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:


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:


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.


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


2.2.1 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.


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.

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.


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


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


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.


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%.


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.


*

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.


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


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


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,


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


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.


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


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


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


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.


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.


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


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


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


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


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.


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)



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.


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%)


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


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


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


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


3.6 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


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


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.


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

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.


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


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 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


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


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.


❖ 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.


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.


OrganizationCode Organization Name

Operations/Field Office Site

Idaho Site



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).


Site

4006302400650340080024007002400250140025024002504400250680010038006103800630380030038004003800400480040098004024800500380080034500001451000145100064517003452100145210044523702452370645160024516004451600945300014539004770000177000067700007770700277070047707005770700677070097709009771100475005037500705750100475025047503005750500475050057505006750501275050137505024

Oak Ridge Site

Paducah Gas. Diff. Plant (PGDP)Portsmouth Gaseous Diff. Plant(PORTS)


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


OrganizationCode Organization Name ’94 ’95 ’96 ’97 ’98

Year Reported*



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


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


OrganizationCode Organization NameSite

*

’94 ’95 ’96 ’97 ’98Year Reported*

Not included in this report (see Appendix D)



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.


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


Los Alamos Nat'l. Lab. (LANL)

Pantex Plant (PP)

Sandia Nat'l. Lab. (SNL)

Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action

(UMTRA) Project


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



Lawrence Berkeley Lab. (LBL)

Lawrence Livermore Nat'l. Lab. (LLNL)

Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC)


Oak Ridge Site

Paducah Gaseous Diff. Plant (PGDP)

Portsmouth Gaseous Diff. Plant (PORTS)


Fernald Environmental Mgmt. Project

Mound Plant

West Valley Project


Hanford Site


Note: Boxed values indicate the greatest value in each column.


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


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



Pantex Plant (PP)


Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action

(UMTRA) Project







North Korea Project

Idaho Site







Oak Ridge Site





Mound Plant

West Valley Project


Hanford Site




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



Pantex Plant (PP)


Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) Project*

Grand Junction







North Korea Project

Idaho Site







Oak Ridge Site





Mound Plant

West Valley Project


Hanford Site




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.


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-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

.


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-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


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-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


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-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

.


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-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.


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-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.


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-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

.


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-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%

.


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-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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


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-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.


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-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.


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-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 - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


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-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.


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.


Accelerator

Fuel Fabrication

Fuel Processing


Maintenance and Support

Other

Reactor

Research, Fusion

Research, General

Waste Processing


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-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


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-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.


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-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.


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-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 Fabrication

Fuel Processing

Maintenance and Support (Site Wide)

Reactor

Research, General

Research, Fusion

Waste Processing/Mgmt.


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

[email protected]

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

inldigitallibrary.inl.gov · this report has been reproduced directly from the best available copy....

Documents