SOURCES AND EFFECTS
OF IONIZING RADIATION
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effectsof Atomic Radiation
UNSCEAR 1993 Report to the General Assembly,
with Scientific Annexes

UNITED NATIONSNew York, 1993

NOTE
The report of the Committee without its annexes appears as Official Records of theGeneral Assembly, Forty-eighth Session, Supplement No. 46 (N48/46).
ll1e designation employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply
tl1e expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of tlie Secretariat of the United Nations
concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning
tl1e delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
The country names used in this document are, in most cases, those tliat were in use at thetime the data were collected or the text prepared. In other cases, however, the names have been
updated, where tliis was possible and appropriate, to reflect political changes.

UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATION
Sales No. E.94.IX.2
ISBN 92-1-142200-0

ANNEX D
Occupational radiation exposures

CONTENTS

Page. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377
ANALYSIS OF OCCUPATIONAL DOSE DISTRIBUTIONS . . . . . . . . 378
A . DOSE MONITORMG DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 378
1. Quantities measured . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 378
2. Monitoring practice ............................... 380
3. Recording and reporting practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381

INTRODUCTION

B. CHARACERISTICS OF DOSE DISTRIBUTIONS ............ 382
C ESTIMATION OF WORLDWIDE EXPOSURES .............. 385
D. CUMULATIVE DOSE DISTRIBUTIONS ................... 387.

THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE ............................. 387
A. URANIUM MINING AND MILLING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 388
B. URANIUM ENRICHMENT AND CONVERSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391

C. FUEL FABRICATION ................................ 392
D. REACTOR OPERATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396
1. Light-water reactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397
2 Heavy-water reactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400
3. Gas-cooled reactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401
4 Light.water.cooled. graphite-moderated reactors . . . . . . . . . . . . 402
5 Fast breeder reactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .402
6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403
E. FUEL REPROCESSING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403
1. Avcragc annual doses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403
2 Doses for specific tasks and occupational subgroups . . . . . . . . . 405
F. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406
G. CUMULATIVE DOSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .408
H. SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .412

.
.
.
.
.

.

111 DEFENCE ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .413
A. NUCLEAR WEAPONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .414
1 Annual doses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414
2. Cumulative doses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415.

UNSCMR 1993 U l ' O l ~ l '

376

Pagc

B. NUCLEAR-POWERED SHIPS AND THEIR SUPPORTFACILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415
1. Annual doses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415
2. Cumulative doses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .416
C ALL DEFENCE ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .416
1 . Annual doses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 416
2. Worldwide a ~ ~ n udosesal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417
3. Cumulative doscs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418.

IV. INDUSTRIAL USES OF RADIATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418
A. INDUSTRIAL RADIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419
B LUMINIZING420
C. RADIOISOTOPE PRODUCTION AND DlSTRlBUTION . . . . . . . . 421
D. WELL LOGGING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421
E. EDUCATION AND RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422
F. ACCELERATORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423
G. OTHER INDUSTRIAL USES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 424
H . ALL INDUSTRIAL USES OF RADIATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 424
I. CUMULATIVE DOSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425
J . SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .425.

......................................

V. MEDICAL USES OF RADIATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426
A. DIAGNOSTIC RADIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 427
B. DENTAL PRACTICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 428
C. NUCLEAR MEDICINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429
D. RADIOTHERAPY ................................... 429
E ALL MEDICAL USES OF RADLITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 430
F. VETERINARY PRACTICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .432
F. SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .432.

VI. NATURAL SOURCES OF RADIATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 434

A. EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 434
1 . Underground mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 434
2. Surfice mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 436
3. Transport. storage and use of phosphates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 436
B AVIATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 436
1 . Air travel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 436
2. Space travel .....................................437
C. OTHER OCCUPATIONS AND PRACTICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437
D. SUMMARY ........................................ 438.

Vn . ACCIDENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 438.
CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .439

Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444
Figures ................................................. 515
References ............................................... 540

INTRODUCTION
Many individuals are exposed to radioactive
materials or radiation sources in the course of theirwork. The Committee has bcen interested in evaluating
occupational radiation exposures to determine theannual collective dosc to workers in various sectors ofindustry. For purposes of comparison, the doses haveoften bcen expressed in tcntls of some normalizedmeasure of the practice. The total collective dosc has
bcen assessed as a measure of the radiation-induced
detriment to these individuals.
1.

Occupational radiation exposures are monitored
in the workplace for the purposes of controlling doses
to individuals and demonstrating compliance withoccupational exposure limits. Differences exist among
countries, however, in the procedures adopted for themonitoring and reportirlg of occupational exposures;
these reflect, inter alia, differences in regulatory
systems, in regulatory requirements, in the size of thecountry, in the uses made of ionizing radiations and in
the nature and scale of the radiation protection
problems anticipated [D6,G4, G5]. As a result,monitoring data are not always collected arid reported
in a comparable fashion. This has implications inmaking valid comparisons between data reported bydifferent countries and, to a lesser extent, between datafor different uses of ionizing radiation within a given
country. The Committee has adopted a number ofassumptions and developed a number methodologicalapproaches for data evaluation to overcome, or at least
minimize the impact of, differences in the monitoring
and reporting of occupational exposures. This, in turn,has had some effect on data collection and reporting
practices.
2.

Much progress has been made in the assessment
3.
and evaluation of occupational exposures since theCommittee's first comprehensive treatment of the topic
in the UNSCEAR 1977 Report [U4]. Improvements inthe quality of reporting and collation of data havelargely bcen responsible for the progress. Thereremain, however, areas where adequate data andanalyses are lacking and where further investigations
are needed to elucidate trends. In the UNSCEAR 1982
Report p 3 ] , occupational exposures were reviewed
and a number of recommendations were made foranalyses of data that would give much clearer
indications of the occupational exposures in all areasof work. Particular attention was drawn to the need fordata on the pattern of dose accumulation over a
working lifetime, especially for those occupations
where higher levels of exposure are encountered, andto the benefits, in terms of facilitating a reliable
estimate of collective dose, of reporting monitoringdata in narrower bands of individual dose, especiallyat high doses. A more limited analysis of occupational

cxposurcs was undertaken in the UNSCEAR 1988
Report [ U l ] with updating of the levels of exposure in
the nuclear power industry, in the medical uses ofradiation and in selected groups exposed to naturalradiation.
The analysis of occupational cxposurcs in this4.
Annex represents a continuation of the earlier work of
the Committee. The main objectives of this continuing
analysis arc:
to assess annual external and committed internal
doses and cun~ulativedoses to workers (both theaverage dose and the distribution of doses within
the workforce) for each major practice irlvolving
the use of ionizing radiation. This provides abasis for estimating the average individual risk
and distribution of risks in a workforce and for
subgroups within it;@) to assess the annual collective doses to workers
for each of the major practices involving the useof ionizing radiation. This provides a measure of
the contribution made by occupational exposures
to the overall inipact of that use and the impact
per unit practice (the contributions made byexposures of members of the public are assessedin other Annexes);
analyse trends with time in occupational
to(c)
exposures in order to evaluate the effects ofchanges in regulatory standards or requirements(e.g. changes in dose limits, increased attention
given to reducing doses to as low as reasonably
achievable), new technological developments,
modified working practices and radiation
protection programmes more generally;(d) to compare exposures in different countries andto estimate the worldwide levels of exposure foreach major use of ionizing radiation;(e) to evaluate data on accidents involving theexposure of workers to levels of radiation thathave caused clinical effects.

(a)Within this context, the purpose of this Annex is toprovide a comprehensive and structured analysis of thelevels and trends in occupational exposures over theperiod 1975-1989. Consideration is given to annualand cuniulative individual doses, to annual collective
doses and their magnitudes per unit practice and to
accidents involving high exposures and clinical effects.
Particular emphasis is given to those occupations notconsidered in the UNSCEAR 1988 Report [Ul], tothose where the need for more information was
identified by the Committee in the UNSCEAR 1982
Report [U3] and to those occupational subgroups
which, in general, are exposed significantly in excessof the average. There is no intention to evaluate thetotality of radiation exposures that niay be received by

UNSCMR 19P3 W,l'OItT

378

pcoplc whilc at work of any nature. Consideration islirnitcd to U~osc occupations whcrc the riaturc or
circu~~~stancesof the work undcrtakcn may lcad tosignificant additional exj)osurc, at lcast to somc
mcmbcrs of the workforce.
5.
This analysis e ~ ~ a b l ebroadscomparisons to bemade bctwccn occupational cxposures arising invarious industrial and mcdical activities and behvccn
countries. From longer-tcmi monitoring, trends inavcragc individual doscs and collectivc doscs fro111
particular practiccs or cntirc industries can be asscsscd
and changes in undcrlying dose distributions can be
cxamincd. Trends in doses with time can bc assessedin terms of a wide variety of quantities of potential
interest (e.g. changes in regulatory standards,
technological advances etc.).

6. To obtain the data nccdcd for this rcview, UIC
Committee has undertaken a survey of occupationalradiation cxposures worldwide by nlcans of aqucstioanairc to co~lntrieswith significa~~tnumbers ofworkcrs involvcd in radiation-related ac~ivities.This
qucstionnairc specifically rcquestcd data on annual
individual and collective occupational cxposurcs
i~lcurrcd in operations of tllc nuclear fucl cycle, inoU~crindustrii~luscs of radiation, in rncdical uscs ofradiation and data on accidents with the potential tocause clinical cffccls. Froni Uic cxtcnsivc and dctailcd
annu;ll data sub~nittcd, thc Committee computed
averages for thc five-ycar pcriods 1975-1979, 19801984 and 1985-1989 to indicate representative averageannual valucs and thc basic trends. The assessment has
benefited from the substantial database that has bcen
provided, for which the Committee gratefully
acknowledges the collaboration of so many countries.
Thosc countries responding to the UNSCEAR Surveyof Occupational Exposures arc listed in Part A of thk
References.

I. ANALYSIS OF OCCUPATIONAL DOSE DISTRIBUTIONSA.

DOSE hiONITORING DATA

7.
The main function of monitoring in theworkplacc is to provide information for the control
and further reduction, where appropriate, of exposuresand to ensure satisfactory working conditions. Thisentails providing the information necessary for
cstirnating the exposure of workers in terms of thosequantities in which the basic limits, cithcr primary or
secondary, are expressed. However, none of thcsc
quantities (e.g. thc cffcctive dosc, the equivalent dosc
in a tissue or organ and thc intake of a radionuclide)can, in practice, be measured directly, s o they must be
estimated on the basis of other mcasurcd or assesscd
quantities. Individuals are monitored using equipment
carricd on their pcrson (e.g. film badge, personal air
sampler etc.) or by measuring the quantities ofradioactive materials in their bodies or in excreta.
Models appropriate for the cxposure conditions ofinterest arc uscd to cstimatc thc rclevant dosimetricquantities from thcse measurements; in general, themodelling approach is chosen cautiously to ensure thatthe risk of undercstimatir~g the exposure of anindividual is acceptably small. In some cases
exposures are assessed from monitoring of theworking environment and knowledge of the habits andlocation of the workforce.
The nature and type of the measurements made8.
and the realism and complexity of the model ormodels used to intcrpret them may vary considerablywith the cxposurc conditions and their potential

sibwificance. Differences in thcse inevitably lcad todifferent levels of conservatism in the doses reported
or recorded in monitoring programmes. Such
differences place limitations on the extent to which
direct comparisons can be fairly made between
reported data. Where these limitations may be ofpractical significance for the data included in thisAnnex, they are identified.

1. Quantities nieasured

9.
Exrernal exposure. Film, thennoluminescentand other personal dosimeters are used lor monitoring
individual cxposurcs to external radiation. The choiceof dosimeter in any particular circumstances will be
influenced by thc nature of the radiations likely to be
encountcrcd. Dosimeters normally provide a measurcof tllc cquivalcr~ldose in Uic skin in the immediate
vicinity of the dosimeter and to immediately
undcrlying tissue in this region. They do not, ingeneral, provide an estimate of the absorbed dose orequivalcnt dosc in other oQans or tissues, which inprinciple need to be assessed to determine theeffective dosc. The relationship between the dosimetermeasurement and the doscs in particular organs andtissues of thc body is influenced by many factors, suchas the type, quality and spatial extent of the radiation,
the orientation of the worker rclative to the radiation
field, the position and composition of the organs in the
body etc. Several of these factors will be functions ofboth time and position in the workplace.

AL RADIATION EXPOSUKI'S

10. Practical guidance on measurement quantities
that could be related to the effective dose equivalentand to the dose cquivalcnt in the skin was issued by
ICRU in 1985 [I14). For cnvironnicntal or area nionitoring, the a~ribientdose equivalent, ~ * ( d )for, strongly
penetrating radiation and [be directional dose equivalent, H(d), for wcakly penetrating radiation were introduced. For individual nionitoring, the individual dose,
penetrating, Hp(d), and the individual dose, superficial,H,(d) were introduced. The relationships between
these quantities and the effective dose equivalent, HE,were discussed by ICRP [I31 and ICRU [I14, 1151.

11. Some further alterations in radiation quantities
have been made. The ICRU recommended in 1992 useof the personal dose equivalent, Hp(d), for individual
monitoring, which combines the concepts of the individual dose, penetrating and the individual dose,
superficial [I16]. The ICRP introduced in 1991 theeffective dose, E, which incorporates tissue weighting
factors as in the effective dose equivalent, HE,albeit
for additional tissues specified and with revised
numerical values [I7]. The adjustment of the absorbed
dose required to reflect radiation quality has beenchanged by the introduction of radiation weighting
factors. An analysis of the relationships between theseradiation quantities will be issued by a joint task groupof ICRP and ICRU. It can be assumed that the quantities introduced by ICRU provide reasonable approximations of the effective dose and equivalent dose in
the skin when these quantities are calculated using therelationships between quality factors and linear energy
transfer given in ICRP Publication 60 [I7].
12 In most practical situations, dosimeters provide
reasonable approximations to the personal dose
equivalent Hp(d) at least at the location of thedosimeter. In situations where the exposure of the
body is relatively uniforni, it is common practice toenter the dosimeter reading, suitably calibrated,
directly into the dose records as a surrogate for theeffective dose. However, because the personal dose
equivalent generally provides an overestimate of theeffective dose, this practice results in an
overestimation of recorded and reported doses, withthe degree of overestiniation depending on the energyof the radiation and the nature of the radiation field.
For many practical situations involving relatively
uniform exposure to fairly high-energy gamma
radiation, the degree of overestimation is modest; forexposure to low-energy gamma- or x-radiation, theoverestimation could be substantial. For photo^^
energies below -50 keV it can cxceed a factor of 2,
depending on the orientation of the body.

13. For exposure to spatially variable radiation fields
or where there is partial shielding of the body or
extreme variations in the distances of parts of the body379

fro111 thc source, the relationships between thedosimctcr measurement and the effcctivc dose are
more variable and complex. Where tlie circumstancess o justify, additional nicasurements or theoreticalanalyscs rnay be used to eslablish reliable relationships
on a case-by-case basis for tlie exposure conditions ofinterest. The direct entry of dosimeter nieasurcments
into dose records in these more complex situations (orthe use of very simple and dclibcrately cautious
assumptions to establish the relationships between thetwo quantities) lead, in general, to ovcrestirnatcs in therecorded exposures. Where such practice has been
adopted in the recording of doses, care is needed intheir interpretation, in particular when co~rlparisor~saremade with doses arising elsewhere.
14. For its previous assessments the Committee
adopted the convention h a t all quantitative results
reported by monitoring services represent the averageabsorbed dose in the whole body (or the effectivc
dose). It further assumed that the dose from natural
background radiation has been subtracted from thereported results and that medical radiation exposures
have not been inclvded. The Committee also
recognized that it is almost always the reading fromthe dosimeter, suitably modified by calibration factors,
that is reported, without consideration of its
relationship to the absorbed doses in the variousorgans and tissues of the body or to the effective dose.
This is still regarded as a reasonable convention to
adopt, in particular as most data are for external
exposure of the whole body to relatively uniforni
photon radiation of moderately high energy. In
situations where exposure of the body is very
non-unifonn (especially in medical practice) or where
exposure is mainly to low energy radiation, the use ofthis convention will result in an overestimale ofeffective doses, which then need appropriatequalification. Because the relationship between thereported dosimeter reading and the average absorbed
dose in the whole body (or the effective dose) varies
with the circunistances of the exposure, caution needs
to be exercised when aggregating or directlycomparing data from very dissimilar types of work.
Appropriate qualifications of the reported data aremade in those cases where the adoption of the above
convention may lead to significant misrepresentationof the actual doses.
15. InIernal exposure. The assessment of internal
doses from the intake of radioactive material into thebody is, in general, more difficult than thenieasurenienl of cxternal doses. It is impossible tomeasure directly the internal dose received by anindividual. Instead, it must be calculated based on thequantity and distribution of radioactive material in, or
estimated to be laken into, the body, metabolic data,
Ihe type and energy of radiation en~itted,the fraction

of the cniittcd energy absorbed by various organs andtissues etc. Various lypcs of monitoring arc undertaken
to aid the evaluation of intcn~alexposures, dependingon the radionuclide conccrncd and the niode of
cxposurc. These include the use of personal air
saniplcrs and/or area nionitoring to assess intakes byinhalation, the biological moriitorir~gof cxcrcta and theexternal counting of the wholc or parts of the body.
16. The level of intcrn;il contaniination, andsubsequently dosc, is easy to determine by biologicalmonitoring for some radionuclidcs (e.g. tritium, atleast in inorganic form) but very difficult for others(e.g. 2 3 9 ~ u )especially,at long linics after intake or incases of multiple intake. In general, the uncertainty
associated with the estimation of effective doses froni
the intake of radionuclides inlo the body is muchlargcr than that associated with exten~aldosimetry;however, it very niuch dcpclids on the nuclide inquestion, the techniques uscd and the level ofcontamination.

17. In practice there are few occupations for which
exposures Gom internal contamination arc significant.
The costs and practical difficulties of providing apersonal monitoring service produce strong pressurcs
for designs that reducc internal exposures below levels
where continuous pcrsonal rtionitoring is necessary.
Historically, in most organi7ations where intcrnal
exposures were potentially significant, estiniatcs wcrc
made of the body (or organ) content of a radionuclide,or groups of radionuclidcs, as a fraction of theMaximum Permissible Body Burden, and the resuits ofthe monitoring wcrc usually expressed in these terms.
The situation is changing, however, in particular in
those countries that have given regulatory effect to therecornmendations of the ICRP in its Publicatiori 26[Ill. In these countries, the rcsults of nionitoring
internal exposures arc now being reported in terms ofthe committed effective dosc froni intakes within theyear of interest; in gcncral, however, the contribution
made by internal exposure is small. Thcsc aspects are
addressed further in paragraph 27.
18. The few occupations for which internal exposure
is potentially significant arc uranium mining andmilling (inhalation of radon daughters and ore dust);
underground work in general, and in particular otherforms of rnining (inhalation of radon daughters anddust), the luminizing industry (tritium), the operationof heavy water reactors (tritium), fuel fabrication(uranium), fuel reprocessing (actinides), nuclear
weapons production (tritium, uranium and plutonium).
Quantitative data, albeit lin~ited in some cases, oninternal exposures in cach of thcse areas arc includedin this Annex. Internal exposures could also be
significant during the decoriili~issioning of nuclear
installations and in nuclear medicine; however, data
are unavailable for thcse activities.

2.

Monitorir~gpractice

19. Dccisiol~s on who is to be n~onitorcd in aworkforce, and lo what degree, are influcnccd by the
likelihood of exposures at or above different levels.
Howcvcr, as otl~crconsidcr;~tions,(e.g. practiciibility
and industrial relations) arc also relevant, the dccisior~smade by operational managements nlay differ. The
outcome is the lack of a consistent approach tomonitoring bctwccli industries or betwccn countries or
cvcn within an industry or within a country. In
Publication 26 and in its earlier publications, the ICRP
rcconinicnded 111, I21 that ill cases where it is very
unlikely that a n ~ ~ u doses
alwill exceed thrce tenths ofthe dosc limit, individual nionitoring is not necessary,although it may somctimes be carried out to confinn
that conditions arc satisfactory.
20. The ICRP rcconimendations have had, andcontinue to have, a major influence on monitoring
practice. However, the relative ease, low cost andsensitivity of nionitoring deviccs for external radiationmeans that these are much niore widely issued thanwould be expected from the suggested criteria. The
deviccs having been issued, even trivial doses areoftell reported, despite the ICRP having recommended
a recording level of one tenth of the annual limit. The
situation for internal exposures is, however, quite
different, with monitoring being undertaken only inthose few circumstances where there is a clear need.
21. In Publication60 [17], the ICRP has recommcndcd tllat external radiation should be monitored for all those who arc occupatior~allyexposed,
unless it is clear that their doses will be consistently
low or, as in the case of aircrew, that the circunistances prevent tllc doses Goni exceeding an identified
value.
22. Different approaches arc adopted in designating
which workers in a workforce are to be monitored.
This is to be expected for the reasons previously
addressed (e.g. see paragraph 2). However, suchdifferences, if substantial, could lin~itthe extent towhich direct and valid comparisons can be madebetwccn reported monitoring data for different
occupations or industries and/or between data for thesame occ~lpatior~or industry carried out in different
locations. This dil'ficulty a n , to sonic extent, beoverconie by making comparisons between data forthose lneasurably exposed 1i.e. those for which any
dosirneter issucd during thc ycar in question recorded
a dosc in excess of thc minimum detectable lcvel(MDL) or, alternatively, in cxcess of s o ~ n eadministratively established rcporting level] as opposed to thosemonitored. Even this, however, does not completely
circu~i~vcnt
the problem because there are differencesin M D L (or reporting levels) for different sets of

ANNIX D: OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION I.XI'OSUIU

data. The potential magnitude of this probleln can bereadily appreciated by referc.nce to tlie variability inthe ratio of tlle number of persons monitored andtllose measurably exposed in various occupations. Thisratio was found to vary horn about 1 to 10 fordifferent occupations in the United States [Nl] andover an even greater range in Canada [F2]; a value ofabout 2 was typical of the nuclear industry in the
United Slates.
23. Because of these difficulties, a distinction ismade throughout this Annex between average doses
estimated for monitored and n~easurably exposed
workers. W e n appropriate, indications are given of
how data expressed in the different ways can be
modified to enable direct and more valid comparison.
The implications of these difficulties are largely
confined to the evaluation and comparison of the sizeof the exposed workforce and average levels of
individual dose. In general, they do not unduly
influence the estimation of the collective dose apartfrom those cases where individual exposures aremostly very low and the ratio of monitored tomeasurably exposed workers very high.

3.

Recording a n d reporting practice

24. The way in which occupational exposures arerecorded and reported differs significantly between
occupations and countries. The more important ofthese include the recording of doses that are less thanthe MDL, the assignment of notional doses. theprotocol for determining who in the workforce is to bemonitored (visitors, administrative staff etc.), theinclusion of contract workers in addition to employees,
the recording and reporting of internal exposures andthe general way in which occupational exposure
distributions are reported.

25. M D L may differ behveen occupations andcertainly differ behveen countries. When doses are
determined to be less than the MDL, the value
recorded in the records may be zero, some predesignated level or the MDL value itself. These
differences affect the comparability of results. It istherefore important that reported data on occupational
exposures be accompanied by information on the
MDL and how doses less than it were recorded.
26. When dosimeters are lost, or the readings areotherwise not available, notional doses are assigned to
an individual dose record. A variety of procedures arc
used in determining the notional dose. These include
the assignn~entof the appropriate proportion of theannual authorized limit for the period for which thedosimeter was lost; the assignment of the average dose
received by the worker in the previous 12 months; the381

assignment of the average dose received byco-workers in the same period etc. Some of theseprocedures can distort records significantly.
particularly if large nunlbers of dosi~nctcrsare lost
within a particular occupatio~~algroup. Where this ist l ~ ecase, direct comparisons with other data may beinvalid or at least need qualification. Such potential
difficulties could be overcome if, in these cases,
modified data sets were available in which thenotional doses wcrc substituted by doses calculated
from the average dose over the remainder of the year
for each individual or by the average dose received byco-workers during the period in question. This
procedure would only be appropriate for dosimeters
lost in routine situations; when high exposures are
suspected, such as in accidents, individual dosereconstruction would be a Inore appropriate basis fordetermining the dose to be recorded.

27. In the past, internal and external exposures weregenerally recorded separately and often in different
ways, with little or no attempt ~ n a d e to present
distributions of the summed exposures. Significant
variations also occurred in the reporting levels forinternal contamination, and this further enhanced the
difficulties of compilation and comparison of statistics
on internal exposure. This situation is changing,
however, and internal exposures are increasingly being
recorded in ternls of committed doses from intakes
within the year of interest and, moreover, added to any
dose received from external sources. The generation ofthese more complete dose records will enable more
valid and reliable comparisons to be made of doses invarious occupations and industries. These changes inrecording procedures have two implications. however.
First, in the transitional period not all dose
distributions are likely to be based on the sum ofinternal and external doses, and due provision willneed to be made for this in any comparisons.
Secondly, previous estimates of occupational
exposures will nccd to be updated, in particular for
those occupations and industries (e.g. fuel fabricationand fuel reprocessing) where internal exposures may
have been significant but were not included in thereported data.
28. Two particular features of the way in which
occupational dose distributions are reported influence
tbe ease and effectiveness with which the relevant data
can be extracted and compared. The first is thecategories or types of occupation for which data arecommonly reported. Significant differences areapparent in the occupatior~al categories used indifferent countries. The advantages of reporting dataaccording to a broadly agreed categorization scheme
are self-evident, hut the difficulties of achieving
consensus in this area are not to be underestimated,
especially in the light of long-established nationalpractices, which oflcn will have evolved tosccommodatc particular r~ational interests and/or
concerns. Nevcrthclcss, efforts to achieve greater
uniformity in the collcction ;~nd rcporting of data
would bc of gcncral t~cncfit.The categories used by
the Conunittce for evaluating occupetional exposurcs
are givcn in Tablc 1. Although the categories arebroad, their widcr usc would simplify and unify thc
data collcction and rcporting.

29. The second fcaturc influencing data extraction
and coniparison is thc lcvcl of dctail or resolution
adoptcd when reporting the distribution ofoccupational exposurcs, in particular, at the higher
lcvcls of individual dosc. Analytical procedures havebeen developed by the Cornniittce [U3, U4] to enable
quantities of interest to be extracted almost
irrespective of how thc data were reportcd, but if thedata were all reportcd in a sufficiendy detailed andconsistent manner, these procedures would be largely
unnecessary. Analytical techniques may, however, playa continuing important role in the estimation of future
annual and cumulative doses, subject to various
assumptions on dose linlits or dosc constraints inparticular occupations. This topic is discussed further
in the ncxt Section, where procedures for datarcporting are given with a vicw to achieving greater
consistency between the data and facilitating theirevaluation and conlparison.
30. Finally, two additional points could affect thevalidity of comparisons bctween occupational
exposures in different groups or within the same groupover time: first, whcther any administrative changes
have occurred in dosc recording that may affect thereported doses f r o ~ rone
~ ycar to another and, secondly,
whether the reportcd doses arc complete, in particularwhether contract workers as well as employees areincluded in the statistics. Tbe reported data are notalways explicit with regard to these points.

B. CHARACTERISTICS
OF DOSE DISTRIBUTIONS
31. Dose distributions arc the result of many
constraints imposed by the nature of the work itself,
by managcmcnt, by thc workers and by legislation. In
some job catcgories it may be unncccssary for workers
ever to receive more than very low doses, whereas inother jobs workers may have to be exposed to highdoses fairly routinely. Management controls act as
feedback mechanisms, especially when individual
doscs approach the annual dosc limit, or some
proportion of it, in a shorter pcriod of time.
32 The Committee is principally interested in
making comparisons of dose distributions and inevaluating trends. For thcse purposes, it idcntificd
Ihrec charactcristics of dosc distributions a s bcirlg
particularly useful:tlic average ar111ualcffcctivc dosc (i.c. the sun1 of
the annual dose from external irradiatiorl plus theconin~ittcddosc fro111 i~ltakcsin tllat ycar), E,
which is rclatcd to the avcragc level o i
individual risk;
the annual collcctivc cffcclive dose, S (rcferrcd
to as M in earlier UNSCEAR Reports), which isrelated to the inipact of the practice;
the ratio, SR, o i the annual collcctivc effective
dose delivered at annual individual doses
exceeding 15 rnSv to the total collective dose.
SR (referred to as MR in earlicr UNSCEAR
Reports) provides an indication of the fraction of
the collective dose rcccivcd by workcrs exposed
to higher levels of individual risk. This ratio istermed the collcctivc dose distribution ratio.

33. Another ratio, NR, of the number of workcrs
receiving annual individual doses exceeding 15 mSv
to the total monitored or exposed workforce, isreported in many occupational exposure statistics,
often when the ratio SR is not provided. The more
frequent reporting of the ratio NR is probably due tothe ease witb which it can be estin~atcd.In the past,this ratio was not used or reportcd by the Committee
because of its potential sc~lsitivityto how Ule size of
the workforcc is dcfincd (those monitored, thosemeasurably cxposcd ctc.); conscqucntly, comparisonsof values of this ratio reported for different
occupations and in diffcrent countries would, ingeneral, require somc qualification. The ratio SR on
the other hand, is relatively insensitive to thisparameter and is therefore a better mcans of aflording
fair coniparisons between exposures arising indifferent industries or practices. Notwithstanding thelimitations of the ratio N R it is now included in thecharacteristics reportcd by the Committee. This change
is largely a reflection of the more frequent rcpoitingof the ratio NR in occupatiorial exposure statistics, but
it also reflects its potential for use in more limited
circumstances (e.g. when analysing trends with lime ina givcn workforcc or making coniparisons between
workforccs that have been dcfined in comparableways). The ratio SR, however, remains lbe mostappropriate basis for comparing data gcncrally.
34.
by

Thc annual collective effective dose, S, is givcn

where Ei is the alunual effective dose received by theith worker and N is the total number of workers. In

ANNFX DD:OCCUPATIONAL W I A T I O N EXPOSURES

practice, S is often calculated from collated dosimetry
results using the alternative definition

where r is the number of effective dose ranges into
which the dosimetry results have been collated and Nj
is the number of individuals in the effective dose
rangcs for which E. is the nlearl annual effective dose.
Thc average annual effective dose, E, is equal to S/N.
The number distribution ratio, NR, is given by

where N(>15) is the number of workers receiving
annual doses exceeding 15 mSv. The annual collective
dose distribution ratio, SR, is given by383

One of the quantities, the collective dose distribution
ratio SR, may, however, becorne increasingly lessuseful or informative. In the event that regulatory dose
limits are reduced by a significant amount, the fractionof the collective dose arising from annual individual
doses in cxccss of 15 mSv is likely to dccreasc. The
quantity may then cease to serve Lhe purpose intended
for it. The Committee believes, therefore, that it would
be useful to estimate and report additional values of
the collective dose distribution ratio, but for thc
fraction of the collective dose arising from levels ofannual individual dose lower than the previously
adopted value of 15 n~Sv. These collective dose
distribution ratios are designated, SRE, where thesubscript E signifies the level of annual individual
dose to which the ratio refers. These comments apply
equally to the ratio NR.

37. In summary, the following characteristics of dose
distributions will be considered by the Committee in
its reviews of occupational exposure:
where S(>15) is the annual collective effective dosedelivered at annual individual doses exceeding
15 mSv.

(a)35. The total number of workers, N, warrants further@)

comment, as it has implications for the various
quantities estimated. Depending on the nature of thedata reported and subject to the evaluation (or the
topic of interest), the number of workers may be thosemonitored, those classified, those measurably exposed,
the total workforce or some subset of this. These
quantities, therefore, will always be specific to thenature and composition of the workforce included in
the estimation; when making comparisons, caution
should be exercised to ensure that like is being
compared with like. These aspects were discussed in
Section LA, where the implications of different
monitoring and reporting practices for the assessed
average individual and collective doses wereidentified. In this Annex consideration is, to the extent
practicable, limited to the estimation of the above
quantities for the monitored and measurably exposed
workforces; however, lack of uniformity between
employers and countries in determining who should bemonitored and/or what constitutes measurably exposedmeans that even these comparisons between ostensibly
the same quantities are less rigorous than might
appear. Where necessary, quantities estimated for asubset of the workforce (e.g. those measurably
exposed) can be transformed to apply to the whole
workforce; methods of achieving this, based on
characteristics of the dose distributions, are discussed
below.

36. The three quantities used in the past by theCommittee have provided a useful basis forsummarizing and comparing occupational exposures.

(c)

(d)

the average annual effective dose (i.e. thc sum of
the annual dose from external irradiation and-thecommitted dose from intakes in that year), E;
the annual collective effective dose (i.e. the sumof the annual collective dose from external
irradiation and the committed collective dosefrom intakes in that year), S;
the collective dose distribution ratio, SRE, for avalue of E of 15 mSv in this Annex andadditionally for lower values in the future;
the number distribution ratio, NRE (the fractionof the workforce exposed to anrlual doses inexcess of E) for a value of E of 15 mSv in thisAnnex and additionally Tor lower values in the
future;To facilitate the task of extracting data from dose
distributions, persons reporting data are encouraged toinclude these characteristics explicitly in their dose
distributions. In addition to the annual collective dose,
it would also be very useful to have information
provided so that normalized forms of this quantity canbe derived, i.e. expressed in terms of unit practice, forexample per reactor or per unit energy generated. Thisfacilitates con~parisonbetween practices.

38. Ideally, these characteristics of dose distributions
would be evaluated by those reporting the data fromthe complete, detailed recording of doses to workers
within a particular workforce, and they would bepresented in the requisite form. In practice, however,this does not always occur. Data on occupational
exposures are con~pletedin a variety of forms, someof which do not lead to the explicit presentation of all
those quantities of interest to the Committee. In rhcse
cases the quantities must be calculated from the data
presented, and the Comrnitiee has developed analytical

384

UNSCMR 1943 REPOK'I'

proccdurcs for lliis purpose. These are summarized
below. Furtlicr details of t l ~ eprocedures are prescritedin the UNSCEAR 1982 Report p 3 ] . The need for theCommittee to use such proccdurcs has, however,diminished with time, owing to improvements in andmore comprchensivc reporting of occupatiorial
exposures.

39. InUNSCEAR 1977
p41(Annex
it was noted that many dose distributions exhibit alog-nonnal character, especially at doses well bclow
the annual dose limiL This property can be readily
identified by plotting the cu~nulativefrequency of thenumber of individuals with doses less than a given
level on a probability axis against the logarithm ofdose. Where the required information cannot be
extracted directly from the reported results, alog-normal fit to the appropriate part of the
distribution can be used to extract the collective dose
and the fraction of the collective dose delivered indifferent individual dosc ranges. This procedure canalso be used, where necessary, to asscss collective
doses to the large numbers of workers in the lowest
dose band, who may receive very low or zero doses
but nonetlieless arc given dosimeters.

40. A variable x is said to be distributed lognormally if the values of y = In x are distributed
normally. The mean, median and mode of the distribution of y is p; the variance of the distribution of y is&. The probability that a value of x will lie between
x and x + dx is

Since the data rarely fit a log-normal distribution over
the whole range, the quantity of use is the collective
dose SE, up to a certain annual effective dose E. Thisis given by

41. Graphical tccliriiques are often of sufficientaccurilcy for anelyscs of dose distributions arid arc
described both in standard tcxLs [ F l ] and in thecontext of c-~.cupatio~ial
dose distribution a ~ ~ a l y s[Bl].
isIf a straight line is fitted to tlic plot of the cumulativefrcq~re~icy
versus 111 E, then the value of E is 01 - a)
at a cumulative frequency of 15.87% and 0~+ a ) at acumulative frcquc~icy of 84.13%. SE ca-n then be
obtaillcd from standard tabulations.
42. Alteniativcly, ;I wide variety of numerical and/or
analytical techniques can be used to evaluate thequantities of interest from the dose distributions. For
example, when sufficient data are available, theniell~odsof maximum likelihood or of least squares
cat1 be used to obtain the equation for the best-fit line
up to an annual dose E, chosen from inspection of theplot; the collective dose up to that value of dose canthen be obtained by numerical integration. To estimate
the collective dosc in the ranges above E, where thedose distribution deviates from log-normal, it may besufficient to multiply the number of individuals ineach dose range by the mid-point dose of the range, if
this information is available with adequate resolution.
Equally, graphical or various curve-fitting techniques
can bc employed to evaluate the integral and otherquantities of the dose distribution.
43. Iavestigations by Kumazawa et al. [ K l ] haveshown that the control exercised over doses approaching the dose limit results in a normal distribution ofdoses in the higher dose ranges, and that a combination of a log-normal and a normal distribution (but not
a niixcd distribution of them) rnay provide a niore
generally applicable means of representing occupational dose distributions. Such hybrid log-normal distributions have been shown to provide a good representation of observed data in many circumstances [El].

This can be expressed as

44. The distribution function of a variable x is
hybrid log-normal if the values of y = ln(px) +px (p > 0) are distributed normally. The mean, medianand mode of the distribution of y is p and the varianceof the distribution of y is a*. The probability that avalue of x will lie between x and x + dx is given by

where the substitution variable t = (In x - ,u - &)/a.
The substitution using t is made to render SE in theform shown, since tabulations of the cumulative
normal distribution function are readily available. The
choice of the appropriate value of E for each distribution is made by inspecting the data plotted on log
probability graph paper; very often 10 or 15 mSv is aconvenient value.

whcre p, p arid o are paranictcrs of the hybrid lognormal distribution. I t should be noted that p and &do not have the usual meanings of mean arid variancefor variate x that lliey have for tlic normal distribution.
The parameter p is a measure of the degree of control
exercised to avoid approaching or exceeding somelevel of exposure. AS p
0, the distribution tends to

E

(6)

+

ANNEX D: OCCUPAllOKAL RADIATION EXPOSURES

the log-normal distributio~i;as p -, a,it tends to t l ~ enornlal distribution (defined only above zero).
45. For a hybrid log-nonnal distribution, the ratios
NRE and SRE, are given by

6
NRE = OD

1

xP(x) dx

P(x) dx
and SRE =(9)

All of these integrals have to be evaluatednumerically. Graphical and computational methods forderiving the parameters p, ,u and a of the hybrid
log-normal distribution that provides thc best fit to agiven set of data are described in the literature [Kl,Sl]. Computational techniques for evaluating theabove integrals are also available [K2J.
46. The hybrid log-normal distribution is finding
increasing use in the analysis and reporting ofoccupational exposures, particularly in the UnitedStates, where it has been used by several agencies intheir most recent compilations of annual statistics p3,
R2, M3]. One of its uses has been to re-evaluate
statistics compiled previously on a simpler basis; its
use in this context led the United States Department ofEnergy [M3] to conclude that collective doses reported
in prcvious years were probably overestimates by, on
average, 15%-20%. More importantly, it provides ameans to assess the degree of active control used indifferent occupations to reduce the frequency ofannual doses approaching dose limits or otherconstraints. Similarly, it can be used to predict futurc
trends in dose subject to assumptions on the degree ofcontrol exercised over the occurrence of higher
individual doses.

l e hybrid log-normal distribution may also
provide a useful means of reporting dose distribution
data succinctly. If dose distributions are generally wellfitted by the hybrid log-normal form, it would bc
possible to describe a complete distribution of
exposures by specifying the three parameters of t l ~ chybrid log-normal distribution function. It would thenbe possible to generate from these three parameters
any characteristic of the dose distribution that may bc
considered useful now or in the future. Given thc
flexibility offered by this approach, the merits ofreporting occupational exposures in ternls of the threeparameters of the hybrid log-normal distribution
warranfs further consideration. The additional
computational effort involved in deriving theseparameters may impede the wide-scale adoption of thisapproach.
47.

385

48. The need for succinct reporting of dose
distributions has, however, diminished with tbe growthand ease of use of computer databases. Vast amountsof data can now be readily stored in an accessible
form. Provided occupational exposure databases are
created with sufficient resolution, it will be possible,
using simple arith~nctictechniques, to estimate withadequate precision all of the characteristics presently
of interest to the Committee; any other characteristics
that might eventually be of interest could likewise bereadily evaluated. Access to such databases in the
future is likely to reduce the use made by theCommittee of empirical fits to dose distributions to
extract required quantities. In these circumstances, thefuture use of empirical fitting by the Comnlittee islikely to be limited to the extraction of quantities ofinterest from data compiled with inadequate resolution
in the past; additionally, the techniques will continue
to be used to provide insights into matters such as theinfluence of dose limits or constrainls on thecharacteristics of dose distributions and for purposesof estimating the magnitude of, and trends in, future
annual and cumulative doses.

C. ESTIMATION OF
WORLDWIDE EXPOSURES
49. Inevitably, the data provided in response to the
UNSCEAR Survey of Occupational Exposures willremain incomplete in terms of estimating worldwide
levels of dose. Procedures have therefore beendeveloped by the Committee to derive worldwide
doses from the data available lor particularoccupational categories. Two procedures have beendeveloped, one for application to occupational
exposures arising at most stages in the commercial
nuclear fuel cycle and the other for general application
to other occupational categories.

50. In general, the reporting of exposures arising in
the commercial nuclear fuel cycle is more complete
than that of exposures arising from other uses ofradiation. The degree of extrapolation from reported toworldwide doses is, therefore, less and can b eachieved with greater reliability than for otheroccupational categories. Moreover, worldwide statistics
are generally available on capacity and production invarious stages of the colnmercial nuclear fuel cycle.
Such data provide a convenient arid reliable basis for
extrapolating to worldwide levels of exposure. Thus,
the worldwide annual collective effective dose, S,,from a given part of the nuclear fuel cycle (e.g.
uranium mining, fuel fabrication or reactor operation)is estiniated to be the total of annual colleclive
effective doses from reporting countries times thc
reciprocal of thc fraction, f, of world production(uranium mined, fuel fabricaled, energy generated etc.)

386

UNSCFAR 1993 REPORT

accounted for by thcsc countrics, namely,
111

whcrc
where Sc is the annual collective dose froni country cand 11 is the number of countrics for which
occupational exposure data have been reported. The
fraction of total production can be expressed aswith PCand P, the productions in country c and in theworld, w, respectively.

whcre S, is t l ~ cannual collcctivc cffectivc dosc in
geographic or economic rcgion r, nr is the number ofcountries in region r, for which occupational exposure
data have been reported, 111 is the number of rcgio~isand g, is the fraction of the GNP of region r,
represented by those countrics for which occupational
exposure data arc available and is given by

51. The annual number of monitored workers,, is estimated by a similar extrapolation.
worldwide, N
Because of more limited data, the worldwide
distribution ratios, N S , and SREw, are simply
estiniatcd as weighted averages of the reported data.
The extrapolations to worldwide collective effective
doses and numbcrs of monitored workers and theestimation of worldwide average distribution ratios are
performed on an annual basis. Values of these quantities have bcen averaged over five-year periods, andthe average annual values are reported in this Annex.
52 For exposures to radiation other than inoperations of the nuclear fuel cycle, statistics are nots o readily available on the worldwide level of thepractices or their distribution anlong countries. In thesecases a simpler and, inevitably, less reliable method of
extrapolation has to be used. A variety of approaches
are possible (e-g. scaling by size of population, by
employment in industrial or medical professions or bysome measure of industrial output). In the end, it has
seemed to be most practical and reasonable toextrapolate on Ihe basis of gross national product(GNP) of countries. Several considerations influence
the choice of this quantity in prcferencc to others,
notably the availability of reliable worldwide statistics
on gross national products and their potential for
general application; the latter is a consequence of the
expectation that the gross national product isreasonably correlated with both the level of industrial
activity and medical care in a country, characteristics
unlikely to be found in any other single quantity. TO
make the extrapolation more reliable, it is applied not
globally but separately over particular geographic or
econornic regions, followed by summation over theseregions. This results in extrapolations of available data
within groups of countries with broadly similar levelsof economic activity and allows for generalgeographical comparisons.

53. The worldwide annual collective effective dosc
for other uses of radiation, is estimated as

whcrc Gc and G, are the GNPs of country c andregion r, respectively, and are expressed in UnitedStates dollars.

54. The above equations are applied to estimatc
collective doses for those regions for which occupational exposure data are available for at least one
country within the region. For those regions for which
no data for any country were reported, a modified
approach is adopted. In these cases the regional
collective dose is estimated as

For lhe purposcs of this analysis the world was
divided into nine geographic or economic regions
comprising: countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), coniprising 24 countries; Eastern Europe, including theformer USSR; Latin America: Africa, excluding South
Africa: the Indian subcontinent; south and south-west
Asia; centrally planned economies in east and southeast Asia; non-ccnlrally planned econoniies in east andsouth-east Asia and Oceania.

55. The annual nunibcr of monitored workers,, is estimated by the same procedure.
worldwide, N
The worldwide distribution ratios are estimated as for
operations of h e nuclear fuel cycle, but where theaveraging was performed first on a regional basis prior
to su~ii~iiing
over all regions. For selected occupational
categories, estimates are also made of the number ofmeasurably exposed workers worldwide. &. Theseare estimated on a regional basis from the quotient ofannual collectivc effective dose and the average annual
dose to nieasurably exposed workers.

ANNEX D: OCCUPATlONiU, MDlAllON IXPOSURES

56. Given Ihc approxiniatc nature of this form of
extrapolation, it has been applied not to annual data
but to data averaged over five-year periods.
Representative data on the gross national product wereused for each of the three periods (specifically, 1977,
1983 and 1989) 1117, U111. The particular ycars used
are of no absolute importance, as it is o~ilythe relativevalues of gross national products within a given periodthat are relevant to the extrapolation.

D'

CUh'ULAT1"E

DISTRIUUT1ONS

57. The subject of cun~ulative and lifetime
occupational doses to workers and their distribution
for particular workforces is an important one thatneeds to b e addressed. There are, however, few data
available in the open literature that either report values
directly or allow estimates to be made. Of particularinterest are the cunlulative or lifetinle doses among
those groups of workers who regularly experience highaverage annual effective doses.

58. The Committee has made no assessment of
cumulative lifetime doses since the UNSCEAR 1 9 7 j
Report [U4], when simple linear extrapolation wasused to estimate doses for a few categories of workers
for whom data on average doses and years of
employment were available. The deficiencies in sucha simple extrapolation were well recognized, but there

IT.

387

was hope that (his siniplc lrcalrnent would stinlulate
more rigorous investigations of the relationshipbetwecn the rate of accumulation over the years of
employment and the total dose received. This hope has
not been realized to any great extent, and there still
remain fcw published analyses of cu~t~ulativc
orlifetirue doses that the Committee can use as a basis
for a (horough assessment.
59. The progress the Committee can make in thisarea will inevitably be constrained by published data
or data ~ n a d eavailable by national authorities. The
published data are reviewed ill this Annex, and the
distributions of cumulative and lifetime doses inparticular occupations are assessed. Given theimportance of the topic, it would be useful if national
authorities and some large employers would makeavailable other relevant, but so far unpublished, dataand could undertake further analyses in this area. It isevident that much progress will be made in this regard
in support of epidenliological studies that have been,or arc in the process of being, carried out forparticular occupational groups. The temporal patternsof individual exposures are essential components ofsuch studies, and it should be possible to extract therequired data and report them in a suitably anonymous
fashion s o that the privacy of the records of individual
workers is safeguarded. The protocols under whichdata were collected for epidemiological studies may,
however, in some cases inhibit the use of the data forthe purposes of interest to the Committee.

THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE

60. The fucl cycle that serves nuclear power reactors
used for the generation of electrical energy is a major
identified practice giving rise to occupational
exposures. Exposures arising from this practice werediscussed and quantified in the UNSCEAR 1972 [US],1977 [U4],1982 [U3] and 1988 [Ul] Reports, withcomprehensive treatment in the 1977 and 1982
Reports. In comparison with many other sources of
exposure, this practice is well documented, andconsiderable quantities of data on occupational dose
distributions are available, in particular for more
recent years. Consideration is given in this Annex tooccupational exposures arising at each niajor stage ofthe fuel cycle. As the final stage of treatment anddisposal of the main solid wastes is not yet sufficiently
developed to warrant a detailed examination ofpotential exposures, it is given only very limited
consideration. However, occupational exposures fromwaste disposal are not expected to significantly
increase the sum of the doses from the olher stages in

the fuel cycle. For similar reasons, no attempt is madeto estimate occupational exposures during thedecomnlissioning of nuclear installations, although thiswill become an increasingly inlportant source.
For each stage of the fucl cycle estimates are
made of the magnitude and temporal trends in theannual collective and average individual doses, thenumbers of monitored workers and the distribution
ratios. The collective doses are also expressed innormalized terms, that is per unit practice relevant to
the particular stage of the cycle. For uranium mining
and milling, fuel enrichment, fuel fabrication and fuelreprocessing, the nornlalization is initially presented internls of unit mass of ura~~iurnor fuel produced orprocessed; these quantities can be re-normalized interms of the equivalent anlount of energy (hat can be(or has been) generated by the fabricated (or enriched)fuel. The bases for the normalizations, namely, theamounts of mined uranium, separative work duri~lg

61.

enrichment and dlc amount of fucl required togenerate a unit of elcctriral energy in various reactor
types, arc given in AIIIICXB, "Exposures fromn~as-madesources of radiation". For reactors, several
ways o l normalizing thc data may be appropriate,
depending on how the data arc uscd. In this Annex,
normalized collective doscs arc given per reactor andper unit clcctrical energy generated.
6 2 To allow proper comparison bctwcen the doses
arising at different stages of the fuel cycle, all the dataarc ultimately presented in the same normalized form.
in lernis of the electrical energy generated (or thearnount of uraniu~n mincd or fuel fabricated or
reprocessed, corresponding to a unit of cncrgy
subsequently generated in the reactor), which is theoutput from thc nuclear power industry. This form of
normalization is both valid and useful when treating
data accumulated over a large number of facilities orover a long time period. It can, however, be
niisleading when applied to data for a single facility
for a short time period; this is because a large fractionof the total occupational exposure at a facility arises
during periodic maintenance operations when the plantis shut down and not in production. Such difficulties
are, however, largely circumvented in this Annex,
since the data arc presented in an aggregated form forindividual countries and averaged over five-year
periods.
63. In addition to the annual dose, the rate at which
dosc is accumulated during the career of an individual(cumulative or lifetime dosc) is an important statistic
in judging h e significance of occupational exposures.
As ~nentioncdabove, however, there arc as yet few
data available on cumulative or lifetime doses.
Accordingly, the subject is not treated separately foreach stage of the fucl cycle, but it is addressed in
Section ILG for the nuclear fuel cycle as a whole.
64. Various national authorities or i~lstitutionshave
uscd different methods to measure, record and report
the occupational data included in this Annex. The
main features of the procedures uscd by each country
that responded to the UNSCEAR Survey of Occupational Exposures are sumniarized in Table 2. The
potential for such differences to comproniise orinvalidate comparisons between data is discussed in
Scction I.A.3. The reported collective doscs and thecollective dose distribution ratios are largely
insensitive to the differences that have been identified
in Table 2, and the quantities can gerlerally becompared without further qualification. The average
doses to monitored workers and the number dislribution ratios are, however, sensitive to decisions andpractice on who in a workforce is to be monitored.
Difterences in these areas could not be discerned from
responses to the UNSCEAR Survey of Occupational

E X ~ ) O S Unor,~ C SC O I I S C ~ U Ccan
I I I I tl~cy~ , be discerned
froni Table 2. However, bcrausc the nionitoring ofworkcrs i r ~the nurlcar power induslry is ia general
fairly coniprchensivc, con~parisons of the average
individual doses (and 11un1bcr distribution ratios)rcportcd llcrc arc judged to bc broadly valid. Noncthcless, i t must be recognized [hat differences in nionitoring and reporting practices do exist, and thcy may,in particular cases, affect the validity of comparisonsbctwcen reported data; lo the extent practicable, wheresuch differences arc likely to be important thcy arc
identilied.

A. UIWNIUM MINING AND hlI1,LING
65. Uranium is obtained from ore niined in several
countries, with the largest producers within WOCA
(World Outside Centrally planned economies Area)
being Australia, Canada, France, Namibia, Niger,
South Africa and the United States; in addition,uranium exploration and/or production is being
undertaken on a smaller scale in several othcr
countries. Data on (he annual production of uranium
arc given in Anncx B, "Exposures from man-madesources of radiation". Uranium mining operations
involve the removal from the ground of large
quantities of ore containing uranium and its decay
products at concentrations up to several thousand
tinics the concentrations of these nuclides in thenatural terrestrial cnvironmenL The concentration of
uranium in niined ores is typically between 0 . 1 0 ~ 3 %cases may be as high as a
U308 but in exceptio~~alfew tens of per cent. Mining is carried out by either
undcrgour~dor open-pit nictl~ods,which account formost o l the uranium produced; in recent years in siru
solution mining has also been carried out, although
this makes only a small contribution to overalluranium production. In some cases uranium isobtained as a by-product of the mining of gold or
othcr metals.

66. Uraniuni milling operations involve theprocessing of large quantities of ore to extract partiallyrefined uranium. The process of extraction involves
the following steps: crushing, grinding, chemicalleaching, scl~aratioaof the uranium from the leachsolution, precipitation, drying and packing of theextracted tnaterial. Most mills use an acid leachextraction process, allhough othcr processes arc in use.
The uranium concentrate, often referred to as
yellowcake, is uscd as feed for fuel fabrication plants,
where it is further refined, converted and, if necessary.
enriched.
67. Both internal exposure and cxternal irradiation
may be significant co~~tributorsto occupational
exposure during ureniutn mining. lr~tcrnalexposure

A N N M D: OCCUPKllONAL MDIATION EXPOSURESof radon and its dccay
may arisc from thc inl~:~li~tio~t
products and thc iahalation of orc dust containing
long-livcd alpha c~nittcrsof thc uranium chain. A
rlumbcr of factors will influcncc tltc rclativc cotttributiori of cach sourcc, including, amorlg othcrs, thc typcof rniaing undcrtakcn (kc. dccp ltti~tingor open-pit)
arid the clficacy ol'vcntilatioa undcrground. The niairl
sourcc of intcrnal cxposurc ill underground mincs is,
in gcneral, thc inhalation of radon and its dccay
products; wltcrc thcsc liavc bccn rcduccd to a low
Icvcl, the inhalation of orc dust may be a significant
contributor. In opcn-pit mincs, particularly in dry
climates, inhalation of orc dust is likcly to bc the main
sourcc of intcrnal cxposurc. Bccausc of the confined
spacc undcrgrourtd and practical limitations to thedegree of ventilation that can be achieved, internal
cxposurc is of greatcr significance in undcrgroundmines than in opcn pit mincs. Occupational exposure
from the inhalation of radon dccay products in undcrground mincs was recognized as a major radiologicalprotection problcrn in the 1960s and early 1970s. In
the intervening period much has becn done to reduce
airborne coriccntrations of radon and its decay prottly,
from thisducts in mines and, c o ~ ~ i c q i ~ c ~exposuressourcc. Improvcn~cnts continue but with increasing
cost and difficulty as the co~~ccntrations
arc reduced.
68. Occupational cxposures from uranium mining in
14 countrics, avcri~gcdovcr 1975-1979, 1980-1984 and1985-1989, arc sumniarizcd in Tablc 3; data are reported separately for u~tdcrground and open-pit
mining. Thc cor~tributiortsto the totals, whcrc available, of external exposure and internal exposure Gom
inhalation of radon progcny and ore dust are indicated.
Some comrncnts on thc tabulated doses arc necessary
however, in particular on the doses Goln inhalation ofradon progcny. I11 general, in the data reported to theCommittce (or published elsewhere), doses frominhalation of radon progcny were estimated on thc
basis of a conversion factor of 10 mSv WLM-I. In
Annex A the annual effcctivc dose from radon progcny for mcmbcrs of the public has bccn taken to be
1 mSv from indoor cxposurc (7,000 hours per year) toa radon concentration of 40 Bq m-3 or an e uilibrium
equivalent concentration (EEC) of 16 Bq mS. Assuming thc samc nulncrical relationship between dosc andconccntralion applies to occupational cxposures, thevalue of thc convcrsion factor expressed in units of
dosc pcr working lcvcl ruonth (WLM) is: 1 mSv t
7,000 hours t 16 Bq m-3 x 6.3 10' Bq h m-3 WLM"
= 5.6 mSv WLM-I. This is consistent with thc valueof 5 mSv WLM-' suggcstcd in a co~tsultativcdocument issued by ICRP [113]. While it has been possible
to modify rcportcd doscs for this chartgc in convcrsion
factor, insufficient data wcrc available to enable thereported data on distribution ratios to be modified. The
tabulated values ofNRIS and SRIS,while valid within
the contcxl within which thcy were reported, are strict-389

ly applicable to ii valuc of E soniewl~atlcss than 1 5
mSv; thc c.sact valuc to which thcy rcfcr will dependon the particular data sct. in particuler on thc rclativc
contribution of riltlo~iprogclly to thc total dosc.
69. Estimates of worldwidc lcvcls of cxposurc fromuranium mining, iilso given in Tablc 3, l ~ a v cbccn
derived by extrapolating thc rcportcd production tototal world uranium production. The riumbcrs ofmonitorcd workcrs and thc annual collcctivc andindividual doses, avcragcd ovcr thc samc fivc-year
pcriods, are illustrated in Figure I. Thc normalized
collcctivc dose and Ihc dosc distribution ratios arc
prcscntcd in Figure 11.
70. Data on national uranium production havc becn
obtained from rcsportscs to Ihc UNSCEAR Survey on
Occupational Exposures or, in thcir absence, from
OECD [02]. Worldwide lcvcls of production wereobtained as the sum of data rcportcd by OECD [02],which was limited to WOCA (World Outside
Centrally planned economies Arca) countrics; datareported to UNSCEAR for Czechoslovakia and theGcrnlan Dcmocratic Republic: artd cstimatcs for China
and the formcr USSR. Production in China wasestimated froni rcportcd collectivc doscs [IlO],
assuming that the collectivc dose per unit mass ofuranium mincd was equal to Ihc average in thosecountries for which data were available forundcrground nlincs in 1985-1989. This rough estimate
of annual production in China was assumed, in thc
absence of bcttcr data, to apply throughout the pcriod
1975-1989. Thc mining of uranium in the formcr
USSR was nomi~tallyassunicd cqual to that estimatedfor China.
71. The annual amount of uranium rnincd worldwide,
averaged over five-ycar pcriods, was 50-60 k t The
production was highest in 1980-1984 and 10%-15%
lower in 1975-1979 and 1985-1989. By far the
majority of uranium (about 80%) was mined
underground in this period, although the contribution
from open-pit mining irtcrcascd with time. About aquarter of a million workcrs were involved in uranium
mining worldwidc; 99% of thcm, on average, wcrc
employed in undcrground mincs, with about onc thirdof thcsc in gold mines in South Africa in whichuranium is also cxtractcd. Thc worldwide annual
collective effective dose, avcragcd ovcr 1975-1989, isestimated to havc bccn about 1.300 man Sv, although
there is cvidcricc that levcls wcrc about 20% lower
than this average in thc most rcccrlt fivc-ycar pcriod;
open-pit mining made only a miriitnal contribution to
the total (about 1% on avcragc). Tltc avcragc annual
effcctivc dosc to monitorcd workcrs (or more strictly
to Ihosc workcrs whose doscs wcrc assessed, either
from personal or cnvironmc~~talmonitoring) in underground mines has dcclincd from about 5.5 to about4.5 niSv between the first and third five-year pcriods.
In open-pi! niining the corrcspondirig doses were
lowcr, declining from about 2.0 mSv to about 1.6 niSv
ovcr the same period (Figure I). The normalized
collective cffcctive dosc from underground n i i ~ ~ i ndccrcasrd froni about 30 to about 26 nian Sv kt*
uraniuni 16.6 to 5.7 nlan Sv (GW a)-'] between thefirst and third five-year periods; in open-pit mining,
thc normalized doses were much lowcr, having dccrcased from about 1.1 to about 0.3 nian Sv kt-' uranium[0.24 to 0.06 rnan Sv (GW a)-'] ovcr the same period(Figure 11). For uranium niining as a whole, thenormalized collective dosc decreased from 26 to
20 man Sv kt" uranium [5.7 to 4.3 man SV (GW a)-'].

Q

72. The reporting of data on distribution ratios is lesscomprehensive than that on other quantities of interest.
Moreover, the situation is further coniplicated by themodification of reported data to take account of the
adoption hcre of a conversion factor of 5.6 mSv
WLM-' for exposure to radon progeny compared witha value of 10 mSv WM-' generally used in thereported data. While rcported doses can be readily
modified to account for this change, this cannot bedone for the reported distribution ratios. In thesecircumstances consideration is limited hcre to an
analysis of trends in the rcported distribution ratios,
while recognizing that the ratios strictly are applicableto values of E somewhat less than 15 niSv (moreover,with the value of E differing between countries
depending on the relative contribution of inhalation ofradon progcny with total dose). For those countries
reporting data on distribution ratios, the fraction of themonitored workforce in underground mines in thesecountries receiving rcported annual effective doses
greater than 15 mSv declined from 0.39 in 1975-1979
to 0.26 in 1985-1989: the haction of the reported
collective cficctive dose arising from reported
individual doses above the same level also declined,from 0.69 to 0 5 3 over the same period. It is notpossible to be precise with regard to the level of doseto which these ratios apply when using a doseconversion factor of 5.6 mSv WLM-I, but it is of theorder of 10 mSv. The distribution ratios in open-pit
mining were much smaller; over the same period thercported number distribution ratio, averaged over thosc
countries providing data on h i s quantity, declined
fiom about 0.005 to 0.0004 and the reported collective
dose distribution ratio from 0.026 to 0.006 (Figure 11);
for the dose conversion factor adopted in this Annex
the value of dose to which these ratios apply is withina range of about 10 to 12 mSv. These values for thercported distribution ratios, averaged over the countries
which provided such data, can be considered indicativeof worldwide levels.
73. The data for individual countries and their trends
with time vary considerably about the averageworldwide values (see Table 3). For undcrgroundmining tile average anrlual effective dose, averaged
ovcr the five-year periods, typically varied within arangc of 3-20 niSv; Bulgaria was a notable exception.
For open-pit riiining the corresponding range ofvariation was typically about 1-5 niSv. The variationin normalized collective effective doses was evengreater, between about 1 and 110 nian Sv kt-' uranium[0.25 to 25 man SV (GW a)-'] for underground mines;
doses in Canada, France and h e United States were at
the lower end of this range and thosc in Argentina,
India and South Africa at the upper end. For open-pit
mines the range of variation was about 0.0416 man Sv kt-' uranium [0.01-4 man Sv (GW a)-'].
The rsnge of variation between countries for thercported distribution ratios was somewhat smaller than
the range for other quantities.
74. Internal exposure makes by far the greatest
contribution to the total exposures in undcrgroundmining. Averaging over those countries (Australia,
Canada, China, Czechoslovakia, France, the German
Democratic Republic, India and South Africa)
reporting data on at least two of the three main
contributors to exposure (in thosc cases where only
two pathways were quantified the contribution of thethird was assumed to be zero), about 70% of
exposures arose on average from the inhalation ofradon daughters, about 3% froni the inhalation of ore
dust and about 27% from external irradiation. For
open-pit mining there was much greater variation
reported in the contribution of the respective exposure
palhways. In Argentina, external irradiation
contributed about 80% and inhalation of radon
daughters about 20% to total exposures; thecontribution of ore dust was small by comparison. In
Canada in 1985-1989 (doses from milling were
included in the data for earlier periods), external
irradiation and the inhalation of radon daughters werealso the main contributors to total exposure (about
50% and 43%, respectively), with a contribution of
about 6% from the inhalation of ore dust. The
Australian data showed a somewhat different
distribution, with the largest contribution from ore dust
(about 75%) and external irradiation and radon
daughtcrs contributing about 22% and 2%,
respectively. Averaging over these three countries
during the 1980s. external exposure has contributed
about 70% of the total dose and inhalation of radon
progeny about 30%; about 4% of the total has arisen
from inlialation of dust.
75. Occupational exposures from uranium milling in
nine countries, averaged over 1975-1979, 1980-1984
and 1985-1989, are summarized in Table 4. The
reported data for niillirig were modified in the same
way as thosc for mining (see paragraph 68) in respectof exposure from inhalation of radon progeny (i.e.

. RADIATION FXFOSURES

I

conversion factor of 5.6 mSv WLM-' adopted, compared with 10 mSv W L M - ~used in reported data. Thc
qualifications made in paragraph 6 8 with respect to thetabulated distribution ratios apply equally hcrc.
Estinlates of worldwide levels of exposure are also
given in Table 4; they were derived by extrapolating
to the total world production of niilled uranium. Dataon the amounb of uranium niilled in individual
countries were obtained from responses to the
UNSCEAR questionnaire or, in their absence, froniOECD [02], subject to the simplifying assumpticin h a t
the amount of uranium milled in any year was equal
to that mined. This same assumption was used inestimating the amount of uranium milled worldwide.
The numbers of monitored workers, the annual
collective and individual doses, averaged over the
five-year periods, the normalized collective dose andthe dose distribution ratios are illustrated in Figures
I and 11.
76. The average number of workers in uranium
milling worldwide is much smaller than the number inmining. It increased from about 12,000 in 1975-1979
to about 20,000 since then. The worldwide annual
collective effective dose, avcragcd over the whole
period, 1975-1989, is estimated to have been about
120 man Sv. A small downward trend with time isevident, with a decrease of about 10 man Sv between
the first five-year period and the subsequent periods.
The worldwide average annual effective dose tomonitored (or more strictly, assessed) workers inmilling decreased from about 10 mSv in 1975-1979 toabout 6 mSv subsequently and is somewhat greaterthan that experienced in underground mining. The
normalized collective cffectivc dose from milling has
decreased from about 2.4 in 1975-1979 to about
2.0 man Sv kt-' uranium [about 0.5-0.4 nian Sv(GW a)-'] after that time. In comparison, thenormalized collective dose froni open-pit mining was
smaller on average by a factor of about 2 and that forunderground mining was more than an order ofmagnitude greater.
77. Relatively few data have been reported on
distribution ratios for milling and, as for mining,interpretation of the data that do exist is complicatedby the revision of reported doses to conform with thedose convention used in this Annex for exposure frominhalation of radon progeny. For the reasons set out
above (see paragraph 72) consideration is limited to an
analysis of the trends in the rcported distribution
ratios. Averaging over the available data, the fractionof the n~onitoredworkforce receiving repofled annual
effective doses greater than 15 mSv declined, fromabout 0.4 in 1975-1979 to about 0.2 in 1985- 1989; thefraction of the collective effective dose arising fromindividual doses above that level declined, from about
0.8 to about 0.4 over the same period. It is impossible
to be precise with regard to the level of dose to which

391

these ratios refer when using a dose conversion factorof 5.6 mSv WLM-' for inhalation of radon progeny,
but it is of the order of 12 niSv. In the absence ofniore compreher~sive data, these values of thedislribution ratios can be considered indicative ofworldwide levels.
78. The data for individual countries and their trends
with time vary considerably about the averageworldwide values (see Table 4). The average annual
effective dose to monitored (or more strictly, assessed)
workers, averaged over the five-year periods, varied
within the range of about 0.1-13 mSv. The variation in
the normalized collective effective doses was evengreater, from lcss than 0.1 to about 30 man Sv kt-'
uranium [less than 0.02 to about 6 man Sv (GW a)-'];
doses in Canada, South Africa and the United States
were towards the lower end of this range and those inCzechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic andIndia towards the upper end.
79. Internal exposure makes by far the greatest
contribution to total exposures in milling. Averaging
over those countries (Australia, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Gemian Democratic Republic and India)
reporting data on each of the three main contributors
to exposure in the 1980s, about 38% of exposuresarose Gom the inhalation of radon daughters, about
47% from inhalation of ore dust and about 15% Gom
external irradiation. Considerable variation is,
however, evident between countries in the contributions of the respective exposure pathways. The
data for the Gernian Democratic Republic are comparable with the average values; those for Australia
and Czechoslovakia indicate much greater contributions from the inhalation of ore dust, while for
India, the contribution of ore dust was reported as
negligible in comparison with the other exposure
pathways.

B. UIMNIUhl ENRICHhlENT
AND CONVERSION
80. Most thermal reactors use enriched uranium witha level of enrichnient of, typically, about 3%; theniajor exceptions are the Magnox reactors and thepressurized heavy-water-cooled and heavy-watermoderated reactors (HWRs), which use naturaluranium. Uranium is converted to uranium
hexafluoride before being enriched, generally ingascous diffusion or centrifuge plants. Most
enrichment was historically undertaken by gaseous
diffusion, but increasingly the centrifuge process isbeing used because of its much lower cost; laser
enrichment is currently under development and may
make a significant contribution to the annual supply o fenriched material by the end of the century. At present
most enrichment services come from five suppliers:

193 REPORT

Department of Energy (United States), Eurodif(France), Techsnabexprt (Russian Federation), Urenco(Gennaey, Netherlands and the United Kingdom) andChina. The enrichment capacity of these and a few
other small producers was projected to be about
40 million separative work units (MSWU) in 1990 [I41compared with a demand for about 26 MSWU. Aftcr
enrichment the uranium is rcconvcrted into a form,
generally an oxide, appropriate for fuel fabrication.
The depleted uranium, or tails, from the enrichment
process are generally stored pending decisions on their
future use (e.g. in a fast reactor fuel cycle, further
enrichment later or disposal). Occupational exposuresoccur during both the conversion stages and enrichment. Consideration here is limited to exposuresduring enrichment.

81. Occupational exposures to workers employed in
the enrichment of uranium in six countries are
summarized in Table 5. With two exceptions the data
are for enrichment by the diffusion process; theexceptions are South Africa, where the jet nozzle
process is used, and one of the two entries for theUnited Kingdom, which is for centrifuge enrichment.
Sums or averages of reported data are given in
Table 5; however, because of incomplete data on theseparative work used in uranium enrichment, an extrapolation based on size of the practice to estimate
worldwide doses cannot be applied. The alternative
extrapolation, based on gross national product, is also
inappropriate in this case, because enrichment iscarried out in only a very few countries. In thesecircumstances, only an approxinlate estimate of worldwide doses can be made.
82 The annual effective dose to monitored workers,
averaged over five-year periods and over all reported
data, decreased progressively, from about 0.5 mSv in
the first period to about 0.1 mSv in the third. The
annual collective effective dose, averaged similarly,
also decreased progressively, from about 5 man Sv in
the first period to about 0.8 man Sv in the second and
0.4 man Sv in the third; these trends largely reflect
trends in the United States, which contributes by far
the greater part of the reported collective dose. These
doses are from external irradiation. Although thepotential exists for internal exposure in enrichment
plants, its contribution was reported as negligible incomparison with external irradiation by those few
countries reporting data on this aspect In all countries
reporting data, the distribution ratios are all zero,reflecting the relatively low levels of exposure
encountered in enrichment compared with other stagesof the fuel cycle.
83. Only the United Kingdom has reported data on
separative work for erlrichment by both the diffusionand centrifuge processes. These data provide the only
reliable basis on which to estimate normalized

collective doses from enricllmcnt. For enrichment bydiffusion, the norrlialized collective dose was about
0.5 man SV MSWU*' [0.07 man Sv (GW a)-']; acon~parabledose was experiel~cedin the early stagesof centrifuge enrichment, but this has since beer1
reduced greatly to about 0.04 man Sv MSWU'~[0.005 man Sv (GW a).'] in t l ~ emost recent five-year
period. The use of much larger centrifuges and thegreater throughput of enriched material with time havebeen Lhc main conlributors to these decreases. The
normalized collective doses, in ternis of energy
generated, were estimated assuming that 0.13 MSWU
were required to enrich the uranium needed lo
generate 1 G W a of electrical energy in a light-watercooled, light-water moderated reactor (LWR).
84. The sums of the reported collective doses (andthe average individual doses) in Table 5 are assumed,in the absence of better data, to be representative ofworldwide exposures Gonl the enrichment of uranium
for use in the commercial nuclear fuel cycle. These
data do not include contributions fiom several countries, most notably China and the former USSR; anyunderestimate resulting from this omission is, however, likely to be small compared with the overestimate resulting from the fact that the United States data
include exposures arising during the enrichment of
uranium for both civilian and defence purposes.
85. To estimate the riormalized dose that isrepresentative of this stage of the fuel cycle, it isassumed that the reported collective doses in 19751989 can be associated with the enrichment of thatquantity of u r a ~ ~ i u mneeded for the generation ofelectrical energy by LWRs worldwide during the same
period. Based on this assu~nption, the normalized
collective dose, averaged over the whole period, isabout 0.17 marl Sv MSWU"[0.022 man Sv(GW a).']; this is broadly comparable with experiencein the United Kingdom for enrichment by the diffusion
process. In practice, because a fraction of the reported
doses is likely to have arisen during the enrichment of
uranium used in defence, the normalized collective
dose is likely to be an overestirnate.

86. In summary, the individual and collective doses
from enrichment are small. Consequently,
notwithstanding the major uncertainties in estimatingworldwide exposures from this source, they will havelittle impact on the reliability of the estimatedexposure from the whole of the nuclear fuel cycle.

C. FUEL FABRICATION
87. Many types of fuel are fabricated according to
the reactor type in which they are used. The characteristics of fuels that are relevant here are the degree of

RADIATION EXPOSURES

enrichment and the fonn, either nietallic or oxide. The
great lnajority of reactors use low enriched (lypicallya few per cent) uranium oxide fuel; the niain exceptions are Magnox reactors, which use unenriched metal
fuel, and HWRs, which use unenriched oxide fuel. Thc
characteristics of the fuel and the reactor environn~ent
in which it is used influence the amount of energy thatcan be extracted from it per unit mass, arid significant
differences are to be expccted bctween the various
types of fuel. About 95% of fuel is currently fabricated for use in water-cooled reactors of various types,
with about 85% for use in LWRs. The capacity forwater reactor fuel fabrication in 1990 was estimated to
be about 1 3 kt uranium, and the expected requirement
for fuel was about 9 kt [I4].
88. The exposures from fuel fabrication have, inprevious UNSCEAR Reports, been considered together
with those from uranium enrichment. In this Annex
they are evaluated separately in order to provide
estimates of the doses arising at each main stage ofthe fuel cycle. Separate estimates are also made in thisAnnex for each of the main types of fuel. The purposeof this is to enable more realistic estimates to be
derived of the normalized collective dose per unit
energy generated for the different fuel cycles based on
the various reactor types. The four types of uranium
fuel to be considered are unenriched metal fuel, usedin Magnox reactors; low enriched oxide fuel, used inadvanced gas-cooled, graphite-moderated reactors(AGRs) and in LWRs; unenriched oxide fuel, used in
HWRs; and mixed oxide fuels, used in fast breeder
reactors (FBRs). Mixed oxide fuels (uraniumplutonium) are increasingly being developed for use in
LWRs, but occupational exposures arising during theirfabrication have yet to be reported.
89. There are two main sources of exposure in the
fabrication of uranium fuels: external exposure to
gamma-radiation emitted by the uranium isotopes ofconcern and their decay products and internal exposure
from the inhalation of uranium and its decay products.
The relative importance of these two routes of
exposure varies with the type of fuel fabricated andthe manufacturing process. Data reported from theUnited Kingdom, where significant resources havebeen allocated to limit internal exposure, indicate thatexternal exposure is the major source; this, however,
may not always be so. Individual monitoring forinternal exposure, with formal entry of the results indose records, is usually carried out for only a fractionof the workforce; monitoring of the working
environment is often sufficient.
90. Occupational exposures to workers employed in
the fabrication of each type of uranium fuel aresummarized in Table 6. The number of monitored
workers and the annual collective and individual

393

doses, all averaged over successive five-year periods,
are illustrated in Figure 111 for each fuel type. The
normalized collective effective doses and the dose
distribution ratios are illustrated in Figure IV.
91. LIVR Juel. LWR fuel is fabricated in several
countrics and is used in pressurized light-watermoderated, light-water-eoolcd reactors (PWRs) and in
boiling light-water-moderated, light-water-cooled
reactors (BWRs). The fuel is uranium oxide with anaverage enrichment of about 3% and is clad in azirconium alloy. Mixed oxide (uranium and plutonium)
fuels are being fabricated Tor use in LWRs, but as
their contribution is small and few occupational
exposure data are available, they are not consideredfurther. The normalized collective effective doses inTable 6 have been estimated assuming that 37 t of
LWR fuel is needed. on average, to generate 1 G W aof electrical energy.
92. The data for LWR fuel are incomplete in two
respects: first: no data have been obtained from somecountries that are major fuel producers and, secondly,
some of the reported data did not contain estimates of
the amounts of fuel fabricated. Worldwide estimates of
the annual collective dose and the number ofmonitored workers have been obtained by scaling thesum of reported data by the ratio of LWR fuelfabricated worldwide to that fabricated in thosecountries reporting data. A number of approximations
had to be made in this extrapolation process, owing to
the absence of adequate data on the production of
LWR fuel worldwide and in some of the major
producing countries. Annual fuel production in thesecases was assumed to be equal to that which would
have been needed for the generation of electricalenergy by LWRs in those particular countries or theworld in that particular year. This approximation wasused to estimate fuel production in the United States
as well as worldwide. Because the United States also
supplies fuel to other countries, the amounts predictedin this way are likely to be underestimates of actual
production; the normalized collective doses given for
the United States are, by the same token, likely to beoverestimates. Similar degrees of under- or
overestimation can be expected in the respective
worldwide data owing to the major contribution madeby the United States to the total fuel production.
93. The worldwide annual amounts of LWR fuelfabricated, averaged over five-year periods, increased
from 1.6 kt to about 7.0 kt between the first and third
periods. The average number of workers also
increased in the same period, but by about 50%, amuch smaller increase than in the amount of fuelproduced. The worldwide annual effective dose tomonitored workers, averaged over five-year periods,
decreased progressively, from 1.7 mSv in the firstperiod to about 0.5 niSv in the third period. Notwithstanding the fourfold increase in file1 produced, theworldwide annual collective dose decreased, From 29
to 11 man SV. Thew changes are reflected in adecrease, by an order of magnitude, in the worldwide
normalized collective cffectivc dose over the same
period, from 18 to 1.6 man Sv kt-' [0.7-0.07
man Sv (GW a).']. The average fraction of the workforce receiving annual doses in excess of 15 mSv,
NRIS, declined over the pcriod, froni 0.013 to 0.0003;
the corresponding fraction of the collective dose
arising from individual doses in excess of that level,
SR15, decreased, from about 0.4 to 0.02.
94. The data for individual countries and their trends
with tinie vary considerably about the average worldwide values. Because of the major contribution madeby the United States to worldwide fuel production, thedoses for that country are broadly comparable with theworldwide averages, albeit slightly greatcr in general.
The average annual doses to monitored workers inother countries are, in general, smaller than the worldwide averages, often by a significant factor. In Japan,
the normalized collective doses are substantially lessthan the worldwide averages, particularly in earlier
times; the values in other countries are broadly
comparable with the worldwide averages.
95. Only Spain and Japan have explicitly included
the data on internal exposures. In Spain, the annual
contribution of internal exposure reported since 1988
varied from 20% to 40%; its explicit inclusion may be
one reason why the doses in Spain are, in general,
greater than those reported elsewhere. In the absenceof further information, the doses reported for thosecountries not explicitly including internal exposures
must be considered to be underestimates byindeterminate amounts. Data on the contribution ofinternal exposure to tbe doses in fuel fabrication are
an essential requirement if valid comparisons are to be
made. The potential importance of neglecting internal
exposures can be gauged from a review by the
National Council on Radiation Protection andMeasurements (NCRP) of occupational exposure in the
United States [Nl]. In that review it was suggested
that when account was taken of internal exposures, theaverage effective dose to fuel fabrication workers in
the United States would increase (from a level ofabout 1.3 mSv for measurably exposed workers forexternal exposure alone) lo a level comparable withthat experienced by nuclear power plant personnel (seeSection I1.D).

96. HH'R juel. Fuel for HWRs is fabricated inArgentina, Canada, India and the Republic of Korea,
which are the main countries where this reactor type
is used. The total of the reported data can, therefore,
be assumed to be representative of worldwide expo-

sure arising from t l ~ efabrication of this fuel type. Tlie
fuel is unenriched ura~~iuni
oxide. The ~iormalized
collective effective doses in T a b l e 6 have been
estimated assunling tliat 180 t of HWR fuel is needed,on average, to gcncratc 1 GW a of electrical energy,
exccpt when more specific data on equivalent energy
generation were provided in rcsporise to the
UNSCEAR Survey on Occupatiorial Exposures.
97. The worldwide annual production of fuel, averaged over five-year periods, increased progressively,from about 0.6 kt (about 3 GW a equivalent) in thefirst pcriod to about 1.6 kt (about 9 GW a equivalent)in the third period. By far the greater part (about 95%
averagcd over the wliolc period) of the fuel was fabricated in Canada. Thc worldwide number of monitored
workers has increased over the three periods, fromabout 500 to about 1,100. The worldwide average
effective dose to monitored workers, which was about
1.3 mSv in the first period, declined to about 1 mSv
in the second but illcreased to about 1.7 mSv in thethird period. The same doses in Canada increased progressively over this time, from about 1.3 mSv to about
2.4 mSv, with most of the increase occurring in 19851989; some of this increase may be attributable toincrcasing fuel production with a decreasing workforce(at least a monitored workforce). The average doses in
the other countries are, in general, less than theworldwide averages. The contribution of internal
exposure is not significant; these exposures areincluded only in Canada and are reported to be
negligible. Doses to ~~ieasurably
exposed workers havebeen reported for three of the countries and are
significantly greatcr than those to nlonitored workers.
The annual dose to measurably exposed workers in
Canada, averagcd over five-year periods, increased
progressively, froni about 2 to about 3.6 mSv (is.
doses were about 50% greater Illan those to monitored
workers).
98. The worldwide annual collective effective dose,
averaged over five-year periods, increased from about
0.7 Inan Sv to about 1.9 man Sv. The worldwide average normalized collective dose decreased from about
1.1 to about 0.9 man Sv kt-' [0.2-0.16 man Sv(GW a)-'] between the first two periods but increasedin the third pcriod to about 1.2 man Sv kt-' (0.22
man Sv (GW a)-']. During those 15 years, the normalized dose in Canada decreased rogressivcly fromabout 1.1 to about 0.7 man Sv kt' [0.2-0.13 man Sv(GW a).']. The worldwide normalized dose increasedin the last five-year pcriod, because much higher than
average normalized doses arose during fuel fabricationin India. Significant variation is apparent in the
distribution ratios between countries but, in general,the values are small. The fraction of the worldwide
workforce receivirig annual doses in excess of 15 mSv
was about 0.003, averaged over all three periods, withP

ANNEX D: OCCUPA'IIONAL RADIA'IION EXPOSURES

a significantly lower value in 1980-1984. The fractionof the worldwide collective dose arising from annual
doses in excess of the samc level was about 0.005,
averaged ovcr the same pcriod, again with a I I I U C ~lower valuc in 1980-1984.
99. hfagnarjuel. Magnox fuel is fabricatcd mainlyin the United Kingdom and is used there and in Japanand Italy in this reactor type. The fucl is naturaluranium clad in a Magnox alloy. Metal fuel was alsofabricated in France for use in gas-cooled, graphitemoderated reactors (GCR)s in that country. The
normalized collcctivc effective doses in Table 6 havebeen estimated assuming that 330 t of Magnox fuel is
ncedcd on average to generate 1 G W a of electricalenergy. In the absence of reported data from France,
the data for Magnox fuel fabricated in the United
Kingdom are assumed to be representative ofworldwide levels.
100. The annual amount of fuel fabricated, averaged
ovcr fivc-ycar periods, remained relativcly constantwith time at about 850 t. The number of workers has
increased from about 900 to about 1,100 over thesame period. The annual normalized collective
effective dose, averaged over successive five-year
periods, increased from about 2 man Sv kt-'
[0.7 man Sv (GW a)*'] in the first pcriod to about
4.3 man Sv kt-' [1.4 man Sv (GW a)"] in the last.
This increase is largely due to the inclusion, since1986, of internal exposures in the reported data. The
average contribution of internal exposure to the total
exposure in 1986-1990 was about 35%; the doses
reported for years before 1986 are underestimates byat least a comparable amount and need to be adjusted
accordingly. Because of this underestimation in earlier
years, the increase with time in the normalized
collective doses is more apparent than rcal.
101. The average annual effective dose to themonitored workforce has varied considerably fromyear to year but with some indication of a declining
trend. The annual dose from external exposure alone
was about 2 mSv in the period 1985-1989; taking into
account of internal exposure, the avcrage annual dosein the period can be estimated to have been about
3 mSv. The fraction of the workforce receiving annual
doses in excess of 15 mSv was low, about 0.002 over
tbe first two five-year periods. Because no account
was taken of internal exposure during this period,
thcse values are doubtless underestimates. In 1986,
when internal exposure was first included, the fraction
increased significantly, to about 0.04 (about 0.018
averaged over the five-year period) but thereafter
declined to essentially zero.
102. AGR fuel. AGR fuel is fabricatcd only in the
United Kingdom and used in reactors there; the395

reported data can, therefore, be taken as the worldwide
level for this type of fuel. The fuel is uranium oxidewith an avcrage enrichment of about 2.7% and is cladin stairlless stccl. The data in Tablc 6 arc
predomil~anlly for the fabrication of AGR fucl but
include a small component (about 10%) of PWR fucl.
The simplifying assumption is made hcre that the data
are solely for AGR fuel, and the normalized collective
cffectivc doses have been estimated on the basis that
38 t of AGR fuel is needed, on average, to generate
1 GW a of electrical energy. The data also include thc
workforce involved in, and the collective dose arisingfrom, fuel fabrication and conversion (andreconversion) of uranium to uranium hexafluoridc forenrichment Only about 5% of the collective dose isattributable to the conversion processes; data are not,however, available on the size of the rcspectivc
workforces to enable the combined data to bepresentcd separately for conversion and fabrication.
The average individual doses to workers involved inconversion and fabrication are, however, similar.
103. The annual amount of fuel produced, avcraged
over five-year periods, remained relatively constant, at
about 400 t. Over the whole period, the number ofmonitored workers, averaged about 1,800, withevidence of a small increase in the two later five-year
periods. The normalized collective effective dose,
averaged over five-year periods, changed little between
the first two periods and was about 8 man Sv kt*'
[0.3 man Sv (GW a)-']. In the third period it increased
to about 1 2 man SV kt-' [0.45 man Sv (GW a)-'].
Much of this increase may be more apparent than real
for the reasons set out above in connection with
Magnox fuel, in particular the inclusion of internal
cxposurcs in the reported data from 1986 onwards.
The contribution from internal exposure was about
35% avcraged over the period 1986-1990; accordingly,
the doses reported before 1986 are likely to beunderestimates by a similar or greater factor and need
to be adjusted accordingly.
104. The average annual effective dose to monitored
workers varied considerably from year to year, with aslight decline being noticeable. The average annual
dose (external exposure only) in the rust five-year
period declined from about2.3 to about 2 mSv in thesecond; to take account of the contribution of internal
exposure, these doses should be increased by 30% ormore. In the last five-year pcriod the average annual
dose (external exposure only) remained about 2 mSv,
with a total dose (internal and external exposures) of
about 3 mSv. The fraction of Lbe workforce receiving
annual doses in excess of 15 mSv was low, about0.001 over the first two five-year periods. Because noaccount was taken of internal exposure during thisperiod, these values are doubtless underestimates. I11
1986, when inlernal exposure was first included, thefraction iacxeascd significantly lo about 0.05 (about
0.014 averaged over thc five-year period) but thercafter declined to essentially zero.
105. FBK juel. Data on FBR fucl fabrication havebccr~reported only from Japan and arc insufficient tomake a reliable estimate of worldwide dosc fro111this
typc of fucl. It can be noted, howcvcr, that thc avcragei~~dividual
doses arc broadly cornparable with thosearising in Japan during the fabrication of LWR fuel.
The nomialized collective doscs per unit mass of fuelfabricatcd arc, I~owcvcr, very much greater; thisdiffcrencc would decrease if thc doses wcre normalized in tcmis of potential cncrgy generation, owing to
thc much greater bum-up achicvcd by FBR fuels. One
probable contribu~orto the larger normalized doscs isthe small or pilot scale of fuel production.
106. Summary. Worldwide exposures from fuelfabrication are summarized in Table 7. The annual
amount of fuel fabricatcd worldwide, averaged over
five-year pcriods, incrcascd threefold (in tcmis ofpotential energy that could be generated from it) overl l ~ eperiod of interest, during which thc monitored
workforce has incrcascd by about 40%. Notwithstanding this increase in production, the worldwide annual
collective dosc has decreased, from 36 to 22 man Sv;
an even more striking decrease occurred in thenormalized collective dose, from about 0.6 man Sv(GW a)-' to about 0.1 man Sv (GW a).'. A decreaseby a factor of more than 2 occurred in the average
dose to monitored workers. The data on distribution
ratios are somewhat less complete than those for otherstatistics of interest. Notwithstanding this, the available
data overall indicate a generally downward trend withthe ratio NRIS decreasing more than a factor of 5
from about 0.01 in the first pcriod to 0.002 in thethird; over the same period the ratio SRIS decreased
by a factor of 20 from about 0.4 to about 0.02.
107. Most of the fucl fabricated was for use in LWRs.
About 80% of thc total collcctivc dose arose from thefabrication of LWR fuel in the first five-year pcriod;
this contribution decreased to about 50% in the latest
pcriod, with about 40% frorn GCR fucl and about 10%
from HWR fuel. The normalized collective dose
(expressed in terms of potential energy that could be
generated by the fuel) is significanlly greater for
Magnox than for other fuels; the much lower bum-up
achieved by Magnox fucl is perhaps the main reason
for this difference. Somewhat greater individual doses(approaching a factor of two when averaged over thewhole pcriod) are associated with both types of GCR
fuel compared with fuel for othcr reactor typcs. Someof these comparisons need qualification, however,
because internal exposures were not, in general,
included in the data reported for LWR fuels. As aconsequence, some of the differences between GCR
and LWR fuels that are identified hcrc may be more

apparent tl~nnreal. Bctlcr quantification is needed of
the contribution of internal exposure in LWR fucl
fabrication; pendil~gthis, Ihc data reportcd hcrc forthis f~lcltypc must be regarded as undcrcstimatcs.

I).

HISACTOR OI'ERATION

108. Wit11i11the ~ ~ u c l c aft~clr cycle, reactors arc themost comrnon facility. About 430 reactors wcre in
operation at the end of UIC 1980s. Consequently, therearc Inore occupatiol~aldata for reactors Ihan for any
othcr type of nuclear installation. Scveral reactor typcs
have been developed to the commercial stage, 11particular PWRs, BWRs, GCRs (comprising, among
others, Magnox and AGRs), HWRs and light-watercooled, graphite-moderated reactors (LWGRs).
Detailed consideration is given to each of these withmore litllitcd considcratiol~of liquid metal fast breeder
reactors (FBRs) and high-teniperature gas-cooled,graphite-moderated reactors (HTGRs), which are stilllargely at a prototype stage of dcvcloprncnt
109. Data on occupational exposures at reactors ofeach type are summarized in Table 8. Worldwide
levels of exposurc have been estimated from reported
data; the extrapolation is based on the total crlcrgy
gcncrated by the reactor type relative to the energy
gcncrated in countries reporting data. The degree ofextrapolation necessary was small, as the reported data
were substantially complete (about90% for PWRs andBWRs, 95% for HWRs, 80% for GCRs and 70% for
FBRs).
110. The annual data reported in response to the
UNSCEAR Survey of Occupational Exposures havebeen averaged over five-year periods and only the
avcrage values are given ill Table 8. The variations inannual values are presented in Figures V and VI toillustrate temporal trcnds in more detail. Data, whereavailable, are also presented on the main activities thatgive rise to occupational exposures in the different
reactor types and on typical levels of dosc that occur
when undertaking a number of common tasks.
111. Since relatively few data are available on
avcrage doses to measurably exposed workers
compared with those to the nio~~itored
workers, noattempt has been made to estimate a worldwide
average dose. The data that are available indicatc thatthe avcrage dose to measurably cxposed workers istypically up to about twice that for the monitored
workforce, although Ulerc is much variation between
countries and with time (see Table 8). More data on
avcrage doses to measurably cxposed workers would
be useful; for the reasons previously identified,comparisons made in these terms would, in general, be
Inore rcliablc than tl~osemade on the basis of the doseto lnonitorcd workers.

ANNIX D: OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION 1:XPOSURI:S

112. Several factors have i~~Ilucrlcedthe trends inreported exposures. These include the con~missioningof a large number of new PWRs in the early 1980s,
the lower annual collcctive doses achicvcd in ncw
reactors because of additional and iniproved design
provisions, and the large reductions in dose achievedin reactors in the United States once the safety
modifications required after the accident at Three Mile
Island had been completed. Significant reductions indoses in existing reactors have also been achieved, inparticular from the greatcr attention given to reducing
circuit activity levels, the reduction of unscheduled
maintenance and the greater emphasis on kccping
doses "as low as reasonably achievable" (ALARA).
113. Considerable improvements have taken place inthe recording and documentation of occupational exposures in recent years, and the creation of national andinternational databases has greatly facilitated thereliable extraction of relevant statistics. The use of
information from these databases will inevitably leadto some, albeit small, differences between the statistics
presented in this Annex and those given in earlier
UNSCEAR Reports for the same time periods, but anoverriding aim is to treat all data included in aconsistent manner.
114. There remain some difficulties in interpretingand ensuring fair comparisons between the various
statistics. These difficulties were discussed in generalterms in Section I.A, where a number of cautionary
remarks were made. Four more specific observations
need to be made in the present context. First, differences exist in the protocols adoptcd in various
countries as to the fraction of the workforce that isincluded when evaluating average annual individual
doses; in some cases, only measurably exposed individuals are included, whereas generally, the whole of themonitored workforce is taken into account. To theextent practicable, a clear distinction is maintained
throughout this Annex between the average individual
doses evaluated in the different ways. The use ofdifferent protocols for determining who in the workforce should be monitored is, however, a further confounding factor. Particular care must therefore be
exercised when comparing average individual doses toensure that the conlparisons are niade on equal
grounds. These differences do not, howcver, materiallyaffect the estimation or the comparison of collective
doses, at least not within the inherent uncertainties
associated with their evaluation.

reactor several tinics in one year (as opposed, ideally,
to only once, with the summed dose being recorded);
if appropriate corrections are not niade, the11 statistics
so compiled will inevitably overestimate the size ofthe cxposcd workforce and underestimate the average
individual dose and also the fractions of the workforce
and the collective dose arising from individual doses
greater than the prescribed levels. This will only be
important in those cases where extensive use is madeof transient workers.
116. Thirdly, different approaches are apparent
between countries in how they report the exposures ofworkers at nuclear installations. The majority present
statistics for the whole workforce, i.e. employees of
the utility and contract workers, often with separate
data for each category; some report data for utility
employees only, whereas others present the collective
dose for the total workforce but individual doses forthe utility workers only. Whcre necessary and practicable, reported data have been modified to enable them
to be fairly compared with other data; these changes
are indicated in the respective Tables. Attention is also
drawn to any unmodified data for which doubts may
exist on whether or to what extent they can becompared fairly with the other data.
117. Fourthly, no undue significance sbould be
attached to normalized collective doses that have been
derived on the basis of a small number of reactors
operating for a short period. Because much of the
exposure arises from maintenance carried out during
periodic reactor shutdowns, the normalized doses (andparticularly those normalized in terms of energy
generated) are useful only when derived as an averageof a large number of reactors or over a long operating
period.

1. Light-water reactors
118. LWRs comprise by far the majority of theinstalled nuclear generating capacity. About 70% ofthem are PWRs and about 30% are BWRs. About
40% the LWRs are installed in the United States andabout 20% in France, with the remainder distributed
anlong some 20 countries. With respect 10
occupational exposures, experience has shown
significant differences at PWRs and BWRs. Each typc
is therefore considcrcd separately.

(a)115. Secondly, the procedures for the recording andinclusion of doses receivcd by transient or contracl
workers may differ between utilities and between
countries, and this may influence the respective
statistics in different ways. In sonie cases, transient
workers may appear in the annual statistics for a giver1

397

Average annual doses

119. PW'h's. External gamma-radiation is the main
source of exposure in PWRs. Since there is, in general, only a small contribution from internal exposure,
it is only rarely monitored. In general, the contributionof neutrons to the overall level of external exposure is1993 REPORT

insignificant. Most occupational exposures occur
during scheduled plant shut-downs, when planned
niaintcnance and other b s k s are undertaken, andduring unplanned niaintcnancc and safety modifications. Activation products, and to a lesser extent
fission products, within the priniary circuit and coolant
arc the main source of external exposure. The
materials used in the primary circuit, the primarycoolant chemistry, the design and operational featuresof the reactor, the extent of unplanned maintenancectc. all have an important influence on the magnitudeof the exposure from this source; significant changes
have occurred with time in many of these areas, whichhave affected the levels of exposure.

The riorri~nlizcdcollective doscs in Western Europeanand Asia11 reactors are generally sigllificantly lower
than tile worldwide averages, while those in the UnitedStates n r ~ t lEastern European rcactors are higher than
Uic avcrage. The variations i n the avcrage individual
doses to 111011itorcdworkers about h e avcrage values
arc less pronounced: only in Asian reactors are thedoses consistcnlly less than the average. Considerable
variation between countries remains, however, even
within these narrower regional groupings (e.g. in
Eastern Europe the normalized collective doses in
Czxchoslovakia arid in Hungary were, on average, lessby a Pactor of about 5 than those in the German
Democratic Republic and the fonner USSR).

120. The worldwide installed capacity of PWRs,
averaged over fie-year periods, increased from about
5 0 G W in 1975-1979 to about 180 G W in 1985-1989;
the corresponding increase in the average annual
energy generated worldwide was somewhat greater,from about 30 to 120 GW a. On average, 40% of thisenergy was generated by PWRs in the United States
and about 20% in France. The number of monitored
workers in PWRs worldwide has increased from about
60,000 to about 230,000 over the period (Figure V).
The average annual collective effective dose increased
by a factor of about 2 (from about 220 to about
450 man Sv) between the first two five-year periods;
the increase in the third pcriod to about 500 man Sv
was small when compared with the doubling of energy
generated in the same period. The normalized
collective dose changed little over the first two
five-year periods, when it was about 8 man Sv(GW a)-'; in the third period it decreased substantially,
to about 4 man Sv (GW a)-' (Figure VI).

123. The largest normalizcd collective effective doses
occurred at PWRs in the Gennan Democratic
Republic, Spain, the former USSR and United States;in Czechoslovakia, Finland, France, Hungary, South
Africa and Sweden, the normalized doses wereconsistcndy and significantly less than the worldwide
averages. These differences in normalized collective
doses arc largely, but not entirely, reflected indifferences between the average individual doses in
the respective countries. Downward trends areapparent in the normalized doscs in most countries, inparticular between the second and third five-year
period; the decrease was niost pronounced for theFederal Republic of Germany, Japan, the Republic ofKorea, Spain, Swcden, the fonner USSR and theUnited States. The data for France show an upward
trend, having increased by about 20%over the period;
the absolute level of the normalized collective dose is,however, still lower than Ihe average for PWRs
overall. A few countries that only recently introduced
reactors for generating electrical energy [e.g. South
Africa and China (Taiwan)] exhibit conlparatively low,
albeit increasing, normalized collective doses; this is
typical of the trends experienced elsewhere.

121. The annual effective dose to monitored workers,
averaged over five-year periods, fell from about
3.5 mSv in the first period to about 2.2 mSv in thethird; most of this decrease occurred behvcen thesecond and third periods. The fraction of themonitored workforce receiving annual doses in excess
of 15 mSv decreased progressively, falling from about
0.09 to about 0.03 over the entire period; thecorresponding decrease in the fraction of the collective
effective dose arising from annual doses in excess ofthe same level was from about 0.6 to about 0.3. These
fractions were estiniated from a smaller set of data
than was used to estimate doses, as not all countries
reported these quantities.
122. There are considerable variations about theworldwide average values in both the trends and levelsof dose in individual countries. Average values ofindividual and normalized collective dose areillustrated in Figure VII for geographical groupings.
The regions are Asia, Eastern Europe (including theformer USSR), Western Europe and the United States.

124. Variations in the doses bctwecn reactors withina country arc also of interest. Data for PWRs in the
United Stales are illustrated in FigureVIII, in
particular the median, the 25th and 75th percentiles
and the minimum and maxiniuni values of thecollective effective dose per reactor. A wide range ofvariation is evident and is to be expected, given thatmuch of Ihe exposure arises during repair andmaintenance activities and while making safety
modifications, all of which are carried out periodicallyand at differcllt times and to different degrees on eachreactor. Thc various statistics, however, show the samegeneral trends indicated in Table 8 for the normalized
collective effective doses averaged over all PWRs in
the United States, in particular the higher doses in thefirst half of the 1980s, which resulted from safety
modifications made in response to the accident atThree Mile Island.

125. UiC'Rs. Extcnlal irradiation is also the major
source of occupational exposure i n BWRs, with most
exposures arising during scheduled shutdowns, whcn
planned maintenilncc is undertakes, and during
unplanned niaintcnar~ccand safety ~nodifications.By
far the largest number of BWRs arc located in the
United States and Japitn.
126. The worldwide installed capacity of BWRs,
averaged ovcr five-year pcriods, increased froni about
29 GW in 1975-1979 to about 67 GW in 1985-1989;
the corrcspondir~g increase in the average annual
energy generated worldwide was somewhat greater,from about 15 to 42 G W a. On average, 40% of thisenergy was generated by BWRs in the Unitcd States
and 25% in Japan. The nuniber of monitored workers
in BWRs worldwide increased from about 60,000 toabout 140,000 ovcr the pcriod (Figure V). The averageannual collective effective dosc increased from about
280 to about 450 man Sv between the first two
five-year pcriods; it subsequently decreased in thethird period, to about 330 man Sv, notwithstanding an
increase by more than 60% in the energy generated
over the same pcriod. The nonllalized collective dose,
averaged over five-year periods, changed little over the
first two pcriods and was about 18 man Sv (GW a)";in the third period it decreased substantially, to about
8 man Sv (GW a)-' (Figure W).
127. The annual cffective dose to monitored workers,
averaged over five-year periods, fell from about
4.7 mSv in the first pcriod to about 2.4 mSv in thethird; most of this decrease occurred between thesecond and third periods. The fraction of the monitored workforce receiving annual doscs in excess of 15
mSv increased from about 0.07 to about 0.08 between
the first two five-year periods and decreased subsequently to about 0.03 in the third period; the fractionof the collective cffective dose arising from annual
doses in excess of 15 mSv was about 0.6 in each of
the first two five-year periods, decreasing to about 0.4
in the third period. These fractions were estimatedfrom a smaller set of data than used to estimate doses,
as not all countries reported these quantities.
128. There are considerable variations about theworldwide average values in both the trends and levelsof dose in individual countries. Some regionalvariations arc illustrated in Figure VII. The normalized
collectivc doscs in Wcstcrn Europe are significantly
less than those clscwhcre and are typically smaller bya factor of about 2 than the worldwide averages overtile whole pcriod. Those in tI~cUnitcd States are, apartc to four tinies greaterfrom the first pcriod, s o ~ r ~three
than those in Western Europe. For BWRs in Japan and
China (Taiwan), the nonnalizcd dose, averaged overboth countries, in the first pcriod was about twice theworldwide average, but in subsequent periods it wasless than the average. The variations in the avcrageannual individual doses to monitored workers exhibit
trends sin~ilarto tl~oscfor UIC normnlizcd doses, but
the magnitude of t l ~ cvariations about the avcrage aremuch snlallcr.
129. Nornializcd collective effective doses that areconsistently and significantly less than the worldwide
averages were reported for BWRs in Finland andSweden. The largest r~onnalizcd collective doses
occurred in India and were about a factor of 1 0 greaterthan the worldwide averages for the corresponding
periods. Relatively large normalized doses also
occurred in the Netherlands, but these data should not
be given undue significance, as they apply only to one
small reactor. In most other countries there isconsiderable variation in the normalized doses about
the avcrage values, with little evidence of consistent
trends between respective time periods. These
differences in norn~alizedcollective doscs are largely,
but not completely, reflected in differences between
the avcrage individual doses in the respective
countries. Major downward trends with time areapparent in the normalized doscs in most countries, inparticular between the second and third five-year
period analyscd; the decrease was most pronounced
for the Federal Republic of Germany, Japan, Spainand the United States. In the Unitcd States there wasa large increase in the normalized collective dosc in
the secor~dperiod; the safcty modifications made in
response to the accident at Three Mile Island were themain reason for this increase. The trend in collective
dose per reactor to workcrs at BWRs in the UnitedStates is illuslrated in Figure VIII. The wide range ofvariation between reactors is, in general, greater thanthe variation for PWRs.
(b)

Dose distribution ratios for LWRs

130. Co~~iprchcnsivc
statistics have been compiled in
the United Stales on the distributions of individual
doses making up the collective effective doses [B2,
B4]. Thcse enable reliable estimates to be made of thecollective dose distribution ratio, SR, and also of thefraction of the workforce exposed above any prescribed level of individual dosc, NR. In Figurc IX the
distribution ratios NRE and SREare given for selected
years as a function of the annual effective dose, E.
These distributions are sunirnarizcd in Table 9. Large
reductions with time are cvidcnt in the fraction of
measurably exposed workcrs receiving an annual
effective dosc in excess of 15 mSv. Between 1973 and1989, this fraction, NRI5, decreased from 0.24 to 0.03,
with much of the reduction occurring in the 1980s.
Over the same period there was a 60-fold decrease(from 0.06 to 0.001) in the fraction of workers exposed to annual doses in excess of 30 mSv, a threefold
decrease (from 0.34 to 0.09) in those exposed inexcess of 10 mSv, and a twofold decrease (from 0.43
to 0.22) in those exposed in excess of 5 mSv.
131. The reductions in t l ~ e percentages of thecollective effective dose arising fronl individual annual
doscs in excess of partic,ular values are also
substantial. The fraction of tlie collective dose arisingfrom annual individual doses in excess of 15 mSv has
decreased fourfold (frorn 0.71 to 0.1 9) over the period
1973-1989. Over the same period there was a 30-folddecrease (from 0.30 to 0.009) from annual doses inexcess of 30 mSv, a twofold decrease (froni 0.85 to0.43) from doses in excess of 10 mSv and a reduction
by a factor of about 1.3 (from 0.93 to 0.70) fromannual doses in excess of 5 nrSv.
(c)

Doses for specific tasks a n d occupational
subgroups

132. Detailed statistics are gathered by the UnitedStates Nuclear Regulatory Commission on thecollective dose for several general categories of work,
job functions and types of personnel (B2, B4, R2].
The distribution of the collective dose between various
work functions is shown in Figure X for LWRs during
1975-1989. By far the greater part of the collective
dose arises in routine and special maintenance, withthe contribution of other categories being small bycomparison. Throughout the early 1980s, thecontribution of special maintenance was greatest, a
consequence of the safety-related modifications madeafter the accident at Three Mile Island. In the mostrecent period, the collective dose from routine
maintenance exceeded that from special maintenance.
133. The distributions of doses behveen contract
workers and utility persorrnel for separate work
functions at LWRs in the United States [B2] has also
been analysed. Most of the collective dose is received
by contract worker personnel, in particular during
special maintenance. Overall, the collective dose tocontract workers is greater by a factor of about 2 thanthat to utility workers. Data reported for some othercountries using LWRs (in particular Finland, France,
the German Democratic Republic, the Federal
Republic of Germany, Spain and Switzerland) showthat contract workcrs typically receive 60%-90% of
Lhe total collcctive dose [L2].
134. The distribution of collective doses among five
occupational groups, averaged over 1987-1989, issummarized in Table 1 0 for workers at LWRs in the
United States. Most of the dose is received by maintenance persorrnel (66%). The largest individual doses
are also received by maintenance personr~el(about
30% Beater than the average to workers in all otheroccupational groups), but those to health physicists areof a comparable magnitude.

2.

IIeavy-weter reactors

135. I-IWRs are used in several countries but mostcxtensivcly ill Canada, whcrc the CANDU reactor was
devclopcd and since exported to a ~ ~ u n l b eofr countries. Tlie main source of occupational exposure i r ~tliesc reactors is, in gcncral, exten~al irradiation,
mainly from activatioo products in the coolant andcoolant circuits. As in LWRs, r~iostof the exposuresarise during nraintenancc activities. internal exposure,
however, can also be a significant component of
exposure, principally from intakes of tritium producedby activation of the heavy-water moderator.
136. The worldwide installed capacity of HWRs,
averaged over five-year periods, increased from 5 G W
in 1975-1979 to 14 G W in 1985-1989: the conesponding increase in the average annual energy
generated worldwide was sorncwhat greater, fromabout 3 to 10 GW a. On average, 85% of this energy
was generated by HWRs in Canada. The number ofmonitored workers in HWRs worldwide increased
froni about 7,000 to about 18,000 over the period. The
average annual collective effective dose increased
from about 30 man Sv in the first five-year period toabout 45 man Sv in the second period and 60 man Sv
in the third. Internal exposure made a significant
contribution to the overall dosc; the contribution varied
from year to year and betwccn countries but on
average was 30%, varying typically from 15% to 50%.
The normalized collective dosc decreased from about
20 to about 8 Inan Sv (GW a)-' between 1975 and1979 and increased again to about 16 man Sv(GW a).' in 1982 (Figure VI); subsequently the dose
decreased to about 6 man Sv on average over theremainder of the 1980s. Averaged over five-year
periods, the normalized collective dose was
11 man Sv (GW a).' in the first period, decreasing to
8 man Sv (GW a)-' in the second period and to about
6 man Sv (GW a)-' in the third.
137. The annual effective dose to monitored worken
worldwide showed similar variations, but averaged
over five-year periods, it has decreased from 4.8 mSv
in the first period to an average of 3.3 mSv over thesecond and third periods. Data on the average annual
effective dose to measurably exposed workers are lesscomplete than other data. The avcragc dose to such
workers exceeded that for monitored workers byfactors ranging up to about 3, with considerable
variation betwccn countries. The fraction of the worldwide monitored workforce rccciving annual doses inexcess of 15 mSv dcncascd from 0.12 in Il~efirst
period to about 0.07 in each of the following periods;
the corresponding decrease in the fraclion of thecollective effective dose arising from annual doses inexcess of that level was frorn about 0.7 to about 0.5.
Both fractions show considerable variations from year

ANNEX D: OCCUPATIONAL

to year (Figure VI). They were estilnated from asmaller set of data than was used to estimate doses, as
not all countries reported this data.

138. There is wide variation in both the trends andlevels of Uic doses in individual countries. In the first
period tlie grater part (about 75%) of tlie worldwide
collcctive dose occurred in Canada; averaged over thelast two periods about 42% of the collective dose
occurred in India with about 34% in Canada. The
normalized collcctive dose in Canada was considerably
less than the worldwide average, declining
progressively from about 10 to about 2 man Sv(GW a)-' over the three periods. In Argentina andIndia the normalized doses have exceeded theworldwide averages and in India substantially s o[about 8 0 man Sv (GW a)", averaged over the period
1980-19891. The decrease in the average annual
individual dose to monitored workers in Canada was
far greater than that of the worldwide average,
decreasing from about 4.2 to 1.5 mSv over the period(over the same time the average dose to measurably
exposed workers decreased from about 9 to about
4 mSv). The annual doses to monitored workers,
averaged over the whole periods for which data werereported, were about 11 mSv in Argentina and about
6 mSv in India with considerable year to year
variation about these average values.

3. Gas-cooled reactors
139. There are three main types of GCRs: Magnox
reactors, including those with steel pressure vessels(SPVs) and those with prestressed concrete pressure
vessels (CPVs); advanced gas-cooled reactors (AGRs);
and high-temperature gas-cooled rcactors (HTGRs).
Only the Magnox and AGRs have, as yet, reachedcommercial application; HTGRs exist only in prototype forms. Most of the experience with GCRs has
been obtained in the Unitcd Kingdom, where they
have been installed and operated for many years.
Initially, all GCRs were of the Magnox type: throughout the 1980s, the contribution of AGRs, both in termsof their installed capacity and energy generated,became more important. The relative importance ofAGRs will increase as Magnox reactors are decommissioned.

140. Magnar and AGRs. In previous UNSCEAR
Reports the data for Magnox reactors and AGRs havebeen combined, despite potentially large differences inboth the individual and nonnalized collcctive effective
dose for these reactor types (and also between Magnox
reactors with different types of pressure vessel). These
differences arise mainly from the use of concrete as
opposed to steel pressure vessels in AGRs (and in thelater Magnox reactors) and the increased shielding thatthey provide agaif~stexternal radiation, the donlinantsource of occupational exposure from this reactor type.
In this Annex separate estimates are made for eachreactor type.
141. The worldwide installed capacity of GCRs,
averaged over five-year pcriods, increased from about
9 GW in 1975-1979 to about 1 3 GW in 1985-1989;
the corresponding increase in thc average annual
energy generated worldwide was comparable, fromabout 5 to 7 GW a. On average, 75% of this energy
was generated by GCRs in the Unitcd Kingdom. T h enumber of monitored workers in GCRs increased
worldwide from about 13,000 to 31,000 over theperiod. The average annual collective effective dose
decrcased from 36 man Sv in the f i s t five-year period
to 24 man Sv in the third, with much of the decrease
occurring bctwccn the last two periods. The nonnalized collective dose, averaged over five-year pcriods,
decreased fiom about 7 to about 3 man Sv (GW a)-'over the period, with most of the decrease again
occurring between the last two periods.
142. The annual effective dose to monitored workers
worldwide, averaged over five-year periods, fell progressively from 2.8 mSv in the first period to about
0.8 mSv in the third. The fraction of the worldwide
monitored workforce receiving annual doses in excess
of 15 mSv is small: it decxeased from 0.02 to 0.0002
over the period; the data are incomplete on the fraction of the collective effective dose arising fromannual doses in excess of that level, but in the h i r dperiod the fraction was 0.008. The substantial
decreases in the average individual and normalized
collcctive doses largely resulted from the gradualintroduction of AGRs in the United Kingdom; thedoses in these reactors are significantly lower thanthose in Magnox reactors, at least those with steelpressure vessels.
143. There are major differences in the occupational
exposures at different types of GCRs. Data for different generations of Magnox reactors, in particular thosewith steel pressure vessels and those with concretepressure vessels, and for AGRs are summarized inTable 11. A distinction is also drawn between exposures in the first-generation Magnox-SPV reactors
constructed with the dual purpose of producing
weapons-grade plutonium and electrical energy andthose later built solely for the generation of electricalenergy. The normalized collective effective doses,
averaged over the whole period, varied considerablyfrom about 30 nlan Sv (GW a)" for first-generation
Magnox-SPV rcactors to about 1 man Sv (GW a)-' forboth AGR and Magnox-CPV reactors; for secondgeneration Magnox-SPV reactors the dose was, on
average, about 8 man Sv (GW a)-'. Similar trends areevident in Ole annual individual closes. The average

ANNEX D: OCCUPATIONAL RADlATION 1-XPOSUWS

continuing relatively low cost of uraniu~rl and theeconomic risks of developing a complete fast reactor
fuel cycle are the main factors delaying thecommercial introduction of FBRs.
150. The worldwide installed capacity of FBRs,
averaged over five-year periods, has increased fromabout 1 GW in 1980-1984 to about 2 GW in 19851989; over the same period the average annual energy
generated worldwide increased from about 0.5 to about
0.7 GW a. The number of monitored workers in
prototype FBRs worldwide is estiniated to haveincreased from about 1,400 to about 2,000 between
these two periods. The average annual collective
effective dose increased from about 0.6 man Sv toabout 1 man Sv during the same time. The normalized
collective effective dose, averaged ovcr five-year
periods was broadly the same in both periods at about
1.3 man Sv (GW a)-'. The annual effective dose tonlonitored workers worldwide, averaged over five-year
periods, was about 0.5 mSv in both periods.
151. While these data need to be qualified because
they apply specifically to prototype facilities, they doindicate that the levels of occupational exposure in
FBRs are likely to be much lower than those experienced at reactors of most other types currently incommercial operation.

152. Data on occupational exposures at reactors
worldwide are summarized in Table 12. The worldwide installed capacity of all reactors, averaged over
five-year periods, increased from about 100 GW in
1975-1979 to 290 GW in 1985-1989; the increase overthe corresponding period in the average annual energy
generated was Gonl 55 to about 190 GW a. Averaged
over the whole period, about 80% of the total energy
was generated in LWRs (of this, about 70% was from
PWRs and 30% from BWRs), with contributions ofabout 7% each from HWRs, GCRs and LWGRs. The
number of monitored workers increased from about
150 to 430 thousand over the same period.

403

when i t was about 11 man SV (GW a)-'; thereafter it
declined steadily to about 5 nian SV (GW a)-' in 1989
(see Figure VI). A generally decreasing trend isapparent i ~ rthe normalized collective doses for mostreactor types. The valucs for PWRs, LWGRs (before
the Chemobyl accident) and GCRs overall (values for
AGRs and Magnox-CPV reactors are much smaller)
are broadly comparable; the valucs for HWRs and
BWRs are somewhat larger, Lbe latter substantially soin the earlier years.
155. The annual effective dose to monitored workers,
averaged ovcr all reactors, fell steadily from more than
4 mSv in 1975 to about 2 mSv in 1989. With the
exception of LWGRs, a downward trend is evident in
the average annual dose in each reactor type. There
are, however, considerable differences between
reactors, both in the absolute magnitudes of thesedoses and in their rate of decline.
156. Data on the dose distribution ratios NRIS and
SRI5 are less complete than data for other quantities(e.g. no data for LWGRs, FBRs, HTGRs andincomplete data for other reactor types). Values ofthese ratios, averaged over all reported data, are given
in Table 12. Until more complete data are obtained,
these averages can only be said to be indicative ofworldwide values. Averaging over all reported data,
the fraction of monitored workers receiving annual
effective doses in cxccss of 15 mSv was about 0.09 in1975 decreasing to about 0.03 by 1989; over the same
period the fraction of the collective dose, arising fromannual doses in excess of the same level, decreased
from about 0.6 to about 0.3.

E. FUEL FUCPROCESSING
1. Average annual doses

153. The annual collective effective dose, averaged
over five-year periods, increased from about 600
man Sv in the first five-year period to about 1,000
man Sv in the second, with a furlher increase to about
1,100 man Sv in the third. The trend in annual values
is indicated in Figure V. About 80% of the collective
dose occurred at LWRs, with broadly similar
contributions from PWRs and BWRs. Averaged over
the whole period the contribution of HWRs has been
about 5%, that of GCRs about 3% and that of LWGRs
about 10% (about 6% prior to the Chemobyl accident).

157. Spent irradiated fuel from nuclear reactors used
to generate electrical energy was reprocessed on acommercial scale, for much of the 1970s and all of the
1980s, in only two countries, France and the United
Kingdom. The facilities in those two countries have,
bowever, also been used to reprocess irradiated fuelfrom otber countries. In the United Kingdom only
uranium metal fuel from Magnox reactors bas to datebeen reprocessed on a commercial scale; a new plant
for the reprocessing of oxide fuel is, however, scheduled to begin operation in the early 1990s. In France,
before 1976, only metallic fuel was reprocessed on acommercial scale; oxide fuel reprocessing began in
1976 and is now by far the largest constituent of fuelreprocessed.

154. The normalized collective effective dose,
averaged over all reactors, varied little before 1984,

158. In previous UNSCEAR Reports occupational
exposures at the commercial reprocessing facilities inFrance and the United Kingdo~nwere discussed. 111
addilion, data were presented for a number of sn~allscale and/or prototype reprocessing plants. In thisAnnex consideration is largcly directed towards thecon~mcrcial-scalefacilities, because it is these whichdctcrniinc the overall levels of both past and current
exposures from this stage of tlie fuel cycle: data on
prototype facilities arc, however, provided forcompleteness.
159. External irradiation is the main contributor to
occupational exposure in file1 rcprocessing, althougliinternal exposure may be significant in sonic
opcrations, in particular those that involve actinides.
Where internal exposures may be significant, personalmonitoring is carried out, using methods appropriate
to the circunistances of rhc exposure; these may
include the wearing of personal air samplers,
biological monitoring and whole body or lungcounting. The contributions from internal exposure
have in general, however, only recently been included
in reported data on occupational exposure.
160. In previous UNSCEAR Reports a single estimate
was reported for the normalizcd collective effective
dose for reproccssing. The estimate was derived fromthe normalizcd collective doscs estimated for cachreprocessing facility and the respective amounts offucl (in terms of energy equivalence) processed bythem. In this Annex separate estimates are made of thenormalizcd collective dose for the reprocessing of
uranium metal and oxide fucls. There are several
reasons for this. First, the fuels theniselves have very
different characteristics, as do the plants in which they
are processcd. Secondly, the normalizcd collcctivc
doscs (normalized in terms of energy generation) for
reprocessing the two types of fucl have differed bymore than an order of magnitude in recent years. Any
average value of normalizcd collective dose is,therefore, very sensitive to the respective amounts offucl reprocessed and would probably not be valid forother periods or for projecting doses in the future.
Thirdly, separate values are necessary in this analysis
to provide normalized collective doses for each of thefuel cycles using different rcactor, and consequently
fucl, types.
161. Data on occupational exposures in reproccssing
plants are summarized in Table 13, and some of themain features are illustrated in Figure XI. Few of thereported data contain estimates of the amount of fuelreprocessed or the energy generated from the fuelduring its irradiation. In making cstimates of worldwide levels of exposure from reprocessing arid of
average normalized collective doscs, consideration has
been limited to the commercial reprocessing of fuel at
Cap de La Hague in France and Scllaficld in the
United Kingdom. Both metal and oxide fucls havebeen reprocessed at Cap de La Hague as well as smallamoll~itsof nixed oxide fi~cls;the relative amounts ofeach reprocessed in the three five-year periods areindicated in a footnote to Table 13. The doscs reported
for the rcprocessing of Magnox fucls at Scllafield arc
probably ovcrcstiniatcs. These doscs are, with the
exception of rcactor operations, for the Sellafield site
as a wliole and will, therefore, include exposurcs from
opcmtio~~suriconncctcd with Magnox reprocessing.
162. Worldwide levels of exposure from rcprocessing
metal fucls have been estimated by adding the data for
Ihe U ~ ~ i t cKingdomdto that fraction of the total exposures occurring at Cap dc La Hague attributable to thereproccssing of metal fucls. The normalized collective
dose for cach fuel type reprocessed at Cap de La
Hague was estimated from the reported total collective
dosc arising in each five-year period and the amountsof each type of fuel rcproccssed (the contribution of
the s~iiallamount of mixed oxide fuel that was reprocessed was neglected). The normalized collective dose
for metal fuel was estimated to be about 18 man Sv(kt).' [6.7 man Sv (GW a).'] and for oxide fuel about
14 man Sv (kt)-' [0.7 man S v (GW a).']. The collective dose attributed to each type of fuel reprocessing ineach five-year period was then derived as the productof the rcspective normalized collective dose and theamount of fuel processed. The numbers of workers
attributed to h e reprocessing of each fuel type were
estimated from the collective doses, assuming that the
average individual dosc in cach group was equal tothat for the workforce as a whole.
163. The annual amount of metal fuel reprocessedworldwide, averaged ovcr five-year periods, remained
relatively uniform within a range of about 1,0001,200 1 (3-3.6 GW a). The number of monitored
workers was typically 7,000-8,000. The average annual
collective effective dosc has decreased from about
5 0 man Sv in the first pcriod to about 30 man Sv inthe third. The normalizcd collective dose has declined
similarly from about 5 0 to about 33 man Sv (kt)-'[17-11 man SV(GW a)-'], with a comparable decreasein the average annual effective dose to monitored
workers from about 7 to about 4 mSv. The averagefraction of monitored workers receiving annual doses
in excess of 15 niSv decreased from about 0.16 toabout 0.009 ovcr the pcriod analysed. These data areillustrated in Figure XI.

164. Over the period as a whole, about 80% ofworldwide nietal fuel rcprocessing took place at
Sellaficld, with about 90% of the total colleclive dose
arising d~crc.T t ~ enonrialized collective doses for
rcprocessing ~nelal fuel at Sellafield are typicallygreater tl~anthose at Cap de La Hague by a factor of
about 2, apart fiorn in the first five-year period, when
the difference was greatcr. The respective averageannual individual doscs differ by a similar amount, A
large fraction of the exposures at Scllaficld has histori-

L RADIATION EXPOSURE..

405

cally arisen during the decarinirig of fucl and in otheropcrations conducted near the file1 storage ponds. Thissituation arose following significant contamiriation of
the pond water from fucl corrosion in the early 1970s
and is probably llle riiairi source of differences in
exposures at Scllaficld and at Cap dc La Hague.
Several factors have contributed to the reduction in
exposures at Scllaficld since the early 1970s, in particular the allocation of greater resources to ensure that
doses were kept as low as reasonably achievable,measures taken to reduce the levels of contaminationin pond cooling water and, more recently, the commissioning of a new facility for the receipt, storage
and decarlning of Magnox fuel.

will be received by groups of workers undertaking
certain tasks. Statistics have been compiled for several
groups of workers employed in the rcprocessitig ofspent nuclear fuel and associated activities at the
Scllaficld reprocessing plant in the United Kirigdo~n[SS]. The doses to these workers are illustrated in
Figures XI1 and XI11. Annual doscs from external
irradiation arc given in these Figures for the following
six groups of workers for the period 1968-1988:

165. The annual amount of oxide h e l reprocessed in
France (and essentially worldwide), averaged over
five-year periods, has increased from about 3 0 t in thefirst period to about 400 t in the last (about 0.5 toabout 9 GW a). The number of monitored workers has
increased over the same period from about 100 toabout 4,000. The average annual collective effective
dose has increased from about 0.4 man Sv in the first
period to about 6 man Sv in the third. The normalized
collective dose remained fairly uniform at about 14
marl Sv (kt)-' [about 0.7 man Sv (GW a)-']. Anotherfurther reprocessing plant (UP3) was brought into
operation at Cap dc La Hague in 1990, and following
this there was a significant decrease in the normalized
collective effective dose, to about 5 man Sv kt-' 10.19
man Sv (GW a)-']; on this evidence, somewhat lower
normalized doses than reported in Table 13 can be
expected in the future. The average fraction of monitored workers receiving annual doses in excess of
15 mSv decreased from about 0.06 to about 0.008
over the period analysed; the corresponding decreasein the fraction of the collective dose arising fromindividual doses in excess of that level was from about
0.3 to about 0.1.

@)

166. With two exceptions, the doses reported inTable 13 include only exposures from external irradiation. Internal exposures are included in all of the data
for Japan and for the United Kingdom from 1986
onwards. The reported doscs in all other cases may,therefore, be underestimates, and caution should be
exercised when comparing data that have been compiled in different ways. The contribution of internal
exposure in the United Kingdom is estimated to beless than 10%.
2. Doses for specific tasks
and occup~~tional
subgroups

167. The distribution of doses within the workforce
involved in the reprocessirlg of nuclear fuel is, as inother occupations, not uniform, and doses somewhat
higher than the average for the workforce as a whole

(a)

(c)
(d)

(e)

(f)

fucl storage and decanning: proccss workers
engaged in the storage under water of spent
Magnox furl and the subsequent removal of themagtiesium alloy cladding before chemicaldissolution of the fucl element;chemical separation: process workers engaged in
the chemical dissolution of spent fuel to separate
reusable uranium and plutonium from the fission
product waste;maintenance: skilled and semi-skilled tradesmen
engaged in the routine and breakdown maintenance of mechanical plant items;
maintenance of new plant: skilled andsemi-skilled tradesmen engaged in the
installation of new mechanical plant items
associated with operating facilities;
plutonium finishing: process workers engaged in
the conversion of the separated plutonium in thenitrate for111 into the final metal or dioxide
product;
waste processing: process workers engaged in
the evaporation (i.e. concentration) and storageof the fission product waste stream separated
from the actinides by the chelnical reprocessing.

168. A generally downward trend in the averageannual effective doses for each of the six groups has
been maintained since the early 1970s, and substantial
reductions have been achieved. The doses declined
from several tens of millisievert in the early 1970s tolevels in the range 4-10 mSv (Figure XIT). For
comparison, the annual effective dose, averaged over
the whole workforce employed in reprocessing
operations, fell from about 10 to about 3 mSv from1975 to 1988. Several factors contributed to these
reductions: the introduction of annual as opposed toage-related dose limits was influential, but the mostimportant factor was the increased emphasis given,from the late 1970s onwards, by the regulatory
authorities and the operator on keeping doses as low
as reasonably achievable. ALARA became a central
consideri~tionin day-to-day plant operations and in thedesign of new facilities arid the modification of the oldplant. The introduction of a design standard for new
facilities contributed further to the downward trends in
dose, in particular through the 1980s, when a large
number of new facilities were commissioned; thisstandard sought to ensure an average annual dose to
the workforce of less than 5 niSv.

169. The reductions in collective effective dose
(Figure XIII) are, in general, less pronounced. The
trends in tlie collcctive dose are, however, generally
downwards. Substantial reductions in the collective
dose have been achieved in the two subgroups ofreprocessing workers contributing most to exposuresduring reprocessing operations: workers associatedwith fuel storage and decanning and those associatedwith maintenance. In tlie former case h e decrcase
reversed an increasing trend throughout the 1970s,
which had resulted from the corrosion of fuel cladding
and tlie contamination of storage ponds. Improvementsin the condition of the storage pond and, moresignificantly, the commissioning of new fuel storage
and decanning facilities were responsible for thereversal and for the sharp decline in the exposure ofthis occupational group. With one exception, thecollective doses in the other subgroups exhibited asnlall decrease. The exception is the collective dose
arising from the installation of new plant items; theincrease here was associated with the almost twofold
increase in the numbcr of workers in this occupational
category and doubtless also reflected an increased
level of plant modifications and improvements.

F. RESEARCH AND DEVELOI'MENT
170. In the UNSCEAR 1977 Report [U4], Annex E,
it was estimated that the largest single contribution to
the collective dose per unit energy generated camefrom research and development. A value of 14 man Sv(GW a)-' was estimated. This was subsequently judged
to have been an overestimate, and in the UNSCEAR
1982 Report [U3], a value of 5 man Sv (GW a)" wassuggested as a more reasonable global average.
171. It is difficult to estimate the levels ofoccupational exposure that can unequivocally be
attributed to research and development in thecommercial nuclear fuel cycle. Few data are reported
separately under this category, and even when they
are, uncertainties remain over their proper interpretation. The main difficulties of interpretation are as
follows:

(a)

@)

(c)

data are ofien compiled for researchestablishments whose main, but not sole,function is to undertake research anddevelopment associated with the commercial
nuclear fuel cycle. The fraction devoted to thisfunction is rarely given;some of the occupational exposures attributed in
the preceding Sections to particular parts of thefuel cycle contain a contribution from researchand development, but the magnitude of thisfraction is difficult to estimate;normalization of collective doses from research
have been made in terms of the nuclear energy

generated in the year in which the research was
perfomled. While this convention has the benefitof simplicity, practicability and convenience, Uie
validity of equating the current levels ofcollective dose arid energy generation is open to
criticislu. The benel'ib of research inherently
accrue over a period quite different from that inwhich the research was performed. Actually, thenormalization should take account of the totalenergy generated in the period in which thebenefits are deemed to accrue. In a rapidly
developing industry, it is evident that normalization based on current energy generation is
likely to lead to a large overestimate in the earlyyears, followed by an underestimate later as theindustry matures and the amount of research
declines. Such considerations were at least
partially responsible for the large downward
revision in the normalized collective dosereferred to in the preceding paragraph.
172. Occupational exposures arising in nuclear
research, averaged over five-year periods, aresummarized in Table 14. There is considerable
variation in the levels of collective dose associatedwith research activities in each country, reflecting,among other matters, the relative role of nuclear
energy in lhe national energy supply and the extent towhich nuclear technology was developed doniesticallyor imported from elsewhere. The reported annual
collective effective doses range from a very small
fraction of a man sievert (e.g. in Finland) to about
40 mari Sv in the United Kingdom. Country-to-counby
differences are to be expected in the occupational
exposures associated wilh this category; however,these differences niay have been exaggerated
significantly by different reporting approaches. The
collective doses attributed to research in the UnitedStates and the United Kingdom are by far the largestof those reported (typically, annual doses range
between 20 and 30 mari Sv in the United States and
20 and 40 riian Sv in the United Kingdom). The only
other countries reporting annual doses of afew man sievcrt or greater are Canada, France,
Germany and Japan, each of wliich has a significant
nuclear research and development programme.
173. The data given for the United States need to bequalified because of the way in which they have been
estimated. They have been extracted from datareported for all employccs and contract workers of the
Department of Energy [M3]; however, only a fractionof these exposures is associated with research related
to the commercial nuclear fuel cycle (much is defencerelated). In the absence of definitive data on themagnitude of this fraction, it has been approximately
estimated from the total data of the Department ofEnergy by excluding those categories that are clearly

RADIATION EXPOSURES

unrelated to commercial fuel cycle research. The datacon~prisethe sum of exposures reported to arise infusion, waste management and processing, plus one
half of the exposures arising in the following
categories: reactors, general research, offices,maintenance and support and other. The somewhat
arbitrary inclusion of one half of the exposures
attributed to these latter categories (which could not be
excluded unequivocally), was intended to minimize thelikelihood of underestimating the collective dose thatshould properly be attributed to commercial nuclear
fuel cycle research. The doses given in Table 14 for
the United States comprise about one third of the total
doses reported by the Department of Energy but arc
still considered to be overestimates. In previous
UNSCEAR evaluations, the total exposures reportedby the Department of Energy were attributed toresearch associated with the nuclear fuel cycle; as aconsequence, earlier worldwide predictions of
exposures from this source may have beensignificantly overestimated.
174. Worldwide levels of occupational exposure
associated with research are also given in Table 14.
They were estimated from the reported data withextrapolation based on gross national product. Thismethod was adopted in preference to the extrapolation
used for other parts of the nuclear fuel cycle, whichwere based on fuel fabricated, energy generated etc.:
the difficulties, identified previously, of using energy
generation as Ibe basis for normalizing research were
responsible for the change to gross national product.
The regional groupings of countries were as specified
in Section I.C, except that the former USSR was
treated separately from the rest of Eastern Europe and,for the purposes of the extrapolation, grouped withthose other regions for which no data had bee11
reported or no data were available. The net effect of
this change is that the doses for the former USSR
were extrapolated on the basis of the normalized
collective dose averaged over all reporting countries
rather than over just those countries reporting data in
Eastern Europe. The former was judged to be a more
appropriate basis of extrapolation for a country with alarge nuclear industry and research and development
programme. The sum of gross national products for
those countries reporting data was about 60% of thc
worldwide total. On average, therefore, the reported
data have been scaled upwards by a factor of about 2:
there is, however, considerable variation about thisaverage for particular regions.
175. The annual number of monitored workers inresearch worldwide, averaged over five-year periods,
remained fairly uniform, about 130,000. The averageannual worldwide collective effective dose has
decreased from 170 to 100 man Sv between the first
and third five-year periods. The annual effective dose407

to monitored workers worldwide, averaged over
five-year periods, fell from 1.4 mSv in the first period
to about 0.8 mSv in the third. For those countries
reporting data on this quantity, the fraction of themonitored workforce receiving annual doses in excess
of 15 mSv decreased, falling from about 0.04 to about
0.01 over the period; the corresponding decrease in thefraction of the collective effective dose arising fromannual doses in excess of that level was from about
0.4 to 0.3. These fractions were estimated from a setof data that was smaller than the set used to estimate
doses, as not all countries reported data on thesequantities; moreover, in some countries data on only
one of the fractions were reported. Fewer data are
available on the average doses to measurably exposed
workers than on those to monitored workers:
consequently no attempt has been made to estimate aworldwide average dose for this quantity. Those datathat are available exhibit wide variations, with theaverage dose to measurably exposed workers varying
from marginally in excess of that for the monitored
workforce to many times greater.

176. It is of interest to, compare the normalized
collective doses (normalized in ternls of gross national
product, the unit for which is lo1* US dollars) for thedifferent geographic or economic regions. For 19851989, the normalized collective dose averaged over all
countries reporting data was about 5.8 man Sv per
GNP unit (1989 prices). In comparison, the value for
the OECD was about 5.7 man Sv per GNP unit; thevalues for Latin America, Eastern Europe (excluding
the former USSR) and east and south-east Asia (noncentrally planned economies) were all within the range
0.8-1.4 man Sv per GNF' unit. The value for India wasconsiderably higher, about 20 man Sv per GNP unit.
Considerable variation is, however, evident between
countries within these broader regional groupings. For
example, within the OECD, values were in the range
0.8-40 man Sv per GNP unit, the larger values being
associated with those countries having large nuclear
development programmes. The largest of these values
was for the United Kingdom, where about half thetotal collective dose attributed to research arose fromthe operation and maintenance of a prototype steamgenerating heavy water reactor (SGHWR); much of
the remainder arose during the operation of reactors
for material testing and radioisotope production andthe operation of a prototype fast reactor and associatedreprocessing and waste management facilities. Whether
these exposures should be attributed to research isdebatable, in particular those arising liom operation of
the SGHWR, where. one of the considerations
influencing its continued operation was thecommercial revenue obtained from sales of electricalenergy. This is another example of the difficulties
encountered in trying to ensure comparability in thedata reported for different countries.

408

UNSCEAR1993 REPORT177. Estin~aleshave been made of the worldwide
normalized collective dose expressed in terms of thenuclear energy generated during the same period as
the research was undertaken. The deficiencies of thisquantily were noted in paragraph 171, and it has been
estimated mainly to provide a basis for comparison
with estimates made on this basis in previous
UNSCEAR Reports. The present analysis indicatesthat the global average of 5 man Sv (GW a)-' [U3],which was a major downward revision of the previous
estimate, may still be a significant overestimate. Ityields global average normalized collective doses ofabout 3, 15 and 0.6 man Sv (GW a)-' for the three
live-year periods; even these values are considered to
be overestimates. The sixfold decline in thenormalized collective dose over the period analysed islargely an artefact of the normalization procedure, i.e.
most of the reduction is a consequence of an increasein the rate of energy generation rather than of adecrease in the exposures associated with rescarch.

178. An alternative, but perhaps more meaningful
estimate of the normalized collective dose fromresearch, albeit subject to several important simplifying assumptions, may be made by associating thetotal collective dose from research carried out in 19551989 with the energy generated during the same
period plus that likely to be generated, largely withexisting reactors, over the next 30 years, i.e. from1990 to 2019. The total collective dose can be estimated from the worldwide data in Table 14, assumingthat the worldwide average annual collective dose in
five-year periods before 1975-1979 increased by
35 man Sv per period (i.e. the approximate increase
per period between 1975-1979 and 1985-1989). The
total energy generated may be estimated as the sum of
the total nuclear energy generated up to 1989 plus thatassumed to be generated over the next 3 0 years; thelatter estimate assumed that the average rate of energy
generation over this time would remain the same asthat in 1985-1989. On this basis the normalized collective effective dose from research is estimated, in roundterms, to be about 1 man Sv (GW a)-' and isconsidered to be applicable to research carried out insupport of the commercial nuclear fuel cycle up to
1989. This value is judged to be a conservative estimate for a number of reasons, not least the probableoverestimation of doses that should be associated withresearch in the period 1975-1989, the probable ovcrestimation of doses attributable to research prior to1975 and the probable underestimate of the energy
generation that should be associated with the researchalready conducted. For the purpose of assessing overall values of normalized collective doses for the whole
fuel cycle, this value of 1 man S v (GW a)-' isassumed to be generally applicable for research,irrespective of when it was undertaken in the past, andto be independent of the fuel cycle considered.

G. CIJMULATIVE 1)OSES
179. The estimation of cumulative occupational doses
and their distributio~~sin different workforces is a
topic of sonle inlportance to those concerned withradiological protection. Tlie cumulative dose received
by a worker and its rate of accumulation provide ameasure of the additional risk U~atmay result fromoccupational radiation exposures. The absolute valueof this risk and its distribution with time can becompared with r i s k in other occupations as an input
to establishing occupational dose limits. There are,however, few published data on cumulative or lifetime
doses, and it is therefore possible to provide only very
indicative estimates of cumulative or lifetime doses fora limited numbcr of occupations in particularcountries. The increasing use of computerized
databases for recording occupational exposures should
result in more and better statistics on cumulative dose.
180. The most extensive analysis of cumulative or
lifetime doses s o far undertaken by the Committee wasthat for the UNSCEAR 1977 Report [U4].Those dose
estimates need to be revised to take account ofsubsequent developments in radiological protection
standards and practice and of the simplifications thatwere used in the analysis. The more significant
estimates of cumulative doses for nuclear fuel cycle
facilities are summarized in this Section. Inevitably,
differences exist in how the data on cumulative doses
have been compiled and reported, and these limit theextent to which they can be directly compared.
181. Surnmary of cumurcltive dmes reported inprevious UNSCEAK Reports. Estimates of mean lifetime doses have been made in the United States forvarious groups of workers (employees of licensees of
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Departmentof Energy and the Navy) [El]. Since these initial
estimates were based on historical data on cumulative
doses to workers whose employment had been t e n i nated, no assumptio~ishad to be made about the length
oftheir working lifetimes. For most groups of workers
analysed, the mean cumulative effective dose wasestimated to be about 10 mSv. The estimates were notvery sensitive to the year in which employment was
lernlinatcd and showed only a small increase in themean cumulative dose with increasing mean durationof employment (for mean periods in the range 1-10
years). The mean cumulative doses derived from suchdata may, howevcr, be underestimates, because thedata contain records for both permanently andtemporarily terminated workers, and probably not all
doses from previous periods of enlployment or withdifferent employers will have been included. Estimates
were also made of the maximum cumulative doses
among the groups of workers analysed. Based on an
analysis of trends in the data for workers in the

187. The average career length for those terminating
employment in 1977 was about 1 year, increasing toabout 5 years in 1989. A less than proportional
increase occurred in the average career dose over thesame period; the increase was Goni about 10 mSv in
1977 to about 17 mSv in 1988 with evidence of amore substantial increase to about 26 rnSv for thoseterminating eniployment in 1989. Data for subsequent
years will be of interest to determine whether the latter
is a statistical fluctuation or a reflection of anunderlying trend. The average age at which
employment was terminated changed slightly over thisperiod, from 36 to 38 years.

188. Before the above-mentioned statistics wereavailable from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Goldsmith et al. [GI] reported results from a more
limited analysis of the cumulative doses for about
9,000 workers who at one time or another were
employed at the Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant in
the United States. Two PWRs with a generating
capacity of 825 MW each at Calvert Cliffs began
operating commercially in 1975 and 1977,
respectively. Workers were followed Gom their timeof employment at the plant (including the period of
construction) to the end of 1986. The mean follow-up
period was 5.4 years, the mean duration of
employment at the plant was 1.9 years and overall in
the nuclear industry, 3.1 years.
189. For measurably exposed workers (about 80% of
those monitored) the average career dose was 21 mSv;
the average cumulative dose to contract workers, whocomprised about one half of those measurably
exposed, was 31 mSv and that to utility workers,
13 mSv. The cumulative collective effective dose to
those workers was about 150 man Sv, of which only
about one third (about 5 4 man Sv [B2]) was actually
received at the Calvert Clifk plant; the remainder wasreceived at other licensed facilities. This mean
cumulative effective dose of 21 mSv is somewhat
greater than the overall average of about 1 4 mSv
reported by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for
all reactor workers who terminated employmeritbetween 1977 and 1989. The cumulative dose forworkers at the Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant
would be expected to continue to increase for those
who had not yet terminated employment.
190. The data on cumulative doses were analysed int e r n of the duration of employment at Calvert Cliffs,
the duration of employment within the nuclear
industry, the age at which eniployment began in theindustry, the number of utilities at which an employee
has worked, job category etc. [GI]. Selectedcharacteristics of the distributions of cumulative dosefor various employment durations are summarized inTable 17. The mean and median cuniulative doses
increase with increasing duration of eniployment in a

broadly linear fasl~ion. For contract workers, theaverage nnnual increment in dosc was about 7 rnSv
and U~atfor utility elnployees, about 3.5 mSv. The rateof accus~ulationof dosc by utility workers was similar
to tl~at reported by t l ~ e Nuclear Regulatory
Comlnission for workers with career duratioris from 5
to 20 years; the ratc of dose accumulation by contract
workers was two times higher.
191. About 18% of contract workers and 6% of utility
workers had received cumulative effective doses inexcess of 50 1nSv: the corresponding percentages forcumulative doses in excess of 100 mSv were 8.3%
and 1.6%. The maximum cuniulative dose reported
was 470 mSv. The percentages of workers exceeding
particular levels of cumulative dose after specified
lengths of en~ploymentdo not support any simple
basis for extrapolation, but they nevertheless provide
at least a rough indication of the levels of cuniulative
dosc that may be experienced in the future, (or werealready experienced in the past), by workers who were
employed for longer periods in the industry.
192. The data also show a relationship between the
cumulative dose atid the number of utilities for which
an employee has worked; this, perhaps, is not sosurprising, since to at least some extent there must bea correlation between duration of employment and thenumber of utilities at which an employee has worked.
The mean cumulative dose increases from about
8 mSv for contract workers who have been employedby only one utility to > I 0 0 mSv for those employedby 15 or more utilities. Cumulative doses were also
estimated for selected job categories, and averagevalues are sumniarized in Table 18. The higher doses
received by contract workers compared with utility
workers are apparent. By far the highest mean
cumulative doses (in excess of twice the mean
cumulative dose for the workforce as a whole) arereceived by workers in health physics.
193. In general, the cumulative doses and otherrelated statistics reported for workers who, at one timeor another, had been employed at the Calvert Cliffs
reactor exceed those reported by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission for workers whose
employment at reactors terminated in 1977-1989.
These differences call into question the
representativeness of career doses derived fromtermination records; one interpretation of thedifferences observed could be that career doses forworkers terminating employment may beunderestinlates of those for workers having the same
career duration but remaining in employment. Data infuture years will help to elucidate this issue. The
Calvert Cliffs data also highlight the significant
differences in cuniulative doses between utility andcontract workers atid between occupational categories.
Further d a b on such differences would be useful.

ANNEX D: OCCUPATlONAL RADIATION EXPOSURES

194. Workers at a Deparlrnent of Energy facility in
the United Shtes. An analysis is being undertaken oflifctinic doscs received at a large facility operated by
the Department of Energy; research and dcvclopn~cnt
in support of boo1 the conlrncrcial and defence nuclear
fuel cycles arc undertaken at such facilities. The
analysis is still under way, but preliminary results havebeen presented in [M3]. The study includes more than
300,000 dose histories from more than 30,000
individuals who were employed at the particularfacility at some time from 1944 to 1984. Only doses
received at that facility arc included in the analysis(i-e. doses received before or after to enlployment at
the facility are not included). Data wcrc collected on
external and internal exposure, but the preliminary
results are concerned solely with cxternal exposure.
These data show, for cxaniple, that no worker
employed 20 years at the facility accumulated a dose
greater than 500 mSv, and 10% of them accumulated
a dose equal to or greater than 150 mSv. These data,
while preliminary, show the magnitude of cumulative
exposures over a 40-year pcriod. When the analysis iscomplete, in particular when both internal and external
exposures are included, it should provide further
insight into the rate of accumulation of dose during
working lifetimes.
195. Workers at the Sellafield reprocessing planl in
the United Kingdorrr. An analysis [B9] has been
made of the cumulative external radiation exposure, up
to 1988, of male workers employed at the BNFL site
at Sellaficld, where various nuclear activities areundertaken in addition to the main one of fuelreprocessing. The trends in the cumulative dose as afunction of follow-up time and as a function of theyear in which the monitoring of a worker first took
place arc illustrated in Figure XIV; a subset of thedata is given in Table 19. The data clearly indicatethat the average cun~ulative dose in a group of
workers followed for a given period decreases horn
earlier years to more recent years in which the group
was first monitored; the effect becomes more
pronounced for longer follow-up periods. For a
20-year follow-up pcriod, the average cumulative dose
for those who were first monitored in 1950 is about
400 mSv; this is grcater by a factor of almost 2 than
the average cumulative dose received by those firstmonitored in the mid- to late 1960s. For a 38-year
follow-up pcriod (the maximum), the average
cumulative dosc for those first monitored in 1950 isabout 750 mSv; the cumulative doscs for the same
follow-up pcriod for thosc f i s t monitored in 1960 can,at this stage, only be speculative, but by extrapolating
existing data and taking into account the effect of areduction in dosc limits, the average cumulative dose
for this group of workcrs appears unlikely to exceed
350 mSv. The decreasing rate of increase in the
average cumulative dose with length of follow-up

41 1

pcriod (for a give11 year of first monitoring) illustrates
the co~~siderable potential for overestimating
cunlulativc doscs, if derived on the basis of linear
extrapolation of past cxpcricncc.

1%. Furlher useful insights could bc obtained Cron~thcsc data if they could be reported in various
disaggrcgatcd fonns, for example, the distribution of
cumulative doscs (in addition to the mean) for
particular choiccs of the year of first monitoring andfollow-up period, age at first monitoring and maintype of work undertaken ctc.
197. Workers at nuclear establishrrtenls in the United
Kingdom. As part of an analysis of the National
Registry for Radiation Workers in the United
data were reported on the cumulative
Kingdom [U],doses from external irradiation of workers. These
external doses are summarized in Table 20 in threedifferent formats: for each of the major employers ofradiation workers included in the study, for year ofbirth of the workers and for the year in whichradiation work began. Since the data include
cumulative doses for both current and past employees
in each of the organizations up to about 1988, they
comprise individual doses accumulated ovcr a wide
range of different working periods and at different
times.
198. While the data are of general interest, they arc
particular to the con~positionof the past and current
workforce and their employment characteristics; theycannot (at least in the fornl in which they have beenreported) be used to estirnate cumulative doses fordiffercnt durations of employment for either the pastor current workforce. To enable such estimates to be
made, the data would need to be disaggregated, atleast into the form in which the data for workers at
BNFL Sellaficld are presented in Table 19. Equally, it
would be inappropriate, indeed potentially misleading:to attempt, in the absence of additional information, todraw any firm conclusions about the levels of
cumulative dosc in different industries based on directcomparisons between the data in Table 20. The
respective data may comprise workforces having very
differcnt sizes, age structures and employment
durations, and these characteristics may, moreover,have varied cor~sidcrablyovcr time. For example, amajor change in the size of a workforce in the recent
past could considerably distort the estimatedcumulative dose relative to that for an industry having
a relatively uniform or even declining workforce.
199. Notwithstanding thcsc qualifications, the data
exhibit a number of intcrcsti~lgfeatures. The average
cumulative dose at sites of BNFL was greater by afactor of more than 2 than that at researchestablishments of the Atonlic Energy Authority and at

reactors operated by Nuclear Electric. This is to be
expected given the somewhat higher doses experienced
during reprocessing and at the older reactors operated
by BNFL. Snlaller average curnulative doses occurredat Ministry of Defencc establishments, in particular at
h e Atonlic Weapons Establishment; this reflects themuch smaller levels of external dose experienced in
the processing of materials for nuclear weapons. The
cunlulative doscs to (hose monitored by the Defencc
Radiation Protection Service (activities largely
connected with the nuclear submarine programme) arc
for both civilian and naval personnel; one contributory
factor to the lower levels in Illis group is the relatively
short periods, compared with a working lifetime, that
naval personnel spend in this role.
200. Cumulative dosc as a function of the year ofbirth of the worker generally decreased, as would be
cxpected, with time; this trcnd reversed for thc earlicst
years analysed because these workers, on average, hadspent a smaller part of their working lives in radiationrelated work. Disaggregation of the data according toduration of employment in radiation work would yieldstatistics of somewhat greater interest and value. The
cumulative dose as a function of the year radiation
work started shows, apart from the early years, an
expected decrease with time. Two factors contribute tothis decrease: first, the greater period of time, on
average, spent on radiation-related work and, secondly,
the generally downward trcnd in annual doses. The
rate of decrease in the avcrage cumulative dose
between the periods for which the data are reported is
not uniform, indicating that there are factors operatingthat cannot be discerned from the data in its
aggregated form. Again, disaggregation of thcse datain terms of year and age at which work with radiation
began, follow-up period, type of work undertaken etc.
is needed for the full potential of these data to berealized.

201. Summary. In the past few years significantly
more data have been reported on cumulative doses
during working lifetimes. This was to have been
expected from the increasing development and use ofcomputerized databases for occupational exposures.
While such data are sparse in comparison with data on
annual doses, the imbalance is likely to be reduced in
Lhe future. To facilitate the comparison and/or
aggregation of cumulative doses for different
occupational categories and countries, much more
attention should be given to the development and useof common approaches for the compilation andreporting of these data. If data could be presented in
sufficient detail to allow their analysis as a function of
the year and age of starting radiation-related work.
employment duration and type of work undertaken.
much greater uniformity in reported cumulative doses
and their comparison could be achieved.

H.

SUMMARY

202. Worldwide occupational exposures Gonl eachstage of UIC commercial nuclear fucl cycle arcsum~~iarizcdin Table 21 and illustrated in Figure XV.
The dala arc al~nualvalues averaged over five-year
periods. The number of workers in the commercial
nuclear fucl cycle rose from an avcrage of about
560,000 in the first five-year period to about 880,000
in the third. About a quarter of a million of thcse
workers wcre involved in uranium mining and about
130,000 in research and development; the remainder
wcre largely enlployed in reactor operations (about
150,000 on avcrage in the first five-year period
increasing to about 430,000 in the third period). The
annual collcctivc effective dose, averaged over fiveyear periods, increased from about 2,300 man Sv in
Lhe first pcriod to about 3,000 man Sv in the second
but decreasing in the third period to about
2,500 marl Sv. By far the largest contributors to thetotal collective dose were uranium mining and reactor
operation (about 50% and 35%, respectively, averaged
over the pcriod 1975-1989).
203. The average annual effective dose to monitored
workers in the whole fuel cycle decreased progressively, from an average of 4.1 mSv in the period
1975-1979 to an average of 2.9 mSv in the period
1985-1989. There is, however, considcrable variation
about these avcrage values for different stages of thefuel cycle (see Figure XV). Downward trends in dosewith time are evident for all stages of the fuel cycle;
the magnitude of the decrease varies, however, withthe stage of the fuel cycle, and there wcre also
considerable year to year variations that are notapparent in the five-year averages. The dosc
distribution ratios are illustrated in Figure XVI. The
fraction, averaged over five-year periods, of monitored
workers receiving annual doscs in excess of 15 mSv
has decreased from about 0.20 to about 0.10 between
the first and third periods; the conesponding decreasein the fraction of the collective effective dose has beenfrom about 0.63 to about 0.42. Workers in mining andreactor operation are the main contributors to theseIwo fractions.

204. The normalized collective effective doses foreach stage of the fuel cycle are shown in Figure XVI.
The collective dose from mining, milling, fuelfabrication and fucl reprocessing have been normalized
to the energy equivalent of uranium mined or milledor the fucl fabricated or reprocessed in the respective
periods. The estimate of 1 man Sv (GW a)-' forresearch associated with the fuel cycle has been
assumed in each period. The overall normalized
collective effective dose (i.e. averaging over all stages
in all fuel cycles, taking account of their relative
magnitudes) is estimated to be 18. 17 and 12 man Sv(GW a)-' in 1975-1979, 1980-1984 and 1985-1989,

ANNEX D: OCCUPATIONAL M I A T I O N EXPOSURES

respectively. These normalized doses exclude fuelreprocessing, which would add about 0.7 man Sv(GW a)-' for oxide reprocessing, and 10-15 man Sv(GW a)-' for Magnox fuel reprocessing, with thelarger value appropriate for earlier times.

205. The components of nom~alized collective
effective doses for the separate fuel cycles based on
the various reactor types are summarized in Table 22;
the results are illustrated in Figure XVII. For ease ofcomparison and completeness, a co~~tributionfro111
reprocessing is indicated in each case, whether or not
reprocessing of that fuel type has occurred or indeed
is even foreseen. With the exception of the fuel cycles
based on GCRs, reactor operation makes the largest
contribution to the normalized collective effective
dose, with the only other large contribution comingfrom mining. For fuel cycles based on other thanGCRs, the normalized collective dose varied within arange of 17-27 man Sv (GW a)-' in the first five-year
period and 10-14 man Sv (GW a)" in the third period;
the decrease was mainly due to decreases in the doses
arising during reactor operation.
206. The normalized collective doses for the fuelcycle based on AGRs remained relatively uniforn~
over the whole period, about 9 man Sv (GW a).'. Thisis significantly less than for fuel cycles of otherreactor types because of the lower collective doses forthe reactors. Uranium mining is the largest contributor
to the normalized collective dose for this fuel cycle
accounting for 60% or more. For the fuel cycle basedon the Magnox reactor, the normalized collective
effective dose declined from 36 man Sv (GW a)-' in413

the first period to 27 man Sv (GW a)-' in the third.
The reproccssirig of Magnox fuel rnakes by far thegreatest contribution to the total normalized dose
(40%-50%). Reactor operation and mining are the only
other significant contributors, with similar contributions. Two factors have been largely responsible forthe greater normalized doses associated w i h the fuelcycle based on Magnox reactors. First, because of its
much lower irradiation, the generation of unit electrical energy with Magnox fuel requires larger amounts
of uranium to be mined, fuel to be fabricated and fuelto be reprocessed than with fuel cycles based on otherreactor types; secondly, the doses from Magnox reprocessing have been greater than anticipated because ofmajor contaniination of pond cooling water from fuelcorrosion that occurred in the first half of the 1970s at
the Sellafield plant in the United Kingdom.

207. Insufficient data are available on cumulative or
lifetime doses to enable reliable estimates ofworldwide levels or of trends in their values; thissituation, however, is changing through the increasinguse of computerized databases for occupational
exposures and the compilation of data for
epidemiological studies on workers. Much improved
estimates of cumulative doses can, tberefore, be
expected over the next few years. T o facilitate thecomparison and/or aggregation of cumulative doses fordifferent occupational groups and/or countries, itwould be useful if data could be reported in a manner
which enabled them to be evaluated in tenns of thefollowing quantities: the year and age of startingradiation-related work, employment duration and typeof work undertaken.

111. DEFENCE ACTIVITIES
208. Radiation exposures to workers in defence
activities can be grouped into three broad categories:
those arising from the production and testing of
nuclear weapons and associated activities; thosearising from the use of nuclear energy as a source of
propulsion for naval vessels; and those arising fromthe use of ionizing radiation for the same wide rangeof purposes for which it is used in civilian spheres(e.g. research, transport and non-destructive testing).
The levels of exposure in the first two of thesecategories are assessed separately and then the overalllevels of exposure from defence activities are assessed.
It must be recognized that there will be some lack ofrigour and/or uniformity in the attribution of exposures
to particular defence activities and in the separation of
exposures betwcen defence activities and the commer-

cial nuclear fuel cycle. This is inevitable, given
differences in how data have been categorized andreported in different countries. In this Annex, forexample, all exposures occurring in the mining,
milling and enrichment of uranium have been attributed to the conimercial nuclear fuel cycle; at least a
fraction of these exposures should, however, havebeen attributed to defence activities. Similarly, someof the exposures attributed to reprocessing and toresearch and development in the commercial nuclear
fuel cycle should also be attributed to defence activities. For these reasons, the doses reported in theremainder of this section are likely to be underestimates of those that should properly be associated with
defence activities. The data are not complete forradiation-related defence activities in all countries.

209. Nuclear weapons have been developed, tested
and deployed in the military scrviccs of five countries:
China, France, the forn~erUSSR, the United Kingdom
and the United Stales. The niain potential sources ofoccupational exposure in the developn~ent andproduction of nuclear weapons are the two radioactive
fusile materials, plutonium and uranium, and tritium.
Exposures may arise by two main routes; the intake ofthese materials into the body by inhalation or ingestion(or absorption through the skin in the case of tritium)and external irradiation from gamma rays and, to alesser extent, neulrons. Intake of these elements into
the body is minimized by avoiding direct contact andproviding containment for the materials during theirfabrication into weapons. Some small intakes will,
however, inevitably occur, and monitoring is generally
undertaken to determine their magnitude. The natureand extent of monitoring depend on the potential for
exposure. Where material is being processed, themonitoring may include the use of personal air
samplers, whole-body monitoring and bioassay; where
the potential for intake is much less, area monitoringof airborne levels may suffice. Because of the steps
taken to provide confinement for these materials.
external irradiation tends to be the dominant source of
exposure for those involved in the production, testingand subsequent handling of nuclear weapons. As theenergy of the gamma-radiation typically emitted by themore common isotopes of these elements is relatively
low, this is one area where the direct recording of thedosimeter measurement as the rcccived whole-body oreffective dose, as is common practice, could lead tosignificar~tovercstiniates. Neutron as well as gamma
dosimeters may bc used where exposures from theformer may be significant

1. Annual doses
210. Data on occupational exposures Gom the nuclear
weapons programmes in the United Kingdom and theUnited States are summarized in Table 23 and areillustrated in Figure XVIII. The reported doses are forextenial irradiation only and include exposures arisingin the development and production of weapons as wellas in their subsequent handling, although the latter
makes only a modest contribution to the overall levelsof exposure. Tbe total number of monitored workers(i.e. summed over both countries), averaged over
five-year periods, remained relatively uniform over theperiod analysed, at about 21,000. The total annual
collective effective dose, averaged over fwe-year
periods, also varied little and was typically about
1 4 man Sv. This average value, however, disguises
somewhat greater year-to-year variations within therange 10-20 man Sv, although there were no

signific;lnl trends in the values. About 80% ofboth thetotal numbcr of monitored workers and the collective
dose were in the Uliited States.

21 1. The annual effcctive dose to monitored workers,
averaged over all workers and over five-year pcriods,
was about 0.7 mSv in all three periods. Avcrage
individual doses in the United States were broadly
comparable with those for the total workforce;somewhat higher average annual doses, about 1 mSv,
were experienced in Lhe United Kingdom up to the
middle or the 1980s, but these later decreased by afactor of rilore than 2. The annual doses lo measurably
exposed workers (United States data only) weretypically greater than those to monitored workers bya factor of about 2. All the individual and collective
doses rcferred to here need, however, to be qualified.
They are the doses recorded by the dosinieter. The
actual effcctive doses would be smaller by a factor ofat least 2. This discrepancy is due to the relatively low
energy of the gamma-radiation emitted by weaponsmaterials. Data (available only for the United
Kingdom) on the fraction of workers receiving annual
doses in cxcess of 1 5 nlSv indicate that, in general,
this fraction is zero or very small.
212. Fewer data are available on internal exposures.
In the United Kingdom, records of internal exposuresfrorn thc intakc of actinides into the body (and, to alesser extent, tritium) have been kept since 1986.
Doses frorn intakes of actinides have been measured
using personal air sanlplers worn by individual
workers, and those from intakes of tritium have beenmeasured by urine monitoring. Each year, about 1,000
workers were monitored for uranium and plutonium.
The average committed effective dose from intakes in1986 was about 0.15 mSv from uranium andplutoniuru, and by 1989, these doses had decreased toabout 0.05 mSv. In each year also about 500 workers
were monitored for tritiuni intake, and the averageannual dose declined from about 0.17 mSv to 0.1 mSv
between 1986 and 1989. The resulting collective dosefrom internal exposure is, therefore, small incomparison with that from external irradiation. Indeed,
any underestimate as a result of its omission from Lhedoses reported in Table 23 (at least for the United
Kingdom data) is negligible in comparison with theoverestimate of external dose as a result of including
the dosimeter measurement directly into dose records.
213. Comparable data are not available for othercountries that have developed nuclear weapons. Morelimited data [BIO, N2j have, however, recently
become available on exposures in reactors andcheniical reprocessing plants used in the production of
weapons-grade materials in thc former USSR. Only
individual doses are reported, and in the absence of
information on the size of the workforce, no estimate

ANNEX D: OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION EXPOSURES

could be made of collective doses. Moreover, data on
exposures arising at other stages of weapons production and testing would be needed before these data
could be properly compared with the data presented inTable 23. Nonetheless the data provide some perspective on the levels of dose encountered in the weapons
programme in the former USSR.
214. The variation in averagc individual dose (external irradiation only) to workers in rcactors and chemical reprocessing plants is illustrated in Figure XIX. In
the late 1940s these averagc doses were substantial(about 1 Sv) in both the reactors and chemical plants.
They had declined to about 100 mSv by the late 1950s
and to about 10 mSv by the late 1960s. Thereafter therate of decrease in dose was more modest. The distributions of dose among the respective workforces arealso illustrated in Figure XIX. In the late 1940s andearly 1950s, annual doses in excess of 1 Sv werereceived by a few tens of per cent of workers in both
the reactors and chemical plants, with 1%-2% receiving annual doses in excess of 4 Sv. In the chemicalplants, essentially the whole workforce was exposed toannual doses in excess of 25 mSv before the early
1960s; the percentage of workers exceeding this levelof exposure declined rapidly through the 1960s toessentially zero by the end of that decade. In thereactors, the percentage of workers receiving annual
doses in excess of 25 mSv decreased during the1950s, from essentially 100% to a few tens of
per cenq this share subsequently varied from a few toa few tens of per cent through the 1960s before
decreasing to a low level in the 1970s.

2.

Cumulative doses

215. The distribution of cumulative doses among
workers employed in the nuclear weapons programmein the United Kingdom at the end of 1989 [Dl] issummarized in Table 24. Less than 1% of the workforce in 1989 received cumulative effective doses inexcess of 100 mSv and none received in excess of
500 mSv. In practice all the percentages are overestimates because the effective dose and the dosinletermeasurement arc assumed to be equivalent.

B. NUCLEAR-POWERED SHIPS
Ah?) THEIR SUPPORT FACILITIES

1. Annunl doses

!
1

i
i
I

216. Nuclear-powered ships (submarines and surfaec
vessels) are operated by several navies, in particular
China, France, India, the former USSR, the United
Kingdom and the United States. Pressurized water-

415

cooled reactors arc used as the power source in almost
all cases; in the former USSR several reactors arecooled by liquid metal. Radiation exposures arise 011
board ship and also at shore-based support facilities,
where maintenance, refuelling ctc. arc carried out andpersonnel are trained. Data are not available from all
countries, but compilations have been made of the
exposures arising in the United Kingdom [ D l , M l l ]and the United States [MI, M9, M10, N1, S2].
217. Data on occupational exposures from nuclearpowered ships in the United Kingdom and the UnitedStates arc summarized in Table 23. The total numberof ships in the two navies increased from an averageof 135 in 1975-1979 to an average of 167 in 19851989. Averaged over the whole period, about 90% of
these belonged to the United States navy. The total
numbcr of monitored workers increased from about
42,000 in 1975-1979 to about 63,000 in 1985-1989.
Most of this increase occurred in the United States, as
the number of workers in the United Kingdom
remained relatively constant, at about 6,000,
throughout the period.
218. The total annual collective dose decreased fromabout 92 man Sv in the first five-year period to about
57 man Sv in the third. Averaged over the whole
period, the contribution of the United States to thetotal collective dose was about 73%: the magnitude of
the contribution differed, however, between five-year
periods. The annual dose averaged over all monitored
workers decreased from about 2.2 mSv in the first
five-year period to about 0.9 mSv in the third: thecorresponding decreases in the two countries werefrom about 4.1 to about 1.9 mSv in the United Kingdom and from about 1.9 to about 0.8 mSv in the
United States. Over this same period the fraction of all
monitored workers receiving annual effective doses inexcess of 15 mSv decreased from about 0.5 to about
0.1; in the United Kingdom the values of this quantity
were, in general, about 50% larger than the averagevalues.
219. Estimates have been made of the normalized
collective effective dose, with the normalization
performed in terms of the numbcr of ships. Averaged
over both countries. the annual normalized collective
dose has decreased by a factor of about 2, from about
0.7 man Sv per ship in 1975-1979 to about 0.34
man Sv per ship in 1985-1989. The corresponding
decrease in the annual normalized dose was fromabout 1.8 to about 0.6 man Sv per ship in the United
Kingdom and from about 0.6 to about 0.3 man Sv per
ship in the United States. These and previously
identified decreases in exposures were achieved
despite a significant increase in the number of ships insentice and undergoing refit and maintenance during
the period.

416

UNSCEAR 1993 REPORT220. In general, higher exposures were received byshore-based workers, in particular those who wereinvolved in inspection, maintenance (including refitting
and refuelling operations) and repair inside the reactor
compartment or on components that form the primarycooling circuit. By cornparis011 the exposures of
on-board personnel were generally niuch lower, owing
to the shielding provided around the reactor and its
associated systems. These differences are illustrated in
Figure XVIII.
221. Averaged over the whole period and bothcountries, about 45% of the total workforce comprised
shore-based workers, although there were significant
variations about this average value both with time andbetween countrics; for exaniple, in the United
Kingdom about 80% of all workers were shore-based.
About 70% of the total collective dose over the whole
period was received by shore-based workers, again
with variation about this average value between
countries and with time (e.g. about 85% of the
exposure in the United Kingdom was received byshore-based workers).

222. The most noticeable difference between the twogroups of workers is in their average annual doses.
Averaged over both countries and over f ~ e - y e a r
periods, the average annual dose to shore-based
workers has decreased from about 3.2 mSv to about
1.5 mSv between the first and third periods; theaverage doses to on-board workers were typically two
to three times lower, decreasing from about 1.3 toabout 0 5 mSv over the same period. The data for thetwo countries exhibit the same trends, but the absoluteand relative magnitudes of the doses differ, sometimes
significantly. Somewhat higher than average doses
may be received by particular subgroups within the
broader occupational groupings. For example, at civilian dockyards in the United Kingdom, where much of
the maintenance and refitting of ships is undertaken,
average annual doses were as high as 10 mSv in someyears, although they decreased, in general, over theyears. Differences are also apparent between the twogroups in terms of the fraction of workers receiving
annual doses in excess of particular levels (15 mSv for
the United Kingdom data and 1 0 mSv for the UnitedStates data), wilh the fraction being considerably
greater for shore-based workers. Ln the UK the
distribution ratio, NR15, for shore-based workers
decreased from about 0.09 to about 0.02 between thefirst and third five-year periods; the corresponding
fractions of on-board workers exceeding that dose
decreased from about 0.03 to about 0.01 over ~ h samecperiod. In the United States the distribution ratio,
NRlo, for shore-based workers decreased from about
0.1 to about 0.03 between the first and third five-year
periods, while the ratio for on-board workers
decreased from about 0.02 lo about 0.001.

2.

Curl~tlli~tivedoses223. The distributions of cun~ulativedoses among
workers employed in the naval nuclear propulsion
progmmlne in the United Kingdoni at the end of 1989
and i n l11e U~iited Sti~tcsat the end of 1991 aresunimarized in Table 24. Data are given separately for
on-board and shore-based personnel and for the total
workforce in the case of the United Kingdom.
Somewhat higher cumulative dases are evident for
shore-based personnel than for those on board,
because the latter are ~ ~ a v personnel,alwhose meantime of service in this capacity is much shorter thanthat of the mainly civilian workforce in the
shore-based facilities, where much of the occupational
exposure occurs. In general, the percentages ofworkers exceeding particular levels of dose in thedUnited Kingdom surpass those in the U ~ ~ i t eStates,
althougll not by a great amount.
224. In the United Kingdom, the highest cumulative
dose recorded among shore-based personnel was about
800 niSv accrued over a 30-year period. The distribution of cumulative doses varies considerably from one
shore-based facility to another, with much higher
doses at civilian dockyards, where much of themaintenance etc. is undertaken. Cumulative doses at
operational naval bases arc lower, both because ofdifferences in the nature of the work carried out andthe generally greater n~obilityof naval personnel. For
example, about 20% of the civilian dockyard workforce received a cumulative dose in excess of
100 mSv compared with about 8% for all shore-based
personnel.

C. ALL DEFENCE ACIIVITIES

1. Annual doses
225. Data on occupational exposures from all defence
activities are summarized in Table 23 for the United
Kingdom and the United States and for the sum ofboth sets of data; the data are illustrated in
Figure XVIlI. The data include exposures from
weapons production and testing, fronl nuclear ships
and from a wide range of other uses of radiation thatcan be attributed to defence-related activities. These
uses include all those encountered in civilian
occupations, for exaniple non-destructive testing,transport, research, education and medicine. The
contribution from these other sources to the overalllevels of exposure fro111 defence-related activities in
the United Kingdom varied from about 20% in the late1970s to only a few per cent in the later 1980s. In the
United States this contribution, averaged over thewhole period, was about IS%, decreasing over time.
By fiir the greater part of both the total delence

RADIATION MWSURES

workforce and the total collcctive dose arc associatedwith nuclear ships; this is not surprising, given thelarge number oC nuclear ships operated by these twocountries.
226. The total number of monitored workers, averaged
over five-year periods, has increased from about
100,000 to about 130,000 bctween the fiist and third
periods. This increase largely occurred in the UnitedStates; the nurrlber of monitored workers in the United
Kingdom remained relatively constant, about 12,000,
over the period analysed. The total annual collective
dose, averaged over five-year periods, decreased fromabout 140 to about 8 4 man Sv between the first andthird periods; averaged over the whole period, about
75% of the total collective dose was received byworkers in the United States. The annual dose tomonitored workers, averaged over both countries andover five-year periods, has decreased from about
1.3 mSv to about 0.7 mSv between the first and third
periods. Given the much larger contribution made by
the Unitcd States to the overall data, these average
individual doses mainly reflect experience in thatcountry; over the same period, the average annual
doses to workers in the Unikd Kingdom were
somewhat larger, decreasing from about 3 mSv toabout 1.2 mSv.

227. The above data need qualifying with regard totheir completeness, in particular whether they include
all significant occupational exposures associated with
defence activities. For example, they do not include
occupational exposures incurred in the mining of
uranium used in either the nuclear weapons or the
nuclear naval programmes; nor is it clear to what
extent the reported data include exposures arisingduring the enrichment of uranium for both theweapons and naval progxanlmes or exposures arisingin the chemical separation arid subsequent treatment of
plutonium. Such omissions, should they exist, aresignificant only in the context of the proper
assignment of exposures to different practices; anyomission here is likely to be compensated for by anoverestimate of exposures in other practices (e.g.
exposures in mining, enrichment and fuel reprocessing
attributed to the commercial nuclear fuel cycle).

2.

Worldwide annual doses

228. The data presented above for all defence
activities i~lcludeoccupatiorlal exposures for only two
countries, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Occupational exposures from defence-related activities
in China, France and the former Soviet Union (i.e. theother countries which have developed nuclear weapons
and/or that operate nuclear navies) are not available.
Any estimate of worldwide occupational exposures

417

fronl dcfer~ccactivities can, therefore, bc made only
by extrapolating the available data to these othercountries. Inevitably, this can only be done very
approximately. and neither of the methods ofextrapolation presented in Section 1.C is appropriate.
229. It would be most useful if the cxtrapolatio~~
could be based on ~~onnalized
collective dose, with thenornialization performed in terms of unit explosive
yield for weapons and per ship or installed nuclear
capacity for the naval propulsion programmes. Datasufficient for making these extrapolations could
probably be co~npiled on weapons stockpiles
worldwide and their potential yields and on theworldwide capacity of nuclear navies. The validity ofsuch extrapolations would depend, however, on the
representativeness of normalized collective doses
derived from experience in the Unitcd Kingdom andthe United States. The limited data for the nuclear
weapons programme in the former USSR (see Figure
XIX) do not augur well in this respect; in particular,
the reported doses in earlier years in that country were
far in excess of those experienced elsewhere. Thesemuch higher doses largely preclude the use of
normalized collective doses derived in one or two
countries for estimating worldwide exposures fromdefence activities.
230. Pending the acquisition of further data, a very
simple approach has been adopted for estimatingworldwide exposures from this source, namely, thatthe worldwide collective dose from defence activities
is greater by a factor of 3 than thc sum of thatexperienced in the United Kingdom and the UnitedStates. Four assumptions underlie the choice of thisfactor: first, the level of defence activities in theformer Soviet Union and the United States werebroadly comparable: secondly, the levels of exposurein the former Soviet Union were greater than in the
Unitcd States by an indeterminate amount that did notexceed a factor of 2 in 1975-1989; thirdly, the levelsof exposure in France have been comparable withthose in the United Kingdom: and, fourthly, theexposures in China were not large in comparison witheither those in the former Soviet Union or in the
United States. Based on these assumptions theestimated worldwide average annual collective
effective dose from defence activities would have been
about 400 man Sv in 1975-1979, falling to about
250 man Sv in 1985-1989. Given the coarseness of theunderlying assumptions, it would not be possible togive a precise estimate of the collective dose; perhaps
all that can be concluded is that the worldwide
average annual collective dose during the period
analysed was about 300-400 man Sv. This estimate isinevitably associated with much uncertainty, which can
only be reduced by relevant data from China, France
and the fonner Soviet Union.

UNSCEXR 1993 KEl'OIrI'

41 8

3.

C ~ ~ r n ~ l l k ~doses
tive231. The cumulative doses to personnel employed indefence activities in 1989 in the United Kingdom aresummarized in Table 24, where data are given separately for service and civilialr personnel. Estimates ofcumulative doses to defence workers in the United
Kingdom [ D l ] have also been made by the NRPB
from data held within the Central Index of Dose Information and the National Registry of Radiation
Workers, and these are summarized in Table 25.
Direct comparisons should not, however, be madebetween these two sets of data, as the composition of
the respective workforces and the time over whichdata were compiled differ; these differences are
summarized in footnotes to Table 25. Data identified
under the heading "weapons programme" in Table 25
arc specifically for workers at the Atomic Weapons
Establishment but can, to a good approximation, be
assunled to be representative of exposures associatedwith the weapons programme as a whole. The data
under the heading "other defence activities" are for all
defence workers apart from those at the Atomic Weapons Establishment; most of these exposures will,
however, be associated with the naval nuclear propulsion programme.

232. The mean cumulative dose to classified radiation
workers in all defence activities in the United King-IV.

don1 is 29 mSv; for l l ~ eweapolls progranlme tile meandose is 21 mSv, and for the naval nuclear propulsion
programme it is 37 mSv. These averages, however,
disguise significant differences between employees ofthe Millistry of Defe~rceand colrtract workers. In thenaval nuclear progrilnlme the cu~nulative dose tocontract workers is greater by a factor of niore than 3than that to employees (58 mSv compared with
18 mSv), whereas in the weapons programme the doseto contract workers is less than half that to en~ployees(9.4 n ~ S vcompared with 21.8 mSv). About 7 % of all
workers received c~~mulativedoses in excess of
100 mSv and about 0.2% received in excess of
400 mSv; for contract workers in the naval nuclear
programme, the corresponding values were about 19%
and 0.7%.

233. The mean cumulative doses to workers in the
National Registry of Radiation Workers are lower(typically by a factor of about 2) than those in theCentral Index of Dose Information, because contractor
employees are not included but both classified andnon-classified employees are. These results are ofinterest mainly because they provide an opportunity todeterniine what fraction of the cunlulative dose arises
over particular periods or age intervals. Data are given
for doses accumulated to age 30 years, and the mean
cumulative dose over this period is about one third of
the mean cumulative dose overall.

INDUSTRIAL USES OF RADIATION

234. Radiation is used for many purposes in industry.
Most of these uses involve sealed radioactive sources
or equipment that is electronically energized to produce radiation, for example x-ray machines, electron
microscopes and particle accelerators. Some of themain industrial uses include industrial radiography,
well logging, luminizing, non-destructive testing,thickness gauging, tracer techniques and the use of
x rays for a variety of purposes, like crystallographic
and fluoroscopic analyses of materials. The levels andtrends in occupational exposure from industrial uses ofradiation are reviewed in Ulis Chapter together withthose arising during the production of radioisotopes for
medical and industrial purposes. In addition, exposuresfrom the use of radiation in research (excluding
research undertaken in support of the nuclear powerindustry) are estimated to the extent that they can beseparately identified.
235. The compilation of reliable statistics on occupational exposure in industry is complicated by thediversity of uses to which radiation is put and differ-ences in the way data are reported by different
countries, in particular the number and nature of theoccupations for which data are reported separately. By
far the greater number of occupational exposures ingeneral industry are small, and this has doubtless
influenced the relative lack of detail, or disaggregation, in their reporting. In general, data have beenreported separately only for those few occupations
with the potential for higher doses. Since the availability of reported data clearly determines the level ofdetail that can be included in this review, consideration is limited to Lhe levels of exposure in industry
overall and in those few groups where higher doses
could arise and/or for which a number of countries
have reported data separately. These separate groups
comprise industrial radiographers, luminizers,
radioisotope producers and well loggers.

236. Differences may exist in the procedures used invarious countries to group workers occupationally, and[his places limil;~tions oa tl~e validity of directcomparisons between data compiled in different

ANNEX D: OCCUPAIONA

countries. Where these limitations nlay be important,they are identified. The extent to which valid comparisons can be made between countries is also influe~lcedby differences in the respective approaches used
to measure and report occupational exposures, e.g. thetype of dosimeter used, its minimum detectable level(MDL),the dose entered into records when the measured dose is less than the MDL and doses assigned forlost dosimeters. These differences and their implications for validity of comparisons between data werediscussed in Chapter I. The approaches used inmeasuring and reporting occupational exposures ineach of the countries for which data were reported aresummarized in Table 2. Where important differencesin approach are apparent, caution should be exercisedin making direct comparisons between data.
237. National data on occupational exposures arisingfrom the industrial use of radiation are given in
Table 26 for workers in each of the following areas:industrial radiography, luminizing, production anddistribution of isotopes, well logging, tertiary
education and research institutes, accelerators and allindustrial uses of radiation grouped together. Worldwide levels of exposure have been estimated from thereported national data for each industrial use, withextrapolation within particular regions based on grossnational product. In general, the collective dose waswell correlated with gross national product, but there
were exceptions to this for some countries. The degreeof extrapolation needed varied with the industrial use
considered but typically was about a factor of 2 on
average; there was, however, considerable variation
about this average value for particular regions or
periods. For some industrial uses insufficient data
were available to allow reliable extrapolation.

A. INDUSTRIAL RADIOGRAPHY
238. Industrial radiography is carried out in two quite
different sets of conditions. First, it may be undertaken
at a single location, usually in a permanent facility thathas been designed and shielded for this purpose; inthis case items to be radiographed are brought to thefacility. Secondly, it may be undertaken at multiple
locations in the field, in which case the radiographic
equipment is transported to the place of interest. Theease and efficacy of exercising control, supervisionand protection in the two cases may be different, andthis may have implications for the resulting occupational exposures. Few of the reported data, however,distinguish between exposures from the two types ofradiographic practice.

239. Worldwide levels of dose have been estiniatedfrom national data by extrapolation within regions
based on gross national product. The sum of the grossnational products for those countries reporting data
was about 35% of the worldwide total in the first fiveyear period, increasing to about 65% in the third. On
average, therefore, the reported data have been scaled
upwards by a factor of about 2 with co~~siderable
variation, however, about this average for particularperiods and regions. Estimates of the numbers ofworkers and doses in industrial radiography worldwide
are illustrated in Figure XX. The annual number ofmonitored workers in industrial radiography, averaged
over five-year periods, is estiniated to have increased
from about 70,000 in the first period to about 110,000
in each of the last two periods. The average annual
collective effective dose is estimated to have increased
from about 190 man Sv in the first period to about
230 man Sv in the second, then to have decreased
significantly to about 160 man Sv in the third.
Roughly half of these collective doses are estiniated tohave occurred in countries comprising the OECD andabout one quarter to one third in the countries ofEastern Europe.

240. The annual effective dose to monitored workers,
averaged over five-year periods, fell progressively
from about 2.6 mSv in the first period to about
1.4 mSv in the third. This same downward trend isevident in the data for most countries and regionalgroupings, but there is considerable variation between
countries in both the level of the dose and extent of
the decrease. For example, average doses to monitored
workers were as low as 0.2 mSv in some countries(e.g. France and the German Democratic Republic) toas high as 13 mSv in others (the fornier USSR). Fromdata reported, the fraction of the monitored workforce
receiving annual doses in excess of 15 mSv isestimated to have decreased from about 0.04 in thefirst period to about 0.03 in both the following
periods; the fraction of the collective effective dose
arising from annual doses in excess of the same levelis estimated to have changed little over the period,
remaining at about 0.4. These fractions were estimatedfrom a smaller set of data than used to estimate
collective and individual doses and, as a consequence,
are less reliable indicators of worldwide levels.
241. Relatively few data are available on average
doses to measurably exposed workers as opposed tomonitored workers, and no attempt has been made toestimate a worldwide average dose for the former
quantity. There is considerable variation between
countries in both the absolute levels of these doses andin the ratio of these to the average dose to monitored
workers. This ratio varies from about 1 to more than
10. While differences in operational practice andstandards of protection will account for sorne of thisvariation, the more likely causes are differences in
how doses are measured and formally recorded, in
who in the workforce is to be monitored and the1993 REPORT

completeness of the occupations or uses included in
the data reported.

242. Data on occupational exposures arising fronir i c d and mobile radiography are included in Table 26
under "industrial radiography" for those few countries
where cxposures in the respective practices could be
separated. Data are given for the Netherlands, theUnited Kingdom and the United States; the totals (oraverages) of the rcported data arc dominated by exposures in the United States, because the number ofworkers and tile collective dosc arc generally muchlarger than in other countries for which data are
available.
243. The annual doses, averaged over five-year
periods and ovcr all reported data, for workers undertaking mobile radiography, (where control and supervision are potentially more difficult), exceed thosearising in fixed radiography. The average annual dosefrom mobile radiography remained relatively unchanged over the pcriod, about 3 mSv, whereas thatfrom f i e d radiography decliried almost fourfold, fromabout 1.4 to about 0.4 mSv. The values of the ratios
SRIS and NRIS are, likewise, larger for those involved
with mobile than with fixed radiography, with the difference being more pronounced in the case of SRIS.
Exposures in the Netherlands are much lower than
average, but they do exhibit the same general trends
with respect to the differences between mobile andf i e d radiography. In the data for the United Kingdom,
however, only small differences are evident in theoccupational exposures for the two types ofradiography.
244. A further statistic of interest in the present
context is the number of workers receiving accidental
overexposures. There were indications in the past thatradiography workers, because of the nature of theirwork (particularly in the case of mobile radiography),might be more liable to receive overexposures thanworkers in most other occupations. Data on the percentage of radiographers receiving doses in excess ofan annual effective dose of 50 mSv, together with thepercentage of the collective dosc arising from individual doses above the same level, are summarized inTable 27. The data are not complete enough to enable
any time trends to be determined. Averaged over thewhole period and over all countries, the data indicatethat about 0.1% of industrial radiographers receive
cxposures in exccss of 50 mSv each year; about 6% of
the average annual collective dosc from radiography isestimated to result from such exposures. Significant
variation is apparent about the weighted averagevalues for particular countries.
245. If these percentilges are assumed to be representative globally, about 100 radiographers worldwide

receive doses in exccss of 50 niSv every year. Whilein absolute terms this number is not large, theoccurrence of overcxposures (normalized to the size of
the workforce) in ir~dustrialradiography exceeds thatin most other occupations. By comparison, in 250,000
nionitored workers of tile United Statcs Nuclear
Regulatory Commission licensees not involved inindustrial radiography, h e r e were no reported cases ofoverexposure in 1986.

B. LIJMINIZING
246. Radioactive materials have been used inluminizing for decadcs. The practice is stillwidespread, although the numbers of workers involved
is modest. There has, with time, been a move awayfrom the use of radium to tritium and, to a lesser.
is used both mixed with aextent, 1 4 7 ~ m Tritium
phosphor in paint and as a gas enclosed in phosphorlined, glass-walled tubes. The data reported in Table
26 arc, in general, for luniir~izingwith tritium gas, andthe doses arise via internal exposure; the exceptions tothis arc the data for India, which include exposures totritium arid 147~n1,
and the United Kingdom, for which
the two conlponents are presented separately.
247. The rcported data shown in Table 26 are notcomprehensive enough to enable a reliable estimate of
the worldwide levels of dose from the luminizing
industry, but sums (or averages) of available data are
given. At least for those countries reporting data, theoverall number of monitored workers in the luminizing
industry is small and of the order of a few hundred.
The total average annual collective effective dose
decreased from about 4 man Sv in the first five-year
period to about 1.4 in each of the following periods.
Over the same period the overall average anrmal dose
to nionitored workers decreased Gom about 7.4 mSv
to about 2.7 mSv. Large reductions also occurred inboth of the distribution ratios over this period, with thevalue of NRlj decreasing from about 0.2 to about 0.03
and that of SR15 decreasing from about 0.6 to about
0.3.
248. Considerable variation about these overall
average values and trends with time is evident in thedata for individual countrics. With the exception ofIndia, there has been a substantial decrease in theannual collective effective dose in each country; thefactor by which dose decreased dilfercd between
countries will~iria range of about 2-4. The averageannual doses varied greatly between countries andovcr time, from about 1 1nSv to more than 11 mSv.
The anuual effective doses, averaged ovcr five-year
periods, in both Switzerland and the United Kingdom
fell by a factor of about 3 over the pcriod analysed;
the dosc in India remailled relatively constant, while

A N N M D: OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION I.XPOSURI3

that in Francc incrcascd by about 30%. Thcse fiveyear avcragcs disguise an cveri greater dccreasc in theannual doscs in the Unitcd Kingdom, which fcll fromabout 15 nlSv in 1975 to 2 rnSv in the late 1980s.
249. Thc avcragc individual doscs in the lumirlizing
industries havc, historically, becn much larger than
thosc in othcr industries; this situation still prevails,
notwiUistarldi~lgthc major reductions in dose that havebecn achicvcd in several countries. The number ofworkers in tllc luminizing industries in thosc countries
reporting data was, howcvcr, small (about 500);
worldwide, the number may be significantly greater,
and this aspect warrants further analysis.

C.

RADIOISOTOI'E PRODUCTION
AND DISTRIBUTION

250. Radioisotopes are produced for a great variety ofindustrial and medical purposes. The main source ofoccupational exposure in radioisotope production anddistribution is external irradiation; internal exposure
may be significant in some cases, and arrangements
are then made for pcrsonal monitoring. In general,
however, internal cxposurcs have not been included inreported statistics for occupatiolial exposure, except inmore recent years, and even then the practice is far
from universal. Rcporting conventions for workers
involvcd in radioisotope production may also varyfrom country to country (e.g. whether the reported
doscs include only those arising during the initial
production and distribution of radioisotopes or whether
they also include those arising in the subsequent
processing, encapsulation, packaging and distributionof radionuclides that may have becn purchased in bulk
from elsewhere), and this may affect the validity ofcomparisons between reported doses.
251. Worldwide levels of exposure have been
estimated from reported national data, withextrapolation within regions based on gross national
product. The coverage and scaling of the data weresimilar to that for industrial radiography. The annual
number of monitored workers from worldwide
radioisotope production and distribution, averaged overfivc-year pcriods, increased from about 60,000 in thefirst period to about 90,000 in the third period (scc
Figure XX). This reflects the increasing use ofradioisotopes in both industry and medicine.
Notwithstanding the increase, the worldwide averageannual collcctivc effective dose is estimated to havedccrcascd from about 130 man Sv in Ule first period
to about 100 rnan Sv in both the second and third
periods. About 70% of these collective doses arc
estimatcd to havc occurred in countries comprising theOECD, with about 20%, at least in the latter two
five-year pcriods, occurring in Eastern Europe.

42 1

252. Thc annual efrcctivc dosc to monitored workers
worldwidc, averaged ovcr fivc-ycar periods, fell fromabout 2.3 nlSv in the first lxriod to about 1.1 mSv inthe third, with most of UIC dccrcasc occurring bctwccn
the first ;~ndsccond pcriods. This siinlc downward
trend is cvidcnt in the data for most countrics andrcgional groupings, but thcrc is considerable variation
between countrics in both the level of the dose and theextent of the decrcase. Thc average dosc to monitored
workers in different countrics and for different pcriods
has varicd within a rangc of 1-9 mSv. Thc dccreasc in
the average dosc ovcr time was less by as much as afactor of 3 in some countries, in others there was
essentially no change (in exceptional cases there waseven an increase over the period, particularly between
the f i s t and second periods).
253. The fraction of the monitored workforce
receiving annual doses in excess of 15 mSv isestimated to have decreased from about 0.1 in the first
period to about 0.03 in the third; the fraction of thecollective effective dosc arising from annual doses inexcess of the same levcl is cstimated to have changed
little over the period, remaining at about 0.2. These
fractions were estimated from a stnallcr set of data
than used to estimate collective and individual doscs
and, as a consequcncc, arc less rcliable indicators ofworldwide levels.
254. Fewer data are available on avcragc doses tomeasurably exposed workers than on those tomonitored workers, and again no attcmpt has been
made to estimate a worldwide average dose tomeasurably exposcd workers. The reported doses lie,in general, within a range of 2-8 mSv and typicallyexceed the corresponding doses to monitored workers
by a few tens of per cent (and, exceptionally, by
factors of 2-3).
255. In the manufacture and processing ofradionuclides, thcre is potential for both internal andexternal exposure. It is not always apparent, however,from the reported data whether the internal component
was significant and whether it was included in thedose estimates. The data for the United Kingdom from1985 and for Finland from 1987 include doses fromintakes of radionuclides; in general, the contribution to
the total dose was rcportcd to be a few per cent. Allother data on radioisotope production and distribution
in Table 26 need clarification in this respect.

256. Well logging has becn identified in somecountries as an occupation that can lead 10 higher
levels of dose than olhcr industrial occupations
involving the use of radiation. Botb gamma and422

UNSCFH 1993 REPORT

neutron sources are used in well logging, but thecontributio~ifrom each to the reported doses is not
generally indicated. Consequently, it has not beenpossible to transform the reported effective dose
equivalents to effective doses. The assumption has
been made Uiat the effective dose is equal to thereported effective dose equivalent, while recognizingthat this is likely to underestimate the effective dose inso far as the contribution from neutrons is concerned.

257. Tile data on well logging in Table 26 are notcomplete enough to enable a reliable estimate of theworldwide levels of dose. Averaged values ofthe dose
to monitored workers and the two distribution ratios
arc presented in the Table, but summed data are notincluded because the results could give a misleading
picture. The annual dose to monitored workers, from
reported data averaged over five-year periods,
decreased from about 1.3 mSv to about 1.1 mSv overthe period. Somewhat greater proportional reductions
are apparent in the distribution ratios over this period,
with the value of NR15 decreasing from about 0.007
to about 0.002 and that for SR15 decreasing fromabout 0.3 to about 0.04.
258. Variation about these overall average values andtrends with time is evident in the data for individual
countries. The extent of this variation is, however, lessthan that observed for other occupations involving theindustrial use of radiation. With a few exceptions, theaverage individual dose to monitored workers in mostcountries falls within a range of 1-2 mSv. For thosecountries reporting data on measurably exposed
workers, the average annual effective doses typicallyexceeded those to monitored workers by factors of 23; a range of 2-5 mSv encompasses most of thevariation in the reported average annual doses tomeasurably exposed workers.

E. EDUCATION AND RESEARCH
259. Radiation is a research tool in a wide range of
disciplines and occupations. It is diflicult to makereliable estimates of the levels of exposure in thisarea, because there is no consistent reporting and few
data are identified separately for this category. Data
that should rightly be attributed to this category areoften aggregated in broad practices of radiation use(e.g. radioisotope manufacture). In many nuclear
research establishments, radiation is used for manyindustrial activities other than support of tbe
commercial nuclear fuel cycle; however, the fractionof exposures arising in the separate activities cannot
be readily established.
260. In these circumstances the data in this Section
are intended to include only exposures arising in

tertiary c d ~ c a t i o ~ i i ~establisl~mcritsl(universities,
polytechnics arid research institutes with an importanteducational role) but not those associated with the useof accelcrators: data for the latter were in tllc pastofien included witti those for tertiary education.
NotwiUistanding this intent, it is urilikcly that all of thedata in this Sectio~lwill have bccn compiled andreported on a truly comparable basis. The data should,
therefore, be interpreted with care when comparing
them for different countries without further evidence
as to their comparebility.
261. The data reported by countries are given in therelevant part of Table 26. Worldwide levels of
exposurcs have been estimated from national data by
extrapolation within regions based on gross national
product. The coverage and scaling of data (by a factor
of about 2) were similar to that for industrial
radiography. The collective effective dose is less wellcorrelated with gross national product than that for theother occupatiorial categories analysed; the greater
potential for non-uniform reporting of data in thiscategory has doubtless contributed to this situation.
262. The annual number of monitored workers
involved worldwide in the use of radiation in tertiary
education, averaged over five-year periods, isestimated to have varied within the range 140,000180,000 over the whole period (Figure XX). The
worldwide average annual collective effective dose isestimated to have decreased from about 70 man Sv in
the first five-year period to about 20 man Sv in thethird. About 75% of these collective doses are
estimated to have occurred in the countries comprising
the OECD.
263. The annual effective dose to monitored workers
worldwide, averaged over five-year periods, fell fromabout 0.55 mSv in tlie first period to about 0.14 mSv
in the third, with most of the decrease occurring
between the first arid second periods. This downward
trend is evident in the data for most, but by no means
all, of the countries reporting data, but there isconsiderable variation between countries in both thelevel of the dose and the extent of the decrease. The
average doses were generally a small fraction of
a mSv, sometimes a very small fraction, and exceeded
1 mSv only exceptionally. An important reason forthis variability is doubtless the adoption of different
protocols for who is to be monitored in the respective
workforces. The dccrease in average dose over timevaried by a factor of as much as 3 in some countries;
more exceptionally, there were increases in othercountries.
264. The fraction of the monitored workforce
receiving annual doses in excess of 15 mSv was small
and is estimated to have decreased tenfold, Gom about0.004 in the first pcriod to about 0.0004 in tllc third;
the fraction of the collcctivc effective dosc arisingfrom annual doses in excess of the samc lcvcl is estimated to have decreased from about 0.2 to about 0.07
over the same pcriod. These fractions wcrc cstimatrd
from a smaller set of data than uscd to estimate
collcctivc and individual doscs and, as a conscqucnce,
are less reliable indicators of worldwide levels.
265. Fewer data are available on average doscs tomeasurably exposed workcrs than on those to monitored workcrs, and again no attempt has bccn niade toestimate a worldwide avcragc dose to this group. The
average annual doses to measurably exposed workers
exhibited much less variability between countries thanthose to monitored workcrs and, in general, fell in arange of 0.5-3 mSv.

F. ACCELEKATORS
266. Consideration is liniited here to occupational
exposures arising from accclcrators used for nuclear
physics research at uriiversities and national arid international laboratories. Accelerators (generally ofsomewhat smaller size) are increasingly being used for
medical purpose; however, the exposures arising fromthem arc more appropriately associated with exposuresarising from the medical uses of radiation. Most cxposures from accelerators result from induced radioactivity and occur mainly during the repair, maintenance and modification of equipment These exposures come mainly from gamma-radiation from tbe
activation of solid surrounding materials by pcnctrating radiation. The pote~itialfor internal exposure in
the normal operation of accelerators is slight, arld
doses via this route are negligible in coniparison wilhthose from external irradiation. Insufficient information was available to enable doses, reported in termsof effective dose equivalent, to be transformed toeffective dose; the si~nplifying assumption was,therefore, made that they were numerically equal.
267. Early high-energy accelerators uscd internal
targets to produce either radioisotopes or secondary
beams of normally unstable particles. Very high levelsof activation products were produced in the region of
the targets, and typical annual collective doses per
accelerator were 1-2 man Sv before 1960; this is stilltrue for many of the early cyclotrons that are still in
operation. In 1960-1980. improved bean1 extraction
techniques wcrc developed, which led to reduced
levels of activation products; these reductions were,
however, largely offset by the continuing increases inbeam power.
268. In the 1980s two devclopnients had an important
influence on occupational exposures at accclcrators.

The first was the i~~crcasing
importance of colliding
bean1 techniques for the production of events ofinterest to the particle physics community. Averagebcani intcnsitics, as nicasured by the riuniber ofparticles accclcratcd per day, are scvcral orders ofmagnitude lower than thosc uscd in fixed-targct
physics cxpcrinicnLs. Consequently, llle production ofactivation products has bccn greatly reduced, and thisis reflected in the exposures of niaintcnancc personnel.
The sccond developnient was a move towards heavyion operation, where again the accelerated bcam
intensities are sevcral orders of magnitude lower than
thosc with proton acceleration. This has also led to adecrease in activation products and, consequently, in
exposures during maintenance.
269. Following from these technical dcvelopmc~itsand
the greater emphasis given generally to ALARA programmes at accclcrators, there were large reductionsin the annual collcctivc effective doses at major
accelerator laboratories between the mid-1970s andmid-1980s [P4].Decreases in annual collective dose,from about 0.1 to 0.02 man SV, wcrc cxpcrienccd at
Deutsches Elcktronen Synchrotron; from about 0.2 toabout 0.02 man Sv at Darcsbury Nuclear Physics
Laboratory; from about 5 to 1.5 marl Sv at European
Organization for Nuclear Research and from about 0.5
to about 0.2 man- Sv at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.
270. The relevant data shown in Table 26 are notconiplete enough to enable a reliable estimate of theworldwide levels of dosc from accelerators, but thesums (or averages) of the available data are shown. Itshould be noted that these summed or average data
largely reflect experience in the United States, whicl~
is by far the largest contributor to them. The total
average annual collective effective dose has decreased
from about 7 man Sv in tbe first five-year period toabout 3.5 man Sv in the third period. Over the samc
pcriod the overall average annual dose to monitored
workers decreased from about 1.6 to about 0.6 mSv.
The data on distribution ratios, averaged over thosc
countries reporting data. do not include data for thc
Unitcd States, where most of the collective dose arose,so it would be inappropriate to associate these ratioswith either the total numbers of workers or tlie totalcollective doses, as they were determined largely by
the doses from the United States.
271. Considerable variation about these overall
average values and trends with time is evident in tlicdata for individual countries. With the exception of
one country, the avcragc annual effective doses tomonitored workcrs all fell within the range 0.32.7 mSv. In the United Stales this dose decreased
fourfold, from about 2 to about 0.5 mSv over theperiod analysed; increases arc apparent in some of theo h e r countries.

272. The average annual effective doses lomeasurably exposed workers exhibit trends similar to
those to the monitored workforce. With the exceptionof one country, these doses fell within the range
1-7 mSv and were typically sonic two to three tinies
greater than those to the monitored workforce.

G.

OTIIER INDUSTRIAL USES

273. Thcre are many other uses of radiation inindustry, e.g. soil moisture gauges, thickness gauges
and x-ray diffraction, but occupational exposure data
for these are not, in general, separately identified orreported. The number of workers potentially exposedin these other uses may substantially exceed those in
the few occupations for which data have been
separately prcse~~tedin this Chapter. The averagelevels of exposure of workers involved in other uscs
of radiation are, in general, small. However, becauseof the way in which they are aggregated, they may
disguise somewhat higher average doses in particularoccupations. The only way to ascertain the existenceof occupations, or subgroups within occupations,
receiving doses significantly in excess of the average
is for those responsible for compiling data to inspect
the data periodically. Such inspection is to be
encouraged. An indication of occupational exposuresfrom other uses of radiation can be inferred from thedifference between the data for all industrial uses
worldwide and those for individual occupations forwhich it was possible to make worldwide estimates.

correlation generally inncasing when consideration islirnitcd to partici~larregional or economic groupings ofcountrics. Data on the regional variations of exposuresin industrial uscs of radiation are summarized inTable 28. The data for the main regions contributing
to the collective dose are illustrated in Figure XXlI.
Direct compariso~rsshould riot be made between thenormalized doses for the respective periods as they
have been derived on different price bascs (1977, 1983
and 1989, respectively); appropriate corrections would
need to be made to enable direct comparison. Withina given period, a factor of 2-3 encompasses the rangeof variation in the nornlalized collective doses between
most regions; values for tlie United States weretypically greater by a factor of 2 than those for the
rest of the OECD countries.
276. For some countries within a geographical or
econonlic region, the noniialized collective dose
(nornialized in tcrnis of gross national product)differed greatly from the average for that region. In
most of ttiese cases the values were much smaller than
the average, suggesting that the reported data may
have been incomplete, that much less use was being
made of radiation in industry or that much higher
standards of protection had been adopted in thosecountries. Notwithstanding tliese reservations on thecompleteness of some of the reported data, no attempt
has been made to correct for this, and the reported
data wcre all included in the estimation of worldwide
levels of exposure. Any errors due to incompletenessof the reported data are unlikely to be significant incomparison with the uncertainty introduced by the
extrapolation process itself.

H. ALL INDUSTRIAL USES OF FWDIATION
274. The last section of Table 26 shows the national
data on occupational exposures from all industrial usesof radiation grouped together, excluding the nuclear
fuel cycle and defence. The data are more complete
than for the separate categories of industrial uses ofradiation. Worldwide levels have been obtained byregional extrapolation based on gross national product.
The sum of gross national products for the countries
reporting data was about 50% of the worldwide total
in the first fwe-year period, increasing to about 80%
in the third (the countries accounted for about 15%
and 30%, respectively, of the world population). On
average, therefore, the reported data have been scaled
upwards by a factor of about 1.5; there is, however,considerable variation about this average in the scaling
for particular regions.
275. The collective effective doses from all industrial
uses of radiation in each country reporting data in
1985-1989 are shown in relation to gross national
product in Figure XXI. The broad correlation between
the two quantities is evident, with the degree of

277. The annual number of monitored workers,
averaged over five-year periods, involved with theindustrial uses of radiation worldwide is estimated tohave varied within the range 500,000-700,000 over theperiod; the great majority of these workers are
employed either in the United States (40%-50%) or in
the other countries comprising OECD (30%40%). The
number of workers appears to have increased between
h e first two periods and then declined in the third(Figure XXII). The average annual collective effective
dose was about 900 man Sv in each of the two first
periods but decreased significantly in the third toabout 500 man Sv; in general, the data for later
periods are more reliable because of the smaller
degree of extrapolation needed. Roughly equal
contributions to diis collective dose wcre made by theUnited States, tlie rest of the OECD countries, Eastern
Europe and the remainder of the world, although thecontribution from Eastern Europe was, in general,
smaller than that from the other groupings.
278. The annual effective dose to monitored workers,
averaged over five-year periods, fell from aboutANNFX D: OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION EXPOSURES

1.6 mSv in the first period to about 0.9 mSv in thethird. This same downward trend is evident in the data
for most countries and regional groupings, but there isconsiderable variation between countries in both thc
levcl of the dose and extent of the decrease. For
example, avcragc doses to monitored workers varyfrom as low as 0.1 nlSv in some countries (e.g.
Finland and Ireland) to as high as 16 rnSv in others(the formcr USSR). Not all countries have provided
data on the distribution ratios NRIS and SRIS. The
fraction of monitored workers worldwide receiving
annual doses in cxcess of 15 mSv is estimated fromthese data to have been about 0.01 in the first fiveyear period and marginally less in the following two
periods. The traction of the collective dose arisingfrom individual doses in excess of the same level isalso estimated to have been fairly constant over theperiod, about 0.3.
279. Far fewer data are available on average doses tomeasurably exposed workers than to monitored
workers. Most fall in the range 1-5 mSv, but values
for several countries fall well outside of this range.
Based on these data, the worldwide average annual
dose to nleasurably exposed workers is estimated tohave decreased from about 3 mSv in the first two
periods to about 2 nlSv in the third. Large variations
bctwcen countries are evident in the ratio of theavenge dose to meas~lrablyexposed and monitored
workers. This ratio rangcs from about 1 to more than
10; differences in monitoring and reporting practice
between countries are probably mainly responsible forthis variation. The number of measurably exposed
workers is estimated, on a worldwide basis, to belower by a factor of 2-3 than that of monitored
workers. More data on average doses to measurably
exposed workers would be useful, as comparisonsbased on these data are, in general, more reliable thanthose based on the doses to monitored workers.

280. Some of the variations between countries in thereported statistics undoubtedly arise from differencesin how doses are measured and formally recorded, in
who in the workforce is to be monitored and in thecompleteness of the occupations or uses included in
the data reported; these aspects warrant closer analysis
in future in order to validate comparisons between thedata and improve the estimate of worldwide levels of
exposure.

I.

CUMULATIVE DOSES

425

data exhibit, in general, the expected increase incumulative dose with duration of employment. T h eaverage annual increment in dose increases, however,with increasing duration of employment. For tllose
cmploycd or exposed over a pcriod of less than 10
years, tlie avcragc annual dose was about 4 mSv; forthosc employed for 15 years tllc avcragc annual dose
was about 7 n ~ S v .Various factors may have contributed to this diffcrcnce, for cxamplc, improvements inpractice and radiological standards over time andvariations in the type and volume of work undertaken
as experience is gained, which will at least be partiallycorrelated with employment duration. About 4% of
those employed for more than 10 ycars had received
cumulative doses in excess of 200 mSv; just over 40%of those employed for 14 or 15 years had received
cumulative doses greater than 100 mSv.

282. Thcse cuniulative doses are broadly comparablewith those estimated for contract workers at LWRs in
the United States who had at some time in their career
been employed at the Calvert Cliffs nuclear power
station and are larger than those estimated by theUnited States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (on thebasis of termination records) for all workers at LWlb
in the United States. Somewhat larger cumulative
doses were experienced at the reprocessing plant at
Sellafield in the United Kingdom, at lcast for those
who started working there before the 1970s; for those
who started working after that time, the cumulative
doses are comparable with those reported here forradiographers.

J.

SUMMARY

283. Worldwide exposures from industrial uses ofradiation are summarized in Table 30. Estimates havebeen made for industrial uses as a whole andseparately for industrial radiography, for radioisotope
production and distribution and for tertiary education
and research institutes. By subtracting the data forthese separate categories from those for "all industrial
activities" given in Table 26, estimates have been
made of worldwide doses for "other" industrial uses;
these other industrial uses also include doses fromthose occupational categories that were analysed
separately in this Chapter but for which it was notpossible to make worldwide estimates (i.e. theluminizing industry, well logging and accelerators).
The number of workers and average annual individualand collective doses for thew categories are illustrated
in Figure XX.

281. Few data have been published on cumulative
exposures to workers involved with the industrial usesof radiation. Data reported in response to the
UNSCEAR questionnaire by Hungary for industrial
radiographers are summarized in Table 29 [Sg]. The

284. Of the average annual number of monitored
workers involved worldwide with the industrial uses ofradiation (ranging from about 550,000to 700,000over
the period analysed), about 1646, 13% and 27% areestimated to have been employed in industrial radiography, isotope production and distribution and tertiary
education, respectively. Typically, about 40% or more
were assigned to the category of "other".

285. The average annual collective effective doseworldwide from all industrial uses has decreased fromabout 900 to about 500 man Sv over the period analysed. On average about 25% of the total collective
dose arose in industrial radiography, about 14% inisotope production and about 6% in tertiary education.
On average more than 50% of the total collective dose
occurred in other industrial uses of radiation.
286. The average annual doses to monitored workers
in industrial radiography exceeded the average doses

V.

from n l l industrial uses by about 50%. Those in
isotope production also exceeded the averages for allindustrial uscs but to a lesser extent and not in all
periods;
doses horn tertiary education were, in
general, smaller than the overall average doses byfactors of 3-6, d e p e n d i ~ ~ong the period. There is muchvariation between the values of the distribution ratios
NRIS and SRI5 for ell industrial uscs and theparticular occupational categories; those for industrial
radiography arc invariably greater and those for
tertiary education smaller than those for all industrialuses. In general, for each occupational category, theratio, NRIS, was observed to decrease with time; theratios, SRIS, however, with the exception of that for
tertiary education, varied little over the period
analysed.

MEDICAL USES OF RADIATION

287. Radiation is used in medicine for both diagnostic
and therapeutic purposes. Its wide range of applications and the types of procedures or techniques
employed in the context of patient exposure arercviewed in Annex C, "Medical radiation exposures",where changes in practice and possible future trends
are also discussed. Consideration is limited here to theoccupational exposures that arise from the applicationof these procedures. Data on occupational exposures
are presented for workers in each of the following
areas: diagnostic radiography, dental practice, nuclear
medicine (diagnostic and therapeutic), radiotherapy
and all medical uses of radiation (for human purposes)
grouped together. In addition, separate consideration is
given to exposures in veterinary medicine.

288. Previous Chapters of this Annex contained
cautionary remarks about the accuracy or validity ofreported statistics on occupational exposures and theextent 10 which they can be fairly compared, either
between countries for the same occupational group, or
between different occupational groups in the same ordifferent countries. It is in the area of medical uses ofradiation where these cautionary remarks are most.important, and great care must be exercised ininterpreting and evaluating the various statistics. Thereis considerable potential for drawing erroneous
conclusions as a result of the direct and unqualified
comparison of data in this area. The reasons for thiswere already pointed out. Thcy include differences inmonitoring and recording practice, in defining theworkforce to be monitored, in nlinimum detectablelevels and in the recording of doses less than theminimum detectable level. More important in the
medical field, however, are differences in where

dosinieters are located (in particular, whether they are
above or below lead aprons when these are worn).
Furher complicating factors are the non-uniformity
and low energy of the radiation that contributes mostto the overall occupational exposures from the medical
uses of radiation in such circunistances; the approach
used to derive effective doses from dosimetermeasurements can havc major implications for thecomparability of occupational exposures.
289. To assist in the interpretation and/or qualificationof the statistics reported in this Chapter, the mainfeatures of the dose nionitoring and reporting
procedures adopted in each of the countries that have
responded to the UNSCEAR Survey of Occupational
Exposures in Medicine are sunimarized in Table 31.
Significant differences arc evident, in particular in thelocation of the dosinicter (above or below the leadapron) and whether the direct dosimeter reading orsome corrected value was entered into the formal doserecord. Other important differences that may influence
the comparability and/or accuracy of repofled statistics
are the minimuni detectable levels of the various
dosimeters and the manner in which doses less than
this level or levels are recorded. These diKerencesmust be recognized when comparing the data
presented in the following Sections.
290. Notwill~standingthese qualifications and reservations, i t proved impracticable in this analysis to revise
or normalize the reported exposures to ensure that fair
coniparisons could be made between them. Accordingly, when worldwide levels of exposure wcrc estimatedfro111 Uie available data, no distinction was madebetween doses measured, recorded or reported inANNEX D: OCCUPATlONAL RADIATION EXPOSURES

different ways; all reported doses were assunled to beadequate surrogates for effective dose. More attention
needs to be given to this matter to afford better comparability between doses arising in different circumstances and to enable more reliable estimates of worldwide levels of occupational exposure.
291. National data on medical uses of radiation,categorized as diagnostic radiopaphy, dental practice.
nuclear medicine, radiotherapy, veterinary medicine
and all (human) nledical uses of radiation grouped
together and averaged, where possible, over five-year
periods, are given in Table 32. Worldwide levels of
exposure have becn estimated from these national databy extrapolation within particular regions based ongross national product as described in Section I.C.In
general, the collective dose for each practice was wellcorrelated with gross national product, but there were
exceptions for some countries. The degree of extrapolation needed varied with the medical use considered but was typically within a range of about 2 to
7 overall; there was, however, considerable variation
about these average values for particular regions or
periods.
292. The data on exposures from medical uses ofradiation for the United States have becn consideredseprately from the remainder of the OECD region
because of the major contribution to worldwide
exposures from this country and the much larger
collective dose per unit gross national product. Datafor the United States have been reported separately for
all medical uscs of radiation and for dental radiography; the levels of exposure from diagnostic
radiography, nuclear medicine and radiotherapy, taken
together, can thus be estimated by siniple subtractionof exposures from dental radiography from those forall medical uses. Assumptions must be made, however, on the attribution of this residual dose between
the respective uses. In the absence of other indications,the distribution between the three uses was assumed tobe the same as that on average for OECD countries(or, more strictly, those reporting data).

427

infer from a single personal dosimeter reading, cspecially if the dosimeter is not in the primary radiation
field striking the body. For a reliable estimate to be
made, detailed information on the circumstances of the
exposure and the nature of the radiation are needed.
Because of these difficulties, the direct dosinietcr
reading is comn~onlyused in formal dose records asa surrogate for the effective dose. The compilation ofreliable statistics in this area is further hampered by
the fact that many of the exposures are close to theminimum detectable level of the dosimeter. Differences in MDLs for various dosimeters and in the protocols for recording doses below these may therefore
adversely affect the reliability of the data andcompromise the validity of direct comparisons
between statistics compiled in different ways.
294. It was judged in the UNSCEAR 1988 Report[Ul] that for radiation qualities used in diagnostic
x-ray procedures, the dosimeter usually gives areading that is 2 to 4 times higher than the effective
dose if no protective apron is worn and if the exposure
is relatively uniform. If a protective apron is worn andthe personal dosimeter is placed on the outside, thenthe dosimeter reading could be as much as 10-20
times higher than the effective dose. It can be seenfrom Table 31 that in most cases, at least where theinfornlation is available, the direct dosimeter readingis entered into formal dose records. The data given
may thus be considerable overestimates, particularly
for those countries where lead aprons are worn anddosinletcrs placed above them. Significant differences
are also evident in Table 31 in the minimum detectable levels of the dosimeters used and in the assignment of doses when dosinleters are lost; thesediffere~~cesmust be recognized when comparing data
for the respective countries.

295. Countries reporting data on occupational
exposures from diagnostic radiology comprised about
13% of the total gross national product worldwide in
the first five-year period increasing to about 1 8 % in
the third. On average, therefore, the reported data havebeen scaled upwards by a factor of about 7; there was,however, considerable variation about this average inthe scaling for particular re&''1011s.

A. DIAGNOSTIC RADIOGRAI'HY
293. The estimation of occupational exposures fromdiagnostic radiography is complicated by the fact thatthe radiation comes largely from point sources fairly
close to the workers and is in general of very low
energy. Exposure is very non-uniform because of theinverse square law and attenuation in the body.
Matters are further complicated by the fact that
dosimeters are not always worn at the same location,although they are commonly worn at the waist or
neck. Consequently, the effective dose is difficult to

2%. The annual number of monitored workers,
averaged over five-year periods, involved worldwide
in diagnostic radiography approximately doubled, fromabout 0.63 to 1.4 million over the period analysed (seeFigure XXIII); the great majority of tliese workers(about 70%) were employed in those countries
comprising the OECD. The annual worldwide
collective effective dose, averaged over five-year
periods, was about 600 man Sv in the first period
increasing to about 760 man Sv in the third period.
About 75% of the worldwide collective dose occurred

UNSCEAR 1 F)93 REPORT

428

in countries of the OECD in the first period; this
proportion dropped to about 60% in the third pcriod.
297. Thc annunl cffcclivc dosc to nlonitorcd workcrs
worldwide, avcraged over fivc-year periods, fell fromabout 0.9 mSv in the first pcriod to about 0.6 mSv inthe third. This same downward trend is evident in thedata for most countrics and rcgional groupings, but
thcrc is considcrablc variation between countries inboth the level of thc dosc and the extent of thedecrease. Most avcragc annual doscs fall in the range
0.1-1 mSv, but somewhat higher values are rcported
for China, Indonesia and, in particular, Peru. Inpractice, all of the above doscs, both individual andcollective, may bc considerable overestimates, as it
was generally assumed that the dosimeter reading
could be equatcd with effective dosc.
298. Thc fraction of the monitored workforce worldwide recciving annual doses in excess of 15 mSv was
small and estimated to have been about 0.003 ovcr the
first two periods, with an apparent i~lcreascto about
0.005 in the third period; the fraction of the worldwide
collective effective dose fro111 annual doscs in excessof the same level was about 0.1 in the first period,
decreasing to about 0.05 in the second pcriod with anapparent increase to about 0.2 in the third pcriod.
Undue significance should not, however, be assigned
to these apparent increases in the third pcriod. These
increases are due to data for China only being reported
for the third pcriod and the somewhat higher values ofthe distribution ratios reported for this country. For
those countrics reporting data for the whole pcriod
analysed there is evidence, ovcrall, of a small downward trcnd with time in the values of both ratios.
299. Fewer data are available on average annual doses
to measurably exposed workers than to monitored
workers, so no attempt has been made to estimate a
representative worldwide level. Most doses fall in therange 1-5 mSv, but a few fall well outside of thisrange (c.g. 11 mSv for China in 1985-1989). The pcrcentage of monitored workers who are measurably
cxposed varies considerably betwccn countrics, fromabout 5 % to alnlost 90%. Large variations between
countries are evident in the ratio of the average doseto measurably exposed and nlonitorcd workers. Thisratio ranges from about 1 to more than 10; differences
in monitoring i~nd reporting practice are probably
mainly responsible for the variation.

bascd on gross national product. Thc sum of the grossnational products for those countrics reporting data
was about 50% of the worldwide total in the first fiveyear period, increasing to about 60% in thc third. On
average, tl~creforc,the rcported data have bcen scaled
upwards by a factor of about 2 but wilh considerablc
variation about this average value for particularrcgions.
301. The annual nun~bcr of monitored workers,
averaged over five-year periods, in dental practiceworldwide is estimated to havc increased from about
400,000 to about 500,000 ovcr the pcriod analyscd(see Table 3 2 and Figure XXIII); more than half theseworkcrs wcrc en~ploycd in the United States. The
average annual collective effcctive dose was about
120 man Sv in the first period, decreasing to about
25 man Sv in the third, with most of the decrease
occurring between the second and third periods. The
overall trend largely reflects U~atin the Unitcd States,
where the annual collective dose is reported to havedecreased over the same period, from about 8 0 to
12 man Sv. In other countries the downward trend wasless pronounced, not cvident at all or, occasionally,
revcrsed.
302. The annual effective dosc to monitored workers
worldwide, averaged over five-year periods, fell
progressively fro111about 0.3 mSv in the first pcriod toabout 0.05 mSv in the third, again largely reflecting
expcrience in the Unitcd States, which makes adominant contribution to the total reported. While thissame downward trcnd is evident in most, but not all,countries and regions, thcre is considcrablc variationin both the level of the dose and the extent of thedecrease for particular countries or rcgions.
303. The fraction of the monitored workforce (summed over the reported data) receiving annual doses inexcess of 15 mSv was vcry small and is estimated tohave varicd within the range 0.0003-0.0008 over thethree pcriods; the fraction of the collective effective
dosc (summed ovcr UIC reported data) estimated toarise Gom annual doses in excess of that level varicd
over a range of about 0.08-0.12. Because the data areincomplete (i.e. no data reported for some countrics
and for limited pcriods in other cases), these ratios are
not reliable indicators of worldwide levels of thesequantities nor of trends in their values. The most thatcan be concluded from them is that, in general, thefraction of dental workers recciving an annual dose inexcess of 15 mSv is very small, i.e. significantly lessthan one in a thousand workers.

B. DENTAL PRACTICE
304. Fewer data are available on average annual doses
300. Worldwide levels of dose and numbers ofworkers in dental practice have bcen estimated fromnational data by extrapolation within particular regions

to measurably exposed workers than to monitored

workers. Most fell within the range 0.2-3 mSv, butthere were exceptions. The proportion of monitored

ANNEX D: OCCUPATlONAL

workers who were measurably exposed varied between
countries from a few per cent to essentially 100%; thisis indicative of differences in practice with regard to
who is monitored and in thc reporting and recordingof doses, which may partially explain some of thewide variation in reported average individual doscs toboth monitored and measurably exposed workers.

C. NUCLEAR MEDICINE
305. Over the past decade there has been a rapid
expansion in the use of nuclear medicine. Many
radionuclides are used to label the harmaceuticals,
but the two most important are smTc and l3'1.
Preparation and administration of pharmaceuticals are
significant contributors to overall lcvels of exposure,
Moreover, as they are administered by injection,
relatively high doscs to the hands of the workers arealso possible. Generally, lead shielded syringes arerecommended, but they are not always used.
Following injection, the patient is another source of
exposure for the medical staff. Internal exposures ofworkers may also occur, but few data have beenreported on their relative contribution. Radiopharmaceuticals are also used in therapy, and the main
sources of occupational exposure are the same as indiagnostic use. Since the data on occupational exposures arising in nuclear medicine rarely distinguishbetween diagnostic and therapeutic applications, thisanalysis is directed to overall levels of exposure in thefield. Consideration is limited here to effective doses
to which extremity doses do not contribute. Becauseof the potential for significant extremity doses innuclear medicine, these would merit attention in any
future analysis.
306. Worldwide levels of dose and numbers ofworkers involved in nuclear medicine have been
estimated from national data using the same
extrapolation procedures as described previously. The
sum of the gross national products for those countries
reporting data was about 12% of the worldwide total
in the first five-year period increasing to about 18% in
the third. On average, therefore, the reported data havebeen scaled upwards by a factor of about 7 but withconsiderable variation about this average value forparticular regions.

period, increasing to about 90 man Sv in each of thefollowing two periods. The annual effective dose tomonitored workers worldwide, averaged over five-year
periods, was about 1 mSv and varied linle over thewhole period analysed. A downward trend is evident
for some countries and regions, but there is considerable variation between countries in both the levelsof dose and the trends. Most average annual doses fellin the range 0.2-2 mSv, but there are exceptions tothis generalization, in particular for Mexico and Peru,
where somewhat higher doses were experienced insome periods.
308. The fraction of the monitored workforce
worldwide receiving annual doses in excess of 15 mSv
was small and is estimated to have been about 0.002
for the first two five-year periods wilh an apparent
increase to about 0.004 in the third period; the fractionof the worldwide collective effective dose from annual
doses in excess of the same level was about 0.09 in
the first period, decreasing to about 0.03 in the second
period with an apparent increase to about 0.1 in thethird pcriod. Undue significance should not, however,be assigned to these apparent increases in the third
period. These increases are due to data for China only
being reported for the third period and the somewhat
higher values of the distribution ratios reported for thiscountry. For those countries reporting data for thewhole period analysed there is evidence, overall, of asmall downward trend with time in the values of bothratios.
309. Fewer data are available on average annual doses
to n~easurably exposed workers than to monitored
workers, so no attempt has been made to estimatc
worldwide levels for this quantity. Most doses were
between 1 and 4 mSv, but some were considerably
greater (e.g. 1 3 mSv in China in one period). The
proportion of monitored workers who were measurably
exposed vaned from a few per cent to essentially
100%; this is indicative of differcnces in practice withregard to who is n~onitoredand in the reporting andrecording of doses, which may partially explain someof the wide variation in reported average individual
doses to both monitored and measurably exposed
workers.

D.
307. The annual number of monitored workers,
averaged over five-year periods, in nuclear medicine
worldwide is estimated to have increased from about
60,000 to about 90,000 over the period analysed (seeTable 32 and Figure XXIII); more than half of theseworkers were employed in countries of the OECD.
The average annual worldwide collective effective
dose was about 60 man Sv in the first five-year

RADIOTHERAPY

310. Occupational exposures during the practice ofradiotherapy come from several sources. In general,
the rooms in which external beam radiotherapy ispractised are very well shielded, and tlle staff receive
little exposure. An exception to this occurs with either
rleutron beams or electron accelerators operating above
10 MeV. The neutrons activale nearby materials,

which then constitute a source of radiation and exposure to the workcrs even after the primary beam has
been turned off. In such cases, about 75% of the
exposure is due to photoactivation products in thetreatment head [Ul], and the remainder is due to otheractivation products in the room; induced activity in thepatient is not a significant source.

311. An iliiportant source of occupational exposure
from radiotherapy is brachytherapy, which often
involves the insertion or surgical implantation ofradio-active wires, needles or seeds. Preloadcd surgicalapplicators arc also sometimes used. There has, however, been a trend in countries with a high level ofhealth care towards the use of after-loading devices,
whenever possible, to reduce occupational exposures.
This involves the prepositioning of an applicator or
holder on or in the patient and the insertion of theradioactive material at a later time. The occupationaldose from brachytherapy is very dependent on whether
the source insertion is manual or automated in somemanner. Once the sources have been inserted, thepatient becomes a source of exposure to the medical
staff. Because brachytherapy contributes significantly
to medical occupational exposures, it should beanalysed separately. Since, however, few data havebeen separately reported on brachytherapy , the analysisof exposures has been carried out for radiotherapy as
a whole.
312. Worldwide levels of dose and numbers ofworkers involved in radiotherapy have been estiniatedfrom national data using the same extrapolation procedures as described previously. The coverage andscaling of data were similar to that for nuclear
medicine.
313. The annual number of monitored workers, averaged over five-year periods, in radiotherapy worldwide is estimated to have increased from about 80,000
to about 110,000 over the period analysed (see Table
32 and Figure XXIII); more than half of these workers
were employed in countries of the OECD. The
average annual worldwide collective effective dose isestimated to have been reduccd by almost half fromabout 190 man Sv in the first period to about
100 man Sv in the third period, with the decrease
occurring mainly between the second and third
periods. The annual effective dose to monitored
workers worldwide, averaged over five-year periods,
fell from about 2.2 mSv in the first period to about
0.9 mSv in the third. This downward trend is cvident
in many but by no means all countries and regions,arid there is considerable variation in both the level ofthe dose and the extent of the decrease for particularcountries or regions. Most average annual doses fell
between 0.5 and 2 mSv, but there were exceptions tothis generalization, in particular in Finland, where thedoses were n~uclilower, and in Mexico and especiallyPcru, whcrc llley were sig~~ificantly
higbcr.
314. Thc fraction of monitored workers, averaged
over the reported data, receiving annual effective doses
in cxccss of 15 mSv was srnall and is estirnatcd tohave dccrcased Croni about 0.012 in the first period toabout 0.008 in each of the subsequent periods. The
corresponding fractions of the collective effective dose
arising horn annual doses in excess of that level wereabout 0.3 in Lhc first period, decreasing to about 0.2 inthe subsequent periods. Silicc the data for mostcountries generally exhibit the same trends, these
average values can be used to provide a roughestiniate of worldwide levels for these quantities.

315. Fewer data are available on average annual doses
to measurably cxposcd workers than to monitored
workers. Most fell between 1 and 5 mSv, but there
were some exceptions, for example in China, where
the reported dose for one period was 10 mSv. The
proportion of monitored workcrs who were measurably
exposed varied from less than 10% to essentially
100%; the variation reflects differences in practicewith regard to who is monitored and in the reporting
and recording of doses, which may partially explainsome of the wide variation in reported average
individual doses to ~i~onitored
and ~neasurablyexposed
workers.

E. ALL hCI)ICAL USES OF RADIATION
316. National data on occupational exposures from all
medical uscs of radiation, averaged over five-year
periods, are given in the last section of Table 32.
Worldwide levels of exposure have been estimatedfrom the rcported data by extrapolation based on grossnational product. In Figure XXI, the collective
effective doses from all medical uses of radiation ineach country reporting data in 1985-1989 are shown inrelation to the gross national product. The broadcorrelation between the two quantities is cvident, withh e degree of correlation generally increasing when
consideration is limited to particular regional or
economic groupings of countries.

317. For some countries in a geographical or
economic region, the normalized collective dosejnornlalizcd in tcrrns of the gross national product)differed greatly G o ~ nthe average for that region. In
most of these cases the values were much snlaller than
the average, suggesting h a t the reported data may
have been incomplete, that much less use was being
made of radiation in medicine or that much higher
standards of protection had been adopted in thoseANNEX D: OCCUPATIONAL W I A T I O N EXPOSURES

countries. Similar observations have been made for the
separate practices involving industrial uses ofradiation. Notwithstanding these reservations on thecompletcness of some of the reported data, no attempt
has been made to correct for this, and the reported
data were all included in the estimation of worldwide
levels of exposure. Any errors due to iricon~pletenessof the reported data are unlikely to be significant incomparison with the uncertainty introduced by the
extrapolation process itself and by the assun~ptionthat
all of the reported data are good surrogates for
effective dose.
318. The data on occupational exposures from all
medical uses of radiation are presented for various
geographic regions and econon~ic groupings inTable 33. Because of its much larger normalized
collective dose, the United States has been listed
separately from the other OECD countries. Since thenormalized collective doses for the respective periods
were derived on different price bases (1977, 1983 and1989, respectively), direct comparisons cannot bemade without appropriate corrections. Within a given
period, the normalized collective doses vary by afactor of about 2 between most regions. The main
exceptions to this generalization are the United States,
where the normalized collective dose is some two to
three times that for the remainder of the OECD, andLatin America and Asia where the normalized
collective doses are substantially less.
319. The exposure data for the major regionalgroupings of countries are illustrated in Figure XXIV.
The worldwide annual number of monitored workers,
averaged over five-year periods, is estimated to haveincreased fiom about 1.3 to about 2.2 million over theperiod; the majority of these workers are employed in
the United States or in countries comprising the rest of
the OECD. The average annual collective effective
dose was about 1,000 man Sv in the first and third
periods with evidence of an increase of about 10% in
the intermediate period; in general, the data for later
periods are more reliable because of the smaller
degree of extrapolation needed. Notwithstanding thisrelatively unchanged level of worldwide exposure overthe period analysed, somewhat greater changes
occurred in particular regions. The significant decreasein the average annual collective dose in the UnitedStates and the increase in that from the rest of theworld, excluding Eastern Europe and the OECD, areapparent Half or more of the worldwide collective
dose occurs in countries of the OECD, although thiscontribution has decreased with time.
320. The annual effective dose to mo~~itored
workers
worldwide, averaged over five-year periods, fell fromabout 0.8 mSv in the first period to about 0.5 n ~ S vin
the third. This same downward trend is evident in the

43 1data for most countries and regional groupings, butthere is considerable variation between countries inboth tlic level of the dose and extent of the decrease.
The average annual doses, and their rate of decline,
were broadly coniparable in Eastern Europe and in theOECD (excluding the United States); somewhat higher
levels of average individual dose have been reported
for the United States. No undue significance should be
attached to the variation in individual doses illustrated
for those countries depicted as the "remainder" inFigure XXIV; any trends in these data will have been
distorted because different countries were included inthis category in the different time periods. The averageannual doses reported by individual countries varyover a considerable range, for example from as low as
0.1 mSv in some countries for some periods (e.g.
Germany, Ireland and Switzerland) to as high as afew millisievert in others (e.g. China, Mexico andPeru).
321. The fraction of the monitored workforce
worldwide receiving annual doses in excess of 15 mSv
was small and is estimated to have decreased fromabout 0.003 in the first period to about 0.002 in thesecond with an apparent increase to about 0.009 in thethird period; the fraction of the worldwide collective
effective dose from annual doses in excess of the samelevel was about 0.14 in the first period, decreasing toabout 0.10 in the second period with an apparent
increase to about 0.24 in the third period. The
apparent increases in the third period are due to theinclusion of the data for China, which had beenreported only for this period. For those countries
reporting data for the whole period analysed there isevidence, overall, of a small downward trend withtime in the values of both ratios.
322. Few data are available on average doses tomeasurably exposed workers than to monitored
workers. Most fell in the range 1-5 mSv, but values
for several countries are well outside of this range(10 mSv for China in 1985-1989). Based on thesereported data, a worldwide average annual effective
dose of about 1.6 mSv has been estimated as generally
applicable over the entire period. Large variations
between countries are evident in the ratio of theaverage dose to measurably exposed and monitored
workers. This ratio ranges fiom about 1 to more than
10; differences in monitoring and reporting practices
between countries are probably mainly responsible forthis variation. More data on average doses tomeasurably exposed workers would be useful, as
comparisons made on this basis are, in general, morereliable than those made on the basis of the dose tomonitored workers.
323. Some of the variation between countries in thereported statistics undoubtedly arises from differencescategories of medical use of radiation all decreased
with time, even if by differing anlounts. This isapparent in Figure XXIII,where the trends in separate
practices arc indicated. Radiotherapy has, in general,rcsultcd in the largest average annual doses (about
2.2 ~ n S vdecreasing to about 0.9 mSv bctwccrl the first
and third pcriods), typically excccdir~gthe average forall mcdical uses by a factor of about 2-3. The averageannual doscs fiom nuclear medicine (remaining at
about 1 niSv over the whole pcriod) also cxccedcd theoverall averages but to a lesser degree. The averageannual doscs from diagnostic radiography (about
0.9 mSv decreasing to about 0.6 mSv) were broadly
comparable with the averages for all medical uses,
whereas those for dental radiography (about 0.3 mSv
decreasing to about 0.05 mSv) wcre much lower. The
doscs from both diagnostic and dental radiography
may, however, be significant overcsti~~iates
becausethe dosimeter reading is generally uscd directly as ameasure of effective dose.
331. The fraction of monitored workcrs worldwidc
exposed to annual effective doses in excess of 15 mSv
is small for each medical practice and for medicine
overall. Typically, a small fraction of 1 % of workcrs
receive annual doses in excess of this level. The
values of this quantity (NRI5) are somewhat greater
for radiotherapy, and those for dental radiography
somewhat lower, than the averagc for all medical
practices. The fraction of the collective dose arisingfrom individual doses in excess of that level has
varied significantly between practices within an overall
range of about 0.03 to about 0.3; the larger values are
generally associated with radiotherapy. For all medical
uses of radiation the value of NRIS decreased fromabout 0.003 in the first period to about 0.002 in thesecond, increasing again in the third to about 0.009.
The value of SRIS followed the same trend, decreasingfrom about 0.18 to about 0.12 between the first andsecond periods and then increasing to about 0.24.
These increases in the third period, however, arc more
apparent than real. They arc mainly due to thesomewhat higher values for China having beenrcported only for the third period. For those countries
reporting data for the wholc period analysed there isevidence, overall, of small downward trends with timein both distribution ratios.
332. The variation in occupational exposures from all
medical uses of radiation between diffcrcnt geographic
or economic regions is surnmarizcd in Table 33 andillustrated for selected rcgions in Figure XXIV.
Averaged over the wholc period, 33% of monitored
workcrs worldwide are estimated to have becn in the
United Statcs, with a similar percentage in the rest of
Ihe OECD. In Eastern Europc (including the former
USSR) the estimated proportion is 20%; based on lesscomplete data, about 4% are estimated to be in Latin

America and 4 % in countries with centrally planned
economics in Asia. About 1% of the total workforce
is cstiniatcd to be on the Indian subcontincnt and asimilar proportion in south and south-east Asia (nonccntrally planaed economies).
333. The co~ltribution of the United Statcs to theworldwide annual collective effective dose almost
halved over the period analysed, decreasing fromabout 46% to 27%. Averaged over the same period,
the contribution of the rest of the OECD was about
20% and that of Eastern Europe about 12%. Based onless comprehcnsivc data, Latin America and countries
with c e ~ ~ t r a l l yplanned economies in Asia eachcontributed about 20%, at least in the more recent
five-year periods. The Indian subcontincnt and southand soulll-cast Asia (non-centrally planned economics)
each contributed about 1%, and there is evidence of asignificant increase in the contribution of the latter toabout 3 % in the most recent five-year period.
334. The data on average individual doscs tomonitored workers indicate that, in general, the doscs
in the OECD (excluding the United States) andEastern Europe were less than the worldwide averages
for the respective periods. Those for Asia and Latin
America were, in general, significantly in excess of
the average, while those in the United Statcs and on
the Indian subcontinent wcre, broadly, of the same
magnitude.
335. Nornlalized collective doses (normalized in termsof both gross national product and population) for
individual regions, averaged worldwide, are summarized in Table 33. Significant variation is evident
between the various values, with the range of variation
being far smaller when the normalization is carried out
in terms of gross national product as opposed topopulation size. In terms of population, the normalized
collective doses for particular rcgions vary over morethan two orders of magnitude, from about 0.01 toabout 2 man Sv per million people, with a worldwidc
averagc of about 0.2 man Sv per million people(compared with a representative value of 1 man Sv per
million people assumed in the UNSCEAR 1988 Report [UI ]). When expressed in terms of gross national
product, the collective doses vary over less than anorder of magnitude, and with a few exceptions, thevariation is much less than this. A number of trends
are apparent in these normalized doses: thosc for theUnited States are generally greater than thosc for the
rest of the OECD by a factor of 2-3; those for the restof the OECD, Eastern Europe and the Indian subcontinent arc broadly of the same magnitudc; and thosefor Latin America and the centrally planned economies
in Asia are substantially in excess of the worldwide
averages of this quantity.

434

UNSCEAR 1993 WPOKTVI.

NATURAL SOURCES OF RADIATION

336. All workers are inevitably exposed to natural
sources of radiation in the course of their work. With
the cxceplion of a few occupations, their exposures tonatural radiation do uot differ significantly from thegeneral background. In the UNSCEAR 1988 Report[Ul], a relatively comprehensive assessment was madeof available data on exposures in tl~oseoccupations orindustrial practices where enhanced levels of exposure
to natural sources of radiation might be experienced.
Estimates were made of doses to aircrew, workers atcoal-fired power stations, underground miners andworkers involved with the industrial and agriculturaluses of phosphates (but not with their mining). Underground mining was estimated to make by far the greatest contribution to the overall collective dose fromoccupational exposure to natural sources of radiation.
These estimates are updated here, with emphasis given
to those occupations or practices contributing most to
the collective dose and to areas where significant new
data have since become available. Exposures to natural
sources of radiation from the mining and subsequent
processing and use of uranium have already been
evaluated in the context of the nuclear fuel cycle andare not considered further here.

A. EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES
337. The extraction and processing of earth materials
increase the exposure of workers to natural sources ofradiation. The general public may be somewhat exposed from the subsequent utilization of the products orby the disposal of wastes. The extractive industries
include all forms of mining; attention is focused here
on underground operations, where radon exposures are
greatest.

1. Underground mining

338. Mining is an extensive industry. As can be seenin Table 35, there are about 4.7 million undergroundminers worldwide, with 84% engaged in coal mining
and 16% in the mining of other minerals [C2]. Amongthe latter group are about 90,000 engaged in themining of uranium ores (see Table 3). China is thelargest employer of workers in coal mines and South
Africa in other mines (mainly gold mines). The numbers of workers listed in Table 35 are estimates for1991. In addition to the inherent uncertainties in thedata, such estimates can fluctuate widely from year toyear owing to continually changing regional and global
economic conditions.
339. Exposures in underground mining may arise
from external and internal sources; the main contri-

butors to i111ernalexposure are the inhalation of radorr
and thoron progeny and the inhalation of dust
containing long-lived alpha emitters of the uranium
and thoriur~iseries. The relative contribution of eache mine, the geology and thewill depend on the t y ~ ofworking conditions, particularly the degree ofventilation. Exposures to natural sources of radiation
arising from mining have received much less attention
than those arising from the industrial and medical usesof man-made sources of radiation. Relatively few data
are available for the period of interest and, in general,
their quality or reliability is much less than that of thedata reported elsewhere in this Annex for otheroccupations. This is a consequence of the paucity ofthe data as well as the fact that many were derived
from environn~ental, as opposed to personal,
dosimetry; considerable errors in dose estimates canoccur when they are based on grab samples of air
instead of personal air sanlplers. This situation is,
however, changing, and more comprehensive andreliable data call be expcctcd in the future.
340. Data on exposures to radon and its decay
products in about 1,200 ur~dergroundmines are summarized in Table 36; the data are presented separately
for coal and other (excluding uranium) mines. Considerable variation is evident in the average levels of
exposure reported between countries. There is also
considerable variation between doses at mines withina given country. This is indicated in Table 37, where
average individual doscs are given for mines in the
United States and h e former USSR; it should be notedthat the tabulated doses differ from those reported in
the respective references, in particular a conversion
factor of 5.6 mSv WLM-l has been assumed in contrast to a value of 10 mSv WLM-' in the data reported. Data have also been reported for coal and othermines in China [P5, XI]; for non-coal mines, thereported average annual doses are typically more thanan order of rnagnitude greater than the average values
reported for other countries. These data for non-coalmines F 5 , X I ] are not, however, thought to be representative of China as a whole for two reasons: first,
the reported values are based on a limited number ofgrab samples which nlay not be representative of theconditions expcricnced by the whole workforce and,s e c o ~ ~ d ltyl ,~ edata are for mines in only one provinceof China [P6].
341. The data in Table 36 refer to various time
periods, which limits the exteut to which they can beevaluated in a coherent manner. Neither the quality
nor the extent of the data are considered adequate
enough to allow their use to establish trends inworldwide exposures from underground mining. They
have, however, been used to estimate worldwide doscs

ANNEX D: OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION EXPOSURES

from the inhalation of radon progeny, which aresurrlmarized in Table 38; these doses can be considered broadly representative for the latter half of the
1980s. The doses were estimated as Ule sum, over all
countries, of the products of the number of miners andthe reported exposure to radon progeny. The average
exposure, for those cou~~trics
reporting data, has been
assumed applicable worldwide. A conversion factor of
5.6 mSv WLM-I has bccn assumed in estimating
effective doses from the exposures reported inTable 36.
342. The worldwide annual collective effective dose
fiom the inhalation of radon progeny in undergroundmines (excluding uranium mining) is estimated to beabout 5,300 man Sv, with about 1,500 man Sv (about30%) arising in coal mines and about 3,800 man SV(about 70%) in other mines. About 30% of theworldwide collective dose from coal mining arose in
Poland and about 10% in the former USSR. In othermines, excluding uranium mines, about 50% of theworldwide collective dose occurred in South Africa.
The worldwide average annual effective dose wasestimated to be about 0.4 mSv in coal mines and about
5 mSv in other mines.
343. Exposures may also occur from external
irradiation and from the inhalation of thoron progeny
and of dust containing long-lived alpha emitters of theuranium and thorium series; consequently, the dose
estimates in Table 3 8 from the inhalation of radon
progeny alone are underestimates of the total dose.
Few data are available on these other pathways of
exposure, and their relative magnitudes will vary frommine to mine depending on the geology and working
conditions. Estimates made for a number of mines in
the former USSR [PI] suggest that the contribution
from other pathways is about 1 mSv per annum
which, except in coal mines, is a small fraction of thedose from radon progeny. In the absence of better
data, the annual doses given in Table 3 8 for radon
progeny have been increased by 1 mSv to takeaccount of other exposure pathways. When such anallowance is made, the annual collective effective dosefrom all exposure pathways for coal mining worldwide
becomes about 5,400 man Sv and that fiom othermining (excluding uranium) about 4,500 man Sv. The
corresponding average annual effective doses from all
pathways are about 1.4 mSv and 6.4 mSv for coal andother mines, respectively.
344. The doses estimated in the above manner
represent exposures received while at work inunderground mines. They require further correction,
however, if they are to be compared directly with
exposures arising in other industries, where exposuresfrom natural sources of radiation are not included in
the reported doses. Similar correction is needed if the435

quantity of interest is the additional, rather than the
total, dose received while at work. T o enable faircomparisons with exposures in other industries and toallow the derivation of a quantity that represents the
additional exposure from the work, Lhc above annual
dose estinlates need to be reduced by about 0.5 mSv;
this is UIC annui~l dose that the worker would
otherwise have received if not at work. This estimate
is based on 2,000 hours work per year and aworldwide average dose fro111 external irradiation andinhalation of radon progeny of2.4 mSv (see Annex A ,"Exposures from natural sources of radiation").
345. After correcting for other cxposure pathways andfor exposures that would have been received
irrespective of work, the worldwide annual collective
effective dose from underground (non-uranium)
mining, during the latter half of the 1980s, isestimated to have been about 7,500 man Sv; about one
half of this total collective dose arose in coal mining
with the other half arising in other mines (excluding
uranium). For comparison, the annual collective dosefrom uranium mining (see Table 3), averaged over theperiod 1975-1989, was about 1,300 man Sv. Of thosecountries identified separately in Table 38, South
Africa (about 27%) makes the largest contribution to
the total collective dose with significant contributions
also from the fonner USSR (about 11%) and Poland(about 7%). The additional worldwide average annual
effective dose received by underground miners fromtheir work is estimated to have been about 0.9 mSv incoal mines and about 6 mSv in other mines (excluding
uranium), although there was considerable variation
about these averages between countries and between
mines in a given country. Somewhat greater individualand collective doses are likely to have been received
before the latter half of the 1980s, because lessattention was paid to the control and reduction of
exposures from this source. Insufficient data are
available, however, to make a reliable estimate of how
much greater thcy might have been; the few data in
Table 36 suggest that thcy niay have been
substantially greater.
346. Very approximate and tentative estimates weremade in the UNSCEAR 1988 Report [ U l ] ofcollective doses from natural sources of radiation. For
coal mining, an upper estimate of 2,000 man Sv wasmade for the worldwide annual collective effective
dose; this was based solely on exposures in mines in
the United Kingdom and on the worldwide productionof coal. Given the very approxirnatc nature of thisearlier estimate and the change adopted here in theconversion factor for exposure to radon progeny, it
compares favourably with the current estimate ofabout 3,400 man Sv. A very rough estirnate of
20,000 man Sv was also made in [ U l ] for Ihe annual
collective effective dose from underground mining

apart from coal and uranium; this earlier estinlate wasbased on a very tentative assumption that thearilhnletic nlean annual i~~dividual
dose was 10 mSv(from a range of reported values betwccn 0.1 and200 mSv) and that there were, on average, 500
u~~dergroundrniners (excluding coal and uranium) per
n~illion population. This earlier tentative estimate
exceeds the present estimate, of about 4,100 man Sv,
by a factor of about 5. Differences in tile ~ i u ~ n b oferminers (about a factor of 3 lower than before) and in
the average individual dose (about a factor of 2 lower
than before) are responsible for the decrease in thecollcctivc dose estimated previously. For all
underground mining p u t excluding uranium) thecollective dose estimated here (about 7,500 man Sv)
is about a factor of 3 less than that estimated in the
UNSCEAR 1988 Report [Ul].

2.

Surface mining

347. Mineral sands are mined and processed inseveral countries. Monazite, an important constituentof the sands, has concentrations of thorium of about
2.5 ld Bq kg-' and concentrations of uranium anorder of magnitude less. Surface mining is followed
by a wet and then a dry processing stage. The
important pathways of exposure are external
irradiation from amma-ray emitting radionuclides of
the U2T'b and u ~ Udecay series and inhalation of ore
dust, the latter being quite pronounced at the dry
stage. Exposure and employment information are
scarce. Data for Western Australia, a major producerof monazite, show that dry-process workers received
appreciable doses from the inhalation of dust v 6 ] .
Annual effective doses for 376 dry-process workers
averaged 20 mSv for 1983-1988, with 50% of workers
above 15 mSv. About 90% of the dose is frominternal exposure. For all categories of workers (1,318
in number), the average annual effective doses
averaged 7 mSv, with 15% above 15 mSv [H6].
This
information is supported by information from otherparts of Australia [Jl] and from Malaysia [Ol], India[M4] and Brazil [C3], but more data are required fromsuch producer countries for a full global assessment.
348. Similar difficulties affect h e assessment ofoccupational exposures from the mining and processing of phosphate ores. Sedimentary phosphate may
contain about 1,500 Bq kg-' of uranium. Surface
mining is followed by milling and other physicaltreatment to upgrade the ore, most of which is later
digested with acid to produce fertilizers. The main
mechanisms of exposure in the early stages are
gamma-irradiation and the inhalation of radon
progeny, with some inhalation of ore dust. Data for
the initial stages in two mines in the Syrian Arab
Republic [ 0 5 ] indicate that exposures overall are
unremarkable and that even the maximum values are

not vcry high. The annual effcctive doses from garnma
rays averaged 0.3 niSv in two mines and 0.1 mSv in
two processing planls. The doses from radon progerly
ranged fro111 0.1 WLM to a maximum of 0.7 WLM(i.e. about 0.6 rnSv to about 4 ~ n S vusing a conversion
The inhalation of dust
factor of 5.6 rnSv WLM-I).
could have added 0.5-1 niSv to tl~csedoses. Limited,but consistent data are available from India [W],
Isracl [TI], United States [M9], Tunisia [MI31 andYugoslavia [K7]; more arc needed for a better
estin~ateof cxposurcs worldwide.
349. Based on the lirnited data available for Ule
mining and processing of mineral sands and phosphateores, it is evident that the collective doses from these
opcrations arc small in comparison with those fromunderground mining. It is unlikely that the collective
effcctive dose from such opcrations would exceed
about 100 nlan Sv, although further data are needed toconfirm such an estimate.
3.

Transport, storage and use of phosphates

350. In the UNSCEAR 1988 Report [ U l ] very approximate estimates were made of the collective doses
worldwide arising in the processing and transport ofphosphate rocks and in the transport, storage and useof phosphates as fertilizers. Based on the extrapolationof limited cxpcricnce in Germany, in which account
was taken only of exposure by external irradiation, aworldwide annual dose of about 70 man Sv was attributed to these opcrations. No further data have beenobtaiecd that would allow updating this estimate,which remains very approximate.

B. AVIATION
1. Air travel
351. Flight altitude and duration are the principal
determinants of cosmic-ray doses to airline crews andpassengers. Modem commercial aircraft have optimum
operating altitudes near 1 3 krn, but flight paths arc
assigned according to use and safety requirements.
There do not seem to be enough data available todetenliine nveragc flight patterns [W2]. In the
UNSCEAR 1988 Report [Ul], a representative
operating altitude of 8 km was assumed, because of
the prcdomin;~~~ceof short-distance flights, with anaverage spccd of 600 km h". Other studies assume
other altitudes and speeds: for example, an altitude of
9 kni and a specd of 650 krn h-' were used for anassessment in the United Kingdom [HI], and analtitude of 7 km was used for flights by United States
carriers lasting less than an hour and 11 kni for longer
flights 1041. At 8 km the effcctive dose equivalent
has been estimated to be 2 pSv hsl, this being the sumof the absorbed dose in tissue of the directly andANNEX D: OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION I!XPOSURES

indirectly ionizing radiations [H4, N51. A worldwide
measurement programme on Lufthansa airplanes indicated that most flight altitudes were in the range of 10
to 11.9 knl with effective dose equivalent rates of lessthan 5 pSv h-' and 8 pSv h-l, respectively, at these
altitudes [R7. R8j.
352. Coniputational codes have been developed to calculate the radiation levels throughout Ule ahllosphcre(c.g. [04]), and additional measurenient experience isbeing acquired (e.g. [R8]). Preliminary assessments ofcosmic-ray dose accounting for changes in quality factors [I71 are indicating that effective doses are likely
to be a few tens of per cent greater than the effective
dose equivalents reported above. Pending these revised
estimates and given the othcr uncertainties inherent in
the estimation of doses to aircrew, the simplifying
assumption is made here that the effective doses are
numerically equal to the reported effective dose equivalents. In addition to variations with altitude, thecosmic-ray dose changes with latitude and solar cycle
modulation.
353. A limited number of supersonic airplanes operatecommercially and cruise at about 15 km. Doses onboard are routinely determined with monitoring equipment. Effective dose equivalent rates are generally
around 10 ,uSv h-I, with a maximum around 40 ,uSv
b-' [Ul].In two years from July 1987, the overall
average on six French airplanes was 1 2 pSv h-' withmonthly values up to 18 pSv h-' [P2]; in 1990, theaverage was 11 pSv h-' and the annual dose to aircrew
about 3 mSv [M5]. During 1990, the average dose rate
for about 2,000 flights by British airplanes was
1 0 p S v hml, with a maximum value of 50 ,uSv h-'[D4]; annual doses to aircrew are around 2.5 mSv on
average with a maximum around 17 mSv [HI]. Neutrons contribute about half of the overall effective dose
equivalents. The monitoring equipment serves to warnof solar flares so that the airplanes can be brought tolower altitudes. This is a very small sector of thecommercial air transport industry.
354. In the UNSCEAR 1988 Report [ U l ] annual
flying time of 600 hours was assumed to be representative for aircrew, which is compatible with experiencein the United Kingdom [HI], Germany [R7, R8] andFrance [M5];flying times may be 50% higher in the
United States [F3]. The annual collective cffcctivc
dose equivalent to aircrew in the United States wasestimated to be about 400 nlan Sv in 1985, based on
an average annual effective dose equivalent of 3.5
mSv to some 114,000 crew members (of which 46,000
and 68,000, respectively, were flight crew and cabin
attendants) [E3]. The annual collective effective dose
equivalent to Lufthansa aircrew in Germany has been
estimated to be about 30 man Sv, based on 12,000 aircrew and average annual individual dose of 2.5 niSv
[R7, R8]. Values reported for a number of olher Euro-

437

pean carriers [MS, M6, S9] are consistent with anestimate of annual effective dose equivalents to aircrew of 2.5 mSv. An approximate cstiniatc of theworldwide collcctive effective dose equivalent can beniade by assunling an average annual dose of 3 niSv
(i.e. inteniicdiate between European and United States
expcriencc) and taking account of the number of aircrew worldwide which, in the late 1980s, was about aquarter of a million [I12]. The resulting estimate of
Ule worldwide annual collcctive effective dose equivalent is about 800 man Sv. This value is several times
higher than previously estimated [Ul]. Although still
only approximate, it is better substantiated and should
be a Inore accurate estimate.
355. In addition to aircrew, some othcr persons, suchas professional couriers, receive higher exposures in
air travcl. An analysis of passengers using London
airport in 1988 showed that one in four had made 10
or more journeys during the previous year, corresponding to 30 or more hours aloft, but some professional couriers undertook 200 journeys a year, implying 1,200 flying hours [G2]. The number of these
individuals is unknown, but it must be some small
fraction of the number of aircrew.

2.

Space travel

356. Space travel is restricted to a small number ofastronauts and cosmonauts. Current space travel fromthe United States and the former USSR is restricted tolow earth orbits at various inclinations [B13]. Doses
are stro~iglydependent on altitude and less so on
inclination. Experimental results from six shuttle
missions [B13, N3] and seven space-station missions[ B l j , N4] indicated that daily effective dose equivalents at altitudes from 300 to 520 km were 0.10.7 mSv. Low- and high-LET radiations were determined separately; each contributed about half of thetotal. Because of the complexities of radiation fields inspace vehicles, it is not easy to estinlate exposure interms of effective dose; the simple assumption istherefore made that it is numerically equal to the foregoing values. Because so few individuals are involved,
the collective dose from this practice is quite low.
357. A comprehensive review of radiation in spacebas been published by NCRP [N3]. It treats in detailthe physical and biological aspects of the subject andprojects dose for possible future space missions.

C.

O T H E R OCCUPATIONSAND PRACTICES

358. In addition to mines, other places of undergroundwork with potentially increased radon levels include
natural caves, subway systems and power stations. In

438

UNSCEAR 1993 REPORT

Gerniany radon levels exceed 1,000 Bq n ~ "in 40% of
all such underground work locations; in lo%, theyexcccd 5,000 Bq mJ [SlO]. Radon levels in caves in
the karslic or limestone regions of several countries
are similar [H8, R4, S121. Unlike mines, caves may
not ~ R V efficientCmechanical ventilation, so radon and1)rogcny levels may be quite high. Typical concentrations of potential alpha energy are about 0.3 WL,
implying about 5 mSv effective dose in three months
or 20 mSv for a full working year (assuming a converSome cavcs exceed
sion factor of 5.6 mSv WLM-I).
2 WL,however, which could imply substantial doses
for some guides.
359. In the UNSCEAR 1988 Report [Ul]consideration was given to a number of other industrial processes and occupations that could lead to enhanced
levels of exposure to natural sources of radiation. In
general, the data for these practices and occupations
were not sufficient to enable reliable estimates to bemade of worldwide collective doses. Their contribution
to the total worldwide occupational exposure fromnatural sources of radiation is, however, unlikely to besignificant. Nonetheless, the collective dose to workers
at coal-fired power plants was estimated. The main
source of exposure in this case is thought to be theinhalation of airborne fly ash, which contains elevatedlevels of a number of naturally occuning radionuclides. The upper estimate or Ihc worldwide annualVII.

collective effective dose was 60 man Sv, subject to thefollowing assumptions: global annual production ofelectrical cnergy of 600 GW a; a labour force of 500
to produce 1 GW a per year; and an individual annual
comniitted effective dose per worker of 0.15 mSv. The
last valuc was csti~natcdfor the most exposcd groupof power station workers in the United Kingdom,
assuming c x p s u r c to dust at concentrations of
this value, if applied to all workers, gives
0.5 mg ITI-~;
an overestiniatc for the collective dose from thepractice.

360. A summary of average individual and collective
effective doses to workers worldwide involved in
occupations or pri~cticesthat have increased exposures
to natural sources of radiation are summarized inTable 39. The worldwide annual collective effective
dose is estimated to be 8,600 man Sv. This dose arises
mainly (about 90%) from underground mining. About
45% of the collective dose Gom mining arises Gom
coal mining and about 55% fiom the mining of othermaterials. The estimated collective dose to aircrew isabout 800 Inan Sv (about 10% of the total). The
contribution from all other activities is small bycomparison and appears unlikely to exceed a few
hundred marr sievcrt.

ACCIDENTS

361. Accidents that occur in the course of work add
to occupational exposures. Accidents with clinicalconsequences for those exposed that occurred in 19751989 are listed in Table 40, separated into accidents
occurring in the nuclear fuel cycle and associatedresearch, industrial uses of radiation, tertiary education
and research (including accelerators) and medical usesof radiation. Most of the data were oblained in
responsc to the UNSCEAR Survey on Occupational
Exposures. Some additional entries have been madefrom other compilations of accidents [ I l l , R3] to theextent that dose information was available or clinicalconsequences could be ascertained. Thc accidental
exposures listed are for those which have occurred in
the course of work; accidental exposures from thetheft or loss of industrial or medical sourccs have been
excluded as have accidental exposures of patientsduring diagnosis or therapy.
362. The majority of accidents occurred in industrial
uses of radiation, involving radiography sources andirradiation facilities. In most cases either huniancarelessness or malfunction of the equipment has been
the cause. Two accidents resulted in high doses thatcaused deaths: one death at Brescia, Italy in 1975, andone in El Salvador in 1989. None of the accidents
reported to workers involved in medical uses ofradiation caused deaths.
363. There have been relatively few accidents
involving serious radiation injury to workers inoperations of the nuclear fuel cycle. On the other
hand, the accident at Chernobyl in 1986 caused highexposures and acute radiation sickness in 237 persoru
and the deaths of 28 of them. These were workers at
the reactor and ~ ~ ~ e n l b cofr s the fire-fighting andemergency crew, who dealt with the accident in ils
initial stages. Two other workers at the reactor died asa result of Ihe explosions and fire rather than ofradiation injuries. An accident at a criticality facility
at Buenos Aires in 1983 rcsulted in the death of one
worker.

A N N M D: OCCUPATIONAL MDIATION M P O S U R E

439364. While accidents causing dcaths arc well know^^,
thcre is likcly to be substantial underreporting of otheraccidcnls. Two considerations support this preniise.
First, for the period 1975-1984, -the number ofaccidents reported here is al~ilosttwice as great as thenumber reported by Rodrigucs dc Olivcira [R3],which
was based on a detailed and co~nprchensivereview ofthe literature; it would thus appear that Inallyaccidental cxposurcs with actual or potential clinicalconsequences have not been reported in the literature.
Sccondly, the data rcportcd in response to the
UNSCEAR questionnaire arc by no meanscomprehensive, either in terms of the countries
reporting data or in the completeness of the datareported for the period of interest. As is apparent from
Table 40, either there havc been very large variationsin the frequency of accidcnts in some countrics in the
different five-year periods, or, as is more likely, thereported data are incomplete. It is difficult to assess
the extent of any underestimate, but a very roughextrapolation of the data provided in response to the
UNSCEAR Survey on Occupational Exposuressuggests that the number of accidcnts with potential or
actual clinical consequences may have been two or
three times as great as reported here. There is much
uncertainty in this estimate, given the few countrics
reporting data.

cstirnatcd from the distribution of workers according
to degree of radiation sickness and using the mid-point
doses that characterize these degrees. The three dcaths
in other radiation accidents may be estimated to;~ccountfor 30 Inan Sv. The remaining entries, evenassigning up to 0.5 Sv per accident and r~ndcrrcportingby a factor of 2-3 could add at most about 200 mallSv; h i s is likely to be a major ovcrcstimate, because
the majority of accidcnts involve skin or extremity
cxposurcs. This nlakcs a total of less than 900 man Sv
for all accidents occurring in 1975-1989. About two
thirds of the total resulted from the Chcrnobyl accident, with the remainder adding at most about 15 man
Sv per year to occupational radiation exposures; inreality the latter dose may be substantially less.

365. It would be of interest to know the collective
dose to workers caused by accidents, but the data are
too incomplete to make other than a very rough estimate. The doses to those acutely exposed in the Chcrnobyl accident were reported in detail in the
UNSCEAR 1988 Report [Ul]. The collcctivc dose to
the 28 workers who died was 240 man Sv. The
remainder of the workers accounted for 370 man Sv,

367. In summary, the number of accidents to workers
worldwide with clinical consequences reported here
for the period 1975-1989 is about 90 involving 362
workers; because of undeneporting, the actual numbcr
of accidents, may have been two or three times
greater. The reported data are too incomplete to makeany reliable estimate of trends in accidental cxposurcs
with time.

366. Additional occupational radiation exposure
occurs in the afternlath of accidents, in clean-up anddecontamination work. The Chernobyl accident alone
involved 600,000 workcrs, many or possibly most ofwhom were exposed to the maximum permitted dose
limit. .-This represents a very special case, butnevertheless a substantial colleclivc dose. Only if
accurate and more complete records are maintained of
cxposures caused by accidents can estimates of thiscomponent of occupational radiation exposures be
improved.

CONCLUSIONS
368. Occupational radiation exposures havc been
evaluated for five broad categories of work, namely
the nuclear fuel cycle, defence activitics, industrial
uses of radiation (excluding the nuclear fuel cycle anddefence), medical uses of radiation and occupations
where enhanced exposures to natural sources of radiation may occur. Results for 1985-1989 are summarizedin Table 41 and, in abbreviated form, for the whole
period of interest (1975-1989) in Table 42. The contribution of each category to the overall levels of
exposure and the trends with time are illustrated in
Figure XXV.The worldwide average individual andcollective effective doses have been derived largely
from data rcportcd in response to the UNSCEAR

Survey of Occupational Exposures, supplemented
where appropriate by data from the literature.
369. Summary of expmures in the period 1985-1989.
Tbe average number of monitored workers worldwide
involvcd with man-made uses of radiation in the
period 1985-1989 is estimatcd to be about 4 million.
The nii~jority(about 55%) of these are involvcd with~ncdicaluses of radiation, with about 22%, 1 4 % and
10% with the commercial nuclear fuel cycle, industrial
uses of radiation and defence activitics, respectively.
About 5 million workers are estimatcd to be exposed
to natural sources of radiation at levels in excess of
average background levels. By far the majori~y(about

75%) are coal miners; other occupatiolial groups contributing significantly to this total are undergroundminers in non-coal mines (about 13%) and aircrew(about 5%).
370. The worldwide average annual collective
effective dose to workers from man-made sources ofradiation in 1985-1989 is estimated to be about
4,300 man Sv. The collective effective dose fromexposures to natural sources (in excess of averagelevels of natural background) is estimated to be about
8,600 man Sv; it arises mainly froni undergroundmining (about 90%), with broadly comparable
contributions from coal mining and the mining ofother materials (other than uranium). The estimatedcollective dose from natural sources of radiation is,
however, associated with much greater uncertainty
than that from man-made sources of radiation.
371. Of che annual collective effective dose fromexposure to man-made sources of radiation(4,300 man Sv), about 58% arises from operations in
the nuclear fuel cycle (2,500 man Sv), about 23%
from medical uses (1,000 man Sv), about 12% fromindustrial uses of radiation (510 man Sv) and about
6% from defence activities (250 man Sv). The
contribution from medical uses of radiation may,
however, be an overestimate by a factor of 2 or more;most of the exposures from this sourcc arise fromlow-energy x rays from diagnostic radiography, arid
the dosimeter reading, which is generally entereddirectly into dose records, may overestimate theeffective dose by a large factor.
372. The average annual effective dose to monitored
workers varies widely between occupations and also
between countries for the same occupation. The
worldwide average annual effective doses to monitored
workers in industry (excluding the nuclear fuel cycle),
medicine and defence activities are less than 1 mSv(about 0.9 mSv, 0 5 mSv and 0.7 niSv, respectively);in particular countries, however, the average annual
dose for sonic of these occupations is several
millisievert or even, exceptionally, in excess of
1 0 mSv. The average annual effective doses toworkers in the nuclear fuel cycle are, in most cases,
larger than those in other occupations; for the fuelcycle overall, Ihe average annual effective dose isabout 2.9 mSv. For the mining of uranium the averageannual effective dose to monitored workers incountries reporting data was about 4 mSv, and for
uranium milling operations it was about 6 mSv; there
are, however, very wide variations about these averagevalues, with doses of about 50 mSv being reported insome countries. The average annual effective dose tomonitored workers in LWRs is about 2 mSv, withdoses about 50% greater, on average, in HWRs andsmaller by a factor of about 2, on average, in GCRs.

The individual doses in fuel reprocessing arecomparable with tl~osein reactors, whereas those infuel enrichment are much smaller.
373. The percentage of monitored workers worldwide
involved with the use of man-made sources ofradiation receiving annual effective doses in excess of
15 mSv is estimated, on average, to have been about
3% during the period 1985-1989. There is, however,considerable variation in this value between
occupations. Typically, about 0.1% of nionitored
workers in medicine and industry (excluding thenuclear fuel cycle and defence) arc estimated to havereceived doses in excess of this level. For the nuclear
fuel cycle as a whole, about 10% of monitored
workers, on average, exceeded his level of annual
effective dose. There is, however, considerable
variation between different stages of the fuel cycle(i.e. about 20% for uranium mining and milling, about
3% averaged over all reactors but varying within arange of essentially zero to about 7% depending on
the reactor type, about 6% for reprocessing, on
average, about 0.2% for fuel fabrication andessentially zero for enrichment). It should be notedthat the above percentages, where they include acontribution from workers in uranium mining andmilling, may be overestimates. This is due to theassumption that Ihe reported distribution ratios foruranium mining and milling are applicable to aneffective dose of 15 niSv; strictly they apply to a doseless than 15 mSv because of the change in theconversion factor (compared with that used in thereported data) for exposures to radon progeny adopted
in this Annex.
374. The percentage of the worldwide collective
effective dose from all uses of man-made sources ofradiation (or more strictly for those uses for whichdata have been reported) which arises from annual
individual doses in excess of 15 mSv is estimated tohave bcen about 30% to 40% during che period 19851989. There is, however, considerable variation in thisvalue between occupalions. Typically, about 25% and30%, respectively, of the collective dose in medicine
and industry (excluding the nuclear fuel cycle anddefence) are estimated to have arisen from annual
individual doses in excess of this level. For the nuclear
fuel cycle as a whole, about 40% of the collective
dose arose from annual individual doses in excess of
15 mSv. There is, however, considerable variation
between different stages of the fuel cycle (i.e. about
50% for uranium mining and milling, about 35%
averaged over all reactors but varying within a rangeof essentially zero to about 50% depending on thercactor type, about 10% for oxide fuel reprocessing,about 2% for fuel fabrication and essentially zero forenrichment). It should be noted that the above
percentages, where they include a contribution from

ANNEX D: OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION EXPOSURES

workers in ura~~iulnmining and milling, niay beoverestimates for the reasons set out above.

375. The average annual effcctive dose to workers
exposed to cnhanccd levels from natural sources ofradiation, ill particular in ullderground mines, varies
considerably betwcen mines and between countries. In
coal mines, the average annual effective dose isestimated to be about 1 mSv. In other (non-uranium)
mines the worldwide average effective dose isestimated to be about 6 mSv. Aircrew are estimated toreceive an average annual effective dose of about
3 mSv.
376. Trends in expmures over the p e r i d 1975-1989.
Trends in exposure from man-made sources areillustrated in Figure XXV for each of the main
occupational categorics considered in this Annex. The
trends in occupational exposures from natural sources
have not been quantified because insufficient data are
available to make meaningful estimates; the few datathat do exist, however, suggest that exposures(excluding those to aircrew) before the second half ofthe 1980s were greater than those estimated here,
possibly much greater. The latter is due to somewhat
less attcntion being given in the past to control andreduction of exposures in underground mining.
377. The worldwide annual average number ofworkers involved with man-made uses of radiation isestimated to have increased from about 2.5 to about 4
million between the first and third five-year periods.
The greatest increase (from about 1.3 to about 2.2
million) has been in the number of monitored workers
in medicine. The number of monitored workers in the
nuclear fuel cycle has also inncased significantly (byabout 50% from about 0.6 to about 0.9 million).
Increases in the numbers of the monitored workers in
defence activities and other industrial uses of radiation
have been modest by comparison.
378. The annual collective cfTective dose, averaged
over five-year periods, for all operations in the nuclear
fuel cycle changed little over the period 1975-1989,
notwithstanding the large increase (three to fourfold)in electrical energy generated by nuclear means; somechanges, however, occurred in particular stages of thefuel cycle. The annual average collective dose fromuranium mining increased by about 25% between thefirst and second five-year periods decreasing again toabout its former level in the third period. There was adecrease by a factor of allnost 2 for fuel fabrication,
reprocessing and research. The collective dose fromreactors increased over the period by a factor
approaching 2, with alnlost all of the increase
occurring during 197.5-1979 and 1980-1985. The
increase in dose between the first two five-year
periods was largely attributable to the major plant

44 1

safety modificatiol~scarried out in the earlier 1980s in
response the accident at Three Mile Island. Indeed, but
for the accident at Chernobyl, the annual averagecoliective dose from reactors in 1985-1989 would
probably have decreased relative to the preceding
five-year period. Average annual individual effective
doses to rnonitored workers ~ I I nuclear fuel cycle
operations typically decreased by a factor of about 2
in most stages of the fuel cycle between 1975-1979
and 1985-1989; for uranium mining, the decrease withtime was only about 20%.
379. The normalized collective effective dose per unit
energy generated has decreased with time for the fuelcycle overall and for most of its stages. For the fuelcycle overall, the normalized collective dose has
decrcascd by almost a factor of 2 from about
20 Inan Sv (GW a).' to about 1 2 man Sv (GW a)-',with most of this decrease occurring between thesecond and third five-year periods. For reactors,
between the first and second five-year periods, thenormalized collective doses changed little, but large
decreases occurred in the third period; decreases by afactor of about 2 occurred for PWRs, BWRs and
HWRs. These decreases in the third period were aconsequence of the completion of most of the safety
modifications made following the accident at theThree Mile Island reactor and the much greater
attcntion paid by utilities and regulators to the
reduction of occupational exposures in both existingand new reactors. Substantial reductions @y about anorder of magnitude) occurred in the normalized
collective dose for the fabrication of LWR fuel,although these doses may be underestimates bccause
they do not take account of internal exposures. The
normalized doses for the fabrication of other fuels did
not decrease. Indeed, those for GCRs would appear tohave increased with time; much of this increase,
however, is more apparent than real, due to the factthat internal exposures were included only for the third
period. For uranium mining, the normalized collective
dose decreased by about 25% over the period
analysed. The nornialized dose for reprocessing oxide
fuels changed litlle over the period analysed, whereasthat for Magnox fuels decreased by about a third.

380. The worldwide average annual collective
effective dose from all industrial uses of radiation,
excluding the nuclear fuel cycle and defence activities,
was fairly uniform over the period 1975-1984. I t
decreased, however, by a factor of almost 2 in thesecond half of the 1980s. This same trend is reflectedin estimates of individual dose; the annual effcctive
dose to monitored workers decreased from an averageof about 15 mSv, over the period 1975-1984, to an
average of about 0.9 mSv in the second half of rhe
1980s. In defence activities both the average individualand collective doses decreased by a factor of nearly2 over the pcriod analyscd. These decreases werelargely a consequence of rcductions in doses achievedin the operation and niaintenance of nuclear navies.
notwithstanding the increase both in the number ofships in operation and in those undergoing refit ovcr
h i s time.
381. The worldwide avcrage annual collective
effective dose from all medical uses of radiation,
about 1,000 man Sv, changed little ovcr the three
five-year pcriods. A clear downward trend is,
however, evident in the worldwide avcrage annual
effective dose to monitored workers, which decreased
from about 0.8 mSv in the first five-year period toabout 0.5 mSv in the third; therc was, however,considerable variation between countries. The annual
avcrage number of monitorcd workers in medicine
increased by about 75% ovcr the three periods, andthis is the reason why the collective dose remained
relatively uniform with time, notwithstanding thesignificant decrease in avcrage individual dose. The
extent to which some of these decreases in average
individual dose arc real or arc merely artifacts due tochanges in monitoring or recording practice, warrants
further analysis.
382. The percentage of monitored workers worldwide
involved with all uses of man-made sources ofradiation receiving annual effective doses in excess of
15 mSv has decreased progressively from an averageof about 5 % to about 3% between the first and third
five-year periods. This same downward trend isevident in the percentages of nuclear fuel cycle andmedical workers worldwide rccciving annual doses inexcess of this same level. The tabulated data for
medical workers show an increase in the third period.
This increase, however, is more apparent than real andis due to the inclusion in this period only of data forone country with a very high value of this fraction; if
this country were excluded, the trcnd would be
downwards for medical workers throughout the period(see Section V.E). For industrial workers (excluding
the nuclear fuel cycle and defence) worldwide there islittle evidence in support of any clear trend in thepercentage of workers receiving annual doses in
cxcess of 15 mSv.
383. The percentage of the worldwide annual
collective effective dosc from all man-made uses ofradiation arising from annual individual doses inexcess of 15 mSv has also decreased progressively
lrom about 45% to about 36%, on avcrage, between
the first and third five-year periods. The same
downward trend is evident for the collective dose fromthe nuclear fuel cycle and from medical uses ofradiation. The tabulated data for medical uses show anincrease in the third period: however, for Lhe reasons
set out above, this increase is merely an artifact of thedata, and the trend has in fact hccn downwards over
the wliolc period. For industrial workcrs therc is little
evidc~iccof any clcer trcnd with tiriie in the fraction of
the collective dosc arising from annual doses in cxcessof I 5 msv.
384. Cumrtlative exI)o.vures. Curnulalive or lifetime
exposures of workcrs have been analysed to only alimited extent The cxaniination of terniination records
has given average rates of dosc accumulation forvarious career IcngUis, but therc was no assurance thatthe records were either complete or accurate. Some
indications of lifetime exposures may be provided byestimates of average annual exposures and career
lifetinics, but both parameters arc extremely variable
bet wee^^ individuals within particular occupations, aswell as between occupations and from one country toanother. To evaluate actual experience, the need exists
for Inore complete records of employment at all
locations and complcte dosimetry, including external
and internal exposures. Improved data on this aspect
can be expected in the next few years with theincreasing use of conlputerized databases for occupational cxposures and the compilation of data suitablefor epidc~niologicalstudies on workers.

385. Accidentul exposures. Occupational exposures
to workcrs caused by accidents give an added component of dose or injury to thosc involved. The datacompiled indicate that most of the accidents occurredin the industrial uses of radiation and that most ofthem involved industrial radiography sources. By far
b e lrlajority of accidental cxposures of sufficientmagnitude to cause clinical effects wcre associatedwith localized exposures to the skin or hands. From1975 to 1989, 3 1 people died as a result of radiation
exposures received in accidents; 28 of these were atChen~obyl.The number of accidents to workers worldwide with actual clinical consequences that has beenreported in the period 1975-1989 is about 90. Becauseof underreporting of non-fatal accidents, the actual
number may have been two or three times greater.

386. Cotnparison with previous estimates ofoccupalional exposures. The estimates of occupational radiation exposure in this Annex have benefited
lrom a much more cxtensivc and complctc databasethan was previously available to the Committee. The
efforts by countries to record and improve dosimetricdata have been reflected in the responses Lo the
UNSCEAR Survey and have led to improved estimates of occupational exposures. The current estimateof the annual collcctive effective dose during thesecond half of the 1980s from occupational exposures
to man-made sources of radiation (4,300 man Sv) islower by a factor of 2 than the estimate made by theConimittec in the UNSCEAR 1988 Report for llic firstbalf of the 1980s [Ul]:the current analysis, however,ANNFX D: OCCUPATIONAI. KADIATION EXPOSURES

suggests U~atthe latter was an overestimate by abouta factor of 2 and Uiat UIC actual rcduction in collcctive
dosc over this period was rclativcly small, about 15%20%.
387. The largest change in the estimates of annual
collcctive dosc is for medical uses of radiation. The
current estimate indicates that the annual collective
dose has remained relatively unchanged over thewhole period analyscd at about 1,000 man Sv. This is
lowcr by a factor of 5 conlparcd with the estimate
madc in the UNSCEAR 1988 Report [ U l ] for the firsthalf of the 1980s, indicating that the latter was overestimated by a large factor; moreover, as has bcen
noted, the current estimatc may still be too large by afactor of 2 or more. The annual collcctive dosc fromindustrial uses of radiation (excluding the nuclear fuelcycle and defence) is estimated in this analysis to havedecreased by about a factor of 2 (from about 900 to
500 man Sv) between the first and second halves of
the 1980s. The currcnt estimatc of the collective dosc
for the first half of the 1980s is about a factor of 2
lower than that cstimated previously in the UNSCEAR
1988 Report [UI], based on data available at that time.

388. For the nuclear fuel cycle the greatest changes,
compared with earlier estimates, are for the mining
and milling of uranium and reactor operation. The
present estimatc of the normalized collective dose
during the second half of the 1980s from mining andmilling of uranium [about 4.8 man Sv (GW a)-'] isabout seven times greater than estimated previously[Ul]. This previous cstimatc would, however, appear443

to have bccn i ~ nundercsti~~~ateby an cvcn grcatcr
factor. The current analysis indicates that thenormalized collcctive dosc in the early 1980s was
actually about 20% grcatcr than that for the second
half of the 1980s. The prcscnt estimate of thenornializcd collcctive dosc from reactor operation[about 5.8 man Sv (GW a)-'] for the second half o f
the 1980s is smaller, by a factor of about 2. thancstimated previously [ U I ] for the first half of the
1980s; this change reflects a real rcduction in dose
between the first and sccond halves of the 1980s, duelargely to the completion of plant modifications to
LWRs following the accident at Three Mile Islandand, to a lesser extent, to the commissioning of newreactors in several countries.
389. The present estimatc of the collcctive effective
dose from exposures to enhanced natural sources ofradiation at work is about two to thrcc times smaller
than the estimate made by the Committee in the
UNSCEAR 1988 Report [Ul]. Significant differences
are apparent, however, in the respective estimates
depending on the occupation. For coal mining andaircrew, the present estimates are factors of about
2 and 4 times greater, respectively, than those madc
previously; the present estimate for other mining(excluding uranium) is, however, a factor of about 5
times smaller than that made previously. The estimatesof exposurcs to natural sources of radiation are not,however, as well supported by data as those for manmade sources. Further monitoring and investigation areneeded of this important component of occupational
exposures.

Table 2
Dose mo111iorIngand rccordi~igprocedures f'or occupntlont~lexposures In Industry

Data from UNSCEAR Survey of O c c u p r i o m ~Expssureslunless otlrern*isc indicatedMinimum dcrccfablc
lrvcl (MDL)or recording lcwl

Dose recorded
whcn lcrs thanMDL

0.1 mSv

0

Mean value of previous 3 mrnths

0.01 mSv (x)0.07 mSv (y)000.01 WLM
0.01-0.2 mSv
0.2 mSv000

No fixed pdicy
No fixcd pdicy
No fixed pdicy

0.05 mSv

0.05 mSv

Mcan value of pnicds without accident

0.003-0.05 mSv

Reading0Othn

0.1 mSv
0.2 mSv

DenmarkAll

AnlandRcaao cpcraticn
Ochcr

Counrry

Occuparion

Mmirored nwhfcrce

Argentina

IUI

Those in cmtrdled arcas

AumaIiaAll

T h a c using radiatim devices

h d a'

Mining and nill ling
Rcaciu cpcration
Ochn(IhilcAll

China(Taiwan Prmince)

Reaaa operation
All othnCzcchmlnvnkinRcndm rrpcratica

FranceRenau rpcration
Repromsing
Uranium mining
RucarchC a t c p y A workers

Thosc wcaring pcrsmal dosimctcrs

Thasc who may ex&
113 of dasc
limit plus optimal \ n e t sThue provided with a personal
daimctcr

00Mean value for previous 12 months
Mean value f a previous 12 mcnths

No
No

No
No

0.1 mSv

0

0

Yes

Ya

0.1 mSv
0.1 mSv

0

Estimtc b r a d oo worting conditions
0

Ya
Yes

SO

0.01 mSv
0.1 5 niSv

0.1 mSv
0
Various0

Based on clcctronic dosirnctcr reading
Dose rcconsuuaim after enquiry
Anributcd by loal RP officer
A~tributcdby local RP dficer

Yes
Y es
Yu
Yn

No
No
No
No

Artributcd by cmtrdling ruthaity

Y cr

Not nccnsrry

Rulundnnt system used; i f both lostestimate based on working conditions

Y ca

No

Ya

No

Gamany, 12cd. Rrp.

Reaaur cperatica

As defined by Radiation Pro(cdion

1 @v (GM)
0.1 mSv (film)
0.1 mSv (>1978)
0.4 mSv (~1979)

India

Indoneria

All

Yes

No

appro" 2 2/6v

Those who may cxcccd 1/10 of dose
limit

No

Yu

lhasc in rcgionr whnc alpha cncrgy
conccntratims cxcccd 0.64 , d h 3

All

Y ca

Pockn dosimeter or a v n a g dose0

M~ning(other than uanium)

Hungary 'Carccrionr mndc to maid
multiple enbk fa r l usonu ttdividual

Yes
Yes
Ycs

Gcrman Dem. Rcp.

Ochn

D o r u roconbocrors
included

Ya
Y es
Y es

0.20 mSv

Ordinance
Thac in conlrdlcd arcar

Dose recordedfor 1-1 dosimcrcrs

0.1 mSv

'

0

..

0
0

No

O.

0

Yes

Xc4 neccnsary

0.05 mSv (x)0.1 mSv (n.y)

0Mean vnlue of prcVious 12 months

yal

Yes

0.05 mSv

0.05 mSv

Ya

Ya

'Ikhle 2 (continued)

cmtry

Occuparion

Manifored wakfwcc

Minimum d r r ~ l a b l c
l o e l (MDL)or recording l o x 1

Dosc rccordcd
uhcn lers rhan
MDL

Dosc r c c o r d d for lorr dnrimcrcrs

Doses foconnocfors
included

Corrccfiom mndc ro mid
nurlriplr &ics for fk

Ya

No (noc sipificant)KOsame individUd

IrelandN1

0.2 mSv (~1987)
0.15 mSv (>1987)

0

0

Italy

N1

0.1 mSv

0

Mean value for remainder of year

J ~ P

R w a a operatim
Olher

0.1 mSv
0.1 mSv (TLD)
0.2 rnSv (film)0

M d m u m individual dose in group

Yes

Accderators

0.01 mSv

0

0

Ycs

NorwayNl

0.4 mSv

0

0

Ya

No

PortugalAll

0.2 mSv

Rcpuhlic of Korea

Fuel fahication
R c a a u operation
Rc~arch0.05 mSv
0.m1 m s v
0.1 mSv

0.05 mSv
00.095 mSv

Pocket doairnetcr or average dose
I'ockct dosimctcr or work cmdition
30 mSv pcr quartcr

Yes
Ycs
No

Ya
Ya
No

Spain

Reacta operatioo
Mining and fuelfabricationother

0.1 mSv

00

Arw a other dosimetn or 4 mSv
dmimctcr or 4 mSv

Yn

No

Ye5

No

Ya

No

0.05 mSv

0

Area a &a d o s i m d n or 4 mSv

R c s a a operation
otha

0.1 mSv
0.2 mSv

0
0

4 mSv

Ya
Ycs

Ya
No

All

0

0.1 mSv

0No

No

0.1 mSv

0.1 mSv

0.1 mSv
0.05 mSv (extcmal)
0.01 mSv (internal)

As assessed08

Waking maditions or dare limit rate
4.15 mSv

YCS

WcsponrKO

Not l ~ m s a r y
Partially

USh'RC liccnsecs

0.01 mSv

0

Estimated by liceasec

YaNo

Nahnlands

South Africa

Swdcn

Those in controlled areas
Those in matrdled areas

0.2 mSv

USSR
United Kingdom

United States

BNFL sites

Thare in ccatrdlcd areas

Area a &cr

Based on QFD reading

A chnnge f r a n lilm to TLD d a i m c v y t k k plncc over a live-year period from 1977 to 1981 without any significant changc observed in the statistics.
Average individual and c d l d i v c dmes estimated from log-normal l i u to data m d thaeforc account is takm of doses occurring below MDL and recorded as zao.
The drbbase includa only wakers who havc exceeded the recading level, which for r e a a u s was 0.1 mSv with dosimeters issued mmthly m d 0.5 mSv f a all other industrial occupations with dosimctcrs issued qunncrly; the lattcr recading
lcvd was r e d u d to 0.3 mSv in 1989. B c f a e 1990 the d a t a h s c d m not contain the numbers d n l a i t a c d wakcrs.
Only in c d l s t i v c dose a t i m a l a .
Doses r m a d e d a b w c the rmording Icvd, wluch is 0.1 mSv per month f a r e a a a w a k n s and 0.2 mSv per two nlcnlhli for workers clscwhcrc.
For threc m t d four power stations.
D d n e 1986 the dose r m r d d when lcss than MDL was 0.05 mSv (external) and 0.01 mSv (internal).
lo the BNFL (British Nudcar Fuels plc.) datn prcsmted it1 this Annex, wntrnclorr are included only for rcproccssing opcratims.

Table 3
Exposum fmrn uranium mining a
D a t a from UNSCEAR S u r v e y of O c c r r p a t i o n n l E x p o s u r e s u n l e s s o t l ~ e r n * i s ei n d i c a t e dAnnual collcrri~rCffecriaedose

Cmnlw
and
paid

Annrrrdamounr af
uranium
mind '

Lqivalcnt
ommnr f
cnerm

(W

(GWa)

hfunitora!
uwkcrs( r h m d )Mm.~urably
upnscdwwkrrsffh-ands)

Toral(man sv

Atwngc perunit uranium
atracrai(man Sv
p n kt)A l n n g e perunil energy
generafed[mSv( G W a).']Avoage a ~ l r a fl l e c r i ~ vdosePerrnoru'rwed

nwkn

lmW

Per
mawraMy
crpmeduwker(d1.9

Confrihurion o/crposmc pmh~say(CA)~rrerrcmal

daughrers

Ore
dvtr

Disaiburion r a i o

NRE '

.WE

0.54

0.95

0.061

0.22

0.20
0.23
0.26

0.57
0.62
0.67

035
0.28

Ut~dcrgrollndmints

Argentina

1975-1979

Australia

1088-1989

0.4 1

Bulgaria 11 101 1985-19RO

0.50

Canada'China [I1011975-1W9
1980-1984
1985-1989

0.041

4.73
5.97
5.10

0.19

21.5
27.1

5.78
8.06

23.0

5.19

1985-1989

4.59

0.25
0.41

5.06
6.90
4.36

111

24.5

18.0

1.63

3.98

23.1

46.1

40.2
49.6
30.2

8.51
8.30
5.59

1.87
1.83
1.23

3.98

39

25

36

0

100

0
0.25
0.30
0.26

6.96
6.15

7.95
7.18

37
43

5.82

6.93

10

63
57
60

17.3

35

65

0

14
20
16

66
SO
64

0
0
0

0.16
0.12

13.6
9.67

28
29

72
71

0
0

0.48
0.40

10.9
9.69
8.24

20
20
29

57
57
56

I4
14
15

0.46
0.42
0.31

6.6

114

60.4
50.2
36.9

33.9
24.8
18.8

7.45
5.47
4.14

6.67
5.92
4.95

17.0
124

9.18
5.39

2.02
1.19

13.3
9.22

Czachorlonlua I

France'Gabon [I1011975-1979
1080-19841085-1980

1.78
2.02
1.96

8.1 1
9.19
8.93

9.06
8.48
7.46

1083-19841085-1989

1.85
2.29

8.42
10.4

1.28
1.34

1985-IQR9

1.25
1.28

5.4

0.24

21.0

German Dcm. Rep. I

1975-1979l080-1984
1985-1989

6.26
4.73
4.07

28.5
21.5
18.5

14.7
15.1
16.1

1981-1984
IQR5-1989

0.13
0.15

0.58
0.68

South Africn ' 1975-1979

3.27
5.07
3.53

14.9
23.0
16.0

lnQa "

1980-19843985-1989

USSR 1110)

1985-1969

14.7
15.1
16.1

160
147
133

25.5
31.0
32.7

5.6 1
6.82
7.18

10.9 '
9.69
8.24

1.16
1.35

13.8
15.2

108
101

23.7
22.3

11.9
11.3

24
23

76
77

0
0

79.0
93.6
822

347
399
27R

107
78.8
78.8

23.3
17.3
17.3

4.39
4.27
3.38

23
25
25

75
75
75

0

16.3

0

0

0.72
0.65
0.57

.;

0.-m

s"

e

.Z9

P

e r n *

222

$

3!.

9

-

C

:5

5'

= - 0

'49Y

0 3 0

0 s

c o o

0

0

C a

532

0 0 0

30

ggg

0 0 0

m rc. m

"*"

0 0 0

get eer

222

22,:

0 0 0

zzz

0

0

272 2 5 2

2

2,Gg

s

0

0.99

M

231

R

2

% ; t %R Z %

?

zz5

-L:

2
5

8
b

255

94

-

3

4

* r - 0

N N N

6

- 1 5 0
N

C

Y

~

U

n

8
.4

ION^

- 9 . 3

u

~

r

f

c:

2

kss
> b a*-$

0 - 0

G O =
5 ~ Q a3

5-q

nr-01

q

~

:$+Q

q

% o n

dx;

2

m

5 5 5 5 f ?&j3 5 5 3 5 5

~

2

8 P 4

2

-6d

E

e

" $%'4E

*"

:"?.

- 6-

C

2

G

%EX

ZFG

a = o

? o
O
TO
O

.-4

.-S

2

z

7 9 9
a - o

0.v-

g $

mrr.t.

5

z z g

?;;a
$59 5 &
25; 3
e

g o $

"32

0

b

m N

B
n
i 23

2o $O 8o 2o

22

- S

n g 553

2

I
.

s

0

o

c~

a

;8"?f

2

8

3 2

B

0 0 0

S

-bZ Z B a

. - j b23 *2 s.
.
5

2

I%g

C,

1 - r n

2

BE6
4 5

--P-

~
2
vr-9

? ? ?

n n w
- n o

-3-

2 %2

= ? % G- ,-S Z

0.90.

3
.-

3

r

--

'a

rn

0 0 0

0 9 0 .

~

m

P-mm
"-2%
E
5 4 ',",q
66"i
3n
on 6
6 6
r - m mF E Z x = = ~ -% e%m%A

25s 2220s %-a .3 0.

Vi

0 0

w a ~ %$: g G:

;;%%

6

0

25;

222

;
--

* r- N

2 3gs 5 5 $

-

I!

ale
o o

2

535

0.U0.

m
m

0.

5T v %y g

0

m

~

m

P Z %
& & A
r- m ID
c++%
Ci

E
EO

a

a 0 . 0 .

2
d

u
a

m o n

.

-.

m

m

q q
e

n

0.90.

, - m a r

3466

2*"
"
N - N

0190.
e m m

S O %
& & A

4 BE44 534

z C

t:

-a

B

'a

b

;

3

n

Tr~ble3 (continued)
A n n ~ r dcollecri~wflecriw dose
Annualm n l ofandF.&

uranium
mind(b)

EqWtolrnr
amarnrijf
energy(GW a)

Mulirorad

works

Mmnvnbly
aposdn,crks( r h ~ l ~ t d ) (rhmsandrJ

Toral(man S#

Atwage p aum'r uranium
ubacrd(man Sv

p a rtr)

Atwage perunit energy
gemad[ m a Sv
(GW a).']

Atwage a ~ u cffecrirr
d
dose
Per
monilacd
work

Cmbiburiar o/ crposure parhwoy (76)P amnrnrraMy

aposalfirma1

nwke
fdv)

Radon

dolrghrms

Ore
dusr

70
69
69

3.8
3.1
3.2

Dubibuliar rorio

NREc

.WEc

0.37
0.30

0.69
0.61
0.52

(mw

T d e l unlnium n~ininp
Wald1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

52
64
59

240
290
270

240
3 10
260

1MO
1600
1100

26
23
20

5.7
5.5
4.3

5.5
5.1
4.4

26
27
28

0.25

"

data arc annual r ~ l u c saunaged wct the indicated periods.
* The
Doses fran inhalation of radon daughtm a t i m a t d using a m v e r s i m factor of 5.6 mSv WLM.'; this ncccrsitatcd a reision of most d the data aaually rcpated which wae, in gcnnal, bascd m a conversion facta d 10 mSv WLM-'.
Uranium p d v c t i o n data arc hose reported in r c s p m ~to the qucstimmirc. I f nothing was repnted, data werc bken hcm [OZ).
Estimated m the simplifying rsnumption thnt all the m i n d uranium is wJ in LWRs. The ansumed fucl cycle rquirement is 220 I uranium p a GW a.
The values dhlt and SR arc those rcpatcd for the monitacd workface for E = 15 mSv, where the canpmcnt of dme fran radon propny was derived assuming a cmversion factor of 10 mSv WLM". Bcnuse thc radm dose havc tun modified
the n l u c o f E to which thc distribution ratios refer will be lcss than IS mSv. the cxaa valuc nrying with the muntry and period of interest (i.e. dcpcnding on the rclativc conuiburion d radon
here using a cooversion f a a a d5.6 mSv WL..'.
progeny to the taal darc).
Estimaled hy subtracting of reported data on open-pit mining from rcported data lor total mininp. underground mining ccdsed oftcr 1979.
Data rrgatcd f a exposed wnka&which ha= b m assumed to he the same as monitored uwkas.
F a 1975-1983 thc rcported data contain n cmtribution from milling.
' Rcpnted data from kfore 1981 did nol include entemnl radiation; an external dose d 2.6 mSv (the avnane external dmc to monitacd workers in 1982-1983) has k n added here to rcpatcd darcs befac 1981. The rcpatcd distributton ratios
k f o r c 1981 did not bkc account of external cxposure and are therefore underutimatn.
Expmrua from inhalation of dust are not inducted; measurements havc indicated that it would cmtribute lus than 3 mSv to the annual commitcd effective dose.
Thc wntributim indicated for radon daughters include the m t r i b u t i m fran inhalation o f radon daughtcrr and inhalation d dust; in 1989 Ihc contribution of wch d thnc components was wmparaUe [P3].
Dovs estimated m hsis d gab sampler.
" The contribution horn the dust is very small because d the low gadc ofthc a c and has been ignored.
" Data are fm gold mines. In 5 ntina cut of40, uranium is produml as a by-product. The numbers dumrkers and lotal and n a m d i z d collarive dosa are those chat can be attributed lo uranium mining Estimates d darc havc bmadc f a thc
whde worldorcz from mcasuremcou and knowledg d waking environments. This avaage dosc has becn assumcd for the pcriod, and the tabulated cdlcctive duses are the product of this darc and thc rcpatcd a ~ u anumberlof workers.
R e p n t d data only indude cxprauru From inhalation d radon daughters.
Tabulated data on unnium mined, number o f umrknk dowr and dirtributim ratios canprisc thc rum or averagu d data for Argentina, Gnada. Czechaslwaki& France, the Gaman Democratic RcpuUir, India. Swth Africa and the United Stata(i.c. tharc muntria for which data f a at least m c period arc complete in lcrms of lhcre quantilicn); the percentage contributions to exposure pathways are avcragd wer Australia, Canada. China, Crcchoslo~akia,the German k o c r a t i c RcpuMic.
France, India and Swth Africa, countria f u which data are reputed on all three cmtributions. These data should k intcrprctcd with carc, particulnrly when comparisons are made betwecn diffcrcnt periods, .u the countria included in the rcsparive
summatimr may differ from one pcriod lo another. The distribution ratios are avnagcs of lhosc rcpatcd, and the data on thcse are often l a s complete than data fa thc a h a quantitia.
Estimates carapolatcd fran total of reputed data, b a d on tolal uranium mined worlduide rdntive to thqt mincd in reporting cumria.
'
Reportcd data bcfuc 1081 did not include external rndialion; nn C X ~ C ~ darc
M ~ of 0.3 ntSv (the nvcragc cxtcrnal dosc to m a ~ i t a c dworkcrs in 1982.1083) hnn bccn added here to rcporicd dmcs before 1981. l h c rcportd distribution ratios beiotc
1981 did not takc account of external exposure and arc therdorc undercstimatn.
Normalized c d l a i v c dme and n u m b d wakns f r m [P3] as approximate avnage o f French open-pit minn in 1989; total cdicciivc dose and indiridual doses derived hue using estimate d amount mined by subtracting *a! reputed forunderground mining from total mined given in [ 0 2 ] .'Ihe percentage mntributicns of cach exposure pathway arc approximate awragcs for open.pit miner in Frnnce.
lndudcs d y extaml exposure; cootributirn hom intcrnal cxposure judged negligible by comprrison.
" Tabula14 data on uranium mined number of u u k n s , darer and distribution ratica comprise thc rum cr avcrags of data for Argentina, Australia and Canada (LC.thare countria f a which data f a at least m e p a i d are ~ p l c t ine mmr of h e
qwntities); thc percentage contributims to exposurc pathuayr are avcragcd ovcr Argentina, Avslralia Canada and China, ccunlrics f a which data arc rcportcd on all three contributions. These data should bc ~ntaprctcdwith car+ particularly uhcn
mparisonr arc madc bctu4ccndiffcrcnt pcriods, as thc countries included in the rcspcctivr ru~r~ntatims
m:ly diffcr from one period to anothcr. I h c distributicn ratios arc avcragcs of tharc rclmrtd, and the data on thex are d t m l e s cmplctc
than data f a the dher quadtia.

'''

UNSCEAR 1993 REPORT

450

.,
!.

.s

3

$

0

z0 g0z0i

0

28'8

mm-t

P.?S

0 0 0

.

.a

a

2?

P

83

s

'3qq

0

0 0 0

0 0 0

m

23

2

83

o

2:s

0 0

o o o

o o o

Y!

m m
n
v

m
w

9~

l-

-

em.n
d e n

w

-

0 0 0

0 0 0

-

-

5

e u

8_85

855

m m o

"""

.L

84
0

d

6

.j
a

a

d

e

b

v .n

i,

--w n nr - m o

oo
-

4

E

&

a

32

bt3Q

'$5

O

m

" m e

222

2%:

i-42

-

Q

-!

0.0.
9 9

2
,2
,%
,

00.0.

0 - -

m e

r

-

WF-

Sjsg

gd o$ 03

5 s

0 0 0

q S s

20 50 50

r-mm

m w m

0'22

-mw.

-oq

C

-

"
t-4

-*'+

4

7

k
- 4
? .-

3%

-,-,

l-

rn

8

7 %

8
4

2
24
om,-,

m

m o m
S
9
mm,

00-

$

.-?

4 4

& !.12

;.

3,
B
P
t

?
5.$
5 %a

< a

as

-

$k

r

2

3

q

z d d

er-o

t

g a s

823

x

r-

2

zz

2

d

0 0 0

%
;

0.-

~

kd

~ 2 22

"

a

0 - 0

l

-4

0 0 0

"

2

es$

o

- 0 0

7

I-n

m0.m

0

$

m
Nm
*

""

m m m
2;

v n o

r-

+or-

2

m
-.?.W w

.0.

m
C,

m v o
F-mm

%

5

222

0 0

7"

$ 3

?
%-?
C

w m

wed*

i 0N 5

2Z.Z.
w

255

52:

0. m
0 0 0

~ 2

28

2%

0

I--

-

A N N M D: OCCUI'KIIONN. RADIATION UiPOSURlS

45 1

,-

2 4%

a
;

019 &

22 g
32 u

0,

2g$

.

$8

0
6 .C
-

Ba 2 %

c0
.;I
83
u t
SB
3 k .-€ 3
-E
.5

z d

zu k8

k- i
u

$ 2
6 5
:g

$2

-2 .E --'6;.sS40
2;

A -

ST!
a .= 3 .?:2:c~!

- sjG q:.
8 ;eg2.r:2 z
5 2 3 :

a

0

E
.5

--

- - E

34..
-b G . 5
g b g

-

=o

3

T W E

B

2

.-c

2 3 5 2 .2 *:.r g.- g ; E; "l Bs
3
52 2 2

.

c

8 c'-

E

.u!l!~urnb nqto a q ~aj alrp un(1 alaldwa to\ q m u u a ~ airo m q 1 uo ulep aq1 put * p a ~ Mxt o~ q ~p d l r u ~airr so!1c1 wlnq.ulr!p aq~. 'lJqt0uP 01 p u ~ adm W I Jujlp Krtu w n e m n s a n . p d m ~aqr u! p p n p u ! =!IIW a q ~SI tpotnd I W ~ ~ I JonmsqJr m r y d t l l o a 8 u q r w ww Klre(ru!rl.d ZI~Jqlp pala~dnlu!aq plnoqr t1.p

I

:I~QI
~ U I P ~ X PWT
J
3~ F
--n

auyl.

'0661-9861 ut ~I.%-I
a n m p q % U J P I C341
> ~aaqu~mmp ~ I U ou!
Kaq1 anqm v n r g m ayl o! p p n l x t ! ate put p l e r u ! ~Alleutm~~t w q a ~ r tqx o p rplemoo 9861 UOIJ .ap!nnUexaq omwm o l m ! r u n u u m!uem UDJI r x o p Ipnpu! p u op pue ~ l u ~o r p q a ! n aXJJa r ~rlecl,6861 PUR 8861 9 1 d a q ~DM m8rwnr are p ~ o p
a ~ ! p l p ! 1 m w u pug ltrap!nba WULP >an a n g e h DJ e l q 3861 amjaq K p s m p w h ~I!IUUJ PIU.(n!r~~~ n o sm
) o l d a r m u laf :[(KIIw p u m s ) KUOPBUI)(plpn %~~RIIJ~I~N'uedwr] m m ~ gd n j y o 3 ~:[sale~s p a l p ~ n' ( 1 0 1 ~ISI~) UIOP~OX pll!on ' ~ J u o -~~ ]dw p n l l r p Kq I W U I ~ U U ~.snIlorn pxodxa blqumsrriu pae pwolpom w g n J u a ~ amp mep anqm plucu!ln sq osle u e *>Lop(lom~p a r o b 2q1 o j wnp* .>>np(lorn P~XJIRU)UIa q ~ O amJ
p P E ~ A3~,MD) ~ M S W~ 1 . 0s! luaunrmbar alaK3 p n j paulnssu 3~ .SHM-I U! pasn r! um!uem paqa!~wa q ~IIP IE~I uo!rdumssu Bujj!ldtu!s a q ~u, p a ~ v u r ! ~ q.spo!~adp l r e ~ p u !a q ~l a m palu9smu n n l u lunituu ale rlvp aq~,,.,.(I!

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

8CO
P6.0
29'0

80'0
81'0
9e' 0

EP'o
BL'O
FS

ZI'O
ZP'O
Or0

9CO
Z9.0
PI'S

0's

E6'0
59'0
VC'8

nwo

s1.0
ZZ'O
ZI'O

SOO'O
U0'0
980'0

LEO‘O
OLI'O
S99'0

6W'O
OP0'0

zv.0
IP'O

9~0.0
LS0.O

MSO
KV.0

PPO'U

I PE'O

26'2
SP'I
f'01

11's
CZ'Z
LP'O

ZI'C
88'2
25'2

E9'0
62'0
90'0

~01.0
ZPI'O

n o

P
I'
OSZ

L'O
SI

81.0
EFO

8L'O

SZ'E

01'0

SE'O

0

tlF0

0
0

0
0

11'0
Ef'O

SEW0
E10'0
WO'O

MY0
ZI'O
S0'0

0

0

69'0

10'0

10'0

0

0

00'0

VI'O

U)O'O
S10.O
910'0

fOO'0
Sf 0'0
LEO'O

LE'O
69'0
f SO

,f

(4~2~)lnqan

i~onrvnu

pai.mw
ad

Qd

O!JVJ W!Pq!UXI(]

61s~)

prod^
~q ~~ a n

>SOP ~%!1>2$2)DID"UUD 2YU.011V

I p @ ~ 3AS)umul
I~PUUJY
O a u 2 i.wn
a d ~ Y u Dy, ~

(+nsn

61s

I!M a d 2 3 ~ v~ ~ 1>SOP~1!1~2&A ~ ! J J ~ / ~~ oU> U

V

PJOJ.

8'2

frpmmv~)(rpro-v~)

fo m2)
A%DW

s q ~ a pns o d m

s q a njo i u n w o6)qonrm~[wIlr~861-0861
6Lbl-EL61
ImlJPul.pBun p.r!un
6Bb l.S8bI

6861-$861
r 'P"'I*WN
Z'o

LL'1
EE'Z
9CZ

6#W)'O

6861-s861
V86I-0861
6L6I-SL6I
rnDpzur?i P r N n

V861-0861
6LblmSLbl, U!lJV WnoS

KO'O
890'0

AS u w )van ~,I~UOJU~J~

0861-$861
9861-0861
6L6I-SL6I[131 -I~IS pal!un

91.0
n'0
Sf0

0

0

6Sbl-S8b1
P861-0861
6Lbl-SLbI
8 U l V palXJh1p IRWJ,

E'P
II

b8bl-L&1~YLfurb8bI-SMbI
VMbI-0061
bLb1[zdl p "U'lcl

p ~ o ~ ! w ) y ru~lu,m~mb3(5)
rwwq~~rna

2Yoa1 yfn~sW)Ym*

PoPO@

a-!mmd2ss/o
IUNIWO
pnuuy

Lluno3P o

Table 6
Exposures fmrn luel fabrication a
Dora from UNSCEAR Sunley of O c c u p a ~ i o m Exposureslunless orhern~iseindicaled

Average a n r ~ u d.fTecrivc dose

Annual collccriru clfecrivc dose

CauYw
nnd

+ad

of/iodfabricaral

Equiuolcnr
a w n r o/mogy

bfonirarai
wwkers(h)(GU' o)(thousands)

Annud amount*

Munuably
crposaiworkers(fhw~ads)

Aw a g e p a
Toral(man St9A t m g c pcr unit
cnCD

Po

Pm

monirrraig ~ o r e dw w hrnemably
aposed worker

(dv)

(mw

fuel
fabricoral(man Sv pcr kt)[mcm St, (CW a)*'/Dirfribwion ratio

NRIJ

SRIS

LH'R l u t l
Jnpn

'

1979
19130-1984
lQR5-1989

0.82
1.06
1.28

14.5
18.1
20.7

1.02
1.44
1.67

0.54
0.86
0.52

0.66
0.82
0.40

0.037
0.048
0.025

0.53
0.60
0.3 1

0
0
0

0.03

0.87

0.20

0.06

1.83

0.068

0.30

0

0

0.16

4.43

0.35

0.25

0.38

2.33

0.086

1.09

1-53

0.26

7.0 1

0.35

0.09

0.21

0.82

0.030

0.61

2.29

0.95
1.19
1.92

25.8
32.3
51.8

11.1
9.45
9.95

5.85
5.49
3.88

19.0
8.68
4.51

19.8
7.26
2.35

0.734
0.269
0.087

1.71
0.92
0.45

3.24
1.58
1.16

0.013
0.003
0.0003

039
0.12
0.014

1.12
2.25
3.50

28.7
50.4
80.6

11.3
10.9
12.2

19.1
9.54
5.48

17.0
4.23
1.57

0.664
0.189
0,068

1.69
0.88
0.45

0.013
0.003
0.0003

0.39
0.12
0.015

1.6

42
81

17
17
24

29
I5

18
4.1
1.6

0.69
0.19
(1.06'4

1.7
0.87
0.45

R e p l M i c of Kara

1988-1989
Spin

1986-1989
Swcdcn1986. 1988-1989
Unild States ' f

1975-1979
1980-19R4
1985-1989

Tall d repoled &la 8
1975-1979
1980.1984
1985-19RP'

Wwld
1975-1979
1980.1984
1985-1989

3.7
6.8

160

II

V10'0
100'0
W O

6'1 1
€0'8
LC8

KVO
SOE'O
LZE'O

LCZ
L9'1
VZ'Z

S8' I
16'1
89' 1

1S.S
OZ'E
9L'E

ZZ1
S'OI
9'1 1

9VO
OVO
VP'O

6861-S861
P861-0861
6L61-SL61,P J 1 3 V PPI Pm

I881'u9du'Y Plmn
IanJ X 3 V
ZP'I
908'0
80L'O

ZI'E
$6'1
OtL

810'0
UX)'O
C00'0

6 rP
PP'Z
Pl'Z

8V2
96'1
EWZ

11'1
00'1
88'0

9VZ
EP'Z
L8'Z

18'0
08'0
S6'0

PI'I
L0.I
CSO

L9'8
PC9
BE'€

LSI
81'1
19'0

01'0

CF'O

WO

6861-S861
V861-0861
6L61-EL61,x o l s lPWl
~
PUP
Iml
w!un

~ a n xoula&q
j

ZFO'O
UX)'O
01'0

COO'O
ZWO
$00'0

22.0

CmO

LIZ

L9'1
00'1
LZ-I

612.0
E91'0
ZOZ'O

1Z.I
06'0
Z1'I

06'1
90'1
89'0

85.0

89 1 ' 0

C6'0

90'0

CWO

6861-S86I
V86I-0861
6L61-SL61
layMIlQ"L,

6Obl-S861"'O)lP ~!)9n+i

PLO'O
0

W O
0

18'1
FO'I

6S I
82.0

PS'Z
Z8'O

I' V I
SP

08'0
11'0

PP'O
11'0

OS'O
Of0

IC.0
€1'0

U)'0

6861-S861
V861-1861
@P"I

W O
€00'0
01'0

6000'02000'0
SOO'O

Z9'C
t9.Z
66'1

LE'Z
WI
Lz'I

121'0
ISl'O
ZOz'O

CL'O
P8'0
ZI'I

Z0'1
26'0
89.0

82.0
9E'O
PE'O

iP'0
S9'0
EC'O

18'L
OE'9
8E'E

It'1
€1'1
I9'0

6861-S861
V86I-0861
bLhI-SL61

W'O

,

UPNQ

601'0
081'0

ZZ‘O
VZ'O

€1SO
828'0

LOI'O
WI'O

PZO'O
n0.0

81z'O
8E1'0

9t.0'0M0.0

6861-S86I
V86I-0861, =u9=%

IanJ W U
(AW)

'IMS

,"FN

Pmdn
&JYUV~UI

fi5w96 )~1(W u d d S u r n )~ O P U U ~ ~PIDJ!J~D/O u u ap m 1 1 y ~ w

Dd
O!JOJ W!mq(rma

I,.@~

qm

> S T al!p#J p l l W D 3

J!M

ad
8

~

~

1

~

1

D d 380UU1V>SOP al!133#J

4

a d >Soat y
L1!132//01 P ) N U V

(*su

w

(rpm='vl)((spmsmyr)

SDp%*
IDJOl

p.'="dx3
k l q v ~ ~ W

skayuup.'"l!~~W(" ,a31(17)

ODD

WJ.U~D//O I

U

lwp4.dg~Po!-'~ l/O /PVD

IWMuV PnUUV

km3

'Ikhle 6 (continued)

Annud collccfitr c l f c r i ~ r&sc
Cnufttly

Arrnud omurrnr

ando f fulfabrkarad

parpar&(w

Eqw'balenr
amau~rof
cnmgy(GW 0)*

Monitored
wkus

Marrurnbly
orposed(rhwands)(rhwands)

A ~ n a l pc a
Tor01

uabs
(mnn Sv)

fie1
fabricated(man Sv p a kt)

A w a g e per writ
cnngy
g~wued(mart Sv (GW a)"]Abwale m u d flccrite&JCPa
moniraedrwb

measurably
rrpacad rorku

(dv)

(dv)

Dism'butim ralio

Pcr

NRIJ 'SR,,

FUR fuelJapan
1975-1079
1980-1984
19811-1989

'

'

"
"

0.0 1
0.01
0.0 1

0.42
0.69
0.99

0.15
0.52
0.48

30.14
68.81
90.53

0.36
0.75
0.48

0
0
0

The data are annual values averaged over the indcatcd periods. Gntribuums d internal cxposurcs to dosa arc included f a Spain (32%). Canada (0%) and United Kngdan (35% average f a both types d h c l in 1985-1989). All dhcr dosa
are ban enema1 exposure d y .
The amounts of fuel (uranium) required to gmnatc 1 GW a d electrical energy by each reactor type arc taken to be as followa: FWR. 37 t; IIWR. 180 I; Magnox. 330 I; AGR, 36 I.
'Ihc vnlucs d NilI, arc for the monitacd workface. Vnlun iu the c.vposcd worldorce can also bc estimated where clsta are given f a both monitored and measurably expscd workers.
I n ~ m aexposurelnegligible.
Summary data from annual repau of the United Stata Nudear Regulatory Commission. The data foc 1975-1981 include cxporura during fucl rcpccssing The distribution ratios are n u r q x r k d formally by United Statra Sudcar Replatory
Grnmission liccnsca. They have bcen estimated as the m a n of the diseibuticmratios for ind~vidualdoses of 10 and 20 mSv. This appro.dmation will, in general. cause the tabulated dislributim ratios to be overestimates became many acupaticaal
exposure dare distrihutims arc lognormal.
No data were available f a the annual p o d u a i m of furl. In their absence, annual fucl produaion was assumed tobc equivalent to the cnagy gcncratcd in the respective years by LWRs in the United Slates. This assumptim is likdy toundaatimate
the fud produced (and wnatimatc the normalized cdleziiw doses) as sane d the fuel was u u d i n readas rutside h e United Stat-; maeova, fud grodudon and a n g y generation arc n a amtcmpaancous.
Thac data should be interpreted with care, particularly when making comparisons bctween different p e r i d , as the ccxlntrics indudcd in Ihc r e s p d v c summations may diKm from one period to andhn. The drstrihrtion ratios arc avaaga dthose rcpated, and the data on these are oftcn much lras completc than data on the olhcr quantidcs.
The reported data have bocn scaled by the ratio of the worldwide productim of fuel to that included in the reported L l a ; in h e absence of data on woldwide fucl produdon, this was assumed tobc the annual fuel rcquircment needed lo gnnate
the datrical eangy produced by LWRs i n the same year. In thc absence d bcttn data, the values of the ratios halsand SRIY averaged o w the reported data. can bc considered indicative of worlduidc Icwls.
Contribution frun internal exposure not included but estimated to bc less than 10%.
NR dirtrihution ratios rcpated for mcasurahly cxposcd w a k a s ndjusted for monitored wcrkforce.
No data rcpated m h e amcunt of he1 fabricated; auurned to be that needed f a the actual gcnaation of cnngy in India in each period by the particular reactor type.
The muntrio reporting data are assumed to represent the total walduidc production of fucl o f this type.
Some GCR fucl has hrm fabricated i n dhcr countries, but the amount is small in comparison 4 t h that labricated in the United Kingdan and has bccn ignorcd.
lntmal cxpau~crurcrc indudcd in the rcpntcd doses f a 1985-1980, but n d for earlier periods; the inncasc in the distributint ratio is more apparcnt than real.
Data indude uukor asraiated uith and doxs incuncd in fucl fabrication and the convcrrion d uranium to and from uraniwn hexafluoridc for ouiehment. Aboul 5% of the collectivr dose arises during u m v m i m but data on the fraction d
the wakfucc involved in the r n p c a i aaivitics~
are n d available; the average individual doscs in ccmvcrsion and fabricatiar arc similar. The data arc mainly f a the fabrication of AGR fucl, but about 10% d the produaim is PWR fud.

UNSCEnR 1993 REPORT

456

1

Tnhle 7
Suninitiry or worldwide cxposurm rrorn lucl r~bricatlon

A saoge

Fuel n p e

AMW~
munf
offurlfahricaral

Equhalenl
w u n r ofW)

(GW a)

hloniroraluork~sciuru(rhourd)rural
rdlecrhu
efferriw
dare(m SV)~

CoN~lirr
cf~clhudose p a
unif marc
offuel(man sv k i l ).

Collecri~'c
cflcctisr di>.rc
prr unit rncrgy
gcnnirrrrl

Average~ n v o lrffccrhr
dose romonPored
nwrkasDirrribution ratio

NRIJ

.Wl,

1.7
1.3
23
22

0.013
0.005
0.003
0.002

0.39
0.10

0.59

1.8

0.012

0.38

0. I9
0.16
0.81
0.31

0.87
1.0
2.0
1.7

0.003
0.0002
0.002
0.031

0.12
0.002

0.21

1.0

0.002

0.11

0.07
0.22

0.0003
0.003
0.018
0.014

0.015
0.042

0.45

0.45
1.7
3.1
3.0

0.12

0.78

0.002

0.019

[man sv ( G ~ V0)-'1

(m~v)

0.69
0.2
0.71
0.33

1975-1979

LWK
lW R
M a g ox

AGR

1.6
0.61
0.95
0.4

Total

42
3.4
29
12

17
0.53
0.88
1.7

29
0.68
20
3.8

60

20

36

18
1.1
21
8.6

1980-1984

LWR
llWR
Magnox

AGR

3.7
1.2
0.60
0.40

Tall

6.5
243
11

17
1.1
1.0
1.9

15
I. 1
20
3.2

100

21

21

61

4.1
0.90
24
8.0

I=-1989

LWR
InvR
Magox

AGR
Tatal

"

6.8
1.6
0.81
0.46

160
8.7
25
12

24
1.1
1.1
1.9

11
1.9
3.5
5.5

180

28

22

1.6
1.2
4.3
12

1.4

The 61.are annual values averaged ova the indicated periods.

Thc nrnarnts of fuel (uranium)required to g c n m l c 1 G W a of elc&ical energy by each r a n o r type arc taken t o be as Colloux: PWR, 37 1; tWR. 180 I;
M a p a x . 330 I; AGR. 38 I.
Thc d u e for SR,, for Magnox and AGR fud fa h e period 1985-1090lake accarnl of inlcrnal u p a s u r u which were not icdudcd in a r l i a p a i d . The
rnneasu in the hU in 1985-1969 arc thcrdorc apparent rather than real.

Table 8
Exposum rt reactnrs
Data from UNSCEAR Survey of Occupational Exposures unless otl~enviseindicateddose

Atrroge o ~ u rffectiK
d
dose
P o
monifacd(mun S d

A twngeper unit
energygenerared
Imnn St,(GW a).']

Annual collcctibr cffKtiw

Ccunfm.
nnd
periodA twageofrclyt~lso r w theperiodn&

ArwngcIrutdled
capacity

Energypurarcd

himitored

nwkcrshfarnrrobly
aposcdPreastor
ff

Total

w k s
(GW?

(GW o)(ihousonds)(fhar.ronds)

P(man St$

nwkcr

Per
mcanuablyaposcdDu&buiim ratb

4

5

3

5

w w k

(dl.)

(msvl

m

*

UrlIjum [nsl1975-1979
198001984
1985-1989

4.0
5.2
7.6

1.67
2.75
5.49

1.14
2.01
4.26

2.39
4.50
8.38

5.28
10.1
17.9

1.32
1.94
2.36

4.63
5.00
4.22

2.2 1
2.24
2.14

1084
1985-1980

1.O
2.0

0.95
1.90

0.34
1.M

3.68
252

0.26
1.41

0.26

0.71

0.77
1.34

0.07
0.56

Crcchorlovilkia
1975-1977
1980-1984
1965-1989

1.O
2.2
7.0

0.4 1
0.90
2.94

0.1 1
0.62
2.1 1

0.87
1.56
4.14

0.08
0.80
2.43

0.09
1.84
3.97

0.09
0.83
0.57

0.79
2.97
1.88

0.10
1.18
0.96

1.17
2.30
1.64

0.001
0.010
0.005

0.12
0.17
0.12

Finland
1977-1979
1Q80-1984
1985-1989

1.0
1.8
2.0

0.47
0.84
0.93

0.34
0.67
0.84

0.93
1.26
I .W

0.47
0.73
0.65

0.79
1.80
1.73

0.79
1.00
0.87

2.31
2.71
2.05

0.84
1.43
1.59

1.69
2.48
2.66

0
0.D06
0,007

0
0.072
0.@73

3.5
17.2
4 1.0

3.15
15.5
40.1

1.93
11.1
28.3

3.40
14.4
29.7

0.89
6.40
16.8

4.34
29.4
78.9

1.24
1.71
1.92

2.24
2.65
2.79

1.28
2.05
2.65

4.87
4.60
4.68

0.032
0.047

4.0
5.0
5.0

139
1.83
1.83

0.60
1.33
1.35

3.4 1
3.12
3.80

1.58

5.10
8.65
9.24

1.28
1.73
1.85

8.48
6.49
6.86

1.50
2.77
2.43

5.85

0.036
0.060
0.050

4.8
6.6
11.4

3.94
6.46
12.9

2.7 1
5.03
9.53

3.9 1
8.54
15.2

17.5
34.4
32.6

3.64
5.2 1
2.86

6.45
6.83
3.43

4.47
4.02
2.15

China (Taiwan Prmincc)

France '1977-1979
1960-19841085-1989
German Dcm. Rcp.

1975-1979
1980-1984
1985.19R9(inmany. Fcd. Rep. d1975.1979
1080.1984
1985-1989

0.45
0.44
0.42

Table 8 (continued)

Anmid collccfiw cffectivc dose

c~nhy

and

pas

Awage
of
n&
reatorso w heAwage
Installed
cqciryEnagy
dmcr#edb

Monitorad

Mmnuablyn a b s

=pard

Total

P a
renstor

wakes

Awage
p a unit
energygcma~dA w o g e annud rffcctiw dose

Disbibu~iarratio

Pa

P cr
monitaedmc~woMy

maker

npard

NRIJ

a15

uwk

(InM sv

period( GW(GW 0 )

ffh-anlr)

15
3.4

0.66
1.50

0.36
1.19

1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

7.0
11.8
16.2

4.76
8.69
126

Nrthalandr
1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

1 .O
1.0
1 .O

1977-1979

1.O

1980-1984
1985-1989( h w h )(man Srj(mst9(G w o r ' ]

(dv)

(dv)

1.26
2.8 1

0.29
0.99

0.32
1.70

0.21
0.50

0.89
1.43

0.25
0.6 1

1.09
1.72

0
0.002

0
0.053

2.02
5.44
9.22

7.2 1
13.2
18.6

6.11
9.22
121

14.1
30.7
33.5

2.02
2.60
2.07

6.99
5.65
3.63

1.96
2.32
I .80

232
333
2.76

0.020
0.020
0.012

0.18
0.16
0.12

0.48
0.48
0.48

0.37
0.39
0.39

0.60
0.96
1.14

4.10
3.58
2.83

4.10
3.58
2.83

11.0
9.24
7.21

6.89
3.75
2.48

0.1M
0.057
0.018

0.44
0.30
0.15

0.59
0.85
4.65

0.27
0.54
3.32

0.48

1.66
4.50
128

1.66
3.21
2.20

6.0

3.49

1.4
5.8

8.32
3.85

4.67
2.73

2.0
2.0

1.92
1.92

0.45
0.96

1.72
1.72

0.08
0.59

0.12
1.61

0.06
0.81

0.27
1.68

0.07
0.94

1.45
2.75

0.001
0.008

0.29
0.18

1.0
26
5.6

0.16
1.65
451

0.13
0.67
3.25

0.22
1.51
5.30

3.81

260
6.76
17.7

2.60
2.60
3.17

20.7
10.1
5.45

11.7
4.21
3.35

4.65

1.0
2.2
3.0

0.80
1.88
2.60

0.47
0.87
1.93

0.62
0.97
1.82

1.52
3.58
4.80

1.52
1.63
1.60

3.28
4.10
2.49

0.03
0.033
0.0n

0.24
0.27
0.19

2.2
3.0
3.0

0.89
1.64
1.64

0.71
1.44
1.44

4.16
7.46
6.60

1.89
2.49
2.20

5.83
5.20
4.58

Hunery1983-1984
1905-3989
J ~ P

RcpuMic of Korea

0.96
4.67

SouLh AFri.a

1984
1985-1989
Spalo f

1975-1979
1980-19841085-1989
Sweden 8

1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

2.46
3.68
2.65

Suianfand

1975-1979
3980-1984
1985-1989

0.63
1.49
1.07

6.64
5.01
3.95

ANNW D: OCCUPKIlONAL RADIA'IION MPOSURES

-2
2

s'

555

P

0 0 0

459

5:s

229

0 03 2%

asx

283

o~~

.h3

2

h

a

9

ddX

0 0 0

-

q:

0 0

0 0

P

=

0-01
? ? "?

r--r-

-=.ye
w n m

r g
0;

0 0 -

g
2
E"

-

a

- a m

222

22%

$!-a

zH3

v l o
-3-

n w w

-,.,

r

-

0 0 -

CO=

- m m

a")m

:za

O

n

m a

NU0

a m m
U.??
wP.N

-2 2-

Nr-0

T q q

22

mimid

-

nnn

Fg
e v!
n

--

m - m
qyp!
m n w

2 a%:

,..3

O D N

p!?

N N

OOPV

mCOW

822

-???

VIOO-T D ? ~ N

2;
4

4)

.Y

-

&: L L

-c

6

-

<

o
,

223

-?+?z

2-32

oo. V!

d.2

2

p

Y

c

L

$

2

r-a

%

g$jW

2%:

22:

-CI-

m N

P
E

'-99

~

G

m-P!

NU.m - 2

OI

odtig
m m -

0 Q

m m z

Z

e

g s z

N Q

'??
w e

228

.:.

m N

22

--9 - N

T N V

Q.??

225

-

N

FS'?
o - -

N

n m

2:

- m

W

25

vlo-

228

2;;

no

u%*

$a m 5

chgz

$55

zzg

8;:

mwr-

342

y q

0 0

,,

.?b&53Tq e8 ? b6 g

$ms

2A S

a

m $ w

- N

-

mq o
S
q

- N N

t

.5

99

N N

'a

m

4

szp

0 0 0

--

e:

gag

0'2%

;,zz%

V

a

LQ'O-0'S-i - -

U N S C W 1993 REPORT

460

.

.s

$

e

.s3

255

255

G"

0 0 0

'23

""

610%

Egg

$58

225

225

864

ggi$

m m c

-=. a
rl m
=

P

i;

PC"

.3

a

20'2

0 0 0

.

$32

3

~

4 ,Pag
B
.
g

0 0 0

0 0 0

-,,

"
o
9

ern-

0 0 0

YIP--

r0r r0u r0!

0 0 0

n m m

4

??a

1

S

w

m m-t-

c m o

m m m

s

---

zzG

m

e
s?
W m N

$ 5

m - *

n w! 0:
0C

--m

=

$ 2

V Q . ~-"":g2
2

--,

99,

N N

.-2'
.-

-E

g

b
t

m m o

a w m

y z

- o m

222

22:

z?'?

G23

ss2

"4 & -i

$€$Z

N o -

Q - m

2
,a0

???

?$:

52;

%zg

gsz

555

~ - r q

v)P

4 -

Sfis

a

$

t

3

2

z
$

N N -

'

n
P m

L

r.
8

.s' r

a

f

26 $

8
1

c'a

3

uI ;u

e3

3 .$

s

w

-$

$,
7,
,,
" 2
2,
2,
-

f

B

U_

,-ls

- N -

qqq
O C N

Im m ~ -

;as

x s

'33

a=-

$2:
m - -

a- 8q9z

2;s

$ 2

$
2 2,:,
;,
,,,

m m m

993

os,.,

0 0 0

0 0 0

Z"

3

3 %

0 0 0

- m q

"""

---

4 -

-

rr9Y!

--rn

*""

412

.?so
**-

3

N N C I

w, I-

Q.V8

0 0

Q m -5'9

- N P

C O O

'+.n4
0 0 0

--

222

%

m o m

-

:

t,

~5

m w -

m w -

0.3-

?LA&&

A g A
g--z
Em.

C

.,moo

E+2c
C

C

V)

a s p

,-

a s -

3

g g
v m
525 as$% -Y??
2 - -gl222g
w o n,A o AEr-mm
3 5 2 2 '3E-g-g- T i - - -

B
zp
y;

3

3

rf:

3

m v P-DOm'E 2A o2 42.=t-mm&%%%a

ANNEX D: OCCUPAIONN, RADIATION MPOSUKI2i

6-

e

"""
0 0 0

222

d
~ d X3s dZ Xz EO

6
Z0
2

m n m

P-.-c

O m 0

C)

.?

DDNR

- m m

46 1

g

-mffi

? Y? 0.
o o o

222

6ZO

2
0 3. s8

0 0

5

3

4
-3

9

~

Q

q?;fs

---

2

WdP-0
u v n

P C G N

0 0 0

m N -

-9%
a - C

ri

P

a
qqG

F???

.I

C)

o
y T
-

~

P-

a o -

0 0

$q
1 -

V I - -

m

o g

9Ly3
w m m

-?'-?-?

2
;
-,w

=-?q

P 2 O

*9'?

-

* " m

-I=.-:

ON,

5
.U

.=

2

P

-$ 2 2

-

222

r

L

2

a m

m m

22

m t - e2:

O Q ' ?

N N N

O W N

4

0 p. m

"r??

-

0 0 0

L

3
I.

-

o-t-

---#

?
n
- N
a

F'1'9
0 0 0

5

22

---

N C O
m o o

N - V ic .I

w

-C?Om Oq

aU

U
-,w

3

222

0
.

E

.-

2

mrn-

223

$2"

- -

1'109

2f $u

9

0 0

0 0

-"A

ffiffi

22

-re-

--

uk9 u

abs53

91189

-,-:

% --. %w

I n O D -

2:

N 1
.

0 0 0

N

222

P-Qm

? ? ?

o o o

zgz

2

t o o

---

---

---

N D C
m

c w v l

0

a
(D

C

U

5
v

0 . 0 0.

C,

5
% go%%
A & &
-AoA

5%

B

-

m m

-

u m n
.-ffiffi

LY

d

3

0.

mffi

%o-z

%r A
d&
A
o A
- w a
t-mffi% 0 % 22 0 % ,255

'6"
"
84-gg
3 - - - "'-i - - E-

aggg

~ Z Z D

25

m d A

rn

0

9

0

r-ffia

zoo
P
A- d
w4
m

co-2%
.L
L1
vr

Table 8 (continued)

Annud collccritr cfecfivc doseAwage
Cn v m b a ofw

rmrforso v a rhc

and
P".&

United Kingdom P
1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989
Tola1 d reputed &u
1975-1419
1980-1984
1985-1989

'

'

Wold
1975-1979
1080-1984
1985-1989

Awaxe
Inr~dlcd
cnplcin

Energybcnaordb

Murirord

Muuurably

Atwagepcr unit

Pcr
monifcval
n a b

a~ard
rat0

fdv)

fmSv)

Told

Pa
reorfor(mS~(man Stj

MCVY~(ournrai[InM Sv(G w a).']u a h
W Q ~ S

30
32
37

6.04
7.40
10.4

3.40
4.40
6.09

856
18.0
25.4

24.5
26.4
19.5

0.82
0.82
0.52

720
6.00
3.20

2.86
1.46
0.77

0.02
0.00540.0002

31.2
34.0
39.2

6.56
8.08
11.1

3.79
4.86
652

8.95
20.3
27.6

25.0
27.8
20.8

0.80
0.82
0.53

6.59
5.72
3.19

2.80
1.37
0.75

0.020
0.005
0.0002

40
41
44

9.1
10
13.3

5.4
6.0
7.4

13
25
31

36
34
24

0.90
0.84
0.54

6.6
5.8
3.2

2.8
1.4
0.75

0.351

0.067

1.10

USSR (BR350) 4 P I 11
1978-1979
1980-1984
1985-1987

1
1
10.35 '
0.35
0.35

USSR (BR600) 18111
1980-1984
1985-1987

1
1

0.6
0.6

f ~ h w a d )

1
1.4
4.0
4.8

0.50

0.033

0.033

0.59
0.60
0.49

0.61
0.8 1
0.98

0.6 1
0.8 1
0.98

0.34
0.41

0.92
1.08

0.40
0.83

0.40
0.83

1.19
2.04

0.43
0.77

0.60
1.24

0.34
0.32

0.92
1.04

0.40
0.52

0.40
0.37

1.19
1.64

0.43
0.50

1.0
1.9

050
0.73

1.4
2.1

0.6 1
1.O

0.15
0.21

1.2
1.4

0.44
0.48

35.6
622
l n

2.97
3.84
8.67

8.18
8.30
16.7

6.64
6.35
13.2

0.094

1.03
0.35
2.00

T d dreputed &ta"

'

LWGR.

Wold '
1978-1979
1980-1984
loS5-Is87

5f l h a ~ )1

Wmld '
1980-1984
1985-1989

4(GW a)

hanru

1980-1984
1985-1989

Pcr
mema&

(GW

Pmbtypc FBKs

1986-1989

Distribution ratio

Atwabc a ~ u cfccfivc
d
dose

12
16.2
20

5.9
10.1
14.7

4.35
7.50
10.4

5.37
9.80
13.1

%5

0.W

Table 8 (continued)
Annud r o l l c ~ r i wrfrcrh.c dose

cmr~
old
pmpm0dAtwageofn&reocrorso t w rhc

Atwagepcr unitPo
mom'raCd

reacror

cncrgynwka(man Stj

gmorcd[ m Sv~(GW o).']( ~ v J(~vI

0.03 1
0.017
0.097

0.90
0.24
3.25

0.027
0.015
0.124

052
0.37
0.65

Average
Inslolled
capocity

EncrdygenereredManirorcd
uakas

Mauurably

Pff
Tard

w e d

wakas

paid

(GH?

(GW 0)

frhwonds)(rharrMdrl

(M

Sv)

Aterobc onnud rfeph'w dosePo
mrosvnbly
aposrdDuhiburion rario

N R ~ ~

%J

wk

HTGRS
Wold '
1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

1
1
I

0.33
0.33
0.33

0.034
0.071
0.030

1.15
1.16
0.78

0.059
0.046
0.148

0.031
0.017
0.097

' The dab arc annual values amaged wer the pcriodc indicated.
Data on energy generated t r k q unlcru otherwise indicated, f r m ~responses to qucstiomnitc or f r m (18).
The values d NRI, are for the monitned wockfcrcc. Values fcr the exposcd workforce can also bc cstinlatcd where data arc given f a both monitored nnd mmsurably e x p o d workers.
The n u m b s d wakas include utility workers and cmtrncta workers. Data cm n u m b of reactors, installed capacity and energy g~naatcdfrom 1181.
' Mditimal data from [BS, B6).The reported data arc lor utility workers. except for collective doses, which are f a utility and cmtracta wakcrs. Additional data have bccn reported m the exposure d abou! 30%40% of contractors [LZP2).
The numbas of wnkas and average doses tabulated have been atimated from the rcpated annual c o l l d v e doscs for the whole wakforce (i.e. utility wakas .and rmtrnctu workers), subjcct to the assumptim that the cxposurcs rcponed f aa fraction d thc m t r a c t a wakcrs are representative of the rmtracta workcrs as a whole. The avcragc dacs lo utility workas are significantly lower thmn thosc to cmtracta w a k n r . During thc 1980s the average annual dose l o mmitorcd
utility w a k c n was about 1 mSv and to mmitorcd cmlractas about 4 mSv, the carcliponding duses to measurably exposcd w u k a s were about 2 mSv and 7 mSv, rcspcctivcly.
fData indudc both utility wakcrs and contractor workas.
1 Dab on nwnbcrs of workers arc f r m IBS). Thc distribution ratios arc average8 for Swedish LWRs w a a l l rather than f a PWRa.
The data havc brca scale4 on the besir d cnergy generatai, from those rcptcd, which did n d wvn all PWRr in the USSR.
' Summary data 6om annual reporb of USNRC Data are u n m r a e d fcr the reporting d transient workas. The NK ratios arc for the monitored workforce and have bccn derived fran the ratios reported by [R2] f a the measurably cxpecd
worldacc. The distribution ratios arc n d repated formally by USNRClicmsccs. Thcy haw bccn estimated [RZ] as the m a n d t h c distributim ratios for individual doses of 10 and 20 mSv. This approximation will, i n general, cause the tabulated
distribution ratios to bc werestimatcs b m u x many occupational exposurc dorc distributions are log-normal.
Tl~lhac&ta . h d d be interpreted uilh n r c , particularly when wmparims are made bctwccn diffacnt pi04as Lhc w n t r i a indudcd in thc r u p d v c ~ummalionsm y drffer from w e p a i d to anotha. The dimibudon ratios arc averagesof those r e p a t 4 and the data on these are often much less wmpletc than data on the &a quantities.
Thcsc data are the sum d reported data above d e d to a-t
f a missing data; the n u m b s of monitored urnkers aod the collective dosa havc bccn scaled on thc basis ofthc tdal cncrgy p ~ e r a t c dby thc rccpectivc rtaaor type and that f a
the rcpated data. I n the abcncc d bcna data. thc vducs of the ratios hal5and SR19 avmgcd o m the reputed data, can be mnridaed indicative of worldwide Icvcls.
Data available arc avaagcs for LWRs as a whole and not rcpratcly for PWRI and BWRs.
" Dunng the early 198Ck administrative oorvtrainu wnc placed on energy grmeratlm by n u d u r means; as a coarequence, cdlcctivc dosa
unit rnagy generation are higher than they w d d haw o t h a u i x bcen.
Data are f a a iWGCR (all the 0th- entries i n the Table are for watercoded reactas); data for halsand SKIS are for measurably exposed wakar.
" Sum of reputed data, cxduding C z b c h o s l d a .
b t a induded f a dl cammerdal GCRs i n the Unitcd &ngbm, including Mapox and AGRs; data for the nrious types d GCRs diffn significantly and uc sumnuuiucd in Tablc 11.
The plant is used f a dudination.
' Thcrmd installed apaaty.
' F ~ d u d i n gthe USSRBR350, which is a desalination plant.
These data havc brm scaled on the basis d tdal energy genaatcd compared to that f a the rcpated data, which did n d covn all LWGRs i n the USSR.
" l h w data are f a the F a t St. Vrain prdotypc rcacta; there wnc n d enmgh data to allow a t i m t i n g waldwidc dares Gom other protdype ICTGHs.

'

'

'
'

?'nhle 91)ose distribution rntlos Tor nicas~~rably
cxposrd I.WR workcn In LIw Ilnllcd Slates[D2.K2jr

Poccnroje of uorkers recehGrg alnunl effcrl;~c~ri,'edose <hove speri/iul \wlues (NHE x 100)
Yerp

1973
1977
1981
1985
1989

1 mFv

5 m'iv

I0 mFv

I5 mSv

30 mSv

63
67
64

43

w

40

26

37
29
22

2.3
16
9.2

24
17
14
8.4
3.3

6.3
4.7
3.0
0.86
0.10

-57

55

Pnccmoge 01c d l e c r i ~ udare from m n u d i n d i ~ i d u ddares abor,c specfied ~'nlucs(aEx I OD)

1973
1977
1981
1965
1989

1d v

5 m'iv

I0 mSv

15 &I#

30 d

98
98
97

93
68
86

8s
76
71
60
43

71
60
52
39
19

30
25
18
6.4
0.90

60
70

%

94

v

Table 10
Collecllve eKcdive dose among five occupational groups of LWR workcn in the United States in 1987-1989(821

hfonirored w r k e r s(rhorrrMdr)

Ocrupniond group

Avmage rutntrol eficrire dose ro
monirord workers

Avcrage ~ n r r n collccrir~clefecriw

darca

W v )

(

m SV)
~

Mdntcnancc
l l a l t h physics
Operations
Engineering
Supcnisory

53.8

123
10.4
10.4
4.56

4.9
4.5
3.2
3.1
2.5

263 (66.4)
558 (14)33.6 (9)32.5 (8)11.4 (3)

Tdal

91.7

4.3

396 (loo)C" The permtagc of the taal collcaiw dose is given in parcnthc~u.

I

-

d

Table 11
Exposures to workers in difirent types of CCRs in h e United Kir~gdoni

A ~ w o g emnval effeclitr date per moniraed u o r k n

DP of

WV)

A & w o s c normalired r d l e c r i u elJeclive dare[man Sv (GH' a)-']GCR

Mapox S P C a
Mapox S W
M a p x CPV '

*'

AGR '

Auerage '*'1975-1979

1980.1 984

1985-1989

8.3

3.0
1.2

9.2
1.7
0.63

6.2
1.1
0.15
0.18

29

1.5

0.77

1975-1979

1980-1984 ,

1985-1989

27
1.Y

31
9.4
1.2

27
5.8
0.57
1.1

7.2

6.0

3.2

7.0

Aral-gcnaadm Mapar rcsaorr with ateel pressure vessels (SWrk used for dcrmcc purpora and generatian d clcctricd energy.
Sad-gcaerrticm commerdd Mapox reactors with SPVr [W].
Average valus for r a d o n opaated in Eoglrad and W d a o d y [M8].
Third-paation M a p x r a d a r with ccmaac prearurt v d r (CWs).
Average values f a d l typa d G C R s in the United kngdan.

T ~ b l e12
Summary or worldwide e x p u r c s o t rcnclors a

Rmcra

W

Atwa,yn M a a of

re~crors

Atwageinrrallal
capociryAtwage m u d(GV(CW 0 )

0=W'
gataorut*

Mmiioredw k n sAtwage m u d
c o l l a r i w cfuritc
dasc(rhauonds)( m n sfl

C d l a r i v r &ecriw
dose pa unit
0crgy gCI#Ueded[mnn Sv (G W a).']220 (37%)8.1

280 (46%)

IS
11

Atwage m u d
f l e c t i u d m c ro
W~CS
m0~1acd

A v a o t e mud
d u e ofA w a g e mud
d u e 01

( ~ v IN R *~ ~

-15

0.085
0.066
0.12

056
0.6 1
0.7 1

1975-1979
F'WR

BWR
lIWR
LWGR fGCR
HTGR r

78
5I
12
12
40
1

49
29
5.0
5.9
9.1
0.33

27 (49%)15 (ng3.1 (6%)
4.4 (8%)5.4 (10%)0.03

63 (43%)59 (39%)6.8 (5%)5.4 (4%)13 (9%)
1.2

Tnal

190

99

55

150

32 (5%)
36 (6%)
36 (6%)
0.03

8.2
6.6
0.90

3.5
4.7
4.8
6.6
2.8
0.03

600

II

4.1

0.078

0.60

0.48
055
0.58

0.020

1980-1984
PWR
BWR

140
65

98
44

HWR

19

9.0

LWGR
GCR
FBR
tnGR

16
41
4
1
280

Tall

140 (47%)
I00 (34%)
14 (5%)
9.8 (3%)25 (8%)
1.4
1.2

450 (43%)450 (43%)
46 (4%)
62 (6%)
34 (3%)
0.6 1
0.02

8.0
18
8.0
8.3
5.8
1.2
0.24

3.1
45
3.2
6.4
1.4
0.44
0.01

0.06 1
0.079
0.073

10
10
1.0
0.33

56 (55%)25 (25%)5.7 (6%)
7.5 (7%)
6.0 (6%)
0.50
0.07

170

100

290

l
W

10

35

0.069

0.52

0.034
0.m
0.066

0.32
0.36
0.48

0.0CUZ

0.01

0.033

0.34

0.00s

1985-1989
PWR
BWR

HWR
LWGR
GCR
FBR '
lIMiR

'

Total

I

180
67
14
15
13
1.9
0.33

120 (65%)42 (23%)10 (5%)
10 (5%)
7.4 (4%)0.73
0.03

230 (53%)
140 (33%)
18 (4%)
13 (3%)
31 (7%)
2.I
0.78

500 (46%)33l(30%)60 (6%)
170 (16%)24 (2%)
1 .O
0.10

4.3
7.9
6.2
17
3.2
1.4
3.3

2.2
2.4
3.4
I3
0.75
0.48
0.12

400

290

190

4.W

l ID0

5.9

25

220
84
26
20
44

5

The data are annual \dues arnagcd ovcr the respective five-year pcricds and xe, in gmaal. qwned to two sipificant figran.
Valun io parrnthaa are IIK p c m n t n p conaibutims, rounded 10 the n n r a t per an( made by thal r n a a lypc to IIK
told energy p a a t e d .
Vdun in pnrenthncs are IIK pcrantap conhibucims, rounded to the n a a ! p a an( made by that reactor type to the total numba d monitaed workers.
Vnlua in parcnthexs arc the perantake cmtributims, rnunded to the nearat per ant, made by that rnclor type to h e total cdlccGve c f f d i v e dose.
l l ~ valueseol h e ratioq NitI5and SRIy are anly indicative of worldwide levels. Data on t h w ratias are rlot available lroul all counlrin, and lllc labulslrd vnlucs arc n v c r a p c f tl~osch t a reported.
Avaages of 1978 sod 1979 tabulated and assumed rcprescntntive of whole p a i d in alneaoc of data for cnrlicr years.
lnduda data f a Fm St. Vrain mly; insuftiacnt data to cxtrnpdate to a h a prdotypc KTGRr.
Avmapr of 1985-1987tabulated and assumed rcpcscrrhbvc of whole p a i d i n absence of data foc latn ycars in period
Avmakcd ova 1986. 1987 and 1989,as data f a dha years in p a i d wae unavailable.

UNSCEAR 1993 REPORT

466

$

$
9

x
sz
FI--

a ?3

o o o

xa

a 2 -g
8X0

5%

OItlN

5%

0 0

093

52s

0 0

z0 0 ~6 E

0 0 0

p. 3 PN e t -

vi"iFiaia

3 4b ' 3P JpC)NN

5 . ; p aB* ,

3Y

549

??I

Pp

53

-

28%

n,,

$39

213

2
45
FI--

2zz

$ 9

23%

o m ,
m,,

$5;

$J&

222

d k 6 8 a g

n ?-

322

.-

B.$
3i

a

5.8 p 8 4,

2

3

a88

d k e gL$ k

a
1

i
2

c

- m m

0 o - z

-$

w m

2:

-

g:z

3
?
$

6;

Y)

~ $ 5

4

-

2

3-5

0 0 - 3

- 0 0

w w

w e t -

U

- N N

n n -

n w t -

;
v
&

2;:

.3

?

Y

0

2
2
=3

2

$kg!!

3

,,,

2 : ' S8O %

$!;!

23:

-1090 ' 19,? 2 42t l 9 r e9 ~

l N V

0 0 0

--z

a > D

333

N N N

U-

ii

4

a
zc
9 9 9

3
.s

-B

0 0 0

5

Y

h.

3s'
686

b

-2 3

-t

L

3

cy

E8
1[ $
n

$

X

3

b W Q

1

[at

LJ

.

-

9

$ j5

a%$?
.1

3---

L

i a ,.,
B E $ EEE$?)

h~e & &Za A ~A Ag g- $l 5g
li

-

*

dm,,

S 7$ I' 7 ~ga A5 d5AE
y * d ~ :,n-i - - >-5-S E E 3.3az 6 _ $ % -E$$!
E

ANNEX D: OCCUPAIIONAL RADIATION EXPOSURES

.i!

ei'

Fizz!

4.
.r

a

9

2

3;s

4

*a9

.Fr

0 0 0

Z

2

r

g

=?=?s

e

t

a z'
"jpa;:

o
n
2
23
vl

3 Bk5[.sg
lJ

.+

$

.;

'

$.ja$,

B k " $ ,is
_

z-2

y

222

32s‘ f

*

3.=

z?~

a *
.$S

f

O - -

a
2

=:
2

*, p

-3sa

6;43-1;m

*

y q q

r

,

ass

alpIzg
t

6-

94

686

I?

Fa 1

L,

.*

L
m
$ E E
0Vi;ldbi

;EEE

:

467

Tahlc 14
Exposures froni coninicrclirl nurlcttr fucl cycle research and dcvcloprncnl a
Data from UNSCEAH S 1 1 r v c y o j Occupa~ionalExposure unless othern*isc indicaled

Average mnuol r f i c t i t u d a ~ c
AnnualCowirycdlctrit,~(lhouMdc)

Measurably
a~areduvrbs(rhoytMdcJ

Argentina
1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

0.2
0.2
0.13

0.01
0.01
0.018

Canada1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

4.49
4.55
4.20

Olilc
1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

0.02
0.03
0.05

Qechalda
1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

0.36
0.34
0.36

~d

Monitored~orkasmaFinland f
1975-1979
1980-1984
1985.1989

P a
mon iforrd
nnrrtaDubiburion rario

Per
NRl5

(nS18)

mca~urahlyn ~ a r d
nvrkcr(~SII)

0.2
0.17
0.07

1.0
0.85
0.54

20
17
3.9

0
0
0

0
0
0

3.94
4.30
3.97

13.5
11.1
6.1

295
243
1.45

3.36
257
1.54

0.055
0.043
0.026

0.44
0.41
0.40

0.02
0.03
0.05

0.04
0.05
0x6

241
200
1.23

241
200
1.23

0.013
0.032
0.017

0.031
0.11
0.OSS

0.17
0.18
0.13

0.48
0.52
0.38

0
0
0

0
0
0

e~qccrhedare( m m 511)

0.01
0.00
0.01

0.01
0.01
0.05

1.58
258
3.47

3.19
286
248

9.32
8.47
6.14

0.44
0.40
0.31

3.80
3.W
1.15

5.37
3.64
0.69

0
0
0.25

fiance1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

20.9
21 .O
19.6

292
297
247

0.005
0.004
0.002

Germany, Fai. Rep. of

1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

0.71
0.84
1.66

Ilunguy
1971-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

0.12
0.13
0.12

0.01
0.01
0.01

0.01
0.00
0.01

0.06
0.03
0.07

1.49
0.83
0.96

0
0
0

0
0
0

India
1980-1984
1985-1989

278
3.62

197
238

636
4.65

229
1.28

3.23
1.96

0.034
0.010

0.36
0.18

Indmeaia '1975-1979
1980.1984
1985-1989

0.02
0.03
0.10

0.04
0.10

0.09
0.10
0.W

3.87
3.10
0.95

2 72
0.95

0.13
0.16
O.O?J

0.37
0.72
0.47

Italy
1985-1989

244

0.45

0.26

0.11

0.58

0.000

0.012

lapsn 1
1978-1979
1960-1984
1985-1989

4.12
7.01
9.18

2U
7.72

0.52
1.14
0.84

0.53
0.58

0.77
0.76

7.97

0.002
0.017
0.008

'

Nouay
1980-1984
1985-1989

0.68
0.76

0.14
0.15

3.76
3.8R

0.W

0.012

0.34
0.35

ANNEX D: OCCUPAllONAI. KADIA17ON EXPOSURE5

469

Table 1 4 ( c o n l i n u e d )Aterage m w o l flcctitr date

Cowrg,
Md

Monitored
nnrkcrs(thourad)hfcnrurably
aposednvrkcrs(IJIOUCM~~J

0.25
0.79
0.99

0.14
0.15

paid

AMW/
cdleclite
cjlecrita

!'a

Pc~

monitored
xvrka

menrwablydate

a p e dworkerDbrribution ratio

NRl~(mm St,)

@S\J

(d)

0.12
0.50
0.65

0.46
0.64
0.65

3.58

0.25
0.24
0.23

0.12
0.08
0.07

0.46
0.33
0.34

0.004
0.004
0

8.49
9.00

37.4
28.2
24.0

4.40
3.13
2.55

0.085
0.050
0.033

33.0
24.2
19.2

1.09
0.84
0.60

63.4
75.5
62.6

96.3
89.4
66.0

1.52
1.18
0.80

120
130
130

170
150
100

1.4
1.1
0.82

=IS

Republic d Korea

1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

4.36

0.004
0.007
0.009

South Africa

1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

0.065
0.090
0

United Kingdan "1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

9.40

United States "1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1969

30.3
28.8
31.7

14.8
12.7
11.9

2.24
1.90
1.61

Tdal of reported data

1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1969

0.035
O.M1
0.011

0.42
0.39
0.30

World p1975-1979
1980-1964
1985-1989
"

'

'
g

1

'
"

O

*

Thc data arc annual values averaged o v a the indicatd periods.
Intended to be cxpoaurcs dircdly attributaMe to research and dcvclopmcnt solely for the commercial nuclear fuel cyde. Bccausc d thc u a y data arc colleaed.
there may be wnbibulions Erom othcr activities, partial m v m g c a olhc inhanogendtier.
The d u e s of M1,$ arc f a h e monitored urorkforee. V a i u a f a the c x p d worldorcc can also be estimated where data arc given for b a h monitored andmeasurably cxpoMd workers.
adidties carried out by Ontario llydro and AECL; for 1975-1987,h e data contain a component arising hom isotope prcduaion, u ~ c hData arc for r-rch
was thm undertaken by AEU.
Includes data for fucl research. a research reactor and radioisotope production.
Comprises only personnel working at m e research reactor.
Comprises only workers at research and prototype reactors.
hcludcs m l y workers employed at the research reactor of the Atanif Energy Institute; some other nuclear fuel cycle research may be carried out at o t h a
research and university institutes.
Compriseh data for workus at research reactors.
Comprises exponrres of workas at test and research rcadas. the nuclear ship, ATR, critical assemblies, and at research facilities f a nuclear fuel mataials.
Comprises only umrkcrs at the Institute &Energy TcEhoology.
Comprises exposvres d w a k e n at TRlGA research r e a d a s and d h a rue1 research facilities.
Additional data frorn [W4]. Most of the exposures arise at AE4 Techndogy (formerly UKAEA) sites, but the contribution from cther aganizations conducting
research and development associated with thc nuclear fuel cyde are also included. Almort half the collunive dosc arises frorn the openlion of the prototype
SGIIH'R.
These data are the sum d expcsures of p a m d a r catcgaies d employeer and contractors of thc United States Depanment d Energy; h e y ~ n d u d ethe toul
cxpcsurcs attributed by USDOE to fusion and waste managcmmt and processing and m e half of the cxpcuwes attributed to each of the following categoria:
reactors, general research, f i l l y maintenance, ruppat and aher. T h i s allocation exercise is an attempt to uparatcout the nuclear fucl cycle component f r a n
Ihe broads range of research activities undertaken by USDOE. Some categories of data were excluded from the summadm because they were n d ansidered
relevant to nuclear fuel cycle research (c.g. weapons fabrication) or were already included in another UNSCEAR eategay (e.g. accelerators). The tabulated
dmes are likely robe an werestimatc d the doses from research that can properly be attributed to the commercial nuclear fuel cycle.
T h u e dau should be interpreted with care, particularly uhcn making comparisons betwccn different pcriada. as the countries induded in the respeaivesummatioat may differ f r a n one period to another. Thc distribution raticx are averages of those rcportd, and thc data on these arc atten much I s complete
thnn data on the otha quantities.
In the absence of better data w l u a of the ratios NRIJ and SRIJ for the sum of the reputed data can be cowidcrcd indicative of world~+dcIcvels.

UNSCEAR 1993 REPORT

470

Table 15
Pmdlcted curnulalive doses for radlatlon workers In Canada

is31
Cwnulnrive
flcctiw dnse (m'iv)

Nwnba ofJob rlarsijicarion

monkororad
uwrkersMcan

M d i ~

240
1371
1132
228
564

269

Co~lruction
I\mninirtradodsdtyljani~aial
General maintenancellcalth physirs
SdentifiJpofusiod slaff

179
1008
1339
1092
60
1454

459
456
454
268
266
240
222
130
120
116
106
89

Tcial

9391

242

109

Uraium minm

5429

138

90

h'udur fud p o t a r o r r

115

166

114

Industrial radiopaphem

2076

296

131

Nudur power station uorkerr
Olanid md radistim cmtrd

Kuaa opcrationr
M c d u n i a l maintenanceFud hadling
6 n h d technicians
Training I ~ I T

44

Elcarid main~amcc

321
283
152
173
127
115
61
61
67
61
54

(Irmulativc dac wn an assumed working lifetime of40 ycarr.

Table 16
Dktributlon of cumulative doses to measurably exposed workers a1 LWRF in the Unlted States who krmlnaled
employment between 1977 and 1989

[R21
D w a i m ofe$o~mfA w a g c ca-ca
flecritr dare

bcw4

Id4

RMJC

A~walc

1-3
3-5
5-10
10-15
15.20
rZ5

1.9
4.0
7.2
120
16.6
21.8
40.9

A1l

3.3

23-25

Pacenragc of workers with r d a i u c
flcrribr dose above specifid valuer
5 mciv

I 0 msv

20 m'iv

50 mSv

100mSv

2 0 0 mSI*

500m'iv

1.02
1.63
25.7
43.6
SB.0
117
74

40.8
48.9
60.4
68.0
71.9
81.3
55.4

295
37.8
50.2
58.5
626
R I
47.5

10.6
17.9
29.3
39.2
4.4
59.5
35.9

4.0
18.9
28.2
33.4
51.8
30.4

0.29
20
7.1
13.9
18.8
37.4
20.4

0
0.07
0.89
3.6
7.1
19.9
12.2

0
0.01
0.01
0.09
0.45
3.1
28

14.4

421

31.5

13.7

7.7

27

0.51

0.02

9.4

ANNM D: OCCUPATlONAL RADIATION EXPOSURES

47 1

Table 17
Churactcrlstlcs of the dosc dlstrlhuUons for monitored workers at the Calvert CiilTs nclcle~rpower plant In the
United Shies
lGll

I'mnmctcrs

Numba of workers
Mean cumulative dose (mSv)
Pacentage d w a k a suith 8,> SO mSv
Pacatage d w a h suilh E, > 100 mSv
Paccotagc d w a k a suith E, > XMJ mSv"

Conberl wakrrs

Urility waters

Dwarion of unploynrcnr @cars)

Dwation of cmployrnent &cars)

4

1-5

5-10

10-1s

>IS

<I

1 -

5-10

10-15

>IS

1347
6.5

1434

946
57

146
78

26

124

1972
3.4

1691
12

649
28

203

22

37

7
61 "

0.76

14

42

48

65

0.04

6.1

19

26

9'

0.53

3.8

23

31

50

0.04

1.6

6.1

9.9

29 '

0.23

0

4.1

11

19

0

0.6

0.6

20

0'

Since h e ertimata arc based cn only x v a uurkcrq the statistical dgnitieana is very weak.

Tnblc 18
Number of workers and cumulaUve doses at the Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant In the Unitrd States[GI1
Number of monitorai uvrktrs 'Utiliry workas

Job rolegay

Main~aanceOperation
Hcal~hphysics
Supcrvisay
Engincaing

All ategoria
Rounded to huo sifificmt tigura.
To rnasurably upaed w a h s .

PIMI

Non-plant

2300
400
110
90
110

lo00
250
220
53
150
4960

Meon cumdatirr clfecrivc dote ( d v )Conrracr
wrbs

2000
440
710
140
590
4000

Utility w a k a s
Plnnt

Non-plmr

13
13
47
29
17

13
4
4

7
7
13

Comacr
wrkas
19
16
71
25

26
31

472

UNSCEhR 1993 REPORT

Table 19
Average cumulative effcctivc dmcs (mSv) Imm external n~dlaUonto workers e l Sellnficltl
1~91

ANNEX D: OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION EXWSURES

473

Tnblc 20
C u n ~ u l ~ i l i vdmcs
etu workers nl industrial and mscarch cs(ablishn~cn(s In the Unllcd Kingdon1[K51
Number of
Dimibution
basis

unrkes(rhorrrMdr)

Collccrivc
flcc'crrivc

Mean rumularirv
cffcrrirv d m

d m

I&

(

m SI,)~

Number of indi~Uualrin
rumula~ivccffcrri~r dare rongc ( r h m o n d r )cI0 d v

10-50 d v

50-100 MYV>I00 mSv

Dialtihution by silc (cmploycr)

BNn

MOD-AWE
MOD-DRPS
Nudur E l d c
LWA

T da

25.6
10.2
27.2
8.2
23.9

1805
85
38 1
198
730

70.4
8.3
14.0
24.1
30.5

10.2
8.6
20.7
4.5
14.9

7.46
1.25
4.64
253
5.46

3.08
0.24
1.02
0.7
1.63

4.85
0.15
0.88
0.48
1.91

95.2

3198

53.6

56.9

21.3

6.67

8.n

Distribution by year of birth

Mac 1915
19l5-1919
1920-1924
192.5-1929
1933-1934
1935-1939
1940-1944
1945-1949
1950-1954
1955-1959
1960-1964
1965-1969
A f t u 1970

6.40
3.46
6.36
7.30
7.98
8.29
8.97
11.1
10.9
12.7
9.14
272
0.01

361
276
437
456
J06
309
259
26 1
211
156
59
7.9
0.0

56.4
79.7
68.8
62.4
50.8
373
28.9
23.6
19.4
12.3
6.5
29
0.1

3.33
1.47
277
3.30
3.86
4.43
5.32
7.09
7.38
9.73
7.75
251
0.01

1.53
0.89
1.71
1.95
218
230
239
264
2 34
209
1.13
0.19
0

0.57
0.38
0.69
0.83
0.84
0.73
0.61
0.68
0.61
0.53
0.20
0.01
0

0.97
0.72
1.20
1.23
1-10
0.83
0.66
0.67
0.52
0.31
0.06
0.00
0

Total '

95.2

3198

33.6

58.9

21.3

6.67

8.27

0.001
0.41
1.55
3.02
2 85
293
3.28
4.52
0.35

0
0.23
0.68
1.30
1.00
0.79
0.90
1.31
0.42
0.06

0
0.Z
L64
211
1.32
0.90
1.00
0.93
0.12
0.00

21.3

6.67

8.27

D i ~ l r i b u t i o nby year in which radiation w o r k hegan

0

17.9
7.39

0.0
83.6
664
752
460
333
3 3
399
1 3
19.2

35.0
50.9
112
69.8
43.3
39.9
35.8
17.7
7.0
26

0.76
205
4.34
5.47
3.72
4.98
15.7
14.9
6.98

95.2

3200

33.6

58.9

1940-1944
1945-1949
1950-1954
1955-1959
1960-1964
1965-19691970-1974
1975-1979
1960-1984
A f l u 1985

0.00
1.64
5.92
10.8
10.6
8.34
10.2

Tacll

22.5

" Minor i n m n s i s t m d a in told$arc duc l o r d i n g d values after summatim.

244

UNSCEAR 1993 REPORT

474

Tuble 21
Worldwide average unnuel exposures from the commerclel nuclenr fuel cyclc a

Practice

Monitored
workers

Atwagc manual

cdlectivc
flecriw d m e

A w a ~~
enunl
Cffccritu dare tonwnirorcd wwrkers(thour~df)(m M Sv)(~TL.)

Disnibutian ratio*

N R c~ ~=IS

1975-1979
Mning '
Mlling d'h i h c n t
Fud hbricatim
R u d o r operation
Reproccaring f
Ruorch

240
12
11
150
7.2
120

1300
120
5.3
36
600
53
170

5.5
10
0.5
1.8
4.1
7.3
1.4

0.37
0.41
0
0.012
0.078 8
0.16
0.035

0.69
0.76
0
0.38 h
0.60 '
0.29 f
0.42

560

2300

4.1

0.M

0.63

u)

Tdal

1980-1985
Mmning 'Mlling 'Enrichment
Fud f a b r i a t i a
Rcador operation~eproccarin~fRaearch
Tdd

310
23
4.3
21
290
9.4
130

1600
120
0.8
21
lo00
47
150

5.1
5.1
0.2
1.0
3.6
4.9
1.1

0.30
0.30
0
0.002
0.069 r
0.10
0.021

0.61
0.64
0
0.11
0.52
0.11 f
0.39

800

Mo

3.7

0.16

0.55

0.25
0.18
0
0.002
0.033 r0.064
0.01 1

0.52
0.43
0
0.019
0.34 '
0.12 f
0.30

0.10

0.42

'

1985-1989
Mning
Milling d r
Enrichrncnt
Fud fabticatia
Reactor operadon
Repr-ing
Raarch

Tdll

260
18
5.0
28
430
12
130

1100
120
0.4
22
1 100

36
100

4.4
6.3
0.08
0.78
25
3.0
0.82

680

2500

29

l h c data arc annual d m averaged o v a the indicated pcriodr.
Thc d u c s of the distritutirn ratios should mly bc m r i d a c d indicative of uwldwidc Icvels as thcy arc b a d , in general, on d a b from far fcwa countria
than the d a b for numba of workna and cdlcaive dosa.
This ratio applies to monitored workers.
for purpo.a d h a than the canmcrdd nudcar fuel cydc.
Alw indudcs uranium obtained a
The data f a mining and milling (except f a ,NR and SR) h m been modified frm thwc reportad by using a cooversion f a d a d 5.6 mSv WUI-'
f a exposure
to radm daughtas (d.10 mSv WLM-' wed in thc rcpaccd data). 'lhc ratios hal5and SRIJ arc averages of reported data in which, in gcaaal. Ihc pc\iourly
wed coavrnim f a d a has becD applied. l h c labulated ratios u c ~ U rtricrly
I
for a value o f E runcwhat 1 6 s than 15 rnSv. Thc r c l a t i c d p bawccn the reported
md rc\ilcd data ir n u linur b t c l w c expahurc crmn fran a h a than JIMinhalatim d radon progeny.
Alw i n d u d a rhe repromring d r u n e Fuel From the defence n u d u r fud cyde.
Dm not indude data f a LWGRs, FBRs and H E R S .
Ratio applia to LWR mid tlWR fucla only, as data for &a fuclr arc not arailablc; the ratio would be smaller iC all hrcl cypa w a c induded.
Dm not include data for GCRs, LWGRs, FBRs and 1ITGRa.
~~

ANNEX D: OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION EXPOSURES

Tnble 22
Summary of normallzed collective effcctlve do.-475

Tor the fuel cycle btis~don speclflc reactor types

NormolLad r d l c c r i ~ vcffecrirv date [mnn Sv (GW a)-']Pracrkc

GCRs

LR'Rs
IIU'Rr

P117Lr

A I1

6 U'Rs

Magnm

AGRs

1975-1979
5.7
0.52
0.02
0.69
8.1
0.7
1

5.7
0.52
0.02
0.69
18
0.70
1

5.7
0.52
0.02
0.69
12
0.70
1

4.7
0.42
0
0.20
11

8.5
0.78
0
0.71
7.8
17

1

1

5.7
0.52
0.02
0.33
1.1 '
0.75
1

Total without reprocessing

16

26

20

17

19

9.4

Total uith rcpr-ing

17

27

21

36

8.7

5.5
0.41
0.02
0.31
1.1 '
0.75
1

MiningMilling
Enrictrment
Fud fabricatim
Rcaaor opaation
Reprocessing
Research

1980-1984
5.5
0.41
0.02
0.19
8.0
0.75
1

5.5
0.41
0.02
0.19
18
0.75
1

5.5
0.41
0.02
0.19
11
0.75
1

4.3
0.33
0
0.16
8.0
1

8.3
0.61
0
0.81
8.0
12
1

Tdpl without reprmessing

15

2S

18

14

19

8.4

T a l with rcpr-ing

16

26

19

31

9.1

4.3
0.44
0.02
0.45
1.1
0.65
1

MiningMilling
Enrichment 'Fud fabrication
Rcador operation
Reprccessing
Reaearch

1985-1989
4.3
0.44
0.02
0.07
4.3
0.65
1

4.3
0.44
0.02
0.07
7.9
0.65
1

4.3
0.44
0.02
0.07
5.2
0.65
1

3.6
0.36
0
0.22
6.2
1

6.7
0.66
0
1.4
6.7
11
1

Total withorn reprmessing

10

14

11

11

16

7.5

Taal with rcpr-ing

11

15

12

27

8.1

MiningMilling
Enrichment 'Fud fabrication
R a d o r operation
Reprocessing
Research"''Ihe dab arc ~nnualvalues averaged o v a the indicated periods and are, in general, quoted to two significant figures.
The data for mining and milling ( e x ~ p fort NR and SR) h a w bccn modified han those reputed by using a ~ v e r r i o nf a a a of 5.6 mSv wLM-' for exposure
toradm daughtas (cf. 10 mSv WLM" used in the reported data). Thc ratios NRlS aod SRIS arc avaagw of reported data in which, in gcncml, the p r c v i w l yused conversion factor has been applied. She tabulated ratios are thus strictly for a value d E a m n u h a t less than 15 mSv. The relationdrip between the reported
and revised data is not linear because expasure occurs from other than j u t inhalation of radon progeny.
Robably ao overestimate, as the collcctivc doses Fran whi& the nmmalizcd d u n were derived m l a i n a mntribution From enrichment for purposes otherhthe m m m a d a l nudear fuel cycle.
This rorrnded approximate value has bem estimated by associating the collcdivc d m received from rcswrch camed cut in the period 1955-1969 with the rum
d the m a g y generated in the same period plus that likely to be generated by cxistingreadors over the d e n 30 years. The vaiuc is judged to be an wercstimatc.
The value for 1985-1989 was assigned in the absence d other data.

UNSCEAR 1993 REPOW

476'I'uble 23
Exposures to workem fronl defence aclivitles a
Data from UNSCFAR S u m y of Occupalional Erposures

Awragc ~ n u a el f i r r i ~ r
dmr

Counhy

Nwnba

Md

o/

pa

.hips

*

Monirorad
workers[fhour~dr)

Me~ruably

apucd
*arks
[fhowMdr)

Annualcdlecrhc
flccriu
dase
(

m st)
~

~nnwl
rdlerrhr
flccritrdarc

pshipb( ~ I MSt,)

Dtfribution ratio

PaPa
monitored

mcarwlrbly-adworkerworker

(msv)

(ms)

hatJ

sIJ

0
0.000200
00Weapons Irhricrtion and msocisted uc+ivitits

United K n g d a n

1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

Nor
applirnblc

3.14
3.71
4.20

Nor

17.6
18.3
15.9

295
3.56
246

Nor
opplicoble

0.94
0.96
0.59

10.9
11.7
11.9

Nor
appliclrble

0.62
0.62
0.75

13.8
15.2
14.4

Nor
applklrble

0.67
0.68
0.71

United S h t u

1975-1979
1980-1964
1985-3989

appfkabir

9.31
8.26
7.9

1.17
1.41
1.58

TUd f
1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

Nor
applicable

20.8
225
20.1

Nuclear s h i p and their suppart facililies

On-bcerd p a ~ n dUnited K n @ m I

1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

15
16
19

1.81
0.89
0.86

5.89
230
1.44

0.39
0.14
0.075

3.26
257
1.68

0.025
0.018
0.01 1

120
136
148

20.1
26.2
34.1

229
163
15.4

0.19
0.12
0.10

1.14
0.62
0.45

0.017

135
153
167

21.9
27.1
34.9

28.8
18.6
16.8

0.21
0.12
0.10

1.31
0.68
0.48

United St.to

1975-1979
1980-1964
1985-1989

0.002
0.001

'
'

Tad f
1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

S h e - h d pawnnd

United Kin-

1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

g

15
16
19

4.55
5.54
5.39

20.4
17.8
10.2

1.4
1.1
0.53

4.48
3.21
1.89

0.088
0.056
0.021

120
136
148

15.1
19.1

223

43.0
29.5
30.2

0.36
0.22
0.21

284
1.54
1.36

0.096
0.027
0.029

135
IS3
167

19.7
24.7
27.7

63.4
473
40.4

0.47
0.31
0.24

3.22
1.92
1.46

1.8
1.2
0.61

4.13
3.11
1.86

United States

1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

T&

'

'
'

f

1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

All perronncl
United K i n d a n

1975-1979
1980-1984
19U-1989

15
16
19

6.36
6.43
6.24

263
20.1
11.6

0.07 1
0.050
0.019
A

Atwage ~ n u a rffecrh.cl
dareCountryandNwnhr

pcriadshipo/Moni~ored
nwrkcrs(th01~wd.r)

Mennuably
upad

uwrbs
(rhour4J

Annualcdlecrivc
cferrhed m( m Sv)~Annwl
cdleerirw
c/fcclhu d c w( m Sv)~Pcr
monirorrd
uwrkcr
(fis)

per

Pcr
mcatroably
upareduwrk

Dkiburion ratio

NR,,

SJ5

United Stntu

1975-1979
1960-1984
1985-1989

120
136
I48

35.2
45.3
56.4

65.9
45.8
45.6

0.55
0.34
0.31

1.87
1.01
0.81

135
153
167

41.6
51.8
626

92.2
65.8
57.3

0.69
0.43
0.34

222

35.8
26.3
14.6

h'or
npplicnblc

3.00
206
1.19

101
56
69

Nor
applicable

1.09
0.54
0.60

137
82
84

Nor
npplicable

0.051 '
0.012
0.012 ':T O I ~f

1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

1.n
0.91

All dcfcncr m d v i t i a
United Kingdoin j'

1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

h'or
nppiicablc

11.9
128
122

h'or
opplicablc

92.5
101
115

Nor
cpplirable

104
116
127

0.01
0.028
0.010

United Slala

1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

55.8
615
73.0

.

1.81
0.91
0.95

Tad f
1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

'
f

'
1

1.3
0.71
0.66

The data u c annual valurs avcrngcd o v a thc indicated periods.
This column applies only for entries unda *Nudear ships md their suppat facilities'.
Data born [Dl].The adud cffcdivc doses arc typically l a s than 50% d the tabulated d u c j which arc thmc rncasured by Ihc dasimclcr.
?he n l u c for this period arc averages f a the year 1979.
Indudea cxpawes d cmployw of the United Stata Dcpartmcnt of b u g y and ccntractas cngagcd in wcapms fabrication md testing Bcforc 1987 the
cdlcaive d m w a c cvnluatd as the sum ol the products of the number of workers and thc m a n dasc in each dose i n t a n l ; rukqucntly, aaual individual
daes w a c used in the summation.
Valuer derived rs the rum a weighted avcngc d the five-year a v c n g d data for the United Kingdom and the United Stales.
Data horn [Dl].The data u c rcporced for on-board and shore pcnmnd. Shore-tared pascand may comprise bah civilian d mvia paroanel. Since theearly 198% Qrirnctas have bccn issued d y to m-board p e r m e l who necd it during thdr duties at sca and to those designated 1s d.uiGcd persons mahac.
Data from pl.M9 and MIO]: thc data rcpatcd f a fltcc and shipyard p m d arc categorized h a c undcr 'm-kurd* and 'rhuc baccd' nawithsmnding h e
Is& of dirca cguivalcnce bchwcn the ruptaivc catcgnia.
Tnc d u c r arc for the froaim of thc woLfotcc rcccibing annual dmes in cxccsl d 10 mSv.
Data from [Dl],induding cxposurcs f r m 111 defence aciibities.

Tnble 24
Dblribulion of cumuluUve doses fmm dcrence acUvltics In the Uriltcd Kltlgtlom and In Ule ll~lllcdS h t c s

Cumulorhr cffccrhadasc (mSv)d

I

Pcrcrnro~cof workJorce
Nuclear weapons prnwatnme

Unitd %;logdm 1989
0- SO
50-100100.200
200.300
300-400
400-500

>500

%.4
234
0.90
0.25
0.05
0.03
0

Nmber of pcncmnel in 1989 '

3843
h'uclcar s h i p (optmtion and rupporl)

Lmited Kingdrm. 1989

On baud

On shore

Tatl

>500

98.0
1.8
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

83.0
9.2
5.2
1.8
0.57
0.18
0.03

87.4
7.0
3.7
1.3
0.40
0.13
0.02

Numba of pcncnncl in 1989

1929

4627

6556

99.67
0.32
401
0
0
0
0

88.85
6.99
2 23
1.12
0.47
0.26
0.08
~0.01

0-SO
M-100
100-200
200-300
300-400
400-500

Unitd .%la.1991
0- 50
50.100100-150150-200

200-250250-300
-~500

2.500
Dclcncr w ~ r k c n

United Kiagdrm. 1989
0- 50
50-100100-200
200-300

300400400-500>500

Senicc perscanel

CSvilian pcrmnnel

Told

97.3
2.2
0.3 1
0.03
0.07
0.08
0.001

85.7
7.4
4.4
1.6
054
0.25
0.04

89.7
5.6
3.0
1.1
0.37
0.19
0.03

* h d u d a about 95% d !he d a c e invdved with the n u d c u weapons p o g a m m e .

Table 25
Cumulative doses in dose rcgistrlw for defence workers in the Zlnltcd Klngdonl

Parmtage of n w k f a r c
Clom~lan'w
qyertiu
dasc

Ccnird l n d a ar Dosc InJwmafion
U'mparr p r o g r m C

N a t i a r d Rcgisqv on Rodiariar W k u - s

O r h a dcjauc*

All d a t a 'Dose lo age 30 yearsf

A 11
W r l

'

'

'

dcjauccmployecr

Wmparspropme '0thdefence
aaiv;riu

9.6
127
10.7
11.7
20.1
16.5
11.8
4.5
1.7
0.74
0

20.0
20.9
126
14.1
16.4
8.3
5.2
1.6
0.58
0.22
0.01

18.7
33.0
16.7
14.9
11.9
3.2
1.2
0.27
0.W
0.02
0.01

37.7
25.5
11.5
9.9
8.4
3.8
2.2
0.67
0.26
0.12
0.03

33.1

61.6

27.3
128
11.1
9.2
3.6
1.9
0.n
0.22
0.09
0.03

21.4
8.4
5.3
2.4
0.50
0.18
0.05
0
0.01
0.0 1

61.0
19.9
7.5
5.5
3.8
1.4
0.65
0.14
0.02
0.0 1
0.02

61.2
20.2
7.7
5.4
35
1.2
053
0.12
0.01
0.01
0.01

2490

2157

8948

10278

32523

42810

10278

32523

428 10

18.3

58.1

29.0

13.0

14.5

14.1

3.5

5.3

4.9

Employcu

Conaocr
W Q ~ S

Employcu~maarr
n w k

cI
1-5
5-10
10-20
20-50
50-100100-200
200--3M
300400400-600
A00

19.9
24.9
127
15.7
16.0
5.7
3.9
0.84
0.28
0.03
0.03

21.6
28.3
19.3
18.6
9.8
2.3
0
0
0
0
0

28.8
20.8
13.0
13.1
14.7
6.3
2.5
0.52
0.16
0.12
0

Numbu d wxkcrs

3913

388

Avcrap cumulative dose (mSv)

21.8

9.4

A 11

dejawcacrivitiu

Worrpmrp r o ~ a w w c'

O l a
dcfaveactiviriu

Allddcncca c f ~ f i ~Untn from thc Gntral lndcx m h c lnfor~nation(CILM) arc fw classified radiation workers ody, including employees and ccntractor of the M~nistryof Dcfcncc. F.xfmal and intcrnal d w n are included.
Data f ~ o mrhc National Rcistry m Radintion Workers nrc for clauified and nonclassified workers up lo 1986,including cnly mployctr d thc Mininlry of Lkfcncc and n d mawactor wakcrs. External and internal dosa arc included.
Data strictly f a !he k a n i c Wcapoat EftnNishmcn~mly, but can be assumed to be repcsartative of the wcapom programme as n whole.
Dnts arc f a those moaitocd by the Ddmcc Rndidogicnl Prastion Snvia. They a m p i s c all dcfcncc crnployees and coatnaorr apart from those d thc Atomic Wcapom btablishmcnt. Most d h e uporurcs are asadnted with thc mval
nudur propulsion programme.
7hc puanbgn arc f a thc to(ll cumulrtivc d n c received by individual w a k n r m the Nalimnl Registry m Radiation Workera.
The pcroarbgcs arc f a thc cumulrtivc d m rcrsiKd by individual wakerr up to thc rgc d 30 yurr.

Ttible 26
E x p o s u m Lo worken froni lnduslrlal uses or ~ d i a t i o n(excluding the con111iercl111
n ~ ~ c l fuclu ~ rcycle and defence
activltles) "Data from UNSCEAN S u m y of Occupa~ionalExposures unless otllcwvke indicatedA\wagc ~ n u a cffcctivcldare

Mconrrably

Annualcdlccriw
efcrli\crorkersdarr

Caunfry~dMonitored~vrkers(thoucmdr)(rburadr)

(

Per

Pcr

mcxliroreduvrkcrmcmwably

m Sv)
~

=par&
work

Dicrribution rario

NR,, *

a15

Id\.)

Indur~rGlradiogmphy
Argentina

1985-1989

0.046

0.01

0.027

0.59

27

0

0

0.40

0.26

0.40

1.01

1.52

0.007

0.11

3.3

14.5

4.33
4.88
6.47

4.05
3.35
4.51

6.08
6.41
7.75

0.077
0.W6
0.093

0.51
0.53
0.57

1.01

1.53

1.52

1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

0.9
1.03
1.32

1.24
219
215

231
212

0.027
0.016
0.011

0.31
0.16
0.14

Denmark
1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

0.24
0.33
0.4 1

0.23
0.43
0.48

0.98
1.33
1.19

0.003
0.009
0.004

0.NO
0.12
0.076

Australia'

1985-1989
Brazil1985-1989
Canada1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

1.07
1.46
1.43

0.71
0.76
0.84

Qlina (Taiurn Province)

1985-1989
MalCMki1

Ftnlsd1980-1984
1985-1989

1.51
1.65

0
0

0.03
0.06

0.05
0.11

1.28
1.6

0.09

1.47
0.28

1.15
0.18

3.11

0.002

209
215

a43
0.32

0.83
a39

0.40
0.18

1.93
1.23

0.002
0.002

0.17
0.22

1985-1989

4.67

1.61

7.10

1.52

4.41

0.W

0.33

Hunguy1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

1.13
1.24
1.16

0.41
0.39
0.37

2%
1.47
L 15

225
1.19
0.99

6.13
3.79
3.14

0.029
0.012
0.005

0.40
0.22
0.13

1980-1984
19s-1989

293
4.23

1.39
216

9.0
13.2

3.07
3.12

6.50
6.10

0.055
0.058

0.55
0.54

lndmcria
1980-1984
1985-1989

0.14
0.43

0.02
0.03

0.22
0.40

1.53
0.95

10.8
14.9

0.033
0.059

0.45
0.10

0.07
0.05

0.04
0.03

0.05
0.06

0.75
1.41

1.39
257

0
0.010

0
0.15

Frma '
1975-1979
1985-1989

0.027

Gcmm Dan.Rcp.

1980-1984
1985-1989
Gammy, Fed. Rcp. oC

IoLa

Ireland1980-1984
1985-1989

Tnhlc 26 (continued)
A ~ s a MWI~ cAnnuolCowrnyMeasurably

caliecriru
eflccrhu

dare(rhowMdr)

uarkas(rhourMdr)

Ispan
1980-1984
1985-1989

3.31
283

Mc~u,
1985-1989

0.82

Netherlands
1980-1984
1985-1989

0.97
1.02

New Zcaland [MZ]
1980-1984

0.15

h'crw2.y1980-1984
1985-1989

0.60
0.82

1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

Md
paid

Monjrored
norkcrs(

Pcr
monitored
nwrkm

C//CCII'I'C dose

D k h i h r i o n ratio

Pcrmcarlodly

a

d

NNIJ

9115

norkcr

m Sv)
~

(mT19

(mw

1.58
1.W

5.67
3.35

1.71
1.19

3.59
3.09

0.015
0.006

0.49

5.10

6.23

10.5

0.102

0.67

0.34

0.48

0.35
0.47

0.002
0.004

0.13
0.20

0.35

233

0.44
0.40

0.79
0.62

0.99
0.76

1.81
1.M

0.001
0.003

0.038
0.10

0.57
0.75
0.72

0.31
0.45
0.32

0.11
238
1.68

0.19
3.18
233

0.35
5.3
5.29

0
0.052
0.033

0
0.44
0.M

Spain
1985-1989

0.82

0.66

1.23

1.50

1.87

0.018

0.32

Swedcn1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

0.77
0.66
0.64

0.19
0.17
0.25

0.49
0.38
0.28

0.63
0.57
0.43

2%
227
1.12

0.005
0.002
0.002

0.16
0.059
0.15

USSR
1975-1979
1960-1984
1985-1989

227
2 53
263

30.0
20.2
17.2

13.2
7.96
6.55

3.60
5.67

1.98
1.18

O.U??
0.009

0.43

1.39

50
39

294
2%
1.70

3.3

24.0
421
49.9

893
125
98.7

3.74
2.98
1.98

0.037
0.026
0.026

0.39
0.42
0.44

72

190
230
160

261
1.98
1.44

South Africa

United K i n d m
1980-1984
1985-1989

*
1.82
4.62

4.08

'

United S b t a
1975-1979
1960-1984
1985-1989

17
27
23

60
12

Total of reporred data '1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989
World 1

1975.1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

116
108

fixed locations
Radiography carried out BI'

Nchlands
1980-1984
1985-1989

0.49
0.54

0.04
0.06

0.07
0.11

United Kingdan [a,IIZ]
1980-1984

1.29

200

1.55

O.II26

United Stato I
1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

207
3.54
1.85

2.80
3.90
0.67

1.35
1.10
0.36

0.(109
0.007
0.001

0.42
0.17
0.19

UNSCWR 1993 REPORT482

Tablc 26 (continued)

A t w a ~ r~ n u a cffccrivcldare
Cocmay
and

AM^

.

p~rid

Monitoreduorkers(rhorrrd)

I h a l of reported dau '1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

Mc~yably-ad~vrkas(rhorrr~d.~)rdlcrrivc
cfJrcrivcdan( m Sv)~I'a
mmirorduorka( ~ v I

280
3.90
0.67

207
3.54
1.85

Dimiburion rario

P amcarurabl)~=palunrkcr
(mw

1.35
1.10
0.36

NR,,

Y(~.c

QCQ9
0.007
O.M1

0.42
0.17
0.19

R d i o p n p h y carried out rich mobile unilr
Nclhnlanda
1980-1984
1985-1989

0.28
0.30

0.24
0.34

0.84
1.17

United Kingdom [K3,HZ]
1980-1984

0.57

0.99

1.75

United S b t a '1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

10.4
7.71
6.13

30.9
25.1
20.0

297
3.26
3.n

30.9
26.4
20.4

5.78
4.93
4.30

a015

5.34
5.10
4.66

0.033
0.042
0.043

0.50
0.49
0.44

297
3.08
3.17

0.033
0.W1
0.043

0.50
0.47
0.44

0.375
0.242
0.182

5.30
5.52
6.84

0.14
0.17

0.66
0.55
0.52

0.077
a 190

1.16
1.26

0.01 1
0.021

0.16
a54

0.25
0.14
0.039

0.53
0.39
0.18

Tad of reported &u '1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

10.4
8.56
6.42

Luminidng iaduslrin

France [PZ]
1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

0.071
0.044
0.M7

'

Indi. "

1980-1984
1985-1989

0.067

aui

0.028
0.056

278
3.37

S w i c r a l d [Is131
1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

0.206
0.130
0.158

231
1.02
0.68

11.2
7.82
4.31

Unitd Kingdom(pain!) [U3]1975-1979

0.093

0.40

4.32

0.25
0.33

1.46
1.10

5.89
3.33

0.12
0.057

0.65
0.40

0.51

3.n

7.4.1
5.01
271

0.18
0.08 1
0.026

0.58
0.37
0.31

0
0

0
0

o

o

0.017
0.090
0.014

0.14
0.41
0.18

0.35

Lkiitd Kingdm(~fitirrm)O
1975-1979
1980-1984

Tad of rcponcd data
1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

o.n

134

1.45

0.54

R d i a r a l o p c produdon and distributim
Argclltirv

1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

Gn.&

0.17
0.22
0.18

0.67
0.45
a44

4.05
2 10
247

0.12
0.19
0.48

2.67
5.83
1.61

'
1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

0.046
0.033
0.295

0.032
0.027
0.162

3.84
7.28
294

ANNEX D: OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION EXPOSURES

3831Bl)le 26 (continued)
A\aage ~ n v ac/fccliwldareCountry

andMonirored

paid~~orkasMeasurably
w e duwrkas(rhoutM3s)(itchoslwakia
1975-1979
1960-1984
1985-1989(rhourM3s)

0.50

0.18
0.33
0.40

finland q
1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

Anniurl
cdlarhreffertiw
dlAre(man Sv)

0.60

0.81

0.003
0.005
0.013

0.011
0.020
D.052

P a

PC

mnni~orad
workermcnrwobly

crpamlDufriburion ralio

NR,,

a15

0.018
0.022
0.035

0.19
0.30
0.42

uorb
(dl.)

(msrj

276
1.80
205

4.23
3.92
4.10

0
0
0

Hungary
1975-1979
1960-1984
1985-1989

0.21
0.25
0.24

0.079
0.090
0.088

0.27
0.30
0.32

1.33
1.18
1.31

3.49
3.35
3.56

0.014
0.005
0.008

0.21
0.097
0.16

India
1960-1984
1985-1989

0.40
0.51

0.31
0.35

0.67
0.71

1.69
1.39

220
202

0.010
0.008

0.17
0.14

1975-1979
19W-1984
1965-1989

0.025
0.034
0.046

0.030
0.040

0.11
0.060
0.083

4.34
1.76
1.81

203
2 10

0
0

0
0

Nethalands f
1965-1989

0.18

0.87

4.97

0.040

0.13

Republic d Korea
1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

0.023
0.020
0.016

0.12
0.15
0.086

5.22
7.43
5.38

0.095
0.34
0.063

0.32
0.64
0.17

0.71
0.57
0.52

hdmcsia

0.020
0.020
0.013

6.00
7.65
6.52

Souh a i c a

1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

0.019
0.029
0.031

0.16
0.16
0.18

8.74
5.27
5.75

0.23
0.10
0.12

United ICindan '1975-1979
1960-1984
196-1989

0.97
1.26
1.72

6.39
4.62
4.63

6.59
3.84

0.14
0.067
0.029

20

40
30

United States
1975-1979
1980-1984
1965-1989

29

30

17

270

25

200
1.03
0.83

Tolal of rcported data '1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

21.6
31.5
33.2

48.3
37.3
32.7

223
1.18
0.98

World j
1975-1979
1960-1984
1985-1989

57
82
88

130
1W
98

225
1.26
1.12

1.47

0.W5
0.015
0.025

0.18
0.23
0.23

0.008
0.005
0.003

0.17
0.11
0.05 1

0

0
0.032
0.016

Well log@ing
Canada1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

0.45
1.01
1.11

Czech~lwakia'
1975-1979
1960-1984
1985-1989

0.057
0.092
0.114

0.21
0.58
0.74

0.52
1.28
1.37

1.16
1.27
1.24

0.058
0.15
0.20

1.02
1.60
1.72

243
221
1.85

0.002
0.OM

UNSCFAR 1993 REPORT484

A ~ w a g cm w a l clferrhu dnrc
C~WW~d~ r r dMonirord
unrkcrs

Afcasurnbly

AMW/
rdlecri~r
flerliru
datepermonitored~nrkerm Sd~(nrF14~wrkrr(mTv)

Dufriburion rurio

PCY
mcn~runhly

crpd(rhnurdv)-par&workers(rhow~dr)India
1980-1984
1985-1989

0.19
0.64

0.01 1
0.30

0.072
0.38

0.38
0.54

1.75
125

0.006
O.M2

0.39
0.086

lndcnuia
1960-1984
1985-1989

0.14
0.56

0.038
0.45

0.12
0.84

0.82
1.51

3.07
1.89

0
0

0
0

0.36

0.013

0.004

0.012

0.32

0

0

0.013
O.MO
0.035

0.012
0.017
0.012

0.000
0.064
0.053

0.007
1.61
1.49

0.V5
3.76
4.55

(

NR~5

. W ~ ~'

Mexico1985-1989
South Mia

1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989-

United States "1975-1979

103

7.6

Tad cf reported data '1975-1979
1960-1964
1985-1989

1.36

0.3

1.32
1.17
1.07

0.007
0.004
0.002

0.27
0.10
0.039

Tertiary d u c a t i o n and m e i u c h inslitutcs

Awtralia '1975-1979
1985-1989

0.55
2.22

0.94

0.055
0.M9

0.10
0.03

0.07

0

0

Canada1975-1979
1960-1984
1985-1989

5.01
7.40
9.51

0.89
1.02
1.62

0.69
0.80
1.05

0.14
0.11
0.11

0.78
0.78
0.65

0.00050.00030.0003

0.090
0.044
0.086

0.003
0.017
0.001

ass
0.030

0.062
0.11

China (Taiwn Roince)

1985-1989

0.7 1

0.M

0.056

CzKhorlovlLin
1975-1979
1960-1984
1985-1989

0.08
0.18
0.21

0.04
a 1s
0.12

0.45
0.97
0.56

Finland '1980-1984
1965-1969

0.95
1.18

0.023
0.032

0.038
0.053

0.010
O.MS

1.63
1.68

0
0.008

France (P2j
1985-1969

3.8

0.09

0.20

0.053

222

0.001

German Dan.Rrp. Y
1975-1979
1960-1984
1985-1989

271
3.07
3.25

0.30

0.034
0.056
0.16

0.013
0.018
0.048

0.52

Germany. Fed. Rep. of '1985-1989

21.1

1.05

1.53

0.072

1.46

O.O(WU

0.17

0.22
0.2 I

0.~2
0.003
0.009

0.104
0.015
0.044

2.79
0.93
2.02

O.MKFI

0.19

0
0

0

0.21

0.008
0.003
0.005

1.01
1.92

0.17
0.47

0.29
0.45

0.29
0.24

1.74
0.97

0.003
0.0005llungary
1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989
India bb
1980.1984
1985-1989

0.23

0

0.24

0.167

ANNEX 11: QCCUPATlONAL RADIATION MWSUIUS

485

Axwage ~ n u o ~/ J C C I ~d W
wc

Counhyand(~houands)

uvrkers(rhou~ds)

Amiunlcdlcr~itr
cflcc~ivc
dare(man SV)

lndmcria
1980-1984
1985-1989

0.26
0.66

0.19
0.64

Italy
1985-1989

0.66

1980-1984
1985-1989

prrid

Aionhored
uvrkers

Alcnrwnbly

aped

I'a

I'n

rnonirord~vrkermearwahlyL)u~~ihrrrirln
rurio

NHl,

=IJ

unrkrr(mSl9(~SI.)

0.D
0.48

0.92
0.72

1.33
0.75

0.018
0.003

0.37
0.11

0.065

0.054

0.082

0.634

0.0003

0.001

21.4
27.6

0.79
0.69

0.49
0.46

0.012
0.017

0.62
0.67

0.0002
O.Ooa,

h'wy"
1960-1984
1985-1989

0.42
0.45

0.025
0.029

0.014
0.026

0.032
0.057

0.55
0.90

0
0.001

0
0.48

Portugal
1985-1989

0.78

0.37

0.33

0.42

0.88

South Africa
1975-1979
1960-1984
1985-1989

0.23
0.35
0.43

0.012
0.09 1
0.070

D.002
0.47
0.21

0.007
1.29
0.49

0.M
5.12
3.02

0
0.020
0

0
0.45
0.10

Swibmland
1975-1979
198001984
1985-1989

7.44
8.48
8.83

5.91
3.44
2.88

0.79
0.41
0.33

1.3
0.38

0.10
0.32

0.78

a86

hpan

United Kingdm

-

0.007
0.0006
0.M03'

1980-1984
1985-1989

12.5
1.17

Unitcd Sratu "1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

25
26
17

18
I5
6

0.72
0.58
0.35

1975-1979
1960-1984
1985-1989

38.6
66.0
85.7

23.5
20.4
13.6

0.61
0.31
0.16

Wald 1
1975-1979
1960-1984
1965-1989

140
180
160

74
43
22

0.55
0.24
0.14

0.49

0
0.002

0

0.W
0.00070.0001

0.19
0.11
0.072

0.00030.oOCn0.0038

0.098
O.M3
0.067

Tdal of reported data 'Acceleratoo
Canada1915-1979
1980.1984
1985-1989

0.58
0.88
1.m

Finland1960-3984
1965-1989

C

0.19
0.23
0.53

0.17
0.40
1.06

0.008
0.007

0.010
0.013

'
0.30
0.45
1.06

0.91
1.76

200

1.23
1.75

0

0

Ncthnlrnds
1980-1984
1985-1989

0.18
0.16

0.009
0.010

0.006
O.Ul4

0.03
0.03

0.67
0.46

0
0

I1

Soulh Allica
1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

0.07
0.10
0.22

0.03
0.W
0. m

0.030
0.27
0.34

0.46
2 72
1.56

1.00
6.59
4.76

0
0.W6
0.035

0
0.55
0.61

0

Avaagc annual eficrirr dasc

Counv
and

Pa

Meauuably

AMWI
cdlerri~r

Pcr

Monirorai

mrmiroral

mearmablypamnrkcsw&

flccri~ccriw

uorka

dare

~
~
wrka

(rhousamis)

nurkas(chout~dr)

m SI)
~

(dl9

(dl

0.25

0.50

7.19
3.07
207

1.82
0.78
0.49

7.38
3.73
3.52

1.62
0.76
0.62

United Kingdm [HZ]*
1985-1989

0.50

U n i l d Stalcs [Ml] ff
1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

3.96
3.92
4.25

1.73
1.44
1.66

(

D h i b u r i o n rario

0

s
NRlJ

~

a15

0

0

0.W
0.005
0.008

0.12
0.26
0.19

4.16
2 12
1.24

Tdal of reported data '1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

4.50
4.93
5.72

All induslrinl activities (excluding nuclear fuel cycle and delence activities)
Argentina

1985-1989

0.066

0.03 1

0.085

1.29

274

0.030

0.61

Aumlia C d
1975-1979
1985-1989

221
7.10

3.33

0.92
0.78

0.41
0.11

0.23

0.001

0.091

1985-1989

15

3.1

24

1.6

7.69

Canada1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

8.06
11.0
10.7

3.60
4.36
4.70

13.2
14.4
16.2

1.63
1.31
1.52

3.66
3.30
3.45

O.M2
0.016
0.W

0.42
0.34
0.39

Bradl p 2 1

Oina (Taiuan Rovince)

1980-1984
1985-1989

242
3.M

1.91
1.97

0.79
0.65

Occhoslwakia
1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

1.65
292
3.62

226
3.n
3.77

1.38
1.29
1.04

0.011
0.010
0.010

0.23
0.18
0.21

Demnark
1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

0.46
0.64
0.60

0.32
0.49
0.52

0.68
0.76
0.65

0.002
0.005
0.002

0.058
0.11
0.071

finland a
1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

0.67
209
2%

0.14
0.26
0.32

0.21
0.12
0.14

297
1.75
1.94

0.00000.0004

0.046
0.063

France [PZ]
1985-1989

9.90

24.0

242

Gamany, Fed. Rep. of
1985-1989

58.6

14.7

25.6

0.44

1.74

0.008

0.29

1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

3.26
3.36
3.26

0.58
0.56
0.53

3.01
1.93
1.57

0.92
0.58
0.46

5.14
3.47
297

0.01 1
0.005
0.003

0.36
0.19
0.12

lndmuin
1980-1984
1985-1989

0.02
0.03

0.01
0.03

0.01
0.U3

0.75
1.12

1.25
1.12

Ireland
1985-1989

0.74

0.06

0.08

0.1 1

1.37

0.00030.089

Hungary

0.05
0.15
0.17

0.20

''

--

'

'

The &tr are annual values averaged o v a the indicated periods. They were derived as a v n a g a w n the years f a which dab were repaled; in w m e ca-,
&I. w a c repcned for only a limited numbcc d ycarr in the paiods dintcrest here.
The v l l u a of NRU are f a the m o n i ~ a c dw a K a c c . Vdues f a the expcud w a k f u c c can also be ulimatcd where data arc given for both m m i ~ u c dandmrumsbly c q a c d wtxkur.
Dsts dm f r a n F(7) and [S6]; n u m b d w a k n s m d the mllcnive dac. reputed In quatrannaire for l r b a ~ llrcfnh e cxpoced wakforct hnvc bccn
enrapdried f a entire murtry.

488

UNSCEAR 1993 REPORT

Tnble 26 ( c o n t i n u e d )The mcthod d dwc recarding u-an diTTcrent in the two pcriods f a which data are rcputcd, and this may partly account f u the dinircncer in data. Average
individual d o ~ fn a 1975.1979 w n e c a l ~ l a l c d(run the t a d o f t h e rcpatcd do= la an nccupalimnl cnlcgory drvidol by the estimnted numbcr of workasin that catcgay uith the rcsultr roundcd to the nearest 0.1 mSv. In 1990 the estimates wcrc hascd dircdly on thc rcnults of individual monitoring; in the abrcnn
d data fm 1985-1989, the data f a 1090 havc bcm assumed r o b e representative d this period.
Data honi
f a 1975-1979 and CIom [PZl f a 1985-1969.
I h c repond data (covering about 80'74 of thc w a k f a c e ) havc been scaled to rcprcrcnt the w h d c country.
Data f a 1980-1984 from [ U ] and [112] include only h o r c workers whore d m rccads nre hcld within Ihc Doscmc~crlarue and Record Kccping (IILRW
service of the NHPU. The Ida1 numlwr d radiographers in the United Kingdom is aomcwhat largr. Dnla for 1985-1089 fran [I171 and [B7] arc la classified
w a k n s only.
Data from [El,E2 and 831; dnta arc f a 1975, 1980 and 1985 but assumed h n c to bc represer~tetiveof thc rcspcaivc five-year pcriods.
Thue data should bc intcrprcted with a r e , particularly bccaurc the countries included in the summations for the respeclive five-yur periods may n u bc thesame, depending on whether data were reported f a the period in qucstim. Cauqucntly, direct wmpariron of data for different paiodr is invlllid to the e n a tthat the data canprirc contribulionr f r u n drfferent couaries. It should piso bc noted that the data on NUIS and SRIJ are a m a g e s d data repofled a there
ratim. In gcncnl. lhese data arc less complete than thme that f a m the besir d thc rummatcd n u m b d w a k e n and c o l l a i v c doles.
The a t i m a t n are utrapolaticiu of rc60nal n l w s b a e d on the grass national podua (GNP);bzcawc of insufiicicnt data. the n t i m a t a of NR15-- and SR,,arc avcragca d rcponed data, but thwc may bc c o n s i d a d rcpracniativc f a waldwidc exposwe.
Iaruftiomt dda arc anilablc for !hue a t c g a i u to maMc a reliable estimate ofworlduide exposures.
Data la l i m c c e s of the N u d u r Replatory GxnmirJoa d y .
Data arc f a liccnrcu d Ihc United States N u d u r Reguluay Comrmrrioa mly.
'Ihc QIcr indudc exporura from tritium intake and e a a n a l radiatim frwn prunahium-147.
Dab f a 1980-1984 l r a n [I111 and [112]. Data for 1985-1989 f r a n p7]and [B7] include only classified workcrs.
M a e 1989 radiasaopc poduaion was undatrlicn by Aoodc h g y o f Canada Limited. and separate statistics lor this group d workers arc noc available.
7hc avaagc data tahrlaled f a 1985-1989 arc hose f a 1969, when produdioa w s ~ e n e f rda n Atomic Energy d Canada Limited; this a-tr
f a thesignificant &ffaencc canpared with the prc%<ousperiod. The camibutim of i n t d exposure is small.
Q
b t d crpaurc i n d u d d &a 1986; it mounlcd to about 50%.
' I n t d exposure induded mfia 1984: its contributim is mall.
F a 1980-1989. ncutrm cxpomuc wntribuld 30540% of the tdal. About m e third d the u,akforce is employed underground a d received an intcmnl doseG a n radoo dc. additional to the d m u tabulated. in the range of about 5 t o 10 mSv a-'.
N a t r o m convibutc about 15%-25% to the reputed dcsa.
' Data arc f a licenses d the United S t a t a Depuancnt d Enagy only. The dfcaivc dares include a neutron m p o n c n t .
' Data arc d y p r u c n t d f a quantitiu that arc a m a g c s d the rcponcd dau ralha than thdr sums. Summcd data would bc potcntimlly misleading because d
the main contribution that wwld bc made by the data for the United States, fa which data f a only m e period arc abailablc. The data should bc intcrpretdwith a r c . In pdcular, thc m t r i u included in the summation for the rcpadng periods may not be the same.
Data are mainly from universities but cxcludc exposures at accelnatas and in teaching ertablishmcnts where little research is undertaka
Includes all research inrtitutcs except research r e a a a s and a c d e r a t a s . No data arc available on exposures in lcrliary education.
y
For 1976-1980, the data arc la all univerritiu and technical collcgcs in the nonmcdicd field. For 1981-1989, the data arc f a all research and educatim except
for that auociatcd with medical and nuclear sciences.
Data indudc cxpotura arising in rcacnrch and raining in natural .cimo%and tshndogy, indudine rescarch centres.
I n d u d u tcchnologicnl education only (i.e. not medicine, rcirnoc. philosophy ctc.).
bb b d u d e s data Gom education and research institutes.
Data arc d e l y for the U ~ v u i t yd Oslo.
Data from [Ol]; thcy may indudc s u n c dau on research f a !he nudear Fuel cycle.
Data indude u p o r u r a at thc Science and En@ncrring (SERC) h b u a t o r i e s at Chiltm and Darerbury.
f Data arc f a a d e r a t a r d the U N t d Sutes Departmad d Energy. M a c 1987 collective doses w n e evaluated as the sum of the produar of the numba
d w a k e n and the m a n dose in tach dore i n t a d ; subequcntly. actual individual doses were used in the summation.
a I n d u d a exposures d w a k e n at the rescarch r u a a and in rescuch utrblirbmcntr, induding tertiary education.
Rcpated &la for 1975-1979 antained only estimates d !he numba d uporcd workcrs; the number of monitored workers war utimated mrwming the ratio
d cxpmed to monitacd workers in the s u h q u e n t pcn'od.
"
Data d o n a include cxporura for workrrs in the luminizing industry, in well logging and at aaclcratorr.
7hc reported numbcr d w a k a s is m a l l -pareduith n u m k s in comparable industrialized countries, which sugguts that the data arc incanplcte.
EducationJ estnbl~shmenttnol included.
Data frun [El, EZ and U ] . The dnta are spedfially for the years 1975. 1960 u d 1985; thcy arc assumed hcrc to be reprucntative, rupeaivdy, ofthe p d o b
1975-1979, 1980-1984 and 1965-1989.

'

"
"
"

ANWM D: OCCUPA'IIONAL RADIATION EXPOSURLY

489

Tahlc 27
Percentage of workers In ind~rslrialrt~dlngraphyreceiving annual cll'cu.live dmes in excess o r 5 0 nlSv hind tL~c
percenlnge of lhc collcxtive dme arising lrom dmes above (hut levcl

Data from UNSCFAH Survcy of Occupational Erposures unlcsr othercc.i.vc indicatedcowby

ClnadaChina (Taiu.an RoGncc)
Germany, Fcd. Rcp. ofIndia

Prrrcntagc of unrkers rewiring ~ n w cjfrcrisuldare>SO d v (NRRY)x 100)'

dares >50 d v (SR% x 100)

1975-1979

1980.1984

1985-1989

1975-1979

1980-1984

198.5-1989

0.5

0.5

7.3

11

8.2
26
24

0.5
0
0.2
0
0.3
0.13

0.6
0.7
0.1
0.4
0
0
0
0
0.11

13
0

I1

0

8.5

28
7.0

Ldand

*

Perccnro~rof cdlcsri~udarc from annuad indiridud

0

Japan
h'ccherlands
Soulh Africa
United Kingdm
United Slates
Ftxed l o a t i m s
Mobile equipment

0
0.1

0
0

0
0

5.6
5.2

21
3.3

1.4
25

W d g h t d svcragc '

0.10

0.14

0.17

5.4

6.1

6.2

Dala from (111, HZ IC3, K4];those fa 1980-1964 arc a v a a g a o v a the ywrr 1980 and 1982 and l h s e for 1965-1989 are averages o v a thc years 1966-1987.
Data arc for rndiogaphers w h o x dose records arc held uithin the Doscmctcr Issue and Record Kecping(D1RK) scnicc d t h c National Radidogiul Protcdon
Board (NRPB).
Data for l i a of the Urdted States Nudcar R c g u l a t y Canmission ody.
Weighted accuding to rhe average n u m k d u+akcrsa cdlcctivc d a u , as appropiate, in wch cmnlry in each five-year p a i d .

Table 28
ConlribuUon or difircnt regions (o the worldwide exposure from ell Industrial uses or radialion (excluding thenuclear fuel cycle and defence ncllvltles)

Cowt~ylrr~ion

Afonirorcd
wrkms

A1wa8e a n w d
r d l c c r i ~ rrffccriw

darr(rharrands)(man Sv)

Attan{e mn~rol
individual dare ro
marirorcd w a k a s

Collrclibr elfcrrive
dose p a und Gh'P
I

(dv)

(mnnSvperld2
SU.SJ

Collecrhe elfecrhv
dose p a unir
poprlorwn(manSvper1fl)

1975-1979
East and south.cant &in 'Eastern Europc
L t i n America
OECD except United Stat- 'United Slates
Rcmlinder f
Tdal

17

176

10

I SO

440

210
200
100

240
290
170

1.1
1.4
1.7

79
1 50
120

430
1300
55

530

870

1.6

120

200

19R0-1981
i5sl rod soulh.cut Asia 'Eulem Europe

12
20

9
150

0.79
7.9

20
68

23
370

L u n Amnia
OECD e m p t United Stata
United States
Remainder I

240
310
110

240
380
160

0.99
1.3
1.4

49
110
73

420
1600
48

690

940

1.4

72

190

41

7
140
43
130
150
35

0.65
5.6
1.8
0.69
0.55
0.85

13
41
52
16
31
26

15
330
95
220
590
11

560

510

0.9

26

44

T d

1985-1989
Eisl and s o u l h a r t Asia '&tun Europe
Ltin Amnia
OECD uccpt United Stata
united stata
Ranaioda 1
Tdal

10
26
24
180

no

*

data arc a n n u l nluca averaged o v a the rupective five-year periods and are, in gtncrnl. quoted to two significant fi a r c s .
* The?he nomidized c d l e d v c doses pcr unit GNP for the three five-ycar periods arc cxprcued rcnpcctively. in t e r m of 1977, 1983 and 1989 p r i m ; direct'fcanparism bawcrn Ihc d u e s f a different periods is possible only aflct a x r m i n g for t h e e different price besea.
N m o c o t t a l l y - p l d s o n a n i a in east and sarIhsast Asia.
h d u d i n g the vmdc d !he f u m a USSR.
rncrntus d Ihe Organizatim for EuxaDmic C6opcralion and DNdoprncnt (OECD) except for the U n i t d States.
All -ria
Indudes h e r-inda
d thc world for which values arc not s+fically tabulated clrcwhcre in the TaMc. Note t h a ~the -tries
remainda diffa in the respective five-year periods.

or regioru canpririag h e

ANNFX D: OCCUPA'nONAL RADIATION MPOSUREF

491

Table 29
CumulttUvc dmes rccclved Ily industrlnl radlogmphcrs In Hungnry
IS81
Durmicm of
cmploymenr
Dcms)

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

l2
13
14
15

Nwnk
of
wvrkcrs

r\\,uogc c ~ l o ~ i ~ ~A cw o g c m m o l
c f i c r i ~ edarc
cffcrrisr dare

69
72
44
44

38
41
32
30
21
26

27

fdv)

W 1 9

l ' a c c n f n ~ eof nwrkers with r u m u l n ~ i ~+crit.crspccijied vollre~>jo d v
0
11.1
15.9
18.2
18.4
29.3
28.1
53.3
52.4
685
96.3

28
4.4
4.9
3.9
c.2
4.4
4.9
5.0
5.6
7.4
6.8

14.0
26.5
34.6
315
37.4
44.1
54.1
60.3
66.6
1029
1027

> ~ M ) ~ T v

0
1.4
23
0
5.3
4.9
9.4
16.7
14.3
423
45.4

d a e r abouzlJOdr+>~OOMTV

0
0
0
0
0
24
6.3
0
4.8
7.7
11.1

0
0
0
0
0

0
3.1
0
0
3.8
3.7

Table 30
Summary of worldwide exposures from the industrial uses of radiation (excluding nuclwr fuel cycle and dercnce
activities) "Prorricc

Monitored
uwrkms(rhwands)

Awage ~ n u a l
cdlecriw flccriw
dare C( m Sv)~

Aswngc ~ w o lindividual dose ro
nwnirored n a k c r s

h'HIJ

=15

(d1,)

1975-1979
Industrial radiography
h a o p e p r c d u a i m and dirtributim
Turiary cducatim and research institutes
Olha 'All industry

72 (14%)n (11%)
140 (Ug
270 (50%)190 (22%)130 (15%)74 (8%)
480 (55%)

26
23
0.55
1.8

0.037
0.095
0.004

0.39
0.18
0.19

530

870

1.6

0.01

0.35

1980-19W
I n d u t r i d radiography
L d o p c prcduccim and distributim
Tertiary cducalim and rcsearch institutes
Olhcr'All industry

120 (17%)62 (12%)180 (26%)310 (455)

230 (24%)l o 0 (11%)
43 (5%)
90(afi)

20
1.3
0.24
1.8

0.028
0.015
0.001
0.0007

0.42
0.3
0.11

690

940

1.4

0.007

0.29

0.026
0.U2S
0.0004

0.44
0.23
0.07

0.009

0.31

1985-1989
Industrial ndiographyk a o p c prcduaim and distributim
Tertiary cducatim and rcsearch institutu
0th-

NI industry'

68 ( 1 6 w
160 (29%)200 (36%)230 (46%)

1.4
1.1
0.14
1.1

560

510

0.90

I10 (19%)160 (31%)98 (19%)22 (4%)The data are annual values avcragcd o v a the rcrpeclivc five-ye;u pcrials and are, in general, quoted lo two r i p i h c m t h g u r u .
Valucr in p u c n h a c r u c the pcrcentngc m t r i b u t i o n of that praaicc to thc total number d mmitotcd w a k a a in industry.
The numbers in pnrcnthuu u e thc percentage contrihutim of that practice to the d l c c t i v c d a c f r a n all industrinl usa d rad~atioa
Ihc n l u u d NRI, and SRI, should m l y be rcprdcd as indicativc of worldwide cxpcricncc. R c p a t d data on t h u c rstim wcrc far fcwcr than for a h e rt form Ihc bssir f a a more rcliahlc and rcprcrcntativc estimatc dquantitia of i n t a a t (c.g colleaivc d w mmitorcd w a k c r s ctc.) and were i n s f i ~ d c n to
waldwidc levclr.
Ltimatcd f r a n thc 'ull industrial aaivitia' &la in Table 26 by subtrading thc contrihutims from Ihc three rpccihed p r a a i c a .

.=sop pawdal aql j o 0

~ IWL
9

.Adeuvo!pu puo a u p p w leapnu mj ASUI $1.0 ! a ! u ~X
d
JPUU
!A
I
PUP r(qdeClolper agsode!p p w leluap mj
1.0.asup JA!WJJJ 01X~!~uenb
p a m s w ~IDA~
01 p n n s! s.0 p n v q e riel x a.wderp IO.
J
sa~nq!~~uoaq>!qm 'Xqdedopel ~ ! ~ r o t t l e10g10c.c JO aauo~3 0 U! 10vej I Aq =I*U~!IS~YM 219 m p p ~ p t 1 3 )ley1~ p l w p u ! a ~ u qOXAIKU\I'Iwl~ug-n(0661 W )O N
(0661 JmPl) =A=la

SKIJAPw pnq asmnqlo!P)P)p m0l 01 po0dX0 lroyl IOJ 0

MI38

0

Asu ('0

PuPlv~?'s

0s

=la

o

m01ae

o

AS"

1.0

"=PMS

0s

'==l!ClMPB

0

AS" 1'0

u!eds

==A

=la

0

AS" 10'0"pa&.$

0s

w ~ n

ON

AS"

nqto 'taw

p u, UIJWAS" 91'v

o

.MPB

o

r AS" s1.0 rn 1.0> w'="3l e d ayl %!mp f l K n ~ v(0661-6861) N P B(8861-5161)

0(SAWe m d ) AS" 01.0
(SXPI I) ASW S0.O

R!fJUI

WJKI

s a ! l ! a q ~ n d u ! l p ~ l u Kq
n pau!ruu~aa

~ l w

0

(6~61
AS" 1'0( 6 ~ 6 1amPl) AS" VO

p 'daa 'pad 'Auemug

I'LOcRI0

ASW 2.0s v w u ~1 ISCI p f l e u ~ v

A
='

ON

q

wl!a

0

JW

o

(~61-6861)AS" E'O(~861-0861)ASw E'O( 6 1 6 1 - ~ ~ 6AS"
1 ) S'I

==A

va11a

0

rnoPU

0

AS"' 1'0(9861 "UP) 0s(9861 JU?P~)==A

0

MIJ~

0

EWO

oii

Pl-!,r3
u,lf,

==A

'W

S
',"

10'0

.rrr>a uomug

P'"T'YI"""xl(=uwld UW!=L)

~ U W

ouW

AS" 2.0

lPU8

.

mop8

0

Ml=a

0

( s h x) ASW 10.0

'IUh'

wl YU!PJO=J m f7W)
PO/ >lqOlBPp wl(d" EM)AS" 10.0
0.4;

pa=w

0

P ~ p f '-5. ~(pl&VM3 a I W ~ J ~ U U ~ Y I
t w 4 >sop /=P0-V2!

rnrau!rop 1m1 r o j p p m w , >souq1a"/!0rp~ ~ V F H

fuOJdOD~

a'vv MW)~p Y 4/ 1 ) DOM 7

YDyl SSJ/ UJy*

PpJO-VJ >SOa.

P~~I~JI

AS" €0.0

X ~ U O ~I:

uflensnv-3

auplpatu ul s;unsodx~ ~ n u o n e d n m oJOJ m n p a w d Zlulpl03a.1pue Bopqluom aqI € al9"J.

M N E X I): OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION EXPOSURES

493

Tuhlc 32
Exposures Lo workers from medical uses or radialior~
Data from Uh'SCrAH Survey of Occt~pationalFxposures unless otltent~iseindicatedI

A w o g e ~ n u ejjecrive
d

dose
Pff
nwnirorcd
uorkcrII~lp~sdNHISS R ~ ~

(6,)

I

Diagnostic radiography

Finland 1 8
0.46
0.15
0.28

5.1
4.6
4.3

3.86
4.37
4.82

O.OS4
0.29
0.30

0.58
0.7 1
0.92

0.15
0.16
0.19

6.93
243
3.10

0.002
0.001
0.002

1975-1979
1960-1984
1985-1989

45
55

33.4
49.0
61.8

6.05
6.35

39.7
28.3
20.3

1.19
0.58
0.33

4.67
3.19

0.004
0.005
0.004

G m a n Dcm. Rep.
1960-1984
1985-1989

19
19

19.2
20.4

3.12
1.17

205
1.68

0.11
0.083

0.66
1.44

5.96
7.49
7.26

1.22
1.01
0.98

232
1.61
1.49

0.39
0.22
0.21

1.90
1.64
1.53

0.002
0.00090.0007

0.11
0.088
0.078

6.50
8.00
10.4

3.64
3.97
5.42

3.75
2.76
3.54

0.58
0.35
0.34

1.03
0.70
0.65

0.00s
0.001
0.001

0.21
0.15
0.14

0.98
1.84
230

0.94
1.76
2.19

1.59
294
3.84

1.62
1.60
1.67

1.70
1.68
1.75

0.002
0 . W
0.001

0.022
0.009
0.015

1975-1979
1960-1984
1985-1989

France 'Hungary
1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

India
1975-1979
1960-1984
1985-1989
Indonesia
1975-1979
1980-1984
1965-1989

41
61
82

I

Po
mearurably
work0

(mVv)

L)imiburion ratio

0.06
0.11

A t w a g e ~ n r r n rl f l c r ~ i l r

DLtribwion r u b

dartCounayMd
piod "

Examinations(millions)Ldrnd
1985.1989

Pau
1980-1984
1985-1989

Monirorcd
workzrsa&workers(rhousads)

Annun1
cdlccri~v.$ferli~rdnre(IRM St$a 12

hfr~nuablyPaPa

monirorad
workermcarurahly
NRIJ*

-15

4.69

o

o

0.84

0.001

0.12

0.84
0.47
0.91

0.003
0.003
0.015

0.14
0.08
0.40

600
720
760

0.94
0.68
0.56

0.003
0.003
0.005

0.11
0.05
0.22

(dv)

wnrb
(dt.)

0.55

0.38

4.95
5.10

3.61
3.45

25.9

0.76

65.7
104
213

54.8
483
194

630
lodo
1350

(rhous&)

1.46

0.30

1.37
1.48

23

34.3

Spain
1985-1989

30.9

T d af reported &la j
1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989'

World
1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989''

D c n d pnclicc&\lgcotim

0.070

0.W

0.033

0.46

0.74

0.014

0.42

1.16
3.79

1.60

0
0.021

0
0.006

0.013

0

0

1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

13.1
195
24.4

0.97
0.94
0.94

0.42
0.60
0.64

0.032
0.31
0.026

0.44
0.64
0.68

0.00010.00010.0000

0.11
0.13
a28

Frmcc '
1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

6.17
11.2
16.7

0.74
0.66

261
242
1.97

0.42
0.22
0.12

3.25
231

0.0003
0.W
0.001

7.82

0.18

0.39

0.05

2 16

0.000ii

0.60

HUnguy1975-1979
1960-1964
1985-1989

0.24
0.32
0.24

0.009
0.M6
0.003

0.013
0.008
0.003

0.055
0.026
0.012

1.54
1.02
0.85

0
0
0

0
0
0

India
1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1969

0.37
0.45
0.63

0.21
0.21
0.32

0.17
0.17
0.24

0.45
0.38
0.38

0.80
0.80
0.74

0.00080.0008
0.003

0.044
0.060
0.19

Lndmeria
1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

0.019
0.15
0.W9

0.019
0.15
0.099

0.025
0.28
0.15

1.31
1.84
1.50

1.31
1.84
1.50

0
0
0.002

0
0
0.024

Leland1985-1989

0.13

0.003

O.(K)l

0.008

0.30

llaly
1985-1989

1.01

0.39

0.074

0.073

0.19

0.0005

0.28

0.35
1.75
3.53

0.075

0.13
0.34
0.56

0.36
0.20
0.16

1.M
1.69
1.60

1985-1989
Ausualia c d

1975-1979
1985-1989
GlladaGummy,Fed. Rep. of
1985-1989

17

Japm
1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

95
99

W

am
0.35

ANNEX D: OCCUPATIONAL RAJIIATION EXPOSURES

495

Table 32 (continued)
Aswagc ~ w a C/ICCII'IKldose(lhourk)

workos(~hourmdr)

Annualrdlccri~r
cfecriuedose(man Sv)

227
282
3.33

1.W
0.53
0.37

9.0

1.29

1.21

21

Counhy~dk>aminaiim

pcricd '(millinnr)

Monitored
wnrkers

Meiuurably

upsad

Pcr

Pa

monirorcd
work

mcarwllbly

Disiriburion rario

NnlJb

=15

worker(msv)

f d b )

0.12
1.52
4.49

0.051
0.54
1.35

0.11
288
12.2

0
0.0007
0.002

0
0.64
0.18

1.56

1.21

1.30

0.005

0.1

7.09
9.13
10.7

1.21
0.96
0.25

0.17
0.11
0.025

0.00090.00040.0000

0.056
0.088
0.015

20
20

2
2

0.1
0.1

0

0

215
259
307

60
60
12

0.37
0.23
0.039

845

0.35
0.21
0.047

0.00040.00080.0003

0.077
0.084
0.12

Swth a i m

1975-1979
1960-1984
1985-1989
Spain
1965-1989
Switlnld

1975-1979
1960-1984
1965-1989
United Kingdan [Hl. W 4 ]1960-1984
1985-1989

United Shier *1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

9.0
9.0

I00

61

0.20

T d a l cf reported drip i

242
322
39 1

1975-1979
1960-1984
1985-1989
World

68.8
185

'
120
93

370
UM
480

1975-1979
1960-1984
1985-1989

ZS

0.32
0.19
0.05

Nuclear medicine

Argatina

1985-1989

0.92

0.25

0.76

0.82

3.08

0.007

0.26

0.67
272

1.31

0.20
0.44

0.30
0.16

0.33

0

0

0.92

0.25

0.76

0.82

3.08

O.KI7

0.26

0.57
0.85
1.14

0.41
0.55
0.63

1.08
1.53
224

1.90
1.81
1.96

263
280
271

0.012
0.005
0.W

0.13
0.046
0.039

6.08

0.71

9.52

1.57

13.3

0.013

0.27

0.10

0.27

0.43
0.99
1.26

0.58
0.92
0.87

1.83
1.48
1.68

0.00120.00140.00060.035
0.027
0.01 1

0.34
0.30
0.35

0.76
0.62
0.70

0
0.0001
0

0
0.029
0

Australia '1975-1979
1985-1989
Bnzil

1985-1989
Canada1975-1979
1960-1984
1985-1989

olina
1985-1989

0.74

olim (Taiwan Prodncc)
1965-1989

0.38~ c h o s l o r n k i'~
1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

Dcnmuk1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

0.74
1.08
1.46

0.067
0.073
0.069

0.45
0.48
0.50

0.22
0.67
0.75

UNSCEAR 1993 REPORT

496

Tnl~le32 (continued)

A t w a r e mwal effccrhr

Dimihcrion ratio

dare
Counay(millionr)(thowmds)

norbs(rhowmds)

Annun1
cdlcrrhu
ejjkecri~~edasc( m m St,)

0.060
0.067

0.60
0.68
0.75

0.018
0.060
0.11

0.074
0.15
0.17

0.12
0.23
0.23

France1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

276
3.37
3.21

0.62
0.54

3.25
1.61
1.03

Getman Dcrn. Rcp.
1980-1984
1985-1989

0.81
0.83

0.20
0.15

0.36
0.54

md
period "Finlsnd 1'
1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

F~omhruiw

l i ~ g u ~1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

Monitored
workers

Measurably
a
@

I'er
mmirorrd
norher(my,+)

ifit.)

I'er
mrnrwably

upal

NRIJb

SHIJ

4.11
1.93
1.62

0.0003
0.OOCS
0

0.014
0.072
0

1.18
0.48
0.32

260
1.92

0.002
0.003
0.003

0.54
0.43

0.67
0.51

268
2 64

0.029
0.092
0.1.1

O.M8
0.18
0.22

0.14
0.33
0.31

1.66
1.93
1.62

0.00050.002
0.0001

0.086
0.14
0.014

0.41
0.49
0.61

0.12
0.30

0.22
0.39
0.52

0.54
0.80
0.85

1.82
1.82
1.75

0.003
0.001
0.005

0.21
0.10
0. I2

0.009
0.013

0.009
0.013

0.01 1
0.015

1.23
1.20

1.23
1.20

0
0

0
0

0. a23

0.012

0.26

1.21

288

0.43
0.35

3.73
275

1.61

1.74

5.66
7.91
15.9

5.21
5.72
16.6

61
81
90

o.n

worker

0
0.016

India
1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

0.17

a22

lndarcrim

1980-1984
1985-1989

Ireland
1985-1989

0.5

0Mcxim O
1985-1989

0.42

Pcru
1980-1984
1985-1989

0.12
0.13

4.63

0.033

0.33

1.93

0.009

0.11

0.92
0.72
1.111

0.003
0.003
0.006

0.11
0.W8
0.17

62
85
85

1.01
1.04
0.95

0.002
0.M)2
0.W

'

0.087
0.033
0,096

3.61

0.005

0.097

Spain
1985-1989

0.92

0.83

Tdal or reported data
1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

World

'

1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989'

Rdiothtmpy
I\rgeIlli~

1985-1989

0.04

o.n

0.077

0.28

1.04

0.64
0.78

0.63

1.47
0.27

230

0.03

0.34

0.42

0.002

0.17

0.n

0.24

0.90

1.24

3.73

0.0 18

0.44

0.54
0.62

0.35
0.36
0.43

0.75
0.63
0.59

1.40
1.01
0.82

2 13

0.U06
0.003
0.00060.n
0.078
0 . ~ 9Australia ''1975-1979
1985-1989
Brazil1985-1989
Chad.

1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

0.46
0.49
0.32

o.n

1.78
1.38

ANNEX D: OCCUPAnONAL RADIATION EXPOSURE9

497

--

Table 32 (conlinucd)

A t a o ~ cmnunl e l f c r i ~ rdoseCounlry~dfkanainorions

pcrind *Gina
1985-1989

hlonilorcd
workers

hfennuabl>~

spared(millionr)(thorsands)

uorkns(rhounndr)

0.103

254

0.35

AMW~
cdlcclibr
effcclitr
dare(man Sv)Pa

Dirnihurion roriol'ermcnrwobly

monilord
wrka

apal

NU,

'

SJJ

uvrkcr
(m~$

w\.)

3.54

1.39

10.0

0.015

0.51

0.058

0.16

1.43
208
1.83

1.89
1.87
1.42

3.82
3.01
290

0.W
0.005
0.004

O.M9
0.062
0.10

195
1.12
0.38

2 12
1.11
0.38

0.034
0.008
0.0001

0.37
0.17
0.022

0.30
0. ZS

China (Taiwnn Rorincc)
0.36

1985-1989

Qechoslcvalda '1975-1979
1980-1984
196-1989

0.009
0.01 1
0.014

0.76
1.11
1.29

0.015

0.92
1.01
1.01

0.38
0.69
0.63

h a r k1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

Finland 1'
0.25
0.24

0.026
0.018

0.054
0.026

0.22
0.095

208
1.44

0.00080.0007

1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

4.77
6.01
6.49

1.30
1.23

8.77
6.08
3.97

1.84
1.01
0.61

4.68
3.22

0.009
0.008
0.006

Gcnnan Dan. Rep.
1980-1984
1985-1989

1.20
1.03

0.31
0.17

LO9
0.68

0.9 1
0.66

3.9
4.00

0.36
0.45
0.55

0.14
0.14
0.15

0.73
0.6 1
0.61

205
1.36
1.10

249
298
4.17

1.43
1.53

22

3.91
3.39
3.94

0.091
0.31
0.23

0.086
0. M
0.22

1905-1989

0.30

Mexico O
1985-1989

0.31

1980-1984
1985-1989

France 'Munwy
1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989
India
1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

0.052
0.13

5 15

0.24
0.23

4.31
3.97

0.034
0.016
0.012

0.36
0.24
0.23

1.n
1.14
0.95

273
2.22
1.73

0.017
0.009
0.007

0.39
0.30
0.23

0.19
0.50
0.35

2 10
1.60
1.55

220
1.68
1.63

0
0.0007
0.003

0
0.017
0.039

0.14

0.1s

0.50

1.05

0

0

0.26

0.88

284

3.41

0.026

0.31

0.54
0.46

6.18
5.17

0.88

0.86

0.9 1

0.001

0.020

9.31
13.3
18.8

165
15.3
16.6

1.78
1.15
0.88

0.012
0.008
0.007

0.30
0.19
0.21

84
110
110

190
180
100

2.23
1.58
0.87

.

Indmuir
1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

IrdandPau
1980-1984
1985-1989

0.004

0.088
0.094

Spain

1985-1989

1.01

0.96

Total of reporld dab i
1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989
World'

1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

UNSCEAR 1993 REPORT498

T ~ b l e32 (con~inued)

A ~ w o g cm w o l f l c c r i ~ u

DLRiburwn rarw

dare
Cuwtrry~dFxamindimr

pcriai(milliow)

Motdoraduorkms(rhourandr)

Mc~ynblyapmd
w r h s(rkur~dr)AnnunlPa
cdlcc~i~~cmiroralrfTcclilr
workdare(mm S I ~(,,,.-jigPermcnrurnbly
uposniuwrkcr

NI1,,

a13

(d~)

V&nn y medicine

Australia '1975-1979
1985-1989

0.39

0.055
0.018

0.14
0.009

0

0

0.020

o

o

0.17
0.16
0.17

0.22
0.13
0.11

0.73
0.74
0.56

0.00080.0002
0

0.11
0.026
0

0.17
0.23
0.25

0.10
0.14
0.13

0.59
0.62
0.52

0.49
0.52
0.71

0.022
0.030
0.024

0.045
0.059
0.034

0
0.0004
0

0
0.17
0

207

0.89

1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

0.77
1.27
1.52

0.24

GLchcrlonLi.
1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989
Denmuk1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

Gnadl

Finland 1''
1980-1984
1985-1989

0.22

(L31

0.010
0.018

0.012
0.026

1. I9

0.087

0.020

0.17

2?Q

0.W3

1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

0.08 1
0.11
0.14

0.009
0.007
0.010

0.045
0.006
0.028

0.55
0.058
0.20

5.07
0.94
278

0.010
0
0.003

0.42
0
0.24

India
1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

0.062
0.080
0.092

0.021
0.026
0.035

0.011
0.016
0.019

0.17
0.20
0.20

0.51
0.61
0.53

0
0
0.002

0
0
0.20

Irdand1985-1989

(LW

0.W

0.001

0.017

0.33

0

0

1.40

0.U78

0.013
0.12
0.24

0.032
0.20
0.32

0.W
0.60
1.89

0.001
0.001
0.001

0.42
0.056
0.068

o.n

1.20
1.44

0
0

Frnncc '1985-1989
IJrnPry'

Japm [H 101
1985-1989

18.0

Sanb Abia
1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

0.42
0.61
0.75

Suil~alaod
1975.1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

0.44
0.59
1.03

0.12
0.13
0.050

0.22
0.049

0.0006
0
0

0.032
0
0

United Kingdun [W4]1985-1989

4

0.4

0.1

0

0

14
13
36

0.77
0.62
0.42

14.4
13.5
37.1

0.73

0.001
0.00020.0001

0.12
0.027
0.016

0.28
0.20
0.U

U d t d Stata [El]1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

18.1
21
85

6.2
12
38

2.26
1.08
0.95

Tdal d rrpatcd d.1. i
1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

19.7
23.8
96.4

o.n
0.39

ANNEX D: OCCUPAnONAL RADIATION EXPOSURES

499

A ~ w n ~ nc u a cl/cclit.clVimiburion rorio

dosc

Annul

Corvlnymd

Exn~ninniimr~wial"(millions)Monitorcd

McaruraSly

cdlrcrhu

unrkasa p e dwrkas
(fhorrrmd.7)

rfecfhu(rhour~dr)

P a

I'm

nnrkCrrnenrur&IY
uped

dose
(

NHIJb

~

I

norka

m Sv)
~

(d,$

25
26
52

0.52
0.40
0.32

(dv)

'

World
1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

48
65
160

Nl (human) mcdical uacs or radintion (excluding vctcrinuy medicine)Argcntira
1985-1989

3.45

1.20

3.74

1.08

3.12

0.13

0.48

1975-1979
1985-1989

6.23
15.8

8.96

3.45
1.11

0.55
0.07

0.12

0.0001

0.041

Bradl [D2]
1985-1989

76

23

115

1.51

4.96

1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

39.6
51.7
62.9

11.8
7.88
10.8

10.4
8.30
9.18

0.26
0.16
0.15

0.88
1.05
0.85

0.00050.00020.0002

O.OS0
0.014
0.058

slim
1985-1989

86.8

14.4

156

1.80

10.9

0.030

0.43

~ 7 7
I.%

0.57
0.49

5.16
7.80
9.12

0.76
0.83
0.78

2 73
2 15

0.003
0.003
0.003

0.13
0.079
0.10

3.32
208
1.18

0.54
0.35
0.20

0.005
0.W
0

0.22
0.10
0.011

250

0.004
0.00 1
0.001

0.45
0.12
0.21

Atnlmlia '&a&Qlim (Taiwm Province)

1980-1984
1985-1989

3.06
3.98

Czechoslovakia '1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

6.78
9.38
11.6

1.89
3.62
4.04

2Z

Dcnmark

1975-1979
1960-1984
1985-1989

6.13
6.02
6.M

Finld '
1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

4.98
5.60
6.18

0.18
0.58
0.49

1.17
LU
1.22

0.23
0.21
0.20

Fram '
1975-1979
1960-1984
1985-1989

40.9
59.2
73.7

8.06
8.19

493
36.0
25.1

1.21
0.6 1
0.34

4.46
3.06

0.006
0.006
0.003

Gaman Dan. Rep.
1980-1984
1985-1989

24.6
24.9

1.29

3.34
2%

0.14
0.10

1.99

0.001

0.18

Germany, Fed. Rep. of
1980-1984
1985-1989

134
185

2.2
21.9

26.2
235

0.20
0.13

1.18
1.07

0.00060.00050.14
0.16

tfungary
1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

7.80
9.15
9.07

1.43
1.26
1.29

3.19
241
2 34

0.41
0.26
0.26

22 3
1.91
1.82

0.003
0.002
0.001

0.16
0.13
0.11

India
1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

9.58
11.6
l5.2

5.22
5.74
8.03

7.89
6-56
8.02

0.82
0.57
0.53

1.51
1.14
1.00

0.007
0.003
0.003

0.30
0.22
0.17

6.55
2 10

J

A h w n ~ cnnnual cflccrit.~
dose
Cowny

I'cr
munirorul
nvrkn(rbummdr)a p e duvrkcrs(rbumd)Amual
cdltcrivc
rlfccrivedose(mnn Sv)

(msj

(4.)

Indonuis1975-1979
1980-1984
1985.1989

1.07
216
253

1.02
206
241

1.78
3.44
4.24

1.67
1.60
I .a

lrcland
1965-1989

1.69

0.28

0.22

Italy
1985-1989

44.6

12.6

Jnpnn
1975-1979
1980-1984
1965-1989

55.3
111
142

Mcldm O
1985-1989

0.n

Peru
1980-1984
198501989

1.70

Pcnlugill [CI]1985-1969

3.83

Soulh Alrica
1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989
Spain
1985-1989

Nlrl

l3mLtarionr

period "hfoniroreduvrknsMcprwablyPcr
mcnvurably
erpsaluvrkcrDufribu~ionrario

NR,,

~

1.75
1.68
1.n

0.002
0.003
0.003

0.02
0.01
0.01

0.13

078

0

0

21.0

0.47

1.66

0.004

0.27

21.7
34.2
38.6

35.7
44.0
46.6

0.65
0.40
0.33

1.65
1.29
1.21

0.52

2W

286

4.02

0.030

0.24

7.03
7.14

4.46
4.20

0.97

201

0.52

2.M

0.003

8.76
10.7
12.1

5.49
4.13
264

0.57
7.37
9.53

0.M5
0.687
0.787

0.103
1.79
3.61

0.000
0.006
0.005

0.085

37.7

34O
.

29.3

0.78

0.86

0.004

0.12

1975-1979
1960-1984
1985-1989

115
12.8
13.2

1.29
1.38
3.66

284
253
3.13

0.25
0.20
0.24

221
1.63
0.86

0.006
0.004
0.002

Suqlurland
197501979
1980-1961
1985-1989

21.5
30.1
36.1

6.20
4.97
1.83

0.29
0.17
0.05

United G n g d m III1. W4J
1980-1984
1985-1989

39

28

40

8.4

0.71
0.21

United Stata "1975-1979
3960-1984
1985-1989

485
564
734

460
410
260

0.95
0.70
0.38

Taal of reported data
1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989

67 1
1060
1520

9 7
588
644

0.86
0.55
0.42

993
1140
1030

0.78
0.60
0.47

million^)S d c n

1.58

J

J

0.2
0.23

'

World
1975-1979
19RO-1984
1985-1989

l?RO
1890

2220

257

650
520
590

0.001
0.001
0.000

0.12
0.092
0.026

0.003
0.002
0.007

'

0.16
0.11
0.34

0.003
0.002
0.009

0.14
0.10
0.24

1.05

1.5
1.7
1.7

'

'
'

'lhe data arc a ~ u a valueslaveraged o v a the indicated periods. They were derived as averages over the ycars f a which data were reputed; in some casa.
data wcrc repuled for mly romc of thc yarr in thc pcriodr of interat here.
7hc nlura of hal5arc f a rhc rnonitaed worKcrct. Values f o the c+
rakforcc can also bc crtirna~cdwhere data are gbra for both mcnitaed andmcarurably c x p d workers.

ANNEX D: OCCUPA'IIONM, RADIATION EXPOSUMS

501

Table 32 ( c o r ~ t i n u c d )' T h e numba of u o t k r s and the cdlcctive dose havc k c n scaled up by a f a d a of 1.43, sincc the reported data included d y about 7m of the u p u e d
w a k f u c e in Australia.

Thc mahod d d a c rcmding u a s different in the two pcricdr f a uhich data arc rcpatcd. and this may account partly f a thc diffcrcnca in data. Averageindi\idual doses f a 1975-1979 wcrc c a l ~ l a t e df r a n thc tdnl ofthe rcpotied d o r n f a an ocrupatimal cntcgory divided by h c atimntrd numbcr ofnvrkcrs
in that mtcgory, with the results rrundcd to the nearcat 0.1 mSv. In 1990 thc cstimnlcs wcrc based dircaly m the rerults of individual monitoring; in the
abcncc d dnta f a 1985-1989, the d ~ l af a 1990 have hccn auumnl to bc rcprcscnlntivc d that period.
The mn7-h~of workers and the cdlcctivc dosc have been scalcd up by a factor of 1.5, since the rcporied d:~tnincluded only w a k a r in that part ofthe coontry
that u u lo k w m c the G x c h RepuMic, which contained two thirrt d thc ccuntry's ppulstion.
f
The numbas of examinati- include t h a c in dental prmice. which amount to .bout 1 million pn year.
Some 1 4 8 oh thc total d l c c r i v c dose from d l medical u x s d n d i a t i o n has y a to k assigned t o m e or dhcr d lhc s a r i w s c a t e g a i a . Cocuequcntly, thereported d o r u may be small undcrestimateq particularly in 1975-1985, where most o f t h e doses yet t o hc a u i p e d exist.
Rcpated dosn arc o v a u t i m a t u because the dmimctcr is calibrated in tcrms of s h n surface dosc and is w a n abovc aprons uhcn thcy arc used. F a diapratic
x.ray radiology prcliminary studics indicate that the ovcrcstimnte may he a facta in the ran@ of 3-30.
' The number d u.akcrs and h e cdlcctivc dosc hsvc becn scaled up hy a f a d a d 1.33, since thc reported &la covered only 75% of those monitored
1
T h u c data should be intcrprcted uith carc, particularly bccause the countries includcd in Ihc summaticns for the rcspeaivc five-ycar pcricds may nM bc thewc,dcpcndingon whether data wcrc rcportcd f a the pcriul in quation, Conrcqucntly, direa canparism between data for different pcricdr is invalid to thec n a t that the &u mmprisc wntributims f r m different cormuics. It should alu, be noted that the data on h U I s and SRIS are averages d data reputed on
h e ratios. In p a l , h e s c data arc lcss mmplctc lhan thmc that fonn thc basis d Lhc rummaled numbcr d wakcts and c d l ~ i v dosa.
c
Thc cstimatca are mrapolatiom of r c g i d A- based m h e gross national product (Ghl'); h u e of i r u f l ~ c i e n data.
t
the cs6matcs of h U I 5 and SRIS
arc avcrago of the data rcportcd cn t h a c ratios. In general, thesc data arc less cunplctc than those that Tam the basis of the rummated numb- of workers
and cdlcaive dosa.
I
The apparent increase in the ratios in the third p c r i d is consequent upon data for a i n a ( f a whlch Ihc mlues of thesc ratios are much larger thm the nvcrsp)
cmly bcing included in the p a i d 1985-1989. Excluding Chinq there is a downward trend in thc values ovcr the uhole p a i d .
" Data for dentis& in pri\atc pradicc only.
" D a b f r a n [El. E2 and EjL The data are specifically f a the ycars 1975. 19SO and 1965; thcy are a s s m e d here to be rcpresmtativc. rcrpcaivdy. d 1975-1979,
1960-1964 md 1985-1989.
O
In h e absence d data for 1985.1989, thc data for 1990 havc becn assumed rcprucnlrtivc.
D a b are for holding assistants; 1.06 man Sv d the collective dose arose in radiographic examinations and 0.34 man Sv in fluoroscopy. Some 2 4 million
radiographs were takcn uith about 5% on large animals u;ih thc ranaindcr m small animals.
Q
The mlues f a 1985 (the period 1985-1989) arc Lascd cn cnrapdations oC earlier data.
' Repc~leddoscs arc ovcrcstimatcs because thc dosimdcr is calibrated in terms of the skin surface dosc and is wom above aproar w h a e t h a e are used. F a x-ray
diagnmic radidogy, preliminary studia indicate that the o w u t i m a t e may bc by a factor in thc r a n p 3-30, aboul60% d t h e occupaticnal exposures reputed
for all medical uses of radiation are currently reputed to arise in diagputic radidogy.

UNSCEAR 1993 REPORT

502

Table 33
Worldwlde exposure from nll n~edlcllluses of rndlation a
I

Corulnylrcgion

Monirored
workasAvaagc ~ n u a lrdlcrrirr cflccri\ck cAvaagc ~ n u a lindividual dosc lo
numuoral nwkcrs

Collecrirr efJecri~rd m e p a unb GNP(rhousand$( m Sv)
~

(do

SU.v

Collccriw flerriw
dose p a unir
poplorion( m ~ ~ v ~ e r l (dm~~ ~ v p w 1 0 ~ )1975-1979
Fast and south-cast Asia 'Eastern Europe f
Indian submntincnt
Latin America
OECD except United States
United States
Rcmaindcr g
Tdal

4 (0.3%)190 (15%)
12 (0.9%)

7 (0.7%)110 (11%)10 (1%)

1.7
0.57
0.82

44
94
61

21
280
12

360 (28%)490 (38%)230 (18%)220 (22%)460 (46%)
190 (19%)

0.61
0.95
0.84

74
250
160

490
2100
97

1300

990

0.78

130

230

1980-1984
East and s o u t h a r t Asia 'Eastern Europe f
Indian submntincnt
latin A m a i m
OECD except United States
United Slates
Rcmaindcr J
T-l

10 (0.5%)
460 (24%)
15 (0.6%)
60 (3%)
610 (32%)
S O (31%)160 (8%)16 (1%)
150 (13%)9 (0.7%)no (25'16)
210 (18%)410 (36%)
90 (8%)

1.6
0.31
0.57
4.5
0.35
0.70
0.55

37
64
33
350
43
120
79

41
350
9
650
450
1700

1900

1100

0.60

87

240

48

1985-1989
Asia
Fast and south-cast Asia 'Eastern Europe f
Indian subcontinent
Latin America
OECD except United Stater
United States
Remainder 8

Taal

96 (4%)
17 (0.8%)430 (19%)19 (0.9%)110 (5%)740 (33%)
no (33%)75 (3%)

170 (17%)29 (3%)
130 (13%)
10 (1%)
180 (17%)190 (19%)280 (27%)
35 (3%)

1.8
1.7
0.31
0.53
1.6
0.27
0.38
0.47

440
56
38
30
220
24
58
56

140
66
300
9
400
370
1100
42

2200

loo0

0.47

54

190

The dab are annual valucs averaged o v a the reyleaive five-year periods and arg in general, quoted to two signifimnt figures.
Values in parentheses are the percentage contribution of that practice to the tolal n u m b of maaitored wakcrs in medicine.
The numbcrs in paren!hcscs arc the percentage contributiaa of that practice to the cdlective dose h m all ~nedicaluses d radiation.
The normalized mllcclive doses per unit GNP fa the thrcc five-yur periods are expressed, respectively, in terms of 1977, 1983 and 1989 prices: direct
cunpariscn betwero the values f a different periods i s pouiMc only aftn mrreaing f a t h a e different price bests.
Nmccnudlyp1amed c o n m i e s in east and south-cast Asia.
Includmg the whdc d the l a m e r USSR.
lnduder the remainder of the world for which values are nor specifically tabulated d s c w h a c in thc tahlc. Note that the countries or regions comprising theremainder differ in the respcaive live-year periods.
Centrally-planned economics in east and south-cast Asia.

ANNEX D: OCCUPATONN, RADIATION F3:XPOSURE.S

503

Tnble -74
Summary of worldwldc exposura fmnl n~cdlcaluses or radiation "I

HO~~TS

Annunl w a o g c
c d l ~ c r i \Cffecrita~
dare '(rharrondr)(m M SL')Monitored
I'racrkc*

Annual m w a g c
individunl d m ronumitared w a k e s(m.71, 0.')N R ~ ~

S R ~ ~

1975-1979
hagnostic rsd.iology
Dental praaice
Nudear mcdicine
Radicthcrapy

630 (55%)
370 (32%)
61 (5%)
84 (7%)MX) (62%)120 (1%)62 (6%)
190 (20%)

0.94
0.32
1.01
223

0.003
0.000J
0.002
0.012

0.11
0.077
0.067
0.30

All medicinc

1300

990

0.78

0.003

0.14

1980-1984
Diagnostic radiology
Dental praaicc
Nudcar mediancRadidhcrapy

I100 (61%)
so0 (285)
81 (5%)
110 (6%)no ( 6 7 ~
93 (9%)
85 (8%)I80 (17%)

0.68
0.19
1.00
1.58

0.003
O.Oo(KI
0.002
0.008

0.05
0.064
0.033
0.19

N l medicine

1900

1100

0.60

0.002

0.10

19U-1989
Diagnostic radiology
h t a l pradiceNudcar medicine
Radiotherapy

1400 (67%)

4-80 (23%)
90 (4%)
110 (5%)760 (78%)
75 (32)8s (9%
lo0 (~WM)

0.56
0.05
0.95
0.87

0.005
0.0003
0.004
0.007

0.22
0.12
0.096
0.21

N I mcdicinc

2200

1000

0.47

0.009

0.24

" The data arc annual values averaged ova the rcspectivc five-year pcriods and arc. in general, quoted to two significant figures.

* Values in parcolheses arc the percatage ~ t r i b u t i o nof that practice to the total number of mmitored wakers in medicine.

The numbar in parentheses are the percentage wntributim of that pranicc to the cdlcaivc dose from all medical wes OF radiation.
?he d u e s d NRIS 2nd SR15 should only bc regarded ar indicative of worldwide experience. Rcponed data m these ralios wcrc far fwcr than f a a h c rquantifier of intawt (c.g d l e n i v e d q monitored workers ctc.) and were insufticient to form the basis for m a e reliable and representative cstimatc ofwaldwide levels.

504

UNSCMR 1993 REPORT

Tnhlc 35
Ernploymenl in underground mlnlng worldwide

Ia01
Numbrr oJ mL~crs(rhournwl.~)cowthyCod m i n k 1

Orlra mining

Totd
16%

4664 (100%)

Pdand

1594
55
105
669
25 1

South ATtiu

46

Spin

38
640
46
51
213

64
2
4
10
10
340
4
40
2
15
265

3908 (84%)

756 (16%)

China~rechu~ovatia
Gcrmrny
India

USSR
Unitcd Kngdan
Unircd Stotcs
Othcr countria
Tdal

n

109
679
26 1
386
42
660
48
66
476

Tahlc 36
Exposures to radon and decay produck In non-uranium mines

Orha mining

Cod minu1
COW hyAustralia
CanadaFranceGermany
India
Italy
PolandSouth Africa
USSR
Uni~cdKingdom
Uni~cdStates

Yugoslavia'

Mchl miner.

Nm-mclal mina.

em

1991
1980s
1981
1990
1991
1980s
1980s
1970s
19805
1970s
1990
1980s
1990
1975
1990
1985
1970s
1980s

Numberof mines

Exparure(WWI a'')%above2 W W a-I

Numberof mLreskposure(WAI a-I)%abo~e2 1VLM a"

3

0.2

0

3
20

0.2
0.1

0
0

23
4
5

0.1
0.4
1.o

0
2
8

45

1.4

18

22
35
26
25
40
26

0.8
1.2
0.1
1.7
0.31
0.85

9
8
0
10

41
10
99 "
86

0.45
0.5
1.2
0.12

7
4

5

0.02

0.3

47
220

0.04
0.1

0

223

0.1

<1

5

0.2

0

0.2

2

1.7

Wl
IAl I
18141

IBI

0

71

Rd

IS101
[MI21
IN61
lsl 11
P 3I
lG31
IS71
F lI
ID51
1~151
IR61
Is121

PI
50

IK61
IK61

ANNEX I>: OCCUPATTONN, RIU>IATION EXPOSURES

505

Table 371)oses tn non-urntilun~mlners In the rormer USSR t ~ n dIn lhc United SLHtes from inhalation of radon and I t s
decay products

lype of mint

hfcmurcmuu paiml

Number of mines

hrwn&r of norktrs

A ~ w a ~mnuolecffecrhr(tkourd)dare ( d t ) a

Famcr USSR [PI]0.2 (0.1-0.9)
4.8 (0.02-24)

Cosl

aha
United Stntn (metal m i n n )

11 on
Coppa
Ladkinc
Gdd
Silva
M d ybdcnum
Tmg$tenPhtinum

1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1965
1985
1985
99

Tdal

1
22
3.9
0.58
29
22
0.06
1

6.7
0.7
13
6.7
1.3
1.3
13
6.7

13.8

6.7

0.25
0.85
0.08
0.04
0.05
23
0.1
1.5
0.08
0.2
0.W
0.11
0.01

0.07
0.2
2

5.5

0.67

C'nitcd S b t n ( n o n m c h l m i n n )-Oil shale
LmatmcMuble

Q ~ Y
I-luaspar
Potash, soda, bcrate
Pharphate
Salt
GYw"n
Talc
Nm-maallic miacnlr
Cnlaonite Lime

Ted

1985
1985
1985
1985
I985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1965
1985
86

5.7

0.33
0.13
20
0.7
1.3
4.7
0.2
0.13
5.4

Range of n l u a in parcnthaer.
The d a m repared in [W, PI] were dcrivcd using a mnvcrsion factor d 10 mSv WLM-' for e x p a u r c to radoa progeny. The d a a tabulated have h e nrnodi6ed from those rcpated using a w n v n r i o n f a d a d 5.6 mSv WW'.
Data from [E3];they arc based on measurements at aboui W w of mincs in the United Staler.

Tnble 3flWorldwide coiiecUvc dcae from inhalation of radon and its dccny products from underground mining(excluding uranium) ~ i n dib dlslrlbuUon bclwecn counlries
Number of mines 'Expanuc ro radon progeny

CorvlLy
Amual cOIICCII.\'C
c f i ~ ; \ edase(mM SV)(~howh)Atwage ~ n w clJcrivc
l
dare
(d.)

CMI m i n n

India
I1dandUSSR
Unitcd k n g d a n
United SUIM
Chha

Tad

105
669
25 1
840
46
51
1940

59
74
430
170
26
29
740

0.56
0.11
1.7
0.2
0.56
0.56
0.38

3910

1530

0.36

Other niinn (excluding uranium) 'Germany
India
PolandSouth Abica
USSR
U n i t d Kingdm
Unilcd Stales '
aha

4
10
10
340
40
2
48 1
334

31
45
5.6
1900
I90
5
240
1800

7.8
4.5
0.56
5.6
4.8
25
4.9
5.4

Tcult

700

3780

5.4

NI underground m i n n (excluding uraniun~mines)

Tdal
a

t

46 10

I

53 10

1.2

Unless olhauisc indialed. numbcr d m i n m is tskeo from Tablc 35. In Ihc category 'Other minus the number d miners also include uranium miners;
c a r c a i r n s u c made f a this in the t o d s .
D c r i d f r a n r e p a r d u p o w e s in Table M assuming a amvcrrioa f a a o d 5.6 mSv WW'.
Tk numbas of minor include hosc woridng in uranium mi= ud the c r t i a a t d collecrivc doses are. therefae. ovcratimata; Ibis is ccxrmed f a in h e
t d d cdlcctiw dac bra not on a catntry by rmntry basis. Thc r m d average individual dowr are averages w e t all undcrgound rnina exduding eo.l anduranium mines.
Expmure &la taken from [S7] which arc rcprcscntstiw f a 1990. m c u b t higha levclr were r c p a t d in h e 1970s [G3] (see Table 36).
Expcsurc &n t a k a from [W] (see Table 36).
Value lakm from PI;it ir for all underground mincrs in thc Unitd Stalw cxcept those waking in coal and uranium mines.
Uranium miners haw bcen excluded from the t m l .

Table 39
Summary of occupallonal cxposurw to natural radintion (excluding urn~iiummining) a

O c c q a i m cr procruc

C h I mining
aha mining
kronv

ma
Tad

'

N&
of
wrkersflh0-d)Worldwide ~ n u collec~ivc
deflecri~vdose( m Sv)~A w a g c MWI

3900

3400
4100
800

cffccriw d m
fdv)

700
250
300

JOO

0.9
6
3
<I

5200

Rb(W)

1.7

htimatcd dcscr are appropriate f a the latter half d the 198Ck. In mlnrng r o m m h t higher individual and cdlertivc docem arc likely lo have bao u p e r i c d
p c v i a u l y . Cdlcaivc dam to nircrcw are likely to have bem Imn prc\icudy bccduac air traflic growlh ovcr thc period.
Exduhng uranium mining.
l n d u d a d . t i r e d pawcl plrnts (-3CO.WO works, cdleaive d a c : c60 man Sv) and extrnchon of minanl an&, phmphalc aa nnd lheir rritnqumt u u(cdlcaive d n e c200 man Sv).

l p ~ aloqmq~ ( I ~Kf)
O I1'0 JO PUO (dg d u g uo umq uopsprr) uBug or LL) 81 JO au9ug
paqsnd w l e u Q'=opmbq
nopdIvx r m s ~ ~ u l m p 11
u!
261

q

1

r Bu!rn e u w w oru! =]nor

sd!r &ug w mmq uo!lu!par :palonb n u m r o az

Gnr Ku~!lapa q u! p a p o l pun p a 4 ~ ~ 1 a ipu w q a ~ i n o s

r ~ 91-ZI p q
proq p l m smBug om1 or sumq w g e ~ e Bi u ~ n r LL)

1a~mm
jo %o!lpuoq l u n u ~ w

a r m s p y m p u ! 11LdI

8L61

paronb p u suqr, or w w p :(surtq U O ! I ~ I ~mrcrado
IIJ)
JW p ~ u u q
01KL) 01 jo a s q 1

E)as h q d ~ t l ~ ~ ~ UK~IJ
w s l npawiuar n l r n q s

LqdeBollursKu Ker-x~ ~ 6 1YIW

a r m 9 ~ r u ~ s n p 11u '!61

mwna
tu!rwaw

WIN 9 0 l U n ~au!~ady
V'H 'eleld q

mu!~ruSiv

w!lm!pm~J O srqn Imympul
sap!~~nm!per
Su!ii!m,elq
pa&rs)laplr~!u!p ou 59 5.1 i q e ~q 01 paremgo >sop u q s

IKlu!ew

I J ~ Jpue spuaq qroq JO uo!rau!we1~3

UWIJ

9L61

I

w , ,P~= I Q ~ I

LEZ

nlru Bu!isudn p i p m r a

1wpp.w m l j n n

9861

I

w l p j PU ? o m ioj ruo!unr~sq

anear q~reawn

8~61suonewqe p o s o m o q : , u! acamrr! i@!ls lprrcq 1331
u! a r m e d m r o! a m n o ! K r e a d m l :pmq aja[ ayl uo ' d u g or A 9 1 % 9 u 1 6 z 30 %up K ~ ~ q . a p q ~ 1

psrann v n r rmg s m p a p p p Bu!(pueq s m l a r q

axreuaru!rol n l j e a x

A 3 9'8 P 2-

01 3 t . aslueldsuen morrew auoq
Burpnpu! r w l m n n IW!PU : q - p OE f u y s 01 s a p p l z ! p l pue 6 9 91-1 JO
l m 3 1 0 q ~uqx 01 umq uoprpel !pmq jo uo(r 01 If)OE j o

m p pn ( d a p p~ pm p q ) s!iiraruupo!pcl a ! w q ~puo arm8 !puwq I@!

01

IDPE'O J0KL)PDJUYtlw i n s PIP^
Ir(q0~%3

w

a q

1

&P~~.JP~M

1

JU

9~61

l u 0 p % i >ll!unpartiupnupun
Klsoodl aldiuur u l o uop~n!vow a n a s

aprar q ~ r t m x
l u ~ l dD N ~l'22pnN

6861

nssn

%u!QllsuF"fiS
nlgd
krGun)(

m-='n~ ~ 6 1.Jan uaa u s t u n 9

6L61,~ 0 l I - J

Bun1 r@!i n! rpmomnaudo!p~ yyn ( p 6 o p m > a ) aiuolpdr
nogepur a w e Kq tpeq !(emme% Kg 1z put uorinau KO EZ)Kf) EV JO amp Kpcq-aloqm a r w y

1

pwrzol al!rrg B u m ~ r w >va m yuicm Su+ouur u! tlrnpasoid m o l p ~01 a m l ! e ~KI!IPIJ

P!l.U3

C861

rarr\l Dnang
eu!1lu9~p.-sqo~ p s p l ~ u on
u p!annp y o l jo
1 o! A t ) M.O JO asup numd [enuue pue ~ 8 6 1 - m popItu!
Xf) p 9 p
~ amp e q m w ! ( I ~ U ~ eUJOWPAOWJ l r ~ g m r b) g 1 x 8 r(l$n~ pioopmm p u w ~I

Bnld K c n m aqi p a B p Kq p x n w I N e p
m!leu!meiuua :ww@ peal 8uuea.n mu u q n ~mueal m P n S

LL61

PPNV
eu!lwll~~ I J K J IaIIJ .lUaIJIlN

S a 3 ~ n b 2 q~ p3 ~ pw
q ~ n u o d jao armoh?

PIJ+~J
SWSDd

a m s o d n /o > s m 3 U . ~ W

U O ! J O ~ O JO

W!JDI~D-/o d i ~J T J J O

W!DM~

jo ma^I &).)3

Tnhle 40 (continued)

Country 1
lorofint

Yenr ofocctlmrType cj t u r d l o t i mor opaorionhi&cause cf apatlrrc

Person$offecrad

Norwe of a p o s w c and hcdrh cmsequnces

Bangladah '1989

radiography source

1

Whdc-body d o x of 2-3 Gy

China

1980

r a d o p p h y source

1

Whole-body dose of 5 Gy and l m l i z e d cxpaswc

China
Kaifeng G t y

1986sourceAccidental cxpaurc for about 3 minuter2

Wholc-body d o s n of 2.6 and 3.5 Gy; nlulerntc hnmlupdaic type of acute radiation sickness

China
Zhengzhou City

1987

irradiation facility

Aoddcntal entry to inadiatim r o a n f a 10-15

1

Estimated wide-body dac of 1.35 Gy; m a e x i a and nausea four haun Iata; s c v a e h g c tohacmopactic s y s t m with rataation of WBC was relativdy slow

Chinal h a o Xan

1988

Accidental entry to inadiatim room fcx about 40
scam&

1

Estimated whole-body dose of 5.2 Gy; acute radiation r i h c a r ( b c marrow synhrme); &a duecy u r s followup, m d i t i m goodChinafkijing

1989

6

Accidental exposure to wurce for about 4
minutn2Whole-body dorecavcrcd

China

1989

1921r radogrrphy source

1

Wid exposurc d 18-37 Gy

Czcchorlovaha
Pardubice

1977

h'"

industrial
rahography wurcc

Technical failure d the equipment and improper
actions to bring scurcc back unda control

1

Whole-body dose of about 5 mSy data insufficient f a &mating l m l dorcr; b u l l a s dermatitis d
thc thutnb of thc right hand; plastic rurgay two years l a t aCrechorloval;la
Sotdm

1979

Ip2lr industrial
radiography m c cTechnical failure d the equipment andinadquatc modloring during and .flcr w a k

1

Whole-body dose of about 5 mSv, data insufficient for &mating I d darn: bullws dermatitis d
thc third finger d the I& hand and adjacent arcas; plutic w g a y two years l a t a

Czeclroslmkia
Prague1982

11'"

industrial
radiography source

Source transport wntainn declared empty m
dclivcry from abroad nnd handled as if inactive

1

Whole-body dox of about 2 mSy data insufficient f a urinating 1-1
thumb d right hand; wnwtvativc ticalmcot

CzechorlonLia
Petndd1985

Diiutioq using a needle.
of 24thd u t i m inglove box

C a r d a s n u s and inadequate equipment f a w a kwith tramuranio

1

Intake through wound d -600 Bq d 2 4 1 ~ msurgical;excision d wcund and adminishation of DTPA

Gcchoslwakia
R a p

1988

Manufacturing of foils
motainiag 2 4 t ~ mfor urc
in fire alarms

Ncw rdling mcthod not t e t d inactively first;
p m r radiation protection pnctim

1

Inhalation of -50 kBq d dispcrscd *"Am; hospitaliwtion and adminirmtim d D T P k no clinicalmanifautims

El Salvadn a

19H9a ~ irradiationofacility3

Whole-body doscs of 3-8 Gy; 1 dcath

France '
Nancy

1978

X-ray q u i p m a t

I

L o d i d cxposurc of hand; amputatim d Gnga

Fiance 'Montpdin1979

19'1r radiography source

1

Wholc-body and localized exposure; amputation d I d t arm

Gaman Dem. Rep.

1979

X-ray fluorescence unit

1

Dow d 10-30 Gy to right hand and whole-body dow of 0.245 Gy; acute and chronic radiodermatitis (2nd and 3rd degree)

Freiberg

seo0od.l

irradiation fadlity

0w~
rce

Carelnrnnr

of 0.87 and 0.61 Gy; both sufTaed mild haanopcidic radratim ridcnar;

dous; bullcus dematitis cb

'I'nble 40 ( c n n t i n u c d )cacnhy lla-dimYear ofaecidrnt

M a n carue 4a p t a e

Typc o/ i n r r d a f i mor o p a r i o n

Pasmr
armladN a w c of aposwe m d hcdfh c a ~ ~ c q u r n c u

Gnman Dan. Kcp.
Bohlcn1980

Analytical x-rny unit

Carelessnus

1

Doso of 15.30 Sv to Icn hsnd; acute and chroriic rndio-dcmntitir (2nd and 3rd dcgcc)

German Dem. Rep.
Schwarrc P m p e

1983

Ig2hindustrial r w c c

Technical defea and inappropriate handling

1

Dosc to thc right hand of abart 5 Gy; w t c and chrmic radio-dermatitis (1st dcgrec)

Germany, Fcd. Rep.

1975

X-ray f l i ~ o r c ~ c cquipmat

Carclasncss and technical faults during rcpair

1

Estimate dosc of 30 Gy to thc fingers; rcddcning d two fingers nftn 10 days

Garmny, Fcd. Rcp.

1975

Welding scam 1-1 ofx-ray q u i p m c n ~G r c l n s n n s and technical d d d s

1

Estimated dose d -2 Gy to Ihc stomach rcgicn

Germany, Fed. Rcp.

1976

X-ray equipment

Inupcti handling of cquipmrnt

1

Estimtcd wholc-body dose of 1 Gy; reddening of sldn aAn 24 hours and radiation aRertffecu

Germany, Fed. Rep.

1980

Radiogram unit

Defcaivc cquipmcnt

2Ertimtcd dosc d 23 Gy to the hand and an ctTedivc dose d 0.2 Sv

Germany. Fed. Rep.

1981

X-ray flunacencc
quiprnrnt

Crrclnmcy

1

Partid body cxposurc uith 20.30 Gy dasc to thc right thumb; cxtarsivc t i w e d a m a p developingo m scvaal moaths

Germany, Fcd. Rcp.

1963

X-1 ily cquiplnmt

Dcfecuvc cquipmat

1

Partial body cxposurc to rcgioru of thc body d about 6-12 Gy; localixcd physical changes

Hungary
Gyh

1977

Indudrial defcaoyope

Failure d equipment to uithdraw wurce into ils
contai ncr

1

Whole-body d o x of 1.2 Gy; slight nausea. changes in Mood and inacased f r q u m c y ofchromasanrl aberrations; ohcrvatioo and d a t i v e therapy

Ilungary
Tisrafured

1984'"~r industrial
defeaoscopc

Fnilurc d equipment and carclss handling ofsource1

Whole-body d o x of 46 mGy; 20-30 Gy estimated f a f i n k s of IcR hand; radiation burns on fingasof Icfl hand; incvasiblc necrosis at tip d onc finger, surgically ranovcd; sli&t incruse inchromosanal aberrations

Iraq

1975

'92hradiogaphy wurcc

1

Wholc-body dme of 0.3 Gy plus l m l i r c d cxponrre of hand

Italy '
Rrcscin1975

6 0 ~ industrialoradiography source

1

Whole-body dose of 10 Gy; hacmatcpactic syndromq death aftn 13 dayrlndonaia
Badak. L s t Bomco

1982'921rindwtrial
radiography sowce

Rcpair d thc scurcc by the opaator

Indonesia
Grcbon, W n t Java

1987

Industrial radiography
x-ray mnchinc

Kcpair d shutta ufhile machinc was in cperatim

1

Dose to donum d m c hand in e x n u of 10 Gy; o c d n and auppuratim d thc rffcded hand

India
Vikhroli. B u n b y

1982

I9'lr pencil rcurcc

Fnilurc d sc~urityduring transpon of source;
scurce lost and frund by a railuay w n k n

1

Doso of 1.5035 Gy lo skin in the region of the g o i n nnd whde-body dose cf 0.4-0.6 Gy; ~ c v n cradiation burns in pelvic region with cxnuciating pain

India
Mulund. h b n y

1983

I9'lr projector

Operation by untrlincd p a w m c lI

Dox to the skin of 20 Gy and to the whdc baly of 0.6 Gy; xvcrc damagc to f n g c r ~four d uhich
w a c nmput~lcd

1

Ltimated doses of 0.77 Ciy to the wholc M y , 0.64 Gy to thc gomds and 11.7 Gy to thc hands;
ocdcrna and suppuration of thc hands

Cw1
lacrrri~

Type # hallahC?I
or opaarion

Yew afaccLhfMain cause 4 a p a r w c

PffsartafiralNmun of aponoc and hedrh carscquprco

India
VisaLhapatnam

1985

60Co radognphy
projataVidatim of safe waking p r a a i m and lack dmaintcnancc

2

Skin d m d 10-20 Gy to opaator and 0.18 Gy to m nuistmt; &mnp lo Gngcn, m e finger
amputated

India
Yarnunanagn

1985

I9'1r radiography
projector

Violation of safe working practices associaled
with powcr failure in the workplace

2

Doses of 8-20 Gy to hands of b a h operatar; damage to fingers; hvo fingers amputated hun eachindividul

India
Hadra, Gujarat

1989

radiography
projector

Failure d d a y management and i m p o p amaintenmcc

1

Dose d 10 Gy to fingcn and whdc-body dose d 0.65 Gy; radiatim bums m fingas d bd6 ban&fingers amputated

Norway 'Kjcll er1982

*CO industrial
inadiaticm facility

I

Whole-body d w c of 22 Gy; dwth alter 13 days

Pcru

1977

'"1r

rwm

Untrained pnsormcl and lack of supcrvisim;
quipmcnt neithcr rcgjslnnl nor authorized3

Maximum dowr of 164 Gy to hands; 0.9 Gy lo lens of the eye; 2 Gy to the w h d c body: unpucltim
of lingers of two pmplc and dfccu on Ien hand d onc

South Africa
Sasdburg Tranvnal

1977

I9'lr industrial
radiography wurce

Faulty c p r a t i a , of pneumatically opcratd
container m d monilor; nrclessnas d operala

1Wholc.body dose 1.16 Gy; amputation of 2 S n g m , rib r e m d and skin grafts

South Africa
Witbank Tranrvaal

1989"' 1r indurtfial
radiopsphy source

Dclached source; negligence d radiographn(source n& properly anachcd) and failure dpatablc mcmita to r c ~ s t c rddachcd source

3

Whole-My d m a of t h r a w a k m : 0.78, 0.09 and 0.1 Gy, 111 with m uncertainty d a b a n 0 3 Gy;computed cffcctin dosc to the most e x p o d was 221 Sv; most cxpacd worka: ampulatim of rightleg st the hip a n n 6 months and amputation d 3 f i n p s sftu ooc ycsr

South Africa
Sasdburg Tranvaal

1990

60~oinduNial
radiography source

Source Id? bchind a R a radiogaphy w u k ; loasn d dctcded due to inadquate monitaing
smrce handled by 6 pcoplc

6

C y c o g d c d p i s indicated that thrm people rccdved whdc-body d a e r in exccas d 0.1 Gy G t ha maximum of 0 5 5 Gy, scurce handled for paiods d 5-20 rcinuta, but local dovs d d n a bc
atimnted with any aaruracy; right hand amputatul 10 cm above win in m e case; patches dscnsitivc skin on fingers of andha; blistering of fingers in two 0th- cases

USSR '

1975

l9'Ix inadiatim facility

2Whde-body doses of 3 and 5 Gy; d m to hsnds o v a 30 Gy

USSR

1976

m ~ irradiationofacilily1

Whole-body d o x of 4 Gy; radiation sickness, haernatopoictic syndranc

USSR '

1980

@
ok

1

Dose d SO Gy to lensUnited Kingdom

1977

Filling g d s a x s tritium
light sources

Broken inla manifdd led lo the r d a s c ofescape of -11-15 TBq of tritium

2

Whole-body d w : 0.62 and 0.64 Sv

Unitcd Kingdom

1977

19'1r radiogrnphy soutcc

O p n a t n waking in a cmfincd arcn held aourcef a 90 vconds while radiographing a wcld

1

C y ~ o g a ~ c tdraimaryicab'matcd an quivalcnt whole-body dasc 4 . 1 Gy; radiation burns m threefingers

United Kingdom

1978

'"lr

Radiognphn dclibcratcly o m c x p o v d himself

1

Cy~ogcncticdcsimdry ntimated an quivalent whole-body Qlc d 1.52 Gy,no l d i z c d skinrendions

Unilcd Kingdom

1983

Gamma radiography

Inadvatmt exposure d radiograph1

Whdc-body dore d 0.56 Gy

Zoru dd O l n d u d oirradiatim fadlily

radiopaphy wurcc

smla

I

Table 40 (continued)
Country I

Typc cf insrallr~im

locdiaYear ofaccidmr

United Statn '

1976

"1' r

United Statn
Rockaway

1977

United States 'Mwoc

Main c u e of aposrpe

a operation

Pcrsmsaficral

Nahuc of a p o w e curd hcdlh cmscquarcu

1

Dose of 10 Gy to b n d

m ~ industrialoirradiatim m r c c

1

Whole-bodydweof2Gy

1978'911,radiography source

1

Localized exposure of hand; amputatim d finga

United States 'Lm Angrln

1979

'"lr

5

Whole-body exposure d 1 Gy and l w l i z c d u p o r u r u d hand to t n e pcrron; localized cxposurc ofhands of four othns

United S t a t a
OWahomr

1081

IP2h radiography source

1

Whole-body and I o d i z e d exparurcs

radiography r a u c e

Rnrburgh

radiography source

Source found by w a k n and put in his pocket
for 4.5 minutes

Tcr(iary cducntion m d mccclcrston
Gaman Drm. Rep.
Hallc

1975

X-ray I l u ~ c s c c n c cunit

Carclcssncu

1Dose of 1.2-2 Gy to middle finga of I& hand; acute radiodamatitis ( I n dcgra)

Guman Dcm. Rep.
Rosmdnf

1980

RadioctKmical laboratory

Defcct in protective glove led to untaminatim
with 3 2 ~1Dose of 100 Gy to L e skin of the left hand; no clinical symptcns

German Dcm. Rep.
Balin

1981

Analytical x-ray unit

Carclarneu

I

Dose of 5 Gy to the I&

Rep.
Gaman h.
Berlin1982

Analytical x-ray unit

Carelessness

1

Dose of 6 to 18 Gy to right forcfinp; acutc radiodcrmatitis (2nd dcgrcc)

Gaman Dcm. Rcp.
Leipdg

1'383

RadiodKmicd laboratory

Explosion of vial ccrotaining a 2 4 ' ~ mdutlm'

1Canmined cffcaiw dore of 0.076 Gy&man Dcm. Rep.
Jma

1988

Analytical x-ray unit

Carclessnna

1

Dose of 3 Gy to I d \ hand; acute radiodermatitis (1st degree)

Gcrtnan h.Rcp.
Trurcial

1988

Analytical x-ray unit

Technical defea

2

Maximum dose d 4 Gy to the hand d m e pctson; acute radiodamntitis (1st dcgrcc) it1 onc pcrrm

Germany. Fcd. Rep.

1979

X-ray q u i p m a t

M d v e quipncnt

1Ertimatcd dose to part of the hand 20 Gy and effstivc dose of 0.6 mSv

Pcru
Lima

1984

X-ray diffradon
qtdpmml

Fault of supnvisiors dcliberatc cxporure f r a nlack d howledge of risk; cquipmat n d
rcgibtercd with autlluitics

6

Localized dosed d 5-40 Gy 10 fingas; skin burns and blistering Icaving residual scar tissur

USSR "

1977

Rotein acrclernla

1Localized dare of 10-30 Gy lo hands

hand; acute radialnn~atitis(In &pa)

Tnhle 40 (continued)
cauury 1
locdionType of Lurollotim

Year ofnccidcnr

or oprarion

Main c a u c cf aposwePcrsarr
aficrcd

N d w c ojaponue rmd health ccnscqvolcu

USSR

1978

Elcctrm accderator

1

h l i d dose of 2 0 Gy lo hands

United S b t a '1978

Accclcratu

1

h l i z e d e r p a u r c oC abdomen, hands and thighs

Mrdirml u r n of radiation''

ArgdnaTumnan1975"CO tdcthenpy

Failure d wurce's mechanical dispositivc

2

T d n i a a o and physician bdh reodved high doses lo fingas; radialioa bums m fingar

Argentina
Parans1979

Diagnoltic radidogy

Faulty wiring Icd lo emission d x rays when theto d the fluoroscope w s opm

1

Auxiliary nurse received whdc-body dose d 0.94 Gy; slight dcpresdoa of bone marrow

Argentina
h Plata. B.A

1982

X-ray t h m p y fadlity

O p a a t a looked through window while chaning
x-ray t u b a withcut recopizing system w a s
energ'zcd

1

Whole-body dose of 0.12 Gy and dose d 5.8 Gy to Icnr of eyc; cataraar in bXh c y n

Argentina
Bucna Aira

1983

@COd a h e r a p y

Source jammed during tnnrfcr

2

Dora of 0.66 and 0.67 Gy, respcctivcly, to the chaax; slight bcnc marrow dcprasial

Ommany. Fed. Rep. d

1975

X-ray quipmart

Robebly carelessness in niain~enanceI

Dose in excess of 1 Gy to head and upper torso

Germany, Fcd. Rcp. d

1977

1921,
radiogram unit

Mectivc cquipmt

1Ertimated dose to hands of abcut 5 Gy and dfectivc dose of 0.01 mSv; tcmpaary rtddcning of
fingcrs

India
Ludihana

I980

Radiothcrapy(tdegamma)

Defective quipmcnt (mercury leaked rmt
thrcub shutter)3'

Doses of 0.25, 0.4 and 0.5 Gy; n o advcrrc health cffcas obsavcd

United Kngdom

1975*CO radiotherapy source

Sourcc jammed in an unshiclded position duriag
servicing2

Personal dosimeters recorded d m d 0 5 2 and 0.4 Sv

United Kingdom

1977

'''I

Amdcntal contamina~ionof labaatory w a k e n2'Ihyroid dose of -1.7 Gy to one pason born an intake of about 1 MBq; a low dusc to other p e r m

Uni t cd Ki agdom

1982

X-ray radiography

Inadvcrtcnt exposure to x rays1

Personal dosimeter rccudcd a dose d 0.32 Sv

United Kingdom

1985

'Y

Techniaan cut his finger uhile wearing a g l w econtaminated with iodine-125; sucked cut finger,
which resulted in an intake of about 740 MUq

1

Thyroid dose of abart 400 Gy

United K i n e

1986@CO radiahcrapy s a x e

Erporure during source changing

1

Dose of 15 Gy to the hand; nychcma ud Mistering appeared two weeks laterI)ota han [Ill].
Data amprise a summary d axa of accidrntal exposure f a which chromckomc abaration annlyris h a w ken undertaken [Ll].
Dau from p 3 ] .
Undcar dtcchn e x p o d w a c w a k e n or patients.

ANNIrX D: OCCUPATIOKAL RADIATION EXPOSURES

513

Tahlc 41
Worldwldc occupriUorinl cxposi~res19115-19119-I

Awrage nnnrrol
number a/monitored ~,cukrrs(ihounnndr)

Oreuporionnl
COlC~Ory

Annrrnl mlcragc
cdlccri\,ecflecii~udare(mm SI,)A m u l mwoge+ciiw dmc romonitored w a k e n(dl9Normalitad
cdlec~ivc
cfirthr darc
[mnn SI*(CW a)-']NHl~

Y ( ~ ~

Nuclear fuel cycle
Mining

260

1100

4.4

4.3

0.25 '

0.52

Milling

18

120

6.3

0.44

0.18

0.43 '

Enrichmat

5

0.4

0.08

0.02

0

0

11
1.9
3.5
5.5

0.45
1.7
3.1
3.0

0.07
0.22
I .4
0.45

0.0003
0.003
0.018
0.014

0.015
0.042

AGRs

24
1.1
1.1
1.9

T'ocal

28

22

0.78

0.12

0.002

0.019

500
310
67
170
24
1

22

24
3.4
13
0.75
0.4

4.3
7.9
6.2
17
3.2
1.4

0.034
0.026
0.066

0.328
0.36
0.48

0.0002

0.008

Other

230
140
18
13
31
3

Tdal

430

1100

25

5.9

0.033

0.34

Fud rcpr-ing
Oxide
Mapox

4
8

5.7
31

1.4
3.8

0.65
11

0.008
0.092

0.12

Tdal

12

36

3.0

3.2

0.064

0.12

Rcsurch

130

100

0.8

1.0

0.011

0.30

Tunl

680

2500

29

12

0.10

0.42 "

0.009

0.31

Fud fabricatiar
LWRs
HWRs
Mapox

Rcaaor opcratiozl
M

a

BWlL

HWRs
LWGRs

GCRs

Defence sctivitia

Wcapms
Ships
CRba

T d

60
190
130

43
170
37

0.7
0.9
0.3

380

250

0.7
Induririnl u w d d i s l i o n

560

Tal

510

0.9
Mcdicd u r n d d i n t i o n

Tad

I

2200

lo00

0.5

0.009

I

0.24

Sa(ural aourcn d d i n t i o n (excluding uranium mining)

-300

3400
4100
800
300

0.9
6
3
<I

200

8600

1.7

Cool mining
CRbn mining
Air a c w
Otha

3900
700
250

Total

Tob1 u l e x p u r e r
Man-made
Na~uralsource

4300
8600

1.1

5200

Tual

9200

13000

1.4

4WY)

0.03 a

0.36

1.7
A

"

Values for mining and milling arc averagcs d reported values and are ove~atimaterfor the revised conversion f a a a o r 5.6 mSv UIM". She cntria f a thel a d s arc lhur also ovcrcslrmala. lkcluding mining and milling horn the averaging the entries for local of Ihc nuclur fucl cycle wculd bc 0.03 and 0.32 andf a total of man-made exposures 0.01 and 0.29 f u NH15 and SRIJ, rapcflivcly.
Exdudlng fucl rcproccuine,UNSCEAR 1993 REPOIU

514'Table 42
Trends In worldwide occupational cxposuro rroni man-medc sourccs or radiation

A t w a x c annualc d l c r r i w rffccriw dare
( m Str)~Sowre

N u d c u fud cydc
Defence a d i d t i u
Industrial ulea o f n d i a t i mMedial uses of radialim

Tdnl

A t w a g e annual f l u r i v e dacelo moniraed m v r b s(dl9

1975-1979

1980-1984

1985-1989

1975-1979

1980-1984

1985-1989

2300
420
870
lOa,

3000
250
910
1140

2500
250
510
1030

4.1
1.3
1.6
0.78

3.7
0.71
1.4
0.60

29
0.66
0.9
0.47

5490

5330

4290

1.9

1.4

1.1

A v v a x c annual numbero/ nwniraed w r b s(rhouMdr)

Xudur fuel cydc
Defence actidtier
Induttrial urer of ndintim
Medical uses of radiatim

Tdnl

Normalired
collcrriw flcclilr dare[man Sv (GW a).')1975-1979

lQ80-1961

1985-1989

1975-1979

1980-1984

1985-1989

S O
310
530
I280

600
350
690
1890

880

18 '

17 '

12

380
MO
2220

2680

3730

4040

NRIs

Nudeu M cyde
Defence a d i r i t i u
Indwlrid uses of ndiatim
M e d i d urer of radiatim
Tdal

a15

1975-1979

1980-1964

1985-1989

1975-1979

1980-1984

1985-1989

0.20

0.16

0.10

0.63

0.55

0.42

0.010
0.003

0.007
0.002

0.009
0.009

0.35
0.14

0.28
0.10

0.31
0.24

0.051

0.040

0.030

0.045

0.40

0.36

Values exdudingfuel rcpr-ing;
the nmnalized d a a would bc galn by a h 1 1 man Sv (GW a)" for reprocessing of oa'dc fud m d abold 10-15 rnm Sv(GW a)-' for reprocessing r n d Magnox Fuel (with the higher value pertaining to u r l i a timcs).
Vdua Ire nvcngec induding mining and milling as rrported and are &us ovaertirnalu for lhc revired m v e r d o n factor of 5.6 mSv WLM1. If mining UYJ
milling arc e x d u d d from the weragin& Ihc n l u u d NR,, w a d d be a h 1 a factor d 3 lower and the wlucs of SR15 w a d d d m e e u e by an abrduic Id about 0.1.

ANNM D: OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION E X P O S U W

515

0 1975-1979

I

Underground mining

Open-pit mining

Milling

Underground mining

Open-pit mining

Milling

Underground mining

Open-pit mining

I

I

,

Milling

Flgure I.
Number or workers and doses to workers In uranlum mining and milling.

516

UNSCEAR 1993 REPORT

Underground mining

Open-pit mining

hlilling

Underground mining

Open-pit mining

Milling

Underground mining

Open-pit mining

Milling,

Figure 11.
Normalized collective dme end dislrihulion ratios for w o r h r s in ur-ir~liurn mining and milling.

AVERAGE ANNUAL EF1:ECIlVE DOSE
TO MONITORED WORKERS (rnSv)

AVERAGE ANNUAI,
COLUCnVI' EFFIFECTIVE DOSE (man Sv)

o

Ih

s

e

UI

G

8

0

L

13

o

AVEIUGE ANNUAL NUMBER
OF MONrrORED WORKERS (~tiousands)
P

0

VI

i;

-

Ih

G

LWR

HWR

Magnox

AGR

LWR

HWR

Magnox

AGR

LWR

HWR

MagnoxAGR

Figure IV.
Normallzed collective dme and dlstribuUon ratlos for workcn In fuel fabricallon.

IANNEX D: OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION EXPOSURES

1200

Total collective eflec~ivedose

h

Y:

800

600

W

2.

0

Figure V.
Number of workws and dmes to workers in reactors.

I'WIL0 "WlL

A

tIWRs
GClb
LWGIL

Flpure VI.
Normttlized collective dose and distribution ratios for reecbr worken.

NORMALIZED COLLECTIVE

AVERAGE ANNLJAL EFFECTIVE W S E
1D MONHDRED WORKERS (mSv)

Ei7I:ECT1VE DOSE [man Sv (GW a)-lj

N

g.

O

"

,

E

G

S

C

8

!

2

522

UNSCEAR 1993 REPORT

Figure VIII.
Collective dose per reactor to workers In LWRs In the Unlted S h h .
Median and extreme values wlUl envelope of middle 50% values.
[B31

ANNEX D: 0CCUPAIlONA.L RADIATION EXPOSURES

0.2

0.5

1

2

5

0.2

0.5

1

2

5

20 30 40 50 60 70 80
90
CUMULA'ITVE PERCENTAGE OF WORKERS

10

523

95

98

99 99.5 99.8

10
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
90
95
CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE OF COLLECTIVE W S E

98

99 99.5 99.8

Figurc IX.
CumulnUve distribution of number of workers and mlledive dosefrom workers at LWRs in the Unitcd States wiU1 doses in c x a s s of the specified values.

UNSCEAR 1993 REPORT

524

1=-9 soo6

Waste
processing
Keiucl'ing
Special maintenanceInservice inspection

0 I o u ~ i n emaintenance
Reactor operation

W

6

y zoo

Figure X.
Distribution of colleclive dose among work functions for workers at L W k in the United Slates.

ANNEX D: OCCUPATlOh'AL RADIATION ILXPOSURIS

525

Metal

Oxide

Mctal

Oxide

Metal

Oxide

Metal

Oxide

Me~al

Oxide

MeuI .

Oxide

Figure XI.
Nurnher o tworkers, doses and distribution ralios in fuel repmrrssing.

UNSCEAR 1993 REPORT

526

CI-IEMICAL SEPARATION
50

60 1

MAINTENANCE OF NEW PLANT

MAINTENANCE

60 1

WASTE PROCESSING

Flgure XII.
Variallons in average annual effective dose to groups of t-eprocesslng workers at Sellafleld, Unlkd Klngdom.
IS51

ANNEX D: OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION EXPOSURES

1 FUEL SMRAGE AND DECANNlNG

1

PLUTONIUM FINISI3ING

CHEMICAL SEPARATION

1MAINTENANCE OF NEW PLAKT1WASTE PROCESSING

Flgure XI11.
Variations In mllecllve eKecUve d o s e to groups of reprocessing w o r k e r s at Sellafleld, United Kingdom.
IS51

527

1959-1960

Year of lirst monitoring
0

5

10

IS

20

1
25

I
30

I
35

1
40

PERIOD OF FOLLOW-UP (years)

h

7

j

\35

* Period of follow-up

years

\\

25 years

YEAR OF FIRST MONlTOJUNG

CumuluUvc effective dose to workers at Selluncld mpmccssing plant.
~ 9 1

AVERAGE ANNUAL
COIUCTIVE EFFECTIVE DOSE (man Sv)

AVEKAGE ANNUAL EFFECTIVE DOSE
M MONITORED WORKERS (mSv)

AVEKAGE ANNUAL NUMBERO F MOWIDRED WORKERS (~housands)

UNSCEAR 1993 REPORT

530

0.45

MiningMilling

Fuel fabrication

Keaclors

Reprocessing

Research

MiningMilling

Fuel fabrication

Reactors

Reprocessing

Research

MiningMilling

Fuel fabrication

Reactors

Reprocessing

Research

1

Flgun: XVI.
Normaltzed mllecUve dose and distribuuon raUos for workers In operations or the nuclear fuel cycle.

NORMAIJZED COLLECTlVE
EFFECTIVE DOSE [man S v (GW a)-l]NORMALIZED COLLECIWE
EFFECllVE DOSE [man Sv (GW a)-lj

N O W I Z E D COLLECTlVE
EFFECTIVE DOSE [man Sv (GW a)-lj

U N S C W 1993 REPORT

532

Weaponslabriation

N u d u r ships.
on-board personnel

Nuclear ships.
shore-bascd personnel

All dclena
activities

Weaponstabrica~ion

Nuclear ships,
on-board personnel

Nuclear ships,
shore-baed pclsonnel

All defenceac~ivities

Weaponsfahria~ion

Nudear ships.
on-board personnel

Nuclcar ships,
shore-bascd personnel.

All delcnce
activities

F i g u r e XVIII.
N u m b e r o f monitored w o r k e r s a n d a v e r a g e a n n u a l lndlvldual a n d collecUve d o s oto w o r k e r s In occupaUons involving dcrence activities(Unllcd I ( l n d o m a n d Unlted S i n k s only).

ANNEX D: OCCUPATIONAI- KADIATION MPOSUI1E- Heacton---- Chemical plants

FIgure XIX.
Variations in average annual lndlviduel doses and distribution ratios
for workers Involved In the production of weapon makrlals In the former USSR.

533

AVERAGE ANNUAL
COLLECIlVE EFFECTWE DOSE (man Sv)

AVERAGE ANNUAL EFFECIlVE DOSE
TO MONITORED WORKERS (mSv)

AVERAGE ANNUAL NUMBER
OF MONITORED WORKERS (thousands)

OECD

0

A
A

INDUSTRIAL USFSh ~ e r nEurope

Asia (cen~rally-planncdcconornics)
h i a (non-ccn~mlly-plannedcronomics) 'La~irrAmerica
Indian subcon~incn~

I

0

•

I

loo0
GROSS NAllONAL PRODUCT (1012 $US)100

hlEDlCAL USESGROSS NATlONAL PRODUCT (1012 SUS)
Figure XXI.
Average annual mllecUve dose to n o r k e n in occupations involved In
Industrial and medical uses o f radiation during 1985-1989
in relatlon Lo gross nalional product of countries.

AVERAGE ANNUAL
COLLECnVE EFFECTIVE DOSE (man Sv)

AVERAGE ANNUAL EFFECTIVE W S E
TO MONITORED WORKERS (mSv)o m ~ e e e e z s 8 ,
?I

F

P

P

z

4

5

4

la

A

OI

00

a

I

AVERAGE ANNUAL NUMBER
OF MONlTORED WORKERS (thousands)
C

N

O

G

E

g

e

S

g

z

UOO
8 8 3
zzz
C

w
w

m

l

9

00

e

w
4
w

ANNEX D: OCCIJPATIONN, RADlAl?ON EXPOSURES

537

Diagnostic radiology Dental practice

Nuclear medicine

Radiotherapy

Veterinary mcdicine

Diagnostic radiology Denlal practice

Nuclear medicine

Radiotherapy

Veterinary medicine

Diagnostic radiology Dcnlal practice

Nuclear medicine

Radiotherapy . 'veterinary medicine'

2.5

a
m

8 5 2.0w->

c2$2 1.5
go
3

an

$!
3%
W

ag 0.5G
0

Figure XXIII.
Number o f workers nnd doses In occupations involving medical uses o f mdiation.

S

B

8

AVERAGE ANNUN, NUMBER
OF MONITORED WORKERS (thousands)

AVERAGE ANNUAL EFFECTNE DOSE
TO MONITORED WORKERS (mSv)

AVERAGE Ah'NUAL
COLLECTIVE EFFFXTTVE DOSE (man Sv)

g

o

s"

I

[;:

8

AVERAGE ANNUALC O U C l l V E EFFECTIVE DOSE (man Sv)-

AVERAGE ANNUAL EFFEClTVE DOSE
TO MONITORED WORKERS (mSv)

AVERAGE ANNUAL NUMBER

OF MONITORED WORKERS (thousands)

UNSCWR 1993 REPORT

540

References
PNZT A
Responses to UNSCEAR Suwcy of Occupnllo~~ulExposureCountry

Argentina

Response jrom

E. Palacios. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures incurred in industrialuscs of radiation. Comisidn Nacional dc Energia Atdmica, Buenos Aires, Argentina. (December
1990 and November 1991).
E. Palacios. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures incurred in medical
uses of radiation. Comisi6n Nacional de Energia Atbmica, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
(November 1991).

E. Palacios. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures resulting from
accidents. Comisi6n Nacional de Energia Admit?, Buenos Aires, Argentina. (October 1991).
E. Palacios. Rcsponse to UNSCEAR questionnaire lor occupational exposures incurred in medical
uses of radiation. Comision Nacional de Energia Atbmica, Buenos Aires, Argentina. (February andNovember 1992).
E. Palacios. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures incurred in indus~rialuses of radiation. Comision Naaonal de Energia Atbmica, Buenos Aires, Argentina. (November
and December 1992).
Australia

N. Morris. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaires for occupational exposures incurred in industrial
and medical uses of radiation. Australian Radiation Laboratory, Victoria, Australia. (September
1991).
G.C. Mason. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaires for occupational exposures incurred inindustrial and medical uscs of radiation. Australian Radiation Laboratory, Victoria, Australia.
(December 1992).

BrazilP. Cunha. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures incurred in medical
uses of radiation. Comissao Nacional de Energia Nuclear, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. (October 1991).

CanadaJ.P. Ashmore. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures incurred inindustrial uses of radiation. Bureau of Radiation and Medical Devices, Ouawa, Canada. (September
1990, March, July and August 1991).
J.P. Ashmore. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational cxposurcs incurred in
medical uses of radiation. Health and Welfare, Ottawa, Canada. (Octobcr 1991).

J.P. Ashmore. Response to UNSCEAR qucstionnairc lor occupational exposures resulting from
accidents. Ilealth and Welfare, Ottawa. Canada. (November 1991).
J.P. Ashmore. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures incurred inindustrial uses of radiation. Health and Welfare, Ottawa, Canada. (November 1992).
Chile

M. Manuel Echeverria. Response to UNSCEAR qucstionnairc for occupational exposures incurredin industrial uses of radiation. Comisibn Chilena di Energia Nuclear, Chile. (November 1990).

China

7hang Liangan. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures incurred in
medical uses of radiation. Institute of Radiation Medicine, Chinese Academy of Scienms, Tianjin.
China. (November 1991).

China (Taiwan
Provina)

Yi-Ching Yang. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures incurred inindustrial uses of radiation. Atomic Energy Council, Taipei, Taiwan, China. (October 1991).
Yi-Ching Yang. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaire lor occupational exposures incurred in
medical uses of radiation. Atomic Energy Council, Taipei, Taiwan, China. (October 1991).

ANNEX D: OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION FXPOSURFS

54 1

<

Country

Response jrom

Czechoslovakia

Z Mclichar. Rcspnsc to UNSCEAR qucstionnaire for occupational exposures incurred inindustrial uses of radiation. Nuclear Power Plants Research lnstitutc (VUJE). Czechoslovakia.
(March 1991).
11. Solnick6 and J. Smetann. Response to UNSCEAR questionnairc for occupiitionill exposuresincurred in industrial uscs of radiation. Labour Mcdicinc In\titute of Uranium Industry andUranium Mines Managcmcnt, Pribram, (2cchoslovakia. (March 1991).
Z. Prouza and V. Klcncr. Kcsponsc to UNSCEAR questionnaires for occupational cxposuresincurred in industrial and medical uses of radiation. Centrc for Radiation Ilygicne. National
Institute for Public llcalth. Prague, aechoslovakia. (July 1992).
V. Klcncr. Rcsponsc to UNSCEAR questionnairc for occupational exposures incurrcd in industrial
uses of radiation. Centre for Radiation Hygicnc, National Institute for Public Ilcalth, Prague,
Czechoslovakia. (Novcmber 1992).

Denmark

0. Bcrg. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures incurred in industrial
uses of ndiation. National Institute of Radiation Hygiene, Bronshoj. Denmark. (April 1991).
0. Bcrg. Response to UNSCEAR questionnairc for occupationrrl exposures incurrcd in mcdical usesof radiation. National lnstitutc of Radiation Ilygiene, Bronshoj, Denmark. (October 1991).

Finland

H. HyvBncn. Responses to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures incurred inindustrial uses of radiation. Finnish Centre for Radiation and Nuclear Safety, 14clsinki, Finland.
(Novembcr 1990 and August 1991).

H. Iiyv6ncn. Responsc to UNSCEAR questionnairc for occupational exposures incurred in medical
uses of radiation. Finnish Centrc for Radiation and Nudear Safety, Ilelsinki, Finland. (October1991).
FranceP. Pellcrin. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures incurred in medical
uses of radiation. Service Central de Proledion mntre les Rayonnements Ionisants. Le Vesinet,
France. (April 1992).
P. Pellcrin. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational cxposures incurrcd in industrial
uses of radiation. Service Central de Protection mntre les Rayonnements Ionisants, Le Vesinet,
France. (June 1992).
C. Rolland-Picgue and S. Lcbar. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposuresincurred in industrial uses of radiation. Compagnic Gn6rale des Matieres Nuclt5aircs (COGEMA),
Vclizy-Villacoublay, Francc. (July 1992).
Ph. Hubert. Responsc to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures incurred in induslrial
uses of radiation. Institut dc Proteclion et de Sureti Nuclhire (IPSN), Commissariat i I'Encrgie
Atomiquc (CEA), Fontenay aux Roses, France. (September 1992).
C. Rolland-Piegue. Responsc to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures incurred inindustrial uses of ndiation. Compagnic GnCralc dcs Matibrcs Nuclfaires (COGEMA), VelizyVillamublay, France. (November and December 1992).
Ph. Rollin. Responsc to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures incurrcd in industrial
uses of radiation. Elcdridtt de France (EdF), Pans. France. (Novcmber 1992).

Germany

M. Grunwald. Responses to UNSCENi questionnaire for occupational cxposurcs incurred inindustrial uses of radiation. Uundcsamt fiir Strahlenschutz (BfS), Salzgittcr, Germany.
(Scptcmbcr 1990 and January 1991).
M. Grunwald. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures incurred in
medical u x s of radiation. Bundesami lur Strahlcnschutz (BE).Salzgittcr, Germany. (August 1991).
A. Kaul. Responses to UNSCEAR questionnairc for occupational cxposures incurrcd in industrial
uses of radiation. Rundcsamt riir Strahlcmchutz (BE), Salzgilter. Germnny. (April andAugust 1991).
A. Kaul. Response to UNSCEAR qucstionnaire for occupational exposures resulting from
accidents. Bundesamt fiir Strahlcnschutz (BE), Salzgitter. Gcrrnany. (September 1991).
A. Kaul, Arndt and Wolf. Response lo UNSCEAR questionnairc for occupational exposuresresulting from accidenls. Bundesamt iGr Strahlcnschutz (BE), Salzgitter. Gcrmany. (Octobcr 1991).

UNSCEAR 1993 REPORT

542

CountryGcrnmny(continued)

Respotwe fromE. Martini. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupationi~lexposures incurred in medical
USISof radiation. Land Mccklenburg-Vorpommern landcsanstalt fur I'ersoncndosirnetrie undStrahlenschutzausbildung-Pe~~~nendosismestelIe,
Ikrlin, Germsny. (August 1991).

J. Schwcdt. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures incurred in industrialuscs of radiation. Bundesamt f i r StraNenschulz (Dienststelle Berlin), Berlin, Germany. (May1991).
A. Kaul. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures incurred in medical uses
01radiation. Bundesamt liir StrahlcnschuQ (BE), Salzgitter, Germany. (1:ebruary 1992).
A. Kaul. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures incurred in industrialuscs of radiation. Bundesamt f i r Strahlenschutz (BfS), Salzgitter, Germany. (December 1992).
Hungary

L.B. Sztanyik and I. Bojtor. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposuresincurred in industrial uses of radiation. National Research Institute for Radiobiology andRadiohygiene, Budapest. Ilungary. (January 1991).
L.B. Sztanyik and I. Bojtor. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaires for occupational exposuresincurrcd in medical uses of radiation and occupational exposures resulting from accidents. National
Research Institute for Radiobiology and Radiohygiene. Budapest, IIungary. (March 1992).

I. Bojtor and L.B. Sztanyik. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposuresincurred in medical uses of radiation. National Research Institute lor Radiobiology andRadiohygiene, Budapest, Hungary. (June 1992).
India

D.V. Gopinath. Rcsponse to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures incurred inindustrial uses of radiation. Bhabha Alomic Research Centre. Trombay, India. (June 1991 andMay 1993).
U. Madhvanath. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaires for occupational exposures incurred inindustrial and medical uses of radiation. Division 01Radiation Protection, Bhabha Atomic ResearchCentre, Bombay, India. (June 1991).
U. Madhvanath. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaires for occupational exposures resulting from
accidents and incurred in medical uses of radiation. Division of Radiation Protection, Bhabha
Atomic Research Centre, Bombay, India. (December 1991).
S. Krishnamony. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures incurred inindustrial uses of radiation. Health Physics Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Bombay,
India. (November 1992).

Indonesia

I. Rilai. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures incurred in medical usesof radiation. Department of Heallh, Jakarta, Indonesia. (October 1991).
S. Soekarno. Responses to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures incurred inindustrial uses of radiation. National Atomic Energy Agency, Centre for Standardization andRadiological Safety Research, Jakarta, Indonesia. (October 1990, April and September 1991).
S. Soekamo. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures resulting from
accidents. National Atomic Energy Agency, Centre lor Standardization and Radiological Safety
Research, Jakarta, Indonesia. (November 1991).

IrelandD. Howett. Responses to UNSCEAR questionnaire lor occupational exposures incurred in induskrial
uses of radiation. Nudear Energy Board. Dublin, Ireland. (October 1990 and July 1991).
D. Ilowett. Responses to UNSCEAR questionnaire lor occupational exposures incurred in medical
uses of radiation. Nudear Energy Board, Dublin, Ireland. (January 1992).

ltal yA. Cavallini and M. Litido. Responses to UNSCEAIZ questionnaire lor occupational exposuresincurred in industrial uses of radiation. National Committee for Nuclear and Alternative Energy(ENEA AMB), Bologna, Italy. (January and December 1991).
,
A. Cavallini and M. Litido. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposuresincurred in medical uses of radiation. National Committee for Nuclcar and Alternative Energy(ENEA AMB), Bologna, Italy. (December 1991).

ANNFX D: OCCUPAVONAL RADIATION MWSUKB

543

Response fromCountryIJapan

11. Malsudaira. Responses to UNSCEAR quationnaire for occupational exposures incurred inindustrial uses of rddiation. National Institute lor Radiological Sciences, Chiba-shi, Japan. (January
and May 1991).
T. Yani~gi.Response to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures incurrcd in industrial
uses of radiation. Nuclear Safety Policy Division, Science and Technology Agency. Tokyo, Japan.
(June 1992).
T. M a ~ y a m a . Responsc to UNSCEAR qucstionnaire for occupational exposures incurred in
medical uses of radiation. National Institute for Radiological Scienoes, Chiba-shi, Japan.
(June 1992).

MexicoJ. Raul Ortiz Magaiia. Responses to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures incurredin industrial uses of radiation. Comisi6n Nacional de Seguridad Nuclear y Salvaguardias, Mexico.
(October 1990 and August 1991).

F.V. Rojas. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures incurred in medical
uses of radiation. Comisi6n Nacional dc Seguridad Nudear y Salvaguardias, Mexico.
(August 1991).

I

J.W.E. van Dijk. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures incurred inindustrial uses of radiation. TNO-Gezondheidsondcmek, Arnhem, Netherlands. (June 1991).

Netherlands

P.W.E. Louvxier. Responsc to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures incurred inindustrial uses of radiation. National Institute for Nuclcar and High Energy Physics (NIKHEF),
Amsterdam, Netherlands. (October 1991).
NorwayT. Wohni. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures incurred in industrial
uses of radiation. National Institute bf Radiation IIygicne, Osteraas, Norway. (Odober 1990 andOdober 1991).

Peru

L. Pinillos-Ashton. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures incurred in
medical uses of radiation. Inslituto Naaonal de Enfermedades Ncoplrisicas, Lima. Peru. (December
1991).

Republic of
Korea

Chung-Woo Ma. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures incurred inindustrial uses of radiation. Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, Daejun, Republic of Korca.
(November 1990).
Chung-Woo Ha. Responsc lo UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures incurrcd inindustrial uses of radiation. Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute. Daejum. Republic of Korea.
(Novcmbcr 1990).

I
South Africa

Jae-ho Lim. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures incurrcd in industrial
uses of radiation. Korea Electric Power Corporation, Seoul, Republic of Korea. (December 1991).
Suing-hyun Yoo. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures incurred inindustrial uses of radiation. Korea Nuclear Fuel Company Ltd., Daejum, Republic of Korea.
(December 1990).
1.D. Krugcr. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures incurred in industrial
uses of radiation. Atomic Energy Corporation, Pretoria, Republic of South Africa. (February 1991).
T. Volschenk Response to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures incurred inindustrial uses of radiation. Radiation Protection Service, South African Bure;~u of Standards(SABS), Pretoria. Republic of South Africa. (April 1991).
D. Woodhall. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures incurred inindustrial uses of radiation. Koeberg Nuclear Power Station, Kcrnkrag, Republic of South Africa.
(January 1991).
K J . Smit. Response to UNSCEAR qucslionnairc for occupational exposures incurred in medical
uses of radiation. Department of Nalional Ilcalth and Population Development, Bcllville, Republicof South Africa. (March 1992).
I.D. Kruger. Response to UNSCEhR queslionnaire for occupational exposures incurred in industrial
uses of radiation. Atomic Energy Corporation. Pretoria, Republic of South Africa. (November
1992).

I

UNSCEAR 1993 REPORT

544

Country

Response /rorn

I.A. Calvo. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures incurred in industrial
uses of radiation. Consejo de Seguridad Nuclear, Madrid, Spain. (Novcmbcr 1990).

Spain

M J . Muiioz. liesponse to UNSCEAR qucstionnaire for occupational exposures incurred inindustrial uses of radiation. Consejo de Seguridad Nuclear, Madrid, Spain. (December 1991).
M J . Muiioz. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures incurred in medical
uses of radiation. Consejo de Seguridad Nuclear, Madrid, Spain. (November 1991).
M J . Muhoz. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures resulting from
accidents. Consejo de Seguridad Nuclear, Madrid, Spain. (November 1991).

M J . Mufioz. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures incurred inindustrial uses of radiation. Consejo d e Seguridad Nuclear, Madrid, Spain. (December 1992).
J.C. LindhB. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures incurred in industrial
uses of radiation. National Institute for Radiation Protection, Stockholm, Sweden. (October 1990,
January and December 1991).

SwedenG. SzendrB. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures incurred in medical
uses of radiation. Swedish Radiation Protection Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. (October 1991).
G. SzendrB. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures resulting from
accidents. Swedish Radiation Protection Institute, Stockhlom, Sweden. (October 1991).
M. Moser. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures incurred in medical
uses of radiation. Federal Oiiice of Public Health, Bern, Swilzerland. (October 1991).

Switzerland
USSR

i
United Kingdom

I.P. Korenkov. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures incurred inindustrial uses of radiation. Central Institute for Advanced Medical Studies. Moscow, USSR.
(October 1990).
J.S. Hughes. Responses to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures incurred inindustrial uses of radiation. National Radiological Protection Board, Chilton, United Kingdom.
(October 1990, August and December 1991).
J.S. Hughes. R u p n s e to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures resulting from
accidents. National Radiological Protection Board, Chilton, United Kingdom. (December 1991).
Based on a summary from [L5].
R J . Berry. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures incurred in indus~rialuses of radiation. British Nuclear Fuels plc. Risley, United Kingdom. (March 1992).

United States

B. Millet. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures incurred in industrial
uses of radiation. Department of Energy, United States. (Octobcr 1990).
C.T. Raddatz. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures incurred inindustrial uses of radiation. Summaries from annual reports. NURBG-0713. United States Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, United States. (December 1991).
C.R. Jones. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures incurred in industrial
uses of radiation. Department of Energy, United States. (March 1992).
R.T. Beckman. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaire for occupational exposures incurred inindustrial uses of radiation. Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSIIA), Denver, United
Slates. (December 1992).
1I.S. Gottschalk. Response to UNSCEAR questionnaire lor occupational exposures incurred inindustrial uses of radiation. Mine Safety and Ilcalth Administration (MSllA), Arlington, UnitedStates. (January 1993).

ANNEX D: OCCUPAIONAL RADIATION EXPOSURES

545

PART B

A1

Aihmore, J.P., Bureau of Radiation and Medical
Devices, Canada. Communication to the UNSCEAR
Secretariat (1991).
D l Brodsky, A,, K.P. Spccht, B.G. Brooks ct al. Lognormal distributions of occupational exposures inmedicine and industry. Ninth Mid-year TopicalSymposium on Oocupa~ionalHealth Physics, Denver.
Colorado, 1976.
B2 Brooks, B.G. and D. Hagemeyer. Occupationalradiation exposure at commercial nudcar power
facilities. NUREG-0713, Volumes 3-8 (1982-1989).
B3 British Nuclear Fuels PLC. Annual reports on
occupational safety 1984-1987. BNFL (1985-1988).
B4 Brooks, B.G. United States Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. Communication to the UNSCEAR
Secretariat (1989).
B5 Benedittini, M. Expositions professionelles dans lcs
readeurs A eau pressuris&: comparaison internationalede qudques indicateurs globeaux entre 1975 et 1989.
CEPN No. 178 (1990).
I36 Benedittini, M. Centre d'Etude sur I'Evaluation de laProtection dans le domainc Nucleaire. Communication
to the UNSCEAR Seaetariat (1990).
B7 Bine., W.P., WJ. Iles, KA. Fillary ct al. Doses to
UKradiation workers as recorded at the Central Indexof Dme Information. p. 219-224 in: Proatdings ofInternational Conference on Occupational Radiation
Protection. Guernsey, April 1991.
B8 British Nuclear Fuels PLC. Communication from R.J.
Berry to the UNSCEAR Secretariat (1991 and 1992).
B9 Binks, K. R. Wakeford, R. Strong et al. Cumulative
radiation exposure at BNFL Sellafield: a historicalperspective. p. 1176-1179 in: Worldwide Achievementin Public and Occupational Health Protection Against
Radiation. Proceedings of the 8th lnternational
Conference of the International Radiation Protection
Association, Monkal, Canada, May 1992.
BlO Buldakov, L.A. ct al. Oncological mortality in theworkers in the first atomic industrial facility in the
USSR. Institute of Biophysics, Russian Federation.
Communication to the UNSCEAR Seaetariat (1992).
911 Buldakov, L.A., A.M. Vorobiev. V.V. Kopaev ct al.
Irradiation of personnel of industrial and power
nuclear reactors. Med. Radiol. 3: 38-43 (1991).
I312 Beckman, R.T., Mine Safety and Health Administration, Denver. United States. Communication to the
UNSCEAR Secretariat (1992).
B13 Benton, E.V. and T.A. Parnell. Space radiation
dosimetry on US and Soviet manned missions. p. 729794 in: Terrestrial Space Radiation and its Biological
Effects. (P.D. McCormack, C E . Swenberg and H.
Biicker, eds.) Plenum Press, New York, 1988.
B14 Bernhard, S., J.A. Le Gac, 13. Seguin ct al. Radonlevels and radon daughter exposures of workers in
non-uranium mincs of the E.C. p. 625-628 in:
Radiation Hazards in Mining - Control, Measurement
and Medical Aspects. .Society of Mining Engineers,
New Yo&, 1981.
Dl5 Bottom. D.A., D.W. Dixon and T.D. Gooding.
Exposure to radon in British mines. in: Proceedings ofInternational Conferenm on Occupational Radiation
Protection. Guernsey. April 1991.
Carrciro. J.V. and R. Avclar. Occupational exposuresin medical and paramedical professions in Portugal.
Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 36 (214): 233-236 (1991).
Churchcr, T., A.A.C. Rrewis and W.G. Prast.
Quantification of Underground Employment. Mining
Journal Research Services, h n d o n , 1991.
Cunha, K.M.D., S.M. Carvalho, C.V. Barros Leite ct
al. Particle size distribution in monazite dust. in: The
Fourth International Symposium on Radiation Physics,
Abstracts. SLo Paulo, 1988.
Defence Committee. Radiological Protection ofService and Civilian Personnel, Twelfth Report.
HMSO, London, 1990.
Drexlcr, G., P.G. da Cunha and J.E. Peixoto. Medical
and occupational exposures in Brazil. Radiat. Prot.
Dosim. 36 (214): 101-105 (1991).
Domanski, T.,W. Chrusdelcwski. D. Kluszaynski etal. Radiation hazard in,Polish mines - measurement
and computer simulations. Radiat. Pmt. Dosim. 45:
133-135 (1992).
Davics, D.M. Cosmic radiation in Concorde opcrations and the impact of new ICRP recommendations
on commercial aviation. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 48: 121124 (1993).
Dixon, D.W., D. Page and D.A. Bottom. Estimates ofdose from radon daughters in UK mines. Radiat. Prot.
Dosim. 36: 137-141 (1991).
Drexler, G., H.Y.Giiksu and T.F. Johns. A comparative study of some aspects of radiation protection anddosimetry procedures. Part I: In the member states of
the European Communities. Part 11: In the USA andJapan. GSF 13/88 (1988).
Environmental Protection Agency. Occupational cxposure to ionizing radiation in the United States: acomprehensive review for the year 1980 and asummary of trends for the years 1960-85. EPA
52011-84-005 (1984).
Environmental Protection Agency. Occupational exposure to ionizing radiation in the United States: acomprehensive summary for the year 1975. EPA
52014-80-001 (1980).
Environmental Proteaion Agency. Occupational exposure to ionizing radiation in the United States: acomprehensive review for the year 1985 and asummary of trends for the years 1960-85. EPA 402-R93-082 (1993).
Finney, D J . Probit Analysis (3rd edition). Cambridge
University Press. 1971.
Fujimoto, K , J.A. Wilson, J.P. Ashmore et al. Ocarpational radiation exposures in Canada - 1984.
Canadian Department of National Iiealth and Welfare.
R c p r t NO. 85-EHD-115 (1985).
Friedberg, W., L. Snyder, D.N. Faulkner et al.
Radiation exposure of air carrier crew members 11. US
Department of Transport DOTIFANAM-92/2 (1992).
Ferndndez. P.L.. I. Gutierrez, LS. Quind6s et al.
Natural ventilation in the paintings room in the
Ntamira Cave. Nature 321: 586-588 (1986).

UNSCEAR 1993 REPORTGoldsmith, R., J.D. Boice, Z klrubec et al. Mortality
and career radiation doses for workers at a commera a l nuclear p w e r plant: feasibility study. IIealthPhys. 56: 139-150 (1989).
Gclder, R. Radiological impact ofthe normal transportof radioactive materials by air. NKPB-M219 (1990).
Guy, M.S.C. Radiation hazard levels prevailing in theSouth African mining industry. Council for Nuclear
Safety, Pretoria. Communication to the UNSCEAR
Secretariat (1991).
m k s u , H.Y., D. Regulla and G. Drexler. Present status of practical aspects of individual dosimetry. Part I:
European countries membcr states. GSF 16/93 (1993).
Gtiksu, H.Y., D. Regulla and G. Drexler. Present status of practical aspects of individual dosirnetry.Part 11:
Eastern European countries. GSF 17/93 (1993).
Hughes, J.S., K.B.Shaw and M.C. O'Riordan. Radiation exposure of the UK population - 1988 review.
NRPB-R227 (1989).
Hughes, J.S. and G.C. Roberts. The radiation exposureof the UK population - 1984 review. NRPB-R173(1984).
Hipkin, J. and C.A. Pereira. Committed dose
equivalents to tritium users 1977-1980. J. Soc. Radioi.
P r ~ t 2. (3): 29-30 (1982).
Ilajnal, F., J.E. McLaughlin, M.S. Weinstein et al.
1970 sea-level cosmic-ray neutron measurements.
HASL-241 (1971).
Hewson, G.S., P.J. Tippet, B.H. O'Connor et al.
Preliminary study of radon in underground mines inWestern Australia. Report No. 79, MERIWA, Perth(1991).
Hewson, G.S. Radiation exposure status of mineralsands industry workers (1983-1988). Radiat. Prot.
Awl. 8: 3-12 (1990).
Heallh and Safety Executive/NaGonal RadiologicalProtection Board. Central Index of Dose Information.
Summary of Statistics for 1986. HMSO, London,
1991.
Hunyadi, I., J. Hakl, L. Undrt et al. Regularsubsurface radon measurements in Hungarian karstic
regions. Nucl. Tracks Radiat. Meas. 19: 321-326(1991).
Horton, T.R., R.L. Blanchard and S.T. Windham. A
study of radon and airborne particulates at
phosphogypsurn stacks in central Florida. EPA 5201588-021 (1988).
Hashizume, T., T. Suganuma and T. Shida. Estimationof collective dose equivalent to holding assistantsfrom veterinary X-ray examination in Japan. Hoken
Butsuri (Japan) 23: 187-194 (1988).
lnternational Commission on Radiological Protection.
Recommendations of the International Commission on
Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 26. Annalsof the ICRP l(3). Pergamon Prcss, Oxford, 1977.
lnternational Commission on Radiological Protection.
Recommendations of the lnternational Commission on
Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 9.
Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1966.
International Commission on Radiological Protection.
Data for Use in Protection Against External Radiation.
lCRP Publication 51. Annals of the ICRP 17 (213).
Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1987.

International Atomic Energy Agency. Nudear power,
nuclear fuel cycle waste management: status and[rends 1990. Part C of the IAEA Yearbook. M A ,Vienna. 1990.
International Atomic Energy Agency. MiaoPRlS IAEA Powcr Reactor Inlormation System - a versionof the PRlS for P C users. IAEA, Vienna. 1991.
International Atomic Energy Agency. The nuclear fuelcycle information system - a diredory of nuclear fuelcycle facilities. IAEA, Vienna, 1988.
lnterrlational Commission on Radiological Protection.
1990 Recommendations of the lnternational
Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP
Publication 60. Annals OE the ICRP 21 (1-3).
Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1991.
lnternational Atomic Energy Agency. Operating
experience with nuclear power in member states in1991. IAEA, Vienna, 1992.
Ilyin, L.A., Institute of Biophysics, RussianFederation. Communication to the UNSCEAR
Secretariat (1992).
lntcrnational Atomic Energy Agency. Responses toquestionnaire on occupational exposures in mining.
M A , Vienna, 1992.
International Atomic Energy Agency, Division of
Nuclear Safety, Vienna. Communication to the
UNSCEAR Secretariat (1992).
International Civil Aviation Organization. Civil
Aviation Statistics of the World. Doc 9180/12 (1987).
lnternational Commission on Radiological Protection.
Protection against radon-222 at home and at work.
(Draft, to be published 1993).
International Commission on Radiation Units andMeasurements. Determination of dose equivalentsfrom external radiation sour=. ICRU Report 39(1985).
International Commission on Radiation Units andMeasurements. Determination of dose equivalentsfrom external radiation sources. Part 2. ICRU Report43 (1988).
lnternational Commission on Radiation Units andMeasurements. Measurement of dose equivalents fromexternal photon and electron radiations. lCRU Report47 (1992).
Institut National d'Etudes Dtmographiques, Paris.
Population et SociCtb. Bulletin Mensuel d'lnformations Demographiques, Emnomiques. Sociales. Nos.
126 (1979); 193 (1985); 259 (1991).
Johnston, G. An evaluation of radiation and dust
hazards at a mineral sand processing plant. HealthPhys. 60: 781-787 (1991).
Kumazawa, S. and T. Numakunai. A new theoreticalanalysis of occupational dose distributions indicating
the effect of dose limits. Jlealth Phys. 41: 465-475(1981).
Kumazawa, S.. J. Shimazaki and T. Numakunai.
Numerical calculation methods relating to hybrid
log-normal distributions. JAERIM-82-035, TokaiMura (1982).
Kendall. G.M., S.C. Darby and E. Greenslade.
Patterns of dose incurred by workers on the National
Itadiological Protection Board's Dose Record Keeping
Service. J. Soc. Radiol. Prot. 2 (3): 20-25 (1982).

ANNEX D: OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION EXPOSURES

K4

Kcndall, G.M., E. Greenslade, E.A. Pook et al.
Distributions of annual doses to some United
Kingdom radiation workcrs. J. Radiol. Prot. 8 (4):234-238 (1988).
K5 Kendall, G.M., C.R. Muirhcad, B.H. MacGibbon et al.
First anrilysis of the National Registry for Radiation
Workem: occupational expsurc to ionizing radiationand morlality. NKPB-HZ51 (1992).
K6 Kohtl, 1.. J. VaupotiE, 11. UdovE et al. Radon
concentrations in thc air of Slovenia undergroundmines. Environ. Int. 16: 171-173 (1990).
K7 Kovac J., D. Cesar and A. Raumman. Ten years ofradiation monitoring at a phosphate fertilizer plant.
p. 214-218 in: Proceedings of the Third ItalianYugoslav Symposium on Low Level Radiation,
Plitvice, 1990.
L1 Lloyd. D.C. et al. Doses in radiation accidents
investigated by chromosome aberration analysis VI,
VII, VIII, H,XIII, XIV, XVI, XVII: Reviews ofcases investigated, 1976-1987. NRPB-R41, R57, R70,
R83, R148. R166, R192, R207 (1976-1987).
U Lefaure, C. and J. Lochard. La dosimetrie destravailleurs des entrepriscs exterieures dans lescentralcs nuclbires. Risque et Prevention. Bulletind'inforrnation du Centre d'Etude sur I'Evaluation dela Protection dans le Domaine Nuclbire, No. 9.
CEA/CEPN (1990).
U Londhe, V.S. and S.R. Rao. Study of distribution ofsome natural radionuclides on processing of rockphosphate. Bull. Radiat. Prot. 11: 181-183 (1988).
M1 Mangeno, J J . and A.E. Tyron. Occupational radiation
exposure from U.S. naval nuclear propulsion plants
and their support facilities. U.S. Department of theNavy, NT-87-2 (1987).
M2 McEwan, A.C. Occupational radiation exposures in
New Zealand. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 22 (4): 243-251(1988).
M3 Menvin, S.E., W.H. Millet and R J . Traub. Twcntyfirst annual rcport. Radiation exposures for DOE andDOE contractor employees 1988. DOEEH-0171P(1990).
M4 Mishra, U.C. and T.V. Ramachandran. Technologically enhanced natural radiation sources - a review.
Bull. Radiat. Prot. 11: 270-280 (1988).
M5 Montagne, C., J.P. Donne, D. Pelmt et al. Inflightradiation measurements aboard French airliners.
Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 48: 79-83 (1993).
M6 McAulay, I.R. Radiation exposure of airaew. Trinity
College, Dublin. Communication to the UNSCEAR
Secretariat (1991).
M7 Morris, N. Personal radiation monitoring andassessment of doses reccivcd by radiation workers inAustralia. A R W - 1 0 7 (1992).
M8 Mullarkcy, D.T., Nudear Electric. United Kingdom.
Communication to the UNSCEAR Secretariat (1992).
M9 Mangeno. J J., Department of the Navy. Unitcd States.
Communication to the UNSCEAR Secretariat (1992).
M I 0 Mangeno, JJ. and C.W. Burrows. Occupationalradiation exposure from U.S. naval nuclear propulsion
plants and their support facilities. U.S. Department of
the Navy. NT-92-2 (1992).
M I 1 McCormick. W.B., British Ministry of Defence.
Communication lo the UNSCEAR Secretariat (1992).

-

547

Mishra. U.C. and M.C. Subba Ramu. Natural radioactivity in houses and minc atmospheres in India.
Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 24: 25-28 (1988).
Majoubi, H.C., A. Abbcs, A. Aboudi ct al. Etude dela radioadivitd naturcllc dans le sol du sud tunisien,
r6gion de Gasfa Tvzcur. Radioprolcdion 26: 537-549(1991).
National Council on Radiation I'rotcction andMcasurements. Exposure of the US population fromoccupational radiation. NCRP Report No. 101 (1989).
Nikipelov, B.. A. Lyslov and 11. Koshumikova. An
expericncc or the first enterprise of the nuclear
industry (levels of exposurc and hcalth of workcrs).
Priroda 2: 30-38 (1990).
National Council on Radiation Protection andMeasurements. Guidance on radiation received inspace activities. NCRP Report No. 98 (1989).
Nguyen, V.D.. P. Bouisset, N. Parmentier et al.
Real-time quality factor and dose equivalent meter"CIRCE" and its use on-board the Soviet orbital
station "MIR". p. 1-17 in: Workshop on Implemcntation of Dose Equivalent Based on MiaodosimetricTechniques in Radiation Protection. Schloss Elmau(Germany), 1988.
National Council on Radiation Protection andMeasurements. Exposure of the population in the
United States and Canada from natural backgroundradiation. NCRP Report No. 94 (1987).
Nair, N.B.. C.D. Eapen and C. Rangarajan. High airborne radioactivity levels due to radon in some nonuranium mincs in India. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 11: 193197 (1985).
Omar, M., M.Y. Ibrahim, A. klassan et al. Enhanced
radium level in tin mining areas in Malaysia. p. 191196 in: Proceedings of the international- Conference
on High Levels of Natural Radiation, Ramsar, 1990.
IAEA, Vienna, 1993.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Nuclear Energy Agency, and international
Atomic Energy Agency. Uranium - resources,
production and demand, 1989. OECD (1990).
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Nuclear Energy Agency, and International
Atomic Energy Agency. Nuclear energy and its fuelcycle. Report by an Expert Group, OECD (1987).
O'Brien, K., W. Friedberg. F.E. Duke et al. The
exposure of aircraft crews to radialion of extraterrestrial origin. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 45: 145-162(1992).
Othman, I., M. Al-tlushari and G. Raja. Radiation
exposure levels in phosphate mining activities. Radiat.
Prot. Dosim. 45: 197-201 (1992).
Pavlov, 1. and A. Panfilov. The impact of the ncw
ICRP occupational dose limits on the operation ofunderground mines. Ministry of Atomic Energy,
Russian Federation (1992).
Pellerin, P.. Service Central de Protection contre lcs
Rayonnements Ionisants (SCPRI), 1;rance. Communication to the UNSCEAR Secretariat (1991).
Pradel, J. Consequence of a reduction in radiation
protection limits in mincs. p. 231-242 in: Proceedingsof the IV National Congress of the Spanish Radiation
Protection Society - Implications of the New ICRPUNSCrAR 1993 REPORT

Recommendations on Rndintion Protection Practices
and Interventions, Snlamanca, November 1991.
Volume 1. CIEMAT, Madrid, 1992.
Perry, D.K. Trends in radiological and environmental
protection at high energy accelerator laboratories.
p. 17-22 in: Proceedings of lnternational Conferenceon Oaupational Radiation Protection. Guernsey, April
1991.
Pan, Z. A discussion on some problems existing in
BSS. Bureau of Safety, Protection and Ilealth.
National Nuclear Corporation, China (1992).
Pan Zi Qiang. Bureau of Safety, Protection and
Health, CNNC, China. Communication to the
UNSCEAR Seaelariat (1993).
Rolland-Piegue, C., Compagnie Generale des MatiEres
NudQires (COGEMA), Velizy-Villamublay, France.
Communication to h e UNSCEAR Secretariat (1992).
Raddatz, C.T. and D. Hagemeyer. Occupationalradiation exposure at commercial nuclear power
facilities, 1989. NUREG-0713, Volume 11 (1992).
Rodrigues de Oliveira, A. Un kpertoire des accidenk
radiologiques, 1945-1985. Radioprotection 22 (2):89-135 (1987).
RoM, M.C., A. Rannou and J. Le Bmnec. Radon
measurement in the environment of France. Radiat.
Prot. Dosim. 45: 455-457 (1992).
Rox, A., J. Fahland. R. Freder et al. Bestimmung vonRadon und seinen Folgepmdukten im Steinkohlebergbau. p. 57-73 in: Messung von Radon und RadonFolgepmdukten. Verlag TiiV, Rheinland, 1991.
Rock, R.L., G. Svilar, R.T. Beckman et al. Evaluationof radioactive aerosols in United States undergroundcoal mines. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau ofmines report MESA-IR1025 (1975).
Regulla, D. and J. David. Radiation measurements incivil aircraft. GSF 41P1 (1991).
Regulla, D. and J. David. Measurements of cosmic
radiation on-board Lufthansa aircraft on the majorinternational flight routes. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 48:
65-72 (1993).
Sont, W.N. and J.P. Ashmore. 1984 Annual radiation
doses in Canada: log-normal and hybrid log-normal
analysis using maximum likelihood estimation. HealthPhys. 54: 211-219 (1988).
Schmitt, C.H. and J.F. Brice. Occupational radiation
exposure from U.S. naval nuclear propulsion plants
and their support facilities. U.S. Department of theNavy report NT-84-2 (1984).
Sont, W.N. and J.P. hhmorc. Projected whole bodycareer doses for radiation workers in Canada. HealthPhys. 47: 693-700 (1984).
Service Central de Protection mntre les Rayonnements Ionisants, Le Vesinet, France. Rapport
technique (1989).
Strong. R. and C. Partington. Past trends in
occupational exposure in nuclear fuel reprouvsing at
Sellafield. p. 11-16 in: Proceedings of International
Conference on Occupational Radiation Protection,
Guernsey, April 1991.
Swindon, T.N. and N. Morris. Personal monitoring
and assessment of doses received by radiation
workers. ARLJI'R-035 (1981).
Stewart, J.M.,Chamber of Mines of South Africa.

Johanncsburg, South Africa. Communication to the
UNSCEAR Secretariat (1992 and 1993).
Sztnnyik, L.B. ~ n dI. Dojtor, National ResearchInstitute for Radiobiology and Radiohygicne.
Hungary. Communication to the UNSCEAR
Secrelariat (1991).
Shaw, K.R. Radiation exposure of civil aircrcw.
Radiol. Prot. Bull. 127: 15-18 (1991).
Schmitz, J. and I{. Frikche. Radon impact atunderground workplams in Western Germany. Radiat.
hot. Dosim. 45: 193-195 (1992).
Schiocchetti, G., F. S c a m and G.F.Clemente. The
radiation hazards in Italian non-uranium mines:
aspects of radiation protection. p. 69-73 in: Radiation
Hazards in Mining - Control, Measurement andMedical A~pccts.Society of Mining Engineers, New
York, 1981.
Stelcl, J., 0. NavrBtil, J. Pribyl et al. On the sourcesof radon in the caves in the northern part of theMoravian karst. Scr. Fac. Sci. Nat. Univ. Park Brun.
17: 233-240 (1987).
Switzerland. Office Federal de la Santt Publique,
Suisse. Dosimetrie des personnes exposees aux
radiations sans I'exercise de leur profession en Suisse.
Rapports de la Commission Federale de la Protection
contre les Radiations. Rapports 1-15 (1976-1990).
Talmor, A., Y. Laichter and G. Weiser. Estimation ofradiation exposure to the population of Arad following
the opening of the Sedeh-Zohar phosphates mine.
p. 27-32 in: Program and Abstracts of Lectures at the1988 Annual Meeting of the Israeli Health Physics
Society, I-ierzliya, 1988.
United Nations. Sources, Effects and Risks of Ionizing
Radiation. United Nations Scientific Committee on the
Effects of Atomic Radiation, 1988 Report to theGeneral Assembly, with annexes. United Nations sales
publication E.88.lX.7. United Nations, New York,1988.
United Nations. Ionizing Radiation: Sources andBiological Effects. United Nations ScientificCommittee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, 1982
Rcport 10 the General Assembly, with annexes. United
Nations sales publication E.82.IX.8. United Nations,
New York, 1982.
United Nations. Sources and Effects of Ionizing
Radiation. United Nations Scientific Committee on the
Efleck of Atomic Radiation. 1977 Report to theGeneral Assembly, with annexes. United Nations sales
publication C.77.lX.l. United Nations, New York,1977.
United Nations. Ionizing Radiation: Levels andEffects. Report of the United Nations ScientificCommittee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, withannexes. United Nations sales publication E.72.IX.17
and 18. United Nations, New York, 1972.
United Nations. Report of the United Nations
Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic
Radiation. Official Records of the General Assembly,
Seventecnth Session, Supplement No. 16 (1415216).
New York. 1962.
United Nations. 1987 Statistical Yearbook. Thirtysixth issue. Department of International Economic andSocial Affairs, Statistical Office. New York, 1990.

Viktorsson, C., J. Lochard, hf. Bcncdittini el al.
Occupalional dosc control in nuclear powcr planls an ovcrvicw. p. 13-25 in: I'rooccdings of International
Workshop on New Devclopmcn~s in Occupational
Dose Control i~ndA1,AIZA Implcmcntation at Nudcar
Power Plants and Similar 1:acilitics. Ncw York.
September 1989. NURL':G/CP-0110 and BNLNUREG-52226 (1990).
W1 Wilson. J.A., J.P. Ashrnorc and D. Grogan.
Occupational radiation cxpmures in Canada 1987.
Canadian Dcpartmcnt of N;~tionalllealth and Wellarc.
Rcport No. 89-El1D-147 (1989).

V1

W2

W3

W4

X1

Wilson, J.W. and L.W. Townscnd. Radiation safety incomnicrcial air traKic: a need lor lurther study. llcaltli
I'hys. 55: 1001-1003 (1988).
Wang Zuoyunn. Typical radiation accidcnls happened
in China. Laboratory of Industrial Ilygicnc, MinistryoC Public llcalth, Bcijing. China, 1990.
Webb. G.A.M., J.S. liughcs and G. bwson. Current
dosc distributions in thc UK - implications of ICRP
I'ublication 60. NRPB-M286 (1991).
Xingyuan, Z.,L. llanqin and X. Kenyi. Radiation
hygiene survcy o l radon in non-uranium mines. Chin.
J. Kadiol. Mcd. l'rot. 9: 16-18 (1989).