inldigitallibrary.inl.gov · This report has been reproduced directly from the best available copy....
Transcript of inldigitallibrary.inl.gov · This report has been reproduced directly from the best available copy....
DOE OCCUPATIONAL
RADIATION
EXPOSURE
DE
PA
RTMENT OF ENERG
Y
UN
ITE
D
STATES OF AM
ER
ICA
DOE/EH-0608
ELECTRON•TEDE•INTERNAL•CEDE•GAM
MA
•BETA
•SH
IELD
•AL
AR
A•
NE
UT
RO
N•A
ED
E•
EL
EC
TR
ON
•T
ED
E• I
NTE
RN
AL
• CED
E• GAM
MA
• BETA • SHIELD • ALARA • NEUTRON • AEDE • ELECTRON • TEDE • INTERNAL • CEDE
• GAMM
A• B
ETA• SH
IEL
D• A
LA
RA
•N
EU
TR
ON
•AE
DE
•E
LE
CT
RO
N•T
ED
E
1998 Report
http://rems.eh.doe.gov
This report has been reproduced directly from the best available copy.
Available to DOE and DOE Contractors from the Office of Scientific andTechnical Information, P.O. Box 62, Oak Ridge, TN 37831; prices available from(865) 576-8401.
Available to the public from the U.S. Department of Commerce, TechnologyAdministration, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161,(703) 487-4650.
Printed with soy ink on recycled paper
1998 Report
DOE OCCUPATIONAL
RADIATION
EXPOSURE
DE
PA
RTMENT OF ENERG
Y
UN
ITE
D
STATES OF AM
ER
ICA
DOE/EH-0608
The U.S. Department of EnergyAssistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and HealthOffice of Worker Health and Safety
ELECTRON•TEDE•INTERNAL•CEDE•GAM
MA
•BET
A•S
HIE
LD•A
LA
RA
•N
EU
TR
ON
•AE
DE
•E
LE
CT
RO
N•
TE
DE
• IN
TER
NA
L• C
EDE• GAM
MA
• BETA • SHIELD • ALARA • NEUTRON • AEDE • ELECTRON • TEDE • INTERNAL • CEDE• GAM
MA
• BETA• SH
IEL
D•A
LA
RA
•N
EU
TR
ON
•AE
DE
•E
LE
CT
RO
N•T
ED
E
1998 Report iiiForeword
ForewordForewordForew
ord
The goal of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is to conduct its radiological operations to ensure thehealth and safety of all DOE employees including contractors and subcontractors. The DOE strives tomaintain radiation exposures to its workers below administrative control levels and DOE limits and tofurther reduce these exposures and releases to levels that are “As Low As Reasonably Achievable”(ALARA).
The 1998 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure Report provides summary and analysis of theoccupational radiation exposure received by individuals associated with DOE activities. The DOEmission includes stewardship of the nuclear weapons stockpile and the associated facilities,environmental restoration of DOE, and energy research.
Collective exposure at DOE has declined by 80% over the past decade due to a cessation inopportunities for exposure during the transition in DOE mission from weapons production to cleanup,deactivation and decommissioning, and changes in reporting requirements and dose calculationmethodology. In 1998, the collective dose decreased by 4% from the 1997 value due to decreased dosesat four of the seven highest-dose DOE sites. These four sites attributed the decrease in collective doseto the shutdown of several facilities, the completion of several key projects, and to ALARA initiatives.
This report is intended to be a valuable tool for managers in their management of radiological safetyprograms and commitment of resources. The process of data collection, analysis, and report generationis streamlined to give managers a current assessment of the performance of the Department withrespect to radiological operations. The cooperation of the sites in promptly and correctly reportingemployee radiation exposure information is key to the timeliness of this report.
Your feedback and comments are important to us to make this report meet your needs. A user survey formis included in Appendix F to collect your suggestions to improve this report.
David Michaels, PhD, MPH Joseph Fitzgerald, Jr.Assistant Secretary Deputy Assistant SecretaryEnvironment, Safety and Health Office of Worker Health and Safety
Foreword
iv DOE Occupational Radiation ExposureThis page intentionally left blank.
1998 Report vTable of Contents
ContentsFOREWORD .............................................................................................................................................................................. iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................................xi
SECTION 1 — INTRODUCTION1.1 Report Organization ............................................................................................................................. 1-11.2 Report Availability ................................................................................................................................. 1-1
SECTION 2 — STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS2.1 Radiation Protection Requirements ................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1.1 Monitoring Requirements ......................................................................................................... 2-2 2.1.1.1 External Monitoring ............................................................................................................ 2-2 2.1.1.2 Internal Monitoring ............................................................................................................. 2-2
2.2 Radiation Dose Limits .......................................................................................................................... 2-32.2.1 Administrative Control Levels ................................................................................................... 2-42.2.2 ALARA Principle ......................................................................................................................... 2-4
2.3 Reporting Requirements ...................................................................................................................... 2-52.4 Change in Internal Dose Methodology .............................................................................................. 2-5
SECTION 3 — OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION DOSE AT DOE3.1 Analysis of the Data .............................................................................................................................. 3-13.2 Analysis of Aggregate Data ................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2.1 Number of Monitored Individuals ............................................................................................ 3-13.2.2 Number of Individuals with Measurable Dose ....................................................................... 3-13.2.3 Collective Dose ........................................................................................................................... 3-23.2.4 Average Measurable Dose ......................................................................................................... 3-53.2.5 Dose Distribution ........................................................................................................................ 3-63.2.6 Five-Year Perspective .................................................................................................................. 3-9
3.3 Analysis of Individual Dose Data ...................................................................................................... 3-103.3.1 Doses in Excess of DOE Limits ............................................................................................... 3-103.3.2 Doses in Excess of Administrative Control Level .................................................................. 3-113.3.3 Internal Depositions of Radioactive Material ....................................................................... 3-12
3.4 Analysis of Site Data ........................................................................................................................... 3-163.4.1 Collective TEDE by Operations/Field Offices ........................................................................ 3-163.4.2 Dose by Labor Category .......................................................................................................... 3-183.4.3 Dose by Facility Type ................................................................................................................ 3-193.4.4 Radiation Protection Occurrence Reports ............................................................................ 3-20
3.4.4.1 Radiation Exposure Occurrences ............................................................................. 3-213.4.4.2 Personnel Contamination Occurrences ................................................................... 3-223.4.4.3 Occurrence Cause ...................................................................................................... 3-23
3.5 Activities Contributing to Collective Dose in 1998 ......................................................................... 3-243.6 Transient Individuals ........................................................................................................................... 3-263.7 Age of Monitored Individuals ............................................................................................................ 3-29
Table of ContentsTable of Contents
Table of Contents
vi DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure
SECTION 4 — ALARA ACTIVITIES AT DOE4.1 Successful ALARA Projects ......................................................................................................................................... 4-14.2 Innovative Shielding at a Plutonium Analytical Laboratory at the Rocky Flats
Environmental Technology Center ............................................................................................................................ 4-14.3 Fluor-Daniel Hanford Remote Radiation Mapping System Saves Time and Dose ............................................... 4-24.4 Canyon Bubble Containment Unit Eliminates Exposure for Workers and Visitors at Hanford........................... 4-44.5 Contamination Spread by Flying Insects at Hanford ............................................................................................... 4-44.6 Remote Removal of Spallation Target Water System at Los Alamos Saves Worker Dose ..................................... 4-44.7 Reduction in Neutron Dose at Brookhaven National Laboratory ......................................................................... 4-54.8 Submitting ALARA Success Stories for Future Annual Reports ............................................................................. 4-64.9 Lessons Learned Process Improvement Team.......................................................................................................... 4-6
SECTION 5 — CONCLUSIONS5.1 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................................. 5-1
GLOSSARY ...................................................................................................................................................................................G-1
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................................................... R-1
APPENDICESA DOE Reporting Sites and Reporting Codes .............................................................................................................. A-1B Additional Data ............................................................................................................................................................ B-1C Facility Type Code Descriptions ................................................................................................................................. C-1D Limitations of Data ...................................................................................................................................................... D-1E Access to Radiation Exposure Information .............................................................................................................. E-1F User Survey ................................................................................................................................................................... F-1
1998 Report viiTable of Contents
LIST OF EXHIBITSExhibit ES-1: Collective TEDE Dose (person-rem), 1994-1998 .......................................................................................... xiExhibit ES-2: Average Measurable TEDE (rem), 1994-1998 ............................................................................................... xiExhibit ES-3: Number of Individuals Exceeding 2 rem TEDE, 1994-1998 ....................................................................... xiiExhibit ES-4: Number of Individuals Exceeding 5 rem TEDE, 1994-1998 ....................................................................... xiiExhibit 2-1: DOE Dose Limits from 10 CFR 835 ............................................................................................................. 2-3Exhibit 3-1: Monitoring of the DOE Workforce, 1994-1998 ............................................................................................ 3-2Exhibit 3-2: Components of TEDE, 1994-1998 ................................................................................................................ 3-3Exhibit 3-3: Average Measurable Neutron, DDE, and TEDE, 1994-1998 ....................................................................... 3-5Exhibit 3-4: Dose Distributions, 1994-1998 ...................................................................................................................... 3-6Exhibit 3-5: Percentage of Collective Dose above Dose Values, 1994-1998 ................................................................. 3-7Exhibit 3-6: Neutron Dose Distribution, 1994-1998 ........................................................................................................ 3-8Exhibit 3-7: Extremity Dose Distribution, 1994-1998...................................................................................................... 3-8Exhibit 3-8: DOE-Wide Summary Results for Statistical Tests, 1994-1998 .................................................................... 3-9Exhibit 3-9: Number of Individuals Exceeding 5 rem (TEDE), 1994-1998 ................................................................ 3-10Exhibit 3-10: Doses in Excess of DOE Limits, 1994-1998 ............................................................................................... 3-11Exhibit 3-11: Number of Doses in Excess of the DOE 2 rem ACL, 1994-1998 ............................................................. 3-11Exhibit 3-12: Number of Internal Depositions, Collective CEDE, and Average Measurable CEDE, 1994-1998 ....... 3-12Exhibit 3-13: Number of Intakes, Collective Internal Dose, and Average Dose
by Nuclides, 1996-1998 ............................................................................................................................... 3-13Exhibit 3-14: Internal Dose Distribution from Intakes, 1994-1998 ................................................................................ 3-14Exhibit 3-15: Distribution of Collective CEDE vs. Dose Value, 1994-1998 .................................................................... 3-15Exhibit 3-16: Relative Collective TEDE by Site/Facility for 1996-1998 ......................................................................... 3-16Exhibit 3-17: Collective TEDE and Number of Individuals with Measurable TEDE
by Site/Facility, 1996-1998 ........................................................................................................................... 3-17Exhibit 3-18: Dose by Labor Category, 1996-1998 ........................................................................................................... 3-18Exhibit 3-19: Graph of Dose by Labor Category, 1996-1998 .......................................................................................... 3-18Exhibit 3-20: Graph of Dose by Facility Type, 1996-1998 ............................................................................................... 3-19Exhibit 3-21: Dose by Facility Type, 1996-1998 ............................................................................................................... 3-19Exhibit 3-22: Criteria for Radiation Exposure and Personnel Contamination
Occurrence Reporting ............................................................................................................................... 3-20Exhibit 3-23: Number of Radiation Exposure Occurrences, 1994-1998 ...................................................................... 3-21Exhibit 3-24: Radiation Exposure Occurrences by Site, 1994-1998 ............................................................................. 3-21Exhibit 3-25: Number of Personnel Contamination Occurrences, 1994-1998 ............................................................ 3-22Exhibit 3-26: Personnel Contamination Occurrences by Affected Area, 1994-1998 .................................................. 3-22Exhibit 3-27: Personnel Contamination Occurrences by Site, 1994-1998 ................................................................... 3-22Exhibit 3-28: Radiation Exposure Occurrences by Root Cause, 1996-1998 ................................................................ 3-23Exhibit 3-29: Personnel Contamination Occurrences by Root Cause, 1996-1998 ...................................................... 3-23Exhibit 3-30: Activities Contributing to Collective TEDE in 1998 for Seven Sites ...................................................... 3-24Exhibit 3-31: Dose Distribution of Transient Workers, 1994-1998 ................................................................................. 3-26Exhibit 3-32: Individuals Monitored at More Than One Site During the Year, 1994-1998 .......................................... 3-27Exhibit 3-33: Collective and Average Measurable Dose to Transient Individuals, 1994-1998 ................................... 3-27Exhibit 3-34: Collective TEDE to Transient Workers by Site, 1994-1998 ....................................................................... 3-28Exhibit 3-35: Average Age of Monitored Individuals per Year, 1987-1998 ................................................................... 3-29
viii DOE Occupational Radiation ExposureThis page intentionally left blank.
LIST OF EXHIBITS (continued)Exhibit 4-1: Easily formed tin-alloy shielding and lead-shielded inner golves used in the Building 559
Laboratory at Rocky Flats have reduced the dose per sample handled by more than 50% ............... 4-2
Exhibit 4-2: “Gammacam” Pictures Showing Areas of High Dose Rate ...................................................................... 4-3
Exhibit 4-3: Old Air Separator Unit Before Removal ..................................................................................................... 4-5
Exhibit 4-4: New Air Separator and Dirt Catchers Inside Hot Cell .............................................................................. 4-5
Exhibit 5-1: 1998 Radiation Exposure Fact Sheet .......................................................................................................... 5-2
1998 Report ixTable of Contents
TABLE OF ACRONYMNS10 CFR 820: Procedural Rules for DOE Nuclear Activities, August 17, 199310 CFR 835: Code of Federal Regulations Section 10 on Occupational Radiation Protection,
January 13, 199410 CFR 835, Amendment: Issued on November 4, 199810 CFR 835.402.d: Amendment to be fully implemented by January 1, 2002ACL: Administrative Control LevelAEDE: Annual Effective Dose EquivalentAGS: Alternating Gradient SynchrotronALAP: As Low As PracticableALARA: As Low As Reasonably AchievableAMD: Average Measurable DoseANL-E: Argonne National Laboratory - EastANL-W: Argonne National Laboratory - WestANSI: American National Standards InstituteANSI N13.30-1996: ANSI Note on Performance Criteria for RadioassayBNL: Brookhaven National LaboratoryCD: Collective DoseCDE: Committed Dose EquivalentCEDE: Committed Effective Dose EquivalentCEDR: Comprehensive Epidemiologic Data ResourceCR: Distribution RatioD&D: Decontamination and DecommissioningDDE: Deep Dose EquivalentDNFSB: Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety BoardDOE: Department of EnergyDOE HQ: DOE HeadquartersDOE M 231.1-1: Manual for Environment, Safety and Health Reporting, September 10, 1995DOE Notice 441.1: Radiological Protection for DOE Activities, September 29, 1995DOE Order 5480.11: Radiation Protection for Occupational Workers, December, 1988DOE Order 5484.1: Environmental Protection, Safety, and Health Protection Information
Reporting Requirements”, February 24, 1981, Change 7, October 17, 1990DOELAP: DOE Laboratory Accreditation ProgramEDE: Effective Dose EquivalentEH-52: DOE Office of Worker Protection Programs and Hazards ManagementES&H: Environment, Safety & HealthETTP: East Tennessee Technology ParkFERMCO: Fernald Environmental Research Management CorporationFERMI: Enrico Fermi National Accelerator LaboratoryHEPA: High-Efficiency Particulate Air (Filter)HFBR: High-Flux Beam ReactorHFIR: High-Flux Isotope ReactorHLWP: High Level Waste ProgramICRP: International Commission on Radiological ProtectionINEEL: Idaho National Engineering & Environmental LaboratoryISM: Integrated Safety ManagementLANL: Los Alamos National LaboratoryLANSCE: Los Alamos Neutron Science CenterLBL: Lawrence Berkeley LaboratoryLDE: Lens (of the eye) Dose EquivalentLEHR: Laboratory for Energy-Related Health ResearchLLNL: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
x DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure
MDA: Minimum Detectable ActivityMSR: Molten Salt ReactormSv: MilliSievertNAC: Nuclear Assurance CorporationNBD: Natural Background DoseNCRP: National Council on Radiation Protection and MeasurementsNREL: National Renewable Energy LaboratoryNTS: Nevada Test SiteOD: Occupational DoseORISE: Oak Ridge Institute for Science & EducationORNL: Oak Ridge National LaboratoryPET: Positron Emission TomographyPFP: Plutonium Finishing PlantPGDP: Paducah Gaseous Diffusion PlantPNL: Battelle Memorial InstitutePNNL: Pacific Northwest National LaboratoryPORTS: Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion PlantPP: Pantex PlantPSEs: Planned Special ExposuresRadCon: Radiological Control Manual, June 1992RCS: Radiological Control Technical StandardREMS: Radiation Exposure Monitoring SystemRFETS: Rocky Flats Environmental Technology SiteSDE: Shallow Dose EquivalentSDE-ME: Shallow Dose Equivalent to any ExtremitySDE-WB: Shallow Dose Equivalent to the skin of the Whole-BodySLAC: Stanford Linear Accelerator CenterSNL: Sandia National LaboratorySR: Savannah RiverSRS: Savannah River SiteTEDE: Total Effective Dose EquivalentTIS: Technical Information SystemTODE: Total Organ Dose EquivalentUMTRA: Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial ActionUNSCEAR: United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic RadiationWVNS: West Valley Nuclear Services
TABLE OF ACRONYMNS (continued)
1998 Report xiExecutive Summary
SummaryExecutive Sum
mary
Executive SummaryExecutive Summary
1994 1995 1996 1997 19980
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
Co
llect
ive
Do
se (
per
son
-rem
)
1,643
1,840
1,640
1,3601,303
1994 1995 1996 1997 19980.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.10
Ave
rag
e M
easu
rab
le T
ED
E (
rem
)
0.065
0.0780.073 0.073 0.074
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Environment, Safety and Health with support fromEnvironment Safety and Health Technical Information Services publishes the DOE OccupationalRadiation Exposure Report. This report is intended to be a valuable tool for DOE/DOE contractormanagers in managing radiological safety programs and to assist them in prioritizing resources. Weappreciate the efforts and contributions from the various stakeholders within and outside DOE and hopewe have succeeded in making the report more useful.
This report includes occupational radiation exposure information for all monitored DOE employees,contractors, subcontractors, and visitors. The exposure information is analyzed in terms of aggregatedata, dose to individuals, and dose by site. For the purposes of examining trends, data for the past 5 yearsare included in the analysis.
As shown in Exhibit ES-1, between 1997 and 1998, the DOE collective Total Effective Dose Equivalent(TEDE) decreased by 4% due to decreased doses at four of the seven sites with the highest radiationdose. The average dose to workers with measurable dose increased slightly from 0.073 rem (0.73 mSv) in1997 to 0.074 rem (0.74 mSv) in 1998 as shown in Exhibit ES-2. The percentage of monitored individualsreceiving measurable dose decreased from 17% in 1997 to 16% in 1998, and there were no exposuresover the DOE 5 rem (50 mSv) TEDE limit.
Eighty-three percent of the collective TEDE for the DOE complex was accrued at seven DOE sites in 1998.These seven sites are (in descending order of collective dose) Rocky Flats, Hanford, Savannah River, LosAlamos, Oak Ridge, Idaho, and Brookhaven. Sites reporting under the category of weapons fabricationand testing account for the highest collective dose. Even though these sites are now primarily involvedin nuclear materials stabilization and waste management, they still report under this facility type. For thepast 4 years, technicians received the highest collective dose of any specified labor category.
Exhibit ES-1:Collective TEDE Dose (person-rem), 1994-1998.
Exhibit ES-2:Average Measurable TEDE (rem), 1994-1998.
xii DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Year
Nu
mb
er o
f In
div
idu
als
Exc
eed
ing
2 r
em (
TE
DE
)
External Dose (DDE) Accruedduring Monitoring Year
LEGEND
Internal Dose (CEDE) Accruedduring Monitoring Year
1
4
1
4
32
1
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
0
1
2
3
4
5
Year
Nu
mb
er o
f In
div
idu
als
Exc
eed
ing
5 r
em (
TE
DE
)
100 0 0
The change in operational status of DOE facilities has had the largest impact on radiation exposure overthe past 5 years due to the shift in mission from production to cleanup activities and the shutdown ofcertain facilities. Reports submitted by four of the sites that experienced decreases in the collectivedose (Hanford, Los Alamos, Idaho, and Brookhaven) indicate that decreases in the collective dose weredue to the shutdown of several facilities, the completion of several key projects, and to ALARAinitiatives.
Statistical analysis reveals that, in addition to the collective dose decreasing by 4%, the logarithmicmean dose decreased slightly from 0.035 rem in 1997 to 0.028 rem in 1998. Because the dose values donot fit a statistically normal distribution, this test used log-transformed data, which were approximatelynormal. The reasons for the decrease in the 1998 collective dose include a reduction in overall workinvolving radiation exposure as well as reduction in individuals’ doses.
Over the past 5 years, few occupational doses at DOE facilities in excess of the 2 rem (20 mSv)Administrative Control Level (ACL) and 5 rem (50 mSv) TEDE regulatory limit have occurred, as shownin Exhibits ES-3 and ES-4. All of the doses in excess of 2 rem (20 mSv) in the past 5 years were due tointernal dose, except one which occurred in 1996 and was due to external dose (DDE). No individualreceived a dose in excess of the 5 rem (50 mSv) TEDE limit in 1997 or 1998. The one individual that wasreported to have exceeded 5 rem (50 mSv) TEDE limit in the 1997 annual report was later found not tohave exceeded this limit when the final internal dose assessment was completed. The 1996 exposure inexcess of 5 rem TEDE was due to an unanticipated intake of plutonium at Savannah River during theremoval of a radiological containment hut.
Exhibit ES-3:Number of Individuals Exceeding 2 rem TEDE, 1994-1998.
Exhibit ES-4:Number of Individuals Exceeding 5 rem TEDE, 1994-1998.
1998 Report xiiiExecutive Summary
The collective internal dose increased by 29% from 1997 to 1998 to a value of 84 person-rem (840person mSv) for 1998. The increase in collective internal dose was primarily due to an increase inuranium operations at Oak Ridge, where a large number of individuals were reported with relativelysmall internal doses from uranium. Over 40% of the collective internal dose in 1998 was attributed toradon exposure at Grand Junction which includes the natural background dose from radon as well asthe additional occupational dose received from the elevated radon levels.
An analysis was performed on the transient workforce at DOE. A transient worker is defined as anindividual monitored at more than one DOE site in a year. The results of this analysis show that thenumber of transient workers monitored has more than tripled over the past 5 years. However, thenumber of transient workers receiving measurable dose has decreased over the past 4 years. Theaverage measurable dose to transient workers has been less than the value for the overall DOEworkforce for the past 5 years.
An analysis of the average age of monitored individuals reveals a steady increase in age of the DOEworkforce over the past 12 years, particularly since 1990.
To access this report and other information on occupational radiation exposure at DOE, visit the web site at:
http://rems.eh.doe.gov
xiv DOE Occupational Radiation ExposureThis page intentionally left blank.
1998 Report 1-1Introduction
Section One 1IntroductionIntroduction
The DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure Report,1998 reports occupational radiation exposuresincurred by individuals at DOE facilities duringthe calendar year 1998. This report includesoccupational radiation exposure information forall DOE employees, contractors, subcontractors,and visitors. This information is analyzed andtrended over time to provide a measure of DOE’sperformance in protecting its workers fromradiation.
1.1 Report OrganizationThis report is organized into the five sectionslisted below. Supporting technical information,tables of data, and additional items that wereidentified by users as useful are provided in theappendices.
1.2 Report AvailabilityRequests for additional copies of this report oraccess to the data files used to compile this reportshould be directed to:
Introduction
Provides a description of the content and organization of this report.
Provides a discussion of the radiation protection and dose reporting requirements and theirimpacts on data interpretation. Additional information on dose calculation methodologies,personnel monitoring methods and reporting thresholds, regulatory dose limits, and ALARA isincluded.
Presents the occupational radiation dose data from monitored individuals at DOE facilities for 1998.The data are analyzed to show trends over the past 5 years.
Includes examples of successful ALARA projects within the DOE complex.
Presents conclusions based on the analysis contained in this report.
Section One
Section Two
Section Three
Section Four
Section Five
Ms. Nirmala RaoRadiation Exposure Monitoring System
(REMS) Project ManagerU.S. Department of EnergyOffice of Worker Protection Programs
and Hazards Management (EH-52)Germantown, MD 20874
Or by calling the Environmental Safety& Health (ES&H) InfoCenter at1-800-473-4375
A discussion of the various methods of accessingDOE occupational radiation exposure informationis presented in Appendix E. Visit the DOERadiation Exposure web site for informationconcerning occupational radiation exposure atthe DOE complex at:
http://rems.eh.doe.gov
1-2 DOE Occupational Radiation ExposureThis page intentionally left blank.
1998 Report 2-1Standards and Requirements
Section Two 2Standards and R
equirements
One of DOE’s primary objectives is to provide asafe and healthy workplace for all employees andcontractors. To meet this objective, DOE’s Office ofWorker Protection Programs and HazardsManagement establishes comprehensive andintegrated programs for the protection of workersfrom hazards in the workplace, including ionizingradiation. The basic DOE standards are radiationdose limits, which establish maximum permissibledoses to workers and the public. In addition tothe requirement that radiation doses not exceedthe limits, it is DOE’s policy that doses also bemaintained ALARA.
This section discusses the radiation protectionstandards and requirements that were in effect forthe year 1998. The requirements leading up to thistime period are also included to facilitate a betterunderstanding of changes that have occurred inthe recording and reporting of occupational dose.
2.1 Radiation ProtectionRequirementsDOE radiation protection standards are based onfederal guidance for protection againstoccupational radiation exposure promulgated bythe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)in 1987 [1]. These standards are provided toensure that DOE workers are adequately protectedfrom exposure to ionizing radiation. Thisguidance, initially implemented by DOE in 1989, isbased on the 1977 recommendations of theInternational Commission on RadiologicalProtection (ICRP) [2] and the 1987recommendations of the National Council onRadiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP)[3]. This guidance recommended that internalorgan dose (resulting from the intake ofradionuclides) be added to the external whole-body dose to determine the Total Effective DoseEquivalent (TEDE). Prior to this, the whole-bodydose and internal organ dose were each limitedseparately. The new DOE dose limits based on theTEDE were established from this guidance.
DOE became the first federal agency toimplement the EPA guidance when itpromulgated DOE Order 5480.11, “RadiationProtection for Occupational Workers,” inDecember 1988 [4]. DOE Order 5480.11 was ineffect from 1989 to 1995.
In June 1992, the “DOE Radiological Control(RadCon) Manual” [5] was issued and becameeffective in 1993. The “RadCon Manual” was theresult of a Secretarial initiative to improve andstandardize radiological protection practicesthroughout DOE and to achieve the goal ofmaking DOE the pacesetter for radiologicalhealth and safety. The “RadCon Manual” is acomprehensive guidance document written forworkers, line managers, and senior management.The “RadCon Manual” states DOE’s views on thebest practices currently available in the area ofradiological control. The “RadCon Manual” wasrevised in 1994 in response to comments from thefield and to enhance consistency with therequirements in 10 CFR 835 “OccupationalRadiation Protection”[6]. In July 1999, theRadCon Manual was formally reissued as theRadiological Control Technical Standard(RCS)[7]. The RCS incorporates changesresulting from the amendment to 10 CFR 835issued in November 4, 1998.
10 CFR 835 became effective on January 13, 1994,and required full compliance by January 1, 1996.In general, 10 CFR 835 codified existing radiationprotection requirements in DOE Order 5480.11.The rule provides nuclear safety requirementsthat, if violated, will provide a basis for theassessment of civil and criminal penalties underthe Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 1988,Public Law 100-408, August 20, 1988 [8] asimplemented by 10 CFR 820 “Procedural Rules forDOE Nuclear Activities,” August 17, 1993. [9]
One and one-half years after the promulgation of10 CFR 835, DOE Order 5480.11 was canceled andthe “RadCon Manual” was made non-mandatoryguidance with issuance of DOE Notice 441.1,“Radiological Protection for DOE Activities,” [10](applicable to defense nuclear facilities). Thisnotice was issued to establish radiologicalprotection program requirements that, combined
Standards and RequirementsStandards and Requirements
2-2 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure
with 10 CFR 835 and its associated non-mandatoryimplementation guidance, formed the basis for acomprehensive radiological protection program.DOE N 441.1 will continue in effect until theamendment issued November 4, 1998 to 10 CFR835 is completely implemented.
During 1994 and 1995, DOE undertook aninitiative to reduce the burden of unnecessary,repetitive, or conflicting requirements on DOEcontractors. As a result, DOE Order 5484.1 [11]requirements for reporting radiation dose recordsare now located in the associated manual, DOE M231.1-1, “Environment, Safety and HealthReporting” [12], which became effectiveSeptember 30, 1995.
The requirements of DOE M 231.1-1 are basicallythe same as Order 5484.1; however, the doseterminology was revised to reflect the changesmade in radiation protection standards andrequirements. For 1995, DOE Order 5484.1remained in effect. Most sites reported under thenew DOE M 231.1-1 for 1996. Because each siteimplements the new requirements as operatingcontracts are issued or renegotiated, completeimplementation will take several years.
2.1.1 Monitoring Requirements
10 CFR 835.402 requires that, for externalmonitoring, personnel dosimetry be provided togeneral employees likely to receive an effectivedose equivalent to the whole-body greater than0.1 rem (1 mSv) in a year or an effective doseequivalent to the skin or extremities, lens of theeye, or any organ or tissue greater than 10% of thecorresponding annual limits. Monitoring forinternal radiation exposure is also required whenthe general employee is likely to receive 0.1 rem(1 mSv) or more Committed Effective DoseEquivalent (CEDE), and/or 5 rems (50 mSv) ormore Committed Dose Equivalent (CDE) to anyorgan or tissue in a year. Monitoring for minorsand the public is required if the dose (internal orexternal) is likely to exceed 50% of the annuallimit of 0.1 rem (1 mSv) TEDE. Monitoring ofdeclared pregnant workers is required if the dose(internal or external) to the embryo/fetus is likelyto exceed 10% of the limit of 0.5 rem (5 mSv)TEDE.
Monitoring for external exposures is also requiredfor any individual entering a high or very highradiation area.
2.1.1.1 External Monitoring
External or personnel dosimeters are used tomeasure ionizing radiation from sources externalto the individual. The choice of dosimeter isbased on the type and energy of radiation that theindividual is likely to encounter in the workplace.An algorithm is then used to convert the exposurereadings into dose. External monitoring devicesinclude photographic film (film badges),thermoluminescent dosimeters, pocket ionizationchambers, electronic dosimeters, personnelnuclear accident dosimeters, bubble dosimeters,plastic dosimeters, and combinations of theabove.
Beginning in 1990, the DOE LaboratoryAccreditation Program (DOELAP) formalizedaccuracy and precision performance standardsfor external dosimeters and quality assurance/quality control requirements on the overallexternal dosimetry programs for facilities withinthe DOE complex. All DOE facilities wereDOELAP-accredited by the fall of 1995.
External dosimeters have a lower limit ofdetection of approximately 0.010 - 0.030 rem(0.10 - 0.30 mSv) per monitoring period. Thedifferences are attributable to the particular typeof dosimeter used and the types of radiationmonitored. Monitoring periods are usuallyquarterly for individuals receiving less than 0.300rem/year (3 mSv/year) and monthly forindividuals who routinely receive higher doses orwho enter higher radiation areas.
2.1.1.2 Internal Monitoring
Bioassay monitoring includes in-vitro (outside thebody) and in-vivo (inside the body) sampling.In-vitro assays include urine and fecal samples,nose swipes, saliva samples, and hair samples.In-vivo assays include whole-body counting,thyroid counting, lung counting, and woundcounting.
1998 Report 2-3Standards and Requirements
Monitoring intervals for internal dosimetrydepend on the radionuclides being monitoredand their concentrations in the work environment.Routine monitoring intervals may be monthly,quarterly, or annually, whereas special monitoringintervals following an incident may be daily orweekly. Detection thresholds for internaldosimetry are highly dependent on themonitoring methods, the radionuclides inquestion, and their chemical form. Follow-upmeasurements and analysis may take manymonths to confirm preliminary findings. With thepublication of American National StandardsInstitute (ANSI) N13.30-1996, “Performance Criteriafor Radiobioassay,” DOE has developed aRadiobioassay Accreditation Program withscheduled implementation starting in November1998 with the issuance of the amendments to10 CFR 835.402.d which must be fullyimplemented by January 1, 2002.
2.2 Radiation Dose LimitsRadiation dose limits are now codified in 10 CFR835.202, 204, 206, 207, 208 and are summarized inExhibit 2-1. While some of these sections have beenrevised, the limits remain the same.
Under 835.204, Planned Special Exposures (PSEs)may be authorized under certain conditionsallowing an individual to receive exposures inexcess of the dose limits shown in Exhibit 2-1.With the appropriate prior authorization, theannual dose limit for an individual may beincreased by an additional 5 rems (50 mSv) TEDEabove the routine dose limit as long as theindividual does not exceed a cumulative lifetimeTEDE of 25 rems (250 mSv) from other PSEs anddoses above the limits. PSE doses are required tobe recorded separately and are only intended tobe used in exceptional situations where dosereduction alternatives are unavailable orimpractical. Restrictions on the use of PSEs areextensive; for this reason, they are expected to berarely used at DOE.
Exhibit 2-1:DOE Dose Limits from 10 CFR 835
General §835.202 Total Effective Dose Equivalent TEDE 5 remsEmployees
Deep Dose Equivalent + Committed DDE+CDE 50 remsDose Equivalent to any organ or (TODE)tissue (except lens of the eye).This is often referred to asthe Total Organ Dose Equivalent
Lens of the Eye Dose Equivalent LDE 15 rems
Shallow Dose Equivalent to the skin SDE-WB 50 remsof the Whole-body or to any andExtremity SDE-ME
Declared §835.206 Total Effective Dose Equivalent TEDE 0.5 rem perPregnant gestationWorker* period
Minors §835.207 Total Effective Dose Equivalent TEDE 0.1 rem
Members of §835.208 Total Effective Dose Equivalent TEDE 0.1 remthe Public
PersonnelCategory
Section of10 CFR 835 Type of Exposure Acronym
AnnualLimit
*Limit applies to the embryo/fetus
2-4 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure
2.2.1 Administrative Control Levels
Administrative Control Levels (ACLs) wereincluded in the “RadCon Manual”. ACLs areestablished below the regulatory dose limits toadministratively control and help reduceindividual and collective radiation dose. ACLs aremulti-tiered, with increasing levels of authorityneeded to approve a higher level of exposure.
The “RadCon Manual” recommends a DOE ACL of2 rem (20 mSv) per year per person for all DOEactivities. Prior to allowing an individual toexceed this level, approval from the appropriateSecretarial Officer or designee should bereceived. In addition, contractors are encouragedto establish an annual facility ACL. This controllevel is established by the contractor senior siteexecutive and is based upon an evaluation ofhistorical and projected radiation exposures,workload, and mission. The “RadCon Manual”suggests an annual facility ACL of 0.5 rem (5mSv) or less; however, the Manual also states thata control level greater than 1.5 rem (15 mSv) is, inmost cases, not sufficiently challenging. Approvalby the contractor senior site executive must bereceived prior to an individual exceeding thefacility ACL.
ACLs are not specified in 10 CFR 835. However,they are specified under DOE N 441.1.Administrative controls are required to beimplemented to keep doses below the dose limitsand ALARA. DOE N 441.1 establishes thefollowing administrative control limits: a 2 rem(20 mSv) annual TEDE, a 1 rem (10 mSv)cumulative TEDE per year of age, and requiresthat a facility-specific ACL be established for eachsite.
2.2.2 ALARA Principle
Until the 1970s, the fundamental radiationprotection principle was to limit occupationalradiation dose to quantities less than theregulatory limits and to be concerned mainlywith high dose and high dose rate exposures.During the 1970s, there was a fundamental shiftwithin the radiation protection community to be
concerned with low dose and low dose rateexposures because it can be inferred from thelinear no-threshold dose response hypothesis thatthere is an increased level of risk associated withany radiation exposure. The As Low AsPracticable (ALAP) concept was initiated andbecame part of numerous guidance documentsand radiation protection good practices. ALAPwas eventually replaced by ALARA. DOE Order5480.11, the “RadCon Manual”, and 10 CFR 835required that each DOE facility have an ALARAProgram as part of its overall Radiation ProtectionProgram.
The ALARA methodology considers bothindividual and group doses and generally involvesa cost/benefit analysis. The analysis considerssocial, technical, economic, practical, and publicpolicy aspects of the overall goal of dosereduction. Because it is not feasible to reduce alldoses at DOE facilities to zero, ALARA cost/benefit analysis must be used to optimize levels ofradiation dose reduction. According to theALARA principle, resources spent to reduce doseneed to be balanced against the risks avoided.Reducing doses below this point results in amisallocation of resources; the resources could bespent elsewhere and have a greater impact onhealth and safety.
To ensure that doses are maintained ALARA atDOE facilities, the DOE mandated in DOE Order5480.11 and subsequently in the “RadCon Manual”that ALARA plans and procedures beimplemented and documented. To help facilitiesmeet this requirement, DOE developed a manualof good practices for reducing exposures toALARA levels [13]. This document includesguidelines for administration of ALARA programs,techniques for performing ALARA calculationsbased on cost/benefit principles, guidelines forsetting and evaluating ALARA goals, and methodsfor incorporating ALARA criteria into bothradiological design and operations. Theestablishment of ALARA as a required practice atDOE facilities demonstrates DOE’s commitment toensure minimum risk to workers from theoperation of its facilities.
1998 Report 2-5Standards and Requirements
2.3 Reporting RequirementsIn 1987, DOE promulgated revised reportingrequirements in DOE Order 5484.1, “EnvironmentalProtection, Safety, and Health ProtectionInformation Reporting Requirements.” Previously,contractors were required to report only thenumber of individuals who received anoccupational whole-body exposure in one of 16dose equivalent ranges. The revised Orderrequired the reporting of the results of radiationexposure monitoring for each employee andvisitor. Required dose data reporting includes theTEDE, internal dose equivalent, Shallow DoseEquivalent (SDE) to the skin and extremities, andDeep Dose Equivalent (DDE). Other reported datainclude the individual’s age, sex, monitoring status,and occupation, as well as the reportingorganization and facility type.
Occupational radiation exposure reportingrequirements are now included in DOE M 231.1-1,which became effective September 30, 1995. Thereporting requirements under DOE M 231.1-1 arevery similar to those under Order 5484.1.
2.4 Change in Internal DoseMethodologyPrior to 1989, intakes of radionuclides into thebody were not reported as dose, but as bodyburden in units of activity of systemic burden,such as the percent of the maximum permissablebody burden. The implementation of DOE Order5480.11 in 1989 specified that the intakes ofradionuclides be converted to internal dose andreported using the Annual Effective DoseEquivalent (AEDE) methodology.
With the implementation of the “RadCon Manual”in 1993, the required methodology used tocalculate and report internal dose was changedfrom the AEDE to the 50-year CEDE. The changewas made to provide consistency with scientificrecommendations, facilitate the transfer ofworkers between DOE and Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC)-regulated facilities, andsimplify record keeping by recording all dose inthe year of intake. The CEDE methodology is nowcodified in 10 CFR 835.
Readers should note that the method ofcalculating internal dose changed fromAEDE to CEDE between 1992 and 1993when analyzing TEDE data prior to 1993.
This report primarily analyzes dose informationfor the past 5 years, from 1994 to 1998. Duringthese years, the CEDE methodology was used tocalculate internal dose; therefore, the change inmethodology from AEDE to CEDE between 1992and 1993 does not affect the analysis containedin this report. Readers should keep in mind thechange in methodology if analyzing TEDE dataprior to 1993.
2-6 DOE Occupational Radiation ExposureThis page intentionally left blank.
1998 Report 3-1Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE
Section Three 3O
ccupational Radiation D
ose at DO
EOccupational Radiation Dose at DOEOccupational Radiation Dose at DOE
3.1 Analysis of the DataAnalysis and explanation of observed trends inoccupational radiation dose data revealsopportunities to improve safety and demonstrateperformance. Several indicators were identifiedfrom the data submitted to the central datarepository that can be used to evaluate theoccupational radiation exposures received atDOE facilities. Analysis of these indicators fallsinto three categories: aggregate, individual, andsite. In addition, the key indicators are analyzedto identify and correlate parameters having animpact on radiation dose at DOE.
The key indicators for the analysis of aggregatedata are: number of monitored individuals andindividuals with measurable dose, collective dose,average measurable dose, and the dosedistribution. Analysis of individual dose dataincludes an examination of doses exceeding DOEregulatory limits, and doses exceeding the 2 rem(20 mSv) DOE ACL. Analysis of site data includescomparisons by site, labor category, and facilitytype. Additional information is providedconcerning activities at sites contributing to thecollective dose. To determine the significance oftrends, statistical analysis was performed on thedata. It should be noted that data for 1997 havebeen updated since the publication of the 1997annual report due to final internal doseassessments reported by Lawrence LivermoreNational Laboratory (LLNL).
3.2 Analysis of Aggregate Data
3.2.1 Number of Monitored Individuals
The number of monitored individuals representsthe size of the DOE worker population providedwith dosimetry. This number represents the sumof all monitored individuals, including all DOEemployees, contractors, subcontractors, andvisitors. The number of monitored individuals isan indication of the size of a dosimetry program,but it is not necessarily an indicator of the size of
the exposed workforce. This is because of theconservative practice at some DOE facilities ofproviding dosimetry to individuals for reasonsother than the potential for exposure to radiationand/or radioactive materials exceeding themonitoring thresholds. Many individuals aremonitored for reasons such as security,administrative convenience, and legal liability.Some sites offer monitoring for any individualwho requests monitoring, independent of thepotential for exposure. For this reason, workerswho receive a measurable dose represent theexposed workforce.
3.2.2 Number of Individuals withMeasurable Dose
DOE uses the number of individuals receivingmeasurable dose to represent the exposedworkforce size. The number of individuals withmeasurable dose includes any individuals withreported TEDE greater than zero.
Exhibit 3-1 shows the total number of workers atDOE, the total number monitored, and the numberwith measurable dose for the past 5 years.Although the total number of individualsmonitored for radiation has decreased over thepast 5 years by nearly 7%, the percentage of theDOE workforce monitored for radiation exposurehas increased by 18% from 1994 to 1998. However,most (82%) of the monitored individuals over thepast 5 years did not receive any measurableradiation dose. An average of 18% of monitoredindividuals (slightly less than 14% of the DOEworkforce) received a measurable dose duringthe past 5 years. The percentage of monitoredworkers receiving measurable dose has decreasedeach year for the past 5 years from nearly 22% in1994 to 16% in 1998. The overall DOE workforcehas decreased by nearly 27% over the past 5 years
Compared to 1997, more individualswere monitored for radiation exposureduring 1998 but fewer workers receivedmeasurable radiation exposure.
3-2 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure
The number of workers with measurable dosedecreased from 18,675 in 1997 to 17,531 in 1998.
The percentage of monitored workers receivingmeasurable dose decreased by one percentagepoint from 17% in 1997 to 16% in 1998.
Exhibit 3-1:Monitoring of the DOE Workforce, 1994-1998.
1994 1995 1996 1997 19980
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
200,000
Nu
mb
er o
f In
div
idu
als
Year
Number of DOE Workers and Contractors
Total Monitored
Number with Measurable Dose
25,390
116,511
184,073
127,276
23,613
172,178
123,324
22,725
160,363
107,181
18,679
136,203
108,482
17,531
133,139
with decreases occurring each year. Compared to1997, a larger percentage of the DOE workforcewas monitored for radiation in 1998, while asmaller percentage of monitored individualsreceived a measurable dose. While the overallworkforce size decreased from 1997 to 1998, thenumber monitored actually increased, indicatingthat the decrease in the number with measurabledose was not due entirely to workforcereductions.
Nineteen of 30 of the reporting sites experienceddecreases in the number of workers withmeasurable dose from 1997 to 1998, with thelargest decreases occurring at Fermi Lab andIdaho. The largest increases in the number ofworkers receiving measurable dose occurred atOak Ridge and Rocky Flats primarily due touranium operations and increases indecontamination and decommissioning (D&D)activities. A discussion of activities at variousfacilities is included in Section 3.5.
3.2.3 Collective Dose
The collective dose is the sum of the dosereceived by all individuals with measurable doseand is measured in units of person-rem. Thecollective dose is an indicator of the overallradiation exposure at DOE facilities and includesthe dose to all DOE employees, contractors, andvisitors. DOE monitors the collective dose as onemeasure of the overall performance of radiationprotection programs to keep individual exposuresand collective exposures ALARA.
As shown in Exhibit 3-2, the collective TEDEdecreased at DOE by 4% from 1997 to 1998. Sixty-three percent of the DOE sites reported decreasesin the collective TEDE from the 1997 values. Fourout of seven of the highest dose sites reporteddecreases in the collective TEDE, and one site hadan increase of less than 1%. The seven highestdose sites are (in descending order of collectivedose) Rocky Flats, Hanford, Savannah River, LosAlamos, Oak Ridge, Idaho, and Brookhaven (BNL).Statistical analysis of the collective TEDE reveals adecrease in the mean TEDE from 1997 to 1998.This finding indicates that the collective dose hasdecreased due to a combination of the reductionin overall work causing radiation exposure in
1998 Report 3-3Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE
The collective TEDEdecreased by 4%at DOE from 1997to 1998.
Two thirds of theDOE sites reporteddecreases in thecollective TEDE from1997 values.
The collectiveinternal doseincreased by 29%from 1997 to 1998.
Photon dose - the component of external dose fromgamma or x-ray electromagnetic radiation.
Neutron dose - the component of external dose fromneutrons ejected from the nucleus of an atom duringnuclear reactions.
Internal dose - radiation dose resulting from radioactivematerial taken into the body.
Exhibit 3-2:Components of TEDE, 1994-1998
1994 1995 1996 1997 19980
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
Co
llect
ive
TE
DE
(p
erso
n-r
em)
Year
333
1,267
43
367
1,442
35
320
1,278
54
291
1,004
65
283
935
84
1,643
1,845 Legend
Neutron
Internal Dose (CEDE)from New Intakes Duringthe Monitoring Year
Photon (Deep)1,652
1,3601,303
3-4 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure
addition to reductions in dose to individuals.Several sites identified improvements in ALARApractices as having contributed to the reductionin the collective TEDE. See Section 3.2.6 for moreinformation on the statistical analysis, Section 3.5for more information on activities contributing tothe collective dose, and Section 4 for a discussionof noteable ALARA activities.
It is important to note that the collective TEDEincludes the components of external dose andinternal dose. Exhibit 3-2 shows the types ofradiation and their contribution to the collectiveTEDE. The photon, neutron, and internal dosecomponents are shown.
It should be noted that the internal dose shownin Exhibit 3-2 for 1994 through 1998 is based onthe 50-year CEDE methodology. The internal dosecomponent increased by 29% from 1997 to 1998.This increase was largely a result of a number ofnew, albeit relatively low dose, uranium intakes atOak Ridge. These doses are accute exposuresreceived by maintenance personnel in support ofrestart efforts at Y-12.
The collective internal dose can vary from year toyear due to the relatively small number ofinternal doses and the fact that they often involvelong-lived radionuclides, which can result inrelatively large committed doses. Due to thesporadic nature of these doses, care should betaken when attempting to identify trends from theinternal dose records.
The external deep dose (comprised of photonand neutron dose) is shown in Exhibit 3-2 in orderto see the contribution of external dose to thecollective TEDE. The photon dose increased by14% to 1,442 person-rem (14.42 person-Sv) from
1994 to 1995 due to increased activities at severalof the highest dose sites. Activities responsible forincreased dose at these sites included work onpower sources for the National Aeronautics andSpace Administration (NASA), increased researchat an accelerator facility, nuclear materialsstabilization activities, and D&D work. The photondose decreased by 21% between 1996 and 1997and 7% between 1997 and 1998 as a result of fewerworkers and a reduced scope of work in somelocations. The collective photon dose for 1998decreased to below 1,000 person-rem (10 person-Sv). Sites attributed the reduction in dose to thecompletion of several projects, and deferral ofother projects. A discussion of the activitiesleading to this decrease is included in Section 3.5.
The neutron component of the TEDE decreasedby 15% from 1994 to 1998. This is primarily due todecreases in the neutron dose at Los AlamosNational Laboratory (LANL) and Savannah River.LANL contributed 37% of the neutron dose at theDOE during 1998. This is because LANL is one ofthe few remaining sites to actively handleplutonium. Working with plutonium in gloveboxesresults in neutron dose from the alpha/neutronreaction and from spontaneous fission of theplutonium. Activities involving plutonium at LANLdecreased in 1998, which resulted in decreasedneutron dose from 121.6 person-rem (1.216person-Sv) in 1996 to 87.8 person-rem (0.878person-Sv) in 1998. The collective neutron dose atRocky Flats experienced a 120% increase from1996 to 1997 and 6% increase between 1997 and1998. This increase was due to productstabilization activities and D&D activities involvingplutonium. The collective neutron dose for 1998by site is shown in Appendix B-3. External deepdose (DDE) and TEDE for prior years (1974-1998)can be found in Appendix B-4.
1998 Report 3-5Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE
Exhibit 3-3:Average Measurable Neutron, DDE, and TEDE, 1994-1998
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.10
Ave
rag
e M
easu
rab
le D
ose
(re
m)
0.064
0.074
0.062
0.055
0.0630.066
0.080
0.0730.074
0.078
0.065
0.078
0.073 0.0730.074
Average MeasurableNeutron Dose (rem)
Average MeasurableDDE (rem)
Average MeasurableTEDE (rem)
9897969594 9897969594 9897969594
3.2.4 Average Measurable Dose
The average measurable dose to DOE workerspresented in this report for TEDE, DDE, neutron,extremity, and CEDE are determined by dividingthe collective dose for each dose type by thenumber of individuals with measurable dose foreach dose type. This is one of the key indicatorsof the overall level of radiation dose received byDOE workers.
The average measurable neutron, DDE, and TEDEis shown in Exhibit 3-3. All three averagemeasurable doses have increased in 1998. Theaverage measurable neutron dose increased by15% between 1997 and 1998 after 3 years ofdecreases, back up to a level just above the 1996value. Increases in the average measurableneutron dose occurred at LANL, Rocky Flats, andSavannah River, the three top contributors tocollective neutron dose. The average measurableDDE increased by 5% in 1998 due to a 10%decrease in the number of individuals with
measurable DDE. While both the collective TEDEand the number with measurable dose decreased,the collective TEDE decreased less relative to thenumber with measurable dose, which resulted inthe increase in the average measurable TEDE.However, statistical analysis indicates that themean TEDE dose decreased in 1998 indicating areduction in dose to individuals (see Section3.2.6). The average measurable neutron, DDE, andTEDE values are provided for trending purposes,not for comparison between them.
While the collective dose and average measurabledose serve as measures of the magnitude of thedose accrued by DOE workers, they do notindicate the distribution of doses among theworker population.
The average measurable TEDEincreased by 1% from 1997 to 1998while the average measurable DDEincreased by 5%.
3-6 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure
Exhibit 3-4:Dose Distributions, 1994-1998
Num
ber
of
Indiv
iduals
in
Each
Dose
Ran
ge*
Less than Measurable 91,121 92,245 103,663 104,793 100,599 101,529Measurable < 0.1 21,511 20,469 19,272 18,191 18,759 17,903
0.10 - 0.25 2,437 2,389 2,543 2,513 2,441 2,4050.25 - 0.5 934 920 1,134 1,124 1,003 9830.5 - 0.75 329 317 374 371 339 3350.75 - 1.0 99 94 131 131 99 94
1 - 2 79 77 157 153 80 742 - 3 2 13 - 4 1 1 14 - 5 15 - 66 - 77 - 88 - 9
9 - 1010 - 1111 - 12 1
> 12
Total Monitored 116,511 116,511 127,276 127,276 123,324 123,324
Number with Meas. Dose 25,390 24,266 23,613 22,483 22,725 21,795
Number with Dose >0.1rem 3,879 3,797 4,341 4,292 3,966 3,892
% of Individualswith Meas. Dose 22% 21% 19% 18% 18% 18%
Collective Dose (person-rem) 1,643 1,600 1,845 1,809 1,652 1,598
Average Measurable Dose (rem) 0.065 0.066 0.078 0.080 0.073 0.073
TEDE DDE
1994
88,502 89,80515,263 14,098
2,142 2,046856 830265 258101 99
48 45121
107,181 107,181
18,679 17,376
3,416 3,278
17% 16%
1,360 1,285
0.073 0.074
* Individuals with doses equal to the dose value separating the dose ranges are included in the next higher dose range.
Dose Ranges (rem)1995 1996 1997 1998
90,95114,053
2,253841268
7441
1
108,482
17,531
3,478
16%
1,303
0.074
TEDE DDETEDE DDETEDE DDETEDE DDE
92,79012,437
2,120790245
6436
108,482
15,692
3,255
14%
1,218
0.078
3.2.5 Dose Distribution
Exposure data are commonly analyzed in terms ofdose intervals to depict the dose distributionamong the worker population. Exhibit 3-4 showsthe number of individuals in each of 18 differentdose ranges. The dose ranges are presented forthe TEDE and DDE. The DDE is shown separatelyto allow for analysis of the dose independent ofchanges in internal dose. The number ofindividuals receiving doses above 0.1 rem (1 mSv)is also included to show the number of individualswith doses above the monitoring thresholdspecified in 10 CFR 835.402(a) and (c).
Exhibit 3-4 shows that few individuals receivedoses in the higher ranges, that the vast majority ofdoses are at low levels, and that the collectivedose has decreased over the past 4 years. This isone indication that ALARA principles are beingapplied to keep doses at low levels. A fewexamples of successful ALARA practices areincluded in Section 4. Another way to examinethe dose distribution is to analyze the percentageof the dose received above a certain dose valuecompared to the total collective dose.
1998 Report 3-7Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE
*
19981997
19961995
1994
2.0
rem
1.0
rem
0.5
rem
0.2
5 re
m
0.1
rem
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Pe
rce
nta
ge
of
Co
llect
ive
TE
DE
Ab
ove
Do
se V
alu
es
Dose Value
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
2.0 rem1.0 rem
0.5 rem
0.25 rem
0.1 rem
TEDE
71%
44%
21%
4%0.2%
65%
43%
23%
6%
0.2%
12%
30%
51%
73%
0.1%
1.2%
7%
25%
46%
69%
1.0%5%
23%
45%
69%
19981997
19961995
1994
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Pe
rce
nta
ge
of
DD
E A
bo
ve D
ose
Va
lue
s
Dose Value
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
DDE
2.0 rem1.0 rem
0.5 rem
0.25 rem0.1 rem
65%
43%
23%
6% 11%
30%
51%
73%
0.3%0%
0.1%
6%
24%
45%
68%
0%4%
22%
44%
69% 70%
43%
20%
4%
0%
Exhibit 3-5:Percentage of Collective Dose above Dose Values During 1994-1998
In 1982, the United Nations Scientific Committeeon the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR)[14] defined distribution ratio “CR” as the fractionof the collective dose delivered above 1.5 rem (15mSv). UNSCEAR identified this parameter as anindicator of the efforts to reduce high doses. DOEhas adapted this approach to allow aquantification and analysis of the dosedistribution at DOE. This report uses thepercentage rather than the decimal fraction torepresent the ratio of the dose delivered aboveseveral specified dose values.
Ideally, only a small percentage of the collectivedose is delivered to individuals in the higher doseranges. In addition, a trend in the percentageabove a certain dose range decreasing over timemay indicate the effectiveness of ALARAprograms to reduce doses to individuals, or mayindicate an overall reduction in activitiesinvolving radiation exposure.
Exhibit 3-5 shows the dose distribution given bypercentage of collective TEDE and DDE aboveeach of five dose values, from 0.1 rem (1 mSv) to2 rem (20 mSv). This graph shows the twoproperties described above as the goal ofeffective ALARA programs at DOE: (1) a relativelysmall percentage of the collective dose accruedin the high dose ranges, and (2) a decreasingtrend over time of the percentage of thecollective dose accrued in the higher doseranges. Exhibit 3-5 shows that the percentageshave decreased or remained the same (DDE 1-2rem) from 1997 to 1998 for all dose ranges at orabove 0.25 rem, and only marginal increases inthe 0.1 – 0.25 rem (0.001 mSv) range.
The general trend has been an increase in thepercentage of dose above each dose range from1994 to 1995 and then a decrease from 1995through 1998. This coincides with the increase inthe collective dose reported in 1995 and theincrease in activities resulting in radiationexposures at the highest dose sites during 1995.Most of these sites reported decreases in thecollective dose and radiological activities in 1997and 1998 (see Section 3.5), which coincides withthe observed decreases in Exhibit 3-5.
3-8 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure
Note: Arrowed values indicate the greatest value in each column.
Meas.<0.100
0.10-0.25
0.75-1.0
1.0-2.0 >2.0
CollectiveNeutron DDE(person-rem)
AverageMeas.
NeutronDDE (rem)Year
No Meas.Dose
0.5-0.75
0.25-0.50
TotalMonitored
Number ofIndividualswith Meas.
Dose*
* Represents the total number of records reported. The number of individuals monitored for neutron radiation is not known because there is nodistinction made between zero dose and not monitored.
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
111,391
122,333
118,154
101,862
103,972
4,196
3,944
4,282
4,500
3,680
662
667
677
631
629
116,511
127,276
123,324
107,181
108,482
192
240
156
149
155
43
46
32
29
34
14
25
11
6
4
13
21
12
4
8
-
-
-
-
-
5,120
4,943
5,170
5,319
4,510
332.930
367.446
320.320
290.610
283.078
0.065
0.074
0.062
0.055
0.063
Exhibit 3-6:Neutron Dose Distribution, 1994-1998
Exhibit 3-7:Extremity Dose Distribution, 1994-1998
In addition to the DDE and TEDE distribution, theneutron and extremity dose distributions areshown in Exhibits 3-6 and 3-7. The neutron doseis a component of the total DDE. Exposure toneutron radiation is much less common at DOEthan photon dose. In 1998, 4,510 individuals (15%fewer than 1997) received measurable neutrondose, which is only 4% of the monitoredindividuals. The collective neutron doserepresents 22% of the collective TEDE. All neutrondoses were below 2 rem (20 mSv) for the past 5years. While the number of individuals withmeasurable neutron dose has increased over 4 ofthe past 5 years, the collective neutron dose hasdecreased. The average measurable neutron doseincreased by 15%. Statistical analysis of theneutron dose (see Section 3.2.6) reveals that thecollective neutron dose has experienced astatistically significant decrease from 1994 to 1997,primarily due to decreases at LANL, which isresponsible for nearly half the neutron dose atDOE. Decreases at LANL were due to reductionsin workload coupled with an aggressive ALARAprogram. However, the neutron dose increased
slightly from 1997 to 1998 primarily due to one-time plutonium processing activites at Rocky Flats.The neutron dose distribution for 1998 by site isshown in Appendix B-3.
Exhibit 3-7 shows the distribution of extremitydose over the past 5 years. “Extremities” aredefined as the hands and arms below the elbow,and the feet and legs below the knee. 10 CFR835.402(a)(1)(ii) requires monitoring for an SDEto the extremities of 5 rem (50 mSv) or more in ayear. As shown in Exhibit 3-7, a small percentageof individuals have received doses above the 5rem (50 mSv) monitoring threshold, and all ofthese exposures were for the upper extremities.The DOE annual limit for extremity dose is 50 rem(500 mSv). The higher dose limit is due to the lackof blood-forming organs in the extremities;therefore, extremity dose involves less health riskto the individual. No individual received anextremity dose above the regulatory limit of 50rem (500 mSv) in the past 5 years. Despite the 50rem DOE annual extremity limit, only one to twoindividuals each year reach extremity dose
Note: Arrowed values indicate the greatest value in each column.
Meas.<0.1
0.1-1.0
10-20
20-30
CollectiveExtremity
Dose(person-rem)
AverageMeas.
ExtremityDose (rem)Year
No Meas.Dose
5-101-5
TotalMonitored
No. AboveMonitoringThreshold
(5 rem)*30-40 >40
*
**
**
Represents the total number of records reported. The number of individuals monitored for extremity radiation is not known because there is nodistinction made between zero dose and not monitored.DOE annual limit for extremities is 50 rem. 10 CFR 835.402(a)(1)(ii) requires extremity monitoring for a shallow dose equivalent to the skin orextremity of 5 rem or more in 1 year.
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
96,545
113,089
108,458
94,510
95,410
15,903
10,187
10,576
8,420
8,347
3,619
3,298
3,583
3,569
3,938
116,511
127,276
123,324
107,181
108,482
418
621
646
636
722
22
57
50
33
56
2
22
9
9
8
2
1
1
2
1
-
-
-
-
-
26
81
61
46
65
2,520.3
3,355.8
3,272.8
3,057.3
3,390.1
0.126
0.237
0.220
0.241
0.259
-
1
1
2
-
19,966
14,187
14,866
12,671
13,072
Numberwith
Meas. Dose
1998 Report 3-9Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE
Exhibit 3-8:DOE-Wide Summary Results for Statistical Tests, 1994 -1998
Logari
thm
ic M
ean
of
the T
ED
E (
rem
)Lo
gar
ith
mic
Mea
n o
f th
eN
eutr
on
Dose
(re
m)
Logar
ith
mic
Mea
n o
f th
eExt
rem
ity
Dose
(re
m)
0.000
0.010
0.020
0.030
0.040
0.050
0.060
0.070
0.080
0.000
0.010
0.020
0.030
0.040
0.050
0.060
0.070
0.080
19981994 1995 1996 1997
0.000
0.010
0.020
0.030
0.040
0.000
0.010
0.020
0.030
0.040
19981994 1995 1996 1997
0.000
0.010
0.020
0.030
0.040
0.000
0.010
0.020
0.030
0.040
19981994 1995 1996 1997
0.065
0.040
0.0510.053
0.064
0.0300.0290.031
0.0290.027
0.028
0.031
0.0350.034
0.035
between 30 and 40 rem, and no one has goneabove 40 rem in the past 5 years. During 1998,only one individual received more than 20 rem(200 mSv) to the extremities. The number ofindividuals receiving a measurable extremitydose has increased by 3% from 1997 to 1998. Also,the number of individuals receiving more than 1rem (10 mSv) has increased 12% over 1997 andthe average extremity dose has increased over1997 by nearly 7%. Much of this increase is aresult of processing a greater number of higheractivity materials at Rocky Flats during 1998.However, statistical analysis of the logarithmicmean extremity dose (see Section 3.2.6) revealsthat the increase in collective extremity dose atDOE in 1998 is not statistically significant. Theextremity dose distribution by site for 1998 isshown in Appendix B-23.
3.2.6 Five-Year Perspective
There are often differences in summary dosenumbers from year to year, yet some of thesedifferences may represent normal variations in astable process, rather than significant changes.This section discusses the results of a statisticalanalysis to determine if there are statisticallysignificant trends detectable over the last 5 years.The collective TEDE, neutron, and extremity doseswere analyzed. Internal dose records have notbeen included because the number of recordsare too few.
This analysis includes only measurable dosesreceived in each year, and used two types of teststo measure different characteristics of thedistributions. The first test used pairwise T-tests toidentify significant differences between statisticalmeans for the years analyzed. Because the dosevalues do not fit a statistically normal distribution,this test used log-transformed data, which wereapproximately normal. Note that the logarithmicmeans used here are different from the averagemeasurable dose discussed elsewhere in thisreport. The T-tests use a 95% confidence level toidentify significant differences.
The second approach tested for differences in thedistribution of dose (e.g., the shape of thedistribution of dose among the worker population)from year to year. This is similar to testing whetherthe overall distribution of dose in Exhibit 3-4differed from year to year. Two non-parametric testswere used: 1) analysis of variance using ranks, and2) the Kruskall-Wallis test.
These statistical tests reveal trends that are notapparent when considering only the collectiveand average doses. In addition, the statisticalanalysis reveals that some of these trends aresignificant. Exhibit 3-8 shows the results ofpairwise T-tests for the collective TEDE, neutron,
3-10 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure
Exhibit 3-9:Number of Individuals Exceeding 5 rem (TEDE), 1994-1998
and extremity dose DOE-wide. The error barssurrounding each data point represent the 95%confidence levels.
For the collective TEDE, there were small butsignificant differences in all years with noapparent trends across the 5-year period. Thelogarithmic mean TEDE per worker decreased by0.007 rem (.070 mSv) from 1997 to 1998consistent with the 4% decrease in the collectiveTEDE. There is also a difference in the dosedistribution from 1997 to 1998 resulting from aslight shift of workers into the dose ranges below0.25 rem (2.5 mSv) range. Because the meandose to individual workers decreased as well asthe collective dose, the change suggests a realreduction in dose to individuals.
Analysis of the neutron dose shows a small butsignificant increase in measurable dosecompared to 1997. The mean neutron doseremained near 0.030 rem (0.300 mSv) for thepast 5 years. The upward trend in measurableextremity dose apparently slowed in the lastyear. Although the logarithmic mean increasedfor the fourth year since 1994, the increase from1997 to 1998 was not significant. While no sitehas reported an extremity dose in excess of thelimit in the past 5 years, the increasing trendrequires continued observation and mayindicate the need for a review of extremitymonitoring and protection practices at DOEsites in the future.
3.3 Analysis of Individual Dose DataThe above analysis is based on aggregate data forDOE. From an individual worker perspective aswell as a regulatory perspective, it is important toclosely examine the doses received by individualsin the high dose ranges to thoroughly understandthe circumstances leading to high doses in theworkplace and how these doses may be avoided inthe future. The following analysis focuses on dosesreceived by individuals that were in excess of theDOE limit (5 rem TEDE) (50 mSv) and the DOEACL (2 rem TEDE) (20 mSv).
3.3.1 Doses in Excess of DOE Limits
Exhibit 3-9 shows the number of doses in excess ofthe TEDE regulatory limit (5 rem)(50 mSv) from1994 through 1998. Further informationconcerning the individual dose, radionuclidesinvolved, and site where the dose occurred isshown in Exhibit 3-10.
A correction has been made to the number ofindividuals over 5 rem (50 mSv) TEDE for 1997.Initial internal dose estimates indicated a CEDE of15 to 30 rem (150 to 300 mSv) due to anunanticipated intake of curium-244 (Cm-244) atthe LLNL. Follow-up bioassay and internal dosecalculations have determined the individual didnot exceed 5 rem (50 mSv) TEDE. For moreinformation on this occurrence, see theOccurrence Report SAN—LLNL-LLNL-1997-0038.
No TEDE greater than 5 rem was reported in 1998.
No individual received a dose in excessof the 5 rem (50 mSv) TEDE limit in1997 or 1998.
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
0
1
2
3
4
5
Year
Nu
mb
er o
f In
div
idu
als
Exc
eed
ing
5 r
em (
TE
DE
)
100 0 0
1998 Report 3-11Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE
Corrected from 1997 report. Final dose assigned at LLNL did not exceed 5 rem TEDE.
YearYear
UptakeTEDE(rem)
DDE(rem)
CEDE(rem) Intake Nuclides Facility Types Site
*
1994 None Reported
1995 None Reported
1996 1996 11.623 0.123 11.500 Pu-238, Pu-239, Pu-241 Fuel Processing Savannah River
1997 None Reported*
1998 None Reported
Exhibit 3-10:Doses in Excess of DOE Limits, 1994-1998
3.3.2 Doses in Excess of AdministrativeControl Level
The RadCon Manual [5] recommends a 2 rem(20 mSv) ACL for TEDE, which is not to beexceeded without prior DOE approval. Each DOEsite required to follow the RadCon Manual mustestablish its own, more restrictive ACL thatrequires contractor management approval to beexceeded. The number of individuals receivingdoses in excess of the 2 rem (20 mSv) ACL is ameasure of the effectiveness of DOE’s radiationprotection program. It should be noted that dosesabove the 2 rem (20 mSv) ACL do not pose anundue health risk to the individual.
Although four individuals received doses abovethe 2 rem (20 mSv) ACL in 1997, as shown inExhibit 3-11, only one individual received a doseabove 2 rem during 1998.
On 08/18/98, during D&D activities involving aglovebox at Rocky Flats, a worker realized that hishand had been cut during operations. Per therequirements of the Radiological Work Permit, theworker had been wearing five pair of gloves: onepair of cotton liners, two pair of surgeon’s typelatex gloves, Level B suit gloves and a pair ofleather work gloves. Apparently, the leather glovefolded back, exposing his palm and latex glovesfor the puncture. A metal splinter on the side ofthe glovebox floor punctured his palm. Theemployee was transported to OccupationalMedicine for decontamination. Plutonium andamericium were detected in the wound. The
Exhibit 3-11:Number of Doses in Excess of the DOE 2 rem ACL, 1994-1998
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
Year
2
1
Num
ber
ofIn
divi
dual
sE
xcee
ding
2 r
em (T
ED
E)
3
44
1
LEGEND
External Dose (DDE) Accruedduring Monitoring Year
Internal Dose (CEDE) Accruedduring Monitoring Year
chelating agent DTPA(diethylenetriaminepentaacetate) wasadministered, and the wound was excised andcleansed to reduce the level of contamination.
Corrective actions included an investigation ofmaterial handling methods, a change in thecontamination fixative, improvements inprotective gloves, personnel briefings, and aLessons Learned report. The final dose assignedwas 2.400 rem CEDE and 43.000 rem CDE to thebone surfaces. For further information on thisoccurrence, see the Occurrence Report RFO—KHLL-779OPS-1998-0029.
3-12 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure
Num
ber
of
Inte
rnal
Deposi
tion
s*
Collec
tive
CED
E(p
erso
n-rem
)A
vera
ge
Mea
sura
ble
CED
E(r
em)
1994 1995 1996 1997 19980
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Year
1,9951,852
1,599
1,914
2,465
1994 1995 1996 1997 19980
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Year
43
35
54
65
84
1994 1995 1996 1997 19980.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
0.030
0.035
0.040
Year
0.022
0.019
0.0330.034 0.034
* The number of internal depositions represents the number of internal doserecords reported for each individual.
3.3.3 Internal Depositions of RadioactiveMaterial
As discussed in Section 3.3.1, in the past, some ofthe most significant doses to individuals havebeen the result of intakes of radioactive material.For this reason, DOE emphasizes the need toavoid intakes and tracks the number of intakes asa performance measure and the collective CEDEalso increased 29% (see Exhibit 3-12).
The number of internal depositions ofradioactive material (otherwise known as workerintakes) for 1996-1998 is shown in Exhibit 3-13.The internal depositions were categorized intonine radionuclide groups. Intakes involvingmultiple nuclides are listed as “mixed”. Nuclideswhere fewer than 10 individuals had intakes overthe 3-year period are grouped together as “other”.Only those records with internal dose greaterthan zero are included in this analysis. It shouldbe noted that the different nuclides havedifferent radiological properties, resulting invarying minimum levels of detection andreporting.
The number of internal depositions increased by29% from 1997 to 1998 and the collective CEDEalso increased 29%. Although the highest averagedose is due to the radon exposures to uraniummill tailings, the highest collective dose is due touranium exposures, primarily at Oak Ridge. Itshould be noted that relatively few workersreceive significant internal dose and thereforefluctuations in the number of workers andcollective CEDE can occur from year to year.
Exhibit 3-13 shows the intakes that occurredduring the past 3 years that were reported usingthe CEDE internal dose calculation methodology.Most intakes of radioactive material during the3-year period were the result of exposure totritium or uranium. The average CEDE dosesfrom these intakes are quite low because of theradiological and biological characteristics ofthese radionuclides and the large number ofmonitored individuals with low CEDE dose fromthese radionuclides.
Exhibit 3-12:Number of Internal Depositions, Collective CEDE, andAverage Measurable CEDE, 1994-1998
1998 Report 3-13Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE
Both the collective and average doses forplutonium decreased in 1998, however thecollective and average dose for americiumincreased during 1998. The greatest increases innumbers of individuals exposed and collectivedose is from uranium intakes primarily due to anincrease in uranium operations at Oak Ridge.Uranium operations resumed at the Oak RidgeY-12 facility in 1997 and activities and the scopeof activities increased throughout 1998.Although the receipt, storage, and securitysurrounding highly-enriched uranium at Y-12adds little to internal exposure, reactivating themachinery and startup of systems operationsafter a 4-year stand-down at Y-12 resulted in alarge number of individuals receiving a smallintake of uranium.
The highest average CEDE dose from 1997 and1998 was from radon reported from the GrandJunction site. Radon-222 has been reported as asource of occupational exposure since 1997 andit increased nearly 18% during 1998. It should benoted that the radon doses listed here includethe natural background dose from radon as wellas the additional dose received from theelevated radon levels. The Grand Junction
Office is involved in environmental remediationof uranium mill tailings at a former uranium millsite at Monticello, Utah, as well as variousUranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA)sites. The primary radiological exposure pathwayat the Monticello mill site is from radon progenyemanating as a gas from the uranium tailingspiles. “Tailings” are the soil left over after theuranium ore extraction process. While radon isnormally considered an environmentalbackground source of radiation, in this caseexposure to radon progeny is consideredoccupational exposure because the radiationsource is greater than normal background, itresults from technologically enhanced source ofradon (uranium tailings piles), and it exposesworkers during their remediation activities.
The collective CEDE from thorium decreased in1997 because the site reporting most of theseintakes, the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant,has gone through several operational changes.During 1998, the collective CEDE from thoriumincreased slightly as a result of legacy “tails”cylinders and some other environmentalactivities that are not involved in the plantoperation but are reported as DOE activities.
* The number of internal depositions represents the number of internal dose records reported for each individual.
Exhibit 3-13:Number of Intakes, Collective Internal Dose, and Average Dose by Nuclides, 1996-1998
Year
Note: Arrowed values indicate the greatest value in each column.
NuclideNumber of Internal
Depositions*Collective CEDE
(person-rem)Average
CEDE (rem)
Hydrogen-3 (Tritium)
Technetium
Radon-222
Thorium
Uranium
Plutonium
Americium-241
Other
Mixed
Totals
1996 1997
7972
-
148
539
66
16
31
-
1,599
1996 1997 1996 1997
6.353
0.006
-
9.633
12.380
24.2970.572
0.283
-
53.524
0.008
0.003
-
0.065
0.023
0.3680.036
0.009
-
0.033
1998
734
8
270
14
78769
9
18
5
1,914
1998
5.450
0.009
27.8340.153
13.022
13.718
0.564
4.264
0.341
65.355
1998
0.007
0.001
0.103
0.011
0.017
0.199
0.063
0.2370.068
0.034
673
2
280
13
1,32692
15
62
1
2,465
3.199
0.006
33.840
0.257
35.4049.553
1.219
0.725
0.004
84.207
0.005
0.003
0.1210.020
0.027
0.104
0.076
0.012
0.004
0.034
3-14 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure
The internal dose records indicate that themajority of the intakes reported are at very lowdoses. In 1998, 77% of the internal dose recordswere for doses below 0.020 rem (0.20 mSv) andrepresent only 8% of the collective internal dose.The other 23% of the internal dose records haddoses above 0.020 rem (0.20 mSv) andaccounted for 92% of the collective internaldose. Over the 5-year period, internal doses fromnew intakes accounted for only 4% of thecollective TEDE and only 5% of the individualswho received internal dose were above themonitoring threshold specified (100 mrem) in 10CFR 835.402(c).
0.020-0.100
0.100-0.250
0.250-0.500
0.500-0.750
0.750-1.000
1.0-2.0
2.0-3.0
3.0-4.0
4.0-5.0 >5.0
TotalNo. ofIndiv.
Total CollectiveInternal Dose
CEDE(person-rem)
Number of Individuals* with internal dose in each dose range (rem).
YearMeas.
<0.020 *
Note: Individuals with doses equal to the dose value separating the dose ranges are included in the next higher dose range. Individuals may have multiple intakes in a year and, therefore, may be counted more than once.*
1994 1,712 224 29 18 7 2 2 1 1,995 45.600
1995 1,564 245 33 4 1 3 1 1 1,852 35.312
1996 1,324 202 42 13 9 4 3 1 1 1,599 53.524
1997 1,422 359 100 18 8 1 3 1 2 1,914 65.355
1998 1,909 353 128 43 18 8 5 1 2,465 84.207
Exhibit 3-14:Internal Dose Distribution from Intakes, 1994 - 1998
Exhibit 3-14 shows the distribution of the internaldose from 1994 to 1998. The total number ofindividuals with intakes in each dose range is thesum of all records of intake in subject dose range.The internal dose does not include doses fromprior intakes (legacy AEDE dose). Individualswith multiple intakes during the year may becounted more than once. Doses below 0.020 rem(0.20 mSv) are shown as a separate dose range toshow the large number of doses in this low-doserange. All but one of the internal doses werebelow 2 rem (20 mSv) in 1998.
The internal dose distribution can also be shownin terms of the percentage of the collective dosedelivered above certain dose levels. Exhibit 3-15shows this information for the CEDE for eachyear from 1994 to 1998. While the fluctuations ininternal dose prohibit definitive trend analysis, itappears from the graph that internal doses havebeen shifting from the higher dose ranges to thelower dose ranges since 1996. This confirms that,while the collective internal dose has increasedin 1998, the increase was due to a larger numberof internal doses received below 0.500 rem. Thedistribution of internal dose by site and nuclidefor 1998 is presented in Appendix B-22.
The internal dose records indicate thatthe majority of the intakes reportedare at very low doses.
Over the 5-year period, internal dosesaccounted for only 4% of thecollective TEDE.
1998 Report 3-15Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE
Exhibit 3-15:Distribution of Collective CEDE vs. Dose Value, 1994-1998
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Per
cent
age
of C
ED
E A
bove
Dos
e V
alue
s
Dose Value
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
2.0 rem
1.0 rem
0.5 rem
3.0 rem
0.1 rem
35%
23%
11%
33%
58%
17%
0%
32%
24%
37%
69%
0%
22%31%
54%
62%
30%
22%
3%
0%
72%
51%35%
10%
4.0 rem
5.0 rem
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
24% 16%
32%
13%
21%
13%
When examining trends involving internal dose,several factors should be considered. Some ofthe largest changes in the number of reportedintakes over the years resulted from changes ininternal dosimetry practices. Periodically, sitesmay change monitoring practices or procedures,which may involve increasing the sensitivity ofthe detection equipment, thereby increasing thenumber of individuals with measurable internal
doses. Conversely, sites may determine thatinternal monitoring is no longer required due tohistorically low levels of internal dose or adecreased potential for intake. There are relativelyfew intakes each year, and the CEDE method ofcalculating internal dose can result in largeinternal doses from the intake of long-livednuclides. This can result in significant statisticalvariability of the internal dose data from year toyear.
3-16 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure
Note: A complete list of the collective dose,number of individuals with measurabledose, and average measurable dose foreach Operations/Field Office can be foundin Appendix B.
Exhibit 3-16:Relative Collective TEDE by Site/Facility for 1996-1998
3.4 Analysis of Site Data
3.4.1 Collective TEDE by Operations/FieldOffices
The relative collective TEDE for 1996-1998 for themajor DOE sites and Operations/Field Offices isshown in Exhibit 3-16. A list of the collectiveTEDE and number of individuals with measurableTEDE for the DOE Operations/Field Offices and
sites is shown in Exhibit 3-17. The collective TEDEdecreased by 4% between 1997 and 1998, withseven of the highest dose sites (BNL, SavannahRiver, Oak Ridge, LANL, Rocky Flats, Idaho, andHanford) contributing 83% of the total DOEcollective TEDE.
Oak RidgeOperations
SavannahRiver Site
Oak Ridge Site
ChicagoOperations PortsmouthPortsmouthPortsmouth
Gas. Diff.Gas. Diff.Gas. Diff.PlantPlantPlant
MoundPlant
PaducahGas. Diff.Plant
Stanford LinearAccel. Center
(SLAC)
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory Fernald
Envir.Mgmt.
Project
IdahoNationalEngineeringLaboratory Hanford
Site
RockyFlatsPlant
Los AlamosNational
Laboratory
NevadaTest Site
OaklandOperations
Lawrence LivermoreNational Laboratory
ArgonneWest
LawrenceBerkeleyLaboratory
UraniumUraniumUraniumMill TailingsMill TailingsMill Tailings
Remedial ActionRemedial ActionRemedial Action(UMTRA)(UMTRA)(UMTRA)
SandiaNationalLaboratory
Albuquerque Operations
PantexPlant
ArgonneEast
BrookhavenNational
Laboratory
WestValley
DOEHeadquartersGrand
Junction
OhioOhioOhioOperationsOperationsOperations
CollectiveTEDE
(person-rem)
LEGEND
1996 1997 1998
0
100
200
1998 Report 3-17Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE
Exhibit 3-17:Collective TEDE and Number of Individuals with Measurable TEDE by Site/Facility, 1996-1998
Operations/Field Office
1996 1997 1998
Collective TEDE
(person-rem)
Num
ber with
Meas. TED
E
Num
ber with
Meas. TED
E
Num
ber with
Meas. TED
E
Collective TEDE
(person-rem)
Collective TEDE
(person-rem)
Site/Facility
Albuquerque
Chicago
DOE HQ
Idaho
Nevada
Oakland
Oak Ridge
Ohio
Rocky Flats
Richland
Savannah River
Totals
Ops. and Other FacilitiesLos Alamos National Lab. (LANL)Pantex Plant (PP)Sandia National Lab. (SNL)Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) ProjectGrand Junction
Ops. and Other FacilitiesArgonne Nat'l. Lab. - East (ANL-E)Argonne Nat'l. Lab. - West (ANL-W)Brookhaven Nat'l. Lab.(BNL)Fermi Nat'l. Accelerator Lab.(FERMI)
DOE HeadquartersDOE North Korea Project
Idaho Site
Nevada Test Site (NTS)
Ops. and Other FacilitiesLawrence Berkeley Lab. (LBL)Lawrence Livermore Nat'l. Lab. (LLNL)Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
(SLAC)
Ops. and Other FacilitiesOak Ridge SitePaducah Gaseous Diff. Plant (PGDP)Portsmouth Gaseous Diff. Plant
(PORTS)
Ops. and Other FacilitiesFernald Environmental Management
ProjectMound PlantWest Valley
Rocky Flats Env. Tech. Site (RFETS)
Hanford Site
Savannah River Site (SRS)
3.6 37184.1 1,984
28.1 32716.7 485
0.4 260.0 0.0
13.5 18218.5 20243.6 331
116.8 1,44816.2 538
0.3 613.3 36
164.1 1,299
1.0 19
0.0 64.6 100
14.9 187
19.3 312
11.9 20088.6 1,58218.6 290
29.9 758
0.0 527.4 804
20.1 40311.2 231
267.6 3,430
265.7 2,761
251.8 4,736
1,651.9 22,725
Note: Arrowed values indicate the greatest value in each column.
0.5 25192.2 2,333
11.1 2139.7 196
0.3 3621.3 169
4.5 13419.0 23818.9 24968.9 1,46325.0 859
0.2 58.3 24
115.3 1,141
1.3 25
1.4 505.2 128
22.1 190
14.2 117
6.6 13577.7 1,614
2.5 36
0.2 3
0.1 218.4 520
5.8 1976.9 174
323.2 3,187
235.4 2,058
165.3 3,327
1,360.1 18,679
0.2161.6
17.29.5
0.038.9
1.217.721.763.012.8
0.05.4
64.9
1.0
1.02.96.9
13.1
3.8102.7
5.3
0.2
24.113.3
1.318.2
348.1
180.9
165.5
1,302.7
111,916
312181
0295
44182236
1,055441
214
743
13
4576
107
157
1952,187
68
15
78559
106260
3,298
1,772
3,163
17,531
3-18 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure
Exhibit 3-18:Dose by Labor Category, 1996-1998
3.4.2 Dose by Labor Category
DOE occupational exposures are tracked by laborcategory at each site to facilitate identification ofexposure trends, which assist management inprioritizing ALARA activities. Worker occupationcodes are reported in accordance with DOE M231.1-1 and are grouped into major labor
Exhibit 3-19:Graph of Dose by Labor Category, 1996-1998
Unknown
Transport
Technicians
Service
Scientists
Production
Misc.
Managem
ent
Laborers
Construction
Agriculture450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0 0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
19961997
1998
Co
llect
ive
TE
DE
(p
erso
n-r
em)
Labor Category
Agriculture 8 8 4 0.4 1.1 0.5 0.047 0.134
Construction 2,588 1,695 1,664 176.8 125.7 90.4 0.068 0.074
Laborers 542 509 492 49.0 81.9 53.6 0.090 0.161
Management 1,212 1,402 1,395 57.2 75.4 80.5 0.047 0.054
Misc. 5,012 2,093 2,272 259.8 98.2 120.2 0.052 0.047
Production 2,434 1,794 1,781 267.4 144.3 155.4 0.110 0.080
Scientists 3,828 3,052 2,784 164.4 136.1 120.0 0.043 0.045
Service 569 634 665 31.7 35.0 43.9 0.056 0.055
Technicians 3,576 2,826 2,919 416.6 339.4 356.2 0.117 0.120
Transport 401 177 144 18.8 8.4 9.1 0.047 0.047
Unknown 2,555 4,489 3,411 209.9 314.5 272.8 0.082 0.070
Totals 22,725 18,679 17,531 1,651.9 1,360.1 1,302.7 0.073 0.073
* 1996-1998 TEDE = CEDE + DDE
Note: Arrowed values indicate the greatest value in each column.
Labor CategoryNumber with Meas. Dose Collective TEDE* (person-rem) Average Meas. TEDE (rem)
1996 1997 19981996 1997 19981996 1997 1998
0.123
0.054
0.109
0.058
0.053
0.087
0.043
0.066
0.122
0.063
0.080
0.074
categories in this report. The collective TEDE foreach labor category for 1996-1998 is shown inExhibits 3-18 and 3-19. Technicians andproduction staff have the highest collective TEDE(other than unknown) for the past 3 years becausethey generally handle more radioactive sourcesthan individuals in the other labor categories.Forty-two percent of the technician dose isattributed to radiation protection technicians.
The collective TEDE is also high for the “unknown”and “miscellaneous” categories. Sixty-three percentof the dose in the “unknown” category is attributed toLANL. Currently the LANL computer system does notmaintain the data necessary to report occupationcodes in accordance with DOE M 231.1-1. LANL isaddressing this issue. Other sites also report largenumbers of individuals with an occupation code of“unknown”. Typically, these workers aresubcontractors or temporary workers. Informationconcerning these workers tends to be limited. Fourindividuals with measurable dose were reportedunder the labor category of “agriculture” and had thehighest average measurable TEDE in 1998. Theseindividuals worked at the Idaho site. Upon review byIdaho National Engineering and EnvironmentalLaboratory (INEEL), these workers were determinedto actually be involved in operations, and werereported with the incorrect occupation code. Theserecords will be corrected in future reports.
1998 Report 3-19Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE
Exhibit 3-21:Dose by Facility Type, 1996-1998
Exhibit 3-20:Graph of Dose by Facility Type, 1996-1998
An examination of internal dose from intake bylabor category from 1996 to 1998 is presented inAppendix B-20. In addition, Appendix B-21 showsthe TEDE distribution by labor category andoccupation for 1998.
3.4.3 Dose by Facility Type
DOE occupational exposures are tracked byfacility type at each site to better understandthe nature of exposure trends and to assistmanagement in prioritizing ALARA activities.Contribution of certain facility types to the DOEcollective TEDE is shown in Exhibits 3-20 and3-21. The collective dose for each facility typeat each major Site of each DOE Operations/Field Office is shown in Appendix B-8. Anexamination of internal dose from intake byfacility type and nuclide for 1996 to 1998 ispresented in Appendix B-18.
The collective TEDE for 1996-1998 was highest atweapons fabrication and testing facilities.Seventy-nine percent of this dose was accrued atRocky Flats, with 15% from Savannah River. Itshould be noted that, although weaponsfabrication and testing facilities account for the
Weapons Fab. & Test.
Waste Proc./M
gmt.
Research, Fusion
Research, General
Reactor
Other
Maint. and Support
Fuel Processing
Fuel Fabrication
Fuel/Uran. Enrichment
Accelerator
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0 0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
19961997
1998C
olle
ctiv
e T
ED
E (
per
son
-rem
)
Facility Type
highest collective dose, Rocky Flats and SavannahRiver account for the majority of this dose andthese sites are now primarily involved in nuclearmaterials stabilization and waste management.
Facility TypeNumber with Meas. Dose Collective TEDE*
(person-rem)
Accelerator 2,345 2,562 1,618 152.0 114.4 94.7 0.065 0.045 0.059
Fuel/Uranium Enrichment 908 149 256 38.3 6.2 10.0 0.042 0.041 0.039
Fuel Fabrication 864 545 593 29.0 18.8 14.3 0.034 0.035 0.024
Fuel Processing 1,498 1,261 1,172 151.2 67.4 52.6 0.101 0.053 0.045
Maintenance and Support 2,886 2,177 1,728 195.2 180.0 147.3 0.068 0.083 0.085
Other 2,514 2,423 2,284 168.1 191.3 164.2 0.067 0.079 0.072
Reactor 912 729 619 56.1 42.3 31.4 0.062 0.058 0.051
Research, General 3,095 2,681 2,410 295.7 226.0 196.6 0.096 0.084 0.082
Research, Fusion 163 132 75 11.4 10.5 5.2 0.070 0.080 0.070
Waste Processing/Mgmt. 2,422 1,609 1,512 142.1 94.5 111.4 0.059 0.059 0.074
Weapons Fab. and Testing 5,118 4,411 5,264 412.8 408.7 475.0 0.081 0.093 0.090
Totals 22,725 18,679 17,531 1,651.9 1,360.1 1,302.7 0.073 0.073 0.074
1996 1997 1998 1996 1997 1998
* 1996-1998 TEDE = CEDE + DDE
1996 1997 1998
Average Meas. TEDE (rem)
Note: Arrowed values indicate the greatest value in each column.
3-20 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure
Exhibit 3-22:Criteria for Radiation Exposure and Personnel Contamination Occurrence Reporting
3.4.4 Radiation Protection OccurrenceReports
In addition to the records of individual radiationexposure monitoring required by DOE M 231.1-1,sites are required to report certain unusual oroff-normal occurrences involving radiation underDOE Order 232.1A. These reports are submitted toOccurrence Reporting and Processing System(ORPS) in accordance with the reporting criteriaof DOE M 232.1-1A. Two of the occurrencecategories are directly related to occupationalexposure and are required to be reported underSection 9.3 as “Group 4” occurrences. Group 4Areports are radiation exposure occurrences, andGroup 4B are personnel contamination occurrencereports. The occurrence reporting requirements forDOE M 232.1-1A are summarized in Exhibit 3-22.These requirements became effective under DOEM 232.1-1 in September 1995, and have remainedessentially unchanged under DOE M 232.1-1A,which became effective in July 1997.
The number of reports submitted to ORPS isusually indicative of breaches or lapses inradiation protection practices resulting in
unanticipated radiation exposure orcontamination of personnel or clothing.Significant increases or decreases in the numberof these occurrences may reflect radiationexposures, the effectiveness of DOE radiationprotection programs, or changes to the reportingprocedure or thresholds. These effects can resultin significant statistical variability in the number ofORPS reports from year to year.
It is important to note that reports are submitted toORPS for an occurrence or event. In some cases,one event could result in the contamination orexposure of multiple individuals. In ORPS, this iscounted as one occurrence, even though multipleindividuals were exposed. In addition, oneoccurrence report may involve the roll up ofmultiple similar occurrences. For the analysisincluded in this report, only the number ofoccurrences is considered.
The number of occurrences is broken down intotwo categories for radiation exposure andpersonnel contamination and is presented inExhibits 3-23 and 3-25.
RadiationExposure
PersonnelContamination
Occurrence Category DOE M 232.1-1A Criteria
Unusual
Off-Normal
Unusual
Off-Normal
Individuals receiving a dose in excess of the occupational exposure limits(see Exhibit 2-1) for on-site exposure or exceeding the limits in DOE 5400.5,Chapter II, Section 1 for off-site exposure to a member of the public.
Any single occupational exposure that exceeds an expected exposure by 100 mrem.Any single unplanned exposure onsite to a minor, student, or member of the publicthat exceeds 50 mrem.Any dose that exceeds the limits specified in DOE 5400.5, Chapter II, Section 7for off-site exposure to a member of the public.Any single occurrence resulting in the contamination of five or more personnel orclothing at a level exceeding the 10 CFR 835 Appendix D values for total contaminationlimits.Any occurrence requiring off-site medical assistance for contaminated personnel.Any measurement of personnel or clothing contamination offsite due toDOE operations.
Any measurement of personnel or clothing contamination at a level exceedingthe 10 CFR 835 Appendix D total contamination limits.
1998 Report 3-21Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE
Exhibit 3-23:Number of Radiation Exposure Occurrences, 1994-1998
The number of Radiation Exposureoccurrences has decreased by 38% from1997 to 1998.
3.4.4.1 Radiation Exposure Occurrences
Radiation exposure occurrences are reportedwhen individuals are exposed to radiation aboveanticipated levels. The number of radiationexposure occurrences has decreased by 38%from 1997 to 1998 but is 29% above the 1996level. Only one radiation exposure occurrencewas classified as an unusual event, down fromthree in 1997.
None of the radiation exposure occurrence reportssubmitted to ORPS from 1994 to 1998 have involvedexposure to minors, members of the public, orpregnant workers. Exhibit 3-24 shows the breakdownof occurrences for radiation exposure by site for the5-year period 1994 to 1998. Seventy-nine percent(79%) of the radiation exposure occurrences werereported by six sites: Rocky Flats, Savannah River,Oak Ridge, Hanford, LANL, and Mound.
Exhibit 3-24:Radiation Exposure Occurrences by Site, 1994-1998
1994 1995 1996 1997 19980
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Nu
mb
er o
f O
ccu
rren
ces
Year
26
4
25
4
13
1 26
3
17
1
The decrease in the number of radiation exposureoccurrences during 1998 possibly reflects anoverall improvement in the radiation protectionarena as well as more timely reporting and close-out of events reducing the number of carryoversfrom previous years. It also reflects theassimilation of the more stringent reportingthresholds instituted during 1996.
For 1998, 17 of the 18 occurrences (94%) shownin Exhibit 3-23 involved Off-Normal occurrences.Fourteen of the 18 off-normal occurrences (78%)involved internal dose or potential internal dose,while 4 of the 18 off-normal occurrences (22%)involved external dose or the potential to receivean external dose. Of the 18 radiation exposureoccurrences, only one was categorized as anUnusual Occurrence because it involved therelease of a small amount of radioactivematerials with the potential for exposure outsideof the DOE facility.
Five of the exposures to personnel occurredduring 1997 but the analytical results were notreported until 1998. Five other exposuresoccurred during 1995 and 1996 but were notevaluated or reported until 1998. These resultedfrom a downward revision of the reportingthresholds. Three of the occurrences reportedinvolved procedural violations and had only apotential for personnel exposure to exceed thereporting threshold of 100 mrem.
LEGEND
Unusual Occurrence
Off-Normal
Rocky Flats
LANL
MoundOak Ridge Site
Hanford
Savannah River
All Other25 (21%)
29 (23%)18 (15%)
10 (8%)14 (12%)
11 (9%)
14 (12%)
3-22 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure
Exhibit 3-26:Personnel Contamination Occurrences by Affected Area, 1994-1998
Exhibit 3-27:Personnel Contamination Occurrences by Site, 1994-1998
0
50
100
150
200
Nu
mb
er o
f O
ccu
rren
ces
Affected Area
188 183
146124
114
187
145
165
84
137 146
124 130 120
84
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Skin Clothing Shoe
3.4.4.2 Personnel Contamination Occurrences
Personnel contamination occurrences arereported when personnel or clothing arecontaminated above established thresholds. Thenumber of personnel contamination occurrenceshas decreased by 4% from 1997 to 1998continuing the downward trend since 1994 (seeExhibit 3-25). Five personnel contaminationoccurrences were classed as unusual events,down from 7 in 1997. One personnelcontamination event was initially classified as an
emergency because it involved the potential foran off-site contamination release via radioactivelycontaminated insects (see Section 4.5).
Hanford
Oak Ridge Site
Savannah River
LANL
Idaho
All Other
385 (21%)
278 (15%)
234 (12%)
179 (10%)
446 (23%)
351 (19%)
Exhibit 3-25:Number of Personnel Contamination Occurrences, 1994-1998
The number of Personnel Contaminationoccurrences has decreased by 4% from1997 to 1998.
Personnel contamination occurrences can involvecontamination of the skin, clothing, or shoes.Exhibit 3-26 shows the breakdown of occurrencesby affected area from 1994 through 1998. Theaffected area is not recorded as part of the ORPSreport and must be determined by reviewing thetext of each report. Some occurrences may involvemore than one affected area and therefore may becounted in more than one category. Between 1994and 1998, contamination occurrences involving theskin continued to decrease. Clothingcontamination events increased by 63% from 1997to 1998, however, all three affected areas (i.e., Skin,Clothing, and Shoe) exhibit a steady decline ofcontamination occurrences over the past 5 years.Many of these events were attributed to thecommercial laundering process whereinradioactive particles from other (i.e., commercial)users of the laundry become loosely attached inthe clothing fibers.
1994 1995 1996 1997 19980
100
200
300
400
500
Nu
mb
er o
f O
ccu
rren
ces
Year
463
6
393
5
349
6
326
7
313
5
LEGEND
Unusual Occurrence
Off-Normal
1 Emergency
1998 Report 3-23Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE
Exhibit 3-28:Radiation Exposure Occurrences by Root Cause, 1996-1998
Exhibit 3-29:Personnel Contamination Occurrences by Root Cause, 1996-1998
Exhibit 3-27 shows the breakdown of occurrencesfor personnel contamination by site for the 5-yearperiod 1994 to 1998. Personnel contaminationoccurrence reports are distributed among thesites, with Oak Ridge, Hanford, Savannah River,LANL, and Idaho submitting 81% of the reports.
3.4.4.3 Occurrence Cause
Exhibits 3-28 and 3-29 show the breakdown ofradiation exposure and personnel contaminationoccurrence reports by root cause. For ORPS, the“root cause” is defined as that which, if corrected,would prevent similar occurrences. Only the foursignificant root cause categories are consideredhere. Over the past 3 years, management problemswere the identified root cause for about 30% of theradiation exposure and personnel contaminationoccurrences. The most often-cited managementproblem is inadequate administrative control.Other management problems in 1998 includeinadequate policy definition and dissemination,and work organization/planning deficiencies.
The number of radiation exposure and personnelcontamination occurrences attributed to unknownsources of radiation remained approximately thesame between 1997 and 1998, but remains thesecond largest category comprising 30% of theseoccurrences in 1998. Therefore, continuedattention should be given to these occurrencesand actions taken in the field to ensure thatpreviously unidentified sources of exposure andcontamination are identified and remediated inaccordance with DOE Policy 450.4 on integratedsafety management (ISM).
The number of personnel errors contributing toradiation exposure decreased during 1998. Thenumber of personnel errors leading to personnelcontamination occurrences increased slightlyduring 1998; many of these were attributed topersonnel contamination received during thedoffing of personal protective equipment andclothing.
Further information concerning ORPS can beobtained by contacting Eugenia Boyle, of EH-33, orthe ORPS web page at:
http://tis.eh.doe.gov/oeaf
Management Problem Personnel Error Equipment/Material Unknown Source ofRadiation
All Other
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Nu
mb
er o
f O
ccu
rren
ces
Root Cause
5
15
11
2
5
1 1 1 0
54 4
1
4
2
1996 1997 1998 1996 1997 1998 1996 1997 1998 1996 1997 1998 1996 1997 1998
Management Problem Personnel Error Equipment/Material Unknown Source ofRadiation
All Other
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Nu
mb
er o
f O
ccu
rren
ces
Root Cause
95
113
77 7566
82
2313
24
107
9296
5549
41
1996 1997 1998 1996 1997 1998 1996 1997 1998 1996 1997 19981996 1997 1998
3-24 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure
Exhibit 3-30:Activities Contributing to Collective TEDE in 1998 for Seven Sites
3.5 Activities Contributing toCollective Dose in 1998In an effort to identify the reasons for changes inthe collective dose at DOE, several of the largersites were contacted to provide information onactivities that contributed to the collective dosefor 1998. These sites (Rocky Flats, Hanford,
Savannah River, LANL, Idaho, BNL, and Oak Ridge)were the top seven sites in their contribution tothe collective TEDE for 1998 and comprised 83%of the total DOE dose. Four of the seven sitesreported decreases in the collective TEDE, whichresulted in a 4% decrease in the DOE collectivedose in 1998. The seven sites are shown inExhibit 3-30, including a description of activitiesthat contributed to the collective TEDE for 1998.
Co
llect
ive
TED
E (p
erso
n-re
m) 350
300
250
200
150
100
50
01994 1995 1996 1997 1998
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
01994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Co
llect
ive
TED
E (p
erso
n-re
m)
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
01994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Co
llect
ive
TED
E (p
erso
n-re
m)
The collective dose at BNL dropped by 9% from the 1997levels due mostly to long-term shutdown of the High-FluxBeam Reactor (HFBR) and implementation of ALARA initiatives.Brookhaven operates the Alternating Gradient Synchrotron(AGS), the National Synchrotron Light Source, the HFBR, theBrookhaven Medical Research Reactor, Positron EmissionTomography, and the Brookhaven Linear Isotope Production.The total radiation exposure for 1998 was 62.8 person-rem,with 73% attributed to accelerator operations, and 70% ofthat attributed to the AGS.General research was the second most prominent contributionto the collective dose at 12%, maintenance activities wasthird contributing 8% of the collective dose. Reactor operationsonly contributed 4% of the collective doses compared with10% during 1997, this reduction resulting from the shutdownof the HFBR.
The site collective TEDE decreased by 23% in 1998. Thedecrease in dose was attributed to enhanced work planningcoupled with new and ongoing ALARA projects. Theincrease in special nuclear material (SNM) inventory workfor plutonium materials at Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP)contributed to a 57% increase in the neutron dose. TheD&D activities at the N-Reactor were the largest dosecontributor at 24%, with the baseline inspection ofplutonium in the vaults at PFP second at 13%. Othercontributions to the dose included tank farms, 12%; PacificNorthwest National Lab (PNNL) facilities, 10%; 222Slaboratories, 8%; K-Basins, 6%; and B-Plant closeout at 3%.
The site collective CEDE at Idaho National Engineeringand Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) dropped 43% fromthe 1997 levels. The completion of several jobs during1997 contributed to a significant dose reduction. Amaintenance stand-down, continued reductions in thescope of operations at INEEL, and ongoing ALARAinitiatives worked to drive down the collective dose during1998. As in past years, most of the exposure comes fromreactor and reprocessing operations.
46%
32%
9%
23%
43% 72%
16%
32%
Site Description of Activities at the Site
Bro
okh
aven
Nati
on
al Lab.
Han
ford
Idah
o
77%
Collective TEDE(person-rem) 97-98
(last yr.)96-98(3 yr.)
94-98(5 yr.)
Percent Change
1998 Report 3-25Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE
Exhibit 3-30:Activities Contributing to Collective TEDE in 1998 for Seven Sites (continued)
34%
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
01994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Co
llect
ive
TED
E (p
erso
n-re
m)
Co
llect
ive
TED
E (p
erso
n-re
m)
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
01994 1995 1996 1997 1998
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
01994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Co
llect
ive
TED
E (p
erso
n-re
m)
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
01994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Co
llect
ive
TED
E (p
erso
n-re
m)
The Savannah River (SR) site collective TEDE increased byless than 1% in 1998, but was about 21% below theALARA projection for 1998 activities. Nuclear MaterialsStabilization and the High Level Waste Programs contributedto nearly 80% of the collective dose. Extensive repackagingof legacy materials and direct metal casting were theprimary Nuclear Materials Stabilization activities. Repairand replacement at the F and H tank farms, includingconstruction of a new waste evaporator, jumperreplacement, and hot tie-ins at the H Tank Farm, andwaste removal projects around and on waste tanks werethe prime dose contributors.
The LANL collective TEDE decreased by 16% for 1998.Two-thirds of the laboratory's collective dose results fromthe handling of nuclear weapons materials, such asplutonium and tritium. Another significant contributorto the dose is the operation of the Los Alamos NeutronScattering Center accelerator. The overall decrease indose is due to reductions in workload coupled with anaggressive ALARA program.
At Rocky Flats, the 1998 collective doses increased by 8%over the 1997 collective dose. This increase resulted froma significant ramping up of D&D activities with emphasison completing product stabilization. Major activitiesincluded removal of buried uranium waste; draining ofplutonium solution from tanks and piping; processing ofplutonium salts, ash, residue and waste for long-termstorage; and other plutonium D&D work. Despiteprocessing higher dose materials, the dose per kilogramprocessed has decreased due to innovative and time-saving techniques. The CEDE increased 46% over 1997due to a puncture wound to one worker.
15%
12%16% 15%
31% 48%
30%8% 50%
47%<1%
Exposures at the Oak Ridge Site increased 31% from1997. Exposures at the Y-12 plant increased 287% from1997 to 1998 as a result of the restart of EnrichedUranium Operations that had been shut down since1994. Waste packaging, environmental restorationprograms, and decommissioning at ETTP continue withlittle change in total exposures from 1997. The ORNLcollective TEDE decreased by 1.9% during 1998 due tothe completion of the work on the Melton Valley LineItem and the transfer of Environmental Restoration workto Bechtel Jacobs Corporation in April of 1998. TheORNL neutron exposure increased 7.1% due to thecontinued work at the Radiochemical EngineeringDevelopment Center.
Los
Ala
mos
Nati
on
al Lab.
Oak R
idge S
ite
Rock
y F
lats
Savan
nah
Riv
er
Site Collective TEDE(person-rem) Description of Activities at the Site97-98
(last yr.)96-98(3 yr.)
94-98(5 yr.)
Percent Change
3-26 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure
3.6 Transient IndividualsTransient individuals are defined as individualswho are monitored at more than one DOE siteduring the calendar year. For the purposes of thisreport, a DOE site is defined as a geographiclocation. The DOE sites are listed in Appendix Aby Operations Office. During the year, someindividuals perform work at multiple sites, andtherefore have more than one monitoring recordreported to the repository. In addition, someindividuals transfer from one site to anotherduring the year. This section presents informationon transient individual’s records to determine theextent to which individuals travel from site to siteand examine the dose received by theseindividuals.
Exhibit 3-31 shows the distribution and totalnumber of transient individuals from 1994 to1998. Over the past 5 years, transient individualshave accounted for 3% of the total monitoredindividuals at DOE and received 2% of thecollective dose. As shown in Exhibits 3-32 and
Exhibit 3-31:Dose Distribution of Transient Workers, 1994-1998
3-33, there was a large increase in the number oftransient individuals in 1995 where the numbermonitored, number with measurable dose, andthe collective dose approximately doubled. Thelargest contribution of the increase in transientcollective TEDE from 1994 to 1995 occurred atLANL, West Valley, and Brookhaven. In 1998, thenumber of transients monitored increased, but thenumber with measurable dose decreased slightly.The collective dose increased by 27% and theaverage measurable dose increased by 29%. Theaverage measurable TEDE for transients in 1998was 28% less than the average measurable TEDEfor all monitored DOE workers. The majority ofthe 1998 increase in dose to transients occurredat LANL. As shown in Exhibit 3-34, the largestpercentage of transient dose in 1998 occurred atLANL. LANL has a larger percentage of dose totransients due to the fact that workers at TA-55(which generally receive significant doses) tendto perform temporary work at sites such asNevada Test Site (NTS), Rocky Flats, and Pantex aspart of their routine duties.
Less than Measurable DoseMeasurable < 0.10.10 - 0.250.25 - 0.50.5 - 0.750.75 - 1.01.0 - 2.0
Total MonitoredNumber with Measurable Dose% with Measurable DoseCollective TEDE (person rem)Average Measurable TEDE (rem)
Total MonitoredNumber with Meas. Dose% of Total Monitored who are Transient% of the Number with MeasurableDose Who are Transient
1994Dose Ranges (rem) 1995 1996 19981997
924376
29921
1,34141731%
18.5580.045
116,51125,390
1.2%1.6%
2,223744
4920
537
3,05182827%
45.1550.055
127,27623,613
2.4%3.5%
2,147764
5721
432
2,99885128%
41.3920.049
123,32422,725
2.4%3.7%
2,585606
4114
2
1
3,24966420%
27.4260.041
107,18118,689
3.0%3.6%
3,780585
4914
821
4,43965915%
34.7420.053
108,48217,531
4.1%3.8%
Tran
sien
tsA
ll D
OE
1998 Report 3-27Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Nu
mb
er o
f In
div
idu
als
1,341
3,051 2,998
3,249
4,439
417
828 851664 659
Total Transients Monitored Transients with Measurable Dose
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
One group of individuals that routinely travelfrom site to site is DOE employees fromHeadquarters or the Field Offices who visit orinspect multiple sites during the year. For 1998,this group accounts for 16% of the transientindividuals and 6% of the collective dose totransients.
Over the past 5 years, only 10% of the transientindividuals were monitored at three or more sites.DOE Headquarters and Field Office personnelmake up a large percentage of these individuals.In 1998, 33% of the individuals monitored at threeor more sites were DOE Headquarters or FieldOffice employees and 47% of the individualsmonitored at four or more facilities were DOEHeadquarters or Field Office employees. Themaximum number of sites visited by onemonitored individual during 1998 was eight.
Exhibit 3-32:Individuals Monitored at More Than One Site During the Year, 1994-1998
Exhibit 3-33:Collective and Average Measurable Dose to Transient Individuals, 1994-1998
●●
●●
●
1994 1995 1996 1997 19980
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
Co
llect
ive
Do
se (
per
son
-rem
)
Ave
rag
e M
eas.
TE
DE
(re
m)
Year
19
45
41
28
35
DOE Average Overall Measurable TEDE
Collective TEDE
Average Measurable TEDE
3-28 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure
Exhibit 3-34:Collective TEDE to Transient Workers by Site, 1994-1998
1994 1995 1996 1997 19980
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Co
llect
ive
TE
DE
(p
erso
n-r
em)
Year
18.5
45.1
41.4
28.0
34.8
1.3
0.81.0
1.2
4.8
12.4
7.8
7.7
1.8
2.5
2.1
3.12.6
16.5
1.9
3.9
3.7
16.5
3.8
2.8
3.4
6.0
14.4
11.0
6.0
1.4
7.5
15.1
2.1
2.7
Legend
LANL
Rocky Flats
Hanford
SRS
Oak Ridge Site
All Other
LANL has a largerpercentage ofdose to transientsdue to the factthat workers atTA-55 (whichgenerally receivesignificant doses)tend to performtemporary workat sites such asNTS, Rocky Flats,and Pantex aspart of theirroutine duties.
1998 Report 3-29Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE
3.7 Age of Monitored IndividualsDOE is interested in the age of the workforceinvolved with radioactive materials because thisworkforce represents one of the special skill setsthat is required to achieve DOE missionobjectives. A parameter of interest inepidemiologic studies is the age of the individualat the time of the exposure to radiation. As apreliminary analysis of the age of this workforce,the average age of monitored workers wasdetermined for the years 1987 to 1998. The firstfull year of the annual reporting of eachmonitored individual was 1987. Only individualsof known age were included in this data set. Theaverage known age of all monitored individualsper year is shown in Exhibit 3-35.
Exhibit 3-35:Average Age of Monitored Individuals per Year, 1987-1998
The average age of monitored individuals hasincreased by 3 years from 40.7 to 43.7 over thepast 12 years. A statistical analysis of the trendusing the least squares method indicates that, ifthe trend continues, the average age will reach44.1 years in 2000, and 47.7 by 2010. Theincreasing trend in average age since 1991 has astatistical correlation with a decrease in thenumber of workers receiving a measurable dose.Workers receiving a measurable dose tend torepresent the number of workers actually involvedin activities with radioactive materials. While thisanalysis is limited, it does support the suppositionthat the DOE workforce directly involved withradioactive material is indeed increasing in age.
38.0
39.0
40.0
41.0
42.0
43.0
44.0
Nu
mb
er o
f In
div
idu
als
40.7 40.840.9 40.9
41.2
41.541.6
42.142.3
42.8
43.2
43.7
39.739.9
40.2 40.2
40.7
41.0
40.740.8
41.3
41.9
42.4
43.3
All Monitored Individuals Individuals with Measurable Dose
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
3-30 DOE Occupational Radiation ExposureThis page intentionally left blank.
1998 Report 4-1ALARA Activities at DOE
Section FourALARA Activities at DOEALARA Activities at DOE 4A
LAR
A A
ctivities at DO
E
This section on ALARA activities is a vehicle todocument successes and to point all DOE sites tothose programs whose managers have struggledwith radiation protection issues and have usedinnovative techniques to solve problems commonto most DOE sites. DOE program and site officesand contractors who are interested inbenchmarks of success and continuousimprovement in the context of Integrated SafetyManagement and quality are encouraged toprovide input to be included in the future reports
4.1 Successful ALARA ProjectsThe following are descriptions of severalsuccessful ALARA projects submitted by RockyFlats, Hanford, and Los Alamos concerningprojects that reduced radiation exposure.
4.2 Innovative Shielding at aPlutonium Analytical Laboratory atthe Rocky Flats EnvironmentalTechnology CenterBuilding 559 was opened in 1968 to conductplutonium chemical analysis. With the cessationof production in 1989, Building 559’s mission hasbeen changed to provide analyticalcharacterization of samples from various D&Dprojects at the Rocky Flats EnvironmentalTechnology Site. Some of the samples are highlycontaminated, and by using careful analysis ofthe work process, as well as several innovativeshielding techniques, the dose to the workers foreach sample analyzed has been halved.
The number of samples analyzed by the Building559 laboratory has been increasing for the past 2years, so a yardstick was needed to measure theprogress of reducing the workers’ dose. Where theprocesses are similar, the measure in use at RockyFlats is a dose per sample or dose per kilogramprocessed. This allows a comparison of ALARAtechniques applied from one quarter to the next,and comparison of similar jobs from one buildingto the next. By the end of 1998, the above controlshad reduced the Building 559 dose per sampleanalyzed from 1.3 mrem per sample to 0.93 mrem/sample, despite processing higher activitysamples.
During the first quarter 1999, working moreeffectively with shielding and processing samplesmore efficiently has reduced the dose per sampleto 0.56 mrem. The latest improvements haveincluded flagging the high activity samples with ared self-stick tab as the sample is introduced intothe glovebox, thereby alerting the technician toanalyze that sample first. The tops of someshielding containers are being used by theworkers as shadow shields to further protect theworker while the container is open. The trackingof each workers’ daily dose by use of electronicpersonnel dosimeters has resulted in detectingradioactive debris on the lip of a gloveport, whichhad caused a spike in one worker’s dose.
Some of the gloveboxes were unshielded; thesewere covered with leaded glass that wasscavenged as waste from other D&D projects.Where possible, the 20-mil (0.20 in.) unleadedgloves were replaced with 30-mil leaded gloveswith a 0.1 mm lead equivalency. However, manyprocesses required either the dexterity of thethinner glove, or a long-arm extension that wasfatiguing if performed with the leaded gloves.Workers cut the hands off of the leaded gloves,and used a portion of the gauntlet of the 30-milleaded gloves as an inner liner to the thinglovebox glove. This arrangement providedshielding from photons streaming through thearea surrounding the arms, thereby reducing thewhole body dose as well as the extremity dose.
4-2 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure
The building radiological engineer, working withlaboratory technicians, designed boxes using a tinalloy to shield the radioactive samples prior to,during, and after their analysis in the glovebox.The tin alloy (92% tin, 7% antimony, 1% copper) isalmost four times as effective in attenuating thelow energy photons as an equivalent thickness ofsteel, and does not have the waste issuesassociated with lead. An example of this type ofshielding box is shown in Exhibit 4-1.
For more information about this project contactScott Staley, Building 559 Radiological Engineer at(303) 966-3349.
4.3 Fluor-Daniel Hanford RemoteRadiation Mapping System SavesTime and DoseA remote radiation mapping system using theGammacamTM ( AIL Systems Inc. Trademark) withreal-time response was used in deactivating the BPlant at Hanford to produce digitized imagesshowing actual radiation fields and dose rates.Deployment of this technology has significantlyreduced labor requirements, decreased personnelexposure, and increased the accuracy of themeasurements. Personnel entries into the high
Exhibit 4-1:Easily formed tin-alloy shielding and lead-shielded inner gloves used in the Building 559 Laboratory at Rocky Flats havereduced the dose per sample handled by more than 50%.
Photo Courtesy of RFETS
1998 Report 4-3ALARA Activities at DOE
radiation/contamination areas were minimizedfor a dose savings of 30 person-rem (.3 person-Seivert) and a cost savings of $640K. In addition,the data gathered was utilized along withhistorical information to estimate the amount ofremaining hazardous waste in the process cells.
The B Plant facility is a canyon facility containing40 process cells that were used to separate cesiumand strontium from high level waste. The cellsand vessels are contaminated with chemicalsused in the separation and purification processes.Most of the contaminants have been removed butthe residual contamination from spills in the cellsand heels in the tanks contribute to the localizedhigh radioactivity. The radiation fields are so highpeople can’t be in close proximity to the cells.
The GammacamTM system consists of a high-density terbium-activated scintillating glassdetector coupled with a digitized video camera.Composite images generated by the system arepresented in pseudo color over a black and whiteimage as shown in Exhibit 4-2. Exposure timescan be set from 10 milliseconds to 1 hourdepending on the field intensity. The camera isenclosed in an airtight container making itretrievable. This information coupled with processknowledge is then used to document thehazardous waste remaining in each cell.Additional uses for this radiation mapping systemwould be in support of facilities stabilization anddeactivation activities at Hanford or other DOEsites. The system is currently scheduled forinstallation and mapping of the U Plant in 1999.This system is unique due to its portability and itssuitability for use in high dose rate areas.
For additional information about this projectcontact Fen M. Simmons via e-mail [email protected].
Exhibit 4-2:“Gammacam” Pictures Showing Areas of High Dose Rate.
4-4 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure
4.4 Canyon Bubble ContainmentUnit Eliminates Exposure forWorkers and Visitors at HanfordA bubble containment unit was constructedinside of the airborne radioactivity area of theU-Plant that allows personnel to enter the canyonwithout wearing personal protective equipmentand clothing. The bubble is a “clean” spacewithin a highly contaminated environment thatallows managers and planners safe quick accessto the low radioactivity areas of the canyon. Inaddition to eliminating the potential for radiationexposure, cost of donning and doffing personalprotective equipment, and decontamination andradioactive waste disposal, it allowed regulators,stakeholders and tribal nations to see first-handthe areas to be decommissioned and helped toexpedite final decommissioning decisions.
For additional information about this projectcontact Brenda Panghorn, Richland OperationsOffice Radiological Control Manager at(509) 372-3841.
4.5 Contamination Spread by FlyingInsects at HanfordIn Section 4.5 of the 1997 DOE OccupationalRadiation Exposure Report, an ALARA project wasincluded that has since been determined to havecontributed to the spread of contamination byflying insects at Hanford. As a result of using asugar-based encapsulant to control the release ofcontamination from the concrete walls of adiversion pit, insects (fruit flies) were attracted toand bred in a radioactively contaminated media.Later when the flies hatched, contamination wascarried from the diversion pit to other occupiedareas at the Hanford site. The coating was appliedin an effort to prevent contamination on the wallsof the diversion pit from becoming airbornecausing contamination spread and potentialexposure to workers in the area. The sugar-basedcoating was used because it did not cause amixed waste disposal problem. While theencapsulation technique was successful inremoving airborne contamination, the sugar-based fixative led to the insect contamination.
The technique continues to be used, but with adifferent type of fixative.
For additional information about this incident goto http://www.hanford.gov/safety/conspread/index.html.
4.6 Remote Removal of SpallationTarget Water System at Los AlamosSaves Worker DoseThe Los Alamos Neutron Science Center (LANSCE)recently upgraded the short-pulse spallationsource target at the Manuel Lujan, Jr. NeutronScattering Center. During the upgrade, workersencountered a highly radioactive (160R/h) airseparator unit located in an unshielded area on awater system that was not designed for remotehandling (see Exhibit 4-3). This device would havecaused unacceptable radiation doses to personnelmaintaining the water system and was alreadycausing chronic elevated doses to personnelworking in the service area.
The target itself is located inside a shielded cryptand the service connections are located inside ahot cell that is on top of the crypt. The target waterlines run outside the hot cell into a service area.Although the pumps and heat exchangers arelocated behind a shield wall, the air separator andpiping run overhead and were unshielded. Thereare other, non-radioactive, systems located in theservice area.
The air separator unit combined the functions of adirt catcher, air separator, and air eliminator. It waslocated near the ceiling, at the highest point in thesystem, because of its air eliminator function.Functioning as a dirt catcher, the unit collectedhighly activated corrosion products from thetungsten targets. The target water return lines werealso coated with activated corrosion products andwere reading 350 to 700 mR/h.
The group responsible for remote handling andtargeting (LANSCE-7) devised a plan to removethe device using a specialized remote handlingoperation. They used television cameras toobserve the operations and two forklifts with long
1998 Report 4-5ALARA Activities at DOE
booms that cut the water lines and lowered theunit into a cask. They rehearsed the operationusing mock ups of the activated components andperformed dry runs in the target service area.Before attempting the removal operation, workersinstalled a local steel shield around the lowerpart of the unit. This reduced the contact doserate from 160R/h to 4R/h. Workers used a portableHEPA-filtered air handling unit to controlcontamination during the removal operation.Workers separated the functions of the originalunit by installing dirt catchers and air eliminatorsinside the target hot cell as shown in Exhibit 4-4.They placed an air eliminator at the old locationnear the roof of the service area. The new aireliminator now reads 13mR/h after irradiating thetarget.
For more information, contact J. Donahue at(505) 667-2856.
4.7 Reduction in Neutron Dose atBrookhaven National Laboratory
Brookhaven National Laboratory continues topursue ALARA goals through dose tracking andthrough selective improvements in operations.Dose tracking on specific Radiation Work Permits(RWPs) improved during 1998 such that 34% ofthe total 43.8 person-rem direct exposure wastracked compared to 23% of the dose in 1997.
The direct neutron dose to the staff of theAlternating Gradient Synchrotron (AGS) wasreduced from 25% in 1997 to 5% in 1998 bychanging the access across the switchyard shieldtop during Slow Extracted Beam running andreducing proton losses in the switchyard area.The use of new software that alarms if ALARAthresholds are exceeded during proton beamtuning and designating appropriate operatorresponses have helped reduce the directradiation to the AGS staff. This control of lossesalso improves the beam efficiency as well asreducing the direct exposure.
For more information about this project, contactSteve Layendecker at (516) 344-7921.
Exhibit 4-3:Old Air Separator Unit Before Removal.
Exhibit 4-4:New Air Separator and Dirt Catchers Inside Hot Cell.
Photo Courtesy of LANL
Photo Courtesy of LANL
HEPA-FilteredAir Handler
TemporarySteel Shield
4-6 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure
http://www.eh.doe.gov/portal
4.8 Submitting ALARA SuccessStories for Future Annual ReportsIndividual success stories should be submitted inwriting to the DOE Office of Worker ProtectionPrograms and Hazards Management. Thesubmittal should describe the process insufficient detail to provide a basic understandingof the project, the radiological concerns, and theactivities initiated to reduce dose.
The submittal should address the following:❖ mission statement,❖ project description,❖ radiological concerns,❖ information on how the process
implemented ALARA techniques in aninnovative or unique manner,
❖ estimated dose avoided,❖ project staff involved,❖ approximate cost of the ALARA effort,❖ impact on work processes, in person-
hours if possible (may be negative orpositive), and
❖ point-of-contact for follow-up byinterested professionals.
4.9 Lessons Learned ProcessImprovement TeamIn March 1994, the Deputy Assistant Secretary forField Management established a DOE LessonsLearned Process Improvement Team (LLPIT). Thepurpose of the LLPIT is to develop a complex-wide program to standardize and facilitateidentification, documentation, sharing, and use oflessons learned from actual operatingexperiences throughout the DOE complex. Thisinformation sharing and utilization is commonlytermed “Lessons Learned” within the DOEcommunity. The LLPIT has now transitioned intothe DOE Society for Effective Lessons LearnedSharing.
The collected information is currently located onan Internet World Wide Web (Web) site as part ofthe Environmental Safety & Health (ES&H)Information Portal. This system allows for sharedaccess to lessons learned across the DOEcomplex. The information available on the systemcomplements existing reporting systems presentlyused within DOE. DOE is taking this approach toenhance those existing systems by providing amethod to quickly share information among thefield elements. Also, this approach goes beyondthe typical occurrence reporting to identify goodlessons learned. DOE uses the Web site to openlydisseminate such information so that not onlyDOE but other entities will have a source ofinformation to improve the health and safetyaspects of operations at and within their facilities.Additional benefits include enhancing the workplace environment and reducing the number ofaccidents and injuries.
The Web site contains several items that arerelated to health physics. Items range from off-normal occurrences to procedural and trainingissues. Documentation of occurrences includesthe description of events, root-cause analysis, andcorrective measures. Several of the larger siteshave systems that are connected through thissystem. DOE organizations are encouraged toparticipate in this valuable effort.
The Web site address for DOE Lessons Learned is:
The specific Web site address may be subject tochange. ES&H information services can beaccessed through the main ES&H InformationPortal at:
http://www.eh.doe.gov/ll
1998 Report 5-1Conclusions
Section FiveConclusionsConclusions 5Conclusions
5.1 ConclusionsThe collective dose at DOE facilities hasexperienced a dramatic (84%) decrease since1986. The main reasons for this large decreasewere the shutdown of facilities within theweapons complex and the end of the Cold Warera, which shifted the DOE mission from weaponsproduction to shutdown, stabilization, and D&Dactivities. The DOE weapons production siteshave continued to contribute the majority of thecollective dose over these years. Sites reportingunder the category of weapons fabrication andtesting account for the highest collective dose.Even though these sites are now primarilyinvolved in nuclear materials stabilization andwaste management, they still report under thisfacility type. As facilities are shut down andundergo transition from operation to stabilizationor D&D, there are significant changes in theopportunities for individuals to be exposed. Moremodest reductions in collective dose haveoccurred during the past 5 years at some facilitiesthat have continued to transition to shutdownand stabilization.
The collective TEDE decreased 4% from 1997 to1998 due to decreases in the collective dose atfour of the seven highest dose sites. These sevensites accounted for 83% of the collective dose atDOE. Reports submitted by four of the sites thatexperienced decreases in the collective dose(Hanford, Los Alamos, Idaho, and Brookhaven)indicate that decreases in the collective dosewere due to the shutdown of several facilities, thecompletion of several key projects, and to ALARAinitiatives. Statistical analysis reveals that, inaddition to the collective dose decreasing by 4%,the logarithmic mean dose decreased slightlyfrom 1997 to 1998. This finding indicates that thecollective dose has decreased due to a reductionin overall work involving radiation exposure aswell as a reduction in dose to individuals.
The collective internal dose increased by 29%from 1997 to 1998. The increase in collectiveinternal dose was primarily due to an increase inuranium operations at Oak Ridge, where a largenumber of individuals were reported withrelatively small internal doses from uranium. Dueto several factors such as changes in internaldosimetry practices, monitoring and reportingprocedures, changes in the dosimetry equipment,and the relatively small number of internal doses,care should be taken in examining trends ininternal dose.
An analysis was performed on the transientworkforce at DOE. The results of this analysis showthat the number of transients monitored has morethan tripled over the past 5 years. However, thenumber of transients receiving measurable dosedecreased over the past 4 years. The averagemeasurable dose to transients has been less thanthe value for the overall DOE workforce for thepast 5 years. Due to the significant increase in thenumber of these transient workers, tracking of thisgroup will continue in subsequent years.
An analysis of the average age of monitoredindividuals was performed that reveals a steadyincrease in age of the DOE workforce over thepast 12 years, particularly since 1990. The averageage of individuals receiving measurable dose hasincreased 2.5 years since 1994.
The detailed nature of the data available hasmade it possible to investigate distribution andtrends in data and to identify and correlateparameters having an effect on occupationalradiation exposure at DOE sites. This alsorevealed the limitations of available data, andidentified additional data needed to correlatemore definitively trends in occupational exposureto past and present activities at DOE sites. Asummary of the findings for 1998 is shown inExhibit 5-1.
5-2 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure
❖ The collective TEDE decreased by 4% from 1997 to 1998 due to decreases in the collective dose atfour of the seven highest dose sites.
❖ The seven highest dose sites accounted for 83% of the collective dose at DOE in 1998.
❖ Decreases at four of the top seven sites were due to the shutdown of several facilities, thecompletion of several key projects, and to ALARA initiatives.
❖ Statistical analysis indicates the collective dose has decreased due to a reduction in overall workinvolving radiation exposure as well as a reduction in dose to individuals.
❖ The collective internal dose increased by 29% from 1997 to 1998 primarily due to an increase inuranium operations in Oak Ridge in support of the restart at Y-12.
❖ The number of transient workers monitored at DOE has more than tripled over the past 5 years, butthe average measurable dose to these transients has been less than the value for the overall DOEworkforce.
❖ The average age of monitored workers exhibits an increasing trend, and has increased by 3 yearsover the past 12 years.
Exhibit 5-1:1998 Radiation Exposure Fact Sheet.
1998 Report G-1Glossary
GlossaryG
lossary
Administrative Control Level (ACL)A dose level that is established below the DOE dose limit in order to administratively control exposures. ACLsare multi-tiered, with increasing levels of authority required to approve a higher level of exposure.
ALARAAcronym for “As Low As Reasonably Achievable,” which is the approach to radiation protection to manage andcontrol exposures (both individual and collective) to the workforce and the general public to as low as isreasonable, taking into account social, technical, economic, practical, and public policy considerations.ALARA is not a dose limit but a process with the objective of attaining doses as far below the applicable limitsas is reasonably achievable.
Annual Effective Dose Equivalent (AEDE)The summation for all tissues and organs of the products of the dose equivalent calculated to be received byeach tissue or organ during the specified year from all internal depositions multiplied by the appropriateweighting factor. Annual effective dose equivalent is expressed in units of rem.
Average Measurable DoseDose obtained by dividing the collective dose by the number of individuals who received a measurable dose.This is the average most commonly used in this and other reports when examining trends and comparingdoses received by workers because it reflects the exclusion of those individuals receiving a less thanmeasurable dose. Average measurable dose is calculated for TEDE, DDE, neutron dose, extremity dose, andother types of doses.
Collective DoseThe sum of the total annual effective dose equivalent or total effective dose equivalentvalues for all individuals in a specified population. Collective dose is expressed in units of person–rem.
Committed Dose Equivalent (CDE) (HT,50)The dose equivalent calculated to be received by a tissue or organ over a 50–year period after the intake of aradionuclide into the body. It does not include contributions from radiation sources external to the body.Committed dose equivalent is expressed in units of rem.
Committed Effective Dose Equivalent (CEDE) (HE,50)The sum of the committed dose equivalents to various tissues in the body (H
T,50), each multiplied by the
appropriate weighting factor (wT)––i.e., H
E,50 = ∑w
TH
T,50. Committed effective dose equivalent is expressed in
units of rem.
CRCR is defined by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation as the ratio of theannual collective dose delivered at individual doses exceeding 1.5 rem to the collective dose.
Deep Dose Equivalent (DDE)The dose equivalent derived from external radiation at a depth of 1 cm in tissue.
GlossaryGlossary
G-2 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure
DOE SiteA geographic location operated under the authority of the Department of Energy. The DOE sites considered in thisreport are listed in Appendix A by Operations Office.
Effective Dose Equivalent (HE)The summation of the products of the dose equivalent received by specified tissues of the body (H
T) and the
appropriate weighting factor (wT)––i.e., H
E = ∑w
TH
T. It includes the dose from radiation sources internal and/or
external to the body. The effective dose equivalent is expressed in units of rem.
Kruskall-Wallis TestUses a test statistic based on rank sums to determine whether two populations are significantly different.
Lens of the Eye Dose Equivalent (LDE)The radiation exposure for the lens of the eye is taken as the external equivalent at a tissue depth of 0.3 cm.
Logarithmic MeanThe mean calculated from log-transformed values.
Minimum Detectable Activity (MDA)The smallest quantity of radioactive material or level of radiation that can be distinguished from background witha specified degree of confidence. Often used synonymously with minimum detection level (MDL) or lower limitof detection (LLD).
Non-parametric proceduresStatistical tests that do not depend on a specific parent distribution.
Normal Log-transformed DataData that fits a normal distribution after it is transformed to logarithms.
Number of individuals with measurable exposureThe subset of all monitored individuals who receive a measurable exposure (greater than limit of detection for themonitoring system). Many personnel are monitored as a matter of prudence and may not receive a measurableexposure. For this reason, the number of individuals with measurable exposure is presented in this report as amore accurate indicator of the exposed workforce.
Occupational exposureAn individual’s exposure to ionizing radiation (external and internal) as a result of that individual’s workassignment. Occupational exposure does not include planned special exposures, exposure received as a medicalpatient, background radiation, or voluntary participation in medical research programs.
Pairwise T-testsThis test compares all possible pairs of means and uses a T-test to determine whether differences are significant.
Shallow Dose Equivalent (SDE)The dose equivalent deriving from external radiation at a depth of 0.007 cm in tissue.
Statistical Normal DistributionA distribution that is symmetric and can be described completely by the mean and variance. This property isrequired for many statistical tests.
1998 Report G-3Glossary
Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE)The sum of the effective dose equivalent for external exposures and the effective dose equivalent for internalexposures. Deep dose equivalent to the whole body is typically used as effective dose equivalent for externalexposures. The internal dose component of TEDE changed from the Annual Effective Dose Equivalent (AEDE) to theCommitted Effective Dose Equivalent (CEDE) in 1993.
Total monitored individualsAll individuals who are monitored and reported to the DOE Headquarters database system. This includes DOEemployees, contractors, and visitors.
Transient IndividualAn individual who is monitored at more than one DOE site during the calendar year.
T-testA statistical test for comparing means from two populations based on the value of t, where
and y1 = sample mean, population 1y2 = sample mean, population 2S y
1 –
y
2 = standard deviation appropriate to the difference between the two means.
t = y1 – y2
S y1 –
y
2
G-4 DOE Occupational Radiation ExposureThis page intentionally left blank.
1998 Report R-1References
ReferencesR
eferencesReferencesReferences
1. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1987. “Radiation Protection Guidance to Federal Agenciesfor Occupational Exposure,” Federal Register 52, No. 17, 2822; with corrections published in the FederalRegisters of Friday, January 30, and Wednesday, February 4, 1987.
2. ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), 1977. “Recommendations of theInternational Commission on Radiological Protection,” ICRP Publication 26, Annals of the ICRP, Vol. 1, No. 3(Pergamon Press, New York).
3. NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements), 1987. “Recommendations on Limitsfor Exposure to Ionizing Radiation,” NCRP 91; superceded by NCRP Report No. 116.
4. DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), December 21, 1998, Order 5480.11, Radiation Protection forOccupational Workers, Change 3, June 17, 1992.
5. DOE 1994. Radiological Control Manual. Revision 1, DOE/EH-0256T, Assistant Secretary for Environment,Safety and Health, April.
6. 10CFR Part 835. “Occupational Radiation Protection.” Final Rule; DOE Federal Register, December 14, 1993.
7. DOE-STD-1098-99, “Radiological Control Technical Standard,” July 1999.
8. The Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 1988, Public Law 100-408, August 20, 1988.
9. 10CFR 820. “Procedural Rules for DOE Nuclear Activities.” August 17,1993.
10. DOE Notice 441.1, “Radiological Protection for DOE Activities,” September 29, 1995.
11. DOE Order 5484.1, “Environmental Protection, Safety, and Health Protection Information ReportingRequirements,” February 24, 1981, Change 7, October 17, 1990.
12. DOE M231.1-1, “Environment, Safety and Health Reporting,” September 10, 1995.
13. Munson, L.H. et al., 1988. Health Physics Manual of Good Practices for Reducing Radiation Exposures toLevels that are As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA), PNL-6577, Pacific Northwest Lab.
14. UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation), 1982. “IonizingRadiation Sources and Biological Effects,” report to the General Assembly.
15. Rich, B.L. et al., 1988. Health Physics Manual of Good Practices for Uranium Facilities, EGG-2530, IdahoNational Engineering Lab.
16. Faust, L.G. et al., 1988. Health Physics Manual of Good Practices for Plutonium Facilities, EGG-6534, PacificNorthwest Lab, 1988.
R-2 DOE Occupational Radiation ExposureThis page intentionally left blank.
1998 Report A-1DOE Reporting Sites and Reporting Codes
Appendix A AD
OE R
eporting Sites and Repor ting Codes
DOE Reporting Sites and Reporting CodesDOE Reporting Sites and Reporting Codes
A-1 Labor Categories and Occupation Codes ............................................................................................... A-2
A-2 Organizations Reporting to DOE REMS, 1994-1998 ................................................................................ A-3
A-3 Facility Type Codes .................................................................................................................................... A-7
A-4 Phase of Operation .................................................................................................................................... A-8
A-2 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure
A.1 Labor Categories andOccupation CodesThe following is a list of the OccupationCodes that are reported with eachindividual’s dose record to the DOERadiation Exposure Monitoring System(REMS) in accordance with DOE Manual231.1-1 [12]. Occupation Codes aregrouped into Labor Categories for thepurposes of analysis and summary in thisreport.
OccupationCode (5484.1) Occupation NameLabor Category
Agriculture
Construction
LaborersManagement
Misc.
Production
Scientists
Service
Technicians
Transport
Unknown
056205700580061006410642064306440645065006600850011004000450091009900681068206900710077107800160017001840200026005120513052105240525035003600370038003830390082008210825083008400001
GroundskeepersForest WorkersMisc. AgricultureMechanics/RepairersMasonsCarpentersElectriciansPaintersPipe FitterMiners/DrillersMisc. Repair/ConstructionHandlers/Laborers/HelpersManager - AdministratorSalesAdmin. Support and ClericalMilitaryMiscellaneousMachinistsSheet Metal WorkersOperators, Plant/ System/UtilityMachine Setup/OperatorsWelders and SolderersMisc. Precision/ProductionEngineerScientistHealth PhysicistMisc. ProfessionalDoctors and NursesFirefightersSecurity GuardsFood Service EmployeesJanitorsMisc. ServiceTechniciansHealth TechniciansEngineering TechniciansScience TechniciansRadiation Monitors/Techs.Misc. TechniciansTruck DriversBus DriversPilotsEquipment OperatorsMisc. TransportUnknown
Exhibit A-1.Labor Categories and Occupation Codes.
1998 Report A-3DOE Reporting Sites and Reporting Codes
A.2 Organizations Reporting to DOE REMS, 1994-1998The following is a listing of all organizations reporting to the DOE REMS from 1994 to 1998. The Operations Office andSite groupings used in this report are shown in addition to the organization reporting code and name.
OrganizationCode Organization Name
Operations/Field Office Site
Albuquerque
Chicago
DOE HQ
Ops. and Other Facilities
Grand JunctionLos Alamos National Lab. (LANL)
Pantex Plant (PP)
Sandia National Lab. (SNL)
Uranium Mill Tailings RemedialAction (UMTRA) ProjectOps. and Other Facilities
Argonne Nat'l Lab. -East (ANL-E)Argonne Nat'l Lab. -West (ANL-W)Brookhaven Nat'l Lab. (BNL)Fermi Nat'l. Accelerator Lab.(FERMI)DOE Headquarters
N. Korea Project
05010010501006050200905300010531002055300205900010593001059300428060030560605054000105440030544809054490405100010514004051500205150060515009057000105750030577004057800305820040582005100050310009031001501100160610020011004031100500310007031000713100100310025031504001150450680090018009104800920480093048009401
Albuquerque Field OfficeAlbuquerque Office Subs.Albuquerque Transportation DivisionKansas City Area OfficeAllied-Signal, Inc.Martin Marietta Specialty Components Inc.WIPP Project Integration OfficeCarlsbad Area OfficeCarlsbad Area Miscellaneous ContractorsNational Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) -GOMACTEC - ERSLos Alamos Area OfficeLos Alamos National LaboratoryProtection Technologies Los AlamosJohnson Controls, Inc.Amarillo Area OfficeBattelle - PantexMason & Hanger - AmarilloM&H - Amarillo - SubcontractorsM&H - Amarillo - Security ForcesKirtland Area OfficeInhalation Toxicology ResearchRoss Aviation, Inc.Sandia National LaboratoryMK-Ferguson Subs - UMTRAMK-Ferguson Co. - UMTRAAmes Laboratory (Iowa State)Battelle Memorial Institute-Columbus (Old)Chicago Field OfficeChicago Office SubsEnvironmental Meas. Lab.New Brunswick LaboratoryPrinceton Plasma Physics LaboratoryArgonne National Laboratory - EastArgonne National Laboratory - WestBrookhaven National LaboratoryFermilabDOE HeadquartersDOE Office SubsDOE North Korea ProjectCenTech 21 - North KoreaNuclear Assurance Corp. (NAC)Pacific Northwest Lab. - KoreaU.S. Dept. of State - North Korea
’94 ’95 ’96 ’97 ’98Year Reported*
Exhibit A-2.Organizations Reporting to DOE REMS, 1994-1998.
A-4 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure
OrganizationCode Organization Name
Operations/Field Office Site
Idaho Site
Nevada Test Site (NTS)
Ops. and Other Facilities
Oak Ridge Site
Idaho
Nevada
Oak Ridge
300020930005043003003300340230035023004001300400430050043005005300501630050243005034300550530055063500000350110435013043501405350141635015033501604350200435025043502804350290435030043503504350450435060043506024350750135075143507521350753135075513508004350850435085053508703350900935095044004203400450140047044005002400900640095034005105400550540060024006007
Protection Technology - INELChem-Nuclear GeotechEG&G Idaho, Inc.Babcock & Wilcox Idaho, Inc.Westinghouse Idaho Nuclear Co.Idaho Field OfficeIdaho Office SubsLockheed Martin Idaho Tech. Co.-ServicesLockheed Martin Idaho Tech. Co.-ConstructionLMITCO Subcontractors - ConstructionLMITCO Subcontractor - ColemanLMITCO Subcontractor - ParsonsMK-Ferguson Company - IDMK-Ferguson Subcontractors - IDNevada OperationsBechtel Nevada - Amador ValleyBechtel Nevada - Los AlamosBechtel Nevada - NTSBechtel Nevada - NTS SubcontractorsBechtel Nevada - Special Technologies LabsBechtel Nevada - Washington Aerial Meas.Computer Sciences CorporationEG&G KirtlandEG&G Special Technologies LaboratoriesEG&G Washington D.C.EG&G Las VegasEG&G Los AlamosEG&G Santa BarbaraRaytheon Services - NevadaRaytheon Services SubcontractorsNevada Field OfficeNevada Miscellaneous ContractorsAir Resources LaboratoryDefense Nuclear Agency - Kirtland AFBEnvironmental Protection Agency (NERC)Nye County SheriffBechtel Nevada ServicesBechtel Nevada - NTSScience Applications Int’l. Corp. -NVWackenhut Services, Inc. - NVWestinghouse Electric Corp. - NVOak Ridge Inst. for Science & Educ. (ORISE)Oak Ridge Field OfficeBechtel National, Inc. - (FUSRAP)RMI CompanyMorrison-Knudsen (WSSRAP)Thomas Jefferson National Accel. FacilityLockheed Martin/MK-Ferguson Co.MK-Ferguson, Oak RidgeBechtel-Jacobs Co., LLC – ETTPDecontam. & Recovery Services (DRS) (K-25)
’94 ’95 ’96 ’97 ’98Year Reported*
Exhibit A-2.Organizations Reporting to DOE REMS, 1994-1998 (continued).
1998 Report A-5DOE Reporting Sites and Reporting Codes
Site
4006302400650340080024007002400250140025024002504400250680010038006103800630380030038004003800400480040098004024800500380080034500001451000145100064517003452100145210044523702452370645160024516004451600945300014539004770000177000067700007770700277070047707005770700677070097709009771100475005037500705750100475025047503005750500475050057505006750501275050137505024
Oak Ridge Site
Paducah Gas. Diff. Plant (PGDP)Portsmouth Gaseous Diff. Plant(PORTS)
Ops. and Other Facilities
Lawrence Berkeley Lab. (LBL)Lawrence Livermore Nat'l. Lab.(LLNL)
Stanford Linear Acc. Center (SLAC)Ops. and Other Facilities
Fernald Environmental
Mound Plant
West Valley Project
Rocky Flats Env. Tech. Site(RFETS)
Hanford Site
British Nuclear Fuels Limited (BNFL) (ETTP)Lockheed Martin Energy Systems (ORNL)Lockheed Martin Energy Systems (Y-12)Bechtel-Jacobs Co., LLC – PaducahLMES PortsmouthBechtel-Jacobs (Portsmouth)M.M. Portsmouth SubcontractorsM.M. Portsmouth SubcontractorsRockwell International, Rocketdyne - ETECU. of Cal./Davis, Radiobiology Lab. - LEHRU. of Cal./SF - Lab of RadiobiologyLawrence Berkeley LaboratoryLawrence Livermore National LaboratoryLLNL SubcontractorsLLNL SecurityLLNL Plant ServicesLawrence Livermore Nat'l Lab. - NevadaStanford Linear Accelerator CenterOhio Field OfficeMiamisburg Area OfficeMiamisburg Office SubsBattelle Memorial Institute - ColumbusFernald Area OfficeFernald Office Service SubcontractorsFernald Envir. Rest. Mgmt. Corp (FERMCO)FERMCO SubcontractorsBWX TechnologiesBWX Technologies - SubcontractorsBWX Technologies - Security ForcesWest Valley Area OfficeWest Valley Nuclear Services, Inc.Rocky Flats OfficeRocky Flats Office SubsRocky Flats Office SubsRocky Flats Prime ContractorsRocky Flats SubcontractorsJ.A. Jones – Rocky FlatsEG&G Rocky Flats SubcontractorsEG&G Rocky Flats Security ForcesWackenhut Services – Rocky FlatsKaiser-Hill RFETSBattelle Memorial Institute (PNL)Bechtel Power Co.Boeing Computer ServicesHanford Environmental Health FoundationKaiser Engineers Hanford - Cost Const.Fluor Daniel - HanfordFluor Daniel NorthwestFluor Daniel Northwest ServicesBabcock Wilcox HanfordBabcock Wilcox Protection, Inc.Waste Mgmt. Federal Services of Hanford
Oak Ridge
Oakland
Ohio
Rocky Flats
Richland
Operations/Field Office
OrganizationCode Organization Name ’94 ’95 ’96 ’97 ’98
Year Reported*
Exhibit A-2.Organizations Reporting to DOE REMS, 1994-1998 (continued).
A-6 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure
750502575050347505035750504475050547505055750506475050757506001750880575090047509104850050585010028501004850101485010248503001850500185055018507004850750485090038509509
600700160075046008003600900360090149004003900400590050039005004900700390070059009001
Those organizations no longer reporting radiation exposure information have either ceased operations requiring the monitoring and reporting ofradiation records, are no longer under contract or subcontract at the DOE facility, or have changed organization codes or the name of the organization.
Richland
SavannahRiver
PittsburghNavalReactorOfficeSchenectadyNavalReactorOffice
Hanford Site
Savannah River Site (SRS)
Pittsburgh Naval Reactor Office
Schenectady Naval Reactor Office
Waste Mgmt. Federal Svcs., Inc., NorthwestDuke Engineering Services HanfordDuke Engineering & Services Northwest, Inc.NUMATEC HanfordLockheed Martin HanfordLockheed Martin Services, Inc.Dyncorp HanfordSGN Eurisys Services Corp.Richland Field OfficeUS Corps of Engineers - RLWestinghouse Hanford ServicesWestinghouse Hanford Service SubsBechtel Construction - SRWestinghouse Savannah River Co.Service AmericaWestinghouse S.R. SubcontractorsDiverscoS.R. Army Corps of EngineersS.R. Forest StationSavannah River Field OfficeMiscellaneous DOE Contractors -SRSouthern Bell Tel. & Tel.Univ. of Georgia Ecology LaboratoriesWackenhut Services, Inc. - SR
Pittsburgh N.R. OfficeWestinghouse Plant Apparatus DivisionWestinghouse Electric (BAPL)Westinghouse Electric (NRF)Newport News Reactor ServicesLM-KAPL - KesselringGen. Dynam. - Kesselring - Electric BoatLM-KAPL - KnollsLM-KAPL - Knolls SubsLM-KAPL - WindsorLM-KAPL - Windsor - Electric BoatSchenectady N.R. Office
Operations/Field Office
OrganizationCode Organization NameSite
*
’94 ’95 ’96 ’97 ’98Year Reported*
Not included in this report (see Appendix D)
Exhibit A-2.Organizations Reporting to DOE REMS, 1994-1998 (continued).
1998 Report A-7DOE Reporting Sites and Reporting Codes
A.3 Facility Type CodesThe following is the list of facility type codes re-ported to REMS in accordance with DOE Manual231.1-1 [12]. A facility type code is reported witheach individual’s dose record indicating the facil-ity type where the majority of the individual’s dosewas accrued during the monitoring year.
See complete Facility Type descriptions shown inAppendix C.
Facility TypeCode Description
10
21
22
23
40
50
61
62
70
80
99
Accelerator
Fuel/Uranium Enrichment
Fuel Fabrication
Fuel Processing
Maintenance and Support (Site Wide)
Reactor
Research, General
Research, Fusion
Waste Processing/Mgmt.
Weapons Fab. and Testing
Other
Exhibit A-3.Facility Type Codes.
A-8 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure
Exhibit A-4.Phase of Operation - Lifecycle for a DOE Facility.
A.4 Phase of OperationIn addition to the Facility Type listing that hasbeen reported in the past, the DOE Office ofEnvironment, Safety and Health is interested inobtaining information on the operational status ofthese facilities. This information will be codifiedin terms of a Phase of Operation to describe theoperating status of a facility. The listing thatfollows covers each of the phases of operationfrom construction to the final stage ofsurveillance and maintenance once a site hasundergone environmental restoration.
The phase of operation will be recorded for thecalendar year for which the phase of operation ismost appropriate. For facilities that transitionbetween phases during a year, the phase that isappropriate for the majority of the calendar yearshould be recorded. The Phase of Operation will
be recorded and submitted along with the FacilityType as part of the monitored individual’s doserecord. Reporting format and specifications willbe included in subsequent revisions to DOEM231.1-1 [12].
Each DOE facility falls into one of the Phase ofOperations shown in Exhibit A-4. In general, eachphase follows in sequential order, although afacility may forgo one or more phases or may notfollow the order listed here.
This is the proposed table for the phases ofoperation of DOE facilities. Please submitcomments, additions, or revisions to this table, toEH-52 (see Appendix E for address). If end usersfeel this additional supporting information will beuseful to them, then DOE M231.1-1 [12] will be somodified.
Definition
New facilities that are brought on line to replace or augment existingfacilities. This phase includes major renovations for existing facilitiesbut does not include environmental restoration construction.
Includes the operations and maintenance of the reported Facility Type.
Facilities that have been declared to be surplus (assigned to theenvironment restoration program). This includes facilities where alloperations have been suspended but environmental restoration activitieshave not begun. This may include periods of surveillance andmaintenance prior to environmental restoration activities.
Construction(includes MajorRenovation)
Operation/Maintenance
Stabilization
A
B
C
CodePhase of
Operation
Period during which corrective actions that are necessary to bring thefacility into regulatory compliance are being performed.
Decontamination is the act of removing a chemical, biological, orradiologic contaminant from, or neutralizing its potential effect on, aperson, object or environment by washing, chemical action, mechanicalcleaning, or other techniques. Decommissioning is the process ofclosing and securing a facility.
This phase includes the management of wastes generated during theenvironment restoration process. (D,E)
This phase includes those activities that provide for the safety andprotection of a facility after the environmental restoration phase.
All DOE facilities should fit into one of the above categories. "Other"should be used only in highly unusual circumstance.
Remediation
DecontaminationandDecommissioning
Waste Management
Surveillance andMaintenance
Other
Envi
ron
men
tal
Rest
ora
tion
Ph
ases D
E
F
G
Z
1998 Report B-1Additional Data
Appendix BAdditional Data BA
dditional Data
B-1a Operations Office/Site Dose Data (1996) ........................................................................................................... B-2B-1b Operations Office/Site Dose Data (1997) ........................................................................................................... B-3B-1c Operations Office/Site Dose Data (1998) ........................................................................................................... B-4B-2 Internal Dose by Operations/Site, 1996-1998 ...................................................................................................... B-5B-3 Neutron Dose Distribution by Operations/Site, 1998 ......................................................................................... B-6B-4 Distribution of Deep Dose Equivalent (DDE) and Total Effective Dose Equivalent
(TEDE), 1974-1998 .................................................................................................................................................. B-7B-5 Collective TEDE and Average Measurable Dose 1974-1998 .............................................................................. B-8B-6 Number with Measurable Dose and Average Measurable Dose 1974-1998 .................................................... B-9B-7a Distribution of TEDE by Facility Type - 1996 ....................................................................................................... B-10B-7b Distribution of TEDE by Facility Type - 1997 ....................................................................................................... B-11B-7c Distribution of TEDE by Facility Type - 1998 ....................................................................................................... B-12B-8a Collective TEDE by Facility Type, 1996 ................................................................................................................. B-13B-8b Collective TEDE by Facility Type, 1997 ................................................................................................................. B-14B-8c Collective TEDE by Facility Type, 1998 ................................................................................................................. B-15B-9 Distribution of TEDE by Facility Type Listed in Descending Order of
Average Measurable TEDE for Accelerator Facilities, 1998 .............................................................................. B-16B-10 Distribution of TEDE by Facility Type Listed in Descending Order of Average
Measurable TEDE for Fuel Facilities, 1998 ........................................................................................................... B-17B-11 Distribution of TEDE by Facility Type Listed in Descending Order of Average
Measurable TEDE for Maintenance and Support, 1998 ..................................................................................... B-19B-12 Distribution of TEDE by Facility Type Listed in Descending Order of
Average Measurable TEDE for Reactor Facilities, 1998...................................................................................... B-21B-13 Distribution of TEDE by Facility Type Listed in Descending Order of Average
Measurable TEDE for Research, General, 1998 .................................................................................................. B-22B-14 Distribution of TEDE by Facility Type Listed in Descending Order of Average
Measurable TEDE for Research, Fusion, 1998 .................................................................................................... B-24B-15 Distribution of TEDE by Facility Type Listed in Descending Order of Average
Measurable TEDE for Waste Processing, 1998 ..................................................................................................... B-25B-16 Distribution of TEDE by Facility Type Listed in Descending Order of Average
Measurable TEDE for Weapons Fabrication, 1998 .............................................................................................. B-27B-17 Distribution of TEDE by Facility Type Listed in Descending Order of Average
Measurable TEDE for Other, 1998 ......................................................................................................................... B-28B-18 Internal Dose by Facility Type and Nuclide, 1996-1998 ..................................................................................... B-31B-19a Distribution of TEDE by Labor Category, 1996 .................................................................................................... B-32B-19b Distribution of TEDE by Labor Category, 1997 .................................................................................................... B-33B-19c Distribution of TEDE by Labor Category, 1998 .................................................................................................... B-34B-20 Internal Dose by Labor Category, 1996-1998 ....................................................................................................... B-35B-21 Dose Distribution by Labor Category and Occupation, 1998 ........................................................................... B-36B-22 Internal Dose Distribution by Site and Nuclide, 1998 ........................................................................................ B-37B-23 Extremity Dose Distribution by Operations/Site, 1998 ....................................................................................... B-38
Additional Data
Page
B-2
B-1a: Operations Office/Site Dose Data (1996)
Albuquerque
Chicago
DOE HQ
Idaho
Nevada
Oakland
Oak Ridge
Ohio
Rocky Flats
Richland
Savannah
River
Totals
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
3.6
184.1
28.1
16.7
0.4
13.5
18.5
43.6
116.8
16.2
0.3
13.3
164.1
1.0
0.0
4.6
14.9
19.3
11.9
88.6
18.6
29.9
0.0
27.4
20.1
11.2
267.6
265.7
251.8
1,652.0
Ops. and Other Facilities
Los Alamos Nat'l. Lab. (LANL)
Pantex Plant (PP)
Sandia Nat'l. Lab. (SNL)
Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action
(UMTRA) Project
Ops. and Other Facilities
Argonne Nat'l. Lab. - East (ANL-E)
Argonne Nat'l. Lab. - West (ANL-W)
Brookhaven Nat'l. Lab. (BNL)
Fermi Nat'l. Accelerator Lab. (FERMI)
DOE Headquarters (includes DNFSB)
North Korea Project
Idaho Site
Nevada Test Site (NTS)
Ops. and Other Facilities
Lawrence Berkeley Lab. (LBL)
Lawrence Livermore Nat'l. Lab. (LLNL)
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC)
Ops. and Other Facilities
Oak Ridge Site
Paducah Gaseous Diff. Plant (PGDP)
Portsmouth Gaseous Diff. Plant (PORTS)
Ops. and Other Facilities
Fernald Environmental Mgmt. Project
Mound Plant
West Valley Project
Rocky Flats Env. Tech. Site (RFETS)
Hanford Site
Savannah River Site (SRS)
Note: Boxed values indicate the greatest value in each column.
Operations/Field Office
Collective TEDE
(person-rem)
Percent Change
from 1995
Num
ber with
Meas. D
ose
Percent Change
from 1995
Avg. Meas.TED
E
(rem)
Percent Change
from 1995
Percentage of
Collective TEDE
above 0.500 rem
Percent Change
from 1995Site
126%
-22%
-24%
51%
-67%
106%
-50%
16%
-20%
21%
180%
-
-42%
120%
-99%
3%
15%
-4%
93%
15%
106%
9%
0%
-10%
216%
-59%
3%
-9%
-1%
-10%
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
37
1,984
327
485
26
182
202
331
1,448
538
6
36
1,299
19
6
100
187
312
200
1,582
290
758
5
804
403
231
3,430
2,761
4,736
22,725
-8%
-23%
-1%
41%
-55%
35%
-32%
-1%
49%
14%
-25%
-
-13%
111%
-70%
32%
18%
32%
20%
-12%
29%
-53%
0%
-16%
130%
-26%
0%
10%
-2%
-4%
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
0.098
0.093
0.086
0.034
0.016
0.074
0.092
0.132
0.081
0.030
0.044
0.370
0.126
0.054
0.003
0.046
0.080
0.062
0.060
0.056
0.064
0.039
0.007
0.034
0.050
0.048
0.078
0.096
0.053
0.073
144%
2%
-23%
7%
-27%
53%
-27%
17%
-46%
6%
273%
-
-33%
4%
-95%
-21%
-2%
-28%
61%
31%
60%
133%
0%
7%
37%
-44%
3%
-17%
1%
-7%
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
28%
-5%
-11%
25%
-
4%
-5%
8%
7%
4%
-
-
-10%
-
-
-89%
-47%
1%
33%
-114%
-
8%
-
6%
-4%
-22%
-295%
-44%
-19%
-5%
28%
44%
13%
25%
0%
4%
31%
18%
40%
4%
0%
78%
52%
0%
0%
0%
24%
3%
33%
21%
0%
12%
0%
6%
41%
6%
8%
18%
21%
25%
1996
1998 Report B-3Additional Data
Albuquerque
Chicago
DOE HQ
Idaho
Nevada
Oakland
Oak Ridge
Ohio
Rocky Flats
Richland
Savannah
River
Totals
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
0.5
192.2
11.1
9.7
0.3
3.4
19.0
18.9
68.9
25.0
0.2
8.3
115.3
1.3
1.4
5.2
22.1
14.2
6.6
77.7
2.5
0.2
1.2
18.4
5.8
6.9
323.2
235.4
165.3
1,360.1
Ops. and Other Facilities
Los Alamos Nat'l. Lab. (LANL)
Pantex Plant (PP)
Sandia Nat'l. Lab. (SNL)
Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action
(UMTRA) Project
Ops. and Other Facilities
Argonne Nat'l. Lab. - East (ANL-E)
Argonne Nat'l. Lab. - West (ANL-W)
Brookhaven Nat'l. Lab. (BNL)
Fermi Nat'l. Accelerator Lab. (FERMI)
DOE Headquarters (includes DNFSB)
North Korea Project
Idaho Site
Nevada Test Site (NTS)
Ops. and Other Facilities
Lawrence Berkeley Lab. (LBL)
Lawrence Livermore Nat'l. Lab. (LLNL)
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC)
Ops. and Other Facilities
Oak Ridge Site
Paducah Gaseous Diff. Plant (PGDP)
Portsmouth Gaseous Diff. Plant (PORTS)
Ops. and Other Facilities
Fernald Environmental Mgmt. Project
Mound Plant
West Valley Project
Rocky Flats Env. Tech. Site (RFETS)
Hanford Site
Savannah River Site (SRS)
Note: Boxed values indicate the greatest value in each column.
Operations/Field Office
Collective TEDE
(person-rem)
Percent Change
from 1996
Num
ber with
Meas. D
ose
Percent Change
from 1996
Avg. Meas.TED
E
(rem)
Percent Change
from 1996
Percentage of Coll.
TEDE above
0.500 rem
Percent Change
from 1996Site
-86%
4%
-61%
-42%
-31%
75%
3%
-57%
-41%
54%
-23%
-38%
-30%
32%
7,806%
13%
48%
-26%
-45%
-12%
-87%
-99%
3,263%
-33%
-71%
-38%
21%
-11%
-34%
-18%
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
25
2,333
213
196
36
105
238
249
1,463
859
5
24
1,141
25
50
128
190
117
135
1,614
36
3
31
520
197
174
3,187
2,058
3,327
18,679
-32%
18%
-35%
-60%
38%
42%
18%
-25%
1%
60%
-17%
-33%
-12%
32%
733%
28%
2%
-63%
-33%
2%
-88%
-100%
520%
-35%
-51%
-25%
-7%
-25%
-30%
-18%
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
0.020
0.082
0.052
0.049
0.008
0.032
0.080
0.076
0.047
0.029
0.041
0.344
0.101
0.054
0.028
0.041
0.116
0.121
0.049
0.048
0.069
0.079
0.038
0.035
0.029
0.040
0.101
0.114
0.050
0.073
-80%
-11%
-39%
44%
-50%
-55%
-13%
-42%
-42%
-4%
-8%
-7%
-20%
0%
849%
-12%
45%
95%
-18%
-14%
7%
100%
442%
4%
-41%
-18%
30%
19%
-7%
0%
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
-28%
-
-13%
11%
-
-4%
-11%
-15%
-26%
1%
-
-7%
-28%
-
-
-
25%
13%
-8%
-7%
-
-12%
-
-3%
-41%
2%
6%
19%
-9%
-2%
0%
44%
0%
35%
0%
0%
21%
3%
14%
5%
0%
71%
24%
0%
0%
0%
49%
17%
25%
14%
0%
0%
0%
3%
0%
8%
14%
37%
12%
23%
1997
B-1b: Operations Office/Site Dose Data (1997)
B-4 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure
B-1c: Operations Office/Site Dose Data (1998)
0.019
0.084
0.055
0.053
0.132
0.028
0.097
0.092
0.060
0.029
0.014
0.388
0.087
0.077
0.023
0.038
0.065
0.084
0.020
0.047
0.078
0.016
0.310
0.024
0.012
0.070
0.106
0.102
0.052
0.074
Albuquerque
Chicago
DOE HQ
Idaho
Nevada
Oakland
Oak Ridge
Ohio
Rocky Flats
Richland
SavannahRiver
Totals
▼
▼
▲
▼
▼
▼
▲
▼
▼
▼
▼
▼
▼
▼
▼
▼
▼
▼
▲
▲
▲
▲
▼
▼
▲
▲
▼
▲
▼
0.2
161.6
17.2
9.5
38.9
1.2
17.7
21.7
63.0
12.8
0.0
5.4
64.9
1.0
1.0
2.9
6.9
13.1
3.8
102.7
5.3
0.2
24.1
13.3
1.3
18.2
348.1
180.9
165.5
1,302.7
Ops. and Other Facilities
Los Alamos Nat'l. Lab. (LANL)
Pantex Plant (PP)
Sandia Nat'l. Lab. (SNL)
Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) Project*
Grand Junction
Ops. and Other Facilities
Argonne Nat'l. Lab. - East (ANL-E)
Argonne Nat'l. Lab. - West (ANL-W)
Brookhaven Nat'l. Lab. (BNL)
Fermi Nat'l. Accelerator Lab. (FERMI)
DOE Headquarters (includes DNFSB)
North Korea Project
Idaho Site
Nevada Test Site (NTS)
Ops. and Other Facilities
Lawrence Berkeley Lab. (LBL)
Lawrence Livermore Nat'l. Lab. (LLNL)
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC)
Ops. and Other Facilities
Oak Ridge Site
Paducah Gaseous Diff. Plant (PGDP)
Portsmouth Gaseous Diff. Plant (PORTS)
Ops. and Other Facilities
Fernald Environmental Mgmt. Project
Mound Plant
West Valley Project
Rocky Flats Env. Tech. Site (RFETS)
Hanford Site
Savannah River Site (SRS)
Note: Boxed values indicate the greatest value in each column.
Operations/Field Office
Collective TEDE
(person-rem)
Percent Change
from 1997
Num
ber with
Meas. D
ose
Percent Change
from 1997
Avg. Meas.TED
E
(rem)
Percent Change
from 1997
Percentage of Coll.
TEDE above
0.500 rem
Percent Change
from 1997Site
1998
-57%
-16%
56%
-2%
-64%
-7%
15%
-9%
-49%
-86%
-34%
-44%
-26%
-28%
-45%
-69%
-7%
-42%
32%
113%
2%
1,951%
-27%
-78%
162%
8%
-23%
0%
-4%
▼
▼
▲
▼
▼
▼
▼
▼
▼
▼
▼
▼
▼
▼
▼
▼
▼
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▼
▲
▲
▼
▼
▼
11
1,916
312
181
295
44
182
236
1,055
441
2
14
743
13
45
76
107
157
195
2,187
68
15
78
559
106
260
3,298
1,772
3,163
17,531
-56%
-18%
46%
-8%
-58%
-24%
-5%
-28%
-49%
-60%
-42%
-35%
-48%
-10%
-41%
-44%
34%
44%
36%
89%
400%
152%
8%
-46%
49%
3%
-14%
-5%
-6%
▼
▲
▲
▲
▼
▲
▲
▲
▼
▼
▲
▼
▲
▼
▼
▼
▼
▼
▼
▲
▼
▲
▼
▼
▲
▲
▼
▲
▲
-3%
2%
6%
6%
-14%
22%
21%
27%
0%
-66%
13%
-14%
43%
-20%
-7%
-44%
-31%
-60%
-2%
13%
-80%
715%
-33%
-59%
76%
4%
-11%
5%
2%
▼
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▼
▼
▼
▼
▼
▼
▲
▲
▼
▼
▲
▼
▲
▼
0%
39%
8%
42%
17%
0%
22%
5%
20%
0%
0%
64%
12%
0%
0%
0%
36%
0%
0%
28%
0%
0%
68%
0%
0%
4%
20%
18%
13%
21%
-
-5%
8%
6%
-
17%
-
1%
2%
6%
-5%
-
-7%
-13%
-
-
-
-13%
-17%
-25%
14%
-
-
68%
-3%
-
-4%
6%
-19%
1%
-2%
* Ceased operations requiring monitoring as of 1/1/98.
1998 Report B-5Additional Data
B-2:
Int
erna
l Dos
e by
Ope
rati
ons/
Site
, 199
6 -
1998 1
99
8
Op
s. a
nd
Fac
ilitie
s9
6-
0.0
85
0.0
85
-0
.00
90
.01
4-
LAN
L9
07
68
05
.28
71
0.4
81
2.7
81
0.0
59
0.1
38
0.0
35
Pan
tex
73
40
.01
60
.00
30
.00
40
.00
20
.00
10
.00
1
Gra
nd
Ju
nct
ion
--
28
0-
-3
3.8
40
--
0.1
21
Op
s. a
nd
Oth
er F
acili
ties
91
51
20
0.4
74
0.1
26
0.2
40
0.0
05
0.0
02
0.0
12
AN
L-E
13
12
43
0.3
01
0.3
22
1.1
50
0.0
23
0.0
27
0.0
27
AN
L-W
-1
1-
0.0
70
0.0
70
-0
.07
00
.07
0
BN
L7
26
65
82
.96
22
.28
20
.62
30
.04
10
.03
50
.01
1
Idah
o S
ite1
72
76
13
.72
92
7.9
28
0.0
16
0.2
19
0.1
01
0.0
16
NTS
-4
8-
0.4
73
0.3
83
-0
.11
80
.04
8
LBL
29
60
.11
20
.23
80
.31
00
.05
60
.02
60
.05
2
LLN
L6
14
60
.01
34
.05
50
.04
10
.00
20
.29
00
.00
7
Op
s. a
nd
Oth
er F
acili
ties
27
47
33
6.8
02
4.1
85
0.3
01
0.2
52
0.0
89
0.0
09
Oak
Rid
ge
Site
39
97
00
1,2
81
4.6
61
8.2
34
35
.26
30
.01
20
.01
20
.02
8
Pad
uca
h4
01
10
.65
10
.02
30
.01
20
.01
60
.02
30
.01
2
Port
smo
uth
11
22
-8
.62
80
.00
3-
0.0
77
0.0
02
-
OH
12
9-
0.0
04
0.0
62
-0
.00
40
.00
2
Fern
ald
65
24
18
1.0
50
0.2
31
0.0
83
0.0
16
0.0
10
0.0
05
Mo
un
d P
lan
t7
21
03
97
0.3
55
0.5
43
0.9
65
0.0
05
0.0
05
0.0
10
WV
NS
-1
--
0.0
49
--
0.0
49
-
Rock
y Fl
ats
27
43
31
1.7
36
2.7
48
3.9
86
0.0
64
0.0
64
0.1
29
Han
ford
Site
22
71
10
.82
20
.44
61
.79
20
.03
70
.06
40
.16
3
Sava
nn
ah R
iver
Site
52
84
67
45
71
5.8
40
2.8
26
2.2
85
0.0
30
0.0
06
0.0
05
1,5
99
1,9
14
2,4
65
53
.52
46
5.3
55
84
.20
70
.03
30
.03
40
.03
4
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
96
19
97
19
96
19
97
19
98
Site
Oper
ati
ons/
Fie
ld O
ffic
e
No.
of
Indiv
iduals
wit
h N
ew
In
takes*
Collect
ive C
ED
ED
ose
fro
m I
nta
ke
(pers
on
-rem
)
Avera
ge C
ED
E(r
em
)
Faci
litie
s w
ith n
o n
ew in
take
s re
po
rted
du
rin
g t
he
pas
t 3
yea
rs:
San
dia
, U
MTR
A,
Ferm
i Lab
, D
OE-
HQ
, O
akla
nd
Op
s.,
SLA
C.
No
te:
Arr
ow
ed v
alu
es in
dic
ate
the
gre
ates
t va
lue
in e
ach
co
lum
n.
* O
nly
incl
ud
es in
take
s th
at o
ccu
rred
du
rin
g t
he
mo
nito
rin
g y
ear.
Ind
ivid
ual
s m
ay b
e co
un
ted
mo
re t
han
on
ce.
Alb
uq
uer
qu
e
Ch
icag
o
Idah
o
Nev
ada
Oak
lan
d
Oak
Rid
ge
Oh
io
Rock
y Fl
ats
Rich
lan
d
Sava
nnah
Riv
er
Tota
ls
In 1
99
8 G
ran
d J
un
ctio
n r
epo
rted
inte
rnal
do
se a
s an
ind
ivid
ual
fac
ility
– in
19
97
th
ey r
epo
rted
th
rou
gh
Idah
o.
Th
e Id
aho
inte
r nal
do
se d
rop
ped
in 1
99
8 a
s a
r esu
lt.
B-6 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure
B-3:
Neu
tron
Dos
e D
istr
ibut
ion
by O
pera
tion
s/Si
te, 1
998
Opera
tion
s
Avera
ge
Meas.
Neutr
on
Dose
(re
m)
Tota
l M
on
itore
dSi
te
Rep
rese
nts
th
e to
tal n
um
ber
of
mo
nito
rin
g r
eco
rds.
Th
e n
um
ber
of
ind
ivid
ual
s sp
ecifi
cally
mo
nito
red
fo
r n
eutr
on
rad
iatio
n c
ann
ot
be
det
erm
ined
.
No M
eas.
Dose
Meas.
<0
.10
.1-
0.2
50
.25
-0
.50
.5-
0.7
50
.75
-1
.01
-2>
2
No.
of
Indiv
idual
sw
ith
Mea
s.D
ose
*
% o
fIn
div
idual
sw
ith
Mea
s.D
ose
Collect
ive
Neutr
on
Dose
(per
son-rem
)
Alb
uq
uer
qu
e
Ch
icag
o
DO
E H
Q
Idah
o
Nev
ada
Oak
lan
d
Oak
Rid
ge
Oh
io
Rock
y Fl
ats
Rich
lan
d
Sava
nn
ah
Alb
uque
rque
Gra
nd
Jun
ctio
nLo
s A
lam
os N
atio
nal
Lab
. (LA
NL)
Pan
tex
Plan
t (P
P)Sa
nd
ia N
atio
nal
Lab
. (SN
L)
Ch
icag
o O
pera
tion
sA
rgon
ne
Nat
'l. L
ab. -
Eas
t (A
NL-
E)A
rgon
ne
Nat
'l. L
ab. -
Wes
t (A
NL-
W)
Broo
khav
en N
at'l.
Lab
. (BN
L)Fe
rmi N
at'l.
Acc
eler
ator
Lab
. (FE
RMI)
DO
E H
ead
quar
ters
Nor
th K
orea
Pro
ject
Idah
o Si
te
Nev
ada
Test
Site
(NTS
)
Oak
lan
d O
pera
tion
sLa
wre
nce
Ber
kele
y La
b.(L
BL)
Law
ren
ce L
iver
mor
e N
at'l.
Lab
. (LL
NL)
Stan
ford
Lin
ear
Acc
eler
ator
Cen
ter
(SLA
C)
Oak
Rid
ge
Ope
ratio
ns
Oak
Rid
ge
Site
Pad
ucah
Gas
eous
Diff
. Pla
nt
(PG
DP)
Port
smou
th G
aseo
us D
iff. P
lan
t (P
ORT
S)
Oh
io F
ield
Offi
ceFe
rnal
d E
nvi
ron
men
tal M
gm
t. P
roje
ctM
oun
d P
lan
tW
est
Valle
y
Rock
y Fl
ats
Env.
Tec
h. S
ite (R
FETS
)
Han
ford
Site
Sava
nn
ah R
iver
Site
(SRS
)
Tota
ls
714
304
9,54
85,
764
3,45
3
520
2,87
685
55,
167
2,06
6 2 24
5,03
0
4,89
1
282
1,95
47,
682
2,28
2
2,55
914
,768 50
817
6
468
4,33
892
51,
115
5,21
2
10,1
92
10,2
97
10
3,9
72
3 31,
388 70 9 -
51 741
7 - 2 -
44 2 -38 32
- -84 16
- - - 3 -
767
210
534
3,6
80
- -13
9 5 - -11 3 10
- - - 1 - - - 4 1 -25 6 - - - - -
266 30 128
62
9
- -60
- - - - - 2 - - - - - - - - - - 7 - - - - - -
64 5 17
15
5
- -16
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7 - - - - - - 9 2 -
34
- - 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 - 4
- - 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 - - - - - - - - - 8
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0
717
307
11,1
595,
839
3,46
2
520
2,93
886
55,
596
2,06
6 4 24
5,07
5
4,89
3
282
1,99
27,
718
2,28
3
2,55
91
4,8
93
530
176
468
4,33
892
81,
115
6,31
8
10,4
41
10,9
76
10
8,4
82
3 31
,61
1 75 9 -62 10 42
9 - 2 -
45 2 -38 36 1 -
125 22- - - 3 -
1,10
6
249
679
4,5
10
0% 1% 14% 1% 0% 0% 2% 1% 8% 0%
50
% 0% 1% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 1% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 18% 2% 6% 4%
0.08
00.
186
87.8
182.
994
0.14
7 -2.
805
0.65
77.
373 -
0.02
8 -
1.73
9
0.05
5 -1.
194
1.64
80.
122 -
15.0
801.
691 - - -
0.04
3 -
99
.63
1
15.6
46
44.1
41
28
3.0
78
0.02
70.
062
0.05
50.
040
0.01
6 -0.
045
0.06
60.
017 -
0.01
4 -
0.03
9
0.02
8 -0.
031
0.04
60
.12
2 -0.
121
0.07
7 - - -0.
014 -
0.09
0
0.06
3
0.06
5
0.0
63
*
Plu
ton
ium
pac
kag
ing
an
d p
r oce
ssin
g a
t Ro
cky
Flat
s ac
cou
nte
d f
or
the
larg
est
colle
ctiv
e n
eutr
on
do
se in
19
98
.
1998 Report B-7Additional Data
B-4:
D
istr
ibut
ion
of D
eep
Dos
e Eq
uiva
lent
(DD
E) a
nd T
otal
Eff
ecti
ve D
ose
Equi
vale
nt (T
EDE)
, 197
4-19
98
Deep D
ose
Equiv
ale
nt
(DD
E)
Nu
mb
er o
f In
div
idu
als
Rece
ivin
g R
adia
tion
Do
ses
in E
ach
Do
se R
ang
e (r
em)
Note
: A
rrow
ed v
alues
ind
icat
e th
e g
reat
est v
alue
in e
ach
colu
mn
.*
19
90
-19
92
TED
E=D
DE+
AED
E 1
99
3-1
99
8 T
EDE=
DD
E+C
EDE
Year
Less
th
an
Meas.
Meas.
-11
-22
-33
-44
-55
-66
-77
-88
-99
-10
11
-12
>1
21
0-1
1To
tal
Mon
itore
dN
o.
wit
hM
eas.
DD
EColl. D
DE
(per
son
-rem
)A
vg. M
eas.
DD
E
Tota
l Eff
ect
ive D
ose
Equiv
ale
nt
(TED
E)*
Year
Less
th
an
Meas.
Meas.
-11
-22
-33
-44
-55
-66
-77
-88
-99
-10
11
-12
>1
21
0-1
1To
tal
Mon
itore
dN
o.
wit
hM
eas.
TED
EColl. TE
DE
(per
son
-rem
)A
vg. M
eas.
TED
E
19
90
71
,99
13
5,7
80
22
64
78
81
21
1
10
8,0
65
36
,07
43
,05
20
.08
5
19
91
8
8,4
44
31
,08
61
93
25
98
21
21
19
,77
03
1,3
26
2,5
74
0.0
82
19
92
9
4,2
97
2
9,2
40
1
32
22
96
21
11
12
3,7
11
29
,41
42
,29
50
.07
8
19
93
10
1,9
47
2
5,0
02
87
21
12
12
7,0
42
25
,09
51
,64
40
.06
6
19
94
91
,12
1 2
5,3
10
79
11
16
,51
12
5,3
90
1,6
43
0.0
65
19
95
10
3,6
63
23
,45
41
57
11
12
7,2
76
23
,61
31
,84
50
.07
8
19
96
10
0,5
99
22
,64
18
02
11
12
3,3
24
22
,72
51
,65
20
.07
3
19
97
88
,50
21
8,6
27
48
12
11
07
,18
11
8,6
75
1,3
56
0.0
73
19
98
90
,95
11
7,4
89
41
11
08
,48
21
7,5
31
1,3
03
0.0
74
19
74
37
,06
02
9,7
35
1,5
31
65
21
49
40
4
69
,17
13
2,1
11
10
,20
20
.31
8
19
75
41
,39
03
6,7
95
1,4
37
54
11
22
28
1
8
0,3
14
38
,92
49
,20
20
.23
6
19
76
38
,40
84
1,3
21
1,2
96
38
77
06
1
8
1,4
89
43
,08
18
,93
80
.20
7
19
77
41
,57
24
4,7
30
1,4
99
54
01
03
23
12
2
8
8,4
72
46
,90
01
0,1
99
0.2
17
19
78
43
,31
75
1,4
44
1,3
11
43
95
31
1
9
6,5
75
53
,25
89
,39
00
.17
6
19
79
48
,52
94
8,5
53
1,2
81
41
63
31
01
2
9
8,8
25
50
,29
68
,69
10
.17
3
19
80
43
,66
33
5,3
85
1,1
13
38
71
6
8
0,5
64
36
,90
17
,76
00
.21
0
19
81
43
,77
53
3,2
51
96
72
63
29
5
78
,29
03
4,5
15
7,2
23
0.2
09
19
82
47
,42
03
0,9
88
99
03
13
56
28
79
,79
5
32
,37
57
,53
80
.23
3
19
83
48
,34
03
2,8
42
1,2
25
29
44
93
1
8
2,7
81
34
,44
17
,72
00
.22
4
19
84
46
,05
63
8,8
21
1,2
23
31
23
11
1
86
,45
44
0,3
98
8,1
13
0.2
01
19
85
54
,58
23
4,3
17
1,3
62
35
65
18
1
9
0,6
77
36
,09
58
,34
00
.23
1
19
86
53
,58
63
3,6
71
1,2
79
34
93
51
11
88
,92
33
5,3
37
8
,09
50
.22
9
19
87
45
,24
12
8,9
95
1,2
10
28
33
6
7
5,7
65
30
,52
4
6,0
56
0.1
98
19
88
48
,70
42
7,4
92
50
23
4
7
6,7
32
28
,02
8
3,7
35
0.1
33
19
89
56
,36
32
8,9
25
42
82
1
85
,73
72
9,3
74
3
,15
10
.10
7
19
90
76
,79
83
1,1
10
14
01
7
10
8,0
65
31
,26
7
2,2
30
0.0
71
19
91
92
,52
62
7,1
49
95
1
19
,77
0 2
7,2
44
1,7
62
0.0
65
19
92
98
,90
02
4,7
69
42
12
3,7
11
24
,81
1
1,5
04
0.0
61
19
93
10
3,9
05
23
,05
08
61
1
27
,04
22
3,1
37
1,5
34
0.0
66
19
94
92
,24
52
4,1
89
77
11
6,5
11
24
,26
6
1,6
00
0.0
66
19
95
10
4,7
93
22
,33
01
53
12
7,2
76
22
,48
31
,80
90
.08
0
19
96
10
1,5
29
21
,72
07
41
12
3,3
24
21
,79
51
,59
80
.07
3
19
97
89
,80
51
7,3
31
45
10
7,1
81
17
,37
61
,28
50
.07
4
19
98
92
,79
01
5,6
56
36
10
8,4
82
15
,69
21
,21
80
.07
8
Du
rin
g 1
99
8 o
nly
on
e p
erso
n r
ecei
ved
a T
EDE
gre
ater
th
an 2
rem
. It
was
th
e r e
sult
of
inte
rnal
plu
ton
ium
at
Rock
y Fl
ats.
B-8 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure
B-5:
Co
llect
ive
TED
E an
d A
vera
ge M
easu
rabl
e D
ose
1974
-199
8
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
0
2,00
0
4,00
0
6,00
0
8,00
0
10,0
00
12,0
00
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
Collective Dose* (person-rem)
Average Measurable Dose* (rem)
Year
Col
lect
ive
Dos
e* (
pers
on-r
em)
Ave
rage
Mea
s. D
ose*
(re
m)
*19
74-1
990
Col
lect
ive
Dos
e=D
DE
1990
-199
2 C
olle
ctiv
e D
ose=
DD
E+A
ED
E
1993
-199
8 C
olle
ctiv
e D
ose=
DD
E+C
ED
E
1998 Report B-9Additional Data
B-6:
N
umbe
r w
ith
Mea
sura
ble
Dos
e an
d A
vera
ge M
easu
rabl
e D
ose
1974
-199
8
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
0
10,0
00
20,0
00
30,0
00
40,0
00
50,0
00
60,0
00
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
Number with Measurable Dose*
Average Measurable Dose* (rem)
Year
Num
ber
with
Mea
sura
ble
Dos
e
Ave
rage
Mea
s. D
ose*
(re
m)
* 1
974-
1990
Col
lect
ive
Dos
e=D
DE
1
990-
1992
Col
lect
ive
Dos
e=D
DE
+AE
DE
1
993-
1998
Col
lect
ive
Dos
e=D
DE
+CE
DE
1995
1996
1997
1998
B-10 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure
B-7a
: D
istr
ibut
ion
of T
EDE
by F
acili
ty T
ype
- 19
96
Tota
l Eff
ect
ive D
ose
Equiv
ale
nt
(TED
E)
Nu
mb
er o
f In
div
idu
als
Rece
ivin
g R
adia
tion
Do
ses
in E
ach
Do
se R
ang
e (r
em)
Note
: A
rrow
ed v
alues
ind
icat
e th
e g
reat
est v
alue
in e
ach
colu
mn
.
Faci
lity
Type
Less
th
anM
eas.
0.1
0-
0.2
5M
eas.
0-1
01
-22
-33
-4To
tal
Mon
itore
d
Perc
ent
ofM
onit
ored
wit
h M
eas.
TED
E
Avg
.M
eas.
TED
E(r
em)
0.2
5-
0.5
00
.50
-0
.75
0.7
5-
1.0
04
-5>5
No.
wit
hM
eas.
TED
E
Colle
ctiv
eTE
DE
(per
son
-rem
)
Acc
eler
ato
r
Fuel
/Ura
n. En
rich
.
Fuel
Fab
rica
tion
Fuel
Pro
cess
ing
Mai
nt.
an
d S
up
po
rt
Oth
er
Reac
tor
Rese
arch
, G
ener
al
Rese
arch
, Fu
sio
n
Was
te P
roc.
/Mg
mt.
Wea
po
ns
Fab
. &
Tes
t
Tota
ls
5 1 12 9 17 29 1 6
80
11,2
93
9,30
8
3,16
4
4,13
2
17,1
12
24
,17
9
2,34
9
20,9
61 819
9,43
8
20,5
69
12
3,3
24
152.
025
38.3
01
28.9
70
151.
224
195.
230
168.
074
56.1
19
295.
711
11.3
66
142.
080
41
2.8
30
1,6
51
.93
0
0.06
5
0.04
2
0.03
4
0.1
01
0.06
8
0.06
7
0.06
2
0.09
6
0.07
0
0.05
9
0.08
1
0.0
73
2,34
5
908
864
1,49
8
2,88
6
2,51
4
912
3,09
5
163
2,42
2
5,1
18
22
,72
5
21%
10%
27%
36%
17%
10%
39
%
15%
20%
26%
25%
18
%
1 1 2
20 2 13 7 13 2 20 2 2 18 99
40 1 3 36 30 49 10 73 2 14 81
33
9
65 20 14 96
14
8
82
47
19
9 7
96
22
9
1,0
03
217 67 32 177
304
179 85 382 19 278
701
2,4
41
1,99
8
817
815
1,16
3
2,38
8
2,17
3
768
2,39
0
133
2,03
1
4,08
3
18
,75
9
8,94
8
8,40
0
2,30
0
2,63
4
14,2
26
21,6
65
1,43
7
17,8
66 656
7,01
6
15,4
51
100,5
99
1 10
1 1
1998 Report B-11Additional Data
Tota
l Eff
ect
ive D
ose
Equiv
ale
nt
(TED
E)
Nu
mb
er o
f In
div
idu
als
Rece
ivin
g R
adia
tion
Do
ses
in E
ach
Do
se R
ang
e (r
em)
Note
: A
rrow
ed v
alues
ind
icat
e th
e g
reat
est v
alue
in e
ach
colu
mn
.
Faci
lity
Type
Less
th
anM
eas.
0.1
0-
0.2
5M
eas.
0-0
.10
1-2
2-3
3-4
Tota
lM
on
itore
d
Perc
ent
ofM
onit
ored
wit
h M
eas.
TED
E
Avg
.M
eas.
TED
E(r
em)
0.2
5-
0.5
00
.50
-0
.75
0.7
5-
1.0
04
-5>5
No.
wit
hM
eas.
TED
E
Colle
ctiv
eTE
DE
(per
son
-rem
)
Acc
eler
ato
r
Fuel
/Ura
n. En
rich
.
Fuel
Fab
rica
tion
Fuel
Pro
cess
ing
Mai
nt.
an
d S
up
po
rt
Oth
er
Reac
tor
Rese
arch
, G
ener
al
Rese
arch
, Fu
sio
n
Was
te P
roc.
/Mg
mt.
Wea
po
ns
Fab
. &
Tes
t
Tota
ls
3 6 20 12 1 6
48
11,4
89
3,10
7
2,95
0
4,20
9
14,7
76
19,8
91
2,19
0
19,5
23 686
7,55
8
20
,80
2
10
7,1
81
114.
379
6.17
8
18.8
39
67.4
26
179.
989
191.
274
42.3
13
225.
950
10.5
48
94.4
98
40
8.6
97
1,3
60
.09
1
0.04
5
0.04
1
0.03
5
0.05
3
0.08
3
0.07
9
0.05
8
0.08
4
0.08
0
0.05
9
0.0
93
0.0
73
2,56
2
149
545
1,26
1
2,17
7
2,42
3
729
2,68
1
132
1,60
9
4,4
11
18
,67
9
22% 5% 18%
30%
15%
12%
33
%
14%
19%
21%
21%
17
%
1 1
6 4 23 23 3 25 2 4 11
10
1
19 1 1 11 53 50 4 35 6 6 79
26
5
77 2 8
17
12
0
87
37
13
8 2
54
31
4
85
6
178 16 35 128
195
236 63 350 11 181
749
2,1
42
2,28
2
130
501
1,09
8
1,77
9
2,00
6
622
2,11
9
111
1,36
3
3,25
2
15
,26
3
8,92
7
2,95
8
2,40
5
2,94
8
12,5
99
17,4
68
1,46
1
16,8
42 554
5,94
9
16,3
91
88,5
02
1 1 2
1 10
B-7b
: D
istr
ibut
ion
of T
EDE
by F
acili
ty T
ype
- 19
97
B-12 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure
B-7c
: D
istr
ibut
ion
of T
EDE
by F
acili
ty T
ype
- 19
98
Tota
l Eff
ect
ive D
ose
Equiv
ale
nt
(TED
E)
Nu
mb
er o
f In
div
idu
als
Rece
ivin
g R
adia
tion
Do
ses
in E
ach
Do
se R
ang
e (r
em)
Note
: A
rrow
ed v
alues
ind
icat
e th
e g
reat
est v
alue
in e
ach
colu
mn
.
Faci
lity
Type
Less
th
anM
eas.
0.1
0-
0.2
5M
eas.
0-0
.10
1-2
2-3
3-4
Tota
lM
on
itore
d
Perc
ent
ofM
onit
ored
wit
h M
eas.
TED
E
Avg
.M
eas.
TED
E(r
em)
0.2
5-
0.5
00
.50
-0
.75
0.7
5-
1.0
04
-5>5
No.
wit
hM
eas.
TED
E
Colle
ctiv
eTE
DE
(per
son
-rem
)
Acc
eler
ato
r
Fuel
/Ura
n. En
rich
.
Fuel
Fab
rica
tion
Fuel
Pro
cess
ing
Mai
nt.
an
d S
up
po
rt
Oth
er
Reac
tor
Rese
arch
, G
ener
al
Rese
arch
, Fu
sio
n
Was
te P
roc.
/Mg
mt.
Wea
po
ns
Fab
. &
Tes
t
Tota
ls
2 5 8 15 11 41
11,4
04
3,73
0
4,63
0
4,06
1
13,0
00
21,5
15
2,05
3
18,5
08 557
7,08
7
21
,93
7
10
8,4
82
94.7
44
9.95
3
14.2
52
52.5
85
147.
316
164.
209
31.4
10
196.
596
5.24
3
111.
354
47
4.9
90
1,3
02
.65
2
0.05
9
0.03
9
0.02
4
0.04
5
0.08
5
0.07
2
0.05
1
0.08
2
0.07
0
0.07
4
0.0
90
0.0
74
1,61
8
256
593
1,17
2
1,72
8
2,28
4
619
2,41
0 75
1,51
2
5,2
64
17
,53
1
14% 7% 13%
29%
13%
11%
30
%
13%
13%
21%
24%
16
%
1 1
6 1 9 8 4
15 2
29
74
17 1 46 37 7 29 4 12 115
26
8
76 8 27 100
100 16 126 1 90 297
84
1
133 23 31 98 224
285 49 308 3
229
870
2,2
53
1,38
4
225
562
1,04
5
1,34
4
1,84
6
543
1,91
7 67
1,17
9
3,94
1
14
,05
3
9,78
6
3,47
4
4,03
7
2,88
9
11,2
72
19,2
31
1,43
4
16,0
98 482
5,57
5
16,6
73
90,9
51
00
0
Wea
po
ns
Fab
rica
tion
an
d T
estin
g r
emai
ns
the
faci
lity
typ
e w
ith t
he
hig
hes
t co
llect
ive
do
se, h
igh
est
aver
age
do
se, an
d n
um
ber
of
ind
ivid
ual
s w
ith m
easu
rab
led
ose
. T
his
yea
r th
ey w
ere
also
th
e h
igh
est
aver
age
mea
sura
ble
TED
E; u
p s
ligh
tly f
rom
last
yea
r. It
sh
ou
ld b
e n
ote
d t
hat
Ro
cky
Flat
s an
d S
avan
nah
Riv
erac
cou
nt
for
the
maj
ority
of
the
do
se r
epo
rted
un
der
th
is f
acili
ty t
ype
even
th
ou
gh
th
ese
site
s ar
e n
o lo
ng
er a
ctiv
ely
invo
lved
in t
his
act
ivity
.
1998 Report B-13Additional Data
B-8a
: Co
llect
ive
TED
E by
Fac
ility
Typ
e, 1
996
Fuel/Uranium
Enrichment
Accelerator
Fuel Fabrica
tionFuel Processing
Maintenance
and Support
ReactorResearch
, GeneralResearch
, Fusio
nWaste Processin
g/
Management
Weapons Fab.
and Testin
g
Other
Totals
DO
EO
pera
tion
sSi
te
Op
s. a
nd
Oth
er F
acili
ties
Los
Ala
mo
s N
atio
nal
Lab
. (L
AN
L)Pa
nte
x Pl
ant
(PP)
San
dia
Nat
ion
al L
ab.
(SN
L)U
MTR
A
Op
s. a
nd
Oth
er F
acili
ties
Arg
on
ne
Nat
'l. L
ab.
- Eas
t (A
NL-
E)A
rgo
nn
e N
at'l.
Lab
. - W
est
(AN
L-W
)B
roo
khav
en N
at'l.
Lab
. (B
NL)
Ferm
i Nat
'l. A
ccel
erat
or
Lab
. (F
ERM
I)
DO
E H
ead
qu
arte
rsN
ort
h K
ore
a
Idah
o S
ite
Nev
ada
Test
Site
(N
TS)
Op
s. a
nd
Oth
er F
acili
ties
Law
ren
ce B
erke
ley
Lab
.(LB
L)La
wre
nce
Liv
erm
ore
Nat
'l. L
ab.
(LLN
L)St
anfo
rd L
inea
r A
ccel
erat
or
Cen
ter
(SLA
C)
Op
s. a
nd
Oth
er F
acili
ties
Oak
Rid
ge
Site
Pad
uca
h G
aseo
us
Diff
. Pl
ant
(PG
DP)
Port
smo
uth
Gas
eou
s D
iff.
Plan
t (P
ORTS
)
Op
s. a
nd
Oth
er F
acili
ties
Fern
ald
En
viro
nm
enta
l Mg
mt.
Pro
ject
Mo
un
d P
lan
tW
est
Val
ley
Rock
y Fl
ats
Env.
Tec
h.
Site
(RF
ETS)
Han
ford
Site
Sava
nn
ah R
iver
Site
(SR
S)
Tota
ls
15
.9
0.7
7.5
87
.01
6.2
2.4
0.0
19
.3
2.9
15
1.9
2.3
1.1
5.0
29
.9
38
.3
0.5
27
.4 0.3
0.8
29
.0
78
.6 5.5
67
.1
15
1.2
55
.7
0.6
7.1
0.4
1.0
6.0
0.0
6.1
1.6
0.0
6.7
94
.0
15
.7
19
4.9
0.1
5.4
5.7
9.8
15
.5
13
.0
6.9
56
.4
10
0.4 4.5
0.3
8.4
36
.37
.2
9.0
2.2
1.2
0.4
60
.1
45
.0
20
.8
29
5.8
0.3
0.1
6.0 4.9
11
.3
0.1
2.4
0.6
1.5
1.3
6.0
0.0
7.8
74
.6
47
.8
14
2.1
0.5
0.0
28
.14
.2
1.0
1.9
10
.9
11
.7
26
5.7
89
.0
41
3.0
3.1
9.3
0.0
0.6
0.4
0.1
0.7
0.0
5.5
0.3
13
.3
49
.0 0.0
3.0
0.9
16
.51
3.5
1.7
11
.2
2.0
33
.4
3.7
16
8.2
Alb
uq
uer
qu
e
Ch
icag
o
DO
E H
Q
Idah
o
Nev
ada
Oak
lan
d
Oak
Rid
ge
Oh
io
Rock
y Fl
ats
Rich
lan
d
Sava
nn
ahRi
ver
3.7
18
4.1
28
.11
6.7
0.4
13
.51
8.5
43
.51
16
.81
6.2
0.3
13
.3
16
4.2
1.0
0.0
4.6
14
.91
9.3
12
.08
8.6
18
.52
9.9
0.0
27
.42
0.1
11
.2
26
7.7
26
5.8
25
1.8
1,6
51
.9
No
te:
Arr
ow
ed v
alu
es in
dic
ate
the
gre
ates
t va
lue
in e
ach
co
lum
n.
B-14 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure
B-8b
: Co
llect
ive
TED
E by
Fac
ility
Typ
e, 1
997
Fuel/Uranium
Enrichment
Accelerator
Fuel
Fabricatio
n
Fuel
Processing
Maintenance
and Support
Reactor
Research,
General
Research,
Fusion
Waste Processin
g/
ManagementWeapons F
ab.
and Testin
g
Other
Totals
DO
EO
pera
tion
sSi
te
Op
s. a
nd
Oth
er F
acili
ties
Los
Ala
mo
s N
atio
nal
Lab
. (L
AN
L)Pa
nte
x Pl
ant
(PP)
San
dia
Nat
ion
al L
ab.
(SN
L)U
MTR
A
Op
s. a
nd
Oth
er F
acili
ties
Arg
on
ne
Nat
'l. L
ab.
- Eas
t (A
NL-
E)A
rgo
nn
e N
at'l.
Lab
. - W
est
(AN
L-W
)B
roo
khav
en N
at'l.
Lab
. (B
NL)
Ferm
i Nat
'l. A
ccel
erat
or
Lab
. (F
ERM
I)
DO
E H
ead
qu
arte
rsN
ort
h K
ore
a
Idah
o S
ite
Nev
ada
Test
Site
(N
TS)
Op
s. a
nd
Oth
er F
acili
ties
Law
ren
ce B
erke
ley
Lab
.(LB
L)La
wre
nce
Liv
erm
ore
Nat
'l. L
ab.
(LLN
L)St
anfo
rd L
inea
r A
ccel
erat
or
Cen
ter
(SLA
C)
Op
s. a
nd
Oth
er F
acili
ties
Oak
Rid
ge
Site
Pad
uca
h G
aseo
us
Diff
. Pl
ant
(PG
DP)
Port
smo
uth
Gas
eou
s D
iff.
Plan
t (P
ORTS
)
Op
s. a
nd
Oth
er F
acili
ties
Fern
ald
En
viro
nm
enta
l Mg
mt.
Pro
ject
Mo
un
d P
lan
tW
est
Val
ley
Rock
y Fl
ats
Env.
Tec
h.
Site
(RF
ETS)
Han
ford
Site
Sava
nn
ah R
iver
Site
(SR
S)
Tota
ls
17
.3
0.7
9.3
44
.72
5.0
1.7
0.1
14
.2
1.4
11
4.4
2.0
1.4
2.5 0.2
6.1
0.2
18
.4 0.1
0.2
18
.9
31
.8
0.0
2.5
33
.2
67
.5
59
.0
0.3
1.1
2.4
0.5
4.9
5.4
1.9
0.2
88
.1
16
.0
17
9.8
0.2
4.9
0.7
7.0
16
.7 6.6
6.3
42
.4
96
.5 2.4
0.4
6.1
17
.58
.6
4.3
1.4
3.6
1.8
0.4
54
.1
14
.0
15
.1
22
6.2
0.3
0.0
2.9
7.2
10
.4
0.1
1.8
0.3
1.0
0.8
3.4
4.1
50
.0
33
.0
94
.5
0.3
0.0
11
.10
.3
1.3
1.3
10
.7
0.1
32
2.1
61
.5
40
8.7
0.1
17
.0-
0.8
0.3
0.0
0.2
0.0
3.0
0.2
8.3
53
.8
7.8
0.7
11
.5
0.1
5.4
6.9
1.1
73
.9 0.1
19
1.2
Alb
uq
uer
qu
e
Ch
icag
o
DO
E H
Q
Idah
o
Nev
ada
Oak
lan
d
Oak
Rid
ge
Oh
io
Rock
y Fl
ats
Rich
lan
d
Sava
nn
ahRi
ver
0.5
19
2.1
11
.19
.70
.3
4.4
19
.01
8.9
69
.02
5.0
0.2
8.3
11
5.4
1.3
1.4
5.3
22
.11
4.2
6.6
77
.72
.50
.2
0.1
18
.45
.76
.9
32
3.2
23
5.2
16
5.4
1,3
60
.2
No
te:
Arr
ow
ed v
alu
es in
dic
ate
the
gre
ates
t va
lue
in e
ach
co
lum
n.
1998 Report B-15Additional Data
B-8c
: Co
llect
ive
TED
E by
Fac
ility
Typ
e, 1
998
48
.8
0.2
0.2
0.5
4.8
0.0
4.3
0.4
24
.1
0.1
55
.2 8.7
14
7.3
0.3
4.6
0.7
2.7
14
.3 5.2
3.7
31
.5
71
.2 2.8
0.1
8.3
20
.27
.6
0.0
4.0
1.0
1.8
0.8
0.0
53
.0
13
.8
11
.8
19
6.4
0.8
1.1
3.4
5.3
0.1
2.1
0.2
3.7
0.8
7.2
2.1
51
.7
43
.5
11
1.4
0.1
0.1
17
.20
.4
1.0
0.6
41
.2
0.0
34
6.5
67
.9
47
5.0
0.0
23
.2-
1.2
38
.9
0.0
0.1
0.1
1.2
5.4
13
.1
0.0
1.2
0.6
4.6
0.0
1.2
18
.2
1.5
53
.4 0.4
16
4.3
0.2
16
1.8
17
.29
.53
8.9
1.3
17
.72
1.7
63
.01
2.8
0.0
5.4
64
.9
1.0
1.0
2.9
6.9
13
.1
3.8
10
2.7
5.3
0.2
24
.11
3.3
1.3
18
.2
34
8.0
18
0.9
16
5.6
1,3
02
.7
Op
s. a
nd
Oth
er F
acili
ties
Los
Ala
mo
s N
atio
nal
Lab
. (L
AN
L)Pa
nte
x Pl
ant
(PP)
San
dia
Nat
ion
al L
ab. (S
NL)
Gra
nd
Ju
nct
ion
Op
s. a
nd
Oth
er F
acili
ties
Arg
on
ne
Nat
'l. L
ab. - E
ast
(AN
L-E)
Arg
on
ne
Nat
'l. L
ab. - W
est
(AN
L-W
)B
roo
khav
en N
at'l.
Lab
. (B
NL)
Ferm
i Nat
'l. A
ccel
erat
or
Lab
. (F
ERM
I)
DO
E H
ead
qu
arte
rsN
ort
h K
ore
a
Idah
o S
ite
Nev
ada
Test
Site
(N
TS)
Op
s. a
nd
Oth
er F
acili
ties
Law
ren
ce B
erke
ley
Lab
. (L
BL)
Law
ren
ce L
iver
mo
re N
atio
nal
Lab
. (L
LNL)
Stan
ford
Lin
ear
Acc
eler
ato
r C
ente
r (S
LAC
)
Op
s. a
nd
Oth
er F
acili
ties
Oak
Rid
ge
Site
Pad
uca
h G
aseo
us
Diff
. Pl
ant
(PG
DP)
Port
smo
uth
Gas
eou
s D
iff. Pl
ant
(PO
RTS
)
Op
s. a
nd
Oth
er F
acili
ties
Fern
ald
En
viro
nm
enta
l Mg
mt.
Pro
ject
Mo
un
d P
lan
tW
est
Val
ley
Rock
y Fl
ats
Env.
Tec
h. Si
te (
RFET
S)
Han
ford
Site
Sava
nn
ah R
iver
Site
(SR
S)
Tota
ls
15
.3
0.1
5.4
45
.91
2.8
1.1
0.0
13
.1
1.0
94
.7
0.1
0.5
3.9
5.3 0.2
10
.0
0.2
13
.3 0.1
0.6
14
.2
22
.0
0.1
1.5
29
.0
52
.6
Fuel/Uranium
Enrichment
Accelerator
Fuel
Fabricatio
n
Fuel
Processing
Maintenance
and Support
Reactor
Research,
General
Research,
Fusion
Waste Processin
g/
Management
Weapons Fab.
and Testin
g
Other
Totals
Site
No
te: A
rro
wed
val
ues
ind
icat
e th
e g
reat
est
valu
e in
eac
h c
olu
mn
.
DO
EO
pera
tion
s
Alb
uq
uer
qu
e
Ch
icag
o
DO
E H
Q
Idah
o
Nev
ada
Oak
lan
d
Oak
Rid
ge
Oh
io
Rock
y Fl
ats
Rich
lan
d
Sava
nn
ahRi
ver Bec
ause
of
incr
easi
ng
cle
an u
p a
ctiv
ities
co
llect
ive
TED
E in
crea
sed
at
Rock
y Fl
ats
in t
he
wea
po
ns
cate
go
ry. W
eap
on
s d
ism
antli
ng
at
Pan
tex
and
res
tart
of
hig
h-e
nrich
ed a
ctiv
ities
at
Oak
Rid
ge
also
cau
sed
incr
ease
s in
wea
po
ns
activ
ities
exp
osu
re.
Oth
er f
acili
ties
con
du
ctin
g w
eap
on
s ac
tiviti
es e
xper
ien
ced
dec
reas
es in
do
ses.
B-16 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure
B-9:
D
istr
ibut
ion
of T
EDE
by F
acili
ty T
ype
Lis
ted
in D
esce
ndin
g O
rder
of
Ave
rage
Mea
sura
ble
TED
Efo
r A
ccel
erat
or F
acili
ties
, 199
8
ACCELER
ATO
RS
Nu
mb
er o
f In
div
idu
als
Rece
ivin
g R
adia
tion
Do
ses
in E
ach
Do
se R
ang
e (r
em)
Site
/Con
tract
or
Less
th
anM
eas.
0.1
0-
0.2
5M
eas.
0-0
.1To
tal
Mon
itore
d
Perc
ent
ofM
onit
ored
wit
h M
eas.
TED
E
Avg
.M
eas.
TED
E(r
em)
0.2
5-
0.5
0
No. w
ith
Mea
s.TE
DE
Colle
ctiv
eTE
DE
(per
son
-rem
)
Los
Alam
os N
atio
nal L
abor
ator
y
Stan
ford
Lin
ear
Acce
lera
tor
Cent
er
Argo
nne
Nat
iona
l Lab
orat
ory
- Eas
t
Broo
khav
en N
atio
nal L
abor
ator
y
Law
renc
e Be
rkel
ey L
abor
ator
y
Sand
ia N
atio
nal L
abor
ator
y
Ferm
ilab
Thom
as J
effe
rson
Nat
’l. A
ccel
. Fac
il.
John
son
Cont
rols,
Inc.
Law
renc
e Li
verm
ore
Nat
iona
l Lab
.
Bech
tel N
evad
a–N
TS S
ubco
ntra
ctor
s
Bech
tel N
evad
a–Am
ador
Val
ley
Bech
tel N
evad
a–Sp
ecia
l Tec
h. L
ab.
Def
ense
Nuc
lear
Age
ncy-
Kirt
land
AFB
EG&
G S
anta
Bar
bara
Oak
Rid
ge F
ield
Offi
ce
Batt
elle
Mem
oria
l Ins
titut
e (P
NL)
Tota
ls
AL
OA
K
CH
CH
OA
K
AL
CH
OR
AL
OA
K
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
OR
RLOps.
Off
ice
0.5
0-
0.7
50
.75
-1
.00
1.0
0-
2.0
0
Perc
ent
of T
ED
Eab
ove
0.5
rem
No
te:
Arr
ow
ed v
alu
es in
dic
ate
the
gre
ates
t va
lue
in e
ach
co
lum
n.
53
0
2,1
26
54
7
2,4
27
49
6
28
0
1,6
25
1,4
64 2
23
9 2 8
29 1 1 6 3
9,7
86
13
9
12
6
55
56
9
25 4
42
1
42 2 1 - - - - - - -
1,3
84
14
19
18
66 - -
15 1 - - - - - - - - -
13
3
15
12 3
41 - - 5 - - - - - - - - - -
76
3 - -
14 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
17
2 - - 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6
2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2
70
5
2,2
83
62
3
3,1
21
52
1
28
4
2,0
66
1,5
07 4
24
0 2 8
29 1 1 6 3
11
,40
4
25
%
7%
12
%
22
%
5%
1%
21
%
3%
50
% 0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
14
%
17
5
15
7
76
69
4 25 4
44
1
43 2 1 - - - - - - -
1,6
18
15
.20
9
13
.13
7
5.4
15
45
.86
0
1.1
10
0.1
23
12
.79
0
1.0
39
0.0
48
0.0
13 - - - - - - -
94
.74
4
0.0
87
0.0
84
0.0
71
0.0
66
0.0
44
0.0
31
0.0
29
0.0
24
0.0
24
0.0
13 - -- - - - - -
0.0
59
36
% 0%
0%
26
%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
18
%
>2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0
The
colle
ctiv
e TE
DE
has
dro
pp
ed 1
7%
fro
m 1
99
7 w
ith e
ach
ind
ivid
ual
rep
ort
ing
site
, ex
cep
t fo
r B
NL,
sh
ow
ing
a c
olle
ctiv
e re
du
ctio
n in
TED
E. O
vera
ll, f
ewer
peo
ple
wer
e ex
po
sed
co
mp
risi
ng
a lo
wer
per
cen
tag
e o
f th
e w
ork
forc
e, h
ow
ever
, th
e av
erag
e d
ose
per
per
son
incr
ease
d b
y 2
3%
ove
r 1
99
7.
1998 Report B-17Additional Data
B-10
: D
istr
ibut
ion
of T
EDE
by F
acili
ty T
ype
List
ed in
Des
cend
ing
Ord
er o
f A
vera
ge M
easu
rabl
e TE
DE
for
Fuel
Fac
iliti
es, 1
998
FU
EL
FACIL
ITIE
SN
um
ber
of
Ind
ivid
ual
s Re
ceiv
ing
Rad
iatio
n D
ose
s in
Eac
h D
ose
Ran
ge
(rem
)
Site
/Con
tract
or
Less
th
anM
eas.
0.1
0-
0.2
5M
eas.
0-0
.1To
tal
Mon
itor
ed
Perc
ent
ofM
onit
ored
wit
h M
eas.
TED
E
Avg
.M
eas.
TED
E(r
em)
0.2
5-
0.5
0
No.
wit
hM
eas.
TED
E
Col
lect
ive
TED
E(p
erso
n-rem
)
0.0
78
0.0
59
0.0
31
0.0
16
0.0
13
0.0
06
0.0
39
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Ops.
Off
ice
0.5
0-
0.7
50
.75
-1
.00
1.0
0-
2.0
0>
2
Perc
ent
of T
EDE
abov
e0.5
rem
EN
RIC
HM
EN
T
No
te:
Arr
ow
ed v
alu
es in
dic
ate
the
gre
ates
t va
lue
in e
ach
co
lum
n.
FAB
RIC
ATIO
N2
3 3
29
3,3
66
90
3
22
3 2
17
52 3 1 1 2 5
4,6
30
26
%
10
0%
17
%
13
%
15
%
8%
50
%
6%
2%
33
%
0%
0%
0%
0%
13
%
6 3 5
42
6
13
1
18 1 1 1 1 - - - -
59
3
0.2
82
0.1
34
0.2
01
11
.03
3
2.2
87
0.2
81
0.0
13
0.0
09
0.0
07
0.0
05 - - - -
14
.25
2
0.0
47
0.0
45
0.0
40
0.0
26
0.0
17
0.0
16
0.0
13
0.0
09
0.0
07
0.0
05 - - - -
0.0
24
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
17 -
24
2,9
40
77
2
20
5 1
16
51 2 1 1 2 5
4,0
37
5 3 5
39
8
13
0
17 1 1 1 1 - - - -
56
2
1 - -
28 1 1 - - - - - - - -
31
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0
Bech
tel-J
acob
s C
o., L
LC –
Pad
ucah
Law
renc
e Li
verm
ore
Nat
iona
l Lab
.
Bech
tel-J
acob
s C
o., L
LC –
ETT
P
Bech
tel-J
acob
s C
o., L
LC –
Por
tsm
outh
Chi
cago
Fie
ld O
ffice
Briti
sh N
ucle
ar F
uels
Lim
ited
(BN
FL) (
ETTP
)
Tota
ls
OR
OA
K
OR
OR
CH
OR
5.2
72
0.4
75
3.6
68
0.2
41
0.0
52
0.2
45
9.9
53
- - - - - - 0
46
2
65
4
1,6
60
16
1
77
46
0
3,4
74
49 6
11
0
15 4
41
22
5
12 2 9 - - -
23
7 - 1 - - - 8
- - - - - - 0
53
0
66
2
1,7
80
17
6
81
50
1
3,7
30
- - - - - - 0
- - - - - - 0
13
% 1%
7%
9%
5%
8%
7%
68 8
12
0 15 4
41
25
6
Wes
tingh
ouse
S.R
. Sub
cont
ract
ors
Fluo
r D
anie
l – H
anfo
rd
Arg
onne
Nat
iona
l Lab
orat
ory
– W
est
FERM
CO
FERM
CO
Sub
cont
ract
ors
Wes
tingh
ouse
Sav
anna
h Ri
ver
Co.
Babc
ock
Wilc
ox H
anfo
rd
Fern
ald
Offi
ce S
ervi
ce S
ubco
ntra
ctor
s
Fern
ald
Are
a O
ffice
Sava
nnah
Riv
er F
ield
Offi
ce
Duk
e En
gine
erin
g Se
rvic
es H
anfo
rd
Dyn
Cor
p H
anfo
rd
Lock
heed
Mar
tin H
anfo
rd
Bech
tel C
onst
ruct
ion
– SR
Tota
ls
SR RL CH
OH
OH
SR RL OH
OH
SR RL RL RL SR Du
rin
g 1
99
8 a
gr e
ater
nu
mb
er o
f D
OE
emp
loye
es r
epo
rted
do
ses
in t
he
ura
niu
m e
nrich
men
t ca
teg
ory
prim
arily
bec
ause
of
the
D&
D o
per
atio
ns
by
BN
FL a
t O
akRi
dg
e. Th
e av
erag
e TE
DE
per
per
son
was
red
uce
d. M
ost
of
the
do
ses
r ep
ort
ed a
re r
elat
ed t
o e
nvi
ron
men
tal r
emed
iatio
n o
f D
&D
act
iviti
es b
y B
NFL
at
ETTP
. F
uel
fab
rica
tion
act
iviti
es c
on
tinu
e to
be
do
min
ated
by
Fern
ald
act
iviti
es w
hic
h a
ltho
ug
h t
he
nu
mb
er o
f p
eop
le h
as in
crea
sed
by
38
% o
ver
19
97
, th
eir
colle
ctiv
e d
ose
was
red
uce
d b
y 2
7.5
% in
19
98
.
B-18 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure
B-10
: D
istr
ibut
ion
of T
EDE
by F
acili
ty T
ype
List
ed in
Des
cend
ing
Ord
er o
f A
vera
ge M
easu
rabl
e TE
DE
for
Fuel
Fac
iliti
es, 1
998
(Con
tinu
ed)
FU
EL F
ACIL
ITIE
SN
um
ber
of
Ind
ivid
ual
s Re
ceiv
ing
Rad
iatio
n D
ose
s in
Eac
h D
ose
Ran
ge
(rem
)
Site
/Con
tract
or
Less
th
anM
eas.
0.1
0-
0.2
5M
eas.
0-0
.1To
tal
Mon
itore
d
Perc
ent
ofM
onit
ored
wit
h M
eas.
TED
E
Avg
.M
eas.
TED
E(r
em)
0.2
5-
0.5
0
No.
wit
hM
eas.
TED
E
Colle
ctiv
eTE
DE
(per
son
-rem
)O
ps.
Off
ice
0.5
0-
0.7
50
.75
-1
.00
1.0
0-
2.0
0>
2
Perc
ent
of T
ED
Eab
ove
0.5
rem
Flu
or
Dan
iel –
Han
ford
LMIT
CO
– S
ervi
ces
LMIT
CO
Subc
ontr
acto
rs –
Con
stru
ctio
n
Bec
hte
l Co
nst
ruct
ion
– S
R
Wac
ken
hu
t Se
rvic
es, In
c., –
SR
Wes
ting
ho
use
Sav
ann
ah R
iver
Co
.
Du
ke E
ng
inee
rin
g S
ervi
ces
Han
ford
RMI C
om
pan
y
Wes
ting
ho
use
S.R
. Su
bco
ntr
acto
rs
Sava
nn
ah R
iver
Fie
ld O
ffic
e
Mis
cella
neo
us
DO
E C
on
trac
tors
– S
R
Idah
o F
ield
Off
ice
LMIT
CO
Su
bco
ntr
acto
r –
Co
lem
an
Bab
cock
Wilc
ox
Han
ford
Tota
ls
RL ID ID SR SR SR RL OR
SR SR SR ID ID RL
3
1,0
65
27
15
3
10
0
1,3
41 8
16
83
34 6
16
36 1
2,8
89
3
19
1 2
87
18
70
5 1 3
25 9 1 - - -
1,0
45
6
40 1
10 -
41 - - - - - - - -
98
1
21 - 2 - 3 - - - - - - - -
27
13
1,3
18
30
25
2
11
8
2,0
91 9
19
10
8
43 7
16
36 1
4,0
61
77
%
19
%
10
%
39
%
15
%
36
%
11
%
16
%
23
%
21
%
14
%
0%
0%
0%
29
%
10
25
3 3
99
18
75
0 1 3
25 9 1 - - -
1,1
72
1.4
49
21
.78
7
0.2
28
4.4
01
0.5
72
23
.70
3
0.0
26
0.0
62
0.2
88
0.0
67
0.0
02 - - -
52
.58
5
0.1
45
0.0
86
0.0
76
0.0
44
0.0
32
0.0
32
0.0
26
0.0
21
0.0
12
0.0
07
0.0
02 - - -
0.0
45
0%
4% 0%
0%
0%
3%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
3%
- - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - 1
PR
OCESS
ING
No
te:
Arr
ow
ed v
alu
es in
dic
ate
the
gre
ates
t va
lue
in e
ach
co
lum
n.
- 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0
Alth
ou
gh
th
e to
tal n
um
ber
(-3
.5%
) an
d t
he
colle
ctiv
e d
ose
(-2
2%
) d
rop
ped
du
rin
g 1
99
8, Lo
ckh
eed
Mar
tin (
Idah
o)
and
Wes
ting
ho
use
(Sa
van
nah
Riv
er)
con
tinu
e to
hav
e th
e m
ajo
rity
of
peo
ple
invo
lved
in f
uel
pro
cess
ing
act
iviti
es (
84
%)
and
co
llect
ive
TED
E (8
7%
). Th
e av
erag
e d
ose
per
per
son
has
dec
reas
ed (
-15
%)
and
th
e n
um
ber
of
peo
ple
exp
ose
d t
o m
or e
th
an 0
.5 r
em h
as d
ecre
ased
17
% f
rom
19
97
to
19
98
alm
ost
all
of
wh
ich
was
fr o
mLo
ckh
eed
Mar
tin Id
aho
.
1998 Report B-19Additional Data
B-11
: D
istr
ibut
ion
of T
EDE
by F
acili
ty T
ype
List
ed in
Des
cend
ing
Ord
er o
f A
vera
ge M
easu
rabl
e TE
DE
for
Mai
nten
ance
and
Sup
port
, 199
8
Note
: A
rrow
ed v
alues
ind
icat
e th
e g
reat
est v
alue
in e
ach
colu
mn
.
OH
AL
RL OH
OA
K
RL AL
CH
RL RL SR RL CH
CH
ID OA
K
SR RL SR RL SR RL RL RL RL SR
31
6
93
9
89
7
15
23
1
13
2
1,0
77
35
2
20
9
73 8
47
89
9
28
76
0
1,6
46
17
1
14
64
9
19
2 7
24
8
11
7
26
32
11
3
23
24
2
24
9 1 1
79
14
7 3
29 5 1 3
89
11
98 7
44 2
16
2
13 3
13
10 8 2
14
11
33
91 - -
19
40 - 1 - - - 6 - 5 - 2 -
15 - - - - - - 1
14
20
44 - - 7 6 - 1 1 - - 4 - - - 2 - 1 - - - - - - -
39
2
1,2
54
1,2
87
16
23
2
23
7
1,2
72
35
5
24
1
79 9
50
99
9
39
86
5
1,6
53
21
9
16
82
7
20
5
10
26
1
12
7
34
34
12
8
19
%
25
%
30
%
6%
0%
44
%
15
%
1%
13
%
8%
11
%
6%
10
%
28
%
12
%
0%
22
%
13
%
22
%
6%
30
%
5%
8%
24
%
6%
12
%
24
.12
2
35
.81
6
42
.76
7
0.0
89
0.0
80
7.9
46
12
.66
9
0.1
85
1.8
29
0.3
42
0.0
51
0.1
49
4.8
46
0.4
78
4.2
97
0.2
86
1.8
23
0.0
72
6.2
60
0.4
46
0.0
99
0.4
02
0.2
89
0.2
08
0.0
50
0.3
72
0.3
17
0.1
14
0.1
10
0.0
89
0.0
80
0.0
76
0.0
65
0.0
62
0.0
57
0.0
57
0.0
51
0.0
50
0.0
48
0.0
43
0.0
41
0.0
41
0.0
38
0.0
36
0.0
35
0.0
34
0.0
33
0.0
31
0.0
29
0.0
26
0.0
25
0.0
25
68
%
51
%
9%
0%
0%
0%
9%
0%
44
%
0%
0%
0%
11
%
0%
28
%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
28 9 4 - - - 2 - - - - - 1 - 2 - - - - - - - - - - -
- 6 2 - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Batt
elle
Mem
oria
l Ins
titut
e - C
olum
bus
Los
Alam
os N
atio
nal L
abor
ator
y
Fluo
r D
anie
l - H
anfo
rd
BWX
Tech
nolo
gies
, Inc
.
LLN
L Se
curit
y
Fluo
r D
anie
l Nor
thw
est S
ervi
ces
John
son
Cont
rols,
Inc.
Argo
nne
Nat
iona
l Lab
orat
ory
- Eas
t
Babc
ock
Wilc
ox H
anfo
rd
Babc
ock
Wilc
ox P
rote
ctio
n, In
c.
Sava
nnah
Riv
er F
ield
Offi
ce
Lock
heed
Mar
tin S
ervi
ces,
Inc.
Broo
khav
en N
atio
nal L
abor
ator
y
Argo
nne
Nat
iona
l Lab
orat
ory
- Wes
t
LMIT
CO -
Serv
ices
Law
renc
e Li
verm
ore
Nat
iona
l Lab
.
Bech
tel C
onst
ruct
ion
- SR
SGN
Eur
isys
Serv
ices
Cor
p.
Wes
tingh
ouse
Sav
anna
h Ri
ver
Co.
Lock
heed
Mar
tin H
anfo
rd
Misc
ella
neou
s D
OE
Cont
ract
ors-
SR
Was
te M
gmt.
Fede
ral S
ervi
ces
of H
anfo
rd, I
nc.
Duk
e En
gine
erin
g Se
rvic
es H
anfo
rd
Was
te M
gmt.
Fede
ral S
ervi
ces,
Inc.
, Nor
thw
est
NU
MAT
EC H
anfo
rd
Wes
tingh
ouse
S.R
. Sub
cont
ract
ors
Less
Than
Mea
s.0
.10
-0
.25
Meas.
0-0
.1To
tal
Mon
itore
d
Perc
ent
ofM
onit
ored
wit
h M
eas.
TED
E
Avg
.M
eas.
TED
E(r
em)
0.2
5-
0.5
0
No. w
ith
Mea
s.TE
DE
Colle
ctiv
eTE
DE
(per
son
-rem
)0
.50
-0
.75
0.7
5-
1.0
01
.00
-2
.00
Perc
ent
of T
ED
Eab
ove
0.5
rem
76
31
5
39
0 1 1
10
5
19
5 3
32 6 1 3
10
0
11
10
5 7
48 2
17
8
13 3
13
10 8 2
15
MA
INTEN
AN
CE A
ND
SU
PPO
RT
Nu
mb
er o
f In
div
idu
als
Rece
ivin
g R
adia
tion
Do
ses
in E
ach
Do
se R
ang
e (r
em)
Site
/Con
tract
or
Ops.
Off
ice
2.0
0-
3.0
03
.00
-4
.00
4.0
0-
5.0
0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- 5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B-20 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure
B-11
: D
istr
ibut
ion
of T
EDE
by F
acili
ty T
ype
List
ed in
Des
cend
ing
Ord
er o
f A
vera
ge M
easu
rabl
e TE
DE
for
Mai
nten
ance
and
Sup
port
, 199
8 (C
onti
nued
)
Note
: A
rrow
ed v
alues
ind
icat
e th
e g
reat
est va
lue
in e
ach
colu
mn
.
AL
RL RL RL AL
SR OA
K
ID RL AL
ID DO
E
SR OH
NV
NV
NV
NV
OH
OH
OH
RL RL RL
52
0
94
22
17
8
25
15
46
1
26
18
33
1
12 - 7
20
15 4 6
28
0 4 3 1
19 6 6
11
,27
1
9 4 1
36 3 3 2 1 1
21 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - - - -
1,3
44
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
22
4
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
10
0
52
9
98
23
21
4
28
18
46
3
27
19
35
2
13 1 8
21
15 4 6
28
0 4 3 1
19 6 6
12
,99
9
2%
4%
4%
17
%
11
%
17
%
0%
4%
5%
6%
8%
10
0%
13
%
5%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
13
%
0.2
21
0.0
80
0.0
18
0.6
12
0.0
49
0.0
46
0.0
29
0.0
13
0.0
12
0.2
38
0.0
10
0.0
07
0.0
06
0.0
02 - - - - - - - - - -
14
7.3
16
0.0
25
0.0
20
0.0
18
0.0
17
0.0
16
0.0
15
0.0
15
0.0
13
0.0
12
0.0
11
0.0
10
0.0
07
0.0
06
0.0
02 - - - - - - - - -
0.0
85
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
28
%
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
46
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0
San
dia
Nat
ion
al L
abor
ator
y
Dyn
Cor
p H
anfo
rd
Bech
tel P
ower
Com
pan
y
Fluo
r D
anie
l Nor
thw
est
Los
Ala
mos
Are
a O
ffice
Wac
ken
hut
Ser
vice
s, In
c. -
SR
LLN
L Su
bcon
trac
tors
LMIT
CO
Sub
con
trac
tor
- Col
eman
Rich
lan
d F
ield
Offi
ce
Prot
ectio
n T
ech
nol
ogie
s Lo
s A
lam
os
Idah
o Fi
eld
Offi
ce
DO
E H
ead
quar
ters
Un
iv. o
f Geo
rgia
Eco
log
y La
b.
BWX
Tech
nolo
gies
, Inc
.–Su
bcon
trac
tors
Com
pute
r Sc
ien
ces
Cor
p.
Nev
ada
Mis
cella
neo
us C
ontr
acto
rs
Nye
Cou
nty
Sh
eriff
Wac
ken
hut
Ser
vice
s, In
c. –
NV
Mia
mis
burg
Are
a O
ffice
Mia
mis
burg
Offi
ce S
ubs
Oh
io F
ield
Offi
ce
Batt
elle
Mem
oria
l In
stitu
te (P
NL)
Duk
e En
g. &
Ser
v. N
orth
wes
t, In
c.
Wes
ting
hou
se H
anfo
rd S
ervi
ce S
ubs
Tota
ls
Less
th
anM
eas.
0.1
0-
0.2
5M
eas.
0-0
.1To
tal
Mon
itore
d
Perc
ent
ofM
onit
ored
wit
h M
eas.
TED
E
Avg
.M
eas.
TED
E(r
em)
0.2
5-
0.5
0
No. w
ith
Mea
s.TE
DE
Colle
ctiv
eTE
DE
(per
son
-rem
)0
.50
-0
.75
0.7
5-
1.0
01
.00
-2
.00
Perc
ent
of T
ED
Eab
ove
0.5
rem
9 4 1
36 3 3 2 1 1
21 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - - - -
1,7
28
2.0
0-
3.0
0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0
3.0
0-
4.0
0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0
4.0
0-
5.0
0
MA
INTEN
AN
CE A
ND
SU
PPO
RT
Nu
mb
er o
f In
div
idu
als
Rece
ivin
g R
adia
tion
Do
ses
in E
ach
Do
se R
ang
e (r
em)
Site
/Con
tract
or
Ops.
Off
ice
Co
llect
ive
do
se w
as r
edu
ced
18
% in
19
98
an
d t
ota
l per
son
nel
exp
ose
d w
as r
edu
ced
by
12
%. T
he
aver
age
do
se p
er p
erso
n in
crea
sed
2.3
% o
ver
19
97
.Fl
uo
r-Dan
iel H
anfo
rd a
nd
Lo
s A
lam
os
are
prim
ary
con
trib
uto
rs t
o t
his
cat
ego
ry. In
D&
D a
ctiv
ities
Bat
telle
Co
lum
bu
s h
as in
crea
sed
th
e n
um
ber
of
per
son
nel
mea
sure
d b
y 1
62
%, th
eir
colle
ctiv
e d
ose
by
ove
r 2
00
0%
, an
d t
hei
r av
erag
e d
ose
by
73
4%
.
1998 Report B-21Additional Data
B-12
: D
istr
ibut
ion
of T
EDE
by F
acili
ty T
ype
List
ed in
Des
cend
ing
Ord
er o
f A
vera
ge M
easu
rabl
e TE
DE
for
Reac
tor
Faci
litie
s, 1
998
REA
CTO
R F
ACIL
ITIE
SN
um
ber
of
Ind
ivid
ual
s Re
ceiv
ing
Rad
iatio
n D
ose
s in
Eac
h D
ose
Ran
ge
(rem
)
Site
/Con
tract
or
Ops.
Off
ice
Note
: A
rrow
ed v
alues
ind
icat
e th
e g
reat
est v
alue
in e
ach
colu
mn
.
AL
AL ID RL RL CH SR CH RL RL RL RL SR SR SR SR SR ID ID ID ID RL RL RL RL RL RL RL RL RL
44 4
18
2
58
79
98 4
15
2 -
25
40 7
88
41
65
44
0
25
10 4 1 1
10 1 3 8
11 5 1 2
25
1,4
34
2 -
26
11 - 2 - 7 - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
49
1 1
10 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
16
73 6
29
6
89
91
11
2 5
21
6 1
28
47 8
12
4
47
10
0
70
2 26
10 4 1 1
10 1 3 8
11 5 1 2
25
2,0
53
40
%
33
%
39
%
35
%
13
%
13
%
20
%
30
%
10
0%
11
%
15
%
13
%
29
%
13
%
35
%
37
%
4%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
30
%
4.6
06
0.2
77
14
.30
7
3.5
73
1.2
74
0.6
78
0.0
46
2.6
73
0.0
34
0.0
93
0.1
67
0.0
16
0.4
60
0.0
67
0.3
81
2.7
48
0.0
10 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
31
.41
0
0.1
59
0.1
39
0.1
26
0.1
15
0.1
06
0.0
48
0.0
46
0.0
42
0.0
34
0.0
31
0.0
24
0.0
16
0.0
13
0.0
11
0.0
11
0.0
10
0.0
10 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0.0
51
72
%
0%
23
%
0%
77
% 0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
24
%
1 - 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7
3 - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0
Sand
ia N
atio
nal L
abor
ator
y
Los
Alam
os N
atio
nal L
abor
ator
y
LMIT
CO -
Serv
ices
Fluo
r D
anie
l – H
anfo
rd
Babc
ock
Wilc
ox H
anfo
rd
Argo
nne
Nat
iona
l Lab
orat
ory
– W
est
Misc
ella
neou
s D
OE
Cont
ract
ors
– SR
Broo
khav
en N
atio
nal L
abor
ator
y
Lock
heed
Mar
tin S
ervi
ces,
Inc.
Lock
heed
Mar
tin H
anfo
rd
Duk
e En
gine
erin
g Se
rvic
es H
anfo
rd
SGN
Eur
isys
Serv
ices
Cor
p.
Bech
tel C
onst
ruct
ion
- SR
Wes
tingh
ouse
S.R
. Sub
cont
ract
ors
Wac
kenh
ut S
ervi
ces,
Inc.
– S
R
Wes
tingh
ouse
Sav
anna
h Ri
ver
Co.
Sava
nnah
Riv
er F
ield
Offi
ce
Idah
o Fi
eld
Offi
ce
LMIT
CO S
ubco
ntra
ctor
-Col
eman
LMIT
CO S
ubco
ntra
ctor
-Par
sons
LMIT
CO S
ubco
ntra
ctor
-Con
stru
ctio
n
Babc
ock
Wilc
ox P
rote
ctio
n, In
c.
Batt
elle
Mem
oria
l Ins
titut
e (P
NL)
Bech
tel P
ower
Co.
Dyn
Corp
Han
ford
Fluo
r D
anie
l Nor
thw
est
NU
MAT
EC H
anfo
rd
Rich
land
Fie
ld O
ffice
Was
te M
gmt.
Fede
ral S
vcs.
, Inc
., N
orth
wes
t
Was
te M
gmt.
Fede
ral S
ervi
ces
of H
anfo
rd
Tota
ls
Less
th
anM
eas.
0.1
0-
0.2
5M
eas.
0-0
.1To
tal
Mon
itore
d
Perc
ent
ofM
onit
ored
wit
h M
eas.
TED
E
Avg
.M
eas.
TED
E(r
em)
0.2
5-
0.5
0
No.
wit
hM
eas.
TED
E
Colle
ctiv
eTE
DE
(per
son
-rem
)0
.50
-0
.75
0.7
5-
1.0
01
.00
-2
.00
>2
Perc
ent
of T
ED
Eab
ove
0.5
rem
29 2
11
4
31
12
14 1
64 1 3 7 1
36 6
35
26
2 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
61
9
22 1
72
16
11
12 1
57 1 3 7 1
36 6
35
26
1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
54
3
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0
Co
llect
ive
do
ses
wer
e re
du
ced
in 1
99
8 w
ith L
ock
hee
d-M
artin
Idah
o a
nd
San
dia
Lab
ora
tory
co
ntr
ibu
ting
th
e m
ajo
rity
. T
he
hig
hes
t n
um
ber
of
peo
ple
exp
ose
d t
o >
0.5
rem
rem
ain
ed F
luo
r-Dan
iel H
anfo
rd w
her
e b
oth
th
e n
um
ber
of
peo
ple
exp
ose
d a
nd
ave
rag
e d
ose
incr
ease
d in
19
98
.
B-22 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure
B-13
: D
istr
ibut
ion
of T
EDE
by F
acili
ty T
ype
List
ed in
Des
cend
ing
Ord
er o
f A
vera
ge M
easu
rabl
e TE
DE
for
Rese
arch
, Gen
eral
, 199
8
RESE
AR
CH
, G
EN
ER
AL
Nu
mb
er o
f In
div
idu
als
Rece
ivin
g R
adia
tion
Do
ses
in E
ach
Do
se R
ang
e (r
em)
Site
/Con
tract
or
Ops.
Off
ice
8.3
42
70
.94
7
53
.00
5
20
.24
0
13
.73
4
0.2
11
4.0
17
0.8
31
7.6
25
0.2
34
1.8
02
10
.20
3
0.0
65
2.7
72
0.4
41
0.0
99
0.0
47
0.0
23
1.0
30
0.5
16
0.0
21
Note
: A
rrow
ed v
alues
ind
icat
e th
e g
reat
est va
lue
in e
ach
colu
mn
.
CH
AL
OR
CH
RL AL
ID OA
K
CH
SR OA
K
SR CH
AL
SR SR RL RL OA
K
SR DO
E
1,7
98
1,4
24
5,8
61
47
9
65
0 6
33
5
70
6
60
5
17
1,4
20
79
3
34
1,2
96
37 5
16 9
19
0
46 -
6
82
79
50
33 1
11 3
20 - 1
17 - 5 - - - - - - -
7
39
43
18 9 - 2 - 5 - - 2 - 1 - - - - - - -
1,8
67
2,0
78
6,3
88
68
3
83
6 9
39
4
71
9
73
5
23
1,4
71
1,0
91
36
1,3
83
53 9
18
10
23
5
69 1
4%
31
%
8%
30
%
22
%
33
%
15
%
2%
18
%
26
%
3%
27
%
6%
6%
30
%
44
%
11
%
10
%
19
%
33
%
10
0%
0.1
21
0.1
08
0.1
01
0.0
99
0.0
74
0.0
70
0.0
68
0.0
64
0.0
59
0.0
39
0.0
35
0.0
34
0.0
33
0.0
32
0.0
28
0.0
25
0.0
24
0.0
23
0.0
23
0.0
22
0.0
21
46
%
44
%
23
%
5%
14
%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1
13
10 2 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2
10 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1
11 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Arg
on
ne
Nat
ion
al L
abo
rato
ry –
Eas
t
Los
Ala
mo
s N
atio
nal
Lab
ora
tory
Lock
heed
Mar
tin E
nerg
y Re
sear
ch (O
RNL)
Arg
on
ne
Nat
ion
al L
abora
tory
– W
est
Bat
telle
Mem
orial
Inst
itute
(PN
L)
Joh
nso
n C
on
tro
ls,
Inc.
LMIT
CO
- Se
rvic
es
Law
ren
ce L
iver
mo
re N
atio
nal
Lab
.
Bro
okh
aven
Nat
ion
al L
abo
rato
ry
Wac
ken
hu
t Se
rvic
es,
Inc.
– S
R
Law
ren
ce B
erke
ley
Lab
ora
tory
Wes
ting
ho
use
Sav
ann
ah R
iver
Co
.
New
Bru
nsw
ick
Lab
ora
tory
San
dia
Nat
ion
al L
abo
rato
ry
Wes
ting
ho
use
S.R
. Su
bco
ntr
acto
rs
Mis
cella
neo
us
DO
E C
on
trac
tors
– S
R
Duk
e En
gin
eerin
g S
ervi
ces
Han
ford
SGN
Eu
risy
s Se
rvic
es C
orp
.
Rock
wel
l Int
erna
tiona
l, Ro
cket
dyne
ETE
C
Bec
hte
l Co
nst
ruct
ion
- SR
DO
E H
ead
qu
arte
rs
Less
th
anM
eas.
0.1
0-
0.2
5M
eas.
0-0
.1To
tal
Mon
itore
d
Perc
ent
ofM
onit
ored
wit
h M
eas.
TED
E
Avg
.M
eas.
TED
E(r
em)
0.2
5-
0.5
0
No. w
ith
Mea
s.TE
DE
Colle
ctiv
eTE
DE
(per
son
-rem
)0
.50
-0
.75
0.7
5-
1.0
01
.00
-2
.00
Perc
ent
of T
ED
Eab
ove
0.5
rem
69
65
4
52
7
20
4
18
6 3
59
13
13
0 6
51
29
8 2
87
16 4 2 1
45
23 1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
52
49
9
38
9
13
4
14
1 2
46
10
10
5 6
50
27
9 2
81
16 4 2 1
45
23 1
2.0
0-
3.0
03
.00
-4
.00
4.0
0-
5.0
0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1998 Report B-23Additional Data
B-13
: D
istr
ibut
ion
of T
EDE
by F
acili
ty T
ype
List
ed in
Des
cend
ing
Ord
er o
f A
vera
ge M
easu
rabl
e TE
DE
f
or R
esea
rch,
Gen
eral
, 199
8 (C
onti
nued
)
RESE
AR
CH
, G
EN
ER
AL
Nu
mb
er o
f In
div
idu
als
Rece
ivin
g R
adia
tion
Do
ses
in E
ach
Do
se R
ang
e (r
em)
Site
/Con
tract
or
Ops.
Off
ice
Note
: A
rrow
ed v
alues
ind
icat
e th
e g
reat
est v
alue
in e
ach
colu
mn
.
OR
AL
SR RL RL CH
SR AL
AL
ID ID ID NV
NV
RL RL RL RL RL SR
53 1
62 9 1
11
1
13
13 9 6 1 5 2
63 8 3 2 5 2 2
16
,09
8
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
30
8
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
12
6
54 2
78
11 2
11
3
19
13 9 6 1 5 2
63 8 3 2 5 2 2
18,5
08
2%
50
%
21
%
18
%
50
%
2%
32
%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
13
%
0.0
20
0.0
17
0.2
45
0.0
22
0.0
11
0.0
20
0.0
56 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
19
6.5
96
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
26
%
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
29
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
15
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
15
Less
th
anM
eas.
0.1
0-
0.2
5M
eas.
0-0
.1To
tal
Mon
itore
d
Perc
ent
ofM
onit
ored
wit
h M
eas.
TED
E
Avg
.M
eas.
TED
E(r
em)
0.2
5-
0.5
0
No. w
ith
Mea
s.TE
DE
Colle
ctiv
eTE
DE
(per
son
-rem
)0
.50
-0
.75
0.7
5-
1.0
01
.00
-2
.00
Perc
ent
of T
ED
Eab
ove
0.5
rem
1 1
16 2 1 2 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2,4
10
1 1
16 2 1 2 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1,9
17
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0
Oak
Rid
ge
Inst
. for
Sci
. & E
duc.
(ORI
SE)
Los
Ala
mos
Are
a O
ffice
Sava
nn
ah R
iver
Fie
ld O
ffice
Fluo
r D
anie
l Nor
thw
est
Dyn
Cor
p H
anfo
rd
Am
es L
abor
ator
y (Io
wa
Stat
e)
Un
iv. o
f Geo
rgia
Eco
log
y La
bora
tory
Nat
. Ren
ewab
le E
nerg
y La
b (N
REL)
- G
O
Prot
ectio
n T
ech
nol
ogie
s Lo
s A
lam
os
Idah
o Fi
eld
Offi
ce
LMIT
CO
Sub
con
trac
tor
- Col
eman
LMIT
CO
Sub
con
trac
tor
- Par
son
s
Def
ense
Nuc
lear
Ag
ency
-Kirt
lan
d A
FB
Nev
ada
Mis
cella
neo
us C
ontr
acto
rs
Babc
ock
Wilc
ox H
anfo
rd
Fluo
r D
anie
l – H
anfo
rd
Lock
hee
d M
artin
Han
ford
NU
MAT
EC H
anfo
rd
Was
te M
gmt.
Fede
ral S
ervi
ces
of H
anfo
rd
SR A
rmy
Cor
ps o
f En
gin
eers
Tota
ls
0.0
20
0.0
17
0.0
15
0.0
11
0.0
11
0.0
10
0.0
09 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0.0
82
2.0
0-
3.0
03
.00
-4
.00
4.0
0-
5.0
0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0
LAN
L h
ad t
he
gre
ates
t n
um
ber
of
peo
ple
exp
ose
d a
s w
ell a
s th
e h
igh
est
colle
ctiv
e ex
po
sure
. O
RNL
had
th
e h
igh
est
nu
mb
er o
f p
erso
ns
mo
nito
r ed
an
dn
early
27
% o
f th
e co
llect
ive
exp
osu
re.
Ove
rall
the
nu
mb
er o
f p
erso
ns
mo
nito
r ed
dro
pp
ed 5
.2%
, th
e n
um
ber
with
mea
sura
ble
do
se d
r op
ped
10
.1%
,an
d c
olle
ctiv
e TE
DE
dro
pp
ed 1
3%
in 1
99
8.
B-24 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure
B-14
: D
istr
ibut
ion
of T
EDE
by F
acili
ty T
ype
List
ed in
Des
cend
ing
Ord
er o
f A
vera
ge M
easu
rabl
e TE
DE
for
Rese
arch
, Fus
ion,
199
8
RESE
AR
CH
, FU
SIO
NN
um
ber
of
Ind
ivid
ual
s Re
ceiv
ing
Rad
iatio
n D
ose
s in
Eac
h D
ose
Ran
ge
(rem
)
Site
/Con
tract
or
Ops.
Off
ice
Note
: A
rrow
ed v
alues
ind
icat
e th
e g
reat
est v
alue
in e
ach
colu
mn
.
OA
K
AL
CH
AL
18
8
42
24
0
12
48
2
21
3
57
27
5 12
55
7
12
%
26
%
13
%
0%
13
%
3.3
87
0.7
76
1.0
80 -
5.2
43
74
% 0%
0%
0%
48
%
- - - - 0
Less
th
anM
eas.
0.1
0-
0.2
5M
eas.
0-0
.1To
tal
Mon
itore
d
Perc
ent
ofM
onit
ored
wit
h M
eas.
TED
E
Avg
.M
eas.
TED
E(r
em)
0.2
5-
0.5
0
No. w
ith
Mea
s.TE
DE
Colle
ctiv
eTE
DE
(per
son
-rem
)0
.50
-0
.75
0.7
5-
1.0
01
.00
-2
.00
>2
Perc
ent
of T
ED
Eab
ove
0.5
rem
25
15
35 -
75
20
14
33 -
67
Law
renc
e Li
verm
ore
Nat
iona
l Lab
orat
ory
Los
Ala
mos
Nat
iona
l Lab
orat
ory
Prin
ceto
n Pl
asm
a Ph
ysic
s La
bora
tory
Sand
ia N
atio
nal L
abor
ator
y
Tota
ls
0.1
35
0.0
52
0.0
31 -
0.0
70
1 - 2 - 3
- 1 - - 1
4 - - - 4
- - - - 0
- - - - 0
Fusi
on
res
earc
h o
nly
acc
ou
nte
d f
or
2.6
% o
f th
e to
tal c
olle
ctiv
e TE
DE
in 1
99
8, d
ow
n f
rom
4.7
% in
19
97
. O
nce
ag
ain
LLN
L an
d P
rin
ceto
n P
lasm
aPh
ysic
s La
bo
rato
ry h
ad t
he
gre
ates
t co
ntr
ibu
tion
in 1
99
8. O
vera
ll co
llect
ive
TED
E d
rop
ped
by
ove
r 5
0%
du
rin
g 1
99
8 a
nd
th
e av
erag
e ex
po
sure
dro
pp
ed b
y 1
4%
in 1
99
8.
1998 Report B-25Additional Data
B-15
: D
istr
ibut
ion
of T
EDE
by F
acili
ty T
ype
List
ed in
Des
cend
ing
Ord
er o
f A
vera
ge M
easu
rabl
e TE
DE
for
Was
te P
roce
ssin
g, 1
998
WA
STE P
RO
CESS
ING
Nu
mb
er o
f In
div
idu
als
Rece
ivin
g R
adia
tion
Do
ses
in E
ach
Do
se R
ang
e (r
em)
Site
/Con
tract
or
Ops.
Off
ice
Note
: A
rrow
ed v
alues
ind
icat
e th
e g
reat
est v
alue
in e
ach
colu
mn
.
RL RL CH
ID RL SR RL RL RL RL RL AL
SR RL SR CH
RL RL OR
RL AL
43
7 4
59
18
6
23
0
2,0
75
43
22 8 6
18
6
10
6
19
0
15
9
27
8
92
26 1
40
4
41
15
5
69 1
16
34 6
71 1 1 - - 1 4
17 2 6 - - - - - -
57 2 1 1 -
29 - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -
73
8
10
91
25
3
28
7
2,6
64 48
27 9 7
19
7
15
2
35
1
18
2
33
4
11
4
28 3
50
2
44
16
7
41
%
60
%
35
%
26
%
20
%
22
%
10
%
19
%
11
%
14
%
6%
30
%
46
%
13
%
17
%
19
%
7%
67
%
20
%
7%
7%
43
.87
4
0.8
68
3.7
03
7.1
40
4.7
67
35
.05
5
0.2
86
0.2
77
0.0
49
0.0
48
0.5
09
2.0
81
6.3
74
0.8
64
2.0
18
0.7
68
0.0
46
0.0
45
2.1
37
0.0
63
0.2
31
0.1
46
0.1
45
0.1
16
0.1
07
0.0
84
0.0
60
0.0
57
0.0
55
0.0
49
0.0
48
0.0
46
0.0
45
0.0
40
0.0
38
0.0
36
0.0
35
0.0
23
0.0
23
0.0
22
0.0
21
0.0
19
13
%
0%
0%
0%
47
% 0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
31
%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
10 - - - 1 - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - -
- - - - 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Fluo
r D
anie
l – H
anfo
rd
Fluo
r D
anie
l Nor
thw
est
Serv
ices
Arg
onn
e N
atio
nal
Lab
orat
ory
– Ea
st
LMIT
CO
- Se
rvic
es
Babc
ock
Wilc
ox H
anfo
rd
Wes
ting
hou
se S
avan
nah
Riv
er C
o.
NU
MAT
EC H
anfo
rd
SGN
Eur
isys
Ser
vice
s C
orp.
Bech
tel P
ower
Co.
Was
te M
gmt.
Fede
ral S
vcs.
, Inc
., N
orth
wes
t
Lock
hee
d M
artin
Han
ford
Los
Ala
mos
Nat
ion
al L
abor
ator
y
Bech
tel C
onst
ruct
ion
- SR
Was
te M
gmt.
Fede
ral S
ervi
ces
of H
anfo
rd
Wes
ting
hou
se S
.R. S
ubco
ntr
acto
rs
Broo
khav
en N
atio
nal
Lab
orat
ory
Dyn
Cor
p H
anfo
rd
Babc
ock
Wilc
ox P
rote
ctio
n, I
nc.
Mor
rison
-Kn
udse
n (W
SSRA
P)
Duk
e En
gin
eerin
g S
ervi
ces
Han
ford
San
dia
Nat
ion
al L
abor
ator
y
Less
th
anM
eas.
0.1
0-
0.2
5M
eas.
0-0
.1To
tal
Mon
itore
d
Perc
ent
ofM
onit
ored
wit
h M
eas.
TED
E
Avg
.M
eas.
TED
E(r
em)
0.2
5-
0.5
0
No. w
ith
Mea
s.TE
DE
Colle
ctiv
eTE
DE
(per
son
-rem
)0
.50
-0
.75
0.7
5-
1.0
01
.00
-2
.00
>2
Perc
ent
of T
ED
Eab
ove
0.5
rem
30
1 6
32
67
57
58
9 5 5 1 1
11
46
16
1
23
56
22 2 2
98 3
12
16
5 3
15
32
48
48
9 4 4 1 1
10
41
14
4
21
50
22 2 2
98 3
12
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B-26 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure
B-15
: D
istr
ibut
ion
of T
EDE
by F
acili
ty T
ype
List
ed in
Des
cend
ing
Ord
er o
f A
vera
ge M
easu
rabl
e TE
DE
for
Was
te P
roce
ssin
g, 1
998
(Con
tinu
ed)
WA
STE P
RO
CESS
ING
Nu
mb
er o
f In
div
idu
als
Rece
ivin
g R
adia
tion
Do
ses
in E
ach
Do
se R
ang
e (r
em)
Site
/Con
tract
or
Ops.
Off
ice
24 3
39
0
66 1 9 7 6 8
15
4
35
11
19
67
70 1 2 2 1 3
7,0
87
Note
: A
rrow
ed v
alues
ind
icat
e th
e g
reat
est v
alue
in e
ach
colu
mn
.
RL ID AL
SR AL
AL
ID ID NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
OA
K
OH
RL RL RL SR SR
22 2
38
3
64 1 9 7 6 8
15
4
35
11
19
67
70 1 2 2 1 3
5,5
75
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
22
9
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
90
8%
33
%
2%
3%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
21
%
0.0
32
0.0
14
0.0
94
0.0
11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -
11
1.3
54
0.0
16
0.0
14
0.0
13
0.0
06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0.0
74
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
8%
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
12
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0
Less
th
anM
eas.
0.1
0-
0.2
5M
eas.
0-0
.1To
tal
Mon
itore
d
Perc
ent
ofM
onit
ored
wit
h M
eas.
TED
E
Avg
.M
eas.
TED
E(r
em)
0.2
5-
0.5
0
No.
wit
hM
eas.
TED
E
Colle
ctiv
eTE
DE
(per
son
-rem
)0
.50
-0
.75
0.7
5-
1.0
01
.00
-2
.00
>2
Perc
ent
of T
ED
Eab
ove
0.5
rem
2 1 7 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1,5
12
2 1 7 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1,1
79
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0
Flu
or
Dan
iel N
ort
hw
est
LMIT
CO
Su
bco
ntr
acto
r - P
arso
ns
Car
lsba
d A
rea
Mis
c. C
ontr
acto
rs
Sava
nnah
Riv
er F
ield
Offi
ce
Los
Ala
mos
Are
a O
ffice
WIP
P Pr
ojec
t In
teg
ratio
n O
ffice
Idah
o Fi
eld
Offi
ce
LMIT
CO
Sub
cont
ract
or -
Col
eman
Nev
ada
Fiel
d O
ffice
Nev
ada
Mis
cella
neou
s C
ontr
acto
rs
Rayt
heo
n S
ervi
ces
- Nev
ada
Bech
tel N
evad
a - N
TS
Scie
nce
App
licat
ions
Int’l
. Cor
p.- N
V
Law
ren
ce L
iver
mo
re N
atio
nal
Lab
.
Wes
t Va
lley
Nuc
lear
Ser
vice
s, In
c.
Batt
elle
Mem
oria
l Ins
titut
e (P
NL)
Duk
e En
g. &
Ser
vice
s N
orth
wes
t, In
c.
Rich
lan
d F
ield
Off
ice
Mis
cella
neou
s D
OE
Con
trac
tors
– S
R
Wac
ken
hu
t Se
rvic
es, In
c. –
SR
Tota
ls
Flu
or-D
anie
l Han
ford
ag
ain
had
th
e h
igh
est
colle
ctiv
e d
ose
sh
ow
ing
an
incr
ease
of
18
.4%
in 1
99
8 w
ith W
estin
gh
ou
se S
avan
nah
Riv
er h
avin
gth
e se
con
d g
reat
est
colle
ctiv
e d
ose
sh
ow
ing
a 4
3.5
% in
crea
se d
urin
g 1
99
8. O
vera
ll th
e n
um
ber
mo
nito
red
was
6.2
% le
ss, th
e n
um
ber
with
mea
sura
ble
do
se w
as 6
% le
ss b
ut
the
colle
ctiv
e d
ose
incr
ease
d 1
7.9
% a
nd
th
e av
erag
e d
ose
incr
ease
d 2
5%
du
rin
g 1
99
8.
1998 Report B-27Additional Data
B-16
: D
istr
ibut
ion
of T
EDE
by F
acili
ty T
ype
List
ed in
Des
cend
ing
Ord
er o
f A
vera
ge M
easu
rabl
e TE
DE
for
Wea
pons
Fab
rica
tion
, 199
8
WEA
PO
NS
FAB
RIC
ATIO
NN
um
ber
of
Ind
ivid
ual
s Re
ceiv
ing
Rad
iatio
n D
ose
s in
Eac
h D
ose
Ran
ge
(rem
)
Site
/Con
tract
or
Ops.
Off
ice
Note
: A
rrow
ed v
alues
ind
icat
e th
e g
reat
est v
alue
in e
ach
colu
mn
.
SR SR RFO
NV
RFO
AL
AL
SR RFO
OA
KA
LN
VO
RA
LA
LA
LSR SR O
HA
LA
LA
LN
VN
VN
VN
VO
HRF
O
25
84
56
03
59
51
,45
45
29
4,6
68
33
11
78
02
19
72
,53
23
,88
74
76
17
2 41
51
5 - 11
05
33
55
11
45 5 2
14
16
,67
3
52
%6
9%
78
%1
%4
1%
1%
6%
61
%5
9%
1%
2%
0%
23
%3
%6
%6
0%
29
%3
2%
10
0% 0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
24
%
52
.53
81
2.3
40
25
9.2
89
0.7
89
78
.76
60
.46
41
6.5
65
2.8
14
8.4
69
0.5
85
0.1
09
0.1
78
41
.24
10
.36
60
.19
60
.09
60
.09
50
.08
60
.00
4 - - - - - - - - -4
74
.99
0
0.1
84
0.1
25
0.1
24
0.1
13
0.0
78
0.0
66
0.0
56
0.0
55
0.0
50
0.0
49
0.0
36
0.0
36
0.0
35
0.0
24
0.0
18
0.0
16
0.0
16
0.0
12
0.0
04 - - - - - - - - -
0.0
90
Wes
ting
hou
se S
avan
nah
Riv
er C
o.W
acke
nh
ut
Serv
ices
, In
c. –
SR
Rock
y Fl
ats
Prim
e C
ontr
acto
rsB
.N. –
NTS
Su
bcon
trac
tors
Rock
y Fl
ats
Subc
ontr
acto
rsM
&H
-Am
arill
o-S
ecu
rity
Forc
esM
ason
& H
ang
er -
Am
arill
oB
ech
tel C
onst
ruct
ion
– S
RRo
cky
Flat
s O
ffice
Law
ren
ce L
iver
mor
e N
atio
nal
Lab
.A
lbu
quer
que
Fiel
d O
ffice
Bec
hte
l Nev
ada
– N
TSLo
ckhe
ed M
artin
Ene
rgy
Syst
ems
(Y-1
2)Sa
nd
ia N
atio
nal
Lab
orat
ory
Bat
telle
– P
ante
xLo
s A
lam
os N
atio
nal
Lab
orat
ory
Wes
ting
hou
se S
.R. S
ubc
ontr
acto
rsSa
van
nah
Riv
er F
ield
Offi
ceBW
X Te
chno
logi
es, I
nc.–
Subc
ontr
acto
rsA
lbu
quer
que
Tran
spor
tatio
n D
ivis
ion
Am
arill
o A
rea
Offi
ceKi
rtla
nd
Are
a O
ffice
Def
ense
Nuc
lear
Ag
ency
-Kirt
lan
d A
FBEn
viro
nm
enta
l Pro
t. A
gen
cy (
NER
C)
Nev
ada
Mis
cella
neo
us
Con
trac
tors
Wes
ting
hou
se E
lect
ric C
orp.
- N
VB
WX
Tech
nol
ogie
s, In
c.Ro
cky
Flat
s O
ffice
Su
bsTo
tals
Less
th
anM
eas.
0.1
0-
0.2
5M
eas.
0-0
.1To
tal
Mon
itore
d
Perc
ent
ofM
onit
ored
wit
h M
eas.
TED
E
Avg
.M
eas.
TED
E(r
em)
0.2
5-
0.5
0
No.
wit
hM
eas.
TED
E
Colle
ctiv
eTE
DE
(per
son
-rem
)0
.50
-0
.75
0.7
5-
1.0
1.0
-2
.0
Perc
ent
of T
ED
Eab
ove
0.5
rem
14
93
11
,35
5 47
66 4
24
34
21
66
10 3 5
1,1
17
15
11 6 6 7 1 - - - - - - - - -
3,9
41
59
67
45
6 31
93 3
43 9 5 2 - -
30 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
87
0
46 1
18
1 -4
1 - 6 - - - - -2
2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -2
97
22 -
69 -
10 - 2 - - - - -
12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
11
5
8 -1
6 - - - - - - - - - 5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -2
9
1 - 6 - - - - - - - - - 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1
1
- - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1
54
31
44
2,6
87
60
22
,46
45
36
4,9
62
84
28
88
14
20
02
,53
75
,07
74
91
18
31
02
12
2 1 11
05
33
55
11
45 5 2
14
21
,93
7
28
59
92
,08
4 71
,01
0 72
94
51
17
11
2 3 51
,19
01
51
1 6 6 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05
,26
4
40
% 0%
24
%0
%8
%0
%8
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%4
0% 0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
23
%
>3
2.0
-3
.0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0
Rock
y Fl
ats
Prim
e C
on
trac
tors
had
th
e h
igh
est
colle
ctiv
e d
ose
po
stin
g a
n in
crea
se o
f 1
.2%
in 1
99
8 w
hile
Wes
ting
ho
use
Sav
ann
ah R
iver
Co
. h
ad t
he
hig
hes
tav
erag
e d
ose
alth
ou
gh
th
eir
aver
age
dro
pp
ed n
early
11
% f
r om
19
97
. A
ltho
ug
h t
he
ove
rall
nu
mb
er o
f p
erso
ns
mo
nito
r ed
incr
ease
d 5
.2%
in 1
99
8, th
en
um
ber
wh
o r
ecei
ved
do
se in
crea
sed
16
.2%
, th
e co
llect
ive
TED
E in
crea
sed
14
%, an
d t
he
aver
age
exp
osu
re d
rop
ped
3.3
% in
19
98
.
B-28 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure
B-17
: D
istr
ibut
ion
of T
EDE
by F
acili
ty T
ype
List
ed in
Des
cend
ing
Ord
er o
f A
vera
ge M
easu
rabl
e TE
DE
for
Oth
er, 1
998
OTH
ER
Num
ber
of In
divi
dual
s Re
ceiv
ing
Radi
atio
n D
oses
in E
ach
Dos
e Ra
nge
(rem
)
Site
/Con
trac
tor
Ops.
Off
ice
Not
e: A
rrow
ed v
alue
s in
dica
te th
e gr
eate
st v
alue
in e
ach
colu
mn.
24
1,14
8
205
307
107
148
1,04
5
107 47 301
858 40 396
490
4,9
85
865 2 20
1,03
9 20 2
2,52
3
200
234
DO
E
RL ID AL AL ID OH
RL RL RL RL RL RL AL AL RFO
CH AL RL SR CH OAK
NV
RL
10 898
123 12 89 144
785 66 41 282
781 37 388
465
4,53
8
832 -
16
1,00
4 17
-
2,48
8
199
226
5 44 15 103 3 1 51 5 2 5 10 1 1 -
21 1 - 1 2 - - 1 - -
58%
22%
40%
96%
17% 3% 25%
38%
13% 6% 9% 8% 2% 5% 9% 4%
10
0%
20% 3% 15%
10
0% 1% 1% 3%
5.43
0
42
.15
6
11.4
02
38.8
65
1.63
9
0.33
6
18.1
76
2.65
7
0.37
0
1.17
1
4.55
5
0.17
4
0.40
6
1.20
8
21.3
32
1.53
0
0.07
6
0.15
0
1.26
7
0.10
6
0.07
0
1.15
5
0.02
9
0.21
6
0.3
88
0.16
9
0.13
9
0.13
2
0.09
1
0.08
4
0.07
0
0.06
5
0.06
2
0.06
2
0.05
9
0.05
8
0.05
1
0.04
8
0.04
8
0.04
6
0.03
8
0.03
8
0.03
6
0.03
5
0.03
5
0.03
3
0.02
9
0.02
7
64
%
39%
20%
17% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 14% 0% 0% 54%
31% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
2 3 - 1 - - - - - - - - - - 2 - - - - - - - - -
Less
th
anM
eas.
0.10
-0.
25M
eas.
0-0
.1To
tal
Mon
itor
ed
Perc
ent
ofM
onito
red
with
Mea
s.TE
DE
Avg
.M
eas.
TED
E(r
em)
0.25
-0.
50
No.
wit
hM
eas.
TED
E
Colle
ctiv
eTE
DE
(per
son-
rem
)0.
50-
0.75
0.75
-1.
001.
00-
2.00
>2
Perc
ent
of T
EDE
abov
e0.
5 re
m
14 250 82 295 18 4
260 41 6 19 77 3 8 25
44
7 33 2 4 35 3 2 35 1 8
DO
E N
orth
Kor
ea P
roje
ct
Bech
tel P
ower
Co.
LMIT
CO S
ubco
ntra
ctor
s - C
onst
ruct
ion
MAC
TEC
- ERS
John
son
Cont
rols,
Inc.
Idah
o Fi
eld
Offi
ce
Wes
t Val
ley
Nuc
lear
Ser
vice
s, In
c.
Fluo
r D
anie
l Nor
thw
est S
ervi
ces
Babc
ock
Wilc
ox P
rote
ctio
n, In
c.
Fluo
r D
anie
l - H
anfo
rd
Batt
elle
Mem
oria
l Ins
titut
e (P
NL)
Lock
heed
Mar
tin H
anfo
rd
Babc
ock
Wilc
ox H
anfo
rd
Sand
ia N
atio
nal L
abor
ator
y
Los
Alam
os N
atio
nal L
abor
ator
y
Rock
y Fl
ats
Offi
ce
Argo
nne
Nat
iona
l Lab
orat
ory
- Wes
t
Los
Alam
os A
rea
Offi
ce
Rich
land
Fie
ld O
ffice
Wes
tingh
ouse
S.R
. Sub
cont
ract
ors
Argo
nne
Nat
iona
l Lab
orat
ory
- Eas
t
Law
renc
e Li
verm
ore
Nat
iona
l Lab
.
Nev
ada
Misc
ella
neou
s Co
ntra
ctor
s
Fluo
r D
anie
l Nor
thw
est
2
147 49 159 13 3
203 33 4 14 64 2 7 24 407 30 2 3 33 3 2 34 1 8
3 35 14 23 2 - 5 3 - - 2 - - -
11 2 - - - - - - - -
2 17 4 7 - - 1 - - - 1 - - 1 4 - - - - - - - - -
- 4 - 2 - - - - - - - - - - 2 - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1998 Report B-29Additional Data
B-17
: D
istr
ibut
ion
of T
EDE
by F
acili
ty T
ype
List
ed in
Des
cend
ing
Ord
er o
f A
vera
ge M
easu
rabl
e TE
DE
for
Oth
er, 1
998
(Con
tinu
ed)
OTH
ER
Num
ber
of In
divi
dual
s Re
ceiv
ing
Radi
atio
n D
oses
in E
ach
Dos
e Ra
nge
(rem
)
Site
/Con
trac
tor
Ops.
Off
ice
Not
e: A
rrow
ed v
alue
s in
dica
te th
e gr
eate
st v
alue
in e
ach
colu
mn.
411
1,40
3 44 33 129
108
167 31 236 11 30 932
548
470 30 14 17 13 97 26 108
310
170 39 15 7
CH
ID RL RL OAK
RL RL SR SR SR RL OR
OH
OR
OH
OH
RL ID AL OH
AL OH
OR
OR
CH
AL
366
1,35
2 36 32 126
104
164 26 224 10 29 628
463
420 29 13 16 11 96 25 99 293
166 38 14 7
2 2 - - - - - - - - - 7 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
11% 4% 18% 3% 2% 4% 2% 16% 5% 9% 3% 33%
16%
11% 3% 7% 6% 15% 1% 4% 8% 5% 2% 3% 7% 0%
1.19
3
1.35
1
0.20
1
0.02
2
0.06
5
0.08
4
0.05
6
0.08
5
0.19
8
0.01
6
0.01
5
4.53
9
1.04
0
0.56
5
0.01
1
0.01
1
0.01
1
0.02
0
0.01
0
0.01
0
0.07
2
0.13
2
0.02
2
0.00
3
0.00
1 -
0.02
7
0.02
6
0.02
5
0.02
2
0.02
2
0.02
1
0.01
9
0.01
7
0.01
7
0.01
6
0.01
5
0.01
5
0.01
2
0.01
1
0.01
1
0.01
1
0.01
1
0.01
0
0.01
0
0.01
0
0.00
8
0.00
8
0.00
6
0.00
3
0.00
1 -
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Less
than
Mea
s.0.
10-
0.25
Mea
s.0
-0.1
Tota
lM
onit
ored
Perc
ent
ofM
onit
ored
wit
h M
eas.
TED
E
Avg
.M
eas.
TED
E(r
em)
0.25
-0.
50
No.
wit
hM
eas.
TED
E
Colle
ctiv
eTE
DE
(per
son-
rem
)0.
50-
0.75
0.75
-1.
001.
00-
2.00
>2
Perc
ent
of T
EDE
abov
e0.
5 re
m
45 51 8 1 3 4 3 5 12 1 1
304 85 50 1 1 1 2 1 1 9 17 4 1 1 0
Broo
khav
en N
atio
nal L
abor
ator
y
Lock
heed
Mar
tin Id
aho
Tech
. Co.
-Ser
vice
s
SGN
Eur
isys
Serv
ices
Cor
p.
Han
ford
Env
ironm
enta
l Hea
lth F
oun.
LLN
L Su
bcon
trac
tors
Duk
e En
gine
erin
g Se
rvic
es H
anfo
rd
Was
te M
gmt.
Fede
ral S
ervi
ces
of H
anfo
rd
Sava
nnah
Riv
er F
ield
Offi
ce
Wes
tingh
ouse
Sav
anna
h Ri
ver C
o.
Bech
tel C
onst
ruct
ion
- SR
Wes
tingh
ouse
Han
ford
Ser
vice
Sub
s
MK
Ferg
uson
Oak
Rid
ge
BWX
Tech
nolo
gies
, Inc
.
RMI C
ompa
ny
BWX
Tech
nolo
gies
, Inc
. – S
ecur
ity F
orce
s
Ohi
o Fi
eld
Offi
ce
Was
te M
gmt.
Fede
ral S
vcs.,
Inc.
, Nor
thw
est
LMIT
CO S
ubco
ntra
ctor
- Pa
rson
s
Allie
d-Si
gnal
, Inc
.
Mia
misb
urg
Area
Offi
ce
Prot
ectio
n Te
chno
logi
es L
os A
lam
os
BWX
Tech
nolo
gies
, Inc
. – S
ubco
ntra
ctor
s
Lock
heed
Mar
tin E
nerg
y Sy
stem
s (Y
-12)
Dec
on. &
Rec
over
y Se
rvic
es (D
RS) (
K-25
)
Envi
ronm
enta
l Mea
s. L
ab.
Kans
as C
ity A
rea
Offi
ce
43 49 8 1 3 4 3 5 12 1 1
297 83 50 1 1 1 2 1 1 9 17 4 1 1 -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B-30 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure
B-17
: D
istr
ibut
ion
of T
EDE
by F
acili
ty T
ype
List
ed in
Des
cend
ing
Ord
er o
f A
vera
ge M
easu
rabl
e TE
DE
for
Oth
er, 1
998
(Con
tinu
ed)
OTH
ER
Nu
mb
er o
f In
div
idu
als
Rece
ivin
g R
adia
tion
Do
ses
in E
ach
Do
se R
ang
e (r
em)
Site
/Con
tract
or
Ops.
Off
ice
Mas
on &
Han
ger
- A
mar
illo
DO
E H
ead
qu
arte
rs
Bab
cock
& W
ilcox
Idah
o, In
c.
LMIT
CO
Su
bcon
trac
tor
- Col
eman
Air
Reso
urc
es L
abor
ator
y
Bec
hte
l Nev
ada
- Los
Ala
mos
Bec
hte
l Nev
ada
- NTS
B.N
. - W
ash
ing
ton
Aer
ial M
eas.
Def
ense
Nu
clea
r A
gen
cy-K
irtla
nd
AFB
Nev
ada
Fiel
d O
ffic
e
Nev
ada
Op
erat
ion
s
Bec
hte
l Nev
ada
- NTS
LLN
L Se
curit
y
U. o
f Cal
./D
avis
, Rad
iobi
olog
y La
b-L
EHR
Mia
mis
burg
Off
ice
Subs
Bech
tel-J
acob
s C
o., L
LC –
ETT
P
Oak
Rid
ge
Inst
. for
Sci
. & E
duc
. (O
RISE
)
Du
ke E
ng
. & S
ervi
ces
Nor
thw
est,
Inc.
Dyn
corp
Har
ford
Lock
hee
d M
artin
Ser
vice
s, In
c.
NU
MA
TEC
Han
ford
Mis
cella
neo
us
DO
E C
ontr
acto
rs –
SR
Wac
ken
hu
t Se
rvic
es, I
nc.
- SR
Tota
ls
Note
: A
rrow
ed v
alues
ind
icat
e th
e g
reat
est va
lue
in e
ach
colu
mn
.
53 2 1
13
12
42
10
1
37
76
34
0
18
5 7 3
47
28 6 1 8 7
11
19 1 3
21
,51
5
AL
DO
E
ID ID NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
OA
K
OA
K
OH
OR
OR
RL RL RL RL SR SR
53 2 1
13
12
42
10
1
37
76
34
0
18
5 7 3
47
28 6 1 8 7
11
19 1 3
19
,23
1
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0% 0
11
%
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
16
4.2
09
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0.0
72
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
23
%
Less
th
an
Mea
s.0
.10
-0
.25
Meas.
0-0
.1To
tal
Mon
itore
d
Perc
ent
ofM
onit
ored
wit
h M
eas.
TED
E
Avg
.M
eas.
TED
E(r
em)
0.2
5-
0.5
0
No. w
ith
Mea
s.TE
DE
Colle
ctiv
eTE
DE
(per
son
-rem
)0
.50
-0
.75
0.7
5-
1.0
01
.00
-2
.00
>2
Perc
ent
of T
ED
Eab
ove
0.5
rem
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2,2
84
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1,8
46
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
28
5
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
10
0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
37
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0
The
19
97
tre
nd
of
incr
easi
ng
co
llect
ive
do
se f
or
the
Oth
er c
ateg
ory
was
rev
erse
d in
19
98
as
the
tota
l dro
pp
ed b
y 1
2.3
%. B
ech
tel P
ow
er C
o.
agai
n h
ad t
he
hig
hes
t co
llect
ive
do
se in
19
98
bu
t th
eir
tota
l was
red
uce
d b
y 4
6%
. W
est
Val
ley
Nu
clea
r Se
rvic
es h
ad a
n in
crea
se in
co
llect
ive
do
seo
f 1
62
% a
nd
Lo
s A
lam
os
Nat
ion
al L
abo
rato
r y d
ose
incr
ease
d 3
5%
in 1
99
8. O
ther
wis
e m
ost
site
exp
erie
nce
d d
ecre
ases
in c
olle
ctiv
e d
ose
in 1
99
8.
1998 Report B-31Additional Data
B-18: Internal Dose by Facility Type and Nuclide, 1996-1998
1996 1997 1998
Hydrogen-3 13 16 6 0.191 0.322 0.078 0.018 0.020Uranium 1 1 2 0.014 0.001 0.010 0.014 0.001Total 14 17 8 0.205 0.323 0.088 0.013 0.019Hydrogen-3 2 6 0.009 0.012Plutonium 3 0.048 0.016Thorium 31 8 9 0.612 0.132 0.057 0.020Uranium 34 13 9 0.438 0.051 0.026 0.006 0.004Total 67 24 24 1.059 0.231 0.095 0.007 0.010Hydrogen-3 126 123 115 0.299 0.264 0.234 0.003 0.002Plutonium 7 3 1 11.955 0.344 0.322 0.185 0.115Uranium 1 0.016 0.016Total 133 127 116 12.254 0.624 0.556 0.020 0.005Americium 1 0.055Hydrogen-3 2 0.003Other 1 0.002Technetium 2 8 2 0.006 0.009 0.006 0.009 0.001Thorium 112 1 8.628 0.001 0.009 0.001Uranium 33 34 86 0.176 0.157 0.321 0.005 0.005Total 148 43 91 8.812 0.167 0.385 0.006 0.004Americium 12 3 0.031 0.039 0.021 0.003Hydrogen-3 121 94 78 0.654 0.522 0.238 0.003 0.006Mixed and Other 8 1 16 0.040 0.069 0.039 0.061 0.069Plutonium 8 5 15 0.273 3.203 1.680 0.139 0.641Thorium 5 2 0.020 0.089 0.323 0.004Uranium 28 11 10 0.176 0.035 0.038 0.008 0.003Total 177 116 124 1.174 3.849 2.123 0.019 0.033Americium 4 0.297Hydrogen-3 10 78 80 0.038 0.499 0.313 0.002 0.006Mixed and Other 5 6 1 0.025 4.038 0.300 0.042 0.673Plutonium 5 3 5 3.334 0.177 0.378 0.302 0.059Radon-222 270 280 27.834 33.840 0.103Thorium 2 0.111Uranium 70 260 141 1.475 1.641 0.601 0.078 0.006Total 90 617 513 4.872 34.189 35.840 0.115 0.049Hydrogen-3 328 304 287 4.049 3.305 1.433 0.014 0.011Mixed & Other 3 0.022 0.007Total 328 307 287 4.049 3.327 1.433 0.014 0.011Hydrogen-3 87 53 26 0.477 0.153 0.309 0.005 0.003Total 87 53 26 0.477 0.153 0.309 0.005 0.003Americium 4 3 8 0.541 0.059 0.828 0.135 0.020Hydrogen-3 36 36 44 0.294 0.177 0.500 0.006 0.005Mixed & Other 14 11 46 0.201 0.255 0.390 0.045 0.023Plutonium 6 14 11 5.022 7.232 1.391 0.072 0.517Uranium 33 20 17 0.208 0.136 0.083 0.008 0.007Total 93 84 126 6.266 7.859 3.192 0.066 0.094Americium 1 0.004 0.004Hydrogen-3 20 8 15 0.469 0.015 0.028 0.023 0.002Mixed & Other 3 2 0.015 0.221 0.005 0.111Plutonium 12 22 1.600 0.957 0.133Thorium 5 3 0.393 0.669 0.079 0.223Uranium 22 16 5 6.409 3.858 0.157 0.291 0.241Total 62 30 42 8.886 4.767 1.142 0.143 0.158Americium 5 0.501 0.100Hydrogen-3 54 22 14 0.210 0.193 0.051 0.004 0.009Plutonium 28 38 38 2.113 2.045 4.825 0.075 0.053Uranium 318 431 1,056 3.484 7.127 34.168 0.011 0.016Total 400 496 1,108 5.807 9.866 39.044 0.015 0.019
1,599 1,914 2,465 53.861 65.355 84.207 0.033 0.034
* Intakes grouped by nuclide. Intakes involving multiple nuclides were grouped into "mixed". Nuclides where fewer than 10 individuals had intakes were grouped as "other".** Individuals may be counted more than once.
Note: Arrowed values indicate the greatest value in each column.
Accelerator
Fuel Fabrication
Fuel Processing
Fuel/Uranium Enrichment
Maintenance and Support
Other
Reactor
Research, Fusion
Research, General
Waste Processing
Weapons Fab. and Testing
Totals
Facility Type
No. of Individualswith New Intakes**
Collective CEDE(person-rem) Average CEDE (rem)
Nuclide*1996 1997 1998 1996 1997 1998
0.0130.005
0.0110.002
0.0060.002
0.0040.002
0.322
0.0050.0550.002
0.003
0.0040.0040.0130.0030.0020.1120.0450.004
0.0170.0740.0040.3000.0760.1210.0560.004
0.0700.005
0.0050.012
0.0120.1040.0110.0080.1260.005
0.025
0.002
0.044
0.0310.027
0.0040.1270.032
0.035
0.034
In 1997 and 1998, Radon-222 intakes resulted in the largest collective internal dose. However, in 1998 the highest averageinternal dose was from plutonium fuel processing activities.
B-32 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure
B-19
a: D
istr
ibut
ion
of T
EDE
by L
abor
Cat
egor
y, 1
996
Tota
l Eff
ect
ive D
ose
Equiv
ale
nt
(TED
E)
Nu
mb
er o
f In
div
idu
als
Rece
ivin
g R
adia
tion
Do
ses
in E
ach
Do
se R
ang
e (r
em)
Labor
Cate
gory
Ag
ricu
lture
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Lab
ore
rs
Man
agem
ent
Mis
c.
Pro
du
ctio
n
Scie
ntis
ts
Serv
ice
Tech
nic
ian
s
Tran
spo
rt
Un
kno
wn
Tota
ls
Note
: A
rrow
ed v
alues
ind
icat
e th
e g
reat
est va
lue
in e
ach
colu
mn
.
53
8,2
00
86
7
15
,45
1
16
,80
7
4,2
81
28
,50
9
4,4
18
7,9
64
1,1
79
12
,87
0
10
0,5
99
13
%
24
%
38
% 7%
23
%
36
%
12
%
11
%
31
%
25
%
17
%
18
%
Less
th
anM
eas.
0.1
0-
0.2
5M
eas.
0-0
.10
Tota
lM
on
itore
d
Perc
ent
ofM
onit
ored
wit
h M
eas.
TED
E
Avg
.M
eas.
TED
E(r
em)
0.2
5-
0.5
0
No.
wit
hM
eas.
TED
E
Colle
ctiv
eTE
DE
(per
son
-rem
)0
.50
-0
.75
0.7
5-
1.0
01
-22
-33
-4>
4
7
2,1
29
42
9
1,0
83
4,5
03
1,7
90
3,5
03
50
1
2,3
64
37
1
2,0
79
18
,75
9
1
30
4
49
94
36
2
32
4
22
8
44
75
8
13
26
4
2,4
41
10
8
49
29
86
21
7
63
18
31
5 8
11
0
1,0
03
28
11 6
31
80
17 3
94 6
63
33
9
10 2
19
14 9 1
25 3
16
99
9 2
11 8 8 2
19
21
80
1 1 2
61
10
,78
8
1,4
09
16
,66
3
21
,81
9
6,7
15
32
,33
7
4,9
87
11
,54
0
1,5
80
15
,42
5
12
3,3
24
8
2,5
88
54
2
1,2
12
5,0
12
2,4
34
3,8
28
56
9
3,5
76
40
1
2,5
55
22
,72
5
0.3
79
17
6.8
14
48
.96
7
57
.15
4
25
9.8
40
26
7.4
23
16
4.3
66
31
.67
8
41
6.6
42
18
.76
0
20
9.9
37
1,6
51
.96
0
0.0
47
0.0
68
0.0
90
0.0
47
0.0
52
0.1
10
0.0
43
0.0
56
0.1
17
0.0
47
0.0
82
0.0
73
1 10
>5 1 1
1998 Report B-33Additional Data
B-19
b: D
istr
ibut
ion
of T
EDE
by L
abor
Cat
egor
y, 1
997
Tota
l Eff
ect
ive D
ose
Equiv
ale
nt
(TED
E)
Nu
mb
er o
f In
div
idu
als
Rece
ivin
g R
adia
tion
Do
ses
in E
ach
Do
se R
ang
e (r
em)
Labor
Cate
gory
Ag
ricu
lture
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Lab
ore
rs
Man
agem
ent
Mis
c.
Pro
du
ctio
n
Scie
ntis
ts
Serv
ice
Tech
nic
ian
s
Tran
spo
rt
Un
kno
wn
Tota
ls
Note
: A
rrow
ed v
alues
ind
icat
e th
e g
reat
est v
alue
in e
ach
colu
mn
.
43
5,0
17
74
2
10
,55
8
10
,45
1
2,8
53
23
,22
1
3,4
19
5,6
30
1,2
78
25
,29
0
88
,50
2
16
%
25
%
41
%
12
%
17
%
39
%
12
%
16
%
33
%
12
%
15
%
17
%
Less
th
anM
eas.
0.1
0-
0.2
5M
eas.
0-0
.10
Tota
lM
on
itore
d
Perc
ent
ofM
onit
ored
wit
h M
eas.
TED
E
Avg
.M
eas.
TED
E(r
em)
0.2
5-
0.5
0
No.
wit
hM
eas.
TED
E
Colle
ctiv
eTE
DE
(per
son
-rem
)0
.50
-0
.75
0.7
5-
1.0
01
-22
-33
-4>
4
5
1,3
83
33
1
1,2
24
1,8
22
1,4
04
2,7
32
57
9
1,8
21
15
4
3,8
08
15
,26
3
2
18
3
84
13
5
22
4
25
0
24
2
33
59
8
18
37
3
2,1
42
85
39
34
45
10
3
58
16
29
2 4
18
0
85
6
1
27
28 7 2
27 9 5
87
72
26
5
15
17 2 6 9 1
19 1
31
10
1
2
10 4 2 8
22
48
1 1
51
6,7
12
1,2
51
11
,96
0
12
,54
4
4,6
47
26
,27
3
4,0
53
8,4
56
1,4
55
29
,77
9
10
7,1
81
8
1,6
95
50
9
1,4
02
2,0
93
1,7
94
3,0
52
63
4
2,8
26
17
7
4,4
89
18
,67
9
1.0
72
12
5.7
41
81
.89
3
75
.40
9
98
.20
1
14
4.3
08
13
6.1
18
35
.02
5
33
9.4
69
8.3
64
31
4.4
91
1,3
60
.09
1
0.1
34
0.0
74
0.1
61
0.0
53
0.0
47
0.0
80
0.0
44
0.0
55
0.1
20
0.0
47
0.0
70
0.0
73
1 1 2
1 1
>5 0
B-34 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure
B-19
c: D
istr
ibut
ion
of T
EDE
by L
abor
Cat
egor
y, 1
998
Tota
l Eff
ect
ive D
ose
Equiv
ale
nt
(TED
E)
Nu
mb
er o
f In
div
idu
als
Rece
ivin
g R
adia
tion
Do
ses
in E
ach
Do
se R
ang
e (r
em)
Labor
Cate
gory
Ag
ricu
lture
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Lab
ore
rs
Man
agem
ent
Mis
c.
Pro
du
ctio
n
Scie
ntis
ts
Serv
ice
Tech
nic
ian
s
Tran
spo
rt
Un
kno
wn
Tota
ls
Note
: A
rrow
ed v
alues
ind
icat
e th
e g
reat
est v
alue
in e
ach
colu
mn
.
37
4,5
48
65
8
10
,61
2
10
,49
9
2,7
16
24
,35
9
3,4
68
5,9
94
1,3
15
26
,74
5
90
,95
1
10
%
27
%
43
%
12
%
18
%
40
%
10
%
16
%
33
%
10
%
11
%
16
%
Less
th
anM
eas.
0.1
0-
0.2
5M
eas.
0-0
.10
Tota
lM
on
itore
d
Perc
ent
ofM
onit
ored
wit
h M
eas.
TED
E
Avg
.M
eas.
TED
E(r
em)
0.2
5-
0.5
0
No.
wit
hM
eas.
TED
E
Colle
ctiv
eTE
DE
(per
son
-rem
)0
.50
-0
.75
0.7
5-
1.0
01
-22
-33
-4>
4
2
1,4
22
35
3
1,2
15
1,9
47
1,3
49
2,5
12
53
1
1,8
77
12
2
2,7
23
14
,05
3
2
17
3
78
12
2
25
4
26
6
20
0
11
6
60
7
11
42
4
2,2
53
47
37
43
57
11
7
53
13
30
8 8
15
8
84
1
18
14 9
12
36
11 3
10
4 3
58
26
8
4 6 4 2
10 6 2
14
26
74
4 2 3 2 9
21
41
1 1
41
6,2
12
1,1
50
12
,00
7
12
,77
1
4,4
97
27
,14
3
4,1
33
8,9
13
1,4
59
30
,15
6
10
8,4
82
4
1,6
64
49
2
1,3
95
2,2
72
1,7
81
2,7
84
66
5
2,9
19
14
4
3,4
11
17
,53
1
0.4
90
90
.42
2
53
.59
4
80
.52
1
12
0.2
11
15
5.4
08
11
9.9
10
43
.87
2
35
3.8
60
9.1
36
27
1.9
73
1,3
02
.65
2
0.1
23
0.0
54
0.1
09
0.0
58
0.0
53
0.0
87
0.0
43
0.0
66
0.1
21
0.0
63
0.0
80
0.0
74
00
>5 0
Sub
con
trac
ting
an
d o
uts
ou
rcin
g h
as in
crea
sed
th
e U
nkn
ow
n c
ateg
ory
11
% d
urin
g 1
99
8,
com
prisi
ng
nea
rly
28
% o
f th
e la
bo
r fo
rce.
Tec
hn
icia
ns
rem
ain
sth
e ca
teg
ory
with
th
e h
igh
est
colle
ctiv
e TE
DE
with
Lab
ore
rs r
etai
nin
g t
he
hig
hes
t p
erce
nta
ge
of
per
son
nel
rec
eivi
ng
mea
sura
ble
do
se.
1998 Report B-35Additional Data
B-20
: In
tern
al D
ose
by L
abor
Cat
egor
y, 1
996
- 19
98
Labor
Cate
gory
Num
ber
of
Indiv
iduals
wit
h N
ew
In
takes*
Collect
ive C
ED
E(p
ers
on
-rem
)A
vera
ge C
ED
E (
rem
)
* O
nly
incl
ud
ed in
take
s th
at o
ccu
rred
du
rin
g t
he
mo
nito
rin
g y
ear.
Ind
ivid
ual
s m
ay b
e co
un
ted
mo
re t
han
on
ce.
19
96
19
97
19
98
No
te:
Arr
ow
ed v
alu
es in
dic
ate
the
gre
ates
t va
lue
in e
ach
co
lum
n.
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
96
19
97
19
98
Co
nst
ruct
ion
22
62
78
48
87
.70
75
.58
07
.80
80
.03
40
.02
00
.01
6
Lab
ore
rs4
19
16
60
.90
09
.68
79
.30
50
.02
20
.10
60
.14
1
Man
agem
ent
10
51
00
17
31
.47
21
.77
97
.05
30
.01
40
.01
80
.04
1
Mis
c.2
19
28
32
53
12
.65
52
.21
44
.82
90
.05
80
.00
70
.01
9
Pro
du
ctio
n3
70
32
04
12
16
.28
64
.22
41
5.9
42
0.0
44
0.0
13
0.0
39
Scie
ntis
ts2
00
21
42
97
4.3
66
4.1
37
1.9
74
0.0
22
0.0
19
0.0
07
Serv
ice
46
42
80
0.2
82
0.2
14
0.9
25
0.0
06
0.0
05
0.0
12
Tech
nic
ian
s2
19
22
12
87
3.7
05
8.9
60
7.1
13
0.0
16
0.0
41
0.0
25
Tran
spo
rt1
02
80
.50
40
.31
21
.88
20
.05
00
.15
60
.23
5
Un
kno
wn
16
33
63
40
15
.64
72
8.2
48
27
.37
60
.03
50
.07
80
.06
8
Tota
ls1
,59
91
,91
42
,46
55
3.5
24
65
.35
58
4.2
07
0.0
33
0.0
34
0.0
34
The
Un
kno
wn
lab
or
cate
go
ry,
wh
ich
incl
ud
es t
ho
se G
ran
d J
un
ctio
n e
mp
loye
es r
epo
rtin
g R
ado
n-2
22
exp
osu
re,
rem
ain
s th
e ca
teg
ory
with
th
eh
igh
est
colle
ctiv
e C
EDE,
wh
ile T
ran
spo
rt r
emai
ns
the
cate
go
ry w
ith t
he
hig
hes
t av
erag
e C
EDE.
C
on
stru
ctio
n h
ad t
he
gre
ates
t n
um
ber
of
new
rep
ort
ed c
ases
du
rin
g 1
99
8.
B-36 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure
B-21
: D
ose
Dis
trib
utio
n by
Lab
or C
ateg
ory
and
Occ
upat
ion,
199
8
Ag
ricu
lture
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Lab
ore
rsM
anag
emen
t
Mis
c.
Pro
du
ctio
n
Scie
ntis
ts
Serv
ice
Tech
nic
ian
s
Tran
spo
rt
Un
kno
wn
Tota
lsLabor
Cate
gory
Avera
ge
Meas.
TED
ECollect
ive
TED
ETo
tal
Mon
itore
dO
ccupati
on
No
te: A
rro
wed
val
ues
ind
icat
e th
e g
reat
est
valu
e in
eac
h c
olu
mn
.
Gro
un
dsk
eep
ers
Mis
c. A
gricu
lture
Car
pen
ters
Elec
tric
ian
sM
aso
ns
Mec
han
ics/
Rep
aire
rsM
iner
s/D
rille
rsM
isc.
Rep
air/
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Pain
ters
Pip
e Fi
tter
sH
and
lers
/Lab
ore
rs/H
elp
ers
Ad
min
. Su
pp
ort
an
d C
lerica
lM
anag
er -
Ad
min
istr
ato
rSa
les
Mili
tary
Mis
cella
neo
us
Mac
hin
e Se
tup
/Op
erat
ors
Mac
hin
ists
Mis
c. P
reci
sio
n/P
rod
uct
ion
Op
erat
ors
, Pl
ant/
Syst
em/U
til.
Shee
t M
etal
Wo
rker
sW
eld
ers
and
So
lder
ers
Do
cto
rs a
nd
Nu
rses
Eng
inee
rsH
ealth
Ph
ysic
ists
Mis
c. P
rofe
ssio
nal
sSc
ien
tists
Fire
figh
ters
Foo
d S
ervi
ce E
mp
loye
esJa
nito
rsM
isc.
Ser
vice
Secu
rity
Gu
ard
sEn
gin
eerin
g T
ech
nic
ian
sH
ealth
Tec
hn
icia
ns
Mis
c. T
ech
nic
ian
sRa
dia
tion
Mo
nito
rs/T
ech
s.Sc
ien
ce T
ech
nic
ian
sTe
chn
icia
ns
Bu
s D
rive
rsEq
uip
men
t O
per
ato
rsM
isc.
Tra
nsp
ort
Pilo
tsTr
uck
Drive
rsU
nkn
ow
n
36 1
22
11
,23
21
68
85
96
1,5
39
14
34
16
65
83
,95
06
,60
75
41
11
0,4
88
77
24
91
44
2,0
30
10
91
07
21
38
,34
15
09
6,6
47
8,6
49
49
84
15
11
54
61
,87
21
,13
92
97
2,1
98
94
14
89
93
03
42
66
35
7 46
54
26
,74
59
0,9
51
- - - - - - - - - - 4 - 2 - - - - - - 3 - - - 1 - - 1 - - - - - 3 - - 1 5 - - - - - -2
14
1
Less
Th
an
Meas.
Meas.
<0
.10
0.1
0-
0.2
50
.25
-0
.50
0.5
0-
0.7
50
.75
-1
.01
-22
-33
-4>
4
10
%0
%3
3%
24
%2
7%
28
%1
%2
6%
22
%3
6%
43
%1
1%
12
%2
%0
%1
8%
13
%1
7%
6%
45
%3
1%
20
%1
0%
12
%2
0%
10
%7
%1
2%
2%
11
%1
2%
20
%2
1%
34
%1
9%
55
%4
4%
30
%3
%2
6%
4%
0%
5%
11
%1
6%
Perc
en
tw
ith
Meas.
No.
wit
hM
eas.
2 -9
43
43 6
30
6 14
69
34
16
93
53
41
38
01 1 -
1,9
47 8
32 7
1,2
43
38
21
22
1,0
73
99
71
36
05
67 1
54
56
35
31
93
93
41
86
81
18
83
04 1
77
11 -
33
2,7
23
14
,05
3
2 -1
22
7 -3
1 -5
2 54
67
84
57
7 - -2
54 3
16 2
23
21
0 3 16
62
24
96
2 2 - 61
69
25
13
06
53
27
77
57 -
10 - - 1
42
42
,25
3
- - 31
5 - 6 -1
3 11
03
71
23
1 - -5
7 - 2 -1
12 1 2 -
21 6
10
16 - - 4 1 8
37
18
16
13
28
42
1 - 5 3 - -1
58
84
1
- - - 7 - - - 7 - 31
4 - 9 - -1
2 - - -3
6 - - - 6 1 2 2 - - - - 31
0 72
12
82
9 9 - 2 1 - -5
82
68
- - - - - - - 3 - 1 6 1 3 - - 2 - - -1
0 - - - 4 - - 2 - - - - 2 3 2 - 2 7 - - - - - -2
67
4
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0
40 1
33
01
,62
42
21
,22
89
72
,08
31
83
64
51
,15
04
,42
17
,53
05
51
11
2,7
60
88
29
91
53
3,6
66
15
81
33
23
69
,51
26
37
7,4
21
9,3
37
56
74
25
75
61
92
,33
01
,43
64
47
2,7
18
2,1
12
87
91
,32
13
53
60
37
2 46
88
30
,15
61
08
,48
2
4 -1
09
39
2 63
43 1
54
44
02
29
49
24
71
92
3 1 -2
,27
21
15
0 91
,63
64
92
62
31
,17
11
28
77
46
88
69 1
64
73
45
82
97
15
05
20
1,1
71
39
03
91 1
94
15 -
34
3,4
11
17
,53
1
0.4
90 -
5.3
83
21
.35
80
.05
81
3.6
39
0.0
01
29
.18
22
.21
91
8.5
82
53
.59
42
5.4
86
55
.02
50
.01
0 -1
20
.28
10
.79
84
.59
50
.52
31
44
.76
02
.88
51
.84
70
.48
14
8.4
53
8.4
94
30
.02
33
2.5
54
1.6
91
0.0
10
4.0
43
4.8
92
33
.23
63
9.8
57
21
.29
44
1.4
13
14
2.9
76
79
.61
43
1.0
06
0.0
36
6.2
90
1.9
78 -
0.8
32
27
2.7
63
1,3
02
.65
2
0.1
23 -
0.0
49
0.0
54
0.0
10
0.0
40
0.0
01
0.0
54
0.0
55
0.0
81
0.1
09
0.0
54
0.0
60
0.0
10 -
0.0
53
0.0
73
0.0
92
0.0
58
0.0
88
0.0
59
0.0
71
0.0
21
0.0
41
0.0
66
0.0
39
0.0
47
0.0
25
0.0
10
0.0
63
0.0
67
0.0
73
0.1
34
0.1
42
0.0
80
0.1
22
0.2
04
0.0
79
0.0
36
0.0
67
0.1
32 -
0.0
24
0.0
80
0.0
74
Alth
ou
gh
th
e n
um
ber
of
per
son
nel
mo
nito
red
incr
ease
d b
y 1
% d
urin
g 1
99
8, th
e n
um
ber
rec
eivi
ng
exp
osu
re d
ecre
ased
by
6%
. W
hen
co
up
led
with
an
ove
rall
red
uct
ion
of
4%
in t
he
colle
ctiv
e TE
DE
the
r esu
lt w
as a
slig
ht
(1.4
%)
incr
ease
in t
he
aver
age
TED
E.
Rad
iatio
n M
on
itors
/Tec
hs.
rem
ain
ed t
he
gro
up
with
th
e h
igh
est
per
cen
t re
ceiv
ing
TED
E, h
ow
ever
sci
ence
tec
hn
icia
ns
rece
ived
a h
igh
er a
vera
ge
do
se p
er in
div
idu
al.
1998 Report B-37Additional Data
B-22
: In
tern
al D
ose
Dis
trib
utio
n by
Sit
e an
d N
uclid
e, 1
998
Alb
uq
uer
qu
eLo
s A
lam
os
Nat
'l. L
ab (
LAN
L)A
mer
iciu
m1
12
0.9
09
0.4
55
Hyd
rog
en-3
41
54
60
.38
60
.00
8Pl
uto
niu
m1
21
15
1.3
82
0.2
76
Ura
niu
m2
72
70
.10
40
.00
4Pa
nte
x Pl
ant
(PP)
Hyd
rog
en-3
44
0.0
04
0.0
01
Gra
nd
Ju
nct
ion
Rad
on
-22
21
65
90
18
42
12
80
33
.84
00
.12
1C
hic
ago
Op
s. a
nd
Oth
er F
acili
ties
Hyd
rog
en-3
16
42
00
.24
00
.01
2A
rgo
nn
e N
at'l.
Lab
- Ea
st (
AN
L-E)
Am
eric
ium
51
60
.04
90
.00
8H
ydro
gen
-37
70
.01
20
.00
2M
ixed
11
0.0
04
0.0
04
Plu
ton
ium
12
15
22
91
.08
50
.03
7A
rgo
nn
e N
at'l.
Lab
- W
est
(AN
L-W
)Pl
uto
niu
m1
10
.07
00
.07
0B
roo
khav
en N
at'l.
Lab
(B
NL)
Hyd
rog
en-3
47
11
58
0.6
23
0.0
11
Idah
oId
aho
Site
Ura
niu
m1
10
.01
60
.01
6N
evad
aN
TSPl
uto
niu
m2
68
0.3
83
0.0
48
Oak
lan
dLa
wre
nce
Ber
kele
y La
b. (L
BL)
Hyd
rog
en-3
32
16
0.3
10
0.0
52
Law
ren
ce L
iver
mo
re N
at'l.
Lab
. (L
LNL)
Hyd
rog
en-3
66
0.0
41
0.0
07
Oak
Rid
ge
Op
s. a
nd
Oth
er F
acili
ties
Ura
niu
m2
85
33
0.3
01
0.0
09
Oak
Rid
ge
Site
Am
eric
ium
11
20
.06
00
.03
0H
ydro
gen
-31
10
.00
20
.00
2O
ther
40
31
44
0.3
11
0.0
07
Tech
net
ium
22
0.0
06
0.0
03
Ura
niu
m1
,05
81
08
26
20
11
54
1,2
32
34
.88
40
.02
8Pa
du
cah
Gas
eou
s D
iff. Pl
ant
(PG
DP)
Ura
niu
m1
10
.01
20
.01
2O
hio
Op
s. a
nd
Oth
er F
acili
ties
Am
eric
ium
22
0.0
02
0.0
01
Oth
er1
61
60
.03
90
.00
2Pl
uto
niu
m1
11
10
.02
10
.00
2Fe
rnal
d E
nvi
ron
men
tal M
gm
t. P
roje
ctTh
oriu
m9
90
.05
70
.00
6U
ran
ium
99
0.0
26
0.0
03
Mo
un
d P
lan
tA
mer
iciu
m1
23
0.1
62
0.0
54
Hyd
rog
en-3
65
65
0.1
73
0.0
03
Plu
ton
ium
13
15
0.3
78
0.0
76
Tho
riu
m4
40
.20
00
.05
0U
ran
ium
20
20
0.0
52
0.0
03
Rock
y Fl
ats
Rock
y Fl
ats
Env.
Tec
h. Si
te (
RFET
S)Pl
uto
niu
m1
01
24
11
28
3.9
77
0.1
42
Ura
niu
m3
30
.00
90
.00
3Ri
chla
nd
Han
ford
Site
Hyd
rog
en-3
88
0.0
22
0.0
03
Oth
er1
10
.30
00
.30
0Pl
uto
niu
m2
21
.47
00
.73
5Sa
van
nah
Sava
nn
ah R
iver
Site
(SR
S)A
mer
iciu
m1
10
.03
70
.03
7Ri
ver
Hyd
rog
en-3
45
11
45
21
.38
60
.00
3O
ther
11
0.0
75
0.0
75
Plu
ton
ium
12
30
.78
70
.26
2To
tals
1,9
09
35
31
28
43
18
85
10
02
,46
58
4.2
07
0.0
34
Opera
tion
s/Fie
ld O
ffic
e
Num
ber
of
Indiv
idual
s R
ecei
vin
g D
ose
s in
Eac
h D
ose
Ran
ge
Avera
ge
CED
E(r
em
)N
ucl
ide
Collect
ive
CED
E(p
ers
on
-rem
)
Tota
lIn
div
iduals
wit
h M
eas.
CED
ESi
te0
.02
-0
.10
0.1
0-
0.2
50
.25
-0
.50
0.5
0-
0.7
51
.0-
2.0
2.0
-3
.00
.75
-1
.00
>4
.0M
eas.
-0.0
23
.0-
4.0
The
19
98
co
llect
ive
ura
niu
m d
ose
fr o
m O
ak R
idg
e w
as t
he
hig
hes
t, w
ith t
he
Gra
nd
Ju
nct
ion
Rad
on
-22
2 d
ose
sec
on
d. T
he
hig
hes
t in
div
idu
alin
tern
al e
xpo
sure
(at
Ro
cky
Flat
s) a
nd
hig
hes
t av
erag
e in
tern
al e
xpo
sure
(H
anfo
rd)
wer
e fr
om
Plu
ton
ium
.
B-38 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure
B-23
: Ex
trem
ity
Dos
e D
istr
ibut
ion
by O
pera
tion
s/Si
te, 1
998
Rock
y Fl
ats
had
th
e g
reat
est
nu
mb
er o
f p
eop
le r
ecei
vin
g a
n e
xtre
mity
do
se a
nd
th
e g
reat
est
colle
ctiv
e ex
trem
ity d
ose
. R
ock
y Fl
ats
also
rec
ord
edth
e g
reat
est
nu
mb
er o
f p
eop
le a
bo
ve t
he
extr
emity
mo
nito
rin
g r
equ
irem
ent
thre
sho
ld. P
luto
niu
m c
lean
up
an
d p
acka
gin
g a
nd
an
alyt
ical
lab
ora
tory
op
erat
ion
s ac
cou
nte
d f
or
mo
st o
f Ro
cky
Flat
s ex
trem
ity e
xpo
sure
s.
Opera
tion
s
Avera
ge
Meas.
Extr
em
ity
Dose
(re
m)
Tota
l M
on
itore
dSi
te
Rep
rese
nts
th
e to
tal n
um
ber
of
mo
nito
rin
g r
eco
rds.
Th
e n
um
ber
of
ind
ivid
ual
s p
rovi
ded
ext
rem
ity m
on
itorin
g c
ann
ot
be
det
erm
ined
.
No
Meas.
Dose
Meas.
–0
.10
.1-1
1-5
5-
10
10
-2
0N
o.
wit
hM
eas.
*
No.
Above
Monit
ori
ng
Thre
shold
.(5
rem
)
Collec
tive
Extr
emit
yD
ose
(per
son
-rem
)
Alb
uque
rque
Ch
icag
o
DO
E H
Q
Idah
o
Nev
ada
Oak
lan
d
Oak
Rid
ge
Oh
io
Rock
y Fl
ats
Rich
lan
d
Sava
nnah
Riv
er
Alb
uque
rque
Los
Ala
mos
Nat
ion
al L
ab. (
LAN
L)Pa
nte
x Pl
ant
(PP)
San
dia
Nat
ion
al L
ab. (
SNL)
Gra
nd
Jun
ctio
n
Ch
icag
o O
pera
tion
sA
rgon
ne
Nat
'l. L
ab. -
Eas
t (A
NL-
E)A
rgon
ne
Nat
'l. L
ab. -
Wes
t (A
NL-
W)
Broo
khav
en N
at'l.
Lab
. (BN
L)Fe
rmi N
at'l.
Acc
eler
ator
Lab
. (FE
RMI)
DO
E H
ead
quar
ters
Nor
th K
orea
Pro
ject
Idah
o Si
te
Nev
ada
Test
Site
(NTS
)
Oak
lan
d O
pera
tion
sLa
wre
nce
Ber
kele
y La
b. (L
BL)
Law
ren
ce L
iver
mor
e N
at'l.
Lab
. (LL
NL)
Stan
ford
Lin
ear
Acc
eler
ator
Cen
ter
(SLA
C)
Oak
Rid
ge
Ope
ratio
ns
Oak
Rid
ge
Site
Pad
ucah
Gas
eous
Diff
. Pla
nt
(PG
DP)
Port
smou
th G
aseo
us D
iff. P
lan
t (P
ORT
S)
Oh
io F
ield
Offi
ceFe
rnal
d E
nvi
ron
men
tal M
gm
t. P
roje
ctM
oun
d P
lan
tW
est
Valle
y
Rock
y Fl
ats
Env.
Tec
h. S
ite (R
FETS
)
Han
ford
Site
Sava
nn
ah R
iver
Site
(SRS
)
Tota
ls
694
10,6
965,
666
3,40
118
4
519
2,78
361
94,
740
2,05
2 4 24
4,29
3
4,87
5
234
1,95
77,
546
2,27
6
2,55
914
,761 53
017
6
385
4,33
292
885
2
3,03
1
7,49
6
7,79
7
95
,41
0
22 71 58 32 116 -
107
147
662 3 - -
504 10 48 14 70- -
35- -
26 3 -18
8
2,23
9
1,88
5
2,10
7
8,3
47
-85 16 2 - -11 11 10 2 - -
21 3 - 3 8 - -15
- -
27- - -
171
209
128
72
2
- 4 - 1 - - 2 - 1 1 - - - - - - 1 - - 3 - - - - - -
32 6 5
56
- 4 - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 2 - 8
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0
717
11,1
595,
839
3,46
230
7
520
2,93
886
55,
596
2,06
6 4 24
5,07
5
4,89
3
282
1,99
27,
718
2,28
3
2,55
91
4,8
93
530
176
468
4,33
892
81,
115
6,31
8
10,4
41
10,9
76
10
8,4
82
23 463
173 61 123 1
155
246
856 14
- -
782 18 48 35 172 7 -
132 - -
83 6 -26
3
3,2
87
2,94
5
3,17
9
13
,07
2
- 9 - 1 - - 3 - 1 1 - - - - - - 1 - - 3 - - - - - -
33 8 5
65
1.08
740
7.08
963
.555
19.0
715.
563
0.15
559
.295
56.1
6489
.052
13.5
20
- -
120.
998
7.54
9
1.11
014
.444
49.1
532.
090 -
79.4
16- -
46.8
200.
469 -
25.4
89
91
2.3
72
806.
189
609.
443
3,3
90
.09
3
0.04
70.
879
0.36
70.
313
0.04
5
0.15
50.
383
0.22
80.
104
0.9
66 - -
0.15
5
0.41
9
0.02
30.
413
0.28
60.
299 -
0.60
2 - -
0.56
40.
078 -
0.09
7
0.27
8
0.27
4
0.19
2
0.2
59
*
>4
0
129
8 99 26 7 1 34 88 183 8 - -
257 5 -
18 93 7 -79
- -
30 3 -75 84
4
843
939
3,9
38
20
-3
03
0-
40
- 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1
**
All
extr
emity
do
ses
abo
ve 5
rem
wer
e fo
r th
e u
pp
er e
xtre
miti
es (
han
ds
and
fo
rear
ms)
. D
OE
ann
ual
lim
it fo
r ex
trem
ities
is 5
0 r
em.
10
CFR
83
5.4
02
(a)(
1)(
ii) r
equ
ires
extr
emity
mo
nito
rin
g f
or
a sh
allo
w d
ose
eq
uiv
alen
t to
th
e sk
in o
r ex
trem
ity o
f 5
rem
or
mo
re in
a y
ear.
**
1998 Report C-1Facility Type Code Descriptions
Appendix CFacility Type Code DescriptionsFacility Type Code Descriptions CFacility Type Code D
escriptions
DOE Manual 231.1-1 [12] requires contractors toindicate for each reported individual the facilitycontributing the predominant portion of thatindividual’s effective dose equivalent. In caseswhen this cannot be distinguished, the facilitytype indicated should represent the facility typewherein the greatest portion of work service wasperformed.
The facility type indicated must be one of 11general facility categories shown in Exhibit C-1.Because it is not always a straightforwardprocedure to determine the appropriate facilitytype for each individual, the assignment of anindividual to a particular facility type is a policydecision of each contractor.
The facility descriptions that follow indicate thetypes of facilities included in each category. Alsoincluded are the types of work performed at thefacilities and the sources of the majority of theradiation exposures.
AcceleratorThe DOE administers approximately a dozenlaboratories that perform significant accelerator-based research. The accelerators range in sizefrom small single-room electrostatic devices to a4-mile circumference synchrotron, and theirenergies range from keV to TeV.
The differences in accelerator types, sizes, andenergies result in differences in the radiationtypes and dose rates associated with theaccelerator facilities. In general, radiation dosesto employees at the facilities are attributable toneutrons and X-rays, as well as muons at somelarger facilities. Dose rates inside the primaryshielding can range up to 0.2 rem/hr as a result ofX-ray production near some machinecomponents. Outside the shielding, however, X-rayexposure rates are very low, and neutron doserates are generally less than 0.005 rem/hr. Averageannual doses at these facilities are slightly higherthan the overall average for DOE; however, thecollective dose is lower than the collective dosefor most other DOE facility categories because ofthe relatively small number of employees at
Exhibit C-1:Facility Type Codes
accelerator facilities. Regarding internalexposures, tritium and short-lived airborneactivation products exist at some acceleratorfacilities, although annual internal doses aregenerally quite low.
Fuel/Uranium EnrichmentThe DOE involvement in the nuclear fuel cyclegenerally begins with uranium enrichmentoperations and facilities [15]. The current methodof enrichment is isotopic separation using thegaseous diffusion process, which involvesdiffusing uranium through a porous membraneand using the different atomic weights of theuranium isotopes to achieve separation.
Although current facility designs and physicalcontrols result in low doses from internallydeposited uranium, the primary radiologicalhazard is the potential for inhalation of airborneuranium [15]. Because of the low specific activityof uranium, external dose rates are usually a fewmillirem per hour or less. Most of the externaldoses that are received are attributable to gamma
Facility TypeCode Description
10
21
22
23
40
50
61
62
70
80
99
Accelerator
Fuel/Uranium Enrichment
Fuel Fabrication
Fuel Processing
Maintenance and Support (Site Wide)
Reactor
Research, General
Research, Fusion
Waste Processing/Mgmt.
Weapons Fab. and Testing
Other
C-2 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure
exposures, although neutron exposures canoccur, especially when work is performed nearhighly enriched uranium. Both the average andcollective external doses at these facilities areamong the lowest of any DOE facility category.
Fuel FabricationActivities at fuel fabrication facilities involve thephysical conversion of uranium compounds tousable forms, usually rod-shaped metal. Radiationexposures to personnel at these facilities areattributable almost entirely to gamma and betaradiation. However, beta radiation is consideredthe primary external radiation hazard because ofhigh beta dose rates (up to several hundred mradper hour) at the surface of uranium rods [15]. Forexample, physical modification of uranium metalby various metalworking operations, such asmachining and lathing operations, requiresprotection against beta radiation exposures to theskin, eyes, and extremities. Average external dosesat fuel fabrication facilities are generally higherthan at other types of DOE facilities; however,collective doses are relatively low because thenumber of employees is low. Internal doses frominhalation of uranium are kept very low.
Fuel ProcessingThe DOE administers several facilities thatreprocess spent reactor fuel. These facilitiesseparate the plutonium produced in reactors foruse in defense programs. They also separate thefission products and uranium; the fissionproducts are normally designated as radioactivewaste products, while the uranium can berefabricated for further use as fuel.
The very high radioactivity of fission products inspent nuclear fuel results in employees at fuelprocessing facilities consistently having amongthe highest average doses of any DOE facilitytype. However, the collective dose at thesefacilities is less significant because of the smalltotal number of employees. Penetrating doses areattributable primarily to gamma photons,although some neutron exposures do occur. Skinand extremity doses from handling samples arealso significant, although only a few employees
typically receive skin doses greater than 5 rem/year. Strict controls are in place at fuelreprocessing facilities to prevent internaldepositions; however, several measurable intakestypically occur per year. Plutonium isotopesrepresent the majority of the internal depositions,and annual effective dose equivalents from thedepositions are typically less than 0.5 rem.
Maintenance and SupportMost DOE sites have facilities dedicated tomaintaining and supporting the site. In addition,some employees may be classified under thisfacility type if their main function is to provide sitemaintenance and support, even though they maynot be located at a single facility dedicated to thatpurpose.
Because many maintenance and supportactivities at DOE sites do not involve work nearsources of ionizing radiation, the average doseequivalent per monitored employee is typicallyamong the lowest of any facility type. However,those employees who do perform work nearradiation sources receive relatively high averageannual doses, as is indicated by the relatively highaverage annual dose per employee who receives ameasurable exposure. Also, collective doses arerelatively high because there is a large number ofthese employees relative to the number classifiedunder other facility types. The sources of ionizingradiation exposure are primarily gamma photons.However, variations in the types of workperformed and work locations result in exposuresof all types, including exposures to beta particles,x-rays, neutrons, and airborne radioactivity.
ReactorThe DOE and its predecessors have built andoperated dozens of nuclear reactors since themid-1940s. These facilities have includedplutonium and tritium production reactors,prototype reactors for energy production, researchreactors, reactors designed for special purposessuch as production of medical radioisotopes, andreactors designed for the propulsion of navalvessels.
1998 Report C-3Facility Type Code Descriptions
By 1992, many of the DOE reactors were notoperating. As a result, personnel exposures at DOEreactor facilities were attributable primarily togamma photons and beta particles fromcontaminated equipment and plant areas, spentreactor fuel, activated reactor components, andother areas containing fission or activationproducts encountered during plant maintenanceand decommissioning operations. Neutronexposures do occur at operating reactors,although the resulting doses are a very smallfraction of the collective penetrating doses.Gamma dose rates in some plant areas can bevery high (up to several rems per hour), requiringextensive protective measures. The average andcollective external doses relative to other facilitytypes are highly dependent on the status ofreactor operations. Inhalation of airborneradioactive material such as H-3 is a concern insome plant areas. However, protective measures,such as area ventilation or use of respiratory-protection equipment, result in low internal doses.
Research, GeneralThe DOE contractors perform research at manyDOE facilities, including all of the nationallaboratories. Research is performed in generalareas including biology, biochemistry, healthphysics, materials science, environmental science,epidemiology, and many others. Research is alsoperformed in more specific areas such as globalwarming, hazardous waste disposal, energyconservation, and energy production.
The spectrum of research involving ionizingradiation or radioactive materials beingperformed at DOE facilities results in a widevariety of radiological conditions. Depending onthe research performed, personnel may beexposed to virtually any type of external radiation,including beta particles, gamma photons, x-rays,and neutrons. In addition, there is the potentialfor inhalation of radioactive material. Area doserates and individual annual doses are highlyvariable. Relative to other facility types, averageannual individual doses are slightly above averageat general research facilities. The collective doseequivalent is higher than at most other facilitytypes because of the many individuals employedat general research facilities.
Research, FusionDOE currently operates both major and smallfacilities that participate in research on fusionenergy. In general, both penetrating and shallowradiation doses are minimal at these facilitiesbecause the dose rates near the equipment areboth low and intermittent. The external doses thatdo occur are attributable primarily to x-rays fromenergized equipment. Relative to other DOEfacility types, average individual doses andcollective doses are typically the lowest at fusionresearch facilities. Regarding internal exposures,airborne tritium is a concern at some fusionresearch facilities, although the current level ofoperation results in minimal doses.
Waste Processing/ManagementMost DOE sites have facilities dedicated to theprocessing and disposal of radioactive waste. Ingeneral, the dose rates to employees whenhandling waste are very low because of the lowspecific activities or the effectiveness of shieldingmaterials. As a result, very few employees at thesefacilities receive annual doses greater than 0.1 rem.At two DOE sites, however, large-scale wasteprocessing facilities exist to properly dispose ofradioactive waste products generated during thenuclear fuel cycle. At these facilities, radiationdoses to some employees can be relatively high,sometimes exceeding 1 rem/year. Penetratingdoses at waste processing facilities areattributable primarily to gamma photons; however,neutron exposures are significant at the large-scale facilities. Skin doses are generally not asignificant problem. Overall, average annual dosesat waste processing/management facilities areamong the highest of any DOE facility type, whichis attributable primarily to the two large-scalefacilities and the shift in DOE mission fromnational defense production to wastemanagement and environmental restoration. Theannual collective doses are closer to the averageof all facility types, however, because of therelatively small number of employees at this typeof facility.
C-4 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure
Weapons Fabrication and TestingThe primary function of a facility in this categoryis to fabricate weapons-grade material for theproduction or testing of nuclear weapons. At thetesting facilities, radiation doses received bypersonnel are generally minimal because of thestrict controls over personnel access to testingareas, although extremity doses can be relativelyhigh from handling neutron-activated materials.Radiation doses are a greater concern at facilitieswhere weapons and weapons-grade nuclearmaterial are handled. At these facilities, neutronradiation dose rates can be significant whenprocessing relatively small quantities of 238Pu orlarger quantities of mixed plutonium isotopes[16]. Penetrating doses from gamma photons andplutonium x-rays can also be significant in somesituations, as can skin and extremity doses fromplutonium x-rays. Overall, average individualannual doses at these facilities are slightly higherthan the DOE average. The collective dosesreceived by employees at these facilities aregenerally higher than the collective doses at otherfacility types because of the large number ofindividuals employed.
Also of significant concern at these facilities isinhalation of plutonium, where inhalation of verysmall amounts can result in doses exceedinglimits. To prevent plutonium intakes, strictcontrols are in place including processcontainment, contamination control procedures,and air monitoring and bioassay programs [16].As a result, significant internal exposures are veryrare at these facilities.
OtherIndividuals included in this facility type can begenerally classified under three categories: (1)those who worked in a facility that did not matchone of the ten facility types described above; (2)those who did not work for any appreciable timeat any specific facility, such as transient workers; or(3) those for whom facility type was not indicatedon the report forms. Examples of a facility typenot included in the ten described above includeconstruction and irradiation facilities. In general,employees classified under this facility typereceive annual doses significantly less than theannual doses averaged over all DOE facilities.However, the wide variation in the type of workperformed by these individuals results in a widevariation in the types and levels of exposures.Although exposures to gamma photons arepredominant, some individuals may be exposedto beta particles, x-rays, neutrons, or airborneradioactive material.
1998 Report D-1Limitations of Data
Appendix D DLim
itations of Data
Limitations of DataLimitations of Data
The following is a description of the limitations ofthe data currently available in the DOE RadiationExposure Monitoring System (REMS). Whilethese limitations have been taken intoconsideration in the analysis presented in thisreport, readers should be alert to these limitationsand consider their implications when drawingconclusions from these data.
Individual Dose Records vsDose DistributionPrior to 1987, exposure data were reported fromeach facility in terms of a statistical dosedistribution wherein the number of individualsreceiving a dose within specific dose ranges wasreported. The collective dose was then calculatedfrom the distribution by multiplying the numberof individuals in each dose range by the midpointvalue of the dose range. Starting in 1987, reportsof individual exposures were collected thatrecorded the specific dose for each monitoredindividual. The collective dose can be accuratelydetermined by summing the total dose for eachindividual. The dose distribution reportingmethod prior to 1987 resulted in up to a 20%overestimation of collective dose. The reason isthat the distribution of doses within a range isusually skewed toward the lower end of the range.If the midpoint of the range is multiplied by thenumber of people in the range, the productoverestimates the collective dose.
Monitoring PracticesRadiation monitoring practices differ widely fromsite to site and are based on the radiation hazardsand work practices at each site. Sites usedifferent dosimeters and have different policieson which workers to monitor. While all sites haveachieved compliance with the DOE Laboratory
Accreditation Program (DOELAP), whichstandardizes the quality of dosimetrymeasurements, there are still differences in thedosimeters used that can contribute todifferences in the collective dose from site to site.The number of monitored individuals cansignificantly impact the site’s collective dose.Some sites supply dosimeters to virtually allworkers. While this tends to inflate the number ofmonitored workers with no dose, it also can add alarge number of very low dose workers to thetotal number of workers with measurable dose,thereby lowering the site’s average measurabledose. Even at low doses, these workers addsignificantly to the site collective dose. Incontrast, other sites only monitor workers whoexceed the monitoring requirement threshold (asspecified in 10 CFR 835.402). This tends to reducethe number of monitored workers and reportsonly those workers receiving doses in the higherdose ranges. This can decrease the site’scollective dose while increasing the averagemeasurable dose.
AEDE vs CEDEPrior to 1989, intakes of radionuclides into thebody were not reported as dose, but as body bur-den in units of activity of systemic burden. Theimplementation of DOE Order 5480.11 in 1989specified that the intakes of radionuclides beconverted to internal dose and reported using theAnnual Effective Dose Equivalent (AEDE) meth-odology. The AEDE methodology requires thecalculation of the summation of dose for all tis-sues and organs multiplied by the appropriateweighting factor for a specified year. In additionto the calculation of AEDE, the DOE required thereporting of the Total Effective Dose Equivalent(TEDE) which is the summation of the externalwhole body dose and the AEDE from 1989through 1992.
D-2 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure
With the implementation of the RadCon Manualin 1993, the required methodology used to calcu-late and report internal dose was changed fromthe AEDE to the 50-year CEDE. The CEDE repre-sents the dose equivalent delivered to all organsand tissues over the next 50 years. The changewas made to provide consistency with scientificrecommendations, facilitate the transfer of work-ers between DOE and NRC regulated facilities,and simplify record keeping by recording all dosein the year of intake. The CEDE methodology isnow codified in 10 CFR 835. From 1993 to thepresent, the TEDE is defined as the summation ofthe Deep Dose Equivalent (DDE) to the wholebody and the CEDE.
This report primarily analyzes dose informationfor the past 5 years, from 1994 to 1998. Duringthese years, the CEDE methodology was used tocalculate internal dose; therefore, the change inmethodology from AEDE to CEDE between 1992and 1993 does not affect the analysis contained inthis report. Readers should keep in mind thechange in methodology if analyzing TEDE dataprior to 1993.
Occupation CodesEach individual’s dose record includes theoccupation code for the individual while he orshe worked at the DOE site during the monitoringyear. Occupational codes typically represent theoccupation the individual held at the end of thecalendar year and may not represent theoccupation where the majority of dose wasreceived if the individual held multipleoccupations during the year. The occupationcodes are very broad categorizations and aregrouped into nine general categories. Each year apercentage (up to 20%) of the occupations arelisted as unknown, or as miscellaneous. Thedefinitions of each of the labor categories aresubject to interpretation by the reportingorganization and/or the individual’s employer. It isrecommended that Sites and Operations Officesevaluate their recordkeeping and reportingprocess and report the information to the REMSsystem as specified in DOE M 231.1-1 to improvethe analysis of radiation exposure by occupation,and thus make this report more useful to linemanager and worker protection decision makers.
Facility TypeThe facility type is also recorded with each doserecord for the monitoring year. It is intended toreflect the type of facility where the individualreceived most of their occupational radiationexposure during the monitoring year. While thefacility types are clearly defined (see AppendicesA and C), the reporting organizations often havedifficulty tracking which facility type contributedto the majority of the individual’s exposure.Certain individuals tend to work in the proximityof several different facility types throughout themonitoring year and are often included in the“Maintenance and Support (Site-wide)” facilitytype. The facility type for temporary contractworkers and visitors is often not reported and isdefaulted to “unknown.”
In addition to these uncertainties, the phase ofoperation of the facility types is not currentlyreported. A facility type of “accelerator” may bereported when in fact, the accelerator has notbeen in operation for a considerable time andmay be in the process of stabilization,decommissioning, or decontamination. Inaddition, several sites have commented that theyhave difficulty assigning the facility type, becausemany of the facilities are no longer operational.For example, some sites commented that areactor that is being decommissioned is nolonger considered a “reactor” facility type. Othersites continue to categorize a facility based on theoriginal intent or design of the facility, regardlessof its current status.
DOE Headquarters will be reviewing the FacilityType codification scheme and modifying thereporting requirements to standardize the use offacility type classifications and improve thequality of the data and the data analysis. DOE willalso pursue the usefulness of collecting data onthe operational phase of facilities with end-usersof this report. A “phase of operation” status codecould be added to the occupational radiationreporting requirements for individual doserecords (see Appendix A-4). In combination withthe facility type codes already reported, thiswould provide an indication of the operationalmode and type of activities being conducted at agiven facility. This will become increasingly
1998 Report D-3Limitations of Data
important as more facilities transition fromstabilization activities into D&D. It isrecommended that Sites and Operations Officesbegin reviewing their data collection process inanticipation of collecting the phase of operationdata in the future.
Organization CodeFacilities report data to the central repositorybased on an “organization code.” This codeidentifies the Operations or Field Office, thereporting facility, and the contractor orsubcontractor that is reporting the exposureinformation. The organization code changes overtime as DOE Offices are reorganized. In somecases, new Operations or Field Offices arecreated, in other cases a Field Office may changeorganizations and begin reporting with anotherField Office. Two such changes are noteworthywithin the past several years. The Fernald FieldOffice began reporting independently in 1993.Prior to 1993 it reported under the Oak RidgeField Office. In 1994, Fernald was incorporatedinto the newly created Ohio Field Office. TheOhio Field Office began reporting in 1994. Forthis reason, the Fernald data are shown under theOhio Field Office. The Mound Plant and WestValley Project also changed Operations Officeduring the past 3 years and are now shown underthe Ohio Field Office. Footnotes indicate thechange in Operations Offices.
Occurrence ReportsOccurrence reports involving radiation exposureand personnel contamination events areadditional indicators of the effectiveness ofradiation protection efforts at DOE. These eventswill continue to be analyzed and presented inthis report.
Additional Data RequirementsTo provide analysis of the activities at DOE siteswith respect to radiation exposure (see Section3.5), it is necessary to augment the informationreported to the REMS database. For the past 5years, DOE Headquarters has requestedadditional information from the seven sites withthe highest collective dose. This informationincludes a summary of activities, projectdescriptions, and ALARA planningdocumentation. DOE Headquarters will continueto request this information in subsequent years.It is recommended that sites submit thisinformation with their annual records.
Naval Reactor FacilitiesThe exposure information for the Schenectadyand Pittsburgh Naval Reactor facilities is notincluded in this report. Readers should note thatthe dose information for the overall DOE complexpresented in this report may differ from otherreports or sources of information because of theexclusion of these data.
Exposure information for Naval Reactor programscan be found in the most recent version of thefollowing series of reports (where XX representsthe report year):
◆ NT-XX-2 – “Occupational Radiation Exposurefrom U.S. Naval Nuclear Plants and TheirSupport Facilities”,
◆ NT-XX-3 – “Occupational Radiation Exposurefrom U.S. Naval Reactors’ Department of EnergyFacilities”.
D-4 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure
Updates to the DataThe data in the REMS database are subject tocorrection and update on a continual basis. Datafor prior years are subject to correction as well asthe data for the most recent year included in thisreport. The most common reason for correctionto a dose record is because of a final dosedetermination of an internal dose after theoriginal dose record was submitted to REMS. Thisdelay is due to the time needed to assess thebioassay results and determine the dose fromlong-lived radionuclides. It is recommended thatsites review their dose record update andreporting process, specifically for internal dosedetermination, and consider the addition of amechanism whereby they report dose updates toREMS in a timely fashion when updates occur.Corrections will be reflected in subsequentannual reports. For the most up-to-date status ofradiation exposure information, contact:
Ms. Nirmala RaoREMS Project ManagerU.S. Department of EnergyOffice of Worker Protection Programs and Hazards Management (EH-52)Germantown, MD 20874
1998 Report E-1Access to Radiation Exposure Information
Appendix E EA
ccess to Radiation Exposur e Inform
ation
Radiation ExposureMonitoring SystemThe data used to compile this report wereobtained from the DOE Radiation ExposureMonitoring System (REMS), which serves as thecentral repository of radiation exposureinformation for DOE Headquarters. Recently, theREMS has undergone an extensive redesign effortin combination with the efforts involved inrevising the annual report. One of the main goalsof the redesign effort is to allow researchersbetter access to the REMS data. However, there isconsiderable diversity in the goals and needs ofthese researchers. For this reason, a multi-tieredapproach has been developed to allowresearchers flexibility in accessing the REMS data.
Exhibit E-1 lists the various ways of accessing theDOE radiation exposure information contained inREMS. A description is given for each accessmethod as well as requirements for access andskill sets needed for each method. Descriptionsof the intended research audience andexperience level (for computer systems) are alsoprovided. To obtain further information, a contactname and phone number are provided.
A brief summary of the multi-tier access to theREMS information is shown in Exhibit E-1.
The data contained in the REMS system are sub-ject to periodic update. Data for the current orprevious years may be updated as corrections oradditions are submitted by the sites. For this rea-son, the data presented in published reports maynot agree with the current data in the REMS data-base. These updates typically have a relativelysmall impact on the data and should not affectthe general conclusions and analysis of the datapresented in this report.
ComprehensiveEpidemiologic Data ResourceOf interest to researchers in radiation exposure isthe health risk associated with worker exposureto radiation. While the health risk fromoccupational exposure is not treated in thisreport, it has been extensively researched by DOE.The Comprehensive Epidemiologic DataResource (CEDR) serves as a central resource forradiation health risk studies at the DOE.
Epidemiologic studies on health effects ofradiation exposures have been supported by theDOE for more than 30 years. The results of thesestudies, which initially focused on the evaluationof mortality among workers employed in thenuclear weapons complex, have been publishedin scientific literature. However, the data collectedduring the conduct of the studies were not widelyshared. CEDR has now been established as apublic-use database to broaden independentaccess and use of these data. At its introductionin 1993, CEDR included primarily occupationalstudies of the DOE workforce, includingdemographic, employment, exposure, andmortality follow-up information on more than420,000 workers. The program’s holdings havebeen expanded to include data from bothoccupational and historical community healthstudies, such as those examining the impact offallout from nuclear weapons testing, communitydose reconstructions, and data from the decadesof follow-up on atomic bomb survivors.
CEDR accomplishes this by a hierarchicalstructure that accommodates analysis andworking files generated during a study, as well asfiles of documentation that are critical forunderstanding the data. CEDR provides easyaccess to its holdings through the Internet orphone and mail interchanges, and provides anextensive catalog of its holdings. CEDR hasbecome a unique resource comprising themajority of data that exist on the risks of radiationexposure on the health risks of occupationalradiation exposure.
For further information about CEDR, access theCEDR internet web page at:
Access to Radiation Exposure InformationAccess to Radiation Exposure Information
Or the CEDR Program Manager may be contactedat:
http://cedr.lbl.gov
E-2 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure
REM
S In
form
ati
on
Acc
ess
Meth
od
Kn
ow
ledge o
fR
EM
S D
ata
Use
r
Syst
em
Adm
inst
rato
r-Se
tup
Soft
ware
Requir
em
en
ts3
Eligib
ilit
yR
equir
em
en
tsTo
Get
Acc
ess
Com
pute
r Expert
ise
Experi
en
ce R
equir
em
en
ts
1 2 3 4
Har
dco
py
An
nu
alRe
po
rt
Web
Pag
e
Info
Mak
er -
Pre-
def
ined
rep
ort
s
Info
Mak
er -
Ad
Ho
cQ
uer
ies
Clie
nt
qu
ery
too
loth
er th
an In
foM
aker
None.
D
ata
expl
ained
in r
epo
rt.
Low
. G
ener
alkn
ow
led
ge/
inte
rest
inra
dia
tion
dat
a.
Mediu
m.
N
eed
to k
no
w t
he
dat
alim
itatio
ns
of
the
dat
ain
REM
S, a
nd
wh
atth
e ex
po
sure
dat
are
pre
sen
t.
Hig
h.
N
eed
to
thoro
ug
hly
un
der
stan
dth
e d
ata
dic
tion
ary,
rela
tion
ship
s an
dst
ruct
ure
of
the
dat
abas
e. Li
mita
tion
so
f th
e d
ata.
Hig
h.
N
eed
to
thoro
ug
hly
un
der
stan
dth
e d
ata
dic
tion
ary,
rela
tion
ship
s an
dst
ruct
ure
of
the
dat
abas
e. Li
mita
tion
so
f th
e d
ata.
N/A
Min
imal
com
pu
ter
skill
s. O
nly
akn
owle
dge
of h
ow to
use
the
Web
bro
wse
r,an
d a
n In
tern
etco
nn
ectio
n.
Min
imal. F
amili
arity
with
Win
do
ws
applic
atio
ns.
Nee
d to
under
stan
d d
iffer
ence
bet
wee
n Q
uer
y an
dRe
po
rts.
Mediu
m (
to H
igh
).So
me
kno
wle
dg
e o
fSQ
L h
igh
lyre
com
men
ded
.Sh
ou
ld b
e fa
mili
arw
ith "
Rep
ort
gen
erat
ion
"-ty
pe
soft
war
e.
Hig
h.
Nee
d t
o b
esk
illed
in S
QL
and
con
nec
ting
to
th
esy
stem
. N
eed
to
be
skill
ed in
th
e u
se o
fw
hat
ever
qu
ery
too
lis
use
d.
N/A
Mediu
m.
Su
pp
lyLA
N c
on
nec
tion
to
Inte
rnet
or
Inte
rnet
Pro
vid
er.
Sup
po
rtW
eb b
row
ser.
Mediu
m.
Clie
nt-
serv
er c
om
pu
ter
con
figu
ratio
n c
an b
eco
mple
x, b
ut
this
is a
on
e-tim
e ef
fort
.In
foM
aker
su
pp
ort
prov
ided
by
DO
E H
Q.
Mediu
m.
Clie
nt-
serv
er c
om
pu
ter
con
figu
ratio
n c
an b
eco
mple
x, b
ut
this
is a
on
e-tim
e ef
fort
.In
foM
aker
su
pp
ort
prov
ided
by
DO
E H
Q.
Mediu
m.
Su
pp
ort
for
LAN
co
nn
ectio
nto
Inte
rnet
or In
tern
etPr
ovi
der
. S
up
po
rtu
ser
qu
ery
soft
war
e.
Non
e.
Inte
rnet
acc
ess.
Web
bro
wse
r cl
ien
tso
ftw
are.
Inte
rnet
acc
ess
(TC
P/IP
). O
racl
eSQ
LNet
. Po
wer
Soft
Info
Mak
er.
[O
racl
eSN
S so
ftw
are
ifC
ateg
ory
1 u
ser]
Inte
rnet
acc
ess
(TC
P/IP
). O
racl
eSQ
LNet
. Po
wer
Soft
Info
Mak
er.
[Ora
cle
SNS
soft
war
e if
Cat
ego
ry 1
use
r]
Inte
rnet
acc
ess
(TC
P/IP
). O
racl
eSQ
LNet
. O
DB
CD
rive
rs.
Qu
ery
Too
lcl
ien
t. [O
racl
e SN
Sso
ftw
are
if C
ateg
ory
1 u
ser]
Non
e.
Non
e.
No
req
uire
men
ts f
or
Cat
ego
ry 2
use
rs4.
Cat
ego
ry 1
use
rsm
ust
get
"n
eed
to
kno
w"
Priv
acy
Act
auth
oriza
tion
fro
mEH
-52
1.
No
req
uire
men
ts f
or
Cat
ego
ry 2
use
rs4.
Cat
ego
ry 1
use
rsm
ust
get
"n
eed
to
kno
w"
Priv
acy
Act
auth
oriza
tion
fro
mEH
-52
1.
No
req
uire
men
ts f
or
Cat
ego
ry 2
use
rs4.
Cat
ego
ry 1
use
rsm
ust
get
"n
eed
to
kno
w"
Priv
acy
Act
auth
oriza
tion
fro
mEH
-52
1.
Co
nta
ct E
H-5
21 t
ore
qu
est
that
yo
u b
ead
ded
to A
nnual
Rep
ort
mai
ling
list
.
Co
nn
ect
to h
ttp
://
rem
s.eh
.do
e.g
ov/
Co
nta
ct O
IM2 t
ore
qu
est
acce
ss.
EH-5
2 a
uth
oriza
tion
req
uire
d f
or
Cat
ego
ry 1
use
rs.
Co
nta
ct O
IM2 t
ore
qu
est
acce
ss.
EH-5
2 a
uth
oriza
tion
req
uire
d f
or
Cat
ego
ry 1
use
rs.
Co
nta
ct O
IM2 t
ore
qu
est
acce
ss.
EH-5
2 a
uth
oriza
tion
req
uire
d f
or
Cat
ego
ry 1
use
rs.
EH-5
2 c
on
tact
Ms.
Nirm
ala
Rao
at
— P
ho
ne:
(3
01
) 9
03
-22
97
, Fa
x: (
30
1)
90
3-7
77
3,
E-m
ail:
Nim
i.Rao
@h
q.d
oe.
go
vO
IM c
on
tact
Ms.
Mar
y C
un
nin
gh
am a
t —
Ph
on
e: (
30
1)
90
3-2
07
2,
E-m
ail:
mar
y.cu
nn
ing
ham
@eh
.do
e.g
ov
See
REM
S U
ser
Man
ual
fo
r d
etai
led
so
ftw
are
req
uire
men
ts.
Cat
ego
ry 1
- A
ll d
ata
in t
he
REM
S sy
stem
, in
clu
din
g P
riva
cy A
ct d
ata
such
as
nam
e an
d s
oci
al s
ecu
rity
nu
mb
er o
f th
e m
on
itore
d in
div
idu
al.
Cat
ego
ry 2
- A
cces
s to
no
n-s
ensi
tive
rad
iatio
n m
on
itorin
g in
form
atio
n p
er m
on
itore
d in
div
idu
al.
See
REM
S Re
fere
nce
Man
ual
fo
r d
etai
ls.
Exhi
bit
E-1:
Met
hods
of
Acc
essi
ng R
EMS
Info
rmat
ion
1998 Report F-1User Survey
Appendix F FU
ser Survey
DOE and DOE Contractor EmployeesAnnual Radiation Exposure Report
User SurveyDOE, striving to meet the needs of its stakeholders, is looking for suggestions on ways toimprove the DOE and DOE Contractor Employees Annual Radiation Exposure Report.Your feedback is important. Constructive feedback will ensure the report can continueto meet user needs. Please fill out the attached survey form and return it to:
Ms. Nirmala RaoDOE EH-52 270/cc19901 Germantown RoadGermantown, MD 20874
1. Identification:Name: .........................................................................................................................................................................................................
Title: ............................................................................................................................................................................................................
Mailing Address: ...................................................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................
2. Distribution:2.1 Do you wish to remain on distribution for the report? ___ yes ___ no2.2 Do you wish to be added to the distribution? ___ yes ___ no
3. Was the presentation/discussion of dose distribution data for:DOE-wide ............................... adequate ___ inadequate ___Sites ......................................... adequate ___ inadequate ___Facilities ................................. adequate ___ inadequate ___Occupation/Labor ................ adequate ___ inadequate ___
Comments/areas for improvement:.............................................................................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................
User Survey
Questions concerning the surveyshould be directed to Ms. Rao at (301) 903-2297
User Survey
F-2 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure
4. Was the presentation/discussion of dose trends for:DOE-wide ............................................ adequate ___ inadequate ___Sites ...................................................... adequate ___ inadequate ___Facilities .............................................. adequate ___ inadequate ___Occupation/Labor ............................. adequate ___ inadequate ___
Comments/areas for improvement:...... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
5. Was the discussion of ALARA Projects at specific sites:Useful ___ Keep in future reports ___Not useful ___ Delete from future reports ___
6. Was the discussion of AEDE vs CEDE helpful?Useful ___ Keep in future reports ___Not useful ___ Delete from future reports ___
7. Would additional/different breakouts of the data be helpful?Yes ___ No ___
Comments/areas for improvement:.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
8. Suggestions for new facility type, occupation, and/or labor codes...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
1998 Report F-3User Survey
9. If/when the data become available, would person-rem/hr orperson-rem/RWP be useful in this report?
Yes ___ No ___
Comments/areas for improvement:..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
10. To publish this report in the second quarter and to be able to use it as amanagement tool, we need the data as soon as possible after you haveprocessed it. Please indicate when you can provide the data.
Quarterly ___Semi-Annually ___Yearly*___
11. DOE is considering the addition of a code for indicating the Phase of Operation of the facility type that iscurrently reported with each dose record (see A-4). The Phase of Operation will allow for expanded analy-sis of the dose information by considering the operational phase of the facility. Please indicate whetherthis information is available at your site, and the years the information would cover.
Available___ Years:________to_________Not available___
*By end of January, February, March (please circle one)
F-4 DOE Occupational Radiation ExposureThis page intentionally left blank.
Prepared by:Science Applications International Corporation
301 Laboratory Road • Oak Ridge, TN 37830