International Commission on
Radiological Protection2012 Annual Reportwww.icrp.org

:On the cover: Translations of ICRP Publications.

ICRP 2012 Annual Report
ICRP reference 4833-8730-1908
2013-07-29© 2013 ICRPTable of Contents
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................ i
Chair’s Foreword ....................................................................................................................................... iii
The International Commission on Radiological Protection .................................................................. 1
Structure .................................................................................................................................................. 1
Membership ............................................................................................................................................ 2
The Work of ICRP .................................................................................................................................. 2
The Programme of Work of ICRP and Its Committees ........................................................................ 4
Main Commission .................................................................................................................................. 4
Scientific Secretariat .............................................................................................................................. 7
Committee 1 (Radiation Effects) .......................................................................................................... 8
Committee 2 (Doses from Radiation Exposures)............................................................................ 11
Committee 3 (Protection in Medicine)............................................................................................... 15
Committee 4 (Application of the Commission’s Recommendations) ........................................... 19
Committee 5 (Protection of the Environment) ................................................................................. 24
Response to the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Accident ........................................ 27
ICRP Publications in 2012 ...................................................................................................................... 31
Publication 116: Conversion Coefficients for Radiological Protection Quantities for External
Radiation Exposures ........................................................................................................................... 32
Publication 117: Radiological Protection in Fluoroscopically Guided Procedures outside the
Imaging Department ............................................................................................................................ 33
Publication 118: ICRP Statement on Tissue Reactions / Early and Late Effects of Radiation in
Normal Tissues and Organs – Threshold Doses for Tissue Reactions in a Radiation
Protection Context ............................................................................................................................... 34
Publication 119: Compendium of Dose Coefficients based on ICRP Publication 60 ................ 35
Proceedings of the First ICRP Symposium on the International System of RadiologicalProtection .............................................................................................................................................. 36
Publication 120: Radiological Protection in Cardiology.................................................................. 36
Publication 121: Radiological Protection in Paediatric Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology ...... 37
Obtaining ICRP Publications .................................................................................................................. 39i

ICRP Membership as of December 31, 2012 ...................................................................................... 40
Main Commission ................................................................................................................................ 40
Scientific Secretariat ............................................................................................................................ 40
Committee 1 (Radiation Effects) ........................................................................................................ 40
Committee 2 (Doses from Radiation Exposures)............................................................................ 40
Committee 3 (Protection in Medicine)............................................................................................... 41
Committee 4 (Application of the Commission’s Recommendations) ........................................... 41
Committee 5 (Protection of the Environment) ................................................................................. 41
Summary Financial Information 2008-2012 ......................................................................................... 42
Contact Information .................................................................................................................................. 44ii

Chair’s Foreword
2012 was the first full year for implementation of the
ICRP Strategic Plan 2011-2017 finalised in late 2011.
Significant progress in many areas has already been
made, as outlined in the section of this annual report
dedicated to the programme of work of the ICRP
Main Commission.
ICRP is a registered charity relying on voluntary
contributions and has limited financial reserves. To
continue its proposed initiatives, ICRP will requireconsiderably more resources than are currently
available. However, progress has also been made inthis area, having retained a professional fund raising
firm with whom we will first undertake a feasibility
and planning process, to help us decide whether,and if so how, ICRP might best raise the funds
needed to fulfil its mandate.
2012 was also the first time that the ICRP Main Commission met in Japan since 1981. The
meeting was held in Fukushima City in the autumn. Most important were the opportunities to
speak to people in the area about how they are dealing with the aftermath of the Fukushima
Daiichi nuclear power plant accident. The Main Commission members were able to visit a
facility where bags of rice were being measured for caesium content, speak to a persimmon
farmer in his field about the fate of his crops, and see a home where soil around the dwelling
was being removed as part of the decontamination works. Meetings were held with local officials
and other representatives to discuss various aspects of radiological protection, and the day-today challenges faced by the citizens of Fukushima. This first-hand experience left a lasting
impression, and is sure to influence the recommendations of ICRP related to post-accident
recovery. It also made very clear the need to do everything that is reasonably possible to avoid
major releases of radionuclides into the environment in the future.
A key initiative of the Main Commission came to a close in 2012. The final report of Task Group84 on Initial Lessons Learned from the NPP Accident in Japan vis-à-vis the ICRP System ofRadiological Protection was presented during the meeting in Fukushima City, and a summary
report released through the website shortly thereafter. The results of this project will be aimportant input on the programme of work for ICRP in the coming years, and some new tasks inthe areas identified were already initiated in 2012.
Another important initiative, also related to Fukushima, has been the ICRP Fukushima Dialogue
Initiative. This cooperative initiative serves a dual purpose: to help the people of Japan, and to
gain a deeper insight into the situation to ensure that future recommendations of ICRP on postaccident recovery benefit from this experience.

iii

Of special note in 2012 was the awarding of the Gold Medal for Radiation Protection to Keith
Eckerman, a long-standing member of ICRP Committee 2. This medal is awarded once every
four years by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences to a person who has made a highly
valuable contribution to international radiation protection work during the preceding 10-year
period.
Seven ICRP publications were produced in 2012, a record number in a single year for the
Annals of the ICRP. Three were related to radiological protection in medicine: Publication 117
on fluoroscopically guided procedures outside the imaging department, Publication 120 on
cardiology, and Publication 121 on paediatric diagnostic and interventional radiology. Two were
publications of dose coefficients: one, Publication 119, is a freely downloadable compendium ofcoefficients based on Publication 60, to serve as a comprehensive reference until coefficients
based on Publication 103 are published; the other, Publication 116, contains the first of thesenewer coefficients, specifically those for external exposures.
Publication 118 is of particular note as it contains an extensive assessment of the current stateof knowledge on tissue reactions, which led to the ICRP Statement on Tissue Reactions,published under the same cover. This statement contains an important new recommendation on
the occupational dose limit for exposure to the lens of the eye which has already been adopted
by the International Atomic Energy Agency and the European Commission in their basic safety
standards.
The seventh publication was the Proceedings of the First ICRP Symposium on the International
System of Radiological Protection. The success of this event has led to preparations for the 2nd
International Symposium on the System of Radiological Protection, which will be held in Abu
Dhabi, October 22-24, 2013. Our series of international symposia have become the cornerstoneof our efforts to better engage with the wider radiological protection community. It is an
opportunity to listen, to speak, and to build relationships. I encourage all radiological protection
professionals to support this effort by joining us in Abu Dhabi in October 2013.

Dr Claire Cousins
ICRP Chairiv

ICRP Annual Report 2012

The International Commission on Radiological Protection
Since 1928, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) has successfully
developed the System of Radiological Protection as the basis for radiological protection
standards, legislation, guidance, programmes and practice worldwide.
ICRP is a charity established to provide independent recommendations and guidance onradiological protection for the public benefit.
In preparing its recommendations, ICRP considers advances in scientific knowledge, evolvingsocial values, and practical experience. Formulating standards, regulations, and codes ofpractice is the responsibility of other national and international organisations.
The objective of the work of ICRP is to contribute to an appropriate level of protection
against the detrimental effects of ionising radiation exposure without unduly limiting thebenefits associated with the use of radiation.
ICRP provides recommendations and guidance on protection against risks associated with
exposure to ionising radiation from artificial sources widely used in medicine, general industry
and nuclear enterprises, and from naturally occurring sources. These recommendations are
published on behalf of the ICRP in the Annals of the ICRP. Each issue provides in-depth
coverage of a specific subject area.

Structure
ICRP comprises the Main Commission, Scientific Secretariat; five standing Committees on:
Radiation Effects, Doses from Radiation Exposure, Protection in Medicine, Application of ICRP
Recommendations, and Protection of the Environment; and Task Groups established as needed
to undertake specific work.

1

ICRP Annual Report 2012

The structure of ICRPThis multi-tier structure provides a rigorous quality management system of peer review for the
production of ICRP publications. The work of Task Groups is reviewed by the relevantCommittee(s), and then by the Main Commission. Before draft ICRP reports are approved for
publication, they are regularly circulated to a number of bodies and individual experts, andposted for public consultation through the ICRP web site.

Membership
Members come from over 30 countries on six continents and from all disciplines relevant toradiological protection. Selected on the basis of their recognised competence and experience,
members are volunteers invited to join ICRP as independent experts for four year terms. The
current period runs from 2009 July 1st to 2013 June 30th.

The Work of ICRPICRP recommendations are based on scientific knowledge and expert judgement. Scientificdata, such as those concerning health risks attributable to radiation exposure, are a necessary
prerequisite, but philosophical and ethical considerations are similarly necessary, through whichsocietal and economic aspects of protection are considered. All of those concerned withradiological protection have to make value judgements about the relative importance of different
kinds of risk and about the balancing of risks and benefits. In this, radiological protection is nodifferent from other fields concerned with the control of hazards.
ICRP has published over one hundred publications on all aspects of radiological protection.
Most address a particular area, but a handful of publications, the fundamental recommendations,describe the overall system of radiological protection.

2

ICRP Annual Report 2012

ICRP offers its recommendations to regulatory and advisory agencies and provides advice
intended to be of help to management and professional staff with responsibilities for radiologicalprotection. Legislation in most countries adheres closely to ICRP recommendations. The
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) International Basic Safety Standards for Protection
against Ionizing Radiation and for the Safety of Radiation Sources is based heavily on ICRP
recommendations, and the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention 115, Radiation
Protection Convention, General Observation 1992, refers specifically to the recommendations of
ICRP. ICRP recommendations form the basis of radiological protection standards, regulations,programmes, and practice worldwide.

The ICRP System of Radiological Protection forms the basis of radiological protection standards,
regulations, programmes and practice world-wide

3

ICRP Annual Report 2012

The Programme of Work of ICRP and Its Committees
Main Commission
The Main Commission consists of the Chair, up to twelve other members, andthe Scientific Secretary1. The Main Commission is the governing body, setting
the policy and programme of work, and approving all official publications.

The Main Commission in Fukushima, Japan, October 2012
The primary objective of ICRP, set out in its constitution, is to advance for the public benefit
the science of Radiological Protection, in particular by providing recommendations andguidance on all aspects of radiation protection.
In 2011, ICRP developed a Strategic Plan for 2011-2017 which lays out six objectives and fiveinitiatives for the period all aimed at fulfilling the primary objective of ICRP:OBJECTIVES




1

Improved dissemination of ICRP recommendations
Scientific work focused on improving the System of Radiological Protection
Raised awareness of radiological protection in medicine
Protection of the environment fully integrated into the System of Radiological Protection

The Scientific Secretary is an integral part of the Main Commission, but not formally a member, and therefore isappointed rather than elected, has no voting privileges, and is not a trustee of ICRP as a Registered Charity.

4

ICRP Annual Report 2012



Positive relationships with organisations interested in radiological protection
Best practices applied to the governance of ICRPINITIATIVES






Making ICRP publications available at low or no cost
Recommending research needed to strengthen the System of Radiological Protection
Holding regular ICRP symposia
Increasing ICRP participation in radiological protection and other forums
Openly seeking nominations for new members

In 2012, progress was made on several of these objectives and initiatives e.g.:











Task Group 82 on application of the ICRP's Approach to Environmental Protection underDifferent Exposure Situations, made significant headway, anticipating publication of areport in 2013
A new policy on formal relations was developed to enable more effective and efficient
relations with a broader group of organisations with an interest in radiological protection
Thanks to financial support from the European Commission, Publication 119
Compendium of Dose Coefficients based on ICRP Publication 60 was made available
for free download
Building on the success of ICRP 2011, in Bethesda, USA, plans to hold more ICRP
international symposia were advanced, with ICRP 2013 planned for October 2013 in Abu
Dhabi, and initial discussions held with potential hosts for ICRP 2015
ICRP Committee 3 members made more than 30 presentations on radiologicalprotection in medicine at a variety of conferences, including at the first ever Professional
Challenges session organised jointly by ICRP and the European Society of Radiology at
the 2012 European Congress of Radiology, and an invited presentation at the IAEA
International Conference on Radiation Protection in Medicine.
An open call for nominations for Committee membership for the next term (July 1, 2013
to June 30, 2017) was held

These initiatives cannot be fully implemented with current funding. Therefore, in 2012 ICRP
retained the services of a fund raising consulting firm to conduct a fund raising planning
exercise. This exercise, which continued into 2013, is designed to assess the feasibility oflaunching a fund raising campaign.
Task Group 84 on Initial Lessons Learned from the NPP Accident in Japan vis-à-vis the
ICRP System of Radiological Protection
Chair: Abel Julio González
The final report of this Task Group was accepted by the ICRP Main Commission on October 31,
2012 during the ICRP Main Commission meeting held in Fukushima City, Japan. Rather thantrying to identify 'lessons learned', the summary report, released on the ICRP website on

5

ICRP Annual Report 2012

November 22, 2012, identifies 18 issues and makes recommendations to the Commission that
action should be taken by the Commission to ensure that:












radiation risk coefficients of potential health effects be properly interpreted;limitations of attributing radiation effects following low exposures be understood;
confusion on protection quantities and units be resolved;
potential hazard from the intake of radionuclides into the body be properly interpreted;
rescuers and volunteers be protected with an ad hoc system;
clear recommendations on crisis management, medical care, recovery, and rehabilitation beavailable;
recommendations on public protection levels and related issues be consistent andunderstood;
updated recommendations on public monitoring policy be available;
tolerable contamination levels for consumer products, rubble and residues be defined;
strategies for mitigating psychological consequences arising from radiological accidents besought; and,failures in fostering information sharing on radiological protection policy after an accident be
addressed with recommendations to minimize such communication lapses.

The report does not necessarily reflect the opinions of ICRP, but serves as an important input
into the identification and prioritisation of actions. ICRP is already taking action based on someof the issues identified and recommendations made, and these issues and recommendations
will continue to influence the ICRP programme of work for years to come.
The Task Group compiled a considerable amount of detailed information not reflected in thesummary report. The Main Commission has encouraged the members of the Task Group to
publish this information in the open literature.

6

ICRP Annual Report 2012

Scientific Secretariat
ICRP operates its Scientific Secretariat in Ottawa, Canada, in an office provided as an in-kind
contribution from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. The seat of ICRP is in the United
Kingdom where ICRP is an independent Registered Charity.

Christopher Clement
Scientific Secretary

Lynn Lemaire
Executive AssistantMichiya Sasaki
Assistant Secretary

InternToshihiro Higuchi
Historian (p/t)

Structure of the ICRP Scientific Secretariat
The Scientific Secretariat includes two full-time paid employees: Scientific Secretary Christopher
Clement, and Executive Assistant Lynn Lemaire. The position of Assistant Secretary is filled ona multi-year term basis by Michiya Sasaki, a cost-free staff loan from the Central ResearchInstitute of Electric Power Industry of Japan (CRIEPI), and the position of intern is filled on afour-month rotating basis through the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission co-op student
program. The ICRP Historian is a part-time position filled on a voluntary basis by Toshihiro
Higuchi.
The Scientific Secretariat manages the daily business of ICRP, including responding to regularqueries regarding the work of ICRP, publication of the Annals of the ICRP, organising meetingsof the Main Commission and the biennial meetings of the Main Commission and Committees,
supporting Committee and Task Group meetings, managing correspondence, maintaining the
ICRP archives, and keeping business and financial records.
In addition, the Scientific Secretary participates in all Main Commission meetings; is directly
involved in aspects of the scientific and policy work of ICRP; and often represents ICRP atinternational meetings.

7

ICRP Annual Report 2012

Committee 1 (Radiation Effects)
Committee 1 assesses scientific knowledge on radiation risk, examining possible
implications on the System of Radiological Protection.

ICRP Committee 1 in Helsinki, Finland, September 2012
Committee 1 addresses issues of tissue reactions, risks of cancer and heritable diseases,
radiation dose responses, effects of dose-rate and radiation quality. In addition, Committee 1
reviews data on effects in the embryo/fetus and genetic factors in radiation response, as well as
uncertainties in providing judgments on radiation-induced health effects. The Committee
advises the Main Commission on the biological basis of radiation-induced health effects andhow epidemiological, experimental and theoretical data can be combined to make quantitative
judgments on health risks to humans. The emphasis is on low radiation doses, in the form of
detriment-adjusted nominal risk coefficients, where there are considerable uncertainties in boththe biology and epidemiology. Furthermore, Committee 1 reviews recently published data fromradiation epidemiology studies and new data on molecular and cellular effects of ionizing
radiations that are pertinent to updating the basis for the 2007 Recommendations found in
Publication 103. This work is undertaken through several Task Groups as described below.
Committee 1 members have expertise in epidemiology, physics, statistics, medical sciences,animal sciences, molecular and cellular biology, biophysics, genetics, and ’omics technologies.
Task Group 63: Tissue Reactions and Other Non-cancer Effects of Radiation
Chair: Fiona Stewart
This Task Group revisited the basis and the new data for establishing revised threshold doses
for non-cancer effects and produced Publication 118, published in 2012. This report provides areview of early and late effects of radiation in normal tissues and organs and updates estimatesof ‘practical’ threshold doses for tissue injury defined at the level of 1% incidence. The organsystems comprise the hematopoietic, immune, reproductive, circulatory, respiratory,
musculoskeletal, endocrine, and nervous systems; the digestive and urinary tracts; the skin; and8

ICRP Annual Report 2012

the eye. Particular attention was paid to circulatory disease and cataracts because of recent
evidence of higher incidences of injury than expected after lower doses. Most tissues show asparing effect of dose fractionation, so that total doses for a given endpoint are higher if thedose is fractionated rather than when given as a single dose. However, for reactions
manifesting very late after low total doses, particularly for cataracts and circulatory disease, itappears that the rate of dose delivery does not modify the low incidence. For these two tissues,a threshold dose of 0.5 Gy was proposed for practical purposes, irrespective of the dose rate.
Future studies may modify this judgment at a later date.
Task Group 64: Alpha Emitters
Chair: Margot Tirmarche
This Task Group produced Publication 115 on lung cancer risk from radon and is now
considering the cancer risks for alpha emitters other than radon. They will use the recently
published risk coefficients of lung cancer for a life-long risk calculation, in order to compare risk
from plutonium with that from radon and also from external exposure(s). Selection of theappropriate model systems, accounting for differences between males and females, as well assmokers and non-smokers is being undertaken.
Task Group 75: Stem Cell Radiobiology
Chairs: Ohtsura Niwa and Jolyon Hendry
This Task Group was established in 2007 to review the current state of knowledge of stem cellbiology and radiobiology and the potential impact of stem cell effects on radiation cancer risks.
There has been an enormous increase in knowledge of stem cell biology in the past five years
although less on radiation effects. The Task Group has reviewed the literature on stem cellradiobiology in relation to cancer risk estimation and establishing how knowledge of stem cell
response can address uncertainties in risk estimation. The completion of the report was delayed
mid-course, mainly by the March 2011 events in Japan but also by the sheer volume of
information that the report has evaluated. Drafts of the report have been circulated and the text
modified as appropriate in light of the reviewers comments.
Working Party on Dose and Dose Rate Effectiveness Factor
Chair: Werner Rühm
Pending approval by the Main Commission at the spring 2013 meeting, a working party onradiation risk inference at low dose and low dose rate exposure for radiation protection
purposes will be constituted. The “Terms of Reference” for this working party have been
proposed based on developments in the field and in conjunction with the Main Commission.
Working Party on Genetic Components of Radiation Risk
Proposed Chair: Ranajit Chakraborty
Pending approval by the Main commission at the spring 2013 meeting a working party to update
cancer susceptibility and radiation risk in the context of cancer being a multifactorial disease,

9ICRP Annual Report 2012

and any potential impact on risk estimates will be constituted. Inherent in the proposed analysis
is the rationale to examine the molecular basis of the contributions of bystander effects,
genomic instability, epigenetics and inter-individual variation in radiation sensitivity and how
these might impact risk evaluation. A more specific “Terms of Reference” for this working party
will be developed based on developments in the field and in conjunction with the Main
Commission.
Other Review Activities
Committee 1 continues to review the recent literature on a number of topics related to the 2007
Recommendations in Publication 103:










10

Radiation epidemiology
Tissue reactions and non-cancer effects
Individual susceptibility and its implications for radiation protection.
Dosimetry and exposureRadiobiology
Heritable effects
Epigenetics
DNA Repair and non-targeted effects
Contributions of “systems biology” type research on radiation protection standards

ICRP Annual Report 2012

Committee 2 (Doses from Radiation Exposures)
Committee 2 develops reference models and data, including dose coefficients,
for the assessment of exposure to radiation.

ICRP Committee 2 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, September 2012
ICRP Committee 2 has the responsibility for providing the dosimetric data that are central to theoperation of the system of protection recommended by ICRP. Sets of dose coefficients (doseper unit exposure) are calculated to allow users to evaluate equivalent and effective doses forintakes of radionuclides or exposure to external radiation for comparison with dose limits,
constraints and reference levels. Following from the 2007 Recommendations, Committee 2 andits Task Groups embarked on a substantial programme of work to provide new dose coefficientsfor various conditions of radiation exposure.
The methodology being applied in the calculation of doses can be described as state of-the-art,in terms of the biokinetic models used to describe the behaviour of inhaled and ingested
radionuclides and the dosimetric models used to model radiation transport for external andinternal exposures. ICRP is at the forefront of developments in this area and its models areused for scientific as well as protection purposes. Thus, as well as their use in the calculation ofdose coefficients for protection purposes, ICRP models can provide best estimates of organ andtissue absorbed dose for use in epidemiological studies and assessments of risk to individuals.
Furthermore, it is important that methodology is continually refined and improved to takeaccount of scientific developments and also in response to suggestions that ICRP dose
assessments underestimate risks, particularly for internal exposures.
The Committee continues to work closely with the International Commission on Radiation Units
and Measurements (ICRU) and issues joint reports as appropriate. The Committee is also
concerned with conceptual aspects of radiation protection quantities and leads a Task Group on

11

ICRP Annual Report 2012

considerations of the applicability of the protection quantities, in particular effective dose, andproposals for alternatives where assessments of individual risk are required, for example inmedical radiological procedures. Committee members support the work of the other ICRP
Committees, providing members for Task Groups of Committees 1, 3 and 5.
A new initiative by the Committee, of relevance to emergency exposure situations including theassessment of doses following the Fukushima accident, is consideration of a new Task Groupto provide dose coefficients for exposure of members of the public to sources of externalradiation. The proposal is to provide dose coefficients calculated using ICRP reference
phantoms for various situations of environmental exposure including whole body irradiation froma volume source in air, representing a radioactive cloud, a plane source on the ground
representing fresh deposition of radioactive fall-out, and uniformly distributed sources in the
ground.
Task Group 4: Dose Calculations (DOCAL)
Chair: Wesley Bolch
DOCAL is responsible for developing methods, computational models, and associatedreference data for the calculation of absorbed, equivalent, and effective doses from both
external and internal sources of radiation. Two major publications were completed in 2012 fromthe DOCAL Task Group, Publication 116 – Conversion Coefficients for Radiological Protection
Quantities for External Radiation Exposure and Publication 119 – Compendium of Dose
Coefficients based on ICRP Publication 60.
Publication 116 supersedes Publication 74 and provides an extensive array of organ andeffective dose coefficients for a broad range of particle types – photons, electrons, positrons,
neutrons, protons, pions, muons, and helium ions – and over an extended range of kinetic
energies of interest in occupational, environmental, aircrew, and astronaut exposure scenarios.
These coefficients were derived using the Publication 110 Adult Reference Phantoms andPublication 103 radiation and tissues weighting factors. Annexes to Publication 116 provide
detailed descriptions of the complex dosimetry of skeletal tissues and approaches taken to thecalculation of doses to the skin and lens of the eye.
Publication 119 Compendium of Dose Coefficients based on ICRP Publication 60 provides acompilation of dose coefficients for intakes of radionuclides and external exposures by workers
and members of the public taken from Publications 68, 72, and 74, and thus provides a single
ICRP citation for ICRP reference dose coefficients pending completion of new coefficients
based upon the 2007 Recommendations (Publication 103).
DOCAL is working on a publication to provide datasets of Specific Absorbed Fractions (SAFs)
for radiations emitted from radionuclides retained in body organs and tissues of adults, used in
the calculation of dose coefficients for inhaled and ingested radionuclides. SAFs represent thedeposition of energy in all important organs/tissues (target regions) following emissions fromradionuclides retained in body organs and tissues (source regions). Biokinetic models
developed by the INDOS Task Group (see below) are used in the calculation of radioactive

12

ICRP Annual Report 2012

decays occurring in individual organs and tissues and these data, together with SAFs, allow thecalculation of equivalent dose to organs and tissues and effective dose. The calculation of SAFs
involves Monte Carlo radiation transport of photons, electrons, and neutrons for an extensive
set of source/target organ pairs in both the reference adult male and adult female(Publication 110). Additional work has focused on microCT-based models of electron and alphaparticle dosimetry of skeletal tissues, and revisions to electron and alpha particle dosimetry in
the Publication 66 and Publication 100 models of the human respiratory and alimentary tracts.
The DOCAL work program also includes the completion of reference phantoms and associatedSAFs for children, the developing fetus, and pregnant female.
Task Group 21: Internal Dosimetry (INDOS)
Chair: François Paquet
INDOS is responsible for the development of biokinetic models for the behaviour of inhaled andingested radionuclides. Biokinetic models for individual elements and their radioisotopes areused to calculate the total number of radioactive decays (transformations) occurring within
specific tissues, organs or body regions (source regions) during a given period of time (usuallyto age 70). Dosimetric models are then used to calculate the deposition of energy in allimportant organs/tissues (targets) for emissions in each source region, and hence organ
absorbed and equivalent doses and effective dose.
Modifications made in the 2007 Recommendations (Publication 103) required a revision of alldose coefficients published to date. The work performed by INDOS during 2012 was focussed
on the revision of biokinetic models for the inhalation and ingestion of different chemical formsof radionuclides by workers. Revisions have been made to the Publication 66 human respiratory
tract model and also to many models for the systemic biokinetics of radionuclides absorbed toblood, making them more physiologically realistic representations of uptake and retention inorgans and tissues and of excretion. The models and the biokinetic data on which they arebased will be published in a series of reports which will provide dose coefficients and also data
for the interpretation of bioassay measurements.
The first reports of this series have been submitted for public consultation. The first volume
provides introductory text describing the control of occupational exposures, biokinetic anddosimetric models, monitoring methods and programmes and retrospective dose assessment.
Subsequent reports providing data on individual elements and their radioisotopes, including
biokinetic data, models, dose coefficients and data for bioassay interpretation. The first reports
will be published in 2014.
The INDOS work program includes the updating of biokinetic models for radionuclide ingestion
and inhalation by children, and the transfer of radionuclides to the fetus and to newborn infantsin breast-milk following intakes by the mother.

13

ICRP Annual Report 2012

Task Group 67: Assessment of Radiation Exposure of Astronauts in Space
Chair: Günther Dietze
This Task Group has produced a report on the radiation exposure of astronauts during space
missions. The complex primary cosmic radiation field in space includes a wide range of very
high-energy charged particles, with heavy ions up to high values of Z and secondary particles
produced in nuclear reactions of the primary particles with structural material and equipment in
the space vehicles. Depending on the time present in space, mission doses to astronauts may
be substantially greater than 100 mSv.
The report focuses on providing data on the radiation fields for the assessment of doses toastronauts and describes methods of radiation monitoring, of measuring radiation fieldparameters, and of individual monitoring of astronauts. Particle fluence-to-organ absorbed dosecoefficients for organs and tissues of the human body have been calculated using the
Publication 110 reference phantoms and are given in an Annex. Additional data are presented
comparing measured and calculated doses. The characteristics of the radiation field in space,with its large component of heavy ions, require modification of the radiological protection
quantities to take account of radiation quality rather than use of radiation weighting factors.
Radiation quality factors are given for the main radiation types, calculated using Publication 60
methodology and an alternative methodology proposed by NASA. The report also includes
consideration of operational measures with regard to the assessment of exposures during
space missions. After a public consultation during summer 2012, the report has now been
completed and publication is scheduled for 2013.
Task Group 79: The Use of Effective DoseChair: John Harrison
This Committee 2 led Task Group has members from Committees 1, 3 and 4 as well as external
experts. Experience has shown that ‘effective dose’, introduced and defined by ICRP forradiological protection purposes, in particular for setting exposure limits and in the context of
optimisation, is often used for purposes outside the intended scope of its application, including
the estimation of risk to individuals from medical procedures.
Useful guidance on restrictions on the use of the quantity was provided by Committee 2 inAnnex B to the 2007 Recommendations. This guidance needs to be further expanded, andproposals made for the control of exposures and risk management as well as risk assessment
in situations where ‘effective dose’ is not directly applicable. An important focus of the report will
be medical exposures. Effective dose can be a useful tool for comparisons of, for example,
different diagnostic examinations and interventional procedures, the use of different
technologies for the same medical examinations, and the use of similar technologies andprocedures in different hospitals and countries. However, ‘effective dose’ was not intended forthe assessment of risk to specific individuals, including children.
The Task Group intends to develop a draft report for consultation during 2014.

14

ICRP Annual Report 2012

Committee 3 (Protection in Medicine)Committee 3 develops recommendations and guidance on the protection ofpatients, staff, and the public against radiation exposure in medicine.

ICRP Committee 3 in Vienna, Austria, September 2012
Committee 3 evaluates aspects of radiological protection relevant to medicine with on-going
Task Groups and Working Parties as described below.
Task Group 62: Radiological Protection in Cardiology
Chairs: Donald Miller and Claire Cousins
The results of this Task Group were released in December 2012 as Publication 120.
Task Group 78: Radiological Protection in Fluoroscopically Guided Procedures
Performed outside the Imaging Department
Chair: Madan Rehani
The results of this Task Group were released in July 2012 as Publication 117.

15

ICRP Annual Report 2012

Working Party on Radiological Protection in Paediatric Diagnostic and Interventional
Radiology
Chairs: Pek-Lan Khong and Hans Ringertz
The results of this Task Group were released in December 2012 as Publication 121.
Task Group 87: Radiological Protection in Ion Beam therapy
Chair: Yoshiharu Yonekura
The Task Group is working to provide information necessary for radiation protection in ion beam
radiotherapy, specifically with proton and carbon ions. The Task Group is cooperating with
ICRU. Recommendations on imaging as a quality management plan are included. The Task
Group indicates that cancer risk in long term is an area of research. Dose to the eye lens isbeing considered. The document is at advanced stage for finalization in 2013.
Task Group 85: Practical Radiological Protection Recommendations on Mitigating
Secondary Cancer Risks in Modern Radiation Oncology
Chair: Mario Baeza
The Task Group is dealing with carcinogenic risks with newer therapy technology initially statedto be higher than conventional ones and considering information already provided in a recent
NCRP document. The Task group is looking to produce a short, practical document ofrecommendations for clinical guidance.
Task Group 89: Occupational Radiological Protection in Brachytherapy
Chair: Lawrence Dauer
The Task Group aims at development of clear, concise and valid set of practical
recommendations for clinicians. Since ‘historical' brachytherapy techniques (e.g., radium,cobalt) may still be implemented in some countries, the Task Group is considering addressing
the same.
Task Group 88: Radiological Protection in Cone Beam CT
Chair: Madan Rehani
In view of increasing use of CBCT in recent years and need of recommendations on dosimetricterms, the Task Group is reviewing information available from AAPM and IAEA and having
consultation with ICRU. The document shall include radiological protection issues in diagnostic
CBCT, C-arm CBCT and CBCT in radiotherapy. Short coverage of dental CBCT will also be
included. Staff protection will also be covered in the document. Attention shall be drawn to eyelens dose in dental and cerebral CBCT.

16ICRP Annual Report 2012

Task Group 36: Dose to Patients from Radiopharmaceuticals
Chair: Sören Mattsson
This is a joint Task Group with Committee 2.The Task Group has developed dose coefficientsfor 18F-FET, 18F-FLT, 18F- choline, 11C-raclopride, 18F-fluoride and some corrections in earlier
text in Publication 106 for 99mTc-tetrofosmin and 18F-FDG. These will be available soon for public
consultation.
Working Party on Justification in Medical Uses of Ionizing Radiation
Co-Chairs: Hans Ringertz and Katrine Åhlström Riklund
Task Group 86 on Justification in Imaging of Asymptomatic Individuals with Ionising Radiation
was merged with this working party.
The working party will deal with issue of shared responsibility between radiological medical
practitioner and referring medical practitioner, how the radiology department manages referrals
for unjustified examinations and how to manage individual requests for whole body scanning.
There will be recommendations on following process rather than requirements. Based on a draft
to be received in its next meeting, Committee 3 will consider setting up a Task Group.
Working Party on Occupational Protection Issues in Interventional Procedures(Fluoroscopy Guided)
Chair: Pedro Ortiz- Lopez
This working party will address audience and topics not addressed already in ICRP Publications
85, 117 and 120. This will include RPOs, regulators, dosimetry service providers and in
relatively higher exposure situations. Based on draft to be received in its next meeting,Committee 3 will consider setting up a Task Group.
Working Party on the Radiological Protection in Therapy with Radiopharmaceuticals
Chair: Sören Mattsson
The working party shall consider combinations of the radiopharmaceutical therapy and external
radiotherapies as well as new radionuclides and radiopharmaceuticals where fewer advices areavailable. This is based on need expressed by users. There will also be advice on occupational
protection. Minimum infrastructure to start therapy could also form part of the document. Basedon a draft to be received at its next meeting, Committee 3 will consider setting up a Task Group.
Working Party on Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRLs) for Diagnostic and Interventional
Imaging
Chair: Eliseo Vano
There is clearly a need to expand on the application of the DRL concept to interventional
procedures, nuclear medicine procedures, and other procedures that use more than one

17

ICRP Annual Report 2012

imaging modality (e.g., PET plus CT). There are discussions on using not only a percentile (e.g.,
75th percentile) of the patient dose distributions but a more complete use of the full distribution
to help in the further optimization of radiological protection for imaging procedures using ionizing
radiation. Based on a draft to be received at its next meeting, Committee 3 will consider setting
up a Task Group.
Topics to be explored in 2013


Review existing documents by the IAEA and others on occupational protection issues in
PET/CT and cyclotron use.
Framework for optimization of individual patients.
Dose quantities for display in imaging equipment for suggestions to IEC.
Communication of benefits and radiation risks to medical professionals and public.

Involvement of ICRP Committee 3 in medical conferences
At the European Congress of Radiology (ECR) 2012, a Professional Challenges Sessions wasorganized jointly between European Society of Radiology and the ICRP which was first time in
ECR. Invited presentation on behalf of ICRP was given at the International Conference on
Radiation Protection in Medicine organized by the IAEA on 3-7 Dec 2012. ICRP Committee 3
members made more than 30 presentations in variety of conferences presenting work of ICRP.
European Commission’s meetings of Article 31 group were regularly apprised about ICRPs
work.

18

ICRP Annual Report 2012

Committee 4 (Application of the Commission’s Recommendations)
Committee 4 develops principles and recommendations on radiologicalprotection of people in all exposure situations.

ICRP Committee 4 in Moscow, Russia, September 2012
Committee 4 advises the Main Commission on potential implications, applications, and policy
issues for the System of Radiological Protection from (1) the on-going implementation of thesystem; (2) the underlying ethical basis, scientific information developed by Committee 1, andevolving social norms for protection; and (3) developments in other arenas of protection forhumans and the environment having a bearing on radiological protection. Committee 4 works inconjunction with Committee 3 on issues related to occupational and public exposures in medical
settings, and in conjunction with Committee 5 related to protection of the environment.
Committee 4 also acts as a key point of contact with other international organizations andprofessional societies concerned with protection against ionizing radiation.
During the current 4-year term (2009 – 2013) the work of Committee 4 has been structured
according three priorities:• To develop advice on implementation of the recommendations in Publication 103 and tocontribute to their dissemination i.e. to review and update past publications, and develop
recommendations for the application of the radiological protection principles in particular
exposure situations;

19ICRP Annual Report 2012

• To review the ethical and social values underlying the principles and concepts of thesystem of radiological protection e.g.: precautionary principle, tolerability of risk, equity,
sustainable development;• To enhance the dialogue and cooperation with international organisations andprofessional societies.
In 2012, the Committee kept working through its Task Groups and other activities. It met in
Moscow, Russia, September 24-28, 2012. The meeting was hosted by the Burnasyan Federal
Medical Biophysical Centre (BFMBC). Observers from EC, IAEA, ILO, IRPA, NEA and WHO
were also in attendance.

During the Moscow meeting Committee 4 members met with Angelina Guskova (Sievert Award
2000) and former Main Commission member Leonid Ilyn (In the center).
Committee members also discussed the future programme of work. In addition to updating
Publications 109 and 111, the priorities will be to complete the series of publications underpreparation on existing situations with a publication on contaminated sites from the legacy of
past activities and to develop a Publication on the Ethics of radiological protection.
In addition to reviewing its current programme of work including several draft reports underpreparation, the Committee also discussed the ethical basis of the system of radiologicalprotection and its implementation in emergency and existing exposure situations. A review of20

ICRP Annual Report 2012

the implications of the Fukushima accident for the system of radiological protection benefited
from detailed presentations by Japanese members of the Committee as well as the involvementof several members of the Committee in the ICRP forum for dialogue in Fukushima (see below).
It was agreed that Publications 109 and 111 have been useful for the management of the
Fukushima Daiichi accident. However they should be updated and elaborated in the light of the
return of the experience gained so far in Japan. Particular attention needs to be given to
emergency responders and the transition from the emergency exposure situation to the existing
one and the need to revisit the concept of tolerability of risk in the context of emergency andrecovery situations.
The next meeting of Committee 4 will take place in Abu Dhabi, UAE, in October 2013, in
conjunction with the joint meetings of the Main Commission and other ICRP Committees, aswell as the second ICRP Symposium on the International System of Radiological Protection.
The programme of work of Committee 4 is described below.
Task Group 71: Protection of the Public and Workers in the Use of Ionizing Radiation in
Screening Activities Applied to Persons and Cargo for Security Purposes
Chair: Donald A. Cool
Established by the Main Commission in Suzhou in 2010, the objective of the Task Group was to
examine how the radiological protection principles recommended by ICRP for planned exposure
situations should be interpreted and applied within the context of security screening. This
includes justification, optimization with the use of dose constraints, and the concept of limitationof individual exposure. The Task Group report has been submitted for public consultation in
September 2012 and should be published in 2013.
Task Group 76: Application of the Commission’s Recommendations to NORM (Naturally
Occurring Radioactive Materials)
Chair: Peter Burns
Established by the Main Commission in Berlin in 2007, the Task Group was re-launched in
Porto in 2009 with a refined objective and a new membership. Its objective is to develop ageneral framework for the application of the radiation protection principles recommended by theCommission in cases of exposure arising from Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material(NORM). The Task Group report under preparation is intended to cover the entire range ofactivities associated with the processing, production or use of bulk materials with enhanced
levels of naturally occurring radionuclides, as well as the presence of such materials in
consumer products, particularly in construction materials. The preparation of the report willcontinue in 2013, with a draft for public consultation in 2014.

21

ICRP Annual Report 2012

Task Group 80: Application of the Commission’s Recommendations to the Geological
Disposal of Long-lived Solid Radioactive Waste
Chair: Wolfgang Weiss
This Task Group was established in Porto, in October 2009 by the Main Commission. Its
objective was to prepare a publication that clarifies the application of the 2007
Recommendations for the protection against occupational and public exposures that may result
from the geological disposal of long-lived solid radioactive waste. Taking into account previous
ICRP recommendations (Publications 77 and 81) and relevant materials from internationalorganisations, the publication discusses how the key radiological protection principles forplanned exposure situations apply to the successive phases of managing such type of disposalof long-lived solid radioactive waste. It also addresses the transition from a planned to an
existing exposure situation in cases of loss of control of the storage facility. After public
consultation, the Task Group report was completed by the end of 2011 and was accepted for
publication in April 2012. The Committee also discussed the opportunity to complement thisPublication by another covering the disposal of radioactive waste in surface and sub-surface
and the Main Commission agreed the creation of a new Task Group. A Terms of Reference will
be developed in close cooperation with the waste management community.
Task Group 81: Application of the Commission’s Recommendations to Radon Exposure
Chair: Jean-François Lecomte
The Main Commission established this Task Group in Porto in 2009. The objective was toprepare a publication that describes and clarifies the application of the 2007 Recommendations
for the protection of the public and workers (including uranium miners and other miners) againstradon and thoron exposures in buildings (dwellings and workplaces) and others locations. The
publication describes how the basic principles of justification and optimisation with restriction on
individual doses (reference level) apply to the protection against radon exposure. It proposes anintegrated, graded and ambitious approach.
The Task Group report was submitted for public consultation in the course of 2012. It will be
published after the publication of revised dose coefficients for radon.
Task Group 83: Protection from Cosmic Radiation in Aviation
Chair: Jacques Lochard
This Task Group was proposed by the Main Commission in Porto in 2009 and the Terms ofReference approved in Cape Town in 2010. Its objective is to examine how the radiation
protection principles recommended by ICRP for existing exposure situations should beinterpreted and applied within the context of aviation to protect aircrew, frequent flyers andpassengers. A particular attention is given to the optimization principle with the associatedreference level. The final Task Group report is expected to be completed in 2013 and publishedin 2014.

22

ICRP Annual Report 2012

Working Party on the Implementation of ICRP Publications 109 and 111
Chair: Michiaki Kai
The objectives of this working party is to review the experience of Fukushima in order toaddress the issues relevant to the implementation of the recommendations in Publications 109
and 111 on the protection of people in emergency and existing exposure situations after anuclear accident, and secondly to serve as an interactive mechanism for Committee 4 to stayengaged on the issues and questions related to the management of the Fukushima situation
with Japanese colleagues.
Working Party on the Ethics of Radiological Protection
Chair: Jacques Lochard
The objective of this working party established in 2011 is to explore the ethical basis supporting
the system of protection. Reflections have highlighted the links between the fundamental
principles of radiation protection (justification, optimization, limitation) and the theories ofnormative ethics and the fact that the Recommendations of the Commission are designed torespect individual rights (deontological ethics), to promote the collective interest (utilitarian
ethics) and favour prudence and equity (virtue ethics). It also identified the interest for the
analysis of radiological protection system to distinguish the ethical values defining the standards
by which action should be taken, the ethical procedures for integrating these values in decision
making and in the implementation of the decisions, and the ethical behaviour corresponding to
the values that are supposed to guide the conduct of the various actors. Because the radiation
protection system is intended to be international, the reflection also emphasized the importanceof promoting through the Recommendations, values common to different cultures such as
autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence and justice.

23

ICRP Annual Report 2012

Committee 5 (Protection of the Environment)
Committee 5 develops reference models and data, and guidance on radiologicalprotection of the environment.

ICRP Committee 5 in Sydney, Australia, June 2012
Committee 5 is concerned with radiological protection of the environment. It aims to ensure thatthe development and application of approaches to environmental protection are compatible withthose for radiological protection of man, and with those for protection of the environment fromother potential hazards.
Committee 5 continues to consider how the basic information that relates radiation exposure todose, and dose to effect, for different types of animals and plants, can best be applied todifferent exposure situations, as well as advising on what additional databases are needed inorder to improve the assessments that are made. The principal effort during 2012 has therefore
been that of drawing together the necessary supporting evidence and advice relevant toimplementing the Commission’s framework across all exposure situations. This information
formed a large Annex to the content of the work of Task Group 82 (see below).
The Committee met once in 2012, in Sydney, Australia. Whilst there, the opportunity was taken
to discuss the potential relevance and application of the Commission’s approach toenvironmental protection in relation to emergency and existing exposure situations with Stephen
Solomon and Gillian Hirth (ARPANSA, Australia) who are Chairman and Rapporteur
respectively of UNSCEAR’s Fukushima Task Group 3, “Doses and effects in public andenvironment”. A subgroup of UNSCEAR’s TG3, on ‘Non-human biota’, is led by Per Strand, who
is also a member of ICRP Committee 5.

24

ICRP Annual Report 2012

Committee 5 in discussions with ARPANSA staff in relation to Fukushima, Sydney, 2012.

The science base relating to environmental protection was also further considered, particularly
with regard to radiation weighting factors, and the development of more realistic dosimetry forthe larger biotic types. A list of useful simple research that could be done to improve theCommission’s approach, set out in PhD-sized projects, was also discussed and will be placedon the ICRP website.
The relative priorities for the Commission’s next four year term were also discussed, with theconclusion that, as well as improving the basic science base of the Reference Animals andPlants, experience was needed in applying the Commission’s framework to, in particular,
existing exposure situations. It was also considered useful to explore the possibility of moving
towards a Radionuclide Environmental Quality Standard (REQS) approach for planned
exposure situations for nuclear sites. The needs of Committee 5 during the next four year term
will be reflected in its new composition.
Joint C5/C4 Task Group 82: Application of the ICRP's Approach to Environmental
Protection under Different Exposure Situations
Chair: R Jan Pentreath
This Task Group produced a draft report which was opened for public consultation in July 2012
and, as anticipated, received much attention and comment. The report expanded upon theCommission’s objectives in relation to protection of the environment, in so far as it relates to theprotection of animals and plants (biota) in their natural environment, and how these objectives

25

ICRP Annual Report 2012

can be met by the use of Reference Animals and Plants (RAPs); their Derived Consideration
Reference Levels (DCRLs), which relate radiation effects to dose over and above their normal
local background natural radiation levels; and different potential pathways of exposure. The
report explained the different types of exposure situations to which its recommendations apply;
the key principles that are relevant to protection of the environment; and hence how reference
values based on the use of DCRLs can be used to inform on the appropriate level of effort
relevant to different exposure situations. Further recommendations were made with regard to
how the Commission’s recommendations could be implemented to satisfy different forms ofenvironmental protection objectives, which may require the use of Representative Organisms(ROs) specific to a site, and how these may be compared to, or compared with, the reference
values. Additional information was also given with regard to, in particular, communication withother interested parties and stakeholders.
Many useful comments and suggestions were received and the Report is now being consideredfurther for publication.
Task Group 72: RBE and Reference Animals and Plants
Chair: Kathryn Higley
This Task Group has reviewed the available information on RBE values for alpha and low
energy beta (tritium) emitters in relation to the four biological endpoints relevant to protection of
the environment: mortality, morbidity, reproductive success and chromosomal damage. This
analysis has shown that RBE data, for alpha emitters and tritium, refer mainly to vertebrates,
and the dose-rates used in the majority of the experiments are well above the bands of Derived
Consideration Reference Levels. The information is therefore largely, but not entirely, more
relevant to existing and emergency exposure situations than to planned exposure situations.
The draft report is currently subject to an extensive internal review.
Task Group 74: More Realistic Dosimetry for Non-human Species
Chair: Alexander V. Ulanovsky
This Task Group has been reviewing aspects of the external exposure of terrestrial animals andplants due to submersion in radioactively contaminated air; concentration ratios for assessmentof inhalation exposure of terrestrial mammals; and the exposure of terrestrial animals and plants
to radon. There is also much interest in comparisons being made between the solid ellipsoid
dosimetry calculations for the RAPs and the development of voxel phantom models of the larger
RAPs now becoming available as a result of new research in the USA. A draft report is
expected to become available later in 2013.

26

ICRP Annual Report 2012

Response to the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Accident“The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) does not normally commenton events in individual countries. However, we wish to express our deepest sympathy to thosein Japan affected by the recent tragic events there. Our thoughts are with them.” Thus began
the message from ICRP released on March 21, 2011, just ten days after the initiation of the
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station accident.
At that time it was difficult toforesee how much effort theradiologicalprotection
community would focus on
this event. In particular, it
would have been difficult topredict the role that ICRP
was to play.
As a non-governmentalorganisation and registeredcharity, ICRP has neither
the mandate nor the
resources to provide aid in
the traditional sense. The
core objective of ICRP is to advance for the public benefit the science of radiological protection,in particular by providing recommendations and guidance on all aspects of radiation protection.

ICRP Vice-chair Abel González, chairing ameeting of Task Group 84 - in the backgroundan early version of what would become the listof 18 issues identified in the Task Group report

Nonetheless ICRP found that it had a role to play within this mandate. On April 4, 2011, ICRP
made downloadable free of charge Publication 111 Application of the Commission's
Recommendations to the Protection of People Living in Long-term Contaminated Areas After a
Nuclear Accident or a Radiation Emergency. On June 20, 2011, ICRP established Task Group84 on Initial Lessons Learned from the NPP Accident in Japan vis-à-vis the ICRP System ofRadiological Protection. The summary report of this Task Group was released on the ICRP
website on November 22, 2012,highlighting
issuesandproviding recommendations for
improvements to the system ofradiological protection.
ICRP has also responded torequests for advice, e.g.:
participating in the September
2011International
ExpertSymposium in Fukushima City
organised by the Nippon

ICRP Scientific Secretary Christopher
Clement presenting at the Fukushima
Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Safety

27

ICRP Annual Report 2012

Foundation, and the follow-up meeting six months later organised by the Sasakawa Memorial
Health Foundation; responding to requests for advice from the Japanese Government Cabinet
Office Secretariat; and, making an invited presentation at The Fukushima Ministerial
Conference on Nuclear Safety in December 2012.

ICRP Fukushima Dialogue Initiative Meeting in Date City
(Photo © Jun Takai)
Following a visit organized by Committee 4 in September 2011 to the contaminated territories ofBelarus, a small group made up of Committee 4 and Main Commission members and the NGO"Radiation Safety Forum Japan" took the initiative in the fall of 2011 to organize a forum for
dialogue with all concerned parties in the Fukushima Prefecture to identify the problems and thechallenges of the rehabilitation of living conditions in the long-term contaminated territories.
This was an opportunity to share experience and promote radiological protection culture, in thespirit of self-help protection promoted by Publication 111. It was also an opportunity to learn
directly from the citizens of Fukushima the difficulties being faced in the aftermath of theaccident, gaining a deeper insight into the situation to ensure that future recommendations on
post-accident recovery would benefit from this experience. This cooperative effort, led by ICRP,
involved many other organisations from within and outside Japan; local, national, andinternational; governmental and non-governmental. By the end of 2012, four major (two-day)dialogue meetings had been held in Fukushima City and Date City, and several smaller
dialogue meetings in Suetsugi (Fukushima Prefecture) and Hippo (Miyagi Prefecture).

28

ICRP Annual Report 2012

These dialogues emphasized the importance of characterizing the radiological situation at theindividual level to allow everyone in the affected areas to understand where, when and how they
are exposed so that they can protect themselves. The need to preserve traditions and local
culture, to transmit the memory of the accident, and to strengthen solidarity between the peopleof Fukushima Prefecture and those of the rest of Japan and abroad were also underlined by theparticipants as a means to maintain the dignity of the inhabitants in the affected areas.
Plans are underway to update Publications 109 and 111 based on the experience gained and incooperation with local stakeholder groups drawn from those who have been involved in thisinitiative, as well as the work of Task Group 84.
In October 2012, the ICRP Main Commission met in Fukushima City, the first time the Main
Commission had met in Japan since 1981. This provided opportunities for all Main Commission
members to meet citizens of Fukushima and to see, first-hand, the situation.
One year after the start of the accident, on March 12, 2012, a second message issued by ICRP
ended “We are optimistic that, while 2011 was an extremely difficult year, 2012 will be a year ofrecovery. There is no doubt that this recovery will continue for many years to come, and ICRP
will continue to be actively involved.”

29

ICRP Annual Report 2012

ICRP Committee 4 Chair Jacques Lochard, ICRP Assistant
Secretary Michiya Sasaki, and ICRP Chair Claire Cousins at the
Fukushima Decontamination Information Plaza, during the ICRP
Main Commission meeting held in Fukushima City

Shinya Endo, a participant
in the ICRP Dialogue
Initiative, by his rice fields
in Suetsugi. On his own
initiative, Mr Endo was able
to reduce the radioactive
cesium in his rice from well
above Japanese limits tonearly a few Bq/kg – acompelling example of selfhelp protection promoted in

Publication 111.
(Photo © Jun Takai)

30

ICRP Annual Report 2012

ICRP Publications in 2012
ICRP released seven reports in 2012, published in the Annals of the ICRP:Publication 116: Conversion Coefficients for Radiological Protection Quantities forExternal Radiation ExposuresPublication 117: Radiological Protection in Fluoroscopically Guided Procedures outside
the Imaging Department

Publication 118: ICRP Statement on Tissue Reactions / Early and Late Effects ofRadiation in Normal Tissues and Organs – Threshold Doses for Tissue Reactions in a
Radiation Protection Context

Publication 119: Compendium of Dose Coefficients based on ICRP Publication 60

Proceedings of the First ICRP Symposium on the International System of RadiologicalProtection

Publication 120: Radiological Protection in Cardiology



Publication 121: Radiological Protection in Paediatric Diagnostic and Interventional
Radiology

In addition, permission was granted for organisations to prepare and distribute translations of
ICRP publications in various languages. An Italian translation of Publication 112, an Arabictranslation of Publication 113, and a Romanian translation of Publication 105 became available
in 2012.
Thanks to financial support from the European Commission, Publication 119 Compendium of
Dose Coefficients based on ICRP Publication 60, and the accompanying supplementary data,
were made available for free download through the ICRP web site.

31

ICRP Annual Report 2012

Publication 116: Conversion Coefficients forRadiological Protection Quantities for External
Radiation Exposures
N. Petoussi-Henss, W.E. Bolch, K.F. Eckerman, A. Endo, N.
Hertel, J. Hunt, M. Pelliccioni, H. Schlattl, M. Zankl
This report gives fluence to dose conversion coefficients forboth effective dose and organ absorbed doses for various typesofexternal
exposures,consistent
with
the
2007
Recommendations of the ICRP. These coefficients were
calculated using the official ICRP/ICRU computational
phantoms representing the Reference Adult Male andReference Adult Female, in conjunction with Monte Carlo codes
simulating the transport of radiation within the human bodysuch as EGSnrc, FLUKA, GEANT4, MCNPX, and PHITS.
The incident radiations and energy ranges considered were external beams of mono-energetic
photons of 10 keV–10 GeV, electrons and positrons of 50 keV–10 GeV, neutrons of 0.001 eV–
10 GeV, protons of 1 MeV–10 GeV, pions (negative/positive) of 1 MeV–200 GeV, muons(negative/positive) of 1 MeV–10 GeV, and helium ions of 1 MeV/u–100 GeV/u.
For the simulations, idealised whole-body irradiation geometries were considered. These
included unidirectional broad parallel beams along the antero-posterior, postero-anterior, leftlateral and right lateral axes, and 360° rotational directions around the phantoms’ longitudinalaxis. Fully isotropic irradiation of the phantoms was also considered.
Simulations were performed specifically for this report by members of the Task Group. For
quality assurance purposes, data sets for given radiations and irradiation geometries weregenerated by different groups using the same reference computational phantoms but differentMonte Carlo codes.
From the simulations, the absorbed dose to each organ within the reference phantoms wasdetermined. The fluence to effective dose conversion coefficients were derived from theobtained organ dose conversion coefficients, the radiation weighting factor wR and the tissue
weighting factor wT, following the procedure described in Publication 103.
The operational quantities for photons, neutrons, and electrons continue to provide a good
approximation for the conversion coefficients for effective dose for the energy ranges
considered in ICRP Publication 74 and ICRU Report 57, but not at the higher energies
considered in the present report.
The conversion coefficients obtained for this report represent the ICRP/ICRU reference values.
They were established using various original data sets with the application of averaging,smoothing, and fitting techniques. They are partly tabulated in annexes, and fully tabulated in an
accompanying CD in ASCII format and Microsoft Excel software.

32

ICRP Annual Report 2012

Separate Monte Carlo simulations were made to determine the absorbed dose to the lens of theeye for incident photons, electrons, and neutrons using a stylised model of the eye. Similarly,
localised skin-equivalent dose conversion coefficients for electrons and alpha particles are given
as derived by Monte Carlo calculations simulating the transport of a normally incident, parallel
beam on a tissue-equivalent slab.
Additionally, photon and neutron dose–response functions are given in this report, defined as
the absorbed dose per particle fluence. Their use would compensate for the limited spatial
resolution of the voxel geometry, as well as for dose enhancement or dose depression at the
microscopic level of the marrow cavities.

Publication 117: Radiological Protection in
Fluoroscopically Guided Procedures outside
the Imaging Department
M.M. Rehani, O. Ciraj-Bjelac, E. Vaño, D.L. Miller, S. Walsh,
B.D. Giordano, J. Persliden
An increasing number of medical specialists are using
fluoroscopy outside imaging departments, but there has been
general neglect of radiological protection coverage offluoroscopy machines used outside imaging departments. Lackof radiological protection training of those working withfluoroscopy outside imaging departments can increase theradiation risk to workers and patients. Procedures such as
endovascular aneurysm repair, renal angioplasty, iliac
angioplasty, ureteric stent placement, therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, and bile duct stenting and drainage have the potential to impart skin doses
exceeding 1 Gy. Although tissue reactions among patients and workers from fluoroscopy
procedures have, to date, only been reported in interventional radiology and cardiology, thelevel of fluoroscopy use outside imaging departments creates potential for such injuries.
A brief account of the health effects of ionising radiation and protection principles is presented in
Section 2. Section 3 deals with general aspects of the protection of workers and patients thatare common to all, whereas specific aspects are covered in Section 4 for vascular surgery,urology, orthopaedic surgery, obstetrics and gynaecology, gastroenterology and hepatobiliary
system, and anaesthetics and pain management. Although sentinel lymph node biopsy involves
the use of radio-isotopic methods rather than fluoroscopy, performance of this procedure in
operating theatres is covered in this report as it is unlikely that this topic will be addressed inanother ICRP publication in coming years. Information on radiation dose levels to patients andworkers, and dose management is presented for each speciality.

33

ICRP Annual Report 2012

Issues connected with pregnant patients and pregnant workers are covered in Section 5.
Although ICRP has recently published a report on training, specific needs for the target groups
in terms of orientation of training, competency of those who conduct and assess specialists, andguidelines on the curriculum are provided in Section 6.
This report emphasises that patient dose monitoring is essential whenever fluoroscopy is used.
It is recommended that manufacturers should develop systems to indicate patient dose indiceswith the possibility of producing patient dose reports that can be transferred to the hospital
network, and shielding screens that can be effectively used for the protection of workers using
fluoroscopy machines in operating theatres without hindering the clinical task.

Publication 118: ICRP Statement on Tissue
Reactions / Early and Late Effects of Radiationin Normal Tissues and Organs – Threshold
Doses for Tissue Reactions in a Radiation
Protection Context
F.A. Stewart, A.V. Akleyev, M. Hauer-Jensen, J.H. Hendry,
N.J. Kleiman, T.J. MacVittie, B.M. Aleman, A.B. Edgar, K.
Mabuchi, C.R. Muirhead, R.E. Shore, W.H. Wallace
This report provides a review of early and late effects ofradiation in normal tissues and organs with respect to radiation
protection. It was instigated following a recommendation in
Publication 103, and it provides updated estimates of ‘practical’threshold doses for tissue injury defined at the level of 1%
incidence. Estimates are given for morbidity and mortality endpoints in all organ systems
following acute, fractionated, or chronic exposure. The organ systems comprise thehaematopoietic, immune, reproductive, circulatory, respiratory, musculoskeletal, endocrine, andnervous systems; the digestive and urinary tracts; the skin; and the eye.
Particular attention is paid to circulatory disease and cataracts because of recent evidence of
higher incidences of injury than expected after lower doses; hence, threshold doses appear to
be lower than previously considered. This is largely because of the increasing incidences withincreasing times after exposure. In the context of protection, it is the threshold doses for very
long follow-up times that are the most relevant for workers and the public; for example, theatomic bomb survivors with 40–50 years of follow-up. Radiotherapy data generally apply forshorter follow-up times because of competing causes of death in cancer patients, and hence therisks of radiation-induced circulatory disease at those earlier times are lower.

34

ICRP Annual Report 2012

A variety of biological response modifiers have been used to help reduce late reactions in manytissues. These include antioxidants, radical scavengers, inhibitors of apoptosis, antiinflammatory drugs, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, growth factors, and cytokines. In
many cases, these give dose modification factors of 1.1–1.2, and in a few cases 1.5–2,
indicating the potential for increasing threshold doses in known exposure cases. In contrast,
there are agents that enhance radiation responses, notably other cytotoxic agents such as
antimetabolites, alkylating agents, anti-angiogenic drugs, and antibiotics, as well as genetic andcomorbidity factors.
Most tissues show a sparing effect of dose fractionation, so that total doses for a given endpoint
are higher if the dose is fractionated rather than when given as a single dose. However, forreactions manifesting very late after low total doses, particularly for cataracts and circulatory
disease, it appears that the rate of dose delivery does not modify the low incidence. This implies
that the injury in these cases and at these low dose levels is caused by single-hit irreparabletype events. For these two tissues, a threshold dose of 0.5 Gy is proposed herein for practical
purposes, irrespective of the rate of dose delivery, and future studies may elucidate thisjudgement further.

Publication 119: Compendium of Dose
Coefficients based on ICRP Publication 60
K. Eckerman, J. Harrison, H-G. Menzel, C.H. Clement
This report is a compilation of dose coefficients for intakes ofradionuclides by workers and members of the public, andconversion coefficients for use in occupational radiologicalprotection against external radiation from Publications 68, 72,
and 74. It serves as a comprehensive reference for dosecoefficients based on the primary radiation protection guidance
given in the Publication 60 recommendations. The coefficientstabulated in this publication will be superseded in due courseby values based on the Publication 103 recommendations.

35ICRP Annual Report 2012

Proceedings of the First ICRP Symposium on
the International System of RadiologicalProtection
The First ICRP Symposium on the International System ofRadiological Protection, or simply ICRP 2011, was held in
Bethesda (Rockland) Maryland, just outside of Washington
D.C., October 24–26, 2011. This symposium was open toanyone who wished to attend, and no registration fee wascharged. Approximately 400 people from 35 countries attended
the 17 sessions held over 3 days. The papers in this publication,
the Proceedings of the First ICRP Symposium on theInternational System of Radiological Protection, represent a
cross-section of the subjects presented during ICRP 2011.
These papers are not recommendations of ICRP and do notnecessarily represent the views of ICRP; they are the work of the individual authors. Given the
success of ICRP 2011, as evidenced by the great turnout and many very positive remarks fromparticipants, ICRP intends to hold another similar symposium in conjunction with its next joint
meeting of the ICRP Main Commission and Committees. The Second ICRP Symposium on theInternational System of Radiological Protection, ICRP 2013, is now being planned. It will be heldin Abu Dhabi in late October 2013, with the financial support of the Federal Authority for Nuclear
Regulation of the United Arab Emirates. The search for a venue, and a host, for the third
symposium, ICRP 2015, is already underway.

Publication 120: Radiological Protection in
Cardiology
C. Cousins, D. L. Miller, G. Bernardi, M.M. Rehani, P.
Schofield, E. Vaño , A.J. Einstein, B. Geiger, P. Heintz, R.
Padovani, K-H. Sim
Cardiac nuclear medicine, cardiac computed tomography (CT),interventional cardiology procedures, and electrophysiology
procedures are increasing in number and account for an
important share of patient radiation exposure in medicine.
Complex percutaneous coronary interventions and cardiac
electrophysiology procedures are associated with highradiation doses. These procedures can result in patient skindoses that are high enough to cause radiation injury and anincreased risk of cancer. Treatment of congenital heart disease in children is of particular36

ICRP Annual Report 2012

concern. Additionally, staff1 in cardiac catheterisation laboratories may receive high doses ofradiation if radiological protection tools are not used properly.
The Commission provided recommendations for radiological protection during fluoroscopicallyguided interventions in Publication 85, for radiological protection in CT in Publications 87 and102, and for training in radiological protection in Publication 113. This report is focused
specifically on cardiology, and brings together information relevant to cardiology from theCommission’s published documents. There is emphasis on those imaging procedures andinterventions specific to cardiology. The material and recommendations in the current document
have been updated to reflect the most recent recommendations of the Commission.
This report provides guidance to assist the cardiologist with justification procedures andoptimisation of protection in cardiac CT studies, cardiac nuclear medicine studies, andfluoroscopically guided cardiac interventions. It includes discussions of the biological effects ofradiation, principles of radiological protection, protection of staff during fluoroscopically guided
interventions, radiological protection training, and establishment of a quality assurance
programme for cardiac imaging and intervention.
As tissue injury, principally skin injury, is a risk for fluoroscopically guided interventions,particular attention is devoted to clinical examples of radiation-related skin injuries from cardiac
interventions, methods to reduce patient radiation dose, training recommendations, and quality
assurance programmes for interventional fluoroscopy.

Publication 121: Radiological Protection in
Paediatric Diagnostic and Interventional
Radiology
P-L. Khong, H. Ringertz, V. Donoghue, D. Frush, M. Rehani,
K. Appelgate, R. Sanchez
Paediatric patients have a higher average risk of developing
cancer compared with adults receiving the same dose. The
longer life expectancy in children allows more time for any
harmful effects of radiation to manifest, and developing organs
and tissues are more sensitive to the effects of radiation. Thispublication aims to provide guiding principles of radiologicalprotection for referring clinicians and clinical staff performing
diagnostic imaging and interventional procedures for paediatricpatients. It begins with a brief description of the basic concepts of radiological protection,
followed by the general aspects of radiological protection, including principles of justification andoptimisation. Guidelines and suggestions for radiological protection in specific modalities –radiography and fluoroscopy, interventional radiology, and computed tomography – aresubsequently covered in depth. The report concludes with a summary and recommendations.

37

ICRP Annual Report 2012

The importance of rigorous justification of radiological procedures is emphasised for every
procedure involving ionising radiation, and the use of imaging modalities that are non-ionisingshould always be considered. The basic aim of optimisation of radiological protection is to adjust
imaging parameters and institute protective measures such that the required image is obtainedwith the lowest possible dose of radiation, and that net benefit is maximised to maintainsufficient quality for diagnostic interpretation. Special consideration should be given to theavailability of dose reduction measures when purchasing new imaging equipment for paediatricuse. One of the unique aspects of paediatric imaging is with regards to the wide range in patient
size (and weight), therefore requiring special attention to optimisation and modification ofequipment, technique, and imaging parameters. Examples of good radiographic andfluoroscopic technique include attention to patient positioning, field size and adequate
collimation, use of protective shielding, optimisation of exposure factors, use of pulsed
fluoroscopy, limiting fluoroscopy time, etc. Major paediatric interventional procedures should be
performed by experienced paediatric interventional operators, and a second, specific level oftraining in radiological protection is desirable (in some countries, this is mandatory). For
computed tomography, dose reduction should be optimised by the adjustment of scanparameters (such as mA, kVp, and pitch) according to patient weight or age, region scanned,
and study indication (e.g. images with greater noise should be accepted if they are of sufficient
diagnostic quality). Other strategies include restricting multiphase examination protocols,
avoiding overlapping of scan regions, and only scanning the area in question. Up-to-date dose
reduction technology such as tube current modulation, organ-based dose modulation, auto kVtechnology, and iterative reconstruction should be utilised when appropriate.
It is anticipated that this publication will assist institutions in encouraging the standardisation ofprocedures, and that it may help increase awareness and ultimately improve practices for the
benefit of patients.

38

ICRP Annual Report 2012

Obtaining ICRP Publications
An index to all ICRP publications can be found at www.icrp.org. Click on “publications”.
ICRP publications are available from reputable booksellers or directly from the Commission’s
publishers, Elsevier Science:

Web sites:www.elsevier.com
www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00742740(for Publication 23 and earlier)www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01466453(for Publication 24 and later)
www.icrp.info

Questions to Elsevier Science should be directed to follows:

Single report print‘book’ sales

Americasbookscustomerserviceusa@elsevier.com
For customers in the US: +1(800)545-2522

Asiabkinfo@elsevier.com
directorders@elsevier.com
Tel: +44 (0)1865 844640

For customers outside US:+1 (800)460-3110

JournalsCustomerServiceusa@elsevier.com

Journalsubscriptions

Europe, Middle East andAsia Pacific
AfricaFor customers in the US: +1(877)839-7126
For customers outside US:+1 (314)447-8878

For
South
Tel: +91 124 4774444

ScienceDirect

For customers outside US:+1 (314) 447 8070

Asia:

JournalsCustomerServiceAP
AC@Elsevier.com
JournalsCustomerServiceEM
EA@Elsevier.com
Tel: +44 (0)1865 843434

For
Asia
Pacific:
Tel:
+65
6349
0222
(excludes Japan)
For
Japan:
Tel: +81 (3)5561 5037

sginfo@elsevier.com

usinfo@sciencedirect.com
For customers in the US: +1(888) 615 4500

For
Asia
Pacific:
Tel:
+65
6349
0222
(excludes South Asia)

nlinfo@sciencedirect.com
Tel: +31 (0) 20 485 3767

Tel:
+65
6349
(excludes Japan)

0222

For
Japan:
jpinfo@elsevier.com
Tel: +81 (3)5561 5034

39

ICRP Annual Report 2012

ICRP Membership as of December 31, 2012
Main Commission
Claire Cousins (Chair)
Abel J González (Vice-chair)John D Boice Jr
John R Cooper
Jai-Ki Lee
Jacques Lochard (C4 Chair)Hans G Menzel (C2 Chair)
William F Morgan (C1 Chair)
Emeritus Members
Roger H Clarke
Bosse Lindell
Charles B Meinhold

Ohtsura Niwa
Zi Qiang Pan
R Jan Pentreath (C5 Chair)
Nataliya Shandala
Eliseo Vañó (C3 Chair)
Christopher H Clement(Scientific Secretary)Fred A Mettler
Warren K Sinclair
Christian Streffer

Scientific Secretariat
Christopher H Clement (Scientific Secretary)
Lynn Lemaire (Executive Assistant)

Michiya Sasaki

Committee 1 (Radiation Effects)
William F Morgan (Chair)
Alice Sigurdson (Vice-chair)
Werner Rühm (Secretary)
Tamara Azizova
Ranajit Chakraborty
Sarah Darby
Nori Nakamura

Sisko Salomaa
Fiona Stewart
Dan Stram
Margot Tirmarche
Richard Wakeford
Ping-Kun Zhou

Committee 2 (Doses from Radiation Exposures)
Hans G Menzel (Chair)John Harrison (Vice-chair)
Wesley Bolch (Secretary)
Michael Bailey
Mikhail Balonov
David Bartlett
Vladimir Berkovski
Roger CoxGünther Dietze

40

Keith Eckerman
Akira Endo
Nobuhito Ishigure
Richard Leggett
Joyce Lipsztein
Jizeng Ma
Francois Paquet
Nina Petoussi-Henβ
Ambika Sahai Pradhan

ICRP Annual Report 2012

Committee 3 (Protection in Medicine)
Eliseo Vañó (Chair)Jean-Marc Cosset (Vice-chair)
Madan Rehani (Secretary)
Mario Baeza
Lawrence Dauer
Igor Gusev
John Hopewell
Pek-Lan Khong

Pedro Ortiz Lopez
Sören Mattsson
Donald Miller
Katrine Åhlström Riklund
Hans Ringertz
Marvin Rosenstein
Yoshiharu Yonekura
Baorong Yue

Committee 4 (Application of the Commission’s Recommendations)
Jacques Lochard (Chair)
Wolfgang Weiss (Vice-chair)Jean-François Lecomte (Secretary)Peter Burns
Pedro Carboneras Martinez
Donald Cool
Toshimitsu Homma
Michiaki Kai
Senlin Liu

Hua Liu
Sigurður Magnússon
Gustavo Massera
Ann McGarry
Khammar Mrabit
Sergey Shinkarev
Jane Simmonds
Alex Simanga Tsela
Werner Zeller

Committee 5 (Protection of the Environment)
R Jan Pentreath (Chair)Carl-Magnus Larsson (Vice-chair)
Almudena Real (Secretary)
Francois Bréchignac
David Copplestone

Kathryn Higley
Kazuo Sakai
Per Strand
Alexander V Ulanovsky

41

ICRP Annual Report 2012

Summary Financial Information 2008-2012
ITEM

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

Contributions Received

533 025

650,955

617 168

418 408

412 100

Royalties *199 058

70,071

107 551

107 231

84 596

88

78

0

1 138

5 935

1 243

0

0

2 109

1 516

733 414721 104

724 719528 886504 147

Promotion of Radiological Protection

401 855627 326552 953532 464

326 444

Governance Costs †269 846288 646

169 027

133 095

140 175

Other Resources Expended

13 03421 8732 752(22 834)

33 418

Total Resources Expended

684 735

937 845724 732

642 725

500 037

Net Movement in Resources

48 679(216 741)(13)(113 89)

4 110

Total Funds Carried Forward

222 078

173 399390 140390 153503 922

INCOME STATEMENT
Incoming Resources

Interest
Other Income
Total Incoming Resources

Resources Expended

BALANCE SHEET
Tangible Fixed Assets

1 032

2 680

4 329

5 977

3 109

Current Assets

107 572236 567

391 445400 563529 296

Debtors (falling due within one year)

242 167

38 498168 41300Creditors (falling due within the year)(128 693)(104 346)(174 047)(16 387)(28 413)Net Assets

222 078

173 399390 140390 153503 992

This is a summary of ICRP annual financial statements as audited by Tudor John Chartered Accountants,
Epsom, UK. All amounts are expressed in US dollars.
* In 2012 ICRP reverted to the accruals concept of accounting for royalties. Historically royalties have been accounted for on a cash
basis (the royalties earned in any given calendar year being physically received in cash and recognised as income in the accounts
in the following year's financial statements). As a result of this change, the royalties figure for 2012 includes both royalties received
in 2012 (relating to the calendar year 2011) and royalties relating to the calendar year 2012 (which have all been received
subsequent to 31st December 2012).
†
The increase in governance costs in 2011 relates primarily to an adjustment to more appropriately allocate secretariat costs.

42

ICRP Annual Report 2012

ICRP is primarily financed through voluntary contributions from organisations with an interest inradiological protection. Those providing financial contributions to ICRP in 2012 are listed below:























Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency
Burnasyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center, Russia
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission & Health Canada
Chinese Society of Radiation Protection
Danish National Board of HealthEuropean Commission
Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority
French Institute of Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety
German Ministry of the Environment
Icelandic Radiation Protection InstituteInternational Atomic Energy Agency
International Radiation Protection Association
International Society of Radiology
Japan NUS Co Ltd
Japanese Ministry of Environment
Korean Nuclear International Cooperation Foundation
Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Nuclear Energy Agency
Spanish Nuclear Safety Council
Swedish Ministry of the Environment
US Department of Energy
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission & Environmental Protection Agency

All contributions are accepted with the understanding that they do not influence the ICRP
membership or programme of work.
Some additional funds accrue from royalties on ICRP publications. Members’ institutions also
provide in-kind support to ICRP by making the members’ time available without charge and, inmany cases, by covering their costs of attending ICRP meetings.

43

ICRP Annual Report 2012

Contact Information
Christopher Clement, ICRP Scientific Secretary and Editor-in-Chief of the Annals of the ICRP,
can be contacted at:

International Commission on Radiological Protection
PO Box 1046, Station B
280 Slater Street
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5S9
CANADA
Telephone:
Fax:
E-mail:Web site:+1 (613) 944-1918+1 (613) 944-1920
sci.sec@icrp.org
www.icrp.org

Executive Assistant:
Telephone:
E-mail:44

Lynn Lemaire+1 (613) 947-9750
lynn.lemaire@icrp.org

ICRP Annual Report 201245

ICRP Annual Report 201246