""

..

2012

State Atomic Energy

Corporation Rosatom

JSC TVEL

Rosenergoatom Concern OJSC

Russian Scientific Commission

on Radiological Protection

JSC Techsnabexport

National Radiation
and Epidemiological Registry

V.K. Ivanov

GENERIC RISK
OF POTENTIAL
EXPOSURE

Moscow
2012

.. |

2
3

14

15

18

CONTENTS
PREFACE 19
INTRODUCTION 20
IAEA INSAG DEFINITION OF GENERIC RISK

22

DETERMINING THE PROBABILITY OF RADIATION-INDUCED DEATH

23

SAFETY INDEX OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURE

31

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

32

REFERENCES 34

..

(-99/2009)

( 2.10-4 -1, -99/2009, . 2.3).
, .
( 103)
, ,
, ,
. ( )
(-1).
-99/2009 , , , , . ,
, .

(). -99/2009 .


.

(-99/2009) (2.10-4 -1) [1].

.
(103 ) [2] , , , , , .

(266 ):
)
, ,
;
b)
;
)
;
d)
, ;
)
;
f )
, .
(-) , ,
,
, 268: , , , . , .

, .
, .. - ,
([2], . 267), 2.10-4 -1, 5 .
-99/2009 ([1], . 2.3).
2.10-4 4,1.10-2 ( 1 ), ,
, 200 ( 5 ). ,
( , , ).
d - d: P1 P2 , LR , :
i: LR(di) = P1(di) - P2(di) < 2.10-4 -1, (1)
i , di.
(1) .

. . . .

,
-

..

..

..

2025

"

"

2012 .

-539

,
(2), , . . 268 [2] ,
, ,

. ,
.
{P(di)} d ,
D, :

(3)

III.

7.

(4)
, , :
(5)

, (5) ,
(di>0), .. ,
(2).

50-52%

20-22%

18-20%

7-12%

10 =
-4

100

1 000 000

,
60
, ,
, , , ,

(Potential exposure in nuclear
safety (INSAG))
([3], . 6, 47).
, LR P2(di) - - di, P1(di):
(2)
i , di P2(di)
di, .

I.27.
:

a)
,
,
,
. 47

..

(-99/2009)
2.3.

() 1 ( ) :

( ,
, ,
):
- - 2,010-4, -1;
- - 1,010-5, -1.

(,
103 *) :
- ,
- ,
- .

,

-
4,1.10-2 -1 -99/2009, ( ) , :
(6)
i , di, lr(di)=4,1.10 -di di, ( ),
max LR ;
([1], . 2.3).
. - .
6,
, [4]:

([4], . 3.26).


. (2),
, , [5].
[5] ,
1 P2(s,g,t) s,
g t.
P2(s,g,t). , , , . ()
. , (
) , ( ), ,
. , ,
t ( ). ,
S(s,g+t) (s,g+t), S
g g+t,
,
.
EAR (excess absolute risk) . S(s,g+t) (s,g+t)dt
g g+t
dt.
-2

* ICRP Publication 103. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection //Annals
of the ICRP /Ed. J. Valentin. Elsevier, 2007 [. 176, . 82-83]

, , ,
,
,
,

103
(266)
:
) ,
, ;
b) ;
) ;
d) , ;
)
;
f ) ,
.

..

103

(268) , ,
, .
,
.

,
.

P2s :
(12)
S g g+x; sp
g+x, T .
[5]
:
(13)
EARL ,
104 .- , d (), g (),
t ().
, , .

(7)
T (
70 ); ,
lp , 0 t<lp, 0,5 t=lp 1 t>lp. lp=lps=10
lp=lpl=2 .
(7) EAR ( ), S - (
).
d u
:
(8)
, ,
:
(9)
(s,g) 1 g.
(9) :
(10)
[5]:
(11)
( =1/DDREF), 0,5, (s)
1 30 . ( ) 0,38 0,77
, =-0,04 . =0,5 ( 103) [2],
, 5,5% 4,1% .
.

(earl)

()

0-19
20-39
40

0,33
0,48
1,31

-0,17
-0,13
-0,07

0-19
20-39
40

0,66
0,97
2,64

-0,07
-0,03
0,03

: 0-19, 20-39 40 .

.
:
(14)
, ,
, , :
(15)
, . ,
.
( ) . m u (
):
(16)
c0=1,1410-3, c1=6,1410-2
c0=3,1610-5, c1=0,10 .
.

10

..

11

()

(11) :

(18)

18
(
)
() -

200

18 .

100

20

40

60

80

100

()

1000

300

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2

()

20

()

c2=1,0310-10, c3=4,43 c2=1,2210-9, c3=3,64 .

.

()
1

1000

15
10
5

20

40

60

100

. . .
,
54 , 70 .

20

80

18
( )

60

()

P2s .
, , [6]. ,
:
(17)

40

80

()

()

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

20

40

60

80

()

12

..

1 ()

0.1

0.8

0.08

0.6

0.06

()

0.4

0.04
0.02

0.2

0
0

13

20
40
60

80

20

40

60

80

1
()

()
,

). ()
P
1 (
,

(1 ) (g)
2

0.08

, (), 1 40 , 3,0.10-2.
: , .
(1 ) P2 ( )
:
(19)

0.06
0.04
0.02
0

20
40
60

80

1
()

c3=8,85.10-2, c4=-1,92.10-3, c5=1,09.10-5 c3=1,44.10-1, c4=-3,40.10-3, c5=2,02.10-5 .

(19) 1 ,
70 .
, ,
4,1.10-2, [2] .
37 . , 3,2.10-2
4,3.10-2 . 3,75, 10%.
( ) , ,
. , ,
, [2]. , ,
-99/2009, .

14

..

15

(6)
:

:
(26)

(20)

, 50%. ,

, <50%.

(21)
(21) P2(s,g)
(1 ) ( ) .
LR P(di) di:
(22)

, () , 2009 ., .

30

- 2,90 3

(23)
(s=m)=1, m , (s=f)=1,37, f .
(23) (20), ( , ..
), , :

(22) , K ,
(s) . (103 ) 1,37. (22) :

- 1,43 3

25

25

20

20

15
10
5

(24)

15
10
5

0
0

A=4,88 3,56 .
,
. R(D)
(20), . R(D) q
A: q=(1 R(D))/(10-3/).
[7, 8]. 10-3/ .
, (24) :

10

12

14

16

18

, R(D) 10 /,
(21) ,
( ).

4,0

4,0

3,5

3,5

3,0
2,5

3,0
2,5

(),

. ,
, , , , .

10

12

14

16

18

2009 .

5,0

- 41

4,5

)
- 45

4,5

5,0

, 3

, 3

(25)
-3

30

2,0

2,0
1,5
1,0

1,5
1,0

0,5

0,5

0,0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

0,0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

2009 .

16

..

17

2009 . , [9]
)

10

- 1,6-04

5
4
3

- 8,0-5

10

5
3
2

0
1,-05

0
1,-05

1,-03

1,-02

.
2006, %

.
2006, %

.
2009, %

.
2009, %

81

88

81

90

1,00

1,02

75

83

81

88

1,08

1,06

61

79

58

80

0,95

1,01

96

97

97

97

1,01

1,00

85

88

84

90

0,99

1,02

77

90

77

93

1,00

1,03

62

74

68

80

1,10

1,08

74

87

74

88

1,00

1,01

79

87

75

86

0,95

0,99

1,-04

2009 . ( ) 68%
, , 80% , .. > 50%,
-99/2009
.
.

1,-04

1,-03

1,-02

2009 . , [8]

2009 2009
2006 .
2006 .

62 79 71
78
1,15

,

- , %

, %

,
%

, %

71

83

26

2,74

6,84E-06

61

62

104

26

1,02

2,50E-07

74

74

30-40

1 287

35

2,89

3,51E-05

66

67

229

36

1,24

4,46E-06

77

77

40-50

1 463

46

3,13

2,01E-04

69

73

348

46

1,57

5,83E-05

80

81

50-60

1 203

55

2,88

3,78E-04

73

81

347

54

1,60

1,73E-04

85

87

60

110

64

2,10

3,01E-04

86

90

31

63

0,67

2,56E-04

95

96

0,95

5 309

41

2,90

1,57E-04

68

71

1 059

45

1,43

8,42E-05

80

81

0,90

1,05

2009
2006 .

2 770

35

2,88

9,87E-06

66

67

612

40

1,59

5,31E-06

76

76

10-20

1 124

44

3,39

1,41E-04

67

70

213

49

1,34

8,57E-05

84

85

20-30

1 226

50

2,64

4,21E-04

69

79

221

54

1,11

2,79E-04

87

90

30-40

189

56

2,11

7,02E-04

65

86

13

60

1,08

4,62E-04

88

93

5 309

41

2,90

1,57E-04

68

71

1 059

45

1,43

8,42E-05

80

81

2009 .,

10

1,00

, %

, %

1,01

2009
2006 .

2009 .,

, -

, %

, %

1,04

1,10

1 246

84

1,15

30

74

0,99

,
30 : 61% , , 74%
.
.
,

.
, ()


.
,
( , 103) [7, 8].

18

.. |

19

V.K. Ivanov | Generic risk of potential exposure

PREFACE

1. (-99/2009): - . : , 2009. 100 .

2. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication
103 //Annals of the ICRP. 2007. V. 37, N 2-4. Elsevier, 2007.
3. Potential exposure in nuclear safety, INSAG-9. Vienna: IAEA, 1995.
4. . SF-1. : , 2007.
5. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR). Sources and effects of
ionizing radiation. 2000 report to the General Assembly, Vol. 2 Effects. New York: United Nation, 2000.
6. 1998-2002 . ( ): / . .., ... ., 1999-2003.
7. .., .., .., .. : . .: , 2006. 304 .
8. .., .., .., .., .. : 4.0 //. 2009.
4. . 29-32.

The latest standards of Radiation Safety (NRB-99/2009) adopted in Russia introduce the concept of potential exposure and provide the constraints for generic risk of potential exposure (2.10-4 year-1 for workers,
NRB-99/2009, para 2.3).
In the recent years it has been emphasized many times at the highest governmental level that domestic
requirements to radiation safety in the nuclear industry must be in agreement with the most stringent international standards.
The latest recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (Publication
103) provide the definition of potential exposure as exposure that is not expected to be delivered with certainty but that may result from an accident at a source or an event or sequence of events of a probabilistic nature,
including equipment failures and operating errors. This issue (potential exposure and potential radiological
risks for workers and members of the public) is becoming increasingly relevant, in particular, following the accident at the Fukushima-1 NPP in Japan.
In the NRB-99/2009 the generic risk of potential exposure is defined as the product of the probability of
incurring a dose and the probability of radiation-related death. In view of the complexity of this matter and high
uncertainty associated with probabilistic estimates, the ICRP recommends that generalizations about normal
occupational exposures be used in consideration of potential exposure.
The Russian Scientific Commission on Radiological Protection, jointly with State Corporation Rosatom,
based on the existing national and international recommendations, are currently taking effort to introduce a
new integral indicator in the industry which is called the safety index of potential exposure (SIPE). There is
strong evidence that the requirements of the NRB-99/2009 on restricting generic risk of potential exposure are
met by the reviewed facilities of the industry. Implementation of the technique for estimating SIPE and further
optimization of radiation protection is critical for improving radiation safety of nuclear workers, as well as enhancing their motivation to work in the nuclear industry, both nationally and locally.

Director General
the State Atomic Energy
Corporation Rosatom

Chairman of the Russian Scientific

Commission on Radiological Protection,
Corresponding Member of RAMS

S.V. Kirienko

V.K. Ivanov

20

V.K. Ivanov

21

Generic risk of potential exposure

INTRODUCTION
The latest standards of radiation safety (NRB-99/2009) contain, for the first time, the concept of potential exposure and provide the generic risk constraints for potential exposure (2.10-4 year-1) [1]. Consideration is given to the safety index of potential exposure and its application at the facilities of the State
Corporation Rosatom.
The latest recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (Publication
103) [2] provide the definition of potential exposure as exposure that is not expected to be delivered with certainty
but that may result from an accident at a source or an event or sequence of events of a probabilistic nature, including
equipment failures and operating errors.
For the purposes of planning and judging protective measures, potential exposure should be evaluated
based on (para 266 of the ICRP recommendations):
a)
development of typical scenarios representing the sequence of events leading to the exposure;
b)
assessment of probabilities of each of these sequences;
c)
assessment of the resulting dose;
d)
evaluating detriment associated with that dose;
e)
comparison of the results with some criterion of acceptability of such detriment;
f )
optimization of protection which may require several iterations of the previous steps.
The above items (a-c) in the ICRP recommendations require that multiple potential emergency situations be considered that can occur due to the specificity of nuclear facilities. This is actually impossible to accomplish and therefore a more prudent and justified approach has been proposed by the ICRP, as described in
para 268 However, there can be large uncertainties in estimations of the probability of an unsafe situation
and the resulting dose. Thus, it will often be sufficient to use a generic value for a risk constraint. In case of
workers, this could be based on generalisations about normal occupational exposures, rather than a more
specific study of the particular operation.
For potential exposure of workers the ICRP recommends a generic risk constraint which is the product
of the probability of incurring the dose in a year and the lifetime probability of radiation-related death from the
dose conditional on the dose being incurred ([2], para 267) equal to 2.10-4 year-1 which is approximately equal
to the lifetime risk of exposure at the annual dose 5 mSv. The same dose constraint has been established by the
NRB-99/2009 that are currently in force in Russia ([1], para 2.3).
The value 2.10-4 was obtained by dividing of the nominal risk coefficient 4.1.10-2 (per dose 1 Sv), as recommended by the ICRP to evaluate occupational exposure for those working with radiation sources, by 200
times (dose 5 mSv). It may be worth noting that this value was obtained for a reference population (residents of
Europe and America of both genders with a certain age distribution).
Designating the probability of exposure at dose d and the probability of radiation-induced death from
exposure at dose d as P1 and P2, respectively, the generic risk restriction LR can be written as:
for all i: LR(di) = P1(di) - P2(di) < 2.10-4 year-1, (1)
where di takes value of all possible doses.
Inequality (1) should be satisfied for all possible doses of potential exposure during a year.
The issue of evaluating risks of potential exposure is described in the ICRP recommendations in a very
general way. Methodologies to apply the potential exposure concept are just being implemented in practice.
The approach presented in this paper is one of possible practical approaches to addressing this task. We will
further illustrate it taking the Kursk NPP as an example.

APPROVED
by the President of the Russian Federation
D.Medvedev

BASICS
of the State Policy on Ensuring Nuclear
and Radiological Safety in the Russian Federation
for the period to 2025

March 1, 2012
Or-539

III. Purpose and principal directions of the State Policy on ensuring nuclear and
radiological safety
7. The purpose of the state policy on ensuring nuclear and radiation safety is a
consistent lowering to the socially acceptable risk level of technogenic impact on the
population and environment

KEY FACTORS FOR THE STATE OF PUBLIC HEALTH

World Health Organization

Social conditions

50-52%

Genetic status

20-22%

State of the environment

18-20%

Health-care system

7-12%

22

V.K. Ivanov

23

Generic risk of potential exposure

IAEA INSAG DEFINITION OF GENERIC RISK

In the report Potential exposure in nuclear safety of the International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group
(INSAG) the risk in situations of potential exposure at low doses is understood as the mathematical expectation of exposure consequences ([3], para 6, 47).
Mathematical expectation of radiological consequences can be defined as the mathematical expectation
LR of life-time risk P2(di) of radiation-induced death of an individual caused by radiation exposure during a year
at dose di with a probability P2(di):

I.27. Employers, in co-operation with registrants and licensees, shall:

a) provide to all workers adequate information on the health risks

due to their occupational exposure, whether normal exposure or
potential exposure

(2)
where i is the index covering all possible doses di P2(di) is the lifetime risk of exposure during one year at dose
di, and the sum is the mathematical expectation of this risk.
It should be noted that the IAEA definition of generic risk of potential exposure in the form of (2) is normally conservative. Para 268 of the 2007 ICRP recommendations [2] says that in case of workers, decisions on
assessment of potential exposure could be based on generalizations about normal occupational exposures. In
normal situations a risk increases with a dose, while the probability of such exposure usually decreases.
On determining all possible probabilities of exposure {P(di)} for doses d greater than a given value D,
the average risk can be defined as:

p. 47

STANDARDS OF RADIATION SAFETY

(NRB-99/2009)

(3)
2.3. For justification of protection against potential
exposure from radiation sources during a year the following

and the probability of this risk is given by

generic values of risk constraints are used (the product of

(4)

the probability of incurring the dose and the probability of

radiation-related death):
- Workers - 2,010-4, year-1;

Then their product, i.e. the generic risk is given by:

- Public

- 1,010-5, year-1.

(5)
Obviously, the sum of non-negative summands (5) is maximal when all possible radiation doses (di>0)
are included in the summation, and represents the mathematical expectation of risk in accordance with the
IAEA definition of generic risk (2).

SOCIETY WITHOUT RISKS IS UTOPIAN

Concept of acceptable risk

10 =
-4

100 traumatic cases with poor

(lethal) outcome/year

DETERMINING THE PROBABILITY

OF RADIATION-INDUCED DEATH
Using the nominal risk coefficient 4.1.10-2 Sv-1 for workers from NRB-99/2009, the mathematical expectation of risk (generic risk) can be written as:
(6)

1 000 000 workers

International Commission on Radiological Protection,

Publication 60
Radiological risk depends on a dynamics of dose accumulation,
dose rate, kind and energy of radiation, age at exposure, attained
age, sex and cancer site

where i is the index running all possible doses di, lr(di)=4,1.10-2-di is the lifetime risk of exposure during a year at
dose di, the sum is the mathematical expectation of this risk (generic risk), the subscript max for LR will remind us of
the conservatism of the generic risk definition and the last inequality implies generic risk restriction ([1], para 2.3).
This definition of the risk constraint could be used as the upper bound of potential exposure acceptability. The nominal risk coefficient, however, is not intended for evaluating radiological consequences for a
specific population. Using such a simplified approach would be contradicting Principle 6 Limitation of risks to
individuals of the IAEA Fundamental Safety Principles [4]: both the optimization of protection and the limitation of doses and risks to individuals are necessary to achieve the desired level of safety ([4], para 3.26).
Estimation of potential exposure using the nominal risk coefficient can be rather crude because of
significant differences in demographic characteristics of workers cohort at a given facility and the reference

24

V.K. Ivanov

population. Maintaining the form of equation (2), we introduce the correction coefficient K accounting for such
differences, based on the UNSCEAR radiation risk models [5].
By the UNSCEAR models [5] for solid cancer and leukemia, P2(s,g,t), the probability of lifetime risk of death
from radiogenic cancers per unit dose 1 Sv, is the function of gender s, age at exposure g and time since exposure t.
Let us now consider the structure of P2(s,g,t). After receiving a dose an individual can die of radiogenic
cancer induced by this dose, with allowance for a latent period of radiogenic cancer induction. The probability
(frequency of occurrence) of such events per year is determined by radiogenic increment to the spontaneous
death rate. Besides, during the years following the exposure the individual can die from causes unrelated to
exposure (spontaneous death). Thus, there are two competing processes: the individual can die of radiogenic
cancer provided he/she does not die of other causes (including spontaneous cancer) on a certain year t. This
condition can be written as S(s,g+t) (s,g+t), where S is the probability of surviving to age g+t, in case of
exposure at age g,
is the increment to the annual death rate from cancer caused by exposure to unit dose.
In radiation epidemiology this increment is referred to as the excess absolute risk EAR per unit dose. Then the
expression S(s,g+t) (s,g+t)dt will represent the number of deaths from radiogenic cancers among those
who survived from the age at exposure g to the age g+t over time interval dt.
For determining the lifetime risk per unit dose (1 Sv) the annual radiation risks during the rest of life
need to be integrated:

(7)

25

Generic risk of potential exposure

ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURES

Publication 103 ICRP
(266) For the purposes of planning and judging protective measures, potential
exposure should be evaluated based on
) development of typical scenarios representing the sequence of events leading to
the exposure;
b) assessment of probabilities of each of these sequences;
) assessment of the resulting dose;
d) evaluating detriment associated with that dose;
) comparison of the results with some criterion of acceptability of such detriment;
f ) optimization of protection which may require several iterations of the previous
steps.

ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURES

Publication 103 ICRP

where T is the maximum number of years to live (here adopted to be 70 years). is the Heaviside stepwise function accounting for the latent period lp equal to 0 at t<lp, 0.5 at t=lp and 1 at t>lp. We take the value lp=lps=10
for solid cancers and lp=lpl=2 for leukemia.)
POTENTIAL EXPOSURE
In the new Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection
(ICRP Publication 103 *) the following three types of exposure situations are considered:
- planned exposure situation,
- emergency exposure situation,
- existing exposure situation.
Potential exposure is taken to be part of planned
exposure situation, but with its own distinctive features
* ICRP Publication 103. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection //Annals
of the ICRP /Ed. J.Valentin. Elsevier, 2007 [par. 176, pp. 82-83]

(268) , ,
, .
,
.

,
.

The EAR and latent period in formula (7) have been introduced by the UNSCEAR models for solid cancers and leukemia. The S is the function of medical and demographic properties of the population under study
(death rate from all causes and death rate from cancer as a function of attained age).
The cancer-related death rate in the population exposed at dose d at age u is made up of the spontaneous and radiogenic components:
(8)

POTENTIAL EXPOSURE
Exposure that is not expected to be delivered with
certainty but that may result from an accident at a source
or an event
or sequence of events of a probabilistic nature, including
equipment failures and operating errors.

For solid cancers, by the UNSCEAR recommendations, a multiplicative model of radiation risk is advised
to be used:
(9)
where (s,g) is the excess relative risk of cancer deaths per dose 1 Sv for a selected gender and age at exposure g.
From equation (9) it follows that:
(10)
By the UNSCEAR model [5]:
(11)

26

V.K. Ivanov

27

Generic risk of potential exposure

Age dependence of death rate from all causes

(males)
Death rate

where is the inverse of the Dose and Dose Rate Effectiveness Factor ( =1/DDREF) equal to 0.5; (s) is the excess relative risk of cancer death (per dose 1 Sv) for persons of a certain gender and age at exposure 30 years. The
coefficient (by the UNSCEAR model) is equal to 0.38 for males and 0.77 for females, the coefficient =-0.04 is
identical for both genders. The value =0.5 is selected in accordance with the ICRP recommendations (publication 103) [2], with the corresponding values of the nominal coefficient of radiation risk estimated to be 5.5% for
the population in general and 4.1% for adults. For convenience, the gender index will be omitted in the following.
Then, the lifetime risk of death from radiogenic solid cancers per unit dose P2s in the relative risk model
will be written as:

Deaths per 1000

300

(12)

200

100

where S is the survival function from age g until age g+x; sp is the cancer death rate at age g+x; T is the followup upper limit.
For leukemia the risk model of the UNSCEAR [5] is represented in terms of the excess absolute risk:

20

80

100

Russia
Approximant

where EARL is the excess absolute risk, the coefficient is the excess absolute risk per 104 person-years-Sv; d is
the dose of one-time exposure (Sv); g is the age at exposure (years); t is the time after exposure (years).
Table 1 shows the values of the coefficients and dependent on gender and age at exposure.

Age dependence of death rate from

all causes (males)
For estimating P2s the age dependence of cancer death rate is required. The age-specific cancer
death rates are provided, for example, in [6]. This dependence is known to be well described by the power
function:

Gender

Age at exposure
(years)

Males

0-19
20-39
40

0,33
0,48
1,31

-0,17
-0,13
-0,07

0-19
20-39
40

0,66
0,97
2,64

-0,07
-0,03
0,03

Females

60

Age (years)

(13)

Values of the parameters of the model for excess absolute risk of leukemia
(EARL) as a function of gender and age at exposure

40

(17)

Age dependence of cancer death rate

where c =1.0310 , c =4.43 for males and c =1.2210(males)
, c =3.64 for females.
The actual data and the approximant for cancer death rates are shown in Figure.
2

-10

-9

Death per 1000

(14)
Then the lifetime risk of death from radiogenic cancers, assuming that solid cancers and leukemia do
not occur jointly is given by:

Deaths per 1000

20
The model has been developed for three age groups at exposure: 0-19, 20-39 and older than 40 years.
For individuals within one age group the coefficients and are the same. The lifetime risk of leukemia is
defined as:

15
10
5

(15)
For estimating the survival function for the population of Russia we use age-specific death rates from all
causes, as available from official medical statistics. As a rule, these rates are provided for five-year age intervals.
For convenience, we use the approximation of the dependence of death rates (from all causes) on age. The
dependence of death rate m on age u is well approximated by the Gompertz function:
(16)
where the coefficients for the Russian population are, respectively, equal to c0=1.1410-3, c1=6.1410-2 for males
and c0=3.1610-5, c1=0.10 for females.
Figure shows the actual death rates and their approximation.

20

40
Age (years)

Approximant
Data
Age dependence of cancer
death rate (males)

60

80

28

V.K. Ivanov

29

Generic risk of potential exposure

Contributions of the risk components to the overall

risk (females)
The approximation for survival function with allowance for (11) will be calculated analytically as follows:

(18)

0.8
Contribution

Survival function for the agefrom 18 years

(males, Russia)
For illustration, Figure shows the survival rate function for the population (males) from age 18 years.
Survival function

Proportion of those
who survived

0.6
0.4
0.2

0.8

0.6

20

0.4

60

80

Age at exposure
Solid cancers
Leukemia

0.2
0

40

20

40

60

80

Contributions of the risk components to the

overall risk (females)

100

Age (years)
Survival function for the age from
18 years (males, Russia)

Contribution of the risk components to the overall

risk (males)

The risk of radiogenic cancers consists of two components: solid cancers and leukemia. Figures show
the contribution of leukemia and solid cancers to the overall radiation risk.
As follows from Figures, the contributions of the components are equal at the age 54 years for males
and 70 years for females.

Dependence of the radiation risk on the age

at exposure for males (at the dose 1 Sv)

As mentioned above, when estimating lifetime risk for workers at a specific nuclear facility, account
should be taken of the age structure of workers, because risk is dependent on age at exposure and time since
exposure (for leukemia by the UNSCEAR model). The lifetime risk P2 per unit dose (1 Sv) of potential exposure as
a function of the age g at exposure for males and females is shown in Figures.

0.08

0.06

Contribution

Risk

0.8
0.6

0.04
0.02

0.4

0
0.2

20

40

60

80

Age at exposure
0

20

40

60

Age at exposure
Solid cancers
Leukemia
Contribution of the risk components
to the overall risk (males)

80

Model
Approximant
Dependence of the radiation risk on the age at exposure for males
(at the dose 1 Sv)

30

V.K. Ivanov

31

Generic risk of potential exposure

Dependence of the radiation risk on the age

at exposure for females (at the dose 1 Sv)
In the formula (21) P2(s,g) is the average lifetime risk of death from radiogenic cancers per unit dose (1 Sv)
for a specific population (the Russian population here) with allowance for its demographic features.
The maximum value LR is determined with account taken of all probabilities of exposure P(di) at doses di:

0.1

Risk

0.08

(22)

0.06

where

0.04

Let us render formula (22) to be more universal, using only coefficient K for males, by introducing the
coefficient (s) the ratio of the risk coefficient for females to the risk coefficient for males. According to the
ICRP publication 103 this ratio is 1.37. Formula (22) will then take the form:

0.02

is the average equivalent dose of external exposure.

(23)

20

40

60

80

Age at exposure
Model
Approximant
Dependence of the radiation risk on the age at exposure for females
(at the dose 1 Sv)
For example, for the workers (males) who received the radiation dose 1 Sv at the age 40 years the lifetime risk is estimated to be 3.010-2.
The dependence of radiation risk on age at exposure is primarily determined by the number of years of
life remaining for a person to live: the greater the age, the less this value is.
The lifetime risk as a function of age at exposure, given a single dose 1 Sv of exposure (by the UNSCEAR
models), is well described by the approximation of the second degree polynomial:

where (s=m)=1, m is the male gender index, (s=f)=1.37, f is the female gender index.
Substituting (23) in inequality (20) and using millisiverts instead of siverts for convenience (potential
exposure doses are rather low), we cancel out the constants to obtain the following:
(24)

where A=4.88 for males and 3.56 for females.

Let us now consider the issue of allowance for total accumulated dose which is an additional risk factor in case of potential exposure. The current annual risk arising from the total accumulated dose R(D) should
decrease the right-hand side of inequality (20), making the inequality more stiff with respect to potential exposure. The current annual risk arising from the total accumulated dose R(D) can be taken in account by means
of scaling of the value A by the factor q=(1 R(D))/(10-3/year). The current annual risk arising from the total
accumulated dose can be calculated using the ARMIR system [7, 8]. The value 10-3/year is taken as a risk limit
for workers.
Thus, inequality (24) will finally take the form:

(19)
where c3=8.85.10-2, c4=-1.92.10-3, c5=1.09.10-5 for males and c3=1.44.10-1, c4=-3.40.10-3, c5=2.02.10-5 for females.
The left-hand side of equation (19) shows the lifetime risk associated with dose 1 Sv (for the maximal
age 70 years).
Let us compare the risk values derived for both genders with the nominal risk coefficient for the adult
population 4.1.10-2, as provided in [2] for the WHO reference population. The average age of this population is
37 years. As follows from Figures, the values of generic risk is equal to 3.2.10-2 for males and 4.3.10-2 for females.
The average value is 3.75, the difference being less than 10%. The lower risk value in the above estimates is due
to the higher death rates (lower survival rates) in the Russian population: people die from other causes earlier
than they develop cancer or die of cancer, including radiogenic one. This implies that the UNSCEAR models give
the risk value close to that of the ICRP [2]. It should also be added that the risk constraints in the ICRP recommendations and NRB-99/2009 for the Russian population are provided with a margin.
The constraint for generic risk at potential exposure (6) can be written as:
(20)

(25)
If the current annual risk from the total accumulated dose R(D) is equal to 10-3/year or greater, the righthand side of (25) is equal to zero, which implies the absence of exposure.

SAFETY INDEX OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURE

Based on the described algorithm for estimating risks and doses of potential exposure, with allowance
for total accumulated doses, the safety index of potential exposure (SIPE) is being proposed which, to some
extent, shows the quality and reliability of radiation protection at a given nuclear facility. In fact, total accumulated doses accrued by workers in the course of operations reflect the specificity of operations, robustness of
equipment used for handling radiation sources and qualification of workers.
Let us write the safety index of potential exposure (SIPE) in the following form
(26)

where

(21)

If

, then SIPE50%. Otherwise, when

, SIPE<50%.

32

V.K. Ivanov

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Males

) males
Proportion of people, %

Proportion of people, %

Average dose - 2.90 mSv

25
20
15
10
5
0

b) females

30

Average dose - 1.43 mSv

25

NumAverage
ber of
age,
peryears
sons

Age

Figures and Tables provide results of estimating the safety index of potential exposure (SIPE) for the Kursk
NPP, as of 2009, including the breakdown by age groups and number of years of using personal dosimeters.
30

Females

SIPE
without NumAverage Average
Average
dose in annual risk SIPE, consi-de- ber of
age,
ring total perthe year, from total
%
years
dose, % sons
mSv
dose

up to 30 years

1 246

26

2,74

6,84E-06

61

62

104

26

1,02

2,50E-07

74

74

1 287

35

2,89

3,51E-05

66

67

229

36

1,24

4,46E-06

77

77

40-50 years

1 463

46

3,13

2,01E-04

69

73

348

46

1,57

5,83E-05

80

81

50-60 years

1 203

55

2,88

3,78E-04

73

81

347

54

1,60

1,73E-04

85

87

15

60 years and
more

110

64

2,10

3,01E-04

86

90

31

63

0,67

2,56E-04

95

96

10

Total

5 309

41

2,90

1,57E-04

68

71

1 059

45

1,43

8,42E-05

80

81

20

Distribution
by
age
2009
4
6
8
10 of
12the
14 Kursk
16 18 NPP workers
0
2
4
6
8
10in 12
14
External dose in reporting year, mSv

SIPE for the Kursk NPP in 2009 with

the breakdown by age groups
16

18

External dose in reporting year, mSv

Males

) males
5,0
4,5
Average age - 41 years
4,0
3,5
3,0
2,5
2,0
1,5
1,0
0,5
0,0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

Proportion of people, %

Proportion of people, %

Distribution of the Kursk NPP workers

by external radiation dose
b) females
5,0
4,5
Average age - 45 years
4,0
3,5
3,0
2,5
2,0
1,5
1,0
0,5
0,0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

1,-04

1,-03

Annual risk from total accumulated dose

1,-02

2 770

35

2,88

9,87E-06

66

67

612

40

1,59

5,31E-06

76

76

1 124

44

3,39

1,41E-04

67

70

213

49

1,34

8,57E-05

84

85

20-30 years

1 226

50

2,64

4,21E-04

69

79

221

54

1,11

2,79E-04

87

90

189

56

2,11

7,02E-04

65

86

13

60

1,08

4,62E-04

88

93

5 309

41

2,90

1,57E-04

68

71

1 059

45

1,43

8,42E-05

80

81

30-40 years
Total

SIPE for Kursk NPP in 2009 with breakdown

by the number of years of using personal dosimetry

b) females
Average annual risk from
total accumulated dose - 8.0E-5

Proportion of people, %

Proportion of people, %

Average annual risk from

total accumulated dose - 1.6E-04

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1,-05

up to 10 years
10-20 years

For the Kursk NPP, as follows from the 2009 data, (last line in tables) SIPE is 68% for male workers using personal dosimeters and 80% for female workers, i.e. SIPE>50%, which implies that the new requirements
NRB-99/2009 on limitation of generic risk of potential exposure are satisfied. The same can be concluded with
respect to each age group or each group formed by the number of years of using personal dosimeters.

Distribution of the Kursk NPP

workers by age in 2009

) males

1,-04

1,-03

Annual risk from total accumulated dose

Distribution of the Kursk NPP workers by annual risk from dose accrued
by 2009 in accordance with the ARMIR system [8]

Females

SIPE
SIPE
without
without
NumAverage Average
NumAverage Average
Average
Average
consi-deconsi-deber of
dose in annual risk SIPE,
ber of
dose in annual risk
age,
age,
SIPE, % ring total
ring total
perthe year, from total
%
perthe year, from total
years
years
dose, %
dose, %
sons
mSv
dose
sons
mSv
dose

Age

Distribution of the Kursk NPP workers by annual

risk from dose accrued byAge
2009
in
in reporting year, years
Age in reporting year, years
accordance with the ARMIR system [9]

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1,-05

SIPE
without
Average Average
dose in annual risk SIPE, consi-dering total
the year, from total
%
dose, %
mSv
dose

30-40 years

33

Generic risk of potential exposure

1,-02

SIPE for
males, 2006,
%

SIPE for
females,
2006, %

SIPE for
males, 2009,
%

SIPE for
females,
2009, %

Ratio of 2009 SIPE to

2006 SIPE for males

Ratio of 2009 SIPE to

2006 SIPE for females

Balakovskaya NPP

81

88

81

90

1,00

1,02

Beloyarskaya NPP

75

83

81

88

1,08

1,06

Bilibinskaya NPP

61

79

58

80

0,95

1,01

Volgodonskaya NPP

96

97

97

97

1,01

1,00

Kalininskaya NPP

85

88

84

90

0,99

1,02

Kolskaya NPP

77

90

77

93

1,00

1,03

Kurskaya NPP

62

74

68

80

1,10

1,08

Leningradskaya NPP

74

87

74

88

1,00

1,01

Novovoronezhskaya NPP

79

87

75

86

0,95

0,99

Smolenskaya NPP

62

79

71

78

1,15

0,99

Rosenergoatom in
general

71

83

74

84

1,04

1,01

NPP

34

V.K. Ivanov | Generic risk of potential exposure

Dynamics of SIPE for Rosenergoatom NPPs

1,15
1,10

Ratio of 2009 SIPE

to 2006 SIPE
for males

1,05

Ratio of 2009 SIPE

to 2006 SIPE
for females

1,00
0,95

Ba
la
ko
Be vsk
lo
a
ya ya
Bi rska NPP
Vo libin ya
N
lg
od skay PP
on a
Ka sk NP
lin ay P
in a N
sk
P
Ko aya P
lsk NP
K ay P
L
No eni urs a N
vo ngr kay PP
vo ad a N
ro sk
ne ay PP
Ro
zh a N
S
se
m s
ne ol kay PP
rg en a N
oa sk
P
to ay P
m aN
in
P
ge P
ne
ra
l

0,90

Dynamics of SIPE forRosenergoatom NPPs

It should be kept in mind, however, that the minimal values of SIPE have been obtained for the age
groups younger than 30 years: SIPE is 61% for males and 74% for females using personal dosimeters. These are
critical groups for estimating potential exposure at the Kursk NPP.
The latter conclusion can obviously be used in developing plans for optimization of radiation protection in potential exposure situations and is critical politically and socially for nuclear facility operations and
development.
Moreover, the proposed safety index of potential exposure (SIPE), as applied to a specific branch of
Rosenergoatom, can be used for quantifying a safety goal for potential exposure situations and for assessing
the dynamics of achieving this goal year by year.
The proposed technique for estimating SIPE is supplementing the ARMIR system which is used for estimating radiation risks of existing exposure [7, 8].

REFERENCES
1. Standards of Radiation Safety (NRB-99/2009): Sanitary epidemiological rules and standards. : Federal
Center for Hygiene and Epidemiology of Rospotrebnadzor, 2009. 100 p.
2. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication
103 //Annals of the ICRP. 2007. V. 37, N 2-4. Elsevier, 2007.
3. Potential exposure in nuclear safety, INSAG-9. IAEA: Vienna, 1995.
4. Fundamental Safety Principles. IAEA safety standards series SF-1. IAEA: Vienna, 2007.
5. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR). Sources and effects of
ionizing radiation. 2000 report to the General Assembly, Vol. 2 Effects. New York: United Nation, 2000.
6. Malignant neoplasms in Russia in 1998-2002 (morbidity and mortality): Reference book /Edit by RAMS
Academician V.I.Chissov and Prof V.V. Starinsky. ., 1999-2003.
7. Ivanov V.., Tsyb A.F, Panfilov A.P., Agapov .. Optimization of radiation protection: dose matrix. .:
Meditzina, 2006, 304 p.
8. Ivanov V.., Panfilov A.P.Vasilenko E.K., Kozlov A.A. Palichev E.D ARMIR: version 4.0 //ANRI. 2009. 4. P. 29-32.