ML19269E966

Occupational Radiation Exposure at NRC-Licensed Facilities, 1975

ML19269E966
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/31/1978
From:	Cool W NRC OFFICE OF STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT
To:
References
NUREG-0419, NUREG-419, NUDOCS 7911080565
Download: ML19269E966 (34)

Text

NUREG-0419 OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION EXPOSURE AT NRC-LICENSED FACILITIES 1975 Walter S. Cool p ~cuq s

2199 152 Office of Standards Development U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7911080 f@

Available from National Technical Information Service Springfield Virginia 22161 Price: Printed Copy $4.50 ; Microfiche $3.00 The price of this document for requesters outside of the North American Continent can be obtained from the National Technical Information Service.

2}99

NUREG-0419 OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION EXPOSURE AT NRC-LICENSED FACILITIES 1975 Walter S. Cool Manuscript Completed: January 1978 Date Published: March 1978 Occupational Health Standards Branch Office of Standards Development U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2199 154 Washington, D. C. 20555

ABSTRACT By letter dated August 25, 1976, Itcensees of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission were requested to submit, as a voluntary one-time action, a statistical summary report of whole-body personnel monitoring results for their activities during 1975. This report presents these personnel monitoring data in the form of tables and log-probability plots that facilitate evaluation and comparison of the data, Licensee estimates of the effort (man-hours and total cost) expended in preparing the statistical summary report are also presented.

2199 155 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION...................................

I USE OF DATA............................

2 AN AL Y S I S O F D AT A.................................

3 RESERVATIONS REGARDING THE DATA.........................

8 C OS T O F RE P O RT I N G.................................

9 REFERENCES.................................... 10 2199 156 111

LIST OF TAdLES Page Table 1 Sumary of 1975 Voluntary Monitoring Data 11 Table 2 1975 Monitoring Data by Licensee Functional Group 13 Table 3 Distribution of Estimated Doses - 1975 Voluntary Data 14 Table 4 Extrapolated Total Collective Dose by Category of Licensee (man-rems) 16 Table 5 Average Collective Dose Per Licensee in a Given Category (man-rems) 17 Table 6 Average Individual Dose by Category 18 Table 7 Average Individual Dose, Extrapiaated Collective Dose, and n 1975 Voluntary Data 19 Table 8 Average Individual Dose, Extrapolated Collective Dose, and 0 1973 1975 10 CFR $20.407 Data 21 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 1975 Voluntary Data - Academic Licensees 22 Figure 2 1975 Voluntary Data - Medical Licensees 23 Figure 3 1975 Voluntary Data - R&D and Marketing Licensees 24 Figure 4 1975 Voluntary Data - Well Logging Other Measurement Systems, and Waste Disposal - Burial Licensees 25 Figure 5 1975 Voluntary Data - Byproduct Source, and Special Nuclear Material Licensees 26 Figure 6 Composite 1975 Voluntary Data and $20.407 Data 27 Figure 7

$20.407 Power Reactor Data - 1973-1975 28 Figure 8

$20.407 Radiographer Data - 1973-1975 29 Figure 9 520.407 Fuel Processing and reprocessing Data - 1973-1975 30 Figure 10 520.407 Byproduct Manufacture and Distribution Data - 1973-1975 31 Figure 11 Composite Annual Salaries - 1973-1975 and $20.407 Data 32 Figure 12 Effort Needed to Prepare Statistical Summary Report 33 Figure 13 Cost of Preparing Annual Statistical Sumary Report 34 2199 157 iv

OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION EXPOSURE AT NRC-LICENSED FACILITIES 1975 INTRODUCTION The Nuclear Regulatory Comission and its predecessor, the Atomic Energy Comission, have required the submission of annual reports on personnel monitoring from four categories of licensees since December 1968. These four categories (specified in $20.407 of 10 CFR Part 20 as power reactor licensees, industrial radiographers, fuel processors and reprocessors, and certain large commercial suppliers of byproduct materials) were considered to involve the greatest potential for significant occupational radiation doses.

The original rule required reporting of the actual estimated exposures to any body part of a named individual that exceeded in a year the applicable quarterly limit. In January 1974 the regulation was changed to require the annual reporting of only a statistical sumary of the estimated whole-body exposures. This amendment provided additional data by requiring the sub-mission of a statistical sumary of the whole-body exposures estimated to have been received by all individuals who are required to be monitored pursuant to other portions of the NRC regula-tions. Further, some licensees choose to include data on inuividuals who are provided with personnel monitoring service as part of good health physics practice even though such monitoring is not required. The data submitted by licensees pursuant to $20.407 of 10 CFR Part 20 are sum-marized in annual reports (Refs.1,2) and have been discussed in other reports (Refs. 3,4).

Some of these data are included in this report for purposes of comparison.

In May 1975, NRC publist;d a notice of proposed amendment to its regulations that would, if adopted, extend to all licensees the requirement for the submission of an annual statistical sumary report of personnel monitoring data. Comments on the proposed amendment raised ques-tions regarding the value of the data to be obtained and the reporting burden imposed on licen-sees. The NRC recognized the need for additional information to evaluate the benefit to be obtained from extending the reporting requirement to all licensees and the burden that the pro-posed extension of the reporting requirement would impose on licensees and also to test the assumption that the four categories of licensees currently required to report involve the great-est potential for sigqlficant doses. Accordingly, in a letter dated August 25, 1976, the NRC requested all licensees to submit, as a voluntary one-time action, a statistical sumary report of the whole-body personnel monitoring results for their activities during 1975.

There were 1,179 responses to the request. Reports were received from 1,175 out of 8,221 (14%) materials licensees in 40 out of 53 categories. There were responses from three research reactor licensees and one test reactor licensee. Data are presented in this report for 50,112 2199 158 1

monitored individuals; 20,992 (41.9%) of those individuals were reported to have received measurable doses. A total of 253 respondents (21%) indicated that they had not reqitored any individuals during 1975. A total estimated dose of 4,925 man-rems was reported. That is an average of 0.1 rem per monitored individusl and an average of 0.23 rem per individual with measurable exposure. If the data are extrapolated for the categories represented with the assumption that the fraction of licensees not reporting is comparable in number of workers and exposure experience, a total of 245,400 individuals would have been monitored ar.d a total estimated dose of 22,900 man-rems would have been received. The categories of licensees not represented by any respondents are not considered to comprise either a significant number of individuals or potential for radiation exposure.

USE OF DATA The NRC staff considers the information obtained from the required annual reports to be essential to the evaluation of the risk of radiation exposure associated with the related activities.

Following the trends in occupational radiation exposures permits the NRC staff tn maintain awareness of changes in the total radiation burden from a given type of licensed activity and to be able to estimate the total occupational radiation dose resulting from all NRC licensed activities. It also permits some assessment of the degree of radiation protection efficiency that is being maintained. The NRC staff also believes that licensees need to develop this information for their own evaluation and action in control and directio i of their radiation safety programs.

The personnel monitoring data already received provide a base that maj be used to develop a variety of value/ impact analyses. They may be used as one indicator in the assignment of priorities for inspection and enforcement actions. The data are being used by the staff to identify situations needing further stady in order that regulations and regulatory guides can be developed requiring or recommending action to be taken in the design and operation of licensed facilities to keep occupational radiation exposures "as low as is reasonably achievable." For example, it is relevant to compare the potential increase in collective radiation dose, that is, occupational sose plus dose to the general population, when considering the controls to be imposed on the release of radioactive material in effluents to unrestricted areas. As another example, the personnel monitoring data are used to establish priorities with respect to the need for regulatory attention by permitting a perspective to be drawn through consideration of the collective dose in addition to individual and average doses. In some cases, more regula-tory attention may be required for licensees with larger collective doses than for licensees with larger individual doses.

It should be noted, however, that the personnel monitoring data do not permit evaluation of what occupational exposures are "as low as is reasonably achievable." Such evaluation reauires study of the specific factors associated with a specific facility and activity.

2199 159 2

ANAtVSTS OF THE DATA The voluntary one-time personnel monitoring data for 1975 are found to have log-normal distributions," as has been reported for other distributions of personnel monitoring data (Refs. 3,4).

The departure from the straight-line log probability plot, particularly above annual doses of 2 or 3 rems, is interpreted to reflect pressure to meet the recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) and the National Council on Radia-tion Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and the regulatory limits of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

A reference distribution has been developed by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (Ref. 4) such that the distribution of annual doses is log normal, the mean or arithmetic average of the annual dose distribution is a.5 rem (ene-tenth of the ICRP maximum permissible average annual whole body dose), and the percentage of individuals exceeding the annual dose of 5 rems is 0.1 percent. (Note that the median or.0% value is r

about 0.34 rem.) These properties were selected arbitrarily to define the distribution as one complying with the intent of the ICRP. Further, to aid in the evaluation and comparison of distributions of monitoring data, a factor O has been described (Ref. 4).

It is defined as a dimensionless quantity that is the ratio of the fraction of the collective dose (S) due to annual doses above 1.5 rems ($.5) for the observed distribution to the fraction for the refer-1 ence distribution.** For any observed distribution O = 3.23S

/S. The " reference distribution" I.5 line has been imposed on each of the log probability plots in this report, and tables showing the average dose, collective dose, and O are presented for the voluntary one-time data and for the data reported pursuant to $20.407 of 10 CFR Part 20 for the period 1973 - 1975.

Table I presents a summary of the data including the fraction of licensees in each category who reported and the number of those licensees who monitored any individuals during 1975. The total number of individuals who were monitored by those licensees and the total collective dose they were estimated to have received have been extrapolated to correct for the fraction of licen-sees not reporting. The reported collective dose has been averaged over the total number of individuals monitored and also averaged over the number of individuals who received measurable "A variable such as the annual occupational radiation exposure of individual workers is said to be " log-normal" when the frequency distribution of the logarithm of the exposure can be reasonably approximated by the normal (Gaussian) curve, with appropriate mean and standard deviation. Plotted on log probability paper, on which cumulative probabilities are laid off on the vertical axis at distances proportional to the corresponding number of standard devia-tions above or below the median with dose plotted on the horizontal axis on a logarithmic scale, the function becomes a straight line. Any given set of data from a finite-size sample can, of course, only give an approximate representation of a presumed smooth underlying func-tion. The log probability plot is simple to use and facilitates intercomparisons between types of activities, between individual facilities conducting similar activities, and between years of experience, na Thus, O is a quantity by which the fraction of the collective dose from entries greater than 1.5 rcms for a given licensee category can be compared with that same fraction taken from the

" reference distribution" in Reference 4.

To obtain 0, the fraction taken from the licensee data is divided by the fraction from the reference distribution. Values of O greater than unity indicate that the licensee category is experiencing doses greater than 1.5 rems to a greater extent than would occur in the reference distribution.

2199 160 3

doses. The (large) number of individuals who did not receive measurable doses includes visitors and other individuals who would not have been required to be monitored and will vary with the administrative policy of the licensees involved. However, average. dose to all individuals who were monitored is important not only because it represents the risk of radiation exposure to the workers in each category, but also because the Ikensees' efforts to maintain radiation doses low will be reflected by shif ts in the average dose. Consideration of the average individual doses and the collective dose (extrapolated) provides an estimate of the risk of r..diation expo-sure associated with each of the activities and, by summation, of the total NRC-licensed industry.

Table 2 combines several elements of the monitoring data for certain categories of licen-sees in functionti groupings. It indicates that the 13,500 can-rems of occupational dose associated with medical programs exceeds the dose associated with any other grouping except power reactors. This number should be doubled to estimate the total U.S. occupational collec-tive dose, including Agreement State licensees. The resulting oose is considerably larger than that for power reactors. The dose estimated for medical programs is of particular interest because the population of workers involved is assumed to include a h!gh percentage of young Dose to pregnant women involves somatic risks to the embryos and fetuses in addition to women.

the somatic risks to the adult workers and the genetic risk of the doses. The extrapolated collective doses estimated for research and development, well logging, and other measurement systems also approach or exceed 1,000 man-rems.

Table 3 provides the distributions of estimated doses reported for each of the categories of licensees. It has been assumed that the distributions submitted by the fraction of licen-sees reporting are representative of the total. The relationship and significance of the data are more easily recognized by consideration of the log probability plots and comparisons in Figures 1 through 11.

Table 4 presents the data on extrapolated collective dose by category of licensee. Six categories of licensees (Institutional Broad Medical, Institutional Other Medical, Private Practice, Teletherapy, Well Logging, and Other Measurersent Systems) in addition to the four categories reporting pursuant to $20.407 of 10 CFR Par'. 20 probably exceeded 1,000 man-rems in 1975. Twelve categories of licensees (Academic Other, Other Medical, Marketing Broad, Market-ing Other, R & D Broad, R & D Other, Civil Defense, Uranium Mills, Other Uranium Uses >150 kg, Unencapsulated SNM, Other SNM Sources, and Research Reactors) experienced collective doses between 100 and 1,000 man-rems.

Table 5 presents the data on average collective dose per licensee in a given category.

Seven categories of licensees (Institutional Broad Medical, Well Logging, Waste Olsposal -

Burial, Transportation Type B, Uranium Mills, UF Production, and Unencapsulated SNM) experi-6 enced average doses in excess of 10 man-rems per licensee. These data permit comparison of licensees within each category. Licensees who experience doses above the average for their category are more likely to benefit from (increased) effort to reduce occupational doses.

Consideration of the facilitias, equipment, and practices of licensees experiencing doses below the average for their category should be helpful in this regard.

4 2199 161

Table 6 presents the data on averaged individual doses. Individuals working for licensees in categories that show values of " Average Dose" nearly as ltrge as the " Average Measurable Dose" experience relatively uniform external radiation levels in the working areas (Fuel Stor-age), perform closely related job functions (Medical categories, Well Logging, Waste Disposal -

Burial), are subject to administrative controls that distribute the dose across the work force (as by rotation of job assignments) (Uranium Mills), or are monitored and reported only if necessary. Licensees in categories in which the " Average Measurable Dose" is significantly higher than the " Average Dose" involve operations in which a small percentage of the individuals receive most of the dose (Academic, Wsste Disposal - Other, **radiaters, Unencapsulated $NM) or monitor many visitors or other individuals who would not have bee, quired to be monitored.

Figures 1 through 11 are log probability plots of the personnel monitoring data. Note that, on these plots, shifts upward or to the left indicate lower doses. The reference distribu-tion line has been imposed on each of these plots, and a table has been inserted showing the average individual dose, the extrapolated collective dosa in man-rems, and 0 for each distribu-tion of data depicted on the graph.

T5e plots for academic licensees presented in Figure 1 indicate that these activities are experiencing exposures well within the regulatory limits. The plots compare favorably with the reference distribution. They are of interest also bs:ause of the difference between the two categories of academic licensees. It may be inferred that the greater potential for exposure associated with ties larger, more complex activities of institutions operating under I; road licenses is more than compensated by the internal administrative controls, larger and fre-quently better-equipped health physics staffs, etc., required in support of the broad license.

The log probability plots and data presented in Figure 2 for five categories of medical licensees show that the activities of thos9 licensees contribute a large collective dose to the Population. This contribution involves relatively small doses to a large number of individuals.

iht plots indicate that a larger number of individuals would be expected to recette doses greater than 5 rems if it were not fer pressure to meet regulatory limits (5 rems per year).

Individuals involved in teletherapy and private practice experience doses above 1.5 rems more frequently than would be consistent with the referince distribution. Individuals in private practice experience higher exposures than individuals in the institutional programs. Again, it is implied that factors associated with broad licenses result in lower doses in spite of the fact that the programs of broad medical licensees are usually larger and more complex than those of other medical licensees.

Figure 3 portrays the monitoring experience of licensees involved in research and develop-ment (R & D) and marketing. The exposures received by the marketing categories are higher than those received by R & D licensees and probably reflect the higher levels of activity being processed and handled under those licenses. However, because of the smaller number of indivi-duals involved (about 10,000 in marketing and about 34.000 in A & 0), marketing contributes a smaller collective dose than R & D.

The plot of data for the large byproduct manufacturing and distributing licensees currently reporting pursuant to $20.407 of 10 CFR Part 20 has be-n added for comparison purposes. It is apparent that the activities of the latter licensees involve significantly higher individual doses, including more than twice the contribution to 5

2199 162

collective dose by individuals receiving more than 1.5 rems per year, than would be consistent with the reference distribution (0 = 2.08). Marketing activities under broad license experienced slightly lower doses than " Marketing Other" licensees. However, R & D programs under broad license experienced significantly higher doses than "R & D Other" licensees. This dif ference is probably due to a marked difference in the quantities of materials being used in the programs of the two categories of licensees. The plots for "R & D Broad" and " Marketing Other" indicate that more individual doses would be expected to exceed 5 rems per year if it were not for pressure to meet the NRC occupational dose limits.

Figure 4 plots the distributions for " Waste Disposal - Burial" and "Well Logging." These two categories have high average individual doses. " Waste Disposal - Burial" also has the highest percentage of the collective dose contributed by individuals receiving more than 1.5 rems per year (0 = 2.48). The operations of these licensees involve work in close proximity to packaged wastes presentini, relatively high external radiation levels for prolonged periods of time. The plot indicates considerable effort has bcen made to maintain doses below 5 rems per year. Because of the small number of individuals involved (65), the collective dose is not large. The operations of well logging licensees involve the handling of tracer materials and relatively large sealed sources under field conditions. The plot does not reflect great effort to maintain exposures below 5 rems per year. The operations of licensees in both of these categories warrant study by NRC and inspection and positive measures by licensees to ensure that occupational doses are maintained as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA).

The plot for "Other Measuring Systems" reflects relatively low doses, well within the regulatory limits, and compares favorably with the reference distribation. The plot departs from the log-normal (straight line), perhaps because the types of gauging installations involved constitute more than one type of work.

In some cases the devices are fixed and require very little service involving radiation exposure. Other devices are portable or subject to reloca-tion or certain services which do involve relatively low doses.

Figure 5 presents plots of the composite experience of byproduct, source, and special nuclear material (SNM) licensees (other than those reporting pursuant to 920.407 of 10 CFR Part 20). All three distributions are well within regulatory limits and compare favorably with the reference distribution. While the average of individual doses is low (0.04 rem) for SNM licensees, the percentage of the collective dose contributed by individuals receiving more than 1.5 rems per year is higher than would be consistent with the reference distribution (0 =

1.31).

The data indicate that source material licensees experience higher dose distributions than byproduct material or SNM licensees. It is believed that most source material licensees control their operations based on factors associated with the intake of radioactive material, assuming them to be more ilmiting. It appears that modest effort to reduce external radiation levels in these facilities may achieve a significant reduction in both average and collective doses.

Figure 6 displays the composite distribution of personnel monitoring results for the voluntary one-time submission for 1975 and compares it with a composite of the data submitted pursuant to $20.407 of 10 CFR Part 20 for that year. The latter licensees are found to involve higher average individual doses, and the fraction of collective dose contributed by individual.

2199 163 6

receiving more than 1.5 rems is about twice that which would be consistent with the reference distribution. However, the collective dose represented by the voluntary data is about one-half (22,900/51,900) of the total collective dose, and about tnree-fourths (245,500/326,000) of the individuals monitored by NRC licensees were involved in activities not currently subject to the requirement for submission of an annual statistical summary report of monitoring data.

Figures 7 through 11 present the data submitted for 1975 by the four categories of licensees reporting pursuant to existing $20.407 of 10 CFR Part 20. They have been reported previously (Refs. 2,3,4,5,6,7) and are presented in this report to facilitate comparison with the data obtained from other categories of licensees. They are also presented to indicate how the data may be used to identify trends in personnel monitoring data.

The log probat'ility plots in Figure 7 for power reactors indicate a distinct shif t of the distribution of doses between 1973 and 1974 However, the collective dose remained nearly constant. The shif t was achieved by the use of significantly larger numbers of individuals (44,795 in 1973 and 66,044 in 1974) to accomplish the work.* This shift may reflect eff;rt to maintain exposures as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA). Such effort is also inlicated by the departure from linearity of the log probability plot. However, during 1975 tne large increase in colluctive dose and the use of an intermediate number of workers (54,70 ) increased the average individual dose and shif ted the distribution closer to that of 1973. Data for 1971 and 1972 (involves only doses exceeding 1.25 rems that were required to be reported at that time) are not shown in Figure 7, but would fall between the plots for 1973 and 1974. Each of these distributions has an O value equal to or greater than 2.

Figure 8, relating to industrial radiography, indicates a gradual decrease in average dose and displacement of the distribution plots from 1973 through 1975. The plots for 1971 and 1972 (doses equal to or greater than 1.25 rems) are not shown but would fall between those for 1973 and 1974. The linearity of the plots above 2 rems suggest two populations of workers, one working within the limit of 5 rems per year and another working within the 12 rems per year (3 rems per calendar quarter and the 5(N - 18) formula) historically recommended by the ICRP and permitted >ursuant to $20.101(b) of 10 CFR Part 20.

Each of the distributions has an O value near 1. 7.

Figure 9, relating to both fuel processing and reprocessing, indicates a gradual decrease in doses from 1971 to 1973. The decrease is largely due to a decreasing contribution from reprocessing activities. Consideration of the experience of fuel processing alone (not shown in Figure 9) reflects a gradual increase in the number of individuals involved and in both average and collective doses frnm 1971 through 1975. The projected tenfold increase in fuel fabrication activities by the year 2000 emphasizes the need to maintain exposures ALARA. As noted with respect to source material licensees (Figure 5), it is believed that the radiation control

'It is likely that the use of larger numbers of workers resulted in a higher collective dose than might otherwise have been experienced. Some dose is received during entry, orientation to the work, and exit from the area as well as during actual performance of the work. Such dose may be considered unprofitable, counterproductive, or even unnecessary if the task can be performed with fewer workers.

2199 164

programs in fuel processing plants have been based on factors associated with the intake of radioactive material. Modest efforts to reduce external radiation levels in these f acilities may achieve a significant reduction in both average and collective doses.

Figure 10 relates to th6 licensees involved in manufacturing and distribution of byproduct material who are required to report pursuant to $20.407 of 10 CFR Part 20. The data indicate a gradual increase in the average individual doses and shifting of the distribution. Plots of data for 1971 and 1972 (doses equal to or greater than 1.25 rems) would fall very close to the plot for 1973. Fewer individuals were involved in 1974 and the collective dose was smaller.

The curveture of the plots may reflect several major subdistributions of work involved. However, the curvature of the upper reaches of the plot probably indicates considerable effort to keep doses within regulatory limits. Further, the slight upward curvature of the lower reaches of the plot may reflect some rotation of job assignments, flattening the overall distribution.

The O values have remained greater than 2 (see Figure 3 and related observations).

Figure 11 presents plots of the annual composites of the data submitted pursuant to $20.407 of 10 CFR Part 20. The composite data are heavily influenced by the contribution from power reactor licansees, which involved between 65% and 75% of both the number of individuals and the collective dose. (See Figure 7 and associated observations.) Inspection of Figures 7 tnrough 11 indicate that average individual doses for the four categories of licensees involved have remained within a narrow range (0.23 to 0.4 rem) and O values have remained between 1.64 and J. 19. Thus, individuals in these four categories experience a very comparable risk of radiation dose. ihe collective dose for each of the categories is proportional to the number of individ-uals involved.

RESERVATIONS REGARDING THE DATA The reader is cautioned that any conclusions drawn from these data must be conditioned by a number of reservations. The data are obtained from routine personnel monitoring programs and are not directly suitable for interpretation as dose equivalent to the individuals involved.

Among the factors involved are the possibility that the dosimeter was exposed while not being worn by the individual to whom it was assigned, the possiblity that the exposure incident on the dosimeter was only part of that received by a major portion of the body of the wearer because of collimation of the radiation, local shielding, etc., and the possibility that the radiation was incident upon the body in such a manner that the monitoring device recorded exit dose rather than the highest dose received at any point on the body. There are inaccuracies in the estimation of the dose received by the dosimeter itself. Other reservations must be intro-duced for potential bias involving the fraction of licensees in each category that responded to the request for voluntary one-time submission of the data. Small licensees and very large licensees who have resorted to computer programs for handling their records may have been more likely to respond than intermedia'e-size licensees who stil' procese their data manually. It is not known to what extent the monitoring experience of these licenstas parallels that of the others. There is the possibility that the data may be biased because licensees that have well-controlled radiation programs and who are enjoying relatively low radiation doses may have been more likely to report voluntarily than those who are experiencing relatively high doses. While licensees have been placed in a large number of categories according to the type of licensed 8

2199 165

program, a variety of operations is conducted by some licensees, including the use of X-rdy equipment and other sources of radiation not regulated by the NRC. The data contain the moni-toring results obtained from visitors and other individuals who would not have been required to be monitored. The number of such individuals will vary with the administrative policy of the licensac %vbed and will shif t the average dose calculated from the data. However, as has been demonstrateo (Ref. 4), the number of these individuals will have little impact on the collective dose attributed to the licensed activity in question or on the log probability plot of the distributions of estimated doses.

The NRC staff recognizes the diversity of programs conductcc by licensees but believes that there is sufficient basis for comparison of exposure experience among types of licensees and among licensees within each type. The staff believes that adequate personnel monitoring pasurements sufficiently characterize the radiation environment in which individuals work to provide an adequate for the evaluation of radiation protertion and desires to be informad of the estimated do % s ing recorded in order tu permit evaluation of the eifectiveness of the NRC regulatory program.

COST OF REPORTING In keeping with its policy of assessing the value and 'mpact of proposed changes in the regulatory systems, the August 25, 1976, letter also invited licensees to provide an estimate of their effort in man-hours and the total cost in preparing an annual statistical summary report of their personnel monitoring data. The distributions of 172 responses regarding man-hours of effort and 125 responses regarding cost indicate median commitments of 0.046 man-hours and $0.65, respectively, per monitored individual (see Figures 12 and 13).

Application of these median effort and cost estimates to the 81,000 individuals monitored by licensees currently required te raport pursuant to 520.407 or 10 CFR Part 20 indicate a licensee commitment of about 3,700 man-hours or $52,700. Extension of the reporting requirement to all NRC licensees could add a licensee commitment for the 245,500 individuals monitored of 11,300 man-hours or $159,600, an average of 1.4-mar.-hours or about $20 per licensee. However, because these estimates of effort or cost commitment were provided by licensees who had never before prepared such an annual report, the cost to licensees under an on going reporting require-ment probably would be less.

The cost to the NRC of the collection, computerization, and analysis of the data currently being received under $20.407 of 10 CFR Part 20 annually involves about 1.5 man years of effort plus about $25,000 in computer-related costs. Extension of the reporting requirement to all NRC licensees would not require additional NRC staff but would increase the computer-related costs to about $30,000.

2199 166 g

REFERENCES 1.

Brouks, B. G., " Seventh Annual Occupational Radiation Exposure Report," 1974, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-75/108 (1975).

2.

Brooks, B. G., " Eighth Annual Occupational Radiation Exposure Report," 1975, United States Nuclear Regulato y Commission, NUREG-0119.

3.

Brodsky, A., Specht, R. P., Brooks, B. G., et al., " Log-Normal Distributions of Occu-pational Exposure in Medicine and Industry," presented at the 9th Midyear Symposium of the Health Physics Soclei, 1976.

f 4.

United Nations, " Report of the Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radia-tion 1977," General Assembly Of ficini Records: Thirty-Second Session, Supplement No. 40, United Nations, New York.

5.

Murphy, T. D., "A Compilation of Occupational Radiation Exposure From Light-Water Cooled Nuclear Power Plants 1969-1973," United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

WASH-13il, May 1974.

6.

Murphy, T. D., Hinson, C. S., " Occupational Radiation Exposure At Light-Water Cooled Power Reactors 1369-1974," United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-75/032, June 1975.

7.

Murphy, T. D., Dayem, N.

J., Bland, J.

S., Pasciak, W.

J., " Occupational Radiation Exposure at Light-Water Cooled Power Reactors 1969-1975," United S'3tes Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0109, August 1976.

2199 167 10

TABLE 1

SUMMARY

OF 1975 VOLUNTARY MCNITCQING CATA Average Nurber of Collective Number of Individuals Average Collective Dose Estrapolated Licensees Number of Average With Measurable Dose Per Numter of E n tra pola ted Fraction Who Individuals

Dose, Measurable

Dose, Reported,

Licensee, Individuals Collective Cost. '

p Category Reporting Mon i tc red Monitored Rems Deses Rems Man Rems Man-Rems Monitoreda Man pems Byproduct Material Academic Broad 8/22 8

1,927 0.01 207 0.10 21.11 2.04 5,300 60 Academic Other 79/476 54 3,609 0.03 970 0.11 103.54 1.31 21,700 (20 Instit. Broad Med.

40/94 40 14,228 0.07 5,354 0.18 975.98 24.40 33,400 2,290 Instit. Other Med.

345/1355 342 9,643 0.18 6,180 0.28 1,750.18 5.07 37,900 6,873 Private Practice 73/701 64 486 0.28 392 0.35 137.31 1.88 4,700 1,320 Teletherapy 46/470 46 1,716 0.15 927 0.29 264.73 5.76 17,500 2,700 Other Medical 17/103 14 356 0.13 168 0.27 46.01 2.71 2,200 2E0 Radiopharm. Dist.

3/30 3

25 0.08 9

0.23 2.10 0.70 250 20 Pacemakers Instit.

0/8 Pacemakers Individ.

0/4 Well Logging 14/63 14 1,514 0.4%

1,328 0.50 666.11 47.53 6 S00 3,000 Other Meas. Systems 278/2109 121 2,594 0.06 1,05 3 0.14 147.31 0.53 19,700 1,120 Marketing Broad 11/62 8

703 0.05 140 0.26 36.31 3.30 4,000 2 00 Marketing Othu 48/244 39 1,195 0.07 293 0.28 82.39 1.72 6,100 420 ll Gen. Lic. Dist.

2/57 1

8 0.13 8

0.13 1.05 0.53 230 30 Exempt Quant. Dist.

4/44 2

103 0.03 50 0.07 3.58 0.90 1.130 40 Exempt Watch Dist.

5/64 1

11 0.06 11 0.C6 0.68 0.14 140 10 Other Exempt Dist.

7/84 6

232 0.01 49 0.06 3.03 0.43 2,790 35 Nuclear Laundry 1/5 1

4 0.00 20 Leak Test 3/28 2

6 0.06 4

0.08 0.33 0.11 60 3

Waste Disposal -

4/4 4

65 1.24 64 1.26 80.63 20.16 65 Si Burial Waste Disposal - Other 2/9 2

8 0.006 1

0.05 0.05 0.03 40 0.2 Power Sources 0/1 Irradiator <10,000 C1 3/164 2

26 0.03 5

0.17 0.83 0.28 1,420 50 Irradiator >10,000 C1 3/55 3

1 34 0.003 1

0.38 0.38 0.13 2,460 7

R & D Broad 21/83 20 5,802 0.03 1,250 0.14 180.36 8.59 22,900 710 R & D Other 88/435 69 2,298 0.02 724 0.08 54.30 0.62 11,400 270 Civli Defense 10/129 8

682 0.04 553 0.05 28.36 2.84 8,800 370 Byproduct Export 0/56 Transport Large Qty.

0/3

{ Transport Type B 1/1 1 190 0.16 110 0.28 30.47 30.47 190 30 %C) Source Material ~C) u Milis 7/17 7 437

0. 38 404 0.41 166.05 23.72 1,0f a 402 Other U <150 kg 3/58 2

19 0.00 370 Other U >150 kg 8/320 8 149 0.12 108 0.17 18.56 2.32 5,060 743 UF, Production 2/2 2 522 0.14 330 0.22 73.56 36.78 520 70 CJrs Source Mtl. Export 1/48 1 50 0.02 22 0.05 1.10 1.10 2,400 50 C)C) Source Mtl. Import 0/4 Continued.

Table 1 (Continueu) Average Number of Collective Number of Individuals Average Collective Dose Extrapolated Licensees Numaer of Average With Measurable Oose Per Number of Extrapolated Fraction Who Individuals

Dose, Measurable

Dose, Reported,

Licensee, Individuals Collective Dose,b Category Reporting Monitored Monitored Rems Doses Rems Man-Rems Man-Rems Monitoredd Man-Rems Special Nuclear Material other Pu uses M D 0/3 Other U Uses R&D 1/22 1

if4 0.02 15 0.17 2.53 2.53 3.390 60 Unencapsulated SNM 2/29 2 204 0.11 14 1.54 21.59 10.80 2.960 310 Neutron Sources 18/308 9 247 0.02 45 0.09 4.08 0.23 4.230 70 Power Sources 0/4 Other SNM Sources 5/60 4 203 0.05 77 0.13 9.79 1.96 2,440 120 Pacemakers Instit. 0/91 Pacemakers Individ. 1/7 0 U Sources 3/48 3 408 0.001 8 0.07 0.53 0.18 6,530 8 Fuel Storage 1/10 1 13 0.69 13 0.69 9.00 9.00 130 90 SNM Storage Only 1/2 1 4 0.01 1 0.05 0.05 0.05 8 0.1 N SNM Import 0/12 SNM [xport 1/156 1 6 0.00 0 940 Transport Irr. Fuel 0/2 Transport Unirr. Fuel 0/2 Transport Large Quant. 0/3 Test Reactors 1/2 1 7 0.05 7 0.05 0.35 0.35 14 0.7 Research Reactors 3/66 3 152 0.12 120 0.16 18.98 6.33 3.350 420 ' Power Reactors 54/54 54 54.763 0.39 28,034 0.76 21,269.72 393.88 54,;o3 21,270 CRadiographers 291/320 291 9,178 0.31 4,693 0.60 2,795.94 9.61 10.100 3,080 ' Fuel Prot ' Reproc 24/24 24 11.614 0.27 5,602 0.57 3,175.30 132.30 11.614 3,175 i dManufactu*e & Dist. 19/23 19 3,367 0.35 1,859 0.64 1,188.17 62.54 4,100 1,440

• (Extrato.

Number of Individuals Monitoreo) = (Individuals Monitored)/(Fraction Reporting) D(Extra # <

• s'11ective Dose) = (Repueted Collective Dose)/(Fraction Reporting)

Note: F

• • 'i these extrapolations of the licensees who did not monitor is canceled by appearance in both the numerator and derre-

% Fraction Reporting. CCurre,itly reporting pursuant to $20.407 of 10 CFR Part 20. ~ d Q Sutet of " Mart.eting Broad" and " Marketing Other" meeting the criteria in 120.407(a)(4) of 10 CFR Part 20.

TxBLE 2 1975 MONITORING DATA BY LICENSEE FUNCTIONAL 3ROUP (EXTRAPOLATED TO ALL LICENSEES IN GROUP) Average Licensee Number of Collective Dose Per Functional Individuals Dose. Individual. Grouping Monitored Man-Rems Rems Academic 27,000 680 0.03 Medical 95,700 13,500 0.14 Marketing 14,600 760 0.05 R&D 34,300 980 0.03 Byproduct Material 211.200 20.540 0.10 Source Material 10,300 1,260 0.12 Special Nu: lear 20,630 660 0.03 Material Research & Test 3,400 420 0.12 Reactors a Power Reactors 54,760 21,270 0.39 Industrial 10.100 3,080 0.31 a Radiographers Fuel Processing, 11,610 3,175 0.27 & Reprocessing Manufacturing & 4,100 1.440 0.35 Distributionb acurrently reporting pursuant to 120.407 of 10 CFR Part 20. bSubset of " Marketing Broad" and " Marketing Other" meeting the criteria in 520.407(a)(4) of 10 CFR Part 20. 2199.170 13

TABLE 3 DISTRIBUTION OF ESTIMATED DOSES - 1975 VOLUNTARY DATA Cate9ery Emp_osureRangeslRemsl r of Total No. Less Than Meas ble 0.10 0.25 0.50 0.75 Licensee Monitored Measurable 0.10 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12 12+ Byproduct Material Aca3FmlE 5 Had 1927 1720 157 35 11 2 2 Academic Other 3609 2639 781 127 34 13 5 8 2 Instit. Broad Med. 14228 8874 345! 1016 502 160 85 106 25 4 2 1 2 Instit. Other Med. 9643 3463 3094 1402 834 361 190 200 52 22 16 2 4 0 1 0 2 Private Practice 486 94 166 90 07 27 12 19 4 3 0 2 Teletherapy 1716 789 539 158 111 48 16 30 14 5 6 Other Medical 356 188 101 24 17 12 5 6 2 0 1 Radiopharm. Dist. 25 16 3 4 0 2 Pacemakers Instit. Pacemakers Individ. Well Logging 1514 186 387 315 249 128 82 117 23 19 4 1 1 1 0 1 Other Meas. Systems 2594 1541 704 197 103 36 8 3 2 Marketing Broad 703 563 77 29 16 5 e 11 Marketing Other 1195 902 177 58 21 11 7 12 3 1 3 Gen. Lic. Dist. 8 0 6 0 2 3= Exempt Quant. Dist. 103 53 45 4 0 1 Exempt Watch Dist. 11 0 10 1 Other Exempt Dist. 232 183 46 2 1 Nuclear Laundry 4 4 Leak Test 6 2 3 1 Waste Disposal - 65 1 9 11 8 6 4 8 9 7 2 Burial Waste Disposal - Other 8 7 1 Power Sources Irradiator <10,000 Ci 26 21 4 0 0 1 Irradiator >10,000 Ci 134 133 0 0 1 R & D croad 5802 4552 1025 117 49 18 12 14 6 8 1 R & D Other 2298 1574 651 50 16 4 0 3 Civil Defense 682 129 551 1 0 1 Byproduct Export Transport Large Quant, rs,) Transport Type B 190 80 43 21 25 15 5 1 ~~~' Source Material 'sC) U~MIT1s 437 33 123 88 86 44 22 38 2 1 % C) Other U <l50 k9 19 19 Other U >150 kg 149 41 78 13 10 0 3 4 UFc Production 522 192 118 128 49 20 13 2 ~~ Source Mtl. Export 50 28 22 sJ Source Mtl. Import Continued.

Table 3 (Continued) Category Exposure Ranges (Rens) of Total No. Less Than Meas'ble 0.10 0.25 0.50 0.75 Licensee Monitored Measurable 0.10 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12 12+ S ecial Nuclear Material j uther Pu Uses R&D Other U Uses R&D 154 139 4 9 2 Unencapsulated SNM 204 1 90 3 1 1 0 1 3 2 3 Neutron Sources 247 202 32 12 1 Power Sources Other SNM Sources 203 126 59 9 5 3 0 1 Pacemakers Instit. Pacemakers Individ. U. Sources 408 400 7 1 Fuel Storage 13 0 0 0 2 8 2 1 SNM Storage Only 4 3 1 SNM Import [g SNM Export 6 6 Transport Irr. Fuel Transport Unirr. Fuel Transport Lar9e Quant. Test Reactors 7 0 7 Research Reactors 152 32 39 73 4 3 1 ' Power Reactors 54763 26729 10606 4081 2948 1778 1384 3982 1873 692 96. 169 60 24 12 0 1 "Radiographers 9178 4485 1811 813 614 346 263 5 38 171 64 35 21 8 1 3 1 2 1 1

• Fuel Proc & Reproc 11614 6012 2019 1115 1029 440 253 393 157 77 40 30 11 9 14 15 bManufacture & Dist. 3367 1508 644 532 214 38 67 140 65 43 39 11 12 3

0 1 N ' Currently reporting pursuant to 120.407 of 10 CFR Part 20. b -eC) Subset of "Marketin9 Broad" and "Marketin9 other" meeting the criteria in 520.407(a)(4) of 10 CFR Part 20. N

TABLF 4 EXTRAPOLATED TOTAL COLLECTIVE DOSE BY CATEGORY OF LICENSEE (MAN-REMS) a Power Reactors 21,270 Instit. Other Medical 6,880 aFuel Proc. & Reproc. 3,175 aRadiographers 3,080 Well Logging 3,000 Teletherapy 2,700 Instit. Broad Medical 2,290 aManufacture & Dist. 1,440 Private Practice 1,320 Other Meas. Systems 1,120 Other U >l50 kg 740 R & D Broad 710 Academic Other 620 Marketing Other 420 Research Reactors 420 U Mills 400 Civil Defense 370 Unencapsulated SNM 31 0 Other Medical 280 R&DCWe 270 Marketir,3 broad 200 Other SNM Sources 120 Fuel Storage 90 Waste Disposal - Burial 81 UFs Production 70 Neutron Sources 70 Academic Broad 60 Other U Uses R & D 60 Source Mtl. Export 50 Irradiator <10,000 Ci 50 Exempt Quant. Dist. 40 Other Exempt Dist. 35 Gen. Lic. Dist. 30 Transport Type B 30 Radiopharm. Dist. 20 Exempt Watch Dist. 10 U Sources 8 Irradiator >10,000 C1 7 Leak Test 3 Test Reactors 0.7 Waste Disposal Other 0.2 SNM Storage Only 0.1 acurrently reporting pursuant to $20.407 of 10 CFR Part 20. 2199 173 16

tab 5 AVERAGE COLLECTIVE DOSE PER LICENSEE IN A GIVEN CATEGORY (MAN-REMS) a Power Reactors 394 aFuel Proc. & Reproc. 132 aManufacture & Dist. 62.5 Well Logging 47.6 UFs Production 36.8 Transport Type B '40.5 Instit. Broad Medical u4 U Mills 23.7 Waste Disposal - Burial 20.2 Unencapsulated SNM 10.8 aRadiographers 9.6 Fuel Storage 9.0 R & D Broad 8.6 Research Reactors 6.3 Teletherapy 5.8 Instit. Other Medical 5.1 Marketing Broad 3.3 Civil Defense 2.8 Other Medical 2.7 Academic Broad 2.6 Other U Uses R & D 2.5 Other U >150 kg 2.3 Other SNM Sources 2.0 Private Practice 1.9 Marketing Other 1.7 Academic Other 1.3 Source Mtl. Export 1.1 Exempt Quant. Dist. .9 Radiopharm. Dist. .7 R & D Other .6 Other Meas. Systems .5 Gen. Lic. Dist. .5 Other Exempt Dist. .4 Test Reactors .4 Irradiator <10,000 Ci .3 Neutron Sources .2 U Scurces .2 Exempt Watch Dist. .1 Irradiator >10,000 Ci .1 Leak Test .1 SNM Storage Only .1 Waste Disposal Other .03 aCurrently reporting pursuant to 120.407 of 10 CFR Part 20. 2199 174 17

TABLE 6 AVERAGE INDIVIDUAL DOSE BY CATEGORY Average Category Average Measurable of

Dose, Dose, Licensee Rems Rems Waste Disposal - Burial 1.24 1.26 Fuel Storage 0.69 0.69 Well Logging 0.44 0.50 aPower Reactors 0.39 0.76 U Mills 0.38 0.41 aManufacture & Dist.

0.35 0.64 aRadiographers 0.31 0.60 Private Practice 0.28 0.35 aFuel Proc. & Reproc. 0.27 0.57 Instit. Other Medical 0.18 0.28 Transport Type B 0.16 0.28 Teletherapy 0.15 0.29 UF6 Production 0.14 0.22 Other Medical 0.13 'O.27 Gen. Lic. Dist. 0.13 0.13 Research Reactors 0.13 0.16 Other u >150 kg 0.12 0.17 Unencapsulated SNM 0.11 1.54 Radiopharm. Dist. 0.08 0.23 Instit. Broad Medical 0.07 0.18 Marketing Other 0.07 0.28 Other Meas. Systems 0.06 0.14 Exempt Watch Dist. 0.06 0.06 Leak Test 0.06 0.08 Marketing Broad 0.05 0.26 Other SNM Sources 0.05 0.13 Test Reactors 0.05 0.05 Civil Defense 0.04 0.05 Exempt Quant. Dist. 0.03 0.07 Academic Other 0.03 0.11 Irradiator <10,000 Ci 0.03 0.17 R & D Broad 0.03 0.14 R & D Other 0.02 0.08 Source Mtl. Export 0.02 0.05 Other U Uses R & D 0.02 0.17 Neutron Sources 0.02 0.09 Academic Broad 0.01 0.10 Other Exempt Dist. 0.01 0.06 SNM Storage Only 0.01 0.05 Waste Disposal Other 0.006 0.05 Irradiator >10,000 Ci 0.003 0.38 U Sources 0.001 0.07 acurrently reporting pursuant to 120.407 of 10 CFR Part 20. 2199 175 ~ 18

TABLE 7 AVERAGE INDIVIDUAL DOSE, EXTRAPOLATED COLLECTIVE DOSE, AND n 1975 VOLUNTARY DATA Average Extrapolated Category Individual Collective Of Dose (6), Doss (S), Licensee Rems Man-Rems a, Byproduct Material Academic Broad 0.01 60 0.0 Academic Other 0.03 620 0.34 Instit. Broad Med 0.07 2,290 0.61 Instit. Other Med 0.18 6,880 0.92 Private Practice 0.28 1,320 1.08 Teletherapy 0.15 2,700 1.24 Other Medical 0.13 280 0.98 Radiopharm. Dist. 0.08 20 0.0 Pacemakers Instit. Pacemakers Individ. Well Logging 0.44 3,000 1.25 Other Meas. Systems 0.06 1.120 0.16 Marketing Broad 0.05 200 0.73 Marketing Other 0.07 420 1.32 Gen. Lic. Dist. 0.13 30 0.0 Exempt Quant. Dist. 0.03 40 0.0 Exempt Watch Dist. 0.06 10 0.0 Other Exempt Dist. 0.01 35 0.0 Nuclear Laundry 0.00 Leak Test 0.06 3 0.0 Waste Disposal Burial 1.24 81 2.48 Waste Disposal Other 0.006 0.2 0.0 Power Sources Irradiator <10,000 Ci 0.03 50 0.0 Irradiator >10,000 Ci 0.003 7 0.0 R & D Broad 0.03 710 1.04 R & D Other 0.02 270 0.13 Civil Defense 0.04 370 0.0 Byproduct Export Transport Large Quant. Transport Type B 0.16 30 0.08 Source Material U Mills 0.38 400 0.72 Other U <l50 kg 0.00 Other U >l50 kg 0.12 740 0.52 UFs Production 0.14 70 0.07 Source Mtl. Export 0.02 50 0.0 Source Mtl. Import Continued... a, a dimensionless quantity, is the ratio of the fraction of the collective n dose due to annual doses above 1.5 rads for C - ak-arved distribution to the fraction for the UNSCEAR reference distc uution (Ref. 4). For any observed distribution n = 3.23S /5' 1.5 2199 176

Table 7 (Continued) Average Extrapolated Category Individual Collective Of Dose (D). Dose (S). a Licensee Rems Man-Rems n Special Nuclear Material Other Pu uses R&D Other U Uses R&D 0.02 60 0.0 Unencapsulated SNM 0.11 310 2.66 Neutron Sources 0.02 70 0.0 Power Sources Other SNM Sources 0.05 120 0.25 Pacemakers Instit. Pacemakers Individ. U Sources 0.001 8 0.0 Fuel Storage 0.69 90 0.27 SNM Storage Only 0.01 0.1 0.0 SNM Import SNM Export 0.00 Transport Irr. Fuel Transport Unirr. Fuel Transport Large Quant. Test Reactors 0.05 0.7 0.0 Research Reactors 0.12 420 0.0 2199 777 o

TABLE 8 AVERAGE INDIVIDUAL DOSE. EXTRAPOLATED COLLECTIVE DOSE, AND n 1973-197510 CFR 520.407 DATAa Average Extrapolated Category Individual Collective Of Dose (5), Dose (S), b Licensee Rems Man-Rems a PoE. Reactors 1973 0.32 14.337 2.29 1974 0.23 14.083 2.00 1975 0.39 21,270 2.07 Industrial Radiographers 1973 0.40 3,630 1.75 1974 0.33 3,030 1.64 1975 0.31 3,080 1.71 Fuel Processing & Reprocessing 1973 0.23 2,400 1.81 1974 0.25 2,739 1.96 1975 0.27 3,175 1.74 Manufacturing & Distribution 1973 0.28 1,210 2.09 1974 0.32 1,140 2.04 1975 0.35 1,440 2.08 'The four categories of licensees have been reporting pursuant to 120.407 of 10 CFR Part 20 in the statistical summary format since 1973. Prior reports included only those estimated doses in excess of 1.25 rems. b. a dimensionless quantity, is the ratio of the fraction of the collective dose n due to annual doses above 1.5 rads for the observed distribution to the fraction for the UNSCEAR reference distribution (Ref 4). For any observed distribution n = 3.235.5/S' 1 f\\

8 MM i i I I I i ll I i i i I iI 99.9 99.8 O40 99 - # 98 4 ua 04 95s 90 h 80 70 c+ 40 0 30 t* g b 4 20 4 u a: E 10 s 2 EXTRAPOLATED EXTRAPOLATED AVERAGE j CATEGORY COLLECTIVE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL OF DOSE INDIVIDUALS DOSE LICENSEE MAN RFMS IS) MONITORED REMS (51 fl ACADEMIC BROAD 60 5.300 0.01 0.00 ACADEMIC OTHER 620 21.700 0.03 0.34 - 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.01 1 I I I I I I I I I I II' o o e o oooco w w a ai o w co m s b u 'a 66'u kb DOSE - REMS Figure 1. 1975 Voluntary Data - Academic Licensees 2199 179 22

^ 99,99 , i g i i g 99.9 99.8 99 98 gobO o* 8 o >s sc w 95 __ su 's v***,s l90 s d* a

1. y e

n stL 'etB

• A E

so "gs0pS*#s ct mj s4 70s ?,$ a w g wt E 40 Eo 30 Y h 4 20 - 4 g CC Lu' 10 5 E XTR APOLATE D EXTRAPOLATED AVERAGE CATEGORY COLLECTIVE NUM8E R OF INDIVIDUAL OF DOSE INDtVIDUALS DOSE 2 LICENSEE MAN-REMS (S) MONITORED REMSl51 O - INSTITUT. 8 ROAD ME DICAL 2,290 33,400 0.07 0.61 ~ INSTlWT. OTHER MEDICAL 8,880 37A00 0.18 0.92 0.5 PRIVATE PRACTICE 1,320 4,700 0.28 1.08 TELETHERAPY 2,700 17,500 0.15 1.24 0.2 OTHER usDiCAL 280 2,200 01 0.e8 0.1 0.05 0.01 I I I I I I I I I I I II C C C C C O O O O =* PJ W UI m N CO O -' L M to 'a in in 'u to tD DOSE - REMS Figure 2. 1975 Voluntary Data - Medical Licensees 2199 180 n

1. 98 I

I I IiI I I i i i i 9 Oi 99.9 10 '$ t ~ 99.8 0 D M80 egoA g 99 98 BROAD RKETING ~ MA TION ~ I ss DISTRIBU Y CTURING 90 l NUFA 7MA ~ 80 20.40 } 5 -e 70 y 80 ~ E ~ f ll : t* g 20 o 10 9m f 6

tun, CATEGORY COL E VE N

OF INDIV L 2 uCENstE MAN R MS is) ORE PE 0) G R&D BROAD 710 22.000 0.03 1A4 R&D OTHE R 270 11,400 0.02 0.13 - 0.5 M ARKETING BROAD 200 4.000 0.05 0.73 0.2 "g20.407 MFo a"DisT '.'0s' "****'N** 1,440 4.100 0.3s 2 0.1 0.05 - 0.01 i a e i i g i g g g N W

• * *Nm*5 0

DOSE - REMS Figure 3. 1975 Voluntary Data - R & D and Marketing 1.icensees 2199 181

I I I I I l l l l l 0 f'4 00.. s.- / M,, 8, O 95 8 z o ew t b j 80 h 70 O,p\\* S 60 oG\\ 50 -#*o co " spoS s Z 40 4 o 30 b-5 m e i E 10 5 EXTRAPOLATED EXTRAPOLATED AVERAGE CATEGORY COLLECTIVE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL 2 ~ OF DOSE INDIVIDUALS DOSE LICENSEE MAN REMS (S) MONITOR E D REMS (51 0 1 WELL LOGGING 3.000 6.800 0.44 1.25 0.5 OTNER us As. sv$TEus 1.12o is.700 0.0e 0.is - WASTE DISPOSAL - BURIAL 81 65 1.24 2.48 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.01 1 I I I I I I I I i i eii .o o P P P.oppo" n w a momae" b w a mmame o DOSE - REMS Figure 4. 1975 Yoluntary Data - Well Logging, Other Measurement Systems, and Waste Disposal - Burial Licensees 2199 182 25

99 I I i i i ii I A 99.9 99.8 g 99 guCLEA 98 g SPEC mo O 954 k GOO 00' 90 - pp 0 0 80 4 Y h ~ 70 - O p c 60 9 5g 50 E 40 +4 u.o 30 Fz g 20 5 m. 10 p-EXTRAPOLATED EXTRAPOLATED AVERAGE 2 CATEGORY COLLECTIVE NUMBER OP INDIVIDUAL OF DOSE INDIVIDUALS DOSE j LICE NSE E MAN REMS (S) MONITORED REMS (51 0 _ ~ 0.5 sYrRoDUCT MATE RIAL 20,540 211,200 0.10 Om SOURCE MATERIAL 1,260 10.300 0.12 0.52 - 0.2 gpECIAL NUCLE AR MATERIAL 660 20,630 0.03 1.31 0.1 0.05 I I I I I I II I I I I 0.01 o o o o ooooo* N w a ci m a o m W 'e0 iD k ia 'a i.n DOSE - REMS Figure 5. 1975 Voluntary Data - Byproduct, Source, and Special Nuclear Material Licensees 2199 183 26

00'00 l I i i i i i i i i i COMPARISON 1975 VOLUNTARY DATA _ 1976 DATA REPORTED PURSUANT TO @20.407,10 CPR PART 20 99.8 99 98 w W 95 ObU z psc 90 %91 P-4 20.407 w 80 3975 NBC % _a 70' 60 E 50 Oz 40 8 30 Hz 20 u CC E 10 5 EXTRAPOLATED EXTRAPOLATED AVERAGE CATECORY COLLECTIVE NUMBE R OP INDIVIDUAL OF DOSE INDIVIDUALS DOSE LICENSEE MAN REMS IS) MONITORED R EMS (5) G - 1 is7s VOLUNT ARY 22.900 245.500 0.10 0.88 - 1s7s g 20.407 R EPORTS 2a.eso so,s70 Oae 2.00 _ 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.05 8 ' ' 8 8 I I I I I II 0.01 o o o o o o o o o -a w w a ut a w ce to -a la h in in 'u to LD m DOSE - R EMS Figure 6. Composite 1975 Voluntary Data and 120.407 Data 2199 184 27

I l l l l l 1I I I I I 99.9 99.8 99 98 m 95 M ~ 3974 !ev_ M $ 70y 1975 3 80 ! s0 03 40 @ 30 $ 20 >-z d 10 a: E 5 2 EXT R APOLATE D EXTRAPOLATED AVERAGE CATEGORY COLLECTIVE NUMBER DP INDIVIDUAL OF DOSE INDIVIDUALS DOSE 1 uCENSEE MAN-R EMS (S) MONITORED REMS (D) Q 0.5 power REACTORS 1973 14.337 44.795 o.32 2.29 0.2 i974 14.os3 s2.o44 o.23 2.oo 0.1 O.05 0.01 1 I I I Il i I I I I II o o o o ooocoa N ca a ui m w coco -* k to in in 'u to to a DOSE REMS Figure 7. 120.',07 Power Reactor Data - 1973-1975 e 28

1. 88 I

I I I I I I I I I I I ) 99.9 99.8 99 98 ua 95 m b 90 5 h 80 704 1974 [ ~

) 60 Q5 50 3z 40 30 cp 2

U 20 5 EXTRAPOLATED EXTRAPOLATED AVERAGE CATEGORY COLLECTIVE NUMBEROP INDIVIDUAL OF DOSE INDIVIDUALS DOSE 5 LICENSEE MAN-REMS (S) MONITORED REMS (5) Q 2 INDUSTRIAL RADIOGRAPHERS 1973 3.630 0,100 0.40 1.75 I ~ 1974 3.030 9.100 0.33 1.54 1978 3,080 10.100 0.30 1.71 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 I I I I I I I I I III o o o o oocoo-w w a ui o w oo o a b b A in in 4 to tD o DOSE - R EMS Figure 8. 120.407 Radiographer Data - 1973-1975 2199 186 29

99.99 g i 99.9 A [g 99.8 99 w 98 g t O 1 i 95 g <t U E m M U 80 gg73A91" U I 1975 g 707 y 60 5 50 z 40 U 30 z d 20 cc E 10 ~ EXTRAPOLATED EXTRAPOLATED AVERAGE ~ CATEGORY COLLECTIVE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL OF DOSE INDIVIDUALS DOSE 2 LICENSEE MAN REMS ist MONITOR E D REMS (D) D - FUEL PROCES$1NG & REPROCES$1NG j 1973 2.400 10,810 0.23 1.81 0.5 1s74 2.73s 10.e2i 0.25 1.oS - 1975 3.175 11.614 0.27 1.74 0.1 0.05 - 0.01 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

• o o

o o o o ooo m w a ui ei w co e -. b b in b ' in to o a u DOSE - REMS Figure 9. 120.407 Fuel Processing and Reprocessing Data - 1973-1975 2199 187 30

99.99 ,7, 99.9 99.8 99 98 E 8 95 5 90 19'l3 g H $w 80 1916 .a 70h g 60< E 50 Oz 40 30 20 - + a: E 10 5 ~ E XTR APOLATE D E XTR APOLATE D AVERAGE 1 CATEGORY COLLECTIVE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL OF DOSE INDIVIDUALS DOSE LICENSEE MAN-REMS (3) MONITORED REMS (5l Q 0.5 MANUF ACTURING Si OISTRIBUTION 0.2 - 1973 1.210 4.40o o.2s 2m 0.1 - 1e74 1.14o 3.600 a.32 2.c4 te7s i.44o 4.100 a.3s 2 os 0.05 0.01 ' ' ' 8 II 8 o o o o o o c o o -. m w a m o u co m - L M L 'a 6 ' ub6 o' DOSE - REMS Figure 10. 520.407 Byproduct Manufacture and Distribution Data - 1973-1975 2199 188 31

• 00 I

l l l l l l l I I I I 99.9 99.8 99 98 w h 95 s)Y o h 80 3973 J l 70g#93 <D 60 O E u 40 g 30 h 20 =g 10 5 EXTRAPOLATED EXTRAPOLATED AVERAOE CATEGORY COLLECTIVE NUMBER OP ANDIVIDUAL OF DOSE INDIVIDUALS DOSE 2 ~ tiCENstt MAN REMS (S) MONITORED REMS (D) Q l " COMPOSITE OP {20,407 REPORTS 1973 21.e00 es.900 asi 2.i4 0.5 1974 21.000 85,700 0.25 1.94 1975 29,000 80,600 0.36 2.00 0.1 0.05 0.01 I I I I I I I I I I I o o o o o o ocoa N w a ci ci w co o d* s bbQub 'a k u DOSE - REMS Figure 11. Composite Annual Summaries - 1973-1975 s20,407 Data 2199 '.89 32

99.99 iiiii i i ii ii i iI I IIIi 99.9 99.8 99 $ 98 a j 95 aw h 80 g 70 a so 9 w g 40 30 3 y 20 3 10 0;w 5 u. O 2 1 0.5 ' 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.01 N k h hhhkkh5 N N INNNNNU 0 0 $$$0$$$ EFFORT MAN-HOURS PER MONITORED INDIVIDUAL Figure 12. Effort Needed to Prepare Statistical Summary Report 2199 190 33

99 99 l l l l l l l I I I II I I I I l 99.9 - y o 99.8 .a< > 99 O 98 t o 95 d 90 E 3 80 E 70 $ 60 g 50 lE 40 @ 30 W 20 0 10 g 5 - 2 1 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.01 I I I I I I11 I I I I I I i 11

• o 5

N $$$$8N$$ 0 0$$$0$$$ COST - DOLLARS PER MONITORED INDIVIDUAL Figure 13. Cost of Preparing Annual Statistical Sumary Report 2199 191 34 .ut covenmus=T enianna onics.wis no-arzu i.:

UNITED ST ATES I l NUCLE AH REGULATORY COMMISFION WASHING TON, O. C. 20555 POST AGE AND FEES PAID U.S. N UC LE A R R E GU L A TG' R Y OF FICI AL BUSINESS C O M MIS $10 N PE N ALTY F O n PHIV ATE USE, $300 tJ 2199 192}}