DOE 2008 OCCUPATIONAL RADLATION EXPOSURE October 2009 This document is; available on the Department of Energy REMS Program Web Site at: Foreword Foreword Foreword A major priority of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is to ensure the health, safety, and security of DOE employees, contractors, and subcontractors. The Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS) provides the corporate-level leadership and strategic vision necessary to better coordinate and integrate health, safety, environment, security, enforcement, and independent oversight programs. One function that supports this mission is the DOE Corporate Operating Experience Program that provides collection, analysis, and dissemination of performance indicators, such as occupational radiation exposure information. This analysis supports corporate decision-making and synthesizes operational information to support continuous environment, safety, and health improvement across the DOE complex. A key safety focus for DOE is to maintain radiation exposures of its workers below administrative control levels (ACL) and DOE limits and to further reduce these exposures to levels that are “as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA).”The annual DOE 2008 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report provides an evaluation of DOE-wide performance regarding compliance with DOE Part 835 dose limits and ALARA process requirements and an overview of the status of radiation exposures of the DOE workforce. In addition, this report provides data to DOE organizations responsible for developing policies for protection of individuals from the effects of radiation. This report is primarily a tool for managing radiological safety programs and provides useful information to epidemiologists, researchers, and national and international agencies involved in developing policies to protect individuals from harmful effects of radiation. The overall radiation dose decreased from 2007 to 2008 in terms of collective dose, although there were more individuals who received a measurable dose. The average measurable dose is calculated by dividing the collective dose by the number of individuals with a measurable dose. Since the collective total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) decreased by 108 person-rems and the number of individuals with a measurable dose increased slightly, the resultant average measurable dose decreased. In 2008, one individual received a dose to the bone surface in excess of the 50 rems (500 millisievert [mSv]) DOE annual organ dose limit. One of the objectives of this report is to provide timely, useful, accurate, and complete information to the target audience. As part of a continuing improvement process, we would appreciate your response to the user survey included at the end of this report. Glenn S. Podonsky Chief Health, Safety and Security Officer Office of Health, Safety and Security Foreword iii iv This page intentionally left blank. DOE 2008 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report Contents Table of Contents FOREWORD................................................................................................................................................... iii Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...........................................................................................................................................................ix SECTION 1—INTRODUCTION 1.1 Report Organization................................................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Report Availability....................................................................................................................................1-1 SECTION 2—STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Radiation Protection Requirements......................................................................................................2-1 Radiation Dose Limits.............................................................................................................................2-2 Reporting Requirements.........................................................................................................................2-2 Amendment to 10 CFR 835.....................................................................................................................2-2 SECTION 3—OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION DOSE AT DOE 3.1 Analysis of the Data.................................................................................................................................3-1 3.2 Analysis of Aggregate Data......................................................................................................................3-1 3.2.1 Number of Records for Monitored Individuals..........................................................................3-1 3.2.2 Number of Records for Individuals with Measurable Dose......................................................3-1 3.2.3 Collective Dose..............................................................................................................................3-2 3.2.4 Average Measurable Dose............................................................................................................3-4 3.2.5 Dose Distribution..........................................................................................................................3-4 3.3 Analysis of Individual Dose Data ..........................................................................................................3-6 3.3.1 Doses in Excess of DOE Limit......................................................................................................3-6 3.3.2 Doses in Excess of Administrative Control Level.......................................................................3-6 3.3.3 Internal Depositions of Radioactive Material.............................................................................3-6 3.3.4 Bioassay and Intake Summary Information...............................................................................3-8 3.4 Analysis of Site Data................................................................................................................................3-9 3.4.1 Collective TEDE by Site and Other Facilities..............................................................................3-9 3.4.2 Changes by Site from 2007 to 2008..............................................................................................3-9 3.4.3 Activities Significantly Contributing to Collective Dose in 2008............................................3-12 3.4.4. Summary by Program Office......................................................................................................3-19 3.5 Transient Individuals.............................................................................................................................3-20 3.6 Historical Data ......................................................................................................................................3-20 3.6.1 Prior Years.....................................................................................................................................3-20 3.6.2 Historical Data Collection..........................................................................................................3-20 3.7 Comparison of DOE Dose to Other Activities.....................................................................................3-22 3.7.1 Comparison with Activities Regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.................3-22 SECTION 4—ALARA ACTIVITIES AT DOE 4.1 Submitting ALARA Project Descriptions for Future Annual Reports...........................................................4-1 4.2 Operating Experience Program.......................................................................................................................4-1 SECTION 5—CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................................................................. 5-1 GLOSSARY..............................................................................................................................................................G-1 REFERENCES. ......................................................................................................................................................... R-1 USER SURVEY. .......................................................................................................................................................U-1 Table of Contents v LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit ES-1: Exhibit ES-2: Exhibit 2-1: Exhibit 2-2: Exhibit 3-1a: Exhibit 3-1b: Exhibit 3-2: Exhibit 3-3: Exhibit 3-4: Exhibit 3-5: Exhibit 3-6: Exhibit 3-7: Exhibit 3-8: Exhibit 3-9: Exhibit 3-10: Exhibit 3-11: Exhibit 3-12: Exhibit 3-13: Exhibit 3-14: Exhibit 3-15: Exhibit 3-16: Exhibit 3-17: Exhibit 3-18: Exhibit 3-19: Exhibit 3-20: Exhibit 3-21: Exhibit 5-1: vi Collective TEDE (person-rem), 2004–2008.........................................................................................................................ix Average Measurable TEDE (rem), 2004–2008....................................................................................................................ix Current Laws and Requirements Pertaining to This Report............................................................................................ 2-1 DOE Dose Limits from 10 CFR 835..................................................................................................................................... 2-2 Monitoring of the DOE Workforce, 2004–2008.................................................................................................................. 3-1 Monitoring of the DOE Workforce, 2004–2008.................................................................................................................. 3-2 Components of TEDE, 2004–2008....................................................................................................................................... 3-3 Average Measurable TEDE, 2004–2008............................................................................................................................. 3-4 Distribution of TEDE by Dose Range, 2004–2008............................................................................................................. 3-5 Percentage of Collective TEDE Above Dose Values During 2004–2008.......................................................................... 3-5 Number of Individuals Exceeding 5 rems (TEDE), 2004–2008....................................................................................... 3-6 Number of Doses in Excess of the DOE 2 rems ACL, 2004–2008.................................................................................... 3-6 Doses in Excess of DOE Limit, 2004–2008......................................................................................................................... 3-7 Number of Internal Depositions, Collective CEDE, and Average Measurable CEDE, 2004–2008................................. 3-7 Internal Dose Distribution from Intakes, 2004–2008........................................................................................................ 3-8 Bioassay Measurements, 2006–2008................................................................................................................................. 3-8 Collective CEDE by Radionuclide, 2008........................................................................................................................... 3-8 Collective TEDE by DOE Site for 2006–2008..................................................................................................................... 3-9 Collective TEDE and Number of Individuals with Measurable TEDE by DOE Site,  2006–2008................................. 3-10 Site Dose Data, 2008........................................................................................................................................................... 3-11 Activities Significantly Contributing to Collective TEDE in 2008.................................................................................. 3-12 Program Office Dose Data, 2008....................................................................................................................................... 3-18 Dose Distribution of Transient Workers, 2004–2008........................................................................................................ 3-19 Collective Dose and Average Measurable Dose, 1974–2008.......................................................................................... 3-21 Number of Workers with Measurable Dose and Average Measurable Dose, 1974–2008............................................ 3-21 Comparison of Occupational Exposure for DOE and NRC, 2004–2008....................................................................... 3-22 2008 Radiation Exposure Summary.................................................................................................................................. 5-1 DOE 2008 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report LIST OF ACRONYMS ACL AEDE AEC ALARA CDE CEDE D&D DDE DOE EM EPA ETTP HSS INTEC LANL LDE LLNL mSv NE NNSA ORISE ORNL PFP REMS SC SDE-ME SDE-WB SRS Sv TEDE TODE TVA UNSCEAR WIPP Y-12 Table of Contents Administrative Control Level Annual Effective Dose Equivalent Atomic Energy Commission As Low As Reasonably Achievable Committed Dose Equivalent Committed Effective Dose Equivalent Decontamination and Decommissioning Deep Dose Equivalent U.S. Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management U.S. Environmental Protection Agency East Tennessee Technology Park Office of Health, Safety and Security Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center Los Alamos National Laboratory Lens (of the Eye) Dose Equivalent Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Millisievert Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology National Nuclear Security Administration Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education Oak Ridge National Laboratory Plutonium Finishing Plant Radiation Exposure Monitoring System Office of Science Shallow Dose Equivalent to the Maximally Exposed Extremity Shallow Dose Equivalent to the Skin of the Whole Body Savannah River Site Sieverts Total Effective Dose Equivalent Total Organ Dose Equivalent Tennessee Valley Authority United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Y-12 National Security Complex vii This page intentionally left blank. DOE 2008 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report Summary Executive Summary Executive Summary The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Corporate Safety Analysis (HS-30) within the Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS) publishes the annual DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure Report to provide an overview of the status of radiation protection practices at DOE.* The DOE 2008 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report provides an evaluation of DOE-wide performance regarding compliance with DOE Part 835 dose limits and as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) process requirements. In addition, the report provides data to DOE organizations responsible for developing policies for protection of individuals from the effects of radiation. This report provides a summary and an analysis of occupational radiation exposure information from the monitoring of individuals involved in DOE activities. The occupational radiation exposure information is analyzed in terms of aggregate data, dose to individuals, and dose by site over the past 5 years. One of the report’s features includes the collective total effective dose equivalent (TEDE)–an indicator of the overall amount of radiation dose received during the conduct of operations at DOE. Over the past 10year period, 99.99% of the individuals receiving measurable dose have received doses below the 2 rems (20 mSv) TEDE administrative control level (ACL), which is well below the DOE regulatory limit of 5 rems (50 mSv) TEDE. The DOE collective TEDE decreased by 13% from 2007 to 2008, as shown in Exhibit ES-1. This is the fifth consecutive year that the collective TEDE has decreased. The decrease in 2008 was due primarily to the removal of radioactive materials, decreases in the amount of work performed that directly involves radioactive materials, and a safety-driven pause in operations at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). It should be noted that while 10 CFR 835 was revised as of June 2007, full implementation is not required until July of 2010. Some sites are still in the process of transition and therefore this report continues to use the previous dose terminology of 10 CFR 835, such as TEDE. Sites that contributed to the decrease in the number of workers with measurable dose include Fermilab, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), LANL, Sandia, the Office of River Protection, and Pantex, while increases occurred at Hanford, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Savannah River Site (SRS), Idaho, and Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12 NSC). Overall from 2007 to 2008, there was an increase in the number of workers with measurable dose. Exhibit ES-2: Average Measurable TEDE (rem), 2004–2008. Exhibit ES-1: Collective TEDE (person-rem), 2004–2008. 0.10 0.1 1,094 . vg r. a 5-y 877 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 813 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 798 800 690 989 1,000 600 400 200 0 Average Measurable TEDE (rem) Collective TEDE (person-rem) 1,200 0.09 0.08 0.07 ----------------------------------------0.072 0.070 0.06 0.061 0.063 2005 2006 0.061 . vg .a r y 5 5- .06 0 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 2004 2005 2006 Year 2007 2008 2004 2007 2008 Year * DOE is defined to include the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) sites. Executive Summary ix The TEDE is comprised of the external deep dose equivalent (DDE), which includes neutron and photon radiation, and the internal committed effective dose equivalent (CEDE), which results from the intake of radioactive material into the body. The photon, neutron and internal dose components of the collective TEDE decreased by 16%, 5% and 11% from 2007 to 2008, respectively. Another primary indicator of the level of radiation exposure covered in this report is the average measurable dose, which normalizes the collective dose over the population of workers who actually received a measurable dose. The average measurable TEDE decreased by 15% from 2007 to 2008, as shown in Exhibit ES-2. The collective dose and the average measurable dose both decreased, while the number of individuals who received a measurable dose increased. Additional analyses show that the dose distribution in 2008 was similar to the distribution in 2007 with the exception of the one individual that exceeded the 2 rems (20 millisievert [mSv]) DOE administrative control level (ACL) limit. Most of the reduction in monitored individuals occurred in the number of individuals with no measurable dose and the number of individuals receiving less than 0.1 rem (1 mSv). The number of individuals receiving doses between 0.1 rem (1 mSv) and 2 rems (20 mSv) in 2008 decreased by nearly 9% of the number in 2007. In conclusion, the assessment of occupational radiation exposure for 2008 continues to show a decreasing trend in collective dose and the number of individuals with a measurable dose, while the average measurable dose decreased significantly. Primary factors in the decrease in collective dose for 2008 were a reduction in activities involving radiation at several DOE sites. The decrease in the average measurable dose was due to an increase in the number of individuals with measurable dose (particularly measurable doses below 0.1 rem). The one individual who received a dose above 2 rems (20 mSv) exceeding the ACL, also received 60 rems committed dose equivalent (CDE) to the bone surface exceeding the 50 rems DOE annual limit to an organ or tissue. With the exception of one incident, in 2008, all DOE operations complied with DOE Part 835 dose limits and the DOEwide dose constraints. Only a small fraction of the DOE workforce received measurable doses and the average measurable dose was 1% of the DOE limit. As DOE continues consolidation and remediation efforts, it is anticipated that the decreasing trend in collective dose and the number of individuals with measurable dose will continue over the next several years. At some sites where remediation activities are increased or accelerated, a temporary increase in dose may be observed at the site, but should decrease once the effects of the remediation result in lower dose rates and fewer opportunities for exposure. The average measurable dose may fluctuate as fewer individuals receive dose, but should remain low as radiation protection practices and ALARA principles continue to reduce dose to individuals. To access this report and other information on occupational radiation exposure at DOE, visit the DOE HSS web site at http://www.hss.energy.gov Select HSS Reporting Databases from the HSS Quick Reference and then select the Radiation Exposure Monitoring System (REMS). x DOE 2008 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report Section One Introduction 1.2 Report Availability Introduction The DOE 2008 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report provides analyses of occupational radiation exposures incurred by individuals at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) facilities during 2008. This report includes occupational radiation exposure information for all DOE employees, contractors, and subcontractors, as well as members of the public who are monitored for exposure to radiation. The 92 DOE organizations submitting radiation exposure reports for 2008 have been grouped into 30 sites across the complex. This information has been analyzed and trended over time to provide a measure of DOE’s performance in protecting its workers from radiation. 1 Requests for additional copies of this report, requests for access to the data files or individual dose records used to compile this report, and suggestions and comments should be directed to Ms. Nirmala Rao, HS-30 DOE REMS Project Manager U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, D.C. 20585-0270 E-mail: nimi.rao@hq.doe.gov 1.1 Report Organization This report is organized into the five sections listed below. In an effort to further streamline the printed report, most of the supporting technical information, tables of data, and additional items that were previously provided in the report and the appendices will be available on the DOE web site for Information on Occupational Radiation Exposure. A User Survey form is included at the end of this report and users are encouraged to provide feedback to improve this report. Visit the DOE web site at http://www.hss.energy.gov for more information on occupational radiation exposure, such as the following: u u u u u u Annual occupational radiation exposure reports in pdf files since 1974 Guidance on reporting radiation exposure information to the DOE Headquarters Radiation Exposure Monitoring System (REMS) Guidance on how to request a dose history for an individual Statistical data since 1987 for analysis Applicable DOE orders and manuals for the record keeping and reporting of occupational radiation exposure at DOE “As low as reasonably achievable” (ALARA) activities at DOE Section One Provides a description of the content and organization of this report. Section Two Provides a discussion of the radiation protection and dose reporting requirements. Section Three Presents the occupational radiation dose data from monitored individuals at DOE facilities for 2008. The data are analyzed to show trends over the past five years. Section Four Includes instructions to submit successful ALARA projects within the DOE complex. Section Five Presents conclusions based on the analysis contained in this report. Appendices In an effort to streamline this publication, the appendices are now offered in color on the DOE Radiation Exposure Web site. Please visit http://www.hss.energy.gov and select HSS Reports and Occupational Radiation Exposure Reports to review. Introduction 1-1 This page intentionally left blank. DOE 2008 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report Section Two Standards and Requirements This section discusses the radiation protection standards and requirements in effect for 2008. For more information on past requirements, visit the DOE web site for DOE Directives, Regulations, and Standards at http://www.hss.energy.gov. Standards and Requirements One of DOE’s primary objectives is to provide a safe and healthy workplace for all employees and contractors. To meet this objective, DOE’s Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS) establishes comprehensive and integrated programs for the protection of workers from hazards in the workplace, including ionizing radiation. The basic DOE standards for occupational radiation protection are radiation dose limits, which establish maximum permissible doses to workers. In addition to the requirement that radiation doses not exceed the limits, contractors and subcontractors are required to maintain exposures ALARA. 2 2.1 Radiation Protection Requirements DOE radiation protection standards in effect in 2008 were based on Federal guidance for protection against occupational radiation exposure promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1987.[1] This guidance, initially implemented by DOE in 1989, is based on the 1977 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP)[2] and the 1987 recommendations of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). [3] This guidance recommends that internal organ dose be added to the external wholebody dose to determine the total effective dose equivalent (TEDE). Prior to this guidance, the whole-body dose and internal organ dose were each limited separately. In summary, the current laws and requirements for occupational radiation protection pertaining to the information collected and presented in this report are shown in Exhibit 2-1. Exhibit 2-1: Current Laws and Requirements Pertaining to This Report.   ˆ‰ …­ Š ‹ Œ Žƒ‘ € ‚ƒ‚„  ‚ƒ‚„…  †‚…‚ ‡   Ž­‘  …‚„‚    ’ Ž†‘ Standards and Requirements   ‚„‚ ƒ        ­  2-1 2.2 Radiation Dose Limits 2.4 Amendment to 10 CFR 835 Radiation dose limits are codified in 10 CFR 835.202, 206,207, and 208 [4] and are summarized in Exhibit 2-2. In August 2006, DOE published a proposed amendment to 10 CFR 835 in the Federal Register, and in June 2007, the final rule was published. The amendment 2.3 Reporting Requirements On August 19, 2003, DOE approved and issued the revised DOE Order 231.1A. [5] The DOE Manual 231.1-1A, [6] which details the format and content of reporting radiation exposure records to DOE, was approved on March 19, 2004. The revisions affected the content and reporting of radiation exposure records, beginning with the 2005 monitoring year. u u u u u u Specified new dosimetric terminology and quantities based on ICRP 60/68 in place of ICRP 26/30 Specified ICRP 60 tissue weighting factors in place of ICRP 26 weighting factors Specified ICRP 60 radiation weighting factors in place of ICRP 26 quality factors Amended other parts of the regulation that changed as a result of adopting ICRP 60 dosimetry system Used the ICRP 68 dose conversion factors to determine values for the derived air concentrations (DACs) Other changes intended to enhance radiation protection Exhibit 2-2: DOE Dose Limits from 10 CFR 835.                    ­ € ‚  ƒ  ‚ ‡  € „…† € „ˆ  ‚ ƒ Š ‰  ˆ ‹ ­ ˆ ‡  ‡ ­ Š    ‡ Œ 2-2 DOE 2008 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report The rule became effective on July 9, 2007, and is required to be fully implemented by the DOE sites by July 9, 2010. Therefore, the revisions were not applicable to all sites during this reporting period, although some began complying with the new requirements during 2008. Several aspects of the amendment impact the record keeping and reporting of DOE occupational radiation exposure. A revision of the DOE Manual 231.1-1A will be issued in order to conform to the amended rule. The following is a summary of the changes that will affect the manual and the reporting of radiation exposure records: u u u u u In anticipation of the revision to Manual 231.1-1A, an optional format for reporting under the amendment to 835 has been developed and is available on the REMS web site. The optional format is an acceptable method of reporting radiation exposure records until the manual is officially revised. When issued, the revised draft Manual 231.1-1A will be available for review and comment through the DOE RevCom process at http://directives.doe.gov. A change in dosimetric terms A change in weighting factors to tissue weighting factors and a redefinition of the tissue weighting factor remainder A change in quality factors to radiation weighting factors; most significantly this affects neutron dose assessment A change eliminating the requirement for recording of internal dose for any monitoring result estimated to correspond to an individual receiving less than 0.01 rem (0.1 millisievert [mSv]) committed effective dose Addition of specific organ dose reporting for the colon, liver, stomach, esophagus, bladder, and skin Standards and Requirements 2-3 2-4 This page intentionally left blank. DOE 2008 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report 3 Section Three Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE Certain key indicators have been determined to be useful in evaluating the occupational radiation exposures received at DOE facilities. The key indicators are analyzed to identify and correlate parameters having an impact on radiation dose at DOE. Key indicators for the analysis of aggregate data are u u u u u number of records for monitored individuals individuals with measurable dose collective dose average measurable dose dose distribution Analysis of individual dose data includes an examination of u doses exceeding the 5 rems (50 mSv) DOE regulatory limit u doses exceeding the 2 rems (20 mSv) DOE administrative control level (ACL) Additional information is provided in this report concerning activities at sites contributing to the majority of the collective dose. Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE 3.1 Analysis of the Data radiation dose monitoring to individuals for reasons other than the potential for exposure to radiation and/or radioactive materials exceeding the monitoring thresholds. Many individuals are monitored for reasons such as security, administrative convenience, and legal liability. Some sites offer monitoring for any individual who requests monitoring, independent of the potential for exposure. For this reason, the number of records for workers who receive a measurable dose best represents the exposed workforce. 3.2.2 Number of Records for Individuals with Measurable Dose DOE uses the number of individuals receiving a measurable dose to represent the exposed workforce size. The number of individuals with a measurable dose includes any individual with a reported detectable dose greater than zero TEDE. Exhibit 3-1a: Monitoring of the DOE Workforce, 2004–2008. Number of DOE and contractor workers* Total number of records for monitored individuals Number of individuals with measurable dose 140,000 3.2 Analysis of Aggregate Data The number of records for monitored individuals represents the size of the DOE worker population monitored for radiation dose. The number represents the sum of all records for monitored individuals, including all DOE employees, contractors, and subcontractors, as well as members of the public. The number of monitored individuals is the number of monitoring records submitted by each site. Because individuals may have more than one monitoring record, they may be counted more than once. Although an individual may be counted more than once, the overall effect on the numbers and analysis is minimal. The number of records for monitored individuals is an indication of the size of a dosimetry program, but it is not necessarily an indication of the size of the exposed workforce. This is because of the conservative practice at some DOE facilities of providing Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE Number of Individuals 3.2.1 Number of Records for Monitored Individuals 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Year Year *The number of DOE and contractor workers was determined from the total annual work hours at DOE [7] converted to full-time equivalents. For 2008, 68% of the DOE workforce was monitored for radiation dose, and 14% of monitored individuals received a measurable dose. 3-1 3.2.3 Collective Dose Over the past 10-year period, 99.99% of the individuals receiving measurable dose have received doses below the 2 rems (20 mSv) TEDE administrative control level (ACL), which is well below the DOE regulatory limit of 5 rems (50 mSv) TEDE. Exhibits 3-1a and 3-1b show the number of DOE and contractor workers, the total number of workers monitored for radiation dose, the number of individuals with a measurable dose, and the relative percentages for the past 5 years. Over the past 5 years, the percentage of individuals monitored for radiation exposure has remained within 4% of the 5-year average; the percentage of monitored individuals receiving any measurable radiation dose each year has been within 2% of the 5-year average. Twelve of the 30 reporting sites experienced decreases in the number of workers with a measurable dose from 2007 to 2008. The largest decrease in total number of workers with a measurable dose occurred at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). The largest increase in the number of workers receiving a measurable dose occurred at the Hanford Site. A discussion of activities at the highest dose facilities is included in Section 3.4.3. Exhibit 3-1b: Monitoring of the DOE Workforce, 2004–2008. The collective dose is the sum of the dose received by all individuals with a measurable dose and is measured in units of person-rem (person-sievert [Sv]). The collective dose is an indicator of the overall radiation exposure at DOE facilities and includes the dose to all DOE employees, contractors, and subcontractors, as well as members of the public who are monitored during a visit to a DOE facility. DOE monitors the collective dose as one measure of the overall performance of radiation protection programs to keep individual exposures and collective exposures ALARA. As shown in Exhibit 3-2, the collective TEDE decreased at DOE by 13% from 798 person-rems (7.98 person-Sv) in 2007 to 690 person-rems (6.90 person-Sv) in 2008. The internal dose is based on the 50-year committed effective dose equivalent (CEDE) methodology, which assigns the projected dose delivered to the individual over the next 50 years to the year when the intake occurred. The internal dose component decreased by 11% from 65.4 person-rems (654 person-mSv) in 2007 to 58.0 person-rems (580 person-mSv) in 2008. The collective photon dose decreased by 16% from 605 person-rems (6.05 person-Sv) in 2007 to 511 person-rems (5.11 person-Sv) in 2008. The neutron component of the TEDE decreased by 5% from 127 person-rems (1.27 person-Sv) in 2007 to 121 personrems (1.21 person-Sv) in 2008. This is due primarily to the 26% decrease in neutron dose at Hanford. Hanford and SRS process plutonium, which can result in a neutron dose from the alpha/neutron reaction with beryllium and from spontaneous fission of the plutonium. Percent Number Monitored Monitored w/Measurable w/Measurable Dose* Dose Year DOE & Contractor Workforce Number of Workers Monitored Percent of Workers Monitored*            3-2 DOE 2008 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report DOE RadCon Manual Implemented DOE RadCon Manual DOE RadCon Manual Implemented DOE RadCon Manual Implemented Implemented Exhibit 3-2: Components of TEDE, 2004–2008. 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 Internal Dose External Dose Internal dose dose (CEDE) Internal (CEDE) CEDE from new intakes from new intakes during Internal dose from new(CEDE) intakes during during the monitoring year the monitoring year from new intakes during the monitoring year the monitoring year Photon (deep) Photon (deep) Photon (deep) Photon (deep) Neutron Neutron Neutron Neutron 1,000 1,000 1,000 Collective TEDE (person-rem)* Collective TEDE (person-rem)* Collective Collective TEDE TEDE (person-rem)* (person-rem)* 1,094.4 1,094.4 1,094.4 77.3 77.3 (7.1%) 77.3(7.1%) (7.1%) 77.3 (7.1%) vg. r. a y 5 877 812.6 812.6 47.2 47.2 812.6 989.2 (5.8%) 47.2(5.8%) (5.8%) 1,000 500 500 500 The collective internal dose decreased by 11% from 2007 to 2008. Photon (deep) Neutron 989.2 989.2 989.2 63.5 63.5 (6.4%) 63.5(6.4%) 1,094.4 (6.4%) 834.8 834.8 (76.2%) 834.8 (76.2%) (76.2%) Internal doseThe (CEDE) collective TEDE decreased by 13% at from new intakes during DOE from 2007 to 2008. the monitoring year 63.5 (6.4%) 771.5 771.5 (78.0%) 771.5 (78.0%) (78.0%) 642.4 642.4 (79.1%) 642.4 (79.1%) (79.1%) 797.8 797.8 65.4 65.4 797.8 (8.2%) 65.4(8.2%) (8.2%) 0 0 500 0 2004 2004 2004 154.0 154.0 (15.6%) 154.0 (15.6%) (15.6%) 2005 2005 2005 771.5 122.9 (78.0%) 122.9 (15.1%) 122.9 (15.1%) (15.1%) 2006 2006 2006 Year Year Year 690.1 690.1 812.6 605.8 605.8 47.2 (75.9%) 605.8 (75.9%)(5.8%) (75.9%) 511.3 511.3 (74.1%) 511.3 (74.1%) (74.1%) 797.8 65.4 (8.2%) 126.7 126.7 (16.0%) 126.7 (16.0%) (16.0%) 120.8 120.8 (17.5%) 120.8 (17.5%) (17.5%) 642.4 2007 2008 (79.1%) 2007 2008 2007 2008 605.8 (75.9%) Sixty percent of the DOE sites (18 of 30 sites) reported decreases in the collective TEDE from the 2007 values. The five sites that contributed to the majority of the DOE collective TEDE183.4 in 2008 were (in154.0 descending order of 122.9 (16.7%) (15.6%) collective dose for 2008) Savannah River (18%), (15.1%) Idaho (17%), Oak 0 Ridge (17%), Los Alamos (16%), and Hanford (15%). Two of these the 2004five sites reported 2005 increases in 2006 collective TEDE, while three sites reported decreases. Year The two sites that reported increases in the collective dose attributed the increases to the following: u Expanded activities at Savannah River that included more time than anticipated for the Central Laboratory High Activity Drain replacement and response to elevated dose rates at the Saltstone Vault 4 passive vents, an increase in the number of Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) High Activity Gallery entries, Hanford receipts in K-area Interim Surveillance (KIS), and drum re-packaging of transuranic wastes in multiple facilities. Photon dose (deep)—the component of external dose from gamma or Xray electromagnetic radiation (also includes energetic betas) 690.1 Neutron 58.0 dose—the component of (8.4%)dose from neutrons ejected external from the nucleus of an atom during nuclear reactions Internal dose—radiation dose resulting from radioactive material taken into the body 511.3 (74.1%) * The percentages in parentheses represent the percentage of each dose component to the collective TEDE. Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE Photon dose decreased by 16% from 2007 to 2008. 58.0 58.0 690.1 (8.4%) 58.0(8.4%) (8.4%) 834.8 (76.2%) 183.4 183.4 (16.7%) 183.4 (16.7%) (16.7%) Neutron dose decreased by 5% from 2007 to 2008. u At Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), increased activities at the High Flux Isotope Reactor, Spallation Neutron Source, and Holifield Radioactive Ion Beam Facilities that 126.7 120.8 during most of the year in addition to (16.0%) operated (17.5%) maintenance and research activities associated facilities. 2007 with these 2008 The three sites that reported decreases in the collective dose attributed the decreases to the following: u KE basin sludge removal and removal of high-dose items from the basins were completed and the basin was dewatered and filled with a controlled density fill, substantially reducing dose rates during the remaining decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) activities at Hanford. Additionally, doses from the Waste Stabilization and Disposal Project decreased due to reduction in work activities. u The primary contributor at Los Alamos was the criticality safety-driven pause in operations 3-3 begun in the fourth quarter of 2007, which caused a significant reduction in work throughout the facility. After formal reviews, most operations resumed by July 2008 with the remaining operations fully resumed by September 2008. was due primarily to the decrease in the collective TEDE, while the number of individuals with measurable dose increased slightly. While the collective dose and average measurable dose serve as measures of the magnitude of the dose accrued by DOE workers, they do not indicate the distribution of doses among the worker population. u The overall decrease at Idaho was due to a decrease in TRU waste handling, repackaging, and shipping due to a delay in shipments from WIPP, and the high dose High Integrity Container (HIC) transfer, and sludge treatment. Significant dose was avoided in 2008 due to proficiency improvements for work at the Unirradiated Light Water Breeder Reactor (UL WBR). 3.2.5 Dose Distribution 3.2.4 Average Measurable Dose The average measurable dose to DOE workers presented in this report for TEDE and CEDE is determined by dividing the collective dose (i.e., TEDE or CEDE) by the number of individuals with a measurable dose for each dose type. This is one of the key indicators of the overall level of radiation dose received by DOE workers. The average measurable TEDE is shown in Exhibit 3-3. The average measurable TEDE decreased by 15% from 0.072 rem (0.72 mSv) in 2007 to 0.061 rem (0.61 mSv) in 2008. The decrease in the average measurable TEDE Exhibit 3-3: Average Measurable TEDE, 2004–2008. Exposure data are commonly analyzed in terms of dose intervals to depict the dose distribution among the worker population. Exhibit 3-4 shows the number of individuals in each of 18 different dose ranges. The number of individuals receiving doses above 0.1 rem (1 mSv) is included to show the number of individuals with doses above the monitoring threshold specified in 10 CFR 835.402(a) and (c). [4] Exhibit 3-4 shows a decrease in the number of individuals in most dose ranges except for the range measurable to 0.10 rem (1.0 mSv). Ninety-nine percent of the individuals monitored had doses less than 0.25 rem (2.5 mSv). It also shows that the collective TEDE has decreased each year from 2004 to 2008. Note that in 2007, the one exposure in excess of the DOE 5 rems (50 mSv) TEDE limit had a significant impact on the collective dose and the dose distribution. In 2008, it can be seen that the distribution of doses above 0.5 rem (5 mSv) decreased significantly compared with the 2007 distribution. Another way to examine the dose distribution is to analyze the percentage of the dose received above a certain dose value as compared with the total collective dose. Average Measurable Dose (rem) 0.090 0.080 0.070 0.060 vg. r. a y 5 065 0. 0.072 0.070 0.061 0.063 0.061 0.050 0.040 2004 2005 2006 Year 3-4 2007 2008 The United Nations’ Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation, United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) 2000 Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes,Volume I [8], recommends the calculation of a parameter “SR” (previously referred to as CR) to aid in the examination of the distribution of radiation exposure among workers. The parameter SR is defined to be the ratio of the annual collective dose incurred by workers whose annual doses exceed 1.5 rems (15 mSv) to the total annual collective dose. The UNSCEAR report notes that a dose level of 1.5 rems (15 mSv) may not be useful where doses are consistently lower than this level, and it is recommended that research organizations report SR values lower than 1.5 rems (15 mSv) where appropriate. For this reason, DOE calculates and tracks the SR at dose levels of 0.100 rem (1 mSv), 0.250 rem (2.5 mSv), 0.500 rem (5 mSv), 1.0 rem (10 mSv), and 2.0 rems (20 mSv). The SR values shown in DOE 2008 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report Exhibit 3-4: Distribution of TEDE by Dose Range, 2004–2008.                       ­ € ‚ ‚ ƒ ƒ ­ „ ‚ … €†‡† ˆ ‰ Š ‹ €†‡† ˆ Š    Œ  Œ Œ        Œ   Œ Œ     Œ  Œ  Œ   Œ  Œ  Œ        Œ   Œ Œ     Œ  Œ    Œ  Œ Œ  Œ  Œ  Œ  Œ Œ  Œ   Œ   Œ  Œ  Œ  „ „ „ „ „ Œ                   Exhibit 3-5 shows the dose distribution given by percentage of collective TEDE above each of five dose values from 0.1 rem (1 mSv) to 2 rems (20 mSv). This graph facilitates the examination of a property described above that may be used as an indication of effective ALARA programs at DOE: a relatively small percentage of the collective dose accrued in the higher dose ranges. Exhibit 3-5 also shows that each successively higher dose range is responsible for a lower percentage of the collective dose. The percentage of the collective dose received in each dose range increased in 2007 primarily due to the one individual who received a dose above 5 rems from an intake of plutonium at LANL. For 2008, the percentages for all dose ranges decreased to the lowest values within the past 5 years. Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE Exhibit 3-5: Percentage of Collective TEDE Above Dose Values During 2004–2008. Percentage of Collective TEDE Above Dose Values Exhibit 3-5 were calculated by summing the TEDE to each individual who received a TEDE greater than or equal to the specified dose level divided by the total collective TEDE. This ratio is presented as a percentage rather than a decimal fraction. 70% 69% 64% 60% 65% 69% 63% 50% 40% 39% 37% 30% 38% 41% 20% 31% 17% 15% 10% 0% 16% 4% 0.5% 2004 2% 3% 5% 0.2% 2005 0% 2006 19% 10.1% 1.3% 1% 0.3% 2007 2008 2.0 rem 0.1 rem 0.25 rem 0.5 rem e 1.0 rem alu se Do V 3-5 3.3 Analysis of Individual Dose Data The previous analysis is based on aggregate data for DOE. From an individual worker perspective, as well as a regulatory perspective, it is important to closely examine the doses received by individuals in the elevated dose ranges to thoroughly understand the circumstances leading to these doses in the workplace and to better manage and avoid these doses in the future. The following analysis focuses on doses received by individuals that were in excess of the DOE limit (5 rems [50 mSv] TEDE) and the DOE recommended ACL (2 rems [20 mSv] TEDE). approval to be exceeded. The number of individuals receiving doses in excess of the 2 rems (20 mSv) ACL is a measure of the effectiveness of DOE’s radiation protection program. As shown in Exhibit 3-7, there was one individual who received a TEDE above 2 rems (20 mSv) during 2008. Exhibit 3-7: Number of Doses in Excess of the DOE 2 rems ACL, 2004–2008. 3.3.1 Doses in Excess of DOE Limit Exhibit 3-6 shows the number of doses in excess of the TEDE regulatory limit (5 rems [50 mSv]) from 2004 through 2008. There were no individuals that exceeded 5 rems (50 mSv) TEDE from 2004 to 2006, but one individual received a TEDE in excess of 5 rems (50 mSv) in 2007. In 2008, no individual received a TEDE in excess of 5 rems (50 mSv). However, as described below, there was one individual that received an organ dose in excess of the 50 rems (500 mSv) DOE annual organ dose limit. 3.3.2 Doses in Excess of Administrative Control Level The Radiological Control Standard (RCS) recommends a 2 rems (20 mSv) ACL for TEDE, which should not be exceeded without prior DOE approval. The RCS recommends that each DOE site establish its own more restrictive ACL that would require contractor management Exhibit 3-6: Number of Individuals Exceeding 5 rems (TEDE), 2004–2008. In 2008, no individual received a dose in excess of the 5 rems (50 mSv) TEDE limit. 3-6 The individual was working at the TA-55 facility at LANL in a glovebox to reduce the size of a contaminated stainless steel item into smaller sample pieces. The task was challenging because it was performed in a glovebox using personal protective equipment (PPE) that included four layers of protective gloves. A small sliver of material punctured the gloves and caused a wound to the operator’s finger. As a result, the individual received an internal dose from Pu-239 of 1.8 rems (18 mSv) CEDE and 60 rems (600 mSv) committed dose equivalent (CDE) to the bone surface. Combined with the individual’s external exposure, the resultant annual TEDE was 2.106 rems (210.6 mSv), which exceeded the ACL. In addition, the CDE exceeded the 50 rems DOE annual limit to an organ or tissue. Plutonium is primarily retained in the bone surface as it is permanently incorporated into the bone material and delivers a concentrated localized dose from alpha and beta radiation. Since the CDE to the bone surface is calculated over a 50-year period and the Pu-239 stays in the bone surface during this entire period, the bone surface dose is much higher than the dose to other organs and higher than the overall CEDE to the whole body. For further information on this event, see the Occurrence Report NA—LASO-LANL-TA55-2008-0019. 3.3.3 Internal Depositions of Radioactive Material As shown in Exhibit 3-8, some of the highest doses to individuals have been the result of intakes of radioactive DOE 2008 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report Exhibit 3-8: Doses in Excess of DOE Limit, 2004–2008. TEDE (rem) Year DDE (rem) CDE (rem) CEDE (rem) Intake Nuclides          Facility Types    material. For this reason, DOE emphasizes the need to avoid intakes and tracks the number of intakes as a performance measure in this report. During the past 5 years, there has been one intake from plutonium in excess of 5 rems (50 mSv) TEDE. However, it should be noted that the individual that exceeded 2 rems TEDE also received a CDE to the bone surface of 60 rems, which is in excess of the DOE annual limit for an organ or tissue. The number of internal depositions of radioactive material (an indicator of worker intakes), collective CEDE, and average measurable CEDE for 2004 to 2008 are shown in Exhibit 3-9. The number of internal depositions decreased by 1% from 1,237 in 2007 to 1,223 in 2008, while the collective CEDE decreased by 11%. As a result, the average measurable CEDE decreased from 0.053 rem (0.53 mSv) in 2007 to 0.047 rem (0.47 mSv) in 2008. Note that the 2007 data have been updated to incorporate corrections in the internal dose records reported by Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12 NSC) in Oak Ridge. Y-12 NSC reports the majority of the internal dose from uranium at DOE and these doses can take a long time to finalize based on bioassay measurement. Adjustments were made for the 2007 uranium intakes in December 2008. A majority (82%) of the collective CEDE was from uranium intakes at the Oak Ridge Y-12 NSC during the operation and management of Enriched Uranium Operations facilities at the site. Compared with external dose, relatively few workers receive measurable internal dose, so fluctuations in the number of workers and collective CEDE can occur from year to year. While trend analysis is statistically limited, these values have exhibited an overall decreasing trend over the past 5 years. Exhibit 3-10 shows the distribution of the internal dose from 2004 to 2008. The total number of individuals with intakes in each dose range is the sum of all records of intake in the subject dose range. Individuals with multiple intakes during the year may be counted more than once. Exhibit 3-9: Number of Internal Depositions, Collective CEDE, and Average Measurable CEDE, 2004–2008. 2000 0.100 200 3000 2500 2,094 1500 0.080 150 . avg 1,600 1000 1,260 r. 5-y 3 8 1,4 1,237 1,223 2004 2005 2006 Year 2007 2008 . 0.060 100 50 77.3 500 0 Average Measurable CEDE per Average Measurable CEDE per Deposition (rem) Deposition (rem) Collective CEDE Collective CEDE (person-rem) (person-rem) Number of Internal Number of Internal Depositions * Depositions* Site 0 2004 r. 5-y 63.5 2005 47.2 2006 Year 65.4 58.0 2007 2008 . avg .3 62 r. 5-y 0.040 0.020 0.000 0.053 0.040 0.037 0.037 2004 2005 2006 Year 2007 0.047 avg 43 0.0 2008 * The number of internal depositions represents the number of internal dose records with positive results reported for each individual. Individuals     may have multiple intakes in a year and, therefore, may be counted more than once.        Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE 3-7 Exhibit 3-10: Internal Dose Distribution from Intakes, 2004–2008. ­ €    ­ ‚ ƒ ƒ „ …            *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. Doses below 0.020 rem (0.20 mSv) are shown as a separate dose range, which shows the large number of doses in this low dose range. There was no internal dose above 5 rems (50 mSv) CEDE in 2008. Exhibit 3-11: Bioassay Measurements, 2006-2008. 70,000 The internal dose records indicate that the majority of the intakes result in very low doses. In 2008, 49% of the internal dose records were for doses below 0.020 rem (0.20 mSv). Over the 5-year period, internal doses from intakes accounted for 7% of the collective TEDE, and 11% of the individuals who received internal doses were above the monitoring threshold (100 mrem [1 mSv]) specified in 10 CFR 835.402(c). [4] 3.3.4 Bioassay and Intake Summary Information The revised DOE Manual 231.1-1A [6] was issued on March 19, 2004. Reporting of bioassay and intake summary data under the revised DOE Manual 231.1-1A occurred for the first time in 2005. During the past 3 years, urinalysis has been reported as the most common method of bioassay measurement used to determine internal doses to the individuals. Exhibit 3-11 shows the breakdown of bioassay measurements by measurement type. The measurements reported under "in vivo" include measurements taken while the radioactive material is in the body of the monitored person. Examples of in vivo measurements include whole body counts and lung or thyroid counts. The measurements reported in “Other” are for air samples taken in the workplace that are used to calculate the amount of airborne radioactive material taken into the body and the 3-8 Number of Measurements 2006 60,000 2007 50,000 2008 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 Urinalysis Other In Vivo Fecal Type of Bioassay Exhibit 3-12: Collective CEDE by Radionuclide, 2008. U-234 56.8 rem 56.8 rems, 50.8 rem 93% 93% 83% H-3 0.5 rem, 0.8% PU-238 0.4 rem, 0.7% PU-239 2.3 rems, 3.8% All Other 1.1 rems 1.8% DOE 2008 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report resultant internal dose. Note that the numbers shown are based on the number of measurements taken, not the number of individuals monitored. Individuals may have measurements taken more than once during the year. Seventy-nine percent of the urinalysis measurements were performed at four sites: Oak Ridge Y-12 NSC, SRS, LANL, and Hanford. All of the bioassay measurements reported as “other” were from air sampling reported by Hanford, SRS, and Pantex. The large decrease in the number of “other” bioassay measurements that occurred between 2006 and 2007 was because of the closure of Fernald, which performed a large number of air samples prior to 2007. Exhibit 3-12 shows the breakdown of the collective CEDE by radionuclide for 2008. Uranium-234 accounts for the largest percentage of the collective dose, with over 99% of this dose accrued at the Oak Ridge Y-12 NSC site. 3.4 Analysis of Site Data 3.4.1 Collective TEDE by Site and Other Facilities The collective TEDE for 2006 through 2008 for the major DOE sites and operations/field offices is shown graphically in Exhibit 3-13. A list of the collective TEDE and number of individuals with measurable TEDE by DOE sites is shown in Exhibit 3-14. The collective TEDE decreased by 13% from 798 person-rems (7.98 person-Sv) in 2007 to 690 personrems (6.90 person-Sv) in 2008, with SRS, Idaho, Oak Ridge sites (including East Tennessee Technology Park [ETTP], Y-12 NSC, ORNL, and Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education [ORISE]), LANL, and Hanford (including the Hanford Site, PNL and ORP) contributing 79% of the total DOE collective TEDE. 3.4.2 Changes by Site from 2007 to 2008 Exhibit 3-15 shows the collective TEDE, the number with a measurable dose, the average measurable TEDE, and the percentage of the collective TEDE delivered above 0.500 rem by site for 2008, as well as the percentage change in these values from the previous year. Some of the largest Exhibit 3-13: Collective TEDE by DOE Site for 2006–2008. Hanford Site Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Idaho National Laboratory Office of River Protection Ames Laboratory Stanford Linear Accel. Center Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory Los Alamos National Laboratory Honeywell, FM&T/KC Production Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Boeing North America, Inc. Nevada Test Site Sandia National Laboratories 100 Collective TEDE (person-rem) New Brunswick Laboratory Brookhaven National Laboratory RMI Environmental Services Fernald Envir. Mgmt. Project Mound Plant Portsmouth Gas. Diff. Plant Paducah Gas. Diff. Plant Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility ETTP Pantex Plant 200 West Valley Argonne National Laboratory ORNL Y-12 ORISE Savannah River Site WIPP 0 2006 2007 2008 Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE 3-9 Exhibit 3-14: Collective TEDE and Number of Individuals with Measurable TEDE by DOE Site, 2006–2008. Other 33,139 37% ­ € ‚      ­ ƒ € ‚         „ ƒ ­ … † ‡ˆ       „ ‰ € ‚            Š ­ € ‚            Š ‹ ƒ Œ Ž ‘    ’ “ ‹” ’ “ ‹ •    …    …     … –““ “ ˆ Œ           Œ “ € ‚               …    …   …                  …  ’ ‚ … Š — ˜™ Œ ‹ †‹ € ‚ € „ ‰ ‚ € ‚ € € € ‚ € ­ € ‚ …   …    ‹ Œ ‘   ‹ •            „ ‰ € ‚    ƒ‚ Œ ‰       – ‰ ˆ ‹ƒ † “ • ‹ ‹       – ‰ ˆ ‹ƒ € ‚            š  • ‚ ›    …   …     …  Œ ‹ œ ““ Œ                  Œ œ ““ Œ         Œ Œ Œ ‚ € ‚               – ‰ ˆ ‹ƒ ” Œ › Œ ˆ † • ‘     • ‹ €        • ˆ •     • “ ‹ € ­          ž ““ ­ Š ‚                   Ÿ†ŒŒ      • –““ Œ ‘‘      Ÿ ¡ ‚ ‘‘‘ ote: Bold values indicate the greatest value in each column. N *In 2006, Fernald, Mound Plant, and RMI Environmental Services ceased operations. **Includes site office personnel from Albuquerque, Chicago, Oak Ridge, and Ohio in addition to several smaller facilities not associated with a DOE site. *** The collective TEDE totals are calculated from the dose records that are reported in millirem while the values shown are rounded to the nearest tenth of a rem. 3-10 DOE 2008 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report Exhibit 3-15: Site Dose Data, 2008. — ™ ˆš ‰ š— — ˆ ƒ ˜ —— ‰  ƒ …  ­…Ž —— — ™ ƒ ˜ —— ‰  Ž… ­…  – • ƒ ˜ —— ‰   Ž „  ƒ ˜ —— ‰  Ž… ­… – ‡ ƒ Š • ˆ‰œ ‡ˆ‰› ˆ™ — —ˆ˜ ‡š™› — ˆ—š šš› — ——ž ‡ˆž› ™ Ÿ ‡ˆš› ˆŸž ‡‰‰› — —š¡ ˆˆ› ˆ™ Ÿ ‡˜› ˆ¡¡ ‡‰‰› — —žš ˆž› ˜› ™Ÿ› ˆ› ‡‰™Ÿˆ› ™› ‡™™›  ˜¡ ™ ‡šœ› ˆ ˜˜œ œ› — —Ÿš ‡Ÿš›   ˆœ š ‡‰—› š˜‰ ‡¡› — —Ÿž ‡ˆ™›   ˆˆ ˆ ˆ› ‰‰¡ ‰™› — —Ÿž ‡ˆž›  — ˆ   ­€‚ƒ  „ ˆ‰— ˆ šž — ——š ‡‰˜› ™› — —¡ˆ ‡ˆŸ› — —™Ÿ ˆœ› ‡ˆ—› ˆ ž™˜ ‰— Ÿ šˆ› ˆ‰ž ‡¡› šž› š˜› ˆ—˜ š ‡‰œ› ˆ ‰ˆž ‡ˆ‰› — —œœ ‡ˆœ› š—› ‡™ˆ› ­  ™ ‰ ‡ž› ˜™ ˜› — —˜— ‡ˆ™›  „  — ˆ œ — —ˆ˜ ‰˜› … ­ ­  — Ÿ ‰š — —ˆž š˜›  „  … „ — ‰ ™š — ——š ‡ˆ¡›   — Ÿ œ    Ÿ‰ ˜ šŸ› Ÿž‰ ˆ¡› — —œ˜ ˆ¡› ˆ‰› ‡™š› †‡ˆ‰  „ ƒ Š ‹ ˜‰ ˆ ‡š› ˆ š—ˆ š› — —™™ ‡¡› ™› š—› ˆ š ‡‰š› ŸŸ ™‰› — —‰ž ‡™—› ˆ¡ ™ ‡šˆ› ‰œ˜ ‡‰› — —™˜ ‡š—›  „ Œ „ Ž „  ˆ Ÿ ‡Ÿ› š¡ ˆ——› — —šž ‡™‰›    ˆ š ‡˜› ˆ‰š ‡‰—› — —ˆ— ˆ¡›  ˜ ‰ ‡œ› ˆ¡— ‡ž› — —Ÿ™ ˆ› ˆš› ˆ› — —™ž ˆ‰› Ÿ›  „ Œ „ Ž „   ‹     ƒ — ¡ — —‰‰ ‡š˜› ­ ‘ ˆ ™ ž˜› ™ˆ — —š— ‡‰˜› ‰‰ ‰ ‡™—› ˆ™˜ ‡ˆ¡› — ˆŸˆ ‡Ÿ—› ’  ˆ ˆ ¡š — —ˆ˜    ” — ¡ — —‰¡ ‰› ’ “ ”” ‰™ ‰‰ ‡ž¡› Note: Bold values indicate the greatest value in each column. The percentage change from the previous year is not shown because it is not meaningful when the site collective dose is less than 1 person-rem (10 person-mSv). *Includes site office personnel from Albuquerque, Chicago, Oak Ridge, and Ohio in addition to several smaller facilities not associated with a DOE site. ** The collective TEDE totals are calculated from the dose records that are reported in millirem while the values shown are rounded to the nearest tenth of a rem. Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE 3-11 percentages of change occur at relatively small facilities where conditions may fluctuate from year to year. The changes that have the most impact in the overall values at DOE occur at sites with a relatively large collective dose     in addition to a large percentage change, such as Hanford    and Idaho in 2008. 3.4.3 Activities Significantly Contributing to Collective Dose in 2008 In an effort to identify the reasons for changes in the collective dose at DOE, several of the larger sites were contacted to provide information on activities that significantly contributed to the collective dose for 2008.  Œ     The percentage of the collective TEDE above 0.500 rem These sites (Savannah River, Idaho, Oak Ridge, Los Alamos,  – – –   — —  is an indicator of the distribution of dose to individuals. and Hanford) had a collective dose over 100 person-rems ” ” Š Ž  Ž  A greater fraction of the monitored population is and were the top contributors to the collective TEDE in  Ž €‘€ Œ  ‹  receiving doses above 0.5 rem. See section 3.2.5 for more   — — — —   ‡  Ž ˜ 2008. These sites comprised 79% of the total collective ‘ — ™   information on the characteristics of the distribution of TEDE at DOE. Three of the sites reported decreases in    ƒˆ ­ — ™   —  ” ” doses to individuals above a certain dose value. Š Ž   ‡ ­ Œ  ‘š‘ ™ •  the collective TEDE, which contributed to a 13% decrease ™   in the DOE collective TEDE from 798 person-rems (7.98  person-Sv) in 2007 to 690 person-rems (6.90 person-Sv) in  ™ ƒ ˆ ™ Ž 2008. The sites significantly contributing to the collective ƒ€ Ž   Ž TEDE in 2008 are shown in Exhibit 3-16, including a Ž  œ  Ž ‘š‘ description of activities that affected the collective TEDE. …  ‡  Ž ˜ ‘ Exhibit 3-16 : Activities Significantly Contributing to Collective TEDE in 2008. — ™    Ž ‹ ” › Œ        Collective TEDE (person-rem) 300 250 200 yr. 5– 150 g. av 4 13 100 50 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 •           ­   € ‚  ­‚  ƒ„… †  ƒ† ‚  ‡ ˆ ‰ …Š……   ‹  Œ  ‹ €  ­ Ž Œ … ‘  ’ “   ” Š Ž ”Š Œ … ‰ Œ  ƒ† „ ‹   * Up arrows indicate an increase in change. Down arrows indicate a decrease in change. 3-12 DOE 2008 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report and TA-54. In fact the two highest LANL 2008 external doses resulted from maintenance work in target and experimental areas at TA-53. Internal doses reflect a combination of routine tritium doses at LANL tritium handling facilities and unanticipated intakes of plutonium/americium. The most significant intake resulted in doses of 1.8 rems CEDE and 60 rems CDE to bone surfaces to a worker form a wound sustained during glovebox work at TA-55 on August 13, 2008. This event is documented in ORPS report NA—'97LASO-LANL-TA55-2008-0019. Exhibit 3-16 (Continued): Activities Significantly Contributing to Collective TEDE in 2008. Percent Change* Idaho National Laboratory 2007 - 2006 - 2004-2 008 2008 2008 (3 yr.) (5 yr.) (last Collective TEDE (person-rem) 250 g. av . r y 5– 1 14 200 150 100 10% 50 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 Description of Activities at the Site CH2M, WG Idaho LLC and Battelle Energy Alliance (Idaho National Laboratory Site) The primary Idaho Cleanup Project (ICP) activities, performed by CH2M-WG Idaho, LLC during CY-2008 leading to radiation exposure include the following: 300 2004 LANL extremity dose decreased by 15%, primarily reflecting a decrease in hands-on work at TA-55. While subject to the effects of pausing work due to criticality safety concerns and less-than-anticipated programmatic work, extremity doses continue to reflect work with significant quantities of radioactive material. Waste Management Work - Inventory of legacy waste to be shipped off site in 2008 was less than 2007 due to reduction of inventory processed in 2007. RH-TRU waste handling/repack/shipping in 2008 decreased due to reduction of inventory processed in 2007 and a delay from WIPP. 26% 10% Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center (INTEC) - Decreased from 0.810 person-rem in 2007 to 0.002 person-rem in 2008 due to the significant reduction of number of hot samples that were processed in Remote Analytical Laboratory (RAL) and CPP-602. Liquid Waste - Decreased from 2.735 person-rems in 2007 to 1.730 person-rems in 2008 due to the video inspection of the Bin Sets, APS duct wrapping and associated RadCon Surveys in these areas in 2007. Lower dose grouting work was completed in Tank Farms during 2008. Nuclear Materials Disposition (NMD) - Decreased from 11.657 person-rems in 2007 to 1.530 person-rems in 2008. Battelle Energy Alliance The radiation exposure activities, performed by Battelle Energy Alliance during 2008 at the Idaho National Laboratory, included Reactor power operations and maintenance, i.e., loop maintenance and primary heat exchanger inspections and repair; research and development activities; hot cell and laboratory operations; and homeland security training and exercises. The increase in TEDE from 2007 (34,300 person-rems) to 2008, (48,000 person-rems) was due primarily to the following: • Analytical Laboratory ALP-7 cask loading and transfers, and repackaging/removal of radioactive material in the AL vault, resulting in a 1.250 person-rems increase.; • Two additional DTRA class exercises at MFC, resulting in a 0.325 personrem increase; • Additional maintenance required in Nuclear Operations facilities, resulting in a 0.600 person-rem increase. • One additional Multi-Mission radioisotopes thermoelectric generator assembled in the Space & Security Power Systems (SSPS) facility, resulting in a 4,700 person-rems increase. Bechtel BWXT Idaho, LLC (Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project) The AMWTP work activities, performed by Bechtel BWXT Idaho, in 2008 continued the direct support of the 1995 Idaho/U.S. Navy/U.S. DOE Settlement Agreement requiring the removal of transuranic waste from the DOE’'92s Idaho Operations area. The primary work activities at the AMWTP that contributed to workforce dose included TRU waste retrieval from burial, waste characterization, and waste handling operations in support of shipment of transuranic and by-product waste materials from Idaho to the DOE’'92s WIPP facility and other commercial disposal sites. Increases in collective dose from 2007 can be attributed to increased retrieval and waste movement activities, initial receipt of offsite waste, and projects involving elevated dose rate waste drums. These activities lead to greater numbers of waste drums being stored at the AMWTP, which increases the dose producing source term for the worker population. While the collective total effective dose (TED) increased for the project there were significant decreases (~22%) in the maximum individual TED for 2008. * Up arrows indicate an increase in change. Down arrows indicate a decrease in change. Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE 3-13 Exhibit 3-16 (Continued): Activities Significantly Contributing to Collective TEDE in 2008. Percent Change* Oak Ridge Reservation 2007 - 2006 2008 2008 (3 yr.) (last 2004 2008 (5 yr.) Oak Ridge Sites The records for occupational radiation exposure monitoring conducted for BJC projects conducted during 2008 at three sites located in Oak Ridge, Tennessee: ETTP site (K25), ORNL, and Y-12 NSC. 300 Collective TEDE (person-rem) Description of Activities at the Site 250 200 ETTP There were a total of 2,325 individuals monitored by BJC in 2008, resulting in a TEDE of 6.755 person-rems and a total CEDE of 0 person-rem for all BJC sites. The major activities performed at BJC sites consisted of environmental restoration work, removal or stabilization of buried hazardous wastes, decontamination of facilities, surveillance and maintenance tasks, stabilization of inactive facilities and demolition of surplus facilities. g. av yr. 5– 4 10 150 100 50 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 8% 45% 0% The decrease in TEDE for 2008 as compared with 2007 is attributed to a decrease in waste operations tasks at ORNL. The decreases in total neutron dose and total extremity dose for 2008 compared with 2007 were also due to the decrease in waste operations work at ORNL. There were no unusual events related to occupational radiation exposure at BJC facilities for 2008. ORNL UT Battelle The reported TEDE for ORNL for 2008 is higher than the 2007 reported TEDE. This increase can be attributed to the High Flux Isotope Reactor, Spallation Neutron Source, and Holifield Radioactive Ion Beam Facilities operating most of the year and maintenance and research activities associated with these facilities. There was also an increase in work associated with the processing of isotopes. Y-12 National Security Complex The collective TEDE decreased 3% from 2007 (74.3 person-rems) to 2008 (72.1 person-rems), while the total persons monitored increased by 6% from 4,862 to 5,168. Average TEDE decreased from 0.015 rem in 2007 to 0.014 rem in 2008. The number of workers receiving greater than 100 mrem is 212. The 2008 collective deep dose equivalent (DDE) for the Y-12 NSC decreased by 6.7% from 19.4 person-rems in 2007, to 18.1 person-rems in 2008. This decrease is the result of the conclusion of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Off-Spec Project and reduction in other operations. Average deep-dose equivalent remained the same at 0.004 rem. The collective CEDE decreased 1.6% from 54.9 person-rems in 2007 to 54.0 person-rems in 2008 while the average CEDE remained the same at 0.022 rem. There were 154 workers who received an internal dose in excess of 100 mrem (CEDE). * Up arrows indicate an increase in change. Down arrows indicate a decrease in change. 3-14 DOE 2008 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report Exhibit 3-16 (Continued): Activities Significantly Contributing to Collective TEDE in 2008. Percent Change* Los Alamos National Laboratory 2007 - 2006 - 2004-2 008 2008 2008 (3 yr.) (5 yr.) (last LANL conducts radiological operations in active facilities/areas, storage facilities/areas, facilities/areas with legacy radiological concerns, and inactive facilities/areas destined for decommissioning. Radiological activities include programmatic and production work; facility construction, modification, and maintenance; and research, development, and testing. Collective TEDE (person-rem) 300 250 g. av r. y 5– 0 14 200 150 TA-55 Plutonium Facility operations account for the majority of occupational dose at LANL. 2008 doses in this facility were not as high as anticipated at the beginning of the year and significantly lower than 2007. For various reasons,programmatic work was not executed as expected. Additionally, the criticality safety-driven pause in operations begun in the fourth quarter of 2007 caused a significant reduction in work throughout the facility. After formal reviews, most operations were resumed by July 2008; all operations were fully resumed by September 2008. 100 50 28% 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Description of Activities at the Site 35% 14% 2008 In addition to TA-55 operations, significant portions of LANL whole body external dose were accrued by workers performing maintenance at TA-53 (the linear accelerator), and those supporting retrieval, repackaging, and shipping radioactive solid waste at LANL waste facilities located at TA-50 and TA-54. In fact the two highest LANL 2008 external doses resulted from maintenance work in target and experimental areas at TA-53. Internal doses reflect a combination of routine tritium doses at LANL tritium handling facilities and unanticipated intakes of plutonium/americium. The most significant intake resulted in doses of 1.8 rems CEDE and 60 rems CDE to bone surfaces to a worker form a wound sustained during glovebox work at TA-55 on August 13, 2008. This event is documented in ORPS report NA—'97LASO-LANL-TA55-2008-0019. LANL extremity dose decreased by 15%, primarily reflecting a decrease in hands-on work at TA-55. While subject to the effects of pausing work due to criticality safety concerns and less-than-anticipated programmatic work, extremity doses continue to reflect work with significant quantities of radioactive material. Percent Change*     Idaho National    Laboratory 2007 2008 (last 2006 - 2004-2 008 2008 (5 yr.) (3 yr.) CH2M, WG Idaho LLC and Battelle Energy Alliance  Œ     (Idaho National Laboratory Site)  – – –   — —  The primary Idaho Cleanup Project (ICP) activities, performed by CH2M-WG ” ” Š Ž  Ž  300 Collective TEDE (person-rem) Description of Activities at the Site Idaho, LLC during CY-2008 leading to radiation exposure include the  Ž €‘€ Œ  ‹  following:   — — — —   ‡  Ž ˜ Waste Management Work - Inventory of legacy waste to be shipped off site ‘ — ™   in 2008 was less than 2007 due to reduction of inventory processed in    ƒˆ ­ — ™   —  ” ” 2007. RH-TRU waste handling/repack/shipping in 2008 decreased due to Š Ž   ‡ ­ Œ  ‘š‘ ™ •  reduction of inventory processed in 2007 and a delay from WIPP. ™   g. av . r y 5– 4 16 250 200 150 100 10% 26% 10% 50 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 œ 2008 Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center (INTEC) - Decreased  from 0.810 person-rem in 2007 to 0.002 person-rem in 2008 due to the  ™ ƒ ˆ ™ Ž significant reduction of number of hot samples that were processed in Remote Analytical Laboratory (RAL) and CPP-602. ƒ€ Ž   Ž Ž  Liquid Waste - Decreased from 2.735 person-rems in 2007 to 1.730  Ž ‘š‘ person-rems in 2008 due to the video inspection of the Bin Sets, APS duct …  ‡  Ž ˜ ‘ wrapping and associated RadCon Surveys in these areas in 2007. Lower — ™    dose grouting work was completed in Tank Farms during 2008. Ž ‹ ” › Nuclear Materials Disposition (NMD) - Decreased from 11.657 person-rems in 2007 to 1.530 person-rems in 2008. Œ   Battelle Energy Alliance     The radiation exposure activities, performed by Battelle Energy Alliance * Up arrows indicate an increase in change. Down arrows indicate a decrease in change.  Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE • during 2008 at the Idaho National Laboratory, included Reactor power operations and maintenance, i.e., loop maintenance and primary heat exchanger inspections and repair; research and development activities; hot cell and laboratory operations; and homeland security training and exercises. The increase in TEDE from 2007 (34,300 person-rems) to 2008, (48,000 person-rems) was due primarily to the following:           ­   Analytical Laboratory ALP-7 cask loading and transfers, and • € ‚  ­‚  repackaging/removal of radioactive material in the AL vault, resulting in a 1.250 person-rems increase.; ƒ„… †  ƒ† ‚ Two additional DTRA class exercises at MFC, resulting in a 0.325 person•  ‡ ˆ ‰ 3-15 rem increase; …Š……   Additional maintenance required in Nuclear Operations facilities, • ‹  resulting in a 0.600 person-rem increase. Œ  One additional Multi-Mission radioisotopes thermoelectric generator • ‹ € assembled in the Space & Security Power Systems (SSPS) facility, resulting  ­ Ž In addition to the information provided in Exhibit 3-16, several of the DOE sites provided further information on operations conducted during the monitoring year. DOE Manual 231.1-1A, Appendix G, Section 1, specifies that the sites should provide a description of activities conducted at the site as it relates to the collective radiation exposure received. The following descriptions are excerpts from the transmittal letters from DOE sites that are not among the top contributors to the DOE collective dose in 2008. Ames Laboratory The use of x-ray devices, radiological materials, and remediation of radiological legacy contamination are pathways of exposure at Ames Laboratory. The Laboratory has 16 X-ray systems. There are also limited research activities that utilize radioactive materials. In the past year, some laser ablation work using radioactive material and irradiated metals activities were conducted. Depleted uranium electrotransport processes were also conducted. Security, LLC management team (LLNS), which includes Bechtel, the University of California, BWX Technologies, Washington Group, and Battelle. The site serves as a national resource of scientific, technical, and engineering capability with a special focus on national security. LLNL’s mission encompasses such areas as strategic defense, energy, the environment, biomedicine, technology transfer, education, counter-terrorism, and emergency response. Support of these operations requires the use of a wide range of radiation-producing devices (e.g., x-ray machines, accelerators, electron-beam welders) and radioactive material. The types of radioactive materials range from tritium to transuranics; the quantities range from nanocuries (i.e., normal environmental background values) to kilocuries. The 2008 total collective TEDE of 20,356 mrem reflects an increase from the 2007 total collective TEDE of 15,413 mrem and represents a return of normal operations in the Plutonium Facility at LLNL. Doses for 2008 are as expected. Argonne National Laboratory Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant The collective dose (TEDE) at Argonne was approximately 13,200 person-mrem, up from approximately 9,200 person-mrem the previous year. The Alpha Gamma Hot Cell Facility (AGHCF) was the primary dose contributor in 2008. The Intense Pulsed Neutron Source (IPNS) was shut down at the beginning of the year and only contributed approximately 500 person-mrem to the total. There were two AGHCF workers with an annual individual dose (TEDE) slightly exceeding 1,000 mrem. The doses at AGHCF were accrued mainly during maintenance periods and campaigns to remove radioactive waste from the hot cell. Other major contributors were site waste management operations and nuclear engineering fuel cladding studies. The exposure information for activities at the Paducah site covers Paducah Remediation Services, LLC (PRS) activities performed under the DOE contract scope for environmental remediation, facility decontamination, and final assessment of buildings and areas at the site. The major activities performed at PRS sites consisted of environmental restoration work, decontamination of facilities, stabilization of inactive facilities, and demolition of surplus facilities. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory The collective total effective dose (TED) at LBNL decreased slightly from 0.770 person-rem in 2007 to 0.429 person-rem in 2008. Eighty-five percent of the collective TED is the result of radiological activities at the Center for Functional Imaging (CFI), specifically those activities associated with new radiopharmaceutical (F-18/C-11) development. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) is a DOE facility operated by the Lawrence Livermore National 3-16 Pantex Plant The DOE/National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Pantex Plant is the nation’s only facility for assembly and disassembly of nuclear explosives. The operations that contribute the majority of the dose to Pantex Plant workers are operations that expose them to large numbers of bare weapon pits (the pits contain significant quantities of Special Nuclear Materials). These operations include nuclear explosive assembly/ disassembly operations, weapon dismantlement programs, life-extension programs, Special Nuclear Material Component Re-qualification, and Special Nuclear Material Staging. The total population dose to Pantex Plant workers decreased by 31% in 2008 compared with 2007 and was the lowest level in the previous 10 years of Pantex operations. The decrease was due to variations in the specific types and quantities of production work DOE 2008 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report performed by B&W Pantex and process improvements. No one exceeded 2 rems TED in 2008. Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory The primary source for exposure during the past monitoring year was due to the continuing National Compact Stellarator Experiment (NCSX) construction activities in the old Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) test cell, renamed the NCSX Coil Winding Facility. This area contains components and materials that were activated during TFTR operations and were not removed during the D&D effort. The collective dose was lower than the previous year due to a longer than expected maintenance period for NSTX. Stanford Linear Accelerator Center The Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) program centers around experimental and theoretical research in elementary particle physics using accelerated electron beams and a broad program of research in atomic and solid-state physics, chemistry, and biology using synchrotron radiation from accelerated electron beams. There is also an active program in the development of accelerators, RF power sources, detectors, and new sources and instrumentation for synchrotron radiation research. The main instrument of research is the 3.2-km linear accelerator (LINAC), which can generate highintensity beams of electrons and positrons up to 50 GeV. The Positron-Electron Project (PEP) storage ring is about 800 meters in diameter. While the original PEP program was completed in 1990, the storage ring has since been upgraded to serve as an Asymmetric B Factory (known as PEP-II) to study the B meson, utilizing the BaBar detector. PEP-II and the BaBar facilities were permanently shut down in April 2008. Replacing PEP-II and Babar programs, the Linac Coherent Light Source (LCLS) will be the world's first X-ray free electron laser (FEL) when it becomes fully operational in 2009. LCLS will use the last kilometer of the SLAC LINAC. LCLS electron beamlines have been commissioned in early 2009 and the photon beamlines will be commissioned starting in July 2009. Another facility, the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory (SSRL), has a smaller storage ring, the Stanford Positron-Electron Asymmetric Ring (SPEAR3), a separate, shorter LINAC ,and a booster ring for injecting accelerated beams of electrons into SPEAR3. The FEL and synchrotron light generated by the LCLS and SPEAR3 storage ring are used to perform experiments in various fields. The Klystron Test Laboratory (KTL) manufactures all the klystrons used in SLAC accelerators, as well as Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE novel structures and components for future accelerators; it supports low-level and high-level RF operations of SLAC accelerators; and it operates a 70-MeV X-band research accelerator and laser facility capable of producing subpicosecond beam bunches. SLAC is also host of the International Linear Collider (ILC) test facilities, including the Next Linear Collider Test Accelerator (NLCTA). Compared with the previous 2007 collective TED (1,453 person-mrem), the 2008 collective TED (560 personmrem) is about 40% of the value for 2007. This decrease in collective TED for calendar year (CY)2008 is mainly associated with the shutdowns of PEP-II and BaBar operations. As mentioned previously, PEP-II and BaBar operations ended in April 2008; thus, the beams from LINAC Sectors 0 -19, including associated klystrons, have been turned off since then. A review of the Radiological Work Permit (RWP) program in 2008 also shows no significant work involving elevated personal exposures. Thus, the collective dose reduction in 2008 was in line with less work activities conducted in radiological areas, especially in high radiation areas and contamination areas during 2008. Waste Isolation Pilot Plant The collective TEDE for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) for the calendar year 2008 is 1.069 rems. This value reflects a decrease of 0.659 rem from the calendar year 2007. All doses received were from routine activities associated with the disposal of transuranic waste. West Valley Two major projects of dose concern continue to be the D4 Projects (Decommissioning, Decontamination, Dismantlement, and Demolition) and Waste Management. D4 activities included Decontamination & Decommissioning work in extraction and support cells in preparation for being declared “Demolition-Ready.” Waste Management activities included waste processing and shipping for disposal. Waste Management was also involved in modifying facilities to accommodate the remaining waste to be processed. The 2008 collective TEDE of 22.181 person-rems is approximately 50% lower than the 2007 collective TEDE of 44.499 person-rems. This decrease was due primarily to completion of several long-term tasks that accrued a large amount of personnel dose. 3-17 Exhibit 3-17: Program Office Dose Data, 2008.  ‚‚ƒ      ‚‚ƒ    ‚‚ƒ        “–… “–’ Ž•–‹ ’…–” …Œ–‹ …‘–Œ …–Œ …–’  ƒ  “–‹ ††–† …–… €‚„ „‹“— „ …‹ †Œ … ŽŽ‘ Ž’“ …Œ” ŒŽ† ’’ Œ•  ­  …’ …‹Ž •Œ  ƒˆ ­­€ „Œ‘— „……— “— „†“— „†Œ— „’—  €ˆ „…•— „ “–““” “–“…” “–“’Œ “–“‹Ž “–“”Ž “–“’” “–“†” “–“Œ” “–“‹” “–“ŒŒ ‚ „  “–“…Ž „…”— €ƒˆ „’Œ— „†“— …— „…‹— „‹“— „‹†— …†— …Ž— „’“— „ ­ˆ ‚‚­­  ˆ „†Ž— „…‘— €†ˆ „…‹— „Œ“— …— Œ— “–““Œ “–“‘‘ ‚ ­… “–“Ž“ “–“‹Ž “–“’‹ “–“…• “–“‹‹ ‘— …“— „…— „•— ‹†—  ‚‚ˆ …—        ­ €  ‚  ƒ„…† “–…  ‚ƒ€ †“–’ ‹–† …•–‹ Ž–† “–… Ž†–… …… „Œ— Œ” … †…” …†” Ž‹ †‘Ž …•“ ‹  €‚   ƒˆ € ­ „ˆ ‚‚ƒ   „ˆ „†‘— € ˆ „”— „Œ…— „‘— „…†— „•— ƒˆ „†— „”— „•—    Ž‘–… „…“— … †…Ž …— “–“•’ „……— ƒ…   ‚ˆ   ƒ  ˆ ‚‚‡„   ˆ „Œ‹— ‡€ˆ ……— …”— …‘— †Ž— „…•— †”— „…”— …•—  ƒˆ ‡    ­   ˆ  ‡ ‰ Š  “–‹ …Œ–† ‹–’ …‹–’ “–’ “–… “–† † ……–… …–Œ “–“ “–• …–‹ ƒ…† †ƒˆ Œ“ …†‘ …’” …•• ‘ ‘ ‹Œ €­€ ††• …†Œ Œ †‹ ‹…  ‡…ˆ “–“…Ž ‚ ‚€ “–“Œ• “–“”Œ “–“‹’ “–“…Ž “–““Œ “–“‘Œ “–“’” “–“…“ “–““‹ “–“†† “–“Œ“ ‚ˆ  €€ €ˆ ‚‚‡‚ ’Œ— „…Œ— „Ž— •“— …— „Ž— „…†— „††— „††— †‹— †‹— „†“— „ŒŽ— „†Ž— Note: Bold values indicate the greatest value in each column section. The percentage change from the previous year is not shown because it is not meaningful when the site collective dose is less than 1 person-rem (10 person-mSv). *The collective TEDE totals are calculated from the dose records that are reported in millirem while the values shown are rounded to the nearest tenth of a rem. 3-18 DOE 2008 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report 3.4.4 Summary by Program Office DOE has divided the responsibility of managing its missions among specific program offices. The various DOE sites support different functions and therefore fall under the authority and management of separate program offices. It should be noted that several of the DOE sites fall under multiple program offices. However, the sites are not required to report radiation exposure by program office, so the exact contribution from each cannot be determined. In these instances, the site is shown under one program office but may have significant portions of the dose from other offices. Exhibit 3-17 shows the number of individuals with measurable dose, the collective TEDE, and the average measurable TEDE by DOE program office. The Office of Environmental Management (EM) and the NNSA account for the largest percentages of the collective dose (42% and 33%, respectively). EM works to mitigate the risks and hazards posed by the legacy of nuclear weapons production and research. NNSA is responsible for the management and security of the nation’s nuclear weapons, nuclear nonproliferation, and naval reactor programs, as well as responding to radiological emergencies and the transportation of nuclear weapons and special nuclear materials. In general, the missions of EM and NNSA require more interaction and activities involving radioactive materials. These offices account for nearly 76% of the collective dose at DOE. The primary sites contributing to the collective TEDE at EM are Hanford, SRS, and Idaho. For NNSA, the primary contributors are LANL and Y-12 NSC. For the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology (NE), the primary contributor is Idaho. Exhibit 3-18: Dose Distribution of Transient Workers, 2004–2008. All DOE Transients Dose Ranges (TEDE in rem)       ­ € ‚ ƒ   €    2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 „ˆ †‡ˆ ˆ † „……… † † ˆ † ‡ „ … ‡…… … „ … †‡ †‡ ˆ „ ‰ ˆ ‡ ‡ „†  ‰ ˆ „…… … ‡ … ‡ˆ †ˆ „‡† † † ˆ ‡ ‰ „‰ ˆ ††  †ˆ „ ‰… †…‡ ˆ † †† „ „ ‡ˆ † ˆ…„ † ‰„ ‡‰ ˆ ˆ „ … „ˆ ‡ ‰ …‰„‰ „ ‡  …‡„ … „ … ‡  ‡   ‡  †  † ‡    Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE 3-19 3.5 Transient Individuals Transient individuals, or transients, are defined as individuals who are monitored at more than one DOE site during the calendar year. For the purpose of this report, a DOE site is defined as a geographic location. During the year, some individuals performed work at multiple sites and, therefore, had more than one monitoring record reported to the repository. In addition, some individuals transferred from one site to another. This section presents information on transient individuals to determine the extent to which individuals traveled from site to site and to examine the doses received by these individuals. Exhibit 3-18 shows the dose distribution and total number of transient individuals from 2004 to 2008. Over the past 5 years, the records of transient individuals have averaged 2.8% of the total records for all monitored individuals at DOE. These individuals received, on an average, 3% of the collective dose. The collective dose for transients decreased by 3% from 22.1 person-rems (221 person-mSv) in 2007 to 21.4 person-rems (214 person-mSv) in 2008. The average measurable TEDE decreased from 0.049 rem (0.49 mSv) in 2007 to 0.044 rem (0.44 mSv) in 2008. Since 1993, these parameters have remained relatively constant, even though DOE has become extensively involved in D&D activities and other types of operations. 3.6 Historical Data 3.6.1 Prior Years In order to analyze recent radiation exposure data in the context of the history of radiation exposure at DOE, it is useful to include information prior to the past 5 years as presented in this report. For this reason, Exhibits 3-19 and 3-20 are presented to show a summary of occupational exposures back to 1974, when the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) split into the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA), which subsequently became DOE. Exhibits 3-19 and 3-20 show the collective dose, average measurable dose, and number of workers with a measurable dose from 1974 to 2008. As can be seen from the graphs, all three parameters decreased dramatically between 1986 and 1993. The main reasons for this large decrease were the shutdown of facilities within the weapons complex and the end of the Cold War era, which shifted the DOE mission from weapons production to shutdown, stabilization, and D&D activities. 3-20 3.6.2 Historical Data Collection In section 3.7 of the 2000 and 2001 annual reports on occupational exposure, information was presented on historical data that had been collected to date. Sites were requested by DOE to voluntarily provide historical exposure data. No additional sites have reported historical data during the year 2008. Sites that have not yet reported historical dose records are encouraged to contact Ms. Nirmala Rao at DOE (see section 1.2) to obtain further information on reporting these records. This is a request to voluntarily report historical data (records prior to 1987) that are available in electronic form or in whatever format that is most convenient for the site. The data will be stored as reported in REMS, and wherever possible, data will be extracted and loaded into the REMS database for analysis and retrieval. For detailed analysis, read section 3.7 of the 2000 report. Sites that have voluntarily reported historical data are as follows: u Fernald Environmental Management Project u Hanford Site u Idaho National Laboratory u Kansas City Plant u Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory u Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory u Nevada Test Site u Oak Ridge K-25 Site u Pantex Plant u Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant u Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site u Sandia National Laboratories u Savannah River Site DOE 2008 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report Exhibit 3-19: Collective Dose and Average Measurable Dose, 1974–2008. 12,000 0.35 Collective Dose* (person-rem) Collective Dose* (person-rem) Average Meas. Dose* (rem) 0.25 8,000 0.20 6,000 0.15 4,000 .083 .073 .073 .075 .078 .079.074.080 .070 .061 .063 .072 .061 2,000 0 0.10 Average Measurable Dose* (rem) 0.30 10,000 0.05 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 0.00 Year Exhibit 3–20: Number of Workers with Measurable Dose and Average Measurable Dose, 1974–2008. 60,000 0.35 Number with Measurable Dose* Number with Measurable Dose Average Meas. Dose* (rem) 0.25 40,000 0.20 30,000 0.15 20,000 0.10 10,000 0 Average Measurable Dose* (rem) 0.30 50,000 0.05 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 0.00 Year * 1974–1989 collective dose = DDE 1990–1992 collective dose = DDE + AEDE 1993–2008 collective dose = DDE + CEDE Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) 1977–Present Department of Energy (DOE) 1946–1974 1974–1977 3-21 Exhibit 3–21: Comparison of Occupational for DOE and NRC, 2004 –2008 . NumberExposure of Individuals Number of Individuals Number of Individuals with Measurable Dose with Measurable Dose Number of Individuals Monitored Monitored 140,000 140,000 120,000 120,000 100,000 100,000 80,000 80,000 60,000 60,000 40,000 40,000 20,000 20,000 0 70,000 123,332 123,332 100,011 100,011 127,660 127,660 98,040 127,230 127,230 98,040 91,280 91,280 86,630 86,630 Number of Individuals with Measurable Dose 0 2004 2005 2004 2005 2006 Year 2006 Year 70,000 60,000 60,000 50,000 50,000 40,000 129,796 129,796 126,869 126,869 86,208 86,208 2007 2008 2007 2008 Collective TEDE Collective TEDE (person-rem) 64,170 63,707 (person-rem) 40,000 30,000 30,000 20,000 20,000 10,000 10,000 0 0 15,739 15,739 64,881 060 2004 2005 2004 2005 Year 2006 Year 2004 NRC 0.250 0.250 0.200 16,136 15,739 DOE 16,000 14,000 14,000 12,000 12,000 10,000 10,000 8,000 8,000 6,000 6,000 4,000 4,000 2,000 0 2,000 2005 0 13,840 13,840 12,953 1,094 2006 1,094 2004 Year 2004 989 989 2005 2005 12,906 12,906 12,155 12,155 813 2007 813 2006 Year 2006 Year 11,283 11,283 792 2008 792 2007 2007 690 690 2008 2008 Average Measurable TEDE (rem) 3.7 Comparison of DOE Dose to Other Activities 3.7.1 Comparison with Activities Regulated by the Nuclear0.199 Regulatory0.189 Commission 0.212 09 0.130 0.070 2004 In the DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure Report 1992-1994, DOE occupational radiation exposure was 0.071 0.063 to other industrial and shown 0.061 in relation 0.061governmental endeavors in order to gain an understanding of the relative scale of the radiation exposure at DOE 2005 2007 2008 operations 2006 to other activities. The 2008 report includes Year the DOE occupational exposure in relation to activities regulated by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). It should be noted that the purpose of this information is simply to put the DOE radiation exposure in context with other endeavors that involve radiation exposure. A comparison is not appropriate due to the differences in the missions of the DOE and NRC. While 3-22 0.200 0.150 11,077 11,077 2007 11,287 11,287 2008 2007 2008 Average Measurable TEDE Average Measurable TEDE (rem)  (rem)  0.212 0.212 0.209 0.209 0.199 0.199 0.189 0.189 0.150 0.100 0.100 0.050 11,287 11,077 DOE DOE NRC NRC 63,707 63,707 16,000 12,774 12,774 16,136 16,136 64,170 64,170 12,953 12,953 2006 65,133 64,881 64,881 65,133 65,133 61,060 61,060 0.050 0 0 0.070 0.070 0.061 0.061 0.063 0.063 0.071 0.071 0.130 0.130 0.061 0.061 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2004 2005 Year 2006 Year 2007 2008 the mission of the DOE is broad in scope and includes activities from energy research to national defense, NRC licensed activities are dominated by radiation exposure received at commercial nuclear power plants. Reactor operations account for approximately 95% of the collective dose, while industrial radiographers, manufacturers, and distributors of radiopharmaceuticals, independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSI), and fuel cycle licensees comprise the remainder. The DOE and NRC occupational exposure data shown in Exhibit 3-21 cover the past 5 years (2004 to 2008). While the number of workers monitored at NRC and DOE are relatively comparable over the past 5 years, the number of individuals with a measurable dose at DOE was 23% of the NRC total for this time period. The percentages of the collective dose and average measurable dose were 8% and 34%, respectively. DOE 2008 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report Section Four ALARA Activities at DOE These ALARA activity descriptions are now provided on the HSS web site to facilitate the dissemination among DOE radiation protection managers and others interested in these project descriptions. Readers should be aware that the project descriptions are voluntarily submitted from the sites and are not independently verified or endorsed by DOE. Program and site offices and contractors who are interested in benchmarks of success and continuous improvement in the context of integrated safety management and quality are encouraged to provide input. 4.1 Submitting ALARA Project Descriptions for Future Annual Reports Individual project descriptions may be submitted to the DOE Office of Corporate Safety Analysis through the REMS web site. The submittals should describe the process in sufficient detail to provide a basic understanding of the project, the radiological concerns, and the activities initiated to reduce dose. The web site provides a form to collect the following information about the project: u u u u u u u u u u Mission statement Project description Radiological concerns Total collective dose for the project Dose rate to exposed workers before and after exposure controls were implemented Information on how the process implemented ALARA techniques in an innovative 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 or positive) u Figures and/or photos of the project or equipment (electronic images if available) u Point of contact for follow-up by interested professionals ALARA Activities at DOE The REMS web page for submitting ALARA project descriptions can be accessed on the Internet at ALARA Activities at DOE In past years, the published annual report has included descriptions of ALARA activities at DOE for the purposes of sharing strategies and techniques that have shown promise in the reduction of radiation exposure. 4 http://www.hss.energy.gov/CSA/analysis/rems/ rems/ALARA.cfm 4.2 Operating Experience Program DOE has a mature operating experience program, which has been enhanced from the lessons-learned program that was initially developed in 1994. The current DOE operating experience program is described in DOE Order 210.2, DOE Corporate Operating Experience Program [9]. The objective is to institute a Department of Energy (DOE) wide program for the management of operating experience to prevent adverse operating incidents and to expand the sharing of good work practices among DOE sites. The purpose is to provide a systematic review, identification, collection, screening, evaluation, and dissemination of operating experience from U.S. and foreign government agencies and industry, professional societies, trade associations, national academies, universities, and DOE and its contractors. The Headquarters corporate responsibility for identifying, analyzing, and sharing operating experience information, combined with the operating experience/lessons learned provided by DOE field sites, optimizes the knowledge gained and shared with others through various products, including a corporate database. DOE posts operating experience information and links to other operating experience resources on the Internet. DOE uses the Internet to openly disseminate such information so that not only DOE but also other external entities will have a source of information to improve the health and safety aspects of operations within their facilities, including reducing the number of accidents and injuries. 4-1 The specific operating experience web site address may be subject to change. Information services can be accessed through the HSS web site as follows: http://www.hss.energy.gov/csa/analysis/II/ 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, D.C. 20585-0270 E-mail: nimi.rao@hq.doe.gov 4-2 DOE 2008 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report 5 Section Five Conclusions Over the past 10 years, the collective dose and the size of the monitored workforce have remained at fairly stable levels. For the past 5 years, there has been a decrease in collective dose and the number of individuals with measurable dose. The collective dose at DOE facilities has experienced a dramatic (90%) decrease since 1986. This decrease coincides with the end of the Cold War era, which shifted the DOE mission from weapons production to stabilization, waste management, and environmental remediation activities along with the consolidation and remediation of facilities across the complex to meet the new mission. Also during this time period, regulations have improved with an increased focus on ALARA practices and risk reduction. Conclusions The occupational radiation exposure records show that in 2008, with the exception of only one individual, DOE facilities continued to comply with DOE dose limits and ACLs and worked to minimize exposure to individuals. Only 14% of the monitored workers received a measurable dose and the average measurable dose was less than 2% of the DOE limit. Although the number of individuals with measurable dose increased, the collective dose decreased. See Exhibit 5-1 for summary data. Exhibit 5-1: 2008 Radiation Exposure Summary. u There were no exposures in excess of the DOE 5 rems (50 mSv) annual TEDE limit, but there was one individual at LANL who received an organ dose in excess of the 50 rems (500 mSv) limit as a result of an intake of plutonium from a puncture wound during glove-box work. u There was one exposure in excess of the DOE ACL of 2 rems (20 mSv) TEDE. This same individual exceeded the 50 rems (500 mSv) organ dose limit from an intake of plutonium. u The collective TEDE decreased 13% from 798 person-rems (7.98 person-Sv) in 2007 to 690 person-rems (6.90 person-Sv) in 2008. u Sites contributing significantly to collective dose were (in descending order of collective dose) Savannah River, Idaho, Oak Ridge, Los Alamos and Hanford. These sites accounted for 79% of the collective dose at DOE in 2008. u Decreases in collective dose at three of the highest dose sites were attributed to a reduction in dose rates and work activities at Hanford, a safety-driven pause in operations at LANL, and a reduction in the number of samples processed and source term at Idaho. u The collective internal dose (CEDE) decreased by 11% between 2007 and 2008 due to a reduction in the number of internal doses for 2008 and an upward adjustment to the 2007 internal doses at Y-12 NSC. u Ninety-three percent of the collective CEDE at DOE was due to U-234, and over 99% of the CEDE at DOE from U-234 was accrued at Y-12 NSC. u The collective dose for transient workers decreased by 3% from 22.1 person-rems (221 mSv) in 2007 to 21.4 person-rems (214 mSv) in 2008. u The total number of bioassay measurements performed decreased by less than 1% from 72,861 in 2007 to 72,346 in 2008. Conclusions 5-1 5-2 This page intentionally left blank. DOE 2008 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report Glossary Glossary Glossary administrative control level (ACL) A dose level that is established below the DOE dose limit in order to administratively control exposures. ACLs are multitiered, with increasing levels of authority required to approve a higher level of exposure. ALARA Acronym for “as low as reasonably achievable,” which is the approach to radiation protection to manage and control exposures (both individual and collective) to the workforce and the general public to as low as is reasonable, 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 limits as is reasonably achievable. average measurable dose Dose 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 comparing doses received by workers, because it reflects the exclusion of those individuals receiving a less than measurable dose. Average measurable dose is calculated for TEDE, DDE, neutron dose, extremity dose, and other types of dose. collective dose The sum of the total annual effective dose equivalent or total effective dose equivalent values for all individuals in a specified population. Collective dose is expressed in units of person-rem. committed dose equivalent (CDE) (HT,50) The dose equivalent calculated to be received by a tissue or organ over a 50-year period after the intake of a radionuclide into the body. It does not include contributions from radiation sources external to the body. CDE 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 (HT,50), each multiplied by the appropriate weighting factor (wT) (i.e., HE,50 = wTHT,50). CEDE is expressed in units of rem. CR See SR. deep dose equivalent (DDE) The dose equivalent derived from external radiation at a depth of 1 cm in tissue. DOE site A geographic location operated under the authority of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). exposure As used in this report, exposure refers to individuals subjected to, or in the presence of, radioactive materials that may or may not result in occupational radiation dose. 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. members of the public Individuals who are not occupationally exposed to radiation or radioactive material. This includes visitors and visiting dignitaries. Glossary G-1 number of individuals with measurable dose The subset of all monitored individuals who receive a measurable dose (greater than the limit of detection for the monitoring system). Many personnel are monitored as a matter of prudence and may not receive a measurable dose. For this reason, the number of individuals with measurable dose is presented in this report as a more accurate indicator of the exposed workforce. The number of individuals represents the number of dose records reported. Some individuals may be counted more than once if multiple dose records are reported for the individual during the year. occupational dose An 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 background radiation or participation as a subject in medical research programs. shallow dose equivalent (SDE) The dose equivalent deriving from external radiation at a depth of 0.007 cm in tissue. SR (formerly CR) SR is defined by United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) as the ratio of the 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 would be the ratio of the annual collective dose delivered at individual doses exceeding 1.5 rems (15 mSv) to the total annual collective dose. total effective dose (TED) The sum of the effective dose (for external exposures) and the committed effective dose. total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) The sum of the effective dose equivalent for external exposures and the committed effective dose equivalent (CEDE) for internal exposures. DDE to the whole body is typically used as effective dose equivalent for external exposures. The internal dose component of TEDE changed from the annual effective dose equivalent (AEDE) to the CEDE in 1993. total number of records for monitored individuals All individuals who are monitored and reported to the DOE Headquarters database system. This includes DOE employees, contractors, subcontractors, and members of the public monitored during a visit to a DOE site. The number of individuals represents the number of dose records reported. Some individuals may be counted more than once if multiple dose records are reported for the individual during the year. transient individual An individual who is monitored at more than one DOE site during the calendar year. urinalysis The technique of determining the radiation dose received by an individual from an intake by the measurement of the amount of radioactive material in the urine excreted from the body. G-2 DOE 2008 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report References References EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1987.“Radiation Protection Guidance to Federal Agencies for Occupational Exposure,” Federal Register 52, No. 17, 2822; with corrections published in the Federal Registers of Friday, January 30, and Wednesday, February 4, 1987. 2. ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), 1977.“Recommendations of the International 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 Limits for Exposure to Ionizing Radiation,” NCRP 91; superceded by NCRP Report No. 116. 4. 10 CFR 835, 1998,“Occupational Radiation Protection.” Amended June 8, 2007. Rule; DOE Federal Register, November 4, 1998. Amended June 8, 2007. 5. DOE Order 231.1A, 2003,“Environment, Safety and Health Reporting,” August 19, 2003. 6. DOE Manual 231.1-1A, 2004,“Environment, Safety and Health Reporting Manual,” March 19, 2004. 7. Computerized Accident and Incident Reporting System (CAIRS),“DOE and Contractor Injury and Illness Data by Year by Quarter” report. Online at http://www.hss.energy.gov. 8. United Nations, 2000, Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation, United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) 2000 Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes, Volume I, General Assembly of Official Records, United Nations, New York, 2000. 9. DOE Order 210.2,“DOE Corporate Operating Experience Program,” June 12, 2006. References References 1. R-1 R-2 This page intentionally left blank. DOE 2008 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report User Survey User Survey DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure Report User Survey DOE, striving to meet the needs of its stakeholders, is looking for suggestions on ways to improve the DOE 2008 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report. Your feedback is important. Constructive feedback will ensure the report can continue to meet user needs. Please fill out the attached survey form and return it to Ms. Nirmala Rao DOE HS-30 19901 Germantown Road Germantown, MD 20874 nimi.rao@hq.doe.gov Fax: (301) 903-1257 1. Questions concerning this survey should be directed to Ms. Rao at (301) 903-2297. Identification: Name:....................................................................................................................................................... Title:.......................................................................................................................................................... Mailing Address:...................................................................................................................................... .......................................................................................................................................................... .......................................................................................................................................................... .......................................................................................................................................................... 2. Distribution: 2.1 Do you wish to remain on the distribution for the report? _____ yes 2.2 Do you wish to be added to the distribution? _____ yes _____ no _____ no (continued on back) User Survey U-1 Please circle one. Please rate the usefulness of this report overall: Not Useful 1 2 3 Please rate the usefulness of the analysis presented in the following sections: Executive Summary 1 2 3 Analysis of Aggregate Data 1 2 3 Collective Dose 1 2 3 Average Measurable Dose 1 2 3 Dose Distribution 1 2 3 Analysis of Individual Dose Data 1 2 3 Doses above 2 rems ACL 1 2 3 Doses in Excess of 5 rems 1 2 3 Internal Depositions of Radioactive Material 1 2 3 Analysis of Site Data 1 2 3 Collective Dose by Site 1 2 3 Description of Activities Related to Dose 1 2 3 Historical Data 1 2 3 ALARA Activities at DOE 1 2 3 Conclusions 1 2 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Very Useful 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Please rate the importance of the timeliness of the publication of this report as it relates to your professional need for the information on occupational radiation exposure at DOE: Not important 1 2 3 4 Critical 5 Please provide any additional input or comments on the report. . .............................................................................................................................................................................................. . .............................................................................................................................................................................................. . .............................................................................................................................................................................................. . .............................................................................................................................................................................................. . .............................................................................................................................................................................................. . .............................................................................................................................................................................................. . .............................................................................................................................................................................................. . .............................................................................................................................................................................................. . .............................................................................................................................................................................................. . .............................................................................................................................................................................................. . .............................................................................................................................................................................................. . .............................................................................................................................................................................................. U-2 DOE 2008 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report Prepared for the Office of Health, Safety and Security by Oak Ridge Associated Universities PO. Box 117 - Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0117