Radiation Dosimetry Networks

RADIATION DOSIMETRY NETWORK Thematic network action of the 5th Framework Programme (EURATOM) of the European Commission Coordinated by the European Radiation Dosimetry Group (EURADOS)

DIRECTION DE LA RADIOPROTECTION DE L’HOMME

R A P P O R T

DIRECTION DE LA RADIOPROTECTION DE L’HOMME BP 17 92262 Fontenay-aux -Roses Cedex France

Siège social - 77, av. du Général-de-Gaulle - 92140 Clamart - Standard +33 (0)1 58 35 88 88 - RCS Nanterre B 440 546 018

LISTE DES PARTICIPANTS

Nom Organisme

P. Pihet Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléair e

(IRSN), Fontenay-aux -Roses, France

L. Lindborg Swedish Radiation Protection Authority (SSI),

Stockholm, Sweden

P. Olko Institute of Nuclear Physics (IFJ), Krakow, Poland

H. Schuhmacher Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB),

Braunschweig, Germany

C. Wer nli Paul Scherr er Institut (PSI), Villigen, Sw itzer land

J. Zoetelief Delft University of Technology, Inter faculty

Reactor Institute (IRI/TNO-CSD), Delft, The

Nether lands

LISTE DE DIFFUSION

Nom Organisme

Direction IRSN

Membres EURADOS

5th Framework Programme (EURATOM) Period 2001-2004 Ref. FIR1-CT-2000-20104

Rappor t Direction/DRPH/n°2005-1 4/106



Summary The pr oject 'Radiation Dosimetry Network' (5th Fr amework Programme of the European Commission [EC] –

EURATOM) was conducted by the European Radiation Dosimetry group (EURADOS). In this period, the membership

of EURADOS incr eased fr om 31 to 50 Eur opean organisations located in 24 different countries including 6 of the

new Member States entering the Eur opean Union (EU) in 2004 and Bulgaria, Cr oatia, Ser bia and Ukr aine. The

Wor king Gr oups set-up in this period have achieved the following r esults:

- The r elease on the Web of the EURADOS Database of Dosimetry Res earch Facilities on which users can enter and

retrieve infor mation relevant to facilities and special equipments designed for dosimetry resear ch;

- The r ealisation of the r eport Harmonisation of Individual Monitoring (IM) in Europe gathering a comprehensive

por trait of IM implementation and assisting the process of harmonisation necessary follow ing the EURATOM

Council Dir ective 96/29 to achieve an equal pr otection for occupationally ex posed persons;

- The continuation of the intercomparisons programme of environmental radiation monitoring s ystems . So far , 13

differ ent countr ies wer e r epresented including 12 European national network systems;

- The r epor t Cosmic radiation exposure of aircraft crew: compilation of meas ured and calculated data published

in cooper ation with DG TREN (EC, Lux emburg). This report is meeting the r equest of Article 31 Gr oup of Ex perts

(EURATOM Tr eaty) to pr ovide guidance to authorities and air flight companies.

Besides further coor dination in key ar eas of r adiation pr otection dosimetry (computational dosimetry, neutron

dosimetry, inter nal dosimetry), the potential for a lasting network structure to continuously fulfil the needs of

coor dination in r esear ch and of scientific ex per tise in dosimetry was investigated. This project is partly continued

under the Coor dination Action 'CONRAD' of the 6th Fr amework Pr ogramme.

Résumé Le pr ojet 'Radiation Dosimetry Network' (5ème Pr ogramme cadr e de recher che et développement de la Commission

eur opéenne [CE] – EURATOM) a été conduit par l'Eur opean Radiation Dosimetry group (EURADOS). Au cour s de

cette période, les membres de l'EURADOS sont passés de 31 à 50 organismes européens situés dans 24 pays

compr enant 6 nouveaux Etat Membres parmi ceux ayant intégr é l'Union Eur opéenne (UE) en 2004 ainsi que la

Bulgar ie, la Cr oatie, la Ser bie et l'Ukr aine. Les Gr oupes de tr avail mis en place durant cette période ont obtenu les

résultats suivants :

- le site Inter net EURADOS Databas e of Dosimetry Research Facilities existe; les utilisateurs peuvent saisir et

retrouver les informations utiles sur les installations et équipements dédiés à la recher che en dosimétrie,

- la rapport Harmonis ation of Individual Monitoring in Europe pr ésente une image exhaustive de la mise en œuvr e

en Eur ope de la surveillance individuelle et contr ibue au pr ocessus d'harmonisation nécessaire selon la Dir ective

du Conseil Européen 96/29 pour gar antir une pr otection égale à tous les travailleurs exposés,

- le pr ogramme d'inter compar aisons des systèmes de surveillance dosimétrique dans l'envir onnement se poursuit;

à ce jour , 13 pays sont r eprésentés compr enant 12 réseaux de surveillance nationaux ,

- le rapport Cosmic radiation expos ure of aircraft crew: compilation of measured and calculated data a été

réalisé en collabor ation avec la DG TREN (EC, Lux embourg) à la demande de l'Article 31 Group of Experts (Tr aité

EURATOM) pour fournir des lignes directrices aux autorités compétentes et aux compagnie aériennes.

Par allèlement aux actions de coordination dans des domaines majeurs de la dosimétrie des rayonnements ionisants

(dosimétrie numérique, dosimétrie neutron, dosimétrie inter ne), la faisabilité d'une structure de r éseau pérenne

pour r épondre aux besoins de coor dination en r echer che et d'ex pertise en dosimétrie a été étudiée. Le pr ojet est

pour suivi en partie à travers l'action de coordination 'CONRAD' du 6ème Pr ogramme cadr e.



European Rad iation Dosimetry Group

EURADOS

Present Council (March 2004):

David T. Bartlett (NRPB) – UK Teresa Bolognese (IRSN) – FR Francesco d'Err ico (USP) – IT Elena Fantuzzi (ENEA) – IT

Pawel Olko (IFJ) – Secretary – PL Chr istian Schmitzer (ARCS) – AT

Helmut Schuhmacher (PTB) – Chairman – DE Frantisek Spurny (UJF) – CZ David J. Thomas (NPL) – UK

Filip Vanhavere (SCK-CEN) – BE Chr istian Wernli (PSI) – V ice-Chairman – CH

Hans Zoetelief (TUD) – Treasurer – NL

Council Members (during the present Project)

Working group Chairpersons (during the present Project)

Thomas Otto (CERN) – CH EURADOS database of dosimetry research facilities – Working Group 1

Janwi llem van Dijk (NRG) – NL Harmonisation of Individual Monitoring in Europe - Working Group 2

Jose-Carlos Sáez-Vergara, (CIEMAT) – ES Franck Wissmann (PTB) – DE Collaboration in environmental Radiation Monitoring - Working Group 3

Bernd Siebert (PTB) – DE Gianfranco Gualdr ini (ENEA) – IT Computational dosimetry - Working Group 4

Ulr ich J. Schrewe (FHH) – DE Lennart Lindborg (SSI) – SE Aircraft crew dosimetry - Working Group 5

David T. Bartlett (NRPB) – UK Francesco d’Err ico (USP) – IT Guenther Dietze (PTB) – DE Frances Fry (NRPB) – UK Lennart Lindborg (SSI) – SE Pawel Olko (IFJ) – PL Herwig Paretzke (GSF) – DE Pascal Pihet (IRSN) – FR Alain Rannou (IRSN) – FR Jose-Carlos Sáez-Vergara (CIEMAT) – ES Helmut Schuhmacher (PTB) – DE Frantisek Spurny (UFJ) – CZ David J. Thomas (NPL) – UK Chr istian Wernli (PSI) – CH Johannes Zoetelief (TUD-IRI) – NL

David J. Thomas (NPL) – UK Neutron spectrometry and dosimetry - Working Group 7



Key milestones

1981 Registration of EURADOS constitution

1990 9th General Assembly in Lisbon

1991 10th General Assembly in Dub lin (1st revision of EURADOS constitution)

1992 Start of the first project funded under 3rd FP 1992-1995 (EURATOM)

1992 11th General Assembly in Par is

1994 12th General Assembly in Strasbourg

1997 Start of the coordination of the EULEP-EURADOS-UIR joint Concerted Action

under 4th FP 1997-1999 (EURATOM)

1997 1st publication of the joint EULEP-EURADOS Newsletter

1999 Annual Meeting in Braunschweig (creation of a Task Group

to propose changes in the future operation of EURADOS)

2000 Validation of the Task Group conclusions by the Counci l in Fontenay-aux-Roses

2001 Start of the project "Radiation Dosimetry Network", Thematic network action

under 5th FP 2001-2003 (EURATOM)

2001 13th General Assembly in Braunschweig (2nd revision of EURADOS constitution)

2001 Creation of the EURADOS Web Site

2002 14th General Assembly in Braunschweig.

2002 Submission of an Expression of Interest towards the 6th FP (EURATOM)

2003 15th General Assembly in Braunschweig

2004 16th General Assembly in Braunschweig

2004 End and final report of the 5th FP project

2005 17th General Assembly in Krakow

2005 Start of CONRAD, Coordination action under 6th FP 2005-2007 (EURATOM)

Acknowledgements

The operation of EURADOS was supported since its foundation by the Radiation Protection Programme

of the European Commission and starting in 1992 under contracts of the 3rd, 4th and 5th Framework

Programmes (EURATOM) [FI3P-CT920001, FI4P-CT96-0061, FIR1-CT2000-20104].



Foundation of EURADOS

At the end of the sixties, neutron radiotherapy got a second chance after the disappointing experience in the

forties. The International Commission on Radiation Units and Measur ements (ICRU) initiated the preparation of a

neutr on dosimetry report (ICRU Repor t 26, 1977) as well as an inter national neutron dosimetry inter comparison,

INDI (ICRU Repor t 27, 1978). The Eur opean Commission subsequently supported the European Neutr on Dosimetry

Inter comparison Pr oject ENDIP per formed at GSF and TNO (J.J. Br oerse, G. Bur ger, M. Coppola, 1978). One salient

conclusion of both inter compar isons was the need for a mor e consistent sets of basic data such as cross sections,

stopping power , kerma and W -values.

With this objective, a co-or dination committee was cr eated consisting of J.J. Br oerse (chair man), M. Coppola

(secr etary), D.K. Bew ley, G. Burger , H.G. Ebert, N. Parmentier and W. Pohlit. The first meeting of this committee

on Collection and Evaluation of Neutron Dosimetry Data (CENDOS) was held at the end of 1976 in Fontenay-aux -

Roses. Subsequent meetings wer e often scheduled in conjunction w ith symposia or workshops on Neutron

Dosimetry, organised in Neuher berg and Rijswijk.

A w ider interest in collabor ating on r esear ch in dosimetry pr ovided the motivation to found the Eur opean

Radiation Dosimetry group (EURADOS). This was conceived during a meeting of scientists engaged in contr acts with

the Eur opean Commission, held in September 1981 at Homburg (Saar br ucken, Germany). It was decided that the

activities of EURADOS would be focussed on the collection, pr ocessing and dissemination of information on

resear ch in dosimetry of all types of ionising radiation, and on the practical coor dination of ongoing r esear ch

projects and joint planning of future programmes.

Together with its analogous association in the area of r adiobiology, the European Late Effects Project gr oup

(EULEP), EURADOS was pr ecursor for a Eur opean network facilitating inter action between institutions and

laboratories concer ned with the impr ovement and implementation of dosimetry in various application fields

(environment, individual monitor ing, radiobiology, medicine, r adiation pr otection, radiation physics and

dosimetry). The association has accumulated more than twenty year s experience in the successful animation of a

network with mor e than 30 institutional members. In 1996, EURADOS was asked to coor dinate the Concer ted

Action (4th Framework Programme, EURATOM) jointly carried out with EULEP and UIR (Union Inter nationale de

Radioécologie) named ”Environmental and occupational dosimetry: An integrated approach to radiation protection

cover ing r adioecology, dosimetry and biological effects”. Funding of this work came from the European

Commission and thr ough the voting members. The latter have supported the work primar ily by scientists to

investing their efforts on various tasks. The funding fr om the Eur opean Commission has varied over time. The

support of member institutes regular ly increased confirming their commitment in a lasting network.

In 1999 a Task Gr oup was set-up to r eview the status of EURADOS and dr aw proposals to improve the futur e

oper ation of the Group. These pr oposals entered into for ce while pr eparing the 5th Framework Programme

(EURATOM) pr oject and wer e validated at the 13th General Assembly. In 2002, EURADOS ex pressed its inter est

towards the setting-up of a lasting network structure on the coor dination of the development and implementation

of r adiation protection dosimetry in Europe with the general aim to strengthen resear ch and ex pertise in

dosimetry, to pr omote vital r esear ch by the integration of participants' r esour ces, to implement state-of-ar t

dosimetry, and to disseminate information both between experts and to the public. While EURADOS is investigating

complementary sour ces of funding, in 2004 the resear ch part of this coor dination programme could be solved with

the negotiation of the Coor dination Action CONRAD (A Coor dinated Network for Radiation Dosimetry) of the 6th FP

(EURATOM).



CONTRACT N°: FIR1-CT-2000-20104

PROJECT N°: FIS5-1999-00334

ACRONYM : DOSIMETRY NETWORK



RADIATION DOSIMETRY NETWORK

Thematic network action carried out within the 5th Framework Programme (EURATOM) of the European Commission

Coordinated by the European Radiation Dosimetry Group (EURADOS)

Project report 2001 – 2004

P. Pihet (1), L. Lindborg (2), P. Olko (3), H. Schuhmacher (4), C. Wernli (5), J. Zoetelief (6)

(1) Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire (IRSN), Fontenay-aux-Roses, France

(2) Swedish Radiation Protection Author ity (SSI), Stockholm, Sweden

(3) Institute of Nuclear Physics (IFJ), Krakow, Poland

(4) Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB), Braunschweig, Germany

(5) Paul Scherrer Institut (PSI), V illigen, Switzer land

(6) Delft University of Technology, Interfaculty Reactor Institute (IRI/TNO-CSD), Delft, The

Netherlands



Table of contents

PREFACE

1. INTRODUCTION 17

2. OBJECTIVES 18

3. PROGRESS AND RESULTS 19

3.1. FACILITIES FOR DOSIMETRY RESEARCH (ANNEX A) 20 3.2. HARMONISATION OF INDIVIDUAL MONITORING IN EUROPE (ANNEX B) 20 3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION MONITORING (ANNEX C) 22 3.4. COMPUTATIONAL DOSIMETRY (ANNEX D) 23 3.5. AIRCRAFT CREW DOSIMETRY (ANNEX E) 23 3.6. NEUTRON AND PHOTON SPECTROMETRY (ANNEX F) 24 3.7. JOINT MEETINGS AND LECTURES (ANNEX G) 25

4. IMPLICATIONS 26

4.1. MAIN ACHIEVEMENTS 26 4.2. DISCUSSION 27

5 COMMUNICATIONS AND PUBLICATIONS 29

5.1 WITHIN THE 5TH FP PROJECT 29 5.2 EARLIER REPORTS 31

5.2.1 within CENDOS framework 31 5.2.2 within EURADOS framework 32

ANNEX

A EURADOS database of dosimetry research facilities 37

B Harmonisation of Individual Monitor ing in Europe 45

C Collaboration in environmental Radiation Monitor ing 63

D Computational dosimetry 73

E Aircraft crew dosimetry 79

F Neutron spectrometry and dosimetry 87

G Set-up and management of the network, coordination, dissemination 93



PREFACE

The pr esent report summarizes the results achieved during the period of the 5th Framework Progr amme (EURATOM)

within the action “Radiation Dosimetry Network” coor dinated by EURADOS. Among the main achievements,

readers w ill found internet developments, comprehensive r eports and coor dination actions, including

inter comparisons, inventories and confer ence sponsoring, in key ar eas of ionising radiation dosimetry such as

har monisation of r adiation pr otection dosimetry practices, environmental r adiation monitoring, air craft cr ew

dosimetry, neutron spectr ometry and dosimetry, and, in cooperation with separ ate pr ojects, computational

dosimetry and internal dosimetry.

These r esults were obtained within thematic Working Gr oups. On behalf of EURADOS Member s and the Council, we

like to ex press our deep gratitude to all WG participants and Chairpersons for their continuous effor ts and per sonal

involvements in the achievement of this programme, in particular for bringing these actions and their publication

to a successful conclusion. We hope that the pr esent r eport is fur ther contributing to the dissemination of these

results.

In this way, the benefit of the experts platform r epresented in EURADOS was clear ly confir med. At the same time

selected working groups assigned with specific objectives could be successfully conducted while the necessary

coor dination could be investigated in ar eas where new questions arise or which are partly covered in separate

projects. In the futur e, the emphasis is put on the need to continuously per form a dynamic link between R&D and

ex pertise and operational issues towar ds improved per formance and compatibility of ionising r adiation dosimetry

practices throughout the EU.

Keeping this motivation and capability implies a rather w ide scope of activities. An important achievement of the

present pr oject was also to meet the requirement of EU enlar gement, which in turn incr eases the r equir ement of

appr opriate resour ces towards future activities. The original basis of EURADOS and the support of the successive

Fr amework Progr ammes will not be sufficient in the future.

EURADOS sponsors have faced this situation namely by preparing the present 5th FP project under the coor dination

of Günther Dietze that we like to acknow ledge for his guidance and encouragements. While carrying out the

present pr ogramme, we ar e grateful to the Council for carrying on these investigations and in particular Lennart

Lindborg for his important contribution and continuous assistance. Appr oaching the 6th FP period, effor ts wer e

combined their effor ts to successfully set-up the Coor dination Action ‘CONRAD’ which w ill support the r esear ch

par t of the network programme. Additional r esources are to be investigated to support ex pertise actions ex pecting

to keep the whole programme under the EURADOS umbr ella. In this contex t, another essential task of incr easing

importance in the near futur e is the financial management of EURADOS activities which was continuously carried

out by the Delft University of Technology under coor dination of Hans Zoetelief.

Pascal Pihet

Chairman of EURADOS (2001-2004)

Coordinator of the Project (5th Framework Programme)

Helmut Schuhmacher

Chairman of EURADOS



1. INTRODUCTION A br oad inter est in collabor ative resear ch in dosimetry pr ovided the motivation to found the Eur opean Radiation

Dosimetry gr oup. EURADOS was conceived in September 1981 at Homburg (Germany), during a meeting of

scientists engaged in contracts with the Eur opean Commission. The main aims undertaken in EURADOS summarize

as follows:

- To advance the scientific understanding of the dosimetry of ionising radiation;

- To pr omote the technical development of dosimetric methods and instr umentation and their implementation in

routine dosimetry;

- To assist partners and stakeholders in achieving compatibility of dosimetric pr ocedur es used within the EU,

and, in general, conformity to international pr actice.

- To stimulate collabor ation and the dissemination of results between European laboratories and similar

associations in neighbouring areas (in particular medical and radiological pr otection r egulatory or ganisations);

- To maintain active links and ex change of information with the inter national community of dosimetry

laboratories.

EURADOS has shown a special aptitude to contribute to the tr ansfer of resear ch and development (R&D) issues and

of scientific know ledge to a wide range of stakeholder s in the use of ionising radiation and in radiation protection.

The lar ge ex perience accumulated in undertaking network activities and the skill of its specialists groups have

given EURADOS the capabilities of management and coor dination for the network of ex perts necessary to operate

so that appr opriate specialists gr oups can be for med in a timely manner to solve problems or pr omote r esear ch

identified w ithin EURADOS or upon r equest fr om ex ternal bodies. Using EURADOS as organisational fr amework for

this networ k of ex perts, w ithin the project RADIATION DOSIMETRY NETWORK special attention was given to the

follow ing needs:

• Within its contribution to the EC pr ogramme, EURADOS activities in r adiation protection dosimetry ar e

actually quite br oad, r anging from coor dination in resear ch to the implementation of the results of this

resear ch, with the emphasis on harmonization, dissemination and training. One key activity in this programme

remains the pr omotion and organisation of regular inter comparisons, meetings and publications. A further

requirement is arising form the enlargement of the EU.

• Available means and capabilities for dosimetry r esear ch, including ex pensive and unique facilities, available

in European laboratories are often not well known to the wider community of interested r esear chers although

such special equipments are useful and actually in some case essential.

• Wher eas criteria har dly exist for the appr oval of dosimetry services r equir ed in the EURATOM Council

Directive 96/29, there is a consensus among pr ofessionals of individual monitoring (IM) that approved

dosimetric services should per form in agreement w ith the relevant international standards (e.g. ISO and IEC)

and r ecommendations (e.g. fr om the EC and the IAEA) to achieve an equal pr otection for all occupationally

ex posed persons in Eur ope. Such a pr ocess of harmonisation is not str aightforwar d and needs to be

continuously assisted. Furthermor e, separately fr om the elabor ation of standards, harmonisation implicitly

means to foster the communication between a majority of services concer ned. A first step towards improving



this communication is to gather a compr ehensive and realistic picture fr om IM services in oper ation w ithin the

EU, the standar ds and methods commonly used, including the feedback ex perience in quality control and the

use of emerging techniques.

• Ear lier inter comparison exer cises had r evealed large discr epancies of environmental detector readings when

instruments wer e ex posed identically. Leaving such a situation unchanged would complicate the management

of situations with incr eased risk of ex posure fr om an accidentally contaminated envir onment. The degr ee of

har monisation w ithin environmental r adiation monitoring labor atories needs therefor e to be improved which

under lines the availability of suitable installations and the presence of a permanent network offering

regular ly meetings of European scientists responsible for services in char ge of national ear ly warning systems.

Such a network can assist them in comparing the different approaches and pr ocedur es used, ex change their

know ledge and intercompare periodically their techniques and assessment methods including power ed

instruments (dose rate) and passive integrating dosemeters (dose).

• The use and the actual capabilities of computing methods have drastically incr eased in the past twenty years

and concer n all ar eas of dosimetry including r esear ch and applications. This implies to continuously support

collaborative wor k in computational dosimetry towar ds improved r eliability of calculations and quality of the

methods used. The long term goal is to ensur e the continuity of a cr itical mass of ex pertise in this ar ea,

important for achieving successful r esear ch and applications in ionising radiation dosimetry.

• The know ledge on cosmic r adiation dosimetry has significantly impr oved and new r esults ar e being r eported

reflecting a gr eat deal of attention in this area in particular during the decade follow ing the issue of the 1990

international r ecommendations in r adiological pr otection and related Eur opean Directives. In this context, a

new demand of Ar ticle 31 Gr oup of Ex perts (EURATOM Tr eaty) was ex pressed to suppor t the setting up of a

working gr oup to validate the existing dose rate data in flight altitudes and to evaluate a data set which

might become the basis for the recommendations of the Ar ticle 31 Ex perts gr oup.

• The ex posur e to neutron r adiation is raising important questions which can be ex plained by two obvious

reasons: (1) the pr esence of neutrons in most radiation fields encounter ed in resear ch and r adiation

protection applications, including differ ent environments with mixed neutron-photon fields, criticality

accident dosimetry, high energy radiation fields, cosmic radiation; and (2) the complex behaviour of

instruments r esponses as a function of neutron energy. In addition to separate pr ojects such as DOSMAX or

EVIDOS (5th FP), the periodic issue of r elevant confer ences r espond to a high demand fr om the scientific

community in neutron dosimetry and neutron spectrometry.

2. OBJECTIVES The str ategic objective undertaken in the pr oject is to set-up and maintain a permanent network of ex perts, and

refer ence and resear ch laboratories so that appropriate specialists groups can be formed in a timely manner to

solve pr oblems or promote r esear ch identified w ithin the network or upon r equest fr om ex ternal bodies. The

project dir ectly contributes to the achievement of the objectives of the Resear ch and Tr aining Pr ogramme in the

Field of Nuclear Ener gy aiming at further developing and implementing a sound r adiation pr otection policy which

enables high pr otection levels to be achieved in practice. It uses the Eur opean Radiation Dosimetry gr oup

(EURADOS) as ex perts platform and organisational framework.

The aims undertaken under the 5th Project meet two concer ns:



• the efficiency of the networks of ex perts, and of r efer ence and r esear ch laboratories in ionising r adiation

dosimetry with the objectives to:

- str engthen the network fr amework and operations and upgrade its membership to the meet the

requirements of the enlar ged EU;

- per for m the coor dination and management tasks requir ed for the follow up and achievement of the

selected working group (WG) activities, including collaborations with WGs managed under separate

projects, in particular for : computational dosimetry (collaboration with QUADOS group, ref. FIGD-

CT2000-20062); and neutr on dosimetry and neutron spectr ometry;

- ensur e the large dissemination of the results obtained and of the boar d information.

• the follow up and achievement of selected thematic working groups w ith as specific objectives:

- to develop the technical means for the collection and dissemination of information for resour ces in

the EU r egar ding irradiation facilities and special equipments for dosimetry resear ch;

- to for m a group dealing with the harmonisation of individual monitoring in Europe and information

on new techniques in this field w ith the emphasis on: pr actical implementation of individual

monitoring; and the extension of the group r epresentatives to new countries of the EU including

recent Member States and other countries fr om Central and Easter n Eur ope;

- to contribute to the harmonization of envir onmental r adiation monitoring within Europe with the

final aim that r esults reported by differ ent countries during a nuclear accident can be consistent

and comparable. To this end, the objective is to incr ease links between scientists working on

resear ch in this field and others r esponsible of ear ly warning national systems based on the

establishment of periodic inter comparison exer cises;

- to bring together all r ecent, available, pr efer ably published, ex perimental data and results of

calcu lations on air craft cr ew dosimetry, w ith detailed descr iptions of methods of measurement and

calcu lation, in particular those used in European experts groups; the specially setup Working Gr oup

would be followed by observers of the Ar ticle 31 Gr oup of Ex perts and the Centr al Joint Aviation

Author ity (JAA) and the EC Director ate-General Energy and Transport (DG TREN).

3. PROGRESS AND RESULTS Details on the progress and results achieved during the 5th FP period are given in Annex .

As far as the efficiency of the coor dination fr amewor k is concer ned, Annex G in particular descr ibes the status and

general progress achieved at the end of the pr esent project using EURADOS as organisational basis. The

membership of EURADOS incr eased fr om 31 to 50 European institutes and labor atories located in pr esently 24

differ ent countries [1][2][3]. Including 6 of the new Member States entering the EU in 2004, it is broadly

repr esentative of the EU and counts also 4 additional Eur opean countries (Bulgar ia, Cr oatia, Ser bia, Ukr aine).

Besides the coordination per formed summar ized below, the perspectives of using and keeping the benefit gather ed

dur ing the successive developments of EURADOS were carefully investigated. The emphasis is put on the need to

continuously per form a dynamic link between R&D and expertise and operational issues towar ds improved

per for mance and compatibility of ionising radiation dosimetry practices throughout the EU. This investigation led



to the working out of the Coor dination Action pr oject named 'CONRAD' to be carried out w ithin the 6th FP and also

to the consideration of differ ent sour ces of support to ensure that the over all goal undertaken by EURADOS can be

reached.

The dissemination of information and results inside and outside the network was achieved by combining several

means. In addition to regular publications and special issues most often in the journal Radiation Protection

Dosimetry, particular attention was paid on the implementation and optimisation of the EURADOS web site and the

ERRS Newsletter ("Eur opean Resear ch in Radiological Sciences") co-edited with EULEP [4]. Moreover, a EURADOS

presentation leaflet year ly updated was broadly distributed to membership, corr espondents and in conference

events.

Considering the differ ent themes selected for the pr esent pr oject, the coor dination per formed led to the following

results:

3.1. FACILITIES FOR DOSIMETRY RESEARCH (ANNEX A)

The solution pr oposed to r ealize the collection and dissemination of information for r esour ces in the EU r egar ding

irradiation facilities and special equipments for dosimetry r esear ch consisted in developing an interactive

database, storing br ief facility portraits in a standar dised format and being consultable and r egular ly updated via

Inter net. This relational database was new ly designed and fir st r eleased on the Inter net in spring 2003

(http://www.eur ados-db.npl.co.uk/) [4][5}. The information can both updated and queried via Wor ld Wide Web

inter faces. On one hand, the interested user has fr ee access to all infor mation stored in the database. On the

other hand, facility operators have full contr ol of the content they submit. This enables operators to keep the

responsibility for the data they submitted. They have indeed the necessary means (database inter faces) to

regular ly review and update the information they have contr ibuted.

In this way the EURADOS database of dosimetry r esear ch facilities enable to fulfil simultaneously thr ee

requirements:

• Resear chers can find an easy-to-use inter face w ith power ful sear ch facilities to retrieve information on

facilities and equipment suitable for their work;

• Owners or oper ators of special r esear ch equipment and facilities are easily able to enter and update

infor mation to make it available to the community of dosimetry r esear chers;

• The workload of database administration is kept minimal and easily manageable by EURADOS members.

3.2. HARMONISATION OF INDIVIDUAL MONITORING IN EUROPE (ANNEX B)

Compar ed with the first group formed during the 4th FP (r ef. FI4P-CT96-0061), the working group coor dinated

within the pr esent pr oject has been extended fr om 16 to 28 Eur opean countries, including the States integrating

the EU in 2004 and 6 countries fr om Central and Easter n Eur ope.

Also the scope of the gr oup was modified to include internal ex posure issues and pr actical aspects of individual

monitoring while considering the incr easing implementation of Active Personal Dosemeters systems (APD) in this

per iod.



The r esults achieved by the working Gr oup consist of:

• a compr ehensive report summarizing the investigations per formed in the WG in the last 3 years;

• the set-up of a dedicated workshop ("Individual Monitoring of Ionising Radiation - IM2005) to be held in

Vienna on Apr il 11-15, 2005 (http://im2005.healthphysics.at);

• the organisation of an inter comparison of APD systems in collabor ation with the IAEA.

The report published as a special issue of the journal Radiation Protection Dosimetry [6] is gather ing a

compr ehensive portrait of individual monitoring implementation in Eur ope pr esented in four questions:

a) The r eview and pr esentation of differ ent categor ies of documents relevant to the implementation of standards

in individual monitoring with particular attention on their correspondence and their respective contributions

regarding:

- their applicability either in terms of “scientific good practice” or in terms of legislation;

- differ ent quality assurance aspects including, management and technical quality and quality

contr ol;

- implementation of recommendations and r egulatory documents.

These documents are analysed with r espect to their sources and w ith r espect to their contribution to the

fr amework of IM. The r eview is comprehensive and takes into account: ISO standar ds, IEC standards, AIEA

standards, national standar ds in IM of internal ex posur e, quality assur ance standar ds and guides, ICRP and ICRU

recommendations, IAEA technical documents, other inter national documents of relevance to IM.

b) The car tography of Eur opean IM ser vices achieved with 3 inventories covering IM services, the methods used,

their appr oval pr ocedures, legal and technical r equirements, and quality assurance. Each inventory consider ed

a differ ent cr iterion:

- ex ternal dosimetry services and personal dosemeters: the catalogue is an update of the one

initiated in the pr evious project (Rad. Pr ot. Dosim., 89 1-2, 2000) and includes now the information

of 90 IM services;

- individual monitoring of inter nal ex posure: this new catalogue includes infor mation fr om 71

depar tments. Further efforts of harmonisation ar e indeed necessary in this complex ar ea. In the

process to assess internal doses fr om direct/indir ect monitoring measur ements namely, individual

monitoring progr ammes must be taken into which could be achieved in collabor ation with the

OMINEX pr oject group (5th FP, ref. FIKR-CT2000-00046);

- ex posure to radon and other natural sour ces: with emphasis on the current situation of the

regulations, relevant standar d and r efer ence level and especially the actual ex perience from

oper ational services for the implementation of Title VII of Council Dir ective 96/29/Eur atom. The

intermediary data set pr esently achieved is fr om 19 countries among 28 invitated.

c) The implementation of Active Personal Dosemeters (APD) for individual monitoring which are relatively new

devices for individual radiation monitoring of workers and occupy a special place to date in IM of external

ex posure as complementary to passive dosimeters to satisfy the ALARA pr inciple. They ar e extensively used in

Eur ope but they are accepted as legal dosimeters only in very few countries. The implementation of APDs in



Eur ope has been assessed by analysing the r eplies fr om 15 countries. They came from radiation pr otection

officer s, responsible for the APDs in differ ent institutes, hospitals and companies. The status is actually

differing fr om country to country, fr om no specification to obligation of using APD, possibly together with

passive dosimeters or requirement in special situations. Moreover , the detailed char acteristics of 26 APD

systems are compar ed.

d) The level of quality contr ol and r eliability of reported doses actually achieved in IM was appr aised from the

replies of 88 appr oved IM services (26 European countries). The inquiry was focused on the use of 8 detection

techniques relevant to IM for whole body dose, extremity dose and dose to the lens of eye and was structur ed

on differ ent ‘dosimetry systems’, each of them consisting in the combination of one of these techniques, a

radiation type and a dosimeter application. Par ticular attention is raised on the fr equency of differ ent kinds of

failur es in the evaluation or the data management system, or in the dosimeter itself, or in the loss of

dosimeter or dosimeter reading, their treatment in IM services are and their impact on the quality of IM

reports.

Regular pr ogr ess of this r epor t was communicated in differ ent conferences (Inter nal Dosimetry of Radionuclides

Occupational, Public and Medical Exposure – Ox ford, 2002; IRPA11, Madrid, 2004; SSD14, Yale, 2004) [7-11].

3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION MONITORING (ANNEX C)

The appr oach chosen used the ex perience gather ed fr om first technical r ecommendations (Rad. Pr ot. Dosim., 92 1-

3, 71-76, 2000) and the inter comparison exer cise held in 1999. The set up of a standing collabor ation in

environmental radiation monitoring was based on the strengthening of the initial Working Group to carry on the

or ganisation and analysis of small scale exer cises. While analysing and r eporting the results of the 1999 ex er cise, a

second ex er cise was decided and organised in 2002. Additional motivation for this choice were also that available

facilities ar e reduced and the number of par ticipating groups in a given run is practically limited to less than 10.

The r esults achieved in the pr esent period summarize as:

• the or ganisation of the second inter comparison exer cise at the PTB (September 11-20, 2002,

Braunschweig, Germany):

- the ex er cise welcomed five European countries which have not participated in the fir st exer cise.

Over all 13 differ ent countries were r epresented in the 1999 and 2002 campaigns (about 40 power ed

instruments - dose r ate - and passive integr ating dosemeters - dose);

- the PTB provided the UDO low background undergr ound labor atory in Asse salt mine and two new

facilities: a specially designed fr ee field ar ea for dose r ate measur ements in the environment of a

radioactive plume simulation; and a floating platform installed on an artificial lake for dir ect

measurements of the cosmic component of the ambient dose rate;

- in addition to refer ence instr uments and test devices, the 2002 inter comparison included 'in-situ’

gamma spectr ometry measurements which allowed independent estimates of the cosmic and

terrestrial components of the environmental dose r ate and the ex perimental measur ement of the

response functions of the spectr ometers.



• the analysis and reporting of the inter compar isons r esults:

- the analysis of the 1999 inter comparison was performed and the final r eport was published [12];

- the analysis of the 2002 inter comparison was achieved and the final r eport is currently prepared for

submission to Radiation Protection Dosimetry [13].

Over all, the first benefit gathered fr om these exer cises and pr ogr ess from 1999 to 2002 is already substantial [14].

It concer ns the harmonisation and impr ovement of envir onmental r adiation monitoring r egar ding the quantity used

for reporting, the calibration and tr aceability to standards. Both inter compar ison exer cises could include 12

Eur opean national network systems. All together up to 40 scientists wer e concerned and the exer cise now includes

in-situ gamma spectrometry systems, which ar e being mor e and more employed in environmental monitoring. The

target of fur ther ex er cises would be to r esolve r emaining discr epancies, to guarantee a high quality of

environmental monitoring and to enlarge pr ogressively the participants gr oup, in particular involve mor e national

ear ly war ning networks in the process of harmonisation.

3.4. COMPUTATIONAL DOSIMETRY (ANNEX D)

The aim of EURADOS within the pr esent per iod was to offer a coor dination support to the actions per formed by the

QUADOS gr oup (Quality assurance of computational tools for dosimetry, 5th FP, Ref. FIGD-CT2000-20062) in order

to disseminate these issues within the EURADOS platfor m of ex perts and member institutes and also to a larger

audience. This coor dination is in line with the long-term involvement of EURADOS for the lar ge implications of

computing methods in radiation pr otection dosimetry [15].

The r esults achieved by QUADOS and reported elsewher e include the organisation of the Inter comparison on the

usage of computational codes in radiation dosimetry. The mailing of the inter comparison and analysis of replies

(about 100 solutions in refer ence problems) was per formed in the period of 2002-2003. The r esults were discussed

in a dedicated Workshop held at the Univer sity of Bologna (July 14-16, 2003) and organised by the ENEA-Radiation

Protection Institute (Proceedings published w ithin ENEA Publication - Rome 2004) [16].

The progress achieved by QUADOS could be r egular ly r eported in EURADOS seminars and panel assemblies. The

dissemination was relayed in EURADOS and ERRS Newsletter web sites.

In parallel, close co llabor ation with QUADOS and EURADOS council was carried out to investigate the priorities and

a suitable way to continue this work. The pr oposal of QUADOS towar ds fur ther actions to be planned beyond 2003

ar e now integr ated in the Coor dination Action CONRAD to be held within the 6th FP fr om 2005.

3.5. AIRCRAFT CREW DOSIMETRY (ANNEX E)

In collabor ation w ith DG TREN, EURADOS has answered the demand of Ar ticle 31 Group of Experts to bring

together all r ecent, available, pr efer ably published, ex perimental data and r esults of calculations on air craft cr ew

dosimetry. The end goal of this action is to provide further guidance to authorities as well as air flight companies

concer ned with ex posure to cosmic radiation.

The Working Group specially set up to meet this request could successfully achieve the work proposed. The

Wor king Gr oup set up in January 2001 has repr esented European gr oups engaged in dosimetry onboard air cr aft,

with prefer ably published results. Canada was also r epresented. Fur thermor e, the pr ogr ess was followed by



observers fr om the Eur opean Commission (EC/DG TREN) and the Ar ticle 31 Gr oup of Experts and the Joint Aviation

Author ity (JAA).

The pr ogress achieved results fr om four complementary actions:

- Descr iptions of measur ement and calculation methods used and their uncertainties,

- Comparison of measur ed and calculated r oute doses,

- Comparison with observed dose equivalent r ate values,

- Detailed r eview of uncertainties in radiation pr otection as well as in air cr aft cr ew dosimetry.

The conclusions of the WG was summarized in the r eport "Cosmic r adiation ex posur e of air craft cr ew: compilation

of measur ed and calculated data" deliver ed to the Article 31 Gr oup of Experts in June 2003 and in final dr aft in

June 2004 [17][18]. The approved final r eport is curr ently in publication by the DG TREN [19]. This report is based

on the gathering of up to 10 500 ambient dose equivalent measurements obtained fr om differ ent groups using

differ ent techniques in 13 differ ent institutions. The measurements are compared w ith calcu lations fr om 5 codes

including EPCARD. It pr ovides first analysis of uncertainties reached in air craft cr ew dose assessments.

Main conclusions include notably:

• The very good agreement observed between dose equivalent measur ements performed onboar d air craft

(all r esults gather ed from participants and the literatur e lying w ithin ±25%) taking into account the lar ge

variety of instr uments and methods used;

• The agreement between measured and calculated dose equivalent values validating most methods of

calcu lation as conservative for compliance with radiation protection r equir ements taking into account

that the effect of shielding, scattering and secondary particle generation by the air craft fabric,

passengers, car go and fuel is generally not taken into account in those calculations;

• Uncertainties for air craft cr ew dosimetry from calculated and measur ed values are within the

requirements set by the ICRP.

3.6. NEUTRON AND PHOTON SPECTROMETRY (ANNEX F)

Neutron spectr ometry and neutron dosimetry r emain of fir st interest within the EURADOS community due the

complexity of neutron and mix ed field dosimetry and to: (1) the presence of neutrons in most radiation fields

encounter ed in r esear ch and r adiation pr otection applications, including differ ent environments with mix ed

neutr on-photon fields, cr iticality accident dosimetry, high energy r adiation fields, cosmic radiation; and (2) the

complex behaviour of instruments r esponses as a function of neutron energy.

Within the pr esent project, assistance of EURADOS members and the Council could be given to achieve several

complementary actions relevant to this field:

• The publication of the handbook Neutr on and Photon Spectrometry Techniques for Radiation Pr otection as

a special issue of the journal Radiation Pr otection Dosimetry [20]. This handbook initiated under EURADOS

WG7 during the 4th FP (r ef. F14P-CT98-0071) pr ovides a comprehensive summary of the available

ex perience, and describes the pr esent state of the art for neutron and photon spectr ometry in the types

of mixed fields encounter ed at workplaces.



• The publication of the proceedings of the Wor kshop "Neutron field spectrometry in science, technology

and radiation pr otection" – NEUSPEC2000 held in Pisa in June 2000 [21]. The Workshop (par tly supported

under FIGE-CT-2000-60001), planned originally as a small scale event for people dir ectly involved in

workplace spectrometry, engendered so much inter est and actually became a much larger event than

initially thought. It allowed r elevant spectr ometry methods to be discussed including classic multi-spher e

and proton recoil techniques as well as the most r ecent approaches (techniques for instr ument

calibr ation, computational methods for determining the r esponse of spectrometers, and methods for

unfolding of the energy and dir ection distr ibution of fields).

• The issue of the 9th Symposium on Neutron dosimetry "Advances in Nuclear Particle Dosimetry for

Radiation Protection and Medicine" (NEUDOS9) held on 28 September - 3 October 2003 in Delft (The

Nether lands) [22]. The symposium was partly supported under the Accompanying Measur es FIGH-CT2002-

06023. The Symposium is a major event in the field pr oviding an opportunity for considering

developments in neutr on dosimetry and its application in radiation protection, radiobiology and

radiotherapy as well as in dosimetry of other nuclear par ticles (e.g. pr otons, heavier ions). It also

provided the possibility for presenting new information related to forthcoming developments.

Fur thermor e, EURADOS has invited to submit pr oposals for the organisation of the next Neutron Dosimetry

Symposium (NEUDOS10). Following the pr esentation of the four candidate organisers, the proposal of Uppsala

University was selected by a panel of the EURADOS Council, the Ex ecutive Scientific Committee and the Advisory

Scientific Committee of NEUDOS9 for organising NEUDOS10. The confer ence is planned to take place in June 2006

in Uppsala, Sweden.

3.7. JOINT MEETINGS AND LECTURES (ANNEX G)

In addition to the pr eviously r eported activities, EURADOS has year ly-organised boar d meetings which combined in

a single event Working Groups and Task Groups meetings together with the statutory General Assembly of the

scientific society and scientific seminars. The latter allowed regular ly to disseminate the status r eports of working

gr oups activities, their most recent results and to present key lectur es relevant to studies presently carried out as

well as subjects of importance for future investigations. They also allowed to foster close collabor ation with

differ ent networks and organisations (EUROMET, ICRP, IAEA, ICRU, ISO and CEI, ..) and neighbouring pr ojects. The

2004 seminar in particular was the symposium "Biological and Physical Dosimetry for Radiation Protection" jointly

or ganised w ith EULEP (European Late Effects Pr ojects Gr oup) [23].

Within the 5th FP period, EURADOS has foster ed in collabor ation w ith EULEP and 5th pr ojects in the internal

dosimetry area the venue of two cluster meetings to identify the differ ent contributions and their synergy towards

the impr ovement of internal dose assessment and monitoring. The second cluster was held within the Workshop on

"Inter nal Dosimetry of r adionuclides: occupational, public and medical ex posure" (September 9-12, 2002, Ox ford,

United Kingdom).



4. IMPLICATIONS

4.1. MAIN ACHIEVEMENTS

The major r equir ement to integrate the enlar gement of the European Union in the str engthening of the network

has been to a lar ge ex tent fulfilled both in the membership of the network (including in Mar ch 2004, 6 of the new

Member States and 4 additional countr ies of Centr al and Eastern Europe, Annex G [3], and in the ex perts groups

formed, especially in WG2 (Harmonisation of individual monitoring in Eur ope, Annex B) and WG3 (Collabor ation in

environmental radiation monitoring, Annex C).

Another implicit general goal was to impr ove the dissemination of the network activities inside the EURADOS

ex perts community and to broaden this dissemination first to outside r adiation pr otection specialists, and to the

public. This objective was met in differ ent ways:

• by facilitating the ex change of information between neighbouring pr ojects of the 5th FP in the area of

ionising radiation dosimetry;

• by using as much as possible the dissemination of scientific r esults and r eports achieved through peer

reviewed scientific jour nals, mainly in publications and special issues of Radiation Pr otection Dosimetry

distributed to a large audience;

• by supporting in complement to these jour nals informative newsletters (pr esently ERRS Newsletter co-

edited with EULEP) and presentation leaflets;

• and by fostering the use of inter net means. To date 3 web sites are in operation:

- the EURADOS web site: www.eurados.org for distribution of infor mation, hyper links to relevant web

pages, support of Council operation and organisation of board meetings;

- the ERSS Newsletter Online: www.euradnews.org;

- the EURADOS Dosimetry Research Facilities Database: http://www.eurados-db.npl.co.uk/.

In addition to pr oject deliverables the activities of thematic Working gr oups have led to a number of special

reports:

• the pr esentation of the EURADOS Database of Facilities and Equipment for Dosimetry Resear ch in Eur ope

designed by WG1 (Rad. Prot. Dosim. 112 (4), 2004 – in press);

• the compr ehensive portrait of individual monitor ing implementation in Europe pr esenting the survey

per for med by WG2 (Annex B) (Rad. Pr ot. Dosim. 112 (1) 2004 – in pr ess);

• 2 final r eports issued by WG3 for the inter comparisons ex ercises per formed in environmental r adiation

monitoring, the1999 ex er cise (Radiat. Pr ot. Dosim., 103(3): 197-210, 2003) and the 2002 exer cise (In

preparation for submission to Rad. Pr ot. Dosim.);

• the final report of WG5 Cosmic Radiation Ex posur e of Air cr aft Crew: Compilation of Measur ed and

Calcu lated data appr oved by Ar ticle 31 Gr oup of Ex perts (June 2004) and currently under publication by

DG TREN (EC Report KO-63-04-690-EN-C, Lux embourg, ISBN 92-894-8448-9);

• the handbook Neutr on and Photon Spectr ometry Techniques for Radiation Protection issued by WG7

(Radiat. Pr ot. Dosim., 107(1-3), 2003);



• the pr oceedings of NEUSPEC2000 Neutron field spectr ometry in science, technology and r adiation

protection (Nuclear Instr uments and Methods, 476(1-2), 2002);

• the pr oceedings of NEUDOS9 Advances in Nuclear Particle Dosimetry for Radiation Protection and

Medicine: Ninth Symposium on Neutron Dosimetry. (Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 110, 1-4, 2004);

• the pr oceedings of the Symposium Biological and Physical Dosimetry for Radiation Pr otection jointly

or ganised by EULEP and EURADOS (Rad. Pr ot. Dosim. 112 (4), 2004).

Fur thermor e, the follow ing events organised within differ ent fr ameworks were followed in EURADOS with

par ticular attention during the present reporting period and including numer ous contributions:

• Wor kshop "Computing Radiation Dosimetry", June 22-28, 2002, Lisbon (Portugal);

• Wor kshop on "Internal Dosimetry of radionuclides : occupational, public and medical ex posur e",

September 9-12, 2002, Ox for d (United Kingdom);

• Wor kshop "Inter comparison on the usage of computational codes in radiation dosimetry" organised by

QUADOS, July 14-16, 2003, Bologna (Italy);

• IRPA Regional Congr ess on Radiation Pr otection in Central Europe, September 22-26, 2003, Bratislava

(Slovakia);

• Inter national conference on national infrastructures for radiation safety: towards effective and

sustainable systems. Rabat, September 2003 (Morocco);

• NEUDOS9 "Advances in Nuclear Particle Dosimetry for Radiation Pr otection and Medicine: Ninth

Symposium on Neutron Dosimetry", 28 September - 3 October 2003, Delft (The Nether lands);

• EULEP-EURADOS Symposium "Biological and Physical Dosimetry for Radiation Protection", Mar ch 10, 2004,

Braunschweig (Germany);

• Inter national Confer ence on Radiation Shielding (ICRS-10) - Topical Meeting of the Radiation Protection

and Shielding Division of the American Nuclear Society (RPS 2004), May 9-13, 2004, Madeira (Portugal);

• 11h Congr ess of the Inter national Radiation Pr otection Association (IRPA11), May, 23-28, 2004, Madrid

(Spain);

and the follow ing events are announced:

• Wor kshop on "Individual Monitoring of Ionising Radiation (IM2005)", Apr il 11-15, 2005, Vienna (Austria);

• "10th Symposium on Neutron Dosimetry", June, 2006, Uppsala (Sweden);

• Wor kshop on "Internal Dosimetry of radionuclides: occupational, public and medical ex posur e", 2006,

Montpellier (France).

4.2. DISCUSSION

A clear advantage of a sustainable gr oup similar to EURADOS was demonstrated once again in this project as being

able in the same time to conduct selected working gr oups to the achievement of specific objectives (Annex A-C, E)

while holding mor e open and adjusted coor dination in critical ar eas under first investigations or which are par tly

cover ed in separate projects (Annex D, F).

An important achievement of the present project is to meet mor e closely the requir ement of EU enlar gement.

Par adoxically, this led in some ar eas to larger experts groups and coor dination workload in contr ast with the

decr ease of funding observed in the past ten years.



The pr esent period has more clear ly highlighted the three components of coordination undertaken by EURADOS

dealing w ith r esear ch, ex pertise and implementation issues and worthwhile to keep in the field of ionising

radiation dosimetry, and r adiation pr otection dosimetry in particular . In an applied field such as r adiation

protection dosimetry indeed, these areas ar e closely inter connected as r eflected in the largely confirmed inter est

of European labor atories and services involved in this field. However the pr esent programme fr amework

under taken by the EC is implying to treat these differ ent contributions distinctly. Waiting for more guidance, a

possible approach might be to consider a standing body like EURADOS capable of motivating investigation groups in

cr itical ar eas while focusing on the management of targeted working gr oups using multiple appr opriate sour ces of

funding as opposed to the single, and very effective until now, support from the FP.

Par t of this problem is solved w ith the support of the Coor dination Action pr epared by the EURADOS Council and

currently under final negotiation. The scope of CONRAD is targeted on the coor dination of r esear ch activities in

selected topics. However , in order to gather the needed guidance fr om authorities, institutes, senior management

at r esear ch organisations, CONRAD also includes a dedicated work package dealing with the investigation of

feasible options for sustainable networks linking resear ch actor s and end users in radiation protection dosimetry.

Considering the differ ent specific topics investigated by the Working Groups, the follow ing issues ar e worthwhile

being pointed out for discussion:

• As far as the Database of dosimetry r esear ch facilities is concer ned, the main achievement is the

availability of an operational tool, the interactive database operated fr om the web being an economic

and effective approach to achieve both the collection of important information and its dissemination to a

broad audience. More needs to be done to achieve a r epr esentative mapping of EU r esour ces and to

support the valor isation of this action. It implies to support the minimum system maintenance and

upgr ading requir ed, and to maintain a task gr oup with a permanent focus and interest in such a database,

to r egular ly analyse the recor ded data, advertise the ex isting capabilities but also assess the pr esent

deficiencies.

• The interest of Eur opean institutions and services for the work achieved under WG2 to improve

Har monisation of Individual Monitoring in Europe indicates a clear motivation for keeping a lasting

working group with r epresentatives of all EU Member -States and other European countries that:

- Maintains databases on regulations and on technical aspects relevant to IM services.

- Evaluates developments in the field of dosimetry for r adiation protection.

- Organises periodically international inter comparisons of technical services, workshops and training

courses on dosimetry for radiation pr otection.

- Disseminates the findings in r eports and publications in the open liter ature.

The support of such an action is not yet solved.

• In envir onmental radiation dosimetry, the pr esent project showed that the solution to incr ease the level

of quality of monitoring measurements for environmental radiation dosimetry and to improve the

compar ability of ear ly war ning results actually r est on the feasibility of r epeating periodically

inter comparison ex er cises. The pr esent pr oject emphasized the importance to keep available suitable

facilities and traceability fr om one ex er cise to the other . Using the experience gained in 2002 in



par ticular , the permanent installation of national network instr uments at the PTB refer ence site could be

very useful to assure the tr aceability of the systems in a continuous way and to pr ovide regular on line

calibr ation for their systems which is traceable to PTB primary standards. Two prerequisite conditions ar e

to date not solved:

- the support of suitable infr astr ucture for the characterization and inter comparison of envir onmental

radiation monitoring systems;

- and the support of a permanent working group capable of coor dinating the organisation of per iodic

ex er cises and carrying out their evaluation and dissemination.

• A fundamental basis of ensuring r eliable radiation protection is the provision of quality assurance in

measurements and the quality of measurements in radiation protection dosimetry relies incr easingly on

the use of computational methods and on the extent to which a reliable uncer tainty can be stated. Based

on the pr ogr ess achieved over the years and in particular in the r ecent QUADOS action indeed, moder n

calcu lation techniques ar e intensively used to impr ove the understanding of the instr uments and

processes involved in workplace dosimetry and characterise the instruments r esponse. It is therefor e

essential that computational tools employed can be benchmarked, i.e. inter compar ed w ith experiments

and that procedur e for stating the uncer tainties associated with computed values is inter nationally

agr eed. This goal is undertaken under the forthcoming CONRAD Coor dination Action.

• The ex posure to cosmic radiation during civil air flights r emains a typical application in which fostering

resear ch and expertise work and pr eserving effective coor dination is important due to in particular the

complex radiation field unique in terms of both the r ange and par ticle types. A European Cosmic

Radiation Advisory Group is thought worthwhile being formed. A concr ete example of a need still pr esent

is to be able to assess the impact of solar particle events (SPE), whenever they occur . Such a group should

be able to pr ovide dose assessments follow ing SPE, update the estimates as necessary, and pr esent

infor mation to the national authorities and through these to air lines, unions, and the European public.

The support of such a action is not yet solved.

• In the ar ea of inter nal dosimetry, the projects carried out under the 5th FP were under taken

complementary aims fr om basics of inter nal ex posure modelling to dose assessment fr om individual

monitoring. Further coordination of r esear ch work on assessment and evaluation of inter nal ex posur es is

consider ed within CONRAD project. An impor tant part of the work worthwhile being carried out is to

valor ise the achieved bibliographic and internal contamination databases as well as the evaluation

database and to upgrade these databases with new cases.

5 COMMUNICATIONS AND PUBLICATIONS

5.1 WITHIN THE 5th FP PROJECT

[1] C. Wer nli. The European Radiation Dosimetry Group (EURADOS). In Pr oc. Inter national confer ence on

national infr astructur es for r adiation safety: towar ds effective and sustainable systems. Rabat, September

2003.



[2] F. Spur ny. The Eur opean Radiation Dosimetry Gr oup (EURADOS). IRPA Regional Congress on Radiation

Protection in Central Eur ope. Br atislava, September 2003.

[3] P. Pihet , C. Wernli, H. Schuhmacher , J. Zoetelief, D.T. Bartlett, F. d'Errico, L. Lindborg, P. Olko, H.

Par etzke, A. Rannou, F. Spur ny, D.J. Thomas. The Eur opean Radiation Dosimetry gr oup: EURADOS.

Proceedings of the IRPA11 Confer ence, Madrid, 2004, http://www.ir pa11.com/.

[4] Web sites in oper ation:

- EURADOS web site: www.eurados.org

- ERSS Newsletter : www.euradnews.org

- The EURADOS Dosimetry Resear ch Facilities Database: www.eurados-db.npl.co.uk

[5] Otto, Thomas and DuSautoy, Alan. EURADOS Database of Facilities and Equipment for Dosimetry Resear ch in

Eur ope. Pr esentation in the Symposium "Biological and Physical Dosimetry for r adiation protection" jointly

or ganised by EULEP and EURADOS, Braunschweig, Ger many, March 10, 2004. Rad. Prot. Dosim. Vol 112 (4),

531-533 (2004)

[6] Van Dijk, J.W.E., Bolognese-Milsztajn, T., Fantuzzi, E., Lopez-Ponte, M.A. and Stadtmann, H., Editors.

Har monisation of Individual Monitoring in Europe. A r epor t of the Eur opean Radiation Dosimetry Gr oup

EURADOS. Rad. Prot. Dosim. Vol. 112, No. 1 (2004).

[7] Lopez, M.A., Currivan, L., Falk, R., Olko, P., Wernli, C., Castellani, C.M., van Dijk, J.W.E.. Harmonisation

(Legal, Dosimetric, Quality Aspects) of Individual Monitoring and Integr ation of Monitoring for External and

Inter nal Ex posur es (EURADOS Working Gr oup). Rad. Prot. Dosim. Vol. 105, No. 1-4, pp 653-656 (2003).

[8] Currivan, L., Falk, R., Lopez, M. A., Olko, P., Wer nli, C., Castellani, C.M., van Dijk, J. W. E.. Harmonisation

of Individual Monitoring for Exposures to Radon and to Other Sour ces of Natur al Radiation at Workplace in

Eur opean Countries (EURADOS Working Group). Pr oceedings of the IRPA11 Confer ence, Madrid, 2004,

http://www.irpa11.com/.

[9] Lopez, M.A., Ambr osi, P., Bogucarskis, K., Bolognese, T., Boschung, M., Castellani, C.M., Cr uz Suares, R.,

Currivan, L., Falk, R., Fantuzzi, E., Figel, M., Gar cia Alves, G.A., Ginjaume, M., Jankowski, J., Janzekovic,

H., Kamenopoulou, V., Luszik-Bhadra, M., Olko, P., Osvay, M., Roed, H., Stadtmann, H., van Dijk, J.W.E.,

Vanhavere, F., Vartiainen, E., Wah, W., Weeks, A., Wer nli, Ch.. Harmonisation of Individual Monitoring in

Eur ope. Proceedings of the IRPA11 Confer ence, Madrid, 2004, http://www.ir pa11.com/.

[10] Bolognese-Milsztajn, T., Ginjaume, M. and Vanhaver e, F. Active methods & instruments for personal

dosimetry of ex ter nal r adiation: pr esent situation in Eur ope and futur e needs. IN Curr ent trends in radiation

protection. Métivier, H., Arr anz, L., Gallego, E. and Sugier , A. (Eds). EDP Sciences, Les Ulis, France, pp 65-82

(2004).

[11] Olko, P., Currivan, L., van Dijk, J.W.E., Falk, R., Lopez, M.A., and Wernli, C. Thermoluminescence detectors

applied in individual monitoring of radiation workers in Europe - A r eview based on the EURADOS

questionnaire. SSD14 Confer ence, Yale-2004. Submittted for publication in Radiat. Prot. Dosim. (2005).

[12] Sáez-Vergar a, J.C., Thompson, I.M.G., Funck, E., Ander sen, C.E., Neumaier, S. and Bøtter -Jensen, L.,

Lessons learnt from an inter national inter comparison of national network systems used to provide ear ly

war ning of a nuclear accident. Radiat. Prot. Dosim., Vol 103(3): 197-210, (2003)



[13] Sáez-Vergar a, J.C., Funck, E., Thompson, I.M.G., R. Gurriar án, R. and Neumaier, S. The Second EURADOS

Inter national Inter comparison of National Network Systems used to Pr ovide Ear ly Warning of a Nuclear

Accident having Transboundary Implications. In preparation for submission to Radiat. Prot. Dosim. (2005)

[14] Sáez-Vergar a, J.C., Funck, E., Thompson, I.M.G. Harmonisation of environmental r adiation monitoring: the

appr oach of EURADOS. In Proceedings of the IRPA11 Confer ence, Madrid, 2004, http://www.ir pa11.com/.

[15] Pihet, P. Computing methods in radiation pr otection dosimetry and related R&D activities - EURADOS

contr ibution. In Proc. Computing Radiation Dosimetry - CRD 2002, Workshop organised in Savacem, Portugal,

June 22-23, 2002 by ITN-NEA. Published by OECD 2004/4311. ISBN 92-64-10823-8.

[16] Gualdrini, G. and Ferr ari, P., Editors. Inter comparison on the usage of computational codes in r adiation

dosimetry. Proceedings of the QUADOS final Workshop, July 14-16, 2003, Bologna, Italy. ENEA-Rome 2004

(ISBN 88 - 8286 - 114 - 7)

[17] Lindborg, L., McAulay, I., Bar tlett, T.D., Beck, P., Schr aube, H., Schnuer , K., and Spur ný, F. (Eds.), Cosmic

Radiation Exposure of Air craft Cr ew: Compilation of Measured and Calculated data. Final r eport approved by

Article 31 Group of Experts (June 2004).

[18] Lindborg, L., McAulay, I., Bar tlett, T.D., Beck, P., Schr aube, H., Schnuer , K., and Spur ný, F. Cosmic

Radiation Exposure of Air craft Cr ew: Compilation of Measured and Calculated data. A Preview of a Report

fr om EURADOS Working Gr oup 5 pr esented at the Ninth Neutr on Dosimetry Symposium , Delft (The

Nether lands, 2003). Rad. Pr ot. Dosim. Vol. 110, 1-4, 417-422 (2004).


Radiation Ex posure of Air cr aft Cr ew: Compilation of Measured and Calculated data. DG TREN Edit.

(Lux emburg ). EC Repor t KO-63-04-690-EN-C (ISBN 92-894-8448-9).

[20] Thomas D.J and Klein H. Neutr on and Photon Spectr ometry Techniques for Radiation Protection. Radiat.

Prot. Dosim., Vol 107(1-3), (2003).

[21] Klein, H, Thomas, D.T., Menzel, H.G., Cur zio, G., d 'Errico, F. (Eds). Neutron field spectr ometry in science,

technology and radiation pr otection. Nuclear Instruments and Methods, Vol 476(1-2), (2002).

[22] Zoetelief, J., Schuhmacher , H., Bos, A.J.J., Bar tlett, D.T., Rannou, A., Br oer se, J.J., McDonald, J.C.,

Schultz, F.W., Eds. Advances in Nuclear Particle Dosimetry for Radiation Pr otection and Medicine: Ninth

Symposium on Neutron Dosimetry. Pr oceedings. Rad. Prot. Dosim. Vol. 110, 1-4, (2004).

[23] Stather , J. W., Hopewell, J. W. and Pihet, P. , Editor s. Biological and Physical Dosimetry for Radiation

Protection. Pr oc. of EULEP-EURADOS Symposium, Br aunschweig, Mar ch 10, 2004. Rad. Pr ot. Dosim. Vol 112

(4), 2004.

5.2 EARLIER REPORTS

5.2.1 WITHIN CENDOS FRAMEWORK

Broerse, J.J. Basic Physical Data for Neutron Dosimetry. Commission of the European Communities, EUR 5629

(1976).

Broerse, J.J. (Ed.). Ion Chamber s for Neutron Dosimetry. Commission of the European Communities, EUR 6782

(1980).



Tommasino, L. and Harrison K. G. Damage Tr ack Detectors for Neutr on Dosimetry: I. Registr ation and Counting

Methods. Radiat. Prot. Dosim., 10, 207-218 (1984).

Harrison, K. G. and Tommasino, L. Damage Tr ack Detectors for Neutron Dosimetry: II. Char acteristics of Differ ent

Detection Systems. Radiat. Prot. Dosim., 10, 219-235 (1984).

Harrison, K. G. (Ed.). Neutr on Irradiations of Pr oton-sensitive Tr ack Detector s: Results of a Joint Irr adiation

Organised by CENDOS. AERE Harwell Report AERE R 11926, CENDOS Report 1985-02 (1985).

Gibson, J.A.B. The r elative tissue kerma sensitivity of thermoluminescent materials to neutr ons. Commission of

the European Communities, EUR 10105 (1985).

5.2.2 WITHIN EURADOS FRAMEWORK

Booz, J., Edwards, A.A. and Harrison, K.G. (Eds). Microdosimetric counters in radiation protection. Radiat. Prot.

Dosim., 9 (3), (1984).

Dietze, G., Guldbakke, S., Kluge, H and Schmitz, Th. Inter comparison of radiation pr otection instr uments based on

micr odosimetric principles. PTB Bericht ND-29 (1986).

Piesch, E. K. A. (Ed.). Neutr on Irradiations of Proton-sensitive Track Etch Detectors: Results of the Joint

Eur opean/USA/Canadian Irradiations. Kernfor schungszentrum Kar lsr uhe Report KfK 4305, EURADOS-CENDOS Repor t

1987-01 (1987).

Bar tlett, D.T., Booz, J., and Harrison K.G. (Eds). 33 Etched track detectors. Radiat. Pr ot. Dosim., 20(1-2), (1987).

Dietze, G., Edwar ds, A.A., Guldbakke, S., Kluge, H., Ler oux , J.B., Lindborg, L., Menzel, H.G., Nguyen, V.D.,

Schmitz, Th. and Schuhmacher , H. Investigation of r adiation protection instruments based on tissue-equivalent

proportional counters. EC Report EUR 11867 (1988).

Booz, J. and Dietze, G. (Eds). Implementation of dose-equivalent operational quantities into r adiation pr otection

practice. Radiat. Prot. Dosim., 28 (1-2), (1989).

Lembo, L. (Ed.). Results of a Sur vey of Backgrounds of Etched Tr ack Neutron Dosemeter s Organized by EURADOS-

CENDOS in 1988. ENEA Report PAS-FIBI-DOSI (89) 1 (1989).

Menzel, H.G., Par etzke, H.G. and Booz, J. (Eds). Implementation of dose-equivalent meter s based on

micr odosimetric techniques in radiation protection. Radiat. Prot. Dosim., 29 (1-2), (1989).

Schr aube, H. (Ed.). Response of Proton-sensitive Etched Track Detectors to Fast Neutr ons: Results of a Joint

Multilabor atory Experiment Organised by EURADOS-CENDOS (1988/1989). GSF-Ber icht 22/90, EURADOS-CENDOS

Repor t 1990-01 (1990).

Menzel, H.G., Chr istensen, P. and Dennis, J.A. (Eds). Skin Dosimetry. Radiat. Prot. Dosim., 39 (1-3), (1991).

Bar tlett, D. T. (Ed.). Results of a Survey of Backgrounds of Etched Track Neutron Dosemeters for PADC (CR39) fr om

Differ ent Manufacturers. Organised by EURADOS-CENDOS in 1989/90. NRPB Memor andum-M342, EURADOS-CENDOS

Repor t 1992-01 (1992).

Alber ts, W. G. (Ed.). Investigation of Individual Neutr on Monitors on the Basis of Etched-tr ack Detector s: The 1990

EURADOS CENDOS Ex er cise. PTB-Bericht PTB-N-10, EURADOS-CENDOS Report 1992-02 (1992).



Alber ts, W. G. Inter national Study of CR-39 Etched Track Neutron Dosemeters (EURADOS-CENDOS 1990). Radiat.

Prot. Dosim., 44, 323-324 (1992).

Thomas D.J. and Klein, H. EURADOS Working Gr oup 7: Radiation spectrometry in working environments.

Radiopr otection, 28, 95-100 (1993).

Menzel, H.G., Marshall, T.O., Wer nli, C. and Var ma, M. (Eds). Individual monitoring of ionizing radiation: the

impact of r ecent ICRP and ICRU Publications. Radiat. Prot. Dosim., 54 (3-4), (1994).

Gibson, J.A.B., Bir chall, A., Bull, R.K., Henr ichs, K., Iranzo, E., Lor d, D.J., Piechowski, J. Sollett, E., Tancock,

N.P. and Wer nli, C. European inter comparisons of methods used for the assessment of intakes of internally

deposited r adionuclides. Eur opean Commission, Dir ectorate Gener al Science, Resear ch and Development, EC

Repor t EUR 1419 (1992), EC Report EUR 14195 (1994).

Klein, H and Lindborg, L (Eds). Determination of the Neutron and Photon Dose Equivalent at Workplaces in Nuclear

Facilities of Sweden - A SSI EURADOS compar ison ex ercise, Part I: Measurements and Data Analysis. SSI-Repor t 95-

15, Stockholm (1995).

Waker , A.J., Pihet, P., and Menzel, H.G. (Eds). Advances in radiation measurements: applications and r esear ch

needs in health physics and dosimetry. Radiat. Pr ot. Dosim., 61 (1-3), (1995).

Schmitz, Th., Waker , A.J., Kliauga, P. and Zoetelief, J. (Eds). Design, constr uction and use of tissue equivalent

proportional counters. A Report of EURADOS Working Gr oup 10. Radiat. Prot. Dosim., 61 (4), (1995).

Lindborg, L., Bar tlett, D., Dr ake, P., Klein, H., Schmitz, Th. and Tichy, M. Deter mination of the neutron and

photon dose equivalent at workplaces in nuclear facilities of Sweden. A joint SSI-EURADOS compar ison exer cise.

Radiat. Prot. Dosim., 61 (1-3), 89-100 (1995).

Médioni, R., Delafield, H.J. and Gibson, J.A.B. An international inter compar ison of cr iticality accident dosimetry

systems at the Silene r eactor . Valduc, Dijon, France, June 1993. AEA Techno logy and IPSN Reports HPS/TR/H/1-3

(1995).

Schr aube, H., Alberts, W.G. and Weeks, A.R. Fast and high energy neutron detection with nuclear track detectors:

results of the Eur opean joint experiments 1992/93. GSF Report 15/95 (1995).

McAulay, I.R., Bartlett, D.T., Dietze, G., Menzel, H.G., Schnuer , K. and Schr ewe, U.J. Radiation Protection 85.

Ex posure of air crew to cosmic radiations. EURADOS Repor t 1996/01. Published by the Office for Official

Publications of the Eur opean Communities, Luxembourg (1996).

Thomas, D.J., Char tier , J.L., Klein, H., Naismith, O.F., Posny, F. and Taylor , G.C. Results of a lar ge scale neutr on

spectr ometry and dosimetry comparison exer cise at the Cadarache moder ator assembly. Radiat. Pr ot. Dosim., 70

(1-4), 313-322 (1997).

Sieber t, B.R.L. and Thomas, R.H. Computational dosimetry. Radiat. Prot. Dosim., 70 (1-4), 371-378 (1997).

Bar tlett, D.T., McAulay, I.R., Schr ewe, U.J., Schnuer , F., Menzel, H.G., Bottollier -Depois, J F., Dietze, G., Gmur ,

K., Gr illmaeir , R.E., Heinr ich, W., Lim, T., Lindbor g, L., Reitz, G., Schr aube, H.O.E., Spur ny, F. and Tommasino,

L. Dosimetry for Occupational Ex posur e to Cosmic Radiation. Radiat. Prot. Dosim., 70 (1-4), 395-404, (1997).



Har vey, J.R., Tanner , R.J., Alber ts, W.G., Bar tlett, D.T., Piesch, E.K.A. and Schr aube, H. The contribution of

EURADOS and CENDOS to etched track neutron dosimetry: the current status in Europe. Radiat. Pr ot. Dosim., 77,

267-304 (1998).

Thompson, I.M.G., Botter -Jensen, L., Deme, S., Per nicka, F. and Saez Vergara, J.C. Technical Recommendations

on measur ements of external environmental gamma radiation doses. A r eport of EURADOS Working Gr oup 12

'Environmental Radiation Monitor ing'. Commission of the Eur opean Communities, Luxembourg, Radiation Protection

106 (1999).

Bar tlett, D.T., Drake, P., Lindborg, L., Klein, H., Schmitz, T. and Tichy, M. (Eds). Determination of the Neutron

and Photon Dose Equivalent at Workplaces in Nuclear Facilities of Sweden - A SSI EURADOS compar ison exer cise,

Par t II: Evaluation. SSI-Report 99-13, Stockholm (1999).

Zoetelief, J., Br oerse, J.J., Davies, R.W., Octave-Prignot, M., Rezvani, M., Saez-Vergar a, J.C. and Toni, M.P.

EULEP-EURADOS pr otocol for X-r ay dosimetry in radiobiology. European Communities, Pr oject report "Nuclear

science and technology", ISBN 92-828-9840-7, EUR 19606 EN (2000).

Bar tlett, D.T., Ambr osi, P., Bor dy, J.M. and van Dijk, J.W.E. (Eds). EURADOS Action Gr oup: Harmonisation and

dosimetric quality assurance in individual monitoring for external r adiation. Rad. Prot. Dosim., 89 (1-2), 2000.

Ambr osi, P., Delgado, A., Fantuzzi, E., de Car valho, A. F., Lindborg. L. and Bartlett, D. T. Pr ocedur es for the

routine individual dose assessment of external r adiation within EU Member States and Switzer land. Status of

har monisation on Apr il 1st. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 89 (1-2), 7-52 (2000).

van Dijk, J.W.E., Bor dy, J-M., Vanhavere, F., Wernli, C. and Zamani-Valasiadou, M. A Catalogue of Dosemeters and

Dosimetric Services within EU Member States and Switzer land Able to Estimate Exter nal Radiation Doses as

Per sonal Dose Equivalent. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 89, (1-2), 53-106 (2000).

Bor dy, J-M., Stadtmann, H., Ambr osi, P., Bartlett, D. T., Christensen, P., Colgan T. and Hyvonen, H. Per formance

tests of dosimetric services for the routine assessment of individual dosemeters (photon, beta and neutron).

Radiat. Prot. Dosim., 89 (1-2), 107-154 (2000).

Stather , J.W., Hopewell, J.W., Sandalls, J. and Thompson, I.M.G. (Eds). Environmental dosimetry. Proc. of a

Wor kshop, Avignon, November 1999. Rad. Prot. Dosim., 92(1-3), (2000).

Thompson, I.M.G., Ander sen, C.E., Botter -Jensen, L., Funck, E., Neumaier , S. and Saez-Vergara, J.C. An

international inter compar ison of national network systems used to provide ear ly war ning of a nuclear accident

having tr ansboundary implications. Rad. Pr ot. Dosim., 92(1-3), 89-100 (2000).

Bar tlett, D.T., Böhm, J. and Hyvönen, H. (Eds). Individual Monitoring of Exter nal Radiation. Rad. Pr ot. Dosim.,

96(1-3), (2001).



ANNEXES



A EURADOS database of dosimetry research facilities

Contract reference: Work Package 2

Working Group 1

Chairman: Thomas Otto, Technical Inspection and Safety Division,

Radiation Protection Group (TIS-RP), CERN, Switzerland

Membership in the reporting period:

Jean Barthe Department of Application and Metr ology of Ionising Radiation,

Commissariat à l'Ener gie Atomique, CEA, Saclay, Fr ance

Alan DuSautoy Centr e for Ionising Radiation Metrology, National Physical

Laboratory, NPL/CIRM, United Kingdom

Dietrich Hermsdor f Inst. of Radiation Protection Physics, Dresden University of

Technology, Ger many

Ralf Nolte Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, PTB, Ger many

A1 Introduction

EURADOS stimulates collabor ation between Eur opean labor atories, especially those of the Eur opean Union and

associated states. The means and capabilities for dosimetry r esear ch available in these labor atories are often not

well known to the wider community of inter ested resear chers. In particular , several EU labor atories operate

ex pensive, often unique, facilities w ith specifications which are not necessarily well identified w ithin the

community. These comprise irradiation facilities and other special equipment useful and in some case essential for

dosimetry r esear ch. In or der to pr omote the collabor ation between Eur opean r esear chers and laboratories,

EURADOS decided to undertake the collection of information on these facilities and its br oadest possible

dissemination.

A2 Objectives

EURADOS cr eated Working Gr oup 1 with the objective to develop the technical means for the collection and

dissemination of information for r esour ces in the EU regar ding irradiation facilities and special equipments for

dosimetry resear ch. The aim of this exer cise is to provide information to resear chers in radiation dosimetry to

enable them to choose the most appropriate facilities for their work. It is a means for those who operate the

facilities to advertise what they can supply and it pr ovides a way to increase co-oper ation within the EU.

To this end, the specific objectives of WG1 wer e: (1) to survey these facilities and collect the technical

documentation describing their characteristics as well as administrative information how end- users can have

access to these equipment's for the pur pose of their r esear ch programmes; and (2) to design the information in a

suitable for m to be integrated in the EURADOS web site and online updated.



A3 Progress and results

In or der to identify the structur e of information which meets the users' ex pectations most efficiently, WG1 started

with a dedicated questionnaire being distributed to selected facilities. After this preliminary explor ation phase,

WG1 immediately r ecognised that the most suitable technical means for collection and dissemination of

infor mation would be a r elational database which can be interrogated via the Wor ld Wide Web. In just over two

years, WG1 defined the users’ r equirements for the database, developed and tested some prototype applications

and refined the specifications to have the database developed by a software-house. The acceptance tests on the

final pr oduct have been finally per formed and the database is accessible to the general public [1].

User s and administrator s of the database have differ ent requirements. Users need to scan through many recor ds

with power ful sear ch tools in order to identify quickly the resear ch facility fulfilling their needs, w ithout having to

install new softwar e on their computer. A web-site manager , instead, needs a pr oduct which can be maintained

easily and also adapted and extended accor ding to new ly arising needs.

It was possible to meet these technical requirements by developing a relational database which can be supplied

with new information and interrogated with a standar d web browser via an easy-to-use interface. The basic

principle is that the database contents are under the responsibility of the facility operators, who designate a

contact person. The contact person w ill r eceive a passwor d w ith which new facilities can be r egistered and the

infor mation r evised and updated. Once the contact person has logged in with the password, a web-form is

accessed, which r equests a brief description of the facility. Once filled in, the web-form is posted back to the

database where the information is stored and can be retrieved by users thereafter (Figure A.1).

Fig ure A .1: Schematic process of entering information to the database

EURADOS Server

Webserver

Data

Facility… ?Town….?Adress ….?Cost …….?…....

Postwebformto user

Facilitiy's Site

FacilityManager

Workstation &Internet Browser

The Internet

Abscgste m…ohshctytyeb69430mds….gdgftewgd...

SubmitBinaryInformationto database



The procedur e for a user to query the database works in a similar fashion. A simple inter face can be used in order

to search r esear ch facilities applying a number of selection criteria. Once a r equest has been submitted to the

database, the user will r eceive in return summary data on suitable r esear ch facilities which can be called up via a

hyper link (Figur e A.2).

Fig ure A .2: Schematic process of information retrieval.

The principle of oper ation was tested and validated using a pr ototype database, which was developed w ithin the

working group with standar d office softwar e. In the testing phase, the limitations of the pr ototype in terms of user

inter face and maintainability became quickly obvious.

Therefor e, in 2002, WG1 decided to seek professional assistance. Since the IT services of the National Physics

Laboratory (Teddington, UK) had pr evious ex perience w ith a database of UK calibr ation laboratories, the choice of

a suitable consultant was easily made. The pr esent database uses the fr eewar e mySQL, which r uns under the

LINUX operating system. The web-pages for data entry and database interrogation are developed w ith the php-

protocol. However , neither a facility contact person nor a user needs to worry about these details. All they need

to know is how to use a standar d web-br owser (such as Inter net Explor er™, Netscape Navigator ™, Mozilla ...) and

the internet addr ess of the database:

http://www.eurados-db.npl.co.uk/

Once this page is accessed, one can call up a query interface w ith five criteria: country, institution, facility type,

par ticle type, and main application area. In the example of Figure A.3 we requested the “acceler ator based

facilities” in the United Kingdom. In the rightmost column of every listed entry, a hyper link to the full information

page is visible. By selecting one of these hyper links, a brief descr iption of the facility can be obtained,

summarising the char acteristics of the resear ch facility and, most importantly, r epor ting the facility web site URL

and the e-mail addr ess of the contact person.

EURADOS Server

Webserver

DataRequest for Information

Http:// ….

ReturnInformationin HTTP-formatUser's site

EURADOSUser

Workstation &Internet Browser

The Internet



Fig ure A .3 The query inter face of the database

A4 Main achievements

The objectives have been achieved on schedule, the main pr oduct delivered being the relational database which

can be visited on www.eurados-db.npl.co.uk/ [1] and can be also accessed fr om the EURADOS web site

(www.eurados.org).

The main bulk of this development was achieved in the period 2001-2003 including the pr eliminary ex plor ation,

the basic design of the database and its final development. The database was r eleased in May 2003.

WG1 distributed special invitations to stimulate registr ation and use of the database. The registration procedur e is

straightforwar d and user -friendly (e-mail sent with a one-line description to Thomas Otto at the CERN Radiation

Protection Group of CERN - thomas.otto@cer n.ch - in or der to receive a personal login name and a password). Each

registered facility enters its own recor d.

This dissemination was supported by EURADOS and the ERRS Newsletter which initially opened a dedicated section

"r esear ch infrastr ucture" to publish first reports submitted by some of the targeted facilities [2].

Fur thermor e WG1 has been involved in pr omoting the pr oject and provided a demonstration of the system

capabilities in EULEP-EURADOS meetings and has shown in this way the importance of keeping a continuous

attention of potential users and contr ibutors [3]. Table A.1 is the curr ent extr action fr om the site indicating the

database current status. To date, the database includes 34 entries (14 facilities and laboratories).



Table A .1 Summary of the facilities entered in the database in August 2004

(http://www.eurados-db.npl.co.uk/EURADOS_facilities_summary.html)

This form g ives a summary of all the facilit ies held in the EURADOS database as of 18-08-2004 05:00 AM The full fac ility information can be retrieved when selecting the "full info" hyperlink in the r ightmost field of the table.

Institute Country Facility Facility Type

Particle Type

Application area more ...

BNM - LNHB France DELPHES Accelerator photon Other Metrology full info

BNM - LNHB France Iridium-192 brachytherapy calibration

Radioactive Source photon full info

BNM - LNHB France Manganese Bath Other full info

BNM - LNHB France medical X ray generator X-ray generator photon full info

CEMRAD France SPG Other full info

CERN RP Group Switzerland Calibration Laboratory Radioactive Source neutron Instrument calibration full info

CERN RP Group Switzerland CERF Accelerator mixed Instrument calibration, Other low doserate, Radiation protection

full info

Faculty of Nuclear Science

Czech Republic School Reactor Reactor Medical - Therapy full info

Greek Atomic Energy Commission

Greece Secondary Standard Dosimetry Laboratory

Radioactive Source

photon

Environmental Monitoring, Instrument calibration, Medical - Diagnostic, Medical - Therapy, Radiation protection

full info

Imperial College Reactor Centre United Kingdom

Imperial College Reactor Centre Reactor mixed full info

Institut de Tècniques Energètiques - UPC

Spain Laboratori de calibratge i dosimetr ia

X-ray generator photon

Instrument calibration, Medical - Diagnostic, Radiation protection

full info

IRSN/DRPH/SDE France CANEL Accelerator neutron Instrument calibration full info

IRSN/DRPH/SDE France CEZANE - AmBe Radioactive Source

neutron Instrument calibration, Radiation protection

full info

IRSN/DRPH/SDE France CEZANE - bare Cf Radioactive Source

neutron Instrument calibration full info

IRSN/DRPH/SDE France CEZANE -Cf moderated Radioactive Source


IRSN/DRPH/SDE France SIGMA Radioactive Source


National Physical Laboratory United Kingdom

NPL - D iagnostic and Mammographic X-ray Facility

X-ray generator photon full info


NPL - High dose C obalt - 60 gamma Irradiation Facilit ies

Radioactive Source photon full info

National Physical Laboratory

United Kingdom NPL - L inAc (Electron linear accelerator)

Accelerator electron

Instrument calibration, Medical - Therapy, Radiation hardness testing, Radiation protection, Radiation resistance of devices, Radioisotope production

full info




NPL - Low and Medium energy X-ray Facility

X-ray generator photon full info


NPL - Protection-level and Environmental Gamma-ray Facility (Mainence)

Radioactive Source photon

Environmental Monitoring, Radiation protection

full info


NPL - Therapy-level Gamma-ray Facility (Theratron)

Radioactive Source photon

Instrument calibration, Medical - Therapy, Other medium doserate, Other Metrology, Radiation hardness testing, Radiation resistance of devices

full info


NPL - Van de Graaff - monoenergetic neutron fluences

Accelerator neutron

Instrument calibration, Microdosimetry, Other Metrology, Radiation protection

full info

Nuclear Engineering Department - UPM

Spain Neutron Dosimetry Am-Be

Radioactive Source neutron

Instrument calibration, Radiation protection full info

Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt

Germany

High-energy neutron reference beams at CYCLONE / Universite Catholique de Louvain (UCL)

Accelerator neutron Instrument calibration, Other Metrology, Radiation protection

full info


Germany Irradiation Facility with Radionuclide Neutron Sources

Radioactive Source

neutron Instrument calibration, Other Metrology, Radiation protection

full info


Germany Microbeam facility Accelerator ion Biology, Radiation hardness testing full info


Germany PTB accelerator facility Accelerator neutron full info


Germany Radon Reference Chamber Other mixed Other Metrology full info


Germany UDO - Labor

Radioactive Source

photon Other very low doserate full info


Germany X-ray generator for ISO R-series

X-ray generator photon Radiation protection full info

TU Dresden Energietechnik Germany

AKR-1 (Ausbildungskernreaktor) Reactor mixed Other Metrology full info

TU Dresden Physik Germany

Low-Flux-Irradiation Facility at the Tandem Accelerator of the Rossendorf Research Centre, Germany

Accelerator ion Other very low doserate full info

University Institute for Applied Radiation Physics (IRA)

Switzerland gamma multisource Radioactive Source photon full info



A5 Discussion

At pr esent, only a limited number of facilities ar e descr ibed in the database. They correspond in general to close

collaborators involved in EURADOS activities. Mor e need to be done for achieving a repr esentative mapping of EU

resour ces. However , within the limited ambition of the pr esent project, the main issue is the availability of an

oper ational tool, the interactive database operated fr om the web being an economic and effective approach to

achieve both the collection of important information and its dissemination to a br oad audience.

The survey of the database and further assessment is investigated w ithin EURADOS. In fir st analysis, the objectives

of carrying on such a project would include:

- the support of the minimum system maintenance and upgr ading r equir ed;

- to maintain a task group with a permanent focus and inter est in such a database, and which is available for

analysing the recor ded data, advertising the existing capabilities but also assessing the present deficiencies.

A6 Communications and publications

[1] Otto, Th., DuSautoy, A., Bar the, J., Her msdor f, D. and Nolte, R. The EURADOS Dos imetry Res earch Facilities

Databas e. In http://www.eurados-db.npl.co.uk/ (2004)

[2] ERRS Newsletter :

- Cellular Micro-irradiation facilities at the Gray laboratory. Melvyn Folkard, Kevin M. Prise and Barry D.

Michael (nr 8, 2000)

- The CERN-EU high-energy Reference Field (CERF) facility. Angela Mitar off and Mar co Silari (nr 9, 2001)

- The PTB underground calibration facility for very low dose rates . Stefan Neumaier and Eber hard Funck

(nr 11, 2002)

[3] Otto, Th. and DuSautoy, A. EURADOS Database of Facilities and Equipment for Dos imetry Res earch in Europe.

Presentation in the Symposium "Biological and Physical Dosimetry for r adiation pr otection" jointly organised

by EULEP and EURADOS, Braunschweig, Germany, Mar ch 10, 2004. Rad. Pr ot. Dosim. Vol 112 (4), 531-533

(2004)



B Forming a group dealing with the harmonisation of individual monitoring in Europe and information on new techniques in this field.


Working Group 2

Chairman: Janwillem van Dijk, NRG Radiation & Environment, Arnhem,

The Netherlands

Membership:

Elena Fantuzzi (co-or dinating sub group 1)

National Agency for New Technology, Ener gy and the Environment, Institute for Radiation Pr otection, ENEA/IRP, Bologna, Italy

Maria Antonia Lopez Ponte (co-or dinating sub group 2)

Dosimetry Unit, CIEMAT, Madrid, Spain

Ter esa Bolognese (co-or dinating sub group 3)

Institut de Radiopr otection et de Sûr eté Nucléair e, Fontenay-aux -Roses, Fr ance

Hannes Stadtmann (co-or dinating sub group 4)

Österreichisches For schungszentrum Seibersdor f, ARCS, Austr ia

Peter Ambr osi Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, PTB, Br aunschweig, Germany

Konstantins Bogucarskis Latvian Radiation Safety Centre, Riga, Latvia

Markus Boschung Radiation Metr ology Section, Paul Scherr er Institut, PSI, Villigen, Sw itzer land

Rodolfo Cr uz Suar es IAEA, Radiation Monitoring and Protection Ser vices Section , Vienna, Austria

Lorraine Currivan Radiological Pr otection Institute of Ir eland, RPII, Dublin, Ir eland

Rolf Falk Swedish Radiation Protection Authority, SSI, Stockholm, Sweden

Antonio Ferro de Carvalho Direccao-Geral do Ambiente, ITN/DPSR, Sacavem, Portugal

Mer ce Ginjaume Institut de Tècniques Energètiques (INTE), Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Bar celona, Spain

Jerzi Jankowski NIOM Radiation Pr otection Department, Lodz, Poland

Helena Janzekovic Health inspector ate, Ljubljana, Republic of Slovenia

Vassiliki Kamenopoulou Greek Atomic Energy Commission, GAEC, Paraskevi, Gr eece

Dariusz Kluszczynski NIOM Radiation Pr otection Department, Lodz, Poland

Mar lies Luszik-Bhadra Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, PTB, Br aunschweig, Germany

Pawel Olko Health Physics Labor atory, Institute of Nuclear Physics, INP, Kr akow, Poland

Margit Osvay Atomic Resear ch Energy Institute, Institute of Isotope and Sur face Chemistry , KFKI/IKI, Budapest, Hungary

Henr ik Roed National Institute of Radiation Hygiene, Copenhagen, Denmark



Guiseppe Tarroni National Agency for New Technology, Ener gy and the Environment, Institute for Radiation Pr otection, ENEA/IRP, Italy

Filip Vanhaver e Instr umentation, Calibration and Dosimetry, Belgian Nuclear Resear ch Centr e, SCK-CEN, Mol, Belgium

Eija Vartiainen Regulatory Control Development, STUK Radiation and Nuclear Safety Author ity, Helsinki, Finland

Wolfgang Wahl Institut für Str ahlenschutz, GSF, For schungszentrum für Umwelt und Gesundheit, GmbH, GSF, Munchen, Germany

Andr ew Weeks Instr ument and Filter Technology, British Nuclear Fuel Lim., BNFL, Berkeley, United Kingdom

Christian Wernli Radiation Metr ology Section, Paul Scherr er Institut, PSI, Villigen, Sw itzer land

B1 Introduction

As issued fr om the Villigen workshop Individual monitoring of ionis ing radiation: the impact of recent ICRP and

ICRU Publications (Radiat. Pr ot. Dosim., 54 3-4, 1994), "the harmonisation of standards r elevant to individual

monitoring requires greater emphasis" follow ing the publication of ICRP 60 (1990). Wher eas in the mean time

international standards and recommendations have indeed improved and alr eady by themselves contribute to

incr ease the quality of individual monitoring (IM) and to bring coherent practices and refer ences in EU, the process

of harmonisation needs to be assisted with as gener al goal to achieve an equal pr otection for all occupationally

ex posed per sons in Europe. EURADOS has actively helped this process at ear ly stage.

The Euratom Council Dir ective 96/29 of 13 May 1996 is "laying down basic s afety s tandards for the protection of

the health of workers and the general public agains t dangers arising from ionising radiation ". The Dir ective

namely states that monitoring of the ex posur e should in gener al be done by appr oved dosimetric services, but the

Directive gives no cr iteria for the approval of these services. Still there is a consensus among professionals that

appr oved dosimetric services should per form in agreement with the r elevant inter national standar ds (e.g. ISO and

IEC) and r ecommendations (e.g. from the EC and the IAEA).

The Directive has been implemented in many Eur opean states, thus, the harmonisation on individual monitoring of

occupational workers becomes an important matter to deal w ith in a continent without bor der s, with fr ee

movement of workers exposed to radiation in the nuclear facilities of differ ent countr ies. It should be str essed

that in this contex t, harmonisation as applied to dosimetric services does not mean that they should all fo llow

ex actly the same pr ocedures, but that they should aim to meet the same general r equirements, and their results

should be comparable.

In 1996, EURADOS has decided to str engthen its action by carrying out a first coordination action to investigate the

degr ee of harmonisation of the dosimetric r equir ements and procedur es for individual monitoring in the EU. The

work was conducted by a dedicated working gr oup chaired by D.J. Bartlett (NRPB, UK) under suppor t of a joint

concer ted action (FI4P-CT96-0061). These r esults were compiled in a special issue of Radiation Protection

Dosimetry (vol. 89 1-2, 2000) and presented on a dedicated workshop held in Helsinki September 2000 of which the

proceedings were published in the same jour nal (vol. 96 1-3, 2001). The par ticipants of the Helsinki Workshop and



the EURADOS Council ther eafter decided to continue the effor ts for harmonisation of individual monitor ing by

establishing a second working group on that issue. This could be formed under the support of the present project.

Separ ately fr om the elabor ation of standards, harmonisation means implicitly to foster the communication

between a major ity of services concer ned and a first step towar ds impr oving this communication is to gather a

compr ehensive and realistic pictur e of IM services in oper ation within the EU, the standards and methods

commonly used. This was the basic scope of the pr esent working group including upgrading the results obtained in

1996-2000 and br oadening IM issues to differ ent r elevant aspects. In addition, new specific questions wer e

addr essed regarding:

- the implementation of active personal dosemeters (APD):

Des pite their success , APDs are relatively new devices for individual radiation monitoring of workers .

They are mainly considered as a good compliment to passive dosemeters to s atisfy the ALARA principle

but to be accepted as legal dos emeters the following ques tions should be addressed:

- Are they as reliable or better than passive dosemeters ?

- Can they comply with standards?

- Are they economically convenient?

- Are they s uitable for all practices ?

- the quality contr ol and reliability of r eported individual doses:

While most attention in the literature is directed towards the performance of the dosemeters there is

hardly any information in the open literature relating to the uncertainty in a dos e meas urement or in

the annual dos e, being increas ed by failure of the s ys tem including e.g.:

- Inappropriate us e of the dosemeter,

- Damage to the dosemeter during use (e.g. breakage, sterilization or washing),

- Loss of the dosemeter during us e,

- Damage to the dosemeter during processing,

- Faulty conditions in the evaluating equipment (e.g. wrong temperature of the developer or of the

TLD heating s ys tem),

- Loss of data during data processing.

B2 Objectives

While the pr esent WG can be consider ed to be a continuation of the action gr oup on “Harmonisation and

dosimetric quality assurance in individual monitoring for external r adiation” operated under the 4thFP, the new WG

was assigned w ith two general goals:

- To focus on practical applications of IM;

- To ex tend the group repr esentatives to new countries of the EU including r ecent Member States and

other countries fr om Central and Eastern Europe.



Fur thermor e, it was implicit that further efforts in the field should not stay focused on ex ter nal dosimetry while

all services ar e concer ned with IM of internal ex posur e as well.

To this end, the follow ing specific objectives assigned to the WG were:

(a) to describe and discuss the implementation of a list of standards and other relevant documents applicable to IM

within r adiation protection programmes. The information to be compiled should r ange fr om all standar ds used

within individual monitoring practises, be it on the calibration of dosemeters or on the quality assurance

procedur es to be applied to the over all dose evaluation pr ocess. The emphasis of pr actical guidance is put on

monitoring of external r adiation w ith passive dosemeters. Personal dosimetry r elating to a significant increase

in ex posure due to natural r adiation sour ces were not covered in this task.

(b) to investigate how the results fr om personal dosemeters for external r adiation, fr om workplace monitoring and

fr om monitoring for internal ex posur e can be combined into a complete and consistent system of individual

monitoring to cover needs for individuals and national dose register s. The study should be based on the replies

of dosimetry services in operation to compr ehensive questionnaires covering aspects of ex ternal dosimetry,

internal dosimetry, and exposure to radon progeny and others natural occurring radioactive material (NORM).

(c) to make a fir st evaluation of the implementation and use of active personal dosemeters (APD) for individual

monitoring of exter nal r adiation in European countries.

(d) and to get a compr ehensive overview on quality contr ol actions and possible sour ces of err ors encountered in

per sonal dosimetry services in Europe with the emphasis on the rate of occurrence of such errors and their

impact from dosimetric endpoint.

B3 Progress and results

One important progr ess achieved within the present project is the extension of the Working Gr oup including

repr esentatives of 4 additional countries (Latvia, Poland, Slovenia, Hungary). Such a lar ge working group (27

members) is implicitly r equir ed by the objectives assigned as described above. The management of the gr oup

could be feasible w ithin the limited support of the present project on the one hand by organising the activities in 4

subgroups (see B4) while preserving the opportunity of regular panel meetings within EURADOS annual seminars,

and on the other hand thanks to the significant suppor t of member institutes. Moreover , the group has kept

ongoing r elations with contact-persons in each Eur opean country to distribute the infor mation and collect the

data. In this way, the compr ehensive set of information gather ed and analysed by the WG is repr esentative of a

wide range of countries in and beyond the EU. All together , the work achieved is r epresenting:

Aus tria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Es tonia, Fin land, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland,

Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands , United

Kingdom, and Switzerland,

and Bulgaria, Croatia, Montenegro, Romania, Serbia, Ukraine.

The usual approach in such a working group includes gathering data from replies to large

inquiries, r ecor d in appropriate database, data analysis and r eview of refer ence documents, reporting and

sponsoring of r elevant workshops and inter comparisons. The later wer e dir ectly contributing to results



dissemination. Workshops and inter comparisons were out of scope of the present project. However , the WG could

initiate the organisation of an inter national inter comparison of active personal dosemeter s in co-operation with

the International Atomic Energy Agency and the organisation by ARC Seibersdor f Resear ch (ARCS, Austr ia) of the

nex t Workshop on Individual Monitoring in Vienna planned in Apr il 2005 (http://im2005.healthphysics.at).

The information gather ed and the analysis of data per formed in the present study are compiled in a r eport

currently under publication as a special issue of Radiation Protection Dosimetry [1]. Major figur es fr om this r eport

ar e highlighted below:

a) Implementation of Standards in Individual Monitoring

Within the fr amework of the Council Directive 96/29/EURATOM, an individual monitoring service (IMS) is a body

responsible for the calibration, r eading or inter pretation of individual monitoring devices, or for the

measurement of r adioactivity in the human body or in biological samples, or for assessment of doses (whose

capacity to act in this r espect is r ecognised by the competent authorities). Wher eas the r ecognition of an IMS

rests on the basis of differ ent legislation and r egulation established in each country, the development and

implementation of inter nationally validated standar ds on quality assur ance , either on technical or

management aspects, ar e considered a r elevant fr amework within which harmonisation can be achieved

towards the improvement of quality and r eliability of individual monitoring across bor der s of European

countr ies.

The need for harmonisation in this area is supported by several facts:

- Many national standar ds or r egulatory documents in a given subject area ar e similar , but not identical in

content although they originate fr om the same inter national r oots;

- The implementation of standards is not mandatory, ther efore various degr ees of implementation of them is

registered in each Eur opean Country;

- Standar ds can be established with differ ent levels of legal claims, since each country, when establishing

regulatory documentation accounts for its own legislation r elated to the standardisation procedur es.

The wor k achieved in the first subgroup has consisted in reviewing differ ent categories of publications relevant

to individual monitoring in r adiation protection w ith particular attention on their corr espondence and their

respective contribution regarding:

- their applicability either in terms of “scientific good practice” or in terms of legislation;

- differ ent quality assur ance aspects including, management and technical quality and quality control;

- implementation of recommendations and r egulatory documents.

The appr oach is well summarized in the two follow ing figures. Figur e B.1 presents the individual monitoring

service framework viewed by the working group illustr ating the critical importance for IMS of appr oval

modalities, calibration and traceability, and accr editation in the pr esent 'customer ' approach of quality

management. Figur e B.2 summarizes the classification of documents reviewed and their sour ces. The r eview is

quite detailed as can be found in the r eport under publication and includes full list of documents directly

relevant to IM (ISO standar ds, IEC standar ds, AIEA standar ds, national standards in IM of internal ex posure,

quality assurance standards and guides, ICRP and ICRU r ecommendations, IAEA technical documents, other



international documents of r elevance to IM). The r eport emphasizes the roles of the European co-oper ation for

accr editation (EA) and of the European collabor ation in measur ement standar ds (EUROMET) and investigates in

par ticular the implementation of ISO/IEC 17025 and the establishment of quality management systems adapted

to IMS.

Fig ure B.1 Indiv idual Monitoring Service framework

Fig ure B.2 Publications on indiv idual monitor ing for radiation protection purposes

Inter national: ISO, IEC, CENELEC, EN, IAEA, etc. Standard National: nor ms like DIN, UNI, SFS, etc

Publications on individual monitoring for radiation protection pur poses

Inter national: Recommendations or technical r eports (ICRP, ICRU,

EC, ecc.)

Document of relevance

National: r equirements, reports, publications, guidelines

Inter national: Basic Safety Standards, European and Agency Dir ectives

Legis lation

National



b) Integration of dosimetric methods for external and internal expos ure

A particular endpoint of the Dir ective 96/29/EURATOM is accor ding to the r ecommendation of ICRP the

requirement to base individual monitoring on the report of a single dose value combining the effect of ex ternal

and internal ex posures. The work assigned to subgroup 2 was to assess how far a consistent system of IM

combining the r esults fr om personal dosemeters for exter nal r adiation, fr om workplace monitoring and fr om

per sonal monitoring for inter nal ex posure can be reliably established. The subgr oup has pr ovided an inventory

of methods and services for assessing the dose due to exter nal r adiation and a catalogue of direct and indir ect

methods and laboratories for assessing the dose due to inter nal contamination. An important aspect for the

analysis of the collected infor mation is how far these differ ent methods are harmonised such that the

numerical dose values can be added to result into the total effective dose of the worker .

The inventory was based on thr ee complementary inquiries distributed in each Eur opean country with the

agr eement of a contact-person:

- The fir st inquiry was focused on ex ter nal dosimetry services and personal dosemeter s. The first issue of

such a catalogue was achieved within the 4th FP period (Rad. Pr ot. Dosim., vol. 89 1-2, 2000). It was

updated and extended w ith information on dosimetric services from the new EU Member States and

Bulgar ia, Cr oatia, Romania, Ser bia and Montenegro, and Ukr aine. Out of a total number of dosimetric

services estimated about 200 in these countries, the catalogue is gathering information fr om 90 IMS. The

results compiled in the r eport under publication assess and update the present use of per sonal dosemeters

and the ex tent to which occupationally ex posed per sons in Eur ope ar e monitored w ith dosemeters able to

measure the operational quantity - per sonal dose equivalent, Hp(d). The catalogue is describing the current

pictur e of European Dosimetric Services including: general Information, dosemeter design, photon dose

calcu lation and background subtr action algorithms, energy and angle dependence of response, calibr ation

sour ces and per formance.

- The second inquiry was focused on IMS concer ned with the individual monitoring of inter nal ex posur e. This

new catalogue was meeting the considerable concer n of r egulatory bodies and approved internal dosimetry

services about the need for harmonisation in inter nal dosimetry. Out of about 125 Inter nal Dosimetry

Services in Eur ope (Figur e B.3), the data collected r epr esent 71 departments distributed in 26 countries.

Fig ure B.3 Internal Dosimetry Serv ices in Europe



Par t of it was gathered in collabor ation with the OMINEX consortium (Optimisation of monitoring for

internal expos ure, r ef. FIKR-CT2000-00046). The catalogue achieved pr ovides a r epresentative overview of

the actual status of the pr ocesses used in inter nal ex posure estimation in Eur ope. Basic questions related to

appr oval procedur es, legal and technical r equir ements and quality assurance are similar as for external

dosimetry, but the direct and indir ect methods of IM for internal ex posur e and the processes required to

achieve the assessment of internal dose from these data are complex . Individual monitor ing programmes

ther efore depend on multiple, in most cases correlated, parameters.

- The thir d inquiry was focused on the specific pr oblems induced by the ex posure to radon and other natural

sour ces which add at differ ent workplaces. Title VII of Council Dir ective 96/29/Eur atom includes special

provisions concer ning exposure to natur al sour ces of ionising r adiation, recognising the specific pr oblems

that need addressing when the sour ce of ex posur e has not been artificially gener ated but is of natural

or igin. Member States shall identify work activities that may be of concer n. Where a Member State has

deemed a type of work activity to be of concer n, appr opriate monitoring of ex posure shall be put in place

and as necessary the implementation of corr ective measur es to reduce ex posure. Of concer n are the

ex posure to radon daughter s considered as a important sour ce of risk for r adiological pr otection and

significant increase in exposure due to other natural occurring radioactive material (NORM) at given

workplaces. The Article 31 Gr oup of Ex perts (EURATOM Tr eaty) has provided guidance and

recommendations on the identification of work activities and r elated workplaces and on the natur e of

appr opriate measur es. The specific work achieved in subgroup 2 has been to study the current situation of

the r egulations, r elevant standard and r eference level and especially to get the actual ex perience fr om

oper ational services for the implementation of Title VII of Council Dir ective 96/29/Eur atom. The data

analysis is still incomplete. Replies from 19 countries wer e r eceived out of 28 invitations. Pr eliminary

results indicate clear ly that while radon continues to present a particular concer n, integr ation of internal

and exter nal doses for ex posur e to radon and other sour ces of natural r adiation is difficult partly due to the

use of differ ent units of measurement but also due to the uncer tainty involved in converting r adon ex posure

to organ equivalent dose.

c) Active personal dosemeters (APDs) for individual monitoring and other new developments

A dedicated subgroup has studied the implementation of active personal devices (APD, i.e. her e all devices with

dir ect reading capability including electronic personal dosemeters, DIS - Direct Ion Stor age - and bubble

technology). APDs occupy a special place to date in IM of ex ter nal ex posur e. APDs ar e relatively new devices for

individual radiation monitor ing of workers. They ar e mainly consider ed as complementary to passive dosemeter s to

satisfy the ALARA pr inciple. They ar e extensively used in Europe but only in very few countries they ar e accepted

as legal dosemeters. The Council Dir ective 96/29/Eur atom does not specify the type of dosemeters to be used for

individual monitoring.

The pr ogress achieved in the present project consisted in the first evaluation of the implementation and use of

APD systems in European countries. The present study includes feedback ex perience of end-users. It arises fr om an

inquiry on the status of implementation of APD and APD systems used which has resulted in replies from 15

Eur opean countries (Austr ia, Belgium, Czech r epublic, Fr ance, Ger many, Gr eece, Italy, Ir eland, The Nether lands,

Por tugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzer land, United kingdom). They came fr om radiation protection officers,

responsible for the APDs in differ ent institutes, hospitals and companies. The status is actually differ ing fr om



countr y to country, fr om no specification to obligation of using APD, possibly together with passive dosemeters or

requirement in special situations. Even when they ar e not obligatory, APD ar e generally considered as a better tool

for optimization of operational dosimetry.

In addition to the status of implementation of active personal dosemeter s (APDs) in European countries and the list

of r elevant standards, the r eport of the subgroup has compiled the char acteristics of 26 APD systems which

repr esent some of the commonly used gamma and beta APDs commer cially available and of which the following

figur es are issuing:

- Most devices are calibrated in units of personal dose equivalent, Hp(10) and/or Hp(0.07) and Hp(0.07) when

they ar e manufactured for the Eur opean market and fulfil the r equir ements of volume and weight stated in the

IEC 61526 and IEC 61283 Standar ds;

- Gener ally, the overall r esponse of the active personal dosemeters is compar able to standard passive systems

with satisfactory accuracy for photon and beta radiation, wide range and good linearity. The poor per formance

at low photon energy descr ibed for ear lier dosemeter s is now over come by a few APDs;

- In addition to variable day-to-day oper ational char acteristics, specific dose control softwar e are available

facilitating the management of the systems and the management of personal data recor ding;

- Transmission and handling of data towards networking of APDs in centralized dosimetric systems is still a

matter for mor e developments;

- The r eports are dealing specifically w ith the application of APD for extr emity dosemeters and for mix ed

neutr on-photon fields.

To enr ich this picture, the feedback ex per ience from end-users of APD systems in Europe r eveals a number of

indications, namely:

- nuclear power plants ar e the biggest users of APDs;

- the photon energy range is the main parameter , the consideration of other radiation like neutrons being

marginal. The usual range available fr om 50 keV to a few MeV is meeting the needs of most of the users in the

fuel cycle. The oper ation of APDS at the limit of energy r ange explains the low number of systems in oper ation

in hospitals due to the risk of recor ding an over or under estimate of dose;

- the major ity of the APDs in Eur ope ar e still not used as a dosemeter of legal dose r ecor d, but only as an ALARA

tool or an alarm dosemeter ;

- the periodicity and methods of calibration are widely differ ing among users (Figure B.4);

- the r eliability of APDs r emains a critical endpoints for their possible acceptance as legal dosemeters although

ther e ar e har dly any r eports on the actual fr equencies of failur es of passive or active devices.

Fig ure B.4 Calibration of the

APDs as indicated by users



d) Quality Control and reliability of reported doses

As alr eady mentioned, few guidance can actually be found in the literature on the uncertainties assigned to the

assessment of individual doses. In particular the uncertainty of the annual dose is significantly depending on

additional factor s related to differ ent kind of failures in the evaluation or the data management system, or in the

dosemeter itself, or in the loss of dosemeter or dosemeter reading. A subgroup has provided a unique assessment

for the importance of these failur es from the actual experience gathered in a r epresentative gr oup of IMS. Over

the consultation of 200 approved IMS, 88 replies could be analysed covering 26 Eur opean countries (Table B.1).

Table B.1 Summary of all responding services. The number of services and systems, the number of issued

dosemeters (DM) per year as well as the used detector - and dosemeter types are given. The

numbers cannot be directly compared to those in other EURADOS reports in this issue of Radiat.

Prot. Dosim. since it compr ises only services responding to the questionnaire: “Quality control and

reliability of reported doses”.

country Services Systems DM/a TLD Film Track RPL OSL WB Ext. Lens

at 3 7 432000 7 - - - - 3 3 1 be 6 12 372000 10 2 - - - 7 5 -

ch 7 12 333000 9 1 2 - - 9 3 -

cy 1 2 360 2 - - - - 1 1 - cz 3 8 165000 3 3 1 1 - 6 2 -

de 3 11 2890000 7 2 1 1 - 7 3 1

dk 2 4 59800 2 1 1 - - 3 1 - ee 1 1 3840 1 - - - - 1 - -

es 16 25 1020000 25 - - - - 16 9 - fi 2 4 76500 4 - - - - 2 2 -

gr 1 2 91700 2 - - - - 1 1 -

hr 1 2 27900 1 1 - - - 2 - - ie 1 3 80000 2 - 1 - - 2 1 -

is 1 2 586 1 1 - - - 1 - 1 it 7 20 671000 18 1 1 - - 9 7 4

lv 1 1 1780 1 - - - - 1 - -

mk 1 2 13100 1 1 - - - 2 - - nl 4 7 380000 7 - - - - 4 2 1

no 1 2 n.a. 2 - - - - 1 1 - pl 3 5 212000 3 2 - - - 3 2 -

pt 2 6 56000 3 3 - - - 4 2 -

ro 3 3 55400 1 2 - - - 3 - - se 6 10 170000 10 - - - - 6 4 -

si 3 4 32600 4 - - - - 3 1 -

sk 3 8 94700 6 2 - - - 4 2 2 uk 5 13 727000 8 3 2 - - 9 4 -

IAEA 1 2 13700 2 - - - - 1 1 -

Total 88 178 7979966 142 25 9 2 - 111 57 10



The inquiry was focused on the use of detection techniques (thermoluminescence dosemeter – TLD; film

dosemeter - Film; Track etch dosemeter s – TE; Radiophotoluminescent dosemeter – RPL; optical stimulating light

dosemeters - OSL) r elevant to IM for whole body dose (WB), extr emity dose (Ext) and dose to the lens (Lens) of

eye and was structur ed on differ ent ‘dosimetry systems’, each of them consisting in the combination of one of

these techniques, a radiation type (photon, beta, neutron) and a dosemeter application.

Besides the classical identification infor mation (service, dosimetry system, QA pr ogr amme, tr aceability of r esults

against standar ds, dose r eporting etc.), the inquiry put the emphasis on conditions increasing uncertainty. The

follow ing sour ces of failur e wer e identified:

- Inappr opriate use of the dosemeter ;

- Damage to the dosemeter during use (e.g. breakage, sterilization or washing);

- Loss of the dosemeter during use;

- Damage to the dosemeter during pr ocessing;

- Faulty conditions in the evaluating equipment (e.g. wr ong temper ature of the developer or of the TLD

heating system);

- Loss of data during data processing;

The r eplies r eceived wer e repr esentative for customers of IM of services (Figur e B.5). As can be seen in Table B.1,

the r esponding IMS comprise all sizes of services with r espect to the number of dosemeters per year .

Medicine

Dentistry

Industry

Nucl . Indus try

Res earch

Government/ArmyVeterinary Other

Fig ure B.5 Distr ibution of

responding IM Services

Detailed comments on the r esults of this inquiry can be found in the report under publication. They provide a

realistic picture of the status and methods followed by European IMS taking into account the orientation of the

present inquiry towar ds the practical implementation of common dosimetry systems with the emphasis put on the

uncertainty of IM dose assessments. The inquiry paid special attention to the reporting and recor ding of workers IM

data considering both legal r equirements and QA r equirements. As far as uncer tainties are concer ned, whereas the

repr oducibility is in general ex cellent, i.e. on the level of a few per cent, larger figures are found in particular due

the r esponse characteristics of dosemeters and background levels. A typical figure for the standar d uncertainty of

low dose r eporting amounts to 10 to 100% µSv. Wher eas most services assessed the uncer tainty in their



measurements only a few r eported having used one of the inter national standar ds on the expr ession of uncer tainty

in measurements, the ISO-GUM or the European standar d EA-4/02. Only a minority of the services report an

uncertainty on a r egular basis (Table B.2).

Table B.2 A ssessment and reporting of the uncertainty in reported doses from the present inquiry.

Nr of services. Fraction

Estimation of uncertainty of system 73 83%

ISO-GUM 16 18%

EA 4/02 3 3%

Internal procedure 51 58%

Other 7 8%

Report uncertainties to customers 12 14%

For higher doses only 3 3%

Only on request 24 27%

No report of uncertainty 34 39%

Within this study, a particular attention was paid to the under standing and use of detection thr eshold and the

consider ation of reporting of doses near threshold. As shown in Table B.3, most services do consider such a

thr eshold w ith a significant number assigning a value of zer o to the dose; this accounts for 64% of the services

issuing actually about 80% of the dosemeters.

Table B.3 Reporting of doses near the detection threshold.

Nr of services. Fraction

Consider detection threshold or reporting level 79 90%

Doses below detection threshold

Reported dose = 0 56 64%

Reported dose = threshold 13 15%

Special mark 4 5%

Other 7 8%

Among risk of failur es which fall outside the services control but can not be ignored, the loss of dosemeters for

various reasons tur ns out to be a significant sour ce of additional uncer tainty to take into account (Table B.4).

Largest figur es are observed for IMS with sizes above 10 000 dosemeters per year . Figure B.6 show that IMS

actually dealt differ ently w ith the reporting of dose assigned to a non-returned dosemeter .

With the focus on sour ces of additional uncer tainties, the inquiry contained detailed questions allowing each IMS

to r eflect its own experience. The subgr oup analysed the correlation between the r ate of occurr ence of each

err ors and its r elevance or impact on dose reporting. Summar ising various kinds of failur es, the lost of dosemeters

appear s to have by far the highest impact. Much mor e details will be found in the r eport regar ding errors

conditions, occurr ence and r elevance specific to each dosimetry techniques.



Fig ure B.6 Dose assigned to a

non-returned dosemeter .

B4 Main achievements

The objectives assigned to WG2 have been fully met and beyond the initial ex pectation, given the limited support

available for such an activity, and its importance towar ds an harmonised implementation of the Dir ective

96/29/EURATOM in Europe. This task is actually a longer term objective requiring standing efforts as clear ly

confirmed by the present achievements.

Within the present pr oject a major achievement has been the extension of the activity to become broadly

repr esentative of Eur opean countries. Whereas this extension must be carried on, the differ ent parts of the work

per for med ar e all together repr esenting alr eady more than 25 Eur opean countries, including the EU and r ecent

new Member States and other countries of Central and Eastern Europe. The information presently collected

ther efore pr ovides a unique overview broadly r epresentative of European individual monitoring services and most

end-user s in this area. It was collected w ithin 4 subgroups coor dinated by:

- E. Fantuzzi, ENEA, Italy (Implementation of Standar ds in Individual Monitor ing);

- M.A. Lopez-Ponte, CIEMAT, Spain (Integr ation of dosimetric methods for external and inter nal

ex posure);

- T. Bolognese, IRSN, Fr ance (Active personal dosemeter s – APDs - for individual monitoring and other

new developments);

- H. Stadtmann, ARCS, Austr ia (Quality Control and r eliability of reported doses).

All r esults are compiled in a r eport published as a special issue of Radiation Pr otection Dosimetry [1]. This

compr ehensive r eport updates and completes w ith new inputs the former r eport issued within the 4th FP. The

report and specific parts were presented in IRPA11 (Madrid, May 2004) [2-6].

services use backup system, e.g. EPD,

environmental dosemeters etc.

9%services assign zero

dose to a lost dosemeter26%

services assign nothing or give dosemeter a mark

14%

services assign another dose value

to a lost dosemeter7%

services assign an individual dose value to a lost dosemeter

29%

services assign a constant dose value to a lost

dosemeter15%

services use backup system, e.g. EPD,

environmental dosemeters etc.

9%services assign zero

dose to a lost dosemeter26%

services assign nothing or give dosemeter a mark

14%

services assign another dose value

to a lost dosemeter7%

services assign an individual dose value to a lost dosemeter

29%

services assign a constant dose value to a lost

dosemeter15%



Within the specific actions carried out to prepar e this final r eport, the following achievements are worthwhile

being highlighted:

- Full lists of standar ds and r eference documents relevant to individual monitoring including, management and

technical quality aspects, accr editation, specific documents relevant to active personal dosemeters, standar ds

and r ecommendations for the r eporting individual doses and their uncertainties.

- The “EURADOS Database of European Dosimetric Data” has been generated as a result of this project. It

contains all the information collected fr om questionnaires, obtained from 114 facilities involved in dose

assessments for internal and exter nal ex posures in 28 European states. The database includes a general

infor mation section where each countr y is r egistered w ith the complete list of dosimetric services. The

Database is aimed at being per iodically updated in an effort to impr ove the amount of infor mation collected,

and to r eflect the actual situation of the Dosimetry in Eur ope.

- The status of implementation of most commonly used active personal dosemeters in 15 EU states including the

review of characteristics for 26 differ ent APD systems. Emphasis is placed on the actual use of APDs for

optimisation or for legal pur poses depending on the country and the ex perience now gathered by end-users and

the r easons invoked for deciding of a status to a given APD system.

- The r esults of a specific inquiry repr esenting 40% of the Eur opean dosimetric services that monitor

appr oximately 50% ex posed persons (total number of ex posed persons in the participating countries can be

estimated to be around 1,300,000 and the number of services is probably mor e than 200). The r esults provides

a r ealistic pictur e of the status of Eur opean IMS, their methods (QA, tr aceability, dose reporting) and the

report of their feedback ex perience for specific sour ces of failur es incr easing the actual uncer tainty of worker

annual doses. This overview demonstrate a high level of experience, pr ofessionalism and responsibility of

Eur opean services in general and indicate further needs for harmonisation.

Present achievements clear ly show the need for maintaining a network of experts in individual monitoring in EU

Member-States and Neighbouring European States which can activate a resour ce with br oad expertise including

regulators, individual monitoring services and specialists and researchers. Such a network should be able to meet

per iodically with objectives such as:

- Producing every four years a r epor t on the current state of the ar t of IM for external ex posure and for

internal ex posur e at differ ent workplaces;

- Addr essing special topics for additional resear ch an developments;

- Organising every four years an inter comparison and a workshop.

To this end, the pr esent pr oject could allow to initiate:

- the organisation of an international inter comparison of active personal dosemeters in co-operation w ith the

Inter national Atomic Energy Agency;

- and the organisation by ARC Seibersdor f Resear ch (ARCS, Austria) of the next Workshop on Individual

Monitoring in Vienna to be held in April 2005.

Another advantage of a standing working group in this area alr eady shown within the present pr oject is the

capability to follow the pr ogress made in neighbouring pr ojects (e.g. ICRP and ICRU, IAEA, ISO, ESOREX, OMINEX,

etc.).



B5 Discussion

The importance of quality assurance in the achievement of IM is well illustr ated by the dedicated report initiated

by the ICRU on "Quality assurance in radiation measurements". This reports which is ex pected within 2004 is going

beyond radiation protection. It emphasizes the need of quality contr ol in measur ements ex plaining why and to

what extent they should be contr olled in all fields where radiation are used and present.

The pr esent pr oject has provided a compilation of information (database and report) which w ill serve as useful

basis to carry on the process of harmonization and meet the ex pectation of a lar ge majority of institutes

repr esented in EURADOS. Towards fur ther discussions, the working gr oup has highlighted a number of concluding

remarks, in particular :

- Wher eas IM concer ns mor e than a million ex posed worker s in Europe, it is conducted under the EURATOM

Directive requiring that IM is performed by approved dosimetric services to provide r esults with the r equir ed

quality. Moreover , the approval of the dosimetric service including approval of measurement techniques in an

IMS is usually a pr ocedur e, which strongly depends on the national legislation. Standar ds implicitly contribute

to the harmonise good practices and to demonstrate the applicability of harmonised procedur es. ISO/IEC 17025

in particular was assessed as applicable to IMS and repr esents the best available appr oach to ensur e the quality

of laboratory work. Mor eover , the compliance with this standard can be nationally or internationally r ecognised

thr ough the accr editation procedur e. However the implementation of standards including diversified

publications is not straightforward and their harmonisation is not dir ectly a consequence which r equires further

efforts and coor dination by the international community of scientists and responsible involved in IM.

- The main objective of the harmonisation of radiation protection systems w ithin Eur opean states is to allow for

the r eliable comparison and tr ansfer of dosimetric data for occupational ex posed people w ithin Europe and as

a consequence, to facilitate the mobility of r adiation worker s. Present r esults provide important batches of

infor mation descr ibing the current picture of IM implementation in Eur ope. However the harmonisation effor t

should go beyond, in particular towards the periodical organisation of inter comparisons and workshops giving a

further chance for IMS to compar e their methods and ex perience.

- Har monisation is a reality in many aspects of inter nal dose assessments. Detailing Minimum Detectable Activity

estimation is r ecommended to be fur ther investigated. However due to the fr equent pr ovision of new

know ledge, revision of models etc. fur ther harmonisation effort should be maintained in the process of internal

dose calculation fr om the r esults of monitoring direct and especially indirect measurements.

- Ex posure to radon and NORM is incr easingly important to be adequately taken into account in IM. Ther e is

clear ly a lack of har monisation in this ar ea. Further progress in this area would pr ovide a more solid basis on

which to investigate the integr ation of monitoring for inter nal and ex ter nal ex posur es and from workplace

monitoring to give a complete and consistent system of individual monitoring.

- There is a large gap between the incr easing used of APDs, their per ception as optimisation tool and acceptance

as legal dosemeter s. Whereas smaller users such as hospitals and industrial users are in favour of using APD as

legal dosemeter , the bigger users who have by far the most ex perience and know ledge of APDs do have mor e

varying opinions. These ar e influenced by the observed lack of reliability of APDs with in particular possible loss

of dose although the fr equency of this pr oblem is very variable. The opinion is actually str ongly depending on



the utilization of the APD; some users spend a lot of attention on the APD r esults, while other s used

occasionally it just a tool to meet ALARA .

- Most users of APDs follow the standard r equir ements, based upon the constructor 's advice, but the procedur es

for type testing are very differ ent fr om country to country and also depend on the user requirements. An

inter comparison of APDs is investigated in cooper ation with IAEA in or der to clar ify their suitability for

oper ational r adiation pr otection and give the users r eferences to chose devices appropr iate to their

application. This type of initiative may also encour age the constructors to improve the systems.

- Wher eas to improve and demonstrate the reliability of APDs r emains very important, the cost is also a cr itical

par ameter . Both are actually r elated since many users actually continue to use both active and passive

dosemeters in parallel.

- APDs ar e considered to comply w ith standards. Mor eover they are suitable for a wide range of applications. On

the basis of these observations and the detailed r eview of the pr esent status for the implementation of APDs,

further effor ts ar e worthwhile being targeted on: the har monisation of calibr ation and testing;

inter comparisons of active with passive dosemeters; to investigate the application of APD and further

development needs in specific cases including extremity dosimetry and neutron and mix ed field dosimetry.

- Regar ding reporting and r ecording IM data, whereas the EU Directive 96/29/Euratom is not stating ex plicitly

about who is to keep individual dose recor ds, the employer is often the responsible fr om legal point of view

and in general r elies upon an individual monitoring service. If national r egulations r equir e that approved

dosimetric services to send their measurement r esults to a national dose register then such a centralized

national dose register seems to be the best safeguar d for a r eliable long term storage of data.

- The pr esent study made also clear that from a QA standpoint, the concept of a recor ding or reporting level

does not exist. In taking this view it appears that a dose that is not recor ded or not reported must be

consider ed as not assessed. It therefor e seems to be a conflict between the concepts of Recording Level and

Repor ting Level as suggested by the ICRP and the r equirements of the EU Directive 96/29/Eur atom (Article 25)

and of quality assurance pr ograms such as those based on ISO 17025. In view of such QA-systems it seems that

the r ecor ding level should r ather be inter preted as the minimum dose that can be assessed w ith sufficient

certainty, the detection limit.

- The last inquiry tends to indicate that quite a few IMS, in particular smaller ones, ar e not too familiar w ith the

various aspects of quality assurance and quality control. The same applies to the concept of uncer tainty in

measurement as discussed in the GUM(21) and EA-04/2(22) and that of traceability of calibr ations to national

and international standar ds as discussed in EA-4/07(12). It is clear that the effor ts made by the European

Commission by issuing the technical r ecommendations and by the International Atomic Energy Agency by

issuing the safety guides have paid off but also that there is a continued need for initiatives on education and

tr aining in the field of individual monitoring. Repeated training and specific instructions also appear the best

way to pr event error conditions in IM practices. In any case IMS ar e encour aged to recor d and characterize the

err or conditions encounter ed to allow a quantitative assessment of their impact in individual dose r epor ting.



B6 Communications and publications

[1] Van Dijk, J.W.E., Bolognese-Milsztajn, T., Fantuzzi, E., Lopez-Ponte, M.A. and Stadtmann, H., Editors.

Harmonis ation of Individual Monitoring in Europe. A report of the European Radiation Dos imetry Group

EURADOS. Radiation Pr otection Dosimetry. Vol. 112, No. 1 (2004).

[2] Lopez, M.A., Currivan, L., Falk, R., Olko, P., Wer nli, C., Castellani, C.M., Van Dijk, J.W.E. Harmonisation

(Legal, Dosimetric, Quality Aspects ) of Individual Monitoring and Integration of Monitoring for External and

Internal Expos ures (EURADOS Working Group). Radiation Pr otection Dosimetry. Vol. 105, No. 1-4, pp 653-656

(2003).

[3] Currivan, L., Falk, R., Lopez, M. A., Olko, P., Wer nli, C., Castellani, C.M., Van Dijk, J. W. E. Harmonisation

of Individual Monitoring for Expos ures to Radon and to Other Sources of Natural Radiation at Workplace in

European Countries (EURADOS Working Group). Pr oceedings of the IRPA11 Confer ence, Madrid, 2004,

http://www.irpa11.com/.

[4] Lopez, M.A., Ambr osi, P., Bogucarskis, K., Bolognese, T., Boschung, M., Castellani, C.M., Cr uz Suar es, R.,

Currivan, L., Falk, R., Fantuzzi, E., Figel, M., Gar cia Alves, G.A., Ginjaume, M., ,Jankowski, J., Janzekovic,

H., Kamenopoulou, V., Luszik-Bhadra, M., Olko, P., Osvay, M., Roed, H., Stadtmann, H., Van Dijk, J.W.E.,

Vanhavere, F., Var tiainen, E., Walh, W., Weeks, A. and Wer nli, Ch. Harmonisation of Individual Monitoring in

Europe. Pr oceedings Pr oceedings of the IRPA11 Confer ence, Madrid, 2004, http://www.ir pa11.com/.

[5] Olko, P., Currivan, L., Van Dijk, J.W.E., Falk, R., Lopez, M.A. and Wer nli, C. Thermolumines cence detectors

applied in individual monitoring of radiation workers in Europe - A review bas ed on the EURADOS

questionnaire. SSD14 Confer ence, Yale-2004. Publication in Radiat. Prot. Dosim. (2005).

[6] Bolognese-Milsztajn, T., Ginjaume, M. and Vanhaver e, F. Active methods & instruments for personal

dosimetry of ex ter nal r adiation: pr esent situation in Eur ope and futur e needs. IN Curr ent trends in radiation

protection. Métivier, H., Arr anz, L., Gallego, E. and Sugier , A. (Eds). EDP Sciences, Les Ulis, France, pp 65-82

(2004).



C Collaboration in environmental radiation monitoring.


Working Group 3

Chairman: (<2004) José Carlos Sáez Vergara, Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas,

Medioambientales y Tecnológicas, CIEMAT, Spain

(>2004) Frank Wissmann, Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, PTB,


Membership:

Claus Andersen Nuclear Safety Resear ch Department, Risoe National Laboratory, RISO,

Denmark

Maciej Budzanowski Health Physics Laboratory, Institute of Nuclear Physics, INP, Poland

Alex ander Clouvas Nuclear Technology Laboratory, Univer sity of Thessaloniki, UAT, Gr eece

Eber hard Funck (03<2004)

Fr ank Wissmann (03>2004)

Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, PTB, Ger many

Florian Gering Institut für Str ahlenschutz, GSF, For schungszentrum für Umwelt und

Gesundheit, GmbH, Germany

Rodolfo Gurriarán Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléair e, IRSN/DEI/STEME, France

Olof Kar lber g Swedish Radiation Protection Institute, SSI, Sweden

Stefan Neumaier Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, PTB, Ger many

Xavier Ortega Institut de Tècniques Energètiques (INTE), Universitat Politècnica de

Catalunya, Spain, INTE-UPC, Spain

José Car los Sáez Vergara Centr o de Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y Tecnológicas,

CIEMAT, Spain

Andr ew N. Tyler Departement of Envir onmental Sciences, University of Stir ling, Scotland

Ian M.G. Thompson

(Consultant)

United Kingdom

C1 Introduction

The Commission of European Communities (CEC) sponsor ed a series of inter comparison ex er cises from 1984 to

1994. The aims of such ex er cises were to investigate the response of several detector types to the envir onmental

ex ternal dose and separately to its natural components, namely due to cosmic and terrestrial r adiation. The

ex perience gained in the monitoring of the exter nal environmental r adiation has permitted to establish common

procedur es and improve the degr ee of harmonisation within the participating organisations. A Nor dic



Inter comparison ex er cise held ear lier in Denmark had indeed r evealed large discrepancies of envir onmental

detector readings when instruments wer e ex posed identically. Leaving such a situation unchanged would

complicate the management of situations with incr eased risk of exposure fr om an accidentally contaminated

environment.

The ex perience gathered in these successive inter comparison campaigns have highlighted two important needs:

- The availability of suitable installations wher e such inter comparisons can be organised by combining

backgr ound measurements, refer ence measurements and calibr ation measur ements as well as field

measurements;

- The pr esence of a permanent network offering regular ly meetings of European scientists and responsible for

services in charge of national ear ly warning systems in or der to assist them in comparing the differ ent

appr oaches and procedur es used, ex change their know ledge and inter compare periodically their techniques

and assessment methods including powered instruments (dose rate) and passive integrating dosemeters (dose).

Per iodic ex er cises are the most effective way to ensur e traceability of envir onmental r adiation monitoring and

improve the consistency and comparability of results obtained by differ ent countries. Furthermor e, a permanent

network would allow as in the past to extend the investigation and discussion of differ ent approaches to

environmental monitoring to differ ent Eastern European countries and USA.

In 1994, the incr easing interest in the envir onmental monitoring for all stakeholders in radiation protection

dosimetry motivated the cr eation of a specific working group within the European Radiation Dosimetry gr oup,

EURADOS. The r ole of EURADOS as an ex pert network to develop and maintain the topics r elated to r adiation

dosimetry is well known. In the organisation of inter comparison exer cises in particular , the outstanding skill of

EURADOS is a compr ehensive view of differ ent aspects of dosimetry, including refer ence and standar ds as well as

international r ecommendations and new r egulations. From 1996, the working gr oup chaired by I.M.G. Thompson

(Consultant at Farthings Cottage, UK) was supported under a joint concer ted action of the 4th FP (FI4P-CT96-0061).

The Working Gr oup first gather ed Technical recommendations on meas urements of external environmental gamma

radiation doses (Rad. Prot. Dosim., 92 1-3, 71-76, 2000). Within the same project the WG organised an

inter comparison exer cise in May-June 1999.

C2 Objectives

The gener al aim of this action r emains to help ensur ing that r esults of environmental r adiation monitoring

reported by differ ent countries during a nuclear accident will be consistent and compar able. To this end, the

objective is to incr ease harmonization within Eur ope and also to increase links between scientists working on

resear ch in this field of radiation pr otection and others responsible for the implementation of monitoring measures

into practice.

The first Working Gr oup set up in 1994 had organised an inter comparison ex er cise held in 1999 involving a limited

number of Eur opean countries and targeted on the comparison of detectors systems used in national ear ly war ning

networks.

The set up of the second Working Group within the present project was aimed at str engthening this first r estricted

network. The approach followed in EURADOS is to analyse the experience gained in successive inter comparison



ex er cises, to assess the benefit actually achieved in these campaigns and on this basis to establish the conditions

to meet for broadening this approach.

To achieve this aim, the following specific objectives were assigned to the present Working Gr oup:

- to analyse the results and publish the Final Report of the 1999 ex er cise, emphasising the conclusions and the

lessons lear ned;

- to investigate the feasibility of a br oader inter comparison. This objective has actually been carried out by

or ganising a second inter comparison ex er cise with br oadened group of participating countr ies allowing to get a

realistic figure for the present status and degree of harmonisation achieved in the EU. This second exer cise

also allowed to assess the feasibility of suitable facilities and traceability r equirements fr om one

inter comparison to the other.

An implicit objective was also to r elate the pr esent action to differ ent EC funded projects r elated to

environmental radiation.

C4 Progress and results

The 1999 inter comparison ex ercise was focused on the instr uments that are being employed by differ ent countries

in lar ge national networks of radiation detectors (dose rate probes) in or der to give ear ly war ning of accidents

having tr ansboundary implications.

The inter comparison was held at two complementary facilities, i.e. the Risø Natural Envir onmental Radiation

Measurement Station in Denmark (RNL) and at the PTB underground facility UDO in Germany. Due to logistic

restrictions in the UDO facility, the number of par ticipants was restricted to seven Eur opean countries (Austria,

Czech Republic, Denmark, Ger many, The Nether lands, Por tugal and Spain). 25 differ ent dose rate instruments

were studied by mor e than 20 scientists that participated in the ex er cise carried-out in May-June 1999. The

preliminary r esults could be pr esented only six months after the ex er cise in the Workshop held in Avignon in

November 1999 on Environmental dosimetry concluding the achievements of the joint concerted action (Rad. Pr ot.

Dosim., 92 1-3, 89-100, 2000). The final assessment was completed during the present project and the final r eport

of the inter comparison results was disseminated in an invited paper published in Radiation Protection Dosimetry

[1].

The 1999 ex ercise alr eady presented the basic features of the inter comparison fr amework and data collected

including:

- detailed information provided by the participants that permitted the WG to determine valuable data on the

basic features and capabilities of the differ ent instr uments;

- backgr ound measurements, linearity check and calibration;

- and finally fr ee field measurements.

A r epresentative image of the results obtained in 1999 is shown in Figure C.1. The r esults obtained by the

par ticipants in fr ee field conditions simulating an incident r adioactive plume by incr easing the backgr ound dose

rate, are compared. The main conclusions arising fr om this first exer cise as partly visible in the figur e ar e

summarized as follows:



- Up to thr ee differ ent radiation quantities were employed by the participants to pr ovide ‘dose rate’ results,

i.e.: ex posure, air kerma (assumed as numerically equal to the absor bed dose) and ambient dose equivalent.

- Most participants employed instr uments based on ionisation devices fr om all types: Geiger -Müller counter s

(GM), proportional counters and ionisation chambers.

- Some systems presented inaccurate calibr ations or inappr opriate oper ational pr ocedur es (e.g. automatic

backgr ound subtr action).

- Most of the instruments presented acceptable r esults for linearity check and inherent background. However ,

ther e wer e important deficiencies in photon energy response mostly depending on the detector type.

- All the instr uments tended to overestimate the cosmic component. In particular , some GM-based devices

showed 70% over estimation.

- Most detector s could successfully pr ovide an accurate assessment of a small incr ease in the usual dose rate.

- Discr epancies on the reported dose rate by national networks can differ up to 40% and can be explained by the

differ ences in calibr ation quantity, instrument response and operational pr ocedure.

Fr om this first ex er cise, the r esults showed that an effor t in harmonisation was needed affecting technical aspects

and interpretation of the results [2]. From such comparison indeed, observed discr epancies in the dose rate values

reaching up to 50 nSv·h-1 would be unacceptable in a r eal emergency situation w ith tr ansboundary implications.

The second inter comparison organised and analysed within the pr esent project was held entirely at the PTB

(September 11-20, 2002, Braunschweig, Germany) which provided as before the UDO facility and developed two

new facilities for the ex er cises:

Free Field site: A fr ee field ar ea for dose r ate measur ements in an almost natur al envir onment is established on

the PTB pr emises. The centr e of the fr ee field site is 38 m away of the neighbouring building of the technical

supply and situated on an ar ea that forms a rectangular of 63 m x 120 m cut into a mixed wood of 8 m high tr ees.

The long sides of that rectangular ar e directed fr om south to north and the gr ound is inclined downwar d by not

mor e than by a gradient of 1° that same dir ection. The ar ea is cover ed w ith grass that is kept short by regular

mow ing. The geographical coor dinates of the free field ar e: 52° 17' latitude North, 10° 29' longitude East and 75.3

m height above sea level. The r adioactive plume simulation device is installed in the centre of the field and all the

instruments to be investigated were set up on a radius of 5 m ar ound the sour ce.

Cosmic Platform: The floating platform for direct measurements of the cosmic component of the ambient dose

equivalent rate is installed on an artificial lake 16 km north fr om the PTB. The lake arose when the ar ea was used

as a gravel pit and is now used as a private fishing lake. The water is 2,5 to 3,5 m deep and the lakeshor es are at

least 100 m fr om the platform. The land around the lake is flat and the lake banks are not higher than 1 m to 2 m.

The soil is sandy showing a ambient dose equivalent rate of the terrestrial component of only 23 nSv h-1. Small

bushes ar e gr owing ar ound the lake interrupted on some places by deciduous tr ees not higher than 6 m but most

par ts of the lakeside and the land behind is cover ed by meadows and other agricultural fields. The platform itself

is constructed from air filled cubic Polyethylene elements that ar e fixed to each other to form a squar e of 5 m x 5

m w ith room left in the middle to fix a hut of 2 m x 2 m ar ea that is entirely made fr om the same plastic material.

Polyethylene, a pur e car bon-hydrogen compound, is almost completely fr ee of any radioactive material, it is

sufficiently resistant to ultra violet light and is easy to handle.



Fig ure C.1 Results of the 1999 intercomparison for measurement of plume profiles. The programmed profile is

shown with the histogramme to be compared with measured values (dots). Different quantities were used for

reporting . Network instruments are marked with a grey frame around the chart. (after [1])



(a) Network instruments

(b) Other instruments

*

Fig ure C.2 Results of the 2002 intercomparison for measurement of plume profiles. The programmed profile is

shown with the histogram to be compared with measured values (dots). Network instruments are marked with a

grey frame around the chart. (after [3])



Some additional dose r ate and spectrometry measur ements were per formed at the PTB refer ence site which is

similar to the alr eady descr ibed Fr ee Field site but it is working in a permanent way with sever al radiation and

meteorological pr obes, including the official Ger man network IMIS and the special muon detector MUDOS to

monitor the char ged component of the cosmic radiation.

The 1999 and 2002 ex er cises were comparable and used identical pr ogr ammes. Mor eover the traceability of the

two inter comparisons was achieved on the one hand by using the same plume simulation equipment pr ovided in

both cases by RNL, and on the other hand by including some instruments alr eady employed by the organisers in the

1999 ex er cise and other previous inter comparisons as refer ence devices.

The 2002 exer cise welcomed five differ ent European countries which have not participated the first ex er cise

adding 14 devices used similar ly as network dose rate detectors and for other purposes. Table C.1 summarises the

countr ies included in the 1999 and 2002 inter comparisons.

While the reports of each exer cise provide all details of measur ements per formed, the dir ect comparison of results

obtained in fr ee field conditions, i.e. compar ison of Figure C.1 with Figure C.2, illustrates the progress achieved

since 1999. For the fir st time all gr oups now used the ambient dose equivalent for r eporting. An outstanding

observation in 2002 is that almost all instr uments are able to follow pr etty well the pr ogrammed pr ofile.

Deviations of r ecor ded values fr om r efer ence values also ar e much lower ; measured values ar e actually in fair ly

good agreement w ith r efer ence value in most of the cases. Mor eover , r emaining differ ences ar e well under stood

and r elated to the char acterization of the instr ument. Still discr epancies in the order of 15% can be observed

between differ ent instruments explained as related to their backgr ound characteristics.

Table C.1 Organizations participating in the intercompar isons organized by EURADOS WG3 on environmental

monitor ing in 1999 and 2002.

Country Responsible for national network Other participants

Austr ia Feder al Chanceller y, Vienna Bitt Technology

Czech r epublic National Radiation Pr otection Institute, NRPI

Denmark Risø National Laboratory, RNL

Fr ance Institute de Radiopr otection et Sûreté Nucleair e, IRSN

Ger many Bundesamt für Str ahlenschultz, BfS Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, PTB

Greece Greek Atomic Energy Commission, GAEC Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, AUTH

Hungary Paks Nuclear Power Plant Atomic Energy Resear ch Institute

The Nether lands National Institut of Public Health and the Environment, RIVM

Por tugal Direcçao Ger al Ambiente, DGA

Spain Consejo de Seguridad Nuclear , CSN CIEMAT

Sweden Swedish Radiation Protection Institute, SSI

Sw itzer land Sw iss Nuclear Safety Inspectorate, HSK

Institut de Radiophysique Apliquée, IRA

United Kingdom No participant Stir ling University, Consultant



Wher eas the two ex er cises were based on a similar approach, the 2002 inter comparison presented unique features

to meet critical questions highlighted fr om 1999 concer ning the know ledge of instruments characteristics and the

relative contributions of backgr ound components in their r esponse. In 2002, the ex per iments per formed at ground

level (Fr ee Field and Cosmic Platform) provided par ticipants w ith a unique oppor tunity to check their detector ’s

calibr ation against sour ces that are traceable to pr imary standar ds, to determine the response of their systems to

cosmic r adiation, to natural environmental r adiation and to a simulated plume contribution. Measur ements made

at 925 m depth in the UDO facility where the radiation level is less than 1 nSv h-1, per mitted participants to

determine the inherent backgr ound of their system and to per form traceable calibr ations w ith differ ent

radionuclide sour ces at dose r ates that ar e at and below envir onmental dose rates found in the par ticipant’s

countr y. Mor eover , additional valuable information on the new facilities established at PTB could be gained fr om

the par ticipation of in-situ gamma spectrometry ex perts in the 2002 measurement campaign as, for instance,

independent estimates of the cosmic and terrestrial components of the environmental dose r ate and the

ex perimental measurement of the response functions of the spectr ometers.

The assessment of the 2002 inter comparison exer cise has been completed. Its publication in Radiation Pr otection

Dosimetry is in pr ogr ess.

C4 Main achievements

Taking into account the contex t of the pr esent period (implementation of EU Directive 96/29/EURATOM,

enlargement of EU, per ception of tr ansboundary accident impact in particular ), the objectives of the pr esent

action have been fully achieved and the WG set up in EURADOS has provided a significant contribution towar ds the

improvement, r eliability and harmonization of environmental r adiation monitoring, w ith national ear ly war ning

networks as main end-user s.

In addition of technical r ecommendations published ear lier by the WG, the analysis of the results obtained in a

fir st small scale inter comparison (1999) have been completed and r ecommendations towards the continuation of

this action and the impr ovement of harmonisation wer e drawn. These r esults were compiled in a dedicated

publication [1].

The feasibility of a proposal of broad scale inter comparison has been investigated. To this end, it has been thought

that a second r un of the inter comparison ex er cise would provide more r elevant information than any general

appr oach. Moreover , the inher ent limitations of number of participants and the need for ensuring the traceability

of successive inter comparisons have pushed forwar d the need for suitable infr astr ucture as first cr itical

requirement. The report of the second intercomparison is curr ently in preparation [3]. Based on practical

ex perience, it pr ovides detailed guidance on the facility r equir ements and on the level of inter comparison

programme necessary to achieve towar ds the objective of a periodic pr ogr amme.

Fr om the r eview of the work done all together the follow ing issues can be str essed:

- Both inter comparison ex er cises represent 12 European national network systems and mor e than 35 differ ent

dose r ate instruments as allowed the par ticipation of mor e than 40 scientists. Br oadening this scheme can only

be investigated by steps pr oviding adequate support.



- The inter comparison has included the in-situ gamma spectrometry systems, which are being more and mor e

employed in environmental monitoring. The facilities at PTB and the ex perience from the participants promise

to yield a good link between dose rate and spectr ometry r esults.

- The fir st benefit gather ed fr om these ex ercises is alr eady substantial. It concer ns the harmonisation and

improvement of envir onment radiation monitoring regar ding the quantity used for reporting, the calibr ation

and traceability to standar ds.

- The target of further exer cises would be to r esolve remaining discr epancies, to guar antee a high quality of

environmental monitoring and to enlarge the par ticipants gr oup, in particular involve more national ear ly

war ning networ ks in the pr ocess of harmonisation.

- New facilities and refer ence environmental sites ar e now available at PTB for the pur pose of inter comparisons.

In par ticular , the permanent installation of national network instruments at the PTB r efer ence site could be

very useful to assur e the tr aceability of the systems in a continuous way and to pr ovide r egular on line

calibr ation for their systems which is traceable to PTB primary standards.

Mor eover , a fur ther benefit can be ex pected by intensifying ex change between this network and other pr oject

gr oups. As an example, dur ing the pr esent period, a close collaboration was carried out between the pr esent WG

and the ECCOMAG group dealing w ith airbor ne gamma surveys (FIKR-CT2000-20098). Both groups could ex change

their ex perience and establish cr ossing points, e.g. throughout common calibr ation pr ocedures.

C5 Discussion

Fr om the collection of ex perience gained under differ ent EC funded Contr acts to the encour agement to link with

other experts, EURADOS helped in a efficient way to get the required levels of quality for environmental r adiation

dosimetry [2]. There is alr eady clear progress follow ing these effor ts.

The current assessment of the results for the 2002 inter comparison ex er cise shows that some aspects have indeed

been improved since 1999, as for instance that all national networks detectors are calibr ated in terms of the

recommended quantity ambient dose equivalent H*(10) and that the discrepancies in the dose rate estimation by

differ ent national systems ar e lower than those encountered in 1999. Never theless, there ar e still some

discr epancies in the dose results which can be difficu lt to manage in case of a r eal emergency situation.

Therefor e, ther e is still a need to organise regular inter comparisons in the future.

For the 2002 exer cise, the PTB could pr ovide an effective combination of measur ement modalities including

characterization of detectors in very low radiation backgr ound environment and measurement of the Cosmic

component of background and tr aceability of measurements to standar ds. This was particular ly r elevant after the

1999 inter comparison which r evealed discr epancies between measurements difficult to understand without

know ing these factor s accur ately. As an illustration, the measurements and tests per formed pr ior the fr ee field

measurements highlighted relevant figures:

- Variable inher ent background levels (up to a factor 10 differ ence) wer e observed fr om one instrument to the

other r equiring accurate instr ument char acter isation including linear ity check which showed under -responses

fr om 5-10% in majority of cases up to more than 50% in one system;



- the photon energy response is worth being investigated car efully to compar e a wide category of detectors from

ionisation chambers to Geiger -Müller counter s, proportional counters and plastic scintillator s;

- noticeable discr epancies are observed between the r eadings from differ ent systems when exposed

simultaneously to the same environmental r adiation field. Pr obably r elated to the variability of their inherent

backgr ound r esponse, ther e may be a systematic bias of 15% between the estimates of two networks belonging

to neighbouring countries possibly leading to false warnings or wrong measur es. Such discr epancies, ther efore,

ar e unacceptable in a r eal emergency situation with trans-boundary implications;

- the comparison of measur ements on the PTB platfor m on a lake w ith measurements on the lakeshore turned

out to be a suitable appr oach for the determination of the terrestrial component r equir ing however a pr ecise

know ledge of detector inher ent background. An independent estimate of the terrestrial component could be

gained fr om in -s itu gamma spectr ometry measurements carried out simultaneously.

An additional r eason for fostering periodic inter comparison exer cises is the implicit constraint to limit the number

of participants to maximum typically 5-8 to be able to meet the test requirements commented above and to

comply w ith the constraints usually met in low backgr ound facilities. The only solution appears ther efore to r epeat

these exer cises in or der to ensure their tr aceability.

The pr esent action has contributed to one mor e inter comparison step and has pr ovided important information

relevant to the elabor ation of future pr ogrammes. Two pr erequisite conditions indeed will need to solved:

- the support of suitable infr astr uctur e for the char acterization and inter comparison of environmental r adiation

monitoring systems;

- and the support of a permanent network capable of coor dinating the organisation of periodic exer cises and

carrying out their evaluation and dissemination.

C6 Communications and publications

[1] Sáez-Vergar a, J.C., Thompson, I.M.G., Funck, E., Ander sen, C.E., Neumaier , S. and Bøtter -Jensen, L. Lessons

learnt from an international intercomparison of national network s ystems used to provide early warning of a

nuclear accident. Radiat. Pr ot. Dosim., 103(3): 197-210, (2003)

[2] Sáez-Vergar a, J.C., Funck, E., Thompson, I.M.G. Harmonis ation of environmental radiation monitoring: the

approach of EURADOS. In Pr oceedings of the IRPA11 Conference, Madrid, 2004, http://www.irpa11.com/.

[3] Sáez-Vergar a, J.C., Funck, E., Thompson, I.M.G., R. Gurr iar án, R. and Neumaier , S. The Second EURADOS

International Intercomparison of National Network Systems us ed to Provide Early Warning of a Nuclear

Accident having Transboundary Implications . In pr eparation for submission to Radiat. Pr ot. Dosim. (2005)



D Computational dosimetry


Working Group 4

Chairman: (<2003) Bernd Siebert, Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, PTB,


(>2003) Gianfranco Gualdrini, Radiation Protection Institute, ENEA, Italy

Membership in the reporting period: QUADOS group

Stefano Agosteo Dipartimento di Ingegneria Nuclear e Politecnico di Milano, Italy

Jean-Louis Chartier Institut de Radiopr otection et de Sûr eté Nucléaire, IRSN,

Fontenay-aux -Roses, France

Bernd Gr oßwendt Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, PTB, Br aunschweig,

Ger many

Ivan Kodeli Institute "Jozef Stefan", Ljubljana, Slovenien

Ger har d Leuthold GSF For schungszentrum f. Umwelt u. Gesundheit, Neuherberg,

Ger many

Stéphanie Menard Institut de Radiopr otection et de Sûr eté Nucléaire, IRSN,

Fontenay-aux -Roses, France

Rober t Alan Price Physics Department, Clatterbr idge Centr e for Oncology, United

Kingdom

Hamid Tagziria National Physics Laboratory, NPL, Teddington, United Kingdom

Present address: JRC EURATOM, Ispr a, Italy

Richar d J. Tanner National Radiological Pr otection Board, NRPB, Chilton Didcot,

United Kingdom

Michel Terrissol Universite Paul Sabatier , CPAT, Toulouse, Fr ance

Maria Zankl GSF For schungszentrum f. Umwelt u. Gesundheit, Neuherberg,

Ger many

D1 Introduction

EURADOS have had over the years a continuous attention on the implications of computing methods in r adiation

protection dosimetry. The use and actual capabilities of computing methods has indeed drastically incr eased in the

last twenty years and concer n all ar eas of dosimetry including r esear ch and applications. Depending on the needs

ex pr essed, EURADOS contr ibutions have taken various forms including working groups and collabor ations in the

fr amework of concer ted actions.



The fir st working group set up on "Numerical dosimetry" dates of the 80's, first chaired by Georges Bur ger (National

Resear ch Center for Environment and Health in Neuher berg, GSF, Neuher berg, Germany) followed by Bernd Siebert

(Physikalisch Technische Bundesanstalt, PTB, Braunschweig, Germany) w ithin the programme of EURADOS under

support by the Eur opean Commission (EC). The work was carried on starting in 1996 in dedicated concerted actions

within the Framework Pr ogramme of the EC (4th FP and 5th FP). The name of the last pr oject carried out in this

fr amework (2000-2003) is 'QUADOS' standing for "Quality assurance of computational tools for dosimetry". In

addition to their own contributions, these gr oups have collected considerable ex perience in the field of

development, use and qualification of computing methods in dosimetry. More details can be found in numerous

reports and publications. They could pr ovide useful assistance to differ ent thematic working groups and

contr ibutions in various training cour ses. The review of these contributions shows the importance and diversity of

computing radiation dosimetry [1].

D2 Objectives

The aim of EURADOS in this ar ea was to support the actions in progress and disseminate the issues achieved by

these action groups within the EURADOS platfor m of experts and member institutes and also to a lar ger audience.

The long term goal is to ensur e the continuity of a cr itical mass of ex pertise in this area, so important to ensur e

successful r esear ch and applications in ionising radiation dosimetry.

Specific objectives within the period 2000-2003 ar e those assigned in the QUADOS concer ted action (ref. FIGD-

CT2000-20062). The aim of this concer ted action achieved in October 2003 was to pr omote an inter national

inter comparison on the usage of computational codes (Monte Car lo, analytic and semi-analytic codes or

deterministic methods) for dosimetry in r adiation pr otection and medical physics based on pr oblems selected for

their r elevance to the r adiation dosimetry community. Mor e details can be found in the final r eport of this project.

D3 Progress and results

The objectives of QUADOS wer e successfully achieved as can be seen in the final r eport of the CA distributed

elsewhere.

Using the results of the 4th FP project, the Group identified and formulated 8 r efer ence pr oblems (Table 1 below).

These were r eleased in Mar ch 2002. Participants to this inter comparison wer e invited to reply by using their own

appr oach and numerical dosimetry codes. The r eplies (up to 98 solutions pr oposed) were analysed and

anonymously reported and discussed in the Workshop "Inter comparison on the usage of computational codes in

radiation dosimetry" held in University of Bologna (July 14-16, 2003) and organised by the ENEA-Radiation

Protection Institute. The pr esentations of the workshop wer e made available on http://www.enea.it. The

proceedings were published in a dedicated ENEA Report [2].

Fur thermor e, QUADOS ex perts and EURADOS continued to contribute and support tr aining pr ogrammes in the area

of computational dosimetry, including in par ticular for the r eporting per iod the workshop and tr aining cour se

or ganised under OECD/NEA sponsorship by Instituto Tecnológico e Nuclear (ITN, Lisbon, Portugal, June 22-27 2002)

[1].



Table 1 References problems submitted by QUADOS for intercomparison.

P1. Brachytherapy: 192Ir �-ray source. Calculation of angular anisotropy and dose distr ibution in

water.

P2. Endovascular: 32P �- source. Calculation of the dose in the vessel wall along the longitudinal

axis of the source and the radial dose profile.

P3. Proton therapy on the eye: 50 MeV proton beam incident on an eye water phantom.

Calculation of the depth dose distr ibution and isodose curves in the water phantom.

P4. TLD-albedo dosemeter response calculation: neutron and/or photon sources. Calculation of

the neutron and/or photon response of a 4-element TL dosemeter mounted on a standard ISO

slab phantom.

P5. Phantom backscatter: X ray ISO reference beams. Calculation of the air kerma backscatter

factor profiles and the energy distr ibution of the backscatter photon fluence along the face of

a standard ISO slab phantom.

P6. Environmental scatter: bare 252Cf neutron source located at the centre of a concrete walled

calibration room. The use of a shadow cone is studied.

P7. Germanium detector: photon sources with energies in the range from 15 keV to 1 MeV. The

pulse height distr ibution in a germanium detector is studied.

P8. Consistency check device: 241Am-Be neutron source. Sensitivity to the relative position of the

radioactive source and a simplified 3He neutron area survey meter.

D4 Main achievements

The main achievements and corresponding deliver ables ar e those of the QUADOS action (see final r eport).

The dissemination of QUADOS activities and results was achieved in differ ent ways. The activity has been year ly

reported to EURADOS scientific seminars. The information and advertisements have been published in the

EURADOS and ERRS Newsletter web sites.

A specific contr ibution in the ar ea of computational dosimetry was included in the pr oposal of Coor dination Action

CONRAD standing for "A Coordinated Network for Radiation Dosimetry" (6th FP).

D5 Discussion

Present issues confirm the importance of maintaining a significant coor dination activity in the area of

computational dosimetry. A high level ex pertise and quality ar e cr itical r equirements for all gr oups involved in the

use of computational dosimetry for resear ch pur poses as well as for applications. We must in particular stay able

over the years to ensure that the transfer of computational methods from pure to applied r esear ch and to

practical applications is proper ly achieved.

Each application presents particular difficulties and specific r equir ements, in particular r egarding acceptable

uncertainties. However , they ar e all involving of the same process consisting in "connecting and ordering of known

data, by means of r elations based on theory or established models, in or der to cr eate new data and to r eveal new



insights" [Siebert, B.R.L. and Thomas R.H. Rad. Prot. Dosim., 70 (1-4), 371-378 (1997)] and, as pointed out by the

authors of this publication, they all r equired an expert know ledge of the methods and the r eliability of the results

relies at s ome levels on an indis pensable comparis on between calculated and experimental data which is nothing

els e pointing out the meaning of dosimetry which includes 'dos e' (i.e. implying numbers ) and "metry' (i.e. the art

of meas uring).

QUADOS, as pr evious initiatives, has clear ly demonstr ated the r elevance and effectiveness of a standing ex pert

gr oup holding r egular investigations in this area as well as benchmark ex er cises opened to external users. The

QUADOS gr oup has ex pressed its views on worthwhile subjects of further work progr amme including namely:

• VOXEL phantoms: “VOXEL”-phantoms are anatomical models, composed by an about a million cells, allow a very

high level of detail in the object description. Due to the rather lar ge var iety of models alr eady developed, they

should be inter compared and checked, both fr om the point of view of the image segmentation and fr om the point

of view of the Monte Car lo techniques employed to speed-up the particle tracking.

• Unfolding codes: Unfolding of measur ed spectra, for instance at work places is essential for a mor e accurate

dosimetry. Members of the gr oup work on including the uncertainty of the response matrices into the uncer tainty

analysis.

• Combination of Monte Car lo and deterministic codes: This technique can consider ably reduce computing times

and supports the uncer tainty analysis of complex transport problems.

• Simulation of complex measurements (virtual ex periments and r esponse functions): Virtual experiments ar e the

ideal tool for understanding, optimising and evaluating complex experiments.

• high level sensitivity and uncertainty analysis and propagation: Sensitivity analysis and uncertainty analysis

and pr opagation are the back bone of quality assur ance and required by ISO 17025.

Indeed, the fundamental basis of r eliable radiation pr otection is the provision of quality assurance in

measurements and the quality of measurements in r adiation protection r elies incr easingly on the use of

computational methods and on the ex tent to which a reliable uncer tainty can be stated. This basis is currently

used to integrate a dedicated work package in forthcoming Coor dination Action pr oject named CONRAD currently

under negotiation.

D6 Communications and publications

[1] Pihet, P. Computing methods in radiation protection dosimetry and related R&D activities - EURADOS

contribution. In Proc. Computing Radiation Dosimetry - CRD 2002, Workshop organised in Savacem,

Por tugal, June 22-23, 2002 by ITN-NEA. Published by OECD 2004/4311. ISBN 92-64-10823-8.

[2] Gualdrini, G. and Ferrari, P., Editors. Intercomparison on the us age of computational codes in radiation

dos imetry. Pr oceedings of the QUADOS final Workshop, July 14-16, 2003, Bologna, Italy. ENEA-Rome 2004

(ISBN 88 - 8286 - 114 - 7)

Publications issued in the framework of QUADOS (Ref. FIGD-CT2000-20062) :

R.J. Tanner , J-L. Char tier , B.R.L. Siebert, G. Gualdr ini, S. Agosteo, S. Ménard, R.A. Price, B. Gr oßwendt, I. Kodeli,

G.P. Leuthold, H. Tagziria, M. Terrissol, M. Zankl. Intercomparison on the usage of computational codes in

radiation dosimetry. NEUDOS9 Confer ence Delft October (2003). Rad. Pr ot. Dosim. 110(1-4) 2004



G. Gualdr ini, S. Agosteo, S. Ménar d, R.A. Pr ice, J-L. Char tier , B. Gr oßwendt, I. Kodeli, G.P. Leuthold, B.R.L.

Sieber t, H. Tagziria, R.J. Tanner , M. Terrissol, M. Zankl “QUADOS” Intercomparison: A Summary on Photon and

Charged Particle Problems ICRS-10 Madeira (2004) Rad. Prot. Dosim. (in press)

Bernd R. L Sieber t Assessment of s ensitivities and uncertainties in Monte Carlo particle trans port calculations for

neutron s pectrometry. NEUSPEC 2000 : proceedings of the Inter national Wor kshop on Neutron Field Spectr ometry

in Science, Technology and Radiation Pr otection; in: Nuclear Instruments & Methods in Physics Resear ch A 476

(2002), 256-262 ISSN 0168-9002

Bernd R. L Sieber t Sens itivity analys is and uncertainty assessment in applied Monte Carlo particle trans port”

Advanced Monte Carlo for Radiation Phys ics , Particle Trans port Simulation and Applications . In pr oceedings of the

Monte Car lo 2000 Conference (2001), 719-724 ISBN / ISSN 3-540-41795-8

S. Agosteo, Radiation Protection at Medical Accelerators . Radiation Pr otection Dosimetry 96(4) (2001) 393-406.

S. Agosteo, T. Nakamura, M. Silar i, S. Zajacova, Attenuation Curves in Concrete of Neutrons from 100 to 400 MeV

per Nucleon He, C, Ne, Ar, Fe and Xe Ions on Various Targets . Nuclear Instruments and Methods B 217 (2004) 221-

236.

Terrissol, M., Vrigneaud, J.M. Analogue Monte Carlo to model radiation induced DNA damage. In Advanced Monte

Car lo for Radiation Physics, Particle Tr ansport Simulation and Applications, Eds.: A. Kling, F. Bar ao, M. Nagakawa,

L.M.N. Távora and P. Vaz, Spr inger Ver lag, ISBN 3-540-41795-8, pp 261-266, (2001).

Terrissol, M., Martin, C. and Pomplun, E. Computer Simulation of 57Fe-Bleomycin Auger Effects in DNA. Radiation

Protection Dosimetry, 2002, 99, 1-4, pp. 69-72

Price, J. Silvie, A. Jaksic and M.J. Joyce. Radiation induced statistical uncertainty in the threshold voltage

meas urement of MOSFET detectors . PMB 49, 14, pp3145, 3159 July 2004

R. A. Pr ice, C. Benson, M.J.Joyce and K Rodgers. Development of a RadFet linear array for intrcavitary in vivo

dos imetry during external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy Trans. Nucl. Sci. 51,4,1420,1426, August 2004

Q. Chau, T. Lahaye, S. Ménard, L. Donadille, Performance of a cylindrical tiss ue equivalent proportional counter

for us e in neutron monitoring. NEUDOS9 Conference Delft October (2003). Radiat. Pr ot. Dosim. 110 (2004) pp 297-

230

S. Ménar d, D. Cutarella, T. Lahaye, T. Bolognese-Milsztajn, Active personal neutron dosemeter bas ed on

microdosimetric principles : CIME. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 2001, vol 96 no 1-3, 265

G. Gualdr ini Monte Carlo Studies in the field of Internal Dosimetry of Incorporated Radionuclides – Workshop

Computing Radiation Dosimetry Lisbon June 2002 – Nuclear Energy Agency – ISBN 92-64-10823-8 2004

G. Gualdr ini, R. Bedogni, and F. Monteventi. Developing a thermal neutron irradiation s ys tem for the calibration

of personal dos emeters in terms of HP(10). NEUDOS9 Confer ence Delft October (2003) Rad. Pr ot. Dosim. 110(1-

4):43-48 2004

Petoussi-Henss, N., Zankl, M., Fill, U., Regulla, D. The GSF family of voxel phantoms . Phys. Med. Biol. 47, 89-106

(2002)

Fill, U.A., Zankl, M., Petoussi-Henss, N., Sieber t, M., Regulla, D. Adult female voxel models of different s tature

and photon convers ion coefficients for radiation protection . Health Phys. 86(3), 253-272 (2004)



U. Fischer , I. Kodeli, C. Konno, R. L. Per el, Sens itivity analys is for a 14 MeV neutron benchmark using monte carlo

and determinis tic computational methods . Fusion Engineering and Design 70 (2004) 221-232.

I.Kodeli, Cross Section Sens itivity Analys is of 14 MeV Neutron Benchmark Experiment on Tungsten . Jour nal of

Nuclear Materials, Vol. 329-333, Par t.1, 717-720, 1 Aug. 2004 (2004)

J. L. Char tier et al. Handbook of Neutron Spectrometry. Rad. Pr ot. Dos. Vol 107 N°1-3

B. Gr osswendt Track Structure Simulation: a Bas ic Tool for Molecular Radiation Biology and Nanodosimetry.

Wor kshop Computing Radiation Dosimetry Lisbon June 2002 – Nuclear Energy Agency – ISBN 92-64-10823-8 2004



E Aircraft crew dosimetry


Working Group 5

Chairman: (<02/2003) Ulrich Schrewe, Fachhochschule Hannover (FHH), Germany

(>02/2003) Lennart Lindborg, Swedish Radiation Protection Authority, SSI,

Sweden

Membership in the reporting period:

David T. Bartlett National Radiological Pr otectionboard, NRPB, Chilton Didcot, United Kingdom

Peter Beck ARC Seiber sdor f Resear ch , ARCS, Austria

Pawel Bilski Institute of Nuclear Physics, Krakow, Poland

Jean-Fr ancois Bottollier -Depois Institut de Radiopr otection et de Sûr eté Nucléaire, IRSN, Fontenay-aux -Roses, France

Hans Schr aube GSF For schungszentrum f. Umwelt u. Gesundheit, Neuherberg, Ger many

Fr antisek Spurny Nuclear Physics Institute, Czech Academy of Science, Pr ague, Czech Republic

Wissman, Fr ank Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, PTB, Br aunschweig, Ger many

Corresponding members:

Er nst Felsberger (<11/2002) Technische Universität, Graz, Austria

Wolfgang Heinrich Universität Gesamthochschule, Siegen, Germany

Br ent J. Lew is Royal Military College of Canada, Kingston, Ontario

Denis O’Sullivan Dublin Institute of Advanced Studies, Dublin Ir eland

Gunther Reitz DLR Inst. Luft und Raumfahrtmedizin, Köln, Germany

Luigi Tommasino ANPA-EUR, Roma, Italy

Gunther Dietze (obser ver for Article 31)

Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, PTB, Br aunschweig, Ger many

Ian McAulay (obser ver for Article 31)

Trinity College, Dublin, Ir eland

Kaar e Ulbak (obser ver for Article 31)

Statens Institut for Straalehygiejne, Her lev, Denmark

Annette Ruge (<2003) Jörg Siedenburg (>2004) (Obser ver for JAA)

Centr al Joint Aviation Authority, Hoofddor p, the Nether lands

Klaus Schnuer (Obser ver for the EC)

Eur opean Commission, DG TREN, Luxembourg



E1 Introduction

The ex posur e of air craft cr ew to cosmic radiation has received a great deal of attention during the last decade.

The r ecommendation by the International Commission on Radiological Pr otection (ICRP) in 1990, that exposure to

cosmic r adiation in operation of jet air cr aft should be r ecognised as occupational ex posur e, initiated a number of

new dose measurements onboard air craft. From 1990 therefor e, the gathering of know ledge on cosmic r adiation

dosimetry has incr eased dr amatically and new results are continuously being r eported. These r esults in particular

include the upgrading of computer programs suitable for predicting route doses and the development of new ones.

In this context, to guide authorities as well as companies concer ned w ith exposure to cosmic r adiation, the Article

31 Gr oup of Ex perts (EURATOM Tr eaty), pr oposed in Febr uary 2000 to the Directorate DG XI Envir onment “that a

EURADOS working group is installed w ith the aim to validate the existing dose r ate data in flight altitudes and to

evaluate a data set which might become the basis for a r ecommendation of the Ar ticle 31 Ex perts group”. The

request addressed to EURADOS r esulted fr om the synergy carried out since 1991 between EURADOS, Directorate

Gener al XI and XII of the EC (pr esently DG TREN and DG RTD r espectively) as indeed the most important need in

this ar ea consists in the transfer of know ledge fr om r esear ch to expertise wher e EURADOS has demonstrated its

efficiency. As a matter of fact the EURADOS group in char ge of the present pr ogr am was in close r elation with the

project group DOSMAX (FIGM-CT2000-00068) aimed at carrying out further r esear ch towards the realisation of dose

measurements at air craft altitudes during the solar maximum per iod using advanced measurement techniques and

calcu lations.

E2 Objectives

EURADOS has established a working group with the objective agreed with the Article 31 Gr oup of Experts of

bringing together all recent, available, preferably publis hed, experimental data and res ults of calculations, with

detailed des criptions of methods of meas urement and calculation, in particular from European res earch groups .

To this end the following specific objectives wer e assigned to the new WG:

- Compilation of all r ecent, available, ex perimental data and results of calculations.

- Detailed descriptions of methods of measurement and calculation, in particular fr om European resear ch

gr oups.

- Preparation of a data set for all Member States for the assessment of individual doses and/or to assess the

validity of differ ent approaches.

- Provision of an input to technical r ecommendations by the Article 31 group of experts and the EC.

A major aim of the intended r eport has been to investigate whether route dose r esults agree within the

uncertainties accepted for work in radiation environment. Furthermore, although the report is written for

radiation pr otection ex perts, the intention has been to make the content understandable for a br oader audience

of interested persons such as those working in the aviation industry or as members of air cr aft cr ew.

E3 Progress and results

The wor king group set up fr om January 2001 to achieve the above objectives has r epresented European groups

engaged in dosimetry onboar d air cr aft, w ith prefer ably published results. Canada was also represented.



Fur thermor e, the pr ogress was followed by observers fr om the European Commission (EC) and the Ar ticle 31 Gr oup

of Ex perts and the Joint Aviation Authority (JAA).

The WG members wer e invited to report their values together with information on the flight r outes and asked to

describe their instruments and measur ement procedur es. Results gather ed fr om the groups cover the per iod fr om

1993 to 2003. Mor eover , all computer programs, which were known to the WG for calculation of the effective dose

and/or ambient dose equivalent onboar d air craft, wer e identified. Descriptions of the pr ograms wer e asked for to

the originator of the pr ogram.

The pr ogress achieved results fr om four complementary actions:

- Descr iptions of measur ement and calculation methods used and their uncertainties,

- Compar ison of measur ed and calculated r oute doses

- Compar ison with observed dose equivalent r ate values.

- Detailed r eview of uncertainties in radiation protection as well as in air craft cr ew dosimetry.

This comprehensive information was r ecorded in the r eport and was deliver ed as a late draft to Article 31 Gr oup of

Ex perts in June 2003 and in final draft in June 2004 [1]. It was accepted by the expert gr oup also in June. It is

currently in publication. The major issues r eported in chapter s II, III, IV and V of this document summarizes as

follows:

- Meas ured and calculated ambient dose equivalent rate data at aircraft altitudes

Up to about 10 500 results of ambient dose equivalent rate measurements have been gathered fr om

differ ent groups using differ ent techniques (Table E.1). These r esults ar e enter ed into the "EURADOS

Table E.1 Analysed in flight investigations

Institution Author(s) or primary investigator

Number of flights

Period of time Measured integral data (method)

CAS Spur ny 86 1991-1999 TEPC, LIULIN, etc

CIEMAT/ Saez-Vergar a 69 2001 TEPC, SWENDI, RS132, etc

DIAS O’Sullivan/Zhou 18 1993-2002 Track detector s

GSF Schr aube/Regulla 21 1990-1993 NM, NMX, Scint, etc

IRSN Bottolier 8 1996-1998 TEPC

NRPB Bar tlett/Hager 18 1997-2002 Track detector s and TLDs

PTB/ACREM Schr ewe 39 1997-1999 NM, NMX, Scint,IC,

ARCS/ACREM Beck 39 1997-1999 TEPC, IC, NM, GM

RMC Lew is 65 1999 TEPC

SSI Kyllönen/Lindborg 20 1998-2003 TEPC

Uni Kiel Reitz/Beaujean 27 1996-2003 DOSTEL

ANPA Tommasino 24 1997-2002 Linus, IC, TEPC, ANPA-stack

NPL Taylor 46 2000 TEPC



Air cr ew In-Flight Data base". They could be compar ed with the corr esponding values calculated by

EPCARDv3.2 operated in comparable conditions.

This compr ehensive set of data covers a w ide r ange of geographic longitudes, latitudes, standard

bar ometric altitudes and almost one solar cycle. They r epresent a good overview of the northern

hemispher e.

The over all measur ed ambient dose equivalent r ate was found equal to 3.8 µSv.h-1, the most fr equent

measured value being of 2.5 µSv.h-1.

- Comparison of calculated and meas ured route dos es and s elected dose rate data for s cheduled flights

Calcu lated r adiation doses obtained along civil flight routes were compar ed to each other in a

phenomenological way using differ ent code appr oaches (Table E.2). Fur thermor e, the comparison with

ex perimental data could be done for a number of flights, for which data are available either fr om

integr ating (passive or active) devices or dose rate measuring instr uments after integration over the time

differ ential data. Some of the gathered experimental data (see above) only wer e suited for this purpose.

The phenomenological comparison of calculated doses led to the follow ing observation:

- EPCARD, FREE and PCAIRES codes do not deviate by more than 20% fr om each other ;

- Considering EPCARD calculated values of effective dose (E) in gener al ar e found higher by about 30%

compar ed with calculated ambient dose equivalent values (H*(10)), the differ ence being notably r elated

to the use of a r adiation weighting factor (w R) of 5 for pr otons as r equir ed by the Council Dir ective

96/29/EURATOM (the final r ecommendation of the ICRP in this r espect is currently under revision);

- EPCARD calculations ar e found higher compared with CARI by up to 30% for northern routes (long

distance flights); for souther n routes, they are lower by up to 20%. The same comparison but for

scheduled flights confirm this deviation for southern r outes and show smaller differ ences (5%) for

nor thern routes.

The r eport pr esents mor e detailed investigations testing the influence of some parameters such as the

effect of so lar modulation and the altitude. Ex perimental values and calculated data ar e found in general

very consistently in agr eement taking into account differ ent techniques and calibr ation conditions.

Table E.2 Programs for the calculation of route doses

Program Version Country Based on Method

CARI 6 US LUIN analytical; solution of transport equation;

heliocentr ic potential

EPCARD 3.2 D FLUKA MC-calculation; solar deceleration

potential

FREE A LUIN/PLOTINUS

PCAIRE CAN TEPC-measurements empir ical

SIEVERT F CARI or EPCARD



- Uncertainties in aircraft crew dose assessments

The assessments of uncer tainties for the dose estimates in a so complex exposure conditions as these

encounter ed onboar d air craft is essential information to provide either for comparing and inter preting

calcu lated and measured values or for giving a sound basis to the uncer tainty levels associated to predicted

dose assessments. Wher eas this pr oblem r equir es further investigations, the benefit of the present work is a

unique databank and pr ecise description of the methods used available to support future investigations.

The work presently achieved already supplies advanced guidance for the multiple par ameters to take in to

account in assessing uncertainties of calculated and measured values and pr ovides pr eliminary values to be

compar ed with the r equir ements accepted ion radiation pr otection of ±42% at the 95% confidence level, in

par ticular :

- the uncertainty of dose equivalent measurements is observed in the present study of about 25% (coverage

factor of 2);

- in addition to classical Type A and Type B uncertainties related to statistics and instr ument r esponse

respectively, the evaluation of the uncertainty of aircr aft cr ew dose assessments is complicated by differ ent

par ameters including the variation of flight profile and the complex radiation fields encountered onboar d

air craft;

- mor eover , calculations of route doses using computer codes r equir es a careful ex amination of multiple

sour ces of uncer tainty (basic physical data, basic spectral information, conversion factor s etc.);

- as global conclusion, while further investigations are needed to understand uncertainties in air craft cr ew

dosimetry, the pr esent r eport considers that uncer tainties of calculated and measur ed values ar e w ithin the

requirements set by the ICRP.

E4 Main achievements

The main achievements in this area are the "EURADOS Air crew In-Flight Data base" (10 500 recor ds of ambient dose

measurements to date) and the analysis of these results in comparison with calculated dose compiled in the

report:

"Cosmic radiation exposure of aircraft crew: compilation of measured and calculated data"

appr oved by Article 31 Group of Experts in June 2004 [1]. The report is currently under publication as EC Report in

cooperation with DG TREN [3].

The main contribution of EURADOS within the pr esent pr oject has been [4]:

- to support the set-up and management of the working gr oup (WP1), in particular by ensuring the continuity of

the work started under chairmanship of U.J. Schr ewe in the three first years and the achievement of the final

report coor dinated under Chairmanship of L. Lindborg. The compilation of r esults and editing of the

corresponding r eport sections wer e achieved under coor dination of:

- D.J. Bar tlett, NRPB, UK (codes and measur ement methods for air craft cr ew dose assessments)

- P. Beck, ARCS, Austr ia (comparison of dose rates at differ ent flight altitudes and at differ ent

geomagnetic latitudes)



- H. Schr aube, GSF, Germany (comparison of r oute doses calculated w ith different computer

codes, comparison with experimental data)

- F. Spur ny, UJF, Czech Republic (summary of the uncertainties in dose measurements, which ar e

accepted by the radiation pr otection community).

- to help in this way the transfer of expertise between specialists working in the field of dosimetry very

advanced laboratories and other scientists in Europe involved in applied resear ch or pr actical applications in

this field and end users in the civil aviation ar ea (WP5).

- and to support the dissemination of the results. Pr ogress r epor t and summaries were regular ly presented in

annual panel EURADOS seminars and information was fur ther distributed in the EURADOS web site and ERRS

Newsletter and presented in international confer ences, 9th Symposium on Neutron Dosimetry (NEUDOS9, see

Annex F) in particular [2].

E5 Discussion

A major issue of the pr esent study is the very good agreement observed between dose equivalent measurements

per for med onboard air craft (all r esults gathered fr om the participants and the liter ature lying within ±25%) taking

into account the lar ge variety of instr uments and methods used. Moreover , the study could compar e these results

with those of calcu lations in selected cases leading to the agreement between measur ed and calculated dose

equivalent values. Providing such a car eful verification, the study partly supports the use of computing methods to

base effective dose assessments for air craft cr ew r ecognising indeed:

- The effect of shielding, scattering and secondary particle gener ation by the air craft fabr ic, passengers, car go

and fuel, which is generally not taking into account in those calculations and is assessed as to decr ease doses

by about 10%, validating most methods of calcu lation as conservative for compliance w ith radiation protection

requirements;

- The total uncertainty of effective dose assessments amounts to 30% (coverage factor 2) for actual flight

schedules, and may incr ease up to 50% for planned flight schedules only.

Two important needs ar e emphasized fr om this study:

- The importance of better understanding the uncer tainties of air cr aft cr ew dosimetry implying multiple factor s;

- As they were so far still insufficient ex perimental data to be able to determine the influence of solar particle

events.

The study formulates scientifically based recommendations and guidance for future work worthwhile being

conducted in this area showing the importance for this application of fostering r esear ch and expertise work and

preserve effective coordination.

E6 Communications and publications


Radiation Ex posure of Air cr aft Cr ew: Compilation of Measur ed and Calculated data. Final report appr oved by

Article 31 Group of Experts (June 2004).



[2] Lindborg, L., McAulay, I., Bar tlett, T.D., Beck, P., Schr aube, H., Schnuer , K., and Spur ný, F. Cosmic

Radiation Exposure of Air craft Cr ew: Compilation of Measured and Calculated data. A Pr eview of a Repor t

fr om EURADOS Working Gr oup 5 pr esented at the Ninth Neutron Dosimetry Symposium , Delft (The

Nether lands, 2003). Radiat Pr ot Dosimetry 2004 110: 417-422.


Radiation Ex posur e of Air cr aft Cr ew: Compilation of Measured and Calculated data. DG TREN Edit.

(Lux emburg ). EC Repor t KO-63-04-690-EN-C (ISBN 92-894-8448-9).

[4] Lindborg, L. Air cr aft cr ew dosimetry. Conclusions of the survey per formed in WG5. Communication in

EURADOS 2004 Seminar , Mar ch 9, 2004, Physikalisch Technische Bundesanstalt (Braunschweig, Germany).



F Neutron spectrometry and dosimetry


Coordination: D.J. Thomas, National Physical Laboratory, NPL, United Kingdom

(Chairman WG 7 and coordinator of PINWORKSHOP)

F. D'Errico, Universita degli Studi di Pisa, Italy (organisation of Pisa

workshop, 2000)

J. Zoetelief, Delft University of Technology, Interfaculty Reactor

Institute, IRI, The Netherlands (organisation of NEUDOS 9 symposium,

Delft, 2003)

F1 Introduction

Over the years, neutron spectr ometry and neutr on dosimetry were a constant priority for the activities carried out

under the EURADOS framework. Two obvious r easons ar e: (1) the presence of neutr ons in most radiation fields

encounter ed in r esear ch and r adiation pr otection applications, including differ ent environments with mix ed

neutr on-photon fields, cr iticality accident dosimetry, high energy r adiation fields, cosmic radiation; and (2) the

complex behaviour of instruments r esponses as a function of neutron energy.

Besides various action groups concer ned with these issues, two specific actions were dedicated to this difficult

ar ea:

(a) Neutr on spectrometry, including photon issues: The background to this initiative was the realisation that

spectr ometry was incr easingly being used in radiation protection resear ch to characterise fields and thus

provide better estimates of dose equivalent quantities and effective dose than can be derived fr om area survey

meters or personal dosemeters. For neutrons, in particular , both of- these types of dosemeter are known to

under - and over -read depending on the spectrum in which they ar e used. However , ther e were also pr oblems

with the spectrometry measur ements. Although they appar ently pr ovided valuable information, little was

known about their reliability or about the uncer tainties associated w ith their measurements. Mor eover , in

addition to radiation pr otection, for over 50 years neutr on spectrometry has played an important role in

fundamental nuclear physics r esear ch, in nuclear fission and fusion technologies and dosimetry for

radiotherapy and radiobiology.

(b) Neutr on dosimetry, actually mix ed field dosimetry since all neutr on fields also contain photon components:

EURADOS initiated the organisation of the 9th Neutron Dosimetry Symposium. This continued the series of eight

successful Symposia on Neutr on Dosimetry. The fir st six Symposia wer e held at GSF-For schungszentrum für

Umwelt und Gesundheit in München-Neuherberg, Germany, in the period 1972 to 1987. The seventh and eighth

Symposia took place in Ber lin, Germany, in 1991 and in Paris, France, in 1995, r espectively. EURADOS

consider ed it timely to initiate the Ninth Symposium since the eighth was held as long ago as 1995. Since then

significant progr ess has been made and ther e ar e areas of r esear ch and applications which are receiving

incr eased inter est, e.g. aircr ew and space dosimetry, radiation protection at high-energy acceler ators,



electr onic per sonal dosemeters, pr oton and heavy ion therapy, radiation-induced effects in semiconductors

and computational dosimetry.

Separ ate inter connected actions contributing to pr ogr ess in these ar eas wer e supported dur ing the pr esent

reporting period.

F2 Objectives

The specific objectives for the r epor ting period wer e:

- to support the editing of the handbook initiated under WG 7 aimed at providing a comprehensive summary of

the available ex perience, and to descr ibe the pr esent state of the ar t for neutron and photon spectrometry in

the types of mix ed fields encountered at workplaces;

- to support the organisation of a dedicated workshop aimed notably at incr easing the dissemination of the

infor mation collected in neutron spectrometry;

- to support the organisation of NEUDOS9 Symposium aimed at providing in 2003 a for um for pr esenting and

discussing r ecent developments in neutron dosimetry for radiation pr otection, r adiobiology and r adiother apy as

well as in dosimetry of other nuclear particles (e.g. pr otons, heavier ions);

- and to ensure the continuity and consistency of the series of Neutr on Dosimetry Symposia by impr oving the

selection pr ocess and initiating the organisation of next Symposium (NEUDOS10) in 2006.

F3 Progress and results

The handbook Neutron and Photon Spectrometry Techniques for Radiation Protection has been published as a

special issue of the jour nal Radiation Pr otection Dosimetry [1]. The handbook highlights the important r equisites

for per forming r eliable spectrometry, e.g. the use of the correct instrument, the availability of good r esponse

function data, the adoption of an appropr iate unfolding code and the importance of not tr eating the code as a

`black box '. Know ledge of the direction distribution of the radiation fields is r equired for evaluating per sonal and

effective dose values, and in some cases to refine correction factors to be applied to survey instruments, facts

which ar e sometimes over looked, and techniques for determining this information are also cover ed. Extensive

ex amples of field measurements ar e presented, and important issues such as the basic concepts under lying the

repr esentation of spectr a and quality assurance ar e fully consider ed. Warnings of potential pitfalls in this difficult

measurement ar ea are also provided.

This handbook is a compr ehensive work initiated by EURADOS under Working Gr oup 7 (3rd FP) and supported by the

concer ted action “Radiation spectrometry in mixed neutron-photon fields" (4th FP, ref. F14P-CT98-0071). A

consider able amount of information about the reliability and accur acy of spectrometry for radiation protection in

working envir onments has been acquir ed, and it was felt to be time to disseminate this information. A fir st effor t

was to impr ove the design and formulation of the report to allow its publication in an international jour nal. This

was achieved in 2003. In the meantime, a dedicated workshop was organised partly suppor ted under

PINWORKSHOP "Suppor t for an international Wor kshop on Neutron Field Spectr ometry in Science, Technology and

Radiation Protection" (5th FP, ref. FIGE-CT-2000-60001).



The workshop NEUSPEC2000 hold in Pisa (June 4-8, 2000) allowed r elevant spectrometry methods to be discussed

including classic multi-sphere and proton recoil techniques as well as the most recent approaches. Techniques for

instrument calibration, computational methods for determining the response of spectr ometer s, and methods for

unfolding of the energy and direction distribution of fields wer e all addr essed. The success of these developments

in confr onting challenges such as the char acterization of high-energy fields on air craft and at r esear ch or clinical

acceler ators, and the measurement, mainly for radiation pr otection pur poses, of the fields encounter ed at

workplaces in the nuclear industry was highlighted. The Wor kshop, planned originally as a small scale event for

people dir ectly involved in workplace spectr ometry, engendered so much inter est and actually became a much

larger event. The pr oceedings have now been produced as a special volume of Nuclear Instruments and Methods in

Physics Resear ch [2].

The 9th Symposium on Neutron dosimetry "Advances in Nuclear Particle Dosimetry for Radiation Protection and

Medicine" (NEUDOS9) was jointly organised by Delft University of Technology, the Inter faculty Reactor Institute of

Delft University of Technology and EURADOS on 28 September - 3 October 2003 in Delft (The Nether lands). This

major event was co-sponsor ed by IRSN and PTB, and by the US Depar tment of Energy (DOE, German Town, MD,

supported by the Office of Science (BER). US DOE, Gr ant No. DE-FG02-03ER63525), the Eur opean Commission (EC,

Br ussels, Belgium, Contract Accompanying Measur es –FIGH-CT2002-06023), the Royal Academy of Ar ts and Sciences

(KNAW, Amster dam, the Nether lands) and The National Cancer Institute (NCI, Bethesda, MD, USA). The Symposium

provided an opportunity for consider ing developments in neutron dosimetry and its application in r adiation

protection and radiotherapy. It also pr ovided the possibility for presenting new information r elated to forthcoming

developments. Main issues cover ed were:

• Spectrometry including in particular measur ement of neutron fluence spectr a up to 150 MeV using a

stacked scintillator spectrometer , neutron spectra in a tissue-equivalent phantom dur ing photon ther apy

and the response of a Bonner sphere model to charged hadrons. Wher eas the unfolding of the

measurements of Bonner spher es was a major concer n in the past years, Bonner spheres have now

become a r eference method for spectrometry. Other spectrometry methods for which new information

was given concer ned proton r ecoil methods, activation foil techniques and a telescope-design directional

neutr on spectrometer .

• Novel techniques for active and passive dosimetry wer e presented including r ecently commer cialised

systems, neutr on active survey instruments, the state-of-the ar t of passive solid state detectors… and a

large variety of detectors (gamma-r ay spectrometry, dosimetry based on direct ion storage, silicon solid

state dosemeter s, position sensitive proportional counters, diamond detectors, etc.)

• Cosmic radiation dosimetry putting the emphasis on air craft cr ew dosimetry but considering also space

dosimetry. Concer ning air cr aft cr ew dosimetry, the main conclusion is that the available models predict

the ex perimental r esults well. For space dosimetry, the r everse conclusion may be dr awn, i.e. the models

under estimated the contribution fr om neutr ons to spacecraft crew as a result of interactions of high-

ener gy particles w ith the spacecr aft and its contents.

• Cr iticality dosimetry focused on the issues of the international inter compar ison for cr iticality dosimetry

jointly organised by IRSN and CEA at the Silène facility in Valduc, Fr ance.



• Radiotherapy. Considerable inter est in neutron radiotherapy still ex ists, but it appear ed in this

Symposium clear ly shifted fr om fast neutron radiotherapy to boron neutron captur e radiotherapy (BNCT)

and light ion therapy.

• Monitor ing of exposure to neutrons and other nuclear particles, i.e. individual monitoring, at the

workplace and in the environment. The most important observation was that, pr esently, electr onic

devices for individual monitoring can still show unexpectedly lar ge discr epancies, revealing even no

response at all to an existing neutron field. There are, however , new promising developments.

• Computational dosimetry and radiation quality which was an important concern for most of the work

presented dur ing the Symposium as linked to a lar ge extend to the contribution of QUADOS (see section

D). In addition to a presentation of the issues of the QUADOS intercomparison on the use of computational

codes in r adiation dosimetry, significant contributions were also devoted to micr o-and nanodosimetry

where computing methods are largely used. Furthermor e radiobiological consider ations of r adiation

quality wer e presented by Prof. Keller er , who is heavily involved in new ICRP r ecommendations on taking

into account radiation quality.

The issues of the Symposium were broadly disseminated on the web (Conference, EURADOS, ERRS Newsletter

sites). The Pr oceedings ar e published in a special issue of Radiation Protection Dosimetry [3].

The Ninth Neutron Dosimetry Symposium was the first one organised upon the initiative of EURADOS. In order to

ensur e the continuity and consistency of the series of Neutr on Dosimetry Symposia, EURADOS invited the

submission of proposals from interested individuals and/or organisations to host NEUDOS10 in 2006. Four attractive

proposals (iTHEMBA, Cap Town, South Afr ica; University of Uppsala, Sweden; Institut de Radioprotection et de

Sûr eté Nucléair e, IRSN, Fr ance; Wayne State University, Detr oit, USA) were received. The venue and provisional

dates of the next Neutron Dosimetry Symposium (NEUDOS10) were decided upon during a special meeting of the

EURADOS council, the Ex ecutive Scientific Committee of NEUDOS9 and the Advisory Scientific Committee of

NEUDOS9. Follow ing the pr esentation of the four candidate or ganisers, the proposal of University of Uppsala was

selected. NEUDOS10 will take place in June 2006.

F4 Main achievements

The main objectives have been achieved on schedule taking into account that r eported actions were under taken as

issues of different projects (see respective final r eports).

These achievements include two major events:

- the Workshop "Neutron field s pectrometry in science, technology and radiation protection" – NEUSPEC2000 (Pisa,

June 2000, proceedings publis hed in January 2002),

- the Symposium "Advances in Nuclear Particle Dosimetry for Radiation Protection and Medicine" – NEUDOS9

(Delft, September -October 2003; publication of the proceedings ex pected in Autumn 2004),

and the basic arrangement to organise NEUDOS10 (Uppsala, June 2006).

In addition to these pr oceedings which repr esent a consider able contribution to the tr ansfer of scientific

know ledge r elevant to resear ch and applications in ionising r adiation dosimetry and radiation pr otection in

par ticular , the deliverables of the pr esent period include the publication of the comprehensive handbook "Neutron



and Photon Spectrometry Techniques for Radiation Protection" . The pr esent project supported these

achievements and their dissemination.

F5 Discussion

The handbook "Neutron and Photon Spectrometry Techniques for Radiation Protection" descr ibes the instruments

and methods which may be used in workplace envir onments in the nuclear industry, at accelerator facilities, and

in air craft, to measure: neutron spectra, photon spectra in mixed neutron-gamma fields, and the direction

distribution for both types of radiation. This information is needed in radiation protection resear ch both to

characterise those fields where it is important to know the dose equivalent accur ately, and to investigate the

per for mance of ar ea survey meters and personal dosemeter s in order to select the most suitable devices or to

determine corr ection factors, or to do both.

Each section of the handbook describes a particular aspect of spectrometry for radiation pr otection. Most sections

concentrate on a specific family of instr uments, although ther e ar e some mor e general sections covering topics of

relevance to all the instrumentation, e.g. the section on spectrum unfolding. Each section has been written by one

or mor e ex perts in the particular area cover ed, and attempts to pr esent extensive, r elevant and up to date

infor mation.

This handbook is intended to be comprehensive so that the spectr ometry instrumentation is covered in sufficient

detail to enable any end user needing to perform workplace spectr ometry to select the optimum system for a

par ticular application, and also to construct and commission the chosen system. It is meeting the increasing

interest r evealed I the last ten years for the use of spectr ometry in radiation protection research and applications.

Such a high inter est was confirmed in the workshop NEUSPEC2000 which attr acted a total of 120 participants. In

the present climate of declining funding for resear ch on radiation detection and measurements, the presence of

such a lar ge number of participants demonstrated a str ong and continued inter est in this area. The Workshop

served to reinfor ce old r elationships and cr eate new contacts, amply fulfilling its aim of providing a for um for

multi-disciplinary ex changes of infor mation and discussions between scientists and officials fr om the resear ch,

oper ational and r egulatory ar eas.

This fact was also revealed in NEUDOS9 which welcomed a lar ge number of young scientists indicating that ther e is

a pr omising futur e. The rewarded number of applications for support of young scientists was more than 10 per

cent of the participants and actually the number of applicants was even considerably lar ger. The number of young

women among the young scientists seeking young scientist support was approx imately 50 per cent. The general

conclusion r einfor ced the motivation to plan a nex t Symposium on neutron dosimetry in a time period of three to

five years as presently achieved under the coor dination of EURADOS.

F6 Communications and publications

[1] Thomas D.J and Klein H. Neutron and Photon Spectrometry Techniques for Radiation Protection . Radiat.

Prot. Dosim., 107(1-3), (2003).

[2] Klein, H, Thomas, D.T., Menzel, H.G., Curzio, G., d'Errico, F. (Eds). Neutron field s pectrometry in s cience,

technology and radiation protection. Nuclear Instr uments and Methods, 476(1-2), (2002).



[3] Zoetelief, J., Schuhmacher , H., Bos, A.J.J., Bar tlett, D.T., Rannou, A., Br oer se, J.J., McDonald, J.C.,

Schultz, F.W., Eds. Advances in Nuclear Particle Dosimetry for Radiation Protection and Medicine: Ninth

Symposium on Neutron Dosimetry. Pr oceedings. Radiation Protection Dosimetry Vol. 110, 1-4, (2004).



G Set-up and management of the network, coordination, dissemination

Contract reference: Work Package 1, 5 6

Coordination: G. Dietze, Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, PTB, Braunschweig,

Germany (<May 2001)

P. Pihet, Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire, IRSN,

Fontenay-aux-Roses, France (May 2001-March 2004)

H. Schuhmacher, Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, PTB,

Braunschweig, Germany (>March 2004)

Management group:

2001 2002 2003 2004

EURADOS Council

Chair man G. Dietze P. Pihet

P. Pihet P. Pihet P. Pihet H. Schuhmacher *

Vice-Chair man

L. Lindborg L. Lindborg L. Lindborg C. Wer nli

C. Wernli

Secr etary F.Fr y H. Schuhmacher H. Schuhmacher H. Schuhmacher P. Olko

Tr easurer J. Zoetelief J. Zoetelief J. Zoetelief J. Zoetelief

F. d’Errico F. d’Errico F. d’Errico F. d’Errico

L. Lindborg

H. Par etzke H. Par etzke H. Par etzke H. Par etzke

A. Rannou A. Rannou A. Rannou A. Rannou

J.C. Sáez-Ver gar a

H. Schuhmacher

F. Spur ny F. Spur ny F. Spur ny F. Spurny

D. Thomas D. Thomas D. Thomas D. Thomas

C. Wer nli C. Wer nli

D. Bartlett D. Bartlett D. Bartlett

P. Olko P. Olko

T. Bolognese

E. Fantuzzi

C. Schmitzer

F. Vanhavere

WG Chairpersons WG1 T. Otto, CERN, CH

WG2 J. van Dijk, NRG, NL

WG3 J.C. Sáez-Ver gar a, CIEMAT, SE F. Wissmann, PTB, DE

WG4 B. Siebert, PTB, DE G. Gualdr ini, ENEA, IT

WG5 U. Schrewe, FHH, DE

L. Lindborg, SSI, SE

WG7 D. Thomas, NPL, UK

* Council in operation since March 2004



G1 Introduction

The Eur opean Radiation Dosimetry group (EURADOS) was cr eated in 1981 as a platform for bringing together

scientists fr om various labor atories in Europe working in the field of r adiation dosimetry and thus incr ease their

oppor tunities for co-operation.

The ex ecutive arm of the Society consists in Eur opean laboratories involved in implementing or pr omoting

scientific resear ch in r adiation dosimetry (voting membership) and a lar ge gr oup of specialists (associate

membership) involved in EURADOS working groups and other projects relevant to ionising r adiation dosimetry in

the fields of radiation pr otection, r adiobiology, diagnostic and therapeutic radiology. Within these areas, EURADOS

activities ar e selected to:

- advance the scientific under standing of the dosimetry of ionising radiation,

- promote the technical development of dosimetric methods and instr uments and their implementation in

routine dosimetry,

- and assist partners and stakeholder s in achieving compatibility of dosimetr ic procedur es used w ithin the EU,

and, in general, conformity to international pr actice.

Funding of this work has come fr om the Eur opean Commission, so far within the Fr amewor k Pr ogrammes

(EURATOM), and through EURADOS membership. The EURADOS member s support the work per formed by their

scientists who invest their efforts in various tasks. This support has r egular ly incr eased, confir ming the

commitment of the membership to a lasting network. The ex pertise of EURADOS contributes to the solution of

dosimetry pr oblems known for their difficulty in practical workplace situations. Various working groups and

workshops have extensively investigated a variety of such problems, e.g. the dosimetry and spectr ometry of mix ed

neutr on-gamma fields, the dosimetry of cosmic rays for air cr ew radiation pr otection monitoring, skin dosimetry

follow ing ex posure to beta emitters. Since its cr eation, EURADOS has produced in this way a unique libr ary of

publications and proceedings documenting its scope and its results. Many of them can be found in the Journal

Radiation Protection Dosimetry.

EURADOS has shown a special aptitude to contr ibute to the transfer of resear ch & development issues of scientific

know ledge to a w ide range of stakeholders in the use of ionising r adiation and in radiation pr otection: • The Eur opean Commission • National r esear ch and specialist institutes • Resear ch groups • Manufacturers of dosimetry instr umentation • Regulatory bodies • The nuclear industry • Medical facilities.

The lar ge ex perience accumulated in undertaking network activities and the skill of its specialists groups have

given EURADOS the capabilities of management and coordination as organisational fr amework for the network of

ex perts necessary to operate in order to achieve the specific objectives assigned to the pr esent pr oject including

results dissemination.



G2 Objectives

The gener al aim carried on in this project is to maintain and strengthen w ithin Europe a per manent networks of

ex perts, and of refer ence and resear ch labor atories, which will enable appr opriate specialists groups to be formed

in a timely manner to solve problems or promote resear ch identified within EURADOS or upon r equest from

ex ternal bodies.

Wher eas the other annexes report on the specific objectives and progress achieved in each of the thematic areas

investigated w ithin the present pr oject, this section report on the objectives especially carried out by the Council

of EURADOS assisted by the chair per sons of the various thematic working groups (see above) in order :

- To set up and str engthen the network boar d and per form its management, including the continuous inspection

and the follow -up of the tasks and overall r eporting (WP 1);

- To per form the coor dination tasks needed to ensur e that the project working groups as well as other task groups

oper ating in the fr amework of differ ent projects concer ned with r adiation protection dosimetry ar e ex changing

their know ledge and information, incr easing in this way their synergy and giving them a chance to achieve the

general aim summarized above (WP5);

- And to ensur e the dissemination of the r esults obtained and the boar d infor mation not only to the network

members but also to their correspondents and to the extent it is possible to the lar ger audience of all concer ned

stake holder s (WP 6).

G3 Progress and results

a) Set-up the network board and management of the network

Dur ing the reporting period the membership of EURADOS (Registr ation: nr 40410698, Naaldwijk, The Nether lands)

incr eased from 31 to 50 Eur opean institutes and labor atories located in 24 differ ent countries (Table G.1) [1].

Including 6 of the new Member States entering the EU in 2004, it is br oadly r epresentative of the EU and counts

also 4 additional European countries (Bulgaria, Croatia, Ser bia, Ukr aine).

The members of EURADOS provide the major ity of scientists contributing to the boar d activities r epor ted in the

other annex es. These scientists and the institutes representatives both ensure EURADOS to gather the r equir ed

ex pertise level and serve as active vehicle for ex change and dissemination of r elevant information and r ecent

results.

The Council elected by the General Assembly is administrating the operations of the board and the coor dination of

the pr esent pr oject. In par ticular , it appr oves the workplan of the working groups and their membership and

convenors. The Council continuously follows the progr ess of the WGs, if necessary adjust their schedule and

composition; in particular , if r equired, it ensur es the continuity of WG chair manships. During the present per iod,

the WGs directly under the management and follow up of the Council were:

accor ding to the project work pr ogr amme

- WG1 Collection and dissemination of information for res ources in the EU regarding irradiation

facilities and s pecial equipments for dos imetry res earch (see Annex A )



- WG2 Forming a group dealing with the harmonis ation of individual monitoring in Europe and

information on new techniques in this field (see Annex B)

- WG 3 Collaboration in environmental radiation monitoring (see Annex C)

and w ithin the cooper ation carried out with EC DG ENV (at pr esent DG TREN)

- WG 5 Aircraft crew dosimetry (see Annex E).

Beside the management tasks directly r elated to the pr esent project the Council is also considering w ith car e the

feasibility of strengthening and funding a sustaining network. To this end, the Council has investigated the

priorities of work worthwhile being carried on by the group and the critical conditions to meet (WGs number and

size, balance of ex per tise and r esear ch work, dur ation) . The Council has followed the evolution of the EC funding

fr amework fr om 5th to 6th FP and also consider ed cooperation perspectives with different directorates. The

repartition and feasibility of membership support is also investigated taking into account that the indirect support

of members (scientists and convenors manpower essentially) alr eady represent to date the majority of EURADOS

funding.

Table G.1. General A ssembly of EURADOS (March 2004)

Acronym Centers Representative

ARCS ARC Seiber sdor f Resear ch, Seibersdor f, Austria C. Schmitzer

ATS Radiation Protection Institute, Kiev, Ukr aine V. Chumak

AUT Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Nuclear Physics Department, Thessaloniki, Gr eece M. Zamani-Valassiadou

BNFL British Nuclear Fuel PLC, BNFL Magnox , Berkeley, United Kingdom A. Weeks

CEMRAD Université de Limoges, Centr e d'étude et de métrologie des rayonnements et de dosimétrie, Limoges, France

J.L. Decossas

CERN Eur opean organisation for nuclear resear ch, Technical inspection and safety, Geneva, Switzer land Th. Otto

CESNEF Politechnico di Milano, Dipartimento di Ingegneria Nucleare, Milano, Italy

V. Klamert

CIEMAT Centr o de Investigaciones Energéticas Medioambientales y Tecnologicas, Dosimetry Unit, Madrid, Spain A. Delgado

DIMRI Commissariat à l'Ener gie Atomique, Department of Application and Metrology of Ionising Radiation, Saclay, Fr ance

J.M. Bor dy

ENEA-IRP National Agency for New Technology, Ener gy and the Environment, Institute for Radiation Protection, Bologna, Italy

E. Fantuzzi

FJFI Czech Technical University, Department of Dosimetry and Application of Ionising Radiation T. Cechak

GAEC Greek Atomic Energy Commission, Athens, Greece V. Kamenopoulou

GSF For schungszentrum für Umwelt und Gesundheit, GmbH, Institut für Str ahlenschutz, Neuher berg, Germany

H. Par etzke

HAS Institute of Isotopes, Budapest, Hungary A. Kelemen

IAEA Inter national Atomic Energy Agency, Radiation Monitoring and Protection Services Section, Vienna, Austria

K. Mr abit

IEA Institute of Atomic Energy, Laboratory of Dosimetric Measurements, Otwock-Sw ier k, Poland N. Golnik




IFJ Institute of Nuclear Physics, Health Physics Laboratory, Krakow, Poland

P. Olko

IMP Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine, Radiation Protection Department, Lodž , Poland J. Jankowski

INFN Instituto Nazionale di Fisica Nuclear e, Laboratori Nazional di Legnaro, Legnaro, Italy R. Cher ubini

INRNE-BAS Institution for Nuclear Resear ch and Nuclear Energy, Bulgar ian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria

M. Guelev

IRA Institut Universitair e de Radiophysique Appliquée, Lausanne, Sw itzer land J.F. Valley

ITN Instituto Tecnologico e Nuclear , Sacavem, Portugal P. Vaz

IRSN Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléair e, Fontenay-aux -Roses, Fr ance

T. Bolognese

KFKI KFKI Atomic Resear ch Energy Institute, Radiation and Environmental Physics Depar tment, Budapest , Hungary P. Zombori

NPL National Physical Laboratory, Centre for Acoustics and Ionising Radiation, Teddington, United Kingdom D.J. Thomas

NRG Nuclear Resear ch and Consultancy Gr oup, Radiation & Environment, Ar nhem, The Nether lands

J. van Dijk

NRPB National Radiological Pr otection Boar d, NRPB, Chilton, United Kingdom D. Bartlett

PSI Paul Scherr er Institut, Villigen, Sw itzer land C. Wer nli

PTB Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Br aunschweig, Ger many

H. Schuhmacher

RBI Ruder Boskovic Institute, Zagreb, Cr oatia M. Ranogajec

RISØ Risoe National Labor atory, Nuclear Safety Resear ch Department, Roskilde, Denmark

C. Ander sen

RPClo John Perry Laboratory, St George's Hospital, London, United Kingdom M. Fitzgerald

RPCvi Radiation Protection Centre, Vilnius , Lithuania G. Morkunas

RSC Latvian Radiation Safety Centre , Riga , Latvia K. Bogucar skis

SCK-CEN Belgian Nuclear Resear ch Centre, Instrumentation, Calibr ation and Dosimetry, Mol, Belgium

F. Vanhavere

SIS National Institute of Radiation Hygiene, Her lev, Denmark H. Roed

SSI Swedish Radiation Protection Authority, Stockholm, Sweden L. Lindborg

STUK Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority, Helsinki, Finland H. Jar vinen

TUDe Delft University of Technology, Inter faculty Reactor Institute, IRI/TNO-CSD, Deft, The Nether lands

J. Zoetelief

TUDr Dr esden University of Technology, Institute of Radiation Protection Physics, Dresden, Germany J. Henniger

UBIRM The Univer sity of Birmingham, School of Physics and Astr onomy, Birmingham, United Kingdom

M. Char les

UFC Université de Franche-Comté, Laboratoir e de Micr oanalyses Nucléair es, Besançon, Fr ance M. Fromm

UJF Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Nuclear Physics Institute, Prague, Czech Republic F. Spur ny

UNSA Université de Nice, Laboratoir e de Physique Electr onique des Solides, Nice, Fr ance

P. Iacconi

UPC Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Institut de Tècniques Ener gètiques, Bar celona, Spain M. Ginjaume




UPKM Institute of Preventive and Clinical Medicine, Depar tment of Radiation Hygiene, Bratislava, Slovakia

D. Nikodemová

UPM Universidad Politecnica de Madrid, Nuclear Engineering Department, Madrid , Spain E. Gallego

USP Universita degli Studi di Pisa, Dipartimento di Ingegner ia Meccanica, Nucleare e della Pr oduzione, Pisa, Italy F. d'Errico

UU Uppsala University, Department of Neutron Resear ch, Uppsala, Sweden

J. Blomgr en

VIN Institute of Nuclear Sciences-Vinca, Radiation and Environmental Protection Department, Belgrade, Ser bia M. Pr okic

b) General coordination

In addition to the active follow up of the working gr oups currently active, EURADOS Council has carried out

specific coor dination tasks with the objectives:

• to maintain clos e collaboration with other projects managed within the framework of separate contracts in areas considered of critical importance for dosimetry networking. This includes in particular:

- the area of computational dosimetry: a close collabor ation was carried on w ith the project group

QUADOS (r ef. FIGD-CT2000-20062, see Annex D). This coordination was helpful on the one hand to

disseminate the information and the r esults achieved w ithin QUADOS to the br oad audience of EURADOS

members and associated scientists, and on the other hand to investigate future per spectives allow ing to

keep this action on going.

- the area of neutron dosimetry: this specific ar ea of ionising radiation dosimetry has r equir ed a

continuous attention fr om EURADOS due to its inher ent complex ity and a lar ge number of r elevant

applications (nuclear r eactor s, high energy accelerators, cosmic radiation field, etc.). The pr esent

coor dination was aimed in particular at ensuring the links between separate projects dealing with neutron

metrology and neutron dosimetry (see Annex F).

- the area of internal dosimetry: EURADOS had in the present period no specific pr ogr amme in this ar ea

alr eady well cover ed by separate pr ojects of FP5 which combines their contr ibutions to improve the

reliability and quality of inter nal dose assessments as illustr ated in Figur e G.1. However , this ar ea is

raising per manently a high inter est fr om EURADOS members involved either in resear ch or monitoring

work. It is particular ly difficult in such a multidisciplinary area which indeed since FP4 has motivated a

close syner gy between EURADOS and EULEP to include physical and biological dosimetric aspects. During

the pr esent period, EURADOS and EULEP took the initiative of two cluster meetings with the coor dinators

of these projects (Vienna, September 2001 and Ox for d, September 2002). The last cluster in particular

held as a satellite meeting of Ox for d workshop could disseminate the pr ojects information not only to the

project coor dinators but also to many partners and other interested scientists attending the workshop.



Fig ure G.1

The BIODOS and RBDATA-EULEP projects are contributing to provide biokinetics data and gener ic research relevant to the development of internal dosimetry models, their work programmes being directly related to tasks groups of ICRP Committee 2. Within working party 5, EULEP is especially clustering these projects with activ ities of non-EU funded projects on biokinetics of radionuclides in human volunteers, and on treatment of accidental intakes of radionuclides. IDEA , OM INEX and IDEAs projects are aimed at prov iding solutions to improve internal dose assessments and monitor ing methods. EURADOS working group 2 (see Annex B) is including internal dose assessment and monitoring in its prospect of harmonisation and quality of individual dosimetry.

• to ens ure that all projects and working groups can find the regular opportunity to communicate their

information and res ults in a broad and open panel of experts

EURADOS had periodically or ganised boar d meetings which in gener al combined in a single event working

gr oup and task group meetings together with the statutory General Assembly of the scientific society.

Within the pr esent pr oject, these meetings could be organised year ly and enriched w ith a scientific

seminar allow ing in panel to disseminate the status reports of working gr oups activities, their most recent

results and to present key lectur es relevant to studies pr esently carried out as well as subjects of

importance for future investigations. Tables G.2, G.3 and G.4 pr esent these seminars to illustrate the

topics covered. As can be seen, these seminars wer e also the oppor tunity to invite a number of ex ternal

ex perts to report on progress achieved in differ ent networks and organisations (EUROMET, ICRP, IAEA,

ICRU, ISO and CEI, ..) and neighbouring projects. The 2004 seminar in particular was a one-day

symposium jointly organised with EULEP [7].



Table G.2 2001 scientific seminar (Annual meeting , January, 23-25, PTB, Braunschweig , Germany)

" EUROMET activities and current pr ojects" H. Klein (invited)

"Facilities for Dosimetry Resear ch" (Repor t of WG1) Th. Otto

"Radiation spectr ometry in working environment" (Repor t of WG7) D. Thomas

"Diagnostic refer ence dose levels – a concept to r ely on ?" W. Leitz (invited)

“Radiobiological aspects for radiotherapy of non-malignant diseases” W. Dörr (invited)

"Radiation protection issues in intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT)" F. d'Errico

"Dosimetry for r adiobiology" J.J. Br oerse (honorary member lectur e)

"Assessment of external and internal r adiation ex posur e for non-human biota : appr oach and preliminary results"

G. Proehl (invited)

"Environmental r adiation dosimetry" (Report of WG3) J.C. Saez-Ver gar a, E. Funck

"Eur opean Calibr ation and Coordination of Mobile and Air borne Gamma ray Spectr ometry (ECCOMAGS) – Pr eparing for traceable comparisons between ground based and airborne methods."

D. Sander sson (invited)

"New consider ations on the weighting factor for neutron radiation" G. Dietze (honor ary member lectur e)

"Air cr ew, cosmic and solar radiation: wher e we styand now?" (DOSMAX project)

F. Wissmann

"Measurements during solar flare GLE60" F. Spur ny

"The use of EPD as a legal dosemeter by the BNFL approved dosimetry service"

A. Weeks (invited)

Table G.3 2002 scientific seminar (Annual Meeting , January, 22-24, PTB, Braunschweig , Germany)

Individual dosimetry (WG2) J. Van Dijk, M.A. Lopez, Th. Bolognese

Inter comparison of criticality dosemeters (invited talk) R. Medioni

Air cr ew dosimetry (WG5, Article 31 group) H. Schr aube

The data base of facilities for dosimetry r esear ch Th. Otto, A. DuSautoy

Numerical dosimetry (QUADOS) R. Price

Micr odosimetry (invited talk) D. Goodhead (invited, MRC)

Per ipheral doses to r adiother apy patients P.H. van der Giessen,

Bernar d Verbeeten (invited)

Rad. Prot. Aspects of diagnostics K. Faulkner (invited)

Pathogenic pathways of deterministic effects of therapeutic doses of (ionising) radiation W. Dörr (EULEP)

Activities of ISO-TC85 (invited talk) P. Diakonoff (invited, ISO)

Present activities of ICRU H. Par etzke

IEC standar ds for dosimetry J.C. Thevenin

Inter comparison of ear ly war ning network systems (WG3) E. Funck, J.C. Saez Vergar a



Table G.4 2004 scientific seminar and EULEP-EURADOS symposium

(Joint annual meetings, March, 8-11, PTB, Braunschweig , Germany)

Scientific seminar

Facilities for dosimetry r esear ch T. Otto

Intr oduction to

Radionuclide biokinetics database

ERRS Newsletter

Eur opean mutant mouse pathology database Pathbase

Eur opean Radiobiology Ar chives ERA databases

M. Bailey

P. Pihet

P. Schofield

R. Wick

Har monisation of Individual Monitoring in Europe" J. Van Dijk

Environmental Radiation Monitoring" E. Funck

Quality assurance in numerical dosimetry G. Gualdr ini

Air cr aft cr ew dosimetry L. Lindborg

EULEP-EURADOS Symposium " Biolog ical and Physical Dosimetry for Radiation Protection"

Introductory lectures

Conditions and limits of applicability of dose quantities G.Dietze and H.G. Menzel

Why can't we find better biological indicators of r adiation exposur e? P. Voisin and M. Benderitter

Session 1: Quality factors for photons and incorporated radionuclides

Obser vations of risks for photons M. Hill

Measurement of photon energy and dose rate P. Ambr osi

Obser vation of risks fr om incorpor ated radionuclides M. Kr eisheimer

Session 2: Lung exposure to Radon

Dosimetric and epidemiological appr oaches to assessing radon risks - can the

differ ences be reconciled? J. Stather

Inter action of alpha particles at the cellular level. Implication for the radiation

weighting factor of alpha particles W. Hofmann

Inter pr etation of observation by modelling of car cinogenesis W. Heidenreich

Session 3: Biological effects in individual tissues

Dose inhomogeneities for photons and neutrons near inter face J.J. Br oerse and J.

Zoetelief

Can tissue weighting factor s be established for the embryo and foetus? C. Str effer

Concluding lecture

Individual sensitivity in radiation therapy, potential implication for radiation

protection M. Harms-Ringdahl



• to sponsor relevant workshops and conferences

Dur ing the present reporting per iod, the follow ing events or ganised within differ ent frameworks were

followed in EURADOS w ith particular attention:

- Wor kshop "Computing Radiation Dosimetry" , June 22-28, 2002, Lisbon (Por tugal),

- Wor kshop on " Internal Dosimetry of radionuclides : occupational, public and medical expos ure" ,

September 9-12, 2002, Ox for d, United Kingdom,

- Wor kshop "Intercomparis on on the usage of computational codes in radiation dosimetry" organised by

QUADOS, July 14-16, 2003, Bologna,

- "9th Sympos ium on Neutron Dosimetry" , September 28 – October 3, 2003, Delft, The Nether lands, and

the follow ing events are announced:

- Wor kshop on "Individual Monitoring of Ion ising Radiation (IM2005)", April 11-15, 2005, Vienna,

Austr ia,

- "10th Symposium on Neutron Dosimetry" , June, 2006, Uppsala, Sweden,

- Wor kshop on " Internal Dosimetry of radionuclides : occupational, public and medical expos ure" ,

2006, Montpellier , France.

c) Dissemination

The dissemination of information and results is a permanent task in the operation of a network and part of the

work plan followed in the over all boar d and in the differ ent thematic gr oups as alr eady descr ibed in the other

annex es. In summary the follow ing actions specifically per formed for dissemination achieved during the pr esent

project and involving EURADOS scientists and Council members include:

• publication of r esults achieved by WGs in special issues most often in Radiation Protection Dosimetry (see

Annex A-F);

• issues of confer ence and workshop proceedings in special issues most often in Radiation Pr otection

Dosimetry (see Annex A-F and [7]);

• the development of the web site www.eurados.or g with information disseminated to other networks and

the public and restricted zones available for the ex change with the members and with the Council [1];

• the contribution to the editorial of the ERRS Newsletter ("Eur opean Resear ch in Radiological Sciences")

issued jointly w ith EULEP (European late Effects Project gr oup). This task includes the r egular editorial

and publishing of the newsletter and the set-up of the interactive web site www.euradnews.or g (for more

details see final r eport of contr act FIKR-CT2000-80021) [1]. The editor ial concer ns the pr ogr ess achieved

in pr esent WGs and different projects of r elevance, issuing of key publications and related

announcements;

• the editorial and year ly update of the EURADOS presentation leaflet [2]; the fir st edition was issued in

December 2002 and the leaflet was broadly disseminated to membership, correspondents and in

confer ence events;



• dedicated communications (poster , leaflet, pr esentation) r elevant to dosimetry networking in various

seminars and confer ences in addition to those alr eady quoted above [2-6]:

- Inter national confer ence on national infr astructur es for radiation safety: towards effective and

sustainable systems, September 1-5, 2003, Rabat, Morocco (C. Wer nli);

- IRPA Regional Congr ess on Radiation Pr otection in Central Eur ope, September 22-26, 2003, Br atislava,

Slovakia;

- Inter national Confer ence on Radiation Shielding (ICRS-10) - Topical Meeting of the Radiation

Protection and Shielding Division of the American Nuclear Society (RPS 2004), May 9-13, 2004,

Madeira, Portugal (P. Vaz)

- 11h Congress of the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA11), May, 23-28, 2004, Madrid,

Spain (P. Pihet, H. Schuhmacher ).

G4 Main achievements

The main objectives assigned within the scope of the pr esent pr oject wer e fully achieved. The fr amework of

EURADOS scientific society could be used effectively to manage and supply the coor dination of the pr esent

project.

The achievements per formed in the differ ent key thematic areas selected in this work plan are documented in

Annexes A-F.

Regar ding WP1, two major actions wer e:

- the enlargement of the network membership including, at that time, candidate member States of the EU, and

other countries of Central and eastern Europe,

- and targeted investigations confirming the value of a dosimetry network in Europe capable of considering

consistently both resear ch as well as ex per tise needs to investigate the solution of pr oblems encounter ed in the

field of r adiation pr otection dosimetry and to ensure efficient developments as well as their implementation and

the harmonisation of practices.

Wher eas the appr oach followed and improved by EURADOS since 20 years was remaining effective and to a lar ge

ex tent suitable, the adequate size of such a network and suitable funding conditions towar ds the perspective of a

sustainable body is at the end of this project still a major concer n as discussed below.

G5 Discussion

Fr om the achievements descr ibed in this r eport and the r esults of inter nal investigations taking into account the

contex t in the EC and in institutions contributing in the current network, the following issues ar e worthwhile being

pointed out for discussion:

- Effor ts targeted on str engthening the network towar ds a sustainable body have been partly lost which can be

attributed to in general a lack of maturity in the consideration of the suitable size and network structure to meet

the actual needs of r adiation pr otection dosimetry; This lack is found at the EC level w ith a mor e and mor e

evident difficulty to support uniquely resear ch and expertise work although these ar e clear ly interrelated priorities



in the area of r adiation protection dosimetry. This lack is also appearing at institutional level as globally clear

guidance is har dly received although the significant contr ibution of a body like EURADOS is generally fair ly well

recognised. Waiting for mor e guidance, the appar ently soundest approach might be to consider a standing body

like EURADOS capable of motivating investigation gr oups in critical ar eas while focusing on the management of

targeted working groups using multiple appr opriate sour ces of funding as opposed to the single, and very effective

until now, support fr om the FP.

- A clear advantage of a sustainable group similar to EURADOS was demonstr ated once again in this project as

being able in the same time to conduct selected working groups to the achievement of specific objectives (Annex

A-C,E) while holding more open and adjusted coor dination in cr itical areas under first investigations or which ar e

par tly cover ed in separate pr ojects (Annex D, F).

Although the ideal approach is still unclear and under discussion, the pr esent negotiation of the coor dination

action CONRAD ("Coor dinated Network for Radiation Dosimetry") submitted by EURADOS in April 2004 (6h FP) is in

keeping with this investigation as the project includes:

- a dedicated work package aimed at gather ing "empirical data for the further development of a s us tainable

European network comprising research communities in radiation protection dos imetry and the possible role of a

Network of Excellence",

- the coor dination of resear ch in four selected areas (computational dosimetry, internal dosimetry, complex mix ed

radiation fields at wor kplaces, radiation protection dosimetry of medical staff),

whereas pr iority areas such as harmonisation of individual monitoring, air craft cr ew dosimetry, envir onmental

radiation monitoring ar e consider ed as being funded elsewhere while EURADOS may seek for keeping going on

differ ent critical gr oups in areas judged of interest.

G6 Communications and publications

[1] P. Pihet , C. Wer nli, H. Schuhmacher , J. Zoetelief, D.T. Bar tlett, F. d'Errico, L. Lindborg, P. Olko, H.

Par etzke, A. Rannou, F. Spur ny, D.J. Thomas. The European Radiation Dosimetry group: EURADOS.

Proceedings of the IRPA11 Confer ence, Madrid, 2004, http://www.ir pa11.com/.

[2] Web sites in oper ation:

- EURADOS web site: www.eurados.org

- ERSS Newsletter : www.eur adnews.org

[3] EURADOS Pr esentation Leaflet. Issues 2002,2003, 2004.

[4] Pihet, P. The European Radiation Dosimetry Gr oup (EURADOS). Seminar . INFN, Legnaro, July, 2003.

[5] Wer nli, C.. The European Radiation Dosimetry Gr oup (EURADOS). In Pr oc. Inter national confer ence on

national infr astr uctures for r adiation safety: towards effective and sustainable systems. Rabat, September

2003.

[6] Spur ny, F. The Eur opean Radiation Dosimetry Group (EURADOS). IRPA Regional Congr ess on Radiation

Protection in Central Eur ope. Br atislava, September 2003.

[7] Stather , J. W., Hopewell, J. W. and Pihet, P. , Editors. Biological and Physical Dosimetry for Radiation

Protection. Proc. of EULEP-EURADOS Symposium, Braunschweig, Mar ch 10, 2004. Rad. Pr ot. Dosim. 112 (4),

2004.

Radiation Dosimetry Networks

Documents

Transcript of Radiation Dosimetry Networks