Conferinţa naţională

11. Fukushima – 2011

Constantin Milu and Laszlo Toro

Romanian Society for Radiological Protection

E-mail: [e-mail]
A 9.0 magnitude earthquake (updated from the 8.8. magnitude , by Japan Meteorological Agency on 13 March) occurred on 11 March in Japan at 05.46.23 GMT (14:46 Japan Standard Time – JST ) , hitting the northeast coast of Honshu, Japan. The worst affected area was the east coast of Tohoku region.

The Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant is located in the town of Okuma, in the Futuba District of Fukushima Prefecture, Japan. It consists of six light water, boiling water reactors, with a combined power of 4.7 GW, making Fukushima I one of the 25 largest nuclear power stations in the world. Fukushima I was the first nuclear plant to be constructed and run entirely by the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO).

On the day of earthquake, reactor units 1, 2 and 3 were operating, while units 4,5 and 6 were in periodic inspection outage. When the earthquake was detected, units 1,2 and 3 underwent an automatic shutdown (called Scram in a boiling water reactor).

After the reactors shut down, electricity generation stopped. Normally the plant could use the external electrical supply to power cooling and control systems, but the earthquake had caused major damage to the power grid. Emergency Diesel generators started correctly, but stopped abruptly at 15:41, meaning that all AC power from the reactors ceased. The generators were damaged by high flooding from the strong tsunami that followed the earthquake.

As it is well known, cooling is needed to remove decay heat even when a plant has shut down.

On March 11 at 16:36 JST, a nuclear emergency situation (Article 15 of the Japanese law on Special Measures Concerning Nuclear Emergency Preparedness) was declared “when the reactor coolant injection could not be confirmed for the emergency core cooling systems of Units 1 and 2”.

On March 12, 2011 , after midnight JST, TEPCO reported that radiation levels were rising in the turbine buiding for Unit 1 and that it was considering venting hot gas from Unit 1 reactor vessel into the atmosphere, which could result in the release of radiation.

At 15:36 JST on March 12, there was an hydrogen explosion at Unit 1. Four workers were injured , and the upper part of the reactor building collapsed. This was the beginning of the most seriously damaged of Japan’s 54 reactors.

This work trys to present the most important steps in the development of the Fukushima-2011 and some of leasons learned.
12. International Recommendations on Scope of Radiological Protection Regulations – ICRP Publication 104

Gabriel Stănescu, Camelia Avadanei, Simion Ghilea

Nuclear Training Centre (CPSDN), “Horia Hulubei” National Institute for Physics and Nuclear Engineering IFIN-HH

E-mail: [e-mail]

The system of radiological protection applies, in principle, to all exposures to ionising radiation. Nevertheless, in practice, the measures taken in order to control these exposures should be limited for pragmatic reasons. ICRP Publication 104 deals with the scope of radiological protection control measures and describes the instruments that can be used for this purpose: exclusion, exemption, clearance.

This paper aims to present the ICRP recommendations on scope of regulations in all types of exposure situations: planned, emergency and existing. Also there are discussed the instruments available to regulators in different exposure situations.

Exclusion refers to the deliberate omission of exposure situations from the scope of regulatory requirements, and exemption refers to waiving regulatory requirements if their application is not warranted. A special case of exemption, termed “clearance”, refers to the relinquishing of regulatory control if such control becomes unwarranted.

Societal attitudes to the control of exposure situations are taken into account in determining what can be excluded or exempted from regulatory control. People have higher demands for controlling “artificial” exposure situations than for dealing with “natural” exposure situations. Therefore, account should be taken not only of the justification and optimisation of controlling measures, but also of the different expectations of those affected by the exposure situations.

The recommendations in this report are intended to assist in defining what needs to be the subject of regulatory requirements for radiological protection and what does not. The application of regulatory controls should achieve a net benefit in protection; otherwise, regulatory control is not justified. Similarly, regulatory requirements should be applied in a manner that optimises protection, otherwise the application of regulatory requirements is not warranted.

13. The Role of the Romanian Society for Radiological Protection and Mass Media on Public Information

Veronica Andrei and Florian Glodeanu

Romanian Society for Radiological Protection-SRRp,

Str. Dr. Leonte Nr. 1 – 3, RO-050463 Bucuresti 35, Romania

E-mail: [e-mail]

Topical issue in the 70s, the public information has evolved mainly because of the controversy on the nuclear energy impact on human health and environmental health. Public concern was mainly caused by lack of information and transparency of public authorities and the nuclear industry. As the transparency and access to information have improved, it became increasingly clear that only public information activities are not sufficient. Ongoing tensions in the relationship with the public led the nuclear industry to address a new strategy based on collaboration and involvement.

Public concern to the radiation is largely determined by the consequences of nuclear accidents and uncertainty of radioactive waste management solutions. In the last decade medical applications of ionizing radiation are becoming more widespread, even in poor countries. Thus, radiation protection is a concern for growing number of citizens. In these circumstances the public is less and less sensitive to technical information such as the absorbed dose and become more interested in information that helps in making important decisions (radiation therapy) or social life involvement (protests against radioactive waste or construction of new nuclear plants). Participation in decision making involves a higher cultural level.

Radiation protection is an objective necessity because radioactivity and ionizing radiation have on the one hand harmful effects to human health and the environment and on the other hand can be used for the benefit of people and the environment. The radioactivity and ionizing radiation are "hostile" phenomena ubiquitous in our natural environment.

Radiation protection has made considerable progress in the last five decades in all areas using radioactivity and ionizing radiation: research, medicine, nuclear industry, radiation sources and radioactive tracers, and TENORM NORM. However, in the last 10 years to discuss becoming more of a culture of radiation protection.

To implement in practice the radiation protection culture, it must be accepted by all participants, developed and passed on to future generations. Due to the variety of applications of radioactivity and ionizing radiation, the actors involved in radiation protection culture include professionals and non-professional members of society: politicians, entrepreneurs, NGOs, associations and societies, groups and parties, professional organizations, patients, media, schools and universities and the general public.

The main actors in disseminating the culture of radiation protection are professionals in this field and mass media. In the exercise of their profession they must act as communicators of scientific information, improving the public perception about the risks and benefits of radiation and radioactivity.

The Romanian Society of Radiation Protection, the professional organization of practitioners in this area has among its main objectives promoting a culture of radiation protection and improvement of public perception through communication and involvement.

Despite substantial efforts to disseminate information on radiation protection, sociological research shows that the Romanian citizen has no adequate knowledge to make its own decisions. In this direction, radiation protection professionals should address effective communication methods such as "exchange of information and opinions" and the involvement of interested groups in decision making.

Mass media plays an important role in communicating with the public. The recent accident in Japan had a massive coverage in all media. On the other hand, the media must obtain the economic efficiency of published or broadcast news based on audience, according to the principle "a bad news story is a profitable". In addition journalists are poorly informed about the topics of radiation protection and have limited editorial space available to educate the public.

14. Principles of Radiation Protection in Medical Thinking

Felicia Steliana Popescu, Lavinia Delia Calugareanu

National Institute of Public Health, National Center for Monitoring the Risks from the Community Environment, Department of Radiation Hygiene, Bucharest, Romania

E-mail: [e-mail]

The authors considers this issue as being of great interest for the following reasons: healthcare practitioners exposed to ionizing radiation represents 75% of all world-wide radiation exposed workers; they are also the ones who, by their radiological practice lead to medical exposure of the population (witch represents the largest part among artificial exposure to ionizing radiation to the public - about 11% ); the superior medical staff are the advisors and prescribers for radiological investigations and treatments.

The author’s experience shows that training in radiation protection system is weak, leading sometimes to abusive use of ionizing radiation in both diagnostic and treatment.

Medical staff’s perception on the importance and role of radiation protection principles sometimes distorted by unskilled backgrounds in the field.

There are recommendations and regulations on radiation protection principles in the relevant legislation, but there are situations in which they are formally considered, or they are regarded as an obligation and not as a form of personal and patient’s protection.

At national level, the expansion of informing the public about the principles of radiation protection and their role is required, by introducing training since elementary school.

A beneficial aspect that has developed recently is the introduction of radiation protection courses within university and postgraduate training. They are important for a correct and updated training on the principles of radiation protection, a field in which there are permanent updates and changes, and new concepts are sets, such as the "culture of radiation protection." Medical thinking and medical research have had an contribution on modified and completion of radiation protection principles .

15. Elements of Radioprotection Culture at Nuclear Fuel Plant Pitesti Romania

T. Ivana , Gh. Epure and V. Olaru

SNN-SA Nuclear Fuel Plant, Pitesti, Romania

E-mail: [e-mail]

Culture as an element of human existence is characterized primarily by accumulating, skills, attitudes, behavior and promotion to something. Nuclear security culture has developed a desire to prepare to cope with nuclear risk, born with the discovery of radioactivity.

Culture of radiation protection is required for the implementation of safety and security in the protection against ionizing radiation.

In the activity of producing nuclear fuel for CANDU based on natural and depleted uranium stakeholders are developing a specific radiation protection culture due the existing radiological risks that can lead to exposure to ionizing radiation. For Nuclear Fuel Plant Pitesti (FCN) where nuclear material is both as bulk and as itemized form, individual radiological monitoring as well as the working environment are established in Radiological Security Manual (MSR), in accordance with national legislation and international.

All employees FCN are classified as A and B of exposure to ionizing radiation. Classification is based on work performed and the degree of exposure and specific training for radiological safety is sized for each category.

External workers, contractors and visitors are aware of the entry in the plant on the risks of exposure to ionizing radiation and are properly trained. Basics of radiation protection culture as individual monitoring, communication, rigorous and prudent approach, pro-active action activity are transmitted continuously. In addition the radiation protection culture existed there from the beginning of the comissioning of the plant, but its elements still remain scattered in knowledge, attitudes and behaviors of employees

KEYWORDS: nuclear fuel, CANDU natural uranium, exposure to ionizing radiation

S P O N S O R I