Risk-oriented approach to analysis of safety living in the vicinity of atomic energy facilities. Review

«Radiation and Risk», 2018, vol. 27, no. 2, pp.117-140

DOI: 10.21870/0131-3878-2018-27-2-117-140


Arutunyan R.V.1 – Deputy Director, D. Sc., Phys.-Math., Prof. IBRAE RAS, Moscow, Russia. Contacts: 52 Bolshaya Tulskaya Str., Moscow, Russia, 115191. Tel.: (495) 955-22-09 (484); e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .
Grachev V.A.2 – Adviser Director General, Corresponding Member of RAS, Prof. SState Corporation Rosatom, Moscow, Russia.


At present much attention is paid to the development of safe, ecologically pure and cost-effective atomic energy industry. To ensure the safe living in the vicinity of the atomic energy facilities it is very important to carry out environmental expertise at all levels of the facilities construction, beginning from project designing, constructing, operation and decommissioning of the facilities. Risk-oriented approach is considered as the most effective approach to the assessment of consequences of the human impact on the environment and the management of environmental safety. This approach is based on analysis risks to public health, and allows comparison of impacts of different factors. Estimates of risk to public health are integral elements of the environmental expertise of projects of newly constructed or reconstructed atomic energy facilities, recovery of contaminated areas are used in the USA and in the West Europe. This approach is widely used in Russia. From analysis of the present-day hygienic standards it is seen that regulation of chemical substances effects is less strong as compared with the regulation of radiation effects. Analysis of carcinogenic risk of radiation and other environmental factors, as well as health effects of different environmental factors on the population living nearby of the Leningrad and Novovoronezh NPPs and in the City of Angarsk revealed that health risks from radiation were negligible (10-6) and considerably less than risks from other harmful factors.

Key words
Radiation risk, risk-oriented approach, carcinogenic risk, chemical risk, radiation dose, industrial emissions, individual risk, acceptable risk, targeted risk, negligible risk, Leningrad NPP, Novovoronezh NPP, Angarsk enterprises.


1. Arutyunyan R.V., Vorobyova L.M., Panchenko S.V., Bakin R.I., Novikov S.M., Shashina T.A., Dodina N.S., Goryaev D.V., Tikhonova I.V., Kurkatov S.V., Skudarnov S.E., Ivanova O.Yu. Comparative analysis of radiation and chemical risks for the health of the population of the Krasnoyarsk Territory. Radiatsiya i risk – Radiation and Risk, 2014, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 123-136. (In Russian).

2. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States. Bethesda, MD: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; NSRP Report 160, 2009.

3. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Sources and effects of ionizing radiation. UNSCEAR 2000. Report to the General Assembly with scientific annexes. New York, United Nations, 2000.

4. National Research Council. Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2006.

5. International Atomic Energy Agency. Chernobyl’s legacy: Health, Environmental and socioeconomic impacts. The Chernobyl Forum 2003–2005. IAEA/PI/A.87 Rev.2/06-09181. Vienna, IAEA, 2006.

6. Keller W., Modarres A. A historical overview of probabilistic risk assessment development and its use in the nuclear power industry: a tribute to the late Professor Norman Carl Rasmussen. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2005, vol. 89, no. 3, pp. 271-285.

7. Rashad S.M., Hammad F.H. Nuclear power and the environment: comparative assessment of environmental and health impacts of electricity-generating systems. Appl. Energy, 2000, vol. 65, no. 1-4, pp. 211-229.

8. Results of radiation-hygienic certification in the subjects of the Russian Federation for 2008 (radiation-hygienic passport of the Russian Federation). Available at: http://www.alppp.ru/law/bezopasnost-i-ohrana-pravoporjadka/19/rezultaty-radiacionno-gigienicheskoj-pasportizacii-v-subektah-rossijskoj-federacii-za-2008.html (Accessed 16.05.2018). (In Russian).

9. Radiation safety standards (RSS-99/2009). Sanitary-epidemiological rules and standards. SP2.6.1.252309. Moscow, Federal Center of Hygiene and Epidemiology of Rospotrebnadzor, 2009. 100 p. (In Russian).

10. Nair R.R., Rajan B., Akiba S., Jayalekshmi P., Nair M.K., Gangadharan P., Koga T., Morishima H., Nakamura S., Sugahara T. Background radiation and cancer incidence in Kerala, India-Karanagappally cohort study. Health Phys., 2009, vol. 96, no. 1, pp. 55-66.

11. Thompson D.E., Mabuchi K., Ron E., Soda M., Tokunaga M., Ochikubo S., Sugimoto S., Ikeda T., Terasaki M., Izumi S., Preston D.L. Cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors. Part II: Solid tumors, 1958-1987. Radiat. Res., 1994. vol. 137, pp. S17-S67.

12. Bolus N.E. NCRP Report 160 and what It means for medical imaging and nuclear medicine. J. Nucl. Med. Technol., 2013, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 255-260.

13. International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 27. Problems involved in developing an index of harm. Oxford, PergamonPress, 1977.

14. Filyushkin I.V., Petoyan I.M. Theory of carcinogenic risk of exposure to ionizing radiation. Moscow, Energoatomisdat, 1988. 160 p. (In Russian).

15. Onishchenko G.G., Novikov S.M., Rakhmanin Yu.A., Avaliani C.L., Bushtueva K.A. Basis for assessing the risk to public health in the presence of chemicals polluting the environment. Eds.: Yu.A. Rakhmanin, G.G. Onishchenko. Moscow, State Organization A.N. Sysin Research Institute of Human Ecology and Environmental Health, 2002. 408 p. (In Russian).

16. Novikov S.M., Avaliani S.L., Andrianova M.M., Ponomareva O.V. The main elements of the health risk assessment: A manual for seminars. Moscow, Consulting Center for Risk Assessment, 1998. (In Russian).

17. Guidance on assessing the health risks of the public when exposed to chemicals that pollute the environment. Р Moscow, Federal Center of State Sanitary and Epidemiological Control, Ministry of Public Health and Social Development of the Russian Federation, 2004. 143 p. (In Russian).

18. Blees T. Prescription for the planet. The painless remedy for our energy and environmental crises. Moscow, Center for the promotion of social and environmental initiatives of the nuclear industry, 2011. 282 p.

19. Panchenko S.V., Arakelyan A.A., Vedernikova M.V. Comparative assessment of radiation and toxic risks in Angarsk. Radiatsiya i risk – Radiation and Risk, 2017, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 83-96. (In Russian).

20. Environmental policy of the State Atomic Energy Corporation ROSATOM. Ed.: V.A. Grachev. Moscow, Center for the promotion of social and environmental initiatives of the nuclear industry, 2011. 350 p.

21. Annual Energy Outlook 2000 with Projections to 2020. Energy Information Administration Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20585, 1999, p. 250. Available at: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/archive/aeo00/pdf/0383(2000).pdf (Accessed 05.06.2018).

22. Akatov A.A., Koryakovsky Yu.S. Radiation mythology. Moscow, Center for the promotion of social and environmental initiatives of the nuclear industry, 2010. 35 p. (In Russian).

23. Arakelyan A.A., Panchenko S.V., Strizhova S.V., Shashina T.A. Comparative analysis of radiation and chemical risks in region of the Leningrad NPP location. Report at the Eleventh International Scientific and Technical Conference. Safety, Efficiency and Economics of Nuclear Energy (ISTC-2018). Moscow, 23-24 May 2018. (In Russian).

24. Arutyunyan R.V. Chernobyl – Fukushima: travel notes of the liquidator. Moscow, 2018. 364 p. (In Russian).

25. Global health risks: mortality and burden of disease attributable to selected major risks. WHO, 2015. Available at: http://www.who

26. Regulations (Constitution) of the World Health Organization. Available at: http://apps.who.int/ gb/bd/PDF/bd47/RU/constitution-ru.pdf?ua=1 (Accessed 05.06.2018).

27. Plyamina O.V., Grachev V.A. Environmental performance indicators and their place in the economy. Vestnik MNEPU, 2012, vol. 5, pp. 71-80.

28. World Nuclear Association. Available at: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx (Accessed 05.06.2018).

29. Grachev V.A. Interconnection of global environmental problems of public health and development of nuclear energy. Ekologiya cheloveka – Human Ecology, 2018, no. 2, pp. 9-15. (In Russian).

30. On the state of sanitary and epidemiological welfare of the population in the Russian Federation in 2016: State report. Moscow, Federal Service for Supervision of Consumer Rights Protection and Human Welfare, 2017. 220 p. (In Russian).

31. Akimoto Y. Nuclear power, ensuring not only safety but also peace of mind. Plutonium, 2000, no. 31.

32. Barnier M. The development of eco-citizenship. La Jaune et la Rouge, 1994, p. 3.

33. Dubrana D. The Bulgarian Chernobyl and Nuclear energy and cancer: a disturbing inquiry. Science and Vie, 1995, no. 939, pp. 86-94.

34. Ducrocq A. Nuclear will become fashionable again in the 21st century. Revenu Francais, 1992, no. 265, p. 76.

35. The radioactive «Camps of death» in Siberia». Europe Today, 1993, no. 172, p. 12.

36. Foos J. Radioactive – Volume 1: The atom and the atomic core. Formascience, Orsay, 1993.

38. Grachev V., Pliamina O. Environmental performance of various methods of electric power generation. Ecology, Environment and Conservation Paper, 2016, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 1539-1548.

39. Radiobiology. Hermann Publications, 1986.

40. Scientists want more nuclear power plants. Europe Today, 1992, no. 148, p. 16.

41. Arutyunyan R.V., Bolshov L.A., Linge I.I., Melikhova E.M., Panchenko S.V. Lessons of Chernobyl and Fukushima and actual problems of development of the system of radiation protection of the population and territories in case of a Nuclear Power Plant accident. Meditsinskaya radiologiya i radiatsionnaya bezopasnost’ – Мedical Radiology and Radiation Safety, 2016, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 36-51. (In Russian).

42. Melikhova E.M., Byrkina E.M., Pershina Y.A. On the issue of certain mechanisms of social amplification of risk in media coverage of the Fukushima NPP nuclear accident. Meditsinskaya radiologiya i radiatsionnaya bezopasnost’ – Мedical Radiology and Radiation Safety, 2013, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 5-16. (In Russian).

Full-text article (in Russian)