ML20080Q194
| ML20080Q194 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/13/1983 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20080Q193 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-83-630 NUREG-0713, NUREG-0713-DRFT, NUREG-713, NUREG-713-DRFT, NUDOCS 8402230413 | |
| Download: ML20080Q194 (14) | |
Text
h' W'
4.
ILrJ11hAl10N DATA SLGliltD 'TPSUANT 1010 Cf R g20.408
~
4.1 Termination Reports, 1969-198/M In 1969 the NRC (then the Atomic Energy Coc.r.ission) began requiring operating nuclear pc er facilities and three other types of licensees
- to submit peri >onnel identification and exposure information upon the termina-tion of each monitored person's empicyment or work assignr..ent in the lictnsce's facility.
The appropriate inforr.ation on each report is wally coded and satered into the Commission's computerized Radiation E>pesure Information and Reportingjy;1em 1REIRS) at Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
The data are retrievable itA*;}h eetMays - socia security number, name, facility, etc. - which allows statistical analys of the data, as well as the tracing of individual dose histories.
During the years that this infomation has been collected, some 880,000 termination records have been received for approximately 250,000 individuals who have been reported as having terminated their e..ployment at nucicar pc er plants.
The figures given for the number of reports and the namber of individuals are different because numerous individuals have been termirated more than once over the years and because some individuals may have had external doses reported for more than one part of the body, as well as estimates of internal depesitions of radicactive material, each of which is counted as one record.
Table 12 provides a breakdown of this information for individuals terminating during each of the fourteen years and shows that the number of-such records continues to increase each year; however, the nua.ber of ternir.ating individuals appears to have levelhd off at about 66,000. -This ilh.stu tes tM i.istry's s cQ.9 m ed for varkers.
4.2 Limitations of the Termination Data Wwn examining or using the s'a:iStics shown in the report that are tmsed or. the te C ation dsta,,ne t !'ulc Leep ir d nd t'.at t'ese data have verinus limitat'rs, such as the fol b 'ngl Y me li m sees submit a ti<f r.at;on, spurt for each monitorec on utilit)...;.icyee et the end of each monitoring period.rather than waiting until tne individual actually 1cavesthefacility/',neperiod(s)ofenosurethatarereportedfor
.tu minating individuals T,ey indicate the monitoring period during which he c.ay have ben r p. sed to %diation rather than the actual dates of enesurqWscmelicenseesreportcumulativeperiodsofesposureandcas,es rather.than the actual periods and dose incurred during each periodf(4)
LAicensees having more than one licensed facility sometimes file a termina-tion ieport when the individual leaves the second facility that includes the dose which he incurred at the first facility whi d had already been
-reported.
Although attempts have been made to correct for some of these problems, they are still an additional source of error in any statistics developed from the termination data.
~
1 Industrial radiographers; fuel processors, fabricators, and reprocessors; and manufacturers and distributors of specified quantities of byproduct material.
8402230413 831213 kI PDR FOIA MAYBERR83-630 PDR 11
' ;.}
NUREG-0713 OCC EXP_
y~
~
r TABLE 12 TERMINATION REPORTS SUBMITIED FOR REACTOR PERSONNEL 1969 - 1981 Number of Number of Termination Terminating Year Records Individuals 1969 790 730 1970 2,130 1,010 1971 2,350 2,200 1972 4,500 3,890 1973 11,530 9,070 1974 16,950 31,600 1975 38,380 22,630 1976 63,590 35,290 1977 81,704 36,864 1978 85,308-37,359 1979*
138,218*
48,305*
1980*
162,515*
65,092*
1982*
174,546**
65,747*
1952**
S3,147*"
31,557"*
x Data for these p ers.ere cpdated based on more recent comoilations.
xx x:1 s'All of the termination data for individuals terminating during 1982 Jds%t yet-been entered-into the REIR System.
4.3 Transient Workers per' Calendar Quarter One use'that is being made of the information contained in the termination reports.is the examination of the dosos being received by short-term workers.
Since nearly half of the termination reports indicated periods ofLexposure that were lessLthan 90 days, it is possible that several thousand individuals could have been' employed by two or more licensees during the same pg,1ppdgy.yaagr g Thus, -ir,-tiris repe% a. " transient" worker is defined,to-bmdwt;wn woria who began and terminated employment at two or_ more different licensed facilities-within one calendar
. quarter.
This allows one to examine the doses of those workers most
- likely to approach _ the quarterly limits without their employer's knowledge since they move so' rapidly emong facilities.
111 ^- y NUREG-0713 OCC EXP
x N..,
s
~ -
~
Tat le 13 dispikys sece'c~f the infoc.ation pthered f rom these teimination reports that were submitted by the licensed nuclear po er facilities.
s The number of'these workers has increased more than twentyfold during the
- s five years 1972 through 1976, but now appears to be increasing at a much W
- ' smaller rateT The'_ top part of Table 13 sheves that the average individdal dbse.(which is close to being a quarterly dose for most of these worke,rs)
,3.
shewed la decreasing trend in the earlier years and has leveled off at s
. [ :
about 0.4farems.
The lower nalf of the table breaks down the information
' shown in the first part and presents the doses of the workers employed by q
two, three and four or nere different reactor licensees.
One can see that the najority of these workers were reported by two different licensees g
during a cuarter, while the smaller. number of those terminated by three
\\
or more licensees generally received higher average doses.
Examinaticns s
of these records have revealed that some individuals have worked for as many as six different NRC licenues during one calendar quarter.
- However,
' 4 only a'-few instances have been found in which a worker exceeded his quarterly limit of three rems as a result of his working at.two different licensed faciliti~es within one calendar quarter.
Two of them occurred in 1980 when the doses that the workers had received while employed by the first utility were revised upward later in the year.
This resulted in their receiving.a quarterly dese that slightly e>ceeoed three rems.
That is not to say ttat'no other workers' doses have exceeded the quarterly
~
limit because ths'. records of those who were employed by a second licensee for a period spanning'the end.of a calendar quarter could not be examined
~
I in this manner, and the records of those employed by other than four i
categories of NRC licensees are not submitted to the NRC.
4.4' Transient Workers per Calendar Year 4.
~
Since the number of transient workers per calendar cuarter comprise only a small percentsge of the total r A er of individuals terminating each p ar, it was n:ided to :.% nge the criteH a cuch that the r m ords of more wrkers would be c amined.
Thit s.es core by seietting the records of all 6
l -
individuais 40 hewn and te r,* M ed x or more priocs cf empic. ant with at-leest %o-diff M nt reactor facilities within one calenda'r year and by 5.nmin'g each wcrGr's whole body doses.
An examination of this data woulc allow one to cetermine the nunter and average ocse for these u
"hnnual' transient's.",Tible 14' pr esents the number and doses of these
?-
transients th'at was found among the-individuals terminating during each Ih of the five years 1977 through 1981. This has not been done for the 1982 data because not all of it has yet been computerized.
One can see that the numbe'r of these workers ~ has nearly doubled since 1977.
The average l
dose, howeverd has declined somewhat since then and remains at about one The icker portion of the table shows the number and doses of workers
- rem.
that were terminated by two, three and four or more different reactor licensees 'during each year.
One' can see that the average dose of,ggrkers
~
4
. employed by two licensees increased to 0.91 rems in 1980, while"it fell back to a value (0.78 rems) more in line with that found for previous years.$ The average dose of workers employed by four or more licensees a.
. has. continued to decline',1 and in 1961 it was calct, lated to be 1.56 rems.
?
firF 6Fdsr to-determine the i:rpact t' hat the inclusion ci these individuals
'n each 'of f.wo or more licensee's snnual reports had on the annual summary
)
~ h
'le 7) fcr all nuclear power failities (one of the problems mentioned
/..
~
( +
r
,3 g
- o NUREG-0713 OCC EXP
\\
1 LL.m s
m
-s 4
't TA2LE 13 TilANSIEN r WOflKERS PER CALENDAR OlJARTER N
AT NUCLEAR POWER FACILITIES 1972-1981 s -
No. o f No. of Workets Collective Average Year Commercial Terminate <l by Dose Dose Reactors 1wo or More Licensees (Man-rems)
(Rems) 1972 18 57 57 1.00 1973 24 146 123 0.84 157 0.56 1974 34 2H5 1975 44 684 493 0.72 1976 53 1.257 889 0.71 1977 57 1.435 851 0.59 680 0.45 1978 64 1.500 1979 67 1,754 802 0.46 1980 69 2,218 1.033 0.47 1981 73 2.249 938 0.42 No. of Workers coileettve Average No. of Workers Collective Average No. of Workers Collective Average Ycar Terminated by Dose Dose Terminatml by Dosa Dose Terminated by Dose Dose Two Licensees (Man-roms)
(Rems)
Three Licensees (Manrems)
(Rems)
>Three Licensees (Man-rems)
(Rems) 1972 54*
52-0.96 2
3 1.50 1-2 2 00 1973 133 108 0.81 11 -
13 1 18 2-2 1.00 1974 255 132 0.52 2a 24 0.a 6 2'
1 0.50 1975 609' 427 0.70 70 62 0.89 6'
4 0.80 1976 1,095 720 0.66 las 146 1.01 17 23 1.35 1977 1,271 718 0.56 141 115 0.78 17 18 1.06 1978 1,303 590 0.45 Iv.
15 0.45 32 15 0.47 1979 1,527 647 0.43 tra 130 0.73 49 25 0.51 1980 1,896 856 OAS
?!a 140 0.C
- 63 36 0 57 148 0.50 55 /
24 0.44 0.40 297; 1!81 1,897 -
767
- llevised according to latest compilations.
.y e
~
D y
N N,
s TABLE 14 TRANSIENT WORKERS PER CALENDAR YEAR AT NUCLEAR POWER FACILITIES 1917 1981 4
t No. of No. of Workers Coilective y,,,
Commercial Average Terminate <1 by Dose Dose Reactors Two or %>ra Licenmes (Man rems)
(Rams) 1977 57 3,101 3,7/G L 1 (9 1978 G4 3.202 3,231 1.01 1979 07
-h072 3 f 3V 3.891 0.97 f
1980 69 5,4G3 6,028 1.1u 1981 73 5.264
' 5.109 0.97
'l.
No. of Workers Collective Average No. of Workers Collective Average
^ ' ' ' * "
No. of Workers year Terminsteel by Dose Dose Termn at,a ny Doss Dose Terminsteil by Two Licensees (Man-rems)
(Rems)
Them Licensees (Man tems)
(Rems)
Four or More O
O***
Licensees -
[en-rems)'
(Rems)
A 1977 2,166 1,981 0 02
'i t ?
IM2 1.47.
423 947 2.24 1978 2,119 1,490 0.7# 0 011 192 1.00-t F 462 949 245
'979 2,761 2.097 0.76
(;tm 005 1.11 40} M7 989 2.On.
1980 3.4dM 3:MM 0.91 "59 1,245 1.30 732 I339 1.83 1981 8.633 2.845 0.18 902 1.126 1.25 729 1,138 1.56
7 in Section 3.1) Tables 15a and 15b are presented.
Table 15a shows the actual distribution of these tr nsient workers' doses as determined from the above-described termination reports and compares it with the distri-bution of the whole body doses as they would have appeared in a comoila-tion of the annual statistical reports submitted by each of the nuclear power facilities.
During each of the years shown, there was an increasing number of transient workers who were counted more than once.
Some indi-vidualgwerereportedby.asmanyasninedifferentfacilities.
In 1977 the2M3transientsthatreceivedameasurabledosewerecn"atedas 6,341 workers.
By 1980 tM nuaber bad grown to 4,930 transients who were probably courlt(dgs 10,756' workers since they were employed at several facilities.Cuey incurred a collective dose of 6,028 man-rems, an average dosc of 1.10 rems, and an average measurable dose of 1.22 rems.
In 1981 these figures decreased somewhat, and there were 4,737 annual transients who received measurable doses that totaled to he 5,109 man-rems.
This
. yielded ar, average.uasurable dose of 1.08 rems.
Table 15b illustrates the impact that the multiple reporting of these transient workers had on the staff's ccmpilations of the annual statisti-cal reports for the years 1977 through 1981.
Since each nuclear power facility reports the distribution of the deses received by w rkers while monitored by that particular facility during the year, one would expect that a summation of these reports would result in_ individuals being f-.
counted several times in dose ranges lower than the range in which their total accumulated dose (the sum of the personnel monitoring results incurred at each facility during the year) would actually place them.
the Thus, while the total collective dose would.t u.ain about the cene, sould number of workers, their dose distribution, and their average dose
~ be affected by this multiple reporting.
This was found to be true beccuse too few workers were reported in the higher dose ranges.
For example, in 1977 the c apiled an,ual reports indicated that 270 indiv duals received i
doses crester than fice rems, while the admstad distrNtion ~,dicated
' that tEere were 'at least 351 su:h g riers.'
This res.:lte in an a,erye -
msurabh dese of 0.80 rems :su.et 1%ar. the 0.74 i en J nir M f rom tne compiled reports.
Althougn the nu.ber of these transien:.orkers incrtased from 3 161 in 1977 to 5;264 in 1981, the nun er of them with deses exceed-s ing five tcms has remained at about 50 except for 1980 when the number increased to 92.
In general, hca ver, since the number of transient workers receiving measurable doses is only about five percent of the total number receiving measurable doses during the year, their' impact on most of'the statistics derived from compilations of the annual summary reports'is not very great.
4.5 Temporary Workers Per Calendar Year
- In order to complete the examination of the doses received by the short-
[
term workers employed at nuclear power facilities, Table 16 summarizes the' data compiled on " temporary workers".
Temporary workers were defined to be those individuals who began and ended their employment at only one nuclear power facility during the' calendar year.
One can see from Table 16 that the number of these individuals has grown during the last few years, but appears to have levelled off to~about 28,000 workers with measurable doses in 1980 and 1981.
Comparison of these figures with those in Table 15b reveals that these workers comprised 36% of the total number of workers 14[ M frJREG-0713 OCC EXP b
=
L wo
++
N 1 AHLE 15a
\\
AcitiAt AND COMILED 005E D151RI11U1135 0F 3
IRAN'.lltd WORRERS PlR CAtFNDAR YE AR Al P0wtR RE ACIOR5
- +*r af '"'fieldwast with whol. 8ody Doses in th. Ranges (Rees) 1ctal Total Avg.
Avg Meas.
Type af Distritration (Rees)f,-(cose 4.00- j5.00 !6.00
- ,1.00-8.00-j9.00-Indtvid-Man-Cose Less then Meas'ble 0.1S 0.25 ' O.50-,0. 7'r [6.0 2.09-3.00-p,g Rems) 9.00 10.00
>10 uals Rees 1,8.00 Measurable
<0.10 0.23 0.50 0.15
't.00
.2.04
- 3.00 4.00,5.00 6.00 7.00 6,776 1.19 1.29 3
Acttel Distr 6bution of 23 l 11 2l 3.161 Transle ts - 1977 2RS 782 300 236 1R4 151 500 i 181 213 100 50 I
[
I b,776 0.48 0.60
. j r'nstents 1977 1.594 2,357 804 768 552 417 ;1,013 j62 55
- 8o 5
}
- l. 7,935 Complied Olstribution of I
3 s
l b,231 1.01 1.12
- ActYa1 Olstritiutton of
.885 317 282 111 131, 463 307 168 ' 101 42 13 1
1 3,202 3
Tra,C ents - 1978 308 f
b,231 0.39 0 52 Transle,ts - 1978 2,019 2.423 918 788 488 382 L 81_L's_ 262 54 11 0
2l 8,211 '
Ctr'clied Distributton of 3
l b,888 0.99 1.09
,Actua*, Olstributton of 3
Tran11ents - 1979 173 883 398 358 241 24n, Ein 410 195 !
11 32 14!
4 1 1
3,938 I
I l
Transtrnts - 1979 2,130 2,676 1,259 1,048 673 460[i,0,46j 313 46 I 3
1 9,649
'3,888 0.40 0.52 Cwpilot Distribution of
)
I 6,028 1.10 1.22 Actual Distribution of 6
tr nstents - 1980 531 1,175 565 482 3RR tir 879 595 353 ' 174 47 25 15 4
1 5,463
$,632 l 503 14 g 29 4
4 4
13.956
'6.028 0.43 0.56 Cnmplied Distribution of 1
Tr'nsteits - 1980 3,207 3.910 1.639 1.398 900 661 l
260l 102 30 15 0
1 5,264 5,109 0.97 1.08 t
Actual Olstribution of 1,238 482 409 373
?ni
- 915 549 Transluts - 1981 527 i
JanMedWHg 3,487 3,660 1,450 1.392 943 707{1,491
_325 68 {
Complitd Olstribution of 8
0 1
,13,522 5,109 0.38 0.51 T AnLF 15h EfilCis or TRANSIENI WORKERS ON ANNUAL 51 AllSilCAL COMPILATION $
/
' ' Compiled Statistical Distribution - 1977 27,671 15.523 6.750 5.179 3,300'2,50n'6.174!2,838 1,110; 569 141 66; 36 [ " 21 6
73,904 12,731' O.46 0.74 f
I l
' Adjusted Statistical 1.2f, L 13.948 6.246 4.641 2.93211H4ilt.,61d857 1.208]
661 186 09I 41 2J 6
i 67. 130 32.643 0.49 0.80 Olstributton - 1971 t
' Complied Statistical i
i l
8 I
Ulstributton - 1978 31,039 16,673 6,943 5,504 3,3991 2.49H 6,40V 2.989 1.000' ele 67 26 8
2 7;,051 31,806 0.41 0.69
'A,tjustad Statistical f
f f
f 1.191 j l4 109 31 9
1 2
1 p 16 31.668 0.45
__ f'.14 i,2sl X,y,t 3.034 2
i Distributton - 1918 29 268 15.135
_ 6.342 4.99H J,048 i
2 l
'Crcplied Stattstical 5,141{ 3,47N 1,2%}
Otstributton - 1979 42,340 24,632 9,883 8,090 1.n m 1,3n6 471.
889 28 11 2
1 106,584 39,901 0.38 0.62 l
' Adjust.d Statistical 1
Distribution - 1919 40.583 22.831 9.022 1.400 4.755.j,M J,W,jdo3143 545 lit; 42 11 3
1 100.873 39.525 0.39 0.66 l
l l
l s t epiled Statistical Otstributton - 1980 47,377 29,695 11,751 9,820 6,0A7 4,',isj ll,411; 4,615 1,511; 646:
191' 98 la 3
128,668 53,199 0.42 0.67 h
'M iustad Statistical j
Db(r_lbutten - 1980 44,703 26,960 10,677 8,904; 5,510 4,115 10,A11 d 60/
1.816;,
831 235 1191 29 7
1 120.166 53.626. 0.45 0.12 Yomptl.d Statistical 1,161l 81lg 1 ;124,5n6 54.142 0.43 0.66
, Olst tbutton - 1981 42,323 29,332 12,217 10.32A6,625f4.*nt,II,16Fi 4,546 4BE 93 11 2
1
Adjusted Statistical l
l
{
g l
Otstributton - 1981 39,363 26.910 11.249 9,343 6.0551 4.4'%I.i 2/h 4,810 1.9551 5n0 123 951 Il 3
116,219 54,249 L 0.47 0.11 t
t p.. 4,,, d. t a s,.,. l o..I,, a i i.,0 t h. - s u. i d,s.s r..,,..d.,,,-, - -...,, e i o,,, a i mu9,, a i, n, u..,
1,, -, a,,,,,, a n.,,,,,.,,,,,...,,
3 n.c o..se e
-- j x 's,
\\
\\
.i
'g
'N iABLE 16
'N.
TEMPORARY WORXERS PER CALENDAR YEAR (Individuals terminated by only one employer)
No. of' Total No.
No. with Collective Avg. Dose Avg. Meas'ble YEAR Reactors Monitored Meas'ble Dose Dose (Rems)
Dose (Rems) 1977 57 29,090 19,094 11,373 0.39 0.60 1978 64 28,864 17,110 9,821 0.34 0.57 1979 67 38,347 21,491 9,488 0.25 0.44 1980 69 48,383 26,305 16,168 0.33 0.57 1981 73 47,348 27,984 16,393 0.35 0.59 0
m C1
?,
n
t
(/6,856) receiving a reasurable dose in IW, while U..cir (011edive dose was only 30% of the total collective dose.
Their a.wroge n.easurable dose,
of'039 rems was also considerably less than the overall swerage of 0.71 Rems.
pygj,e, q
,,,, j
.,,g e
4.6 Age and Dose Distribution of Terminated Workers Since some of:the termination reports provide the birth date of the individual, one could examine these records and deter.Wne the age and dose distributions of workers that terminated during the year.
Table 17.
indicates the results of such examinations for the years 1975, 1978, 1980 and 1981 for power reactor personnel.
One can see that the age and dose distributions for personnel terminating during these four years has remained about the same with more than 50% of the individuals being less than 35 years of age at termination each year, from 1975 to 1981 there was an increase of 8% in the collective dose incurred oy these younger workers (less than 35 years old) the largest increase being in the collec-tive dose received by 25 to 29 year olds which went from 20% to 24%.
Most of the other age groups incurred collective doses more comparable to their fraction of the total number of personnel.
Figure frigraphically displays the age and dose distributions of those workers terminating during 1981 for whom a birth date was reported.
4.7 _ Career Doses The termination data also permit estimation of the whole body doses accumulated by the wsrLers nonitored by nuclear poaer facilities when they terminate their employr..ent.
This was done by su aing e:ich indi-vidual's periods of exposure and corresponding whole body doses to give the worker's cumulative years of exposure and occupational dose that he received durinc his ' career." The termination data fcr sr e 207,000 individusis ti in-ting fron rucinar ;aer f ecilitie; h'..( en 1977 and 1932 u re
.ir.ed in this Mr.ner.
The cv'ulative perieds of p c ;ent aM ahole lay doses ere it.en brcken dcen into ten r ar ges for the leregth of employment and fifteen ranges for the cumulative doses.
Apt.+ndMr W -.:
contains these detailed dase distributions, and Table 18? sum arizes tne data and presents the average measurable doses, the highest cumulative deses, and the years during which the highest doses were accunulated.
One can quickly see that more than half of the terminated individuals (120,879) has been exposed for less than 90 days and that nearly balf of this number (58,774) did not receive a measurable dose.
A good +24beFof these were probably visitors, such as reporters, company representatives, consultants, etc. that were monitored for identification and convenience.
It is primarily for the reason that the average measurable dpseg are-is shown rather than the average dose per monitored individual.V.Ths' fable li shows that the average measurable dose ranges from 0.53 rems for periods less than 90 days to a high of 13.90 rems for the 15 to 20 year period.
In general, the data shows that the a.erage annual dose (estimated by dividing the average dose 'for the period by the average number of years in the period) tends to decline with increasing length of employment.
However, since there is such a small number of workers have longer periods of employment, these average doses may change appreciably as more data is collected and analyzed.
It should also be pointed out that these 16,- n [ '? I $
NUREG-0713 -0CC-EXP-
~
~. -, -
+.
.~
\\
j I ABLE 17 AGE AND OOSE DISTHillur40N OF TERMINATING REAC10R PERSONNEL 1975 1978 1980 1981 Collective Dose l
leim'd l'ersonnel Collective Dosn Term *il Personnel Cni:ective Dos, Term'd Personnel Cobecirve Dnw
_ Numter i'A)
Man-rems _(%)
Number _ (%)
Number _(%)
Man tems D.)
Age Range.. Term'd Personnel Man-rtms (%)
(Years)
Number - (%) '
Man-rems (%)
l 18-24 1,982 (14%)
829 (17%)
3,371 (14T,)
1,792 (14%)
5,685 (14%)
3,354 (14%)
6,359 (15%)
3,843 (17%)
25-29 2,488 (19%)
991 (20%)
4,641 (19%)
3,022 (23%)
7,590 (19%)
5,041 (22%)
8,444 (20%)
5,434 (24%)
30-34 2,232 (17%)
825 (16%)
4,569 (19%)
2,775 (21%)
7,773 (20%)
4,964,(21%)
8.253 (19%)
4,595 (2'u )
35-39 1,679 (12%)
619 (12%)
3,236 (13%)
1,784 (13%)
5.515 (11%)
3,244 (14%)
6,235 (14%)
3,223 (14M 40-44 1,428 (11%)
535 (10%)
2,458 (10%)
1,304 (10%)
4,021 (10%)
2,327 (10%)
4.380 (10%)
2.124 (ich 45-49 1,297 (10%)
418 (8%)
j 1,910 (nt) 894 (7%)
3,130 (8%)
1,664 (7%)
3,231 (8%)
1,397 (64 1,171 (IX) 782 (6%)
2,613 (7%)
1,268 (5%)
2,580 (6%)
908 (41) 50-55 1,077 (8%)
342 (7%)
{
56-59 7(0 (5%)
241 (5%)
I 1,344 (6%)
499 (4%)
2,024 (5%)
990 (4%)
1,996 (5%)
544 (n)
> 60 493' (4%)
233 (5%)
'123 (4%)
324 (2%)
1,403 (3%)
612 (3%)
1,377 (3%)
354 (A)
Totals 13,376 (100%)
5,033 (100%)
I 24,214 (100%)
13,176 (100%)
39,754 (100%) 23,464 (100%)
42,855 (100%) 22,466 (100%)
1
s
./
6 42CRE 9
.A16NG IN 1?81 A GE AND DOSE L WidSUllGNS_0_f TLM.GNNE L T L, Age Distribution l'
35 44 C2.5:5) 05D
~,, _,
e
,, r...,, e.,,,: /,
/,,
hg,,,4 45 59 (7,E77)-()ED dh'k'hh'd2/
-f hd#
wem,,,,s,,/,
o
',a,,,wS,A,.,p
..? '.s,;'l'?r 4Q'i;b S: :::Y,;,'
3,, t-p lip';'S?fy.,' }, ;,Wk_
i L ',
f, ' klS';hf$*k,4h{M!,::;:'O(' W/Q,ff'p p:,/2 rE ' V'
%&'$'9
~
$?llS?? '
. g,,
6') & up ".37D GD
.g
' 'bgT,fjje,
u.n.%. am.
e 6:sy.,yv.-
W 9.;;x:::
3
' ?sg
/
/
t
,)
-:- u..m
\\
.x:)
,'j i,,
/
l. '/.
- 'n g
" /. m,f?,$'
.g
/
,?
/
- 2 IF (354) (2D
>s
.. u A v :.C't g
.,v...'.4..-
.sy,v 3,ee s
..;.s.
..,. :s
,,. -:y' :-
.. O:*:-
- s:..:s,
- .x.y,c
,:. ::.: s :Y. :,:.
x&.;.;.
c....
v H;6s,.::!i b
- .-.s v.
-(:,..: s.?:::;;;&.:N,q:':::::..M. :.s
.s:
ss.
...fh* :I,y
!6-24 G.843) (17 0
,+
g':.; :s;M.i. ns,..
s e @FWi: -
t W
534 (:f,23 (44D 1
e
--T Ji?O
-... ~.
.~..
g APPENDIX D i// I CAREER DOSE DISTRIBuil0M IOR PER50NNEi TERMINATING BETWEEN 1977 AND 1982 Number of it.dividuals with Whole Body 00ses in the following Ranges (Rems) j No l
l Total 4tal L.ngth Meas-Meas-t Number af urable urable 0.10-0.25-0.50-O.15-1.0-2.0-3.0- !
4.0-5.0-10.0-15.0-20.0-Moni-Total Employment Exposure
<0.10 0.25 0.50
- 0. 15
- 1. 0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
>25
.tored Man Rt.ms a
<90 d1ys 58,714 31,304 7,370 5,453 3,441 2.428 7,4 73 3,030 1,078, 346 178 2
0 1
0 120,879 32,b,
-__.___'1
__ _... }
t 90 0.- 1 Yr.
9,140 13,324 6,453 4,88G 3,113 l 2,46/
6,315l3,811 2,043 1,209 1,406 90 9
2 0
54,382' 48,735 1 - 2 Yrs.
2,184 3,173 1,733 1,449 l
960 709 1,962 1,275 977 671 1,490 238 46 15 3
16,e65 20./5" 2 - 3 Yrs.
857 1,301 692 584 324 696l 538 337 ! 276 791 219 51 12 10 6,962 I 15.3.
2/4
__l 1
3 - 4 Yrs.
335 534 346 294.
175 148 355 224 17/
156 395 138 41 15 3
3,342 B.$/4 i
I 1
61l.
4 - 5 Yrs.
149 274 203 192 1
116 73 181 110 63 222 102 3/
8 3
1,814 5,10.
I i
4 5 - 10 Yrs.
167 326 201 219 16/ l 110 309 223 188 124 350 148 94 47 31 2,704j 10,4i.9 t
10 - 15 Yrs.
15 28 21 23 12 12 32 16 23 6
56 24 20 13 21 335l 2,4 9.-
15 - 20 Yrs.
2 3
3 1
3 1
3l 5
3j 5
5 4
8 3
13 62 6 3..
>20 Yrs.
21 7
6 1
j 1
0-8' 2;
4I O
5 0
0 1
1 6;l 1(G l
(
i i
Ttt:Is 71,645 50,274 17,034 13,096 l8,379 6,222 17,394f9,234 l4,911l2.856 4.898 965 312 117 91 207,428 153,143
3-y-;
TABLE 18 //
\\
C WI M f l.'/ Of CAREER DOSES FOR REACTOR PERSONNEt TERMINATING DURING ii 1977 - 1982 Number of No. of Workers l
Total Avg. Meas'ble Highest Years over Tctal Length Monitored with Meas'ble i
Collective Dose for Period Dose Which liignest nf Employment Individuals Doses t]ose_(Man-rems)
<90 days 120,879 62,105 32,853 0.53 22*
- 0E-3/81 48,735 1.08 21
'77
'78 900 - 1 Yr.
54,382 45,242 l
l 1 - 2 Yrs.
16,885 14,701 l
28,750 1.96 29
'77
'82 2 - 3 Yrs.
6,962 6,105 15,197 2.49 33
'77
'81 l-I 3 - 4 Yrs.
3,342 3,007 8,524 2.83 28
'76
'81 i
4 - 5 Yrs.
, 1,814 1,665 5,140 3.09 28
'77
'82 1
5 - 10 Yrs.
2,704 2,537 10,466 4.13 53
'74
'81 60
'62
'76 10 - 15 Yrs.
335 319 2,4E9 7.71 15 - 20 Yrs.
62 60 834 13.90 <
54
'62
'77
> 20 Yrs.
63 42 185 4.40 51
'59
'81 Totais 207,428 l
135,783 153,143
,,., s
- P:rsonnel overexpo,ure.
statistics do not give a clear indicntion of the clual tin.e peiiod o er which doses oere accumulated.
For exwple, a worker could be c:r. ployed by a nuclear poner facility for one month each year for ten years, and he would be placed in the eitployment range of 90 days to one year.
There-fcre carc should be taken when making conclusions based on these data.
17 d'M J b NUREG-0713 OCC EXP