First ICRP Symposiumon the International System ofRadiological Protection
Bethesda, USA
October 24-26, 20111

ICRP 2011 Symposium and Meeting
ICRP reference 4850-9734-7595
2011-10-01© 2011 ICRP

2

Table of Contents
Programme Overview ...................................................................................................................5
Monday October 24, 2011 .............................................................................................................6
Opening Plenary ......................................................................................................................8
ICRP Programme of Work ......................................................................................................9
The System of Radiological Protection – Is it Fit for Purpose? ............................................12
Tuesday October 25, 2011 ...........................................................................................................16
Tissue Reactions: Low Dose Risks ....................................................................................... 20
Applications of Effective Dose .............................................................................................. 22
Radiation Effects: Modulating Factors and Risk Assessment ...............................................24
Radiation Protection in Space................................................................................................ 27
The Scientific Basis for Reference Animals and Plants ........................................................ 29
Radiological Protection in Computed Tomography .............................................................. 31
Environmental Protection in Practice ....................................................................................33
Prevention of Accidents in Radiation Therapy......................................................................35
Wednesday October 26, 2011 .....................................................................................................38
Dose Constraints and Reference Levels ................................................................................41
Radiological Protection in NORM ........................................................................................ 44
Radiological Protection in Waste Management ....................................................................46
Experience in Implementing ICRP Recommendations ......................................................... 49
Protection against Radon in Workplaces ...............................................................................53
Symposium Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................55
Symposium Registrees .................................................................................................................56
ICRP Members ............................................................................................................................ 60

3

4

Programme Overview
Monday October 24, 2011
Opening Plenary
9:00 to 10:00 in Ballroom FGH

ICRP Programme of Work
10:30 to 13:00 in Ballroom FGH

The System of Radiological Protection – Is it Fit for Purpose?
14:15 to 17:30 in Ballroom FGH

Tuesday October 25, 2011
Tissue Reactions: Low Dose Risks

Applications of Effective Dose

8:30 to 10:10 in Ballroom FG

8:30 to 10:10 in Ballroom H

Radiation Effects: Modulating Factors
and Risk Assessment

Radiation Protection in Space
10:40 to 12:20 in Ballroom H

10:40 to 12:20 in Ballroom FG

Radiological Protection in Computed
Tomography

The Scientific Basis for Reference
Animals and Plants
13:50 to 15:30 in Ballroom H

13:50 to 15:30 in Ballroom FG

Prevention of Accidents in Radiation
Therapy

Environmental Protection in
Practice

16:00 to 17:40 in Ballroom FG

16:00 to 17:40 in Ballroom H

Wednesday October 26, 2011
Dose Constraints and Reference Levels
8:30 to 10:10 in Ballroom FGH

Radiological Protection in Waste
Management

Radiological Protection in NORM
10:40 to 12:20 in Ballroom H

10:40 to 12:20 in Ballroom FG

Experience in Implementing ICRP
Recommendations

Protection against Radon in
Workplaces

13:50 to 15:30 in Ballroom FG

13:50 to 15:30 in Ballroom H

Symposium Summary and Conclusions
16:00 to 17:45 in Ballroom FGH
Chair: Claire Cousins, ICRP Chair

5Monday October 24, 2011
Opening Plenary
9:00 to 10:00 in Ballroom FGH
Chair: Claire Cousins, ICRP Chair

Welcome from the International Commission on Radiological Protection
Claire Cousins, ICRP Chair & Addenbrooke’s Hospital, UK
Welcome from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Kristine L. Svinicki, Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, USA
Welcome from the Environmental Protection Agency
James J. Jones, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, Environmental
Protection Agency, USA
Welcome from the Department of Energy
Glenn S. Podonsky, Chief Health Safety and Security Officer, Office of Health Safety and Security,
Department of Energy, USA
ICRP Strategic Plan
Claire Cousins, ICRP Chair & Addenbrooke’s Hospital, UK
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) Scientific Program andCollaboration with ICRP
Thomas Tenforde, President, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, USA

ICRP Programme of Work
10:30 to 13:00 in Ballroom FGH
Chair: Christopher Clement, ICRP Scientific Secretary

Radiation Effects
Julian Preston, ICRP MC and C1 Chair & Environmental Protection Agency, USA
Doses from Radiation Exposure
Hans Menzel, ICRP MC and C2 Chair, Switzerland
Radiological Protection in Medicine
Eliseo Vañó, ICRP MC and C3 Chair & Complutense University, Spain
Application of the Commission’s Recommendations
Jacques Lochard, ICRP MC and C4 Chair & Centre d'étude sur l'Evaluation de la Protection dans leDomaine Nucléaire, France
Radiological Protection of the Environment
Jan Pentreath, ICRP MC and C5 Chair, UK

6

The System of Radiological Protection – Is it Fit for Purpose?
14:15 to 17:30 in Ballroom FGH
Chair: Abel González, ICRP Vice-chair

United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR): The
Scientific Basis for ICRP’s Work
Malcolm Crick, United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation
The ICRP System of Radiation Protection: The Medical and Public Health Perspective
Maria Neira, Public Health and Environment Director, World Health Organisation
Emilie van Deventer, World Health Organisation
The System of Radiological Protection: Is it Fit for Purpose?
Jacques Repussard, Director, Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire, France
Radiation Protection Issues on Preparedness and Response for a Severe Nuclear Accident:
Experiences of the Fukushima Accident
Toshimitsu Homma, ICRP C4 & Japan Atomic Energy Agency
Future Challenges for the Radiation Protection System in the Nuclear Power Industry
Willie Harris, Exelon Nuclear & WNA RP Working Group Chair, USA
A Regulatory Perspective on whether the System of Radiation Protection is Fit for Purpose
Michael Boyd, Environmental Protection Agency, USA
Panel Discussion

7

Monday October 24, 2011
Opening Plenary

ICRP Strategic Plan
Dr. C. Cousins
ICRP Main Commission Chair
Consultant Interventional Radiologist, Addenbrooke‟s Hospital, Cambridge, UK
Abstract - ICRP has been in existence since 1928 and has evolved considerably from that time both in its
structure and in its scope of work. The founding principles and objectives regarding the System ofRadiological Protection are still very much in evidence today. As we move further into the 21st century,with the culture of increased openness and transparency, it is appropriate for ICRP to develop a strategicplan for both the present and the future. The aim of the plan is to give factual information about themembership, structure and operation of ICRP and to highlight strengths, challenges, and initiatives
considered important for future work.

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP)
Scientific Program and Collaboration with ICRP
T. S. Tenforde
President, NCRP, 7910 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 400, Bethesda, Maryland 20814;
PH (301) 657-2652, ext. 19; FAX (301) 907-8768
Abstract- I am pleased to have the opportunity to provide introductory remarks at this important
symposium on radiological protection organized by ICRP, which is a Special Liaison Organization of
NCRP. Reports and Commentaries published in areas related to radiation protection and measurements arelisted at http://NCRPpublications.org. Recent work by NCRP has focused in several areas that include (witha listing of publications over the last five years) (1) characterization of ionizing radiation exposures of the
U.S. population (Report No. 160); (2) radiation protection in medicine (Report Nos. 168, 159, 155); (3)treatment of persons contaminated with radionuclides (Report Nos. 166, 161, 156); (4) responding to anuclear or radiological terrorism incident (Report No. 165, Commentary No. 19); (5) uncertainties inexternal and internal dosimetry and dose reconstruction (Report Nos. 164, 163, 158); (6) radiation
protection in space missions (Report Nos. 167, 153) (7) operational radiation safety (Report No. 162); and(8) environmental radiation (Report No. 154). NCRP has many common interests with ICRP in these andrelated areas of radiation protection and the underlying radiation science. Several members of ICRP are on
NCRP‟s Board of Directors and on scientific committees. NCRP looks forward to expanding ourcollaborative efforts with ICRP.

8ICRP Programme of Work

Radiation Effects
R. J. Preston
ICRP Main Commission and Committee 1 ChairNHEERL (MD B105-01), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
USA; PH (919)-541-0276; FAX (919)-541-1525
Abstract - Committee 1 is responsible for providing updates on the biological effects of ionising radiationand developing documents that relate such effects to the needs of radiological protection. The committee
addresses issues of risks of cancer and heritable diseases, tissue reactions including dose responses, effectsof dose-rate and radiation quality, effects in the embryo/foetus, genetic factors in radiation response,radioepidemiology studies, basic radiobiology mechanisms, as well as uncertainties in providing
judgements on radiation-induced health effects. The committee advises the Main Commission on the
biological basis of radiation-induced health effects and how epidemiological, experimental and theoretical
data can be combined to make quantitative judgements on health risks to humans, particularly at low doses.
These estimates are in the form of detriment-adjusted nominal risk coefficients for stochastic (cancer andheritable effects) and tissue reaction (deterministic) effects that are used for radiation protection standards.
Most recently, Committee 1 Task groups have addressed issues of: Tissue Reactions and Other Non-cancer
Effects of Radiation; Radon and Lung Cancer; Stem Cell Radiobiology. In addition, Committee 1 discusses
the most recent information in areas that impact upon the Recommendations forming ICRP Report 103.
These include DDREF, non-targeted effects, modulating factors, and radiation sensitivity.

Doses from Radiation Exposure
H. Menzel
ICRP Main Commission and Committee 2 Chair
CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland
Abstract - The work of Committee 2 is concerned with the development of reference data and methods forthe assessment of internal and external radiation exposure of workers and members of the public. This
involves the development of reference biokinetic and dosimetric models, reference anatomical models of
the human body, and reference anatomical and physiological data. Following the recent ICRP
recommendations work is concentrating on the evaluation of new reference dose coefficients for external
and internal exposure including the development and revision of biokinetic models. The Adult Reference
Computational Phantoms are being complemented by reference computational paediatric phantoms. The
Committee is assisted in this work by two task groups (DOCAL and INDOS). A third Task Group isdeveloping guidance on the use of effective dose in radiation protection and in risk assessments with afocus on medical exposure, jointly with Committees 1, 3 and 4. Proposals will be made for alternatives forrisk management in situations where effective dose should not be used. Another Task Group is dealing withthe assessment of exposure of astronauts to cosmic radiation in space.

9

Radiological Protection in Medicine
E. VañóICRP Main Commission and Committee 3 ChairRadiology Department, Complutense University, Spain
Abstract - Committee 3 of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) is concernedwith protection in medicine and develops recommendations and guidance on the protection of patients,
staff, and the public against radiation exposure in medicine.
The new 2007 recommendations of the ICRP and the update of the document on “RadiologicalProtection in Medicine” have introduced some minor changes in the application of RP principles in the
medical area (e.g. consideration of the higher risk for cataracts, application of diagnostic reference levels
for interventional procedures, etc).
Some RP challenges in medicine for staff and for patients are emerging after the recent ICRPStatement issued on April 2011 (annual limit of dose to the eyes and absorbed dose threshold forcirculatory disease).
ICRP has published a significant number of documents dealing with RP in medicine during the last
10 years: Recommendations on Education and Training in RP; Preventing accidental exposures in radiation
therapy; Dose to Patients from radiopharmaceuticals; Radiation safety aspects of brachytherapy; Release ofpatients after therapy with unsealed radionuclides; Managing patient dose in digital radiology and incomputed tomography; Avoidance of radiation injuries from medical interventional procedures; Pregnancy
and medical radiation and Reference levels in medical imaging.
Three new documents will be published in the coming months dealing with pediatric radiology,
cardiology and fluoroscopically guided procedures.
The work in progress of the Committee deals with: Radiopharmaceuticals (update); Secondary
cancer risk after modern radiotherapy; Charged particle radiotherapy; Justification of the use of ionization
radiation in diagnostic imaging and Follow-up of persons accidentally exposed.

Application of the Commission‟s Recommendations
The Activities of ICRP Committee 4
J. Lochard
ICRP Main Commission and Committee 4 Chair
Director of the Centre d‟étude sur l‟Evaluation de la Protection dans le domaine Nucléaire – CEPN, France
Abstract - ICRP Committee 4 has the responsibility to develop principles, recommendations and guidanceon the protection of man against radiation exposure and to consider their practical application in all
exposure situations. The Committee also acts as a major point of contact between the ICRP structure andother international organisations and professional bodies concerned with protection against ionisingradiation.
During the present current 4-year term the work of Committee 4 is structured according threepriorities:
 To develop advice on the implementation of the new recommendations (ICRP Publication 103)
and to contribute to their dissemination: review and update of past publications, application of
the radiological protection principles in particular exposure situations.
 To review the ethical and social values underlying the principles and concepts of the radiation
protection system: precautionary principle, equity, tolerability of risk, sustainable development,
etc.

10



To enhance the dialogue and cooperation with international organisations and professionalsocieties.
The current program of work of the Committee includes a series of Task Group on the applicationof the Commission‟s Recommendations to screening activities for security purposes, the geologicaldisposal of long-lived solid radioactive waste, naturally occurring radioactive material, radon in dwellings
and at workplaces, and the protection of aircraft crew against cosmic radiation exposure.

Radiological Protection of the Environment
R. J. Pentreath
ICRP Main Commission and Committee 5 Chair
Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Prospect Place, The Hoe, Plymouth, PL1 3DH, UK
Abstract- The development of a systematic approach to protection of the environment has required anumber of basic steps to be taken, including a discussion of what objectives could reasonably be set,
together with an examination of how existing knowledge could best be used in order to achieve them. It has
required bold decisions to be made, new modelling to be undertaken, and new data sets to be compiled.
Equally challenging, however, has been the need to fold the entire subject area into an expanded system
originally developed for the protection of human beings. There are, inevitably, a number of data gaps; andfurther decisions need to be made. But the priority now is to examine how this approach to protection of theenvironment can be used in practice. With an intensifying world-wide debate about the environmental
merits of different forms of energy production, it would seem imperative that the various practices involvedin the nuclear fuel cycle are able to demonstrate, clearly and independently, their own actual or potential
impact on the environment. The ICRP now has the basic means for such evaluations to be made, and further
developments in this system will reflect the experience of its practical application.

11

The System of Radiological Protection – Is it Fit for Purpose?

United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation(UNSCEAR): The Scientific Basis for ICRP‟s Work
M. Crick
Secretary of the Committee, UNSCEAR secretariat, Vienna, Austria
Abstract- The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) is
charged by the United Nations General Assembly with evaluating the levels and trends of all sources of
exposure to ionizing radiation, and the corresponding health and environmental effects. Its assessments are
conducted on behalf of the 193 Member States of the United Nations and represent the consensus of theUnited Nations system on these matters. It provides the platform on which radiation protection paradigms
are founded.
This paper will highlight, with examples, issues related to the role of ICRP that are affecting thework of the Committee. These issues include the misunderstanding and misuse of detriment-adjusted
nominal risk coefficients, and the ability to attribute health effects to radiation exposure. They also include
problems in following trends of exposure when dose quantities change, the use of dose quantities forassessing deterministic effects, and confusion created by the concepts of equivalent dose and effective dose,
both measured in units of Sievert.

The System of Radiological Protection - A Medical and Public Health
Perspective
E. van Deventer, M. Pérez and Z. Carr, and M. NeiraWorld Health Organization, Department of Public Health and Environment. 20, avenue Appia,
1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland. TEL + (41) 22 791 3950; FAX + (41) 22 791 4123
Abstract- The system of radiological protection aims to control radiation risks without unduly limiting thepotential benefits for individuals and society. Achieving this balance becomes particularly challenging inmedicine. Today, ionizing radiation is key in medical imaging and cancer treatment. However,
inappropriate or incorrect handling can lead to unnecessary or unintended radiation exposures withpotential health hazards for patients and medical staff. Justification and optimization are the two pillars ofradiological protection in health care. In fact, these two principles are implicit in the notion of good medical
practice. Indeed, good health services are those which deliver safe and effective health interventions tothose that need them, when and where needed, with minimum waste of resources. However, healthprofessionals are not necessarily familiar with these two principles and have low awareness of radiation
doses and risks. Improving radiation safety culture of medical practice is crucial for several reasons: (i) toensure that patients benefit from the use of radiation in health care, (ii) to contribute to a more costeffectively allocation of health resources and (iii) to empower the health profession by encouraging anappropriate use of radiation in health care. Messages need to be tailored for health authorities in order tofacilitate the application of the system of radiological protection in health care settings. Hence, efforts areneeded to improve the dissemination of ICRP recommendations in the health sector. From a public healthperspective, such communication efforts should also encompass existing and emergency exposure
situations. This is particularly relevant to support the implementation of the International Basic Radiation
Safety Standards (BSS).

12

The System of Radiological Protection: Is it Fit for Purpose?
J. Repussard, A. Rannou1, P. Scanff and J.-R. Jourdain
Institut de radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire, 31 avenue de la division Leclerc, BP 17, 92262
Fontenay-aux-Roses cedex; PH +33 1 58 35 88 88
Abstract- Over the last decades, ICRP members have developed out of their joint expertise a uniqueoperational framework which is today used worldwide, albeit not always in its latest version, byradiological protection professionals to guide their actions in the various exposure situations which canoccur, from planned occupational situations to accidental circumstances. In the case of France, theimplementation of ALARA principles and ICRP recommendations, as transferred into the National
regulatory system, has led over time to a remarkable reduction in the exposure of workers (nuclear industry,
non-nuclear industry, medical applications, research) both in terms of number of overexposed individuals
and dose received. However, as modern societies focus their concerns on the protection of individuals
rather than populations as a whole, and on potential detriments related to chronic exposures at very low
dose rates, and as science provides new avenues for the investigation of biological radiation-induced events,
new questions arise which challenge the current radiation protection system: what is the true shape of thedose/effect relationship at such low doses which are sometimes close to natural environmental exposures,
sometimes higher as currently in some areas of Japan? What are the non-cancer effects, if any, associatedwith such exposures? How can the individual sensitivity factor to radiation be taken into account? Beyond
these questions lies the fundamental need to better investigate the mechanisms which are induced byradiation on sub-cellular components, at intercellular and organ or whole organism level, including stressresponse mechanisms. Such advanced low dose effects research needs international support andcoordination, such as being developed through the European MELODI association, to achieve the results
which could then be accrued into the future editions of ICRP recommendations.

Radiation Protection Issues on Preparedness and Response for a Severe
Nuclear Accident: Experiences of the Fukushima Accident
T. Homma1, S. Takahara2, M. Kimura3 and S. Kinase4
1

ICRP Committee 4
Nuclear Safety Research Centre, Japan Atomic Energy Agency, Tokai-mura, Ibaraki-ken 3191195 Japan; PH (029) 282 6862; FAX (029) 282 5408
2

Risk Analysis and Applications Group, Nuclear Safety Research Centre, Japan Atomic Energy
Agency, Tokai-mura, Ibaraki-ken 319-1195 Japan; PH (029) 282 6139; FAX (029) 282 6147
3

Risk Analysis and Applications Group, Nuclear Safety Research Centre, Japan Atomic Energy
Agency, Tokai-mura, Ibaraki-ken 319-1195 Japan; PH (029) 282 5459; FAX (029) 282 6147
4

Risk Analysis and Applications Group, Nuclear Safety Research Centre, Japan Atomic Energy
Agency, Tokai-mura, Ibaraki-ken 319-1195 Japan; PH (029) 282 5208; FAX (029) 282 6147
Abstract- A risk of severe accidents in nuclear power plants that has been discussed in nuclear safety
regulation emerged at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. The severe accident risk in nuclear
power plants can be managed as a potential exposure in the context of planned exposure situations. In thediscussion of safety goals for nuclear installations in Japan, metrics used were only individual health risks
but the Fukushima accident indicated the importance of societal risk such as countermeasures needed toprotect individuals and land contamination rather than individual risk. Although the national emergency
plan in nuclear power plants in Japan was heavily dependent upon a computer prediction system such assource terms and environmental radiation dose calculations, the urgent protective actions have been13

effectively taken on the basis of the plant conditions at the early stage of emergency exposure situations.
That procedure is recommended by the IAEA safety requirements. In the absence of criteria for long-term
protective actions in the emergency preparedness guideline, Nuclear Safety Commission of Japan advised
the government to use reference levels in emergency exposure situations recommended by ICRP for
determining the temporary relocation of the residents in the heavily contaminated area. The paper discusses
the radiation protection issues on preparedness and response for severe nuclear accidents from experiencesof the Fukushima accident.

Future Challenges for the Radiation Protection System in the Nuclear
Power Industry
W.O. Harris, CHP
Exelon Nuclear Corporation, 200 Exelon Way, Kennett Square, PA 19348 PH (610) 765-5350
Abstract- The Nuclear Power industry in the United States has made significant improvements in radiation
protection over the past decade. These improvements have resulted in significant reduction in individualand collective radiation exposures, reduced number of events, such as overexposures, and improved overall
radiological, industrial, and nuclear safety. This paper will discuss challenges facing the radiation
protection system in the US nuclear power program due to resources and staffing, regulatory environment,
and recent events in the industry. Currently, the United States Nuclear regulatory commission is evaluating
the need to revise the existing regulations to improve the alignment between the existing regulations and
ICRP 103 recommendations. There are several areas that will be addressed, such as the occupational andpublic dose limits, radiation quantities and units, and internal doses. In addition, several recent events, inthe nuclear power industry, both domestic and international, may have profound impact on the radiation
protection system for nuclear power operations. The paper will review the impacts from these events inlight of the potential changes associated with updating the existing regulations used in the United States tothe ICRP 103 methodology.

A Regulatory Perspective on whether the System of Radiation Protection
is Fit for Purpose
M. A. Boyd
Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 6608J, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, DC 20460, USA; PH 1 (202) 343-9395; FAX 1 (202) 343-2304
Abstract- The system of radiation protection has its origins in the early efforts to protect people from xrays and radium. It was at the Second International Congress of Radiology in Stockholm in 1928 where thefirst radiation protection recommendations were adopted. The system of protection steadily evolved as new
sources of exposure arose and our understanding of radiation-related health risks improved. Safeguarding
against these risks has required regulators to set enforceable (i.e., measurable) standards. From erythemadose to tolerance dose, critical organ dose to effective dose equivalent, and now effective dose, the units
used to set these limits have evolved along with the science underpinning them. Similarly, the definition of
the person or group being protected has changed – from standard man to reference man to reference person,with age and gender differences now explicitly taken into account. As regulators look towards
implementing the changes in ICRP Publication 103, there remain questions about how to translate an
optimization-based system of constraints and reference levels into the more familiar regime of enforceable
limits. Nevertheless, since the new recommendations are refinements of a system that itself more thanadequately did the job it was designed to do, so too will the new system of radiation protection be fit for
purpose.

14

15

Tuesday October 25, 2011
Tissue Reactions: Low Dose Risks
8:30 to 10:10 in Ballroom FG
Chair: Julian Preston, ICRP MC and C1 Chair

Epidemiology of Non-Cancer Effects at Moderate and Low Doses
Mark Little, National Cancer Institute, USA
Radiobiology Biology and Radiation Protection
Jolyon Hendry, ICRP C1, UK
Mechanisms of Radiation-Induced Cardiovascular Disease
Fiona Stewart, ICRP C1 & Netherlands Cancer Institute
Radiation Cataracts
Norman Kleiman, Columbia University, USA

Radiation Effects: Modulating Factors and Risk Assessment
10:40 to 12:20 in Ballroom FG
Chair: John Boice, ICRP MC

Radiation Effects: Modulating Factors and Risk Assessment: An Overview
Richard Wakeford, ICRP C1 & University of Manchester, UK
Residential Radon, Smoking and Lung Cancer
Sarah Darby, ICRP C1 & University of Oxford, UK
Biologically-Based Dose-Response Models in Cancer Risk Assessment
Suresh Moolgavkar, University of Washington, USA
Genetic Predisposition to Radiation-Related Cancer and Potential Implications for Risk
Assessment
Alice Sigurdson, ICRP C1 & National Cancer Institute, USA

16

Applications of Effective Dose
8:30 to 10:10 in Ballroom H
Chair: John Harrison, ICRP C2

Effective Dose: A Radiation Protection Quantity
Hans Menzel, ICRP MC and C2 Chair, Switzerland
Effective Dose: A Flawed Concept that Could and Should be Replaced
David J. Brenner, Columbia University Medical Center, USA
Effective Dose and Risks from Medical X-ray Procedures
Mikhail Balonov, ICRP C2 & Institute of Radiation Hygiene, Russia

Radiation Protection in Space
10:40 to 12:20 in Ballroom H
Chair: Hans Menzel, ICRP MC and C2 Chair

Uncertainty Analysis in Space Radiation Protection
Frank Cucinotta, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, USA
Radiation Transport Calculations for Cosmic Radiation
Akira Endo, ICRP C2 & Japan Atomic Energy Agency
Assessment of Radiation Exposure of Astronauts in Space
Günther Dietze, ICRP C2, Germany

17Radiological Protection in Computed Tomography
13:50 to 15:30 in Ballroom FG
Chair: Eliseo Vañó, ICRP MC and C3 Chair

CT Scanning: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Fred Mettler, ICRP MC Emeritus, New Mexico Federal Regional Medical Center, USA
ICRP and IAEA Actions on Radiation Protection in CT
Madan Rehani, ICRP C3 & International Atomic Energy Agency
Minimising Medically Unwarranted CT Scans
David J. Brenner, Columbia University Medical Center, USA
Paediatric CT
Pek-Lan Khong, ICRP C3 & University of Hong Kong, China

Prevention of Accidents in Radiation Therapy
16:00 to 17:40 in Ballroom FG
Chair: Madan Rehani, ICRP C3

Accident Prevention in Day-to-day Clinical Radiation Therapy Practice
Mario Baeza, ICRP C3 & Instituto de Radiomedicina, Chile
Impact of Complexity and Computer Control on Errors in Radiation Therapy
Benedick Fraass, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, USA
Prioritization of Quality Management Activities Based on What is Reasonably Achievable andOptimally Beneficial to Patients
M. Saiful Huq, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute and Medical Center, USA
Tools for Risk Assessment in Radiation Therapy
Pedro Ortiz Lopez, ICRP C3 & International Atomic Energy Agency

18

The Scientific Basis for Reference Animals and Plants
13:50 to 15:30 in Ballroom H
Chair: Jan Pentreath, ICRP MC and C5 Chair

The Biological Basis for Protection of the Environment
Carl-Magnus Larsson, ICRP C5 & Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency
Dosimetry for Reference Animals and Plants: Current State and Prospects
Alexander Ulanovsky, ICRP C5 & Helmholtz Zentrum München, Germany
RBE and Radiation Weighting Factors in the Context of Animals and Plants
Kathryn Higley, ICRP C5 & Oregon State University, USA

Environmental Protection in Practice
16:00 to 17:40 in Ballroom H
Chair: Carl-Magnus Larsson, ICRP C5

Clarifying and Simplifying the Management of Environmental Exposures under Different
Exposure Situations
Jan Pentreath, ICRP MC and C5 Chair, UK
Regulatory Experience in Applying a Radiological Environmental Protection Framework for
Existing and Planned Nuclear Facilities
Steve Mihok, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
Application of Radiological Protection Measures to Meet Different Environmental Protection
CriteriaDavid Copplestone, ICRP C5 & University of Stirling, UK

19

Tuesday October 25, 2011
Tissue Reactions: Low Dose Risks

Epidemiology of Non-Cancer Effects at Moderate and Low Doses
M. P. Little
Radiation Epidemiology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Executive Plaza South, 6120 Executive
Boulevard MSC 7238, Rockville, MD 20852-7238 USA
Abstract- There is a well established association between high doses of ionizing radiation exposure anddamage to the heart and coronary arteries, although only recently have studies with high quality individual
dosimetry been conducted that would enable quantification of this risk adjusting for concomitantchemotherapy. The association between lower dose exposures and late occurring circulatory disease has
only recently begun to emerge in the Japanese atomic bomb survivors and in various occupationallyexposed cohorts, and is still controversial. Excess relative risks per unit dose in moderate and low dose
epidemiological studies are somewhat variable, possibly a result of confounding and effect modification by
well known (but unobserved) risk factors; at least for endpoints other than heart disease there is statisticallysignificant (p<0.001) heterogeneity between the risks.
For some time it has been known that high radiation doses of 1 Gy or more could induce posterior
subcapsular cataract. Accumulating evidence from the Japanese atomic bomb survivors, Chernobyl
liquidators, US astronauts and various other exposed groups suggest that nuclear and cortical cataracts canalso be induced by ionising radiation. The accumulating evidence implies a linear dose response, althoughmodest thresholds (of no more than about 0.6 Gy) cannot be ruled out.
A variety of other non-malignant effects have been observed after moderate/low dose exposure invarious groups, in particular respiratory and digestive disease and CNS (and in particular neuro-cognitive)
damage. However, because these are generally only observed in isolated groups, or because the evidence isexcessively heterogeneous, these associations must be treated with caution.

Radiation Biology and Radiation Protection
J. H. Hendry
ICRP Committee 1
Adlington, Macclesfield, UK.
Abstract- For protection purposes, the biological effects of radiation are separated into stochastic effects(cancer, hereditary effects) presumed to be unicellular in origin, and tissue reactions due to injury inpopulations of cells. The latter are deterministic effects, renamed tissue reactions in the 2007 ICRP
recommendations because of the increasing evidence of the ability to modify responses after irradiation.
Tissue reactions become manifest either early or late after doses above a threshold dose, which is the basis
to recommended dose limits for avoiding such effects. Latency time before manifestation is related to cell
turnover rates and tissue proliferative and structural organisation. Threshold doses have been defined forpractical purposes at 1% incidence of an effect. In general, threshold doses are lower for longer follow-up
times because of the slow progression of injury before manifestation, and may be higher if doses are
fractionated or protracted. Recent studies have revealed that for both circulatory disease and lens cataracts,
the threshold dose is very small and not significantly different for acute and protracted exposures. This
could be the case if doses ≤ the threshold dose caused only single-hit-type events not modified byrepair/recovery phenomena, or if different mechanisms of injury are involved at low and high doses.

20Mechanisms of Radiation-Induced Cardiovascular Disease
F. A. Stewart
ICRP Committee 1
Experimental Therapy, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066CX Amsterdam, The
Netherlands
Abstract- Epidemiological studies have shown a clear association between therapeutic doses of thoracic
irradiation and increased risks of cardiovascular disease in long-term cancer survivors. Survivors of
Hodgkin‟s lymphoma and childhood cancers, for example, show 2 to >7-fold increases in risks for cardiac
deaths after total tumour doses of 30-40 Gy, given in 2-Gy fractions. The risks of cardiac mortality increaselinearly with dose, although for cardiac doses <5 Gy there are large uncertainties. Experimental studies
show that doses of ≥ 2 Gy induce the expression of inflammatory and thrombotic molecules in endothelial
cells. In the heart this causes progressive loss of capillaries and eventually leads to reduced perfusion,
myocardial cell death and fibrosis. Laboratory animal data are supported by clinical studies demonstrating
regional perfusion defects in non-symptomatic breast cancer patients 6 months after radiotherapy. In large
arteries, radiation (≥ 2 Gy) initiates atherosclerosis and predisposes to the formation of unstable lesions,which are prone to rupture and may cause a fatal heart attack or stroke. After doses < 2Gy, it seems likelythat other mechanisms are responsible for cardiovascular effects. Persistent increases in pro-inflammatory
cytokines and long-term impairment of T-cell-mediated immunity may well be involved. Monocyte killingand increased levels of chemoattractant proteins may also play a role in initiation and progression ofatherosclerosis.

Radiation Cataracts
N. J. Kleiman
Eye Radiation and Environmental Research Laboratory (ERERL), Department of Environmental Health
Sciences, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, 722 West 168th Street, New York, NY
10032; PH (212) 305-6748; FAX (212) 305-6748
Abstract- Until very recently, ocular exposure guidelines were based on the assumption that radiation
cataract is a deterministic event requiring threshold doses generally greater than 2 Gy. This view was, inpart, based on older studies which generally had short follow-up periods, failed to take into accountincreasing latency as dose decreased, had relatively few subjects with doses below a few Gray and were notdesigned to detect early lens changes. Newer findings, including those in populations exposed to much
lower radiation doses and in subjects as diverse as astronauts, medical workers, A-bomb survivors,
accidentally exposed individuals and those undergoing diagnostic or radiotherapeutic procedures, strongly
suggest dose-related lens opacification at significantly lower doses. These observations resulted in a recent
re-evaluation of current lens occupational exposure guidelines and a proposed lowering of the presumptive
radiation cataract threshold to 0.5 Gy and occupational lens exposure limit to 20 mSv/yr, regardless ofwhether an acute, protracted or chronic exposure. Experimental animal studies support these conclusions
and suggest a role for genotoxicity in radiation cataract development. New guidelines are likely to havesignificant implications for occupational exposure and the need for eye protection, for example in fields
such as interventional medicine, and are also likely to influence current research efforts concerning thecellular and molecular mechanisms underlying cataractogenesis.

21

Applications of Effective Dose

Effective Dose: A Radiation Protection Quantity
H. Menzel
ICRP Main Commission and Committee 2 Chair
CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland
Abstract - Modern radiation protection is based on the principles of justification, limitation andoptimization. Assessment of radiation risks for individuals or groups of individuals is, however, not a
primary objective of radiological protection. The implementation of the principles of limitation andoptimization requires an appropriate quantification of radiation exposure. ICRP has introduced effective
dose E as the principal radiological protection quantity to be used for setting and controlling dose limits forstochastic effects in the regulatory context and for the practical implementation of the optimization
principle. Effective dose is the tissue-weighted sum of radiation weighted organ and tissue doses of areference person from exposure to external irradiations and internal emitters. The specific normalized
values of tissue weighting factors are defined by ICRP for individual tissues and used as an approximate
sex-averaged representation of the relative contribution of each tissue to radiation detriment of stochastic
effects from whole-body low-LET irradiations. The rounded values of tissue and radiation weighting
factors are chosen by ICRP on the basis of available scientific data from radiation epidemiology andradiation biology and they are therefore subject to adjustment as new scientific information becomes
available. Effective dose is a single, risk-related dosimetric quantity and is used prospectively for planningand optimization purposes and retrospectively for demonstrating compliance with dose limits andconstraints. In practical radiation protection it has proven to be extremely useful.

Effective Dose: A Flawed Concept that Could and Should be Replaced
D. J. Brenner
Center for Radiological Research, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York 10032. PH(212) 305-5660; FAX (212) 305-3229
Abstract- Effective dose is used to characterize the generic risk of a total body radiation-induced stochastic
health detriment. The effective dose represents flawed science: two of the most important reasons are thatthe tissue-specific weighting factors used to calculate effective dose are a subjective mix of different
endpoints, and that the marked and differing age dependencies for different health detriment endpoints are
not taken into account. Effective dose is prone to misuse, particularly in the field of radiology. It issuggested that effective dose could be replaced by a new quantity, effective risk, which, like effective dose,is a weighted sum of equivalent doses to different tissues; unlike effective dose, where the tissue-dependent
weighting factors are a set of generic, subjective committee-defined numbers, the weighting factors for
effective risk would simply be evaluated tissue-specific lifetime cancer risks per unit equivalent dose. The
resulting “effective risk”, which has the potential to be age- and gender-specific if desired, would performthe same comparative role as effective dose, be just as easy to estimate, be less prone to misuse, be more
directly understandable, and would be based on solid science.

22Effective Dose and Risks from Medical X-ray Procedures
M. I. Balonov1 and P. Shrimpton2
1

ICRP Committee 2
Institute of Radiation Hygiene, 8 Mira St, 197046 St. Petersburg, Russia, PH +7 (812) 232 85 16; FAX +7(812) 233 53 63
2

Health and Protection Agency, Chilton, Didcot, Oxfordshire OX11 0RQ, United Kingdom, PH +44 (0)1235 831600, FAX +44 (0) 1235 833891
Abstract – The radiation risks from a number of medical X-ray examinations (radiography, fluoroscopy
and computer tomography) were assessed as a function of the age and sex of the patient on the base oforgan doses and compared with calculations done using effective dose. Radiation risk models described in
ICRP Publication103 and UNSCEAR Report 2006 (Annex A) were used for risk calculations.
Methodologically similar but not identical dose and risk calculations were performed independently of eachother at IRH, Russia, and HPA, UK and led to similar conclusions. Radiogenic risk of stochastic healtheffects following various X-ray procedures substantially varied with patient age and sex to different extents
depending on which body organs were irradiated. Generally, risk of radiation-induced stochastic healtheffects in children is higher (up to a factor of four) than in adults, and risk in senior patients is lower by afactor of ten or more than in younger people. If risk is assessed based on effective dose it is underestimatedfor children of both sexes by a factor that reaches four for girls undergoing thorax examinations. For adults,
effective dose overestimates risk by a factor up to 2.5 and for senior patients by a factor of ten and more.
The significant sex- and age-dependence of radiogenic risk for different cancer types is an importantconsideration for radiologists when planning X-ray examinations. While effective dose was not intended toprovide a measure of risk associated with such examinations, it may be sufficient to make simple
adjustments to the nominal risk per unit effective dose to account for age and sex differences.

23

Radiation Effects: Modulating Factors and Risk Assessment

Radiation Effects: Modulating Factors and Risk Assessment: An
Overview
R. Wakeford
ICRP Committee 1
Dalton Nuclear Institute, The University of Manchester, Pariser Building – G Floor, Sackville Street,
Manchester, M13 9PL, UK; PH (44) 0161-275-4431; FAX (44) 0161-275-4396
Abstract- The risk coefficients – the increased risks of cancer generated by the receipt of a unit dose ofionising radiation – that underlie the structure of radiological protection recommended by the ICRP aresummary risk estimates inferred from risk models describing the dose-responses for a number of different
types of cancer. These summary risk estimates give the overall average lifetime excess risk of cancer for ageneral population and for a working population, and are designed for a practical, internationally applicablesystem of protection (e.g. one with common dose limits and constraints). However, it is recognised that thesummary risk estimates represent averages over a range of factors that modify the risk, such as race, sex,
age-at-exposure, attained-age and time-since-exposure, and age-at-exposure is explicitly accommodated in
the difference between the general population and working population risk coefficients used by the ICRP.
Since the background risk of certain cancers varies between races, of importance is how the risk observedin a population composed of a particular race is transferred to another population. Beyond these intrinsic
factors are a variety of lifestyle factors. For example, if the risk from radiation exposure is not independentof whether an individual smokes tobacco then the radiation risk coefficient will differ between smokers andnon-smokers. This variation extends to other exposures, such as alcohol, drugs and certain genetic
conditions, and is likely to be of relevance to those other factors that affect the risk of certain cancers, suchas diet and obesity. Finally, it should not be forgotten that the system of radiological protection recognisesthat the type of radiation (e.g. -ray, -particle), and for some radiations the dose-rate, affects the risk perunit absorbed dose, and that these also represent averaging for the purposes of protection.

Residential Radon, Smoking and Lung Cancer
S. C. Darby
ICRP Committee 1
Clinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit, University of Oxford, Richard Doll Building,
Old Road Campus, Oxford OX3 7LF. Tel: +44-1865-743864
Abstract- Recent epidemiological data enable the extent to which radon causes lung cancer in ordinary
homes to be estimated. They also provide insight into the way in which cigarette smoking modifies the riskof radon-related lung cancer. These new data have substantial implications for optimum strategies for thecontrol of radon-related lung cancer.

24

Biologically-Based Dose-Response Models in Cancer Risk Assessment
S. H. Moolgavkar
Exponent, Inc., 15375 SE 30th Place, Bellevue, WA 98007
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Centre, 1100 Fairview Avenue N, Seattle, WA 98109
Abstract- The process of cancer risk assessment involves much more than low-dose extrapolation. In
particular, an understanding of how temporal factors, such as detailed exposure histories, affect cancer risk
is essential to making rational risk assessment decisions. These considerations are particularly important forradiation risk assessment. Yet, despite the fact that Haber's law rarely holds for human carcinogens,conventional statistical methods generally relate risk to cumulative exposure rather than the detailed patternof exposure. BBDR models provide one way to incorporate detailed exposure histories in the analyses of
epidemiologic data in cancer. The central problem in cancer epidemiology is to understand how theprocesses of mutation accumulation, and clonal expansion and selection, which characterize multistage
carcinogenesis, are modified by genetic background and environmental factors. Although the paradigm isnow firmly established, most epidemiologic studies of cancer incorporate ideas of multistage
carcinogenesis neither in their design nor in their analyses. In this largely non-technical talk, I will give
examples to show that using ideas of multistage carcinogenesis can yield insights into epidemiologic
studies of cancer that would be difficult or impossible to get from conventional methods. I will focus oncohort studies of lung cancer. I will argue that the target of estimation in cohort studies should be not therelative risk, but the hazard function. The traditional statistical approaches to analyses of epidemiologic
studies are based on the Cox proportional hazards model. Proportionality of hazards is a strong assumption,
however, which is rarely checked, but often violated. BBDR models offer an alternative to the traditional
approaches for analyses of epidemiologic data and important insights for cancer risk assessment.

Genetic Predisposition to Radiation-Related Cancer and Potential
Implications for Risk Assessment
A. Sigurdson
ICRP Committee 1
Radiation Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute,
National Institutes of Health. 6120 Executive Blvd, EPS 7092, MSC 7238, Bethesda, MD, 20892 USA; PH
301.594.7911; FAX 301.402.0207
Abstract-Several lines of evidence suggest that risk estimates for cancer associated with radiation exposure
are composed of individuals who are more and less inherently susceptible to radiation‟s carcinogenic
effects. This concept has been proposed as one potential reason the risk relationship between most humansolid cancers and radiation is linear rather than some other hypothesized relationship, such as sub-linear.
Currently it is probably premature to seriously consider ascribing susceptibility to any particular genetic
background, such as polymorphic variants in ATM, because their function is incompletely understood andmost often are rare so they cannot account for a large proportion of cancers from radiation exposure. On
the other hand, the idea to sum the number of potentially deleterious variants discovered through genomewide scans irrespective of their likely functional magnitude seems to be regaining favour. One could
imagine summing all potentially deleterious variants for radiation-associated cancer risk in all genes basedon sequencing and create a susceptibility score. But to be more accurate, risks cannot be aggregated overall cancers since some show very different dose-response relationships and some solid cancers are thought
to be relatively resistant to radiation effects. Also, risks may differ at low vs. high doses or dose-rates, atyoung or older ages at exposure or by other host characteristics. Such risk models would also differ
between leukaemia and the radiation-associated solid cancers, but could certainly be done if the humanbiologic and outcome data were extensive enough. The enormous effort to develop such risk models should
not be underestimated. Nevertheless, given the recent use of genome-wide scans to discover radiation-25

related second cancer variants such as PRDM1, it is promising to speculate that the predictive set may not
be long. If a radiosensitivity assay emerges with high predictive value for radiation associated cancer types,
then genome-wide association studies could be applied in a similar way as that used to recently identify the
PMAIP1/Noxa gene‟s association with sensitivity to the radiomimetic agent bleomycin. At the moment
these undertakings would require significant resources and stronger relationships or predictive values thanseen at present and are likely premature for inclusion in radiation risk assessment.

26

Radiation Protection in Space

Uncertainty Analysis in Space Radiation Protection
F. A. Cucinotta
NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Centre, Houston TX, 77058, USA. PH: (+1) 281 483-0968; FAX (+1) 281 4833058
Abstract: Space radiation is comprised of high energy and charge (HZE) nuclei, protons, and secondary
radiation including neutrons. The uncertainties in estimating the health risks from galactic cosmic rays
(GCR) are a major limitation to the length of space missions, the evaluation of potential risk mitigation
approaches, and application of the ALARA principle. For long duration space missions, risks may approachradiation exposure limits, therefore the uncertainties in risk projections become a major safety concern andmethodologies used for ground-based works are not deemed to be sufficient. NASA limits astronautexposures to a 3% risk of exposure induced death (REID) and protects against uncertainties in risks
projections using an assessment of 95% confidence intervals in the projection model. We discuss NASA‟sapproach to space radiation uncertainty assessments and applications for the International Space Station(ISS) program and design studies of future missions to Mars and other destinations. Several features ofNASA‟s approach will be discussed. Radiation quality descriptions are based on the properties of radiation
tracks rather than LET with probability distribution functions (PDF) for uncertainties derived fromradiobiology experiments at particle accelerators. The application of age and gender specific models forindividual astronauts is described. Because more than 90% of astronauts are never-smokers, an alternativerisk calculation for never-smokers is used and will be compared to estimates for an average U.S.
population. Because of the high energies of the GCR limits the benefits of shielding and the limited role
expected for pharmaceutical countermeasures, uncertainty reduction continues to be the optimal approachto improve radiation safety for space missions.

Radiation Transport Calculations for Cosmic Radiation
A. Endo1 and T. Sato2
1

ICRP Committee 2
Nuclear Science and Engineering Directorate, Japan Atomic Energy Agency, Tokai-mura, Ibaraki
319-1195, Japan; PH (29) 284-3754; FAX (29) 282-6122
2

Nuclear Science and Engineering Directorate, Japan Atomic Energy Agency, Tokai-mura, Ibaraki
319-1195, Japan; PH (29) 282-5803; FAX (29) 282-6122
Abstract- Radiation environment inside and near to spacecrafts consists of various components of the
primary radiation in space and secondary radiation produced by the interaction of the primary radiation withthe walls and equipment of the spacecrafts. Radiation fields inside astronauts are different from thoseoutside them, because of the body-self shielding as well as the nuclear fragmentation reactions occurring in
the human body. Several computer codes have been developed to simulate the physical processes of thecoupled transport of proton, high charge and energy (HZE) nuclei, and the secondary radiation produced in
atomic and nuclear collision processes in matter. These computers codes have been applied to spaceradiation protection: shielding design of spacecrafts and planetary habitats, simulation of instrument anddetector response, analysis of absorbed doses and quality factors in organs and tissues, and study of
biological effects. The presentation will focus on the methods and computer codes used for radiationtransport calculation of cosmic radiation, and their application to analysis of radiation fields insidespacecrafts, evaluation of organ doses in the human body, and calculation of dose conversion coefficientsusing the ICRP reference phantoms defined in ICRP Publication 110.

27

Assessment of Radiation Exposure of Astronauts in Space
G. Dietze
ICRP Committee 2
Paracelsusstraße 7, D-38116 Braunschweig, Germany. PH (+49) 531-511190; FAX (+49) 531-592 6015
Abstract- The paper is based on data and concepts which have been collected and discussed by an ICRPTask Group in their work of preparing an ICRP Report on “Assessment of radiation exposure of astronauts
in space”. The primary radiation field in space, the galactic cosmic radiation and the solar radiation, with its
broad range of charged particle types and energies is very complex and is additionally modulated due tointeractions of the primary radiation with materials of a space vehicle. The high component of heavy ions in
the field compared to the situation on Earth has consequences for the concept of protection quantities andquantities used in measurements. Radiation quality of heavy ions need to be considered in more detail than
the simple procedure applied on Earth where a single radiation weighting factor of 20 is used for all heavy
ions and all energies. For space applications the use of the quality factor concept seems more appropriate
and better correlated with exposure risks. Further on, some data will be presented about the measurement
techniques used for the assessment of doses to astronauts in space.

28

The Scientific Basis for Reference Animals and Plants

The Biological Basis for Protection of the Environment
C-M. Larsson
ICRP Committee 5
Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, PO Box 655, Miranda, NSW 1490, Australia;
PH +61 2 9541 8300; FAX +61 2 9541 8314
Abstract- The approach to protection of the environment may vary considerably depending on ethicalbasis, methodological approach and identification of endpoints and protective targets. The approach may
not involve a biological basis at all but focus on the abiotic component of the environment. The ICRP
reviewed these issues in its Publication 91, “A framework for assessing the impact of ionising radiation on
non-human species”, published in 2003. At the same time, ICRP proposed that: a possible future ICRP
system addressing environmental assessment and protection would focus on biota; that the system shouldbe effect-based so that any reasoning about adequate protection would be derived from firm understandingof harm at different exposure levels; and that the system should be based on data sets for reference animals
and plants, or RAPs. ICRP has thus chosen to approach environmental protection on the basis of biology
and further developed the approach in Publications 103, 108 and 114. This paper explores the biologicalbasis for the ICRP system of environmental protection from the viewpoints of: effects endpoints ofconcern; the hierarchy of biological organisation, adequate and appropriate protective targets, and thederivation of benchmark dose (rates) to guide protective efforts.

Dosimetry for Reference Animals and Plants: Current State and Prospects
A. Ulanovsky1 and G. Pröhl2
1

ICRP Committee 5
Helmholtz Zentrum München – German Research Centre for Environmental Health, Institute of Radiation
Protection, Ingolstädter Landstraße 1, 85716 Neuherberg, Germany; PH (+4989) 3187-4113; FAX (+4989)
3187-3363
2International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna International Centre, P.O. Box 100, A-1400 Vienna, Austria;
PH (+431) 2600-22854; FAX (+431) 2600-7-22854
Abstract- The enormous diversity of non-human biota is a specific challenge when developing andapplying dosimetric models for assessing exposures to flora and fauna from environmental radioactivity.
Dosimetric models, adopted by the ICRP, provide dose conversion coefficients for a large variety of biota,
including the ICRP‟s Reference Animals and Plants. The models use a number of simplified approaches,
often ignoring presumably insignificant details. Simple body shapes with uniform composition and density,
homogeneous internal contamination, limited set of external radiation sources for terrestrial animals andplants, truncation of radioactive decay chains – these are a few examples of simplifying assumptions
underlying the dose conversion coefficients included in Publication 108 of the ICRP. Still, many specificassessment tasks require dosimetry data for non-standard species or irradiation scenarios. The further
development of dosimetric models aims at the implementation of flexible choices of animals and plants aswell as of their irradiation conditions (e.g. trees), the more systematic consideration of internal exposuresfrom radionuclides concentrated in specific organs, task-oriented choice of decay chains based on the ICRP
Publication 107. Extensive set of non-human dosimetry data might require specific software to facilitate afast, accurate, and flexible selection of pertinent dose conversion coefficients for specific assessment tasks.

29

RBE and Radiation Weighting Factors in the Context of Animals andPlantsK. A. Higley1, D.C. Kocher2, A. G. Real3, and D.B. Chambers4
1

ICRP Committee 5
Oregon State University, Department of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Health Physics, 100 Radiation
Center, Corvallis OR, 97331-5902; PH (541) 737-0675; FAX (541) 737-0480
2

SENES Oak Ridge, Inc., 102 Donner Drive, Oak Ridge, TN, 37830; PH (865) 483-6111; FAX (865) 4810060
3

ICRP Committee 5
Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT ), Moncloa Centre,
Avda. Complutense, 40 28040 (Madrid), Spain; PH 91-346.67.50; FAX 91-346.60.05
4

SENES Consultants Limited, 121 Granton Drive, Unit 12, RICHMOND HILL, Ontario Canada L4B 3N4;
PH (905) 764-9380; FAX (905) 764-9386
Abstract- Radiation weighting factors have long been employed to modify absorbed dose as part of theprocess of evaluating radiological impact to humans. Their use represents an acknowledgement of thefundamental difference in energy deposition patterns of charged and uncharged particles and how this cantranslate into varying degrees of biological impact. Weighting factors used in human radiation protection
are derived from a variety of end points taken from in vitro experiments that include human and animal celllines, as well as in vivo experiments with animals. None the less, the application of radiation weighting
factors in the context of dose assessment of animals and plants is not without some controversy.
Specifically, radiation protection of biota has largely focused on limiting deterministic effects, such as
reduced reproductive fitness. Consequently the application of conventional stochastic-based radiation
weighting factors (when used for human protection) appears inappropriate. While based on research,radiation weighting factors represent the parsing of extensive laboratory studies on relative biologicaleffectiveness (RBE). These studies demonstrate that the magnitude of a biological effect depends not juston dose, but also other factors including the rate at which the dose is delivered, the type and energy of theradiation delivering the dose, and most importantly the endpoint under consideration. This presentation
discusses the efforts taken to develop a logical, transparent, and defensible approach to establishingradiation weighting factors for use in assessing impact to non-human biota, and the challenges found indifferentiating stochastic from deterministic impacts.

30

Radiological Protection in Computed Tomography

CT Scanning: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
F.A. Mettler
ICRP Main Commission Emeritus Member
Imaging Service, New Mexico VAHCS, 1501 San Pedro Blvd. Albuquerque, New Mexico 87108: PH(505) 256-2768; FAX (505) 256-2864
Abstract- The rapid growth of CT scanning and associated dose over the last few decades went largely
unappreciated. The first alert came from ICRP Committee 3 in Publication 87 which published in 2001.
There are many obvious benefits from CT scanning, particularly in the setting of trauma and cancer
management. CT scanning has completely replaced intravenous urograms and many nuclear medicine lungscans. The variability in doses, protocols and justification of procedures remains problematical. A numberof deterministic effects have been due to poorly designed protocols and lack of awareness of the associatedabsorbed dose. Studies on the radiogenic cancer potential of CT scans are underway. There are also efforts
to standardize protocols, record doses and educate the medical community.

ICRP and IAEA Actions on Radiation Protection in Computed
Tomography (CT)M. M. Rehani
ICRP Committee 3
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna, Austria, PH (43) 1-2600 -22733 FAX (43) 1-2600722733
Abstract – The ICRP has published two Annals on managing patient doses in CT (Publication 87, in 2001)
and in multi-detector CT (Publication 102 in 2007). It was way back in 1999 when the ICRP presaged that
CT use is set to expand tremendously with resultant patient organ doses in the range where there isincreased probability of cancer. The actions by the ICRP were aimed at creating awareness about issues ofradiation risks, dealing with specific clinical applications and providing guidance.
Givingrecommendations to manufacturers was also an important objective. The increase in usage and resulting
incidents in recent years have confirmed and rather surpassed speculations. The IAEA has played acomplementary role in creating awareness through its website http://rpop.iaea.org which has become
increasingly popular and is currently accessed in 90 countries; has projects in many developing countries onpatient dose assessment and dose management, the results of which have been published, and has
established networks on radiation protection of children in different parts of the world. The combined
actions of these two organizations, along with the involvement of a number of major internationalorganizations which form part of the IAEA‟s International Action Plan for the Radiological Protection ofPatients, provides both top down and bottom up coverage.

31Minimizing Medically Unwarranted CT Scans
D. J. Brenner
Center for Radiological Research, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York 10032. PH(212) 305-5660; FAX (212) 305-3229
Abstract- The annual number of CT scans is increasing rapidly, particularly in health-care level I countries.
The concern is that organ doses from CT are typically far larger than those from conventional x-ray exams,
and there is persuasive evidence of a small but significant increased cancer risk at typical CT doses.
Because CT is such a superb diagnostic tool and because individual CT risks are small, the CT benefit/riskbalance is generally by far in the patient‟s favour. Nevertheless, CT should operate under the ALARA (AsLow As Reasonably Achievable) principle, and opportunities exist to reduce the significant population dose
associated with CT. The first opportunity is to reduce the dose per scan, and improved technology has muchpotential here. The second opportunity is selective replacement of CT with other modalities, such as formany head and spinal exams (e.g. to MRI), and for diagnosing appendicitis (e.g. selective use of ultrasound+ CT). Finally, a fraction of CT scans could be avoided entirely, as indicated by CT decision rules.
Widespread use of CT clinical decision rules represents a powerful approach for slowing down the increasein CT usage, because they have the potential to overcome many of the major factors that result in
medically-unwarranted CT scans.

Radiation Protection in Paediatric CT
P. L. Khong1 and H. Ringertz2
1

ICRP Committee 3
Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Queen Mary Hospital, The University of Hong Kong; PH (852)22553307; FAX (852) 28551652
2

ICRP Committee 3
Centre for Medical Image Science and Visualisation, Linkoping University Hospital, Sweden; PH (468)51774500; FAX (468) 51774583
Abstract- It is well accepted that there is higher risk per unit of radiation dose for the development ofcancer in infants and children compared to adults, due to the longer life expectancy for any harmful effectsof radiation to manifest and the fact that developing organs and tissues are more sensitive to the effects ofradiation. CT examinations may involve relatively higher radiation doses; the absorbed doses to organs andtissues can sometimes approach or exceed the levels known from epidemiological studies to increase theprobability of cancer development. Thus, in justification, imaging techniques that do not employ the use ofionizing radiation should always be considered as a possible alternative, e.g. ultrasonography for theabdomen, and MRI for detailed information of the soft tissues, nervous system, or bone marrow. Dose
reduction should be optimized by adjustment of scan parameters (mA, kVp and slice thickness) according
to patient weight or age. For the purpose of minimizing radiation dose exposure, noisier images, if
sufficient for radiological diagnosis, should be accepted. Attention should also be paid to optimizing study
quality; this may be improved by image post-processing to facilitate radiological diagnoses andinterpretation. Acceptable quality also depends on the structure and organ being examined and the clinicalindication for the study. Finally, improvements in CT technology are promising in further reducing patient
dose.

32

Environmental Protection in Practice

Clarifying and Simplifying the Management of Environmental Exposures
under Different Exposure Situations.
R. J. Pentreath
ICRP Main Commission and Committee 5 Chair
Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Prospect Place, The Hoe, Plymouth, PL1 3DH, UK
Abstract- The ICRP now recognises three different exposure situations, but in all three the release ofradionuclides into the natural environment leads to exposures of non-human species, as well as having thepotential for exposures of the general public. Each release may therefore need separate evaluations of thesetwo consequences in order to clarify what the relevant objectives of protection are, and how they can beachieved. But the need to meet more than one objective should not necessarily lead to a more complicatedregulatory system. Indeed, with regard to low level routine discharges from most nuclear plants, there
would appear to be scope for simplifying the entire system, to protect humans and biota, by using bothdischarge consent and specified Radionuclide Environmental Quality Standards for water, soil, and air in amanner similar to that used to regulate other, major, non-nuclear industries. In contrast, however, withregard to existing exposure situations, different objectives need to be evaluated independently. And in
emergency situations, it should be made clear as to what consequences different actions will have, forhumans and for the environment, in order to communicate clearly with the public at large as events unfold.

Regulatory Experience in Applying a Radiological Environmental
Protection Framework for Existing and Planned Nuclear Facilities
S. Mihok1 and P. Thompson2
1

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, P.O. Box 1046, Station B, 280 Slater Street, Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada K1P 5S9; (613) 947-0656; FAX (613) 995-5086
2

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, P.O. Box 1046, Station B, 280 Slater Street, Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada K1P 5S9; (613) 947-3352; FAX (613) 995-5086
Abstract- Frameworks and methods for the radiological protection of non-human biota have been evolving
rapidly at the ICRP and through various European initiatives. The IAEA is soon expected to incorporate arequirement for environmental protection in a revision of its Basic Safety Standards. In Canada, the CNSC
has been legally obligated to prevent unreasonable risk to the environment since 2000. Licensees havetherefore been meeting generic legal requirements to demonstrate adequate control of releases ofradioactive substances for the protection of both people and biota for many years. In the USA, in addition to
the generic requirements of the EPA and NRC, DOE facilities have also had to comply with specific dose
limits after a standard assessment methodology was finalized in 2002. Canadian regulators developed asimilar framework for biota dose assessment through a regulatory assessment under the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act in the late 1990s. This framework has been applied extensively since thento satisfy legal requirements under the CEAA and the NSCA. Selected examples of recent practices inassessing doses to biota in both countries are compared here and discussed relative to the approaches being
considered elsewhere. After roughly a decade of experience in applying these methods in North America, it
is clear that simple methods are fit for purpose and can be used for making regulatory decisions for existingand planned nuclear facilities.

33

Application of Radiological Protection Measures to Meet Different
Environmental Protection Criteria
D. Copplestone
ICRP Committee 5
University of Stirling, Biological and Environmental Sciences, School of Natural Sciences, Stirling, FK9
4LA, Scotland; PH +44 (1786) 467852; FAX +44 (1786) 467843
Abstract-The Commission recognises that there is no simple or single universal definition of„environmental protection‟ and that the concept differs from country to country and from one circumstanceto another. However, there is an increasing need to be able to demonstrate that the environment is protectedfrom radioactive substances released under authorisation, for various reasons, such as for wildlife
conservation requirements, or wildlife management for commercial reasons, or simply as part of pollution
control. The Commission is developing the concept of Representative Organisms, which may be identified
from any specific legal requirements or from more general requirements to protect local habitats or
ecosystems. Such organisms may be the actual objects of protection or they may be hypothetical, dependingon the objectives of the assessment. They may be similar to, or even congruent with, one or more of theReference Animals and Plants (RAPs). Where this is not the case, then attempts can be made to consider towhat extent the Representative Organisms differ from the nearest RAP, in terms of known radiation effects
upon it, basic biology, radiation dosimetry, and pathways of exposure. This paper discusses the practical
implications of such an approach.

34

Prevention of Accidents in Radiation Therapy

Accident Prevention in Day-to-Day Clinical Radiation Therapy Practice
M. Baeza
ICRP Committee 3
Department of Radiotherapy, Instituto de Radiomedicina, IRAM, Av Américo Vespucio Norte 1314,
Vitacura 6671407, Santiago, Chile. PH (56) 2- 754-1700 FAX (56) 2-228-7003
Abstract: Nearly 50-60% of cancer patients will undergo radiotherapy at some moment. Around 85% of
the world‟s population lives in developing countries served by approximately only 30% of the world‟sradiotherapy facilities. It has been suggested that a megavoltage unit machine is required for every
500 new treatment courses per year, while others estimate that a machine is needed for every 300
new treatments. However these numbers do not necessarily take into account the development of
new technologies and treatment modalities, which are more time and staff consuming. ICRP hasemphasized that “purchasing new equipment without a concomitant effort on education and training andon a programme of quality assurance is dangerous” thus “the decision to implement a new technology forradiation therapy should be based on a thorough evaluation of the expected benefits, rather than being
driven by the technology itself”. It has been estimated that the rate of serious mistakes could be as high as
0.2%, which is several orders of magnitude higher that the rate reported for commercial aviation. So how
safe is safe? Therefore, the development of a culture of safety is critical and requires efforts in educationand training which could be hard in overloaded departments.

Impact of Complexity and Computer Control on Errors in Radiation
Therapy
B. A. Fraass
Department of Radiation Oncology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Centre, Los Angeles, CA, 90048; PH (310) 4238077; FAX (310) 423-6161
Abstract- A number of recent publications in both the lay and scientific press have described major errors
in patient radiation treatments, and this publicity has galvanized much work to address and mitigate
potential safety issues throughout the radiation therapy planning and delivery process. The complexity ofmodern radiotherapy techniques and equipment, including computer-controlled treatment machines andtreatment management systems, as well as sophisticated treatment techniques which involve intensity
modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT), stereotactic body radiation
therapy (SBRT), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), respiratory gating, and others, leads toconcern about safety issues related to that complexity. This presentation illustrates the relationship ofcomplexity and computer control to various safety problems and errors which have been reported, anddescribes studies which address the issue of these modern techniques and whether their complexity does infact result in more errors or safety-related problems. Clinical implications of these results are discussed, as
are some of the ways the field should respond to the on-going concerns about errors and complexity inradiation therapy.

35

Prioritization of Quality Management Activities Based on What is
Reasonably Achievable and Optimally Beneficial to Patients
M. Saiful Huq
University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute and UPMC Cancer Centers, Pittsburgh, PA 15232, USA; PH(412) 647-1813; FAX (412) 647-1161
Abstract- Modern radiotherapy makes use of many machines and techniques with the goal of delivering ahighly conformal dose of radiation to a 3D target volume while at the same time minimizing the dose to an
acceptable level to surrounding healthy tissue. To accomplish this goal, new complex treatment planningand delivery technologies and procedures are routinely introduced into the clinic. As treatment methods
become complex and technologically intensive, the number and sophistication of possible quality
management activities, tests, and measurements continually grow. New approaches are being developed inradiation therapy practice to address the quality management needs of both existing and emerging
technologies with finite resources. These are based on risk assessment that examines the entire radiation
therapy process. They reflect jointly the probability of a failure occurring and the severity should it occur.
Thus, they allow a radiotherapy department to develop a systematic quality management program that
acknowledges its current level of technology and clinical practice, and balances patient safety and treatment
quality with available resources. This paper will describe methods for development and prioritization ofsuch quality management activities.

Tools for Risk Assessment in Radiation Therapy
P. Ortiz López
ICRP Committee 3
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), PH (43) 1 2660-26669, FAX (43) 1 26007-26669
Abstract- While the benefits from radiotherapy are unquestionable, from the safety perspective,
radiotherapy has unique features: it is the only application of radiation, in which humans are intentionallydelivered very high radiation doses. Despite of the fact that radiotherapy equipment is provided with wellstandardized series of safety interlocks, safety in radiotherapy remains heavily dependent on human actions,with a large interaction among different professionals of a multidisciplinary team, involved in a large
number of steps. A step by step itinerary is suggested to prevention of accidental exposures in radiation
therapy: 1) the first key element is the allocation of responsibilities to qualified professionals and the design
a programme on quality and safety; without these key elements, no radiotherapy practice should be
operated; 2) the second step is to use the lessons from accidental exposures to test whether the programmeof quality and safety is robust enough against these types of events; publications of IAEA and ICRP
provide a collection of lessons to facilitate this step; 3) the third step is aimed at finding other latent risks byposing the of “what else could go wrong” or “what other potential hazards might be present” in asystematic, anticipative manner; methods to do this are briefly described in publication no. 112 of the
ICRP.

36

37

Wednesday October 26, 2011
Dose Constraints and Reference Levels
8:30 to 10:10 in Ballroom FGH
Chair: Jacques Lochard, ICRP MC and C4 Chair

Dose Constraints in Occupational Radiation Protection - Regulations and Practices
Anne McGarry, ICRP C4 & CRPPH Chair & Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland
Global Nuclear Industry Views: Challenges Arising from the Evolution of the Optimization
Principle in Radiological Protection
Sylvain St-Pierre, World Nuclear Association
Survey on the Use of Dose Constraints and Reference Levels Made in the Context of theEuropean ALARA Network
Stephen Fennell, Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland
Reference Levels in the Context of Fukushima
Kazuo Sakai, ICRP C5 & National Institute of Radiological Sciences, Japan

Radiological Protection in Waste Management
10:40 to 12:20 in Ballroom FG
Chair: Wolfgang Weiss, ICRP C4

IAEA Safety Standards on Disposal of Radioactive Waste
Magnus Vesterlind, International Atomic Energy Agency
Radioactive Waste Management in France, Safety Demonstration Fundamentals
Gérald Ouzounian, Agence nationale pour la gestion des déchets, France
NRC Regulations for Geological Disposal of Radioactive Wastes
Timothy McCartin, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, USA
Report of the ICRP TG 80 “Radiological Protection in Geological Disposal of Long-lived Solid
Radioactive Waste”
Wolfgang Weiss, ICRP C4 & Federal Office for Radiation Protection, Germany

Experience in Implementing ICRP Recommendations
13:50 to 15:30 in Ballroom FG
Chair: Jaiki Lee, ICRP MC

Stakeholder Involvement with Development and Implementation of ICRP Recommendations:
The NEA Experience
Ted Lazo, Nuclear Energy Agency
IRPA's Perspective
Ken Kase, International Radiation Protection Association
Revision of the international BSS: Building on ICRP’s Philosophy
Renate Czarwinski, International Atomic Energy Agency
Past Experience and Future Plan in Korea
Kunwoo Cho, Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety
U.S. NRC Discussion of Options to Revise Radiation Protection Regulations
Donald Cool, ICRP C4 & Nuclear Regulatory Commission, USA

38

Radiological Protection in NORM
10:40 to 12:20 in Ballroom H
Chair: Peter Burns, ICRP C4

Development of a NORM Management Strategy for the Oil & Gas Industry
Michael Cowie, Saudi Aramco, Saudi Arabia
Advances in NORM Management in Norway and the Application of ICRP Publication 103
Recommendations
Astrid Liland, Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority
The Situation of NORM in Non-uranium Mining in China
Liu Hua, ICRP C4 & National Nuclear Safety Administration, China
NORM Survey in Argentina
Analia Canoba, Autoridad Regulatoria Nuclear, Argentina

Protection against Radon in Workplaces
13:50 to 15:30 in Ballroom H
Chair: John Cooper, ICRP MC

Lung Cancer Risk from Radon Exposure: Contribution of Recently Published Uranium Miners
StudiesMargot Tirmarche, ICRP C1 & Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire, France
Radon Dosimetry
John Harrison, ICRP C2 & Health Protection Agency, UK
Radon and the System of Radiological Protection
Jean-Francois Lecomte, ICRP C4 & Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire, France
Industry Views on ICRP Radon Statement
John Takala, Cameco Corporation, Canada

39Symposium Summary and Conclusions
16:00 to 17:45 in Ballroom FGH
Chair: Claire Cousins, ICRP ChairRadiological Protection of the Environment
Jan Pentreath, ICRP MC and C5 Chair, UK
Constraints and Reference Levels, NORM and Waste
Jacques Lochard, ICRP MC and C4 Chair & Centre d'étude sur l'Evaluation de la Protection dans leDomaine Nucléaire, France
Radiological Protection in Medicine
Eliseo Vañó, ICRP MC and C3 Chair & Complutense University, Spain
Effective Dose & Radiological Protection in SpaceHans Menzel, ICRP MC and C2 Chair, Switzerland
Tissue Reactions & Modulating Factors and Risk Assessment
Julian Preston, ICRP MC and C1 Chair & Environmental Protection Agency, USA
Protection Against Radon in Workplaces
John Cooper, ICRP MC & Health Protection Agency, UK
The System of Radiological Protection & Experience in Implementing ICRP Recommendations
Abel González, ICRP Vice-chair & Autoridad Regulatoria Nuclear, Argentina
Symposium Closing Remarks
Claire Cousins, ICRP Chair & Addenbrooke’s Hospital, UK

40

Wednesday October 26, 2011
Dose Constraints and Reference Levels

Dose Constraints in Occupational Radiation Protection - Regulations andPractices
A. McGarry
ICRP Committee 4
Chair of Nuclear Energy Agency Committee on Radiation Protection and Public Health (NEA CRPPH) & Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland
Edward Lazo, Nuclear Energy Agency
Abstract - The concept of dose constraints was first introduced by the ICRP in Publication 60 to assist withthe optimisation of protection in occupational exposure: “An important feature of optimisation is the choiceof dose constraints, the source-related values of individual dose used to limit the range of options
considered in the procedure of optimisation” (ICRP, 1991).
In Publication 103, the ICRP re-enforced the principle of optimisation of radiation protection using
dose constraints or reference levels, and emphasised that it should be applicable in a similar way to all
exposure situations – planned, emergency and existing: “The concepts of a dose constraint and reference
level are used in the process of optimisation of protection to assist in ensuring that all exposures are kept
as low as reasonably achievable, societal and economic factors being taken into account. Constraints andreference levels can thus be described as key parts in the optimisation process that will ensure appropriate
levels of protection under the prevailing circumstances.” In planned exposure situations the dose term dose
constraint is used, and in emergency and existing exposure situations it is called reference level.
During the development of the new recommendations, dose constraints was one of the concepts thatgenerated the most questioning and confusion among stakeholders. To further explore the issues involved,
the NEA Committee on Radiation Protection and Public Health (CRPPH) mandated its Expert Group on
Occupational Exposure (EGOE) to study the current use of dose constraints in the management ofoccupational exposures in practice, and their implementation in regulatory frameworks.
The work of the EGOE is presented. It addresses Experience of interpretation and implementation of dose constraints in occupational radiation
protection and in regulatory operational frameworks following ICRP Publication 60;
 Operational and regulatory issues that may arise with the implementation of dose constraints as
described in ICRP Publication 103; andSuggestions for operational objectives and uses of dose constraints in light of the recommendations of
ICRP in Publication 103.

41

Global Nuclear Industry Views: Challenges Arising from the Evolution of
the Optimization Principle in Radiological Protection
S. Saint-Pierre
World Nuclear Association, Carlton House, 22a. St. James‟s Square, London, United Kingdom
SWIY 4JH; PH:+44 (0)20 7451 1520; FAX:+44 (0)20 7839 1501
Abstract- Over the last few decades, the steady progress achieved in reducing planned exposures of both
workers and the public have been admirable in the nuclear sector. However, the disproportionate focus ontiny public exposures associated with normal operations came at a high price, and the quasi denial of a riskof major accident and related weaknesses in emergency preparedness and response came at even higher
price. Fukushima has unfortunately taught us that radiological protection (RP) for emergency and postemergency can be much more than a simple evacuation that lasts 24 to 48 hours with people safely
returning to their homes shortly afterward. On optimization of planned exposures, the reality is thatnowadays margins for further dose reductions in the nuclear sector are small and the smaller the dose, thegreater the extra effort needed to further reduce doses. If not sufficiently cautious in the use of RP notions
like dose constraints, there is a real risk of challenging nuclear power technologies beyond safety reasons.
For nuclear new build, it is the optimization of key operational parameters of nuclear power technologies(not RP) that is of paramount importance in order to improve their overall efficiency. On optimization of
emergency & post-emergency exposures, the only „show in town‟ in terms of RP policies improvements
has been the issuance of the ICRP new general recommendations. However, no matter how genuine these
improvements were, they have not been road tested to the practical reality of severe accidents. PostFukushima, there is a compelling case to review the practical adequacy of key RP notions such as reference
levels for workers and the public, evacuation, sheltering, and the likes, and to amend these notions with aview to make the international RP system more useful in the event of a severe accident. The global nuclear
industry is committed to help overcoming the above key RP issues as part of the RP community‟s
upcoming deliberations towards a more efficient international RP system.

Survey on the Use of Dose Constraints and Reference Levels Made in theContext of the European ALARA Network
S.G. Fennell
Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland, 3 Clonskeagh Square, Dublin 14, Ireland
Abstract - The European ALARA Network (EAN) was established in 1996 by the European Commission
to further specific European research on topics dealing with optimisation of radiation protection, as well as
to facilitate the dissemination of good ALARA practices within the European industry, research andmedical sectors. The network has now become self sustainable and is registered as a not-for-profit
association under French law. Twenty countries participate in the network, bringing together experts inradiation protection from a variety of stakeholders across Europe including regulatory authorities, researchorganisations and service providers. The EAN publicises its activities and disseminates information via an
ALARA newsletter published twice a year and through its website, as well as holding workshops on
specific ALARA topics every 18 months. In addition the EAN has established a number of sub-networks
which focus on specific areas of interest. One of these networks, the European Radiation Protection
Authorities Network (ERPAN), was established in 2005 to promote the exchange of information between
regulatory authorities across Europe.
The concept of a dose constraint was included in the 1996 European Basic Safety Standards
Directive which defined it as “a restriction on the prospective doses to individuals which may result from adefined source, for use at the planning stage in radiation protection whenever optimization is involved”.

42The Directive also stated that “it should be used, where appropriate, within the context of optimization ofradiological protection”. As all member states of the European Union were required to implement thisDirective in national legislation, the use of dose constraints should now be well established throughout
Europe.
In 2010 EPRAN undertook a survey to review how the concept of dose constraints had been
implemented across Europe. In particular, the survey focused on their use in the context of the optimisationof occupational exposure in the non-nuclear sector. The results of this survey were included in a reportpublished by the NEA in September 2011 and presented at this symposium.

Reference Levels in the Context of Fukushima: Lessons Learned andChallenges to the Radiation Protection System
K. Sakai
ICRP Committee 5
National Institute of Radiological Protection, Japan
Abstract - After the nuclear accident, a number of reference levels were adopted, including one regarding
the use of playground of schools in Fukushima. Considering the band of 1-20 mSv/year recommended by
ICRP for public exposure for existing exposure situation, Japanese authorities set 20 mSv/year on April 19
as a "start line" for reducing the dose to school children. When the level of 20 mSv/year was announced,
the meaning of a reference level was explained at a press conference. However, the "20mSv/year" ledconsiderable confusion among the general public and some experts. They thought that the school children
would be exposed to 20 mSv/year and compared this value with the dose limit of 1 mSv/year for planned
exposure situations. Factually, later in May, based on the measurement of ambient dose rates inschoolhouses as well as playground, actual dose was estimated around 10 mSv/year at most.
Another issue was raised with regard to the higher radiosensitivity of children. In ICRP
recommendations a higher risk coefficient is given to the whole population compared to the adult one,because it includes children, a sub-population of higher sensitivity. The point of argument was whether
lower reference levels are to be set, when only children are considered.
Including this example, some lessons learned and challenges to the current radiation protection
system will be discussed.

43

Radiological Protection in NORM

Development of a NORM Management Strategy for the Oil & Gas
Industry
M. I. Cowie, K. A, Mously, O. Fageeha, R. Nassar
Environmental Protection Department, Saudi Aramco, Dhahran 31311, Saudi Arabia
Abstract- It has been established that Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM) accumulates atvarious locations along the oil/gas production process. Components such as wellheads, separation vessels,
pumps and other processing equipment can become NORM contaminated, and NORM can accumulate insludge and other waste media. Improper handling and disposal of NORM contaminated equipment andwaste can create a potential radiation hazard to workers and the environment. Saudi Aramco Environmental
Protection Department initiated a program to identify the extent, form and level of NORM contamination
associated with the company operations. Once identified the challenge of managing operations which had a
NORM hazard was addressed in a manner that gave due consideration to workers and environmental
protection as well as operations‟ efficiency and productivity. The benefits of shared knowledge, practiceand experience across the oil & gas industry are seen as key to the establishment of common guidance on
NORM management. This paper outlines Saudi Aramco‟s experience in the development of a NORM
management strategy and its goal of establishing common guidance throughout the oil & gas industry.

Advances in NORM Management in Norway and the Application of
ICRP Publication 103 Recommendations
A. Liland
Per Strand, Ingar Amundsen, Henning Natvig, Mette Nilsen, Ronny Lystad
Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority, P.O.BOX 55, No-1332 Osteras, Norway

Abstract - The largest quantities of radioactive discharges and radioactive waste in Norway comes fromthe oil and gas sector, even though smaller quantities of other NORM waste are also produced by industrial
or mining processes. The Gulen final repository for radioactive waste from the oil and gas industry was
opened in 2008 and has a capacity of 6000 tons.
As of 1 January 2011 a new regulation was enforced whereby radioactive waste and radioactive
pollution is now regulated under the Pollution Control Act. This means that radioactive waste andradioactive pollution are now regulated in the same manner as all other pollutants and hazardous wastes.
The regulation defines two sets of criteria: a lower value for when waste is considered radioactive waste
and a higher value, in most cases, for when this waste must be disposed off in a final waste repository. As
an example, waste containing  1 Bq/g of Ra-226 is defined as radioactive waste while radioactive waste
containing  10 Bq/g of Ra-226 must be disposed off in a final repository. Radioactive waste between 1 and
10 Bq/g can be handled and disposed of by waste companies who have a licence for handling hazardous
substances according to the Pollution Control Act or the Radiation Protection Act.
The goal of the new regulation is that all hazardous waste should be handled and stored in a safe manner,
not posing unnecessary risk to humans or the environment.
The presentation will elaborate on the scientific basis used to develop the new regulation ofradioactive waste and the principles of NORM management in Norway in view of the ICRP Publication
103 recommendations.

44

The Situation of NORM in Non-Uranium Mining in China
L. HuaICRP Committee 4
Dept. of Nuclear Safety Management, Ministry of Environment Protection, China
Abstract -The Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP) in China is responsible for regulatory control
on radiation protection to Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM). The natural radiation byhuman activities is the major contributors to the public and occupational exposure in China. Somesignificant achievements concerning NORM exposure and control have been made.
The paper introduces the first national pollution sources census for target year 2007 in China. In thecensus, total 11 kinds of non-uranium ores were included, e.g. rare earth, niobium/ tantalum, zircon and its
oxides, tin, lead /zinc, copper, aluminum, vanadium, iron and steel, phosphate, and coal including coalgangue. From the census, there are 1433 companies in China to produce ores, raw materials. The
radioactivity of uranium, thorium-232, and Radium-226 in non-uranium ore products and raw material arevarious.
The paper also introduce more detailed a NORM site in Baotou, Inner Mongolia, which is the largest
rare earths deposit in China. The ores are rich in radioactive elements, with a 0.01-0.05% concentration ofThO2 and a 0.0005-0.002% of U3O8. The deposit has been mined for more than 50 years. Ores aretransported by train to refinery plants in Baotou to process for products of iron and steel, REO and theircompounds. Meanwhile, the large amount of NORM residues produced is being regulated and controlled.
At the present time, waste rocks are about 560×106 t and stored in the on-site waste rock dumps around theopen pits, tailings are 149×106 t and stored in tailing pond, ferrous slags are about 55×106 t and stored in aferrous slag dump, RE slags are 437.3 ×103 t and stored in the Radioactive Waste Storage Facility. Most ofwaste water after treated, is discharged in tailing pond and then pumped to milling plant for reuse. Waste
gas after off-dust cleaning is discharged to environment. A substantial amount of blast furnace iron slags
have been made into cement, concrete, bricks or used directly for highway construction. However, it raises
serious environmental concerns. Environmental radiation monitoring and assessment have been maderecently.
The paper concludes that NORM is the major contributor to the exposure of public and workers. To
take effective measures to lower the dose and to strengthen the regulation on NORM is very important.

NORM Survey in Argentina
C. Canoba1
1

Gerencia de Apoyo Científico Técnico, Autoridad Regulatoria Nuclear, Av. Del Libertador 8250, Ciudadde Bs. As. (1429), Argentina, PH: (11) 6779-8468; FAX (11) 6779-8460
Abstract- A survey programme was initiated several years ago with the aim to estimate NORM exposure
incidence on workers in several different activities carried out through the country, in oil and gas industry,gold mining, spas and in caverns. This work presents the procedures, methods employed and the results
found up to date from the survey including protection and remedial actions recommended when deemednecessary. Radium isotope concentrations measured in some samples were well above the exemption
values established by the Standards. Elevated radon levels (above action level value established forworkplaces) were detected in gas facilities, in the gold mine and cavern. The values detected were informed
to the pertinent authorities as well as the facilities in order to take actions to reduce concentrations below
the action level. In relation with the spas, almost all values of the geothermal waters analysed were below
the corresponding guidance levels. Regarding regulatory aspects, ARN is the technical institution that gives
advice to the Government in these issues. In this work the results obtained within the companies surveyed
are presented with the aim of evaluating the presence of NORM and the exposure of workers.

45

Radiological Protection in Waste Management

IAEA Safety Standards on Disposal of Radioactive Waste
M. Vesterlind
Waste and Environmental Safety Section
Division of Radiation, Transport and Waste Safety
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Abstract- The IAEA safety standards provide a robust framework of fundamental principles, requirements
and guidance to ensure safety in activities and facilities where ionizing radiation is utilized or present.
An overview of the safety standards most relevant for management (predisposal and disposal) ofradioactive waste and spent fuel will be presented. Emphasis will be given to the recently published safety
requirements publication SSR-5, Safety Requirements on Disposal Radioactive Waste.
This Safety Requirements publication sets out the safety objective and criteria for the disposal ofradioactive waste and establishes the requirements that must be satisfied in the disposal of radioactive
waste. It applies to the disposal of radioactive waste of all types by means of emplacement in designed
disposal facilities, subject to the necessary limitations and controls being placed on the disposal of thewaste and on the development, operation and closure of facilities.
A short overview will be given of on-going safety harmonization projects for near-surface (PRISM)
and geological disposal (GEOSAF), with focus on suggested approaches for developing the safety case for
disposal facilities.

Radioactive Waste Management in France, Safety Demonstration
Fundamentals
G.Ouzounian, S.Voinis, F.Boissier
ANDRA, 1-7 rue Jean Monnet, 92298 Châtenay-Malabry Cedex, FRANCE; PH: +33146118196 ;FAX: +33146118268
Abstract- The main challenge in the development of the safety case for the deep geological disposal isassociated with the long periods of time over which high-level and intermediate-level long-lived wastes
remain hazardous. Over such periods as hundreds of thousands years, a wide range of events and processes
may occur. These events and processes are characterised by specific timescales. For example the timescale
for heat generation is much shorter than any geological timescale. To reach a high standard of reliability inthe safety case, it is therefore essential to get a thorough understanding and description of the sequence of
events and processes likely to occur over the lifetime of the repository. It becomes then possible to assess
the capability of the repository to fulfil its safety functions. However, again due account of the long periodsof time and of the complexity of the events and processes likely to occur, uncertainties related to allprocesses, data and models also need to be understood and addressed.
According to the French safety guidance published in 2008 by the safety authority, the fundamental
protection principles at the basis of the design are:

protection of human beings and the environment against possible aggressions related to radioactive
waste ;
limitation of an eventual radiological impact level as low as reasonably possible.

46

The protection of human beings and the environment is understood, above all, as a protection against the
specific risk linked to radioactive waste, that is, radioactivity and its induced effects. The compliance withradioprotection objectives is verified through radiological impact assessments.
The protection against other aggressions due to wastes and, in particular, potential chemical risk, due to thepresence of toxic elements may also be considered. Its assessment is mainly covered through its chemical
behaviour in the natural system and through the one of its radiological impact
For the long term, the main safety indicator remains the committed individual effective dose at theoutlet within the context of a predefined biosphere and a predefined critical group. A dose of 0.25 mSv/year
at most in a normal situation is retained by Andra.
The choice was made of the same constraint of 0.25 mSv/year for the repository‟s operating andclosure situations because it refers more broadly to the notion of equity between the generations: we do not
accept for future generations detriments which would not be accepted for present-day populations.
For situations considered as altered, the calculated impact is assessed according to the likelihood of
the situation, the chronic or timely character of the exposures, and the degree of pessimism of thecalculation assumptions.
In that frame, the biosphere constitutes the last step in modelling the transfer of radionuclides andchemical toxins towards “human beings” and to further determine their impact. Various links in the foodchain are considered for that purpose. The biosphere is a common topic in the different safety cases
addressed by Andra whether they refer to existing surface waste disposal facilities or future projects.
However, according to the safety approach of Andra, no safety function is given to the biosphere.
In the geosphere, before radionuclides may reach the biosphere, repository‟s intrinsic performances areassessed through well-defined and described chemical and physical processes and related scenarios. Other
indicators than dose, and directly related to the behavior of the repository components and radionuclides areused, thus avoiding any assumptions on the surface environment and the biosphere. In particular,
determining radionuclide concentration flows at relevant emplacements in the geological repository allows
refining the judgment on safety and overcoming some of the uncertainties. Different situations or different
design provisions can thus be compared to check the most suitable with respect to the limitation of theradionuclide transfers. As illustration the activity flow at each of the repository components, and theconcentration distributions of dissolved materials in the host rock and in surrounding formations areindicators used by Andra.
In addition, the safety case of the repository differs from« conventional » nuclear facility safety caseby the few following general aspects:

The necessity of approaching in a coordinated way the different life phases of the repository (i.e.
operation, and post-closure) ;The consideration of timescales which extend beyond human experience ;The strong relationship between technical design, scientific knowledge and safety assessment ;The key importance given to uncertainty management especially for the post-closure phase.
This peculiar safety case requires calling on many disciplines (mining and nuclear engineering, earthsciences, material sciences, safety) and implementing specific methods of analysis.
The paper will describe in detail the protection objectives, the different time frames of the life of thedisposal facility and how the safety approach deals with the peculiarity of the geological disposal. It will
also present the place of the biosphere.

47

NRC Regulations for Geological Disposal of Radioactive Wastes
T. McCartin
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop E2-D2, Washington, DC 20555-0001;
PH (301) 492-3167; FAX (301) 492-3357
Abstract- The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), over the past 15 years, has made significant
revisions to its regulations for geological disposal of high-level radioactive waste to improve effectivenessand efficiency. NRC regulations for geological disposal address both the operational period, when waste is
being emplaced and activities are monitored, and the post-closure period (i.e., the time period after thefacility is permanently closed). The regulations provide criteria for performing calculations of potential
radiological exposures for comparison with dose limits as well as other criteria for limiting the potential for
exposures (e.g., requirements for records, access controls, monitoring, criticality controls, testing, alarms,
performance confirmation, multiple barriers). Consideration is also given for evaluating the effects of
inadvertent intrusion into the geologic repository after it has been permanently closed. NRC regulations forgeological disposal implement health-based, safety objectives that are fully protective of public health andsafety, and the environment, and are consistent with national and international recommendations forradiation protection.

Report of the ICRP TG 80 “Radiological Protection in Geological
Disposal of Long-lived Solid Radioactive Waste”
W. Weiss
ICRP Committee 4
Federal Office for Radiation Protection, Germany
Abstract: The report updates and consolidates previous recommendations of ICRP related to solid waste
disposal (Publications 46, 77, 81). The recommendations given in this report apply specifically togeological disposal of long-lived solid radioactive waste. The report explains how the 2007 ICRP System ofRadiological Protection described in ICRP Publication 103 can be applied in the context of the geologicaldisposal of long-lived solid radioactive waste. The report is written as a self standing document.
The 2007 ICRP System of Radiological Protection maintains the Commission‟s threefundamental principles of radiological protection namely justification, optimisation, and the application ofdose limits. The Recommendations evolve from the previous process-based protection approach using
practices and interventions by moving to an approach based on the exposure situation. They maintain theCommission‟s current individual dose limits for effective dose and equivalent dose from all regulated
sources in planned exposure situations. They re-enforce the principle of the optimisation of radiologicalprotection. The Recommendations also include an approach for developing a framework to demonstrateradiological protection of the environment.
This report describes the different stages in the lifetime of a geological disposal facility andaddresses the application of relevant radiological protection principles for each stage depending on thevarious exposure situations that can be encountered. In particular, the crucial factor that influences theapplication of the protection system over the different phases in the lifetime of a disposal facility is the levelof oversight that is present. The level of oversight affects the capability to reduce or avoid exposures. Threemain timeframes have to be considered for the purpose of radiological protection: time of direct oversightwhen the disposal facility is being implemented and active oversight is taking place; time of indirectoversight when the disposal facility is sealed and indirect oversight is being exercised to provide additional
assurance on behalf of the society; time of no oversight when oversight is no longer exercised because
memory is lost.

48

Experience in Implementing ICRP Recommendations

Stakeholder Involvement with Development and Implementation of ICRP
Recommendations: The NEA Experience
T. Lazo
OECD Nuclear Energy Agency
Abstract - The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, through its Committee on Radiation Protection and Public
Health (CRPPH), has for many years been interested in the recommendations of the ICRP. Being acommittee of radiation protection regulatory authorities and radiation protection experts from national
technical service organisations, the CRPPH membership is intimately involved in the development andimplementation of national radiological protection regulations. As such, the CRPPH has remainedinterested in interacting with the ICRP regarding the development of any new recommendations, as well as
regarding their interpretation for practical situations. For this reason, the CRPPH very willingly engaged
actively with the ICRP for the development of the Commission‟s new general recommendations,Publication 103.
This interaction began with the publication of Roger Clarke‟s article, Control of low-level radiation
exposure: time for a change? The Committee contacted Prof. Clarke, then the ICRP Chair, and began a 7year interaction with the ICRP, including: the development of CRPPH views on how the system should evolve, resulting in 13 CRPPH expert
group reports;
 the organisation and assessment of 7 international meetings to discuss various ICRP draft versions,and to discuss key topics (e.g. radiological protection of the environment);
 the detailed assessment of 4 draft versions of what eventually became ICRP Publication 103.
This effort mobilised a large fraction of the resources of the CRPPH for this time, but was largely seen
as a win-win situation. The CRPPH membership actively engaged with the ICRP, providing views andfeedback as to how the new recommendations could best serve the needs of the CRPPH members. As aresult of these efforts, the CRPPH membership felt invested in the ICRP recommendations, and when they
were finally issued in 2007 felt that they broadly understood and accepted the recommendations.
The CRPPH brought this same engagement enthusiasm to the implementation of the Publication 103
recommendations as codified in the International Basic Safety Standards. The CRPPH membership andSecretariat participated in 63 meetings to develop the 2011 BSS text, and performed 4 detailed international
assessments of draft versions. Again, the CRPPH was in a position to enthusiastically recommend to the
NEA Steering Committee that the new BSS should be co-sponsored by the NEA. This view was the resultof the active participation engaged in by the Committee for the preparation of the new text.
Both of these examples demonstrate the value that the CRPPH sees in active stakeholder engagement
as key radiological protection documents are developed, and the value that this engagement brings to thedeveloper of such documents.

The Role of the Radiation Protection Professional
K. R. Kase
President, International Radiation Protection Association
Abstract - The International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA) has a membership of approximately
17,000 individuals who are members of 48 national societies in 61 countries worldwide. As such IRPA isthe voice of the radiation protection professional. IRPA recognizes that the International Commission on

49

Radiation Protection (ICRP) is the international body to determine policy and to make recommendations forprotection against ionizing radiation and IRPA is in position to participate in and to facilitate theimplementation of those recommendations. A significant goal of IRPA is to be recognized by its members
and stakeholders as the international voice of the radiation protection profession. The 13th International
Congress of IRPA will be held in Glasgow in May 2012 under the theme of Living with Radiation –Engaging with Society. This focus will provide significant opportunities for discussion of ICRP
recommendations and standards relevant to protection of workers, the public and the environment, and theireffective implementation. As an international organization of radiation protection professionals, IRPA
provides the forum for discussion of issues related to effective development and implementation ofradiation protection recommendations. This presentation will discuss elements of the outcome of IRPA 12,
Focus on the Future, the objectives of the IRPA Strategic Plan 2010 – 2020, Criteria and priorities for IRPAEngagement with International Organizations, the current IRPA initiatives in the areas of Radiation
Protection Culture and Certification/Qualification of Radiation Protection Experts, the planning for the
IRPA13, and comments on current ICRP recommendations and suggestions about IRPA participation in
their implementation.

Revision of the International Basic Safety Standards: Building on ICRP‟s
Philosophy
R. CzarwinskiInternational Atomic Energy Agency, P.O. Box 100, Wagramer Strasse 5, 1400 Vienna, Austria
Abstract- The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) issues Basic Safety Standards (BSS) for
protection against ionizing radiation since nearly 50 years. The responsibility of the IAEA lies inter alia in
the translation of scientific evidence concerning health effects and radiation protection into regulatory
language to ensure a safe application of ionizing radiation worldwide in areas like medicine, research andindustry. The development of Safety Standards takes account of the findings of the United Nations
Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) and of the Recommendations of theInternational Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). The first BSS published in 1962 was basedon ICRP “Publication 1” from 1958. Meanwhile the fifth revised International Basic Safety Standards onradiation protection was approved by the Board of Governors on 12th September 2011 based onrecommendations of ICRP 103. This revision of the BSS was based on information derived from theexperience of States in applying the requirements of the previous Safety Standards and from experience inmany States in the use of radiation and nuclear techniques. The revision was done in close cooperation withinternational organizations as European Commission (EC), the Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations (FAO), the International Labour Organization (ILO), the Nuclear Energy Agency of theOrganization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD/NEA), the Pan American HealthOrganization (PAHO), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World HealthOrganization (WHO).
The implementation of the safety requirements of the Basic Safety Standards into national legislations is anecessary step to ensure a harmonized radiation protection globally.
The presentation gives a brief view on the history, the dovetailing of relevant international organizations in
the development and revision of the Basic Safety Standards and addresses requirements/topics which
demand particular reflection and consideration e.g. medical exposure, non-medical exposure, radon anddose limits. Necessary future cooperation will be raised.

50

Past Experience and Future Plan in Korea
K. Cho1, J. Lee2 and S. Han3
1

Radiation & Waste Safety Division, Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety, Daejeon 305-338, Korea; PH +8242-868-0292 FAX +82-42-868-3680
2Department of Nuclear Engineering, Hanyang University; PH (010) 3272-0466; FAX +82-2-2296-3690

3Department of Radiological Safety Research, Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety, Daejeon 305-338, Korea;
PH +82-42-868-0305 FAX +82-42-868-0733
Abstract-Korea has now 21 units of NPPs in operation and 5 other units under construction. Korea is alsoplanning to construct 6 more units until 2020. As of the end of 2010, the installed capacity of nuclear poweris about 18 GW, sharing about 25% of total installed capacity and presenting about 34% of total electricity
generation in Korea. We have PWR & PHWR fuel fabrication facilities, one research reactor, one verysmall education purpose reactor and a repository facility under construction. As of the end of 2010, there
are about 4,400 registered and licensed users, among which more than 60 % are industrial firms. The
number of RI and RG users has been continuously increased during the last decade for more than 10% and
it is still increasing. Since ICRP published its 1990 recommendations as ICRP 60, many different numericalrestrictions had been also published in a number of publications. Coming into the 21st century, ICRP
decided to introduce the new paradigm of radiation protection and to revise its recommendations in a more
coherent and comprehensible manner. After long process of opinion hearing involving wide spectrum ofexperts and organizations worldwide, ICRP finally published its 2007 recommendations as ICRP 103. This
paper describes the Korean experience of the implementation of the ICRP 103 into Korean regulations.
Based on the previous experience of the introduction of ICRP 60 recommendations, Korea has been
conducting a five year research project. Now, we are in the final stage of the fifth year. And the first draft ofnational laws and regulations, which incorporates the ICRP 103 and new IAEA BSS, were published andopinion hearing from the operators of nuclear installations were made and the feasibility study on theapplicability of new requirements has been in progress. The final draft of the revision of the rules andregulations is scheduled to be published until the end of February 2012.
We have identified five requirements to be implemented into our rules and regulations. Namely, they are,first, set up of dose constraints and reference level, and change in the tissue and radiation weighting factors,
practical application of the exclusion and exemption principles, active participation of the stakeholders, andfinally change from process-based system to situation-based system. The paper describes how each of theserequirements is reviewed and introduced into Korean rules and regulations. As a provisional conclusion, in
general, the impact of the ICRP 103 and new IAEA BSS on our regulations does not appear to be as
significant as the one that was resulted from the introduction of ICRP 60 recommendations in about ten
years ago. Nevertheless, the impact of the ICRP 103 and new IAEA BSS introduction is expected to besignificant, because Korean nuclear industries has grown significantly during the last two decades.
Therefore, we will continue to do the deliberate review and analysis for the proper introduction of the ICRP
103 & new IAEA BSS, so that we can minimize the possible adverse impact on the further development of
Korean nuclear industries.

51

U.S. NRC Discussion of Options to Revise Radiation Protection
Recommendations
D. Cool
ICRP Committee 4
Senior Advisor Radiation Safety and International Liaison U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Abstract - The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is continuing the process of engaging stakeholders
on issues associated with possible changes to the radiation protection regulations contained in 10 CFR Part20, and other parts of the NRC regulations, to increase alignment with international recommendations. The
Commission is particularly seeking to explore implications, as appropriate and where scientificallyjustified, of greater alignment with ICRP Publication 103. Other information from national andinternational sources is also being considered. Given that the NRC regulations provide adequate protection,
the discussion has been focusing on discerning the benefits and burdens associated with revising theradiation protection regulatory framework. The NRC staff, through three Federal Register Notices, has
officially solicited comments on a series of key issues, and has conducted a series of facilitated workshops
to encourage feedback from a wide range of stakeholders. The issues include the use of updated scientificmethodologies and terminology, the occupational dose limits, and the use of the concepts of constraints in
optimization. The NRC staff is to provide a policy paper with recommendations to the Commission in
April, 2012.

52

Protection against Radon in Workplaces

Lung Cancer Risk from Radon Exposure: Contribution of Recently
Published Uranium Miners Studies
M. Tirmarche1 *, J. Harrison2, D. Laurier1, E. Blanchardon1, F. Paquet1, J. Marsh2*

ICRP Committee 1

1

Institute of Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety, P.O. Box 17, 92262 Fontenay-aux-roses Cedex
FRANCE; PH (0033) 146653558
2
Health Protection Agency , Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards, Chilton, Didcot,
Oxon. OX11 0RQ. PH (0044) i235 831600
Abstract- A review and analysis of lung cancer risks linked to radon exposures was performed by Task
Group 64 of ICRP committee 1 and will be published in the near future. It was based mainly on recently
published epidemiological studies of uranium miners with relatively low annual exposures to radon and its
decay products. A recent European research project called Alpha-Risk made it possible to build a large
database regrouping cohorts of Czech, French and German uranium miners and to perform a joint analysis.
The estimated excess relative risk of lung cancer per unit of exposure from this study takes into account the
influence of chronic exposure over more than 10 years, the attained age or age at exposure as well as
possible interactions between radon inhalation and tobacco consumption.
In parallel to this European research program, UNSCEAR and WHO reconsidered their position withregard to radon risk assessment, based on results from both uranium miners studies and a large number ofcase-control studies that focused on lung cancer risk linked to domestic radon.
Lifetime risk calculations performed by ICRP are mainly based on results from occupational exposure.
Task Group 64 members compared their calculations with those observed in domestic exposures studies,
obtaining good agreement when making appropriate comparisons considering: : same sex, same attained
age, identical scenario and period of exposure and same level of annual exposure. On the basis of ICRP
publication 103 reference lung cancer rates, averaged over males and females and over Euro-American andAsian populations, the calculated life time excess absolute risk (LEAR) from radon exposure was close to
14 x 10-5 per h mJ m-3 (5 x 10-4 per WLM). This estimate is about twice that calculated in ICRP Publication
65. A sensitivity analysis concluded that using Euro-American male lung cancer rates would lead to an
estimated LEAR of about 20 x 10-5 per h mJ m-3 (7 x 10-4 per WLM). This difference is due to higher
background lung cancer rates among Euro-American males. In contrast, using lower background rates suchas those of females or non smokers would lead to a lower estimated LEAR per unit exposure.

Radon Dosimetry
J.D. Harrison1 and J.W. Marsh
1

ICRP Committee 2
Health Protection Agency, Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards, Chilton, Didcot,
Oxon. OX11 0RQ, UK.
Abstract- Effective dose from the inhalation of radon and its alpha-emitting progeny has been calculatedusing “epidemiological” and “dosimetric” approaches. Currently, ICRP uses an epidemiological approachin which the risk of lung cancer per unit radon exposure is compared with total detriment per unit effective
dose. Hence, values of effective dose per unit radon exposure are obtained and referred to as the doseconversion convention. However, ICRP now proposes that the same approach be applied to intakes ofradon and its progeny as that applied to all other radionuclides, calculating effective dose using reference
biokinetic and dosimetric models, and radiation and tissue weighting factors. Effective dose coefficients53

will be given for different reference conditions of exposure, taking into account factors including inhaledaerosol characteristics and disequilibrium between radon and its progeny. In this presentation, dosimetriccalculations of effective dose will be explained and results compared with values obtained using the doseconversion convention. Implications for the setting of reference levels will be briefly discussed. The use ofeffective dose for protection purposes will be contrasted with the estimation of risk to individuals, including
smokers and non-smokers.

Radon and the System of Radiological Protection
J.-F. Lecomte
ICRP Committee 4
Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire, International Relation Division, P.O. Box 17, Fontenayaux-Roses, F 92262; PH (+33) 1 58 35 93 31; FAX (+33) 1 58 35 85 09
Abstract- The Commission is updating its recommendations on protection against radon exposure
according to its new general recommendations (Pub 103 and Pub 101 on optimisation). The future
publication will remain in line with the previous Pub 65 dedicated to radon. It will also take into accountthe future Pub 115 on the lung cancer risk from radon and progeny. Radon exposure arises in dwellings,
workplaces and mixed-use buildings. Because the most part of the risk is due to exposure at home, it should
be addressed mainly in a public health perspective. The approach developed is integrated (focussed as far as
possible on the management of the building whatever its occupants), graded (according to responsibilities,
especially in workplaces) and ambitious (aiming at reduce both the highest exposures and the overall risk).
The recommended strategy, implemented through a national action plan, is mainly based on the
optimisation of the protection below a reference level, combining prevention and mitigation. In workplaces,
the exposure is regarded as an occupational exposure according to either a quantitative criterion (reference
level) or a qualitative criterion (positive list of radon prone work activities). The approach is expected beapplicable in all existing exposure situations.

Industry Views on ICRP Radon Statement
J. TakalaCameco Corporation, Operations Centre, 1131 Avenue W South, Saskatoon, SK, Canada, S7M 4E8; PH(306)956-6486; FAX (306)-956-6590
Abstract- In 2009 the ICRP issued a statement on radon which stated the dose conversion factor for radon
progeny would likely double and that the calculation of risk from radon should move to a dosimetricapproach, rather than the long standing epidemiological one. Through the World Nuclear Association,
whose members represent over 90% of the world‟s uranium production, industry has been examining thisissue with a goal of offering our expertise and knowledge to assist with the practical implementation ofthese evolutionary changes to evaluating the risk from radon progeny. Industry supports the continuing useof the most current epidemiological data as a basis for risk calculation, but believes that further examinationof these results is needed to better understand the level of conservatism in the potential epidemiologicalbased risk models. With regard to the adoption of the dosimetric approach, industry believes that further
work is needed before this is a practical option. In particular, this work should include a clear
demonstration of the validation of the dosimetric model that includes how smoking is handled, theestablishment of a practical measurement protocol, and the collection of relevant data for modern
workplaces. Industry is actively working to address the latter two items.

54Symposium Summary and Conclusions

Radiological Protection of the Environment
R. J. Pentreath
ICRP Main Commission and Committee 5 Chair
Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Prospect Place, The Hoe, Plymouth, PL1 3DH, UK
Abstract- The development of a systematic approach to protection of the environment has required anumber of basic steps to be taken, including a discussion of what objectives could reasonably be set,
together with an examination of how existing knowledge could best be used in order to achieve them. It has
required bold decisions to be made, new modelling to be undertaken, and new data sets to be compiled.
Equally challenging, however, has been the need to fold the entire subject area into an expanded system
originally developed for the protection of human beings. There are, inevitably, a number of data gaps; andfurther decisions need to be made. But the priority now is to examine how this approach to protection of theenvironment can be used in practice. With an intensifying world-wide debate about the environmental
merits of different forms of energy production, it would seem imperative that the various practices involvedin the nuclear fuel cycle are able to demonstrate, clearly and independently, their own actual or potential
impact on the environment. The ICRP now has the basic means for such evaluations to be made, and further
developments in this system will reflect the experience of its practical application.

55

Symposium Registrees(As of October 1st 2011)
Bold*

ICRP Main Commission Members and Emeritus Members, Committee Members, and Observers
Symposium Speaker

ABASS, Maria; Nigerian Nuclear Regulatory Authority; Nigeria
ABDOLLAHI, Hamid; Shaihid Bahonar Hospital; Iran
ABDULMAJEED, Ibrahim; Nigeria
ABU BAKAR, Syazwani; MOH; Darussalam
ADHIKARI, Matrika Prasad; B.P.K.M.Cancer Hospital; Nepal
ADU-BOBI, Nana Afua Kobi; Ghana Atomic Energy Commission,
Ghana
AGARANDE, Michelle; IRSN; France
AGUIRRE BRAVO, Víctor; Pontificia Universidad Católica deChile; Chile
AJIBULU, Olusegun; Fiji National University; Fiji
AL AHEHHI, Aayda; United Arab Emirates
AL-HAJ, Abdalla N.; King Faisal Specialist Hospital & ResearchCentre; Saudi Arabia
AL-NABULSI, Dr. Isaf; Department of Energy, USA
ALDRED, Martha; University of Sao Paulo, Brazil
ALI, Cheikh; IRSN; France
ALLEMAN, Lee; AFRRI; USA
ALLEN, Chris; NRC; USA
ALSEWAIDAN, Hamed; King Saud University; Saudi Arabia
ALVES, João; ITN; Portugal
ANDERSEN, Ralph; NEI; USA
ANDERSON, Amanda; DOE; USA
ANZENBERG SHAFFER, Vered; NRC; USA
ARLT, Hans D.; NRC; USA
ATWELL, Laura; NCRP; USA
AU SZE-MUN, Simon; Department of Health; China
AUMAN, Laurence; Department of the Navy; USA
AURELIA, Martha; IFUSP; Brazil
AWE, Sunny; Food and Drug Administration; USA
AZIZOVA, Tamara; Southern Urals Biophysics Institute;
Russia*BAEZA, Mario R.; IRAM; Chile
BAILEY, Michael R; UK
BAINES, Bill; NRC; USA
BAJWA, B. S.; Guru Nanak Dev University; India*BALONOV, Mikhail; Institute of Radiation Hygiene; Russia
BALTER, Stephen; Columbia University; USA
BANKS, Mark; NRC; USA
BASHIR, Mosab Khalaf Allah Ali; Centre of Nuclear Medicine andOncology; Sudan
BARTLETT, David; UK
BARYOUN, Adel; NIST; USA
BENDER, Lindsey; EPA; USA
BENTON, LaRay J.; NRC; USA
BERKOVSKI, Vladimir; IAEA; Austria
BERRINGTON, Amy; NCI; USA
BISCHOF, Norbert ; Bereich Medizinische Technik; Germany
BLAKELY, W.F.; AFRRI; USA
BLUMBERG, Mark; NRC; USA
BOCCOLINI, Alberto; CISAM; Italy
BOICE Jr., John D.; International Epidemiology Institute, USA
BOLCH, Wesley E.; University of Florida; USABORRÁS, Cari; USA
BOULEY, Timothy; NRSB; USA
BOURGAULT, Marie-Hélène Institut national de santé publique duQuébec; Canada
BOUVILLE, Andre; NCI (retired); USA*BOYD, Michael; EPA; USA
BRECHIGNAC, François; IRSN; France
BRACKETT, Liz; MJW Corporation; USA
BRANDON, Lou; NRC; USA*BRENNER, David J. Columbia University Medical Centre; USA
BREUSTEDT, Bastian; Karlsruhe Institute of Technology;
Germany
BROCK, Kathryn; NRC; USA

56

BROCK, Terry; NRC; USA
BRUNER, Douglas; NRC; USA
BUFORD, Angela; NRC; USA
BRUNNER, Claudia; CDRH/FDA; USA
BURROWS, Ronald A.; NRC; USA
BURNS, Peter A.; ARPANSA; Australia
BUSH-GODDARD, Stephanie; NRC; USA
BUSHBERG, Jerrold; University of California; USA
BUTLER, Kimyata Morgan; NRC; USA
CADY, Ralph; NRC; USA
CAMPER, Larry W.; NRC; USA*CANOBA, Analia; ARN; Argentina
CARLSON, Amy; DOH Bureau of Radiation Control; USA
CARPENTER, Cynthia; NRC; USA
CARR, Zhanat; WHO; Switzerland
CASSATA, James R.; USUHS; USA
CECERE, Bethany; NRC; USA
CERVERA, Margaret; NRC; USA
CHAKRABARTI, Biswarup; India
CHAKRABARTI, Kish; CDRH/FDA; USA
CHAMBERS, Doug; SENES; Canada
CHANDRASHEKARA, M. S.; University of Mysore; India
CHANG, Peter W.S.; Taipei Medical University; Taiwan
CHARKRABORTY, Ranajit; Iniversity of North Texas Health
Science Centre; USA
CHEN, Jing; Health Canada; Canada
CHEN, S.Y.; Argonne National Laboratory; USA*CHO, Kunwoo; KINS; Korea
CHOI, Simon; FDA; USA
CICOTTE, George R.; NRC; USA
CLEMENT, Christopher; ICRP, Canada
COELHO, Rosangela; UNICAMP; Brazil
COMLEY, Sarah H.; USA
CONATSER, Richard; NRC; USA
COOGEN, Michael A. Sr.; Defense Logistics Agency; USA
COOL, Donald A; NRC; USA
COOPER, John R.; Health Protection Agency; UK
COPPLESTONE, David; University of Stirling; UK
CORBETT, Jason; AFRRI; USA
COSSET, Jean-Marc; Institut Curie; France
COSTA, Arlon O.; NRC; USA
COUSINS, Claire; Addenbrooke's Hospital; UK*COWIE, Michael; Saudi Aramco; Saudi Arabia
COX, Roger; UK*CRICK, Malcolm J.; UNSCEAR, Austria*CUCINOTTA, Frank; NASA; USA
CULLINGFORD, Michael; NRC; USA
CZARWINSKI, Renate; IAEA; Austria
CZYSCNSKI, Kenneth; EPA; USA
D’ARRIGO, Diane; NIRS; USA*DARBY, Sarah C.; University of Oxford; UK
DAUER, Lawrence T.; Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer
Centre; USA
DAY, Kerstun; NRC; USA
DECICCO, Joseph E.; NRC; USA
DEHMEL, Jean-Claude; NRC; USA
DEMIDOV, Andrew; Kazan State Power engineering University;
RussiaDEMIRKAYA, Omer; FDA; USA
DICKERSON, Bill; FDA; USA*DIETZE, Gunther; Germany
DIMMICK, Lisa; NRC; USA
DION, Justin A.; NIH; USA
DONKOR, Shadrack; Ghana Atomic Energy Commission; Ghana
DORMAN, Mary J.; University of Maryland; USA
DOWELL, Elisa; Air Force Radioisotope Committee; USA

DROZDOVITCH, Vladimir; NCI; USA
DVOEGLAZOVA, Elena; Southern Urals Biophysics Institute;
Russia
ECKERMAN, Keith; ORNL; USA
EDWARDS, Jon; EPA; USA
EID, Boby; NRC; USA
EINSTEIN, Andrew; Columbia University; USA
ELSAYED, Mohamed; Military Technical College; Egypt*ENDO, Akira; JAEA; JapanEUNICE, Adesiji Nkiruka; University of Ibadan; Nigeria
FALO, Jerry; Army Institute of Public Health; USA
FANTUZZI, Elena; Radiation Protection Institute; Italy
FELSHER, Harry; NRC; USA*FENNELL, Stephen; Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland;
Ireland
FEUERSTEIN, Irwin M.; FDA; USA
FIGUEROA, Gladys; NRC; USAFISHER, Carolyn J.; AFRRI; USA
FORINASH, Betsy; EPA; USA
FOULKE, Judith; DOE; USA
FOUNTOS, Barrett N.; DOE; USA*FRAASS, Benedick A.; Cedars-Sinai Medical Centre; USA
FRANCK, Bonnotte; Airfrance; France
FREY, Steve; Penn Ray Solutions; USA
GAMBONE, Kimberly; NRC; USA
GAUNT, Mike; Rolls-Royce plc; UK
GIEBEL, Steve; NRC; USA
GILBERT, Ethel; NCI; USA
GILSTAD, John; Navy Medical Corps/AFRRI; USA
GIUFFRIDA, Daniele; European Commission; Italy
GLENNY, Jessica; NRC; USA
GOMME, Jørgen; University of Copenhagen; Denmark*GONZÁLEZ, Acad. Abel Julio; Autoridad Regulatoria
Nuclear; Argentina
GOTOH, Takumi; East Nagoya Imaging Diagnosis Centre; Japan
GRAN, Zachary; NRC; USA
GRAY, Anita T.; NRC; USA
GREGORI, Beatriz; Nuclear Regulatory Authority of Argentina;
Argentina
GUDKOV, Dmitri; Institute of Hydrobiology; Ukraine
GUPTA, Arun; BPKIHS; Nepal
GUSEV, Igor A; IAEA; Austria
HA, Wi-Ho; KIRAMS; Korea
HA-Hun; Cheju Halla General Hospital; Korea
HALLWORTH, John; Navy Reactors; USA
HAMADA, Nobuyuki; CRIEPI; JapanHAMEL, David C.; DOD; USA
HAN, Seungjae; KINS; Korea
HAND, Steven T.; University of Maryland; USA
HANSON, Gerald P.; Consultant; USA
HAQUE, Mohammad; NRC; USA
HARDIN, Kimberly; NRC; USA
HARDIN, Leroy; NRC; USA
HARLEY, Naomi H.; New York University School of Medicine;USA*HARRIS, Willie; Exelon Nuclear Corporation; USA*HARRISON, John D; HPA; UK
HASHIMOTO, Makoto; Japan Nuclear Safety Commission; JapanHAWKINS, Sarenee; NRC; USAHEFNER, Lauren; CDRH; USA*HENDRY, Jolyon H.; UK
HEUFF, Romey; Canada
HIDA, Misako; USA*HIGLEY, Kathryn A; Oregon State University; USA
HILL, Carolyn; S.M. Stoller Corporation; USA
HOBBS, Stuart; AFRRI; USA
HOLAHAN, Vincent ; NRC; USA
HOLIDAY, Sophie; NRC; USA*HOMMA,Toshimitsu; JAEA; Japan
HOPEWELL, John W; University of Oxford; UK*HUA, Lui; National Nuclear Safety Administration,Ministry ofEnvironment Protection; China
HUDSON, Dan NRC; USA

HUFFERT, Tony; NRC; USA
HUFFMAN, Dale; AREVA Resources Canada Inc; Canada*HUQ, M. Saiful; University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute; USA
INN, Ken; NIST; USA
IPE, Nisy Elizabeth; Consultant; USA
ISA, Nasir F.; Bayero University; Nigeria
ISEKI, Noriko; University of Tokyo, JapanISHIGURE, Nobuhito; Nagoya University; Japan
JACKSON, Debbie; NRC; USAJANIK, Miroslaw; NIRS, Japan
JANKOVICH, John P.; NRC; USA
JEHLE, Patty; NRC; USAJERVEY, Rick; NRC; USAJIMENEZ, Manuel; NRC; USAJIMENEZ, Pablo; USA
JONES, Craig; NRC; USA
JONES, Cynthia G.; NRC; USA*JONES, James J. EPA; USA
JONES, Rick C.; USA
JOUVE, Andre; European Commission; BelgiumKai, Michiaki; Oita University of Nursing and Health Sciences;Japan
KALLAN, Paul; NRC; USA
KAMINSKI, Joe; FDA; USA
KANWAL, Samina; PNRA; USA
KARKI, Ishwor; Mechi Model Hospital & Research Centre; Nepal
KASE, Kenneth IRPA; France
KASSIDAY, Dan; FDA; USA
KAUSHAL, Kriteshni; NZIMRT, New Zealand / FijiKESMINIENE, Ausra; IARC; France
KHAFAJI, Mawya A.; KAU; Saudi Arabia*KHONG, Pek-Lan; The University of Hong Kong; Hong KongKILLIAN, Michelle; NRC; USA
KIM, Eun Hee; Seoul National University; Korea
KIM, Joong-sun; DIRAMS; Korea
KING, Steven; PennState Hershey Medical Centre; USA
KINSASE, Sakae; Japan Atomic Energy Agency; JapanKIRILLOVA, Evgenia; Southern Urals Biophysics Institute; Russia*KLEIMAN, Norman; Columbia University; USA
KLEMENTOWICZ, Steve; NRC; USA
KOSTI, Ourania (Rania); National Academy of Sciences; USA
KRAUSE, Emily; NRC; USA
KUMAR, Brij; Bahbha Atomic Research Centre; India
KUMAR, Sanjeev; GNDU; India
KURIAN, Varghese; NRC; USA
KYLAEKORPI, Lasse; Vattenfall AB; Sweden
LAFORGE, John; Nukewatch; USA
LAMART, Stéphanie; NCI; USA
Landauer, Michael R.; AFRRI; USALANGILLE, Betsy; USA*LARSSON, Carl-Magnus; ARPANSA; Australia
LATIP, Nur Atiqah; MOH; Darussalam
LAZAREVA, Olga; SUBI; Russia*LAZO, Dr Edward ; NEA; France
LE, Tuan; NRC; USA*LECOMTE, Jean-François; IRSN; France
LEDNEY, G. David; AFRRI; USA
LEE, Choonsik; NCI; USA
LEE, Prof Jai-Ki; Hanyang University, Korea
LEE, Jong-Hyeon Institute of Environmental Safety Research;
Korea
LEE, Terrence; NCI; USA
LEGARE-VEZINA, Michele; The Ottawa Hospital; Canada
LEGGETT, Richard; ORNL; USA
LEMAIRE, Lynn; ICRP; Canada
LENNING, Kate; NRC; USALESLIE, Bret; NRC; USA
LEWIS, Doris; NRC; USA
LEWIS, Myrisha; NRC; USA
LEWIS, Robert; NRC; USA
LI, Chunsheng; Health Canada; Canada
LI, Zhian; NRC; USA*LILAND, Astrid; NRPA; Norway57

NAKAMURA, Nori; RERF; JapanNAQUIN, Ty; NRC; USA
NARAYAN, Pradeep; Defence Laboratory; India
NASEER, Farhana; NRC; USA*NEIRA, Maria; WHO
NELSON, Neal S.; EPA; USA
NETA, Gila; NCI; USA
NETTLETON, Mike; Health & Safety Executive; UK
NICHOLSON, Tom; NRC; USA
NIMITZ, Ronald; NRC; USA
NIU, Shengli; ILO; Switzerland
NIWA, Ohtsura; Kyoto University, JapanNOGGLE, James; NRC; USA
NSIAH-AKOTO, Irene; Ghana Atomic Energy; Ghana
NWOSU, Ugochukwu; Nigeria
O’BRIEN, Tom; NIST; USA
OCONNELL, Peter; DOE; USA
OKWUKA, Lyke; Nigerian Nuclear Regulatory Authority; Nigeria
OLIVER, Frederick; NRC; USA
OLUDOTUN, Olofintuyi; Nigerian Nuclear Regulatory Authority;
Nigeria
OSTROUMOVA, Evgenia; NCI; USA
OTHEYOTH, Reshmi Asian Institute of Medical Sciences, India*OUZOUNIAN, Gérald; Andra International Division; France
OXENBERG, Tanya Palmateer; NRC; USA
PALMROSE, Donald; NRC; USA
PAN, Zi Qiang; China Atomic Energy Authority, China
PANDEY, Devi Deen; GJUS&T-HISAR, India
PANDEY, Uddav; Norwegian University of Life Sciences; Norway
PAPERIELLO, Carl J.; Talisman International; USA
PAQUET, François; IRSN; France
PASCAL, Tchokossa; Obafemi Awolowo University; Nigeria
PAVLOVSKIY, Oleg; IBRAE; Russia
PAWEL, David; EPA; USA
PEDERSEN, Roger; NRC; USA
PELLMAR, Terry; ARA; USA
PEMBERTON, Wendy; Remote Sensing Laboratory; USA*PENTREATH, R Jan; UK
PEREZ, Maria del Rosario; WHO; Switzerland
PERRIN, Marie-Line; ASN; France
PERRY, Jamila; NRC; USA
PESSIN, Andrew S.; NRC; USA
PETERSEN, Gerald; DOE; USA
PETERSON, Hal; Consultant; USA
PETOUSSI-HENSS, Nina; Helmholtz Zentrum München,
Germany
PETROVÁ, Karla; State Office for Nuclear Safety; Czech Republic
PHANEUF, Denise; INSPQ; Canada
PHILIP, Jacob; NRC; USA
PICCONE, Josie; NRC; USA
PILECKI, Lana; ICRP; Canada
PIRLET, Vera; University of Liege; Belgium*PODONSKY, Glenn; DOE; USA
POPPITI, James; DOE; USA
POWELL, Robert; NIH; USA
PRADHAN, Ambika Sahai; Bhabha Atomic Research Centre;
India*PRESTON, R. Julian; EPA: USA
PROHL, Gerhard; IAEA; Austria
PRYOR, Kathy; Pacific Northwest National Lab; USA
PUSKIN, Jerry; EPA; USA
RAABE, Otto; University of California; USA
RAABE, Rebecca; DNFSB; USA
RABOVSKY, Joel; DOE; USA
RAMOLA, Rakesh Chand; H.N.B. Garhwal University; India
RANNOU, Alain, IRSN, France
REAL, Almundena; CIEMAT, Spain
REGNIER, Edward; DOE; USA*REHANI, Madan M; IAEA; Austria
REINHARDT, Pascale; CNSC; Canada* REPUSSARD, Jacques; IRSN; France
RIKLUND, Katerine Ahlstrom; Norrlands University Hospitaland Umeå University; Sweden

LINET, Martha S.; NCI; USA
LINTON, Otha
LIPS, Marcel; Goesgen Nuclear Power Plant; Switzerland
LIPSZTEIN, Joyce L.; Brazil*LITTLE, Mark; NCI; USA
LIVINGSTON, Brian; AFRRI; USA*LIU, Senlin; China Institute of Atomic Energy; China
LIU, Qiang; Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking
Union Medical College; China
LIU, Ruirui; China Institute of Atomic Energy; China*LOCHARD, Jacques; CEPN; France*LOPEZ, Pedro Ortiz; IAEA; Austria
LORENZ,Bernd; GNS; Germany
LOY, John; UAE Federal Authority for Nuclear Regulation; United
Arab Emirates
LU, Xinyue; AFRRI; USA
LUKES, Kim; NRC; USA
MA, Jizeng; IAEA; Austria
MACKINNEY, John; Department of Homeland Security; USA
MAGNUSSON, Sigurour M; Icleandic Radiation Safety
Authority; Iceland
MAHLAHLA, Latonya; NRC; USA
MAIDMENT, Bert; NIH/NIAID; USA
MAJALI, Mustafa; Federal Authority for Nuclear Regulation; United
Arab Emirates
MALONE, Lesley; Ireland
MALONE, Jim; Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
MANSON, Ross; Defence Science & Technology Laboratory; UK
MARTIN, Colin J; Radiological Protection; UK
MARTINEZ, Pedro Caboneras; ENRESA, Spain
MARWICK, Julian; Australia
MASSERA, Gustavo; ARN; Argentina
MASON, Ches; BHPBilliton; Australia
MATTSSON, Soren; Skane University Hospital Malmö andLund University; Sweden
MAVROGIANIS, Stan; Navy; USA*MCCARTIN, Timothy; NRC; USA
MCCOPPIN, Mike; NRC; USA
MCCULLEY, Joe; NB Power; Canada
MCCULLOUGH, Michael J.; Anne Arundel Medical Centre; USA
MCDONALD, Dan; NIH; USA
MCFEE, Matthew C.; MJW Corporation, Inc.; USA*MCGARRY, Ann; The Radiological Protection Institute of
Ireland; Ireland
MCKENNA, Tom; IAEA; Austria
MCKENNEY, Christepher; NRC; USA
MCKENNEY, Neal; INPO; USA
MCLOYD, Kayira; Kayerekera Uranium Mine; Malawi
MECK, Robert; Science and Technology Systems; USA
MEIGHAN, Sean; NRC; USA
MELO, Dunstana; Institute of Radiological Protection andDosimetry; Brazil*MENZEL, Hans-Georg; CERN; Switzerland
METTING, Noelle; DOE; USA*METTLER, Fred A. Jr.; New Mexico Federal Regional Medical
Centre; USA*MIHOK, Steve; CNSC; Canada
MIKULSKI, Tim; Army Safety Office; USA
MILLER, Donald L.; Centre for Devices and Radiological
Health Food and Drug Administration; USAMILLS, Thalia; FDA; USAMINNITI, Ronnie; NIST; USAMIYAZAKI, Shinichiro; Nuclear Engineering Ltd.; Japan*MOOLGAVKAR, Suresh; University of Washington; USA
MOORE, James W.; FDA; USA
MORGAN, William F.; Pacific Northwest National Laboratory;USA
MORONI, Maria; AFRRI/USUHS; USA
MOUSLY, Khalid; Saudi Aramco; Saudi Arabia
MRABIT, Khammar; IAEA; Austria
MUKHOPADHYAY, Sanghamitra; AMEDD; USA
NAKAMURA, Toshitaka; The Kansai Electric Power Co.,INC.;
Japan

58

RINGERTZ, Prof Hans; Stanford University Medical Centre;
USA
RIVAS, Rafael; AFRRI/USUHS; USA
RIVERA, Nilda; NRC; USA
ROHRER, Robin L.; University of Pittsburgh; USA
ROSENSTEIN, Marvin; USA
RUHM, Werner; Helmholtz Zentrum München; Germany
RUSSELL, Patricia; ICRU; USA
RYAN, Michael T.; NRC; USA
SABYASACHI, Paul; Bhabha Atomic Research Centre; India
SAIDOU, University of YaoundeI; Cameroon
SAIKIA, Kandarpa; RSO (BARC); India*SAKAI, Kazuo; NIRS; JapanSAKODA, Sachiko; Japan Radioisotope Association; JapanSALMEEN, Zuhair A.; Sultanate of Oman
SALOMAA, Sisko; STUK; Finland
SAMUEL, Ajayi Oladele; Federal University of Technology; Nigeria
SANTIAGO, Patricia A.; NRC; USA
SASAKI, Kazuo; Japan Radioisotope Association; Japan
SASAKI, Michiya; CRIEPI; Japan
SASAKI, Yasuhito; Japan Radioiotope Association; JapanSCHAFFER, Steven A.; NRC; USA
SCHADILOV, Anatoly; SUBI; Russia
SCHAUER, David A. NCRP; USA
SCHMIDT, Duane; NRC; USA
SCHNEIDER, Stewart; NRC; USA
SCHNEIDER, Thierry; CEPN; France
SCHONFELD, Sara; NCI; USA
SCHUZ, Joachim; IARC; France
SCHWARTZMAN, Adam; NRC; USA
SCOTT, Andrew L.; Army Nuclear and CWMD Agency; USA
SELOD, Anne Gaelle; The World Bank; USA
SELTZER, Steve; NIST(ret.); USA
SEMBA, Tsuyoshi; Japan Nuclear Technology Institute; JapanSHAEKHOON, Emad Eldin Salah Eldin; Fereral Ministry of Heath;
Sudan
SHANDALA, Nataliya; Burnasyan Federal Medical BiophisicalCentre, Russia
SHAUBORA, Paul Payi; Nigeria
SHE, Yi; Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union
Medical College; China
SHERBINI, Sami; NRC; USA
SHINKAREV, Sergey; Burnasyan Federal Medical BiophysicalCentre; Russia
SIEBERT, Scott; MJW Technical Services, Inc.; USA*SIGURDSON, Alice J.; NIH; USA
SIMEONOV, Georgi; EC; Luxembourg
SIMMONDS, Jane; HPA; UK
SIMMONS, Charles T.; Law Offices of Charles T. Simmons, LLC;USA
SIMON, Steven L.; NCI; USA
SINGH, Vijay K.; AFRRI/USUHS; USA
SNAPP, Lisa; B & W Y-12; USA
SOLIMAN, Diab Hammam Mohamed; Egyptian Armed Forces;
Egypt
SOKOLNIKOV, Mikhail; Southern Ural Biophysics Institute; Russia
SPELIC, David C.; FDA; USA
SRIVASTAVA, Dr Ajai Kumar; University of Delhi; India*ST-PIERRE, Sylvain; World Nuclear Association
STEEN, Tomoko Y.; The Library of Congress; USA*STEWART, Fiona A.; The Netherlands Cancer Institute; The
Netherlands
STINSON, Barbara; FDA/CDER; USA
STRAM, Dan; University of Southern California; USA
STRAND, Per; Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority;
NorwaySTREFFER, Christian; University Clinics Essen: Germany
STRUCKMEYER, Richard; NRC; USA
SULEIMAN, Orhan H; FDA; USA

SULLIVAN, Randy; NRC; USA
SUMAN, Vitisha; Bhabha Atomic Research Centre; India
SUN, Casper; NRC; USA
SUNDELL-BERGMAN, Synnöve; Vattenfall AB; Sweden*SVINICKI, Kristine L.; NRC; USA
SZROM, Fran; Army Institute of Public Health; USA
TAHA, Osman; HMC; Qatar
TAKAHASHI, Masa; Nuclear Safety Commission of Japan; Japan*TAKALA, John; Cameco Corporation; Canada
TAMMARA, Seshagiri Rao; NRC NRO/DSER/RSAC; USA*TENFORDE, Thomas; National Council on Radiation Protection
and Measurements; USA
THÉRIAULT, Bertrand; CNSC; Canada
THIERY-CHEF, Isabelle; IARC; France
THOMPSON, Jeroen; McMaster University; Canada* TIRMARCHE, Margot; IRSN; France
TOLMACHEV, Sergei; Transuranium & Uranium Registries; USA
TOMASEK, Ladislav; National Radiation Protection Institute;
Czech Republic
TOMON, John; NRC; USA
TOPPER, Craig; Information Experts; USA
TOWNES, Jamie; World Nuclear Association; UK
TSELA, Dr. Alex Simanga; SATSI, South Africa
TUPIN, Edward; EPA; USA
TURK, Johanna; National Security Technologies; USA
UDDIN, Tofiiz; National Institute of Cancer Research and Hospital;
Bangladesh*ULANOVSKY, Alexander V.; Helmholtz Zentrum München;
Germany
VAJPAI, Shivakant; Sethi Hospital; India*VAN DEVENTER, Emilie; WHO; Switzerland
VAN HORNE-SEALY, MAJ Jama; AFRRI/USUHS; USA
VAN PELT, Wesley R.; Van Pelt Associates; USA*VAÑÓ, Eliseo; Complutense University, Spain
VEIGA, Lene; Brazilian Nuclear Energy Commission; Brazil*VESTERLIND, Magnus; IAEA; Austria
VILANI, Joseph W.; University of Pennsylvania; USA
VOYTCHEV, Miroslav; IEC, France
WAKEFORD, Richard; The University of Manchester; UK
WALKER, Stuart; EPA; USA
WALLACE, Bruce; Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital;
Australia
WAMBERSIE, Andre; ICRU, Belgium
WATSON, Bruce A.; NRC; USAWEAVER, Kathy D.; NRC; USA
WEBB, James; NRC; USA
WEBER, Michael; NRC; USA
WEISS, Joe; DOE; USA*WEISS, Wolfgang; Federal Office for Radiation Protection;
Germany
WELLS, Robin; DSTL; UK
WHITNALL, Mark H; AFRRI; USA
WILLIAMS, James L.; Department of Transportation; USA
WILLIAMS, Steve; NRC; USA
WU, Chuan-Fu; DOE; USA
YARAR, Yasemin Yildiz; Yildiz Technical University; Turkey
YONEKURA, Yoshiharu; NIRS; Japan
YOO, Jaeryong; KIRAMS; Korea
YOUNG, Skip; NRC; USA
YOUNGBLOOD, Thomas; NRC; USA
YUE, Baorong; Chinese Centre for Disease Control andPrevention, China
ZEITLER, Michael; NRC; USA
ZELAC, Ronald E.; NRC; USA
ZEMAN, Gary H.; Argonne National Laboratory; USAZHOU, Ping-Kun; Beijing Institute of Radiation Medicine;
China
ZELLER, Werner; FOPH; Switzerland

59

ICRP Membership
Main Commission
Claire Cousins (Chair)
Abel J González (Vice-chair)John D Boice Jr
John Cooper
Jai-Ki Lee
Jacques Lochard (C4 Chair)Hans G Menzel (C2 Chair)
Ohtsura Niwa

Zi Qiang Pan
R Jan Pentreath (C5 Chair)
R Julian Preston (C1 Chair)
Natalia Shandala
Eliseo Vañó (C3 Chair)
Christopher H Clement(Scientific Secretary)

Emeritus Members
Roger H Clarke
Bo Lindell
Charles B Meinhold

Fred A Mettler
Warren K Sinclair
Christian Streffer

Scientific Secretariat
Christopher H Clement (Scientific Secretary)
Lana Pilecki (Intern)

Lynn Lemaire (Executive Assistant)Committee 1 (Radiation Effects)
R Julian Preston (Chair)
William Morgan (Vice-chair)
Jolyon Hendry (Secretary)
Tamara Azizova
Ranajit Chakraborty
Sarah Darby
Nori Nakamura
Werner Rühm

Sisko Salomaa
Alice Sigurdson
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 and Secretary)
Michael Bailey
Mikhail Balonov
David Bartlett
Vladimir Berkovski
Wesley Bolch
Roger CoxGünther Dietze

Keith Eckerman
Akira Endo
Nobuhito Ishigure
Richard Leggett
Joyce Lipsztein
Jizeng Ma
Francois Paquet
Nina Petoussi-Henss
Ambika Sahai Pradhan60Committee 3 (Protection in Medicine)
Eliseo Vañó (Chair)Jean-Marc Cosset (Vice-chair)
Madan Rehani (Secretary)
Katrine Åhlström Riklund
Mario Baeza
Lawrence Dauer
Igor Gusev
John Hopewell

Pek-Lan Khong
Pedro Ortiz Lopez
Sören Mattsson
Donald Miller
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
Donald Cool
Toshimitsu Homma
Michiaki Kai
Hua Liu
Senlin Liu

Sigurður Magnússon
Pedro Carboneras Martinez
Gustavo Massera
Ann McGarry
Khammar Mrabit
Serguy 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

Participants from 49 countries are expected
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Bangladesh
BelgiumBrazilCanadaCameroon
Chile
China
Czech Republic
Darussalam
Denmark
Egypt
Fiji
FinlandFranceGermany
Ghana
Iceland
India
Iran
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxemburg
Malawi
Nepal
Netherlands
New ZealandNigeria
NorwayPortugal
Qatar
RussiaSaudi Arabia
South Africa
Spain
Sudan
Sultanate of Oman
SwedenSwitzerland
TaiwanTurkeyUkraineUnited Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
USANotesICRP wishes to thank the following organizations for their financial contributions to the2011 ICRP Meeting and Symposium: