedure and their family members [see NCRP Commentary No. 11 (NCRP, 1995)]. These individuals should be informed and made aware of the level of risk associated with their exposures. In addition, Situation 1 may require special training for conducting procedures rapidly, but safely together with other special emergency procedures that may be imposed. Mock-ups and dry-runs may be particularly useful in this case. This training is most effective when performed immediately before the operation. 4.8 Engineering Personnel All engineering personnel whose work assignments require that they design facilities in which radioactive material is handled or radiation-producing devices are operated should receive radiation safety training. These personnel include those who develop plans to deactivate or decommission a facility in which radioactive material was handled. Although these engineers will not themselves be occupationally exposed, the results of their efforts can impact the exposure of other employees. Engineering employees may include civil, mechanical, electrical and nuclear engineers, architects, designers, and others. Radiation safety training will vary significantly with the job requirements and the responsibilities of the engineering employee. For the

14 / 4. PERSONNEL TO BE TRAINED mechanical or electrical engineer or designer, an understanding of radiation, radiation effects, radiation risks, and protective measures may be sufficient for the selection of equipment for applications in radiation areas. For the civil engineer or designer and architect, an understanding of radiation, radiation effects, radiation protection considerations, radiation risks, and protective measures may be sufficient for providing engineered features to reduce radiation exposures. In such uncomplicated situations, on-the-job training may be all that is necessary. For nuclear engineering personnel, an extensive and structured program covering radiation hazards and radiation safety is provided as part of their education.

5. Design and Development of a Radiation Safety Training Program 5.1 Introduction This Section identifies the major elements for the development of a radiation safety training program. The approach consists of the following six sequential steps which are applicable, in principle, to any type of training: (1) perform a job task analysis to determine the knowledge, skills and attitudes necessary to perform a task at the desired level of competence; (2) design and develop the training, including the development of training objectives, establishment of testing criteria, and development of the course structure; (3) develop a lesson plan and training materials; (4) develop an evaluation plan along with the lesson plan; (5) conduct the instruction; (6) evaluate and feedback results to ensure that the original standards of performance are met and maintained. The training process is normally cyclic since the evaluation and feedback, as well as the need for retraining, can lead back to Step One. Each of the six steps will be developed in the following sections. Practical examples, including one for a small facility with simple requirements and one for a large facility with multiple safety programs, are given in Appendix B. In many situations, only the rudiments of such a formal approach will need to be employed. The degree of adherence to the entire program as developed below will depend upon the magnitude and complexity of the radiation hazards. While a trainer should strive for the level of completeness this Section suggests, practical considerations will lead to some simplifications. 5.2 Step One: Job Task Analysis Specific tasks related to the work assignment are defined and analyzed to determine the level of competence required to work with, or around, radiation sources. Following this, the necessary 15

16 / 5. DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF A TRAINING PROGRAM supporting skills, knowledge and attitudes are identified. Each task, together with its supporting requirements, determines the focus of a training effort. For complex jobs, this evaluation may be quite lengthy, with many tasks and subtasks involved (e.g., see Appendix B.2). 5.3 Step Two: Training Design and Development The training objectives, testing criteria, and course structure developed are sensitive to a number of common factors that include: • • • • • 5.3.1

the nature of the radiation hazards to be encountered size of group to be trained type of skill, knowledge and attitude to be attained previous experience and training of the workers the budget and staff available for training Training Objectives

Once the general scheme of the training program has been determined, the objectives for each selected task or subtask are developed. Each objective should be defined in such a way that the trainee, upon successful completion of the course, will be able to demonstrate the acquired knowledge, skill and attitude. Each objective should contain information on the degree of accuracy, time limitations, and other conditions under which the individual should perform each required task. As objectives are developed, they should be documented and correlated to each task so that any modification of a task can be evaluated within the context of the training system. 5.3.2

Testing Criteria

The next goal within the training analysis is to establish the testing or evaluation criteria to be used in measuring successful completion of the objective. These criteria might consist of a written examination to demonstrate knowledge and to determine information retained, or a practical test to demonstrate skill and the ability of the trainee to perform the required task. Although the testing criteria for each task must be developed at this stage in

5.4 STEP THREE: LESSON PLAN AND TRAINING MATERIALS

/ 17

order to proceed logically with the course structure, the overall approach to testing and evaluation is discussed in Section 5.5. 5.3.3

Course Structure

The next step is to develop an effective integration of the course content with the method of presentation. Basic perspectives on radiation risk and overall risk management should be integrated into the course structure. Topics for a training program can be found in Appendix A. Appropriate teaching techniques are discussed in Section 6. The course structure establishes a logical sequence, which would then indicate the necessary background of knowledge and skills and the preferred instructional methods. The structure should also allow for self-evaluation by the trainee and for program evaluation by both the trainee and trainer. 5.3.4

Summary Analysis

The last step in the design and development of a training program is to prepare a summary analysis sheet on the course structure. Such a summary analysis should include the following information: • the primary task being taught • the objectives of the course • a listing of the major requirements (either by subtask, knowledge, skills, attitudes, subjects, demonstrations, etc.) • the testing criteria • the supporting material • the instructional methods • a listing of audiovisual aids and other necessary equipment and materials • an estimate of the time required to accomplish the training 5.4 Step Three: Lesson Plan and Training Materials Development of a lesson plan usually begins with the preparation of the course outline and a training schedule. This is followed by a refinement of the summary analysis developed in Section 5.3.4 and specification of the supporting material and training aids.

18 / 5. DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF A TRAINING PROGRAM Examples of lesson plans are presented in Appendix B. Sources of training materials and aids are presented in Section 6. The criteria for evaluation of the effectiveness of the training program should be included in the lesson plan.

5.5 Step Four: Evaluation Plan The evaluation plan should be developed concurrently with the lesson plan, primarily to ensure consistency. The criteria for evaluation should be included in the lesson plan. Evaluation should assess the degree of learning, the retention of information, and, ultimately, the accomplishment of the training objectives. The evaluation plan, together with the developed training material, should be reviewed to ascertain that the trainee is being taught each objective and is being tested on performance. There are several types of evaluations. These include: (1) reaction evaluation, (2) learning evaluation, (3) performance evaluation, and (4) results evaluation. A “reaction evaluation” is usually given immediately following some learning activity; it serves to provide immediate feedback concerning the likes and dislikes of the trainee and can be used to improve the presentation. A “learning evaluation,” i.e., a written or oral test, is usually given to determine the amount of knowledge retained. This is especially useful if the same evaluation is performed both before, immediately after, and at some later time following instruction. It allows determination of the amount of knowledge learned and then retained over a period of time. The “performance evaluation” is a behavioral test. If this evaluation is based on the specific job requirement, it determines effectively the skills and attitudes of the trainee and the success of a training process. A “results evaluation” is used to determine the success or failure of training. The criteria can be productivity, but it can also be accident rate, collective effective dose, etc. Results may be influenced by many factors and they must be analyzed carefully to determine what effect, if any, training has had. In such evaluations, supervisors may provide useful input.

5.8 RETRAINING

/ 19

5.6 Step Five: Instruction The success of the planning effort depends on the quality of instruction (see Section 2.2). Instructors should be individuals who are experienced in teaching and who have adequate knowledge of the subject. A well-planned program needs good instruction to succeed. Demonstrations and “hands-on” training may be valuable, or even essential, for certain types of instruction. Some classroom instruction can be replaced effectively by using interactive computer-based training programs. 5.7 Step Six: Evaluation and Feedback The last step in the sequence is evaluation and feedback. This step consists of the continual evaluation of performance on the job to provide feedback that will help to modify the training effort as appropriate. Evaluation of instructors and audiovisual programs, validation of specific job requirements, review of training objectives, addressing individual concerns, evaluation of the learning environment to support training, budgeting, etc., are also part of this effort. Additionally, a performance feedback program should be incorporated in this step. Examples of performance feedback include supervisors’ evaluation of work performance, review and evaluation of radiation survey and exposure records, and incident reports. All these factors should be used to determine whether the training is satisfactory, effective, responsive to feedback, and cost-effective, as well as to indicate areas requiring improvement. 5.8 Retraining Periodic retraining should be required for those individuals having complex work assignments and responsibilities. Retraining at a specified time interval may be required by regulation (DOE, 1998). Several methods exist for long-term evaluation of the continuing competence of workers who have received initial training. Some of these include: • retesting at periodic intervals to determine proficiency retention (performance related, where possible) • interviews with workers, supervisors and technical staff to collect and review data on job performance • periodic observation of job performance

20 / 5. DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF A TRAINING PROGRAM These methods allow evaluation of the degree of retraining necessary to maintain a desired proficiency. The trainer should always be alert to new technological developments or for changes in procedures, standards or regulations which may require retraining. The frequency of retraining may be related to the frequency of the use of the learned competence. Those tasks that may be required only occasionally but are highly demanding, stressful or complex, should be considered for periodic retraining. For example, retraining for emergencies is very important since a high degree of competence is necessary and the frequency of applying emergency procedures should be low. Care should be taken to assure that retraining is scheduled as part of the overall training program. The extent of retraining should be supported by evaluation of performance based on specific job requirements over the time period necessary to maintain competence. Continuing education should be supported for professional and technical radiation safety personnel and for training personnel.

6. Learning Environment and Training Aids

For a training effort to be successful, the trainee who successfully completes the course must become more knowledgeable about radiation safety and more effective in applying this knowledge to practical situations. Various methods for communicating information can be effective with proper planning and implementation. There are several basic training formats: individual or personal study, large group instruction, mentoring, and on-the-job training. If several training formats are used, it is important to ensure consistency in the information being presented.

6.1 Individual Study Individual study is an effective way to acquire knowledge such as mastering the basic fundamentals in a science. Materials and processes that can be used may include: programmed learning texts and other printed material, interactive computer systems, videotape, slides, and film. A self-instruction program requires skillful design by someone with detailed knowledge and experience concerning the necessary reinforcement of the typical trainee's response. The training can be decentralized, unscheduled, self-paced, self-evaluated, and self-reinforced. Individual study can be supplemented by encouraging the exchange of ideas and questions between a good trainer and a few course participants. In all cases trainees should have the opportunity to discuss the training information and to ask questions. It is also important to provide for evaluation and feedback as described in Section 5.7 when developing individual study programs. Suitable instructional material may not always be commercially available in the technical area for which instruction is desired. In such cases, if care is taken in their preparation, handout materials can be an effective substitute. 21

22 / 6. LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND TRAINING AIDS 6.2 Group Instruction Large group instruction is satisfactory if the objective is simply to acquire knowledge or to develop interactive and team building skills (e.g., teamwork for emergency responders). This is especially true when the program includes the opportunity to practice those skills in laboratories and exercises. If the objective is primarily to enhance understanding and develop skills, smaller discussion groups are better. The instructional formats for larger groups are typically lectures, films, slide presentations, symposia, field trips, group interviews, and videotape.

6.3 Mentoring Mentoring (or coaching) can be a very effective method of training in certain situations. Usually this approach places a trainee in a one-on-one situation with an individual who has significantly more experience and knowledge in the topic. The objectives and the outcome measures must be clearly understood by both the trainee and the mentor at the outset. Not every individual is capable of success as a mentor. It must be emphasized that the technique of mentoring the trainee until the desired training objectives are demonstrated requires knowledgeable supervisors and managers who are trained in good reinforcement and human interaction skills. This approach is most effective when conducted over a long period of time in the workplace.

6.4 On-the-Job Training On-the-job instruction is most useful when high degrees of skill and constant reinforcement are required. Skill training should be moved out of the classroom and into the job site where the conditions are real and where opportunity for repeated practice over an extended period is available. In some situations, models or mock-ups of the job site will be required because of the potential for radiation exposure or nonradiological hazards. On-the-job training requires skillful design and evaluation with a commitment from management and the trainee.

6.6 TRAINING ENVIRONMENT

/ 23

6.5 Training Aids Many trainers use visual supplements such as overhead projectors, computer-based projection, slides, videos, filmstrips, etc., as aids in presenting information efficiently and succinctly. With close attention to maintenance of a personal relationship between the trainer and the trainees, visual supplements can reinforce the communication of information. There is an abundance of commercially available software that can be used for radiation safety training. Videotape programs are commonly used as a communications medium in technical fields. Imaginative programming can make videotape very effective, especially for self-instruction. On the other hand, when these programs are no more than a recording of a lecture, they may be only marginally effective. Videotape or computer-based programs can be used as supplements to the classroom environment or as methods in which the trainee interacts with the teaching program without benefit of a personal instructor. Similarly, a number of slide and audiotape presentations and self-paced instructional manuals have been developed as aids to learning. 6.6 Training Environment The training environment is quickly evolving as new technology becomes available. Students now have more flexibility in determining the manner in which they may choose to learn. They may opt for a traditional training environment such as a formal classroom or one of the many new styles of learning that are rapidly evolving. New technologies, including distance learning based on video conferences from universities or other training centers, permit a variety of options that were not previously available. These same systems can be used within an institution to disseminate information without requiring the assembly of people at one location. Additionally, the Internet is a constantly expanding source for information on training resources. However, it is important to recognize that many of the resources available via the Internet may not have been carefully evaluated. No matter what style of training program or environment is selected, it is important to employ a feedback mechanism to measure the competency of the individual to perform the job function for which he or she is responsible.

7. Audit Periodically, management should have the training program audited to ensure that training objectives are being fulfilled. The audit could be performed either internally or by an outside consultant. The auditors should look for: • • • • •

defined objectives for the training program relevance of the program currency of the program the quality of the program the availability of feedback both at the end of the training and after on-the-job experience • management commitment and resources for the training program • testing criteria • evaluation plan The auditors should look at: • • • • • • • • • •

training records examinations lesson plans instructor qualifications visual aids frequency and duration of training requirements for retraining course structure survey and exposure records incident reports

The auditors should also conduct on-the-job interviews to determine if the training program is achieving the desired skills. The frequency of audits will depend on professional judgment, taking into consideration the complexity of the program, frequency of program changes, and employee performance. There may also be external requirements that apply.

24

Appendix A Suggested Topics for Radiation Safety Training Table A.1 lists topics that should be considered for inclusion in the preparation of a general training program for occupationally exposed employees. “Essential elements” are those topics that should be included in all radiation safety training programs. The extent of instruction and its technical content should be adjusted depending on the work assignments of the staff being trained. “Optional elements” are those topics that should be considered for inclusion in the training program. These depend on the types of operations conducted at the facility and the work assignments of the staff. Radiation safety technicians need additional detailed training in the subjects listed in the third column of Table A.1.

25

Essential Elements

Optional Elements

Additional Elements for Radiation Safety Technicians

Risks related to exposure to radiation and to other workplace hazards

Waste management/waste minimization and pollution prevention

Inspections/audits

Dose limits and site-specific administrative controls

Institutional radiation safety manual

Packaging/shipping/labeling for transportation

Mode of exposure • external radiation sources • internal radioactive materials - absorption - inhalation - ingestion - wounds

Contamination control • protective clothing and equipment • surveying for radiation and contamination • decontamination

Leak testing

Basic protective measures including engineering and administrative controls

Work area decontamination

Use and calibration of survey and monitoring equipment

Security including securing materials and facilities and the individual’s role

License/regulations

Recording information and survey data and keeping records

Emergency notification procedures and response

Characteristics of ionizing and nonionizing radiation

Principles and practices for reducing radiation exposure

26 / APPENDIX A

TABLE A.1—Topics for a general training programs.

Radioactive materials and decay

Radiation and radioactive contamination survey techniques

Responsibility of employees and organizations

Radiation-producing equipment Natural and manufactured sources

Emergency response and personal decontamination

Interaction with radiation safety staff

Acute effects of exposure Chronic effects of low-level exposure

Radioactive waste disposal

Overall safety

Determination of dose

Bioassay requirements/techniques

Description of and requirements related to specific facility hazards

Basic radiation survey instrumentation

Radiation accident control techniques

Special requirements for women of reproductive age

Radiation monitoring program and procedures

Proper selection and use of personnel protective equipment

Basic monitoring for radiation exposure

Identification and control of radiation sources

Procedures for maintaining doses ALARA

Selection and use of appropriate personal radiation dosimeters

A. SUGGESTED TOPICS FOR RADIATION SAFETY TRAINING

Warning signs, postings, labeling and alarms

/ 27

Appendix B Examples of the Training Method Three examples of the structural components of the training method follow. The examples are presented to indicate the method and not to suggest that such formalism would be expected for some of the simpler tasks presented in the examples. Although all three of these examples are skill oriented, this same approach can also be employed to acquaint radiation workers with an understanding of the risk associated with their radiation exposure. The discussion that follows is presented in accordance with the steps described in Section 5. B.1 Secretarial Support Staff in a Small Medical Facility B.1.1

Introduction

For purposes of this example, it is assumed that the secretarial staff have all the required secretarial skills, but are not trained in the radiation safety requirements of their work. B.1.2

Step One: Job Task Analysis

The secretarial staff ’s responsibility from a radiation safety standpoint might be identified in our example as “observing a prohibition against entering controlled areas, namely x-ray rooms and/or radionuclide preparation and administration areas.” With the task established, the supervisor can now prepare a standard of performance that describes its successful accomplishment. In this example, it is necessary “to recognize the caution sign 28

B. EXAMPLES OF THE TRAINING METHOD

/ 29

for controlled areas and not to enter such an area under normal operating conditions.” With this standard of performance, the supervisor can identify the skills, knowledge and attitudes necessary to accomplish the task. In this example, these attributes are simply the ability to read and recognize the sign, to understand the significance of not entering the area, to identify normal conditions, and to know the procedure if entrance to the area is necessary. In addition, the secretarial staff should understand the hazards and risks that exist in controlled areas and that the areas normally occupied are safe. These skills, knowledge and attitudes become the basis for determining the content of an instructional method for training. B.1.3

Step Two: Training Design and Development

Even in a small facility, there can exist a variety of instructional options. In this example, the medical facility can easily provide a slide or tape program using in-house slides of signs and procedures. Although a special instructor might be engaged to train the secretarial staff on an occasional basis, the training might better be performed by the medical staff. In either case, the individual performing the training should have knowledge of the job task analysis (Step One) and maintain consistency with the training objectives. In the example, the training objective can be stated as follows: At the completion of this instructional period, the trainee should be able to identify quickly the standard controlled-area warning signs used at this facility and to distinguish them from other standard warning signs. The next step within the training analysis is to establish the testing criteria which will determine whether the training objective has been accomplished successfully. In this example, proper recognition of warning signs may be all that is needed. The final step in the training analysis is to develop the necessary course structure to accomplish the desired training. In this example, the following two conditions are assumed: • The supervisors of the secretarial staff will conduct the training since professional trainers would not normally be needed. • The training materials are in the form of printed loose-leaf binders with full-color photographs of signs and areas.

30 / APPENDIX B The supervisor instructs the staff members on the meaning of each warning sign, encourages review of training materials both preand post-test, and provides periodic reinforcement. A summary analysis of the course structure might be as shown in Table B.1. B.1.4

Step Three: Lesson Plan and Training Materials

Training materials to support this training effort might consist of photographs, typed pages, binders, pre- and post-tests, and radiation survey data. The training materials could be prepared by the supervisor or by training consultants. A lesson plan could be as follows: Lesson Plan Outline Instructional Subject:

The safety of your office.

Instructor:

———

Instructional Goal:

The trainee will be capable of quickly identifying warning signs that restrict entrance into controlled areas.

Training Objectives:

Upon completion of this instructional period, the trainee will be able to accomplish the following: • identify the standard warning signs used at this facility • perform proper action by not entering areas designated by the standard signs • accept the fact that his or her working area is safe

Training Support Material:

List all materials and equipment necessary for the training effort.

B.1.5

Step Four: Evaluation Plan

The evaluation plan for this training program consists of testing the trainee both before and after instruction to determine knowledge of signs and actions. The supervisor will reinforce proper actions in the work area after the participants have observed initial demonstrations.

TABLE B.1—Summary analysis of training course structure. Reference

Instructional Methods

Training Materials

Location

Estimated Time (minutes)

Capability of recognizing and reading signs

Pre-test

Self-directed

Pre-test binder

Work area

10

Safety of occupied area

RPMa

Demonstration

Survey meter and reports

Work area

5

Emergency contacts

RPM

Instruction

Pre-test binder

Work area

10

Understanding of the hazards and risk in controlled area

RPM

Demonstration

Survey meter and reports

Work area

5

Identification of facility

Standard

Instruction

Pre-test binder

Work area

10

Reinforcement

Post-test

Self-directed

Post-test binder

Work area

10

= radiation protection manual.

/ 31

aRPM

B. EXAMPLES OF THE TRAINING METHOD

Training Element

32 / APPENDIX B Evaluation can also take place through review of radiation exposure data, job performance, and reports of violations during the safety inspection. B.1.6

Step Five: Instruction

The fifth step is the training itself. The critical factor is the training ability of the instructor or the quality of the prepared program. B.1.7

Step Six: Evaluation and Feedback

Evaluation and feedback in this example consist of reviewing any changes in work requirements and evaluating the performance on the job. Typical questions that would accomplish this step could include: • Have controlled area signs remained the same? • Have the work needs of the secretaries changed the entrance requirements into controlled areas? • Have supervisors conducted the training to desired standards? • Is the instructional method appropriate? • Does trainee feedback indicate confidence that the work area is safe? • Are there recurring experiences of unauthorized access to controlled areas by trained support staff? B.2 Training for a Manufacturer’s Field Engineer in a Nuclear Power Station B.2.1

Introduction

The following example involves a situation requiring more training. Although several training needs are described, the list is obviously not complete. A valve manufacturer was contacted about a problem with a spent-fuel cooling system valve and has sent an engineer to troubleshoot the problem in the field. In this example, the engineer will troubleshoot the problem and determine if the valve in the spent-fuel cooling system should be replaced. The engineer is an expert in the design and operation of the valve. The engineer has been trained in plant orientation, quality-control procedures, security, fire control,

B. EXAMPLES OF THE TRAINING METHOD

/ 33

and emergency procedures. He has not received radiation safety training, but he will be supported by radiation safety staff. Radiological conditions at the job site are known to be as follows: • gamma dose rate of 0.001 Gy h–1 in the work area • 1.67 × 102 per 100 cm2 transferable radionuclide activity on the outside surface of the pipe • dose rates of 0.001 Gy h–1 (gamma) and 0.02 Gy h–1 (beta) on the outside of the pipe area does not normally require respiratory protection B.2.2

Step One: Job Task Analysis

The engineer’s job is identified as a series of tasks to be performed in an area in which exposure to radiation and radioactive materials is expected. One way to organize the job task analysis is the following: • • • • •

identify the job to be performed develop a list of tasks establish job conditions confirm the task listing and job conditions identify supporting skills, knowledge and attitudes

A statement of the job would read, Troubleshoot valve operation and determine if replacement of the valve is needed. All work will meet facility requirements for quality assurance, other requirements for maintaining radiation exposure ALARA, and working within the radiation work permit limit. Once the job has been generally identified, other training considerations should include previous experience, level of supervision, degree of health physics support, and other working conditions and site characteristics important to the engineer’s radiation safety. At this point, a listing of the major tasks is made in the order that they will be performed as follows: (1) actively participate in the decision to accept the individual radiation dose associated with the job, (2) properly follow the radiation work permit (RWP), and (3) properly use personnel dosimetry as indicated on the RWP Each of these major tasks is then divided into a series of subtasks. As an example, consider the third task involving the proper use of personnel dosimetry. Completion of this task may require the engineer to use whole-body, finger-ring, and self-reading

34 / APPENDIX B dosimeters (SRD). The proper use of each of these dosimeters will require that the engineer be trained to select, wear, protect, return, and as appropriate, to read the SRD and record the exposure information. The performance standards for these tasks and subtasks should, when possible, be stated in observable terms. Terms such as “understand,” “be aware of,” and “know about” should be avoided. The performance standard can be written to meet several types of job conditions; therefore, a job condition and performance standard are needed for each subtask. An example is the proper selection of the SRD designated on the RWP. • Job condition: Only low- and high-range SRDs are available under normal operating conditions. Both are shown on the RWP with a check mark indicating which SRD is required. • Job standard: Select with 100 percent accuracy the designated SRD on an RWP within 30 s even if SRDs are improperly labeled, located in wrong storage containers, or improperly given to worker by facility personnel. • Confirmation: In this example, it would be helpful for the trainer to have his task analyses reviewed by a previously trained and competent engineer and by a health physicist for the facility. It is critical to the training process that the job standards be correct, achievable and measurable. • Supporting knowledge, skills and attitudes: It is now necessary to identify the supporting knowledge, skills and attitudes that may be necessary for properly selecting the SRD designated on the RWP. The supporting skills may be as simple as having the ability to read the proper section of the RWP and the ability to read the scale of the SRD. On the other hand, the supporting knowledge may require an understanding of: • characteristics of two types of SRDs (i.e., low- and high-range SRDs) • definition of “high” and “low” SRD readings • rejection criteria for improperly marked SRDs In addition to improving the worker’s skill and knowledge, it is important that supporting attitudes be developed. The engineer must be convinced that:

B. EXAMPLES OF THE TRAINING METHOD

/ 35

• correct SRD selection is essential to control the radiation exposure of the individual • control of radiation exposure is directly related to the ability to take actions based on reliable data • individual actions can affect exposure of other personnel in addition to one’s self The trainer has now completed a task analysis of a desired job. All supporting knowledge, skills and attitudes necessary to perform the subtask at the stated competency have been identified. B.2.3

Step Two: Training Design and Development

The trainer needs to match the supporting requirements for the various tasks with the appropriate training approach. In this example, the trainee is an engineer who has no occupational experience with radiation. This individual may be apprehensive about working in a radiation environment. The training style should include sufficient hands-on training in small groups and reinforcement by means of repeated practice. Special emphasis on self-assurance and confidence in dosimeter and survey-instrument readings will probably be necessary to maintain a positive attitude about safety in the working environment. Once the training style is selected, the next item in the analysis is the development of training objectives for selected tasks and subtasks. Objectives should be behavioral and directly related to the performance standard. In this example, the subtask is to properly select the SRD designated on the RWP. The associated training objective is: Upon completion of the instructional period, the trainee will select with 100 percent accuracy a designated SRD on an RWP within 30 s. The objective can now be used to set the testing criteria for a training effort. The testing criteria will be used to measure how well the training objective has been accomplished. The testing criteria will also determine the depth or extent to which the training will be pursued. Therefore, an appropriate testing criterion for this example would be: Given three different RWPs, the trainee will properly select, within 30 s with 100 percent accuracy, the designated SRD from a set of 10 SRDs which are mislabeled and stored incorrectly. Obviously, only one facet of the subtask of the engineer’s use of dosimeters has been selected. In practice, at this stage, the trainer would have completed a review of many job tasks, established the level of competency for the tasks, determined what learning should

36 / APPENDIX B take place, and decided how that learning will be evaluated. The various training objectives can now be arranged in a desired sequence of instruction for either individual instruction, group instruction, or on-the-job training. Consideration is also given to the arrangement of course components such as lecture, demonstration, audiovisual, workshop, case study, seminar, and various instructional methods. In the example used here, the trainee will be expected to develop sufficient understanding of the risks of radiation exposure to permit active participation in the decision to accept the exposure. The importance of dosimetry will be dealt with on an individual basis between the instructor and student. The extent to which the engineer needs to know the operation of an SRD is minimal since the proper type of SRD is indicated on an RWP. The degree of understanding of SRD operation may be linked more to an attitude of confidence in the device rather than to detailed knowledge of its design. Therefore, if deemed necessary, the trainer may prefer to deal with operating characteristics during small group feedback sessions rather than on an individual basis. The training sessions for the subtasks discussed in this example will require hands-on training. The use of an actual RWP is important to this type of training since the individual is required to select the SRD indicated on the form. The selection of the proper SRD can be demonstrated by inspection and handling of the dosimeter. It will also be important to demonstrate and reinforce the rejection criteria. Proper responses to this training can also be easily reinforced later when procedures are discussed for assessing the work area, dressing in protective clothing, and completing RWPs. The trainer now prepares a summary analysis sheet for all tasks identified for training (see Table B.2). This information will become the course structure.

B.2.4

Step Three: Lesson Plan and Training Materials

The next step is to prepare materials to support the training effort. Based on a course syllabus and schedule, the lesson plan is prepared. The course outline and training schedule are used to organize the training materials. In this example, the objective is written in behavioral terms and is very similar to the training objective previously stated. The lesson plan is the key link between task analysis and the training effort.

TABLE B.2—Summary analysis of training course structure (not intended to be complete). Major task: Proper selection of dosimeters indicated on RWP according to facility procedures and good radiological work practices. Sub-task: Self-reading dosimeter (SRD)

Training Element

Reference

Instructional Method

Training Materials

Location

Estimated Time (minutes)

Lecture Demonstration

SRDs, RWPs, Slides of SRD Overheads of RWP

Classroom

10 – lecture 5 – demonstration

Evaluation of SRD

Same as above

Lecture Demonstration

SRDs, RWPs, Slides of SRD Overheads of calibration label various scales

Classroom

10 – lecture 5 – demonstration

PEa

Same as above

PE 5 stations with PE and test criteria for each case: • selection • evaluate – all good • evaluate – calibration • evaluate – damaged points • evaluate – re-zero

SRDs RWPs PE handout

Simulated control point

20

a

PE = practical exercise.

/ 37

SRD technical manual, facility procedure, ANSI standard, etc.

B. EXAMPLES OF THE TRAINING METHOD

Selection of SRD

38 / APPENDIX B Lesson Plan Outline Instructional Subject:

Self-reading dosimeter (SRD) Selection and evaluation of an SRD

Instructor:

———

Instructional Goal:

The trainee will be capable of properly evaluating and selecting an SRD as indicated on the RWP in a timely manner with 100 percent accuracy.

Training Objectives:

Upon completion of this instructional period, the learner will be able to accomplish the following: • select with 100 percent accuracy the SRD as designated on an RWP within 30 s • select with 100 percent accuracy a properly calibrated SRD within 30 s • select with 100 percent accuracy a properly serviceable SRD within 30 s • perform a re-zero operation of an SRD within 1 min • state in the trainee’s own terms the importance of using proper SRDs while performing a job in a radiation environment

Training Support Material:

List all materials and equipment necessary for the training effort.

B.2.5

Step Four: Evaluation Plan

The testing criteria necessary to determine the achievement of the training objective were identified during the training design and development. These testing criteria were directly related to the job performance standard. Now that the components of the training activity have been determined, Step Four is used to put together the evaluation plan for meeting the performance standards. The following is an example:

B. EXAMPLES OF THE TRAINING METHOD

/ 39

Evaluation Plan Outline Evaluation Plan:

Self-reading dosimeter (SRD)

Instructional Period:

Selection and evaluation of SRDs reference task: Self-reading dosimeter

Reference Lesson Plan:

No. XX — Self-reading dosimeter (SRD)

General:

The trainee will be skill-tested during the practical exercise portion of the instructional period. Each trainee will be required to complete, with 100 percent accuracy in the time specified, five different skill tests dealing with recognition and evaluation of SRDs.

Specifics:

Select with 100 percent accuracy a designated SRD on an RWP within 30 s

Description:

The trainee will receive three completed RWPs each of which indicate the SRD to be utilized for each job. The trainee, using one RWP, will be required to select the designated SRD from two different types of SRDs. Using a second RWP, the trainee will be handed an SRD and asked if it is the designated SRD. Using a third RWP, the trainee will select the proper SRD from a total of 10 SRDs (two types) that are mislabeled and incorrectly stored.

B.2.6

Step Five: Instruction

The objectives, testing criteria, and training materials are now ready for implementation. The instructor presents the materials to the trainee with care being taken to assure that learning is taking place. Handouts, visual aids, and demonstrations all assist the instructor in this effort. B.2.7

Step Six: Evaluation and Feedback

Evaluation and feedback as it relates to the SRD example is primarily concerned with the consistency of learned skills and performance on the job. Principal concerns would include:

40 / APPENDIX B • • • • • • • • • •

Has RWP format changed? Have SRD procedures changed? Have control point procedures changed? Have job conditions changed requiring different dosimetry? Have job conditions changed requiring different dosimetry techniques? Have job performance reviews indicated effective training? Are trainees meeting the testing criteria? Is the instruction appropriate for the group being trained? Does trainee feedback indicate confidence in dosimetry? Are attitudes about dosimetry positive?

This portion of the program ensures that the testing criteria, training materials, and instructional techniques accomplish the training objectives. B.3 Radiographer in a Construction Company B.3.1

Introduction

The following example of required training is based on lessons learned from radiography incidents. In this instance, the training could apply to a radiographer or an assistant in the radiography program for a construction company. Numerous incidents have occurred that result from the improper use or the malfunction of the radiography equipment. As an example, an incident occurred that involved certain industrial radiography equipment that can be locked with the sealed source in the exposed position. In the incident, the camera was moved without ensuring that the source was in the shielded position. The investigation of the incident determined that the radiographer had approached the camera without a survey instrument, locked the device, and left the drive controls connected while moving the device from one location to another. The radiographer had assumed that locking the device secured the source in the shielded position. In this case, the source had remained in the guide tube because the pigtail had disconnected from the drive cable. If the radiographer had removed the guide tube when moving the device, he would have recognized the absence of the source pigtail within the shielded assembly. The incident resulted in the overexposure of the radiographer. The alarming dosimeter was turned off.

B. EXAMPLES OF THE TRAINING METHOD

B.3.2

/ 41

Step One: Job Task Analysis

The incident is reviewed to determine its relevance to the specific job activities. For lessons learned regarding a particular type of camera, determine if the same or similar cameras are used on the job site. Review work procedures to determine if procedures would allow the radiographer to leave the guide tube connected while moving the device from one location to another; if this is possible, then revise procedures as necessary. Review the work practices at the job site to determine the attitude toward adherence to procedures to determine if procedural shortcuts are being taken. This may be done by observing work or by interviewing the personnel who perform radiography. With the incident reviewed, the supervisor or radiation safety officer can now describe the task for which training will correct performance. In this example, it is to ensure that the radiographers and assistants understand that radiography devices or cameras, although locked, may not have the sources in the shielded position. Current procedures do not allow the movement of cameras with the drive cables connected. Training should emphasize the importance and basis for procedure use and adherence. Procedures require surveys of the radiographic exposure device or camera and source guide tube after each exposure to verify that the source is shielded. The training on this incident should address: • description of the incident and consequences of the incident • identification of the equipment and potential malfunctions or limitations of the equipment • importance of working in accordance with procedures • importance of surveying the radiographic exposure device or camera and source guide tube after each exposure • reliance on personnel alarming dosimetry Each of these major tasks is then divided into a series of subtasks. As an example, the importance of surveying the radiographic exposure device after each exposure is considered. The subtasks could involve identifying the reason for performing survey after each exposure, what constitutes an adequate survey, proper use of survey equipment, and the basis for completing a survey after each exposure. The individual that will perform the training has now completed the task analysis of the desired job. All supporting knowledge, skills and attitudes necessary to perform the subtask at the stated training objective have been identified.

42 / APPENDIX B B.3.3

Step Two: Training Design and Development

The purpose of the survey is to ensure that the radiation source is in the shielded position and worker exposures are prevented. The trainer must decide whether the most effective method of training is formal classroom instruction, small group instruction, or a work time-out. The work time-out is an effective training method if the potential exists for similar incidents to occur due to poor adherence to procedures. Once the training style is selected, the training objectives are identified for each task and subtask. As an example, following training the radiographer or learner will adhere to procedural guidance all the time. As part of the development of the training objectives, it is important to identify the testing criteria that will be used to determine training effectiveness. Assessments of performance will determine if procedures are used and adhered to. B.3.4

Step Three: Lesson Plan and Training Materials

The lesson plan is prepared to organize the training materials. Lesson Plan Outline Instructional Subject:

Lessons learned from radiography incident including: • description of the incident and consequences of the incident • identification of the equipment and potential malfunctions or limitations of the equipment • importance of working in accordance with procedures • importance of surveying the radiographic exposure device or camera and source guide tube after each exposure • reliance on personnel alarming dosimetry

Instructor:

———

Instructional Goal:

The radiographer will perform adequate surveys in accordance with procedures each time a radiographic examination is conducted.

B. EXAMPLES OF THE TRAINING METHOD

/ 43

Training Objective:

Upon completion of the work time-out, the radiographer(s) and assistant(s) will be able to accomplish the following: • Describe the incident that resulted in a worker overexposure and relate the event to the current work environment. This includes potential equipment malfunctions that can occur with the current radiographic device or devices. • Explain the basis for procedure use and adherence including the basis for stopping work if procedure thought to be unsafe. • Perform surveys to ensure that the source is shielded. • Explain the need to use alarming dosimeters as well as perform surveys.

Training Support Materials:

List all materials and equipment necessary for the training effort. This may include a video or reenactment of the event, vendor manuals on radiographic device limitations and operation, copies of procedures for review, refresher on survey performance, etc. depending on the assessment of need.

The incident also needs to be factored into training program lesson plans. B.3.5

Step Four: Evaluation Plan

In this particular example, it was determined that a follow-up assessment of performance, possibly interviews with radiographers and assistants, would be performed to determine if the work time-out was effective. B.3.6

Step Five: Instruction

Based on the audience, the material is presented to facilitate learning for the work group selected. B.3.7

Step Six: Evaluation and Feedback

Results of the assessment of performance will identify if the training was effective, if follow-up training is needed on specific

44 / APPENDIX B skills, or if there is a problem with the procedure since it is not being followed. This process ensures that training is relevant and skills are maintained.

Appendix C Radiation Risk and Risk Management for Radiation Safety Training

C.1 Risks Associated with Radiation Exposure Exposure to radiation and radioactive materials is only one of many hazards that are generally encountered in the workplace. Occupationally exposed individuals should be given sufficient information to gain a perspective of the relative significance of radiation risk compared with other risks to which they may be exposed. The model that is used to develop the recommendations for radiation dose limits assumes that there is some level of cancer risk associated with any radiation exposure. However, it should be made clear that the risk of cancer at very low levels of radiation exposure is small and cannot be detected or observed. Risks from exposure to radiological hazards comprise only a small part of the total cancer risk. The training for occupationally exposed individuals should emphasize that risks from radiological exposures are limited through good radiation protection programs and the personal efforts of each individual who is responsible for controlling occupational exposure. Some facts might be useful in conveying an understanding of the risk resulting from exposure to radiation experienced by occupationally exposed individuals. Recent cancer statistics indicate that in the United States the normal cancer mortality rate is about 20 percent (0.2) (NCI, 1999). 45

46 / APPENDIX C The average occupational dose among the most highly exposed group of workers is less than 0.01 Sv y–1, and for the average worker it is less than 0.005 Sv y–1 (NCRP, 1987). These exposures are 0.2 and 0.1 of the annual dose limit, respectively (NCRP, 1993a). Assuming that a worker is exposed to an annual dose of 0.01 Sv for 25 y, the estimated added risk of cancer mortality would be about 0.01. That is to say, the cancer mortality risk for such an individual would increase from about 0.20 to about 0.21. To place this in perspective, the employee should be made aware of the typical dose rates received by the average and most highly exposed group of workers at the facility. Radiological risk estimates are fully discussed in detail in NCRP Report No. 115 (NCRP, 1993b). That report should be used as an aid in developing appropriate risk training materials for the diverse population of the workforce. C.2 Control of Total Risk through Integrated Risk Management Although radiation exposure should be controlled to be ALARA, radiation exposure may be only one of the hazards that should be controlled. The goal should be to appropriately control the risk from all radiological and nonradiological hazards combined. This process is defined as control of total risk through integrated risk management. Integrated risk management includes consideration of risks from other occupational hazards such as heat stress, working at heights, exposure to poor air quality, and confined space entry in determining appropriate radiological controls. For example, it may be inappropriate to use respiratory protection to prevent minor intakes of radioactive material when this could result in increased total dose due to decreases in worker efficiency, or an unacceptable increase in physical stress such as increased heart and respiratory rates (NRC, 1999d). Respiratory protection can also increase accidents such as tripping and falling from ladders or work platforms. Similarly, in some circumstances, it may be inappropriate to use additional protective clothing to prevent skin contamination or exposure to discrete radioactive particles. For example, the risks from heat stress should be considered as part of integrated risk management. Occupationally exposed individuals should be included where feasible in discussions and decision making regarding choice of

C. RADIATION RISK AND RISK MANAGEMENT FOR TRAINING

/ 47

optimal worker protection techniques. The individual’s input is important particularly in addressing psychological factors, which are also important in integrated risk management.

References DOE (1998). U.S. Department of Energy. “Occupational radiation protection; final rule,” Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations Part 835 (U.S. Department of Energy, Washington). NCI (1999). National Cancer Institute. Atlas of Cancer Mortality in the United States, 1950–1994 (Cancer Information Service, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland) (http://www.nci.nih.gov/atlas/mortality.html) NCRP (1987). National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States, NCRP Report No. 93 (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Bethesda, Maryland). NCRP (1991). National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Developing Radiation Emergency Plans for Academic, Medical or Industrial Facilities, NCRP Report No. 111 (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Bethesda, Maryland). NCRP (1992). National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Maintaining Radiation Protection Records, NCRP Report No. 114 (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Bethesda, Maryland). NCRP (1993a). National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Limitation of Exposure to Ionizing Radiation, NCRP Report No. 116 (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Bethesda, Maryland). NCRP (1993b). National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Risk Estimates for Radiation Protection, NCRP Report No. 115 (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Bethesda, Maryland). NCRP (1995). National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Dose Limits for Individuals Who Receive Exposure from Radionuclide Therapy Patients, NCRP Commentary No. 11 (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Bethesda, Maryland). NCRP (1998). National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Operational Radiation Safety Program, NCRP Report No. 127 (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Bethesda, Maryland).

48

REFERENCES

/ 49

NRC (1999a). U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Standards for protection against radiation,” Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations Part 20 (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington). NRC (1999b). U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Notices, instructions and reports to workers: Inspection and investigations,” Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations Part 19 (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington). NRC (1999c). U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Instruction concerning prenatal radiation exposure,” NRC Regulatory Guide 8.13, Revision 3 (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington). NRC (1999d). U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Acceptable programs for respiratory protection,” NRC Regulatory Guide 8.15, Revision 1 (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington).

The NCRP The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements is a nonprofit corporation chartered by Congress in 1964 to: 1. Collect, analyze, develop and disseminate in the public interest information and recommendations about (a) protection against radiation and (b) radiation measurements, quantities and units, particularly those concerned with radiation protection. 2. Provide a means by which organizations concerned with the scientific and related aspects of radiation protection and of radiation quantities, units and measurements may cooperate for effective utilization of their combined resources, and to stimulate the work of such organizations. 3. Develop basic concepts about radiation quantities, units and measurements, about the application of these concepts, and about radiation protection. 4. Cooperate with the International Commission on Radiological Protection, the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements, and other national and international organizations, governmental and private, concerned with radiation quantities, units and measurements and with radiation protection. The Council is the successor to the unincorporated association of scientists known as the National Committee on Radiation Protection and Measurements and was formed to carry on the work begun by the Committee in 1929. The participants in the Council’s work are the Council members and members of scientific and administrative committees. Council members are selected solely on the basis of their scientific expertise and serve as individuals, not as representatives of any particular organization. The scientific committees, composed of experts having detailed knowledge and competence in the particular area of the committee's interest, draft proposed recommendations. These are then submitted to the full membership of the Council for careful review and approval before being published. The following comprise the current officers and membership of the Council:

Officers Charles B. Meinhold S. James Adelstein William M. Beckner Michael F. McBride James F. Berg

President Vice President Secretary and Assistant Treasurer Assistant Secretary Treasurer

50

THE NCRP

Members S. James Adelstein John F. Ahearne Larry E. Anderson Lynn R. Anspaugh Benjamin R. Archer Harold L. Beck Eleanor A. Blakely B. Gordon Blaylock John D. Boice, Jr. André Bouville Leslie A. Braby David J. Brenner Antone L. Brooks Patricia A. Buffler Shih-Yew Chen Chung-Kwang Chou James E. Cleaver J. Donald Cossairt Allen G. Croff Paul M. DeLuca Carter Denniston Gail de Planque John F. Dicello Sarah S. Donaldson William P. Dornsife Keith F. Eckerman Marc Edwards Stephen A. Feig H. Keith Florig Kenneth R. Foster

Thomas F. Gesell Ethel S. Gilbert John D. Graham Joel E. Gray Raymond A. Guilmette William R. Hendee David G. Hoel F. Owen Hoffman Geoffrey R. Howe Donald G. Jacobs Kenneth R. Kase David C. Kocher Ritsuko Komaki Amy Kronenberg Charles E. Land Susan M. Langhorst Richard W. Leggett Howard L. Liber James C. Lin John B. Little Jay H. Lubin C. Douglas Maynard Claire M. Mays Roger O. McClellan Barbara J. McNeil Charles B. Meinhold Fred A. Mettler, Jr. Charles W. Miller Kenneth L. Miller John E. Moulder

David S. Myers Ronald C. Petersen John W. Poston, Sr. Andrew K. Poznanski R. Julian Preston Jerome S. Puskin Genevieve S. Roessler Marvin Rosenstein Lawrence N. Rothenberg Henry D. Royal Michael T. Ryan Jonathan M. Samet Stephen M. Seltzer Roy E. Shore David H. Sliney Paul Slovic Louise C. Strong Richard A. Tell John E. Till Lawrence W. Townsend Robert L. Ullrich Richard J. Vetter Daniel Wartenberg David A. Weber F. Ward Whicker Chris G. Whipple J. Frank Wilson Susan D. Wiltshire Marco Zaider Marvin C. Ziskin

Honorary Members Lauriston S. Taylor, Honorary President, Warren K. Sinclair, President Emeritus W. Roger Ney, Executive Director Emeritus Seymour Abrahamson Edward L. Alpen John A. Auxier William J. Bair Bruce B. Boecker Victor P. Bond Robert L. Brent Reynold F. Brown Melvin C. Carter Randall S. Caswell Frederick P. Cowan James F. Crow Gerald D. Dodd

Patricia W. Durbin Thomas S. Ely Richard F. Foster Hymer L. Friedell R.J. Michael Fry Robert O. Gorson Arthur W. Guy Eric J. Hall Naomi H. Harley John W. Healy Bernd Kahn Wilfrid B. Mann Dade W. Moeller A. Alan Moghissi

Robert J. Nelsen Wesley L. Nyborg Chester R. Richmond William L. Russell John H. Rust Eugene L. Saenger William J. Schull J. Newell Stannard John B. Storer Thomas S. Tenforde Arthur C. Upton George L. Voelz Edward W. Webster

/ 51

52 / THE NCRP Lauriston S. Taylor Lecturers Herbert M. Parker (1977) The Squares of the Natural Numbers in Radiation Protection Sir Edward Pochin (1978) Why be Quantitative about Radiation Risk Estimates? Hymer L. Friedell (1979) Radiation Protection—Concepts and Trade Offs Harold O. Wyckoff (1980) From “Quantity of Radiation” and “Dose” to “Exposure” and “Absorbed Dose”—An Historical Review James F. Crow (1981) How Well Can We Assess Genetic Risk? Not Very Eugene L. Saenger (1982) Ethics, Trade-offs and Medical Radiation Merril Eisenbud (1983) The Human Environment—Past, Present and Future Harald H. Rossi (1984) Limitation and Assessment in Radiation Protection John H. Harley (1985) Truth (and Beauty) in Radiation Measurement Herman P. Schwan (1986) Biological Effects of Non-ionizing Radiations: Cellular Properties and Interactions Seymour Jablon (1987) How to be Quantitative about Radiation Risk Estimates Bo Lindell (1988) How Safe is Safe Enough? Arthur C. Upton (1989) Radiobiology and Radiation Protection: The Past Century and Prospects for the Future J. Newell Stannard (1990) Radiation Protection and the Internal Emitter Saga Victor P. Bond (1991) When is a Dose Not a Dose? Edward W. Webster (1992) Dose and Risk in Diagnostic Radiology: How Big? How Little? Warren K. Sinclair (1993) Science, Radiation Protection and the NCRP R.J. Michael Fry (1994) Mice, Myths and Men Albrecht Kellerer (1995) Certainty and Uncertainty in Radiation Protection Seymour Abrahamson (1996) 70 Years of Radiation Genetics: Fruit Flies, Mice and Humans William J. Bair (1997) Radionuclides in the Body: Meeting the Challenge! Eric J. Hall (1998) From Chimney Sweeps to Astronauts: Cancer Risks in the Workplace Naomi H. Harley (1999) Back to Background S. James Adelstein (2000) Administered Radioactivity: Unde Venimus Quoque Imus

Currently, the following committees are actively engaged in formulating recommendations:

THE NCRP

SC 1

SC 9 SC 46

SC 64

SC 66 SC 72 SC 75 SC 85 SC 87

SC 88 SC 89

/ 53

Basic Criteria, Epidemiology, Radiobiology and Risk SC 1-4 Extrapolation of Risks from Non-Human Experimental Systems to Man SC 1-6 Linearity of Dose Response SC 1-7 Information Needed to Make Radiation Protection Recommendations for Travel Beyond Low-Earth Orbit SC 1-8 Risk to Thyroid from Ionizing Radiation Structural Shielding Design and Evaluation for Medical Use of X Rays and Gamma Rays of Energies Up to 10 MeV Operational Radiation Safety SC 46-8 Radiation Protection Design Guidelines for Particle Accelerator Facilities SC 46-10 Assessment of Occupational Doses from Internal Emitters SC 46-13 Design of Facilities for Medical Radiation Therapy SC 46-14 Radiation Protection Issues Related to Terrorist Activities that Result in the Dispersal of Radioactive Material SC 46-15 Operational Radiation Safety Program for Astronauts SC 57-10 Liver Cancer Risk SC 57-15 Uranium Risk SC 57-17 Radionuclide Dosimetry Models for Wounds Environmental Issues SC 64-17 Uncertainty in Environmental Transport in the Absence of Site-Specific Data SC 64-18 Ecologic and Human Risks from Space Applications of Plutonium SC 64-19 Historical Dose SC 64-22 Design of Effective Effluent and Environmental Monitoring Programs SC 64-23 Cesium in the Environment Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Ultrasound Radiation Protection in Mammography Guidance on Radiation Received in Space Activities Risk of Lung Cancer from Radon Radioactive and Mixed Waste SC 87-1 Waste Avoidance and Volume Reduction SC 87-2 Waste Classification Based on Risk SC 87-3 Performance Assessment SC 87-4 Management of Waste Metals Containing Radioactivity Fluence as the Basis for a Radiation Protection System for Astronauts Nonionizing Electromagnetic Fields SC 89-3 Biological Effects of Extremely Low-Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields SC 89-4 Biological Effects and Exposure Recommendations for Modulated Radiofrequency Fields

54 / THE NCRP

SC 91

SC 92 SC 93

SC 89-5 Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Fields Radiation Protection in Medicine SC 91-1 Precautions in the Management of Patients Who Have Received Therapeutic Amounts of Radionuclides SC 91-2 Radiation Protection in Dentistry SC 91-3 Medical Radiation Exposure of the U.S. Population with Emphasis on Radiation Exposure of the Female Breast Public Policy and Risk Communication Radiation Measurement and Dosimetry

In recognition of its responsibility to facilitate and stimulate cooperation among organizations concerned with the scientific and related aspects of radiation protection and measurement, the Council has created a category of NCRP Collaborating Organizations. Organizations or groups of organizations that are national or international in scope and are concerned with scientific problems involving radiation quantities, units, measurements and effects, or radiation protection may be admitted to collaborating status by the Council. Collaborating Organizations provide a means by which the NCRP can gain input into its activities from a wider segment of society. At the same time, the relationships with the Collaborating Organizations facilitate wider dissemination of information about the Council's activities, interests and concerns. Collaborating Organizations have the opportunity to comment on draft reports (at the time that these are submitted to the members of the Council). This is intended to capitalize on the fact that Collaborating Organizations are in an excellent position to both contribute to the identification of what needs to be treated in NCRP reports and to identify problems that might result from proposed recommendations. The present Collaborating Organizations with which the NCRP maintains liaison are as follows: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry American Academy of Dermatology American Academy of Environmental Engineers American Academy of Health Physics American Association of Physicists in Medicine American College of Medical Physics American College of Nuclear Physicians American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine American College of Radiology American Dental Association American Industrial Hygiene Association American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine American Insurance Services Group American Medical Association American Nuclear Society American Pharmaceutical Association

THE NCRP

American Podiatric Medical Association American Public Health Association American Radium Society American Roentgen Ray Society American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology American Society of Health-System Pharmacists American Society of Radiologic Technologists Association of University Radiologists Bioelectromagnetics Society Campus Radiation Safety Officers College of American Pathologists Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc. Council on Radionuclides and Radiopharmaceuticals Defense Special Weapons Agency Electric Power Research Institute Electromagnetic Energy Association Federal Communications Commission Federal Emergency Management Agency Genetics Society of America Health Physics Society Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. Institute of Nuclear Power Operations International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers National Aeronautics and Space Administration National Association of Environmental Professionals National Electrical Manufacturers Association National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health National Institute of Standards and Technology Nuclear Energy Institute Office of Science and Technology Policy Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Union Radiation Research Society Radiological Society of North America Society for Risk Analysis Society of Nuclear Medicine U.S. Air Force U.S. Army U.S. Coast Guard U.S. Department of Energy U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development U.S. Department of Labor U.S. Department of Transportation U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Navy U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Public Health Service Utility Workers Union of America

/ 55

56 / THE NCRP The NCRP has found its relationships with these organizations to be extremely valuable to continued progress in its program. Another aspect of the cooperative efforts of the NCRP relates to the Special Liaison relationships established with various governmental organizations that have an interest in radiation protection and measurements. This liaison relationship provides: (1) an opportunity for participating organizations to designate an individual to provide liaison between the organization and the NCRP; (2) that the individual designated will receive copies of draft NCRP reports (at the time that these are submitted to the members of the Council) with an invitation to comment, but not vote; and (3) that new NCRP efforts might be discussed with liaison individuals as appropriate, so that they might have an opportunity to make suggestions on new studies and related matters. The following organizations participate in the Special Liaison Program: Atomic Energy Control Board Australian Radiation Laboratory Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz (Germany) Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection (Poland) Commisariat à l’Energie Atomique European Commission Health Council of the Netherlands International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection Japan Radiation Council Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety National Radiological Protection Board (United Kingdom) Russian Scientific Commission on Radiation Protection South African Forum for Radiation Protection Ultrasonics Institute (Australia) World Association of Nuclear Operations The NCRP values highly the participation of these organizations in the Special Liaison Program. The Council also benefits significantly from the relationships established pursuant to the Corporate Sponsor's Program. The program facilitates the interchange of information and ideas and corporate sponsors provide valuable fiscal support for the Council's program. This developing program currently includes the following Corporate Sponsors: 3M Commonwealth Edison Consolidated Edison Duke Power Florida Power Corporation ICN Biomedicals, Inc. Landauer, Inc. New York Power Authority

THE NCRP

/ 57

Nuclear Energy Institute Nycomed Amersham Imaging Southern California Edison The Council's activities are made possible by the voluntary contribution of time and effort by its members and participants and the generous support of the following organizations: 3M Health Physics Services Agfa Corporation Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Alliance of American Insurers American Academy of Dermatology American Academy of Health Physics American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology American Association of Physicists in Medicine American Cancer Society American College of Medical Physics American College of Nuclear Physicians American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine American College of Radiology American College of Radiology Foundation American Dental Association American Healthcare Radiology Administrators American Industrial Hygiene Association American Insurance Services Group American Medical Association American Nuclear Society American Osteopathic College of Radiology American Podiatric Medical Association American Public Health Association American Radium Society American Roentgen Ray Society American Society of Radiologic Technologists American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology American Veterinary Medical Association American Veterinary Radiology Society Association of University Radiologists Battelle Memorial Institute Canberra Industries, Inc. Chem Nuclear Systems Center for Devices and Radiological Health College of American Pathologists Committee on Interagency Radiation Research and Policy Coordination Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Consumers Power Company

58 / THE NCRP Council on Radionuclides and Radiopharmaceuticals Defense Nuclear Agency Eastman Kodak Company Edison Electric Institute Edward Mallinckrodt, Jr. Foundation EG&G Idaho, Inc. Electric Power Research Institute Federal Emergency Management Agency Florida Institute of Phosphate Research Fuji Medical Systems, U.S.A., Inc. Genetics Society of America Health Effects Research Foundation (Japan) Health Physics Society Institute of Nuclear Power Operations James Picker Foundation Martin Marietta Corporation Motorola Foundation National Aeronautics and Space Administration National Association of Photographic Manufacturers National Cancer Institute National Electrical Manufacturers Association National Institute of Standards and Technology Picker International Public Service Electric and Gas Company Radiation Research Society Radiological Society of North America Richard Lounsbery Foundation Sandia National Laboratory Siemens Medical Systems, Inc. Society of Nuclear Medicine Society of Pediatric Radiology United States Department of Energy United States Department of Labor United States Environmental Protection Agency United States Navy United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Victoreen, Inc. Westinghouse Electric Corporation Initial funds for publication of NCRP reports were provided by a grant from the James Picker Foundation. The NCRP seeks to promulgate information and recommendations based on leading scientific judgment on matters of radiation protection and measurement and to foster cooperation among organizations concerned with these matters. These efforts are intended to serve the public interest and the Council welcomes comments and suggestions on its reports or activities from those interested in its work.

NCRP Publications Information on NCRP publications may be obtained from the NCRP website (http://www.ncrp.com) or by telephone (800-229-2652) and fax (301-907-8768). The address is: NCRP Publications 7910 Woodmont Avenue Suite 800 Bethesda, MD 20814-3095 Abstracts of NCRP reports published since 1980, abstracts of all NCRP commentaries, and the text of all NCRP statements are available at the NCRP website. Currently available publications are listed below.

NCRP Reports No. 8 22

23 25 27 30 32 35 36 37 38 41

Title Control and Removal of Radioactive Contamination in Laboratories (1951) Maximum Permissible Body Burdens and Maximum Permissible Concentrations of Radionuclides in Air and in Water for Occupational Exposure (1959) [Includes Addendum 1 issued in August 1963] Measurement of Neutron Flux and Spectra for Physical and Biological Applications (1960) Measurement of Absorbed Dose of Neutrons, and of Mixtures of Neutrons and Gamma Rays (1961) Stopping Powers for Use with Cavity Chambers (1961) Safe Handling of Radioactive Materials (1964) Radiation Protection in Educational Institutions (1966) Dental X-Ray Protection (1970) Radiation Protection in Veterinary Medicine (1970) Precautions in the Management of Patients Who Have Received Therapeutic Amounts of Radionuclides (1970) Protection Against Neutron Radiation (1971) Specification of Gamma-Ray Brachytherapy Sources (1974)

59

60 / NCRP PUBLICATIONS 42 44 46 47 49 50 52 54 55 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 67 68 69 70 72 73 74 75

Radiological Factors Affecting Decision-Making in a Nuclear Attack (1974) Krypton-85 in the Atmosphere—Accumulation, Biological Significance, and Control Technology (1975) Alpha-Emitting Particles in Lungs (1975) Tritium Measurement Techniques (1976) Structural Shielding Design and Evaluation for Medical Use of X Rays and Gamma Rays of Energies Up to 10 MeV (1976) Environmental Radiation Measurements (1976) Cesium-137 from the Environment to Man: Metabolism and Dose (1977) Medical Radiation Exposure of Pregnant and Potentially Pregnant Women (1977) Protection of the Thyroid Gland in the Event of Releases of Radioiodine (1977) Instrumentation and Monitoring Methods for Radiation Protection (1978) A Handbook of Radioactivity Measurements Procedures, 2nd ed. (1985) Operational Radiation Safety Program (1978) Physical, Chemical, and Biological Properties of Radiocerium Relevant to Radiation Protection Guidelines (1978) Radiation Safety Training Criteria for Industrial Radiography (1978) Tritium in the Environment (1979) Tritium and Other Radionuclide Labeled Organic Compounds Incorporated in Genetic Material (1979) Influence of Dose and Its Distribution in Time on Dose-Response Relationships for Low-LET Radiations (1980) Management of Persons Accidentally Contaminated with Radionuclides (1980) Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields—Properties, Quantities and Units, Biophysical Interaction, and Measurements (1981) Radiation Protection in Pediatric Radiology (1981) Dosimetry of X-Ray and Gamma-Ray Beams for Radiation Therapy in the Energy Range 10 keV to 50 MeV (1981) Nuclear Medicine—Factors Influencing the Choice and Use of Radionuclides in Diagnosis and Therapy (1982) Radiation Protection and Measurement for Low-Voltage Neutron Generators (1983) Protection in Nuclear Medicine and Ultrasound Diagnostic Procedures in Children (1983) Biological Effects of Ultrasound: Mechanisms and Clinical Implications (1983) Iodine-129: Evaluation of Releases from Nuclear Power Generation (1983)

NCRP PUBLICATIONS

77 79 80 81 82 83 84 86 87 88 89 90 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 102

103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110

/ 61

Exposures from the Uranium Series with Emphasis on Radon and Its Daughters (1984) Neutron Contamination from Medical Electron Accelerators (1984) Induction of Thyroid Cancer by Ionizing Radiation (1985) Carbon-14 in the Environment (1985) SI Units in Radiation Protection and Measurements (1985) The Experimental Basis for Absorbed-Dose Calculations in Medical Uses of Radionuclides (1985) General Concepts for the Dosimetry of Internally Deposited Radionuclides (1985) Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields (1986) Use of Bioassay Procedures for Assessment of Internal Radionuclide Deposition (1987) Radiation Alarms and Access Control Systems (1986) Genetic Effects from Internally Deposited Radionuclides (1987) Neptunium: Radiation Protection Guidelines (1988) Public Radiation Exposure from Nuclear Power Generation in the United States (1987) Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States (1987) Exposure of the Population in the United States and Canada from Natural Background Radiation (1987) Radiation Exposure of the U.S. Population from Consumer Products and Miscellaneous Sources (1987) Comparative Carcinogenicity of Ionizing Radiation and Chemicals (1989) Measurement of Radon and Radon Daughters in Air (1988) Guidance on Radiation Received in Space Activities (1989) Quality Assurance for Diagnostic Imaging (1988) Exposure of the U.S. Population from Diagnostic Medical Radiation (1989) Medical X-Ray, Electron Beam and Gamma-Ray Protection for Energies Up to 50 MeV (Equipment Design, Performance and Use) (1989) Control of Radon in Houses (1989) The Relative Biological Effectiveness of Radiations of Different Quality (1990) Radiation Protection for Medical and Allied Health Personnel (1989) Limit for Exposure to “Hot Particles” on the Skin (1989) Implementation of the Principle of As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) for Medical and Dental Personnel (1990) Conceptual Basis for Calculations of Absorbed-Dose Distributions (1991) Effects of Ionizing Radiation on Aquatic Organisms (1991) Some Aspects of Strontium Radiobiology (1991)

62 / NCRP PUBLICATIONS 111 Developing Radiation Emergency Plans for Academic, Medical or Industrial Facilities (1991) 112 Calibration of Survey Instruments Used in Radiation Protection for the Assessment of Ionizing Radiation Fields and Radioactive Surface Contamination (1991) 113 Exposure Criteria for Medical Diagnostic Ultrasound: I. Criteria Based on Thermal Mechanisms (1992) 114 Maintaining Radiation Protection Records (1992) 115 Risk Estimates for Radiation Protection (1993) 116 Limitation of Exposure to Ionizing Radiation (1993) 117 Research Needs for Radiation Protection (1993) 118 Radiation Protection in the Mineral Extraction Industry (1993) 119 A Practical Guide to the Determination of Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Fields (1993) 120 Dose Control at Nuclear Power Plants (1994) 121 Principles and Application of Collective Dose in Radiation Protection (1995) 122 Use of Personal Monitors to Estimate Effective Dose Equivalent and Effective Dose to Workers for External Exposure to Low-LET Radiation (1995) 123 Screening Models for Releases of Radionuclides to Atmosphere, Surface Water, and Ground (1996) 124 Sources and Magnitude of Occupational and Public Exposures from Nuclear Medicine Procedures (1996) 125 Deposition, Retention and Dosimetry of Inhaled Radioactive Substances (1997) 126 Uncertainties in Fatal Cancer Risk Estimates Used in Radiation Protection (1997) 127 Operational Radiation Safety Program (1998) 128 Radionuclide Exposure of the Embryo/Fetus (1998) 129 Recommended Screening Limits for Contaminated Surface Soil and Review of Factors Relevant to Site-Specific Studies (1999) 130 Biological Effects and Exposure Limits for “Hot Particles” (1999) 133 Radiation Protection for Procedures Performed Outside the Radiology Department (2000) 134 Operational Radiation Safety Training (2000) Binders for NCRP reports are available. Two sizes make it possible to collect into small binders the “old series” of reports (NCRP Reports Nos. 8–30) and into large binders the more recent publications (NCRP Reports Nos. 32–134). Each binder will accommodate from five to seven reports. The binders carry the identification “NCRP Reports” and come with label holders which permit the user to attach labels showing the reports contained in each binder. The following bound sets of NCRP reports are also available: Volume I. NCRP Reports Nos. 8, 22 Volume II. NCRP Reports Nos. 23, 25, 27, 30

NCRP PUBLICATIONS

/ 63

Volume III. NCRP Reports Nos. 32, 35, 36, 37 Volume IV. NCRP Reports Nos. 38, 40, 41 Volume V. NCRP Reports Nos. 42, 44, 46 Volume VI. NCRP Reports Nos. 47, 49, 50, 51 Volume VII. NCRP Reports Nos. 52, 53, 54, 55, 57 Volume VIII. NCRP Report No. 58 Volume IX. NCRP Reports Nos. 59, 60, 61, 62, 63 Volume X. NCRP Reports Nos. 64, 65, 66, 67 Volume XI. NCRP Reports Nos. 68, 69, 70, 71, 72 Volume XII. NCRP Reports Nos. 73, 74, 75, 76 Volume XIII. NCRP Reports Nos. 77, 78, 79, 80 Volume XIV. NCRP Reports Nos. 81, 82, 83, 84, 85 Volume XV. NCRP Reports Nos. 86, 87, 88, 89 Volume XVI. NCRP Reports Nos. 90, 91, 92, 93 Volume XVII. NCRP Reports Nos. 94, 95, 96, 97 Volume XVIII. NCRP Reports Nos. 98, 99, 100 Volume XIX. NCRP Reports Nos. 101, 102, 103, 104 Volume XX. NCRP Reports Nos. 105, 106, 107, 108 Volume XXI. NCRP Reports Nos. 109, 110, 111 Volume XXII. NCRP Reports Nos. 112, 113, 114 Volume XXIII. NCRP Reports Nos. 115, 116, 117, 118 Volume XXIV. NCRP Reports Nos. 119, 120, 121, 122 Volume XXV. NCRP Report No. 123I and 123II Volume XXVI. NCRP Reports Nos. 124, 125, 126, 127 Volume XXVII. NCRP Reports Nos. 128, 129, 130 (Titles of the individual reports contained in each volume are given above.)

NCRP Commentaries No. 1

4

5 6 7

Title Krypton-85 in the Atmosphere—With Specific Reference to the Public Health Significance of the Proposed Controlled Release at Three Mile Island (1980) Guidelines for the Release of Waste Water from Nuclear Facilities with Special Reference to the Public Health Significance of the Proposed Release of Treated Waste Waters at Three Mile Island (1987) Review of the Publication, Living Without Landfills (1989) Radon Exposure of the U.S. Population—Status of the Problem (1991) Misadministration of Radioactive Material in Medicine—Scientific Background (1991)

64 / NCRP PUBLICATIONS 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Uncertainty in NCRP Screening Models Relating to Atmospheric Transport, Deposition and Uptake by Humans (1993) Considerations Regarding the Unintended Radiation Exposure of the Embryo, Fetus or Nursing Child (1994) Advising the Public about Radiation Emergencies: A Document for Public Comment (1994) Dose Limits for Individuals Who Receive Exposure from Radionuclide Therapy Patients (1995) Radiation Exposure and High-Altitude Flight (1995) An Introduction to Efficacy in Diagnostic Radiology and Nuclear Medicine (Justification of Medical Radiation Exposure) (1995) A Guide for Uncertainty Analysis in Dose and Risk Assessments Related to Environmental Contamination (1996) Evaluating the Reliability of Biokinetic and Dosimetric Models and Parameters Used to Assess Individual Doses for Risk Assessment Purposes (1998)

Proceedings of the Annual Meeting No. 1

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Title Perceptions of Risk, Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Meeting held on March 14-15, 1979 (including Taylor Lecture No. 3) (1980) Critical Issues in Setting Radiation Dose Limits, Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting held on April 8-9, 1981 (including Taylor Lecture No. 5) (1982) Radiation Protection and New Medical Diagnostic Approaches, Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Meeting held on April 6-7, 1982 (including Taylor Lecture No. 6) (1983) Environmental Radioactivity, Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Meeting held on April 6-7, 1983 (including Taylor Lecture No. 7) (1983) Some Issues Important in Developing Basic Radiation Protection Recommendations, Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Meeting held on April 4-5, 1984 (including Taylor Lecture No. 8) (1985) Radioactive Waste, Proceedings of the Twenty-first Annual Meeting held on April 3-4, 1985 (including Taylor Lecture No. 9)(1986) Nonionizing Electromagnetic Radiations and Ultrasound, Proceedings of the Twenty-second Annual Meeting held on April 2-3, 1986 (including Taylor Lecture No. 10) (1988) New Dosimetry at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Its Implications for Risk Estimates, Proceedings of the Twenty-third Annual

NCRP PUBLICATIONS

10 11

12

13

14

15

17

18

21

/ 65

Meeting held on April 8-9, 1987 (including Taylor Lecture No. 11) (1988) Radon, Proceedings of the Twenty-fourth Annual Meeting held on March 30-31, 1988 (including Taylor Lecture No. 12) (1989) Radiation Protection Today—The NCRP at Sixty Years, Proceedings of the Twenty-fifth Annual Meeting held on April 5-6, 1989 (including Taylor Lecture No. 13) (1990) Health and Ecological Implications of Radioactively Contaminated Environments, Proceedings of the Twenty-sixth Annual Meeting held on April 4-5, 1990 (including Taylor Lecture No. 14) (1991) Genes, Cancer and Radiation Protection, Proceedings of the Twenty-seventh Annual Meeting held on April 3-4, 1991 (including Taylor Lecture No. 15) (1992) Radiation Protection in Medicine, Proceedings of the Twenty-eighth Annual Meeting held on April 1-2, 1992 (including Taylor Lecture No. 16) (1993) Radiation Science and Societal Decision Making, Proceedings of the Twenty-ninth Annual Meeting held on April 7-8, 1993 (including Taylor Lecture No. 17) (1994) Environmental Dose Reconstruction and Risk Implications, Proceedings of the Thirty-first Annual Meeting held on April 12-13, 1995 (including Taylor Lecture No. 19) (1996) Implications of New Data on Radiation Cancer Risk, Proceedings of the Thirty-second Annual Meeting held on April 3-4, 1996 (including Taylor Lecture No. 20) (1997) Radiation Protection in Medicine: Contemporary Issues, Proceedings of the Thirty-fifth Annual Meeting held on April 7-8, 1999 (including Taylor Lecture No. 23) (1999)

Lauriston S. Taylor Lectures No. 1 2 3 4

5

Title The Squares of the Natural Numbers in Radiation Protection by Herbert M. Parker (1977) Why be Quantitative about Radiation Risk Estimates? by Sir Edward Pochin (1978) Radiation Protection—Concepts and Trade Offs by Hymer L. Friedell (1979) [Available also in Perceptions of Risk, see above] From “Quantity of Radiation” and “Dose” to “Exposure” and “Absorbed Dose”—An Historical Review by Harold O. Wyckoff (1980) How Well Can We Assess Genetic Risk? Not Very by James F. Crow (1981) [Available also in Critical Issues in Setting Radiation Dose Limits, see above]

66 / NCRP PUBLICATIONS 6

7

8

9 10

11

12 13

14

15 16

17

18

Ethics, Trade-offs and Medical Radiation by Eugene L. Saenger (1982) [Available also in Radiation Protection and New Medical Diagnostic Approaches, see above] The Human Environment—Past, Present and Future by Merril Eisenbud (1983) [Available also in Environmental Radioactivity, see above] Limitation and Assessment in Radiation Protection by Harald H. Rossi (1984) [Available also in Some Issues Important in Developing Basic Radiation Protection Recommendations, see above] Truth (and Beauty) in Radiation Measurement by John H. Harley (1985) [Available also in Radioactive Waste, see above] Biological Effects of Non-ionizing Radiations: Cellular Properties and Interactions by Herman P. Schwan (1987) [Available also in Nonionizing Electromagnetic Radiations and Ultrasound, see above] How to be Quantitative about Radiation Risk Estimates by Seymour Jablon (1988) [Available also in New Dosimetry at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and its Implications for Risk Estimates, see above] How Safe is Safe Enough? by Bo Lindell (1988) [Available also in Radon, see above] Radiobiology and Radiation Protection: The Past Century and Prospects for the Future by Arthur C. Upton (1989) [Available also in Radiation Protection Today, see above] Radiation Protection and the Internal Emitter Saga by J. Newell Stannard (1990) [Available also in Health and Ecological Implications of Radioactively Contaminated Environments, see above] When is a Dose Not a Dose? by Victor P. Bond (1992) [Available also in Genes, Cancer and Radiation Protection, see above] Dose and Risk in Diagnostic Radiology: How Big? How Little? by Edward W. Webster (1992)[Available also in Radiation Protection in Medicine, see above] Science, Radiation Protection and the NCRP by Warren K. Sinclair (1993)[Available also in Radiation Science and Societal Decision Making, see above] Mice, Myths and Men by R.J. Michael Fry (1995)

Symposium Proceedings No. 1

Title The Control of Exposure of the Public to Ionizing Radiation in the Event of Accident or Attack, Proceedings of a Symposium held April 27-29, 1981 (1982)

NCRP PUBLICATIONS

2

3

/ 67

Radioactive and Mixed Waste—Risk as a Basis for Waste Classification, Proceedings of a Symposium held November 9, 1994 (1995) Acceptability of Risk from Radiation—Application to Human Space Flight, Proceedings of a Symposium held May 29, 1996 (1997)

NCRP Statements No. 1 2

3

4

5 6 7 8

Title “Blood Counts, Statement of the National Committee on Radiation Protection,” Radiology 63, 428 (1954) “Statements on Maximum Permissible Dose from Television Receivers and Maximum Permissible Dose to the Skin of the Whole Body,” Am. J. Roentgenol., Radium Ther. and Nucl. Med. 84, 152 (1960) and Radiology 75, 122 (1960) X-Ray Protection Standards for Home Television Receivers, Interim Statement of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (1968) Specification of Units of Natural Uranium and Natural Thorium, Statement of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (1973) NCRP Statement on Dose Limit for Neutrons (1980) Control of Air Emissions of Radionuclides (1984) The Probability That a Particular Malignancy May Have Been Caused by a Specified Irradiation (1992) The Application of ALARA for Occupational Exposures (1999)

Other Documents The following documents of the NCRP were published outside of the NCRP report, commentary and statement series: Somatic Radiation Dose for the General Population, Report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 6 May 1959, Science, February 19, 1960, Vol. 131, No. 3399, pages 482-486 Dose Effect Modifying Factors in Radiation Protection, Report of Subcommittee M-4 (Relative Biological Effectiveness) of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Report BNL 50073 (T-471) (1967) Brookhaven National Laboratory (National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia)

Index Minors 11

ALARA 33 Audit 24

On-the-job training 22 Contractor personnel 10 Course structure 17

Personnel to be trained 8 Post-emergency training 12 Pre-emergency training 12

Emergency personnel 12 Engineering personnel 13 Evaluation and feedback 32, 39, 43 Evaluation of training program 4 Evaluation plan 18, 30, 38, 43 Evaluation plan outline 39

Qualification of trainers 3 Radiation risk and risk management 45 Radiation safety personnel 10 Records 4, 5 repository 5 Regulatory requirements for training 6 Retraining 19 Risk management 46

Females of reproductive age 10 Field engineer 32 Group instruction 22 Individual study 21 Instruction 39 Instructional goal 38 Instructional methods 31, 37

Summary analysis 17 Testing criteria 16 Training aids 21, 23 Training design and development 16, 29, 35, 42 Training element 31, 37 Training environment 23 Training materials 31, 37 Training method 28 Training needs 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 contractor personnel 10 emergency personnel 12 engineering personnel 13 factors affecting 7 females of reproductive age 10

Job task analysis 15, 28, 33, 41 Learning environment 21 Lesson plan and training materials 17, 30, 36, 42 Lesson plan outline 38 Management and supervisory personnel 9 Management commitment 3 Management’s responsibility 3 Mentoring 22

68

INDEX

general employees 9 management and supervisory personnel 9 minors 11 post-emergency training 12 pre-emergency training 12 radiation safety personnel 10 radiation workers 8 special situations 13 visitors 10 Training objective 16, 38 Training program 4, 6, 7, 8, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43 audit 24 course structure 17 design and development 15, 29 elements 15 elements for radiation safety technicians 26 essential elements 26 evaluation 4 evaluation and feedback 19, 32, 39, 43 evaluation plan 18, 30, 38, 43 factors affecting 7 field engineer 32 group instruction 22 instruction 19, 32, 39, 43 instructional goal 38 instructional methods 31, 37 job task analysis 15, 28, 33, 41 learning environment 21 lesson plan and training materials 17, 30, 36, 42 mentoring 22 on-the-job training 22 optional elements 26 personnel to be trained 8 records 4 regulatory requirements 6 retraining 19 suggested topics 25 training aids 21, 23

/ 69

training design and development 35, 42 training element 31, 37 training environment 23 training materials 31, 37 training method 28 training needs 7 training objectives 38 training requirements 6 training support material 38 Training program elements 15 Training requirements 6 complexity of the task 6 different groups of employees 6 radiation exposure 6 regulatory requirements 6 Training support material 38 Work permit limit 33 Visitors 10