IONIZING RADIATION:
SOURCES AND BIOLOGICALEFFECTS
United Nations Scientific Committee
on the Effects of Atomic Radiation
1982 Report to the General Assembly, with annexes

UNITED NATIONSNew York, 1982

NOTE
The report of the Committee without its annexes appears as Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirtyseventh Session, Supplement No. 45 (A/37/45).
The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of
any opinion whatsoever on the part oft he Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country,
territory. city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATION
Sales No. E.82.IX.806300PANNEXH

Occupational exposures

CONTENTSParagraphs

INTRODUCTION ....................... .

B.

I. OBJECTIVES OF DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS ............ .

2-5

II. ANALYSIS OF OCCUPATIONALDOSE DISTRIBUTIONS ........... .

6-36

Limitations of the data .......... .
1.
The quantities measured .... .
2.
Monitoring and dose recording practice ............... .
3.
Notional doses ............ .
Characteristics of dose distributions
1.
Example of a dose distribution ..................... .
2.
The reference distribution ... .
3.
Techniques for analysis ofdose distributions .......... .
Lifetime dose predictions ........ .

28-33
34-36

III. THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE ..... .

37-88

A.

B.

C.

6-14
6-10
11-13
14
15-33
16-24
25-27

Uranium mining and milling ...... .
Fuel manufacture ............... .
Reactors ...................... .
1.
Light water reactors ........ .
2.
Heavy water reactors ....... .
3.
Gas cooled reactors ........ .
4.
Fast reactors .............. .
S.
Nuclear powered ships ..... .
6.
Doses to particular occupational subgroups ........... .
Fuel reprocessing ............... .
Research and development ....... .
Summary ........•.............

39-42
43-48
49-73
50-56
57-60
61
62-63
64-65

IV. MEDICAL USES OF RADIATION .. .

A.
B.
C.

D.
E.
F.

A.

Diagnosis ..................... .
1.
Diagnostic radiology using

2.

external beams of radiation ..
Diagnosis with incorporated
radionuclides ............•.

Paragraphs

C.

Radiotherapy . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .
1.
Radiotherapy with externalbeams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.
Radiotherapy using interstitial and intracavitary sources
3.
Radiotherapy with unsealed
sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

V. USES OF RADIATION IN INDUSTRY AND RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A. Industrial radiography . . . . . . . . . . .
B. Luminizing.....................
C. Radioisotope production . . . . . . . . . .
D. Other industrial uses . . . . . . . . . . . . .
E. Research.......................
F. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . • • . .. . . . . . .

98-103
98-99
100-102103
104-105

106-118
107-108
109-110111-112113-114115-116
117-118

VI. OTHER EXPOSURES TO RADIATION..............................

119-125

A.
B.
C.
D.
E.

Civil aviation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Non-uranium mining . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Other work underground..........
Use of phosphate fertilizers . . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

120
121122-123
124
125

66-73
74-80
81-87
88

VII. ACCIDENTALEXPOSURE
TO
RADIATION.......................
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

126-135135

89-105
90-97

VIII. CONCLUSIONS ................... .

136-152

References ...•••••.•••........•..•••••••.

Page
418

90-96
97

371

Introduction
1. The Committee discussed the doses received fromoccupational exposure to radiation in its 1962 [U1 J and1972 [U2] reports. A detailed review of the subject waspresented in Annex E or the most recent comprehensive
report in 1977 [U3]. In this Annex the main intent is tofocus on signilicant changes in the pattern or exposure
which have since appeared and to present information
on trends or particular causes of high exposures. It has
been found useful to update the data presented in someareas, and in many cases this is done by reference to theoriginal publications. A further object is to clarify thereasons for which the Committee requires data on
occupational exposure and to suggest areas in which
better data collection or analysis may be per"formed.
The Committee has also collected and reviewed data on
accidents involving the exposure of workers to
substantial radiation doses. Some conclusions are
drawn as to the frequency and severity of such
accidents for different types of work involving
radiation.

I.

OBJECTIVES OF DATA COLLECTION
AND ANALYSIS

2. The primary purpose of monitoring occupationalradiation exposure is to provide information to be used
to control the dose accumulation pattern of individuals.
The information is also used to ' demonstratecompliance with occupational exposure limits. Neitherof these require the reporting of collated data on particular work groups or sections of an industry. However,such collating and reporting is of use for radiologicalprotection purposes such as assessing the degree towhich doses within a particular industry have been
reduced to levels as low as reasonably achievable [11].
None of these purposes are those for which theCommittee uses the information which has beencollected and data are not therefore always presented in
the form which is most useful for the Committee.
3. For particular practices the Committee wishes toassess the annual collective dose and the collective dose
associated with some normalized measure so that thedata from different countries and practices can becollated. This can be used to give an indication of theradiation-induced detriment to the population fromeach practice. The data can also be used for comparisons: for example, of the contribution of different
sectors of an industry to the total radiation-induced
detriment. For each type of work and for subgroups ofworkers within practices, the Committee wishes toassess the average level of dose and hence risk, together
with the distribution of doses among the workforce.
These data can be used to compare risks from radiation
with non-radiation risks in the same or other occupations.
4. Data over several years can be used to assess trends
in average doses, dose distributions and collective doses
from complete industries or practices or fromsubgroups. These can be used to review whether thetrends are with time, with the age of installations, withchanges in technological aspects of plants or in the
management of workers, with increasing size of thepractice, or for some unknown reason.
5. Data on occupational exposure can also be used inprinciple as an input to epidemiological studies. Suchdata are not, however, used for this purpose by the372

Committee, although the Committee welcomes theopportunity to review the results of epidemiologicalstudies carried out by others. Considerable care isneeded in using the reported results of occupational
dosimetry for this purpose, for the reasons pointed out
in chapter II.

II.

ANALYSIS OF OCCUPATIONAL DOSE
DISTRIBUTIONSA.

LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA
1.

The quantities measured

6. It is necessary to establish the relationship between
measurements made in the radiation field by film,
thermoluminescent or other personal dosimeters andthe absorbed doses in the tissues and organs of the
body. For relatively unshielded high energy gamma or
x-radiation which does not give rise to variable
absorbed dose rates throughout the body, reasonably
constant relationships can be adopted. For spatiallyvariable radiation fields, partial shielding of the body,
extreme variations in distances of parts of the bodyfrom the source and similar situations, the relationships
are more complex [K8, K9]. In some circumstances thecomplex relationships may be clarified by extra
measurements and careful interpretation of measurements: these appear to be sometimes carried out, but
not consistently. There are also problems peculiar tosome exposures such as the orientation of the body withrespect to the source.
7. As has been discussed in Annex A, for the control
of dose to individuals the effective dose equivalent
should be obtained by assessing doses to individualorgans and tissues. In practice this is normally not done
because of insufficient information on the radiation
field characteristics. Monitoring badges are notgenerally designed to provide basic information such as
the energy and type of radiation from which depth dose
calculations could be carried out. In the case of nonuniform exposure of the body it is rare that sufficient
information is available from monitoring devices toindicate the spatial extent and variability of theradiation field well enough to assess organ and tissue
doses. These aspects have been studied in detail by
Maruyama et al. [M14], who calculated organ doses andthe effective dose equivalent in a phantom exposed atvarious orientations to radiation of different energies.
8. Dosimeters normally indicate an approximat_ion to
the absorbed dose at the surface of the body, that is tosay averaged over a relatively shallow depth in tissue
under a thin surface layer, together with the absorbed
dose at a greater depth in tissue [M17]. Sometimes
dosimeters are used for particular purposes such as tomeasure doses to finger tips, arms and feet. These
results are often noted on individual dose records andmay be used for comparison with limits on exposure of
extremities. Neutron doses are recorded by special
badges of a wide variety of types, intended in each caseto be appropriate for the neutron energy spectrum to be
encountered. Many simple neutron badges are notappropriate for measurement of intermediate energy
neutrons; they should only be used if it has been
demonstrated that the neutron spectrum is mainly fastor thermal.

9. The level of internal contamination is easy todetermine by biological monitoring for some radionuclides (e.g., 3H), but very difficult for others (e.g., 2J9Pu),
especially at long times after intake or in cases ofmultiple intake. Biological monitoring is taken to
include excreta monitoring and external counting.
Previously, in most organizations, attempts were madeto estimate body content as a fraction of the Maximum
Permissible Body Burden and the results of monitoring
were expressed in these terms. With the change by
ICRP to Annual Limits of Intake there is likely to be acorresponding change in attempting to estimate andreport annual intakes and committed doses. One difficulty in compiling statistics is that reporting levels forinternal contamination vary widely.
10. The Committee has previously adopted theconvention that all numerical results reported bymonitoring services represent the average absorbed
dose in the whole body and recognized that it is almost
always the reading from the dosimeter which isreported. without consideration of its relationship tothe absorbed dose in the body. This is still regarded as areasonable convention as most data are on external
exposure of the whole body to ionizing photon
radiation of moderately high energy for which thequality factor is one. The same convention has again
been adopted in this Annex. In situations where
exposure of the body may be non-uniform, especially in
medical practice, it may be misleading to average
across different types of work as the relationshipbetween reported dosimeter reading and averageabsorbed dose in the whole body will not be constant.
Such variations will be noted when information isavailable.
2.

Monitoring and dose recording practice

11. The number of workers subjected to different
levels of monitoring is a function of management andenforcement agency decisions on the likelihood of
exposure at or above different levels. It is not therefore
consistent within an industry or in a given country, andcertainly not between industries or between countries.
The ICRP [11. I2] recommends that in cases where it ismost unlikely that annual doses will exceed three-tenthsof the dose limit, individual monitoring is notnecessary, although it may sometimes be carried out asa method of confirming that conditions are satisfactory.
However, the relative ease, low cost and sensitivity ofmonitoring devices for external radiation means thatthese are much more widely issued than would be
expected from such a criterion. Having been issued,even trivial doses from the devices are aften reported,
despite the ICRP recommendation of a recording levelof one-tenth of the annual limit. There is some discrepancy in the treatment of external and internalradiation, which may be because monitoring forinternal irradiation is only undertaken in those few
circumstances where there is a clear need. Internal
doses can be assessed indirectly by monitoring activity
concentrations in air, but there is considerable uncertainty over the relationship between the measured
concentrations and the retained body content. The
result of such monitoring is not always transferred toindividual dose records.
12. Difficulties such as these contribute to the
problem of defining the number of exposed workers
and may lead to differences in reported average doses.
The Committee feels that whether the reported data arefor all of those monitored and the basis on which they
were selected for monitoring should be clarified. How
dose estimates are obtained for those individuals who
are not monitored, e.g., air crew, underground miners,
should also be made clearer. It is assumed throughoutthat natural background radiation has been subtracted
from the reported results and that medical doses are notincluded. Even medical exposures required as acondition of employment or given as a result of
employment arc not included.
13. There is also some variation in the procedures
used for reporting dosimeter readings which arc lessthan the minimum detectable level for the particular
dosimeter. These may be entered into the records aseither zero or the minimum level. Due to difficulties ofthis type the Committee has developed certain
analytical procedures, described later, to extract information from dose distributions. More information on
precise procedures used in reported results would be
useful.

3.

Notional doses

14. When dosimeters arc Jost, or the readings areotherwise not available, it is a common procedure forcompliance with legal or statutory requirements toassume that the individual exposed has received theappropriate proportion of the annual authorized limit
for the period for which results were Jost. However, thisprocedure can distort records, particularly if large
numbers of dosimeters are lost within a particularoccupational group. The Committee therefore wouldfind it most useful if doses could be reported with anindication of the number of notional doses, theprocedure adopted and, if possible, a revised dose
estimate with the notional doses substituted by a dose
calculated from the average dose over the remainder ofthe year for each individual. This procedure is only
appropriate in routine situations; when high exposures
are suspected, such as after an accident, then biologicalmonitoring may be more appropriate.
B.

CHARACTERISTICS OF DOSE
DISTRIBUTIONS

15. Dose distributions are the results of many
constraints imposed by the nature of the work itself, by
the management, by the workers and by legislation. In
some job categories it may be unnecessary 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 in particular act as a feedback mechanism which applies
especially as individual doses approach the annual dose
limit, or some proportion of it, in a shorter period oftime. Individual doses may be reduced to lower levels
in some circumstances by management decisions but,unless changes are made to the job or the working
conditions, more workers will be needed to carry out
the job and the collective dose will generally increase[Gl, Hl].
I.

Example of a dose distribution

16. In order to clarify the discussion on the characteristics of dose distributions the Committee has found it
useful to take an example of a dose distribution which
exhibits many of the characteristics of interest. This373

example, which is given in Table 1, is not an actual
distribution, although it is similar to those distributions
found for workers on light water reactors (LWRs), in
fuel reprocessing, in research and development, inindustrial radiography and in luminizing. It must beemphasized that this is not a typical or an optimum
distribution: it is no more than an illustrative example.
I 7. 1n Annex E of the I 977 report, it was noted thatmany dose distributions exhibit a log-normal character,especially at doses well below the annual dose limit.
This property can be readily identified by plotting the
cumulative frequency on a probability axis against thelogarithm of dose. This procedure was referred to in
Annex E of the 1977 report as a "Jog-probability plot"
and will be used again in this Annex. The log-probability plot of the data from Table I is shown in Figure I.
The straight line in the Figure is the result of a leastsquares fit to the points up to and including the point at
15 mGy. The results calculated from this fit are

99.99

99

/I

99

95

l

>-

u

3

if'°/

90

::,
0

"'0:
'">

;::

:5::,
:le

::,

u

50

JO

---

10

/

I

r:f- "I o
\

100
'~-1

10
ANNUAL DOSE (mGy)

Figure I. Example log-probability plot of date from Table 1

compared in Table 1 :~~e-obtained from simple
workers considered and decrease the average dosearithmetic mean doses in each r a n ~based on that total. There is no precise method to··'-........
determine the number of unexposed workers, but it ispossible to calculate the number of workers in the
18. Table 1 and Figure I show some of the characteristics of interest and that there is some lack of clarity o'r ·- - sample below any arbitrarily selected annual dose level
the number of workers taken to be unexposed. From
from._the log-normal fit. For example, using the distrithe log-probability plot it is possible to obtain the
bution'in-Table 1, if this level is taken as 0.1 mQy, thecollective dose as described later. The average dose is ofnumber found,mtfie ·Jog-normal fit to receive lesscourse related to the number of workers so that if thethan 0.1 mG 1s 140 people. Procedures of this typecollective dose is extracted from the distribution using a
have not been use •is Annex but the determination
fit to the log-normal if appropriate, then the averageof the numbers of exposed and unexposed workers
dose is determined by the number of workers. The main
merits further consideration, as has been done in recent
point of the log-normal fitting is to make a better
reports by the· United States Nuclear Regulatory
allowance for the skewness of the distribution towards
Commission (817, '818]. Drexler et al. [D9] havezero doses than using the mid point dose in the lowest
assessed the average doses to all those monitored and todose band. This is illustrated in Table 1.
those with measurable doses for a number of occupations: the ratio of the two averages ranges from about
1.5 to 20 for different occupations.
19. In principle, if the dosimetry data are reportedwith doses below the threshold of detection as zero,
20. Another characteristic which may be seen inthen addition of any arbitrary number of unexposed
Figure I is the deviation from log-normal as the doses
workers will not affect the collective dose, nor theapproach 50 mGy per year, the currently recommended
average dose to those workers actually exposed.
dose limit for occupationally exposed workers [11 J,
However, it will clearly increase the total number of374which has become progressively observed as an annual
limit during recent years. This means that the Jognormal is not a complete description of the dosefrequency characteristics. Since there arc likely to be
only a few people in the higher dose ranges it isreasonable to request that those reporting data givecollective doses based on summation of individual
results at higher individual doses. It would also be
helpful to give the number of workers in individual
dose bands which are rather narrower than has been thepractice. These data would clarify the effects on the
distribution of dose limits; and if such reporting wereroutine then all the required data on the upper end of
the distribution could be derived directly without introducing any further assumptions or approximations. It
has been suggested by Kumazawa and Numakunai[K12] that the control of doses approaching the dose
limits leads to a normal distribution in the higher dose
range; this presumption can be used to carry out
analysis as a hybrid normal/Jog-normal distribution.

total collective dose, MR, which is related to the
proportion of workers exposed to higher levels of
individual risk.
23. These characteristics may be obtained for any
form of the dose distribution, whether or not it exhibitsa log-normal response over some part of the dose
range. They should be obtained from the detailed basic
data on the dosimetry results and reported with any
collated reports of the data where possible. The definitions of the annual collective dose, M, arc as follows:
N

M=

L Dn

(1)

n-1

where N is the total number of workers, Dn is theannual absorbed dose received by the nth worker. In
practice M is often calculated from collated dosimetry
results using the alternative definition
00

21. A characteristic of the dose distribution identified
by the Committee in 1977 [U3] as being of interest was
the fraction of the collective dose delivered above agiven annual dose level taken in that report as 15 mGy.
This fraction is plotted in Figure II as a function of the
w

"'0
0

..J

~

z
z
<

1.0

.
w

:,:

M = LN;D;(2)0where N; is the number of individuals in the ith
absorbed dose range for which D; is the mean annual
absorbed dose. In some circumstances, because ingeneral the dose distribution is skewed towards low
doses, use of the mid-point dose in a range as an
approximation to D; will lead to an overestimate of thecollective dose. For typical dose ranges the overestimate is thought to be Jess than 10% [B22]. The
annual average absorbed dose, D, is given by

w

>

-D=M

0
co

<
~

N

a:
w

>

where N is the total number of workers monitored. The
annual collective dose distribution ratio, MR, is defined
as

:::;
w

0

~

(3)

0.5

C
w

>

g

MR=M(>15)

M

..J
..J

8

(4)

u..

0

z

0

;::

"c::u..<
50

100

ANNUAL DOSE lmGvl

Figure II. Example of the fraction of collectlve dose
above a given annual dose level (data from Table 1)
a Calculated as the number of workers in each range
multiplied by the mid-point dose.
b Calculated from the log-normal fit below 15 mGy.

annual dose level for the example distribution of Table·
1. It clearly shows the effect of efforts to keep doses
within the dose limit.

where M(> 15) is the annual collective absorbed dosedelivered at annual individual doses exceeding 15 mGy.
This should, where possible, be calculated from thesummation of individual doses.
24. Normal ranges for similar characteristics were
given in Annex E of the 1977 report [U3]. These wereintended to highlight those distributions with values
either above or below the normal range, which could be
used for decisions on dosimetry practices or causes of
exposure. The normal ranges for the characteristics
used in this report which replace those in the 1977
report, are:D from I to 10 mGy
MR from 0.05 to 0.5

22. The three characteristics of the dose distribution
previously identified by the Committee as of interest
still seem to describe the distribution in a usefulfashion. These characteristics are:
The annual average dose, D, which is related tothe average level of individual risk. For consistency. in this Annex the average is generally calculated for all individuals monitored in a given
occupational group.
(b) The annual collective dose, M, which is related tothe impact of the practice.
(c) The ratio of the annual collective dose delivered at
individual doses exceeding 15 mGy per year to the

2.

(a)

The reference distribution

25. The Committee in Annex E of the 1977 report [U3]defined a reference distribution such that:
(a)
(b)
(c)

The distribution of annual doses is log-normal;
The mean of the annual dose distribution is
5mGy;
The proportion of workers exceeding an annual
dose of 50 mGy is 0.1%.
375

26. It was not the intent of the Committee that thisreference distribution be considered an ideal or optimal
distribution of doses and it should not be so interpreted. The distribution was only intended to give somebasis for intercomparison and in so far as theparameters were defined ab initio it was artificial. It
also did not show the common characteristic noted in
Section B.1 of deviation from the log normal. Thisreference distribution, together with the observed rangeof parameters in the 1977 report, was used to obtain anormal range for the parameters of interest for dose
distributions. One of the parameters, the proportion of
the collective dose delivered at annual individual doses
exceeding 15 mGy, was normalized with respect to thereference distribution. As has been pointed out (817,
B19, KIO, Kl 1], there were some errors in the normalization procedure used to obtain the parameter n, (theratio of the fraction of the collective dose due to annual
doses above 15 mGy for the observed distribution to thefraction for the reference distribution) the main resultof which is that the fraction of the collective dose due toannual doses above 15 mGy for the reference distribution should have been 0.202 rather than 0.310. The
normal ranges for the parameters given in the 1977
report were: D from 1-10 mGy: n from 0.1-2.0 (if n isrecalculated correctly the range would be from 0.15 to
3.0).
27. In view of the difficulty over calculational inaccuracies and because the attention which has been paid tothe reference distribution was more than anticipated, it
was decided, as noted in the previous section, to revert
to a basic characteristic concerned with each distribution. This characteristic is the fraction of the collective
dose delivered at individual doses exceeding 15 mGy.
The range for this characteristic, MR, which would
correspond to the range used in the previous report forn, is from 0.03-0.6: however, it has been decided toadopt the normal range given earlier of 0.05-0.5 for

MR.

3.

Techniques for analysis of dose distributions

28. If the complete data on annual individual doses
within a distribution were available, together with thetreatment used for reporting dosimeter readings below
the detection threshold and the treatment used forreporting notional doses, then it would be straightforward to extract the characteristics required by theCommittee. However, data are normally reported
grouped into dose ranges of different widths, often
without such additional indications. The 1977 reportused the observation that the distribution is often lognormal, especially for doses which do not approach thedose limit (820, S18]. Where the required information
cannot be extracted directly from the reported results, alog-normal fit to the appropriate part of the distribution
is therefore used to extract the collective dose, and thefraction of the collective dose delivered in different
individual dose ranges. This procedure is used, where
possible, to assess collective doses to the large numbersof people in the lowest dose band who may receive very
low or zero dose but are given dosimeters for administrative reasons.
29. A variable Dis said to be distributed log-normallyif the values of y = In D are distributed normally. The
mean, median and mode of the distribution of y is µ ;the variance of the distribution is cr2, The probability
that a value of D will lie between D and D + dD is [F5]376II(In D - µ) 2
P(D)dD = - - - e dD
D
2cr 2
0

1f2n

(5)

Since the data rarely fit a log-normal over the whole
range, the quantity of use is the collective dose, Mo, up
to a certain annual dose, D. This is given by

Mo= No e112n(µ + 2:) \ e-1212 dt
2

(6)

-a,

where the substitution variable t =(In D-µ-cr 2)

, and

O'

No is the number of people receiving annual doses up
to D; this is usually determined directly from theoriginal data. The substitution using t is made to render
Mo in the form shown since tabulations of the
cumulative normal distribution function are readily
available. The choice of the appropriate value of D foreach distribution is made by inspection of the dataplotted on log probability graph paper; very often 10 or
15 rnGy is a convenient value.

30. Graphical techniques are of sufficient accuracy
for analyses of dose distributions and are describedboth in standard texts [F5] and in the context of occupational dose distribution analysis [820). If a straight line
is fitted by eye or by the method of least squares to theplot of the cumulative frequency versus In D, then thevalue of Dis (µ-cr) at a cumulative frequency of 15.87%
and (µ+cr) at a cumulative frequency of 84.13%. Mo
can then be obtained from standard tabulations.
.31. An alternative procedure used for the analyses inthis Annex for which sufficient data were available is to
apply the method of least squares to obtain theequation for the best fit line up to the annual dose, D,chosen from inspection of the plot, and then anumerical integration to obtain the collective dose up to
the value D, and up to 15 mGy if this was equal to D.
The collective dose in the ranges above D is obtained
from the original data using either the number in eachrange and the mid-point dose or the actual doses inhigher ranges if provided. If D is less than 15 mGy,then M1s is calculated from

M1s = Mo + Mc1s-o)(7)where Mo is obtained from the least squares fit andM(ls-o) from the original data.
32. Recently some analyses of distributions as a
combination of log-normal and normal distributions
have been made [K12]. The hybrid log-normal isderived from the log-normal by including a feedback
mechanism which relates control of future doses to theprevious cumulative dose. As this includes constraintfunctions which appear to apply rather generally it isprobably a better way to represent observed distributions. However, it has not yet been developed andutilized sufficiently for use in this report.
33. It must be emphasized that use of the log-normal
fitting procedure to extract data is necessary largely
because of the inadequacies of the reporting. If data
were reported in narrower ranges and with explanations of the treatment of notional doses and of measurements less than the limit of detection, then the use of
the log-normal technique to extract information would

be unnecessary. It would be preferable if the original
data were analysed more completely to give thecollective dose and average dose, based on either thenumber of workers issued with dosimeters or thenumber of workers receiving measurable doses. It
would also be desirable to report the distribution ofdoses, especially high individual doses, and thefractions of the collective dose delivered at individual
doses above and below an annual dose level such as
15 mGy.

C.

LIFETIME DOSE PREDICTIONS

34. In Annex E of the 1977 report [U3] the Committee
used a simple linear extrapolation to predict lifetime
doses for a few categories of workers for whom data on
the average dose and years of employment wereavailable for individuals. Very few new data havebecome available on which even this simple treatment
could be used [822, 14), and it is clear that the treatment
does not take adequate account of the complexities ofthe prediction.
35. It was hoped that the simple treatment would havestimulated more investigation of the relationshipbetween the rate of accumulation of dose over the yearsof a person's employment and the total dose received inthat employment. This investigation would need toconsider whether higher doses are received randomly
throughout a group of workers or consistently by thesame individuals each year, whether workers tend tostay in the high dose occupations for Jong periods ormove into lower dose occupations with age, or even
whether the reverse happens. It would also be useful toinvestigate the correlation between predictions basedon historical records using various assumptions andactual total doses.
36. Clearly such investigations, which by their very
nature deal with actual doses to individuals, can only
be performed by those authorities having access toindividual dose records. The Committee would like toencourage those authorities to carry out such investigations and analyses and report the results in a suitably
anonymous fashion so that the privacy of the records ofthe individual workers is safeguarded.

III.

THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE

37. The nuclear fuel cycle is a major identified
practice giving rise to occupational exposure. It was
discussed in some detail in the 1972 [U2] and 1977 [U3]reports of the Committee and is generally well
documented. There are considerable quantities of dataon occupational dose distributions available. All
aspects of the complete fuel cycle, whether or not
carried out globally, are considered. except for the final
treatment and disposal of the major wastes including
high level wastes.
38. The output from the nuclear power industry is thequantity of electric energy supplied. Whether thereported energy is that generated by the station or that
supplied for use, i.e., less that consumed by the station,is sometimes uncertain. The uncertainty is small
compared with other uncertainties in the data but ingeneral the energy supplied for use has been used inthis Annex. Of more importance is whether the installed
generating capacity may be a more appropriate
measure in some circumstances for normalizing thanenergy generated. This is particularly the case with thereactor component of the fuel cycle, as a reactor may be
shut down for most of a given year so that the collective
dose per unit energy generated becomes very large andmay even be infinite if the shut-down is for a complete
year. For this reason the collective dose per unit energy
generated is not a very meaningful quantity to calculate
for individual reactors on an annual basis, and figures
should be averaged over several years if possible. The
appropriate averages can give indications of
performance over a complete power programme orover several years. For the other stages in the fuel cycle,
averaging over a complete power programme isnecessary in any case so this difficulty does not arise.

A.

URANIUM MINING AND MILLING

39. The main source of irradiation of uranium miners
is exposure to radon and daughters. This subject is
discussed in detail in Annex D in which data for several
countries are reported; a summary of recent data isgiven in Table 2 for the late 1970s. For the UnitedStates the average exposure of about 5000 miners isreported by Richardson [Rl] as approximately 4 WLM
per year. This is considerably higher than the averagereported in Annex E of the 1977 report [U3] of 1.4-1.9
WLM per year and that reported by Cook and Nelson[C9] of 1.1 WLM per year. The exposures reported byother countries are in agreement with the lower values
reported for the United States, with Canada having
about 4000 underground workers exposed to approximately 0.75 WLM per year on average and workers inFrance exposed to approximately 1.5 WLM per year on
average. Taking all these values into account, an
appropriate annual average exposure to radon
daughters can be taken as about 1.5 WLM which can beconverted using the appropriate coefficient from Annex
D (8.4 mSv/WLM) to an annual effective dose equivalent of about 13 mSv. Underground miners are also
exposed to some gamma radiation. This was estimatedin the 1977 report as 10 mGy per year as a world-wide
average. More recent Canadian data show a value
closer to 1-2 mGy, but these are based on very few
measurements and are believed to be low [Al].
40. Surface uranium miners have a very much lower
exposure to radon daughters (see Annex D) and theirdose from external radiation is also lower at about 1-2
mGy per year [Al, Ml, L13]. It seems reasonable
therefore to take the estimate of annual effective dose
equivalent from external and internal irradiation of
surface uranium miners as about 5 mSv.
41. Overall the collective dose per unit energy
generated can be obtained but it is a somewhat complex
calculation depending on the production of ore, taken
as 3 t a-1 of natural uranium per miner, and theefficiency of conversion. The best available estimate of
the latter is likely to be that made during the International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation [111 J which is thatfor current reactors the natural uranium requirement isabout 200 t [GW(e) a]-1. The estimate in Annex E of the
1977 report was 0.05 man rad [MW(e) a]-1 (0.5 man Gy[GW(e) a]-1) from gamma radiation plus 0.1 man rad[MW(e) a]-1 (1.0 man Gy [GW(e) a]-1) of alpha irradiation of the lungs. A similar calculation carried out formines in Argentina gave a higher value for 1977-1979377

of about 20 man Sv [GW(e) aJ-1 but this dropped to
4 man Sv [GW(e) a)-I in 1980 [P20) associated with ashift from underground to surface mining. Taking the
I NFCE value of 200 l [GW(e) a)-I of natural uranium,
the mining rate of 3 t a-t and the average effective dose
equivalent of 13 mSv a-t, then the collective dose equivalent per unit energy generated is 0.9 man Sv [GW(e) a]-'.
An appropriate rounded estimate of the collective
effective dose equivalent per unit energy generated is
1 man Sv [GW(e) a)-t.
42. The most detailed surveys of doses received byworkers at uranium mills are for the United States in1975 [Cl, C9] and 1978 [B17]. An extrapolated total of
about 1000 workers was estimated to be involved at an
average measurable annual dose equivalent of 4 mSv in
1975, but only 2 mSv in 1978. The MR was estimatedfor the 1975 data as 0.2. A similar survey for millers inAustralia [S19) gave average weekly doses of 0.06 mSv
to 73 workers for a six-month working period in
1979-1980. The collective dose equivalent of 2 man Sv,
taking the more recent estimate, and based on anenergy production of 32 GW(e) a in the United Statesin 1978, makes a minimal contribution to the collective
dose equivalent per unit energy generated of less than
0.1 man Sv [GW(e) a]-1 and is not included as a separate
item in the summary.

B.

FUEL MANUFACTURE

43. New information on doses received at fuelmanufacturing plants is available from Canada andIndia. In addition, there are data from the United
Kingdom and the United States to update those given
in Annex E of the 1977 report. Some new informationon the doses to workers concerned with fuelmanufacture under licence lo the United States Nuclear
Regulatory Commission have been published. These
data arc summarized in Table 3 [Cl, U4, Bl, B17]. Logprobability plots of the data from 1974 to 1978 aregiven by Brooks et al. [B17] and show a steady
reduction in both D and MR. Only workers withmeasurable doses have been included. The results for1975 are taken from a special survey [Cl]. In 1977 [Bl]and 1978 [B17) more detail was given of the activities
within the category of fuel processing and fabrication
which includes uranium and plutonium fuel fabricationand scrap recovery, reprocessing plants, and the
manufacture of plutonium sources. The collective dosefor plants engaged in uranium fuel fabrication in 1977
and 1978 were 10 and 9 man Gy, respectively, which ineach case is about 60% of the total. Even this value will
overestimate the dose from fuel fabrication because
other activities are also carried out at some of theseplants. The energy generated in the United States
during the four-year period 1975-1978 was 100 GW(e)a (B22, H4]. Assuming that about 600/o of the dose
received in fuel processing and fabrication results fromthe fabrication of fuel for power reactors, the collective
dose per unit energy generated from fuel manufacture
was 0.5 man Gy [GW(e) a]-1. This estimate is considerably b!!low that given in Annex E of the 1977 report[U3] because of the decreased doses and increased
energy generated; this may reflect an approach toequilibrium since in the early 1970s fuel was being
fabricated for the large number of reactors which wereshortly lo become operational.

44. The doses to fuel fabrication and fuel enrichment
workers in the United Kingdom from 1976 to 1978 [U5,

99.99

99.9

99

95

90

70

so

JO

10

0.1

100

ANNUAL DOSE lruGyl

Figure Ill. Log-probablllty plots of annual doses to fuel fabrication workers In the
United Kingdom In 1976 and 19n [US, R2)

378

R2, U16] are summarized in Table 4. Log-probability
plots for fuel fabrication workers arc shown in Figure111. The electrical energy generated in the United
Kingdom during each of these years was about 3.3
GW(c) a [G2. NI] so the collective dose per unit energy
generated has dropped from about 2.0 to 1.5 man Gy[GW(e) aJ-1. This may still be an overestimate sincesome fuel would have been manufactured over thisperiod for the new advanced gas-cooled reactors(AGRs).
45. Data have been published on the doses received
by workers at the six fuel manufacturing plants in
Canada [Al]. The annual collective dose and annual
average doses from 1970-1978 are shown in Table 5.
One company refines uranium and produces U0 2 andUF6 while the other five fabricate fuel. The doses havedecreased since 1974 although production has
increased. The collective dose per unit energy generated
has dropped from about 1 man Gy [GW(e) aJ-1 in the
mid-1970s to about 0.25 man Gy [GW(c) aJ-1 in 1978
since several large stations started to produce power in1977 and 1978.
46. The doses received by workers in fuel fabrication
facilities in India from 1966 to 1978 have been
published [14]. Of about 800 workers at the factory. 300
to 400 received measurable doses in recent years, withan annual average dose in 1978 of 1 mGy and acollective dose of 0.4 man Gy. The electrical energy
generated in India up to the year 1978 was 2.4 GW(e) awhich. combined with the total collective dose over theperiod of 6.6 man Gy, leads to a collective dose per unit
energy generated of about 3 man Gy [GW(e) aJ-1.
47. Annual average doses from fuel fabrication are
generally low, being about 0.3 mGy in Argentina [P20],
1 mGy in Canada and 2-3 mGy in the United Kingdom
and the United States from 1977-1978. The fraction of
the collective dose delivered above 15 mGy is in general
small, often approaching zero.
48. The more recent estimates of dose per unit energy
generated from fuel manufacture arc considerably
reduced from the previous estimates, possibly because
the fuel manufacturing industry is reaching equilibriumwith the number of reactors in use. There is some difficulty in estimating the collective dose per unit energy
generated since fuel manufacture may take place sometime before the fuel is used to generate energy. Resultsfrom the United Kingdom show that the collective dose
equivalent per unit energy generated has remained
fairlyconstantfrom 1972to 1977 at 1.5man Sv[GW(e)aJ-1,
whereas in the United States the figure has dropped from
2.5 in 1973-1974 to 0.5 in 1975-1978. The best estimate
at present for Canada is 0.25 man Sv [GW(e) aJ-1; anestimate over many years for India yields 3 and forArgentina 0.2 man Sv [GW(e) aJ-1 [P20]. Overall
probably the best estimate of the collective dose equivalent per unit energy generated from fuel manufactureis 1 man Sv [GW(e) aJ-1.
C.

REACTORS

49. More data on occupational exposure to radiation
are reported for reactor operation than for any otherarea. The major focus in this Annex is to assess trends
in the collective dose, individual average doses, thenumber of workers per unit energy generated for
different reactor types, and to see whether these
correlate with the age of the plant, experience inoperation, reactor type, etc. Another objective is torevise the overall estimate of collective dose equivalent
per unit energy generated. The difficulties, referred toearlier, of normalizing to the energy generated areclearest in this section. Especially for water reactors.
most doses result from routine or special maintenance,
so in the year during which such maintenance occurs,
when there is less energy generated because of shut
down, collective doses are high. Thus the only figures ofuse are those derived over several years for many
reactors. Normalized results are not useful indicators
for a particular plant in any one year. It is assumed
throughout that all the dose accumulated by workers onreactors is related to the energy produced so that doses
due to training or other jobs are included. In many
countries, transient workers are brought in for shortperiods during the year to carry out special maintenance; it is not always clear whether these have been
included but where possible this is specified.
1.

Light water reactors

50. Most light water reactors are installed in the
United States, where considerable operating experiencehas now been accumulated. Summaries of occupationalradiation exposure at light water reactors in the UnitedStates up to 1979 have been published by the UnitedStates Nuclear Regulatory Commission [JJ. PI, B18,
B22]. Some of the data presented in Annex E of the
1977 report [U3] have been revised to make themconsistent with those which are now required to bereported to the United States Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
51. The data reported on boiling water reactors(BWRs) and pressurized water reactors (PWRs) for theyears 1973-1979 are summarized in Tables 6 and 7.
Over this period the number of reactors included
increased from 12 to 25 BWRs and from 12 to 42
PWRs. The most striking trend is the increase in thenumber of workers per reactor with measurable doses,
especially over recent years, and the corresponding
decrease in the average individual dose; by contrast. theannual average collective dose has remained
reasonably steady. Figure IV shows the trend in theannual average values of the number of workers andcollective dose per reactor, together with the average
dose per worker for all LWRs in the United States from1971 to 1979 [B22]. The average value for the collective
dose per unit energy generated over the 5 years
1975-1979 is 12 man Gy [GW(e) aJ-1. The figures forindividual reactors in any one year are very much morevariable, ranging from less than 1 to over 100 man Gy[GW(e) aJ-' for PWRs in 1979; this shows again that
only broad average values of this parameter are useful.
A detailed analysis was carried out [B22] of the datafrom each reactor over the 5-year period 1975-1979.
This showed that in general the newer plants had lower
collective doses per reactor, annual average doses toworkers and collective doses per unit energy generated
than older plants. It was noted that some of theincreases in collective doses in 1979 resulted directlyfrom safety-related actions required by the UnitedStates Nuclear Regulatory Commission following theThree Mile Island accident.
52. Figure V is a log-probability plot of the annual
doses to workers at all LWRs in the United States in1978 [818]. This distribution, which is typical of recent
years, shows clearly the effect of efforts to reduce thenumber of individuals exposed to high annual doses.
379

1000

10-

ll Number of WC)f.._UI pe,.- reactor• Annual colltcli...-• ~ per 1uc1or(' Annual awer•ge dose

900

BOO

>
Cl

11
~

700

>
Cl

a: 6

600

.
IC

w
w

SOO

;

~
::
iIC 8 Cl~ ..

400

g ~~
<(

IC

,...

6

:c

!,,
""',,

.

~

0

."',,

C

0

! 10 ; 5

0

"'z

.,,

"'g

>-

>
<

"',,

IC

"'
"',,,,
"'>
c::i

,,

C

t::, l

JOO

z

!:lC

z

<(

...

Cl

~
w

•

200

2

>

...

<(

<(

::,

f

100

2

<(

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

YEAR

Figure IV. The number of workers end annual collective dose per reactor, and the annual
average dose for ell LWRs In the United States 1971-1979 [B22]

The value of MR for the distribution is 0.55, representing a steady decrease from a figure of 0.73 in 1973
[B22].
53. There are also a considerable number of lightwater reactors in Europe, (excluding the United
Kingdom), in Japan and in some other countries. Data
from these are not in all cases reported systematicallybut some collated information is published by the
IAEA [15, 16, 17] and a survey has been carried out by
the Nuclear Energy Agency of OECD [18]. Additionaland more detailed reports have been published for theFederal Republic of Germany [M3, P4] the German
Democratic Republic [SI], Japan [M15], Spain [Fl, G4],
Sweden [P2] and Switzerland [K2, G3, P3]. Table 8 gives
details for some of the BWR reactors by country andinstalled capacity: it also gives, for some recent years,
the average value of the collective dose per unit energy
generated. Table 9 gives the same data for PWRs. It isnoticeable that the values of average collective doses
per unit energy generated are quite variable, due to therelatively small numbers of reactors in some cases. In
most cases high values occur when reactors were shut
down for a significant part of the year. For somecountries only the collective dose from all LWRs isavailable; in the Federal Republic of Germany in 1978
this was 41 man Gy giving a collective dose per unit
energy generated in that year of 4 man Gy [GW(e) aJ-1
and a cumulative average up to 1978 of 17 man Gy[GW(e) a)-I [M3]. The trend in collective dose per unit
energy generated has been examined by the Nuclear
380

Energy Agency (18] as a function of the age and type ofreactor. There is some evidence for an increase withtime in service for BWRs commissioned prior to 1973
but this is less marked for those commissioned later:
there is a slight but similar trend for PWRs. This
increase is attributed to build-up in the reactor circuitsof gamma-emitting activation products such as 60Co,
leading to increased doses during maintenance.
54. A clearer trend which emerges from the Nuclear
Energy Agency survey [18], and from special studies in
the United States [822] and the Federal Republic of
Germany [M3], is towards lower collective doses perunit energy generated. In general, taking into accountall those countries reporting data but giving due weightto the United States experience, the best estimate· of theaverage collective dose equivalent per unit energy
generated from LWRs is 10 man Sv [GW(e) a)-I. This is
the same as the estimate in Annex E of the 1977 report[U3].
55. The average dose to reactor workers is reported in
the references cited for many of the countries referred
to earlier and does not appear to have changed very
greatly from the estimate made in Annex E of the 1977
report. In general, annual average doses to reactor
workers range from 3 to 8 mGy. However, there has
been a significant increase in the number of workers
per reactor, particularly in the United States, for whichdata are available, in the period from 1970 to 1980. In
the United States the number of workers per reactor has

99.99-

99 9-

00-

9S-

!

>
u

90-

z

w
:,
0

w

~

w

>

~...

70

:,
~

:,

u

0

/'
/

30

10

10

0.1

100

ANNUAL DOSE fmGyl

Figure V. Log-probability plot of annual doses to workers receiving measurable
doses at LWRs In the United States, 1978 [818)increased by a factor of between 3 and 4 over thisperiod.
56. Only in a few of the special studies are sufficient
data available on the dose distribution to enable thevalue of the collective dose distribution ratio MR to beassessed. The values for both direct employees andcontractors at Swedish LWRs are all less than 0.3 over
the years 1976--1978 [P2}; that for Swiss LWRs fell from
0.6 in 1976 [P3] and 1977 [K2, G3] to 0.4 in 1978 [G3]and was accompanied by a drop in the annual average
dose; for the small and rather old BWR at Gundremmingen in the Federal Republic of Germany thecollective dose distribution ratio has remained close to
0.7 from 1970 to 1977 [P4]. As already mentioned, thecollective dose distribution ratio for United States
LWRs has fallen from about 0.7 to a value approaching
0.5 [B18].
2.

Heavy water reactors

57. New information has been published concerning
the Canadian CANDU reactors [Al]. The stations were
not named in the paper but they can be identified fromthe information given by using reference [Nl]. The
average doses for the stations operating in 1977 were
given and these are shown with the characteristic of thestations in Table 10. The collective dose equivalent perunit energy generated by all stations between 1972 and1978 is given in Table 11. In 1975 and 1976 thecollective doses at Pickering were higher than in otheryears because the pressure tubes in two of the four units
were changed (Ll]. In most years about 30% of the doseat Pickering results from the intake of tritium [E3]. The
collective dose per unit energy generated from 1972 to1978 inclusive is 7 man Gy [GW(e) aJ-I, slightly lower
than the value in Annex E of the 1977 report [U3}.
58. The annual average doses shown in Table 10 varyconsiderably between the five stations. Until 1977 thesituation was characterized by the practice at Pickering,then the largest station, and an annual average dose
approaching 10 mGy was reasonably representative[Al]. The dose distribution at this station in 1976 isshown in Figure VI. In 1977 Bruce A became operational and initial experience is that both external andinternal annual average doses are very much lower,
being less than 1 mGy combined. It is not yet clear if
this early experience has been maintained. As can beseen from Figure VI, the value of the collective dose
distribution ratio MR for Pickering in 1976 wasdifficult to estimate due to the extreme deviation at
higher doses: it is probably about 0.3. No value has yet
been established for Bruce but it will clearly be very low
for 1977.
59. Some information has been published for the 335
MW(e) net installed capacity pressurized heavy water
reactor at Atucha, Argentina [P20]. The annual
collective and average doses are summarized for theperiod 1977-1979 in Table 12. The values of collective
dose and average dose include a contribution of about
20% from internal exposure due to tritium. The
collective dose per unit energy generated is also shownin Table 12: as is to be expected for a single reactor, it isquite variable.
381

99.99

99 9-

99·
0

95-

l

>

u

90-

z

:,
8
a:
~

"'>
;:

70

s
:,

:,
:,
u

50

JO

10

100

10

01

ANNUAL DOSE lmGvl

Figure VI. Log-probablllty plot of annual doses to workers at Pickering heavy water
power station In Canada, 1976 [A1, N1]

60. Giving due weight to the Canadian experience
with CANDU, for which the collective dose per unit
energy generated is about 7 man Gy [GW(e) a}-1, andtaking note of Atucha in Argentina which is also aheavy water reactor, the collective dose equivalent perunit energy generated from heavy water reactors does
not seem very different from that at light water reactors
at about 10 man Sv [GW(e) a]-1.
3.

Gas cooled reactors

61. Most experience with gas cooled reactors is in the
United Kingdom where they have been installed andoperating for many years. There have been no significant changes in the pattern of dose distribution, thenumber of workers or the average dose since the 1977
report [U3]. The doses received by workers at all theUnited Kingdom GCRs in 1975, 1976 and 1977, and theCentral Electricity Generating Board stations only in1978 and 1979, are summarized in Table 13 [GS, HIS,
G7, G6, US, PSJ. The value of MR is less than 0.15 forall the years reported. In 1977 the South of Scotland
Electricity Board station at Hunterston employed over
1OOO more contractor employees than usual; many ofthese may only have been employed for short periods.
Most of the reactors are of the Magnox type; twoadvanced GCRs started operation in 1976. The
collective dose per unit energy generated is also given
in Table 13 [U3, G2, H2, H4]; this has decreased slightly
during the 1970s; the figure for the years 1972-1979
inclusive is 6 man Gy [GW(e) a]-1. Those data which areavailable on GCRs installed in France, Italy, Japan andSpain [15, 16, 17] are in broad agreement with theUnited Kingdom experience.
382

4.

Fast reactors

62. There are no commercial fast reactors yet
operating but some indications of doses can beobtained from data on the prototype fast breeder
reactors (FBRs) in the United Kingdom and France. At
the French LMFBR, Phenix, in 1975-1976 a total ofnearly 300 workers were exposed with a mean dose ofabout 0.1 mGy [M4}. Since the maximum individual
dose was 2.7 mGy, the collective dose distribution ratio
MR was zero. The energy generated was only 0.1
GW(e) a [16] but this gave a value of 0.3 man Gy[GW(e) aJ-1 for the collective dose per unit energy
generated. Further data on the collective doses overrecent years is given in Table 14 [P9]. Data for the
prototype FBR at Dounreay, United Kingdom, aregiven in Table 15 [A2]. The maximum individual dose
received in 1977 was below 4 mGy and therefore in thatyear the collective dose distribution ratio MR was zero;data on dose distributions for the previous years were
not given.
63. It appears from these preliminary data that
prototype FBRs, at least, can be operated with low
annual average doses and give low values for thecollective dose per unit energy generated. Very few
workers are exposed to annual doses above 15 mGy,
but it is not clear whether these dose distributions
include routine or special maintenance.
5.

Nuclear powered ships

64. The radiation exposure of personnel on the
Nuclear Ship ''Otto Hahn" over the period 1969 to 1977has been reported [R4]. The annual average dose rose
after the first two years but then remained fairly
constant between 3 and 6 mGy. The distribution ofdoses to the 50 crew members in 1974. which was a yearof normal operation. was given in detail; the collective
dose distribution ratio was zero and the collective dose
was 0.2 man Gy. Higher doses are received by someindividuals during maintenance periods; the collective
dose to personnel during a maintenance period of
unspecified duration was calculated as 0.2 man Gy witha collective dose distribution ratio of 0.2. The doses
received by the crew of the Nuclear Ship "Mutsu" arealso very low; no crew member exceeded a dose of 0.1
mGy during the test cruise in 1974 [IIOJ.
65. In addition to these demonstration nuclear
powered merchant ships, several navies operate nuclear
powered ships of various types. Information on doses
to workers at United States naval nuclear propulsion
plants and their support facilities [MlOJ over the years
1970 to 1978 is summarized in Tables 16 and 17. As
would be expected, the doses, collective doses and MR
values are very much higher at the shipyards where
maintenance is carried out than on ships, tenders or atsubmarine bases.

6.

Doses to particular occupational subgroups

66. There is a general problem in comparing doses
received by different occupational subgroups in thatbreakdowns of workers into occupational categories orjob descriptions in different countries do not exactly
match; however, workers can be divided into a few
broad groups. Workers have been assigned to one offour broad areas: operations, maintenance, healthphysics and supervision/ administration. Where the job
description did not match exactly the most appropriate
category was selected. Sometimes workers are broughtin for specific maintenance jobs; it is not always clear
whether their doses are included in the reported data,
but where possible this is indicated.
67. The collective doses received at BWRs and PWRs
in the United States from 1977 to 1979 are shown in
Table 18 for the four broad areas given above [Pl. B18,
B22]. The category given in the references as"engineering" was assumed to be principally a supervisory function. Just over half of the total collective
dose in each year is received by contract workers.
Special and routine maintenance account for about
70% of the collective dose received at United States
LWRs.
68. Similar information for LWRs in a number ofother countries. generally for 1978, is shown in Table
19. The distribution is expressed as the percentage ofthe total collective dose quoted in each category. Where
the average annual doses were given or could be calculated, the highest values were about 10 mGy. Average
doses of this general level were received by some healthphysics workers fP2] and by particular groups ofmaintenance workers such as insulation installers ormechanics [P2. S2]. Another category of work giving
rise to a high proportion of the collective dose isinspection. This has been recently identified at UnitedStates reactors [B22] and has been cited as important atreactors in the Federal Republic of Germany [U6].
Inspection requirements can be part of routine
operating procedures or quality assurance programmes,or they can be specially devised by regulatory bodies in

response to fault analysis; the situation will differ fromcountry to country.
69. With regard to L WRs, data from the United Statesand other areas summarized above clearly show that the
majority of the collective dose is received during
maintenance operations. These are separated in water
reactors from the normal operation of the reactor since
they are generally performed during identified
shutdown periods. However, it must be recognized thatplanned maintenance is essential to the operation of areactor. and therefore both categories of work should
really be considered part of normal operations. A moredifficult category is "special maintenance" which is notvery clearly defined but presumably means maintenance jobs either not foreseen, though proving to beroutine, or jobs of an infrequent nature. In recent years
about half the collective dose received by workers in the
United States reactors was due to special maintenance.
70. The annual average dose to different groups ofworkers at Canadian nuclear power stations in 1979 isgiven in Table 20 [AlO]. In general the most exposedgroups, as they have been for some years [Al, 12], aremechanical maintenance workers, control techniciansand operators. About 30% of the collective dose isreceived by operators and a similar proportion bymechanical maintenance workers. A similar study forworkers on the Atucha reactor [P20] showed about 60%of the collective dose being received by maintenanceworkers, 25% by operators and 15% by health physics
workers.
Information on the doses received by different
occupational groups has been published for two United
Kingdom Magnox reactors; a summary of this is given
in Table 21 [K3, K4]. No one group stands out asreceiving much higher annual average doses thanothers, although maintenance workers tend to beamong the most highly exposed, as do health physicistsat Dungeness. However, the highest annual average
dose was 3.4 mGy to instrument maintenance workers
[K3].

71.

72. Many detailed studies have been carried out on
particular operations at individual reactors. Thesestudies can often reveal areas of work giving rise tohigh individual doses or high collective doses [G9, P4,
S3, H4, Vl, P2, U6, H4, R3, MS, M6, M7, A3, 18]. These
are then clear areas for study to see whether doses canbe further reduced to levels which are as low asreasonably achievable. This is however a matter for
local study and is not appropriate for consideration indetail by the Committee.
73. The general conclusion is that there are two major
sources of collective dose at all reactors. These are theroutine operations and maintenance which are essential
to the operation of the reactor, have presumably beenplanned for in the design, and which cannot be muchaffected in broad terms once the reactor has been
designed and built. The other source is unforeseen,
special maintenance, which has often to be carried out
in areas without designed routine access, under highdose rates and in cramped or otherwise poor working
conditions. It is a feature of concern that this source of
exposure appears to be dominating the collective dose
per unit energy generated from water reactors; however
much of this work is unscheduled repairs to essential
components, which clearly has to be carried out.
383

D.

FUEL REPROCESSING

identified in Annex E of the 1977 report as one of thelargest contributors to the collective dose per unit
energy generated. That estimate was based only on theWindscale plant in the United Kingdom. Data are now
also available on the plant at Cap de la Hague inFrance.

74. Although fuel reprocessing is not universally
practised at present, some form of extraction of
unburnt fissile material from the used fuel elements andsome form of processing for eventual disposal of theelements is very likely to form part of the complete fuelcycle. It is accordingly useful to examine the experiencein fuel reprocessing, while recognizing that this islimited to a small number of countries and that theplant design and historical operating conditions may
well not represent the best current potential for new
plants. Reprocessing, incorporating waste treatment, is

75. The distribution of doses in 1977 at the Magnox
fuel reprocessing plant, the plutonium fuel fabrication
plant and other plants operated by British Nuclear
Fuels Ltd. (BNFL) at Windscale, United Kingdom, isplotted in Figure VI I. This clearly shows the effect ofefforts to restrain annual doses within a limit of 50 mGy.

90.99

0

99.9

X

I

99

I

"

/"

95

90

x

/o
/

/
/

70

50

30

10

10

0.1

100

ANNUJ.l DOSE lmGy)

Figure VII. Log-probability plot of annual doses to fuel reprocessing workers at
Wlndscale, United Kingdom, In 19n and at Cap de La Hague, France, In 1978 (J3,
U16]

The parameters for 1976 to 1978 are summarized inTable 22 [US, U16, R2]. The throughput of the plantin terms of energy generated has been estimated fromthe BSKr discharges [C2, H5, H6, H7, A4] using thenormalized value of 14 PBq [GW(e) a)-I from Annex F.
The collective dose per unit energy generated is given in
Table 23. The average value over the 8-year period is 18
man Gy [GW(e) aJ-t. These values are overestimates forreprocessing alone because of the other activities on thesite. It is very likely that any new plant built toreprocess fuel will have a significantly lower collective
dose per unit energy generated [P6].
76. Information on the doses received by workers at
the COGEMA reprocessing plant at Cap de La Hague,
France, for the period 1970-1979 has been madeavailable [84, 13]. Until 1976 only fuel from gas cooled
reactors was reprocessed at La Hague: the first reprocessing of LWR fuel took place during 1976 [C2]. The
occupational doses are summarized in Table 24 from384

1970 to 1979 [13, J9]. The log-probability plot of doses
for 1978 is shown in Figure VII. The throughput of theplant in terms of energy generated has been estimatedfrom the 8SKr discharges between 1972 and 1916 [C2].
The collective dose per unit energy generated for thisperiod is given in Table 25; the average value over the 5
years of 6 man Gy [GW(e) a)-I is less than half that
estimated for Windscale.
77. The dose distribution at both plants indicatessubstantial work forces exposed to significant doses.
The annual average dose at Windscale has been
constant or has dropped slightly over recent years:
however, this decrease in average dose has been accompanied by an increase in the number of workers and aroughly constant collective dose. This may be correlated with efforts to reduce all individual doses to lessthan 50 mGy per year. Data for Cap de la Hague overthe 1970s show the annual average dose at about halfthat received by Windscale workers but decreasingslightly in recent years. also accompanied by anincrease in the number of workers and a relatively
constant annual collective dose.
78. There are some data for different work groups at
Cap de la Hague given in Table 26 (84] and there arealso data taken at the Karlsruhe plant [SS], but thedifferences in average dose are not great and it is hard
to separate out different groups within the overall
operation of what is essentially a chemical plant. A
similar comment applies to the doses reported by the
Idaho Chemical Processing Plant [CS] and theSavannah River Reprocessing Plant [H9].
79. Some information is available on the demonstration fuel reprocessing plant at Mo!, Belgium, and isshown in Table 27 (01]; the plant however stopped
reprocessing in 1964. The average doses werecomparable with those at Windscale in the United
Kingdom, as was the MR value, both being higher
during the years for which reprocessing took place.
Some data, which are given in Table 28 [SS], are alsoavailable on the pilot fuel reprocessing plant at
Karlsruhe; workers at this plant had average doses
similar to those at Cap de la Hague.
80. Normalizing to the fuel throughput is difficult
since other work takes place at Windscale and it is not
at all clear that doses from the operation of the plantbear any close relationship to the throughput.
Nonetheless, assuming that all the doses at Windscale
are related to fuel reprocessing gives a collective dose
perunit energy generated of about 18 man Gy [GW(e) aJ-1
and for Cap de La Hague a similar assumption gives
about 6 man Gy [GW(e) aJ-1. It is worth noting that the
projected collective dose per unit energy generated
from new fuel reprocessing plant is much lower. It may
well be that a realistic estimate of the likely global
collective dose equivalent per unit energy generated
from fuel reprocessing and waste processing for
disposal is about 10 man Sv [GW(e) aJ-1. This would
imply that the overall impact of this part of the fuelcycle will eventually be comparable with that fromreactor operations.
E.

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

81. In Annex E of the 1977 report the Committee
estimated that the largest single contributor to thecollective dose per unit energy generated was researchand development. It was noted that this was reasonable
in the early stages of a nuclear power programme butthat the proportion should decrease as the number ofoperating power reactors increased. It is also relevantthat countries such as the United States, on which theestimate was largely based, carry out major researchbackup both for domestic and overseas reactors. A
further important factor is that many of the researchorganizations carry out research and development notconnected with the nuclear fuel cycle but the doses areoften reported in a collected fashion.
82. Research associated with the nuclear industry in
the United States has been carried out mainly by the
Energy Research and Development Administration(ERDA), which was taken over by the Department ofEnergy (DOE) in 1977. ERDA also covers accelerators,
irradiation facilities and work for defence purposes,
such as nuclear weapons manufacture and naval
reactors. The information for 1975-1979 is taken from
ERDA and DOE annual reports [U8, U9, U17, U18,

U19]. The summary includes reactor work, fuel fabrication and processing, uranium enrichment, generaland other research; a considerable proportion of work
under these categories may include defence work. The
doses to workers with measurable exposure aresummarized in Table 29. The total collective doses at
the ERDA and DOE sites allocated by the Committee
to nuclear research and development is about 75%. The
electrical energy generated during the period 1975-1979
was 128 GW(e) a [822] which would lead to a collective
dose per unit energy generated of about 3 man Gy[GW(e) aJ-1.
83. Information has been received on the doses toworkers at the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited sites[M8] where nuclear research is carried out for the
Canadian power programme and for production of
isotopes for medical use. The average and collective
doses from external exposure and tritium intake are
given in Table 30 for 197~1978. Over 4000 workers
were monitored each year. The distribution of doses
from external radiation and tritium combined forworkers receiving measurable exposure in 1978 isplotted in Figure VII I: the MR value was estimated as
about 0.4 in 1978. The electrical energy generated in
Canada during the period 1972-1978 was 13.6 GW(e) a[Al}. The collective dose per unit energy generated forthis period was about 6 man Gy [GW(e) aJ-1.
84. In the United Kingdom most nuclear research isundertaken by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy
Authority (UKAEA). In addition the Central Electricity
Generating Board (CEGB) runs a research laboratory
at Berkeley. The doses for the period 1975-1979 aresummarized in Table 31 [TI, 07, H18, 06]; thecollective dose distribution ratio MR is in general lessthan 0.3. Figure VIII gives a log-probability plot of thedoses at UKAEA establishments for 1977. The
electricity supplied during the period 1975-1977 was 9.3
GW(e) a [G2] which leads to a value for the collective
dose per unit energy generated of 13 man Gy[GW(e) aJ-1, The UKAEA also undertakes research
work which is not associated with the nuclear power
programme, so that this value is likely to be an overestimate.
85. One of the major nuclear research centres in theFederal Republic of Germany is at Karlsruhe. The
annual collective and average doses to all workers andthe average doses received by certain groups of workers
are given in Tables 32 and 33 [KS]. Since there is in theFederal Republic of Germany another nuclear research
centre at Jillich, for which no estimates of dose areavailable, a value for the normalized collective dose
equivalent cannot be calculated.
86. Some information is shown in Table 34 on doses
to nuclear research and development workers at theInstitute for Reactor Research in Switzerland [K2, 03,
P3], the Atomic Energy Industry, excluding nuclear
power production, in Japan [M15], at Mol in Belgium[DlJ and in Argentina [G8, P20]. Using the values forthe energy generated in each country over the period
shown (16, 17, H2, S4}, and assuming all the research
was in support of the power programme (except where
specified) the collective doses per unit energy generated
were calculated and are shown in Table 34. These may
be overestimates in some cases other than for Argentina
where, for example, over half of the dose at the sites
covered is received in connection with non-nuclear
power research.
385

90.99

1199

99-

!IS

90-

50
t:.
•
•
0

JO

Car ,ad,1. 1978
Sw,t1crland, 1978
Uf11tc-d Kingdom, 1977
Un1ttd Sute"-s, 1976

10

0.1

10

100

ANNLAL DOSE lmGyl

Figure VIII. Log-probability plot of annual doses to workers In nuclear power
research and development In various countries [G3, MB, U9, U16)

87. In conclusion, data have been presented on doses
and dose distributions in research and development forseveral countries; there are considerable differences ifthese are normalized to the energy produced by thecountry. A further complication is the existence ofother non-nuclear power related research which may be
carried out within establishments. For example, if thishad been included in the data for the United States inTable 28, then the overall figure for the collective dose
per unit energy generated would have been 4 man Gy[GW(c) aJ-I. Nonetheless, if the figures arc taken at facevalue and the collective doses from the major nuclear
oriented research establishments are related to theenergy generated in each country, as has been done inthis section, the values of collective dose per unit
energy generated range from 1 man Gy [GW(c) aJ-1 in
Japan and Switzerland to 13 man Gy [GW(c) aJ-I in the
United Kingdom. The high values obtained for theUnited Kingdom and some other countries should not
be allowed to dominate this picture, since much of thisresearch is thought to be related to development of
future reactor types or to non-nuclear power research.
Giving due weight to the value for the United States,
which clearly also supports reactors in many othercountries, a global estimate of about 5 man Sv[GW(e) aJ-1 seems more reasonable than the value of 14
man Gy [GW(e) aJ-1 given in Annex E of the 1977
report.

F.

SUMMARY

88. The summary of the contributions to the collective
dose equivalent per unit power generated is given in

386

Table 35. The largest contributors are reactors and fuelreprocessing plants; the value for nuclear research ismuch lower than that estimated in Annex E of the 1977
report [U3]. The estimates in that report were basedlargely on experience in the United States and theUnited Kingdom, but data from a number of othercountries arc now available. It should be noted that thiscollective dose is received at essentially the same timeas the energy is produced and may not be directlycomparable with collective dose commitments calculated in other Annexes. There is reasonable consistency,
between values from various countries, of the collective
dose per unit energy generated for reactors, but there is
wider variation in other parts of the fuel cycle. The
values given above are regarded as representative ofworld experience, although they are biased towards theUnited States because of its comparatively large
nuclear power programme. Based on an estimate of 70
GW(e) a as the total energy generated in the world in
1979 [I 12], the annual occupational collective dose
equivalent due to the nuclear generation of electricenergy in that year can be assessed as about 2000 man
Sv. This may also be expressed for comparison
purposes as about 0.5 man Sv per 106 population.

IV.

MEDICAL USES OF RADIATION

89. Medical uses of radiation may be separated into
two broad categories, diagnostic and therapeutic. These
differ in that for diagnostic radiology or nuclear
medicine the objective is to use the minimum exposure
to radiation of both subject and medical workers to
obtain the desired information; for therapy, however,the intent is to deliver a well defined but generally very
high dose to the appropriate tissues of the patient andat the same time the minimum dose to the medical
workers. It is not always easy or even possible toseparate these categories in the reported data. The
Committee wishes to encourage the identification andreporting of the type of work leading to doses to
medical workers. By the nature of medical work,
exposures are frequently non-uniform over the body so
the effective dose equivalent may not be easily
obtainable from the dose indicated by a dosimeter, due
to the energy or spatial inhomogeneity of the radiation
field [M14]. More data on these aspects would be of use.
A.
1.

doses. The situation is further complicated because
workers within this general field may have different
jobs: doses are often reported separated between
medically qualified or other professional workers andtechnicians [M9) or between all workers in generalpractice and in hospitals [Cl, P9). However, by appropriate grouping it is possible to obtain an indication of
the annual average doses to all workers in this area,
which range from fractions of a mGy to a few mGy.
Collective doses are also obtainable, as are estimates of
the numbers of workers. For certain procedures thedoses to radiologists may be highly non-uniform.
Under these circumstances information on doses toparticular body organs or tissues will be of use. The
data available have not been reviewed but, for example,
information on the doses to hands, chest and head ofsurgeons carrying out angiography has been reported
by several authors [B23, K13, L12].

DIAGNOSIS

Diagnostic radiology using external beams ofradiation

91. Doses to medical workers under license from theUnited States Nuclear Regulatory Commission havebeen reported in 1975 in a special survey [Cl]. The
distributions of doses for different categories areplotted in Figure IX. Only a small proportion of the

90. This is the most widespread and common use ofradiation in medicine. It has been surveyed in many
countries from the point of view of doses to patients but
there are not such well identified data on occupational
99.99

0 lnt1itutioru - broadt. lriHit1.Jtions - other)I.

Priotr pract•c.!

• T,1,m.,apy

999

99

95 -

!

1;

90

z

w
::,
0

w

...a:w
>

~::,

70

:;

::,

u

50

30

10

10

0 1

100

ANNUAL DDSE (mGyl

Figure IX. Log-probability plot of doses to medical workers with measurable
exposure In the United States In 1975 [C1]licensees took part in the survey. A more comprehensive review is available for 1978 [B17] and asummary of the data from this is given in Table 36.
Data are also available for the workers who aremonitored by the Bureau of Radiological Health [M9]and are summarized in Table 37 for 1972-1978. The
values of MR are all less than 0.1. The average doses todifferent groups connected with radiology are given in
Table 38; they are generally low but radiologists are
consistently the most highly exposed group.
92. The doses received by Swiss medical workers for
1976-1978 are summarized in Table 39 {P3,' P7, PS].
Information on the doses received by medical workers
387using diagnostic x rays in France, monitored by theService Central de Protection Contre les Rayonnements
lonisants, is given in Table 40 [P9, S17].
93. For many countries it is not possible to tell fromthe reported results which medical workers areconnected with diagnostic radiology, other forms of
diagnosis or with therapy; frequently all medical
workers are considered as a single category. On thebasis that for any given country most medical workers
will be connected with diagnostic radiology rather thanany other specialty, these results are reported in thissection and may be found in Table 41 together withmore detailed results from some other countries. The
results for Australia [S19) and Canada [AlO) are basedon recent detailed surveys; the results for Australia
have been extrapolated from a survey estimated tocover 50% of workers, as have those for Japan [M15].
The Japanese data are for all workers with x rays andwill therefore include dental workers. The figures given
for the Federal Republic of Germany are extrapolated
from those reported by eight states [F2]; they are
expected to be supplemented in due course through an
extensive statistical exercise being carried out by Farber
et al. [F6, F7]. No further data are available from theUnited Kingdom on the doses received by medical
workers; however, the number of medical workers has
been re-estimated as 33 OOO [Tl). On this basis thecollective dose to medical workers, most of whom areconnected with diagnostic radiology, would be 70 man
Gy, assuming the same annual average dose equivalentof 2.1 mGy as in Annex E of the 1977 report.
94. Estimates of throughput in terms of numbers offilms used for x-ray examinations are available andtherefore some comparison of the collective dose perunit throughput can be made and are given in Table 42.
Data given in Annex E of the 1977 report [U3], thosegiven earlier in this section and some other sources [Tl,El] have been used to compile Table 42. The data do
not necessarily correspond to the same year but only
data relating to years after 1970 have been used. Information on the number of x-ray diagnostic examinations
alone are used. since most examinations are of this type
and they are probably adequate as an indicator of totalpractice. It is not clear how useful such comparisons arein this field, since the number of films used may notdirectly relate to benefit to patients if there are otherreasons for taking x rays. However, the average values
are fairly constant at about 1-2 man Sv per 106 films.
This figure varies from about 0.5 to 4 man Sv per 106
films.
95. Dentists form a large sub-category of practitioners
who use x rays for diagnosis. Exposures of this groupare characterized by large numbers of workers being
exposed to low individual doses, as shown in Table 43
for several countries. The annual average doses range
from almost zero to 0.5 mGy.
96. A smaller group also using x rays for particularpurposes are chiropractors and osteopaths. These
groups use x rays to aid in subsequent non-radiation
treatments and the use is closer to diagnosis thantherapy. Doses to this group are not in general sepa.rately identified, although information from Australiaindicates about 100 workers exposed to annual average
doses of 0.2-0.3 mGy [S19] and from Canada several
hundred workers at annual average doses less than
0.1 mGy [A10]; more data would be of interest.

388

2.

Diagnosis with incorporated radionuclides

97. Diagnosis with incorporated radionuclides,
normally referred to as nuclear medicine, is characterized by the use of particular radionuclides which
may be chosen because they concentrate in specificorgans. The problems of dose control are in most cases
more related to protection against ingestion or inhalation, especially during preparation, analysis andadministration of radiopharmaceuticals. However,there is also an external radiation field from somenuclides such as 99mTc, which can give very high dose
equivalent rates to the hands, approaching some
hundreds of mSv without syringe protection [G12]. The
use of nuclear medicine has increased rapidly in many
countries over the last decade, and it would be helpful
to have more detailed data on exposures of organs or
tissues from particular radionuclides, together withestimates of quantities used, numbers of workers
exposed, etc. Data are given in Table 44, showing
annual average whole-body doses which are fairly low,of the order of 1-2 mGy, although extremity doses
could be much greater. The collective dose distribution
ratio is close to zero in all cases. Data on doses tonursing staff from the residual activity in patients on
return to wards would also be useful in assessing theoverall impact of nuclear medicine on occupational
exposure.
B.
1.

RADIOTHERAPYRadiotherapy with external beams

98. Radiotherapy with external beams is carried out
inside well shielded rooms and, since there is no
residual radioactivity in the patient, there is no resulting
dose to nursing staff when the patient is returned to theward. Doses to medically qualified staff are therefore
very low, as the operation of these facilities is generally
the responsibility of other technically or professionallyqualified staff. These staff are not always easily identifiable in dose records but assuming that they are within
the category reported in the United States as working
with teletherapy, or in France as workers with cobalt or
conventional radiotherapy as given in Table 45, thenannual average doses would appear to be about
2-3 mGy. The collective dose distribution ratioMR, where this can be obtained from the data given, isin the range 0.2 to 0.4.
99. There are some special categories of treatment
under this general heading of radiotherapy. One such is
identified in data from France as high energy
treatment, with other than conventional x-ray orcobalt-60 therapy machines. There is no reason why
such treatment should give rise to higher doses to theoperators than conventional machines and indeed thedata for France shown in Table 45 confirm this.
Another special category is the use of neutron beams,
for which some data have been reported [S6]. As would
be expected from a correctly designed and shieldedfacility, no staff exposures to neutrons were recorded.
However, activation of the target led to annual average
doses from external radiation of the order of a few
mGy to medical, nursing and other professional staff.
2.

Radiotherapy using interstitial and intracavitarysources100. To obtain highly localized doses to malignant
tissues in certain positions in the body it is necessary toapply or implant sealed sources of various types. Thishas traditionally been carried out manually by skilled
medical workers, including surgeons and gynaecologists. who could receive substantial doses especially totheir hands and faces. which could not be effectively
shielded. Subsequent to implant, the nursing staff could
also receive substantial doses while ministering to thepatients on the wards.
101. The trend in these treatments has been towards
finding ways to reduce both sources of occupational
exposure. This has been carried out primarily by trying
to develop techniques such as afterloading, whichenables the surgical or other preparatory procedures tobe carried out without the source, which is introduced
mechanically afterwards. This also makes possible theuse of more active sources than could be directly
handled, reducing irradiation time, and usually enables
the source to be removed before the patient is returnedto the ward. More information on these procedures.
and the changes in occupational doses resulting fromtheir introduction, would be useful. For example, asurvey of four hospitals in Boston, United States [C3]over the period 1973-1976 showed annual average
doses to nursing staff between 0.2 to 1.5 mGy; afterloading procedures were used in most cases. In
Australia annual average doses to nurses of patientswith sealed sources were 4.4 mGy to over 200 nurses in1974 and 1978 [S19].
102. Because of the highly non-uniform irradiation
possible, it is difficult to be clear about the relevance ofreported annual average whole-body doses such as the
few mGy reported for French workers in interstitial andintracavitary therapy [P9].
3.

Radiotherapy with unscaled sources

103. Treatment of malignancies in some organs can be
carried out using radiopharmaceuticals which preferentially seek the organ in question. The most common
examples are treatment of hypothyroidism and cancerof the thyroid with radioiodine. This form of treatment
raises special problems of nursing and aftercare, as theactivity is gradually lost from the patient by the normal
bodily elimination processes, including exhalation andperspiration as well as excretion in urine and faeces.
There may also be a substantial external dose rate,depending on the radionuclide used.

C. SUMMARY
104. A number of recommendations have been madeof areas where more data could be gathered andreported to clarify the situation regarding occupationaldoses in medical practice. One general recommendation is that there should be a clearer indication of thetype of work leading to the dose and of the uniformity
or otherwise of the exposure of body organs or tissues.
More information on the exposure of certain groups ofworkers is required; these are nuclear medicine workers
including nurses. radiotherapy workers especially thosechanging to afterloading techniques, chiropractors andosteopaths.
105. Doses to workers involved in the use of radiation
for medical purposes are highly variable, and in someinstances are characterized by an extremely nonuniform distribution over the body. It is also notpossible to identify and quantify the beneficial output

of all medical work, although an attempt has been
made in paragraph 94 to relate the doses fromdiagnostic radiology to the number of films processed.
To obtain an indication of the total occupational
exposure it is probably best to express this as the annual
collective dose equivalent per million population of thecountry, on the grounds that total medical care should
be roughly proportional to population. Even from the
few available data, however, it is clear that this measurevaries greatly from one country to another. Someestimates are given in Table 46. A representative value
to adopt for the annual collective dose equivalent per
million population in countries with a high standard of
medical care seems to be 1 man Sv per 106 population,although a considerably lower figure would be more
appropriate for countries with a lower usage ofradiation in medicine.

V.

USES OF RADIATION IN INDUSTRY
AND RESEARCH

106. Radiation is now used for very many purposes ingeneral industry. Most of these uses involve sealed
radioactive sources giving rise to such trivial doses thatthe users are not normally regarded as radiation
workers. Examples include such ubiquitous products assmoke and fire detectors and thickness gauges. Of moreinterest to the Committee are those occupations inwhich the users are exposed to radiation doses
comparable with those received from other uses ofradiation. Those research and development uses ofradiation which it is possible to identify separately fromthe research in support of the nuclear power
programme are also covered in this section.
A.

INDUSTRIAL RADIOGRAPHY

107. Industrial radiography may be divided into two
categories of use, those in which the radiography installation is reasonably permanent and samples are tested
under moderately controlled conditions, and those inwhich sources are used under fairly primitive conditions on construction or other sites. The standards ofcontrol, supervision and protection are markedly
different in the two cases. This is illustrated later by the
preponderance of over-exposures of workers in thelatter category, site radiographers.
108. When dose information is reported, thesecategories of use are frequently not separated. Data
from the United States for NRC licensees shown in
Table 47 [82) identify radiographers as receiving annual
average doses of 2-3 mGy, but this is the result of
averaging over more than 10 OOO workers and may well
obscure some imbalance in the dose distribution forcertain smaller subgroups. This was investigated by
Brooks et al. [817] who examined the differences
between radiography at single or multiple locations.
The annual average doses to those working at multiple
locations were higher than to those at single locations
but still only 5 mGy for those with measurable
exposures. The collective dose distribution ratio MR
was 0.4, similar to the values in Table 47. The annual
average doses received by non-NRC licensed workers
engaged in radiography were lower, generally less than
2 mGy. Similarly annual average doses to industrial
radiographers as a group were reported in France [P9],Canada [AIOJ and Japan [Ml5] as about 1-2 mGy.
There is some apparent discrepancy between the annual
average doses and dose distributions as reported and389

the widely held view that industrial radiographers areamong the most highly exposed groups of workers. Thisview is supported to some extent by the fact thatworkers in this group are more liable to receive accidental over-exposures than those in any otheroccupation. This is an area which was identified by theCommittee in its previous report as being unclear andfurther information specifically on the exposure of site
radiographers would be extremely useful.

B.

LUMINIZING

109. Radioactive materials have been used in
Iuminizing for decades but there has recently been atrend away from the use of radium to tritium and, to alesser extent, to t47Pm. The practice of luminizing is still
fairly widespread. Tritium is used both mixed with aphosphor in a paint and as a gas enclosed in aphosphor-lined glass walled tube. Data on the internal
doses to Juminizers are available for several countries
and are shown in Table 48, although this group cannot
be separated in the United States data.
110. Annual average doses are fairly high, ranging up
to 15 mGy, and are due almost entirely to internal
doses from tritium, with a dose distribution showing asubstantial proportion of workers receiving annual
doses above 15 mGy, although only a few are exposed
above 50 mGy. This is illustrated, for several groups ofworkers, by the Jog-probability plots in Figure X.

99.9

-t

Francex Sw1tzerl;;,nd6 United Kingdom, paint99

0 United Kingdom. gai

~
>

95

8

90

~::,

...
0:

"'
>

~

::,
::;

i3

70

so

JO

10

10

0.1

100

ANNUAL DDSE lmGyl

Figure X. Log-probability plot of annual doses to lumlnlzers In the United Kingdom
In 1976, In Switzerland In 1978, and In France In 1978 [PS, P9, T1]

C.

RADIOISOTOPE PRODUCTION

111. Reporting conventions for this type of work varyfrom country to country. Most of the industrial preparation of sealed and unsealed sources in the UnitedStates is described under the category of by-productmaterial, although this also appears to include someproduction of radiopharmaceuticals. A similar situation
applies in the United Kingdom where The Radiochemical Centre Ltd. (now known as Amersham International Ltd.) produces both medical and industrial
sources using the same workforce. This is one area inwhich workers are potentially exposed to intakes ofradionuclides into the body. It is somewhat surprisingthat there is not more reporting of internal doses: evenif checks were to show that intakes and doses were very
low this would still be useful information. The annual
390

average doses reported in the United States were.a few
mGy for a workforce of 2000-3000 people, including
primary distributors [B17]. The radiochemical industry
in the United Kingdom operates at annual average
doses of 7-8 mGy for a workforce of nearly 1000 [Tl).
Production workers are not separately identified inother countries.
112. Some workers at airports and other places areirradiated during the transport of these packages ofsources. A major study in the United States has
estimated the annual average dose to cargo handlers,
who might be expected to have the highest doses ofthese groups, as less than 1 mGy, with a maximum doseto any individual of Jess than 5 mGy [S7]. Annual
average doses to pilots and other aircrew fromradioactive packages, most of which would be expectedto contain radiopharmaceuticals, have been assessed asless than 0.01 mGy [86). The maximum individual doseto any individual night attendant from radioactive
packages has been estimated as 1 mGy [T2].
D.

OTHER INDUSTRIAL USES

113. There arc many other uses of both scaled andunscaled sources ranging from tracer experiments towell logging and other measurement systems. Information on exposure from these is not separately identified in many countries; that which is available isshown in Table 49. It appears that there may be many
thousands of workers associated with such uses, andsome occupations such as well logging, in which theannual average dose equivalent is estimated to be as
high as 5 mSv, could merit further investigations, suchas those carried out by Romanova [R6] andsummarized in Table 49.
114. All these industrial uses of radiation give rise toradioactive wastes. often of large volumes and notsuitable for homogeneous treatment or packaging.
Disposal of such wastes is handled in most countries
somewhat separately to disposal of wastes from thenuclear power industry. However, the doses to thisgroup of workers are difficult to identify from thereported data. In the United States the annual average
dose to a group of less than 100 workers in this category
was estimated in 1975 as 13 mGy [Cl]. This small group
showed one of the highest average doses of any identified occupational group. A lower annual average doseof 6 mGy was however reported for waste disposal
workers in 1978 [B 17). More data and evaluation of thesituation in other countries would be useful.
E.

RESEARCH

115. Many workers in a vast range of disciplines use
radiation as a research tool. As has been pointed out in
Section III E, many large research establishments serve
the nuclear power industry but also carry out otherresearch on the application of radionuclides orradiation. This is frequently difficult to separate andmay have been included in that section. In the majorityof these research disciplines the annual average doses
are very low, of the order of 1 mGy, as is shown by thecomprehensive United States survey summarized inTable 50 [B17, U17, U18]. Some research categories,
however, give higher average doses: these are workers
with accelerators who receive annual average doses of
4-5 mGy and investigators using unsealed sources who,
although there are only 20 of them, receive annual
average doses of 10 mGy.
116. Doses to research workers in other countries forwhich data are available are given in Table 51. Annual
average doses are very low, generally less than 1 mGy,
with very few doses above 15 mGy.
F.

SUMMARY

117. There are many industrial uses of radiation
under the control of many different employers andoften under different regulations in different countries.
The reporting of data is not therefore consistent, andthe Committee has identified many special occupational groups on which more reported information
would be highly desirable. These groups are site radio-

graphers, radioisotope producers (especially thosereceiving internal doses), general dental workers,
workers in radioactive waste disposal, research workers
with accelerators and those handling unsealed sources.
It may be that some of these groups are receiving thehighest annual average doses of any occupationally
exposed workers.
118. Data are reported in several countries on allindustrially exposed workers, with only a limited
breakdown into different work categories, or none atall. The numbers of workers arc quite large in somecases. There is no clearly identified common measureof output from industry or research so, as for medical
workers. the collective dose equivalent per million
population is used as a measure of the total occupational exposure. Some estimates are given in Table 52.
A reasonable average estimate of the annual collective
dose equivalent per million population for industrialized countries is 0.5 man Sv per 106 population; aconsiderably lower figure would be more appropriate
for countries that are not heavily industrialized.

VI.

OTHER EXPOSURES TO RADIATION

119. Most of the occupations referred to in thischapter are those in which, by virtue of the materials or
surroundings, some increased exposure to radiation isincurred by workers. This radiation is generally ofnatural origin. Workers in these occupations are
generally not subjected to individual monitoring
although the doses may be estimated from area
monitoring or special checks.
A.

CIVILAVIATION

120. The major source of exposure of air crew is theincrease of cosmic radiation with altitude; the small
additional doses due to transport of radioactive
packages have been discussed in paragraph 112. The
dose to any individual thus results from a combinationof flying time and altitude, modified to some extent by
the latitude, etc. The average additional annual dosefrom cosmic radiation has been assessed as 1-2 mGy[B6, TI, B7). Approximately 70 OOO air crew are
exposed at about this level in the United States and afurther 20 OOO in the United Kingdom. The doses
received by security personnel working near baggage
inspection systems have also been surveyed [SS]; annual
average doses were less than 1 mGy.
B.

NON-URANIUM MINING

121. Data were given in Annex E of the 1977 report of
exposure of non-uranium miners to radon and radon
daughters; the subject is reviewed in detail in Annex D.
New data from a number of countries show that
average exposures are variable but can exceed 4 WLM
per year depending markedly on the local conditions.
Average exposures in mines for metals such as iron,zinc, lead and copper appear to be about 1 WLM forwork forces of typically a few thousand workers. There
are some indications that exposures in large coal mines
are somewhat lower.
C.

OTHER WORK UNDERGROUND

122. Other occupations which entail exposures toradon and radon daughters include work in under391

ground spaces such as telephone communication
tunnels and water conduits. Some hydroelectric power
stations also have considerable underground workings.
A small amount of information is available and ispresented in Annex D, which shows that although only
a few workers are involved, annual average doses canbe similar to those in non-uranium mines.
123. Radon spas have for many years been places towhich people resort for supposedly beneficial treatments. These treatments include exposures toradon-rich atmospheres and waters. In this report,
workers in such spas have not been classified as
medical workers exposed to radiation, since there is no
known medical benefit of the treatment. The small
amount of data summarized in Annex D shows thatradon daughter exposures of some of these workers,
though admittedly only of small numbers, approach oreven exceed those of uranium miners, and may reach 40
WLM per year.
D.

USE OF PHOSPHATE FERTILIZERS

124. Although the levels of activity concentration ofnatural radionuclides in phosphate fertilizers are notgreat, the quantities of material involved and theprocesses used indicate a potential for irradiation of theworkers. This has been intensively studied in theFederal Republic of Germany [P10); the survey showedthat annual average doses were generally less than 0.2
mGy and the maximum annual dose to any individual
was less than 0.5 mGy. The annual collective dose wasestimated to be about 2 man Gy.
E.

SUMMARY

125. Very large numbers of people are exposed tohigher than average levels of natural radiation in thecourse of their work, but generally to quite low levels ofoccupational dose. Only in a few cases need thisexposure be the subject of control or even of interest.
The most important practical case is that of radon
daughter exposure to underground workers. especially
non-uranium miners and radon spa workers. The
largest collective dose is from civil aviation. On thebasis of the small amount of data reported, the annual
collective dose equivalent per million population
appears to be of the order of 1 man Sv per 106
population.

VII.

ACCIDENTAL EXPOSURE TORADIATION

126. In this chapter the Committee reviews information on accidental exposures to radiation. Thissubject was not discussed in Annex E of the 1977 report[U3] and was covered only briefly in the 1972 report[U2]. The objective of this review is to identify those
types of accident that occur most frequently and whichgive rise to clinical consequences. Minor accidents andsimple over-exposures are not included but are referenced in some instances. There is no obvious dividing
line between an inadvertent over-exposure to radiation
as a result of bad practice and an accident leading toover-exposure. This is particularly clear where industrial radiography sources have been involved and overexposures have occurred as a result of insufficienttraining or poorly maintained equipment. The information on accidents is categorized by the sectors of the

3'92

industry in which the work leading to the accident was
carried out.
127. Information on major accidents is usually givenin the published literature. Minor accidents arereported regularly to some national regulatory bodies
and often these reports are freely available. Only thedata made available to the Committee or found in the
published literature could be included and therefore thecoverage may be incomplete. The Nuclear Regulatory
Commission in the United States publishes regular
reports on occupational exposure, including overexposures, and also reports to Congress on abnormal
occurrences for its licensees. The Bureau of Radiological Health in the United States keeps records ofaccidents where clinical effects have occurred. The
Health and Safety Executive in the United Kingdom
makes similar reports to Ministers on accidents
covering nuclear installations. Details of accidents areincluded in the Annual Reports of the Ministry of theInterior in the Federal Republic of Germany. Other
sources of useful data are the reports of the cytogenetic
dosimetry services in France and the United Kingdom.
Many of their investigations are initiated because anabnormally high dose has been recorded on adosimeter; this may or may not be a genuine high doseto a person. The more recent data presented in thischapter have been taken mainly from the sources
described above. The emerging picture is by no meanscomplete but may probably be taken as fairly representative of accidents occurring throughout the world.
128. Data available to the Committee on accidents
that have occurred in the nuclear industry since 1945
and which had clinical consequences are given in Table
53. The majority of these occurred in the early development of nuclear power and were criticality excursions. several at experimental reactors. Some of thoseearly accidents resulted in deaths after whole-bodydoses estimated to exceed a few Gy, although in certain
cases heroic measures such as bone marrow transplants
may have helped to avert death. No similarly serious
accidents have been reported since the mid 1960s;
indeed only one accident since then resulted in clinicalsymptoms. A number of accidents in the 1970s have
involved minor wounds, usually when the worker wasusing a glove box [S12, 02, UlO, 03. L3, H13); in manyof these the radioactive material was removed byexcision. Another type of accident involved inhalationof various radionuclides, usually inside processbuildings as a result of faults in the air flow pattern [F4,S13, Hl 1, UlO, 810, L2, E2]; in some cases a chelating
agent was administered in an attempt to accelerate
elimination of the radionuclide [S13]. Other accidents
generally involved unsuspected high dose rates [UlO,
P14, U4, Ul 1] or contamination [P13, BI 1, L4, H14) but
no remedial actions were needed.
129. Accidents in general industry (excluding industrial radiography) since 1960 which had clinical consequences are given in Table 54. Only one death wasreported after a whole-body dose of 10 Gy but inseveral instances isolation was required and in others
amputations had to be carried out. Most of those
accidents occurred either during servicing or use oflarge irradiators or generators capable of deliveringhigh dose rates; many of them were clearly the result of
inadequate carrying out of safety precautions by theworkers involved, although some were due toequipment failures. Other reported accidents which did
not result in clinical consequences were generally of thesame type [H15, P15, Pl7, C8, Gll, P18, B13, Yl, L4,

P7. L9, J4, D3]. Apart from the systematic reporting in
the Federal Republic of Germany of minor accidents
involving internal contamination [B25, B26], two otherminor accidents have been reported involving exposure
to tritium gas as a result of leaks or cracks in vessels orconnecting lines [L6, L9].
130. Accidents involving industrial radiographers
since 1960 which had clinical consequences are shown
separately in Table 55. Some other serious accidents but
not involving workers, some of which resulted indeaths, occurred when high activity sources were kept
in homes for long periods by people who did not knowwhat they were [K6, M 12, Y2, S 17]. Some of the otherserious clinical consequences resulted from what
appears to have been intentional exposure on the partof those involved.
131. A further 53 minor accidents involving overexposures to radiation have been reported in the period
1969-1979, mainly from the United Kingdom and theUnited States, which have systematized reporting ofsuch incidents [P13, D5, P15, P17, UlO, B15, J5, Pl8,
L4, U13, U4, U14. L9, 81, D6, H17, U15].
132. Almost all the accidents occurring in the normal
course of work are attributable either to deliberate
flouting of safety precautions or to equipment failures
resulting in sources being left exposed. It appears thatthe first type, and many of the second type, have as
their root cause lack of appreciation for the hazard,
possibly through over-familiarity or insufficienttraining and explanation. Use of simple dose ratemonitors would have shown the hazard in the majorityof cases.
133. The relatively small number of accidents inresearch and development outside the nuclear powerindustry since 1960 which had clinical consequences
are shown in Table 56. Several of these resulted fromdeliberate circumventing of safety measures by scientists who clearly should have been aware of thehazards: others were due to equipment failure. A few
additional similar accidents have been reported [UlO,
P18, P7, L9, LI, LIO, W3].
134. No accidents involving medical workers, andwhich led to clinical consequences, have been reported
in the last decade. Of the accidents reported, themajority were a result of faults with switches or interlocks controlling x-ray generators [P15, J6, Pl4, P19,
L4, L9]. One accident of internal contamination with
131 I was also reported [B 11 ].
SUMMARY
135. Considering the number of workers involved
with radiation and radioactivity over the last several
decades, the number of deaths and serious injuries is
not large. Many of these occurred in the early development phase of nuclear reactors when safety precautions were very much less stringent. Nonetheless there
is one area of work, industrial radiography, in which
the mishandling of sources and equipment failures haslead to a large number of reported accidents withpotentially serious consequences.

VIII.

CONCLUSIONS

136. The Committee reviewed occupational exposurein detail in Annex E of the 1977 report and suggested

methods for the analysis of dose distributions andcriteria against which to assess the parameters extracted
from the <lose distributions. These methods of analysis
have been used by several organizations since thereport was published: in this Annex they have beenrefined slightly. It still appears that the observation thatdata often fit a log-normal distribution, especially at
lower doses, enables an improved estimate of theparameters of a distribution to be made. The techniques
for extracting the relevant parameters are described inthis Annex.
137. The three characteristics of the dose distribution
previously identified by the Committee as of interest
may still be used to describe distributions in a usefulfashion. These characteristics are:
The annual average dose, which is related to theaverage level of individual risk;(b) The annual collective dose, which is related to thetotal impact of the practice;(c) The ratio of the annual collective dose delivered at
individual doses exceeding 15 mGy per year to thetotal annual collective dose, which is related to the
proportion of workers exposed to higher levels of
individual risk.
(a)138. The reference distribution introduced in the 1977
report has not proved as useful as was hoped and theCommittee has therefore decided to revert to the basic
parameters given above which may be extracted fromany dose distribution, rather than normalizing them tothe reference distribution.
139. In previous reports the Committee has adopted
the convention that all numerical results reported bymonitoring services represent the average absorbed
dose in the whole body while recognizing that it isalmost always the reading from the dosimeter which isreported, without consideration of the relationshipbetween this and the absorbed dose in the body. This is.
however, still regarded as a reasonable convention inthat most data are on external exposure of the wholebody to ionizing radiation. The same convention has
again been adopted in this Annex. In situations where
exposure of the body may be non-uniform, especially in
medical practice, it may be misleading to average
across different types of work as the relationshipbetween reported dosimeter reading and averageabsorbed dose in the whole body will not be constant.
140. In Annex E of the 1977 report the Committee
used a very simple linear extrapolation to predict
lifetime doses for a few categories of workers for whomdata were available. The Committee had hoped that thissimple treatment would have stimulated more investigation of the relationship between the pattern ofaccumulation of dose over the years of a person's
employment and the total dose received in that
employment. Clearly such investigations can only be
carried out by those authorities having access toindividual dose records. The Committee would like toencourage such investigations and analyses. the resultsof which should be reported in a suitably anonymous
fashion.
141. A major re-evaluation of the doses occurring in
the nuclear fuel cycle has been carried out. Revised
estimates of the collective dose equivalent per unit
energy generated have been obtained for each part ofthe cycle and are shown in Table 35. The most notablefeatures are that the estimated doses from reactor
operations are unchanged from the previous report but
393

that the estimated doses from reprocessing andresearch, which were much less soundly based, havenow been considerably reduced. Based on an estimateof 70 GW(e) a as the total nuclear energy generated in
the world in 1979, the annual occupational collective
dose equivalent associated with it can be assessed as
about 2000 man Sv. This may also be expressed as
about 0.5 man Sv per ]06 population for comparison
purposes.
142. Reported exposures of uranium miners to radonand daughters are reviewed in Annex D. Althoughsome data from the United States show an average
exposure of about 4 WLM per year, other reports fromthe United States and those from other countries arecloser to 1 WLM per year. Taking all these into
account, an appropriate annual average exposure toradon and daughters appears to be about 1.5 WLM,
which can be converted to an annual effective dose
equivalent of about 13 mSv.

143. Annual average doses to workers on powerreactors have been maintained at about 5 mGy;
however this has been attained by a significant increasein the number of workers per reactor, particularly in the
United States for which most data are available, in the
period from 1970-1979. In general the number of
exposed workers per reactor in the United States has
increased by a factor of between 3 and 4 over thisperiod for light water reactors. Annual average doses at
heavy water reactors are in general similar to those atlight water reactors and those at gas cooled reactors
have remained low at about 2-3 mGy.
144. The general conclusion is that there are two
major sources of collective dose at all reactors. One ofthese is the routine operations and maintenance which
are essential to the operation of the reactor, have presumably been planned for in the design, and cannot bemuch affected in broad terms once the reactor has been
designed and built. The other source is unforeseen
special maintenance, which must often be carried out inareas without designed routine access, in high dose
rates and in poor working conditions. Much of thiswork consists of unscheduled repairs to essential
components, which clearly has to be carried out. This
source of exposure currently appears to be dominating
the collective dose per unit energy generated fromwater reactors.
145. More data are now available on doses tocommercial reprocessing plant workers in France aswell as the United Kingdom, together with some information on research or pilot plants. The results indicate
substantial workforces exposed to dose distributions
with an annual average dose of about 10 mGy. It isemphasized, however. that many of these are historical
data, often based on old plants, and may well not be
typical of the more recent plants or of doses to be
expected in the future.

easily obtainable from the dose indicated by a simple
dosimeter, due to the energy or spatial inhomogeneityof the radiation field. The general 11ituation, especiallyfor diagnostic radiology, appears to be characterized by
low annual average doses, often less than 1 mGy, tolarge numbers of workers. The only exception appears
to be the use of sealed sources in radiotherapy wherethese are implanted or applied to the patient. There isevidence that doses are very greatly reduced bychanging to techniques which do not require direct
handling of the radiation sources, for example, afterloading techniques. It is not possible to identify andquantify the beneficial output of all medical work.
although an attempt has been made to relate the doses
from diagnostic radiology to the number of films
processed. An indication of the total occupational
exposure is expressed as the annual collective dose
equivalent per million population of the country, on the
grounds that total medical care should be roughly
proportional to population. Even from the available
data, it is clear that this measure varies considerablyfrom one country to another, but a reasonable value toadopt for countries with a high standard of medicalcare seems to be about 1 man Sv per 106 population. A
lower figure would be more appropriate for countries
with a lower usage of radiation in medicine.
148. Other exposures to radiation in general industry
have also been reviewed. Some anomalies are shown in
exposure of industrial radiographers where areasonably low average dose is reported, accompanied
by a relatively high proportion of over-exposures. Thissituation needs closer investigation in detail by thosewith access to the individual dose results. Average
doses to luminizers remain high, but the number ofpeople involved is relatively small. The Committee has
identified several special occupational groups on whichmore reported information in the appropriate detail
wot'lld be highly desirable.
149. There are some other occupations in which, by
virtue of the materials or surroundings. some increased
exposure to radiation is incurred by workers. This
radiation is generally of natural origin. The two major
occupations falling into this category are air crew andnon-uranium miners. There is a very large number of
air crew exposed to enhanced cosmic ray dose rates andthe average additional annual dose is now estimated as
1-2 mGy. Non-uranium miners are exposed in moderately large numbers to radon daughter levels which canbe as high as those in uranium mines.

146. Data have been presented on doses and dose
distribution in research and development work
connected with the nuclear power industry in several
countries. Annual average doses generally range from
1-5 mGy, but large numbers of workers are involved.

150. There is no clearly identified common output
from industry and research and therefore the collective
dose has been normalized to population. A reasonableestimate of the annual collective dose equivalent per
million population from industrial and research uses ofradiation is 0.5 man Sv per 106 population in industrialized countries; a considerably lower figure would beappropriate for developing countries. On the basis of
the small amount of data available, the annual
collective dose equivalent per million population fromenhanced exposure to natural radiation, especiallycosmic radiation while flying, is of the order of 1 man
Sv per )06 population.

147. Exposures during medical uses of radiation havebeen briefly reviewed but there is not much recent
information. Medical uses have been divided into two
major categories, diagnosis and therapy. By the natureof medical work, exposures are expected to be nonuniform and the effective dose equivalent may not be

151. The Committee has reviewed the available dataon accidental exposures to radiation. The objective wasto identify those types of accident which occur mostfrequently and which give rise to clinical consequences.
It is clear that most accidents are concerned with industrial uses of radiation rather than with the nuclear fuel394

cycle. The overall number of accidents is very small
when considering the large number of people using
radiation or radioactivity in their work but the distribution of accidents between different types of work ishighly non-uniform. Nonetheless there is one area ofwork. industri,11 radiography, in which the mishandlingof sources and equipment, coupled with a highincidence of equipment failures. has led to a relatively
large number of reported accidents with potentiallyserious consequences.

152. The Committee has made a number of suggestions concerning areas where more analysis of data isrequired to extract pertinent information. This could
usefully be performed by those gathering the data. The
Committee has also made suggestions regarding thelevel of detail which would be useful in reported data
and the content of such reports. If these suggestions areacted upon there should be a very much clearer
indication of the occupational exposure situation insome areas of work within a few years.

Ta bl e1

An exam le of a distribution of annual individual doses
wt in ose ranges for a nominal group of 1000 wor ers
Dose range(r.Gy)

0 - 1
1 - 5
5 - 10
10 - 15
15 - 20
20 - 30
30 - 40
40 - 50so - 60
60 - 70
70 - 80
80 - 90
90 - 100
Total!lumber ofworkers
in therange

Cumulctive
frequency

500
280
80
40
20
30
30
15
2
1
1
0
1
1000

50.0
78.0
86.0
90.0
92.0
95.0
98.0
99.5
99.7
99.8
99.9
99.9
100

(%)

Collective
dose inthe range(man Gy)a/~I

Fraction ofcollective
dose above
the rangeb/~_I0.25 0.16
0.84 0.70
0.60 0.59
0.50 a.so
0.35
0.75
1.05
0.67
0.11
0.07
0.07
0
0.10
5.36 5.12

0.95
0.80
0.68
0.59
0.53
0. 39
0.19 .
0.06
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.02
0

0.97
0.84
0.72
0.62
0. 56
0.41
0.20
0.07
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.02
0

~/ Calculated as the number of workers multiplied by the mid pointdose.
~/ Calculated from the log-normal fit below 15 mGy in Figure I.
T a b 1 e

2A roximate ex osures to radon daughters and calculated conversions
toe ective ose e uiva ent an co ective ef ective ose e u1va ent
or un ergroun uranium miners 1n ana a, ranee
and the United States in the late 1970s

Country

Approximate
number ofworkers{WLM)

Approximate
annual average
effective dose
equivalent(mSv)

Approximate
annual collective
effective dose
equivalent(man Sv)

0.75
1.5

6

13

25
20

1.1
4.0

34

Approximate
annual averageradon daughter
exposures

Canada [Al) 4000
France [B24) 1500
United States
C9j
3300
fRl) 5000

30
170

9

Table

Year

Number ofworkers
monitored

Number ofworkers withmeasurable
doses

Annua 1collective
dose(man Gy)

1975
1976
1977
1978

11614
11227
11496
11305

5602
5285
7004
5896

32
18
17
14

3

Annual average dose(mGz:)
A11 those Those with
monitored measurable
doses
2.7
1.6
1.5
1.2

5.7
3.5
2.5
2.4

MR

0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3

395

Ta b 1e4

Doses in fuel fabrication and enrichment plants
1n tne United Ringdom i976-i97S[~2. as, a1GJ

ProcessYear

Fuel enrichment

1976
1977
1978
Fuel fab- 1976
rication 1977
1978

Number ofworkers

Annualcollective
dose{man Gy)

Annua 1average
dose
(mGy}

MR

570
598
706
2234
2484
2652

0.40
0.35
0.36
5.9
6.3
4.4

0.7
0.6
0.5
2.6
2.5
1. 7

0
0
0
0.05
0.03
0.04

Ta b 1e5

Doses received by fuel manufacturin workers
in ana a 1
-1

(Al]

Year

1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978

Annual collective dose{man Gy}

Annual average dose{mGy)

Refining

Fabrication

Refining

Fabrication

0.42
1.68
1.37
2.12
2.44
2.10
1.58
0.68
0.48

0.18
0. 31
0.53
0.84
1.24
0.97
0.42
0.69
0.61

1. 7
6.6
4.7
6.2
6.7
5.7
3.8
1.4
0.9

1.0
1.6
2.1
2.9
3.6 a/
3.1 a/
1.2 1.8
1.2

2..I Includes some estimated doses.
Table

6

Annual infonnation reported on occupational exposure at BWRs
in the United States 1973-1979
1

822]

Average
Number ofEnergyAnnualAnnualCollective
number ofworkers
generated collective average
dose perworkers
Year
with
dose
dose tounit energy
in themeasurable
those with
with
year
generatedmeasurable measurable
doses
doses
doses
rman Gy(mGy)
per reactor (GW[e] a)- 1](man Sv)[GW(e} a]
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979

396

5340
8769
14607
17859
21388
20278
25245

3.39
4.06
5. 79
8.59
9.10
11. 77
11.67

46
71
126
126
190
151
183

8.5
8.1
8.6
7.1
8.9
7.4
7.3

445
626
812
776
930
811
1010

13
17
22
15
21
13
16

Ta b l e

7

Annual information reported on occueational exeosure at PWRs
in t~elln1tea States 1973-1979[ll22]

Number ofEnergyAnnualAnnualAverageCollective
workers
number ofgenerated collecthe average
dose perYear
within thedose
dose toworkers
unit energy
measur11ble
year
those withwithgenerateddoses
measurable measurable
doses
doses
[man Gy
per reactor (GWe] a)-I)(man Sv)(mGy)[GW(e) a]
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979

9440
9697
10884
17588
20878
25720
38828

3.77
6.82
11.98
13.33
17.35
19 .84
18.25

94
66
83
138
135
167
214

10.0
6.8
7.6
7.9
6.5
6.5
5.5

Table

787
485
419
586
614
659
924

25
10
7
10

8
8
12

8

AnnualCountry

Year

Energygeneratedin theyear~Gll(e) a]

1975
1976
1977
1978
Spain
1977
1978
1972-1978
Sweden
1977
1978
Sw i tzer land 1977
1978

Japan !Ia/

Annualcollective
dose(man Gy)

0.80
1.19
0.74
1.62
0.22
0.38
0.33 !?_I
1. 70
2 .13
O.19 cl0.19 ~/

41

50
61
115
7
4
4 b/
8
6
3
3

Collective
dose perunit energy
fman Gy(G\/[e) a)- 1)
51
42
83
71
32
10
12 b/
5
3
16
16

Including a GCR in Japan.

Fil Average over the 7-year period.

,1 Based on a 60 % load factor.

397

Ta b I e

9

dose
countries, Sl

CountryYear

Annua 1
co 11 ecti ve
doseEnergygeneratedin theyear(Gll(e) a]

German Dern.Rep.
1966-1978
Japan
1975
1976
1977
1978
Spain
1977
1978
1970-1978
Sweden
1977
1978
Switzerland 1977
1978

(r,ian Gy)

3.9 a/
1.25
1.61
1. 57
2.21
0.14
0.12
0.12 cl0.47
0.47
0.45 d/0.45 ~/Co 11 ecti ve
dose perunit energy
fman Gy(GW[e] a)- 1]
13 b/
8
6
10
7
11
32
14 £/

10
10
15
15
I. 5

3.9
I. 7 E/
2
2
5
3

4
4

11
7

a/ Cumulative total over the 13-year period.

o/ Average over the 13-year period.

c/ Average over the 9-year period.
~/ Based on a 65 % load factor.

Tab 1 e10

Doses at nuclear power stationsof the CANDU-PHW reactor t pe in Canada in 1977
J.Al, Ni

1

Installed
capacity
in 1977

StationAnnual average
dose (mGy)
Externa 1

lnterna 1(tritium)

2 .1
3.3
4.7
0.6

1. 7
3.5
4.4
0.2

fGl/(e) a]
Rolphton NPO 2
Douglas Point
Pickering A
Bruce A

0.025
0.22
2.17
2.34

Table

Year

1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978

398

11

Energygeneratedin theyear[GW(e) a]

Annual collective
dose per unit energy
generated

O.B
1. 7
1. 7
1.4
2.0
2.5
3.5

15

[man Gy (GWfe) a) -1]
8

5
11
7
6

5

Tab l e

12

Doses at Atucha nuclear power station, Argentina, 1977-1979
IP20]

Year

Annualaveragedose(mGy)

Annualcollective
dose{man Gy)

MR

Collective dose perunit energy generated[man Gy (GWle] a )- 1 ]

1977
1978
1979

16
14
17

10.0
6.7
9.0

0.8
0.8
0.8

56
22
32

Tab 1 e13

Doses at GCRs in the United Kingdom, 1975-1979[GS, G6, G7, H2, H4, H!8, 5, UJ, US]Year

Humber ofworkers

1975
1976
1977
1978 a/1979 a/

6264
6837
9432
7025
6732

Annualaveragedose(mGy)

Annualcollective
dose(man Gy)

2.7
2.6
2.2
2.3
2.5

17
18
21
16
17

Tab l eCollective dose perunit energy generated[man Gy (GW[e] a)-I]
6
6
6
5
5

14

Doses at the FBR Phenix, France, 1975-1979
(P9]
Year

Annual collective
dose (man Gy)

1975
1976
1977
1978
1979

0.05
0.08
0.16
0.08
0.04

T a b 1 e

15

Doses at FBR Dounreay, United Kingdom, !974-1977

[A2)

Year

Annualaveragedose(rrGy)

Annualcollective
dose(man Gy)

1974
!975
1976
1977

1.2
1.6
1.8
I. 7

0.3
0.5
0.6
0.6

399

Ta b 1e

16

Doses in United States naval nuclear
sueeort n9 ten ers an su marine ases,
fRIO]

Year

Number ofworkers

Annualaveragedose(mGy)

Annua 1collective
dose(man Gy)

MR

1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978

26980
26813
34108
31570
18749
17997
18229
20716
22403

1.1
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.4
1.4
1.0

31
33
33
32
21
22
26
28
22

0.1
0.3
0.3
0.3
D.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2

Ta b 1e17

Doses to naval shiefard workers in the United States
associatea wit~ nuc-ear ~roeulsion elants, 1970-19?8
RlOI

Year

Number ofworkers

Annualaveragedose(mGy)

Annualcollective
dose(man Gy)

MR

1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978

25923
23925
20199
15252
15157
14663
14973
15723
14984

5.0
4.4
3.5
4.0
4.8
3.6
3.5
3.3
2.5

131
106
70
61
72
53
53
52
37

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4

T a b 1 e

18

Work function

1977

1978

1979

B WR sOperations
MaintenanceSupervision/Administration
Health physics

17
124
19
11

15
~8
13
9

17
127
13
10

9
71
12
7

11
78
16
10

13
96
20
16

P WR sOperations
MaintenanceSupervision/Administration
Health physics

a/ The totals from this table are not the same as
those in Tables 6 and 7, as some parts of theannual collective dose were not characterized
by work function.

400

Ta b 1e19

Percenta e of the annual collective dose b work functionors in seYera countries

Work function

Gern,an Dern,
Re pub 1ic[Sl]

Fed.Rep.of
Germany
[U6)

Spain
[Fl)

Swedenf P2)

Switzerland
[S2]

1978

mid 1970s

1978

1978

1978

13
65 al

20
BO

24
65

14
72

34
57 E./

18 <:_I
4

ot

bi

n

6 cl
8-

2 cl
7-

Operations
MaintenanceSupervision I
Administration
Health physicsbi

al Including contractors.

o/No va 1 ues given,

et Including work categorized as "other".
T a b 1 e

20

Annual avera e and collective doses received b reactor workers
inana a, 1[AlO]

C·J 11 ecti ve
doseWork function{man Gy)
Operations
Reactor operations
6.0
Fuel handling
O a/Control technician
3.2
MaintenanceElectrical0
Mechanical
7.7
General
1.1
General workers
0.7
Hea 1th physics
Health physics
0.02
Chemical and radiation control
0.3
Administration/Supervision
Administration, security.janitorial 1.2

Per cent
Annualof total
average dosecollective
dose
{mGy)
45
6.5
0.02
5.1
47
0
li.5
1.4
1.1
2
0.9
3.1
6
0.9

a/ Less than 0.001 man Gy.

21

T a b 1 e

Collective doses received by workers at two GCRs
1n the United Kingdom[K3, K4]
Oungeness A {1977)
Work function

Operations
Maintenance
Admi ni strati on/
SupervisionHea 1th physics

llyl fa ( 1978)
Collective
dose{man Gy)

Fer centof totalco 11 ecti ve
dose{man Gy)

Per centof totalcollective
dose

0.35
0.56

27
42

0.19
0.25

32
42

0.27
0.13

21
10

0.05
0.11

18

Collective
dose

8

401

Ta b 1e22

Doses at BNFL Windscale, 1976-1978
ms. 016, ll2J

Year

Number ofworkers

Annualaveragedose(rrGy)

1976
1977
1978

4406
5055
5722

11
10
8

Tab 1 eAnnualcollective
dose(man Gy)

MR

49
48
48

D.7
0.7
0.7

23

Annual collective dose per unit energy generated
at BNFL U1ndscale, 1971-1978
fA4, C2, H5, H6, H7, R2, 05, U6]

Year

Annual collective dose
per unit energy gen~rated(man Gy (GW'el a) ]

1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978

12
20
L3
13
15
19
28
25

T a b 1e24

Ooses at Cap de La Ha9ue, France, 1970-1979[J3, P9]

Year

Number ofworkers

Annualaveragedose(llliy)Annualcollective
dose(man Gy)

MR

1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979

1140
1187
957
1068
1143
1361
1451
1715
1897
1914

2.3
2.9
3.5
4.6
4.7
5.2
4.8
3.9
3.3
3.0

2.6
3.5
3.3
4.9
5.4
7.1
7.0
6.7
6.3
5.7

0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2

Ta b 1e25

Annual
a

402

Year

Annual collective dose
per unit energy gen~rated[man Gy (GW!e~ a) ]

1972
1973
1974
1975
1976

6
9
3
5
8

Ta b l e

26

Doses received b variousGroup

Reprocessing
Decontamination
MaintenanceChemical and electrical
technicians,
health physics

lants in France, 1974-1978

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

Number Annualofaverageworkers dose
(111Gy)!lumber Annual
averageofworkers dose(mGy)tlumber Annualofaverageworkers dose(mGy)

Humber Annualofaverageworkers dose(mGy)flunber Annualofaverageworkers dose(rrGy)

318
218
328
173

5.4
7.1
3.3
1. 7

353
241
433
177

377
195
456
188

5.4
7.9
4.8
1. 7

Ta b l e

4.7
9.7
4.7
1.8

420
311
558
226

4.4
6.2
4.0
1.6

503
296
543
283

3.8
6.2
3.1
1.5

27

Doses at the Eurochemic Fuel Reerocessing Plant
at Hol, Beltum, 1970-1978
01]

Year

Number ofworkers

1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978

268
285
235
225
187
169
175
180
212

Annuala~eragecose(mGy)

Annualcollective
dose(man Gy)

13

3.4
3.2
4.3
3.7
2.7
1.6
1.5
1. 7
2.2

11

18
16
14
9
8
10

11

Tab l e

MR

0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.3

28

Doses at the Fuel Reerocessing Plant at Karlsruhe,
Federal Reeubl1c of Germany, 1972-1978
IS5]

Year

Number ofworkers

Annualaveragedose(rrGy)

Annualcollective
dose(man Gy)

1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978

216
241
284
325
311
318
373

13
11
5
2
3
4
5

2.9
2.7
1.4
0.6
1.0
1.4

1. 7

403

Tab 1 e

29

Doses to workers in nuclear research and developmentin the United States, 1975-1979(08, 09, 017, UIS, 019)

Year

1975
1976
1977
1978
1979

Number of Annual
workers
averagedose
withmeasurable
dose
(mGy)
34428
40802
40660
43647
41881

Annua 1collective
dose

MR

(man Gy)
96
88
87
77
73

3
2
2
2
2

Ta b 1 e

0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3

30

Doses at Atomic Energx of Canada Ltd. sites, 1970-1978
(MB]

Year

External
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978

Annual average
dose
(mGy)

Number of workers
with measurable
exposure

1334
1439
1527
3677
3758
3615
3554
3565
3902

Annual collective
dose(man Gy)

Tritium

External

Tritium

Externa 1

Tritium

412

11

480
483

8.2
8.5
2.8
3.0
3.0
3.3
3.5

1. 7
1.9
1.8
1. 5
1.3
1.2
1. 9
1.8
2.5

15
12
13
10

0.7
0.9
0.8
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.6
1.0

187
347
320
315
341
389

3.4

T a b 1 e

11

11
12
13
13

31

Doses at United Kin dom research and develo ment establishments
connecte wt
e nuc ear Kower 1n ustry, 1 -1
[G6, 67, H1 , n, 016)

Organization

Year

United Kingdom Atomic
Energy Authority

1975
1976
1977
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979

Central Electricity
Generating Board,
Berkeley Nuclear
Laboratories

404

Annualaveragedose(mGy)

Annualcollective
dose(man Gy)

MR

5.5

41
44
34
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.6
0.8

0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0

5.8
4.3
1.1
1.2
1.3
0.9
1.1

Ta b1e32

Doses at Karlsruhe Nuclear Research Centre,
federal Republ1c of Germany, 1970-1978
'.KS]

Year

!lumber ofworkers

Annualaveragedose a/(mGyT

Annualcollective
dose a/(man G"y)

1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978

2785
2992
2894
3096
2841
2782
3000
3157
3194

0.6
0.7
1. 3
I. 3
1.2
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8

1,8
2.1
3.8
4.1
3.4
2.0
2.3
2.4
2.5

~/ With natural eyckground assumed tobe 0.82 mGy a subtracted.

Doses received b
at Karlsruhe uc

Annual average dose (mGy)
~I

Group

Waste handling
Health physics
Cyclotron
ReactorChemistry
Supply service
Physics
Biology
Others

1975

1976

1977

1978

7.2
3.0
1.8
1.8
0.9
0.5
0.1
0
0

5.3
2.7
1.9
1.9
1.9
· 0.4
0
0
0

4.5
2.7
2.7
1.4
1.6
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1

4.2
2.9
3.9
1. 5
1.6
0.4
0.2
0.3
0

~I With na tur~ l background assumed to be
0.82 mGy a subtracted.

Table

34

Doses to nuclear research and development workers,n var1ous countr1es(Dl, G3, GS, K2, M15, P3, P20]

Country

Argentina

Year

1977
1978
1979
1980
Belgium
1976
(Mol)
1977
1978
Japan (Atomic
1978
Energy Industry)~/
Switzerland
1976(Reactor
1977
Research
1978
Institute)

Annualaveragedose(mGy)

Annualcollective
dose(man Gy)

Collective dose perunit energy generated(man Gy (GW(e] a)- 1]

0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6

3 ~_/

1469
17800

1. 3
1.2
0.9
1.2
3.8
1.9
1. 9
0.2

294
360
351

2.6
2.8
2.4

0.8
1.0
0.8

Number ofworkers
476
525
700
516
1427
1444

5.4

2.8
2.8
4.2

3

a/ This figure would be 7 man Gy (Gli(e) ar 1 if doses due to non-nuclear
power research and development at the same sites had been included rP20].
b/ Numbers extrapolated from a survey estimated to cover 50 % of workers.

405

Ta b 1e

35

Contribution to the collective dose equivalent
per unit energy generated in the nuclear fuel cycle
Collective dose equivalent
per unit energy generyted(man Sv (GWfe] a) ]Part of the cycle
Mining and milling
Fuel manufacture
Reactors
Reprocessing
Research and development
Tota 1

1

1

10
10
5

27

Table

36

Doses to workers in medicine usin? radionuclide sources
under NRC Licenses in the Un1ted States, 1978
BI
AnnualAnnuala·,erage collective
dose
dose

Number ofworkerswithmeasurable
dose

Category oflicenseeInstitutions- broad- others
Private practice
Teletherapy
Other

(mGy)

(man Gy)

1.5
2.5

16
63
5
3
0.4

10570
24660
1620
1570
410

3

2
1

T a b l e

MR

0.2
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.1

37

Doses to medical workers in the United Statesmonitored by the Bureau of Radiological Health, 1972-1978
(M9)

Year

Number ofworkers

Annuala~eragedose(ni,y)

Annualcollective
dose(man Gy)

1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978

3874
3843
3829
4017
4549
5048
5483

0.5
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.9
0.4
0.3

2.1
2.0
2.1
3.2
4.3
1.8

Tab 1 e

1. 7

38

Doses received by some groups of medical workers in the United Statesmonitored by the Bureau of Radiological Health, 1972-1978[M9]
Annual average dose (mGy)

406

Group

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

Radiologists
Other physicians
x-ray technicians
Other technicians

1.2
0.4
0.8
0.4

0.7
0.3
0.7
0.3

1.1

0.5
0.9
0.4

3.6
0.8
1.6
0.6

3.2
0,9
1.4

1.3
0.3
0.7
0.3

1. 7
0.3
0.5
0.3

1.6

T a b I e

39Doses to medical workers in Switzerland, 1976-1978

tPl, n. PB)

Group

Year

Number ofworker,Annualaveragedose(mGy)

Annualcollective
dose(man Gy)MR

Hospitals

1976
1977
1978
1976
1977
1978
1976
1977
1978

6259
7164
7641
6059
6901
8185
182
193
439

0.5
0.5
0.6
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.8
0.9
0.6

2.9
3.9
4.2
0.8
1.0
1. 3
0.1
0.2
0.3

0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.02
0.1
0.1
0
0.2

Ta b l e

40

General practiceRadiologists

Doses to medical workers usinGroup
Private general
medicine

Year

1976
1977
1978
1979
Private special
1976
clinics
1977
1978
1979
Private radiology 1976
1977
1978
1979
Industrial
1976
1977
medicine
1978
1979
Hospitals
1976
1977
1978
1979

X

ra s for dia nosis in France, 1976-1979, 517

Number ofworkers
759
804
841
901
2259
2421
2532
2731
1446
1534
1568
1845
4731
4699
4444
4403
10309
11600
13106
14973

Annualaveragedose(mGy)

Annualcollective
dose(man Gy)

MR

2.5
1.1
2.5
1.0
2.0
1.5
1. 7
1.6
2.2
2.6
2.3
1. 7
1.1
1.0
0.3

1.9
0.9
2.1
0.9
4.5
3.6
4.3
4.4
3.2
4.0
3.6
3.1
5.2
4.7
1. 3
1.8
18
15
16
12

0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0
0.2
0.1
0.1

0.4

1. 7
1. 3
1.2
0.8

407

Tab l e

Country

Description of work

Year

1978
Australia a/ Hospital radiology- Private radiology
General practiceRadiography
Assistants, nurses, etc.
Canada1979
Radiologists
Radiological technicians
Physicians
NursesGennany,
1976
Medical workers
Fed.Rep.of
1977
IsraelMedical workers
1975
1978
Japan !I y Doctors
Technicians
riurses
Other
Other Asia Medical workers
1975

41

Number ofworkers
520
100
170
2700
1000
1354
7380
1478
2993
101500118449
1860
40800
28600
21700
9600
1300

Annualaveragedose(mGy)

Annualcollective
dose(man Gy}

1. 2
2.3
0.2
0.8
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
1.0
0.6
0.8
0.3
0.3
1. 7

D.6
0.2
0.03
2 .1
0.5
0.6
1.8
0.5
1.0
45
53
2
23
23
7.4
2.6
2.3

a/ Numbers extrapolated from a survey estimated to cover 50 % of workers.

o/ Workers with x rays and garrrna rays.

T a b l e

Com arison of medical

Country

Estimated annual
collective dose
equivalent to all
medi ea l workers(man Sv)

Gennan Dern. Rep.
Genuany,Fed.Rep.of
India
Japan
SwedenSwitzerland
United Kingdom
United States
Other Asia

408

11
50
9

78
22
7
70
270
2.5

42
with medical

ractice

Number ofAnnual collective dose
films usedequivalent per film
for x-ray
to medical workers
examinations
per y~ar(10- 6 man Sv per film)
(10 )
11
100
19
120
5.3
8.5
40
130
0.7

1.0
0.5
0.5
0.7
4.2
0.8
1.8
2.1
3.6

Tab 1 e

43

Doses to dental workers in various countries[A10. et, PJ, P7, PS, P9, S19)

Country

Description of workYear

Number ofworkers

Annualaveragedose(mGy)

Annualcollective
dose(man Gy)

Austra 1i a a/
CanadaFranceDentists, nurses
and assistants
Dentists
Dental stomatology

Switzerland

Dental practiceUnited States

Dental practice

1974
1978
1979
1976
1977
1978
1979
1976
1977
1978
1975

2000
1600
4028
3952
4751
5399
6382
6634
7026
7683
265000

0.1
0.1
0.05
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2

0.2
0.2
0.2
2.0
1.9
1.6
3.2
1.4
1.0
1.2
53

a/

Numbers extrapolated from a survey estimated to cover 50 % of workers.

T a b 1 e

44

Doses to workers in nuclear medicine in Australia and France
IP9, S19]

Country

Description of work

Australia~/

Nuclear radiographers 1974
1978
and assistants
1976
Nuclear medicine

FranceYear

Number ofworkers

Annualaveragedose(mGy)

Annualcollective
dose(man Gy)

960
930
2105
2275
2215
2453

0.8
0.4
1. 7
0.9
1.5
0.5

0.8
0.4
3.6
2.0
3.3
1.2

1977
1978
1979

a/ Numbers extrapolated from a survey estimated to cover 50 % of workers.

Ta b 1ein various countries

Doses to workers in

Year

Country

Description of work

Australia

Denna to l ogi sts
1978
Radiologists andgynaecologists
Radiographers andhospital physicists
Conventional
1976
1977
radiotherapy

FranceCobalt therapy

High energy therapy

United States

A11 the ra PY 2_/

45

1978
1979
1976
1977
1978
1979
1976
1977
1978
1979
1975

Number ofworkers

Annualaveragedose(mGy)

Annualcollective
dose(man Gy)

60
40

1
2

0.06
0.08

350
947
1005
937
880
1255
1310
1442
1564
656
727
791
864
20000

0.4
1. 7
l. 3

1.4
1.5
2.4
2.6
2.6
1. 3
1.0
2.3
1.4

0.8
3

1.6
1.3
1.3
1.3
3.0
3.4
3.7
2.0
0.7
1. 7
1.1
0.7
60

a/ Numbers extrapolated from returns from IIRC Licensees [C 1].

409

Tab 1 e

46

Annual collective dose e~uivalents in the mid to late 1970s
from occu at1ona ex osures connected withme 1ca practice, norrra 1ze to POQU a 10n[AlO, Cl, El. F2, 19, M15, PJ, P7, P8, P9, ll, 03, W2]

Country or area

CanadaF~n~Gennan Dern.Rep.
Getinany,Fed.Rep.of
India
IsraelJapan
SwedenUnited Kingdom
United States
Other Asia

Estimatedcollective
dose
equivalent(man Sv)

Flumber ofworkers

Population

32000
38000

24
53
17
61
600

8
45
10
SO
9
2
78
22
70
270
3

(106)

a/

1100"0"0a/1900110000a/
33000
1000001300

Ann ua 1 co 11 ect i vedose ~quivalent
per 10 population(man Sv per
106 population)
0.3
0.8
0.6
0.8
0.02
0.5
0.7
2.8

4

116
8

55
210
17

1.3
1.3

0.2

a/ Not reported.

Table

47

Doses toCountry

Description

Year

Number ofworkers

Australia~/ Users of open
1974
850
installations,
1978
750
including industrial radiographers
870
Users of enclo- 1974
780
sed installa1978
tions, or quality
control sources,061
Industrial
Canada1979
radiography
FranceIndustrial
1976
1091
radiography
1977
1203
1978
1351
1979
1436
3670
Non-destructive 1978
Japan E._/
inspection
United1974
8792
lndustria l
1975
9178
Statesradiography
(NRC
1976
11245
licensed)
1977
10569
1978
13093
(nonRadiography
1970-1975 4300
NRC
Analysis600
licensed) Mixed and other
1700

Annua 1averagedose(mGy)

Annua 1collective
dose(man Gy)

2.4

2.0

1.3

1.0

0.1
0.1

0.1
0.1

3.3

3.5

1.5
1.3

1.6
1.6
1.2

0.9

MR

0
0

0.1

1.1
1.2

4,3

3 b/

29
28

3 b/
3 Ii/
3 Ii/

2 ~/
2
0.1
2

36
32
30

7
0.1
3

0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4

a/ Numbers extrapolated from a survey estimated to cover 50 % of all workers.
~/ Annual average dose to all those monitored; the average to those withmeasurable doses is in the range 4-6 mGy,410

Ta b l e

48

Doses to luminizers in various countries
IA1!!, P:3, P7. Pli, 119, TI JCountry

Description

CanadaFranceDial painters
Tritium
luminizers

Year

1979
1976
1977
1978
1979
Switzerland Luminizers
1976
1977
1978
United
Gas 1 umi ni zers
1975
Kingdom
1976
Paint 1 umi ni zers 1975
1976

Number ofworkers

Annualaveragedose(mGy)

Annua 1collective
dose(man Gy)

3
80
71
63
69
208
221
232
49
41
97
88

0.1
3,5
4.7
6.6
6.8
11
11
12
15
16
4
5

< 0.001

Tab 1 e

0.3
0.3
0.4
0.5
2.2
2.5
2.8
0.7
0.7
0.4
0.4

MR

0
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.5
0.2

49

Doses to some identified industrial users of radiationin various countries[Ato, B17, R6, S19]
Country

Use description

llu:nber ofworkers

Aus tra 1i a X-ray analysis. electron 660
microscopy etc.
(1978) ~/Radioactive tracers
720
Installation and main200
tenance engineers
CanadaWell loggers
685(1979)
Instrument technicians
675
Laboratory technicians
1790
field scientists/engineers 484
United~e 11 1oggi ng
6380
StatesOther measuring systems 24720(1978)Leak test
150
UkSSR
95
Borehole loggers(neutron sources)

Annualaveragedose(mGy)

Annualcollective
dose(man Gy)

0.1

D.l

0.5

0.4

0.2
1.4 !?_/
0.4
0.3
0.7
2.7 b/
0.3 0.7
5.0 b/

0.05
1.0 b/
0.3 0.5
0.4
17 b/
6.5 0.1
4.9 b/

MR

0.1
0.2
0

0.1
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.3

a/ Numbers extrapolated from a survey estimated to cover 50 % of workers.
~/ Annual average dose equivalent (mSv) and collective dose equivalent(man Sv) including a contribution from neutrons.

411

Ta b l e

50

Doses to research workers in the United States, 1974-1978
pm, 07, DI!, 09, 017. D1a]
Number of Annual
workers with averagerneasurab le
dose
dose
(mGy)

Category

DOE and DOE Contractors, 1978
Academic
4110
Broad
2930
Other
Research and development
Broad
2361
Other
2120
310
lrradiators < 370 T8q
lrradiators > 370 T8q
630
Uses of special nuclear material
Uranium sources
30
Unencapsulated sources
20
Neutron source
530
350
Other uranium uses
DOE Contractors
Acee 1era tors, 1976
1384
1692
1977
1579
1978
ERDA Contractors
Accelerators, 1974
2357
1975
2382

Annualcollective
dose(man Gy)

MR

I. 3
1.2

5.6
3.6

0.1
0 .1

1.1
0.7
1.1
1.6

2.7
1.6
0.4
1.0

0.2
0
0.1
0.1

2.2
9.9
1.1 a/
2.0

0.1
0.2
0.6 a/
0.7 -

0.6
0.6
0.2
0.3

4.8
4.7
3.6

6.7
7.9
5.7

0.5
0.5
0.4

4.8
4.5

11.3
10.7

0.6
0.6

a/ Annual average dose equivalent (mSv) and collective dose equivalent(man Sv) including a contribution from neutrons.

Tab 1 e51

Doses to research workers in various countries
rF2, 19, Ml S. PJ. P7, PI!, P9, Tl , W2 JCountry
or area
CanadaWork description

Laboratory
1979
scientists
Other
FranceResearch workers 1976
1977
1978
1979
Germany,
Research workers 1976
Fed.Rep.of
1977
IsraelResearch workers 1975
Japan
Research and1978
education
Switzerland Research workers 1976
1977
1978
UnitedResearch, mainly 1977
Kingdom
university
Other Asia Research workers 1975

412

Annua 1averagedose(mGy)

Annua 1collective
dose(man Gy)

MR

1575

0.3

0.4

0

2310
1729
2000
2398
2856
10169
12689
1393
20000

0.5
0.8
0.9
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.04

1.0
1.4
1.8
1.2
0.6
4.6
8.0
0.4
0.8

0
0
0
0
0

5046
6429
8838
11000

1.1
0.9
0.7
2.5

5.7
5.6
6.2
27

0.2
0.3
0.3
0

187

0.4

0.1

0

Year Number ofworkers

Table52

Annual collective dose equivalents in the mid and late 1970s
from occu ational ex osure connected with industr and eneral researchnorma 1ze to ~opu at on(AIO, B17, F2, 19, P3,7, P8, ll9, Tl, W2]

Country
or area

Estimatedcollective
dose
equivalent(man Sv)

CanadaFranceGermany,
Fed.Rep.of
IsraelSwitzerland
United Kingdom
United States
Other Asia

Number ofworkers7(10 6 )

Annual collective
dose gquivalent
per JO population(man Sv per
10 6 population)

Population

7

850G
900C

24
53

0.3
0.1

50
1
10
35
100
1

2500C
200C
10000
1200c
110000
1100

61
4
15
55
210
17

0.8
0.3
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.06

Tab le53

Accidents to workers in the nuclear industry 1945-1979
Year

Description of accident

1945

USA. Worker at Los Alamos stacking tungsten carbide Total body doses(1) 3 Gy n and yiifi"cks around plutonium core accidentally made the(2) 1.18 Gy n, 0.02 Gy ysystem critical. He remained to unstack theassembly, Army guard also exposed [SlO, T3]
Total body doses
USA. Worker at Los Alamos was demonstrating the(1) 12 Gy n, 1.2 Gy y
creation of a critical assembly when beryllium(2) 2.2 Gy n, 0.2 Gy yshell fell into assembly; six others were
exposed [S10, T3]3) 1.2 Gy n, 0.12 Gy y4) 0.5 Gy n, 0.05 Gy y5) 0.3 Gy n, 0.03 Gy y
1(6) 0.25 Gy n(7) 0.25 Gy n, 0.02 Gy y
USSR. Criticality accident at a reactor [GlO, T3] Total body doses(1) 3 Gy; (2) 4.5 Gy

1946

1953
or
1954
1958

Dose

USA. Criticality accident at Oak Ridge in an area Total body doses
wliere soluble enriched uranium was recovered, as a (1) 3.7 Gy; (2) 2.7 Gy(3) 3.4 Gy; (4) 3.3 Gy
result of the inadvertent accummulation of aqueousenriched uranium solution in a vessel (C6, HlO, A6] (5) 2.4 Gy; (6) 0.7 Gy(7) 0.7 Gy; (8) 0.2 Gy)

1958

Yugoslavia. Experimental reactor of Vinca became
uncontrolled when the amount of heavy water moderator was abnormally increased [A7]1958

USA. Criticality excursion at the plutonium reco- Total body doses(1) 45 Gy; (2) 1.3 Gy
very plant at Los Alamos occurred when excess plutonium was washed into a large vessel. The ex(3) 0.35 Gy
cursion occurred when the operator started astirrer. Two other operators exposed to help theircolleague [Sil}Total body doses
USA. Nuclear excursion at SL-! reactor at Idaho
probably due to an excessive withdrawal of the(!) 0.3-78 Gy(2) 19-100 Gy
central control rod. Hot water expelled violently from core [C7, Pll](3) 350
GyT,tal body doses
USA. Criticality excursion at Hanford plant when
excess plutonium bearing waste was added to a small {l) 0.63 Gy y; 0.2-0.3 Gy n(2) 0.23 Gy y;0.09-0.12Gytank [FJ)(3) 0.13 Gy y; 0.03 Gy nUSA. Criticality excursion at Wood River Junction T,,ta 1 body dose
(1) 12-46 Gy nuranium recovery plant. Technician poured concentrated liquor into a tank, mistaking it for slightly (2) 0.06-0.2 Gy ncontaminated trichloroethane. Second excursion{3) 0.28 Gy noccurred when tank stirrer was turned off exposing
two supervisors [AS, Pl2]

1961

1962

1964

Total body doses( 1) 4. 36 Gy; ( 2) 4 .14 Gy(3) 4.26 Gy; (4) 4.19 Gy(5) 3.23 Gy; (6) 2.07 Gy

Clinical effects(1) Vomiting and nausea within
2 h, fever, hair loss,
death after 25 days.
(2) Some weakness after 60 days.
(1) Vomiting within 1 h, GI syndrome, fever, death after
9 days.
(2) Nausea and vomiting within
6 h, fever, epilation.

(1) and (2) Nausea and vomiting
within 1 h, fever, infection,
weakness.
(1)-(5) Nausea after 2-48 h,
vomiting (4 only) lymphocytes
fell within 48 hand serious
depression of white cells andplatelets 25-30 days after theaccident.
Nausea, depression of white cells
and platelets, haemorrhages.
(1) died after 4 weeks(1)-(5) bone marrow transplants.
(1) Neurological syndrome, coma
within 10 min, erythema, virtual
disappearance of lymphocytes with
6 h, death from cardiac failure
after 35 h.
_(2) and (3) Lymphocyte depression
All died as a result of the
explosion.

(1) fever, depression of lymphocytes.
(1) GI prodrome within minutes,
death after 46 h.

413

Table 53, continued
Clinical effects

Dose

Year

Description of accident

1965

Belgium. Nuclear excursion in experimental reactor Dose to left footduring manual displacement of control rods [89, N2) 39 Gy Y, 4.2 Gy n
Dose to abdomen 0.5-8 Gy
Dose to head> 3 Gy

1968

UK. Scientist handled highly active fuel element
section [P13]

Tota 1 body dose
0.15 Gy

1976

USA. Worker injured by the chemical explosion ofanion exchange column used for americium recovery
at Hanford [H12]Dose up to 1978bone 8.6 Gy; lung 2.0 Gy;
liver 1.6 Gy; Dose to bone
expected_fo continue at
10 nily d

T a b 1 e

GJ prodrome, haematological de-pression, reverse barrier nursing
bone marrow transplant, fever,necrosis and amputation of leftfoot.
Burns on thumb and two fingers onright hand.
Ulcer near right eyebrow.
Some depression of lymphocytes.
Patient decontaminated and treatedwith DTPA.

54

Accidents to workers in non-nuclear industry (excluding industrial radiography) 1960-1979
Year

Description of accident

Dose

Clinical effects

1960

USA.

Worker exposed to an electron beam [U12]

Dose to face 7.6 Gy

Multiple burns to middle sectionof face, abdomen and hands

USA.

Worker entered room where linear accelerator

Dose estimates
Erythema on right hand and footInterior of bodywithin 4 h. Right arm amputated0.002-0.05 Gy above elbow. Right leg amputatedAnterior and right surface
above knee
2.4-3.3 Gy
Eyes
0.43 Gy
Right toes
110 GyRight instep
290 GyRight 5th digit 420 Gy
Right thumb2400 Gy1965

was scanning products on conveyor belts with anelectron beam by going under the barrier. He
placed a mould on the conveyor belt near the output port of the accelerator [LS]1965USA. Two operators exposed to radiation from a
TITioroscope with a broken interlock !V2]

Not quoted

Burns on hands

1967

India. Cobalt-60 teletherapy source ja!!ll1ed duringtransfer. Operator, wearing lead gloves, inserted
source manually (812]Dose to skin approximately
80 Gy

Burning and blisters on one hand

1967

USA. Operator bypassed interlocks and energizeda"Tluoroscope during cleansing [V2J

Not quoted

Several burns to exposed partsof body

1969
1970

1971

USA. Two service engineers bypassed safety circuits Not quoted

Burns on hands

USA. Factory worker exposed hands when he failedtc>"observe that warning light on unit (unspecified)
was on [V2]Not quoted

Burns on hands

USA.

Not quoted

aria energized a spectrometer

Two factory workers exposed to radiation

Ti'oit1 a fluoroscope [V2](1) Blistering on right index fir.,(2) Burns and blisters coveringboth hands and open lesions
on three fingers on each hand

1971

USA. Operator exposed to 300 TBq cobalt-60 source Total body dose 1.27 Gy~an irradiation facility when he entered the room Dose to right hand 2-12 Gy
while the source was exposed [VJ, Pl6]

Vomiting, haematological depression, pain in fingers andpalm of right handNot quoted

Erythema on hands

1971- UK. Engineer servicing x-ray equipment received
1972 liTgh dose to fingers on three occasions [Pl7]Dose to fingers several
hundred Gy

Small burn on fingers

1972

UK. Engineer servicing x-ray crystallographyequipment at a Technical College exposed to anarrow beam of x rays because the shutter had
been removed fl7, PlS]

Dose to two fingers
15-20 Gy

Burn. which subsequently
healed, on two fingers

1974

USA. Operator entered cobalt-60 irradiation celllieTieving that the 4 PBq source was in its storage
pool [ S14 J

Total body dose 1.65-4 Gy

Vomiting, depression of haemopoietic system. In reverse
isolation for 6 weeks

1971

USA.

Factory worker's hands were exposed to the

Eeam from fluoroscope which still emitted x rays
with the top open because of faulty wiring [V2]414

Table S4, continued
Year

Description of accident

Dose

Clinical effects

1974

USA. Three workers exposed to x rays from a quan'fometer when the beam inadvertently remained on
during maintenance [V2]

Net quoted(!) and (2) Burns on hands(3) required hospitalization

1974

USA. Serviceman exposed to x rays from a research
spectrometer when his partner accidently energized
the tube [V2 J

Nc,t quoted

Erythema on right hand

1975

Italy. Worker exposed to cobalt-60 radiation at
an agricultural installation [N2, LBJ

Total body dose ID Gy

Death

1976

USA. Worker exposed to radiation from an x-ray
analyser while making a repair when the unit wason (V2)

Not quoted

Burns on fingers!976

USA. Operator exposed while cleaning the vacuum
x-ray quantometer because the microsafety switch
failed as a result of faulty wiring [V2]Not quoted

Burns on right hand and finger

1977

USA; Operator entered cobalt-60 irradiation cell
Total body dose 2 Gy
wnTle the 20 PBq source was exposed. The interlock
system had been deactivated (SIS)1977

USA. Operator exposed fingers while attempting to
aa.iust lead aperature diaphragm on a diffractometer (V2)rlot quoted

1977

USA. Repairman exposed during check of vacuum leak~a spectrometer as a result of failure of automatic cut-off switch [V2)Not quoted

First degree bun1s to face
and finger tips

1978

USA: Operator of a fluoroscope at a soup company
exposed when relay on the door interlock fused [V2)Not quoted

Pigmentation on back of hand

Tab l eNausea, hair loss, lighterythema, depression of haemopoietic sustem, kept in reverse
i so la tion
Burns on 2 fingers

55

Accidents to workers in industrial radiography 1960-1979
Year

Description of accident

DJse

1960

USSR. A demented person placed a caesium-137
source in his trouser pocket [D4]TJtal body dose 14.8 Gy
Gl prodrome after 7 h, necrotic
Maximum dose to skin 1650 Gy skinlesions, death after 18 d.

1967

USA. Two radiographers exposed when 2.6 TBq source
Eecame disconnected from its control cable [Ml3)( 1) Total body dose 0.2 Gy

1966

Argentina. Worker carried 0.5 TBq caesium-137
source 1n his trouser pockets for 18 h [B14)1968

FRG. Worker carried iridium-192 source in jacket
pocket [516)

Total body dose 1 Gy
Maximum dose to pelvis andthigh 40-60 Gy

1968

India. Worker picked up a 52 GBq iridium-192
source which had fallen from a radiography camera
and kept it in his pocket for 2 h [A9)Dose skin near source 130 Gy Ulcer wound took a year to heal
Dose to testes 1.3 Gycompletely. Sterility 2 years

1969

UK. Radiographer exposed to ganuna-radiation froma0.9 TBq iridium-192 source while travelling ina car with the source housing open. Also believed
to have placed a source in his breast pocket fora short while. Both occurrences denied by individual [H!6]Total body dose 0.6 Gy
Dose to small area of chest
20-200 Gy
Dose to wrist,finger tips
15 Gy

Chest inflammation, blistering
necrotic tissue, involving ribs
and heart. Skin graft required,left wrist and finger tips lesions and blistering

1970

UK. Worker exposed while carrying a 0.8 TBq irioTum-192 source up a ships ladder with the container open [P!3)

Dose to irradiated area notquotedDose at chest level 300 µGy

Erythema on thighs, septic spot
and reddish mottling

Dose to right hand
4D-60 Gy
(2) Total body dose 0.15 Gy
Total body dose 0.5 Gy
Maximum skin dose to thighs
17000 Gy
Dose to gonads 20 Gy

Clinical effects(!) Hand oedema, formation ofvesicles, slight atrophyof finger
Necrotic lesions on thighs,
desquamated surface of scrotum
and base of penis. Ulcers onright hand. Both legs amputatedAspermialnflalllllatory skin alterations

415

Table 5S, continued
Year

Description of accident

Dose

Clinical effects

197]

Japan. Construction worker found an iridium-192
source in a shipyard and took it back to his lodging. Five other people were exposed during the
8 d before it was recognized. Some handled thesource [K7]Total body dose
(1) 1.3-1.5 Gy; (2) 0.5 Gy(3) 0.1-0.4 Gy; (4) 0.2-0.25
Gy; (5) 0. 13-0.17 Gy(6) 0.15-0.16 Gy;(2) Maximum dose to skin of
hip 30-60 Gy(1, 2, 3) Dose to skinof hands 26-90 Gy( 1} GI prodrome(1, 2, 3) skin lesions, lesions
on hip of (2) removed surgically(1, 2, 3, 4) depression of blood
cells

1971

UK.

1972

FRG. \forker at Bremen exposed to a 1.1 TBq
Ti'Tdium-192 source [S20, S21].

1974

Middle East. Radiographer exposed when iridium-192 Total body dose 0.3 Gysource became detached and lodged in the delivery
tube for 2-3 d [Pl8)1975~ - Radiographer exposed to 2.3 TBq iridium-192
source (LIO]

Total body dose 0.27 Gy

Burns on severa 1 fingers

1976

USA. Radiographer approached and unscrewed source
tirtie while the 3.5 TBq iridium-192 was not fully
retracted into its shield [U13, U4)

Total body dose 0.05 Gy
Dose to hand 4.48-37.21 Gy

Erythema and thickeningof skin on palm of right hand

1976

USA. Radiographer touched a guide tube containing
ail"unshielded 6.1 TBq cobalt-60 source. He hadoverridden the radiation alarm system [Ul3, U4]

Dose to hand 15 Gy
Dose to lens 0.09 Gy

Erythema and dry desquamationof left hand

1977

UK. Radiographer working in a confined space held
~0.8 TBq iridium-192 source with his finger tips
for 90 s whilst radiographing a weld [L9]Total body dose 0.1 Gy

Burns on three fingers

1977

South Africa. Maintenance engineer picked up a
0.25 1Bq 1r1dium-J92 source from a factory floor
without recognizing it. He showed it to several
colleagues and took it home. Doses to three most
exposed individuals given [L9, 816]

Total body dose
(1) 1.16 Gy; (2) 0.17 Gy(3)0.!Gy
Maximum skin dose
( I ) 50-100 Gy( 1) Bums on chest and hands,
skin graft on chest

Worker handled 0.2 TBq iridium-192 source (Pl5) Dose to finger 30 Gy

Burns on finger tips

Total body dose 0.3 Gy
Dose to hand 50 Gy

T a b l e

Erythema and moist desquamati on.
Necrosis followed by amputationof finger
Pain and swelling in leg andloss of hair

56

Accidents to workers in research and development (excluding nuclear industry) 1960-1979
Year

Description of accident

1960

USA. Graduate student exposed to a 7 TBq cobalt-60 Total body dose 2.5-3 Gy GI prodrome, depression of whitesource when it became detached during irradiation
Maximum dose to skincell count, necrotic lesion onof samples [R5]30 Gy
stomach, sterility

1965

USA. Researcher assumed diffractometer was off,
removed shielding and reached inside to changesamp 1es [ V2]

Not quoted

Burns to three fingers

1965

USA. Chemist exposed to primary beam ofspectrometer when interlocks failed (V2]

Not quoted

Burns to fingers

1967

USA. Technician exposed for 20 min to the beam ofa"Van de Graff generator [V2]Australia. Three workers exposed to low energy
rad1at1on from a wrongly assembled x-ray analysis
unit [l! J J

Not quoted

Nausea, amputation of legs and arms

1970

Oose/acti vity

Dose to skin(1) Abdomen
Hands(2) AnnHands(3)15-45 Gy
20 Gy
4-15 Gy
15 Gy
0.14-0.5Gy

Clinical effects(1, 2) Erythema and dry desquamation(3) No clinical symptoms

1970

USA. Scientist removed valuable specimen fromspectrometer bypassing interlocks because he feared
he would lose it (V2]

Not quoted

Moderate conjunctive infection,
blisters and erythema on fingers

1971

USA. Chemist exposed two fingers because he did
not realize his hand was in an unfiltered beamof x rays from a diffraction apparatus (V2]

Not quoted

Swelling and stiffness of knuckles

416

Table 56, continued
Year

Description of accident

Dase/activity

Clinical effects

1973

USA. Chemist looked directly into primary beam
Tram a diffractometer while aligning the beam (V2]

Not quoted

Burns to eyes

1974

USA. Technician in a geological survey laboratory r,ot quoted
lieTd an energized fluoroscopic tube near to hischest while testing for a vacuum leak [V2]USA. Radiochemist placed hands near the beam port Dose to hand 24-48 Gy~a spectrometer not realizing it was on [V2, U12]

1974

Severe erythema of chest
Some loss of tissue and function
to left index finger and injuries
to severa 1 other fingers and rightthumb
Burns on index and middle finger

1975

USA. Chemist exposed to x rays when the shutter on Not quoted
a:-d'iffractomer failed [V2]1976

USA. Research worker inadvertently moved lead
sfiTelding plate while aligning the beam of adiffractomer [V2]Not quoted

Burns on palm of hand

1977

USA. Research worker exposed hands while changing
samples in a diffractometer because safety cut-off
system had defective wiring [V2]Not quoted

Burns and swollen hands

1978

Switzerland. Physicist handled a silver source
which had been irradiated in a research reactor[PB]

Dose to fingers
Second degree burns on fingers
20-100 Gy
Total body dose 0.007 Gy

1978

USA. Worker exposed near view port of a linear
accelerator while attempting to cure a problem
with insulation [V2]Not quoted

Blistering on lips, back of hands
and reddening of thighs and stomach

417

REFERENCES

Al

Ashmore, J.P. and D. Grog.in. Dose statistics fornuclear fuel cycle workers in Canada. p. 97-112 in:
Occupational Radiation Exposure in Nuclear Fuel
Cycle Facilities. IAEA, Vienna, 1980.

A2

Adam, E.R., R.S. Howard and W. l'v!cDonald. Radiological Protection in the prototype fasr reactor,
Dounreay, Scotland. p. 213-218 in: Radiation
Protection in Nuclear Power Plants and the Fuel Cycle,
Vol. 2. Proceedings of a B N ES Conference, Bristol,
1978. BNES, London, 1979.

A3

Aye, L. · Analyse comparative des doses collectives
intcgrees depuis 1976 a la centrale nucleaire desArdennes. p. 95-110 in: Workshop on Provisions
Taken at Design and during Operation to Reduce
Occupational Exposure at LW Rs. Societe Fran9aise deRadioprotection, Fontenay-aux-Roses (1979).

A4.4therton, R.S. Annual report on radioactive discharges
and monitoring of the environment 1977. British
Nuclear Fuels Limited, 1978.

A6

Andrews, G.A., B.W. Sitterson and A.L. Kretchmar.
Accidental radiation excursion at the Oak Ridge Y-12
Plant IV. Preliminary report on clinical and laboratory
effects in the irradiated employees. Health Phys. 2:
134-138 (1959).

A7

Andrews, G.A. Criticality accidents in Vinca, Yugoslavia, and Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Comparison ofradiation injuries and results of therapy. J. Am. Med.
Assoc. 179: 191-197 (1962).

AS

Auxier, J.A. Nuclear accident at Wood River Junction.
Nucl. Saf. 6: 298-301 (1965).

A9

Annamalai, M., R.S. Iyer and T.M.R. Panicker.
Radiation injury from acute exposure to an iridium-192
source: case history. Health Phys. 35: 387-389 (1978).

AlO

Ashmore, J.P. Personal communication (1981).

BI

Brooks, B. Occupational radiation exposure tenthannual report 1977. NUREG-0463 (1978).

82

Brooks, B. Occupational radiation exposures at NRC
licensed facilities. p. 85-96 in: Occupational Radiation
Exposure in Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facilities. IAEA,
Vienna, 1980.

B4

Beau, P.G. and J. Scheidhauer. Exposition externe destravailleurs dans certaines installations du cycle ducombustible nucleaire: aspects individuels et collectifs.
p. 429-437 in: Occupational Exposure in Nuclear Fuel
Cycle Facilities. IAEA, Vienna, 1980.

B6

Barker, R.F., D.R. Hopkins and A.N. Tse. Radiationdose to population (crew and passengers) resulting
from the transport of radioactive material by passenger
aircraft in the United States of America. p. 595-611 in:Population Dose Evaluation and Standards for Man
and His Environment. IAEA, Vienna, 1974.

87

Booth, L.F. Radiation exposures to United States diplomatic couriers. Health Phys. 33: 633-635 (1977).

B9

Boulenger, R., N. Parmentier, R. Le Go et al.
Description et analyse de !'accident de criticite survenu
au reactor Venus a Mol le 30 Decembre 1965.
p. 357-391 in: Les Irradiations Accidentelles en Milieude Travail. EUR-3666 (1967).

BIO

Bernard, S.R. and J.W. Posten. Estimation of dose
commitment from an accidental intake of 244Cm. p. 50
in: Health Physics Division Annual Progress Reportending June 30, 1976. ORNL-5171 (1976).

Bl 1

Brooks, B.G. Eighth annual occupational radiation
exposure report 1975. NUREG-0119 (1976).

B12

Bhushan, V. Large radiation exposure. p. 769-772 in:Proceedings of the Third International Congress of theInternational
Radiation
Protection
Association,
Washington, 1973. CONF-730907 (1974).

418

B13

Butler, M.J. and P.O. Orchard. Over-exposure of aservice engineer in a hospital. Radio!. Prot. Bull. 17:
36-38 (1976).
ll 14 lkninson, D., A. Placer and E. Vander Elst. Estudio de1111 caso de irradiacion humana accidental. p. 415-429
in: Handling of Radiation Accidents. IAEA, Vienna,
1969.
ll 15
Brooks, B.G. Seventh annual occupational radiation
exposure report 1974. NUREG-75/108 (1975).
816 Hasson, J.K., A.P. Hanekom, F.C. Coetzec et al. Healthphysics evaluation of an acute over-exposure to aradiography source. p. 64-68 in: Radiation Protection:
A systematic approach to safety-Proceedings of the
5th Congress of the IRPA Jerusalem, 1980. Pergamon
Press, 1980.
Brooks, B., S. McDonald and E. Richardson. Occupational Radiation Exposure Eleventh Annual Report__ . _ 1978. NUREG-0593 (1981).
.
818 )Brooks, B. Occupational Radiation Exposure at'Commercial
Nuclear
Power
Reactors ·· 1978.
NUREG-0594 (1979).
B19
Brodsky, A. Communication (1980).
B20 Brodsky, A., R.P. Specht, B.G. Brooks et al. Lognormal Distributions of Occupational Exposures in
Medicine and Industry. Ninth Midyear TopicalSymposium on Occupational Health Physics, Denver,
Colorado (1976).
B22 Brooks, B.G. Occupational Radiation Exposure atCommercial Nuclear Power Reactors 1979. NUREG0713, Vol. 1. (1981).
B23
Balter, S., F.S. Mason and R. Brancato. Radiation
exposure to the operator performing angiography with
U-arm systems. Circulation 58: 925-932 (1978).
824 Bernhard, S. L'irradiation du personnel dans Jes mines
souterraines de la Cogema en 1979. CEA (1980).
B25
Bundesminister des lnnern. Umweltradioaktivitat undStrahlenbelastung. Jahresbericht 1977. (1978).
B26
Bundesminister des Innern. Umweltradioaktivitat undStrahlcnbelastung. Jahresbericht 1978. (1979).
Cool, W.S. Occupational radiation exposure at U.S.
Cl
Nuclear Regulatory Commission-licensed facilities
1975. NUREG-0419 (1978).
C2
CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunities.
Radioactive eff1uents from nuclear power stations andnuclear fuel reprocessing plants in the European
Community. Discharge data 1972-1976, radiologicalaspects. EUR-6088 (1978).
C3
Cobb, P.D., K.R. Kase and B.E. Bjarngard. Radiation
exposure of nursing personnel to brachytherapy
patients. Health Phys. 34: 661-665 (1978).
C4
Cohen, S.C., S. Kinsman and H.D. Maccabee. Evaluation of occupational hazards from industrial
radiation: a survey of selected sites. DHEW /N IOSH77-142 (1976).
.
CS
Cebe. J.J., J.R. Lovell and D.R. Wenzel. Radiation
exposure at the Idaho chemical processing plant.
p. 463-472 in: Occupational Radiation Exposure in
Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facilities. IAEA, Vienna, 1980.
C6
Callihan, D. and J.T. Thomas. Accidental radiation
excursion at the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant I. Description
and physics of the accident. Health Phys. I: 363-372(1959).
C7
Cottrell, W.B. The SL-I accident. Nucl. Saf. 3: 64-74(1962).
C8
Crossan, I.F. Over-exposure from working with an
x-ray crystallography set. Radio!. Prot. Bull. 13: 19-20(1975).
C9
Cook, J.R. and D.R. Nelson. Occupational exposure toionising radiation in the United States: a comprehensive summary for the year 1975. EPA-520/ 4-80-001( I 980).

r

DI

Deworm, J.P., G. Heuw, L. Ghoos et al. Occupationalradiation exposure of the personnel of a nuclear
research centre in 13elgium. p. 177-198 in: Occupational Radiation Exposure in Nuclear Fuel Cycle r=acilitics. I A EA, Vienna, 1980.
DJ
Das, K.R. and S.J. Supe. Accidental fall of a 3000 curie
cobah-60 source in a teletherapy room and its retrieval.
p. 113-122 in: Handling of Radiation Accidents 1977.
IAEA, Vienna, 1977.
D4
Dolphin, G.W. Communication (1979).
Dolphin, G.W., D. Bolton, D.L.O. Humphreys et al.
D5Biological and physical dosimetry after a radi;1tion
accident. Nature 227: 165 (1970).
D6
Dixon, D.W. Over exposure of a radiographer on aconstruction site. Radio). Prot. Bull. 19: 22-23 (1977).
D7
Doloy-Biola, M.T., R. Le Go, G. Ducatez et al. Signification dosimetrique des examens cytogeniques
pratiques chez des sujets irradies accidentellement.
Bull. lnf. Sci. Tech. (Paris) 203: 17-25 (1975).
Doloy, M.T., R. Le Go, G. Ducatez et al. Utilisation desD8analyses chromosomiques pour )'estimation d'une
d'irradiation accidentelle chez l'homme. p. 1199-1202
in: Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of
the International Radiation Protection Association.
Paris, 1977.
D9
Drexler, G., H. Eckerl and G. Haid. Statistische Ergebnisse aus der amtlichen Personendosisiiberwachung,1980. GSF-Bericht S-789 (1981).
El
Ellis, R.E. Medical exposure: growth with restraints.
p. 871 in: Proceedings of the Fourth International
Congress of the International Radiation Protection
Association (IRPA), Paris, 1977.
E2
Edvardsson, K.A. and L. Lingren. Elimination ofamericium-241 after a case of accidental inhalation.
p. 497-502 in: Diagnosis and Treatment of Incorporated Radionuclides. IAEA, Vienna, 1976.
E3
Environmental Health Directorate. Occupational
Radiation Exposures in Canada-1978. EHD 57(1980).
Ft
Fernandez-Pueblo, J.C.0. Occupational exposure at
Santa Maria de Garona nuclear power station
1971-1978. p. 73-80 in: Workshop on Provisions taken
at design and during operation to reduce occupational
exposure at L WRs. Societe Fran~aise de Radioprotection, Fontenay-aux-Roses (1979).
F2
Farber, K. Strahlenbelastung berunich strahlenexponierter Personen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland
und im Land Berlin in den Jahren 1976 und 1977. STH
Bericht 9/1979 (1979).
F3
Fuqua, P.A .. W.D. Norwood and S. Marks. Biologicaleffects of a human radiation exposure. Report of a criticality accident. Occup. Med. 7: 85-93 (1965).
F4Fry, F.A. Long-term radiation of americium-241
following accidental inhalation. Health Phys. 31: 13-20/ J (1976).
(F5/ Finney, D.J. Probit analysis (3rd Edition). Camb. Univ.
Press ( 1971 ).
F6
Farber, K .. M. Grunwald and J. Nitschke. PERDIS:
Pilot model for an information system for individual
radiation protection. STH Bericht 3/1979.
F7
Farber, K., S. Gall and M. Grunwald. Literaturauswcrlung ilber die Strahlenbelastung des Personals im
medizinischen Bereich mit Hilfe der Literaturdatenbank Medlit. STH 2/1981.
Gl
Golden, J.C. Effect of a change in regulatory limits foroccupational radiation exposures on manpower
requirements and radiation dose (man-rem) expenditure at a nuclear power station. Paper presented at the
Health Physics Society Annual Meeting, San Francisco,
June 1976.
G2
Gronow, W.S. and G. Lewis. Regulatory control of
nuclear power stations in the United Kingdom. p. 7-14
in: Radiation Protection in Nuclear Power Plants andthe Fuel Cycle, Vol. 2. Proceedings of a BN ES
Conference, Bristol, 1978. BNES, London, 1979.
Galliker, D. Die Verteilung der Personendosen desG3
berunich strahlenexponierten Personals in den lndus-

G4

GS

G6

G7

GS
G9

Gto

Gl I
G12

H1

H2
H4

H5

H6
H7
H9

H to

1-111

H 12
1-113
H 14

triebetrieben und in den Kernanlagen der Schweiz fuerdas Jahr 1978. Schweizerische Unfallversicherungsanstalt l\1illeilungen der Sektion Physik 9 (1979).
Gonzalvo, A. and T. Perez. Analysis of occupational
exposures and methods taken to reduce them, at "Jose
Cabrera" power plant. p. 111-123 in: Workshop on
Provisions taken at design and during operation lo
reduce occupational exposure al LWRs. Societc
Fran~-aise de Radioprotection, Fontenay-aux-Roscs,
1979.
Groom, D.J. and A. Short. Report on radioactive
discharges, associated environmental monitoring andpersonal radiation doses which arose from theoperation of the Central Electricity Generating Board(CEGB) nuclear power stations during 1976. NHS/
R 143/77 ( 1977).
Groom. D.J. and A. Short. Report on radioactive
discharges, associated environmental monitoring andpersonal radiation doses arising from operation of
CEGB nuclear power stations during 1977. NHS/
R 148/78 ( 1978).
Groom, D.J. and A. Short. Report on radioactive
discharges, associated environmental monitoring andpersonal radiation doses resulting from operation of
CEGB nuclear sites during 1978. NHS/Rl54/79 (1979).
Gonzalez, A.J. Communication (1981).
Goller, K.R. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
practices for assuring worker protection. p. 19-24 in:Radiation Protection in Nuclear Power Plants and theFuel Cycle, Vol. I. Proceedings of a BNES Conference,
Bristol, 1978. BNES, London, 1979.
Guskova, A.K. and G.D. Baisogolov. Two cases ofacute radiation disease in man. p. 35-44 in:Proceedings of the International Conference on thePeaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, Geneva 1955. United
Nations, New York, 1956.
Green, N. Accidental exposure of a maintenanceengineer. Radio!. ProL Bull. 14: 14-15 (1976).
Gandsman, E., D. North and S. Spraragen. Radiation
safety in a nuclear medicine department. Health Phys.
38: 399-407 ( 1980).
Harrison, N.T. The consequences of a reduction in theadministratively applied annual dose equivalent level
for an individual in a group of occupationally exposed
workers. NRPB-R98 (1980).
Howles, L.R. Review of nuclear power stationachievement-1977. Nucl. Eng. Int. 23: 25-28 (1978).
Hecht, G. Experience with occupational radiation
exposure in PWRs built by Kraftwerk Union.
p. 325-332 in: Nuclear Reactor Shielding. (R. \\".
Roussin, L.S. Abbott and D.E. Bartine, ed.). Science
Press, Princetown, 1977.
Howells, H. Radioactive waste disposals and associatedenvironmental monitoring data 1971-1973. HP/ER/
71-73.
Howells, H. Radioactive waste disposals and associatedenvironmental monitoring data 1974. HP/ER/74.
Howells, H. Radioactive waste disposals and associatedenvironmental monitoring data 1976. HP/ER/76.
Hayes, G., R.D. Caldwell and R.M. Hall. Radiation
exposures in reprocessing facilities at the SavannahRiver plant. p. 473-486 in: Occupational Radiation
Exposure in Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facilities. IAEA,
Vienna, 1981.
Hurst, G.S., R.H. Ritchie and L.C. Emerson. Accidental radiation excursion al the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant
II I. Determination of radiation doses. Health Phys. 2:
121-133 (1959).
Howells, H., F.A. Ward, D.J. Coulston et al. In vivo
measurement and dosimetry, of ruthenium-106 oxide inlung. p. 83-102 in: Handling of Radiation Accidents
1977. IAEA, Vienna, 1977.
Heid, K.R., B.D. Breitenstein, H.E. Palmer et al. The
1976 Hanford americium accident. TID-28938 (1979).
Health and Safety Executive. Quarterly statement on
incidents at nuclear installations. Health and Safety
Bulletin 15/77 (1977).
Health and Safety Executive. Quarterly Statement on
nuclear incidents. First Quarter 1978.

419

H 15
H 16

Hughes, J.S. Contnmination in an office and exposureof office workers. Radio!. Prot. Bull. 29: 27-28 (1979).
Harrison, N.T., P.C. Escott, G.W. Dolphin et al. The
investigation and reconstruction of a severe radiation
injury to an industrial radiographer in Scotland.
p. 760-768 in: Proceedings of the Third International
Congress of the International Radiation Protection
Association, Washington, 1973. CONF-730907 (1974).

K2

K3

H 17

Jlallett, C.D. Malfunction of a portable gamma radiography source. Radiol. Prot. Bull. 20: 18-20 (1977).

HIS

Heap, G.F. and A. Short. Report on radioactive
discharges, associated environmental monitoring andpersonal radiation doses resulting from operation of
CEGB nuclear sites during 1979. NHS/R.162/80(1980).

K4

H19
II

Higginson, P. Communication (1979).
International Commission on Radiological Protection.
Recommendations of the International Commission on
Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 26. Annalsof the ICRP, Vol. I, No. 3. Pergamon Press, Oxford,
1977.
International Commission on Radiological Protection.
Recommendations of the International Commission on
RadiologicalProtection.
ICRP publication
9.
Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1966.
Iyer, P.S. and R.V. Dhond. Average annual doses,
lifetime doses and associated risk for cancer deaths forradiation workers in various fuel fabrication facilities
in India. p. 113-122 in: Occupational Radiation
Exposure in Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facilities. IAEA.
Vienna, 1980.
International Atomic Energy Agency. Operating
Experience with Nuclear Power Stations in Member
States in 1975. IAEA, Vienna, 1976.
International Atomic Energy Agency. Operating
Experience with Nuclear Power Stations in Member
States in 1976. IAEA, Vienna, 1977.

K5

12

14

15

16

17
18

19

110
111

112
JI

J2

J3

J4
J5

J6

K1
420

International Atomic Energy Agency. Operating
Experience with Nuclear Power Stations in Member
States in 1977. IAEA, Vienna, 1979.
llari, 0. and F.L. Franzen. Occupational exposure
trends in nuclear power plants with LWRs in N.E.A.
member countries. p. 1-40 in: Workshop on Provisions
taken at design and during Operation to reduce occupational exposure at LWRs. Societe Fran\aise de Radioprotection, Fontenay-aux-Roses (1979).
Israeli, M., S. Malchi, Y. Feige et al. Personnel
monitoring in Israel during 1975. p. 351 in: Proceedingsof the Fourth International Congress of the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA), Paris,
1977.
Ichikawa, R. Communication (1981).
International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation (INFCE):
Waste Management Disposal. Report of Working
Group 7. IAEA, Vienna, 1980.
International Atomic Energy Agency. Annual Reportfor 1980. IAEA, Vienna, 1981.
Johnson, L.A. Occupational radiation exposure at lightwater cooled power reactors 1976. NUREG-0323( I 978).
Jones, A.R. Review of the radiation exposure levels invarious nuclear facilities with special emphasis on thevarious working places in nuclear power plants. Paper
presented at the IAEA Regional Seminar on reducing
occupational exposures to the lowest reasonably
achievable levels. Athens, 1979.
Jammet, H. Communication (1979).
Jardine, G.C. Accidental radiation exposure of two
technicians. Radial. Prot. Bull. 28: 25-26 (1979).
Jardine, G.C. and N.T. Harrison. Accidental radiation
exposure of two industrial radiographers. Radio!. Prot.
Bull. 7: 20-22 (1974).
Jardine, G.C. and N.T. Harrison. Accidental exposureof a medical radiographer. Radio!. Prot. Bull. 11: 17-18(1975).
Kendall, G.M. Communication (1979).

K6

K7

KB

K9

KIO

Kl I
K 12

K13

Lt

L2

L3

L4

L5

L6

L7

L8

Kaufman, E. Die Verteilung der Personendosen desberunich strahlenexponierten Personals in den Industriebetrieben und in den Kernanlagen der Schweiz fuerdas Jahr 1977. Schweizerische Unfallvcrsicherungsanstalt, Mitteilungen der Scktion Physik 7 (1978).
King, F.G. and P.F. Heaton. Experience of radiationand contamination control at Dungeness A power
station. p. 205-212 in: Radiation Protection in Nuclear
Power Plants and the Fuel Cycle, Vol. I. Proceedings ofa BNES Conference, Bristol, 1978. BNES, London,
1979.
Kirkpatrick, A.R. Occupational radiation exposure
experience: Fuel route operation at CEGB and SSEB
nuclear power stations. p. 285-302 in: Occupational
Radiation Exposure in Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facilities.
IAEA, Vienna, 1980.
Koelzer, W. Radiation exposure of the staff of the
Karlsruhe Nuclear Research Centre-a ten year review.
p. 199-216 in: Symposium on Occupational Radiation
Exposure in Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facilities. IAEA,
Vienna, 1980.
Kiener, V. Value of detailed analysis of radiation
accidents without immediate injury. p. 95-103. in:
Handling of Radiation Accidents. IAEA, Vienna, 1969.
Kumatori, T., K. Hirashima, T. Ishihara et al.
Radiation accident caused by an iridium-192 radiographic source. p. 35-44 in: Handling of radiation
accidents 1977. IAEA, Vienna, 1977.
Kramer, R. and G. Drexler. Determination of dose
equivalent for external irradiation of occupationally
exposed personnel. Paper presented at the IAEA
Regional Seminar on reducing occupational exposures
to the lowest reasonably achievable levels. Athens,
Greece, 1979.
Kramer, R. and G. Drexler. Dose equivalent
conversion factors for external photon irradiation.
Radiation Protection: A systematic approach to safety
Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress of the
IRPA, Jerusalem, 1980. Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1980.
Kraus, W. Proposed changes in the statistical evaluation of occupational doses. Health Phys. 38: 425-426(1980).
Kumatori, T. Communication (1980).
Kumazawa, S. and T. Numakunai. A new theoreticalanalysis of occupational dose distributions indicating
the effect of dose limits. Health Phys. 41: 465-475(1981 ).
Kleijmenova L.V., A.V. Frelova, E.V. Krivenko et al.
On determination of radiation burden to personnel inangiographic procedures. Vestnik rentgenologii i radiologii 2: 82-85 (1977).
Lesurf, J.E. Control of radiation exposures at CANDU
nuclear power stations. J. Br. Nucl. Energy Soc. 16:
53-61 (1977).
Lincoln, T.A. The use of DTPA and induced sputum asdiagnostic techniques after internal contamination.
p. 203-208 in: Diagnosis and Treatment of Incorporated Radionuclides. IAEA, Vienna, 1976.
Lalu, P. Controle d'un accident de boite a gants,
traitement chirurgical d'une blessure contaminee par
un melange de plutonium-239 et d'americium. p. 45-55
in: Handling of Radiation Accidents 1977. IAEA,
Vienna, 1977.
Lloyd, D.C., R.J. Purrot, J.S. Prosser et al. Doses inradiation accidents investigated by chromosome
aberration analysis. VI II: A review of cases investigated: 1976. NRPB-R57 (1977).
Lanzi, L.H., M.L. Rozenfeld and A.R. Tarlov. Injury
due to accidental high-dose exposure to 10 MeV
electrons. Health Phys. 13: 241-251 (1967).
Lambert, B.E., H.B.A. Sharpe and K.B. Dawson. An
accidental intake of tritiated water. Am. Ind. Hyg.
Assoc. J. 32: 682-686 (1971).
Linsley, G.S. Over-exposure during work with x-ray
crystallographic equipment. Radio(. Prot. Bull. 5: 15-16(1973).
Le Go, R. Comparison between two acute accidental
irradiations: Mo! (1965), Brescia (1975): clinical and

L9

LlO

Ll 1

L12

LI3

Ml

M3

M4

MS
M6

M7

M8
M9
MlO

M12

MI3

M14

MlS

M16

M17

Nl

biological findings. Paper presented at the Medical
Basis for Radiation Accident Preparedness, Oak Ridge,
1979. (Abstract only).
Lloyd. D.C., R.J. Purrott, J.S. Prosser et al. Doses inradiation accidents investigated by chromosome
aberration analysis. VII I: A review of cases investigated: 1977. NRPB-R70(1978).
Lloyd, D.C., R.J. Purrott, J.S. Prosser et al. Doses inradiation accidents investigated by chromosome
aberration analysis. IX: A review of cases investigated1978. N R PB-R83 ( 1979).
Leith, I.S. and W.A. Cornelius. Evaluation anddosimetry of accidental exposures to an x-ray analysis
beam. p. 783-790 in: Proceedings of the. Third International Congress of the International Radiation
Protection Association. Washington, 1973. CONF730907 (1974).
Lackner, K., K. Ewen and R. Felix. Die Strahlenexposition des Untersuchers bei Angiographien. Fortschr.
Rontgenstr. 128: 86-90 (1978).
Leach, V.A., K.H. Lokan and L.J. Martin. A study ofradiation parameters at Nabarlek uranium mine, N.T.
ARL/TR-028 (1980).
Miller, H.T. Radiation exposures associated withsurface mining for uranium. Health Phys. 32: 523-527(1977).
Mehl, J. Radiation exposure of nuclear power plant
personnel in the Federal Republic of Germany.
p. 275-284 in: Occupational Radiation Exposure in
Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facilities. IAEA, Vienna, 1980.
Megy, J., F. Conte and J. Goddet. Centralc a neutrons
rapides Phenix. Rejets et effluents actifs, et irradiations
du personnel sur deux ans d'exploitation industrielle.
p. 589-596 in: Nuclear Power and its Fuel Cycle, Vol.
IV. Proceedings of an International Conference,
Salzburg, May 1977. IAEA, Vienna, 1978.
Martin, A. Occupational radiation exposure in LWRs
increasing. Nucl. Eng. Int. 22: 32-34 (1977).
Meyer, F. and H.J. Schroeder. Radiation Protection
during the first refuelling shutdown of unit A of Biblis
nuclear power station. Kerntechnik 19: 117-121 (1977).
MacDonald, J.A. Minimising occupational radiation
exposure in nuclear power plants. Power 120: 44-47(1976).
Marko, A.M. Communication (1979).
Moseley, R.D. Communication (1979).
Miles, M.E. and W.R. Kindley. Occupational radiation
exposure from U.S. Naval nuclear propulsion units andtheir support facilities. NT-79-2 (1979).
Martinez, R.G .. G.H. Cassab, G.G. Ganem et al. Observation on the accidental exposure of a family to asource of cobalt-60. Revista Medica Inst. Mex. Seguro
Social. 3: 14-68 Supplement l (1964). Translated by
F.V. Comas, Oak Ridge Institute of Nuclear Studies.
Maxfield, W.S. and G.H. Porter. Accidental radiation
exposure from iridium-192 camera. p. 459-467 in:Handling of Radiation Accidents. IAEA, Vienna, 1969.
Maruyama, T., K. Nishizawa, Y. Neda et al. Estimatesof population doses and risk estimates from occupational exposures in·Japan, 1978. Part 1: Determinationsof organ or tissue doses and effective dose equivalents.
J. Radial. Res. 22: 182-203 (1981).
Maruyama, T .. K. Nishizawa. Y. Neda et al. Estimatesof population doses and risk estimates from occupational exposures in Japan, 1978. Part 2: Population
doses and risk estimates. J. Radial. Res. 22: 204-225(1981).
Moeller, D.W. and L.C. Sunt. Personnel overexposuresat commercial nuclear power plants (January
1976-June 1980). Nucl. Saf. 22(4): 498-504 (1981).
Moroni, J.P. and A. Biau. Current practice inindividual monitoring. p. 195-201 in: Proceedings ofthe European Seminar on Radiation Protection
Quantities for External Exposure. Harwood Academic
Publishers, 1980.
Nuclear Engineering International. Power Reactors
1979. Volume 24, No. 288 (Supplement), (1979).

Nenot, J.C. A comparative view of the Belgian (1965)
and Italian (1975) accidents: a dosimetric study. Paper
presented at the Medical Basis for Radiation Accident
Preparedness, Oak Ridge, October 1979. (Abstractonly).
Osipcnco, A. Occupational radiation exposure at the0I
Eurochemic reprocessing plant during normal
operation and intervention periods. p. 439-450 in:
Occupational Radiation Exposure in Nuclear Fuel
Cycle Facilities. IAEA, Vienna, 1980.
02
Ohlt:nschlager, L. and H. Schieferdeckcr. Bericht iiber
eine mit Plutonium-239 kontaminierte Riss-Schnittverletzung. Strahlcntherapic 146: 675-684 (1973).
03
Ohlenschlager, L. Removal of a four month old 239Pu
deposit in a puncture wound at the tip of the left
middle finger. p. 485-490 in: Diagnosis and Treatment
of Incorporated Radionuclides. IAEA, Vienna, 1976.
PI
Peck, L.J. Occupational radiation exposure at lightwater cooled power reactors. Annual report 1977.
NUREG-0482 (1979).
P2
Persson, B.A. Occupational radiation exposures at lightwater cooled reactors in Sweden 1971-1978. p. 259-274
in: Occupational Radiation Exposure in Nuclear Fuel
Cycle Facilities. IAEA, Vienna, 1980.
P3
Pretre, S., A. Donath, J. Dutrannois et al. GanzkOrperdosis der beruflich strahlenexponierten Personen in der
Schweiz im Jahre 1976. Eidgenossisches Gesundheitsamt, Bern, 1977.
P4
Pfeiffer, K., H. Bindewald, N. Eichelpasch et al.
Analysis of occupational radiation exposure in BWRs
built by Kraftwerk Union and its implications for thedesign of present and future power plants. p. 159 in:Radiation Protection in Nuclear Power Plants and theFuel Cycle, Vol. I. Proceedings of a BNES Conference,
Bristol, 1978. BNES, London, 1978.
PS
Pepper, R.B. and A. Short. CEGB nuclear power
stations: radioactive waste discharges, associatedenvironmental monitoring and personal radiation
doses during 1975. NHS/RI37/76 (1976).
P6
Parker, the Hon. Mr. Justice. The Windscale Inquiry.
Her Majesty's Stationery Office (HMSO), London,
1978.
P7
Pretre, S .. A. Donath, J. Dutrannois et al. Strahlenbelastung und Dosimetrie der beruflich strahlenexponierten Personen in der Schweiz im Kalenderjahr 1977.
EidgenOssisches Gesundheitsamt, Bern, 1978.
P8
Pretre, S., A. Donath, J. Dutrannois et al. Strahlenbelastung und Dosimetrie der beruflich strahlenexponierten Personen in der Schweiz im Kalenderjahr 1978.
EidgenOssisches Gesundheitsamt, Bern, 1979.
P9
Pellerin, P. Communication (1981).
PIO
Philipp, G., H. Pfister and H. Pauly. Occupational dosefrom natural radionuclides in phosphate fertilizers.
Radial. Environ. Biophys. 16: 143-156 (1979).
PI I
Peterson, D.F. Neutron dose estimates in the SL-1
accident. Health Phys. 9: 231-232 (1963).
P12Peterson, D.F. Rapid estimation of fast neutron doses
following radiation exposure in criticality accidents:
the S32 (n, p) p32 reaction in body hair. p. 217-233 in:
Personnel Dosimetry for Radiation Accidents. IAEA,
Vienna, 1965.
P13
Purrott, R.J., G.W. Dolphin, D.C. Lloyd et al. The
study of chromosome aberration yield in human
lymphocytes as an indicator of radiation dose. II: A
review of cases investigated: 1970-71. NRPB-R5(1972).
P14
Purrott, RJ., D.C. Lloyd, J.S. Prosser et al. The study ofchromosome aberration yield in human lymphocytes as
an indicator of radiation dose. V: A review of cases
investigated: 1974. NRPB-R35 (1975).
P15
Purrott, R.J., D.C. Lloyd, G.W. Dolphin et al. The
study of chromosome aberration yield in human
lymphocytes as an indicator of radiation dose. 111: A
review of cases investigated: 1971-72. NRPB-RlO(1973).
P16
Preston, RJ., J.G. Brewen and N. Gengozian. Persistence of radiation induced chromosome aberrations inmarmoset and man. Radial. Res. 60: 516-524 (1974).
N2

421

P17

Purrott, R.J., D.C. Lloyd, J.S. Prosser et al. The study ofchromosome aberration yield in human lymphocytes as
an indicator of radiation dose. IV: A Review of cases
investigated: 1973. NRPB-R23 (1974).
PI 8 Purrott, R.J., D.C. Lloyd, .I.S. Prosser et al. The study ofchromosome aberrntion yield in human lymphocytes as
an indicator of radiation dose. VJ: A review of cases
investigated: 1975. NRPB-R41 (1976).
P19
Phillips, fl.G. Accidental over-exposure from dental
x-ray equipment. Radio!. Prot. Bull. 16: 21-22 (1976).
P20
Palacios, E., J.M. Campos and A. Curti. Dosis debidas
a la exposicion ocupacional en la Comision Nacionalde Energia Atomica en el periodo 1977-1980. CNEA
NT 11/81 (1981).
RI
Richardson, H.P. Radiation hazards in uranium mining-a perspective. p. 45-54 in: Surveillance of RadonMonitoring. Proceedings of the Specialist Meeting on
Personal Dosimetry and Area Monitoring Suitable forRadon and Daughter Products, Paris, 1978.
NEA/OECD (1979).
R2
Reissland, J.A. and S.C. Darby. Collective doses in the
UK. p. 75-84 in: Occupational Radiation Exposure in
Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facilities. IAEA, Vienna, 1980.
R3
Rodgers. R.C., G.F. Caruthers, J.P. Donohue et al.
Occupational exposure at Millstone. p. 185-191 in:Radiation Protection in Nuclear Power Plants and theFuel Cycle. Proceedings of a BNES Conference,
Bristol, 1978. BNES, London, 1979.
R4
Renner, H. and O.H. Andree. Health physics
experience with the nuclear merchant ship "OttoHahn". p. 715-725 in: Proceedings of a Symposium on
the Safety of Nuclear Ships, Hamburg, December 1977.
OECD (1978).
R5
Rossi, E.C., A.A. Thorngate and F.C. Larson. Acuteradiation syndrome caused by accidental exposure tocoball-60. J. Lab. Clin. Med. 59: 655-666 (1962}.
R6
Romanova, I.N. Radiation hygienic estimation ofworking conditions in neutron borehole-logging in
geological organizations (illustrated by the USSR
geophysical expeditions). Synopsis of thesis. Leningrad
LIRH (1980).
St
Schreiter, W., C. Babenzien, W.R. Rossbander et al.
Radiation exposure of the staff of nuclear power plantsof the German Democratic Republic. p. 245-258 in:
Occupational Radiation Exposure in Nuclear Fuel
Cycle Facilities. IAEA, Vienna, 1980.
S2
Samuel, T. Doses individuels et collectives dans lescentrales nucleaires de Beznau. p. 87-94 in: Workshop
on provisions taken at design and during operation to
reduce occupational exposure at LWRs. SocieteFran~ise de Radioprotection, Fontenay-aux-Roses(1979).
S3
Sya. C.L., L.T. Gucwa and W.H. Rogers. Occupationalradiation exposure review at Georgia Power
Company's Hatch nuclear plant. p. 341-350 in:
Occupational Radiation Exposure in Nuclear Fuel
Cycle Facilities. IAEA, Vienna, 1980.
S4
Statistical Office of the European Communities.
Operation of nuclear power stations during 1978. CEC(1979).
SS
Schuller, W.F.J. Radiation exposure of the WAK staff
during seven years of operation. p. 451-462 in: Occupational Radiation Exposure in Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facilities. IAEA, Vienna, 1980.
S6
Smathers, J.B., R.G. Graves, P.S. Sandel et al.
Radiation dose received by TAMUEC neutron therapy
staff. Health Phys. 35: 271-277 (1978).
S7
Shapiro, J. Exposure of airport workers to radiationfrom shipments of radioactive materials-a review ofstudies conducted at six major airports. NUREG-0154( 1977).
S8
Sensintaffar, E.L., C.E. Moss and W.H. Parr.
Documented personnel exposure from airport baggage
inspection systems. DHEW/NIOSH-77-105 (1976).
S 1O Stratton, W.R. A review of criticality accidents.
p. 163-205 in: Progress in Nuclear Energy. Series IV:
Technology, Engineering and Safety. Vol. 3 (C.M.
Nicholls, ed.) Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1960.

422

S 1I

S 12
Sl3
S14
SIS
S16

S17
S18
S19
S20
S21

T1
T2
T3
UI

U2

U3

U4
US
U6

U7

U8

U9

Shipman, T.L., C.C. Lushbaugh, D.F. Peterson et al.
Acute radiation death resulting from an accidental
nuclear critical excursion. J. Occup. Med. Special
Supplement 3: 146-192 (1961).
Scholicld, G.B., H. Howells, F. Ward et al. Assessmentand management of a plutonium contaminated woundcase, Health Phys. 26: 541-554 (1974).
Sanders, S.M. Excretion of241Am and 224Cm following
two cases of accidental inhalation. Health Phys. 27:
359-365 (1974).
Steidley, K.D. A 60Co hot cell accident. Health Phys.
31: 382-385 (1976).
Steidley, K.D .. G.S. Zcik and R. Ouellette. AnotherCo-60 hot cell accident. Health Phys. 36: 437-441(1979).
Schneider, G.J., B. Chone and T. Blonnigcn. Chromosomal aberrations in a radiation accident dosimetricand hematological aspects. Radiat. Res. 40: 613-617( 1969).
Service Central de protection contre les Rayonnernents
ionisants. ·Rapport d'activite 1978.
Specht, R.P. and A. Brodsky. Log-normal distributionsof occupational exposure to medical personnel. HealthPhys. 31: 160--163 (1976).
Swindon, T.N. and N.D. Morris. Personal monitoring
and assessment of doses received by radiation workers.
ARL/TR-035 (1981).
Sagell, H. Ein lehrreicher Strahlenunfall. Arbeitsmed.
Sozialrned. Pr!iventivmed. 24 (1975).
Stieve, F.E. Erfahrungen mit bisherigen s'trahlenunfallen-Ursachen, AbHiufe, Gegenma13nahmen. Strahlenschutz in Forschung und Praxis, Band XXI: 80--108(1980).
Taylor, F.E. and G.A.M. Webb. Radiation exposure of
the U.K. population. NRPB-R77 (1978).
Tse, A.N. Measurement of radiation exposure received
by night attendants from shipments of radio;ictive
material. NR-DES-0001 (1976).
Thoma. G.E. and N. Wald. The diagnosis andmanagement of accidental radiation injury. J. Occup.
Med. 1: 421-447 (1959).
United Nations. Report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation.
Official records of the General Assembly, Seventeenth
Session, Supplement No. 13 (A/5216). New York, 1962.
United Nations. Report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation to
the General Assembly, with annexes. Volume I: Levels,
Volume II: Effects. United Nations publication, Sales
No.E.72.IX.17 and 18. New York, 1972.
United Nations. Sources and Effects of Ionizing
Radiation. United Nations Scientific Committee on the
Effects of Atomic Radiation 1977 report to the General
Assembly, with annexes. United Nations publication,
Sales No.E.77. IX.I. New York, 1977.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Ninthannual occupational radiation exposure report, 1976.
NUREG-0322 (1977).
United Kingdom Health and Safety Executive. Healthand safety nuclear establishments 1975-1976.-HMSO,
London, 1978.
Untervossbeck. H. and H. Weber. Occupational
exposure to the personnel in nuclear power plants withpressurized water reactors built by Kraftwerk Union. p.
167-175 in: Radiation Protection in Nuclear Power
Plants and the Fuel Cycle, Vol. I. Proceedings of a
BNES Conference, Bristol, 1978. BNES, London, 1979.
United States Energy Research and Development
Administration. Seventh annual report of radiation
exposures for AEC and AEC contractor employees
1974. ERDA-76/ll9 (1976).
United States Energy Research and Development
Administration. ERDA Eighth Annual Report ofRadiation Exposure for ERDA and ERDA Contractor
Employees, 1975. ERDA 77-29 (1977).
United States Department of Energy. Ninth annual
report of radiation exposures for DOE and DOE
contractor employees 1976. DOE/EV-0011/9 (1978).

U 10

U 11

United States Atomic Energy Commission . Sixth
annual report of the operation of the U.S. Atomic
Energy Commission's centralised ionising radiation
exposure records and reports system . W ASH-1350-R6
l 1974).
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Reportto Congress on nbnormal occurrences April-June 1978.
NUREG-0090 Vol. I, No. 2 (1978).

U 12

United States Atomic Energy Commission. Operational
accidents anu
rndiation
exposureexperience.
WASH-1192 (197.'i).

U 13

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Reportto Congress on abnormal occurrences. OctoberDecember 1976. NUREG-0090-6 (1977).

U 14

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Reportto Congress on abnormal occurrences, April-June
1976. NUREG-0090-4 (1976).

U 15

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Reportto Congress on abnormal occurrences. OctoberDecember 1977. NUREG-0090-10 (1978).

U16

United Kingdom Health and Safety Executive. Healthand Safety: Nuclear Establishments 1977-1978.
HMSO, London, 1979.

U17

Uniced States Department of Energy. Tenth annual
report of radiation exposures for DOE and DOE
contractor employees 1977. DOE/EV-0066/10 (1979).

UIS

United States Department of Energy. Eleventh annual
report of radiation exposures for DOE and DOE
contractor employees 1978. DOE/EV-0066/11 ( 1980).

U19

United States Department of Energy. Twelfth annual
report of radiation exposures for DOE and DOE
contractor employees 1979. DOE/EV-0066/12 (1980).
Verna, B.J. Radiation exposure and protection
problems in nuclear power plants-U.S. overview. p.
288-299 in : Nuclear Reactor Shielding. (R.W. Roussin,
L.S. Abbott and D.E. Bartine, ed.). Science Press,
l'rincctown, 1977.
Villforth, J .C. Communication ( 1979).
Vodopick, H. and G.A. Andrews. Accidental radiation
exposure. Arch. Environ. Health 28: 53-56 (1974).
Weng, P.S. and C.L. Wang. An investigation of occurational exposure in Taiwan, 1973-1975. Health l'hys. 31 :513-516(1976).
Whalen, R.P. and S. Davies. Americium contamination
incident in a New York State health department laboratory. Radiat. Data Rep. 13: 249-253 (1972).
Yalcintas, M.G. and H. Ozer. An accident during thetransfer of a 60Co therapy source. Abstract of paper
presented at 22 annual meeting of the Health Physics
Society. Health Phys. 33: 675-676 (1977).
Yeh, K-Y., N. Tien, B-Y Chiang et al. 14 years
follow-up of 4 cases of acute radiation sickness. Paper
presented at the 6th International Congress ofRadiation Research. Tokyo, May 1979. (Abstract only).

V1

V2
VJ
W2

W3

Yl

Y2

back

to
first page423