Enhancing Radiation Protection (continued)

Measuring progress: Assessment and evaluation

As the Model Project expanded, it became increasingly obvious that the Agency needed to assess not only outcomes, but progress along the way. Technical officers and regional managers jointly developed and implemented a number of tools to provide both qualitative and quantitative measures, as well as to balance Agency and independent evaluations.
Approximately three years into the programme, the IAEA added a peer review to its assessment toolkit, primarily as a means of obtaining an independent evaluation. A typical peer review involves a team of four to six international experts who visit a country for several days and examine all of the available information. The peer review is distinct in that it is:

a) performed only at the request of a Member State; and

b) directly linked to the provision of radiation sources.

In essence, the peer review is an incentive for a country to meet principal requirements of the International Basic Safety Standards for Protection Against Ionizing Radiation and for the Safety of Radiation Sources (Basic Safety Standards) as a prerequisite for assistance in acquiring radiation-based technology. It is also a means by which a Member State proclaims that it is confident of having reached an adequate level of sustainability.

The IAEA introduced a comprehensive Radiation and Waste Safety Infrastructure Profile (RaWaSIP), which includes information on the country’s infrastructure for safety in radiation waste and transport. First established in the late 1990s, these profiles collate findings from a number of sources (appraisal services, project monitoring missions, expert and self-assessment reports, data from official communication with counterparts, etc.). All of this material is fed into the RaWaSIP database from which it is possible to extract either country specifics or a regional overview of achievements in particular areas such as regulatory authority, occupational, medical and public exposure, transport of radioactive material and planning and preparedness for radiological emergencies.

Each profile also contains a narrative of the infrastructure status, as well as copies of relevant information (laws and regulations, mission reports, Country Safety Action Plans, etc.). The profiles provide the most accurate picture of any Member State’s current status and feed into all the other assessment and evaluation exercises.

As time passed, the IAEA recognized the need to strengthen existing assessment tools by introducing more quantitative measures. In 2003, the IAEA established performance indicators that quantify specific aspects of progress achieved and link them directly to the criteria of the Basic Safety Standards. Take the example of creating an inventory of radiation sources. Previous evaluations might have noted that work in this area had “started” or “progressed”, or was “complete”. In contrast, the performance indicators assigned a numerical rating (zero to three) that clearly identifies precisely which “parameters” within inventorying have been achieved.

Performance indicators make it easier to track a Member State’s progress in a particular area but are equally useful on the regional and global level. Statistical analysis can quickly reveal a general weakness within a particular Thematic Safety Area that requires attention.
But evaluation tools do much more than measure: Ongoing assessment creates the capacity for ongoing adaptation of action plans. Each time a project manager or a peer review team returns to a Member State, it is possible to quickly evaluate progress since the last visit and identify the next steps required.

 

Achievement to date facilitates a more strategic future

The programme reports high levels of achievement. Ninety-one Member States are participating, including four that have recently joined. Of the 87 countries participating at the time of the last report to the IAEA Board of Governors (9 November 2004),
48 (55%) had achieved essential parameters signifying compliance with the requirements for attaining a regulatory structure and occupational exposure control. On a regional basis, the figures reported in November 2004 were as follows: Africa–12 countries (40%); Asia and the Pacific–15 countries (63%); Europe–13 countries (68%); and Latin America–8 countries (57%). These results herald the overwhelming success of a philosophical change and a more proactive approach in the IAEA’s mode of operation.

“In the first 40 years of IAEA history, we held all the technology and we made all the decisions: we assessed technologies and told countries it would be a good idea for them to have such-and-such a piece of equipment,” says Ana María Cetto, Deputy Director General, Department of Technical Cooperation. “Today, our main focus is on establishing the infrastructure for nuclear technology, period. That creates an opportunity for countries to come to us and demonstrate the strength of their infrastructure, describe their development goals and seek support for nuclear technologies that can contribute. The programme is no longer technology-driven, it’s driven by identifying and addressing needs.”

For most Member States and for the IAEA, the ultimate goal is still on the horizon. Although efforts are ongoing, most participating countries have yet to achieve desired results in all safety areas (exposure control of patients and the public, and capabilities for emergency preparedness and response).

But more than 90 countries around the world are now better prepared to shape their own futures through the safe and secure application of existing and emerging nuclear technologies. This will enable IAEA to better fulfil its mandate of promoting nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

This new level of capacity allows the IAEA to direct more of its energy to the vital task of ensuring that safety and security standards and protection measures keep pace with the rapid advance of technology. Thus, the partnership between the IAEA Departments of Technical Cooperation and Nuclear Safety and Security is more critical than ever—and the potential for Member States to contribute knowledge they gain through experience in applying nuclear technologies adds an exciting new dimension to the future.

 

Page 2 of 2