DOE/EH-0675 DOE OCCUPATIONAL R E - energy.gov · DOE collective Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE) increased by 10% from 1,232 person-rem (12,320 person-mSv) to 1,360 person-rem

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

2002 Report

DOE OCCUPATIONAL

RADIATION

EXPOSURE

DOE/EH-0675

http://rems.eh.doe.gov

DE

PA

RTMENT OF ENERG

Y

UN

ITEDSTATES OF AMERI

CA

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

2002 Report

DOE OCCUPATIONAL

RADIATION

EXPOSURE

DE

PA

RTMENT OF ENERG

Y

UN

ITE

D

STATES OF AM

ER

ICA

DOE/EH-0675

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

The U.S. Department of EnergyAssistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and HealthOffice of Corporate Performance Assessment

2002 Report iiiForeword

Beverly A. Cook Frank B. RussoAssistant Secretary Deputy Assistant SecretaryEnvironment, Safety and Health Office of Corporate Performance Assessment

ForewordForewordForew

ordForeword

The goal of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is to conduct its operations, including radiologicaloperations, to ensure the safety and health of all DOE employees, contractors, and subcontractors. TheDOE strives to maintain radiation exposures to its workers below administrative control levels and DOElimits and to further reduce these exposures to levels that are “As Low As Reasonably Achievable” (ALARA).

The 2002 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure Report provides a summary and analysis of theoccupational radiation exposure received by individuals associated with DOE activities. The DOE missionincludes stewardship of the nuclear weapons stockpile and the associated facilities, environmentalrestoration activities, and energy research.

Collective dose at DOE (as measured by the collective external whole body dose) has declined by 85%from 8,340 person-rem (83,400 person-mSv) in 1985 to 1,291 person-rem (12,910 person-mSv) in 2002due to a cessation in opportunities for radiation exposure during the transition in DOE mission fromweapons production to cleanup, deactivation, and decommissioning. Between years 2001 and 2002, theDOE collective Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE) increased by 10% from 1,232 person-rem(12,320 person-mSv) to 1,360 person-rem (13,600 person-mSv) primarily due to increased doses at threeof the six DOE sites with the highest radiation dose. Sites that reported increases in the collective doseattributed it to an increase in the number of hours of radiological work performed (at Rocky Flats),increased processing of spent nuclear fuel in K-Basins (at Hanford), and increased work on pitmanufacturing, Pu-238 fuel and heat source work, nuclear material processing, nuclear materialsscience, pit disassembly, and associated support (at LANL). The DOE average measurable TEDEincreased by 8% from 0.074 rem (0.74 mSv) in 2001 to 0.080 rem (0.80 mSv) in 2002.

This report is intended to be a valuable tool for managers and workers in their management ofradiological safety programs and commitment of resources. The process of data collection, analysis, andreport generation is streamlined to provide a current assessment of the performance of the Departmentwith respect 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 andcomments are important to us to make this report meet your needs.

iv DOE Occupational Radiation ExposureThis page intentionally left blank.

2002 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 Records for Monitored Individuals ...................................................................... 3-13.2.2 Number of Records for 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 ...................................................................................................... 3-113.3.1 Doses in Excess of DOE Limits ............................................................................................... 3-113.3.2 Doses in Excess of Administrative Control Level .................................................................. 3-123.3.3 Internal Depositions of Radioactive Material ....................................................................... 3-12

3.4 Analysis of Site Data ........................................................................................................................... 3-163.4.1 Collective TEDE by Site and 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 ...................................................................................................... 3-24

3.5 Activities Contributing to Collective Dose in 2002 ......................................................................... 3-263.6 Transient Individuals ........................................................................................................................... 3-293.7 Historical Data Collection .................................................................................................................. 3-32

Table of ContentsTable of Contents

Table of Contents

vi DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure

SECTION 4 — ALARA ACTIVITIES AT DOE4.1 ALARA Activities at the Hanford Site ................................................................................................................................................ 4-1

4.1.1 Hanford Contractors Use Variety of Mock-ups to Reduce Worker Dose .......................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1.1 Mock-up Waste Tank Will Reduce Dose and Speed Cleanup ................................................................................. 4-1

4.1.1.2 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Coordinates the First Test atHanford’s Newly Constructed Cold Test Facility ......................................................................................................4-2

4.1.1.3 Hanford Cold Test Facility Used to Demonstrate Tank Crawler ............................................................................. 4-2

4.1.1.4 Fluor Hanford, Inc. Uses Spare Equipment to Mock-up Televator Repair Operations at 324Building Radiochemical Engineering Cell Airlock, Saving 1.7 Person-rem (17 Person-mSv) ........................... 4-3

4.1.1.5 FHI Builds Transuranic Retrieval Mock-up Trench ................................................................................................... 4-5

4.1.2 Bechtel Hanford, Inc. Used Skilled Workers and Innovative Technology toReduce Dose During F Reactor Fuel Basin Cleanout ........................................................................................................ 4-6

4.1.3 FHI Removes Highly Radioactive Piping at 105KE Fuel Storage Basin, Saving More Than20 Person-rem (200 Person-mSv) of Dose ............................................................................................................................ 4-8

4.2 ALARA Activities at the Savannah River Site ...................................................................................................................................4-9

4.2.1 Build-up of Material within the 2H Evaporator Pot at Savannah River Site ..................................................................... 4-9

4.2.2 Failure Back-flush Valves at the Savannah River Site ........................................................................................................ 4-11

4.3 ALARA Activities at the West Valley Demonstration Project ........................................................................................................ 4-13

4.3.1 Cleanup of the HECs ............................................................................................................................................................ 4-13

4.3.1.1 Shield Window Refurbishment ................................................................................................................................4-13

4.3.1.2 GPC Shield Door Repair ............................................................................................................................................4-14

4.3.1.3 Remote Handling Equipment Replacement .......................................................................................................... 4-15

4.3.2 Decontamination of the Fuel Receiving and Storage Facility ......................................................................................... 4-16

4.3.2.1 Pool Water Draining and Treatment .........................................................................................................................4-16

4.3.2.2 Pool Vacuuming ......................................................................................................................................................... 4-17

4.3.2.3 Debris Removal and Packaging ............................................................................................................................... 4-17

4.3.2.4 FRS Weir Decontamination ....................................................................................................................................... 4-18

4.3.2.5 Sealing the PMC Hatch .............................................................................................................................................. 4-18

4.3.2.6 Grouting of Pool Floors ............................................................................................................................................. 4-19

4.4 ALARA Activities at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory ................................................................................................ 4-20

4.4.1 NM2 Target Station Upgrade Project at Fermilab .............................................................................................................. 4-20

4.5 ALARA Activities at the Rocky Flats Site ........................................................................................................................................4-22

4.5.1 Innovative Waste Packaging and Shipping Method Used at Rocky Flats to Reduce the Risk ofContamination and Intakes .................................................................................................................................................4-22

4.6 Hanford ALARA Center of Excellence ........................................................................................................................................... 4-24

4.7 Submitting ALARA Success Stories for Future Annual Reports .................................................................................................. 4-24

4.8 Lessons Learned Process Improvement Team ..............................................................................................................................4-25

SECTION 5 — CONCLUSIONS5.1 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................................. 5-1

2002 Report viiTable of Contents

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-1

LIST OF EXHIBITSExhibit ES-1: Collective TEDE Dose (person-rem), 1998-2002 ......................................................................................... xiExhibit ES-2: Average Measurable TEDE (rem), 1998-2002 .............................................................................................. xiExhibit ES-3: Number of Individuals Exceeding 2 rem TEDE, 1998-2002 ....................................................................... xiiExhibit ES-4: Number of Individuals Exceeding 5 rem TEDE, 1998-2002 ....................................................................... xiiExhibit 2-1: DOE Dose Limits from 10 CFR 835 ............................................................................................................. 2-3Exhibit 3-1: Monitoring of the DOE Workforce, 1998-2002 ............................................................................................ 3-2Exhibit 3-2: Components of TEDE, 1998-2002 ................................................................................................................ 3-3Exhibit 3-3: Average Measurable Neutron, DDE, and TEDE, 1998-2002 ....................................................................... 3-5Exhibit 3-4: Distribution of Dose by Dose Range, 1998-2002 ........................................................................................ 3-6Exhibit 3-5: Percentage of Collective Dose above Dose Values During 1998-2002 .................................................... 3-7Exhibit 3-6: Neutron Dose Distribution, 1998-2002 ........................................................................................................ 3-8Exhibit 3-7: Extremity Dose Distribution, 1998-2002...................................................................................................... 3-9Exhibit 3-8: DOE-wide Summary Results for Statistical Tests, 1996-2002 .................................................................. 3-10Exhibit 3-9: Number of Individuals Exceeding 5 Rem (TEDE), 1998-2002 ............................................................... 3-11Exhibit 3-10: Doses in Excess of DOE Limits, 1998-2002 ............................................................................................... 3-11Exhibit 3-11: Number of Doses in Excess of the DOE 2 Rem ACL, 1998-2002 ............................................................ 3-12Exhibit 3-12: Number of Internal Depositions, Collective CEDE, and Average Measurable CEDE (Graph),

1998-2002 ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-13Exhibit 3-13: Number of Internal Depositions, Collective CEDE, and Average Measurable CEDE

by Nuclides (Data), 2000-2002 .................................................................................................................. 3-13Exhibit 3-14: Internal Dose Distribution from Intakes, 1998-2002 ................................................................................ 3-14Exhibit 3-15: Distribution of Collective CEDE vs. Dose Value, 1998-2002 .................................................................... 3-15Exhibit 3-16: Collective TEDE by Site for 2000-2002 ...................................................................................................... 3-16Exhibit 3-17: Collective TEDE and Number of Individuals with Measurable TEDE by Site, 2000-2002 .................. 3-17Exhibit 3-18: Number with Measurable Dose, Collective TEDE, and Average Measurable TEDE

by Labor Category, 2000-2002 .................................................................................................................... 3-18Exhibit 3-19: Graph of Collective TEDE by Labor Category, 2000-2002 ....................................................................... 3-18Exhibit 3-20: Graph of Collective TEDE by Facility Type, 2000-2002............................................................................ 3-19Exhibit 3-21: Number with Measurable Dose, Collective TEDE, and Average Measurable TEDE

by Facility Type, 2000-2002 ......................................................................................................................... 3-19Exhibit 3-22: Criteria for Radiation Exposure and Personnel Contamination

Occurrence Reporting ............................................................................................................................... 3-20Exhibit 3-23: Number of Radiation Exposure Occurrences, 1998-2002 ...................................................................... 3-21Exhibit 3-24: Radiation Exposure Occurrences by Site, 1998-2002 ............................................................................. 3-22Exhibit 3-25: Number of Personnel Contamination Occurrences, 1998-2002 ............................................................ 3-22Exhibit 3-26: Personnel Contaminations by Affected Area, 1998-2002 ........................................................................ 3-23

viii DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure

LIST OF EXHIBITS (continued)Exhibit 3-27: Number of Individuals Contaminated by Affected Area in 2002. ......................................................... 3-23Exhibit 3-28: Personnel Contamination Occurrences by Site, 1998-2002 ................................................................... 3-24Exhibit 3-29: Radiation Exposure Occurrences by Root Cause, 2000-2002 ................................................................ 3-24Exhibit 3-30: Personnel Contamination Occurrences by Root Cause, 2000-2002 ...................................................... 3-24Exhibit 3-31: Activities Contributing to Collective TEDE in 2002 for Six Sites ........................................................... 3-26Exhibit 3-32: Dose Distribution of Transient Workers, 1998-2002 ................................................................................. 3-29Exhibit 3-33: Individuals Monitored at More Than One Site (Transients) During the Year, 1998-2002 .................... 3-30Exhibit 3-34: Collective and Average Measurable Dose to Transient Individuals, 1998-2002 ................................... 3-30Exhibit 3-35: Collective TEDE to Transient Workers by Site, 1998-2002 ....................................................................... 3-31Exhibit 4-1: Hanford Cold Test Facility ...................................................................................................................................... 4-1Exhibit 4-2: Tank Crawler ............................................................................................................................................................ 4-2Exhibit 4-3: Picture of Crawler in Tank. .................................................................................................................................... 4-3Exhibit 4-4: Televator Deck Internal Scissor Lifting Extensions ............................................................................................ 4-4Exhibit 4-5: Cable Connection Process .................................................................................................................................... 4-4Exhibit 4-6: TRU-Retrieval Mock-up Trench .............................................................................................................................. 4-5Exhibit 4-7: LARADS Suspended from a Crane ....................................................................................................................... 4-6Exhibit 4-8: Brokk Unit Excavating Materials Inside F Reactor Fuel Basin .......................................................................... 4-7Exhibit 4-9: Brokk Remote Control Station in Nearby Trailer ................................................................................................ 4-7Exhibit 4-10: Basin Water Cooling and Recirculation Pipe System......................................................................................... 4-8Exhibit 4-11: View of Evaporator Pot ........................................................................................................................................... 4-9Exhibit 4-12: Sampling of Evaporator Pot ................................................................................................................................. 4-10Exhibit 4-13: Removal of Cell Cover ......................................................................................................................................... 4-10Exhibit 4-14: Dose Rates With and Without ALARA Methods ................................................................................................ 4-10Exhibit 4-15: Back-flush Valve .................................................................................................................................................... 4-11Exhibit 4-16: Back-flush Valve Riser with Shielded Plug in Place ......................................................................................... 4-11Exhibit 4-17: Dose Rates With and Without Shielding ............................................................................................................ 4-12Exhibit 4-18: Replacement of Shield Window ......................................................................................................................... 4-13Exhibit 4-19: GPC Shield Door Repair ...................................................................................................................................... 4-14Exhibit 4-20: Size Reduction of PMC Crane Bridge ................................................................................................................ 4-15Exhibit 4-21: A Portion of the Pool Vacuumed (light side) .................................................................................................... 4-17Exhibit 4-22: Mock-up of PMS Hatch Foaming ........................................................................................................................ 4-18Exhibit 4-23: Pool Storage Pool Emptied of Water ................................................................................................................... 4-19Exhibit 4-24: Downstream End of the KTEV Target Station, Showing the Proton Beam Pipe Near the Target ................ 4-20Exhibit 4-25: Downstream End of the Target Station, Showing Proton Beamline for Secondary Kaons ......................... 4-21Exhibit 4-26: Applying Shrink-wrap Plastic to the 45-ton Supercompactor ......................................................................... 4-23Exhibit 4-27: Applying Heat to Shrink the Plastic ................................................................................................................... 4-23Exhibit 4-28: Applying Metal Depth-gauge Buttons ................................................................................................................ 4-23Exhibit 4-29: Spraying the Polyurea Coating ............................................................................................................................ 4-23Exhibit 4-30: Quality Inspection of the Polyurea Coating ...................................................................................................... 4-23Exhibit 5-1: 2002 Radiation Exposure Fact Sheet .......................................................................................................... 5-2

2002 Report ixTable of Contents

TABLE OF ACRONYMS10 CFR 820 Title 10 Code of Federal Regulation Part 820 “Procedural Rules for DOE Nuclear Activities,”

August 17, 199310 CFR 835 Title 10 Code of Federal Regulation Part 835 “Occupational Radiation Protection,”

December 14, 199310 CFR 835, Amendment Issued on November 4, 1998ACL Administrative Control LevelAEDE Annual Effective Dose EquivalentAEC Atomic Energy CommissionALAP As Low As PracticableALARA As Low As Reasonably AchievableANL-E Argonne National Laboratory - EastANL-W Argonne National Laboratory - WestANSI American National Standards InstituteANSI N13.30-1996 ANSI Note on Performance Criteria for RadioassayBFV Back-flush ValvesBHI Bechtel Hanford, Inc.BNFL British Nuclear Fuels LimitedBNL Brookhaven National LaboratoryCDE Committed Dose EquivalentCEDE Committed Effective Dose EquivalentCEDR Comprehensive Epidemiologic Data ResourceCUP Cask Unloading PoolD&D Decontamination and DecommissioningDDE Deep Dose EquivalentDOE 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-32 DOE Office of Corporate Performance AssessmentEPA Environmental Protection AgencyERDA Energy Research and Development AdministrationES&H Environment, Safety and HealthETTP East Tennessee Technology Park (formerly K-25)EUO Enriched Uranium OperationsFermilab Fermi National Accelerator LaboratoryFHI Fluor Hanford, Inc.FRS Fuel Receiving and StorageFSP Fuel Storage PoolFTS Fuel Transfer SystemGCR GPC Crane RoomGPC General Purpose CellHEC Head End CellsICRP International Commission on Radiological ProtectionINEEL Idaho National Engineering and Environmental LaboratoryINTEC Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering CenterISMS Integrated Safety Management SystemLANL Los Alamos National LaboratoryLARADS Laser-assisted Ranging and Data SystemLBNL Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

x DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure

LDE Lens (of the eye) Dose EquivalentLEHR Laboratory for Energy-related Health ResearchLLNL Lawrence Livermore National LaboratoryLLPIT Lessons Learned Process Improvement TeamNCRP National Council on Radiation Protection and MeasurementsNRC Nuclear Regulatory CommissionNREL National Renewable Energy LaboratoryNTS Nevada Test SiteORNL Oak Ridge National LaboratoryORPS Occurrence Reporting and Processing SystemOSL Optically Stimulated Luminescent DosimetersPBS Polymeric Barrier System™PFP Plutonium Finishing PlantPGDP Paducah Gaseous Diffusion PlantPMC Process Mechanical CellPMCR PMC Crane RoomPNNL Pacific Northwest National LaboratoryPORTS Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion PlantPP Pantex PlantPPE Personal Protective EquipmentPSEs Planned Special ExposuresRadCon Radiological Control Manual, June 1992RCO Radiological Control OperationsRCS Radiological Control StandardREC Radiochemical Engineering CellsREMS Radiation Exposure Monitoring SystemRFETS Rocky Flats Environmental Technology SiteRW Radiological WorkersRWP Radiological Work PermitSARF Supercompactor and Repackaging FacilitySCO Surface Contaminated ObjectSDE Shallow Dose EquivalentSDE-ME Shallow Dose Equivalent to the Maximally Exposed ExtremitySDE-WB Shallow Dose Equivalent to the Skin of the Whole BodySIOU Surface Impoundments Operable UnitsSLAC Stanford Linear Accelerator CenterSNF Spent Nuclear FuelSNL Sandia National LaboratorySOC Standard Occupational ClassificationSRS Savannah River SiteTEDE Total Effective Dose EquivalentTLD Thermoluminescent DosimetersTLND Thermoluminescent Neutron DosimeterTODE Total Organ Dose EquivalentTRA Test Reactor AreaTRU TransuranicUMTRA Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial ActionUNSCEAR United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic RadiationWIPP Waste Isolation Pilot PlantWRAP Waste Receiving and ProcessingWVDP West Valley Demonstration ProjectWVNS West Valley Nuclear Services, Inc.WVNSCO West Valley Nuclear Services CompanyY-12 Plant Y-12 National Security Complex

TABLE OF ACRONYMS (continued)

2002 Report xiExecutive Summary

SummaryExecutive Sum

mary

Executive SummaryExecutive Summary

1998 1999 2000 2001 20020

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

Co

llect

ive

Do

se (

per

son

-rem

)

Year

1,309 1,295 1,2671,232

1,360

1998 1999 2000 2001 20020.00

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

)

Year

0.0750.078 0.079

0.0740.080

Exhibit ES-1:Collective TEDE Dose (person-rem), 1998-2002.

Exhibit ES-2:Average Measurable TEDE (rem), 1998-2002.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Corporate Performance Assessment (EH-3) publishes theannual DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure Report. This report is intended to be a valuable tool forDOE and DOE contractor managers and workers in managing radiological safety programs and to assistthem in prioritizing resources. We appreciate the efforts and contributions from the variousstakeholders within and outside DOE to make the report most useful.

This report includes occupational radiation exposure information for all monitored DOE employees,contractors, subcontractors, and members of the public. The exposure information is analyzed in termsof aggregate data, dose to individuals, and dose by site. For the purposes of examining trends, data forthe past 5 years are included in the analysis.

As shown in Exhibit ES-1, between years 2001 and 2002, the DOE collective Total Effective DoseEquivalent (TEDE) increased by 10% from 1,232 person-rem (12,320 person-mSv) to 1,360 person-rem(13,600 person-mSv) primarily due to increased doses at three of the six DOE sites with the highestradiation dose. The average dose to workers with measurable dose increased by 8% from 0.074 rem(0.74 mSv) in 2001 to 0.080 rem (0.80 mSv) in 2002, as shown in Exhibit ES-2, because of the 10%increase in the collective dose and a 2% increase in the number of workers with measurable dose. Thenumber of individuals with measurable dose increased from 16,687 in 2001 to 17,051 in 2002. Thepercentage of monitored individuals receiving measurable dose remained the same for 2001 and 2002,at 17%. There were no exposures in excess of the DOE 5 rem (50 mSv) annual TEDE limit and only oneexposure in excess of the DOE Administrative Control Level (ACL) of 2 rem (20 mSv) TEDE. There wasone individual who received an extremity dose of 111 rem (1,110 mSv) at Lawrence Livermore NationalLaboratory, which was in excess of the 50 rem (500 mSv) annual extremity limit.

Seventy-nine percent of the collective TEDE for the DOE complex was accrued at six DOE sites in 2002.These six sites are (in descending order of collective dose for 2002) Hanford, Rocky Flats, SavannahRiver, Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, and Idaho. Sites reporting under the category of weapons fabrication andtesting account for the highest collective dose. Even though these sites are now primarily involved innuclear materials stabilization and waste management, they report under this facility type. For the past3 years, technicians and production staff have received the highest collective dose of any specifiedlabor category.

xii DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

0

1

2

3

4

5

Year

Nu

mb

er o

f In

div

idu

als

Exc

eed

ing

2 R

em (

TE

DE

)

1

3

2

3

1

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

0

1

2

3

4

5

Year

Nu

mb

er o

f In

div

idu

als

Exc

eed

ing

5 R

em (

TE

DE

)

0

1 1

3

0

Exhibit ES-3:Number of Individuals Exceeding 2 Rem TEDE, 1998-2002.

Exhibit ES-4:Number of Individuals Exceeding 5 Rem TEDE, 1998-2002.

Note: Number of individuals exceeding 2 rem TEDE includes thoseindividuals that also exceeded 5 rem TEDE shown in Exhibit ES-4.

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. For 2002, this resulted in an increase in the collective dose as sites handled moreradioactive materials for processing, storage, or shipping. Reports submitted by three of the sites thatexperienced increases in the collective dose indicate that the increases were due to an increase in thenumber of hours of radiological work performed (at Rocky Flats), increased processing of spent nuclearfuel in K-Basins (at Hanford), and increased work on pit manufacturing, Pu-238 fuel and heat source work,nuclear material processing, nuclear materials science, pit disassembly, and associated support (at LANL).

A statistical analysis was performed to analyze the trend in collective dose over the past 5 years. For thecollective TEDE, there were small but significant differences in all years, and the logarithmic mean TEDEper worker reached a 5-year peak of 0.030 rem (0.30 mSv) in 2002. The logarithmic mean TEDEincreased from 0.028 rem (0.28 mSv) in 2001 to 0.030 (0.30 mSv) rem in 2002, reflecting both an increasein the dose to individual workers, and a larger number of individuals with measurable dose. Thelogarithmic mean TEDE per worker ranged from 0.026 rem to 0.029 rem (0.26 mSv to 0.29 mSv) for1998-2001. However, the 2002 logarithmic mean TEDE remains significantly below the 1997 logarithmicmean TEDE of 0.035 rem (0.35 mSv) per worker.

Over the past 5 years, few occupational doses in excess of the 2 rem (20 mSv) ACL and 5 rem (50 mSv)TEDE regulatory limit have occurred at DOE facilities, as shown in Exhibits ES-3 and ES-4. All but one ofthe doses in excess of 2 rem (20 mSv) in the past 5 years were due to internal dose. Only one individualreceived a dose in excess of 2 rem (20 mSv) in 2002. No individuals received a dose in excess of the5 rem (50 mSv) TEDE limit in 2002, but one individual received a dose in excess of the 50 rem(500 mSv) extremity limit.

2002 Report xiiiExecutive Summary

The collective internal dose (CEDE) increased by 17% between 2001 and 2002. Due to the increase inthe collective CEDE and slight increase in the number of internal depositions, the average measurableCEDE increased by 12% from 2001 to 2002 from 0.025 rem (0.25 mSv) to a value of 0.028 rem (0.28 mSv),which is the second lowest average measurable CEDE in the past 5 years.

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 decreased by 11% from 3,183 in 2001 to 2,848 in 2002 andstill remains a very low percentage (2.8%) of the monitored workforce at DOE. The collective dose forthese transients increased by 45% from 25.1 person-rem (251 mSv) in 2001 to 36.5 person-rem (365 mSv) in2002. The average measurable dose to transients increased by 27% from 0.052 rem (0.52 mSv) in 2001 to0.066 rem (0.66 mSv) in 2002. The average measurable dose to transient workers is 0.066 rem (0.66 mSv)which is 83% of the value for the overall DOE workforce in 2002.

To access this report and other information on occupational radiation exposure at DOE, visit theRadiation Exposure Monitoring System (REMS) web site at:


xiv DOE Occupational Radiation ExposureThis page intentionally left blank.

2002 Report 1-1Introduction

Section One 1IntroductionIntroduction

Introduction

Provides a description of the content and organization of this report.

Provides a discussion of the radiation protection and dose reporting requirements and their impacts ondata interpretation. Additional information on dose calculation methodologies, personnel monitoringmethods and reporting thresholds, regulatory dose limits, and ALARA is included.

Presents the occupational radiation dose data from monitored individuals at DOE facilities for 2002.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.

Lists reporting codes and organizations, a detailed breakdown of the data analyzed in this report,limitations of the data, and ways to access the REMS data.

Section One

Section Two

Section Three

Section Four

Section Five

Appendices

Ms. Nirmala RaoDOE REMS Project ManagerEH-32, 270 Corporate Square BuildingU.S. Department of Energy1000 Independence Avenue, SWWashington, D.C. 20585-0270E-mail: [email protected]


The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) OccupationalRadiation Exposure Report, 2002 reportsoccupational radiation exposures incurred byindividuals at DOE facilities during the calendaryear 2002. This report includes occupationalradiation exposure information for all DOEemployees, contractors, subcontractors, andmembers of the public. The 102 DOEorganizations submitting radiation exposurereports for 2002 have been grouped into 29geographic sites across the complex (seeAppendix Exhibit B-1c). This information isanalyzed and trended over time to provide ameasure of DOE’s performance in protecting itsworkers from radiation.

1.1 Report OrganizationThis report is organized into the five sections andappendices listed below. Supporting technicalinformation, tables of data, and additional itemsidentified by users as useful are provided in theappendices.

1.2 Report AvailabilityRequests for additional copies of this report,access to the data files, or individual dose recordsused to compile this report should be directed to:

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 inthe DOE complex at:

1-2 DOE Occupational Radiation ExposureThis page intentionally left blank.

2002 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 Officeof Health 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 members of the public. Inaddition to the requirement that radiation dosesnot exceed the limits, contractors are required tomaintain exposures as low as reasonablyachievable (ALARA).

This section discusses radiation protectionstandards and requirements in effect for the year2002. Requirements leading up to this time periodare also included to facilitate a better understandingof changes that have occurred in the recordingand 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 in1989, is based on the 1977 recommendations ofthe International 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 wholebody dose to determine the Total Effective DoseEquivalent (TEDE). Prior to this, the whole bodydose and internal organ dose were each limitedseparately. The present DOE dose limits based onthe TEDE 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, the“RadCon Manual” was formally reissued as theRadiological Control Standard (RCS)[7]. The RCSincorporates changes resulting from theamendment to 10 CFR 835 issued on November 4,1998.

The 10 CFR 835 rule became effective on January13, 1994, and required full compliance by January1, 1996. In general, 10 CFR 835 codified existingradiation protection requirements in DOE Order5480.11. The rule provides nuclear safetyrequirements that, if violated, provide a basis forthe assessment of civil and criminal penaltiesunder the Price-Anderson Amendments Act of1988, Public Law 100-408, August 20, 1988 [8] asimplemented by 10 CFR 820 “Procedural Rulesfor DOE 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). This

Standards and RequirementsStandards and Requirements

2-2 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure

notice was issued to establish radiologicalprotection program requirements that, combinedwith 10 CFR 835 and its associated non-mandatoryimplementation guidance, formed the basis for acomprehensive radiological protection program.DOE N 441.1 continued in effect until June 1, 2000,when compliance with the amendment to10 CFR 835 (issued November 4, 1998) wasexpected to be fully 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 exposurerecords were split into two directives; DOE Order231.1, “Environment, Safety, and HealthReporting” [12] which required the reporting ofoccupational radiation exposure records, andDOE Manual 231.1-1, “Environment, Safety, andHealth Reporting Manual” [13], which specifiedthe format and content of the required reports.Both became effective September 30, 1995.

Most sites reported radiation monitoring resultsunder DOE Order 231.1 and Manual 231.1-1 for1996. Each site implemented the change inrequirements as operating contracts were issuedor renegotiated. DOE Order 231.1 underwent twosubsequent revisions (Change 1 in 1995 andChange 2 in 1996) and was reissued as DOEOrder 231.1A [14] in August of 2003. DOE Manual231.1-1 underwent similar revisions (Change 1 in1996 and Change 2 in 2000) and is currently inthe process of revision.

2.1.1 Monitoring Requirements

10 CFR 835.402(a) 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) in a year. Monitoring for minorsand members of the public is required if the TEDEis likely to exceed 50% of the annual limit of0.1 rem (1 mSv) TEDE. Monitoring of declared

pregnant workers is required if the TEDE to theembryo/fetus is likely to exceed 10% of the limit of0.5 rem (5 mSv) TEDE during the gestation period.

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 is basedon the type and energy of radiation that theindividual is likely to encounter in the workplace.External monitoring devices includethermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs), opticallystimulated luminescent dosimeters (OSLs), pocketionization chambers, electronic dosimeters,personnel nuclear accident dosimeters, bubbledosimeters, plastic dosimeters, and combinationsof the above.

Beginning in 1986, the DOE LaboratoryAccreditation Program (DOELAP) formalizedaccuracy and precision performance standards forexternal dosimeters used for dose of record andquality assurance/quality control requirements forexternal dosimetry programs at facilities within theDOE complex. All DOE facilities requiringaccreditation were DOELAP-accredited by the fallof 1995.

External dosimeters have a lower limit of detection ofapproximately 0.005 to 0.030 rem (0.05 to 0.30 mSv)per monitoring period. The differences areattributable to the particular type of dosimeterused and the types of radiation monitored.Monitoring periods are usually quarterly forindividuals receiving less than 0.300 rem/year(3 mSv/year) and monthly for individuals who mayreceive higher doses or who enter higher radiationareas.

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 dosimetry dependon the radionuclides being monitored and theirconcentrations in the work environment. Routinemonitoring intervals may be monthly, quarterly, orannually, whereas special monitoring intervalsfollowing an incident may be daily or weekly.Detection thresholds for internal dosimetry arehighly dependent on the monitoring methods, themonitoring intervals, the radionuclides inquestion, and their chemical form. Follow-upmeasurements and analysis may take manymonths to confirm preliminary findings. DOELAPhas developed a Radiobioassay AccreditationProgram in conjunction with the publication ofAmerican National Standards Institute (ANSI)N13.30-1996, “Performance Criteria forRadiobioassay.” Implementation of the programbegan in November 1998 with issuance of theamendments to 10 CFR 835.402.(d), requiring fullcompliance by January 1, 2002.

2.2 Radiation Dose LimitsRadiation dose limits are codified in 10 CFR835.202, 206, 207, 208 and are summarized inExhibit 2-1. While some of these sections havebeen revised, 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. No PSEs have occurred since therequirement became effective.

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 in aControlled Area

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) were initiallyestablished in the “RadCon Manual” and retainedin the RCS. ACLs are established below theregulatory dose limits to administratively controland help reduce individual and collectiveradiation dose. ACLs are multi-tiered, withincreasing levels of authority needed to approve ahigher level of exposure.

The RCS recommends a DOE ACL of 2 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 be received.In addition, contractors are encouraged toestablish an annual facility ACL. This control levelis established by the contractor senior siteexecutive and is based upon an evaluation ofhistorical and projected radiation exposures,workload, and mission. The RCS suggests anannual facility ACL of 0.5 rem (5 mSv) or less;however, the Manual also states that a controllevel greater than 1.5 rem (15 mSv) is, in mostcases, not sufficiently challenging. Approval bythe contractor senior site executive must bereceived prior to an individual exceeding thefacility ACL. In addition to the annual ACL, theManual recommends the establishment of alifetime ACL of “N” rem, where N is the age of theperson in years. Special control levels are alsorecommended to be established for personnelwho have lifetime doses exceeding N rem.

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 mainly withhigh dose and high-dose rate exposures. Duringthe 1970s, there was a fundamental shift withinthe radiation protection community to beconcerned with low dose and low-dose rate

exposures because it could be inferred from thelinear no-threshold dose response hypothesis thatthere was an increased level of risk associated withany radiation exposure. The As Low As Practicable(ALAP) concept was initiated and became part ofnumerous guidance documents and radiationprotection good practices. ALAP was eventuallyreplaced by ALARA. DOE Order 5480.11 and10 CFR 835 require that each DOE facility have anALARA Program as part of its overall RadiationProtection Program.

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/benefitanalysis must be used to optimize levels ofradiation dose reduction. According to the ALARAprinciple, resources spent to reduce dose need tobe balanced against the risks avoided. Reducingdoses below this point results in a misallocation ofresources; the resources could be spent elsewhereand have a greater impact on health and safety.

To ensure that doses are maintained ALARA atDOE facilities, the DOE mandated, in DOE Order5480.11 and subsequently in 10 CFR 835, thatALARA plans and procedures be implementedand documented. To help facilities meet thisrequirement, DOE developed a manual of goodpractices for reducing exposures to ALARA levels[15]. This document includes guidelines foradministration of ALARA programs, techniques forperforming ALARA calculations based on cost/benefit principles, guidelines for setting andevaluating ALARA goals, and methods forincorporating 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.


Readers should take note of the draftrevisions to DOE Order 231.1A andManual 231.1-1 for the potential futureimpact on the recording and reportingof occupational exposure to the REMSrepository.

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 dose in one of 16 doseequivalent ranges. The revised Order required thereporting of the results of radiation exposuremonitoring for each employee and member of thepublic. 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, monitoringstatus, and occupation, as well as the reportingorganization and facility type.

On August 18, of 2003, DOE approved and issuedthe revised DOE Order 231.1A. The DOE Manual231.1-1, which details the format and content ofreporting radiation exposure records to the DOE, isin the process of being revised. The revisions affectthe content and reporting of radiation exposurerecords reported to the DOE Radiation ExposureMonitoring System (REMS) repository. Readersshould take note of these revisions for thepotential future impact on the recording andreporting of occupational exposure to the REMSrepository.

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 permissiblebody burden. The implementation of DOE Order5480.11 in 1989 specified that the intakes ofradionuclides be converted to internal dose andevaluated against the dose limits using the AnnualEffective Dose Equivalent (AEDE) methodology.AEDE as well as CEDE were required for reports toemployees.

With the implementation of the “RadCon Manual”in 1993, the required methodology used todetermine compliance within the dose limits andreport internal dose was changed from the AEDEto the 50-year CEDE. The change was made toprovide 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.

This report primarily analyzes dose informationfor the past 5 years, from 1998 to 2002. 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. When analyzing TEDE data prior to1993, readers should keep in mind the change inmethodology.

When analyzing TEDE data prior to 1993,readers should note that the method ofcalculating internal dose changed fromAEDE to CEDE between 1992 and 1993.


2002 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

Compared to 2001, the same percentage(75%) of the DOE workforce was monitoredfor radiation dose in 2002, and the samepercentage of monitored individualsreceived a measurable dose (17%).

3.1 Analysis of the DataAnalysis and explanation of observed trends inoccupational radiation dose data revealopportunities to improve safety and demonstrateperformance. Several indicators were identifiedfrom the data submitted to the central datarepository, which can be used to evaluate theoccupational radiation exposures received atDOE facilities. In addition, the key indicators areanalyzed to identify and correlate parametershaving an impact on radiation dose at DOE.

Key indicators for the analysis of aggregate dataare: number of records for monitored individualsand individuals with measurable dose, collectivedose, average measurable dose, and the dosedistribution. Analysis of individual dose dataincludes an examination of doses exceeding DOEregulatory limits and doses exceeding the2 rem (20 mSv) DOE ACL. Analysis of site dataincludes comparisons by site, labor category,facility type, and occurrence report information.Additional information is provided concerningactivities at sites contributing to the collectivedose. To determine the significance of trends,statistical analysis was performed on the data.

3.2 Analysis of Aggregate Data

3.2.1 Number of Records for MonitoredIndividuals

The number of records for monitored individualsrepresents the size of the DOE worker populationprovided with dosimetry. The number representsthe sum of all records for monitored individuals,including all DOE employees, contractors,subcontractors, and members of the public. Thenumber of monitored individuals is determinedfrom the number of monitoring records submittedby each site. Because individuals may have morethan one monitoring record, they may becounted more than once. The number of recordsfor monitored individuals is an indication of thesize of a dosimetry program, but it is not

necessarily an indicator of the size of the exposedworkforce. This is because of the conservativepractice at some DOE facilities of providingdosimetry to individuals for reasons other thanthe potential for exposure to radiation and/orradioactive materials exceeding the monitoringthresholds. Many individuals are monitored forreasons such as security, administrativeconvenience, and legal liability. Some sites offermonitoring for any individual who requestsmonitoring, independent of the potential forexposure. For this reason, the number of recordsfor workers who receive a measurable dose bestrepresents the exposed workforce.

3.2.2 Number of Records for Individualswith Measurable 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 number of DOE workers andcontractors, the total number of records formonitored individuals, and the number withmeasurable dose for the past 5 years. Comparedto 2001, the same percentage (75%) of the DOEworkforce was monitored for radiation in2002, and the same percentage (17%) ofmonitored individuals received a measurabledose. The total number of records of individualsmonitored for radiation has decreased over thepast 5 years by 8% from 108,508 in 1998 to 100,221in 2002. The percentage of the DOE workforcemonitored for radiation exposure has decreasedby 6% from 81% in 1998 to 75% in 2002. However,most (84%) of the monitored individuals over thepast 5 years did not receive any measurable


Exhibit 3-1:Monitoring of the DOE Workforce, 1998-2002.

1998 1999 2000 2001 20020

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

Nu

mb

er o

f In

div

idu

als

Year

108,508

17,544

133,139

16,668

113,064

130,453

Number of DOE Workers and Contractors

Total Number of Records for Monitored Individuals

Number with Measurable Dose

102,881

15,983

129,653

97,818

16,687

130,884

100,221

17,051

133,703

The number of workers with measurabledose increased from 16,687 in 2001 to17,051 in 2002.

The percentage of monitored workersreceiving measurable dose remained thesame, at 17%, in 2002.

radiation dose. An average of 16% of monitoredindividuals (13% of the DOE workforce) receiveda measurable dose during the past 5 years. Thepercentage of monitored workers receivingmeasurable dose has remained fairly constant forthe past 5 years: 16% in 1998 and 17% in 2002.The overall DOE workforce has increased by 2%from 130,884 in 2001 to 133,703 in 2002.

Seven of the 29 reporting sites (see AppendixExhibit B-1c) experienced decreases in thenumber of workers with measurable dose from2001 to 2002. The largest decreases in totalnumber of workers with measurable doseoccurred at Savannah River, Oak Ridge, andRocky Flats. The largest increases in the numberof workers receiving measurable dose occurred atHanford and Los Alamos National Laboratory(LANL). A discussion of activities at the sixhighest-dose facilities 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 (person-Sv).The collective dose is an indicator of the overallradiation exposure at DOE facilities and includesthe dose to all DOE employees, contractors,subcontractors, and members of the public. DOEmonitors the collective dose as one measure ofthe overall performance of radiation protectionprograms to keep individual exposures andcollective exposures ALARA.

As shown in Exhibit 3-2, the collective TEDEincreased at DOE by 10% from 1,232 person-rem(12.32 person-Sv) in 2001 to 1,360 person-rem(13.60 person-Sv) in 2002. Sixty-two percent of theDOE sites (18 out of 29 sites) reported increases inthe collective TEDE from the 2001 values. Threeout of six of the highest dose sites reportedincreases in the collective TEDE. The six highestdose sites are (in descending order of collectivedose for 2002) Hanford, Rocky Flats, SavannahRiver, Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, and Idaho. Thesesites attributed the increase in dose to an increasein the number of hours of radiological workperformed (at Rocky Flats), increased processing


1,000

500

0

1,500

1,231

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Year

Co

llect

ive

TE

DE

(p

erso

n-r

em)

Internal Dose (CEDE)from New Intakes Duringthe Monitoring Year

Photon (Deep)

Neutron

Legend

NOTE: The percentages inparentheses represent thepercentage of each dosecomponent to the collective TEDE.

90(6.9%)

59(4.8%)

153(11.8%) 181

(14.3%)

936(71.5%)

283(21.6%)

886(68.4%)

256(19.8%)

842(66.5%)

244(19.2%)

945(76.7%)

228(18.5%)

1,309 1,2951,267

1,232

69(5.1%)

1,024(75.3%)

267(19.6%)

1,360

Photon dose (deep) - the component of external dose fromgamma or x-ray electromagnetic radiation. (Also includesenergetic betas.)

Neutron dose - the component of external dose from neutronsejected from the nucleus of an atom during nuclear reactions.

Internal dose - radiation dose resulting from radioactivematerial taken into the body.

Exhibit 3-2:Components of TEDE, 1998-2002.

The collective TEDEincreased by 10% at DOEfrom 2001 to 2002.

Sixty-two percent of theDOE sites reportedincreases in the collectiveTEDE from 2001 values.

The collective internaldose increased by 17%from 2001 to 2002.

Neutron dose increasedby 17% from 2001 to2002.

Photon dose increased by8% from 2001 to 2002.


of spent nuclear fuel in K-Basins (at Hanford),and increased work on pit manufacturing, Pu-238fuel and heat source work, nuclear materialprocessing, nuclear materials science, pitdisassembly, and associated support (at LANL).A discussion of the activities leading to thisincrease is included in Section 3.5.

A statistical analysis was performed to analyze thetrend in collective dose over the past 5 years. Forthe collective TEDE, there were small butsignificant differences in all years, and thelogarithmic mean TEDE per worker reached a5-year peak of 0.030 rem (0.30 mSv) in 2002. Thelogarithmic mean TEDE increased from 0.028 rem(0.28 mSv) in 2001 to 0.030 (0.30 mSv) rem in2002, reflecting both an increase in the dose toindividual workers, and a larger number ofindividuals with measurable dose. The logarithmicmean TEDE per worker ranged from 0.026 rem to0.029 rem (0.26 mSv to 0.29 mSv) for 1998-2001.However, the 2002 logarithmic mean TEDEremains significantly below the 1997 logarithmicmean TEDE of 0.035 rem (0.35 mSv) per worker.Note that the logarithmic mean used here isdifferent from the average measurable dosediscussed elsewhere in this report. See Section3.2.6 for more information on the statisticalanalysis, Section 3.5 for more information onactivities contributing to the collective dose, andSection 4 for a discussion of notable ALARAactivities.

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. Internal dose, photon, and neutroncomponents are shown.

It should be noted that the internal dose shown inExhibit 3-2 for 1998 through 2002 is based on the50-year CEDE methodology. The internal dosecomponent increased by 17% from 59 person-rem(590 person-mSv) in 2001 to 69 person-rem

(690 person-mSv) in 2002, although it remainslower than the values for 1998 through 2000. Therewere no individuals receiving an internal doseabove 2 rem (20 mSv) for the second year in a row.The collective internal dose can vary from year toyear due to the relatively small number of uptakesof radioactive material and the fact that they ofteninvolve long-lived radionuclides, such as plutonium,which can result in relatively large committeddoses. Due to the sporadic nature of theseuptakes, care should be taken when attempting toidentify trends from the internal dose records.

The external deep dose (comprised of photon,energetic beta, and neutron dose) is shown inExhibit 3-2 in order to see the contribution ofexternal dose to the collective TEDE. Thecollective photon dose increased by 8% from 945person-rem (9.45 person-Sv) in 2001 to 1,024person-rem (10.24 person-Sv) in 2002. Two of thesites that reported the largest increases in thephoton dose attributed the increase to activitiesinvolving the processing of spent nuclear fuel inK-Basins (at Hanford) and work on pitmanufacturing, Pu-238 fuel and heat source work,nuclear material processing, nuclear materialsscience, pit disassembly, and associated support(at LANL). See Section 3.5 for more informationon activities at these sites.

The neutron component of the TEDE increasedby 17% from 228 person-rem (2.28 person-Sv) in2001 to 267 person-rem (2.67 person-Sv) in 2002.This is primarily due to increases in the neutrondose at LANL. LANL contributed 29% of theneutron dose at the DOE during 2002. LANL andRocky Flats work with plutonium in gloveboxes,which can result in a neutron dose from thealpha/neutron reaction and from spontaneousfission of the plutonium. The collective neutrondose for 2002 by site is shown in AppendixExhibit B-5. External deep dose (DDE) and TEDEfor prior years (1974 through 2002) can be foundin Appendix Exhibit B-3.


The average measurable neutron doseincreased by 11% and the averagemeasurable TEDE increased by 8%,while the average measurable DDEincreased by 6% from 2001 to 2002.

3.2.4 Average Measurable Dose

The average measurable dose to DOE workerspresented in this report for TEDE, DDE, neutron,extremity, and CEDE is determined by dividing thecollective dose for each dose type by the numberof individuals with measurable dose for each dosetype. This is one of the key indicators of the overalllevel of radiation dose received by DOE workers.

The average measurable neutron, DDE, and TEDEis shown in Exhibit 3-3. The average measurableneutron dose increased by 11% from 0.062 rem(0.62 mSv) in 2001 to 0.069 rem (0.69 mSv) in2002, primarily due to increases in neutron doseat LANL. The average measurable neutron doseincreased by 10% from 0.063 rem (0.63 mSv) in1998 to 0.069 rem (0.69 mSv) in 2002. Theaverage measurable DDE increased by 6% from0.079 rem (0.79 mSv) in 2001 to 0.084 rem(0.84 mSv) in 2002 and increased by 8% from0.078 rem (0.78 mSv) in 1998 to 0.084 rem(0.84 mSv) in 2002. The collective TEDE

increased, as well as the number with measurabledose, resulting in an 8% increase in the averagemeasurable TEDE from 0.074 rem (0.74 mSv) in2001 to 0.080 rem (0.80 mSv) in 2002. The averagemeasurable TEDE increased by 7% from 0.075 rem(0.75 mSv) in 1998 to 0.080 rem (0.80 mSv) in2002. The average measurable neutron, DDE, andTEDE values are provided for trendingpurposes, 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.

Exhibit 3-3:Average Measurable Neutron, DDE, and TEDE, 1998-2002.

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)

0.063 0.063

0.054

0.062

0.069

0.0780.076 0.076

0.079

0.084

0.0750.078 0.079

0.074

0.080

Average MeasurableNeutron Dose (rem)

Average MeasurableDDE (rem)

Average MeasurableTEDE (rem)

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002


Num

ber

of

Indiv

iduals

in

Each

Dose

Ran

ge*

TEDE DDE

* Individuals with doses equal to the dose value separating the dose ranges are included in the next higher dose range.

Dose Ranges (rem)2002

TEDE DDETEDE DDETEDE DDETEDE DDE

Less than MeasurableMeasurable < 0.1

0.10 - 0.250.25 - 0.50.5 - 0.750.75 - 1.0

1 - 22 - 33 - 44 - 55 - 66 - 77 - 88 - 9

9 - 1010 - 1111 - 12

> 12

Total Number of Records forMonitored Individuals

Number with Measurable Dose

Number with Dose >0.1rem

% of Individualswith Measurable Dose

Collective Dose (person-rem)

Average Measurable Dose (rem)

90,96414,066

2,253840268

7441

1

1

108,508

17,544

3,478

16%

1,309

0.075

92,80312,450

2,120790245

6436

108,508

15,705

3,255

14%

1,219

0.078

96,396 98,12513,561 12,137

1,898 1,763770 684238 206118 87

80 6211

1

113,064 113,064

16,668 14,939

3,107 2,802

15% 13%

1,295 1,142

0.078 0.076

86,898 88,62113,020 11,498

1,873 1,722727 690211 203

91 9358 54

1

11

102,881 102,881

15,983 14,260

2,963 2,762

16% 14%

1,267 1,086

0.079 0.076

81,131 82,95013,559 11,881

1,891 1,782840 820259 250

89 8848 47

1

97,818 97,818

16,687 14,868

3,128 2,987

17% 15%

1,232 1,173

0.074 0.079

1998 1999 2000 2001

83,170 84,87413,500 11,994

2,202 2,042919 893269 259

95 9465 64

1 1

100,221 100,221

17,051 15,347

3,551 3,353

17% 15%

1,360 1,291

0.080 0.084

Exhibit 3-4:Distribution of Dose by Dose Range, 1998-2002.

3.2.5 Dose Distribution

Exposure data are commonly analyzed in termsof dose 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, and includes thephoton and neutron dose. The number ofindividuals receiving doses above 0.1 rem (1 mSv)is also included to show the number ofindividuals with doses above the monitoringthreshold specified in 10 CFR 835.402(a) and (c).

Exhibit 3-4 shows that few individuals receivedoses in the higher ranges, that the vast majorityof doses are at low levels, and that the collectiveTEDE dose decreased each year from 1998 to

2001, but increased between 2001 and 2002.Another way to examine the dose distribution is toanalyze the percentage of the dose received abovea certain dose value as compared to the totalcollective dose.

The United Nations’ Sources and Effects of IonizingRadiation, United Nations Scientific Committee onthe Effects of Atomic Radiation UNSCEAR 2000Report to the General Assembly, with ScientificAnnexes, Volume I [16] recommends thecalculation of a parameter “SR” (previouslyreferred to as CR) to aid in the examination of thedistribution of radiation exposure among workers.SR is defined to be the ratio of the annualcollective dose incurred by workers whose annualdoses exceed 1.5 rem (15 mSv) to the total annualcollective dose. The UNSCEAR report notes that adose level of 1.5 rem (15 mSv) may not be usefulwhere doses are consistently lower than this level,and they recommend that research organizations


20022001

20001999

1998

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Perc

en

tag

e o

f D

DE

Ab

ove D

ose V

alu

es

Dose Value

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

DDE

69%

45%

24%

7%6%

25%

47%

71%

0%

0.2%

6%

25%

49%

74%

70%

43%

20%

4%0%

0%0%

5%

24%

48%

72%

2.0 rem1.0 rem

0.5 rem

0.25 rem0.1 rem

Exhibit 3-5:Percentage of Collective Dose above Dose Values During 1998-2002.

report SR values lower than 1.5 rem (15 mSv)where appropriate. For this reason, the DOEcalculates and tracks the SR ratio at dose levels of0.100 rem (1 mSv), 0.250 rem (2.5 mSv), 0.500 rem(5 mSv), 1.0 rem (10 mSv), and 2.0 rem (20 mSv).The SR values in this report were calculated bysumming the TEDE to each individual whoreceived a TEDE greater than, or equal to, thespecified dose range divided by the total collectiveTEDE. This ratio is presented as a percentagerather than a decimal fraction.

Using this method of plotting the data, an idealdistribution would show only a small percentageof the collective dose delivered to individuals inthe higher dose ranges. In addition, this methodcan be used to show the trend in the percentageof the collective dose above a certain dose rangeover time. For example, a significantly decreasingtrend from year to year may indicate theeffectiveness of ALARA programs to reduce dosesto individuals or may indicate an overallreduction in activities involving radiationexposure over time. An increasing trend overtime may indicate deficiencies in theimplementation of ALARA practices or anincrease in production or cleanup activitiesresulting in 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 facilitates theexamination of two properties described aboveas the goal of effective ALARA programs at DOE:(1) a relatively small percentage of the collectivedose accrued in the high dose ranges, and(2) a decreasing trend over time of thepercentage of the collective dose accrued in thehigher dose ranges. Exhibit 3-5 also shows thateach successively higher dose range isresponsible for a lower percentage of thecollective dose. The values for the external dose(DDE) have fluctuated within a 5% margin foreach dose range over the past 5 years. The valuesfor TEDE in each dose range increased from 1998to 2000, decreased significantly in 2001, andremained essentially the same between 2001 and2002. The increases from 1998 to 2000 were dueto the increase in internal doses that exceededthe DOE limits. In 2000, three individualsreceived a TEDE above 5.0 rem (50 mSv), whichcontributed to 8.6% of the collective TEDE for theyear, the highest percentage above 2 rem (20 mSv)

20022001

20001999

1998

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

DD

E A

bo

ve

Do

se

Va

lue

s

Dose Value

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

TEDE

2.0 rem1.0 rem

0.5 rem

0.25 rem0.1 rem

71%

0.2%

5%

24%

47%

71%

48%44%

22%

5%

0.7%8.6%

14%

30%

50%

73%71%

28%

9%

1.0%

0.2%

6%

24%

47%

73%


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.

Neutron 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.

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

103,998

109,007

98,353

94,135

96,343

3,680

3,329

3,809

3,051

3,082

629

559

554

454

607

108,508

113,064

102,881

97,818

100,221

155

129

144

136

122

34

27

17

38

50

4

7

4

3

11

8

6

1

6

4,510

4,057

4,528

3,683

3,878

283.078

256.075

243.802

228.494

267.029

0.063

0.063

0.054

0.062

0.069

Exhibit 3-6:Neutron Dose Distribution, 1998-2002.

since 1990. See Section 3.3 for more informationon exposures in excess of the DOE limit. Incontrast, no individuals exceeded the DOE limitsin 2001 and 2002.

The neutron 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 2002, 3,878 individualsreceived measurable neutron dose, which is 23%of the individuals with measurable TEDE, and 4%of the total monitored individuals. The collectiveneutron dose in 2002 represents 20% of thecollective TEDE. All neutron doses were below2 rem (20 mSv) for the past 5 years. The collectiveneutron dose increased by 17% from 228person-rem (2.28 person-Sv) in 2001 to 267person-rem (2.67 person-Sv) in 2002, but hasdecreased by 6% since 1998. The averagemeasurable neutron dose increased by 11% from0.062 rem (0.62 mSv) in 2001 to 0.069 rem(0.69 mSv) in 2002. Statistical analysis of theneutron dose (see Section 3.2.6) reveals that themean neutron dose rose significantly from 0.027rem (0.27 mSv) in 2001 to 0.030 rem (0.30 mSv) in2002. The 2002 value was not significantly differentfrom the 5-year peak of 0.031 rem (0.31 mSv) thatoccurred in 1999. The rise reflects both an increasein the dose per worker, and a slight increase in thenumber of workers who received a measurabledose. The neutron dose distribution for 2002 bysite is shown in Appendix Exhibit B-5.

Exhibit 3-7 shows the distribution of extremitydose over the past 5 years. “Extremities” aredefined as the hands and arms below theelbow, and the feet and legs below the knee.10 CFR 835.402(a)(1)(ii) requires monitoring foran SDE to the extremities of 5 rem (50 mSv) ormore in a year. As shown in Exhibit 3-7, less than1% of individuals with measurable extremity dosehave received doses above the 5 rem (50 mSv)monitoring threshold over the past 5 years. All ofthe extremity exposures above 5 rem (50 mSv) in2002 were for the upper extremities. Forty-eightpercent of the extremity exposures above 5 rem(50 mSv) in 2002 occurred at Hanford, whereoperations involving the manipulation ofradioactive materials are more common. Eighty-eight percent of individuals with measurableextremity dose were monitored at four sites:Savannah River, Hanford, Rocky Flats, and LosAlamos. The number of individuals receiving ameasurable extremity dose decreased by 1% from12,465 in 2001 to 12,300 in 2002, and the averageextremity dose increased by 18% from 0.308 rem(3.08 mSv) in 2001 to 0.363 rem (3.63 mSv) in2002. The DOE annual limit for extremity dose is50 rem (500 mSv). The higher dose limit is due tothe lack of blood-forming organs in theextremities; therefore, extremity dose involves lesshealth risk to the individual. One individualreceived a dose of 111 rem (1,111 mSv) to theupper extremities at Lawrence Livermore NationalLaboratory (LLNL) in 2002. See Section 3.3.1 formore information concerning this event.


Exhibit 3-7:Extremity Dose Distribution, 1998-2002.


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 extremityof 5 rem or more in 1 year.

Numberwith

Meas. Dose

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

95,436

99,776

91,329

85,353

87,921

8,347

8,759

7,279

8,364

7,902

3,938

3,649

3,322

3,282

3,461

108,508

113,064

102,881

97,818

100,221

722

750

818

682

777

56

95

88

109

115

8

30

37

27

39

1

2

8

5

65

127

133

137

160

3,390.1

3,988.6

4,309.5

3,839.0

4,466.1

0.259

0.300

0.373

0.308

0.363

1

13,072

13,285

11,552

12,465

12,3001

Statistical analysis indicates that the logarithmicmean measurable extremity dose rosesignificantly to 0.063 rem (0.63 mSv) in 2002 aftera significant drop in 2001. The difference is dueprimarily to an increase in the dose per worker,although the total number of workers whoreceived measurable dose decreased slightly. Theextremity dose distribution by site for 2002 isshown in Appendix Exhibit B-22.

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 meaningful 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 records istoo 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 nonparametrictests were used: (1) analysis of variance usingranks, and (2) the Kruskall-Wallis test.


Exhibit 3-8:DOE-wide Summary Results for Statistical Tests, 1996-2002.

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)

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 20020.000

0.010

0.020

0.030

0.040

0.050

0.060

0.070

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 20020.000

0.010

0.020

0.030

0.040

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 20020.000

0.010

0.020

0.030

0.040

0.0340.035

0.0280.029

0.0260.028

0.030

0.053

0.0640.065

0.063 0.065

0.058

0.063

0.029

0.027

0.0290.031

0.022

0.0270.030

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,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, and thelogarithmic mean TEDE per worker reached a5-year peak of 0.030 rem (0.30 mSv) in 2002. Thelogarithmic mean TEDE increased from 0.028 rem(0.28 mSv) in 2001 to 0.030 rem (0.30 mSv) rem in2002, reflecting both an increase in the dose toindividual workers, and a larger number ofindividuals with measurable dose. Nonparametrictests of the data confirmed this change. Thelogarithmic mean TEDE per worker ranged from0.026 rem to 0.029 rem (0.26 mSv to 0.29 mSv) for1998-2001. However, the 2002 logarithmic meanTEDE remains significantly below the 1997logarithmic mean TEDE of 0.035 rem (0.35 mSv)per worker.

The mean neutron dose rose significantly from0.027 rem (0.27 mSv) in 2001 to 0.030 rem(0.30 mSv) in 2002. The 2002 value was notsignificantly different from the 5-year peak of0.031 rem (0.31 mSv), which occurred in 1999.The rise reflects both an increase in the dose perworker and a slight increase in the number ofworkers who received a measurable dose.Nonparametric tests confirmed this as asignificant change from the 2001 distribution.

The logarithmic mean measurable extremity doserose significantly from 0.058 rem (0.58 mSv) in2001 to 0.063 rem (0.63 mSv) in 2002 after asignificant drop in 2001. The difference is dueprimarily to an increase in the dose per worker,although the total number of workers whoreceived measurable dose decreased slightly.Nonparametric tests confirmed this as asignificant change from the 2001 distribution.Mean values since 1997 have been consistentlyand significantly higher than they were in 1996.The 1996 mean was itself an increase over 1995and 1994 values1. The rise in mean dose thereforereconfirms the shift to higher individual dosesthat occurred between 1994 and 1997.

1 See DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure 1998 Report.


Exhibit 3-9:Number of Individuals Exceeding 5 Rem (TEDE), 1998-2002.

In 2002, one individual received anextremity dose in excess of the 50 rem(0.5 Sv) extremity limit.

1998 6.292 0.282 6.010 Pu-238, Pu-239, Pu-240 Maintenance and Support LANL

1999 6.964 0.245 6.719 Pu-238, Pu-239, Pu-241, Weapons Fabrication Savannah RiverAm-241 and Testing

2000* 9.692 0.322 9.370 Pu-238, Pu-239, Pu-240 Research, General LANL11.745 0.245 11.500 Pu-238, Pu-239, Pu-240 Research, General LANL87.156 0.156 87.000 Pu-238, Pu-239, Pu-240 Maintenance and Support LANL

2001

2002 0.080 0.080 - 111 Research, General LLNL

YearTEDE(rem)

DDE(rem) Intake Nuclides Facility Types Site

These three doses were all a result of the same occurrence.*

CEDE(rem)

None Reported

SDEExtremity

(rem)

Exhibit 3-10:Doses in Excess of DOE Limits, 1998-2002.

Year

1998 1999 2000 2001 20020

1

2

3

4

5

3

01 1

Nu

mb

er o

f In

div

idu

als

Exc

eed

ing

5 R

em (

TE

DE

)

0

3.3 Analysis of Individual DoseDataThe 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 elevated dose ranges to thoroughlyunderstand the circumstances leading to thesedoses in the workplace and to better manage andavoid these doses in the future. The followinganalysis focuses on doses received byindividuals that were in excess of the DOE limit(5 rem TEDE) or (50 mSv) and the DOE ACL(2 rem TEDE) or (20 mSv).

3.3.1 Doses in Excess of DOE Limits

Exhibit 3-9 shows the number of doses in excessof the TEDE regulatory limit (5 rem) or (50 mSv)from 1998 through 2002. Further informationconcerning the individual doses, radionuclidesinvolved, and sites where the doses in excess ofthe 5 rem (50 mSv) TEDE limit have occurredduring the past 5 years is shown in Exhibit 3-10.

In June 2002, an individual received an extremitydose in excess of the 50 rem (0.5 Sv) limitspecified in 10 CFR 835.202(a)(4). An individualreceived 111 rem (1.11 Sv) to the upper extremityat LLNL where an experimenter had unpacked,chemically purified, assayed, and repacked aquantity of Cf-249 in preparation for shipping theradionuclide to collaborators for nuclearchemistry experiments. The quantity of Cf-249involved in this activity was approximately15 milligrams, or approximately 55 millicuries.The incident resulted in a DOE Type B AccidentInvestigation. For more information, see theoccurrence report OAK-LLNL-LLNL-2002-0019.


3.3.2 Doses in Excess of AdministrativeControl Level

The RCS [7] recommends a 2 rem (20 mSv) ACLfor TEDE, which should not be exceeded withoutprior DOE approval. The RCS recommends thateach DOE site establish its own, more restrictiveACL that would require contractor managementapproval to be exceeded. The number ofindividuals receiving doses in excess of the 2 rem(20 mSv) ACL is a measure of the effectiveness ofDOE’s radiation protection program.

As shown in Exhibit 3-11, one individual received aTEDE above 2 rem (20 mSv) during 2002 at LANL.The individual was reported to have received2.214 rem (22.14 mSv) TEDE, which included1.731 rem (17.31 mSv) from neutrons. Neutrondose is more common at LANL due to the natureof the work involving plutonium at this facility.The dose was anticipated and formally approvedby the LANL ALARA Steering Committee prior toincurring the dose; therefore, no occurrencereport was required for this event.

3.3.3 Internal Depositions of RadioactiveMaterial

As shown in Exhibit 3-10, some of the highestdoses to individuals have been the result ofintakes of radioactive material. For this reason,DOE emphasizes the need to avoid intakes andtracks the number of intakes as a performancemeasure.

The number of internal depositions of radioactivematerial (otherwise known as worker intakes),collective CEDE, and average measurable CEDE for1998-2002 is shown in Exhibit 3-12. The number ofinternal depositions increased by 2% from 2,362 in2001 to 2,418 in 2002, while the collective CEDEincreased by 17%. Due to the increase in thecollective CEDE and slight increase in the numberof internal depositions, the average measurableCEDE increased by 12% from 0.025 rem (0.25 mSv)in 2001 to 0.028 rem (0.28 mSv) in 2002, which isthe second lowest average measurable CEDE in thepast 5 years.

The number of internal depositions of radioactivematerial for 2000 through 2002 is also shown inExhibit 3-13. The internal depositions werecategorized into nine radionuclide groups. Intakesinvolving multiple nuclides are listed as “mixed”.Nuclides where fewer than 10 individuals hadintakes each year over the 3-year period aregrouped together as “other”. Only those recordswith internal dose greater than zero are includedin this analysis. It should be noted that thedifferent nuclides have different radiologicalproperties, resulting in varying minimum levels ofdetection and reporting.

Exhibit 3-11:Number of Doses in Excess of the DOE 2 Rem ACL, 1998-2002.

0

1

2

3

4

5

LEGEND

Internal Dose (CEDE) Accruedduring monitoring year

Combination of Internal and ExternalDose (CEDE+DDE) accrued duringmonitoring year

External Dose (photon & neutron)accrued during monitoring year

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

2

3 3

1 1

Year

Nu

mb

er o

f In

div

idu

als

Exc

eed

ing

2 R

em (

TE

DE

)


Exhibit 3-13:Number of Internal Depositions, Collective CEDE, and Average Measurable CEDE by Nuclides (Data), 2000-2002.

Note: Arrowed values indicate the greatest value in each column.* The number of internal depositions represents the number of internal dose records reported for each individual.

** Primarily the result of an event resulting in three individuals receiving a total of 107.87 person-rem at LANL.

Year

NuclideNumber of Internal

Depositions*Collective CEDE

(person-rem)Average Measurable

CEDE (rem)

Hydrogen-3 (Tritium)

Radon-222

Thorium

Uranium

Plutonium

Americium-241

Other

Mixed

Totals

394

4

62

1,630123

34

27

3

2,277

2.039

0.118

3.838

60.226

113.0200.989

0.145

0.205

180.580

0.005

0.030

0.062

0.037

0.9190.029

0.005

0.068

0.079

20022000 20002001 2001 2001

**

315

2

23

1,838137

28

13

6

2,362

1.189

0.076

0.204

47.0788.258

1.777

0.146

0.226

58.954

0.004

0.038

0.009

0.026

0.060

0.0630.011

0.038

0.025

2002

270

15

67

1,664298

65

26

13

2,418

2002

1.351

2.115

0.836

55.9626.868

1.226

0.091

0.241

68.690

2000

0.005

0.1410.012

0.034

0.023

0.019

0.004

0.019

0.028

Exhibit 3-12:Number of Internal Depositions, Collective CEDE, and Average Measurable CEDE (Graph), 1998-2002.

Number of InternalDepositions*

Collective CEDE(person-rem)

Average Measurable CEDE(rem)

1998 1999 2000 2001 20020

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Year

2,465 2,463

2,2772,362 2,418

1998 1999 2000 2001 20020

50

100

150

200

Year

90

153

181

5969

1998 1999 2000 2001 20020.000

0.020

0.040

0.060

0.080

0.100

Year

0.037

0.062

0.079

0.0250.028

* The number of internal depositions represents the number of internal dose records reported for each individual. Individuals may havemultiple intakes in a year and, therefore, may be counted more than once.

The 17% increase in the collective CEDE from59 person-rem (590 person-mSv) in 2001 to69 person-rem (690 person-mSv) in 2002 wasprimarily due to a 20% increase in internal doseat the Oak Ridge Y-12 site. The Y-12 facilityaccounted for 77% of the collective CEDE for2002. The increase was attributed to activities atthe Enriched Uranium Operations (EUO)facilities.

During the past 5 years, there have been severalintakes from plutonium or uranium in excess of2 rem (20 mSv) each year, with some of the dosesin excess of 5 rem (50 mSv) (see Exhibit 3-10).While the number of internal depositions above2 rem (20 mSv) has been few, they have contributedsignificantly to the collective internal dose for theyears 1998 through 2000. No such intakes werereported for 2001 and 2002, and the reduction inthe collective CEDE reflects this fact.


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.*

1998 1,909 353 128 43 18 8 5 1 1 2,466 90.217

1999 1,726 443 137 78 32 26 19 1 1 2,463 152.868

2000 1,472 625 136 34 5 2 3 2,277 180.580

2001 1,673 574 90 19 4 2 2,362 58.954

2002 1,534 734 131 16 3 2,418 68.690

Exhibit 3-14:Internal Dose Distribution from Intakes, 1998-2002.

The highest collective CEDE and number ofdepositions in 2002 are due to uranium intakes.The majority of the collective dose from uranium(95%) occurred at the Oak Ridge Y-12 facilityduring the continued operation and managementof EUO facilities at the site. The highest averagemeasurable CEDE in 2002 is from Radon-222,although the collective dose and number ofdepositions from Radon-222 are relatively small.These intakes were received by individualsperforming work at the former Grand Junctionsite and reported by the Idaho site. The numberof intakes for tritium decreased for the sixth yearin a row, with the decrease from 2001 to 2002attributable to decreases in intakes at theSavannah River Site.

Because relatively few workers receivemeasurable internal dose, fluctuations in thenumber of workers and collective CEDE canoccur from year to year.

Exhibit 3-14 shows the distribution of the internaldose from 1998 to 2002. The total number ofindividuals with intakes in each dose range is thesum of all records of intake in the subject doserange. The internal dose does not include dosesfrom prior intakes (legacy AEDE dose).Individuals with multiple intakes during the yearmay be counted more than once. Doses below0.020 rem (0.20 mSv) are shown as a separatedose range to show the large number of doses inthis low-dose range. All of the internal doses werebelow 2 rem (20 mSv) in 2002 for the second timein the past 5 years.

The internal dose records indicate that the majorityof the intakes reported are at very low doses. In2002, 63% of the internal dose records were fordoses below 0.020 rem (0.20 mSv). Over the 5-yearperiod, internal doses from new intakes accountedfor only 9% of the collective TEDE, and only 6% ofthe individuals who received internal dose wereabove the monitoring threshold specified(100 mrem or 1 mSv) in 10 CFR 835.402(c).


The internal dose records indicate thatthe majority of the intakes reportedare at very low doses.

Over the 5-year period, internal dosesaccounted for only 9% of thecollective TEDE.

Exhibit 3-15:Distribution of Collective CEDE vs. Dose Value, 1998-2002.

20022001

20001999

1998

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Per

cent

age

of C

ED

E A

bove

Dos

e V

alue

s

Dose V

alue

Year

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

2.0 rem

1.0 rem

0.5 rem

3.0 rem

0.1 rem

4.0 rem

5.0 rem

74%

36%

16%

9%

7%

7%

7%

82%

49%

22%

6%

6%

4%

4%

80%

62%

60%

60%

60%

60%

60%

39%

3%

0%

0%

0%

0%

42%

9%

5%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

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 each yearfrom 1998 to 2002. While the fluctuations ininternal dose prohibit definitive trend analysis, itis evident from the graph that from 1998 to 2000,

there was an increase in the percentages above2 rem (20 mSv), which was due to the individualswho exceeded the DOE annual limits. In2000, the percentages above 2 rem (20 mSv) weredominated by the three doses in excess of theDOE annual limit that occurred at LANL. For 2001and 2002, the percentage of internal dose aboveeach dose range decreased dramatically becauseof the lack of any internal doses above 2 rem(20 mSv). The distribution of internal dose by siteand nuclide for 2002 is presented in AppendixExhibit B-21.


Note: More complete details for each site,Operations/Field Office, and reportingorganization can be found in Appendix B.

Exhibit 3-16:Collective TEDE by Site for 2000-2002.

Oak RidgeOperations

SavannahRiver Site

Oak RidgeSite

ChicagoOperations PortsmouthPortsmouthPortsmouth

Gas. Diff. PlantGas. Diff. PlantGas. Diff. Plant

MoundPlant

PaducahGas. Diff.Plant

Stanford LinearAccel. Center

(SLAC)

Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

Fernald Envir.Fernald Envir.Fernald Envir.Mgmt. ProjectMgmt. ProjectMgmt. Project

IdahoNationalEngineeringLaboratory Hanford

Site

RockyFlatsPlant

Los AlamosNational

Laboratory

NevadaTest Site

OaklandOperations

Lawrence LivermoreNational Laboratory

ArgonneWest

SandiaNationalLaboratory

Albuquerque Operations

PantexPlant

ArgonneEast

BrookhavenNational

Laboratory

WestValley

GrandJunction

OhioOhioOhioOperationsOperationsOperations

Lawrence BerkeleyNational Laboratory

BattelleMemorialInstitute

DOEHeadquarters

CollectiveTEDE

(person-rem)

LEGEND

0

100

200

2000 2001 2002

When examining trends involving internaldose, several factors should be considered.Some of the largest changes in the number ofreported intakes over the years resulted fromchanges in internal dosimetry practices.Periodically, sites may implement new technologyor change monitoring practices or procedures,which may involve increasing the sensitivity of thedetection equipment, thereby increasing thenumber of individuals with measurable internaldoses. 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 statistical variability ofthe internal dose data from year to year.

3.4 Analysis of Site Data

3.4.1 Collective TEDE by Site andOperations/Field Offices

The collective TEDE for 2000 through 2002 for themajor DOE sites and Operations/Field Offices isshown in Exhibit 3-16. A list of the collective TEDEand number of individuals with measurable TEDEfor the DOE Sites and Operations/Field Offices isshown in Exhibit 3-17. Operations/Field Office doseis shown separately from the site dose wherever it isreported separately (see Appendix Exhibit A-2).Other small sites and facilities that do not contributesignificantly to the collective dose are includedwithin the numbers shown for “Ops. and OtherFacilities.” The collective TEDE increased by 10%from 1,232 person-rem (12.32 person-Sv) in 2001 to1,360 person-rem (13.62 person-Sv) in 2002, withsix of the highest dose sites (Hanford, Rocky Flats,Savannah River, Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, and Idaho)contributing 79% of the total DOE collective TEDE.


Exhibit 3-17:Collective TEDE and Number of Individuals with Measurable TEDE by Site, 2000-2002.

Operations/Field Office

2000 2002

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

2001

2.5 118163.5 1,696

47.3 2924.5 109

4.5 18223.6 23324.9 27826.2 43912.8 389

0.0 0

0.0 0

76.0 1,089

0.9 30

3.2 810.9 33

28.0 163

3.1 79

1.4 103107.8 2,304

8.8 232

1.0 37

0.6 4944.4 103

17.0 5722.7 198

30.5 239

250.0 2,175

274.4 2,611

199.1 3,217

1,359.6 17,051

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)Grand 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*Russian Federation Project

Idaho Site

Nevada Test Site (NTS)

Ops. and Other FacilitiesLawrence Berkeley Nat'l. Lab. (LBNL)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 FacilitiesBattelle Memorial Institute - ColumbusFernald Environmental Management

ProjectMound PlantWest Valley

Rocky Flats Env. Tech. Site (RFETS)

Hanford Site

Savannah River Site (SRS)

*No longer in operation; therefore, not required to report.


0.3 38195.5 1,365

35.0 2777.6 1050.1 6

3.5 10817.2 18320.9 23422.4 43012.3 406

0.1 11

58.8 795

1.6 24

0.9 1331.1 44

12.7 145

5.5 489

1.9 125118.1 2,276

5.0 63

1.5 44

1.9 15131.3 105

15.0 4211.1 123

16.5 246

296.1 2,331

219.0 1,923

163.2 3,382

1,266.5 15,983

1.2 95112.9 1,330

43.6 2934.7 990.1 2

7.8 16223.0 18719.8 25814.6 38710.7 368

0.0 51.0 8

106.6 1,088

1.3 32

1.6 1340.7 21

18.6 153

1.4 35

2.6 144120.0 2,576

5.0 122

1.2 35

2.0 8935.2 84

11.4 3551.2 97

22.2 233

240.7 2,436

213.6 2,219

207.6 3,640

1,232.4 16,687


Exhibit 3-18:Number with Measurable Dose, Collective TEDE, and Average Measurable TEDE by Labor Category, 2000-2002.

Exhibit 3-19:Graph of Collective TEDE by Labor Category, 2000-2002.

Agriculture

Construction

Laborers

Management

Misc.

Production

Scientists

Service

Technicians

Transport

Unknown

Totals


Labor CategoryNumber with Meas. Dose Collective TEDE (person-rem) Average Meas. TEDE (rem)

2000 2001 2000 2001 2000 2001

1

1,375

281

1,628

1,563

2,214

3,001

658

2,723

112

2,427

15,983

0.0

73.8

17.8

74.7

147.4

284.6

114.5

27.1

290.5

4.6

231.4

1,266.5

0.035

0.054

0.063

0.046

0.094

0.129

0.038

0.041

0.107

0.041

0.095

0.079

2002 2002 2002

0

1,825

434

1,368

1,667

2,296

2,978

710

2,865

183

2,361

16,687

0.0

98.7

44.6

64.7

125.9

283.7

125.3

29.2

301.5

9.3

149.6

1,232.4

0.0

0.054

0.103

0.047

0.076

0.124

0.042

0.041

0.105

0.051

0.063

0.074

1

1,949

605

1,392

1,527

2,419

2,908

631

2,956

245

2,418

17,051

0.0

118.8

45.8

75.6

142.2

306.1

130.6

33.4

313.3

10.6

183.2

1,359.6

0.012

0.061

0.076

0.054

0.093

0.127

0.045

0.053

0.106

0.043

0.076

0.080

Unkno

wn

Transp

ort

Techn

ician

s

Service

Scienti

sts

Produc

tion

Misc.

Manag

emen

t

Labo

rers

Constr

uctio

n

Agricu

lture

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0 0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

20002001

2002

Co

llect

ive

TE

DE

(p

erso

n-r

em)

Labor Category

3.4.2 Dose by Labor Category

DOE occupational exposures are tracked by laborcategory at each site to facilitate identification ofexposure trends, which assists management inprioritizing ALARA activities. Worker occupationcodes are reported in accordance with

DOE M 231.1-1 and are grouped into major laborcategories in this report. The collective TEDE foreach labor category for 2000 through 2002 is shownin Exhibits 3-18 and 3-19. Technicians andproduction staff have the highest collective TEDEfor the past 3 years because they generally handlemore radioactive sources than individuals in theother labor categories. In 2002, 51% of thetechnician dose was attributed to radiationprotection technicians, and 73% of the dose toproduction personnel is attributed to plantoperators.

The “unknown” and “miscellaneous” categorieshave the next highest collective TEDE totals.Eighty-nine percent of the dose in the “unknown”category for 2002 is attributed to LANL.Currently, the LANL computer system does notmaintain the data necessary to report occupationcodes in accordance with DOE M 231.1-1. Othersites also report individuals with an occupationcode of “unknown.” Typically, these workers aresubcontractors or temporary workers. Informationconcerning these workers tends to be limited.

An examination of internal dose from intake bylabor category from 2000 to 2002 is presented inAppendix Exhibit B-19. In addition, AppendixExhibit B-20 shows the TEDE distribution by laborcategory and occupation for 2002.


Exhibit 3-21:Number with Measurable Dose, Collective TEDE, and Average Measurable TEDE by Facility Type, 2000-2002.

Exhibit 3-20:Graph of Collective TEDE by Facility Type, 2000-2002.

Wea

pons

Fab. &

Test.

Was

te Proc

./Mgm

t.

Resea

rch, G

enera

l

Resea

rch, F

usion

Reacto

rOthe

r

Maint. a

nd S

uppo

rt

Fuel P

roces

sing

Fuel F

abric

ation

Fuel/U

ran. E

nrich

ment

Accele

rator

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0 0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

20002001

2002C

olle

ctiv

e T

ED

E (

per

son

-rem

)

Facility Type

Facility TypeNumber with Meas. Dose Collective TEDE

(person-rem)

2000 2001

Average Meas. TEDE (rem)


Accelerator

Fuel/Uranium Enrichment

Fuel Fabrication

Fuel Processing

Maintenance and Support

Other

Reactor

Research, Fusion

Research, General

Waste Processing/Mgmt.

Weapons Fab. and Testing

Totals

2000 2001 2000 2001

1,429

679

424

1,115

2,173

1,434

600

78

2,140

1,460

4,451

15,983

45.9

21.6

15.1

41.6

325.4

68.2

38.1

7.1

164.8

81.2

457.5

1,266.5

0.032

0.032

0.036

0.037

0.150

0.048

0.064

0.092

0.077

0.056

0.103

0.079

2002

976

846

355

1,155

2,389

1,401

560

116

2,227

1,938

4,724

16,687

2002

40.1

25.8

11.4

52.5

251.6

90.8

40.9

7.8

170.6

129.9

411.1

1,232.4

2002

0.041

0.031

0.032

0.045

0.105

0.065

0.073

0.067

0.077

0.067

0.087

0.074

1,087

744

572

1,137

2,825

1,576

470

153

2,172

1,875

4,440

17,051

57.2

27.7

17.0

48.9

316.6

135.8

29.3

4.3

175.9

110.3

436.6

1,359.6

0.053

0.037

0.030

0.043

0.112

0.086

0.062

0.028

0.081

0.059

0.098

0.080

3.4.3 Dose by Facility Type

DOE occupational exposures are tracked byfacility type at each site to better understand thenature of exposure trends and to assistmanagement in prioritizing ALARA activities. Thecontributions of certain facility types to the DOEcollective TEDE is shown in Exhibits 3-20 and 3-21.The collective dose for each facility type at eachmajor site of each DOE Operations/Field Officefrom 2000 to 2002 is shown in Appendix ExhibitB-7. An examination of internal dose from intakeby facility type and nuclide for 2000 to 2002 ispresented in Appendix Exhibit B-17.

The collective TEDE for 2000 through 2002 washighest at weapons fabrication and testingfacilities. Fifty-seven percent of this dose wasaccrued at Rocky Flats in 2002, with 17% atSavannah River and 14% at the Oak Ridge Y-12facility. It should be noted that, althoughweapons fabrication and testing facilities accountfor the highest collective dose, Rocky Flats andSavannah River account for the majority of thisdose, and these sites are now primarily involvedin nuclear materials stabilization and wastemanagement. See Section 3.5 for informationconcerning the current activities at these sites.


Exhibit 3-22:Criteria for Radiation Exposure and Personnel Contamination Occurrence Reporting.

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 (1 mSv).Any single unplanned exposure onsite to a minor, student, or member of the publicthat exceeds 50 mrem (0.5 mSv).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.

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 submittedto Occurrence 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 radiation exposure occurrences, andGroup 4B reports personnel contaminationoccurrences. The occurrence reportingrequirements for DOE M 232.1-1A are summarizedin Exhibit 3-22. These requirements becameeffective under DOE M 232.1-1 in September 1995and have remained essentially unchanged underDOE M 232.1-1A, which became effective in July1997. DOE Order 232.1A and DOE Manual 232.1-1Awere in effect during the 2002 reporting year.

It should be noted that DOE Order 232.1A andManual 232.1-1A have been cancelled as ofAugust of 2003. The revised DOE Order 231.1Acombines the requirements for occurrencereporting to ORPS and radiation exposure records

to REMS. The revised DOE Manual 231.1-2contains the detailed instructions on reportinginformation to ORPS. Subsequent annual reportson occupational exposure will reflect thesechanges in directives.

The number of reports submitted to ORPS isusually indicative of breaches or lapses inradiation protection practices, resulting inunanticipated radiation exposure orcontamination of personnel or clothing.Significant increases or decreases in the numberof occurrences reported may reflect trends inradiation exposures, the effectiveness of DOEradiation protection programs, or changes to thereporting procedure or thresholds. The reportingthresholds and processes have stabilized over theyears, and the increase in the number of radiationexposure occurrences and decrease in thenumber of contamination occurrences reported in2002 may reflect statistical variability rather thanany performance trend.

It is important to note that reports are submitted toORPS for an occurrence or event. In some cases, oneevent could result in the contamination or exposureof multiple individuals. In ORPS, this is counted asone occurrence, even though multiple individualswere exposed. In addition, one report may involvethe roll-up of similar or multiple occurrences. For the


Exhibit 3-23:Number of Radiation Exposure Occurrences, 1998-2002.

1998 1999 2000 2001 20020

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0

LEGEND

Unusual Occurrence

Off-Normal

Nu

mb

er o

f O

cc

urre

nc

es

1812 14 16

17

The number of radiation exposureoccurrences increased by 13% from2001 to 2002.

analysis included in this report, only the number ofoccurrences is considered. Also, it should be notedthat some occurrences are reported based on aninitial estimate of exposure but may berecategorized later pending the receipt of the finaldetermined exposure.

The number of occurrences reported underPersonnel Radiological Protection is broken into twosubcategories: Radiation Exposure, and PersonnelContamination. Results for those two subcategoriesare presented in Exhibits 3-23 and 3-25.

3.4.4.1 Radiation Exposure Occurrences

Radiation exposure occurrences are reportedwhen individuals are exposed to radiation aboveanticipated levels, or when the resulting exposureexceeds 100 mrem (0.1 rem) (1 mSv) external(whole body, skin, or extremity) or internal. Thenumber of radiation exposure occurrencesincreased by 13% from 16 in 2001 to 18 in 2002 asshown in Exhibit 3-23. The number of peopleinvolved in radiation exposure occurrencesreported in 2002 (25 people) was 19% less thanthose in 2001 (31 people).

Four of the internal exposures reported in 2002occurred in 2001, two occurred in 2000, and onein 1998 where a participant in the bioassaymonitoring program began exhibiting whatappeared to be elevated and widely varyingconcentrations of uranium isotopes in the urine(see Occurrence Report OH-MB-BWO-BWO04-2002-0002). Although there was no apparentoccupational explanation for the elevatedreadings, an acute (one time) occupational doseof 939 mrem (9.39 mSv) CEDE was assigned tothe worker.

One radiation exposure occurrence (seeOccurrence Report OAK-LLNL-LLNL-2002-0019)was classified as an Unusual Event in 2002compared to zero Unusual Events recorded in2001. The Unusual Event occurred at LLNL andinvolved one individual whose finger ring

dosimeter indicated an excessive dose thatexceeded the annual extremity dose limit. Theworker was exposed to radiation as a result of 1-2hours of directly handling unsealed radioactivematerial (Cf-249) over a period of approximately10 days during unpacking, chemically purifying,and repacking in preparation for shipment. Theexcessive dose was discovered during routinedosimetry review approximately a month after theexposure occurred.

Another case (see Occurrence Report OH-MB-BWO-BWO06-2002-0001) involved two relatedoccurrences in which one was classified as aradiation exposure and the other a personnelcontamination exposure event. The firstoccurrence listed in this occurrence report was aradiation exposure that involved three individualswith elevated tritium bioassay results. The workerswere in a contaminated area to sample andconsolidate the contents of one drum andinventory a second drum. Upon completion ofthe tasks and after performing a whole body frisk,the workers exited the area. Three days later,internal monitoring results indicated that thethree workers had elevated tritium bioassayresults with dose estimates from 30 to 40 mrem(0.30 - 0.40 mSv) Additional bioassay samples forPu/Am were tested and final results indicated thatone worker received an exposure of 192 mrem(1.92 mSv) from Pu-238 and 15 mrem (0.15 mSv)from tritium.


There was one radiation exposure occurrence for2002 that was a “near miss” for internal exposure(see Occurrence Report ALO-LA-LANL-CMR-2002-0007). An employee dropped a sample containerof plutonium oxide that resulted in areacontamination and nearly resulted in anunanticipated internal exposure.

In another case (see Occurrence Report OH-WV-WVNS-FRS-2002-0004), routine annual whole bodycounts showed detectable Cs-137 for severalindividuals who had worked in the same area. As aresult, whole body counts were given to 16individuals who worked on common jobs in thatarea during the same time period. Eight of the 16had detectable levels of Cs-137 due to inhalation ofairborne contamination likely resulting fromsediment and contamination in pool water asequipment was removed from the pool.

None of the 81 radiation exposure occurrencereports submitted to the ORPS between 1998 and2002 involved exposure to minors, members ofthe public, or pregnant workers.

Exhibit 3-24 shows the breakdown of occurrencesfor radiation exposure by site for the 5-year period1998 through 2002. Seventy-five percent of the2002 radiation exposure occurrences werereported by six sites: Savannah River, Mound, LosAlamos, Rocky Flats, Oak Ridge, and Hanford.During 2002, Mound and Los Alamos hadincreases in reported occurrences, whileSavannah River, Hanford, Rocky Flats, and OakRidge experienced decreases.

Exhibit 3-24:Radiation Exposure Occurrences by Site, 1998-2002.

Hanford

Oak Ridge Site

Rocky Flats

LANLMound

Savannah River

All Other20 (25%)

5 (6%)

15 (19%)

14 (17%)

11 (14%)

12 (15%)

4 (5%)

3.4.4.2 Personnel Contamination Occurrences

Personnel contamination occurrences are reportedwhenever personnel, clothing, or personal itemsare contaminated above threshold levels, generallyfive times the unconditional release limits. Thenumber of personnel contamination occurrencesreported decreased 12% from 283 in 2001 to 250 in2002. The number of personnel contaminationoccurrences reported has decreased by 21% from318 in 1998 to 250 in 2002 (see Exhibit 3-25). Onepersonnel contamination occurrence in 2002 wasclassified as an Unusual Event, compared to four

Exhibit 3-25:Number of Personnel Contamination Occurrences, 1998-2002.

1998 1999 2000 2001 20020

100

200

300

400

500

Nu

mb

er o

f O

ccu

rren

ces

Year

312

5

296

3

248

2

279

4

249

1

1 Emergency

LEGEND

Unusual Occurrence

Off-Normal

in 2001. The case (see Occurrence Report RL-PHMC-SNF-2002-0031) involved three separate, butrelated, events resulting in seven individualsreceiving contamination. The first event involvedmostly shoe contamination for five individualswhen contamination was identified outside theboundaries of a contaminated area. The secondevent occurred the following day when a workerwho was supporting decontamination andrecovery activities related to the originalcontamination event was discovered with shoecontamination. The next day, the third eventinvolved a shoe contamination on a worker whohad been conducting surveying activities outsidethe contaminated area boundaries.


Exhibit 3-26:Personnel Contaminations by Affected Area, 1998-2002.

0

50

100

150

200

Nu

mb

er o

f O

ccu

rren

ces

Affected Area

114105

86

123109

137

96 102107

142

84 8870

138125

Skin Clothing Shoe1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

The number of Personnel Contaminationoccurrences has decreased by 12%between 2001 and 2002.

Occurrence Report OH-MB-BWO-BWO06-2002-0001 recorded two occurrences: one radiationexposure occurrence and one personnelcontamination occurrence. The personnelcontamination occurrence was a shoecontamination, and it was determined that theradioactive particle detected on the sole of theworker’s shoe had been picked up in the samecontaminated area where the radiation exposureoccurred (see section 3.4.4.1 for details).

Although 250 personnel contamination occurrenceswere reported in 2002 (a 12% decline from 2001),309 individuals were contaminated on the skin,clothing, and/or shoes, as shown in Exhibit 3-27,which represents a 5% decline from the 324individuals in 2001.

Exhibit 3-27:Number of Individuals Contaminated by Affected Area in 2002.

Skin contamination only 59

Clothing (or other personal item) only 84

Shoes only 108

Skin and Clothing 42

Skin and Shoes 0

Clothing and Shoes 7

Skin, Clothing, and Shoes 9

Affected AreaIndividuals

Contaminated

It should be noted that the totals for Exhibits 3-25,3-26, and 3-27 are not equivalent because someoccurrences involve more than one affected area,and some occurrences involve more than oneindividual. Exhibit 3-25 presents the total numberof occurrences. Exhibit 3-26 presents the numberof personnel contaminations by affected areaand may count occurrences more than once ifthere is more than one affected area involved inthe occurrence. Exhibit 3-27 shows the numberof individuals by affected area. Individuals maybe counted more than once if they have morethan one affected area.

Exhibit 3-26 compares the personnel contaminationoccurrences by the affected area. Skin and shoecontamination incidents decreased from 2001 to2002, while clothing contamination occurrencesincreased. Hand contaminations made upapproximately 32% of the skin contaminationincidents. In two cases, the hand contaminationwas due to puncture wounds received whilewearing “cut resistant gloves.” In one of those cases(see Occurrence Report RFO-KHLL-SOLIDWST-2002-0065), while wearing “cut resistant gloves,”the index finger of an individual was punctured.After two unsuccessful attempts to excise thecontamination, the wound was stitched. Theindividual was assigned a dose of 180 mrem(1.8 mSv) for 2002.


Exhibit 3-28:Personnel Contamination Occurrences by Site, 1998-2002.

Idaho

LANL

Hanford

Savannah River

All Other

Oak Ridge Site100 (7%)

157 (11%)

354 (25%)

204 (15%)

370 (26%)

215 (15%)

The combination of skin and clothing (and manyof the skin, clothing, and shoe) contaminationusually involved situations where thecontamination on the outer protective clothingwas inadvertently transferred to the skin. Threemodes of contamination are common amongthese occurrences. The first is personnel error inthe removal of protective clothing that results inskin contamination. The second involves thetransference or “wicking” of contaminated liquidthrough the protective clothing to the skin. Thiscan occur as a result of kneeling in wet spots orfrom sweat-soaked clothing. The third commoncause of skin contamination occurrences is fromresidual contamination remaining on theprotective clothing after laundering. All of theseproblems have been reported in past years andthe frequency of their occurrence has notchanged significantly.

Exhibit 3-28 shows the personnel contaminationoccurrences by site for 1998 through 2002. Theoverall number of personnel contaminationoccurrences continued on a downward trend withthree of the top five sites experiencing a slightdecrease and the other two averaging the samenumber as the previous year.

3.4.4.3 Occurrence Cause

Exhibits 3-29 and 3-30 provide a breakdown ofradiation exposure occurrences and personnelcontamination occurrences by their root cause.For the ORPS, the “root cause” is defined as thatwhich, if corrected, would prevent recurrences.Only four significant root causes are consideredhere (management problem, personnel error,equipment/material, and unknown source ofradiation); other causes are included in thecategory entitled “All Other.”

Exhibit 3-29:Radiation Exposure Occurrences by Root Cause, 2000-2002.

0

2

4

6

8

10

0

2

4

6

8

10N

um

ber

of

Occ

urr

ence

s

Root Cause

6

3 3

1

4

6

1

3

0

7

5

8

0 1 1

ManagementProblem

PersonnelError

Equipment/Material

Unknown Sourceof Radiation

All Other

2000 2001 2002 2000 2001 2002 2000 2001 2002 2000 2001 2002 2000 2001 2002

Exhibit 3-30:Personnel Contamination Occurrences by Root Cause, 2000-2002.

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Nu

mb

er o

f O

ccu

rren

ces

Root Cause

8493

61

4640

56

10 10 9

82

96

73

28

4451

ManagementProblem

PersonnelError

Equipment/Material

Unknown Sourceof Radiation

All Other

2000 2001 2002 2000 2001 2002 2000 2001 2002 2000 2001 2002 2000 2001 2002


categories declined. “Management Problem” hadthe largest decrease of 34% less than 2001.“Unknown Source of Radiation” decreased 24%from 2001 to 2002 and includes unknownsources, as well as known sources from “legacy”contamination. Finally, the number of occurrencesthat were attributed to “Equipment/Material”decreased by 10% over last year’s statistics.

Further information concerning ORPS can beobtained by contacting Eugenia Boyle of EH-33 orthe ORPS web page at:

http://tis.eh.doe.gov/oeaf

In 2002, “Personnel Error” was cited as the rootcause for six occurrences (33%) of the radiationexposure occurrences reported. “UnknownSource of Radiation” was the root cause of eightoccurrences (44%) reported. The number ofradiation occurrences of “Equipment or Material”failure decreased to zero in 2002. “ManagementProblems” made up approximately 17% of thecases in 2002. The “All Other” category had oneoccurrence, which was the same number as theprevious year.

For personnel contamination occurrences, twocategories reported increases in the root causefrom 2001 to 2002. The largest increase occurredin “Personnel Error” with an increase of 40% over2001. The only other area that saw an increasewas “All Other” with a 16% increase over theprevious year. “All Other” includes thesesubcategories: Design Problems, ProcedureInadequacy, Training Deficiency, and None (noroot cause reported). The remaining root cause


Exhibit 3-31:Activities Contributing to Collective TEDE in 2002 for Six Sites.

The collective TEDE at LANL increased by 45% from 2001 to 2002.Of the total TEDE in 2002, 3.2 person-rem is from internal dose, and160 person-rem is attributable to external dose. In terms of externaldose, there was a 46% increase in dose from 2001 to 2002, whichis attributable to increased workload.Work at the TA-55 Plutonium Facility accounts for the majority ofoccupational dose incurred at Los Alamos. Programmatic work atTA-55 increased from 2001 resulting in corresponding, anticipated,increased dose to workers, and was reflected in increased ALARAgoals across the NMT Division programmatic and infrastructuregroups. Increased work on pit manufacturing, Pu-238 fuel and heatsource work, nuclear material processing, nuclear materials science,pit disassembly, and associated support such as nuclear materialcontrol and accountability, shipping, and waste management allcontributed to an increase in associated occupational dose. Plutonium-238 work and pit manufacturing contributed an increment of 10rem and 6 rem, respectively, from 2001 to 2002.One individual received a dose of 2.2 rem TEDE in 2002 – one ofthree individuals performing work with Pu-238 fuels approved toexceed 2 rem per formal justification and approval through theLaboratory’s ALARA Steering Committee. All other occupational dosesat LANL in 2002 were below 2 rem (TEDE).

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

020021998 1999 2000 2001

Co

llect

ive

TED

E (p

erso

n-re

m)

Co

llect

ive

TED

E (p

erso

n-re

m) 400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

020021998 1999 2000 2001

Los Alamos National Lab. Description of Activities at the Site2001-2002

(last yr.)

2000-2002(3 yr.)

Since1998(5 yr.)

Percent Change

1%16%45%

Description of Activities at the Site2001-2002

(last yr.)

2000-2002(3 yr.)

Since1998(5 yr.)

Percent Change

The collective TEDE at Hanford increased by 28% from 2001 to 2002.The largest contributors to the collective TEDE at Hanford werethermal stabilization and repackaging of plutonium-bearing materialsat the Plutonium Finishing Plant (32.7%), processing of spent nuclearfuel in K-Basins for interim dry storage at the Canister Storage Building(26.4%), and activities of the central plateau project (predominantly324 Facility B-cell clean-out) (11.1%). Other contributors to the doseincluded tank farm activities (9.2%) and Pacific Northwest NationalLaboratory (PNNL) activities (6.4%).The largest increase in collective TEDE at Hanford was from increasedprocessing of spent nuclear fuel in K-Basins. Hanford processed 3.7times more fuel in 2002, compared to 2001, constructed a fueltransfer system in KE-Basin, and significantly increased the numberof fuel canisters cleaned and removed from KW-Basin. The extremitydose increased 21.6%, consistent with the increase in TEDE.Neutron dose in 2002 did not change significantly from 2001,consistent with work operations at PFP at the Hanford Site.CEDE in 2002 was 249 mrem, a decrease of 73% from the 919 mremreported in 2001.

Hanford

28% 25% 52%

3.5 Activities Contributing toCollective Dose in 2002In 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 2002. These sites (Hanford, Rocky Flats,Savannah River, Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, and

Idaho) were the top six sites in their contributionto the collective TEDE for 2002 and comprised79% of the total DOE dose. Three of the six sitesreported increases in the collective TEDE, whichresulted in a 10% increase in the DOE collectivedose from 1,232 person-rem (12.32 person-Sv) in2001 to 1,360 person-rem (13.60 person-Sv) in2002. The six sites are shown in Exhibit 3-31,including a description of activities thatcontributed to the collective TEDE for 2002.


Exhibit 3-31:Activities Contributing to Collective TEDE in 2002 for Six Sites (continued).

Co

llect

ive

TED

E (p

erso

n-re

m) 400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

020021998 1999 2000 2001

Co

llect

ive

TED

E (p

erso

n-re

m) 400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

020021998 1999 2000 2001

The collective TEDE at Savannah River decreased by 4% from2001 to 2002. Radiation exposures increased in 2001 due toresumption in processing of radioactive material, such as legacyreactor fuels and targets, as well as special programs. Theseactivities continued in 2002 resulting in the comparable exposuretotals. Examples of the work performed in 2002 include thereceipt and storage of excess plutonium from RFETS, movementof spent nuclear fuel from the Receiving Basin for Off-site Fuelsto the L-Area fuel storage facility, movement of excessAmericium/Curium solutions from F-Canyon to the H-Area high-level liquid waste storage facility, accelerated retrieval andpreparation of transuranic waste for shipment to WIPP, remediationof contaminated environmental sites and facilities, and stabilizationand packaging of excess plutonium materials.

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

020021998 1999 2000 2001

Co

llect

ive

TED

E (p

erso

n-re

m)

Since1998(5 yr.)

Savannah River Site Description of Activities at the Site2001-2002

(last yr.)

2000-2002(3 yr.)

Percent Change

20%4% 22%

The collective TEDE at the Idaho National Engineering andEnvironmental Laboratory (INEEL) decreased by 29% from 2001 to2002. Radiation exposure to INEEL employees (excluding ANL-Wand BNFL employees) is primarily the result of radiological workconducted in support of four major activities: (1) preparation of wasteshipments to Waste Isolation Pilot Plant from the Radioactive WasteManagement Complex, (2) spent nuclear fuel operations at Test AreaNorth and Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center (INTEC),(3) operation of the Advanced Test Reactor at the Test Reactor Area(TRA), and (4) extensive inspections of the tank farms at INTEC.The collective dose decreased in 2002 from that of the previous year.The decrease was due to the completion of milestone work preparingshipments of waste to WIPP midway through the year so that thisexposure-intensive work no longer contributed to the total exposureand a general reduction in the amount of fuel transfer work wasperformed during 2002 compared to 2001. The completion of thedecontamination at one of the remotely operated hot cells at TRAduring 2001 eliminated this as a source of exposure for 2002.

Idaho Description of Activities at the Site2001-2002

(last yr.)

2000-2002(3 yr.)

Since1998(5 yr.)

Percent Change

29% 29% 17%

The collective TEDE at Rocky Flats increased by 4% from 2001 to2002. The activities for calendar year 2002 included processingand shipment of plutonium residues, packaging and shipment oflow-level waste, and the Decontamination and Decommissioning(D&D) of the four major plutonium facilities on Site, as well as D&Dof numerous uranium and administrative facilities. The increase incollective dose was primarily due to a 53% increase in the numberof hours of radiological work performed (1,005,537 hours to1,542,059 hours) over CY 2001. The CEDE decreased 30%(3.3 rem to 2.3 rem) over CY 2001, partly attributable to reductionsin risk by shipping highly contaminated gloveboxes as SurfaceContaminated Objects, rather than size-reducing them for packaging.

Rocky Flats Description of Activities at the Site2001-2002

(last yr.)

2000-2002(3 yr.)

Since1998(5 yr.)

Percent Change

15% 28%4%


Exhibit 3-31:Activities Contributing to Collective TEDE in 2002 for Six Sites (continued).

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

020021998 1999 2000 2001C

olle

ctiv

e TE

DE

(per

son

-rem

)

Description of Activities at the Site

Exposures at the Oak Ridge Site decreased 10% from 2001to 2002. The Oak Ridge Site includes the Oak Ridge NationalLaboratory (ORNL), Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12Plant), and East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP), formerlyknown as K-25).

Bechtel Jacobs: Bechtel Jacobs Company, LLC, monitoredand conducted activities at the ETTP, ORNL, Y-12, and thePortsmouth and Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plants.

Projects that contributed to exposure in 2002 include:(1) environmental restoration, decontamination anddecommissioning, and waste handling of legacy, solid, andliquid materials at ORNL, Y-12, and the ETTP and (2) uraniumfluoride cylinder maintenance and operations at Portsmouth,Paducah, and ETTP. Environmental restoration,decontamination and decommissioning, and waste-handlingactivities at ORNL contributed 54% of the dose, and cylinderoperations at Paducah accounted for 27%.

The reported TEDE for Bechtel Jacobs decreased 20%, withcorresponding decreases in deep, shallow, and lens dosebelow that reported in 2001. This decrease is largely due toa decrease in activities performed in support of operations atthe ORNL. Major projects contributing to the dose at ORNLin 2002 included: replacement and testing for fuel salt removaland depleted uranium testing at the Molten Salt ReactorExperiment, waste removal from Federal Facilities Agreementtanks, decontamination and decommissioning of the OldHydrofracture Facility, cleanup of Waste Tank 1A, anddecontamination and decommissioning of the Metal RecoveryFacility and sludge removal and waste operations associatedwith SIOU.

Y-12: During 2002, continued operation and managementof EUO facilities at the Y-12 Nuclear Security Complex werethe primary activities that resulted in the total collectiveradiation exposure at Y-12. EUO facilities were the majorsource of TEDE at Y-12, while activities involving depleteduranium contributed to the shallow dose and dose to theextremities.

Collective TEDE increased by 18% from 53.2 person-rem in2001 to 62.8 person-rem in 2002, while the total personsmonitored increased by 7% from 4592 to 4906. The averageTEDE increased from 0.012 to 0.013 rem. Maximum TEDEincreased by 3% from 0.519 rem to 0.535 rem. CollectiveCEDE increased 20% from 44.3 person-rem in 2001 to 53.0person-rem in 2002, while the average CEDE remained thesame at 0.019 rem for both years. Collective external doses(based on DDE) increased by 9% from 9.0 person-rem to 9.8person-rem in 2002. Average DDE remained essentially thesame at 0.002 rem for both years.

Oak Ridge Site 2001-2002

(last yr.)

2000-2002(3 yr.)

Since1998(5 yr.)

Percent Change

8%10% 5%


Exhibit 3-32:Dose Distribution of Transient Workers, 1998-2002.

Less than Measurable DoseMeasurable < 0.10.10 - 0.250.25 - 0.50.5 - 0.750.75 - 1.01.0 - 2.0

Total Number of Individuals Monitored*Number with Measurable Dose% with Measurable DoseCollective TEDE (person rem)Average Measurable TEDE (rem)

Total Number of Records for MonitoredIndividuals

Number with Meas. Dose% of Total Monitored who are Transient% of the Number with Measurable

Dose Who are Transient

Dose Ranges (TEDE in rem) 20001998 2002

2,298470

501211

52

2,84855019%

36.4770.066

100,221

17,0512.8%3.2%

3,780585

4914

821

4,43965915%

34.7420.053

108,508

17,5444.1%3.8%

Tran

sien

tsA

ll D

OE

1999

3,876638

5021

66

4,59772116%

39.5210.055

113,064

16,6684.1%4.3%

2,537466

3714

4

3,05852117%

23.6320.045

102,881

15,9833.0%3.3%

2001

2,696439

3113

112

3,18348715%

25.1380.052

97,818

16,6873.2%2.9%

* Total number of individuals represents the number of individuals monitored and not the number of records.

3.6 Transient Individuals

Transient 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 AppendixExhibit A-2 by operations office. During the year,some individuals perform work at multiple sitesand, therefore, have more than one monitoringrecord reported to the repository. In addition,some individuals transfer from one site to anotherduring the year. This section presents informationon transient individuals to determine the extent towhich individuals travel from site to site and toexamine the dose received by these individuals.

Exhibit 3-32 shows the distribution and totalnumber of transient individuals from 1998 to 2002.Over the past 5 years, on an average, transient

individuals have accounted for 3.5% of the totalnumber of records for monitored individuals atDOE and received, on an average, 2.5% of thecollective dose. As shown in Exhibits 3-33 and 3-34,the number of transients with measurable doseincreased by 13% from 487 in 2001 to 550 in 2002.The collective dose for transients increased by45% from 25.1 person-rem (251 person-mSv) in2001 to 36.5 person-rem (365 person-mSv) in 2002.The average measurable TEDE increased by 27%from 0.052 rem (0.52 mSv) in 2001 to 0.066 rem(0.66 mSv) in 2002. The average measurable TEDEfor transients in 2002 was 18% less than theaverage measurable TEDE (0.080 rem) for allmonitored DOE workers. As shown in Exhibit 3-35,LANL was the site with the largest collective doseto transient workers from 1998 to 2002. LANL hasthe largest percentage of dose to transientsbecause workers at TA-55 (who generally receiveelevated doses) tend to perform temporary workat sites such as Nevada Test Site (NTS), RockyFlats, and Pantex, as part of their routine duties.


Exhibit 3-33:Individuals Monitored at More Than One Site (Transients) During the Year, 1998-2002.

Exhibit 3-34:Collective and Average Measurable Dose to Transient Individuals,1998-2002.

● ●●

●●

1998 1999 2000 2001 20020

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

34.7

39.5

23.6 25.1

36.5

DOE Overall Average Measurable TEDE

Transient Collective TEDE

Transient Average Measurable TEDE

One group of individuals who routinely travelfrom site to site is DOE employees fromHeadquarters or the Field Offices who visit orinspect multiple sites during the year. For2002, this group accounts for 15% of themonitored transient individuals but only 2% ofthe collective dose to transients.

In 2002, 14% of the transient individuals weremonitored at three or more sites. DOEHeadquarters and Field Office personnel makeup a large percentage of these individuals. In2002, 28% of the individuals monitored at three ormore sites were DOE Headquarters or Field Officeemployees, and 34% of the individuals monitoredat four or more facilities were DOE Headquartersor Field Office employees. The maximumnumber of sites visited by one monitoredindividual during 2002 was eight, and thisindividual was a DOE Headquarters employee(involved in health and safety evaluations) whoreceived no dose during these visits.

1998 1999 2000 2001 20020

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Nu

mb

er o

f In

div

idu

als

Year

4,439

659

4,597

721

3,058

521

3,183

487

2,848

550

Total Transient Individuals Monitored

Transients with Measurable Dose


Exhibit 3-35:Collective TEDE to Transient Workers by Site, 1998-2002.

1998 1999 2000 2001 20020

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Co

llect

ive

TE

DE

(p

erso

n-r

em)

Year

6.0 (Rocky Flats)

1.4 (Hanford)

5.4 (Other)

15.1 (LANL)

2.1 (LLNL)

2.1 (Oak Ridge)

2.7 (SRS)

6.8 (LANL)

5.6 (Rocky Flats)

6.2 (Hanford)

2.3 (Oak Ridge)

4.9 (LLNL)

1.4 (SRS)

12.2 (Other)0.8 (LLNL)

1.6 (SRS)

2.8 (Hanford)

3.1 (Rocky Flats)

6.9 (LANL)

4.7 (Other)

3.7 (Oak Ridge)

23.6

34.7

39.5

3.8 (LLNL)

1.8 (SRS)

1.4 (Hanford)

7.0 (LANL)

6.9 (Other)

1.4 (Oak Ridge)

25.1

2.7 (Rocky Flats)

2.9 (LLNL)

2.2 (SRS)

8.1 (LANL)

10.1 (Other)

2.5 (Oak Ridge)

36.5

8.6 (Rocky Flats)

2.2 (Hanford)

LANL has a larger percentage of dose to transients because workers at TA-55 (who generallyreceive elevated doses) tend to perform temporary work at sites such as NTS, Rocky Flats, andPantex, as part of their routine duties.


Section 3.7 Historical Data Collection

In Section 3.7 of the 2000 and 2001 annual reportson occupational exposure, information waspresented on historical data that have beencollected to date from a request by the DOEOffice of Environment, Safety and Health to theDOE sites to voluntarily provide historicalexposure records. No additional sites havereported historical data during the year 2002.

Sites that have not yet reported historical doserecords are encouraged to contact Ms. NirmalaRao at DOE to obtain further information onreporting these records. This is a voluntary requestto report historical data (records prior to 1987)that are available in electronic form in whateverformat that is most convenient for the site toreport. The data will be stored as reported in theREMS and wherever possible, data will beextracted and loaded into the REMS database foranalysis and retrieval. For detailed analysis, readSection 3.7 of the 2000 report.

Sites that have voluntarily reported historical data are:

❖ Fernald❖ Hanford❖ Idaho❖ Kansas City Plant❖ Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory❖ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory❖ Nevada Test Site❖ Oak Ridge K-25 Site❖ Pantex❖ Portsmouth❖ Rocky Flats❖ Sandia National Laboratory❖ Savannah River Site

ALARA Activities at DOE2002 Report 4-1

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 confrontedradiation protection issues and used innovativetechniques to solve problems common to mostDOE sites. DOE program and site offices andcontractors who are interested in benchmarks ofsuccess and continuous improvement in thecontext of Integrated Safety Management andquality are encouraged to provide input to beincluded in future reports.

4.1 ALARA Activities at theHanford Site

4.1.1 Hanford Contractors Use Varietyof Mock-ups to Reduce Worker Dose

Mock-ups are invaluable in maintaining workerradiation exposure ALARA. Mock-ups are used notonly to provide training for workers but also areoften used to develop and proof test methods ofaccomplishing work. Examples of mock-ups usedat Hanford are discussed in the following pages.

4.1.1.1 Mock-up Waste Tank Will ReduceDose and Speed Cleanup

The Hanford Cold Test Facility, a simulated wastetank, completed construction in May 2002 (seeExhibit 4-1). The Cold Test Facility is a key playerin the effort to clean up millions of gallons ofhighly radioactive and hazardous waste stored in177 large underground tanks, within a few miles ofthe Columbia River. With this facility, equipmentneeded to retrieve tank waste and send it to aplanned treatment plant will be demonstratedand developed.

The centerpiece of the facility is an open-top steeltank that is 75 feet in diameter — the same widthas a real million-gallon Hanford tank. Asuperstructure spans the tank, with platforms at35 feet and 55 feet, simulating the heights ofsingle-shell and double-shell tanks. The tank holdsup to 800,000 gallons of reusable, non-hazardous,and non-radioactive simulated waste. The HanfordCold Test Facility Mock-up is estimated to havesaved 6.0 rem (60 mSv) during its first year ofoperation. The facility is managed by CH2M HillHanford Group.

Exhibit 4-1:Hanford Cold Test Facility.

Photo Courtesy of Hanford.



4.1.1.2 Pacific Northwest NationalLaboratory Coordinates the First Test atHanford’s Newly Constructed Cold TestFacility

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)launched the Hanford Cold Test Facility into fulloperation with completion of its first test. The testdemonstrated a full-scale mock-up of the waterdistribution system process aimed at dissolution ofexisting saltcake waste forms from single shell tank241-S-112 as part of the S-112 Saltcake WasteRetrieval Technology Demonstration Project.Testing of the S-112 prototype water distributionsystem was performed to verify system design andoperation, characterize the hydraulic performanceof individual system components, evaluateergonomics of the operator interface with theManual Water Distribution Device, and evaluateoperator interface with the in-tank camera videofeed. Testing was performed by an integrated teamof personnel from PNNL, CH2M Hill HanfordGroup, DMJMH&N (Daniel, Mann, Johnson andMendenhall, Holmes and Narver), and BabcockServices.

The testing results identified need forimprovement in ergonomics and one individualcomponent design. Testing the system outside of aradiological area saves both dose to workers andprevents delays during actual work operations.

4.1.1.3 Hanford Cold Test Facility Used toDemonstrate Tank Crawler

Most of the liquid waste has been removed fromHanford’s older tanks to newer, safer double-shelltanks. Methods are being developed to removethe remaining solid waste — more than 31 milliongallons by volume. That waste consists of saltcake,which is somewhat like wet beach sand, andsludge that looks like fine mud and dries veryhard.

A tank crawler arrived at Hanford in August 2002to undergo demonstrations prior to cleaning upsludge waste inside a tank. The crawler is aremote-controlled, 1,300-pound in-tank vehiclethat is sturdy and agile. It looks like a smallbulldozer with treads and a blade (see Exhibit 4-2).With the push of a button, hydraulics fold thecrawler to just 27 inches wide, narrow enough toenter a tank through a 36-inch-wide riser that hasbeen fitted with a protective sleeve. Onceinside, the crawler will push its way through thicksludge, moving the waste toward a central pumpthat will transfer the contents of the tank. A pumpand spray mechanism on the crawler helps the in-tank vehicle move through waste.

Exhibit 4-2:Tank crawler.


Exhibit 4-3:Picture of Crawler in Tank.

Preliminary demonstrations of the tank crawlerwere performed at the Hanford Cold Test Facilityusing mud that is similar in particle size andviscosity to sludge tank waste (see Exhibit 4-3).Using simulated waste in the tank, the crawlerwas put through its paces in preparation for realtank cleanup work. Single-shell Tank C-104 iscurrently scheduled for the first deployment ofthe crawler by 2005.

4.1.1.4 Fluor Hanford, Inc. Uses SpareEquipment to Mock-up Televator RepairOperations at 324 Building RadiochemicalEngineering Cell Airlock, Saving1.7 Person-rem (17 Person-mSv)

The Radiochemical Engineering Cell (REC) airlockis a high hazard work area with dose rates from 75 to450 mrem/hr (.75 to 4.5 mSv/hr) and contaminationlevels in the rad-per-hour magnitude. Personnelenter the airlock in bubble suits wearing headsetsto communicate with staff members in theadjacent Cask Handling Area.




Exhibit 4-4:Televator Deck Internal Scissor Lifting Extensions.

A Reynolds Televator Corporation’s Model 30Atelevator located inside the REC airlock is usedextensively, enabling staff members to work in theoverhead areas. Recently, the televator was usedfor the replacement of the B-cell crane jib hoistand for the installation of the A-cell bridge hoiststructure, two components critical to themovement and loading of the spent nuclear fuelstored in B cell. During performance of routinepreventive maintenance on the televator, workersdiscovered that the cables used to raise andlower the televator deck were twisted and frayed,requiring the cables to be replaced prior tocontinued use.

Two options were investigated. The first option wasto replace the televator. This option would havecost approximately $80,000, would have generated225 cubic feet of radioactive waste, and wouldhave resulted in work schedule delays while thenew equipment was procured, installed, andmodified for the work environment and whilepersonnel were trained on the new equipment.The second option was to replace the cables.

The four worn lifting cables, measuring 60 feetlong, each supporting a leg of the televatordeck, would need to be removed and new cablesinserted. Personnel could not access the cablesdirectly because of the internal scissor liftingextensions of the unit (see Exhibit 4-4). Workersplanned to pull the new cables through the cablepathway by attaching the new cables to the end

of the old cables with a nylon rope. The methodof attachment was crucial. Each leg of thetelevator had 12 pulleys. The critical element ofthis process was being able to pull the new wirecables through the complex turns and pulleyswithout losing the connection point. If theconnection point were lost while the rope wasbeing pulled, the workers would have no way ofthreading the new cables into place withoutdisassembling the televator.

Fluor Hanford, Inc. (FHI) located a duplicatetelevator in a non-controlled area. This duplicatetelevator was used to mock-up the replacement ofthe cables. In the initial mock-up, staff membersused the existing cable without modification. Withthe pulleys about 180 degrees apart and very littletolerance between the cable and the pulleys, theyinitially found the threading impossible. Theymodified the new cable with a tapered end, andthe nylon rope was woven through that tapered endfor a secure connection point. Shrink tubing wasused over the connection point to make thetransition smooth (see Exhibit 4-5).

Exhibit 4-5:Cable Connection Process.

Each of the four cables would need to be thesame length and secured at the same tension.During operation, this would enable the televatordeck to be lifted and lowered in a balancedfashion. The cables were cut longer than neededand were cut to the proper length, discarding thetapered end after installation.

The development and testing of a successfulmethod of replacing the cables tookapproximately five shifts. Based on the high doserates inside the REC airlock, use of the duplicatetelevator, located in a non-controlled area as amock-up for the development and testing of cablereplacement, saved an estimated 1.715 person-rem(17.15 person-mSv).



Exhibit 4-6:TRU-Retrieval Mock-up Trench.


4.1.1.5 FHI Builds Transuranic RetrievalMock-up Trench

FHI Waste Management Project completedconstruction of a full size replica of a typicaltransuranic (TRU) waste burial trench July 1,2002. The mock-up (shown in Exhibit 4-6) is usedfor hands-on training, emergency responseexercises, training on use of new equipment,procedural walk downs, and equipmentsuitability trials. The mock-up removes the needfor personnel and equipment entry into aradiological area for hands-on training and

equipment trials. The mock-up allows members ofthe TRU-retrieval team to try out new proceduresand work out problems they encounter withoutradiation exposure. New and innovativetechniques, such as new forms of temporary orpermanent shielding, use of special or non-standard personal protective clothing andequipment, and use of over packs and new airmonitoring devices, can be proved or disprovedoutside a radiological area. FHI estimates themock-up TRU-retrieval trench will save 2.8 rem(28 mSv) annually.


4.1.2 Bechtel Hanford, Inc. UsedSkilled Workers and InnovativeTechnology to Reduce Dose DuringF Reactor Fuel Basin Cleanout

Hanford production reactors were configuredwith adjacent 6,400-square-foot water basins thatserved as collection areas for discharged fuelelements, transfer facilities, and shielding fromradiation. The F Reactor fuel storage basin wasused to house irradiated uranium fuel from 1945until 1965, when the facility was permanentlyshut down.

In 1970, during the F Reactor deactivation, waterinside the 20-foot-deep basin was drained untilonly 2 feet of water remained. The water-coveredfloor contained some spent nuclear fuel elements,fuel baskets, reactor hardware, the fuel basin’swooden deck, overhead rail structures, andmiscellaneous debris. The remaining 17 feet ofthe basin was then filled with sand, covering theunderlying radioactive sludge and debris fornearly 30 years.

In 1998, Bechtel Hanford, Inc. (BHI) began“cocooning” F Reactor to safely isolate its core foras long as 75 years. Cocooning requiresdemolition of the surrounding ancillarystructures and cleaning out the highly radioactivefuel storage basin prior to its demolition. BHIused a phased approach to the basin cleanout. InNovember 2000, BHI began the firstphase, removing the fuel basin’s upper 17 feet ofsand (low hazard). The second phase, removingthe remaining soil and debris began in July2001, and was completed by November 2002.BHI incorporated proven constructiontechniques and several technologies to protectthe workers, public, and environment.

State-of-the-art radiological monitoring equipmentwas used to survey the last 30 inches of basin fillto identify locations of spent nuclear fuel before itwas uncovered. A Laser-Assisted Ranging andData System (LARADS) radiological survey wasperformed remotely to provide a map of theradiological conditions of the basin. Theinstrument documents radiological conditions,records geographic locations, and providesphotos stored in accessible computer files. Thehigher dose areas (hot spots) were then remotelymonitored with the Universal Radiation SpectrumAnalyzer to distinguish spent nuclear fuel fromother high dose rate hardware. This monitoringwas effective in identifying locations of spentnuclear fuel within the top 15 inches of fill. Theprocess was performed twice, once at 30 inchesand once at 15 inches.

LARADS, suspended from a crane, (seeExhibit 4-7) was used to remotely performradiological surveys of the F Reactor spentnuclear fuel basin.

Exhibit 4-7:LARADS Suspended from a Crane.



Electronic dosimeters and remote monitoringsystems are additional technologies that wereused for F Reactor basin cleanout. The remotelyread devices were worn by workers and placed instrategic areas to promptly detect any highradiation levels during excavation activities.

Fuel elements were found within the last 15inches of the basin floor. The fuel elements hadhigh dose rates ranging from 5 to 120 rem/hr(50 to 1,200 mSv/hr) on contact. To reduce thedose to workers, the fuel elements were removedusing a remotely operated excavatormanufactured in Sweden by Brokk, Inc. Thescaled-down excavator shown in Exhibit 4-8 isremotely controlled by an operator in a nearbytrailer, out of sight and at a safe distance from any

Exhibit 4-8:Brokk Unit Excavating Materials Inside F Reactor FuelBasin.


potential hazards. The excavator has four camerasto transmit pictures to monitoring screens insidethe control station (see Exhibit 4-9). Operatorsnavigate the device using a pair of joy-sticks andimages provided by the Brokk cameras. The270-degree turning radius of the Brokk’s three-jointed arm was used in tandem with severalattachments capable of demolition, excavation,cutting, and grappling objects as small as 1-1/8inches in length. Brokk attachments can beindependently changed without worker assistance.Workers received extensive training on theoperation of Brokk by company representativesbefore using the equipment in the basin. Workersindicated the extensive training they received andexercises they participated in made the transitionfrom operating conventional excavationequipment to the Brokk very easy.

Exhibit 4-9:Brokk Remote Control Station in Nearby Trailer.

BHI estimates that use of the Brokk alone saved1.8 person-rem (18 person-mSv). Lessons learnedfrom the F Reactor spent fuel basin cleanout arebeing applied to other decontamination anddemolition activities at Hanford. The progress atF Reactor is one step in the larger task ofremoving contaminants away from the ColumbiaRiver to protect the public and the environment.



4.1.3 FHI Removes HighlyRadioactive Piping at 105KE FuelStorage Basin, Saving More Than20 Person-rem (200 Person-mSv)of Dose

FHI is removing spent nuclear fuel from the105KE and 105KW Fuel Storage Basins andprocessing the fuel for interim dry storage in theCanister Storage Building at Hanford. To reducecosts, FHI decided to transfer KE spent nuclearfuel to the KW Fuel Storage Basin for processinginstead of building duplicate processingequipment at the KE Fuel Storage Basin. Totransfer KE spent fuel, a Fuel Transfer System(FTS) was built.

The construction of the FTS in the 105KE FuelStorage Basin required demolition of portions of a50-year-old basin water cooling and recirculationpipe system (see Exhibit 4-10), an associatedpump, and valves to make room for the new

equipment. The pipe sizes varied from 4 inches to8 inches in diameter. The pipes had several hotspots that exceeded 100 mrem/hr (1 mSv/hr) andaveraged 20 to 40 mrem/hr (.2 to .4 mSv/hr) oncontact, contributing significantly to the overallgeneral area radiation levels.

An ALARA review recommended removal of all ofthe pipe and installation of new piping beforeconstruction of the FTS rather than just removingthe piping needed to make room for the system.Engineering and construction plans were changedto incorporate the ALARA team’s recommendation.The pipe cuts were planned by the workforceusing Integrated Safety Management Systemprinciples. Construction crafts assembled riggingat key locations to prevent the heavy pieces ofpipe from falling and installed glove bags over thecut locations and the flanges that could bedisassembled. The piping cuts were made with areciprocating hack saw (German saw). The sawwas installed so the saw blade was clamped to thepipe inside the glove bag, while the saw motorwas suspended outside the glove bag. This type ofsaw enables the worker to stand several feet awayfrom the pipe during cutting operations. When acut was complete, the blade was disconnectedfrom the saw and was disposed of as radioactivewaste with the piping, and the saw was moved tothe next location. The glove bag was used to sealboth ends of the cut for movement of the pipe tothe waste container.

A total of ten cuts were made, as well as severalflange disconnections. There was no loss ofcontrol of contamination and the work wasperformed without the need for respiratoryprotection. Dose rates in the area were reducedan average of 8 mrem/hr (.08 mSv/hr). The addedwork scope cost approximately 2 person-rem(20 person-mSv), but is estimated to have savedmore than 20 person-rem (200 person-mSv) toconstruction forces that built the FTS and toworkers during operation of the FTS.

Exhibit 4-10:Basin Water Cooling and Recirculation Pipe System.



4.2 ALARA Activities at theSavannah River Site

4.2.1 Build-up of Material within the2H Evaporator Pot at Savannah RiverSite

The 2H Evaporator located in the H-Tank Farm isdesigned to reduce the volume of liquidradioactive waste. Over time it had becomeincreasingly difficult to operate the Evaporator atits optimum level. After numerous possiblecauses had been investigated and eliminated, it

Photo Courtesy of Savannah River Site.

Exhibit 4-11:View of Evaporator Pot.

was determined that an inspection of the interiorof the Evaporator Pot (see Exhibit 4-11) wasrequired to visually look for problems. It isimportant to note that the Evaporator Pot is thephysical location where the radioactive liquidreduction actually occurs. Thus, even whenempty, the pot is still a significant source ofradiation and is highly contaminated.

A camera was used to perform inspections withinthe Evaporator Pot. The camera was installedthrough a glovebag that was open at the top. Afterthe camera was in place, the glovebag was sealed.The camera was removed using the glovebag andsleeving for total containment.


Dose Rates (Without ALARA Methods)

140 mrem/hr extremities80 mrem/hr whole body and skin

8 mrem/hr extremitiesND whole body3 mrem/hr skin

Dose Rates (With ALARA Methods)

The initial camera inspection revealed aconsiderable amount of build-up or plaquewithin the pot. This finding led to numerousadditional camera inspections and samplingactivities (see Exhibit 4-12). During camerainspections, workers stayed in low-dose areaswhen possible. Ultimately, this led to a plan toperform chemical cleaning of the pot. Prior tocleaning, it was necessary to remove cell covers(see Exhibit 4-13) so that the process jumperscould be properly configured.

Exhibit 4-13:Removal of Cell Cover.


Exhibit 4-12:Sampling of Evaporator Pot.


The jumper work required numerous entries.Personnel stayed away from the open cell andremained in low-dose areas, when possible, to keepexposure ALARA. A remote gasket installation toolwas used to increase personnel efficiency andmaintain exposure ALARA. Workers’ hands were ina radiation field of 2,900 mrem/hr (29 mSv/hr)instead of a radiation field of 27,400 mrem/hr(274 mSv/hr). Maximum contamination levelsencountered were as follows: 40,000 dpm/100 cm2alpha and 10 mrad/hr/100 cm2 beta-gamma. Totalcontainment was used for much of the workactivities; therefore, the contamination levelsindicated above do not reflect maximumcontamination on the equipment. Connector headregasketing activities took place within a glovebagto control contamination at the source.

This proved to be a success and did not increaseexposure (see Exhibit 4-14). Temporary shieldingwas available to shield connector heads when morethan one was in the work area. This reducedexposure to workers by reducing the number ofradiation sources. It should be noted that the gasketinstallation tool was designed, developed, andpatented by personnel from H-Tank Farm at SRS.

In summary, remote/extended tools, temporaryshielding, and cameras were used to maintainexposure ALARA. When total containment wasnot used, several additional controls (e.g.,ventilation, misting, flushing, and wind speedwork restrictions) were used to reduce thepotential for the spread of contamination.

For additional information about this projectcontact: Athena D. Freeman, Site ALARACoordinator: (803)725-5030, e-mail:[email protected]

Exhibit 4-14:Dose Rates With and Without ALARA Methods.


4.2.2 Failure Back-flush Valves at theSavannah River Site

During operation of the 3H Evaporator it isnecessary to vent the Evaporator Pot and dropconcentrated waste into Tank 20 and Tank 30,respectively, through their Back-flush Valves(BFV). These new valves (shown in Exhibit 4-15)failed to function properly and often failed tofunction at all. Numerous possible causes wereinvestigated to include the digital control system,the pneumatic actuator, and thermal expansion.These investigations failed to correct the problem.As a result, both valves were removed to performtesting and repairs. They were reinstalled and stilldid not function properly. This remove, repair,reinstall cycle would be repeated numeroustimes. Personnel became experienced in workingwith the BFV, which increased their ability toimprove methods in keeping dose ALARA and incontrolling contamination. Often, personnelwere forced to adapt to difficulties to besuccessful, (e.g., using the riser plug for shieldingduring wrapping and unwrapping activities).

Exhibit 4-15:Back-flush Valve.


During BFV removal and installation activities,cameras were used to guide the BFV into and outof the riser. This allowed workers to remain in fieldsof approximately 100 mrem/hr (1 mSv/hr) insteadof entering the 18,000 mrem/hr (180 mSv/hr) field,which radiated from the tank opening. Cameraswere also used to perform inspections of the BFVin an effort to determine the cause of equipmentfailure. Camera personnel positioned themselvesbehind temporary shielding to maintain exposureALARA. A crane was used to pull the plug from theriser up into a containment bag. Once the plug wasout of the riser, it was placed in a low-dose areawhere workers sealed the containment bag. Thecontainment bag was sealed by rotating the plug asit was held by the crane instead of walking aroundthe plug. The plug was used as shielding bykeeping the 5-feet x 5-feet plug between them andthe open riser (see Exhibit 4-16). This effortallowed the riser plug to swivel to access the


Exhibit 4-16:Back-flush Valve Riser with Shielded Plug in Place.


Dose Rates Without Shielding

100 mrem/hr whole body at open riser30 mrem/hr general area at hut

4 mrem/hr whole body at open riser2 mrem/hr whole body at hut

Dose Rates With Shielding

required work points, while personnel wouldstand behind the plug using shielding anddistance to maintain ALARA (see Exhibit 4-17).Once the BFV was removed from the riser,extended tools were employed to limit hands-oncontact with the BFV. This resulted in workersexposed to a field of 5,000 mrem/hr (50 mSv/hr)whole body instead of 140,000 mrem/hr(1,400 mSv/hr) extremity, which was measured oncontact with the plastic BFV containment.

Exhibit 4-17:Dose Rates With and Without Shielding.

Maximum dose rates and contamination levelsencountered were as follows: 140,000 mrem/hr(1,400 mSv/hr) extremity, 44,900 mrem/hr(449 mSv/hr) skin, 2,000 dpm/100 cm2 alpha and10 mrad/hr/100 cm2 beta-gamma.

In summary, remote/extended tools, temporaryshielding, and cameras were used to maintainexposure ALARA. Total containment was usedwhen possible. When total containment was notused, several additional controls (e.g., ventilation,misting, flushing, and wind speed workrestrictions) were used to reduce the potential forthe spread of contamination.

For additional information about this projectcontact: Athena D. Freeman, Site ALARACoordinator: (803) 725-5030,e-mail: [email protected]


4.3 ALARA Activities at theWest Valley DemonstrationProject

The West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP) isthe site of a former commercial nuclear fuelreprocessing plant. The WVDP Act passed byCongress in 1980 directed DOE to solidify theliquid waste left from reprocessing activities,clean and close the facilities used, and dispose oflow-level and TRU wastes left from projectoperations. The New York State Energy Researchand Development Authority owns the siteproperty.

Cleanup efforts at the WVDP have shifted fromhigh-level radioactive waste processing, whichwas completed in 2002, to decontamination anddismantlement of some of the cells in the formernuclear fuel reprocessing plant. A portion ofthese decontamination and dismantlementefforts is being focused on the cleanup of theHead End Cells (HECs), which were used tomechanically process and store spent nuclearfuel before chemical processing to recoveruranium and plutonium. The HECs are heavilyshielded hot cells where in-cell equipmentsheared spent nuclear fuel, stored the shearedspent nuclear fuel prior to chemical dissolution,and received the leached spent nuclear fuel hullsfor eventual transfer to an on-site disposal area.Decontaminating these facilities includes therepair and replacement of some failedequipment, as well as retrieving, characterizing,processing, packaging, and storing loose debris.

4.3.1 Cleanup of the HECs

The HECs consist of two main cells: the ProcessMechanical Cell (PMC) and the General PurposeCell (GPC). The HECs are heavily contaminatedwith spent fuel, mixed fission, and activationproducts. Radiation levels in the cells range fromgeneral area dose rates of 100 R/hr to hot spots of2,000R/hr. Both alpha and beta/gammaremovable contamination levels are on the orderof billions of disintegrations per minute.

Much of the remote operations equipment inthese cells, including the shielded viewingwindows, the GPC shield door that shielded anadjacent Crane Maintenance Room, and all of theremote handling equipment, was deterioratedbeyond use and required either repair orreplacement.

4.3.1.1 Shield Window Refurbishment

Each shield window assembly consists of leadedshield glass in a concrete/cast-iron, shot-filledwindow frame. The spaces between the shieldglass panes were filled with mineral oil. In thePMC, the total window assembly weighedapproximately 15 tons, with each piece of shieldglass weighing between 800 to 1,500 pounds. Thewindows needed to be pulled from the windowcavity into the operating aisle to allow for removaland replacement of the glass and fluid, but thefloor in the operating aisle could not support theweight of the window assembly. To help distributethe 15-ton weight of the window assembly and tofacilitate its removal, a structural steel extractiontable was installed in the aisle (see Exhibit 4-18).

Exhibit 4-18:Replacement of Shield Window.

Photo Courtesy of WVDP.


To control the spread of contamination duringthe window removal process, a containment tentwas erected in the operating aisle. Work torefurbish the window took place inside the tent.Instead of ventilating the tent with a portableventilation system, airborne radioactivecontamination was managed by ventilating thecontainment tent back to the PMC through anempty manipulator port. Radiation exposure topersonnel was reduced by installing temporarysteel shielding around the window opening, whilea temporary shield door was slid into place infront of the window cavity. Lessons learned fromrefurbishment of the first windows wereincorporated by the project team into the fieldwork for subsequent windows, resulting in areduction of the time needed for refurbishmentof the later windows by almost 75%. Theseradiological protection measures allowedpersonnel to perform the refurbishment work inradiation fields of less than 5 mR/hr and resultedin no personnel contaminations.

4.3.1.2 GPC Shield Door Repair

The GPC shield door required repair to allowpersonnel entry in the GPC Crane Room (GCR) tosupport removal of failed equipment. The 50-tonshield door between the GPC and GCR had beenleft in a half-open position and the drivemechanism located in the GCR had failed. Thedrive mechanism was damaged further fromperiodic flooding of the GCR from surface waterinfiltration. General area dose rates in the GCRwere 30 to 150 mR/hr, with hot spots greater than300 mR/hr gamma. There was also a largeamount of dirt and debris covering the floor.Removable contamination levels exceeded1 million dpm beta/gamma.

It was determined that replacement of the failedcomponents, rather than a new design andequipment fabrication, would best ensure themaximum degree of radiological protection andcost-effectiveness (see Exhibit 4-19). A means tosafely secure the shield door during the repairprocess was also devised, using standard trailerjacks and a base plate grouted to the floor. Due tothe complexity of the repair work, the projectteam decided to construct a full-scale mock-up ofthe GCR. This full-scale mock-up then allowedOperations and Maintenance personnel to revieweach step of the repair process and develop thenecessary tools and techniques to accomplish therepair. Prior to the start of repair work, one-half-inch-thick steel shield plates were placed on thefloor of the GCR to cover the contaminated dirtand debris. General area exposure rates werereduced by more than 20% and airbornecontamination levels were reduced by 99%. Thedrive mechanism repair and replacement wasthen conducted over a 4-month period. Therefinement and execution of the repair approachresulted in a personnel exposure reduction ofgreater than 65% from the original 2,980 person-mrem (29.8 person-mSv) estimate to 1,037 person-mrem (10.37 person-mSv). A contaminationfixative was also applied to the old equipment toensure that airborne contamination levelsremained low and to facilitate its future packagingfor disposal.

Exhibit 4-19:GPC Shield Door Repair.



4.3.1.3 Remote Handling EquipmentReplacement

Removal of the failed bridge-mounted cranes andpower manipulators posed a significantcontamination control challenge. New hard-walled enclosures were constructed over theexisting PMC Crane Room (PMCR) and GCR toserve as buffer areas during removal andreplacement of the crane bridges. Concrete roofhatches weighing up to 25 tons were removed orrelocated from the ceiling of each crane room toprovide ready access to the cranes during theremoval process, and lighter steel covers wereinstalled in their place.

The crane bridges were constructed of carbonsteel, measured 16 feet rail-to-rail and were 9 feetwide; each weighed approximately 7 tons. Initialradiological data on the crane bridges showedhigh contamination levels and dose rates of 30 to80 mR/hr, with hot spots of up to 650 mR/hr. Theinitial dose estimate, based on hands-onmechanical size-reduction, was 1,600 person-mrem (16 person-mSv). Due to the high potentialpersonnel exposure, the project team conductedan evaluation of alternative cutting methods. Anoxy-gasoline cutting technology was foundthrough a technology sharing program with theFernald Environmental Management Project. Theoxy-gasoline technology offered the advantagesof cutting much faster and providing severalsafety features not found with oxy-acetylene torchcutting. Working directly with the torch vendor, afirst-of-its-kind, 13-foot-long cutting tool wasfabricated. This specially designed torch allowedoperations personnel to size-reduce the PMCcrane bridges (see Exhibit 4-20) while standingin the enclosure located above the PMCR.

Before using the oxy-gasoline torch, a full-scalemock-up of the bridge girder was fabricated andconstructed. The mock-up provided a means totrain operations personnel in the use of the torchand refine the tools and techniques to be used.As an added measure, to control the spread ofcontamination during cutting, a strippablecoating was sprayed on the bridges and othermiscellaneous pieces of equipment. The entireevolution, from setup to crane bridge

removal, lasted 7 weeks for the first of two PMCcrane bridges. The project team reviewed thework done on the first crane bridge andimplemented improvements for removal of thesecond bridge. By factoring in the lessons learned,the time to complete the removal of the secondcrane bridge was reduced to 2 weeks.

Exhibit 4-20:Size Reduction of PMC Crane Bridge.


A new single bridge, having both the crane andthe power manipulator, was installed through thePMCR enclosure onto the rails in the PMCR.Because the GPC crane bridge was of lighterconstruction and due to the airborne hazardsassociated with thermal cutting, mechanicalcutting was used instead. The crane bridge andpower manipulator bridge were moved to theGCR. Personnel performed hands-on, sizereduction of the bridges using a special large-capacity band saw. Similar to work done in thePMC, the new GPC crane bridge was installedthrough the GCR enclosure onto the crane rails inthe GCR, and moved into the GPC.

For more information on this project, contactScott Chase at (716) 942-2184.


4.3.2 Decontamination of the FuelReceiving and Storage Facility

The Fuel Receiving and Storage (FRS) buildinghouses all the facilities previously used to receive,store, and ship spent nuclear fuel. In 2001, 125remaining spent fuel assemblies were removedfrom the pool and loaded into shipping casks.Activities conducted following that effortincluded the removal of 149 empty fuel canisters,racks, and other miscellaneous equipment bynuclear divers. The final phase of the projectinvolved removing and processing all the waterfrom both pools, packaging the high-dose filtersgenerated from the water processing and poolvacuuming efforts, removing all remaining debrisfrom the Cask Unloading Pool (CUP) andpackaging it, grouting the floor of both pools, andapplying a fixative to contain any remainingcontamination.

The FRS consists of a Fuel Storage Pool (FSP) andCUP. The FSP is made of reinforced concrete,measures 40 feet wide by 75 feet long by 29 feetdeep, and holds approximately 800,000 gallons ofwater. It was used to store spent fuel assembliesprior to processing. The CUP is a stainless steel-lined, reinforced concrete pool connected to theeast end of the FSP and measures 24 feet wide by26 feet long by 45 feet deep. It was designed asan unloading and holding area for fuelassemblies during transfer operations fromshipping casks to the FSP.

4.3.2.1 Pool Water Draining and Treatment

Initial pool water draining was conductedbetween August and September 2002, duringwhich approximately 180,000 gallons or 6 feet ofwater was treated and discharged to the on-sitewater treatment facility. The pool walls weremanually scrubbed prior to draining and rinsedwith demineralized water after draining.Strippable coating was applied to sections of theoriginal water level around the pool. Also, afixative called Polymeric Barrier System™(PBS) was applied to the pool walls after drainingthe water and was effective in fixing the remainingcontamination below DOE limits for highcontamination. The PBS was tinted with blue dye/paint, making it easy to distinguish betweentreated and untreated surfaces. Pool drainingresumed in March 2003 and was completed thefollowing month. Nearly 800,000 gallons of waterwere removed and treated during this activity.

The pool water was treated through 1-microncartridges, then sent through an ion exchangecolumn to remove cesium. A second ionexchange column removed plutonium from thewater before it was sent to the on-site watertreatment system.


4.3.2.2 Pool Vacuuming

A vacuum system was used to clean the floor ofthe pools (see Exhibit 4-21). Two test vacuumswere conducted first, then the entire FSP floorwas cleaned of up to 3 inches of sediment in nineshifts. The CUP, although smaller in area than theFSP, contained up to 1 foot of sediment and tookapproximately eight shifts to vacuum. The solidsremoved from the pool floors during thevacuuming process were captured by filters,which had dose rates of <400 mR/hr to2 R/hr. These filters were drained, removed, andpackaged in lead-lined or shielded boxes.

4.3.2.3 Debris Removal and Packaging

A host of equipment and debris from more than30 years of pool operation remained in the poolsat the start of the FRS decontamination project.Removal of this equipment presented severalchallenges due to the high levels of contaminationassociated with the material. Eight cask liners,four empty debris barrels, and the cask liner rackwere removed from the CUP in February 2003.The liners had high levels of removablecontamination and were a potential source ofairborne contamination. Prior to removal, theliners were sprayed with high-pressure waterbelow the water surface and rinsed withdemineralized water as they were being removed.The liners were then sprayed with a fixative andwrapped with herculite before placing them in awaste box.

Three cask liners had radiation levels too high tobe boxed as waste; two of the liners had fixed hotspots greater than 1.5 R/hr on the bottom andwere shielded with 1-inch-thick steel. The finalliner had fixed hot spots of 12.5 R/hr and 20 R/hron the bottom and was temporarily shieldedwhile 32 inches of its length were removed fromthe bottom. The top portion of the last liner waswrapped and boxed; the bottom portion waspackaged with activated metal hardware in aspecially designed, steel liner.

The WVDP installed a sorting table and barrelholder to facilitate sorting and segregating of soliddebris in the CUP. Also, special tooling wasfabricated to unbolt the lid to the debriscontainers. An In-Situ Object Counting Systemwas used to evaluate the predominant gammaemitting isotopes in selected pieces of debris.Sorting of four, 10-foot-long debris barrels in theCUP was completed in February 2003. D&Doperators reduced the time required to sort thethird and fourth barrels by two-thirds, usinglessons learned from sorting the first two barrels.

Exhibit 4-21:A Portion of the Pool Vacuumed (light side).



4.3.2.4 FRS Weir Decontamination

The FRS weir is a concrete trough in the wallbetween the CUP and FSP. It was decontaminatedby manually scrubbing with long-handled brushes,draining, and then spraying on its sides andbottom with a fixative. Radiological surveys takenafter applying the fixative confirmed that surfacecontamination levels were below targeted limits.The weir was then covered with plywood toprovide a working surface for safely changing outpool filters.

As part of the specially funded Large-ScaleDemonstration and Deployment Project, theWVDP demonstrated the use of a specialdecontamination solution in the FRSDecontamination Stall trough. The trough is astainless steel-lined trough running from theDecontamination Stall to a floor drain. Theproprietary chemical process used wasdeveloped by Environmental Alternatives, Inc.and proved to be effective in removing loosecontamination and in decontaminating asection of the cask liner storage rack.

4.3.2.5 Sealing the PMC Hatch

Another portion of this project involved sealingthe PMC hatch, which is located in the fueltransfer tunnel that connects the PMC to the FRS.The tunnel is 3 feet wide and 30 feet long. As thewater was drained from the pool, the water sealbetween the FRS and the roof of the transfertunnel was lost and allowed air to flow from theFRS into the PMC. A nuclear diving company wascontracted to seal the hatch and remove sludgeand debris that had accumulated inside thetunnel. The divers conducted a full-scale mock-upof the foaming project (see Exhibit 4-22), whichsignificantly reduced worker time and radiationexposure. Fifteen dives were planned but becauseof extensive preparation and planning, all workwas completed after only five dives with one-thirdof the personnel radiation exposure planned forthe project.


Exhibit 4-22:Mock-up of PMS Hatch Foaming.


Exhibit 4-23:Pool Storage Pool Emptied of Water.


4.3.2.6 Grouting of Pool Floors

To fix any remaining contamination in the poolsafter being emptied of all water (see Exhibit 4-23),a grout mat was placed in the FSP and CUP. Anaverage of 4 inches were placed in the FSP and6 inches were placed in the CUP. The WVDPconducted grout mock-ups at the vendor’s batchplant to ensure that the grout would spread thefull width of the pool and to test creation of aslope from one side of the FSP to the other (toaid in channeling any water inflow to the poolinto the CUP). The grout placement in the FSPwas successfully completed in a few hours andallowed to cure for several days. Grouting of theCUP was completed immediately afterward. Finalradiological surveys confirmed that smearablecontamination levels were less than 20,000 dpm/100cm2 beta-gamma and 2,000 dpm/100cm2

alpha.

The FRS decontamination project was completedapproximately 2 months ahead of schedule. Formore information on this project, contact DavePloetz at (716) 942-4276.


4.4 ALARA Activities at FermiNational Accelerator Laboratory

4.4.1 NM2 Target Station UpgradeProject at Fermilab

At the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory(Fermilab), a policy consistent with integratedsafety management is to conduct activities insuch a manner that worker and public safety, andprotection of the environment are given thehighest priority. Fermilab management iscommitted, in all its activities, to maintain anysafety, health, or environmental risks associatedwith ionizing radiation or radioactive materials atlevels that are ALARA.

Several years ago, a high energy physicsexperiment called KTEV was conducted to studyparticles called kaons. This resulted in significantlevels of radioactivation of a target station (seeExhibit 4-24) in an enclosure called NM2. In orderto utilize experimental apparatus from KTEV for a

planned future experiment called KAMI,components of this activated target station neededto be reconfigured so that beam studies related tothe planned KAMI experiment could be performed.To accomplish this work, the modification of theKTEV target station was conducted in January 2000.

This job required Radiological Control Techniciancoverage, the development of an ALARA plan, thepreparation of a job-specific Radiological WorkPermit, and the conduct of ALARA planningmeetings involving both radiation safety personneland the individuals who would carry out theactual work. Radiological hold points were set at50 mrem (.5 mSv) per individual and 306 mrem(3.06 mSv) for the entire job. The general areadose rate in front of the target station wasapproximately 250 mrem/hr (2.5 mSv/hr) at 1 foot.The task involving adjustment of a particularcollimator was of concern because it required anindividual to reach into the interior of the targetstation. There, the general area dose rates weremuch higher, approximately 600 mrem/hr(6 mSv/hr) at 1 foot. Additionally, the necessaryraising of another collimator downstream of thetarget required an individual to work near thetarget. The dose rate of the target wasapproximately 750 mrem/hr (7.5 mSv/hr) at 1 foot.These dose rates are almost completely due togamma rays from the volume-activated targetstation components.

Careful ALARA planning and ALARA techniquesimplemented by the use of ratcheting wrenches toraise mechanical devices helped greatly to controlexposures.

Photo Courtesy of Fermilab.

Exhibit 4-24:Downstream End of the KTEV Target Station, Showing theProton Beam Pipe Near the Target.


Photo Courtesy of Fermilab.

Exhibit 4-25:Downstream End of the Target Station, Showing Proton Beamline for Secondary Kaons.

Workers were conscientious in observing goodradiological work practices (see Exhibit 4-25) andfollowing the instructions of the RadiologicalControl Technicians monitoring the job. ALARApreplanning and detailed discussion of the tasksinvolved in this job were also credited withkeeping doses ALARA. Finally, allowance of a1-week cool-off time prior to the beginning ofwork significantly reduced radiation doses topersonnel performing this work.

A total of 14 people were involved in this targetstation changeover. The total dose for the job was306 person-mrem (3.06 person-mSv). The actualdose received was 277 person-mrem,(2.77 person-mSv) approximately 10% lower thanthe estimated dose. Thus, the planning effortswere quite accurate and the dose controlmeasures were judged to be very effective. Theplanning efforts involved are typical for ALARAplanning activities at Fermilab.


4.5 ALARA Activities at theRocky Flats Site

4.5.1 Innovative Waste Packagingand Shipping Method Used at RockyFlats to Reduce the Risk ofContamination and Intakes

One of the major challenges involved in closingthe Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site(RFETS) is the disposal of extremely large piecesof contaminated production equipment andbuilding debris. Past practice has been to size-reduce the equipment into pieces small enoughto fit into approved, standard waste containers.Size-reducing this equipment is extremelyexpensive and exposes workers to high-risktasks, including significant industrial, chemical,and radiological hazards. RFETS has developed awaste package using a Polyurea coating forshipping large contaminated objects.

With the removal of almost all of the plutoniumresidues at RFETS, D&D and shipment of low-levelradioactive waste is becoming the major focus ofthe site. Gloveboxes, tanks, and other equipmentare routinely decontaminated on the internalsurfaces by the use of a cerium nitrate solution(see DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure 2001Report, Section 4.3.1) to reduce the internal levelsto at least SCO-II limits (surface contaminatedobject) limits (49 CFR 173.403). The smaller itemsare then loaded into a suitable shipping container.Items that are too large or heavy for a cargocontainer previously had to be cut up forpackaging. This size reduction has been the causeof several worker intakes in the past. Rocky Flatshas developed a method to apply a coating on theoutside of large items that will meet industrialPackaging Type 1 requirements. This coating

system has been used for tanks, furnaces, a90,900-pound Supercompactor and RepackagingFacility, and other miscellaneous waste. Thefollowing description and photographs show thepackaging of the 45-ton supercompactor, whichwas shipped to the Nevada Test Site in lateSeptember 2002.

The supercompactor had high levels of removablecontamination on its inside surfaces. Thiscontamination was rendered inaccessible byblanking off the ends with sheet metal, thusmeeting the much higher contamination levelsallowed under SCO-I limits. The supercompactorwas wrapped in plastic and moved outside of thebuilding where it was loaded and chained onto aspecially-prepared shipping skid on a low-boytrailer. The supercompactor and skid were thencovered in a shrink-wrap plastic (Exhibit 4-26),then heat was applied to shrink the plastic(Exhibit 4-27). Adhesive metal depth-gaugebuttons (Exhibit 4-28) and a vent filter wereapplied to the shrink-wrap. A polyurea coating(InstaCote™ SE) was sprayed on the outsidesurface to a depth of 0.25 inch (Exhibit 4-29). Theprocess typically requires four to six passes withthe sprayer, in a cross-hatch pattern. The thicknesscan be checked at any time by pressing acalibrated Elcometer Electronic ThicknessGauge™ to the metal depth-gauge buttons. Thequick-curing coating was soon ready for qualityinspections (Exhibit 4-30) and then shipment. Thisprocess saved $202,000 over the cost to size-reduceand ship the supercompactor using existingtechnologies.

For more information, contact Mr. Kent Dorr at303-966-6034, Mr. Richard S. (Dick) Hogue at303-966-2586, or Radiological Engineer,Mr. Rock Neveau at 303-966-3461.


Photo Courtesy of Rocky Flats.

Exhibit 4-26:Applying Shrink-wrap Plastic to the 45-tonSupercompactor.


Exhibit 4-27:Applying Heat to Shrink the Plastic.


Exhibit 4-30:Quality Inspection of the Polyurea Coating.


Exhibit 4-29:Spraying the Polyurea Coating.

Exhibit 4-28:Applying Metal Depth-gauge Buttons.



4.6 Hanford ALARA Center ofExcellence

The Hanford ALARA Center of Excellence iscommitted to providing a centralized resource forothers to gain insight into practical applicationsof the ALARA approach and to serve as aclearinghouse of ALARA information.

DOE’s Hanford Site (586 square miles located insoutheastern Washington State) was establishedduring World War II as part of the ManhattanProject and played a pivotal role in the nation’sdefense for more than 50 years.

Currently, the Hanford Site is engaged in theworld’s largest environmental cleanup effort withmany challenges to be resolved in the face ofoverlapping technical, regulatory, and culturalinterests. The cleanup effort focuses on threeoutcomes: restoring the Columbia River corridorfor other uses, transitioning the central plateau tolong-term waste treatment and storage, andpreparing for the future.

Over the years, the center has gathered a greatdeal of information in the application of theALARA approach to daily operations. In 1996,DOE established the ALARA Center of Technologyto provide a common resource for Hanfordworkers in the practical aspects of ALARA.

The Hanford ALARA Center is centrally locatedon the Hanford site to provide an informationalresource to workers in the application of theALARA approach in daily operations. While thefocus of the ALARA Center has been at theHanford site, ALARA Center staff routinelyexchange information and ideas with othersthroughout the DOE complex for the benefit ofall. Access the Center’s web site for moreinformation:

http://www.hanford.gov/alara/index.cfm

4.7 Submitting ALARA SuccessStories for Future AnnualReportsIndividual success stories should be submitted inwriting to the DOE Office of CorporatePerformance Assessment. The submittal shoulddescribe the process in sufficient detail toprovide a basic understanding of the project, theradiological concerns, and the activities initiatedto 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)

❖ Figures and/or photos of the project orequipment (electronic images ifavailable)

❖ Point-of-contact for follow-up byinterested professionals.


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:

4.8 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-wideprogram to standardize and facilitateidentification, documentation, sharing, and use oflessons learned from actual operating experiencesthroughout the DOE complex. This informationsharing and utilization is commonly termed“Lessons Learned” within the DOE community. TheLLPIT has now transitioned into the DOE Societyfor Effective Lessons Learned Sharing.

The collected information is currently located onan Internet web site as part of the EnvironmentalSafety & Health (ES&H) Information Portal. Thissystem allows for shared access to lessons learnedacross the DOE complex. The informationavailable on the system complements existingreporting systems presently used within DOE.DOE is taking this approach to enhance thoseexisting systems by providing a method to quicklyshare information among the field elements.Also, this approach goes beyond the typicaloccurrence reporting to identify good lessonslearned. DOE uses the web site to openlydisseminate such information so that not onlyDOE but also 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.

http://www.eh.doe.gov/portal

http://www.eh.doe.gov/ll


2002 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 orundergo transition from operation to stabilizationor D&D, there are significant changes in theopportunities for worker radiation exposure.

The collective TEDE increased 10% from1,232 person-rem (12.32 person-Sv) in 2001 to1,360 person-rem (13.60 person-Sv) in 2002 dueto increases in the collective dose at three of thesix highest dose sites. These six sites accountedfor 79% of the collective dose at DOE in 2002.Three of these sites attributed the increase indose to an increase in the number of hours ofradiological work performed (at Rocky Flats),increased processing of spent nuclear fuel inK-Basins (at Hanford), and increased work onpit manufacturing, Pu-238 fuel and heat sourcework, nuclear material processing, nuclearmaterials science, pit disassembly, andassociated support (at LANL). Statisticalanalysis reveals that there were small butsignificant differences in all years, and thelogarithmic mean TEDE per worker reached a5-year peak of 0.030 rem (0.30 mSv) in 2002. Thelogarithmic mean TEDE increased from 0.028 rem

(0.28 mSv) in 2001 to 0.030 (0.30 mSv) rem in2002, reflecting both an increase in the dose toindividual workers, and a larger number ofindividuals with measurable dose. Thelogarithmic mean TEDE per worker ranged from0.026 rem to 0.029 rem (0.26 mSv to 0.29 mSv) for1998-2001. However, the 2002 logarithmic meanTEDE remains significantly below the 1997logarithmic mean TEDE of 0.035 rem (0.35 mSv)per worker.

The collective internal dose (CEDE) increased by17% from 59 person-rem (590 person-mSv) in 2001to 69 person-rem (690 person-mSv) in 2002. Theincrease was primarily due to a 20% increase ininternal dose at the Oak Ridge Y-12 site. The Y-12facility accounted for 77% of the collective CEDEfor 2002. The increase was attributed to activitiesat the EUO facilities. During the past 5 years, therehave been several intakes from plutonium oruranium in excess of 2 rem (20 mSv) each year,with some of the doses in excess of 5 rem (50 mSv),as noted in Section 3.3.1. While the number ofinternal depositions above 2 rem (20 mSv) overthe past 5 years has been few, it has contributedsignificantly to the collective internal dose eachyear. With no such intakes reported for 2001 and2002, the collective CEDE has decreasedsignificantly compared to prior years. Thenumber of internal depositions increased by 2%from 2,362 in 2001 to 2,418 in 2002, while thecollective CEDE increased by 17%. The averagemeasurable CEDE increased by 12% from0.025 rem (0.25 mSv) in 2001 to 0.028 rem(0.28 mSv) in 2002 and is the second lowestaverage measurable CEDE in the past 5 years.Due to several factors, such as changes in internaldosimetry practices, monitoring and reportingprocedures, changes in the dosimetry equipment,and the relatively small number of internaldoses, care should be taken in examining trendsin internal dose.


Exhibit 5-1:2002 Radiation Exposure Fact Sheet.

❖ The collective TEDE increased by 10% (from 1,232 person-rem to 1,360 person-rem) (12,320 person-mSv to13,600 person-mSv) from 2001 to 2002. Statistical analysis reveals that the logarithmic mean TEDE perworker reached a 5-year peak of 0.030 rem (0.30 mSv) in 2002. The logarithmic mean TEDE increasedfrom 0.028 rem (0.28 mSv) in 2001 to 0.030 (0.30 mSv) rem in 2002, reflecting both an increase in the doseto individual workers, and a larger number of individuals with measurable dose. The logarithmic meanTEDE per worker ranged from 0.026 rem to 0.029 rem (0.26 mSv to 0.29 mSv) for 1998-2001. However, the2002 logarithmic mean TEDE remains significantly below the 1997 logarithmic mean TEDE of 0.035 rem(0.35 mSv) per worker.

❖ The six highest dose sites (in descending order of collective dose: Hanford, Rocky Flats, Savannah River,Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, and Idaho) accounted for 79% of the collective dose at DOE in 2002.

❖ Increases in collective dose at three of the top six sites indicate that increases were due to an increase inthe number of hours of radiological work performed (at Rocky Flats), increased processing of spentnuclear fuel in K-Basins (at Hanford), and increased work on pit manufacturing, Pu-238 fuel and heatsource work, nuclear material processing, nuclear materials science, pit disassembly, and associatedsupport (at LANL).

❖ The collective internal dose (CEDE) increased by 17% from 2001 to 2002. The increase was primarily dueto a 20% increase in internal dose from uranium at the Oak Ridge Y-12 site attributed to activities at theEnriched Uranium Operations facilities.

❖ The number of transient workers monitored at DOE decreased from 3,183 in 2001 to 2,848 in 2002. Theaverage measurable dose to transient workers was 17% lower than the average measurable dose for theoverall DOE workforce in 2002.

An analysis was performed on the transientworkforce at DOE. A transient worker is defined asan individual monitored at more than one DOEsite in a year. The results of this analysis show thatthe number of transient workers monitoreddecreased from 3,183 in 2001 to 2,848 in 2002. Thecollective dose for these transients increased by45% from 25.1 person-rem (251 person-mSv) in2001 to 36.5 person-rem (365 person-mSv) in2002, resulting in a 27% increase in the averagemeasurable dose to transients.

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. A summary ofthe findings for 2002 is shown in Exhibit 5-1.

2002 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 equivalent values for allindividuals 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 (UNSCEAR) asthe ratio of the annual collective dose delivered at individual doses exceeding 1.5 rem (15 mSv) to thecollective dose. UNSCEAR now uses SR15

to denote this ratio where the subscript indicates the dose value(in mSv) used to calculate the ratio.

Deep Dose Equivalent (DDE)The dose equivalent derived from external radiation at a depth of 1 cm in tissue.

DOE SiteA geographic location operated under the authority of the Department of Energy (DOE). The DOE sitesconsidered in this report are listed in Appendix A by Operations Office.

GlossaryGlossary

G-2 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure

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.

ExposureAs used in this report, exposure refers to individuals subjected to, or in the presence of, radioactive materials whichmay or may not result in occupational radiation dose.

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 dose 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.

Members of the PublicIndividuals who are not occupationally exposed to radiation or radioactive material. This includes visitors andvisiting dignitaries.

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 or lower limit ofdetection.

Non-parametric ProceduresStatistical tests that do not depend on a specific parent distribution.

Normal Log-transformed DataData that fit a normal distribution after being transformed to logarithms.

Number of Individuals with Measurable DoseThe subset of all monitored individuals who receive a measurable dose (greater than limit of detection for themonitoring system). Many personnel are monitored as a matter of prudence and may not receive a measurabledose. For this reason, the number of individuals with measurable dose is presented in this report as a moreaccurate indicator of the exposed workforce. The number of individuals represents the number of dose recordsreported. Some individuals may be counted more than once if multiple dose records are reported for theindividual during the year.

Occupational DoseAn individual’s ionizing radiation dose (external and internal) as a result of that individual’s work assignment.Occupational dose does not include doses received as a medical patient or doses resulting from backgroundradiation or participation as a subject 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.

2002 Report G-3Glossary

SRSR is defined by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) as the ratio ofthe annual collective dose delivered at individual doses exceeding a specified dose value to the collective dose.UNSCEAR uses a subscript to denote the dose value (in mSv) used in the calculation of the ratio. Therefore SR15

wouldbe the ratio of the annual collective dose delivered at individual doses exceeding 1.5 rem (15 mSv) to the collectivedose.

Statistical Normal DistributionA distribution that is symmetric and can be described completely by the mean and variance. This property isrequired for many statistical tests.

Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE)The sum of the effective dose equivalent for external exposures and the committed effective dose equivalent forinternal exposures. 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 Number of Records for Monitored IndividualsAll individuals who are monitored and reported to the DOE Headquarters database system. This includes DOEemployees, contractors, subcontractors, and members of the public monitored during a visit to a DOE site. Thenumber of individuals represents the number of dose records reported. Some individuals may be counted morethan once if multiple dose records are reported for the individual during the year.

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.

2002 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, 1988, 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. 10 CFR Part 835. “Occupational Radiation Protection.” Final Rule; DOE Federal Register, November 4, 1998.

7. DOE-STD-1098-99, “Radiological Control Standard,” July 1999.

8. The Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 1988, Public Law 100-408, August 20, 1988.

9. 10 CFR 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 Order 231.1-1, “Environment, Safety and Health Reporting,” September 30, 1995.Revised October 26, 1995. Revised November 7, 1996.

13. DOE M 231.1-1, “Environment, Safety and Health Reporting Manual,” September 30, 1995.Revised November 7, 1996. Revised January 28, 2000.

14. DOE Order 231.1A, “Environment, Safety and Health Reporting,” August 19, 2003.

15. 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.

16. United Nations, Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation, United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effectsof Atomic Radiation UNSCEAR 2000 Report to the General Assembly, with scientific annexes, Volume I,General Assembly of Official Records, United Nations, New York, 2000.

R-2 DOE Occupational Radiation ExposureThis page intentionally left blank.

2002 Report A-1DOE Reporting Sites and Reporting Codes

Exhibit Title Page

A-1 Labor Categories and Occupation Codes ....................................................................................... A-2

A-2 Organizations Reporting to DOE REMS, 1998-2002 ........................................................................ A-3

A-3 Facility Type Codes ............................................................................................................................ A-7

Appendix A AD

OE R

eporting Sites and Repor ting Codes

DOE Reporting Sites and Reporting CodesDOE Reporting Sites and Reporting Codes

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 M 231.1-1[13]. Occupation Codes are grouped intoLabor Categories for the purposes ofanalysis and summary in this report. Theoccupation codes are listed in DOE M231.1-1, Appendix G, Table 2, and representa subset of the occupations listed in theDepartment of Commerce’s StandardOccupational Classification (SOC) Manual(1980).

OccupationCode 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, 1998-2002Twenty-nine sites reported occupational exposure data in 2002. The following is a list of all organizations reporting tothe DOE REMS from 1998 to 2002. The list provides the Operations Field Office and Site groupings used in this report aswell as the organization reporting code and name.

OrganizationCode Organization Name

Operations/Field Office Site ’01’98 ’99 ’00

Year Reported*

Albuquerque Ops. and Other Facilities 501001 Albuquerque Operations Office502009 Albuquerque Transportation Division530001 Kansas City Area Office531002 Honeywell Federal Manufacturing Tech.590001 Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP)593004 Carlsbad Area Miscellaneous Contractors2806003 National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) - GO

Grand Junction 560605 MACTEC - ERS560704 WASTREN

Los Alamos National Lab. (LANL) 540001 Los Alamos Area Office544003 Los Alamos National Laboratory544809 Protection Technologies Los Alamos544904 Johnson Controls, Inc.

Pantex Plant (PP) 510001 Amarillo Area Office514004 Battelle - Pantex515002 BWXT - Amarillo515006 BWXT - Amarillo - Subcontractors515009 BWXT - Amarillo - Security Forces

Sandia National Lab. (SNL) 570001 Kirtland Area Office578003 Sandia National Laboratory

Chicago Ops. and Other Facilities 1000503 Ames Laboratory (Iowa State)1001501 Chicago Operations Office1001606 Chicago Office Subs1002001 Environmental Meas. Lab. - Research1004031 New Brunswick Laboratory - Research1005003 Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

Argonne Nat'l Lab. - East (ANL-E) 1000703 Argonne National Laboratory - EastArgonne Nat'l Lab. - West (ANL-W) 1000713 Argonne National Laboratory - WestBrookhaven Nat'l Lab. (BNL) 1001003 Brookhaven National LaboratoryFermi Nat'l. Accelerator Lab.(FERMI) 1002503 Fermilab

DOE HQ DOE Headquarters 1504001 DOE HeadquartersN. Korea Project 8009001 DOE North Korea ProjectRussia 8011001 Russian Federation ProjectKazakhstan 8010001 DOE Kazakhstan Project

Idaho Idaho Site 3003402 Babcock & Wilcox Idaho, Inc.3004001 Idaho Field Office3004402 BNFL - Idaho3005004 Bechtel BWXT Idaho, LLC - Services3005016 Bechtel BWXT Idaho, LLC - Subs - Construction3005024 LMITCO Subcontractor - Coleman3005034 LMITCO Subcontractor - Parsons3060634 Stoller Service Subcontractors - Grand Junction

’02● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ●

● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ●

●

● ●

●

● ● ● ● ●

●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

●

●

●

Exhibit A-2.Organizations Reporting to DOE REMS, 1998-2002.


Exhibit A-2.Organizations Reporting to DOE REMS, 1998-2002 (continued).


Operations/Field Office Site

Year Reported*’01 ’02’98 ’99 ’00

Nevada Nevada Test Site (NTS) 3500000 Nevada Operations3501104 Bechtel Nevada - Amador Valley3501304 Bechtel Nevada - Los Alamos3501405 Bechtel Nevada - NTS3501416 Bechtel Nevada - NTS Subcontractors3501503 Bechtel Nevada - Special Technologies Labs3502004 Computer Sciences Corporation3501604 Bechtel Nevada - Washington Aerial Meas.3504504 EG&G Santa Barbara3506004 Raytheon Services - Nevada3507501 Nevada Field Office3507514 Nevada Miscellaneous Contractors3507521 Air Resources Laboratory3507531 Defense Nuclear Agency - Kirtland AFB3507551 Environmental Protection Agency (NERC)3508004 Nye County Sheriff3508505 Bechtel Nevada - NTS3508703 Science Applications Int’l. Corp. - NV3509009 Wackenhut Services, Inc. - NV3509504 Westinghouse Electric Corp. - NV

Oak Ridge Ops. and Other Facilities 4004203 Oak Ridge Inst. for Science & Educ. (ORISE)4004501 Oak Ridge Field Office4009006 Morrison-Knudsen (WSSRAP)4009503 Thomas Jefferson National Accel. Facility4542005 RMI Company

Oak Ridge Site 4005505 LMES/MK - Ferguson Subcontractors4006002 Bechtel-Jacobs Co., LLC – ETTP4006007 Decontam. & Recovery Services (DRS) (K-25)4006302 British Nuclear Fuels Limited (BNFL) (ETTP)4006406 Decontamination & Recovery Services - ETTP4006503 UT-Battelle - ORNL4006510 Bechtel Jacobs - ORNL4007509 Wackenhut Services4008002 BWXT Y-12, LLC4008010 Bechtel-Jacobs - Y-124018102 BWXT, Y-12

Paducah Gas. Diff. Plant (PGDP) 4007002 Bechtel-Jacobs Co., LLC – PaducahPortsmouth Gas. Diff. Plant (PORTS) 4002502 Bechtel-Jacobs (Portsmouth)

● ● ● ● ●

●

●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ●

●

● ● ●

●

●

● ●

● ● ● ● ●

●

● ●

●

● ● ● ● ●

●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ●

● ●

● ● ● ● ●

●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ●

● ● ●

● ● ● ●

● ● ●

● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●


SiteOperations/Field Office


Year Reported*’01 ’02’98 ’99 ’00

Oakland Ops. and Other Facilities 8001003 Boeing, Rocketdyne - ETEC8006103 U. of Cal./Davis, Radiobiology Lab. - LEHR

Lawrence Berkeley Nat’l. Lab. (LBNL) 8003003 Lawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryLawrence Livermore Nat'l. Lab. 8004003 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory(LLNL) 8004004 LLNL Subcontractors

8004009 LLNL Security8005003 LLNL - Nevada

Stanford Linear Acc. Center (SLAC) 8008003 Stanford Linear Accelerator Center8009005 Separation Process Research Unit

Ohio Ops. and Other Facilities 4500001 Ohio Field Office4510001 Miamisburg Envir. Mgmt. Project Office4510006 MEMP Office Subs4517003 Battelle Memorial Institute - Columbus

Fernald Environmental 4521001 Fernald Envir. Mgmt. Project Office4521004 FEMP Office Service Subcontractors4523702 Fluor Fernald - FEMP4523704 Fluor Fernald Service Vendors4523706 Fluor Fernald Subcontractors

Mound Plant 4516002 BWX Technologies, Inc.4516004 BWX Technologies, Inc. - Subcontractors4516009 BWX Technologies, Inc. - Security Forces

West Valley Project 4530001 West Valley Area Office4539004 West Valley Nuclear Services, Inc. (WVNS)4542005 RMI Environmental Services

Rocky Flats Rocky Flats Env. Tech. Site (RFETS) 7700001 Rocky Flats Office7700007 Rocky Flats Office Subs7707002 Rocky Flats Prime Contractors7707004 Rocky Flats Subcontractors

Richland Hanford Site 4700805 Bechtel National, Inc. - WTP4707104 CH2M Hill Hanford Group7500503 Battelle Memorial Institute (PNL)7500605 Environmental Restoration Contr. (ERC)7500705 Bechtel Power Co.7502504 Hanford Environmental Health Foundation7503005 Kaiser Engineers Hanford - Cost Const.7505004 Fluor Daniel - Hanford7505005 Fluor Daniel Northwest7505006 Fluor Daniel Northwest Services

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ●

●

●

● ● ● ● ●

●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ●

● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

●

● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●



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.


OrganizationCode Organization NameSite

*

Year Reported*’01 ’02’98 ’99 ’00

Richland Hanford Site 7505012 Babcock Wilcox Hanford7505013 Babcock Wilcox Protection, Inc.7505024 Rust Services Hanford7505025 Rust Federal Services Northwest7505034 Duke Engineering Services Hanford7505035 Duke Engineering & Services Northwest, Inc.7505044 NUMATEC Hanford7505054 Lockheed Martin Hanford7505055 Lockheed Martin Info Tech (LMIT)7505064 Dyncorp Hanford7505075 SGN Eurisys Services Corp.7505099 Hanford Security7506001 Richland Field Office7509104 Verizon/Qwest

Savannah Savannah River Site (SRS) 8500505 Bechtel Construction - SRRiver 8501002 Westinghouse Savannah River Co.

8501014 Westinghouse S.R. Subcontractors8503001 S.R. Army Corps of Engineers8505001 S.R. Forest Station8505501 Savannah River Field Office8507004 Miscellaneous DOE Contractors - SR8507504 Southern Bell Tel. & Tel.8509003 Univ. of Georgia Ecology Laboratories8509509 Wackenhut Services, Inc. - SR

Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Naval Reactor Office 6007001 Pittsburgh N.R. OfficeNaval 6007504 Bechtel Plant Apparatus DivisionReactor 6008003 Westinghouse Electric (BAPL)Office 6009003 Westinghouse Electric (NRF)Schenectady Schenectady Naval Reactor Office 6009014 Newport News Reactor ServicesNaval 9004003 LM-KAPL - KesselringReactor 9004005 Gen. Dynam. - Kesselring - Electric BoatOffice 9005003 LM-KAPL - Knolls

9005004 LM-KAPL - Knolls Subs9007003 LM-KAPL - Windsor9007005 LM-KAPL - Windsor - Electric Boat9009001 Schenectady N.R. Office

● ● ● ●

● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ●

● ● ● ●

● ● ● ●

● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

●

●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

Not included in this report (see Appendix D)



A.3 Facility Type CodesThe following is the list of Facility Type Codesreported to REMS in accordance withDOE M 231.1-1 [13]. A facility type code isreported with each individual’s dose record andindicates the facility type where the majority ofthe individual’s dose was accrued during themonitoring year.

Exhibit A-3.Facility Type Codes.

See complete Facility Type descriptions shown inAppendix C.

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



Other

A-8 DOE Occupational Radiation ExposureThis page intentionally left blank.

2002 Report B-1Additional Data

Appendix BAdditional DataAdditional Data BA

dditional Data

B-1a Operations Office/Site Dose Data - 2000 .............................................................................................B-2B-1b Operations Office/Site Dose Data - 2001 .............................................................................................B-3B-1c Operations Office/Site Dose Data - 2002 .............................................................................................B-4B-2a Collective TEDE and Average Measurable Dose 1974-2002 ..............................................................B-5B-2b Number with Measurable Dose and Average Measurable Dose 1974-2002 ....................................B-6B-3 Distribution of Deep Dose Equivalent (DDE) 1974-2002 and Total Effective Dose

Equivalent (TEDE) 1990-2002 ................................................................................................................B-7B-4 Internal Dose by Operations/Site, 2000-2002 ......................................................................................B-8B-5 Neutron Dose Distribution by Operations/Site, 2002 ........................................................................B-9B-6a Distribution of TEDE by Facility Type - 2000 ......................................................................................B-10B-6b Distribution of TEDE by Facility Type - 2001 ......................................................................................B-11B-6c Distribution of TEDE by Facility Type - 2002 ......................................................................................B-12B-7a Collective TEDE by Facility Type - 2000 ..............................................................................................B-13B-7b Collective TEDE by Facility Type - 2001 ..............................................................................................B-14B-7c Collective TEDE by Facility Type - 2002 ..............................................................................................B-15B-8 Distribution of TEDE by Facility Type Listed in Descending Order of

Average Measurable TEDE for Accelerator Facilities, 2002 ..............................................................B-16B-9 Distribution of TEDE by Facility Type Listed in Descending Order of Average

Measurable TEDE for Fuel Facilities, 2002 ..........................................................................................B-17B-10 Distribution of TEDE by Facility Type Listed in Descending Order of Average

Measurable TEDE for Maintenance and Support, 2002 .....................................................................B-19B-11 Distribution of TEDE by Facility Type Listed in Descending Order of

Average Measurable TEDE for Reactor Facilities, 2002 .....................................................................B-21B-12 Distribution of TEDE by Facility Type Listed in Descending Order of Average

Measurable TEDE for Research, General, 2002 .................................................................................B-22B-13 Distribution of TEDE by Facility Type Listed in Descending Order of Average

Measurable TEDE for Research, Fusion, 2002 ...................................................................................B-24B-14 Distribution of TEDE by Facility Type Listed in Descending Order of Average

Measurable TEDE for Waste Processing, 2002 ...................................................................................B-25B-15 Distribution of TEDE by Facility Type Listed in Descending Order of Average

Measurable TEDE for Weapons Fabrication, 2002 .............................................................................B-27B-16 Distribution of TEDE by Facility Type Listed in Descending Order of Average

Measurable TEDE for Other, 2002 ........................................................................................................B-28B-17 Internal Dose by Facility Type and Nuclide, 2000-2002 .....................................................................B-31B-18a Distribution of TEDE by Labor Category - 2000 .................................................................................B-32B-18b Distribution of TEDE by Labor Category - 2001 .................................................................................B-33B-18c Distribution of TEDE by Labor Category - 2002 .................................................................................B-34B-19 Internal Dose by Labor Category, 2000-2002 ......................................................................................B-35B-20 Dose Distribution by Labor Category and Occupation - 2002 ..........................................................B-36B-21 Internal Dose Distribution by Site and Nuclide - 2002 .......................................................................B-37B-22 Extremity Dose Distribution by Operations/Site - 2002 ....................................................................B-38

Exhibit Title Page

B-2 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure

Exhibit B-1a: Operations Office/Site Dose Data - 2000

Albuquerque

Chicago

DOE HQ

Idaho

Nevada

Oakland

Oak Ridge

Ohio

Rocky Flats

Richland

SavannahRiver

Totals

Ops. and Other Facilities

Los Alamos National Lab. (LANL)

Pantex Plant (PP)

Sandia National Lab. (SNL)

Grand Junction


Argonne National Lab. - East (ANL-E)

Argonne National Lab. - West (ANL-W)

Brookhaven National Lab. (BNL)

Fermi Nat'l. Accelerator Lab. (FERMI)

DOE Headquarters (includes DNFSB)

North Korea Project

Kazakhstan

Idaho Site



Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. (LBNL)

Lawrence Livermore National Lab. (LLNL)

Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC)


Oak Ridge Site

Paducah Gaseous Diff. Plant (PGDP)

Portsmouth Gaseous Diff. Plant (PORTS)


Battelle Memorial Institute - Columbus

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 1999

Num

ber with

Meas. D

ose

Percent Change

from 1999

Percent Change

from 1999

Percentage of Coll.

TEDE above

0.500 rem

Percent Change

from 1999Site

2000

0.3 -35% � 38 46% � 0.007 -55% � 0% 0%

195.5 49% � 1,365 -8% � 0.143 62% � 64% 25% �

35.0 19% � 277 -22% � 0.126 52% � 30% 19% �

7.6 19% � 105 -13% � 0.072 36% � 9% -9% �

0.1 -97% � 6 -88% � 0.012 -78% � 0% 0%

3.5 141% � 108 32% � 0.033 83% � 0% 0%

17.2 -30% � 183 -2% � 0.094 -28% � 37% -5% �

20.9 -22% � 234 -22% � 0.089 0% 5% 2% �

22.4 -4% � 430 -17% � 0.052 16% � 5% -1% �

12.3 41% � 406 79% � 0.030 -21% � 4% -10% �

0.1 187% � 11 175% � 0.006 4% � 0% 0%

58.8 22% � 795 9% � 0.074 12% � 21% 17% �

1.6 257% � 24 300% � 0.067 -11% � 0% 0%

0.9 -10% � 133 56% � 0.007 -42% � 0% 0%

1.1 -39% � 44 -4% � 0.025 -36% � 0% 0%

12.7 -15% � 145 6% � 0.088 -19% � 30% -7% �

5.5 -46% � 489 370% � 0.011 -89% � 0% -11% �

1.9 -20% � 125 15% � 0.015 -30% � 0% 0%

118.1 -42% � 2,276 -9% � 0.052 -36% � 8% -30% �

5.0 14% � 63 9% � 0.079 5% � 0% 0%

1.5 198% � 44 76% � 0.035 69% � 0% 0%

1.9 151 0.013

31.3 -1% � 105 1% � 0.298 -2% � 67% -5% �

15.0 0% 421 -8% � 0.036 8% � 0% 0%

1.1 -59% � 123 -38% � 0.009 -34% � 0% 0%

16.5 32% � 246 1% � 0.067 30% � 0% 0%

296.1 -21% � 2,331 -34% � 0.127 19% � 35% 7% �

219.0 20% � 1,923 -4% � 0.114 26% � 36% 1% �

163.2 20% � 3,382 13% � 0.048 6% � 5% -5% �

1,266.5 -2% � 15,983 -4% � 0.079 2% � 30% 3% �

Avg. Meas. TED

E

(rem)


Exhibit B-1b: Operations Office/Site Dose Data - 2001

Albuquerque

Chicago

DOE HQ

Idaho

Nevada

Oakland

Oak Ridge

Ohio

Rocky Flats

Richland

SavannahRiver

Totals



Pantex Plant (PP)


Grand Junction







North Korea Project

Kazakhstan

Idaho Site







Oak Ridge Site






Mound Plant

West Valley Project


Hanford Site




Collective TEDE

(person-rem)

Percent Change

from 2000

Num

ber with

Meas. D

ose

Percent Change

from 2000

Percent Change

from 2000

Percentage of Coll.

TEDE above

0.500 rem

Percent Change

from 2000Site

2001

1.2 347% � 95 150% � 0.013 79% � 0% 0%

112.9 -42% � 1,330 -3% � 0.085 -41% � 31% -34% �

43.6 25% � 293 6% � 0.149 18% � 32% 2% �

4.7 -38% � 99 -6% � 0.048 -34% � 0% -9% �

0.1 9% � 2 -67% � 0.038 226% � 0% 0%

7.8 119% � 162 50% � 0.048 46% � 0% 0%

23.0 34% � 187 2% � 0.123 31% � 47% 10% �

19.8 -5% � 258 10% � 0.077 -14% � 0% -5% �

14.6 -35% � 387 -10% � 0.038 -27% � 0% -5% �

10.7 -14% � 368 -9% � 0.029 -5% � 0% -4% �

0.0 -56% � 5 -55% � 0.006 -3% � 0% 0%

1.0 8 0.130

106.6 81% � 1,088 37% � 0.098 32% � 19% -2% �

1.3 -18% � 32 33% � 0.041 -39% � 0% 0%

1.6 72% � 134 1% � 0.012 70% � 0% 0%

0.7 -39% � 21 -52% � 0.032 28% � 0% 0%

18.6 46% � 153 6% � 0.121 38% � 50% 20% �

1.4 -75% � 35 -93% � 0.039 250% � 0% 0%

2.6 38% � 144 15% � 0.018 20% � 0% 0%

120.0 2% � 2,576 13% � 0.047 -10% � 11% 3% �

5.0 2% � 122 94% � 0.041 -48% � 0% 0%

1.2 -23% � 35 -20% � 0.034 -3% � 0% 0%

2.0 6% � 89 -41% � 0.023 79% � 0% 0%

35.2 12% � 84 -20% � 0.419 40% � 82% 15% �

11.4 -24% � 355 -16% � 0.032 -10% � 0% 0%

1.2 11% � 97 -21% � 0.013 41% � 0% 0%

22.2 34% � 233 -5% � 0.095 42% � 2% 2% �

240.7 -19% � 2,436 5% � 0.099 -22% � 23% -12% �

213.6 -2% � 2,219 15% � 0.096 -15% � 32% -4% �

207.6 27% � 3,640 8% � 0.057 18% � 16% 11% �

1,232.4 -3% � 16,687 4% � 0.074 -7% � 0% -30% �

Avg. Meas. TED

E

(rem)


Exhibit B-1c: Operations Office/Site Dose Data - 2002

The collective dose increased by 10% from 2001 to 2002. Primary contributors to the increase include LANL (up 45%) andHanford (up 28%). Increases at these sites were attributed to increased processing of spent nuclear fuel in K-Basins atHanford and increased work on pit manufacturing, Pu-238 fuel and heat source work, nuclear material processing, nuclearmaterials science, pit disassembly, and associated support at LANL.

Albuquerque

Chicago

DOE HQ

Idaho

Nevada

Oakland

Oak Ridge

Ohio

Rocky Flats

Richland

SavannahRiver

Totals


*No longer in operation, therefore not required to report.


Collective TEDE

(person-rem)

Percent Change

from 2001

Num

ber with

Meas. D

ose

Percent Change

from 2001

Avg. Meas. TED

E

(rem)

Percent Change

from 2001

Percentage of Coll.

TEDE above

0.500 rem

Percent Change

from 2001Site

2002

2.5 101% � 118 24% � 0.021 62% � 0% 0%

163.5 45% � 1,696 28% � 0.096 14% � 35% 4% �

47.3 9% � 292 0% 0.162 9% � 32% 0%

4.5 -4% � 109 10% � 0.042 -13% � 0% 0%

4.5 -42% � 182 12% � 0.025 -48% � 12% 12% �

23.6 2% � 233 25% � 0.101 -18% � 39% -8% �

24.9 26% � 278 8% � 0.090 17% � 8% 8% �

26.2 79% � 439 13% � 0.060 58% � 20% 20% �

12.8 20% � 389 6% � 0.033 14% � 0% 0%

0.0 0 0.0 0% 0%

0.0 0 0.0 0% 0%

76.0 -29% � 1,089 0% 0.070 -29% � 4% -15% �

0.9 -30% � 30 -6% � 0.031 -25% � 0% 0%

3.2 103% � 81 -40% � 0.040 236% � 19% 19% �

0.9 31% � 33 57% � 0.027 -16% � 0% 0%

28.0 51% � 163 7% � 0.172 41% � 60% 11% �

3.1 125% � 79 126% � 0.039 0% 0% 0%

1.4 -48% � 103 -28% � 0.013 -27% � 0% 0%

107.8 -10% � 2,304 -11% � 0.047 0% 4% -7% �

8.8 75% � 232 90% � 0.038 -8% � 0% 0%

1.0 -18% � 37 6% � 0.026 -23% � 0% 0%

0.6 -71% � 49 -45% � 0.012 -48% � 0% 0%

44.4 26% � 103 23% � 0.431 3% � 80% -3% �

17.0 50% � 572 61% � 0.030 -7% � 0% 0%

2.7 120% � 198 104% � 0.014 8% � 0% 0%

30.5 38% � 239 3% � 0.128 34% � 24% 21% �

250.0 4% � 2,175 -11% � 0.115 16% � 24% 1% �

274.4 28% � 2,611 18% � 0.105 9% � 29% -3% �

199.1 -4% � 3,217 -12% � 0.062 9% � 15% -1% �

1,359.6 10% � 17,051 2% � 0.080 8% � 24% 24% �



Pantex Plant (PP)


Grand Junction*







Russian Federation Project

Idaho Site







Oak Ridge Site






Mound Plant

West Valley Project


Hanford Site



Exhi

bit

B-2a

: Co

llect

ive

TED

E an

d A

vera

ge M

easu

rabl

e D

ose

1974

-200

2

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

*

.078

.073

.073

.075

.078

.079

.074

.080

1974

-198

9 C

olle

ctiv

e D

ose=

DD

E

1990

-199

2 C

olle

ctiv

e D

ose=

DD

E+

AE

DE

1993

-200

2 C

olle

ctiv

e D

ose=

DD

E+

CE

DE

2001

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

1999

2000

2002

Col

lect

ive

Dos

e* (

pers

on-r

em)

Ave

rage

Mea

s. D

ose*

(re

m)


Exhi

bit

B-2b

: N

umbe

r w

ith

Mea

sura

ble

Dos

e an

d A

vera

ge M

easu

rabl

e D

ose

1974

-200

2

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)

Num

ber

with

Mea

sura

ble

Dos

e

Ave

rage

Mea

s. D

ose*

(re

m)

1974

-198

9 C

olle

ctiv

e D

ose=

DD

E19

90-1

992

Col

lect

ive

Dos

e=D

DE

+A

ED

E19

93-2

002

Col

lect

ive

Dos

e=D

DE

+C

ED

E

0

Year

2001

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

1999

2000

2002

*


Exhibit B-3: Distribution of Deep Dose Equivalent (DDE) 1974-2002 andTotal Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE) 1990-2002

Deep Dose Equivalent (DDE)Number of Individuals Receiving Radiation Doses in Each Dose Range (rem)

Note: Arrowed values indicate the greatest value in each column.* 1990-1992 TEDE=DDE+AEDE 1993-2002 TEDE=DDE+CEDE

YearLess than

Meas. Meas.-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 11-12 >1210-11Total

MonitoredNo. with

Meas. DDEColl. DDE

(person-rem)

Avg.Meas.DDE

Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE)*

YearLess than

Meas. Meas.-1Total

MonitoredNo. with

Meas. TEDEColl. TEDE

(person-rem)1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 11-12 >1210-11

Avg.Meas.TEDE

1990 71,991 35,780 226 47 8 8 1 2 1 1 108,065 36,074 3,052 0.0851991 88,444 31,086 193 25 9 8 2 1 2 119,770 31,326 2,574 0.0821992 94,297 29,240 132 22 9 6 2 1 1 1 123,711 29,414 2,295 0.0781993 101,947 25,002 87 2 1 1 2 127,042 25,095 1,644 0.0661994 91,121 25,310 79 1 116,511 25,390 1,643 0.0651995 103,663 23,454 157 1 1 127,276 23,613 1,845 0.0781996 100,599 22,641 80 2 1 1 123,324 22,725 1,652 0.0731997 88,502 18,627 48 1 2 1 107,181 18,675 1,356 0.0731998 90,964 17,501 41 1 1 108,508 17,544 1,309 0.0751999 96,396 16,585 80 1 1 1 113,064 16,668 1,295 0.0782000 86,898 15,922 58 1 1 1 102,881 15,983 1,267 0.0792001 81,131 16,638 48 2 97,818 16,687 1,232 0.0742002 83,170 16,985 65 1 100,221 17,051 1,360 0.080

1974 37,060 29,735 1,531 652 149 40 4 69,171 32,111 10,202 0.3181975 41,390 36,795 1,437 541 122 28 1 80,314 38,924 9,202 0.2361976 38,408 41,321 1,296 387 70 6 1 81,489 43,081 8,938 0.2071977 41,572 44,730 1,499 540 103 23 1 2 2 88,472 46,900 10,199 0.2171978 43,317 51,444 1,311 439 53 11 96,575 53,258 9,390 0.1761979 48,529 48,553 1,281 416 33 10 1 2 98,825 50,296 8,691 0.1731980 43,663 35,385 1,113 387 16 80,564 36,901 7,760 0.2101981 43,775 33,251 967 263 29 5 78,290 34,515 7,223 0.2091982 47,420 30,988 990 313 56 28 79,795 32,375 7,538 0.2331983 48,340 32,842 1,225 294 49 31 82,781 34,441 7,720 0.2241984 46,056 38,821 1,223 312 31 11 86,454 40,398 8,113 0.2011985 54,582 34,317 1,362 356 51 8 1 90,677 36,095 8,340 0.2311986 53,586 33,671 1,279 349 35 1 1 1 88,923 35,337 8,095 0.2291987 45,241 28,995 1,210 283 36 75,765 30,524 6,056 0.1981988 48,704 27,492 502 34 76,732 28,028 3,735 0.1331989 56,363 28,925 428 21 85,737 29,374 3,151 0.1071990 76,798 31,110 140 17 108,065 31,267 2,230 0.0711991 92,526 27,149 95 119,770 27,244 1,762 0.0651992 98,900 24,769 42 123,711 24,811 1,504 0.0611993 103,905 23,050 86 1 127,042 23,137 1,534 0.0661994 92,245 24,189 77 116,511 24,266 1,600 0.0661995 104,793 22,330 153 127,276 22,483 1,809 0.0801996 101,529 21,720 74 1 123,324 21,795 1,598 0.0731997 89,805 17,331 45 107,181 17,376 1,285 0.0741998 92,803 15,669 36 108,508 15,705 1,219 0.0781999 98,125 14,877 62 113,064 14,939 1,142 0.0762000 88,621 14,206 54 102,881 14,260 1,086 0.0762001 82,950 14,821 47 97,818 14,868 1,173 0.0792002 84,874 15,282 64 1 100,221 15,347 1,291 0.084


The

colle

ctiv

e in

tern

al d

ose

(C

EDE)

incr

ease

d b

y 1

7%

fro

m 2

00

1 t

o 2

00

2.

Ho

wev

er,

it re

mai

ns

wel

l bel

ow

th

e va

lue

for

20

00

. T

he

incr

ease

was

prim

arily

du

e to

a 2

0%

incr

ease

in in

tern

al d

ose

at

the

Oak

Rid

ge

Y -1

2 s

ite.

Th

e Y-

12

fac

ility

acc

ou

nte

d f

or

77

% o

f th

e co

llect

ive

CED

E fo

r 2

00

2.

Th

e in

crea

se w

as a

ttrib

ute

d t

o a

ctiv

ities

at

the

Enrich

ed U

ran

ium

Op

erat

ion

s’ f

acili

ties.

Exhi

bit

B-4:

Int

erna

l Dos

e by

Ope

rati

ons/

Site

, 200

0-20

02

20

01

LAN

L

Pan

tex

San

dia

Nat

ion

al L

ab

Gra

nd

Ju

nct

ion

Op

s. a

nd

Oth

er F

acili

ties

AN

L-E

AN

L-W

BN

L

Idah

o S

ite

LBN

L

LLN

L

Oak

Rid

ge

Site

Pad

uca

h

Port

smo

uth

OH

BM

I - C

olu

mb

us

Fern

ald

Mo

un

d P

lan

t

WV

NS

Rock

y Fl

ats

Han

ford

Site

Sava

nn

ah R

iver

Site

90 1 2 0 1

33 0

29 7

20 3

1,5

18 11 1

29

33

60

10

8 0

76

18

23

7

2,2

77

10

9.8

16

0.0

14

0.0

05 0

0.0

01

0.7

04 0

0.8

17

0.1

16

0.3

54

0.0

06

59

.50

6

0.2

31

0.0

18

0.2

92

0.1

42

3.4

50

0.6

42 0

3.3

98

0.2

08

0.8

60

18

0.5

80

1.2

20

0.0

14

0.0

03 0

0.0

01

0.0

21 0

0.0

28

0.0

17

0.0

18

0.0

02

0.0

39

0.0

21

0.0

18

0.0

10

0.0

04

0.0

58

0.0

06 0

0.0

45

0.0

12

0.0

04

0.0

79

97

25 1 2

12

16 0

30 5 7 0

1,7

79 2 2

31

43

20

77 0

47

23

14

3

2,3

62

2.9

48

0.6

69

0.0

05

0.0

76

0.0

38

0.5

23 0

0.2

23

0.0

83

0.1

24 0

46

.19

3

0.0

41

0.0

13

0.3

02

0.2

28

0.0

93

0.5

38 0

3.3

27

0.9

19

2.6

11

58

.95

4

0.0

30

0.0

27

0.0

05

0.0

38

0.0

03

0.0

33 0

0

.00

7

0.0

17

0.0

18 0

0.0

26

0.0

21

0.0

07

0.0

10

0.0

05

0.0

05

0.0

07 0

0.0

71

0.0

40

0.0

18

0.0

25

11

1

30 0 0 8

17 2

18

22 9 2

1,5

59 10 4

28

35

24

27

6

38

99

24

10

2

2,4

18

3.2

00

0.3

04 0 0

0.0

28

0.5

91

0.0

13

0.3

02

2.1

41

0.1

65

0.0

07

54

.65

3

0.1

04

0.0

26

0.1

88

0.0

83

0.1

62

2.1

61

1.0

88

2.9

02

0.2

63

0.3

09

68

.69

0

0.0

29

0.0

10 0 0

0.0

04

0.0

35

0.0

07

0.0

17

0.0

97

0.0

18

0.0

04

0.0

35

0.0

10

0.0

07

0.0

07

0.0

02

0.0

07

0.0

08

0.0

29

0.0

29

0.0

11

0.0

03

0.0

28

20

00

20

01

20

00

20

00

20

01

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:

Alb

uq

uer

qu

e O

ps.

, A

NL-

W,

DO

E-H

Q,

Ferm

i Lab

, N

TS,

Oak

lan

d O

ps.

, SL

AC

, U

mtr

a, a

nd

WV

NS.

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

Oak

lan

d

Oak

Rid

ge

Oh

io

Rock

y Fl

ats

Rich

lan

d

Sava

nnah

Riv

er

Tota

ls

20

02

20

02

20

02


82

98

29

00

%0

9,7

70

92

71

46

39

12

75

10

,90

61

,13

61

0%

76

.57

40

.06

75

,22

81

16

32

5,3

76

14

83

%8

.93

10

.06

02

,93

11

12

,94

21

10

%0

.27

90

.02

5

70

07

00

00

%0

02

,67

41

13

62

,79

31

19

4%

3.7

74

0.0

32

67

93

03

71

23

35

%1

.23

00

.03

74

,62

64

51

4,6

72

46

1%

0.9

97

0.0

22

1,4

23

11

,42

41

0%

0.0

80

0.0

80

16

16

00

%0

08

80

0%

00

4,6

89

40

4,7

29

40

1%

1.1

23

0.0

28

3,9

01

83

,90

98

0%

0.2

66

0.0

33

17

61

76

00

%0

01

,53

44

1,5

38

40

%0

.09

30

.02

39

,43

76

31

13

39

,51

78

01

%6

.63

80

.08

32

,66

41

22

,67

61

20

%0

.23

60

.02

0

1,6

84

11

,68

51

0%

0.0

29

0.0

29

14

,23

76

02

04

14

,32

18

41

%6

.10

30

.07

31

,07

31

12

11

,18

61

13

10

%3

.96

10

.03

56

38

26

40

20

%0

.06

00

.03

0

37

43

74

00

%0

03

19

31

90

0%

00

2,2

20

2,2

20

00

%0

07

48

18

76

61

82

%0

.33

60

.01

97

77

77

70

0%

00

4,3

76

54

01

59

28

18

15

,12

27

46

15

%6

8.4

33

0.0

92

9,7

63

79

98

21

47

31

10

,66

99

06

8%

42

.09

40

.04

6

8,8

49

18

01

46

34

10

9,2

19

37

04

%4

5.7

92

0.1

24

96

,34

33

,08

26

07

12

25

01

16

10

0,2

21

3,8

78

4%

26

7.0

29

0.0

69

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

ahRi

ver

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)

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

Russ

ian

Fed

erat

ion

Pro

ject

Idah

o Si

te

Nev

ada

Test

Site

(NTS

)

Oak

lan

d O

pera

tion

sLa

wre

nce

Ber

kele

y N

atio

nal

Lab

. (LB

NL)

Law

ren

ce L

iver

mor

e N

atio

nal

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

ceBa

ttel

le M

emor

ial I

nst

itute

- C

olum

bus

Fern

ald

En

viro

nm

enta

l Mg

mt.

Pro

ject

Mou

nd

Pla

nt

Wes

t Va

lley

Rock

y Fl

ats

Env.

Tec

h. S

ite (R

FETS

)

Han

ford

Site

Sava

nn

ah R

iver

Site

(SRS

)

Tota

ls

*N

ote

: A

rro

wed

val

ues

ind

icat

e th

e g

reat

est

valu

e in

eac

h c

olu

mn

.

Exhi

bit

B-5:

Neu

tron

Dos

e D

istr

ibut

ion

by O

pera

tion

s/Si

te, 2

002

LAN

L an

d R

ock

y Fl

ats

con

tinu

e to

co

ntr

ibu

te t

he

maj

ority

(5

4%

) o

f th

e co

llect

ive

neu

tro

n d

ose

fo

r 2

00

2.

Wo

rker

s at

th

ese

site

s re

ceiv

e n

eutr

on

do

se f

rom

th

e h

and

ling

of

plu

ton

ium

in g

love

bo

xes.

Co

mb

ined

with

th

e n

eutr

on

do

se a

t H

anfo

rd a

nd

Sav

ann

ah R

iver

, th

e to

p 4

site

s ac

cou

nt

for

87

% o

f th

e n

eutr

on

do

se in

20

02

.


Exhi

bit

B-6a

: D

istr

ibut

ion

of T

EDE

by F

acili

ty T

ype

- 20

00

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 va

lue

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

)

9,5

91

1,3

27

81

17

41

1,0

20

13

%1

,42

94

5.9

32

0.0

32

4,1

69

62

73

71

41

4,8

48

14

%6

79

21

.59

10

.03

2

3,0

48

39

52

45

3,4

72

12

%4

24

15

.12

10

.03

6

2,9

08

1,0

25

80

91

4,0

23

28

%1

,11

54

1.6

09

0.0

37

14

,81

01

,61

42

94

15

05

63

02

81

16

,98

31

3%

2,1

73

32

5.4

07

0.1

50

16

,94

81

,28

09

34

99

21

18

,38

28

%1

,43

46

8.2

01

0.0

48

1,3

55

50

65

92

09

61

,95

53

1%

60

03

8.1

23

0.0

64

15

,02

31

,72

12

88

10

12

31

42

17

,16

31

2%

2,1

40

16

4.7

51

0.0

77

52

26

21

21

21

60

01

3%

78

7.1

49

0.0

92

4,7

01

1,2

46

17

23

04

35

6,1

61

24

%1

,46

08

1.1

68

0.0

56

13

,82

33

,21

77

33

33

11

04

47

19

18

,27

42

4%

4,4

51

45

7.4

82

0.1

03

86

,89

81

3,0

20

1,8

73

72

72

11

91

58

00

03

10

2,8

81

16

%1

5,9

83

1,2

66

.53

40

.07

9

Acc

eler

ato

r

Fuel

/Ura

n.

Enrich

.

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


Exhi

bit

B-6b

: D

istr

ibut

ion

of T

EDE

by F

acili

ty T

ype

- 20

01

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 va

lue

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.

Enrich

.

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

1 10

0

10,

472

4,0

38

1,8

24

2,5

94

11,

679

12,

163

1,0

23

21,

821

455

3,8

49

11,

213

81,1

31

882

782

330

1,0

20

1,8

00

1,1

56

461

1,8

09 94

1,5

54

3,6

71

13,5

59

67

46

24

112

275

153 5

5

253 1

1

276

619

1,8

91

22

17 1 21

175 7

2

26

110 1

0

94

292

84

0

3 1 2 83

15

13

32 1 14

95

25

9

2 41 4 3 8 31

89

15 1 2 14

16

48

11,

448

4,8

84

2,1

79

3,7

49

14,

068

13,

564

1,5

83

24,0

48

571

5,7

87

15,

937

97,8

18

9% 17%

16%

31%

17%

10%

35

% 9% 20%

33%

30%

17

%

976

846

355

1,1

55

2,3

89

1,4

01

560

2,2

27

116

1,9

38

4,7

24

16,6

87

40.

147

25.

845

11.

355

52.

461

251

.554

90.

807

40.

873

170

.584

7.8

03

129

.898

41

1.0

63

1,2

32

.39

0

0.0

41

0.0

31

0.0

32

0.0

45

0.1

05

0.0

65

0.0

73

0.0

77

0.0

67

0.0

67

0.0

87

0.0

74

0


Exhi

bit

B-6c

: D

istr

ibut

ion

of T

EDE

by F

acili

ty T

ype

- 20

02

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.

It s

ho

uld

be

no

ted

th

at R

ock

y Fl

ats

and

Sav

ann

ah R

iver

acc

ou

nt

for

the

maj

ority

(7

4%

) o

f th

e d

ose

rep

ort

ed u

nd

er t

his

fac

ility

typ

e ev

en t

ho

ug

h t

hes

e si

tes

are

no

lon

ger

act

ivel

y in

volv

ed in

th

is a

ctiv

ity.

Mai

nte

nan

ce a

nd

Sup

po

rt f

acili

ties

rece

ived

th

e h

igh

est

aver

age

mea

sura

ble

TED

E si

nce

ind

ivid

ual

s re

po

rted

un

der

th

is f

acili

ty t

ype

ten

d t

o p

erfo

rm m

ain

ten

ance

an

d s

up

po

rtw

ork

at

mu

ltip

le f

acili

ty t

ypes

invo

lvin

g w

ork

with

rad

iolo

gic

al m

ater

ials

.

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 va

lue

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.

Enrich

.

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

9,67

994

591

434

410

,766

10%

1,08

757

.220

0.05

3

4,43

667

757

82

5,18

014

%74

427

.683

0.03

7

1,64

854

030

22,

220

26%

572

16.9

820.

030

2,55

51,

023

9717

3,69

231

%1,

137

48.8

810.

043

12,3

012,

051

415

204

8248

2515

,126

19%

2,82

531

6.58

20.

112

11,7

111,

230

198

9833

88

113

,287

12%

1,57

629

.295

0.01

9

1,10

938

562

193

11,

579

30%

470

135.

818

0.2

89

22,9

461,

735

267

112

328

182

5,1

18

9%2,

172

175.

900

0.08

1

361

137

151

514

30%

153

4.29

90.

028

3,80

21,

561

223

891

15,

677

33

%1,

875

110.

320

0.05

9

12,6

223,

216

747

326

112

2514

17,0

6226

%4

,44

04

36

.59

70.

098

83

,17

01

3,5

00

2,2

02

91

92

69

95

65

1100,2

21

17

%1

7,0

51

1, 3

59

.57

70

.08

0


Exhi

bit

B-7a

: Co

llect

ive

TED

E by

Fac

ility

Typ

e -

2000 0

.2

2.9

4.0

7.1

0.1

15

.0 5.0

1.5

21

.6

15

.0 0.1

15

.1

6.8

0.4

34

.4

41

.6

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

aKa

zakh

stan

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

Nat

ion

al L

ab. (L

BN

L)La

wre

nce

Liv

erm

ore

Nat

ion

al L

ab. (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

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

11

7.0

0.3

0.1

1.7

3.0

1.6

0.9

31

.4

0.9

15

7.7

10

.8

32

5.4

0.0

4.1

1.6

26

.9 2.2

3.3

38

.1

50

.1 1.8

0.6

8.4

20

.93

.0

15

.6

0.9

1.0

1.6

0.3

35

.8

10

.1

14

.6

16

4.8

0.1

1.1

0.2

2.3

2.7

5.6

0.0

26

.7

42

.3

81

.2

0.0

35

.00

.3

2.6

67

.3

0.2

29

4.8

57

.3

45

7.5

0.1

19

.6

0.8

0.1

0.0

0.4

0.7

0.1

0.9

3.4

1.9

0.0

16

.5

1.3

21

.8 0.5

68

.2

0.3

19

5.5

35

.07

.60

.1

3.5

17

.22

0.9

22

.41

2.3

0.1

58

.8

1.6

0.9

1.1

12

.75

.5

1.9

11

8.1

5.0

1.5

33

.31

5.0

1.1

16

.5

29

6.1

21

9.0

16

3.2

1,2

66

.5

7.5

0.1

6.0

12

.81

2.3

0.1

0.0

5.5

1.6

45

.9


Exhi

bit

B-7b

: Co

llect

ive

TED

E by

Fac

ility

Typ

e -

2001

34

.6

0.4

0.3

1.2

7.3

1.3

0.8

35

.2

15

4.3

16

.3

25

1.6

0.0

2.3

0.0

0.5

33

.3

4.7

40

.9

37

.1

0.7

0.3

13

.1 1

9.6

2.9

4.0

1.6

0.6

18

.6

0.3

47

.2

11

.1

13

.3

168.8

0.4

7.4

7.8

1.1

0.9

0.1

3.3

0.2

1.5

44

.0

17

.3

61

.6

12

9.9

43

.60

.6

53

.2

0.5

24

0.7

72

.5

41

1.0

0.1

28

.6

0.6

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.4

0.0

1.0

4.0

0.0

2.0

22

.2

31

.0 0.7

91

.6

1.2

11

2.9

43

.64

.70

.1

7.8

23

.01

9.8

14

.61

0.7

0.0

1.0

10

6.6

1.3

1.6

0.7

18

.61

.4

2.6

12

0.0

5.0

1.2

2.0

11

.41

.22

2.2

35

.2

24

0.7

21

3.6

20

7.6

1,2

32

.4

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)G

ran

d J

un

ctio

n

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

Nat

ion

al L

ab.

(LB

NL)

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.

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

Bat

telle

Mem

orial

Inst

itute

- C

olu

mb

us

Rock

y Fl

ats

Env.

Tec

h.

Site

(RF

ETS)

Han

ford

Site

Sava

nn

ah R

iver

Site

(SR

S)

Tota

ls

11

.3

0.1

0.0

6.3

8.1

10

.7

0.1

1.4

2.3

40

.1

19

.6 5

.0 1

.2

25

.8

11

.4

11

.4

13

.9

38

.5

52

.5

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:

Arr

ow

ed v

alu

es in

dic

ate

the

gre

ates

t va

lue

in e

ach

co

lum

n.

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


Exhi

bit

B-7c

: Co

llect

ive

TED

E by

Fac

ility

Typ

e -

2002

Rock

y Fl

ats

con

trib

ute

s 5

7%

of

the

do

se a

ttrib

ute

d t

o t

he

Wea

po

ns

Fab

rica

tion

an

d T

estin

g f

acili

ty t

ype,

alth

ou

gh

th

e si

te is

prim

arily

invo

lved

in m

ater

ials

sta

bili

zatio

n a

nd

was

te m

anag

emen

t.

Han

for d

co

ntr

ibu

tes

61

% o

f th

e Si

te-w

ide

Mai

nte

nan

ce a

nd

Su

pp

or t

do

sean

d is

invo

lved

in s

tab

iliza

tion

an

d r

epac

kag

ing

of

plu

ton

ium

-bea

rin

g m

ater

ials

an

d p

r oce

ssin

g o

f sp

ent

nu

clea

r fu

el.

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)

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

rsRu

ssia

n F

eder

atio

n P

roje

ct

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

Nat

ion

al L

ab.

(LB

NL)

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.

Plan

t (P

ORTS

)

Op

s. a

nd

Oth

er F

acili

ties

Bat

telle

Mem

orial

Inst

itute

- C

olu

mb

us

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

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:

Arr

ow

ed v

alu

es in

dic

ate

the

gre

ates

t va

lue

in e

ach

co

lum

n.

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

2.3

0.0

0.1

2.5

14

.04

8.9

0.0

43

.40

.61

.90

.05

4.8

16

3.5

47

.34

7.3

0.3

0.2

2.1

0.8

0.1

0.6

0.4

4.5

0.2

3.7

0.6

4.5

7.5

0.1

12

.73

.32

3.6

0.0

24

.92

4.9

18

.42

.40

.42

.61

.60

.82

6.2

12

.81

2.8

0.0

0.0

19

.01

2.3

22

.86

.01

3.4

2.6

76

.0

0.9

0.9

3.2

3.2

0.1

0.8

0.9

28

.02

8.0

3.1

3.1

1.1

0.3

1.4

17

.92

7.0

62

.81

07

.88

.88

.81

.01

.0

0.0

0.0

0.6

0.6

44

.44

4.4

17

.01

7.0

1.9

0.9

2.7

0.0

30

.53

0.5

25

0.0

25

0.0

19

3.6

12

.42

3.9

44

.42

74

.4

29

.81

1.9

4.0

13

.56

3.9

75

.01

.01

99

.1

57

.22

7.7

17

.04

8.9

31

6.6

29

.31

75

.94

.31

10

.34

36

.61

35

.81

,35

9.6


Exhi

bit

B-8:

Dis

trib

utio

n of

TED

E by

Fac

ility

Typ

e Li

sted

in D

esce

ndin

g O

rder

of

Ave

rage

Mea

sura

ble

TED

Efo

r A

ccel

erat

or F

acili

ties

, 200

2

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

)

AL

Los

Ala

mo

s N

atio

nal

Lab

ora

tory

CH

Bro

okh

aven

Nat

ion

al L

abo

rato

ry

CH

Arg

on

ne

Nat

ion

al L

abo

rato

ry -

East

OA

KSt

anfo

rd L

inea

r A

ccel

erat

or

Cen

ter

AL

San

dia

Nat

ion

al L

abo

rato

ry

CH

Ferm

ilab

OR

Tho

mas

Jef

fers

on

Nat

’l. A

ccel

. Fa

cil.

OA

KLa

wre

nce

Ber

kele

y N

atio

nal

Lab

.

AL

Joh

nso

n C

on

tro

ls,

Inc.

CH

Ch

icag

o O

per

atio

ns

Off

ice

OR

Oak

Rid

ge

Fiel

d O

ffic

e

Tota

ls

Ops.

Off

ice

0.5

0-

0.7

50

.75

-1

.00

1.0

0-

2.0

0

No

te: A

rro

wed

val

ues

ind

icat

e th

e g

reat

est

valu

e in

eac

h c

olu

mn

.

>2

3 1 4

15

2

20

6

10

7

76 8

36

3

30 3

94

5

52

4

2,6

62

47

4

2,5

97

36

2

1,0

35

1,5

49

46

0 2

11 3

9,6

79

19

33

13 1

21 4

91

21

10 5 2 5

43

4 4

71

6

2,9

18

60

0

2,6

76

37

0

1,4

24

1,5

83

46

3 2

11 3

10

,76

60

0

27

% 9%

21

%

3%

2%

27

% 2%

1%

0%

0%

0%

10

%

19

2

25

6

12

6

79 8

38

9 34 3 0 0 0

1,0

87

13

.95

0

18

.43

5

7.5

44

3.0

75

0.2

61

12

.79

0

1.1

13

0.0

52

0.0

00

0.0

00

0.0

00

57

.22

0

0.0

73

0.0

72

0.0

60

0.0

39

0.0

33

0.0

33

0.0

33

0.0

17

0.0

00

0.0

00

0.0

00

0.0

53

BN

L an

d L

AN

L co

ntr

ibu

te 5

7%

of

the

colle

ctiv

e d

ose

fo

r th

is f

acili

ty t

ype.

M

ost

of

the

incr

ease

in d

ose

fo

r th

is f

acili

ty t

ype

bet

wee

n2

00

1 a

nd

20

02

is d

ue

to t

he

incr

ease

at

BN

L, w

her

e ac

cele

rato

r re

sear

ch is

per

form

ed.


Exhi

bit

B-9:

Dis

trib

utio

n of

TED

E by

Fac

ility

Typ

e Li

sted

in D

esce

ndin

g O

rder

of

Ave

rage

Mea

sura

ble

TED

Efo

r Fu

el F

acili

ties

, 200

2

The

par

amet

ers

for

Fuel

En

rich

men

t an

d F

uel

Fab

rica

tion

rem

ain

nea

rly

the

sam

e fo

r 2

00

2 a

s fo

r 2

00

1 w

ith t

he

Oak

Rid

ge

faci

litie

s co

ntr

ibu

ting

the

maj

ority

of

do

se f

or

Enrich

men

t fa

cilit

ies,

an

d F

ern

ald

co

ntr

ibu

ting

th

e m

ajo

rity

of

do

se f

or

Fuel

Fab

rica

tion

fac

ilitie

s.

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. w

ith

Mea

s.TE

DE

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

EN

RIC

HM

EN

T

No

te: A

rro

wed

val

ues

ind

icat

e th

e g

reat

est

valu

e in

eac

h c

olu

mn

.

FAB

RIC

ATIO

N

16

8

56

23

2

37

16

23

5

74

4

79

0

1,3

82 13

33 2

2,2

20

32

%

23

%

0%

0%

0%

26

%

25

0

32

2 0 0 0

57

2

7.5

37

9.4

45 0 0 0

16

.98

2

0.0

30

0.0

29 0 0 0

0.0

30

54

0

1,0

60

13

33 2

1,6

48

23

7

30

3

54

0

12

18

30

1 1 20

00

0

OR

Bec

hte

l Jac

ob

s - O

RNL

OR

Bec

hte

l Jac

ob

s - E

TTP

OR

Bec

hte

l Jac

ob

s - P

adu

cah

OR

Bec

hte

l Jac

ob

s - P

ort

smo

uth

OR

Bec

hte

l Jac

ob

s - Y

-12

OR

Britis

h N

ucl

ear

Fuel

s Lt

d.

- (B

NFL

) - E

TTP

Tota

ls

12

.34

5

2.2

06

8.7

98

0.9

63

0.2

29

3.1

42

27

.68

30

44

2

1,2

65

95

4

60

3

23

0

94

2

4,4

36

27 3

25 1 1

57

8 8

2 2

61

0

1,3

21

1,1

86

64

0

24

6

1,1

77

5,1

80

00

28

% 4%

20

%

6%

7%

20

%

14

%

OH

Flu

or

Fern

ald

Co

nst

Su

bco

ntr

acto

rs

OH

Flu

or

Fern

ald

- Fe

mp

OH

Fem

p O

ffic

e Se

rvic

e Su

bco

ntr

acto

rs

OH

Fern

ald

En

v M

gm

t Pr

oj O

ffic

e

OH

Flu

or

Fern

ald

Ser

vice

Ven

do

rs

Tota

ls

0.0

73

0.0

39

0.0

38

0.0

26

0.0

14

0.0

13

0.0

37

13

1

53

20

7

36

16

23

4

67

7


Exhi

bit

B-9:

Dis

trib

utio

n of

TED

E by

Fac

ility

Typ

e Li

sted

in D

esce

ndin

g O

rder

of

Ave

rage

Mea

sura

ble

TED

Efo

r Fu

el F

acili

ties

, 200

2 (C

onti

nued

)

Sava

nn

ah R

iver

an

d Id

aho

co

ntr

ibu

te 8

0%

of

the

colle

ctiv

e d

ose

fo

r th

is f

acili

ty t

ype.

Th

e 7

% d

ecre

ase

in t

he

colle

ctiv

e d

ose

bet

wee

n 2

00

1an

d 2

00

2 is

prim

arily

du

e to

th

e 2

9%

dec

reas

e at

Sav

ann

ah R

iver

.

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

IDB

ech

tel B

WXT

Idah

o -

Serv

ices

IDB

ech

tel B

WXT

Idah

o -

Co

nst

ruct

ion

SRB

ech

tel C

on

stru

ctio

n -

SR

SRW

estin

gh

ou

se S

avan

nah

Riv

er C

o.

SRW

acke

nh

ut

Serv

ices

, In

c. -

SR

SRSa

van

nah

Riv

er F

ield

Off

ice

SRW

estin

gh

ou

se S

.R.

Sub

con

trac

tors

AL

Joh

nso

n C

on

tro

ls,

Inc.

AL

Los

Ala

mo

s N

atio

nal

Lab

ora

tory

CH

Arg

on

ne

Nat

ion

al L

abo

rato

ry -

Wes

t

Tota

ls

72

8

84

20

6

1,3

37

10

9

51

36 2 1 1

2,5

55

21

4

11

16

3

61

9

12 2 2

1,0

23

43 5

19

28 2

97

11 5 1

17

99

6

10

0

39

3

1,9

85

12

3

53

38 2 1 1

3,6

92

27

%

16

%

48

%

33

%

11

%

4%

5%

0%

0%

0%

31

%

26

8

16

18

7

64

8 14 2 2 0 0 0

1,1

37

18

.05

4

0.9

86

8.5

24

20

.81

8

0.4

36

0.0

40

0.0

23 0 0 0

48

.88

1

0.0

67

0.0

62

0.0

46

0.0

32

0.0

31

0.0

20

0.0

12

0.0

00 0 0

0.0

43

0

PR

OCESS

ING

No

te: A

rro

wed

val

ues

ind

icat

e th

e g

reat

est

valu

e in

eac

h c

olu

mn

.

00

0


Exhi

bit

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

Mai

nten

ance

and

Sup

port

, 200

2

Note

: A

rrow

ed v

alues

ind

icat

e th

e g

reat

est va

lue

in e

ach

colu

mn

.

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

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

.00

OH

RL AL

RL ID AL

SR RL RL CH

ID RL RL SR NV

CH

OH

RL RL SR AL

OH

RL OH

2

16

46

1,0

08

2,0

27

33

9

1,3

62

30

3 6

11

73

6

12

98

47

48

3,0

54

37

2

12

19

61 8

60

0

23

25

6

36

23

18

7

99

6

14

8

12

5

16

5 2 2

60 7

19

21

18

30 3 1 1 5 1

13 1 1

91

8

14

46

24

2

17

36

44 4 1 2

17

10

27

12

3

17 6 1 2 1

16 2 14

50

16 1 3

28

10 3

12

31

9

96

1,2

88

3,4

78

52

1

1,5

29

51

3 8

13

80

2

19

11

9

68

66

3,0

84

37

5

13

20

66 9

61

3 1

24

34

9

32

%

52

%

22

%

42

%

35

%

11

%

41

%

25

%

15

%

8%

37

%

18

%

31

%

27

%

1%

1%

8%

5%

8%

11

%

2%

100% 4%

27

%

10

3

50

28

0

1,4

51

18

2

16

7

21

0 2 2

66 7

21

21

18

30 3 1 1 5 1

13 1 1

93

44

.36

3

9.0

09

38

.06

6

18

2.9

04

12

.03

8

10

.31

7

11

.29

9

0.0

97

0.0

92

2.4

27

0.2

32

0.6

88

0.6

76

0.5

79

0.9

15

0.0

75

0.0

24

0.0

23

0.1

13

0.0

18

0.2

21

0.0

17

0.0

17

1.3

12

0.4

31

0.1

80

0.1

36

0.1

26

0.0

66

0.0

62

0.0

54

0.0

49

0.0

46

0.0

37

0.0

33

0.0

33

0.0

32

0.0

32

0.0

31

0.0

25

0.0

24

0.0

23

0.0

23

0.0

18

0.0

17

0.0

17

0.0

17

0.0

14

Bat

telle

Mem

oria

l In

stitu

te -

Co

lum

bu

s

Flu

or

Dan

iel N

ort

hw

est

Serv

ices

Los

Ala

mo

s N

atio

nal

Lab

ora

tory

Flu

or

Dan

iel -

Han

ford

Bec

hte

l BW

XT

Idah

o -

Serv

ices

Joh

nso

n C

on

tro

ls, In

c.

Wes

ting

ho

use

Sav

ann

ah R

iver

Co

.

SGN

Eu

risys

Ser

vice

s C

orp

.

Du

ke E

ng

inee

ring

Ser

vice

s H

anfo

rd

Bro

okh

aven

Nat

ion

al L

abo

rato

ry

Bec

hte

l BW

XT

Idah

o -

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Han

ford

Sec

urit

y

Flu

or

Dan

iel N

ort

hw

est

Bec

hte

l Co

nst

ruct

ion

- SR

Bec

hte

l Nev

ada

- NTS

Arg

on

ne

Nat

ion

al L

abo

rato

ry -

East

Oh

io F

ield

Off

ice

Envi

ron

men

tal R

esto

ratio

n C

on

tr. (

ERC

)

Rust

Ser

vice

s H

anfo

rd

Wac

ken

hu

t Se

rvic

es, In

c. -

SR

San

dia

Nat

ion

al L

abo

rato

ry

Wes

t V

alle

y N

ucl

ear

Serv

ices

, In

c.

Bat

telle

Mem

oria

l In

stitu

te (

PNL)

BW

X T

ech

no

log

ies,

Inc.


Exhi

bit

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

Mai

nten

ance

and

Sup

port

, 200

2 (C

onti

nued

)

The

colle

ctiv

e d

ose

fo

r M

ain

ten

ance

an

d S

up

po

rt in

crea

sed

by

26

% f

rom

20

01

to

20

02

. F

luo

r D

anie

l at

Han

ford

has

rep

ort

ed t

he

larg

est

colle

ctiv

e d

ose

fo

r th

is f

acili

tyty

pe

for

the

pas

t 6

yea

rs.

Bat

telle

Mem

orial

Inst

itute

(B

MI)

in C

olu

mb

us

has

th

e h

igh

est

aver

age

mea

sura

ble

do

se in

th

is c

ateg

or y

fo

r th

e p

ast

5 y

ears

an

d r

epo

rted

th

eh

igh

est

aver

age

mea

sura

ble

do

se f

or

any

org

aniz

atio

n in

20

02

. B

MI-C

olu

mb

us

is in

volv

ed in

dec

on

tam

inat

ion

an

d rem

edia

tion

of

faci

litie

s fo

r mer

ly d

edic

ated

to

nu

clea

r re

sear

ch a

nd

dev

elo

pm

ent

for

DO

E.

Note

: A

rrow

ed v

alues

ind

icat

e th

e g

reat

est va

lue

in e

ach

colu

mn

.

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

2.0

0-

3.0

03

.00

-4

.00

>4

.00

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

27

15

1

27

49

6

46

20

37 1

14

12

3

41

9 4

10

20

4 8

14 3

11

16 2 3 1

12

,301

1

45 2

39 5 2 1

2,0

51

204

82

48

25

00

0

28

197

29

535

51

22

38 1

14

123

419 4

10

204 8

14 3

11

16 2 3 1

15,1

26

4%

23%

7%

7%

10%

9%

3%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

19%

1

46 2

39 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2,8

25

0.0

13

0.5

39

0.0

23

0.4

31

0.0

36

0.0

14

0.0

04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

316.5

82

0.0

13

0.0

12

0.0

12

0.0

11

0.0

07

0.0

07

0.0

04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.1

12

OH

OH

SR AL

AL

RL RL NV

NV

NV

NV

NV

NV

NV

OH

OH

RL RL RL RL SR SR

BWX

Tech

nolo

gie

s, In

c.-S

ecur

ity F

orce

s

BWX

Tech

nolo

gie

s, In

c.-S

ubco

ntra

ctor

s

Wes

ting

ho

use

S.R

. Su

bco

ntr

acto

rs

Pro

tect

ion

Tec

hn

olo

gie

s Lo

s A

lam

os

Los

Ala

mo

s A

rea

Off

ice

Lock

hee

d M

artin

Info

Tec

h (

LMIT

)

Nu

mat

ec H

anfo

rd

B.N

. -N

TS S

ub

con

trac

tors

B.N

.-W

ash

ing

ton

Aer

ial M

eas.

Nev

ada

Mis

cella

neo

us

Co

ntr

acto

rs

Nev

ada

Op

erat

ion

s

Nye

Co

un

ty S

her

iff

Scie

nce

Ap

plic

atio

ns

Intl.

Co

rp.-

NV

Wac

ken

hu

t Se

rvic

es, In

c. -

NV

MEM

P O

ffic

e Su

bs

Mia

mis

bu

rg E

nv

Mg

mt

Pro

j Off

ice

CH

2M

Hill

Han

ford

Gro

up

Rich

lan

d F

ield

Off

ice

Rust

Fed

eral

Ser

vice

s N

ort

hw

est

Ver

izo

n/Q

wes

t

Sava

nn

ah R

iver

Fie

ld O

ffic

e

Un

iv. o

f G

eorg

ia E

colo

gy

Lab

ora

tory

Tota

ls

1

41

5


Exhi

bit

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

Reac

tor

Faci

litie

s, 2

002

The

colle

ctiv

e d

ose

fo

r Re

acto

r fa

cilit

ies

dec

reas

ed b

y 2

8%

fro

m 2

00

1 t

o 2

00

2.

Bec

hte

l BW

XT

Idah

o S

ervi

ces

con

tinu

es t

o r

epo

rtth

e m

ajo

rity

(7

2%

) o

f co

llect

ive

do

se f

or

this

fac

ility

typ

e in

20

02

an

d e

xper

ien

ced

a 1

7%

dec

r eas

e fr

om

20

01

to

20

02

.

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

)

Note

: A

rrow

ed v

alues

ind

icat

e th

e g

reat

est v

alue

in e

ach

colu

mn

.

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

Site

/Con

tract

or

Ops.

Off

ice

AL

ID ID SR CH

SR CH

SR SR AL

SR RL RL SR

51

21

8 4

53

91

53

8

11

2

23 3 1 1

14

1,1

09

8

163

19

15 8

133 1

35 1 1 1

38

5

6 50 2 2 2 62

2

17

19

1 2 3

1 10

0

67

45

0

25

70

10

1

67

3 1

14

7

24 4 1 1 1

14

1,5

79

24

%

52

%

84

%

24

%

10

%

20

%

10

0%

24

%

4%

25

%

10

0% 0%

0%

0%

30

%

16

23

2 21

17

10

13

5 1

35 1 1 1 0 0 0

47

0

2.0

66

21

.22

7

1.5

83

0.7

51

0.4

29

2.7

04

0.0

16

0.4

92

0.0

13

0.0

07

0.0

07

0.0

00

0.0

00

0.0

00

29

.29

5

0.1

29

0.0

91

0.0

75

0.0

44

0.0

43

0.0

20

0.0

16

0.0

14

0.0

13

0.0

07

0.0

07

0.0

00

0.0

00

0.0

00

0.0

62

San

dia

Nat

ion

al L

abo

rato

ry

Bec

hte

l BW

XT

Idah

o -

Serv

ices

Bec

hte

l BW

XT

Idah

o -

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Bec

hte

l Co

nst

ruct

ion

- SR

Bro

okh

aven

Nat

ion

al L

abo

rato

ry

Wes

ting

ho

use

Sav

ann

ah R

iver

Co

.

Arg

on

ne

Nat

ion

al L

abo

rato

ry -

Wes

t

Wac

ken

hu

t Se

rvic

es, In

c. -

SR

Sava

nn

ah R

iver

Fie

ld O

ffic

e

Los

Ala

mo

s N

atio

nal

Lab

ora

tory

Mis

cella

neo

us

DO

E C

on

trac

tors

- SR

Bat

telle

Mem

orial

Inst

itute

(PN

L)

Envi

ron

men

tal R

esto

ratio

n C

on

tr. (

ERC

)

Wes

ting

ho

use

S.R

. Su

bco

ntr

acto

rs

Tota

ls


Exhi

bit

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

Rese

arch

, Gen

eral

, 200

2

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

CH

OA

K

AL

CH

RL OR

SR AL

ID CH

OA

K

OA

K

OA

K

ID SR SR

1,6

71

8,3

20

1,2

41

43

3

52

7

5,6

41

64

5

39

8

78

7

57

8

89

65

9

1,0

45

36

30

61

37

11

2

27

2

20

3

12

5

27

3

23

8

16

12

0

58

72 3

29

11

11

26

10

20

57

48

12

55

39 3

13 3 5 1 1

4

10

30

23

11

22 4 3 2 3

1 5

15 3 2 4 1 1

5 1 2

6 7 5

1,7

29

8,4

79

1,6

21

71

0

67

9

5,9

95

92

6

41

7

92

3

64

2

17

0

66

2

1,0

75

47

42

87

3%

2%

23

%

39

%

22

%

6%

30

%

5%

15

%

10

%

48

%

0%

3%

23

%

29

%

30

%

58

15

9

38

0

27

7

15

2

35

4

28

1

19

13

6

64

81 3

30

11

12

26

12

.68

1

27

.88

0

43

.42

7

24

.93

2

12

.38

9

27

.04

6

12

.40

7

0.8

11

5.7

10

2.5

86

3.2

20

0.0

98

0.8

43

0.2

49

0.2

66

0.5

57

0.2

19

0.1

75

0.1

14

0.0

90

0.0

82

0.0

76

0.0

44

0.0

43

0.0

42

0.0

40

0.0

40

0.0

33

0.0

28

0.0

23

0.0

22

0.0

21

Arg

on

ne

Nat

ion

al L

abo

rato

ry -

East

Law

ren

ce L

iver

mo

re N

atio

nal

Lab

.

Los

Ala

mo

s N

atio

nal

Lab

ora

tory

Arg

on

ne

Nat

ion

al L

abo

rato

ry -

Wes

t

Bat

telle

Mem

orial

Inst

itute

(PN

L)

UT-

Bat

telle

: O

RNL

Wes

ting

ho

use

Sav

ann

ah R

iver

Co

.

San

dia

Nat

ion

al L

abo

rato

ry

Bec

hte

l BW

XT

Idah

o -

Serv

ices

Bro

okh

aven

Nat

ion

al L

abo

rato

ry

Bo

ein

g,

Rock

etd

yne

-ETE

C

LLN

L Su

bco

ntr

acto

rs

Law

ren

ce B

erke

ley

Nat

ion

al L

ab.

Bec

hte

l BW

XT

Idah

o -

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Wes

ting

ho

use

S.R

. Su

bco

ntr

acto

rs

Bec

hte

l Co

nst

ruct

ion

- SR

Note

: A

rrow

ed v

alues

ind

icat

e th

e g

reat

est va

lue

in e

ach

colu

mn

.

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

2.0

0-

3.0

03

.00

-4

.00

>4

.00


Exhi

bit

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

Rese

arch

, Gen

eral

, 200

2 (C

onti

nued

)

LAN

L w

as t

he

larg

est

con

trib

uto

r to

th

e co

llect

ive

do

se in

th

is c

ateg

ory

in 2

00

2.

Th

e co

llect

ive

do

se a

t LA

NL

for

Rese

arch

fac

ilitie

s in

crea

sed

by

17

%,

wh

ich

is c

on

sist

ent

with

th

e si

te’ s

ove

rall

incr

ease

in c

olle

ctiv

e d

ose

of

45

% f

r om

20

01

to

20

02

.

36

0 6

39

23

27

12

6 8

30 2

20 8

37

32

66 1

22,9

46

1 1

15 4 7 9

23

69

1,7

35

26

71

12

32

81

80

00

36

1 7

54

27

34

13

5

31

99 2

20 8

37

32

66 1

25,1

18

0%

14

%

28

%

15

%

21

%

7%

74

%

70

%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

9%

1 1

15 4 7 9

23

69 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2,1

72

0.0

19

0.0

14

0.1

68

0.0

44

0.0

62

0.0

76

0.1

41

0.2

74 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

17

5.9

00

0.0

19

0.0

14

0.0

11

0.0

11

0.0

09

0.0

08

0.0

06

0.0

04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0

81

OA

K

AL

SR SR SR CH

CH

OR

AL

AL

AL

CH

CH

OR

SR

Law

ren

ce L

iver

mor

e N

at’l

Lab.

-NV

Joh

nso

n C

ontr

ols,

Inc.

Sava

nn

ah R

iver

Fie

ld O

ffic

e

Un

iv. o

f G

eorg

ia E

colo

gy

Labo

rato

ry

Wac

ken

hu

t Se

rvic

es, I

nc.

- SR

Am

es L

abor

ator

y (Io

wa

Stat

e)

Ch

icag

o O

ffic

e Su

bs

Oak

Rid

ge

Inst.

For

Sci

. & E

duc.

(ORI

SE)

Los

Ala

mos

Are

a O

ffic

e

Nat

. Ren

ewab

le E

nerg

y La

b (N

REL)

- GO

Prot

ectio

n T

ech

nol

ogie

s Lo

s A

lam

os

Ch

icag

o O

per

atio

ns

Off

ice

New

Bru

nsw

ick

Labo

rato

ry -

Rese

arch

Wac

ken

hu

t Se

rvic

es

Mis

cella

neo

us

Doe

Con

trac

tors

- SR

Tota

l

Note

: A

rrow

ed v

alues

ind

icat

e th

e g

reat

est va

lue

in e

ach

colu

mn

.

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

2.0

0-

3.0

03

.00

-4

.00

>4

.00

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


Exhi

bit

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

, Fus

ion,

200

2

With

on

ly f

ou

r o

rgan

izat

ion

s re

po

rtin

g in

th

is c

ateg

ory

, Pr

ince

ton

Pla

sma

Phys

ics

Lab

acc

ou

nts

fo

r 8

6%

of

the

colle

ctiv

e d

ose

and

83

% o

f th

e m

on

itore

d in

div

idu

als.

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 va

lue

in e

ach

colu

mn

.

AL

CH

CH

AL

36

28

1 8

36

36

1

43

42

6 9

36

51

4

16

%

34

%

11

%

0%

30

%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

7

14

5 1 0

15

3

6

13

0 1

13

7

Los

Ala

mos

Nat

iona

l Lab

orat

ory

Prin

ceto

n Pl

asm

a Ph

ysic

s La

bora

tory

Chi

cag

o O

pera

tions

Offi

ce

Sand

ia N

atio

nal L

abor

ator

y

Tota

ls

0.0

84

0.0

26

0.0

02 0

0.0

28

15

15

1 10

0

0.5

90

3.7

07

0.0

02 0

4.2

99

0


Exhi

bit

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

Was

te P

roce

ssin

g, 2

002

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

AL

ID AL

CH

RL SR CH

RL SR ID AL

SR

74

20

8

43

85

6

1,3

13

92 2

16

9

14

7

49

0 5

11

83 1

33

28

9

70

6

29 1

21

1

31

89 1

2

33

12

52

94 3

25 2

1

11 1

17

54 5

1

89

33

5 1

89

1,2

14

2,1

68

12

4 3

41

0

18

0

57

9 6

17

%

38

%

10

0%

52

%

29

%

39

%

26

%

33

%

59

%

18

%

15

%

17

%

1.7

81

12

.16

0

0.0

81

3.2

60

23

.87

4

51

.84

5

1.5

60

0.0

48

11

.29

2

0.8

92

2.2

98

0.0

22

0.1

19

0.0

96

0.0

81

0.0

71

0.0

67

0.0

61

0.0

49

0.0

48

0.0

47

0.0

27

0.0

26

0.0

22

Los

Ala

mo

s N

atio

nal

Lab

ora

tory

Bec

hte

l BW

XT

Idah

o -

Serv

ices

Joh

nso

n C

on

tro

ls,

Inc.

Arg

on

ne

Nat

ion

al L

abo

rato

ry -

East

CH

2M

Hill

Han

ford

Gro

up

Wes

ting

ho

use

Sav

ann

ah R

iver

Co

.

Bro

okh

aven

Nat

ion

al L

abo

rato

ry

Flu

or

Dan

iel -

Han

ford

Bec

hte

l Co

nst

ruct

ion

- SR

BN

FL -

Idah

o

Car

lsb

ad A

rea

Mis

c. C

on

trac

tors

Wac

ken

hu

t Se

rvic

es,

Inc.

- SR

11

5

12

7 1

46

35

8

85

5 32 1

24

1

33

89 1

Note

: A

rrow

ed v

alues

ind

icat

e th

e g

reat

est v

alue

in e

ach

colu

mn

.

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


Exhi

bit

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

Was

te P

roce

ssin

g, 2

002

(Con

tinu

ed)

Wes

ting

ho

use

Sav

ann

ah R

iver

Co

. (W

SRC

) w

as t

he

larg

est

con

trib

uto

r (4

7%

) o

f th

e co

llect

ive

do

se in

Was

te P

roce

ssin

g f

or

20

02

. T

he

colle

ctiv

ed

ose

fo

r W

SRC

incr

ease

d b

y 2

0%

fro

m 2

00

1 t

o 2

00

2.

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

AL

ID SR RL SR AL

AL

RL RL RL SR

0

13

4

86

98 4

47 1

24 1 1 1 6

3,8

02

22

38

91

10

14

1

10

3

14

4 5

52 1

24 1 1 1 6

5,6

77

5%

17

%

32

%

20

%

10

%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

33

%

7

17

46 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0

1,8

75

0.1

37

0.3

30

0.6

70

0.0

14

0.0

56 0 0 0 0 0 0

11

0.3

20

0.0

20

0.0

19

0.0

15

0.0

14

0.0

11 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0

59

San

dia

Nat

ion

al L

abo

rato

ry

Bec

hte

l BW

XT

Idah

o -

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Wes

ting

ho

use

S.R

. Su

bco

ntr

acto

rs

Envi

ron

men

tal R

esto

ratio

n C

on

tr. (

ERC

)

Sava

nn

ah R

iver

Fie

ld O

ffic

e

Los

Ala

mo

s A

rea

Off

ice

Was

te Is

ola

tion

Pilo

t Pr

oje

ct (

WIP

P)

Bec

hte

l Nat

ion

al In

c - W

TP

Bat

telle

Mem

orial

Inst

itute

(PN

L)

SGN

Eu

risy

s Se

rvic

es C

orp

.

Mis

cella

neo

us

DO

E C

on

trac

tors

- SR

Tota

ls

7

17

46 1 5

1,5

61

Note

: A

rrow

ed v

alues

ind

icat

e th

e g

reat

est v

alue

in e

ach

colu

mn

.

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


Exhi

bit

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

Wea

pons

Fab

rica

tion

, 200

2

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

SR AL

RFO

SR RFO

SR OR

AL

RFO

AL

AL

OH

AL

OH

OH

AL

AL

AL

OH

OH

SR SR Note

: A

rrow

ed v

alues

ind

icat

e th

e g

reat

est va

lue

in e

ach

colu

mn

.

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>

32

.0-

3.0

23

84

,90

69

91

55

1,6

59

30

3,4

31

59

62

97

77

12

36

6 75

9 54

7 1 1 2 22

1 81

2,6

22

11

21

56

89

62

15

47

54

1,3

08

21

35 3 2

42 1

16 2

3,2

16

47

62

31

97

78

61

21

42 2

74

7

49

47

18

6

19 1

24

32

6

22

24

56 9 1

11

2

14

10 1

25

3

11

14

48

55

,19

52

,46

91

53

2,3

21

97

4,9

06

61

93

32

80

12

51

08 8

75 7

47 1 1 2 2

21 8

17

,06

2

51

%6

%6

0%

64

%2

9%

69

%3

0%

4%

11

%4

%2

%3

9%

13

%2

1%

29

%0

%0

%0

%0

%0

%0

%0

%2

6%

24

72

89

1,4

78 98

66

26

71

,47

52

33

5 3 24

2 11

6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 04

,44

0

57

.89

64

7.2

28

20

6.3

10

13

.18

54

2.7

86

3.9

00

62

.79

50

.62

90

.87

20

.06

70

.03

40

.72

80

.01

00

.15

40

.00

3 0 0 0 0 0 0 04

36

.59

7

0.2

34

0.1

63

0.1

40

0.1

35

0.0

65

0.0

58

0.0

43

0.0

27

0.0

25

0.0

22

0.0

17

0.0

17

0.0

10

0.0

10

0.0

02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0

98

Wes

ting

ho

use

Sav

ann

ah R

iver

Co

.B

WXT

- Am

arill

oRo

cky

Flat

s Pr

ime

Co

ntr

acto

rsW

acke

nh

ut

Serv

ices

, In

c. -

SRRo

cky

Flat

s Su

bco

ntr

acto

rsB

ech

tel C

on

stru

ctio

n -

SRB

WXT,

Y-1

2Sa

nd

ia N

atio

nal

Lab

ora

tory

Rock

y Fl

ats

Off

ice

Am

arill

o A

rea

Off

ice

Alb

uq

uer

qu

e O

per

atio

ns

Off

ice

BW

X T

ech

no

log

ies,

Inc.

Los

Ala

mo

s N

atio

nal

Lab

ora

tory

BW

X T

ech

no

log

ies,

Inc.

-Su

bco

nt.

Mia

mis

bu

rg E

nv.

Mg

mt.

Pro

j. O

ffic

eB

WXT

- Am

arill

o -

Sub

con

trac

tors

BW

XT

- Am

arill

o-S

ecu

rity

Fo

rces

Kirt

lan

d A

rea

Off

ice

MEM

P O

ffic

e Su

bs

Oh

io F

ield

Off

ice

Sava

nn

ah R

iver

Fie

ld O

ffic

eW

estin

gh

ou

se S

.R.

Sub

con

trac

tors

Tota

ls0

0

Rock

y Fl

ats

and

Wes

ting

ho

use

Sav

ann

ah R

iver

Co

. ac

cou

nt

for

the

maj

ority

(6

1%

) o

f th

e co

llect

ive

do

se f

or

this

fac

ility

typ

e in

20

02

. It

sh

ou

ld b

en

ote

d t

hat

th

ese

site

s ar

e n

o lo

ng

er a

ctiv

e in

Wea

po

ns

Fab

rica

tion

an

d T

estin

g a

nd

are

no

w in

volv

ed in

nu

clea

r m

ater

ials

sta

bili

zatio

n a

nd

was

tem

anag

emen

t.

The

colle

ctiv

e d

ose

incr

ease

d b

y 6

% in

th

is c

ateg

ory

fro

m 2

00

1 t

o 2

00

2 d

ue

to in

crea

ses

at R

ock

y Fl

ats,

Am

arill

o,

and

Y-1

2.


Exhi

bit

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

Oth

er, 2

002

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

64 3 2 3

16

5 7

48

1

42 7 5

11

4

10 7 1 6

RL ID ID RL CH

OH

RL AL

RL CH

AL

RL RL SR SR ID

Note

: A

rrow

ed v

alues

ind

icat

e th

e g

reat

est v

alue

in e

ach

colu

mn

.

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

89 9

39

15

53

8

15

0

4,2

66

1,0

24

74

51

92

2

65

25

12

26

56 8 1 1

27 1

58 9 3 2

24 2 1

23 1

34 3

27 8 1 1

9 1 1

11

11

1 78

24

1

21 1

43

19

77

6

16

1

4,8

59

1,0

83

85

58

1,0

61

77

33

13

32

63

%

57

%

10

0% 9%

21

%

31

%

7%

12

%

5%

13

%

12

%

13

%

16

%

24

%

8%

19

%

15

2

12 1 4 4

23

8

11

59

3 59

11 7

13

9

12 8 1 6

25

.53

4

1.9

91

0.1

56

0.5

86

0.5

67

30

.51

3

1.1

87

54

.29

7

5.2

84

0.8

07

0.3

85

7.6

57

0.6

46

0.3

84

0.0

32

0.1

87

0.1

68

0.1

66

0.1

56

0.1

47

0.1

42

0.1

28

0.1

08

0.0

92

0.0

90

0.0

73

0.0

55

0.0

55

0.0

54

0.0

48

0.0

32

0.0

31

Flu

or

Dan

iel N

ort

hw

est

Serv

ices

Sto

ller

Svc

Sub

s - G

ran

d J

un

ctio

n

Bec

hte

l BW

XT

Idah

o -

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Rust

Ser

vice

s H

anfo

rd

Envi

ron

men

tal M

eas.

Lab

. - R

esea

rch

Wes

t V

alle

y N

ucl

ear

Serv

ices

, In

c.

CH

2M

Hill

Han

ford

Gro

up

Los

Ala

mo

s N

atio

nal

Lab

ora

tory

Bat

telle

Mem

orial

Inst

itute

(PN

L)

Bro

okh

aven

Nat

ion

al L

abo

rato

ry

Joh

nso

n C

on

tro

ls,

Inc.

Envi

ron

men

tal R

esto

ratio

n C

ontr.

(ERC

)

SGN

Eu

risy

s Se

rvic

es C

orp

.

Bec

hte

l Co

nst

ruct

ion

- SR

Wac

ken

hu

t Se

rvic

es,

Inc.

- SR

Idah

o F

ield

Off

ice

1


Exhi

bit

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

Oth

er, 2

002

(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

Note

: A

rrow

ed v

alues

ind

icat

e th

e g

reat

est v

alue

in e

ach

colu

mn

.

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

RL RL SR SR RL RL RL AL

AL

ID OH

RL RL SR AL

RL

15

6

34 7

26

3

82

5

54

78

5

65

5

61

95

6

28

2

35 3 2

48

18

30

17 2

26

39 5

66

23 7

20

46 1 1 1

24 1

3 1 1

18

9

51 9

29

0

86

4

59

85

2

67

8

68

97

6

32

8

36 4 3

72

19

17

%

33

%

22

%

9%

5%

8%

8%

3%

10

%

2%

14

%

3%

25

%

33

%

33

%

5%

33

17 2

27

39 5

67

23 7

20

46 1 1 1

24 1

0.9

80

0.3

72

0.0

42

0.5

54

0.7

79

0.1

01

1.2

66

0.4

09

0.1

16

0.2

52

0.5

60

0.0

12

0.0

11

0.0

07

0.1

27

0.0

04

0.0

30

0.0

22

0.0

21

0.0

21

0.0

20

0.0

20

0.0

19

0.0

18

0.0

17

0.0

13

0.0

12

0.0

12

0.0

11

0.0

07

0.0

05

0.0

04

Flu

or

Dan

iel N

ort

hw

est

Han

ford

Sec

urity

Sava

nn

ah R

iver

Fie

ld O

ffic

e

Wes

ting

ho

use

Sav

ann

ah R

iver

Co

.

Rich

lan

d F

ield

Off

ice

Rust

Fed

eral

Ser

vice

s N

ort

hw

est

Flu

or

Dan

iel -

Han

ford

San

dia

Nat

ion

al L

abo

rato

ry

Pro

tect

ion

Tec

hn

olo

gie

s Lo

s A

lam

os

Bec

hte

l BW

XT

Idah

o -

Serv

ices

RMI E

nvi

ron

men

tal S

ervi

ces

Han

ford

En

viro

n.

Hea

lth F

ou

nd

atio

n

Du

ke E

ng

inee

rin

g S

ervi

ces

Han

ford

Mis

cella

neo

us

DO

E C

on

trac

tors

- SR

Ho

ney

wel

l, Fe

der

al M

fg.

& T

ech

no

l.

NU

MA

TEC

Han

ford


Exhi

bit

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

Oth

er, 2

002

(Con

tinu

ed)

The

colle

ctiv

e d

ose

to

“O

ther

” fa

cilit

ies

incr

ease

d b

y 4

8%

fro

m 2

00

1 t

o 2

00

2 p

rim

arily

du

e to

a 9

9%

incr

ease

at

LAN

L. In

crea

sed

do

se a

t LA

NL

was

attr

ibu

ted

to

incr

ease

d w

ork

on

pit

man

ufa

ctu

rin

g,

Pu-2

38

fu

el a

nd

hea

t so

ur c

e w

ork

, n

ucl

ear

mat

eria

l pro

cess

ing

, n

ucl

ear

mat

eria

ls s

cien

ce,

pit

dis

asse

mb

ly,

and

ass

oci

ated

su

pp

ort

.

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

Note

: A

rrow

ed v

alues

ind

icat

e th

e g

reat

est v

alue

in e

ach

colu

mn

.

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

E0

.25

-0

.50

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

AL

RL AL

AL

HQ

HQ

NV

OA

K

OA

K

OA

K

OH

RL RL SR SR

6

18

53

13

16 8

50 1

14 6 9 1

19 1 7

11,7

11

1,2

30

19

89

83

38

81

9

19

53

13

16 8

50 1

14 6 9 1

19 1 7

13

,28

7

33

%

5%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

12

%

3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1,5

76

0.0

10

0.0

03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13

5.8

18

0.0

03

0.0

03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0

86

Avg

.M

eas.

TED

E(r

em)

Kan

sas

City

Are

a O

ffic

e

Lock

hee

d M

artin

Info

Tec

h (

LMIT

)

BW

XT

- Am

arill

o

Los

Ala

mo

s A

rea

Off

ice

DO

E H

ead

qu

arte

rs

Russ

ian

Fed

erat

ion

Pro

ject

- D

OE

HQ

Bec

hte

l Nev

ada

- NTS

LLN

L Su

bco

ntr

acto

rs

Law

ren

ce L

iver

mo

re N

atio

nal

Lab

.

U.o

f Cal

./D

avis,

Radi

obio

logy

Lab

-LEH

R

BW

X T

ech

no

log

ies,

Inc.

Bec

hte

l Nat

ion

al In

c - W

TP

Ver

izo

n/Q

wes

t

Sou

ther

n B

ell T

el.

& T

el.

Wes

ting

ho

use

S.R

. Su

bco

ntr

acto

rs

Tota

ls

3 1


Exhibit B-17: Internal Dose by Facility Type and Nuclide, 2000-2002

Accelerator Americium 1 1 0.015 0.002 0.015 0.002Hydrogen-3 3 5 3 0.092 0.074 0.057 0.031 0.015 0.019Uranium 2 2 3 0.009 0.014 0.031 0.005 0.007 0.010Total 6 7 7 0.116 0.088 0.090 0.019 0.013 0.013

Fuel Fabrication Thorium 46 10 16 3.376 0.046 0.110 0.073 0.005 0.007Uranium 14 10 8 0.074 0.047 0.052 0.005 0.005 0.007Total 60 20 24 3.45 0.093 0.162 0.058 0.005 0.007

Fuel Processing Americium 4 1.543 0.386Hydrogen-3 93 79 77 0.194 0.238 0.208 0.002 0.003 0.003Plutonium 1 3 5 0.011 0.286 0.082 0.001 0.095 0.016Total 94 86 82 0.205 2.067 0.290 0.002 0.024 0.004

Fuel/Uranium Enrichment Americium 3 0.027 0.009Mixed and Other 1 3 3 0.017 0.103 0.041 0.017 0.034 0.014Thorium 7 1 3 0.159 0.002 0.017 0.023 0.002 0.006Plutonium 1 0.009 0.009Uranium 308 397 222 0.929 1.712 1.677 0.003 0.004 0.008Total 316 401 232 1.105 1.817 1.771 0.003 0.005 0.008

Maintenance and Support Americium 6 8 23 0.104 0.069 0.117 0.017 0.009 0.005Hydrogen-3 55 58 88 0.142 0.135 0.313 0.003 0.002 0.004Mixed and Other 13 29 0.082 0.224 0.006 0.008Plutonium 25 55 108 87.224 0.674 0.961 3.489 0.012 0.009Radon-222 3 0.173 0.058Thorium 9 2 23 0.303 0.058 0.485 0.034 0.029 0.021Uranium 43 14 28 0.103 0.102 0.176 0.002 0.007 0.006Total 151 137 302 87.958 1.038 2.449 0.583 0.008 0.008

Other Americium 5 2 15 0.262 0.032 0.715 0.052 0.016 0.048Hydrogen-3 31 27 21 0.119 0.111 0.147 0.004 0.004 0.007Mixed and Other 2 2 0.191 0.002 0.096 0.001Plutonium 10 8 39 1.229 0.772 0.760 0.123 0.097 0.019Radon-222 2 2 12 0.020 0.076 1.942 0.010 0.038 0.162Uranium 42 42 30 0.409 0.413 0.225 0.010 0.010 0.008Total 92 83 117 2.230 1.406 3.789 0.024 0.017 0.032

Reactor Hydrogen-3 136 43 17 0.761 0.101 0.025 0.006 0.002 0.001Plutonium 1 0.022 0.022Total 136 43 18 0.761 0.101 0.047 0.006 0.002 0.003

Research, Fusion Hydrogen-3 3 14 10 0.008 0.051 0.061 0.003 0.004 0.006Total 3 14 10 0.008 0.051 0.061 0.003 0.004 0.006

Research, General Americium 6 1 3 0.129 0.002 0.098 0.022 0.002 0.033Hydrogen-3 37 60 24 0.602 0.383 0.329 0.016 0.006 0.014Mixed & Other 13 10 4 0.046 0.043 0.017 0.004 0.004 0.004Plutonium 8 10 10 21.108 2.399 1.614 2.639 0.240 0.161Radon-222 2 0.098 0.049Uranium 22 25 26 0.096 0.172 0.711 0.004 0.007 0.027Total 88 106 67 22.079 2.999 2.769 0.251 0.028 0.041

Waste Processing Americium 16 12 13 0.479 0.130 0.257 0.030 0.011 0.020Hydrogen-3 9 9 0.016 0.026 0.002 0.003Mixed and Other 1 0.003 0.003Plutonium 3 12 9 0.050 0.615 0.299 0.017 0.051 0.033Thorium 1 0.005 0.005Uranium 1 0.016 0.016Total 28 35 23 0.545 0.779 0.572 0.019 0.022 0.025

Weapons Fab. and Testing Americium 1 7 0.001 0.010 0.001 0.001Hydrogen-3 27 20 30 0.105 0.070 0.211 0.004 0.004 0.007Mixed and Other 1 3 3 0.014 0.221 0.050 0.014 0.074 0.017Plutonium 76 49 125 3.398 3.512 3.121 0.045 0.072 0.025Thorium 9 25 0.093 0.224 0.010 0.009Uranium 1,199 1,348 1,346 58.606 44.618 53.074 0.049 0.033 0.039Total 1,303 1,430 1,536 62.123 48.515 56.690 0.048 0.034 0.037Totals 2,277 2,362 2,418 180.580 58.954 68.690 0.079 0.025 0.028

* 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.


Facility Type

No. of Individualswith New Intakes**

Collective CEDE(person-rem) Average CEDE (rem)

Nuclide*2000 2001 2002 2000 2001 2002 2000 2001 2002

Uranium intakes at Weapons Fabrication and Testing facilities account for the 17% increase in the collective CEDE from2001 to 2002. The Oak Ridge Y-12 facility accounts for the increase due to intakes resulting from activities at the EnrichedUranium Operations facility.


Exhi

bit

B-18

a: D

istr

ibut

ion

of T

EDE

by L

abor

Cat

egor

y -

2000

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

cella

neo

us

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

.

56

3,7

29

72

0

10

,39

2

4,8

23

2,7

47

22

,88

0

3,6

29

5,5

51

1,0

91

31

,28

0

86

,89

8

2%

27

%

28

%

14

%

24

%

45

%

12

%

15

%

33

%

9%

7%

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

1

1,2

03

22

8

1,4

52

1,2

07

1,5

20

2,7

54

58

8

1,8

48

10

3

2,1

16

13

,02

0

11

7

40

13

4

20

7

35

4

17

6

60

57

4 8

20

3

1,8

73

34

12

35

83

21

2

50 8

21

3 1

79

72

7

13 5

34

61

15 2

61

20

21

1

5 1 1

20

38 3

20 3

91

3 1

12

29 3 7 3

58

0

57

5,1

04

1,0

01

12

,02

0

6,3

86

4,9

61

25

,88

1

4,2

87

8,2

74

1,2

03

33

,70

7

10

2,8

81

1

1,3

75

28

1

1,6

28

1,5

63

2,2

14

3,0

01

65

8

2,7

23

11

2

2,4

27

15

,98

3

0.0

35

73

.83

7

17

.82

5

74

.67

2

14

7.3

78

28

4.6

47

11

4.5

03

27

.10

1

29

0.4

74

4.62

2

231.

440

1,2

66

.53

4

0.03

5

0.05

4

0.0

63

0.04

6

0.09

4

0.1

29

0.03

8

0.04

1

0.1

07

0.04

1

0.09

5

0.0

79

00

>5 3 3


Exhi

bit

B-18

b: D

istr

ibut

ion

of T

EDE

by L

abor

Cat

egor

y -

2001

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

cella

neo

us

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

.

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

44

3,8

23

73

1

7,9

56

4,9

32

2,6

66

23

,85

0

3,5

56

7,2

14

90

4

25

,45

5

81

,13

1

0%

32

%

37

%

15

%

25

%

46

%

11

%

17

%

28

%

17

%

8%

17

%

1,5

69

30

4

1,2

00

1,3

40

1,6

01

2,7

35

65

8

1,9

94

16

5

1,9

93

13

,55

9

16

4

68

13

5

19

9

34

5

16

9

33

55

8 7

21

3

1,8

91

76

55

22

88

20

8

47

15

21

8 9

10

2

84

0

12 7

10

28

86

11 3

59 2

41

25

9

3

11

38 8 1

21 7

89

1 1 1

18 8

15 4

48

1 1

44

5,6

48

1,1

65

9,3

24

6,5

99

4,9

62

26

,82

8

4,2

66

10

,07

9

1,0

87

27

,81

6

97

,81

8

0

1,8

25

43

4

1,3

68

1,6

67

2,2

96

2,9

78

71

0

2,8

65

18

3

2,3

61

16

,68

7

0

98

.67

6

44

.59

3

64

.66

6

12

5.9

18

28

3.6

79

12

5.2

79

29

.18

1

30

1.4

60

9.3

37

14

9.6

01

1,2

32

.39

0

0

0.0

54

0.1

03

0.0

47

0.0

76

0.1

24

0.0

42

0.0

41

0.1

05

0.0

51

0.0

63

0.0

74

00

0


Exhi

bit

B-18

c: D

istr

ibut

ion

of T

EDE

by L

abor

Cat

egor

y -

2002

Sim

ilar

to p

rio

r ye

ars,

Pro

du

ctio

n a

nd

Tec

hn

icia

n p

erso

nn

el r

ecei

ved

th

e h

igh

est

colle

ctiv

e d

ose

of

any

lab

or

cate

go

ry a

nd

acc

ou

nte

d f

or

46

% o

f th

e co

llect

ive

do

se a

t D

OE

for

20

02

.

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

cella

neo

us

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

.

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

95

19

61

%1

0.0

12

0.0

12

4,2

78

1,6

16

24

76

81

16

16

,22

73

1%

1,9

49

11

8.8

05

0.0

61

1,0

70

46

29

83

69

1,6

75

36

%6

05

45

.83

50

.07

6

8,0

83

1,1

99

13

24

98

49

,47

51

5%

1,3

92

75

.60

80

.05

4

4,4

78

1,1

55

20

11

23

42

33

6,0

05

25

%1

,52

71

42

.22

20

.09

3

2,7

44

1,6

81

37

82

11

90

37

22

5,1

63

47

%2

,41

93

06

.09

40

.12

7

23

,49

32

,65

61

50

70

19

85

26

,40

11

1%

2,9

08

13

0.5

64

0.0

45

3,9

45

49

91

14

17

14

,57

61

4%

63

13

3.3

86

0.0

53

7,5

54

2,0

25

62

22

19

48

24

18

10

,51

02

8%

2,9

56

31

3.3

35

0.1

06

1,0

38

21

42

38

1,2

83

19

%2

45

10

.55

80

.04

3

26

,39

21

,99

22

37

11

84

11

31

61

28

,81

08

%2

,41

81

83

.15

80

.07

6

83

,17

01

3,5

00

2,2

02

91

92

69

95

65

10

00

10

0,2

21

17

%1

7,0

51

1,3

59

.57

70

.08

0


Exhi

bit

B-19

: In

tern

al D

ose

by L

abor

Cat

egor

y, 2

000-

2002

For

the

seco

nd

yea

r, Pr

od

uct

ion

per

son

nel

rec

eive

d t

he

larg

est

per

cen

tag

e o

f th

e co

llect

ive

CED

E (3

4%

). T

he

hig

h c

olle

ctiv

e C

EDE

for

the

Un

kno

wn

cate

go

ry t

hat

occ

urr

ed in

20

00

was

du

e to

th

ree

inte

rnal

do

ses

abo

ve 5

rem

(5

0 m

Sv)

at L

AN

L.

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.

20

00

20

01

20

02

No

te:

Arr

ow

ed v

alu

es in

dic

ate

the

gre

ates

t va

lue

in e

ach

co

lum

n.

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

00

20

01

20

02

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Lab

ore

rs

Man

agem

ent

Mis

cella

neo

us

Pro

du

ctio

n

Scie

ntis

ts

Serv

ice

Tech

nic

ian

s

Tran

spo

rt

Un

kno

wn

Tota

ls

45

3

37

18

2

88

54

1

25

4

56

26

9 2

39

5

2,2

77

8.2

69

2.0

05

7.5

65

2.0

77

23

.88

3

7.5

43

1.8

28

11

.72

7

0.0

08

11

5.6

75

18

0.5

80

0.0

18

0.0

54

0.0

42

0.0

24

0.0

44

0.0

30

0.0

33

0.0

44

0.0

04

0.2

93

0.0

79

50

2

36

21

6

61

55

1

26

3

27

29

5 3

40

8

2,3

62

7.9

05

2.7

51

7.2

42

1.1

04

17

.21

9

5.3

10

0.6

43

8.7

81

0.0

24

7.9

75

58

.95

4

0.0

16

0.0

76

0.0

34

0.0

18

0.0

31

0.0

20

0.0

24

0.0

30

0.0

08

0.0

20

0.0

25

8.0

59

3.8

85

7.2

70

2.8

12

23

.32

7

5.2

59

0.5

45

8.0

53

0.0

26

9.4

54

68

.69

0

0.0

20

0.0

63

0.0

34

0.0

35

0.0

41

0.0

22

0.0

17

0.0

27

0.0

03

0.0

18

0.0

28

39

6

62

21

6

80

56

4

23

9

33

29

3 8

52

7

2,4

18


Exhi

bit

B-20

: D

ose

Dis

trib

utio

n by

Lab

or C

ateg

ory

and

Occ

upat

ion

- 20

02

Plan

t O

per

ato

rs r

ecei

ved

th

e h

igh

est

per

cen

tag

e o

f th

e co

llect

ive

do

se a

nd

ave

rag

e m

easu

rab

le d

ose

in 2

00

2,

wh

ich

was

als

o t

r ue

in 2

00

1.

Th

e la

r ge

nu

mb

er o

f m

on

itor e

d in

div

idu

als

rep

ort

ed a

s “U

nkn

ow

n”

are

rep

ort

ed b

y LA

NL

bec

ause

th

ey d

o n

ot

hav

e th

e ca

pab

ility

at

this

tim

e to

rep

ort

occ

up

atio

nco

des

fo

r ea

ch w

ork

er.

Ag

ricu

lture

Gro

un

dsk

eep

ers

95

1

9

6

1%

1

0.0

12

0

.01

2C

on

stru

ctio

nC

arp

ente

rs 2

77

1

15

1

2

4

40

8

32

% 1

31

6

.98

0

0.0

53

Elec

tric

ian

s 1

,00

9

44

5

58

9

3

2

1

,52

6

34

% 5

17

2

7.7

99

0

.05

4M

aso

ns

23

1

1

1

35

3

4%

12

0

.46

6

0.0

39

Mec

han

ics/

Rep

aire

rs 7

14

2

79

3

8

8

2

2

1

1,0

44

3

2%

33

0

20

.57

4

0.0

62

Min

ers/

Drille

rs 5

3

6

59

1

0%

6

0.0

79

0

.01

3M

isc.

Rep

air/

Co

nst

ruct

ion

1,6

25

4

75

6

5

18

2

2

2

,18

7

26

% 5

62

3

0.9

79

0

.05

5Pa

inte

rs 1

33

5

0

8

3

19

4

31

% 6

1

3.3

64

0

.05

5Pi

pe

Fitt

ers

44

4

23

5

66

2

5

4

77

4

43

% 3

30

2

8.5

64

0

.08

7La

bo

rers

Han

dle

rs/L

abo

rers

/Hel

per

s 1

,07

0

46

2

98

3

6

9

1,6

75

3

6%

60

5

45

.83

5

0.0

76

Man

agem

ent

Ad

min

. Su

pp

ort

an

d C

lerica

l 3

,12

5

41

0

53

2

5

3,6

13

1

4%

48

8

27

.40

8

0.0

56

Man

ager

- A

dm

inis

trat

or

4,9

44

7

89

7

9

24

8

4

5

,84

8

15

% 9

04

4

8.2

00

0

.05

3Sa

les

14

1

4

0%

Mis

cella

neo

us

Mili

tary

1

1

0%

Mis

cella

neo

us

4,4

77

1

,15

5

20

1

12

3

42

3

3

6

,00

4

25

% 1

,52

7

14

2.2

22

0

.09

3Pr

od

uct

ion

Mac

hin

e Se

tup

/Op

erat

ors

12

2

20

3

40

4

3

69

6

7%

24

7

14

.51

7

0.0

59

Mac

hin

ists

29

2

39

4

1

1

2

3

39

1

4%

47

5

.91

4

0.1

26

Mis

c. P

reci

sio

n/P

rod

uct

ion

76

0

27

2

82

4

3

11

5

8

1

,18

1

36

% 4

21

5

6.4

56

0

.13

4O

per

ato

rs,

Plan

t/Sy

stem

/Util

i 1

,36

1

1,0

71

2

44

1

61

7

8

31

1

2

2,9

58

5

4%

1,5

97

2

24

.03

3

0.1

40

Shee

t M

etal

Wo

rker

s 1

27

6

6

4

3

20

0

37

% 7

3

3.8

36

0

.05

3W

eld

ers

and

So

lder

ers

82

3

0

4

11

6

29

% 3

4

1.3

38

0

.03

9Sc

ien

tists

Do

cto

rs a

nd

Nu

rses

11

6

14

1

30

1

1%

14

0

.26

1

0.0

19

Eng

inee

r 8

,53

9

1,1

72

5

4

23

3

1

9

,79

2

13

% 1

,25

3

42

.97

3

0.0

34

Hea

lth P

hys

icis

t 4

87

1

27

1

1

6

3

1

63

5

23

% 1

48

9

.65

3

0.0

65

Mis

c. P

rofe

ssio

nal

5,3

33

8

04

4

5

29

9

4

6

,22

4

14

% 8

91

4

3.0

80

0

.04

8Sc

ien

tist

9,0

18

5

39

4

0

12

4

2

5

9

,62

0

6%

60

2

34

.59

7

0.0

57

Serv

ice

Fire

figh

ters

46

9

63

1

5

33

1

2%

64

1

.24

5

0.0

19

Foo

d S

ervi

ce E

mp

loye

es 2

8

2

1

1

32

1

3%

4

0.4

85

0

.12

1Ja

nito

rs 6

69

4

8

11

8

1

7

37

9

% 6

8

6.5

09

0

.09

6M

isc.

Ser

vice

56

2

99

1

7

4

68

2

18

% 1

20

5

.87

1

0.0

49

Secu

rity

Gu

ard

s 2

,21

7

28

7

85

3

2

,59

2

14

% 3

75

1

9.2

76

0

.05

1Te

chn

icia

ns

Eng

inee

rin

g T

ech

nic

ian

s 2

,26

9

19

1

43

1

0

5

1

3

2,5

22

1

0%

25

3

23

.64

9

0.0

93

Hea

lth T

ech

nic

ian

s 9

4

48

7

3

2

2

1

1

57

4

0%

63

7

.69

6

0.1

22

Mis

c. T

ech

nic

ian

s 2

,38

5

34

1

90

3

5

7

12

9

2

,87

9

17

% 4

94

6

1.3

48

0

.12

4Ra

dia

tion

Mo

nito

rs/T

ech

s. 1

,29

2

95

3

35

2

13

5

23

4

4

2

,76

3

53

% 1

,47

1

15

8.9

31

0

.10

8Sc

ien

ce T

ech

nic

ian

s 6

13

1

35

2

3

12

5

3

7

91

2

3%

17

8

18

.73

0

0.1

05

Tech

nic

ian

s 9

01

3

57

1

07

2

4

6

2

1

1,3

98

3

6%

49

7

42

.98

1

0.0

86

Tran

spo

rtB

us

Drive

rs 1

2

4

16

2

5%

4

0.1

24

0

.03

1Eq

uip

men

t O

per

ato

rs 2

71

1

25

2

1

7

42

4

36

% 1

53

8

.23

6

0.0

54

Mis

c. T

ran

spo

rt 4

38

3

9

2

47

9

9%

41

1

.03

7

0.0

25

Pilo

ts 1

1

0

%

Tr

uck

Drive

rs 3

16

4

6

1

36

3

13

% 4

7

1.1

61

0

.02

5U

nkn

ow

nU

nkn

ow

n 2

6,3

92

1

,99

2

23

7

11

8

41

1

3

16

1

2

8,8

10

8

% 2

,41

8

18

3.1

58

0

.07

6To

tals

83

,17

0

13

,50

0

2,2

03

9

19

2

69

9

6

63

1

0

0

0

1

00

,22

11

7%

17

,05

1 1

,35

9.5

77

0

.08

0

Labor

Cate

gory

Avera

ge

Meas.

TED

ECollect

ive

TED

ETo

tal

Mon

itore

dO

ccupati

on

No

te:

Arr

ow

ed v

alu

es in

dic

ate

the

gre

ates

t va

lue

in e

ach

co

lum

n.

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>

5

Perc

en

tw

ith

Meas.

No.

wit

hM

eas.

4-5


Exhibit B-21: Internal Dose Distribution by Site and Nuclide - 2002

The majority of internal dose is attributed to uranium intakes at the Oak Ridge Site, specifically the Y-12 facility. The intakes areattributed to activities at the Enriched Uranium Operations facility.


Number of IndividualsReceiving Doses in Each Dose Range

NuclideSite0.02-0.10

0.10-0.25

0.25-0.50

0.50-0.75

1.0-2.0 >2.0

0.75-1.00

Meas.-0.02

Albuquerque Los Alamos National Lab (LANL) Hydrogen-3 45 7 52 0.454 0.009Plutonium 1 9 4 1 1 16 2.080 0.130Other 1 1 0.001 0.001Uranium 34 6 2 42 0.665 0.016

Pantex Plant Thorium 20 2 22 0.187 0.009Uranium 5 2 7 0.069 0.010Mixed 1 1 0.048 0.048

Chicago Ops. and Other Facilities Hydrogen-3 8 8 0.028 0.004Argonne Nat’l. Lab. -East (ANL-E) Americium 4 2 6 0.139 0.023

Plutonium 2 9 11 0.452 0.041Argonne Nat’l. Lab. -West (ANL-W) Other 1 1 0.002 0.002

Plutonium 1 1 0.011 0.011Brookhaven National Lab (BNL) Americium 13 3 16 0.241 0.015

Uranium 1 1 2 0.061 0.031Idaho Idaho Site Plutonim 4 1 5 0.082 0.016

Radon-222 3 8 1 12 1.942 0.162Uranium 3 2 5 0.117 0.023

Oakland Lawrence Berkeley Nat’l. Lab. (LBNL) Hydrogen-3 5 4 9 0.165 0.018Lawrence Livermore Nat’l. Lab. (LLNL) Hydrogen-3 2 2 0.007 0.004

Oak Ridge Oak Ridge Site Americium 1 1 0.004 0.004Hydrogen-3 1 1 0.003 0.003Other 1 1 0.001 0.001Plutonium 1 1 0.009 0.009Thorium 1 1 0.012 0.012Uranium 826 605 108 15 1,554 54.624 0.035

Paducah Americium 3 3 0.027 0.009Mixed 2 1 3 0.041 0.014Uranium 4 4 0.036 0.009

Portsmouth Thorium 2 2 0.005 0.003Uranium 2 2 0.021 0.011

Ohio Ops. and Other Facilities Hydrogen-3 2 2 0.003 0.002Plutonium 1 1 2 0.024 0.012Uranium 23 1 24 0.161 0.007

Battelle Memorial Inst. - Columbus Mixed 2 2 0.003 0.002Plutonium 33 33 0.080 0.002

Fernald Environ. Mgmt. Project Thorium 15 1 16 0.110 0.007Uranium 8 8 0.052 0.007

Mound Plant Hydrogen-3 92 4 96 0.449 0.005Americium 24 2 26 0.117 0.005Mixed & Other 26 3 29 0.223 0.008Plutonium 77 3 1 81 0.618 0.008Radon-222 1 2 3 0.173 0.058Thorium 16 10 26 0.522 0.020Uranium 14 1 15 0.059 0.004

West Valley Nuclear Services, Inc. Americium 2 9 2 13 0.698 0.054(WVNS) Plutonium 18 7 25 0.390 0.016

Rocky Flats Rocky Flats Env. Tech. Site (RFETS) Plutonium 64 28 6 1 99 2.902 0.029Richland Hanford Site Hydrogen-3 2 2 0.002 0.001

Uranium 1 1 0.097 0.097Plutonium 20 1 21 0.164 0.008

Savannah Savanah River Site (SRS) Hydrogen-3 98 98 0.240 0.002River Other 1 1 0.013 0.013

Plutonium 1 2 3 0.056 0.019Totals 1,534 734 131 16 3 0 0 0 2,418 68.690 0.028

AverageCEDE(rem)

CollectiveCEDE

(person-rem)

TotalIndividualswith Meas.

CEDE



Exhi

bit

B-22

: Ex

trem

ity

Dos

e D

istr

ibut

ion

by O

pera

tion

s/Si

te -

200

2

The

Oak

Rid

ge

Site

rep

ort

s th

e la

rges

t n

um

ber

of

ind

ivid

ual

s m

on

itore

d f

or

extr

emity

do

se.

Ho

wev

er,

Han

ford

, Ro

cky

Flat

s, a

nd

Sav

ann

ah R

iver

con

trib

ute

67

% o

f th

e co

llect

ive

extr

emity

do

se.

At

Han

for d

, th

e m

ajo

rity

of

extr

emity

do

se is

rec

eive

d b

y p

lan

t o

per

atio

ns

per

son

nel

.

78

34

06

82

94

63

.25

40

.07

11

0,2

68

24

82

71

10

11

16

11

0,9

06

63

81

85

17

.43

40

.81

15

,20

73

17

46

13

5,3

76

16

93

17

7.4

31

1.0

50

2,9

10

10

20

11

2,9

42

32

11

8.0

29

0.5

63

68

31

77

00

17

0.7

59

0.0

45

2,6

12

14

42

68

32

,79

31

81

35

5.0

61

0.3

04

42

91

94

72

14

37

12

28

33

73

.36

30

.25

94

,29

02

78

97

61

4,6

72

38

21

57

.49

80

.15

11

,41

82

41

,42

46

1.9

00

0.3

17

16

16

88

3,6

24

81

82

85

24

,72

91

,10

51

02

.51

60

.09

3

3,8

99

91

3,9

09

10

0.5

22

0.0

52

93

73

10

17

68

34

.12

70

.05

01

,50

81

61

11

11

1,5

38

30

22

5.4

83

0.8

49

9,4

45

20

26

20

51

9,5

17

72

62

00

.49

62

.78

52

,67

62

,67

6

37

43

74

21

03

93

33

73

19

10

98

2.9

59

0.7

61

2,2

20

2,2

20

76

67

66

49

71

86

89

57

77

28

04

9.0

36

0.1

75

1,6

85

1,6

85

14

,13

53

91

14

32

11

4,3

21

18

61

10

4.0

72

0.5

60

1,1

82

41

,18

64

0.1

67

0.0

42

64

06

40

2,8

80

1,4

06

60

72

02

26

15

,12

22

,24

22

78

68

.93

00

.38

8

7,4

95

20

10

94

11

46

44

29

41

0,6

69

3,1

74

77

1,4

23

.58

10

.44

9

5,9

68

23

18

77

41

41

16

29

,21

93

,25

11

86

99

.46

30

.21

5

87

,92

17

,90

23

,46

17

77

11

53

95

11

00

,22

11

2,3

00

16

04

,46

6.0

81

0.3

63

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

Mon

itori

ng

Th

resh

old

.(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

Oh

io

Oak

Rid

ge

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)

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

atio

nal

Lab

. (BN

L)Fe

rmi N

at'l.

Acc

eler

ator

Lab

. (FE

RMI)

DO

E H

ead

quar

ters

Russ

ian

Fed

erat

ion

Pro

ject

Idah

o Si

te

Nev

ada

Test

Site

(NTS

)

Oak

lan

d O

pera

tion

sLa

wre

nce

Ber

kele

y N

atio

nal

Lab

. (LB

NL)

Law

ren

ce L

iver

mor

e N

at'l.

Lab

. (LL

NL)

Stan

ford

Lin

ear

Acc

eler

ator

Cen

ter

(SLA

C)

Oh

io F

ield

Offi

ceBa

ttel

le M

emor

ial I

nst

itute

- C

olum

bus

Fern

ald

En

viro

nm

enta

l Mg

mt.

Pro

ject

Mou

nd

Pla

nt

Wes

t Va

lley

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)

Rock

y Fl

ats

Env.

Tec

h. S

ite (R

FETS

)

Han

ford

Site

Sava

nn

ah R

iver

Site

(SRS

)

Tota

ls

*

20

-3

0>

30

**

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.

**

No

te: A

rro

wed

val

ues

ind

icat

e th

e g

reat

est

valu

e in

eac

h c

olu

mn

.

2002 Report C-1Facility Type Code Descriptions

Appendix CFacility Type Code DescriptionsFacility Type Code Descriptions CFacility Type Code D

escriptions

DOE M 231.1-1 [13] 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 ajudgment by 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.

Exhibit C-1:Facility Type Codes.

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.

In general, radiation doses received byoccupational workers at accelerator facilities arelargely attributable to the beta/gamma radiationemitted from the activated structural andmechanical components. The nature of theradiation fields and the magnitude of dose ratesinside the primary shielding vary considerablydepending upon the operational parameters ofthe machine, the types of particles accelerated,and the energies achieved. Doses received bypersonnel who enter the accelerator enclosuresare dependent upon these factors. In many casesdependent upon the radiological conditions,personnel are prevented from entering theaccelerator enclosures when the beam isoperational. Outside of the shielding, exposurerates due to prompt radiation from the acceleratorare typically very low. Average annual doses ofexposed personnel at these facilities arecomparable to the overall average for DOE.However, the collective dose is lower than thecollective dose for most other DOE facilities’categories because of the relatively small numberof employees at accelerator facilities who work onor around the activated components. Regardinginternal exposures, tritium and short-livedairborne activation products exist at someaccelerator facilities, although annual internaldoses are generally quite low.

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



Other

C-2 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure

Fuel/Uranium EnrichmentThe DOE involvement in the nuclear fuel cyclegenerally begins with uranium enrichmentoperations and facilities. The current method ofenrichment 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 and transuranics from recycled uranium.Because of the low specific activity of uranium,external dose rates are usually a few millirem perhour or less. Most of the external doses that arereceived are attributable to gamma exposures,although neutron exposures can occur, especiallywhen work is performed near highly enricheduranium.

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. Forexample, physical modification of uranium metalby various metalworking operations, such asmachining and lathing operations, requiresprotection against beta radiation exposures to theskin, eyes, and extremities.

Fuel ProcessingThe DOE administers several facilities thatreprocess spent reactor fuel. These facilitiesseparate the plutonium produced in reactors.They also separate the fission products anduranium; the fission products are normallydesignated as radioactive waste products, whilethe uranium can be refabricated for further use asfuel.

Penetrating doses are attributable primarily togamma photons, although some neutronexposures do occur. Skin and extremity doses canresult from handling samples. Strict controls arein place at fuel reprocessing facilities to preventinternal depositions; however, several measurableintakes typically occur per year. Plutoniumisotopes represent the majority of the internaldepositions.

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.

The sources of ionizing radiation exposure areprimarily gamma photons. However, variations inthe types of work performed and work locationsresult in exposures of all types, includingexposures to beta particles, x-rays, neutrons, andairborne radioactivity.

2002 Report C-3Facility Type Code Descriptions

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 purposes,such as production of medical radioisotopes; andreactors designed for the propulsion of navalvessels.

By 1992, many of the DOE reactors were notoperating. As a result, personnel exposures atDOE reactor facilities were attributable primarilyto gamma 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.

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.

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.

C-4 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure

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 than0.1 rem (1 mSv). At two DOE sites, however, large-scale waste processing facilities exist to properlydispose of radioactive waste products generatedduring the nuclear fuel cycle. At these facilities,radiation doses to some employees can beelevated, sometimes exceeding 1 rem/year(10 mSv/year). Penetrating doses at wasteprocessing facilities are attributable primarily togamma photons; however, neutron exposuresalso occur at the large-scale facilities.

Weapons Fabrication and TestingThe primary function of a facility in this categoryis to fabricate weapons-grade material for theproduction or testing of nuclear weapons. Atthese facilities, workers can receive neutronradiation dose when processing plutoniumisotopes, as well as penetrating dose from gammaphotons and plutonium x-rays, and skin andextremity dose from plutonium x-rays. Anadditional pathway for radiation exposure atthese facilities is the inhalation of plutonium,where the inhalation of material can result insome of the highest individual doses based onthe calculation of the 50-year committed effectivedose equivalent. To prevent plutonium intakes,strict controls are in place, including processcontainment, contamination control procedures,and air monitoring and bioassay programs.

No DOE facilities currently are involved inweapons testing. Several of the sites reportingunder this category are no longer activelyinvolved in weapons fabrication and testing, butare in the process of stabilization and wastemanagement.

OtherIndividuals included in this facility type can begenerally classified under three categories:(1) those who worked in a facility that did notmatch one of the ten facility types describedabove; (2) those who did not work for anyappreciable time at any specific facility, such astransient workers; or (3) those for whom facilitytype was not indicated on the report forms.Examples of a facility type not included in the tentypes described above include construction andirradiation facilities. Although exposures togamma photons are predominant, someindividuals may be exposed to beta particles,x-rays, neutrons, or airborne radioactive material.

2002 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. Thisoverestimation only affects the data prior to 1987presented in Appendix Exhibits B-2a, B-2b, andB-3.

The dose distributions presented in this report arebased on the individual dose records reported toREMS. Individuals may be counted more thanonce as some sites report multiple dose recordsfor an individual who visits the site more thanonce, or the individual may visit more than onesite during the year. (See Section 3.6.)

Monitoring PracticesRadiation monitoring practices vary from site tosite and are based on the radiation hazards andwork practices at each site. Sites use differentdosimeters and have different policies todetermine which workers are monitored. All siteshave achieved compliance with the DOELaboratory Accreditation Program (DOELAP),which standardizes the quality of dosimetrymeasurements. The number of monitoredindividuals can significantly impact the site’scollective dose. Some sites supply dosimeters tovirtually all workers. While this tends to increasethe number of monitored workers with no dose, italso can add an increased number of very lowdose workers to the total number of workers withmeasurable dose, thereby lowering the site’saverage measurable dose. Even at low doses, theseworkers increase the site’s 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 reports onlythose workers receiving doses above themonitoring threshold. This can decrease the site’scollective dose while increasing the averagemeasurable dose.

AEDE vs CEDEPrior to 1989, intakes of radionuclides into the bodywere not reported as dose, but as body burden inunits 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)methodology. The AEDE methodology requires thecalculation of the summation of dose for all tissuesand organs multiplied by the appropriate weightingfactor for a specified year. Note that per 5480.11,AEDE included components of internal andexternal dose. Therefore, the AEDE was analogousto the TEDE. However, 5480.11 does not defineTEDE.

D-2 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure

With the implementation of the RadCon Manual in1993, the required methodology used to calculateand report internal dose was changed from theAEDE to the 50-year CEDE. The CEDE representsthe dose equivalent delivered to all organs andtissues over the next 50 years and the 50-year CEDEis reported to REMS and assigned to the individualin the year of intake. The change was made toprovide consistency with scientificrecommendations, facilitate the transfer of workersbetween DOE- and NRC-regulated facilities, andsimplify recordkeeping by recording all dose in theyear of intake. The CEDE methodology is nowcodified in 10 CFR 835. From 1993 to the present,the TEDE is defined as the summation of the DeepDose Equivalent (DDE) to the whole body and theCEDE.

This report primarily analyzes dose informationfor the past 5 years, from 1998 to 2002. 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 in Exhibits B-2a, B-2b, and B-3.

Occupation CodesEach individual’s dose record includes theoccupation code for the individual while heworked 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 30%) of the occupations islisted as unknown, or as miscellaneous. Thedefinitions of each of the labor categories aresubject to interpretation by the reportingorganization and/or the individual’s employer.

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 members of the public is often notreported and is defaulted 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.

2002 Report D-3Limitations of Data

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 maychange organizations and begin reporting withanother Field Office. For example, the MoundPlant, Fernald, and West Valley Project changedOperations Office between 1993 & 1994 and arenow shown under the Ohio Field Office.Footnotes indicate the change in OperationsOffices when applicable.

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 past5 years, DOE Headquarters has requestedadditional information from the six sites with thehighest collective dose. This information includesa summary of activities, project descriptions, andALARA planning documentation. DOEHeadquarters will continue to request thisinformation in subsequent years. It isrecommended that sites submit this informationwith 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 Corporate Performance Assessment(EH-32)Germantown, MD [email protected]

2002 Report E-1Access to Radiation Exposure Information

Appendix E EA

ccess to Radiation Exposur e Inform

ationAccess to Radiation Exposure InformationAccess to Radiation Exposure Information

Radiation ExposureMonitoring SystemThe data used to compile this report were obtainedfrom the DOE Radiation Exposure MonitoringSystem (REMS), which serves as the centralrepository of radiation exposure information forDOE Headquarters. The database consists ofindividual monitoring records of occupationalexposure for DOE workers from 1987 to the present.REMS also contains career exposure records forindividuals who terminated employmentbetween 1969 and 1986, and additional historicalrecords voluntarily submitted to REMS from thesites that participated in the epidemiologicsurveillance pilot project. Over 3 millionexposure records are contained in the REMScentral repository. In 1995, REMS underwent anextensive redesign effort in combination with theefforts involved in revising the annual report. Oneof the main goals of the redesign effort was to allowresearchers better access to the REMS data.However, there is considerable diversity in the goalsand needs of these researchers. For this reason, amulti-faceted approach has been developed toallow researchers flexibility in accessing the REMSdata.

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. Toobtain further information, a contact name andphone number are provided.

The data contained in the REMS system are subjectto periodic update. Data for the current or previousyears may be updated as corrections or additionsare submitted by the sites. For this reason, the datapresented in published reports may not agree withthe current data in the REMS database. Theseupdates typically have a relatively small impact onthe data and should not affect the generalconclusions and analysis of the data presented inthis report.

REMS Web PageAs noted in Exhibit E-1, a web page has beenestablished to disseminate radiation exposureinformation at DOE. The web site contains thelatest published annual report on occupationalexposure, information on reporting exposure datato DOE, points of contact for requestinginformation from REMS, DOE Orders andStandards related to radiation exposure, and linksto other related sites. The site contains a web-based data query tool that allows users to obtainspecific data reported to REMS from 1987 to themost recent year available. The data can beselected and grouped by year, site, organization,facility type, labor category, occupation, andmonitoring status. The web page query toolallows access to summary information for over1.7 million monitoring records.

Visit the REMS web page at:


E-2 DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure

CEDR accomplishes this by a hierarchical structurethat accommodates analysis and working filesgenerated during a study, as well as files ofdocumentation that are critical for understandingthe data. CEDR provides easy access to its holdingsthrough the Internet or phone and mailinterchanges, and provides an extensive catalog ofits holdings. CEDR has become a unique resourcecomprising the majority of data that exist on thehealth risks of occupational radiation exposure.

For further information about CEDR, access theCEDR internet web page at:

http://cedr.lbl.gov

Or the CEDR Program Manager may be contacted at:

[email protected]

ComprehensiveEpidemiologic Data ResourceOf interest to researchers in radiation exposure arethe health effects associated with worker exposureto radiation. While the health effects fromoccupational exposure are not treated in this report,it has been extensively researched by DOE. TheComprehensive Epidemiologic Data Resource(CEDR) serves as a central resource for radiationhealth effects studies at the DOE.

Epidemiologic studies on health effects of radiationexposures have been supported by the DOE formore than 30 years. The results of these studies,which initially focused on the evaluation ofmortality among workers employed in the nuclearweapons complex, have been published inscientific 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 introduction in1993, CEDR included primarily occupational studiesof the DOE workforce, including demographic,employment, exposure, and mortality follow-upinformation on more than 420,000 workers. Theprogram’s holdings have been expanded to includedata from both occupational and historicalcommunity health studies, such as those examiningthe impact of fallout from atmospheric nuclearweapons testing, community dose reconstructions,and data from the decades of follow-up on atomicbomb survivors.

2002 Report E-3Access to Radiation Exposure Information

Exhi

bit

E-1:

Met

hods

of

Acc

essi

ng R

EMS

Info

rmat

ion

REM

S In

form

ati

on

Acc

ess

Meth

od

Info

rmati

on

Available

Soft

ware

Requir

em

en

tsEligib

ilit

yR

equir

em

en

tsTo

Get

Acc

ess

Har

dco

py

An

nu

al R

epo

rt

Web

Pag

e

Acc

ess

to R

EMS

Dat

abas

e

No

ne.

No

ne.

Reco

rds

are

subje

ct to th

e priv

acy

Act

of

19

74

. R

eco

rds

are

on

lyav

aila

ble

to

res

earc

her

s w

ithin

DO

E o

r o

ther

go

vern

men

tal

agen

cy u

po

n a

pp

rova

l by

the

REM

S Pr

oje

ct M

anag

er in

acco

rdan

ce w

ith S

yste

m o

fRe

cord

s #

35

. C

on

tact

th

e RE

MS

Pro

ject

Man

ager

* fo

r fu

rth

erin

form

atio

n o

n a

cces

sin

gin

div

idu

al d

ose

rec

ord

s in

REM

S.

No

ne.

Inte

rnet

acc

ess.

W

eb b

row

ser

clie

nt

soft

war

e.

Inte

rnet

acc

ess

(TC

P/IP

). O

racl

eSQ

LNet

and e

ncr

yptio

n s

oftw

are

(pro

vided

). D

atab

ase

acce

ss to

olfo

r q

uer

yin

g d

ata

that

can

con

nec

t to

an

Ora

cle

dat

abas

e.

EH-3

2 c

on

tact

Ms.

Nirm

ala

Rao

, D

OE

REM

S Pr

oje

ct M

anag

er, EH

-32

, 2

70

Co

rpo

rate

Sq

uar

e B

uild

ing

, U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t o

f En

erg

y,1

00

0 In

dep

end

ence

Ave

nu

e, S

W, W

ash

ing

ton

, D

.C. 2

05

85

-02

70

Pho

ne:

(3

01

) 9

03

-22

97

, Fa

x: (

30

1)

90

3-7

77

3, E-

mai

l: n

imi.r

ao@

eh.d

oe.

go

v

An

alys

is a

nd

dat

a fo

r an

nu

al o

ccu

pat

ion

alex

posu

re in

form

atio

n, p

rimar

ily for

the

pas

t5 y

ears

. Tab

les

and

gra

ph

s pre

sen

t d

ata

and

tren

ds

for

the

mo

st c

om

mo

nly

ask

edqu

estio

ns

con

cern

ing

exp

osu

re in

form

atio

nat

DO

E fa

cilit

ies.

•A

nn

ual

rep

ort

s fr

om

19

92

to

th

e m

ost

rece

nt

rep

ort

.•

Info

rmat

ion

on

rep

ort

ing

exp

osu

re d

ata

to D

OE.

•H

ow

to

req

ues

t in

form

atio

n f

rom

REM

S.•

A q

uer

y to

ol f

or

extr

actin

g s

um

mar

y d

ata

fro

m R

EMS.

•D

OE

Ord

ers

and

Sta

nd

ard

s o

n r

adia

tion

exp

osu

re.

•Li

nks

to

oth

er r

elat

ed s

ites.

Indiv

idual

annual

ized

dos

e re

cord

s su

bmitt

edto

REM

S fr

om

19

87

to

th

e p

rese

nt.

In

add

itio

n, d

ose

rec

ord

s ar

e av

aila

ble

fo

rin

div

idu

als

wh

o t

erm

inat

ed e

mp

loym

ent

ata

DO

E fa

cilit

y fr

om

19

69

to

19

86

.

Co

nta

ct E

H-3

2*

to r

equ

est

that

you

be

add

ed t

o t

he

An

nu

alRe

po

rt m

ailin

g li

st.

Co

nn

ect

toh

ttp

://r

ems.

eh.d

oe.

go

v

Co

nta

ct E

H-3

2*

to r

equ

est

acce

ss.

*

E-4 DOE Occupational Radiation ExposureThis page intentionally left blank.

Prepared by:Science Applications International Corporation

301 Laboratory Road • Oak Ridge, TN 37830

Documents

DOE/EH-0675 DOE OCCUPATIONAL R E - energy.gov · DOE collective Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE) increased by 10% from 1,232 person-rem (12,320 person-mSv) to 1,360 person-rem