1

Report

from

Asian and Oceanic Workshop on RP Culture in Korea

RP Culture Workshop in Charleston, SC

Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety

Kun-Woo CHOChairman, International Relations Committee, KARP

Head, Radiation Research Department, KINSkwcho@kins.re.kr

10 February 2011

Asian and Oceanic Workshop on RP culture in Jeju, Korea

• 24 November2010

• 65 participants (11 non-Koreans)

• Representatives of 4 Asian RP Societies: – China (CSRP)

– Japan (JHPS)

– Korea (KARP)

– Malaysia (MARPA)

• Participants from 4 other Asian Countries– Bangladesh

– India

– Pakistan

– Thailand

• IRPA Reprentative: Mr. Kenneth Kase 2

3

Asian and Oceanian Workshop on Radiation Protection Culture 24 November 2010 (Wednesday)

Lotus Hall (3rd floor), The Shilla Jeju Hotel, Jeju Island, Korea http:// www.shilla.net/en/jeju/

Chair: Mr. Si-Young Chang

09:50-09:55

Opening Remarks by Mr. Sei-Chul Yoon, KARP President

09:55-10:00

Congratulatory Remarks by Mr. Jong Kyung Kim, AOARP President, IRPA EC Member

10:00-10:40

Invited Plenary Speech by Mr. Kenneth Kase, IRPA President

“The Initiative for Radiation Protection Culture, IRPA”

10:40-12:20

Session 1 (Current Status and Perspective on RP Culture in Asian and Oceanic

Countries)

1. (Current Status and Perspective on RP Culture in China)

by Chinese representative, Mr. Liye Liu

2. (Current Status and Perspective on RP Culture in Japan)

by Japanese representative, Mr. Takatoshi Hattori

3. (Current Status and Perspective on RP Culture in Korea)

by Korean representative, Mr. Kun-Woo Cho

4. (Current Status and Initiatives to Promote RP Culture in Malaysia)

by Malaysian representative, Ms. Noriah Mod Ali

4

12:20-13:45 Lunch

13:45-14:45

Panel Discussion Chair: Mr. Myung-Jae Song

(Panelists: IRPA President, Four Speakers of the Session 1, and

Panelist from India: Mr. Santosh Kumar Pradhan (AERB)

Panelist from Japan: Mr. Toshiso Kosako (JHPS)

Panelist from Korea: Mr. Jai-Ki Lee (ICRP MC)

Panelist from Pakistan: Mr. Hamid Saeed Raza (PNRA)

- Five minute speech from each of the panelists, who did not make a presentation

in the morning sessions.

- And the discussion will be open.

14:45-15:15

Coffee Break

5

15:15-16:30

Session 2: Break-out sessions of small groups

Group Leaders: Mr. Seong-Ho Na, Mr. Jong Kyung Kim, Mr. Tae Suk Suh

Group Rapporteurs: Mr. Chan Hyeong Kim, Mr. Yong-Kyun Kim, Mr. Sung-Joon Ye

(The number of break-out sessions depends on the number of specific questions to

discuss. IRPA will provide the discussion points based on the status of the work in

November and preparing for the workshop in Charleston. Each break-out session will

have a group leader and a group rapporteur. )

16:30-17:00

Coffee Break

17:00-18:00

Plenary Session Chair: Mr. Hee-Seung Bom

(Discussion on the outcomes of the break-out sessions and Possible Input for the 2nd

International Workshop in Charleston)

- 10 minutes presentation from each group and the discussion will be followed

Note) This is a part of the annual CSRP-JHPS-KARP co-operation program in 2010.

Questions for Group 1

What is the vision and objective for RP Culture? What are the elements of the RP culture and how

could we define it? What is the role of IRPA and its associate

societies in promoting an RP culture?

6

Questions for Group 2

How to engage the stakeholders (regulators, operators, professional organizations…) in the process of developing RP culture.

How is the local or regional culture included? Can there be general guidance?

What would be the focus for IRPA with RP Culture?:

a) general, including the public b) focus on work place

7

Questions for Group 3

What are the key elements for RP Culture? Is the principle of ALARA part of regulation

or RP Culture? Is it possible to assess the RP culture and what

could be the criteria for success?

8

Outcome of Break-out Sessions

The duration of Break-out Sessions, 75 minutes, was not enough at all to handle these hard questions.

Nevertheless, the followings summarize the outcome of discussion as answers to the specific questions.

9

Group 1: Question 1

Q1. What is the vision and objective for RP Culture?

10

Given that present status of RP is not unsatisfactory, the vision or objective of the new paradigm,

RP Culture, should focus on a breakthrough of limited efficacy of regulation-derived protection by fostering self-determined protection of licensees. With this regard, Group 1 suggests that the vision of

RP Culture as follows: “Breakthrough the limiting performance of protection by innovative ideas created from active participation of interested parties.”

Additional points discussed for Q1 in G1

• To perform effective defense against radiological hazard, and to reduce the risk and mitigate the consequence of accident.

• ALARA (optimization)• Balance and harmonization of RP Culture • High quality RPC (skill-bases, daily custom basis)• Culture is locally dependent, including the work

place and management level• Knowledge-base practice in medical area

Group 1: Question 2

12

Mr. Kase already suggested several elements which are either from the IRPA workshop or adapted from INSAG’s safety culture elements. Those include: knowledge, value/equity, behavior, experience, protection principles, history, individual awareness, questioning attitude, prudence, communication, competence, commitments, motivation, supervision, and responsibility.

Q2. What are the elements of the RP culture and how could we define it?

Group 1: Question 2

Q2. What are the elements of the RP culture and how could we define it?

13

Group 1 tried to find if any other elements could be added to the list.

The following keywords were derived: Participation, Leadership, Flexibility(of regulations), Education & training.

Problem is how we can make a streamlined structure of all these important elements to match with the concept of RP Culture. Also Group 1 concluded that defining each element is a hard task which cannot be tempted in the Session.

Additional points discussed for Q2 in G1

• Effective transfer of experience and practice to young generations

• Driving force and leadership• Flexibility and capacity of regulatory system• Risk against exposure and ALARA culture• Participation and engagement of radiation workers• Sharing values & Sharing vision• Proactive actions to share experience and knowledge

Group 1: Question 3

Q3. What is the role of IRPA and its associate societies in promoting an RP culture?

15

Culture itself is resisting to a change and is much region/ethnicity/era dependent.

Therefore it is difficult or inadequate to set an internationally harmonized system for achievement of higher level of protection.

In this regard, Group 1 proposed the following role model:

Group 1: Question 3

Q3. What is the role of IRPA and its associate societies in promoting an RP culture?

16

IRPA: 1) Fostering belief in success of the cultural approaches in RP. 2) Setting the basic framework of RP Culture. National/Regional Society: Develop detailed models

or approaches to incorporate RP Culture in RP practices in cooperation with the regulatory bodies.

Group 1 thought that it would be much helpful if IRPA could provide examples of success stories of cultural approach in RP.

Additional points discussed for Q3 in G1

• Culture is locally dependent and RPC should be developed through regional activities.– Perceived RPC in developing country from the

ones have NPPs; Communication in regions speaking different languages; Through international organizations, for example IAEA promote regional activities with good practices, etc.; Having tools for effective communication

• Understand the rigidity of the regulatory bodies, IRPA needs influence as an outside input to promote self-assessment and follow-up action.

Group 2: Question 1

Q1. How to engage the stakeholders (regulators, operators, prof. orgs…) in the process of developing RP Culture?

18

Mr. Kase, narrowed the scope of “stakeholder” for the purpose of discussion to include three groups: management, worker, and regulator, excluding the general public. Group 2 focused on the stakeholder’s engagement at the workplaces.

Group 2 agreed on that stakeholder engagement is the most important element in rooting the RP Culture because culture itself is a collective identity and can’t be formed by a small portion of members of a society.

Group 2: Question 1

Q1. How to engage the stakeholders (regulators, operators, prof. orgs…) in the process of developing RP Culture?

19

In terms of “how to engage”, Group 2 gave priority to the strong leadership throughout the three sub- groups based on a confidence in the role of RPC. A strong leadership can make all the stakeholders be awaked all the time and actively participate.

For the confidence in RPC, expert societies particularly the IRPA should develop a firm framework of RP Culture and demonstrate its capacity.

For the sub-groups of management and workers, certain incentives would invite active engagement.

Additional points discussed for Q1 in G2

• Need for Stakeholder Engagement- Deficiency in One Part --> Can Cause a Total Collapse of Entire System- Without the engagement from all stakeholders,

it is impossible to plant RP Culture

• Provide Incentive for Stakeholders- Obedience not by Systemic Approach but by Voluntary Participation

Group 2: Question 2

Q2. How is the local or regional culture included? Can there be general guidance?

21

Members of Group 2 shared common view in that RP Culture should be an integral part of local or regional culture, which means the two cultures are not free- standing but interactive and mutually affecting.

At the stand point of RP Culture, important issue is how to prevent adverse effects of the local culture on the RP Culture while encouraging constructive effects.

Group 2: Question 2

Q2. How is the local or regional culture included? Can there be general guidance?

22

In this respect, we need to set a firm norm of RP Culture as the baseline which is not to be compromised by the influence of local culture.

The norm can be an internationally unified one and either IRPA or ICRP should take the leading role to set it.

Additional points discussed for Q2 in G2

• Choice between- Single and Universal RP Culture- Country & Culture Specific RP Culturee.g., Important Role of Government in Asian Region

• Assessment of Different Cultures-> Need “Systemization”

• Distinction between Countries with NPPs (the Advanced Countries, Matured RP Experience & System) and Countries without NPPs (the Developing Countries, Lack of RP Experience & System)

Additional points discussed for Q2 in G2

• Different Starting Point of RP Culturee.g., Compliance, Education, Training

• Importance of education - Culture of “self-assessment”: Passive RP --> Active RP --> Proactive RP

• Guidance in Reflecting Culture: Suggest 2-tier Guidance

- Common Guidance (Universal)- Optional Guidance (Not Mandatory, Culture-

specific) -> Synergy from Convergence of Different Cultures

Group 2: Question 3

Q3. What would be the focus for IRPA with RP Culture? a) general, including the public b) focus on work place

25

Mr. Kase set for this time a boundary for the discussions: RP Culture in occupational sector. Occupational sector includes some major sub-sectors: nuclear power, medicine, general industry, and NORM.

A point to remember is that the RP Culture initiative should focus at least at this first drive not on theoretically harmful exposure situations, i.e. very low doses, but on practically harmful practices having potential of radiation injuries.

Then we may set aside the NORM subsector.

Group 2: Question 3

Q3. What would be the focus for IRPA with RP Culture? a) general, including the public b) focus on work place

26

Group 2 believed that in the nuclear power subsector the existing Safety Culture initiative plays the role.

There are quite a large number of actions required to enhance RP in the medicine subsector.

Optimization of patient doses in diagnostic radiology and accident prevention in therapy areas are dominant issues. In the industrial subsector, field radiography and

irradiation facilities remain in the area of concern.

Additional points discussed for Q3 in G2

• Focus on RP Culture in Workplace--> Reaching Agreement on Guidelines & Strategies of RP Culture in Workplace

• Then, Outreach to the Public (e.g., Education, Promotion about Importance of RP Culture)

• Executing Role of Professional Expert in RP Culture• Cooperation with Other Industries not only NPPs

but also Medical, NDT etc.

Questions for Group 3

What are the key elements for RP Culture? Is the principle of ALARA part of regulation or RP Culture? Is it possible to assess the RP culture and what could be the criteria for success?

28

Group 3: Question 1

Q1. What are the key elements for RP Culture?

29

The question is repetition of one given to Group 1, although it emphasizes on the ‘key’ elements.

Group 3 arranged what are thought to be important elements in procedural steps:

1) to share knowledge, 2) to set voluntary goal, 3) to improve RP goal, 4) to do action, and finally 5) to accumulate the experience. These steps would be repeated as needed.

Group 3: Question 2

Q2. Is the principle of ALARA part of regulation or RP Culture?

30

Members of Group 3 agreed on that the natural tendency or attitude of people to avoid risk or pursue safety should be considered as the culture.

In that, Group 3 concluded, without much debate, that the principle of ALARA should be regarded as a part of culture rather than a part of regulation.

Group 3: Question 3

Q3. Is it possible to assess the RP culture and what could be the criteria for success?

31

Group 3 accepted the proposition that RP Culture is assessable as experienced in the Safety Culture initiative of the IAEA.

Group 3 concluded that RP society should be very careful in setting numerical criteria or standards to assess RP Culture because specific standards could be varied depending on situation of each country.

Group 3: Question 3

Q3. Is it possible to assess the RP culture and what could be the criteria for success?

32

In approaches to assess culture, there could be two types of measurement - passive and active one.

The passive measurement could be applied to the adequacy of training program, working conditions, and process and procedure measurement.

The active measurement could be applied to such aspects like responsibility of workers or results of job specific questionnaire.

Conclusion

33

Discussion is still premature.

Hoping to be a meaningful input to Charleston workshop!

Right track, right end!!

34

Thank you for your attention !