Implementation of occupational radiation protection control at university and hospital work places Håkan B.L. Pettersson Dept of Radiation Physics Health Faculty Linköping University, Sweden

Radiation protection organisation Dose assessment Regular personal dosimetry Dose history Internal dosimetry Radiation accidents Supervision and inspections Controlled and supervised areas Classification of workers Education and training ALARA and cost reductions

The radiation protection organization Formal organisation plans since early ´80s Defines responsibilities and interplay between licence holders, dept heads, hospital physicists and radiation protection officer in charge (RPO) -training and education -handling of radionuclides and waste -quality control programmes -dose monitoring etc. Defines the role of the radiation protection committee and the radiation managers

Licences issued by the Radiation Protection Authorities Medical facilities (3 hospitals) Radiology (conventional, thorax, odont, DXA) ~ 200 000 patients/y Nuclear medicine (diagnostics, therapy, misc) ~ 3 100 patients/y Radiation therapy (external, brachy) ~ 1300 patients/y Blood irradiators Misc solid radionuclide sources University facilities Radionuclide and X-ray use (combined)

Local authorizations issued by the RPO Annual permits signed by the RPO, the head of dept and contact persons States the need of dosimetry, education/training, radiation protection equipment Radionuclide work, strictly limited activities radionuclide, type, max activity X-ray work, defined equipment generator, tube, application Work with LASERs type and use

Dose assessment Regular personal dosimetry Dose history Internal dosimetry

New DIS-system for monitoring doses to personnel and patients

Annual doses at Östergötland county hospitals and Linköping University

Annual doses at the radiology departments of the Östergötland county hospitals

New techniques – reduced workers exposure?

Assessment of workers doses at thorax radiology procedures

Radioisotopes used in nuclear medicine examinations

Annual doses at the nuclear medicine department Linköping University hospital

Assessment of workers doses at the Nuclear Medicine Department 18F-FDG-PET studies

Radioisotopes used in nuclear medicine therapy

Annual doses at the Isotope therapy department Linköping University hospital

Workers exposure from 125I thyroid uptake

Workers exposure from 3H; urine analysis

Radiation accident at the Linköping University X-ray diffraction work >2 Gy Transient skin erythema >6 Gy Skin erythema 15-20 Gy Skin necrosis, open wounds Finger dose 8-10 Gy

Supervision and inspections Supervised work areas: Hospitals: -Radiology labs, inkl. external (thorax, cardio, surgery depts etc.) -Nuclear medicine labs (diagn/therapy) -Radiation therapy treatment rooms; external and brachy) -Blood irradiation labs University: -X-ray research labs

inspections -Annual (ambition) local inspection of: all labs/depts having local authorization (RPO) labs/depts with supervised work areas (medical physicists) -Inspections in connection with installation of new equipment, new techniques (RPO, MedPhys) -Authority inspections (SSI): Hopefully very infrequent

Education and training Drivers licenses: 2-3 hours lectures 2-3 hours hands-on training Target groups: Radiology external users, doctors, nurses, dept heads Nuclear medicine: external users, nurses Radiation therapy: nurses, engineeers Teachers: medical physicist and RPO (lectures) engineers/nurses/medical physicist (hands-on)

Education and training I. Formal radiation protection courses, basic level 20-30 hours lectures and laborative training Target groups: students, researchers, engineers, nurses II. Formal radiation protection courses, advanced 2-5 weeks lectures and individual projects Target groups: PhD-students, medical physicists, RPO’s

ALARA vs. cost reductions Resonable to spend more money on dose reductions or keep the present level or reduce costs? Have we reached the ALARA- level? Improvements in radiation protection during the last 20 years have saved some 5 manSv in workers doses. How does it compare with the actual costs?

How safe is the radiation worker environment? Nuclear testing Radiology Chernobyl Indoor radon K-40 body content Natural gamma radiation background Cosmic radiation Occupational exposure mSv/y

Conclusions Present radiation protection organisation is satisfactory Workers doses effectively reduced during the years Education & Training essential but demanding Future radiation protection ambitions might not be accepted by licence holders The End