Exclusion and exemption ICRP 103
Sunday, April 4, 2010
(51) The fact that the Commission’s Recommendations are concerned with any level and type of radiation exposure does not mean that all exposures, all sources, and all human actions, can or need to be equally considered when establishing the legal and regulatory systems for their application. Instead, a graded burden of obligation must be foreseen according to the amenability of a particular source or exposure situation to regulatory controls, and the level of exposure/risk associated with that source or situation.
(52) There are two distinct concepts that delineate the extent of radiological protection control, namely (i) the exclusion of certain exposure situations from radiological protection legislation, usually on the basis that they are not amenable to control with regulatory instruments (cannot be regulated), and (ii) the exemption from some or all radiological protection regulatory requirements for situations where such controls are regarded as unwarranted, often on the basis that the effort to control is judged to be excessive compared to the associated risk (need not be regulated). A legislative system for radiological protection should first establish what should be within the legal system and what should be outside it and therefore excluded from the law and its regulations. Secondly, the system should also establish what could be exempted from some or all regulatory requirements because regulatory action is unwarranted. For this purpose, the legislative framework should permit the regulatory authority to exempt situations from specified regulatory requirements, particularly from those of an administrative nature such as notification and authorisation or exposure assessment and inspection. While exclusion is firmly related to defining the scope of the control system, it may not be sufficient as it is just one mechanism. Exemption, on the other hand, relates to the power of regulatory authorities to determine that a source or practice need not be subject to some or all aspects of regulatory control. The distinction between exclusion and exemption is not absolute; regulatory authorities in different countries may take different decisions about whether to exempt or exclude a specific source or situation.
(53) Exposures that may be excluded from radiological protection legislation include uncontrollable exposures and exposures that are essentially not amenable to control regardless of their magnitude. Uncontrollable exposures are those that cannot be restricted by regulatory action under any conceivable circumstance, such as exposure to the radionuclide potassium–40 incorporated into the human body. Exposures that are not amenable to control are those for which control is obviously impractical, such as exposure to cosmic rays at ground level. The decision as to what exposures are not amenable to control requires a judgment by the legislator, which may be influenced by cultural perceptions. For instance, national attitudes to the regulation of exposures to natural occurring radioactive materials are extremely variable.
(54) Further guidance on exclusion and exemption is provided in Publication 104 (ICRP, 2007a).
(52) There are two distinct concepts that delineate the extent of radiological protection control, namely (i) the exclusion of certain exposure situations from radiological protection legislation, usually on the basis that they are not amenable to control with regulatory instruments (cannot be regulated), and (ii) the exemption from some or all radiological protection regulatory requirements for situations where such controls are regarded as unwarranted, often on the basis that the effort to control is judged to be excessive compared to the associated risk (need not be regulated). A legislative system for radiological protection should first establish what should be within the legal system and what should be outside it and therefore excluded from the law and its regulations. Secondly, the system should also establish what could be exempted from some or all regulatory requirements because regulatory action is unwarranted. For this purpose, the legislative framework should permit the regulatory authority to exempt situations from specified regulatory requirements, particularly from those of an administrative nature such as notification and authorisation or exposure assessment and inspection. While exclusion is firmly related to defining the scope of the control system, it may not be sufficient as it is just one mechanism. Exemption, on the other hand, relates to the power of regulatory authorities to determine that a source or practice need not be subject to some or all aspects of regulatory control. The distinction between exclusion and exemption is not absolute; regulatory authorities in different countries may take different decisions about whether to exempt or exclude a specific source or situation.
(53) Exposures that may be excluded from radiological protection legislation include uncontrollable exposures and exposures that are essentially not amenable to control regardless of their magnitude. Uncontrollable exposures are those that cannot be restricted by regulatory action under any conceivable circumstance, such as exposure to the radionuclide potassium–40 incorporated into the human body. Exposures that are not amenable to control are those for which control is obviously impractical, such as exposure to cosmic rays at ground level. The decision as to what exposures are not amenable to control requires a judgment by the legislator, which may be influenced by cultural perceptions. For instance, national attitudes to the regulation of exposures to natural occurring radioactive materials are extremely variable.
(54) Further guidance on exclusion and exemption is provided in Publication 104 (ICRP, 2007a).
Source: ICRP Publication 103, 2007