This publication is no longer valid safetyseries no Safety Standards... · safety standards as...

safetyseriesn o.89

IAEA SAFETY GUIDES

Principles for the Exemption of Radiation Sources and Practices from Regulatory ControlJO IN TLY SPONSORED BY IAEA AND OECD/NEA

i m INTER NA T IO NA L A T O M I C E N E R G Y A G EN C Y , V I ENNA, 1988

This publication is no longer valid Please see http://www-ns.iaea.org/standards/

CATEGORIES OF IAEA SAFETY SERIES

From 1978 onwards the various publications in the Safety Series are divided intofo u r categories, as follows:

(1) IAEA Safety Standards. Publications in this category comprise the Agency’s safety standards as defined in “The Agency’s Safety Standards and Measures” , approved by the Agency’s Board o f Governors on 25 February 1976 and set forth in IAEA docum ent INFCIRC/ 18/Rev. 1. They are issued under the authority o f the Board o f Governors, and are m andatory for the Agency’s own operations and for Agency-assisted operations. Such standards comprise the Agency’s basic safety standards, the Agency’s specialized regulations and the Agency’s codes o f practice. The covers are distinguished by the wide red band on the lower half.

(2) IAEA Safety Guides. As stated in IAEA docum ent INFCIRC/18/Rev. 1, referred to above, IAEA Safety Guides supplem ent IAEA Safety Standards and recom m end a procedure or procedures that might be followed in implementing them. They are issued under the authority o f the Director General o f the Agency. The covers are distinguished by the wide green band on the lower half.

(3) Recommendations. Publications in this category, containing general recom m endations on safety practices, are issued under the authority of the D irector General o f the Agency. The covers are distinguished by the wide brown band on the lower half.

(4) Procedures and Data. Publications in this category contain inform ation on procedures, techniques and criteria pertaining to safety m atters. They are issued under the authority o f the D irector General o f the Agency. The covers are distinguished by the wide blue band on the lower half.

Note: The covers o f publications brought o u t within the fram ew ork o f the N U SS (Nuclear Sa fety Standards) Programme are distinguished by the wide yellow band on the upper half.


PRINCIPLES FOR THE EXEMPTION

OF RADIATION SOURCES AND PRACTICES

FROM REGULATORY CONTROL



SAFETY SERIES No. 89

PRINCIPLES FOR THE EXEMPTION

OF RADIATION SOURCES AND PRACTICES

FROM REGULATORY CONTROL

JOINTLY SPONSORED BY THE INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY

AND THENUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY OF THE OECD

INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY VIENNA, 1988


THIS SAFETY SERIES PUBLICATION IS ALSO ISSUED INFRENCH, RUSSIAN AND SPANISH

PRINCIPLES FOR THE EXEMPTION OF RADIATION SOURCES AND PRACTICES FROM REGULATORY CONTROL

IAEA, VIENNA, 1988 STI/PUB/817

ISBN 92-0-123888-6 ISSN 0074-1892

© IAEA, 1988

Permission to reproduce or translate the information contained in this publication may be obtained by writing to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Wagramerstrasse 5, P.O. Box 100, A-1400 Vienna, Austria.

Printed by the IAEA in Austria September 1988


FOREWORD

It has long been recognized that radiation sources, including equipment and installations, which emit ionizing radiations, are potentially harmful to health and their use should therefore be regulated. The recommended regulatory approach is based on a system of notification, registration and licensing, as exemplified by the IAEA/NEA(OECD)/ILO/WHO Basic Safety Standards for Radiation Protection. Some types of radiation source, however, do not need to be subject to regulatory control, either because they are not amenable to control (e.g. cosmic rays) and are therefore excluded from the regulatory process, or because they present such a low hazard that it would be a needless waste of time and effort to exercise control by a regulatory process and they can therefore be exempted from it. National regulatory authorities have, in general, followed this approach of applying regulatory control only where it is needed. However, there is no internationally unified policy for excluding or exempting sources from regulatory control.

The need for a consistent international approach to exclusion and to exemption has become increasingly evident, especially for sources which may be transported from one country to another, for example consumer products containing very small amounts of radioactive material.

The concepts of exclusion and exemption have been pursued in recent years through IAEA working groups under the general heading of ‘de minimis’, mainly in relation to radioactive waste disposal in marine and terrestrial environments. In 1984, a new programme was started with the specific objective of developing guidance on the principles for exemption of radiation sources and practices from regulatory control and on the application of the principles to practical problems. In 1985 two meetings were sponsored by the IAEA in co-operation with the Nuclear Energy Agency of the OECD (NEA) and WHO on the subject of exemption principles. The text produced by the second of these groups was widely circulated and comments were received, inter alia, from the NEA Committee on Radiation Protection and Public Health, the European Communities’ Article 31 Group, and also from national organizations and individual experts. The text was published as IAEA-TECDOC-401 “ Exemption of Radiation Sources and Practices from Regulatory Control” (1987) and included a section containing the main comments on the principles. It also contained a first application of the principles to low level radioactive waste disposal in the terrestrial environment.

It was, however, evident that further discussions would be necessary if a firm international consensus on exemption principles was to be achieved. Accordingly, an Advisory Group meeting was convened in Vienna in March 1988 sponsored jointly by the IAEA and NEA. This Safety Guide is the result of that meeting and represents a first international concensus on the subject of exemption principles.

This document is issued as an IAEA Safety Guide since it recommends a procedure which might be followed in implementing the Basic Safety Standards for


Radiation Protection. Ultimately it is intended that the guidance will serve as a basis for the revision of the sections dealing with exemption in the Basic Safety Standards.

It is expected that the guidance will be valuable for national authorities concerned with establishing explicit rules and guidance for exempting radiation sources and practices from regulatory control, it being recognized that they may need to consider factors other than those discussed here in establishing their exemption rules.


CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1

2. BASIC CONCEPTS ............................................................................................ 2

2.1. The system o f dose limitation .............................................................. 22.1.1. General .......................................................................................... 22.1.2. Optimization of protection ........................................................ 32.1.3. Limitation of individual risk ..................................................... 3

2.2. Excluded sources and practices ............................................................ 4

3. DEFINITIONS OF PRACTICE AND SOURCE ....................................... 5

3.1. General ...................................................................................................... 53.2. Practice ...................................................................................................... 53.3. Source ......................................................................................................... 63.4. Application ................................................................................................ 6

4. PRINCIPLES FOR EXEMPTION .................................................................. 7

4.1. General ...................................................................................................... 74.2. Individual related trivial risk ................................................................ 8

4.2.1. Risk based considerations .......................................................... 84.2.2. Natural background radiation considerations ........................ 84.2.3. Conclusion on individual related trivial risk ........................ 9

4.3. Optimization of protection .................................................................... 9

5. APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLES FOR EXEMPTIONTO A SINGLE PRACTICE ............................................................................. 10

5.1. Individual dose considerations ............................................................. 105.2. Collective dose considerations ............................................................. 105.3. Other considerations .............................................................................. 11

6. PREPARATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF EXEMPTIONS .......... 11

6.1. General ...................................................................................................... 116.2. Specifications for an exemption ........................................................... 126.3. Transition from control to exemption ............................................... 136.4. Retrospective review .............................................................................. 14

ANNEX: EXAMPLES OF DEFINITIONS OF SOME PRACTICESAND SOURCES ........................................................................................ 15

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 20

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS ........................................................................................ 21



1. INTRODUCTION

The IA EA /ILO /N EA (O EC D )/W H O Basic Safety Standards for Radiation Protection [1], published as IAEA Safety Series No. 9, provide guidance on regulations for radiation protection, based on the recom m endations o f the International Com mission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) [2]. These include a system o f dose lim itation which contains three basic principles, nam ely, justification o f a practice, optim ization o f protection and lim itation o f individual risk.

The basis o f regulatory con tro l1 in the Basic Safety Standards is a system of notification, registration and licensing, which makes it possible for the com petent authority to im pose appropriate requirem ents for protection. Varying degrees of regulatory control are described in the Basic Safety Standards. The highest o f these is the full system o f licensing o f operations involving radiation. Below that is a system o f general authorization, in which the precise details o f the operations, including the locations o f radiation sources and radioactive m aterial and the number o f users, may be lost, but in which the com petent authority still has a general appreciation o f the national situation. It may achieve this through notification and, possibly, registration, such that the general features o f the operations, the total num ber o f sources or am ount o f radioactive m aterial in the country, and the designs o f all devices approved for distribution are known. It may even require that controls rem ain on some aspects o f source use, e.g . that disposal must be in an approved disposal facility. In some cases, even this level o f control is not required, and there are then reasons for exem ption from all the controls recom m ended in the Basic Safety Standards.

The purpose o f this Safety Guide is to recom m end a policy on exem ptions from the Basic Safety Standards system o f notification, registration and licensing.

In reaching decisions on the basis o f radiological protection considerations about the exem ption o f sources or practices involving radiation exposure, the com petent authority should be assured that the risk and detrim ent2 connected with the sources or practices will be so small as not to w arrant the application o f the system o f notification, registration and licensing. H owever, the form ulation o f exemptions from regulatory control should not allow the circum vention o f controls that would otherw ise be applicable, by such means as deliberate dilution o f m aterial o r fractionation o f a practice.

1 The term ‘con tro l’ is used in this docum ent to m ean ‘restra in t’ rather than ‘checking o r verify ing’.

2 The term s ‘risk ’ and ‘detrim ent’ are used as defined in the IA EA Radiation P ro tection G lossary [3]. R isk is the probability that a given individual will incur any given deleterious stochastic effect as a result o f radiation exposure. D etrim ent is the m athem atical expectation o f harm (dam age to health and o ther effects) incurred from the exposure o f individuals o r groups o f persons in a hum an population to a radiation source, taking into account not only the probabilities but also the severity o f each type o f deleterious effect.

1


The authority will also need to take account o f the probability and severity o f possible consequences o f accidents or misuse. Such consideration may contraindicate the exemption o f a practice, even if it gives rise to very small doses under norm al conditions.

It is recognized that com petent authorities may have reasons different from those concerned with radiation protection for either exempting or not exempting particular sources or practices from regulatory control. M oreover, bearing in mind the principle o f justification o f a practice [1], they may want to prohibit uses o f radiation sources or radioactive m aterials even if the associated doses are trivial, e.g . for frivolous uses, or in cases where solutions not requiring the use o f a radiation source or radioactive m aterial are equally effective.

It is the responsibility o f com petent national authorities to form ulate explicit rules for the application o f exemption policies in their own countries.

2. BASIC CONCEPTS

2.1 . TH E SYSTEM OF DOSE LIM ITA TIO N

2.1.1. General

The system o f dose lim itation is applied in the Basic Safety Standards to the regulation o f practices which involve exposure to ionizing radiation and are subject to control by a com petent authority. Therefore, the exemption o f a practice or source from regulatory control must be seen in the context o f this system and the application o f its basic principles m ust be considered when granting an exemption.

The system o f dose lim itation com prises three basic elements:

— justification o f a practice;— optim ization o f radiation protection; and— lim itation o f individual risk.

Decisions on the justification o f a practice usually derive from considerations which are much broader that those based on radiation protection alone. Therefore, these decisions may well be m ade outside the context o f regulatory control (or exemption from such control, as in the case o f the present Guide). F or these reasons, the guidance here is focused on practices which are defined as justified, and the principle o f justification is not considered any further in the context o f exem ption criteria.

2


2.1.2. Optimization of protection

Once a practice has been justified, it is necessary to design, plan and subsequently use the sources o f exposure involved in the practice in such a way as to ensure that ‘exposures are as low as reasonably achievable, economic and social factors being taken into account’. This means that, although the doses to the most exposed individuals, as a result o f introducing a source o f exposure, are below the relevant dose lim its, it is still necessary to ‘optim ize’ protection, i.e. to reduce doses to as low as reasonably achievable.

A concept used in the optim ization o f protection is health detrim ent. Detrim ent is defined in footnote 2 on p. 1. In the consideration o f exempt practices, the detrim ent will be lim ited to stochastic effects (cancer deaths and serious genetic effects) [1]. The health detrim ent is assumed, for the purpose o f radiation protection, to be proportional to the collective dose equivalent com mitm ent [1], This quantity is referred to below as the collective dose com mitm ent. The unit o f collective dose com mitm ent is the m an-sievert (m an-Sv). The collective dose commitment, rather than simply the collective dose, is the appropriate quantity since the operation o f a practice in a given year may give rise to doses in the future.

Several techniques are available for carrying out the analytical assessments required by the process o f optim ization o f protection. The choice o f the appropriate technique depends on the kind o f param eters involved in the process and their degree o f quantification. One o f the techniques suggested by the ICRP when a full quantification o f param eters is possible is differential cost-benefit analysis [4].

In differential cost-benefit analysis, the monetary values assigned to increasing levels o f radiation health detrim ent avoided, i.e. by reducing the doses, are com pared with the cost o f increasing the level o f protection. The optim um level o f protection is achieved when the next increm ent o f expense on protection exceeds the value o f health detrim ent thereby averted. This technique, therefore, provides a mechanism which can give indications on the correct allocation o f resources in protection against ionizing radiation.

The IAEA has recom m ended a procedure o f assigning a cost to the unit health detrim ent so that detrim ent can be ‘costed’ and com pared with the costs o f protection[1]. It has developed guidance on the minimum value to be assigned to unit collective dose in the context o f the control o f releases o f radioactive m aterials into the environm ent that have transboundary radiological significance [5] and has proposed for this purpose the minimum figure o f US$ 3000 per m an-sievert (in 1983 prices).

2.1.3. Limitation of individual risk

The lim itation o f individual risk is carried out by controlling the radiation doses in a group o f individuals most likely to receive the highest doses from the practice. F or this purpose, the concept o f critical group is introduced. This group

3


is chosen to be representative o f individuals receiving the highest levels o f dose from the particular practice, and is defined so that it is reasonably homogeneous with respect to factors that affect the dose received. It is also necessary to choose the time when these doses are at their maximum value. The assessm ent then proceeds in term s o f the average individual dose in the critical group.

Unless otherw ise stated, the term ‘dose’ here refers everyw here to the sum of the effective dose equivalent from external exposure in a given period and the com mitted effective dose equivalent from radionuclides taken into the body in the same period.

2.2. EX CLU DED SOURCES AN D PRACTICES

In the Basic Safety Standards (Annex I, para. A. 1.3), it is suggested that com petent authorities do not regulate the following:

“ (a) Radiation m achinery producing radiation o f quantum energy not higher than5 keV;

(b) Radioactive substances in the form in which they occur in nature withoutpreparation intended to increase the concentration o f radioactive nuclides” .

The phrase ‘in the form in which they occur in nature w ithout preparation’ requires careful interpretation. V irtually all m aterials are radioactive, because they contain natural radionuclides or are contaminated with artificial radionuclides (e.g. from nuclear weapons fallout), usually at very low levels. The nature o f some o f these m aterials and some other sources o f exposure is such that control by competent authorities is not practicable or even not possible. Exam ples o f these are potassium -40 naturally present in the human body, cosmic rays and radon out o f doors. Therefore, such sources are by their nature excluded from regulatory control.

Although many naturally occurring sources are excluded from regulatory control, certain practices result in the inadvertent mobilization and/or concentration o f radionuclides, such that w orkers o r the public m ight receive doses high enough to w arrant regulatory control o f these practices. F or exam ple, radon daughters can concentrate in the air inside houses built on radium rich soil, leading to relatively high doses to the occupants breathing that air. O ther examples are concentration o f nuclides o f the uranium series in phosphate fertilizers, building m aterials, m ineral w ater factories, therm al spas, industrial uses o f zircon sands and coal fired pow er plants.

Specific guidance for controlling practices that result in enhanced exposures to naturally occurring radionuclides is being considered internationally [1, 6].

4


3. DEFINITIONS OF PRACTICE AND SOURCE

3.1. G ENERAL

The term ‘practice’, usually associated with such term s as ‘operation’ and ‘source’, has been used very frequently in the last few years in radiation protection recom m endations and regulations to characterize the object o f specific guidance or assessment. Exam ples o f this are the definition o f ‘justification o f an operation or a practice ' , the concept o f ‘collective dose per unit practice', the ‘exem ption o f sources and practices from regulatory contro l’, etc.

The guidance given here on the principles and criteria to be applied to exemption from regulatory control would be am biguous and difficult to im plem ent if definitions o f w hat should constitute a ‘p ractice’ and a ‘source’ in the concrete situations for which exem ption is considered were not given.

The exem ption principles recom m ended in this Guide may be expected to find use in a variety o f applications. These include, for exam ple, the exem ption from notification, registration and licensing o f the disposal o f certain types o f low level radioactive wastes in terrestrial and aquatic environm ents and the recycling of slightly contaminated m aterials from the nuclear industry. A lso, in some applications the practice being considered for exem ption may involve the whole cycle com prising the use and disposal o f a source. In other cases, it may be appropriate to consider the disposal process itself as a separate practice.

It is clear, therefore, that the sources or practices may be o f a widely varying nature; how ever they should all correspond to the following general definitions.

3.2. PRACTICE

A practice may be defined as

‘a set o f co-ordinated and continuing activities involving radiation exposure which are aim ed at a given purpose, or the com bination o f a number o f sim ilar such se ts .’

The size, scope and time duration o f what is considered as a practice can differ depending on the purpose and the kind o f radiation protection assessm ent o r regulatory action addressing the practice. F or exam ple, these three features can be taken as different in the case o f justification o f the practice, optim ization o f protection, and licensing or exemption o f a given activity.

5


In any event, when exem ption from regulatory control is considered, the following features characterize any identified specific practice:

(a) The activities composing the practice should be co-ordinated and aimed at a com mon objective.

(b) The sources which are the object o f the practice should be clearly identified.(c) It should be possible to identify a specific critical group (or groups) uniquely

linked to the practice.(d) The dose to the individuals o f the critical group(s) and the dose to the whole

population exposed by the practice should not be significantly affected by other sim ilar (or identical) practices (e.g. several waste disposal sites in the same region).

(e) The activities com posing the practice should be easy to identify and describe, both in spatial and temporal term s, and be sufficiently well defined to facilitate impact analysis and regulatory assessments and to minim ize the com plexity o f the procedures required for exem ption from regulatory control.

3.3 . SOURCE

The source can be defined as

‘the physical entity whose use, m anipulation, operation, decommissioning and/or disposal are constituents o f the co-ordinated set o f activities defined as ‘practice’ in Section 3 .2 ’.

The ‘source’ defined in this way is not equivalent to the ‘practice’, but is the radioactive m aterial, the equipm ent em itting radiation or containing radioactive m aterial o r the installation (or group o f installations) producing or using radioactive m aterial, which is the object o f the practice.

3 .4 . APPLICATIO N

The application o f the above definitions to exem ption from regulatory control is liable to be different for different practices. A few m ajor cases are currently o f prim ary interest. They include the use o f consum er products, the disposal o f very low level solid radioactive w astes, the discharge o f very small quantities o f radioactive effluents and the recycling and reuse o f m aterials resulting from the decom missioning o f nuclear facilities. Exam ples o f ‘p ractice’ and ‘source’ for these cases are discussed in the Annex.

In the following sections, it is the exem ption o f practices which is normally considered. H ow ever, this does not exclude the possibility o f applying the exemption principles to a single source in some cases.

6


4. PRINCIPLES FOR EXEMPTION

4.1 . G ENERAL

From a radiation protection standpoint there are two basic criteria for determ ining whether o r not a practice can be a candidate for an exem ption from the Basic Safety Standards:

— individual risks must be sufficiently low as not to w arrant regulatory concern; and

— radiation protection, including the cost o f regulatory control, must be optimized.

The first aspect is addressed by defining a level o f individual dose that can be defined as ‘triv ial’. The second aspect is usually addressed by using optim ization analysis techniques such as cost-benefit analysis, intuitive or form al, o r other methods.

Under the assumption o f proportionality between dose and risk3, a given increm ent in the individual dose or collective dose will always result in the same increm ent in the individual risk or the collective health detrim ent, independently o f other contributions to the individual o r collective dose. This makes it possible to assess the consequences o f the exposure from any arbitrary group o f radiation sources, such as the group o f sources subject to exem ption from regulatory control, and to lim it these consequences without consideration o f other sources. H owever, in some instances the benefits derived from an exem pt practice and the collective dose will be directly proportional to the num ber o f sources used within a practice.

In the consideration o f the exem ption o f a particular practice from the radiological protection point o f view, either (a) the optim ization o f the practice, or (b) the lim itation o f individual risk may turn out to be the m ore restrictive factor, depending upon the nature o f the practice.

In any event, it may be useful for the com petent authorities to have guidelines about typical levels o f individual and collective dose which are com monly believed to be trivial and can be used as a basis for an exem ption without a great deal o f detailed analysis.

Some guidance is provided below on the derivation and application o f these criteria and guidelines.

The proportionality factor betw een dose and the probability o f radiation induced lethal cancers and serious hereditary effects is taken to be o f the o rder o f m agnitude 10~2 per sievert.

7


4.2. INDIVIDUAL RELATED TRIVIAL RISK

In individual related assessm ents, the concern iS over the risk to which the individuals will be exposed. There appears to be agreem ent am ongst many authors that, in considering a practice candidate for exemption, it is appropriate to apply the concept o f a trivial level o f risk, o r dose, in a purely individual related assessment, i.e . very small doses and the corresponding m inute risks should not be o f any concern for the individual o r for the regulator [1, 7, 8].

For the individual, therefore, there are two main approaches that can be considered in deciding whether a level o f risk or dose is trivial: firstly, to choose a level o f risk, and the corresponding dose, which is o f no significance to individuals; secondly, to use the exposure to the natural background, to the extent that it is normal and unavoidable, as a relevant reference level.

4.2.1. Risk based considerations

In the first consideration, it is widely recognized that values o f individual risk which can be treated as insignificant by the decision m aker correspond to a level at which individuals who are aw are o f the risks they run would not com m it significant resources o f their own to reduce these risks [9]. This is a difficult question to judge, because few individuals are conscious o f the m agnitude o f small risks and people have little opportunity to dem onstrate their preferences in this field. There is likely to be a wide range o f individual views on this subject and any decision is likely to leave some people feeling that they are exposed to risks calling for further control.

H ow ever, there is a widely held, although speculative, view that few people would com m it their own resources to reduce an annual risk o f death o f 10“5 and that even fewer would take action at an annual level o f 10“6 [9]. M ost authors proposing values o f trivial individual dose have set the level o f annual risk o f death which is held to be o f no concern to the individual at 10~6 to 1 0 '7 [10-14]. Taking a rounded risk factor o f 10~2 Sv"1 for whole body exposure as a broad average over age and sex [2], the level o f trivial individual effective dose equivalent would be in the range o f 10-100 nSv per year.

4.2.2. Natural background radiation considerations

The natural background radiation has been estim ated to give, as an average, an individual dose o f about 2 mSv per year [15]. This average conceals a wide variation due to different concentrations o f radioactive m aterials in the ground and in building m aterials, as well as differences due to different altitudes and habits o f living. On a global average, about half o f this dose is due to radon exposure, a source for which controls are suggested. The other half com es from exposure to cosmic

8


rays, terrestrial gam ma rays and radionuclides in the body, for which control is impractical.

Individual m em bers o f the public do not generally take account o f the variation in exposure to natural background radiation when considering moving from one part o f the country to another, or when going on holiday. It can, therefore, be judged that a level o f dose which is small in com parison with the variation in natural background radiation can be regarded as trivial. A figure o f whole body or effective dose equivalent o f the order o f one to a few per cent o f natural background, i.e. 20-100 /xSv per year, has been suggested [11, 12].

4.2.3. Conclusion on individual related trivial risk

The conclusion to be drawn is that an individual radiation dose, regardless o f its origin, is likely to be regarded as trivial if it is o f the order o f some tens o f m icrosieverts per year. It is noted that this level o f dose corresponds to a few per cent o f the annual dose lim it for members o f the public recommended by the ICRP [2] and is much sm aller than any upper bound4 set by com petent authorities for practices subject to regulatory control.

4 .3 . O PTIM IZATION OF PROTECTION

The trivial individual risk level is most helpful in putting radiation risks to individuals into perspective. In most practical situations, how ever, the regulatory need for an exemption arises from the consideration o f source related assessments, w here the total detrim ent is the prim ary param eter o f interest.

In applying optim ization o f protection considerations to the examination o f a practice candidate for exemption, it should be borne in mind that the implementation o f regulatory control may be costly in term s o f regulatory tim e and resources. This factor should be included am ong the param eters considered in the optim ization assessment. The assessm ent should address various possible options for regulatory control, from full licensing down to total exemption. The practice should be considered as suitable for granting an exemption if the result o f the assessm ent shows that exemption is the option that optim izes radiation protection.

In the optim ization assessm ent, the relevant quantity for the calculation o f collective doses should be the collective dose com mitm ent per year o f practice, since incremental costs for regulation will be incurred on an annual basis. The size o f a practice, in term s o f radiological impact, may also change from year to year. For the purpose o f m aking decisions about optim ization, the year o f relevance is that in which the practice reaches its maximum size.

4 The upper bound is defined in Ref. [3] as a dose level established by a com petent authority to constrain the optim ization o f protection for a given source or source type.

9


As m entioned above, the undertaking o f a form al optim ization assessm ent involves som e cost and com m itm ent o f regulatory resources. It can, therefore, be argued that where, in the absence o f further protection m easures, the individual doses are ‘triv ia l’ and the residual collective dose com mitm ent is sufficiently small, the cost o f perform ing the optim ization analysis may in itself outweigh the cost savings in term s o f a further potential reduction in health detrim ent. In such situations, the rigorous use o f cost-benefit o r other method o f optim ization analysis would not be justified and the initial assessm ent o f levels o f exposure may be sufficient for a decision to exempt the m aterial o r source. This is not because the levels o f dose and health detrim ent are o f no concern per se, but because they are already optimal.

Practical experience suggests that the cost o f formal optim ization procedures will be at least several thousand dollars [7, 11], The use o f the IAEA minimum value o f the m an-sievert suggested in [5] would lead to a practice related ‘triv ial’ collective dose for exemption purposes o f the order o f a few man-sieverts. F or continuing practices this can be interpreted as a com mitm ent o f about 1 m an-Sv per year o f practice.

5. APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLES FOR EXEMPTION TO A SINGLE PRACTICE

5.1. IND IV ID U AL DOSE CONSIDERATIONS

For the purpose o f exemption, it was concluded that a level o f individual effective dose equivalent o f some tens o f m icrosieverts in a year could reasonably be regarded as trivial by regulatory authorities (see Section 4 .2 .3 ). Because an individual m ay be exposed to radiation doses from several practices that may have been judged exempt, it is im portant in order to ensure that the total dose does not rise above the individual exemption dose criterion that each exempt practice should utilize only a part o f that criterion, and it may be reasonable for national authorities to apportion a fraction o f that upper bound to each practice. This fractionation could lead to individual doses to the critical group o f the order o f 10 /uSv in a year from each exem pt practice.

5 .2 . CO LLECTIVE DOSE CONSIDERATIONS

Each practice should initially be assessed as it were to be subjected to a formal optim ization procedure. A generic study o f the available options (including various kinds o f regulatory action) should be made by the regulatory authority and the

10


conclusion reached that exemption is the option that optim izes radiation protection. I f this generic study, in its early stages, indicates that the collective dose com mitm ent resulting from one year o f the unregulated practice will be less than about 1 man • Sv (see last paragraph in Section 4 .3 ), it may be concluded that the total detrim ent is low enough to perm it exemption without m ore detailed examination o f other options.

5.3. O TH ER CONSIDERATIONS

Exem ption is intended for sources and practices which are inherently safe. Exem ption must not be granted if there is a possibility o f scenarios leading to doses in excess o f those specified in granting the exemption.

In considering the exemption o f a practice, the regulatory authority should aim to exempt the practice as a whole. W here this is not feasible (as in defining exempt quantities o f w aste from one o f many institutions), the authority should have regard to the implications o f the total effect o f these exemptions across the whole practice.

The formulation o f an exem ption should not allow the circum vention o f controls that would otherw ise be applicable, by such means as deliberate dilution o f m aterial or fractionation o f the practice.

6. PREPARATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF EXEMPTIONS

6.1. G ENERAL

In general, the methodology to derive an exemption will be based on the assessm ent o f the individual and collective doses that may arise from the practice candidate for exemption. If a generic assessm ent, in its early stages, indicates that the likely consequences o f the exemption, in term s o f radiation exposure, are below the chosen criteria, the authorities may well decide to grant the exemption. In cases w here such a sim plified procedure indicates that doses are not below the criteria, m ore detailed assessm ents, including com parisons with other available options, will be required.

In both situations, the assessm ent should be carried out using calculational models which take account of:

— the characteristics o f the practice to be exempted;— the characteristics o f the sources involved in the practice.

Sufficient flexibility should be allowed in the choice o f models and their degree o f sophistication in order to avoid the expenditure o f resources out o f proportion to the

11


task involved. Thus, sim ple determ inistic models may suffice for the purposes o f a generic study addressing a well defined case for exemption. M ore elaborate models will be needed in other situations and these can be determ inistic, covering in detail a sufficient num ber o f exposure scenarios, and/or probabilistic — designed to provide a m easure o f the uncertainty inherent in the modelling and the database used.

The choice o f scenarios should be such as to cover all the likely pathways and exposure situations that arise from the practice candidate for exemption. The national authorities will have to exercise judgem ent in considering exposure situations, associated with a low probability o f occurrence, in which the chosen radiological protection criteria may be exceeded.

In general, the models will be required to provide estimates o f doses to w orkers and to m em bers o f the public. Both norm al and accidental exposure conditions should be covered; the latter, although unlikely, may have consequences serious enough to contra-indicate exemption. This conclusion may also apply to cases o f m isuse o f sources involved in the exempted practice, and, therefore, the possibility of such misuse will have to be considered.

6.2. SPECIFICATIONS FOR AN EXEM PTION

It is im portant clearly to define the term s o f the exemption so that regulatory authorities and persons in possession o f exempt material have a com mon understanding about what is exempted. Exemption levels are rarely, if ever, expressed in terms o f individual or collective dose, since it is not practical to m easure these param eters at the operational level. Rather, exemptions should be expressed in term s o f derived quantities that are directly m easurable so that com pliance with the provisions o f the exem ption can be determ ined. F or example, exemptions related to waste stream s or recycle scrap are usually expressed in term s o f concentrations o f specific radionuclides. In the case o f consum er products containing radioactive materials, the exemptions are often in term s o f total activity o f a specific radioisotope in the product.

Approaches to setting the derived quantities using models may involve either an iterative process, whereby representative values o f these quantities are selected and modelling carried out to dem onstrate com pliance with the criteria chosen, o r a norm alization process, in which doses are com puted corresponding to a unit exempt quantity, which subsequently leads to the evaluation o f the total am ounts o f sources that may be exempted in a given practice in com pliance with the chosen criteria. In both cases, the ultim ate fate o f the sources involved, and their likely re-utilization, m ust be adequately covered.

In addition to the basic term s o f the exemption, it may be prudent to make additional provisions to enhance the probability that the assumptions about individual

12


and collective doses will not be invalidated and to minimize the possibility o f accidents and misuse. Examples o f these additional provisions include:

(a) A constraint on the total activity which may be released in a year from a regulated activity in an exempt waste stream;

(b) The chemical and physical form of the radionuclides perm itted in the exempt waste stream as well as a specification o f the origin or the nature o f the waste stream , e.g. contaminated oil from reactor pumps;

(c) The chemical and physical form o f the radionuclides contained in sealed sources employed in consum er products, as well as the design o f the source and quality assurance requirem ents;

(d) The identification o f the person or enterprise to whom recycled scrap may be sold, e.g . an automobile parts m anufacturer, in order better to ensure that recycled scrap will not enter products giving rise to high individual exposures during the period o f first recycle.

6 .3 . TRANSITION FROM CONTROL TO EXEM PTION

Radiation sources and practices involved in an exemption frequently pass from a stage w here they are regulated, under a system o f notification, registration or licensing, to an exempt status. In other words, there is a transfer o f status from being a controlled activity to an exempt activity.

Once the conditions o f an exemption are clearly specified, the next step is to establish a method whereby the regulatory authority can determ ine com pliance with the exemption conditions as transfers are made from a controlled status to an exempted status. One practical method to accom plish this objective is to include in the regulated u se r’s licence an authorization to transfer the m aterial to a recipient exempted from regulation. The application for a licence provides the regulatory authority with an opportunity to review in advance the procedures and methods by which the licensee will assure compliance with the provisions o f the exemption.

The licence can contain specific provisions which also enhance com pliance with the provisions o f the exemption. For example, the licence can contain record keeping requirem ents which are subject to inspection. In the case o f contaminated scrap to be recycled, the licence can specify the person or enterprise to whom the scrap can be sold. In the case o f waste stream s, the licence can identify a specific landfill in which the exempt wastes can be placed. It can also contain reporting requirem ents regarding the amounts released under the exemption so that the regulatory authority can m onitor the status o f use o f the exemption, thereby providing data for revalidation o f the initial assessm ent which formed the basis o f the exemption. W hile not necessarily appropriate in all cases, these types o f technique can be used in the licensing process to better understand and control the ultim ate im pact o f the exemption.

13


6.4. RETROSPECTIVE REVIEW

Finally, good radiation protection practice involves a periodic review o f the original assessment which form ed the basis o f the exemption to determ ine if adjustments are appropriate. The foundation o f such a re-analysis should include reports o f quantities released under the exemption, results o f com pliance inspections of licensees m aking the transfer from a regulated to an exempt status, reports o f m isadventures with exem pt m aterials, environm ental sampling where appropriate, as well as testing o f radioactive consum er products purchased on the market.

14


Annex

A.I. Consumer products

The term ‘consum er products’ covers a large variety o f items o f general use that em it radiation or contain radioactive substances. They include, for example, smoke detectors, tim e-pieces, static eliminators, optical lenses, glassware, electronic valves, etc.

The sale and distribution o f a number o f consumer products are subject in M em ber States to notification, registration and, often, licensing. There may be, how ever, some types o f consum er products whose associated radiation risk and detrim ent are so small that their sale and distribution could be exempted from licensing and, perhaps, even from notification and registration. The general definitions and conditions given in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 are expressed in the following way for consum er products:

The ‘practice’ is defined as the sale, distribution, use and disposal o f a given type5 o f consum er product on a national scale (the production o f these items is considered as a separate practice, which is usually subject to regulatory control).

The ‘source’ is defined as the total o f individual radioactive sources represented by the single items of the consum er product being considered.

As far as the correspondence to the features indicated in Section 3.2 is concerned, the situation is the following:

— Conditions (a) and (b) are obviously satisfied by the definition given here for the practice.

— Condition (c) can be fulfilled (the identified critical group can be a specific group o f users, a group o f transport and distribution w orkers, etc.).

— Condition (d) can be generally fulfilled. The other ‘sim ilar p ractices’ to be considered for the assessm ent o f their fractional contribution to the doses associated with the practice under consideration are the sale and distribution o f other types o f consum er products.

— Condition (e) can be fulfilled without significant difficulties if the practice covers one type o f consum er product. This would be m ore difficult from the technical viewpoint and com plicated from the adm inistrative viewpoint if the definition o f the practice, in order to comply with condition (d), had to cover several different types o f consumer product.

5 F or exam ple, sm oke detector; ’type’ does not m ean ’m odel num ber’ .

EXAMPLES OF DEFINITIONS OF SOME PRACTICES AND SOURCES

15


A.2. Low level solid radioactive wastes

In principle, the activity being considered for exemption is the disposal o f very low level solid radioactive wastes to m unicipal landfills, or incineration facilities, or into the sea at coastal disposal sites. How ever, it is appropriate for practical reasons to deal with exemption for each site at which these operations are carried out.

Therefore, in this case the ‘practice’ is defined as the disposal o f very low level solid radioactive wastes at a given municipal landfill, or incineration facility, or coastal disposal site. This includes the operation o f the site and the period o f its remaining in existence after discontinuation o f disposal. H ow ever, if two or m ore disposal sites w ere located at a short distance from each other and gave com parable contributions to the dose o f a same critical group, the practice should be defined to cover the com bination o f these disposal sites in order to satisfy condition (d).

The ‘source’ is defined as the radioactive wastes disposed o f in the given site (or group o f sites).

As far as the correspondence to the features indicated in Section 3.2 is concerned, the situation is the following:

— Condition (a) is obviously satisfied by the definiton given here for the practice.— Condition (b) may be less easy to fulfil. In fact, although the definition

proposed above for the source refers to the entirety o f the waste streams term inating in the disposal site, the regulatory authority could find it m ore practical to consider as the ‘source’ the installation (or group o f installations) from which the wastes are generated.

— Condition (c) can be fulfilled (the identified critical group can be the w orkers at the disposal site or a specific population group).

— Condition (d) can be satisfied by a judicious choice o f the site o r sites to be included in a given practice and the installations from which the relevant wastes are generated.

— Condition (e) may be less easy to fulfil owing to the potential com plexity and the variability o f the set o f installations and waste stream s com posing the source.

It is to be noted that a practice defined as in this case would cover one disposal facility or a small group o f such facilities out o f a much greater total num ber o f potential disposal facilities existing in a country. In this case, therefore, the national authority should apply the recommendation o f the second paragraph in Section 5.3 and take due account o f the potential im pact o f the totality o f disposal facilities in the country when deciding on its exemption policy.

According to another proposal which suggests a full application o f the above mentioned recom m endation in Section 5 .3 , the ‘practice’ to be considered for exemption should encom pass the whole o f low level solid waste disposal activities

16


across a country. In this case, the ‘source’ should be defined as the totality o f radioactive wastes disposed o f in all sites in the country.

This definition o f practice would certainly better comply with the recom m endation. H owever, its correspondence with the features indicated in Section 3.2 would be incomplete and the practical application o f the regulatory assessm ent and procedures for exemption would be difficult.

In fact, as far as the above m entioned features are concerned:

— Conditions (a) and (b) would continue to be fulfilled.— Condition (c) would be very difficult to apply in practice. It is, in fact, unlikely

that a unified critical group could be identified for the com plex o f disposal sites in the country.

— Condition (d) would not be relevant any further.— Condition (e) would be very difficult to fulfil in practice.

A .3. Low level rad io ac tiv e effluents

In principle, the activity being considered for exemption is the discharge o f very small quantities o f airborne or liquid radioactive effluents from certain types o f facilities w here radioactive m aterials are produced or m anipulated. Examples o f such facilities may include some radiochemical laboratories, research and educational institutions, hospitals, m anufacturing or other industries, etc.

Exem ptions should not, how ever, be perm itted for installations such as nuclear reactors w here the discharge may be at a low level only by virtue o f the treatm ent o f effluents and w here there otherw ise would exist the possibility o f a significant release (second paragraph in Section 5.3).

In this case the ‘practice’ is defined as the discharge o f low level radioactive effluents into the atm osphere or the aquatic environm ent at a given site. This covers the whole duration o f the discharge operations.

I f m ore than one installation w ere discharging effluents into the same environm ent and gave com parable contributions to the dose o f the same critical group, the practice should be defined to cover the com bination o f the discharges from these installations in o rder to satisfy condition (d).

The ‘source’ is defined as the installation (or group o f installations) discharging the effluents considered.

As far as the correspondence to the features indicated in Section 3.2 is concerned, the following considerations apply:

— Conditions (a) and (b) are satisfied by the definitions given here for the practice and the source.

— Condition (c) can be fulfilled (the critical group is usually a specific population group living in the surroundings o f the installation or having particular living o r dietary habits).

17


— Condition (d) can be satisfied by a judicious choice o f the installation(s) to be defined as the- ‘source’.

— Condition (e) may be m ore or less easy to fulfil depending on the features o f the environm ent receiving the discharges and o f the characteristics o f the population exposed.

A .4 . R ecycling o r reuse o f m a teria ls

Activated or contam inated m aterials (steel, aluminum, concrete, etc.) resulting, for exam ple, from decommissioning o f nuclear facilities could be recycled or reused w ithout radiological restrictions if a regim e o f exemption w ere applicable to them.

In this case, the ‘practice’ is defined as the set o f activities starting from the release o f the m aterial (or m aterials) out o f the boundary within which regulatory control applies (for exam ple, the boundary o f a nuclear site) and including all the operations, manipulations and uses which lead to exposure o f a critical group (or groups).

The ‘source’ can be defined as the radioactive material(s) to be recycled or reused or as the nuclear facility(ies) releasing the m aterial for recycling or reuse.

The scope o f the defined practice and the definition o f source depend on the features o f these activities with reference to Section 3.2 and on the particular exem ption policy preferred by a national authority.

If it is preferred , for practical reasons, to deal with exemption from each site producing m aterial for recycling or reuse (e.g. an exemption for each nuclear power station to be decom m issioned), then the ‘practice’ would be defined to cover only the m aterial released from a given site and it should be ensured that the critical group and population doses relative to that practice are not significantly affected by the contribution o f m aterials released (for the same kind o f uses) from other nuclear sites in the country.

On the other hand, it could be considered that, because different m aterials (e.g. steel, concrete, aluminium) are likely to be used in largely different ways and lead to the exposure o f different groups o f workers and population, it may be sensible to define each m aterial as a different ‘source’. In this case, the recycling and reuse o f each separate stream o f m aterials could be defined as a separate practice, because it would have a different purpose and would involve different exposure pathways and critical groups.

M oreover, some m aterial (e.g. steel) released in one year could well add to the exposure o f the same group(s) as the same type o f m aterial released in another year from the sam e site or group o f sites, so the ‘source’ could com prise all the m aterial o f one type from one site, irrespective o f the tim e o f its production and release, and the ‘practice’ definition could refer to the recycling and reuse o f all that

18


material irrespective o f the tim e o f its production (e.g. all the steel from decom m issioning o f one or m ore power stations).

The correspondence to the features indicated in Section 3.2 can be seen in the following way:

— Condition (a) can be fulfilled for any o f the above mentioned possible definitions o f the source and practice.

— Condition (b) can be m ore or less easy to fulfil, depending on the choice adopted for the definition o f the source and practice.

— Condition (c) can be fulfilled with different degrees o f difficulty and specificity depending on the definition adopted for the source and practice.

— Condition (d) can be fulfilled by a judicious choice o f the material(s) and site(s) com prising a practice.

— Condition (e) can be m ore or less easy to satisfy depending on the choice o f the material(s) and site(s) com prising a practice.

Once again, as for Section A .2 o f this A nnex, another possible proposal would be to consider as the ‘practice’ to be exempted the whole recycling or reuse o f m aterials going on in a country.

In this case, the ‘source’ would be the totality o f radioactive m aterials being recycled or reused, o r all nuclear sites from which these m aterials originate.

Once again, as previously noted, this broader definition o f the practice would certainly satisfy the recom m endation o f the second paragraph in Section 5 .3 , but it would only partially fulfil the conditions o f Section 3.2 and introduce difficulties and com plications in the practical implementation o f the regulatory assessm ent and procedures required for the exemption.

19


REFERENCES

[1] IN T E R N A T IO N A L A TO M IC EN ERG Y A G E N C Y ' Basic Safety Standards for Radiation Protection, Safety Series No. 9 (jointly sponsored by IA E A , ILO , N EA (O EC D ), W H O ), IA EA , Vienna (1982).

[2] IN T E R N A T IO N A L C O M M ISSIO N ON R A D IO LO G IC A L PR O TEC TIO N , Recom m endations o f the IC R P, Publication 26, Pergam on Press, O xford and New Y ork (1977).

[3] IN T E R N A T IO N A L ATOM IC EN ER G Y A G EN C Y , Radiation Protection G lossary, Safety Series N o. 76, IA EA , V ienna (1986).

[4] IN T E R N A T IO N A L C O M M ISSIO N ON R A D IO LO G IC A L PR O TEC TIO N , C o st- Benefit A nalysis in the O ptim ization o f R adiation Protection, Publication 37, Pergam on Press, O xford and New Y ork (1983).

[5] IN T E R N A T IO N A L ATOM IC EN ERG Y A G EN C Y , A ssigning a Value to T ransboundary Radiation Exposure, Safety Series No. 67, IA EA , V ienna (1985).

[6] IN T E R N A T IO N A L C O M M ISSIO N ON R A D IO LO G IC A L PR O TE C T IO N , Principles for L im iting Exposure o f the Public to N atural Sources o f Radiation, Publication 39, Pergam on Press, O xford and New Y ork (1984).

[7] IN T E R N A T IO N A L C O M M ISSIO N ON R A D IO LO G IC A L PR O TE C T IO N , Radiation Protection Principles for the Disposal o f Radioactive W aste, Publication 46, Pergam on Press, O xford and New Y ork (1985).

[8] N U C LE A R EN ER G Y A G EN C Y O F T H E O E C D , Long Term Radiological Protection O bjectives for R adioactive W aste Disposal. Experts R eport for the NEA Radioactive W aste M anagem ent Com m ittee and the Com m ittee on R adiation Protection and Public H ealth , Paris (1984).

[9] R O Y A L SO C IETY O F LO N D O N , Risk Assessm ent: A Study G roup Report by the Royal Society, London (1983).

[10] BAKER, R .E ., C O O L, W .S ., M ILLS, W .A ., “ NRC revision to 10 C FR Part 20: C ut-off level fo r regulatory concern (de m inim is), R adiation Issues for the N uclear Industry, A tom ic Industrial Forum , Bethesda, M D (1983) C7.

[11] C LA R K E, R .H ., FLEISH M A N , A .B . “ The establishm ent o f de m inim is levels o f radioactive w astes” , paper presented at 6th IR PA C ongress, B erlin (W est), 1984.

[12] M E N H O L D , C .B ., C riteria for a De M inim is Level, US H ealth Physics Society, New O rleans, LA (1984).

[13] TRA V IS, C .C ., R IC H TER , S .A ., C R O U C H , E .A .C ., W ILSO N , R ., K LEM A , D ., C ancer risk m anagem ent, Environ. Sci. Technol. 21 (1987) 415-420 .

[14] SPA N G LE R , M .B ., De m inim is risk concepts in the US N uclear Regulatory C om m ission, Part 1: As low as reasonably achievable, Project A ppraisal 24 (1987) 231-242 .

[15] U N ITED N A TIO N S, Ionising Radiation: Sources and B iological Effects (R eport to the G eneral A ssem bly), Scientific Com m ittee on the Effects o f A tom ic Radiation (U N SC EA R ), U N , New Y ork (1982).

20


LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

A ndaluz, F. (Observer)

B archudarov, R .M .

Benassai, S. (Observer)

Beninson, D.

C larke, R .H .

C unningham , R .E . (Observer)

Dlouhy, Z.

Fitoussi, L.

G onzalez, A .J. (Scientific Secretary)

G ouvras, G. (Observer)

Advisory Group Meeting

Vienna, 21-25 March 1988

E m presarios A grupados,C /M agallanes 3,E-28015 M adrid, Spain

Institute o f Biophysics,M oscow , Union o f Soviet Socialist Republics

E N EA ,V ia V italiano Brancati 48,1-00144 Rom e, Italy

C N EA ,A venida del L ibertador 8250,1429 Buenos A ires, Argentina

N ational Radiological Protection Board,C hilton, D idcot, O xfordshire 0X 11 ORQ,United Kingdom

U nited States Nuclear R egulatory Com m ission, W ashington, DC 20555, U nited States o f A m erica

N uclear Research Institute,CS-25068 R ez, C zechoslovakia

D irection des recherches de securite nucleaire, IPSN /D R SN , Com m issariat a l ’energie atom ique, B .P . 6, F-92265 Fontenay-aux-Roses C edex, France

D ivision o f N uclear Safety,International Atomic Energy Agency,P .O . Box 100, A-1400 V ienna, Austria

H ealth and Safety D irectorate,Com m ission o f the European Com m unities,Jean M onnet Building,Rue A lcide de G asperi, L-2920 Luxem bourg

21


H agen, A.(Observer)

Ilari, O.(Scientific Secretary)

Jack, G.

Laraia, M.

Linsley, G .S. (Scientific Secretary)

N iederer, U.

O koshi, O.

Pom roy, C. (Observer)

Przyborow ski, S.

R ichardson, A.

Salo, A.

Suga, S. (Observer)

United Nations Scientific Com m ittee on the Effects o f Atom ic Radiation,

P .O . Box 500, Vienna International C entre, A -1400 V ienna, Austria

N uclear Energy Agency o f the O EC D ,38, boulevard Suchet, F-75016 Paris, France

A tom ic Energy Control Board,M artel Building, 270 A lbert Street,O ttaw a, O ntario K IP 5S9, Canada

E N E A /D ISP,Via V italiano Brancati 48,1-00144 Rom e, Italy

D ivision o f N uclear Fuel Cycle,International A tom ic Energy Agency,P .O . Box 100, A-1400 Vienna, Austria

Swiss N uclear Safety Inspectorate,C H -5303 W urenlingen, Sw itzerland

Science and Technology Agency,2-2-1 K asum igaseki, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan

Atom ic Energy Control Board,M artel B uilding, 270 A lbert Street,O ttaw a, Ontario K IP 5S9, Canada

Staatliches A m t fu r A tom sicherheit und Strahlenschutz der DDR,

W aldow allee 117, D D R-1157 B erlin,G erm an D em ocratic Republic

Office o f R adiation Program s,U nited States Environm ental Protection Agency, 401 M . Street S .W .,W ashington, DC 20460, United States o f Am erica

Finnish C entre fo r R adiation and N uclear Safety, P .O . Box 268, SF-00101 Helsinki, Finland

Japan A tom ic Energy Research Institute, Tokai-m ura, N aka-gun, Ibaraki-ken, Japan

22


Sztanyik, L .B . (Chairman)

Tapia, D .J. (Observer)

Y oshida, Y. (Observer)

Z vetkova, O .A . (Observer)

Frederic Joliot-C urie National Institute for R adiobiology and R adiation H ygiene,

P .O . Box 1010, H-1775 Budapest, Hungary

Em presarios A grupados,C /M agallanes 3,E-28015 M adrid, Spain

Japan A tom ic Energy Research Institute,Tokai-m ura, Naka-gun, Ibaraki-ken, Japan

A ll-U nion Scientific C entre o f R adiation M edicine,K iev, U nion o f Soviet Socialist Republics

23


HOW TO ORDER IAEA PUBLICATIONSAn exclusive sales agent for IA E A publications, to whom all orders

and inquiries should be addressed, has been appointed in the following country:

U N ITED STATES O F A M E R IC A UN IPUB , 4611-F Assembly Drive, Lanham, M D 20706-4391

In the following countries IA E A publications may be purchased from the sales agents or booksellers listed or through major local booksellers. Payment can be made in local currency or with U N E S C O coupons.

A R G E N T IN A Comision Nacional de Energfa A tom ica, Avenida del Libertador 8250, RA-1429 Buenos Aires

A U S T R A L IA Hunter Publications, 58 A Gipps Street, Collingwood, V ictoria 3066B E LG IU M Service Courrier UN ESCO , 202, Avenue du Ro i, B-1060 Brussels

C H ILE Com isidn Chilena de Energta Nuclear, Venta de Publicaciones, Amunategui 95, Casilla 188-D, Santiago

CH IN A IA E A Publications in Chinese:China Nuclear Energy Industry Corporation, Translation Section,P.O. Box 2103, BeijingIA E A Publications other than in Chinese:China National Publications Import & Export Corporation, Deutsche Abte ilung, P.O. Box 88, Beijing

C Z E C H O S L O V A K IA S.N.T.L., M ikulandska 4, CS-11686 Prague 1A lfa , Publishers, Hurbanovo namestie 3, CS-815 89 Bratislava

F R A N C E Office International de Documentation et L ib ra irie ,48 , rue Gay-Lussac, F-75240 Paris Cedex 05

H U N G A R Y Kultura, Hungarian Foreign Trading Company, P.O. Box 149, H-1389 Budapest 62

IN D IA Oxford Book and Stationery Co., 17, Park Street, Calcutta-700016 Oxford Book and Stationery Co., Scindia House, New Delhi-110 001

IS R A E L Heiliger & Co. Ltd.23 Keren Hayesod Street, Jerusalem 94188

ITALY Libreria Scientifica, Dott. Lucio de Biasio "ae iou” , V ia Meravigli 16, 1-20123 Milan

JA P A N Maruzen Company, Ltd , P.O. Box 5050,100-31 Tokyo InternationalP AK ISTAN Mirza Book Agency, 65, Shahrah Quaid-e-Azam, P.O. Box 729, Lahore 3

P O LA N D Ars Polona-Ruch, Centrala Handlu Zagranicznego, Krakowskie Przedmiescie 7, PL-00-068 Warsaw

R O M A N IA llexim , P O. Box 136-137, BucharestSO UTH A F R IC A Van Schaik Bookstore (P ty) Ltd, P.O. Box 724, Pretoria 0001

SPAIN Diaz de Santos, Lagasca 95, E-28006 Madrid Diaz de Santos, Balmes 417, E-08022 Barcelona

SW EDEN A B Fritzes Kungl. Hovbokhandel, Fredsgatan 2, P.O. Box 16356, S-103 27 Stockholm

U N IT ED K IN G D O M Her Majesty's Stationery O ffice, Publications Centre, Agency Section, 51 N ine Elms Lane, London SW8 5DR

USSR Mezhdunarodnaya Kniga,Smolenskaya-Sennaya 32-34, Moscow G-200Y U G O S LA V IA Jugoslovenska Knjiga,Terazije 27, P.O. Box 36, YU-11001 Belgrade

Orders from countries where sales agents have not yet been appointed and requests for information should be addressed directly to:

^ 'v 's'on Publications | a S p U International Atom ic Energy Agency '^■ 7^ Wagramerstrasse 5, P.O. Box 100, A-1400 Vienna, Austria



IN T E R N A T IO N A L SU B JEC T GROUP: IIATOM IC E N E R G Y A G E N C Y Nuclear Safety and Environmental Protection/Radiological SafetyV IEN N A, 1988


Date post:	15-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

This publication is no longer valid safetyseries no Safety Standards... · safety standards as...

Documents