title: Is ICRP guidance on the use of reference levels consistent?
abstract: In ICRP 103, which has replaced ICRP 60, it is stated that no fundamental changes have been introduced compared with ICRP 60. This is true except that the application of reference levels in emergency and existing exposure situations seems to be applied inconsistently, and also in the related publications ICRP 109 and ICRP 111. ICRP 103 emphasises that focus should be on the residual doses after the implementation of protection strategies in emergency and existing exposure situations. If possible, the result of an optimised protection strategy should bring the residual dose below the reference level. Thus the reference level represents the maximum acceptable residual dose after an optimised protection strategy has been implemented. It is not an 'off-the-shelf item' that can be set free of the prevailing situation. It should be determined as part of the process of optimising the protection strategy. If not, protection would be sub-optimised. However, in ICRP 103 some inconsistent concepts have been introduced, e.g. in paragraph 279 which states: 'All exposures above or below the reference level should be subject to optimisation of protection, and particular attention should be given to exposures above the reference level'. If, in fact, all exposures above and below reference levels are subject to the process of optimisation, reference levels appear superfluous. It could be considered that if optimisation of protection below a fixed reference level is necessary, then the reference level has been set too high at the outset. Up until the last phase of the preparation of ICRP 103 the concept of a dose constraint was recommended to constrain the optimisation of protection in all types of exposure situations. In the final phase, the term 'dose constraint' was changed to 'reference level' for emergency and existing exposure situations. However, it seems as if in ICRP 103 it was not fully recognised that dose constraints and reference levels are conceptually different. The use of reference levels in radiological protection is reviewed. It is concluded that the recommendations in ICRP 103 and related ICRP publications seem to be inconsistent regarding the use of reference levels in existing and emergency exposure situations.
authors.affiliation: Danish Decommissioning, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark. p.hedemann@dekom.dk
authors.forename: Per
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Hedemann-Jensen
authors.forename: Andrew C
authors.initials: AC
authors.lastname: McEwan
mesh_terms: D004781:Environmental Exposure / Q000032:analysis / Q000517:prevention & control*; D017408:Guidelines as Topic; D006801:Humans; D038622:Internationality; D011832:Radiation Injuries / Q000209:etiology / Q000517:prevention & control*; D011834:Radiation Monitoring / Q000379:methods* / Q000592:standards*; D011835:Radiation Protection / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards*; D018788:Radioactive Hazard Release / Q000517:prevention & control; D012016:Reference Values; D018570:Risk Assessment / Q000379:methods / Q000458:organization & administration*; D012307:Risk Factors; D017751:Safety Management / Q000379:methods / Q000458:organization & administration*; D023481:Terrorism